BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What is acceptable in a McDonalds ad?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
16:19 / 24.02.02
To get back to a much eariler point, the reason they don't use New songs is because those don't have the emotional resonance of using one that people already know and have heard. Ads have 30 seconds to mindwash you, so if they can use a Who song aws a shortcut, they will.

As for if a band is a sell-out or not...I think anyone who considers themself an artist would say no to having their work used to shill crap, and anyone who would has to be considered a hack.

Not that being a hack is a bad thing, it just means that their work is product. Just like what they are advertising.
 
 
Not Here Still
16:39 / 24.02.02
Apologies for the previous 'point-scoring' appearance of my previous post, Buk. That wasn't me trying to point-score, however, that was me seriously pissed off.

Taking on board the wider topic of forgiveness and redemption - but keeping Gazza in mind - I'd like to make a few points, if I can. Again, I'm not going to be as coldly analytical about this as you might like, because this is a highly emotive topic. Apologies.

There is an article here on Sheryl Kyle (ex-Gascoigne) working to raise awareness of domestic violence:

Ms Gascoigne said she had never called the police about her husband's assaults because women were told not to speak out.

She said Gascoigne would attack her for inexplicable reasons such as laughing at another man's joke or leaves blowing through the front door. "I didn't know there was anyone out there suffering like me. I would like any woman out there who is suffering to have the confidence to pick up the telephone."


The article states she was in a violent relationship with Gazza for eight years. That is one hell of a long time for someone to be unaware of their own actions.

There is an article on Gazza getting his life back on track after his alcoholism here.

The piece mentions he 'regrets' what he did to his wife, and that he went on holiday with her while recovering. But that mention of regret is it - there's nothing from Gazza himself, no expression of penitence.

And I think that's what gets me the most about this. Yes, there is obviously a place for forgiveness, and yes, these issues are never black/white, good/evil, and so on.

But I don't think I've ever seen Gazza express any kind of regret over what he did, for eight years, to someone he was meant to love. It's not scientific, but here is a Google search for 'paul gascoigne apologises' which mainly contains Rod Stewart apologising for getting Gazza drunk.

Yes, one should not rush to condemn people.
Yes, there are grey areas of 'personal choice' with people who have substance problems.
Yes, there are always several sides to a story.

And I am certainly not suggesting we should have a blanket response to all cases.

But I can't shake the feeling that, when you have beaten your wife for eight years, something more than a muttered feeling of regret is necessary for forgiveness. And as you said last page, Buk: people fuck up, people come back, people face up to what they have done,

Has Gazza? I'm not so sure. That's what makes me angry here, I think.
 
 
Ganesh
16:45 / 24.02.02
'Forgiveness' aside, I think the fact that he's clearly retained sufficient 'national hero' kudos/loveability to be (doubtless over)paid to advertise a ubiquitous product with a 'family' image is perhaps what's sticking in people's throats here...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:35 / 24.02.02
Well, exactly, there's a huge fucking world of difference between "I don't want this wife-beater on the telly being paid lots of money and reinforcing his 'lovable buffoon' image" and "no alcoholics should ever be forgiven for their actions, and should in fact be ostracised from society for ever".
 
 
Fist Fun
19:04 / 24.02.02
That is a fair point and I can understand that. I'm thinking about this and it is getting into areas I am just not qualified to talk about. Doesn't the reluctance to accept that the tragedy of this couple might have more to do with the illness that is alcoholism rather than the inherent "cunt"ishness or evil of one person relate to the stigma attached to mental disorders. Why doesn't that depressed person just pull themselves together and get on with their life. You can see there is nothing wrong with them. They are just lazy. A loser. It isn't as if they are in a wheelchair.
I think an effort to understand some of the causes of domestic violence, ie alcoholism, will do a lot more to prevent it than labelling someone as worthless. How would we feel about labelling a heroin addict who committed crime to feed a habit a thieving junkie for the rest of their lives. Would that be fair? These issues aren't clearcut and we should acknowledge that if we are going to bring them up.
 
 
Ganesh
10:34 / 25.02.02
Alcohol-related problems, though, are 'on the cusp' where definitions of illness are concerned: okay, so there's some evidence that certain individuals are predisposed (via genetics or early environment) to becoming alcohol-dependent; it certainly shouldn't be assumed, however, that everyone who binge-drinks has a 'mental illness' (with all the attendant implications of requiring 'treatment', not being responsible for their actions, etc.).

