Why i'm buying old car brochures

 

For those curious why I posted this photo on the Snacking Otaku Facebook page is because of a subject I'm researching - cars.

Cars are a thing that has a massive fandom, to the point that if you want to research a particular model, there is at least one people out there with encyclopedic knowledge.

Because of such fantom  anything to do with them (accessories, toys, ads, etc) is magpies and kept for prosperity.

Research is one aspect to the Snacking Otaku. The other is graphic design. In the case of cars, there is ample material to read through. But when it comes to designing the resulting nibbles, where do you go? The answer is simple - sales brochures. 

If you ever visit a car dealership you'll find racks of brochures of their products, showing every aspect of the model advertised - their specs, profile images, trim levels, optional extras, etc.

I recently been on eBay finding such brochures on sale and found them selling at agreeable prices - £5 minimum to nearly £40 for rarer ones. This makes collecting brochures a good cheap supplement to collecting actual cars.

So, why am I researching cars? The same way I did nibbles on various video formats. I'm curious about human ingenuity that mostly comes in the form of technology. Be it audio-visual devices, ballpoint pens, and cars, I got an interest in it. I am one of those kids who liked taking things apart to see what goes on inside and wonders how things work.

As you can tell from the photo above of a Ford car range brochure from 1983 the first car I'm going to tackle is the Ford Sierra. I may also cover its predecessor, the Cortina, and its successor, the Mondeo in the future. I already acquired the brochures for research and graphic design ideas.

Acts of Cultural Vandalism - One Piece at a Time

Here's something from the draft pile.

Johnny Cash "One Piece at a Time" (1976)

Welcome to another act of cultural vandalism. Today is a sort of small act of vandalism as the subject in question is small. It's the song - "One Piece at a Time" by Johnny Cash. A song about an assembly line worker who decides to get a free car by stealing parts from the factory one piece at a time over a period of a couple of years. It seems a clever idea. The factory could (back then) afford to lose a piece or two a day. It's probability. But this scheme had one huge flaw - where he was working - Cadillac. Why is that a problem? Cadillac is a part of General Motors, a company notorious for the practice of planned obsolescence - the practice of making products that only last a set amount of time in the hope of making customers buy the next new model. Its something many people have raged against since it first came to public attention in the 1930s and attacked in a number of adverts from European carmakers, such as Volvo.

"Beat the System" Volvo ad (1971)

If the man had been working in a factory making, say, Volkswagen Beetles it wouldn't have been a problem. He would have a car that was no different to the ones leaving the factory, as these classic car ads from the iconic DDB Volkswagen campaign clearly demostrate.

Volkswagen ads from DDB (1960s)

But he worked for Cadillac. He desired a Cadillac, like most Americans then. It was this engineered desire (in the form of high quality engineering and shiny chrome) that made Cadillac the aspirational brand. It was the car you saved up for. Its the car you bought to show off that you made it in the world. Its the car rich texans attach bull horns to. You get what I'm saying, don't you? Cadillac was the car everyone wanted if they had the cash. If you made or saved enough, you bought the Cadillac (which may be the reason why Cadillacs are mostly driven by old these days - they saved enough to afford one).

One thing that fuelled that desirability was Cadillac's habit of redesigning their cars every year or so. This made the newest Cadillac look fresh and exciting while the older models (which can be bought more cheaply in the second-hand car market) looked dated and something from yesteryear. It was this that was the biggest flaw in the factory worker's plan. Without realizing, he wasn't collecting the parts to make one single model, he was collecting parts for multiple models of car. Considering the changing shape of the Cadillacs from 1949-73 its astonishing that the factory worker didn't notice the problem until the very end. I mean, I would have noticed that I got a left front wing that has two headlights and a right wing with just one let alone that only one rear wing has a tailfin. But he had the parts and built a car with them anyway. The result was a mutant Cadillac. 

So what did this mutant Cadillac look like? Although a fictional object, an actual car was commissioned for promotional purposes. It featured in a music video for "One Piece at a Time".

Music video with mutant Cadillac

In case the video is no longer available, here's a photo of it.

Incredible, isn't it? Although the parts weren't made to fit, with some bodging and tinkering, you can make a car out of any collection of mismatched parts. The very car from the video is currently a museum piece in the Historic Auto Attractions museum in Roscoe, Illinois.

So why this subject you ask? Its because of Cat's gift to Ian. You may remember that Cat destroyed Ian's Ford Cortina by in May 2013 and soon afterwards he was beaten to a bloody pulp by Ian. He had spend months in medical care to recover and during that time decided to make a peace offering. This peace offering is...

