Drink Moxie

For a Goofed Cause

2011-02-19T10:02:00.007-05:00

It's not like us at Drink Moxie to simply jump on the bandwagon and comment on what everyone else is talking about in the world of advertising. But this one is just too interesting to pass up.

The Super Bowl has come and gone, and with it the year's most expensive and heavily-produced television commercials. It was the usual assortment of beers, cars, talking babies and "Go Daddies." But the real attention-getter was a rare series of television spots for the internet-based phenom Groupon. Here was the one that I saw.

There were three ads in the series. The one I didn't see, and can't find a clean web version of, links the subjugation of Tibet with Tibetan restaurants. The third, which I'm not sure ever aired except online, is this.

If you were paying attention, you already know the aftermath. After a very public apology, Groupon announced that they were pulling the campaign (which we learned was by that perennial envelope-pushing ad shop, Crispin Porter + Bogusky). Also, while the apparent intent of the ad was to poke fun at social cause-based advertising, there was also a philanthropic component to the campaign one that was not featured in the TV commercials, but could be found online.

What does this fiasco tell us? Well, first, it reveals that while humor in advertising however tasteless is generally acceptable, satire can be pretty risky. Especially when there's some question about what is actually being satirized. Was this campaign making fun of social causes? The people who objected to it, and prompted the retraction, certainly seemed to think so.

When I first saw this, I read it a little differently, because it highlighted something that had been troubling me for some time. In the past several years, as we (and the people who sell us things) have discovered that today's young consumers have a particular appetite for social causes (climate change, deforestation, diseases in developing countries, and so forth mostly, things that are pretty distant from the American experience), virtually every large purveyor of consumer products has integrated a philanthropic or cause-based component to their advertising campaigns. The change has actually been fairly staggering. Corporate philanthropy is nothing new, to be sure, but can you think of a company in the 1990s that touted a social cause in its advertising campaign? Seriously, if you think of one, let us know. (Ben & Jerry's doesn't count.)

Probably the most prominent example of this is the RED campaign, which encompasses many of today's top brands, and ensures that a portion of the sales profits go toward "fighting AIDS in Africa" (actual contributions vary, but in many cases they are significant). The hook to this campaign is that it doesn't just provide financial support, it combines conspicuous consumption with social consciousness consumers can literally wear their cause on their clothes. Wearing a Gap RED t-shirt shows that you are socially conscious in the same way that wearing a t-shirt with a large Calvin Klein logo showed that you were fashion-conscious in the '90s.

Another example, one more directly associated with Super Bowl advertising, is the Pepsi Refresh campaign. You can find more detail about this at the link, but basically in 2010 Pepsi decided (very publicly) that it would forgo buying Super Bowl ad time and, instead, give out the money in grants to social causes. Also, in a unique combination of marketing, social consciousness, and social media, the grants would be given competitively to proposals from the general public based on an online voting system. They're doing it again this year, although those of you paying attention might have noticed that there were a number of Super Bowl spots for Pepsi Max, along with various other PepsiCo products (Doritos, for instance).

You could look at these campaigns, and the messages they send, in different ways. In one sense, they show that social consciousness is an important part of popular culture and is therefore an appropriate element of consumer culture. It shows that it's good for consumers and companies alike to think about the well-being of the global community when making their purchasing choices. And by fitting into the competitive landscape of marketing, it encourages other companies to do the same thing. Overall, benign.

But to look at it in a slightly different way, it sends a message that social consciousness is good, but only as long as it fits into the consumer structure that companies have worked so hard to build over many years. To pick on Pepsi (because it's easy), it might be great that they are giving money toward social causes, but what if the really important cause is to combat childhood obesity by getting kids to stop drinking Pepsi? An American Express RED card might be a great thing, but what if the better thing for the world would be for us to save more of our money and charge less to our credit cards, thus leaving us with more money that we could give to charity?

As much as we might care about the importance of advertising in our culture, I think that we've learned over many years of ads for cigarettes, sodas, and SUVs that we have to be careful when advertisers try to tell us what's good for us. So we should be appropriately skeptical when they start telling us what's good for the world.

Which brings us back to the Groupon ads. Were they being offensive by trivializing what many view to be important social causes? Or were they being refreshingly honest by saying, "Look, we know that these causes are important, but they really don't have anything to do with our business." And was the backlash because people really thought the commercials were harmful to the causes, or was it because they weren't toeing the line established by today's big businesses when it comes to "serious" socially conscious advertising? (Even though they were, albeit in a less conspicuous and more subversive way.)

If it's the latter, then it's worth pondering whether this social consciousness is really part of a new corporate culture, or if it's a fad that will fade away when young consumers get over their "do-gooder phase." If so, then maybe this ad wasn't too offensive, it was just too soon.

Good (Black) Friday

2010-11-25T22:55:00.012-05:00

It's Thanksgiving vacation for Drink Moxie, which means that I'm visiting the folks at home, and as always tends to be the case when I'm here, I've spent a lot of time watching sports, parades, and other mainstream TV. This, along with the fact that my family (like most of America) lives in the land of big boxes and malls, means that I spent the past few days viewing countless ads for Black Friday doorbuster sales. Now that I'm stuffed with turkey and pie and ought to be going to bed, I decided instead to get on YouTube and find some of my favorites so that I could share them with you. Consider it my Thanksgiving gift. You're welcome.

For some brief background, Thanksgiving is the holiday when we remind ourselves that our European predecessors almost didn't make it when they tried to settle here in America, but that with some faith in Divine Providence and some help from the locals (which was not exactly repaid in kind), they persevered. So we gather with loved ones to feast on native foods like turkey, cranberries, pumpkin, and French's onion-crusted green bean casserole, things without which our predecessors would not have survived in the New World.

Now, of course, we take food for granted. But there is still one thing that we need and without which we would not survive as a nation – shopping. Therefore, Thanksgiving is the official beginning of a month-long period when we honor our American religion and worship unbridled consumerism. It's not unlike the month of Ramadan, except with fasting and prayer replaced by fervent purchasing of the latest and greatest products. This probably sounds cynical and sarcastic, but I assure you it isn't. Americans take gift-buying and gift-giving very seriously, and they should. Generosity is part of our nature, and consumerism is the cornerstone of our economy, and the holiday season is the perfect marriage of both.

But just like any religion, there are some people who take it a bit too far. This brings us to the Black Friday Doorbuster.

Our first and most subtle advertising offering comes from Sears. But what do you expect from a store that doesn't open until 7am?

There doesn't seem to be much to it, but it gives a sense of the conventional message for the holiday season: Buying gifts is your duty, and in order to be a good person, you must be the best gift-giver that you can be. The term "Power Santa" is particularly evocative (in more ways than one, I guess), conjuring images of Stallone or Schwarzenegger hauling around a sack full of goodies.

On the heroic gift-giver theme, Radio Shack ups the ante (as well as the opening time).

Doesn't that motivate you to get up for a 5:30am opening? Me either. But I am starting to feel a little inadequate that I'm not getting the best deals on the best products for the people who are important to me. If I were inclined to wait all night in line for a 5:30am sale, this spot would probably make me feel like I was being noble, and not insane.

And that brings us to Target's doorbuster ads. There have been a bunch in this series, I think I like this one the best. Damn, can she run fast in high heels!

This gives a bit of a different take. While there are many who believe strongly in the holiday sale, there are others who believe that such people are nutty as a Christmas fruitcake. (I probably don't need to remind anyone that people have died, literally, as a result of doorbusters.) As is typical of brands (not to mention entertainers and advertisers) who cater to consumers with a well-honed sense of irony, Target has no trouble poking fun at early-bird sale enthusiasts while plugging their own 4am doorbuster.

Finally, let's see the approach Walmart (which has recently rejuvenated its brand by going lowercase and removing the star between WAL and MART) has taken. Since there isn't a Walmart in my area (yes, I live in one of those areas) I can say this was truly a surprise to me. Not so much is remarkable about the composition of the ad itself, but they make it very clear how they're running their sale.

I will restate this for emphasis. Walmart will be having their big doorbuster sale starting at 5am. But because simply waiting in line for the sale is a little pointless, they will allow you to shop while you are waiting for the sale to begin. So in this promotional tact, it's not about being a hero, or being (ironically, self-consciously) obsessive, it's about being so dedicated to the act of shopping that you will shop all night in preparation for an early-morning shopping spree. It's a veritable ultramarathon of shopping, something that requires such a fervent, single-minded determination that can only be understood by the faithful and respected, or feared, by the rest of us.

As someone who will not be doing any shopping today (except maybe at the airport duty-free, if I get stuck with a long layover) I'm not exactly sure what advertising approach would appeal most to me. So what would you rather be? A hero coming to the rescue of your friends and family with armloads of the latest electronics? A self-acknowledged fanatic unabashedly indulging your holiday-themed mania? Or a dedicated, serious shopper who isn't about the image, but about the purity of the holiday shopping experience?

Let me know, and let the season begin! (But be careful out there.)

The Manchurian Candidate

2010-10-31T11:26:00.006-04:00

As we did two years ago, we at Drink Moxie were hoping to do a little pre-Election Day special looking at political ads. Little did we know that this year would be something of an embarrassment of riches in that area (with emphasis on the word embarrassment) thanks to the recent SCOTUS decision to finally back the long-repressed free speech rights of corporations (keep reaching for that rainbow, Texaco), the creative constitution of non-profit political organizations, and the anger that we, as voters, have been told we should be expressing toward our government leaders.

But with so many ads out there, and so many creative new ways to tear down the opposition (along with many old, non-creative ones), where to start? There's already been so much commentary and analysis already, is there really anything else to say?

Then, just this morning, I was treated to this.

For some background, Citizens Against Government Waste is a non-profit organization billing itself as "America's #1 Taxpayer Watchdog." (Check out their web page at cagw.org "For every dollar donated, we save taxpayers $9,000." How can you argue with results like that?) Looking deeper you find that it's actually two non-profit organizations, a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) (lobbying) organization. According to its own financials, its funding comes about 60%/40% from individuals/corporations, and its spending is about 65% on "Public Outreach and Education," 12% on research, and a very trim 15% on fundraising and 8% on management. It was founded in 1984, and now purports to have over one million "members and supporters." It claims to be non-partisan, and has taken flack in the past for accepting contributions from big corporations and then lobbying the government on their behalf.

Let's first look at the obvious. This is probably the best produced political ad I've seen from a non-profit group. It came on during Meet the Press, where I'm normally used to seeing very slick, glossy commercials for big companies like ADM and GE, made to highlight that company's impressiveness, innovation, multiculturalism or compassion. It's an interesting class of commercial in that it's not selling anything, it's just a blatant attempt to raise the company's image in the eyes of the politicos that watch MTP. At first, I assumed this CAGW spot simply fell into the same category. Then I started to pay attention to what it was saying.

Now to the second, only slightly less obvious point. At least on a textual level, the ad is total nonsense. It portrays a Chinese classroom of the future, where a professor lectures about how the United States' embrace of higher taxes, deficit spending and government control have caused it to be overtaken by China. I assume most of our readers can see what's wrong with this picture so I'll run through it quickly. The United States, since the 70s, has prioritized keeping taxes low, investing less into public resources like education and community health, and weakening the government's ability to regulate private industry. China, on the other hand, has prioritized retaining strict government control over the economy and investing in the public resources needed to support rapid growth. The part about China owning most of our debt is more or less true, but has been the case since long before the "massive stimulus," and is the result of trying to keep taxes low while the price of government steadily increases (due to increasing costs of such things as employee health care, or fighting wars, or government waste, depending on your perspective).

As readers should know well by now, the text of the commercial is practically irrelevant. So what does the subtext say? A few things. First: "China is scary." The images of Mao (is he giving a Nazi salute on one of those banners?), the giant red flag at the end, all is meant to evoke the frightening conformity and totalitarianism that Cold War-raised Americans still fear instinctively. The laugh at the end is a bitter pill, reinforcing the idea that America's economic pain is nothing more than a joke to the foreigners halfway around the world who will reap the benefits.

Here we should take a moment to ask ourselves, is this commercial racist? People can disagree, but I'm not so sure. After all, the professor giving the talk, while somewhat menacing, doesn't sound too different than a successful American business leader giving a similar talk, and the students express the kind of hopeful attitude that we like to think our own students possess. While the overall setting is imposing, the characters themselves are not necessarily villainous. Maybe there is some hedging going on here, an attempt to appeal to the most xenophobic on the right while not alienating people who would be offended by an negative caricaturization of the Chinese. But could there be some jealousy at work here? Is the point that, come 2030, it should be our students sitting, silently focused, in a palatial lecture hall featuring the most modern technologies?

Now the other subtextual message: "Debt (caused by higher taxes and government spending) will cause the fall of the United States as a world power." It's a message heard often this campaign season (strangely, not heard so much during the George W. Bush administration, when both government and consumer debt ballooned to record levels), embraced by the Tea Party movement as a populist response to a seemingly out-of-touch government system that is probably corrupt, too.

The funny thing about this is that while it has gained traction as a populist message, the ad itself takes nothing like a populist tone. Where are the Ordinary Joes talking about how the economy is hurting their families and that the government had better stop wasting their tax dollars on things like health care and start doing something to help provide more jobs? Instead this makes a more nuanced argument, focusing not on the American perspective but on the overall macroeconomic picture and how it might change the global balance of power. As previously mentioned, the production value is much more corporate, less folksy, than one would expect of a political ad.

So what's it trying to do? Is the assumption that the MTP audience is more likely to be business leaders and intellectuals, people who are swayed by a more cerebral message? More importantly, is this a group that needs convincing? Most people in the "elites" have already made up their mind, whether they're business people who think that the government should stay out of the private sector, or social progressives who think that the government should play a stronger role in promoting equity and protecting citizens' rights to quality of life. Or is this somewhere in between, an opportunity to introduce populist Tea Partiers to the idea that there is a stronger, more academic argument behind the things that they believe in their gut to be true? If so, given that the right seems to have a strong anti-intellectual bent to it, will this work or will it backfire?

Also, will this have any impact at all on Tuesday's elections? Given that it's produced by a group opposed to financial waste, I would hate to think they spent all that money on production (assembling a futuristic lecture hall of Chinese-speaking actors can't be terribly cheap or easy) for not having any significant impact. But I'm not so sure. What do you think?

Whether you have an opinion on this or not, be sure to vote on the stuff that matters on Tuesday.

I Want to Thank the Academy

2010-08-24T19:42:00.017-04:00

Apologies once again, loyal readers. We intended this year to provide full coverage of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Award for Best Commercial. We find it particularly important to do so, given that the Best Commercial Emmy is probably the most pointless of all Emmys, and not particularly important in the world of advertising, either. Due to its irrelevance, it doesn't earn a whole lot of coverage.

While it seemed like a good idea to review the nominees in advance of the awards ceremony (August 29), we failed to realize that this prize is actually announced as part of the Creative Arts Awards, which are held a week in advance of the major awards. So we already know who the winner is. If you don't already know who won, then before you read on, consider yourself SPOILER ALERTED.

Two years ago, I explored the question of why they present an artistic award for commercials in the first place. So I won't bother with that for the time being; let's just get to the non-winners.

First up is the perennial nominee, Coca-Cola (they won the Emmy last year), and their spot entitled "Finals" (campaign by Wieden + Kennedy ad agency; spot produced by Rattling Stick). It's also one of the nominees I never actually saw on TV. But with such quality filmmaking, you wouldn't want to risk overexposure.

Coke is pretty well-known for putting out spots that are visually compelling and have nothing to do with the product, or even with establishing any specific brand image. This one seems to fit that mold, except for the subtle (and perhaps unintentional) message that the caffeine in Coke provides such a powerful stimulant that just a whiff can arouse even the most sleep-deprived collegian. (Or maybe they're implying that simply the sound of a Coke bottle opening provides the necessary stimulus, good news for all the college students who drink Coke from glass bottles at their desks.)

Next up is a commercial I saw many times and quite like, it's for Nike and titled "Human Chain" (Wieden + Kennedy, again, is the agency and the production group is called Smuggler).

I can't really think of much to say about this, just good classic advertising. It's for an athletic shoe/apparel company, featuring a variety of athletes, catchy music, compelling visuals (including a clever and well-executed filmmaking gimmick), and a subtext that's inspirational without being sappy or offensive. And I like it a lot. Probably would have been my vote, but the Academy felt otherwise.

This next one was also aired pretty often (after premiering at the Super Bowl), and is perhaps one of the most popular of the nominees, at least among friends of Drink Moxie. The title is "Game" (campaign courtesy of BBDO New York, spot produced by MJZ).

