Enough nonsense

If you live anywhere in the Golden Horseshoe of southern Ontario or along the Niagara Frontier in New York State (and probably much further afield) you’ve seen commercials for Fallsview Casino in Niagara Falls Ontario.

Based on their recent batch of commercials, I wouldn’t go to Fallsview.  If you’ve seen these three spots – the caddy; the bowlers, or the bodyguards – you know what I’m talking about.  If you’re fortunate enough not to have seen them, I’ll give you a brief description.

First, the caddy.  In this one, it takes place on what appears to be the final hole of a golf tournament.  The golfer is lining up his putt for the winning stroke when his caddy gets a text message.  Upon checking it, the caddy sees his friends have arranged a night at Fallsview Casino.  This sends the caddy into a fit of celebratory yelling and screaming and ends with the caddy picking up the golf ball and kicking it somewhere off the green.

Next, the bowlers.  Similar situation – bowling team all get a text about a visit to Fallsview and promptly disrupts the entire bowling alley.

The bodyguard one has to be the most irritating.  Two bodyguards step out from a stage door, to make sure it’s safe for the Big Name to exit.  They get a text about Fallsview and promptly start yelling and carrying on and flopping around on the red carpet.

Two thoughts on these spots.  First, if these people consider visiting a casino the high point of their lives,  they lead very sad lives indeed.

The second thought is this: If Fallsview Casino, or their advertising agency, think that commercials that treat viewers like idiots are going to attract people, perhaps they should think again.  To me, these ads scream “If you’re dumb enough to fall for this nonsense, come on down, we’ll gladly take your money.

I object to commercials – all commercials – that try to treat me like an idiot.  And these Fallsview spots certainly do that.

Since it’s December 31, I wish all my readers and followers a Happy and Prosperous 2015 and a safe New Year’s Eve.

Remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat.

Advertisements

Parental guidance?

As parents, we constantly told, or still tell, our children not to put things they find on the ground in their mouth.  You know – “don’t eat that, you don’t know where it’s been”.  It is that instruction drummed into us as children and repeated to our own children that makes a current commercial for Ensure that much more unbelievable.  Here’s the scene: a man is playing soccer with his son.  At one point junior kicks the ball over the net and dad goes to retrieve it.  While he is behind the net a bottle of Ensure rolls down the hill and hits his foot.  What does dad do?  Ignore it?  Don’t be silly.  He picks it up, opens it and drinks it!  I can only suggest dad ascribes to the “do as I say, not as I do” school in dealings with his son.  Once again advertisers are asking us to accept illogical commercials.

One of my pet peeves is people who don’t pick up their feet when they walk.  What prompts this part of the posting is that I was out today and there was a lady on the other side of the street and I could clearly her scuffing her feet as she walked.  Are these people afraid that if they lose contact with the earth they will float away?  Ain’t gonna happen people.  Shoe retailers and shoe repair shops must love people like that because they destroy the soles of their footwear so quickly. When I was young, I was always told to pick up my feet when I walked, so I can’t envision any parent telling their children to do otherwise.  I know we all develop bad habits as we age – I have some and resist attempts to get me to change them – but shuffling rather than walking seems more like laziness than anything else.  But then again, laziness is a bad habit too.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat.

Too much reality?

I don’t know about you, but when I watch television, I’m looking for some temporary escape.  Yet I notice that current programming seems to consist mainly of reality shows.  If I want reality, I’ll watch the news.  It isn’t my intention to pan these reality shows for there are a couple I like to watch, namely “Ghost Hunters” and “Pawn Stars”.  “Ghost Hunters” feeds my interest in the paranormal, which is why I enjoy it.  “Pawn Stars”, especially when they call in the experts, can be educational.  I’ve learned some interesting things from these experts.

I also understand why reality shows are so popular with the networks and the cable channels.  They’re cheaper to produce than shows such as “Castle” or the “CSI” franchise.  But do people watch these reality shows because they find them amusing, or is it a case of hoping it’s gonna get better?

