Who mentioned tree hugging?
The author of this post mentioned that as a mom, the ad resonated with her and concern trolls should take a step back and consider the kids who were moved by the gesture.
And I mentioned the people condemning the gesture are rich white elitists who are unable to relate to this socio-economic strata and are therefore unable to understand it, or their own hypocrisy. I stand by that assessment. Who else but the affluent leisure class has enough time to be so enraged about a commercial? Only those who have every material good known to man, or the economic means to procure it.
As for self promotion, this is an ad blog and "ad folks" and their related ilk tend to promote themselves. Sorry if you didn't see my humor, in that regard. But I see nothing wrong with self-promotion, or I wouldn't have gotten in the business. I'm only saying there tends to be a double standard when people in Forbes get interviewed slamming a brand for doing the exact same thing they're doing. Sorry if the irony escapes you.
As for pitting toys against nature, that now seems to be a standard talking point, on this ad. As if Toys R Us really set out to alienate a bunch of people in making this project. But I don't believe that is an accurate assessment as the point of the ad wasn't to say "Screw you, mother nature." I also don't see this ad as being such a huge faux pas that should have been rectified by concerned moms everywhere. This isn't Gilbert Gottfried's Tsunami joke. There were women working on this ad in the credits. And I'm willing to bet people who consider themselves green. Hell with the number of people approving this ad on the client side, creating this ad on the agency side, and making this ad on production side, I fail to see how that sheer number would've overlooked something if it had been so important.
As for your post Rebecca, I have seen very few comments on Facebook truly understanding the commercial's concept. I have seen very few comments applauding Toys R Us's generosity, and make no mistake it was. I have seen a lot of misinterpretation, and second guessing as to the motivation, and an extreme amount of overreaction.
I think the lesson here is this: Whether you're a big business or an environmentalist, when you only see green, it makes people see red. And it's about time everyone took a step back and tended to their own garden.
So...your take on what they should have done, is a link to your own blog. Sounds like you're doing some promoting to me. :)
Let me tell you something. For a few years growing up, my parents were poor. One year our Santa came in the form of the Salvation Army. I would never in a million years begrudge a kid a toy, nor a working class single mom a chance at living vicariously through the joy a toy brings.
That's what bothers me so much about the majority of troll concern comments on facebook. It all wreaks of the special kind of hypocrisy that can only come from the out of touch white upper class who has won life's lottery and now thinks its their job to tell everyone else how to live. What they should and shouldn't enjoy.
Only one segment of the population who can easily afford all of the computers, toys, smart phones and cars they give themselves and their kids every year are like this. And it's the same Whole Foods shopping 1%ers who are voicing their outrage.
Colonial elitism. That's what it is. As if the poor and broken homed kids are the new noble savages, destined only to have the freedom of education and nature, but none of the material goods that the privileged classes take for granted. Why? Because one one level it keeps them in their place.
What's even more annoying is that these same privileged folks always hide behind "the children," and yell at "Evil Capitalist" card to hide their elitism and their ignorance.
How they hell do you know what Toys R Us means and doesn't mean? How the hell do they dare to speak for the working class with such authority?
Give. Me. A. Break.
Heads rolled.
We have zero tolerance for anything so stupid and offensive. Deeply sorry. We terminated agency and individual who posted it.— The Home Depot (@HomeDepot) November 7, 2013
Yeah and the weirder part is, pre-internet, very few journalists were making money beyond lower middle class. Now they make less or are instructed to write "for free, for the exposure." And they can't argue because there is a legion of young kids believing the lie. This makes publishers and music managers seem positively benevolent in contrast.
The was precisely my point. It's nothing more than a popularity contest. The only thing Youtube really thinks is innovative is the use of digital bells and whistles to for the "most innovative video," category. I have to say though, if you strip away the bells and whistles, you don't have much beyond boring popular music. What's worse, it's popular music as determined by who bought the most media to shove it in front of our faces. In that sense it's not really any different than what the big record labels did in their heyday.
They way things are, are excellent except for any artist wanting to make a living. And I'm not talking about becoming so rich you can afford to live in the Hollywood Hills for the rest of his life and then tell people you don't mind if you steal their music like Moby.
