I started my goofing off day with a college basketball game. Yea, total couch potato bliss until the first popup covered the score. Not all my anger was directed at the mere presence of the popup, some was saved for the content of the ad. A Ford F-150 pickup image plus some blah blah message. My first thought was Ford sued Ferrari. Not a thought about the truck.Of course I tweeted my thoughts.

Naturally Official Formula One had nothing to say but the news media had a field day. From the BBC News

I saw a press release from Sears that they launched an online platform for local Chicago-area merchants to sell their products and merchandise. Supposedly, local “mom and pop” shops can sell their products on Sears.com to help increase business for them and help the local economy stay competitive.

It sounds all good and all, but doesn’t this platform sound familiar ala Amazon.com and eBay.com? Both Amazon and eBay allow local merchants and even individual people sell used and “new” products online all the time. This has been happening for about a decade now.

When I told my fellow bloggers about this, they all agreed. This platform has been done to death and nothing is new about a third party store (or individual) selling products on a large retail website.

He's been mocked by Russell Howard, he's been at the school protest, he's been spotted at the news report of a building fire in Peckham, he's been seen laying down flowers at the memorial of victims of the 7/7 attack. People thought he might be viral marketing for something - after all, we're used to it now with faceless people and such. Maybe he was like the Observer pointing to the pattern in Fringe - this might even explain why the man only owns one pale skin-colored shirt. Blogs like Fidgetwith collected screenshots of his appearances.

Well, his name is Paul Yarrow and he's now been interviewed in London Evening Standard, by the BBC and even become the star of the flash game "Kick the news stalker".

You know, a good friend of mine actually told me about the Jen Cassetty fitness app that's free for download on the iPhone.

At first, thought it was a marketing ploy (he's a publicist) since the app is still in its early stages. The app, created by a NYC Fitness trainer at Crunch Gym, was designed to offer clients 24/7 access to her. Whether her clients were in Tokyo, LA, Miami or Japan, the app allowed them to see her fitness tweets, videos on Facebook and nutrition advice.

Again -- I'm thinking it's nothing but a marketing tool to promote this trainer. How can tweets and Facebook videos motivate clients without having a physical trainer present?

It's been clear for quite some time that we don't fancy PETA ads around here. Nudity for attentions sake is nothing but a cheap trick that PETA loves to employ. What's more, PETA are deceptive in both their advertising and the origins of the creative ads, for example that "hot dinner" vegetarian ad with the sexy food isn't an original PETA rejected from the 2002 superbowl, but an ad created by the Vegetarian Society UK in 1998 - caffeinegoddess busted that fib wide open years ago.

We can argue wether using sexy and misogynist images to get attention is justifiable in the comments, that's half the fun. You'd think that when PETA are acutely aware of the link between animal cruelty and domestic abuse, they might consider what their own images of women are doing in the big picture. We do know that their tactics seem successful, with PETA being one of the world largest animal rights organisation with 2,000,000 members (according to the wikipedia), and that when they push the right "offend" button their press coverage is all over the place like radiation. Once can argue that I am contributing to the success of this strategy right now by posting this list. Sue me.

I'm curious though, when the tactic isn't "offend everybody on the planet", as was done when they compared the decapitation on a Manitoba Greyhound bus to slaughtering chickens, and when they likened the meat industry to the holocaust, PETA seems to concentrate on "offend women". PETA doesn't even seem to like transgendered women, nor fat women. What's with the hate for human females, PETA?

While PETA claim they never threw red paint on fur clad women, anti-fur people did. Yet nobody entered a biker bar to complain abut their use of leather in clothing. That joke writes itself.

Scam ads have been popping up everywhere like mushrooms lately, the award shows One Show and the D&AD have laid down new playing rules and then, Niel French is defending them at the Spikes Asia Festival, of course he does. He is the king of controversy after all, and some say the King of Scam ads (please know that the Dark Beer campaign is not a scam campaign).

He also defended scam ads ("I don't mind kids trying hard and cheating and lying to get to the top") and lamented that the quality of ad creative this year leaves much to be desired. "It's gone down everywhere, not just here," Mr. French said, a sentiment echoed by many delegates, including John Merrifield, TBWA's Singapore-based creative at large.

You can say a lot about French, but you can't say that he wavers, he had these very same opinions eight years ago when he spoke to HK magazine. *

Mr French upped the ante when he said “Who cares if a few scam ads win awards? It’s not the Olympics. It’s just a game a side-show”

You'd think the posse at Grey and the startup rocket GoViral would have a bigger clue when it came to virals, but alas the Karen26 hoopla has shown that they forgot the basics.

