Thursday, March 31, 2011

Adopt socialized healthcare, America. It's just what them Chinamen want!

Sorry for the slur in the headline, but how else would you describe the key message of this political ad?



Mother Jones posted this ad by"Citizens Against Government Waste" whose mission is to "eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government." This includes ongoing lobbying against "Obamacare".

Calling for political debate is one thing. But race-baiting right with Americans with fears of a Chinese planet is uncalled for. Besides which, it was the decidedly non-socialist Nixon who opened the gates to trade with China to begin with.

The best (and by that I mean "most appalling") part of the video is when the menacing professor shows the lecture hall full of Communist automatons what evil geniuses them Chinese really is. I was almost expecting an "ah-so"...

He would, however, make an awesome Bond villain.

Go Daddy Gone

"Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man."

- The Dude


Wow, way to knock accused sexual slavedriver Dov Charney off his perch as the internet's most hated CEO.

Bob Parsons, who as CEO of godaddy.com is also known for sexually objectifying women in his ads, apparently also thinks he's a big game hunter:




This bizarre video shows Parsons as a Great White Hunter "saving" an African village in Zimbabwe from sorghum-trampling elephants. The villagers then butcher and eat it.

Sound like a scene from 100 years ago? Now, to be fair, the Zimbabweans in the video seem pretty happy about the whole thing. And elephants can cause havoc with farms.

But it raises these questions:

  •  Isn't animal control a game warden's job?
  • -Even if they decided the herd needed culling, is it a good idea to sell the opportunity to an American jerk who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt?
  • Should shooting an endangered, highly-intelligent and social animal be "beneficial and rewarding"? (Parson's own description of the experience)
  • Might the rest of the herd not come back for vengeance?
  • And what does AC?DC think of their music being associated with this? (Ted Nugent would have been a more appropriate choice.)

PETA (who Adland point out are registered with godaddy.com - as are some of my company's properties...) have of course called for a boycott, but as usual oversell the case by basically condemning all hunting as inhumane.

For me, at least until I know more details of the animal management policy behind it, it's the attitude that irks most. There is a creepy parallel between a man who treats women as sex objects and who feels no shame in posing as a macho big game hunter.


Although Adland's Dabitch notes: "killing problem animals gets people more outraged than objectifying women in sexist shite ads - perhaps I should go trample some farmers crops and get shot so us women can be worth as much as an elephant."

What do you think? Will you go "Go Daddy Gone" over this one?


Violent Femmes Gone Daddy Gone by Celtiemama

UPDATE: Parsons tells his side of the story:

"I spend a few weeks in Zimbabwe each year helping the farmers deal with problem elephants. The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops. The tribal authorities request that I and others like me, patrol the fields before and during the harvest -- we can't cover them all, there are just a few of us -- and drive the elephant from the fields. The farmers try to run the elephants away by cracking whips, beating drums and lighting fires. All of this is ignored by the elephants. When my team catch elephants in a field (there are never just one) we typically kill one of them and the rest leave for good. After we kill an elephant the people butcher the elephant and it feeds a number of villages. These people have literally nothing and when an elephant is killed it's a big event for them, they are going to be able to eat some protein. This is no different than you or I eating beef. If at all possible we avoid elephant cows and only kill mature bulls. By just killing bulls it has no effect on the elephant social structure (as it is matriarchal) as well as the herd size. The reason is another bull quickly steps up and breeds in place of the bull taken."

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Know who you woo


There's so much wrong with this Belgian dating site ad: the sexism, the ageism, the concept, the pacing...

...the human trafficking...
 ...that I don't even know where to start. But there it is.

Found on BuzzFeed.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Going gonzo on crowdsourcing, and channeling Seinfeld

You know, sometimes you just have to learn by doing.

Julia, my wife, told me she wanted to enter a contest to win a $25,000 IKEA kitchen makeover sponsored by Chatelaine Magazine. I said "sure!" because I hate our kitchen too. Why?

Let me take you back to the 1990s:





Seinfeld's kitchen was where most of the "show about nothing" took place. So it was absolutely hilarious when he let a carpenter completely wreck it.