I'm talking about that hundreds if not thousands of Indie Rock bands like Guided By Voices and R Stevie Moore and people like DTCV and Post Honeymoon who never had for one moment anidea they'd become filthy rich but would just like to pay their rent. Those bands cannot all summarily be dismissed as being "not worth listening to," as a. that is a subjective argument and b. elitist.
I am in no way devaluing the fact technology has given us access to the most music in history. Never have never will. That would be stupid. I can't wait to see a sustainable business model for streaming services that don't rely on investments from big record labels (Pandora) or paying out so little in royalties that artists don't even want to be on the site. (Spotify)
What I am really trying to understand is why there is a contingency of people are happy that the music industry-- which employs people at all economic strata-- has shrunk. It's like being happy the textile industry in America collapsed and thousands of people are now unemployed, because you can get free Gap t-shirts.
Again i'm not talking about lost revenue here. The revenue isn't lost, it's merely diverted. I'm talking the number of people employed. Yeah you can say on one level that's collateral damage as a result of 'progress,' but I have never before seen so many people cheering this damage, as if its some self-righteous move to get rid of them. Hell, people aren't even as militant when it comes to Big Oil.
I'm also trying to understand why artists have been so duped into giving up a sustainable income in exchange for merely the potential that millions of people might hear their music at best, or the promise of 'millions and millions of views on youtube.' or I simply do not see a reason either rationale should be applauded as a motivation to create content.
I also believe it's an extremely elitist attitude that is firmly rooted in racism. Who else but an upper class white American would pretend to level the playing field by making it so that only privileged white Americans could possibly afford to work for free?
Are you going to go into some economically devastated area like Detroit and tell an R&B hopeful that instead of playing the Apollo Theater it would be way better to busk in the subway for free because "you'll reach so many more people that way?" Or a native tribe in Papua New Guinea that Carnegie Hall might pay you for a night but you're better off giving your music away for free on soundcloud so "millions can enjoy it?" Oh, but first you should ask your local Peace Corps volunteer to borrow your computer since you don't have one.
But that's exactly the implication. It's either people don't want to see a successful cultural base (a cultural base that can sustain itself without second and third jobs not related to their art) or they want to make it as hard as possible for one group to succeed either through cultural imperialism, elitism or racism. They can always hide behind "you're a Luddite," ad hominem attacks, or "sell more t-shirts," as a pathetic excuse for an alternative, but those are merely justifications and excuses for their total lack of ethics and desire for Free Goods, All The Time.™
Regardless of motivation behind the zeitgeist, I have never seen a period in history with so many people applauding widespread economic degeneration before. Where we willingly put the creator out of business or force them to seek extra employment, so a tiny group of people who didn't make the content can profit so largely because they have a server. It's disturbing.
"Piracy saved music, without piracy; the only words that would be getting out are the words of the few who haven't been drowned out by the mass media and menial dick and fart jokes of the mainstream."
Uh...have you never heard of college radio? Because there are hundreds of college radio stations that paid licenses to play non mainstream music which in turn paid royalty to artists. Not all of whom are on big labels, either, mind you. And those stations existed long before the internet and continue to do so. Also, bands can get the word out to millions simply by streaming music on their own websites, and tweeting people to listen. I don't see why it is unreasonable to want to receive some sort of compensation for your content creation-- in whatever form that compensation comes.
Speaking of which, I'm interested to know. Because you have a very strong stance that other people's art should never be tied to economy, is there one instance in history you can name where an artist who wasn't already independently wealthy accepted no patronage for their work? Be it food, room and board or money? I'm scratching my head here and I can name none. I should caveat it too and say these are artists who made the choice as opposed to having had the choice made for them by people who decide not to pay. Obviously if an artist creates something they can (and often do) whatever they want with it. The decision shouldn't be made by someone else.
But an artist giving everything they do away for free? Hm...can't really name any. And obviously there's a difference between the type of artist you have described (which I can name none) and artists who can't sell their work but try to, like Van Gogh. He tried constantly to sell his work but only managed to sell one painting during his life.
There are currently 0 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
