My response was that advertisers simply put the money where the eyeballs are. Four out of five eyeballs prefer crap to quality. Advertisers have a job to do. They want to reach as many eyeballs as possible, and preferably eyeballs that will be interested in what you have to sell. Hence, sports gear in Gear, cosmetics in Cosmo, and so on. If you want to have an intelligent, beautiful publication that’s fine. But you shouldn’t be shocked if subscription cards aren’t overflowing your mailbox and advertisers aren’t pounding down your door, wads of cash in hand, no strings attached.

But surprise, surprise. Speak has managed, somehow, to publish yet another issue. And in it, Rolleri returns to his lament for yet another go-round. (Along the way he calls me a “cynical Salon writer” with IPO issues.) Dan makes some interesting points. He establishes what we all know: Certain men’s and women’s magazines are more about selling product than providing content. Dan feels — and I agree — that readers should be aware of that fact. (Increasingly consumers are, which has led to more covert techniques.)

But then things get weird. Dan believes that advertisers prefer magazines that publish stupid content (Alyssa Milano’s breasts, oral sex advice) not only because “one million young men” can’t resist it, but because it makes the ads the smartest thing in the publication. “If magazine buyers, specifically glossy magazine buyers, seem stupid,” Dan says in direct reference to my earlier reply, “it’s because there are only stupid magazines.”

But Dan’s real problem isn’t with his flashier older brothers getting all the breaks. He simply believes he’s entitled to advertising money, too — and shouldn’t have to lower his standards to get it, as I suggested he would have to do. “This fall I plan to meet as many potential advertisers and agencies as will allow me through their doors,” he writes dramatically. “And at this moment, with so many doubts about the industry and Speak’s place in it, I have no idea what I’m going to say.”

Will Dan be allowed to pitch his product in the hallowed halls of advertisingdom? Will Speak be given gobs of sexy cash without compromising its editorial integrity? Or will Jennifer Love Hewitt bare all in next season’s issue? This young cynic will stay tuned. Because, in fact, I like Speak and want it (sans the burdensome editor’s notes, of course) to keep on publishing its lushly designed pages and interesting articles about people I admire. Go, Dan, go!

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Stay Free, Fall/Winter 1999

A pair of khaki-clad feet dangle, lifeless, above a knocked-over stool and the caption “khakis swing.” This macabre image graces the back cover of the latest issue of Stay Free. The message? Advertising kills. Or it makes you want to kill yourself. Or something. This is one of several zines dedicated to, ahem, “exploring issues surrounding commercialism and American culture,” as Stay Free so politely puts it. Adbusters has mastered advertising’s visual vernacular, and used it subvert the medium’s methods and messages. Beer Frame uses Spy magazine-like reporting tactics and witty prose to make fun of consumer marketing.

What does Stay Free bring to this ever-growing crowd of ad-hating agitators? It aspires to introduce an academic, studied perspective on advertising to the zine world. To a degree it’s successful. The front-of-the-book quotes from egregious press releases is like a one-track Harper’s readings section — quite amusing. Editor Carrie McLaren’s article chronicling how corporations have invented ailments through advertising — Fleishman Yeast’s recommending its product to treat “intestinal fatigue,” for example — is illuminating. But while some of the faux ads were right on target (“Panexa: Ask Your Doctor for a Reason to Take It”), others, like “khakis swing,” were non sequiturs. And the 11-page dialogue between two media academics, unfortunately, works better as a sedative than catalyst for discussion.

Orlando Weekly, Oct. 14-20

“A Smithsonian Tupperware Party” by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

I agree that the Smithsonian’s decision to dedicate an entire book and exhibit to Tupperware, also a loyal donor, is suspect, as Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman point out in this article. Certainly, the increase in corporate funding to public ventures like museums and public radio does raise serious issues. But I hardly think the plastic maker and museum curators conspired to leave out information on how plastics are destroying the planet and soon we’ll all be dead because of all the Tupperware we bought. Chill out, people! It’s not like the exhibit was extolling the virtues of disposable diapers and cigarette smoke.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

S.F. Bay Guardian, Oct. 13-19

“Go Gentle” by Stephanie Hiller

As large companies have swallowed most of the funeral industry whole, prices have risen while choices for grieving families have decreased, leaving many wondering what other options exist. It’s not a new debate. Jessica Mitford brought the situation to national attention in 1963 with her book “The American Way of Death.” In 1987, Lisa Carlson published “Caring for Your Own Dead.” In this article, Stephanie Hiller does a wonderful job of explaining the troubles within the funeral industry, outlining a history of opposition to traditional burial methods and looks at several pioneers working to provide alternatives.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

The Stranger, Oct. 14-20

“Over Four Million Served” by Ben Jacklett

The sixth largest employer in the United States is Labor Ready, a temp agency for unskilled workers. The company pays around $6 an hour, collects as much for its own costs and profits, has workers sign extensive release forms protecting Labor Ready from paying worker’s comp and other benefits, and frequently provides scabs during organized-labor disputes. In this fascinating report, Ben Jacklett signs up for work and explores this company’s climb to success and the hair-raising tactics it uses to maintain its fortune.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Feed, Oct. 12

“Space, the New IKEA Magazine” by Matthew DeBord

I was a student at the University of Washington when IKEA opened up a store outside Seattle. There will always be a special place in my heart for that fine purveyor of warehouse chic. Matthew DeBord examines the cult of IKEA in this critical look at IKEA’s new brand-extending magazine, Space. (Advertising-driven content at its finest!) “Space is a revelation,” he writes. “It validates the worldview of anyone who has ever sat in his IKEA chair and wondered if the food he eats is adequately IKEA, if the clothes he wears look sufficiently IKEA — if, in other words, there is an aesthetic that unifies his existence. The 17th century had Shakespeare, the 19th century had Hegel. In the late 20th, we resolve our dialectical crises with the Jussi coffee table.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

L.A. Weekly, Oct. 15-21

“Love and Hell” by Jonny Whiteside

A wonderful, detailed profile of the persona, career, past and present of Merle Haggard.

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.