Dead Tree Media - Traditional Advertising Reviewed by an Internet Marketer » All Posts

Apparently Jack of @JackInTheBox Needs to Spend More Time at Home

Jeff Ferguson — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:41:40 +0000

Sometimes I’m really amazed what gets through in ads these days. Jack In The Box has made some amazing ads since they brought Jack back, and this is still a good ad… they may have just wanted to check into what it means when you have a tear tattooed under your eye.

I have a buddy of mine who swears he could make a living just by consulting with ad agencies and providing them with the insights of a full grown man who still thinks like a 13 year-old boy. Without even checking with him, I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t have passed the test…

Aaron Wall of SEO Book Catches Google Chrome Buying Links (But Not Really)

Jeff Ferguson — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:05:33 +0000

To say that Aaron Wall of SEO Book has a personal vendetta against the behemoth search engine company, Google, is an understatement. Over the years, he has blogged and spoken with the passion of a man that is trying to get children out of coalmines about how Google doesn’t follow its own rules, favors big corporations, and is just basically not following its own mantra of, “Do no harm.”

So, when Aaron discovered a bunch of paid links for Google’s browser, Chrome, with the ad copy of ”This post is sponsored by Google” on more than 400 pages, he must have thought he had found the golden fleece. Aaron blogged about it, so Danny Sullivan over at Search Engine Land and a bunch of other search news sites picked it up as news.

However, just like a bunch of stories from last year, they didn’t have all the facts just yet. Turns out, Essence Digital, the company that actually placed the paid links, had this to say to the BBC:

Google told the BBC that it had never commissioned Essence Digital to approach bloggers and place sponsored links.

In its own statement, Essence Digital said: “Google never approved a sponsored-post campaign. They only agreed to buy online video ads. Google have consistently avoided paid postings to promote their products, because in their view these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users.

“We apologise to Google who clearly didn’t authorise this.”

I don’t blame Danny Sullivan or Search Engine Land for the story and I can’t be too angry about the SEO Book posting for this kind of thing; both publications did actually catch Google doing something that they shouldn’t have been doing, and it’s pretty damn juicy to catch somebody doing something that they tell other people not to do (hell, it’s a stalwart of any political reporting these days) .

I think where I get a bit perturbed is how quickly everybody went to press without a statement from Google.

Back in the old days of the press, if you didn’t have a source in place for something like this, you didn’t run the story. I’m pretty sure everybody has seen “All The President’s Men” at this point in your life if you’re going to get into the writing game, but clearly some of the finer points are lost on the bloggers of the world.

When it turns out that Google never authorized the purchase of paid links (which if you use your head, why would they want or need to in the first place?), the first thing out of all the search engine blogs should be, “we’re sorry for blaming you directly,” but I doubt that will ever happen.

Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m not naive, I know that big corporations do a lot of evil in this world. In fact, I’m usually the first one to say it because people usually love to blame the government or some other organization for a lot of the bad stuff that goes down in America. However, let’s try and not just blame Google for all the evil in the search engine marketing game. This was sloppy work on both Google and Essence’s part, but why does everybody always have to go for the evil conclusion?

Sure, they’re a big company now, but despite what you may think, they are not run by robots or super humans. Google is made up of good old fashioned regular humans, who eff things up on a regular basis. In this case, Google outsourced some work to another company of humans, who clearly have even lower standards for workmanship, and are most likely done as a company now because they just screwed up with the wrong client.

I know it won’t happen, but the bloggers and online news organizations of the world need to learn to take a breath before jumping on stuff like this. Just like when it turned out that CarrierIQ wasn’t really keystroke tracking your every move, Google wasn’t really buying links… a company it hired was.

I know it’s a subtle detail and it’s not as much fun to report on, but trust me, I’m sure Google is doing plenty of other evil stuff you can call them on this year, so pace yourself.

Google Caught Buying Paid Links Again (seroundtable.com)
Uh oh, Google may be in trouble for fishy Chrome sponsored post campaign (venturebeat.com)
OOPS! GOOGLE runs afoul of own rules on searches… (guardian.co.uk)
Google Violated Its Own Evil-Free Policies While Promoting Chrome (gizmodo.com.au)

(Images of SEO Book and Search Engine Land logos from CrunchBase, All The President’s Men poster image from Rotten Tomatoes)

No, @Chevrolet Did Not Steal This Commercial Idea From @DearPhotograph. Get Over Yourself.

