Well, apparently somebody is listening. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority recently unveiled MetroCards featuring an advertisement for the Gap. And why not? “Opening up the front of MetroCards to advertising gives the MTA a new source of revenue,” said the authority’s chairman, Joseph J. Lhota. That’s precisely why it’s a good idea. Kudos to Mr. Lhota and his agency for embracing this creative approach to the MTA’s funding, er, gaps.

Meanwhile, the City Council is considering a bill that would lighten the burdens on restaurant owners. The proposed legislation would allow restaurant inspectors to issue warnings—rather than levying fines—for minor violations that do not impact food safety. Currently, restaurant owners can be fined for poor signage or if storage spaces aren’t properly lit. The result? Owners lose money and are left to conclude that they are regarded as a cash cow for the city’s treasury.

Allowing inspectors to issue warnings—without compromising food safety—would help restore some common sense in government regulation. That’s a step in the right direction.

A sampling of print sex ads from the pages of the Village Voice circa 2007.

Backpage.com may be gone, but sex ads are here to stay at the alt weeklies formerly owned by Village Voice Media. Over the weekend, Village Voice Media announced it had reshuffled and separated its 13 newspapers from Backpage.com, the classifieds website with the controversial "adult" advertising section. Backpage may not be part of the newly-formed newspaper company, Voice Media Group, but that doesn’t mean its doing away with the highly profitable print sex ads.

“Voice Media Group will continue to support the current adult classifieds in Village Voice,” a spokesperson for Voice Media Group told the Observer this afternoon.

We called back to clarify that print sex ads would remain in the pages of the company's twelve other newspapers. Scott Tobias, the CEO of the new company, confirmed the ads will still run at all of the alt-weeklies in the chain.

"We will not be changing our business model," he said.

Backpage's adult ads have been linked to underage sex trafficking and prostitution leading the site to become the target of lawsuits, legislation and the ire of New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.

When it comes to crossing the street, the city's Department of Transportation hopes the answer is oncoming traffic—and not your smartphone or your beautiful European model boyfriend.

As any good three-year-old could tell you, always look both ways before crossing the street. But harried, hurried and distracted New Yorkers (and perhaps not a few New Yorkers) are ignoring the rules they learned in preschool, so the department has launched a new campaign to nudge as all into paying more attention when crossing the street.

The heart of the program is a cleverly designed LOOK logo, created by design impresario Michael Bierut and his team at Pentagram. Turning the O's into anthropomorphic eyes, the graphics provide an arresting reminder to straight-ahead New Yorkers. Especially when they are seared into the pavement of some 110 crosswalks at the city's most dangerous intersections.

"We need New Yorkers to look out for one another," DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan told reporters assembled at the corner of Second Avenue and 42nd Street, deemed one of the dangerous intersections (DOT data was used to identify the most high-impact locations).

A neighboring bus shelter featured a LOOK ad, part of the second half of the campaign. "Walk safe. Cross smart," it reads, featuring a set of three multicultural eyeballs. "Traffic injuries are avoidable. Your mom was right. Look before you cross the street."

Similar ads will be posted at bus shelters and subway entrances near the 110 intersections, and in a push to get drivers' attention as well—after all, they are the ones wielding the multi-ton weapons targeted by DOT in these accidents—on the backs of buses. "Drive smart," it warns. "Last year 57 percent of traffic fatalities were people on foot. Look out for your fellow New Yorkers."

It was a theme repeated by the commissioner. "More than half of all accidents occurred where pedestrians have the right of way, so while it may not be their fault, it doesn't hurt to be paying attention," she said.

She was joined by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who spends much of his time campaigning against distracted driving. "I can't think of a place I would rather be because we're talking about safety," Mr. LaHood said. "Janette has been a real leader, and as a result, this is the only city in America that I know of that has this campaign, but I'm sure it will catch on."

The two transit czars pointed out that the nation saw some 416,000 injuries and 3,092 fatalities last year because of distracted driving. New York accounted for 9,200 of those injuries and 41 of those deaths.

"The majority of these accidents are in urban environments just like this street corner, and a majority of them are because of someone looking at their email, talking to a friend, not paying attention, whether they're driving or walking."

Ms. Sadik-Khan said the department was "using every tool in the toolbox" to tackle the problems of safer streets. She said the idea for this project came to her while in London, where their busy intersections warn visitors to "Look Right" because those silly Brits drive on the wrong—or is it right?—side of the road.

