11.2.01
Fun, Fun, Fun Till Abercrombie Takes the T&A Away
-- OR --
Magazine Spread -- No Eagle

Back from a brief hiatus, comedian Jon Stewart broke down and cried on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Typically light-hearted radio stations have refrained from playing tunes like Van Halen's Jump and The Gap Band's You Dropped a Bomb On Me. Even an upcoming issue of Amazing Spider-man will feature the attacks on the World Trade Center and people asking Spidey why he couldn't stop them. It seems like lately we can't even count on our mindless diversions to distract us from the doom and gloom.

Now teens can't even peruse their favorite clothing catalog without being reminded of their duty to remain prim and proper. Yes, the normally prurient magazine/catalog put out by clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has jumped on the conservative bandwagon, as featured in a 10/17 Fashion Wire Daily story. The controversial "magalog" that requires proof-of-age to purchase has spurred outrage ever since its 1997 debut (See the 8/1 Lowbrow Lowdown column for one example). But this year's Christmas issue might just warm the hearts of prudish adults rather than warming the pants of horny high school kids. Instead of getting their usual dose of barely dressed youth, quarterly subscribers will receive the not-so-racy "regular holiday catalog (which doesn't include the magalog's photographs and articles)."

In place of the naughty pics will be a letter which reads, "We have found ourselves in a markedly altered cultural landscape which has made us pause and question the relevance and timeliness of our Christmas issue. At a time like this, there are moments when the brash irreverence and bravado that in some respects define what we do seem strident and out of place." Hey, it makes sense. Otherwise, using the sacred celebration of Christ's birth as an excuse to publish soft porn seems perfectly reasonable.

A&F's CEO Mike Jeffries also assures us that the company will keep in-store Christmas promotions "very traditional…with a warm and family air."

Most folks, whether they approve of it or not, realize the goal behind A&F's teen-targeted T&A. That is, to sell clothing that's apparently most functional when it's strewn about the floor by selling the idea of a youthful, carefree lifestyle. It ain't rocket science and it ain't worth validating it by preaching against it or over-analyzing it.

Something that is worthy of a little opposition is this feigned sobriety that's being shoved down our throats by marketers, advertisers and PR spokespeople ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks. I'm cognizant of the new reality in which we exist here in the U.S. Yes, life seems scarier. Yes, we are perpetually pre-occupied with things that rarely crossed our minds a month and a half ago. The thing is, the protection of our lives and freedom is our main mission right now. As far as I'm concerned, if we are required to abstain from the fun and frivolity that makes life worth living, how can we be expected to maintain the passion and dedication necessary to protect our lives and freedom? The last thing anybody needs is a very special, fun-free edition of the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog. It's annoying and patronizing when sitcoms try to be serious and it's just as annoying and patronizing when otherwise capricious brands do it. I don't know about you, but right about now I want more gratuitous sex, more drinking binges, more vapid comedy flicks, more junk-food pig-outs and more loud rock 'n' roll than ever. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, Give me levity or give me death.

Potent Quotables
-- OR --
Oprah's Book Snub

During an appearance last month on The Howard Stern Show, comedian Bobby Slayton recalled a comedy award he had once won. When he discovered that, in a previous year, Carrot Top had been chosen over Bill Hicks for the very same award, he didn't want to have anything to do with it. Suffice it to say that sometimes the recipient of appreciation is less than appreciative.

Oprah Winfrey has recently grappled with this notion, herself. According to an unnamed newspaper article mentioned on Howard Stern's 10/24 and 10/31 morning radio shows, the megalomaniacal personality (Oprah, that is) has become the object of some disdain put forth by the author of a recent Oprah's Book Club selection.

"I don't know if this guy's crazy or he's just a mad genius," marveled Howard in reference to Jonathan Franzen, author of The Corrections. As noted in a statement, Franzen "is seemingly uncomfortable and conflicted about being chosen as an Oprah's Book Club selection." One reason: he didn't want the Oprah's Book Club sticker on his novel because it's a corporate logo. So, Oprah won't be dining on-the-air with the novelist (apparently she dines with other Oprah-approved authors).

In a later discussion, Stern deemed Franzen's action, "the stupidest move of all time," adding, "And this guy's problem is, if you want to reward your publisher for believing in you, you try to get out there and make him some money. To say that you're a writer and you don't like the commercial aspect of this thing is completely ridiculous."

"He turned down Oprah!" Stern exclaimed incredulously. "Doesn't that automatically work into millions of dollars when you're on Oprah's book club or something?"

Stern's partner in slime, Robin Quivers, affirmed his assumption, commenting, "Because those drones have to buy every book she says is good."

"Those broads will buy any book she says," assured Stern later. "She's got 'em hypnotized. She's worse than the Reverend Sun Myung Moon with those broads…."

