Did Juul’s Extremely Effective Advertising Effectively Trigger Its FDA Ban?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and perusing the Weekend Wall Street Journal (the WSJ set doesn’t read, it peruses – just ask Peggy Noonan), when I came across this piece by Jennifer Maloney, Andrew Scurria, and Alex Harring about “a federal appeals court [that] granted Juul Labs Inc. a temporary stay of the Food and Drug Administration’s order for the vaping company to pull its e-cigarettes off the U.S. market.”

Here’s the part that jumped out at me.

Regulators and lawmakers have connected Juul’s fruity flavors, hip marketing and USB-like vaporizer to a surge of underage vaping in the U.S. in 2018 and 2019. Juul has said it never targeted teens. It halted most of its U.S. advertising and stopped selling sweet and fruity flavors in 2019, part of an effort to repair its relationship with regulators, lawmakers and the public.

Is that true, Doc – Juul never targeted teens? Sounds kind of vaporous to me.

– Jewel

Dear Jewel,

It’s more accurate to say Juul always targeted teens, as this New York Times piece by Steven Kurutz noted.

When Juuls were first sold in 2015, the brand surged in popularity, partly on the strength of a vibrant ad campaign that showed young people smiling, laughing and striking poses beneath the word “Vaporized.”

By 2018, Juul had grown so popular that the brand name became a verb, with teens furtively “juuling” in high school classrooms and hallways. That same year, Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, agreed to pay $13 billion for a 35 percent stake in Juul Labs.

This 2020 piece by Terry Turner at Drugwatch was even more damning.

HOW JUUL CREATED A TEEN VAPING EPIDEMIC

Throughout the summer of 2019, as congressional staffers plowed through 55,000 documents Juul Labs had previously never made public, a picture emerged of a carefully planned effort to expose American kids to one of the world’s most addictive substances.

The documents revealed a perfect storm of stealth marketing, sleek design and high nicotine doses that Juul Labs seemingly engineered to slip under adults’ radar, buying time to addict kids to the company’s vaping products . . .

Congressional investigators found Juul Labs “deployed a sophisticated program” paying schools as much as $10,000 each to let company representatives deliver its message directly to children. In at least one presentation, without teachers or parents present, a company representative showed kids how to use a Juul e-cigarette. Other evidence showed that Juul Labs also targeted preteen kids through summer camps and out-of-school programs.

Overall, the Drugwatch piece noted, “Juul Labs’ internal documents and statements by its founders reveal the e-cigarette manufacturer lifted trade secrets from Big Tobacco to market its highly addictive vaping products to youths as young as 8. The company’s deliberate marketing plan proved successful, doubling the size of the U.S. vaping market and dominating competitors in just three years.”

Juul controlled over 75% of the e-cigarette market by then and was red hot among teens, as this 2019 Time magazine video detailed.

Here’s just a sample of the news reports that have tracked Juul’s marketing to kids over the past several years.

• The vape company Juul said it doesn’t target teens. Its early ads tell a different story.

• Juul Bought Ads Appearing on Cartoon Network and Other Youth Sites, Suit Claims 

Juul, accused of marketing to teens, settles vaping case for $40m

Last week, Insider News posted this deep dive into the rise and fall (TBD) of Juul.

To recap:

• Youth cigarette smoking rates dropped from 18% in 2005 to 10.8% in 2015

• Thanks to Juul’s relentless targeting of teens on social media, its U.S. market share went from under 5% in 2016 to 29% in 2017 to 75% in 2018

• The FDA said whoa

• Juul phased out its social media accounts

That last, of course, meant nothing: Teenage Juulers kept the social media machine whirring quite nicely all by themselves.

Regardless, why does the FDA now feel comfortable canceling Juul while greenlighting VUSE and NJOY e-cigs?

Here’s the Doc’s diagnosis: During the past few years, Juul’s teen targeting has gone over like the metric system with the American public. Maybe that’s part of the FDA’s conclusion that Juul is the black hat and VUSE and NJOY are the white hats in terms of protecting the public health.