It's even funnier to us, because it's exactly what a previous owner of our house did to what would one day be our kitchen.

"It's very obtrusive..."

So here's my entry to the contest:
Do you remember the episode of Seinfeld, when he had his kitchen remodelled? When the carpenter put an island with awkward upper cupboards in the middle of the kitchen that totally ruined it as a social space?

Well, that's our kitchen. Our house is old, built in 1927, and full of “character”. The original layout was a sunny breakfast nook separated from a small kitchen. Over the decades, it has had numerous renovations, and the last one really screwed it up.

The centre island (more of a peninsula) cramps the cooking area. The shelves above block sunlight and eye contact. It's so tight to the dishwasher that nobody can pass through when loading or unloading. Not to mention the cheap cabinetry that keeps peeling white laminate.

The access to our back door is equally screwed up. Between fridge and the sink, we have to shimmy to get groceries in. (Note the built-in stove we bought in hopes of rebuilding “The Island of Misfit Interior Designers”.)

And the aesthetics! Done in the early-90s (so missing the Seinfeld irony is all the more puzzling) the concept is white and hunter green. We quickly covered the green vinyl floor...

We know this kitchen has challenges. It's small. The entire south wall is windows. (Its best feature!) The rest of the wallspace it broken up by windows entranceways.

Can you help? We love our little old house, but the kitchen is just one big mess of bad decisions and wasted potential.

Our chances of winning are slim at best, but there's nothing like participating in a social media contest to  get you inside the heads of consumers.

Facebook's moral colonialism

If America's social conservative prudes and overprotective "won't someone PLEASE think of the children!" parents were ever to combine forces and impose their sensitivities on the world, it would probably look a lot like Facebook.

I've written before about Facebook's war on breastfeeding pics, as well as its battles with topless women's protest group FEMEN. Now there's a new target. And for a change, this one is in trouble for featuring naked dudes:

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Swedish underpants brand Bjorn Borg has been running one of those user-generated content promotions that everyone wants a piece of these days. They challenged their fans to send in pic of themselves in their Bjorn Borgs. The funniest, and most popular, was a cleverly-posed photo of two naked guys in need of underpants trying to reach a clothesline full of designer gitch.

According to Adland, this picture in particular got the Bjorn Borg FB admin, Micke Kazarnowicz, banned for posting "pornographic content".

Silly Swedes. Pornography is NO LAUGHING MATTER!
At first the FB admins simply deleted the photo. But when Micke then attempted to play ball by posting a "safe for work" censored version of the picture, he had his PERSONAL account blocked.(Although the censored pic is still on the page.)

In his own words (translated by Adland's Dabitch):

"The crux of the matter is: Facebook apparently has a very different assessment than we do about what is 'pornographic content'. There is no defined line, and when you're a brand engaged in underwear, this boundary drawing is at the same time vague and sometimes arbitrary. What is "offensive" here? Like other large companies (hi Google!) Facebook is a faceless giant that you can never talk to. Policies and guidelines applied from a tricky arbitrariness which often are based in the American mainstream morality. In this case they have fuzzy consequences if this would be repeated again. Will my personal account will be permanently blocked? Or will they erase Bjorn Borg's Facebook page, in which we have invested money in several ways?"
Whenever I post these rants, I get the same response: "Zuckerberg can do whatever he wants with his social network". And this is true.

But what is also true is that of the more than half-billion people who have opted into the free network, the most prudish Americans have become a minority.

Facebook insists that it moderates content of a sexual nature to protect children who are part of the network. The problem is that not everyone in the world considers nudity in itself as damaging to teens (Actual children, BTW, are not supposed to be on Facebook.)

And so you have the culture clash between suburban American ideas of obscenity and those in other parts of the world. In Europe, nudity is simply part of the landscape — on the beaches and in the media. It's not that people there ignore nudity. They like to see attractive bodies just as much as everyone else. They just don't consider nudity as something dirty that corrupts the young.

