They should’ve just aired the one where Adele won everything Instead of making everyone sit through the revival of 1992. What was wrong with 1992 you ask? Nothing. The Blue Jays won the World Series and I think I was awarded student of the month in March.
It was the award show where LL Cool J hosted and rapped (?! WHAT ?!) and “alternative” artists credited their winning to alternative music. For the record, Mumford and Sons, Gotye and Fun. are about as alternative as a box of Oreo Cookies.
Also,the producers thought it would be a great idea to have Carry Underwood’s vagina become an illuminated show piece.
To be honest, I mostly watched the premier of the walking dead.
What I will say, though - is I thought this Pepsi Commercial with Nicki Minaj was probably the highlight of the evening’s broadcast (see above video). In some alternate universe, someone thought it would be a great idea to create a reality where Nicki Minaj defies space and time. I think the story is, the drinkers of the coveted pepsi can (which now costs, $1.05 at my local convenience store, what the hell?) freeze time and instead of doing awesome things like reposition everyone in naughty poses or eating all the candy at the Bulk Barn, decide to go to a secret Nicki Minaj concert. The more upsetting detail you will discover is that she only sings half of that Drake song.
Here’s hoping Will.I.Am is featured in an Orange C-Plus ad during the Oscars, where he reunites the Black Eyed Peas inside of a Stargate Portal.
Saturday Night Live was hosted by Jennifer Lawrence this weekend and I had high hopes for it. Most of the episode was pretty funny, obvious Hunger Games jokes were made and The Lumineers did some hipster bullshit for about 10 minutes.
One thing however, that left a bad taste in my mouth was the mock Starbucks ad that aired early on the episode (pun intended).
Ad Age loosely makes reference to it being racist and alludes to using “black accents”.
Hmmm… “black accents” also sounds like a racist term. I will say, the mock ad (which could have been hilarious) was more classist. That is, if we can generalize the use of slang as something inherently related to class.
Perhaps the use of more monotone or passive voices (something Toronto’s Big Chain Barristas are known for, IMO) would have been better served (pun intended!).
The idea that this IS offensive and discriminatory may have also gotten lost by the audience because of how they (we) can relate to the sub par customer service the coffee chain can (does) provide. I get it, there are certain things the general and sometimes privileged audience align with. I include myself in this.
However, this comedy wasn’t all too provocative nor did it push boundaries, it may have even lost it’s punch. That being said, I will give Vanessa Bayer’s use of physical comedy credit; I’ll assume she knew nothing of the post production of the piece.
Watch the ad here.
Find some independent Toronto coffee shops here.
So, this is happening…
I have talked about this idea of public relations thinking that it is advertising and vice-avers with a few of my colleagues and friends in each respective business.
"Coming Together" is Coca Cola’s newest ad - which, when I was listen to it, sounds too much like a press release. With it, they are announcing their new stance on obesity in the US. That’s right, a brand which is in the business of selling liquid sugar in 2 litre bottles in grocery stores or aluminum cans in many schools is looking to re-brand itself in the image of health.
The ad itself explains how the soft drink conglomerate has taken action in creating healthier products (smaller can sizes, fewer calorie drinks…) But, is this strategy in anyway believable?
They tried it in the 60s when the beverage was considered a diet drink, but is the idea that a re-brand and smaller portions believable to the audience?
The ad, although specifically targeted to U.S consumers may also trickle out to Canada.
Let’s look at what visual depictions create strong points in the message they are trying to get across:
Using still shots of institutional landmarks, whether it be historic buildings or government headquarters sets a precedent in the fact that they are conveying their reputation, that they are part of the fight to make a better country.
By incorporating depictions of healthy, active people as well as highlighting the use of a scale, Coca Cola sees itself as a product that can AND should be integrated into one’s lifestyle choices. Suggesting you can maintain consumption regularly with what is actually a routine of exercise and eating well.
Although, I think the ad itself highlights the product and hints at a narrative, the way say… a traditional consumer campaign piece might. It has elements of a formal press announcement, traditionally aligned with the sub field of crisis communications. This style is becoming increasingly more popular as consumers continue to investigate and research their product choices.
This piece, although well visually edited with a solid and credible sounding voice over, appears to be making too far of a stretch. It shows point A, where coke has taken new steps to introduce what they consider to be healthy options and jumps right to point C, incorporating the product in your life (as part of a balanced eating and fitness routine!)
Why should the product be considered healthy? Why should consumers need this product as part of their workout routine? Why is Coca Cola fighting obesity by continuing to produce high calorie beverages?
The two concepts (Selling Coca Cola & Fighting Obesity) have little to do with one another and in fact, are still widely seen as oppositional motives.
This may be a case of a brand/product over stepping its bounds. I’d say, go drink a glass of water.