A Vineyard?

You’ve probably seen the ads. A brokerage firm uses a technique in which the actors appear as animation. It is an eerie affect but effective in that it grabs our interest. And our attention is exactly what this advertiser wants.

The gist of the commercials is that this particular brokerage firm deals in reality. It will help its clients prepare for an achievable retirement. It offers guidance that makes sense in today's economy.

I am not commenting on the pros or cons of using this brokerage.  My purpose is to ask you to consider the effectiveness of the ad itself.  Have you noticed it? Do you listen to the script? Does it speak to you on any level?

The rotoscope animation caught my eye instantly, as it was designed to do, and I was fascinated by the effect. How do they do that? It reminded me a little of the way The Polar Express was made with image capture technology.

This ad campaign intrigues me as a writer. The script tells the story succinctly and gives voice to what many of us are feeling.  How often have we seen commercials from other investment firms that show us long, deserted beaches, foreign travel destinations, and, of course, the California vineyard? How did we react to those ads?

To be effective, writing must give voice to what people are thinking and feeling while, at the same time, imparting fact and truth. The reason some written work has been with us for centuries is that the authors were able to do that. In A Tale of Two Cities, as an example, we recognize our own penchant to become an unthinking mob while we retain the hope that we could be as self-sacrificing as Sidney Carton.

The brokerage ad campaign is not Dickens. However, it has been around since 2005 and it does tap into what I’m sure many people are thinking - a vineyard?

And that’s good writing.

Video Tells the Story

For those who have been trapped in a cave: pop singer Michael Jackson passed away and there has been a media frenzy for the last three weeks. There’s a lot of communicating going on right now so I can’t help but analyze its effectiveness.

While I agree that, in general, the media coverage has been excessive and repetitive, there are nuggets of real information buried in the hype. One of those bits surfaced this week in the form of video footage showing Jackson sustaining third-degree burns to his scalp during the filming of a Pepsi commercial.

There was footage released to the public in at the time but it was shot from the front and the severity of Jackson’s injury could not be seen. I did not understand what all the fuss was about in 1984; as of now, I do. Because of one bit of film, I saw that Jackson was badly burned. Many medical experts have explained, in connection with other stories, that burned skin remains extremely painful forever. The injury does not excuse Jackson's apparent drug abuse but it explains it - in part.

The media had some facts about the Jackson case wrong from the start and probably still do. I guess I can’t fault that too much. A number of newspapers reported there were no casualties on the Titanic. Fact verification is not a new problem. This video is a good example of what happens when the media does its right – finding new information that provided perspective the audience did not have before.

I hope, as the Jackson story progresses, that the reporters and journalists will stop speculating and ferret out real information instead. I’m sure there’s plenty to be had.

I'll follow a story but only when it’s worth my time. Much of what has been communicated lately about Jackson's death hasn’t been. A rare exception was the video clip.

MAC vs PC

I’ve been using PCs since 1991 (the technological Stone Age) and the forcible upgrading routine began with that Intel 286. Microsoft created new operating software and the hardware manufacturers developed machines to accommodate it. I bought a new computer every few years when my existing software stopped working because technology had passed it by.

Recently I decided to buy a laptop so I could write anywhere I traveled. The laptop would not replace my desktop PC. It would be an addition.

After reading Consumer Reports, I got recommendations from guru friends before heading to the store. There I was confronted with Vista, the new operating system from Microsoft. Vista is so unpopular that some retailers, for a fee, will remove it and install the old operating system, Windows XP. I also learned that the new version of Word was not compatible with the old version without downloading fixes. Finally, I experienced a hard sell about hiring the retailer to “clean up” the laptop because Vista is a software pig. Without professional tweaking, Vista will use up memory and the new laptop will not run efficiently.

Let me state that I understand Microsoft is a business and businesses are all about making money. Upgrades and new software products are how Microsoft makes its money. My problem lies with the way it does it. A computer comes with the operating system Microsoft decides I must use. That system is so “inefficient” that I must spend additional money to have the retailer “clean it up.”

Previously I would have grudgingly bought a Windows-based laptop and lived with my dissatisfaction. I didn’t do that this year. What made the difference was those amusing commercials from Apple.

As I said in my first post, it’s all about communication. We make choices every day. Hopefully those choices are based on solid information obtained through careful research. Yet what drives us to the research is often an emotional reaction to something that has been communicated to us.

Microsoft conveyed their message. Apple told me something completely different. I heard both companies loud and clear.

I will have a PC as long as my business needs require it. However, as I type this on my MacBook, I can only hope that my communication efforts are as effective those made by Apple.