And this is Facebook's problem. It is an international community that enforces (what I consider) the lowest common denominator of prudishness on everyone. It's like the moral colonialism Americans imposed on Japan after WWII, or Korea in later decades (like outlawing dog meat).

But in this case, they are not a victor or an occupying force. Facebook is something people have embraced with a passion. And in doing so, they have unwittingly embraced a double standard of censorship that allows highly sexualized and objectifying images of people (particularly women) as long as no nipples, buttocks, or pubic areas are shown.

Facebook is nothing without its users. They are its entire value to advertisers. The larger, and more diversified, the community gets, the more Zuckerberg has to lose from an organized user revolt or boycott. Apple has learned similar hard lessons. While the product may be in private hands, the brand is in the hands of the people who chose — or chose not — to use it.

The Bjorn Borg incident is even more dangerous because it involves an international consumer advertiser, rather than a cause or not-for-profit. And companies like that are the ones Facebook depends on for actual revenue. Note Micke's veiled threat: "Or will they erase Bjorn Borg's Facebook page, in which we have invested money in several ways?"

I'll be watching this issue unfold with great interest. And I hope Zuckerberg and his people are, too.

You are an international brand now, Facebook. It's time to leave your outdated and small-minded moral standards behind.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Don't steal computers belonging to people who know how to use computers

This seems too awesome to be real.

The Consumerist shared the story of Reddit user markbao, who had his laptop stolen recently. But thanks to technology:

The alleged victim was able to get the video remotely by accessing the storage cloud the laptop automatically backed itself up to. The video now has over a million hits on YouTube.

In addition, he says he was able to piece together enough information from the browsing history to identify the guy through Facebook.



It gets even better. According to the victim,

"Yep, the guy turned the laptop to the police this morning, and he sent me a heartfelt message asking me to remove the video.

Which I'm not going to do. He's not in a position to bargain."

Someone even posted the alleged thief's pitiful plea:

"
hey Mark.

I am sorry for all that I have done. I would ask for forgiveness in person but I am not allow to go back on campus for what I did. I was being a dumbass for thinking I could get away with something like this. I hope I didn't cause you so much trouble over it either. I went to your school at 2 am so i can try to fix things. I left the laptop there with campus police. I left a statement and I am waiting on the detective to look over the police report to see what will happen to me. Like I have said. I am truely sorry for what I have done and I promise you and myself that it would not happen again. I am not this kind of person. I am a respectful person and I don't know why I did something like this. I am sorrry for that.

I know I am in no position for asking you for favors but Can you please put down the videos that you have put up of me. I know what I did was wrong and if i was a different person line leave it up but I do have two Professional Jobs that iif something like that gets leak I can get in morre trouble and be more embarress as well. So I will Ask for that huge favor.

lf you want we can meet up so I can say sorry in person. I feel like that would be a good idea. It would not change much but at least I can say I said it in person."




Like I said, almost too awesome to be true. If it isn't the start of a brilliant viral campaign, I'm sure some marketing genius will rip off the idea within days...

Sunday, March 27, 2011

A fishy tribute?

Something fishy is going on here.



This hilarious spot for Britain's John West Tuna:



Is a note-for-note parody of this famous sequence from BBC's Nature's Great Events:



A tribute? Perhaps. But if you're going to channel the great Sir David Attenborough, you'd better respect nature.

According to John West's site, they do:

At John West, we recognise our responsibility to protect the environment. That’s why we are committed to sourcing tuna from sustainable fish stocks. Our reputable suppliers comply with our strict guidelines and ensure the fishing methods used to catch our tuna abide by international standards.

John West only sources its tuna from fishing vessels that have been certified Dolphin Friendly by the Earth Island Institute. We use the Purse Seine fishing method to catch tuna for our canned products and have full traceability of the fish used. Our tuna products are labelled in accordance with the Australian and New Zealand Foods Standards Code.

We use Skipjack for more than 90% of our tuna products, with the remaining products using Tongal. We do not use Yellowfin, Bigeye or Southern Blue Fin. All of our tuna is sourced from the Indian and Western and Central Pacific oceans.

