RefBan

Referral Banners

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

June 20th, 2012Top Story

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

By Alan Henry

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True Every day, we're confronted with claims that others present as fact. Some are easily debunked, some are clearly true, and some are particularly difficult to get to the bottom of. So how do you determine if a controversial statement is scientifically true? It can be tricky, but it's not too difficult to get to the truth.

Every internet user has developed a healthy dose of skepticism that keeps us from being duped by things that don't pass the smell test, but it's not enough to just think something might not be true. What if you think the statement might be true and you want to learn more? What if you want to respond to the assertion or engage in conversation but you don't know enough to do so?

We sat down with experts Dr. Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer, and David McRaney of You Are Not So Smart to figure out a working approach to discovering the truth of any statement, from obvious hoaxes (think Nigerian prince emails) to more difficult topics (think vaccine "controversies".)

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

First, Learn to Avoid Confirmation Bias

Before we get into what you should do when confronted with a statement you're curious about, the first thing you have to strip yourself of is confirmation bias. Says Dr. Plait:

The biggest problem is one of confirmation bias: finding an answer you already believe. If someone has a question about a belief or opinion—say, that vaccines are dangerous—then when they look it up online they'll tend to be biased toward sites that have information they already agree with! This is a well-known effect, and is one reason some things, like anti-vaccination beliefs, are strong even in well-educated communities. The people are smart enough to look up and understand what they read, but perhaps not experienced enough in critical thinking to evaluate what they're reading without bias.

So how do you beat back confirmation bias? "Even with experience, it's incredibly tough to do," Dr. Plait explained. First, be aware that confirmation bias exists, shake yourself of your natural tendency to draw a conclusion before you've researched a topic, and be open to information that falls on either side of a statement. Don't just demand someone else present studies that support their assertion—go looking for them yourself. This must-read by David McRaney tackles the topic of confirmation bias in detail, but in short: Keep an open mind, seek evidence to the contrary for every opinion (especially ones you believe), and don't treat your research like a crusade. Photo by Yi Chen.

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

Your First Line of Defense: Search Google, Snopes, and Other Popular Web Sites

Your first instinct when confronted with a statement that seems controversial is probably to hit Google and start looking around for more information on it. That's good: it's the first thing that Phil Plait and David McRaney both suggest you do as well. In fact, you can prove and disprove many statements and research other contentious journal articles just by doing a little legwork and seeing what the web has to say.

"If you are skeptical of a claim or a factoid or a quote or whatever, try some Google-fu that includes the word "skeptic" or "hoax" or "bogus" or "rumor" or "urban legend" with your search term. If you are lucky, you might find existing discussions in the forums of skeptical societies or science groups," McRaney suggested. Dr. Plait suggested the same, but noted, "This is becoming less useful, though, as people on the, um, wrong side of reality have taken up the mantle of 'skeptics.' That's irritating. And you can't always trust experts, since sometimes their credentials are inflated, or they're simply wrong (I can name several Nobel laureates who have said probably wrong things about their own beliefs)."

So if Google doesn't seal the deal, and you're still awash in more opinions than facts, what do you do? Here are a few good places to visit if you're on the hunt for good, unbiased information:

  • How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically TrueSnopes: Snopes.com has been the rumor debunker of the internet for years, and despite the occassional claim against its own impartiality, it's an excellent resource. "The first place I go when I'm in a hurry is Snopes," McRaney said. "I'm often surprised at how quickly they cover a topic that is bouncing around in the echo chamber." He also noted that Snopes lists its sources, so you can always jump off and do more reading if you want more data.
  • Wikipedia: It's not perfect, but Wikipedia does have a wealth of information, and in most cases, that information is sourced—which means that it's less useful for its own articles, and more useful for the sourced links to any evidence you find.
  • Science Daily: While more news and less rumor-debunking, Science Daily has a huge database of articles to search, most of which link off to the source journal articles and studies that may have started the rumor in the first place.
  • Phys.Org: Again, Phys.Org is primarily a news site, but they've dedicated plenty of articles to debunking popular rumors or addressing trending topics in science and medicine. Plus, they also link to their sources if they can.

