At least not young children. That is the sense that I am getting from the new movie being released on October 16, 2009. An adaptation of the classic children’s book, the movie has a darker, more sinister feel than many of the book’s core audience may be ready for. Especially since readers of the book start at about age four.

Let me start by saying that I view this book as one of the most formative of my youth. But what a book leaves up to the imagination of the reader, the movie fills in. And while my imagination when reading this book at age four may have only been able to take me so far, the movie takes the viewer where Spike Jonze, the director, wants you to go. Regardless of your age. So it begs the question, to whom is this movie marketed to? Children, teenagers or maybe adults who grew up with the book? I’m guessing it is more of the latter two. The kind of movie that a parent would take a 14-year-old to, not a 4 year old. Which is definitely not a typical target for movies.

I do however, acknowledge that anything that is truly different and unknown makes people apprehensive. When the book first came out there was a negative reaction. Librarians would not order it and parents were concerned about its dark imagery. But children loved it. Sendak claims that is because it respects kids. It doesn’t talk down to them. So I hope that I stand corrected and that children, young included, actually like this film. That is if parents allow their children to see it.

And since this film has been in talks for many years now and only Spike Jonze has gotten Sendak’s approval to bring it to the big screen, let’s hope that their vision will have the same impact on many of today’s children that the book once had on me. And that all this controversy will just make more people go and see it.

Here is an interview with Sendak and Jonze.

Ad geeks everywhere can stop holding their breath. Matthew Weiner finally worked out a deal with Lionsgate TV and AMC for two more seasons. Yay! Apparently it took Lionsgate a while to get over the sticker shock as Weiner was asking for 6 million dollars (4 million more than the last contract).   AMC ended up putting up some of the money to make it happen. So, with more money and a bigger budget for the show let’s hope he can deliver.  The word is, a contract was signed in time for the third season to start on time this summer.  Assuming the show progress from the first two seasons, we should start out in 1963. There are a lot of interesting things that happened in ‘63 and if season 3 is anything like season 1 and 2, national (and international) affairs will likely be a backdrop for the drama to play out.

A few things that happened in 1963:

• Racial tensions continue to escalate. Martin Luther King Jr. delivers his I have a dream speech.
• The US starts sending troops into Vietnam in an advisory role.
• The pope dies.
• President John F. Kennedy is assassinated.
• The space race continues

As for the advertising, who knows. Maybe Don will try to sell the world on TaB.

You can google ‘advertising copywriting’ and get endless lists of rules and best practices.  There’s no shortage of self-proclaimed experts who can tell you how to ‘write for results.’ There’s also no shortage of ads that sound like ads. These lists invariably include something about avoiding anything negative.

I’ve worked with so many clients who insist on avoiding any and all negative statements. Sounds like a  reasonable approach. And most of the time it is. But the problem is that many clients reject anything that’s not pure Pollyanna positivity. I wish they would take a step back and realize that what’s important is that the takeaway is positive. If you’re setting up the problem that your client’s brand can solve, maybe some negative language is exactly what’s needed to set up the conflict.

Much of what we do in this business is storytelling. Without conflict, there’s not much of a story. It’s just Batman living in a crimeless Gotham City. (Yawn.) It’s Harry Potter without He Who Must Not Be Named. (“Your parents seem nice, Harry.”) It’s Geico in a world that actually embraces the complexities of auto insurance. (Or for the older generation: It’s Wisk without Ring Around the Collar.)

The real point here is to engage your audience the way one human being engages another in conversation. If you can get your target nodding along by using only positive statements, then by all means do it. But sometimes the more interesting way to start the conversation is to poke at the problem a little.

It’s okay to get snarky. Isn’t it more fun to talk to someone who shares your frustrations and sees the world the way you do?

A brand’s communication can be so much more interesting when it starts with an insight about the target.

What do they think? What makes them feel? What motivates them to act? I would argue that it’s not always sunshine and roses.

But, hey—I’m no expert.