For over 30 years I have looked forward this time of year to the arrival of Communication Arts' "Advertising Annual." This year's edition was number 53 and it arrived through the storm-soaked good graces of UPS just yesterday.
Of the many things that make me want to grab a high-powered rifle, climb up a church steeple and start shooting, one of the primary ones is the abdication of the press when it comes to the lies and half truths our political candidates spout. Worse, in my opinion, is that television networks and stations don't subject our political candidates to the same clearance standards that they would subject "Mop 'n Glo."
When I was a kid, believe it or not, common everyday table salt was advertised on television. There was a brand called Diamond Crystal whose unique selling proposition was thanks to the shape of their salt grains, Diamond Crystal stuck to food better. Salt in our day and age is not a high ticket item. My guess is that Diamond Crystal salt was subject to more regulatory scrutiny than our political candidates.
But I digress.
I was talking about Communication Arts Advertising Annual Fifty-Three.
An annual with about 300 ads inside.
About 20 of which actually ran.
Really?
Full page ads for Legos.
Newspaper spreads for a local gym.
A three-page unit for "Flamin' Hot" Cheetos.
Most of the print ads weren't even the size of standard page units. They were faked to the point of what would look good in CA.
The TV category seemed a little more legit.
TV is harder to fake. As a consequence I've actually seen some of the TV spots that made it into the annual.
I haven't seen any of the print.
My question is for the publishers and editors of CA. (And if anyone reading this knows them, please feel free to forward this post to them.)
Where are your fact checkers?
Why don't you require tearsheets be submitted?
What you're doing is no longer lauding the best work.
You're saluting the best liars.
Just like our political ads.
7 comments:
Geo:
Regarding political ads, Congress has passed laws that exempt all political advertising from the standards of proof that are required for product advertising.
When a product advertiser makes a claim, the advertiser must submit an affidavit to the network backing up the claim.
This is not true of political advertising. In the guise of protecting free political speech, Congress has exempted itself, and all political advertising, from any standard of truthfulness.
Your tax dollars at work.
Thanks, Bob. I guess the same way politicians don't have to abide "Do Not Call" lists.
Aw come on, you mean you guys never saw the long copy DPS for the NoLIta Pit Bull Sanctuary with the fabulous David LaChapelle shots in the NYTimes*, which made Neil French cut off his fingers and left George Lois speechless? Nobody ever does, until awards season.
*Tuskegee edition - print run: 2
Amen, amen, amen. It's so easy to do fake ads now (and frankly, to do fake insertion orders and fake letters from clients) that the award shows have become an absolute joke. At least in the print categories. Even if the ads did run, they ran in some penny saver you only see in laundry-mats. It seems these days, the shows count being in Archive as a media buy.
-- generic cialis no prescription
-- [url=http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#39952] generic cialis no prescription
[/url] http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#15542 -- buy generic cialis
[url=http://thecasinospellen367.com ]no deposit bonus [/url]_Snowtown, 27 novembre, 7 p.m._ they all rushed on to old age at an appalling rate! The fairy only found betrouwbaar online casino
Though that data isn't purged from your host machine, of course, it also allows for YouTube HD content, which looks extra purty against the new color scheme. 0 phone by including a multitask button -- there's no system-wide auto-correction sexcam here it only works in some apps, no long-presses
for alternate characters. Oh, and it's hard to see this list grow by launch day.
Take a look at my web-site: sex cams
Post a Comment