Slashdot Mirror
Super Bowl Commercial Skewer-a-thon
tunabomber writes: "Those planning on tuning in to America's Patriotic Sports TV Event of the Year to catch the new commercials will no longer have to sit through all that football filler. PBS, of all networks, is airing a postgame show in which the subject of discussion is not the game, but the commercials.
Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special is a beefed-up episode of the cultish Mental Engineering series where a panel of experts, including former Daily Show host Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critique (read: eviscerate) Super Bowl commercials.
There are also blurbs about this at The Kansas City Star and The St. Paul Star Tribune." One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.
"Super Commercials: A Mental Engineering Special" is made possible by a grant from Doubleclick.
I didn't think PBS would ever step into the realm of something like this. Television commercials and commercial sporting events have never really been the focus of PBS programming. But this could signal a change of direction maybe for PBS programming, especcially seeing its a post game show. As in right after the game. Not a program that will be aired in 3 months which is the usual PBS stuff, it's all researched and taped, it's never really live. This is an interestingf concept.
Slate magazine's Moneybox runs a regular series of "Ad report cards" that are fairly savvy. This one linked to above previews some Super Bowl ads.
Mig
Disecting commercials is an interesting exercise. Too bad it's tax money being spent on giving the commercials yet *another* showing.
I think it's fascinating the cultural and social aspects of advertizing. Effective commercials have to hook into as much "common" thinking as possible in order to be profitable. Or, like the famous Mac "Metropolis" commercial, link into our cultural shared imagery.
I look forward to real "smart chips", that can be used to recognize commercials and turn the sound off, maybe turn down the contrast for the duration of the commercial. I really hate the way stations turn up the volume during the commercials as a form of forced attention grabbing.
But the extra volume is good for one thing, I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Cool - while ESPN, CNN/SI and Fox are breaking down the game, PBS will be breaking down who spent their 2.5 Million per 30 seconds the best. If the game is not at all interesting, this could be the best thing to tune to after the game.
Besides, sometimes things like herding cats just has to be panned.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Since Ad Critic shut down, I have nowhere to view commercials anymore. Kudos to PBS.
Try your TV.
Here is a link to the part of the site that actualy has some CONTENT on it (GASP!)
:(
:(
Here
Not the posters fault though, only a Google.com search turns up the real site, the one linked off of their intro page is even either old or just has not been updated with the latest content yet.
Oh yah, ASF files with required plugins ahoy.
(the site is also dying fast to, hehe.)
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Two 30-second spots ... suggest illegal drug sale profits may help fuel terrorism.
And in the ideal world the suggestion would be caried through to the only obvious conclusion: prohibition of illegal drugs should be ended, and funds wasted on fighting the "drug war" should be redirected towards [voluntary] treatment programs for addicts. These are "your" tax dollars at work people (3.2 million of them, for 60 seconds of propaganda). If you don't like it then it's time for you to start withdrawing support from the system. (that's conceptually, semantically, and financially)
The "war on drugs" does not have a clearly defined enemy. It's been going on for what, 30 years? And there's no end in sight. The "war on terror" also does not have a clearly defined enemy. Are you ready for perpetual war?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Your tax dollars at work. Seriously, I laughed so hard when all those dot-coms of a few years ago blew half of their money on a single ad, only to go out of business a few months later. The thing is, the government doesn't have to answer about its spending, it just has to strain its citizens a little more. In this case, it is using the money of the people it is supposed to protect and using that money to tell us(if you're a US citizen) what you can and can't do. That million dollars could help save the lives of understaffed police officiers or firefighters without proper equipment, but that doesn't make the news.
You missed one.
/sheep/ but you keep them both for the sake of personal pleasure.
:) :) )
Damn newbies, fucking shit. You FORGOT THE FRIGGIN PUNCH LINE.
Damnit.
Ah, mods excuse this, but I just cannot allow this otherwise great joke to go unfinished.
RatCity-ism (replace with the name of an old Stoner's BBS in your area, that was my local one): You have two
Ok ok, a lot funnier when done in ANSI.
