Creative bar promotion, controversial fire starter, or both?

At first glance, this item seems like merely a glib menu item from a bar in Los Angeles. Which it is. But the gimmick of selling patrons a 40-ounce bottle of Colt 45 in a brown paper bag is much more than just an innocuous promotion. it’s a crucible.

Undeniably “creative” in that it is a clever way for St. Felix to make 500% profit from cheap swill and also generate beaucoup buzz. No question the concept will appeal to hipsters looking for “authentic experiences.” It’s ironic. It’s social. It’s the kind of shit new drinkers adore as they search for persons in the bar and personas online. #OldSchool #Chillin #Dawg!

But isn’t it also grotesque because it makes light of skid row and more precisely the American Black Ghetto?  We in Adland remember the embarrassing debacle the seemingly innocuous “Ghetto Days” party invitation created. Heads rolled. Accounts moved. Reputations were ruined. It was a big ugly deal. In my view, selling white boys a “45 in a bag” to get their drink on is basically the same thing.

Deplorable or a small stroke of genius? The question is truly loaded, given the abysmal state of race relations and how angry, sensitive and scared everyone is. These days, a stupid party favor can easily become a fire starter. Is this one?

For creative business ideas that only create “good” controversy: https://steffanwork.wordpress.com/

Fascist propaganda takes over NYC subway eliciting criticism along with great buzz.

Lots of scuttlebutt over the use of Nazi imagery on several NYC subway cars to promote Amazon’s new show, The Man in the High Castle, which imagines our world had Hitler won World War 2. The campaign incited many riders to complain and inevitable criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, among others – and it did so without even using Nazism’s most reviled symbol of all, the Swastika.

I’m not surprised by the furor (no pun intended) but I’m not deterred by it either. Propaganda and advertising are supposed to illicit a reaction. That this campaign mixes the two is not gratuitous. The world would indeed be a scary place if Nazi’s were running it. That’s what the show is about. And that’s the point to this campaign. Copy ties it all together. But not before you’ve been flummoxed by the images.

I have spoken numerous times to marketing communications classes as well as at the International Advertising Festival in Cannes about the power of propaganda and its influence in modern advertising. I even use Nazi imagery as an example. It’s kind of a pet subject of mine. Ever since creating the “curiously strong mints” campaign for Altoid’s, I’ve respected the awesome power of signage. Out of home media – be it billboard, poster or experiential, when it’s done well, when it becomes iconic, is a game changer. A painted wall becomes a neighborhood landmark. There’s a semi-permanence to the medium that film and video can never possess.

Throwing stones in glass houses? One might question the campaign’s location. New York City is home to a great many Jews, many of them direct descendants of those who were killed by the Nazi regime. Maybe such images should never be foisted upon them -or anyone- in a public place (especially a railway car). It’s a fair argument. Even in today’s terror-ridden landscape, Nazi Germany still holds a special place in the cellar of evil. Its infamous symbols and propaganda demonstrate this evil with searing intensity.

That said, I’m all in on this idea. Precisely because of just how nervous it makes everyone. That means it’s working.

Nothing new here: Thoughts on LG’s end-of-the-world prankvertisement…

There’s some controversy over this so-called bit of “prankvertising” LG did on behalf of its high-definition television. Maybe you’ve seen it? A handful of people interviewing for a fake job are scared shitless by what appears to be the beginning of World War III.

A case can be made the unwitting interviewees are innocent victims of unnecessary cruelty. They appear genuinely scared when the fake bombs start falling. And they appear genuinely pissed off when the joke is revealed to them, especially considering they are, in fact, its punch line. Hell, I’d be pissed too. Though maybe more for having gone to a fake job interview than for being frightened by a malicious advertiser.

Bottom line the questionable taste of the prank and its subsequent controversy are all part of the campaign. If people weren’t scared and if the media wasn’t critical then the campaign would be a failure.

Therefore, like it or not, it is not a failure. My guess is LG will get sufficient lifespan and social currency out of this “work” to consider the piece a moderate to major success. Last I checked, the video had over 4 million views…

So, is it evil? Or is it genius? Or is it a combination of the two: evil genius?

One thing it is not is original. Pranking people is a tradition dating back a lot farther (or is it further?) than social media. Back in the early days of TV, Candid Camera was a most popular show that made fun of unsuspecting people on hidden camera to the delight of millions. The show ran forever. As far as I know it was seldom criticized for hurting people. It was, as they used to say, all in good fun. Granted, I doubt Candid Camera did many episodes depicting the end of the world; that said humiliating people for entertainment was its purpose.

