Posts by Randy Snow, EVP/Creative Director & Principal

Golf Bag for Sale

I’ll begin with an admission. I was wrong. Last December, I posted an entry in this space predicting that most of Tiger Woods’ sponsors would stick with him through his troubles. The departures of AT&T, Accenture and Gatorade from Team Tiger prove that Nostradamus and the Amazing Kreskin have nothing to worry about from me.

Granted, I did say that the sponsors would hang in there if there weren’t a large number of further revelations. As we all know, there were. Still, color me wrong.

Which brings us to today. Tiger is back home in Orlando, working on his game. The extremely uncomfortable televised apology is behind him and whatever therapy he was involved in seems to be finished, at least for the time being. I have no idea what shape his marriage is in. It’s none of my business anyway. For me, and for golf fans everywhere, the question now is…when? When will he return to the PGA Tour? Jack Nicklaus says he’d be surprised if Tiger doesn’t play in the Masters, but that looks like speculation on his part. He doesn’t seem to have any inside information.

I hope he’s back for Augusta. But even if he isn’t, he has said that he will be back eventually. When that day comes, I believe some brands will have an opportunity – and a big decision to make. Tiger’s bag used to carry the AT&T logo. If you’re the CMO for Sprint or Verizon, do you make a deal to put your logo there in its place? Gatorade’s gone away. If you control Powerade’s marketing, do you approach the world’s No. 1 golfer about a relationship that will utilize him to stick it to your larger rival? Accenture’s ads now feature real wild animals instead of Tiger. Lots of people age 35-64 with financial portfolios that need managing still watch golf. Do you tie your brand to Tiger?

Before you say no, think about it for a minute. Chances are good you can get a deal for less than the previous guys were paying. And you can’t deny that Tiger’s return will draw some of the biggest audiences in televised golf history – at least for the first few events. Granted, the man’s star has lost a lot of its luster. He will probably never be revered in quite the same way he was before that November night.

But…

What if he comes back playing better than ever, with a renewed purpose and a fierce determination to show the world he’s still the boss inside the ropes? I think the chances are good given his competitive drive, laser focus and limitless skill. Remember, this is the guy who won the U.S. Open playing basically on one leg.

What if all the stuff he said he was going to do actually comes to pass? He straightens out his personal situation and approaches life – and golf – with a greater level of respect?

What if he wins two or three majors in the next 18 months, getting ever closer to Jack’s career record? Do you think he will be a pariah in most peoples’ eyes? I don’t. I’m not sure he is now, but that’s beside the point.

The point is, America, and American sports fans, love a comeback story. The fact that Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez are now being cheered unconditionally by their fans illustrate our willingness to forgive and move on, especially when the biggest stars are involved.

If Tiger comes back in a big way, and manages to stay out of the National Enquirer while he’s doing it, then I believe he can again be a massive marketing force. Maybe not as strong as he once was, but still on a very short list of the world’s biggest. And those brands that stuck with him through the darks days – Nike, EA Sports – will not only receive a big bump but will also be seen as having been loyal to their guy in his time of need. They didn’t cut and run. A lot of sports fans will be impressed.

And if you’re Verizon or Powerade or any other brand willing to take the chance, you’ll be along for the ride too. Say he’s back on top in 2012. How many people will even remember that, back in 2009, he was a spokesman for AT&T and Gatorade? What was Kobe promoting in 2007 or A-Rod in 2008? I don’t remember either.

I think there’s a huge potential upside in taking a chance on Tiger now. Is there a downside? Of course there is. This thing could end up taking away his drive and turning him into just another Tour pro. His personal life could take another strange detour. He could give up the sport and enter a Buddhist monastery. All kinds of stuff could happen. Just look at the last four months. Who could have predicted any of that? But if it doesn’t and he does come back big, in two or three years you and your brand could be seen as the visionaries who took a risk back in 2010.

In marketing circles, you could be what Tiger once was in golf. A hero.

Sundancing

One of the best things about living in the 21st century is that, even at my advanced age, there are still an infinite number of new experiences available. Things I want to do that I haven’t yet done. Over the last weekend in January, I was able to cross another one off the list when I spent three days at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.

What I’m not going to do here is review the films I saw. I did reviews in my last entry. No need for more of that. Instead, I’m going to share some observations from my first trip to what has become America’s largest and most influential film festival.

A Trip to Sundance Doesn’t Need to Cost an Arm and a Leg

I suppose you can spend a ton at Sundance, but you don’t have to. Tickets to the screenings are $15 each. And if you stay in Salt Lake City, which is only a 35-minute drive on I-80 from Park City, there are a bunch of affordable hotels and restaurants. Leave the high-end resorts and pricey Park City restaurants to the folks from Paramount and Universal with the big expense accounts.

Given Its Size and Scope, Sundance is Really Well Organized

The festival lasts 11 days. It screens more than 500 different films in 15 different theaters in four different cities. Screenings begin at 8:30 each morning and go past midnight every day. And it all runs like clockwork. The shuttle buses are there to take you where you need to go when you need to get there. The screenings start on time. The quality of the sound and picture in every venue – many of which are not movie theaters – is impeccable. There are volunteers everywhere to get you in and out of screenings, answer questions, fix problems and deal with complaints. I’m guessing they probably started working on the logistics for the 2011 festival the day after the 2010 version ended. The preparation shows. Sundance has become a well-oiled machine.

The Audience Is Surprisingly Diverse

Full disclosure. I went to Sundance fully expecting to be immersed in a world of insufferable hipsters, pretentious film snobs and obnoxious Hollywood types. Granted, I ran into all three, but the bulk of the crowds were, for the most part, normal people. Young people, seniors, parents and kids, gay, straight, Muslims, Mormons, Asians, African-Americans and Caucasians. And because they receive a discount on tickets, the screenings attract lots of locals. The one thing everyone shared was a love of film and a desire to see things that probably aren’t going to show up at the local multiplex.

