Yeas & Nays: II

the site, adrants review, re: whore diamonds.
Riot saith: NAY!
this is revolting on so very many levels--and probably none of the ones you're thinking of, either. Two cents from Sam Elhag, head of strategy for Drunk University Network: "We don't feel that only politicians and Emperors Club members should have an exclusive on rating today's generation of working girls. This opens up the process to the masses. Who knows, a 'five diamond' girl to a Spitzer may only be a 'three diamond' to the rest of the world." ...is the rest of the world buying?? i don't care what YOU think about this woman. YOU are (likely) not going to employ her. this is NOT a democracy; it's a business. you shouldn't be able to vote on how hot a "whore" is unless you're spending money on her or one of her colleagues. you could be hurting her sales simply because a bunch of numb nuts decided they don't like her nose, when she was making fine sales before--and now someone with money won't buy her for fear of what a hundred anonymous internet geeks will think of them for it. this is not Hot-or-Not. these aren't candids, this isn't Girls Gone Wild (don't get me started there). she is not your girlfriend, even if you paid her to be. if this is what it says it is, this is about employment, not your latest social network where you get to degrade women and their choices or situations. shame on you. go watch porn. at least you pay for that. on a side note, do these women get to opt-in to be on the site? that's also relevant. if they don't get a choice, it's worse. if they do, perhaps it helps the sales of lesser-known women? i am trying to see how this could be empowering, and i just don't.

cnet, eff, re: Universal.
Riot saith: YEA!
you go, EFF. i just don't understand how out of hand the record labels can get over this sort of stuff. Lenz was not selling her YouTube video. she didn't even show the full song. are we as humans supposed to never interact with the products you convince us to buy? she can own a Prince CD but she can't video her kid dancing to it and share it with her family and friends, who might also find the child somewhat adorable when dancing to Prince? it's not like Lenz is making DVD copies and selling them on eBay under the title 'Beborn Baby Prince' or something. ye gods. at least it's back on YouTube, the whiny brats. if record labels want to win people back, making us pissed off at you isn't the way to do it.

the site, adage review, re: Heineken
Riot saith: NAY!
wow. talk about shitty. that song is really, really annoying. the syncing of the images doesn't flow with the music, either. the cuts feel off and forced. some of it is really nonsensical. a ballerina serving beer to a sauna full of old guys? right. some of these situations i buy, and some i don't, at all. i don't feel united, or even happy. i feel like the spot instead grated on my nerves and took away my last interest in Heineken (which wasn't that great to begin with, so you didn't sell me on it). i don't think the heart of the issue is "get drunk" versus "pay it forward"--i just think the ad fails to relate to anyone currently. a better idea would have been to take where sharing beer is relevant: different party scenes (bachelor's, reunions, birthdays, etc) and show buying a round and celebrating. that's what we do, right? eat, drink, and be merry? bring in some more merry and less kumbaya.

full circle, 2 of 2: 2.0 literacy & literature

i forget how, exactly, or rather who, first tweeted me about @smallplaces, but i figured it was worth a look. "small places" is to my knowledge the first Twitter-book. it's a novel(la?) written via continuous tweets, and the followers can read at their leisure.

this is not for interacting. it's a 'bestseller' straight to your phone (or browser, as the case may be). in this way, just as the book was revolutionary for its time, and now internet has revolutionized communication, the two have met in realtime.

as a student of the history of the book, and as a 'digital native,' i figure it's my duty to give my two cents on the matter.

1] it's a really cool idea, otherwise i wouldn't have followed.
2] it is an essentially flawed idea, as i'm discovering.

POSITIVES
> it seems to at once take on what the internet can do for literacy and novel expression, and,
> it also seems to pick up where Palahniuk left off, with the desire to tell a story through slips of scenes, the heart of the matter; to try to express through minimalism but still move the reader.
[don't know what i mean? read the Afterword in a post-95 copy of Fight Club. thank me later.]

NEGATIVES
> unless i'm hooked up 24/7, i lose part of the story.
> the story moves slowly due to the 140 char limit.
..."i tie my shoes." "i shut the door and walk." etc.
[this does not belittle the story itself; i think it could be an interesting plot.]
> if i don't wish to be hooked up 24/7, it's difficult to read on the smallplaces twitterfeed because it moves in reverse (ie, i have to go "back" however many pages until i found where i last left off).

so, in summary, it's certainly an experiment worth watching. however, the medium may make me unable to follow the story in a cohesive sense. it would be, perhaps, worthwhile to do a chapter a week, and let everyone catch up during the next week, and continuing writing another chapter the week after. or, take a total leaf from Palahniuk by tying in a refrain to ground me in understanding as it moves along. or, craft it in such a way, like House of Leaves, where i don't necessarily have to follow along (well) to appreciate it.

Break in transmission...@smallplaces is a twitter-form novel experiment by @nlbelardes: ABC newsroom twitterer, novelist, human coffeedroid.

full circle, 1 of 2: 2.0 literacy "IRL"

study 1: students say "e-text" isn't writing (CNetNews)

study 2: students use "text speak" in school work (TimesOnline)

funny thing? they're talking about the same study: Pew Internet and American Life Project. so how can, in the same study, it be found that 1) students differentiate between txting and writing, and that differentiation makes them understand the time and place for each, and, 2) that in fact that differentiation means nothing and txting is used within scholarly writing.

"What's at stake here is just the ability to express oneself in more than one register," she said. "As long as children are taught to use the standard spelling and to appreciate the difference between registers, this could even be positive."
(excerpt from Times)

yes yes, i agree. there is no trouble with being "multiliterate"--able to txt-speak and write essays also. the problem here is, why, oh why, would you ever need 'LOL' in your essay? or a smiley face? why would there be a need for this expression in academic writing which a teacher must assess and decipher??

i enjoyed this comment response: "I hope those students who do use abbreviations in their essays receive an unhappy face sticker for their incorrect use of the English language." (Farore, Melbourne, Australia)

hahaha, could you imagine? i'd have been livid to get back a frowny face sticker. what does it MEAN? B-? F? it's almost as ambiguous as "A-/B+" (i hated those with a passion). pick one! oh, the teachers' revenge.

in essence, i think the CNet article about the study got it better; it seems that students believe correct spelling/grammar is vital in the academic sphere as well as central to future success in their careers. however, that doesn't stop the error, every so often, of slipping into "native tongue" (txt speak).
[though i'd still love to know when its usage is called for... "and then atticus finch defended tom robinson at trial, showing the ewells for the liars that they are--LOL!" ?]

and now for something completely different.

okay, that's somewhat of a lie. it's still advertising. it's just different insofar as: i like it. these are two spots i enjoy. more friday viewing. cheers!

[yanked from agencyspy, where i can't comment because i hate registering to do so]

of course it's only airing in europe because our president may pee himself if he ever laid eyes on it. why do i like it? not just because i'm young and 'radical' (though probably that too); i like it because it offers Karis as Karis-the-person, not a story about Karis-as-tranny. it's Karis' voice (we are led to assume) and even if Karis didn't get to write his (pronoun choice based on script identifying himself as a "boy"--if in error, apologies) own material, the first-person voice makes the message more heartfelt, even if the intent was shock value. it even discusses gender issues out loud (like when Karis talks about taking his top off at the end of his routine) and doesn't just stick to a "total queen" talking about how great shaving his legs is and how smooth he feels. in fact, the product isn't even mentioned until the end. thank you, DDB and Tribal London. kudos.

