3.21.01
Man of Spiel
-- OR --
Sympathy Sells
A couple of weeks ago, Melmacian thespian, ALF, appeared on CNN's Showbiz Today. His interviewer inquired as to whether ALF will parlay his revisited fame (his 80's sitcom will be airing regularly on Nick at Nite) into spokes-creature contracts. Alf's witty retort went something like, "Well, I'm no Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not gonna promote just anything. I think I'll stick strictly to dairy products." Lemme tell ya, the proverbial milk came spluttering from my nostrils as this wannabe Muppet mocked the shameless center square.

Are all celebrity spokespeople simply promo pawns, or are some worthy of respect? How about Christopher Reeve? The 3/17 edition of NPR's On the Media highlighted some of his recent commercial work, as well as focusing on his controversial Super Bowl XXXIV ad for investment firm John Nuveen and Company in which special effects enable Reeve to walk again.

As featured in the broadcast, Reeve asserts that he "would not have participated in that commercial if it was irresponsible." He goes on to justify what On the Media co-host, Bob Garfield refers to as "peddl[ing] bond funds" by commenting, "It's gonna take people investing in companies -- pharmaceutical and insurance companies -- to then be affluent enough to fund the research towards a cure."

Well, lets just say Reeve's position as spokesman for catastrophic insurance outfit, Health Extras, has more backbone. In what could be considered the antidote to Ed McMahon's sappy medical insurance ads, Reeve is in production of his second round of spots for Health Extras, in which he talks forthrightly about the need for this type of insurance. Speaking from experience, he intimates in the ad, "It's something you never think about, but in just a matter of seconds, your whole life can change."

Although Garfield calls last year's Health Extras spot with Reeve "a gem," he still seems skeptical, opining that Reeve would be a valuable spokesperson for any company due to his ability to exploit viewer sentimentality. However, the paralyzed pitchman reveals, "Being overexposed or exploited is certainly something that I'm on guard against at all times. You have to strike that delicate balance."

First of all, the guy's got medical bills like so much wallet kryptonite. Can ya blame him for doing an ad or two? Yes, his illness is the centerpiece of the promotional message, which could be seen as exploitative. The thing is, Reeve seems to believe that there's a dual, and perhaps, higher purpose here. He's benefiting through the promotion of his own personal message as much as the advertiser is. Compare this to Gateway's TV ad campaign starring Michael J. Fox. To my memory, Fox's ailment has no mention in the ads. In fact, by flip-flopping the camera about like some dying fish, the ad's producers make every effort to distract the viewer from Fox's very visible involuntary physical jerks. Despite these counteractive attempts, could Gateway deny the fact that Fox, as a prominent representative of people with Parkinson's disease, evokes sympathy or possibly pity from the ad's audience?

In terms of advertising effectiveness, what's more believable -- Michael J. Fox, Whoppi Goldberg, William Shatner and Dennis Miller pitching random products in which they seem to have no distinct interest, or Christopher Reeve, a personification of unforeseen catastrophe, subtly and honestly putting forth a message for catastrophe insurance? It seems to me that Reeve is getting paid to promote something that he whole-heartedly supports, while the others are merely getting paid. Of course, if Michael J. Fox were to do a few spots for Shake 'n' Bake, that'd be a different story….

Dilution by Design
-- OR --
Knock Your Brand Off
History repeats itself. It was back in the early 80s when, across the country, a throng of nameless women pricked fingertips and searched behind cushions for stray needles while collaborating on The Birth Project. In the end, just one of them gained notoriety for the final needlework masterpiece: Judy Chicago. Rewind to the mid 1500s, and you'd find a bunch 'a' peons slaving away over pungent canvases that all bore the mark of a singular man: Titian. This notion of the artist's name as a transcendent brand is nothing new. So, to some, a shift in the fashion world that stresses the significance of brand name over individual creativity should come as no surprise.

A 3/12 Wall Street Journal piece (The Brand Rules Fashion's New World, by Deborah Ball) inquires ironically, "Does fashion still need designers?" As globalization perpetuates and recognized names go even more international, the answer may be, "no." Prada's owner, Patrizio Bertelli agrees. Months after Bertelli bought out Germany's Jil Sander, the "headstrong designer," Sander, quit, yet Bertelli saw no need to hire a replacement right away. According to the Journal story, Bertelli opines, "The individual fashion designer is less important than the company." Since Sander's departure, a new creative director has filled her stylish shoes.

Bertelli has even claimed that Gucci's creative director, Tom Ford, "is not a real designer….He's just good at marketing." Something tells me a few gaunt jaws hit the catwalk in response to this bold pronouncement.