My previous posts on Karen: Karen26 the Danish mother seeking is actually Ditte Arnth which has been retweeted like mad under the tag #Karen26.

More quotes and the video is here in a later update when VisitDenmark decided to remove the video from youtube: Karen26 - Karen in Denmark seeking August's father - (2009) (Denmark)

Bah, I knew it, I forgot to add this fine collection of Evony ads to my sexist ads rant. Coding horror has archived the campaign as it evolved or rather devolved, from showing some knight and asking you to play to showing plain old boobage and asking you to play.

Not only do Evony ads use the shotgun approach to targeting, this campaign has been hard to avoid as it pops up on anything from news sites to knitting sites, and it's impossible to remove from ones adsense. I've tried blocking them from appearing here on the grounds of good taste, but their landing URL changes more often than I get a cup of coffee. So the campaign was already annoying me when it only had a knight in it, then the princesses were trotted out, one with deeper cleavage than the other, then finally they cut out the whole illustration theme all together and went close-cropped on a set of lace clad boobies. It's almost as if the marketing department got sarcastic. Click you guys! C'mon! I'm not sure what annoys me the most about this campaign, the ugly, the boobs, or the fact that google adsense makes it nearly impossible to control what ads your sites serves despite their insistence of the opposite.

Someone in the Metafilter thread "Halp your queens boobs mylord" had to pull out the "it's working because we're talking about it" card. Talking about Evony is not the objective, the objective is to get signups and people who play the game.

"Advertising didn't mix sex up with our daily lives. The great Marketeer in the sky did that"
-- Barry Brooks

See this ad to above Presumably, a real ad from a bygone era, but with a message about wives and household appliances so firmly entrenched in our collective consciousness that the Superficial writer uses it for comedic effect as he drools over Mary Louise Parker from the HBO show "Weeds" posing nude in a kitchen: "Now, I don't want to be one of those chauvinistic guys who says a woman's place is in the kitchen, but this is definitely the way to get a man to buy you something nice. Like a toaster oven. Or that frying pan you've got your eye on."
(btw - I've already mocked how HBO sells that show by slipping into something uncomfortable)

Friday last week moreonion blogged Sex, Stereotypes and advertisement -

The funniest part is that most advertisers claim that their advertisement works. When talking about values that are communicated through their ads you're likely to hear that they don't have that much of an impact.

And there he hits the nail on the head. I keep repeating this but I firmly believe and the power of advertising. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't think that any sort of raising issue awareness advertising could ever work, from Greenpeace to Unicef, Red Cross to Amnesty - but I have created ads that have changed peoples perceptions of things, and I know that advertising does work. I've also helped trot out an entire generation of children in diapers but that's the other side of the same coin. (Babies wear diapers, not children, see comments). Advertising has this funny way of dodging its otherwise so proudly touted effectiveness as soon as someone pins fat children or anorexic teens on it.

Google image search for sexist ads, and you'll find plenty of examples, old as well as new. Even ads aimed at ad(men) show quite a bit of cleavage, it's as if some adpups just don't know how to tell a story without breaking out the cookie-cutter stereotypes. I've said it before, sexist ads are bad for everyone, not least our collective imagination. Media is a powerful speaker and feeding junk into it which screams louder for each turn only creates a feedback loop that amplifies as we go round and round.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and advertising. Bear with me, I know we all sell the product on the best of its virtues, and nobody in advertising aims to be dishonest really, there are even a whole bunch of laws that keep advertisers in line so we can't say something idiotic like beer makes you loose weight, but when it comes to political propaganda in the United States, that's a whole 'nother ballgame.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM - as in nom nom nom, that cracks me up right there) have created this fabulous piece of perfect propaganda. As any attentive ad student knows, the best tactic in propaganda is to spread FUD, and this one does it in spades. Watch.

Lets break that down, shall we?

"I'm part of a NJ church group punished by the government because we can't support same-sex marriage..."
You are The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association which is a religious ministry, not a church, and you have a large chunk of beach and boardwalk which you've obtained an exemption from state property tax for by arguing that it is open to the public. When a you denied a civil union ceremony to be held there, the courts slapped your hand because you can not restrict access public land, it has to be open to everyone or it's not public. Ya dig? Had it been private land, it would have been a whole different ballgame, think about that next time you file for your $500,000 annual property tax exemption for having public land.