--

another spot i liked... i was watching ESPN Classic last night (don't ask... flipping through, American Gladiator was on, and they were beating one another with those silly oversized cotton swabs. i couldn't help it.) and a spot came on that simply said "these [XX] seconds of silence brought to you by Karako" with some other, limited factual text beneath. it was really effective. definitely made me pause, particularly because i'm not used to hearing silence on the television. enough to make me remember the name of the brand, and, to blog about it. it's likely not the first time someone's done it, but it's the first in a long while that i've seen it. kudos there, as well.

directv, revisited. now, with spot!

thanks to @funincalifweric, i have been supplied with the directv spot that i criti(cized/tiqued?) in this post on monday.

so now, for your friday viewing pleasure, a spot i hate:

but what do i love? conversations. [feed/back]
comment/tweet if you want to tell me why it doesn't suck, or, commiserate with me on its shortcomings.

on these websites everyone keeps talking about

case in point.

i mean, alright. some of us are forgetting functionality a wee bit.

HRP: kudos on the red smoke. it's visually engaging. i like red and grey together, even if it looks like 80 or so images on iStock. but overall, i'm going to go with a no. it is cool that, if i had a webcam, i could navigate your site with my finger (or something). but i don't. and, moreover, it takes for-ever-er to load. i'm already not interested. it's hard to navigate and hard to understand. HRP? sacrifice some art. especially when it's a wee bit s t o c k y.

R/GA and Grey are still stuck somewhere in the span of last year. come on, it's a spring update. how come Grey looks like the bastard lovechild of a smaller, lesser agency and a Gravitron? at least R/GA is visually pleasing in that flashy, fade-in fade-out javascript sort of way. i just feel like it's nothing i haven't seen before. not bad, but not buzzworthy.

Barbarian is interesting insofar as it's different. it holds with content is king, and, as a blogger, i like that. unfortunately, it also reminds me of--well--a blog. and while that's well and good, i also want it to remind me of an advertising agency, which, it currently does not. i'm not saying it needs more images, but i am saying it needs more style. less newspaper, more colour differentiation, perhaps.

and then, of course, there's Modernista. chances are you've seen it already, but if you haven't, be warned: it will appear on top of this page. the reds and pinks will clash. it will be an eye sore. consider yourself warned. that being said. i initially like this. it's new, it's funky, it's integrated, it's sexy. i'm for it. except for the first time, the links didn't work in my browser, so i was left confused. and then, if you scroll down too fast, the M! site hiccups all over the page. 3.5 stars and my fave of the group.

but you know what other site i really like? Zeus Jones. also funky, integrated, and sexy--but in a different way. the word that jumps to mind is "flatter," but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this site's case, i'd argue. and, kind of like the twitpitch, it speaks for itself. i'm for it. click away.

digital natives and the elevator twitpitch

i read this plea to ban employers trawling Facebook some time ago via a link through danah's blog, and while yes, i agreed to an extent, i didn't really think long and hard about it until elevator (twit)pitches arose.

now, i do think twitpitches can be useful. i like the simplicity, the conciseness, the mandate for effectiveness and efficiency. it does not allow for fluff but instead lets the work (ie, a link) do the talking. this is, on the whole, a brilliant idea--especially when aimed toward those who know well enough to craft themselves online; those who know and expect their online 'persona' to affect their working world.

but what about the up-and-coming folks, the "digital natives" as the phrase goes? they were not considering the twitpitch (and all that follows) when they were journaling online at age 13, sneaking into frats at 16, or generally doing "self-exploration" that they may not later wish to admit to (especially when some sites, like Facebook, make it so hard to delete the tracks later on).

as the article i first link to states,
“A world where even a 14-year-old has to think twice before posting an adolescent poem suddenly looks very unappealing and increases the pressure on children and young people to conform to a set of tightly focused adult norms.” (excerpt)

i recently asked my twitter followers this question;
@luckthelady was nice enough to respond, saying that:
To a degree, certainly. I definitely wouldn't hold it against a girl if she got drunk at a frat party, but...
If she's considered to be dishonest, a repeated flake or someone with a bad reputation, it would definitely affect the offer.

do you agree? disagree?
what do you take into account in your employment decision when "e-searching" someone? how well do you expect them to "cover their tracks" (or do you expect at all)? do you think this is unfair to begin with and puts digital natives on an uneven playing field with their more-crafted, older brethren?

and, my question also: how do you determine if someone is a "repeated flake" (for example) online? ie, what if they simply don't check Facebook in particular a lot? or how to measure this over the span of 4 years on Facebook? at what point is social media, aimed at friends, no longer about personal facts but professional representation?

i have questions. i'd be interested in any answers.

oh zappos.com, the heat is on.

not really, i mean, i'm one person.

but i buy a LOT of shoes.
moreover, i spend a lot of money on buying shoes (cheaply).
once, when i was so in love with a pair of shoes, i paid double the price of the amount of the shoe just for shipping--only to repeat the experience when the size received was too big. that wound up being around a two hundred dollar experience, i believe.

so, in short, you want my business.
(you already have my mother's, heh.)

you only carry one brand that i'm a diehard fan of. moreover, you only carry 60 styles, many of which are outdated. but, regardless, i'm a shoe fanatic, and so i found a pair i liked that i didn't already own. only to discover that they are being sold for $56.

now, i realize that your shipping is free--and that is why i had tried hard to find something to purchase. i support that. i also support @zappos and the awesome work Tony is doing via twitter (i will win one of those contests! mark me.)

but why would i buy these shoes from zappos.com when i can buy them usually for around $30 +S&H, which (unless i'm overnighting) does not calculate to $56. i understand i may be paying for the service of indefinite returns until i get my size at no additional cost... but if i know my size and i'm familiar with the brand i'm buying, this does nothing for me. not to mention, you don't even carry delicious.

why are you spreading out to other reaches in accessories and gadgets for the zappos brand before finishing off being the shoe hub that you are?

urban scrawl, eh? try communication.

apparently NYC is getting pissy again--for the third (wave) time--with graffiti. as if there is nothing better to do with taxpayer money.

ironically, i studied graffiti in college. the movement, its relation to hip-hop, its socialization, and its spread. i don't profess to be an expert (i only took a semester, though it was a 400 level, to be fair) but these were some of the take-home messages i remember.

1: back in the day, it was partially a product of people unable to communicate about their surroundings. people were being subjected to, not involved with, their urban environment. with "benign neglect," these people were seen as unimportant, and so when their houses were levelled or burned for insurance profit, there began to be reactions. some of these reactions found their way to where it hurt: the heart of the city. messages on subways that went straight into Penn, were cushy suits had to face facts in bright, bold letters.

2: identity. people tagged because they had been robbed of sense of self. gaining fame by tagging the most outrageous places gave notoriety among people who had been cut off from the "main frame" and, often, from one another. tagging fostered community before there were online social medias in which to do it. artists formed groups. especially when they were caught and forced to do community service to "clean up" what they'd done--sure, they'd clean it, along with 20 other kids who'd also done it. they'd meet others like themselves, form a group, and retag.

3: and, of course, artistic expression. some graff was simple, able to be done by anyone, and in that way it was inclusive to all. others were better artists and painted great, beautiful scenes doing it like any other art form. after the second wave of the battle on graffiti, graff artists were embraced, and some even were asked to perform for NYC museums and have pieces accepted as well. it was this that started the mainstream acceptance of graffiti as a new style of art.