The street stamps cost about $60,000 to create and install, with most of that money coming from the Federal Highway Administration. Commissioner Sadik-Khan has a way of getting the feds to pay for her traffic calming programs given their impact on reducing accidents. It's a national issue, and such. The ad buy for the next six months cost $1 million, and in away funds mass transit because they will be paid to the MTA.

Following the press conference, the commissioner and the secretary made their way for the intersection for the photo op. As they are wont to do, a gaggle of half a dozen photographers walked backwards ahead of them, snapping away. They backed right into the intersection, too, clearly ignoring the LOOK sign at their feet as cabs and black cars whizzed by.

As her press secretary tried to hustle the photographers back onto the sidewalk—"Just wait for the light, we'll wait for the light," he yelled—Ms. Sadik-Khan could barely contain a smirk that seemed to say it all: When will they ever learn?

But if you're working the ad buys on a presidential campaign, you see it as an opportunity to reach a certain demographic.

As pointed out by Tumblr's Annie Werner, it would indeed appear that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's campaign is advertising on it.

We checked for ourselves and, sure enough, found the ad there:

Whether or not someone on the Romney campaign sees that demographic as primarily

• "Rich Kids!"
• "People Who Relate to Rich Kids!"
• "Rich Parents Trying to Spot Their Rich Kids!"
• or "Voyeurs of Rich Kids Who May or May Not Have Positive Feelings About Absurd Wealth and Children!"

is anybody's guess, but it is, at the very least, an inspired decision/ad placement (especially as it links to a donation page on the Romney/Ryan website). Now let's see how long it lasts.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

The Accusers

Yasha Levine and Mark Ames, writing for their own site, The S.H.A.M.E. Media Transparency Project, which opened shop on in March. As Russian expats, both helped co-found the satirical Russian alt-biweekly The eXile (another co-founder: Rolling Stone political columnist Matt Taibbi), which still lives on, online. More recently, the duo were widely credited with having connected the Koch Brothers to the Tea Party (after Playboy all but erased from existence the original piece in which they initially made the connection for the magazine).

The Accused

Adam Davidson, the co-host and co-founder of NPR's Planet Money. Prior to Planet Money, Davidson worked for NPR as an international business and economics correspondent for NPR, and was a Middle Eastern correspondent for Public Radio International. Aside from co-hosting Planet Money, Davidson also has a gig as a regular columnist for The New York Times Magazine and, according to Levine and Ames, makes decent coin on the side with speaking engagements too. Here's his NPR biography. Here's Levine and Ames's biography of him.

The Charge(s)

First, that a notoriously hostile 2009 Planet Money interview between Davidson and Elizabeth Warren—the special adviser to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—was ethically tainted by Planet Money's financial arrangements with "the sole sponsor underwriting Davidson's Planet Money show and his salary." Levine and Ames argue that the sponsor in question—a financial services conglomerate—lobbied against the creation of the CFPB before it was created (and around the time of the interview), which is evidence of an insidious conflict of interest. Furthermore, they allege that Davidson is accepting speaking fees from the industry he covers for both NPR and The New York Times Magazine, something largely viewed as an unsavory, questionable practice by most journalists (and journalism institutions, which usually have guidelines against that sort of thing).

The Evidence

A Sponsorship Problem: Ames and Levine published a 2009 lobbying report signed by the financial conglomerate in question, GMAC (now Ally Financial), in which the company discloses lobbying against the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, which created the CFPB that Elizabeth Warren now acts as a special adviser to. To them, this disclosure speaks great volumes about Davidson's coverage, particularly a 2009 interview between Davidson and Warren. At the time, Warren was lobbying for the act (as she was its architect), which set out to create an agency that would protect consumers from predatory practices by companies like GMAC/Ally Financial. During the interview, Davidson was so surprisingly hostile towards Warren that it famously warranted an apology from NPR's ombudsman.

[Ally (formerly GMAC), the consumer-lending arm of General Motors, is 74 percent owned by the government after receiving a $17.2 billion bailout. Even as other financial firms have emerged from the darkest days of the financial crisis, Ally has remained in the government’s debt, due to the struggles of Residential Capital, the Ally-owned mortgage lender that recently entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.]

Meanwhile, Ally had sponsored the show since shortly after it had launched, in an arrangement that raised eyebrows when it was initially revealed. Ames and Levine note that at that time, Planet Money was the only NPR show with a single sponsor.