As noted in the article, although worldwide markets can spur formidable competition and boost creativity, most fashion houses would rather bank on lowest common denominator appeal than risky outrageousness. "Their main customers are no longer the discriminating socialites of yore, but upper-middle-class housewives in Seoul or Seattle." As many opponents of globalization caution, larger markets lead to watered-down homogenization.

I'd surmise that the vast majority of fashion followers couldn't care less about the dilution of designer duds. Remember: these are the same folks who wait for the latest perfume-sample swamped rag to hit the racks so they can see what shade of lipstick to buy to complement next season's bottom drawer liners. This haute couture herd delights in the opportunity to push the credit limit for the privilege of seeing their clones shuffle past from every which way. It's the logo and the label that drive this desire, not the designer behind the drawing board. Then again, my idea of a spring line is queuing up at some department store to pay for a replacement pair of button-fly jeans, so what do I know?

Good Brand/Eye Coordination
-- OR --
Multi-player Promo
As Coke ashamedly drops out from its in-school ad slam, parents can rest easily that their children's views will be less obstructed by promotional messages. That is, until the wee-ones maneuver around that hairpin curve on level seven. Yes, although keyboard-romping tots and fast-fingered adult gamers may avoid doom at the hands of enemy bots and byte-barbarians, their minds could succumb to a covert brand blast, nevertheless. For that, they can thank computer game developers and the ever-present sponsors of their creations.

According to a piece in the March issue of Streaming Media Magazine (Addictive Advertisements by Catherine Bacon), branded games are all the rage. Browser-based game developer, WildTangent (Steve Vai cover band?) has created game promos for MSN gaming site, Zone.com. "One such game is RadioShack RC Riot, named after a line of remote controlled cars," notes the story. Of course, players who wish to experience real-world RadioShack excitement can purchase the remote cars through the game's "buy online" button. "RadioShack not only uses the game to entice the player," reveals the article, "but also gathers valuable marketing information when users register to win prizes from Zone.com." Well, the fact that registration is required is no surprise, considering you can't buy a couple of AA batteries at RadioShack without signing away your first born, in triplicate.

This stuff ain't just for tots, though. Shockwave has also created games sponsored by the likes of Hewlett-Packard and Jack Daniels. The 3-D pub in Shockwave's Real Pool game is slapped with a Jack Daniels poster; even the pool table's surface is enhanced with a JD logo. Evidently, the technology allows sponsors to be changed faster than the virtual barmaid can slip on a condom. I'll admit, this game seems pretty realistic. All it needs is a midi-version of some updated George Thorogood tune. I can hear it now: "One bourbon, one scotch and one Viagra."

Shockwave's executive producer, Chad Richard comments in the story, "You've got someone who is entertaining themselves, so they are very open to receiving positive messages at that time." I'm not so sure that a Jack Daniels logo qualifies as a positive message. Whenever I see one, all I can think of is getting busted by Mom because I forgot to refill the JD bottle with water after sneakin' some from the liquor shelf downstairs.

Fans of Comedy Central's dork-fest, BattleBots, will surely appreciate Real.com's new Tex Atomic Big Bot Battles game. As featured in the article, "The setting is a combat arena populated by battling giant bots wielding menacing weapons, while in the background a billboard streams a video advertisement." Game downloads will cost around $19.95, but Real.com will also derive cash from sponsors including the first to sign-on, Intel. An ad-free version of Tex Atomic can be played offline; however, if people want multiplayer functionality, they must play the online, ad-laden version. In other words, monitor-gazing gamers are actually paying to play in ad land, and if they want real competition, the billboard-ridden game is the only way to go.

For traditional household-name brands and fledgling Web brands alike, online advertising isn't just about driving site traffic to propel sales anymore. Led by negative reports of steadily dropping click-through rates, advertisers have been abandoning banners for months now. So, that means that we apparently-unresponsive consumers can look forward to a future of virtual branding by osmosis. Man, if only these geek-geniuses could spend less time conjuring up pointless diversions and more time inventing force-fields for our unwitting subconscious minds. Maybe if we offered them all virtual sex with some mammoth-mammed anime character they'd consider it….

Ad Inoculation
-- OR --
Diagnosis: Sponsoritis
When you see headlines like, "Israel: A Safe Place to Visit (Bring Some Rocks)," or "A Green Olympics Awaits in Beijing," or "Nobody Eats the Hooves or Mouths Anyway: Taste British Beef Again," usually they're followed by microscopic text that reads, "advertising supplement". Chances are, when newspapers and other periodicals feature ad supplements, you do what I do -- bypass those sections.

