$20 if you can find me that Prego commercial*

i have been scowling the net since last week for the "newish" Prego commercial. lemme set the scene for you. medium shot of bowl of spaghetti. you understand it is spaghetti. a jar of sauce--literally, a jar--is dropped onto the spaghetti. bounces. unappetizing. pan right. bowl of spaghetti. SAUCE is poured on it. mmm. sauce. Prego. "for when you want sauce, not a jar." (paraphrase, but the intent is the same). WTF?!? hi. Prego IS IN A JAR. YOU EVEN PICTURE THE JAR. NEXT TO THE SAUCE ON THE PASTA. what creative director says, oh yes, let's use our unique selling point! we're not a jar sauce! we just happen to be in a jar. dumbasses.

PS--want to laugh? i got more images of pregnant women when image searching Google for Prego than the jar sauce. on the first page, Prego appears only once, at #3.

*and by i will give you $20, i mean that i will give you a drawing of a spider. for real, click that link. it's one of the funniest things i've seen this month. maybe ever. i'm half in love with Jane Gilles. because it wouldn't be anywhere near as funny if she hadn't gone along with it. we need more people like her in the world. or at least in customer service. so cheers to you, Jane and David.

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.

mta error in penn station; or, graphic design fail.

how many times have you New Yorkers seen that sign standing in front of the train board in Penn Station, waiting for your track to show? how many of you have actually thought about it?

we studied it for a good twenty minutes yesterday. this is what my family has arrived at as some of the possible meanings:

"are you a boy? girl? ...umbrella?"
"can you please tell me the sex of this umbrella?"
"maybe this umbrella will help you."
"might you need an umbrella?"
"bathrooms and umbrellas possibly this way."
"ask question, receive umbrella."

we wound up asking the train conductor, who told us what the sign was actually for. i'll enlighten you tomorrow. please comment with your own creative musings. i look forward to your umbrellas.

hijacked! twitter ads, stupidity vs intellect.

interesting thing landed in my twitterbox this morning. (why did that sound dirty?) @ischafer, of Deep Focus, pointed out this mashable article in which Twittad (...that also sounds dirty) debuted.

Twittad is an online account-auctioning service which functions as the go-between for users looking to monetize their twitter accounts and those willing to buy the impressions of those accounts' followers. skeezy? i'll let you decide. thing of it is, it may smack of familiarity. and it should. since Ian did it for a good cause last May.

but rather than have charity involved, this is just another experiment into how to monetize, cashify, etc the social media sphere (twitter in particular). does that make it worse? some people argued that when discussing adapting the SocialVibe platform to non-charity based advertising, and there may be something to it.

regardless.

there are a few big differences between Twittad's approach and Ian's approach other than the charitable aspect. and this is the heart of the matter:

1. Ian is awesome.
ok. well, that's subjective, but the point is relevant. Ian has a following of cultlike proportions (again perhaps i exaggerate a little). he has things to say that people want to read. he is likable, relevant, and has 700+ followers (as of today; when he did this in May, it was less, but still in the multiple hundreds). he has an understanding of social media to ensure authentic, useful usage of the account during the duration of the sponsorship. and promised 8-10 outbound tweets/day.
...TWITTAD ERROR: it is hard for a sponsor to be sure that the user of the account being purchased is as insightful, conscientious, and influential.

2. his followers have a higher probability of awesome.
you know what you're getting when you buy his space. he has the ears and eyes of many professional elite from the marketing, advertising, and journalism realms, among others i'm sure. you know exactly what target your message is getting sent to and how apt they are to be viewing the advertisement of the sponsor.
...TWITTAD ERROR: if the purchased account's followers are not of a particular target, demographic, or, well, anything, you may risk shouting into the wind; you also are unsure of the level of interaction those followers have with the sponsored account.

3. you are assuming followers give a shit.
as a social media guru, people were interested in Ian's experiment. it was intriguing, charitable, and unique. as Dude A college junior needing $16 for laundry, i'm not sure i care about what you're advertising. moreover, the major downfall of Twittad is that it only gives a profile image (not the usericon). any user of twitter knows that you rarely visit a person's actual profile page. you're busy looking at your feed, often through other second hand apps, like Twhirl. if there are any real impressions to be had, it would be through the usericon.
...TWITTAD ERROR: fail, for the aforementioned reason. almost nobody goes to a person's profile page. unless it's a new follower you may want to follow back. or a funny profile you sometimes click to but don't actually follow, like @chucknorris or @FakeSarahPalin.

