little ms. "sweet and innocent."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Advertising weblog, part 3: Scary, isn't it?
The proliferation of bad ads keeps piling up on me, I swear. I'm seriously considering starting a separate advertising weblog just to keep up instead of saving big piles of links for months until some run out. If you have any particular strong feelings about that idea, go ahead and e-mail (check the NAQ for address) me. If not, then don't. Whatever, folks.

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Today, we'll start out with some movie advertising
"Mark Crispin Miller's "Hollywood the Ad" really touches on the fact that so many films openly flaunt ads for major corporations. Be it in clothing or in consumables ads are featured in every way shape or form in contemporary cinema. One movie which Miller speaks of is Ferris Bueller's Day Off, directed and written by the unparalleled John Hughes. Not only does Hughes feature Ads in that particular film but also in many of his other films. Hughes is notorious for advertising in his movies and is a key example in the way Miller says that though the Ads are not made obvious by the characters they are obvious to the average observer."

Typical of movie marketing today, Universal Pictures entered into a corporate sponsorship deal with Ansell Healthcare Inc., makers of LifeStyle condoms. The agreement includes product placement in the movie, an Internet promotion, a sweepstakes and joint television commercials. Only Universal won't be airing the TV spots (featuring both the film and the condoms) because Hollywood's rating board, the MPAA -- which has final say over all marketing materials -- won't approve them. The offense is not the flick's exposure of youthful flesh, but what might cover up (at least some of) that flesh -- LifeStyles condoms. The MPAA has a policy of not allowing condoms in commercials meant for general audiences, according to spokesman Rich Taylor.
"This movie is all about sophomoric sex, but the moviemakers don't want to be associated with condoms?" said Ansell marketing VP Carol Carrozza. "The irony is that these same studio execs don't seem to have any compunction about making films that glorify gratuitous sex and targeting those films to young people. They only have qualms taking -- and talking about -- responsibility."
Such hypocritical social control is reminiscent of Fox TV running the ridiculous reality-tease Temptation Island, but refusing to air a commercial for Encare, a vaginal spermicide suppository. Despite television's increased programming of sensationalized, violent and comical sex, advertising condoms and other contraceptives is somehow too controversial for community standards."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Yucky advertising
"Have you seen that new Diet Coke commercial? It's the one where a young father wheels his kids down the supermarket aisle in a grocery cart, and his loving wife's voice-over marvels about how he gave up his slim waist and trips to the gym, and that "this is so much sexier."
How sweet. I agree. Now why isn't that commercial about her? She's the one who went through the body-punishing pregnancies and labor. Why isn't it his voice we hear, cooing, "So she's not the size 8 I married. Doesn't she realize being a great mom is so much sexier?"
Because that approach wouldn't sell a can of kryptonite -- even, apparently, to women, since they make up Diet Coke's biggest market.
It seems that the one taboo popular culture has left to break is to depict plain or pudgy women getting what they want -- particularly in the romance department.
Since then, homely male heartthrobs have proliferated. Doughiness does not prevent male rappers and rock stars from being fantasy fodder for their women fans. "The Tao of Steve," an indie movie hailed by critics as charming, features an overweight kindergarten teacher who admits he's a "fattist" -- a guy who's on the chunky side but won't date hefty women.
Of course, he wins the heart of the fair -- and lithe -- maiden in the end."

For starters, let's just pause to note that Diet Coke apparently wants its brand to be as familiar to you as old underwear. OK? Now, let's put that aside. What's this bit about his wife's underwear being like "the kind of underwear that I saw in the hamper when I was a kid"? What does that mean? It's like his mother's underwear? Who among you entertains a wistful nostalgia for your mother's underwear? Let's see a show of hands, please. Actually, let's not.
Perhaps I'm being too literal? OK, then, forget the underwear, what's the basic theme of this little story? We have a young married couple. She used to wear sexy underwear. Although they're clearly still young, this couple has gotten over that sort of thing and settled into a less exciting, quotidian groove, in which they will presumably remain until parted by death. And the husband finds this reassuring. I have nothing against the idea of domestic bliss, but usually the sort of epiphany that this man is having (i.e., we have reached the end of a certain road here and can only hope for comfort, never again excitement) is an occasion for deep existential, how-did-I-get-here angst. But the brand managers of Diet Coke have a different take- it is as if they have chosen to say, "Here you go, pal; enjoy an ice-cold, refreshing can of your very mortality." Maybe that's the certain something: a resigned sense of fatalism."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
I bet you that new violent shows won't be on as much after this
"Television programs free of sex and violence may be an advertiser's best bet, according to a new Iowa State University study.
The study indicates that sex and violence impairs memory of television ads, said Brad Bushman, Iowa State professor of psychology.
"It is unlikely that moral appeals from parents and other concerned citizens will influence the TV industry to reduce the amount of violence and sex on television. The bottom line -- profits -- really determines what programs are shown on television," said Bushman. "Our findings suggest that advertisers should think twice about sponsoring violent and sexually explicit TV programs. During the time that advertisers hope viewers are thinking about their ads, they might actually be thinking instead about violence and sex." Oy vey.

