Dear Molson, Budweiser, Coors, et. al.,
I'm a beer drinker. I'm what you'd call your "target audience." As such, I have a few suggestions.
Remember when your beer was tasty and refreshing, and your sales relied solely on the high-quality product you offered? Because I don't. Your beer is mass-produced and mediocre, and freshness and flavour are no longer a consideration because your beers are laced with preservatives and brewed using low-quality ingredients, then boxed and left to sit for months. This is all fine, if swill is what you're looking to sell. My suggestion is to change the language of your ads to correspond with reality; instead of words like "cool," "crisp," and "clean," show some confidence in your product and tell it like it is: flat, bland, and cheap.
Beyond their misleading language, many of your ads prominently feature rugged-looking men socializing with shapely, attractive young females. This is a long-standing and well known farce, but this trend has developed into something even worse. Now, you advertise contests awarding admission into mansions or parties which promise to be filled with beer-commercial-caliber women who don't mind wearing bikinis so that they can be ogled by drunks as long as there's a paycheque involved, and the kind of men who drink case after case of mediocre beer to get into a lame party filled with strangers and women with low self-esteem. Of course the attraction is the promise, written all over the ads, of easy sex and drunken hi-jinx - a potent strategy for appealing to aging losers looking to reconnect with their glory days in the fraternity. I can see the next evolutionary step: one in every hundred cases comes with a free voucher for phone sex. My suggestion is to remember that you make beer, not condoms - stop selling sex.
This is juvenile stuff, guys. Kids can do better. Dumb kids, even.
Or maybe they can't, and that's why I shouldn't expect anything better from you.
- John
An open letter to Jon Dore
Dear Jon Dore,
I have to admit, I’m not a fan. I’ve never seen The Jon Dore Television Show, I didn’t watch Daytime or Canadian Idol. I have, however, seen numerous ads for The Jon Dore Television Show on The Comedy Network, and rather than chuckle at your antics and think to myself, "Gee, I'm going to watch that Jon Dore," I've been repulsed and have vowed to do the exact opposite. But fear not - I'm writing to help. So, instead of a long, windy diatribe, I’ve decided simply to provide a short list of terms - with which you are clearly unfamiliar - that may help you advance your career. Think of it as a crib sheet, of the sort you used to limp through high school.
Funny: causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical
Wit: the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure
Humour: 1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement; 2. the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical
Entertainer: a person who entertains
I’m sure if you keep these four terms in mind, you’ll manage to keep your pathetic show on air - if not because of your talent than simply because The Comedy Network seems completely unable to produce any worthwhile original programming. Hurrah for CanCon.
A few parting words: stay the course! The road may be tough, but if making people laugh were easy then any tedious loser would try, and certainly even you would be able to succeed!
Yours,
John
I have to admit, I’m not a fan. I’ve never seen The Jon Dore Television Show, I didn’t watch Daytime or Canadian Idol. I have, however, seen numerous ads for The Jon Dore Television Show on The Comedy Network, and rather than chuckle at your antics and think to myself, "Gee, I'm going to watch that Jon Dore," I've been repulsed and have vowed to do the exact opposite. But fear not - I'm writing to help. So, instead of a long, windy diatribe, I’ve decided simply to provide a short list of terms - with which you are clearly unfamiliar - that may help you advance your career. Think of it as a crib sheet, of the sort you used to limp through high school.
Funny: causing amusement or laughter; amusing; comical
Wit: the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure
Humour: 1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement; 2. the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical
Entertainer: a person who entertains
I’m sure if you keep these four terms in mind, you’ll manage to keep your pathetic show on air - if not because of your talent than simply because The Comedy Network seems completely unable to produce any worthwhile original programming. Hurrah for CanCon.
A few parting words: stay the course! The road may be tough, but if making people laugh were easy then any tedious loser would try, and certainly even you would be able to succeed!