"I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job..."
Last year Guadalupe Benitez wondered - when does freedom to practice religion become discrimination? She took her question to court, after having been refused treatment on religious grounds, and you can see the courts ruling here (pdf). In conclusion: Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no. This case was about artificial insemination, not marriage. If the doctor had religious objections to treating people of color, would you sympathize?

"I'm a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is OK..."
They mean David Parker - the dad that was arrested for refusing to leave his sons school until they agreed to not show his son books like ''Who's In a Family?" by Robert Skutch. The book does not discuss gay marriage but different family structures such as a lioness and cub, the single father and children, grandma and her grandchildren, couples and their pets, two moms and their child, etc. The rights of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school can teach the children. In school they may learn about the big bang theory, which may contradict the parent's religious beliefs. They will learn about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where hippie-words like brotherhood are thrown around and no person should be subject to discrimination is the main point. This does not violate the parents First Amendment right to exercise their religion, and a judge has even said so in an earlier case about a safe sex (AIDS) education film being shown in public schools. David Parker's appeal to the supreme court was denied (pdf): "In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation."

"My freedom, will be taken away..."
Because if you go outside you'll catch the gay amirite?

"But we have hope.. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together....."

Rainbow what? Right, now your writer is just messing with you guys.

Do not miss the bonus inside - the auditions for this commercial!

Much has happened since I posted If copyright infringement is the poison, copyright registry is the contamination, for one thing Randy Taylor from C-Registry.us got involved in the thread over at Burns Auto Parts blog eager to correct the mistakes in their Terms & Conditions. Kudos. Then Leslie posted in Copyright Registry fixes ;

After hearing the hue and cry of the photographer community, the Copyright Registry has made significant changes to their copy and contract terms. I think we, as a community should applaud these changes and the spirit in which they were made.

I hope I'm not mistaken for one of those unreasonable folks that digs in their heels but I still want everyone to think about the orphan rights act (which doesn't exist) for a moment. The 2006 version was stopped by protests led by the Illustrators Partnership, and the 2008 version died on the steps to the house. If we for a moment ignore the massive protests from the artist community in the United States against this proposed US law, lets think about the global law, that is The Berne Convention, and ponder where this idea fits in it. [....moment] I'm done, it doesn't.

164 countries have agreed upon the idea that copyright is a passive act, that is once you create something it is copyrighted by you, and it is up to would-be-users of your copyrighted works to seek out permission for use. This works because it is simple, as an artist explained it back in 2006 “If you find a creative work, you may not know who created it, but you know you didn’t.” - and it's democratic, your holiday snapshots enjoy the same protection as Kevin Carter's famine photographs from Sudan.

The US had a different idea back in the day, they wanted people to actively seek protection for copyrighted works by registering at the copyright office, and only joined the Universal Copyright Convention (pdf link) back in 1952. It was developed by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as an alternative for the states that disagreed with some aspects of the Berne Convention, but still wanted to participate multilateral copyright protection. Eventually the United States became willing to participate in the Berne convention and joined in 1989 - only to consider laws that go directly against the basic principal of it twenty odd years later. You can't have it both ways. Lets be frank here, what the proposed law will be most effective in doing is making sure that unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment it's created if it is not registered (in the US).

Where would this leave non US artists works in the legal mess this seems to create? European citizens create work in Europe and have it "orphaned" in the United States because, lets face it, registering work is both a huge time sucker and money pit, but also why should an artist whose work is protected by the Berne Convention have to?

The professional photographers over at EPUK called the US Orphan Works Act "Uncle Sams Theives Charter" for a reason.

So, while c-registery.us do their best to amend their TOS, I still don't think registering your work before a law even exists is a good idea. But that's of course, entirely up to you.

(if you're interested, there's plenty more posts regarding copyright here on adland from all sorts of angles - for example since Gawker's disclaimer mentioned the Leslie Kelly, et al. v. Arriba Soft Corp. case, I had a short chat with Leslie A. Kelly about copyrights)

GM, the company that has borrowed billion of dollars from the US government, are now sneakily using commercials artists as their banks as well. They have officially stopped paying advances for photoshoot: "The new terms say GM will "typically" pay ad agencies within 60 to 75 days of an invoice, who will then pay the photographer (or "vendor")"
 

Oh gee, I can lend GM a buttload of interest free cash right as they're on the brink of dying? Where do I sign up? They're asking commercials artists (directors and photographers) to pay for the production out of pocket, with no advance for expenses, basically bankrolling the project for the client. I'd sooner lend a shop-o-holic my credit card.
 