We also work with independent organisations and suppliers to raise awareness of our sustainability protocol. John West encourages responsible fishing practices globally and is supportive of initiatives that encourage sound management of tuna resources now and into the future.

Good. You don't want to piss Sir David off.

The man has powerful friends.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Meme-ing for Jesus

Even without being a parody of Rebecca Black's unironically awkward teeny-bopper viral hit, "Friday", this is epic. A bunch of young and unironically Christian counsellors from Camp Cho-Yeh, in Texas, partying wholesomely with Lord Jesus in their hearts:



It's hard to choose a favourite scene, but here is my shortlist:

Chaste dancing. Check out the morality monitor in the back.

Chaste hugging. He a playa.
Despite the chaparones, though, they manage to get girls dancing in swimsuits.
One-pieces, but still seems out of place.

?

Cameo by FREEZE of Icy Hot Stuntaz fame.
Another star cameo: Canada's beloved indy chateuse,  Feist

Camper praying fervently to God to make it stop.
Or perhaps to mercifully strike him down.

Rapture. RAPTURE!
Damn. They're still here.

And a good summary of the entire Rebecca Black parody meme.

See the rest of the Camp's videos here. And have a wholesomely crunk weekend.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

What drives you to drink?

You know what will drive you to drink?

A house full of dog shit.

Click for full size.

 You know what else will do it? Being alone on your birthday.

Click for full size.

And one more thing?


Click for facepalm.
Uh, no. This actually wouldn't bother me at all.

Grow up,  Chachaça do Brasil and Agência3. What drives me to drink is irresponsible advertisers.

(Campaign found on Ads of the World)

BTW, another blog I write for — Osocio — is up for a BOB as Best English Blog.

Check it out and vote us up in the BOB award finals! Just log in with FB or Twitter, choose the "Blog English" category and "Osocio".

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Ethical nudity (contains nudity... duh!)

Copyranter picked up the latest protest by FEMEN, the Ukrainian feminist group the internet can't get enough of.

Why? I'll give you two reasons:

Zuckerberg sees no boobies, hears no boobies, speaks no boobies.
FEMEN are notorious for their topless protests, even in the middle of winter, against what they see as a culture of sexism in Ukraine — and the world.

Originally focussing their anger on sex tourism in the Ukraine — either through prostitution or "mail-order-bride" scams — they have branched out to attack such issues as living conditions in Kiev, the safety of women on the subway, throwing panties at the Italian embassy on Valentine's Day as a protest against Burlusconi's sex scandals.

Now, they're protesting their groups ban from Facebook on grounds of nudity. FEMEN founder Anna Hutsol replied, referring to both the Facebook ban and an earlier ban from YouTube:

"The administration of Facebook, as well as the administration of Google, have demonstrated a wooden approach to filtering hosted photo and video, to equate protest FEMEN and trivial erotica "
And this, to me, is the question we will have to start asking ourselves about sexual nudity in advertising, protest, art and general communication. And I'm sure your first question to me will be "aren't you being kind of hypocritical, supporting FEMEN and trashing PETA and American Apparel?"

Maybe I am. But it's the "trivial erotica" comment by Hutsol that sums it up for me. American Apparel, as a fashion brand, is the very definition of trivial. And their ads, in my opinion, trivialize sexuality by making it a commodity like a t-shirt.

From the AA catalogue
PETA has a heartfelt message about animal cruelty. And they do occasionally try to show the connection between humans and animals in their protests, however naively.




But much of the time, they just use sex to get attention. Which is also trivializing.



But they can do what they want with their bodies, right? Sure. I'm just arguing that FEMEN is something different entirely.

In exposing themselves in an aggressive, sometimes even violent way, the FEMENistas are using sex and nudity in a completely different way. Their message is, "You want to objectify women? Well objectify THIS, you assholes!"



Their sexuality is not coy, or yielding. It is an assault on the conventions of what they see as an oppressive society. They are uncompromising extremists, who live communally in an all-female movement. And they regularly get arrested for their daring statements.

So yes, of course Facebook banned them. FB admins can't stand the sight of breasts, even if they are doing something as innocent and human as feeding a baby. They make some exceptions for art, but inconsistently. And nudity as political protest? Right out.

