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?]

$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.

commercials switched at birth

view each of these. draw your own conclusions. my snark after the vids.





okay. first thing's first.
1 -- OMFG people leaning over me are CREEPY. and who says my questions take the form of a British wannabe nanny? or a cab driver? or any other of the bizarre personifications they give to my "questions."
2 -- why is "ask.com" in its multiple incarnations asking questions for me? shouldn't i be asking the questions? and those creepy people be answering them for me? i don't want to associate myself with creepy people unless they're being helpful. especially if i'm carrying those folks on my back. that's right, i'm self-serving, and so are you.
3 -- if anything, as the commercials currently stand, i should be asking questions of ask.com (since they're pushing that they know all kinds of random shit), and the G1 should be supplying me with answers (as that's the G1's unique benefit they're pushing).

creative teams, please switch executions. kthanxbai.

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.

i may cry: Apple to shut down iTunes?

hot on the heels of a conversation i was having yesterday about music subscriptions and the issue of transference, it seems that yet another legal battle or other may destroy music lovers' hearts. Apple is threatening to shut down iTunes if it goes through.

i think that of all businesses, the music business has single-handedly gone out of its way to make shit absolutely horrid for themselves. if there is an antithesis to social media, it's the music business. there is nothing social about it and there seems to be an utter disrespect and apathy toward the consumer which they, on the other hand, so avidly court by banning pirating and slapping on RIAA fines before you can say "student loan."

[i'm not referring here to social media music sites like Last.fm or iLike, i mean the industry itself--those in charge of distribution and collection to and from those lesser sites.]

this is not Apple's fault. i don't want them to shut down iTunes, but i don't think it's right for the record execs to hoc more cash out of the resellers, especially when in most cases it's not like the artists see a raise. it's like the music bailout to save some cushy chair's job.

between a copyright hike and streaming radio battles the likes that Muxtape, Pandora, and many more face, all that the music industry is accomplishing is blowing off the one foot they've got left. REALITY CHECK. people are going to find more, new ways to pirate if you're going to make it harder to be legal. work WITH our needs, not against them!

i am a full legal music downloader. i buy everything from iTunes (if .mp3) or Amazon (if CD--i do still buy those). if i hear it on Pandora and like it, i buy it legally. partially because it's easy and partially because, at some point, i respected the industry, and still respect the musicians. the former is fast going down the crapper.

UPDATE 10.03: The Copyright Royalty Board Does Nothing. iTunes’ Rates Remain The Same.

porn and the search engine showdown

Google is on its game, with two shiny toys:
Google News, which enables you to search newspaper archives online [because you know, the interwebs will make newspapers extinct, until they're fossilized and preserved here] and Google Labs' Audio Indexing, which you must admit is pretty sweet, be it looking up the lyrics to Chocolate Rain or finding out what exactly the politician said during that speech or other [as it's currently being used for].

MarketingVox points out a new trend that Bill Tancer of global research at Hitwise discovered when analyzing the search engine data: millenials aren't so interested in porn anymore, compared to previous numbers. they're spending more time searching social media networks. wait.

you're telling me folks are less into porn because they're wasting time on facebook?

no no no, kind sirs. it's because they're busy finding porn on facebook, myspace, etc. don't get me wrong. i'm not saying there's actual porn on facebook. after all, they did take down pics of breasts. but the difference is proximity. you have no chance with Ms Giselle of whatever porn site. but you might actually get a chance to make porn with that girl you haven't talked to since sophomore year of high school.

in other SEO news, there's the Search Engine Rap Battle. i don't even have words.

more facebook suckage. users? what?