Yours,
John
An open letter to customer service departments
Dear Customer Service Departments,
I just received a phone call, and when I answered I was greeted by an automated voice telling me I was on hold, and I would be speaking to a representative shortly. Suffice to say that I don’t need to speak to a representative to find out who could be so insolent – I already know.
It’s the Customer Service department of an unbearably arrogant bank or credit company; I know this because frankly no other business treats their customers with such disrespect. You approach every situation and interaction from a self-satisfied position deriving from your knowledge of the fact that you don’t need any individual customer, and therefore they are worthless and should be treated as such.
If you don’t feel this way, then why am I still on hold?
I have to hand it to you; outraged as I am, I know you’re right. I need a bank. It’s literally impossible to exist in our society without the services you provide – and charge dearly for. But why rub it in our faces? Just because you can?
They have a phrase for that in pro sports: showboating. Poor sportsmanship.
Class is a rare commodity in this day and age, particularly in business. People expect a certain amount of inconvenience and belittlement when dealing with their bank; it’s not the exception it’s the rule. This holds true for every other service we choose to pay for: the phone company, internet provider, or television empire – now very often the same company, bundled.
The message is clear: No thanks for your business, try to enjoy our mediocre service. Don’t like it? We’ll get along just fine without you.
I’m disgusted.
Yours,
John
I just received a phone call, and when I answered I was greeted by an automated voice telling me I was on hold, and I would be speaking to a representative shortly. Suffice to say that I don’t need to speak to a representative to find out who could be so insolent – I already know.
It’s the Customer Service department of an unbearably arrogant bank or credit company; I know this because frankly no other business treats their customers with such disrespect. You approach every situation and interaction from a self-satisfied position deriving from your knowledge of the fact that you don’t need any individual customer, and therefore they are worthless and should be treated as such.
If you don’t feel this way, then why am I still on hold?
I have to hand it to you; outraged as I am, I know you’re right. I need a bank. It’s literally impossible to exist in our society without the services you provide – and charge dearly for. But why rub it in our faces? Just because you can?
They have a phrase for that in pro sports: showboating. Poor sportsmanship.
Class is a rare commodity in this day and age, particularly in business. People expect a certain amount of inconvenience and belittlement when dealing with their bank; it’s not the exception it’s the rule. This holds true for every other service we choose to pay for: the phone company, internet provider, or television empire – now very often the same company, bundled.
The message is clear: No thanks for your business, try to enjoy our mediocre service. Don’t like it? We’ll get along just fine without you.
I’m disgusted.
Yours,
John
An open letter to the Buchanan Group
Dear Buchanan Group,
Your "Advertising Solution" Medifacts is a callous insult. It is neither helpful nor informative, but rather a sly ad concocted by cynical marketing graduates to prey on the weak of mind, those easily duped by advertisement masquerading as information. In your own words, Medifacts is “a concept that avoids overly medical terms, yet is convincing and authoritative.” By claiming to give genuine medical advice without any legitimacy, you undermine and undervalue important medical advice given by qualified healthcare professionals.
I feel similarly about Brand Power, another of your slick advertising solutions. You present information as a disinterested third party ostensibly trying to help consumers “make an informed purchase decision.” This advertising methodology “acts as a credible report on [the] brand and empathizes with the viewer by demonstrating a genuine insight into their lives.” These ads claim to help consumers “buy better;” drop the act – what you want is people to buy, period.
With Zoot Review, you capitalize on modern society’s moronic obsession with celebrity endorsement, and package it as helpful third-party brand advice. Perhaps I’m alone, but there are few groups I trust less than celebrities when it comes to making informed, practical decisions. You describe Zoot as “candid, natural and believable,” yet these are three of the last words I would associate with celebrities, not to mention celebrity endorsement.
Call me crazy, but I like my medical advice to use medical terms; when I want helpful neighbourly advice about shopping I ask my helpful neighbour; I’m naturally distrustful of celebrities, who I find vacuous and self-obsessed, and I don’t value their advice.
