• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, November 30, 2007

In a show of industrial narcissism unmatched by anything other than New York's persistently irrelevant Advertising Week, Firebrand has launched a TV show that is nothing BUT commercials.

] John A. Lack, a co-founder of MTV, told the press that he was confident that Firebrand would be as successful as MTV, which showed videos that weren't much more than commercials for musicians. "We're changing the model again," he gushed. "We took promotion videos no one wanted and ran them. And this time, we're programming more than just videos."

Possible; I guess if teenagers are so baked that they can't discern the difference between the Baby Bash rendition of "Cyclone" and a guy asking you to please stop squeezing the toilet paper (not that at some point in the absorption of THC by the adolescent brain, both might be deemed equally entertaining). But absent some pharmacological sensorial modification, will anyone in his right mind want to sit through 60 minutes of commercials?

Let's review the evidence so far: Millions of otherwise brand-loving Americans routinely use their remote controls to either switch to another channel as soon as the commercial pod launches, or simply hit mute and steal a look at the four-month-old New Yorker that has been gathering dust in the wicker basket beside the TV chair. Otherwise they are recording shows and fast-forwarding through commercials (or skipping over them altogether). Fast-forwarding has given rise to the newest parlor game: seeing if the remote operator can stop exactly when the show returns, or suffering the indignity of having the nearest teen label them "lame" and grab for the remote, declaring they can do it more accurately.

This does not sound like a nation willing to tear itself away from "Seinfeld" reruns or Liz Cho in order to watch nonstop TV commercials. Especially since they won't know which are the commercials they are supposed to skip vs. admire for their artistic merit. One might point to the endless copy devoted to Super Bowl spots as proof that America down deep inside really does care about commercials (although I think it is equally a case of coast-to-coast rubbernecking at who was stupid enough to blow a couple of million bucks for 30 seconds of fame, with salt added to the wounds 24 hours later when ad columnists declare their spot a "loser").

Unfortunately, some of the most memorable commercials in history--commercials with copy that became part of daily conversations like "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" and "Where's the beef?"--might have earned trips to Cannes, but they did little to move product or even prompt brand recall. Ask the next 10-year-old who greets his pals with "Whas-up?" where that abomination was popularized, and you will get nothing more than a shrug of bony little shoulders.

If Brightspot.tv couldn't successfully bribe users to watch commercials online, there isn't much that will incent viewers to Firebrand. Unless, of course, they import some of the topless ads that run in more enlightened countries. But then what will Steve Hall do this time?

The story you have just read is an attempt to blend fact and fiction in a manner that provokes thought, and on a good day, merriment. It would be ill-advised to take any of it literally. Take it, rather, with the same humor with which it is intended. Cut and paste or link to it at your own peril.