And I think that's unfortunate. Because there are all kinds of nudity in the world. Some kinds exploit people, some trivialize them, and some objectify them. Other times, it's beautiful, artistic or meaningful. Too bad America's black-and-white morality can't judge the difference.

UPDATE: FEMEN are having another go at Facebook. (See below)

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

#worldwaterday


Half a litre of clean water. I just got it from the fountain. I drink a few of these every day without even thinking about it.

But today, I'm thinking about it. It's World Water Day.

Last year, at this time, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the world that more people die from unsafe water than from all forms of violence, including war:

“These deaths are an affront to our common humanity, and undermine the efforts of many countries to achieve their development potential.”  




This year, the theme is focussed on urban challenges, which could not be more timely. Not only do the Third World's urban poor often lack access to drinkable water, but right now Japan is in a water crisis due first to the earthquake and tsunami, and now to radioactive contamination.

Other countries are rushing in to hydrate the Japanese, but the global nature of the water disaster is not as easy to quench.

But what can we do about it? For one thing, we can support international development efforts to improve water infrastructure. WaterAid, for example, works on an individual and family level to help vulnerable people access their own water. You can also make consumer choices that support your local water resources, by drinking tap water instead of bottled.

Politically, you can make yourself more aware of the dangers of water privatization. On July 28, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly agreed to a resolution declaring the human right to “safe and clean drinking water and sanitation.” Canada abstained.

Why? According to The Council of Canadians, the Canadian government had potential revenue to lose:
"The world’s water companies would like to see water regarded as a human need, enabling them to control and sell water to the highest bidder for profit. Because Canada manages the largest freshwater resources in the world, companies are lining up to pump, bottle and privatize our water for their profit. Despite the increasing threat to our water, the Canadian government has not updated its national water policy in over 15 years. Instead, governments over this period of time have continued to support free trade agreements that only further threaten our ability to safeguard our water for people and nature."

There are other issues too. When it comes to drinking water, Canada has some dirty little secrets. Our federal government is mandated to assist First Nations in ensuring safe drinking water in their communities. But there are some who fall off the radar.

A particularly egregious example is the plight of the Lubicon Cree. We have come to know more about this issue than the average Canadians through our work with Amnesty International.
"The Lubicon Cree live in the middle of the Alberta oil fields. Vast wealth has been taken from their land. In fact, the province’s share of this oil and gas wealth has been estimated to exceed $14 billion. Yet the Lubicon people live in conditions that would be unimaginable to most Canadians.
The Lubicon community of Little Buffalo has no running water and no sanitation system. Before the Alberta government permitted large-scale oil and gas development on their land, the Lubicon took their drinking water from the muskeg and the lakes and streams. They can no longer safely do so.
With ever more intensive forms of oil and gas development, including the beginning of oil sands extraction, there are increasing worries that even water deep below the ground may become unusable."

But I'll let the Lubicon youth tell you in their own words:



So while World Water Day focusses on cities, my thoughts are with a threatened people in my own country. Because when anyone, anywhere, is denied the right to safe water, everyone's human rights are at risk.

Cheers.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Homophobia? There's an app for that!

UPDATE: Apple gave them the boot.


Apple is known for a policy of "we won't publish our morality standards for apps, but we know objectionable content when we see it."

The iPhone Development Blog suggests the following no-nos:
  • Nudity is off limits, even with a 17+ rating.
  • For women in bikinis, images are rejected seemingly at random. One reviewer will object to a particular image and pass others, the next reviewer will find an objectionable image in the batch that the first reviewer passed. And on it goes.
  • Anything related to politicians will most likely be rejected.
Some recent rejected apps have included books with naughty words, a picture of a knife that made "slasher" sounds, a religious photo parody thing, and anti-seal-clubbing game, and others.

But what the App Store's reviewers clearly have no objection to is anti-gay apps.

The Atlantic reports that "More than 90,000 people have signed a petition hosted on Change.org demanding that Apple remove an application from the iTunes Store that promises to deliver 'freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.'"

