Lil’ Thor commercial

This is the kind of advertising I can get behind. Really clever.

A truth to Belieb in

I do not like Justin Bieber’s music. There is something about bubblegum crap that tends to turn me off if it is not wrapped in a candy coated shell of gimmicky shamelessness. But Bieber is not just a musical artist – and I use “artist” loosely. There’s so much more to his career than that. Bieber is an event. Bieber is a superstar.

The nonBeliebers hate the kid based on his annoying music and current ubiquity. They also are just the types of people who must complain about what is popular in other demographics. Honestly, I find people who complain about Justin Bieber to be more annoying than Bieber’s fans. But a new entry in the saga of Bieber’s ongoing 15 minute legacy happened this past week on CSI. I do not know what exactly happened in the episode. Because of Bieber haters, I know exactly how it ended.

GameStop hilariously and cleverly promotes 3-for-2

GameStop’s business practices generally cannot be defended. Accounts of employee mistreatment are reported on the web almost weekly, and video game companies loathe the fact that used games net absolutely no profit for them. Up until now, their television commercials have been pretty boring, as well. Like I said, up until now…

The commercial may not say anything about their business, but it does effectively promote the idea of three and an association with two. (The symbolism is easy to follow, but I will explain it anyway: The three games deal stands out because the three arms were unexpected, and we remember the idea that it is for the price of two games because we only expected two arms.) Very clever, quite hilarious, and the shock value makes it memorable. What also made it work for me, and I may very well be alone in this, is that I expected the dad to give the kid a game and walk away with two for himself but got this commercial instead.

Macy’s Ad Dissonance -or- How Rent Sold Out

Have you seen the latest Macy’s commercial?

It is absolutely touching. Sweet imagery married to a lovely song about remembering the past year. How could they go wrong?

The Nielsen group wants more commercials on your internet

Anyone who reads this blog probably views some portion of his or her television load on the internet, likely streamed from an official source. I used to download a good portion of my missed television, but streaming sites like Hulu have definitely improved to the point where I don’t care so much about quality issues. In fact, I just watched “Pilot, Part 1” of Caprica on Hulu in HD with one minor hiccup. Watching streamed content almost seems preferable at this point, despite having to wait until the sunrise following the actual airing to see it.

One advantage people have mentioned to me about online viewing that never really clicked was the reduced or removed load of commercial content. Before I downloaded, streamed, or DVRed, commercials rarely meant anything to me because I used them as bathroom and snack breaks. I would simply tune out until the show came back on. Others have taken heavy issue with commercials, adapting other viewing methods to actively filter them out or avoid them. We are at war with the advertisers, and I never received my draft notice.

Some people are concerned about Nielsen’s latest announcement that streamed television shows will likely see the same commercial yield as their properly aired brothers. The exact same commercials. I guess this, in a way, makes the DVR the legal alternative for commercial-free viewing.

The only reason this bothers me is because I continue to think that the Nielsen’s are an outdated model for determining anything of worth in terms of a show’s commercial viability. Despite that, this is a good move toward modernization. In effect they are saying that the online viewer is important. It’s too bad that they’re important less for their viewership of a particular series and more for their inherent ability to view advertising. Nielsen cares about commercials over content.

So what’s the problem with seeing commercials anyway? I speculate that people attribute it to a base-level annoyance with interference during an otherwise pure viewing of something. Why should someone have to watch a car ad when they just want to watch Phil and Lem create another invention for Veridian that will somehow be used for war? It really does get in the way. Many of us just change the channel.

But that’s not the problem. The problem with commercials is not that they exist. The problem with commercials is that they suck. Watching Mad Men has helped to dishearten me to the current commercial environment. Don Draper creates elegant yet slick ads with a certain passion that sells the product and more. The commercials I see, even accompanying a broadcast of Mad Man (where AMC should charge a high premium for the best of the best ads), are essentially selling me shit that I don’t need just so I can say I have it. That’s the amount of care advertisers are putting into their commercials – especially when they make the same commercial they’ve already made or the same commercial their competition has made. Many of us have reduced our television viewing over the years, partially in avoidance of crap. Such commercials should be avoided as well. Seeing it online is hardly a welcome change.

