my turn to discuss boston

[rkt]

i know this is late, but deal.

i'm a fan of faux-conspiracy theories. they're fun.

which is why the wheels in my brain went round and round when i read about the city of boston fining cartoon network, etc. 2million usd for the black box stunt.

now,for one thing, it would seem as though boston didn't really follow the president's homeland security protocol in communicating with other places. or maybe other places didnt follow protocol by communicating with boston. anyway, maybe boston didnt so much over-react, as under-react. because if *i* were a terrorist, i'd strike in the most innocuous fashion.
but then, i'm not a terrorist. (except in the way that i'm not "with bush & co. and therefore am against bush & co. - making me, by default, a terrorist.) but i'm digressing.

anyway, yah. drama. whoooeeeee drama.

or not?

i mean, i ended up not watching the superbowl. at all.
this means the only product i can tell you for a fact that was advertised during the game was snickers. and that's becaues of the drama over that theoretically homophobic commercial. (i didnt actually get to see the commercial in question. i'm currently jaded regarding the assessment of homophobia by (white) queers who like to overact and thus enable themselves to ignore their own damn hate issues.)

anyway, yes. i know bud lite and doritos and coke had ads. ok? because they always do. but that's not the point here. the point is all those companies paid 2 million+ US dollars an ad to reach an audience of my vague demographic - age, location, sex(/gender), income wise. and they failed. cartoon network had ongoing media attention which, had boston not (over)reacted, i might have been reminded about their potential for the awesome.

but now? now american teen hunger force is known even by little old ladies in pesacola.

you can't BUY publicity like cartoon network/athf got! (except of course when it's in the form of fines.)

ps. this is my conspiracy theory. so a fact like, say, the ratings after the incident not showing an increase in viewership is irrelevent.

pps - bike4fish also sports a link to daily kos regarding the boston response overall.

Comments

RE: Snickers

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

The actual ad wasn't as bad as it could've been. Homophobic? Yes. But if you're not gay and relatively liberal, it could be interpretted as a spoof of what white men do when their masculinity is threatened. For me, and for GLAAD or whoever else complained about the commercial, it wasn't the aired ad, but the supplementary materials posted to the Snickers website. The alternative endings were explicitly homophobic - beyond spoofing white male masculine insecurity, including beating each other up for the "kiss".
But what got me about the Snickers fiasco was not the ads nor the website, both of which were pulled by Monday. It was the responce that Snickers issued after the incident. They clearly stated that gays were NOT in their target demographic, basically, that they didn't care that they pissed off the gay community because Snickers isn't for gay people. Excuse me? Snickers used to be one of my favorite candy bars, but I'm all . Apparently, I'm not in the Snickers demographic, so you know what? Fuck them, I won't eat their product. If I wasn't so damn lazy, I'd provide you with a linky (cause dammit, you like things with references, like you're a g-ddamned faux academic or something), but I"m sure an easy google search will reveal all.

Fuck you, Masterfoods. You've lost a loyal consumer. I'm all Hershey's from now on. Go Kit-Kat!

Re: Snickers

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

Snickers used to be one of my favorite candy bars, but I'm all .

I'm all Kit-Kat. I don't know what happened.

Re: Snickers

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

or Heath or Skor. I can look up which candy bars are what brand, but I can't seem to find the Snickers response. Oh well.