4.18.01
Tube-steak Brand Boogie
-- OR --
I Feel Like Nitrates Tonight
Some brand names are just downright inappropriate. Two of my faves are "Manwich," the sloppy Joe sandwich mix and "Nads," the hair removal system. Sometimes, it's the brand's tagline that can lead to unseemly thoughts. Call me gutter-minded, but whenever I hear the Ball Park franks slogan, "plumps when you cook 'em," I can't help but giggle like some second-grader studying the biology of sperm whales. It's just that the whole plump hot dog thing seems so phallic. Then again, I won't even eat a deli pickle in public for fear of giving some slimy guy the wrong idea.

I guess it's a good thing that Ball Park has decided to steer its focus away from the engorged meat shtick. Then again, maybe it's not such a good thing. You see, now the hot dog vendors are embarking on a new campaign, prompting potential Ball Park purchasers to "Eat like a man."

In its print and TV campaign, Ball Park will depart from "hot dog manufacturers' more typical female-targeted ads depicting barbecues and outdoor grilling scenes," according to a 4/9 Advertising Age feature. Instead, the ads which were created by Chicago's Leo Burnett USA, center on the played-out, big, dumb, tough-guy theme. As noted in the story, in one television spot called "Purse," "a man stands uncomfortably waiting for his wife in a sophisticated women's clothing shop." The camera soon reveals that he is clutching his wife's handbag. "At least you can eat like a man," reassures the voiceover. Print ads will display "men in situations that compromise their masculinity, such as sitting in a salon chair in a flowered smock, or at a 'chick flick' where women all around are crying."

First of all, perpetuating stereotypes that women are the weepier sex and men the hungrier is not only silly and misguided, it's way off the mark. Rosie O'Donnell and Richard Simmons can attest to that. Plus, this insistence on perpetuating the testosterone-saturated mentality is a little ridiculous. Don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with combating the growing use of hairdryers and mudpacks among men. And I dig displays of blatant male-chauvinism that willingly poke fun at the caveman revival, specifically Comedy Central's The Man Show. However, the majority of the machismo media is offensive -- to men. From magazines such as Stuff or Gear to poorly-produced cable shows like FX Network's X Show, portrayals of men as mere beer-belching ball-scratchers is an affront to a their intelligence. What sentient being, male or female, appreciates being considered nothing more than an uncouth, horny goofball? C'mon, at least Playboy has decent articles.

Apparently, a lot of thought went into Leo Burnett's campaign for the $30 million Ball Park account. Comments executive VP and executive creative director, Lisa Bennett, "The tagline said a lot about the product being more satisfying and bigger than others, and who does that appeal to? Men." Hmmm…something tells me that when guys find out that these wieners are "more satisfying and bigger than others," they'll rush out to buy a new sports-car or set of hair plugs to compensate for their inadequacy before they buy a sack of Ball Parks.

Overall, I wonder why Ball Park has chosen to essentially alienate women, a substantial portion of its customer base. It strikes me as a dumb marketing move. I'd venture to guess that the pup-promoters would have been a lot better off respecting and appealing to both ladies and gents. This would not have necessitated that the hearty eater theme be lost. In fact, the familiar Beef: It's What's for Dinner campaign, although not appropriate for Ball Park, could have been used as a great guide. After all, it's an inoffensive, yet somewhat in-your-face campaign that portrays beef as a substantial, satisfying meal for all people. Man, talk about stiff competition.

Captivate a Minute, Mr. Postman
-- OR --
Special Sponsored Delivery
Look At This Before Getting Teeth Extracted. A rubber stamp that imprinted this non sequitur was often employed during the envelope-enhancing stage of my letter-writing sessions as a super-dweeb teen. Man, back then I had way too much time on my hands....

Well, it seems as though the U.S. Postal Service has way too little dime on its hands, because now it's taken to decorating envelopes, too -- with ads. Yep, in a move that'll have more and more of us pining away for the days of the Pony Express, the Long Distance Runner and the Carrier Pigeon, the USPS has created a "Postal Ad Network" which will enable advertisers to slap their sponsor-slop on mailboxes, trucks, stamp booklets, priority and express-mail packaging and in Post Office lobbies and websites. As noted in a 4/12 Wall Street Journal story (U.S. Postal Service Chooses Van Wagner to Market Ad Space, by Staff Reporter), New York agency, Van Wagner Communications LLC will receive commissions based on the amount of ads it places throughout the postal network, under a three-year contract.

