August 9th, 2003
|02:45 pm - Beer|
I'm teetotal, but last night I had a very catchy song for a beer commercial from about 1990 running through my head; not just any beer commercial, but one of the funniest ever. It might possibly have been a campaign local to this area and accordingly it's just possible that none of you at all might recognise it. I suspect I may be conflating two of the commercials in the same series, too; if you can help me separate the two (for, shamefully, even Google has no record of these ads) then I would be most grateful.
The premise of the advert is that two Geordies (strongly-accented inhabitants of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) go on holiday to other countries around the world, get into about twenty seconds worth of sight gags and wacky adventures through the medium of their images overlaid onto film footage, then return home simply because their chosen beer is not available abroad; the punchline is that their chosen beer is, indeed, One To Come Back For. And, er, that's it. However, given that I would've been about 15 at the time, you have to understand that the heavily guitar-y, moderately rock-ish tune absolutely rocked.
The first advert in the series was set in Russia:
Red Square's Dead Square, I know that for a fact
No McEwan's Export in the Warsaw Pact
Bye bye Vladivostok, let's have away from here
Russia? Nice place, shame about the beer
The second advert in the series was, well:
Florida's horrider than Whitley Bay
No McEwan's Export in the USA
The bars are packed tighter than tins of sardines
(image: our heroes boarding a space shuttle)
No room for barmaids with all these machines
This is Geordies calling Houston, can you send us up some drinks?
(image: our heroes have landed on the Moon)
There's no McEwan's Export and the local beer stinks
(something), (something) no atmosphere
The States? Nice place, shame about the beer
There were other adverts in the series: China, Japan, Transylvania and possibly others. Very funny adverts, possibly targeted a little younger than legality would permit these days, but a happy memory all the same. Communal-pensieve me up, anyone else who was there at the time.
Talking of someone who might've been drinking a little much of the stuff, I sometimes wonder if there is any wisdom to be gained from analysing the "Comments Posted", "Comments Received" and "Journal entries" figures in your full userinfo - whether the ratios of received:posted and received:entries are of use, interest or ornament. If they are, then one watchful_entity has some of the most impressive userinfo ratios ever. Watching the hoo, and associated ha, on watchful_entity was a strangely entertaining pastime last night; one particular thread got up to about 1,278 replies before the aforementioned entity turned it private. I'll claim to have seen the thread when it only had 15 replies, but you may well not believe me. Certainly there was a train-wreck-like fascination in seeing it get 1,000+ replies in about 9½ hours. If there hadn't been a follow-up post which took people's attention and if it hadn't all been turned private, I really reckon it might have had a shot at challenging some of LiveJournal's other well-known megathreads. (One thing we have learned from watchful_entity is that when you reply to your own post, it counts as +0 Comments Posted and +1 Comments Received.)
In other news, Sky paid £1,024,000,000 for the exclusive rights to televise live full Premiership football matches for the next three years</a>. Did anyone else see the sum mentioned and recognise it to be a kibimegaquid?
Last thought. "Hacker Jeopardy" is a well-known staple event at the DefCon security convention. I wonder if anyone with a sufficiently large lead has ever deliberately blown the Final Jeopardy question and made a bet just so that they would end up with a score of ($)31337?
Current Mood: refreshed
Current Music: ....and no, that's not refreshed by beer
Mmm... really not very much, strangely enough. It just evoked the spirit of a couple of previous kerfuffles thought to be long dead. Probably better not to go into detail as to what those were; there are fewer than eight and a quarter hours remaining in Saturday as it is.
will take some beating.
, 2587 to 2216.
This ("which comment has received most replies ever?") must be a FAQ, mustn't it? Not in the FAQ, but a FAQ all the same...
|Date:||August 9th, 2003 08:29 am (UTC)|| |
Interestingly, Slashdot does
have listings on that topic in their Hall of Fame
- interestingly, there are only 4 Slashdot stories beating that 2587 total...
I'm very disappointed that I'm not on watchful_entity
's List of the Damned, as I can no longer watch it properly.
Oh, and on the commenting in your own yournal, I'm fairly sure that's +1 to both, but posted counts seem to be completely broken at the moment - my userinfo
is showing no comments posted at all, despite the fact that I have posted quite a number both in my journal and those of other people.
posted counts seem to be completely broken at the moment
Indeed - not least your one comment here. How disappointing. I agree with the concept of an auto-reply being worth +1,+1 as being the logical way to do things.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star...
