MetLife Peanuts 5¢ Life Insurance Ad

Last night on the Oscars, I saw a new ad for MetLife with some of the Peanuts gang in a conference room at what I am assuming is supposed to be the MetLife building (formerly the Pan Am building) in New York. So some corporate drone meets with them and tells them that they are now offering life insurance for as little as $14.00 per month. Well, Lucy is not impressed, and she says it ought to be five cents. And then Charlie Brown agrees that it should be five cents also. (But if you know the Peanuts universe very well, you know Charlie Brown is always wrong about everything, and he never gets his own way in anything.) But then the guy says it can’t be five cents, and Lucy then demands that it must be five cents. (This guy must not be very familiar with Lucy van Pelt! You don’t win an argument with her!)

Look, I am very well-versed in the Peanuts comics and TV specials, and so I already know you can’t defeat Lucy with information, contradiction, perseverance, logic, etc. This guy has no idea what he’s getting himself into! If I were that guy at MetLife, I would simply agree with her, and say: “Fine, we’ll have a life insurance policy for five cents. But it will only pay out five cents, too. Okay?” And then Lucy would probably agree, seeing as how these characters are obviously stuck in the 1950s or 1960s, seeing as how they have not aged one iota since the 1960s. So they’re apparently stuck in a time warp, where five cents is still worth something. So fine, for cartoon characters who are ageless children, MetLife should agree to have a term life insurance policy that only costs five cents: not per month, just five cents for the whole thing. That should cost them nothing, since cartoon children do not require life insurance. But even if they somehow get written out of the comics or something, or they die of some fictional disease or accident, MetLife will still only have to pay out a nickel anyway, and they could probably just draw one, so what’s the difference?

But it’s a better policy (and they should know something about policies, being an insurer!) just to simply agree with Lucy whenever there is a disagreement, no matter what it’s about. She’s in charge of so much stuff with so many people anyway, she’ll probably forget what she made you agree to, so it won’t matter in any case. But look, MetLife has to understand something here: if Lucy can provide psychiatric treatment for five cents, especially with those ridiculously exorbitant malpractice rates, and with the threat of government fines for not strictly adhering to Obamacare’s mandates and persnickety regulations to the letter (she is also taking the same chance kids who try to set up lemonade stands nowadays face: a $50 fine, plus other red tape from local government and heat and harassment from the police, as well as a good humiliating on the local news channels and perhaps even a propaganda segment about government overreach on Stossel), then they certainly can create a life insurance policy for fictional characters that only charges five cents and only pays out five cents. Maybe they could even agree to pay out more, so long as they’re allowed to draw cartoon money to pay out, rather than use actual currency.

But what about cartoonist insurance fraud? They could pretend to kill off characters just to collect on their life insurance policies, and then just bring them back to life whenever they wanted to! So then there has to be a new government agency to look into cartoon insurance fraud! But maybe it could be run by cartoon characters we could pay in cartoon money, so it would be free! It could be led by The Inspector (from the Pink Panther cartoons), and that Irish policeman from the Bugs Bunny gangster cartoons (“You might, rabbit, you might!”). I’m sure they’d get to the bottom of whatever criminal cartoon corruption is clogging up the court system! (And if that didn’t work, we could get Daffy Duck as Dorlock Holmes in Deduce, You Say to untangle that web of criminal cartoon con-artistry!)

Or else, perhaps MetLife could learn some magical way to snap their fingers and have all the Peanuts characters age normally, as though they were real people. Then, all of a sudden, they would all be 60 years-old, and they’d instantly understand how little five cents actually buys! And with Social Security insolvent, they would suddenly be reasonable about insurance rates and payouts. But the joke’s on them, for MetLife will still pay out in cartoon money they can just draw, so it doesn’t cost them a dime, never mind a nickel!

Now I’m just waiting for someone to use The Far Side characters in contemporary TV advertising!

Here’s the argumentative ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iin3EVfN0Jc

Here is Dorlock Holmes, for those who aren’t familiar with him, but it’s in French, to make it fun for those who already do know him:

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

Big Shoes To Fill

Whenever someone takes over for a previous person who was very successful in a specific job or field, people always say that this new person has “some big shoes to fill”, and that it will be hard for them to match the previous person’s success. But of course they won’t be as good if they have to wear shoes that are too big for them! Why not just let them wear their own choice of shoes in their own shoe size? Then they will do a better job and perhaps impress everyone. But that’s not going to happen if they’re constantly tripping over themselves in shoes that are way too big for them, with the shoes all flopping around on their feet, and making them feel silly, and with everybody laughing at them for looking like they are wearing clown shoes.

But if everyone forces them to wear the big shoes, then maybe they should wear their own shoes inside the big shoes. That might work perfectly, and doubly protect their feet from when other people try to step on their toes. In fact, maybe that’s why they are told to wear these big shoes in the first place: because everyone will be trying to step on their toes all the time, since they want the new person to fail so the old hero looks even more legendary. So it could be that people want the new person to wear the shoes that are too big in order to foul them up, or in order to protect their feet from ill-wishers. And since they don’t know the motives of those requiring them to wear such ill-fitting foot apparel, they have to make the best of wearing the big shoes. And anyway, it might simply be a contract stipulation that they wear the oversized shoes in the first place, and in that case, they’ve already agreed to do it, so they’re just going to have to grin and bear it.

But you know, maybe they could get away with crimes if they just wear their regular shoes to commit them in, because everyone will think they would be wearing the bigger shoes, since everyone always sees them wearing them, so they will not suspect them when there is smaller-sized footprint evidence at a crime scene. And maybe those requiring the oversized shoes are doing so because they are co-conspirators who want to misdirect everyone from suspecting their cohort. So it’s all a giant conspiracy, and all so we won’t know that they’re all complicit in horrendous criminal activities! And that’s why they act like they want the new person to fail in replacing the previous legendarily successful personage: so nobody will suspect that they are all partners in a criminal empire! I knew it!

So whenever you hear about someone who has big shoes to fill, you should definitely be suspicious of them! After all, what are they trying to hide in those big shoes anyway? And if they were so innocent, they would just wear their own shoes, wouldn’t they? That’s all I’m saying.

A Russian Fairy Tale

The head of Russia’s elections called serious allegations of voter fraud and ballot box stuffing in recent Parliamentary elections “a fairy tale”. I don’t know that fairy tale. Is that a Grimm’s fairy tale? (It might be a grim fairy tale.) Let me see if I can figure out the story. It seems like a weasel is trying to help a big angry bear win re-election. Does that sound right so far? And then, when anyone criticizes the bear, the weasel and the bear’s fox henchmen go cast spells on them, silencing them or making them disappear. And come election day, the ballot boxes become magically stuffed with unanimous votes for the bear, right? And then everyone is amazed, because they all voted for another animal, but their votes didn’t seem to get counted. Is that the fairy tale he’s talking about? Because that’s actually not all that new. I think it might even have originated here in America. (They should come up with their own fairy tales! If America is so bad, then how come they’re cribbing our fairy tales?)

Ironic Country Names

Have you ever noticed how the most repressive Communist dictatorships are always named such benign and friendly sounding names like: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”? It’s bizarre, because the completely brutal, repressive manner in which these governments rule their countries with an iron fist really puts the lie to the absolutely propaganda-y names of their countries. It’s like it’s always opposite day there or something, or else they think everyone is too stupid to recognize the absolute dishonesty of their self-branding.

Maybe if they can brainwash most people into believing they live in a Democracy, or a Republic, then they’ll feel they can trust their government; and anyone else who refuses to accept the euphemistic name gets re-educated (or executed). But if the “people” ever wanted to change their system of government (you know, the one that the country name says belongs to them to begin with), well, I think we’ve all seen what happens to them: Tiananmen Square, anyone? They just get tortured and murdered, if not simply gunned down anonymously in the streets.

If it wasn’t so inhuman and disgusting, the way these country’s citizens are repressed and brutalized for criticizing or challenging their own governments, it might even be funny due to how absurd it all is. Because remember: the Soviet-style Communism was designed to be a “workers’ paradise”, and it was so wonderfully successful, they had to build walls guarded by armed guards just to prevent people from trying to escape to a better life (!). Oh, and the guards had to be in teams of three, because a team of two might just agree to escape together, or to let others escape without shooting them in the back.