Matt Miller, president/CEO of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), told Shootonline: in "Brother, Can You Spare 60 Days?"
"... while it might seem simplistic, we thought it was important to explain to everybody the basics of good business, that cash flow is essential and you have to make sure that you stay solvent. Otherwise you can jeopardize not only your company but the entire business. Labor costs have to be paid in a timely manner and other costs cannot be strung out. For production companies fronting large sums of money, what's worse than getting one GM job is to get two."
 

It is not just GM doing this now, even Omnicom passes the buck: It has been brought to the attention of the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) that the Omnicom Group, the world’s largest advertising agency holding company, has changed its terms and conditions in an effort to limit their agency liability and in so doing transfer that liability to independent photographers and producers. Basically, by disclosing their agency status and for whom they are acting, the advertising agency is only liable to the extent that their client has specifically paid them for any amounts payable to you. Additionally, ASMP has been informed that reps are being told that there will no longer be any advances on assignments.
 

We're used to it, sure we've all seen these types of offers like the "funny because it's true" take found on Craigslist: If you jump through the numerous demoralizing and moronic hoops we set before you while being dramatically under compensated we will surely spread the word to our other parasitic merchant contemporaries that you are willing to be treated like a sucker. - and with orphan works, and rights grabs becoming more common, suddenly mom's advice about getting a "real job" at a bank seems solid. Except of course for minor detail that it is those top people who worked at banks that mucked up the economy to begin with. Producing something for pay just doesn't pay. Watch as more clients rush to use creative commons licensed Flickr images because "They're free", forgetting that the image is but one part of the work that you pay a professional photographer for. Pro people have model releases, duh.
 

If all this is happening to production houses and photographers, ad agencies are not immune. While the bigwigs such as Omnicom can try and pass the buck, where does it leave smaller agencies who work on the crumbs falling off the big pie? Not to mention it does not bode well for individual creatives, how many can an agency afford to keep on and where will the ones let go, go?

Some people are skilled at getting the word out, so skilled that their unlaunched site http://ifwerantheworld.com/ gets written up in Wired here: How Altruism and Advertising Could Change the World. Cindy Gallop former global marketing chief and U.S. chairman for creative icon BBH and Wendell Davis former Splice and Zooomr CEO put their heads together and came up with the idea of a site that convert intent into action, making activism easy and sponsored by advertising. And like everyone else, they even have a twitter account; IWRTW.

Now, being a Gemini I have conversations with myself on a daily basis (because the answers are so good) so here is snap of what my brain was saying as it read the article:

ProBrain: This is great, you can look up what your care about and instead of joining a stupid FaceBook group which is about as useful as slapping a bumper sticker on your car, you get a small task to do and can help.

ConBrain: Seen it. socialactions.com and theextraordinaries.com and cellphonewise worldchanging.com are doing it already and youknow, they actually launched their sites too. Fancy that. There's even similar local ones, like the canadian Urbantastic.

Remember way back in 2003? Coke still doesn't get it - Julmust rules.
Yes, it's that time of year again. And Coke is selling us christmas again. For those who can read Swedish, Kontaktmannen is also ranting about this, with a few well chosen swearwords this year "Släpp musten för i helvete". Because yes, Coke still doesn't get it and they're still trying to make Coke synonymous with Jul in Sweden. As kontaktmannen so eloquently puts his point - Coke is the most drunk soft drink for 365 days, how can you even expect that this will suddenly be synonymous to an Xmas feeling, which most people only have for two weeks a year ? (And how do you become synonymous with christmas when you're synonymous with summer fun love, friendship, cinemas and whatever else?)

That's so true, whenever I see the new ad (Thanks Coke for shutting down the re-run of that horrid christmas trucks commercial we've seen every year since 1989), I shudder for two reasons. One, there's a flippin' world war style B-52 airplane dumping boxes of Coke over small Swiss looking towns. That's just creepy. I really don't like the connotations this brings up. Is it like that bomber that flew over east Berlin and dropped chocolate for the kids, if so what is Coke saying about Europe in general here? We're stuck in commie-land and only US Coke will help us? The symbolism is likely not even spotted by an American but over here it's borderline offensive.
Then, Coke is the hero in the ad, gleeful happy people holler "It's Christmas!" when a coke vending machine turns on and they can drink that brown softdrink... that .. they can drink all other times of the year. WTF? That makes no sense in a country where I throw myself at the first bottle of Julmust available only in late November. These bottles are not in the supermarket the rest of the year, so when you see them, it really means "holy shit it's Christmas!". You can't copy that when you crud is available all year round. No matter how many jolly santas that you put on the bottle. Coke even tried for a few years to make their own Julmust, with the very Swedish looking label and name "Bjäre julmust", but Swedes didn't fall for it, last year it was only available at McDonald's and this year they didn't bother making it at all.

