This is how we shred lettuce up in this biatch

Real Internet journalism is all about waiting for CNN to write the story and then simply linking to their content. BAM! In this video CNN tells us that some kids made a rap video in the local supermarket they worked in, and are now being sued for the smallest denomination of money a giant corporation can sue for: one million dollars. While they probably think this is just a slap on the wrist for two college kids, at most I know I was carrying around half a mil in those days. Good luck seeing all but fifty percent of that settlement, A&P!

I’m guessing these kids only (alleged) crime was misusing the registered trademark of the A&P corporation in a way that disparaged the quality of their store’s produce. In case anyone has ever wonder why they see logos blurred out in TV shows, and sometimes even movies, this is usually why. Hopefully the kids have some kind of ‘parody’ defense at their disposal, the very same defense that has kept the staff of both Mad Magazine and Saturday Night Live out of the slammer for these previous two consecutive life sentences.

I’m still confounded when corporations launch lawsuits like this that most certainly gain the materials they want to suppress much more media coverage than they would get otherwise. Maybe they should also sue these kids for revealing the trade secret that in supermarkets it’s the older produce that tends to be cut up and sold as the prepackaged goodies in the deli section. That’s right, I said it!

Hot amature robot action

It sounds like there’s another controversy trumping-up attempt going on over yet one more Super Bowl commercial, this time against General Motor’s sad robot ad.

The controversy is supposedly two-fold: relatives of suicide victims and laid-off GM workers are both (supposedly) finding a reason to be deeply offended with the ad.

I’ll admit when I saw the ad, I was kind of surprised the commercial went as far as depicting the robot droid killing itself. Even though it was revealed to be a dream (warning: spoilers preceding this parenthetical statement) I will admit it is somewhat shocking imagery.

I was listening to CNN Friday night as they were doing a piece on this ‘controversy’ regarding the depiction of suicide. The mother of a suicide victim said when she saw the ad she had to re-live the tragedy of her own son’s suicide (from a gunshot, not a bridge-jumping).

While I’m sure what she went through was very sad, she should avoid all television if any kind of suicide imagery bothers her, since at any given moment you could see any kind of violent or suicidal imagery. I do think it is in general a bad idea to depict suicide in a commercial for the variety of emotions viewers might begin to associate with the company. The image of a piece of machinery going over a bridge may also give people watching the subconscious connection between GM and cars accidentally going over a bridge or overpass.

A much more valid complaint, and one I didn’t immediately see as a problem, is the twisting of the knife the spot does to the throngs of people laid off by GM. The use of the robot imagery symbolizes -or in some cases might be a direct example of- the downsizing of former GM employees. It might be seen as terrorizing the remaining workforce (if you so much as drop a bolt, you’re out of here), and the concept of what a laid of worker is reduced to (waving sign around for condo developments, not finding decent employment elsewhere) could seem like a slap in the face.

While I’m sure none of this was intentional, it really does, in hindsight, seem like a bad idea all around. Probably with good reason, GM has pulled this commercial from it’s web site. To the best of my knowledge this :60 spot only aired once, during the Super Bowl.

I know I have made a wrong-turn somewhere in my life when I find myself writing about current news events revolving around Kevin Federline or Anna Nicole Smith.

Anna Nicole Smith died today at a South Florida hospital after being found unconscious in her hotel room at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel. Why this is on my radar at all (aside from being blaring front-page news) is chiefly because of her horrible TrimSpa commercials (follow the video link by clicking on the picture).. Or visit her impromptu memorial at our YouTube channel and join the literally tens of people declaring ‘lol she’s dead’. (Real mature, YouTube).

Not only were the TrimSpa commercials bad, but the company selling and marketing them, TrimSpa Inc., is the target of a class action lawsuit claiming false and/or misleading claims. Anna Nicole Smith was also named in the lawsuit, as she was the company spokeswoman.

I had other things I really needed to do today besides talking about man-on-man kissing, but the advertising world has once again forced my hand. You can follow the video link from the still shot to see the Snickers ad that’s making some news, the one that featured men accidentally kissing, and then ripping out their chest hair to compensate for the taboo act.

I would have imagined this ad might have trolled up some controversy, but I would have put my money on anti-gay, “how dare you make my kids see this” “Janet Jackson, put your titty away” type people making a fuss over it. The biggest news-makers complaining so far have been gay advocacy groups, apparently not so much about the ad that ran, but over the content of some of the alternate endings that Snickers posted to their web site, in conjunction with some players’ reactions that were posted to the YouTube.

