Read Sales Pitch Society

7.19.02
California Uber Coffee
-- OR --
The Other CAFE Standards
In the Dead Kennedys' classic, California Uber Alles, when Jello Biafra predicted that "Zen fascists" would control Californians, forcing them to "jog for the master race and always wear the happy face," it was a tongue-in-cheek comparison of California under the ultra-left wing policies of then-Governor Jerry Brown to Nazi Germany. But Jello's ode to "Governor Moonbeam" may have been more prescient than once thought.

Now it's California's bastion of do-goodism, Berkeley, that soon could begin enforcing political correctness. This time 'round the bad guys aren't the SUV drivers or the corrupt energy suppliers. Instead, it's the peddlers of their morning fuel who are the targets. According to a July 10 Yahoo News story, Berkeley "voters will decide on Nov. 5 whether to make their hometown the only U.S. city to regulate the origins of a cup of coffee."

Drafted by a 36-year-old lawyer and activist who'd rather not be "destroying the environment or exploiting workers" when drinking coffee, the measure would require that all coffee sold by the city's cafes and restaurants be brewed from beans grown in accordance with "fair trade" standards which aim to protect the environment and workers. And what if a restaurateur is caught selling non-PC java? He could face a $100 fine and six months in jail. Hey, maybe the incarcerated café owners will be lucky enough to be chosen to earn some extra dough as prison laborers packaging Starbucks coffee.

Owner of several cafés in Berkeley, Darryl Ross deems the proposal "fascist." Others, like the city's Mayor Shirley Dean think it's probably illegal, not to mention difficult to enforce.

Ironic enough, Starbucks, the arch nemesis of protestors demanding that farmers be paid fair prices for coffee beans, already appeals to bleeding heart brew lovers with what the article refers to as "coffee with a conscience." As featured on the Starbucks site, its "Fair Trade" coffee is "guaranteed a minimum price, allowing farmers a more sustainable way of life." The guilt-free aroma of wash-processed Arabica comes at a hefty price, though: $11.45 lb to be exact.

This sort of misguided legislation could fly in Berkeley, but hopefully it will stay there. The thought of it infiltrating other industries, particularly US-based ones is frightening. After all, who's to determine what constitutes as worker exploitation? As far as I'm concerned, waitresses at TGI Fridays who get reprimanded for not wearing enough "flair" on their uniforms are being exploited….

The truly egregious aspect of this proposal is the fact that it completely infringes upon the rights of business owners and consumers to sell and buy what they want (let's leave the prostitution and drugs discussion for another time). Simply because some activists have heightened sympathy for coffee farmers doesn't necessitate that all people should. Hey, I'm a vegetarian because I don't think it's necessary for some animal to be bred and killed so I can eat it, but I certainly don't expect others to share my beliefs or be forced to abide by them. What it comes down to is nobody's making anybody buy coffee in Berkeley.

Apparently, according to a February, 2002 Dallas Morning News story (and many other articles) posted on Global Exchange, a few years back when coffee prices were much higher, farmers in Latin America and Africa began expanding their production in the hopes of cashing in. Others in Asia, with assistance from international development agencies, also boosted production. Now that world supply has drastically outweighed demand, coffee bean prices have fallen. As a result, a lot of farmers are struggling and a lot of bean harvesters are out of work.

Wow. Imagine that -- coffee bean farmers are capitalists, too. Now, in an effort to boost prices, many are destroying crops or leaving beans un-harvested. Man, as if OPEC weren't bad enough, now we've got a coffee cartel on our hands. Plus, some former coffee bean growers have resorted to planting the always profitable crop, coca.

So, I guess there's only one solution: if these Berkeley hippies truly wish to show their solidarity with lowly third world farmers, they'll just have to smoke more crack.

Potent Quotables
-- OR --
Huckster Hypnotist
"Do you have anything original to say at all?" inquires the condescending agency exec of a director during a discussion of a to-be-shot TV spot.

"Original? No," states the director resolutely, "but I will make references to German expressionism…."

"So, you'll be our puppet?" quips the black-rim bespectacled creative director wryly.

"For the most part," responds the director, "just as long as you allow me the illusion of being in control instead of the hack failed filmmaker that I am."

This excerpt from the brutally poignant viral Web hit, Truth in Advertising sheds light on an advertising industry convention that has become commonplace enough to warrant parody: lots of commercial directors would rather be having their arses kissed in Hollywood than filming diaper ads on Madison Avenue. (Download and watch the gut-busting short film.)

Of course, not every creative type in the ad industry has lofty aspirations of winning an Oscar or Pulitzer. Some actually start off striving for a Cannes Lions award.

Take twenty-something Jonathan Swead. As featured in a 7/3 Wall Street Journal story on the wannabe creative director's unconventional job-hunting strategies (British Job-Hunters Resort to Guerrilla Tactics by Erin White), when asked why he'd "try so hard to enter an industry in the throes of recession," Swead was blunt. "It's the power you have over people to make them choose one thing or another," he replied confidently.

Considering the fact that most agency people would have said something about improving people's lives or creating entertainment with a purpose, if anything, Swead's honesty is refreshing. He's willing to embrace his megalomaniacal desires and spin them into a career. Hey, at least he's got ambition.

Factor in his mastery of the deluded attitude that seems to pervade the ad industry and he'll probably be quite successful. I mean, think about it: this kid believes that advertising dictates people's actions. Something tells me when Swead read Orwell's 1984, he thought Big Brother was the protagonist.

