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
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
rk
Rangers Lead the Way!
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
Actually, this year's winner is the Britney Spears/Pepsi add, which is running at (a record) $9 for 90 seconds, or a good 500K more per 30 seconds.
Wait, $100,000 per second!! There is something just so inherently wrong with that...
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
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!!!
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...