Another Queer Jewish Buddhist

Barilla Pasta, Oral Sex and Federico Fellini!

GIven the PR mess created by Guido Barilla, the CEO of Barilla Pasta with the broadcasting of his bigoted opinions about Lesbian and Gay couples it would be understandable if you thought he was a prude. You might be right. But remember, this is Italy, and looking back at the history of advertising for Barilla Pasta you'll be surprised to discover they made a TV commercial directed by Federico Fellini — centered around a joke about oral sex. Heterosexual oral sex, but still....

Obviously, since Fellini died in 1993, it must have been Guido Barilla's father (or grandfather) who had a more casual attitude about sexuality. But I think it would be good for Guido Barilla to learn from his elders and be more playful and relaxed.

Made in 1984, the spot is hardly an example of Fellini's best work as either a filmmaker or writer/director of TV commercials (yes, he wrote the spot as well as directed it). The spot opens on a couple in a very expensive restaurant. They are being sexually flirtatious with each other as the head waiter explains the menu to them. The woman requests rigatoni, which is used in Itlalian slang to refer to oral sex. And the response from the wait staff is that it will certainly stay al dente, or, uh, hard.

My suggestion to Mr. Barilla is that he remake this commercial — with a gay male couple. And then find the right pasta metaphor for a lesbian couple and make that too.

And yes, here's the spot:

 

Related articles

Barilla Chairman Comes Out As A Raging Homophobe, Urges Gays To Eat Another Pasta

Wake up and smell the coffee VS. Stop and smell the roses

New TV Spot for Glade mixes up the metaphors

A lovely new commercial for Glade begins with the copy: "No one says to wake up and touch, see, taste or hear the roses. They say to wake up and smell the roses."

Well, actually "they" don't. The idiomatic phrase is "Wake up and smell the coffee" and is used when someone needs to a jolt to snap them back into reality. When someone needs to pay attention to what's really going on.

The idiom "Stop and smell the roses" is about taking the time to appreciate life, taking a break from mindless busyness to experience life's simple pleasures.

The first time I saw this spot I loved it — and I still do love it. It's everything you want a commercial to be: it engages the senses and the emotions with a phrase, that even if mangled, is memorable and ties the benefit to the product.

Of course, the spot uses one of the great techniques of advertising copywriting: "tweaking the cliché." That is, taking an idiomatic expression and giving it a twist, so that the reader gets the pleasure of seeing the familiar from a new angle. George Felton gives an example in his excellent book on copywriting with a headline from an ad for Investor's Business Daily:

Opportunity is knocking.
Or is that just your knees?

These kinds of headlines are always popular with both copywriters and readers. And one could claim that the writer of the Glade spot was trying to use this technique by mashing the two idioms together. I don't think so — I think it's simply a mistake. However, it manages to work even if it's not quite right. And as any number of my colleagues will tell you, I just get all curmudgeonly when phrases or idioms aren't used correctly.

Here's the spot:

Beautiful, isn't it? It had me all the way through until it got to the product — because air fresheners like Glade actually make me sick to my stomach. The only thing that smells worse in this category is a scented candle (which is why I avoid whole sections of Bed, Bath & Beyond). Still, this spot got me. And I'm sure that people who are in the target sweet spot will be moved to consider Glade.

As it turns out, I think about the idiom "stop and smell the roses" every day. Why? Because I have a dog, and he reminds me as we walk through the park to simply enjoy things, to take time and appreciate how all the senses are delighted by nature. However, if you own a dog, you know that if they could speak our language, their version of the idiom would be another kind of tweak of the cliché:

Take time to stop and smell the roses.
Then pee on them.

And that's another reason why I love advertising copywriting. You can really play with words and phrases.

The Best, Most Strategic Viral Web Copywriting You'll Ever Read...Today

Brian Barrett over at Gizmodo waxed rhapsodic over the "rant" in this online ad for an inkjet cartrtidge. And he wasn't the only one. As if it really were a Howard Beale moment in the world of copywriting. Really?

There's a process that we copywriters go through. Nothing is unmediated. Forget that things go past supervisors, account people. Let's just stop and notice all the spelling errors in this piece. It wouldn't get through proofreading.