Obviously this strategy of infomercial-esque advertising is effective; it is also morally bankrupt and deceitful. As your global client list suggests, you are at the fore of “third-party information-based” advertising, a considerable achievement in an industry dominated by disingenuous profit-driven bottomfeeders.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Yours,
John
Your "Advertising Solution" Medifacts is a callous insult. It is neither helpful nor informative, but rather a sly ad concocted by cynical marketing graduates to prey on the weak of mind, those easily duped by advertisement masquerading as information. In your own words, Medifacts is “a concept that avoids overly medical terms, yet is convincing and authoritative.” By claiming to give genuine medical advice without any legitimacy, you undermine and undervalue important medical advice given by qualified healthcare professionals.
I feel similarly about Brand Power, another of your slick advertising solutions. You present information as a disinterested third party ostensibly trying to help consumers “make an informed purchase decision.” This advertising methodology “acts as a credible report on [the] brand and empathizes with the viewer by demonstrating a genuine insight into their lives.” These ads claim to help consumers “buy better;” drop the act – what you want is people to buy, period.
With Zoot Review, you capitalize on modern society’s moronic obsession with celebrity endorsement, and package it as helpful third-party brand advice. Perhaps I’m alone, but there are few groups I trust less than celebrities when it comes to making informed, practical decisions. You describe Zoot as “candid, natural and believable,” yet these are three of the last words I would associate with celebrities, not to mention celebrity endorsement.
Call me crazy, but I like my medical advice to use medical terms; when I want helpful neighbourly advice about shopping I ask my helpful neighbour; I’m naturally distrustful of celebrities, who I find vacuous and self-obsessed, and I don’t value their advice.
Obviously this strategy of infomercial-esque advertising is effective; it is also morally bankrupt and deceitful. As your global client list suggests, you are at the fore of “third-party information-based” advertising, a considerable achievement in an industry dominated by disingenuous profit-driven bottomfeeders.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Yours,
John
An open letter to Mark Muller
Dear Mark Muller,
I've just now learned of your promotional campaign at Max Motors, Butler, MO. Yes, the one where you give away a voucher good for one AK-47 assault rifle, or any other firearm of equal value.
In an interview with CNN, you mention that part of the reasoning behind this campaign is the “tremendous crime problem” in the Bates community “with people doing meth. These people have lost their souls. They don’t care about you, they don’t care about me, they care about one thing: getting more dope.” You state that the police response time to your home is fifteen minutes, and given that fact, “The only 911 call I need is chambering a round.”
In the same interview, you also state that “The purpose for guns like AK-47s is home defence.”
To your credit, this altruistic mindset is much more than we, the public, expect from sales campaigns nowadays, more often than not conceived by cynical lowlifes motivated purely by profits, all-too-willing to capitalize on a weak-minded consumer base. However, your humanitarian efforts aside, Mr. Muller, I think there are a few facts you’re overlooking, and I’d like to shed some light on them for you.
The AK-47 was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in response to the Soviet army’s experience in the Second World War. Firearm design on the Eastern Front was dominated by bolt-action and semiautomatic weapons; although submachine guns were present their limitations in power and accuracy made them unsuitable for ranged combat. The AK-47 was designed to bridge the gap between submachine gun and rifle, to give the Soviet soldier a high rate of fire, using a cartridge powerful enough to engage targets out to 300 meters.
A home defence weapon, this isn’t.
The Kalashnikov family of assault rifles has been, and remains, the most successful firearm design in human history, and I mean successful in every sense of the word. To put it in perspective, the World Bank estimates that out of the 500 million total firearms available worldwide, 100 million are of the Kalashnikov family. More AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined. The AK-type rifle has been present in every conflict on every continent since its design, and it is the firearm of choice for more than 50 standing armies worldwide. It is estimated that the Kalashnikov family of rifles are responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million people per year.