Finally, when you're reading news articles and sites, even if they link to their supporting studies, try to pry apart the article from the studies. Speaking as someone who's spent a lot of time in the scientific and media communities, both camps almost always mean well when trying to share news or studies with the public—it's just incredibly difficult to get those stories out in a digestible, commonly understood way without losing the science in the message. If you're skeptical, don't dismiss the story or the study—look deeper and draw your own conclusions.

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

The Big Guns: Search Public Journals and Contact Science Advocates

So you've done some Google searching, looked at a few skeptical sites, but you want more information. That's great! It's time to go to the source: peer-reviewed journals, and people you can trust about science. One thing I like to do before I write about or share any news article that's based on a study of some kind is to see if I can get to the study itself. Is it mentioned in an article, or did someone say "a study said X?" Fire Google back up and include the journal name and publication date, if you can. "Include "research" or "evidence" or "study" in your search terms. With enough digging, you will often find several scientific papers related to your topic," McRaney suggests. Read the full-text if it's available, or at least the abstract. It'll help you get a picture for what the study really concludes.

Of course, you'll probably run into many studies that are locked up behind paywalls. McRaney suggests using Google Scholar, a search engine just for peer-reviewed journals. "Just copy the full name of the paper you want and paste it into Google Scholar's search bar. Look for .pdf versions, as they will most likely be the full paper." If you still can't find it, just email one of the study's authors and ask for a copy. It may sound crazy, but "they are usually more than happy to oblige, and you'll probably put a spring in their step for a full 24 hours."

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True Finally, you can always ask the experts you look up to for their thoughts on a topic. Dr. Plait explained: "I get questions often about topics I'm not all that familiar with. I actually have a long list of people I know who are experts in various topics, and whose opinions I trust, so I will sometimes email them and ask. Not everyone has a stable of experts in their contacts list though!" He went on to explain that there are some people you can trust: researchers, medical professionals, and so on. Seek them out, ask your questions—often they won't be able to resist weighing in on a hot topic, even if you're asking out of the blue. McRaney pointed out that the Ask Science subreddit at Reddit covers a lot of popular, contentious topics from multiple angles. See if your statement has been debated. If not, bring it up yourself.

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

Extra Credit: Visit Your Local Library and Consult Librarians and Reference Materials

You've done your homework, looked up some studies, read both sides of an argument, and you're still not sure what to believe, or if there's enough information to believe anything. That's great—you're still hungry for information, and there's one place left to get it: your local library. Photo by Manchester City Library.

If you catch yourself unable to download a specific study, or the study is so old (or too new!) that it's not available, or you just want help getting to the bottom of an issue, visit your library's reference desk. Often, public libraries—and especially university libraries—have free access to scholarly journals and their archives so you can download, print, and read full-text articles you wouldn't be able to get at home. Even many university libraries only require student ID if you're going to check something out, so they're a great resource for everyone.

"Most university librarians will happily provide you a copy of a paper if you or someone you know is enrolled in the university," McRaney adds. If you are going to chat up your local reference librarian, see what they think of the topic, and if they can do some digging on your behalf. Most often, they can do some research for you and present you with findings to read through, or they can at least help guide you to authoritative sources on the topic.

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True

A Last Word: Research Is Great, but Don't Forget to Think Critically

All of the research in the world won't help educate you on a controversial issue or statement if you don't look at the evidence and try to draw your own conclusions from it. "What I can say is that if you want to know what's what, the best thing to do is approach the question honestly and openly," Dr. Plait explains. "Read up on opinions for and against. Do the basic arguments make sense? Are the arguments simply ad hominems (attacks against the other side) or is there actual evidence backing up the claims? And what does the other side have to say about those claims?" Image by Image by SMBC.

This isn't perfect though, and both McRaney and Dr. Plait warned that here are a few things to watch out for when reading journals and articles that reference journal articles, or when you're talking to science advocates:

  • Watch out for anecdotal evidence. The problem with anecdotal evidence is well documented, and when presented with it, you should make a concerted effort to ignore it, or at least take it into lesser account than rigorous research. It's difficult: our minds are wired to exaggerate the value of anecdotal experience, but if you're thinking and reading critically, it's important to discount them.
  • Watch out for scientists who are anything but. Most scientists know their field well, but you still have to think critically about what you hear. Someone claiming to be knowledgeable may not be at all. "The problem there again is that there are people who claim to be in this group and aren't," Dr. Plait warned. "Or worse, ones who actively promote conspiracy theories against scientists—and those are legion. You've no doubt seen these—people who say scientists are lying to us, or that Big Pharma is paying them, or whatever. I have no easy solution for things like that."
  • Be careful which science advocates you trust. The best science advocates have backgrounds in science themselves, are passionate about science, and are willing to engage openly and non-defensively about a given topic. The worst tend to behave like conversations about research are political or religious ones, and roll out the ad hominem attacks at the first sign of dissention.

