Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton
Cor blimey Luke. I am familiar with the work of John Singleton. Oddly enough, studying media at university does give me some sort of understanding of the motives and methods behind the creation of advertising.
My mistake then, Anton. From your post, it seemed you'd missed the point entirely, or were reacting with overly righteous anger. Which, given the ad, seems a bit extreme. I don't get the whole arrogance that you guys are saying that the ad contains: there's not a word said in the ad that wouldn't be said by any poster here in moments of rnr-fuelled bravado. Hell, they could've written the script with lines lifted from this forum - or from my blog.
Quote:
My problem with the ad is that it co-opts and commercialises non-commercial, idealistically non-comformist ideals as its own, as if by merely mentioning an ideology Coca-Cola would somehow come to represent it.
Please explain how rock's non-commercial? You buy albums, bands try to land deals. It's entirely commercial. They're hardly co-opting it because there's no really solid plug for the beverage in the ad - the only mentions being one or so cans (that I could spot anyway), and a logo at the end. I think it's about being associated with the scene, not being taken as a representation of it. For the target of this ad, it's quite likely that the acts that're favoured ARE heavily commercial bands. This isn't an ad for Blood Duster supporters, or lovers of Sadistik Ekekution.
Quote:
Also, your argument that it's somehow successful because it's being talked about is off point.
How is it off point? The purpose of advertising for Coke - given that they have pretty much total dominance of their field anyway - is about brand awareness and propigation. That's what the ad does. If it was convincing people to buy it, then every person on stage would have a can in their hand, lingeringly close-upped. That's not the point of this ad.
Quote:
By that rationale, the only way to effectively combat an ad that offends your sensibilities is to ignore it. If you ignore it, the thinking goes, it will go away, because advertisers will see no reason to continue producing ads in the same vein.
Nope. It means that
I don't have to interact with it. You're making a leap by suggesting that I think it means that the ad will go away - I don't. I know that complaining and lobbying is the only way to do this. I still don't get what there is to complain about? It's not like there's masses of underaged cleavage on display in the crowd scenes.
Quote:
as far as I can tell, the marketing kids at Coca Cola didn't make this ad with the intention to stir up controversy and anger from indie rock kids... they made the ad to get indie rock kids excited.
This is not an ad aimed at "indie rock kids". It's aimed at teens and MMM listeners. You're not the demographic because you're familiar with the culture in its most grassroots, small-audience nature. This is an ad for the broad-brush, for the tweens and teens and people who only ever go to big ticket gigs and for whom the romance of the big rock legend is enough. Studying media should make it apparent who the target is.
Quote:
Is that reasonable Luke?
Not really. It seems to me that this is an overreaction because a multinational has dared to portray a beloved subculture truly in an ad. It's punters and fandom, and wannabe-rockers presented in a fairly naturalistic light. If they'd been way off the mark, wouldn't this be a more mirthful, pitying reaction? They're giving the rock scene some kind of coverage, and it's a world away from the fucking McDonald's using people like Justin Timberlake to represent youth culture. What would you prefer to be fed to kids - rockers or R&B? I don't know - maybe, like I say, I'm missing the point in your ironic and sarcastic positing of the argument. I don't think that's helpful.