guess who
Monday, March 17, 2008 at 08:16AM 
Taghkanic Diner and featured person • click to embiggenA couple years ago I made a tv commercial as part of a complete campaign - magazine / newspaper ads, a lavish brochure, etc. - for the NY State Scenic Byways program. It featured the person shown here leaning on the old mustang.
The featured person commanded a high 6-figure fee for the assignment - a 30 second commercial (1 day of shooting) and 1/2 day of still photography. His fee consumed the lion's share of the $1,000,000 budget for the project. The client figured he was worth the $$$$ because of his instantly recognizable voice - he just might have the most familiar voice in North America.
The featured person is the voice of a single national corporation. At first, that company saturated the radio airwaves with his voice. When they started producing tv commercials, they decided to use only his voice, not his face. They did this because research determined that his voice alone launched a million different mental-image ships. Upon hearing his voice, people tended to create a mental picture of him that most resembled themselves, or, if not themselves, an image of a person they would most like to share time with. It was the voice of a friendly chameleon. What more could an advertiser want?
In any event, I had my own mental picture of the guy and when I went to pick him up at the airport, that mental-picture guy was nowhere to be seen. Fortunately, it was a small airport, very late at night and I was only person awaiting the arrival of another person so he picked up on me. He came over, asked my name with that voice and we were off.
What I find interesting, is the fact that, when I show pictures of him to people who know his voice, his actual appearance is rarely ever close to the picture of him that people have in their head.
I mention all this because somehow I think that there's a lesson in there for photographers when it comes to the notion of meaning and/or the connoted in pictures - that, irregardless of the intent of the photographer to put their meaning(s) into a picture, the observer will always layer their own meaning(s) into it. In some cases, perhaps many cases, their own meaning(s) will be the only meaning(s) they garner from a picture and that meaning(s) will be no where near the neighborhood of the photographer's intended meaning(s).
IMO, this is a good thing and one of the hallmarks of good Art - Art that is rich with emotional texture, ambiguity and intrigue.
And, BTW, "I'm __________ (featured guy), and we'll leave the light on for you".
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comments:
Steve Lawler wrote: "... Funny: he looks pretty much exactly like I imagined.~ 700k? What an ego."
my response: Actually, Tom had very little ego (in the negative sense). He asked for no special treatment - no limos, no special accommodations (we did stay in a very nice country B&B - a converted barn), no 'perks' of any kind. I spent 3 days with him - breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and, of course, working with him. He was a well-versed and interesting / engaging conversationalist and he worked with absolutely no attitude, ego, or affectations - a professional through and through.
Re: 700K - you can't begrudge a guy for knowing (and getting) his worth in the marketplace. Would it bother you to know that, in addition to the 700K, he also got all expenses?
Non-north american Mike Odonoghue asked: "who's Tom Bodett?" - By profession, he's an author, primarily of children's books with a career minor in ocassional public radio bits. However, he's made his millions (literally) as the long-time advertising spokesperson for a national chain of motels. His trademark phrase, with which he ends all ads and for which he is well known is - "I'm Tom Bodett and we'll leave the light on for you."
Reader Comments (6)
I would never have thought Tom Bodett looked like that. The voice doesn't go with the person.
"6-figure fee for the assignment - a 30 second commercial (1 day of shooting) and 1/2 day of still photography"
Wait...6-figure? as in more than $100,000?
more than $100,000? - if memory serves me correctly, (and I'm pretty sure it does) how about more than $700,000.
Funny: he looks pretty much exactly like I imagined.
~700k? What an ego.
I agree, Mark: try as we will to imbue an image with a specific meaning, the viewer invariably filters it through their own experience.
As Little Miss Sunshine's Dwayne so eloquently expressed: If I want to fly, I'll find a way to fly. You do what you love, and fsck the rest.
who's Tom Bodett?
It's ironic how the original thread was about the subjectivity of perception. In retrospect, I realize I should have elaborated: Tom looks to me exactly like his voice sounds: unassuming, simple, cordial—all of which you've confirmed with your description of him. In short, he seems like the kind of guy I'd enjoy hanging around with.
Surprising how the word "ego" usually carries with it the negative baggage of arrogance, conceit, and vanity. The ego I was referring to is precisely what you mentioned: he realized his worth in the marketplace and felt justified in charging close to three quarters of a million dollars for a day and a half’s work. Beyond that, it doesn't bother nor surprise me that his expenses were covered: a few thousand more is trivial in the big picture.
I suppose this falls into the greater "just because I can doesn't mean I should " category. The real estate implosion and greater US economic meltdown are a direct result of the "what the market will bear" mindset. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that feel Bruce Wasserstein deserved his $36,200,000 2007 bonus, but I'm not among them. When does fair compensation cross the line and become greed?