How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True If may sound cliche, but Dr. Plait and Dave McRaney agree: If most scientists fall on one side of an argument, it's a safe bet that's where the evidence lies. Controversy does not disprove fact, and ongoing research doesn't diminish the research already done. It may require unlearning things you already believe, but doing your own research is worth it. "There's a reason lots and lots of scientists agree on something: usually because it's right," Dr. Plait said. "Sure, science can change its mind, but going with it is the way to bet, because there is usually vast research, evidence, and experience behind it. Go that way and you'll be right the vast majority of the time." Image by XKCD.

McRaney sums it up nicely:

We invented the scientific method because we are naturally terrible at explaining our own experiences. Without the scientific method, there is no way to know what causes simple, everyday things like thunder. Every explanation is as good as another, and if an explanation becomes culturally bound and passed down, that becomes the official explanation for millennia. Our natural tendency is to confirm our assumptions, but science tries to disconfirm our assumptions one by one until the outline of the truth begins to form. Once we realized that approach generates results, we went from horses and tobacco enemas to mapping DNA and walking on the moon in a few generations.

What do you think? How do you avoid confirmation bias when you're researching a new study or article? Which sources do you trust? Share your research tips in the comments below.


Phil Plait, Ph.D. is also known as The Bad Astronomer, and writes the Bad Astronomy blog for Discover Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter at @badastronomer.

David McRaney is author of the blog You Are Not So Smart and has contributed to Lifehacker many many times.

Both gentlemen offered their expertise for this post, and we thank them.

Title image remixed from liskus (Shutterstock).

Number of comments

The Strange, Scary, Fascinating, Exciting Future of Video Games, According to A Giant

June 20th, 2012Top Story

The Strange, Scary, Fascinating, Exciting Future of Video Games, According to A Giant

By Stephen Totilo

The Strange, Scary, Fascinating, Exciting Future of Video Games, According to A GiantYou are, presumably, a person who plays video games and probably not a rich executive. Maybe you own an Xbox 360 or play games on your iPhone or maybe both.

You have some favorite video games. And there are some series and some types of games that you hate. Maybe you keep up with gaming news on a site like Kotaku. You have an ordinary life, probably. A good one, hopefully. But you're not a wealthy Chief Operating Officer, and you might not be able to relate to all of the hopes and fears of the average COO.

When Peter Moore, COO of Electronic Arts talks, what he is saying could affect you. It's even sort of about you. It's about the games you might play in the future and the way you might play them. But it's also about how the things you might say make a COO feel. That part, you might be able to relate to. The part about where the COO thinks games are going? That's the part that might make your head spin.

EA, of course, makes Madden and Mass Effect and The Sims and Battlefield and Bejeweled and so much more. They're about as massive as it gets in gaming and what they want to do will affect a lot of gamers.

I'm about to dump a whole lot of Peter Moore on you, but I've got to set this up first. Moore is an amiable executive who, in a previous incarnation as a top marketing guy at Microsoft, would roll up his sleeves to reveal tattooed logos of whichever major game he was about to hype. He's frank enough in interviews to say that a key product his company is currently offering might need two more years of tinkering before it's excellent. He's relatable enough that this middle-aged, English executive can precede his latest interview with me, conducted a couple of weeks ago in Los Angeles at E3 with a discussion about West Coast rap. He's mortal enough that he admits a weakness for reading all the comments under articles about EA and internalizing the harshest criticism. This is a Rorschach blot of a sentence, but let's give it a shot: He genuinely seems to care.

He did not think it was cool at all that his company had been called "cynical bastards."

