back-words... thoughts on athf advertising in boston...

*** warning: when i post commentary on something, it is felt deeply and i will not back down nor apologize, otherwise i wouldn't bother to say anything at all. i took debate in college and i research my topics well. as a result, i lost a friend who chose to counter my arguments in this post and failed miserably. to this day i still have nearly zero interactivity with that person. i will not back down from something in which i personally believe and furthermore, it's my blog to say whatever i want; that's my constitutional right. got a differing opinion? go write your own blog about it...

Friday, February 2, 2007
thoughts on athf advertising in boston...
who knows what the athf is? i do and i am almost 33. if i were to ask most ppl i know, most would recognize the name aqua teen hunger force, the various characters, or any of the numerous aspects about the short-length animated series that is featured on [adult swim], a popular feature of the cartoon network's regular schedule. one source presumed the only demographic consciously aware of this series to be "pimply-faced teenagers." none of the ppl i know are pimply-faced teenagers; they are all near my age.

even ppl who don't watch the series recognize various aspects, such as the regularly featured characters. why? because a lot of ppl are online and/or watch tv. there are commercials for the show. the show is also accessible online from the [adult swim] website. marketers advertise athf wallpapers for cell phones online and on tv. the fact is you don't even need to stay up late at night to be aware of the aqua teen hunger force because its presence is widely placed in the media in various formats.

it stymies and confounds me to learn that every person in boston, massachusetts who encountered the spontaneous marketing ploy advertising the series didn't realize what the a come across, a simple light-up sign featuring not one, but two of the characters from the series. did they choose to disregard recognition of the character in lieu that it was a randomly placed foreign object? did the city need to remain on alert as every last light-up sign was inspected and rendered neutralized? who knows, but i doubt it. i'm sure someone recognized what the signs were; too bad that wasn't reported.

i am perplexed and outraged by the terminology applied to this incident- bomb scare, threat, hoax. these words were all unnecessary and recanted with apologies. those responsible for the signs never made any threats. they never announced a bomb was present. random individuals who were unaware of what they were observing made wild and gross assumptions about the objects in question. anyone else incapable of making an independent decision, simply joined on the bandwagon of panic and outrage.

the fact is a hoax did not occur. effective, attention-grabbing advertising occurred. a hoax is defined by merriam-webster (also accessible online) as: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous. those responsible for the signs never tricked anyone; the signs were never implied to be bombs, nor was it intended that they be interpreted as such. it was a simple marketing tool. yet the media keeps referring to bomb threats and bomb scares and the mayor of boston refers to the incident as a hoax. where the media and mayor get these unmistakable, finite terms from is unfathomable.

who should be red-faced? who should offer an apology? my answer to both questions is the city, its mayor, and the media. an unsuspecting audience fell prey to effective, eye-catching advertising and they quickly judged what they didn't know or understand to be a threat. perhaps it's a good thing this didn't occur in salem, or they may have deemed it to be an act of witchcraft.