Yes, the “Democratic” “workers’ paradise”: it’s like the Roach Motel: you check in, but you can’t check out! Only most people checked in by having the misfortune to be born there. But hey, at least they have really encouraging sounding names; and that’s got to help them feel better when they’re feeling down, right? Because after all, the politically-correct tyrants among us,* who sometimes seem like they would like to turn America into a system like those countries have, so they could have the authority to tell everyone what to do all the time (because after all, they know best!), are always saying that the language we use makes a difference, right? So, then, to use politically-correct terms to mask the inhumanity of your government’s repression must make it all feel better, right? Why don’t we ask those people in North Korea about that? Oops, I meant “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, of course! Oh, that’s right: we can’t. Because they’re not allowed to talk to anyone from outside their utopian society: after all, they might become contaminated with freedom or hope or something else threatening to society like that. And that’s something “The People” would never tolerate, especially in a “Democratic Republic”, where by definition, no-one is ever allowed to think for themselves. Or isn’t that the definition of a Democratic Republic?

* (No, that is not a veiled attack on President Obama. While I have my problems with him from time to time, I don’t think he wants to turn America communist. But there are some who do want to try to push America in that direction, and I think that is an ill-advised plan, seeing as how it never works well anywhere else. We’ve got some problems here in America, but we have a good system. It just needs to be cleaned out once in a while, and we need to adhere to the Constitution. If people want to change it, there is a system for doing that: amend it.)

And the Best Picture Is…

Well, it’s The Artist, obviously. Anyone who saw them all knows that. I wrote a post critical of this movie, but that’s mostly because I found the ads for it misleading. I think that’s false advertising, and it also led me to expect something the movie does not deliver for most of its running time: a feel-good story. It has a happy ending, but most of the running time is not a feel-good movie.

But did you see the Oscars? Nobody clapped for The Artist when it was read aloud as a nominee for best picture. WTF? Was it jealousy because it is the best picture of this past year? Everyone calls it “a French film”*, but as they pointed out: it’s the only movie of them all that was 100% made in Hollywood! So it’s really more of a Hollywood movie than all the others! (I knew that from watching it!)

So shouldn’t it have been cheered on for all the jobs it brought to Hollywood? Oh, that’s right, I forgot: only the “above the line” people are even invited to the Oscars, so they don’t care one little teensy bit about local Hollywood jobs. They’re already rich, so they don’t care, and why would they? But I’ll bet the IATSE people (you know, the people who really make the movies) would have cheered it heartily! For not only was this a great movie, but it was made in Hollywood, USA! And that ought to count for something, especially in this outsourced recession economy of ours. Don’t you think so?

* (Sometimes it takes an outsider to truly appreciate something wonderful we take for granted because we’re exposed to it all the time, n’est-ce pas? And then we see it for the great thing it is again. This is what The Artist does for Hollywood. And this is the real gift, and the legacy, of this movie. I have always loved classic Hollywood movies, so I have always appreciated them and the mystique of old Hollywood. But living here all the time, I forget sometimes that this is where it all happened. In the daily grind, the exceptional loses its luster, and the magic evaporates. That’s why it takes a French team to remind us that we’re in the stardust factory: this is Hollywood, baby! And it is special, even if we sometimes forget that because we live here all the time. And we should appreciate it.)

Oscars Ads

Wow, I was busting on the Oscars earlier, but I didn’t realize it’s also apparently like another Super Bowl for ads! Some of these commercials are new, and they’re really good! Is it usually like this? I might have to start watching the Oscars for the ads like I do for the Super Bowl, even when the Giants aren't playing. (Actually, the horrible truth is that I'm fickle: I like a lot of different football teams, so I always like the Super Bowl, regardless of who’s in it.)

My sister has recorded this, and I missed most of it, so I will report on these ads later. I’m sorry I missed it now! I didn’t know there would be good ads, or I would have been watching it! Why don’t they tell us these things? I thought it would just be a bunch of pampered stars patting themselves on the back for hours. But if people knew there would be good commercials on, maybe more people would watch it! (It’s okay if you miss it though: they will repeat these ads until you hate them later on. I promise!)