But then, In the UK it seems to be going well, there some fool want to save the trucks, that is see that naff trucks advert every year until forever. That's my version of hell, folks. Coca Cola Christmas Commercial 2008 "It's Christmas" is available inside folks.

Twitter update: People are twittering to #Coke that julmust rules or "Leave Julmust alone!"

If you fancy, this post has a soundtrack. Feel free to tune into 21 tracks 87 minutes of girls rocking harder to set the mood.

Do check that article out, and watch how the comments immediately go straight into the usual arguing "but men are portrayed as doofuses/inept/helpless in advertising too" gender-war. It derails fast. You can practically play gender-stereotypes-in-advertising-arguing-bingo with the comments as the first thing I see is the Diet Coke women ogling men ad mentioned. BINGO! What do I win? Please let it be a red Ferrari.

Lets get one thing straight off the bat: two wrongs don't make a right - applying a negative behavior equally still does not justify the behavior. Stereotypes are bad all around - all of them. The women as object for the male gaze as well as the dad is a doofus are equally crap. Nobody wins. We clear on this?

Now, something really grates me when I see those comments rolling in - I've see them all before and filled in all my bingo-cards - every time someone writes an article about how sexist advertising can be against women, comments about how men are portrayed in ads take over the threads like Kudzu. Quelling a females complaints about the male oppression seen in ads, with "we get it too - I am also oppressed, boo HOO!" is just another way to silence women's critique of society and reinforce gender norms. You guys have problems BIGGER than mine, as usual. Ain't that grand?

You can practically set watches by this, someone writes about misogynist or sexist advertising and how it affects females, and some (presumably) men immediately jump in and complain about the dad-is-a-doofus stereotype they have to endure when watching advertising. See what you did there guys? You made it about men again. I can picture you at the breakfast table with yanking your little sisters hair yelling "But MooOOom, she started it!".

Last week was a bit of colossal Microsoft mess wasn't it? We barely had to to pick our jaws up from the floor after seeing the Seinfeld & Gates "simple life" ads before they were yanked and replaced with the biggest "meh" testimonial ad you've ever seen.

While it looked hopeful for a moment - perhaps as Backman suggested the "Hodgman takeoff is the best idea they've had in a long time". But then Microsoft used the Hodgman PC guy from the Mac ads to make a point in the wrong way, big mistake.
There are a few rules of advertising - most which we break every day - but one you shouldn't mess with: When you are #1 in a segment you never ever mention the competition: You are not Avis, Microsoft - you are the biggest software company on the planet. Don't let some Apple-ad envy get to you. Look at other Microsoft campaigns at home to see how you do actually do some things right, even I want an X-box now (I even said so in the Metro paper) and those Zune's are looking mighty tempting too.

Lets face it, Microsoft can not make an all white clean crisp campaign like the "Mac vs PC" one for one simple reason - Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a soft+hardware company. They control the entire box. Of course you'll rarely have bugs appearing when a control freak makes sure their software runs on hardware they have chosen. Any operating system from Microsoft has to be designed for countless possibilities, and try to work on older hardware and any quirks appearing will be blamed on the software itself and not on the shit piece of hardware you bought or the fact that you need to figure out which drivers you need to make your peripherals play nice with it. Comparing Apple to Microsoft is like comparing a restaurant to a supermarket. You could in fact end up with the same dinner from both places if you had the skill set - but they are not selling the same thing. Pretending that they do has been the consistent mistake in Microsoft's advertising for years.

Then PC world reported that the 'I'm a PC' Ads were made on macs - someone get them a Pulitzer! Of course they frickin' were - they were made at an ad agency weren't they? I dare you to find a more mac-friendly environment. Macs reign supreme in the design and advertising space of the business world because way back in March 1985, the Apple LaserWriter was the first printer to ship with Adobe PostScript - so macs were the machines that ran the DTP revolution. We're a loyal bunch and as long as the Macs keep winning D&AD design awards, we will be decorating our offices with the pretty machines. But then we go home at night and play with our X-box.

