Sinister looking silver-toned flying objects artificially illuminate the night sky. As a vehicle moves along a lonely winding highway, it is beamed up towards them. An unruly wolf-like canine angrily unleashes his pearly chompers to the camera, and an alien figurine clutches a plastic rendition of planet earth. What do these oddities have in common? Are they outtakes from the new  Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure DVD? Maybe they’re German film dream sequence shots? Nope, they’re just a few of an array of video clips and still images that crafty marketing novices have at their disposal when developing contest submissions for the winning Lexus 2001 IS300 ad. Take a look at the  Ad Age story.

Agency aspirants can cruise to Lexus’ "Radical Contest Edit Bay" and, through the use of Macromedia shockwave, they can drag and drop their favorite shots from the compendium of obscure options available. Don’t forget the music! Since all the good Kinks, Who and Bowie songs are taken, Lexus fans are stuck with diluted musical choices like ‘wailing guitar,’ ‘underground punk,’ ‘lounge,’ and the arbitrarily categorized genres of ‘techno dj,’ ‘space dance,’ ‘hardcore techno’ and ‘techno trance.’

Folks who vote online for the ad that they think Lexus will run are urged to consider the creative brief, which notes that the ads will target financially successful 25-44 year-old men. Yet, there’s not one Limp Bizkit or Rage Against the Machine tune featured! Come to think of it, there are no pictures of scantily-clad, bulimic-looking models or extreme sports-related scenes available either. Duh!

Included in the tips on creating the winning ad: “Your target has too much on their minds to figure out a complicated mix of ideas. This goes double for the people who will be judging your entry.” Clear away that transparent, euphemistic veneer, and you’ll discover the true meaning here: The audience is a little dopey, so please, don’t challenge them too much, otherwise they may feel offended. And by the way, “the real creative professionals” at Lexus’ agency, Team One, simply can’t be bothered with actual creation of the commercial, so they thought they’d entice you to do it for them by offering you a new car and a chance to see your very own commercial creative (uh, sort of) on national television. In the meantime, they’ve subversively managed to instill the qualities of the Lexus brand in your mind by engaging you in an extended, interactive experience that enables an illusion of fun, creativity and individuality.

Hmmm...these Team One guys could be onto something.

Phish Food’s Finest Get Booed
Could B&J’s Social Responsibility Go the Way of Garcia?
Not since Wavy Gravy began hawking silk neckties at Macy’s has a ruckus like this one ensued. As featured in the April 24th edition of  PR Week, chunky monkey-lovers and chubby hubbies, upset over Ben & Jerry’s recent $326 million sell-out to insatiable international firm, Unilever, have driven the Vermont- based venture to let the damage-control fudge flow. “Consumers, activists, and even legislators…feared that B&J’s sense of social responsibility would quickly be smothered by a bottom-line corporate attitude,” writes PR Week’s Rebecca Flass. So, the ice-cream-corp. has responded by releasing a statement of good intent, no doubt accompanied by a good dose of patchouli for emphasis.

Despite the fact that protests seem in vogue these days, especially among the stereotypical Ben & Jerry’s-consuming crowd, these events symbolize an amazing accomplishment on the part of the company’s brand marketers. Consider this: the majority of B&J buyers are not aware of the firm’s inner-workings, yet they are completely convinced that until recently, the company has engaged in no underhanded business dealings whatsoever. This is a feat that few advertisers or PR agents would dream of achieving.

Stressed B&J’s PR manager, Chrystie Heimert, “We think [Unilever’s] board and senior management put together the most creative way to maintain our brand identity, our brand perspective and our core values.” Yah, well that’s all well and good, but if they don’t keep up with the high demand for their devil’s food sorbet, they’ve got real trouble on their hands as far as I’m concerned.

Not Near My Ad, Ya Don’t!
Could Advertisers Close the Shutter on Photojournalism?
Do advertisers really threaten the veracity of editorial content? Well, in the May 7th edition of NPR’s On the Media, host Brian Lehrer explores the topic to reveal the fading line between editorial integrity and advertiser bootlicking.

As featured on the show, Boston Herald Consumer Columnist, Robin Washington was demoted, and subsequently suspended indefinitely. “For what?” you ask. The reporter wrote and proposed stories exposing fee increases resulting from the merger of Fleet Bank and Bank Boston. Among other groups, Herald staff cried, “censorship!” The Herald calls those claims “ridiculous.” Who knows? They could be, but they serve to highlight a potentially major problem for the press as things like “enhanced sponsor messages” on public radio and television become commonplace.

Potent Quotables: The Politics of Branding In not-so-related political branding news, last week, during his daily call-in show, “On the Line,” Brian Lehrer astutely commented, "I guess if your name is a brand, you might as well name your kid Jr." Those may be words for a certain pets.com spokes-puppet-dog-thing to ponder.

“Advertisers don’t want to be near blood,” bluntly states Daniel Okrent, previously managing editor at the moribund mag,  Life and now the editor-at-large at  Time, Inc. In conjunction with On the Media's discussion regarding the demise of photojournalism, Okrent examined  People's May 1st issue focusing on the 25th anniversary of the evacuation of American troops from Vietnam. Along with a glib exclamation of “Good Morning, Vietnam,” the issue featured a recipe for Vietnamese salad rolls and a hard-hitting report on the country’s top model, My Uyen. Yet, the advertiser-appeasing fluff didn’t stop there. The staff at People managed to escape advertisers’ dissatisfaction by appropriately placing paid and house ads near any “offensive” images or content.

A “happy” photo of a doctor and kids fit snugly with a 3M ad. But in the case of a world-renowned, not-so-happy photo, the format changed a bit. We’ve all seen it: a young girl bolts down a rural Vietnam road, screaming in terror. Apparently, the staff at People thought this image would juxtapose well with an ad for People’s 50 Most Beautiful People. Considering that, delusional though it may be, an inability to achieve the “essential” quality of outer beauty could induce a similar horrified reaction among many Americans today, that editorial choice just may have been warranted.

And They Thought the Li’l Pepsi Girl Was Annoying
Coke Gets Sued by Media Cohorts
What do Coca-Cola, Evander Holyfield and Cecil Fielder of the Detroit Tigers have in common? Well, as revealed by Constance Hays in the May 11th issue of  The NY Times, Coke has signed a five-year agreement to advertise on a black family-targeted network that’s funded by the sports figures, along with original Jackson 5 member, Marlon Jackson, and broadcaster, Alvin D. James. It sure sounds like standard stuff, especially considering the recent discrimination lawsuit brought against the soda-jerks by a group of its black employees. Call it a reactionary make-good effort.

Here’s where the plot’s syrup thickens: The MBC Network on which Coke plans to advertise just so happens to be owned by Willie D. Gary. And Mr. Gary just so happens to be representing four of the plaintiffs who have brought last month’s discrimination suit against Coke! Of course, initial reactions have conflict of interest written all over them. But, Coke claims that final negotiations took place before Gary revealed his involvement in the case.

Perhaps all that effervescence has gone to the Coke execs' heads: In essence, if they don’t pull out of the deal with MBC, the cola nuts will be financially supporting the lawsuit against themselves!