8.24.01
As The Cubic Zirconia Taints
-- OR --
Diamond Encrusted Delusion
After each laborious 7th grade day of note-passing and stealing glimpses at crush-boy-of-the-week, I would rush home to catch another re-run episode of The Monkees on MTV. The sight gags, the cartoon-like sound effects, the cool tunes and the cooler threads: I dug 'em all. But perhaps my favorite thing on the show was a sporadically shot, framed picture on the wall of the band's apartment which read, "Money is the root of all evil." Besides appreciating the message, my knowledge of it symbolized my affinity for the culture of the show. Needless to say, I wanted one just like it. (To be honest, what I really wanted was Peter Tork, but that's a story for another day.) Well, I never got a "Money is the root of all evil" picture, so I had to settle for a homemade and much less impressive reproduction.

As if The Monkees weren't one of the most overt commercial contrivances of their time to begin with, can you imagine if a similar TV show were to air today, perhaps with some bubble-gum boy band or thug-lite rap group? I'll guarantee you that the "Money is the root of all evil" picture would be available for purchase. Nowadays, it would more likely be a limited edition Nike poster.

ABC's come up with something a bit more tasteful than that for fans of All My Children, the soap opera that refuses to die. Yes, for all those haus fraus who dream of moving to Pine Valley and still cry foul each time Susan Lucci (a.k.a. Erica Kane) fails to be awarded a daytime Emmy, life just got a little sappier. Now, rather than fantasizing about having husbands who buy them diamond necklaces, like the one character Tad Martin recently gave his soap wife, Dixie Cooney, envious AMC addicts can purchase replicas for themselves on the Home Shopping Network.

According to an 8/6 Wall Street Journal feature (Home Shopping Network to Hawk ABC's 'All My Children' Jewelry by Joe Flint and Martin Peers), "Over the past few months, the soap's writers have scripted into the show four items of jewelry worn by different characters, specially designed by HSN for the show." The sparkly goodies, sold under the "All My Children" brand name, will be peddled during commercial breaks on ABC and on HSN. They'll run about $25 and $35 each.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has been done. CBS pulled a similar jewelry promo ploy in conjunction with its soap, Guiding Light, a couple of years ago. NBC has made a few lackluster attempts, too, through its sitcom Will and Grace and its soap, Passions. Due to its already prominent presence in "75 million homes," HSN is predicting high returns through the ABC partnership, according to the article. In fact, the shopping network, "expects the venture to be expanded to include other ABC programs."

Ya know, it figures that these soap opera marketers would go for the most mushy product line imaginable. Jewelry is boring. I want the moped that exploded and killed Cassie. I want the leather pants that Vanity wore to seduce Victor away from her twin, Vanessa. I want the saddle that Kent rigged to cause Rock's tragic riding accident.

Overall, I can't say that the purist in me is too bothered by the product placement aspect of this endeavor. This is a soap opera, not The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. Plus, most obsessive watchers will relish the opportunity to own something specifically related to favorite characters and plotlines. Soaps, like most TV dramas, are the stuff of fantasy and require a willing suspension of disbelief anyway. If the story still works, and viewers aren't made to feel cheated or exploited by the potential huckster effect, where's the harm?

C'mon, these soap fanatics gladly accept, if not crave, the heart-string tugs derived from their daily stories. They probably won't be too offended by an additional tug on the ol' purse-strings. Most likely, because of this pre-conditioning, the majority of viewers should realize that the jewelry was hyped in the script in order to boost future sales. If they can't figure that out, they deserve to get their favorite shows pre-empted by tennis matches and weather advisories.

Preservation Stomp
-- OR --
What's Green and Wet and Tingly All Over?
Prize-winning miniature bonsais, ancient Roman artifacts, petrified Twinkies snack-cakes: these are all precious, easily endangered items that require obsessive care and respect in order to ensure their preservation. That's why if we were concerned for their protection and appreciation, we'd want as many people as possible to see and handle them, wouldn't we? "Hell no!" might be the way some of us would respond, but then again, some of us aren't affiliated with Greenpeace.

It seems as though the struggle for a green and peaceful planet is getting more and more grueling these days for Greenpeace. More Rainbow Warriors must be alerted to the plight of the Amazon Rainforest. What better way to get folks involved than to lure them to the jungle itself -- thousands of them.