Finally, there was one more thing about the Sundance audiences that I found surprisingly refreshing, leading to my next observation:

Sundance Audiences Are Unfailingly Polite

They queue up and wait patiently until it’s time for their screening to be seated. They show up on time. They don’t cut in line. They carry on intelligent conversations about film with others while waiting in line. They turn off their cell phones during the films. Let me repeat that: They turn off their cell phones during the films. They don’t carry on personal conversations while others are trying to hear the movie. They applaud for every film. They stay engaged and ask intelligent questions at screenings that feature Q & A (and most do). In other words, while the audiences may look a lot like those you’re likely to see on a regular Saturday at your favorite 16-screener, they certainly don’t act like them. Did I mention they turn off their cell phones during the films?

The Festival Is a Corporate Marketing Extravaganza

Honda, Hewlett-Packard and Entertainment Weekly were the primary corporate sponsors. Their logos, cars, magazines and materials were everywhere. Everyone was walking around with water bottles compliments of Brita. Every volunteer wore a jacket or vest emblazoned with a huge Kenneth Cole logo that stretched from shoulder to shoulder. Even the areas containing the serpentine lines we all had to stand in while waiting to get in to screenings were sponsored – appropriately – by Southwest Airlines. I suppose one could be up in arms that an event that began as a small, iconoclastic festival celebrating the rebellious spirit of independent filmmakers has become a “marketing platform” for companies like Honda and hp. But I’m not. What isn’t sponsored these days? Concert tours, college bowl games and fireworks displays all have corporate sponsorship attached. Why not the country’s biggest film festival? If the marketing support helps them make the event bigger, better and available to more people, where’s the harm? In America, that’s how we roll.

A Word About the Films

I saw seven features and five shorts in two and a half days. I would have seen eight, but the airline sponsor of the festival – Southwest – was 90 minutes late out of Las Vegas, denying me the opportunity to stand in their “sponsored” line to get into my first screening. But I digress.

Here’s the thing. Just because a film has been chosen to screen at Sundance does not mean it’s a masterpiece. Of the features I saw, three were very good, three were pretty good and one was ponderous, pretentious, political and – for all I know – still running. I bailed out after two hours when it was showing no signs of ending.

I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing that ratio pretty much held true for the whole festival. Some great, most pretty good and a few just difficult to get through. That’s OK. That’s the joy of film, especially independent and off-the-beaten-track film. Things get tried, experiments are conducted, and first-time directors gain the experience of making their first films. Not everything works for everyone. But everything probably works for someone. The joy of a festival like Sundance is that of discovery. I walked into each screening without any clue or preconception of what to expect. The point is, you never know. Chances are good you’ll see a film that will never show up at any theater or on any cable channel. Then again, you just might get a year’s head start on something great. Case in point: One of this year’s Oscar nominees for Best Film – Precious – premiered at the 2009 Sundance Festival. More than 20 years ago, a young unknown director named Quentin Tarantino brought a film called Reservoir Dogs to Park City. Stories like that abound. Think how cool it would have been to be at one of those screenings.

Overall, Sundance exceeded almost every one of my expectations. I had a great time. I wouldn’t want to do it every weekend, but it is great to immerse myself in film with thousands of others who share the same passion. I would suggest to anyone who enjoys the medium to get to a festival of some sort. It doesn’t have to be Sundance or Cannes. There are hundreds of smaller festivals throughout the year. Find one and enjoy it. We used to have one here in Las Vegas call CineVegas. It was great fun. Unfortunately, it was also a victim of the economic downturn. It is now “on hiatus.” No one knows if it will ever return. Which is a shame, because Las Vegas, with its theaters, its resorts, its nightlife and its energy, is the perfect place for a world-class fest. Anyone can dare to dream. In the meantime, I’m already making plans for my next visit to Park City.

One Guy’s Top 10 Films

This has actually been an annual event for the past six or seven years. I put together my own, completely arbitrary, list of the 10 best films I saw in the past year and send it out to a few friends. This year, the R&R Blog allows me to regale thousands more with my opinions about the year’s films. Nice.

First, some thoughts about 2009. A pretty solid year. Any time I can compile a list with films by the Coen Brothers, Quentin Tarantino, Werner Herzog and Pixar Studios, it’s been a good year. In fact, I had a hard time narrowing the list to 10.

But since it’s my list, I also give myself the opportunity to present an Honorable Mention list, for films that were really good, but not quite Top 10. There is no limit to the number of films on that list. Like I said, it’s my list.

Now, a disclaimer. As you read on and say, “But what about…?” or “How could he leave out…?” remember that I see a lot of films, but I don’t see them all. So, before you get upset, here’s a brief list of the films that received positive buzz this year that I just haven’t seen yet. I’m sure they’re all very good: Sin Nombre, Sugar, Tyson, Somers Town, In the Loop, The Cove, An Education, The Messenger, Me and Orson Welles, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, The Young Victoria and The Last Station.

One last note (I promise): I don’t present the list in any order. I don’t have a No. 1 and a No. 6. I find it almost impossible to rate a small documentary against a big-budget special effects extravaganza, for instance. So, a film makes the Top 10, or it doesn’t. That’s it.

Here we go.

A Serious Man – The Coen Brothers make different types of movies. There are the funny Coens – Raising Arizona, Brother, Where Art Thou? Big Lebowski; the dark Coens – Blood Simple, Barton Fink, No Country for Old Men; the dark and funny Coens – Burn After Reading, Fargo. A Serious Man is dark and funny and great. Put simply, it’s a version of the Book of Job set in mid-’60s Minnesota. This time, Job is Larry Gopnik, a Jewish everyman with a family and a position as an as-yet-untenured professor at a Midwestern university. The fact that the Coens grew up the sons of professors in mid-’60’s Minnesota is, I’m sure, entirely coincidental. Anyway, as poor Larry tries to cope while being visited by every conceivable trial, tribulation and tragedy, we sit and wonder how things can get any worse. And they do, right through the film’s downbeat, and perfect, ending. The funny thing is, it’s funny. A lot of people I know didn’t like A Serious Man. Too dark, too Jewish, no recognizable stars. That’s OK. It’s certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. I don’t think the brothers meant it to be. At this point, they’ve earned the right to make the films they want to make. I’m glad they made this one.