Your smoke and mirrors go here.

Do the Saudis Really Think New York Times Readers Are Morons?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and leafing through the New York Times, when I came across this ad on the back page of the paper’s A section.

So this LIV Golf outfit thinks it’s worth maybe $200,000 to claim that it’s a force for good? Hmmm – what do you think, Doc?

– Chip Wedge

Dear Chip,

First, a primer: 1) LIV rhymes with “give”; 2) LIV is the Roman numeral for 54; 3) 54 is the number of holes a LIV tournament includes (versus the 72-hole PGA standard).

Now, the questions: 1) Do the powers that be at LIV Golf think that New York Times readers don’t know the tour is funded by the Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund?; 2) Do the LIVniks also believe that Times readers are unaware of the wetwork Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bone Sawman commissioned in the dismembering of U.S. resident/Washington Post columnist/Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi?

Because the Twitterverse sure knows what’s what.

Oh, yeah . . . the other stuff.

Doesn’t exactly make you eager to LIV and let LIV, does it – casual fan or not.

Why Are Democratic Groups Airing Ads Promoting Potential GOP Opponents?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Axios Sneak Peek, when I came across this item from Alayna Treene headlined “Dems’ sabotage ads.”

Democratic groups are buying ads touting some of the most extreme pro-Trump candidates in Republican primaries around the country — meddling in GOP contests to set up more favorable matchups in November, Axios’ Sophia Cai reports.

Why it matters: The risky gambit assumes general-election voters will reject candidates who embrace conspiracy theories or lies about the 2020 election. But it could dramatically backfire by vaulting fringe Republicans into national office.

Does that make any sense at all to you, Doc? Seems kind of Demwitted to me.

– Chris Cross

Dear Chris,

Yeah, this is one where the ratf**kers should have just set their money on fire.

Sophia Cai’s Axios report calls the roll of the failed efforts.

Sabotage ad #1

Ahead of last week’s primaries, the Nancy Pelosi-affiliated House Majority PAC funded a 30-second TV ad promoting self-declared “Trump Conservative” Chris Mathys against moderate Republican Rep. David Valadao in California’s 22nd District.

And Valadao isn’t just a moderate – he’s a turncoat. “David Valadao claims he’s Republican,” the ad’s narrator says, “yet David Valadao voted to impeach President Trump.”

Golden State election results tend to treacle in, but here are the CA-22 numbers according to Ballotpedia.

That’s David Valadao 1, House Majority PAC 0, if you’re keeping score at home.

Sabotage ad #2

In California’s 40th District, Democrat Asif Mahmood has been running ads casting Republican Greg Raths — who had to apologize last month for using antisemitic tropes — as his head-to-head opponent instead of moderate Rep. Young Kim.

Once again, Ballotpedia has the scorecard.

So, oh-for-two.

Sabotage ad #3

[I[n Colorado, a new Democratic super PAC cut a TV ad boosting far-right, election-denying state Rep. Ron Hanks in the June 28 GOP primary to decide who will take on Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

The group has reserved at least $1.49 million in TV ad slots across Colorado over the next few weeks.

Hanks’ moderate Republican rival Joe O’Dea accused Democrats of “hijacking the Republican nomination for an unserious candidate who has zero chance of winning.”

With primary day June 28, the jury’s still out on that race. Also awaiting a verdict on the 28th: GOP candidates in the Illinois gubernatorial primary, as Karl Rove notes in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Aurora, Ill., Mayor Richard Irvin—a conservative veteran and former prosecutor who emphasizes fighting crime, cutting taxes and spending, and cleaning up politics, and who happens to be black—would be a strong contender this November. That’s why Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association are spending an estimated $32 million labeling Mr. Irvin’s principal primary opponent, state Sen. Darren Bailey, as “too conservative for Illinois.”

Thirty-two million makes the other kneecapping efforts look like lunch money, even though Rove says the Democratic super PAC in Colorado could spend “as much as $3.5 million attacking [Ron] Hanks as—you guessed it—’too conservative for Colorado.’”

