Friday, May 4, 2001
The Advertising Hell Weblog
I wanted to write a column on this, but I just found too many links in the course of writing that I felt it should be turned into a themed log. At any rate, it cites most of the major problems and annoyances that I've found in today's climate. I for one am so incredibly bloody sick of ads being pushed in my face that I often outright don't feel like buying the product I see in the ad, even if normally I'd like it. (If I ever want anything from an ad, it's from a plain old print one, and that's pretty rare actually.) The more ads are shoved in our face, the more we're going to ignore them, and then the advertisers will freak and find more ways to shove them in our faces in a vicious cycle. If this keeps up, I think that in the future, we'll start having things such as ad muggers- men hired to grab people off the streets, drag them into the nearest store, and force them to spend all the money in their wallets on Doritos and Mountain Dew.

Friday, May 4, 2001
The advertisers STALK you
"In a way, marketers are their own worst enemy. The more a technique--be it survey, focus group, or promotion--is used, the less effective it becomes. The most desirable consumers have had so many marketers vying for their attention, they've adjusted their behavior accordingly. They're less likely to talk to telemarketers or in-store researchers, fill out surveys, or give out personal data. Call it consumer revenge or savvy or cynicism, but that response helps drive a perpetual tug-of-war between buyer and seller. The more strategies marketers try, the more they need to try.
But consumer revenge has a side effect--adapting means tuning out. People avoid certain aisles in the grocery store when the kids come along, zap television commercials, screen phone calls in the dinner hours when telemarketers are likely to call.
But what happens when those boundaries of time and place are erased? When anyone, anywhere, at any time could be studying you to make a buck? When consumer savvy means mistrusting everyone?"

Friday, May 4, 2001
How advertising can wreck your health.
And of course, the insurers want your medical data. "Articles in Wired, The New York Times, Details, and a parade of blue-ribbon-bedecked websites all approach the issue in similar ways--they rattle off long lists of ways people can find out stuff about you. Your grocery-store loyalty card tracks where and when you bought what. Surveillance cameras follow you almost everywhere you go. Your bank pays attention to where you use ATMs. Your credit file is widely distributed. And, uh, that sucks."

Friday, May 4, 2001
Meanwhile, television gets even more annoying.
"Audiences today are too intelligent and sophisticated for [jingles]," says Rick Lyon of Lyon Music, a company that makes ad music. People easily identify jingles as advertising and tune them out. Music in ads these days shouldn't dare sing the praises of the product, or even mention it."

"Viewers' ability to ignore commercials has found TV moving ever closer to nonstop advertising through product placements in shows, onscreen crawls and the use of promotional logos in the middle of programs."

I think I love this woman: "I'm fuming over second-hand input. I'm tired of trying to mute it from my life.
Second-hand input is the new second-hand smoke. It's intrusive, it's nothing I asked for and it's suddenly everywhere. I'm victimized by it everyday - on television, on computers, in public places, on my pager.
Perhaps you've noticed the world is becoming a pushier place. Television is developing rotten manners, too. How many times in the last week have you witnessed NBC's new "sweeper"? The annoying promotion at the bottom of the screen hypes and upcoming premiere while another entertainment program is in progress. The promo is "swept" away by the peacock logo, a smugly silent sales tool.
It started when NBC figured out how to shrink the screen at the end of programs to squeeze more ads and promos into our field of vision.
Taking a cue from the busy computer screen, TV began firing multiple messages at viewers, demanding our "multi-tasking" without asking permission. Like holding two conversations at once - in the flesh and via earpiece - the practice is rude but increasingly common.
The networks believe modern consumers are impatient for input. An idle moment is a wasted selling opportunity. They can't afford to let a show run to completion without getting a jump on touting what's next. Credits are crammed into minimal space and theme music drowned out by promotional spots. They must figure you're already talking, reading, surfing, palm piloting and already talking, reading, surfing, palm piloting and chewing anyway, why not cram in a few more tasks?
Screaming banner ads on the Internet are even more infuriating: on AOL, before you're allowed to read your mail you must weed through offers for long distance services, credit cards, digital cameras, language lessons and computer gear. No thanks. No thanks. No thanks.
Surf to a Web site, and it's buried beneath blinking, scrolling, swirling come-ons. Unlike TV or radio, where, if you sit long enough the ads eventually cease, on computer the more aggressive ads are programmed to annoy forever until turned off. This accidental input is a new, more badgering version of carnival barker, one who follows you home yapping.
The invention of what's called "seamless" programming - running over the hour or starting slightly ahead of the hour to keep viewers from surfing away - adds insult to earlier injuries. When setting the VCR, remember: Shows no longer start and finish when they say they will.
Proper TV etiquette used to mean a respectful relationship with the audience. Networks didn't randomly switch timeslots, pre-empt shows with no explanation, drown us in commercials or generally make the experience a challenge. It was assumed the audience was to be appeased, even coddled. Viewers were valuable commodities, not to be offended."