The app, by conservative Christian group Exodus International, earned a 4+ rating from Apple, which Exodus points out means that  "applications in this category contain no objectionable material".

The group is entirely dedicated to "curing" homosexuality. From their site:
Exodus International believes… that God created us as human beings in His image as male and female and that the only biblically sanctioned expression of sexuality is between a man and a woman who are married to one another. Exodus International believes that our biological sex is not open to limitless self-created categories, but has boundaries determined by God, our Creator.
And:
Exodus International believes… that the health of individuals, children and our culture is intimately linked to the well being of natural marriage and its biblical intention — a sacred, legal, and social union ordained by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship between one man and one woman.
People have a right to their beliefs, but lets remember that, couched in this polite language, is the assertion that gay people are choosing to sin against God, and denying their own "normal" biology.

While I don't wish to pollute my iPhone by checking out the app in person, Exodus was kind enough to provide screen grabs in their press release:

Looks so harmless...

As of this writing, it's still there. But it may not be for long.

Last year, Apple approved — then pulled — The Manhattan Declaration, another app that opposed gay marriage on religious grounds after being petitioned to do so.

These are challenging times for American marketers. And while I am offended by the content of the Exodus app, I am also concerned by Apple's seemingly arbitrary management of standards. As a business, they're primarily interested in appealing to the maximum number of people possible by being as neutral and inoffensive as possible. (While in private contributing $100K to No to Prop 8.)

This is a dangerous game. Apple would to well to set, and maintain, consistent standards for app content that reflect modern human rights. Would they support an app that offered to "cure" someone of their ethnicity or gender, no wonder how gently worded? The idea that natural homosexuality does not exist, and that it is a mental disorder in need of a cure, is a belief that people are "allowed" to have in private. But so are theories of racial superiority. That doesn't mean it's a suitable topic for a über-controlled brand like Apple to endorse.

That petition, once again, is hosted on Change.org. For some reason, I think that most of Exodus' supporters are PCs.

Photoshop in a Bottle


AdFreak just posted this campaign from Make Up For Ever that purports to be the first of its kind.

Created for their HD Not Retouched (get it?) foundation, the campaign promises a makeover that is HD-smartphone-MySpace*-angle-friendly. And to prove it, they show beautiful models who have had their makeup professionally applied, apparently sharing their glam with the world.

There's also an interactive campaign site that includes the following video, making fun of retouching and beauty ads in general:



So, what do you think? Empowering? Clever? Cool? Or just amusing?

*I know MySpace is old hat. But that's what it's called.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Can we re-imagine meat as a luxury good?




For someone who loves cheeseburgers so much, I actually have a lot of respect for vegetarians and vegans. Not so much on ethical grounds as on environmental ones. Many of them are living more lightly on the land than I do.

But I continue to consume meat. For me, it is a natural and healthy food if sourced responsibly and consumed in moderation. Julia, my wife, has gone 2/3 vegan with her "Vegan Until 6" lifestyle. But she's still an omnivore at supper.

What we try to do is to choose locally-, small-scale-, and naturally-farmed meat whenever possible. This is more effort, requiring visiting open-air markets and farm gates, and it is certainly more expensive. But I've come to decide that that's a good thing. It makes us value it more.

It also makes us think about the animals we eat. Julia's grampie used to raise cattle in New Brunswick. (Her uncle there still does.) Family farmers who have small herds really get to know their livestock. They love them. But when the time comes to slaughter, they do it, because farmers' pragmatism overrules their sentimentality. (Despite the fact that they tend to have a lot of both!)



We're raising our son as an omnivore, and he's a child who is not afraid to feed clover to a cow one year, and have it as a hamburger the next. We are fortunate enough, here in Ottawa, to be able to visit the Canada Agricultural Museum whenever we want. He gets to see, touch (and smell!) the creatures that make up his hamburgers, hotdogs, and chicken sandwiches. I like to think it teaches him to respect them.

And "respect" of the animals we eat, in the Noble Savage myth we all imagine where the hunter-gatherer's life is a shared journey with his prey, is what I'd like to see more of. But how?

