Archive for the 'PR' Category

Babies are us?

As someone who studies the zeitgeist maybea bit too much, I’m always looking for something “black.” It changes each season… For a while everyone talked about pink but gay is pretty boring these days. Then orange was okay. And my personal favorite was: Black is the new black! Now it seems BABIES are so in. See them inside Juno, see them within Nickelodeon shows, see them on every magazine covers, and now they pop up Friday night on Gilmore Girls’ Amy Palladino’s new Fox vehicle, “Return to Jezebel James,” where girl makes sister have baby. Then weeks later at Tribeca Festival when Fey hires a “Baby Mama” (Amy Poehler, no less) to do it for cash.

And may we speak about Angelina Jolie, Gwen Stefani, Jessica Alba, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, and maybe even you? Even one of the Kates is pregnant–who knows which one. Besides all being A-list actresses, these are all pregnant A-listers–except you. And the only thing better then being a Real Hot actress in Hollywood is being a pregnant Talk About in Hollywood.

The media worship such stories. They are the easiest news pegs known to man. The country is headed into economic recession (let’s just say IN an economic recession), we’re in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Jennifer Lopez is getting paid $6 million for exclusive photos of her babies? I mean, she’s married to a skeleton!

A sort of funny part of the story is that this deal was contingent on the magazine’s promise to stop referring to the actress/singer/dancer/mother as J.Lo. For 6 million they can call your ass anything they want, you know, bitch?

Breathe deep, Richard.

J.Lo (waiting for my cut) is not al. Lots of stars are making bank off babies—and sometimes it’s just news wealth (”keeping me out there”). See, “stars” like Kidman, after eight bombs in a row, need something to keep her alive in the tabs. All the celebrities do it, from X-tina to Nicole Ritchie, who is undoubtedly the ugliest person to ever a People magazine with a, ahem, glow.

You know what, we’re all guilty. Everyone watches for showings. The Oscars was more about the baby bumps than clothes; the awards were a second point—the dresses hardly one. Instead of ogling the jewels or hair, the focus was on what’s sticking ut. I’m still not quite sure what the glow of pregnancy looks like, but I’m sure Hollywood stylists are busy trying to develop a spray-on version.

Then there’s Kate Hudson, who would be an extra if it were not for her Mom. She’s not pregnant but talks about it a lot—meaning the fact she isn’t. And on that note: DId anyone see “Fool’s Gold? Which is the better story?

Lisa Marie Presley. No one cared about her when she was Elvis’ daughter (he’s been dead 21 years) and yet she needed to announce she’s pregnant because a tabloid said it was that or she’s fat! Chubby is sinful when you have no career.

Th one real trendsetter in all this is Ms. Jolie. The Brangelina adopts and even conceives their own – a serious double threat. The J-Pitts traded in their entourage for a FAMTEROUGE (like it?) and have only reached greater heights of notoriety with the brood.

Brava/o!

Ah, yes. The news story. Pregnancy is confirmed with an announcement from a publicist or with a bump premier at a high-end baby store or a home that’s prearranged for baby comings. Here they feign indignation about invasion of privacy. We wonder why they didn’t just shop online!

So while they keep us guessing, coyly wearing flowing frocks while issuing non-denial denials—a thread you Punks hear here all the time—they get the word out, faces on covers, doctor appointments scrutinized like Zapruder. They ensure their careers as celebrities endure regardless of their “work.” And if you’re not sold, ask yourself… Can you name the two movies that J.Lo (”Jennifer”) was in during 2007? How about her TWO released albums? But you know the saga of her twins, doncha. Kinda smart…kinda Punk. Now all she has to do is something artful—or she can keep having kids?

Final analysis is in: Overdoing it is the new black.

This week Starbucks left millions of rush hour commuters parched and disappointed when they found out the coffee joint was closed for a 3.5 hour barista training session and forced loyal customers to find an alternate way to quench their caffeine and Bonnie Raitt cravings (whoever pumps their music in loves Raittster).

Now Starbucks, which I publicly renamed “The Gap of the Coffee World” in a local paper, insists this wasn’t a publicity stunt… And yet we at Punk Marketing Central know better. Come on, coffee dudes, we could smell it.

The newspapers carried headlines (brought to them from puppy dog PR people) that said things like “Starbucks, totally awesome” and “Coffee, not just for ingestion anymore.” For a non-publicity stunt, it was a kind of a genius happening, and there is surely no shame in rising above the noisy news world.