Skechers Mr. Quiggly Dog Racing Ad

Here we have a greyhound racing scenario, and a French bulldog wearing two pairs of red Skechers beats them all and then moonwalks across the finish line backwards just to rub it in. And then he’s torn to shreds by the other dogs, both because he’s a jerk about hot-dogging the finish, and also because the greyhounds are so underfed they’re ravenous. (And Mr. Quiggly is too pooped to run away.) I’m kidding. Mr. Quiggly wins and demands a new contract with Mark Cuban, who then has him roughed up by toughs for being too big for his dog breeches, and all four of his legs are broken to teach him a lesson, which is then applauded by all the greyhounds because he embarrassed them. I’m kidding again. But isn’t animal cruelty so funny? That’s why animal rights activists loved this ad so much! (Actually, that’s another issue that’s not really visible in the commercial: allegations of behind-the-scenes cruelty to the greyhounds.)

So this ad is really fun and cute. But somehow, it seems to me they would have done better to use horseracing: after all, horses already wear “shoes”, so to simply make one set of shoes a quad of Skechers, and make that horse win by a lot, would seem a bit more natural and convincing to me. But this commercial’s concept is really fun and attention-getting. It’s cute, etc., and people will definitely remember it. The thing is, since it’s only got one dog with shoes on, will it help sell Skechers? I don’t know the answer, and my idea for the horse race might not be any better on that account. But horses already wear “shoes”, so one horse having the Skechers winning might have made more sense, although again it doesn’t show it to be better than other brands of athletic shoes. But since there are other horse “shoes”, that might mitigate that issue somewhat. They could also have a pony beat a bunch of thoroughbred horses, which would do the same thing as having a French bulldog beat a bunch of greyhounds. But even if the horseracing idea worked better than the dog racing (which is debatable), it would still only be possible because of this concept created by this ad agency, and it’s a really fun idea. Kudos!

But you know, if it’s the shoes that won the race, why doesn’t Mark Cuban just buy a new set of those shoes for another dog? Wouldn’t that be cheaper? And how come everyone always worships Michael Jordan for being so great at basketball when those Nike ads from the ‘80s made it clear that it was just the shoes that allowed him to play well? Any basketball legend (or player) who has Nike make shoes for them could be just as good, right? No? And that’s the problem with these athletic shoes commercials that make these claims: Michael Jordan would have been just as great with another pair of shoes, and he’d still be better than everyone else barefoot, so it puts the lie to this type of ad. But they’re fun ads nonetheless.

Okay, so this commercial has kicked up quite a kerfuffle with the animal rights people, apparently. This spot is really a fun concept, and as such I wish it would be viewed simply as the fun, silly entertainment it is, rather than have it be picked apart for something that is not the ad agency’s fault. Rather than bashing the ad, and demanding that Skechers pull the ad, and threatening to boycott Skechers, I really feel the animal rights activists should have done this instead: They could have said that this is a fun and cool ad, and that in addition to being a cute commercial, it also raises another issue people ought to know about: cruelty to greyhounds in the sport (or at that track, or whatever the specific allegations are). Because after all, this product and this ad agency are not responsible for the treatment of the dogs, they don’t run the dog track, and they didn’t know about the allegations of mistreatment until after they had already made the commercial. So rather than bash the commercial, the animal rights people could have piggybacked their message onto this spot in a positive way. That way, they could have ridden a wave rather than fighting it: See what I mean?

Plus, then they would have targeted the appropriate people for the alleged abuse, rather than blaming the innocent. And targeting the wrong people is really bad for the cause, let me tell you! It’s kind of like throwing red paint on someone with faux fur on: They will hate you and fight you afterwards forever. Remember: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! (Even if it is really mean to trap flies, man!)

Sometimes the animal rights people just shoot themselves in the foot. That’s why I make fun of them a lot on this blog. It’s certainly not because I love to see animals suffer, as nothing could be further from the truth. But it’s the way the activists sometimes behave, and how silly and counter-productive some of their strategies are, that I have a problem with. This ad is a great example of that: It’s a great commercial, and it should be celebrated for its fun, whimsical quality, and not accused of torturing animals and threatened with boycotts of Skechers’s shoes. If anything, people should boycott Skechers because they’re ugly; but because a commercial of theirs has dog racing in it? Honestly: Grow up!

Here’s the canine careening competition commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T1_VB1FqRU