I suspect this was an extremely clever viral strategy that everyone fell for. Because this has turned up all over the web today.

I can be certain this was a plant because way before the Internet became a public wall instead of a Defense Department tool I was living in Tokyo, where I worked as an English language copywriter at Japan's largest ad agency, Dentsu. And I created an ad for a very rare daring Japanese client who ran it knowing it would become a subject written about with humorous condescension in Tokyo's many English language newspapers.

If you follow sites like BoingBoing and Gizmodo, you will on occasion find hilarious examples of Janglish — that weird combination of Japanese and English that comes from either a misunderstanding or spelling errors. My client, the New Otani Hotel, had a steak restaurant on the premises called The Rib Room. In Japanese, the R and L sounds are very close, and the B and V sounds are very close. So a Japanese person, in trying to pronounce the English work Live might say, and for that matter, spell this word, in a way that a native English speaker might hear as Rib.

Taking out the copywriter tool box, which includes using familiar phrases and playing with them to make a headline more memorable, I wrote the ad you see below for the restaurant. I told the client that some in the local press and letter writers would make merciless fun of them for running the ad. And that others would recognize that the restaurant was in on the joke. But that it would be reprinted and talked about. It was.

I make no claims to this being award winning or wildly creative. When I was a 30 year old writer in Tokyo, I was proud to have found an opportunity to do something fun, and happy to find a client brave enough to play.

Today, the internet makes such opportunities both harder and easier to recognize. But when done well, and when picked up, the rewards can be a worldwide business bump, instead of simply a few more seats filled at The New Otani.

Mind you, the only reason there was an open position in Tokyo so that I got the job was that a writer before me had mischeviously written a headline for a now defunct Japanese bank that took advantage of the fact that the Japanese client didn't recognize the semi-salacious word-play.

The logo of the Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank was a heart. So this writer's headline, which ran in the Japan Times and the other local English language papers was: Dai Ichi Kangyo Has A Heart On For You.

I don't get opportunities like this much anymore. My work does in fact go through account people, proofreaders, lawyers lawyers and more lawyers. So you might understand why I don't believe the ink cartridge ad was a real "rant." A great copywriter sees opportunities on match book covers if that's the media to work in (and that tells you how old I am!). 

Bullying: a low human instinct institutionalized, examined on screen.

Why Lindsay Anderson's "If..." couldn't be made today, and why it's needed more than ever.

 
Tomorrow night in New York there will be a rare screening of the 1968 British film If... as part of the Queer/Art/Film series so ably put together by Ira Sachs and Adam Baran. This film helped me get through my hellish high school experience — because even though I did not go to a British boy's boarding school and was never caned (or had my nipples twisted by a priest) I felt a complete identification with the students suffering in the stultifying atmosphere of the school in the film. And as a teen struggling with coming out one year pre-Stonewall the sub-plot in the film of a homosexual romance between two of the boys, presented without judgement — in fact presented romantically, I found the film transgressively thrilling.

Of course, the heroes of the film fight back against the school in a climax of bloody violence that makes Columbine look like a picnic — it was made at a time when revolt was in the air and student protests were taking place across the U.S. and Europe. But in the U.S. it was the students who were dying at the hands of the National Guard. In this film, Malcolm McDowell as Mick and his buddies take up arms and open fire on graduation ceremonies. For me, this was divine sublimation. I was that angry, but I certainly wasn't going to act out any of my fantasies of revenge. Today however, in a country where it's easy to get a gun, we actually have scenes like that in If... And they are not dramatically satisfying. They are tragic.

And everyone weeps for the fallen. But in the last few months, looking at the young suicides - those who killed themselves because they were tormented for their sexuality, real or percieved - I know that a suicide is rage turned inward, rage turned at a target where it will be effective since rage against bullies, schools, adults seems hopeless to these young people we have lost.

If... gave me courage to survive my high school years. And showed me an image of gay love that was casual, no big deal, just something that was simply right. More revolutionary that shooting prefects from a rooftop.

I haven't seen If... since the late 60s. In the last few years issues like Columbine and other acts like it have made me wonder if it were even more relevant today. Not because it made heroes of the boys who fought back, but it made it clear why they felt  the need to do so. And with the recent increased coverage of lgbt youth suicide (I won't say increased suicide, because it's always been there, quiet and not covered by media with the serious it has always deserved) I find If... even more important to see and talk about in the lgbt community even here in the U.S.