According to the article, if all ad space is purchased the USPS could take in $200 million a year. "We're looking for innovative new ways to generate revenues," admits Postal Service spokesman Gerry Kreienkamp.

Must ads always be the answer? I mean, c'mon, people are really into this reality show stuff. Couple that with some violent stunt action and the Post Office would have a sure fire hit. Maybe the first Survivor-inspired endurance test could pit delivery folks against a few rabid guard dogs. Or better yet, to hell with the dogs. Most people would pay good money for the opportunity to sic themselves on a U.S. Postal worker or two.

On the whole, the rain-or-shiners have displayed ineptness in keeping up with their corporate competitors. In fact, according to the piece, the USPS "faces an estimated $1 billion to $3 billion loss for fiscal 2001 because of slowing business and surging costs."

So, in order to compensate for its incompetence, the organization is relinquishing itself to privatization part by part and parcel by parcel. Take the USPS's announcement back in January to allow FedEx, "the world's largest express transportation company," to transport some USPS packages and place a drop box in all U.S. post offices. The thing is, it's not like we, as financially-contributing customers, are reaping any substantial benefits from this either. After all, this is the same postal service that is debating an end to Saturday delivery, and "plans to apply this summer for another rate increase to take effect next year…." Hmmm…I guess the postman always stings twice, too.

Personally, I grapple with the growing alliance of public and private here in the U.S. almost every time I write this column. Overall, it seems as though certain government-run organizations would serve the public and utilize tax dollars much more efficiently if they were completely privatized. The Postal Service may be one of them. Perhaps what's lamentable about this particular situation is not the fact that our mail will display sponsorship messages, but the fact that the Postal Service's successful competitors know how to run businesses without bombarding customers with unwanted and intrusive advertising. Well, if anything, this piecemeal privatization means one thing for the future of the USPS: maybe it'll start providing some good service. I just wish they'd hurry up and get it over with already. Then again, hurrying ain't exactly a strong suit of the US Postal Service.

Imperial Wiz-ad
-- OR --
Clean Up, White People!
For most businesses and organizations, community service makes for great PR. It's politically correct promotion. That is, unless a group's primary mission is to promote hate.

Consider the Ku Klux Klan's efforts to participate in Missouri's "Adopt-A-Highway" program which, as noted in a 4/6 Yahoo! News story, "calls for organizations to clean up roadsides in return for signage that publicly acknowledges the group's participation." It seems that the good Samaritan white supremacists failed to fulfill their obligation to collect debris along the half-mile stretch of Interstate 55 they'd been sponsoring. Hmmm...and I always thought the KKK was committed to preserving purity.

Apparently, the Klan neglected to respond to a "March 20 letter informing the group they were not complying with the program rules." Laments Missouri Department of Transportation spokeswoman, Megan Casalone, "They have never picked up anything off the highway." Hey, I'd like her to try and spot roadside trash through those tiny hood peepholes.

See the Ads Flyin' By
-- OR --
Commuter Communication
In any underground rail system, nooks and crannies abound in which a variety of curiosities can be found. Consider the New Jersey Path System which travels throughout Northern New Jersey and tunnels under the Hudson to Manhattan. Besides the typical congregations of rodents, cigarette butts, and the occasional pair of forgotten panties, at Christmastime, a tiny decorated tree, perched in a corner and adorned with lighted bulbs, can be spotted from the window of the train as it whizzes through the otherwise dark passageway. It's a heartening reminder that even the mole people can conjure up some holiday spirit.

The question is, can they conjure up consumer spirit? If Coca-Cola and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) have anything to do with it, they'll have little choice in the matter. Coke will soon be stringing the North line of Atlanta's rail system with illuminated boxes promoting its Dasani bottled water product. As featured in a 4/4 Wall Street Journal piece (Coke to Pitch Bottled Water To Subway Riders in Atlanta, by Suzanne Vranica), in July, commuters will be treated to a flip-book like display created by Manhattan's Submedia LLC. It's projected that as many as 299,800 subway riders per day could view the ads.

