Advertising for fast food is so common we don’t even think about it anymore, do we? Who doesn’t know, like they know their own birthday, the McDonald’s jingle? Who doesn’t have any idea what a Blizzard is, besides young, young children?

And, as my final hypothetical question used to prove a point: who doesn’t know that these things are bad for you?

Because, it was to my knowledge that most were raised with the mindset that yes, there is indeed a Pizza Hut—for our purposes there is one on Belcher Road—and sure pizza tastes awesome, and pizza is a “staple” (somehow) of the American diet, but that doesn’t mean we should eat pizza all the time.

The kindergarten lesson was we should not eat unhealthy food every day.

Different world now though. Very different world. Where health, being healthy, is such a dire concern that we have an entire reality show devoted to it.

But, how did this happen?

Well, I am unwilling to say it was only people not having enough willpower. Have you seen what humans are capable of, even in their daily pursuits? Ever tried to perceive the entirety of what we as human beings have done in our relatively small time on this planet? I’m not willing to blame it entirely on people having too big of a sweet tooth or a craving complex.

But what I am willing to blame heavily, is pricing. Why is a soft serve milkshake like a dollar, but a salad often three to five? How is that reasonable? The obvious answer to my own question is that the chemicals and production process to make a cheap milkshake is dramatically less expensive, and thus you can sell it for a lot less. Cut corners, and those corners are money you don’t have to pay—at least upfront.

So, after this wordy roundabout, I come to my point: and what someone higher up on the world’s stage than I, should be advertising.

Making all this cheap food, often on an assembly line, and then making those advertising video spectaculars to get people aware of the cheap food, must cost a lot. Sure, the food is cheap, but the initial stages of instigating the system weren’t, I’d say. Furthermore, I’d argue, by now at least, if one accounts for medical bills and lawsuits and the like, the total is probably equal if not more money than what it would take to work out a healthier food economic ecosystem with less salt and sugar and grease.

This is a little on the line of conspiracy to say, I’ll admit, but, modern day advertisements do a heck of a job convincing us we should indulge again in a burger—whereas fresh lettuce or lean chicken receives almost nary a mention on television.

Insert long, drawn-out suspicious “hmm” here.

The sad part is, though, even if that theory holds water, perhaps we are too late in the cycle for such a thing to change.

But, maybe not.

If more advertising talked about cheap but also healthier food—in the standard lower caloric/higher vitamin content definition of healthy—then health might be less of an issue for people. Chipotle’s ads, for example, do a good job of promoting more organic ideals.

Now, people obviously have choice and free will to make their own food decisions, but one cannot as easily make decisions if the better options are not clear or seen.

And making things known is advertising’s job. This idea has many hurdles, sure. Avoiding the embarrassing stigma of the PSA and not trying to treat people like they are idiots about their own health is a big one.

But it is worth more effort than we give it. A healthier country is worth the effort.

It’s uncomfortable to say sometimes, but the marketing and advertising coming out of our corporations affects us on a marked level. Subconsciously and consciously. So, I implore that those making companies, and running companies, keep this in mind.

And get healthy food choices to be more prominent in our advertising.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

The modern-day fashion industry likely informs what clothes you buy at all the fancy-ish stores. They are the people who determine the common perception of what you would want at Victoria’s Secret, or Windsor Fashions, or Macy’s, or any of the other clothes stores you can find at the mall, like Countryside. And these groups have marketing power which is both baffling and impressive.

Let me put it this way, the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” is the basic summation of the idea that art and aesthetic is subjective. That what a person, or a group, or a country, finds to be attractive in terms of features, clothing, qualities, etc. is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in anything besides personal taste.

And, though I am unsure of to what degree this is true—I do not have the page space to argue/discuss what is and what is not innate beauty—I can accept the saying as true for this article. But, if that’s indeed true, that means what we find to be high-end clothing is only considered high-end clothing because the industry said so.

I mean, duh, right, Seems obvious. But this is a loop. This is a self-contained marketing loop. If something vastly different from the style now in the fashion world were to branch out, such as a loose-fitting functional version of the potato sack, it would never ever gain real traction. Because the people who determined the arbitrary style beforehand, now conditioned our collective mainstream tastes to not accept the flagrant alternative.

Why is that not beautiful? Why is a potato sack bad? Because we have a standard. But they determined the standard. They chose that style to be superior. The marketing of this is practically palpable.

Now, sure, as any pictures from the 70’s which shows what people wore back then can handily teach, styles shift out eventually. There is a natural changing pattern which overhauls the style to a new standard—or, at least, there appears to be. But, for the ten or so years that each style lasts, these fashions will continue to sit where they do because of the marketing of the fashion moguls and the celebrities paid to wear their wares upon their bodies.       