The Speaking Gigs: They've compiled some of Adam Davidson's "lucrative" speaking gigs, hosted and funded by some of the largest financial institutions in the world (JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs). While a widespread practice, it's one that in their eyes—and the eyes of many others—compromises journalistic integrity.

The Rules

We could not find the issues of sponsorship directly addressed in NPR's handbook, other than a section on the necessity of disclosures. But the issue has come up even after that section was added in. However: NPR's current ethics guide does mention avoiding speaking to groups where the appearance itself might put into question one's impartiality, along with participation in forums where "sponsoring groups or other participants are identified with a particular perspective." The policy of Chicago Public Media (which owns This American Life, from which Planet Money was spun off): "Journalists may not accept any form of compensation from the individuals, institutions or organizations they cover." Finally, the New York Times' standards and ethics guide urges staffers to be wary of speaking gigs "especially if the setting might suggest a close relationship" to the sponsor, and notes that gigs must be approved by newsroom management. The example they give: "An editor who deals with political campaigns might comfortably address a library gathering but not appear before a civic group that endorses issues or candidates. An environmental reporter can appropriately speak to a horticultural society but not to conservation groups known for their efforts to influence public policy."

Precedent

We couldn't find any examples of NPR ending a sponsorship relationship because of a radio segement or program's purview. That said, Planet Money's sponsorship agreement with Ally has come under question both internally and externally prior to this.

An NPR ombudsman concluded in December 2009:

[NPR senior vice president for news, Eileen] Weiss is correct that NPR has a large pool of credibility with most of its audience. But that pool is not infinite, and it can be diminished when listeners perceive a conflict of interest, even if one does not exist.

No action was taken then. This was nine months after Davidson's interview with Warren, which prompted an on-air apology from Davidson and an NPR ombudsman's column reprimanding Davidson. That column ran five days before Planet Money's deal with Ally was written up on AdAge.

Over at the Times, writers have indeed been punished or even fired for taking speaking fees. Thomas Friedman once had to return $75,000 in unapproved speaking fees. Times technology columnist David Pogue has come under fire multiple times for speaking fees and a trip to Disney World; he still writes there (other, less popular writers have been fired for taking free trips). Mary Tripsas, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, had a monthly column until she was fired for taking a speaking engagement. And Joe Nocera once came under fire for speaking fees, and he was given a pass as well.

What do other Times writers think of the policy? Ask Paul Krugman:

I do very little paid speaking now, and no consulting, because the New York Times has quite strict rules: basically I can only get paid for speaking to nonprofits that have no possible interest in influencing the content of the column. It’s a good rule — read Eric Alterman’s book “Sound and Fury” to see how speaking fees can corrupt pundits — though it meant that I took a substantial income cut to work for the Times.

In Davidson's Defense

Planet Money has indeed covered Ally once before, in a segment derided by an Ally publicist as "false" and "inflammatory." There is no empirical evidence that Davidson—who, in his words, has "nothing to do with the underwriting stuff"—has explicitly interacted with his sponsors in a way that would undoubtedly compromise his show's integrity. Levine and Ames have no proof of Davidson's pay for his speaking gigs (though there's been no denial that he was paid).

The Official Word

An NPR spokesperson refused comment to Ames and Levine. They also contacted Ira Glass of This American Life, who also did not respond to their request for comment.

The Observer contacted an NPR spokesperson for comment through their communications department on Wednesday evening. We asked why they didn't comment to Ames and Levine, if Davidson's speaking engagements are of concern to NPR, and if—in light of the lobbying disclosure form vis-à-vis Davidson's (as noted by their own ombudsman) surprisingly hostile interview with Elizabeth Warren—Planet Money's sponsorship by Ally Bank was a concern to them. At the time, a spokeswoman answered:

I expect we'll give you comment on why we didn't comment before, and perhaps on some of these issues you raise.

This afternoon, the same NPR head of communications Dana Davis Rehm responded:

Adam reviews all his speaking engagements with his editors and we’re confident that none of them run counter to our ethical guidelines.

Beyond that, we don’t have any further comment.

When contacted Wednesday evening, a spokeswoman for the New York Times indicated that our call was the first she had heard of it; as of this afternoon, the Times was reviewing the issue, but had no official comment. UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, a spokeswoman from the New York Times emailed us with official comment:

We have discussed this situation with Adam and we’re confident that there has been no violation of our policies around speaking engagements and no conflict of interest.