Of course, they'll be compensated for their unwitting exposure, sort of. In an effort to "keep fares down and continue to provide good service," MARTA has plans for 16 to 20 ad sites to be set up, garnering $15 million over the next five years. Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Washington, D.C. and even the NY/NJ PATH system could be next.

One New York commuter, Michele Ivers, notes vapidly, "I always read the ads that hang in the inside of the train so I think I would read just about anything." Hey, it's true. According to anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown sources, she's a big fan of this column. Ya know, it's numbskulls like Ivers who deserve to have their empty heads filled with advertising messages when they could be doing something more constructive, like reading, or trying to decipher what it is exactly that the dude the next seat over has stuck to his lower lip.

Apparently, MARTA doesn't normally allow too many ads in its train cars, so according to Atlanta commuter Lalohni Alsobrook, "They need to be careful of overkill." Hey, if I were an Atlanta train commuter, I wouldn't complain. Catching a few Coke ads as they whiz by couldn't be nearly as nasty as peering up on a NYC subway train only to discover an ad for Dr. Z's acne treatment center, offering discounts on chemical peels and hairy mole removals.

Back in January, when Ralph Nader blasted the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for its offer to allow four stations to be renamed by corporations in exchange for $10 to $20 million, I commented that "chances are Mr. Nader wouldn't refer to the cost of a truly ad-free subway ride as 'priceless.' "* In other words, the ads cluttering our public transportation systems, though often obtrusive, also supplement rider fares. So, although Submedia's new fangled flip ads are simply another indication that our world is nearly drowning in advertising messages, there are some benefits. In this case, I'm mainly disappointed about one thing: the fact that while barreling by at high speeds, it's nearly impossible to draw a mustache on a face in these ads.

*Take a look at the 1/31 Lowbrow Lowdown coverage of Nader's reaction to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority announcement.

Filthy Fashion
-- OR --
The Degradation Will Be Advertised
Ladies, when's the last time you browsed through a fashion magazine and experienced an overwhelming feeling of empowerment and self confidence? Chances are, the answer is, "Are you kidding? Never." Well, a number of designer ads featured in popular glam zines have some chicks feeling more than insecure.

Evidently, as featured in a 4/6 chickclick article, "brutal images of women in violent and suggestive photographs" have become a regular occurrence in ads for Christian Dior, Versace, Sisley and Sergio Rossi.

Proclaims Pepperdine University prof, Laura Shamas, "These ads are battering and dirtying the feminine -- which is worse than exploitation." The ads in question, as pictured throughout the chickclick story, are quite suggestive. Some reveal close-ups of scantily clad keisters; others display women who look as though they just broke out of the joint, haggard and muddied.

Jean Kilbourne, Ph.D, opines in the story "that violent images enter mainstream advertising thanks to advertising agencies who need to look farther and farther to find shock value. They have found that violent images create hype and brand awareness."

That may be true, but I'm a bit confused. Since when do sex and dirt equal violence? As far as I can see, the images to which the article alludes don't imply violent acts against women at all.

"What's the solution?" inquires the tale of outrage. "You can boycott the magazines and brands that promote these images." Wow! Imagine that! You don't have to buy the offending magazines or products. What a concept!

I'll admit, I've known plenty of intelligent women who enjoy scanning the annals of couture. Hell, if were a bit more of a girly girl, and could the bear perpetual eau de nose offensives, I'd probably engage in a little fashion mag page flipping myself. Here's the thing: this alleged degradation of women takes place in the realm of the surface, which some (including yours truly) consider degrading in itself. We're not talkin' ads running in medical journals or literary magazines for utilitarian items here. We're talkin' trendy un-necessaries advertised in façade-focused fashion rags. People who choose to purchase or peruse these periodicals and buy these items obviously have expressed some interest in the shallow veneer of the phony female ideal, paying homage to painted faces, dyed hairdos, false eyelashes, stiletto heels, bust-boosting bras, unrealistic diets and deluded relationship advice.

I agree that these particular ads the story references probably don't appeal to women, and are in fact in bad taste. However, they're smack dab in the middle of publications that symbolize the woman as a rules-spouting, shopping-obsessed garment rack with little more on her mind than man-trapping and lipstick smearing prevention techniques. I liken the reaction to these ads to that of a beauty contest viewer who's disappointed that the contestants are judged based on their looks, or a guest at a Cattleman's Convention dinner who's upset with the lack of vegetarian options.