Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!

7.3.03
Patriotic Pig Out
-- OR --
Degradation of Independence
Around the world, the US has become a symbol of conspicuous consumption. So what better way to celebrate America's birthday than by sucking down plump, juicy wieners?

It's a Coney Island tradition. Champion gluttons from across the globe come together for the Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest sponsored by Nathan's Famous. There, they ingest mass quantities of Nathan's Famous hot dogs in the hopes of winning a title belt that most likely won't fit around their all-beef filled bellies.

This year, according to a 6/18 CBSNews.com AP story, Nathan's Famous has set aside a couple of seats for none other than William "The Refrigerator" Perry. He was awarded the omnivorous honor after gobbling 12 dogs in 12 minutes at a recent qualifying contest. This year, the 400+ pounder (about four times the weight of an actual fridge) will be competing against two-time defending featherweight champ, Takeru Kobayashi. Last year the twiggy Japanese trencherman beat the world record by noshing 50.5 tube steaks (lovingly nestled in buns) in the contest's 12 minute duration.

More grotesque a spectacle than Coney's sideshow freak, Bobby Reynolds' Two-headed Baby, this event is hailed as "a litmus test of patriotism for eaters of all nations" by the NYC-based International Federation of Competitive Eating (IFOCE). Adding to the patriotic rhetoric, Nathan's refers to its Miami Subs, Kenny Rogers Roasters, Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips and Nathan's Famous food brands as the "United Tastes of America," according to its website.

Somehow I'm failing to understand how eating could possibly be a patriotic duty or a test of allegiance. That is, unless we're talkin' a red, white and blue Uncle Sam JELL-O delight.

Bill Hicks had a joke about gluttony in America (which I fail to recall, of course). Later, Bill Maher provided his spin on the concept by marveling during the Thanksgiving season that America is the only place in the world where people stuff food inside of food.

Let's disregard the fact that just about every food culture in the world features food filled food, and focus on the point behind the hyperbole. The US has become a nation of overeating fat asses, consuming food (and just about anything else) for the sake of consuming. We snack in-between snacks and celebrate phrases like "pork fat rules," many of us unable to recall what having an empty stomach actually feels like.

The fall of the Roman Empire inevitably comes to mind. Even the IFOCE alludes to the vulgar conduct that contributed to the fall of Rome. The group's euphemism for the body's natural reaction to overloading the gut, regurgitation: "a roman-method incident." (Don't ask what the hot dog eating contest's Greek-method is.)

Personally, I'm not so sure I believe the hype about the rest of the world hating us as a result of this hedonistic behavior; in fact, competitive eating is more revered in Japan than it is here. Still, I think events such as the Nathan's Famous bun pup munch represent a misguided embrace of the negative things our freedom and country's wealth afford us.

If the liberty we're commemorating on Independence Day is the liberty to consume, count me out of the festivities. Well, I guess you can count me out anyway since I'll be passed out from binge drinking.



Potent Quotables
-- OR --
Why Buy the Ad When You Can
Get the Publicity for Free?
Large corporations may like to think of their ad campaigns as innovative or edgy; but the truth is these companies are ridiculously prudent when it comes to how and where they drop their ad dollars. They want to make a tsunami sized splash while rocking as few boats as possible. Translation: avoid controversy at all costs.

Take McDonald's. When its new McGriddles sandwich became a dominant subject last week on Howard Stern's morning radio show, you can bet the burgermeister's marketing department was hanging on every word muttered by the King of All Controversy.

Here's the set up: writer and resident junk-food-addict, Artie Lange, was eating his first of many McGriddles one day after the show. Howard took notice and mentioned it on the air the next morning, 6/24. In no time, Howard shifted to underdog mode, ranting about the fact that McDonald's won't advertise during his show.

"I'm no fan of McDonald's because they've always treated me like a scumbag douche-head my entire career," he commented with typical eloquence. "They didn't wanna advertise on my show because I'm bad….They spend a lot of money on advertising and they don't even care if their advertising works."

Yikes! The big red phone at McDonaldland must have been ringing off the hook by then. But it was just the beginning.

Despite his hostility towards McDonald's media buying decisions, Howard couldn't resist. He had to hear more about the McGriddles. "It looked great," he admitted as Artie vividly described the breakfast mess (eggs, cheese and sausage or bacon sandwiched between two maple syrup-injected pancakes). "Oh! I wanted to bite into that," he confessed. Howard's sidekick, Robin, chimed in, "It looked awful." Later, Howard proclaimed he "would love to be the McGriddles spokesperson" and launched into a hilarious impromptu radio spot for the sinful sammy. (Download the fake spot in MP3 format here. You may need to right click and save the file before playing it.)

