« December 2004 | Main | February 2005 »
VW and Dan and Lee make up
Um, we think the cat’s already out of the bag on this publicity thing. Here’s that link again if you missed seeing the ad the first time. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Is this Bud really wiser?
But some knee-jerk consumer reaction is simply, "EEEWWW!" This story in yesterday’s New York Times notes, “Various people who tasted it at my request noted NyQuil in B(E)’s bouquet and hints of white zinfandel and cherry cola on the tongue.” Meanwhile, a quick survey of some Web posts indicated confusion, at the very least, about the beverage’s raison d’etre. Says one person at this link: “So why would you mix caffeine with a depressant? To negate the depressant aspect of alcohol? Does that even work?” We’re not sure we want to know. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (3)
|
Some kind of relief
What’s weird when you go to the site, though (which also includes camouflage-style rubber bracelets with the motto, “Support Our Troops”) is that at no point does it mention whether any of the $3.99 one would pay to buy such a bracelet would go to charity. If it does, it should be stated front and center, and if not, this is pretty disgusting. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
|
Bring your concern for the world, and your autograph book
No, we’re not talking about the ad world’s own Sir Martin Sorrell, although he was in attendance. We’re talking about Richard Gere, Angelina Jolie and Sharon Stone, among others. Though thousands of words were devoted to the conference's creeping glitz factor in this story in The New York Times, for us, the fact that the conference might be suffering a celeb overdose really boiled down to two things: 1) Last week, the New York Post filed its 50-photo online feature of the event under the topic header, “Entertainment.” (The link now appears to be down. You’ll just have to trust us.) 2) Lionel Richie—better known, these days, as the father of Nicole—was in attendance. While we applaud people using their famous names to get causes noticed, it’s dismaying to realize the ultra-serious conference now has a mere two degrees of separation from Paris Hilton. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor Photo credit: Pierre Verdy/AFP/Getty Images |
|
Published on January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Game? You mean there's a game?
Meanwhile, consumers planning to watch will spend an average of $49.27 in provisions for the game. God that’s a lot of Doritos and Bud. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 31, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
The Super Bowl that was, the companies that weren't
So much to see … there’s the Pets.com sock puppet before he was forced to shill for that cheesy car loan company, the E*Trade chimp, a spot for epidemic.com (AdFreak has no recollection of them, whatsoever) and ourbeginning.com (wedding invitations). Looking at these ads makes Budweiser’s flatulent horse look almost classy. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
France! New and improved!
While our first guess would have been that CEOs—and the rest of us—are attracted to France for the wine and food, Beccalli talks about how “The French have a passion for engineering and technology.” Snore. But, the best part is when he knocks his home country. Asked “Would you live [in France]?” Beccalli responds, "Absolutely. Paris is my favorite city. I’m Italian, but I prefer Paris to Rome by a factor of 100.” You might be moving sooner than you think. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Driving away dysfunction
It’s not just that the club promises to treat “trajectile dysfunction” or that the company had the ... well, you know ... to register the domain trajectiledysfunction.com. The commercial also includes all the hallmarks of the erectile-dysfunction-commercial genre (except, maybe, for an appearance by Bob Dole). There’s the randy wife looking on amorously, the warning that “in rare occasions, players have been known to stay long for more than four hours” and, in a nod to that Levitra ad, a guy hitting a golf ball through a tire swing. Aw, we’ve given it all away. Just go watch the thing (there’s a funny intro thing first). According to USA Today, it was created by a small California shop called Brainsaw. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Avat your way?