As best I can tell, this was part of some marketing effort to make viewers vote for their favorite (or least-offending) ending. I’m sure stirring up some controversy was part of the ultimate marketing idea too.

Some of the complaints from the gay community are over the perceived anti-gay attitudes of some of the NFL players in the video, while other reactions complain about the notion that men must punish themselves for accidentally committing a gay act.

It seems like when a group protests or complains about media content, the content gets all the more play and free publicity, so it will be interesting to see whether or not the Mars corporation counts this as a net publicity gain or loss.

I will never forget the day Brittany Spears announced she and Kevin Federline were filing for divorce. Specifically, I will never forget because it was election day. I had been checking the news online, and of course election news coverage dominated all the front pages. I even speculated what news event could possibly trump the election and force it off the front page. It would have to be something huge, like a meteor hitting a city, and not just any city like Detroit, a meteor hitting Dallas or something like that. Then I saw this. CNN dot com added an urgent, red-alert level breaking news banner above the fold announcing the split. Awesome priorities, America!

Nationwide secured Brittany’s ex to appear in a Super Bowl ad, as part of their “life comes at you fast” campaign. You might remember their ad featuring Fabio navigating a gondala, then becoming an old withered man after they pass under a bridge. The content of this ad, apparently, portrays Kevin Federline daydreaming he is a huge rap star, then he snaps out of it and he is working in a fast food restaurant.

It sounds relatively amusing, and aside from the fact the defunct rap star is deciding to pick up some television ad work, it seems more or less in good humor, though I reserve judgment until I actually see it.

In what must be a dream come true for Nationwide, the National Restaurant Association (“the other NRA”), is giving the spot a hefty dose of pre-publicity. They claim the commercial “would give the impression that working in a restaurant is demeaning and unpleasant,” and they want it pulled from the Super Bowl lineup. I guess they think the ad will scare ex-cons on work release away from signing up on staff at McDonald’s for minimum wage.

Maybe they are saying the thought of having to work along side K Fed is demeaning and unpleasant. Real immature, National Restaurant Association. Leave the guy alone.

Again, without seeing their ad I’m not sure if this complaint has any worthiness to it. It could show him in a stink hole being beaten with a whip, roaches crawling all over the food, the public bathroom of the restaurant covered in feces. You know, a real Arby’s situation. But it sounds like an over-reaction, and I doubt it will result in the ad actually being pulled, and will probably result in more people trying to view it. The marketing dudes and dudettes are no doubt high-fiving each other over this turn of events.

If you care to see some pointless video, this appears to be some Paparazzi footage of PapaZoa himself, appearing in apparel similar to his pre-PopoZoa Pizza Hut persona, playing pedestrian and procrastinating until post-production.

The news that Orville Redenbacher (the company) was digitally reviving Orville Redenbacher (the ex-human) escaped my notice, so seeing their flagship commercial during the Golden Globes was the first I knew about this. And even then, I wasn’t sure if they had just hired a look-alike, or gone all out and recreated him using dark sorcery.

This story in USA Today gives some good background information on the process and decision to do this. The accompanying video link is somewhat crappy, and unfortunately I don’t have the video to post yet. You can find the ad and some other original Redenbacher spots on the YouTube.

Unlike what companies like The Gap have done to disgrace dead celebrities, I don’t have a moral problem with what this new Redencacher ad does. Whether or not it gets good results, it’s not really grave-robbing to bring the man back to sell the product. After all, he did it while he was alive.

My only real question is, why not just find a look-alike? It seems like a (financially) painful process to go through to recreate a human being every time you need a new ad. In any event it looks rather nice, though from a content point of view it’s nothing mind-blowing.

“Fresh off its campaign using an unborn baby threatening his mother if she continues to eat spicy food, fast-food company Carl’s Jr. will go ahead this week with its Paris Hilton commercial, which has been labeled “pornographic” by one industry source.”

I await this ad and am hoping it will be a rich subject for me to tap.

Carl’s Jr. a.k.a. Hardee’s has had on-again off-again stint with good commercials. This early spot comes to mind from the “off-again” department.

I have a sneaking suspicion this ad might not make it to air, or may only air a few times before it is yanked. Suspense!