Take a listen to the background music: The stock price has halved. For the first time the company has not only stopped expanding, but actually closing locations. With 171 in Manhattan alone (click here to to see what happens when one man decides to hit up every NY shoppe in 24 hours), the concept of downsizing must hit Starbucks execs right square in the caffeinated gullet.

Next they are going to for the first time stop charging customers for Wi-Fi usage. (They won’t charge for the first two hours. When your time is up, just go down the street to — Starbucks.) What to say to that? It’s about time. Who charges for Wi-Fi anymore besides Boingo!? We would rather take our coffee outside, sit on a bench and steal someone’s wireless connection. And you do too. Not to sound paranoid, but it’s creepy when you sign on at Starbucks. They ask for your address, credit card and your soul. Gets us every time. When they made the big announcement about the change last week, only to receive a resounding “duh, finally” from customers.

So Starbucks needed to turn both Wall Street and consumer attention away from what’s coming out as the bad news while reminding and/or convincing people that it’s worthwhile to spend more on a cup of coffee than our anorexically-inclined lunches. How about focusing the buzz away from crap stock news to the hopefully increasing quality of its product…

And while the coverage of the gimmick was huge I’d like to ask Howard Schultz a Punk question: Do you know who you are? Is the creation you created called Starbucks still Starbucks? The place we sat in with the milquetoast sounds around us, made us feel comfy enough to buy coffee and relax. Now it’s a machine — everything is about selling me what’s playing on an iTunes-enhanced monitor! I see products everywhere. Yep. I’m in the Gap all over again.

Barista-retooling made all the papers and broadcast news, and spread around our friend the blogosphere. Even Today did a piece in this mediocre news month. Turns out Veira and Lauer were thrilled that the human coffee-makers are trained to make their Venti Soy Lattes to a higher standard. Where in the world is Matt Lauer? Now the public knows he’s at a 30 Rock Starbucks. Not shabby PR, no way no how. And if you venture into a Starry-Eyes Bucks today, you will nbote a branded-new sticker on the door stating: “We Make The Best Espresso….” Gee, are they trying to force a point down our throats?

Starbucks claims the week’s events were all about the coffee and it’s got the level of credibility we felt from bumpy Jennifer Lopez who was no way pregnant.! Punk Marketers know much better. And sure, we love a stunt almost as much as our morning joe. Problem is, someone else snuggled up to us while Starbucks was closed. During those three point five sad hours we got to sample the Dunkin’ Donuts around the block, where we discovered a one-dollar latte with a lot more froth.

We threw Blockbuster into the collective wind years ago, along with The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Contempo Casuals. The glory days of Blockbuster are long gone…long, long, long gone. Once upon a time it was actually cool to have a Blockbuster card. That Cookie Monster Blue and Big Bird Yellow…oh, the good old days. Nobody bought movies back then, we rented them. And most of the time we rented them from Blockbuster. (Unless we wanted one of those movies..then we forked it over.) Want a relaxing night at home? You went to Blockbuster. It was a Blockbuster night, ahh.

Now RETURNING the video, that was the hard part. Who could do it on time? And the late fees! More people were in collections over those fees in the 90s than for missed car payments. (Or maybe not, but doesn’t it feel true?)

Of course that was a different time. Today, orphaned by its corporate parent Viacom, those fat late fees a distant dream, Blockbuster has become passé. Want a relaxing night at home? Now you pick up the latest DVD at Target. Or on demand from the cable company. Or if you’re cool (and you know we are), you get it from Netflix.

On one hand, the company caught up. They’ve worked hard, and invested millions, in staying relevant. Their online rental business is arguably better than Netflix’s. They’ve dabbled in digital downloads and streams. But on the other hand… Blockbuster is boring. Over. U-N-C-O-O-L. A Van Damme in a Gyllenhaal world. (Awww, poor Jake. What? Too soon)

While Netflix is on its way to becoming a verb (the holy grail of branding!), Blockbuster is fading away. How many consumers know the significant strides the company has made? And worse, do they care?

