Skip

Dude catches sunglasses with his face
May 9, 2007 8:45 AM   Subscribe


 
Do these guys know the beer pong guys?
posted by Plutor at 8:49 AM on May 9, 2007


Why is this all over the internet? It's so completely fake... and with that being said, save this type of crap for break.com
posted by autodidact at 8:49 AM on May 9, 2007


I watched a few seconds of it this morning and the catches all seemed to be conveniently obscured or off camera.
posted by DU at 8:49 AM on May 9, 2007


Well, I guess I'm not all over the internet. I just thought it was stupidly fun.
posted by Flashman at 8:54 AM on May 9, 2007


Flashman: I just thought it was stupidly fun.

Well, you're half right.
posted by wfrgms at 8:55 AM on May 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


I thought it was awesome and creative. I liked that dude was holding an icecream cone.
posted by hellphish at 8:57 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I didn't get the impression we were supposed to think it was real. But that's just how bad it is?
posted by katillathehun at 8:58 AM on May 9, 2007


*but MAYBE that's just how bad it is, I meant.
posted by katillathehun at 8:59 AM on May 9, 2007


I thought it was pretty funny. It's obvious by the time they get to the overpass that it's a gag.
posted by brain_drain at 9:00 AM on May 9, 2007


The amount of time that the car stunt must have taken to get right is pretty impressive.
posted by Skorgu at 9:01 AM on May 9, 2007


Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:06 AM on May 9, 2007


Looks like they just filmed everything in reverse and put some wire on the sunglasses. The awkward movements during the celebration after the rooftop drop give it away.

Still, I'm going to go with pretty funny if only that they are pretty goofy guys.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:08 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I too was wondering why this would warrant a fpp, but then I realized it is a gag. They way they're high fiving the guy and being overly congratulatory and making ridiculous faces makes it seem very much like this is a parody of e.g. the beer pong guys, and perhaps even more likely the quarters guys. But then, the original poster comes in to say he didn't post it because it's a parody, but because it's "stupidly funny." Oh well. And while we're on the subject, quit with the damn one link youtube posts already. No matter how interesting or funny the video is, it would take you what, ten seconds to flesh out your post with some links?
posted by nzero at 9:10 AM on May 9, 2007


'Never Hide', visible finger-marked into the dirt on the side rear window of the mucky car at the end, in a new marketing slogan for Ray Bans. It's a viral.
posted by hydatius at 9:12 AM on May 9, 2007 [3 favorites]


Q: When someone posts a single YouTube link, is it worth leaving comments here, or should the first person simply link to the comments left on the YouTube page? Seems that will save us all a lot of time and effort.
posted by adamms222 at 9:14 AM on May 9, 2007


And while we're on the subject, quit with the damn one link youtube posts already. No matter how interesting or funny the video is, it would take you what, ten seconds to flesh out your post with some links?

Nah, why clutter the post with a bunch of noise?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:14 AM on May 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


'Never Hide', visible finger-marked into the dirt on the side rear window of the mucky car at the end, in a new marketing slogan for Ray Bans. It's a viral.

Quick thinking hydatius. So we've got a lousy, one link FPP to a youtube video which is in fact a viral marketing scheme from Ray-Ban.

Thanks Flashman. UR TEH WINRAREST

Never Hide is the claim of a campaign that will (of course) include a touch of consumer generated content.
posted by wfrgms at 9:19 AM on May 9, 2007


No matter how interesting or funny the video is, it would take you what, ten seconds to flesh out your post with some links?

Just say no to "post padding." Single link posts are fine. They're like Doritos. And who doesn't love Doritos?
posted by ColdChef at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2007


Looks like they just filmed everything in reverse and put some wire on the sunglasses. The awkward movements during the celebration after the rooftop drop give it away.

I've heard people saying that, and it seems rediculous. How could they get the glasses to spin like that on a wire? How could they do it off a 2-story overpass, or from the car window with a wire? You think they drove down the street backwards? Skateboarded backwards?

