Indie bands turn down hummer ads

(there's probably reasons this wouldn't actually work in reality but I don't know what they are)

Nor their clientele, it seems... hence this article!

That's one particularly asshole way to pad a resume.

You overstimate the credibility of the indie stamp of approval.

xpost

There's this little car company called Volkswagen. Maybe you've heard of it ...

Um, a couple of ways. Aside from having a plain ol' "catchy" song to help people remember your product, using a relatively hip indie-rock act can help give the impression that the company is itself hip.

I say relatively hip because although terms like "hipster" are constantly thrown around there is no general hipster consensus on anything (especially regarding music) and what may be seen as hip by one group of people is seen as corny, stupid and trying-too-hard by others. What Indie/Alternative/Underground/Avant-Garde rock all have in common is not any particular sound but a certain type of fanbase that listens to it. That fanbase has traditionally been young, white and affluent people and those are exactly the kind of people you want to appeal to in commercials. Using the music has been and will continue to be a great way to get inside those circles themselves as long as people hear the music and think to themselves "HEY, WHAT IS _____ DOING IN A COMMERCIAL FOR _______!?!?" and generate discussion in general.

The reason Drew couldn't make an anti-Hummer song was because you would get paid afterwards and they wouldn't pay if you gave them something they couldn't use...

google: they might be giants pizza hut

(I don't know.)

Owning a Hummer is a statement. There are plenty of less obnoxious trucks, even in the luxury SUV category. Driving a Hummer is basicaly saying, "I'm gonna jiz on your Mama's face if I feel like it." Not doing ads for them is just as valid statement.

That's really poorly reasoned. All those people are going to have cars anyway, and if they drive Hondas they're each polluting a lot less than if they drove Hummers. It may be a lesser of two evils to some people, but it's still the lesser one.

Instead all those people can buy cars who use different types of energy.

If you care about the environment so much, why do you eat food that isn't grown locally? Why take trains when they're powered by electricity that might come from coal? Why do you use electric light instead of candles, or better yet, just going to sleep at dark?

I don't know much about how much more Hummers pollute the earth (probably like most of the people turning down the ads) but that's totally besides the point. Hummers are simply a mascot for all the negative things people say is being done to the environment. Turning down Hummer has more to do with not wanting to be associated with the "bad guys" and the aftermath that would come with that ("You'll never play indie-rock in this town again"...) than with not letting corporate America penetrate the artistic hymen of indie-rock.

If all those people who bitch about Hummers and the environment in general genuinely cared for the environment there would be no shortage of hybrid cars TODAY.

FYI I never said that *I* care about that environment! Okay? I was just commenting on something that I find hypocritical in certain people.

I'm perfectly fine with people driving whatever they want as long as they're not hypocritical about it.

1. That pretend googleproofing just turned Stencil into Dan's wife. :(

2. This isn't a matter of The Environment itself, it's a matter of symbolism concerning the environment. Selling a song to Honda means involving your music in the sale of a standard-issue product, one that represents nothing much more than status quo car ownership. Selling a song to Hummer means involving your music in the sale of an above-and-beyond product, one that (gleefully) pushes a higher pinnacle of macho machinist Earth-conquering waste. It doesn't really matter what their relative effects on the environment are -- it's that one product says "well, people drive cars" and the other one says "but they should drive TANKS." I'm sure plenty of these musicians own cars and take basically the same line.

3. Having these songs isn't at all about marketing at an indie audience! It's about marketing to a non-indie audience. Putting a song by a well-known, normal-sounding artist in your car commercial sends the message that your car is known and normal. Putting thirty seconds of a "cool"-sounding track in there, in addition to just plain catching ears, brands your product with a mainstream audience as having something new and foreign and different about it. Same reason these types of commercials use arty cutting-edge CGI for the visuals (as opposed to the conventional road-cruising and butt-rock in a cheaper-model Ford commercial, or whatever); same reason MTV bumper music used to always draw on stuff more obscure than would actually get played, video-wise. And that's key for a product like Hummer, whose customers presumably share two traits: (a) wealthy, and (b) think they're totally "different."

just a thought.

Anyway, about Robert Pollard.

Lovelace this is just dumb and sanctimonious. Leaving aside the fact that the people who bitch about this aren't car engineers or auto executives, keep in mind that the most vocal segment of bitchers is young. Hybrid cars, as of right now, are significantly more expensive than conventional cars; people early in their careers aren't in very good positions to acquire them. I'd guess that as that cohort ages, they'll be a lot more likely to buy hybrids than people have been in the past, and that, in turn, will help create more of a market for them going forward. But it's just dumb and unrealistic to pretend that mid-20s anti-Hummer blowhards are actually in much of a position to magically create a worldful of hybrids.

xpost Blount it may be bullshit but it's bullshit that's believed in. I mean, c'mon, that's the whole anxiety between indie commercial music from the get-go! What Hummers represent among indie fans is not something an indie band would do well, branding-wise, to connect itself with. (That's part environment and part, yeah, status stuff.)