On topic though, these basic concepts (you have many of something, big bad evil government takes part of that many away from you) was something that was being seen more and more often in the last past few years. I predict that an opposite trend is likely to show itself this year. (not exactly rocket science that prediction.
Ah, Post 9-11 Capitalism. You have two cows that fulfill all of your milk needs but the advertisers insist that you buy two more so as to fulfill your patriotic duty. . . .
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
and T.V. shows dedicated to advertisements.
Every once in a while I am happily reminded again of the reasons that I do not have a television set and why I do not watch any T.V.
--Jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
rk
Rangers Lead the Way!
People have always been pushing some agenda - trying to sell something. It was the greek philosophers who first observed that the truth of the issue is not what matters in showing a point, so much as the persuasiveness of the speaker through logos, ethos, and pathos. Its an art that has been studied for thousands of years, and a good persuasion is something to be admired, no matter what the outcome - at least it can be for those of us who have to communicate with other humans (I think that covers pretty much everybody).
At the very least, we can laugh at how bad their persuasion is. I used to love watching the old "Shake 'N Bake" commercial where a child said, "My mom's making me Shake 'N Bake because she loves me." I could just imagine her finishing her thought, "and your mom doesn't because she doesn't make chicken with that." Or the "Mentos" commercials, where somebody does something sneaky, underhanded, or slightly illegal to someone else, who is understandably irritated, until they see the Mentos pop into the criminal's mouth. I keep waiting for them to push the envelope and show that anything's okay with Mentos by having someone stab someone else to death in front of a cop, and then pop a Mentos in their mouth to get the cop to let them off.
But I digress. Commercials are an art, worth of appreciation or ridicule, despite their purpose. They are, to some degree, a form of literature, meant to do all of the same things as other media.
Does this mean, as the author of the previous post suggests, that we have no appreciation for other forms of art?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Adcritic is down, and it doesn't sound like the PBS show will actually re-air all of the commercials. Does anyone know where I might be able to watch the ads without sitting through hours of football?
The shareholder is always right.
..."Too bad it's tax money being spent"...
;)
Advertisers know that this is one television event that not only will have a large audience, but will have viewers looking forward to viewing commercials. The government knows this too.
and
..."I can hear the commercials end so I know when to come back from the kitchen/bathroom."...
This is a multi-use room? I thought that the dining/living room or den/playroom was as far as that went!
So back in the 80's the CIA thought it would be a great idea to help finance their terrorist war against the government of Nicaragua by selling guns to the Iranians and opening up drug trafficking routes from South and Central America to the inner cities of the US. Then they help out the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan with sales of opium. The US government then declares a War on Drugs.
Back in the 90s, the KLA fought a dirty war against the Serbs with money made from drugs with the help of the CIA.
Now, in 2002, Americans have to pay over $3 million to watch ads linking drugs with terrorism. Well no shit...people have been saying that all along.
Check out a great short film that just won an award at the Sundance Film Festival called "Crack the CIA" produced by the Guerilla News Network. Quite revealing, featuring some footage from the Iran-Contra Congress hearings and a public confrontation between a former LAPD officer and the then Director of the CIA, John Deutch.
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
2000...
Lots of hype about people spending billions upon billions of dollars on Superbowl ads...
So there's this one where a monkey in an E-trade t-shirt walks up to a stereo, presses play and gets up on a table in front of someone's garage, and there's these two guys sitting on either side clapping. The monkey proceeds to dance to the polka music for about 20 seconds.
then they cut to the text that says:
"We just wasted 8 billion dollars. What're you doing with your money?"
"E-trade.com"
I was laughing till the next commercial break.
Karma: Non-Heinous
In reference to the 'Anti-Terrorism Ads':
Does anybody else think that the ad juxtaposition will bea little off kilter?:
*A dancing/singing CG cow will say something like: "This Bud's for you!"
*Anti-Terrorism ad
*A dancing/singing britney spears will say something like "Mmmm, pepsi... It's how to be cool!"
:)
One thing you'll be able to look forward to: fewer sock puppet commercials, more anti-terror commercials.
Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!
They're taxpayer-funded government propaganda designed to fool people into thinking that users of ilegal drugs are somehow supporting terrorism. In reality, the only actual drug/terror link would be in opium-related narcotics (ie heroin), but I don't expect the super bowl ads will mention that. I also don't imagine they'll mention that opium exports from Afghanistan have increased since the Taliban was ousted, namely because the Taliban had (at our request) banned farmers from growing opium. No, these ads will just say that drug users support terrorists.
Personally, I'm 100% certain that when I buy MY drugs, they're locally grown and I'm in no way supporting terrorism. And it makes me awfully bitter that my taxes are being spent on a pair of superbowl ads that do nothing but slander me and the millions of other innocent americans who happen to enjoy smoking pot.
There are real threats to this country right now. The government was able to arrest 734,498 Americans for smoking pot last year, but was somehow unable to catch one lunatic in a cave in the mountains. It's downright shamefull.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
alas, here in Canada (at least in this chunk of SW Ontario), we never get to see the superbowl ads in the first place, 'cause they're typically substituted for cheesy local advertising by the Canadian broadcasters showing the event.
here's the CRTC's lousy explanation. (the CRTC is i guess a loathesome canuck version of the FCC, except considerably more pretentious and out of touch with reality.)
apple's big brother? sock puppets? anti-terrorism? nope, more like just another "Leon's No Money Down Miracle Event!". (and no, my building doesn't allow satellite dishes)
The other severely annoying bit that they mess around with is virtual ads. Basically, the broadcaster superimposes logos and other teeny corporate markers over top of crowds, the first down line, and billboard shots. It's usually quite glaring.
i just wish they would broadcast an unadulterated signal!!!
It is a lot easier to be funny, thoughtful, or odd for 30 seconds than for 22 minutes. Considering that companies spends almost as much on these 30 second adds as a regular 22 minute sitcom, you tend to get a better, quick product. If "Friends" spent $2.5 million per 30 seconds for 22 minutes, ie., $110 million per episode, you would end up with a new MacBeth every week; or a new "Waterworld"- shit, just blew a whole in my own argument.
Well, I hope that made some sense!
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Yeah, the drug users on welfare, crack whores on welfare with kids on WIC and food stamps, the drug dealers who kill people, the deaths caused by people who do drugs and drive, the drug users who have the government pay for their rehap, the money to keep drug users in jail for BREAKING THE LAW (oh, you forgot about that point, didn't you? "But I don't hurt anyone!" you whine. Fine, once you get the law changed, go do your drugs, but until it's changed it's still the law.)
I'm not saying you do any of the above, or ever will (besides the breaking the law part), but there are many who do, and it hurts the rest of us. Personally, I say make all drugs legal and tax the hell out of them, like cigarettes. You get your drugs at a known quality standard, no illegal drug pushers, tax money for the state.
I'd love it if they made pot legal again. I don't think you are a terrorist, but the terrorist guys over in Afghan made most of their money by growing opium. Lots of terroist type action in Columbia where a lot of coke is made. The connection is there.
Also, I like how you are pissed that you will be paying some money to fight the terrorists, and you want to assasinate a fairly decent guy over it. Perhaps you may want to contemplate on the rationality of your response? Say someone keys my car, I know who it is but can't prove it- he cost me money, should I now go assasinate him?
Also, Bush only pointed out countries that have known records of terrorist actions. No mention of actually acting them (yes, I watched his speech). Most likely he threw that out to scare them so they don't try and pull another 9/11. These countries don't have good track records of being peacefull and such.
Just my thoughts and opinions.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Good points.
/., he!)
I haven't watched a sitcom in years. I watch some scifi and drama shows, but mostly as background with other tasks (like surfing
A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.
I actually read about the various pop media stuff off my portal page, which I've set up with a variety of news sources. I included media stuff so I can at least be conversant with co-workers and such. The best part is I can read an article in 30 seconds and be conversant with them after they watched the hour episode! They don't even know I've never watched some of these shows!
