Ombama

Athletic clothes have become an important extension of fashion. With the coming of new fancy workouts such as pilates and spinning, and the popularization of ancient exercises such as yoga, clothing has transitioned into an important part of an athlete's identity. Companies such as Nike and Under Armour have capitalized on intensity and hard work, while companies like lululemon athletica have appealed to a new demographic, women who strive for peace, serenity, and self-acceptance. Lululemon markets itself as an integral part of a woman's quest for health and beauty. Instead of creating intense advertisements in which people run marathons and scale mountains, they've advertised with pictures of yoga and peaceful settings. Recently, Lululemon has sparked controversy with their use of Obama references in advertising. Below is an ad they used to link their messages with those of Obama, released in

the January 2009 version of the Yoga Journal. According to www.yogadork.com, a blog written by a yoga aficionado, Lululemon wrote in response to the article that "yoga brings about transformation and change, just as a new president does." In general, the anti-lululemon sentiments that have been found on blogs such as these, seem to stem from a hatred of the overpriced store rather than a disgust with the ad. However, I'm quite surprised by the ad and its daring portrayal of our president. While yoga does indeed bring about changes, how can one compare yoga to Obama, and what was the pretext behind using Obama as part of a campaign for change. Why did they really use him? It seemed like the company was trying to capitalize directly on the nation's excitement about Obama's election, rather that actually promote change. In fact, Lululemon seemed to have no cause in mind when they made these ads. Had they been raising money for something, the ads would have been, in my opinion, in better taste. At the same time, are names and images of politicians public domain? Is it perfectly reasonable for companies to use a politicians visage to create stir or attract attention. What about another type of celebrity? It would certainly cost them a lot less to draw a picture of someone, rather than hire them to endorse a product.

All this makes me wonder what types of regulations are placed on celebrity names and images. I know a company can't falsely claim that someone said something they didn't, but can they use anyone's face or make a play on anyone's name, such as Ombama. The ad was creative, but what hoops did Lululemon have to jump through to produce it? Were there any legal obstacles, and if so how were they overcome? I was unable to find any Obama comments on the advertisements, but I wonder what his response, if he found out, was. Is it possible that his PR contacted that of Lululemon or vice versa and worked out some kind of deal to advance both brands. Obama's name is a brand of sorts and Lululemon certainly is. I'm sure people would be angry if Obama endorsed a fancy brand directly, and he has to tread very carefully when dealing with companies and products that have reputations. He certainly can't expressly support a company but if he subtly endorsed Lululemon he would be called an elitist. People would jump down his throat about endorsing "hippies" and "yoga." They'd say he was being too passive, too relaxed. Is this type of ad the kind that Obama's representatives would encourage, as it can not be linked directly to Obama, or did they have no knowledge of it. It would be impossible to find these answers, but it makes me think about all the connections politics and advertising have and how every product surrounding me in my room right now probably has connections to people or places I could never imagine.

Also, how will the relationship between politicians and companies change now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns? Will corporations work to brand politicians even more? They will have a disgusting amount of power to influence a candidate's actions and their advertising presented to the public. Will we start seeing candidates running as "Bank of America candidate NAME..." or will posters of politicians be marked with advertisements. Will politicians even be forced by big corporate spenders to wear clothing endorsing that particular contributing company? I'm looking forward to the start of the next elections campaigning as it will shed light on the cultural and physical manifestations of this Supreme Court case. It will be interesting to see what types of companies will endorse politicians, and how many advertisements similar to the Ombama one will crop up.