I'd interviewed Moore many times before we spoke at E3 but was eager to again to follow-up on a rant of his that I had witnessed while visiting EA's Los Angeles campus in May. He'd ranted then, in front of reporters, about how day-one downloadable content, micro-transactions and other aspects of modern gaming were here to stay, how gamers needed to cut EA some slack and how he did not think it was cool at all that his company had been called "cynical bastards." (That last one was a reference to the creator of Minecraft, Markus "Notch" Persson, snarking on EA's promotion of an "indie game" bundle when the company started promoting a discount bundle of several indie-developed games that EA had partnered with and published. EA = indie? It's a $4 billion company, one of the industry's largest.)

***

"We're going through, as an industry, just an unbelievably difficult transformation, that is not from one business model to another but from one business model to a myriad of different business models," Moore said to me as we chatted in L.A.

Business models. Not the sexiest of topics. We were definitely in the realm of Things COOs Care About. But it does involve you, so bear with me.

"It is a very interesting period," he said. "And I"ll say interesting period in our industry's history when the conventional wisdom of 'We're going through a console transition and, when the new consoles come out, everything is going to be fine again', is no longer the case. Consoles are still going to be a very important part of what we do. But so are browsers. So are iOS devices. So are Android mobile phones. So are PCs, which are feeling a renaissance. It's all coming together in this potpourri..."

Moore: "I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free."

OK, stop again. A little more context is needed. The mood of my chat with Moore was the mood of much of E3. Many game creators and business people with whom I spoke seemed tired of this generation of gaming and said they felt gamers were ready to move on. Some, of course, are excited about selling games to the huge numbers of people who own Xbox 360s now rather than to the relatively tiny number of people who will own a next-gen Xbox in, say, the fall of 2013 when that machine is just getting started. But coming in from the sides, breaching the walls of the hardcore gamer's paradise that is E3 are the Zyngas and the Apples, the people making games for Facebook and iPad and Android. Companies like EA have been branching out to all of those fresh areas, just as they've been trying out new or imported business models—making their games free-to-play (you download the game for free and pay for gameplay-relevant upgrades and/or cosmetic items later); selling downloadable expansions even on the day a game launches, and so on.

Overall, there's a sense of confusion as to what is really going to take hold, whether one form of gaming—primarily the $60 console game—is going to be dominant in the future. Hell, you're about to hear from a COO who raises the question of even how relevant the $60 console game will be. In fact, let's get to that part now:

Kotaku: "How do you balance the effectiveness of any microtransaction-based game design or business model with the anxiety a gamer might feel that they're being nickel and dimed?"

Moore: "I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free. Ultimately, my goal is... I measure our business in millions of people have bought our game. Maybe when I'm retired, as this industry progresses, hundreds of millions are playing the games. Zero bought it. Hundreds of millions are playing. We're getting 5 cents, 6 cents ARPU [average revenue per user] a day out of these people. The great majority will never pay us a penny which is perfectly fine with us, but they add to the eco-system and the people who do pay money—the whales as they are affectionately referred to—to use a Las Vegas term, love it because to be number one of a game that like 55 million people playing is a big deal."

Kotaku: "You're saying inevitably all games are going to be that model?"

Moore: "I think there's an inevitability that happens five years from now, 10 years from now, that, let's call it the client, to use the term, [is free.] It is no different than... it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there. I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it."

Kotaku: "I understand how that would work for Madden. I can't imagine how that would work for a Mass Effect. That's a storyline game."

Moore: "That's the point. If the business model... what do you do? It may well be that there will be games that survive and they are the $60 games, but I believe that the real growth is bringing billions of people into the industry and calling them gamers. Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this. They like to circle the wagons around what they believe is something they feel they have helped build—and rightly so. But we have seen, whether it was with the Wii getting mom off the couch to do Wii Sports or whether it was, more recently EA Sports Active, where we get females who love to work out, all the things that social gaming did—Rock Band did it, Guitar Hero did it—all of the things that elevated it from being a dark art of teenage boys usually sequestered in the bedroom—that it was testosterone-filled content that everybody railed against—to where everybody is a gamer...if you can move your index finger and swipe it this way, your'e a gamer. And that has got to be the way it goes."

***

You really could have called this E3 the anxiety E3, the E3 when people wondered and even worried about what was coming next. But why confine that to E3? The feeling's been rumbling for a while and there are people—younger gamers, I imagine—who might tell codgers like me who grew up playing Super Mario Bros. to get over it and embrace our free-to-play League of Legends era.