--
things like "It's not art - it's just scribble," he said.
have been echoed for 30 years now. no joke. and yet, it's still here.

i guarantee you that yes, while some might be doing it out of nostalgia and obvious street 'cool factor,' there is also evident in this a sense of digging into one's own roots and embracing one's own cultural past (be that of an area, like Brooklyn, or a heritage, like African American or Latino/a). moreover, if this is NOT an example of that, then perhaps it is time to look into why it is happening. take the suited-up complaints as a hint: who's being ignored now? why? can this be fixed? is there an avenue to support both needs (clean cars and art expression)?

this are the same issues that are dealt with once every decade since it's began.
in one way it's nice to know the conversation is still there.
on the other hand, it's sad to know that no one up "where it counts" is really having the conversation.

[if any of you care a lot about this, and where i'm getting this from, just comment. all of my references are in storage with my school notes, but i know i can name these off the top of my head: style wars (documentary), can't stop won't stop (book that functioned as our textbook). more? just ask. and here's to sean eversley-bradwell, who is a wicked awesome professor.]

a-HA! no wonder i fail at internet dating

not like i was trying in the first place, since i'm in a relationship that was the product of a face-to-face encounter. and no, i'm not bashing. i'm just saying i'd be godawful at internet dating if these are the rules.

last time i checked, names like “fun2bwith” or “i’msweet” made me think a person was hella desperate and had nothing further unique about them other than "i swear i'll adjust my personality to fit yours if you'll only give me a chance."

and “cutie” or “blueeyes” makes me believe you are assuredly not. it's like those sweatpants with "cutie" on your ass. either you look good in them and are trying too hard, or you shouldn't have put them on to begin with. especially because, while i'm all for self-esteem boosting, you can't boost from your bum. or in this case, your username. at some point, the cat will get out of the bag, and i'm skeptical from the get-go.

how names like those ranked at the top of preferred username lists for 'net dating makes me sad. you would rather go on a blind date with 45 guys (or girls) called "sweet4u" or some variation than, say, something USEFUL like... "pomolover" or "kanyerocks" or, hell, anything that tells me you have an opinion on something.

excerpt:
Males daters said they would be less likely to contact screen names such as “wellread” or “welleducated”, although the study found women were more drawn to names that suggested men were cultured.

SOME MALE PLEASE CHIME IN AND DEFEND YOUR XY GENES.
because somehow that does not surprise me.

and yet, while users seem to understand the nature of deceit, ie, "it seems they are well aware people embellish themselves online and it makes them suspicious," in the case of using wealthy usernames like "wealthyandwise", somehow "cutie" and "hotstuff" don't hold up to the same scrutiny?

...yeah, okay.

this is "houseofleaves" signing off.
and KUDOS if you get that reference.

eff you, directv.

speaking of people finding social medias irrelevant, directv is helping along the stereotype that msm is only for "tweens" and can't possibly help your company in the long run. i don't know how long this spot's been running for, but i caught it saturday afternoon.

basically, you enter in on a cable tv board room, as they discuss sales. one of the suits gets really animated and starts talking about how they'll just "get on the 'net" and "blog it up" and how now they have a XX% hike in tween approval.

the directv voiceover is one in which this is looked down on, suggesting the use of directv instead, because they 'really get you' or something. i was too cranky at that point to be able to quote like i can from the previous part.

i'm not saying directv is or is not the sort of brand that can benefit from msm, but their spot annoyed me nonetheless. i couldn't even figure out who exactly their target audience was, other than "not bloggers, not net-savvy people, not teenagers, and not-" a whole bunch of other groups.

[if you can locate the spot, send it my way. i tried.]

Yeas & Nays: I

the site, brandweek, re: Crocs.
Riot saith: NAY!
Brandweek feels that Crocs have lost their 'bite' and i tend to agree. i NEVER liked them. i always thought they were ugly and smelly (literally, they gave the visual impression that because they were plastic, they would smell) and so regardless of supposed comfort i stayed far, far away from the fad. turns out, i wasn't the only person who thought they were ugly. despite making high heeled crocs, people still aren't buying. and guess what? they're still ugly. adding a chunky, "funky" 4 inch heel is not going to fix that.

the site, mtlb review, re: Cadbury.
Riot saith: YEA!
i like the use of exclusivity (you need a password to get into the vault) and how it fosters interaction (the password is somewhere on the site... i haven't had time to find it yet). it also responds to engaged customers by a) posting consumer cadbury commercial remixes, and, b) offering a nifty 'trick out our truck' contest. moreover, in case i don't have the stamina for all the cool mouse-responsive images (nice floating milk glass sculpture!) there's also an html version, which many flash/etc sites tend to forget or forgo. so generally, i say yea to this, even if i'm not quite certain what spawned the link between chocolate and truck racing.

the site, mediapost, re: Sony.
Riot saith: NAY!
i don't care about your "knowledge transfer." i don't care that someone who thought up the "$100,000 professional camera that films the Super Bowl are the same minds behind Sony's $500 to $1,000 camcorders you use to film your child's birthday party." the quality is different, the technology is different. you're not going to assuage me with reassurance that 'the best minds of NASA Sony' came up with my mini-dv. make a better product, if you're concerned about the quality of your image. telling me smart people made it doesn't change the thing i bought. it's not a 100,000 dollar camera, and we both know it.

site1, site2, adage review, ian schafer, re: Myspace.
Riot saith: YEA!
i am not the biggest lovefool for myspace, but i still log in. i've had it since high school. i still check it, at worst, monthly, and at median bi-weekly. i don't go daily but i used to. i would again. that's a big deal. facebook creeps me out too much, still, and nothing has replaced myspace yet. with their new music merger, i think it's too early to discount myspace as relevant. i think that deep focus is doing it right, and i think offering long-term branding aspects that are relevant to the myspace user (KEY here) are much more valuable than the hit-and-run campaigns. i'm for the development. (consequently, i'm also pro-packet.)

the site, adweek review, re: Garmin/live commercials.
Riot saith: YEA! ...for now.
until everyone else jumps on this retro-savvy bandwagon, i think this is a really cool and interesting idea. i'm for the break-up in the usual visuals in commercials and a retro throwback always wins with nostalgia value. i like how Garmin used this technique; i think a company that represents an improvement on the "old ways" (maps < gps) is the best sort of brand to harness live commercials. kudos to Garmin; we just bought one, ourselves. i look forward to more until i'm too tired of seeing them.

Riot's blogects. [blog...projects? ...rite.]

i have decided to do a number of stints on my blog:

Hook, Line...:
wherein i find really crappy punctuation and grammar usage. i will write a friendly service announcement regarding why, exactly, the grammar and/or punctuation deserves a ride on the copy failboat. occasionally supplemented by excellent copy.
>> previous: Share Our Strength.

Lovefool:
posts about how much i love your brand. why i love your brand. and how much i'm willing to talk about how much i love your brand.
>> previous: brands i love.

Moot Court:
where i bring a brand, campaign, or ad to justice based on how much they lie about who they are, what they do for you, or what exactly they're selling. it's about representation, baby.
>> previous: Target, Dove.

Yeas & Nays:
so much to read. especially on mondays. this will be my "yeas" and "nays" to news in the ad and blog worlds... and how!
>> previous: none. next post!

will be the editions. keep your eyes peeled.
all "previous" examples will not necessarily be the form each of these take in the future. since gender-centric posts and youth-injection posts make up the brunt up what i have to say anyway, these projects will be inter dispersed.

suggestions welcome.

remorse & excitement about the state of creative

speaking of how i love my work....
Is it Time to Phase Out the Creative Function? via AdWeek.

answer: i hope not.

don't get me wrong. i am really excited about the internet. i am really excited about interactive. i love people. i LOVE people. putting art and words and business and people all together? making people more important--and the ads they see more relevant--than ever before? communicating and making real contact? THAT IS EXCITING.

it's exciting to have consumers participate in the creative. it's exciting to involve programmers and philanthropists and sociologists and ethnographers. you may not believe me, but i really am excited to be young and in this field. i think there's a lot of promise, a lot of hope, and a lot of authenticity that can be brought to it.