A home defence weapon, this isn’t.
According to “An accounting of daily gun deaths,” by Bill Marsh of the New York Times, “In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, an average of about 81 people died every day from gunfire in the United States… All told, 29, 569 people were killed that year by firearms… Another 64, 389 were injured, about 176 per day.” According to Bureau of Justice statistics (1997), 35% of firearms possessed by Federal inmates were obtained from family or friends.
In interview, you stated that last year’s sales campaign, wherein you gave vehicle purchasers a voucher for a handgun, “went over very well,” resulting in an estimated 35 sales above your mean over the promotion period. This year, your goal is an extra 100 vehicles.
I’m not privy to your sales statistics, so I’m going to assume a few things here. Let’s say last year’s promotion increased your sales by a generous 25%, putting your mean sales at 140 vehicles between your six dealerships over the tracked period. So, last year, because of your promotion, 175 handguns entered the Bates community. This year, if your sales numbers haven’t changed too much, you will be responsible for over 200 new assault rifles, or guns of equal value, in the Butler community. A community which, by my estimation, is already fairly well armed.
Mr. Muller, encouraging the presence of this deadly weapon in your community is despicable. In a small town such as Butler, 375 firearms represent just over 20% of the 1723 households.
Where, Mark, is your soul?
Instead of arming your community, why not donate $450 per vehicle sale to your local police department in order to shorten that fifteen minute response time. Being a good Christian, as you so openly protest in interview, why not donate $450 per vehicle sale to Bates county drug rehabilitation centers to help - and not kill - the poor, soulless drug-addicts you cite as justification for arming your community. Instead of a drug rehab centre, what about a food drive? A women’s shelter? New bibles for the church? New textbooks for the schools? With 10% of families, and 14% of the total population in Bates county living below the poverty line, supporting – and not arming – the community seems like the altruistic path any good, selfless, compassionate Christian would follow.
But what do I know? I don’t own any guns.
Yours,
John
I've just now learned of your promotional campaign at Max Motors, Butler, MO. Yes, the one where you give away a voucher good for one AK-47 assault rifle, or any other firearm of equal value.
In an interview with CNN, you mention that part of the reasoning behind this campaign is the “tremendous crime problem” in the Bates community “with people doing meth. These people have lost their souls. They don’t care about you, they don’t care about me, they care about one thing: getting more dope.” You state that the police response time to your home is fifteen minutes, and given that fact, “The only 911 call I need is chambering a round.”
In the same interview, you also state that “The purpose for guns like AK-47s is home defence.”
To your credit, this altruistic mindset is much more than we, the public, expect from sales campaigns nowadays, more often than not conceived by cynical lowlifes motivated purely by profits, all-too-willing to capitalize on a weak-minded consumer base. However, your humanitarian efforts aside, Mr. Muller, I think there are a few facts you’re overlooking, and I’d like to shed some light on them for you.
The AK-47 was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in response to the Soviet army’s experience in the Second World War. Firearm design on the Eastern Front was dominated by bolt-action and semiautomatic weapons; although submachine guns were present their limitations in power and accuracy made them unsuitable for ranged combat. The AK-47 was designed to bridge the gap between submachine gun and rifle, to give the Soviet soldier a high rate of fire, using a cartridge powerful enough to engage targets out to 300 meters.
A home defence weapon, this isn’t.
The Kalashnikov family of assault rifles has been, and remains, the most successful firearm design in human history, and I mean successful in every sense of the word. To put it in perspective, the World Bank estimates that out of the 500 million total firearms available worldwide, 100 million are of the Kalashnikov family. More AK-type rifles have been produced than all other assault rifles combined. The AK-type rifle has been present in every conflict on every continent since its design, and it is the firearm of choice for more than 50 standing armies worldwide. It is estimated that the Kalashnikov family of rifles are responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million people per year.
A home defence weapon, this isn’t.