Anxiety?

Moore: "We can't end up being music."

A big gaming chain went out of business in Europe. So, here's Moore, cheering for the big chain in the U.S.: "We all love going to GameStop and chatting with the guys. You want these guys to stay in business. You've got to provide them with opportunities to play in digital, otherwise they become Blockbuster. Otherwise they become Tower Records. "

Under threat?

Moore: "We can't end up being music." (I'll get back to that one.)

***

Peter Moore, the polished COO, gives the impression of a man who is bushwacking, hacking at the reeds and swatting at the gnats, squinting at the sun while trying to find a clearing. And the last thing he yearns for now—though he likes constructive criticism—is what he thinks are unfair potshots.

Moore: "You've got this potpourri of things coming together in this fabulous kind of soup that we need to figure out as an industry... I just ask for patience. You know me pretty well. I read all of this stuff…. I think at times gamers need to understand that we need to work our way through this stuff. They need to be patient with us as we try to figure out what are the business models of the future. I am the chief operating officer of a company that has offices in 70 countries and is responsible for the employment of over 9000 very creative, hard-working talented people. And when you see the things—look, I know it's the Internet, I know it's anonymous…

Kotaku: "It's not all anonymous. Somebody with a name called you 'cynical bastards.' You referenced that [in an earlier speech]."

Moore: "I did. I took umbrage to that in front of you. I just read that story and, what we're referring to—I'm almost doing the interview for you—is the fact that we decided to help some indie developers and bundle some stuff up…"

Kotaku: "Right, those were partner games, right?"

Moore: "Yeah, these were Partner games. EA Partner games… before I even came to EA, I was in awe of what EA had done in terms of EA distribution and EA Partners, to get out there and help provide a platform of distribution for developers that just couldn't' put their stuff out on the market. We were the guys that would do that. I don't know of anybody else in this industry that's got the record that Electronic Arts have, way before I got here, welcoming stuff. Look, we do it to make money. No bones about it. But we do it so that we can share money and put games out in the market. And you can name a hundred of them that you know EA has published as an EAP or, previously, EAD operation. Probably the biggest one was Rock Band, which was an EAP title which we helped market. We worked with MTV and really helped that little bit of a social change to what gaming was all about. Yes I know Guitar Hero was there, but Rock Band became a bigger… that was an EAP title. So, the 'cynical bastard' thing, and, of course, because of who it was and it got so much coverage that I just thought: 'This is not right for the employees who have worked hard to put this together. My team at EAP had worked with these developers and said, 'let's just bundle this together and offer up a deal.'"

Kotaku: "Did you call Notch?"

Moore: "No. "

An EA spokesperson sitting nearby chimed in, pointing out that shortly after the "cynical bastards" incident, EA announced that EA would waive distribution fees for 90 days for any Kickstarter-funded games sold through its new PC service, Origin. A counter-measure to Origin's mighty competitor Steam? Probably. A boost for indies? Probably that, too.

***

It's weird to hear a COO to ask his customers for patience as his company dabbles with different business models. Moore will vigorously defend charging $10 extra for Mass Effect 3's day-one DLC, maintaining that the $60 base game was chock-full, but his answer as to why EA didn't charge for the day-one DLC for Mass Effect 2 is a meek: "We make individual decisions about individual games and individual business decisions with partners who are involved."

He certainly respects the enthusiasm of gamers. "There's no more passionate a fan of a medium than a gamer," he said. "People love movies. People like music. People love TV shows. Nobody loves their medium like gamers love their medium. I've always known that the tallest trees catch the most wind. That's a fact of life."

And he doesn't think his company should be spared harsh words. "None of us expect to be nor do we deserve to be immune to criticism."

Moore: "There's no more passionate a fan of a medium than a gamer."

But the patience he's begging for sounds like it could be, well, expensive or even just confusing, for gamers who wait for EA to figure out the best way to charge for its stuff.