Probably the best use of star-power among the nominees (Betty White and Abe Vigoda are so popular with the kids these days – and I wish I meant that ironically). It's well-made and worth a few chuckles, but essentially a one-trick pony. If it weren't for White and Vigoda, and there were just some anonymous elderly actors in their place, would it be anything? Are the cameos alone worthy of the nod? Apparently they are, but not enough to take the statuette. (The follow-up to this spot, featuring Aretha Franklin and Liza Minelli, is arguably funnier.)

The next one is for Audi, and again it's one I never actually saw on TV. I continue to wonder why some of these ads are produced – at significant expense (see last week's Mad Men) – and so limited in their release. (To be fair, they may run on channels that we at Drink Moxie don't watch that often.) Maybe some agencies find that the quality of an ad does not necessarily translate to repeat watchability. It could also be that a good number of these are 60-second spots, which don't fit well into normal programming schedules. Anyway, this one's called "Green Car" (from agency Venables Bell & Partners, produced by Hungry Man).

Smart and funny, but is it too soon to be making light of the contemporary environmental movement? Especially when the sale of hybrid cars is so closely attached to wealthy people's sense of self-importance at doing something good for the world? (I mean, you could ride the bus, but a bus pass just doesn't make your yuppie friends jealous enough -- plus, have you seen the people on the bus?) But I digress.

This next one's called "Anthem" (the agency is TBWA\Chiat\Day New York, which takes the Emmy for Best Use of Backslashes; it was also produced by MJZ). If it weren't for the subtle disclaimer at the beginning, it wouldn't be apparent until the end what the ad is even for.

Interesting that it more resembles the Coke or Nike spots than the previous MJZ one (the Snickers spot), and has a similar set of characteristics to the "Human Chain": compelling visuals, catchy music, and a simple, subtle, yet inspiring message. But is there something a little "different" (to use their word) about applying such a wholesome, uplifting message to an alcoholic product? What is it trying to imply? Were all these people drunk while making these elaborate messages? I don't really get it, but maybe that's why (or because) I don't drink vodka.

So we've seen all the losers, and now here's the one that emerged from the pack. And there's really no surprise. Not only is it an elegantly-composed, smart, funny, and altogether enjoyable piece of filmmaking, it has achieved that rare distinction of transcending a simple piece of advertising (I know, I know, advertising is never "simple") to become a true pop culture phenomenon, possibly in the same league as "Tastes Great/Less Filling," "Where's the Beef," and, well, the Old Spice Song. It has made a household name of Isaiah Mustafa (formerly "known" for a few TV bit roles and his career playing American pro football in Europe) and has "gone viral" with a web series. So let's all thank Wieden + Kennedy and MJZ (both with other nominees; this was the winning combination) for adding "The Man Your Man Could Smell Like" to the list of contemporary cultural icons.

There's more to this particular ad than meets the eye, of course, and I promise there will be future analysis of the historical evolution of men's fragrance advertising (the ongoing effort that we refer to as the "Old Spice Project") as well as a feature about fear of effeminization as a marketing tool in men's products. But for the time being, let's be superficial.

What makes it so good, at least as far as the Academy is concerned? Is it the sharp writing? Is it the surprise of witnessing the hidden talent (or not-so-hidden, according to some of our female readers) of a heretofore unsung star? Is it the brilliant one-shot cinematography? The fact is, we just don't know what they're looking for when they select a "best commercial" for the Emmy.

Commercials, as an art form, suffer from the same stigma that television used to (and in some ways still does). Because they are made to have market appeal (hence the word "commercial"), their artistic value is assumed to be compromised. Sort-of an "original sin" of creative advertising. So when the Academy of Television Arts (emphasis added) and "Sciences" (irony added) decides to honor a commercial, is it doing so because it stands out as an artistic endeavor, independent of its effectiveness as a marketing tool? Judging by the other nominees – essentially, short films with some limited paid air time, and in many cases little to do with the product or the brand – you might think so. But does the selection of this particular spot show that there is some consideration of the marketing effectiveness of the campaign? Or is it more a recognition of the fact that in today's world of entertainment, TV has to break into the ethersphere of web culture to be recognized as something truly great? Or was it simply the best of the bunch based on its merit as a standalone piece of filmmaking? Or can anyone even tell the difference among all these different perspectives any more?

Here's hoping that next year, they award the Best Commercial Emmy as part of the major awards ceremony, where it belongs (or doesn't, but it would be fun to see it there anyway). In the meantime, enjoy the telecast on Sunday (7pm, NBC). Maybe they'll show a few good commercials in there.

Desecration Nation

2010-07-10T12:12:00.007-04:00

Yes I know, we here at Drink Moxie have got a little lazy lately, spending too much time on other (paying) pursuits and not enough time watching commercials on behalf of you, the people, and letting you know what they tell us about ourselves.

I wish I could promise that we'll be back with some regularity, but I'm afraid that would be disingenuous. However, we're back for the time being to perform an important public service. In honor of the recent 234th birthday of our nation, I decided it was time to institute an award for the company whose marketing has most desecrated our country. I was going to call it the Benedict Arnold Awards until I realized that name has been recently co-opted by a right-wing blogger (to discredit the Democratic Congressmen who supported health care reform). Some other famous desecrationists (Roseanne Barr) came to mind, but I think that given this is a media award, one name rises to the top. So I give you the first ever (to my knowledge) Larry Flynt Awards. (If you're too young, or haven't seen the movie, look it up.)

The idea for this award came from two commercials that I recently saw, that you have probably seen as well if, like me, you've been watching any or all of the sporting events saturating the airwaves recently. While it might seem obvious that patriotism sells products, especially around July 4, I found that there are rare examples of it being done in an egregious way. Of course there are political ads that go too far, and countless car dealership ads featuring Uncle Sam or Barack Obama impersonators, but when it comes to nationwide mainstream advertising, usually the patriotism is a bit more subdued. For the requisite historical perspective, here's a commercial I found for RC Cola from the 90s:

Heavy on the "Go USA!" but otherwise not very remarkable.

Also in the not-nominated category is this commercial, that was originally made a few years back but has been running recently:

That one may seem only tangentially related to the subject matter. However, I include it because this next one, our first actual nominee, seems to have been made in direct response. (Footnote: online news has taught me that the "Here we go" campaign, by a firm called Cannonball, has replaced the "Drinkability" campaign, previously discussed, by DDB Chicago, which apparently was not working terribly well. I wonder why?)

Funny that Sam Adams seems not to have been invited to this party.

Our second and final nominee is this one, by Wieden + Kennedy.

Considering our nominees, which one does a better job at desecrating America? It might seem obvious at first, but take a moment to consider the evidence. The second spot seems more intelligently and tastefully produced (ignoring the fact that it uses music clearly evocative of Ken Burns' The Civil War in a setting meant to represent the Revolutionary War). But is it really more tasteful, or more realistic? What it actually does is perpetuate the idea that the Revolutionary War was a heroic victory of freedom over tyranny, guided by the hand of a godlike military genius, and not a bloody conflict that saw the deaths of many young and poor Americans, British and Germans, in which George Washington was frequently outmatched and out-strategized, and which was resolved as much as a result of geopolitical tensions as military prowess. It also ignores that fact that many of the patriots fighting for "freedom" were actually fighting for their right to retain slaves, but I don't necessarily fault them for leaving that out.

The first commercial, on the other hand, portrays the politicians who founded our nation as a bunch of fun-loving guys who liked to drink beer, which, of course, they mostly were (though they were decidedly not drinking Bud Light). Also, the first commercial is clearly meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek, while the second has an air of seriousness about it, as if they are really trying to associate the long struggle for American independence with an industry that is now best known for bringing our nation's economy to its knees. The worst thing that the first commercial has against it is that it is atrociously un-funny, which is not to be ignored. The second is much more enjoyable to watch, if one doesn't take it seriously.

So I leave it for you to decide, readers: Who should take the Flyntie?

And while you're thinking about it, ponder this: Is it just a coincidence that we're seeing these two commercials at this point in our history? Will it lead to a trend of more "patriotic" commercials that are at the same time historically-themed but historically-ignorant? Is the New Tea Party, also regarded as suffering from historical schizophrenia, starting to have an influence on mainstream advertising?

As always, we'll have to keep watching the airwaves to find out ...

Buzz, Light Beer

2009-06-15T22:03:00.010-04:00

Happy summer, readers. We here at Drink Moxie are thrilled about the season because it's the perfect time to crack open a cold one. A cold Moxie, perhaps? Well yes, but occasionally something more potent is in order.

The Drink Moxie staff has a hard time saying no to a frosty brew, and Americans in general are no different. As I'm sure many of you know, despite the current tough economic times, beer sales are going strong. Not alcohol sales, mind you. Just beer. We don't seem to enjoy getting drunk on anything else.

Unfortunately, we tend to be a little out of touch with mainstream America when it comes to the type of beers we drink. We like the fancy stuff. Not talking about the so-called "superpremium" brands of Michelob and Rolling Rock mentioned in the above article. We're talking about imports, microbrews, Belgian-styles. Stuff that comes in a curvy glass with a stem. But in America, most people drink the big three. That would be Bud, Miller and Coors, right? Well, kind-of. Apparently here in the land of Big Cars, Big Houses, and Big People, we prefer the light variety of beers. It's probably the only "light" thing that we prefer. About half of beer sold in the US is light, and Bud Light, Miller Lite and Coors Light combined account for about 60% of light beer sales.

So what makes these three so popular with the American drunken public? It could have something to do with the advertising, but it's probably more about the quality of the product. Just kidding. Let's take a look at what their ad agencies are doing.

Miller Lite

We start with the first, the granddaddy of the mass-marketed light beers. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Miller Lite had it all. A best-selling product. A star-studded advertising campaign. A phonetic, easy-to-spell brand name. Not to mention one of the most brilliant and enduring taglines in advertising history: "Tastes Great, Less Filling" (thanks to McCann-Erickson). This was so ingrained into the popular culture that it took on a life of its own. One of my most vivid memories as a child is going down to the minor league ballpark and joining in as one half of the grandstand would shout "Tastes great!" and my responsibility was to join in the retort, "Less filling!" Aw, now I'm getting nostalgic. Let's take a look.

The campaign has changed many times over the years, but nothing as noteworthy has evolved, with the unfortunate exception of "Man Laws." They don't seem to be able to match the elegance and simplicity of the original. Just over the past two years, Miller has used Crispin Porter and Bogusky, replaced them with Bartle Bogle Hegarty, and replaced them in turn with DraftFCB out of Chicago. I'm not sure who's responsible for what's running now, but it seems like they're making a return to the "tastes great" approach (indeed, the commercial I just saw plays with the tagline, "Taste Greatness"). Moreover, since today's beer consumer is presumably more discerning, it's not sufficient just to say it tastes great. The audience seems to deserve a more elaborate explanation. Here's one approach.

Hm, I never thought about how "can taste" was affecting my beer, but now that I know, I'm glad the problem's been fixed. So our beer is no longer aluminum-contaminated, which is nice, but what about the beer itself? What makes it taste so, well, great? Here's a medley of more recent commercials, feel free to not watch all of them.

Ah, of course, it's the triple-hops brewing process. Hops, as beer connoisseurs know, is the fragrant plant that gives all beer its distinctive flavor. Odd that it took so long for brewers to figure out that if beer tastes good because of hops, then beer will taste great if you "hop" it three times. A cupcake tastes better with three layers of icing, doesn't it? Good thing the master brewers at Miller are on top of things.

Will this more sophisticated, dare I say intellectual approach put Miller Lite back on top of the light beer game? Where's the competition?

Coors Light

Now we look to the kid brother, which (as it is owned by the same company as Miller) is also managed by DraftFCB. Its ad history is less memorable to me, I vaguely remember times when Pete Coors explained where the water comes from and, of course, the embarrassing cultural phenomenon of "... and twins." What are they up to now?

This "cold-activated" idea seems to really have legs, since they recently introduced a cold-activated can as well. It's all part of Coors Light's guarantee that they have the coldest beer on the market, as they like to say, "Cold as the Rockies."

Now, people who are into "thinking" might wonder, doesn't the coldness of the beer really have nothing to do with the beer itself, but rather the medium within which the beer is stored? I'm no scientist, but I would have to imagine that if I put a Coors Light in the microwave and turned it on for three minutes, it would not be the "world's coldest beer." But oh, right, then the label wouldn't turn blue, and I would know not to drink it. Dodged a bullet there.

Perhaps I'm being glib, but as the linked article shows, the approach seems to be working as little Coors is starting to catch up to big brother Miller. It's as if the American consumer is saying, "screw taste, I just want my beer cold." That's all we ask for. Or is it? Could we possibly ask for less?

Bud Light

We now turn to the king, Bud Light, the top selling beer in America. Their campaign over the years has produced some funny stuff, up to and including its recent Emmy-winning "Swear Jar" spot. But overall it's been pretty generic, including the rather derivative and wordy slogan "Won't fill you up and never lets you down." The campaign they are currently running was started by RSCG out of Chicago, but was recently taken over by our friends at DDB. Let's take a gander.

If being generic is what has put Bud Light at the top, I don't see how this campaign could possibly fail. It takes the idea of "lowest common denominator" and somehow brings it a notch lower. Does it taste good? Nope. Is it cold? Well, not necessarily. But it's drinkable. They are literally telling us that we should drink it because it is technically possible to do so. There's really not much else to say.

So the choice is yours, readers. How do you like your light beer? Tasty? Cold? Or just drinkable? Because you can't have all three. Of course, these three brands are really just reinforcing what most of us know about light beer, which is that it's weak, and it will get you buzzed. The creative team's job is to take that message and re-brand it, which they've successfully been able to do, from "Tastes Great, Less Filling" to "Drinkability," because we Americans just can't seem to get enough of the stuff, even when we can't afford anything else.

And now, you can get it with the taste of lime! But that's a discussion for another time.

Fast Friends, Fast Food

2009-03-15T11:00:00.000-04:00

This is one of those rare times when we venture out of the world of television to look at what other methods are being employed by advertisers to teach us about their products, and about ourselves.

As our readers know, we here at Drink Moxie are always catching trends at the height of their popularity. Today, we talk about the recent promotion, only a few months old now, from the folks at Burger King by way of Crispin Porter & Bogusky, offering a free Whopper for deleting ten of your Facebook friends (as described in this New York Times article).

As Douglas Quenqua explains, the promotion was brought to a premature conclusion when it was determined that the promotion was in violation of Facebook's policies – specifically, the policy by which users can remove a "friend" without notifying the "friend" who is being unilaterally rejected. But the more interesting question is whether the well-meaning folks at BK/CP&B were breaching our social mores in some greater way, stretching the unwritten social contract between advertiser and advertisee a little too far for comfort.

There's always a level of risk when a brand implicitly touts itself as "the official brand of something," but it can certainly be an effective approach if done smartly. We showed in a previous post how Dunkin' Donuts has successfully, but a little ironically, branded itself as the official sponsor of such everyday annoyances as being late to work and walking across hot sand. The associations aren't necessarily positive, but they're things we can relate to. Some commercials have taken it even further, such as DirecTV, which gave a somewhat sardonic demonstration of how their product can be useful during a bank robbery. (It's a nice spot, featuring Dule Hill and Alan Tudyk – but we're not here to rate commercials). The spot doesn't rub people the wrong way, partly because most people have not been a hostage in a bank robbery and thus can see the humor in it. People who have been taken hostage in a bank robbery might not find the spot so amusing.

Can it go too far? Of course. You wouldn't want your brand to be something people associate with beating one's wife, destructive wildfires, or getting cancer – all things that many people have to cope with on a regular basis, but not anything that people would feel comfortable associating with a consumer product. Between being late for work and getting cancer, there is a gray area.

So where does deleting friends from Facebook fall? Clearly it's something that people sometimes have to do. Whether or not people enjoy doing it is a matter of taste and personality. Now, as far as advertising goes, we all know that the goal is to give the impression that a brand or a product will fit comfortably into the lifestyle they enjoy, or possibly the lifestyle they wish they had. Promotions, in that sense, are typically about rewarding people for something they might already enjoy doing, in other to get people to associate their product with that activity. Hardly ever is a promotion about getting consumers to do something they don't want to do in exchange for the reward. So the CP&B folks were presumably looking, with this promotion, to reach out to customers who already feel that they have too many Facebook friends and would maybe like to have fewer of them. How many people fit this demographic? And are those people now more likely to eat more Whoppers?