---

so in short, Ian did it first, did it better. then again, many of the selling twitter accounts are going for pretty cheap. is this more of a get-what-you-pay-for mentality? banner ads 2.0 anybody?

youngsters; yr doin' it wrong.

found originally on AdFreak, this still annoys the shit out of me.

how old were the folks making this ad? have any of them had kids? ever touched a Playstation? mind you i SUCK at Playstation and XBOX and whatever. my experience is limited to things like Spyro the Dragon and Guitar Hero. and even i knew that controller didn't match up to that game.

not to mention that dorm room doesn't match up to that kid. he looks like he's sitting in the main room of a hotel. the decorations are too classy, the room is too clean, and to boot, he has a bloody flatscreen tv. yeah, cos i had a flatscreen in college. (i didn't have ANY tv in college!)

you can tell from this ad that they were trying to improve their image with the younger demographic, and yet, didn't actually use any input from that age group. (wtf kid model, didn't you point out the nonmatching controller? or are you too into fashion to be bothered?)

this violently violates a sense of relevancy to the customer. rather than saying "hey, we get you, give us a second chance," it says "we want your money and can't be bothered to take the time to get you right."

if you're targeting a demographic like that--male college age gamers--you'd better believe they know their shit and will see through yours, too. you may have gotten away with it if you were being general, but "gaming" is intense--thus the "play hard"--unless they didn't even make that connection.

this is why agencies should hire a few younger kids. a la dave trott's suggestion. otherwise you'll just do more harm than good to that market.

new Greyhound murder ads, PETA.

first impression: poor form, i'd argue. found here. what do you think? good way to steal the hype and make people draw connections between humans and animals--or is it just too soon? (or just too stupid?)

ridiculous laws. pringles are cake?

so in honor of this ridiculous law that may qualify pringles as cake, reported by ian tait here, i have decided to do up a post to make you giggle in the coming AM. laws you didn't know you didn't know.

the newest: indecent exposure.
how many times have you seen (or been) that kid with the pants hanging low and a surreptitious inch of boxer showing? i confess to raise my hand. NO MORE! says Michigan. they are cracking down (pun intended) with the help of a cop named Dick (no joke, i couldn't write this any better). check it out. too much boxer and you're suspended. or in need of suspenders. i bet Mr. Dick has images of Denis Leary's "under-fuckin-wear" skit dancing through his dreams.

the oldest: and more.
- Alaska law says that you can't look at a moose from an airplane.
- In Miami, it is forbidden to imitate an animal.
- It is against the law to mispronounce the name of the State of Arkansas in that State.
- In Kentucky, it's the law that a person must take a bath once a year.
- In Utah, birds have the right of way on any public highway.
- In North Carolina, it is against the law for dogs and cats to fight.
- In Virginia, chickens cannot lay eggs before 8:00 a.m., and must be done before 4:00 p.m.
- In San Francisco, there is an ordinance, which bans the picking up and throwing of used confetti.
- In Michigan, married couples must live together or be imprisoned.
- In the state of Colorado, a pet cat, if loose, must have a tail-light

walmart's new transparency: hiding more from you.

well, that's just so special. right on the tail of the TSC Is Less Than Direct logo, and the problematic Missing M mantra of Quiznos, comes the 'refreshing' logo of Walmart (note, it's now one word; we're taking the human element out, he is dead after all...).

people. srsly. learn your symbols.
just like ">" can be read as "less than," the "*," or asterisk, often denotes fine print. and i'm sure we all know the incredible amount of fine print that Wal-Mart (oh, i'm sorry, Walmart) can accrue. just as perhaps the "less than direct" was inadvertent honesty, so possibly is the asterisk. i can't think of a better symbol to embody all the cover-ups and discontinuity of the worldwide empire.

WALMART*
* unlivable wages
* shitty benefits packages
* destruction of open space
* non-environmental interests
* monopolistic regime
* culture death
* lack of sustainability
* faux-interest in change

...i could go on. but i'll let you. so, in short, i think the new facelift is entirely appropriate. it symbolizes everything Wal-Mart has become: a faceless, humanless entity only interested in giving the illusion of change while hiding as much fine print as possible. yeah, sounds about right, logo designers.

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.

the socialcash monstrosity. cashify baby.

right on the heels of Facebook's leap forward (previous post, ability to vote up/down on advertisements users see) is this monstrosity called SocialCash.

"What that means, is that users are given the option to earn stuff in return for completing offers -- like applying for credit cards, getting information about vacation rentals, receiving free trials of magazines, or finding out their credit score. The offers subsidize the reward (like, say, an iPod Touch or an XBox 360) and the developer gets a cut."

so wait, wait--let me get this right.
i click stupid advertisements, fill them out and pretend to like them, and instead of paying me, you give me branded products. yeah, cos that sounds revolutionary. or like a banner ad in and of itself: "click me and a win a free ipod!" yeah thanx no.

i don't want to sign up for credit cards, give out information to third parties via banner ads, or learn more about vacation rentals i won't use, just so i can have a chance at an ipod. no value there. this won't work.

when i said users should be involved with their advertisements, i said in the ads selection. "paying me off" taking time to do shit i don't want to do for stuff i don't want when i could be playing with facebook apps (talking beneath me, here, but you get the idea) is not my idea of a good time.

the only reason socialvibe works with perks is because a) i don't have to DO anything -- the badge stays on my page. b) the information i share is with socialvibe only, or may be shared with my sponsor/charity of choice. c) i go into it knowing that i'm not doing it for the perks, i'm doing it for charity, so if i don't get a $20 gift certificate, i'm not going to be cranky.

but if i fill out hundreds of stupid banner ads or pop up offers or what have you and don't see anything for it--except for lots of credit card bills well then i'm still going to have to go with a HELL NO. this is not RELEVANT. REMEMBER to be relevant when dealing with a teen market! you are not important to them unless you're doing something they already want to do. newsflash: they don't already want to fill out for vacation rental deals. they're sixteen.

