Yeas & Nays: III

the site, adgoodness, re: party art Power Plant
Riot saith: YEA!
despite the following comment on the adgoodness post (where you can also see the other 2 in this campaign) -- Although it’s pretty lame photography, and the models them selves are not that interesting. Nor is the scene all that believable in the case of the third one.. It’s a good concept. 3/5 not so much on the execution though. -- i like this campaign. i don't think the photography is particularly 'lame.' it reminds me of a campaign i did for the Museum of Modern Art. as in--trying to make the prospect of a museum not boring to anyone who doesn't already go. making the museum into the party is, i counter, a clever idea. especially when modern and contemporary art lends itself to some wacky and interesting pieces. not to mention, it ties into the fact that they're actually hosting a party, which doubles on its usefulness. kind of like that "go metro. miss traffic" ad.

the site, brandweek, re: targeted ads
Riot saith: DUH!
haven't i been saying this for, oh, say... ever? yes, i think so. "These users want, and welcome, information about new products, savings and other offers, and they're clearly stating that if the ads were more targeted and relevant, it would be worthwhile to them," said Jere Doyle, CEO of Prospectiv. no shit sherlock. we need studies for this? i shouldn't talk. i know it takes a lot to convince people who don't already see that. but i feel like i'm seeing a lot of things quoted, referenced, and studied lately that make me go "DUH!?" isn't that a GIVEN? i'm going to start keeping track of things that make me go "duh" rather than make me say "huh!" am i alone in this feeling? or do people just need validation on the obvious?

the site, greg verdino, re: 'generation v'
Riot saith: NAY!
don't get me wrong. it's truly not all bad. like greg points out, some of my peers don't know what Twitter is. me, i've never used, or wanted to use, Second Life. i don't podcast, even if i know what it is. but to claim that "the generational distinctions break down" online is an unfair and, i believe, flawed generalization. i'm all about connecting human experiences, but you need to understand that each human has a distinct experience they bring to the table. my values are radically different than the generation before me, and no amount of Facebook Chat is going to rectify that. not to mention, HOW each generation comes to the "virtual generation" is different. how and why we interact with it is often different. how we think about it, craft ourselves, to why, and why--all of these are different. my little brother's reason for using Myspace is not my aunt's reason for using Myspace. it's simply not. i think that to fall prey to this idea as a new "generation merger" is a product of living too long in the social media state of the internet bubble. treating each personae, even if a person has multiple personae, different from a marketing standpoint does have merit. i'm just saying that not everything is that easy, and i do believe digital natives--whether or not they podcast as well as a 35 year old--do come to the virtual table for different reasons, values, and views. technographics is a better answer, to me, than "generation v." i find the umbrella term dangerous.