Awareness You Can’t Escape

Awareness You Can’t Escape

July 1, 2016

The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival. —Aristotle

Awareness sometimes requires cultivation. Other times, one cannot escape it.

Awareness is a state of consciousness, the point at which we realize something exists and are able to understand that existence, at least, in part. Sometimes, awareness has to be carefully cultivated. Physics, for example, holds various levels of awareness, the deepest of which only come with intense learning. Other matters, however, are more straightforward, perhaps even blunt. All one needs to know in order to respond appropriately can be said in a matter of seconds. Fire, for example, is hot. Even a baby understands after the briefest experience that fire is hot.

Every day, we develop more awareness. Perhaps we see a new store or read a new book. Maybe we have a conversation with a friend. Everything we do has the potential to increase our awareness. Even watching commercials.

Each year, at Cannes, the best advertising campaigns are presented and given awards based upon the quality of work. Some do an amazing job of selling a product. Others blaze new trails in technological innovation. What always strikes the hardest, though, are those that create awareness. These are the ads that make you stop and think, and give you information that leads you to act, become involved, and begin conversations.

Of this year’s winners in the film and film craft categories, four gold winners did an amazing job at creating awareness. I want to share those with you. Watch each one and let them change you.

Make Love, Not Scars

Acid. The word immediately raises warnings of danger for most teens and adults. While there are many legitimate uses for acid, however, one of the most frequent is as a weapon of personal destruction. We don’t see as many acid attacks in the United States. Awareness is low because it is usually treated as a felony assault and handled through local justice systems. Elsewhere in the world, however, acid attacks are devastating. In countries were various forms of acid are sold openly and are easily obtainable, acid attacks are a common form of personal vendetta. Most of the victims are women. Many victims are under the age of 18.

Ogilvy & Mather Mumbai created the following piece to raise awareness of this horrible issue. Incidents involving acid attacks are growing, but governments are doing little to stop them. The piece is short. Please watch. If you are inclined to investigate further, please visit Acid Survivors Foundation.

Never Alone

For many gay people, coming out to one’s family and friends is one of the most frightening experiences of their lives. One can never be quite certain how people might respond. Will they be accepting? Will they be angry? Will this be the end of relationships?

If one is captain of the Wales national rugby team, that fear is overwhelming. Rugby is a tough sport, one of those games allegedly created for and played by only the manliest of men. Gareth Thomas faced that fear. What he discovered, however, was that he was part of a team that had his back, no matter what anyone said. With millions of fans, there were inevitably some who didn’t understand. Still, the team supported Gareth and they continued to win games.

Guinness sponsored the award-winning film piece developed by AMV BBDO London and produced by Stink London. There’s no mention of beer here, though. No one goes out and has a pint at the end. Instead, the emphasis is on the power of a team, supporting those whose lifestyles are often vilified and misunderstood. Everyone who comes out as gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender needs a team behind them. Be part of the team. The version that won the award is below. You can watch Gareth’s full story here.

https://youtu.be/rBOTKSQ89M8

Manboobs

Censorship on social media is severe. Most apps assume that anything on your computer or especially on your phone is accessible to minors. Argue all you want, I know all too well how difficult it is to keep sensitive materials away from little hands and prying eyes. Once children reach a certain age, the more one tries to deter them the more determined they are to see what’s there.

However, that censorship becomes a complete pain in the ass for organizations trying to raise awareness for things such as, oh, let’s say breast cancer. Talking about breast cancer becomes exceptionally difficult when one can’t show real breasts. How does an organization teach women how to check for lumps, an extremely important form of early detection, if they can’t show breasts?

Some brilliant minds at the David agency in Buenos Aires came up with a creative way to address those problems for an Argentinian awareness and support organization, MACMA. The spot comes with a bit of humor but is also extremely informative. Viewers are then encouraged to make their own video. If you care to do so, let me know. We’ll be happy to help.

https://youtu.be/Ais88Os_CTg

Dear Daddy

Our final piece hits really, really close to home. Until I had a daughter of my own, I didn’t think much about the vocabulary I used and tolerated from others. I didn’t give as much thought to what might be harmful. In watching and helping Tippy grow, I’ve learned that even the most innocuous, unintentional things we do and say truly matter.

We are moderately aware to the sensitive nature of body image. However, this piece developed for Care, Norway, raises awareness to a whole new level by putting it in terms that are inescapable. Just imagine if your unborn daughter could write you a letter. This short film is one of the most moving pieces I’ve ever encountered.

Conceptual credit goes to ad agency Schjaerven Reklamebyrå and production company Tangrystan, both of Oslo. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved. If you’re a daddy, or about to become one, I dare you to not cry.

The majority of ads are not all that serious. The majority of ads aren’t worth our time. These four, though, hit us with an awareness we need. There is no escape. You have now been enlightened. Go, enlighten others.

Advertising / Art / Fashion / Photography

Goodbye, June 2016

June 30, 2016

All June I bound the rose in sheaves, Now, rose by rose, I strip the leaves. —Robert Browning

With the year half over, leaving June is like setting a marker, daring the rest of the year to improve

June 30. The year is half over. While the month has had its happy moments, such as the wedding of two dear friends, June has also seen a lot of death, a lot of turmoil, and an incredible amount of global stupidity. We’ve suffered the largest mass shooting ever in the US. We’ve laughed about secret sex parties. We’ve mourned the death of a real champion. We even tossed Kat in the water. For a mere 30 days, a lot happened. Our world has changed dramatically from where we were at the end of May.

To some extent, today puts a half-way marker on the year. We look back and see all we’ve lost, all that happened, and we dare the rest of the year to be better. We’ve had enough suffering. We don’t want more bad news. We don’t need more nonsense. We need new champions rising to the cause. We need faith restored in our governments. We need to feel that the entire planet is not hurtling out of control.

Of course, none of us can predict the future, and I’m not sure we want that ability. What we might see there could be too frightening to imagine. We’re also too early to start writing obituaries for the year. We can’t yet give up hope when so many good and wonderful things could yet happen.

Pictures You Might Have Missed

Midst all the activity of this month, chances are you might have missed a picture or two along the way. In fact, we’re pretty sure you did because we know which articles received the least amount of attention. So, before we totally close out this month of June and proceed forward with our year, we want to give you a chance to catch up on the pictures. There were some new ones this month, which is surprising given how busy we’ve been. So take a moment, enjoy the view and we’ll look forward to July.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertising / Fashion / pop culture / PotD

Information Overload

June 30, 2016

Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? —T. S. Eliot

charles i. letbetter - information overload

The glut of information comes at such a heavy pace so as to make keeping up impossible

I don’t know about anyone else, but the volume of information I receive on a daily basis is impossible to consume. While the majority of articles, press releases, and various studies shoved my direction do have some value, there is simply not enough time to digest and comprehend the bulk. I end up setting some pieces aside to read later and then get to the end of the month, like today, and realize I have a backlog that needs to be addressed.

Even then, I know there’s some information I have to let go. That article that says one out of three internet users are content creators? It’s been sitting there for two weeks. The information seems interesting, but there is not enough time to get into the details. A detailed essay on the dumbing down of America has been sitting there since the 7th. Incredible amounts of information that is highly applicable to this election season. Too detailed for my schedule, though. I have to let it pass.

Still, there are some stories that, for various reasons, I can’t let pass without at least a tiny bit of comment. This is information I am quite sure you need, that will impact every aspect of your life. Okay, not really, but some of it is damned entertaining. The headlines are links. Click them for more information.

Alexander Wang Is Now Chairman/CEO Of His Own Brand

For those outside the fashion industry, this may sound like a rather obvious move. It’s not. Fashion designers are notoriously bad at the business side of things. That’s why conglomerates such as Kering and LVMH own so many top-name labels. People who are wonderfully creative, such as clothing designers, too often attempt to apply that same creativity to the business side of the house and it rarely works.

Alex takes over the head of the boardroom from his sister-in-law and his mom, both of whom have been running things rather well. Certainly, Wang would not have been able to spend the time at Balenciaga had they not been in place. They’ve done an excellent job of steering his young brand through its first ten years. Influencers such as Marc Jacobs haven’t hurt, either.

The fashion market has changed dramatically in the past five years, though, and strategies that made sense when the label was founded no longer work. The move signals a new direction, though it remains to be seen what that new direction might be. Alexander Wang is one of the top US fashion brands at the moment. Let’s hope he doesn’t blow it. We’ll file this information under things to watch.

Kering Ordered To Pay Hedi Slimane $13 Million

Speaking of Kering, they were sued earlier this month by former Yves Saint Laurent designer Hedi Slimane. Honestly, when I first saw a related headline, I rolled my eyes. I think Slimane was expecting another label to pick him up quickly upon his departure from YSL. His expectations were a bit too eager. Few talked with him at all and none of the conversations reached a serious stage of negotiation.

That means the rather extravagant designer was starting to feel the financial impact of not having a regular income. So, what does he do? Find a loophole in his former contract and sue his former employer for failing to include a non-compete clause in his separation agreement. Understand, a non-compete means that a designer cannot just hop directly from one label to the next for a given period of time. A non-compete is what is allegedly keeping Raf Simons from taking the head job at Calvin Klein. How does this make sense?

Non-competes, in the fashion world, are generally compensated. Labels essentially pay a designer to not work (in an official capacity) for usually two or three years. The $13 million Slimane was awarded should keep him going long enough to create a new strategy.

Dove Release New #MyBeautyMyWay Campaign

Dove has been using messages of affirmation for women in its ads for some time now. While there has yet to be any firm information showing that the tactic is adding anything to the brand’s bottom line, the campaigns are at least socially popular. This particular campaign comes along at a time when body image and self-image, especially among women, is a significant issue. Women are tired of the cat calls and the impolite statements regarding their appearance. Dove’s campaign encourages women to define their beauty their own way. Take a look at the 60-second ad:

My expectation is that an overwhelming number of women can identify with at least one if not multiple statements made. Additional ads address the details of each of the six women shown in this introductory piece. The timing ties into the presidential campaign as well. With a woman as the presumptive Democratic nominee and the misogynistic tone of the presumptive Republican nominee, women are feeling more empowered to be vocal and reclaiming their personhood.

Still, how long can Dove continue these campaigns without them adding significant revenue? Altruism doesn’t pay the bills.

Starbucks Is The Favorite Food Brand Among Millennials

Is anyone really surprised by this one? Of course not. Anytime we stop by one of the coffee stores we have to wait in line behind two or three 30-somethings getting their mocha-soy-caramel-latte-frappucino on. All I want is a venti blonde roast. Black. Yet, I still have to wait while each of the millennials in front of me orders a drink with far too many syllables to be healthy, then mulls over the ever-growing list of food items that look and sound healthy. Can I just get my coffee, please?

Click the link above, though, and what you’ll see is a list of the top 17 most popular food brands among this top group of shoppers who are the driving demographic for almost every company on the planet. Look through the list and you’ll notice a trend that has been part of Starbuck’s strategy from the beginning: Fresh, healthy and innovative. The growing food menu items address the fresh and healthy issue. The drinks have always been innovative. Starbucks has made the strategy work for them and other brands are finally beginning to see the value as well.

Even we old codgers benefit. With everyone adjusting to lure millennials, we’re all eating better whether we like it or not.

Crystal Pepsi Is Making A Return

Depending on how one feels about the product, we might file this interesting piece of information under “too good to be true,” or “what the hell are they thinking?” Crystal Pepsi, which is supposed to taste exactly like the original product, hasn’t been on store shelves since 1994. There is a very good reason for that: no one wanted a cola that looked like 7Up. The caramel color is part of the identity of a cola. The drink was treated more as a novelty and then slipped slowly away.

Today, though, artificial dyes are under attack from the healthy/pure food woo groups. You know, those same people who are convinced that Monsanto is out to destroy the entire food supply (they’re not). While the actual peer-reviewed science regarding food dyes only shows a danger in a handful of very specific colors consumed in high quantities, the concept of going without dyes has a lot of marketing clout. The move worked for Hershey, after all. They saw a significant sales bump after announcing they had eliminated artificial coloring from their chocolate.

The difference between Hershey’s and Pepsi, though, is that the chocolate still looks pretty much the same. The color may not be identical, but at least it’s still brown. Take the artificial coloring out of Pepsi and you have something that does not look anything like a cola. The move didn’t work well the first time. We’ll see if this effort is different.

French Cable Now Has Porn Ads

Americans like copying a lot of trends that are popular across Great Britain and France. With the UK having pretty much sabotaged itself with the whole Brexit thing, France is getting more of the attention at the moment. Maybe a bit too much attention. The French cable provider Cable+ has come up with a set of ads that, while hilarious to view, would be almost impossible to duplicate for the American market. Let’s see if I can describe this delicately …

It’s porn.

Apparently, French Cable providers can get away with a lot racier content than we can here. In the American cable market, the most shocking thing one is likely to see is the blood bath known as Game of Thrones. We can be explicit in our killing, but not our sex. That might explain some problems with our culture.

What these French ads do, though, is hilariously parody old-school porn by removing one person from the scene. So, you have real porn stars looking as though they’re getting it on, but their partner is missing. Why is the partner missing? Because all the good porn has moved to Canal.

It’s a bit much and definitely NSFW. I’m not posting the ads here. Click the link, though. They’re hilarious.

Take A Break

After that last bit of information there, I think we need to take a break. I need another cup of coffee. I hope at least one piece of information here improves your life somehow.

Advertising / Photography

Why Photographers Are Not Full-Time

June 29, 2016

charles i. letbetter - why photographers aren't full-time

As long as I can still be on my own and do my own thing and be working full-time, it’s great. —Marian McPartland

charles i. letbetter - why photographers are not full-time

Many photographers want to work full time. What stops them, though, is more than just attitude

I was one of the lucky ones. For almost 20 years, I was paid exclusively for being a full-time photographer. I was fortunate to have an exciting job, in exciting locations, with expenses paid, insurance, vacation, and a 401k. I was one of the few.