OK, if thats b.s. then why did that chunklet article about the wealthiest indie rockers get killed? why is it that the common response to even a slight intimation of a well to-do background is "its not about the money..."? or how about indie kids shopping at thrift stores? to me thats a clear signal that indie rock kids have issues with or in denial about class. shilling for hummer would cause those issues to uncomfortably resurface.

it doesn't - people are just pointing out that as a business entity hummer has much less of a negative impact on "the environment" than do dozens of other auto manufacturers.

can we get the fuck over it and talk about how awesome a liliput-hummer combo would be? you know they made it first and then asked for the song.

*yawn*

Appeals to the fanbase, I suppose, but it's hard to believe anyone actually buys this kind of nauseating posturing and easy outrage. But then, that's what "indie" is all about: being holier-than-thou.

"If you have any ideals beyond apathy and callousness, then you are inevitably a hypocrite. Unless one is going to go along completely with the flow of mainstream moral sewage then one will be obligated to compromise one's values. The danger of acknowledging this fact is the cynicism one so often confronts - bitterness towards each other, aimless criticism, and generally unconstructive negativity."

I support these bands in doing this. Although the Chumbawamba model of taking Renault's money and giving it to Carbusters magazine is appealing, this:

It's like they really actively want to coopt the opposition, not just because it would sell, but because it would vindicate them.

is just too true in the end.

BTW, I am using the Kingdom Scum quote to show why I think Lovelace is wrong times 10.

also, if genesis p-orridge could cash in (VW using "roman p." probably paid for that splendid rack he's now sporting) then what IS anyone's excuse for staying "pure"?!?

I just want to point out that car manufacturers and shoe companies don't make ads -- ad companies do. Modernista has a track record of making a lot of money for their customers, and I guarantee you that this is the only reason liliput or the thermals or whoever is being considered for the soundtrack to the latest Hummer ad. Ad companies of strong reputation usually have a lot of leeway to craft the campaign in whatever way they see fit, and it's pretty unlikely that some bigwig would say "Matmos? Not in my car ad."

Ad agencies have to deal with moral issues like this Hummer thing all the time. Who advertises apart from those who have money? Hummer is easily the worst major car brand, and it's a symbol of everything wrong with the world, but in the greater scheme of things I doubt it's even close to the most morally troubling decision Modernista has ever had to make.

Thank goodness those worried about gas-guzzlin', class-conscious vehicles would never ride in limousines (the elephant in the room for this whole discussion on luxury vehicles) and show equal contempt for them and the people who ride in them. Score a point for selective indignation!

No doubt the same rockers that for years have had their share of groupies and drugs are in some moral position to lecture us all about exploitation, excess, and responsibility. The facts on Hummers and how much worse they are for pollution was never the issue (as some people in this thread who dislike the Hummer for other reasons have admitted). The issue is that the Hummer represents a mascot/symbol for some localized evil (pollution, corporate greed, middle-class Americans not knowing their place, etc) and that you need to take the morally right position when dealing with it.

How many people actually have trust funds? I mean seriously? I don't think I've ever met anyone with a trust fund.

My girlfriend and I manage an apartment complex in Portland, OR (where the Thermals are from - a few blocks from fancy pants Reed college to be exact) and believe me, based on our own credit checks everyone has a goddamn trust fund in this fucking part of town. Nothing wrong with that sure, but it makes you clam up when faced with that indie rock = upper middle class humdrum yap yap.

Does the article not mention that the fact many bands won't do hummer ads is specifically because of it's effects on the environment and how much more gas it needlessly take up? ("The problems always seem to start with the environment, or rather Hummer's effect on it.")

what indie rock acts are touring in or doing ads for limos??? can you show me where any assertin you make bears any relation to what anyone has actually said or done?

Limos arent advertised much on television and serve a purpose much different from Hummers, practically speaking, so naturally they wont get offers to sell their music for them. Despite the resentment towards Hummer by the rock establishment for being a luxury vehicle that hogs gas and represents excessive affluence, there is no similar resentment for the limo, which has similar effects on the environment and is even more of a status symbol. I've never heard of any rock stars turning down offers to get picked up in a limo for the very same reasons why Hummers are considered "evil", even though limos are worse in almost every way.

(since according to you having an opinion = lecturing and assuming some moral authority)

"Lecturing" was hyperbolic. Unironically denouncing something as "evil" is assuming moral superiority/authority though.

why exactly should indie rockers write jingles for hummer, irregardless of their opinion of said company

I dont think I ever said they should. My point (as well as the points made by a few others) was that their objections to the Hummer were superficial.

xpost - if i strummed on a bass and said 'i'm not so crazy about burger king' would you answer a question then?

So just on a practical level: are we seriously going to second-guess that? Are we seriously going to run them down for that, amid a bunch of niggling about Hondas and trust funds? For god's sake: all they're doing is turning down a cooperative deal with the manufacturer of a product they don't happen to like! And then politely explaining to journalists why it is that they don't like the product! I mean, all these side-issues are interesting and worth talking about, and there's obviously gonna be stuff involved in their motives that's a lot more complicated than pure righteous principle. But in the end all they're doing is turning down a "job" because they don't really like the product they'd be selling. That's an well-made everyday decision, not some invitation for us to go on fault-finding missions about their environmental politics or class relationships.

