Archive for June, 2009

Overheard: Inside the Walls of Big Tobacco

Monday, June 15th, 2009

old-fashioned-ad3

President Obama is set to sign into law a new bill that would  further regulate the sale of tobacco products. I was surprised to learn that Phillip Morris had a major hand in crafting the bill, which could look from a certain perspective like a little bit of a conflict of interest.  Then, notes from a high-level meeting with Phillip Morris executives were leaked, showing just how “hands-on” the company has been in crafting this bill.

Pretty shocking stuff. Here’s the transcript:

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Office Meeting, 11:30 am. Conference Room.

Executive 1: Okay, let’s start pie in the sky. The ideal tobacco legislation would look like–

Executive 2: A koala bear.

Executive 3: What if it was illegal not to smoke?

Executive 4: Speaking of legislation, what about passing a law that makes it illegal to touch all the apples in the produce section and then not buy any of them?

Executive 2: Or what about people talking on cell phones in restaurants?

Executive 5: That is soooooooo annoying.

Executive 1: As part of the legislation, it looks like they are proposing banning color advertisements in stores.

Executive 2: Our color printer is always out of ink anyways–

Executive 5: That’s because someone keeps running off color copies of his kids’ t-ball games.

Executive 3: I only did that once.

Executive 4: Does anyone else think it’s really, really cold in here?

Executive 5: I’m wearing a sweater under this sweater.

Executive 6: I dozed off their for a moment. Are we still talking about the summer BBQ?

Executive 1: What do we think about regulating the amount of nicotine in cigarettes?

Executive 2:  If regulate means putting more in, I’m in favor of it.  Our focus groups show people hate it when we put less in.

Pizza Delivery Guy: Did someone order a pizza?

Executive 1: Try the second floor.

Pizza Delivery Guy: I did, they said to talk to you.

Executive 4: I bet it was R&D. They always eat lunch in.

Executive 6: Let’s keep it. I’m hungry.

Executive 2: Anyone catch Conan last night?

Executive 3:  How long did we book this conference room for?

Executive 6: Why do people even bother with pineapple pizza?

Executive 1: Hmmmm…it looks like they also want to restrict advertising.

Executive 3: Good. I hate dealing with our advertising department. They throw things.

Executive 4: Coffee sounds good right now.

Executive 1: Here’s a philosophical problem. If the warning label on a pack of cigarettes must be sized in an inverse relationship to the surface area of the pack, so that the smaller the surface area, the larger the warning size, then is it possible for God to invent a pack of cigarettes so heavy even he cannot lift it?

Executive 5: Now I’m too hot.

Executive 6: Coffee sounds good right now.

Executive 4: That’s what I just said.

Executive 2:  Did we book this conference room until 12:30?

Executive 5: Is there even such thing as God?

Executive 3: What about waterproof cigarettes? So you can smoke underwater?

Executive 4: Who turned on the air? It’s freezing in here.

Executive 1: Any last thoughts on the bill?

Guy from the R&D Department: Hey, we ordered a pizza an hour ago. Have you guys seen it?

—-End of Transcript—-

High Art: Famous Art and its Interpretations

Friday, June 12th, 2009

degas_blue_dancers

This painting be Edgar Degas (1890), showcases his fascination with ballerinas and color. His interest in ballerinas was at various times described as endearing and also a little creepy.  In this painting, particular attention should be paid to the fourth ballerina, bending over out of frame. Likely while posing for this portrait, she discovered her shoes were untied and then spent the next 12 hours trying to tie them while the painting was completed.  This was a common occurrence in French paintings of the time as the shoe laces were particularly unreliable.

It is also interesting to note that none of the dancers are looking at each other. This was Degas’ clever way of demonstrating that if one wanted to kidnap a ballerina, it would be easy to do, even if they were in a group.

*

jackson_pollock_gallery_12
This Jackson Pollock painting (~1949) is one of his more important. Pollock began his career as a portrait painter until he moved onto abstracts because, as he later admitted, he wasn’t very good at painting noses. His technique of hurling paint at stationary canvases revolutionized the art world. His earlier attempts throwing canvases at stationary cans of paint proved much less influential, and in fact little of his work with this method survives.

In this painting, pay special attention to scribble 32, 157, 2327, 2328 and 40 (counterclockwise from left), which are thought to symbolize Poverty and/or Connecticut depending on whether or not you are a Marxist or from Connecticut.

*

diane-arbus
Dianne Arbus was a cutting edge photographer known for her radical approach to subject matter. Often she portrayed her subjects in harsh or deliberately unflattering poses. This made her a hit in the art world, but a complete bust on the event photography circuit. She is often credited with shooting the worst wedding album of all time, which broke with orthodoxy by not containing a single shot of the bride, groom or anyone else in the wedding.

In this picture, entitled “Glickman Bar Mitzvah, 1970,” Arbus has some fun with Bar Mitzvah boy Jarrod Glickman, portraying him as a oafish giant through clever set arrangement and cropping. Glickman, who in reality stood no more than 4’6″ was delighted with the picture, though Arbus was not invited back to shoot his sister’s Bat Mitzvah two years later.

*

mona-lisa-gioconda-by-leonardo-da-vinci
The Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci is widely cited as the most recognizable painting in the world.  To some, Mona Lisa represents the epitome of female beauty, though many art critics swear that her sister was actually way hotter.  Much has been said about Mona Lisa’s smile in this painting which could be seen as subersive, sexual, secretive, or even coy.  It is likely, however, that we are meant to assume she just played a really good practical joke on someone since, according to all historical accounts, the actual Mona Lisa was a jerk.

