6.27.01
Profiting Prophets
-- OR --
The Word of the Whored
A new dawn is upon us. The prophets, Chris and Luke, have promised to spread their message far and wide. They've got no intentions of preaching the usual peace, love, do unto others type stuff, however. Nope, these teenage toadies aim to sermonize on the marketing mount. Their pulpit: the college campus. The golden calf they'll ride in on: the sponsor with the best offer, First USA Bank.

Just in case you've been wondering what had become of the demented duo since The Lowbrow Lowdown first covered their tale, you're in luck. According to plan, Chris Barrett and Luke McCabe have officially become the first corporately sponsored college students! After nearly a year of hawking themselves, and whittling their potential sponsors down from a list of 15 interested companies, their mission has come to fruition. On September 18, 2001, Chris and Luke revealed the name of their new tuition sponsor, First USA. There they stood, arms folded, photographed wearing First USA branded T-shirts, their piercing eyes eerily following readers of their celebratory website communiqué.

"We want to thank everyone who was so supportive of our search to be the First Corporate Sponsored College Students in the country," acknowledged the would-be financial wizards. "It proves that students can be innovative, stick to a goal and achieve success! It takes hard work and commitment, but we are ready for the challenge!"

In addition, Chris and Luke announced their school picks. While Luke is off carousing with the heathens at the University of Southern California, Chris will attend Christian college, Pepperdine University. Hmmm…I wonder what Jesus thinks about Chris' little bargain with First USA.

A press announcement featured a canned quote from the sponsor's spin maestro, Doug Filak, a.k.a. Senior Vice President of Marketing Strategy at First USA: "First USA is committed to supporting education, innovation and financial responsibility…. These young men embody all three. We are thrilled to reward their resourcefulness and financial management initiative by sponsoring their college education."

A lot of buff-bodied men and women strip their ways through college, too, but I doubt that First USA would consider erotic dancing a "financial management initiative."

Added Chris, "Our successful partnership with First USA is the result of a lot of thinking and financial planning…. We want to send a powerful message to students everywhere that financial planning can make great things happen."

There is no doubt that the spokesguy initiative required a lot of strategic thinking and planning. However, Chris and Luke have completely bypassed the financial planning route to which they supposedly espouse as First USA "student ambassadors." They're not flippin' burgers in the dining hall after classes or taking out student loans to make ends meet. Chris and Luke are foregoing sound financial budgeting strategies in exchange for a big pay out that could end up costing them in the long run. Not only are they symbols of sycophancy; Chris and Luke are true emblems of instant gratification at any expense -- not exactly synchronous with the basic principles of financial planning. One wonders whether a sponsorship contract with the local state lottery would have been more appropriate. Or better yet, maybe they should have signed a spokesdeal with Fausted Flakes.

Potent Quotables
-- OR --
Wham! Bam! Culture Jam!
Champion of anti-corporate culture-jamming, Kalle Lasn is the man behind the Adbusters organization. No, Culture Jam is not a fruity yogurt spread. It's the subject and title of Lasn's book, and the centerpiece of Adbusters-prompted events like Buy Nothing Day and TV Turnoff Week, as well as halfbaked shenanigans like tossing money from balconies or placing air quality violation tickets on SUVs. The system-bucker was interviewed for The Industry Standard's 6/20 Net Persuasion newsletter.

The Standard's Steven Zeitchik expressed that the majority of anti-globalization protests, like those that have taken place in Quebec City and Seattle, "key in on these very tangible problems like child labor but miss larger, more culturally resonant issues." Responded Lasn, "I was at these protests and I don't think that's true. There was an incredible number of people who knew exactly why they were there, that civil society was now in the saddle…. They understood that there's been a pollution of their mental environment and feel they've been mindf***** and mentally abused."

I agree that the ubiquity of advertising and corporate power is unsettling at times, but this allusion to victimization is too much. Sentient beings, especially adult ones, have the ability to block outside forces they perceive as negative, or at least filter them. Therefore, unless they are allowing it to happen, I refuse to believe that Americans are being mindfucked or mentally abused by corporations or advertising. I don't know about Lasn, but there are no McDonald's grease fires erupting from my synapses, nor are there any Calvin Klein billboards cluttering up the thruway to the center of my mind. Perhaps if the Adbusters message weren't so extreme, it would garner more attention from the average Joe who could use a steer away from the blind, impulsive drive to consume. Either that, or the Adbusters crew can keep up their current corporate-takeover counteraction by continuing to place ads in publications and peddle their magazine, calendar, postcards, video and other anti-capitalistic merchandise.

