Log In
Register
5.18pm
13 November 2009
Offline
I read this article, Sean Lennon hits back in row over murdered Beatles’ TV ad images, and it left me with mixed feelings. Mostly, it leaves me worried for things to come. I can’t say whether or not John would have been happy being a spokesperson for Citroen, but that seems to be the main sticking point – we can’t ask him.
And what happens when we have faux Beatles selling products? They can fake their images, their voices – why stick to old footage and sound bites?
My questions for everyone:
- Does this cross the line?
- What, if anything, is owed to the fans?
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
6.17pm
skye said:
My questions for everyone:
- Does this cross the line?
- What, if anything, is owed to the fans?
I’m of the opinion that it’s not very cool to use John to push merchandise, BUT… it’s not my call to make. He gave up all the decision-making to Yoko a long time ago, and we never know what he would have done. The Lennons always had money issues.
Crossing a line? I don’t think so. I’ve seen the ad, and even though I’m not happy about it and the actor “imitating” John’s voice is kind of weird, it’s not offensive or anything. What is owed to us? Well, even though I’m not the biggest Yoko fan, she HAS preserved John’s legacy very well, and that’s all a fan can ask for. This ad is definitely a step backward, but she must need the $$ or something…
And Sean… people just need to leave him the !@&* alone!
6.46pm
13 November 2009
Offline See, I didn’t understand that part. They want to protect him but have no problem attacking his family?
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
7.34pm
21 August 2009
Offline Hm- I don’t really know where I stand with this.
It’s not a particularly disrespecting commercial; we all know how good merchandising works. Put a Beatle at the head of a campaign and you’ve got money, money, money!
I think Sean went a little overboard though. Calling them ‘peasant’ and what not, especially, if I’m right, in the context of quoting his father. Yes, I suppose he has the ultimate ‘right’ to John, other than Yoko, but still. The fans are genuinely concerned and seemingly disgusted. Me, I’m sort of indifferent. I can’t say that this is what he would want, I highly doubt he would stand for such commercialism or materialism, but, alas, we’ll never know! I’m not overly offended by it.
Yoko’s gone down another 50 points in my books though… puts her in the negative! 
Tongue, lose thy light. Moon, take thy flight… see ya, George!
8.38pm
13 November 2009
Offline Look, there’s a trope for this : The Dead Rise to Advertise.
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
12.30pm
31 March 2008
Offline
I saw this ad a while back. I thought it was a pretty grubby use of Lennon footage to shift a car.
I have no problem with advertising if it’s done in a sensible, logical way. So, if Rickenbacker, Vox or Epiphone wanted to licence Beatles footage to shift instruments, or if Transcendental Meditation used footage of them talking about Maharishi I could understand it. Those were things they had a real connection with and felt passion for. As far as I know he had a Mini and a Rolls-Royce, but not a Citroen (I may be wrong).
Cars, shoes or fizzy drinks? It’s just a cash-in, using someone’s image out of context when they’re unable to dictate the terms.
http://twitter.com/seanonolennon/ and http://twitter.com/seanonolenn…..9874173287
“Look, TV ad was not for money. It’s just hard to find new ways to keep dad in the new world. Not many things as effective as TV. Having just seen ad I realize why people are mad. But intention was not financial, was simply wanting to keep him out there in the world.”
I’m not sure I believe this. Lennon’s estate simply don’t need him in car adverts to keep his name alive. If that was the case, why stop with cars? Why not sell anything and everything to “keep him out there in the world”? The sky’s the limit (and it probably will be now). John Lennon will live for ever on the strength of his music, and to pretend this Citroen ad wasn’t a primarily financial decision is disingenuous.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
4.33pm
14 October 2009
Offline It’s the voice that makes me cringe……
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
6.29pm
24 January 2010
Offline Saw it on the TV’s at school. I got so exited, I literally jumped out of my seat. Why?
I thought it was a DVD.
