miller's crossing

I don't watch much teevee. It's just who I am. Most of what I know about what's on teevee these days comes from flipping through the pages of Advertising Age. I've even been known to utter remarks about commercials that go something like this: "Oh yeah, I read about this one in Ad Age just the other day. You know, Bob Garfield gave it three-out-of-four stars."

Pathetic? Probably a little.

So the reality teevee show "The Biggest Loser" was news to me. And while it really doesn't seem any worse or better than any of the other shows out there, I was really saddened by an article I read about it in Ad Age the other day.

Here's an excerpt from the article "'Loser' Wins: Weight-loss show turns brand behemoth":

The show, which started as a critics' punching bag, has undergone the metamorphosis that all savvy networks and publishers crave, from one-dimensional media property to multifaceted and very lucrative brand. It also epitomizes the growing use of TV time as a promotional device for Internet and offline properties.

"Loser" was the brainchild of Ben Silverman, executive producer and CEO at Reveille, who claims that the whole thing is working out exactly as he always imagined--and that there's more in store. "We're really trying to build a community around our television show that then involves itself in the other elements where that brand lives," he said.

In addition to the show, the "loser" brand now lives in a $20-per-month online diet club that claims 100,000 members, a best-selling paperback and an exercise DVD.

There's just so much in the above quote that strikes me as wrong and bad:

• a "one-dimensional media property" is how a teevee program -- albeit a reality show -- is seen by the ad industry.
• a "multifaceted and very lucrative brand" epitomizing the "growing use of TV time as a promotional device for Internet and offline properties" also describes programming that people watch to be entertained.
• that the show's producers are building a "community" that "involves itself in the other elements where that brand lives."

Ad Age reports that ad revenue for the 2006 fall season is so far $78.2 million. I realize that reading an ad industry trade rag really does paint a distorted picture of things. Not everyone sees entertainment in commercial terms. But what really gets to me is how unflinching the industry is about what it does. Every time I read Ad Age, I feel sickened. Ad agencies are attempting to fill every cubic inch of my life with branding -- attaching an emotion to a commercial enterprise. Well the whole thing makes me feel sad and creeped out.

Add to that how the U.S. State department has adopted the idea of branding to U.S. foreign policy, and I'm ready to weep. Former U.S. propaganda czar Charlotte Beers couldn't stop talking about the U.S. brand of "choice" and "freedom" and "democracy." Beers ditched her job (sensing failure, perhaps?) before the U.S. even invaded Iraq. The lovely and talented Karen Hughes now holds the job.

All these notions boil down to attempts to manipulate people via mass media. Whether using "entertainment" programming as the bullet, "news" programming or straight out advertising, we are the targets. I'm tired of being a target for persuasive messaging. What a waste of my energy. And what a waste of everyone else's.

And I guess that's my point. Every time I look at Ad Age I come away with the thought that it is a weekly report on how much creative energy is uselessly expended on pushing products and other commercial interests. What other things could those creative minds be working on? Take a moment to image something beautiful, educational or truly entertaining. We could have so much more of that. From my point of view, the biggest loser is our culture, if you take the phrase one way, or advertising, if you take it in another way.