According to “An accounting of daily gun deaths,” by Bill Marsh of the New York Times, “In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, an average of about 81 people died every day from gunfire in the United States… All told, 29, 569 people were killed that year by firearms… Another 64, 389 were injured, about 176 per day.” According to Bureau of Justice statistics (1997), 35% of firearms possessed by Federal inmates were obtained from family or friends.
In interview, you stated that last year’s sales campaign, wherein you gave vehicle purchasers a voucher for a handgun, “went over very well,” resulting in an estimated 35 sales above your mean over the promotion period. This year, your goal is an extra 100 vehicles.
I’m not privy to your sales statistics, so I’m going to assume a few things here. Let’s say last year’s promotion increased your sales by a generous 25%, putting your mean sales at 140 vehicles between your six dealerships over the tracked period. So, last year, because of your promotion, 175 handguns entered the Bates community. This year, if your sales numbers haven’t changed too much, you will be responsible for over 200 new assault rifles, or guns of equal value, in the Butler community. A community which, by my estimation, is already fairly well armed.
Mr. Muller, encouraging the presence of this deadly weapon in your community is despicable. In a small town such as Butler, 375 firearms represent just over 20% of the 1723 households.
Where, Mark, is your soul?
Instead of arming your community, why not donate $450 per vehicle sale to your local police department in order to shorten that fifteen minute response time. Being a good Christian, as you so openly protest in interview, why not donate $450 per vehicle sale to Bates county drug rehabilitation centers to help - and not kill - the poor, soulless drug-addicts you cite as justification for arming your community. Instead of a drug rehab centre, what about a food drive? A women’s shelter? New bibles for the church? New textbooks for the schools? With 10% of families, and 14% of the total population in Bates county living below the poverty line, supporting – and not arming – the community seems like the altruistic path any good, selfless, compassionate Christian would follow.
But what do I know? I don’t own any guns.
Yours,
John
An open letter to Pizza Hut
Dear Pizza Hut,
I’d like to express my alarm with your operations in light of my most frequent order.
The incident in question was no more than a month ago. I ordered a Panormous pizza, which I was assured by your television advertisement would be not only an awkward and ungainly portmanteau, but would, more importantly, be “so big it never ends.”
Seeing as I was with a friend, we were hungry at the time, and we both estimated that we would each be hungry at least twice a day from then on, for the rest of our foreseeable lives, we decided that purchasing an infinite amount of pizza for $14.99 was not only a good deal but a wise and foresighted choice.
I firmly believe that truthfulness and forthrightness are essential qualities in honest dealings and worthwhile relationships, so I will not waste words with you. You lied. Blatantly. Clearly. Unwaveringly. You lied remorselessly, without consideration of your overweight but dedicated base of loyal customers.
Did you think they wouldn’t notice their pizza ending? That can’t be, because there is but the slimmest chance that your characteristically pudgy customers wouldn’t notice their pizza supply terminating. Did you think they wouldn’t care when they finished their endless pizza? Also unlikely, again given the portly nature of your devotees. Why, then?
It’s because you don’t care about honesty, and that’s despicable. It’s because you have no respect or sense of accountability to your customers, and that’s deplorable. It’s because advertising is so out of hand that corporations can blatantly and maliciously lie to consumers to benefit themselves, and consumers are so apathetic and complacent that they hardly notice being lied to, let alone care. That isn’t your fault, but shame on you for exploiting the situation.
It would have been just as easy, and this whole situation could have been avoided, had you simply said: “this pizza is considerably larger than any pizza we have previously sold.” Instead, you opted for the lie, and in so doing lost a customer.
Oh, and your pizza is mediocre at best.
Yours,
John
I’d like to express my alarm with your operations in light of my most frequent order.
The incident in question was no more than a month ago. I ordered a Panormous pizza, which I was assured by your television advertisement would be not only an awkward and ungainly portmanteau, but would, more importantly, be “so big it never ends.”
