Substance Abuse: Debate Lacking

Last night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was for the most part entertaining, which is probably what the ABC network was hoping for. After all, it was broadcast in prime time, bumping what could have been profitable programming such as sitcoms, reality shows or dancing celebrities. Plus it was tape-delayed here in the Seattle market (presumably on the entire west coast as well). What’s up with that? We were getting pieces of the debate on MSNBC and HuffingtonPost.com long before we were able to view the debate. People in North America

get to see hockey playoffs live, yet we’re forced to view something as important as a debate which has repercussions that could last for decades to come several hours after it actually happened.

But the debate itself was mired in endless talk about things that have nothing to do with the future of this country. That’s a shame. It could’ve been a defining moment in this historic contest for the nation’s highest office. Instead, almost the first hour (and well over half) of the debate was spent yakking about Hillary’s “Bosnia” comment, Obama’s relationship with his former pastor and an acquaintance who used to be part of the Weather Underground, and various other comments made by the candidates. Keep in mind that during this time a grand total of ZERO minutes were spent discussing Iraq, Iran, the economy, or any of the important issues of the day.

Who’s to blame for this travesty? Barack? Hillary? No, the responsibility for this nonsense is completely on the so-called moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. They steered the subject matter, and the candidates had no choice but to go along with it. Perhaps it made for stimulating television, but the very fact that so little time was spent talking about important issues means that it was more than just a lost opportunity. It was a shameful bitchfest.

From here on out, the networks should be banned from being allowed to handle presidential debates. Leave it to the cable news outlets or the Internet. We can’t trust the ABC’s of the world to bring us such important matters. They cannot be trusted with anything more meaningful than sitcoms, desperate housewives or dancing celebrities.

The End of the "Today" Addiction

NBC's "Today" program was an acute addiction around here for a long time. How long? We're talking Bryant Gumbel and Jane Pauley long. But after decades of getting up and turning on "Today" to catch the 7:00 a.m. headlines, we've finally decided to give it up.

Why? Well, it started to become apparent over the past few years that the addition of an hour to the show, followed by yet another hour, that it was gradually transitioning from a solid news program by NBC News to a show tailored for a female audience. Not that there's anything wrong with women-themed programming, but we were used to watching a news program, and "Today" began to be more about gossip, fashion, celebrities, diets, cooking and parenting.

But that's not what put us over the top. Here's what did: Recently, "Today" ran a series of stories about the girls who were mixed up after a terrible car crash. Nothing wrong with covering the story (which is an old one; this series was all about hawking books), but "Today" did a different angle on it every day -- for days and days. Suddenly, the TV here at Media Du Monde was tuned in to "Good Morning America" and has been ever since.

Subsequent announcements from the "Today" show folks convince us we made the right call. They recently said that Kathie Lee Gifford is being brought on board as a host in the fourth hour of the program. Now that's a way to convince your audience you're a serious news show. Not. Then just today it was announced that Laura Bush is going to guest host on the show for a week. It's only a matter of time before Martha Stewart replaces Meredith Vieira, Hannah Montana fills in for Al Roker, Carson Kressley takes over for Matt Lauer, and Ann Curry will be ... no, Ann Curry will probably stay right where she is.

Meanwhile, we're dealing with our "Today" withdrawals with a daily dose of Diane Sawyer. It's not easy, but we'll get through it.

Advertising Observations, Part 2: Bad Ads Masquerading as Good Ads

Occasionally, flawed advertising achieves goals in spite of the fact that it’s poorly executed in some form or fashion. But then there are the ads that inexplicably attain broad audiences yet fall short in every conceivable way.

There’s a TV spot we’ve seen dozens of times lately which shows a young couple in their yuppified home. The television set sputters and fails; the wife tells the husband that “it’s time to get a new TV.” Not a bad set-up, and you can already anticipate the great punch line that’s sure to follow.

But this is where the ad falls apart. The guy goes to a big box store and looks at a huge array of widescreens, flat screens, plasmas and everything else in HD Heaven. But the whole thing plays out in dull, listless black-and-white. As a viewer, you sit there watching, waiting for the big “reveal” when one of the huge TVs is in wondrous color, and the shopping dude is wowed by its magnificence.

But no. He checks his “account” balance on his cell phone, which apparently tells him which TV he can or cannot afford (apparently the point of the spot). And the commercial winds down, in black-and-white. And with no punch line. Unforgivable.

And here’s the worst thing about it: We can’t, even after marveling at this ad’s ineptitude dozens of times, remember what brand it’s advertising. Is it a bank? Is it VISA? We’re not sure! And that’s the ultimate failing of any advertisement. As previously discussed here with regard to the FreeCreditReport.com broadcast spots, even with multiple flaws, it’s impossible to walk away from those commercials without knowing what brand was being pimped.

Advertising Observations: How Flawed Ads Can Be Effective

Some of us who have worked in the world of advertising have sort of an innate sense for what might or might not work in an ad. After all, we’ve had our share of creating both. Sometimes we see an ad on a computer monitor or TV screen or magazine and can grasp what really works, in spite of the fact that the advertisement itself has serious flaws.

So … how can something with multiple faults actually be effective?

Case in point: the recent series of broadcast commercials for FreeCreditReport.com. Why to these spots work? It’s simple. The songs are cute and catchy, the lyrics tell a funny and relatable story, and you end up remembering what the commercial is for (that is, FreeCreditReport.com). That’s a key point. Creating an expensive, cool, funny, artistic, even memorable advertisement doesn’t do any good if most of its audience can’t recall what brand is being marketed.

The FreeCreditReport.com spots are fresh, memorable and do a bang-up job of putting their product front and center. (Even if you’re not exactly sure what that product is, or if you’re left wondering how a company can make money handing out free credit reports --- but that’s a subject for another post altogether.)

However, these spots have some serious flaws. Take the one featuring the fellow working at a fish-and-chips fast food establishment. There are some obvious problems with this ad (aside from being seriously offensive to anyone who happens to work at Long John Silver’s):

1. Look closely. You’ll notice the lips of the singer don’t match up with what’s being sung. This is also a problem with this advertiser’s sister spot about some young dudes riding around in “a used subcompact.”
2. Despite the fact that the song features some peppy acoustic guitar work, you’ll notice the lead character isn’t even making an attempt to play the instrument.
3. The final line of the song says, “…serving tourists in T-shirts.” But no one in the entire spot is wearing a T-shirt. We know this is picky, but would it have killed them to actually put someone in the ad to match up with what the lyrics are describing?
4. There’s an older woman in the background playing a customer who at first is shown smiling as if she’s enjoying the song and her meal. Then they cut to a close-up and she’s frowning and looking very uncomfortable. In the course of a few seconds she goes from a pleasant senior citizen to an angry old crone. Why?
5. Finally, there’s the lyric “Shoulda seen this comin’ at me like an atom bomb.” OK, seems harmless enough, and yes, they needed a word to rhyme with dot-com. But many of us have seen the documentaries and footage of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thus have been witness to some of the worst things that have ever happened to humankind. Sure, it was more than six decades ago, but the bottom line is that a fun, whimsical commercial jingle shouldn’t throw in a goofy line about an atom bomb. Not in this lifetime. Or the next.

We’re also idly wondering how having one’s identity stolen would force you to steer your career into serving deep-fried cod in plastic baskets. But we’re willing to go along with that one.

And no, we haven’t gone online to get a free credit report yet. When we do, we’ll probably be able to answer that question about how they make money giving out stuff for free.