The brag-gag-alific press release from Fletched Martin says:

QSR Publicity Stunt Gives Appearance that People on Billboards are “Thinking Arby’s”

ATLANTA (September 19, 2008) – Fletcher Martin, a fully integrated marketing communications agency, caught drivers’ attention during the evening rush hour in Atlanta Thursday with a unique publicity stunt.

The agency, which represents Arby’s, placed large helium balloons with the Arby’s logo near billboards that prominently featured people’s faces. The stunt gave the illusion the people on the billboard were “Thinking Arby’s” as seen in the popular television ads where the Arby’s hat appears above people’s heads.
[snip]

What a cheap way to get some attention, and Arby's was behind that? Can't buy your own media space guys? Wow, the US economy must be worse than I thought. Wonder what the people who paid to be on those billboards thought of the stunt, not to mention the billboard owners (in this case the owner looks to be CBS?). Don't get me wrong, the idea is kind of cute, it would benefit from having a "thought bubble shaped" ballon but my guess is Arby's could not afford even novelty shapes. Whenever I see big brands do cheap shit they strike me as stingy - I hope they aren't cutting corners like that when they prepare food. "Arby's, where the meat fell off the back of a truck yesterday." or "Arby's, where everyone is paid below minimum wage because we're stingy bastards", yeah that seems about right. Honestly, big brands can buy their own media and ad creep creeps people out.

"Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising."

Advertising is life made to look larger than life, through images and words that promise a wish fulfilled, a dream come true, a problem solved. Even Viagra follows Mark Twain's keen observation about advertising. The worst kind of advertising exaggerates to get your attention, the best, gets your attention without exaggeration. It simply states a fact or reveals an emotional need, then lets you make the leap from "small to large." Examples of the worst: before-and-after photos for weight loss products and cosmetic surgery-both descend to almost comic disbelief. The best: Apple's "silhouette" campaign for iPod and the breakthrough ads featuring Eminem-both catapult iPod to "instant cool" status.

"When in doubt, tell the truth."

Today's advertising is full of gimmicks. They relentlessly hang on to a product like a ball and chain, keeping it from moving swiftly ahead of the competition, preventing any real communication of benefits or impetus to buy. The thinking is, if the gimmick is outrageous or silly enough, it's got to at least get their attention. Local car dealer ads are probably the worst offenders - using zoo animals, sledgehammers, clowns, bikini-clad models, anything unrelated to the product's real benefit. If the people who thought up these outrageous gimmicks spent half their energy just sticking to the product's real benefits and buying motivators, they'd have a great ad. What they don't realize is, they already have a lot to work with without resorting to gimmicks. There's the product with all its benefits, the brand, which undoubtedly they've spent money to promote, the competition and its weaknesses, and two powerful buying motivators-fear of loss and promise of gain. In other words, all you really have to do is tell the truth about your product and be honest about your customers' wants and needs. Of course, sometimes that's not so easy. You have to do some digging to find out what you customers really want, what your competition has to offer them, and why your product is better.

Radar online has an article called: VIRAL STRAIN 2008 is shaping up to be a bad year for guerrilla advertising and even that headline bothers me. Viral and Guerilla is not even close the same thing, leave it to the ad-amateurs to get these two confused. Then the article starts with "2007 was the year when so-called "guerrilla advertising," or "viral marketing," made its national debut. " Oh puh-lease, was the writer born in 2007? Neither guerilla advertising nor viral advertising is that young, the first exposed viral campaign here is from 2000, though offline virals have been created since 1987 (for Apple mac - look it up), and guerilla advertising goes way back to the days when I was still preoccupied with learning how to walk. That's a long time ago, folks.

Now, the whole "spec work/portfolio work" floating around the web syndrome isn't great for the industry - you all know this don't you? We were just chatting about it in Spec work going around the web as real ads - is there any way to stop that? Should we even try? where the AD behind the outrageous Toyota Prius campaign at least credited a fake agency. But here, Sunil Sinbad seems to have found an ad produced by McCann India (according to credits) for Benetton. See Sunil's post here where he contacts Benetton to get their comment on the campaign. Benetton's spokeperson Jill explains that they had nothing to do with this ad, but then she adds that she hasn't asked McCann if they created it either. Seriously where is your head at if you are a legit multinational ad agency and you make fake ads for clients that you never had? Oh, I know, in the same place as DPZ Propaganda of Brazil's was a few years back. Cannes lions are that tempting. fake it til you make it, they say.

The Benetton campaign was originally found here.