BUT! i am also remorseful.

when i decided to become a creative, i was sold on that method.
i WANT to be "the other half" of my creative partner. i want (i know, scoff and laugh, i'm young) those late night office hour sessions with coffee and pizza and tearing out of the hear and the brainstorming boards and the BIG IDEA that's wicked right now but in the a.m. will likely need a bit of finessing. I WANT INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION that isn't only online.

i want that experience.

i feel like i'll miss out on it.
can't i have both? why are we forgoing one for the other?
creative can't really phase out. ....please?

we have to change our tune? NYTimes, bite me.

and this is what's wrong (ok, one of the things that's wrong) with the mindset about work in america. i wish i could comment right on the site, because i would.

sure, yes, i agree, don't get me wrong.
persistence? important. hard work? important. paying the rent? important!
as usual, in the words of my dad, 'it's not what you say, but how you're saying it.'

excerpt:
Meanwhile, Eric Papp, the 24-year-old founder of Generation Y Consulting in Tampa, Fla., recalled how he had run into a friend who was dressed in gym clothes having just worked out in the middle of the afternoon. “I asked how his job was going and he said it was going well but he had to quit,” Mr. Papp recounted. “He said ‘It interfered with my social life. I had to work weekends.’ ”

None of this surprises Daniel H. Pink, an author who specializes in navigating the workplace. “This generation has been spoon-fed self-esteem cereal for the past 22 years,” he said. “They’ve been told it’s all about them — what they want, what they are passionate about, what they find fulfilling. That’s not a bad message, but it’s also not a complete message.”

IT SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT US. and yeah, maybe that's my "GenY" mentality.
why SHOULD the guy have to work weekends if he doesn't want to? it wasn't the job for him. he didn't love it enough, or find it fulfilling enough, to sacrifice his weekends and be a slave to the clock like other workaholics. clearly he's not doing too badly if he can quit that job and still have the funds for his social life. where's the rest of that picture, NYTimes, hmmm?

not to mention that in the same breath as you defunct GenY's values, you cite a GenYer who created his own consulting firm. how does that fit into your description? he took those values of self-esteem, work-fulfillment, and self-definition and made it work for him. kudos to that, sir, kudos to that.

if i never sat down and asked myself what i wanted in a job, i would never have gone into advertising. i know this for fact, because it's something i had to sort out midway through my college years sitting in a career services office hating my internship options.

it's not how "it's not about us" or these old rules you think we should follow.
it IS about us because we're going to be in your shoes. and well, we think they need to be shinier.

to struggling students entering, i wouldn't spout out negative dogma about how no one has a plan and how you are unimportant. you are important. it's your life. everyone's priorities are different, and i'd say to examine yours. write a list, seriously. do you need your weekends? what salary do you want to make in the future? do you want to take your work home with you after hours? would those answers change if you really loved what you did? what do you love to do?

persist. don't settle.
all the costs--photocopying and coffee retrieval--are worth it. correct, you may not land the thing you love in your first job, but PLEASE, please please, pursue what you love. if you love what you do, i'm going to love that you do it well, and there's success in that. and yes, it will look like work, NYTimes. but it doesn't have to. i still wake up every morning and say "do not want" because i sacrificed my love of sleeping in for the love of my work. but i love my work.

someone out there is doing what you love. join them.
do whatever it takes to join them. get involved.
and if no one is doing what you love? make it happen.
someone else loves it, too.

men... are not idiots?

AdAge gets down on those who dis dad.

and yes, i agree. my dad is awesome. and no, he does not resemble homer simpson or peter griffin. but my dad is one of my best friends, along with my mom (hi mom!).

i am not refuting the fact that "Bashing Fathers and Husbands Isn't the Right Way for Marketers to Sell Products" but there has been women (mother/girlfriend/wife/etc) bashing for WAY longer.

[and you, AdAge, you are LUCKY that it is 5:09 PM because i swear a RANT will come from me one day, misters who say girls are more privileged now than men. my ARSE. PS >> great way to defend your point, as in, not at all. defensive much?]

i'm not saying that makes it alright, but what i am saying is, advertising is becoming an equal-opportunity offender just as we all become more and more sensitive.

my serious questions to you all:
are we getting too sensitive the more we are hyper-targeted?
whatever happened to desensitization through the media, or does that not apply here?



...man, i do talk a lot about the "humanizing" of gender lately, don't i.

by request! a rant on dove.

the post. the culprit: dove. the question: relevancy. the verdict: fail.

but you knew that already.
the question is truly, Why exactly does Dove fail at life?

it's not that it was a flawed campaign concept, as some believe.
i think that a campaign for real beauty, and expanding definitions of beauty, is admirable, useful, and, moreover, achievable through marketing if done well. MultiCultClassics recaps and quotes Adbusters, "In this case the message is right on—it’s time to end the propagation of unrealistic ideals. But the intention—to somehow bolster women’s self-esteem while selling them firming lotion—is the problem."

i am not sure this is entirely true.
all women--and i'd argue all humans--want to feel beautiful.
beautiful means confident, which in turn leads to desirability and acceptance, which leads to the ultimate goal of communication and connection.

widening the standards to include more people into that circle of beauty is important to raise confidence in a culture which places so much emphasis on appearance. rather than change the body to fit the mold, shift the mold. that much we can agree our culture is due for.

there are a number of ways people are doing this.
for a long time, i supported--though no, i didn't model for ;)--Suicide Girls for their political stance in their own alternative industry. i then stopped supporting them because of their legal practices, but that's beside the point right now.

if Dove wanted to expand definitions of beauty and sell body lotion, i think it's possible. if you want to tell me that my body type and my facial structure fits into a new definition of beauty--and you make me believe it--i may just support you enough to buy that lotion that consequently makes my skin silky smooth (i actually do purchase one Dove product, namely this). point being? sell me on the new beauty concept, if that's what the campaign is about, and you'll sell me on the product because you'll be something i believe in.

that means depict in your ads: large girls, multiethnic girls, tattooed and pierced girls, nerdfabulous girls, feminine girls, girls with hard bodies, girls with legs for days, girls with big hips, girls with broad shoulders, girls with 'masculine' faces, girls like flowers, girls like linebackers--oh wait, i mean, ALL KINDS OF GIRLS. hey, all of them may buy lotion. especially if they play rugby. ;)

do not show me, as you are, these girls who still look like models and who don't resemble anyone i've ever met before in my life. give me girls i want to take a second look at. give me online profiles for my favourite dove girls. let me get to know her style, her hardships, and her personal beauty.

bottom line is you can't campaign for real beauty unless you actually embrace it.
through embracing it, i do think there is product support and monetization.
but if your concept and campaign don't match up--as they currently don't--that's what's causing the distrust.

because ultimately, Dove is more concerned with pushing product than pushing the importance of pluralizing beauty--and that's the failure.

engaging in technographics

ahhh... posting this brings me back to my middle school livejournal days.
i wonder whatever happened to those "which icon are you?" quizzes. some were hella funny. anyway, so there's the "badge of honor" and the links are here and here.