When contacted by email Wednesday evening, Ames and Levine had this to say over email:

Until NPR answers these questions and fully discloses the nature of their relationship with Ally Bank, and their conflict-of-interest policy, everything else is a PR distraction. We have provided strong evidence of several very serious conflicts of interest. Evasions and distractions that avoid answering these allegations and questions, like the ones provided by their ombudsman back in 2009, will only reinforce our point about corruption at Planet Money.

They also pointed us to a March 2009 Columbia Journalism Review profile of NPR, which they provided as speaking to proof that "Davidson was in the very least intimately involved in the process of creating the show," which it certainly does. Again, that doesn't explicitly tie Davidson to Ally Bank's interests.

That said, Ames and Levine's takeaway isn't so forgiving:

This says pretty much everything you need to know about the gangrenous state of America's media, when two of the most respected media institutions adopt a mob strategy to protect their little racket.

At the very least, they have indeed made a compelling case that Davidson is—if not complicitly, then inherently—conflicted. Either way, it's a conflict that’s clearly uncomfortable to more than two people, regardless, and a few who'd rather not discuss it as well.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Nothing says "hands-on parenting" like Don Draper

To promote a Father's Day, Carroll Garden's Painted Pot has put up the world's most disconsonant advertisement in the entire world. Check out the paradoxical copy promoting a father-child activity with a picture of Jon Hamm looking out sternly as Don Draper from Mad Men.

Just read The Painted Pot's description of their services, and ask yourself, "What Would Don Draper Do (If Someone Asked Him To Do This)?":

We offer you a opportunity to explore the artist in you! Bring art into your family's everyday life! Come and be inspired to create, spend time your family and friends and have lots of fun! No reservations are necessary, please walk in anytime to paint. Registration is necessary for all pottery wheel classes and all workshops.

First of all, Don Draper would never help his children paint a pot. An ashtray, maybe. Even then, he'd probably tell you to go make it yourself, dammit Sally, it's not a gift if I do all the work for you!

(Drinks tumbler of whiskey, slams it down on desk)

"You are just  like your mother."

This is just a terrible ad. The text makes no reference as to why Mr. Draper is being held up as the beacon of fatherhood. Is it ironic? Maybe if it was an advertisement for Mother's Day and had a picture of Betty. But this is just monkeys. Don Draper isn't a great dad, but nor is he the worst dad, nor is he a real dad.  He's a character whose fatherhood has only a passing affect on his life.

It's like...did these people watch last week's episode? Don couldn't even be bothered to make sure Sally wasn't sneaking boys into the apartment or having her period.

Perhaps a pottery class with his kids is just the ticket.

President Barack Obama is set to roll out his backing of The Buffett Rule, which will be at the center of his campaign, reports the Financial Times. The Buffett Rule is being pitched as a "simple principle" of American tax codes inspired by Warren Buffet's now-famous claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than himself because of the voodoo implicit in capital gains tax rates and the like that benefit the country's top earners. It is brilliant, if only for already being one of the most well-branded pieces of politics in the history of legislation. Think about this less as a political play, or a piece of propaganda, and more one of brilliant advertising work.

Consider:

1. The Buffett Rule could do for tax increases what Air Jordans did for kicks.

It has a celebrity endorsement in Warren Buffett, a billionaire who less resembles the flesh-hungry Shylock-esque Sith of New York City/Gomorrah, and more a steak-and-corn eating grandpa who thinks giving young people candy is the most amusing and rewarding thing in the world. Who also, as it happens, is a billionaire.

As legendary ad man and famed Esquire art director George Lois once explained:

"Enlisting a celebrity to sell cat food, an airline, off-track betting, an analgesic, or a lube job would seem to be a delusional strategy fraught with irrationality. But let’s face it, it’s a star-struck world.”

True story. And simply by existing, famous people sell simple ideas. Justin Bieber inherently sells acne soap. Jordan inherently sells basketball shoes. And Warren Buffett inherently sells the appeal of more money.

This is despite the fact that most Americans probably can't tell you how Warren Buffett made his fortune, or even the name of the company he owns, but they can tell you in a side-by-side comparison that he resembles Santa Claus more than the other billionaires (who are either marginally human computer geeks, Bond villains, or ominous rich guys who live elsewhere other than Omaha, which most Americans probably envision as Pleasantville).

