The advertisements are becoming ‘one of you’.

Posted: January 5, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

The advertisements are becoming ‘one of you’

You Love go compare? Good! Have some more!

You hate go compare? Too long! Good! So do we!

You love compare the meerkat? Good! Here’s some more!

You hate compare the meerkat? Good! So do we!

What I am referring to by this is the manner in which two of the most notable advertisements of the past three years have double-backed on themselves and taken the irritation that you feel at their advertisements, and then made it seem as though they were against it all along.

The adverts I’m referring to are the ‘Go Compare’ and ‘Compare the Market’ strategies, both of which gave their product a scenario in which they’re somewhat amusing to the point of being asked to stop and, more importantly, the commercial gimmick begins to outshine the product. Of course, this is normally fine- most products that have an advert released with it are outshone by the very advert used to promote it. There are many advertisements that I have viewed both absent-mindedly and repeatedly on television for which I have no idea what the product is, not that I against this, but it is another example that the creativity of those being paid to make something attractive is persistently outweighing the actual product.

Good for them.

Good for them, until the monotony of the product begins to dig in and the viewing public begin to associate the name of the company with the gimmick, rather than the product.

“Go Compare? That’s that Italian-looking opera singer, right?” and “Compare the Market is a meerkat.” both are reasonable statements from the public that wish to watch and enjoy television, rather than browse it for products. Here the advert has overtaken the product and needs to be reined in, for the affability of the commercial, though important, is distancing itself from the commerce.

And how are they doing this? By tapping into the conscious of the public whose smaller groups have made it clear that they dislike the gimmick and are tired of the frequency that they are seen. Both advertisements have received a fair amount of flack (whatever that is) for their previous efforts, both having Facebook groups formed against their continuation (although there are also such groups espousing the love for the group).

But every advertisement has its run, comes to an end and is replace Some are extended even further beyond the gimmick by making the nodding dog animated, or by have the children of the ‘stars’ of the advert have their own spin-off in which they go to university.

So, now this. They take their former work and revert it upon itself so as to become more relatable to the public. And I don’t know about you, but it really works. You have no idea how much I want to visit their site to compare insurance rates.

Never forget though, that the companies and their products are not one of us, but the people behind them are. That’s why they’re so good at it, and that’s why they’re not evil- but the final equation is. Beware companies, not all but most, and trust people.

It’s good for you.

The Evolution of the Vampire in Culture.

Posted: January 2, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Before we look at Vampires in culture, we have to realise that literature is not inspired only by other literature, for in the culture of our time- a book can be inspired by a film, and a film can be inspired by the preceding culture. Nothing wrong with that. That’s how things have always been, essentially. Stephenie Meyer (‘Twilight’ author) herself states that she wrote the series whilst seeing it in her head as though it was a movie.

However, the first vampire of the screen, and perhaps one of the more horrific, was the ultimate and grotesque ‘Nosferatu’- a terrifying and silent presence that was the immediate benchmark for scaring the good grief out of people in the audiences around the globe. This was Vampirism’s, and indeed Horror’s, most remembered early film pieces.

But let’s go right back to the beginning of vampires in literature. Not so far back as to take note that they were born from the mythology of a people telling tales of unholy beast-like things, but I guess I’ve just done that, so we’ll carry on into literature.

This is important, owing to where the genre of vampire fiction has ended up, particularly considering Twilight. Lord Byron, of literature, mythology and the side of a can of ‘Relentless’, is considered to have been the inspiration for the original vampire of literature- ‘The Vampyre’ specifically, making the nocturnal neck biters an utter ink-incarnation of romanticism. Unbearably beautiful, withdrawn and brooding, moonlight-pale (ironically owing to ‘cure’ of blood-letting), the panache vampire was short-lived in popular culture, till something similar rose from the pit in the form of that iconic identity; and it had a cape.

This is the vision of a vampire indulged in by the Halloween-ers each October, the standard of Vampirism: slick hair, cape, fangs and, of course, pale. This is all thanks to the hugely popular cultural offering of Bram Stoker. And so from there, Vampires have become an aspect present as a character or metaphor in mass culture, rather than mere mythology.