As for news, forget it. I occasionally watch FoxNews for O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes, but that's it. I gave up on TV and newspaper news almost 10 years ago.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
How come Bush hasn't turned himself in for doing coke in his youth? Shouldn't he be doing ten years in some nice Texas jail?
Anarchists never rule
The best channel imo is the Discovery Science channel; unlike the regular Discovery channel, they run mainly one hour science shows; no cooking shows, fix-up-your-house shows, and best of all no infomercials (even in the middle of the night). If you're an insomniac there will usually be something cool on, like an episode of Connections.
Welcome to the modern equivalent of these kind of misleading adverts.
no sig.
And most of the collateral damage you point out is caused by the drugs being illegal. The price is artificailly high beause they are illegal making it difficult for people with few skills to support their habits without resorting to crime. Violence surrounds the drug trade beause it is illegal. Legal drugs will still cause problems, but the cost to society in general will be much, much, lower
All of these are little different from what happened when the US decided to make alchol illegal. Then realised sometime later that this caused more problems than it solved...
How come Bush hasn't turned himself in for doing coke in his youth? Shouldn't he be doing ten years in some nice Texas jail?
Same reason that the "war against terror" didn't start with the CIA. In which case shouldn't GW Bush be spending his 10 years at Camp X-ray...
In, say, 1975, it may have been true that PBS showed a decent percentage of intelligent, out-of-mainstream programming--I certainly remember it being more high-minded when I was a kid--but that hasn't been the case for a long time.
Present-day PBS is devoted to promoting what used to be referred to derisively as "middle-class tastefulness," to stroking the self-satisfied "soft elitism" of a semi-rich, mostly white, baby-boomer audience who fancy themselves enlightened and cultured because they prefer light theatre to sit-coms (unless those sit-coms are British), pops concerts and soft AOR rock to "crazy modern music" and MTV, Julia Child to Martha Stewart, the thoughtless pseudo-leftism of the American university to the thoughtless pseudo-rightism of dirty blue-collar slobs, and the white-bread consumerism of the Crate & Barrel to the white-trash consumerism of the Home Shopping Club.
It's just another "lifestyle channel" with a superiority complex borne of its guaranteed existence regardless of its lack of popularity amongst the proles whom it deigns to "educate."
The specific show in question, Mental Engineering, has got to be the most miserable piece of shit I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen it, it goes like this: Attention-starved minor local media celebrities, failed academics, and a hack comedian play back a few tv commercials, and intersperse them with soft-spoken, moderately intelligent--if only by tv standards--commentary and slow-witted "quips," agree with each other about everything, and laugh dignified little fake laughs. Riveting stuff. It's kind of like a painfully drawn-out Daily Showsegment, but not as smart, not as critical of mainstream opinion, and not funny.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Fact: 85% of all violent crimes in the US are committed because of, or under the direct influence of drugs.
Sounds like one of the government's propaganda statistics. Even if this stat were true, most of that 85% would be alcohol.
That statistic has been around since hard core drugs... and has remained constant.
What does that mean? 'since hard core drugs'?
Have I personally seen a pot deal gone bad that caused the death of people? Hell yes.
Isn't that a good reason to end prohibition? If we end prohibition, we take the criminal aspect out of the drug business.
If you're on the hard stuff, back to stealing, and if you're really strung out... stickin up people when you're not thinkig straight.
This image of a strung out addict robbing and killing has been burned into our heads by propaganda, not reality.
Actually... (in case anyone cares) It's the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
CBS is showing on Friday evening @ 8:00pm "Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials 2" which should give those who enjoy them a look at some of the good ones from the past. As they say "check your local listings as date/times may vary in different regions!"
A lot of my TV watching revolves around Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, and SciFi channel. Not so much for their series, but rather the specials like Walking with Dinos, Blue Planet, the occasional SciFi miniseries.
You do realise that the two examples you give were actually made by the BBC? Also "Walking with Dinosaurs" attracted quite a degree of critisism since it presents fictional elements (in places complete fiction) as though it is facts. Similarly with the followup, "Walking with Beasts".