BK even takes it a step further as they imagine themselves as social do-gooders pushing back against the over-inundation of personal information sharing that has has been born of the Facebook era. As BK's vice president puts it in the article:

Do you really want to have all these people knowing what you’re up to and what you’re interested in? We wanted to be part of that conversation and part of that solution, and ‘Whopper Sacrifice’ was born.

It's not very unusual, in this day and age, for a company to associate itself with a social movement (note the RED campaign, which we may explore later). Obviously you have to pick your causes carefully. Climate change, AIDS, both are problems that people would love to be the solution to, and if it gets them a stylish cell phone or t-shirt, then you better believe people will get behind it. Fighting the erosion of personal privacy via social networking websites for a hamburger? Hmm. Since people themselves seem to be driving the trend (I suppose all social problems are people-driven, but in this case it seems more willingly people-driven than others), it may be hard to get people behind the cause. But maybe that's the whole point – it's more of an ironic statement than a real social mission, when you consider the dubiousness of the cause together with the triviality of the reward.

This irony might be lost on some people. Those who "get it" may laugh and gain a new appreciation for Burger King as being hip to modern trends and having a sophisticated sense of humor about them. Other people – that is, other Facebook users, who are presumably not completely unsavvy – may take it more seriously. I can imagine people being troubled by the moral quandary between maintaining a manageable level of privacy and considering the feelings of people who have some real emotional investment in a "friend" connection. I can also imagine that people who are grappling with this question may find it rather insulting for a brand to suggest that dangling a free hamburger would make the quandary easier to resolve. You could label these people as oversensitive, but the official action taken by Facebook suggests that it's not a trivial issue for many of its users.

For a brand, I suppose the alternative to getting mixed up in these social issues is to just show things that are either so innocent or so absurd that they stay clear of any moral gray areas, and do not cause the customer to question their own sense of social propriety. This seems to be the competition's approach.

Happy Lent, everyone!

The Professionals Respond Again

2009-03-10T23:18:00.003-04:00

There will be more of our stimulating analysis to come, but for now I'd like to direct your attention to the folks at the New York Times, who once again seem to be picking up on our latest posts. Or at least I'd like to think so. Enjoy.

Broadcast TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable

The Medium Is the Soup Commercial

What Are We Going to Do Tonight, Hulu?

2009-02-28T17:30:00.002-05:00

Well readers, it's finally happened. We went to a commercial website in order to view an advertisement for that same website, whose business it is to host videos, like the one below, supported by advertisements, like the one below. TV advertising has finally gone fractal.

This of course was shown during the Super Bowl, where it first caught our attention. On the face of it, it's a pretty good commercial. Designed to appeal to a sophisticated audience of web-savvy types, who will appreciate the ironic message that this product is a subversive attempt to exploit its own consumers, as well as the style of a TV star roughly approximating the character he plays on a show known to appeal to viewers with a sophisticated sense of humor (the show that gets the Emmys, while Two and a Half Men gets the audience).

But there are a couple issues here that give us pause. First of all, they are venturing into typically dangerous waters with the idea that they are advertising a product that will cause its users harm. It makes me think of Don Draper on Mad Men chastising his subordinates for suggesting that they could use the image of cigarettes as "toxic" as a subversive way to advertise the product. "Advertising is based on one thing: happiness," not making people feel self-conscious about the product they're using. Another Draperism that comes to mind is, "There has to be advertising for people don't have a sense of humor."

But are these things really a problem? Is anyone under the illusion that this commercial will grow the audience of people who don't already know about Hulu? Will it give potential new viewers an understanding or appreciation for the material Hulu offers? Or does it not matter, since the people who don't get the commercial won't be sophisticated enough to get into Hulu anyway? (Or possibly, because they aren't likely to have jobs that allow them to sit around and watch streaming video off the web all day?) I get the sense that this is one of those preaching-to-the-converted commercials meant to instill pride in those who already buy the product – angling for the "I use this product because the people who make it get me" effect. The follow-up to one of the above Draperisms is apropos: "It's a billboard on the side of a road that screams with reassurance that whatever you're doing is OK." In this case, the billboard says, "If you spend all your time on Hulu, you don't have to be self-conscious about being a brainless couch potato – because we've turned that whole idea into a big joke."

But there's another catch here. Because we're looking at a TV advertisement for something that, in some ways, intends to replace television as we know it. So why are they running this ad on TV at all?

Well, not so fast there. It's debatable whether Hulu is really the end of television. It could represent the end of simultaneous television as a medium, but it could also represent the resurgence of television as an art form. Our friend Randall Stross of the New York Times reminds us that while online news has been killing the newspaper business, sites like YouTube have only helped to make television stronger. In some very fundamental ways, there's little difference between the TV screen and the computer screen, and very soon they could be one and the same. He also points out that advertising for online video has still not caught up to television – although Mad Men reminds us of a time when, despite a large number of households watching television, TV advertising was still considered subordinate to newspapers, signs and billboards.

For now, we have to wait and see how pervasive the Hulu culture becomes, whether it will remain a niche audience of grad students and semi-professional bloggers, or if it will "take over the world" as it self-satirically promises to do. In the meantime we get to see more of our favorite stars of critically-acclaimed but ratings-averse shows promoting this off-beat campaign.

Enjoy, we shall.

Product Placement: The Next Generation

2009-02-21T09:45:00.003-05:00

Does anyone think it's becoming harder to distinguish content from advertising on TV? Ha! Those of you who read this regularly know that's a trick question – advertising is content, and vice versa. But still, new areas of convergence seem to be manifesting themselves in more interesting, more self-conscious ways.

Our friends at a subsidiary of the Sheinhardt Wig Company called NBC-Universal seem to be leading the way in advertising convergence, if not in ratings. At some point last year, NBC lunged into product placement with gusto, apparently deciding that if they couldn't do it subtly, they could do it satirically. A kind soul on YouTube has saved us the trouble of having to dig up a lot of examples by putting together this montage of 30 Rock making fun of selling out while selling out. (I'm pretty sure these aren't the only examples, and others are to be found throughout NBC's primetime lineup.)

Elsewhere in the building, the folks at Saturday Night Live have been doing some interesting experiments. I can just imagine the day that an exec (maybe Lorne Michaels, or maybe one of the mad men at the Arnell Group) mused "Commercial ads are about 30-60 seconds, and we have video sketches that are about 30-60 seconds ... hmm ..."

To provide some context for non-regular SNL viewers, here is one of the video sketches we've seen a lot of lately.

On the January 31 show, I was not surprised to see a "MacGruber" sketch appear, but I was a little surprised when it appeared during the first commercial break – preceded and followed by actual commercials. Not typically the way they package their sketches, but nothing to write home about. After I saw another one, I started to wonder if I was seeing a sketch at all ...

These ads ran again during the Super Bowl, confirming in fact that they could be called "ads" and not just "sketches with product placement". But can they be both?

For another example, some of you may have noticed the brilliant/tasteless (depending on your viewpoint) "Whopper Virgins" campaign hurled our way by Crispin Porter & Bogusky. Here's a taste.

In one of SNL's episodes late last year, we were treated to this "parody":

So what exactly did we just see here? Given the length of the segment, you'd have to think it was a sketch. But the Burger King name and logo are clearly prominent, as is the name "Whopper". I'll leave it to you to decide.

So now to the question we always ask: Why? What makes the folks at 30 Rockefeller so gung-ho about product placement? Were they desperate for more ad revenue? Are they trying out a new policy of "give us your ad money and we'll throw in the creative work for free"? If so, are the creative people on these shows relishing the opportunity to skewer the brands they are simultaneously hawking, or do they resent this abuse of their talents? And how do the brands, or their surrogate ad agencies, feel about being parodied? Do they get to have a say in how they are portrayed, or do they not care as long as the logo is in the shot?

I suppose an intellectual-type (like the kind who watch NBC shows) might find this very forward-thinking. In the age of Tivo, Hulu, and whatever the next TV-watching innovation will be called (perhaps Loza or Poho?) commercials are being marginalized as people demand, and obtain, the ability to get their entertainment more-or-less immediately without interruptions. Moreover, the sophisticated couch potato of the future is not flipping through channels, but browsing links and watching videos embedded in other pages. In that respect, I guess I'm playing right into their hands. In fact, not only have I been helping to advertise the products for free (I do that in every post), I've also been advertising for Hulu, the site that implicitly promises to take over TV as we know it, or at least some part of its audience, in the future. (More about Hulu in a future post.)

Is this really the future of TV? Is it really the future of advertising? Is NBC, which isn't making any money now, shrewdly making a downpayment on something that will pay dividends in the future, or are they selling out just to stay afloat? Are other studios and networks going to follow their lead? Remember that the main perpetrators here are shows that are produced and aired by the same company, an increasing rarity in the entertainment world. Will the integration of content and advertising lead to future integration of talent, production and distribution? Are we on our way back to NBC's Texaco Star Theater with Milton Berle?

I think that may be a stretch. But kudos to NBC for taking a step up, even if they happen to be standing on a downward-moving escalator.

20-Yard Recession

2009-02-05T21:41:00.009-05:00

Welcome to the first Drink Moxie of 2009 and the first of the Obama administration. It's a new world with new hopes and possibilities, or at least it was before we all realized that the money we thought we had didn't really exist. I apologize for the long lapse since the last posting, but apparently the recession has hit us at Drink Moxie as hard as it's hit everyone else. However, I can give you my personal assurance that as long as we keep buying products, and as long as our self-image is tied inexorably to how we feel about the products we buy, and as long as companies understand that and continue to both reflect and shape our culture through the use of advertising, we will be there.

Once again we begin our year by looking at the Super Bowl, that most American of advertising festivals. Every year I like to reflect a bit on what Super Bowl commercials mean, why the nation comes together at this particular time every year in celebration of our national brands. Yes, I'm aware that there is football involved, and that regardless of the tradition, it would still be an advertising extravaganza by virtue of the huge audience that is actually watching the game. But still. As an advertising opportunity, the timing just doesn't make sense. The Super Bowl comes a month after the holiday season, when no one is really buying anything. I was recently watching some stuff on DVR from back in December, 2008, and remarking at how quickly I had forgotten about the "Buy This! Now! Please?" attitude that characterized commercials around that time. Maybe that's why we at Drink Moxie weren't so interested in writing about commercials at the time ‒ they were just too overtly focused on selling products. Super Bowl commercials aren't trying to sell anything. They're doing what commercials ought to be doing, manipulating the perceptions of our lifestyles and defining our culture in such a way that their brands fit within it. There's something pure about it.

And that brings us back to the recession. If there were ever a time when commercials should have less to do with selling anything, now is that time. People are not buying, and they're not just not buying, they are afraid to want to buy for fear of looking greedy to all the other people who aren't buying. Buyers are not buying so much that the sellers are not selling, leading to the downward spiral we find ourselves in. And yet in light of this reality, our major brands took their responsibility seriously and mounted an advertising display in grand American bootstrap-oriented fashion. How did they do this? Perhaps taking a cue from our intrepid new President, they put their focus on conservation ‒ saving money while reducing our dependence on foreign brands. Indeed, they seemed to be abiding by the old "Three R's" of living green.

Reduce

You can't get much greener than Saatchi & Saatchi's offering for Miller High Life, part of its new campaign that self-consciously stresses the image of working-class sophistication that characterizes the "Champagne of Beers."

There was general agreement among the Drink Moxie personnel that this spot was the winner in the "doing less with more" category. Granted, it's not as if they just concentrated all their advertising effort into one second. They had run ads leading up to the Super Bowl explaining how they were going to run a one-second ad, ensuring that the novelty would not be lost on the viewing public, who might otherwise confuse it with a broadcasting mistake. Indeed, they did a nice job of weaving together the campaign's prior focus on establishing High Life as the low-brow high-brau with the economic realities that are facing the company and its customers alike (SAB Miller, I believe, is not doing all that bad). Moreover, as with most campaigns, it goes beyond the airwaves with a special website at www.1secondad.com where viewers can see alternate versions of the spot, making it possibly the first commercial-extension web page actually worth visiting.

But what really gave the spot its added value was the buzz. Its strategic placement right at the end of halftime ensured an entire half worth of discussing, "What happened to that one-second ad? Did we miss it?" In fact, we at Drink Moxie were busy talking about it when it unexpectedly aired, which meant that we had to rewind the DVR to watch it again, and a few more times just to get the full effect. Talk about leveraging existing resources to their maximum potential. If the new stimulus package can have the same multiplier effects as this commercial, we ought to be in pretty good shape.

Reuse

Of course if you can't come up with a good new money-saving idea, you can always just dust off some old material that worked for you before. That was Coke's approach.

So they played a little twist at the end, as a way of redirecting the focus onto Coke Zero, a product whose campaign (by Crispin Porter + Bogusky) centers around how it's pretty much exactly like classic Coke, except with no calories. I think this one explains itself. If it doesn't, you probably haven't seen this:

Recycle

Most advertisers, as tends to be the habit, fell back to the easiest but decidedly least "green" conservation approach of recycling old material into a new product. Bud Light (DDB Worldwide), SoBe (Arnell Group), E*TRADE (Grey New York) and many more all found new ways to repackage material from past campaigns. Doritos (Goodby Silverstein & Partners) went to the tried-and-true approach of injuring a gentleman with a strike to the crotch, a device so common there should be a word for it (groinecdoche?). I won't show them because they're not really worth showing. CareerBuilder.com (with Wieden + Kennedy) generated some more of its typical "how do you know it's time for a new job" material, nothing new but something that perhaps resonates a bit more with today's audience. The material seemed so ripe for recycling that Monster.com (which apparently does its own ad work, if you can call it that) used it too, resulting in a nice comedic effect but a further blurring of the difference between the two major competitors in the online job-search business.

Now, we here at Drink Moxie aren't the first to notice this year's trend towards recycled advertising, as seen in the New York Times' recap by Stuart Elliott. But Elliott seems to frame this in a disparaging way, perhaps implying that in this time of great need and despair, we the American people deserve more from our brands at a time like this. I see it differently. Popular advertising isn't just our bread and circus, a one-way stream of eye candy that entertains one part of our brain while the other parts are being brainwashed into spending money. Popular advertising is a dialogue that responds to how we see ourselves and our condition, and reassures us that the companies that make our lifestyles possible understand us. Advertisers need to show that they feel our pain, as better explained in Elliott's pre-Game analysis, and I think that's a good thing.

Plus, on the subject of feeling our pain, if the material we saw in Super Bowl commercials weren't so predictable and reassuring, how could we possibly have commercials like this a week later?

To be fair, there were some interesting new trends on display at Super Bowl XLIII, and surely we will be mining it for things to talk about in the coming weeks. So let's hang in there for another year. After all, with a little help and a cold Moxie, we made it through the Great Depression. Surely we'll make it through this one too.

Vote or Die

2008-11-03T21:24:00.005-05:00

Tomorrow is election day, and as we prepare for this year's historic election (Isn't it funny how events can be "historic" before they even occur?) we here at Drink Moxie would like to reflect on the Presidential campaign not by looking at this year's ads, but by going back to a classic ad. Actually, the classic ad, the one that started it all, that made us believe in the power of politics, the power of television, and that continues to remind us all what's at stake.

Many of you have probably seen this before. If you haven't, first of all shame on you, secondly, prepare to be enfranchised:

"Daisy," part of Johnson's 1964 campaign, was produced by DDB and its creation is credited to Tony Schwartz, an audio producer turned ad man who got his start working on baby powder commercials. (Thank you, Wikipedia.) He continued to work on a number of campaigns for other prominent Democratic candidates. He died earlier this year.

Despite being arguably the most famous political advertisement of all time, "Daisy" only aired once as a commercial. The public outrage that ensued ensured that the campaign would not run it again. But the number of times it was replayed on the news, other programs, or in private screenings (even before the YouTube era) is hard to estimate. Talk about your free advertising.

Also, despite the popular perception that this was the original "negative ad," it never even mentions the name of the opposing candidate, gives any kind of personal information about him, or even makes any specific comment about his character. (For the historically challenged, the 1964 Republican opponent was Barry Goldwater.) In his New York Times obituary, Schwartz is quoted as having said of the ad, "Frankly, I think it was the most positive commercial ever made." After all, the message simply boiled down to Lyndon Johnson encouraging people to get out and vote.

How far have we come in political advertising since 1964? Feel free to post your favorite ad from this election year or elections past (Presidential or otherwise - I am personally enamored of local races, and ballot initiatives are tops). But first, assuming you're a US Citizen and not a convicted felon (admittedly a category within which not all of my readers fall), be sure to vote.

