A FEW days ago, in my clan’s Viber group, someone posted an old video of Joey Ayala (always one of my favorite local singers) singing the “Lupang Hinirang” in a slower beat than the usual national anthem’s marching tempo.
I commented that the reason the “Lupang Hinirang” has a marching tempo is because it’s meant to be a march! When Julian Felipe composed the melody, it was for Emilio Aguinaldo’s declaration of Philippine independence from the Spaniards on June 12, 1898. In those days, our Filipino leaders wanted to boost the morale of their soldiers, and rouse their countrymen to heights of patriotism, thus the melody had to be uplifting.
If you try to listen to just the melody, there will be portions that perhaps you will find quite similar to the national anthems of Spain (“Marcha Real”) and France (“La Marseillaise”), both of which have become quite familiar, especially if you watch current events on TV, the History Channel or international sports events on a regular basis.
And, indeed, Felipe himself had said he based the Philippine National Anthem’s melody on both Spain and France’s national anthems, as well as the “Grand March” from Giuseppe Verdi’s Aida. This admission is why he was never accused of “copying” these other hymns. Indeed, Felipe may have been inspired by these other melodies, but he turned these inspirations into a separate and independent composition—the Philippine National Anthem.
Sometime in 2012, during the heated debates regarding the reproductive-health bill, Sen. Vicento C. Sotto III, he of Eat Bulaga! fame, was caught apportioning the words of the late US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy as his own, albeit in Filipino. Netizens put up side by side the original speech in English and Sotto’s translated words. Of course, the senator never owned up to this indiscretion, and irreverently asked the media, “Marunong mag-Tagalog si Kennedy?” Kennedy’s daughter had to issue a statement blatantly accusing Sotto of plagiarizing her father’s speech in South Africa in 1966.
This is probably the reason many netizens are so riled up with the new TV commercial of the Department of Tourism (DOT).
They claim the DOT and its advertising firm, McCann Worldgroup Philippines, ripped off the tourism ad of South Africa (Velocity Films, 2014). Both parties have denied this claim. I’ve seen both ads and let me just say, there are very strong similarities, especially since both end with the revelation that the subject tourist is visually impaired.
But the premise of both ads are different. In the South Africa ad, it asks a question so deep and profound—“What is beauty?”—and it showed that nation’s major tourist attractions and how tourists enjoy these.
In the DOT “Sights” ad, the theme is about how “life is better #WhenWithFilipinos”, enjoining foreign tourists, retirees and persons with disability (PWD) to come and “Experience the Philippines”. Then, in small letters, it stresses that “It’s More Fun in the Philippines”. (bit.ly/2tg1clY)
And that is my main issue with the DOT ad and this year’s advertising campaign. There are just too many messages all over the place. I sincerely don’t blame its officials, led by Tourism Secretary Wanda Corazon T. Teo. They wanted to hit the ground running and make sure they promoted the Philippines to as many foreign tourists and markets as they can. Especially right now when it certainly doesn’t feel so fun at all to be in the Philippines—even if you actually live here.
Its first ad, “Anak”, showed foreign tourists that when they’re with Filipinos, they are treated like family. Props for that. That was a clear message. In the second ad, Sights, the DOT is saying when a tourist is with Filipinos, he will have the time of his life. That the guy happened to be blind is merely a twist, but not the overarching message of the ad. (Because, truthfully, when you are blind or a PWD in the Philippines, you are treated like sh**.) Ah, wait, he is old, too, so retirees should also feel welcome in the country.
Just too many thoughts, too many messages, thus the scattered focus.
Perhaps the second ad should have stressed the “family” feels even more, like, say, showing an entire family visiting the Philippines and staying with a local family. (This happens all the time, doesn’t it? We find out friends from abroad are visiting, and we insist that they stay with us.) Then promote the destinations in the North, as the DOT intended. There’s no better time than staying with other families, because it’s safer and more comforting, isn’t it? And that is one of the messages the DOT also wanted to convey in the Sights ad…that the Philippines is a safe place to visit.
I have a healthy respect for most of the DOT officials, but may I gently suggest to them—and to McCann’s creative peeps—to just focus. Choose one market. Choose one message. If life is better #WhenWithFilipinos, then so be it. You don’t have to tell them to “Experience the Philippines”, because the previous theme already pushes that message. This administration has 5.5 more years to explore other themes, target other markets and promote other destinations. It shouldn’t rush everything and say all it wants to say in one year.
That the Sights ad itself, created by McCann, hews closely to the South Africa tourism ad is actually less of an issue for me. I can understand that it’s pretty difficult to come up with original ideas these days, especially if, ahem, you have a budget that is seriously wanting.
But when you’ve been found out, the best thing to do is to come clean. Accept responsibility. Admit that it was based on that ad, or that it was inspired by it. Because, quite frankly, everyone thinks it’s unbelievable for a large advertising firm, like McCann, to not have even come across it, especially since the firm is serving a client in tourism.
Just do a Julian Felipe.
(On Thursday, the DOT said it would be pulling the ‘Sights’ ad and terminating the contract of McCann Worldgroup Philippines.)