Attention all young marketing people! Before you start selling your wares to the public, here’s a little tip: know your merchandise and know who you’re selling to. If you don’t, then you just look really stupid. Case in point: I recently received an E-mail ad from Movies Unlimited, a catalog company which sells DVD’s through the mail and over the internet. The title of the E-mail was “Comedies From the 1940s On Sale Today!”
When I clicked on their ad they showed a sampling of 25 of the many comedies which were part of the sale, including Bob Hope, W.C. Fields, and Marx Bros. favorites. So far so good, right? Ah, but wait! Also listed as “comedies” were “The Bishop’s Wife,” “The Bells of Saint Mary’s,” and “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.” Here’s the problem, kids. Although there are light moments in all three of these pictures, they are not comedies in the true sense of that category. Not even close. Any real movie fan would know this.
Fans of classic movies from the forties pretty much know their stuff and would never lump “The Bells of Saint Mary’s” in with “My Little Chickadee,” or “The Paleface.” Only some 23-year-old web marketer who has never watched a black and white movie in her life and thinks that classic comedy films began with Ben Stiller would make the choices in that ad. Maybe for the Millennial Generation any movie made in the forties is considered a comedy. But guess what? People that would buy pictures from that era are generally people who actually know those pictures. By being truly stupid you are alienating your potential market. Wise up.
It has become apparent that Major League Baseball in their desire to show how all-inclusive they are, are using more and more girls as ball boys. For every little girl who gets this prestigious slot on the field, that is one less little boy who won’t. You can imagine there must be millions of little boys who love baseball so much and would do anything and give anything to be a ball boy for a major league club.
Yes, yes, yes, I know. Women’s rights and all the rest of that jazz. But can’t there be SOMETHING that remains just a boy thing? I mean really. Can’t there? Why do girls have to be a part of everything that boys do? Girls can be ball girls for women’s teams, let boys be ball boys for the men’s teams. Until the time comes when we have women playing in the majors right along side of the men (and that time will come, I’m sure), let the ball boys be boys.
Another major league gripe I have is with women sports commentators who interview the ball players in the dugout and in the locker rooms. It’s such an obvious feminist push into men’s privacy. Is there a place where only men are? Well, we can’t have that, can we? Let’s just make damn sure that men can never, ever gather any place without women. What’s interesting, though, is that it never seems to work the other way. Have you ever seen a male sports commentator interviewing a female athlete in the women’s locker room?
Regular readers of this column know that I’m no fan of zoos, animal acts, or circuses. I have never gotten any enjoyment out of seeing animals in cages or watching them being forced into performing. But I’m no fan of false litigation led by lying lawyers, either. And I also have a major beef with hypocritical news media with a slanted agenda. So the news that came out last week concerning Ringling Brothers was good news for me on a couple of fronts. You probably never heard about it.
Last Thursday Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus announced a legal settlement under which it will get $15.75 million from the Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rights groups. This follows a 2012 agreement by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to pay $9.3 million to the circus as well. Why are they paying the circus? These groups have to pay up because they were paying off to a former circus employee to make false testimony against Ringling Brothers, accusing the circus of abusing their elephants. It was proven to be lies and deliberate deceit.
The animal rights groups took Ringling Brothers to court on the basis of nothing but phony claims and now they have to pay for it. Good. Good number one, because it’s always great to find out that animals weren’t abused after all. Good number two, because usually in big lawsuits like this, the standard business response, even if you’re innocent, is to quickly settle out of court with the accuser, so as not to incur more costs and bad publicity.
Ringling Brothers knew it did nothing wrong in this case and had the courage not to cave. They fought the lies and they won. But this wasn’t the way it was supposed to come out as far as the politically correct news media were concerned. That’s why you probably never heard this story last week.