One can work full time at being freelance as well, but the pay is rarely equivalent to a full-time salary and the benefits are almost never present. Making it as a photographer in today’s world is hard work and, to a large extent, the reasons most of us need at least a part-time job escape most people. Running your own business is never easy work, no matter what field one is in. For photographers, though, the challenges are frequently insurmountable.

I came across this article on LinkedIn earlier this week with the headline, “Why Most Photographers Don’t Work Full Time.” The author is Jenna Johnson, a “community manager” at ZenPhotos.com. I was hopeful the article might have some real insight as to the problems facing freelancers. I was disappointed. Instead of a constructive, real-world look at the photography business, all Ms. Johnson presented was a bunch of emotionally-driven, change-your-attitude claptrap that offers no substantive advice at all.

Full Time Is More Like Overtime

Sure, we would all like to be employed full-time as I once was, but the number of those jobs still in existence has dwindled dramatically over the past 15 years. Many companies find that utilizing freelance talent plays better on their bottom line. They don’t have to pay benefits, cover HR costs, or even pay social security in most cases. Companies also take advantage of the fact that many photographers undersell their services and quote rates considerably lower than what the company would pay a full-time employee.

Freelancing as a photographer means doing much more than just taking and editing pictures. When we work for ourselves, we become our own HR department. We have to take care of our own insurance, our own business expenses, our own social security, and even our own equipment. We also have to do our own marketing, branding, and advertising. This is no easy job by any stretch of the imagination.

Add up all the time I spend doing market research, meeting with potential clients, marketing, handling social media, adding content (such as this article) to our website, and maintaining equipment and I can fill a 60-hour week without ever picking up a camera. I’m sorry, but a lack of confidence, treating it as a hobby, and impostor syndrome don’t even begin to factor into the challenges most photographers face.

The Real Reasons

The reasons for not being full time are draped in a reality that challenges every small business owner. We’ll keep the list brief.

Lack of start-up capital. Being a photographer is expensive even if one is working out of their home. If one is going to be full time, however, there are numerous additional expenses that must be addressed before hanging out one’s shingle. Everything costs money and finding that money keeps most photographers from ever making the leap to full time.
Lack of committed professional facilities. If one wants to work full-time without working themselves into complete exhaustion one needs their own studio. Cooperative studios with multiple photographers are often the best option, but without committed space larger clients such as ad agencies and real magazines have difficult taking a photographer seriously.
Failure to understand the market. I love shooting nudes and have, on occasion, even sold a few. However, there is no realistic way, sitting here in Indiana, that I am going to earn a full-time income from that market. Every market is different and has its niches, but not every market plays well in every location.
Not understanding the difference between marketing and branding. There are a lot of articles on marketing one’s photography business. Information that really understands branding a photography business is far less. Most photographers blow it on branding. I’ll have to write more about this later.
Being in the wrong place. If one wants to be a full-time photographer, one has to be where there are full-time clients or at least be able to reach them efficiently. Being full time in Red Oak, Oklahoma is much more challenging than being full time in Atlanta, Georgia. If the opportunity is not there, one might need to move.
Lack of business skills. Being a good photographer doesn’t make one a good business person. Tax and other business laws are serious and you have to do those things yourself or hire someone to do them, which is expensive.

Honest Assessment

Photographers tend to have strong egos and are not necessarily open to criticism. Many of us share those traits. Unfortunately, if one is going to succeed as a full-time photographer, we need an honest assessment of all our skills, not just photography. One can be a fantastic photographer and still fail miserably at running a photography business.

Sure, attitude is an important part of one’s success, but that’s true of owning any business. Encouraging someone to quit their day job and become a full-time photographer is irresponsible if we’re not looking at the real barriers to entry. Being full-time just doesn’t work for many people and as photography itself becomes more commoditized that opportunity shrinks even more.

We all would love to do nothing but take pictures all day. Unfortunately, that situation exists for only a handful of people. There is much more that goes into being a full-time photographer. Consider all the variables before striking out on your own. Good luck.

Advertising / Fashion

Banning Photos Of Thin Models

June 27, 2016

charles i. letbetter - banning photos of skinny models

It is stupid on my part to think of banning the media. —Shah Rukh Khan

Banning a photograph because a model appears too skinny is making a dangerous judgement call

Banning photography for any reason is never a good idea. When we ban things such as art, photography, books, movies, and other means of expression, we are closing off an avenue of expression, a means of learning, and perhaps even a path to enlightenment and understanding for other people. Banning the arts in any form, even those distantly related such as advertising, is wrong.

So, in what seems to be a trend, the Brits have fucked it up again. This time, it’s specifically the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who has banned ads on public transit that might challenge a woman’s body image. The mayor’s action responds to an ad that ran earlier this year asking whether one’s body was “bikini ready.” Many people found the ad offensive, even foolishly started a petition on change.org, and as a result made the ad more famous and seen in more places than it ever would have on its own.

The UK is already a bit of an anomaly in the advertising world in that its Advertising Standards Board has the ability to order the removal of any ad it doesn’t like for pretty much any reason. The board has been challenged frequently for banning ads in Britain that wouldn’t have been a problem elsewhere.

Body Image As A Matter Of Perspective

Body shaming is unquestionably a problem and body image, especially among teenage girls, is a critical issue that affects other decisions that women make. Body image determines what one chooses to eat, what one chooses to wear, and even who one chooses to date. As a result, things we used to say often, such as, “Is your body bikini ready?” are no longer publicly acceptable. We find those statements offensive because we presume they promote an unsafe body image.

But what about the image accompanying that ad? While I’m not inclined to re-publish the ad again here (it’s had more press than it deserves), I can tell you that the hourglass figure of the model would not be considered too skinny by a lot of people. If the same image had run with different copy, would Mr. Khan still be so upset? Would people still be offended?

Consider the picture I chose to go with this article. Do you consider the model too thin? Does her body shape offend you? If so, why? I can promise you that the model involved is quite healthy. She certainly does not consider her body too thin and her physician would likely agree. In banning a picture of her body, are they not body shaming and affecting her body image as well?

Body Image As A Matter Of Health

Both advertising and the fashion industry have for several years been challenged with the body image they present. Paris and Milan passed laws protecting models from being forced to maintain unhealthy weights. Such laws are good and necessary. No one should be asked to do things that put them in danger simply for the sake of a photograph. I have no problems with that.

However, laws banning photographs, such as this one in London, fail to actually show concern for the health of the model. There’s no requirement for a doctor’s note, such as there is in the Paris law. There are no means in which the model’s health is even considered. Rather, a judgement call is being made by an autonomous board (the members of which have yet to be selected) without any specific guidelines for what is and isn’t acceptable.

If we’re going to be concerned about body image, shouldn’t the health, both physical and emotional, of the model be considered first? If one is banning an ad because the image is considered unhealthy, is that not also telling the model that she is unhealthy as well?

I can tell you that I’ve worked with hundreds of models who are quite frustrated at people telling them they look too thin or unhealthy. How is this type of action any different than fat shaming?

Body Image As A Form Of Judgement

Vaness Friedman, a fashion editor for the New York Times, wrote an opinion piece on the matter of photographs of skinny models yesterday. In the article, she states:

Though often conflated with the movement to protect models, which resulted in legislation in France in 2015 requiring models to produce a doctor’s note attesting to their health, and digital alteration of photographs to be disclosed, banning is a separate issue. It doesn’t involve working conditions (which can and should be legislated), but subjective, and ultimately regressive, assumptions about what constitutes a positive female image.

Banning pictures of skinny women unfairly judges them. What right does someone else have to say that a skinny body is wrong any more than an overweight body is wrong based merely upon a photograph? Can you look at a set of photographs and know, based on the model’s size and shape, which one just found out she has breast cancer, or Crone’s disease, or diabetes, or a thyroid condition? Of course you can’t! One might guess, but a large portion of the time that guess would be wrong. The judgement is unfair and unreasonable.

Banning isn’t the answer

There’s no question that body image is an important issue. Everyone should be encouraged to embrace the fullness of who and what they are without any judgement. There is no right body type for every person. We all get to be unique.

In embracing that point of view, however, we must include women who are thinner. Their body image counts just as much as that of the woman who can’t keep her weight below 350 pounds.

We also have to start trusting women to make their own decisions about their body and stop trying to do it for them. While some women may look at a Gucci ad and find the models too thin, someone else may look at the same ad and be encouraged to eat better, exercise, or consult their doctor about losing weight. We must allow room for a difference of opinion regarding any photograph.

Censorship, in any form, is wrong. Banning pictures of skinny women is a huge mistake. If Britons get a chance to re-vote on the Brexit, perhaps Mr. Khan should also consider shelving his new law. Neither do the good for which they are advertised.

Advertising / Music / Photography / PotD / video

Smiles And Sadness

June 7, 2016

Wrinkles should merely indicate where smiles have been. —Mark Twain

charles i. letbetter - smiles and sadness

There are moments of sadness we cannot miss and there are opportunities for smiles we should not ignore

The dog just let out a sigh of frustration. One of the cats is noisily clawing the hell out of a scratching pad. This is one of today’s smiles because I know that while the dog does nothing now but sigh and return to sleep on top of the clean clothes I just pulled from the dryer, he’s planning on revenge when said cat is wanting to sun itself in the window later.

I am feeling emotional this morning and apologize for the disjointedness that emotion creates. I’m already planning for tomorrow’s article as the Tipster graduates kindergarten. I’ll have to start writing that one today or it won’t get done. There are plenty of smiles in that one, but also a sense of sadness as well.

That mix of smiles and sadness is running heavily across a lot of things on my mind this morning. When I first heard of photographer David Gilkey’s death in Afghanistan on Sunday, I tried to ignore it. I didn’t know David. I’m not aware of any time we might have crossed paths. So, I assumed I would be able to disconnect from the fact another colleague has given his life in pursuit of a story that no one else is telling. There are too many of these deaths each year and with every one of them, I find myself drawn to a dark place where I wonder why I’m not taking those same risks. I’ve not been able to put Gilkey’s death out of my mind, though. Every time I’ve turned on NPR the past two days there has been some mention of this loss of an incredible photographer. NPR has a wonderfully touching remembrance with several of David’s wonderful photographs. You would do well to click the link and take a look.

I’m also feeling mixed about a new video from 360 Google, the experimental VR arm of the giant tech company. Yeah, sure, on one hand it’s a somewhat rough sketch of what the new technology is capable of producing. Investors are show videos like this as proof of concept more than anything. But the story they’ve chosen to illustrate is one that tugs more on the heart strings than an investor’s pocketbook. “Pearl” takes us on a journey of a young man, a would-be musician, choosing to live out of his car. Life moves quickly in the first few scenes. There’s a woman, then a little girl, and we don’t know where the woman’s gone but she’s no longer in the picture. It’s just Pearl and her dad, moving from place to place in that car. She grows up, inherits the car and more. The end, in true story-book fashion, has you smiling through tears. There are a lot of feels in this video, and a lot of smiles, and some important statements about life. You’ll forget this was supposed to be about technology.

After that, I need a distraction or else I’m going to be nothing more than a bundle of emotion all day and that’s never productive. I’ll end up sitting on the couch with the dog watching Netflix and eating those godawful chips I should never have bought in the first place. Another pot of coffee is on. The dog is off the laundry and back in his bed. We can continue.

Advertising has delivered a couple of smiles already this week. The first came with the release of a new ad from cellular carrier Sprint. Normally, it would take a lot for anything in this sector to make me smile. There is so much fraud and disinformation in this whole sector that I usually just roll my eyes. But what makes this fun is that Sprint has stolen Verizon’s long-time spokesperson, Paul “Can-you-hear-me-now” Marcarelli. This doesn’t happen often because non-competes are usually iron-clad and indefinite. Apparently, Paul’s wasn’t indefinite. Here’s the result:

I’m sure someone’s learning a very valuable lesson about talent contracts about now.

Then, there’s the new LG ad for vacuums. Yeah, I didn’t know they made vacuums, either. What they did was pull off an incredible stunt that likely would have never gotten approval in the US. They went to Korea and asked Extreme Rock Climbing Medalist Sierra Blair-Coyle to climb a freakin’ skyscraper using nothing more than a couple of household dirt suckers. The climb took her 30 minutes with the vacuums attached to her back. Now, I don’t know if anyone’s carpet really needs that much sucking power, but it’s a pretty impressive stunt. I’m going to attempt to embed the video, but if it doesn’t work on your device you can also find it here.

Then, there was the announcement yesterday that Buzzfeed is canceling its advertising contract with the GOP. This is both huge and unprecedented. Buzzfeed is one of the top five information websites on the Internet. Millions of people are influenced by what they see there. Not being able to place ads on Buzzfeed is a significant blow to what is already a difficult task in supporting the GOP’s choice for president. I’m sure Buzzfeed could have used the $1.5 million as well. But CEO John Peretti decided the company needed to take a stand. He wrote, in part:

“We certainly don’t like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.”

What will be interesting now is whether other Internet media will make similar moves in either direction. In one way, it might be seen as a way of making a political donation to the opposition without infringing upon donation limits or having to work through a super Pac. At the same time, this demonstrates how dependent campaigns are on all forms of media coverage. Should this move be replicated by other companies, the GOP effort could be substantially hindered.

One source of about 9,000 smiles this week came from funny man John Oliver. Since it’s debut last year, Oliver’s show, Last Week Tonight, has gotten a lot of attention for the clever way he brings attention to important but often overlooked subjects. He completely outdid himself this past Sunday, though. The goal was to demonstrate how easy it is for quite literally anyone to buy and collect delinquent debt. What he ended up actually doing, though, was performing the largest giveaway in television history by forgiving the nearly $15 million in debt he had bought. This seriously raises the bar in a couple of ways. First, anyone serious about being generous is going to have to cough up some serious cash. This is double anything Oprah ever did. Secondly, is challenges other so-called news organizations to do more than just talk about a news story, but to actually get involved. Is this good journalism, not exactly, but then, Oliver isn’t a journalist and this isn’t a real news show. The clip runs 20 minutes, so feel free to bookmark it and come back later to watch.