The stakes are too high for you to stay home.

Sell-It-Yourself

2008-10-28T21:12:00.003-04:00

We apologize for overloading the readership with too many sessions at once, but this story was too interesting to ignore. Perhaps some of the younger readers who are more "interweb-savvy" are already familiar with the subject, which appears to be more significant than I had previously thought.

"Finding a Gold Mine in Digital Ditties," New York Times, October 27, 2008.

Is this evidence of democratization in advertising? Has the consumer become the salesman? Has the advertising become the product? Is this a revolution, or the way it's always been? If everyone's selling it, is anyone buying it? Go ahead and tie your brain into a knot with this one.

Mac Strikes Back

2008-10-27T16:21:00.004-04:00

As with everyone, we here at Drink Moxie have been a little preoccupied with the election lately. So for a diversion, let's check in on a more important campaign - the Apple vs. Microsoft ad wars.

We already explored how Microsoft (with DDB-Chicago) recaptured the public's attention with a short series of spots that have been described as enigmatic, absurdist, or ambiguously gay. They then moved into a campaign that was more conventional but also more explicitly in response to TWBA/Chiat/Day's "I'm a Mac" ads.

Overall, a nice job of responding without looking bitter or retaliatory. Also an interesting mixture of minor and major celebrities with everyday folk (I especially like having Deepak Chopra upstaged by the guy who "sells feesh"), and a noble attempt at capturing the growing "young and aware" demographic my giving it an international flavor.

So Microsoft takes the banner and stands up for the embattled PC. At this point it would just seem wrong for the Apple folks to take a cheap shot, wouldn't it?

Ouch. Talk about negative campaigning. Though it may be fair to say "Hey, wait a minute, your operating system still sucks," is it really proper to take on the advertising itself?

For that matter, I wonder if it's a good idea for any company to use its own multi-million dollar ad campaign to criticize a competing company's multi-million ad campaign. Will consumers smell the hypocrisy, and will it turn them off? Or is this really intended to work like a negative political ad, where a main objective (as I understand it) is to bolster the support of people who were already Mac-supporters to begin with and may be feeling a little less sure of themselves after the new Windows campaign? Now that Little Mac has achieved some success in battling the big, bad, anti-competitive juggernaut, has it started to cede some of the moral high ground? Or are we (as usual) reading too much into this?

One thing's for sure, it's great fun to have a good old-fashioned ad war to distract us from all the political campaigns, economic collapses, and, well, real wars that are bumming us out. Here's hoping they won't run out of money too soon.

Death of a Salesman

2008-10-08T22:54:00.004-04:00

Hi everyone. I just wanted to take a moment to report some news. Actually this is a week old, but it was just brought to my attention now and I think it's something we should reflect on.

House Peters Jr., 92, the Actor Who Gave Heft to Mr. Clean, Dies (New York Times)

How many bit-role character actors get this kind of attention at their passing? I can only hope that my obituary will have a line half as cool as, "... he is best remembered as Mr. Clean, a muscular man with a no-nonsense attitude toward dirt and grime."

He will be greatly missed.

And just for the heck of it, let's compare an old Mr. Clean commercial with a new one. Oddly, neither actually features House Peters, Jr. Provide your own analysis.

They Prefer Syrup

2008-10-02T23:00:00.002-04:00

It not like us here at Drink Moxie to talk about things just because everyone else is talking about them. With that in mind, let's talk about the thing that everyone's talking about.

Yes it's a commercial (part of a larger campaign, actually, courtesy of the Corn Refiners Association and DDB-Chicago) for the sugar that erudite America loves to hate, high fructose corn syrup. And yes, it has raised a few OMGs and perhaps a WTF or two in the interspheres. What I'm interested in is not why they would put out such a campaign, but why people would be so alarmed about it.

How different is this from what we're used to seeing? Certainly we all know "Got Milk" and "Pork: The Other White Meat" (both thanks to Bozell Worldwide), among the more notable food commodity campaigns. From a public image perspective, you could say that these two things had something going for them that the newer campaign doesn't - they are recognized as actual foods. High fructose corn syrup, to most people, is an ingredient. It doesn't come from a farm, it comes from a process involving enzymes and other chemicals (milk and pork are also processed, of course, but aren't thought of as such). This seems to be part of the point of the "SweetSurprise" campaign, with imagery that puts the "C" back in "HFCS" (see www.sweetsurprise.com, if you dare). This begs the question, though, how stellar is the image of corn at this point, that any product would want to be more closely associated with it?

The crux of this campaign is the health issue, but this is not necessarily unique, either. The "Other White Meat" campaign came in response to a growing public apprehension about the health impacts of red meat (we should note, however, that beef is still what's for dinner) and a few latent concerns about trichinosis. But the Pork Board had a more subtle approach, while the Corn Refiners are more aggressively combating the health concerns. In doing so, they've thrown a spotlight right on those concerns, which might be a bit risky. When Joe Public hears "fine in moderation" or reads on a website, "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted high fructose corn syrup 'Generally Recognized as Safe' status for use in food, and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review," it might be taken as less than reassuring.

Following my typical practice of comparing everything to Mad Men (I promise not to do this every time), this could be looked at through the lens of the pilot episode in which Sterling-Cooper is faced with the challenge of promoting Lucky Strike after the nation had awoken to the dangers of smoking. Don Draper's solution, of course, was not to fight the health concerns but to ignore them and focus on the image of the brand - to make smoking look cool, not healthy. Taking a look at this, I'd have to guess that DDB doesn't have a Don Draper:

Maybe the Presidential candidates will learn something from this. Does the strategy of complaining about misinformation and mistreatment by "the media" (or, more nebulously, by "what they say") really resonate with the buying public? Or does it just look like whining? Or even worse, might it backfire, making the Corn Refiners look like they're being a little too defensive, and that maybe there is something to these concerns about HFCS's role in obesity epidemics and diabetes?

If this were a political campaign, you might think that the people this campaign is really for are the people in the corn industry, who can take some pride in seeing these commercials and thinking that not everyone in America is against them. Considering the number of people who are involved, directly or indirectly, in the corn industry, maybe that's enough.

The Agony of Dried Meat

2008-09-21T16:30:00.001-04:00

In the season premiere of the very-soon-to-be-multiple-award-winning Mad Men, Don Draper tells Peggy Olson, "You, feeling something. That's what sells."

Which naturally leads us into this new session of Drink Moxie. A session that is all about pain.

We've seen that the themes found in commercials run a range as broad as our culture itself. The rules and limitations about where you can go are constantly in flux. But if there were any basic convention to commercials that you might think would remain universal, it would be that commercials should depict the consumer of a product having a pleasant, enjoyable experience. At the least, the consumer should not suffer extreme pain or serious injury. So we may have thought.

The shift away from products that promise a pleasant experience may have began in the 1990s, when a growing interest in "extreme sports" coincided with the mass-marketing appeal of such caffeine-and-sugar-loaded products as Mountain Dew and the shorter-lived Surge, which failed despite having a more notable ad campaign (hopefully I will get to explore that in a future post). A similar tact was taken for Slim Jims, for reasons I still don't entirely understand (more on that topic later).

However, while these ads associated their products with various outlandish and risk-prone activities, for the most part no one got hurt. (I spent some time looking for a past example where someone did get hurt, but was unsuccessful in finding one -- if you can come up with one, you get an A.)

In 2003, much of America was shocked and amused by the Arnell Group's campaign for Reebok featuring "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker". It was, at the time, a rare example of an ad campaign in which ordinary people get rather brutally beaten. However, in this case the product was really associated with the inflictor rather than the inflictee. To me, it didn't push too many boundaries, as it didn't really show anything too different from what viewers would see on the football telecasts during which these spots would inevitably run. But it was fun no doubt, so I would feel bad if I didn't share (this is the long version of the original spot, distributed online).

The campaign that caught my attention (among others') last year is Carmichael Lynch's "Messin' With Sasquatch" series for JackLinks Beef Jerky, a theretofore unknown product (at least to me) that seemed to be following the trend of branding beef jerky as an "extreme" product along the lines of Slim Jims. But in this case, the consumers of the product, and the "extreme" activities that implicitly result from using the product, have painful consequences.

Ultimately Mountain Dew got into the game as well, with commercials like this one, which uses the theme of product users taking part in risky activities with painful results, and also taps into the power of an accidental resurgence of a pop culture figure as a result of an internet meme -- a winning combination?

So we've seen an interesting step forward in the willingness for "extreme" brands to show users suffering some kind of pain (of course, they have not yet gone so far as to show the difficult recovery processes that would surely follow). But what about other products? What about chewing gum, which, as we have seen, is typically advertised as a gateway to carnal delights? Take a look at this offering from JWT (part of a series of spots, all in a similar vein).

Now we have something interesting. But how far will it go? Is it really possible that a well-established, mainstream financial brand would show a commercial in which the product user is shown having a less-than-pain-free experience? Take a look.

I will grant that this spot (part of McCann Erickson's by now very well established, very mainstream campaign) softens the violence a bit, implying that the product has resulted in these unfortunate accidents but has also mitigated their potential impacts. But there is clearly some pain there. More recently, McCann has been filling the airwaves with a MasterCard spot featuring "Mr. Bill", the disaster-prone clay figurine who was once so subversive that he could only be seen at 1:00am on Saturday nights.

What's bringing about this sudden willingness (perhaps even eagerness, depending on how the trend goes) for brands to show consumers experiencing pain as a result of using their product? Well I'm neither a sociologist nor a philosopher, but if I were, I might point to the culture at large and how the attitudes of the product-buying public may be changing. Could it be that today's American culture has become so divorced from conflict, danger, and hard times in general that the idea of being hurt is actually an appealing alternative to the security and boredom of everyday life? Have the products that our consumer culture has supported for so long made all our lives so easy that the only thing left to do is make those products seem more dangerous?

There certainly is evidence to support the case that our lives are too easy, and it's not too much of a stretch to hypothesize that this has resulted in some innate desire among individuals to make them more risky. But it might be a bigger stretch to think that advertisers would tie the success of their clients' products to this notion. Maybe this is just a new way to grab attention amidst all the media noise (which, if it were the case, would put all of us at Drink Moxie out of business). And as always, we're never entirely sure how the goals of product branders and the attitudes of consumers will change. But I, for one, find it refreshing that advertisers don't feel like they have to coddle us, and know we understand that the world isn't pain-free. I could also have mentioned the Volkswagen commercials by Porter Crispin + Bogusky ... well, I guess I will mention them.

This is perhaps the more enlightened side of the trend, showing users of a product suffering a traumatic incident in a way that is not funny and that has serious consequences. Of course, the real message of the commercial comes at the end, where the passangers walk away unharmed. It did attract attention for being so "real", and sparked some debate over what was appropriate to show in a TV spot. Funny that no one said the same thing about the JackLinks or Stride ads. Maybe they will once Sasquatch does something that the jerky-enthusiasts won't walk away from.

That's all for this time. Your homework is to watch the Emmys tonight. Go Mad Men!

Adjust Your Shorts

2008-09-08T23:06:00.003-04:00

Well, Drink Moxie is returning after an extended summer hiatus. As always we have some exciting projects in production. But first, let's take a quick look at what Microsoft and Crispin Porter + Bogusky (previously known for BK's "The King" and Miller's "Man Laws" series) have been trying to get away with when they thought we weren't paying attention.

Your first assignment for the semester: Is this something? Whether it is or it isn't, the blogowebsphere is certainly talking about it. Is it, as many seem to suggest, just a vain attempt at copying and countering TBWA/Chiat/Day's John Hodgman-Justin Long "Mac and PC" ads? Is it really responding to concerns that Microsoft isn't "cool" enough? Is it trying to distract us from all the bad press Vista has been getting? Or is it, as one bold columnist suggests, an allegorical gay sex romp? What's it trying to tell us about Microsoft, and what are we actually hearing? And don't forget the most important question in advertising -- what is it telling us about ourselves?

One thing that's for sure is they really want us to see this commercial. In fact, I'm watching it right now. In real time. The full 90-second spot. Will they ever edit it down to a more manageable size? That might be impossible, which would make this a unique achievement in itself.

Time to get to work, class.

ADDENDUM: My research advisor notes that the New York Times has been doing their homework on this, as well:

BUSINESS / MEDIA & ADVERTISING | September 18, 2008
Advertising: Echoing the Campaign of a Rival, Microsoft Aims to Redefine 'I'm a PC'
By STUART ELLIOTT
Microsoft's new advertising campaign is an audacious embrace of the disdainful label that Apple has gleefully affixed onto users of Microsoft products: "I'm a PC."

An Emmy for Your Thoughts

2008-07-18T17:57:00.010-04:00

Well, the smell of awards is in the air once again, as the nominees for the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards have been announced. So it seems wholly appropriate that while I watch the season one recap marathon of Mad Men (nominated for 16 Emmys, the most of any show this year and I am assuming the most ever for a basic cable show), I honor the subject by looking at this year's nominees for Outstanding Commercial.

But first, let me get to answering your question, "Wait, there's an Emmy for Outstanding Commercial?" Yes indeed. In fact, just about anything you can think of, there's an Emmy for it. Of the approximately 100-or-so categories, some of my favorites include "Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup For A Series, Miniseries, Movie Or A Special," "Outstanding Picture Editing Of Clip Packages For Talk, Performance, Award Or Reality Competition Programs," and "Outstanding Not-exclusively-made-for-television Variety, Music, Comedy Event Programs," for which there appears to be only one nominee.

According to their Awards Search Database, they have been giving the commercial Emmy regularly since 1997. However, it also mentions an award for "Best Commercial Campaign" given in 1957, to Ford, and an Emmy for "Best Commercial" in 1950 that went to, you guessed it, Lucky Strike. Last year's winner was the American Express commercial "Animals," the artsy little black-and-white piece featuring Ellen DeGeneres and a literal menagerie of office staffers. The previous year, the award was split between a Hallmark commercial in which an old man learns to read, and the FedEx commercial "Stick," which sort-of defies explanation if you haven't seen it.

Enough about that, let's get on to this year's nominees. The first is the Hallmark spot "Brother of the Bride," by Leo Burnett, which was also responsible for the previous Hallmark winner.

Mildly irreverent. Heart-touching. Boring. Moving on, we have the FedEx bit "Carrier Pigeons," by BBDO, which you might have guessed is also responsible for "Stick," as well as the 1997 winner, an ad for HBO featuring chimpanzees quoting famous movie lines. Enjoy.

The animal theme seems to persist among these, the crème de la crème of commercial spots. Next up is Travelers Insurance's ad inexplicably titled "Delivery," from the Fallon group out of Minneapolis, which had two previous wins in 2001 and 2003, both for PBS promos.

This might be considered the most cinematic of the nominees. Certainly they were going for something more than a joke. And yet I'm still not sure if I fully get the message - something about it seems incomplete. Also incomplete is the list of nominees thus far, so let's check out Coca-Cola's "It's Mine," brought to us by Wieden + Kennedy out of Portland, with two prior wins for Nike commercials in 2000 and 2002.

A nifty idea with a challenging and impressive execution, and even makes use of familiar animated characters as mascots ("spokestoons"?). Last and maybe or maybe not least, there is this Bud Light gem called "Swear Jar" by DDB's Chicago unit, which does not have a prior win (though their LA unit apparently won for an Ameriquest spot back in 2005). This one speaks for itself.

So a reviewer would typically pick apart a set of nominees and discuss what sets one or more of them apart, but Drink Moxie readers know that we prefer to consider what they all have in common. Well for one, these are all commercials that I don't recall seeing very often. I recall the FedEx and Coke commercials from the Super Bowl, and I think they showed shortened versions of them a few other times. The Travelers commercial I do remember seeing many times because they would show it during this year's tennis Grand Slam events. The Hallmark spot I don't remember ever seeing, and the Bud Light spot I don't think ever made it onto the air, though it did make a splash on the internet. I could be wrong about this, after all if it never aired, how is it nominated for a Primetime TV Emmy?

It makes some sense, after all these aren't ads for companies that really need to get their names out. These companies are more interested in maintaining their brand images than in getting customers. It's all right for them to spend big money on producing what is basically a (very) short film, and then even bigger money to put it in front of a big audience, just to give the audience a chuckle and to remind them that they are able and willing to spend that kind of money for a cheap laugh. It's more like a public service than an advertisement. Most people who see an ad like these would probably even admit to not paying attention to what the ad was for - but could not admit to never having heard of FedEx or Hallmark. If a company really wants to get its message out, telling them to "apply directly to the forehead" fifty times a day provides much more bang for the buck.

