3.28.01
Mutiny on the Bondi
-- OR --
Brand Bondage Breakaway
It's skimpy. It's clingy. It can display a package better than a Let's Make a Deal spokes-model. It's become known as a Speedo, and it takes some serious beach balls to wear one in public, at least here in the puritanical U.S.A. In Australia, on the other hand, it takes some serious courage not to wear one, if you're a Bondi Beach lifeguard, that is.

In a nutshell, Speedo sponsors the lifeguards of the well-known beach, and supplies their official, if arguably inadequate, attire. Now the Bondi guards have got their slinky swim suits in a bunch, as reported in a 3/19 Fashion Wire Daily story. They're "considering banishing the Speedo logo from their uniforms" out of solidarity with 65 recently laid off Speedo factory workers. You see, Speedo has decided to move production offshore, and as a result, "Mayor Paul Pearce is seeking legal advice about breaking a five-year agreement with the company."

Apparently, under the contract, Speedo provides $20,000 worth of uniforms and supplies for the guards each year, in exchange for use of their sleek frames as live action billboard bods. An additional $150,000 will help fund a new Bondi Beach lifeguard tower. Admonishes Pearce, "To be using an icon such as Bondi to promote its product, then clearing off and producing offshore, is absolutely outrageous."

How's this for an outrageous idea: I've read that Bondi Beach is clothing optional. If they were smart, the lifeguards would really attract some media attention to their cause by publicly stripping their Speedos. The ex-factory employees would be there, too, to ensure that all the guards, particularly the males, let it all hang out. Talk about gettin' sacked.

Teach Your Consumers Well
-- OR --
The Youth Is Getting Wrested
Parents: you want to do right by your kids, don't you? You buy them the best logo-laden clothes. You lovingly bake them the yummiest pre-packaged, pre-formed cookie dough. Hell, you even sent them to Pokemon camp. So, please, don't let your wee-ones grow up without the knowledge that is sure to propel them to successful adulthood. No, don't let your cherished children grow up without the most important skills of all: online consumer skills.

Hey, a lack of these skills could seriously impact e-commerce profit margins. In its shockingly brazen shout out to "previously shortsighted e-tailers" a 3/22 E-Commerce Times story opines that online retailers "need to recognize the new generation as the possible saviors of their online dreams." As evidence, the piece notes that by next year "According to studies conducted by Harris Interactive in conjunction with Nickelodeon Online, KidPulse and MTV, kids and young adults age eight to 24 are spending as much as US$164 billion online, a whopping figure considering that only a small percentage of e-commerce marketing is directed toward them."

Alluding to e-shopper-enabling services that cater to kids like InternetCash.com, Rocketcash.com and Doughnet.com, the article acknowledges that currently there is some parental involvement in "the online experience," and mentions, "Some of the sites require users to send a check or offer a credit card in advance to establish their spending account. Not many 8-year-olds have checking accounts, so clearly the parents must participate." Well, I just don't understand why more eight-year olds don't have checking accounts. Those free picnic coolers make great stowaway spots for hide-and-go-seek.

The story asserts, "this year is ground zero for teaching kids how to claim their space in the new economy and conduct themselves accordingly." Will uniforms be required for this materialistic munchkin military? The gall of this call to indoctrination is stunning. Sure, there's something to be said for teaching kids about the value of money and budgeting and so forth; in fact, I think that's imperative. However, instilling nascent minded youngsters with the misguided notion that people, especially kids with little ability to earn money outside of a paper route or bullying racket, are mere cogs of consumerism, is repulsive.

It gets better. The article also laments the fact that "Much of the emphasis on online kids, to date, has been about protecting them from indecent material and restricting their access to unsuitable sites." According to the piece, this "could backfire" because kids will think "that they're too young to really use the Internet." And of course, "it fails to teach kids about the commercial viability of the online marketplace."

Translation: Parents, all of this protecting your kids stuff is really doing a number on our bottom line. Would y'all do us a favor and tell li'l Dylan and li'l Morgan that the Web is not a homework helper, nor is it a cesspool of perverts. It's a purchasing play land! Ya know, I'm startin' to think this whole story is a front for some NAMBLA promotion.

Puttin' on the Ad Blitz
-- OR --
Your Comfort Ain't Their Business
In the good ol' days, folks took great pains to dress responsibly and respectably. Haberdashers were heaven sent and dry cleaners our salvation. Nowadays, lots of us are lucky to retrieve a not-too-stinky Zima giveaway shirt from the hamper before stumbling out the door to work. Some of us may be comfortable in our derelict attire; however, others are fed up with our threadbare ways.

Among them is the Men's Apparel Alliance. This clothier coalition "hopes to stamp out the recent trend toward five-day 'business casual' at the office," as featured in a 3/23 Business Week report. That's right, bums, beware. Led by Brody, Goldman & Co. and Rubenstein Associates, this tuck-in crowd is gearing up to launch a full-on promo tour, complete with a fashion-tip wielding spokesman. In fact, they've gathered $10 million towards their campaign already.

The message is a bit on the scare-tactic tip: "Dressing down weakens your impact in the workplace." Hmmm…I'm not so sure about that. I have a few unsavory T-shirts that could make quite an impact if donned on the job.

Forty percent of executives foresee the demise of uptight office garb all together, as found in a two-year-old Management Recruiters International study mentioned in the story. This has Men's Apparel Alliance members quivering in their Bruno Maglis. They're not the only ones promoting the "Return to Formality" though. Albany, N.Y.'s Christopher's Men's Stores began its $70,000 "Let's Get Back to Business" corporate-leader-targeted campaign in January 2000. Plus, recruiting firm Korn/Ferry International now requires "full-time business attire" of its staff, and Atlantic Bank of New York "has hired a fashion consultant…to teach the staff that business-casual doesn't mean coming to work dressed like a slob."