Then it happened. This week during Bravo’s Project Runway the little engine that could, did. Mr. Tim Gunn took the designers on one of his wildly entertaining and slightly over the top field trips to SPANDEX WORLD. During the field trip, the designers were introduced to the Divas of the WWE. (By “Divas” they mean incredibly terrifying women who could easily take all of Britney’s bodyguards.) Gunn informed the designers that their challenge was to create outfits for the wonderful women of the WWE – every designers dream.

In order to get a feel for the Diva’s “style” the designers ordered old WWE clips from Blockbuster! Not only was the Blockbuster envelope on the table (glorious blue and yellow ablaze), but the designers even dropped verbal Blockbuster plugs. Go Blockbuster! Blockbuster has a real chance to shed its stagnant image, to move beyond tired commercials (“Rent Over the Hedge on DVD!” Woohoo?), and make an honest connection with their present and past customers.

Blockbuster isn’t a dinosaur struggling to stay alive! Blockbuster gets it now, and gets it better than anyone they’re competing with. Let’s keep it going, buddy! Product placement is all the rage these days, but it is only one step in the giant and winding staircase Blockbuster needs to walk up.

To misquote The Graduate: “I want to say one word to you. Just one word. INTERNET.” Digital distribution is the future, and right now no one, not the Yahoos nor the Studios nor the Bit Torrents of the world have a lock on that business. So why not Blockbuster? They could even could even partner up with Time Warner and put their content on demand. (We totally need to be Blockbuster execs.) This is Blockbuster’s chance to leapfrog NetFlix in the next generation of media.

And what about social networking communities? Lets get (channel Olivia Newton-John here vi-i-i-ral! Currently there is a Blockbuster application on Facebook that has less than 300 subscribers. I know people with more friends on Facebook! (And some of them kind of suck.) This is an easy, efficient, and effective way to reach a huge, relevant, impressionable population. Build an application that allows users to compare movie tastes with friends, order rentals online, and (when possible) download/stream content. This is doable! You’re Blockbuster, you still have the money, the relationships with content creators (Studios, Networks, etc.), to make it happen.

Blockbuster needs to articulate a forward-looking and innovative message that puts the company in the future of entertainment. It just takes some smart PR, a little bit of Punk attitude and stop talking about late fees already, dudes.

“Does Movie Violence Decrease Violent Crime?” was some freaky talk of the town last week. This is the most Punk idea I’ve seen yet. A study that inspired an article in the NY Times that says, and don’t laugh, “Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” and was conducted by two economists; it isn’t a psychiatric or medical study. Not too juicy in the end. But it is pretty funny! And it goes to show that any major corporation (moviemakers in this case) can lobby any real science into helping them prove a bizarre, albeit farfetched and stretched-to-the-limit, point.

Bottom line – some geniuses are using the new freakonomics (a word now…) to prove that yes, if you are a bad person who watches killings and rapes and muggings and the like, you will calm yourself from doing them – at least for a while. Really now.

“Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” (Pieces Of The Article)

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not refute and in fact lends credence to the findings of laboratory studies. Neither does it address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious.

Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

Though such films may indeed stimulate a greater tendency toward aggression in audiences, the bigtime economist offers a rejoinder much favored by economists: Compared to what?

Young men are the most likely to commit violent crimes. In opting to see a movie — even one featuring, say, gang rape or chain-saw amputation — they forgo activities that have a greater tendency to encourage mayhem, like drinking and drug use.

“Economics is about choice,” he said. “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

“It’s not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book.”
Their entire study is super long, but I cut out a few choice snippets:

In this paper, we provide causal evidence on the short-run effect of media violence on violent crime. We exploit the natural experiment induced by time-series variation in the violence of movies shown in the theater. As in the psychology experiments, we estimate the short-run effect of exposure to violence, but unlike in the experiments, the outcome variable is violent crime rather than aggressiveness. Importantly, the laboratory and field setups also differ due to self-selection and to the context of violent media exposure. Using a violence rating system from kids-in-mind.com and daily revenue data, we generate a daily measure of box office audience for strongly violent (e.g., “Hannibal”), mildly violent (e.g., “Spider-Man”), and non-violent movies (e.g., “Runaway Bride”). Since blockbuster movies differ significantly in violence rating, and movie sales are concentrated in the initial weekends after release, there is substantial variation in exposure to movie violence over time.

The audience for strongly violent and mildly violent movies, respectively, is as high as 12 million and 25 million people on some weekends, and is close to zero on others (see Figures 1a-1b). We use crime data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and measure violent crime on a given day as the sum of reported assaults (simple or aggravated) and intimidation. We find no evidence that exposure to media violence increases violent behavior in the short-run.