Here, the evolution to ‘Twilight’ becomes clearer in its roots, but it is still a great leap from the evil and emotionless character drawing blood from the throat of a (typically) white-dressed virgin on a cold night in an alleyway, all the way to the high-school setting being the transformed castle of a misfit that no-one can possibly understand and isn’t good at sports.

By this, I am referring to the manner in which the teen-drama has penetrated the genre like nothing else has ever been, even to the extent of spawning near-identical television series such as ‘True-Blood’ and ‘Vampire Diaries’. Though all these share the same teen-focus that fuels them, and makes the box-office intake immense. It is the latter point that is most important here, as its box-office success is of such substance owing to the inspiration it received from movies.

Take, for example, ‘Lost Boys’, in which pretty boys go through the trials of teenage life, avoiding social situations and stakes. Modernised. Appealing to the young. A perfect breeding ground for what would follow a few decades later.

But why teenagers? Thinking  led me to the revelation that the link between the vampire and teenagers is what might be the most blatant aspect of them both. Nothing can ‘brood’ quite like a teenager. The need to stand out/away from the crowd of people being ‘pathetically’ happy is in abundance with the teenage population of every population. The premise of the idea is that most teenagers actually have no reason to be outside of the norm- they are very average owing to being essentially still children and therefore rather dull- the opportunity to escape from the awkward reality of adolescence and for an hour and half just pretend that there is a good reason to be moody is…bliss.

And this, noticed by the regrettably  talented people that write and produce these new vampire stories, is only too easy to achieve, particularly when this idea is twinned with another of being able to have a beautiful cottage for absolutely no reason (see the latest ‘Twilight’ movie.

But ultimately, I must note that the reason that Vampire literature and films are the way they are is owing to very simple key business equation. Find the audience that is similar, or make the product similar. And now here we are. But it’s not a bad thing- as the culture is simply extending, though more for profitable reasons that artistic, but then the greatest films and books of all time wouldn’t have been made if they hadn’t had an invested interest.

So now we have Twilight, enjoyed by millions, but as well as this we have another aspect added to the culture. We now have something to mock, hate, and hold as a standard of what we don’t appreciate in culture. If it weren’t for this we wouldn’t have a low-point to keep ourselves from.

I’m not going to watch it again though; no matter how much she wants to.

‘Face’- reasons and their consequences.

Posted: December 28, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

There is, I believe, a distinct over-use of the term (not the word) ‘face’. Perhaps most notably we have the insult that a friend is likely to give: “So’s your face!”.

Forgive me for mentioning it.

“In the face”, “directly in my face” and…”face” are all similar examples of the over-use I am referring to.

But why is this? I have an idea, and this is, I suppose, a view on current society and for that I am surely some sort of pretentious prat that deserves to have his blog ignored but for the sake of my self-esteem I am going to have to face….damn. Well, I guess that at least means I’m a part of the society I’m talking about. How pleasant.

Again. Why is this? The dawn of the company named ‘Facebook’ was massive as it began, but the prominence it has now gained is beyond the term of ‘household name’ as it has passed into the population’s mind to the degree that the lexicon is altered. The ubiquitous state of Facebook has earned it a place deep within our latter generation, though without permission, so that ‘face’ has therefore trounced other words in the race from the mind, to the tongue, and so out into our world for us all to hear- regrettably.

How else? I will also suggest that the means that Facebook reached us- the internet- has dragged us dancing into a world in which all the information we need is ready and waiting for its it’s pining-for by us. The information is both great and terrible at once, and it can have a habit of hitting you full-frontal and without mercy. In other words, you receive a face-full of this information  and the directness and impact of it, encompassing everything you need to know at that precise moment is therefore able to be described by a term from which we previously drew all the information we could: the face.

Now for slapstick. I wouldn’t say that slapstick is improving by any means- as only the appreciation for the humour can be said to have changed.

“Directly in her face”. Here comes the unfortunate use of the term, the use that comes with the assumption of originality and hilarity. The physical side of this slapstick is actually miniscule, though reasonably funny owing to it being slapstick and therefore we are human. But the alternative side, the telling of the tale afterwards- with some friends and some beers, is the worst this situation has to offer. This side demonstrates to us that presence of originality, courage, intellect and pity can all be removed from the comedy of the moment and be replaced by the simply insertion of the particular terms. Should one go about a story based around the play of “Insert ‘face’ here”, then their success is assured, and the battle is lost.

