Here’s a new Audi ad featuring Ricky Gervais:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGITKd1cFDQ

I wonder why he did that. I mean, he doesn’t need the money, so if he was going to do something like this I’d have thought he’d want to make sure it was, well, not shit.

Unfortunately this is a bit not-not-shit. It’s an old idea, poorly crafted, that ends up in a generic empowerment message. Mr. Gervais’s involvement seems puzzling to me.

While I’m here I’ll just mention that Ricky did a Pizza Hut VO for me back in the early days of The Office. He was lovely, and obviously far more discerning back then 😉

UPDATE: and there’s more (alas, it’s not better)…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1QJFZezS4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx1YzGpQeVk

(Thanks for nothing, J.)

I saw this in the cinema the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4oiLzJs2g

On the surface it’s just one of those bland, pan-global vanilla-blancmange cackheaps.

But the ending’s a bit odd, isn’t it? That lady on the jetty has the opportunity to spend time with one random, hunky bloke then she drinks the magic elixir (Coke Zero) and more men appear from under the water, ready to please her. She shrugs apologetically at the somewhat put-out first bloke and…

And what?

And, we can only assume, she enjoys a twentysome where she gets shagged by many random strangers.

Now, I’ve read enough of the Just Seventeen problem page to know that this might be a fantasy for a few ladies out there, but I struggle to believe it’s the cup of tea of enough women to stick it in an ad for Coke Zero.

Of course, many a ‘lucky lad’ has ended a Lynx ad with a bevy of scantily-clad beauties by his side, but it felt as if that lazy sexism was there for the depressing titillation of the adolescent boys. That didn’t make it any better, but flipping the genders just seems odd, particularly for a drink that has thus far been marked to men, and not without a fair bit of sexism of its own:

So I’m confused. I’m also aware that I’m giving this way more thought than it deserves, but y’know, if Germaine Greer isn’t going to stand up for the fairer sex then someone has to take the job on.

And it might as well be me.

If you want to be rich you should probably do anything other than writing books.

For a long time the pay has been steadily decreasing, as has the number of opportunities to get out there and have a chance at nabbing a decent share of the shrinking pie.

From my own experience, on a good advance (20k), the effort worked out at around 3k a year after tax and agent’s fees, so I’m quite glad I simultaneously held down a day job. For the literary authors who are doing phenomenally well to sell 5000 copies the money is even worse, and it might take them longer to produce their ‘better’ work.

But does that matter? There so many books out there, both fiction and non-fiction, that it’s hard to shed a tear for anyone who feels the urge to have a go, only to see the kind of financial return that would just about stretch to a packet of teabags. There are plenty of good books out there, but how good exactly is a matter of opinion. However we tend to regard literature as a more noble art form than most, the consumption of which is like munching on kale, as opposed to the cheeseburgers of cinema, or the dark chocolate cupcakes of erotic photography. So many of us feel that books must continue, must be protected and must be financially beneficial for the author in a way that allows him or her to do their best work without the distraction of the poor house. That way the education and imaginations of future generations will be secured and the mirror that good art holds up to life will remain intact.

But that’s obviously not what’s happening. Instead, long-form writing is becoming something that must be slotted in around other ways of generating an income. And is that so bad? Surely the adverse conditions might be a fillip to drive the author on to greater heights of quality and/or quantity (‘If I don’t finish this book to an excellent standard I’m going to be eating food out of bins’ can surely be a powerful encouragement).

On the other hand, perhaps the tough conditions will put potential authors off. We’ll never know how many great works have been lost to those who prioritised paying their mortgage with a full-time job over starving in a garret to produce a book that lights up the minds of a few thousand people. And you don’t have to take the example that far: how many books have been turned in at the 9/10 mark because the author needed the cash more than he or she wanted to put in the hours to elevate it to 10/10?

Then again, I’m sure this is the way it’s always been: a few artists have been patronised by the mighty, or were fortunate enough to work from a position of financial independence, and we’ve been left with the literature that resulted. No one knows, and no one can ever know, if the work would have been better any other way, or what difference that would have made. Instead, we’ve plodded along in a so-so manner, gaining insights into life that most people soon forget as they go about their existences in exactly the way they did before they read The Corrections or The Art Of Fielding. Would we currently be in the throes of climate change, oppression or global bloodshed if a great book had pointed us persuasively in the other direction?

This brings us to the question how writing might be prioritised by society. I read recently that we could have perpetually renewable energy for the same price as the HS2 train link. Why would anyone choose the latter over the former? Well, plenty are doing just that, loudly and with passion. Should we prize financial benefits for authors over repairing roads? What about over building missiles no one will ever fire?

Interestingly, one American corporation has recently demonstrated that they do indeed prize literature over money (kind of). Could this be the beginning of the turning of the worm? I hope so; after all, art may not strictly be essential but it does make life worth living.

Mmmm… Pornburger (thanks, V).

Jeff Goldblum laugh remix (thanks, J):

Words fail me:

LA gangbangers in Syria.

The 53 best clips from The Day Today (thanks, C).

And a magical bit of unseen Brasseye (thanks, T):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZAnj1pEcuw

What you sound like to foreigners (thanks, J):

Model dances involuntarily to Pump Up The Jam (thanks, T):

Saul Bass’s concepts for a poster for The Shining, and Stanley Kubrick’s rejection notes (thanks, T).