Discover Your Groundswell Social Technographics Profile Your Result: Creator   With all the blogging and video making you do, I'm surprised you had time to take this quiz. Whether podcasting or maintaining a website, the amount of content you create makes your Groundswell Social Technographic group a valuable target for social media marketers. As a creator, you join an elite 18% of the US online population. Now turn off the computer, your family misses you.
Critic
Joiner
Collector
Spectator
Inactive
Discover Your Groundswell Social Technographics Profile See All Our Quizzes

it's times like these that i reflect on quizzes.

why do i post that? do i find it relevant or accurate to how i perceive myself? yes, actually. i'm big on creating. i hate inactivity (score of 0!) and everything else i like to take in at a balance. if i didn't find it somehow accurate, i wouldn't repost it. i suppose that's a given.

the only reason i don't outright resent that quiz for asking me about being a bride or having children is that if i click the radio button for "male" it asks me the same thing. kudos for that. extra kudos for referencing Lincoln Logs. i miss those. sad face for stereotypical questions, but i should know better than to hope.

'the stone gods' and why it matters.

i am that lit geek.

my 100th tweet [don't ask, i don't really care the number] was about Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods. i didn't even know. woo! personal landmark. i'm such a winterson dork.

anyway, the tweet was:
"strange question: have any of you read The Stone Gods by Jeanette Winterson?"

why is this fiction book important? everyone's twittering about ad:tech, and @alisamleo was talking about:
adtech: "are people getting freaked out" by individualized, behavioral targeting?
>> 39 minutes ago from web
adtech: well....depends on the age group. younger users don't care, its the internet economy...
>> 38 minutes ago from web

which got me thinking about how i'm still a little weirded out by it. i don't know if it's generational (am i not considered a young user anymore? i'm only 22) or just that i'm aware of what's going on; either way, i am still cautious about individualized targeting--even as i advocate it (see previous posts about choosing what our txt ads should be in order to keep relevance high).

The Stone Gods is similar in concept to other futuristic books. if you've read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, The Stone Gods is pretty much the direct inverse combined with Brave New World. among other themes, The Stone Gods addresses characters in a world that is hyper-marketed, hyper-targeted, and hyper-relevant. the computers know what you want before you do, right down to what you should wear (i'm sure Kenny Cole would love that -insert eyeroll here-). everything was so individualized that everyone began to be similar anyway, but it was what was desired regardless.

question posed: effective, yes. useful, perhaps.
but is this the kind of world you personally would want to live in?

no judgments here. i'm just honestly curious if you believe it would be beneficial, easier, and less stressful, or if it would "freak you out" about privacy etc.

words on twitter, 2 of 2: conversations?

i am disconcerted today about twitter for a number of reasons [continued]:
1) the addition of ads conversation
2) the lack of conversation... conversation

--

i'm not sure about the point of twitter.
i have a much better idea on it than when i started, to be sure.
but, like other things, what i was told its about and what it is seem to differentiate, in my experience thus far. mainly in this respect:

YES, i do want to know when you update your blog about something interesting.
>> as a follower, i may want to know what you have to say in more than 140 characters.
NO, i do not want that to be your ONLY updates.
>> i can easily... subscribe to an rss feed to your blog if i like it that much.
YES, i joined to make conversation and have conversations.
>> so why do i see most people not doing this? some are, but not enough.
NO, i don't care only about your meetings/interviews.
>> those things are -sweet- to be sure. but who ARE you; do you like Lewis Black?
[i don't really find him funny. and his root of all evil show is less funny.]

what i mean to say is, your twitter is not another RSS feed for your blog. sure, that might be one of its functions. i don't begrudge that at all. but please use it somewhat socially? isn't that what this social media thing is all about... two way (or more) conversations, not mass distribution with no direction?

if you want to have a conversation, please follow/tweet me: @thegirlriot

words on twitter, 1 of 2: ad testing.

i think it's funny how twitter has become its own buzzword.
i'm waiting for the day when i hear someone doing it "twitter style" (short and to the point; no frills).

anyway.

i am disconcerted today about twitter for a number of reasons:
1) the addition of ads conversation
2) the lack of conversation... conversation

--

so yes, one is the ad testing from last night. no, i'm not pissed. the folks want to monetize. who doesn't? high chances i'm not going to love the ads, and yes, in the words of @Armano, i do feel a little 'cheated on.' the adlessness was too good to be true along with no billing.

at least the ads won't be behind my eyelids when i sleep, or broadcast into my brain (that's still creepy. i'm not sorry for pointing that out again. shame on people who celebrate its effectiveness.).

my main question is this, which brings me back to my previous post on txt messaging: will these ads be delivered into phones via txt? or will they be a part of the feed on the Twitter website? i would still find it repulsive to be charged for a txt ad Twitter sent to my phone. however, i would find it more acceptable if i had to skim through my tweets and find some ads there.

what's the plan, Twitter, eh? getting more complicated? careful you don't lose your relevancy and the reason why you're so wonderfully efficient: short, sweet, and to the point. no frills. somehow i feel ads may jeopardize that relevancy. suggestion? users choose the ads we subscribe to on our feeds. i might hate it a little less that way.

anorexia and how it changes blogging.

curiouser and curiouser: the french.

according to new laws proposed, the french are going to jail and fine 45,000 euros bloggers (among others) who encourage anorexia. free speech what?

not that i'm "pro-ana" (the term they use) by any means... but i'm not going to tell you that you can't blog about your anorexia, or post your... "thinspiration" pictures. for once, i give kudos to Facebook and Myspace for resisting the request to remove such "pro-ana" statements/photographs.

with the state trying to legislate beauty aesthetics and media guidelines, many media kids are up in arms, from the fashion world out. there will be trials held to determine if your site is "pro-ana" and, if so, how detrimental it is.

The new offence is defined as "provoking a person to seek excessive thinness by encouraging prolonged restriction of nourishment" to the point of risking of death or damage to health. The maximum penalties are applied if the person dies. (Bremner)

some of this is excusable and even understandable, considering events like the "Miss Bimbo" website, which encouraged children as young as 9 to embrace plastic surgery and extreme dieting in the search for the perfect figure. The Miss Bimbo site invites users to create a virtual doll, keep it “waif thin” with diet pills and buy it breast implants and facelifts. The website attracted 1.2 million players in France.

now, i went to the Miss Bimbo site after reading this. it does seem rather odd, but so are a lot of humour sites. not that i'm outright defending it, but i'm not prosecuting it either. after all, it is named MISS BIMBO. how serious can it be? yes, it points out a poor represenation of women... i would think enough to point out that it's what you shouldn't be.

i am sad and somewhat anxious if 9 year olds are taking this site seriously. i don't think the site should not exist, but perhaps it should revisit its age limitations to an audience that can think critically. i know 13 is probably too generous, but other mainstream social media sites pick up there.

how young do you think is too young for exposure to that?
should states regulate this kind of thing in order to combat behavioral diseases?
do you think bloggers and other websites should be penalized for it?

branding kids young

he's adorable.
i wonder if he'll grow up to use geico.

or is there just an association between cave men and small children?
pressing times, pressing questions. haha.

blogging as sacred feminine?

First, brief yourself here. This is a response post.

[hey look, i seem to be in a caps mood today. how strange! or perhaps academic.]

Read it? Good.

Firstly, if there's one thing my (wonderfully) crazy professor Zillah taught me in all our sex/gender/war classes, it's that we constructed the binary by which we think.

Blogging is not a 'feminine' practice because it involves concept linking, communicative aims, and use of word craft. It is 'feminine' because we have -concepted- these things as feminine. They are just actions, thoughts, motives. We assign them to females, and thus encourage them in our females. This links to social networking only insofar as it is similar to social grooming (the way we are expected to act in social settings as defined by mass social standards).