On the subject of creative content, with the previously mentioned exception of the Travelers commercial, these are all essentially structured as long riffs on a single gag. And like many good comedy bits, they take place within a familiar setting - the office (an increasingly popular setting for commercials), a wedding, a parade. The premise of each can be explained in a few words - and probably was, at a meeting with company executives around a boardroom table. From there, the spots are allowed to explore their own different hooks. The FedEx and Coke commercials rely on nifty special effects. Hallmark relies on a heartwarming ending. The Bud Light commercial relies on, well, profanity, but more importantly relies on the understanding that profanity in a commercial is exciting because it supposedly transgresses cultural norms. The humor here is really more in the bleeps than in the words themselves that are being censored.

But this is all academic, so let's get down to the real question of who will, or should, win. Unfortunately this question is also academic, because it all depends on what they are winning for. Are these being judged purely as mini film entertainment, with the understanding that the advertising message is entirely subconscious and should be treated as such? In that case, the Travelers commercial might be considered the one that sets itself apart the most, reaching the farthest artistically, and telling the more complete story. On the other hand, should the advertising message be taken into consideration? Should the winner actually be the one that does the best job of promoting the brand? In that case maybe the Travelers commercial is a little more questionable. Does a modern insurance company really want itself to be viewed as an old man with a giant umbrella? Does it really do a good job of promoting the brand - and if it does, then why did they choose to run it repeatedly during daytime sporting events instead of once at the Super Bowl? Maybe here the Hallmark commercial succeeds, by highlighting both the irreverent humor and the sappy emotion that have characterized the company for decades, using a relatively smart, sharply written narrative. Or maybe the Bud Light commercial, with its raunchy approach, does the best job of connecting the beer-drinking audience.

And while we're asking the academic questions, add this one: Does it really matter who wins this Emmy? Maybe it's something nice that these companies get to put on their mantle (still unclear to us at Drink Moxie whether the sponsor, the ad agency, or the production company gets the statuette). But is the prestige boost really worth anything, or is it simply bragging rights? Will the agency with the Emmy secure more big projects in the future, or will business simply continue as usual?

We'll just have to wait until September 21 to find out. In the meantime, it is my act of public service to remind you that Mad Men, season 2, premieres Sunday, July 27, at 10pm, on AMC. Check your local cable listings.

UPDATE: For those of you keeping score, the winner was Swear Jar. Guess everyone was wrong.

Tennis, anyone?

2008-07-12T11:40:00.001-04:00

Hi readers. Due to many distractions we have not been able to keep up our normal project completion rate. I promise you that soon, we will get back to bringing you the most insightful, in-depth analysis of product-endorsement-based entertainment.

For now, enjoy this commercial that I was directed to recently via the internets. It features Roger Federer, the loser in last week's epic Wimbledon final against Rafael Nadal (but still probably a superior pitchman) along with everyone's new favorite Kiwi, Rhys Darby.

Yes this is clearly just filler, but not everything has to be analyzed in depth. Sometimes commercials are just fun.

Stealing My Job

2008-06-23T22:49:00.004-04:00

Every once in a while, some publication that considers itself "professional" does a reasonably good job of reporting on the themes typically covered by Drink Moxie.

On a completely unrelated note, I thought I would use this opportunity to throw in an entry while copping out of writing an actual entry by simply directing you to the following story from the The New York Times and pointing out how it touches on the theme of spokespersons becoming "brands" in themselves, as highlighted in this previous entry.

Do you think the folks over at NYT are readers? I think the answer to that is obvious.

The French-maker

2008-05-30T20:52:00.005-04:00

This is a particularly exciting entry for us here at Drink Moxie. The reason? I finally get to paraphrase Roddy Piper. That's right, this week, I am here to kick ass and chew gum.

We're not talking about Bubblicious here. We're going to focus on gum with an adult flavor - decidedly adult. And we're going to skip the Doublemint Twins and get right into the juicy stuff. No, not Juicy Fruit. I'm talking about the notion that's always right there in the back, if not the front, of our minds every time we pop a piece of minty chew into our mouths: making out.

Sucking face is a well-worn technique for moving gum. Particularly now, when so much of our economy seems to be directed towards products and services that enhance our reproductive capabilities, marketers seem more than eager to show us how gum might just serve as our bus ticket to Liplock City. But before we explore the modern variations on this theme, let's start where it all began:

(For those of you paying attention, yes that was Peter Billingsley, and you'll probably never be able to think of little Ralphie the same way again.)

Those of you who remember the 80s know that this was a somewhat remarkable ad for its time, even spawning an SNL parody. Comparable ads for comparable products, like Doublemint and Juicy Fruit, were themselves rather lurid and suggestive (all of these brands, of course, are part of the Wrigley company, and to the best of my knowledge all of their commercials were created by the perennial advertising giant BBDO). Big Red, however, was not afraid to show people really going at it. The word "kiss" was even right there at the start of the jingle. Keep in mind that for much of chewing gum's existence, it was intended and marketed primarily as an alternative, or at least a complement, to smoking or chewing tobacco.

Let's look now at what is effectively a more modern version of Big Red - Dentyne Fire - and see how they (with the help of McCann-Erickson's admen) approach the subject (I should note that this is an ad for mints, not gum, but I've seen so many of these commercials that I can hardly tell the difference):

Once again the kiss is front and center - little has changed there. But we notice a very significant difference. In the Big Red spots of the 80s, the makeout artists are assumed to be couples of some sort, married perhaps, or at least people who have some feelings of love towards each other. Dentyne knows that the modern hot-blooded consumer is not interested in this wholesome variety of kissing, but with the prospect of making out with attractive strangers. In the 80s, we were satisfied with the idea that cinnamon gum would make the experience of embracing our loved one more long-lasting and pleasurable. Have we now become naive enough to think that it will help us get to first base with that hot girl or guy in the drugstore without even exchanging a word?

Dentyne also bet that the kiss factor would sell minty gum in much the same way as it sells spicy gum, as evidenced by this spot for Dentyne Ice (by Bates USA):

Different types of people, different type of setting, a few special effects, same idea. I just wanted to show this one because it ups the ante of both cheesiness and shamelessness. It's practically a beer commercial, and frankly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. The idea of a woman who pops a piece of gum into her mouth, latches lips with a man chosen seemingly at random, and in the process freezes his ... well, let's just say it leaves me somewhat alarmed, very confused, and not really interested in picking up a pack of this gum. Maybe the ad is targeted to the ladies, after all.

But that was a bit of a digression, because I want to go back to the spicier side of the Dentyne brand with this commercial, which is surely infamous by now. I believe it was pulled from American airwaves after some time. That may also explain why I can't figure out what agency is responsible for it:

I like this one more than the previous ones. Yes, it's funnier, certainly more attention-grabbing, but I also think it's much more honest. Like that original Big Red commercial, the people who are going at it are actually couples. They aren't even presumed to be couples, they are explicitly identified as such. And here it is acknowledged that necking isn't just for the young folk. Older couples can do it too, even those old enough to have horny teenage kids. While some people might find this extremely edgy, even over the line, I see it as rather grounded and wholesome. As you know, Drink Moxie supports truth in advertising, and while we can hardly believe that chewing gum will give us a shot at sexy strangers, we think it might just facilitate some fooling around with our girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, ... whatever.

Finally, as always, I leave you with the most recent commercial that got me thinking about this topic, and the one that I haven't quite been able to figure out yet. I also haven't been able to figure out what agency is responsible, but I'll keep working on it:

Our friends at Mentos are pretty well known for their offbeat approach to advertising, and at least in the US, seem to have built a brand entirely around its oddly European-looking commercials. Now that they've made the move to gum, they seem to be taking on the kissing approach, which I can't remember them trying previously. Clearly, they have added their own, uh ... flavor to it.

I leave it for you to figure this one out, but here are a few observations of my own. First, they are apparently not afraid to gross people out. The prior kissing commercials, even the ones involving rather gratuitous frenching, were at least designed to titillate and not to nauseate. It's also interesting because it's not particularly clear what is even happening in the commercial. It took a few seconds to settle in before I got the joke. And in some way, I felt like the joke was on me. After being bombarded by spots like the ones I've previously shown, I was well prepared to see a commercial featuring a man popping a piece of gum and then being kissed by a beautiful, anonymous woman without a single word uttered. I have to believe that the Mentos people knew what I was expecting to see, and then led me right into an unexpected punch line, as if they were squirting water into my face as I bent down to sniff a boutonniere. I found myself feeling a little appalled but also a little impressed. But while they earned my respect, I still haven't considered putting down any money for their gum.

And I am, in fact, all out of gum.

I Love Options

2008-05-23T20:02:00.010-04:00

Hi everyone. I know it's been a while, but I hope the wait was worth it, because I'm finally getting around to presenting ... my insurance commercial spectacular! You knew it was coming, so let's get right into it.

First of all, God bless deregulation. Because so many states now allow auto insurance providers to compete on cost, we get to reap the bounty that is an unending barrage of surprisingly offbeat ad spots for various providers. The competition is so fierce that I even get to see the commercials here in my home state of Massachusetts, which doesn't allow competition on price (and in which many of these providers don't even operate). The only thing better than a good commercial is a good commercial for a product I can't buy. But since I don't own a car anyway, this point is moot.

So there are a lot of insurance companies out there and a lot of ads, but what's so interesting about that? The interesting thing occurred to me a few months back when I saw a spot for the company Amica, which was mostly unremarkable until the point where a character uttered the line, "I love options," which on its own made me giggle (sorry but I couldn't find video of this online). It made me think about what kinds of options were offered by the competition, which I only knew about through their commercials. And thinking about this made me realize that it's not just volume and quality that makes these insurance commercials interesting, it's variety. Yes indeed, there are options.

So let's take a look at what some of these companies have to offer. First up is Esurance, the maverick online-based insurance provider, whose creative work is done by the company itself in partnership with an animation studio called WILDBRAIN. According to their website, this gives them the benefit of "face to face" collaboration. Let's see an example of the result.

Seems that options are not the major selling point here. No, their approach is a little more basic. Fast-moving, eye-catching animation and emphasis simply on the "fast" and "easy" aspect of their service. Perfect for the net-savvy motorist who doesn't have a lot of time for insurance, what with all that time spent making money, fighting crime or, more likely, surfing the internet for porn.

Next we move on to Allstate. This campaign, brought to us by the Leo Burnett agency, is a little more, well, stately. This is largely thanks to the Presidential star power of Dennis Haysbert.

Decidedly not as fast, nor as easy, as the offerings from Esurance. But clearly this is advertising a different product. This is dependability, and service. This isn't for young bucks who drive fast and loose. This is your father's auto insurance.

Or is it?

So apparently even Allstate will turn up the heat if it needs to, even cracking a joke or two. Still, I doubt that the allusion to The French Connection is meant to resonate with the younger audience.

Let's raise the bar on complexity just a bit by checking in on our friends at Progressive Direct. Over the past few years their campaign has been erratic, at best. In 2006 they switched their creative contract to Boston-based Arnold Worldwide. Since then, for a while they had a campaign fronted by broadcaster and ESPN horse racing personality Kenny Mayne.

Kenny's not a bad spokesman, I suppose, but I don't have a good sense of what message he was trying to get across. I suppose Progressive's thing is that they help you to compare their rates and services with their competitors. I suppose that's an interesting point, but isn't that something we all could do on our own? Yes Kenny, I trust you despite your known penchant for playing exacta wheels, and the little cow is adorable, but are you really selling me anything?

A little later Progressive tried a different tact with this frequently aired spot starring Colleen Crabtree.

This one could go into a file for a recurring commercial theme - the depiction of a very collected, professional service employee politely dealing with a rather nutty client. I like it. But apparently, the people at Progressive or Arnold didn't think the theme was quite what they wanted. So they essentially reversed roles. Let's take a look.

The odd thing about this is not just the change in theme of the commercials, it's that the messages of the commercials seem to contradict those of previous commercials. The original campaign spoke to the discriminating consumer who wanted to get the best price and service. The next campaign, or at least the one commercial, spoke to the harried consumer who needed increased personalized service. This recent campaign presents their product as a retail offering with various associated deals and cost-savings, presumably targeting the customer who just wants to buy and not think about anything else. It's almost veering in the direction of Esurance. Why? Perhaps people didn't like options so much, after all.

And last but not least, we turn the undisputed king of insurance commercials. This is the granddaddy of them all, the brand that the Martin Agency has turned into a household name just on account of its commercials. The ways in which these campaigns have mined pop culture gold are practically too many to count. I would have to write a book just about it - and I wouldn't be surprised if someone already has. But just to pick a few examples, let's start with the catchphrase.

No analysis needed there. Something strange is going on, you're not sure what, and the message to the consumer comes packaged in the punch line: "I saved a bunch of money." Well, you got my interest. Tell me more.

Next, skipping briefly over the gecko, a pop culture phenomenon in itself, we go to this gem, which as far as I can tell is the only ad campaign that spawned its own (albeit short lived) television series.

There it is. Again we have what is practically a minisketch, like a high concept Laugh-In bit, built around a very simple message to the consumer: "easy". I suppose we could have a side discussion on why the television series Cavemen failed so miserably. I could go on about this, but to put it simply, I think it simply forgot what it was selling. Some people think of TV commercials as short, stylized TV shows, but how do we know that TV shows aren't just elongated, stylized TV commercials? Chew on that one.

Now we come to my favorite. It speaks for itself.

They ran a whole series of these starring such luminaries as Don LaFontaine, Peter Frampton, Peter Graves, Burt Bacharach, and James Lipton, and I encourage you to watch as many of them as you can stand. Overall we see the same things we did before: high concept, good comedy. But this time the message is different. This time it's about the service, and the peace of mind that customers receive when in the unfortunate position of having to file a claim.

By now you all surely see where I'm going with this. These different campaigns aren't just scattered musings and random jokes. Each of these campaigns was tailored to deliver a different, specific message about the product being sold. It didn't try to be all things to all people at once, instead it gradually built up its image over time. First it was the cheap insurance (actually, I didn't even go back to the proto-message of their early commercial campaign, "everyone does stupid things," which can be interpreted as you like). Then it was the easy insurance. Then it was the service-oriented insurance. Now, it is beyond pigeonholing. It transcends description. It is Geico.

Okay, maybe that's overly dramatic. But still, Geico continues to push the envelope of how far its image can go, as evidenced in this new spot that I recently saw. This marks the first instance I can think of in which a corporate mascot is enlisted to endorse a product that it was not created to endorse.

It's a bit of a mind-bender, and I still haven't made up my mind as to what it means. Perhaps it is just a random joke that someone thought up and ran with, though I tend to discount those theories as too boring to be true. Perhaps this is their attempt to ingrain the Geico brand even deeper into American culture by associating itself with other well-known advertising campaigns. Perhaps they think the American audience is savvy enough not to be threatened by the complications of a commercial within a commercial. I suppose to determine its real impact we'll have to see if they continue on that theme, or if other brands begin to follow suit. I would like it if they did.

Well that concludes my survey of insurance commercials. Drive safely everyone. Or even better, take the bus.

Horse Trading

2008-05-02T20:22:00.004-04:00

I've been home sick, which has relegated me to spending the day on the couch watching horse racing. So aside from the fever and stomach ache, it's been a great day!

Many of you probably don't watch horse racing, I'll be the first to admit that it has a niche audience that most of my friends and associates don't fall into. This is great from a research standpoint, because it means that the advertising for horse racing is very different from the advertising you would see on other television programs, and even unlike other, more popular sports. It would take a long time to go through all of the case examples, so I'll just start with a taste for now and maybe go into it a little further as the racing season continues.

(I should note here for the sake of sticklers like myself that when I say "horse racing" I'm referring to thoroughbred horse racing. I would love to comment on advertising focused towards viewers of harness, quarter-horse, or other varieties of racing, but unfortunately they don't really show those on TV. Guessing from the crowd I see around harness racing tracks, commercials would probably focus in the area of beer, farm equipment, and antidepressants. To any relatives who might be reading, just kidding!)

Say My Name

One thing I tend to see a lot of during horse racing is advertising for financial services companies. I'm not sure if that's because they assume horse racing fans would have a lot of money, or because they assume that horse racing fans would have a difficult time managing what money they have. Yes, I know -- probably a little of both.