It's better that I showed you....

Yelp. What better gift to make up destroying an old Ford than a new Ford made from old Fords.

It took him years, but was it worth it?

CAT - Look, things had been busy with....

IAN - Five years Cat! Five years!

CAT - It's my first time building a car.

IAN - You didn't need to. I bought a new car since you destroyed my old one.

 ----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, when I first wrote this back in 2013, I was thinking of featuring Cat in a "final sketch" at the end of each post. I had sketched out the car back then. It's only today that I finally drew it!

Five years to finish a joke. 

Hope you all liked the "Frankenford"

Act of Cultural Vandalism - A twist in the Snickers

I had the idea of this very recently. One internet meme that I have seen a few times on my Facebook feed has been one of these...

For those who are not familiar, they are a reference of a series of TV ads for Snickers that started in 2010. Below is the first one ever, featuring Betty White... playing American Football!

First "Not yourself" Snickers ad, 

featuring Betty White (2010)

The still used in the memes above come from this version, starring Joan Collins.

Snickers ad, featuring Joan Collins (2012)

They are many memes based on these ads, but the one I have been seeing feature a certain red-head....

And its from this version where I got the idea for my version of this meme.....

I await your praise (and anger) in the comments.

(But please read the ad's disclaimer before you do so.)

By the way, I have plans for another Snickers ad.

I won't say any more....

A Facebook Revelation

Watch this video

Just today I watched this video.

It turns out that Facebook has been stealing your seeing time from YouTube videos.

Because it takes three seconds for a playing video to register a view (and most of us take less than that to scan a post on Facebook) the viewing statistics of many videos have been skewed.

This may not sound horrifying to you, but to a broadcaster it is disastrous.

For a commercial TV channel, knowing which show brings in the viewers is vital when deciding how much to charge advertisers to have their ads during which show. This is why American businesses invest a lot into their commercials that are shown during the Super Bowl.

The same is true online.

Why would an advertiser waste time putting their ad on a video that gets very few views?

Although I am the few who actually doesn't care about viewing figures, many do.

But even I get  a bit excited when I see a spike in viewers on my blog's statistics page.

And that's the thing. 

We all want to be popular, and today their is no other indicator than how many views you video gets.

But if there was a a cheat that robbed you from many views, you'll be mad, right?

Exactly.

What is happening when someone posts a link to a video on YouTube on Facebook is that video gets robbed of views. Probably a high number of views that could have turned it into the next Gangnam Style. Its no surprise that video makers are considering it piracy - committed by a multi-billion dollar business. (don't blame the users, blame the high-ups for the shambles it had created.)

So the next time you see a nice video on YouTube and want to share it with others, 

think twice before posting it on Facebook. 

Is it a product from an established broadcaster its ok, 

but if its one that was made by an indie with little resources don't.

Looking back on my Facebook history I have committed this crime in the past, 

so for now on I'll stop doing it.... unless its too good not to share.

Is This Probably The Best Beer Ad in the World?

Mock-up of Carlsberg Free Beer Dispensing Billboard (2015)

On 8th April 2015, near to the Old Truman Bewery in Shoreditch, London, Carlsberg (the beer that claims to be "probably the best beer in the world") set up what is probably the best beer poster in the world - a poster that gives out FREE BEER!

Yes, Carlsberg made a billborad that gives out free beer. 

I know. It sounds like something from the 20th century (maybe 1970s America?), but this has happened. A brewer has done a publicity campaign giving out free beer. Carlsberg must have a lot of balls, doing this in a time when the very idea sounds like (to a notable percentage of the population) the anti-smoking ad giving away free cigarettes I made last year. But, so far, I have heard no news of  large drunken riots in London.

Carlsberg do plan to roll this out across the UK. Is this a good idea? I don't know, considering the British's reputation when it comes to drink. I bet the usual people (The Salvation Army, the AA (and the other AA as well), etc) will protest this in the usual reactionary way, but I don't think it'll do anything. In fact (judging from the history books), it will make more people drink from the billboard.

So, people who are appalled by the idea who want to protest - don't protest. It'll make things worse! One of the lessons from history people repeatably fail to learn is that as soon as someone makes a fuzz about something (a book, a film, an ad campaign, etc) others will wonder why that person is making a fuzz and be curious enough to do the very thing you didn't want them to do!

Think of when many Romans became Christians when it was a persecuted cult in Rome.