One more set of smiles and then we all need to get on about our day. I’m sure we both have more important things to do, even if we’re not especially inclined to do them. James Corden, host of CBS’ Late, Late Show, used his popular carpool karaoke segment to advertise the fact that he’s hosting Sunday’s Tony Awards. This may be the best carpool yet. Enjoy the smiles then enjoy your day.

Advertising / Fashion / Original Style / PotD

Beauty Becomes A Battlefield

June 6, 2016

Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears. —Edgar Allan Poe

charles i. letbetter - beauty becomes a battlefield.

The beauty industry has played for years to women wanting to look beautiful, but today women don’t want their help.

Beauty is big business. In the United States alone, cosmetics companies rake in over $60 billion a year. Proctor & Gamble and L’Oréal alone have a combined global revenue in excess of $115 billion. That’s not even starting to figure in on what is spent at salons and spas. People want to look better because, more than anything, it helps them to feel better about themselves. Perhaps it is a little vain, but as long as the individual is doing it for themselves, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to spruce up one’s image a bit.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people running around who think we all should look better than we do.

No, scratch that, they think women should look better than they do. Just try to find an employee handbook that tells men they need to come to work with makeup. I’d offer to wait but I already know you’re not going to find anything. Beauty is sexist because society is sexist and the biases and attitudes that were encoded in the 1950s have never really gone away, no matter how advanced we like to think we have become. Women are still expected to wear makeup, to make themselves “look better” than they naturally do, and an entire industry depends on women buying into that concept that they just don’t look good enough.

Men have never been taught that they need to do anything to their appearance beyond, depending upon social trends, maybe shave occasionally. You don’t see ads for men’s wrinkle cream. You don’t see ads telling men they need longer lashes. You don’t see men telling them they need to look “flawless.” Yet, women are bombarded with those very instructions every day and if they don’t succumb to those expectations, they can sometimes lose their jobs.

The battle between women and society over makeup is not a new one, but it may be reaching a fervor. Last year, actress Demi Lavato started a trend using the hashtag #NoMakeupMonday. About the same time, the hashtag #Iwokeuplikethis began appearing. By the end of the year, the two hashtags had appeared on Instagram over 10 million times. The craze caught on and big name models and stars such as Taylor Swift, Cindy Crawford, and Gwenyth Paltrow have all posted bare-faced photos of themselves. Of course, they then went immediately and put on makeup.

The latest volley from the #nomakup side came last week when singer Alicia Keys announced that she’s not wearing makeup. Ever. In her article for the magazine Lenny, the singer says:

In one song I wrote, called “When a Girl Can’t Be Herself,” it says,

In the morning from the minute that I wake up / What if I don’t want to put on all that makeup / Who says I must conceal what I’m made of / Maybe all this Maybelline is covering my self-esteem

No disrespect to Maybelline, the word just worked after the maybe. But the truth is … I was really starting to feel like that — that, as I am, I was not good enough for the world to see.

This started manifesting on many levels, and it was not healthy.

Every time I left the house, I would be worried if I didn’t put on makeup: What if someone wanted a picture?? What if they POSTED it??? These were the insecure, superficial, but honest thoughts I was thinking. And all of it, one way or another, was based too much on what other people thought of me.

The cover art for her new album is a picture of Ms. Keys, straight from the gym, no makeup, no styling, nothing. Of course, she’s beautiful.

But is that all it takes to undo decades of chauvinistic attitudes toward beauty? And, isn’t this expectation that everyone needs to be running around sans makeup just as bad as one that says everyone needs makeup? If someone else is setting the standard, isn’t one just as bad as the other?

Back in December of last year, Flare magazine published an open letter to Demi Levato that addresses that very situation. In that article, they raise the issue that there cannot be just one standard of beauty that magically fits all the women around the world. About halfway through the article, they make this statement:

It’s not the tyranny of makeup that women need to fight back against, but the tyranny of appearance. And when we post #nomakeup selfies, we’re replacing one beauty standard with another. Scratch that—we’re actually upholding an almost identical beauty standard. We’re just making it a lot harder to achieve by telling the women of the world that not only are they supposed to look like Goop or Rih-Rih or the ethereal goddess running across a field in your J.Crew catalogue—now they’re supposed to do it without the assistance of makeup.

And here women find themselves feeling as though they can’t please anyone. If they wear makeup, that’s feeding a negative stereotype. If they don’t wear makeup, they’re still feeding a negative bias that says they have to look a certain way. When does a woman get to choose how she looks because that’s how she wants to look?

Last April comedienne Amy Schumer took on the issue by parodying One Direction’s “What Makes You Beautiful” and in doing so makes the point that pushing a #nomakeup standard is just as superficial as insisting that a woman must wear makeup every day for every occasion. Both are wrong. Both need to stop. The video is hilarious, so of course, I had to share:

Whether one likes makeup or not, what ultimately matters is that you look the way you want to look. Society has no business defining what is best, or preferable, or even professional. We haven’t even touched on the topic of modifications such as piercings and dermals. The only person who can define your beauty is you and if that includes makeup, that’s fine. No one has any room to criticize what makes you feel like the best and most beautiful you.

Advertising / Current Issues

NRA Ad Is Insulting To U.S. Military

May 27, 2016

charles i. letbetter - NRA ad insults the US military

No other country in the world does what we do. On every issue, the world turns to us, not simply because of the size of our economy or our military might – but because of the ideals we stand for, and the burdens we bear to advance them. —Barack Obama

charles i. letbetter - NRA Ad Insults US Military

If you want to see the real strength of America, look no further than the US Military

[Caveat: While I was not able to serve myself, both my fiancé, Kat, and my middle son, Ben, are US Marines. My Uncle Joe was US Air Force and saw active duty over Korea. We have great admiration and respect for the military and all those who volunteer to serve. Therefore, there is some chance that my opinion on the topic below is a bit biased. Maybe. I doubt it.]

Advertising can get really, really strange and quirky. One of the stranger events this week was when the city of South Bend, Indiana had to apologize for stealing, almost in whole, Salt Lake City’s tourism campaign. I can’t remember the last time we saw such blatant theft of an entire campaign. Of course, the agency responsible tried saying it was an homage to the Salt Lake campaign, but no one with a brain in their head is buying that excuse. When ad agencies get something wrong, the results can really be deplorable.

We tend to give advertisers a lot of leeway when it comes to what they say and do in their ads. Advertising is, to a great extent, a form of free expression. While there are limits on certain products that have been deemed potentially harmful to public health, such as tobacco and prescription medicines, most ads have more than sufficient space to creatively represent their product without falling into the trap of false advertising.

During election years, however, we see a form of advertising that is special and rather exempt from some of the restrictions we put on normal advertising. Political ads aren’t selling a product, but rather an idea or concept. Therefore, they can legally say just about anything they want and get away with it. We may not like what they say, but one of the strengths of our Constitution is that they are guaranteed the right to say what they please. Even if it is totally wrong and insulting.

Such is the case with the most recent ad for the National Rifle Association (NRA), fronted by country music legend Charlie Daniels. I’m not embedding the video on purpose. This is a political ad and, in tune with the tenor of this entire political season, the number of lies and misinformation is substantial. That, however, is not the ad’s worst crime. Those are simply opinions, and Mr. Daniels has the right to express them.

Where the ad errs is in the way it insults our United States Military and the patriotism of the men and women who serve. The copy, which is erroneously directed at “the Ayatollah’s of Iran,” wants to do two things: paint President Obama as weak, and make America sound tough. Daniel’s presentation almost sounds like a bully’s challenge: you come over here and we’re going to whip your ass. What’s insulting, though, is when he says, “… you haven’t met America.” He then goes on to tout the toughness of steel workers, “hard rock” miners, or “swamp folks” as though they are some vicious breed of monster capable of defeating all comers.

Excuse me? First of all, let’s talk to the correct people: Daesh, Al Queda, and the Taliban. Those are the people responsible for much of the terror you see on the evening news. And I’ve got news for you, Charlie, they’ve already met America.

Terrorists meet America every time an M16 bullet passes through their skull and leaves their brains splattered on the ground.

Terrorists meet America every time a squadron of planes launches from the deck of a US aircraft carrier.

Terrorists meet America every time a group of Marines sweep into a known terrorist compound and reduce the place to rubble.

Terrorists meet America every time a US drone strike takes out yet another one of their leaders, as we’ve done repeatedly over the past eight years.

Terrorists meet America every time a US Navy Seal time sneaks up from behind and slits their throats.

We’ve been at war with terror nearly 15 years now. Terrorists have had ample opportunities to meet America and the ground shakes beneath them every time they do.

You want to know why you don’t see acts of terror in the US on the scale we do in the Middle East and Europe? Because terrorists can’t get past the men and women of the United States Military. There’s a reason the rest of the world looks to us when bad things happen. Our Marines can move into a position and take total and complete control of an area faster, better, and with fewer casualties than anyone else in the world. Our military intelligence isn’t always perfect, but it’s better than what anyone else has to offer. The soldiers we have deployed on the ground around the world are better trained, better equipped, and badder, tougher, and meaner than anyone else out there.

Our United States military and National Security Administration are the reason you can go to a concert in the United States and not worry about terrorists getting through the gate. They are the reason you can attend a sporting event without thinking twice that someone might try to bomb the stadium. They are the reason over 300,000 people can attend a race in Indianapolis this weekend and know they are safe.

When the NRA ad implies that steel workers, miners, and “swamp folk” can somehow protect our country better, they’re not only insulting the men and women of our military, they’re demonstrating an unprecedented amount of ignorance. You think steel workers are tough? Put them through a military boot camp and see how many survive. You think “hard rock” miners are strong? Let’s see how many can handle the Navy’s basic training. And I’m not sure exactly who these “swamp folk” are, but let’s put them through the Crucible at MCRD Parris Island and see how many of them are crying for their Momma half-way through.

You want to see the strength of America? Just look at our United States Military. Every man and woman who takes the oath and puts on one of those uniforms represent our best. They are our best. They are trained tough, ready for the most impossible situations in the world under unimaginable conditions, and they’re good to go at a moment’s notice. There are no steel workers, hard rock miners or swamp folk or anyone else who can stand up to the United States Military. No one.

Being strong and being prepared is more than just having physical muscle; it’s having the training to know which weapon to use under which conditions and knowing how to use the weapon properly; it’s knowing how to engage an enemy with as few civilian casualties as possible; it’s knowing how to work as a team, everyone doing their job together, and no one ever being left behind; it’s having the mental strength to endure torture if captured and still find a way to survive and escape.

The NRA ad is nothing but hot air and tough talk from a bunch of old white men who are scared. Let’s see, who would I rather have protecting me, a 79-year-old fiddle player with a big mouth, or a US Marine who earned his/her Eagle, Globe, and Anchor in the mud and sand of Parris Island? I’ll take the Marine every damn time. And who’s the better American? The orange-skinned, draft-dodging politician who yells and blathers and incites hatred from behind a podium, or the soldier who right now is holding point on a terrorist cell, waiting for the order to move in? You know who the better American is.

Don’t tell me terrorists around the world haven’t met America yet. They know damn good and well who we are and they live in fear of what our military can do to them. Maybe it’s about time the folks at the NRA figured that out as well. Our US Military doesn’t wait for terrorists to come to us. We go to them and the terrorists die. Remember that this Memorial Day.

Advertising / video

Telling Different Stories

May 18, 2016

People are much deeper than stereotypes. That’s the first place our minds go. Then you get to know them and you hear their stories, and you say, ‘I’d have never guessed.’ —Carson Kressley

Advertising is at its best when it does more than push a product and tells stories we weren’t expecting

Stories are a natural part of any good ad, whether it’s video or still. Ads have to be compelling stories where the viewer can put themselves into the situation or, at least, relate to some aspect of the story. No one buys a product with which they cannot in some way relate. So, a large part of being a creative ad person is knowing how to tell a good story.

Linus Karlsson tells great stories. As chairman of McCann/Commonwealth, though, we’ve seen Karlsson more as an agency builder. Some of us are old enough to remember his fantastic Miller Lite ads from several years ago, but he’s been heading up the corporate side of things long enough many might have forgotten just how creative he can be. Apparently, that is a large part of the reason he started a new agency, Ming Utility and Entertainment. Small and focused on work that is either useful or entertaining, Ming gives Karlsson the chance to spread his creative wings once again, and he has created a most compelling story in the Frank & Marty campaign for Smith Optics.

The trend among makers of sunglasses is to put them on pretty faces, cool people who are doing all the things you would like to be doing if you weren’t tied down with silly stuff like work and children and paying bills. Karlsson goes exactly the opposite direction not only in creating characters who aren’t especially young and hip, but the two people out of ten who wouldn’t use Smith sunglasses while fishing. They consider such an advantage cheating.

We’ve seen similar approaches before, but Karlsson goes all in with a set of short films that allow us to really get to know Frank & Marty, and gives Karlsson and his team plenty of room to tell the whole story. The two characters, both of whom are fresh castings we’ve not seen before, even have their own website and social media accounts. And Instagram (there’s a joke there, but you won’t get it until you’ve seen all the videos)

Take a look at the videos below and enjoy the work of a master storyteller. These are the kind of stories we all want to tell with our pictures. This is what makes being creative fun and worthwhile.

Advertising / pop culture / PotD

Hardcover No Longer Undercover

May 17, 2016

Getting 10,000 listeners for a free podcast novel is a lot easier than selling 10,000 hardcover novels at $25 a pop. —Jeremy Robinson

charles i. letbetter - hardcover no long undercover

Everyone was so sure that hardcover books were all but extinct. They were wrong.

My favorite people all read. A lot. The smartest people you’ll find are avid readers. The richest people in the world always have a book handy. People who don’t read regularly don’t just bother me, I find them quite frightening. Interestingly enough, I have found that those who have no hardcover books on their shelves seem to have the hardest heads, least likely to be open to information, creativity, or anything new.

For the past several years now, we’ve been told that hardcover book publishing is all but dead. Sales numbers supported that claim. E-readers were everywhere for a while, and it wasn’t all that unusual to see them on the bus, or the train, or at the local coffee shop, typically in the hands of someone young, hip looking, and wearing earbuds to avoid conversation or interruption. Going digital seemed like the environmentally friendly thing to do, too; more books could be published without killing thousands of trees. Going digital also meant one could carry multiple books with them without suffering the weight of an overcrowded bookbag. The whole premise sounded good, and to some degree still does.

What any avid reader will tell you, though, is that while digital publishing does have its advantages, there’s still nothing like the feel and pleasure of holding a real, hardcover book in your hands. We’ve always known that. We might give e-readers a try, and there are moments when they can be quite convenient, but we always come back to hardcover books because holding that physical tome of paper and ink is almost as much a part of the reading experience as is the story enclosed in the book’s pages.

Now, here’s the surprise: Hardcover books are coming back, both in terms of what is fashionable as well as hard sales numbers. The numbers are not huge, yet, according to Publisher’s Association; some $50 million or so out of a $7 billion-plus market. At the same time, though, digital publishing took a similarly-sized downturn. Put the two together and one has to optimistically consider this a trend.

Oh, and on top of that, the British bookseller Waterstones stopped selling e-readers, converted the shelf space to hardcover titles, and saw a five percent increase in sales! Considering the complete demise of Borders books, and how other booksellers have struggled, one has to wonder if perhaps those in charge of such operations might have given up a bit too quickly, tossing in the towel without putting up a sufficient battle.

What has pushed the trend back toward ink-on-paper books? Some point to an increased popularity in lifestyle titles such as Andrew Weil’s Spontaneous Happiness and Dave Ramsey’s The Total Money Makeover. The popularity of coloring books among young adults hasn’t hurt sales, either, though that hardly counts as a literary genre. Ultimately, what has brought us back to the hardcover is emotion and practicality. We love our books. We love how they feel in our hands. We love turning down pages. We love decorative bookmarks. We love that ability to make sure everyone sees the dust jacket so they know what we’re reading.

We’re also more keenly aware of the shortcomings of e-readers. The portability is great for the first couple of hours, but battery life is limited and no one likes to be tethered to a wall outlet while they read. Environment is a problem, too. Too much or too little sunlight and you can’t see the screen, and the quickest way to ruin an e-reader is to take it into the kitchen while you’re cooking. Drop your Kindle? Sorry, you’ll have to buy a new one. Set the reader too close to anything magnetized and you lose your entire library.

Books are back. We’re not really surprised, are we? While this does not necessarily mean brick-and-mortar bookstores will return in the fashion we once knew, we can be certain that hardcover books are not going to disappear anytime soon. Probably never. Real readers know this. We love our books.

Advertising / Current Issues

Nationalism Is Not Patriotic

May 11, 2016

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotism

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotic

Patriotism does not mean being a jerk about being an American

The photos I’ve chosen for this topic are intentionally cheesy. I didn’t have any pictures of a bikini-clad model waving a flag or any similar nonsense, but I do have pictures of fireworks and models in bikinis so I put them together with sufficient results. I could easily slap a red, white, and blue “USA” over the top and pass them off as something patriotic, but to do so would be wrong and devalues the concept of patriotism. Instead, this cheese plays more to the concept of nationalism and an attitude that, long term, is rather problematic.

My stomach turned a little yesterday when I saw that the leading “domestic” beer brand, Budweiser (which isn’t American owned, by the way), had changed its name to America through the presidential elections this fall. You can now drink America, become inebriated on America, piss America, puke America, and be arrested for driving under the influence of America. That creates a lovely mental picture, doesn’t it? While Budweiser execs claim that they’re being patriotic, what they’re doing is pandering to a level of nationalism, the same nationalistic ideals that have a leading presidential candidate claiming he can bring America back to greatness. I have some bad news for you: both are full of male bovine excrement.

Many people hold the mistaken belief that nationalism and patriotism are the same, but that would be far from the truth. Nationalistic fervor is rooted in power and exclusion. Patriotism is rooted in emotion and responsibility. While the two can look similar, they are, at their core, quite different. Furthermore, Americans are among the few who don’t already have a good grasp on the concepts. European and Asian countries see nationalism as a power play, often a political stance appealing to pride in national domination. Patriotism, on the other hand, is seen as an act of service, a responsibility one has for living in the country.

One of the best distinctions between nationalism and patriotism comes from the pen of George Orwell some 70-plus years ago. What he said then still holds just as true today, so let’s look at what he had to say:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Interestingly enough, nationalism wasn’t even much of an issue until the rise of the Romantic period in the early 19th century. Prior to that point, patriotism ruled even in power struggles; people took the dominant perspective that it was their responsibility to defend their country against external attack, but were polite and accommodating toward others. With the Romantic period, though, nationalism, that concept that one country was great to the exclusion of all others, became dominant. We not only see in it the political struggles of the time, but literature, art, and music. Once it took hold, nationalism never left. Unchecked and taken to its extreme, nationalism was a primary factor in the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Seeing the United States being pushed toward, and embracing a nationalism bordering on extremism is frightening. Actions are being taken in the name of patriotism that are not patriotic at all. Those who support such nationalistic ideals are using that sentiment to establish a dominating power that, left unchecked, cannot help but lead to horrible crimes against humanity. We need to understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism and realize how dangerous the wrong attitude can be. Consider:

Patriotism celebrates diversity; nationalism finds strength in a single race and single religious belief, to the forced exclusion of all others.
Patriotism honors those who help others; nationalism preserves all resources for their own use.
Patriotism recognizes the responsibility of serving; nationalism exploits the strengths of a strong military.
Patriotism learns from criticism and looks for ways to improve; nationalism is insulted by criticism and attempts to dominate those who are critical of the nation’s behavior.
Patriotism admits that we make mistakes and learns from them; nationalism attempts to justify one’s actions and admits no wrong.
Patriotism values peace and is willing to compromise to avoid conflict; nationalism prefers military domination over everyone.

I love the United States as much as anyone, but as a patriot, I have to see our shortcomings, I have to recognize that we are not perfect, and I have to take responsibility for my participation in that imperfection. While I have no problem defending this country, I have no need or desire to see her dominate the world or outer space in order to be great. As a patriot, I see the greatness that has always existed in this country and I know that greatness comes in part from our diversity and our ability to, since the moment the Mayflower landed on these shores, accept those who are not wanted anywhere else.

There is always room for greater patriotism, but this current nationalistic bullshit needs to stop. And change the name of the fucking beer back to Budweiser. America is better than some two-bit, watered-down, weak-ass excuse for a lager. Please.

Advertising / Fashion / PotD

Modeling Sucks. Sometimes.

May 11, 2016

I never cared about modeling. As a model, you’re powerless. —Karen Gillan

If you’re looking to make a career out of modeling and don’t already have a fat bank account, you might want to think again.

Back in 2005, when I first considered moving to Indianapolis from Atlanta, I naturally wanted to make sure that I would be able to have sufficient income. I did a little digging and was able to make contact with four different modeling agencies here. Three were delightfully quick to say yes, they would be happy to utilize my services. The fourth, Helen Wells, wouldn’t commit but at least was open to discussion. I had similar phone calls with ad agencies with similar results. So, I put the majority of my belongings in a storage unit (which would later flood), packed the rest in the back of a rental car, and headed North feeling somewhat optimistic about the future.

Within two weeks I knew I was wrong in my assessment. One modeling agency packed up and moved the very next day after I met with them, taking all the models’ earnings with them. Another told me how much they paid for a model’s comp card session, but they only had one model due to a disagreement over pay. They were gone within 30 days of that conversation. The third was more difficult to pin down, never quite having time to schedule a meeting and when we did was suspiciously non-committal. By the end of the summer, a lawsuit had been brought against the agency for withholding models’ pay. The models won the suit, but the agency owner fled the state without paying anyone.

I don’t know how many times I’ve talked with aspiring models who just wanted to make a little extra money while in college. Modeling sounds like it would be an easy source of cash for anyone who is reasonably attractive. The common perspective is that all one has to do is show up. Someone does your hair and makeup, someone else provides your wardrobe, then you just stand in front of a camera and pose for a few minutes. Boom, instant easy cash. But that’s not the way modeling works at all. Not even close.

Modeling has always had its shell games and money rackets going all the way back to the 1940s when professional modeling began. The industry runs loose with absolutely no one overseeing it in any way. Some states have laws concerning how long models can work if they’re under 18, and a few European countries have some form of law designed to protect against eating disorders, but for the most part, modeling agencies do whatever they damn well please and models almost always end up feeling more like victims.

CNN Money recently started airing a five-part investigative series called Runway Injustice, taking a detailed look at the dark and dirty side of modeling. Only two parts have been released so far, but it is obvious from the title that the cable news outlet isn’t taking a positive view of the modeling industry. They’re looking at the con games, the slow-to-pay problem, and how many agencies make money charging models for expenses. One former model even goes on record as saying her agency charged her for the flowers they sent her on her birthday.

When one watches a fashion show and sees all the long-legged girls parading past in next season’s fashion, one might get the impression that these models are doing quite well for themselves, but the truth is quite different. While designers might pay the Hadid or Jenner offspring outrageous (and unjustified) amounts for showing up, most labels still pay less than $5,000 per model. I know, that still sounds like a lot, but from that travel, hotel, and food expenses are deducted, on top of the agency’s standard 20% commission and administrative fees. Many models walk away, after months of waiting, with less than $500. Some end up actually owing the agency money. Even Cara Delevigne, who has been at the very top of the game, doesn’t have anything nice to say about the industry and how it treats models.

Increasingly, the value of an agency, or “management company” as many like IMG prefer to be called now, is being called into question. More casting agents are looking at sources such as Instagram and other social media outlets, choosing models with exceptionally high numbers of followers, which virtually guarantees success for whatever ad campaign or runway show in which the model appears. Unrepresented, or independent, these models have difficulty keeping the work flowing. Most end up signing with an agency and find themselves right back in the same traps that more traditional models experience.

All this begs the question that, if modeling is such a horrible career, why would young people want to even consider doing such a thing? The answer is that not everything about modeling is horrible. For many, just the fun of being in front of the camera, getting to play dress-up with the wardrobe, the opportunity to travel (even if it’s on their own dime), and sometimes meeting really cool and famous people is sufficient. Some use modeling as a way to explore their alter ego, being in front of the camera what they cannot be in their private lives. Others use modeling as a means of escape from other horrible conditions. For many, just the chance that they might become part of the .05% who actually make a fantastic living is enough to risk everything.

I’m sure that, at the end of the CNN investigation, there will be someone advocating greater oversight of the industry and legislation to protect models from various forms of abuse and deceit. Don’t expect anything to actually happen, though. We’ve heard all these complaints before. Nothing I’ve seen in the CNN report so far is new or different from what I’ve seen and heard for 30 years. The sad fact is models are not an organized group, therefore they are not able to present a single or unified voice. They don’t have, and can’t afford, lobbyist speaking to legislators on their behalf. No one sticks up for them and, once the spotlight of the CNN story fades, everything will almost certainly continue on the way it has.

Modeling is fun, sometimes, but there are a lot of other times when it just plain sucks. If someone wants to do it for the fun and adventure, great. Go for it. Have fun every step of the way. Don’t expect to get rich, though, and watch your back at every turn. While being a model can present some incredible experiences, it’s not likely to leave you swimming in cash. In fact, you’ll be needing your own gas money. Always.

Good luck.

Advertising / Fashion / Photography

Product Placement In Photography

May 10, 2016

If you really think about it, when watching television, you have product placement all the time. —Jay Chiat

Could photographers benefit by charging for product placement in their photographs the way television charges for placement in their shows?

Sitting here trying to catch up on some news articles I missed over the weekend, I came across an article in the Media section of the New YorkTimes looking at how advertising has changed in a digital age. What caught my attention was all the talk about how an old ad trick, product placement, is making more sense than ever in content that is shown on multiple platforms. Creating separate content for every available platform is expensive, but if the brand is embedded in someone else’s content, the onus and cost for multi-platform delivery falls to someone else. This works for the brand not only in terms of saving money (which it may or may not do), but extending their reach to content viewers who may not have been familiar with the brand.

You’ve been watching this happen on television and the movies from the moment either began. Big brands, especially tobacco companies, were significant sponsors of early television because it put their name in front of people who weren’t consumers of their product. Brands became “household names” not so much because of the quality of the product but because of their association with someone’s favorite TV program. As media has evolved, we now see that same product placement being equally important to digital media, especially those that run on social media platforms.

Photographers have utilized product placement before as well, though they may not have thought of it in those terms specifically, and they probably didn’t get paid for the placement. When we’re doing portfolio work, or taking pictures that are not for a specific client, we often approach designers and boutique owners about borrowing wardrobe. This allows our photographs to look more professionally styled (rather than depending on what the model is carrying in her bag) and, in some cases, gives the designer or boutique a touch of free publicity. In an environment where cash isn’t in abundance, the system sort of works. Kind of. Maybe.

Let’s take the pictures in this article, for example. The wardrobe is courtesy of local designer Shiela Ferguson, whose Jealousy Jane brand is reasonably well-known in the local market. Christopher Thompson did the hair and makeup. By mentioning them here, they both, ostensibly, receive some advertising benefit from being included in the photograph. That’s assuming the people viewing the picture are in the market for a new couture gown or want to drive to Atlanta, Indiana to have their makeup done.

Consider how we might have made this photo different, though. What if the models had been holding a branded drink, with the label prominently showing? Would the image have been more interesting if they had been eating menu items from a popular fast food chain? Perhaps the image would have taken on a different tone had they been giving the dog branded treats.