"The Gratis concept works for two reasons: 1. people love free stuff, and 2. in order to get the stuff, users must invite a certain number of users who also complete the program (the number varies based on the value of the reward). So the customer pool grows virally and exponentially."

...stop calling it viral. it makes you look bad. < /peeve >

"Clearly, the viral spread didn't work"--anyone else find that sentence funny twofold?

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]

hook, line: an open letter to Burpee etc.

dear Burpee:

i seem to have a problem. i bought a package of your seeds the other day from my local supermarket. seeds seemed simple enough to me, and i know you're a well-known, reputable name, so i don't impugn your seeds at all--i just seem to be having trouble.

i took them home and placed them on the window sill. should i not have done that? i thought plants needed light, but i could be wrong. i know it says that your seeds grow but i've seen minimal results.

i'm really disappointed in your product. i don't know that i will be purchasing again.

cordially, miss Riot.

----

"seeds that grow"?! wtf? as opposed to seed that don't? auto-growing seeds?
picture courtesy of my brother, who shot and pic messaged it to me last night.

baby derriere dereon.

i've been ruminating on this post for part of the day now.

apart from that a girl's line of Beyonce's Dereon is so forgettable it never made it to my list of top things i never wanted to see created, i wanted to consider exactly why i found it repulsive. other than the fact that, you know, good feminists say stuff like that. [though the definition of 'good feminist' changes daily, so i really don't try to keep up.]

i'm cranky because there are about thirty different ways this ad could have looked. using the same ridiculous clothing. the girls are too young to know what they want to wear. they shop where Beyonce-loving fashionista mommy shops. you ask that mom if they want to overtly want their daughters to look trashy-hip, chances are they'll disagree--or don't see it as trashy-hip.

this should have embodied more about what the brand embodies to those people who buy it. style, sure, no doubt. but c'mon, it's Beyonce. how about a freezeframe of the girls in the clothing; one singing, one playing drums on the couch, one with air guitar? girls doing something and being stylish. i see that poorly executed there, with the piano and the faux-posed guitar groupie shot. it looks like someone had a good idea and it got trampled.

what about hearkening back to the princess, as was suggested in the post? that is, the one girls wanted to be when they were little. give them dolls. let them play. lord knows the Bratz dolls would fit right in stylistically. or better yet, before i get on a rant on dolls/Bratz, what about a campaign in which girls model their moms? show a shot of mom in Dereon in a record store, with her daughter in Dereon next to her shopping as well. family, solidarity, style.

...you're telling me there was nothing better than bee-stung lipped 8 year olds who, frankly, look uncomfortable in that ad?

stupid advertising, stupid protests.

i love advertising. i also love protesting. i've protested many a thing in many a strange fashion (or state of unfashion, as the case may have been! bwuahaha, oh crazy times in NYC. anyway.).

i hate stupid advertising. i'm not saying piss-poor advertising where you know the budget wasn't high. i'm saying advertising without a thought process. incongruent advertising. hate that. hate hate hate. (take that twistori <3)

but i hate stupid protesting more. if that's even possible. like for example this shining gem for america's "offical" language. but okay. mistakes happen. even really stupid mistakes happen.

but one that shows you carefully thought out being stupid? FAIL.

this i found while browsing Adages, which always is or finds stupid things.

excerpt:
Mark Dice and his group -- which calls itself -- "The Resistance" will be boycotting Starbucks for its sluttly mermaid. "The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," explains Dice in his press release. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves, Slutbucks."

[...]The mermaid's boobies are covered by her hair. As she is a mermaid, she ain't got no legs to spread. (Though Dice claims she is a Siren, not a mermaid).

errr, Dice? ...do you even know what a siren is?
...cos they are freakin' half-bird women. so sure, yeah, they could spread 'em if they liked--except that part's usually avian. and even if you want to get happy and make it a chick with wings, the Starbucks logo clearly isn't wings. clearly. it could be many things, but unless you failed a Rorschach test, it's certainly not wings. and don't give me that a siren and a mermaid are the same thing. they're not. even if they were, that would be an even stupider reason for Dice to use the "siren" tag as a defense of his extensive foray into moronic representation. if you can't get your mythology straight, check it with someone who can. seriously.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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?