As for our Elvis avatar, he looked fabulous, but we couldn’t think of much for him to say. We don’t think the Big E ever really clarified whether he liked the Pats or the Eagles. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Motor Oil gets Funky
“Funkmaster Flex is committed to spreading enthusiasm and passion for automotive power, performance and style by introducing aspects of car culture to new audiences of young people across the country,” said Mike DeBiasi, Castrol Syntec brand manager, in a press release. “Flex’s automotive expertise, passion and excitement for finely tuned and customized vehicles is inspiring, and we’re thrilled to forge this partnership with him, putting our premium, highest-performing motor-oil brand—Castrol Syntec—alongside his highly acclaimed show, events and fans.” —Posted by Lisa van der Pool |
|
Published on January 28, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Tom Brady’s Cadillac conundrum
The situation could get even more awkward. If Brady is named MVP of the Super Bowl, he will have to take part in a news conference the morning after, where GM-owned Cadillac will let him choose from a variety of cars. Considering that Cadillac is the official vehicle of the Super Bowl and has a relationship with the NFL, Brady might want to resolve this sticky situation sooner rather than later. —Posted by Lisa van der Pool Photo: GM |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
Isn’t there anything else on?
11 a.m.: Lies He Told (“A lawless renegade, wanted by police for his unspeakable crimes, lures a trusting young woman into a secret world of lust and deception”); —Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
We have our reservations
During last night’s episode of The Simple Life 3, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie “interned” at the agency with cataclysmic results. In addition to (literally) eating the agency’s lunch and handing out photocopies of Nicole’s breasts along with shots of Jack Daniel’s to young male staffers, the ding-batty duo showed a total lack of real-world skills as Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum’s assistants. While ordering food for a meeting, Paris blanked on Richard’s name and called him, “Kirshenbeanie, or whatever.” Nicole fared somewhat better. When Jon asked her to get a reservation at a booked restaurant “by any means necessary,” she promised the maître d’ that Bond would paint his nipples red and do a striptease as well as “pleasure the owner.” When that failed, Nicole confided that Bond was on his way to jail for a life sentence and wanted his last meal to be at the eatery. She scored reservations, prompting Bond to exclaim, “You’ve got a future in this business.” It’s their keen eye for talent that keeps these boys on top. One question though—is this going on their reel? —Posted by Deanna Zammit Photo: Fox |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Did Larry take his cues from Darren?
Larry is still waiting. But Darren appears to have succeeded. “I’m flabbergasted really that he has gone to such lengths to try and win me back,” Emma Miller told the BBC. “I’m over the moon. He is not one to show his feelings. I’m quite astounded. ... I think he has won my heart. It’s a shame it took something like this to show that he did want me.” —Posted by Tim Nudd Photo: BBC |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Heavy thoughts about that Bud Light ad
It occurred to us, after we’d read about Anheuser-Busch deciding not to broadcast the thing, that increasingly, there’s virtually no downside to not airing an already-produced commercial. Used to be that advertisers merely benefited from the publicity that accompanied having a spot pulled. Now you can pull your spot and air it, too—online. Pretty funny to go to the Bud site yesterday and see the company reveling in its little piece of ad contraband: “Exclusive: See the Ad You Won’t See During the Big Game,” the site shouts. (And of course, once you click, there’s the obligatory suggestion that you send it to a friend.) We bet this ad could have recall as high as any Bud ad that actually airs on the Super Bowl. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Bob’s back
It’s a fun read, if for no other reason than it contains some actual honesty. Says Bob of the new GTO: “Many people complained about it because it didn't look anything like the old GTO. But it was never supposed to look like the old GTO—it was supposed to feel like the old GTO.” Not that it looks too bad, as the photo illustrates. To read the full post, click here. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor Photo: GM
|
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
On the outs