Take note: Many have asked why they didn't just call it The Romney Rule, after Obama's most capable tax-skirting opponent. Besides the fact that branding this The Romney Rule would be a canny neg on his opponents campaign, it demonstrates a keen awareness of one of Romney's greatest weaknesses: He's got the charisma of gracious Jeopardy loser. Also, he's not the richest guy in America. He's just friends with the others.

2. The Buffett Rule is, right now, whatever it wants to be.

The Buffett Rule is being pitched as a cure-all for all of America's financial woes. Among the claims proponents are rolling out, via the FT, it would:

"...Prevent distortions in the US economy, help tackle rising income inequality, and shrink US budget deficits by $47bn over ten years."

Fantastic! Even though there's no specific legislation being pitched as part of The Buffett Rule, it sure as hell sounds nice. For the supposed Harvard-educated elitists of the Obama Administration to come up with something even more simple to explain than George W. Bush's namesake doctrine—more taxes for rich people, less taxes for not-rich people—is a stunning advertising coup.

3. The Buffett Rule's opponents are as creative as paste-eating children.

As you could imagine, some people aren't too happy about Obama's economic pop song. For one thing, they just don't want to pay higher taxes. For another, as John Gapper explained, most millionaires already pay a higher tax rate than Buffett's secretary. But in their displeasure, they demonstrate the most powerful aspect of The Buffett Rule: It's branding. To fight it off through press lines, opponents have taken to renaming The Buffett Rule.

And when the "left-brain" of shining economic debate kicks in, get out of its way:

• "The Stupid Rule" - Kevin Hassett, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
• "The Irrelevant Buffett Rule" - Barry Diller.

 
And...that's about it. That's what the opposition is working with right now.

The Buffett Rule is the Kony 2012 of taxes, except instead of servicing the needs of America's White Savior Industrial-Complex, it appeals to a way more powerful part of the human psyche: That which thinks about having to give the government less money.

Another crucial difference: It's creator isn't going to end up pounding the pavement in a moment of frothing psychosis on TMZ, because he's the richest man in America. Just like he can pay to pay more taxes, he can pay for someone to do that. And watching anybody try to take that idea down—especially its creativity-starved opponents—will be a hell of a show. In the mean time, ad agencies around the world should take note. This is how you roll out a celebrity endorsement: By having them shill something everybody wants, regardless of whether or not they already have it.

[Image via Getty]

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Belvedere's blowjob ad blows up on Twitter

UPDATE: Scroll down for statements from Belvedere

We almost dismissed this as a case of Twitter falling for a Reddit mock-up, but no: Belvedere Vodka actually posted this ad earlier this morning on Twitter.

See? The joke is that the woman is not smoothly "going down" on her gentleman friend. Probably because it looks like he's about to rape her.

First brought to our attention an hour ago by Washington City Paper's Shani O. Hilton, who tweeted "Wheee rape jokes! RT @belvederevodka Unlike some people, Belvedere always goes down smoothly.!" and linked to a screenshot of the vodka company's Twitter page, in case they took the tweet down. (Which they have.)

How do we know the ad (which looks pretty fake, on first glance), wasn't a hoax? Shortly after Ms. Hilton began tweeting about the rape joke, the company sent out this non-apology on Twitter:

"We apologize you were offended" is such a great line. It's not really an apology, it's more of a graceless "Sorry you were too big of a baby to handle our hilarious joke." And since the offending item has been taken down, and Belvedere does not reference what tweet they were talking about, they are still refusing to take responsibility for using rape jokes to sell alcohol.

Keep it classy, Belvedere.

Update: We received an email from a spokesperson from Belvedere last night, relaying this message:

I am Jason Lundy, SVP of Global Marketing for Belvedere.

Unfortunately a Facebook &Twitter posting was made today that has offended many of our fans and followers -- and indeed the people who work here at Belvedere. The post is absolutely inconsistent with our values and beliefs and in addition to removing the offensive post we are committed to making sure that something like this doesn't happen again. As an expression of our deep disappointment and regret, we are making a charitable donation to a women's support cause. We deeply apologize to our fans & followers.”

When The Observer asked what charity Belvedere would be donating to, and how much money they'd be giving, we were sent this (which also appears on Belvedere's Facebook page:

“ My name is Charles Gibb and I am the President of Belvedere Vodka. I would like to personally apologize for the offensive post that recently appeared on our Facebook page.

