Category Archives: Media & Advertising

jezebelles

Posted on by
Reply

Have you heard of Jezebel? I look at this publication kinda as a sarcastic Vanity Fair. Although they talk about celebrity, fashion, and stereotypically girlie things, they’re quite critical of it all. For instance, they have articles ranging from the ever-evolving drama of Jon & Kate Plus 8 to animal rights advertising to an excellent run-down and critique of Huckabee on The Daily Show. The site’s description:

Jezebel is celebrity, fashion, and sex without the airbrushing. The witty, informative tone draws a readership that is intelligent and sophisticated, but still willing to get down and dirty. Jezebel does what those women’s monthlies only wish they could.

Sorta reminds me of Harlot–exchange all of that celebrity and fashion stuff for rhetoric and we ain’t far off. Certainly, I think some of their articles fit nicely into the realm of rhetorical critiques of pop culture with a dash of wit. Given the site’s high readership, perhaps there’s something that Harlot could learn from its (maybe not-so) distant cousin. Of course, they’ve been at it a bit longer, have major sponsors, and their editors even get paid! Ah, to earn a wage at this. Harlot is a bit too indie for that major sponsorship though, eh? And we encourage our audience to be more participatory as well. It’s a thought. One still in development.

Picture 1

Old Yeller . . . The Dog Food

Posted on by
Reply

I wouldn’t believe unless I saw it with my own eyes:

yeller

In conjunction with Disney, Kroger has begun selling Old Yeller Dog Food based off the movie depicting a young boy’s emotional journey with his dog, set in the 1860s.  Old Yeller (named for his color, yellow/yella) and the boy become very close and engage in numerous frontier adventures.  Then the dog gets into a fight with wolf, gets bit, becomes rabid, and the boy shoots him in the head with a rifle.

The movie sometimes goes by its alternative title: SADDEST MOVIE EVER.

Or, in the words of the geniuses over at Kroger and Disney: “The movie is a timeless classic that transcends generations, and we believe this brand will appeal not only to original fans, but to the millions of Americans who share the same kind of special bond with their beloved dogs,” says Barry Vance, Kroger senior corporate category manager.

“Bringing Disney’s Old Yeller brand to a trusted retailer like Kroger was a natural fit,” says Christopher King, category director, Disney Consumer Products FMCG. “Disney’s Old Yeller dog food is for those dogs that are part of the family.”

Did these people watch the same movie?  What are they trying to convey with this branding?  What’s next, Titanic bottled water?

Remarkable.

Tiananmen & Twitter

Posted on by
Reply

Tomorrow, June 4th, marks the 20th anniversary of the bloody affair in Tiananmen Square, when the Chinese army opened machine gun fire on unarmed protesters. In an attempt to obviate any risk of renewing the spirit of dissent, China is taking measures to prevent communication:

beijing_1

Not that we exactly needed more evidence that communication technologies are instrumental in 21st-century activism, but this certainly helps confirm it. And since China is credited with having the largest online community, the impact goes deep.

This maneuver to counter dissent has interesting connections to the massacre, since one of the key demands of students gathering in Tiananmen was for free media. Such issues should concern any rhetorician who is interested in who has the power to speak, who is denied such power, and the influence of digital technologies on expression.

One may wonder how protesters will react to this sadly predictable move on the part of the Chinese government. How will citizens communicate when the channels for doing so are blocked? Who will lead when leaders have been placed on house arrest or “strongly encouraged” to vacation away from the capital for the 20th anniversary? Furthermore, since none of these tactics are surprising, how might activists elsewhere learn from them? The digital networks that support much of the transnational activism that is highly touted these days could easily disappear. What then? How can those that identify with certain social movements account for “cutting the head off,” where leaders are minimized, or worse, executed? And what might this mean in our networked age, where movements could be seen as acephalous?

The Art of Rejection

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal just published an article about colleges and their rejection letters: “Rejection: Some Colleges Do It Better Than Others.” It’s a gives an interesting report on recent discussions on CollegeConfidential.com where college-bound students have shared details about the letters they received.

by Brymo, flickr

by Brymo, flickr

I was struck by one example. Admissions at Boston University tried (it would appear) to soften the blow by stating they “give special attention to applicants whose families have a tradition of study at Boston University.” But as one student responded, for someone who was attempting to follow his family tradition by attending the school such a comment wasn’t comforting at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

It’s always interesting when a message can be understood so differently from how the author(s) intended (yes, I know, I should stay away from the “intentionality” quagmire), and I do wonder if the letter writers were aware of how that line could be understood. But this example also reminded me of an opposite situation, one in which excessive celebration had others hang their heads down in shame. Okay, I’m exaggerating, but I do remember hearing a thank-you speech that had enough superlatives for those who had helped in the project to make others who hadn’t worked on the project fidget uncomfortably in their seats. Ouch.

But if you have a minute, you should check out a thread on CollegeConfidential.com where users are spoofing rejection letters. They made me smile 🙂

Lucky boys

Posted on by
2

Poor guys…

Today’s NYT contains an article, “Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers,” that made me feel sorry for them. Keep your heads down, boys — they’re using “science” to find your boy-princess sweet spot!