Awww, you called him/her/it a star! The question is, would it be happy with that? We wonders, precious, we wonders...
|Date:||August 9th, 2003 08:47 am (UTC)|| |
The Premiership deal...
Is that for one game per week, and do you suppose that to be a decent price for them? Do the matches generally reach the highest audience of the broadcast day?
As a point of reference, The current NFL deal is for $2.125 million annually, for as many as six games per week across four networks. CBS and FOX apparently each pay $500 million/year for two Sunday afternoon games per week and 1/3 of the Super Bowls, while ESPN pays $600 million (!) for a weekly Sunday primetime game. So math would dictate ABC paying $525 million for Monday night Football and 1/3 of the Super Bowls.
Re: The Premiership deal...
As usual, it's more complicated than it at first appears. Sky had exclusive live rights for the past three years. Some execs were rather unhappy that all the live games were only on Sky, so Sky and the Football Association and all worked out a system whereby all the live games would be split into (I think) three different packages according to the time of day, and the day, at which they would be shown - and whether the game was the first choice, second choice or (n)th choice of the games of that weekend. Then Sky bid most for all three packages. (Incidentally, Sky do restrict some Premiership games to PPV.) The BBC didn't bid for any of the live Premiership packages, though they do have the terrestrial TV weekly-highlights-show rights back; this will be under the much-loved, long-running "Match of the Day" brand, as opposed to ITV's unpopular "The Premiership".
It's not unlikely that the execs might find disfavour with the way the arranagement turned out and there might be a second round of bidding, or perhaps they'll just accept that that is the fair market valuation.
Is a billion a fair price? I can remember hearing that the perception was that TV rights prices were going to plummet, but I don't think a billion for three years represents much of a plummet, so I think it's "about right". The matches are often broadcast on Sky Sports 1 - see the post on the gameshows invision forum about Challenge ?'s ratings and compare this to how well SS1 does. Ratings are not that important to Sky; getting people to plunk down money for the subscription channels is. You can have a look at the matrix of prices and packages
if you're interested in the grisly details, but essentially SS1 is about a tenner extra per month.
Never been to Whitley Bay, but I'm sure Florida is horrider (is that a word?) than it.... :-) You mentioned that you might go to a con in Ohio next year. What con is that?
Whitley Bay has apparently been extremely trendy for a good five years or so now (yesno, sophie10
?) but I'm well prepared to believe it was pretty horrid fifteen(-ish) years ago at the time of the ad. :-)
The con is The Gathering of Friends - here's a report of the '95 edition which captures the spirit well
, though it's grown larger and has moved to Columbus.
|Date:||August 9th, 2003 04:05 pm (UTC)|| |
It was nicer then. They've shut down the funfair and most of the arcades. And it's got really scruffy.
It's only good if you are into drinking.
I remember those adverts. They amused me greatly as a child.
|Date:||August 9th, 2003 09:34 am (UTC)|| |
I'm from the States, and only 19, but I have similar beer commercial memories. Mine are a jingle from a radio commercial about Harp, "Ireland's Uncommon Lager". In the 8th grade I wanted to write it in peoples yearbooks but it was too long. Alas and alack. Earlier this year I went to Montreal (where I can legally drink, unlike here) and of course had to order it. It was the nastiest thing I have ever tasted. Apparently I'm not a lager girl.
Lyrics in case you're interested:
Takes two to get together, takes time to make it last.
May we all end up in some ways like the drink in last nights glass.
As we take this drink together let's not think about the end.
Never mind the strangers 'cause I'll always be your friend.
Until the end...
I'm sure I heard a few years back that the advertising standards board in this country turn down over half the proposed alcohol ads because they break the laws, either by making excessive claims about alcoholic drinks' effects (especially on attractiveness) or by being apparently targeted to too young an audience. Of course the kids are always going to pick up on whatever gets let through, but this was a curious case.
*thinks* There was something else I meant to say but I have completely forgotten what. Sorry!
Clearly, you have superior TV commercials.
I noticed that you, of all people, we on the "blacklist"
I don't actually think Ali G is particularly often all that funny, but:
<ali-g>Is it because I is black?</ali-g>
I noticed that you, of all people, we on the "blacklist"
My reaction exactly!
Maybe Chris is just secretly evil and plotting against us all!!1 :D