Surely ads can influence purchasing decisions and instill ideas about goods or services that may not have been in peoples' minds otherwise. However, to assume that some 15-second spot can "make" someone buy something is not only misinformed, it's blindly arrogant.

Then again, that might explain all those shipments of the Girls Gone Wild video I've been receiving in the mail lately.

Movie Stars Are All on Drugs
-- OR --
I'm not a Patient, but I Play One on TV
The terms "disclosure" and "transparency" have been tossed around quite a bit by the press these days. Questions like, "Who knew what and when did he know it?" and "Bush meant to say malfeasance, not malfeance, didn't he?" run rampant.

There's one inquiry, though, that appears to have been left unsaid by the selectively tenacious fourth estate, and that's "Are you being paid to say that?"

There's little doubt that the general public is less than informed when it comes to the ad world's influence on the news and information they get from the radio, TV, newspaper, magazines or the Internet. We ought to be able to count on the media themselves to know, right? Well, if they do, don't count on them to tell ya.

More than ever, especially when editorial could influence life-altering decisions, audiences should realize that believing none of what they hear and half of what they see still might be too much. A July 11 Salon.com piece
focusing on celebrity endorsements of pharmaceutical drugs and medical procedures sheds light on the fact that a healthy dose of skepticism may be the best medicine.

Nowadays, medical firms are promoting drugs and procedures not only through direct-to-consumer ads, but through direct-to-consumer celebrity appearances. The thing is, more often than not, the stars who make the rounds doing talk shows and magazine interviews don't divulge the fact that they're being paid to relate their remedy revelations. Of course, as if the public doesn't know enough about the vapid stars of stage and screen, they open up about everything else.

Olympia Dukakis promoted a drug for post-herpetic neuralgia while speaking about her mother's bout with the illness during an appearance on the Fox News channel. Kathleen Turner suggested that viewers visit a specific educational website about rheumatoid arthritis while discussing her experience with it on Good Morning, America. Both, it turns out, were paid by drug firms for the plugs according to the Salon article.

One of the most highly publicized celebrity medical experiences of late is Carnie Wilson's dramatic weight loss. Once known as "that fat chick from Wilson Phillips," she turned her wide load into a promotional vehicle. ABC's Good Morning, America and 20/20 viewers as well as People Magazine readers were subjected to repeat features on Wilson's stomach stapling surgery. I even heard her on Howard Stern's radio show a few times. It's too bad she couldn't have gotten her mouth wired shut instead.

As her tummy tightened, her wallet expanded. Evidently, as noted in the Salon story, Wilson "gets paid to do appearances where she talks about her surgery." Sponsors Tenet Healthcare, a hospital chain that performs gastric bypass surgeries; Vista Medical Technologies, maker of gastric bypass equipment; and Spotlight Health, a PR and marketing firm run by Wilson's former manager that "focuses almost entirely on celebrity-driven health awareness campaigns" have all contributed to her big bottom line. It's been worth it, too. Since her porky press tour began in 1999, gastric bypasses have grown in popularity and Vista has doubled its revenues. And if you want more proof of her affiliation with the industry and Spotlight Health, search Google on keywords "Carnie Wilson."

Despite the fact that people like Dukakis, Turner and Wilson are inadvertently promoting drugs and medical procedures, the FDA does not require that the major side-effects of those drugs and procedures be mentioned, as it does in traditional forms of advertising like TV and print ads. Ya know, I wouldn't mind that so much if they'd only warn us of the negative side-effects of their movies and music.

The situation is a murky one. Sure, the celebs are being paid to spill their guts about some seriously private stuff, but does that mean their stories aren't from the heart? Contrary to the typical celebrity product endorsement, these people have had personal experiences with the drugs and procedures they're promoting. Certainly, the human interest heartstring tug and celebrity validation make for happy pharmaceutical and medical companies. Still, I'm not so sure some stars wouldn't be blabbing about their medical situations whether or not they were paid.

Let's face it. Even when celebrities are endorsing some worthy cause, their main motive is to get press exposure for themselves. And almost always there's some secondary reason for their appearances, like the promotion of a movie, TV show or book. So, right off the bat audiences should realize that celebs aren't trading banal banter with the host du jour simply because they want to help us. They're there to sell themselves and most likely a few other things, too. Can you blame stars like Wilson and Turner for allowing pharmaceutical firms to help book appearances for them? Surely these two has-beens are thankful that any TV show will give them the time of day. The fact that a drug company is paying them is an added bonus.

There remains the question of disclosure. In this case, the onus is on the media outlets. In the Salon story, ABC spokeswoman Lisa Finkel, comments that "ABC never knew that both Turner and Wilson had corporate backers." That's dubious considering the fact that Spotlight Health probably played a major role in booking Wilson for the ABC shows.

It also makes me wonder just how far down this rabbit hole goes. In today's depressed ad market, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these TV shows and magazine articles that focus on particular medical conditions are developed as part of drug companies' ad buys. If shows like Good Morning, America and 20/20, which tout themselves as newsworthy, aren't providing audiences with counter-information and disclaimers regarding corporate influences, they may as well be running in-depth features on the new McDonald's Kids' Treat Menu.

Either way, we should all start praying that Richard Simmons doesn't hit the talk show circuit to tell the world of his struggle with penile dysfunction.