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?

Freedom of Tweet

Last week, 18-year-old high school senior Emma Sullivan got in Big Trouble after tweeting that she had "made mean comments at" conservative Republican Governor of Kansas, Sam Brownback, who was addressing a Youth in Government program, and told him that he "sucked." Sullivan actually had not done those things; her tweet was a joke to her then-65 followers, comprised of her friends. But Brownback's office, who fiercely monitors social media sites to document (and apparently whine about) criticism of the governor, ratted on Sullivan, whose principal ordered her to send Brownback a letter of apology. Sullivan refused, saying "she isn't sorry and doesn't think such a letter would be sincere."

Sullivan received a scolding at school and was ordered to send Brownback an apology letter. She said Prinicipal Karl R. Krawitz even suggested talking points for the letter she was supposed to turn in Monday.

...She said she thinks the tweet has helped "open up dialogue" about free speech in social media..

"I would do it again," she said.

...Sullivan said she disagrees with Brownback politically, particularly his decision to veto the Kansas Arts Commission's entire budget, making Kansas the only state in the nation to eliminate arts funding. Brownback has argued arts programs can flourish with private dollars and that state funds should go to core government functions, such as education and social services.

"I think it would be interesting to have a dialogue with him," she said. "I don't know if he would do it or not though. And I don't know that he would listen to what I have to say."

Sherriene Jones-Sontag, the governor's spokeswoman, told The Star previously that Sullivan's message wasn't respectful and that it takes mutual respect to "really have a constructive dialogue." Brownback's office didn't return calls or emails Sunday from the AP.

This is a man who ran for president of the United States, and we're meant to believe that he can't have a dialogue with a teenage girl who criticizes him with indelicate language, because it offends his delicate sensibilities? Yikes.

Again I will note with amusement how it is progressives—and feminist ladies in particular—who are constantly cast as "oversensitive," but I have engaged in dialogue on many occasions with people who have said much worse to me than that I "suck." And I am not a public official whose paycheck is drawn from a government which ostensibly guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

Sullivan's mother, Julie, said she isn't angry with her daughter, even though she thinks she "could have chosen different words."

"She wasn't speaking to the 3,000 followers she has now," Julie Sullivan said. "She was talking to 65 friends. And also it's the speech they use today. It's more attention grabbing. I raised my kids to be independent, to be strong, to be free thinkers. If she wants to tweet her opinion about Gov. Brownback, I say for her to go for it and I stand totally behind her."

Rock on, Mama Julie.

After Brownback and his staff tried to bully Emma Sullivan into silence and capitulation, and she and her mother were having none of it, guess what happened?

Brownback did announce this afternoon: "My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize."

Still no apology for using taxpayer dollars to monitor Twitter for any hint of criticism of the governor in direct contravention of free speech laws, though. Huh.

How not to handle agency self-promo #sapientnitro

Copyranter unearthed this example of what he called "the absolute worst ad agency self-promo ever" from Sapient Nitro. And thus the feeding frenzy began. And deservedly so, because if there's one thing ad people hate, it's other ad people without a healthy dose of ironic industry self-loathing.



Have you stopped fidgeting uncomfortably yet? It gets better.

AdFreak just reported that the agency started deleting mocking Facebook posts from their wall, and even banned a few users. This prompted one Twitterer to say,

Oh, dear lord.

I kind of felt sorry for them for the video, which showed a painful lack of cynical self-awareness. But the Facebook failure I have no sympathy for.

If you screw up in social media, you screw up in public. You own it. You laugh about it. (Or apologize gracefully) And you move on.

Otherwise...

FEMEN find a new home on Google+ (painted nudity)

Ukrainian topless activists FEMEN, who seem most at home on old fashioned Livejournal, have never really felt welcome on Facebook. Since their main protest tactic is to take their shirts off and fight with police, it's not surprising that the prudes at Facebook often delete their photos and even ban the group.