Well, here's a crazy idea: What if we purposely made meat more expensive? 

Imagine if our agricultural standards and regulations cracked down on the many industrialized practices that keep meat cheap: confined animals, medicated feed, growth hormones, feedlots and factory slaughterhouses. Imagine if livestock had to be raised the old fashioned way: pastured, slaughtered and butchered by many small businesses.

Gone are the mass meat recalls (since small-scale meat packing limits spread of contaminants). Gone are the disgusting massive pig, chicken and beef operations. Back are the entrepreneurial family farms.

Could it work? If hamburger were $10 a pound, would you eat less of it? Would you really value the taste of a well-prepared burger?

And in case you're rushing to the comments thread to tell me what an elitist prick I am, I know what the gaping holes in this idea are.

First off, rising food prices are causing unrest worldwide. Why would we want to make it worse? Economically vulnerable people already struggle to feed themselves. And as easy it is to suggest that they learn to cook and eat beans and rice — like the rest of the world — and minimize meat. But there would have to be a major social change for people to adapt to that. Cooking is not a skill that is in the toolkit of many of Canada's urban poor, and people are used to feeding themselves on McDonald's for cheap.

Secondly, my Libertarian friends are experiencing fits of outrage at the idea that the government should force the change. I understand that. But don't worry — the industrial food lobbyists would never let it happen anyway.

No, the only way to really do this is with consumer power. Making individual choices about how our food gets from gate-to-plate that allow us to enjoy that bacon sandwich with full responsibility and little guilt.



And it is elitist. The stuff is expensive. I really do pay $10/pound for my hamburger to get naturally-raised, dry-aged, local beef from Aubrey's Butcher Shop

Here is their pitch:

From “Field-to-fork”..... this traditional butcher shop prides itself on its extensive knowledge of the meats and the farms they come from. It begins with a time honoured history of providing the highest quality products from dependable local sources … that means Farmers, not factories. Some of the relationships with farmers and suppliers extend back over 40 years. Meats are prepared and cut by true butchers trained on site. This ensures that all products meet Aubrey’s high standards and more importantly, exceed the customer’s expectations. In short, at Aubrey's, you will get exactly what you want cut skillfully to suit.
It tastes much, much better. And while I end up making burgers less often, I really put care into preparing them because that meat is valuable stuff.

In short, it's a luxury. Just as meat was a luxury food for our ancestors, from the early modern period right back to the hunting and gathering days. Meat was not to be taken for granted.

So my question to all my omnivorous friends is, are you willing to pay more for less meat? And to all of you: do you think it will make a difference?

Or am I just a smug food snob idealist?

Is this the stupidest infomercial ever made?

Here's an ad campaign that's such an epic waste of time, I could only post it on a Sunday: The Tajazzle infomercial.



This home "vajazzling" kit infomercial tries to be sexy, but ends up being simply bizarre. Perhaps it's because it attempts to discuss genital adornment in "PG" terms by sticking the things on every body part but that one. Or maybe it's because it wraps the whole stupid concept in terms of boosting "confidence" (wink! wink!).

I don't know. But I dare you to subject yourself to the entire half hour:





Well? How far did you get?

Friday, March 18, 2011

Will a naked lady get Canadians excited about soccer?

Probably not, but AdFreak just posted this Vancouver Whitecaps "viral smash — at least as far as Canadian soccer ads go":



Although a moderate hit with YouTubers (closing in on 200K hits), apparently Bell's parent company was not impressed:

 “We understand that they’re an exuberant new team eager to get the word out, but this marketing effort clearly didn’t fit with Bell’s expectations,”Marie-Eve Francoeur, a BCE spokeswoman, told the Globe and Mail newspaper Wednesday. “We’ve spoken to the Whitecaps about this issue and they clearly understand our position,” she added.

I'd be more outraged that my logo was obscured.
But the BCE Brand Standards guide probably doesn't have a  rule for this placement.

I was actually shocked by how tame the whole thing was. Usually, body painting is used as an excuse to show lots of nudity, but this video keeps it well-hidden.