Yes, throw studies at me about differentiations in brain activity in different sexes. I'll list book titles about how there are more than three sexes and brain biology is an individualized aspect rather than a sexualized one.

Moreover, if we were to even say that this brain dichotomy exists, we also don't know enough to understand if this is an evolutionary skill or an innate one: that is,
...if girls are better at verbal because they are expected to be; because they are expected to be, their brains have grown throughout time to be wired more efficiently to do so
...or, if it is just as simple as you think it is. (Which it never is. Anyone read up lately on how identical twins don't share identical DNA, making many studies based on this control flawed?)

As Jason Falls points out, "Yet, the first blogs were run by men. Most of the top blogs in Technorati’s list are run by men. Nearly 2/3 of the bloggers attending Blogger Social were men and professional blogging tends to be male-dominated. Are the liberal gender roles of the 21st century allowing men to embrace roles not traditionally given to masculinity?"

I don't think it is a matter of liberal gender roles, nor embracing a side 'less masculine' because we as a society deem them to be. I think it's that blogging/etc has offered up a venue of creative, nonlinear thought previously considered only to be accessible by women. The anonymity enables men who would not have engaged in such thought to find their own voice within it.

If anything, I would argue that in the stereotypical way that men tend to dominate in a patriarchal culture, "more men blog" because more men are given attention. Society still values the male opinion over the female, a shift that is still being fought today. Being male gives you more authority, and thusly, likely more readership.

This is not uncommon. It happened with books, news reporting... the list goes on. It just always seems more sensible, easier to swallow, and more authentic, out of the mouth of man. --At least (to qualify again) to the masses. The binary described attributing blogging/social media as feminine is only a product of our society's thoughts... not the actual aspect.

So therefore I would argue that blogging is not inherently feminine.
It is a human need to communicate through methods locked into the 'female' category and exploited (willingly or not) by their 'male' counterparts--all the while not realizing that the point is still the human need to communicate, regardless of boxes.

hey facebook: speaking of "liars."

so, the kids that recently got pwned by AdRants got me thinking. i started reading their community blog, Our American Shelf Life, which is basically blog posts updating their personal use and thoughts surrounding social media (facebook, twitter, even 'old school' stuff like aim and msn. icq anyone? oh no.)

anyway, this post got me thinking. i don't perceive there being a huge age gap between myself and those bloggers; i think i am older than some, and younger than at least one. point being? is it a year-gap thing... or were my friends just jaded from the get-go?

let me back up.

it's established, both in academia and in digital sense, that we choose to craft ourselves online. sometimes to reflect ourselves 'more accurately' than in the day-to-day, and sometimes to recreate according to what we'd like to be. (more, if you didn't already agree? danah boyd)

what makes you think Facebook is not an extension of that?

i allow that due to popularity, friends might keep other friends 'in check' if one profile is too inauthentic, too 'crafted'--too fake or untrue to the person. yet that only applies if the friends themselves aren't in on it, or don't also find it amusing. (communication and procrastination, the lofty goals of social networks.)

case in point, Facebook dating, as described in the ASL post.

except, my school was one of the first 50, if not fewer, to be added to Facebook. i'd wager 20, but my memory isn't that good. when we got to put up that much revealing information, we were all a bit taken aback. skeptically, we asked ourselves why we would want to declare whomever as our significant other. ...didn't we--and our friends--already know that?

this gave rise to many hilarious antics. fake profiles, real profiles with fake dates... people were 'married' left and right--and not even to people they were truly dating! often, to people it would have been 'funny' to date. my best friend (hetero, in a relationship at the time, actress) was Facebook wives with our stage manager friend (who is a lesbian) because it had been a theater joke.

Facebook marriage, and, consequently, Facebook dating status, became a farce in many of our minds. i don't know exactly when this changed, but i can speculate:

i think it had to do with the live feeds.

before, only people who visited your profile actively knew who you were dating. with live broadcast, things became more serious. people you barely knew who followed your updates could start asking why you and X broke up, or how mean you were for doing it, or how sad they were--when you weren't even truly dating X. the awkwardness abounded. it forced into truth so at least you had answers when stalkers came knocking--or you took your marital status down altogether.

so to the kids who take it seriously and wind up finding out their relationship has been "cancelled" before their partner informs them face-to-face: ...man, i'm sorry. lighten up, go 'marry' your hs gym teacher's daughter.

lying liars and the lies they lie about

be forewarned. i have a lot to say today. at least 3 posts' worth. perhaps 4.

---
this is the first in an ongoing series.
---

subject: Target [pronunciation: tar-JAY, soft j. heh.]

scenario: Archer Farms, sub brand of Target, gets new "green" packaging (read: no plastic bag inside). it maintains freshness via the use of plastic. you can read more at the link.

the lie: eco happy-blog Sustainable is Good decided to get the down low on just how 'good' the new 'sustainable' packaging is. the company refused to comment.

prosecution: i understand the packaging is sexy. it is. i like its curves and its little spout. it's like a tea pot for my hand, only thinner. problem? sexy packaging doesn't make it green. (also, i don't shop at Target, so you're not converting me personally.)

if you aren't going to substantiate your claims, i'm going to say you're lying about them. particularly because in this kind of climate, green is in. need to sell something? say it's green. that guarantees a fan(consumer)base because of the small growth of eco-friendly products. the first green cereal? i'm in. wrong!

most green-happy folks do their research. they're more socially, economically, and culturally conscious. the heart of that target also knows where to get fair trade goods, animal-cruelty-free products, which meats are factory farmed, etc. so if you don't offer the info so they can do that research, they're not going to trust you.

and rightly so. why aren't you sharing, Target? hmm? what are you hiding behind that sexy new packaging? is that plastic biodegradable? what's really going on there? silence is suspicious.

status: saying nothing is sometimes worse than saying something.
until proven otherwise, Target is a lying liar.
(consequently, so is their sub brand, and their representation: kapow)

obama girl's viral is contagious. uh...

barelypolitical (2 minutes ago)
this was no PR stunt! just a viral phenomenon : )

i just observed an obama girl chat (and you can, too; there are more later this week). there is something to be said for all of this. it may not be a pr stunt, but she knows how to handle it like one:

-- she hosts youtube chats.
(that's a relevant, if unique, way to host the chat.)
-- she gives away one ipod a month.
(last months winner was "jreamer1", 16 hrs ago)
-- she barely answers any questions.
(skirting the issue: a favored past time)

in between offers of marriage, invitations to prom, questions of ethnicity, and requests to perform duets, there was some actual thinking going on...