Jeff Ferguson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:45:41 +0000

So, there appears to be a bit of a kerfuffle (damn I love that word) over everything from intellectual property rights to copy rights and internet memes and all kinds of legal crap over whether or not the new Chevy ad below stole its concept from the popular blog, DearPhotograph.

Of course the answer is no, no it didn’t steal it… simply because DearPhotograph didn’t come up with the concept in the first place. The whiny founder and operator of the site, Taylor Jones, was quoted in a Mashable article claiming as much, but also adding in the shifty, “I did popularize it by creating a unique site that brings together the physical technique with deeply emotional reflections that are expressed as captions.”

What the fuck is that? Are you fucking kidding me with this “deeply emotional reflections” crap?

Let’s start with the first line of bullshit – sites like this one and this one are doing the exact same thing as you have, plus, I can remember, but not find, a whole line of pictures where people were doing this with album covers for awhile. So, you’re already full of shit on just the idea front, which you try and dodge by saying you didn’t invent it, but you certainly don’t mind that Mashable wrote a whole article about Chevy stealing your idea (Mashable also already wrote a nice puff piece about the blog before the Chevy thing went down).

Second, DearPhotograh didn’t add any deep reflecting anything… it used an idea that was around already and then encouraged other people (yes, other people) to join in on an idea that was around already to create a website where you can put ads and make a little scratch on the side from the traffic.

Oh wait, I see what you mean… are you talking about the sappy captions people add when they submit their own picture in picture shots? So that’s the difference? Are you sure? Then you’re truly full of crap because the Chevy ad doesn’t do that part at all, it just ads a Ray Charles song.

Good grief, get over yourself. You created a derivative work and you knew you created a derivative work; you don’t get to run around bitching when someone else, big car company or not, creates another derivative work.

Here’s the reprehensible thing… not only did Chevy not steal it, but you’re going to actually try and steal some thunder from their ad campaign, and some additional ad revenue generating traffic to your blog, all in the name of intellectual property rights you don’t actually have in the first place.

Say what you will about Chevrolet and Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, but they actually created a great ad for their product that utilized a popular and existing photography technique and no matter how much you bitch, you’re not going to get any credit.

- JF

Chevy Turns to Pictures to Celebrate a Centennial (mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com)
Did Chevy Steal This Commercial Idea From a Popular Blog? (mashable.com)
Did Chevy Steal Creative Concept from Popular Blog? (laist.com)
Dear creatives, nick Dear Photograph faster next time. (adland.tv)

Microsoft has some (wholly inaccurate) fun with “GMail Man”

Jeff Ferguson — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:27:12 +0000

Let me break your heart with something: Google doesn’t care what you do. Google isn’t interested in anything about you. Google doesn’t actually know who you are. At all.

So, when you see video’s like this from Microsoft, remember that it was made by one of Google’s competitors who trying to spook you out of using a Google product and use theirs instead.

I know, “but wait, they have to read my mail so they can serve me ads!” Yeah, they’re not actually reading your mail. The GMail Man isn’t real and there aren’t real people sitting around the Google offices in Mountain View sifting through your messages. They don’t have time and they simply don’t care.

A computer does it for them; in fact, a lot of computers do it for them. Then that computer, which is a machine and doesn’t give a lick about burning sensations or what you did with your significant other the night before, uses a bunch of fancy math to look at the words in the email to figure out an ad to serve you. Three are people in the internet marketing business that actually don’t understand this, so don’t feel bad if it’s news to you.

Why do they serve you ads? Well, because you’re getting a service for free. This is the same business model that radio and TV have been using for most of their existence. Now Google is doing it, quite well, actually. They make billions of dollars doing it really well, just like radio and TV made a ton of money from you using their product. So no, the ads aren’t unsolicited… you actually signed up for them by using the product.

