« Saturday, April 17, 2004. Chris | Main | Monday, April 19, 2004. »
April 18, 2004
Sunday, April 18, 2004. Better
Sunday, April 18, 2004. Better Commercials?There are some encouraging signs that television commercials might get less obnoxious. After Bud Light's farting horse, a horny chimp, a male bikini-wrap, and crotch-snapping dog nadir in the Super Bowl, Anheuser-Busch is rethinking the tone and content of television commercials. As reported in Stuart Elliott's "Advertising" column in the Friday, April 16, issue of The New York Times, Auggie Busch IV told the annual meeting of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) this week that Budweiser was "prepared to do better research" on their commercial approach, because "there's something going on out there."
Augie Busch is as clueless as another person with the same last name (waspier spelling) who got his job because of a powerful, dynastic family name and who wouldn't be working if it weren't for his first and last name.
Later in the Elliott 's column people who are a lot smarter and more articulate than Bush (oh, sorry for the typo, I meant "Busch"), declared "You can still be creative and careful about sophomoric humor. You have to be sensitive to the mood, and I think the mood has changed significantly," said Steven Blamer of Grey Global Group advertising agency.
Are Busch and Blamer suggesting that the taste of 21-25-year-old male beer guzzlers has suddenly changed dramtatically? That their craving for sophomoric, randy, puerile, bathroom humor featuring farting horses and out-of-control partying or wrestling by nubile women (preferably twins) has been sated? Bullshit. The mood of the country hasn't changed, immature young men haven't changed (and probably never will), but what has changed is that the media and advertisers are more afraid of the current administration's crack-down on supposed indecency fueled by the religious right, which has the White House and the President (and thus the FCC) in its thrall.
The US Constitution supposedly guarantees the separation of church and state, but the current president and his administration have brought religion, politics, and national policy closer together than any previous administration in the history of our country. Our national abortion, education, judiciary, even international policies are influenced by fundamentalist religious doctrine and ideals. And nowhere is the pressure more intense than on the media to clean up what the fundamentalists refer to as "indecency." This administration has more in common with the Taliban than it would like to think.
But the media and advertisers (and their agencies) are wimping out on first amendment and free-speech issues. Clear Channel, Viacom, and other major media conglomerates are knuckling under to the right-wing, fundamentalist pressure on indecency because of one thing--money. The bottom line is that newly proposed fines that are more than ten times larger than previous fines for indencency could potentially put some broadcasters out of business. Certainly taking away the licenses of radio or television stations for air indecent material could put those stations out of business. And because the media is one of the most profitable businesses in the country, no media company wants to take a chance of lower profits or being put out of business. The fight for free speech gets abandoned to the bottom line.
Does this mean that I think the dreadful, tasteless Howard Stern is being unfairly prosecuted? Yes. I hate Stern's program, but I believe he has a right to say most of what he says. Do I think it's OK for Bono to use the f-word as an adjective in an ad lib acceptance speech? Yes. Do I think it's OK for Janet Jackson to bare her boob for an instant on national TV. Yes, because it was no more provocative than Brittany Spears tries to be and certainly less offensive than the crotch-grabbing rapper on the same Super Bowl half-time show. What I do find offensive is that the media companies and advertisers aren't fighting back and standing up for freedom of speech.
I know if I got my way and the indencency cops (like stupid John Ascroft ordering the breasts on statues covered) were all sent to pornography hell, that there would be a lot more tasteless stuff on television. But what is more obscene, a one-second glimpse of Janet's boob or the program "The Swan?" America television viewer's appetite for tasteless, indecent crap seems endless.
Perhaps the solution to the problem of making commericals more acceptable to the indecency police is to be more creative and produce commercials like the current American Express campaign that features Jerry Seinfeld talking with Superman. Great, funny, compelling video (available on the Web). So good that Seinfeld and Superman were interviewed on NBC's "Today" show several weeks ago--a huge, free plug for American Express.
Maybe advertisers and agencies could knock off this concept, for, after all, knock-offs are the sincerest form of flattery and everyone always copies everyone else in advertising anyway. How about similar pairings and subsequent commericals and interviews. Wouldn't you love to see George Bush and Elmer Fudd, Condi Rice and Bugs Bunny, and Dick Cheney and Porgy Pig being interviewed about WMD on "Today?" Or Howard Stern and Road Runner? Let's hear it for a new trend in better commercials!
Posted by Charles Warner at April 18, 2004 12:32 PM