Think of the many people in 1979 who travelled vast distances to see Monty Python's Life of Brian, because their council or country had banned that film, because the powers at be thought it was blasphemous.

And think of the many things that happened in recent years that have resulted from injunctions or someone trying to act their "right to be forgotten"....

The "Right to be Forgotten" discussion on Last Week Tonight (May 2014)

My call to not protest can apply to all forms of cultural protest. That's movies, books, video games with questionable content, or crazes that don't do physical harm (crazes that do should be protested against).

I know, my definition can sound ambiguous, like a tax law with an unintended loophole, but.... 

I think its better if I explain in another blog. 

But for now, I say it applies to questionable ad campaigns, like this one.

And maybe, it will become (probably) the best ad campaign ever - for not causing a drunken brawl.

Would that be great?

Mini Act of Cultural Vandalism - The Rise of James Corden and why bullies will loss in the end

A few days ago I was very surprised to discover that Craig Ferguson had ceased been the host of his American talk show at the end of 2014 and this week had his role been filled in by someone I never thought the Americans actually heard of. For those who have not heard of this, I guess you.... wait! Just read the title of this post. The person who has replaced Craig Ferguson as host of the The Late Late Show on CBS is .......

James Corden

Yes, Smithy from Gavin & Stacey is now the host of a late-night talk-show on CBS. Not bad for someone who was once a very public victim of bullying...

Tango ad 2000 starring James Cordon

Later banned because it encouraged bullying

(Which isn't a surprise for Tango)

Looking at his career (in the form of his Wikipedia page) its incredible how high he has reached in a decade since that public humiliation during the ad breaks for TFI Friday (or any other TV show on commercial TV when this ad was on air). In the ironically-titled Fat Friends James played another victim of bullying who was almost pushed to suicide. After moving school in 2004, he became a star pupil in Alan Bennett's The History Boys. After graduating he did a few bit parts in a few movies, until meeting up again with former Fat Friend Ruth Jones. In 2007 this meeting resulted in the hit sitcom Gavin & Stacey - the show that truly made James a star. After that James has enjoyed amazing success.... well except for his brief folly with Gavin (Mathew Horne) that led to a TV sketch show and a movie (which I have both seen in their entirety and liked, despite what the critics (plus the majority of people) say about them). Even stuff that is dismissed by most have merit. 

But even with his huge success in the UK, I was very genuinely surprised when I found out that James had become a talk-show host in America. I never knew that he won a Tony Award for the Broadway production of the successful One Man, Two Guvnors. I knew he was in a Disney movie recently, but still - Smithy on CBS chatting with Tom Hanks and Mila Kunis? Wow!

I only learnt of this fact thanks to someone posting this clip to my Facebook page.

Tom Hanks and James Corden do every Tome Hanks movie in 7 minutes 

From The Late Late Show With James Corden (2015)

I am more glad that I have started using Facebook now since I started back in October. 

But there is something significant that can be learned from James Corden's story, and its something I have noticed for years. A noticeable number of celebrities have said in interviews that in the past they have been victims of bullying (I can't say that this is really true for James Corden, as I was just playing around with his early performance in a TV ad). And form this fact I can safely conclude that if a child is a victim of bullying that child's chances of future success increases. And this idea has backing. Derren Brown (a former victim himself) talks about this in his live shows. 

Its down to the fact that the bully is usually a kid who has the most natural strength (physically and in attracting "friends") and could go through school without much friction. Such kids never really "try hard" at school. As a result, most bullies have "dull" adulthoods. 

Meanwhile, the victims, because they experience friction at school (due to bullying or factors that usually lead to a child been bullied, or both) do try harder ... and reap the rewards in adulthood (unless the bullying leads to something that'll cut down that person's life before that happens). 

Reading this, I can imagine that some kids will try to get themselves bullied on purpose to try to guarantee future success. 

For those kids (or parents pushing their kids to do so), it won't work. 

Engineered bullying is not the same as natural bullying. 

Don't believe me? Just watch this episode of American Dad!

Mini Act of Cultural Vandalism - Its Armageddon Time... for Cancer

During an ad break for The Last Leg on Channel 4 on Friday 5th September this ad premiered...

It's Payback Time - Stand Up to Cancer Trailer - Channel 4 (2014)

What an angle to take. For years (as far as there been charity ad campaigns against cancer) all cancer awareness ads had only been (like all other diseases) about the victims. They had been mostly somber in tone, like this one...

Mirrors - Cancer Research UK ad (2000s)

But within the past decade (as survival rates for cancer have increased dramatically) that tone has become more positive...

Birthday - The American Cancer Society ad (late-2000s)

Even threatening (for sentient cancer cells)....

'Cancer, we're coming to get you' - Cancer Research UK Race for Life  TV ad (2013)

In fact, if you look at the many ads covering the subject, cancer is quite an unique cause when it comes to how its advertised, Think about it. Can you think of any other medical condition who's awareness campaign includes reviving famous victims, such as the British comedian Bob Monkhouse.

Bob Monkhouse Prostate Cancer ad (2007)

The reason for this tiny exploration in advertising is that (if you haven't heard what the most recent crop of cancer ads have been saying) is that by the time of writing the number of people surviving cancer and dying from cancer has now about equaled. This means that if you (hopefully not) discover a lump somewhere or have a doctor give you the bad news, the chances of you not been killed by it are (generally) about 50:50 (please note that this is a gross generalization and that the survival rates of various forms of cancer vary - with much with the odds in your (living) favor). 

But there is room for improvement. A "one size fits all" treatment is still a bit far away. But this is a too negative point of view. More positive view is this....

The fact that cancer has become the big killer and (as a result) the big health concern as it is now is a sign of progress. A century earlier, infectious diseases (Such as TB, malaria and flu) were the biggest killers. Cancer was rarely heard of (except in freak shows, where the few who did and developed huge sightly growths due to lack of treatment could earn a living). This is mostly because of the increase in life expectancy due to advances in health and medicine in the past century. Without them, not many people would have lived long enough for the tiny mutations caused by lifestyle choices (such as smoking) or environmental factors (such as the presence of asbestos) to turn the subject cells into uncontrollably-multiplying units that contribute nothing to the body except take up space and choke it, like junk in a spare room. You know them better as "tumors."

That's the high school biologist in me there speaking. 

In conclusion, I do hope cancer becomes a history lesson one day. Its a condition that (on the looks of it) shouldn't happen to any organism. It is an effect caused by a spanner been thrown into the fundamental mechanism of life - DNA. The more we can do to stop that spanner from doing its damage (or deal with the carnage it causes) the better for us all. 

But on a lighter note, I love the ad I started this post with. It is truly original in angle (form the cancer cell's point of view) and its execution (the cancer treatment is the cause of the end of (their) world). 

It's Armageddon time... for cancer.

Mini Act of Cultural Vandalism - Leave the window open or the dog would melt

Hot Cars Kill Dogs campaign video from Dogs Trust (2014)

I recently found out about this internet campaign from the UK animal welfare charity Dogs Trust (formerly known as the National Canine Defense League). It tackles a problem every person involved n or concerned about animal welfare gets angry about every summer - dogs trapped in cars on sunny days. 

They are no actual statistics on how many dogs die in such a preventable way (I tried typing "how many dogs die in hot cars each year" into Google and I got nothing. Not a single number.). But the high school biologist in me knows why it happens. A human could withstand the heat inside a hot car (though some children have died in hot cars (38 a year in the US, according to this website.)). This is because humans sweat. Dogs can't sweat. That is why they stick their tongues out when their exhausted... or hot. The lack of sweat glands can limit their ability to withstand heat. But many humans don't know this fact and assume that a few minutes in a car will be fine because it was fine for them. It's only when they return to a car containing a dead dig that they realize how wrong their assumption was. 

What got me seeing this video was how devilishly simple the idea is - a time lapse of a ice sculpture of a dog melting in a car. What struck me was how come no one had thought of this until 2014? Its so obvious. The charity has been around since 1891 (just when cars were beginning to scare horses and running over small animals on the road). Why now? But I guess the dog in hot car problem didn't exist until fully enclosed passenger compartments began to be the norm in the 1920s (before most cars were convertibles). Also, it would have been expensive to set up a time lapse camera (something a charity can't afford to do (until now)).

It is a brilliant idea that illustrates a common problem in the world and I applaud it. But the cinematographer in me sees need for improvement, such as engraving a name on the collar (something in the theme of ice, such as "Frozo") and ending the video with a close-up on the collar showing the dog's name. But please ignore it and not take it as an insult, because they have made something great. It deserves an award of some sort for its simplest and execution. Dogs Trust, I salute to you. 

And now the behind the scenes footage featuring Rico and Lolly...

Act of Cultural Vandalism - Does Germany winning mean gambling is good?

National Council on Problem Gambling ad from Singapore (2014)

On the 13th July the final of the FIFA World Cup in Rio, Brazil took place with an astounding victory for Germany against Argentina. Now, usually I don't take notice of things in the world of sports (I didn't know Andy Murray won Wimbledon until a day after his win). But Germany's victory in the World Cup has had an unexpected effect in Singapore. 