Well, now they're testing the waters on Google+. So far, the new social network (unlike Google property YouTube) has not been particularly censoring of content. It will be interesting to see how FEMEN make use of the freedom.

Although, since they update in Ukrainian, I may need Google Translate as well.

Making an ass of yourself in social media

So, Chapstick had this kind of lame idea for a customer engagement campaign on Facebook. The advertised it in the real world like this:

Seems pretty harmless to me, just a poorly shot slice of life that was supposed to resonate with the female audience.

But that's not how one blogger, Melissa Spiers (guest posting on ReelGirl) took it. She flew into a very angry rant about the fetishization of the woman's bum and the possibility that we were supposed to imagine the Chapstick shoved up it.

Here's a sample:

"But why would anyone visit my online world, anyway?  Don’t we go online to experience an alternate reality? Chapstick! Woman’s Ass!  Have you ever gone through a day without being bombarded with any sexist messages or images?  Some of them are right out there, nothing subliminal about them  – see exhibits A through Z on the Rap Lyrics floor.  Lost. Chapstick. Ass. Others try to be subtle and sneaky (please take the audio tour in the Museum of Advertising).  Unfortunately, the use of women’s bodies to sell everything from beer to books has become so pervasive that we almost don’t see it anymore.  Hey, I bet I know where the Chapstick is!"

She is, of course, fully entitled to be angry at advertising (and other pop culture content) for continuing to treat woman as sex objects to promote sales or sexy brand associations. I just didn't see it here. I saw the portrayal as an attempt at humour by showing the model in an awkward and inelegant position — one that I often see (especially) women make self-deprecating comments about when they find themselves accidentally so positioned in public. It never occurred to me to think that the Chapstick was in her rectum. Why would I?

Now, Chapstick could have easily defended its intent (if I got it right) and agreed to disagree with its detractors who (it cannot be stressed enough) they invited to "be heard" at the campaign Facebook page.

But foolishly, they deleted all negative comments. So Reel Girl set up a protest FB page where they display screencaps of user comments before deletion.

From Jezebel:

A company deleting comments from its own Facebook page isn't censorship — Chapstick has no obligation to provide a public forum, and users are free to take their complaints elsewhere, as they have done. And in the grand scheme of things, the ad that started the whole controversy isn't that offensive. What Chapstick is guilty of is really bad PR. When Dr. Pepper issued a much more objectionable ad, at least they allowed customers to sound off about it on their Facebook page. By deleting negative comments, Chapstick is sending the message that they can't handle criticism. And especially if you're encouraging people to use social media to talk about your brand, that's a stupid message to send.

Seriously, seriously dumb. You lose at social media, whoever manages the Chapstick page.

UPDATE: Digging way down on the page, I found some un-deleted comments:

I wonder if this will stay:

If the shoe fits, **** it.

What is it with all the smut after a holiday weekend? I take one day off, and the ad blogosphere is practically swimming in pheromones.

This video, via Illegal Advertising, is for European Foot Locker stores.



It's part of a big social media outreach that includes all kinds of user-generated content. (I'll bet they get some pretty icky ones, too.)

Plus, everyone knows that women only make this face for Manolo Blahnik

The concept isn't that far off, though, as shoes have long been considered a vaginal symbol. I recall hearing an Italian proverb against women having concurrent sexual partners that translated to something like "you can't put two feet in the same shoe". You get the picture.

Netflix presents: How to fail at social media branding

Image via Gizmodo

Meet Jason Castillo. Thanks to Netflix's failure to secure the Twitter name for Netflix's new spinoff mail-order DVD business, he is now the unintentional brand ambassador for Qwikster:

(The profile picture is a recent change. Until yesterday it was an illustration of Sesame Street's Elmos smoking a massive joint, but Castillo got scared that the media attention would lead to a bust.)