> RobEQS (32 minutes ago)
> Maybe if you did a Rock-n-Roll video you would be able to get your message out to some other people who don't really like R&B or hip hop. Have you thought of something like that...or maybe, even, Country (God forbid).

it shows an awareness that i find amusing and intriguing, in between asking if the poster is not amber (obama girl) but actually an overweight man. people chatting kept wanting proof of it actually being her. truth? we'll never know.

but hey, at least it is far, far better than the mccain girls (don't click it. consider yourself warned.). as i said on adrants, the mccain girls give whole new meaning to no such thing as bad advertising. it is really, really bad. but we're still talking about it.

what does obama girl have to say about them? its very flattering to see all these other girls jumping on the " candidate bandwagon"! ...yeah. points for caring about the country. after mccain, i am afraid to search "hillary girl" and "giuliani girl." i leave that to you.

i liked a commercial how much?

enough to go out of my way to find it on youtube and embed it for you here, just in case you haven't already seen it.

this delivers. it's excellent. it speaks exactly to the target market in memorable and admirable way. how do i know? if i'd gone to grad school, they'd be talking to me. we are those kids who work our asses off to get the grades to get the school to get the bucks to get the (car/land/family/etc).

except for when we sit there in (insert office setting here), look at this well-worn path and say to ourselves, "whoa. where along the line did i agree to that? where did i get lost in here? what part of me is left in my own plans?"

breaking the cycle speaks to that "whoa" moment in the ambitious, determined group. i love it. if i had that kind of money, it might sell me on an audi--or at least get me interested enough to do my research. three cheers for poignant relevance.

for your consideration: meme cats.

upon further consideration of yesterday's mourning post, i have found one place where l33t speak is acceptable. only one.

that would be the difficult yet rewarding task of perfecting the meme cat, also sometimes known as "teh cheezburger cat," the "macro cat," or the "lolcat." if you haven't seen one of these, you live under a tiny rock.

i believe that part of the allure of the meme cat is, in fact, the l33t speak and the ability to engage with the paradox of language and translation in an increasingly global space (all your base are belong to us).

and in case you were wondering, this post does have another point, too.

the importance of meme cats to mass social media and censorship. no, i'm not kidding. there's a talk from the ETech conference on it that you should read.

---

excerpt: "With web 2.0, we’ve embraced the idea that people are going to share pictures of their cats, and now we build sophisticated tools to make that easier to do. As a result, we’re creating a wealth of tech that’s extremely helpful for activists. There are twin revolutions going on - the ease of creating content and the ease of sharing it with local and global audiences.
[...]
Blocking banal content on the internet is a self-defeating proposition. It teaches people how to become dissidents - they learn to find and use anonymous proxies, which happens to be a key first step in learning how to blog anonymously. Every time you force a government to block a web 2.0 site - cutting off people’s access to cute cats - you spend political capital. Our job as online advocates is to raise that cost of censorship as high as possible."

---

a parting gift, 11 of my current favourite meme cats:
ringu cat, schroedinger's cat, staplr cat, grail cat, godmother cat, copy cat, snozberry cat, dune cat, flavor cat, stick cat, and of course, base cat.

and 2 adaptive (meaning non-feline) advertising commentaries...
network and tactics.

hook, line: oh no! make it stop! (pls! x_x)

not that i expected any better.

i'm taking flower donations to rest on the grave of the american english language. i know i'm supposed to shift with all this, but it makes me twitch to look at.

more thoughts (kthanxbi?)

tangerinetoad: Funny that texting abbreviations almost non-existent on Twitter. More reason to it than we're not in high school?

i'm not sure why this is. generally, i would argue that twitter has (currently) a different audience than the bff4evs of facebook--or at least that the ratio is in our favour. i am a text message fiend, however, even when i text i don't use abbreviations (unless i'm being sarcastic and referencing l33t-speak for ironic or other purposes).

i don't think it's a high school grad mentality... i think it's the mentality of bloggers. people who are communicating on a more public level than texting, and therefore secure better understanding by not using abbreviations.

even twitter pitches tweets as microblog updates. it's not like mass text messaging (even though it is!)--it's supposed to be like quick mini-blogs. i think that mentality is what encourages well thought out, generally well-spelled, and generally unabbreviated tweets.

i'm not sure though; do you use twitter? what do you think?
(ps i need friends. i feel like i have nothing to tweet about.)

music and myspace? who would have thought? oh right, me.

good job, MySpace, did you finally decide to help yourselves out?

how many times have i said the only useful reason i return to spam-laden myspace is to hunt down new music? and that they should really emphasize and capitalize on that?

rumour has it myspace wants to compete with itunes. seeing as i ironically can't purchase everything i like off of pandora via itunes, maybe it'll give me a reason to sign into myspace again.

ad gods, good job on thinking rationally. if anything is going to save it, it's going to be music, if they can keep their hands in their pockets and not get too greedy.

thoughts?

if you don't sell it to me, i want it more.

isn't that how it always goes? the hard to get.

this post by AdScam got me thinking, especially in light of how i want all brands to stop txting, or never txt, me.

"That's why ultimately the big social networks will fail, because they will lose their exclusivity."

i agree with that. even in my earlier posts i talked about how i dislike facebook and how myspace is losing me. forget about the other ones--i'm not on them.

so again: it's about understanding your target in the sms process.
the more you stalk me, the creepier you are, and the less i want to give you my money. the phrase "social media" has become to the ad biz what "diversity" is to colleges: hunted after, faked for, and very rarely actualized.
--and guess what? stalkers are sketchy on both 'campuses.'

so i gave this exclusivity some thought. because really, we all want to secretly be that indie kid (even if you hate indie) because he knows what's up before everyone else does. he's heard of that band you've never heard of. there's an elitism to that. being one of the first gmail subscribers had that feel--back when you had to be invited in. this is our club. do you have the password?

also, i think it's easy to understand that sms branding works best when it's not in-your-face. interaction is the key to (gasp) interactive medias. not just throwing up a title page and hoping for some stellar recall. because of these two thoughts--subtlety and exclusivity--i do think there's a way for savvy brands to harness social networking.

because after all, who wants to be second best?
why are brands placing ads on facebook? running campaigns in friend groups?

show me a relevant brand. then show me their relevant, well done social network. social networks become brands, anyway. why not the inverse? why not the secret?

hide it from us. we'll find it.

stop txting me pls. (!)

subtitle: i have an adcrush on danah boyd.

if you don't know about her yet, what's wrong with you? love her or hate her but you need to know. she's doing ethnographies that are incredibly relevant to the shifts of emphasis in the ad biz. so listen up. i know some of you are, and i love you for it. [brief rundown? Agency Spy rocks my socks.]

anyway. long story short? stop texting me.
i know that email won't remain the best way to get in touch with my generation in the future, but that doesn't mean you need to turn to text messaging. as we all know, my generation is increasingly more public with our information on the internet, regardless of how we craft ourselves. key words? on the internet.

if your spamails aren't working out for you, text messaging surely won't. i would be more annoyed receiving texts (and being charged for them by my service provider!) that are unwanted than emails. not to mention, you can't opt-out of text spam like you can unsub from emails. that results in me getting cranky with my carrier.

cell phones? personal and business. spam has taken over email. if it takes over text messaging, that will a) be less productive than intended because of the unwanted setting and b) will only decrease in effectiveness.

! but i'm not all bitch and no suggestions here, folks.
you want to utilize text message spam so badly? how about you do this crazy thing called... respect. i know that means very little on the 'net these days, but it's something that might be considered over phrases like friendly stalking and privacy invasion.

why don't you offer people the ability to subscribe to text messaging for products they like? some commercials advertise this ability. because that changes the game. that means i am interested in what you're trying to sell me. you want me to subscribe to a DriveThru Records (or any other label for that matter) text messaging feed in order to tell me what concerts are now up and when tickets go on sale? GO FOR IT, i'm in.

it's all about relevance, which is what the lovely danah boyd and others keep trying to express. you can't just throw up an ad into a Facebook setting and expect people to suddenly love you and be loyal to your brand. engage with them. become relevant. i know the movement is toward mobile, but can't you be respectful about it?

a la miss danah:
"I think that most brands make mistakes because they don’t understand the social dynamics. Think of MySpace/Facebook as a public hangout space. When is it socially acceptable to go up to a group of friends hanging out at a pub or having a picnic in the park? If you treat it that way, the boundaries are much more logical. If you have something relevant to add to the conversation, you might be asked to pull up a seat/join the mat. If not, you will be seen as sketchy and annoying. You are always welcome in the backdrop, but don’t expect to be included just because you’re there. And be careful.. there’s a fine line between being an active participant on an SNS and being seen as a spammer. You’re often better off being a legitimate participant (a.k.a. buying ads) than trying to coldcall folks."