Traditionally, I wouldn’t have considered such a move because using branded items, especially if the brand name and/or logo is prominently visible, can lead to some significant legal problems. Brands spend a lot of money on their image and don’t want anyone representing them in a way contrary to the brand’s message. Trademark infringement can be costly if photographers aren’t careful about what they’re doing.

In today’s environment, however, there might be an opportunity for enterprising photographers to do something unheard of: make money by selling product placement in their portfolio images! Why not? Products in photographs make them more interesting, more relatable, and make the story come alive to a larger audience. Funds from product placement can then be used for other things such as set construction and hiring models that match the brand message.

Of course, you know there are challenges to such an approach. First and foremost, the photographer has to be able to demonstrate a quality portfolio that appeals to the brand they’re approaching. No one wants to pay for shitty images, nor do they want their products associated with those images. One can hardly blame them.

Second in line is going to be whether the photographer can demonstrate value in his product. In today’s marketing game, this is where numbers matter. How many followers does one have not only on Facebook and Twitter, but Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, Vine, and Periscope? The higher each of those numbers are, the more likely a brand might be interested in placing their products in an image. Know that they’re also going to look at how many likes and shares previous images have received.

A photographer would need to have the ability to deliver an audience the brand wants. If one is primarily doing pet photography, approaching your local Coca-Cola bottler probably isn’t going to work. Tag Hauer may be a tough sell if one plans on shooting farm animals. Being able to match your audience with that of a brand is critical, which means you need to know who is your audience. Look beyond your friends and find out who really pays attention to your work.

Being able to measure results is going to be important as well. Marketing departments have a strange fetish for numbers and if they do agree to pay for product placement they’re going to want to know that you delivered the number of eyeballs you promised. If you don’t, they won’t likely pay for placement again and, especially if you don’t even come close, they might demand a refund. That means you need some method for compiling and reporting viewer statistics. There are a variety of ways to do so, especially if you are paying for sponsored content on Facebook or Snapchat, both of whom have great backend analytics as for not only how many eyeballs but where in the world they were, how old they were, their gender, and even whether they later visited the brand’s Facebook or Snapchat.

Yes, that is a lot of work and no, it’s not going to be an option for someone who asks a model to shoot and doesn’t plan a concept until she walks through the door. If a photographer wants to actually make money off their portfolio, they have to think more like Caty Burgess, Senior VP for media strategies at the CW network, who asked in that network’s upfronts, “Is the question, ‘What is an ad?’ or ‘What isn’t an ad?'”

Almost anything we create with a camera has the ability to be an ad, even art nudes. We have the potential to change the paradigm in our favor. Think about it and consider changing your strategy.

Selling this shot to Coke after the fact didn’t work, but it might convince them to do something similar in the future

Advertising / Current Issues / Fashion / Mythology / PotD

Predicting The Future

May 2, 2016

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

Sure, trying to guess a future that is, at best, blurry is risky, but some things are more certain than others.

I’ve met a lot of shysters and con men over the years. I hate to admit I’ve even been taken in by a couple of them. Those who know how to read people well can easily manipulate them. One of the most common, and obvious, cons is predicting a person’s future. We know when we sit at the small, sparsely-adorned table that what we’re about to hear is fake, but still there is a part of us that wants it to be true, especially when the fortune teller says things we want to hear.

There have been a few times, though, I have come across people who seemed to have an unusual amount of insight, and at least a couple of them were wearing suits. They had an uncanny sense of the future; where markets were heading, which technologies would live, which would die, and the unexpected ways in which those technologies would affect society. The business world prefers to call them futurists. Then, there was that strange person who walked up to me at a Starbucks in Atlanta, unprovoked, and said, “You’re going to lose everything.” Yeah, that’ll leave an unsettling feeling in your stomach.

Even futurists don’t get everything right, but I think there are some things that are more certain than others and we can tell simply by watching trends and adjusting our actions accordingly. While there is still no accurate indicator of when you’ll find love (scam, every time), we stroked the fur of our black cat this morning and came up with some predictions for the future we think we pretty accurate.

Men’s Fashion Week is doomed and androgyny will slowly take over fashion. In some ways, the handwriting would almost seem to be on the wall with this one. An article in this morning’s WWD discusses yet another major label, Gucci, combining both men’s and women’s fashion on their runways. To some degree, the move just makes financial sense. However, over the next few years what this is likely to set up is a greater amount of androgyny across fashion. We’ve already started seeing it in some of the younger, more “street” labels such as Public School and Alexander Wang, but don’t be surprised when the transition reaches the point that couples can shop not just at the same store, but off the same rack.
A major South American war seems inevitable and the US will largely ignore it. Yeah, that’s a little vague, because there are multiple countries where revolution seems ripe. At the moment, food shortages in Venezuela have that country high on my list. People who are hungry do desperate things and Venezuelans seem to be reaching that tipping point quickly. They’re not the only ones, though, as both Brazil, for whom this summer’s Olympics may be an economic bust, and Columbia, where unrest among cartels and the government is simmering, could erupt as soon as this fall. Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, the United States has never taken the interest in South American humanitarian conditions that it does with Europe and elsewhere. One might almost think we’ve forgotten our neighbors to the South. I don’t see that attitude changing.
Straight, monogamous sexual relationships will become the minority preference. We’re already well on our way toward this one. As social acceptance of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered lifestyles reaches a sense of normalcy, other “alternative” sexual preferences inevitably begin to rise as well. New York Magazine published an article last week with findings from a Kinsey Institute study, the largest of its kind, showing that roughly 21 percent of adults in America have engaged in “consensual non-monogamy and kink” at some point in their lifetime. Kat and I talked this one through a bit and feel that this surprisingly high number is tilted toward younger generations where alternative lifestyles in general face less social stigma than they do with those my generation and older. Combine these people with the LGBT crowd and, even allowing for some overlap in the two groups, that number is likely nearly 40% already. Upcoming generations are likely to embrace that trend and grow the numbers even more. The social and political impact of this will be considerable.
Children currently under the age of ten are most likely to be affected by a full-scale cyber war during their lifetime. Yes, it’s easy to make such projections on the very young, but the future almost seems inevitable on this one. If you’re not familiar with the term “Internet of Things (IoT)” then you might want to start reading. The basic concept is that soon everything will be connected digitally, including manufacturing. While that may be a challenging concept to comprehend, one of the side effects is that wealth and power and likely to become even more concentrated, which means when they are primary targets in the future of warfare. Those who successfully hack the IoT will be able to disrupt food supplies, access to basic services, and completely shut down banking, leaving people stranded from their money. Traditional warfare with Marines landing on beaches goes out the window and a handful of people will have the ability to bring mighty countries to their knees.
Religions will fall out of social favor and will be seen more as cults. This is a pendulum swing that seems to happen every few hundred years and we can see it coming. Nearly 30% of Americans now list themselves as religiously unaffiliated. Again, the trend is being driven by younger generations who are less accepting of religious precepts and totally deny any religious authority. Historically, this ushers in a period of severe secularism where those espousing any form of visible religious observance are labeled as extremists and religions themselves as cults. This trend isn’t just among Americans, either, as similar trends have been noted in Europe and Australia and is driven not only by violent extremists in the Middle East but right-wing political involvement as well. The arc historically takes 200-300 years to complete and by my estimation, we’re still at least a generation or two from that arc reaching its apex.

Now, all that being said, we are obligated to add the caveat that the future is never written until it is past. Are there actions that could disrupt these predictions? Sure, but these are strong trends and I’m giving these predictions around a 90% chance of coming true. If I’m wrong, you are more than welcome to remind me. However, when I’m right ….

Yeah, I’m going to say I told you so.

Advertising / Current Issues / Just For Fun

Friday Follies

April 29, 2016

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies – it is the first law of nature. —Voltaire

Oh, wait, we forgot to talk about a few things

Oh geeze, it’s Friday already. How did this happen? The lawn needs to be mowed, the house is a mess, the laundry is piled up and I don’t have anything thawed for dinner. I’m so behind on editing I don’t even want to think about it at this point. On top of that, there are no fewer than a dozen topics on my board that we haven’t had a chance to talk about this week. Writing takes up a lot of time and there just hasn’t been enough of that time available.

So, since most everything is somewhat timely, let me see how many of these follies I can reduce and get into one article. You can click the links for full stories in most cases. Or not.

Leica announced a new stripped-down version of its digital camera that sounds exactly like what I need. No LCD screen, no stupid video eating up battery, no wildly high ISOs, none of the stupid filters and shit that all the amateurs think make their cameras cool. This is a real photographer’s camera. One has to know what they’re doing and not rely on presets and the “auto” setting. I like the look and sound of this camera. What I don’t understand, though, is why the damn thing costs over $5,000! With all the nonsense stripped down I would expect a price significantly lower. I was all ready to put one on my shopping list until I saw the damn price tag.

I’ve always thought that, being a child of the 60s and 70s, we grew up with some of the best music ever written. Now, there seems to be some evidence that as, for the first time ever, older catalog music is outselling new music. Some are trying to blame this on streaming services while others say that the whole retro vinyl thing is a factor. To an extent, both arguments may have some validity to them. But, the bottom line, and we all know it, is that older music is just better. Only a fool would choose Taylor Swift over the Beatles or Stones, One Direction over AC/DC or Three Dog Night. We had the best music ever, and now even the kids are beginning to recognize that fact.

Durham, NC ad agency McKinney has the perfect response to their home state’s controversial HB2 law: flush it. To make that action more accessible to people, they’ve printed HB2 on toilet paper. The rest should be self-explanatory. The only problem with the concept is they didn’t seem to make any provision for it being widely accessible. If you write the company, they might send you a roll. You should know what to do with it.

Funniest thing I’ve seen on Twitter all week:

Today I overheard someone say, while on the phone, “well, who took your underpants? Do you have more?” No context given.

— VSESLAV (@Coffinsyrup69) April 27, 2016

Speaking of funny, if you’ve not followed Berkeley Breathed’s Bloom County on Facebook this week, you’ve missed a special collection of real gems. Since Breathed decided to publish his work on Facebook rather than through the creative-squashing syndicate, we’ve seen some delightfully wonderful strips, but this week has taken the hairball (so to speak) as the cartoonist stretched Monday’s World Penguin Day into a full week. Well, almost. Bill the Cat got his dues in today. Still, this week’s strips have been a prime example of why Breathed is a treasured talent.

There, that clears out the most important stuff. Follies are best on Friday, I suppose. That’s the only way the alliteration works. There are still a couple of scraps lying around, but I’ll leave those in case I get desperate over the weekend. The grass on the lawn isn’t getting any shorter with me sitting here. Not that I’m going to cut it. I just need to find someone in the neighborhood who can use an extra $4.37.

Follies. Hehe.

Advertising / Current Issues / PotD

Get With The Game

April 29, 2016

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. —George Berkeley

The world has changed. Either get with the game or be prepared to be left behind. We’re not going back

Lika a lot of creative people, I had a tendency to daydream when I was a child. I could get lost in my own thoughts no matter where I was or what I was supposed to be doing, which often meant I wasn’t doing anything at all. Those would be the times, after calling my name multiple times and getting no response, one parent or the other would take hold of my shoulder and give me a firm shake, then say, “Charles, you need to get with the game. You’re holding everyone up.”

Yesterday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) essentially told the entire United States the same thing: You need to get with the game. The “game” isn’t anything with a ball or rings or mats or fields, though. The game they’re talking about is equal protection for everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The message was blunt and firm that cities hosting, or even bidding, for any manner of NCAA event, whether an educational conference or a major game, has to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment. No exceptions. The statement from the NCAA reads, in part:

The board’s decision follows the recent actions of legislatures in several states, which have passed laws allowing residents to refuse to provide services to some people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While proponents of the laws focus on how they protect religious beliefs, critics have voiced concerns that they create an environment of sanctioned discrimination.

Here’s the thing: the NCAA isn’t exactly known as a bastion of liberal or progressive thought. If anything, they tend to see themselves as protectors of tradition and legacy, taking more conservative positions on the majority of issues. The Board of Governors is made up largely of university presidents who tend to be more concerned with not upsetting major donors, who also tend to be rather conservative in their positions. One can’t blame the influence of liberal media nor liberal academics as the NCAA stands quite separate from either. For the nation’s governing body over collegiate sports to make a statement such as this indicates something very important: society has changed, whether you like it or not.

Oh, but the NCAA wasn’t content to just let it go with sexual orientation and gender identity. They’re taking on some other very important issues. The statement also reads:

The Association now prohibits championships events with predetermined sites in states where governments display the Confederate battle flag, and prohibits NCAA members from hosting championships events if their school nicknames use Native American imagery that is considered abusive and offensive.

In case you’re head is spinning and you’re just not sure what all just happened, let me make it very clear: anti-gay and/or anti-transgender laws and blatantly racist symbols are no longer acceptable. Anywhere. Period. Under any circumstances. Get with the game.

Hold on, we’re not done.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)announced yesterday that it is launching an investigation into gender stereotyping in advertising. Again, we’re talking about a traditionally conservative body, one that has at times been accused of being too knee-jerk in its reactions, taking a surprisingly progressive move demonstrating a significant shift in what contemporary society considers acceptable. ASA Chief executive, Guy Parker, said as part of the statement:

We’re serious about making sure
we’re alive to changing attitudes
and behaviors. That’s why we’ve
already been taking action to ban
ads that we believe reinforce
gender stereotypes and that are
likely to cause serious and
widespread offense, or harm.

While the ASA’s announcement legally applies only to the UK, advertising is expensive and while some regional changes are often made, global campaigns that run in the UK as well as other countries will still have to meet those same standards. So, word to all the misogynists out there, especially those in advertising: Get with the game. Gender stereotypes are no longer acceptable.

Morals are not something that can be legislated, nor can they be strictly dictated by a mythology. As a society progresses and moves forward, those morals, those social norms, are going to change. Some change willingly. Others foolishly fight change with their last breath. Boycott all you want, protest all you want, elect all the religiously intolerant, inbred, closed-minded legislators you want, society will move forward. Your best move is to get with the game.