Why does everybody have this paranoia that any company that is over a few dozen people is out to get them? These companies don’t care about you… they’re here to make money and you’re here to use their products. Get over yourself, you’re not that interesting. Don’t give me this “privacy” crap… you’re willing to give up your precious privacy for a dollar off a bag of chips at the supermarket, so give me a break about your email.

You know who is reading your email? The head of IT at your office… he’s got the time and actually does know who you are and is doing dirty, dirty things with that picture you just sent to your friend in accounting.

– JF

Aaron Wall of SEO Book Catches Google Chrome Buying Links (But Not Really)

Taco Bell/Aasif Mandvi Predict a Short Summer

Mike Stern — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:22:18 +0000

So far it’s been a lousy summer in Chicago. We essentially had no spring and so far June has been feast or famine; 90 degrees or 60 degress. Nothing in-between.

But even I remain hopeful that summer will last longer than one week which is apparently what the folks at Taco Bell are expecting.

Pay close attention to the end of this spot:

Kudos to Aasif Mandvi for being able to get through a line of copy that says both, “spend less this summer” and “this week only” without laughing or screaming.

It’s gonna be a short summer, better get a tan while you can.

[REVEALED] Evan Longoria’s spectacular, barehanded catch is a viral video for Gillette

Jeff Ferguson — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:20:34 +0000

We’ve all seen the video… The Ray’s third baseman, the unfortunately named Evan Longoriai grabs a stray hit during batting practice with his bare hands and then goes right back to the interview. It’s been picked up everywhere from sports show to comedy sports shows and is just short of 4 MILLION views on YouTube. The only problem is… it’s a fake video created to go viral for Gillette.

According to the political accuracy site, Politifact (wait, what?), the video shows just way too many signs that it’s a big, fat phony.

A few points from the article:

“…there are four Gillette logos visible — two behind home plate and two on a roof facade over the third-base bleachers. But those logos aren’t part of McKechnie Field in real life…”
“…the user who posted the video, MrSprts12. The user created his YouTube account May 4 and has only uploaded the Longoria video. The user lists his company as Gillette.”
“There is no television station symbols or letters on the video, and the reporter is holding a microphone without a “flag” that identifies the station where the reporter works.”
“There is no cage surrounding the batter to catch foul balls or stop pitches that aren’t hit. There’s also no screen protecting the batting practice pitcher. There are no coaches in the video hitting ground balls and no other fielders on the baseball diamond to track down any hits.”
“The batter [or the cameraman], after hitting a ball right at Longoria and the reporter, isn’t heard yelling for them to get out of the way.”
Plus, there’s all kinds of physics issues with the ball that you can read in the original article.

Should people be pissed? I don’t think so… everybody was entertained and had some fun thinking this all happened for awhile. Oh, and frankly, because it’s a friggin’ brilliant idea for a viral video. You can’t actually make videos with the idea that they will go viral… you just hope and pray they will.

So, congrats to Gillette for pulling it over on us for awhile… I like this a lot better than all your old instructional videos on how to shave your balls.

- JF

Buzzword Overkill #2: American Express Goes Social

Mike Stern — Fri, 13 May 2011 19:36:37 +0000

I didn’t consciously know it at the time but Novi High School, just like pretty much every other school in America, ran on social currency.

It’s a simple system.

Everyone has an account with a starting balance dependent on your rung of the social status ladder. You make deposits, like being able to buy liquor at age 15 because you can already grow a beard, and withdrawals, like wearing glasses that went out of style three years earlier. Your balance determines who will talk to you and who won’t.

Then there’s social media; sites like Facebook and Twitter that help you communicate with friends, family and colleagues. I would explain further but since you are reading a blog I’m guessing you are on point with this concept already.

What’s important to realize is that neither of these have anything to do with accumulating rewards points by making purchases with your American Express. Not even buying beer at age 15 because anyone who is underage and stupid enough to charge a keg is a moron and shouldn’t get any reward points.

This spot is nothing more than a cheap attempt to associate the Am Ex rewards system with the idea of social media because it’s a trendy buzzword.

Shopping online is not social media. Amazon doesn’t deliver raincoats at night in doorways and Ticketmaster has nothing to do with posting pictures to Flickr.

Now maybe there’s something I’m not aware of and playing Cityville somehow helps accumulate points on your Am Ex. If so, than I apologize, but I’m pretty sure the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Yes it’s great you can use your rewards points online but the idea this has something to do with social media is just another attempt at bandwagon jumping by a lame marketer.

Oh well. I like Angry Birds better anyway.

Buzzword Overkill: Dyson’s Digital Vacuum

Buzzword Overkill: Dyson’s Digital Vacuum

Mike Stern — Wed, 11 May 2011 19:36:11 +0000

I get a little pain in the back of my neck every time I come across a commercial that attempts to associate a buzzword and a product that have absolutely no relation to each other.

For example, DIGITAL vacuuming:

Look, Dyson makes great vacuums. I just don’t understand the need to make this product into something it isn’t: digital.

Digital implies the unit runs on binary, a language of ones and zeroes. Do you really think there is some sensor transmitting a one for dirt and a zero for no dirt?

Digital implies the vacuum has computing power. Do you really think there is an algorithm being applied to help users decide which attachment configuration will be most helpful for cleaning up the Cheerios your three-year old kid spilled?

Finally, at the end of the spot the mystery is cleared up.

This unit uses Dyson’s new “digital motor.” Ohh. The MOTOR is digital. Well why didn’t you just say so. Sure, it might seem mechanical to the untrained eye. It might sound mechanical to the untrained ear. But no, this motor is digital.

My neck hurts.

Nivea Goes All-In at the Wrong Table

Mike Stern — Mon, 09 May 2011 19:35:38 +0000

Either the people working at the agency that handles print advertising for Nivea don’t gamble much or they are utter morons. Tough call.

The headline on this ad reads, “Look Like You’re All-In,” a poker term used when someone bets all of their remaining chips.

The copy in the body of the ad includes several more poker references: ”Keep your poker face refreshed,” “Keep your game sharp with poker sunglasses,” and this incredibly cheesy line, “take your online tourney mojo straight to the table.”

Here’s the problem: that’s not a poker table. The guys in the picture are playing ROULETTE.

I might be able to forgive the, “Look Like Your All-In.” At some point when you play roulette you eventually bet your last chips. But I’ve NEVER heard anyone at a roulette table say they are, “all-in,” and I lived in Las Vegas for four years and travel back regularly.

But even if you overlook the headline, you don’t need a poker face when you play roulette, there’s very little game to sharpen, you don’t need sunglasses — even if you’re stoned and your eyes are red the casino doesn’t care — and no one, not a single person on the face of god’s green earth, has an “online roulette tourney mojo.”

I can’t even begin to fathom how nobody in the chain of assembling and approving this ad noticed the huge disconnect.

The final ironic twist, found at the bottom of the ad, is a Nivea/Wired Magazine co-promotion called the “Decoding Vegas Experience,” where you could win a trip to Las Vegas and including a look behind the scenes at how casinos work. Please tell me someone from Nivea is going on that trip.

More importantly, if they are going, let me know if they plan to play any poker. I might have to pack up my online tourney mojo and poker sunglasses to go sit in that game.

#Superbowl Ads 2011: Why @adfreak gets it wrong and @usatoday gets it right

Apple iPhone Discovers Hot New Act: The Doors

Mike Stern — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:13:22 +0000

I’m not a big fan of the tone of the new iPhone commercials. The sentiment of, “If you don’t have an iPhone then you suck,” feels excessively smarmy, even for Apple.

But perhaps I judged too quickly. Maybe I underestimated the true power of having an iPhone with constant access to iTunes. The Genius function that analyzes my library and recommend music I might enjoy is especially impressive. I’m always looking for ways to find new, intriguing music that fits my tastes. Now, thanks to this commercial, I’ve come to understand how having an iPhone could really help me out.

That is so awesome. Did you see how iTunes’ Genius led that person to download music from a cool, underground artist called The Doors? It sure looks like an interesting, adventureous suggestion. I’ve certainly never heard that group on any of the over 1000 classic rock radio stations in America let alone seen an Oliver Stone movie about them.

Thank You Apple for coming through with such a wonderful suggestion. I now realize how truly enriching having a iPhone can be.