sea kittens? as if cats didn't have enough issues.

i like animals, but this is not the first time i am going to have to tell PETA to give it. the hell. up. case in point? sea kittens. that's right, you heard me. SEA KITTENS. not to be confused with the sbux 'Melusine'/mermaid issue, this is not a feline with questionable lower halves. this is PETA's attempt to make fish cuddly so you may not want to EAT THEM.

because, as the site says, 'who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?'

there are a few things fundamentally wrong with this:

1 -- we eat fish. short of rumours in Chinatown, we do not eat cats. it is hard to link my eating habits between the two. i will not suddenly go vegetarian (and even some vegetarians still eat fish) because i look at Mahi Mahi and think "meow."

2 -- not to mention, i don't fish (as in, the sport). i also don't hunt cats, which i suspect is even less of the population than fishers. so the specific target is... what? fishers? vegetarians who need to go all out? all people who should stop eating fish? the idea is to stop the fishing of 'sea kittens' but the application falls flat.

3 -- the website looks like it is aimed at 5-year-olds. design my own sea kitten? ...for real right now? hard to resist when the link is a cartoon of a girl bear-hugging a trophy fish. yes. because when i go fishing, it's my 5-year-old daughter who's helping me get the hook out of the mouth. do it for the kids.

4 -- and the clincher for me -- cats have their own branding issues. PETA is rebranding fish as sea kittens. if they really wanted to go all out, they should have been "sea puppies." man's best friend. as it is, the cat people are trying to rebrand cats in order to house them.

that's at least somewhat noble. or intelligible. rebrand cats as companions instead of loners to house felines, since they are notoriously harder to get adoptions for than dogs. but fish? i can't tell what the message is that i can act on. stop fishing? give a stuffed fish to my 5 year old? stop eating fish? open an aquarium? ...get a colouring book?

[PS: speaking of that, how about a sea kittens bedtime story?]

rock your cock off? don't you want that? ...?

see all of the ads for Rok night club in Vegas at Advertising is Good For You. i particularly like the post's headline: "Thirteen-year-old boys aren't allowed in Vegas night clubs, but it seems they are allowed to create ad campaigns for them." i know these came out a few weeks back, but seeing them again made me really want to comment on how much they irritate me.

and no, i'm not irritated because it appeals to thirteen year old boys (cos really, who isn't a 13 year old boy at heart in those situations?), but because the actual execution is lame. at one point, this was a darling of an idea. a little baby bundle of a concept i'm sure was cooed over and loved until it hit the teenage phase and then it got sent for an "attitude adjustment."

YOU DO NOT ROCK YOUR COCK OFF.
YOU ROCK OUT WITH YOUR COCK OUT.

YOU DO NOT ROCK YOUR FUNBAGS OFF.
YOU ROCK YOUR SOCKS OFF.

and who the hell says "funbags" anymore anyway? who wrote these lines? for real? and when was the last time they said any sentence involving with word "rock" and "off"? not to mention, especially in Vegas... don't you rather want those body parts? the only VAGUELY acceptable one is "rock your ass off." i can see that. maybe. if i squint. otherwise, copywriting FAIL, hook line and sinker.

make (out) face time.

okay, you win. you found me out. secretly, i'm an optimist parading as a realist. and these ads totally appeal to me. that's right, i said it. i love the new Dentyne ads.

do i chew Dentyne? no.
will i switch to Dentyne? no.
do i like Orbit's advertising? no.

well, you can't win them all. i get the strategy: you're gonna need wonderfully fresh breath to get that close "face time" with anyone, be it a whisper or a kiss. and you know what? they're right. i always carry a pack of gum with me. always.

(in fact, it used to be Dentyne. i can't tell you what changed, but now i only buy Orbit. how's that for advertising i hate. i could really do without the Orbit lady. the only one i ever liked was when Orbit "cleaned up a dirty mouth" and the couple was fighting; one called the other a "lint licker." anyway. i'm sure to switch it must have been a friend recommendation.)

way to know your target market. i wonder if post-30 chew anywhere near as much gum as 10-25. anyone have stats for me? plus, the relevancy is easy to relate to, especially when so many of us manage real-life interactions online (even if it's to arrange a face meetup). the push to Get Off the Internet is nostalgic (for my gen, anyway!) and cute. it definitely speaks to me, in the same way that Unplug Your Friends functioned.

PETA panties not in a twist

talk about shitty vetting, especially considering PETA hasn't shied away from making political references: PETA's new nude ad sports Aya Sugimoto, a Japanese singer/actress/erotic novel author.

problem? she still sports leather because "leather production is different from fur production."

this sort of thing just further goes to show that the I'd Rather Go Naked campaign is really on its way out. i just don't think it's authentic to PETA any more. the shock value has worn off and it's become yet another mildly-safe-for-work-ad where folks can look at ladybits in the name of some cause, when it won't actually get folks to stop buying fur (or leather).

i think if they moved more in a direction akin to the "political" ad--that is, something that's intriguing, humourous, yet somehow informative, that would be a better solution. it's like Supersize Me. you can tell folks for ever and ever that fast food isn't good for you. but if you show the video, if you make them understand in an image, that impact is more profound than any celeb "star power" you can throw at me.

then again, i have an intellect over that of a horny 13 year old.

because pigs are trademarked, duh.