"I want people to understand that what EA employees and the people who create the games are working hard to do is pick our way through this transformation as best we can," he said. "We're a publicly-traded company. We have an obligation to, quite frankly, make money so we can re-invest money in making great games again. The games you saw yesterday [at EA's E3 press-conference, games such as Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3] are, if you will, pre-paid by us from a development perspective. And it's only a year or a year and half down the road that we start to see that [money come back as people pay for the game]. That's why, to continue to do what we do and build the brands and build the business models, again, I'll ask for patience—the same way you covered me when I said we need 18 months for Origin and I still stand by that.

"We're just picking our way through and nobody is any way trying to gouge anybody. [Moore slaps hand on the table.] We're picking through this at the same time that gamers are trying to figure out what he or she likes about games in the future. and how much they want to spend and what platform they want to do it on and what other genres there are of the future. We're doing our best, alongside everybody else. "

***

Let's get back to the music thing. The upheaval of the music industry several years ago is surely what freaks out movie people and book people and, it seems, games people as well. Piracy, downloading and the Apple juggernaut changed everything. Who buys CDs any more? Who waits for albums?

Music is the spectre. So let's end on this last exchange:

Moore: "We've got to listen better as an industry, but at at the same time we've got to pick our way through these things. Stephen, we can't end up being music. Music used to make money selling music. They don't make money selling music anymore. Apple makes money selling music. God bless them, because they sorted out the problem that was BitTorrents and LimeWire, Kazaa..."

Kotaku: "My kitchen table is LimeWire's kitchen table, because they went out of business and my wife and I needed a new table."

Moore: "We've got to listen better as an industry, but at at the same time we've got to pick our way through these things."

Moore: "I remember going to a lot of going-out-of-business sales in 1999, south of Market, but this ability for us to learn from the lessons of music... Maybe we don't sell our games up front and it's all about [making money later]. Maybe it is like music. Music is now all about going on tour and concerts, go do corporate appearances, sell your merchandise, build your online website, find ways to do it that way, because they don't make much money after Apple takes its cut, and that's where most of us get our music.

"We're going to go through a similar trial and tribulation in the video game industry in which it's no longer about… we don't even see ourselves as a traditional publisher anymore. We're a digital entertainment company. And within that comes different ways we have to drive our revenue, keep our investors happy and make sure that w'ere providing compensation to our employees in the form of the stock price that they're happy with that is part of their equity package. And all of this is part of being a publicly-traded company."

Kotaku: "The glass-half-empty reporter would mention that you didn't just mention as one of your priorities: Make great video games."

Moore: "That's a given for EA. That's what we do."


(Top photo by Chris Hondros | Getty; modified by Luke Plunkett)
Number of comments

When You Cast Harvey Fierstein In An Ad, Make Sure The Client Knows All His Secrets

June 20th, 2012Top Story

When You Cast Harvey Fierstein In An Ad, Make Sure The Client Knows All His Secrets

By Drew Magary

When You Cast Harvey Fierstein In An Ad, Make Sure The Client Knows All His SecretsDrew Magary worked in advertising for ten years. SAD MEN is a series of stories from his time in the industry.

Casting a television commercial seems like a relatively straightforward process. You bring in actors. You have them read a script. You choose the best ones (or the best looking ones), and then we all go from there. But when I worked in advertising, the casting process almost always ended with the client being supremely pissed off. One time, I presented a casting tape to a client. The actor on screen was a bald Latino dude with a beard. He was our first choice to play the role of Guy Who Walks Into A Convenience Store. The client saw his face on the screen and immediately blew up.

CLIENT: What the hell are you trying to do to me?

ME: What? What's wrong?

CLIENT: (through gritted teeth) He looks like a goddamn terrorist!

ME: He does? But he's not a terrorist. He's just a guy. He's not even Middle Eastern.

CLIENT: I'm telling you he looks like a terrorist!

Clients always end up getting pissy over casting. There are two reasons for this. One, they were in the casting session, and you didn't pick whatever dumbfuck they liked the most. As an ad person, you're looking for the most memorable actor, which usually means someone odd-looking. The client wants the precise opposite of that. They want the blandest, most inoffensive, most forgettable white person humanly possible selling Heinz beans.

Two, they weren't in the session, and they resent only being shown two actors for each role. Casting tapes are inherently underwhelming. They look like shit. They sound like shit. It's hard to blow away people with 10 seconds of someone reading off a sheet of paper and looking like they're broadcasting live from an unfinished basement in Ohio. And since clients pay a great deal of money for casting agencies to find actors (and for the entire advertising process in general), they get very mad when the actors you present aren't topless mermaids giving an Oscar-caliber rendition of Katherine Hepburn's role from On Golden Pond.

