Talk amongst yourselves.

As Saturday is "Harry Potter Day," I’m posting my weekend column a day early. I will be incommunicado that day, as I read the final instalment of the Harry Potter saga.

In fact, as I post this, the books have been on sale in Gt Britain for the past hour. I am resisting going to any UK website to read about the excitement, lest I stumble across any "spoilers."

So, here are a couple of topics that have been rattling around in my head this week. Talk amongst yourselves, and I’ll join back in later on Saturday, after I’m finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

---

Harry Potter Embargo

Speaking of Harry Potter… there can’t be very many people who, whether or not they are fans, have not at least heard of the Harry Potter books and the publishing phenomena they are. Likewise, there can’t be many people who have not heard of the embargo placed on the sale of the final edition, as there have been on five of the previous six books.

And yet, there have been reports of stores putting the books on the shelves days ahead of the official 21 July release date.

Even if they claim to have not heard of the embargo, the books come in boxes clearly marked "DO NOT OPEN BEFORE JULY 21, 2007."



There have been a few incidents reported of online booksellers shipping books out at the beginning of the week. One young girl, interviewed on a US morning news show, said hers came in the mail. While she was half-way through reading it, she insists she has not, and will not, tell anyone anything about the story.

Worse still, at least two newspapers — The New York Times and The Baltimore Sun — published reviews of the book this week.

As did many others, I wrote to the NY Times to express my anger and disappointment. By means of a reply, staffer Michael McElroy directed me to the blog of his boss Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor.

Hoyt’s blog (read it here) attempts to justify having published the review in advance of the book’s release by offering a laundry list of excuses. What it fails to answer, however, is one simple question: why not wait until Saturday?

Apparently the copy the Times reviewed was purchased by an employee who saw a copy in a local book store and bought it.

Books and theatre editor Rick Lyman claims that "once a book is offered up for sale at any public, retail outlet, and we purchase a copy legally and openly, we are free to review it."

Hoyt also makes note of the fact that the Times was not party to any agreement with Rowling and her publishers, nor did the embargo apply to them. Perhaps, but one would think the Times, being the respectable news source that it is, would at least honor the spirit of the embargo, and not deny the legion of Potter fans the opportunity to embark with Harry on his final journey together.


TV Commercials

My friend, Sandy B, says I over-analyze things, and I know that she is right. Still, I believe tv commercials should take one of two forms: either they should be realistic, and representative of the lifestyles of the target audience; or, they should be surreal and downright wacky!

Occasionally there are commercials which successfully combine realism with wackiness. One recent commercial that I’ve noticed has tried, but failed, is the latest RBC commercial, where the woman leaves a coffee shop and finds a marathon being run on the street in front of her.

First, she has her coffee grabbed by a passing runner, which he then proceeds to dump over his head (à la Seinfeld). Then, needing cash to buy another, she spies an RBC ATM across the street, and she steps off the curb and tries to wend her way through the sweaty, teeming throng of runners. She only makes it half-way and can go no further. Fortunately she spies a generic ATM on the side of the street she came from, so she heads back to it.

She made it half-way there and back. She couldn’t have continued on and got herself across the street?

As an example of a good wacky commercial, we see Mike Holmes and two workers on a remodelling job. After verifying with the electrician that the power is out, Mike sends the assistant across the fence with an extension cord so that they can boil water for coffee.

The assistant uses garden gnomes as stepping stones, leaps onto the fence and does a lovely reverse somersault into the neighbour’s yard where, being chased by a snarling Jack Russel Terrier, he gets caught in a bedsheet hanging on the clothesline and runs, ghost-like, to slide across the deck and plug the extension cord into an outlet. It’s funny, a bit wacky, and not at all realistic. I love it!

Commercials are big business, not just for the sponsors, but for the ad agencies who create them. For an ad to be successful, viewers have to remember who the sponsor is, and be left with a favourable impression.

I do differentiate, however, between "wacky" and just plain dumb. A lot of the Leon's commercials fall into the latter category, like their most recent one.

It opens with a young, hip woman flitting about the store saying to the sales clerk "I'll take this. And this. Do you have this in stainless steel?"

After she buys a houseful of furniture and appliances, she heads out to the car where she tells her boyfriend/husband/partner how wonderful Leon's is. He says, "I thought you just went in to use the bathroom. You bought a little something, didn't you?"

He smiles like an idiot when she confesses that she "bought a lot."

First of all, who stops at a furniture store just to use the bathroom? Secondly, she just spent about $10,000 and Buddy just grins? How is that supposed to make me want to shop there?

Speaking of dumb, how about the singing farmer? "Good things gro-o-ow in On-tari-o!" Yikes!

Yes, I do over-analyze these things, but...

...that’s just my opinion.