Now. I don’t mean to sound overall critical. Because I think dressing nicely is a good thing in the right situation. I think people striving for a good appearance—within reason, mind you—is not a bad thing. Esthetics are art, and I’m a big proponent of art. But I also want to point out that marketing is a method of making an idea innate to the public. Fashion is so ingrained: to deviate would seem odd. And, with anything like this, one should be aware of what marketing is telling us.

We do, unequivocally, judge people based on their appearance. And certain people decided, perhaps even arbitrarily, that a good part of how that judgment turns out comes from their tastes and their decisions.

And if something like that goes toward wholesome honest products, then it’s usually fine. But we must be careful. We, and they, need to market with the power of marketing in mind. Marketing can sell good things, change the world even. But powerful enough people can also use marketing to make people perceive wearing bright pink fuzzy hats in the shape of birds as the height of attractiveness.

So, let’s all agree to try to stay careful and smart with this power? Okay?

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

You can promote a show with a single voice. Don’t believe me? Well, if you’re a Doctor Who fan (or a Jessica Jones fan, or Broadchurch, or many others) I think you’ll suddenly find some interest in the new Disney reboot of DuckTales when I tell you one of the main characters is voiced by David Tenant.

This is not a new trick. This is not an uncommon trick. But it works. Oh, yes, it works. And that’s why animation companies use it so much for movies. Animated movies find a huge amount of marketing power and ways to promote through the voice actors—if they are famous for other things.

Like, if you’re an older non-kid individual planning on watching DreamWorks Animation’s The Boss Baby in Countryside Mall’s theaters, I have to imagine it’s partially because you like Alec Baldwin. And, because I am a fan and a promoter of animation, I and others like me should be (and I personally am) okay with this, if it keeps animation as an artform going forward.

From The Secret Life of Pets to Bee Movie this is a tactic using name recognition. But also has a new wrinkle, because lately, and The Boss Baby works as an example of this, some voice roles go rather well to certain actors.

Marvel, as I’ve covered before, can tie an actor to a character, and make them a forever connection, and though this is more temporary, you can do the same with these kinds of animated roles.

The Emperor’s New Groove (and I am aware I am dating myself a little by choosing that movie) is a perfect example of having the right famous person for the right voice. Patrick Warburton, despite playing smarter characters than Kronk, lent a certain level of lovable almost deadpan goofiness to the character, that I think that specific actor pulls off well.

And the methods to promote don’t stop there. Because, yet again, I’m coming back to The Boss Baby for another example: you can use the connection from voice to face, to make a joke.

“Cookies are for closers” is a comedic reference which does not work unless you know the actor tied to the voice. Unless you know him for his live action role in Glengarry Glen Rose. Now, does that kind of joke also make the movie cheesy? Yes, quite a bit. But, it’s not a bad way to promote. It’s somewhat cheap humor, but we live in a cultural landscape that kind of loves referential jokes. Perhaps too much. But, it does work.

And, anyway, will all this said, if you want to make an animated movie, if you want to make an advertisement, if you want to promote something in an animated medium—or even live action if Farmers Insurance and J.K. Simmons have anything to say about it—you can get a real boost by attaching the recognizable voice of someone the crowds already love to a new character you want them to love.

I mean, as one last example, just to fully prove my point, if Morgan Freeman voiced an animated character, you know the movie would practically promote itself with one advertisement.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Marketing yourself as an artist is fraught with issues. And the most obvious is something I’ve talked about before: the lack of time or attention available for a piece of art (or anything).

Recommending a show, movie, book, painting, album, what-have-you to someone, while a common enough practice, is not something which is pleasant a lot of the time now. It means more things a person must keep track of in their life. Keeping up with an artistic medium is like a second job.

And, so, to get out art for sale, you are fighting for attention; you are marketing—or at least trying to go about marketing—right into people’s insular bubble of media.

And there’s another hurdle. I promise at the end I will have some positive spin on this, so, don’t worry, but there are more issues. As an artist, you must somehow get into those people’s spaces—and the most obvious way is using social media.

But, as anyone who connects to largely populated artist spaces on social media can tell you, self-promo is rampant. Many (but not all) are pushing to sell copies of something—which is understandable. As a writer, I totally get it. And it’s not even always a bad experience having artists sell their wares like you are walking in an old-time, crowded open-air market.

But there are alternatives to the standard sales pitch. Or, at least, supplementary additions. People do make money making art. They really do, no matter what naysayers may say. And the other ways to do this exists on advice articles all over the internet.

But I’ll condense a few of them here. I’ll list a few ways to market art outside of the normal outflowing promotion. But, I must warn, that some of it is difficult to do, even if it is effective. If you want to see your paintings hung in houses, and your statues erected around Clearwater Beach, if you want your novels to be on the shelves of little shops like One Stoppe Shoppe: then you must play the long game.