It should never have happened. I am currently investigating the matter to determine how this happened and to be sure it never does so again. The content is contrary to our values and we deeply regret this lapse.

As an expression of our regret over this matter we have made a donation to RAINN."

We notice the link to RAINN (the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network) in the email sends us to an individual's FB page, not the charity. So their money will be going to someone named Rain Chan. Congrats, Ms. Chan!

Update 2: The Facebook page of Belvedere has the correct link to the RAINN organization's Facebook page (though not in the email we received, a "copy and paste error," according to a spokesperson). While the rep from Belvedere refused to name the amount of money donated, RAINN called it a "generous donation" in a post written today:

We got a call from Belvedere Vodka's president, who was profusely apologetic about an offensive Facebook post yesterday. He stressed how much it was contrary to his values and what Belvedere stands for, and that he feels awful about it. He offered to make a generous donation to RAINN to support our work to help victims of sexual violence and educate the public. Nice to see a company that not only undoes its mistake but looks for a way to do good afterwards.

Happy Lana Del Rey Dey! Via Getty.

Yes, today, Lana Del Rey (the singer formerly known as Lizzy Grant only two hype cycles and one lip injection ago) will see the release of her album.

Despite the fact that 'relevant' tastemakers like Brian Williams, Pitchfork, Hipster Runoff, along with approximately 3/5ths of the people you hear overhear talking about Lana Del Rey all despise her music and/or artifice, and despite the fact that everyone (including The Observer) is tired of hearing about her, the fact is that the people still have yet to render their verdict through purchases and/or illegal downloads of her album.

Vox populi, vox Lana Del Rey.

As such, today is also the day the Lana Del Rey corporate hype machine goes into overdrive. This includes but isn't limited to, of course, internet banner advertising on sites that ideally target Lana Del Rey's presumed audience; for example, a site like Pitchfork Media, which originally gave Ms. Del Rey's single "Video Games" a Best New Single designation. That'd be a great place to advertise her!

Except, not: Ms. Del Rey's album was panned by Pitchfork Media yesterday. Even so, the "ad buy" on the site likely happened weeks ago, and nobody's going to let good advertising go to waste. So instead, Pitchfork Media now looks like a cross between The Lana Del Report and the result of a revenge tactic.

It's really just an obvious ad buy, but it's fun to imagine, and the incedentialism makes the entire thing just funnier and weirder and takes us all further down this veritable K-Hole of pop culture and ideas about "tastemaking" and how the democratization of "cool" is generally leading to the end of it.

This is far from the first time this has happened with the site. When Band of Horses' sophomore album was panned, Band Of Horses' advertising folks bought out all of the site's display unit inventory to fill with their album's banners.

fkamer@observer.com | @weareyourfek

Courtesy Getty Images

Over the summer, Steve Stoute, the CEO of the brand-marketing firm Translation, went to Wimbledon with his friend and business partner, the rapper Jay-Z, to cheer on Rafael Nadal during the Spaniard’s fourth-round battle with Juan Martín Del Potro. With the match tied in the third set, BBC cameras spotted them. “The man is still here,” said BBC tennis analyst Boris Becker in his heavy German accent. “The Jigga Man, that’s what they call him—Shawn Carter.”

Where most viewers saw a star-sighting. Mr. Stoute saw a “tanning moment.”

Mr. Stoute, in his recent book The Tanning of America: How Hip-Hop Created a Culture That Rewrote the Rules of the New Economy (2011, Gotham Books), defined “tanning” as “the catalytic force majeure that went beyond musical boundaries and into the psyche of young America.” That’s a pretty thick slice of marketing-speak, but the gist of it is simple: hip-hop has radically changed culture and corporate America.

And Mr. Stoute has had a central role in the transformation.

“That wouldn’t have happened 10 years ago,” Mr. Stoute said of Becker’s acknowledgment of Jay-Z. “Prince William was there that day, and for Jay-Z to get recognized at that setting, yeah, it’s a tanning moment.”

Around the turn of the millennium, Mr. Stoute, then a successful record company executive, made a gutsy career change. He left his lofty position as president of urban music at Interscope/Geffen/A&M Records and dove into advertising and marketing. He is now the go-to guy for Fortune 500 companies chasing the youth and urban markets. Mr. Stoute paired Allen Iverson with the gritty rapper Jadakiss for a beloved Reebok commercial; he got Justin Timberlake to record a McDonald’s jingle; and he tapped Jay-Z for a Hewlett-Packard campaign. (Before Mr. Stoute’s involvement, HP had been circling Robert Redford and Drew Barrymore.)

