The Anti-Advertising Agency » tv

Charlie Brooker’s 10 Biggest Cocks and She-Cocks in Advertising… ever!

Steve Lambert — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:45:13 +0000

“We’re All Going To Die,” Industry Laments . . . Again

Anne Elizabeth Moore — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:44:59 +0000

An article in yesterday’s AdAge titled “Ad Skipping? Just Wait. It’s Going to Get Worse.” bemoans last week’s US Court of Appeals ruling that would allow—oh, it’s bad—”network DVR” technology, essentially allowing viewers at home to watch whatever they want on cable, whenever they want to watch it, without buying any fancy new equipment or boxes.

(This used to be considered a right, noncommercial media, on the theory that broadcasts took place in public space, and needed to give back to the public good because of it. That’s recently been abandoned, notably by NPR and PBS, because it’s not profitable.)

The danger, of course—or as we at-home viewers like to call it, the benefit—is that you can skip every ad.

Oh, but that’s not how the ad industry sees it. Barely concealing threats to the “media conglomerates” that, the story raves, make such excellent use of ad revenue now, and referring to the technology as “invasive”, “penetrative”, and “great cause for concern,” the article goes on to provide some of the most hilarious quotes I’ve ever read outside of a joke book.

“Consumers, now accustomed to watching shows as they wish,” the piece contends, suffer from an “ad-skipping addiction.”

John Senior, a partner at Oliver Wyman, seems baffled. “They don’t want to watch commercials, but they won’t pay to not watch commercials.”

Oh. My. God.: How are they supposed to make a buck if we refuse to give them any?

CBC on IllegalSigns.ca

Steve Lambert — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:00:04 +0000

Go Rami!

…The greatest love of all

Emily Gallagher — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:35:58 +0000

Reality TV has never been anything but a guilty pleasure for me. In high school I shunned my friends for watching the first season of Survivor and at home, if someone walked in on me watching The Real World I would change the channel as quickly as possible. But like it, secretly like it, or not, reality TV is a stronghold in American entertainment today, and is, most frequently, about encouraging conformity, competition and “survival of the fittest.” But what about those who aren’t “the fittest?”

Lifetime’s new show is a bit different. It’s called, How to Look Good Naked and it’s hosted by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy‘s Carson Kressley, proving himself to be the Leo Buscaglia for my generation. This show is, quite simply, about having self esteem. It takes on women who feel BADLY about themselves, frequently because they are overweight, but sometimes just because they have guts or butts.

As someone who spent moments of her childhood being called, amongst other things, “beached whale“, I can relate. For the first time, with How to Look Good Naked, reality tv actually feels like a reality I have known. This show is not a fantasy of spending a million dollars in NYC boutiques or getting transformed into Kate Winslet via plastic surgery; but wanting to cry because you feel like a loser, and how very misleading that feeling is. The show hammers home the widespread self-loathing epidemic with flashes of shocking and sad statistics across the screen like, “4 out of 5 adolescent girls would rather get cancer than gain weight.”

Some television critics are enraged by this feel-good theme, saying it promotes obesity. I beg to differ. Let me tell you: when you’re fat, you know it. It’s not a secret and you feel shameful and self conscious in most everything you do. Promoting obesity is different than acknowledging that humans come in different shapes and sizes. The only other time I’ve seen overweight people on television was as “best friends” in 80s sitcoms.

As my friend Becca pointed out, if a woman (or man) is confident, they are more likely to live an active life, and probably become more physically healthy! Depression is one of the main causes for obesity… and depression isn’t cured with diets or personal trainers or plastic surgery. Appreciation for who you are and belief in a positive future for yourself goes further.

Unfortunately, a television show can only do so much. And when Dexetrim ads are shown during the commercial breaks, and critics are vehemently panning it for some kind of deep seated fear or hatred that our society has with fat people, especially women, what difference does it really make?

Well, I don’t care. I think it’s babysteps in the right direction. About-Face suggests that those who like the show, or even the concept, write to Lifetime and let them know. I think that’s a good idea.

Via About Face

Arguing From Both Sides

Steve Lambert — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:09:32 +0000

Sao Paolo’s Billboard Ban is about to have it’s first birthday. The ban went into effect and remains, despite threats of multiple lawsuits and cries about the loss of (corporate) free speech issued this time last year. For example:

But advertising and business groups regard the legislation as injurious to society and an affront to their professions. They say that free expression will be inhibited, jobs will be lost and consumers will have less information on which to base purchasing decisions. They also argue that streets will be less safe at night with the loss of lighting from outdoor advertising. “This is a radical law that damages the rules of a market economy and respect for the rule of law,” said Marcel Solimeo, chief economist of the Commercial Association of São Paulo, which has 32,000 members. “We live in a consumer society and the essence of capitalism is the availability of information about products.”

Strong words. And that bit about the safety lighting provided by advertising? Perhaps desperate words from an industry clinging to it’s grip on public space.