The Democratic Governors Association is also meddling in Colorado’s GOP gubernatorial primary, running an ad campaign with $1.5 million that the DGA laundered through a couple of PACs.

The Doc will make some house calls at the end of the month to determine the health of those Democratic investments. And prescribe condolences accordingly.

Who in Their Right Mind Would Label Kathy Barnette a ‘Woke Republican’?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Punchbowl News AM, when I came across this item about an ad attacking Kathy Barnette, a super-Trumpy candidate in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary.

USA Freedom Fund, which is funded, at least in part, by Club for Growth Action, has a new ad running in Pittsburgh slamming Kathy Barnette for being a “woke Republican” who wants to build a statue of former President Barack Obama. This is ironic since Barnette has a long history of attacking Obama, including repeated false accusations that he’s a Muslim.

What the hell, Doc – are we totally through the looking glass at this point?

– GOPsmacked

Dear GOPsmacked,

We’re not just through the looking glass, we’re deep into Queen of Hearts Off With Their Heads territory.

That’s what’s going on in Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate primary right now. Medical fraud Mehmet Oz (the Doc, of all people, should know) and MAGA fraud Dave McCormick have spent a combined $28 million on ads blowtorching one another, as WHYY’s Katie Meyer has reported.

[McCormick] has raised nearly $16 million — $11 million was a loan from himself — and spent more than $14 million, chiefly on big ad buys.

That doesn’t count money from Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC spending on McCormick’s behalf — primarily funding ads attacking Oz. The PAC has spent more than $11 million . . .

[Oz has] loaned himself more than $12 million, and he’s pulled in another $3 million or so from donors. He’s also supported by a PAC, American Leadership Action, that has spent nearly $3.5 million to oppose McCormick.

Also like McCormick, Oz has spent around $14 million, primarily on ads.

It’s a campaign classic: 1) Candidate A spends all his time telling voters Candidate B is a bum. 2) Candidate B returns the favor. 3) Voters believe them both and turn to Candidate C. (See Carol Moseley Braun’s improbable 1992 U.S. Senate victory in Illinois for further details.)

Candidate C in Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate race is Kathy Barnette, “a conservative Christian commentator with a history of advocating, among other things, that the U.S. reject Muslim immigrants and that abortion be completely banned. She’s also a high-profile proponent of baseless voter fraud theories, and is running to the right of the rest of the field,” according to Meyer.

Beyond that, Barnette is surging in the polls, despite having spent a paltry $137,000 on campaign ads so far and despite Donald Trump’s endorsement of Oz. New York Times reporter Jennifer Medina captured the current dynamic in this piece.

Many voters said they were choosing who they believed would carry out Mr. Trump’s ideals, even if they and the former president disagreed on who could best accomplish that. And interviews showed how effectively Ms. Barnette, who has never held public office, had used her life story as a poor, Black child of the South to connect with white working-class voters in western Pennsylvania. At events and in her ads, Ms. Barnette often invokes the phrase “I am you.”

Other conservatives, however, are attacking Barnette. The super PAC USA Freedom Fund is running this ad accusing her of being a “woke Republican” for proposing a statue of Barack Obama in D.C.

PolitiFact has labeled the ad “mostly true.”

[USA Freedom Fund] claimed “Kathy Barnette wants to build a statue of Barack Obama right next to the one of Abraham Lincoln on Capitol Hill.”

Barnette said she did propose a statue of Obama and his family, but she never voted for him, or backed his policies. Her idea was to use three statues to show how far Black people have come since the time of slavery.

The statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate this claim Mostly True.

But the “woke Republican” label is a joke, given Barnette’s anti-Muslim, homophobic, Big Lie track record.

Seriously

Why Is Club for Growth Trolling J.D. Vance and Donald Trump?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was minding my own business and reading Punchbowl News AM, when I came across this item about the GOP Senate primary in Ohio.

→ Here’s an ad that may anger former President Donald Trump. Club for Growth is up statewide with a spot that reminds voters that J.D. Vance was once a “Never Trumper.” Of course, Trump has now endorsed Vance.

