Making sense and offending sensibilities

There is a popular saying that there is no truth in advertising. From watching television and reading the print media, it seems like this statement is so true. I’m not saying that advertisements are full of lies. They just don’t give you the whole truth.

Some ads seem too good to be true — and most of the time they are too good to be true. Drinks that will magically make you lose weight, or lotions and creams that will make you beautifully white in just a few days sound like miracle products, or the product of sheer Filipino ingenuity.

Then again, the idea of presidents promising not to steal from the people and politicians who used to swim in oceans of garbage seems pretty farfetched, too.

Ads don’t always give what they promise, but there is still some measure of truth in them. After all, special juice drinks really do have ingredients that can make you lose a few (read: miniscule) pounds. It’s just that they don’t mention how much fattening sugar is in those things, too.

In the same way, I’m sure our political personalities will do what they can to fulfill their duties, but there is always something left unsaid. Scandals are never mentioned, dirty laundry never aired out; these things are for the candidates to know and their opponents to find out. Of course, sometimes, there is nothing to say (good or bad) so they just fill up the airtime with mindless singing, dancing and shaking of hands with celebrity endorsers.

As consumers, we have learned (or at least, I hope we have) to be discerning about the content and promises of advertisements. “Gumagana ba talaga ‘yan?” (Does that really work?) and “Hindi naman totoo yung commercial eh!” (That commercial is a lie!) are just some of the statements that prove folks don’t take ads at face value anymore.

Similarly, it would be naïve and altogether too optimistic to believe that a single man can end poverty in the country, or that a single political party has the power to change the intricately woven web of Philippine politics. Any student of our political history can readily see that our culture breeds the kind of politics that is rooted in strong personal and financial ties.

There is little or no truth in political infomercials. Campaign promises deserve spots right next to the shrunken heads and human regurgitators of “Ripley’s Believe It or Not.” If we only knew that these were really genuine, the world would be a much more vibrant place.

Advertisements, whether of products or politicians, present only the best face, the positive traits. Everything else, all the dirt and negative aspects, is swept under the rug. After all, what would be the point of advertising if you’re going to make your product look bad? In this sense, advertising takes on the face of the greatest sanitizing tool ever devised by man.

So, since commercials lack substance, they make up for it with kitschy LSS-inducing music, funny dancing, witty lines or captions and slogans, and the unfailing support of celebrity endorsers. Even celebrities running for office have their own coterie of endorsers, making their campaign into one very expensive variety show. Amid the showbiz hype, the more important issues that should be the defining watchwords of any serious public servant-in-waiting are totally lost.

There really is no difference between a commercial for beer and a commercial for a presidentiable — except, perhaps, that there are more girls in bikinis in beer ads. Music, check. Dancing, check. Good slogans, check. Kris Aquino, check.

What can make or break an ad is its ability to be remembered. That’s where the good lines, great captions, and jingles come in.

You know an advertisement has made an impact when everywhere you go, people are talking about it. Some people may hate it, some people may love it — but, the point is, they know and remember it.

There is no point in beating around the bush, since I am obviously talking about Sen. Manny Villar’s jingle, which has been playing incessantly on television and radio for the past few weeks. If you haven’t heard it, you live under a rock.

With numerous spoofs, remakes, and remixes (yes, remixes), Sen. Villar’s jingle is definitely effective, if not at persuading you to vote for him, then at generating publicity. It is known all over the country, and possibly even outside it because there are Korean and Japanese versions of this song floating around the Internet.

I find this song grating, but I also have to admire its creators. It is so catchy, infectious, and its message is very clear. It — especially the video — has that emotional factor that makes certain ads memorable, like the McDonald’s Karen and Gina ad a few years back.

Other political advertisements play on emotions and personal beliefs, too. Take for instance the Liberal Party’s senatorial slate campaign poster. Similar to the “VOT FOR D CHAMP” slogan a few elections back, LP’s banner reads “SLAMAT LORRRD,” using the names of its senatorial bets.

It is obviously meant to trigger a positive response from the largely Catholic voting public, as well as remind folks of the piety of LP’s presidential bet, Sen. Noynoy Aquino (or at least, his mom’s devoutness).

I haven’t seen it widely circulated, but it was said that this is the official advertisement. Perhaps, the reason behind the limited exposure is because the concept itself is a bit blasphemous. Politics is a dirty game, like it or not, and to bring religion into it is a major risk. This ad could act as a symbol of good virtues for the LP and its standard bearer, but it could also offend the religious sensibilities of the religious who don’t want to see the name of the Lord used in vain.

Another noteworthy campaign ad is that of Eddie Villanueva. It was a good choice of slogan, and the video is so perky and fun. It is not very substantial, but it is such a treat to watch this commercial.

Gilbert Teodoro’s campaign commercial is also decent, and except for the controversy surrounding the use of Rico Blanco’s song, it would have been a very effective ad.

The rest of the candidates’ commercials and print ad campaigns are lackluster (Gordon’s was borderline scary, and Erap’s was plain arrogant), and out of the public eye.

The public is being presented the best traits of these political aspirants. Now it is up to the Filipino voters to decide whether to believe the promises the advertisements are subliminally injecting into them.

Hopefully, we will be as discriminating and as careful with our choice of leaders as we are with our choice of shampoo, or laundry detergent.

Let’s look beyond the brand name, and see the quality of the product. Disregard the celebrity endorsers. We are not voting for Regine Velasquez, Gary Valenciano, Willie Revillame, Judy Ann Santos, Kris Aquino or Dolphy. Let’s not ignore the jingles in the background — go beyond the catchy melodies and see if they have merit. Let’s snub the dancing, acting and video-inserts altogether.

Advertisements can lionize the candidates all they want; but remember, there are two sides to every coin, and the side they are showing us may not always give us the heads up.