For a few weeks Singapore's National Council on Problem Gambling ran an anti-gambling advertising campaign featuring a boy (named Andy) whose dad bet his live savings on whoever wins the World Cup.

So, which team did he bet on? 

NCPG ad web banner (2014)

Germany. The team that actually won the World Cup. Andy's dad must have been over the moon by the sudden windfall. Not surprisingly, as soon as people learnt about this ad campaign (with the miracle of hindsight of knowing of Germany's victory) some had altered it to show Andy's Dad minting it and to tell Andy to "stop whining." 

For a bit more see this Reuters article and look at a few others as well (I'm not doing all the work for you!). 

But what happened to this ad campaign made me ponder. They say that they choose Germany for the ad to add realism to the message. It wouldn't have worked if they made up a team. And it would have worked if Germany had lost, but the NCPG couldn't have had foreseen Germany's luck that year. 

So I thought about this idea. Instead of just one ad, the NCPG could have ran two or multiple ads featuring different dads betting on different teams. This will have sorted the unlikely outcome of the dad in the one single ad winning the bet. But then I realized a problem. With multiple dads betting on different teams, viewers will wonder which one would win. Instead of discouraging gambling, this idea will encourage the very thing it was trying to stop. It's like an anti-smoking campaign giving out free cigarettes. Or a drink-driving campaign where people are asked to sample various alcoholic drinks and then asked to drive a car (to a test track, of course). 

Hang on. That drink-driving idea could actually be doable. But by using the same technology that makes Testing Britains Worst Drivers: Crash Course possible. If you haven't have seen it, some pretty bad drivers are placed in a telepresence set up that allows them to control a life-size remote-controlled car on a test track like they are actually in it. But after getting use to it they are confronted with their bad driving by another remote controlled car that crashes into them. Its a shocking experience for the driver, so I can imagine my drink-drive campaign working equally well. I could go on about this idea, but I should finish this post with something about gambling.

So here are my thoughts about gambling in general. Looking at human nature and human history, gambling is a natural thing for humans to do. Its a result of our pre-farming/supermarket years of hunting our food. There is no 100% guarantee that you'll eat today, so you had to gamble if that antelope is catchable, as if you didn't, you'll starve. We still have that brain wiring today (though what some of us we hunt now is different, like that Charizard card). So what has hunting got to do with gambling? Think about it. If faced with a African plain for a few hours and you'll see only one small antelope (and your hungry), would you try to get that antelope, or wait a while in the hope of encountering a more fatter antelope with a broken leg? Play safe or take the risk? That's gambling. Taking risks. We take risks all the time, from crossing roads to temporary ignoring speed limits when in a hurry. Although some people will frown upon speed limit breakers and pedestrians who don't use zebra crossings, when gambling involves money and/or doing humiliating things that is when the moral panic lot go mental. They are a lot of stories about people who have become ruined wrecks (financially) as a result of gambling. Most middle class people who read such stories wonder "why do people do this?" Why do people become addicted to gambling? But I'll add this observation. Most of the people you hear about in such stories are neither unemployed or in remedial jobs. Also, if you remember your history, many aristocrats dabbled with a few games of poker. So why mostly them? It's our risk-taking hunter past that is responsible. Gambling has filled a daily need of risk taking that was once satisfied by the daily hunt. Most middle class people are immune to gambling because they have a job that involves risk taking and problem solving, such as stock trading or computer programming (I know that a few of them do gamble, but I'm just rounding off observations.). But if you are in a routine that is unchanging everyday, such as working on an assembly line or (in the case of many aristocrats and unemployed people) doing nothing, you face almost no risk at all. And for the hunter programs in the brain it's boring. The brain craves the frill of taking risks, and that results in those people taking up gambling and, as a result, get addicted. Don't believe me? Ask Desmond Morris. He said this very observation in The Naked Ape.

But here's an additional note of my own. In the past (I'm speculating here.) the problem of gambling addiction was more manageable, as it was a social activity involving friends or rivals. This had the advantage that if you wanted your money back you could beg for it back or (I'll let your imagination fill in this blank). Today, on the other hand, most gambling addicts have their fix using machines. Their honesty and security (for the sake of their owners) makes them more trustworthy, making gamblers more willing to use them. But you can't beg a machine for your money back (and the owners won't like you taking a sledge hammer to their machines).
What I'm saying is that gambling is a human activity and it should involve humans. It should be a social activity, not an isolated one. And it shouldn't be done through machines. A human must be in the mechanism to allow the possibility of begging/cheating, making the game more interesting.
But a more constructive idea would be to find alternative means for the risk craving brain to channel its cravings, such as competing in sports or writing a novel or sitcom in the hope a publisher or producer would like it (we need more writers to end the epidemic of reality TV shows).

