Andy Dehnart, Wesley Morris, and Alex Pappademas
MTV's New Outdoor Ad Campaign
By Alex Pappademas
Posted Monday, April 23, 2001, at 12:17 PM ETWesley and Andy,
I had a minor panic attack last night when I remembered I was batting first this morning. I promised myself I'd spend Sunday reading newspapers so I could jump right in this morning with some well-honed pronouncements about the trade summit in Quebec City or the suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Instead I watched the Laker game and several uninterrupted hours of MTV.
I say that to say this: I find MTV's new outdoor advertising campaign, which is all over Midtown Manhattan where I work, a little strange. Have you seen these ads? Slogans like "PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT MTV," "I'M ITCHY--DO I HAVE MTV?" "CAN I GET MTV FROM KISSING?" and "YOU CAN HAVE MTV AND NOT EVEN KNOW IT" printed in white type so large it obscures the photos behind it, which are of gender-ambiguous couples making out or, for some reason, a guy who could be Run from Run-DMC. First of all, is it really a prudent move, marketing-wise, to parrot the language of public service announcements about sexually transmitted diseases--not to mention the screaming display-head type design of vintage anti-AIDS campaigns--in a shelter ad for a cable network? (If this catches on, I look forward to ad copy like "THANKS TO A NEW REGIMEN OF ANTIBIOTICS, I CAN ENJOY A HEALTHY LIFE IN SPITE OF MY COMEDY CENTRAL" or "DON'T WORRY, BABY, THOSE C-SPANS ON MY GENITALS AREN'T CONTAGIOUS.")
Share this article on Digg
Share this article on Buzz
And in a larger sense, the way the ads wink knowingly at alarmist STD-related advertising seems somehow out of character for MTV these days. Kurt Loder's perpetual sneer notwithstanding, they've kind of become an irony-free zone, dropping the knowing wink from their gestural repertoire. Maybe these ads (which seem designed to skew to a little older than the kids MTV's been playing to of late, right down to the defiantly uncandyish color palette) are a prudent attempt at re-branding; I've heard that MTV's programmers are a little apprehensive about the future these days. They've effectively transformed themselves into the Teen Pop Network, but teen pop as a genre isn't selling as well as it was six months ago. Radio's getting tired of playing it, and while the kids are still out there in Times Square screaming for this week's Britney/'N Sync throne-usurper, they're voting on Total Request Live but not voting with their allowances. There's a huge audience that's into the music but doesn't buy the records, which is how disco died. It's like it's early 2000, and MTV's got a portfolio full of tech stocks. They're perched on the surface of the bubblegum bubble economy.
I'll kick this over to you guys; I'm off to cop some more caffeine.
Alex
MTV's New Outdoor Ad Campaign
By Alex Pappademas
Posted Monday, April 23, 2001, at 12:17 PM ETAndy Dehnart publishes Reality Blurred, works as a Web producer and free-lance writer, and is pursuing a master of fine arts in nonfiction writing. Wesley Morris is a film critic at the San Francisco Chronicle
. Alex Pappademas is an editor at Blender
, a new music magazine. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: President Bush on drilling, MTV and the youth market: same situation? Talk to WillV here. Thread your way through all the posts saying yes they do have the ads in Chicago (we know now, OK?) and find some posted lists: Zeitguy's Rools of Cool, Paul Caniff's answers to questions, and Gypsy's theory on disco. Jared White suggests Eggertian rather than Eggersesque. Check out the checkmarks for discussions on criticism and music. For more good stuff on film reviews read in full the fascinating posts from Steve Sailer and Aluminum Man (below). Done all that? Congratulations, you are now a complete popular culture Instant Expert. (Or a Breakfast Table Fray expert--same thing.)]
At the risk of sounding churlish--or rather, gleefully trying to sound churlish--the comment of your "Breakfast Table" writer about the Bush administration--"Essentially, they're politically motivated cowards" [Monday's entry]--demonstrates an acute lack of insight into, well, one of the great features of civilization. Politically motivated bravery is usually a suspect virtue--it led Napoleon into Russia, Hoover into a principled stand against "hand-outs," and Tom DeLay into being Tom DeLay. The real problem is that the Bushies face no bullying from the other side of the aisle: nobody who is willing to demagogue them, dog them, and dice them into the neutered conservatism which was Jr.'s daddy's trademark. In the weird mores of Washington, the dogger/dicer really doesn't have to have a national constituency--just a nasty taste for institutional infighting. If only Wellstone had Gingrich's taste for lowmindedness.
--Roger
(To reply, click here.)
Having recently become the film critic for United Press International, I've been thinking a lot about these issues. The biggest problem with movie reviews in general is that reviewers are so homogenous--almost always male, white, upper middle class, with a grad degree in humanities or liberal arts, urban, high IQ, intellectual but not hugely logical or well-informed about things beyond the cultural realm like business or science or sociology, and extremely opinionated--that the tastes of huge demographic groups get ignored. I fall in most of those categories, too, but coming at a rather late age to this trade, I just don't as often experience anymore the testosterone surge that makes me want to shove my opinion down the throats of people who aren't like me.