You think they somehow managed to launch the glasses off his face, and get them to land perfictly on a skateboard, at the perfict second so that it landed, and then stayed on the board? That would be even more impressive.

It was obviously just done with computers.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2007


good catch, hydatuis:

" Ray-Ban, the brand producing the coolest shades in the world (I'm talking about the Aviator model, of course), has just launched a massive global marketing effort (20 countries are involved) to target the young, brave and nonconformist consumer.

Never Hide is the claim of a campaign that will (of course) include a touch of consumer generated content. Never Hide in front of 100 million people, submit your photo on the Ray-Ban and get your 15 seconds of fame with your photo shown on a huge billboard in Times Square. "
posted by Mach5 at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2007


See for yourself

fuckers
posted by photoslob at 9:22 AM on May 9, 2007


I'm a non-conformist consumer! Just like everyone else!
posted by ColdChef at 9:23 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


That video was far more amusing than this thread, so eat it, haters!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:26 AM on May 9, 2007


Yea! Duuuuuude!
posted by Mister_A at 9:28 AM on May 9, 2007


I saw the Ray Ban billboard on the Metro on the way to work yesterday, and it stuck in my mind as an unusually sucky ad line. And then I couldn't decide whether the dude with shades on in the radio studio was supposed to be ripping off Eric Bogosian in Talk Radio or John Cusack from that bit in Grosse Pointe Blank.
posted by hydatius at 9:35 AM on May 9, 2007


Ban the Ray Ban post.
posted by Dizzy at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2007


Sure, go ahead - I'd been thinking it was a viral ad for Oakley.
posted by Flashman at 9:42 AM on May 9, 2007


Single link posts are okay sometimes. I mean really... how can you flesh out a post about a bare-butted baby ticking off a defanged cobra?
posted by miss lynnster at 9:52 AM on May 9, 2007


Best YouTube comment (ever):

you could probably do something similar with magnets

This could probably apply to 99% of YouTube videos, you know.
posted by humblepigeon at 9:54 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Crowd: We are all nonconformist consumers!

Guy: I'm not!
posted by freebird at 9:54 AM on May 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


You think they drove down the street backwards?

Yeah. You're right. The technical limitations of an automobile prevent that.


It was obviously just done with computers.


Looking at it again, it seems to be a combination of the two.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:00 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: You could probably do something similar with magnets.
posted by Mister_A at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2007


Lessons some people need to learn:

1) Single link posts not necessarily bad, even when they point to YouTube.
2) Viral advertising posts are not necessarily bad.

I enjoyed it, fakery or not. I think it's pretty decent fakery, actually. I still am not certain how they did it. Some of the stuff looks backwards, but for instance the toss off the overpass would have been real hard to do by pulling a wire up. You'd have to pull pretty quickly, and slow down as it got to the top, and somehow made sure it flipped end over end as you pulled.

I think it'd be far easier to do like the beer pong guys: try over and over until it works.
posted by Plutor at 10:01 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Now that I know it's viral marketing, I feel a little dirty.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:02 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


No matter how interesting or funny the video is, it would take you what, ten seconds to flesh out your post with some links?

It takes 0 seconds to ignore a single-link youtube post.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2007


Maybe they shot it on film and hand-drew the glasses in flight. That would be innovative and retro.
posted by Mister_A at 10:05 AM on May 9, 2007


This is actually an interesting thread to me moreso now it has been pointed out as an ad, as this type of marketing is starting to emerge as being more common. (eg. not explicitly stating that it is a commercial, but leaves subtle clues to its relevance to a brand).

In a way it's a bit of a puzzle for the consumer to figure out, which works its magic once the relations are logically made to the brand. It's also somewhat of a teaser that doesn't elude to what its teasing about. Mixed in with youtube it's a little tougher to spot the commercial as it blends in (as opposed to the attempts on TV to portray a real situation...for example the volvo crash commercial...we automatically assume its an ad because someone had to pay to get it there, and when that happens its never without an underlying message).

I think between this and ARGs (Alternate Reality Games...much like the one launched by NIN's Year Zero) we are definitely seeing this kind of vague advertising trend grow...where clues are left in a way that aren't readily apparent to be linked to a product. Personally, and this is just my opinion....this kind of advertising has been around awhile...but with viral marketing being paired with the economy of social currency(previous mefi topic btw)....its an advertisers match made in heaven.
posted by samsara at 10:08 AM on May 9, 2007


Heh. Fake and kind of funny. Those guys are probably pretty cool to hang out with.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 10:15 AM on May 9, 2007


The expresson on the green-shirt guy's face when he's on the skateboard makes this video.
posted by breath at 10:18 AM on May 9, 2007


"Yeah. You're right. The technical limitations of an automobile prevent that." --eyeballkid

Watch the car hit the bump in the road. Played backwards, the physics of that bump would be all wrong. Another vote for massive CGI work.
posted by knave at 10:19 AM on May 9, 2007


samsara, that's what a lot of advertisers and their agencies think, but it's really hard to bottle that lightning. For every lonelygirl15 there are probably ten abject failures, and the reason is most often that the product manager won't let go the reins enough to allow the thing to work on its own terms. That's the thing - stuff like the RayBan clip here work (or don't) on their own terms, regardless of what brand they're produced to support. Advertising has never been about subtlety, but this kind of project demands subtlety. That's really hard for the marketing department people to get their little minds around.

Another issue is that as more of this stuff is put out there, it becomes easier to spot, and people will grow tired of it. Finally, the return on investment may not justify the expense of these campaigns. Posting this video on YouTube is certainly cheaper than a traditional media buy, and you have the opportunity to do longer format, but if people don't know what you're trying to sell them after viewing your ad, you've wasted your money.
posted by Mister_A at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2007


So far, it seems that just about everyone who has been involved in this saga so far, from the OP (bad FPP), to the "relax, its just lighthearted fun" crowd (its not; its meant as a parody to make obsessive stupid-human-trick YouTubers look rididculous), to the "its meant as a parody" crowd (its not; its insidious viral advertising) to the "I'm a non-conformist" crowd (nope; turns out your an inculcated consumer like everybody else), to the "I'm going to make fun of the non-conformists for being so pretentiously non-conformist" crowd (turns out they were actors playing precisely that role) to the "This was done with wires and being shot in reverse" crowd (wrong-o; Korean animators come cheaper than soccer ball sewers nowadays), to the "This is advertising and therefore evil" crowd (apparently the post is being permitted to stay up) to just about everybody else who has in any way expressed an opinion about this has been completely and totally owned in one way or another.

I've never seen anything like this; never in my experience have so many been so wrong about so much so quickly. I am therefore going to stay the hell out of this fray.
posted by ChasFile at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2007


In other words, we are already nearing the diminishing returns part of the "viral advertising" curve, assuming that there have ever been any returns to begin with.

Now that I have your attention, ladies and gentlemen, step right this way to see the amazing, the fantastic, the singular Great Egress!
posted by Mister_A at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2007


five dolla teevee post.

and it's advertising.

LOLZ
posted by flotson at 10:31 AM on May 9, 2007


Also, samsara, yeah, got to agree with Mr A. You pretty concisely laid out the CW that you see an editorial repeating about once a month in MediaWeek, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated. Go to Wikipedia's page on ARG's an you will see a list of hundreds, maybe thousands. For every I Love Bees (circa 2001, BTW, for those who think this is so so fresh and clean) and NIN, there are dozens of immitators that never got off the ground. For every video like this one, there are probably hundreds that small interactive shops in SoHo get paid to produce that get 2,000 views and die a quiet death.

Until advertisers can MUCH more reliably deliver an audience with these things, they just don't make sense for about 95% of the brands out there. Hence the ever-increasing price of superbowl airtime, despite the "self-evident truth" that permission-based psuedo-ads are the way of the future.
posted by ChasFile at 10:31 AM on May 9, 2007


DO NOT DIGG
posted by sidereal at 10:32 AM on May 9, 2007


You'd have to pull pretty quickly, and slow down as it got to the top, and somehow made sure it flipped end over end as you pulled.

Pulling the sunglasses off the guys face smoothly and getting a shot of the other guy doing a fake throwing motion with the glasses is all you need. Everything else is CGI. It's especially easy if you don't see the throw like on the elevator or in the car stunt. But I have to admit the trick where they're both on the skateboards is nifty, even if it is fake.

Anyhow, I just wasted 5 minutes of my life feeding a viral marketing campaign. Ugh.
posted by Skygazer at 10:35 AM on May 9, 2007



*rant on*

Who gives a fuck? Cute? Not Cute? Who gives a fuck it's a fucking ad! It's a moment of fucking commerce, they are selling you shit. Fucking sun glasses it might as well be tupperware or MaryKay. This insidious, mendacious shit - "some consumer generated content..." meaning, "we want to co-opt your creativity because we're too fucking lame ourselves to think up anything _really_ creative beyond that thing that one guy suggested but we had to nix because it involved bukkakkeekkeee, though personally I liked it, aesthetically, I mean but, you know, it didn't test well Idon'tknowwhy..."

I hate this trend, this shit is fucking evil and we've been suckered into thinking it is anything but. It's just trade, commerce, the marketplace. When I see this shit with these two (at first) genial-seeming guys acting all 'cool and goofy' and then in the end they aren't just selling their 'cool southern-california lifestyle duuuuude' but also, fucking sunglasses! Why don't you just fucking pitch bibles or encyclopedias or fucking steak knives you bottom sucking sack of mouse barf, no, mouse ball-sweat. I will not buy your sunglasses because I think you are a lame ass barn-yard animal lusting jackass. I will not buy your sunglasses because you're viral marketing ploy is basically lying to try and sell me something and I don't fucking like it I'll buy a fucking Chinese knock-offs (now with ethylene glycol!) before I shell out for your

and this?is this 'viral?' what is it selling? Because it has to be selling something... this "viral shit" (we all remember that viruses are _bad_, right?) is a fucking violation of everything that is silly and trite and ridiculous and as such has almost infinitely less dignity. These people should be forced to wear these sunglasses for the rest of thier lives, 24/7/365.

*rant off*

That was kind of funny, that is, until the rage kicked in

I'll be happy if I never see anything like it ever again. ever.
posted by From Bklyn at 10:36 AM on May 9, 2007 [3 favorites]


soccer ball sewers

?
posted by odinsdream at 10:37 AM on May 9, 2007


I'm not so sure...how many kinds of ads get people to link and talk about them on sites that generally reject unsolicited advertising? Whether you or I go out to buy Ray Ban sunglasses is not the point IMO...the emotional aftertaste of the brand (thanks zefrank) is in our heads now (and for the youtubers who didn't catch it as an ad, a good number will post the link on their favorite forum or blog)...later on when Ray Ban reveals it as part of their marketing campaign (which we've obviously cut to the chase here) it would tie the brand to a strong associated memory.

I've never studied advertising on a deep level which is my disclaimer of course. But I do remember reading articles on brand association where getting someone to buy something because of an ad was not as important as creating an emotional association to the product through memory. It may play a subconscious role who knows? When someone goes to buy sunglasses and see's Oakleys and Ray Bans with the "Never Hide" slogan...they could instantly remember the youtube vid that they shared with all their buds and go "yep, that's what I'm gettin"

P.S. I think i'm non-conformist-non-conformist...somewhat because I don't wear sunglasses.
posted by samsara at 10:42 AM on May 9, 2007


Way to stay the hell out of the fray, ChasFile.
Look, here's how it went down... this afternoon one of my colleagues e-mailed me this clip. First, yes I searched for the Beer Pong guy clip and replied to him with that, then I thought darn, with all the angst and sturm and drang at Metafilter right now, people might appreciate this dumb, funny (when they got to the elevator door one, I did LOL), and yes artfully faked clip.
If it's advertising, so what? Certainly my appreciation of it is nowdimished manyfold, but at the same time, there are lots and lots and lots of ads that have merit as comedy, art, spectacle etc
posted by Flashman at 10:47 AM on May 9, 2007


1. clicks link, watches video, mildly chuckles to self
2. reads thread, finds out it is possibly/probably viral marketing
*3. DEPRESSES CAPS LOCK KEY AND FIRES OFF ANGRY METAFILTER PEPSIBLUE RANT ABOUT RAPING THE PURITY OF SELF-MADE YOUTUBE VIDEOS ARGHHHHHH
posted by Challahtronix at 10:47 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know, I watched it, and have no desire to wear sunglasses, or more pointedly, wear this brand of sunglasses. Yet I was mildly amused for a few moments. Should I kill myself now, or wait?

You guys who are shitting all over this in 25 words or more need to get out in the sun. Don't forget eye protection.
posted by maxwelton at 10:50 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I've never seen anything like this; never in my experience have so many been so wrong about so much so quickly. I am therefore going to stay the hell out of this fray. (you haven't; by simply posting, you have entered the fray)

(I'm kidding, of course)

To tell you the truth, I didn't even see the "Never Hide" on the car until I looked for it. I think while viral marketing won't go away completely, I think it will become product specific. People who think it's ridiculous to pay $5 to join a website where links are posted and discussed (i.e. 75% of the world) aren't going to be offended (or even realize in many cases) that they just saw a viral ad. Internet geeks (and I use that term loosely, not trying to troll), do feel "had" and that would probably cause them not to buy said product. That being said, I think smart ad managers would not use viral marketing, or, as in the case of ilovebees, make it a really good viral ad, where the user doesn't necessarily feel taken in, when promoting traditionally "geeky" items. just my .02, though, I could be wrong about it all....
posted by Debaser626 at 10:53 AM on May 9, 2007


And in addition: Ray-Bans suck. Persol are much cooler.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:55 AM on May 9, 2007


Metafilter: Never Hide


O hai, I gotz my comershulz in yor bloo
posted by Debaser626 at 10:56 AM on May 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


The expresson on the green-shirt guy's face when he's on the skateboard makes this video.

That's exactly what I thought.
posted by mrnutty at 10:57 AM on May 9, 2007


Wow, some serious vitriol here. Why would you let an producer /advertiser/whatever shape you like that?
posted by Bovine Love at 10:57 AM on May 9, 2007


I have a pair of Ray-Ban aviators that are at least 20 years old—do I have to kill myself or am I grand-fathered?
posted by Mister_A at 11:00 AM on May 9, 2007


the shirt that the "catcher" is wearing is an old neil hamburger shirt that promises a free two-liter of off-brand soda if someone goes to a particular pizza shop on tuesdays before 5 pm or something like that.

i have the shirt, i'm just too lazy to look.

and now you know -- neil hamburger supports ray-bans.

"'cause that's MY LIIIIIFE!"
posted by Hat Maui at 11:08 AM on May 9, 2007


PeterMcDermott wrote: "And in addition: Ray-Bans suck. Persol are much cooler."

Both brands are owned and manufactured by the same company, Luxottica.

Yeah, your favorite sunglasses brand sucks.
posted by retronic at 11:08 AM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Further to my defense, Ray Ban runs a different marketing campaign here in the UK and so 'Never Hide' is not part of the vernacular.

Here the Ray Ban tagline is 'Unsmashable' - playing on the protection their sunglasses give you when you get punched in the face
posted by Flashman at 11:09 AM on May 9, 2007


Flashman, I'm glad you took down that tag relating to the perceived quality of your post.
posted by Mister_A at 11:13 AM on May 9, 2007


Here the Ray Ban tagline is 'Unsmashable' - playing on the protection their sunglasses give you when you get punched in the face

This would be funny, except it's true (the "getting punched in the face" in the UK part...I'm not vouching for the durability of the specs).
posted by retronic at 11:13 AM on May 9, 2007


The physics is squarely in the uncanny valley. I wonder if they made it hinky on purpose to make people talk about it even more.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2007


Those sunglasses, they were the ugly.
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:38 AM on May 9, 2007


Both brands are owned and manufactured by the same company, Luxottica.