To review, the following are no longer acceptable, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances:

Anti-LGBTQ legislation of any kind
City or venue policies that do not protect race, gender, and sexual orientation
Confederate flags
Offensive Native American imagery
Gender stereotypes

I realize, for some of you, that is a lot of change in one fell swoop. Too bad. Get with the game and start moving forward. You’re holding everyone else up.

Advertising / pop culture

Playing With Our Emotions (Video)

April 28, 2016

charles i. letbetter - playing with emotions

The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts. —Bertrand Russell

charles i. letbetter - playing with our emotions

We are ambivalent toward a lot of things so advertisers play with our emotions so we’ll be in a mood to buy

We are in that time of year when our moods are more random and our emotions tend to run flat. Our favorite television series are hitting their season finales. Fashion’s busy with fall production and worrying about numbers for the first quarter. Most people who were getting a tax refund already have it spent. Spring break is over and there won’t be any more vacation time until after Memorial Day. To make matters a little worse, with spring comes pollen so everyone with allergies, which is probably half the people you know, feels stuffy and irritable and sleepy from their allergy medication and that still doesn’t prevent them from sneezing and blowing all over the place.

Shopping tends to dip around this point in the year. We are less likely to buy the things we don’t need because we’re generally not excited about much of anything. We have our heads down, working diligently, waiting for summer. We don’t have time for nonsense.

That just doesn’t work for the people who need you to buy things, though. People who are selling products feel exactly the same way you do, but their day gets a whole lot worse when no one is buying anything. So, they pull out the one trick that is sure to get you to open your wallet: emotions. If advertisers can create ads that make you feel something, anything, then you are more likely to buy their product when you finally get around to going to the store.

We’ve been watching the spring crop of ads very carefully and have found some that do a very good job of pulling in the ol’ heart strings. One of the strongest is actually a tradition of sorts. Proctor & Gamble have done a “thank you, Mom” spot for the last four or five years and, of course, we expect those to make you feel nostalgic for an imagined childhood. They really ratchet up the emotional scale this year, though, with an ad using Olympic athletes and showing times when Mom was their rock. The tone is a bit dark, but it hits right in the feels.

https://youtu.be/MQ3k6BFX2uw

So, what if your product isn’t one that naturally appeals to emotions and really needs a boost in sales right now? As in, your product line experienced a drop in sales last quarter for the first time ever. There might be a little bit of pressure to bring those numbers back up. But, how does one attach emotions so something as utilitarian as a phone? Easy: just add onion and hope it goes viral.

https://youtu.be/2gHeBVyqJRo

One thing that the coveted millennial audience gets emotional over is food. The question for Unilever’s Knorr group was whether they could turn people’s love for food into love for each other. The theory was an interesting one. The background for the ad is detailed on AdWeek. In short, the company used food preferences to match singles, then got them together and made them feed each other. Did the concept work? Knorr’s senior global director, Ukonwa Ojo, told AdWeek: “We know that one of these couples [Antonio and Irma in the video], even though that shoot was done months ago, they’re still dating today.” So yeah, love can really happen over shared tastes in food. Remember that when you see the Knorr brand in the store. Here’s the ad:

Not every emotion we have is positive, though, and some ads look to explore emotions such as fear and distrust. Such is the case for the non-profit Liberty Human Rights. They created a PSA that calls into question the far-reaching effects of a proposed British law that would allow government to essentially snoop on all of one’s digital communications, on any device, at any time. They compare that to a stranger coming up and asking to look at your phone. The ad is a touch humorous in its approach, but the emotions being plucked are fear and suspicion.

There are probably about a dozen more ads I could include here, but I think this is enough to make my point. You and I, my dear friend, are having our emotions manipulated rather strongly. Not that this is anything new, but keep that in mind next time you find your hand reaching for a product you’ve never used before and, possibly, don’t really need. Yes, we need you to buy things, but shouldn’t you know why you’re buying them?

Advertising / Current Issues / video

It’s Not Easy Being Mom (Video)

April 27, 2016

charles i. letebtter - it's not easy being mom

My mother was a single mom, and most of the women I know are strong. —Regina King

charles i. letbetter - it's not easy being mom

Being a mom has always been tough, so let’s skip the platitudes and recognize them for the tough, persevering people they are.

We tend to think of mothers as being tender, gentle and nurturing creatures who kiss away our boo-boos when we’re little, mend our broken hearts when that first crush dumps us, and cries when we finally get around to leaving home. Certainly, moms are all those things. But your mom is so much more. In fact, I’ve not known a mom who isn’t just as tough, as hard-working, as creative, and as persevering as any man she might come up against. Moms not only know how to get the work done, they know how to clean up the mess when everything explodes in your face. They’re due a bit more respect than what they’ve been getting.

I don’t like losing jobs, but when I see positions in advertising that have traditionally gone to men not only going to women, but going to a mom, I don’t feel I have any room to complain. Not only does that mom deserve the same opportunity as old white guys like me, chances are pretty high she can do the job better and is going to leave all us old white guys in the dust. As we’re beginning to see more women in top executive roles at ad firms, the tenor of ads both for and about women has changed. Slowly but surely, that condescending tone of ads that permeated advertising through the 90’s and well into the early part of this century is beginning to change perspectives and put in its place is one more real and understanding of women’s lives.

For example, with Mother’s Day coming up in a couple of weeks, we’re seeing ads from the usual places beginning to crop up but they’re not all sweet and smarmy as they’ve been before. This ad from Teleflora does a much better job of depicting exactly what all a mom does. Take a look:

In case you don’t recognize the voice, that’s the late NFL champion coach Vince Lombardi’s famous speech on what it takes to be a winner. All those words about grit, being tough, never giving up, and doing whatever it takes have traditionally been applied to football players. What this ad shows, though, is that they apply just as much to your mom, my mom, and every mom who’s ever given birth to a child. The road isn’t easy.

Even in cultures where women have traditionally been treated as little more than slaves, we’re beginning to see some change. I was struck by an ad from India, a place where patriarchy and misogyny still have a strong hold on the culture. Taking on the perspective of a father who sees late in his life just how hard his daughter works both as a mom and a business person and takes on the stereotype of men not helping around the house. Every father-to-be, in every country, needs to see this:

As we pass from a male-dominated perspective to one that is hopefully more balanced, one of the things we begin to realize is that just the act of becoming a mom is more than we’ve ever imagined. Not only is it painful to become a mom, it’s dangerous. A statistic of which I was not aware until late last year is that almost 300,000 women still die every year from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Think about that a moment and do some math. That means someone is losing their mother at least once every two minutes.

Don’t go thinking that statistic is limited to third world countries, either; it’s just as applicable here in the United States and every time some goddamn holier-than-thou politician introduces yet another idiotic bill limiting women’s access to free and/or low-cost healthcare and birth control, he’s ratcheting that number higher. Fortunately, there are organizations like Planned Parenthood and Christy Turlington’s Every Mother Counts (EMC) program who are there to address the issue of mortality among mothers. EMC operates in seven countries, including the US, to not only bring awareness of childbirth issues, but to partner with organizations to address issues such as poor education, transportation to doctors and hospitals, and supplies. They’re directly meeting the needs of moms like yours and mine every day, and not only do they get little thanks for it but often they are ridiculed and bad mouthed and even threatened because they dare to further the cause and life quality of women.

Seeing more women in traditionally male roles, such as advertising, communications, medicine, technology, and pretty much everywhere else is good for us all, good for our society, and good for our economy. Let us not lose sight, though, that many of those strong womens are also the people someone calls mom. They deserve more than flowers. They deserve our respect.

Advertising / pop culture / science

Measuring Your Footprint

April 22, 2016

We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world. —Maurice Strong

We do not exist without leaving a scar upon the plant. Our obligation, our responsibility to the universe, is to make that footprint as small as possible.

We learn in elementary school the basic balance of life on this planet. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, all the green living things around us, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Just that easily, we keep each other alive, a carefully balanced symbiotic relationship that has been in place for millions of years. When perfectly balanced, neither leaves a footprint. Such a balance is difficult to maintain,though. As our population has increased, we have, partially of necessity, reduced the amount of green around us. This throws the whole planet out of balance and, because that balance is so precise, any imbalance in either direction causes bad things to happen. There’s no point arguing about who is at fault, we must focus our effort on reducing the size of the scar we leave and bring us closer to the balance between carbon life forms and plants that keep life sustainable.

Welcome to Earth Day, 2016. This is the 46th, I think, celebration and the day and normally we would encourage people to be out planting stuff. However, for most of us in the Midwest, weather conditions are not exactly cooperative. The ground is rather wet and muddy from yesterday’s rain and there may be more on the way before this afternoon is done. Not exactly prime planting weather. Still, there are things one can do to help address your impact on the plant and one of those is measuring your carbon footprint.

For those not quite up on the lingo:

car·bon foot·print

[ˌkäːrbənˈfo͝otprint]

NOUN

the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels by a particular person, group, etc.

The term sounds like some mix of science and feel-good pseudo-spirituality, but it is a real measure of just how much an impact you are having upon the planet. Understand, this is more than just the amount of carbon dioxide you emit when you take a breath. If your carbon footprint were only limited to that measure, we wouldn’t have any problems at all. The issue comes that, especially in industrialized countries such as the United States, anything we do that involves consuming fuel most likely also adds to the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the air. Because the greater number of our vehicles run on fossil fuels that release carbon and the majority of our electric power comes from burning coal that releases carbon, every time we so much as turn on a light we are adding to our carbon footprint.

This, then, brings us to the question of just how much carbon does one person produce? Obviously, that answer varies from one person to the next. There are online calculators at the EPA website as well as the Nature Conservancy that can determine the full size of the carbon footprint for your entire household. These calculate factors such as home energy, food consumption, recycling, and transportation.

What I found this year, though, is a tool that measures where my footprint is the largest: online. We tend to not think about it, but when we are using our computers and accessing the internet, not only are we consuming energy in our home or workplace, we’re also consuming energy at the location of at least two servers, one that belongs to our Internet service provider and another that holds the website we’re accessing. The more tabs we have open, the larger the footprint we’re leaving.

There are two things that make this measurement tool cool. First, it’s a free plug-in for the Chrome browser. I’m not sure what the technological limitations are that prevent it from being available for other browsers, but at least for this year, Chrome users are the only ones who can take advantage of it. Second, and this is what sold me, it is sponsored by the makers of my favorite Scotch: Johnnie Walker. The whiskey distiller has pledged to plant up to 75,000 trees to offset the online carbon footprint measured by the plug-in. More details about the brand’s involvement can be found in this article.

I installed the plug-in on my desktop just about 24 hours previous to my writing this article. In that length of time, my online browsing has generated 3467 grams of carbon, roughly the equivalent of using a microwave for over 365 minutes. To offset that amount of carbon, Johnnie Walker will need to plant 37.2 trees.

37 trees in 24 hours. Extrapolate that out and I would need to plant 13,505 trees a year just to offset the amount of carbon generated by my daily computer use. That’s a lot of trees. Obviously, I need to find ways to make my footprint considerably smaller. Both the EPA and Nature Conservancy have plenty of ideas for how to do that so I won’t bother repeating them now. I’m already running a bit long here. You know best which options work well for you.

Our relationship to this planet is delicate. We cannot afford to continue growing our population and our cities and our economies in the manner to which we have become accustomed without incurring some very serious consequences. Already this year, every month has been the hottest on record. While spending a little less time online or using tools to put unused tabs to sleep may not seem like much of a big deal, the cumulative effort of everyone measuring and watching their carbon footprint adds up.

I don’t know if my boys are going to ever give me grandchildren. They might. Maybe. If they do, I would like to know that my grandchildren can enjoy playing outside safely, can breathe the air and drink the water safely, and not have to alter their lifestyle because of bad choices we’re making now. Measure your footprint and make some adjustments.

For Earth Day.

Advertising / Art

The Obscenity of Art

April 21, 2016

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

charles i. letbetter - the obscenity of art

To the extent that the purpose of art is to connect us with an emotion, can anything produced ever be considered truly obscene unless it generates no emotion at all?

Yes, it has happened again. Once more, some prurient patrol of public prejudice has assumed the mantel of moral responsibility for the planet and attempted to stamp out the obscenity that is art. Apparently my articles are not getting in front of enough eyes because I know damn good and well we wrote about this at least three times last year. Yet, for those who weren’t paying attention, here we go again.

This time, the offense takes place in Englewood, New Jersey where there is apparently a city ordinance prohibiting public display of nude images in certain spaces. Specifically, according to the Associated Press, “nude images have to be kept in interior rooms not visible from public areas.” This 1992 ordinance created a problem for Laura Borghi of Borghi Fine Art Gallery when it came time to hang a work by painter Tom Dash this past January. Due to the size of the canvas, Ms. Borghi claims that she had limited options as to where to display the piece. So, she chose the front window of her gallery. [We’ll just assume that there is ultra-violet protection on the glass to prevent the sun’s rays from destroying the pigment in the paint. Otherwise, she would be a very bad gallery owner.]

Dash’s artwork, by the way, is, “an ink jet collage of photos of two women painted over in acrylic paint.” One of the women happens to be showing her bare buttock.

Englewood city code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who apparently takes his job very seriously, issued Borghi a violation requesting that the artwork be removed. I’m guessing that “request” failed to use the magic word “please,” as Borghi refused to move the painting. She was then threatened with “fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail.” Rather severe consequences for showing someone’s bare bum.

Ms. Borghi has, of course, filed suit as she should, and, of course, that immediately causes any elected official, or city employee, to clam up, so there has been no statement from the city attempting to justify what would seem to be a rather over-the-top reaction to something that likely offends fewer than five percent of the town’s populace. I’m just guessing at that statistic, but given the number of bare butts one sees on prime time television these days I hardly see how Dash’s artwork can be considered obscene on those grounds.