Yet a few months later Sao Paolo’s lack of advertising became a selling point in this commercial for British Movie Channel, Sky Movies. I love this commercial – I would just change the ending a bit.

Yes, freedom from advertising can be bought through a premium movie channel, but we still can’t avoid advertising in public space. Unless you live in Sao Paolo.

Packard Jennings in NYT

Steve Lambert — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:30:10 +0000

AAA member, Packard Jennings, who worked on the Bus Stop Ad Project, had a project on the front page of the New York Times on monday. The article discussed shopdropping and referenced the Anti-Advertising Agency’s shopdropping workshops for the PeopleProducts123 project.

Update: Here’s some tv news coverage, with our friends from the Center for Tactical Magic:

Charlie Brooker’s 10 Biggest Cocks in Advertising

Steve Lambert — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:13:45 +0000

Yes, “Cock” is in the headline. I never said this was a family blog.

A friend just sent these two bits of simple genius. You probably don’t want to watch this too loud at work, depending on where you work. I can’t make any sense over what the BBC does and doesn’t bleep. Also the hysterical laughter might be disrupting to your co-workers.

The 10 Biggest Cocks in Advertising

The 10 Biggest Cocks and She-Cocks in Advertising:

Charlie Valentine

Marketers, the Military, and Me

Steve Lambert — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:48:17 +0000

You may have heard already about the A&E billboard beaming audio to the street in New York City. A speaker mounted above the billboard sends ultrasound waves from 7 stories up to a specific location below. Because it’s highly directional, for people outside the target area it’s hardly, if at all, audible. Here’s a demonstration video made by the marketing company:

The “Audio Spotlight” technology has been written up in Gawker (who’s writer was thoroughly creeped out), AdAge, and as the subject of tech pieces in many media outlets. It was only WFMU that made the connection with military technology.

Having just watched the 2nd episode of Jon Ronson’s BBC Documentary, Crazy Rulers of the World (pt1 on google video or torrent all 3 parts) based on his book The Men Who Stare at Goats, this directed audio technology was fresh in my mind. Here’s that clip – the audio stuff kicks in at 45 seconds:

Now before you start connecting the dots, the Audio Spotlight was developed at MIT in Boston, while the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) seen in the Ronson video was developed by American Technology in San Diego. But they do essentially accomplish the same thing.

Without sounding like the conspiracy nuts Ronson features in his books, I do find the overlap with military techniques and advertising techniques noteworthy, if not amusing. Quite simply both parties are interested in “affecting behavior” as American Technology’s website puts it. And what kind of world do we live in when the same techniques used in “PSYOP” missions and “Detainee Operations” (see American Technology’s site) are used to promote television shows about ghosts?

One of the things I personally find fascinating is how people justify bringing new forms invasive advertising into the world. The inventor, Joe Pompei, who in video appears to be a well-meaning 30 something, sees this as a solution to noise pollution. He claims, “the whole idea is to spare other people.” I think he’s right. In cases where loudspeakers broadcast sound in every direction, needlessly, the audio spotlight is the solution hands-down. But that’s not the case with the A&E billboard. The A&E billboard introduces audio to an environment that had none – but supposedly it’s ok because it’s not blasting in every direction. Just one.

In response to criticism about just how creepy it is to have advertising messages more or less beamed into your head in public space, Pompei had this to say, “There’s going to be a certain population sensitive to it. But once people see what it does and hear for themselves, they’ll see it’s effective for getting attention.” What? Oh Joe, you’re right, they don’t understand. Once those complainers realize that it’s “effective at getting attention” then they’ll see.

Actually Joe, the problem is it already got their attention.

“Real beauty” from the makers of Axe?

Steve Lambert — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:21:06 +0000

From our pal Carrie McLaren over at StayFree Magazine:

It’s been a while since we checked in on the Dove “Real Beauty” campaign, but I would feel remiss in not pointing out the new round of criticism its getting.

If you haven’t seen them, the Dove commercials are as genius as they are insidious (see Onslaught and Evolution, for instance). As the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood pointed out last month, Dove is owned by Unilever, which also produces Axe body spray and other personal hygiene products. So while the makers of Dove attack advertising that exploits female bodies, they’re producing scores of those ads at the very same time. The Axe campaign, however, is particularly obnoxious. As media literacy consultant Bob McCannon has said:

In all my years of doing school workshops, I have never seen anything like the reaction of middle and high school kids. Almost ALL (no exaggeration) know the words to the Axe song, “Bom Chicka Wah Wah,” by heart and sing it immediately and enthusiastically with the video, and most of them have been to the Axe “spanking vixens” site.

Now someone has re-edited Dove’s latest commercial—replacing bikini bunnies from generic sources with those from Axe commercials—to call attention to Unilever’s hypocrisy. See A Message from Unilever. With luck, word will get around to all of those middle and high school teachers using the Dove spots as media literacy. The real lesson here is not that Dove supports “real beauty” but that corporations will say anything—even ostensibly critical things—to sell their crap.