take home message: if i WANT your spam, i'll ASK FOR IT.

hook, line: no woman (kid?) no cry.

dear Share Our Strength,

i was having a nice lunch yesterday at a local restaurant; there was a frame on the table sporting an ad stating that if i bought dessert, 10% of that purchase would go towards feeding hungry children. that was a thought i generally like--children not starving? sign me up. i think 10% on desserts only is a bit shallow, but okay. the restaurant is corporate, i get it. the hang up?

who. wrote. your. copy.

your logo. no really, who did it. and who approved it. and who proofread it. and who, bove all, said, 'oh my, yes, that is a brilliant idea.' NO KID HUNGRY? are you for serious right now? and if that's a pun, i'm clearly too stupid to get it, at which point, it should still be changed, because i get other stupid advertisements (haha, venus, get it?).

i can't decide if this is as bad as (masculine) floralcy.
i think it might be worse, only because i can adapt 'floralcy' into my vocabulary and giggle each time i say it. 'no kid hungry' -simply- doesn't flow.

what the hell, Pontiac. what the hell.

alright.

the lovely folks over at Make the Logo Bigger pointed out what some of you may have already heard on the msm news blogs... Pontiac's got a new "sports truck" (a truck with a sports car-esque front end) but they don't have a name. they want YOU to name it. SAH-WEET, right?

WRONG. effin morons.

i moseyed on over with dreams of naming car-trucks all in my head, pondering just what one word might capture the... pure splendor and luxury (heh) of the "sports truck." i'm all set to apply when i do that thing people don't tend to do--before i CLICKED "yes i read the rules" i actually... read the rules. guess what they said?

"Selection/Determination of winner will NOT be based on Vehicle Name submitted."

it's a drawing at random. with absolutely no regard to naming or creativity or, well, wait... what was it... anything to do with the actual advertising campaign.

how cohesive of you.

i even like postmodernism and this kind of disassociation FAILS. wtf, Pontiac?

proof that higher ups need a youth injection.

dear AdAge,

it is nice of you to finally notice a viral vid just last week that has been out since i was in high school. we sang about badgers throughout spanish class and then some. it was right up there with the llama song and material like the end of the world (dang that is a pretty sweet earth--WRONG!) along with a few other savory vids from albinoblacksheep.com and -my- 'childhood.'

i would laugh outrageously if Quiznos did anything of the sort. and i know i'm taking you seriously when i hope i shouldn't be--but even if you're joking, how did you not find this until now? it's been out so long there have been spoofs on spoofs on spoofs on the Badger Mushroom video. like this stellar one with great soundtrack on Harry Potter.

here. let me help you out. maybe this might come back and haunt you as a good idea, Charlie... we've been quoting Candy Mountain for a year.

a running list of congrats.

to be edited, altered, and reposted subjective to when brands piss me off.
this list is entirely personal and is not meant to be representative of anyone other than me.

brands i'm currently loyal to (congratulations)
! verizon. thank you cellphone. i can hear you now. (and yes we do say that out loud)
! apple. you stole me away from many years of dell. thank you. i needed that.
this includes iPod, namely, the shuffle. i don't need to know what's playing--i put it on there! the shuffle with all of its whirlwind colours makes me say YES to buying three to enable matching. i can even have specialized Emo/Screamo Shuffle, HipHop/Reggaeton Shuffle, and Indie/RebelGrrrl Shuffle. i love life. PS though: HELLO SHUFFLE: PASTELS?! i would -never-. your spring colours SUCK.
! mac makeup. your colours are so bright. it's like painting. or face-staining.
! i also support urban decay, who is cheaper, and who i went to first. i still buy.
! google is my only search engine. amazon is where i buy lots of stuff online.
! saucony, etnies, & vans. my feet thank you. you are comfy.
! thus: thank you journeys and pacsun for carrying these at reasonable cost.
! pleaser & delicious. my feet don't thank you, but you make me look hella hot.
! pandora.com & itunes. i now buy music. not only that, but i hear new music and buy more.
! many online shops to help me look like a rockstar. cos that's what i am.
>> props to: reverie, i love your "stop hate love something" tee shirt.
(more advertisers need to realize this: my whole age group is composed of undiscovered rock stars who may or may not play instruments)

brands i'm more or less loyal to (try harder)
! friday's. congrats on the sesame jack chicken strips. otherwise i would have never come back.
i swear they put coke or something in them. why do i go so frequently? could be the patron lemonades the local bartender makes me. mmm.
! 2cute for outfitting me in clubwear. hot topic when they don't annoy me.
>> when hot topic does annoy me, i go for trash & vaudeville. <3
and they annoy me often but it's hard to find certain must-have items locally otherwise. just gotta weed through the trash. oh well. i say that with all the bitterness of my teen years when i'd worked there for a summer.
! pacsun, aero, & ae for my tiny tees. you're all interchangeable.
i don't really care so long as you keep making extra smalls.
! macy's for trendy, office-acceptable work clothes in junior sizes.
no, i'm not 'petite' yet, you sizing bastards. i hate you too.

brands i used to be loyal to (you suck for losing me)
! myspace and facebook. sucks to be you.
you have too many ads and try to stalk me too much. i don't want to know what my friends are doing 24/7. i doubt they want you to know, either. at least i don't. if i did, i'd call them. of all of these, myspace is the least of these evils. why? because they are good for music. i like music.
! dell. okay i was never loyal but you were useful in high school. that's not the case anymore.
! at&t. or whatever you're called now. your service sucks. get over it. i left you for your sexier cousin.

why i'm wicked awesome at advertising.

(or, in other words: why i went into it, at all, to begin with.)

1) i am notorious for trying new things--especially "new" things, things that i've tried it twice before and hated, but i don't quite remember the intensity with which i hated them... so i try again. curiosity's a bitch, eh?

2) a propensity toward new experiences along with an emotional memory like a sieve makes me a very suggestible entity. advertising is able to woo me. even when i don't want it to. i -hate- brownies (many times have i tested this). however, i have been sold brownies via commercial. it's sad. i know it.

3) so, as someone who often fits inside the target market of the new fancy it-toy, i am an advertiser's dream. give me something memorable, repeatable, funny, thought provoking, or visually delicious (ha!), and you're likely going to sell me on it, even if i actually really, really don't want it. at least i'm aware of this.

4) i don't want to buy something i don't like. i go out once to buy brownies, but i still hate them. but, it does get me, as an advertiser, to understand any position. i can think of how i might sell it to myself--and to figure out the next step: getting someone like me (suggestible but fickle) to go back that third and fourth time.

5) i am in love with words and art, and, consequently, their collision. i was supposed to go to art school; i won a lot of young artist awards and have been featured in museums. instead i went to college for english because i love language, even if it constantly shifts. then i found out i didn't like any of my internship options as an english major. so i went into advertising.

...now i'm an early-grad; english major, writing & integrated marketing communications minors with honors. i've been writing published poetry and short stories for ten years. i've been making websites by hand (i hate dreamweaver etc) and working in interactive on my own time since age thirteen.
apart from photoshop, my preferred artistic tools are horsehair brushes, watercolours, and black ink. in my free time i like to write poetry, hiphop dance, learn to tattoo, research current sociology, and cause general havoc and mayhem with my own particular flair. not that i have much free time. viva la revolucion?