"Mad Men" -- *Final* Season Official Thread (possible spoilers) (part 2)

Wow, I personally don't see this that way at all. I honestly prefer to think Don didn't write the commercial. If he had any enlightenment of any depth at all he wouldn't have. If he did his enlightenment was how to harness the vibe of the counterculture and sell product, which is a cynical manipulation of lofty ideals. I personally see the commercial itself (which we know was not a Draper creation) as a cynical usurpation of (unrealistic) current fantasies of peace and equality.

 

I can completely understand that as a 16 year old boy who was fast approaching draft age you would be enamored by a peace jingle in the form of a coca cola commercial. But... c'mon.

Do you think Coca Cola was against the war? They were selling pallettes of coke to service men. Selling. Not giving them away. This is a company that created the Fanta brand to continue selling soft drinks to nazis during the second world war!

The commercial apparently first aired in July 1971. The Pentagon Papers were first published by the New York Times in June 1971. And of course there was plenty of war on tv by this point. And the peace movement had been going on for much, much longer. So it's not a surprise that the ad was embraced as some sort of peace message rather than just a commercial. Which is what it was. To sell you coke. The commercial tapped into young people's very real fear of death with a message that seemed to present an alternative. It all makes sense how it worked. But it doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize!

Also I read the hug differently that you did. I don't think Don related to the man being a forgotten product who wasn't chosen. In fact Don was the exact opposite! He was always chosen. He didn't even need to work for it or care about it. Everything came easy to him. He wasn't discarded by his loved ones. He was the discarder! He walked away from everyone and kept his distance because it was easier for him. He was like a consumer who wants what they don't have and once they get it they want something else.

To me what he recognized in the man was not knowing what love really is. And relating to the fact that he had sheleved all his loved ones just like this man was shelved. He hugged him like he was hugging the ghosts of those he betrayed and feeling sorry that he hadn't recognized their love and their need to be loved.

Also since you mentioned it... "Imagine" may have come out after the coke commercial but it surely wasn't the first song of it's kind. At that point popular culture had seen all sorts of anti-war songs and peace and harmony type songs. It was hardly revolutionary in 1971. But the fact that you associate the coke commercial with another peace song by a Beatle just goes to show how effective the commercial was. And I'm not denying that. But to me it's nostalgia that allows the idea that it was really a message about peace before it was a message about coke to remain in the minds of those who saw it then.

 

I went to Israel in 1970 when I was 15/16 I wasn't a coke drinker (more Dr Pepper if I drank soda at all), but I brought back home a coke bottle written in Hebrew. I thought it was the coolest thing ever that this brand was so universal. It was my first trip out of the U.S. And it's something I still remember.

So yes coke was one of the few maybe only brand at the time , that transcended everything else.

 

I saw the ad as very inspirational myself at the time, as a child.
If a song and ad sends an inspirational message to children that is a meaningful postive thing to do, whether or not it is selling a product.

The criticisms being made above that this doesn't seem to show a full embrace of counterculture ideals or achievement of true enlightenment (whatever that means) by Don is a bit odd to me.
To me this show has never done anything at all to embrace flower power hippy idealism or the anti war movement - it has laughed at them more than anything else. OK, it has had fun with some drug scenes and has made points regarding civil rights and the woman's movement.

And Don is about the furthest thing from an enlightened guy on TV. Trying to sell that he had become a totally changed man as a result of saying om in a field with lots of cute hippie chicks would have been harder to believe. He had a meaningful experience. He incorporated it into his life.

 

Virtually every public human endeavor has its commercial aspect. Whether it is a patron subsidizing a painter or composer, or a museum seeking corporate sponsorship financing, the cost of even the most noble achievements is a ncessary "evil"- it is just a fact of life. To paint all promotional activity as inherently bad with such a broad brush is simply narrow-minded and inaccurate.

There are many talented people that make a living through graphic design and writing copy- not every artist can make it through fine arts exclusively. To say that all of these people have warped morals and are insincere is just rubbish. Furthermore I think it tells a lot about the character at those wielding the brush. The thief is the one who thinks everybody around him is trying to steal from him.

 

I know all that. Nor did I "paint all promotional activity as inherently bad with such a broad brush"--come on. But to glorify that commercial as some sort of great thing, and to think that Don had some amazing satori that makes his advertising philanthropic. . . . I can't or won't go there. I strongly differ in my interpretation from Marc's that's all.

 

Nice post indeed. I saw the "hug" the same way.

 

Actually Lonson, I just came back to this thread to remove the last part, as I admit it was unfair and unjustified. My apologies- I think I was attributing to you a more cynical attitude than was warranted. I was guilty about painting with too broad a brush! Hey, it's just differing opinions about a friggin' TV show- I need to lighten up.

 

Transfer is a technique used in propaganda and advertising. Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response. (Wikipedia)

Can you have "sincere" transfer? This seems to be an inherently insincere process.

 

No problem, you were just being passionate, so was I. My issue was with this one commercial and the interpretation.

 

It's not the act of being paid that makes something inherently bad. It's what you are being paid for. An artist of any kind that is paid for their work is entirely different than an artist that is paid to use their talents to manipulate others to think a certain way about the person or company paying the artist. That is not sincere inspiration. That is act of being a mercenary.

Obviously people feel different about Transformer movies than they do about say Casablanca or something. One is a crass cash in and the other is closer to pure expression. But it's entirely possible to enjoy both. But shouldn't one be able to distinguish between the two anyway?

There is no doubt that there are talented people making money through commercial endeavors such as advertising. And advertising can be enjoyable to experience as much as anything. Still... there is no secret to the fact that advertising has one goal... to sell you something. No advertisers spend money to not sell you something. There is no ad campaign for peace that doesn't include the product itself. They aren't selling you art or altruism. It's the product.

 

Of course one could also say that all TV shows on networks that run ads are doing nothing but trying to sell you products.

 

Not really. Unless the show itself is selling products. For instance tv shows for kids that were based on toys. Those were obviously just long commercials. But a regular tv show and the creators of that show aren't selling you anything (unless there is product placement). The commercials are. And those support 'the art.' There is a distinciton. Yes the networks are trying to make money of course. But those networks pay the artists to produce original content. Not propaganda (obvious exceptions though... ha).

 

Economically, the point of each segment of a show is to keep you watching through the next set of ads. I've worked in TV. This is actually discussed when planning and scheduling segments, even on the news side. That's why they tease you as to what is coming up after the break.
But since I see commerce as a good thing I have no problem with that.

 

So you've worked in tv but to you there is no difference between programming and advertising? Obviously any network needs to make money and they want to keep you watching so they can sell advertising. But the show itself isn't the ad is it?

Commerce IS a good thing. But being a smart consumer is a major part of that. Being able to recognize a message by understanding what the messenger stands to gain is essential in making smart decisions.

 

There's a difference, but the point of both is to sell you the products. While the show itself is not the ad, you aren't going to find a lot of examples of Bob Hope specials brought to you by Texaco attacking the oil industry or news programs doing exposes on their main sponsors. There's a reason that ad supported audio magazines praise every piece of equipment they review, just some more than others.

 

Don may have been detached and/or discarded, but he was never ignored, invisible or passed-over. Any "empathy" he may have felt for Leonard was borne out of self-pity. Don had it all and threw it away by his own actions, he had nothing in common with Leonard's situation.

 

I'd like to this that when musicians write songs commenting on important social or political events, they are looking to sincerely enlighten and/or change folks' perspectives. But essentially, they're asking you to buy as many pieces of plastic -- their product -- as possible and enrich them before you enlighten yourself. If not, wouldn't have songs such as "Imagine" and "Ohio" been created for "free"? Or am I just being cynical?

 

An ever-so-slightly more cynical take on soda commercials:

 

And it's a testament to the quality of this friggin' TV show that it's final episode has inspired some pretty heavy and mostly intelligent discourse!

 

The actions people take in the course of commercial transactions (and the outcomes of those transactions) can be good or bad (or virtuous or evil), but I think commerce itself is morally and evaluatively neutral. It's part of the condition in which we operate, the predicament in which we find ourselves. It's one of the areas in which it's most difficult to operate with sincerity, direct honesty, etc. Not impossible, but it's one of those places where self-interest is laid pretty bare. Tricky.

L.

 

There is nothing wrong with selling. We all sell something every day, whether it's ourselves, a product, and idea. One couldn't really survive without selling. If one wants a job, they need to sell themsleves to an employer, and jobs are pretty important if you want to eat. We are all mercenaries.

How stupid do you think people are- do you really think people are that easily manipulated?

 

So the use of co-opting and transfer don't have an effect? Why have they been in such widespread use for all these decades?

 

Anyone else awaiting a blu-ray series boxset (hopefully with commentary tracks for season six, which were missing in the stand-alone set)?

I'm hoping they don't get too goofy with the packaging/extras, like Breaking Bad. I just want a nice box that holds the discs, not anything wacky.

 

I'm not against selling things. That's silly.

But answer your own question. People think that coca cola ad is a beautiful statement about peace and love. Are they being manipulated by a company trying to sell a product?