If you can think of other suggestions, I'll be welcome to them in comments. And now a final sketch...

This idea was too tempting to do, so here it is to add to the endless pile of anti-smoking ads.

I will be AFKed for a while so don't expect anything new in the next month or so. And don't worry, Cat is still alive and well.

Acts of Cultural Vandalism #9 - Three words that could defeat online trolls

V-Hub energy drink ad - Silence the Trolls (2013)

Last night, while starting up a music video on YouTube, this ad for an energy drink appeared (annoyingly) before it. I do usually skip the ad, but occasionally I do allow myself to see the whole ad. 

Now, to begin with, this could be mistaken as a PIF about online trolls, highlighting the fact that most things trolls say are not things "sensible" people would say in public. But the end, where a cat-like puppet says shuhhh! to the "trolls," was not that impressive. You could have expected a large red hammer with the word "ignore" or "block" written on it hitting the trolls silencing them, especially that girl abusing that poor busker (It's an advert. Its all make believe for goodness sake - and she had it coming, like Veruca Salt).

Now, during the night I had a thought about the issue of online trolls. Although I have not enountered them personally... let, I am fully aware of their existance and their effects on people. Remembering a part of the ad that had a "brave" man say to a bunch of tough-looking redheads "gingers dnon't have souls," I came up with the ultimate come back to that remark. It's a simple one that's easy to rememebr and could be used in many applications....

so do trolls

If online trolls have been saying that "You have ______" or "You Haven't _______" reply with those words.  Even use it as an automatic response to any troll, no matter what they say. Annoy them with the exact same response, like an automated dial-up service calling the same person repeatedly. And if a troll was stupid enough to have a contact attached to a comment use it to send multiple messages of those words to them. Flood their message boards and in-trays. Make their online life annoying. Give them a taste of their own medicine. This is my gift to all you responsible internet users out there.

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO 

TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO 

TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO 

TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS - SO DO TROLLS

Acts of Cultural Vandalism #4 - Advertising the Digital Switchover

This edition is an unusual one. Instead of paragraphs of dribble, I'm going to create a sequential story told with words then picture then words then picture and so on. It's like a comic strip.

The subject for this sequential story is my version of a TV ad advertising the Digital Switch-over. I know the last analogue transmitter in Britain was switched off in October, but I only got this idea just a few days ago. Inspired by an early digital TV ad in the late-1990s, here's my take on advertising the digital switch-over.

DIGITAL SWITCH-OVER AD

One of the best things about digital TV (apart from picture quality and an increasing choice of channels) 

is that any television can be converted to receive digital TV.

Yes.

Yes.

I think so.

Crikey, that's old. But yes, any TV, no matter how old, can be converted to digital.

No. That's a radio.

That's a microwave.

That's a washing machine.

That's an aquarium. Nice fish though.

No. That's a mirror.

No. That's a picture frame.

For god sake, what's this guy on!

NO! ITS NOT A.....

OK. Yes it can. Sorry.

Yes. Any computer or internet-enabled device with a screen can become a digital TV.

Err! I'm not sure.

I already covered mirrors, and the answer is still....

Oh, you got one of those mirrors. I think it falls into the same category as crystal balls.

Are you taking the Micky, Doctor? I think you already know the answer.

Anyways, the point is that any TV, computer or internet-enabled device with a screen 

can be made to receive digital TV.

Yes. Any television, no matter how old, can be converted to digital.

I think so, with some tinkerin....

I did. Any TV can...

What.... Is that a Sinclair ZX Spectrum? You must be joke....

I have to stop you there voice-over guy, because I found out you can make a Sinclair ZX Spectrum receive digital TV through the internet. And here's the proof....

So there you have it. My folly into advertising the Digital Switch-over. I wanted this page to go out before March ended because of another event in the world of television. The iconic BBC Television Centre in London is going to shut down by the end of this month (their moving to a new building in Manchester, by the way), so as a tribute the final sketch I usually place at the end of my posts is this....

Note - Photoshop and illustrator CS4 didn't have Gill Sans (the font the BBC currently uses

 in its corporate ID) so I had to use a similar-looking font.