This allowed me to get a look at the campaign for Old Mutual, which apparently is a firm offering various financial services, and not a malt liquor brand as I would have initially guessed. The campaign is apparently several months old but I haven't noticed it before (they also sponsor pro golfer Trevor Immelman, so surely they received some boost in their notoriety when he won the Masters last month). This spot ran several times during the broadcast I was watching, although the version I saw, unlike this one, had inserted a horse racing-themed bit in place of some of the other stuff.

It's always hard to say what I think when financial services companies try to be "cool". On the one hand, this is certainly more notable than any of the dozens of other horse racing-themed financial services commercials that I have seen over and over again but still for the life of me can't remember enough information about to look up on the internet. Those commercials try to draw a parallel between the pedigree and performance of top thoroughbreds and the supposed upstanding reputation of a firm with whom you are supposed to invest your money (seriously, I wanted to show you a good example but I just could not recall enough about it). This one takes a more populist approach, perhaps paralleling an attempt on the part of racing promoters to make thoroughbred racing a popular sport again.

Does it work? Well obviously they don't expect people to start using "Old Mutual" in everyday speech. At the least, they probably hope that their viewers will interpret it as a joke, and assume that the company has a sense of humor about itself, which helps to build a sense of trust with the brand. Some of their creative people might even have the delusional idea that people would start trying to use it in ironic jest, which would probably be the best outcome for the brand; unfortunately (or fortunately), this campaign will probably not be pervasive enough to be as widely recognizable as, for instance, "apply directly to the forehead."

Overall, this idea seems like a pretty solid way to build recognition for the brand, but it could potentially go wrong. For instance, viewers with a less sophisticated understanding of humor could think that the company is being arrogant in assuming its brand is important enough to be integrated into popular culture. It could also turn off viewers with a disdain for the very idea of incorporating brand names into everyday speech. There's also the very real potential that a lot of viewers simply won't get it, as the joke is not well explained. By putting its ads so prominently into a horse racing broadcast, Old Mutual assumes not only that the audience has some money (and potentially some difficulty managing it), but also that the audience is savvy enough to get that it is a joke and to go along with it. Too much to ask of a racing audience? As always, the audience will decide.

Appetizing!

Some of you might have known that the reason I was watching horse racing today was because it's Kentucky Oaks day at Churchill Downs, which traditionally occurs the day before the first Saturday in May, when the running of the Kentucky Derby occurs. The Oaks was a good race on a sloppy track, as Louisville experienced torrential downpours all afternoon. Conditions for the Derby will probably also be sloppy.

Speaking of sloppy, one of the interesting features of the Kentucky Derby coverage is that its lead sponsor is Yum! Brands, the biggest company you've probably never heard of. In case you don't know, Yum! Brands, Inc. is the unholy polymarriage of KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken), Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, A&W Hot Dogs and More, and Long John Silver's. Although the world's collective arteries harden a bit every time they proudly proclaim it, they are the largest restaurant company in the world. Those of you who have seen a KFC/Taco Bell or some similar mash-up and wondered how it came to pass, now you know. If you're like me, such conglomerations have inspired titillating thoughts of possibilities such as popcorn chicken chalupas and fish stick pizzas.

As far as I can tell, the Derby is the only thing that Yum! sponsors as a company, and since the company is based in Louisville it seems as if the Derby is simply something it makes sense for them to sponsor. On any other broadcast, at any other time of year, advertising is limited to just the component brands. So when Derby time rolls around, I always wonder, is it helping or hurting the company to advertise its own existence? Wouldn't it seem to be the conventional wisdom, in this day and age, that consumers prefer products that appear to be somewhat independent, instead of parts of large corporate conglomerates? Food products that are subsidiaries of Nestle or Coca-Cola, as most food products tend to be, don't advertise themselves as such.

So why do they do it? Well, maybe since it's just limited to one broadcast at one time, they figure it doesn't really matter. Or maybe given the reputation of the component brands, and the proliferation of the aforementioned hybrid restaurants, they figured it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they are part of a larger corporate entity. In fact, if it is the case that most people assume these (I hesitate to use the term) restaurants are part of a larger entity anyway, maybe promoting Yum! actually does the brands a service by providing a "face" to what is otherwise a faceless corporate mass. Furthermore, it reaffirms that these brands are not subsidiaries of McDonalds or other such insidious chains, but of an independent company that is based right in America's heartland. Can't you taste the freedom?

Mull it over while you're sipping your mint julep and nervously adjusting your wide-brimmed hat.

I See London

2008-04-18T21:30:00.003-04:00

All right, I'll just say it straight out: This entry is about ladies' undergarments. Let's all have a giggle about that and then get serious so we can move on.

A couple weeks ago I saw this commercial and noticed something that I thought was interesting. Check it out:

Did you notice the same thing I did?

Of course you did.

Maybe?

That's right, I noticed that one of the stars in this spot, albeit very subtly, seemed to use the word "boob". Now, it's not that I'm surprised to hear the word "boob" on television, I'm pretty sure I hear it several times per day, and certainly in the context in which it is used here. But I don't believe I've heard it in a commercial, let alone in a commercial for a brassiere, where one might more likely expect to hear it than in a commercial for, let's say, Kraft macaroni and cheese. Commercials for ladies' underwear are on all the time, and they don't seem afraid to use fairly suggestive imagery and language. But the word "boob" seemed taboo, apparently until now.

So I made this observation and I didn't think it was interesting enough to go on about, and didn't think that I would explore it in much detail. Then, not too long after, I saw a commercial that was part of a new ad campaign for the Hanes "No Ride Up Panty" that was promoted as "Wedgie-Free". (This commercial is so exclusive that YouTube won't let me embed it, but it can be viewed in an online press release here.) Again, a word not often heard in commercials for underpants, and this time it is right there in the campaign's tagline.

So is this minor explosion of terminology like "boob" and "wedgie" indicative of some larger trend in the world of advertising womens' underwear? Readers right remember a previous post about All Bran that discussed "telling it like it is" when it comes to subjects that are somewhat awkward to discuss in an open public forum, and whether or not that approach is really effective, or even notable. But watching any Victoria's Secret commercial would show you that there are less-awkward approaches to marketing brassieres and the like. Are these campaigns from Playtex and Hanes trying to grab hold of female consumers who are disillusioned with the sexy underwear fantasies, tapping into their desire to see down-to-earth underwear, addressing down-to-earth issues with down-to-earth language? Or are they actually trying to be a little edgier themselves to compete with the Vickie's crew, only in a different way? Or are they just trying to be cute and funny?

This one has me a little stumped, for now. We'll see where this trend, if it can be called a trend, goes from here. Some guidance from my female readers might be helpful; but not required.

Satisfied

2008-04-15T22:29:00.003-04:00

Hi folks. I haven't had a whole lot of time lately, so instead of doing my usual thorough analysis I'm just going to follow up on the theme of how marketing can reinforce the incorporation of a product into one's lifestyle with a simple, direct message.

This thought actually came from an associate who has noticed a subconscious association with Snickers and their "Hungry? Why Wait?" campaign. Some of you may remember commercials like this one from some time ago (courtesy of BBDO):

The commercials themselves have been popular with viewers for their jokes, but my associate notes that it's really the "Hungry? Why Wait?" tagline that comes to mind while standing at the vending machine trying to decide which selection will do the job. The commercials grab the attention just enough to slip in a relatively subtle yet effective message.

Advertising has a somewhat odd track record with rhetorical questions. Many of us remember the shameful "Why Ask Why? Try Bud Dry" campaign, the only admirable part of which was its honesty in suggesting that this was a product there was no reason for anyone to purchase. The Bud people didn't realize that Americans don't appreciate being told what they should and shouldn't question. "Why Wait?" however, is a perfectly appropriate question to associate with a product that is most likely purchased from a machine, checkout line, or sports team fundraiser, if not pulled from the freezer. Why yes, I am hungry now, thanks for asking.

Despite this success, Snickers hit a bit of a stumble with the infamous Super Bowl ad from last year that was perceived as either distasteful or homophobic, and resulted in many retractions and apologies. Now they're working to get back on track. Or are they?

You decide.

Slam Dunk

2008-04-03T19:09:00.002-04:00

I don't normally use this space to post raves. The last thing I would want to do is compromise our organization's reputation for being a thoughtful, objective critique of contemporary advertising culture. However, today I have to risk venturing into fanboy territory to say that I am quite fond of Dunkin' Donuts commercials. More on that shortly.

In particular, like much of America I've been taken with the series of spots featuring original (and uncredited) music by They Might Be Giants. Those readers who know me will understand why this one especially resonates:

There have been many more like this and I encourage you all to check them out if you haven't seen them. Apparently they are all online here.

Why do I like these spots so much? Well, I have liked They Might Be Giants for a long time, and I have liked Dunkin' Donuts for some time as well. It's kind of a no-brainer for me. But it's not just the elements that are appealing, it's the genius of the combination, and what it says about the band and the brand alike.

As a rock band known for its offbeat lyrics, TMBG has often been able to transform everyday phrases, actions, and thoughts into unexpected lyrical triumphs. They have turned "theme songs for the mundane" into something of a cottage industry. Someone at Hill, Holliday (Dunkin's advertising company) must have recognized this and realized that this cottage industry was rolling out a product they could use. (Even if They weren't actually selling it, yet.)

Why is this a perfect match? Because the Dunkin' Donuts brand is all about the mundane. It's not snooty Starbucks. It's joe for the Average Joe, the guy who works in the municipal building, takes the kids to karate, goes fishing (early), and generally does things. And Dunkies is where you get the food and drink you need when you're doing things. Dunkin' Donuts is not something spectacular and exciting that makes your life better in some important way. It is, simply, an integral part of your everyday routine. And your everyday routine, including your coffee and donuts and what-have-you, is important enough to deserve its own theme music. Brilliant.

The "America Runs on Dunkin" campaign is the latest in what has been a fairly successful series for the brand. Most people probably remember "Fred the Baker", played with gusto by Michael Vale (who lived in Lenox, MA, near my hometown - another reason I've always had a soft spot for Dunkies ads), who captured the ears of a generation with the simple catchphrase, "Time to make the donuts." Then, as now, their commercials worked on the three key levels: They reinforced the brand image, they were amusing without trying too hard, and they even managed to advertise the product - probably the least important aspect of a commercial, but impressive when they actually manage to do it right. The only thing that has changed has been a diversification of the target audience. Only Dunkin's can simultaneously run ad campaigns featuring They Might Be Giants and Rachael Ray. You can't help but be impressed.

If I had a faculty appointment, I could teach a class.

The Shill of Victory

2008-03-21T11:27:00.004-04:00

As Americans, we're more than used to watching athletes promote all manner of products. It just seems to make sense. Sports are a big part of culture everywhere, and here in the States the only thing more important is buying stuff. When it comes to athletic shoes, apparel and equipment, what would make you want to buy the product more than knowing your favorite pro player is paid to use it, too?

But we know that it goes beyond athletic products. Athletes can endorse virtually anything. We don't bat an eye when the appropriately-named Curt Schilling shills for Chevy trucks and Dunkin' Donuts at the same time. After all, we expect a major-league pitcher of Curt's stature to eat breakfast and haul brush. Two of the most dominant athletes in history, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer (along with a decent soccer player nobody's heard of), show us that their exceptional performance is due in no small part to an exceptionally close shave. Sometimes the match-up seems like a bit of a stretch. I for one had never thought I'd be thinking about meaty NFL linesmen every time I eat Campbell's Chunky Soup.

There must be a line beyond which the partnership becomes untenable. This was theoretically proven by our friends at Saturday Night Live when they showed Michael Jordan doing a spot for "Feminine Secret", which I think about every time I see him do yet another spot for Hanes underwear (as a matter of fact, there's one on right now).

And here is the latest example of a head-scratching promotion that dances on the line of what we expect pro athletes to endorse.

In some ways I'm impressed by this spot, for it demonstrates that David Beckham can get paid for a commercial which does not use his image, does not use his voice, and only makes an indirect reference to the sport he plays. Apparently he's so huge that his name alone is valuable enough to build an ad campaign around.

Indeed, David Beckham is possibly the most famous athlete in the world. Certainly, at one point he was by far the highest-paid athlete in the world. So of all the things he could be endorsing, why a magic marker?

Athletes need to worry about how much they are giving up in exchange for whatever kind of check the endorsee is giving them. A bizarre partnership like the fictitious Feminine Secret deal is funny, in part, because we know that it would influence our image of the athlete. That has an impact on the athlete's value as an endorser. In this real-life case, we have a commercial suggesting (to me, anyway, possibly to others as well) that Beckham spends most of his time these days signing autographs and playing golf. All true, perhaps, but does it help Beckham's marketability to reinforce this image?

These issues are also important to the endorsee, because an endorsement deal inexorably intertwines the public images of the two parties. For instance, the Michael Jordan/Nike deal, the archetypal modern endorsement deal, worked off of both parties' strong performance and the connection between the product and the athletic dominance to boost their respective popularities into almost mythological status. Conversely, an athlete or a brand with a deteriorating image can bring down the image of the other, thus potentially sending the athlete and the brand plummeting into a vortex of mutually-reinforcing shame. It doesn't always happen that way, but does Sharpie want to take that risk? Sharpie is a member of that elite set of brands whose name is a synonym for the product it makes. Do they think people are out there saying, "Could hand me one of those, you know, one of those fine-point markers ... like the kind Beckham uses?" What happens to all those name-brand Sharpies when the autographs stop coming?

Moral of the story: I need a better agent.

Morning Sickness

2008-03-17T22:58:00.000-04:00

We're back after a brief hiatus, and what a great time to be back! I'm referring, of course, to the fact that a newcomer has recently made a claim to the title of "Dirtiest Commercial on American Television." Appropriately, the title goes to The King:

This one raises a few interesting questions.

Question 1: Is this the first commercial that uses an erection-related innuendo?

Absolutely not. Have you ever seen the commercials for Enzyte? I guess a more appropriate question is whether there are erection-related commercials for products that do not have any relation to erections. A quick web search on "commerical" and "erection" brought up a few ads for construction jobs and this, which I can only assume is European and at least a year old.

Question 2: Does an erection-related innuendo sell cheesy tots?

A much more interesting question. One might think that sexual arousal is not what people want to be thinking of when making decisions about food. Perhaps not everyone feels that way. But this is probably the wrong way of looking at the question. Instead the King is probably just banking on the fact that the people who giggle when watching this commercial are the same people likely to be craving artificial cheese-filled hash browns first thing in the morning. Time shall tell.

Question 3: How many times will we see this commercial before they pull it?

Again, only time will tell. Commercials like these for big companies don't tend to stay on the air for long before the company moves towards a more conventional campaign involving promotional giveaways, movie tie-ins, or celebrity cameos. It's possible that the company ultimately gets pressured into dropping the commercial by complaints from people or interest groups prudish enough to be offended yet offensive enough to write all kinds of colorful nasty letters. More likely, the company eventually realizes that while it might attract some attention, the novelty of a commercial like this wears off quickly, and in the end it probably doesn't boost sales much at all. Seems like it's just something they do every once in a while to maintain their cred with the small portion of the public that has a sense of humor.

So like the subject matter in question, I will enjoy this unexpected delight for the brief time it lasts.

28

2008-02-28T21:15:00.004-05:00

Howdy readers. Yesterday, as every year, I spent the day honoring the birthday of our former and possibly future First Daughter, Chelsea Clinton. I've done so ever since she captured the heart of the American people as a lovable, awkward teenager back in 1993. And now, at 28, we see how much she's grown. But why should I go on, when ABC News says it best? Secret weapon, indeed!

It seems only yesterday when she spent her 18th birthday partying away with celebrities in New York, while the rest of us had to go to school. Now, as a successful, responsible adult, she spends the day campaigning for her mom, while the rest of us slogged through a day at the office before whiling away the evening at bar trivia. Amazing how much can change in 10 years.

I bet you're all wondering what this has to do with advertising. Maybe nothing. But perhaps it's important to remember that in spite of advertising's relentless efforts to turn us into stable, reliable consumers, we continue to grow and develop nonetheless.

My loyal readers should know that Drink Moxie will be on hiatus next week. In the meantime, you could check out this other site that I like:

jeffsamerica.blogspot.com

Bran on the Brain

2008-02-20T18:22:00.003-05:00

I'm sure everyone remembers the SNL gem Colon Blow from 1989 (if not, you can see it for free here). So why did it take 18 years to come out with this?

I was reminded of this after seeing a recent installment of the All-Bran campaign starring John McEnroe unleashing scatological innuendo on the viewing audience (they have a disappointingly innuendo-free website here).