What’s up with that, Doc? Why would an established conservative group want to tick off Trump, who can always count on his legion of Trumpiacs to fight back?

– Trumper Thumper

Dear Double T,

Well, for starters, The Club for Growth has endorsed former Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel in that race. Beyond that, it’s pretty clear that J.D. Vance, the author of the best-seller Hillbilly Elegy, is a total phony who went from Never Trumper to MAGAt in under 60 seconds because embracing the Big Cheeto has become the cover charge in virtually every GOP primary.

The Club for Growth ad neatly yokes Vance to Trump’s favorite chew toy, Hillary Clinton.

Drive Trump nuts graf: Vance says in the ad “Definitely, some people who voted for Trump . . . voted for him for racist reasons.”

As New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman noted, “Mr. Trump’s response was brutish: He had an assistant send Mr. McIntosh a short text message telling him off in the most vulgar terms. The group, one of the few that actually spends heavily in primary races, responded by saying it would increase its spending on the ad.”

Rob Crilly’s Daily Mail piece was even more graphic.

Trump tells head of influential conservative group ‘go f*** yourself’ after they decided to spend MORE on anti-J.D. Vance commercials despite his endorsement in Ohio

Donald Trump reportedly dumped on the president of the Club for Growth on Thursday, after the conservative group bought more airtime for anti-J.D. Vance adverts in Ohio despite the former president endorsing the Hillbilly Elegy author.

The conservative group is backing Josh Mandel in an increasingly bitter fight for the Republican Senate nomination in the state, with 13 days left in the primary.

And on Thursday, it reupped an ad composed of some of Vance’s past anti-Trump comments.

The result was a furious text message sent by a Trump aide to David McIntosh, the group’s president.

‘Hi Mr. McIntosh,’ it said, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. ‘The president shares this message with you: Go f*** yourself.’

Haberman also noted that “Trump announced his endorsement on Friday, upending a race that had seen Vance, a former Marine, trailing in third or fourth place. But internal polling on Thursday suggested he had leapt into a commanding lead at the same time as a surge in fundraising.”

Over at Real Clear Politics, the polling numbers are more nuanced than Haberman has suggested. Here’s what happened between April 14 and April 24,

So while Vance is essentially treading water after Trump’s endorsement, Mandel has gone underwater.

One last thing: Why Troll Trump? Politics, of course. But also, it’s just so much fun.

Were Self-Driving Cars Really Developed Because of . . . Cheetos?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and slogging through the Sunday New York Times (which – has anyone mentioned this to you? – really should trigger a federal subsidy) when I came across a full-page ad that seemed to attribute the emergence of automatic doors, self-driving cars, voice activated lights, audio books, automated dog feeders, and more to . . . Cheetos?

Is that true, Doc – Cheetos dust was the driving force behind all those innovations? There’s supposed to be truth in advertising, right?

– Orange You Glad I Asked?

Dear Orange You,

First of all, “truth in advertising” is largely overrated (and underutilized) as a concept, but it’s a really good poem by Andrea Cohen.

Truth in Advertising

by Andrea Cohen

If we’d moved her,
she’d still have ’em,

the ad for Acme
Moving says, with a photo

of Venus de Milo.
But who, intact,

would Venus be?
Some standard-issue

ingénue. Give me
a woman who’s lived

a little, who’s wrapped
her arms around the ages

and come up lacking: that’s
the stone that can move me.

As for Cheetos, here’s the Times ad in question.

 

That ad turns out to be part of a Cheetos Hands Free promotion that the snack food brand launched last week at SXSW, complete with a Hands Free House in Austin.

Here’s the teaser.

It was spokescritter Chester Cheetah, though, who drove that train on Twitter.

Oh, yeah – there’s also a sweepstakes.

The Doc’s diagnosis? An extremely hands-on campaign.

Does ‘Handrew’ Cuomo Really Think His Ad Will Convince Us He’s Not a Creep?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading yesterday’s New York Times when I came across this story by Nicholas Fandos and Katie Glueck.