Consider the case of Andrew Shrivell — a cyber-bully in a position of power. He might have been able to continue his insane attacks had not the recent events helped shine an light on his ugly little mind. But this is the tip of the iceberg, and like most icebergs, the vast majority of nastiness is below the radar screen and not covered by media. It is the living hell kids go through every day.

"It Gets Better" videos are a good thing. They give hope to those who have resources enough to find them. But it doesn't change day to day reality. And when you can members of Congress, and institutionalized religion on the side of bullies, it's no wonder teachers look the other way and our schools become our local version of Lord of the Flies.

The truth is that children are not comfortable with ambiguity at certain ages. They like certainty, categories, clarity, definition. And lgbt people upset those categories. Hell, there are adults who never grew out of the this childish need to see the world in black and white. Those of us who've been over the rainbow know there are all different shades in between and a whole universe of colors to play with. And that's nothing to be scared of — rather it is to be celebrated.

The problem with If... is that Columbine happened. And while I had revenge fantasies, I have no desire at all to shoot down the student body of Pat Robertson's Liberty University. I just want to shatter their color blinders.

School bullying / Anti gay bullying and advertising:

I've been watching this Chrysler Town and Country commercial for months and every time I see it I am disturbed. It's clear the spot was directed so that the boy who jumps in his mother's van is running from a gang of boys who want to beat him up.

The voiceover suggests it's just a race home, though even in this challenge there is a note of menace.

You can see from the face of "Parker," the boy they are chasing, that he is running in fear.

What was the agency that made this thinking? It's bad enough that school teachers across the country turn a blind eye (or even participate) to bullying behavior. But for an ad agency, in this case, I believe it's Fallon since they're the agency of record for Chrysler, to run an ad which uses the situation to get attention (and entertain and sell) in the today's climate is irresponsible. Because while it's true this behavior is widespread, showing it in a commercial in this way normatizes it. Condones it, even as Parker manages to get away because of the hero product, and his clueless mom driving the Town and Country.

Chrysler should stop running this ad immediately. And both Chrysler and Fallon should be contributing serious money to organizations that combat the scourge of bullying and organizations that protect lgbt youth and youth at risk of bullying.

There has been enough written about this online for me to know now that I'm not the only person who sees this storyline. And some say that the voiceover track was changed from a more overt bullying situation. I wouldn't be surprised given the way the spot is directed. I would guess that the agency presented this to the client as an inexpensive fix to a bad mistake. Sorry guys, doesn't work. You ought to eat the cost, and reshoot a new spot. And pay for your mistake with support for bullied youth.

Take a look at the spot: do you see this the way I see it? And where the hell is GLAAD? After last week's awards to agencies for the good they do, why haven't they raised this as an issue?

 

Substituting Homoeroticism For Health Claims: The New POM Wonderful Advertising

Actor Erik Fellows wanders through the desert without a care how the sun will damage his skin. Why? Because he has the anti oxidant power of POM Wonderful. Ahem.

Okay, let me say I have been a customer. I actually seed pomegranates every week and put them on my cereal (along with blueberries). I drink pomegranate juice. I do this because there is anecdotal evidence for prostate health. However, last week the FTC finally woke up to its responsibilities and came down on POM for what they said were unsubstantiated claims. And heaven knows, POM does do its best to have people believe that their product will help protect men from prostate cancer. That it's 40% as effective as Viagra. Well, I think Erik Fellows on my TV screen (or anywhere in my home) would obviate the need for Viagra.

Now that POM is having trouble with their health claims, they've created some videos that get to the sexual potency claims without saying anything directly. Though in one ad they allude to the fruit's mythical status as an aphrodisiac. They also allude to the claims they can't make by saying "backed by modern science," but they don't say what claim is being backed up. This is classic weasel wording.

When I first started as a copywriter, I remember working on Cascade dish detergent. You know, it gets dishes VIRTUALLY spotless. Not spotless, virtually spotless. Almost. Because they can't make the full claim legally. UNSURPASSED is another weasel work: it means that the product being sold is equal to the competition — it's a parity product. The POM videos are beautiful examples of weasel wording.