With few exceptions, this is the truth of the matter. This marketing, perhaps the best kind, the one that is not spamming until one becomes white noise, is a slower process.

You are trying to create trust with this method. Friendly vibes. What you must do, is create a level of interest and pleasantness. Not a shill, though. Not a cash grab. Your intention matters here. Build your P.R. by interacting with the customers not as customers, but as friends. And then long-term sales can come.

Be personable. Human. Responsive.

Do anything you can to make it feel like you are a friend and not a storefront mega-corporation. Repeat customers and true-blue fans will always trump the random in and out trickle which spam methods net erratically, if at all.

Also, and this is one of the most important parts despite it coming at the end of the article: you must focus your effort on the product. Even the often punchline of fast food jokes McDonald’s makes sure that at the very least, at the absolute minimum, their food tastes good and smells good.

The most impressive marketing campaign in the world will peter out if there is not much to the product. If there is not something about it that truly endears itself to the intended buyers.

Marketing art is a must for an artist who wants to make a living making art. And while alternatives may work, you can do it by being more human. By being more creative. As sociable as you can manage.

Just like creating artwork, good marketing is a matter of the heart. And of people. So, treat it that way.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

What we promote is sometimes not willful. Because our actions are often promoting something whether we explicitly are in favor or against the implications of the action. This has plenty of examples, spreading across moral, ethical, political, and economic subjects. But, here, in this case, I’m talking about cuteness.

Yes, cuteness. You read that right. Because, as I’ve mentioned in another article: the inherent empathic response animals cause in us when we see them can find use when trying to promote. And, in this case, they promote we do not eat them. And us not eating them before, promotes we don’t eat them currently.

Now, I do not wish to step on the toes of any other cultures. For the sake of this argument/opinion/think piece, I am referring to the culture of America only. Cultures and countries and religions all have their own opinions on what animals you can or cannot eat—and that is perfectly fine, obviously.

But when you keep it to only North America, and to only those without religious-based dietary or personal dietary choices we, as people, have an issue with eating most cute animals. Most companion creatures.

For instance, and again, I understand things might be different in other countries, you would not settle down at one of the myriad Clearwater restaurants on Gulf to Bay (I would name a specific place as an example, but I’d imagine no one local wants this scenario attached to them, even hypothetically) and order a cat, a dog, a hamster, or any other cute little fur ball with big eyes.

Sure, some people eat deer and rabbit, and, yes, even squirrel. But that is not the clear majority. We will not eat the same creatures which we like as cute little pets. Or a creature we’d point at a passing pleasant curiosity.

And, though, I do not personally promote eating the adorable little guys, as I grew up in a culture which find such an idea odd and a little saddening, I don’t see why, outside of cuteness and/or the quality of being loyal creatures, we stick so rigidly to these options.

Why, out of everything, with our technological age of modifying at whim, do we limit ourselves—barring some gourmet dishes—to the staples of beef, chicken, pork, and fish?

And, while I’m sure an ecologist could supply some sort of compelling answer to the question, perhaps dealing with availability and societal infrastructure, I think, from a purely mental and sensational level, we can bring ourselves to eat these four and not all the others because of a few select reasons.

The first is that they are all prey animals. Hunted by other predators. And as we are omnivores, we are part predator.  

But, with that said, that still does not make it clear why we would shun, or at least often frown upon, the eating of things like squirrels and gerbils and rabbits. I mean, just taking the reproduction speed of a rabbit as an example, they seem like a possible cheap food source for a world which needs more food sources.

But, we don’t. And it’s a similar reason, probably, to why we are not too keen on eating bugs—no matter the benefits. We are culturally raised, without really questioning it, to associate certain animals as food, and others as not. It’s what our parents served us. An established normal. And there is a lot of convincing power, promotional or otherwise, in an established normal.

Even if something tastes good. Even if someone is not a vegetarian. Even if we have no qualms about what the food companies do to the animals in the name of mass production, we are still picky.

A medically trained person could tell us bugs or gerbils were okay to devour, and we still wouldn’t. Even if we on some level understand it might be better for the planet, we possess deep-seated thoughts and preferences about what we ingest.

Perhaps, if I were to further speculate on the matter, I’d say it’s because eating is so tied to survival. Something hardwired into us. But, regardless, for whatever reason it is, we promote through choices, and I promote through this article, us not eating the adorable. That we don’t, unless it becomes desperate on the world’s stage, eat the cute ones.

It’s a gut feeling. And, when it comes to food, since hunger is often unmarked by anything visible on the human body’s surface, the gut is the main thing we can trust on the matter.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com