anymore? I mean I vlog about my day and in the backgroud you see a
coke bottle sitting on a table, or a McDonald's bag. Or you see my
Ford car, and my DC comics, my Kenmore range....I could go on and
on....I am not actively promoting these products they are just there
in my life And I am not alone....right? We are all doing it to some
form or another....I mean c'mon we are "bluring" the line between
advertising and story telling all the time, not by design but just by
the simple fact EVERYTHING is branded anymore. I know this is not
excatly the point of the thread, but when I see a phrase like
"It seems like people's personal creative process and art-making is
getting eaten alive by the advertising machines and we don't even
quite realize what's going on."
It makes is seem like a great big conspericy (I can't spell) and is
it really? I know the quote was in realation to film festivel's but
the logic holds we what we are doing everyday.......
I don't know........we say we want our corporations to be better
citizens of the community, but then they sponser something and we
blast them for "just another form of adverstising"......are some
hypercrital.....yes I agree with the whole smoking thing, that is
just silly but some of the other's....I don't know and this L'Oreal
thing......I don't know, I just don't know, all I know is that now I
feel like drinking a coke at McDonalds while I put on some make-
up.....
Heath- Batman Geek
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In [email protected], Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> don't be duped.
>
> the advertising companies have realized that the 30 second spot
where
> they say "buy this product, it's the best one, it will do great
things
> for you" is dead. No one buys the rhetoric anymore. (Compare that
to
> 40-50 years ago when our culture was such that most people would
say
> "really? That's the best one? Oh I'll have to be sure to buy that."
I
> remember my grandparents being very trusting like that. It seems so
> naive now, but that's how advertising worked several decades ago.)
>
> These days, given how skeptical we have gotten, and how quickly we
> change the channel / look away from the billboard, now the
advertising
> companies are trying to figure out what technique is the new best
way
> to get people to buy / get truly interested in/ be loyal to the
object
> of their advertising campaign. Some are working hard at the product
> placement angle: so if viewers are going to change the channels
when
> the commercials come on during The Apprentice, we'll make the
product a
> major part of the show.... we'll get the viewer to imagine how they
> might sell this product in the streets of New York or design and
event
> promoting the product... and then the idea goes, that viewer will
be
> more likely to think -- hey I want that / I want to buy that when
they
> are in the store. (Do you really think Trump + "the executives"
cares
> about a badly-done party in a NYC bar to promote _X_? Hell no! It's
the
> 20 minutes of screen time that _X_ gets while following around the
> group planning that party that matters.) Or Survivor... imagine
being
> in a jungle for 23 days... you haven't had anything to eat besides
some
> boiled snails. And then, all of a sudden you work your ass of and
win a
> contest by a fraction of a second, and WOW for your reward you get
a
> Coke and a Snickers !!! Man, wouldn't that taste good! Hey, I can
go to
> the store across the street and get a Coke and a Snickers myself,
right
> now, man that would taste good... yum, let me go buy that....
>
> There are many other approaches -- I'm sure you see them
everywhere,
> too. The text message / internet survey contest. The cool billboard
> with "no" ad that just has the URL to go to a website -- 16 zillion
of
> them, all giving tiny clues, but none tying directly to an obvious
> product. Crazy MySpace promotions. I can see a push and pull
between
> the advertising creatives and the corporate executives -- where the
> creatives are saying, hey, there's this cool new way to get to
people,
> let's try this, and the conservative fearful executives are saying:
why
> should we pay you to play on MySpace or to put up a zillion
billboards
> that don't even have our product's name on it??? But as the fears
of
> these executives subside, we will be seeing more and more and more
and
> more of this kind of all-inclusive, 'secret' advertising.
>
> Infiltrating the "independent film" scene is just one more part of
> their 'try everything to find the next big hit' approach. I've seen
> film festivals that are all about getting indie filmmakers to
create
> "short films" for major corporations like BMW and Nike and Dock
Martin
> and American Express. The corporation gives the filmmaker $20,000
(or
> $5,000 or $50,000) -- which seems like a HUGE budget to us artists
> trying to make work on $0 or $500, but which is a total steal for a
> corporation use to paying _much_ more than that for a 30 second
> commercial. The terms of the deal is different every time, but it
can
> be / is frequently like this: filmmaker gets to make "any film they
> want", with a plot and characters, and a cute / cool / action-
packed
> story. (right "any film they want". How about a film with
characters
> who are gay or have lefty politics or ____? ) Frequently the
product of
> the campaign does NOT have to be in the commercial (although I see
> filmmakers putting the product in anyway, just out of 'love' /
> appreciation for getting such a 'huge' budget for their 'artistic'
> work). Then the corporation looks cool to the indie film world for
> 'supporting the arts' -- and buzz spreads via word of mouth and the
> internet about how cool this thing is. The finished films are put
on
> the corporation website with a lot of dressing to make the whole
> project seem like its about filmmaking / the arts // like it's a
film
> festival or something. Tons of traffic is driven to the site by all
the
> cool buzz.... and oh, while you are at the site, hey, you know,
like,
> check out the shoes. And when you are in the show store and are
trying
> to figure out which shoe is cooler... well, you know.
