art not ads

Well, I suppose it had to happen. Stay Free comment on an article in the LA Times about a TV show called “Firebrand” which is nothing but adverts. It features “commercial jockeys” who actually introduce the upcoming ads.

Now if you don’t mind, I think I’ve just about had it…. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? It’s as if Franz Kafka, David Cronenburg and Terry Gilliam dreamed up some hideous TV monster, and it ATE TV-LAND then crapped out RECURSIVE TV NIGHTMARES. This is in Revelations, right?

Honestly though. Are they on crack or what?

Hmm?

A story at Murketing points to an article in the New York Times, telling the inspiring tale of illustrator Linzie Hunter. She gets a lot of spam emails, like the rest of us. One day Linzie decided to use the text from these emails to create samples of her hand-lettering illustration work. She created a Flickr photoset of these illustrations, and suddenly found “fame” through mentions at BoingBoing and similar websites.

This story has been kicking about for a while, but it’s worth mentioning. Have you seen those awful ads that a certain tissue-manufacturer has been airing, where a guy sits on a blue couch in the street and invites people to “let it out” and talk to him? There’s a box of tissues on the table, and as the volunteers open up their hearts, they tug out a tissue to dry their eyes. Very touching.

The manufacturer in question, Kimberley-Clarke, make a proud boast of using 100% virgin fibre. Campaigners Kleercut say that this material largely comes from clear-cutting ancient forests, which are home to wolves, caribou, and other wildlife that are forced to move on as their habitat is destroyed. It certainly doesn’t look very pretty.

The Kleercut campaigners took to the streets of New York to interrupt the filming of some of these ads. The results are quite amusing. However, the really interesting part of that film from is the comments from the advertising film crew that can be heard in the opening sequences. The volunteers are told that their tears should be genuine, so they’ll need to discuss something moving.

Very few people are naive enough to think that the actual sessions on the blue couch are as open and heartwarming as the final edit purports; and some may not agree with Kleercut’s tactics. But it’s fascinating to get a glimpse into the machinations of an advertising campaign that sets out to deceive. Of course, TV is all theatre, but this advert uses members of the public in an ostensibly impromptu display of emotion, a facade that is demolished by the overheard comments in the film. The link to the final product is tenuous at best, though as any marketeer will tell you, if you engage the audience’s emotions, they’ll most likely remember the product. It’s disappointing that everyone involved in the ad, even presumably the volunteers for the blue couch, were aware that they were all being duplicitous about the premise of the ad. In any group activity, responsibility can become diffused among all participants, so the individuals feel little responsibility themselves. Is it a little harsh to suggest similar mechanisms are at work in advertising, particularly in cynical and exploitative ads? Is there any other reason that people are induced to take part in this sort of advertising? (Apart from cash of course..!)

David Lynch succinctly expresses his opinion on films that use “product placement” to gain funding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

The Other Paper has an article about a “sophisticated defacer of public property” named Vinchen.

Two weeks ago, the floor manager of the Hilton Columbus at Easton was strolling through the hotel when he noticed something strange. From a distance, it appeared that a new Hilton advertisement had been hung on the wall of the hotel’s conference room. Everything about the picture projected dignity and sophistication: the Hilton insignia, the Hilton colors, even the Hilton lettering. Everything, that is, except the Hilton daughter. In the right half of the poster, a tipsy-looking Paris Hilton appeared bare-breasted. The text accompanying her image read: “For over 80 years the Hilton name has been synonymous with elegance and class.” Then, in large letters: “A tradition that continues today.”

A little “Banksy” perhaps, but top work.

The last word in street-chic, someone has created printable coldsores. Download the delightful graphics, print them onto sticky labels, and apply to the glamorous model in your favourite advert.

The Utahraptor from the daft and lovely Qwantz “dinosaur comics” seems to be sympathetic to Art Not Ads. Hoorah!

http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=908

Funny adverts

When I mention Art Not Ads to people, there seems to be a fairly common response: “Ah, but what about that ad for XYZ? It’s really funny! If we didn’t have advertising, we’d have fewer funny things on TV/billboards/radio!”

Where do you start with such wrong-headedness? First, I suppose, there’s the inherent assumption that we need TV/billboards/radio for our entertainment. This is, of course, daft. With the BBC intent on dumbing-down its content in order to compete with the Murdoch-style popular media, TV and radio are increasingly the realm of banal lowest-common-denominator mush. Intellectual snobbery? Not really, just common sense. If the only half-decent publicly funded broadcasting corporation left on the planet insists on competing with the purveyors of reactionary claptrap then they’ll have to play by the same set of rules. There goes the neighbourhood.

A second assumption is that something funny must be OK. Well, that just doesn’t cut it, does it? I’m sure Jo Stalin knew a few good jokes. “Shame about the whole genocide business but he really knew how to work a crowd!” If something makes you laugh, does that mean it’s something you’d agree with universally? Funny does not equal correct. I sincerely hope anyone that finds Jeremy Clarkson funny, for example, can see that he’s a hideous force for Bad. (And anyone reading this and thinking “Ah! So you’re saying that funny things are wrong?” should be given a quick course in logic and put out of their misery.)

A third assumption is that advertising is the only way that entertainment can be funded or publicised. How nutty is that? Great Aunt Bertha’s nut-cake, that’s how nutty. Squirrel pie. It seems to me that the reverse perspective holds far more water: by corralling the cash, advertising agencies sap a lot of the creative talent. People “need jobs” after all, and a lot unfortunately tend to follow the cash. This perpetuates an environment where it’s very difficult to get non-corporate creativity shown to the public. This is similar to a discussion on the ANA pledgebank.com forum: one poster makes the point that charities are given advertising space if it’s spare, but didn’t seem to appreciate that this is the equivalent of pricing charities out of the advertsing market, then offering them the crumbs from the table and expecting them to be happy. Seems like an odd thing to be happy with.

A little economics

Reading back over the pledgebank.com forum, I don’t think I made one point clearly enough. The question was raised: what’s wrong with using advertising to fund a public service (e.g. bus, Tube, trains, etc). Here are some thoughts:

1. Advertising makes you spend your money with the advertisers. Simple. It has to do this, or there would be no point in advertising. Right? Right.
2. Advertisers pay the public service provider in order to advertise to the public.
3. You (being a member of the public, I presume) pay twice: once to the service provider, and second to the advertiser when you buy their products.
4. Advertisers make a profit, even after paying a share of their revenue to the service provider where they advertise.
5. This means that, by paying both the service provider and the advertiser, we are paying more than required to run the public service without the advertising.

Got that? It’s obvious really: the advertisers spend in order to get back more cash than they spend: in other words, to make a profit. They get that cash from the people who are exposed to the ads on the public services: you and me. The advertisers then deduct the amount they paid to the public service provider, in order to work out their profit. The net result is that by using a service funded by advertising, we spend more money than is necessary to run the service! And somehow people think that advertising provides us with “free money”, that somehow advertising is the most cost-effective way of funding a public service.

In fact, it seems that the only people it would benefit are those who are so completely opposed to advertising that they refuse to buy anything that they’ve seen advertised. Whereas those poor souls who are influenced to purchase advertised products are in fact paying way more than necessary for their so-called public service. Now that is nutty. Completely Alpen.