These efforts may help, although I'm inclined to think that a severe drop in demand signals impending doom if product offerings are not altered to suit the needs and desires of the market. My question for the Men's Apparel Alliance: why not serve market demand rather than demand that the market serve you? Well, if these stubborn dresser-uppers insist on attracting more customers to the same old stuffed shirts, it's time to get serious. Today, forward-thinking marketers seem to have given up on the seniors, the boomers and the gen-xers entirely, in favor of kids. No longer are children the brand-loyal purchasers of tomorrow; they're the consumers of the here and now. That means that snappy suit-suitors have got to start 'em off young.

Here are a few off-the-cufflink ideas: Trash the weak Wavy Gravy collection, get rid of the flying toaster ties and the lame holiday-themed neck stranglers. A few character license deals with Pokemon and NSYNC could easily resurrect the struggling suit-and-tie industry. Of course, owning the full collection would be a must. And hey, remember Garanimals? With the right amount of tweaking, this retired clothing line system could create a new legion of office-garb aficionados. I can see it now. Smartly dressed munchkins could match clothing tags depicting Harry Potter's specs and Britney Spears' midriff.

No matter what foundering clothing retailers decide in the end, there's one thing that must be initiated immediately. In all ads, the use of ZZ Top's Sharp Dressed Man must be banned!

All Hands Off Ventura
-- OR --
Puttin' the Kibosh on the Car Wash
Warning: before liberating anything from its rightful owner, determine a place to conceal the evidence, especially if the plundered item is over 10' tall. As a rambunctious high school senior engaged in an obligatory rite-of-passage prank, my cousin could have benefited from that advice. Otherwise, the fuzz may not have spotted him and his co-conspirators in the midst of a victory joyride with the local Bob's Big Boy mascot nestled in the back of his truck.

Perhaps the aggravated citizens of Studio City, CA ought to heed that advice as well. After all, taking the law into their own hands may be the only way to rid their ad-ridden city of an enormous carwash sign. Strike that; reverse it: taking the hand under their own law may be the only way to rid their city of the oversized sign. That's right. There's a gigantic hand hovering over Ben Forat's Studio City Hand Car Wash on Ventura Boulevard, and, according to a 3/21 LA Times piece, Forat vows, "It is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to come down or be moved until every other sign on Ventura Boulevard has come down." Well, as far as his Studio City neighbors and County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe are concerned, them's fist-fightin' words. You see, Judge Yaffe has ruled against Forat, deciding that the hulking fiberglass hand which clutches a stupendous sponge topped with a huge pink '57 Corvette replica, must be tamed.

Essentially, Forat must "lower his display to 20 feet, move the display 10 feet back from the property line and pay $6,000" to a tree-planting fund. (Hmmm…something tells me the money won't go towards planting any palms.) Also, in an upcoming case, Forat faces up to one year in jail if convicted of misdemeanor charges for "erecting an illegal sign and failing to comply with a city building and safety order." Gee…it's too bad he won't be able to take his beloved sign along with him to the big house. It could sure be of use for all those forced cellmate hand jobs.

I'd venture to guess that the hand-hatin' dwellers of Studio City would have less of a problem with the sign if it were more in synch with its cultural surroundings. I mean, this is LA for chrissakes. A giant hand has no significance in plastic land. A rhinoplastic nose or silicone stuffed breast may be more appropriate. Then again, maybe the sign would gain acceptance if the hand were equipped with an ego-stroking mechanism.

McVeggie-Veigh
-- OR --
Death Rotisserie
Will it be corn dogs and Hot Pockets? How about pasgetti and meatballs? Well, no matter what Oklahoma City bombardier, Timothy McVeigh, chooses for his pre-death dish, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has requested that the killer of 168 people respect life.

Yes, the soy has officially gone to the healthful heads of PETA's promotionally challenged PR herd. As mentioned in a 3/21 Inside.com brief, PETA's letter to his warden begs, "Please don't let Timothy McVeigh be responsible for the death of even one more living being ... At the very least, Mr. McVeigh's last meal, on May 16, should not involve bloodshed and the slaughter of an unwilling victim." That's interesting. By the same token, McVeigh's precious life should be spared, too. Hey, maybe PETA could sponsor his room and beefless board until a natural death comes.

It seems, according to a PETA press release, that vegetarian meals are now available to inmates of the Indiana penitentiary in which McVeigh awaits his final feast. The petition pleads, "it's been found that all serial killers have a background history of torturing animals. Feeding inmates bean burritos rather than baby back ribs might just help break the cycle of violence." Bean burritos? Now that's just inhumane: allowing the prisoners to slowly perish in a gas chamber of their own making.

Continues the letter to Warden Harley Lappin, "Nonviolence begins in the kitchen-in this case, the prison kitchen." Yeah, right -- don't these people watch OZ? Ya know, though, maybe PETA's got a point. From now on, I'll make sure to store all my kitchen cutlery downstairs alongside my trunk of 15th century throwing stars and Grandma's old guillotine.

So, will the warden take the bait? Well, the Inside.com story quotes him as stating, ''we do not force inmates to choose one meal or the other. In this case, the protocol would be that (McVeigh) could chose his last meal.'' I've got an idea. Maybe PETA and the penitentiary could compromise. McVeigh can enjoy the meal of his choice, so long as no animals are harmed during his execution.