These videos are beautifully shot. They use mythic imagery and eroticism to make the emotional association to the claims they can no longer say legally. And I suspect if POM had introduced their product with these video spots they would have become award winners, and given POM a classy image. They may yet do so. The spots certainly have what it takes to win some awards. 

But nowadays, I get Marco Polo brand pomegranate juice. It costs a lot less, and isn't as sweet. And I know that unlike Persephone, even though I consume hundreds of pomegranate seeds in a week, I'm no prisoner of Hades.

You can see the full POM ad below, and you can read about the FTC complaint against POM here.

The TV airwaves were licensed because they were a public trust: today they have been freed for Wi-Fi use

As broadcasters leave the airwaves, Wi-Fi providers are stepping in to the void to provide service across this spectrum that affords webcasting at a very high level.

The airwaves are a public trust. They are licensed and broadcasters pay for the right to use them. And they had to abide by fairness laws, and reserve time for educational, news and public service programming.

Now that this spectrum is being given over to webcasters (and you can be sure this means AT&T, Verizon and the rest) will they have to abide by laws updated for this technology? Because this is where net neutrality and Wi-Fi becomes a serious public debate.

Where does your elected representative stand on these issues?

Facebook, Gay Rights, Advertising, Political Organizing and Free Speech.

There are hundreds of Facebook groups organized around political principles and action. I belong to some of them. A couple of weeks ago there was another Facebook firestorm when the Boycott BP page lost admin privileges. Facebook said it was a glitch and the page privileges were restored. Not so for the Target boycott page — and the paper with the business scoop behind it is Washington D.C.’s MetroWeekly: Facebook will be selling gift cards in Target stores this fall holiday season, so enabling a boycott through their platform directly goes against their business interests. And lets not forget that Facebook is a business.

 The details were reported in USA Today:

 The social-network giant is getting into the gift card business, starting Sunday, with Facebook Credits cards. The new Facebook gift cards will be available in values of $15, $25 and $50 at all of Target's 1,750 retail stores and at Target.com. Two or three more national retailers will start selling the cards in coming months. This will be the first time Facebook has had any presence in a retail store. Facebook already has an arrangement with online-payment services PayPal and MOL to purchase Facebook Credits.

How big a business is this? In today's New York Times,  it is estimated that this year alone the  market in Facebook credits will reach $835 million.  

So it’s no surprise Facebook has disabled the administrative functions of groups that are organizing a boycott of Target in response to Target’s contributions to anti-gay politicians.

 The Internet is a friend of the corporate oligarchy.

 Facebook isn’t some non-profit service to the world community. Like Google, it is an advertising platform. Their value is in the private information they collect and use to help advertisers target prospects and customers.

 In the world of advertising, when an advertiser asks for personal information from a prospect or customer there is always something called a value exchange. The customer gives up some personal information in return for an offer, a discount, something useful. Think of it as a trade.

 Facebook is just such a trade — it has enabled half a billion people around the world to communicate in groups in ways that have never been possible. Of course, along the way, Facebook has collected enough personal information on all these people to make the secret police in any state quiver with desire. The Stasi would be envious of their info gathering ability.

Even without giving up specific information an MIT study last year demonstrated that Facebook friend connections could be used to determine with a strong degree of accuracy whether a man is gay even if he is in the closet.

An Unprecedented Level of Personal Information Given Freely Can Lead To Less Freedom

I am under no illusions when I use Facebook. Or Google for that matter. Just as I have given out information on this blog that could be used by a totalitarian government as evidence to imprison me for thought crimes and/or political beliefs, sexual practices, etc., my actions on Facebook and Google give corporations the information they need to imprison me in the net of the corporate oligarchy.

Remember, I’m an advertising executive. I like advertising. I believe it has a positive social role. I think the internet makes finding stuff I want amazingly easy — just last week I bought a book of Nepalese folktales from a publisher half a world away from their site. But search engines, or Facebook for that matter, like any tool, it can be used for ill. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash a head. And when you hold a hammer, you understand it’s possibility to do both those things.