"If you've been on planet Earth in the last 24 hours, you've probably heard the phrase "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig" more times than you can count. Well, we at PETA would like to put our own spin on this phrase and let everyone know that there should never be any real reason for lipstick on a pig unless it's because you've just given a pig a big kiss for being so darn cute." see more here.

i think, despite its political nature, that this approach is a good one for PETA. i actually wished they had thought of it before people decided to get up in arms over mammals in lipstick, metaphorically speaking (because we all know the GOP has a monopoly on the animal kingdom in rouge).

something that never quite made sense to me was the laborious use of half-naked women against animal cruelty. i mean, i get the shock value, and like anything else, if sex sells, why not use it to sell something worthwhile, like animal rights? i get that. but i didn't get what naked women had to DO with making me concerned about animals.

these kinds of ads, showing (in this case) pigs as loveable cuddle mongers in a near-grotesque Cosmopolitan socialite mask goes straight to the heart of the matter much more clearly. at least if you feel animals should be saved out of cuteness, and let's face it, cute is in. look at the news.

and if you're really still that heartless, check out the bacon links i've found. because apparently bacon is the new penguin. but really, check out the bacon flowchart (wtf?). okay. so where's the bacon flavored lipstick?

bloodsucking a dead horse

no lies here. the True Blood campaign has been freaking awesome. props to Campfire.

but after all the ramp-up excitement, i'm sad to say that marketing can't do everything (though it can help to make it seem really cool). i watched the premiere last night. and hated every minute. anyone want to argue? i'd love to find some merit. especially because i really, really WANTED to like it. i did.

between the wicked campaign and the fact that i've been digesting vamp novels since i was a tween [LJ Smith, Laurell K Hamilton, Anne Rice, etc], i thought that this show might have a different spin or something new to offer the age old vampire conversation. should have known better.

if it's not a girl torn between a werewolf and a vampire,
it's a girl in love with a vampire, who becomes one.

YAWN.
and here i thought i was going to get some modern interpretation, something about the sociological repercussions of vampirism, the involvement of the TruBlood drink, i don't know, something BIGGER or MORE INTERESTING than the first episode implies. plus, the writing was actually quite bad. oh, and if i have to stare at the gap between Paquin's teeth any longer, i may put out my own eyes. because i know that no one has dental in the south. clearly.

didn't watch it? here's an abbreviation:
vampire porn. two people talking. vampire porn. some violence. four people talking. vampire porn. a bit more violence. and no, it didn't close with vampire porn, but that's just a small favour. but thanks for the shock value, HBO, i know i appreciate it.

because the apocalypse doesn't have to be lonely.

a new installment of Funny After 5... for last minute giggles.

at first, my new favourite blog for distractions (The Daily Digresser) brought this little gem up in the left hand column and it was a total throwback to zombie week, where Jane and i told you that you needed at least 37 zombie plans to survive working in an ad agency. but in case you gave in and decided zombie plans aren't for you--maybe you're just keen on becoming a zombie--well then, my friends, eternity doesn't have to be so lonely. for you, there is www.zombiEharmony.com.

what's that you say? you yourself are not a zombie? ...are you even undead? maybe you're one of those pansy Twilight fans who wish you had a werewolf and a vampire to swoon over. that's okay, there's a site for you, too. from Campfire, the folks behind HBO's TruBlood campaign, there's the vampire dating microsite, dedicated to hooking blood dolls up with their dream vamps. g'head, go get Lovebitten, at least more than you already do via SuperPoke on Facebook.

[friendly warning: if you do sign up, be sure to give accurate thought to your screenname.]

travel destination: LIRR, Westin.

so, coming home from a yummy sushi dinner at Azuki last night (if you like sushi, do it up; they're 520 8th ave), i got to staring (as i always do) at the often inane ad posters on the inside of the LIRR trains.

now to begin with, i find these sort of things often funny. frequently the same ad goes up, in the same entrance/exit car, facing each other. as if you didn't get the point on your left, you may need it mirrored on the right. regardless.

this is actually about a train ad i like--mostly.

Westin has been doing some halfway decent advertising in the past year, really breaking the clutter from competitor hotel advertisements by using the age old trick of not showing what you're selling. these train ads, i presume, are part of that campaign. they are really high quality nature images with one phrase of copy and the logo. that's it. if anyone can find a shot of these, let me know--i looked.

they caught my eye because they were nice to see on a dreary train. the copy was even clever. one was a shot of an immense tidal wave and the words "rush hour." another had incredibly tall trees and the word "skyscrapers." another was a shot of para sailing, from the feet down with the ocean, and the words "middle seat." the message was relevant and acute.

there was only one problem ad in the campaign. a pristine shot of a path through the woods. the phrase? "avoid the traffic." this breaks the noun trend they've been using. moreover, it lost relevance. we're on a bloody train. relate to the train, not the car i'm not in. a better phrase? "public transportation."

has anyone else seen these ads elsewhere? what did you think?

july about how good your copy is?

