5.2.01
Let's Call it Product Placement.
No, Let's Call it Shirley.
-- OR --
Brought To You By the Letters A,O and L
"It's corrupting the young'uns, all of this newfangled technology! What ever happened to good ol' fashioned word of mouth, for chrissakes?" Yes, even back in the days when the printed page became the latest gadget for early adopters, folks remained skeptical of technology's impact on their lives and those of their children. It's no wonder that some people are leery of computers and how they -- and the marketing efforts behind them -- can affect the li'l ones.

Gail Collins is among the concerned. You see, in her 4/24 New York Times Op-Ed column, Collins seems overwhelmed with Sesame Street's focus on computers and the Internet. Referring to show No. 3,927 she rattles off a list of computer-related plotlines featured, from no-named Muppet extras "fondling" keyboards to kids being "urged to count computer mice" to Elmo announcing "You've got mail!" Collins soon reveals that Sesame Street is underwritten by AOL.

Man, it seems as though one of these days, even our postmen will be required to announce, "You've Got Mail" upon delivery. The phrase has become so ubiquitous at this point, it's almost natural that Elmo would blurt it out while browsing online. Hey, more power to AOL marketers for developing a tagline that actually sounds instinctive.

We know better, though, and so does Collins. She questions whether "Elmo's computer fixation amounts to a PBS version of product placement." In fact, in her interview with Rosemarie Truglio, Sesame Street's VP for education and research, Truglio admits "I wasn't even aware AOL is underwriting it, and I'm the one responsible for content." Truglio goes on to stress that the show's goal is purely "an educational goal -- to address computers in children's lives today." I find it hard to believe that the person responsible for the show's content is not cognizant of its sponsors. That's like saying that the head of Bush's energy task force, Dick Cheney, forgot about all those donations from his ol' Halliburton oil buddies the other day when he supported a government-backed push to find new domestic sources of oil and gas.

Call it sponsorship seepage. "We're now just emerging from what one could call the golden age of separation of TV and advertising," asserts Robert Thompson, the director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television. It must be nice for Thompson to be so confident in his outlook that he can announce our emergence from a golden age as it's actually taking place. We should hook him up with the Psychic Friends Network.

He isn't telling us anything that isn't obvious. For one thing, PBS shows like Sesame Street are no longer sponsored by mere numbers and letters. Watch channel thirteen nowadays and you'll see enhanced corporate sponsorship messages (a.k.a. ads). And don't forget to visit the "Shop" section on the Sesame Street website which prompts users to buy from partners including Tupperware.com, Hershey.com, Avon and Land's End. Even the site's interactive "make-your-own-photo-sticker" feature is sponsored by Intel's Web Outfitter Service.

By now, this public broadcasting/ sponsorship-infringement thing has become about as tiresome as the whole "Snuffleupagus is invisible" plotline. Personally, I've gone from the denial stage to the "and I donate money for this crap?" stage to the hopeless stage. I just don't get it. I mean, I don't recall Sesame Street or other PBS shows engaging in this sort of sponsorship messaging when I was a wee-one. Is it that the business of broadcasting simply costs more than it used to? Is it that sponsors are reluctant to donate funds without the promise of their precious plugs? Are fewer viewers and listeners chippin' in their fair shares? Who knows? All I can say is, when Cookie Monster proclaims that "C is for Chips Ahoy" and Oscar the Grouch extols the virtues of some new Hefty trash bags, I won't get mad. I'll get Glad.

Retail Revelation
-- OR --
Wal-Not-So-S-Mart
When David Bullington, VP of Texas for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeared on CSPAN's 4/26 Washington Journal show to field call-in questions regarding ecommerce taxation, I knew something worthwhile would occur sooner or later. Within in minutes, my prognostication became reality. A woman calling from Hampton, New Hampshire slipped by the screener, and rather than tackle the subject at hand, she tackled Bullington regarding Wal-Mart's practices in the town of Seabrook, New Hampshire.

"They opened a Wal-Mart," she began, "and they had banners all over the building for months during the construction: 'Made in USA', 'Made in USA'…. And that 'Made in USA' was an absolute misrepresentation and outright lie. Everything in that store is made in China except the employees."

Bullington retorted, in an ever-so-patient monotone, "We certainly promote -- whenever it is of value to our customers, we buy locally in the United States….certain product categories, you just can't find it anymore in the U.S…."