More recently the found footage genre (pioneered by The Blair Witch Project and insidiously perfected with Catfish) has heralded in new levels of embarrassment and fear. I’ve said this before: awkward moments are no longer avoided. They are entertainment. From Candid Camera to Courting Controversy!

I don’t like this content on Facebook or follow it on Twitter but I do share it as a fact of our existence. I recognize that to be contemporary in marketing one has to at least be able to speak to it. To turn away from courting controversy entirely is to excuse one’s self from the modern world. And as I’ve said before, more than anything else irrelevancy is a death sentence to creative professionals.

So, while I find the video unsettling and frankly unoriginal I did find it. In this age of massive distractions that is saying something.

Final note on the topic of originality: For a long time, Memorex (remember them?) ran a famous ad campaign working essentially the same conceit as LG’s. Their line: Is it Live or is it Memorex? Both LG and Memorex campaigns are examples of the oldest form of product advertising on earth: the product demo. So word to the under-30 set, who think this shit is fresh. It ain’t.

The Butterfly effect: Funky billboard gets buzz but should that include squirming?

Copy: Wikileaks…Butterfly doesn’t.

RG Blue Communications and Butterfly Sanitary Napkins broke a new outdoor advertising campaign in far away Pakistan. It pokes fun at the infamous Wikileaks site in an obvious way. I get the joke, even almost laughed. But is it good advertising?

I posted one the billboard on my Facebook page and asked women to weigh in on the subject. Reactions were mostly negative, ranging from “Ew” to, “Well, if I can sit through all those ads about erections I suppose it’s time for this.”

I suppose the agency and client should get points for generating PR, especially given they are only planning a few executions. After all, I’m writing about it after discovering the campaign on Psychographism and researching it on MSNBC.. Lotta coverage, so to speak.

What do you think, Gentle Reader; is this a good ad or a bad ad? Female votes count for double.

Nike/Tiger Redux: Say what you will about commercial but I wish I’d done it!

Tiger’s commercial: Bogey or Ace?

“It’s a fascinating, creepy document. I don’t know whether I love it or hate it,” said Steffan Postaer, chief creative officer at Euro RSCG, Chicago. “But I do wish I’d made it.”

-Yours Truly, Adage

The above quote comes hot off the presses, as they used to say, from today’s story in AdAge about the now-infamous “talking from the grave” TV commercial from Nike featuring Tiger Woods and the voice of his deceased father.

I actually made the above remark to reporter, Jeremy Mullman on Friday, half way through the golf tournament. Well, the Masters is over and Tiger Woods did not win it. Phil Mickelson did. Tiger came close. Fourth place. Shooting 11 under par. But the spot lives on, as does the buzz surrounding it. Jeremy’s latest story is but one of thousands being written and read about Tiger, the commercial, and everything in between.

On Friday I wrote about the spot, expanding on the above comment. That post garnered more readers and comments than just about anything I have ever written on Gods of Advertising.

The comments were, by turns, astute, bitter, cynical, thoughtful, and then some. But all of them had one thing in common: passion. You folks were fired up!

All because of one commercial. In the end, my comment to AdAge holds true. I do not know whether I love this commercial or hate it. But as was quoted, I do wish I’d made it. Fervently.

Can you imagine being the copywriter and/or art director who put this thing together? I’d be downright giddy. This spot is going to separate its creators from every other creative on the planet. Even if the commercial never wins a single prize (and whether it does remains to be seen), that commercial is now famous. Ridiculously famous. Everything that has been written and said about it, good and bad, is only fuel for a fire the likes of which Ad land has not seen is some time, if ever. As I said in my previous post, not since Crispin Porter & Bogusky introduced America to the subversive Burger King have we been so captivated by a TV campaign. (You could also make a case for CP&B’s Subservient Chicken but that was an Internet idea.) The Nike spot was just that: a spot. A lone 30-second TVC. (And weren’t those supposed to be passé?”) Granted the commercial has been viewed several million times online but you get my point. This thing is a phenomenon. Whether any of us likes it or not.

How do I feel about this commercial: What it says about Tiger, What it says about Nike, What it says about us? I’ve already covered that. As have many of you. I reckon the jury is still out. But as a copywriter, creative director and chief creative officer I’m absolutely certain of one thing. I wish I had done it.

Follow me on Twitter

Submit to the Rogue\'s Gallery!

My novel on Amazon