Guy scares co-worker. Same reaction every time (thanks, C).

Man goes to ‘Magic: The Gathering’ tournament and poses next to butt cracks (thanks, J).

Charlie Brooker discusses Breaking Bad with Vince Gilligan (thanks, J):

Rejection letters of the famous (thanks, J).

WOWS chest thump remix (thanks, J):

Wes Anderson is a just a rip-off merchant (of his own work. Thanks, T):

And brilliant advice (thanks, W).

I love the fact that it’s really entertaining and well shot and funny, then it’s an ad for helping people out.

Along similar lines…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wGN-lbd7Ss

Very good: you get to enjoy the back and forth between the Pres and Zach, then there’s a message about healthcare.

If I were Dave Trott, at this point I’d mention something about predatory thinking. The problem: young people aren’t engaged in the process of Obama’s online healthcare thingie, so how do we slip that message to them in a way they’ll enjoy, pass around and respond to? Answer: (oddly) Between Two Ferns. Then they actually went and did it (can you imagine David Cameron trying to pull off something similar?).

Usually I think I’d feel a bit cheated about these ‘sneaky’ messages but they’re both for great causes and work so well (healthcare enquiries went up 40% after the BTF thing was shown) that I’m happy to be violated in the above manners.

While I’m here, another blogger has explored honesty in advertising.

Update: there’s also sneaky and not likeable.

But there’s an enjoyable counterpart to such deceit:

This is another side project, but a very intriguing one:

Hi Ben,

Longtime readers will know that I’m not a big fan of bottled water.

It’s a massive waste of resources (it takes seven bottles of water to make a bottle of water FFS!) and money that we’ve been duped into over the last decade or two. It also produced many tonnes of unnecessary waste at a time when the planet could really do with cutting down on all that shit.

But finally the worm is turning.

San Francisco has banned the sale of bottled water on public property.

That’s right: an entire city you’ve heard of has banned something incredibly stupid.

That means you banning it in your home or office would be comparatively simple and easy.

Thanks for that!

Graeme writes:

Hey Ben, 

Why, yes, Graeme; I do indeed. Shall we play the video (which is rather good, for a song that’s rather good)?

Graeme adds:

I can tell you how I made it…

As of today there’s a new awards show in town, and it’s a little bit different (interest declared: the clever and resourceful chaps behind it are my friends and colleagues, Brydon Gerus and Dan Heighes).

Adcan has no entry fees, the clients are all charities and its purpose is to give young, fresh talent a chance to shine.

As the organisers say:

ADCAN was set up as an awards community with a purpose above and beyond the ceremony itself. Because good causes and charities are often in need of more awareness, filmmakers are continually looking to improve their reel and production companies are forever on the lookout for top talent, ADCAN is their meeting room. 

A new concept in the mix, ADCAN is not only a creative platform to help aspiring filmmakers get exposure within the industry, it is also a means for films to be made that will do some good. Young filmmakers are continually sending out reels to be seen, ADCAN will link them with good causes and charities that need content and put them in front of an impressive array of partners and sponsors including; Vimeo, The Mill, Wave studios, Work editors, Arri Media and creatives Dave Trott, Mark Denton & Ben Kay. Everyone involved in ADCAN is contributing their time & expertise for free.

Check out the site and get filming.

You have nothing to lose but your obscurity.

A couple of weeks ago Jose Mourinho, manager of Chelsea and massive, massive arsehole, described Arsène Wenger, manager of Arsenal and person I’d like to be my genial uncle, as a serial failure. This was in response to Monsieur Wenger suggesting that people who blatantly downplay their chances of winning something they can obviously win do so because of a fear of failure. Jose (a man who likes to blatantly downplay his chances of winning something he can obviously win) took huge offence at this (even though it’s true) and went on the attack.

And he had a point, actually: Arsène, by one obvious measure (major football trophies) is a ‘serial failure’. He tries to win four of them every year and, since 2005, has not managed it.

But, looking at the bigger picture, one could point to the fact that Arsène laid the groundwork for the modern approach to football in this country: proper diet and fitness, state-of-the-art training facilities etc. He also built a club, being instrumental in Arsenal moving to a new, much bigger stadium, giving them a better chance to compete financially for the future through their self-generated income. He has also discovered, bought and sold many players at a huge profit to allow this development to occur. So by some definitions, those that Mourinho could never come anywhere near because he’s an immensely unpleasant and insecure mercenary prick who only wins trophies by spending hundreds of millions of pounds (in fact, he ought to thank Arsène for inadvertently changing English football into the kind of thing billionaires want to invest in), Arsène has been very successful indeed.

So there are many, many definitions of success, a fact worth bearing in mind when you’re wondering if you’ve managed to achieve any.

For example, you might have gone a fair way into your career without snaring that elusive Cannes Grand Prix or stint at Wieden and Kennedy, but is that failure? It is if that’s what you were attempting to do, but what if the processes that led to those targets left you a bitter, distant spouse, or deeply unhappy as you realised the extent to which you had overvalued such aims? Can we define that as ‘success’? As the man in this TED talk says, you can lose when you outscore somebody and win when you’ve been outscored. For him success comes through peace of mind as a result of knowing you did your best and remembering that life is about the journey, not the destination:

I’d suggest that only if climate change has been reversed and world peace has been secured by my own fine deeds would I consider my time here a success. Then again, I set quite high standards for myself.

What about you?