>
> Sometimes specific filmmakers are hired to make a film, other times
> there's an open contest held, and anyone can submit a film, which
> serves to create even more buzz. Again, the contest isn't usually a
> contest for an ad (although sometimes it is) -- it's
an "independent
> film contest"... but at the root, the entire thing is an
advertising
> campaign.
>
> I think it's confusing for people -- definitely blurring the line
> between art and adverting. And hey, many of us do work for major
> corporations, and many of us do make commercials for a living. Of
> course, that's a valid choice, and can be very creative... but at
least
> in those cases you know you are working in advertising and you know
you
> are making a commercial. You can put as much effort into the
> advertising that you want -- or not. You can take that money home
and
> use it to make your own work. It gets weird to me when people are
> signing up for these campaign contests without realizing what's
going
> on -- what the bottom line purpose of these things is. It seems
like
> people's personal creative process and art-making is getting eaten
> alive by the advertising machines and we don't even quite realize
> what's going on. Just check out "We Are the Media" and see how many
> "hey dudes, look at this coool contest" promos are listed. What in
the
> world does that have to do with the idea of _we_ being the media?
> That's like We Are Getting Courted by 'the Man' to Make Media /
Aren't
> We Cool / We Have Arrived.
>
> I think this solicitation by L'Oreal and Current TV is exactly one
of
> these advertising campaign infiltrations. It's a major corporation
> realizing that just putting a perfectly gorgeous airbrushed face in
> slow-mo over a white background with amazing lighting doesn't
really
> convince people of anything anymore. Every cosmetic and hair
product
> 30-second spot is doing exactly the same thing -- so instead....
use
> some feminist rhetoric, mix in the embracing of the indie film /
> videoblogging world, add a bit of 'everyday-people' aesthetics --
in a
> kind of anti-perfection = _real_ = you can trust us... and wa-la, a
> whole new advertising craze is born. And we fall for it like my
> grandparents fell for the "our toilet cleaner works better than
anyone
> else's" of 50 years ago.
>
> It's sad that the advertising world might be all over videoblogging
> before the general public is. (That didn't happen to text
blogging.)
> It's sad that this personal creativity explosion is getting eat
alive
> this fast. I don't want everyday people to spend their time making
> short films that corporations are using to look cool. I want
everyday
> people to make new work, different than the masses, unusual and
perfect
> in its own way, that expresses what is truly on people's minds and
in
> people's hearts. I want to be blown away by people I don't know
> expressing themselves in ways I could never image. That's why it's
> upsetting to me to see people copying this media that's designed to
> sell products and sell ideas and sell the rise and profit of major
> corporations that are not acting in the best interest of _people_,
but
> instead are solely designed to maximize profits for their
shareholders,
> no matter what the cost to the environment or to their workers or
to
> public health. Those corporations want to take over the imagination
of
> the vlogosphere... and they are. Do we want to fall for that?
>
> jen
>
>
>
> jenSimmons
> http://www.jensimmons.com
> On May 15, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Josh Wolf wrote:
>
> > Hey everyone, Current TV is currently working with L'Oreal, a
> > cosmetics company, to solicit videomakers to profile women whom
they
> > know who are "women of worth."
(http://www.current.tv/studio/create/
> > vcam_loreal_wow.html) - I'm curious how the vidoblogging
community
> > feels about an ad campagin sponsored by a cosmetics company to
> > profile women who are working to improve the world they live in?
> >
> > Obviously a series of PSA's giving these women credit for the
work
> > they are doing would be a good thing, but, is the fact that this
> > thing is being underwritten by a cosmetics company and
considered an
> > advertisement by Current diminish the redeeming quality the
project
> > might otherwise have?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Josh
>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