As we’ve stated before, though, obscenity and art rather go hand and hand. Getting the attention of image-weary humans requires an increasing shock value and whether the art form is visual or verbal or musical, artists across all genres find themselves crossing that might, to some, be considered a line of good taste in order to express themselves in ways that communicate stronger emotions. A little obscenity here and there is necessary for some art to stand out and, quite honestly, whose definition of obscenity are we using in the first place?

As I was reading about this situation yesterday, another email dropped into my inbox (yes, I still use email) showing off a new print ad for an exhibition at Sweden’s Sven-Harrys art museum called Swedish Art: Now! I’m sure they argued over that title for hours. The exhibition includes the Tomas Hämén fossilised dinosaur faeces sculpture, Asstral Traveler. The print ad includes a picture of that piece of sculpture with lead copy that states: “You’d better sit down for this.” Body copy later encourages, “Admire it above, then take in the real thing…” At that point, my inner 15-year-old can no longer hide and burst out giggling. Here’s the ad:

Yes, you are seeing that correctly. Hämén carved a butt plug from fossilized dinosaur shit and the museum thinks you might want to sit and take it in. I sincerely apologize for the adolescent giggles continuing on this side of the Internet. I don’t’ know whether the folks who created the ad, M&C Saatchi, Stockholm, intended the slightly erotic inferences, but I certainly hope they did. Certainly, no one in Sweden seems to be claiming there to be any obscenity here, but I can’t help but wonder how well the same ad would play in Englewood. If Ms. Burghi cannot display the bare butt, can she display a fossilized butt plug?

The degree to which our world is off its moral rocker is evident in the fact that I am offended that someone else took offense at something I don’t see as offensive. Screams of obscenity get thrown around all over the place and one might reasonably argue that creating such a dustup over a relatively insignificant display of a woman’s bare bum is a pretty good way to generate some free marketing. Although, with attorney’s fees and court filing costs, I’m not sure “free” is exactly the appropriate term.

Speaking of attorney’s, the one representing Ms. Borghi in all this, Brian Bernstein, is confident they will win because both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions prohibit censoring art in any way. There’s no special obscenity exception clause. He states:

“There’s nothing new about government efforts to suppress artistic expression, especially if it might be viewed by some as controversial. Art that challenges convention makes an attractive target for the government.”

With most municipal budgets being as tight as they are and city resources in most places being so slim, I’m rather surprised that the city of Englewood would want to suffer the expense of such a lawsuit in the first place. Don’t be surprised when they settle out of court and the whole matter gets dropped.

I’ve seen the AP wire story in no fewer than seven publications over the past 24 hours. That should be sufficient attention that Ms. Borghi isn’t likely to have much trouble actually selling the artwork, which, I assume, was her goal in the first place. Doubtless, the price may have increased a little bit. I’m fairly certain Tom Dash doesn’t mind a little extra publicity coming his direction, either.

Obscenity is a tag that often carries some value in the art world. If a work is strong enough to offend the prudish, the artist must be saying something important, no? And if that message is so elevated that the artistically naïve and ignorant don’t “get it,” then the artwork must be especially valuable. Such is art world logic.

Personally, I don’t find artwork obscene and would be just fine if this whole argument would go away. What’s obscene is the way a handful of galleries and curators control the art market, driving up prices for a handful of artists, while preventing other artists from being shown in major galleries at all. That’s where the real obscenity in art lies.

Oh, but I’m not supposed to talk about that. Damn, I’m likely to get into trouble now.

Oh well.

Advertising / pop culture / video

Progress We Think We’ve Made

April 18, 2016

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning. —Benjamin Franklin

It’s easy enough to think that we’re above some of the errors of the past, but we may not be as progressive as we think.

I was left shaking my head this morning when Business Insider published an article with 18 ads we would consider horrible and terribly insensitive in today’s society. The purpose of the article was to give us the positive feeling that we have progressed significantly from the ads shown. Among them were racist soap ads, racist Jell-o ads, ads encouraging giving soda to infants, and ads denigrating women in just about every form imaginable. One aftershave ad even seems to encourage rape with copy that reads, “If she doesn’t give it to you, get it yourself.”

We like to think that we have progressed far beyond the stereotypes and social insensitivities of those ads. No one in their right mind today would put a picture of a pear with copy that says, “This Is No Shape For A Girl.” We know better, right? And we’ve even passed federal legislation so cigarette makers can no longer tell us that four out of five doctors smoke Camels. Yet, when we take a broad look at the bulk of advertising in place today, we may not have made as much progress as we would like to think.

Take a look through the advertising on your mobile device or, if you’re old school any major magazine. Notice how many of the ads still favor a stereotypical view of Caucasian people, especially in the areas of fashion, beauty, business, and travel. Within those sectors specifically, a whopping 80% of ads are tilted toward a white audience. Even worse, in many of those ads, especially those related to the hospitality industry, when a person of color is included in the ad it is almost always in a position of service, such as a waiter or hotel staff, further perpetuating the idea that those ethnicities are, for some stupid reason, supposed to serve the white man. Some studies in the health care area show that racial disparities in advertising actually have a negative impact upon the health status of disaffected populations.

Women aren’t faring much better. Just last year, the Bic company ran this ad:

This ad is so offensive to women on so many levels I have to wonder if there was any managerial or even adult oversight in the creation of this campaign. The very notion that women need to think like men for any reason is deplorable, and the inference that women aren’t already the boss are just the start. What does it mean to “look like a girl?” Exactly how does one “act like a lady?” Astonishingly, though, we still see this sort of advertising far too often.

The rape culture in advertising is still alive and well, also. An ad in Bloomingdale’s holiday catalog last year included the caption, “Spike your best friend’s egg nog when they’re not looking,” under a photo of a man leering at a young woman who wasn’t paying attention. Those are the kinds of attitudes that endanger women everywhere as they dismiss the concept of absolute consent. How are we still letting these things get into print?

Ads featuring gay, lesbian, or transgender people are still a hot button and advertising still gets it wrong as often as it gets it right. I hesitate to imagine what our children or grandchildren will think of us when they look back twenty years from now and see that ads such as this one still manage to get air time without censorship:

https://youtu.be/EumiDLgd-T4

Fortunately, the New Hampshire bill passed and the Supreme Court finalized the question of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean that advertising has caught up or has any fewer stereotypes of gay and lesbian couples than it did before. Even if we didn’t have a part in the creation of such politically misguided advertising, we should be embarrassed that we would even allow such patently offensive material to air in the first place.

Even more liberal advertisers have not made as much progress as we would like to think. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) only removed this billboard after an overwhelmingly large public outcry against it:

Even by 1970s standards, that ad is offensive not to mention that it is misinformative. Eating a vegetarian diet doesn’t help if one’s general intake and eating habits are still unhealthy. Yes, there are diabetic and obese vegetarians. Shaming people because of their size is not helpful.

Ad agencies like to think they’re at the forefront of bringing out social change. Certainly, there are a number of ad campaigns that have done a lot of good in moving us to be more inclusive, understanding, and accepting of each other, as well as encouraging more healthy behavior. But before we get a cramp patting ourselves on the back, we need to take a good look at the places where we still reinforce old stereotypes and insensitive and offensive behavior. We’ve likely not made as much progress as we would like to think.

Advertising / Art

Time To Lighten Up

April 16, 2016

Perhaps the soundest advice for parents is: Lighten up. People have been raising children for approximately as long as there have been people. —George Will

So much of what we’ve done and talked about this week has been rather serious. It’s Saturday. Time to lighten up a bit.

I’ll admit that I’m taking some unusual risks with this particular post. I mean, it’s not every day I post a flaccid penis on these pages, not even in an artistic sense, which is what we were going for here. However, this being Saturday and, for a large part of the country, a very nice and pleasant day, I’m not expecting too terribly many people to notice. I know we’re going to be out working on the garden and I anticipate that most everyone else is going to be doing something outdoors as well. When the weather is as nice as it is supposed to be today, I don’t expect too many visitors to a silly and unrelated web page. You have better things to do.

I’m also aware that there have been some rather serious tones to conversations and such this week. I’ve especially seen that stress recently among my advertising colleagues where everything from upfronts to account reviews has had people on edge to the point that they’re second guessing what were legitimately good ideas. For example, the folks who manage the KFC account tweeted this image yesterday:

Personally, I found the ad hilarious. Look at how high the woman’s arm is above the man’s lap. She’s obviously removing a piece of chicken from a bucket. Yet, the immediate response on the Internet was so overwhelmingly negative that the tweet was deleted in less than an hour. Obviously, a lot of people need to lighten up, don’t you think?

Then, there was the case where AMC Theatres floated the concept that they might begin allowing people to text during movies in some of their theatres. Now, if you have been in an AMC theatre any time in the past five years you know damn good and well that it’s actually rare for AMC or any other cinema chain to enforce a no-texting policy. All the AMC statement did was confirm that they weren’t going to try to police the situation any longer. Oh, Americans are so fucking uptight that they went apoplectic over the very idea! After a couple of days of such nonsense, AMC reversed course:

NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won’t happen. You spoke. We listened. Quickly, that idea has been sent to the cutting room floor. pic.twitter.com/JR0fo5megR

— AMC Theatres (@AMCTheatres) April 15, 2016

The need for us to lighten up is so great that it’s noticeable to people in other countries. Sean Cummins, the lead behind that Doritos Super Bowl commercial “Ultrasound,” inadvertently setting off a whole wave of abortion debate, told AdWeek that commenters

“… need to take a chill pill. Anything that’s kind of funny and a bit out there is going to be controversial these days. Pepsi felt happy enough to run it. It was totally fantastic … about as realistic as dogs buying Doritos.”

After all that, the need to lighten up a bit this weekend should be rather obvious, and I can’t think of any better way to do that than to take a humorous look at our own industry and some of the lighter things that have shown up this week.

For example, The Variable, an agency in Winston-Salem, NC has developed a delightful set of short spots highlighting some of the far too real aspects of ad life. I’ll put a couple of them below, but you’ll want to check out the whole concept at AdLand Adventures.

Oh god, have we suffered through this one before …

And this one … every f’n day …

There are a plethora of heartfelt, emotionally wrenching ads out at the moment, taking an overly serious tone at selling products that really aren’t that serious. So, when a traditionally conservative client decides to lighten up and work with humour, it’s worth noting. In this case, it’s the Jewish Film Festival in Toronto making it clear that, yes, you’re Jewish enough to attend. Here are a couple of my favourite spots.

https://youtu.be/WSG304K4kO0

https://youtu.be/td1z3xvt2oI

That last one .. yeah, For those who didn’t get it, that’s a reference to circumcision. Ouch.

Finally, there’s this two-minute piece from Dollar Beard Club. This is just so very much over the top that one can’t help but laugh a bit.

https://youtu.be/_Su0neQKm1I

There we go. For the four or five of you who actually scroll past the opening image, I hope this has been enough to help you lighten up a bit and that the rest of your weekend has a little less stress than i might have. We’re all much too serious for too many hours of the day. Finding reasons to smile more are critical for all of us to survive.

Advertising / Photography / PotD

Throwing Shade Over Coffee

April 14, 2016

I like coffee because it gives me the illusion that I might be awake. —Lewis Black

Either the coffee is right or everything is wrong

Competition is everywhere. We compete for time, we compete for attention, we even compete with ourselves when it comes to matters such as losing weight or going to the gym. We understand competition both from a personal and commercial perspective and we typically don’t think too much of one product throwing a little shade at their competition. We rather expect that. After all, they have to compete for our attention before they can compete for our dollars.

Coffee is a competitive business, to be sure, but at the same time, it is one of the things that unites a lot of people. Meeting over coffee is one of my preferred ways of getting together with people. How people drink their coffee, or whether they drink coffee, tells me a little bit about them.

Where we don’t necessarily expect competition, though, is among dictionaries. Certainly, it has always existed, with each claiming to be either the most precise or the most complete. The dictionary business has changed dramatically, though, as the Internet has developed. People are buying fewer dictionaries than ever before, and major search engines now provide the definition of a word simply by typing it in, so we don’t even need to visit a dictionary’s website. Spell check doesn’t help the dictionary business, either, though that function isn’t always reliable.

I’ve just given you three very different and distinct topics within three paragraphs, loosely tied around the concept of competition. Yet, what brings all these together this morning, and the only reason I’m writing about them in the first place, is the shade one dictionary threw at another over coffee, which thereby highlights just how competitive the word business can be.

The whole thing started when the top-ranking dictionary.com posted this tweet:

pic.twitter.com/WKbijevQ7o

— Dictionary.com (@Dictionarycom) April 11, 2016

Seems a rather appropriate tweet given this is National Library Week, doesn’t it? A gentle hint at how our word choice carries basic emotions. But look carefully at the picture. Do you see the problem? The folks at Merriam-Webster, you know, that more traditional dictionary that folks my age used all through school, caught the error and were quick with a comeback.

.@Dictionarycom There’s no cream in that coffee.

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) April 11, 2016

Oops! Major shade thrown. By a dictionary.

If ever there were an example of needing to not only double check but triple check one’s work, this is it. Even in the dictionary business,where competition tends to be more elevated and subtle, if one makes an obvious error in public be sure that the competition is going to pounce on the opportunity to take advantage of your mistake, even if it’s one most people probably didn’t even notice the first time around.

And most people didn’t notice. No one had said a thing about the fact that the coffee in the picture didn’t have any visible signs of being creamed until Merriam-Webster brought it to our attention. Most people tend to skim their Twitter feeds anyway and we actually pay attention to less than ten percent of what we see there. Had the competition not been watching, chances are that even if someone caught the error they likely wouldn’t say anything. After all, who wants to take on people who work for a dictionary? For most mortals, such a challenge could end badly.