Every Little Step – One of life’s little pleasures is finding a small movie that I didn’t know much about and wind up happily surprised. Every Little Step is one of those. It’s a documentary that follows the nearly yearlong process of auditioning for and casting a Broadway revival of A Chorus Line. The cameras were allowed to record it all: the auditions; the private discussions with the producers, choreographer and others; vintage footage of the original Broadway production; interviews with some of the performers from the original (one of whom is choreographing the revival) and of course, the thoughts, hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations and trepidations of the actors trying to win the roles. I learned a lot. How tough, and long, the process of choosing a cast is. How difficult it is to win a role, because all of the actors competing are so good. I saw the intense pressures of the callbacks, along with the joys of winning and the disappointment in coming close and missing out. I discovered the groundbreaking importance of this particular play to those who make a living on Broadway. I’m not a big Broadway musical guy, but I was fascinated every step of the way. It was easily my favorite documentary of the year.

Up – I don’t think I’ve ever had a year without a Pixar film in my Top 10. No exception in 2009. Up is superb, just like WALL. E, Cars and The Incredibles before it. Cool story, great images, excellent jokes – I still smile when I think of the voice-synthesizers that give us insight into how dogs think (“Squirrel!”). And the still-photo montage that covers more than 50 years of Carl and Ellie Frederickson’s life together in about four amazing minutes is virtually perfect. It should be shown to every student in every film school in America as a lesson in how to use a montage effectively and emotionally while avoiding all the clichés. It is wonderful. Finally, how can I not like an animated film that includes an extended visual homage to Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo? That they would even include homage to Fitzcarraldo is further proof that Pixar exists on a level above the rest of us.

Bad Lieutenant – Port of Call, New Orleans – Speaking of Werner Herzog, in 2009 he blessed us with this delightful descent into madness. The original Bad Lieutenant, released in 1992, was directed by Abel Ferrera and starred Harvey Keitel. It is still one of the grimmest films I’ve even seen, as it chronicles one police lieutenant’s downward spiral into drugs and depravity. Herzog’s film is not really a remake as much as a (to use the current Hollywood cliché) re-imagining. This one is set in New Orleans, right after Hurricane Katrina. The lieutenant is played by Nicolas Cage. Not the silly National Treasure/Ghost Rider Nicholas Cage. He’s no fun. This film features the crazy, unhinged Leaving Las Vegas Nicolas Cage. Much better. As in the original, the lieutenant is really bad. He takes an alarming amount of street and prescription drugs, is not above shaking down young couples outside a nightclub for reasons I won’t go into, and has no qualms about storming into an assisted living facility and cutting off the oxygen of an elderly patient in order to extract information. But he’s also very kind to his girlfriend (who happens to be a prostitute) and is willing to care for his father’s dog. The film takes the original’s premise and renders it with an ironic smile, right up to the ridiculous ending that ties up every loose end in about three jaw-dropping minutes. Herzog is having fun. So is Cage. And so will you, as you try to figure out if the iguanas are really there.

Inglourious Basterds – It’s not perfect. It’s about 40 minutes longer than it needs to be. It has holes in its logic you could drive a truck through. And there are times when Quentin Tarantino indulges his joy for his own dialogue just a bit excessively. But here it is on my Top 10. Because it’s fun! A roving band of Jewish Nazi scalp-hunters under the command of a brash, Southern-accented lieutenant who has no idea how ridiculous he sounds when trying to speak Italian. A beautiful French theater owner with a lifelong grudge she has one great opportunity to settle. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi high command, together in one place at one time – to watch a movie! And at the center of it, the evil, brilliant, cunning SS Colonel Hans Landa, who conducts interrogations, uncovers plots and generally messes with the good guys while effortlessly slipping in and out of four different languages. He is one of Tarantino’s most interesting and compelling bad guys – ever. He’s played by Christoph Waltz, a German actor whose performance, in my opinion, towers above all others in the film. Inglourious Basterds has all the great Tarantino stuff: serpentine plotlines that eventually intersect; quick splashes of brutal violence; an esoteric and interesting soundtrack; and, of course, the dialogue. No one but Quentin Tarantino could have made this film. No one else would have even thought of it. I’m glad he did.

District 9 – There were two pretty big “aliens vs. humans” films released this year. District 9 is the one that didn’t cost $300 million. The film was produced by Peter Jackson (the Lord of the Rings guy) and directed by a young South African named Neil Blomkamp. The two had originally been signed to do a big-budget production based on the video game Halo. That deal fell through and Jackson suggested that instead they do a feature based on a short film Blomkamp had made about aliens stranded in Johannesburg. District 9 was born. It’s about a group of aliens who landed in Jo-Burg, got stuck due to mechanical issues on their ship and have remained segregated inside a ghetto for 28 years. They look like giant shellfish (the humans call them “prawns”), speak in a language of clicks and pops and are clearly the intellectual equals of their human captors. Any parallels drawn between their situation and the past apartheid policies of the South African government are obvious and highly encouraged. But that’s enough about politics. Let’s get on to the cool stuff. All the aliens really want to do is fix their ship and get outta Dodge, but the humans have a reason to keep them there. They want to learn how to use their weapons. You see, in that other movie, the aliens use their DNA, and some cords in their ponytails, to communicate with animals and plants. How nice. In District 9, the aliens use their DNA to fire their kick-ass weapons. How cool. Anyway, the humans are trying to figure out how to fire the alien guns, a resourceful alien does manage to fix the ship, a human turns into an alien, an unbelievably violent battle ensues and the ship finally flies away, leaving many aliens behind – including the new human/alien hybrid guy – but promising to return. Hello, sequel. I see a bunch of films every year, and rarely do I leave one saying I’d never seen anything like that before. I did after District 9. It’s raw, gritty and – even though it’s about aliens who resemble shrimp – incredibly real. For about a tenth of the cost of a trip to Pandora.