Have you ever wondered whether the same disclaimers should apply to some fictional TV shows? It may seem like a silly question to which the answer is a resounding, "no." The problem is that lots of people are heavily influenced by what they see and hear on the idiot box. In fact, I'd bet that if a poll were taken, it would be found that a significant percentage of the American population believes that Martin Sheen is our President. That's why a 3/5 AdNews brief got me thinking. It notes that an ad for American Home Products' new Prevnar vaccine ran during a recent episode of medi-drama, ER. The show, according to the story, apparently featured an un-immunized child diagnosed with measles. When his "yuppie lawyer mother" asked ER character, Dr. Deb Chen, "That's not too bad, right?" Chen replied, "One in 500 kids dies of measles."

The AdNews story goes on: "Although the script was written a while ago with no intention of a commercial tie-in, American Home Products saw the storyline and made a request to be the very first ad in the very first ad break after Dr Chen finds out that the child has not been vaccinated."

Surely, a sponsorship tie-in was not at the forefront of the mind/s of the episode's writer/s. Still, storylines like this serve to promote particular beliefs and ideas. The following plot details derived from an online episode summary exemplify the modus operandi of ER's pro-vaccination proselytization: When Mrs. Woodman, mother of the preschool-aged Zach, learns that her son's "condition is grave," she assures Dr. Carter that she is "not an irresponsible parent.... Carter counters her assertions calmly, but eventually smirks at her suggestion of any connection between vaccines and autism….Mrs. Woodman finally looks as though she may regret her decision to not immunize her children." Zach dies by the end of the episode.

Isn't it convenient that American Home Products was alerted to the episode's content in time to run a tailored ad during the most opportune spot-slot? Don't get me wrong. The synching of television and commercial content is natural, otherwise we'd risk the chance of seeing ads touting pork as the other white meat during Saturday afternoon movie presentations of Babe or Charlotte's Web. This particular Prevnar media buy strikes me as a bit too close for comfort, that's all. Well, I guess I'll start to worry if I see an ad for "The Phonics Game" during George Bush's next Presidential Address.

Takin' a Bite Outta Integrity
-- OR --
A Residual a Day...
"I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now." As a green-minded college freshman, I struggled to grasp the meaning of this refrain from Dylan's My Back Pages. As the years roll on, the truth encapsulated by these words becomes more and more clear to me.

Here's the thing: It's easy to believe the "lies that life is black and white" before you've lived through a situation yourself. Perhaps indie-musicians, Robert Schneider and Hilarie Sidney could relate. According to a 3/11 NY Times Magazine story focusing on the convergence of commercial advertising and "underground" music, the 30-year-olds have come to see the grey area that replaces the once-hard line between their music and the sell-out slop used in TV spots.

As featured in the article, Schneider and Sidney, both members of five-piece Apples in Stereo, agreed that "The day the Beach Boys sold 'Good Vibrations' for a soft-drink ad…was one of betrayal and ruin." Puleeze…since when are the Beach Boys beyond commercialism? Maybe I'm jaded, but these are the same losers who go on sponsored summer tours playing shows at AAA baseball stadiums with John Stamos on drums, right?

Well, as we know, an apple a day doesn't keep the bill collector away. That's why when the band's pal, Tim Barnes, an ad sound-designer, offered $18,000 for use of their tune "Strawberryfire" in a Young & Rubicam-created Sony ad, Apples in Stereo's anti-corporate catechism got tossed to the bottom of the bushel.

"In theory, commercial licensing gives musicians a way around the gatekeepers of the music business," asserts the story. "This means freedom not just from record companies but also from the boundaries of radio and MTV." Then again, the intangible shackles of one's conscience can be more confining than any of these.

Hey, I can't begin to count how many times I've verbally blasted some band for signing with a major label in exchange for a new van and some weak distribution deal. Almost inevitably, it leads to diluted music and an increasingly annoying fan base. It's also depressing to hear once-beloved tunes as they accompany some glorified frat boy on an extreme fishing excursion in his new SUV. I can certainly sympathize with the band's dilemma, though. Then again, if I had maintained my youthful idealism, I'd still be livin' with my parents, eatin' ramen every day.

At this point, Apples in Stereo has collected an additional $19,000 for use of its songs in ads for J.C. Penney and Bank of America; TV shows, Roswell and The Powerpuff Girls; and even an ABC after-school special.

The band has set some guidelines, though. They've vowed not to promote cigarettes, alcohol, leather, meat or the military. Man, what a bunch of P.C. pansies! Ya know, I think Apples in Stereo oughta consider changing their name to Fruits in Stereo.