Cut off from power, longtime friends and a political platform, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has struggled for months to salvage a reputation that was all but destroyed when he resigned amid a slew of sexual harassment allegations.

On Monday, Mr. Cuomo tried a new approach: spending his way out of the political wilderness.

According to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm, Mr. Cuomo’s still-active campaign account began spending $369,000 to air a television advertisement across the state — a media blitz designed not to support or attack a political candidate or even to apologize to New Yorkers, but to brazenly recast himself as the victim of politically motivated “attacks.”

Really? He’s the victim? Whaddaya think, Doc – is this guy delusional or what?

– Litigious James

Dear Litigious,

Yeah, I’d put delusional pretty much at the top of my bingo card.

The Times piece says the 30-second spot “splices together recent news snippets in an attempt to misleadingly convince New Yorkers that the entire misconduct case assembled by the state attorney general, Letitia James, against Mr. Cuomo had crumbled since he left office in August.”

See for yourself.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo’s rehab effort has gone over like the metric system. A big  part of the backlash can be traced to one simple fact: The ad’s argument is dismissible out of hand, as multiple news organizations have noted.

Point #1: Far from clearing him, several prosecutors, while declining to bring criminal charges, found the allegations of Cuomo’s harassment and groping “credible.”

Point #2: The New York State Assembly, which conducted its own investigation, reported that “Former Governor Cuomo engaged in multiple instances of sexual harassment, including by creating a hostile work environment and engaging in sexual misconduct.” In fact,  the lawmakers were on the verge of impeaching Cuomo when he resigned.

As for the other parties involved in bringing the pain to Cuomo, we’ll let this statement by a spokeswoman for Attorney General Letitia James, who investigated the charges against Cuomo at his request, speak for them all.

“The only thing Andrew Cuomo has proven himself to be is a serial sexual harasser and a threat to women in the workplace — no TV ad can change that. “It’s shameful that after multiple investigations found Cuomo’s victims to be credible, he continues to attack their accounts rather than take responsibility for his own actions.”

Cuomo still has $16.4 million in his campaign war chest, but even that might not be enough to renovate his image, given a recent public opinion poll cited in the Times piece.

A Siena College poll released last week showed that 80 percent of registered voters think Mr. Cuomo was right to resign, and 58 percent believe the allegations that he sexually harassed multiple aides. Only 25 percent of voters said that he had been vindicated by the disclosures that Mr. Cuomo’s lawyers have used to try to undermine several of his accusers.

Eight in ten voters say “good riddance”? The Doc’s prescription is, find another line of work.

Are Peleton’s Wildly Expensive Newspaper Ads an Exercise in Futility?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and slogging through the Sunday New York Times (there really should be a federal subsidy for that, don’t you think?) when I came across this half-page ad.

That was followed by two more half-page Peloton ads and a full-page one – all in the Times A section, which on Sunday is the Ritz Carlton of advertising venues.

Here’s the thing, Doc: A woman I know – smart, well-read, beautiful – saw one of Peleton’s ads in the Times and this is all that registered with her.

Do Peloton’s ad people have any idea how real people see advertisements? I have my doubts.

– Peletone-Deaf?

Dear Peletone-Deaf,

For those of you keeping score at home, here are the other Peleton ads in Sunday’s Times.

A similar quartet of ads ran in Saturday’s Times and the Weekend Wall Street Journal.

As Phoebe Bain wrote in Marketing Brew earlier this month, “Between high supply and low customer acquisition, the brand’s marketing department is ‘under pressure to deliver,’ per Ad Age. Experts told the pub that fewer pricey campaigns and more investment in brand loyalists could be the company’s best plan of attack.”

Coincidentally, Monday’s Times featured an interview with new Peleton CEO Barry McCarthy – conducted by the paper’s DealBook macher Andrew Ross Sorkin and reporter Lauren Hirsch – in which McCarthy, the former chief financial officer of Spotify and Netflix, predictably came across as ten pounds of bravado in a five-pound bag.