My original point was that Paul Gascoigne didn't appear to be physically alcohol-dependent ie. he could hold down a moderately demanding career, and so on. That suggests to me that his difficulties around alcohol were more along social binge-drinking lines.

Either way, someone who's alcohol-dependent is still legally responsible (albeit possibly 'diminished', depending on circumstances). Also, given that there is no 'treatment' for alcoholism that doesn't require a degree of cooperation/willpower on the part of the drinker (it's impossible to remain entirely within the relatively passive role of 'ill patient'), it might also be argued that treating problem drinkers as devoid of moral responsibilities is equally unhelpful to them.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:12 / 25.02.02
Switching topics for a second, I'm of a mind that fast food commercials should be banned from all children's progamming hours. If "Joe Camel" is seen as the seducer of youth, then Ronald McDonald is the parish priest whose been molesting altar boys for 20 years, undiscovered.

Something in me just snapped the other day, when I was eating in a "nice" restaurant, and two young parents came in with a boy and girl who were both still in high chairs. The parents pulled out McDonald's hamburgers to feed the kids, along with Chicken McNuggets and French Fries. What the fuck? It's not like McDonald's was all that these people could afford, either. That behavior strikes me as almost criminal. Sorry to be so moralistic about it, but it made me sick.
 
 
suds
11:34 / 25.02.02
buk - i don't think that 'contributing to society' is the same as being in a mcdonalds ad. i really just don't. i'm sure paul gasgoine is getting a lot of £ for this ad, and i doubt he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart. what flyboy said was spot on. buk, i never said that this man does not deserve anything. yeah, i called him a cunt, and that is because he hit his fucking wife.
being depicted as a loveable goon is not cool with me, judging by his behaviour towards his wife. i thought i made that perfectly clear in my very first post.
sfd - i'm interested that you have trouble with the word 'cunt' for it's misogynist learnings. i like to use the word because i am using the power that has been used against me, as a woman, and making the term even stronger. i hate men who hit women a whole bunch. so that's why i used the word cunt. i think girls and women should reclaim that word, and get it the fuck away from the misogynists. use it before they do. show yr power. but that's just my two pence.
oh and flyboy, thanks for yr last post. thats just what i was trying to say.

[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: suds ]
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:12 / 27.02.02
I notice that the last two McDonalds ads in this country didn't even show a hamburger, instead it was scary paedo-Ronald just dancing around with kids and singing about how mums are great (presumerably because they are the ones with the ability to buy the kids Happy Meals). Is this the future of advertising, after going from 'buy our product' to 'buy our brand' to try and go one stage further where you're advertising the brand without mentioning it?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
17:40 / 27.02.02
I want to see Perfect Day used as the theme music for McDonalds.

Nothing better than Lou Reed singing about heroin to get kids to buy junk food.

I used to work at a stock footage company that supplied some of the stuff for McDonalds. I can say that from some the stuff that was sent back for price quotes that the material that actually gets to TV is far less insipid than the stuff that doesn't.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:26 / 28.02.02
They actually used "Perfect Day" in an ad for NFL football this Fall. I'm not kidding. There were a bunch of men in pads hitting each other, and fans screaming, and Lou Reed singing a really depressing song.


RE: McDonald's ads - while watching the Grammys last night (I know, I know) I saw a few McDonald's ads, and food plays a very small part in them. They seemed to be all based around the familial interaction between small children and their elders (older brother, grandma, etc.). McDonald's serves as a bonding experience between the family members, something they can all agree on, if they can agree on nothing else. In one particularly odious ad, a young black child brings McDonald's to his elderly, lonesome grandmother as a way of cheering her up.

Sigh. Why am I so angry at TV these days?
 
 
lentil
13:44 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Loz' Sweet Exile:
Is this the future of advertising, after going from 'buy our product' to 'buy our brand' to try and go one stage further where you're advertising the brand without mentioning it?


Yes, absolutely. It's all about 'core values'. Products actually exist and have the ability to disappoint; the unattainable, aspirational lifestyle which is attached to the brand carried by the product does not. Compare, for example, current coca - cola campaigns (billboards that never show the logo in full, tv ads that merely have drinking coke as something done by cool young people in hip situations, acknowledging its ubiquity but not mentioning the taste) with stuff from the early nineties (ligering shots of that delicious refreshing liquid splashing into glass, mouth - watering water droplets forming on the can, ice cubes squealing in ecstacy as they drown in it).

On the McD's ad, although not what was being discussed earlier: surely what the script says about whole cuts of beef and nothing added except salt is a lie, no? how can they get away with that?
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply