Light of my
life, fire of my loins! As the TV networks rolled out their fall
schedules this past week, the obsession of the aging rouis of
advertising and broadcasting resulted again in lineups, with the
exception of CBS’s, that are heavy on teens and young adults (and almost
exclusively white): a vast menu of high schools, prep schools and
post-school dating in Manhattan. The NBC Effect of the mid-’90s –
the creation of a republic of affluent 18- to 34-year-olds by targeted,
elite-oriented Must-See shows from “Frasier” on down to “Union
Square” — has shaded into the WB Effect, in which the youngest
sector of that state is splintered off. (“Our focus,” said WB’s
president in announcing its lineup, “is 12- to 34-year-olds and that’s
it.”) Network TV, having once decided that the perfect television
show is a half-hour sitcom about href="http://www.nbc.com/tvcentral/shows/justshootme/">well-paid
media professionals, has now decided the perfect show is an
hour-long serial about a well-paid media professional’s target="new" href="http://www.dawsons-creek.com/">self-absorbed,
crybaby kid.

href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=RsvCant&images=im
ages/modeng&data=/lv2/english/relig/rsv&tag=public">Young lust
has made good copy pretty much since humans stopped dropping dead at
age 20, and in the era of school shootings there will no doubt be
much agonizing over href="/media/eric/1999/03/03eric.html">whatever
the hell the new youth TV says about our Inner Sophomores. But
when it comes to TV, it’s important to remember that networks are
programmed not by cultural studies scholars but by businesspeople who
make decisions out of financial interest (at least when the opportunity to get laid doesn’t intervene).

So why aren’t there more shows directed at seniors? In a society
where ageism has been a truly pressing concern ever since the
baby boom neared its Social Security payday, the popular
interpretation of this phenomenon is that normally bloodless
capitalists lose their senses when confronted by age, forgetting out
of sheer prejudice that older people have money to avoid taking with
them. It’s the cult of youth! It’s America’s perpetual childhood!
It’s our unhealthy attitude toward natural change! Even the New York
Observer’s hilarious take on NBC’s “upfront,” or fall-lineup
presentation, broke into uncharacteristic, earnest outrage over the
Peacock’s smarmy derision toward CBS’s seeking over-49 viewers: “as
if that were a sin, as if they did not buy products.”

It’s an understandable response — who has more money to blow than
older folks? But there’s a reason networks are blowing off oldsters.
We viewers don’t understand precisely how our attentions are valuable
to a network. We like to believe that every time we flip on ABC, a
dollar drops into Michael Eisner’s vault, where later he rolls around
naked in the big fluffy green pile. But the fact is TV stations don’t
make money simply because we watch them. They make money because
advertisers pay them in the belief that we will watch them.

That takes care of misconception one; misconception two is that advertisers want as many
people as possible to watch their spots. Advertisers, as a rule, aren’t motivated by vanity. (Advertising agencies, now that’s another
story.) Companies don’t put out ads in the hope that as many people as possible will enjoy their product. They put out ads in the hope
that as many people as possible who would not otherwise have bought
their products will buy them.

Note that who would not otherwise have. The catch here is that
advertisers will work harder — and hence will pay more — to reach
affluent younger viewers, whose TV watching hasn’t increased as much
as older people’s demonstrably has. In other words, it’s not that
businesses don’t want money tainted with the stench of the grave.
It’s that they don’t believe they have to chase after it. While some ad
professionals have attacked this reasoning as outdated, the
prevailing feeling among advertisers is that they can capture 50-and-ups through news, cheaper entertainment programs and the like.

It’s a familiar situation to older parents: You do and do and do for
the networks, but do they appreciate it? As American Demographics
pointed out, last TV season saw a decline in 18- to 34-year-old
viewership on every network but WB (which, if it wants me to put that
cockamamie “The” before its name, can send its lawyers after me).
The magazine extrapolated from this that the ’99-00 season “may be
the first in a long time in which the networks return to one of the
basic tenets of their business: broadcasting,” as opposed to
narrowcasting toward a young slice. Makes sense, right? If those
punks are too busy watching Eric Cartman, starting up e-businesses or
attending gun shows to catch the fine fare we slaved over a hot
banquette at Spago to cook up for them, then screw ‘em! Except that,
as the fall lineups showed, the kids’ absence has only made them
harder to get, and thus more valuable.

A bit of advice, then, for older Americans (though considering that
Salon, ahem, href="/adsales/default.html">boasts that 90 percent of its readers are between 18 and 49, I realize I’m addressing a
mostly empty chamber here). If you want your interests better
represented outside CBS, you need to start watching network TV more
like 12- to 34-year-olds: decreasingly and elusively. Oh, I know, you
personally don’t watch that much television — hey, I never
look at the damn thing! — but because, um, so many of your peers are
skewing the figures, consider joining a bowling league or taking up
pottery making. In your restricted, valuable hours, watch fewer
shows. Those you do watch, watch slavishly. (You’ll have to be cruel
in winnowing: If those young go-getters on “JAG” bore you for a
second, fire their asses!) And for God’s sake, stop watching the
news; you’ll concentrate your attention’s value, and we’ll all be
glad to be rid of the laxative commercials.

It wouldn’t hurt to be fickle with your money, as well: The other
part of TV’s youth bias is advertisers’ belief that codgers are set
in their ways. (This view seems especially old-fashioned in today’s
market, as Christine Larson argued in the May 10 Adweek — if
anyone’s going to be drinking Surge in 30 years, send me straight to href="http://www.transparencynow.com/logtable.htm">Carousel now.)
So switch from Colgate to Pepsodent, Delta to Northwest, Chrysler to
Toyota and back! Roll those big fat IRAs of yours over a few times,
and see who comes crawling!

In other words, you can cry about anti-wrinkle bias, or you can wage
guerrilla war. Eat the same breakfast flakes two mornings in a row,
and you’ll get all the Kevin Williamson dramedies you deserve; but
wise up and make advertisers paranoid, and href="http://www.dqmw.com/">Jane Seymour will never want for
employment again. And a generation to follow — namely, mine — will thank you for your
pioneering. We bask in attention today; but already NBC in
its advertising-mag ads is darkly hinting that “Gen Y [12- to 17-year-olds] is 60 million plus and growing, larger and more receptive
than Gen X.” I only wish I could join your struggle. I hear, though,
that UPN’s rolling out an hour-long dramedy about a white, 30ish
media critic hangin’ in Brooklyn with his posse of quirky, free-spending friends, and, you know, something just tells me I Must See it.

Examples of vintage Burma-Shave road signs, including a blue South Dakota version. (Ray Crockett photo)

These red ads (one state, South Dakota, insisted that they be dark blue to keep them from conflicting with the red reserved for warning notices) usually consisted of five signs. For example: “DON’T PASS CARS/ON CURVE OR HILL/IF THE COPS DON’T GET YOU/ MORTICIANS WILL/BURMA-SHAVE.”

Some slogans touted Burma-Shave as a pre-aerosol “brushless” shaving cream—a cream you could scoop out of a jar and lather onto your face without relying on an old-fashioned brush and moistened soap in a mug.

("Thoroly"? I guess if the word doesn't fit the composition, change the spelling. . .)

In 1925, Clinton Odell, a Minneapolis lawyer, took the liniment his father created and transformed it into a brushless shaving cream. He named his company Burma-Vita—Burma, because most of the essential oils in the liniment were from the Burmese portion of the Malay Peninsula, and Vita from the Latin for “life”: “Life from Burma.”

Some of Burma-Shave’s primary “brushless shaving cream” competitors were Barbasol and Noxema.

The company was sold to Philip Morris in 1963, and all the signs were removed soon thereafter. As a testament to the campaign’s cultural significance, a set of signs was donated to the Smithsonian, where it still resides. But the brand eventually petered out. After being sold yet again (this time to the American Safety Razor Company) and then reintroduced in 1997, it never regained a hold in the market.

A history of the Burma-Vita Company, written by Frank Rowsome Jr. and illustrated by Carl Rose, was published by the Stephen Greene Press in 1963.

By the early 1960's, the rising costs of road-sign maintenance (as well as new and more effective ways of advertising) sounded the death knell for the Burma-Shave signs.

The following pages from Frank Rowsome Jr.’s book list all the road-sign Burma-Shave phrases produced from 1927 to 1963.

The soft drink that would be known as 7Up was created in 1929 by Charles Leiper Grigg in St.Louis as part of his “Howdy” line of sodas and was originally called “Bib-Label Lithiated (it contained the mood stabilizer lithium citrate until 1950) Lemon-Lime Soda.” It was almost immediately re-labeled “7 (7 natural flavors) Up Lithiated Lemon-Lime,” and then finally just “7Up”.

The first 7Up logo from 1929.

In terms of logos, an original winged trademark soon gave way to the red squared logo that lasted until the late 1960s that coincided with that period’s brilliant “Uncola” re-branding campaign. I always felt they had GOLD in that Uncola moniker. . .

A 1935 7Up label before the Howdy Company's name was changed to 7Up in 1936, followed by two Howdy beverage labels.

By the late 1940s 7Up was the third most popular soft drink in the United States. By the time the 1950s rolled around, the company had employed extensive branding techniques to keep the momentum going. The following three binders contain examples of what was offered to the bottlers and distributors to reinforce the product’s presence.

A catalog of 7Up sales/marketing items circa 1954.

This page includes tipped-in glossy paint chips.

These next three pages would NEVER fly with the HR Dept in 2012. . .

Before everyone had TV's in their home, it was common to go out to watch television.

7Up Sales & Promotion Merchandise Catalog circa 1954 - 59.

(would love to have those binders. . .)

Actual cloth swatches included.

More swatches.

1959 "Salesmakers" Catalogue

2 actual decals using the older logo with the woman reaching for bubbles- love the way the color is broken down into separate shapes and levels.

Actual booklet attached.

"Fresh Up Freddie" was the 7Up mascot created in 1957 by ad agency Leo Burnett and Walt Disney to help sponsor the Disney "Zorro" TV series.

Here’s a link to more info on “Freddie”: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/fresh-up-freddy.html

Remember, it's from 1959. . .

Ditto. . .

2 mid-1930's 7Up bottles.

Left: 1940's bottle with 8 bubbles on label. Right: 1950's bottle 7 bubbles.

"Like" was introduced in 1963 as a diet version of 7Up. It contained Calcium Cyclamate which was determined to be a carcinogen in 1969. "Like" was discontinued in that same year and Diet 7Up was introduced in 1970 sans the Cyclamates. This bottle is dated 1964.

Late 1960's/early 1970's can.

"The Uncola".

As a final footnote, I was lucky enough to work on spots for 7Up International using the Susan Rose/Joanna Ferrone character “Fido Dido”! Here’s one of my favorites done while I was at the Ink Tank Studio in N.Y.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JpHjeGXyw8

Copyright F+W Media Inc. 2012.

Salon is proud to feature content from Imprint, the fastest-growing design community on the web. Brought to you by Print magazine, America’s oldest and most trusted design voice, Imprint features some of the biggest names in the industry covering visual culture from every angle. Imprint advances and expands the design conversation, providing fresh daily content to the community (and now to salon.com!), sparking conversation, competition, criticism, and passion among its members.

Even dead, Jackson is a massive draw. He’s currently the subject of a global Cirque du Soleil tour with the horror movie title “Immortal.”  And Pepsi knows that overseas – especially in markets like Asia — his brand is as ubiquitous and American as well, cola.

Bringing back the dead is a peculiar – if increasingly common – gambit. Now that the earth has run out of living celebrities, they’ve had to revive Tupac to perform at Coachella  and Grace Kelly to make kissy face with Charlize Theron to sell perfume.  They even had to dig up Martin Luther King Jr., to pitch for Mercedes-Benz.

There comes a time when a celebrity passes into our iconography. Today, seeing the images of Elvis and Marilyn and James Dean in different pop culture contexts barely seems any stranger than fake Abraham Lincolns selling cars in February. And why wouldn’t Jackson’s people wring a few more opportunities out of his incredibly lucrative image? Somebody’s got to pay for all those $10 million mansions.

Senior PepsiCo marketing executive Frank Cooper told the WSJ that the new campaign will be both “respectful” and “forward looking.” It may be respectful. But there’s nothing “forward” about the dead. Jackson’s image survives as an easy symbol of pop music, but the man whose life ended from propofol intoxication three years ago, whose doctor is currently serving time for involuntary manslaughter, couldn’t seem less like the right spokesman for the notion of “living for now.”

Shockaroonie, some people found this offensive. The ad went the wrong kind of viral, with a social media explosion of negative feedback. It’s not that comedy with a racial element is always wrong wrong wrong. The Jewish Hank Azaria is currently in his third decade of playing the Indian Apu Nahasapeemapetilon on “The Simpsons,” and nobody seems to be outraged about this. Kutcher’s incredibly unnuanced performance isn’t that, though. On his blog, writer Anil Dash explains it perfectly –  “a fake-Indian outfit and voice” constitute “the entire punchline” of the clip. And, as he eloquently put it, “I can’t imagine I have to explain this to anyone in 2012, but if you find yourself putting brown makeup on a white person in 2012 so they can do a bad ‘funny’ accent in order to sell potato chips, you are on the wrong course. Make some different decisions.”

And so that’s what Popchips is trying to do. On Wednesday, in a “message from Keith” on the company’s website, its founder, CEO and foe of proper capitalization Keith Belling wrote, “we received a lot feedback about the dating campaign parody we launched today and appreciate everyone who took the time to share their point of view. our team worked hard to create a light-hearted parody featuring a variety of characters that was meant to provide a few laughs. we did not intend to offend anyone. i take full responsibility and apologize to anyone we offended.” That’s a constructive, self-aware response to a potential public relations disaster. (Kutcher, who in recent months has been tainted by his hasty Twitter support for Penn State coach Joe Paterno and a divorce that featured rumors of unprotected extramarital sex, has so far had no comment on the problematic ad campaign.)

It’s a positive thing that Popchips understood its mistake and made an immediate effort to rectify it by pulling the ad. That step forward is mitigated somewhat, though, by the a large number of “get over yourself” responses on Anil Dash’s blog. We’ve still got much work we need to do in this country around issues of stereotypes and sensitivity, folks.

You don’t have to look any further than the entire Popchips campaign to see what I mean. Its remaining “World Wide Lovers” include the stoner Brit “Nigel,” who’s “seeking higher planes of consciousness” (GET IT????), the effeminate German “Darl” — a swishy riff on openly gay designer Karl Lagerfeld — and the dumb redneck “Swordfish.” In the end, there’s also regular old, newly single Kutcher, who describes the other guys in the club as a “freak show.” Hey, geniuses at Popchips – you’re still perpetuating gross generalizations. Also: They’re not funny. It’s a great big snack-loving country. Being cool about brown people – and gay people, and people others would call “white trash” – shouldn’t be such a crunch.

The FCC rejected a push by the industry to water down the measure. But the rule as passed also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common format.

The rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to come into compliance.

“[L]arge areas of some swing states, like Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan, could see an influx of advertising in markets outside of the top 50,” the Sunlight Foundation noted in an analysis today. It was also not immediately clear exactly when the rule will go into effect for the top 50 markets.

Then there’s the crucial question of the format in which the files will be available. FCC spokeswoman Janice Wise told ProPublica that the commission is not creating a searchable database of the political ad files.

“We’ll accept whatever [file] format they provide,” she said in an email.

That will make it much more difficult to analyze the information.

Wise said there are no specific plans to make the database searchable.

By opting to allow stations to submit political data in any format, the commission departed from a recommendation made last year by in an FCC working group report.  The report called for the political file to be put online and that “as much data as possible [be] in a standardized, machine-readable format” that “could also enhance the usefulness and accessibility of the data.”

Also not clear is how the broadcast industry, which vigorously lobbied against the rule, will react.

“[W]e will be seeking guidance from our Board of Directors regarding our options,” the National Association of Broadcasters said in a statement decrying the vote.

In March, the industry group submitted a filing with the commission raising “serious questions about the FCC’s authority” to require stations to put political ad data online.

“That was written as a legal memorandum, which is code for, ‘We’ve lawyered up and we’re ready to sue over this,’” says Andrew Schwartzman, a longtime FCC watcher at the Media Access Project.

The broadcasters’ group declined to comment beyond its statement.

On a Thursday earnings call for Belo Corp., one of the companies that has been fighting the disclosure measure, CEO Dunia Shive suggested that broadcasters would continue to fight the new disclosure rule.

“I don’t think the conversation is over with respect to being able to continue talking about if we will ultimately have to include ad rates online,” she said, Broadcasting & Cable reported.

Belo spokesman R. Paul Fry told ProPublica that the company merely “want[s] to continue the dialogue on this subject.”

The FCC also said today it would review the new rule after a year to see if any changes need to be made before all stations will be required to come into compliance in July 2014.