The language of Advertising: Who Needs the Truth?

In order to “get the message out,” advertisers have evolved tactics that no longer rely on the message, at all. Images, feelings and memories are the tools of non-verbal communication, even when verbs and nouns stand in their place.
Consider the Budweiser commercials of several years ago. “Wassup.”
Wassup? Is it a word? Is it a complete question? Is it anything other than a blast of emotion from one friend to another? The advertisements worked. That word (or lack thereof) has become entrenched in our vocabulary, as much as “tweet” has replaced a bird sound with a way of talking.
The days of using sex to sell everything from cars to cleaners have not died. They simply have been inflated, distorted, elaborated and refined. The messages may be more subtle or subverted, in order to assuage and avoid the vitriol of women’s groups, but they still carry the same undertones.
The days of explaining the merits have, though, expired. Except, of course, for the requisite disclaimers and riders that accompany every advertisement for drugs and health remedies. If you need to fix something that “got broke” in your body, be prepared to endure a dozen other ailments to cure the minor one for which you are seeking relief! These ads, of course, no longer are ads. They are information pieces.
Whatever happened to the Marlborough man? Well, first, Tom Sellick aged! Then, of course, cigarette advertising became taboo. No sponsorships allowed, no focusing on minors, no smoking in “G-rated” movies, no feel-good packaging.
Then there is alcohol advertising. Hidden away after peak viewing hours (unless it doesn’t actually promote drinking, of course), booze promotions have been relegated to the unacknowledged uncle status.
If cigarettes, alcohol and pharmaceuticals can be so heavily censored, then why am I still subjected to the nuances of influence-peddling , without shame or regard to relevance?
The answer is simple. Subtle, non-verbal advertising works. Since advertising sells products, and products generate jobs & taxes, we simply cannot shut down every deviant attempt at picking our pockets. So advertisers are allowed latitude to be creative.
Personally, I am grateful. I am tired of listening to truth and honesty in advertising. I prefer to have my emotions ripped like an old shirt, images that disrupt my calm thrown at me for eight minutes of every half hour, and old memories evoked by some non-verbal cue. If I wanted honesty, would I be drooling at the thought of 12 months of election drivel in the soon-to-launch rush for the 2012 White House?
Bring it on! I can hardly wait to hear how we are going to be abused, raped, and robbed by those Democrats. Or is it Republicans? Or is it both? Forget the message. Forget the truth. Get that message out!

OMG! Canadian English is Under Attack!

OMG! The English language is under attack!
At least, the English language is being transformed by technology and trends in communication.
While “OMG” is unlikely to impact on a buying decision, affect a position of principle or offend the masses into uprising, the phrase (or, more correctly, the abbreviation of the phrase) holds a position of sway in specific demographic markets. Therefore, it can not be ignored as irrelevant to communication.
The English language historically has been battered and bruised, adjusted and altered over the centuries. Take, for example, Canadian English. Hybridized by inclusion of Canadian French, influenced by American culture and adapted through infusion by First Nations and Metis, Canadian English is uniquely ours. Ask for a serviette outside of Canada, and you`ll observe question marks hanging over the heads of the people with whom you converse.
“With whom?” While technically correct, formal English phrases such as this rarely are used in advertising, because, substantially, they appear too cumbersome. Yet, to lapse into conversational English and write, “the people you are talking to” would be a faux pas within a corporate report.
Today’s communications require more than a comprehension of the technically correct phraseology. Communications require identification with the appropriate audience, and relaying or receiving messages in the jargon of that audience.
I have had to learn “twitter.” Being a literary dinosaur, I discovered that even conversation does not require a larynx. Having skipped “texting kindergarten,” I was compelled to fast-track my digit dialogue once I became attuned to the power of Twitter, Facebook, and the host of social media available online. To ignore them as irrelevant would force me to capitulate to new ideas, and new ways of “doing business.”
The evolution of slang, colloquialisms, abbreviations and non-words is not the fault of the “younger generation.” It is the doing of old dinosaurs, like myself, who continually strive for new ways to put punch in our advertising and mass communications.
In the 1950s and 1960s, advertisers relied on jingles to grab our attention, and penetrate our minds. “You’ll wonder where the yellow went” has lingered in my memories long after Pepsodent toothpaste remained on my shelf. Jingles were buried, ignominiously, in the 1980s, not long after Coke “wanted to teach the world to sing.”
Sound bites (cue “Do the Dew” and Wasssup!) wedged their way into the English language in the 1990s, along with, thanks to Bill Gates, a host of new compu-words, like bytes & email or phrases like “Surfing the Net.”
YouTube took words out our mouths and replaced them with instant video. I suppose one could make the case, however, that AFV was the real instigator!
I concede that I find, still, that I prefer to read a comforting, emotion-arousing flow of prose when I wish to relax. But a well-crafted advertisement needs impact. Consequently, thoughts are reduced to phrases, phrases to single words, and, soon, single words to one or two letters on a mobile telephone or Twitter page. While I fondly recall savouring the Paradise trilogy, the 1,200 or so pages, today, could be readily reduced to “Satan disses God, Satan bites the dust, Satan fights back.”
This progression requires that we allow the English language to divert and reroute like a bubbling creek. British English largely loses its relevance in North American culture. But the clash of a multitude of forms of English communication creates literary angst. When naming this blog, for example, I began with “Nounsense.” To me, it was catchy & clever – a play on words. Upon review, I realized that “Nonsense” dominated, and the first impression of the blog would be that of a trivial nature. I opted for “Words Worth It.” Far too artsy. Next, I latched onto “Practical Prose.” Isn’t that a stuffy label? At last, I realized that what I wanted to say in the blogs to be posted is that Canadian English is unique, evolving, and a magical mix of many influences. Comprendez?