As soon as I see the car I started ranting. My next lessons were full of, Thats a let down. etc.
But to answer you question…
I really dont think they should have used John Lennon to sell this car, I also noticed another advert for this car with Maralyn Monroe.
I really dont think its right to sell something using dead celebs. Especially not John.
Anytime at all, all you gotta do is call, and I'll be there.
6.44pm
31 March 2008
Offline Having thought about this a bit longer, I think one of my main objections is to them dubbing new words over his image. In the light of what Sean Lennon says, it’s possible that a young generation may think of John as a man who sang songs and liked Citroen cars. If they’d kept his original words it might have been slightly easier to justify.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
9.13pm
13 November 2009
Offline There’s also the concept behind the ad to consider. It’s supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro… and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
1.39am
13 November 2009
Offline I think it’s wrong using John in an ad he probably wouldn’t have done if he were alive. I agree with Joe, using celebrities to sell something that’s appropriate (e.g. The Beatles and their musical equipment or Colonel Sanders and KFC) is fine, as long as it’s done respectfully and has permission from their estate or if the celebrity gave their permission before they died, which may start happening now.
I think using historical people (e.g. Jesus, Shakespeare, etc) or using people that deserve to be ridiculed (e.g. Hitler, Mao) is fine. Using an impersonator to allude to a celebrity (e.g. an obviously fake Elvis impersonator or someone making fun of Kanye West for interrupting Taylor Swift) is probably fine too. It all depends on the circumstances I suppose.
We don’t have Citroens in Australia (as far as I know) so I’ve never actually seen the ad. Was John’s voice impersonator on the ad good?
9.23am
31 March 2008
Offline I think this should tell you all you need:
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
10.45am
13 November 2009
Offline Hmm, it’s not that good an impersonation, I’m sure they could have found much better if they’d tried. At least what he said was tasteful, it wasn’t as if he was saying, “I love driving Citroens!”. They probably could have found footage of a famous musician saying something like what the fake John was saying rather than putting a voice over onto an unrelated piece of footage.
9.35pm
24 January 2010
Offline skye said:
There’s also the concept behind the ad to consider. It’s supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro… and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.
Good Point. Why are they using famous faces from the 50’s, 60’s etc. Anti-Retro! I don’t think so!
Anytime at all, all you gotta do is call, and I'll be there.
4.52am
13 November 2009
Offline Lewis346 said:
skye said:
There’s also the concept behind the ad to consider. It’s supposed to be anti nostalgia, anti retro… and they have dead celebrities selling their car? Hmm.
Good Point. Why are they using famous faces from the 50’s, 60’s etc. Anti-Retro! I don’t think so!
I think it’s meant to be ironic.
9.20am
15 June 2011
Offline
What's your opinion about the use of Beatles songs in commercials?
Here in Greece I've seen the following:
and
Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble.
11.37am
4 September 2010
Offline I saw a great Japanese commercial featuring Ringo Starr selling some apple juice, because “Ringo Starr ” kinda sounds like “Squeezed Apples” in Japanese. Hilarity and confusion ensues.
You all will have read that Dave Dee is no longer with us. But Mickey and Titch and I would like to carry on the good work that's always gone down in number two.
11.51am
19 September 2010
Offline I despise it. I despise these rich companies (Sprint is so the worst offender) trying to make money because they want people to like the company because of the song. For me, it pisses me off more. Apple, get your lawyers out. You need to sue all these companies NOW.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.50pm
25 November 2010
Offline 
Chances are really good that if a company is using a Beatles song, they knew to secure the licensing rights beforehand and get permission before putting it out into the open.
It's absolutely possible that Paul and Ringo don't care/don't support the product using the song, but I'm sure if they look at the bottom line and it's in the black, they'd give the OK to most anything.
12.56am
10 August 2011
Offline I think it's great that the Beatles' music is still considered relevant enough to use in commercials.
Love those Greek commercials!
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