This really got my juices flowing, so to speak, on the subject of honesty in advertising. Well, maybe not honesty per se, but straightforwardness. On a list of issues we humans typically need to deal with, #2 is very near the top of the list. And I am a strong believer in the magic of fiber. Still, if I had a concern that a product such as All-Bran might be able to alleviate, I'd have a hell of a time knowing that from a typical commercial without having somehow developed an understanding of the euphemistic vocabulary of the toilet. Even laxative commercials are advertised to address "bloating" and promote "regularity." Regularity? I'm pretty sure I was well into my teens before I knew what "regularity" was supposed to mean, let alone more clinical terms like constipation. It's not stuff you learn in kindergarten.

And the viewing audience is dumb, right? Aren't commercials meant for the lowest common denominator? If so, why aren't commercials like they are in the movie Crazy People, where toilet paper is advertised as "for wiping your ass with." (By the way, if you're looking for a source that thoroughly plumbs the depths of poop culture, try this -- but don't say I didn't warn you.)

But to get out of the toilet for a second, what does it say about commercials generally when the imagery becomes a little edgier, perhaps a bit cruder, definitely funnier, and yet still relies on euphemisms and innuendo? The entertainment value in the All-Bran commercial, like Colon Blow before it, is its unabashedness in acknowledging what the product does. But it still does it in an indirect way. It amuses us because we're used to commercials being shy and inoffensive, but does it do a better job advertising the product? Are we more likely to buy it?

Maybe not. Subsequent commercials have backpedaled significantly, like the McEnroe one, which contains a few cheap jokes but focuses more on the "All-Bran Challenge," a shameless ripoff of the already shameless "Special K Challenge" (which is a whole other topic I shouldn't get started on). If the first commercial didn't resonate with the spending audience, was it because it was too low-brow, or too high-brow? Too honest, or not honest enough?

Just something to think about the next time you have to drop the kids off at the pool.

No Crash Later

2008-02-18T10:27:00.005-05:00

Today's installment is a good example of how a simple commercial can belie an unexpectedly complex phenomenon, and how a seemingly simple analysis can get me in way over my head.

Apparently, the TV shows I watch are popular among "energy-deficient" types, because I find myself often viewing this commercial for a product called "5 Hour Energy":

I was going to write about what a poor job this commercial does in illustrating what the product is and what it's for. The problem with energy drinks, I am told, is that they are all sugar and caffeine. This energy drink has no sugar or caffeine! Amazing. Only 8 calories, and amino acids as well. Fantastic, sign me up! Makes me wonder, though, with only 8 calories, exactly where is that 5-hours worth of energy coming from?

The version of the commercial I've been seeing is slightly different. It actually does have caffeine, but only as much as a cup of coffee. That's not much, after all, a cup of coffee is ... well, I suppose it's about as much caffeine you can get in a cup of any beverage. But that's OK, because in this case, they've put it into a 5-ounce shot. And there's no guarana, so that's ... great. I hate guarana. So let's cut to the chase here, commercial. You're selling me a 5-ounce shot of concentrated caffeine. If you just came out and said that from the beginning it would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. Instead, you've wasted your time trying to sell me a product I'll never buy, with a commercial that in no way entices me to buy it.

So that was my observation and I was pleased with myself, another successful job illustrating how ineffective a given commercial can be. Then, in order to finish this project by showing you all the commercial, I entered the mystical parallel universe of pop culture they call YouTube. Once again, I was proved to be the proverbial chump, as I discovered that not only is 5 Hour Energy a product people are purchasing and using, but a phenomenon that has made solid inroads into cyberspace. Of course, now that I've seen what YouTube has to offer, I have a much better sense of what -- and whom -- this product is for.

And now, all of a sudden, I'm interested. I still wouldn't buy it, but at least I understand why I might, and I believe that there are people out there who do. If the 5 Hour Energy marketing team was really on top of things, they would just use these videos as their ad campaign.

But the commercial itself has even been popular enough to warrant a parody. Well, I suppose a parody is what you could call it.

Thus concludes my unexpected adventure into the world of alternative energy drink advertising. I hope you learned something. I know I did. But I'm not exactly sure I feel smarter for it.

Whatever Happened To The Bud Bowl?

2008-02-06T22:47:00.000-05:00

So Sunday was the biggest day of the year for television commercials, and I haven't had a chance to comment until now. I figured if I waited a few days, then I would be forced to discuss only the memorable moments. Now, I remember virtually nothing. I suppose even I outsmart myself sometimes.

I'm a big fan of Super Bowl commercials. Not so much because they're clever and funny. More because they are comforting and familiar. Ever since the point in the early 2000s when Super Bowl commercials became fully self-aware, we've been able to count on them to know exactly what we want to see and to deliver it to us in neat 30-second packages. As always, Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. Bud Light is the choice of middle-aged men who are whipped by their wives yet defiantly wily and inventive. E-Trade proved that if monkeys are cute and funny, then talking babies can be cuter and funnier. Athletic apparel and sports drinks can turn us all into Nazi supermen. Consumers are smart. Money-savers are dopes.

But it goes deeper than that for me. Super Bowl commercials remind me of what I should be striving for in order to be the best American I can be. I should be considering a new job. I should be buying mid-priced foreign cars, web domains, and low-calorie, high-caffeine, vitamin-infused alcoholic beverages. I should be keeping my kids off drugs. I should be worshiping models, pop music stars, and sexy race car drivers. These reminders are especially important during the coldest time of the year, when we're about to face 6 months without football.

Speaking of football, we seem to be seeing less and less of it in Super Bowl commercials these days. I suppose that's evidence that the scale has finally tipped, and consumerism has eclipsed football as the national sport. The only football I recall seeing in a commercial was being daintily manipulated by a lingerie model, a far cry from the days when it was coldly and deliberately manipulated by teams of beer bottles.

So perhaps Super Bowl commercials have gone somewhere since the days of the Aluminator. That's only to be expected in a world that is getting progressively faster, more caffeinated, and more tethered to technologies that we used to do just fine without. But as we are reminded, we can take solace in the fact that beer and sex will always be there. And football, maybe.

A Message To Our Readers

2008-02-01T22:56:00.000-05:00

Thank you for reading. For some time now, Drink Moxie has entertained about a half-dozen people on a quasi-regular basis with bizarre thoughts ranging from the absurd to the irritatingly uninteresting. It was fun for the staff here and at least bearable to the people who looked at it and decided to come back for more. (I have Google Analytics so yes, I know you exist.)

The dream could only last for so long. Eventually, the aimlessness of this pursuit would start to wear on the staff. As entries became more scattered, so did the lives of their creators. Some interventions needed to be made, and some were institutionalized, though briefly. It was a difficult time. Worst of all, for everyone's safety, Drink Moxie had to be discontinued temporarily.

After some retooling, I'm happy to announce that Drink Moxie is back with a new focus on its core mission. If it surprises you that Drink Moxie has a core mission, you're not alone in your ignorance. But that is no excuse. I shouldn't have to tell you that the core mission of Drink Moxie, as its name would imply, is to analyze and react to current developments in the art and science of popular culture advertising. So I won't.

Anyhow, I hope you decide to join us again for more. You'll find a more focused, intelligent commentary about the state of our culture, or if you prefer, a string of jokes about television commercials. Coincidentally, the Super Bowl is coming up today.

All the best, and see you soon. The Management.

There are Other Blogs Than This One?

2007-08-23T23:32:00.001-04:00

jeffsamerica.blogspot.com

It's Catching On ...

2007-08-05T11:07:00.000-04:00

Boston Sunday Globe: "Can a Bitter Taste Find Sweet Life Again?"

Save the Cheerleader ...

2007-07-26T21:18:00.000-04:00

Has anyone else noticed that "Heroes" is just one small typo away from "Herpes"? Just throwing that out there.

Harry Potter Sequels We (Probably) Won't Get to See

2007-07-20T13:04:00.000-04:00

Harry Potter and the Order of the Fraggle
Harry Potter and the Flying Toasters of Microsovia
Harry Potter and the Evil Novelty Wind-Up Teeth
Harry Potter and the Beckhams Do Lunch
Harry Potter and the Endless Taxi Queue
Harry Potter and the Waffle House Off I-75
Harry Potter and the Travolta Prophecy
Harry Potter and the Half-Stuck Zipper
Harry Potter: Miami
Harry Potter and the Crippling Student Loan Payments
Harry Potter and I'm Officially Out of Ideas Now

Grand Prize

2007-07-18T21:55:00.000-04:00

I've won a few trophies in my life. Not that many. But I've found that most of them have some figure on top representing what the trophy is for. Sometimes it's an athlete like a skier, or a dude bowling perhaps. Sometimes it has a cup, vase or bowl on it, presumably representing achievement in the field of flower growing or general liquid collection.

I think the best trophy you could win would have, on top of it, a smaller version of the same trophy atop which it rests. Thereby, that smaller trophy would necessarily have atop it an even smaller version of itself, and that even smaller trophy would have a still more smaller trophy at its top. And so on. Forever.

What would such a trophy be awarded for? You'd think it would be for trophy-making, but you'd be wrong.

Cucumber Frappe

2007-07-16T22:14:00.000-04:00

It's the new best thing. Put down your Moxie for a sec and get into it.

Unlucky

2007-07-13T16:14:00.000-04:00

Today is Friday the 13th. Since I don't want to take any chances, I'm not going to try for anything funny. That being the case, this entry won't seem different to you than any other.

Damn!

Enigma Wrapped in a Moxie

2007-07-09T23:18:00.002-04:00

Those of you who are smart enough should notice that there is a secret message hidden in the last 25 blog entries. Can you figure out what it is? The first one to get it wins a prize!

(NB: The prize is the satisfaction of reading the message. If you prefer not to receive the satisfaction, you may choose to accept its equivalent cash value.)

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Right on Red

2007-07-07T22:10:00.000-04:00

A PSA for the young men out there: Yes, I know it's hot out. It's summer. Still, please wear a shirt while driving. We do live in the 21st century now, and we all have to live here together. Thank you.

In Dependency

2007-07-04T13:19:00.000-04:00

In honor of our nation's independence, I thought I would remind us of some of the great things America has brought us.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Chicago
Football
The Bears
Carrot Top
Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams Boston Ale
The Olsen Twins
Tiger Woods
Joey Chestnut
The Mormons
Old Glory
New Coke
The Rooty Tooty Fresh 'n Fruity Breakfast
Freedom

Happy 4th of July, whether you're American or not.

Time Flies

2007-07-02T21:10:00.000-04:00

A lot has happened over the past three months. However, as far as this blog is concerned, the only important thing to know is who's been looking at the site over the past three months. So here's the report, thanks once again to our good friends at Google Analytics.

There were a total of 54 visitors to the site in the last quarter. That's a lot, considering it was all reruns. 37 unique visitors, so plenty of people who decided to take more than one peek.

59.26% of visits were new visits, which sounds great except for one thing: how can they possibly give me the percentage to that high a precision if only 54 people visited the site altogether? Is there something you're not telling me, Google Analytics?

Looks like about 24% of visits came from search engines, which raises another important question: what the hell kind of search query do you have to run to come up with this site? A prize to whoever can come up with the shortest search expression that brings up Drink Moxie on the first page of any major search engine. No cheating.

By far, most visits have been from New York City (19 out of 54), which again would make sense given the sheer size of that city. But that doesn't mean I'm going to neglect the little people in such places as Needham, Washington, Pleasanton, HOTlanta, Baton Rouge, Rio Grande, Gay Paris, and Torino. Special love to my friend from White Marsh who spent a generous 4 minutes on the site. Unfortunately, due to the byzantine way Google Analytics is now set up, I can't figure out where White Marsh is.

The average time for a visitor on the site was 17 seconds. That means it took people, on average, 17 seconds to realize they were wasting their time.

New York visitors took an average of 6 seconds, demonstrating once again that they're a little smarter than the rest.

Like the Phoenix

2007-07-01T23:04:00.001-04:00

In case you were wondering, I've been on sabbatical for the past three months. Spring is a difficult time for me. But guess what? It's time to rise again. Hang on to your seats everyone -- you're going to see some stuff here that you've never even dreamed of.

And Now For Another Pointless Post About Commercials

2007-03-29T21:55:00.000-04:00

I don't know if I should be more upset about the plot holes I'm finding in Dunkin' Donuts commercials, or about the fact that I'm worrying about the plot holes I'm finding in Dunkin' Donuts commercials.

Variable Overhead

2007-03-24T17:03:00.000-04:00

What exactly does it mean when a car manufacturer offers you a "complimentary sunroof"?

Overseas Malapropism

2007-03-23T22:53:00.000-04:00

One of my pet peeves is when people say they have "jet lag" when they really don't. Here's a tip for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, and thus have possibly committed this offense. If you've just flown from Europe to the U.S., no matter how lousy you feel, you do not have jet lag. You have jet lag when your body thinks it's earlier than it really is, i.e., your body's clock is lagging the actual time of day. So if you're traveling west, if anything, you have jet lead.

You're welcome.

Real Estate Erotica

2007-03-21T22:18:00.000-04:00

LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER

Considering a new luxury residence? Spend a night on us in a suite at the InterContinental Boston and find out what InterContinental living is all about.* Break the ice with a workout, a swim and massages at iSpa. Warm up with RumBa and its bracing rum portions. Get acquainted with SushiTeq and its succulent sushi creations paired with vintage tequilas. Then, make your move on the dance floor to the rhythm of the smooth salsa. Later, be completely open with our Waterway Promenade before you become intimate with the hidden champagne room. Relax with Miel, "Brasserie Provencal", over an authentic French meal and the perfect wine. When you call it a night, just push the button to go home and slip into the cool crisp sheets on the Earth's most comfortable bed. Who knows... this night could lead to a long and happy relationship.

*Please call the Residences for details. This offer is only available for qualified buyers.

Damn those qualified buyers.

Under Wear, Above Rim

2007-03-19T22:55:00.000-04:00

I know that what I'm supposed to be thinking is, "Wow, I could really go for some Hanes underwear right now." But what I'm really thinking is, "Why does Michael Jordan need to resort to goaltending against Kevin Bacon?"

And since when are the two of them living together, anyway?

Orally Corrupt

2007-03-18T17:43:00.000-04:00

I've been sick the past several days. I haven't felt too bad, but for long periods of time my voice has been totally shot. So I started to realize how much I take my voice for granted. Any number of witty or enlightening comments would pop into my head, and stay there, unfit to complete their journey out into the world of public discourse. And yet life goes on. I suppose in this day and age of web-chat-e-blog technology, the voice is becoming less important. We can rely on the instruments literally at our fingertips to engage in any type of informational intercourse necessary. So who cares if the people around me can't hear my observations? Now the whole world can. (I haven't forgotten about you, Laval!)

On the other hand, here I am with the Internet and the blogosphere and everything and I have nothing worth saying. Does this new, instanly-worldwide capability now demand from us a higher standard? Is the stuff we say in everyday life not good enough for the general web-ulation? Maybe. Or maybe the stuff we say in everyday life just isn't worth saying at all. After all, I've found that I enjoy my comments a little more when they remain unspoken. Inside jokes are often the funniest, and how can you get more inside than that?

You Can't See the Forest ...

2007-03-14T22:57:00.000-04:00

Winning the award for the best expression of liberal ideals in the fewest number of words, I give you the following bumper sticker:

"More Trees : Less Bush"

Keep on Believing

2007-03-11T20:00:00.000-04:00

I heard a moving story today. It goes roughly like this.

A young woman, with dreams of success, stardom, and a better life, moved from her sleepy middle-America hometown to try to make it in Hollywood. Meeting with little success at first, she had to take a waitressing job working long, late hours at T.G.I. Friday's to pay her bills, struggling just to get by month by month. Years went by and disappointment grew into despair, but still she persevered. Finally she managed to get an audition. Brushing her hair and dabbing on makeup to cover the black circles under her eyes, she went to stand in line with about sixty other young women, all with similar stories to tell, just to get a few minutes of a casting director's time. But while the rest of them left with only more disappointment and despair, this one actually found a piece of the success she had been hoping for. Maybe it wasn't quite the role she had imagined, but it was better than nothing, and it would pay far better than her job as a T.G.I. Friday's waitress. Most importantly, she did it all herself. She had earned the role of a waitress in a commercial for T.G.I. Friday's.

OK, so this isn't a real story I heard, it's just something I imagined after seeing a T.G.I. Friday's commercial. Still, it touched my heart.

