Re: [microsound] Re: Oval Commercials.

[Øivind Idsø <ezueled@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> perhaps the broader question is: is it possible to enjoy advertising apart
> from its intended purpose (or what one perceives that purpose to be)? i
> hope so, given how ubiquitious it is. another: do we trust ourselves to
> risk that enjoyment, or are our concerns more paternalistic than that?

I wasn´t really talking about ads that are shown perhaps once or twice (esoteric
ads with either Oval or Carl Stone), because obviously the effect of such ads
will be different from the ones that are constantly running everywhere and all
the time. A commercial that is well-made and contains interesting visuals/music
can sometimes touch upon the aesthetic of the short film or the music video, but
what is also characteristic of such commercials (at least quite often) is that
the actual commerical message is subdued -- which is probably why they can
sometimes be enjoyable. An ad that keeps insisting on the product it´s
advertising quickly becomes boring and perhaps isn´t as durable as the more
"subtle" (if that´s a word that can be applied to advertising) approach.

I´m pretty sure that if the aforementioned Oval ad was being shown fourteen times
a day on Norwegian national television I would be tired of that particular track
within a relatively short period of time.

But, yes, I´m sure some ads can be enjoyed "on their own", so to speak, without
feeling inclined (at least consciously) to buy the product being advertised.
Before the soccer world championship in France´98 Adidas made some pretty
incredible commercials that tapped right into my expectations for the upcoming
big event. Their attempt to sell shoes didn´t really matter, because their ads
functioned like ads for the event rather than for a particular product (ok, the
championships have become products in their own right these days, but that´s not
for this list to discuss :) .

I guess what I was trying to say was that repetition hurts if the frequency is
high enough, and that the more or less involuntary nature of advertising defines
the relationship between the content of the commercial and the "innocent
bystander" (ok, that´s taking it a bit too far) as more or less unfriendly. And
is paternalism really so bad under these circumstances? I´m just trying to
protect what I hold dear, because experience tells me that once my favourite
music repeats itself over and over again to the luvely colours of <Brand X> it
will most probably Never Be The Same Again (that´s Mel C, isn´t it?).

/Øivind/