While on the topic of reality, I note there appears to be a trend toward using sports figures to shill for various products.  There is a commercial for Head and Shoulders shampoo that apparently uses some football player sitting at a piano.  I say “apparently” for there are goalposts visible in the background.  I have no idea who the hell he is, other than he didn’t play for the Toronto Argonauts.

The other one that comes to mind, mainly because I just watched it, is for one of the poker sites.  The person in this case is someone named Georges St Pierre.  Okay, and what is this man’s claim to fame?  According to Google, Georges St Pierre is a mixed martial arts fighter and in fact is the current welterweight champion.  I also discovered he’s Canadian.

I can see using an actor or singer as a spokesperson, for they would be well-known and would (or should) appeal to a wide audience.  But using a sports figure who may not be known outside his team’s home town; or a mixed martial artist would seem to restrict the appeal to a niche audience.  What kind of response would some relative unknown get? Just sayin’.

Enjoy your week and remember to hug an artist – we need love too (some product endorsements wouldn’t hurt either). 🙂

Cat.

More commercial comments

Last night I noticed two commercials that caught my attention.  And, if you’re a regular reader, you know that doesn’t usually bode well for the commercials.

The first is for something called “Wonga.com” which, according to the ad, is a British company specializing in short term loans and has apparently just opened a Canadian operation.  First of all,  I feel  the commercials themselves talk down to the viewer.  But what prompts this is that in this spot they show an example.  They use the amount of $300 for a period of 14 days.  According to the display, that would cost the borrower $30.  Excuse me – ten percent for 2 weeks.  Now, I readily admit math was never one of my better subjects at various levels of schooling, but even I can figure out that would be 26% on an annual rate.  Isn’t that approaching the threshold of usury?  Just asking.

The other commercial is for Frito-Lays Canada.  They are currently running a contest for people to create a new chip flavour.  Considering I only like plain potato chips, I’m not submitting an entry.  The prize for the winner is $50,000 and one percent of the sales of the chosen flavour.  Sounds great, but I do have one question: 1% of sales for how long? – a week; a month; a year, or in perpetuity?   Just asking.

One more item.  This isn’t a commercial, but an item I noticed today on the website for The Toronto Star.  Apparently Facebook is bringing out a revised newsfeed.  Whoopee!  I don’t really care about that.  My quarrel with the newsfeed – and probably something that won’t be corrected with this new version is this: presently users are given a choice on the newsfeed of “top stories” or “most recent” with “top stories” being the default.  I always change it to “most recent”, for how can Facebook possibly know what I would consider a “top story”?  This usually lasts about a week then it changes back to “top story”.  If Facebook really wanted to do something, they’d fix it so that if someone chooses “most recent” as their default, it stays that way until the user changes it.

Okay.  I’ve vented and I feel much better now.  Enjoy your week and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat.

Some Sunday silliness

At least here in southern Ontario, there is currently a commercial for Tylenol Nightime being aired. This commercial shows a lady tossing and turning, unable to sleep and the voiceover begins by making comment on the way one’s mind will jump from idea to idea when one can’t sleep.  Then the voice changes to what I presume is the woman’s voice and we hear her asking herself questions (“do I need snow tires?” – sarcastic answer: not in bed).  The final question she asks is “What if the hokey-pokey really is what it’s all about?”

Now this question is obviously rhetorical, for as any fan of Douglas Adams knows, the hokey-pokey can’t be “what it’s all about”.  In “Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy”, Mr Adams clearly stated that the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything is “42″.  Unfortunately, he never wrote the question needed to get this response.  Note “42″.  Not “the hokey-pokey and 42″.   Not “the hokey-pokey or 42″.  Just “42″.  I can’t recall for certain, but that may be repeated in all five books of the trilogy.

Who are you going to believe – some songwriter who claimed the hokey-pokey is what it’s all about, or Douglas Adams, who stated categorically that 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything?

While you’re thinking about that, enjoy the rest of your weekend and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat