This is one of my least favourite times of the year. It is the longest I will have to go without watching the kitsch celebration of all things European in the form of song and interpretive dance. I was a little bit disappointed with this year's outings though, none of the songs really stuck out for me. Alexander Rybak was a worthy winner though for Norway, because his 'Fairytale' song was actually quite sweet...and he is a good piece of eye candy ;o) .
I have to admit, I do take the Eurovision contest *somewhat* semi-seriously. Perhaps it is due to the small, still-surviving European part in me. I can't remember missing any of the contests in my living memory, I even remember watching one while I was still in Croatia, and it has got to the stage now where I can quite accurately predict how a country will distribute its top 3 points. That does look set to become slightly more challenging now, what with having a jury deciding 50% of the voting. Nevertheless, the good old Balkan countries still mainly stuck together. "We may have fought a bloody and useless war, but here's 12 points! Zivjeli!"
Denmark's entry, performed by Brinck, sounded like the poor-man's Danish version of Ronan Keating (though I guess that is hardly surprising given that Ronan wrote the song). That cracked me up good and proper! It was nice to see Britain finish at the top for a change though. I was looking through past performances, and it is only really since 1999 that the UK has been consistenly bad, with the exception of Jessica Garlick in 2002 - she got to 3rd place. But before that they have pretty much always been in the top 10 since 1957, bar the performances of1978 and 1987. So it can't be the case that the UK has always been 'hated by Europe'. Either they have been coming out with crap songs for a decade, or Tony Blair was good at losing allies. Incidentally, it was in 2003 that Britain got 'null points', the year that the war was declared on Iraq. Though that was the year that the female twin from Jemini sang the whole first verse out of tune... I'm sure that had more to do with it!
Anyway, I am going to cry myself to sleep now that I have 364 days to wait 'til Croatia, or any one of my other adoptive countries, have another shot at the Eurovision crown.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Cocaine
This morning I read an interesting BBC news article about the cocaine market -
World cocaine market 'in retreat'
In some ways I guess it is quite reassuring to know that even the drugs market is suffering during this recession. Although that is not what the article explicitly says, I'm sure it could well be a contributing factor. Anyway, the best bit about this is that the agency which has come up with all these figures and facts is called the 'Serious Organised Crime Agency'... seriously?! It makes them sound like a bunch of mumbling men in suits, saying things like "We seriously must find a way to tackle that organised crime, what. Too much cocaine on our streets, what. It's just not serious. What."
Well, that is just the image conjured in my head. I'm sure the more 'serious' among you will think this a silly observation ;o)
One things that did shock me though, was the finding that 30% of seized cocaine was only 9% pure. "My goodness, what am I stuffing up my nose?!" says George Osborne. Of course, I'm sure someone with his status and connections would get nothing but the purest type of coke around, and then add it to his expenses list no doubt, perhaps under "stimulant for long working hours".
On a serious note, this highlights just how little cocaine users know about what their cocaine is mixed with. There is no real solution to this I suppose, and in a lot of ways it is a redundant consideration - if an individual is set on taking coke, they will do so without a great deal of thought regarding what else s/he is inadvertedly taking with it. But I guess such is the price one pays for freedom of choice.
World cocaine market 'in retreat'
In some ways I guess it is quite reassuring to know that even the drugs market is suffering during this recession. Although that is not what the article explicitly says, I'm sure it could well be a contributing factor. Anyway, the best bit about this is that the agency which has come up with all these figures and facts is called the 'Serious Organised Crime Agency'... seriously?! It makes them sound like a bunch of mumbling men in suits, saying things like "We seriously must find a way to tackle that organised crime, what. Too much cocaine on our streets, what. It's just not serious. What."
Well, that is just the image conjured in my head. I'm sure the more 'serious' among you will think this a silly observation ;o)
One things that did shock me though, was the finding that 30% of seized cocaine was only 9% pure. "My goodness, what am I stuffing up my nose?!" says George Osborne. Of course, I'm sure someone with his status and connections would get nothing but the purest type of coke around, and then add it to his expenses list no doubt, perhaps under "stimulant for long working hours".
On a serious note, this highlights just how little cocaine users know about what their cocaine is mixed with. There is no real solution to this I suppose, and in a lot of ways it is a redundant consideration - if an individual is set on taking coke, they will do so without a great deal of thought regarding what else s/he is inadvertedly taking with it. But I guess such is the price one pays for freedom of choice.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Brunch in Bristol
I am spending the best part of a week in Bristol. My friend, who I call posh despite her claims to the contrary, took me for brunch this morning. I ordered Eggs Florentine. For those who, like myself this morning, don't exactly know what that entails, the eggs came poached on a bed of spinach and a very generous helping of hollandaise sauce, all enclosed in a muffin. Or two, as I had opted for the large version (I was very hungry!). It was simply delicious! If this is how the other half live, then I definitely see the attraction.
In other news, I am turning mine eyes to short sci-fi stories by Philip K Dick. I have read two ("Nanny" and "The Commuter") out of nine so far. Both have been thought-provoking, although the second one seemed to require more explanation of the events than was given in the narrative. I will leave a review of it (the whole book, entitled "The Turning Wheel and other stories") once I have got through them all. Given that a 4-hour train journey awaits me on Saturday when I return to York, I would deem the probability of such an endeavour as more than merely unlikely.
Bristol is very pretty, although I am unimpressed by the GIANT hill in the middle of the city...I think becoming used to the flat plains of York has completely destroyed whatever appreciation I might once have had of geographical contours. I also find it somewhat amusing that the Law Dept, which also houses a library and is the graduation building, is called the "Wills Memorial Building". Most of the people entering seem to be wearing Jack Wills clothing. The power of suggestion? Probably not. ;o)
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Random Distribution of Goods
In my Moral Philosophy exam today I answered a question relating to the distribution of goods by random procedure, and whether there was any grounds on which such a method was justifiable. I think it's somewhat already a common-place practice. In Wales they apparently allocate some cancer treatment drugs based on a postcode lottery. It was my weakest exam answer because I genuinelly don't seem to have formed a strong opinion on either side of the argument.
The main argument that justifies such a practice rests on the proposition that, by randomly distributing a good, everyone has an equal chance of obtaining it. It's a "fair method" of ensuring everyone can lay some claim to the good; you don't have to fulfil specific criteria in order to be considered for the process (apart from, obviously, there being an existing reason for you to want/need the good in question). Let's consider an example, that might elucidate this further.
Suppose the good in question is something indivisible, like a human organ - let's say, a liver. Since only one person can have the liver, there needs to be some method of selecting who will have the organ. Now, because there may be many people in need of a liver transplant, a proponent of the random selection process might say, in order to not discriminate against anyone and in order to give everyone a fair shot at this life-saving procedure, we should employ a lottery whereby a patient is randomly selected from all those that need a liver, and hence they are the ones that receive the good.
I find it really difficult to write about this method because there seem to me to be too many things to take into consideration, and also I think I expose myself to the risk of sounding elitist or 'like a right cow', for want of a better term.
But here are my problems with the method:
1) Does everyone really have an equal claim to the good? Suppose a third of the people on the liver transplant list are alcoholics. Do they really have an equal claim to the liver as does, say, a promising tennis star who happened to just get an infection?
Proponents of the theory suggest everyone ought to have an equal, or at least roughly equal, claim to the good in order for them to be considered by the lottery, but what does this mean? How do we judge what constitues an 'equal claim'? On what basis? Surely the whole point is just to give everyone an equal chance...
2) In employing the random selection procedure, are we just ridding ourselves of the moral responsibility of making ethical choices? We can't decide for ourselves how best to distribute the good, so we'll just leave it to chance...
On the other hand, perhaps random selection isn't all bad. Evolution operates on a random mutation 'policy', for want of a better word, so maybe we are just following in nature's footsteps.
Anyway, I am running out of interesting things to say on this topic. But basically, I can't make up my mind whether or not it is good or bad. I think in some cases it is necessary - until we have enough resources to go around I guess someone will always miss out on 'the good', and it is better that a few get it than that none get it. I wish I could just form a strong opinion on it though.
The main argument that justifies such a practice rests on the proposition that, by randomly distributing a good, everyone has an equal chance of obtaining it. It's a "fair method" of ensuring everyone can lay some claim to the good; you don't have to fulfil specific criteria in order to be considered for the process (apart from, obviously, there being an existing reason for you to want/need the good in question). Let's consider an example, that might elucidate this further.
Suppose the good in question is something indivisible, like a human organ - let's say, a liver. Since only one person can have the liver, there needs to be some method of selecting who will have the organ. Now, because there may be many people in need of a liver transplant, a proponent of the random selection process might say, in order to not discriminate against anyone and in order to give everyone a fair shot at this life-saving procedure, we should employ a lottery whereby a patient is randomly selected from all those that need a liver, and hence they are the ones that receive the good.
I find it really difficult to write about this method because there seem to me to be too many things to take into consideration, and also I think I expose myself to the risk of sounding elitist or 'like a right cow', for want of a better term.
But here are my problems with the method:
1) Does everyone really have an equal claim to the good? Suppose a third of the people on the liver transplant list are alcoholics. Do they really have an equal claim to the liver as does, say, a promising tennis star who happened to just get an infection?
Proponents of the theory suggest everyone ought to have an equal, or at least roughly equal, claim to the good in order for them to be considered by the lottery, but what does this mean? How do we judge what constitues an 'equal claim'? On what basis? Surely the whole point is just to give everyone an equal chance...
2) In employing the random selection procedure, are we just ridding ourselves of the moral responsibility of making ethical choices? We can't decide for ourselves how best to distribute the good, so we'll just leave it to chance...
On the other hand, perhaps random selection isn't all bad. Evolution operates on a random mutation 'policy', for want of a better word, so maybe we are just following in nature's footsteps.
Anyway, I am running out of interesting things to say on this topic. But basically, I can't make up my mind whether or not it is good or bad. I think in some cases it is necessary - until we have enough resources to go around I guess someone will always miss out on 'the good', and it is better that a few get it than that none get it. I wish I could just form a strong opinion on it though.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Spam
Same Shit, Different Day.
Every day I get at least 25 emails cluttering up by Junk folder. Now, because I desperately need to feel in control of something in my life, I make it a point to empty my Junk folder almost as many times as I check my mail. I don't know how normal that is, I know some people leave 100s of emails in their inbox unread - I myself could never handle that, a messy inbox just sends all the wrong sorts of shivers down my spine.
Today I couldn't help but notice one quite alarming Spam Subject:
"Make it reach your knee!"
Disregarding the obvious fact that, being a female, I am not a target audience for this sort of thing (and yet I get such services offered to me on a daily basis), I do have to wonder - who on earth would want it reaching their knee?!
These spammers have clearly given their marketing no thought at all. Surely there would be a huge (excuse the pun) logistical problem if, in all its glory, it were to reach one's knee? You'd have to be pretty skilled at yoga to make such a vertical challenge work... And secondly, at the risk of sounding crude, you'd probably be wanting to shag an elephant if you genuinely wanted to be that length.
Alternatively, I may have been too caught up in my own innuendos to realise this was just trying to promote a hair growth product or something.
Every day I get at least 25 emails cluttering up by Junk folder. Now, because I desperately need to feel in control of something in my life, I make it a point to empty my Junk folder almost as many times as I check my mail. I don't know how normal that is, I know some people leave 100s of emails in their inbox unread - I myself could never handle that, a messy inbox just sends all the wrong sorts of shivers down my spine.
Today I couldn't help but notice one quite alarming Spam Subject:
"Make it reach your knee!"
Disregarding the obvious fact that, being a female, I am not a target audience for this sort of thing (and yet I get such services offered to me on a daily basis), I do have to wonder - who on earth would want it reaching their knee?!
These spammers have clearly given their marketing no thought at all. Surely there would be a huge (excuse the pun) logistical problem if, in all its glory, it were to reach one's knee? You'd have to be pretty skilled at yoga to make such a vertical challenge work... And secondly, at the risk of sounding crude, you'd probably be wanting to shag an elephant if you genuinely wanted to be that length.
Alternatively, I may have been too caught up in my own innuendos to realise this was just trying to promote a hair growth product or something.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Sleepy Dinner
My housemate just texted me: "What are you doing for dinner tonight?"
I replied: "Sleeping? I would quite like sleep for breakfast, and perhaps lunch, tomorrow."
If that isn't the mark of comical genius, I don't know what is.
It's either that, or lack of sleep and an onset of hysteria.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
TechnoTechnoTechnoTechno...
Now that exam hysteria has well and truly settled in, I am taking this opportunity to promote my new found appreciation of Techno music. This song has been top of my play list for the last 24 hours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdhe9Ux-J4
I don't know very much about techno music, I'm not even sure if Faithless would count as being part of that genre, but for the sake of argument, I shall assume that to be the case. The song has a lovely calming effect to it, with melancholy undertones, yet is not packed with sentimentality, and I think it's perfect for a bit of a chillout.
***
In other news, this PC is really taking the piss.
"Windows Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close."
Yeah, I bet you have. OK, debug.
"DrDebugger has encountered a problem and needs to close."
...debug?
*silence*
Ctrl+Alt+Del
End BitTorrent Client.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
End WMP.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
End Word.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
FUCK OFF AND DIE MICROSOFT, FUCK OFF AND DIE!
And please, for the love of God, take Dell with you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdhe9Ux-J4
I don't know very much about techno music, I'm not even sure if Faithless would count as being part of that genre, but for the sake of argument, I shall assume that to be the case. The song has a lovely calming effect to it, with melancholy undertones, yet is not packed with sentimentality, and I think it's perfect for a bit of a chillout.
***
In other news, this PC is really taking the piss.
"Windows Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to close."
Yeah, I bet you have. OK, debug.
"DrDebugger has encountered a problem and needs to close."
...debug?
*silence*
Ctrl+Alt+Del
End BitTorrent Client.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
End WMP.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
End Word.
"You have chosen to end an unresponsive program..."
FUCK OFF AND DIE MICROSOFT, FUCK OFF AND DIE!
And please, for the love of God, take Dell with you!
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The value of science
In keeping with my tradition of leaving everything to the last minute, I have once again found myself with five days left before an essay deadline and I have not yet produced an essay. But there is something altogether quite different about this essay than any other I have been set to date.
First of all, I have never written a Sociology essay in my life, and I will probably not write another one after this (unless I give in to the urge to work for www.academicresearchpapers.com or some such website which is continually advertising itself on GumTree), but that is altogether irrelevant.
No, the fascinating thing about this essay is that, actually, I really am writing about one of my strongest convictions! So far throughout my academic life both at school and at university I have maintained what I would deem as a healthy interest in most essay material. I engage with the topic, think about what's been said, form my opinion and write a couple of pages to demonstrate the above. It's relatively pain- and hassle- free (if you discount any all-nighters pulled to achieve this goal) but this time, I feel like a woman possessed!
"What is the value of science?" Max Weber, the 'father' of Sociology, asks. And then subsequently concludes that it is, in today's culture of "rationalization and intellectualization", meaningless. Pointless. Worthless.
Don't be alarmed, I won't copy + paste all the *ahem* 1800 words (out of 4000...) that I've been slaving over, but I will make a few general points.
1) Weber does not dismiss that science has instrumental value, and in any case an argument against such a view would be hard to come by. We see the effects of scientific advancement all around us, and while it is not my aim here to discuss whether or not science has improved our general conditions of life, suffice it to say that some things at least are easier to do - like vaccinate against a deadly disease like smallpox. (Courtesy of Robert Koch. Or Louis Pasteur, but let's go for Koch. If this is the £64k question and you lose, feel free to track me down and beat me.)
2) New scientific discoveries are constantly being made, and so few scientists' legacies live on - there is simply too much to investigate. (The more I know, the more I realise I don't know, but at least I know something, even if, like Socrates, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.") And even those things which survive to be passed down through countless decades of Nuffield textbooks are constantly, in one way or another, being questioned. Everyone always uses the example of Newton's laws, which did so well to describe gravitational attraction for hundreds of years until it was discovered that they did not hold for subatomic particles. The fact that the scientific process goes on indefinitely is just part of what science is about; for the scientist, it is all about the thrill of the chase!
3) At the heart of it, science answers the most fundamental question of all - "why?" Whatever way I look at it, all questions boil down to that, whether they are scientific or not. The fact that science deals with "mere" empirical reality is not (as Weber may have you believe) its downfall - that is simply what it investigates. No one would ask a detective to carry out a post mortem on their dead pet - that is just not what a detective does (unless he happens to look uncannily like Dick Van Dyke, in which case he can do pretty much anything). Science answers our "why?" questions with all it has at its disposal, and what it has at its disposal is physical reality. Science describes reality to us in such a way that we are actually able to comprehend it. Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." I feel we are quite lucky to be living in it.
But despite all this, and in spite of my optimistic manner, there is still a line of thinking that says all human endeavour is futile. A mathematician friend of mine, commenting on this, said the other day, "You might as well kill yourself. I'm not saying that you should. Just that you might as well."* Perhaps Weber was thinking along such lines himself. In any case, it is up to each of us to decide whether or not human activity is futile. That is not a question science has the answer to. But it is more fun to think, or at least pretend, that we're here for a reason; then we can go about answering "Why?"
(*Please don't.)
First of all, I have never written a Sociology essay in my life, and I will probably not write another one after this (unless I give in to the urge to work for www.academicresearchpapers.com or some such website which is continually advertising itself on GumTree), but that is altogether irrelevant.