FACEBOOK WAKE UP.

you are no longer about the end user.
it's becoming more and more evident as you slight your users.
and your users LOVE you. and your users want to HELP you.
but you are making it increasingly difficult.
yet another reason why: opening the gate to the walled garden.*
*i will address this further a little ways down. feel free to scroll to the star.

since yesterday alone, when the threat appeared, 120,974 more people joined the petition against the new facebook layout. and now there are even more groups. i was going to link to all of them, but there are too many. i'm over 20 groups, with thousands of members apiece, and i'm only at page 5 of the group search. my favourites thus far are "i miss the old me" and "i hate the [...] stalker layout."

you are clearly making it easier for advertisers to utilize facebook in the new layout. i also get that you're trying to "grow with your users" as the college age kids enter the job market--and that's cool, sort of. it's sleek, more organized, and trying to be more relevant. no argument there. the redesign was not a bad idea. i just feel like more PR could have been done surrounding users' concerns other than a blog post or two. users are feeling slighted in favour of The Business.

i already briefly talked about why i'm not keen on the redesign, but the other part is something ReadWriteWeb points out: "as Facebook becomes less of a place for them to hang out and more of a tool for networking in the business sense of the word, the cleaner design and additional controls make sense." Facebook isn't about business. it's about fun. did we lose that somewhere between when it started as a college networking site and now when it's trying to become LinkedIn?

because that's what marketers are interested in.
[and sure, that rocks for 'us' professionals, but if you USE Facebook, this is just lame.]

*and now Google is being allowed to search and index parts of Facebook. namely groups, discussions, wall posts, and events--you know, sites of interaction. i'm sure my alma mater will LOVE knowing when the next big kegger is going down--if they hadn't sorted it out by trolling the book already. not to mention if you ever wanted to NOT be a part of that ridiculous group you joined in high school, TOO BAD. you're internet-linked to it for life. CONGRATS!

WHERE ARE MY NEW PRIVACY FEATURES TO MATCH!?
you seem to be selling me a whole lot more than you're helping me. that's dangerous for you.

[sidenote: i already realize Google owns more of my life than anyone else short of the government; that's my choice using blogger, gmail, etc. i may not have a lot to lose through this index, but i'm betting a lot of the kids who use it will in the future unless everyone above shifts prerogatives about what the internet is and means to incoming generations. on principle i am against it.]

facebook is threatening me

IT WILL SOON BE. THE ONLY. FACEBOOK.
you will submit. you will use The New Layout. you will not Protest. all Complaints will be Futile. Press 3 to Assimilate Now.

facebook, srsly. wtf are you thinking?

never mind that i bloody HATE the new facebook to the assured point that if you make me convert to the new layout, i will use it less, and i'm sure i'm not alone in that. hullo. you don't pay us. we bring value to you by even being there. why alienate? regardless. this is beside the point. it's also simply tactically stupid.

if you want to make the new facebook layout the One True Facebook [cue "there can only be oooooone!"], why did you allow for this random period where users could opt-in and select to use the new Facebook or not? ok, maybe as a beta test it works, but then CALL IT A BETA TEST. not being up front about it not only makes users cranky, but leads us to believe that we do not HAVE to switch.

even when faced with the idea that we would have to surrender Ye Olde Facebooke, users petitioned and created groups to let Facebook know that we are not into the new layout. 691,269 members are actively against the new layout. but not only that, we gave shitloads of feedback about how to improve new Facebook to be equally useful so we wouldn't mind the switch. i haven't seen one thing really change. not one. this makes users who actively participate in creatively critical, useful ways feel inadequate and undervalued.

in this 20 minute extraordinarily long defense, Facebook says they're listening. i'm just not sure i buy it.
so what i mean to say is, the actual way it occurred gives a poor impression.

clearly, Facebook can operate with both layouts at once. why not keep this? if the new Fbook is SO wonderful, then naturally users will gravitate to it. i'm not saying to get RID of the new fbook; some people like it, that's cool. but why force users who aren't so keen? users could keep the layout they prefer. moreover, since the new Fbook resembles other sites (like FriendFeed, for example) than its own unique entity, it may also lead to further creativity--different skins would be fun.

in short, i'm not taking this threat lightly. and that's just what it feels like.
you aren't helping me connect--unless by that you mean, helping me connect forehead to monitor.

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?)

negative points for one of my fave beers.

i only like a hand full of beers. here. i'll list them for you:
magic hat 9. blue moon. yuengling. guinness. corona. sapporo (w/sake). newcastle.
...yeah, i think that's it. (take note if you ever want to buy me one.)

unfortunately, america's oldest brewery apparently sucks at life. or at least at PR. in short, it will have me hesitant next time i have to decide between a blue moon and a yuengling, which is a hard choice i frequently have to make.

at length, apparently there was a truck "posing" as a yuengling deliverer; the truck did some hasty Manhattan driving maneuvers, resulting in a brawl of epic proportions. alright, i lie. a small spat in which this poor lad winds up punched and deemed a faggot (which, to say the least, makes Riot cranky).

yuengling then begged off, stating it wasn't one of their drivers, and no, they couldn't give any further information so that Brad could notify whomever company the employee did belong to. at the very least, this is a case for some hands-on twitter love that their PR folks should get on. at best, i'm filing this under a hardcore "wtf?"

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

how my life has become more like the Sims.

this is something i've considered for some time.

primarily because when my father had lit our kitchen on fire, we both looked something like as pictured at the left. a certain screaming, up-in-arms motion as we stared dumbfounded at it, profoundly doing nothing as the stove went up in flames. only after a good ten seconds of registering "FIRE!" did we proceed to put it out. this is how i came to understand why my stupid Sims would never put out their own fires: they're like us.

as we become more and more digitally integrated, life shares more and more characteristics of the Sims. for example, Myspace Top Friends (and now with one of the new apps, Facebook, but less so). i revisited this the other day with am&a, and the conversation went something similar to as follows:

me: i'm not in your top friends! i am dejected. hahaha.
she: i didn't know you still used myspace! i'll put you back in. you'd just gone quiet, and you know, friending politics and all.

now mind you, am&a has a Top 24, because she's that popular, and she's right: i don't use Myspace all that much. i'm familiar with it, i have a certain friendgroup there, but that's not really my thing. what got me thinking was the Politics of Friending. the Unspoken Rules of the Top 8.

some of which are:
. if someone puts you in their top friends, you put them in yours.
... unless they're really not your friend.
... unless you have no interest in being their friend.
. you give them the benefit of the doubt.
... which is to say, they start the highest they can be.
... i spoke to you in HS, we're reconnecting, you get 6.
... unless you do me a solid and we become best friends.
. you take me out of your friends, you come out of mine.
... even if we talk every day in real life.
... just because you don't comment enough.
... come on now, realty is precious.
. i am not obligated to put you at the same # as you do me.

you could, if you wanted, weigh in your social weight by your travels in your friends' top 8s. which is to say, in the Sims, if you don't call a "friend" for awhile, your rapport decreases until a frowny face appears over their heads. if you don't Myspace your friends for awhile, your rapport decreases down the 8, letting you know a frowny face is sure to follow in-person. so be kind. check the 8s. make some comments. save the frowny faces.

and hey, now that Islands of Adventure will be opening the Harry Potter section, we really can go to Wizard World, too. just keep me away from the magic acts.

DigitalNext doesn't want your...

...anything.

in fact, don't comment.
if you're passionate and opinionated, give up.
after all, blogging doesn't matter, anyway.

certainly don't attempt to have a conversation.
adage, screw you. take that for personal and offensive.

i went out of my way to REGISTER just to bloody comment on this post, which i addressed in my blog here. i am one for conversing, as many of you know. why not close the gap, get feedback from the person who wrote it? but since i can't use a url on AdAge, i just gave my abbreviated thoughts.

which have been deleted and censored.
"Ad Age reserves the right to delete comments that are insulting or personal in nature."

i did not insult the writer in any fashion. nor was anything i said personal. i was addressing the fact that, perhaps, this was not the best method, and that, perhaps, when i go to a store i like to see a person. a la the post i wrote.

what the fuck, AdAge? communicate this.

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?

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!" ?]

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?

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.

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?