Clients have expectations: they have vague notions of what they want an actor to look like, but no precise image of that actor. Thus, it's very easy to subvert their expectations when you present them with actual casting selects. Clients don't like having their expectations subverted. It really pisses them off. One time, we were presenting actors for a boxed chocolate commercial to a client. It was a Valentine's Day spot, and in the storyboard, a couple was kissing on the couch. And so we presented these selects where the lead actors were kissing on a couch. The client was revolted.

CLIENT: They're sucking face!

US: Well, they were kissing in the storyboard. We probably wouldn't have them kiss that much in the actual spot.

CLIENT: They're practically having sex! Can't you find anyone else?!

And it's not just an actor's looks that can throw a client for a loop. It probably wouldn't surprise you to learn that most actors are fucking horrible, and that good actors are often more expensive than their anonymous counterparts. One time, I was working as an account exec on a commercial for Luden's Cough Drops. In the ad, a bunch of women are in a department store fitting room (of course we set the ad there) when they get freaked out because this really husky, raspy voice is asking for some help with her zipper. The joke is that it's a very attractive woman who happens to be hoarse from a cold and needs a cough drop, but she sounds like some creep who's infiltrated the dressing room. So for the voice, the creatives wanted to cast Harvey Fierstein. You wouldn't even see Harvey in the ad. You would just hear his inimitable voice ("I just want to be loved, is that so wrong?!").

The problem was that Fierstein charged double scale for voice work — twice the regular union rate. That wasn't in our original production budget, and so we had to figure out how to delicately break the news to the client that the guy we wanted cost more money. Inside an ad agency, shit like this is treated with the deathly seriousness of telling someone their loved one has been mauled to death by a fucking bear. We planned. We strategized. We had a series of meetings before the meeting to figure out what would be said in the meeting to ensure it was a good meeting.

I was a pissant account exec, so all I wanted was to not get yelled at. I had been yelled at during the casting process before. I didn't enjoy it. I wanted client approval so that I could leave work and go get shitfaced.

We scheduled a big meeting in New York to present a rough cut of the ad to the client, and we brought in our big swinging dick creative director so that the client knew we thought their cough drop ad was crazy important. The only problem is that our creative director, Bob (not his real name), hadn't been with us during the strategic meetings for this particular meeting. He was coming in cold.

So the client arrived and it was them, me, my boss, my boss' boss, the creatives, the producer, and Bob. We showed them the rough cut and they liked it. Then we explained that the husky voice in the spot was none other than Harvey Fierstein.

"We like it!" said the client.

"Great," said my boss. "Now, before we go ahead and book Harvey, there is something we should tell you about him."

"He's not quite like other actors," I said.

"He's special," my boss' boss said. "Sometimes, in order to get the right fit for an ad, we have to make certain sacrifices."

"Harvey's just so right for this, you know?" I said. "It's just he's... well, he's..."

Then Bob, the creative director, decided to chime in.

"WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT HE'S GAY."

Silence. Dead fucking silence. The conference room had a floor-to-ceiling windows on one side, and at that moment I wanted to run through the glass and fall the six stories down to my death so that I could get away from the awkwardness. Our clients were a relatively conservative lot, so I half expected them to go storming out of the house burning a sack full of dildos in effigy.

"Actually Bob," my boss said, "we weren't terribly concerned about that. It's just that Harvey's double scale."

"Oh," Bob said. Then he turned to the client. "Like we said, he's very special."

So I sat there, waiting for the client to shit all over us because we dared to charge double for an actor who had the audacity to be homosexual, when the client shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay. He's great. Let's do it." As if anyone could be surprised by the idea of Harvey Fierstein being gay. Meeting over. Battle won. Thank fucking Christ.

We got Harvey, and we ended up making a perfectly respectable cough drop ad that I can't show you because it's apparently behind some kind of Spanish paywall. But for you aspiring sad men out there, take heed. You never know what'll set a client off when it comes to acting talent, be it gayness or price or kissing or terrorist beards or weird glasses or some other goddamn thing. Casting is bizarre.

Number of comments