I like the word choice of “science.” Or, in this case,  focus group research, maybe even ethnography-lite — and I mean lite: What teen is going to open up to an adult with a video camera while shopping with mom?! (Perhaps they should be researching how to research.) And they call the head researcher–whose background is in casinos–the “kid whisperer.” Giving kids a whole lot of credit, aren’t they?

To be fair, maybe they’re trying. Disney is actually marketing this marketing research:

Fearful of coming off as too manipulative, youth-centric media companies rarely discuss this kind of field research. Disney is so proud of its new “headquarters for boys,” however, that it has made an exception, offering a rare window onto the emotional hooks that are carefully embedded in children’s entertainment. The effort is as outsize as the potential payoff: boys 6 to 14 account for $50 billion in spending worldwide, according to market researchers.

Fascinating. This actually makes me want to watch Disney tv to see just how this transparency plays out. Do they mention that $50 billion? Do they have polls about color schemes? Do they ask for interactive responses to the bold move of having a protagonist struggle with (gasp) not being the star basketball player?

The coolest part, I think, is one insight:

In Ms. Peña’s research boys across markets and cultures described the television aimed at them as “purposeless fun” but expressed a strong desire for a new channel that was “fun with a purpose,” Mr. Ross said. Hollywood has been thinking of them too narrowly — offering all action or all animation — instead of a more nuanced combination, he added.

I love the idea of kids telling Disney they want “fun with a purpose.” I wonder what Disney will decide that looks like? Or more importantly, how to make money off it…?

An Inconvenient Tangent

Posted on by
4

I’m teaching a course on documentary this term, and today my students were watching/analyzing An Inconvenient Truth. I picked this doc because we’re talking about the use of personal narratives in/and public rhetoric, and I’m kind of fascinated with the “Al Gore Show” woven throughout the film.

an-inconvenient-truth

For the most part, of course, we see Gore’s slideshow presentation and listen along with his (rapt) audiences. (As one student suggested, the director lays the prophet robe on Gore a bit heavily.) But every so often, that lecture is interspersed with Gore’s reflections and anecdotes about how he came to be offering that slideshow. And at those junctures, his voice changes, becomes low and intimate, the footage becomes soft-focus or creatively aged, and the pathos becomes a bit heavy-handed.

… as a student’s sudden snort made abundantly clear. It was the snort of a burgeoning rhetorical critic, and it confirmed my hunch about some of the risky, even reckless rhetorical choices Gore and the director made in that movie. And the personal quest angle isn’t the only one. I wonder whether the warm fuzzy fatherly feelings would work on audiences alienated by his Bush jokes? Or are we to assume that no one who voted for Bush (that’s a lot of people) belongs in this doc’s audience?

More as my students figure this all out…

Hunger Blasters

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a potato chip bag. It’s not an overly-extraordinary potato chip bag–silver and blue. Nothing seemingly special until I notice the advertisement on it. This little bag proclaims its product to be “hunger blasters.” Here’s the confusing part, though. This phrase had what I considered to be the universal “not” sign–a red circle with a line through it–as in “no smoking.”

Photo by greefus groinks of Flickr. CC-ASA

Photo by greefus groinks of Flickr. CC-A.SA

So, I’m left wondering, are they saying that they’re not hunger blasters? Seems to me that someone in the marketing department may not have thought things through. I mean, a company trying to get the masses to buy their tasty potato chips wouldn’t go around saying “Pick Us! We’ll leave ya hungrier than when you started eating!”

Not the most persuasive thing there and I have to assume that this company knows that, so I, obviously, am missing out on something. I emailed the company and asked them about it.

Apparently, they were making an allusion to Ghost Busters. Okay, I can, at least, understand that I suppose, but I can’t let them off completely. Ghost Busters is using that universal “not” symbol just as that. They’re saying that ghosts are not allowed. Hunger Blasting, on the other hand, should not only be allowed, but encouraged when it comes to potato chips.

Plus, if they really wanted to make that parody, then shouldn’t it be “Hunger Busters?” Someone may have been able to realize the allusion they were going for had it been closer to the original. At the same time, though, I think it’s expecting a bit much to think that people would get an allusion to a film from 1984. That was 25 years ago.

I’ll give you a moment for the necessary “Woah, really. Twenty-five years already?”

. . .

Photo by of Bob Gamble Flickr. CC-A.NC.SA

Photo by of Bob Gamble Flickr. CC-A.NC.SA

Okay, ready? Yep. Twenty-five years. I suppose it wouldn’t be such a mystery if Ghost Busters had more of a cultural significance outside its era, but, really, I can’t say that I go around making Ghost Buster references. However, if they had said, say, “Wax on the chips, Wax off the hunger.” I may have gotten that it was referencing The Karate Kid–also from 1984. It’s still a fairly bad tactic to take, though. Ain’t it? Especially when you probably want to attract some greasy teenagers with bad eating habits who weren’t even born in 1984. (I can’t be too harsh there, I wasn’t either.) You’d want to make more contemporary allusions, right? Maybe something involving Hannah Montana–I hear she’s popular.

In any event, this was clearly not the best ad campaign they could’ve gone with. Or, at least, for heaven’s sake get rid of the circle and line. It’s not doing you any favors. The potato chips, though, are still quite delectable, and I’m not usually one for potato chips. Why not try marketing that?