Yeah, Luxottica seem to own pretty much everything these days -- but I meant the styles, rather than the quality of the lenses. I think Serengetti probably make better glasses, but they just don't look as cool as Persol.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:40 AM on May 9, 2007


ChasFile: "For every I Love Bees ... and NIN, there are dozens of immitators that never got off the ground. For every video like this one, there are probably hundreds that small interactive shops in SoHo get paid to produce that get 2,000 views and die a quiet death."

For every Apple/1984 and "Where's the Beef" lady, there are dozens of guys standing in used car lots with bad lighting, buzzing audio, and blinking local phone number overlays.

When are they going to stop advertising?
posted by Plutor at 11:56 AM on May 9, 2007


Shouldn't it be "unglassable"? Maybe just in the north.
posted by everichon at 11:56 AM on May 9, 2007


no one finds it funny how long it takes the 'thrower' to don the glasses just before tossing them to his friend? Kind of proving the impossibility of it.
posted by Busithoth at 11:57 AM on May 9, 2007


Who gives a fuck? Cute? Not Cute? Who gives a fuck it's a fucking ad! It's a moment of fucking commerce, they are selling you shit.

I don't mind. In toto, I think my ad exposure is lower now than ever, given that I don't see any ads on TV or on the web.
posted by smackfu at 12:06 PM on May 9, 2007


Campus Health Centers across the nation are gearing up for an influx of poked-out eyes and chipped teeth.
posted by Dizzy at 12:27 PM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


You'd have to pull pretty quickly, and slow down as it got to the top, and somehow made sure it flipped end over end as you pulled.

I think you plagiarized from an Ask MeFi sex question.
posted by cowbellemoo at 12:40 PM on May 9, 2007


given that I don't see any ads. . .on the web

Except for the Ray Bans "Never Hide" campaign, you mean?
posted by flotson at 12:44 PM on May 9, 2007


What I don't get is this -- if we didn't notice it was viral marketing, would it still work as viral marketing? We'd chuckle and move on, probably. The people who think they're being so astute by discovering and naming the dreaded sunglasses company, and the people ranting on both sides -- aren't you guys the real viral marketers? You're the guys giving them all this publicity.

I guess I don't know much about the thinking of advertisers... is this supposed to work on some subliminal level? Sunglasses + barely visible slogan = OMG MUST BUY MUST BUY? Or is it more effective if people know what the ad is for, to raise brand awareness? If it's the latter, then you guys are the real suckers. Also, I am also a sucker for writing about it, even though I'm trying to avoid referring to the company by name.

This is why this stuff (viral marketing) is so ugly and insidious... it just fucking pollutes the mental landscape. We're left with two options: constant mistrust of possibly genuine creativity, which is unhealthy and stifles genuine creativity, or uncritical acceptance, which rewards underhanded tactics and creates an atmosphere where whoever yells the loudest gets heard and anyone with anything interesting to say gets buried.
posted by speicus at 1:03 PM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


How about just just enjoying the video ("that was cute") or not ("that was lame") and leaving it at that?
posted by brain_drain at 1:08 PM on May 9, 2007


I love being advertised to; it's my main source of finding out what I can buy.

Am I really in the minority?
posted by chudmonkey at 1:32 PM on May 9, 2007


I think the guys look lame in the first place. Aren't Ray Bans supposed to make me look cool, rather than like a dork?
posted by mr. strange at 1:34 PM on May 9, 2007


There's a debate in the ad field about making commercials too memorable. We've all (well people who watch ads, anyway) had the experience where you're describing a funny ad to someone, and you completely don't remember what the hell it was for. Putting a obscure "Never Hide" on a dirty window is not going to garnish them many customers. Unless they think it's somehow subliminal.
posted by Debaser626 at 2:13 PM on May 9, 2007


How about just just enjoying the video ("that was cute") or not ("that was lame") and leaving it at that?