Translation’s specialty is “collaborative strategic consulting,” but Mr. Stoute sees his role in somewhat simpler terms.

“I just try to tell the consumer truth,” he told The Observer.

It should be noted, however, that consumer truth isn’t always the same as gospel truth. That Justin Timberlake jingle, for instance, was originally released as a song. Only after the world was humming “I’m Lovin’ It” did McDonald’s introduce its new tagline, with JT as its spokesman.

It’s been an effective strategy. In November 2008, Mr. Stoute was inducted into the American Advertising Federation’s Hall of Achievement. And according to Ad Age, Translation, which operates under its parent company Interpublic, pulled in $9 million in revenue in 2010.

On a recent Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Stoute was sitting on a couch in his Times Square corner office. Although he known as a bit of a dandy, on this occasion he was clad in gym clothes—a black V-neck T layered over a white V-neck, gray athletic shorts, black ankle socks and no shoes. The wall was plastered with photographs of Mr. Stoute with his many famous friends, and framed photos of icons such as Sidney Poitier and Muhammad Ali.

Mr. Stoute began the conversation with one of his favorite “tanning moments”: The story of how Jimmy Iovine landed a Rolling Stone cover for Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg in 1993. “That was Jimmy Iovine walking in and saying, ‘Jann, these guys are rock stars. They are Mick and Keith,’” Mr. Stoute said. “It takes a guy like Jimmy Iovine—he had so much rock ’n’ roll credibility from U2 and producing Patti Smith. Who else is gonna do that? Russell Simmons? They weren’t going to listen to him.”

Mr. Stoute would like to see more magazines adapt the way Rolling Stone did. “All those magazines are fucked up like that. Vogue is the same way. It’s all those people that come from the old school and believe that [hip-hop] wasn’t sustainable, so therefore they don’t want to buy into it and they push back on it. Vogue did the exact same thing. Anna Wintour now hangs out at Kanye’s shows and hangs out with Pharrell and hangs out with Puffy. She does all that shit now. Meanwhile, there is a lack of African-Americans who have graced that cover. Now, all of a sudden, it’s Beyoncé, it’s Rihanna. Now, she’s sitting with Nicki Minaj [at the Carolina Herrera Spring 2012 show].

“She’s tanning because she has to,” he continued. “She has to. She’s gonna put Blake Lively on the cover again?”

Mr. Stoute, 41, was born in Queens Village, the son of Trinidadian immigrants. His father was a marine engineer; mom was a nurse. He spent his formative years grinding away at after-school jobs—he shoveled snow, erected tents at flea markets, delivered the New York Daily News and Newsday, sung Christmas carols and hawked fire extinguishers—but dreamed of being a professional football player. He was a starting running back at Holy Cross High School in Brooklyn, but began hunting for a backup plan after separating his shoulder. His father suggested becoming an auto mechanic. Mr. Stoute remembers his father’s reasoning: “It’s a craft that they can’t take away from you,” he said.

Instead, he bounced around five colleges and began working in real estate, signing homeowners up for mortgages—this was back in the early 1990s, well before the boom and eventual bust. He then left the mortgage market after realizing he could earn more in the music industry. It wasn’t about his love for the music, he said, unabashedly. “No, it was opportunity,” he said. “[Hip-hop] was blowing up. In ’91, ’92, the arrow was pointing in one direction.”

Through mutual acquaintances, Mr. Stoute hooked up with comedy rappers Kid N’ Play and quickly became the duo’s road manager. But his big break occurred in the mid-1990s, when he started managing the rapper Nas. Under Mr. Stoute’s guidance, the Queensbridge emcee adapted a more commercial, radio-friendly sound. The strategy worked. His 1996 album It Was Written was certified double-platinum, but finding the right balance between art and commerce proved challenging. “Managing Nas taught me a lot about respecting artists,” Mr. Stoute said. “You got a crash course in that because you were dealing with a guy who, money didn’t matter to him. Nor did success. He could have been in The Cider House Rules—he didn’t want to do it.” Mr. Stoute shook his head. “Brands were calling—he didn’t show up for some shoots. Nas wrote songs on the Men in Black soundtrack. He could have wrote the whole album for Will Smith but he didn’t want to show up to the studio to write records for Will Smith.”