okay. i can't believe i forgot to mention this. seeing as when i saw it, i called my mother up immediately to scream. nevermind that i was on an agency shoot. nevermind that it was almost lunchtime. all that mattered was the absolutely inane drivel i'd just seen.

as copyranter has honourably pointed out many, many times (and more), Kenny Cole should be prohibited from writing any more advertisements. ever. the puns are often confusing. and downright crappy. at first, i couldn't blame the guy his ego. at first, i kind of forgave Kenny.

after all, even though they were crappy, they had some (pseudo) attempt at relevance. awearness = awareness. potential carriers = bags/AIDS. etc. i get it. it's shitty, but i get it. marrying two concepts, commercialism and activism? not the first or the last time. but on this past Friday i saw the biggest Kenny Cole atrocity ever while wandering around the upper west end of Colombus Ave:

JULY ABOUT YOUR WEIGHT?

and a whole bunch of other really terrible things you may "ly" about (in July?). i assume it correlated to some month-long sale. i don't care. this particular advertisement crossed a line for me in Kenny Cole land. i can forgive shitty if it's uplifting. sure, raise AIDS awareness. sure, "make the most of grey summer days" with new grey styles. sure, acknowledge that we all walk in "different shoes" and then buy some.

but the derogatory nature (as if i should be surprised) aimed mainly at women (again, should i be surprised) combined with bastardizing punning (as usual) makes this the worst thing he's rolled out with yet. i'm ashamed for him. this gets a big ride on the failboat, hook line and sinker.

it's 3:30 am. know where your Riot is?

well, i was not disappointed. batman was badass. go see it. twice.

i have an all-day shoot today so i won't be able to update. i just got back from the midnight showing. this is my dedication to you. at threefuckingthirty am.

if you're being a night owl, check out this awesome review/compilation of the Dark Knight marketing. browse the sites. be a little less... serious. EDIT: yeah, it pwned this weekend. i saw it twice. next stop: IMAX.

mccain's admorons go one further.

truthiness! first, i gave you last week, a plagiarist you can believe in.

this week, i'm afraid it doesn't end. i regretfully, fretfully give you, some bullshit you can believe in.

ohmy. who is paying these people? who said this was a good idea? WHO?
[and yes, you should also hear colbert in the background saying "repore" in your head.]

it's so sad it's not even funny.
[if you can't compete: steal, mutilate until useless, repeat.]

to make it up to you, in the news today is also a unicorn you can believe in.

a plagiarist we can believe in.

...for real mccain?

i mean, i know you feel threatened... and maybe even, like you predecessor, you feel that you're clever. but really, you just lack that.

and what does this really say to me?
"i don't believe in change. i just want you to vote for me."
by omitting the key phrase--change--and shifting the emphasis from an ideal to a person.

yeah, you're not changing my mind. ick.
[new slogan released june 3]

first impressions. om nom nom nom.

random smattering of thoughts. more structured posts to follow. i'm vocal today.

RANDOM: Om Nom Nom Nom
this site, despite my best efforts, has assimilated my life.
i do indeed now say "om nom nom nom" with surprising frequency. never underestimate the power of boredom, sleepiness, late work afternoons, and Microsoft Paint. it's like lolcats version 1.5, if you don't count manbabies.com (and i certainly don't).

FILM: The Strangers
advertising decent enough to get me to go.
however, after conclusions of the movie, tamara still "isn't there." in fact, tamara isn't even mentioned again. who the fuck is tamara? and more over, what did she do with the plot of this movie? because it doesn't exist. way to go for a suspenseful let down. as in, a suspenseful lack of plot arc, motive, and, dare i say, creativity.
prove me wrong. please, somehow validate that 12 bucks i won't get back.

FILM: Kill the Sequels
an uncountable number of sequels you really didn't need to know were occurring. or rather, you could know--but why? lemme go with... i will likely never go see nearly any of these. you could sell me on shrek 4 & 5 (i'm a sucker), the grudge 3 (i'll see any shitty scary movie that comes out; see above), and silent hill 2 (because i liked the 1st one). cars 2? for real? why? [watch. there'll be a Strangers 2. -headdesk-]

ADVERTISING: Change Lingerie
a campaign i think i like. not love, though.
i say "i think" because while i instinctively like the political overtones of the campaign and the aggressive, in-your-face tactic, i'm not sure if it's tasteful. i mean, i think it is? it's odd. it's like one of those things where you feel guilty for liking it. like i think i perhaps shouldn't like it. i'm not sure why. clever, to be sure. caustic? unsure.

ADVERTISING: Bob Garfield, Lasagna?
okay, bad joke, as in, i have shamed myself. regardless.
why the disaffection for cheese? that campaign doesn't offend me enough to get me to stop purchasing cheetos. no, i don't want orange underwear (unless i buy it that way!) and no, i don't think they're very clever commercials. but breeding baby drug lords? come on now. for serious. eat some cheetos and calm down, parents of america. i am losing serious respect for adage by the day.

@dailybiz @thegirlriot - garfield needs readers and no better way to get them than to say something completely ridiculous :)
(he is as wise as he is charismatic.) edit to include his wicked awesome post about this here.

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.