Awesomeorsuckedfilter.
posted by flotson at 3:06 PM on May 9, 2007


The "never hide" thing is a throw-away. The main point to the video is that you're staring at pair of Raybans for 2 minutes.
posted by the jam at 3:55 PM on May 9, 2007


"You'll put someone's eye out doing that!"
posted by bwg at 4:17 PM on May 9, 2007


This little clip was funny, and personally I don't give a half a flyin' feck if it's a viral ad or what. It's not gonna make me buy or not buy RayBans or Parasols or whatever. It just brought a little laughter into my day, and laughter is good for your health. Getting all hot and bothered about something this insignifigant is probably not so good for your health. And you know what they say about health: at least you've got your health!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:53 PM on May 9, 2007


Dude catches crabs with his ding-dong
posted by moonbird at 5:48 PM on May 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Advertising is not art.
posted by BeerFilter at 6:51 PM on May 9, 2007


How about just just enjoying the video ("that was cute") or not ("that was lame") and leaving it at that?

Furthermore. . . I've got a better idea--

What if we could actually RATE the videos? And then, what if we could actually rate the comments people made rating them. . . And then. . .

Metafilter will not be worthy of its name until such a thing has come to pass.
posted by flotson at 7:35 PM on May 9, 2007


Guerilla advertising is so pre-internent. REMOVE THIS POST, please moderators.
posted by humannaire at 8:17 PM on May 9, 2007


And pre-internet, as well. Dur.
posted by humannaire at 8:19 PM on May 9, 2007


Guerilla advertising is so pre-internent.

And pre-internet, as well.


Wait, that was a mistake? I'd assumed you were referring to this.

(Wonder how many pairs of sunglasses there are in there?)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:46 PM on May 9, 2007


(looks like CERN after a hangover...)
posted by Dizzy at 8:57 PM on May 9, 2007


Does nobody else recognize the "thrower" actor from somewhere? You can get a good look at him at 1:20 or so. Big nose, sorta Jon Stewart looks. It's driving me nuts.
posted by dhartung at 9:04 PM on May 9, 2007


What a bunch of grumpy tossers in this post. That clip was a lot of fun to watch. And the little Encyclopedia Brown Net sleuths who figured out it's viral upthread? The link has the word "viral" in the URL.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 9:42 PM on May 9, 2007


There's a reversed version posted. For some reason they also reversed the dialog in chunks smaller than a scene (but then, the dialog and the mouth movements never matched up before either). Much of the actors body movements, including walking or hopping or whatever, look more natural, naturally.

And Kraftmatic brings up a good point: why was the link posted with the referrer information from Frederik Samuel's blog? Administrator, please hope us?
posted by dhartung at 12:04 AM on May 10, 2007


Brought to you by the fine people at Wonderchicken Industries™: Metatalk.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:56 AM on May 10, 2007


I'm not certain, but it looks like some of the actors are from that David Blaine Parody that was all over the internets a bit ago (and the David Blaine thing itself appears to be connected to some AOL/HBO venture).
posted by timelord at 3:59 AM on May 10, 2007


On second viewing…I think I was mistaken.
posted by timelord at 4:00 AM on May 10, 2007


Welcome to the new world of advertising. Up next: personalised content ads via retinal-scanning (think Minority Report).
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:51 AM on May 10, 2007


BeerFilter: Advertising is not art.

Well, I suppose, advertising is advertising ... but a piece of work created on the behest of a client for a specific purpose could be art, could it not? Much like many of the classic portraits?

So although advertising is not inherently art, I see no reason whatsoever why some work cannot be both art and advertising.
posted by Bovine Love at 9:12 AM on May 10, 2007


You know what was a far better viral ad for Ray Bans? The Blues Brothers.

That actually made me want to wear their glasses. This? Not so much.

