"Cue" The Idiocy.

"Cue the tables. Cue the chairs. Cue the crowd. Cue the lights. Cue the bar. Cue the..." It goes on, and on, and on, until you forget you're watching a thirty second commercial and slowly begin to slip into madness. The kind of madness that occurs when a word is said so many times, it loses its meaning and begins to sound strange despite a lifetime of use (seriously, say "floor" about fifty times and see if you don't start having an existential crisis).

Yes, like a denizen of outer space that only has fragmented images of Broadway as a guide to understanding our culture, the new Jose Cuervo tequila ads find it necessary to "cue" everything. Oh, they did that because the word "cue" is already in the product title? Genius.

Snappy wordplay aside, there's another reason entirely that this campaign rubs us the wrong way like coarse-grade sandpaper. It follows the time-honored alcohol advertisement tradition of depicting the "good time" had by all when you're out pouring it into your head. That (and the cake) is, more often that not, a lie. We're not all pretty, trendy white kids that live within walking distance of high-end bars and pretentious loft apartments, either. And if we were, we wouldn't drink Jose Cuervo.

In reality, we figure the voice-over would be something more like: "Cue the skeevy dive bar. A few shots later, cue the meth-addled hooker you'd never normally talk to. Cue the cab ride back to her place. Cue waking up to a pretty damn awkward breakfast on skid row. Cue the Cuervo."

Alright, so it probably wouldn't be that bad, but we think you can see what we're trying to infer. If you don't go out and drink Cuervo tonight, reader, rest assured that you probably won't be missing out on the The Greatest Night of Your Life. We hope that helps you collectively breathe a little easier.

Lightning In A Bottle.

Guess who's back. Back again. Blog is back. But, don't tell a friend; no one knows we're staying here and we'd like to keep it that way for a while. Low pro kid, low pro. But methinks we doth digress too much.

With this entry we've decided to continue the trend we began in our last post of looking at, well, trends in the advertising world. Perhaps we should explain that by "trend" we mean that we've noticed a similarity in subject matter across the ad spectrum, from eyeglasses to soda: it seems that it has become very desirable to pair one's product with the nebulous force of "creativity." Specifically, to imply that one's product is the secret to unlocking said force.

It can be found in any medium: a poster for Oakley's prescription eyeglasses adorning a Lenscrafters wall reads, "Perform beautifully." Pictured is a female musician standing in front of a microphone, wearing a pair of Oakley specs. A television ad for Sprite brand soda depicts a conglomeration of ideas bombarding a screenwriter after he takes a sip of the soda. The slogan? "Its the spark." The implication is glaringly obvious.

Why is it that a large portion of Americans seem to respond more to a product if its endorsed by celebrities in the creative field, particularly actors or musicians? Why is it that we apparently want to be so much like them, or rather that they are depicted as the ideal? Is it because they seem to us to be the more successful people in our society, because they've achieved a high level of monetary gain while simultaneously remaining free of the Man, man? Is that actually true?

There's nothing wrong with being in the creative field, if you have the talent for it (although the definition of talent lately could be called dubious in large part), but why do we have "celebrities" endorsing every product? Why not scientists or authors or the like, if the product or charity or whatever this week's cause is merits that? They are also creators, though not in the sense that has become mainstream. What we have now in where society sees fit to place reverence or respect seems to be the equivalent of someone defining "culture" as being merely music and food.

Read it, digest it, and don't get gas from it, fantastic people. It does your body good, without that annoying mustache. Let us know your take on it, and we'll do our best to respond promptly and foster discussion. Some examples we've seen on television are posted below.

Sprite "spark" ad:



Diet Coke ad:

Those Poor, Overused Words.

Hello again readers! Fret not, for we are back with more advertising-themed, bloggy goodness for you to waste roughly five minutes reading! We had to take a brief hiatus due to circumstances beyond our control, namely the relocating of headquarters, and we know you missed us. We missed you too. All eight of you. Seriously, we came this close to perching on a tree branch outside your window.

But alas, the memory of that restraining order is still too clear in our minds. Moving on, we thought it would be interesting to put just a slight twist on TIA this week and discuss not an advertisement, but a trend within them that has attracted our notice. And our ire.

Readers, have you ever noticed how often certain words are used in advertisements across every medium? Words like: revolutionary, natural, all-new, active, and organic? Or how about pseudo-scientific titles and phrases like, "active naturals" or "dynamic inertia?" It seems that the very language of the marketing world is designed to misdirect and cloud. And that apparently the powers that be in said world believe us too stupid to see this.

Granted, most of the words and phrases used are very subtle, and often subconsciously reinforced by the imagery of the ad. For example, some people wearing lab coats in the newest "anti-aging" cream television spot. Or how about the sound of a car engine to illustrate the new Benz's power on a radio ad, shooting an image into your brain of driving it down some windy mountain road?

However, it takes only a little closer look at the fine print to discern that you're not actually getting a great deal on that new car after all. You know the fast-talking lawyer at the end of every car advert? We think he should just say "blahblahblahblah everythingwetoldyouwasalie." Its simpler.

As long as we're talking about expensive machines, are we alone in the assumption that the more expensive the product, the more convoluted the smokescreen? The newest shampoo doesn't come with the commitment of an annual contract, so there's markedly less deception. By no means none, just less. The way things are worded -forty dollars a month for the first year, qualified lessees with tier one credit- is designed to skirt the issue that you're dropping some serious coin while most likely becoming locked into a difficult, long-term contract. Let us know your thoughts, or share any examples of this you've noticed.

These are the kinds of things we think about while we're away from you, dear readers. Let us know your thoughts, or share any examples of this you've noticed. We'd love to read them. Its the closest thing to human interaction we get, since you haven't returned any of our phone calls asking to go out for coffee...