Friday, May 4, 2001
Product placements galore
"On last week's episode of "Survivor," host Jeff Probst offered the winner of a reward challenge a $500 online shopping spree using a Visa card, which Probst named by its brand and held up for the cameras to see.
Product placement on TV and in the movies is nothing new. But the advent of TiVo and other services that make it easier for viewers to edit out commercials has forced advertisers and television producers to think of new ways to integrate products into television shows.
"The future [of advertising] is already in place," May says. "It's going to be just like you saw [on "Will and Grace"], but it's not going to be at the end. It's going to be during the show." May says that digital television will allow for a seamless fusion of commerce and television.
"Let's use 'Friends' as an example," he says. "Say there's a scene and Monica stands up goes to the fridge. A girl watching at home says, 'Wow, I love that sweater.' "Your remote is going to be like [a] cursor. You'll point the arrow on the TV and click Monica's shirt. That will pause the program, and a little window will pop up and say, 'Available at Macy's for $129.95. Click here to order it now.' It's not in place now because people need digital TV to have it work." May sees a similar trend coming on DVDs. "All of a sudden, a bar code is going to pop up letting you know something in that scene is for sale, and you'll be able to buy it right off the screen."
Just witness the countless paid Doritos and Visa plugs in any given "Survivor" episode.
"The'Survivor' thing, that's a little irritating," he says. "I wouldn't let my clients go to that level. That's pushing yourself on them."

And speaking of Survivor, I found plenty of links bitching about this:

"Also heating up is the hamhanded product placement. A picnic was promised to winners of last week's challenge, and the starving contestants conjured visions of Chardonnay and cheese on the grass. They arrived to find out their "picnic" consisted of a 12-year-old's delight, the junk-food products of show sponsors Mountain Dew and Doritos. Any anti-soda or anti-chip oaths were edited out."

"Peachy says that they'll bid in increments of $20, and that the first item up for auction is four Dureet Toes and a small bowl of salsa; the bidding starts at $60. In my husband's new favorite quote, Tina says, "That's more thin tin dollars a chiyip!" -- I mean, "That's more than ten dollars a chip!" Nick wins this one.
Lamber buys a big glass of Mountain Dew for $80. Nick wins three crackers for $120.
Nick chugs a beer for $100.
And we know how much Tina loves her Dureet Toes."

"The best acting in the Episode came when these Outbackers (weaned on Fosters and Swan beer) kept from gagging as they downed iced bottles of Bud. Most Aussies would rather drink warm piss."

Note how they indicate that Colby's state of healthy may have affected his mind here? "As the gaunt, undernourished Donaldson took his first look at his new car parked serenely among the trees, he offered a rhapsody of praise."

"OK. Seriously now, Colby is a custom car designer and the coolest car he's ever seen is an Aztek?
Of course, that was the Miller Lite talking, which he drank with the Doritos and ate on plates from Target or whoever else was papering the outback with product placements. On the plus side, everyone who ate and drank the products threw up, so you can't hate these walking ads entirely.
The Colbster's a custom car designer from Dallas whose first new car was the one he won a week ago as part of an on-air promotion, I mean reward challenge."

"What have we learned? We learned that starving people given Doritos(TM) and Mountain Dew(TM) will throw up or get diarrhea or both. What we don't know is if starvation has anything to do with it (and if you're the account executive for either of these sponsors, aren't you just thrilled that Survivor fans will forever associate them with stomach distress?).
How else to explain why, when Colby chowed down with the Outback cowboys and they cracked open that case of Bud Light(TM), they didn't pour that swill into the billabong and favour the Colbster with some nice, cold Fosters?"

