art not ads

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..!)

Lots of lovely stuff happening out there at the moment. Clicking a few links on the internets today turned up all this booty.

The New York Times reports that Steve Lambert, a “conceptual artist” (tee hee!) from the Anti-Advertising Agency, has created AddArt, a small piece of software for the Mozilla Firefox browser that replaces adverts with art imagery. (Via Stay Free Magazine.)

The Anti-Advertising Agency blog has a wonderful story, complete with photos, of fly-posters being arrested for placing Microsoft adverts illegally around Los Angeles. It’s good to see they also mention the Pixelator and David Lynch’s opinion of product-placement in films.

The Anti-Advertising Agency collaborates with the Samara Project, which aims to “call into question the purpose and effects of advertising in public space.”

Stay Free also has an article on “ad creep”, the pernicious race to cover all available surfaces with advertising.

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 China Daily reports that children who are “beleaguered” with advertising “could just blindly develop a passion for famous brands”. The main concern seems to be how advertising affects autistic children, and others with a “lack of discerning abilities”. There’s an underlying pining for traditional family values throughout the story that is frankly a red herring - the key question is about advertising and children: not whether they are affected, but whether we actually care.

Via Stay Free.

Oh my word, now this is just gorgeous:

http://www.jasoneppink.com/pixelator/

“Pixelator turns those ugly, blinding video billboard ads into art”. It certainly does.

Some intriguing adverts have appeared recently on London Underground trains. In trendy red, black and white, with pixelated lettering and dirty “urban” scrawls, the ads inform us of vaguely worrying “facts” - for example, 75% of information on the Internet is controlled by one company. The only other detail is a URL:

http://www.information-revolution.org

Could it be that a funky, media-savvy outfit has been formed just to look out for us average internet users? Has a digital Batman unleashed his fearsome data-privacy super-powers on the unjust of the web’s information oligarchy? How exciting! Visiting the site reveals some obtuse ramblings about an apparent group of chums who dreamt up this crazy scheme over a few beers one evening, and then knocked up a website. Okay, so not Batman exactly, but isn’t it great that a group of Citizens has formed to protect us from this pernicious Big Brother? Which begs the question, who is this Big Brother anyway? Ah, there it is, tucked away: it’s Google.

Can it be that these guys combine Batman’s sense of justice with David’s (of “David vs Goliath” [tm] fame) giant-slaying Biblical might? Why, that would be just great!

Erm, no. Of course not. It is apparently a bizarre attempt at kick-starting a “viral marketing” campaign. The website is operated by an advertising agency called Profero, whose clients include Yahoo! and Ask - two companies who are desperate to claw some of the market out of Google’s sticky fingers. Considering the site is in Ask’s index, but neither Google nor Yahoo! have indexed the site yet, suggests that Ask have sponsored this. That’s just guess-work of course. (Update: Inspired guess-work it seems. An ad on TV last night confirms it is indeed Ask behind this atrocious campaign. Where exactly do they think all this pompous cyber-warrior nonsense is going to get them? Where will it end? Will they not rest until their CEO is hoisted onto the shoulders of the unshackled hoi-polloi, who, weeping hot tears of thanks after years of oppression, rally around their saviour - a 3rd rate search engine???)

The campaign is so hugely clumsy it beggars belief. It’s so easy to register a website anonymously, and they didn’t even bother doing that. Spattering fnords all over London advertising media is such an out-dated advertising technique it just makes you cringe (and has doubtless attracted the attention of Google’s legal department). Companies like Nike and Reebok conducted sophisticated viral marketing campaigns decades ago, before it was even known by that name, by paying teenage taste-makers to wear their products and tell their friends how great they were (read Naomi Klein’s book “No Logo” for more detail on that sordid industry). However viral marketing is so formulaic these days that Profero can’t even be bothered to do anything beyond the basics: trendy ads, blah blah, website, blah, privacy paranoia, blah blah, blog, vox-pop video interviews, done. That’ll be several thousand pounds, please, thank you. I’m surprised they haven’t spooged it all over YouTube and MySpace. Well, never mind, at least they offer us free t-shirts so that we can “get involved”. Thanks for that.

The thing that’s really odd is that Profero’s campaign is so ball-achingly poor that they must assume that either (a) the populous is stupid enough to swallow it, or (b) their client is stupid enough to pay for it. Unfortunately the latter is clearly true.

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.

London’s Metro “newspaper” today carries an interview with psychologist Oliver James. His latest book, “Affluenza”, looks into the link between consumerist aspirations and mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse. His views are undeniably tinted by his politics, but he backs up his points with some interesting evidence. Some choice quotes:

“One in four people in English-speaking countries has suffered a mental illness in the past 12 months compared with 11.5 percent of Western Europeans… Affluenza makes you ill because it prevents you meeting fundamental psychological needs. Instead you’re lured by ‘wants’ confected by advertisers who encourage consumption… All of us [have become] obsessed with having more money to have a ‘better’ lifestyle… Maybe we should be satisfied with what we’ve got. Your best bet is to try to have happy, satisfying relationships.”

A slight twist on an old story, with a very familiar conclusion.

More genius from the wonderful Ji Lee who brought us the Bubble Project. This time, abstractor.tv demonstrates how to turn a TV or “video billboard” (something that is increasingly pervasive in the UK) into a work of art. Art Not Ads, activist-stylee. Luv it.