As featured in an 8/3 Yahoo! News story, the crunchy crusaders sponsored a four-day rave in the rainforest. The dance and live music festival, called Ecosystem 1.0, took place at a recovered mine and was expected to draw a crowd of over 20,000 fans of techno, house, trance and drum n' bass music to Brazil. One-third of the proceeds were donated to Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has described the eco-event as "environmentally correct," according to the article. Anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown sources reveal that rave accessories like pacifiers and those plastic, glow-in-the-dark necklace thingies were available in green only.

In keeping with the local flavor, the dances were held in two tents which were constructed of "legally logged timber" and resembled Amazonian Indian huts. And of course, only non-genetically modified foods were served.

So, it appears as though Greenpeace is looking to broaden its supporter base beyond the current collective of wind farm operators and college anthropology majors who work at EMS. Hmmm…I guess the eco-beings finally discovered that folk tunes don't cut it anymore when it comes to promoting causes. Instead, in order to further awareness of man's destruction of the once unspoiled earth, Greenpeace has hitched its message to perhaps the most unnatural, man-made and some would argue most sterile forms of music on the planet! Isn't it odd that technologically-modified foods are banned from this feel-good fest, but technologically-modified music is the main attraction?

The choice of musical entertainment, however, is nothin' compared to the existence of the event itself. I'd guarantee that this green groove fest would be considered exploitative and disrespectful if any corporation were to sponsor such an event. Naysayers would bemoan the fact that pristine areas en route to event facilities would be in danger of damage; they'd be condemning the sponsors for their ruthless profiteering and lack of considerations for the Amazonian people whose villages could be ravaged by careless, k-holed partiers passing through. Don't forget the mounds of trash that would ensue from the endless consumption of wasteful concert-goers (The litter of malaria warning pamphlets alone would be cause for concern). Were this eco-friendly function to be sponsored by a Phillip Morris or a Shell Oil, even if all the proceeds were to be used to benefit the rainforest, it would be ripe for some Mother Jones expose or Ralph Nader tirade. Man, it's amazing what the thin veneer of non-profit politically correctness and earth-first idealism can afford organizations like Greenpeace. Simply serve up a few tofu wieners and some soy soda in a hut, and everything's hunky dory.

Chances are, Greenpeace and its loyal supporters finally got to see their dreams come true through the rainforest rave. That's right: with all of that lovey-dovey ecstasy floatin' about the forest, there was bound to be some actual tree-hugging goin' on.

Bucking the Broncos Brand
-- OR --
Petty Letter from the Editor
These days, a lot of us find ourselves longing for a time when the media did less news creating and more news reporting. So, a recent announcement made by The Denver Post which was prompted by the actions and opinions of the mile high citizenry may come as a welcome surprise. The irony is that The Post's announcement has spurred quite a bit of news coverage itself.

Amidst much controversy, Denver's Metropolitan Football Stadium District agreed to sell a local mutual funds firm, Invesco Funds Group, the naming rights to the newly built Broncos football stadium back in January. According to an 8/8 Denver Post piece, Invesco plunked down $60 million for the privilege of stamping its name on the stadium; in turn, this has reduced the amount of taxpayer monies appropriated for stadium construction. The thing is, a lot of those taxpayers refuse to call the stadium anything but the traditional "Mile High Stadium." And now, The Denver Post has jumped on the anti-brand bandwagon by stating that its naming convention for the stadium will be the classic "Mile High" as opposed to the official "Invesco Field at Mile High."

In an amazing journalistic feat, The Denver Post was able to get a quote for the story from the elusive editor of The Denver Post himself, Glenn Guzzo: "The community at large thinks of this as 'Mile High,' 'new Mile High' or 'the new stadium,' " comments Guzzo. "Outside of official circles seldom do you hear Invesco Field, except in negative terms." Unnamed Lowbrow Lowdown sources reveal that the same goes for The Guzz in official Denver Post Editorial Staff circles.

Invesco reps would like accuracy in reporting rather than popular sentiment to be The Post's deciding factor in the matter. Also featured in the article, chairman of the stadium district, Ray Baker wonders why the paper would change its policy for this venue, but not for Coors Field or Pepsi Center. Hey, the answer is obvious: when's the last time you got a free case of Invesco as a kickback?