Those of us charged with making up odd names for new brands that are both "intuitive" and twisted enough to be "ownable" generally go through a checklist of diligence before even getting trademark lawyers involved. We Google, check all top-level domains, and search all the major social media channels (Facebook and Twitter primarily) to make sure someone hasn't already claimed it. This oversight, for a brand as big as Netflix, is actually pretty astounding.

So astounding, as AdFreak's David Kiefaber quips, it is " so dumb that I'd think it was staged if there were anything for the company to gain from it."

Is it possible? I doubt it. Considering the many gaffes that Netflix has committed recently, it's not stretching credibility to think that they simple dropped the ball. And while this kind of situation is usually dealt with by a quiet negotiation and modest cheque, Castillo is so gloriously stoned that he continues to play his hopes for making "bank" on this as the slow-motion trainwreck only social media can provide.

Meanwhile, Business Insider points out that Twitter's TOS expressly forbid the selling of Twitter names. So by being so publicly greedy, Castillo could blow the whole deal.

And Netflix? Everyone hates the split anyway. It may be time to cut bait and run in a different marketing direction.

JC Penney prepares your daughters to be sugar babies

In a product failure reminiscent of the "Math class is tough!" talking Barbie fiasco of almost 20 years ago, JC Penney has discontinued this shirt from its back-to-school girls' line:

In the early '90s, however, outrage spread much more slowly.

Care2 reports that, in this case, consumer reaction was swift and effective:

Tuesday night, Melissa Wardy of Pigtail Pals – Redefine Girly, shared the link to the shirt on her facebook page. Since then, the shirt has been shared across Facebook and Twitter by parents expressing shock at that the department store would be selling a shirt like this. While some people think the shirt is meant to be funny and not taken seriously, others like parenting blogger and advertising industry professional Liz Gumbinner (known as Mom 101), don’t see the humor. On Twitter, Gumbinner wrote: “How is it funny to promote to young girls that what we value in them is their looks, not their brains?”

Sure, it was probably designed by someone with innocent intentions of being cutesy with the whole "princess" tween culture. But the gaffe is still a shot against gender equality.

If such statements were simply foolishness, I guess it would be easy to let this one go. But attractive people (of both genders) really do have an easier time achieving success. It's just human nature. But it hardly needs to be hammered home to girls 7-16, who have already learned that their society values their cuteness and/or sexiness above academic achievement and independent thought.

The other scary thing about this is that there are women, just a few years older than this shirt's target market, who are putting its worldview into practice. Sugar Daddy "dating" sites and apps encourage attractive young women 18+ (especially cash-strapped students) to accept payment and gifts from older men in exchange for "company".

I guess they won't have to do their homework either.

Bieberpocalypse shows epic failure of user-based moderation

I've written plenty about the idiocy of Facebook's policy of acting instantly on any complaint about inappropriate content, whether justified or not, and leaving the victimized user to prove they were wronged. It has been used by prudes to complain about non-sexual nudity, by political movements to ban social ad campaigns they disagree with, and who knows what else?

Well, YouTube has a similar policy of "yank first, ask questions later." And this policy was used today by a troublemaker called iLCreation who made an unsubstantiated copyright claim on every single Justin Beiber video on his official Vevo channel — leading to their wholesale removal — according to TMZ.



That's right. Even that awful video with over 600 million views got removed because an anonymous user made a claim against it. And boy, were his fans mad.

Relax, Beliebers. He's back online now.

But considering the unbelievable power that Facebook and YouTube have put into the hands of every single internet loser with a chip on his or her shoulder to stifle argument and destroy multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, maybe it's time to put smarter moderation in place?

I'm just saying.

A PSA on how to make tea from Brad Pitt's intoxicated, half-dressed, assistant

So this is bizarre.

Lara Marsden is Brad Pitt's personal assistant, and the trash press are having a field day speculating about what her duties may include.

Me, I just love watching people embarrass themselves in the name of internet fame.


How to make the perfect brew!!

Lara | Myspace Video

Video via Robby Nova's Pop World