It's a little disheartening, though, to be equally clueless about items listed among the "out"-casts. How hopelessly unchic must you be to have missed the reign and subsequent overthrow of the fashion in question? The new issue of Harper's Bazaar offers an example of this phenomenon. In a collection of "ins" and "outs," it places "color block" in the former category. (A photo of a Calvin Klein dress, whose colors are in discrete blocks, makes it clear what the term means.) Consigned to the ranks of out-of-fashion fashions is something called "ombré." (No, we’re not talking about the other kind of ombre, without the accent.) Perhaps this is a household word among the magazine's stylish readers, but I'd bet that most of the rest of us haven't the faintest idea what ombré is (except for AdFreak's art director, who provided this item's visual)—let alone that it used to be chic but has ceased to be so. (Having taken recourse to the dictionary, I can tell you that it refers to colors that shade into one another.) If you have a closetful of "dominatrix dresses"—and who of us does not?—you may be distressed to learn from the magazine that they've fallen "out" (supplanted by "goddess gowns"). But at least you'll have the comfort of knowing what a dominatrix dress is. —Posted by Mark Dolliver |
|
Published on January 27, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
This isn't really a sale-ebration
Now this guy, who goes by the name of Brian Thompson, appears to be doing it for art—his Web site says he wants to discover "the relationship between what we own and who we are." So, to that end, he's been selling things like a lava lamp, a bowling pin and a copy of the best-selling The Daily Show with Jon Stewart presents America (The Book). We'd like Mr. Thompson to write back to us when he's living under a bridge, stark naked. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Pulling for Larry, the old scamp
The newspaper has been getting all sorts of calls. “They want to know if she has responded and if they have worked things out,” a rep at the paper says. “We tell them we are pulling for him.” —Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
Published on January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
This is no laughing matter
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
Published on January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
A big victory for the good book
Frankly, it was a little difficult to understand what the whole kerfuffle was about in the first place. Not to treat the Bible as a product like any other advertised in Rolling Stone, but readers are kind of used to making buying decisions based partially on ads, we figure, so they’ll do the same with this one. Zondervan said the magazine had originally told the company it had a policy of not accepting ads for religious materials; now Rolling Stone saying there was “a misstatement of company policy,” so the ad is free to run. Oy. —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
Published on January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
My big fat revived lawsuit
The suit alleges that tens of thousands of children have suffered obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and other health problems after being misled about McDonald’s products. McDonald’s isn’t lovin’ it. It says “common sense tells you this particular case makes no sense.” —Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
Published on January 26, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Ain’t nothing like the real thing
We like the bio page in particular. The entry for “Like Alex Bogusky” (shown here, along with the real thing) reads, “Hi. I’m Like Alex Bogusky. I’m not really Alex Bogusky. I’m Like Alex Bogusky. I can’t emphasize this point strongly enough. Like the real Alex Bogusky, I come from a strong family that believes in values and other stuff. If you’d like to pay me lots of money to play with your brand, click here. Thank you for your time and consideration.” —Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
Published on January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Getting a head
Or, at least it has for Fischer, who decided to auction off the use of his forehead for ad space to the highest bidder on eBay. SnoreStop won the use of Fischer's forehead when the snoring remedy company paid him $37,375 to sport its logo on Fischer's head for one month. The Omaha, Nebraska resident seems to be pretty intense about his new career. His Web site, humanadspace.com, shows a drawing of Fischer with the tagline "We're taking mainstream advertising to the next level. Are you coming with us?" His Web site lists all of his media appearances thus far and he also notes, "No, I do not have an agent." —Posted by Lisa van der Pool |
|
Published on January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
Bet you can drink just one
If the people who drink moderately derive significant health benefits from doing so, isn't it odd to discourage non-drinkers from even thinking about this possibility for themselves? Obviously, excessive drinking is bad for one's health. Apart from former problem drinkers, though, people who don't drink at all seem unlikely candidates for running off the rails altogether if they start having one a day for "medicinal purposes." Drinking does entail risks, and these aren't to be dismissed lightly. But one could say the same of exercise. And yet, reports about the health benefits of exercise never seem to quote some fellow in a lab coat saying you'd better just lie prone on your couch all day, lest the appeal of physical activity lead you to death by over-exertion. In their Hippocratic zeal to "do no harm," are the experts failing to give their best advice? Personally, I'd seek a second opinion before remaining a teetotaler. —Posted by Mark Dolliver |
|
Published on January 25, 2005 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
