Up in the Air – The press and the critics have been saying that this film is a reflection of the zeitgeist of our time, a seriocomic look into the world of corporate downsizing and the emotional pain of losing one’s job. Well, yeah. The film has all that. And its use of real people who have actually lost their jobs is very poignant and effective. But, ultimately, I think it’s about something else. I think it’s about connections. The main guy, Ryan Bingham, is a road warrior who spends 325 days a year on the road firing people and leading them into “career transition counseling.” He’s really good at making travel connections, airline connections and racking up his frequent flier miles. He’s not so good at human connections. In fact, he has a second career as a motivational speaker, telling people to get rid of their connections – empty their backpacks, he says – and keep moving forward. His world of airports, VIP lounges and Hilton Hotels is where he finds comfort, surrounded by others yet isolated at the same time. Enter a young Ivy League grad – Natalie Keener – with an idea to pull everyone off the road and start firing people via teleconference. Of course, she and Bingham become the ultimate odd couple, thrown together out on the road as he shows her the realities of informing people their world is about to collapse. They both learn a great deal. She concludes that firing people might not be her best career choice. And Ryan, seeing the empty capsule his life has become, begins efforts to actually connect with his family and the woman who has become his sometime hookup. He succeeds, and he doesn’t. The film is emotional, without being overly maudlin. It’s also funnier than I expected, with most of the good lines given to Natalie and her observations on Ryan’s miles-obsessed lifestyle. George Clooney is a bona fide MOVIE STAR. He’s good in bad movies. He’s great in this one. Anna Kendrick is cute, vulnerable and, at the same time, bitingly sarcastic as Natalie. And special props to Danny McBride, who leaves the insanity of his Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express characters behind and brings a nice believability to a small role. There’s also a great cameo from Sam Elliott.
So make a connection with your son, daughter, parent or significant other and see Up in the Air. You can bond over it.

The Hurt Locker – Who are my friends? Who are the enemy? Who wants to see me die, or see me live? Who doesn’t care? In the streets of Bagdad, and in The Hurt Locker, the answer to all of those questions is the same: “Who knows?” For the three-man bomb disposal unit at the center of this film, not knowing those answers could literally kill them. A number of films have tried to capture the stress and madness of the war in Iraq. Most have fallen short. Not this one. To say the film is intense is an understatement. Watching it is physically draining. You learn in the first five minutes that any IED can blow at any time, and you keep that knowledge with you through every run the unit makes. You hold your breath along with Sgt. William James as he surveys each bomb and tries to decide which wire to cut. You scan the crowds that always gather, right along with James’ partners, trying to find the man, woman or child in the group who might be holding the cell phone that will detonate the device before James can disarm it. And just like them, you don’t know. Sgt. James is very good at what he does. He’s also a little bit crazy. Jeremy Renner plays the part in a way that shows us James is as exhilarated as he is stressed by his job. He takes chances that he probably shouldn’t. But he does so with an arrogant belief in his own skills that makes him confident he can pull it off. The rest of us aren’t so sure. This is a tight, simple movie that deals with a big issue by keeping it small. We spend most of the film with James and his unit. The film doesn’t ask us to judge anything. It just shows us what it’s like to do a horrible job under horrible conditions in a horrible place. The script was written by Mark Boal, a journalist who spent time in Iraq embedded with this type of unit, so it’s no surprise that it feels totally real. Kathryn Bigelow directed it in the straightforward, economical style that she showed in films like Point Break, Near Dark and Blue Steel. Some better known – and higher paid – action directors out there could learn some things watching her films. We all learn some things watching The Hurt Locker.

Precious – Most films I see because I want to. But every year there are a few that I feel I have to see. They have the critical buzz, I know they’ll be big at awards season and/or they deal with an “important” issue. So I go, approaching it like a school assignment. That was my attitude about Precious. Wrong. This is a great film. Granted, the story of a virtually illiterate, pregnant 300+-pound teenage girl named Precious Jones who is already the mother of a Down Syndrome child and is trying to survive on the mean streets of Harlem in the mid-’80s isn’t necessarily one that’s going to set your heart soaring. Oh yeah, did I mention that both of her kids were fathered by her father, who has now left Precious and her mother living together in their walk-up tenement apartment? Total downer, right? Well, yes … and no. True, things look bad for Precious, but throughout the film we realize that she is resilient, smarter than we originally believed and in possession of a vivid imagination that can literally take her away to beautiful places when the situation in her real world gets too awful. The cool thing is, the audience gets to see Precious’ flights of fancy as she is adored as a movie star or Queen of the Prom. It’s a great way to learn that her mind has not succumbed to the darkness. By the end of the film, Precious has come a long way and seems to have a least a shot at a better future. Will it pan out? Maybe. We don’t find out, but at least she has a chance. In her world, that’s the most one can expect. A young actress named Gaboury Sibide plays Precious. She’s great, letting us see the quiet dignity beneath the sad, silent surface. But the true revelation is comedienne Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’ mother. It has become something of a cliché to call portrayals of negative characters “brave.” But Mo’Nique’s performance is completely fearless. To call her character a monster is an insult to monsters everywhere. She is much worse. And Mo’Nique holds nothing back. It’s a frighteningly good portrayal of a frighteningly bad human being. The rest of the players are solid as well, with a special mention for Mariah Carey, of all people. With almost no makeup and a full-on New York accent, she is almost unrecognizable as a tough but empathetic welfare office counselor. She’s only in the film for about 10 minutes, but she is an integral part of the film’s key scene. She’s surprisingly good. You’ll also see Lenny Kravitz in a role you wouldn’t expect. If you’ve avoided Precious because of the dark subject matter, think again. It can be tough to watch, but the total effect will leave you feeling better for having made it to the end.

(500) Days of Summer – I know I’m going to get raked over the coals for this one, but I can’t help it. I really liked it. Yes, it’s a lighter-than-air romantic comedy that doesn’t deal with any of the big issues a lot of other films on the list take on. Yes, it includes a mid-story song-and-dance number set to a cheesy Hall & Oates song. Yes, it is polarizing. I know as many people who hated it as liked it. Maybe more. And yet, here it is. The thing I liked best was the structure. It’s the story of a 500-day relationship between Tom Hansen and the adorable, and adorably named, Summer Finn. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom and the adorable Zooey Deschanel plays the adorable Summer. The twist is, we don’t see the relationship in chronological order. In fact, we learn fairly early that, as a couple, Tom and Summer aren’t going to make it. We then view, somewhat randomly, a number of their 500 days together. We may see Day 56, then Day 348, then Day 12. It’s interesting to see the two of them in the doe-eyed thrall of new love on Day 16 when we know full well that they’ll be totally on the rocks 400 days later. It’s a little too cute in parts, and the ending is a bit pat for my taste. But I left the theater with a smile on my face, having seen a romantic comedy with two thoroughly likable stars presented in a way that I found refreshing and original. I even liked the Hall & Oates dance video. Sorry, but I did.

Close, but no cigar – Beyond the Top 10, but there were a number of other films I enjoyed a lot. Here’s the Honorable Mention list:

Coraline – Great animation and a wonderfully dark story. Scared a lot of six-year-olds in the theater.

Adventureland – Ahhh, the ’80s. Weren’t they great?

State of Play – Came and went quietly. Underrated.

Star Trek – The best of the big-ass summer movies.

The Hangover – For so many reasons.

The September Issue – Fascinating look at the creative process.

Paranormal Activity – Best use of $15,000 in the history of film. Scary, real and real scary.

Zombieland – Give me zombies, and I’m happy.

Drag Me to Hell – Give me a Sam Raimi horror film, and I’m happy.

Fantastic Mr. Fox – A Wes Anderson film through and through. It just happened to be animated.

The Princess and the Frog – Old school 2D Disney animation. Great story. Great songs. Great film.

Food Inc. – Documentary about the dirty secrets of the American food industry. Eat before you see it.

Want the truth? Talk to a three-year-old

What would life be like if everyone told nothing but the truth every time they opened their mouth? Hard to say, though a few films starring the likes of Jim Carrey and Ricky Gervais have tried. In those films, the whole “all the truth all the time” thing was played for laughs – with varied results.

I think the reality of it might be a little bit different. Truth can be tough. Truth can be cruel. Truth doesn’t care about your feelings or your weaknesses or your beliefs. Truth simply is. And the truth, as they say, can hurt. So we fudge it, change it or leave it out entirely. Sometimes it’s to deceive or cheat, which isn’t good. More often, however, our motives are less malicious. We prevaricate to be nice, to spare others’ feelings, to avoid conflict or simply to have people like us. There’s really nothing inherently wrong with it, within reason. It keeps us from being permanently sad, or angry. Or both. It’s part of the human condition. We all do it. Always have. Always will.

But make no mistake, the ability to play fast and loose with the truth is not something we are born with. It’s a learned skill – like reading, writing or eating food with utensils. Speaking the truth is instinct. Bending it takes practice.

Which brings me to my point. There are people out there who have learned to communicate (to a point) who haven’t yet learned how to lie. They love to talk, and everything they say is completely honest and sincere. And conversations with them can be among the best, the most refreshing and most enjoyable you’ll ever have.

I am speaking, of course, of three-year-olds. Much younger than three, and their language skills aren’t really refined enough to carry on more than the most rudimentary dialogues. And though I am sure there are millions of brutally honest four-year-olds out there, the sweet spot seems to be three.

How do I know this? Well, I happen to have a friend who happens to be three. Her name is Alexia, but everyone calls her Lexi. She is the granddaughter of a friend, and any time I get to spend with her renews my faith in the human race. Lexi basically has two states of consciousness: talking and sleeping. Ever since she discovered that she possesses this marvelous gift called language, she has become completely determined not to let it go to waste. Something else you all need to know about Lexi. She is unquestionably the happiest human being I have ever met. So there you go – a little girl who can’t stop talking, who never speaks anything but the truth and who is never anything short of ecstatic to be alive. To say we could all learn a little from someone like Lexi is a vast understatement.

Of course, when Lexi and I get together to discuss the issues of the day, the conversation tends not to go to places like healthcare reform or the future endorsement value of Tiger Woods. Thank goodness for that. I get enough of that all day in the adult world, where the truth is merely a starting point to be positioned, parsed or spun into something virtually unrecognizable. Instead, we hold forth on subjects including whether we will read Curious George or My Little Pony later on or the relative merits of dipping our chicken fingers into ketchup or barbeque sauce (Lexi likes ketchup – on everything).

I won’t claim that she doesn’t have an agenda. She does. But it’s very simple. It goes like this: “Let’s have fun. What are we going to do next? Will it be fun?”

I can live with that. In fact, I respect it. Totally.

If you’re already lucky enough to have a three-year-old in your life, you know what I’m talking about and I’m sure you enjoy your time with them as much as I do my time with Lexi. If you don’t, you’re missing out on the joy of total honesty, delivered without pretense or ulterior motive. That’s too bad. It’s a luxury everyone should have.

It’s a luxury because it doesn’t last forever. Pretty soon Lexi will be four and soon after that, five. And so on. She’ll always be my pal, but she won’t always be three. And so she will change. And the day will come when she decides not to tell me that my haircut looks funny or my shirt doesn’t really match my pants. She’ll leave those details out because she wants to be nice and won’t want to hurt my feelings. Which is great, but also a little sad. Because it will mean she’s on her way to being an adult. The world has plenty of those already.
But that’s a still a little ways off. And until those days get here, I’m going to get my truth from the best source I can imagine – a three-year-old named Lexi.

Does the Tiger Brand Still Have Teeth?

Full disclosure. I’ve been a fan of Tiger Woods as long as anyone. I watched him as a 3-year-old hitting golf balls on the old Mike Douglas talk show. Sat rapt in front of the TV for each of his three consecutive U.S. Amateur victories. I was in the gallery on that October day in Las Vegas in 1996 when he won his first PGA Tour event. I’ve pulled for him to win every tournament he’s entered and every match he’s played. The level of his talent, the power of his concentration, the strength of his will – are awe-inspiring.

None of that has changed. I still believe Tiger is the best ever to pick up a club (even though Jack Nicklaus is, and always has been, my hero). I still believe he will eventually hold every record of significance in the game of golf. I will still root for Tiger Woods the golfer.

But what about Tiger Woods the man? What about Tiger Woods the Brand? Tougher questions.
As far as Tiger the man goes, I don’t know him, have never met him and doubt that I ever will. I will confess to a certain disappointment in learning that the focus, discipline and will that make him so good inside the gallery ropes didn’t seem to manifest themselves quite as sharply in his life off the course. But in the end, I guess it’s a confirmation of what most us knew instinctively anyway. That’s he’s human, with human weaknesses, capable of making human mistakes. Just like all of us. And that’s all I’m going to say, because that’s all I know. I hope he and his family can find some sort of peace and reconciliation. But in truth, that is none of my business.

Tiger the Brand? Well, that’s another story. Because I do have a relationship with Tiger the Brand. In fact, the late Phil Dusenberry of BBDO was quoted as saying that brand is “the relationship between a product and its customers.” So I, and millions of others around the world, do have something to say about Tiger the Brand. He’s our guy. Our Nike guy, our Gatorade guy, our Gillette razor guy, our Accenture guy. We revere him and trust him and believe him. Or at least we did. Now I’m not so sure.

For me, the problem was the first five days. The Escalade hits the hydrant at 2:30 Friday morning and then all day Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday – nothing. At least nothing from Tiger, beyond the first strange reports. But nature abhors a vacuum, and so do the news, sports and gossip media. So they did all the talking for him, and none of it was good. Finally, on Wednesday, the admission of “transgressions” on a Web site posting that expressed as much dismay about his treatment from the media as it did personal remorse for hurting his family. Better, but still not great.

So where to from here? It’s early yet, but I would be very surprised if his big sponsors – Nike, Gatorade and Accenture – run away from him. They simply have too much invested in Tiger the Brand. Will they lose customers? Maybe a small number, but I can’t envision a mass exodus from Nike Golf or Gatorade over this. The products are good, their customers loyal. And as we’re told over and over again, America is the land of second chances. Just ask Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant or Alex Rodriguez.

Soon, we’ll be hearing from marketing types pointing out, once again, how tricky it is for large companies to tie their promotional fortunes to one person and what the consequences are when that one person messes up. I don’t know. Michael Jordan wasn’t a saint and Air Jordan remains a solid brand for Nike. Kobe Bryant’s jersey is the top seller worldwide. People forget, people move on and commerce continues. With a 24-hour news cycle and plenty of other athletes and celebrities out there doing silly things, the Tiger furor will undoubtedly ebb and eventually die out. Especially if he wins a couple of majors in 2010.

But has there been some credibility lost? For me there has. And unfortunately, each day seems to bring a new revelation, or a new name, into the story. And the golfer who has been telling me for the last 13 years to play with Nikes, drive Buicks, shave with Gillette razors and drink Gatorade won’t come out and tell us what happened.

No doubt, it’s certainly his right to stay away from the cameras. This is, as they say, a free country. I’m sure he’s getting advice from lawyers, agents, crisis control experts and all the others who are called when things go wrong. I’m no expert in those matters, but as a fan and as a consumer, I hope they advise him to show all of us that he is capable of the same focus – and the same courage – that he exhibits each day on the golf course.

Strike a Pose

A little while ago, during a Sunday night NFL game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles, something happened that the NFL didn’t like. Brent Celek, a tight end for the Eagles, caught a touchdown pass, gave the ball to the officials, looked around to be sure he knew where NBC’s cameras were positioned, and promptly struck the Captain Morgan pose.

Is Celek just a big fan of the spiced rum that’s being aggressively marketed to 21- to 49-year-old males across a broad spectrum of televised sporting events? Maybe. But that’s not why he did it. Turns out he was doing it for charity. Really.

You see, Captain Morgan was in the midst of a promotion wherein the company would donate $10,000 to a charity called Gridiron Greats each time a player is caught on camera striking the pose during a game. The plan was to escalate the contribution to $25,000 for a playoff game and 100 grand for any player going “Morgan” on us in the Super Bowl. If you haven’t heard of it, Gridiron Greats is devoted to helping former NFL players who have fallen on hard financial or medical times since leaving the game. Certainly a charity one would think the NFL would be totally behind.

And they are. Except when it comes to players striking promotional poses during games. The league has informed Celek and the rest of its players that any further such displays will be looked upon with extreme prejudice. To its credit, the league did not fine Celek … this time. But they also warned that any future promotional posing – by anybody – would result in significant fines. So it’s “Farewell My Captain” for NFL end zones and telecasts in the future.

That’s fine. It’s their league and their product and their games. They have multibillion-dollar contracts in place with Fox, ABC, ESPN and NBC to provide a platform on which advertisers will pay billions of their own dollars to market their products to the league’s millions of fans. Some have even referred to the NFL’s stadia as the world’s largest television studios. Hell, the league even has its own cable network. Promotion, marketing and selling are what they are all about.

But in explaining the decision to a reporter from Yahoo!® Sports, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said something interesting. “A company can’t pay a player to somehow promote its product on the field. Every league has the same rule….”

Whoa, hang on there. Every league has the same rule? Really? Has he watched a Major League Soccer game recently? Did he not notice that the players on every team have their primary sponsor’s name emblazoned across the front of their jersey, in the grand tradition of Europe and South America’s premier soccer clubs?
And maybe he’s never seen a NASCAR race, where each car is basically a rolling billboard. The cars are never just “cars,” but always “ the #20 Home Depot Toyota” or “the #88 Amp Energy/National Guard Chevrolet,” and where every race ends in the comical Victory Lane spectacle of the winning driver continually putting on and taking off the hats of as many sponsors as possible in a ritual known as the “hat dance.” Coke even has a deal with the drivers on its payroll that pays extra if they are seen drinking a Coke product on camera during a pre- or post-race interview. Watch a race sometime. You’ll be amazed how thirsty these guys are when the cameras are on.

In professional tennis, you won’t see a player – male or female – without logos all over their shirts, their shoes, their equipment bags and stenciled onto the strings of their rackets. On the PGA Tour, Ryan Moore has received a lot of ink lately because he doesn’t have a bunch of logos and sponsorship deals. He’s the exception, the weird one.

OK, I know what you’re thinking. That’s soccer and stock car racing. Fringe sports. And tennis and golf are – well – tennis and golf. The NFL is different. Or is it? Next time you watch a game, look at the headsets the coaches are all wearing. You’ll notice that they are all Motorolas, just brimming with big, camera-friendly Motorola logos. Watch a lot of games. Tell me if you see any Samsung or Panasonic or Hitachi headsets.
I’ll save you the time. You won’t. All Motorola. Getting plenty of camera time, on the sidelines and in the booths, all during the game. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Do you think Motorola is getting all of that for free? Didn’t think so.

So there is promotion going on during the game and on the field (well, on the sidelines, anyway). The difference is, the league is controlling this promotion. The Captain Morgan stunt took them by surprise. If there’s one thing the NFL doesn’t like, it’s surprises (to be fair, Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NHL aren’t big fans of surprises either).

Don’t get me wrong. The NFL is a multibillion-dollar enterprise. They are absolutely correct in wanting to control all aspects of the product they put on the field, and broadcast into our homes. They owe it to the sponsors who pay them for the exclusivity a contract with the league ensures. But to insist that there is no on-field promotion going on in professional sports – even in their own – is asking us to believe something that the visual evidence says simply isn’t so.

That said, you have to tip your cap to Captain Morgan for giving it a shot. Taking on the monolith that is the NFL takes no small amount of guts. I honestly don’t know if they are currently an advertiser in NFL games. If they are, I certainly hope the league is willing to let bygones be bygones and allow them to continue to do so. The company has said that they will continue to look for ways to raise money for Gridiron Greats, which is a very worthy cause. Maybe the NFL and Captain Morgan can collaborate on a mutually acceptable way to raise brand awareness for their spiced rum while raising money for the league’s sometimes-forgotten former players. That would be a goal very much worth pursuing.

Halloween at R&R

Remember when you were a kid? Life was pretty good most days. But there were certain days when it went beyond good and made it all the way to great. Your birthday, the first day of summer (and its corollary, the last day of school) and of course, holidays.

For most of us, there was an unofficial hierarchy to the holidays. At the top – thanks to the parade of gifts and the accompanying two-week school vacation – stood Christmas/Chanuka, the undisputed Number One on virtually every kid’s list.

Number Two? Well, for me, and most of my friends, that was easy. Halloween.

The scary costumes, the boy/girl parties, the running around the neighborhood like a pack of unrestrained nihilists – it was pure adolescent nirvana, topped off with bag loads of free candy. That, my friends, is a big day.

Plus, for those of us who grew up in Nevada, the quirky fact that our state joined the Union on October 31st meant Halloween was also a state holiday. No school on one of the absolute best days of the year. Wow.

At R&R, for Halloween we compared costumes -- and car insurance rates

At R&R, for Halloween we compared costumes -- and car insurance rates

So why all the childhood reminiscence? Because I’m lucky enough to work at a place that takes Halloween as seriously as, well, as seriously as a bunch of 12-year-olds. I’ve been at R&R for 17 Halloweens, and each one has been nuthin’ but a party. The holiday has evolved in my time here, from a day to simply dress up, to a competition featuring incredibly complex and work-intensive skits, to a competition featuring only slightly less complex and work-intensive skits, to this year’s nostalgic return to simpler individual and group costume contests. Our dialed-back, yet still-costumed, response to The New Frugality.

Fortunately, we didn’t dial back on the fun. We ate too much, many had a beer or two, and for the last couple of hours of the day, we put aside the pressures of the world and our jobs to act like kids again.

Now, some might naturally say, “You’re an ad agency; you act like kids every day. Why should Halloween be any different?”

All I can say to that is no, we don’t act like kids every day. Especially over the last couple of years. The Great Recession hasn’t been kind to companies in the marketing and communications business, R&R included.

But ours is a profession that depends on creativity and open minds and thinking beyond boundaries. The way children often do. So every year, on or near October 31st, we bring in our orange-and-black cupcakes, guess how much candy is in the jar, put on our costumes and get back in touch with our inner children.

No bones about it, R&R knows how to party on Halloween.

No bones about it, celebrating Halloween is in R&R's blood.

It may not be the proper thing to do in accounting firms or government agencies, but it works for us. For an afternoon, we put our imaginations to work on something other than brand positioning statements or direct-mail pieces. We remember that creating stuff is what we do and that it can be fun and entertaining and fulfilling.

It’s probably true that our clients don’t get a whole lot out of us on that day, but I believe that the work they get from us the rest of the year is better because of it. Plus, there are bag loads of free candy.

What can be better than that?

Spreading truth on H1N1 can be a strain

A couple of weeks ago, I had the following conversation with my youngest son:

Me: Are you going to get the H1N1 vaccine?

Son: No.

Me: Why not? You’re in the high-risk group (he’s 24).

Son: The government rushed the vaccine out too fast. I don’t trust it. I’ll take my chances with the disease.

Me: Oh. OK.

I also had a talk with his older brother, also in the high-risk group. It went about the same way. Then I see a story in our local newspaper about health care workers being the first to receive the vaccine here in Las Vegas and that many of them are resisting. And I’m thinking, “If professional health care workers don’t want to take this vaccine, what does that say about it?”

The screenwriter William Goldman once famously said about executives in the Hollywood film industry, “Nobody knows anything.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the place we’ve arrived as a country regarding the new flu.

“Do I get one shot, or two?” “Is the nasal spray as effective?” “Do I also get the regular flu shot?” “How sick can I get?” “Supposedly, it’s about the same as regular flu; no big deal.” “I read that older people might be immune already. Really?”

And on and on it goes. Many questions. Many rumors. Much speculation. Not a lot of answers. Not a lot of official communication. Of course, if one makes a huge effort to find information, there’s plenty of it out there.

Our Human Resources director sends out a new missive
almost weekly on measures to prevent infection, differentiating H1N1 from regular flu and so on. It’s good information and I’m paying attention. But then I turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or look around the Web myself and confusion continues to reign supreme.

In our world of mass communication, we try to focus on the One Thing. It’s the unifying idea or position that we want our audience to take away from the communication. Unfortunately, our country’s public health communicators don’t seem to have settled on One Thing regarding H1N1. Instead, there seem to be many things out there. It’s as if this strain of the flu caught them by surprise, and the anarchy of public discussion (and hysteria) has overtaken an orderly official communication. I’m not really sure why. H1N1 didn’t sneak up on us.

I do know that efforts are being made. There is a public campaign in development right now in Nevada. Yet, we also just received an RFP from the state of California to bid on a contract for an H1N1 campaign in our country’s largest state, population-wise. They’re just now sending out the RFP? By the time the bureaucrats in Sacramento actually choose a marketing firm, the campaign will have been presented, revised, revised again, revised a third time, funded and launched, and the History Channel will be airing its first retrospective on the H1N1 Pandemic of ’09.

The irony is, a few years ago we were involved in a number of presentations for campaigns regarding an outbreak of Bird Flu, just in case we had one. We worked on ideas for a federal campaign and one for the Arizona Department of Health Services. Thankfully, those campaigns weren’t needed. But the thinking was done well in advance.

What happened this time? Did we take our eye off the ball? Were we so obsessed with a presidential election and a near breakdown of our economic system that it just didn’t occupy our minds? Are our public health budgets – federally and locally – so strained that there were no resources available to create and run a smart, unified, calm campaign that gave people answers and helped squelch rumors?

I have nothing but respect for the people who work in public health. Lord knows, they have enough on their plates without worrying about advertising, public relations and other campaigns to keep the panic level down regarding the flu. They are doctors and scientists, up to their necks doing the things doctors and scientists do. Thankfully.

But knowledge, and facts, can be a powerful and effective medicine as well. The public can be a very strong ally in preventing needless panic and paranoia if they know the facts. Separating the truth from the rumors can be as effective as separating the sick from the healthy.

Truth is good medicine.

Controversy creating conversation

Burger King and Fox Sports combine to produce an animated feature for the Oct. 11 NFL pre-game show that made very cruel fun of Jessica Simpson’s recent weight gain. A few days later, the apologies were flying as sports talk radio shows reacted with shock. And trust me, it takes quite a bit to shock a sports talk radio host.

Meanwhile, Pepsico energy drink Amp introduces an iPhone app designed to give guys lines to help pick up girls – while dividing the girls into stereotyped groups like “nerds,” “treehuggers” and “cougars.” Once again, apologies fly – though not to everyone’s satisfaction. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-talk-pepsi-iphone-appoct15,0,7961157.story

While all of this is going on, the French edition of Vogue releases its newest issue with a cover photo of a white (a very white) European model painted black. Understandably, many people are very upset. Haven’t yet heard of a Vogue apology, though they have released statements saying they are surprised by the reaction.

The interesting thing is, I don’t browse the iPhone App Store, I missed the aforementioned Fox NFL pre-game show and I don’t read the French version of Vogue. Yet I knew about all of the above controversies. How? All three were also featured national news stories last week. Meaning Burger King, Fox Sports, Amp Energy Drink and French Vogue all got a bunch of national coverage for which they didn’t pay a dime.

Was that the plan all along? Hard to say. But Burger King certainly hasn’t been a stranger to controversy lately (Whopper Virgins, Texican Whopper, Spongebob/Big Butts, etc.). The whole youth energy drink category seems to spend most of its time on the edge. And I sincerely doubt this is the first time French Vogue has ruffled feathers.

I’m not saying that any of these were deliberate acts of provocation. But I’m also willing to bet that none of the marketing or editorial executives at these companies are losing a whole bunch of sleep tonight over their respective dust ups. Is Fox going to lose any NFL fans or will Burger King sell any fewer Whoppers because of a national outburst of sympathy for Jessica Simpson? What do you think? Are the testosterone-laden young guys who make up the primary market for Amp Energy Drink going to walk away over an iPhone app with pickup lines? Sure, as soon as they’ve finished downloading it. Will French Vogue lose readers or advertisers over their latest cover? Don’t know. Maybe. But what will they gain in extra newsstand sales and attention from people who have never bought French Vogue but now are looking for it just to see how controversial it really is? Again, hard to quantify, but they probably consider it a fair exchange.

What does it all mean? Maybe that controversy isn’t such a bad thing, as long as it doesn’t totally contradict the tenets of your brand or assault the sensibilities of your core audience and/or customers. Bad taste usually isn’t good. Questionable taste, on the other hand, can get you on CNN. And if you’re Amp Energy or French Vogue, maybe even reinforce your brand.

Unhealthy messaging?

If you think the people and the companies selling you toothpaste, light beer or imported cars are the only ones using slogans, tag lines or catch phrases to burn their brand into your mind and direct your behavior – you haven’t been paying attention to the rising cacophony in the debate over health care reform. The players in this game have used slogans and quick, easily understood phrases to great effect in bringing people to their way of thinking.

I’m not talking about the actual ads you’ve seen from the insurance lobby, the medical lobby, the senior citizens lobby, the trial lawyers lobby and just about any other lobby with a stake in the outcome. That’s advertising, pure and simple. It has polish (well, some of it does) and it comes from a clearly defined point of view. It isn’t fooling any of us.

I’m talking about the true soldiers in this battle – the politicians themselves and, to a lesser extent, the pundits and commentators. Health care reform is an incredibly important issue that also happens to be incredibly complex. So, the big guns on both sides of the issue recognized very early in the game the importance of simplification. The result has been the creation of a sort of rhetorical shorthand wherein both proponents and detractors leave intelligent discussion behind in favor of blatant sloganeering.

Opponents of the Administration’s proposals tell us to fear the specter of “socialized medicine.” That, with the wrong legislation, we will all soon be surrendering to “government control” of our health and health care decisions. We are bombarded with images of “sex clinics” and “death panels” who will send bureaucrats in under cover of darkness to “unplug grandma.”

And don’t think the simplistic slogans are the sole province of conservative Republicans. Democrats make repeated references to wealthier Americans’ “Cadillac plans” and miss almost no opportunity to label the opposition “elitists,” “obstructionists” or the ever-popular “Party of No.”

Call me crazy, but I think that we, the American public, for the most part, can sort out the facts and come to some pretty decent conclusions on our own. Yes, the issue is complicated. But there are legitimate arguments on both sides of virtually every aspect of the debate. Sadly, most of us aren’t hearing them. Instead, we get message points, slogans, stereotypes and broad generalizations. I suspect because the people who are throwing those words at us don’t think we’re smart enough to handle anything more complex. Or maybe they fear that if we’re not fed a daily dose of negative labeling, we’ll actually see that the other side has a point – or at least an argument that should be considered.

Don’t get me wrong. We do this mass communications thing for a living. Simple, direct, easily understood messages are the most potent weapon in our arsenal. Our clients depend on us to develop the right slogans, tag lines and phrases to position their brands. It’s what we do, and I make no apologies for it. But our most effective messages are also rooted in two things – truth and relevance, flavored with a heavy respect for the intelligence of our audience.

If only the people who will ultimately determine the future of health care for generations of Americans would consider approaching their communications in the same way. We could take it. We’d understand it. And I believe we’d all be better off for it.