On the outset, The Denver Post's decision may appear to be a harmless, yet symbolic response to Invesco's marketing efforts and the more general corporate branding of America. Upon further contemplation, it's much more than that. Surely, when Invesco paid for the stadium naming rights, its marketing department counted on its company name not only gracing the stadium itself, but getting mentions in newspaper, radio and television coverage. If The Denver Post were to set a precedent, influencing other local media to neglect the Invesco name, the value of the corporation's media buy would dwindle significantly.

Should the opinions of a paper's readership and editors supersede journalistic integrity? Let's suppose The Denver Post, or other local media outlets refuse to use the proper names given to other establishments. For instance, consider a beloved family-owned and operated ice cream parlor in town. Suppose this fictitious joint has been known as "Keller's" for the past 85 years, but it's recently been bought out by the brand name chain, Dairy Queen. Most likely, stubborn sentimentalists will insist on calling the new Dairy Queen "Keller's" or "The Old Keller's" or some such title. However, if a robbery occurs there and The Denver Post reports on it, chances are the editors would balk at the lowly staff writer who wants to call it "Keller's."

Or, take a report about an imaginary Denver all-girls high school. Sure, it may be officially called, "Mount Saint Margaret Academy," but suppose the general populous refers to it as "Mount Saint Mattress Academy." Should local newspaper and TV news affiliates follow suit by reporting on a recent softball game during which the hometown champs at Mount Saint Mattress caused an upset when Susie Wainright went all the way to 3rd base?

What it all comes down to is that, thankfully, loyal Broncos fans and longtime Denver residents have the individual freedom to call the stadium whatever they damn well please. Also, compensating individual residents to use the Invesco name is not exactly feasible (yet, anyway…). So, what I'm wondering is what has the Invesco marketing team learned from this fiasco? Next time, rather than sponsoring the stadium, they should go straight to the source of the payoff -- the media -- by advertising in the local newspapers and on local TV stations. After all, it's understood that kowtowing to advertiser wishes is practically guaranteed. Mile High what?

Check out more Lowbrow Lowdown coverage on The Mile High sponsorship.

J.C. Promiscuity
-- OR --
Back-To-Score Shopping
My mom sewed a lot of my clothes when I was I kid. One of my most vivid memories is of a dress she made for me when I was about eight or nine years old. It was made of a mustard yellow floral fabric. And of course, the early 80's fashion requirement of puffy sleeves and ruffles galore played prevalent roles in the dress design. What makes this dress so indelibly imprinted in my mind, though, is the fact that she made two identical dresses: one for herself and one for my Barbie doll (I'm serious -- my Barbie Doll!). As a teen, Mom had less ability to influence my wardrobe. Thinking back to my mid-teen hippy phase during which chosen ensembles regularly featured ponchos, dashikis, and fringed moccasins, I may have been better off if Mom had a bit more control over my attire. Still, I don't think she ever could have convinced me to wear clothes from the ultra-lame J.C. Penney collection.

It seems as though that's just the attitude that the department store is trying to live down. The problem is, J.C. Penney Co. admits it may have gone a bit too far with its latest ad. So, it's been pulled.

According to an 8/15 Ad Week report, the nationwide spot promotes low-cut jeans and is aimed at the back-to-school shopper. A girl is seen trying on a pair of the revealing hip-hugger style jeans that are oh-so in vogue according to the fashionistas in J.C. Penney's buying department. Soon enough, the kid's mom pipes in with the inevitable cliche, "You're not going to school dressed like that, are you?"

Before the commercial viewer has the chance to groan empathetically, in a risqué twist, ad-mom tugs the jeans below the girl's waist, "to show how they should be worn." As noted in the story, "The commercial drew complaints to the retailer and on syndicated radio talk shows." Man, and I thought Chandra Levy and shark attacks were vapid talk show topics.

Seriously though, when the reactionary and prone-to-boycott residents of middle America get upset about something (and there's little doubt that the offended folks are among these ranks), it's in J.C. Penney's best interest to listen. Considering the store's family-oriented, mall-going clientele, I'm surprised that this ad ran nationwide, or at all for that matter. The rub is that in its effort to eschew its stuffy image, J.C. Penney could alienate its somewhat conservative core demographic. But hey, it's not like the store went too overboard with this ad. I mean, just think: it could have featured an interracial family, a gay couple, or worse yet, rap music. Yikes!