NEW! "But did you know that big advertisers also use "screeners" to raise a red flag if they find anything over the line in the programs during which the advertiser's products will be pitched? These folks are not exactly censors, but their actions can lead to what amounts to self-censorship by the networks.
If the advertiser doesn't want to be associated with a particular episode of a series, it's easier for a network to pull the show than to scramble for substitute sponsors, especially during the summer months, and most especially during the current ad-market slump.
Big advertisers claim they would never ask a network to pull an episode or substitute another, less controversial one. The truth is, they don't have to ask; they simply withdraw as sponsors."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Anti-drug commercials during shows.
"The White House program to financially reward television networks for anti-drug messages embedded in sitcoms and dramas was born in secrecy, achieved stunning midlife notoriety and now has been quietly terminated.
Jurith's decision closes a controversial chapter in the government's efforts to combat drug abuse with a pricey advertising campaign. In 1997, Congress appropriated more than $1 billion for an anti-drug advertising effort; it included a "pro bono match" component in which networks agreed to sell their advertising for half-price. Soon, with ad rates going up thanks to the booming economy, networks were looking for creative ways to meet their government obligations, and they agreed to insert anti-drug messages in prime-time shows -- from "ER" to "Drew Carey" to "Smart Guy" -- in exchange for freeing up ad time they could then sell to higher-paying private clients.
The networks earned an estimated $25 million for placing anti-drug and anti-alcohol messages in prime-time programming."

Returning to a usual theme of mine with regards to in-program advertising..."While audiences may have come to expect blatant product placement in reality with shows like "Survivor" using advertising products, such as Doritos or Budweiser, as rewards on the series, the producers on ABC's upcoming reality series "The Runner" prefer to have the placement less noticeable.
Because "The Runner" is shot in the United States, Davies says having cast members use a certain brand of cell phone will appear much more organic than it is on "Survivor," where suddenly a big bag of Doritos appear on the island location "out of nowhere." "It is going to be integrated," he said of advertising on the show."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Here's a lovely trend: cutting old shows to shove in more ads
"But they took the opportunity to gently protest the practice of cutting and compressing repeats to make room for more ads -- a practice that has become common in recent years.
Cyma Zarghami, executive vice president of Nick at Nite and Nickelodeon, promised the channel would "do our best to air them as uncut as we possibly can. I think that for some of the more recent shows, we are actually trying to put some time back into them." In a game attempt at changing the subject, she said "Cheers" episodes would be digitally remastered to make them look "even brighter and better."
It was an honorable attempt to change the subject, but the actors didn't buy it.
Wendt said that when he happens across "Cheers" reruns, "I notice the time compression....They don't really cut anything that they think is essential, but the timing is off and the reactions are off, and it's all -- it just -- it's not as good."
Ratzenberger lamented the fact that when sitcoms are butchered for reruns, the first thing that gets lost is the silent pauses. "Comedy is played between the words. And if there is is no in-between-the-words, there's hardly any comedy left."

This, however, is even crappier. That older programs are heavily cut in syndication or on cable is hardly a secret, but it might as well be for all the coverage it gets: TV critics routinely announce the latest acquisition by Nick at Nite or the Sci-Fi Network without bothering to mention, or even check, how heavily it will be edited. Older shows that ran three to six minutes longer than today's shows suffer the most; a 25-minute episode of "Mary Tyler Moore" is usually cut to 21 or 22 minutes in reruns.
Such cuts are bad enough when shows appear in local syndication, but at least there is a legitimate -- if irritating -- reason for such cuts: Local broadcasters depend entirely on advertising for revenue so they need to squeeze in as many commercials as possible. Cable stations, on the other hand, have no such excuse; a good part of their revenue comes directly out of the viewers' pockets in the form of cable fees. So why can't a cable service like TV Land - which calls itself "a network created by TV fans for TV fans" - take shorter commercial breaks and show classic programs as they were meant to be seen?
What takes the place of the material that's been cut? Very often it's promotional spots for the network itself. That means you might be seeing less "I Dream of Jeannie" just to hear that "Gilligan's Island" reruns have moved to a new time slot. By showing only paid advertisements it would theoretically be possible to make fewer cuts in a program without losing advertising revenue. Is this something Nick at Nite or TV Land would consider? "Probably not," Ward says. "In the cluttered programming environment today, you have a responsibility to brand the network, to let people know what they're watching." What, like I can't figure it out for myself? :P

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Oh joy: soon the TV may be watching YOU.
"Today you just watch your television. But if interactive TV becomes popular, your TV may soon be watching you, warns a digital privacy rights group.
''The next generation of television is intelligent,'' says Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, whose digital TV study was released Tuesday. ''It's tracking what you watch, what you do. It's a return to The Outer Limits, except this time it's real.''
The report warns that companies preparing sophisticated interactive TV services also plan to use that two-way connection to harvest and use vast amounts of information about you, ranging from viewing habits to how much money you spend. And then, just like many online services, marketers and advertising companies, they plan to put it into detailed profiles that will allow them to send highly targeted advertising. Those profiles may contain information that ranges from your age and income to whether you have kids and other personal details."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
We begin the online ad critique with the ubiquitous anti-banner-ad story!
"During their heyday, banner ads enjoyed a 10 to 20 percent click-through rate as intrigued viewers explored all the bells and whistles in their brave new electronic world. Now a modest .5 percent is considered respectable. What's more, surfers continue to show a maddening unwillingness to stay put. Ever on the lookout for engaging content, most online viewers spend just 60 seconds at an average site, and browse about nine at a sitting, according to streamLIVE.com.
"Human attention is the hardest thing to bag today," agrees Patrick Thean, CEO of the feisty, business-to-business Web-casting startup MindBlazer. "The Internet is getting so cluttered now, it's hard to develop any sort of relationship with customers."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
The X-10, popunders and the intrusivity of ads
"Research firm Jupiter Media Metrix found that camera maker X10--which uses pervasive pop-under ads that automatically open a browser window linked to the site--had the most significant number of people that dropped out of its ad or Web site. While X10 has achieved a mass reach online, with 32.8 percent of the Web's entire audience between January and May, 73 percent of its visitors left the pop-under window or site within 20 seconds, according to Jupiter.
The results, according to New York-based Jupiter, reveal that pop-under ads build brand awareness at the expense of brand affinity. She said the Internet is not that dissimilar to offline media in that consumer behavior shows that people react to such ads "just as they do with their TV remote control--they click away advertising they don't find relevant or entertaining."
The X10 ad is "not the widely successful campaign that it might appear to be," Gluck said. "The consumer is in control of the experience despite the best efforts of marketers to impose their will on consumers. Consumers are ultimately the ones in charge--they vote with their mouths, just like they vote with their remote."
X10 has been climbing Jupiter's U.S. top 50 Web and digital media properties chart, moving up a notch from fifth place in May to fourth place in June. X10 had 28.6 million unique visitors in May and 34.2 million in June.
However, Jupiter said, without traffic from pop-unders, X10 would have only 2.7 million unique 2.7 million unique visitors. The site's number of engaged shoppers, meaning those who spend at least three minutes on a site, is 1.2 million."

The rude behavior of our fellow citizens, when accumulated, can prompt the otherwise mild-mannered person to fury. Following the entry in the diagnostic manual for "road rage," we should add the newest related manifestation: "mouse rage." The malady produces the same uncontrollable urge to carry out violent retribution, but the provocateurs, somewhere else on the Web, are far away and safe from harm. The ad industry would like us to refer to these by the euphemism "leave-behinds," but what they leave behind is the stench of the weasel.
Marketing a wireless Web camera, X10 has left a sufficient number of smelly deposits waiting for unsuspecting victims that in June it snared 34 million unique, if unwilling, visitors, placing its Web site in fourth place in trafficwell ahead of eBay and Amazon.
It's too late, I realize sadly, to persuade all media to adopt the New York Herald's "agate rule," put in place in 1847, which mandated that all advertisements had to be text only and use a tiny 51/2-point typefacethissmallpreventing "typographic splurge for one to the injury of another." Nevertheless, I wish that today's hucksters would pause and notice the rational restraint that characterized advertising in an earlier age. As one prominent authority in the industry cautioned in the 1920s, "Any apparent effort to sell creates corresponding resistance." Why isn't this still the case?"

Amen to that. AMEN.

"Yahoo! is poised to throw its weight behind a new and controversial breed of Net advertising: pop-unders."
Lindsay Stevens, an events executive for a San Francisco-based marketing agency, says she's often disturbed by pop-under ads when using the Net for researching new projects. "Getting a pop-under is really annoying, especially during the workday. If I'm sitting here doing research and writing up a proposal, it totally distracts me and my train of thought goes out the window," Stevens said. "I know they're providing a service and all, but hey, I didn't ask for it."

As pop-under ads gain steam, they fall short of converting Web surfers into buyers, according to a new report released Wednesday.
Research firm Jupiter Media Metrix found that camera maker X10--which uses pervasive pop-under ads that automatically open a browser window linked to the site--had the most significant number of people that dropped out of its ad or Web site. While X10 has achieved a mass reach online, with 32.8 percent of the Web's entire audience between January and May, 73 percent of its visitors left the pop-under window or site within 20 seconds, according to Jupiter.
The results, according to New York-based Jupiter, reveal that pop-under ads build brand awareness at the expense of brand affinity. Marissa Gluck, senior analyst at Jupiter, said even though X10 ads are "ubiquitous" and are at a high frequency of exposure, they don't tell the whole story. She said the Internet is not that dissimilar to offline media in that consumer behavior shows that people react to such ads "just as they do with their TV remote control--they click away advertising they don't find relevant or entertaining."
The X10 ad is "not the widely successful campaign that it might appear to be," Gluck said. "The consumer is in control of the experience despite the best efforts of marketers to impose their will on consumers. Consumers are ultimately the ones in charge--they vote with their mouths, just like they vote with their remote."
X10 has been climbing Jupiter's U.S. top 50 Web and digital media properties chart, moving up a notch from fifth place in May to fourth place in June. X10 had 28.6 million unique visitors in May and 34.2 million in June.
However, Jupiter said, without traffic from pop-unders, X10 would have only 2.7 million unique visitors. The site's number of engaged shoppers, meaning those who spend at least three minutes on a site, is 1.2 million."

Readers say animated banner ads on their favorite Web sites are annoying. At the same time, advertisers complain that banner ads no longer draw as strong a response as they once did, and have been working on making online ads more intrusive than they have been in the past in an attempt to get more attention.
But will making banner ads more intrusive necessarily make them more effective? According to The Open Source Development Network, static (non-animated) or even all-text ad banners may actually generate better responses than animated ones, at least on text-rich news sites.
Readers come to Slashdot and freshmeat -- the two sites on which we displayed the test banner pairs -- to read text, and the static, small-font, text-rich banners, while obviously ads and not editorial content, were more in character with these sites than any possible combination of blinking, whirling, clever graphics."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Kill the ads, kill the ads!
"The more advertisers shout, scream and try to coerce users to pay attention to them -- be it swooping shadows of Jurassic creatures hovering over text or jumbo-sized XCam2 pop-up ads -- the more software developers are shouting back with products to block them out.
And since the arrival of the X10's XCam2 pop-ups, users are downloading and installing them in droves. According to CNETs Download.com, the numbers are now in the hundreds of thousands.
"X10 has done a tremendous favor for us, big time," said Ed English, CEO of interMute, makers of Ad Subtract. "Weve got tons of e-mails from people coming just to get rid of those X10 ads." Certainly, many see this as a war between users and advertisers in much the same way each new advancement by the police to catch speeders is met by devices for drivers to evade detection."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
More bad ad developments
And you thought it was bad when About.com converted their O into a Lifesaver? The above Metafilter thread went into a whole debate about what letters Metafilter should sell off for logos. But it gets worse, and that's the message of all these articles.

New surveys find that big, aggressive ads boost brand awareness. Still, advertisers may want to remember: Memorable isn't always good.
Get ready to be inundated by bigger, flashier, and, yes, more annoying online advertising. Think AOL-like pop up ads, but even more intrusive, since the huge ads will likely be lunging out at you everywhere you go online. At least, that seems to be the fate in store for us if you read through a trio of recent surveys.
MSN, the IAB, and DoubleClick are attacking one major issue head on by conducting research that attempts to answer the question of whether it's possible, using standard online ads, to reinforce a brand or to get a brand message across.
This notion gets little acceptance right now. Many traditional advertisers still think the Net is best suited for direct marketing, such as e-mail blitzes. Other marketers are demanding that deals be structured based on performance, such as how many consumers who saw an ad signed up for free product samples or e-mail alerts. That's a limited market that undercuts pricing for banner ads, which now make up roughly 50% of online ad sales.
So for three months this spring, MSN, DoubleClick, and the IAB conducted separate branding studies. In each survey, a group of people who saw the ads were immediately asked questions online about the product or company. Those results were compared with online surveys of the brand awareness of people who hadn't seen the advertisements.
The results suggest that brand messages can be delivered online. However, gaining acceptance for the Web's branding effectiveness will be an uphill battle. For one thing, all of the surveys were conducted immediately after each consumer saw the ad. It's hard to know, then, how long consumers, bombarded by hundreds of marketing messages each day, actually remember what they see online. The results could also embolden the industry to shoot itself in the foot, since the ads consumers remember the most are the biggest, flashiest, and most irritating kinds. Large rectangle ads or so-called skyscraper ads that run along the side of a Web site consistently produced higher results than traditional banner ads. Ads that used Flash technology to make objects or messages blink on the page were better performers. And ads that popped up in between pages, as consumers clicked from one Web page or site to another, also got the high results. These are also the kinds of pitches that people constantly complain about."

It doesn't take Albert Einstein to realize you'll remember a stranger better if he smacks you in the face with a lemon meringue pie than if he politely holds up his business card while you're shopping at Nordstrom's.
The results included a ton of numbers aimed to show that bigger is better. But that wasn't the most interesting news. After all, if the banner ad wasn't effective to start with, will making it 40 percent more effective save the ailing Web publishing industry?
Hardly. That's why the core finding -- and the one Web publishers want advertisers to start believing -- is that even the much-maligned banner ad is having some impact on Web surfers. After surveying people who were shown Web ads, researchers concluded that banner ads have measurable impact on attitudes, even when people don't click on them and get whisked off to an advertiser's site, much as viewers are swayed by TV commercials that entertain but don't suddenly send anyone driving out to Montgomery Mall."

"Industry analysts see the so-called "takeover ad" that Yahoo! ran May 4 for the 2002 Ford Explorer as a bellwether for the next generation of highly interactive, highly intrusive advertising on the Web.
"We're definitely going to see a lot more of this," predicts Cheryl Benton, partner and managing director at Mezzina Brown Interactive. "The good news is, it pushes the boundaries, we'll learn from it and it will have other iterations."
The ad, produced by J. Walter Thompson, began with several crows perched on a Ford Outfitters banner under the main Yahoo! logo. The birds then flew across the page to a pile of birdseed. As they ate the seeds, a Ford Explorer '02 banner was revealed. Those who clicked on the banner saw their screen start to shake and heard the sound of an engine ignition. A split-second later, the entire Yahoo! homepage was replaced by an animated Flash ad for the vehicle.
"Sites have not been as open to taking these kinds of ads because they didn't have to," observes Susan Bratton, the senior vice president of sales and marketing at broadband provider Excite@Home. "But now the markets have gotten more competitive and even sites like Yahoo! that prides itself on lightweight page loads have elected to load them up with these intrusive messages."
Both Ford and Yahoo! object to the term "intrusive". "We all know how important the Internet is for a car company, but you're not going to sway people because you've got a bird flying off a perch," says Andrew Pakula, chief executive officer of Orb, an interactive advertising agency that emphasizes real-time transaction tracking. "You may get some PR value out of it, but how does that relate to selling a car?"
Pakula argues that the current high price of producing and serving such interactive ads make them far less cost-efficient than other forms of Web-based and traditional advertising. "We all have to get into reality. Not a lot of companies have the kind of money to do this," he says. "Sooner or later that CFO is going to come in and say, 'So you spent all this money. What did we get for it?'"

In the latest example, CBS MarketWatch started airing a commercial Monday that re-purposes American Airlines' upcoming TV ad campaign. To see the ad, consumers can click a large square beside articles on the MarketWatch site, which publishes financial news and information.
Other major Web publishers also are pushing formats that resemble offline ads. Microsoft last week started running full-page ads that imitate movie trailers, forcing visitors to view a 10-second promotion before a requested page is shown."

This one, however, really ticks me off. Especially speaking as a weblogger who wants her links to be ones SHE put in, not that someone else did...
After Douglas Hoppe downloaded the hot new online file-sharing program called KaZaa two weeks ago, random yellow hyperlinks began appearing on his fledgling music site.
Hoppe became hopping mad when he realized words such as "jazz" and "hip hop" had become hyperlinks, sending potential customers to the site of BMG Music, one of the world's biggest record labels.
TOPtext is an example of "contextual advertising," the latest attempt by online advertisers to reach the eyes and minds of Web surfers. TOPtext turns existing words on a Web page into hyperlinks that redirect a computer user to the advertiser's site.
Critics such as Hoppe say TOPtext is an insidious form of online advertising that will prove even more annoying than the recent spate of "pop- under ads" that made the X10.com Web camera site at once famous and reviled. But EZula supporters say contextual advertising has promise because it is far less obtrusive than other forms of online and offline advertising while delivering only what a consumer wants.
Once the program is installed on a computer and the Web browser is activated, it searches for instances of "car" and "gasoline" on any Web site visited and underlines them in yellow. The words then become a new hyperlink to the advertiser's Web site. When the computer user rolls the mouse cursor over the TOPtext word, it looks like someone marked it with a yellow highlight pen. Next to it, a small text box appears showing the advertiser's plug.
Clicking on the word sends the user to the advertiser's Web site. If the highlighted Web site word was also a hyperlink, the TOPtext gives a choice of going to the original destination or the advertiser's site.
TOPtext is gaining wide distribution because of a deal EZula made to bundle it with KaZaa, a new online file-sharing program that has become one of the more popular substitutes for Napster."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
And then there's the fun with search engines getting paid for placement.
"The complaint stems from the practice of companies paying to have their sites strategically highlighted or bumped up in a search engine's results. This pay for placement service is becoming an increasingly popular way to make money among search engines since the dot-com bust and the subsequent reduction in banner ad sales.
The search engines contend that their fee-paying sites are clearly labeled under special headings, such as "featured" or "partner sites," a practice called "paid placement."
Commercial Alert, however, also attacks the practice of "paid inclusion," a more insidious form of deception than paid placement. Paid inclusion allows a company to bump its site up in the results, regardless of their actual relevancy."

Commercial Alert, an organization focused on limiting commercialism, said Web sites such as MSN.com and AltaVista are violating federal law by concealing the fact that some of their search engine results are actually paid advertisements.
"Many search users think they are getting unbiased search results, when they are really getting advertisements," said Gary Ruskin, executive director for Commercial Alert of Portland, Ore. "We want the FTC to require that search engines disclose that these ads are really ads."
Once relatively objective, search engine results, especially those at the top of the screen, are increasingly being sold by Internet companies. However, many search engines do not identify those results as paid and instead use more oblique terms like "featured sites" and "partner results."
The Web sites cited in the complaint are AltaVista.com, MSN.com, Netscape, Lycos, IWon.com, Direct Hit, HotBot and LookSmart."

NEW! (Added here even though it's off topic because I can't really squeeze this into its own spot at this point and this is as close as it gets with the old ones.) Californians could register their phone numbers on an official "do not call" list to avoid telemarketing pitches under legislation unexpectedly resurrected this week -- after the Senate leader started getting sales calls on his private phone.
The idea of creating the state's first telemarketing "do not call" list has failed several times in the Legislature. But with increased pressure this year to boost consumer protections, and with Burton's newfound support, the bill has been revived for a hearing today.
The bill, by Sen. Liz Figueroa, D-Fremont, would allow Californians to voluntarily list their phone numbers with the state Department of Consumer Affairs. A telemarketer who calls someone on the list would face a $500 fine for the first unwanted call and $1,000 for every call after that $500 fine.
The measure, SB771, is part of a two-pronged attack this year against the telemarketing industry, which generates an estimated $500 billion in sales and advertising. Another bill would regulate certain automatic dialing machines that send a flood of calls from a single telemarketing operator."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Then again, perhaps there's some hope for online ads?
"With click rates so low, many advertisers decided to curtail ad spending or buy ads based on a new measure, Cost Per Action. CPA deals, which pay commissions to publishers on purchases, registrations, or clicks, have put the pressure on sites to deliver--without ensuring them a predictable income.
Not surprisingly, many publishers are now abandoning the direct-marketing metrics that put them in such a perilous position, insisting that there's value in simply exposing users to an ad, even if people don't click on it or make a purchase right away. Branding, the old, offline buzzword, is back.
In fact, branding has always been what's most important to traditional advertisers, says Nick Nyhan, CEO of Dynamic Logic, an independent research firm that measures the effectiveness of online advertising. For the Web however, it might take some time before advertisers adopt this mindset. According to a new research report by Jupiter analyst Grahn, only 15 percent of online marketers conduct formal branding measurements. As a result, advertisers often underestimate the actual return on investment for their campaigns by as much as 35 percent. While ads may not produce jawdropping clickrates, they still have an impact, says Grahn. "In the long run, the real value is in the branding."

Now CBS MarketWatch is looking to try something different.
Starting this week, the dot-com said it would no longer automatically provide click-through data to its advertisers. Instead, the company is asking advertisers to reevaluate why and how they work on the Web and examine other performance metrics, such as brand or product awareness or post-viewing measurements.
"Click-through rates are a misleading statistic," said Scot McLernon, executive vice president of sales at MarketWatch. "They aren't indicative of raised awareness of consumer interest."
On a conference call with analysts, DoubleClick CEO Kevin Ryan said MarketWatch's move is a sign of things to come. "This is a leading trend I think we'll see throughout the industry," he said. The idea is to get advertisers to look at the Internet as a passive medium, where branding is as important as interaction."

Relevance, or the ability to target ads to the most interested consumers, was a big selling point for advertisers when they began to flock online in the late 1990s. But it turns out that although many advertisers have been collecting data about consumer behavior and purchasing patterns, they haven't been making good use of it. According to Forrester Research, 74% of marketers placed ads based on audience demographics. This despite the fact that when asked for the most effective way to reach their target audience, almost three times as many marketers preferred sites where consumers research purchases over sites with a demographic profile that suits the brand.
Why the disconnect? It's not easy to put together complex "action profiles," which analyze when a consumer is motivated or ready to buy. Moreover, advertisers are used to designing a one-size-fits-all plan, not a series of ads that must be tested and retested to target consumers at each stage of the purchasing process. Still, those that take the time will reap the rewards. Agency Avenue A reports that one of its clients achieved a 162% improvement in sales when it targeted based on actual purchases instead of solely on demographics and click behavior.
Many marketers also fail to refine their online ad campaigns. Forrester reports that one-third of marketers make no changes to their online campaigns after they launch. Of those that do, the majority tend to wait up to two weeks before making changes. "Marketers want nice, neat little formulas. But if you do that online, you're are missing the boat," says Forrester analyst Jim Nail. "You're missing the real power to deliver on your client's objectives."

I like what this guy's done: "This page is my radical approach to making money via ads. All of the sites ads will be on this page only. For each ad, I will clearly disclose what the cost is to you and the benefit to me. After this, you probably won't want to click on anything, which is fine, its an experiment after all. But maybe you will actually find a deal where you feel adequately compensated and you will help me out. It's always your choice what to do and I will never take it personally."

And finally, some good guidelines. Too bad they're not mandatory. "The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) announced voluntary guidelines for advertisers using larger banner ads, pop-ups, and other forms of rich media advertising Monday.
The IAB's new guidelines cover standard-sized banner ads, larger interactive marketing unit (IMU) rectangles and skyscrapers, two different sizes of pop-up ads, and transitional ads.
File sizes allowed under the new guidelines range from 15K for a standard banner (468 x 60 pixels) to 100K for a 550 x 550 pixel pop-up ad. The guidelines allow the advertisers to program banner ads to expand and load additional information if users either mouseover or click on the ads.
Standard banners may expand if a user moves a cursor over the ad, but should automatically close when the cursor moves off the banner, the IAB said. Banner ads can also expand if a user clicks on the ad, but must include a clearly labeled close button.
The IAB also advised marketers that online advertisements which have audio or video should include a clearly labeled stop or pause button. Additionally, audio or video is only allowed if consumer clicks on the ad, according to the IAB.
Marketers should also test ads for stability -- defined as not causing error messages, dialog windows, browser crashes, or system crashes -- on a variety of browser and platform combinations, the IAB said."

"PromoTel Inc., a week-old Newport Beach company with just three employees, holds the patent for replacing a telephone ring signal with advertisements, said John Bonosoro, the company's chief executive."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
And yes, here's more about advertising in the classroom.
"Corporations want it both ways: they want the expenses of education to be borne by someone else, and they want to exert influence over the way schools work and how different subjects are taught.
More and more blatantly self-serving corporate activities in schools have come to be viewed as appropriate. Specifically, schools are now being integrated into corporate marketing campaigns. School marketing programs have become a big part of many corporations' plans to promote their products.
Examples of this are sometimes grotesque, such as when Tootsie Roll provided teachers with a history lesson plan about "the sweet taste of success." Unfortunately, that's not a rare example. There's also a science lesson in which kids are supposed to compare the thickness of Prego spaghetti sauce to the thickness of Ragu, and another that talks about the "nutritional" value of chocolate. There's a math lesson that uses potato chips, and a geology lesson that purports to teach kids about geothermal activity by having them put Gushers fruit snacks into their mouths.
Jensen: How do parents respond to this?
Molnar: I got a letter today from a grandfather in Michigan who sent a whole sheaf of examples of overt corporate marketing at his grandkids' school. He was frustrated because when he raised these concerns in his community, he was greeted largely with indifference.
Advertisers are doing whatever they can to get into schools. Their goal is to dominate all these kids' channels of information. Many companies use school-based advertising in integrated, multimedia tie-in campaigns. One large firm, Prime Media, owns many outlets that reach children both inside and outside school: the grade-school publication My Weekly Reader, Seventeen magazine, Lifetime Learning Systems, the in-school cable station Channel One. They can do the kind of saturation advertising we usually associate with summer-blockbuster movie releases, and they can do it right inside the schools.
Another recently launched program, Zap Me, provides a school with a computer lab containing fairly advanced computers loaded with Microsoft software. (You can't load anything else on these computers.) Each is equipped with a sophisticated Web browser and enough bandwidth to pull down full-motion images, so you can treat the computer monitor like a tv screen. The computers are linked to what they call a "netspace," for which corporations pay to provide content. Obviously, corporations that pay for content are going to control it, which means you might very well get Exxon's version of ocean biology or Weyerhaeuser's version of forestry. Kids can get through to the Internet on this browser, but they need their parents' permission to do so. Zap Me bills this restriction of access as a good thing, but I would hardly consider corporate control of children's access to information a welcome development.Schools get the Zap Me labs for no upfront cost, but they have to guarantee that children will use them for so many hours a day. And guess what: the browser portal has advertising on it. This means kids' ability to do their schoolwork is contingent upon their viewing advertising. If a teacher makes an assignment requiring a child to use the Zap Me browser, the teacher is requiring the child to watch commercials. And if the child refuses to watch these commercials, her or his academic future could be affected."

"School bells will mark the advent this fall of a critical year in the life of a Point Breeze start-up." NetworkNext hopes to prove it can succeed where others have not -- putting discreet advertising messages in front of students in the nation's wealthiest school districts without triggering controversy.
At least 500 high schools have signed contracts with the company. The goal is to line up 1,000 by fall. In return for signing, schools will get free use of a mobile computer unit that teachers can use to present Internet or even Power Point presentations overhead.
Advertisers have so far committed to spend $2 million for at least three months' worth of banner ad space on NetworkNext's computer screens."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
On your own time, people may be pushing products in your face.
This is just rather creepy: advertisers taking that "word of mouth" idea too far. I don't want to be out in public having someone spout off an ad at me, thanks. Sheesh. In the above link's case, they make the public shill for them: "On July 20 that group's administrator posted a message with the subject heading, "Win Lucinda Williams Tickets!" The contest's steps were explained. First, start at least 10 "conversations" in various online forumsnewsgroups, mailing lists, message boards, etc.; send links as proof to the team's leader. Also, forward a link to a Lucinda Williams e-card to someone who is not already on the Lost Highway "team" (blind cc-ing the team leader for full credit, of course). Winners are chosen at random from among those who complete these tasks.
If you're not sure how to get the "conversation" started, the message offered some suggestions, such as: "Hey I have been really getting into Essence by Lucinda Williams, has anyone heard the album yet? She is on the new label Lost Highway which has some other cool artists too. The site has all the information on Lucinda Williams www.losthighwayrecords.com stop by and give it a try." Or if you prefer a less formal (more authentic?) approach to capitalization and punctuation: "has anyone checked out the Lost Highway Records site? I have been on it a couple of times and I did not know that Ryan Adams has a new album coming out in September. Has anyone heard the album or the samples at Ryan's site?"
Now, there's nothing wrong with enabling genuine word-of-mouth enthusiasm. But really, isn't bribing fans with concert tickets to go blabbing around the Internet as covert agents of Lost Highway a bit much?"

"Apparently, that hip new guy or lady you just met may be an agent of commerce," writes fungible. "Some ad company in New York is sending out young, hip, and undercover people to trendy Lower East Side bars, trying to sell people on a cocktail made of vodka and one of those 'smart' waters. Will this make it easier or harder to get laid?"

Marketing researchers for Hasbro scoured Chicago to locate the coolest of the cool 'Alpha Pups,' the most peer-admired boys aged 8-13. Then they gave them free video games."

"Call it viral marketing. Code Red- the soda has been spreading almost as fast as its namesake computer worm, which has infected hundreds of thousands of computers to date. Code Red has been an especially big hit with computer programmers, who often guzzle the high-octane drink to fuel late-night code writing sessions.
Among the drink's fans were the staff of eEye Digital Security, who say they identified the Code Red worm and named it after their favorite soda.
Casabona added that Pepsi plans to ship the eEye team free Code Red soda to keep them bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in the coming days. When told of the forthcoming freebie, Maiffret breathed a sigh of relief. We figured they'd either send us free soda or sue us, he said."

"Johnny's mom tells them she used to scrub his baseball uniform relentlessly after games, but nothing worked. Until, she says, she discovered Miracle Brand X detergent.
"You should try it," she urges. "Trust me you'll be sold." "Miracle Brand X," her friends repeat. "We'll have to remember that."
Little do they know Johnny's mother is a paid, undercover advertiser. Call it this millennium's version of product placement which has gone beyond TV shows and movies and infiltrated the real world. Marketing firms specializing in so-called "buzz" tactics have eked a growing business out of the belief that people like those Little League moms will remember - and buy - what their peers are raving about.
"Everybody says word-of-mouth is the most powerful form of advertising. It is," Ressler said. "We're creating that word-of-mouth. We give these brands a way to be chosen." (What, like people can't figure these things out for themselves?)
"Big Fat, which has 45 marketing managers in 30 U.S. cities, also uses overt marketing campaigns to promote products. Its clients include Nestle, Pepsi-Cola Co.'s FruitWorks, Volvic water, USA Networks and Brown & Williamson Tobacco. The firm considers the under-the-radar schemes only one element of its business.
Those who work incognito to promote Big Fat's clients are paid up to $500 for a gig, according to Chief Strategy Officer John Palumbo. Some are so enthusiastic about the brand they're hyping, he said, they'll do it for nothing." (Oy vey.)
""People end up experiencing the products," Palumbo said. "We want people talking about a brand without knowing they're talking about it."
"Leaners" - patrons who lean across a bar to order a drink by brand name and then offer a tidbit about the product to those around them - and "key influencers" - bouncers, bartenders and others in visible positions - might do the surreptitious promoting. Strategists also use the "request" tactic: sending teams into a store over a period of time to ask for a brand it doesn't carry until finally owners are pushed to stock their shelves with it.
"Is it illegal? No. Is it unethical? Sort of," said Advertising Age reporter Richard Linnett. "To fully inform your audience has always been a part of the ethics of advertising. This is not fully informing them. It's like sneaking one in through the back door." (I can't say it any better than that.)

This one's just plain weird: "An interview with "Sex and the City's" Kim Cattrall yesterday left producers at the all-news cable channels rethinking the use of celebrities pitching products.
The spot, set up by Nikon, at times appeared to be more of a commercial for the camera-maker than an interview, according to those involved.
For example, on MSNBC, when nearing the end of the interview, anchor Rick Sanchez asked Cattrall what she was holding. From there, she launched into a detailed description of the product, including the model number.
"Because it was obvious she was holding something, he had no choice, it had reached the point where we had to ask," said MSNBC spokesman Mark O'Connor.
Each outlet involved had about six minutes to interview Cattrall. While the interviews did cover the show - she spilled some details about Sunday's episode on Fox - Cattrall continually mentioned the camera." (Fortunately people were actually pissed by this and her plugging got cut in editing.)

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
But here's the most disturbing trend of all to me:
people who sell themselves to advertise products. People gripe about prostitution, but this bothers me more somehow. Then again, isn't it just a different kind of selling? Admittedly, the above link isn't so bad (a guy proposes in a commercial), but it's rather scary how people decide to do this and how much they'll alter their lives just to plug some stupid product. Yuck, yuck, yuck!

By now the original link about that couple selling off their baby's name has died (damn, I think I really do need to do these more often before links expire. But thank the gods there were no real takers.), but they inspired this guy to do even worse: "Wertz, 24, is offering a unique sponsorship opportunity. He is willing to let your company tattoo its logo on his bald head.
"I chose to tattoo my head for personal reasons, but my fiancee said I couldn't do it before our wedding photos."
He's sent out a press release and has a Web site, http://www.sponsormymelon.com, but he hasn't told some important people about his plans. His fiancee, for instance.
"As soon as I have an offer, I'll tell her," he said. "I don't expect a problem." (I dunno about that...)
"There is at least one sensible thing on Wertz's agenda. He's going to check with a dermatologist to make sure the tattoo could be removed in case something better comes along."

It is nearly impossible to get an in-person with Chris Barrett and Luke McCabe these days. And if you do get 10 minutes, it's likely to be via cell phone, on the run, between TV spots, and after three radio gigs. And you may not be able to finish your sentence, so ask your questions fast.
Such is the life of the self-described first corporate-sponsored college students. The two 18-year-olds are headed to Pepperdine University and the University of Southern California with no financial worries, thanks to their clever marketing skills and unabashed willingness to sell themselves.
They are media darlings, polished interview subjects, ersatz celebrities. After a yearlong promotional blitz, Barrett and McCabe signed with First USA, the Wilmington-based credit-card company that promotes itself as the largest issuer of Visa cards in the world.
Naturally, the big announcement was made on NBC's Today last month, the day the two graduated from Haddonfield Memorial High School. In return for a significant chunk of change (tuition, room and board cost more than $30,000 annually at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and at USC, in Los Angeles), the two will be "spokesguys" for financial responsibility.
Originally, they thought they would shill sneakers or soda, but First USA's message that college students should establish good credit and budget their money is just fine, they said.Barrett and McCabe said they had turned down about 15 other firm full-tuition offers, though they declined to name the other companies."

"Successful panhandling is a lot like successful advertising," said Cathy Davies, 26, who developed the Needcom Web site while living in Berkeley. "It's reaching a jaded audience in a saturated market by finding a message that jumps out and grabs you."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Now have some fun with parody ads!
These are really, really good.

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
Unbranding- this makes a good point
"Have you ever wondered what you could be thinking about if your poor brain wasn't being bombarded with ads all the time?
I suggest you do the following simple experiment. When you finish reading this paragraph, do not move your head, and just let your eyes wander around and count how many logos or ads you can see without moving a muscle. Notice the logo that's no doubt stuck on your computer monitor,. Look at your mouse, your mousepad, your modem, any pens that may be around, books, yo-yos, the odd do-dads you may have on top of your monitor. Whatever. I've been trying to cut down on the number of logos I see for a while now, and I just redid this experiment, and I could still find seven of them on my desk top." (I counted five different ones- the logo for my workplace is around my desk several times, obviously).
"If you're haven't started trying to cut down on your advertising memes, I wouldn't be surprised if you found around 15 logos trying to sell themselves to you. I suggest you try this experiment in a couple rooms in your home, perhaps while you're taking a shower, or first thing in the morning when you've woken up, but not gotten out of bed yet. If you're a run-of-the-mill American, I think you'll be shocked to see how many logos are creeping their way into your subconscience as you lounge around the house."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
If you're interested in a good bad advertising site that does this regularly....
this one's for you.

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
And a random miscelleaneous frightening link...
"The company is Flusho, a Houston-based supplier of sanitary products for custodians and health care workers, and the product is the official "Jar Jar Binks" urinal cake.
Stan Anthe, Flusho's president, explained the serendipity of the situation. "We patented a way to put an image into a urinal cake that ran through its whole length, so it only disappeared when the cake wore out. Anyway, so we figured that a fella at a urinal don't have much else to look at, so why not use 'em as advertising? We had a few dotcoms call us up and commission some special cakes as souvenirs, but then Vern, our sales guy, heard that Lucasfilm was calling for bids on licensed products, and we contacted them about doing up Episode One cakes. This is a really competitive market, so I couldn't believe that we were the only company that put in a bid." (I'm afraid to ask.)
"Within days of the release of the cakes, Flusho was the darling of the advertising world, as nobody had noticed the completely untapped advertising niche until then. Not only did the cakes perform admirably in their main function, keeping the urinals sanitary and smelling fresh, but testing found that they were the focus of the users' attentions. To take advantage of the hype surrounding Episode One, Flusho also performed the unthinkable and paid for a national ad campaign in the big entertainment magazines, previously unheard of in the sanitary product industry. The ad campaign, "Piss on Jar Jar", became an unqualified hit." (HAH! I'm not surprised! George, you paying attention to this?)
"Anthe related the surprise he and the rest of the company felt over the sudden success. "Well, advance sales weren't all that good until the ad in Entertainment Weekly ran, and then we couldn't keep them in stock. When we started the ad campaign, people would go to public restrooms looking for the Jar Jar cakes, and we found people stealing them just to use them at home. People were drinking eight and nine two-liter bottles of Dr. Pepper a day just so they could use the cakes at work. And when Lucasfilm announced that Jar Jar was going to be in Episode Two, some custodians would have to replace them three and four times a day because they'd get plumb wore out. We'd never seen people in such a dang hurry to use a urinal before."

NEW! Talking posters in the bathroom pushing beer. "They scared a lot of drunks at the urinals."

Tuesday, August 21, 2001
And the final miscelleaneous link...
hippie food advertising, which reminds me of grocery shopping at the co-op.

"Now that I'm aware of the spiritual movement taking place inside Albertson's, I'm curious to see how many products will deliver me down the path to solace.
ONLY 40 PERCENT of Americans went to a place of worship last year, but just about everybody ate something. And most likely it was a brand item that they felt an emotional connection to.
So, do Americans really believe in spirituality? Probably not. Do they believe in cereal? You betcha." Disturbing. I have to say that I just don't relate to my breakfast cereal that much, or whatever.