Soon, the usual show banter ensued: strippers, monkey-spanking and Robin's "Magic Wand" vibrator were all frankly discussed. But, there was more McGriddles talk to come. A show intern expressed an interest in meeting Howard's guest, action film regular and California gubernatorial wannabe, Arnold Schwarzenegger. So, in accordance with unsaid show protocol, Howard and cohorts conjured up demeaning acts to be performed by the fan boy in exchange for an introduction to the sinewy star. Howard's suggestion: "Would you eat a McGriddle from Artie's butt?"

Believe it or not, despite the utter disrespect displayed by the Stern crew for McDonald's and its newest artery clogger, two shopping bags loaded with McGriddles and Mc Hash Browns were delivered to the show's studio the next morning.

"How dare they!" exclaimed Robin, adding that McDonald's "really oughta buy advertising." Howard and Artie went on to ensure the company that they weren't falling for the obvious publicity ploy. "Yeah. This is the last mention," said Howard sternly, as McGriddles goo trickled down his chin.

Howard's verdict? "This son of a bitch is fantastic! I tell ya, it's kinda weird," added Howard in regards to the pancake's syrupy squirt, "that sandwich kinda feels like it finished in my mouth."

Hmmm… Perhaps the next time Howard's wondering why an overly cautious, family-friendly company like McDonald's won't advertise during his show, he ought to give it a listen.



Will Sit for Food
-- OR --
Ads Schmads
I grew up Catholic, so I'm no stranger to guilt. Guilt is a wicked thing. It'll stake its claim on a cozy cranny in your gut, curl up and fester there for as long as you let it, sometimes longer. It'll dupe you into doing things that, without the presence of its bleak, lingering shadow, you may never do.

Andre Jehan, owner and founder of 26-restaurant chain, Pizza Schmizza, knows guilt. He felt its pang whenever he passed someone begging for change on the streets of Seattle. So, when he decided to purge his conscience of the dreaded menace, there was only one thing to do: advertise!

As featured in a 6/15 Seattle Times story, the pie making outfit has begun enlisting the city's homeless to hold signs that read, "Pizza Schmizza paid me to hold this sign instead of asking for money." "They are paid in pizza, soda and a few dollars," notes the report.

The article centers on 20-year-old, self-described "career panhandler," Peter Schoeff's experience with the gig. As quoted in the piece, Schoeff calls it "a fair trade." And Jehan seems to be rid of his guilt as a result of his new marketing tactic. In fact, he's "proud to see Pizza Schmizza's name associated with helping the homeless," according to the article.

The problem is there's a chance this could affect the restaurant's brand perception negatively. Sure, people may appreciate Pizza Schmizza's efforts to curb panhandling, but, does it really make a good impression to have some grimy Crass fan representing the brand?

Some have already spoken out against the campaign. Gary Ruskin, director of Ralph Nader-founded ad watchdog organization, Commercial Alert, is concerned that the ad carriers aren't being paid enough dough. "If they don't get minimum wage, this is exploitation," claims Ruskin in the story.

My knee-jerk, anti-regulation reaction was that the sign holders have every right to accept whatever compensation they think is appropriate. Think of it as a gentlemen's agreement. Schoeff decided on his own volition to hold a sign in exchange for a slice and a few bucks. Hey, even he called it "a fair trade."

However, upon further contemplation, I came to agree with Ruskin that, at the least, the pie proprietor should pay the homeless hucksters the same amount he would any other employee performing a service for him. In fact, I'm surprised that the city hasn't fined the company and forced Jehan to abide by the most basic of labor laws. Who knows? Maybe after factoring in the price of the food, it turns out the pizza board bearers did receive minimum wage.

Ruskin also bemoans advertising in general as an "assault on our attention." Although I concur that we're exposed to far too many forms of advertising far too often, I'd be willing to bet that there are more than a few Seattleites who are as offended by the bombardment of homeless-by-design gutter punks who consider begging a job description as they are by too many ads.

Ruskin's assessment is a clear cut case of not seeing the forest for the trees (or…uh…the cheese). The irony is that every day people wear what are essentially ad placards on their bodies in the form of logo-laden garb. If the Nader raiders were serious, they'd demand that Old Navy and Sean Jean pay minimum wage to the folks who don their ad-ridden signs.


Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!


The Lowbrow Lowdown is available for syndication.

Disclaimer
The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ is a registered trademark. Any use of The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ name or content without consent of Kate Kaye is strictly prohibited.

While best efforts were used in collecting and preparing the information contained herein, The Lowbrow Lowdown™ does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident or other causes.