Seeing as I was with a friend, we were hungry at the time, and we both estimated that we would each be hungry at least twice a day from then on, for the rest of our foreseeable lives, we decided that purchasing an infinite amount of pizza for $14.99 was not only a good deal but a wise and foresighted choice.
I firmly believe that truthfulness and forthrightness are essential qualities in honest dealings and worthwhile relationships, so I will not waste words with you. You lied. Blatantly. Clearly. Unwaveringly. You lied remorselessly, without consideration of your overweight but dedicated base of loyal customers.
Did you think they wouldn’t notice their pizza ending? That can’t be, because there is but the slimmest chance that your characteristically pudgy customers wouldn’t notice their pizza supply terminating. Did you think they wouldn’t care when they finished their endless pizza? Also unlikely, again given the portly nature of your devotees. Why, then?
It’s because you don’t care about honesty, and that’s despicable. It’s because you have no respect or sense of accountability to your customers, and that’s deplorable. It’s because advertising is so out of hand that corporations can blatantly and maliciously lie to consumers to benefit themselves, and consumers are so apathetic and complacent that they hardly notice being lied to, let alone care. That isn’t your fault, but shame on you for exploiting the situation.
It would have been just as easy, and this whole situation could have been avoided, had you simply said: “this pizza is considerably larger than any pizza we have previously sold.” Instead, you opted for the lie, and in so doing lost a customer.
Oh, and your pizza is mediocre at best.
Yours,
John
An open letter to CNN
Dear CNN,
In lieu of the tumultuous events of the past few weeks, I’d like to applaud your news coverage.
Michael Jackson passed away on June 25th, 2009, and like many others I learned of this while watching So You Think You Can Dance that evening. That seems to me as fitting a venue as any to learn about the passing of such a talented and revered dancer, and indeed, to their credit, they even played a short clip of the music video Thriller in his memory. To my knowledge – albeit limited because I do not watch So You Think You Can Dance regularly – the producers of So You Think You Can Dance have chosen to not spend any more of their valuable airtime exalting, commemorating, debating, analyzing, or nitpicking the details of Michael Jackson’s sad and abbreviated life. This is where you come in.
It is because of this dismal lack of responsibility on the part of So You Think You Can Dance that I would like to thank you. As a twenty four hour news service, CNN has the opportunity to present pertinent news, as well as provide intelligent in-depth commentary on the issues its on-screen personalities, writers, reporters, staffers, program managers, and Tweeters agree are important and influential. Well done.
At first it seemed a bit of a stretch, turning to CNN to satiate my appetite for constant immersion in the
I was initially surprised that So You Think You Can Dance - by my estimation a much more fitting venue for useless nitpicking and time-wasting, and therefore perfect for the ongoing coverage of Jackson’s life and death - was so eager to soldier on with the bland, unimportant programming its viewers expect every week and thus forego the ratings boost so temptingly presented by the Jackson death. I now realize that they must have been driven off the scene by the Big Dogs – ABC News, NBC News and FOX - led unfalteringly by you, and the realization that they could never compete with the talent, time, and money you’ve decided to squander on such a minute and pointless event. I mean, think about it from their perspective. This was a once in a century opportunity: a silly, frivolous dance-based reality show with plenty of gaps which could easily be filled with five minute vignettes about Jackson and his dancing – a perfect fit for a dancing show struggling to captivate an audience. But then a world-renown news service comes along, so satisfied with the job it has been doing providing comprehensive first-class coverage of breaking and ongoing news events, so certain it has fulfilled its obligation as a serious news-dissemination agency, so conscious of the enlightened and politically savvy audience it regularly captivates, that it decides to pick up a soft-news piece to dispel the vicious rumours that it’s too serious and “newsy” for flimsy human-interest stories.
I don’t blame you for being smug. If I were doing my job as well as you, I would be too.
Thank you CNN.
Yours,
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