Friday Links

Friday, June 12th, 2009

What’s interesting, both old and new.

A new comedy coming to NBC?
(I’d say TBS or Disney)

Economic Stimulus

Writing Workshop Feedback Gone Wrong,
or Par for the Course?

One way to get 5 Servings of Fruits and Vegetables a a Day

Conan Takes ove the Late Show
(And takes on the phenomenon of celebrity Twitter

Jimmy Fallon is Saved by the Bell

On a Boat
(still funny)

Dick Uncut

It’s not just Reverend Wright picking on the Jews

Laugh-In Flashback
(who says MTV is responsible for short attention spans)

Quick Hits

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

Just some quick hitters to get you through the day…

Reverend Wright is up to his old tricks, telling reporters that the Jews won’t let Obama talk to him.  The story is obviously a ridiculous lie. Everyone knows a devote Muslim like Obama would never let the Jews boss him around.

Bad news for the GOP. A majority of Americans are unsure exactly who speaks for the Republican party these days.  Given whose been speaking for the Republican party these days, this actually might be good news.

glenbeck-1

Looks like Chrysler and Fiat are going to merge in a strategic alliance.  This marks the most successful American-Italian alliance since Domino’s pioneered the Philly Cheese Steak Pizza.

I think the merger will be a success because both companies share a common vision: producing cars that no one wants.

A man is suing Match.com for failing to get him a date. He said the service misrepresented itself because many of the women featured on the site would not return his e-mails.  I can’t think of any explanation for that, unless creepy middle-aged men who sue dating companies are less desirable than they used to be.

The good news for this guy, this whole incident is going to make the perfect teaser for his e-Harmony profile.

A police sergeant in Milwaukee is in trouble for trying to line up a date with a suspect she thought was hot. See, you don’t need Match.com. If you want to meet women, commit mail fraud in Milwaukee.

Carrie Prejan’s troubled reign as Miss California has come to an end for “contract violations,” such as missing pageant events.  So in California, a step back for gay rights becomes a step forward for the sanctity of obscure bureaucratic pageant procedures.

Proverb of the Day:  A stitch in time saves nine, but teach a man to fish and you can feed a village.

I can’t stop thinking about  that cheese steak pizza–it really is a smart idea. There are so many times when I’m devouring an entire greasy pizza that I think, “You know, at this rate it’s going to take me forever to clog my arteries. There has to be a faster way.”

Yum.

philly_cheesesteak_pizza

If Bankruptcy is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

Historians are unsure who invented the SWOT analysis, a staple of any Marketing 101 class, but there is one thing we know for sure about this person: he was an idiot.

For those unfamiliar, SWOT (Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Threats) is an analysis whereby you see what your company or product is good at, what they are bad at, where it has room to expand, and what stands in its way.  The blinding fallacy in this analysis is, if you actually knew all these things there would be no point in doing the analysis. You’d be clairvoyant and probably super rich.

One of the more idiotic ideas of SWOTology is that it’s a good idea to take one of your greatest weaknesses and try to make it a strength. It’s actually pretty easy to do within the context of the analysis (it involves drawing a thick red arrow from the W to the S matrix). In reality, of course, this has never, ever worked.

SWOT Analysis

It’s with that in mind that I present the latest gem of an ad campaign from GM, “Reinvention,” which should probably be called “Bankruptcy Rocks!” It combines the perfect mix of pathetic improbability and unsubstantiated claims.  It is also probably the best GM ad in years, because at least it’s not boring.

Most of the ad is standard fare, with good American images (there were lots of bridges I noticed, which could be symbolic–a bridge to the future–but more likely has to do with the director thinking it was really fun to drive back and forth over a bridge), and a comforting voice over that promises that bankruptcy isn’t so bad after all and soon GM will be lean, efficient, tech-savvy, and environmentally sound.  That fits well with the new GM brand name which, if I understand correctly, will be Toyota.

My two favorite parts: One, a slow-mo shot of Steelers QB Ben Rothlisberger throwing a TD in the Super Bowl. Sure, I get why GM would want to associate with the rough, blue collar, champion Steelers, but the Super Bowl champs? I’m sorry, when in reality your company is the equivalent of the Detroit Lions, comparing yourself to a Super Bowl champ is just arrogant. I’d have gone for a more realistic approach. Maybe align yourself with the Jacksonville Jaguars. They aren’t great, but at least they’re competitive and they aren’t going bankrupt, so you know, that’s a good start.

junk-car

Then there is the closing line of the campaign. “The only chapter we’re thinking of, is chapter 1.” Nice. Though there are two ones in 11. I hate when the editing department doesn’t catch that stuff.

But really, my big takeaway from this ad is this: “Dude, didn’t you guys jut go bankrupt? Should you really be blowing your money on a national TV campaign? One running in prime time of the NBA Finals no less?” I mean, correct me if I”m wrong, but I thought the basic dilemma of bankruptcy is that you don’t have enough money.  And wait a second, since the government owns 70% of GM, isn’t that my money?

You know what I would have done with the however many millions you’re blowing on a damage-control national advertising campaign? Bought a shit load of GM cars. That’s how you turn a Weakness (we aren’t selling any cars) into a Strength (now we are!).

 

What is funny anyways?

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

As in, this is what is funny maybe. But also as in the question, what is it that is funny? And the bigger question, what is it that the concept funny is or is not. And also as in, stuff I think of now and again. As in all of that.

pie-in-your-face