• Home
  • Journal
  • Glen Workshop
  • ImageUpdate
  • Seminars
  • Online Classes
  • Events
  • Fellowships
  • Forum
  • Subscribe
  • Good Letters: The IMAGE Blog
  • About
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Artist of the Month
  • Store
  • Ads
  • ()
  • Home
  • Journal
  • Glen Workshop
  • <i>Image</i>Update
  • Seminars
  • Online Classes
  • Events
  • Fellowships
  • Forum
  • Subscribe
  • Good Letters: The IMAGE Blog
  • About
  • Donate
  • Contact
  • Artist of the Month
  • Store
  • Ads
  • Recent Blog Entries

    • Why We Can’t Look Away
    • Before the Fall of Baseball
    • Controlling the Shot
    • Why We Make Art
    • The Glass Coffin
    • View More
    • About Good Letters
    • Contributors
  • Current Issue

    Issue 76

    Art by Peter Howson, fiction from Lucy Warner, poetry by Amit Majmudar

    View Issue 76

  • ImageUpdate SignUp

    Stay in the know on the best of art and religion. Our free e-newsletter has reviews of books, albums, conferences, websites, gallery openings, and more.
Bookmark and Share

No Logo 8 comments

Tuesday February 10, 2009

By Santiago Ramos

I can’t quite pin down why I can’t stand Pepsi’s new “Refresh Everything” ad campaign, which makes commercial use of the nation’s bad luck and blue mood by making happy, colorful signs with positive words on them. Every morning, I walk past buses with “JOY,” “TOGETHER,” and, most annoyingly, “OPTIMISMMM” emblazoned on their sides, like giant metal cows branded by a giant valley girl.

But the sign I hate the most is the one in the metro stop near my apartment, that reads, “HOPE,” the letter O replaced by the Pepsi symbol.

Is it because it’s in the nature of a shaggy-haired twenty-something to be righteously cynical of peppy ad campaigns? No, I think I loathe it for deeper reasons than that, though I’ll allow that I am already predisposed to hate this type of ad campaign.

Or perhaps it has to do with the embarrassment I felt once walking past the HOPE sign with a friend of mine, a Spaniard. Upon seeing it, he gave me a haughty European look, his eyebrows curled in condescension. I know what he was thinking: “Americans think they can manufacture everything they need.”

Or because I often see a homeless man walking along that part of the metro stop, always right after I see the sign.

Or because the sign will give somebody the occasion to say, “Look at the signs of the times!”

Hope is certainly the preoccupation of the times. The president campaigned on it and the pope has written an encyclical about it. Alfonso Cuaron made a brilliant film about hope in Children of Men (based on the P.D. James novel), Cormac McCarthy, less explicitly, made a novel about it in The Road. I recently wrote about the subject as it appeared in a recent episode of Battlestar Galactica.

There is a way in which the concept of hope focuses all the concerns that are usually lumped into the more difficult question of “the search for meaning” and the dicey question of “faith.” Those questions are easily handled in a theoretical way, and their answers tend to be abstract, or to come in the form of theory, which isn’t always useful when somebody needs a reason to get up in the morning.

But hope is a concern that unites the present and the future, and, when dealing with the latter, it unites the future in this life and what future, if any, we have after this life. It is social and personal and, therefore, philosophical and political. And if you want to get up in the morning, the only compelling reason to do so is if you expect that a future happiness awaits you after you plant your feet on the floor, and that future happiness is what you hope for, and it better be an experience and not a theory.

The father and son in McCarthy’s The Road are stripped of everything and they live the question of hope in a radical way. Cuaron’s version of Children of Men makes a child, and not an idea or a social movement, the harbinger of hope. Since stories progress in time, they are useful vehicles for gauging the importance of hope.

But the Pepsi sign...it does nothing for me. All it reminds me of is H. L. Mencken’s definition of democracy, that is “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

I don’t buy into Mencken’s anti-populism, and in this case, what the people want is a good thing; but the advertisers sure want to give it to us good and hard. I don’t see the sign as provoking a question as much as anticipating it and distracting us from asking. I don’t think that, in this case, advertising works like art.

Then again, I did just write this post, so the ad did provoke me.

Tags santiago ramos

Share This Event

  •  Print Article
  •  Email Article
  •  Share Article

You can email "No Logo" by Copying and pasting this link into an email or instant message

or, clicking this link to email the link using your computer's email program.

These icons link to social networks where users can share and discover new webpages.

  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Meredith
http://forkeatssake.blogspot.com
"Pepsi: We Put the Oh! Back in Hope."

Whatever. I prefer RC cola. Morons.

2009-02-14 17:07 Permalink Reply

Beth
That last comment was mine. :)

2009-02-14 00:17 Permalink Reply

"I don’t see the sign as provoking a question as much as anticipating it and distracting us from asking." Well put! I haven't seen this particular ad campaign, but this rings true. I think this distraction is how marketing succeeds in so many fashion magazines and subway stations.

2009-02-14 00:17 Permalink Reply

Carol
To me, what's so enraging about these ads, which so clearly echo the Obama logo, is that Pepsi is trying to use the momentum of the recent presidential campaign to sell a trivial product. On the day of the inauguration, there was an ad on the NY Times website for a jewelry store, with a big diamond and the words, "Yes, you can." This, when the country is spiraling into catastrophic recession, and on a day when the new president was calling for public service. I believe the term for this sort of thing is "coopting," and it's utterly cynical.

2009-02-13 19:07 Permalink Reply

Paul
I think the Pepsi ads are great, at least they're effective as far as ads go. They're not meant to inform, to challenge, to provoke, but to influence. You're looking for dialectic where sophistry is preferred, naturally with some irritation.

I don't think marketing has to involve manipulation, at least not to the extent that one has a product which truly enriches the recipient. But when the product itself arguably makes life worse, and one's aim is to sell to the feckless masses, perhaps some kind of obfuscation is required. It's actually in Pepsi's apparent interest to displace, if only just slightly, a longing for a better life with a momentary lust for gratification by liquid sugar.

2009-02-11 11:39 Permalink Reply

Santiago
I think you agree with me.

2009-02-11 23:49 Permalink Reply

Paul
I think so too. The only difference is that I'm not bothered by the Pepsi ads. They are what they are.

2009-02-14 12:47 Permalink Reply

laura
amen! thanks for this, santiago. for several weeks now, i've been rolling my eyes at the pepsi ads, which paper (literally) the metro stop at my work. you've pinpointed much of what's beneath the disdain and the stomachache they've provoked in me.

2009-02-10 05:17 Permalink Reply

Add a Comment (comments will not appear until cleared by moderators)

Email:
URL:

Shop at our CafePress Store
ArtsandFaith.com Forum

Home Page   |   Site by Medium   |   Content © 1999 - 2013 Center For Religious Humanism

3307 Third Ave. West Seattle, WA, 98119   |   ph (206) 281-2988   |   fx (206) 281-2979   |   subscriptions 1 (866) 481-0688   |   image@imagejournal.org