For example, women. Over the years I've noticed that women generally don't like the same movies I like. That used to offend me greatly. I figured I could cure women of their bad taste in movies by exposing them to the really good stuff (i.e., what I liked) and explaining to them--over and over again--why it's better than the crap they liked. Slowly, though, I grew to respect women and their tastes more. I also learned that lots of other people aren't as smart as me and that making them watch what I liked to watch wasn't going to make them enjoy it more. Now, I take steps to help put myself in other peoples' shoes...
--Steve Sailer
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
Most Tom Green fans (and I'm not one of them) will have already decided to see Freddy Got Fingered a long time ago, and nothing that reviews have said (or will say) makes any difference. The same is true of the upcoming Lord of the Rings trilogy or the last installments of the increasingly awful Star Wars series. In fact, contrary to what the Breakfast Tablers are suggesting, I think most people have their minds made up about whether or not to see any given movie long before reviews hits the stands.
What informed, thoughtful, articulate critics can do is make us see, hear and understand things in movies that we otherwise might miss. They can challenge us by forcing us to examine elements that we might otherwise pass over, and make us look at a movie from a perspective perhaps unlike our own.
--Aluminum Man
(To reply, click here.)
(4/25)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
I Have Seen the Future of Apple, and It Is Boring
Blogs Are Full of Hot Air. But Are They Causing Global Warming?
Handsomest Surgeon General Ever?
Why Obama Really Picked Panetta To Run the CIA
How Many Albinos Are There in Tanzania, Anyway?
The Pentagon Is Building Robots To Raise Children
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: President Bush on drilling, MTV and the youth market: same situation? Talk to WillV here. Thread your way through all the posts saying yes they do have the ads in Chicago (we know now, OK?) and find some posted lists: Zeitguy's Rools of Cool, Paul Caniff's answers to questions, and Gypsy's theory on disco. Jared White suggests Eggertian rather than Eggersesque. Check out the checkmarks for discussions on criticism and music. For more good stuff on film reviews read in full the fascinating posts from Steve Sailer and Aluminum Man (below). Done all that? Congratulations, you are now a complete popular culture Instant Expert. (Or a Breakfast Table Fray expert--same thing.)]
At the risk of sounding churlish--or rather, gleefully trying to sound churlish--the comment of your "Breakfast Table" writer about the Bush administration--"Essentially, they're politically motivated cowards" [Monday's entry]--demonstrates an acute lack of insight into, well, one of the great features of civilization. Politically motivated bravery is usually a suspect virtue--it led Napoleon into Russia, Hoover into a principled stand against "hand-outs," and Tom DeLay into being Tom DeLay. The real problem is that the Bushies face no bullying from the other side of the aisle: nobody who is willing to demagogue them, dog them, and dice them into the neutered conservatism which was Jr.'s daddy's trademark. In the weird mores of Washington, the dogger/dicer really doesn't have to have a national constituency--just a nasty taste for institutional infighting. If only Wellstone had Gingrich's taste for lowmindedness.
--Roger
(To reply, click here.)
Having recently become the film critic for United Press International, I've been thinking a lot about these issues. The biggest problem with movie reviews in general is that reviewers are so homogenous--almost always male, white, upper middle class, with a grad degree in humanities or liberal arts, urban, high IQ, intellectual but not hugely logical or well-informed about things beyond the cultural realm like business or science or sociology, and extremely opinionated--that the tastes of huge demographic groups get ignored. I fall in most of those categories, too, but coming at a rather late age to this trade, I just don't as often experience anymore the testosterone surge that makes me want to shove my opinion down the throats of people who aren't like me.
For example, women. Over the years I've noticed that women generally don't like the same movies I like. That used to offend me greatly. I figured I could cure women of their bad taste in movies by exposing them to the really good stuff (i.e., what I liked) and explaining to them--over and over again--why it's better than the crap they liked. Slowly, though, I grew to respect women and their tastes more. I also learned that lots of other people aren't as smart as me and that making them watch what I liked to watch wasn't going to make them enjoy it more. Now, I take steps to help put myself in other peoples' shoes...
--Steve Sailer
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
Most Tom Green fans (and I'm not one of them) will have already decided to see Freddy Got Fingered a long time ago, and nothing that reviews have said (or will say) makes any difference. The same is true of the upcoming Lord of the Rings trilogy or the last installments of the increasingly awful Star Wars series. In fact, contrary to what the Breakfast Tablers are suggesting, I think most people have their minds made up about whether or not to see any given movie long before reviews hits the stands.
What informed, thoughtful, articulate critics can do is make us see, hear and understand things in movies that we otherwise might miss. They can challenge us by forcing us to examine elements that we might otherwise pass over, and make us look at a movie from a perspective perhaps unlike our own.
--Aluminum Man
(To reply, click here.)
(4/25)