There is also a change in the meaning of the term ‘face’, and this is to mean ‘utterly me’. If something happened to/in/at your face, then it was complete and total. Your face is your identity, you are your face, therefore if something happens to your face, it completely happens to you.

And finally, the act of the ‘cum-shot’ onto the face. Why the face? It is complete, final and personal. Your face is you and ‘you’ are covered in cum, and that is all.

I think that fairly well sums up what is going on.

Association advertisement.

Posted: December 14, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave a comment

It’s Christmas time. That is all. Leave me be. Don’t call me a miser because it’s hardly going to give me a bad name in the community. Rejection of national social conventions to find a little peace of mind? Good for you!

 And do not bullshit me about the offering of peace to all mankind:

Christmaestro: Peace to all men!

Bit of a dick (the more-righteous part of the penis): Actually I don’t celebrate your contemporary interpretation of a pagan festival so please excuse me from your cultural dialect this winter.

Christmaestro: WHAT?! You can’t disrespect my Christmas wishes like that by not being part of it! SEIZE HIM! SEIZE THE MISER!! Beat him with brussles, Cain him with candy-canes, and fuck him with an elf.

But the worst part is the assumption that I am part of this celebration- of which I am not, but I can hardly say that all advertisements do anything other. Wait, the main point I was making was that there are now several television adverts so far this Christmas, and each of them focuses on the family in the holiday and, in particular, the mother.

Last year there was an advert for Littlewoods which focused on children singing a song in a pantomime, in which they praise their mother for buying them and their family various expensive gifts from the store whose name and logo inevitably materialises by the end of the advert. This advert was widely criticised for being materially focused, not too materially focused, just materially focused- full stop. As if these people complaining were going to abstain from the ritual of purchase, wrap, and exchange and would rather go about the true meaning of Christmas which is to squeeze out a messiah in a shed. People don’t tend to practise the latter, but buying and ‘passing over’ is the point- full stop (or rather- ‘exclamation mark’).(!)

So, with the market having learnt its written-in lesson, it is this year giving the point of the family and the mother a priority. Weird. Obviously, this is to offer the viewer that feeling of family closeness and the enticing aspects of being warm, fed and wealthy that are typical of nearly every all adverts. “Behind every Christmas- there’s mum” (says Asda), and that the very idea of Christmas is stress and panic but that ultimately…aahhhh…at least we have Tesco. Morrisons offers the exact same situation, offering the same sympathy for the mother and the focus that family matters, and that this is how Christmas always has been and always will- so sayeth Morrisons (here ends the Christmas lesson).

The ultimate point however, is my curiosity as to whether people really do identify supermarket stores as being the life-saving, stress-free best buddy that they portray themselves as. The lead characters seem to smile knowingly as though saying: “Asda is my best friend as a working/middle class mother- I simply can’t get by without them, You should buy their products- they’re only selling them to ease your burden”. They’re not selling them to ease your burden, but rather selling them so as to have their products bought. Bought with money. Bought with money by whomever they have coaxed in via the most obvious selling point of cheapness and quality, rather than some preposterous image of Asda ‘being there for me’ when I’m low and need someone to talk to- which is something they do sell- through the screen of our televisions and at the considerable expense of my patience and trust in their motives. I don’t like to turn my back on Asda. I get the feeling they’re pointing and laughing at me. Luckily enough I look good when being mocked, so it’s not so bad.

I know that their goal is to sell things, but do they think that by simply putting one set of happy images together (a family dinner, a humorous scene, a budding relationship, or an infant laughing) and then showing their logo as though it is the cause of all this joy and the purchasing of their product will bring the same to you, will actually be accepted by the massive masses? Ah. Maybe they do. Ah. Maybe the masses do too. Fucking masses.

This I call ‘association advertising’, where a company puts some form of…something (several of which are listed above)…to give their product an image that their target audience can identify with. So, by associating themselves with a certain form of…humour, or fashion, or class, or situation, or animated dog, that they can then cram their company name into the next frame and sit behind the backwards mirrors of their supermarkets, anticipation drooling between their talon-like teeth, perfectly white. Rowntree’s Randoms are not run and operated by a group of the wackiest people you’d be cheered to meet. If Sainsbury’s had the chance, they’d steal your mother and then make an advert making mothers particularly enticing for this time of year, and then sell her back to you at a heightened cost owing to the time of year and her breeding.

The only exception is, in my own and I’m sure many other’s opinion, Lynx- which shows lynx users spraying it on, and then very almost fucking every attractive female since 1991. That’s what lynx does, perhaps exaggerated, but essentially not a misrepresentation of what they do. Lynx is not my friend, but I am it’s customer, and as such I appreciate the link between what it shows me in an advert and what it’s actually selling. A nice, decent bit of practical association advertising. Not the other kind.

On the whole though, if an advert comes on- just walk away. It’s healthier. And if you’re an advertiser, just either stop it, or at least say ‘please’ more.

Merry Christmas.

I’m a nice guy, but I can’t deny the fascist in me.

Posted: December 13, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Of course, I don’t actually have a fascist inside me. No. Of course not. If I did then he/she wouldn’t allow me to blog about it.

However, opinion-wise (maybe not ‘-wise’, more…’opinion-esque’) I have to say that fascists always seem to be the way to go for me. Removal of free-will tends to mean that things gets done.

Let’s look at the Nazis. Apart from the war and the moral side of things, they were tremendously successful. Happy families, smart uniform, and a jolly rally every now and then.

Then there’s China. A super-power with little going against it apart from everyone else, yet everyone’s money is very much so in China’s favour. They’re doing rather well these days. China, you may have heard of it? It’s usually Eastwards. Unless you’re Japan…in which case IT’S COMING…

It’s a pleasant change to be able to say that WW2 Germany and China are good examples of anything apart from Ming pottery, black leather, and very, very neat hair, amongst other evil and pointless things, so this shows just how good they were/are at fascism and that’s not something they teach in schools. There’s no ‘Fascism 101′ in which you turn up to class the fuck on time, have your shirt tucked all the way down into your shoes in case it should escape, and do your homework to avoid being blindfolded against the wall and shot whilst your parents are glad to be rid of you, you rebellious little shit. Hmm. Taking a nasty turn with the allegory here. Maybe this is another negative side of fascism. Unpleasant allegories.

But I want to focus on the fact that if any of us become ruler of the world; we would want to run it our way, according to our opinions and abilities. With the world’s resources behind you, the only people against you would be the rest of the world that wants their resources back unless you’re pleasing them, an odd thing to try to do unless you’re ruler of the world.

However, no matter what, someone will be against your way of running things, and here is the crux of the matter. If you were to simply take a leaf out of Nike’s book of slogans and say: “Just Do It”, then maybe, things might get done. And all you need after that is time. And maybe bare in mind that Nike are being really rather rude and insistent. You don’t have to do it if you feel like it, unless of course you’re being told to do it by the local fascist, in which case you’d better remember that they can be pretty determined. And that you’re just a rebellious little shit.

Some people will become freedom fighters and terrorists, and all you have to do is outlast them. Gradually, people will forget that they are under a fascist state and will assume that things are as they should be, and that’s all.

I say, just take power and then fuck ’em. Now I’m prepared to give this a go, but don’t do it if you’re evil, that’d be extremely unfavourable to my game-plan here since people will assume I’m encouraging you. Unless of course you’re a fascist and think I’m being rebellious. You’d better oppress me before I get out of hand.

How would we take power?

Well, normally I’d suggest T-shirts, you walking propaganda you. Wear your political mantra and strut. If people begin to throw things, let it get stained with battle-wear. The red of the Union-Jack represents blood spilt- I hope your new stains will be just as romantic. Otherwise…umbrellas.

Umbrellas, rather than towels, are what I feel Douglas Adams should have recommend all travellers should never be without.

They can be propaganda, they can shield you (unless being it with anything harder than water), they can be brandished– yeah- brandished…before wither being used to fling, strike, thrust, adorably poke and, of course, gesture with. All this, and they are terribly English. The English do wet hair- we do wet-woollen shirts in summertime ponds.

Right. So there you go. Umbrellas and fascism: it’s probably been done, but at least you have something to do now. You fascist.

Hello world!

Posted: December 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!

Newer Entries →