How is ANYTHING on a board about pop music not superficial in a larger sense?

and why exactly is it ok for you to lecture about indie rockers choosing not to do business with a company whose practices they don't agree with but it's not ok for them to decide who they prefer to do business with and to actually have (and voice) a reason why? is it that the actions and words of a second tier indie rock band matter more than the practices of the automobiles industry?

It's okay for us to talk about the actions of second-rate indie-rock bands because the article in particular was about second-rate indie rock bands and their actions.

I mean, all these side-issues are interesting and worth talking about, and there's obviously gonna be stuff involved in their motives that's a lot more complicated than pure righteous principle. But in the end all they're doing is turning down a "job" because they don't really like the product they'd be selling. That's an well-made everyday decision, not some invitation for us to go on fault-finding missions about their environmental politics or class relationships.

Sure, but I think we should go down a lot of the side-issues and assumptions that go down in issues like this. Even something as small as some obscure band turning down a commercial can have really interesting themes and can say more about certain trends and mentalities than a dozen generic threads on "indie-rock" and PFM. The fact the thread is externally about something stupid can always potentially dismiss it.

If nothing else, this opens up dialogue, and I've never met anyone beyond reproach. So, let's talk and not just start acting self-righteous.

http://espressoroastblog.com/uploaded_images/bono-img-782200.jpg

If Hummer came out and said, "Well, our vehicles pollute a whole lot, so we're going to put a cap on how many of them we sell," then the idea that Honda is a bigger polluter would make sense. Anyone see that happening?

Also, if everyone who owned a hummer owned a honda instead, I think I'd be much happier.

Ok, this is so so wrongheaded.

First of all, the biggest issue is not Honda vs. Hummer, but a car culture that requires or strongly encourages a lot of people to drive a lot.

THAT SAID, assuming most of those people will drive either way, each of them driving a Honda Civic is A LOT FUCKING BETTER AND LESS EVIL than each of them driving a Hummer. Even in a culture where cars are the norm, a Hummer is much much worse than a Honda. Sure, Hummers by themselves may not be a huge portion of auto sales, but you have to remember that each Hummer driver could be driving something more fuel-efficient instead, and that it's not in our interest to create more Hummer drivers. Also, keep in mind that SUVs overall represent a very large portion of US auto sales.

i don't think it's helpful to talk about economic and ecological questions in terms of 'good' and 'evil.' it has no communicative function besides locating the speaker morally. i agree that it would be better if everyone who drove a hummer switched to a more efficient automobile. but i think that the thrust of my earlier comment (and i should have it elaborated there) is that if somebody was in a position to actually make an impact in the areas we are discussing, they could make a larger impact at honda, simply by virtue of its market share being larger than hummer's.

i guess that in saying "mak[ing] a larger impact at honda" i was considering the negative effects of auto emissions and production on the biosphere (especially the atmosphere) as the object of our "somebody's" action in the car company.

It really wouldn't be so bad if Hummer was the thing that really turned people against that aesthetic -- the point where it goes so stupidly far overboard that more people are actually driven in the other direction. A Hummer makes people think through these issues and come to certain conclusions -- in a way that ever-so-slightly bigger Hondas doesn't. That may not be nit-pickingly rational, but it's a good process nonetheless.

No, it is a one of GM's brands, and GM pollutes just as much as Honda if not more.

(incidentally, why these bands don't ask for their money to be immediately doubled is beyond me, considering the sums these firms play with. even 100k is a pittance.)

Yeah, it is. I mean, GM could make all hybrids, or cars that got 40 miles a gallon, if they really wanted to. But they don't. And the ad agency isn't asking for this band's music for whatever GM product they want; it's for Hummer. It's specifically associating your band with Hummer.

plus i'm just less 'principled' than i used to be. fuck, i'd take the money.

Yeah, I don't pretend that I know what I'd do.

(incidentally, why these bands don't ask for their money to be immediately doubled is beyond me, considering the sums these firms play with. even 100k is a pittance.)

Race to the bottom. The firm will call the next band on the list and offer them 50k.

This is that point:

http://www.amandasclassiclimousine.com/images2/MVC-002S.JPG

EXACTLY

EXCACTLY

But seriously, it is still about political beliefs, because after all, WHY would they lose a big chunk of their fanbase or at least their cool factor? Not for the simple act of selling to a commercial; that's old hat by now, yes?

Because indie and punk fans are petty and weird?

just sayin'

The stigma that would come from selling a song to Hummer would arguably be greater in the long run than $50K. That'd be pretty hard to live down me thinks.

Didn't the Long Ryders really shoot themselves in the foot when they did something similar with something as small as a beer ad?

This has also got me thinking about the SFA turning down a million dollars for a Pepsi ad.

All sorts of precedents.

times were different then. bands didn't really do this, at least not at the same level as today, and certainly not so-called "underground" bands. the beach boys' "good vibrations" being used for sunkist, for example, seems different since they were huge anyway.

kinda surprised anybody remembers the long ryders!