Men in Black was a huge hit. The movie grossed $587 million worldwide and the soundtrack, which Mr. Stoute executive produced, was certified triple platinum. He was more impressed, however, by the success of a product placement—sales of Ray-Ban sunglasses shot up 500 percent after being promoted in the film.

By the late 1990s, with the advent of file-sharing and mp3s about to turn the music industry on its head, Mr. Stoute decided to change careers. In 1999, he partnered with renowned adman Peter Arnell—best known for the iconic DKNY campaign—to form the marketing company PASS. (The company couldn’t obtain certification as a minority-owned business and in 2002 was sold to a Hispanic agency, Cultura; Mr. Stoute remained chairman until 2003.)

Mr. Stoute was a quickly adapted to this new world. “Steve Stoute has the best instincts creatively and strategically on pop culture, marketing and youth of anybody I’ve ever met,” Mr. Arnell told Adage.com. (Mr. Arnell’s own instincts were more questionable; he was the force behind the disastrous 2009 Tropicana redesign.)

“Steve is an open person,” former Reebok CEO Paul Fireman told The Observer. “He sees himself on a long journey on which he keeps meeting people and building strategic pieces along the way.”

“He’s curious about everything,” added Vanity Fair editor in chief Graydon Carter, a friend who wrote the foreword to Mr. Stoute’s book. “He’d ask about your clothes. He’d ask about what you’re doing. He set about making himself into something and, God knows, he did it.”

Steve Stoute has strong opinions on branding. He was offended, for example, by what he considered the ham-handedness of Kodak’s recent campaign featuring Rihanna and a slew of other musicians.

“Marketing? You call that marketing?” Mr. Stoute asked. “You’re trying to skip the entire process and just hire some celebrities to save your ass. That’s the epitome of ridiculous. Marketing? Kodak?” He was nearly shouting. The commercials, he said, didn’t convey the function of the product. “Can you imagine how stupid that is? What am I gonna do with a Kodak? It’s not a smart phone. If I don’t tell you why you need it, why would you buy it? Because Rihanna and Pitbull said so? Yeah, congratulations.”

The Kodak campaign was “of limited duration,” according to a company spokesperson and was only for the So Kodak line. “Our data showed that it was effective in raising brand and product awareness among the target audience.” It also won an Addy Award, "so obviously some difference of opinion out there," the spokesperson added.

He can be just as brutal with potential clients. Back when he first partnered with Reebok, he told Paul Fireman flatly that the company couldn’t compete with Nike by marketing their shoes as superior for athletes.

“I think most people, especially when they are interviewing, tend to not be as forthright as I would like,” Mr. Fireman said. “Most of them think that by telling you what you’re doing wrong they’re going to insult you. Steve pointed out our disconnect from the consumer. He is very blunt but not rude. You’re either going to accept it or you’re not. I thought it was refreshing.”

Mr. Stoute is most proud of having pioneered the practice of surreptitiously embedding marketing messages into the pop cultural products. He followed up the successful McDonald’s-Timberlake switcheroo with a similar deal involving Wrigley’s and Chris Brown. After Mr. Brown’s song “Forever” became a hit, it was revealed that the familiar lyric “Double your pleasure” was no coincidence—the song was a gum jingle. Before radio stations, deejays or average listeners knew they were all offering free advertising time—and mindspace—to a major corporation, the song was embedded in the culture.

Mr. Stoute was a bit perplexed by the anger the stunt engendered. “If you got upset because it was really a brand message intertwined with the song you loved, if that bothered you, shame on you for getting that emotional about something you loved anyway,” he said. “I didn’t understand that. Gawker and all those guys were writing stuff about me. Say anything you want, but its brilliant, it’s absolutely brilliant. It’s stunning. It’s so smart. You actually made a song and in the song, it said, ‘Double your pleasure/double your fun.’ And that worked. And then we came back with a commercial behind it and when it was revealed, it was a home run.”

Mr. Stoute then looked at his phone. It was almost 6 p.m. “I gotta get ready to get out of here,” he said. He had tickets that night for The Mountaintop with Samuel L. Jackson and Angela Bassett.

“If you thought the song was sponsored by a brand,” he added, “you would not have been open-minded about how the song made you feel. All I did was remove that filter.”