Those aren't anti-terrorist commercials! They're anti-drug/anti-personal-freedom commercials!
Amen to that. I was just going to post a little rant about what a ridiculous and strained connection there is between drugs and terrorism. But you did a fine job yourself.
I thought maybe the gov. would want to do a little generic patriotic spot, something that helps bolster the illusion that we are the best nation on earth, or maybe a call to voluntary service, etc., but no, they use terrorism to further their anti-freedom agenda. Hey, maybe they can find a link between abortion and terrorism next!
I guess if you don't like something these days, just call it terrorism.
For me, the "herding cats" commercial from a couple of years ago. The artists did a wonderful job of mapping calf physical behavior onto some of their digital cats. Of course, I have no idea what they were selling with it-- some sort of system integration software?
And how do you think FARC in Colombia make their money? Selling cookies at bake sales? They're only the most prominent example, but they aren't the only group of people making their money by growing drugs or "taxing" their export.
Those aren't the terrorists the TV ad's are likely to address. In the minds of the American people, the word "terrorist" directly refers to certain Islanic extremists, who, in reality, make very little money off american drug users. Regardless, anyone who DOES make money off selling drugs in the U.S. wouldn't be able to make nearly as much if our government hadn't created incredibly high prices (by keeping drugs ilegal and seizing them at every turn).
You really have no idea if what you smoke came from a hydroponics lab in someone's attic or from a Abu Sayef field. And when it comes right down to it, you really don't care. If you did, the ramifications of supporting the domestic drug trade would have stopped you long before now.
You are very mistaken. The source matters very much. On the rare occasion that something comes in from out of state, everybody knows. It looks and tastes different! It's usually not as good. The "domestic drug trade" that I support isn't a bunch of TV-style gun-toting gangsters, they're freedom-loving peacefull Americans just like me who like to have a good time. THAT "domestic drug trade" is something very much worth supporting.
So long as MY tax dollars have to go towards funding methodone clinics, USCG interdictions, and training foreign police and military forces, they'll go towards these commercials as well.
Heroin addiction is a sad thing, but I'd rather pay for methodone clinics than the alternitive (in this country, thats round up the junkies, put them in jail awhile, dump them back on the street, lather, rinse, repeat).
As for USCG interdictions (I assume you're refering to coast guard anti drug actions?): again, this wouldn't be an issue if we relaxed our damn drug policies.
But I don't want to be paying for foriegn military training any more than you, though, so at least we can agree on that. Funding foreign militaries is what got us in this terrorism mess in the first place!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
The same can be said of any illegal smuggling operation, be it diamonds, bootleg CDs, weapons, or even sneakers. Why should drugs have special treatment?
"You are very mistaken. The source matters very much. On the rare occasion that something comes in from out of state, everybody knows. It looks and tastes different! It's usually not as good. The "domestic drug trade" that I support isn't a bunch of TV-style gun-toting gangsters, they're freedom-loving peacefull Americans just like me who like to have a good time. THAT "domestic drug trade" is something very much worth supporting."
Mock me if you will for quoting from a government source, but as you pointed out they seize a lot of it and they are the most likely ones to know the most about this. From http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/647/marijuan.htm: "As for USCG interdictions (I assume you're refering to coast guard anti drug actions?): again, this wouldn't be an issue if we relaxed our damn drug policies."
And it wouldn't be so expensive to stop the illegal diamond trade in the US if we just relaxed our import restrictions. But I'd rather fund efforts to stop this trade than to fund Liberian warlords. Again, what makes drugs so different?
The purpose of this organization is to mobilize civilians in the effort of "homeland security". In other words they will act exactly like the brownshirts in nazi germany.
War is necrophilia.
Lizz Winstead and a Silicon Valley computer scientist, critic (read: eviscerette)
Are you morally opposed to the use of the word critique or something?
No, yes, in the order your phrased your question. I guess the joke was too subtle. Hint: I replaced eviscerate with eviscerette not for reasons relating to gender but rather because the male equivalent is spelled the same as the transitive verb.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat