Author: Brian Lee

Capitalizing on popularity

Posted on by Brian Lee

I recently saw a trailer for a new Fox’s cartoon that made me irrationally irritated.  And by new I of course mean the television version of the 2004 movie “Napoleon Dynamite.”

Now, it’s not that I dislike the movie. To be honest, I haven’t seen the movie all the way through.  I have seen enough bits and pieces to understand the cultural references but I doubt I’ll ever sit down and watch it in its entirety. It’s just one of those movies where it isn’t necessary for me.

My annoyance stems from the movie being eight years old!  If this show came out in 2005 when all the “Vote for Pedro” shirts were popular and everyone doing terrible job impersonating Jon Heder then I wouldn’t have an issue.

I will never hate on someone trying to capitalize on their cultural niche. But you have to move fast.  It doesn’t make sense to wait because you’ll lose the momentum, which is the reason people take interest in sequels, endorsements, merchandise, etc.  I mean come on, think about those kids from the Jersey Shore.  Eight years from now, do you believe anyone is buying Snooki perfume or the Situation’s workout DVD? It’s doubtful.  So I hope they put their name on everything and jump on any spinoff offered! Make that money while you can!

It just doesn’t make sense for a “Napoleon Dynamite” show in 2012. But maybe I am wrong.  Maybe there is a huge nerd following that’s been waiting for years to have Napoleon and crew back in their lives.  I guess I’ll have to wait and see.

New threat to political ads

Posted on by Brian Lee

Political advertising in Iowa appears to be “politics as usual.” This December, $10 million was spent on television and radio ads in Iowa by Republican candidates and, to a larger extent, Super PACs.

$10 million could feed 40 million hungry children! This kind of spending, however, is not new to politics. And there’s nothing new about public disgust over the wastefulness of spending millions of dollars on political ads.

What’s new is the possibility of nominating a presidential candidate that has yet to spend a penny on advertising.

Thanks to Americans Elect, a nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is to nominate a presidential candidate through an online voting process, there is a real possibility of having a third option on the ballot in 2012. A candidate chosen by the people and the issues, not advertising, and not a political party.

Advertisements do play a role in politics–mainly to inform the public that otherwise wouldn’t pay attention to politics, about the candidates. Yet it’s long overdue we have an alternative to choosing a candidate by the amount of money they spend on advertising, trying to sway public opinion with empty slogans, little information and misleading attack ads.

If Americans Elect succeeds in getting a third candidate on the ballot without spending big bucks on ads, people may decide it is no longer necessary to donate money to primary election campaigns.

A world with no political ads? I think I’ll survive just fine.

Celebrity spokespeople

Posted on by Brian Lee

I was watching a Kia commercial featuring Blake Griffin of the Los Angeles Clippers, and I thought to myself, wow he is one un-charismatic spokesperson. What are advertisers thinking when they choose such boring celebrity spokespeople?

Griffin endorses Kia, AT&T and Subway, among others. That’s odd to me, since Griffin is not even a fan favorite; for example, his jersey is not even in the top 10 most popular, according to the NBA.

Remember, there are criteria for picking a celebrity spokesperson. First, they have to be credible, and I highly doubt Griffin is. For example, what does he really know about Vizio products? Why isn’t he endorsing more athletic apparel?

There also has to be brand compatibility, and it seems unrealistic that Griffin would ever drive a Kia or eat at Subway in real life. The only criteria he fits is attractiveness, and that’s because he’s a good basketball player. However, his robot-like personality diminishes that attractiveness.

Think Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and Lebron James. They were good athletes and they were charismatic. These aforementioned brands should have spent the money on somebody else.