*OT*
Kash,
<< Intel owes quite a debt to our little friend charlie. >>
No doubt. I said it's A LOT easier to get a dead person to 'push' a product. There is no doubt that when one uses the face/presence of MOST famous figures these days, there is at least SOME price to pay. I am willing to bet, the more famous (ie. Elvis, Sinatra, Nat King Cole), the more one might have to pay an Estate or other Legal Representative. I know this from researching to use one of a number of famous songs to be put into a short film I had an idea for. The fact is though, when a vacuum cleaner company uses Fred Astaire to advertize (I believe this is hoover?), one sometimes doesn't even have to question whether he would be doing this were he still alive...I think Not. All mho, though, of course. There is something great and funny about seeing dead famous people 'push' a product, but there is ALSO something 'disturbing' about it, in my humble opinion, simply bc it is impossible to know whether these people would have liked to be linked to an advertisement for such a product.
Bottom line though, it's simply easier and less costly to advertise with dead people's faces/images/personas then to take the time/cost/energy to get someone famous now (ie. leonardo dicaprio) to help advertise a product. Personally, I don't know why we dont see more of it. I'm sure it would cost a fortune to have Claire Daines advertise toothpaste when one could simply pay a lot less I am sure to grab the "just as popular" image of Audrey Hepburn.
I see a billboard on the 101 a lot with John Lennon hanging out with Yoko and it says "Think Different" with the Apple Co. signature below...like John would have wanted an Apple PC. I think its a great idea for an advertising campaign...heck, Apple is profitable for the time being...someone is doing a better job marketing.
At the same time, something inside says, "Clever, but I'm still gonna do my research to find out if the product is worth it." ;-)
all imho
pigboy |