 When you use Facebook, you may not think about how it can be used against you. Many young people have learned already that posting photos of drunken student antics have ruined employment possibilities. That’s because today, human resources departments don’t need to seek references — they can simply Google your name and see whatever might be online. This is not news. What was news the other weeks was when Google head Eric Schmidt joked about it suggesting people change their names legally if they wanted to hide their past internet indiscretions.

Facebook as a public utility rather than a business —  First Amendment rights should apply.

So Facebook has an economic interest in making sure Facebook users shop at Target. And they have an interest in making sure no one can use their service to spread information about a Target boycott.

However, when a service like Facebook becomes so ubiquitous as to have taken on the role as public square, we have to claim our role as citizens — not consumers. Facebook in fact is denying the right of free speech. Not unlike a shopping mall tries to deny political speech in mall common areas.

The public square, and the streets, as public property are protected by the First Amendment. Facebook however, is a corporation, and users give up their rights to use the service. This is the creeping danger of corporate media and the web.

Broadcasters, because they are licensed by the state to use the airwaves (how quaint a thought, airwaves) which belong to the public, must abide by certain rules — from providing community and educational programming as well as free advertising time for public service messages.

Webcasters like Facebook do not seem to have these restrictions — even though the infrastructure for the Internet was developed by the federal government. And while it has evolved far beyond that original infrastructure, the internet, like the airwaves, are a public trust. And corporate webcasters like Facebook should be subject to fairness doctrines just as broadcasters were — I saw were because if there were still a fairness doctrine Fox news would not exist. And while I don’t believe in censorship, I do believe that since Fox news is really propaganda and nothing else their license to broadcast should be revoked.  The fairness doctrine must be restored to broadcasting.

The internet, since it was developed by the government, is a public trust, and net neutrality must be maintained.

The internet, as a public trust, is also a place where the rights around public speech must hold.

These are bedrock principles we as citizens (and lets remember our role and responsibility as citizens instead of the role we have been assigned by the corporate oligarchy as mere consumers) must demand are enforced by our elected officials before they are completely bought out.

Superbowl Exposed: The real reason they couldn't show a ManCrunch commercial...

Between the butt shots from below of the players, to the butt shots of the men in the Dockers Superbowl commercial, showing a spot for ManCrunch would expose just how truly homoerotic football is.

Spineless Democrats, Misleading Media and the Obama Agenda of Change

Let's start with a sentence in the first paragraph of this week's New Yorker's Talk of the Town:

"On January 19th, a Republican won the Massachusetts seat that had been held for nearly half a century by Edward M. Kennedy, thereby depriving the Senate Democrats of the sixtieth vote they need to pass legislation."

Have I fallen down a rabbit hole? What the hell is wrong with the media on this subject? The Democrats need 60 votes to shut down debate or a filibuster. They only need 51 votes to pass legislation. HELLO?!?

The problem is that the Democrats are too spineless to let the Republicans filibuster. Please, let them argue against what the majority of Americans want. Let them make fools of themselves in public. Set them up. Go ahead.

But no. Obama said he wanted change. He wanted a bipartisan solution.

This isn't change. It's the usual Republican roadblock and the usual wimpy Democratric response.

The only thing that has changed is Obama's agenda, which also gets wimpier all the time.

I can't even watch Jon Stewart anymore because the whole thing disgusts me so much I can't laugh at it. Meanwhile, the DNC continues to call me for money and I continue to tell them that I've gone along with Don't Ask, Don't Give. Holding hearings don't cut it. The president could issue a stop loss order today while the debate moves forward. He hasn't. And so my wallet is closed.

Mind you, the wallet isn't very full, given that I haven't had full time employment in two years. I'm paying for my own health insurance, and not a small amount. I live tight. But I opened that wallet for Obama and the Dems in the 08 election. Results?

The change Obama promised happened: he changed from a populist economic policy to one that favored the bankers. He made deals with big pharma. And he ignored the base that put him in office.

His one flash of fire last week was to comment on Republicans calling his citizenship into question. Does he seriously think that's going to stop? Does he seriously think a party the party of Richard Nixon (and Roger Ailes' Willie Horton commercial) is going to be civil and play fair? What kind of drugs did the pharma people give him anyway?

Grrrrrr.