There is a silver lining, however. Online viewing is a more active and interactive experience than television viewing. You point, you click, you shift to HD, and you might even have some other process going on. You’re engaged. Hulu further engages the viewer with options to send a link to friends, rate the particular content you’re viewing, and approve or disapprove of the scant ads provided. I love telling Hulu which ads I don’t like, since it then shows them to me less often. That will not happen with fixed ads, but I would love if I could still provide direct feedback for a bad commercial. That is what Nielsen should consider after this shift. Advertising is welcome so long as the user has control of content in some regard. In this way, we would be telling them what works and what does not work.

Control of commercial content is not important to them at this juncture. What Nielsen wants is to turn the internet into the same advertising agent that it turned television into so long ago. People are voicing disgust, but it will not affect online viewership. People turn to the internet for television not because of their being bothered by commercials but rather for the accessibility. I work until 9 p.m. on a good night. I don’t mind streaming Scrubs on Tuesday morning alongside breakfast.

There’s another silver lining with this. While there has been no mention of it so far, maybe the Nielsen Ratings will start reflecting the contributions of online content. Shows with large online viewerships may last longer due to proof that someone is watching them (or watching the commercials). Maybe this could have protected Dollhouse. If given another season, this might protect Chuck. I would be especially for this if they kept Hulu’s 5-star rating system and took it seriously. Producers could learn a thing or two from what viewers actually like versus the tired method of saying a viewer who left his TV on for an hour actually liked the show.

Hardee’s thinks you prefer B-holes to A-holes

Maybe juvenile ads are the rage now. I found them amusing at first, but now I’m starting to think that marketers find my demographic to be a mostly perverse lot who think we’re a lot more clever than we actually are. That’s not entirely untrue, yet it would be nice for them to lie to us just a little bit more.

So, Hardee’s is selling little biscuit holes and going the blind taste test route in their commercial, but with a twist.

The obvious "This A-hole tastes like shit!" was not included in the commercial for some reason

Burger King will blow you! – err, your mind…

I’ve already established that I’m not against unsavory ads. I feel like that’s the natural progression of our sex-minded culture. Sex has already been used in ads, but things are getting more direct and suggestive of acts. The only thing that these ads are getting wrong is the fact that there’s a time and a place for them. Quizno’s and its “fuck the oven, put it in your mouth” ad should only air on television after 10 p.m. The Burger King ad above should only be found around Vegas and adults-only establishments. And in both cases, they should not be the only ads provided by the campaign for new sandwiches.

Oh, and here’s how the Koreans have used the thought of fellatio to sell noodles:

Of course, now I tend to run my fingers suggestively through my hair as I eat noodles. It makes them taste better, I swear!

Dollhouse advertised as smut

As if the grindhouse-style ads with The Sarah Connor Chronicles weren’t enough to turn away potential viewers, the little pop-up ads shown during Prison Break present Dollhouse as something other than what the actual viewers see.  Showing Eliza Dushku in a state of undress is supposed to be really sexy, but is that what the show is?  The ads, in my opinion, make the series look potentially very smutty to its potential audience.  The actual audience who would embrace the complex show would probably be turned away by such a juvenile attempt at catering to the simplest of demographics.  And the audience to whom this would appeal wouldn’t last 30 minutes into an episode.

Many of the promos were like this from the start, but I ignored them because they were just establishing a fanbase.  I hadn’t noticed pop-up ads before because, well, I never watched that Terminator show.  It would be news to me if the ads were there.  If Fox wanted to turn the Prison Break demographic onto Dollhouse, they’d be better off appealing to their more sensible nature.  At least in the beginning, Prison Break was an intelligent and complex show that required regular viewing to follow the nuances of Michael’s plan.  It is not far fetched to believe that viewers with that kind of dedication would be intrigued by the kind of plot contained within Dollhouse.

Of course, as history shows, Fox does know best.  Right?

repost: Ali Larter is obsessed with me

I received a very interesting link the other day.  While I have no problem at all with the fact that Ali Larter thinks so highly of me and wants the world to know, I have a problem with the fact that she doesn’t even have the decency to say my name.  I’ll forgive her.  After all, I would drop my significant other for her.  Ali and I are meant to be together!

This required a repost because, obviously, Larter hacked into my blog and screwed up my link to her obsessive stalkery ways.  This was of course completely her fault and not due to my accidentally leaving out one of the first letters in the hyperlink.

Who was on drugs when making this?

Video editor’s chipper commentary:  “I left the black guy out in the end!”