John Lennon: Computer Salesman

[walker]

Has anyone else seen this? To say that I'm appalled is lightly scratching the surface of the words I have for how inappropriate this is.



Using a Beatles song would have been testing the line of tact, but using a Lennon sound-alike AND manipulating Lennon's image to make it look like he HIMSELF is making the pitch??? I'm stunned. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

[scotty]

Poor very poor.....

[collin]

Well the Beatles were lots of great things, but they were never above shameless licensing etc.

Look at all that tasteless collectible naff (lunchboxes, beatle wigs) that was abundant in the early 60s and collectible now. I don't see much of a difference, it's not like it's more sacred now.

[robbo63]

I saw this a few weeks ago and really, really disliked it.

But then, Dirt Devil made commercials with Fred Astaire dancing with their vacuum cleaners (which his widow allowed, and his daughter decried). The Lennon OLPC ad at least is semi-altruistic and in keeping with John's cause-oriented persona, and not as blase as a vacuum cleaner. But to fake his voice to say things he never said, rather than just appropriate his image, is what really goads me.

[walker]

But to fake his voice to say things he never said, rather than just appropriate his image, is what really goads me.

Exactly. There should be a law that prevents this kind of image manipulation in advertising.

True, The Beatles appear to have collectively agreed upon the licensing of their name, band name, and own image to sell products that were Beatles products, but I don't recall any of them selling a product for another company, ala: "Hello! I'm Paul McCartney, and they call me "The Cute One" because I shave with Gillette!"

(Ironically, they did endorse Rickenbacker, but they actually USED the instruments... BEFORE they were approached for an endorsement deal.)

[JakeK]

I don't want to watch it, because I know how bad it's going to be. Heck, I can imiate Lennon's voice better than that!

Something to similar effect in 2008 was when really bad covers of "Hello Goodbye" were being used for Target, including a cover by the Jonas Brothers!

[electrofaro]

Brian Epstein was easy in approving Beatle merch - but still, there's actually more Kiss merchandise than Beatle merch...

[jingle_jangle]

Werner's got a nugget of something here--

The "boys" were exactly that--young, and although somewhat street-smart, not wise at all in the ways of the business world. I always had the feeling that the end of the rainbow for them was a recording contract, period, and what came later was shocking and barely comprehensible for awhile. Epstein, I'm sure, was shocked also--by the largesse of corporations that wanted to hop on a gravy train before it left the station. He did that business-smart thing, and took licensing far beyond what had ever been done prior to 1964, and the result was a mini-empire.

Yep, there was a lot of junk, but that was due to the nature of licensed product in those days. Although Beatles licensed goods ranged broadly, it never got too deep, because the higher-ended products hadn't broken through and had a vision of Beatles licensing, probably believing them to be "beneath" the demographic they were pursuing, and also possibly thinking them to be a flash-in-the-pan in a licensing world that thought in terms of longer-term contracts. How long was Ted Williams with Sears? Dinah Shore with Chevrolet? Would the Beatles last ten years as a property, viewed through the tiny lens of 1964?

So, now we're seeing a pretty awful dilution and advantage taken of the huge presence of John Lennon. No doubt those in charge didn't see any harm in this, and you can bet that it was thoroughly vetted. Undoubtedly, demographics won out over the taste of fans who know better and revere John for more than his ability to turn a buck. But most young people today will see this as barely a blip on the radar, and perceive it as a very hip way to resurrect a guy who died before they were born, and whose "music" is little more than a quaint curiosity.

[winston]

The use of John's image and a facsimile of his voice is all wrong on so many levels IMO.

[shamustwin]

From what I've read. Epstein gave away, in today's money, billions in merch licensing. Ignorance is not bliss.

To be sure, Johnandyoko Inc. had approval in all aspects of this ad.

[jingle_jangle]

Again, back in the 1960s, licensing was in its infancy, and lots was done by handshake. I suspect that this is where Brian (and many others, I'm sure) shortchanged himself and his clients by letting emotions get in the way of business.

[walker]

Well stated, Paul, but I tend to disagree with this part:

But most young people today will see this as barely a blip on the radar, and perceive it as a very hip way to resurrect a guy who died before they were born, and whose "music" is little more than a quaint curiosity.

Actually, I believe that the Beatles music still permeates the circles of kids today. I think they're well aware of it. Beatles songs, along with songs by the members as solo artists, are constantly covered by younger generations. This is all over the place - the albums & singles of the artists doing the covers, shows like 'American Idol', movies like 'Across The Universe', (was there a Beatles Guitar Hero?) If there IS any imbalance in which is more known, the music or the artist, I'd guess that the music comes out ahead.

It would really be interesting, though, to take a poll among kids, say ages 8-18, to see which they were more familiar with and get some sort of factual evidence! One way of doing it could be to have a playlist of 100 songs, fairly mainstream including presently popular artists and well as "yesterdays' biggies" whose music still resonates well, stick about 10 Beatles songs in the mix, and see how the kids do on those particular ten songs. Then have a visual part to the quiz - 100 photos of famous musicians past & present with the Fab 4 tossed in, and see how many can correctly name the Beatles individually.

[jingle_jangle]

I stand by my statement, Mark. Perhaps we are seeing the same thing, but words don't convey it.

My 13-year-old daughter is a large Beatles fan. We bought her the entire boxed set of Beatles CDs (formerly albums--get my drift?) last year, and she and her friends entertain each other with Beatles back-stories frequently. Yet, what interests her is the music, and not the politics and financial ends of things. The lore is fascinating to her; the squabbles not so much.

It's because kids haven't grown enough to experience the depth of human relationships in order to empathize with these aspects of the Beatles' lives. Although they can analyze the music endlessly (and often very perceptively), the politics, finances, and conflicts of the Beatles' careers have no commonality with a youngster's experiences--yet. "Let It Be" is music, as was "Love Me Do".

Who's Allen Klein?

Many of us LIVED through Beatlemania, and watching the Ed Sullivan video on Wednesday, brought back the amazement vividly. Youngsters now are born into a world with different cues and mentality; the Beatles are now an ingredient in a stew of cultural touchstones. In 1964, they WERE the New Stew--and all our older references looked faded and lacking in soul and variety. Their music was EVERYWHERE in '65, in a media landscape about one millionth the size of today's; it was total dominance.

Today, they're a curiosity and property (finally) on iTunes.

That's the gist of what I meant.

[electrofaro]

A dutch tv station actually asked teenagers outside a school after there was some noise about the car commercial.

The average dutch kid has NO idea who John Lennon is, in what group he was, what he did, thought, stood for.
Or so the channel might have us believe, maybe they just showed the kids who had absolutely no idea...
...manipulation is something these kids are used to - they don't question what they're fed at all.
Something way more worrying than the question if Yoko is or is not filling her coffers through deceased John
(a subject I won't judge on, as I don't know the agreement between the parties and speculation is like telling the future by looking into tealeafs).

[godber]

There are a lot more kids in the world in need of food and shelter than a laptop.