No, the fascinating thing about this essay is that, actually, I really am writing about one of my strongest convictions! So far throughout my academic life both at school and at university I have maintained what I would deem as a healthy interest in most essay material. I engage with the topic, think about what's been said, form my opinion and write a couple of pages to demonstrate the above. It's relatively pain- and hassle- free (if you discount any all-nighters pulled to achieve this goal) but this time, I feel like a woman possessed!
"What is the value of science?" Max Weber, the 'father' of Sociology, asks. And then subsequently concludes that it is, in today's culture of "rationalization and intellectualization", meaningless. Pointless. Worthless.
Don't be alarmed, I won't copy + paste all the *ahem* 1800 words (out of 4000...) that I've been slaving over, but I will make a few general points.
1) Weber does not dismiss that science has instrumental value, and in any case an argument against such a view would be hard to come by. We see the effects of scientific advancement all around us, and while it is not my aim here to discuss whether or not science has improved our general conditions of life, suffice it to say that some things at least are easier to do - like vaccinate against a deadly disease like smallpox. (Courtesy of Robert Koch. Or Louis Pasteur, but let's go for Koch. If this is the £64k question and you lose, feel free to track me down and beat me.)
2) New scientific discoveries are constantly being made, and so few scientists' legacies live on - there is simply too much to investigate. (The more I know, the more I realise I don't know, but at least I know something, even if, like Socrates, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.") And even those things which survive to be passed down through countless decades of Nuffield textbooks are constantly, in one way or another, being questioned. Everyone always uses the example of Newton's laws, which did so well to describe gravitational attraction for hundreds of years until it was discovered that they did not hold for subatomic particles. The fact that the scientific process goes on indefinitely is just part of what science is about; for the scientist, it is all about the thrill of the chase!
3) At the heart of it, science answers the most fundamental question of all - "why?" Whatever way I look at it, all questions boil down to that, whether they are scientific or not. The fact that science deals with "mere" empirical reality is not (as Weber may have you believe) its downfall - that is simply what it investigates. No one would ask a detective to carry out a post mortem on their dead pet - that is just not what a detective does (unless he happens to look uncannily like Dick Van Dyke, in which case he can do pretty much anything). Science answers our "why?" questions with all it has at its disposal, and what it has at its disposal is physical reality. Science describes reality to us in such a way that we are actually able to comprehend it. Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." I feel we are quite lucky to be living in it.
But despite all this, and in spite of my optimistic manner, there is still a line of thinking that says all human endeavour is futile. A mathematician friend of mine, commenting on this, said the other day, "You might as well kill yourself. I'm not saying that you should. Just that you might as well."* Perhaps Weber was thinking along such lines himself. In any case, it is up to each of us to decide whether or not human activity is futile. That is not a question science has the answer to. But it is more fun to think, or at least pretend, that we're here for a reason; then we can go about answering "Why?"
(*Please don't.)
Monday, 20 April 2009
Supernanny
I watch Supernanny as religiously as I possibly can. In fact, probably even more religiously than I possibly could given that, when I was 'religious', I would attend Church, at most, twice a month in the leading months to secondary school applications. (We're going to hell, I know.) I think it's great that a woman with a larger figure is on our screens, she's a warm character and leaves the families with all the charm that Mary Poppins bestowed on the Banks family in the 1965 classic. But one thing puzzles me - how did she get that job?
My sister and I have come round to the opinion that Dame Jo Frost (as she is known in the fantasy world in my head) marched up to the Channel 4 executives in her suit, with that charming London accent of hers, and said -
"I go' an idea for a show! I'm gonna go 'round to dysfunctional families and do the whole of Great Britain a favour by teachin' the useless parents how to control their disruptive, unruly, child-like monsters. It'll be super.
"Oh, and I'll need a black cab."
If you happen to be swayed by this post and do a google search on her, don't click on her homepage because it has a virus. I'm off to remove said malware from the PC.
My sister and I have come round to the opinion that Dame Jo Frost (as she is known in the fantasy world in my head) marched up to the Channel 4 executives in her suit, with that charming London accent of hers, and said -
"I go' an idea for a show! I'm gonna go 'round to dysfunctional families and do the whole of Great Britain a favour by teachin' the useless parents how to control their disruptive, unruly, child-like monsters. It'll be super.
"Oh, and I'll need a black cab."
If you happen to be swayed by this post and do a google search on her, don't click on her homepage because it has a virus. I'm off to remove said malware from the PC.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Renault Laguna Advert
I'll be the first to admit, I know next to nothing about cars. Despite watching Top Gear fairly regularly, I have no idea what any of the technical jargon they use means and, considering Top Gear is predominantly an entertainment show, I don't think that matters.
During the ad break of (Sunday's repeat of) Brtian's Got Talent, Eric Cantona came on to advertise the Renault Laguna. Here is a link if you've not caught this yet -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLV8sCawBug
Cantona is no doubt one of the biggest names of 90s football, having spent the highlights of his career (arguably?) at Manchester United as well as playing for the French national side. But after his retirement, he mainly still stuck to what he knew, promoting Nike through various football adverts with other high-profile football stars.
Now, despite being an Arsenal supporter and therefore more than willing to undermine Man Utd's greatness whenever possible, I will grant that (as I'm sure most honest people will) Cantona was an exceptional player (and, again, am more than happy to admit that Man Utd has had its fair share of exceptional players). But I know nothing of the Eric that is within the persona of Cantona and, to be frankly honest, it is not something I have ever pondered over. And having seen this Renault car advert, I don't particularly have any further inclination to find out. Not that the advert is marketing Cantona himself, but it doesn't even fulfil its primary task, because I have no further inclination to buy that Renault car either! Granted, I don't have the funds to buy a car, and I can't even drive, but that Citroen Zara Picasso from a few years back did make me stop and think, "hmm, maybe one day I will want to purcahse a Citroen!" (The one with the machines that drew on the car, I can't find the link atm.)
Firstly, it is too long. A minute and a half!! Where Cantona just talks at us! AT us! I lost interest within the first 10 seconds! And 20 seconds later, when I glanced at it again, it was still on! Why?!
It's all fine and well to get 'celebrities' to endorse your products, but that can't be the be-all-and-end-all of the advertising stratergy. Cantona was there talking about a button that you can use with only one finger. Well, I can't think of many buttons I must punch in order to get the function started.
Don't get me wrong. This is not an attack on Eric, or Renault, or advert times, just a way of me expressing my opinion that that advert doesn't work.
Get Cantona to do some kick-ups in the back seat, or headers on the bonnet, and then I might be interested.
N.B.
I do realise that so far this blog seems to consist of various rants about things I see on the telly. Bare with me, I'm firstly blogging about what I (think I) know. =)
During the ad break of (Sunday's repeat of) Brtian's Got Talent, Eric Cantona came on to advertise the Renault Laguna. Here is a link if you've not caught this yet -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLV8sCawBug
Cantona is no doubt one of the biggest names of 90s football, having spent the highlights of his career (arguably?) at Manchester United as well as playing for the French national side. But after his retirement, he mainly still stuck to what he knew, promoting Nike through various football adverts with other high-profile football stars.
Now, despite being an Arsenal supporter and therefore more than willing to undermine Man Utd's greatness whenever possible, I will grant that (as I'm sure most honest people will) Cantona was an exceptional player (and, again, am more than happy to admit that Man Utd has had its fair share of exceptional players). But I know nothing of the Eric that is within the persona of Cantona and, to be frankly honest, it is not something I have ever pondered over. And having seen this Renault car advert, I don't particularly have any further inclination to find out. Not that the advert is marketing Cantona himself, but it doesn't even fulfil its primary task, because I have no further inclination to buy that Renault car either! Granted, I don't have the funds to buy a car, and I can't even drive, but that Citroen Zara Picasso from a few years back did make me stop and think, "hmm, maybe one day I will want to purcahse a Citroen!" (The one with the machines that drew on the car, I can't find the link atm.)
Firstly, it is too long. A minute and a half!! Where Cantona just talks at us! AT us! I lost interest within the first 10 seconds! And 20 seconds later, when I glanced at it again, it was still on! Why?!
It's all fine and well to get 'celebrities' to endorse your products, but that can't be the be-all-and-end-all of the advertising stratergy. Cantona was there talking about a button that you can use with only one finger. Well, I can't think of many buttons I must punch in order to get the function started.
Don't get me wrong. This is not an attack on Eric, or Renault, or advert times, just a way of me expressing my opinion that that advert doesn't work.
Get Cantona to do some kick-ups in the back seat, or headers on the bonnet, and then I might be interested.
N.B.
I do realise that so far this blog seems to consist of various rants about things I see on the telly. Bare with me, I'm firstly blogging about what I (think I) know. =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)