9851: Mad At Mad Men.

Advertising Age reported New Yorkers are upset by outdoor billboards promoting the upcoming season of Mad Men (depicted above), claiming the falling Don Draper graphic evokes images of 9/11. Interestingly enough, no one has ever expressed concern that the animated figure—which has illustrated the show’s opening title sequence since the beginning—actually evokes images of all the real adpeople who have jumped from high-rise buildings.

Controversy Brews Over Ads Promoting New Season of AMC’s ‘Mad Men’

Family Members of 9/11 Victims Complain Falling-Man Images Recall Those of Tragedy

By Rupal Parekh

Just weeks before the much-awaited return of AMC’s “Mad Men,” a promotional campaign for the fifth season of the hit show about 1960’s Madison Avenue is sparking controversy as some folks say it evokes images from the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In question is a minimalist image featured on billboards, on public telephone booths and in subway stations. It depicts a man wearing a suit stenciled in black, as he falls through the sky against a stark white background. Several family members of 9/11 victims told the New York Times that for them, the image conjures the memory of people forced to jump out of the crumbling, blazing Twin Towers more than 10 years ago.

The sudden outrage suggests that many Americans aren’t familiar with the show, since this image of the falling man has been utilized in the show’s opening credits and has been emblematic of the series—and its lead character, Don Draper, played by Jon Hamm—from the beginning.

Wikipedia notes that the title sequences pay homage to graphic designer Saul Bass’s skyscraper-filled opening titles for Alfred Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” and the falling-man movie poster for “Vertigo.” The show’s creator, Matthew Weiner, has listed Hitchcock as a major influence on the visual style of the series, says the Wikipedia page.

That the posters are now causing a stir is likely due to heightened outdoor and print advertising around the show’s fifth season, as well as a recent article in Esquire that made the comparison to 9/11.

AMC denies any link between its advertising and 9/11. In a statement, the network told the New York Times: “The image of Don Draper tumbling through space has been used since the show began in 2007 to represent a man whose life is in turmoil. The image used in the campaign is intended to serve as a metaphor for what is happening in Don Draper’s fictional life and in no way references actual events.”

9745: When Stock Photo Models Attack.

From The New York Times…

Model in Anti-Obesity Ad Criticizes the Campaign

By Patrick McGeehan

Another of the overweight models appearing in ads from New York City’s health department — one who did not have a limb edited off — criticized the campaign, saying that the ads will not have the desired effect.

After reading about the virtual amputation of the leg of another model, Beth Anne Sacks said she felt misled when she saw herself in one of the ads in a subway car. Not only did she not like being one of the “poster people for obesity,” but she also said the message was too negative to inspire overweight people to change their eating habits.

“This is so negative,” Ms. Sacks said in an interview. “If they think they’re going to reach overweight people with these ads, they’re not going to do it. I don’t think they would make someone go, ‘You’re right, I need to change.’”

Ms. Sacks, a 43-year-old actress and singer (see video below) who lives in Manhattan, said the health department was trying to frighten people into changing their habits, but “the ad of me doesn’t scare me.” She is shown climbing the stairs of a subway station, with containers of French fries arrayed in front of her, to warn of the dangers of growing portions of fast food and sugary drinks.

“I look at it and think ‘Oh, it’s just a big girl walking up the subway stairs,’” she said referring to one of three ads the health department is placing in the transit system. “None of those scare me,” she said, not even the one of Cleo Berry, an able-bodied actor whose right leg was made to appear partly amputated to represent the devastating effects of diabetes.

John Kelly, a spokesman for the health department, said, “Our smoking cessation ads have helped drive smoking in New York City down to historic lows, and our other public health campaigns have been essential to the progress we’ve made helping New Yorkers live longer and healthier lives.”

Unlike Mr. Berry, whose image was captured by a stock photo agency several years ago, Ms. Sacks knew she was posing for a city-sponsored campaign. She said that she answered an ad on Craigslist in mid-December that was placed by the health department’s ad agency. It was seeking an “overweight actress” for a photo shoot within the next two days and offering $250, she said.

The next day, she was taken to a subway station downtown and photographed climbing the steps — not her favorite activity. “I’ve never been a stair person,” she said.

She said she was pleasantly surprised when she was paid $300 at the end of the day because it helped pay her rent. But now, she said, she has some regrets. “The 300 has come and gone, and now I’m all over the subway system,” she said.

9674: Anti-Obesity Ads Are The Biggest Losers.

Advertising Age published the following piece regarding the advertisement depicted above:

Bloomberg to Critics of Anti-Obesity Ad: ‘Take Your Poison’

Some Call Campaign Featuring Amputee Too Graphic

By Ken Wheaton

According to NY1, Michael Bloomberg today defended the current crop of anti-obesity ads. It seems that some people find the ad featuring a person with an amputated leg too graphic. (It’s unclear who “some people” are, however.)

Bloomberg offered a supersized portion of smackdown: “What do you want to do? Do you want to have people lose their legs or do you want to show them what happens so that they won’t lose their legs? Take your poison. Which do you want? You can’t have it both ways.”

It’s important to realize that Bloomberg is a politician, which might explain his ignorant and uninformed rhetoric. And because the advertisement ran in New York City, perhaps the mayor is simply defending having approved a supersized waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Like the awful campaign from morons in Atlanta, this NYC effort is a misguided mess which will probably fail to persuade anyone to do anything.

As MultiCultClassics has repeatedly pointed out, the fast food industry operates remarkably similarly to Big Tobacco—including the deployment of lobbyists and PR hacks to push greedy agendas and sleazy tactics. Plus, just as Big Tobacco knows shock value and threats of death and dismemberment won’t dissuade smokers, the McIndustry is completely aware that scary ads won’t dramatically alter bad eating habits. Additionally, any PSA-style initiatives to combat obesity are greatly outweighed by the marketing firepower of fast feeders.

So does that mean battling unhealthy food creators is a hopeless endeavor? Au contraire, fellow citizens! To succeed, justice fighters must employ the maneuvers that have been proven effective versus Big Tobacco:

Stop attacking the victims. Start annoying the culprits. For example, the iconic Truth campaign gained traction by forgoing stereotypical images of diseased lungs, opting to focus attention directly on irresponsible tobacco executives and their companies. In other words, don’t show fatties and amputees. Expose the fat cats and corporate honchos behind the deadly menu items instead.

Restrict marketing and apply warning labels. Big Tobacco is not allowed to hawk its products to kids. Big Mac should be equally regulated and prohibited. Imagine placing Surgeon General’s warnings on Happy Meals too. Honestly, what’s the real difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel?

Raise McTaxes. Big Tobacco doesn’t want to admit it, but smoking decreases when pricing increases. The same may hold true with fast food. When people realize they can’t afford—literally and figuratively—to eat the shit, they may turn to better alternatives.

Mayor Bloomberg ought to reconsider his statements. “You can’t have it both ways” is a feeble attempt to justify doing things the wrong way.

9596: Seabrook Filleted.

From The New York Post…

Baloney on a bagel

City Councilman Larry Seabrook — you know, the guy who eats $177 bagels — must take New Yorkers for rank fools.

What else could explain his outrageously cynical appearance on NY1 Tuesday, portraying himself as a victim of run-amok prosecutors leveling spurious allegations?

Seabrook thinks folks will believe that he and those many friends and relatives of his who got jobs at taxpayer-funded nonprofits are no different than, say, John and Robert Kennedy or ex-Gov. Hugh Carey and his kin — even Mario Cuomo and son Andrew, the current governor.

“I think there was a president named John Kennedy, and he hired his brother, named Robert Kennedy,” Seabrook noted, contemptuously. “I think there was a governor named Mario Cuomo, and there was a son that ran his campaign and also ran a nonprofit,” he hissed. “I think he’s the governor now.”

Never mind that the decades-old appointments Seabrook cites bear absolutely no resemblance to the kind of corruption he’s accused of.

Never mind that Seabrook is facing a new trial, after a jury deadlocked on a mile-long list of charges against him — some with sentences as long as 20 years.

This is the guy, recall, with the $177 deli receipt — for a bagel and a Snapple! — that he used for an expense reimbursement.

(Guess he was trying to schmear New Yorkers then — just as he was Tuesday.)

And that’s just the tip of the whitefish spread: Seabrook’s charged with funneling more than $1.2 million in taxpayer cash to nonprofits where his mistress and relatives got more than $600,000. He’s also accused of squeezing a contractor for $40,000.

And the fact that his trial ended in a hung jury by no means vindicates him.

“We fully intend to retry the case and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the councilman criminally exploited his official position in order to enrich his friends, his family and himself,” insists Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.

Best of luck to him.

And when he’s finished with Seabrook, there will be plenty of work remaining.

Fact is, city and state statutes practically beg pols to see what they can get away with.

Legislators get millions each year to butter their own bagels; they use the dough to buy political backing or enrich themselves and others — a sorry state of affairs indeed.

As long as the pols refuse to outlaw the underlying temptations and make it truly difficult for each other to steal from taxpayers, New Yorkers, alas, will continue to see more Larry Seabrooks.

And $177 bagels.