The other lesson to be learned here is that pictures have meanings and definitions just as much as words do. One can’t just take a random picture and slap it with a set of words that have no relation, or worse yet, contradict the image. You’ll notice that in the picture we used here the coffee does have cream. Uhm, you did notice that she’s holding coffee, didn’t you? Maybe I’m expecting too much of some, but I’m sure one or two people caught on without having to scroll back up and check. My point is, though, that matching the right picture with the right words can be quite challenging. It took over an hour of wading through the archives before we found a coffee picture that actually had cream in it. Imagine what the challenge would be like for someone who didn’t have such a collection at their fingertips. Finding the right picture can be every bit as challenging, and every bit as important, as finding the right words.

Which brings me to my final point: this is what happens when marketing departments use stock photos rather than buying original imagery. Dictionary.com was slammed because someone in the marketing department, possibly an intern, was instructed to pair a stock image with a literary quote [we’ll just assume that dictionary.com has permission to use the image and didn’t steal it from the Internet]. Business is too competitive to be risking your image with stock photography, especially when the photo doesn’t match the message.

In the end, this isn’t a huge, earth-shattering or career-ending faux pax. I doubt anyone lost their job and this isn’t the type of thing that is going to sway anyone’s opinion about which online dictionary to use. There are lessons to be learned from the situation, though; lessons we all should remember so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

And we all could probably do with another cup of coffee.

Advertising / Current Issues

Social Change Through Selling Stuff

April 9, 2016

charles i. letbetter - social change through advertising

The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being. —Emma Goldman

charles i. letbetter - social change by selling stuff

Advertising seems a mechanism of greed, but it can also chance the world

Advertising has one primary goal: sell a product. In the crowded world of today’s marketplace, getting a message out there to the right people at the right time requires precision execution of a well-researched strategy. Make a mistake and an entire company can fail. With that kind of pressure, who has time to think about social change? Is social change even something that should worry advertisers in the first place?

Traditionally, advertisers look at an environment to see how their client’s product(s) can/might fit the existing structure. Sometimes, when the product is game-changing, advertisers may look to creating a new environment wherein their client’s product is desirable. What’s most difficult, though, is actually trying to create social change, to alter an environment, in ways that are not necessarily related to a product at all, or where the links are not obvious.

Examples of the latter are difficult to find, but we’re seeing that approach used with increasing frequency and when it’s done well the success for the brand is as astonishing as the social change it creates. The Dove beauty ads that promote being one’s self and alternative views of beauty are probably the best known and most obvious example, but there are others that have popped up this past week that are looking to do more, to make social change that is more concrete; change that actually alters society.

The first highlights a problem that, being a white male, I had never considered: how certain beauty products are shelved. I never have been one to go in for high-end beauty products. Shampoo, deodorant, and soap are all I need and my purchase is more often than not based on price. For people of color, though, such a simple thing as buying a bottle of shampoo can be challenging because the kind of shampoo they need is not shelved with the shampoo, it’s shelved in a special “ethnic” section. WTF? I knew such things had happened in the first half of the 20th century, but I had just assumed that the practice had ended long ago. Not so.

Droga5, the agency for Shea Moisture, decided that the best way to disrupt the severely crowded beauty market was through social change. We don’t need a separate “ethnic” beauty section. Put all the beauty products together and let people decide for themselves which ones they need. The message is timely, appropriate, and very well executed. Take a look.

The second example also comes from a beauty product, but the social change they’re advocating is much more entrenched, taking on a piece of Chinese culture that is literally thousands of years old. For centuries, matchmaking has been a part of Chinese culture. Even the Disney animated rendition of the story of Mulan weaves that tradition into the storyline. The status quo holds that girls need to be married by the time they are 25 or else they bring shame upon their families. Those who are not married by that time are referred to as “leftover girls.”

As odd as this custom seems to those of us in Western society, variations of this approach to marriage is present in nearly every Asian culture. So, for Chinese skin care brand SK-II to take on the subject and suggest that this centuries-old habit no longer fits in modern society means rocking the boat in a very big way. As China has opened itself to global economics and goods made outside its borders, Western ideologies have infiltrated Chinese culture and frequently meets with some resistance. For SK-II to take such a strong stand against such ingrained habits is extremely risky. Yet, the ad they’ve been using takes such a gentle and beautiful approach to social change that it is actually working in their favor. You’ll want to make sure subtitles are on to understand the ad. Take a look:

Then, there’s the matter of Ogilvy & Mather’s Berlin office’s brave attempt to fight a level of social change by creating its own products, a series of books, to fight a rising anti-immigrant wave that is far too reminiscent of a period in history most Germans wish they could erase entirely. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf was published this year for the first time since 1945. While much of the symbolism surrounding the Nazi regime is still illegal in Germany, the expiration of the original copyright allowed for the book to be published again just as anti-immigration attitudes are growing in strength both socially and politically.

Ogilvy’s leadership decided to confront this problem head-on by publishing a set of books with the exact same title but very different content. The eleven book series, Mein Kampf Gegen Rechts (My Struggle Against Racism) looks at the effects of xenophobia and injustice through the eyes of 11 very diverse people, including a concentration camp survivor, an Afghan refugee, and a white-haired grandmother who takes on pro-Nazi graffiti with soap and a brush. The books struck a nerve and the initial publication run of 11,000 sold out quickly. Here’s the ad:

Whereas the ads from the two beauty products are careful and gentle in their approach to social change, Ogilvy’s is more like taking a ball bat to the problem. There are few phrases more socially and politically volatile than Mein Kampf. Just using the phrase causes many Germans to cringe. Yet, this is how advertising takes on the problems they see in the world and all three have seen a measure of success in their social goals.

Such an approach raises some questions that still need discussion. What are the ethics in blending social change with selling a product? Do we risk cheapening the change that we’re advocating by attaching it to a specific product or brand? Could brands create problems that don’t actually exist in order to profit from the association? These are not questions with simple answers and moving forward they need to be carefully considered.

At the same time, though, advertisers are in a unique position to use their sizeable budget to bring attention to situations and causes that might otherwise go ignored. The Shae Moisturizer ad is a perfect example; I had no idea that “ethnic” sections still existed and fully support their elimination.

With all that is wrong in our world, change has to come from somewhere and it should be obvious that it’s not going to come from a politician or a government. If brands and advertisers can lead us to think differently about the soda we drink, why can they not use that same power to change how we perceive and treat each other?

Social change can happen through a simple ad. Let ’em roll.

Advertising / Current Issues / Photography

Photoshop Myths Versus Reality

April 6, 2016

charles i. letbetter - photoshp myth verses reality

Photoshop makes things look beautiful just as you have special effects in movies. It’s just a part of life. —Erin Heatherton

charles i. letbetter - photoshop myths versus reality

Photoshop is often maligned as being a tool of evil, but the reality is quite different

I was quite dismayed when I saw that the use of Adobe’s premier image-editing software, Photoshop, was once again being blamed for a magazine photo looking different than what the subject expected. In this particular case, actress Kerry Washington is miffed at AdWeek for what she claims is Photoshop manipulation making her skin look lighter than it is. To my knowledge, AdWeek, of which I am an avid reader, has not yet responded (at least, not publicly), so I’m not going to weigh in on those direct allegations.

Instead, what I want to address is the increasing inference that, somehow, Photoshop is the evil villain whose sole purpose is to ruin your photographs. I am deeply disturbed by the increasing number of people, specifically actresses and models, who are adding a “no Photoshop” clause to their contracts, much to the detriment of their images. Such actions are incredibly foolish and cannot help but lead photographers to either utilize methods that are more extreme and expensive or not photograph those subjects at all (which would tend to be my response).

First, a wee bit of history. Photoshop was the brainchild of two brothers, Thomas and John Knoll. John was employed by Industrial Light and Magic, the division of LucasFilm responsible for all those cool special effects. Thomas, at the time, was a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan working on a thesis involving image processing. This was all the way back in 1987. Thomas was working on a new Apple Mac Plus and found that he was severely limited in the type of images he could use on the machine. John was having similar challenges with the early editions of Pixar, which was editing software used at ILM. Together, the brothers created a new software, originally called Display, that addressed color and gamma correction as well as controls for balance, hue and saturation. By 1988, Display developed into ImagePro.

Interestingly enough, when the brothers went looking for financial backing for their software, Adobe originally turned them down. When they did finally agree to publish what was now known as PhotoShop, there was a lot more work to do. Thomas worked on the core software while John developed the first plug-ins, which not everyone at Adobe liked, but the brothers insisted were part of the package. Anyone who has worked with software in a corporate environment knows that small projects take on scope creep quickly and the list of requirements for PhotoShop grew immensely. As a result, it wasn’t until February 1990 that the first edition of Photoshop was released. Digital photography was still more than a decade from becoming plausible. Only scanned images could be manipulated by the software, which limited its use largely to large image production houses.

When digital photography did hit the mainstream, though, sales of Photoshop boomed. Despite its professional-level pricing, amateurs who know absolutely nothing about photo or image processing snapped up the tool and began doing absolutely hideous and unnecessary things to pictures. Filters and plugins that had been oh-so-carefully applied by professionals were now being misused to levels of complete grotesqueness. Thus, at the hands of complete amateurs, the Photoshop Fail was born. Note, the very name blames the software, not the idiot using it.

I have chosen the pictures you see on this page quite on purpose to illustrate a point. These images were shot in October of 2012 in the model’s apartment using only available light. While the model herself is beautiful, from a photography perspective the images are severely lacking. There is too much noise, especially in the top image. The color is off and even out of gamut is several places. Both curves and levels are wildly out of balance. Every last one of those problems is correctable, but I’ve left them as is to demonstrate just how a picture without any “Photoshopping” done to it can look. I don’t find these images acceptable as they are displayed here and neither would any art director worthy of the title.

Could I have addressed these issues without software? Yes, by doing exactly the same thing we would have done using film: bring in more light. Doing so in such a small apartment would have been incredibly intrusive and crowded, severely complicating a rather simple shoot. I would have needed additional personnel to hold reflectors at the very least. If we had used strobes, I would have needed another assistant or two to help coordinate those and determining what type of modifiers would work best for the situation. I would have had to call on additional makeup and hair styling assistance, and probably would have needed a styling assistant to make sure clothes were lying just exactly perfect. With that many people in the model’s small apartment, we would have barely had room to move, items in the apartment would have been subject to damage, and her poor little schnauzers would have gone absolutely nuts.

While that approach would have adequately addressed color, curve, contrast, and other technical issues, it would have also, inevitably, done something else: make her skin lighter. This is a tremendous issue that many people who step in front of a camera don’t seem to understand at all. The more light we use on you, the lighter in tone your skin is likely to appear. I had a model become quite upset with me last year when her fake tan failed to make her look as dark in front of the camera as she had wanted. News flash: fake tans don’t photograph well. By the time we balance out that hideous orange to something more human looking, you’re going to appear much lighter than you expected. Whether we do that with light or with software, the results are exactly the same.

Additionally, we have to consider that one model’s disaster is another model’s savior. How many times have I had a model tell me, “You can’t airbrush me too much,” or asking that I “take off about 30 pounds or so?” And yes, I know that the Internet delights in displaying examples of both those features being done horribly wrong. Still, let’s accept the fact that not everyone wants to look back at their pictures 30 or 40 years from now and see all the wrinkles and skin blemishes they had when they were 20. Just because one person doesn’t think they needed any post-processing “fixing” doesn’t mean that same standard should apply to everyone else.

Bottom line: Photoshop is a tool, a very powerful and wonderful tool capable of many things that make my life a lot easier. There are a lot of people who misuse it, but that doesn’t make the tool a bad one and it certainly doesn’t mean that one should in any way attempt to prohibit its use. We need Photoshop. Your pictures need Photoshop.

Blaming Photoshop for poorly edited images is like blaming GM or Ford for the potholes in the road. I hope I’ve made my point.

Advertising

The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival. —Aristotle

Make Love, Not Scars

Never Alone

Manboobs

Dear Daddy

Share this:

Like this:

All June I bound the rose in sheaves, Now, rose by rose, I strip the leaves. —Robert Browning

Pictures You Might Have Missed

Share this:

Like this:

Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? —T. S. Eliot

Take A Break

Share this:

Like this:

As long as I can still be on my own and do my own thing and be working full-time, it’s great. —Marian McPartland

Full Time Is More Like Overtime

The Real Reasons

Honest Assessment

Share this:

Like this:

It is stupid on my part to think of banning the media. —Shah Rukh Khan

Body Image As A Matter Of Perspective

Body Image As A Matter Of Health

Body Image As A Form Of Judgement

Banning isn’t the answer

Share this:

Like this:

Wrinkles should merely indicate where smiles have been. —Mark Twain

Share this:

Like this:

Beauty of whatever kind, in its supreme development, invariably excites the sensitive soul to tears. —Edgar Allan Poe

Share this:

Like this:

No other country in the world does what we do. On every issue, the world turns to us, not simply because of the size of our economy or our military might – but because of the ideals we stand for, and the burdens we bear to advance them. —Barack Obama

Share this:

Like this:

People are much deeper than stereotypes. That’s the first place our minds go. Then you get to know them and you hear their stories, and you say, ‘I’d have never guessed.’ —Carson Kressley

Share this:

Like this:

Getting 10,000 listeners for a free podcast novel is a lot easier than selling 10,000 hardcover novels at $25 a pop. —Jeremy Robinson

Share this:

Like this:

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle

Share this:

Like this:

I never cared about modeling. As a model, you’re powerless. —Karen Gillan

Share this:

Like this:

If you really think about it, when watching television, you have product placement all the time. —Jay Chiat

Share this:

Like this:

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

Share this:

Like this:

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies – it is the first law of nature. —Voltaire

Share this:

Like this:

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. —George Berkeley

Share this:

Like this:

The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts. —Bertrand Russell

Share this:

Like this:

My mother was a single mom, and most of the women I know are strong. —Regina King

Share this:

Like this:

We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world. —Maurice Strong

car·bon foot·print

Share this:

Like this:

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

Share this:

Like this:

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning. —Benjamin Franklin

Share this:

Like this:

Perhaps the soundest advice for parents is: Lighten up. People have been raising children for approximately as long as there have been people. —George Will

Share this: