The most confusing thing I have seen all week

Fortunately, it's only Monday morning.

It's an ambient idea from CP+B Canada, for Tourism Toronto. But what is it?

According to the submission on Ads of The World:

"In order to curate the vacation photos Toronto visitors take and put online, we unleashed 21, 8-foot snowmen designed by top contemporary artists and placed strategically at key tourist spots in the city. When you take a photo with the snowmen, a famous Toronto scene is featured as the backdrop. And to encourage the photos would be shared, Tourism Toronto is donating $2 to Starlight Children’s Foundation for every snowman photo uploaded to the campaign’s Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/visittoronto, up to $50,000. And, we’ve integrated each photo takers’ network, by offering another $1 for every ‘Like’ each photo generates, further expanding this campaign’s reach. To date, more than $24,000 has been raised."

I would like to point out that this submission comes from a country in which English is frequently spoken. "In order to curate"? Okay, that's just shitty jargon. But the rest of the write-up is similarly convoluted.

They set up giant snowmen in popular Toronto tourism photo op sites, then provided a fundraising incentive to share them on Tourism Toronto's Facebook page and get their friends involved. Was that so hard to say?

I am amazed that such a famous agency brand would leave the adblog PR to someone who don't write good.

But the most confusing thing about it all is this:

Why does the snow"man" have a vulva?

"Pregnant" Passat ad delivers absurdity and controversy

Noah shared with me a post from Art Threat titled "Why is CBC running sexist Volkswagen ads?", because he knows I can't walk away from a good ad outrage.

Here it is:




And here is the rage:

"The story’s focus quickly turns from the pregnant woman to silly interactions between the husband and the paramedic on different features included in the new Passat. While the viewer is naturally curious about the pending child delivery that launched the ad narrative, the camera cuts to extended interior car shots, completely erasing the pregnant woman from the visuals. 

Cutting back to the unfolding scene, the woman cries out for help as the guys incessantly confer on the car. “Starts with a button?” asks the paramedic. “Sure does” responds the husband, continuing on in blatant disrespect to a woman in need of support. 

The ad finishes with the husband swinging the driver seat door closed on the pregnant partner calling for support. “Guys? Having a baby here!” cries the pregnant women as the men stupidly admire the car. 

This Volkswagen ad, rooted in a overtly sexist storyline, clearly crosses a red line in celebrating an automobile over human life."

The author, Stefan Christoff, then proceeds to talk about the toxicity of (North) American car culture, referring to the Passat vid as a "disturbing ad celebrating a new car over childbirth".

But me, I'm just not feeling it. For all my ranting about sexism in advertising, cultural cancers like car obsession, and threats to the sacredness of motherhood, I just can't conjure up any outrage over this ad. None.

The ad, by Toronto agency Red Urban and director Jean-Michel Ravon, certainly does cross a line. But it's not a line of sexism, for me, it's the line of absurdity.

Online ads, like this one, need to be entertaining to hold viewer attention. This one is comedy. And I think there are both men and women in the target audience who will find it funny.

The concept could have used someone in another urgent hospital situation, but that would not have been as funny. The very fact that we so cherish motherhood, that for the man this should be the most important day of his life, that the paramedic is supposed to be 100% focussed on the patient... all the kinds of wrong that this scenario is are essential to its entertainment value.

Does it trot out the tired old "clueless husband" trope? Definitely. That's the most sexist thing about this ad, the way it treats the men. The woman, on the other hand, is the "straight man" in all of this. Her awareness of the seriousness of her situation anchors the complete absurdity of the guys' reactions.

It's not a great ad. But I think it is an effective one. And I don't think any women were harmed in the making of it.

Then again, I'm a man. What's your take?

New web series accelerates the Starbucksization of McDonald's Canada

McDonald's Canada continues to try to be Starbucks. First it was better coffee. Then it was the "McCafé" makeover at their restaurants. Now, they've hired a sitcom writer to make them McDonald's-promoting webisodes of something derivative of Seinfeld, Friends and The Office:



It's purposefully awkward, with hamfisted product placements. But will it convince Canadians that McDick's is a cool place to hang out all day, sip a latte, and enjoy free wifi? Isn't that something the Starbucks has decided isn't really a great business model?



I just don't get it. McDonald's brand is built on cheap comfort food and parents buying their children's love with Happy Meals. The sooner they drop the pretentious makeover, the better.

Tip via Burger Business

F'd Ad Fridays: There's no serial killing in baseball!

The Globe and Mail reports that this just-launched logo, for a minor league baseball team in London, Ontario, is not everyone's style of brand humour. London Mayor Joe Fontana says he has "serious concerns" about having his city's pro sports team named after a misogynistic serial killer, while Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, objected to the “very creepy-looking man” in the logo and the team's tagline, “Lurking in Labatt Park this spring.”

Me, I think this outrage is a bit of a stretch. The brand is tasteless, sure. But it's not like they named themselves after Robert Pickton. There's something to be said for the healing passage of time.

Lowbrow casino ad is about as classy as you would expect

Sexist jokes. Fat jokes. Stupid man jokes. Blonde jokes. Potentially fatal injury jokes. This Fallsview Casino ad really hits all the worst ad tropes on the head (so to speak).


Fallsview Casino Resort - Coconut from Holiday Films on Vimeo.


Via Adrants

F'd Ad Fridays: How many kinds of uncomfortable can you fit into one ad?

In this case, many. And not just the topic, or the visual of the old guy with the teenage prostitute. Asking Canadians abroad to spy on their fellow tourists makes me uncomfortable too. Cybertip is a snitch site that usually focusses on internet child pornography, and does a pretty good job of it. But what they are not very good at is not being creepy when the advertise.

It's not as easy issue to address. But the new ad, by BCP, seems like the wrong way to approach it—both strategically and creatively. AoTW says the real client is the International Bureau for Children's Rights, who do fight against sex tourism. But why would a Canadian in (for example) Cuba contact a Canadian child porn tip site if they suspected another (Canadian?) tourist was hiring the sexual services of a local youth? How exactly is that supposed to work?

According to Cybertip's report form:

Sex tourism or, more specifically, traveling to a foreign country to engage in sexual activity with a child, has become a well-developed component of the commercial-sexual exploitation of children. It is an offence under the Criminal Code for a Canadian to engage in this activity. A person can be tried for this offence upon return to Canada. The offender will be treated as if the incident occurred on Canadian soil, and the penalties will be the same as if the offences had occurred in Canada.

Which is all well, but you would need evidence. Are you supposed to contact local authorities? Ask them what their name is? Take a picture? Or just creepily stare at them through your Foster Grants until they turn themselves in?

It's an important issue requiring public awareness and education. But this ad is just confusing.

Little Bra of Horrors

Missed this one before Halloween. Created by Target Marketing for The Boobie Trap in St. John's,  the ads have fun with the horrors of an ill-fitting bra:





There are also outdoor posters (via AoTW) advertising the frightful hooters:

 Including one that must have been too scary even for YouTube:

My women readers, what do you think of this campaign? It targets you. Does the humour speak to you?

As a man, I can't get past the visuals. ("My headline is up here!")

Sex, lies, and the politics of hate

Remember last week's awful ad (new window) from the "Institute for Canadian Values" about Ontario's proposed sex ed curriculum? With its blatantly anti-GLBTQ message and manipulative imagery, it even got the National Post to apologize for running it in the first place.

Well, there's another one. A pamphlet. And according to Torontoist it was paid for by Ontario's Progressive (ha!) Conservative Party:

The Globe and Mail gives Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak's defence of the publication:

When asked if he supported the message, Mr. Hudak turned the question around on the Liberals and suggested the party was out of touch with mainstream voters.

“My little girl Miller – it’s her birthday today – is just four and she has started JK,” he said. “The notion that Dalton McGuinty thinks a priority in education is sex-education curriculum starting at Grade 1 when they should be learning their ABCs and how to tie their shoes is another example of how Dalton McGuinty has lost touch with mainstream Ontario.”

The Globe has also endorsed the Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty, for re-election on Thursday's provincial vote.

Interestingly, the quotes in the ad are not from any proposed provincial curriculum, but rather from a Toronto District School Board booklet on "Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism".

And as CBC points out, the copy is full of misrepresentations and outright fabrications.

The flyer includes one quote from the document —"cross-dressing for six-year olds"— that can't be found anywhere in the TDSB document. The flyer also says the quotes are taken from the K-12 curriculum. But the quotes are not included in the curriculum, only in the anti-homophobia resource guide.

This election campaign was already ugly. Now it's evil, too.

(Thanks to Martha W. for the tip)

F'd Ad Fridays: Wonderfully F'd Science World ads by Rethink

Adrants posted this hilariously F'd ad by Rethink:


Science World "Beach Time" from Holiday Films on Vimeo.


It's actually just the latest in a wonderful series of ads for Science World, built around the "we can explain" theme. Some are 2 years old, but all are new to me.

Enjoy:







There are more at the Science World YouTube channel.

A Photoshop disaster in the House of Commons

This is a little off blog topic, but my last post regarded sex and politics, and this is too ridiculous not to share.

This is the official profile page for one of Canada's new MPs, Rathika Sitsabaiesan. The honourable member was elected in the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River on May 2, standing for the New Democratic Party.

Do you notice anything strange about her picture?

Let's blow it up a bit:

Contrarian reader Mark Austin thought it looked a little odd, and was able to find the original at OpenParliament (it has since also been replaced):

As a 29-year-old Millennial woman, The Honourable Ms. Sitsabaiesan probably felt the top she wore to her portrait sitting was just fine. It is fine, as a matter of fact, and no different than what any other woman would wear in a modern business situation.

But somebody thought otherwise. Whether she herself had second thoughts, or whether someone behind the scenes at the House of Commons had a moment of extreme prudishness, the completely awful photoshop cleavage-ectomy has now made the pages of Jezebel.

And that's far more embarrassing than seeing the modest bits of your Member of Parliament's breasts.

Nonetheless, I post this to mock prudishness and bad Photoshop—not the rookie MP, who has taken on a thankless job in public service that I would never want. I wish her and her colleagues the best of luck in the new session.

Blog encourages Ontarians to vote with their... ummm...

CBC reports that a Toronto blogger is attempting to provoke interest in Ontario's upcoming provincial election by getting voters to decide which candidates are the "sexiest".



Zach Bussey wants visitors to his media site to decide between two male and two female candidates every day:

"We’ve sat down and looked at the candidates from Green, NDP, Liberal, PC and even the fringe parties to narrow down all of them to just 64! 32 male candidates and 32 female candidates who we’ve deemed to be attractive! Now, over the course of the next month, head-to-head matchups between these 64 attractive Ontario Election Candidates will battle for votes to determine who is the Sexiest Candidate! "

Yes, it's all a big joke (and a PR stunt for Zach, who seems to be launching a production company of some kind) but he told CBC that it's all for democracy:

"I don't want it to be taken seriously in the sense that 'this is how you should vote,'" Bussey said. "I give people more credit than that. But I do want it to be taken seriously in the sense that if you're going to vote here, get out and vote on October 6."

Obviously, both political purists and gender issues advocates are going to be irritated by this. Personally, I wish Zach had said that he was running a social commentary about the superficiality of modern politics.

(Taken from the site)

After all, it's no accident that our neighbours to the south have perhaps the handsomest President in living history (in addition to his inspirational brand) and that so many of his potential political challengers have been attractive conservative women.  Physical beauty is an essential component of charisma, which provides the emotional stimuli that make us think we like people. One would expect politicians to be taller, better poised and more attractive than not. (The success of an unattractive politician, in that context, is really a great tribute to his or her personality, intelligence, ideas and persuasiveness.)

So if anything useful can come out of this stupid social media stunt, perhaps it's that the outraged and amused coverage of it will get us taking a clear look at ourselves as sexist creatures of instinct, and starting a conversation about how to rise above that nature.

The United States of America: Now up to 70% off!

If you want to see some timely evidence of the sad state of the American economy, look no further than today's Ottawa edition of Metro:

Click to enlarge and read

This unimaginatively art directed full-page ad, by "Canada's only U.S. real estate expert" Steve Martel, promises fabulous discounts on foreclosed properties. "You can buy a $35,000 home and sell it for $1000+ or rent it for $900/m like I do!"

Profiteering from our neighbours' misery aside, there is an obvious flaw in this hype. If you buy a house for $35K, you own a $35K house. That is, unless you can magically transport the house to a better market, or magically fix the local economy. The banks may be pricing to sell, but these foreclosure sales weigh down the rest of the market.

The big irony to me, though, is that using real estate as a get rick quick scheme is what put the American economy in the toilet to begin with. I don't think we really need that kind of speculation fever up here—particularly when it concerns the very same properties that ruined the lives of so many economically ambitious Americans.