You see, what that caller didn't understand is that Wal-Mart was simply promoting the fact that the store itself was made in the USA. Really though, we have no way of knowing for sure how well that particular situation was represented by the caller. The thing is, Bullington certainly did not dispute it. He simply responded by justifying the reasons why Wal-Mart carries imported goods (i.e. bottom line, availability). So, it seems that Wal-Mart did advertise falsely in this case; however, it would be naďve to believe that an entire department store's worth of wares would all be made in the U.S. In fact, one could argue that on the whole, products have become stateless, with raw materials, components, assembly workers, and final packaging originating from across the globe. Still, on the spin-o-meter, this Bullington guy ain't faring too well.

Then he dropped off the scale completely by continuing with this canned spiel: "Our proposition is to do the very best in bringing the best value to our customers to" (I kid you not) "enhance their cost of living." Yes, folks, he really said it; you can download the interview yourselves. And when you think about it, even though Bullington probably intended to say something like, "to enhance their quality of living," perhaps his actual words are right on the mark. If it weren't for Wal-Mart and countless other merchandise peddlers, I know my cost of living would be less enhanced.

Sermon on the Screen
-- OR --
Happiness Is a Warm Coat
A cloying boy band ballad rattles your eardrums in obtrusive Dolby sound. Adjusting in your stained seat, you groan involuntarily in response to the Hollywood Tidbit you've just read about The Olsen Twins' pet Terrier, Sir Stamos. You take heart in the knowledge that some indulgent and mindless entertainment is soon to come. Well, maybe after your animal rights indoctrination.

Oh, so you came to the cineplex to escape reality, huh? Well, not if Stella McCartney has anything to do with it. She's on a crusade against fur, and whether they like it or not, she wants to show captive theater audiences "what animals are forced to go through before they are skinned," according to a 4/26 Fashion Daily story. Whatever happened to a few pre-picture Chip 'n' Dale cartoons, anyway? I suppose the beloved chipmunks were harmed in the making of those, too.

Stella's not alone. Paul and Linder's privileged offspring/couturier/activist "is rallying her famous friends together to produce a commercial aimed at influencing cinemagoers to forfeit fur." Evidently, the public service activism will star Jude Law and his wife Sadie Frost, along with has-beens, Geri Halliwell and George Michael.

Ya know, leave it to some rock star's spoiled kid to proselytize about something that's so far removed from the reality of us pathetic plebes. How many people do you know who buy fur at all, much less often? Plus, for those of us who didn't grow up with our own personal petting zoos, maybe wearing fur is the only way we have of getting close to our four-legged friends. Seriously though, I'm as against the senseless killing of animals for fur as the next person, but this is too much. As far as I'm concerned, the exorbitant price we pay to see a movie should preclude us from being subjected to a pre-flick sermon on animal torture. Well, at least we can be thankful for one thing: no talent will be exploited during the making of this commercial.

Gateway Giveaway
-- OR --
Just Say Blow
There's nothin' better than a utilitarian gift, I always say. There's one useful prize in particular that I won as an adolescent that stands out in my mind. After winning some sort of contest at my neighborhood's annual block party, I was offered my choice of next-year's block sale fodder. My memory's hazy, but somehow I ended up receiving what looked like a useless cluster of feathers, dyed bright red. There was even a handy clip attached. Let's just say I was a sheltered kid, because upon inspection, I surmised it must have been a hair adornment of some sort. Well, you guessed it. It sure as hell wasn't a barrette. It was a roach clip. How it ended up being a kids' prize is beyond me. And my parents actually let me keep the thing! Hmmm…maybe they were actually telling me the truth when they said they never smoked da dope.

I can only imagine what would have become of my wide-eyed self had I won a gift like the one New Line Cinema distributed to promote its movie, Blow. In honor of the film, which follows the life of George Jung, a real-life drug smuggler, New Line Cinema gave away items of true value: "pocket-sized mirrors that mysteriously resemble the cocaine cutting boards used by drug dealers and users," according to the 4/23 edition of PR Week ('Blow' mirror souvenirs reflect badly on New Line Cinema). The mirrors were handed out at advance screenings and even at bars and sporting events before the flick hit the screen. I guess the crack pipes must have been on back order.

Needless to say, anti-drug activists and rehab counselors were concerned about the impact the mirrors would have on teens. They're right to worry, ya know. Kids these days are way too concerned with their looks.

No worries were expressed by the folks at New Line Cinema, apparently. "Anyone who sees Blow recognizes that this film does not promote or glorify the use of drugs," comments the company's corporate communications SVP, Steve Elzer. Hey, what can you expect from a company called New Line, anyway?

In the end, the giveaways are imaginative if anything, as well as humorous. And after all, mirrors can be used for things other than cocaine apportioning. The thing is, whether or not the film promotes or glorifies drug use, it seems that distributing something that most people would construe as paraphernalia could serve as some enticement to put it to use. In fact, anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown sources swear it was Robert Downey Jr.'s mirror-gazing, narcissistic tendencies that got him started.