As for the Peleton print ads, Peter Adams at Marketing Dive reported that “Peloton is pushing a new advertising campaign that includes testimonials from customers who were initially skeptical of the connected fitness brand but have since become loyal converts.”

Peloton’s latest ad campaign isn’t subtle. The marketer is throwing a spotlight on customers who have doubted it in the past but are now devoted to fitness regimens run through its connected bike and treadmill products. The implication is that Peloton will be able to weather its current headwinds based on its ability to foster long-term loyalty. Its services now wield about 6.6 million subscribers.

“This campaign is leading with the unvarnished voices of our members at a time of heightened skepticism because nothing is sharper than the truth,” said Dara Treseder, chief marketing officer of Peloton, in a press statement.

Those unvarnished voices, however, are not unanimous, as the Marketing Dive piece noted.

Posts on social media go deeper in profiling individual users who improved their lives thanks to Peloton. But digging into the comments reveals plenty of frustrated customers as well. Several Instagram users took the campaign as an opportunity to complain about no-show deliveries, issues with scheduling repairs on bikes and other technical issues — potential signs of the marketer’s broader operational issues.

Sounds like Peleton’s print campaign might turn out to be an overpriced coat rack.

Ride on . . .

How Many Full-Page Cartier Ads Does It Take to Buy the New York Times?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads.

There I was, minding my own business and working my way through the Sunday New York Times (there really should be a federal subsidy for that, don’t you think?) when I realized that the paper contained an inordinate number of full-page ads for Cartier, the posh jewelry store in the Big Town.

Not only was there a four-page Cartier wrapper around yesterday’s edition of the Times, there were also full-page Cartier ads on the back page of every section of the paper.

What’s going on here, Doc?

– Diamond Errings?

Dear Diamond,

You’re right – it was Cartier Blanche in yesterday’s Times. In addition to that four-page wrapper, the Grey Lady was bejeweled with at least, by the Doc’s count, nine full-page Cartier ads, not to mention this footer ad on Page One.

 

 

There was also this ad in the A section.

 

 

And this ad in the Sports section.

 

 

And this ad in the Business section.

 

 

And etc.

Cartier also annexed the Times website yesterday.

 

 

And don’t forget: A Cartier native ad is your most important accessory.

But wait – there’s more, via Andrew Salomon’s Twitter feed.

 

 

As our kissin’ cousins at Sneak Attack noted a few years ago, New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet is unconcerned about advertisers coopting editorial content.

[Baquet] said that nothing has changed with regard to the advertising division’s relations with the editorial operation, which has always made its own decisions about coverage.

The difference today, he said, is that questions about the appropriate line between business and editorial come up more often. “In the print era, you created something. It worked or didn’t work,” he said. “Now, we’re in an era where those conversations happen more frequently and we have to move faster.”

Translation: The traditional Chinese Wall that separated advertising and editorial has turned into the Berlin Wall – knocked down and sold off brick by brick.

What’s With All Those Trombones in the New York Times Full-Page Ads?

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

So there I was minding my own business and working my way through the Sunday New York Times (for which there should be some sort of federal subsidy, don’t you think?) when I came across this two-page ad in the A section.

 

As far as I can tell, that double-truck had to cost at least $300,000. So why would the Winter Garden Theatre spend that much money to advertise, kind of, nothing?

– Womp Womp

Dear Womp Womp,

The Doc gets it – who has time to chase down teaser ads in this day and age, amirite?

Actually, the Doc does, given the slow pace of letters pouring into the old mailbag.

So we checked with that bastion of Broadway, Playbill:

Two-time Tony, Grammy, and Emmy winner Hugh Jackman will make his highly anticipated return to Broadway as Professor Harold Hill in Meredith Willson’s beloved classic, The Music Man. Two-time Tony-winning superstar Sutton Foster will star as Marian Paroo. The production, directed by four-time Tony winner Jerry Zaks, with choreography by Tony winner Warren Carlyle, will begin performances on Dec. 20, 2021, and officially open on Feb. 10, 2022.

Wear a mask, yeah?

P.S. There are 76 trombones in the ad, for those of you keeping score at home.