Peddlin' Pride
-- OR --
Agape, Storge, Philios, Eros and -- Brandios?
For some of us, it's Stouffer's Mac and Cheese; for others, it's Dunhill Cigarettes. It may be Swatch watches or Tom's of Maine toothpaste. For me, it's Levis. Seriously, the only apparel brand name label that I'll allow to be visible while on my person is that cute li'l orange Levis tag. Why? There's no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. In fact, I find the Levis karaoke TV ad campaign unbearable, but damn it, I love them Levis dungarees. I'm talkin' beloved brands, and no matter who you are, chances are there's some brand name product that you truly love.

Could it be that the emotional branding evangelists like Saatchi & Saatchi's CEO Kevin Roberts are actually preaching the truth? Well, according to a Summer 2001 Gallup Management Journal story, trademarks really can be considered lovemarks. And you thought you were too old for hickeys.

Using its 11-question metric of "customer engagement," CE11, Gallup aimed to decipher just what it is it that makes customers loyal to brands. More than 3,600 customers across six industries (Auto, Consumer Banking, Mass Retail, Online Retail, Consumer Electronics and Airlines) were surveyed. The polling firm stresses that passion is not limited to beer, car or jewelry brands alone, as commonly believed by advertisers. In fact, Gallup found that "roughly one in 10 customers in every industry is passionate."

So, what indicates an emotional attachment to a can of soda or a pocket wrench? As far as Gallup is concerned, "rational formulations of loyalty" are determined by "overall satisfaction, intent to repurchase, and intent to recommend." The real lovey dovey stuff comes in with the emotional attachment measures. These involve "four emotional states: confidence in a brand, belief in its integrity, pride in the brand and passion for it".

States the Gallup piece, "When customers agreed strongly with both statements about a brand's reliability - 'this brand always delivers on what they promise' and 'this brand is a name I can always trust' -- they were demonstrating their confidence in the brand. Confidence normally precedes more intense feelings of attachment, because it determines whether a customer feels secure about a brand's utility." Hey, I think Gallup's come up with the ultimate "Is He the Right Guy for Me?" Cosmo quiz questions!

The survey employed questions and statements like, "How likely are you to continue to choose/repurchase [brand]?" and "I feel proud to be a [brand] customer." Hmmm…I wonder whether the Galluping pollsters studied users of the hair removal system with my all time favorite brand name, Nad's. Let's fill in the blanks. "[Nad's] always delivers on what they promise." "If a problem arises, I can always count on [Nad's] to reach a fair and satisfactory resolution." "I can't imagine a world without [Nad's]." Man, for a company to consider its product that important to consumers, I guess it would take a helluva lotta balls.

Takin' Care of Blond Business
-- OR --
Disrespectin' Tiny E
In the early '80s, when theater audiences watched as Elliot lured E.T. from the woods with Reese's Pieces, Hershey's sales of E.T's favorite candy tripled within two weeks of the release of the Spielberg classic. A couple of decades later, commercials for Pets.com featuring a cuddly spokes-puppet spurred a mass appeal for the puppet toys. They didn't do much for sales of Pets.com's primary wares, however.

Perhaps just as irresistible is the object of affection whose popularity was launched by a German ad for Audi's new Multitronic gear system. Created by Saatchi & Saatchi, TV ads for the one gear, flexible transmission belt system feature none other than an Elvis doll with blond tresses. The ads broke last March and ran for a month.

According to a June 20 Advertising Age report, as the commercial begins, an Elvis impersonator is seen cruising in a clunky American car; all the while, the Elvis doll twists and turns his hips as gears shift jerkily. Evidently, the car overheats and some chick in an Audi actually stops to pick up the guy. OK, now that's entirely unbelievable. Elvis would never accept a ride from some Euro trash driving a foreign car.

Of course, once tiny E is hung inside the Audi, his hip swiveling ceases, thus indicating the Multitronic system's super smooth ride capabilities. Man, now that's another incredulous scenario. The wee Elvis would never stop his pelvic thrust so easily. Surely, the explanation for his stillness is more likely the Audi gal's unfathomable frigidity towards the Memphis stud.

"Though neither Saatchi nor Audi originally had any intention of selling more than a limited number of the dolls for $7.50," notes the article, "they've now placed an order with Asia for 200,000 dolls." Man, now if that ain't the ultimate disrespect to the King, I don't know what is. Those folks over in Asia can't even pronounce "Elvis" right.

Overall, this clamor for the Aryan Elvis doll appears to be a happy accident for Audi and Saatchi. The thing is, it seems as though the clever thing to do in this situation would have been to offer the doll as a complimentary gift with purchase of the Multitronic Audi. At least they could have sold a few cars that way. After all, that was the point, wasn't it?