But can we get over the idea that all advertising is necessarily bad? I agree that the viral stuff is a little irritating, but some advertising is art in and of itself. Just because it has a secondary purpose of trying to draw your attention to a product, shouldn't diminish the cleverness that went into it's creation.
posted by quin at 10:21 AM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


so ... why was the link posted with the referrer information from Frederik Samuel's blog?

can you get paid for referring users to commercials on YT?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:57 AM on May 10, 2007


some advertising is art in and of itself. Just because it has a secondary purpose of trying to draw your attention to a product, shouldn't diminish the cleverness that went into it's creation.

Not calling something "art" doesn't diminish its cleverness. I can appreciate cleverness in all sorts of commercials, but it doesn't make them cinematic art.

It probably depends on your personal beliefs. In "The Gift," Lewis Hyde postulates that art must necessarily entail some sort of a gift from the creator to the consumer, and I would agree. I would also say that precept disqualifies advertising/propaganda as art, but it's all semantics anyway ...
posted by mrgrimm at 12:05 PM on May 10, 2007


"Ray-Ban Wayfarer Relaunch" -- Wallpaper | Jan. 25, 2007

"Risky Business!" -- Runwayreporter.com | Apr. 4, 2007
posted by ericb at 1:15 PM on May 10, 2007


It probably depends on your personal beliefs. In "The Gift," Lewis Hyde postulates that art must necessarily entail some sort of a gift from the creator to the consumer, and I would agree. I would also say that precept disqualifies advertising/propaganda as art, but it's all semantics anyway ...

Wow, I just finished reading that book what a coincidence. I think it also postulated that the creator is passionate about what they're doing...for example "I make art for the sake of making art, and any money is an added perk that keeps me making art" instead of simply "I make art for money" which strays from the gift economy into the market economy. Of course in that book there were much better examples like the shoemaker etc.
posted by samsara at 2:02 PM on May 10, 2007


Oh. Whoops II.

I was unaware that May is VirlalMarketingMonth.

Well the, uh,...
"Banksy for May! Blah nothing! Zippy bippy!"

(I guess I'll just turn down the ol' internent until June comes on.)
posted by humannaire at 7:24 PM on May 10, 2007


[Dilantin]
posted by humannaire at 7:30 PM on May 10, 2007


Somehow I missed this thread. It seems like people are still saying "if it's an ad". Of course it's an ad. The producer/director/whatever is a friend of mine. When he emailed us all about it he told us it was an ad for Raybans.

Some of his photography work is here.
posted by poppo at 6:08 AM on May 11, 2007


And pre-internet, as well.
posted by y2karl at 7:09 AM on May 11, 2007


Fretting Over Product Placement
"...marketers, lured online by YouTube's growing viewership and the low cost of Internet advertising, had already been trying to capitalize on YouTube's big names — just more directly. Everyone from giant brand owners such as Coke, Proctor & Gamble and Hershey, to tiny one-man shops such as Robert Singer's Waterstone guitar outfit in Nashville, have been offering cash and goodies to the amateur filmmakers — in exchange for a little good will toward their product.

And, increasingly, YouTube performers seem happy to oblige.

...since many of YouTube's video bloggers have built their followings without a cent of corporate capital, some have been more circumspect about becoming vessels for paid messages.

...On hoax-happy YouTube, attacks on authenticity and accusations of 'selling out' have always plagued artists, and the influx of advertising dollars has not helped with trust-building.

'It's getting hard these days to even talk about a good movie you've seen,' Robinett said, 'because I know people who have been paid by movie companies to do that very thing.'

The blurry ethics of 'guerrilla' advertising are still being worked out. One trend is ad spots that are made to look low-budget and amateurish when they're anything but. In other cases, such as the payola incidents Robinett alludes to, it can be difficult to tell if a video is an advertisement at all...."
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on May 13, 2007


Ray Ban sucks.
posted by BeerFilter at 9:50 PM on May 14, 2007


« Older Second Life sucks, then you die   |   No bass, but at least you can get a recorder! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post