After controlling flexibly for seasonality, we find that, on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower. To rule out unobserved factors that contemporaneously increase movie attendance and decrease violence, such as rainy weather, we use two strategies.

First, we add controls for weather and days with high TV viewership. Second, and most importantly, we instrument for movie audience using the predicted movie audience based on the following weekend’s audience. This instrumental variable strategy exploits the predictability of the weekly decrease in attendance. Adding in controls and instrumenting, the correlation between movie violence and violent crime becomes more negative and remains statistically significant.

The estimated effect of exposure to violent movies is small in the morning or afternoon hours (6AM-6PM), when movie attendance is minimal. In the evening hours (6PM-12AM), instead, we detect a significant negative effect on crime. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3 and 1.1 percent. The effect is smaller and statistically insignificant for non-violent movies. In the nighttime hours following the movie showing (12AM-6AM), the delayed effect of exposure to movie violence is even more negative. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crime decreases by 1.9 and 2.1 percent. Non-violent movies have no statistically significant impact. Unlike in the psychology experiments, therefore, media violence appears to decrease violent behavior in the immediate aftermath of exposure, with large aggregate effects. The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented.

We also examine the delayed impact of exposure to movie violence on violent crime. While our research design (like the laboratory designs) cannot test for a long-run impact, we can examine the medium-run impact in the days and weeks following exposure. We find no impact on violent crime on Monday and Tuesday following weekend movie exposure. We also find no impact one, two, and three weeks after initial exposure, controlling for current exposure. This implies that the same-day decrease in crime is unlikely to be due to intertemporal substitution of crime from the following days.

While reading about the studies, I learned there’s actually a DVD player that automatically deletes all the juicy bits of movies. It’s a Mormon device.

It was invented four years ago, I read online yesterday–a trend I had no idea about: “What the world really needs now is more uptight little companies from Utah that will help us all block out the random messy naked blood n’ guts of the world. Companies that will, without anyone asking them to, protect us from media evildoers and exposed flesh and scary exploding things and that part in ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ wherein the universe is blessed, for the briefest of moments, with … Kate Winslet’s nipples.

…Utah-based ClearPlay, a shrill little corporation that has taken it upon itself to sit around the cube farm all day and watch countless Hollywood flicks and zap out any and all icky violent suggestive material in, say, “Lost In Translation.” For your protection. How kind.”

What is ClearPlay?

Great question! ClearPlay is a fancy DVD Player that can play regular DVD movies — but without profanity, violence and nudity.

Wow! How does that work?

It’s really quite ingenious. We create filtering information on a movie by movie basis, and then put those “filters” into the DVD player. This way, the DVD player knows when to skip or mute while the movie is playing.

But isn’t it choppy?

Nope. That’s the great thing about the ClearPlay service. We love movies just as much as you do, so we take great care to maintain the presentation quality of the movie– the only thing gone is “that one scene” you wish the kids never saw.

What about new movies?

Another great question! If you sign up for a ClearPlay Membership then we provide constant updates for your DVD player. This way ClearPlay works with new movies as they come out. It is really just that simple (and cool!).

Me again. The above was from their site. I’m wondering if parents do anything for their kids anymore. Besides cut their meat, of course.

Have you heard nuff? Go out and watch some gorey movies, kids, and I’ll see you on the street.

This is just a bizarre story.

A resident of virtual world Second Life is suing another resident for trademark and copyright infringement. The avatar Stroker Serpentine has taken exception to another avatar, Volkov Catteneo, for copying his software that allows one avatar to have sex with another. Sex beds
are, according to Second Life newspaper The Second Life Herald, a staple of the SC economy and the lawsuit claims that Catteneo has copied Serpentine’s version, which retails for the equivalent of about $45 in the virtual world, and is selling it for a third of the price, thus depriving the former of profits. Part of the problem for Serpentine is finding the identity of the person behind the Catteno’s avatar so he can sue his virtual ass.

This all leads to a the question of why would anyone pay money for their avatar to have sex?

Or am I just being naive?

Perhaps the lawsuit is a ploy by creators of Second Life, Linden Labs, to keep the publicity machine for it going for the virtual world and keep revenue coming in?

Or am I just being cynical?