Earlier on, guest comedian, Richard Jeni had chimed in: "I never listen to anything Oprah says. Anybody who's 200 lbs. overweight is not allowed to give me advice."

"Exactly," confirmed Stern.

Then again, Howard is the same guy who made a hit movie about how strong his marriage was and then proceeded to divorce from his wife, so he's no stranger to hypocrisy either.

Abuse of Trust
-- OR --
Envelope Pushers

Earlier this month, I attended a live taping of a radio interview with film director Richard Linklater at the Museum of Radio and Television in NYC. As I sat attentively among the politely quiet audience, I wondered, "What would happen if somebody in here just started freaking out or yelling obscenities?" Perhaps it was the old footage I'd watched the night before of The Sex Pistols as they cursed with contrived irreverence on Today with Bill Grundy (a British talk show) that inspired the rumination. (Listen to the snotty session.) What I settled on was that maintaining some semblance of decorum in certain situations is an unsaid requirement, kind of like not picking your nose in public or not calling people who have children after 9pm.

It's too bad some advertisers can't curb their base impulses when necessary either. Take some pharmaceutical firms, for example. Last month, some of them began abusing the system of self-regulation by directly marketing drugs that fall under the same category of Schedule II substances substances as addict-faves like morphine, PCP, cocaine, methadone, and methamphetamine. As featured in a 10/17 NPR All Things Considered broadcast, pediatricians are pissed, and a federal crackdown could be in the works. The TV and print ads in question promote drugs used to treat attention deficit hyper activity disorder (ADHD).

One ad that appeared in Ladies Home Journal recently promotes a drug made by Celltech Group plc. In it, a mother hugs her son; the ad copy reads, "One dose covers his ADHD for the whole school day." According to the report, Celltech refused to be interviewed, but commented that the ad is aimed at parents whose kids already take Ritalin which requires multiple doses per day.

In the last few years, we Americans have been barraged with direct-to-consumer ads for drugs treating allergies, obesity, AIDS and impotence. Evidently, pharmaceutical firms figure they might as well advertise addictive substances like ADHD drugs, too. The problem is that "for 30 years drug makers voluntarily complied with an international treaty that bars advertising of Schedule II drugs directly to the public," as noted in the story. A representative of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration featured in the piece believes, "marketing will increase the supply of substances that are already sold illicitly." According to him, ADHD drugs are already traded on the black market, and sometimes even crushed and snorted like cocaine.

In the past, drug advertisers have "tried to push the advertising envelope," but this time the DEA has had it. In fact, all drug firms involved in the ad campaign have been contacted by the administration, and a push for legislation that will prohibit companies from advertising ADHD drugs and other controlled substances is being planned. I wonder what the DEA thought of that old Cheech and Chong ad parody for Acapulco Gold (Download the jingle).

In a similar circumstance, advertisers in France who create what have come to be known as "porno chic" campaigns are now subject to stricter standards regulating how the human body is portrayed to sell products. For years advertisers have walked a tightrope between outrageously eye-catching and unsuitably vulgar. I'm reminded of my literacy student: returning recently from a youth rehabilitation facility, he came back with stories of being put on "shut down" and "black out" when a few boys did things like smoking cigarettes or sneaking into the girl's ward at night. When one disobeys the rule, even if it's an unsaid rule, the entire group gets penalized. Most of us learned this early on in grade school. Why can't advertisers get it straight?

I think that the controversy over the ADHD drug ads raises a broader question, though. Perhaps the problem isn't that these drugs are being advertised directly to consumers. Perhaps, instead, the problem is that marketing highly addictive substances intended for the undeveloped bodies and minds of children has become such a viable business strategy. If the market for these drugs weren't so huge, there would be no incentive to break the international treaty, right? Either way, I'm just waiting for the DEA to start outlawing direct-to-consumer ads for glue, correction fluid and permanent ink markers.

Bargain Hunt Goes Bust
-- OR --
Construction Mogul Seeks Out Huge Tracts of Land

Hey Ladies, what would it take for you to bare your bosom in public? A nude beach? A bra-burning convention? A necklace of cheap plastic beads? A few shots of Rumpleminz? How about 35 bucks, a bottle of champagne and some food?

Come to think of it, a lot of us chicks have exposed more than our breasts after a dinner date and some champagne. So it's no wonder Austria's construction tycoon, Richard Lugner, was able to entice women to shop topless at his Lugner City mall in Vienna with an offer of a $35 voucher, a bottle of bubbly and a complimentary meal. Talk about getting clothes straight off the rack….

As featured in the 10/22 AdWeek brief (Too Too Solid Flesh, edited by Tim Nudd), Lugner's known for his off-the-wall promos. He once ran for the Austrian presidency on the slogan, "I'm not a big Catholic, but I am a Catholic." Man, how American history would have changed had JFK run with that campaign message.

It may seem startling, but this isn't the first time that a marketing campaign has centered around the female form. Last December, The Lowbrow Lowdown covered the promotional efforts of Haiya Departmental Store in China, which awarded a free… uh…boob tube to the most 3-dimensional gal. (See for yourself.)

I'm curious about the logistics of Lugner's offer. In order to get the goodies, must one remain topless the entire time she's shopping? Does she get extra champagne if she goes bottomless? Does compensation vary depending on cup size? What if two women, each bearing one breast, shop together -- does that count?

Overall, I find this promotion to be udderly appalling. In fact, not only is it low-minded and degrading, it's completely discriminatory. I mean, why should women be the only ones who get to strip for cash and prizes? Why aren't men eligible for this promotion also? Don't they deserve some sort of incentive to shop at Lugner City? Then again, Lugner ought to charge them funny money just to get in the door.

Could Demons of Drink Defeat Wee Warlock?
-- OR --
Saving the Kid with the Coke Bottle Glasses

Tobacco corporations funding anti-smoking public service announcements deal with it everyday. Gun manufacturers promoting gun safety have been there, too. Even in our own lives, many of us have become aware of this common truth: you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Right about now, that catch-22 feeling has caught up with Coca-Cola. The soda sellers have "reportedly paid Warner Brothers (a unit of AOL Time Warner) $150 million for the exclusive global marketing rights to the first 'Harry Potter' movie and possibly the sequels," as highlighted in a 10/11 press release from The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Citing such unhealthy effects of "excessive consumption of soft drinks" as brittle bones, cancer, heart disease, obesity and "adult"-onset diabetes, The CSPI is crying foul because they believe Coke is using the good Potter name and the guise of reading promotion to market Coca-Cola beverages to kids. So, they've been pushing a letter-writing campaign aimed at Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling through their website, SaveHarry.com.

Rowling has approved of the Coke deal because it "will focus on increasing children's literacy," but The CSPI knows better. In a letter to the sorcerer's scribe, the organization's executive director, Michael F. Jacobson enlightens her with the revelation that "No one really believes that Coca-Cola is spending $150 million just to get kids to read."

The organization is also skeptical of Coke's affiliation with Reading is Fundamental, which, according to Coke's website, uses Coke grant money to place "10,000 classroom libraries in RIF programs serving in communities with the greatest need." The CSPI writes the donation off by stating in the release, "The $6 million per year that Coca-Cola says it is donating to Reading is Fundamental in the U.S. represents less than one percent of the company's marketing budget."

Jacobson believes that Coke is simply using Rowling's "literary creation to aggressively market junk food to kids." I wonder how many kids he saw at his door this Halloween dressed Potter-style as bespectacled beggars in black capes? I suppose the official Harry Potter costume does nothing to contribute to the wee-ones eating too many sweets. Come to think of it, Jacobson is probably one of those jerks who gives out apples and toothbrushes on Halloween.

The SaveHarry campaign has been quite successful thus far. One of the more than 5,000 letter writers, a ten-year-old from Maine, admonished Rowling in his missive: "I once thought that Harry Potter was all about the reader's enjoyment. But now, with this Coca-Cola deal, it seems like it is all about money."

Ya know, he's right. The Harry Potter series was so unblemished by commercialism before the Coke deal. Of course, you'd have to discount the fact that the character license has been sold to produce everything from Harry Potter Lego play sets to umbrellas. Oh, and don't forget last year's monster pre-release promotion of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire during which, as written in the 7/13/00 Lowbrow Lowdown coverage, "book store owners divined countless schemes to capitalize on the coming of the fourth book featuring the mystical messiah" like sleepovers and classes on Potions and Herbology.

Personally, I find marketing to children to be manipulative and disrespectful of the malleable minds being targeted. However, I don't understand why Coca-Cola is being vilified for its campaign, and the rest of the product peddlers are not. Why should anyone believe that Coke is using the Harry Potter character to do anything but sell soda? Coca-Cola is a business, and the main goal of any business is to make money; in this case, it's to make money mainly by selling Coca-Cola beverages. Coke doesn't have to do anything to promote literacy, but it is. Doesn't that count for anything? Sure the RIF funding makes for great PR, but it probably doesn't have much of an effect on Coke's bottom line.

I'm not condoning the Coke/Potter cross-promotion, but as far as I can tell, Coke isn't the only entity that's capitalizing on the Potter persona. Countless bookstores have used the li'l cabalist to entice shoppers into stores. Warner Bros. is employing Harry Potter not only to promote its movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, but to push related merchandise that doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with reading. And, call me crazy, but is it possible that J.K. Rowling continues penning the Potter series partly because of the huge international commercial success it's become? I suppose Ms. Rowling should also conduct her business with the sole intention of inspiring kids to read; being motivated to write in order to promote reading and make a few bucks would be just plain wrong. Then again, what would I know about getting paid to write?