Nice Stats You Got There, Baby

2007-03-09T17:25:00.000-05:00

I realize I haven't been giving regular readership updates like I said I would. Shame on me. Anyway, here are the February highlights:

50 visits and 57 pageviews over the month, with a slight spike around February 27.

Visitor loyalty is pretty strong, with most of my visits coming from people who have visited 15-100 times. No one has visited more than 100 times yet. Will you be the first?

Still, about 16% of this month's visitors were people who visited only once and didn't come back. Yeah, I'm talking to you. Quitters.

My base market is still the United States, but with some visits from Germany, Brazil, and Singapore. Guten Tag, bom dia, selamat tengahari!

Masachusetts is the biggest domestic market, with the most visits coming from Brookline. Second most is Waltham. And several visits from Tewksbury and Halifax.

What?

Brookline? Waltham? Tewskbury? Halifax?

HALIFAX?

Seriously?

19 visits from New York, all of those from New York City, most of any city. I suppose that would be predictable, what with it being our most populous city and all.

One person visited from Goodlettsville, Tennessee, which wins the award for most double-letters in a city where someone looked at this page.

One visit from Providence, Rhode Island. So I've officially gone regional.

Finallly, the vast majority of visits are still direct, and not referred. So start referring. For real people, you can't change the world if you don't start posting links to this page.

That's the report. I'll check in with my marketing staff again next month. Maybe.

Illegal Incontinence

2007-03-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

The people on the news just referred to Lisa Nowak as "the woman charged with driving 900 miles cross-country wearing a diaper." Is that really a crime? Because if they're going to lock us up for that, they might as well start locking us up for singing the Star Spangled Banner, playing baseball and eating apple pie. It sure doesn't sound like the America I know, and I don't want to live in a country where a man or woman isn't free to strap on some absorbent underdrawers and hit the open road. I'm sorry if the nation disagrees.

Rebounding

2007-03-03T17:25:00.000-05:00

What I learned today:

Dick Vitale + Hooters = Advertising Genius

Demokrazy

2007-02-27T19:58:00.000-05:00

If I were pressed to name the greatest invention of all time, I would probably go with voting. It's such a stunningly elegant idea in itself, but even more than that, we keep coming up with new ways to use it thousands of years after its invention. For instance, we use it to identify our pop stars and the leaders of many developed countries, and people in the film industry use it to tell us what movies we should have seen from the previous year. And who knows what we'll use it for in the future? Entertainment? Already halfway there. Scientific discovery? Despite resistance, things are moving in that direction. High-speed transportation? Sure, why not?

We could even use voting to decide what was the greatest invention of all time. If we did, my vote would be for voting.

Only Kidding

2007-02-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

I'm not really giving up anything. It would just make me feel like a quitter. I had thought about giving up giving up, but then I was afraid I would get stuck in some kind of logical meta-loop, and I'll be damned if I let that happen again. 40 days and 40 nights? Psh. Try an eternity.

This Year for Lent

2007-02-23T08:54:00.000-05:00

I've decided to give up.

Everybody Loves the Cos

2007-02-05T20:59:00.000-05:00

I saw Bill Cosby this weekend. It was a huge thrill. Here's a picture:

Can you see him?

Recession Special

2007-02-03T22:08:00.000-05:00

I visited New York City this weekend, and I don't like a lot of things about the city but I have always been interested in its own peculiar vocabulary. Here are just a few of my favorite words, for the benefit of those of who haven't had a chance to learn:

Papaya = a place to get a hot dog
Bills = posters you're not allowed to put up on construction scaffolding
Village = a neighborhood where wealthy young people can imagine they are part of a struggling grassroots community

Usage and Enlightenment

2007-01-29T22:29:00.000-05:00

I'm happy that commercials for erectile dysfunction medications are now helping us improve our vocabulary.

From Webster's unabridged, 1913:

Pri"a*pism, n. [L. priapismus, Gr. , from Priapus the god of procreation, the penis, Gr. : cf. F. priapisme.] (Med.) More or less permanent erection and rigidity of the penis, with or without sexual desire.

Sanitation Meta

2007-01-27T22:59:00.000-05:00

There's a smashed recycling bin sitting on the sidewalk in front of my house. It's been there for some time, and I don't know exactly how to get rid of it. Can I recycle it? Do I have to put it into a bigger recycling bin?

I'm hesitant to even try. A few years back I had a worn-out garbage can at my house and I tried to throw it away with little avail. I tried throwing a garbage bag over it, but for obvious reasons it's hard to fit an entire garbage can into a garbage bag. Every time, the garbage collectors wouldn't pick it up. Does it take a special kind of garbage collector to pick up garbage receptacles?

Where do garbage companies throw away old dumpsters? OK, maybe now I'm just being silly.

Ennui

2007-01-26T21:32:00.000-05:00

Do you ever feel like you've lost the will to blog? You just wake up in the morning and you have nothing inane to say to the world?

Just another thing to make a pill for.

Bruce Campbell

2007-01-18T23:25:00.000-05:00

... has made me want to buy Old Spice again.

But just after I typed that, I saw another Old Spice commercial with some other guy, and I'm back to not wanting it any more.

Wait a minute, did I say "again"? I have never used Old Spice. Ever. Really. Well, maybe that once.

The Nerdiest Assemblage of the Year ...

2007-01-16T00:04:00.000-05:00

Occurs in January. As always, I was present. Have a look-see.

We Aren't the Champions

2007-01-11T09:15:00.000-05:00

It's only a matter of time before every NCAA team gets to play in its own bowl game. When that day comes, I and everyone else will most certainly be tuned in to the Pity Bowl, which occurs between the two lowest-ranked teams. The reason why this would be so captivating is that the teams would really have something to play for, namely, not to be considered the single worst team in college football. As opposed to a championship bowl, where teams have everything to win, these teams would have everything to lose. Sure, some people enjoy witnessing the thrill of victory, but as Americans, I think that we are much more fascinated with the agony of defeat.

How You Play the Game

2007-01-08T20:33:00.000-05:00

It may be true that there's no "I" in "team", but as long as there's "T" and "A", well, that's all right by me.

Poor Anna

2007-01-05T14:47:00.000-05:00

Bad news, everyone. Apparently on AskMen.com's list of the Top 99 Most Desirable Women for 2006, Anna Kournikova only made #99. This is a drop from #52 last year. She is in serious danger of dropping off the list altogether.

Come on now, guys. Sure, I know that Maria Sharapova is taller, younger, and better at tennis. But don't forget that Anna was the one who started it all, who made it OK for men to ogle female tennis players without shame. Don't you remember all those lonely nights, when Anna Kournikova was there for you? Well, where are you now, when she needs you most? First she's out of tennis, now she's falling off the hot list -- what will she lose next?

Do the right thing, men. http://www.askmen.com/specials/2006_top_99/anna-kournikova-99.html

Jawesome

2007-01-04T22:57:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the show "Shark" now for the first time and I'm pretty disappointed. Not a single shark in the whole show. But I don't care about that, I'm just disappointed because I thought the plot was bad. I mean, it's not like Family Feud had a real feud. Not that it wouldn't have been way better if it did. A feud with sharks. Let's see Richard Dawson flirt his way out of that!

Flomax

2007-01-03T22:16:00.000-05:00

Is it a sign that I'm too susceptible to commercials, that I find myself wondering whether I'm satisfied with the quality of my stream?

... Like It's 1999

2007-01-01T23:27:00.000-05:00

Sad Old Year

2006-12-31T14:50:00.000-05:00

People have different reactions to the start of the new year. Some people like to celebrate the event, often in an inebriated fashion. Others prefer to intentionally ignore (if such a thing is semantically possible) the transition into the new year. Myself, I like to observe the occassion by wishing good riddance to the old year. So here goes:

2006 was ten pounds of shit in a five-pound sack, in the vernacular. It was twelve months of agonizing monotony marked by varying periods of shame, misery, and dread. I, for one, won't miss it. Even if 2007 sees the end of human civilization as we know it, it would really have to be something else in order to rank lower than the cesspool that was '06. Looking forward to seeing you in the next one!

Coffee Jello

2006-12-30T10:23:00.000-05:00

I think that says it all.

What I Did on My Vacation

2006-12-29T23:21:00.000-05:00

To those of you who were anxiously awaiting a new post last week, I apologize. I was on vacation. For now, here is a quick run-down of the things I saw while on vacation:

8 states
It's a Wonderful Life
alligators
an American bald eagle
a hairstylist
Ruby Tuesday's
The Amish

I also got myself a present -- a new camera, so that in the future, blog entries may (though not necessarily) be accompanied by photo illustrations. Here's the camera:

Pretty slick, huh?

Blogoscopy

2006-12-18T22:31:00.000-05:00

You probably don't realize this, but a while back I signed up to use Google Analytics to see who was reading this crap. This being the holiday season, I decided that instead of hoarding all this great information to myself, I would share it with you - the consumer.

Here are some things I discovered about my readership:

There have been 41 "visits" and 58 "pageviews" since I started counting a couple weeks ago. I'm not sure what the difference between the two is. At any rate, not too shabby!

My popularity seems to be highest on the East Coast, particularly in the Boston and New York urban core regions. Someone also visited from Tewksbury. Hello, Tewksbury! And someone visited from Blackwood, Pennsylvania. I'm not making this up.

I'm not as big on the West Coast or in the Heartland, with only one visit from Bellevue, Washington and one from Washington, Illinois. I promise to do more to try to appeal to a nationwide audience; suggestions are always welcome.

I've got some international appeal, with a visitor from Vancouver and one from Laval, Quebec. I didn't even know where Laval is. Well, now I do. Sacre bleu!

About 30% of my visitors have been first-timers, and 70% repeat customers. I appreciate the loyalty, but at this early stage it would be great to have more new readers, so spread the word.

I've also found out that 73% of visits are "direct" and not linked to from another site. (You all should work on that, too.) As for the sites that are helping me out, facebook is doing its part with 4 referrals, and I've had referrals from blogs entitled liberaldelight.blogspot.com, ryanandsimone.blogspot.com, biggurlvideo.blogspot.com, booty-shorts.blogspot.com. Please send some business their way.

So, keep on reading (especially you, my new friend in Laval) and keep those numbers up, and I promise to write fewer throw-away B.S. posts about who's reading my blog.

My Gift is My Blog

2006-12-15T17:21:00.000-05:00

Today's post is a Chanukah gift for my readers.

OK, I guess I mean "reader". It came to my attention earlier this week that one of my associates has never read the Christmas short story "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henry. Those of you who have read it know that it doesn't have much to do with the Christmas holdiay per se, but is really more about the commercialism of the holiday season, and what it really means to show our gratitude to those we love. Well, it's a dope story nonetheless, dark but sweet, and I don't see any reason why it should be enjoyed exclusively by the gentiles.

Thanks to Project Gutenberg, I can give this gift without even leaving the house:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7256

Happy Chanukah; G-d bless us everyone!

More Inspiration

2006-12-13T23:32:00.000-05:00

There must be some holiday magic in the air.

Earlier this evening, around the same place I saw the ice cream hero, I was crossing the street and I had to stop abruptly as a car blew through a red light and cut me off. This happens to me all the time, but it never fails to put me in a sour mood. It's not only disheartening to think that a member of civilized society would recklessly regard his own safety and that of others in order to shave a few seconds off his commute. It's also personally insulting that someone so ignorant has successfully got his way at my expense, with impunity.

But that's when I saw the police flashers go on.

I got to watch the whole display from my vantage point by the bus stop. Now, I've never been proud to take pleasure in other people's punishment. But I'm nothing if not honest, and I have to say that those blue flashing lights were as beautiful to me as any holiday light display I've ever seen. And I've seen some pretty damn good ones.

Breakfast of Champions

2006-12-11T14:40:00.000-05:00

It's not every day that we see something truly inspirational. This morning, at about 9AM, I passed by a man walking down the sidewalk while eating an enormous ice cream cone. It must have been 4 scoops or more and about a foot in total height. For breakfast. In December. I have a renewed hope for the human race.

Light Another Candle

2006-12-10T22:56:00.000-05:00

To my Christian readers, happy second week of Advent. For those of you playing along at home, so far we have Hope and Peace. Please mark your Advent cards accordingly.

A Zillion

2006-12-10T01:49:00.000-05:00

In making reference to an arbitrarily large number, many of us (1) have said "a zillion" only to have some smart aleck (2) point out that it isn't a real number (nor is it a complex number, for the analysis nerds reading this). I thought I would try to remedy this by proposing a definition for "a zillion". Obviously there's a problem here, since most arbitrarily large numbers already have names. We'd have to rename one of them, preferably one so arbitrary that people wouldn't care much if the name were changed. I propose:

76,130,427,036,216,227 = a zillion

This means that in lieu of saying "seventy-six quadrillion one hundred thirty trillion four hundred twenty-seven billion thirty-six million two hundred sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-seven" you can just say "a zillion". It also means that if you say "I have a zillion girlfriends" and your friend says "I have seventy-six quadrillion one hundred thirty trillion four hundred twenty-seven billion thirty-six million two hundred sixteen thousand two hundred twenty-eight girlfriends," he's got you beat by one. Sorry.

For ease of accounting, a zillion should still be expressed numerically as 76,130,427,036,216,227. There's no need to make up some silly new symbol for it.

Endnotes (addenda to the second edition):

(1) "Many of us" refers to the head of my research staff and inspiration for this proposal, Lisa, who used the term "a zillion" as the basis for settling an argument that is not worth going into at this time. Also the only known reader of this periodical, so the terminology "many of us" is accurate in substance, if not technically.

(2) "Smart aleck" refers to the author.

Why "Drink Moxie"?

2006-12-08T21:21:00.000-05:00

I drink Moxie. Most people don't. This is partly because Moxie is something you need to "learn to drink," as their ad campaign used to say. So to assist you in the learning process, I found an article on this obscure internet site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie

I first had Moxie with my friends in 1996. We bought it because my friend thought that the guy on the can was taunting us. We tried it out of curiosity. We drank more because we thought that we could build up a "tolerance" for it. We were right. And I still drink it now, because I'm a little addicted.

No Rest

2006-12-06T18:20:00.000-05:00

I feel like I haven't been sleeping well lately. But really, who can sleep while Geraldo is At Large?

More News

2006-12-05T17:03:00.000-05:00

I have good news, and I have bad news.
The bad news is, I lied about the good news.

That is all.

Failure

2006-12-04T21:25:00.000-05:00

Sometimes we set out to do things and we don't achieve them. But I like to look on the bright side of failure. After all, success and failure are defined by the expectations we set for ourselves. Failing just means that our achievements haven't measured up to our expectations. When we sense we've failed, all we need to do is readjust our expectations. That way, in the future, we'll have more successes regardless of what we achieve. So every failure is just a success that hasn't happened yet, and that's as good as a success that already has happened.

I'll still try to write something every day. But if I don't, it's still all good.

Oh crap!

2006-12-02T23:12:00.000-05:00

I've been trying to make sure I post once every day for as long as I can. It is now 11:57 PM, and I am dangerously close to missing my own arbitrary deadline. Unfortunately, the only thing I have to post right now is this useless fact about my pointless resolution. 11:58. Oh well.

Casual Friday

2006-12-01T17:45:00.000-05:00

I don't really like wearing pants. But I do it anyway, because I care about the feelings of those around me.

The Word on the Street

2006-11-30T20:27:00.000-05:00

Walking towards my house yesterday, I saw this written on the sidewalk, in chalk:

HAROLD CALL DONNIE

In this age of cellphones and blogspots and whatnot, I've been surprised at the way technology has turned what used to be private communication into something increasingly public. It's comforting to see the everyday world finally catching up to technology.

Undatable

2006-11-29T20:35:00.000-05:00

I failed my Dating License Test.

http://www.godofdesire.com/dating-license-test/

Well, there's always the bus.

Dr. Teeth

2006-11-28T16:57:00.000-05:00

I don't think that people become dentists because they want to inflict pain on other people. I think people become dentists because they like to have conversations with people who can't respond.

Fun with Facebook

2006-11-27T21:14:00.000-05:00

"Poke Her"? But I hardly know how to play!

Sunday Funnies

2006-11-26T19:47:00.000-05:00

Zippy makes me angry. Just furious, murderously angry. But Mother Goose and Grimm reminds me of the futility of action, robs me of all self-esteem, and paralyzes me by my own apathy. I suppose that is the quiet genius of it all.

Big News

2006-11-25T21:24:00.000-05:00

As of today, I have a blogspot.