An add that Miller beer has been running for a few weeks finally registered on my awareness today. In the ad, a threesome of beer truck drivers in Miller uniforms, enter a deli and begin observing what is on sale, a $7 candy bar and an $11 can of tuna fish. They declare that such commodities make the "high life" too exclusive and so the store loses the ability to sell Miller beer ("high life" has been on the label of Miller products for as long as I can remember).
What I love about this ad is that it makes me laugh at myself. Since the Great Lakes Brewing Company began churning out "good" beer, I have rarely bought a six-pack of Miller High Life. Actually, my disinterest in Miller likely dates to my discovery of European beers in the mid 1980s. Now in Seattle, I've developed a palate for fresh beer brewed with attention to detail and type.
That said, I've begun to be troubled by the tastes of the folks I hang out with (and so with my own tastes). It's one thing to be aware of fresher, more complex beer. It's another to declare, "I would never eat the Manchego they sell at Trader Joe's!" (You know who you are:).
I am sure that the Manchego sold at Whole Foods or the finer cheese counters in Seattle is different, even better than that sold at Trader Joe's. But Trader Joe sells Spanish Manchego at a price that I (a teacher) can afford. I grew up in Wisconsin (then America's Dairy Land), but for us, cheese was cheddar, swiss, maybe blue. Manchego is pretty exciting in any form. I'm troubled by the notion that my palate will head in directions that my way of life can't support.
I've gotten accustomed to paying $6 a six-pack without even thinking about it. Perhaps I need to think about that, to think about what company my tastes are putting me in. That fact that Miller beer is owned by a South African company that makes enough beer to flood Milwaukee makes me unlikely to switch back (well that and the fact that Deschutes Brewing's Black Butte Porter is, for me, just a lot more satisfying). But I'm going to order up $4 pints a bit more critically.
So here's to advertising undermining the culture it aims to sustain.
4 comments:
Wouldn’t it be great if advertisements began even to move us toward a sustainable way of life, or way of thinking about life. My head snapped around to catch the rest of this commercial the other day. As I recalled it throughout that evening I secretly smiled that an American auto manufacturer would air a commercial that pointed its viewers away from idealizing a consumer mentality. I love the catch-phrase, “Rethink excess/Rethink American” that was in the version I caught. Having recently studied a unit on Reaganomics, and the romanticization of gluttony that characterized the 1980’s I found myself wondering if much had changed in the last 20+ years. Here is an example that even advertisers are beginning to catch on that our American ideal of having a comfortable existence is no longer the same competition for who has the biggest, brightest, fastest “stuff” it was. There has been some evolution. Check it out. Watch the commercial, called "Anthem" on Saturn's website (http://www.saturn.com/saturn/videos/television/index.jsp).
What I truly love about this commercial is that it doesn’t simply challenge a single ideal. It clearly gets down to core American values folks (both men and women) have historically clung to-wealth, beauty, strength, and our idea of home-and offers realistic alternatives. Jewelry that could knock you out versus a kind-simple, and symbolic, a fashion diva, versus a new mom, with her infant in a nursing bra (Yes!), a pale version of the incredible hulk, versus that scrawny guy with the bike, unhealthy suburban tract-homes, versus perhaps beginning to think of ourselves more as members of a global community. In many ways we still live in excess (in many ways we don’t), but as we start to rethink how excess is defined we can begin a cultural evolution that strikes a more satisfying balance.
I am reminded of standing at the bus stop one morning with my kindergarten age son. We were both listening in on a conversation that broke loose among the older kids because a black Hummer had pulled up to the local coffee shop across the street. These boys had begun a competition arguing who would own the most Hummers when they grew up. The last contestant to speak had finished expounding on how owning 5 of these vehicles would allow each family member to have one, and leave two for his enjoyment (we all know how easy it is to drive two vehicles at once) “One for mom, one for dad, one for…,” when my son vehemently piped in to state, “Hummers are stupid! They take too much gas!” I admit, it was a proud moment. Here was a five year old thinking critically about excess. If one that young can make the connection, I suppose the car companies have no excuse.
Out of the mouths of babes.
Post a Comment