And coming soon, here's the whore known as The Runner: "During the journey, the runner just might be instructed to buy a Big Mac and fries at, say, a McDonald's in Ohio. For McDonald's, this might mean a healthy dose of TV time as the contestant races to complete the task. And with people across the nation trying to find the runner to take the prize, business might pick up at McDonald's throughout Ohio. Or the runner might be told to step inside a Starbucks for a decaf latte or dial a number on a Nokia.
"An article in today's New York Times describes how The Runner, ABC's new reality tv show, plans to push the limits of paid product placements by integrating them completely into its storyline," Humberto writes. "While shows like Survivor are heavily sponsored already, the new show will try to up the ante. According to the Times, ABC's pitch says that 'the smart advertiser will sign up quickly to be everything from the official car the runner drives in making his escapes to the official pants he wears.' But what will the smart viewer do?" Shoot him or herself if they watch it, perhaps? My GOD, this is bad. Bad bad bad bad bad. Who will this appeal to, the same nerds who watch informercials?

Here's a few Plastic opinions: "I find this sort of product placement vile, and as such, my opinion of the product is vastly lowered." -Nasal Goat
"A perfect example is "Survivor". When Colby won that Astek, and was mooning on about the interior, I just about lost it. There is nothing I hate more than thinly-veiled bullshit like that, and as such, I will go out of my way to not buy an Astek. The more subtle placements, like Reebok, I don't mind as much because they aren't throwing it in your face.
I expect it to fail miserably, but then, my opinion of the teeming masses is probably inflated." -JohnnySmash
"This combined with the ubiquitous network logo "watermarks" at the bottom right corner of the screen makes me morbidly curious just how far this phenomenon will go. Eventually, every TV show will be like a hall of mirrors. No show will have its own substance, they will consist entirely of product placements, crossover guest appearances from the struggling lead-in show, and characters watching other network shows on television." (I bet you're right.) "Or maybe every show will be "reality-based", completely eliminating the need for writers altogether."

So why not just give in and do a show about marketing already? (At least, a show that ADMITS it) "Every day, it seems, brings new stories in the papers about increasingly absurd reality television concepts in the works, as well as increasingly nefarious schemes for the clever blurring of the lines between advertising and entertainment.
Might a marketing-saturated nation recoil in disgust from such a blatant display? I'm not so sure. It seems to me the relationship that American consumers have with advertising is more complicated than many of us would believe. On the one hand is the worry that viewers can be hoodwinked with stealthy, soft-sell maneuvers. I doubt it; it's no particular surprise, given the level of advertising bombardment in everyday life, that we're practically a nation of media-cultural critics, well-practiced in the art of spotting product placements for exactly what they are."

Friday, May 4, 2001
And schools are captive audiences
"Companies collect information about you at school. In New Jersey, elementary school kids filled out a 27-page booklet called "my all about me journal," basically a marketing survey for a television channel.Students in Massachusetts spent two days tasting cereal and answering an opinion poll. ZapMe! corporation puts "free" computers and internet hookups in schools. Then they monitor your web browsing habits and sell the information, neatly broken down by age, gender and postal code, to their customers.
From New Mexico to Nova Scotia, Coke or Pepsi will pay schools $10 to $20 per student to get exclusive rights to sell their soft drinks to you. What do you get out of it? Lots of advertising plastered around your school, and if you're lucky, a free Coke or Pepsi t-shirt."

"The "Coke in Education Day" was part of the school's effort to win a $500 local contest run by the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. in Augusta, GA. The prize is awarded to the school that comes up with the most creative method of distributing promotional discount cards to students. The students have the chance to win up to $10,000 in the same national contest. After he was caught, Mike was sent down to the principal's office to talk about how important that day was to the school and how he could have cost the school good advertising dollars. "In my eyes, I didn't do anything wrong," the 19-year-old said while serving his one-day suspension. Don't worry Mike, Pepsi will take care of you now. When you deep-six one soft drink marketing giant, you can bet the other cola will be waiting in the wings to lavish you with praise and corporate sponsorships.
"Without knowing all the details, it sounds like Mike's obviously a trend setter with impeccable taste in clothes," said Pepsi spokesperson Brad Shaw. "We're going to make sure he's got plenty of Pepsi shirts to wear in the future once we track him down." Oh, GAG me. "I don't know anything about this, but any kid who screws over Coke will get plied with all the free crap he likes to advertise us more!" Call it a hunch that the kid just did that to rebel more than he's a totally loyal Pepsi drinker.

Mathematics: Applications and Connections (McGraw-Hill), currently in use by sixth, seventh and eighth-grade students in at least 16 US states, folds prominent plugs for such products as Barbie dolls, Big Macs and Oreo cookies right into the math problems- bringing them vividly to life. ("Will is saving his allowance to buy a pair of Nike shoes that cost $68.25. If Will earns $3.25 per week, how many weeks will Will need to save?") (Will, you are a fool to spend that much on shoes when you earn so little already! How old are you, ten?)
"The textbook - published in 1995 and revised last year - is thus superior to earlier books that merely concerned themselves with dull conceptual mechanics. Little wonder the California State education department recently gave Mathematics a hearty thumbs-up.
Executives at Mattel, Nike, Sony, Spalding, Disney, Burger King and other multinationals whose products are mentioned in the book have also expressed their satisfaction. Without even asking, they have been given guaranteed access to kids still forming life-long brand allegiances."

"Cover Concepts Marketing Services in Braintree, Mass., started up in 1989 with the simple idea of giving away free textbook covers--with ads from McDonald's, Nike, and Chuck E. Cheese--to public schools.
It's a smart idea, and one that's allowed Cover Concepts to grow into a multi-million dollar business. Imagine the number of "impressions" you get when your product is plastered on the front of some kid's algebra book--a book she's required to carry around and look at every day. And, of course, the constant low-level boredom of the average school day puts her in a slack-jawed, barely conscious state that's perfect for absorbing your company's benevolent constant presence in her school life.
Isn't the only reason schools are interested in you is because they're so strapped financially? Aren't you taking advantage of that?
Well, a lot of schools are struggling with their budgets--who else are they going to turn to? There's a need for the private sector to help schools right now, and you don't get something for free." And that, y'all, is the problem.

"Children and their families, friends, neighbors, and pets are encouraged to spend as much money as possible at a given locally sponsored store and give the receipts to their schools, who earn credit toward Apple computer equipment. A Wisconsin elementary school that proudly trumpeted raising $500,000 worth of receipts was rewarded with two computers worth "more than $3,000." In other words, for every dollar's worth of receipts collected, the school received a credit of about seven tenths of one cent toward the purchase of a computer.
For 5,125 Campbell's soup labels, schools get the filmstrip Boyhood of Abraham Lincoln; for 20,000 more, a remote-control projector with which to show it; and for another 6,750, a screen to show it on.
In Giving Kids the Business, Alex Molnar illustrates a related point: parents who want nothing to do with Pizza Hut are forced to either go along with the program or alienate their young one. As an example, Molnar cites the experience of one mother who tried to substitute a book for the normal reward of a Pizza Hut pizza. Even though her kid didn't really like pizza, she refused her mom's plan 'cause she wanted to fit in with the other kids."

Here's an interview with Molnar: "It's an attempt to get parents to purchase products at stores that they might or might not otherwise patronize, on the grounds that they're somehow improving the chances that their children will have access to computer technology. But you gotta spend an awful lot of money to get any computer technology, because the way the rules are rigged, the people who make the most from the Apples for Computers game are the people who buy the computers from the manufacturer and then sell them to the marketers that run the contest."

Friday, May 4, 2001
Salon and other sites charging for content
(I don't know how long the following link will last, but you could perhaps try the archives when the May stuff gets off the front page). On May 1, e-portals mentioned this: "Better enjoy Garrison while we can because Salon will probably move him to their newly-announced $30/year section." (The link I just slipped in here says otherwise.) "Today's NY Times takes a look at the move towards fee-based sites in Free Rides Now Passi on Information Highway. Canada's Canoe News throws in their two cents with Charge for online news, expert says. Jumping on the bandwagon, Fox News writes that Internet Making Life Difficult for Newspapers. Finally, adding their voice to the swelling, ominous "you will have to pay" chorus, E&P Online chimes in with Newspaper Web Sites: "Show Me The Money!" If that does happen, I can tuck e-portals into the past and sleep in mornings."

"Charging for online content is an idea whose time has come, again. Frustrated by a business model that demanded no deposits and provided no returns, newspapers all over the country have begun to charge or are considering charging for access to the news and information they place online. Starting today, surfers landing at the Web site of the Rochester, Minn., Post-Bulletin (http://www .postbulletin.com), will find the beach closed unless they either subscribe to the print newspaper or pay $60 annually for an online subscription.
Reader, or user reaction, has not been good. Jon Losness notified Post-Bulletin readers April 3 that the free ride on the site would end in 27 days. Losness got more than 200 e-mail messages, almost all negative.
And in New Bedford? "The reaction from our audience was incredibly negative," Conery said. "Mean, vile responses, saying, 'How dare you charge for online content! You have no right!'" Conery saw the bright side of this reaction. "It proved our editorial product had value, because if it didn't have value, they wouldn't be so upset at having to pay for it." Um, right. Sure. That's what it is. Please shovel some more shit at us!

Salon claims that they're not going to go to complete subscription in the future, despite the report I saw at the top of this section. How was he "misquoted," I wonder?

I was going to put up a big ol' rant about Salon, but the lovely WriterGirl basically said it all for me:"I happily enjoyed the first Chains of Love recap, and was all set to read the second, when I was informed that that particular article was actually Salon Premium content and I'd have to pony up $30 a year. According to the site, "other reality shows" also fall under the Premium label, which means they could, conceivably, let you read thirteen Survivor recaps for free and force you to pay for the last two." (This hasn't happened as yet, to my surprise.) "Which works well as a marketing strategy if and only if it doesn't rouse your customers' self-centered indignation. In my case I made an oh-so-principled vow (note sarcasm) not to give David Talbot a penny of my money.
First off, there is nothing unethical about Salon charging for its content; plenty of other sites do the same thing . So there's really no reason, from a moral standpoint, for me to act like a spoiled child when my content toys are taken away. So why did I have that particular reaction? Why shouldn't I just pony up the $30? (Because MightyBigTV is still free, for one.)
It's not all that great an online content source, is my point. It's certainly not worth $30 a year.
But I also just don't like paying for content in general. I can't say why this is; I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the element that's introduced, and that makes me uncomfortable, when I have to shell out money for a password"

Even a subscriber doesn't think this'll work. "Salon Premium is going to fall on its ass. Reason one: Its premium material isn't premium at all. The only two advantages are the lack of banner ads (for those who still believe it's morally wrong for content sites to sell ads) and its erotic art galleries. You'll now be able to enjoy pornography without having www.nipplefun.com pop up in your history cache.
The other premium content is either redundant or of questionable value- the Bushed! column, for one, being more than a little of both. I already know Dubya's a moron. I don't have to pay to get a daily reaffirmation. Ultimately, the best part of Salon's content will almost certainly continue to be free, a fact that directly argues against shelling out $30 a year ($1.67 in 1842 dollars!) for the premium stuff.
Online content subscriptions don't work. We know this. We've known this for years. Close the door on your content, and people will go elsewhere."

Friday, May 4, 2001
The original useless form of net advertising
"One thing everybody agrees on: The banner ad is still dead. Everywhere you look, the air is thick with snickering, obituaries and coping. Pompous blowhards set out to bury the premier non-spam form of online advertising. Reporters declare flatly that the banner "doesn't work" (San Diego Union-Tribune, April 4). The London Financial Times pronounces it "accepted" that "banner ads have a limited impact." Economy-busting technologies like WebWasher are obviating the entire market. Fraidy-cat advertisers, in a twist over banners' failure to "attract attention," (New York Times, March 17) are rolling over to a cluster of desperate new projects: bigger ads (which meet with consumer hatred), interstitials (an idea whose time has come and gone), and a proliferation of Javascript popups (no comment). In a neat encapsulation of the conventional wisdom, Fortune's Mark Gunther says what everybody else is only thinking: "We won't even bother reciting the problems with banner ads."
The problem is that people aren't clicking on them! Because all Web users are not falling into a state of buy-now zombification, like Jerry Lewis's landlady in Rock-A-Bye Baby, or the brainwashed teens in Josie and the Pussycats, the entire market must not be working.
Through the fog of crushing depression and cheap booze that constitutes any discussion of webvertising, one piece of fake erudition is always sure to come up: "Banner ads? Those things only get, like, point-five percent clickthrough!" The decline of banners is a classic example of people not so much refusing to accept bad news as refusing to accept its implications. If the first direct measurement of consumer response to advertising yields results this poor, can't we just as easily conclude advertising itself doesn't work?"

Plastic's discussion on that article had a good quote:
"1. How many people go and buy a Ford Taurus right after seeing a commercial on TV? Do you leave Survivor to go to your local grocery store just because Britany Spears wants you to buy a Pepsi?
Every other form of advertising is passive. "Look, we make good pizza". "Boy, this car sure is comfortable. Plus, it will make you the envy of everyone you know." It isn't "Order a Pizza from us NOW!" which is what banner ads are expected to do."

Friday, May 4, 2001
And you thought banner ads were bad.
Now we're gonna have shoshkeles (warning: demonstration of them at that link), which "last about eight seconds and cannot be stopped by the reader." Excuse me for quoting so many people on this, but they're all so well written I can't resist.

"I don't mind the ads being passively sitting in front of my eyes, but when I have to dodge the animation to continue reading the article, it's downright annoying."-CynThetiQ
"However, I find that increasing the already excessive advertisement industry beyond the bounds of user control is obnoxious, if not insulting. At first, billboards marred landscapes of forests besides highways with pictures of what was on sale at supermarkets and the News 53 Weather Team, but you could always just keep driving. Ads on TV have always been a nuisance, but just pop on the mute button and go make a sandwich. Even internet pop-ups, though annoying, can be dismissed with a click. These shoshkeles, however, are forced on the user. You can't turn them off. At all. Perhaps I'm a product of the 1 second attention span generation, but I found myself desperately trying to click those cursed shoshkeles away mere seconds after viewing some of their demos. It's just the aspect of being FORCED to watch the ad that doesn't settle well with me. It's the first form of mandatory advertising." -ToasterCat
"As much as we'd like to ignore it, the truth is that the web has become controlled by businesses. Many great sites have been going down the drain because they simply have no way of turning a profit, and the people that work for them can't simply work for webspace. People need $$$ to buy food, shelter, IE real life things. Unless there is some revolution on the internet which allows money to flow some other way, advertisements such as these are here to stay." - -aurigus
"The dammed things can be turned off by leaving the offending page immediately, which is what I'll do if any of the fucking things turn up in the future. Take heed, any companies yearning to jump on the shoshkeles bandwagon. And I thought nothing was more annoying than banner ads. Live and learn." -thirteen bodies
"Internet advertising obviously doesn't work in it's current form. Making things more offensive and in your face like these sheshkeles won't attract customers, it will just stop them from going back to that site. I'm not going to purchace something from someone screaming "BUY THIS YOU ASSHOLE" in my face." -jejune
"It's always been my opinion that all advertising (print, air) doesn't work. Banner ads and popups are just the first time ad companies can actually measure how effective the ad is (by counting ad views, click-throughs, all that other ad jargon). When's the last time you bought something because you saw an ad for it? When's the last time you actually looked at a magazine or newspaper ad? When's the last time you paid attention to a TV or radio commercial? The people of modern society have been swimming in it all of our lives, and we automatically tune it out." -jeff
"When will advertisers realize that no matter what they call it, we don't want push technology?" -Remus Shepherd
"Sooner or later the fact has gotta be accepted that it just ain't possible to make money off web advertising, and simultaenously *please* your readership. Maybe I'm the exception in the above examples, but the more intrusive advertising gets, the more people will start avoiding the commercial sites and plunk their fat asses back down in front of the TV.
Web advertising is dead. It just ain't gonna be pretty watching the ever on the ball marketing people scramble madly for the next 12 months. "What, the 11 adverts on this page don't pay for it? Put 11 more on then. Where? I don't care! That's *your* job, silly technical person." -tubmy
"Advertisers feel that their job has been done once the product or vendor's name has been stuck in your head. They convince their clients that this is the case too, because they believe it to be the absolute truth.
I've chatted with some of our directors about product boycots and bad publicity through advertising and the concepts were treated as something totally alien and laughable, unless of course, you offend the politically correct. The more you talk about a product, the more likely you will look for that product when you need to go shopping.
As for invading your personal time and space, costing you money through longer connection times and downloads, they don't care. They don't give a toss. To them, you are nothing more than TARPs - Target Audience Ratings Points. They won't know how many people flee a site or boycot it as they are too busy looking at how many people go through. Once they are convinced that shoshkeles are the Big Thing, they will look at ways to make them more consumer-choice-proof, rather than finding more tasteful ways to attract custom. I think advertisers will flock to this technology." -Synaesthesia

Friday, May 4, 2001
To quote my co-worker...
"The whole world is going to hell in a freakin' fortune cookie."

"Just when it seems there's no surface left that advertisers haven't commandeered, an Internet firm has baked up a new recipe for self-promotion: tiny ads tucked inside fortune cookies. But while the front of that slip of paper may tell you happiness and a long life are yours, the back offers $5 off your next purchase at the Web site.
``We really want to connect with people and evoke an emotional response,'' said Mark Hughes, vice president of marketing for Half.com, based in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. ``People are inundated ... with all this stuff, with branding and with logos. At least what we're trying to do is bring a smile to people's faces.''