Also well-hidden is the billboard that goes with the campaign. Apparently posted at a major intersection in Vancouver, the billboard is part of a social media "treasure hunt", with the Whitecaps offering a pair of tickets to tomorrow's season opener to the first person who posts it on Twitter.

Whitecaps director of marketing Kim Jackman defended the provocative promotional video as demonstrating “the passion soccer fans have for their sport, including the tradition of body-painting and how it is done.”

I'm not seeing the passion for sport, or even the provocation. To me it just looks like a PG-rated fashion ad that, like soccer in Canada, somehow manages to miss its potential.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Racism vs. Racism vs. Autotune

If there's one thing that social media really excels at, it's allowing people to sink to their own level.



Witness the anti-Asian rant of a rather obnoxious UCLA student, which she decided to SHARE WITH THE WORLD:



Why, you might ask, would she do this? When I visited LA, many years ago, a bus driver jokingly referred to UCLA as standing for "University of Caucasians lost among Asians". As in many parts of the USA, I guess the white angst about newcomers who are not like them is a common issue.

Not to the university admin, however, who called the video "repugnant".

Ironically, one guy in the school's Asian community responded with not only his own brand of racism, but sexism thrown in for good measure:



(Note that both of these are mirror posts. The originals were removed from YouTube as "hate speech".)

Is this kind of vengeance justified? It never really is.

THIS is how you get revenge on social media:



Make laughs, not war. By ridiculing the original ignorance in a genuinely amusing and creative way, you take the high road. And this she deserved.

For the record, she has since released this statement:

"Clearly the original video posted by me was inappropriate. I cannot explain what possessed me to approach the subject as I did, and if I could undo it, I would. I’d like to offer my apology to the entire UCLA campus. For those who cannot find it within them to accept my apology, I understand."
UPDATE: Taiwan's NMA TV, famous for its whimsical computer animations of news events, has joined the fray:

Monday, March 14, 2011

Tools of the (fight against the sex) Trade


I'm on vacation this week, so posts will be fewer and lighter.

Osocio today shared an interesting collection of ads about women's issues, by act-responsible.org, on Facebook.

While the ads cover a range of issues, from domestic violence to poverty, it was interesting to note the variety of approaches to the issue of human trafficking.

For example this one, by McCann-Erickson Belgium for the Samilia Foundation, is just plain weird:


I'm not really sure what it's saying, beyond getting my attention for the issue.


The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe was a little more straightforward in showing the hurt and hopelessness experienced by captive women in the sex trade:



This Luxembourg one I don't much like at all. First of all, it's far too positively sexual for a message about sexual slavery:


Second, it's a blatant PETA ripoff:



This one from India is a tad too smart ans subtle:


So,  how would I approach the issue? Probably something like this:


Sorry the copy is hard to read. Here is a zoom:


What I like about this Israeli approach is the way it lures you in with tasteful sexual interest, then pokes you with harsh reality. Even the copy, "Don't be an accomplice", is devastatingly effective.

Social Marketing is all about shifts in perception. If you try too hard to force a change, audiences won't relate  — or worse, they'll shut you out. The key is to work with their existing perceptions then nudge them out of their comfort zone by showing them that all is not as it seems. I think this ad is a perfect example.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Responding to disaster at the speed of social

(Image borrowed from http://msalatv.blogspot.com)

The massive earthquake and tsunami that have devastated Japan are all over the news right now. But who waits for the news to tell them the what, where, when, how, who and why anymore? We're all getting up-to-the minute reports on our social networks.

And just as with other recent events, the opportunities for everyone to get involved in helping the victims are instant and unprecedented.

For example, with hundreds missing (so far), Google has set up a Google Person Finder for friends and relatives abroad, as well as a Google Crisis Response centre with every type of emergency info imaginable. (As an adman, I can't help but also be impressed by how they've either removed or greyed out their branding on these tools.)


Likewise, current tsunami warning info from NOAA is being passed around as fast as lightning, where it will hopefully save lives in coastal areas:


And as the Red Cross/Red Crescent springs into action (along with governments around the world) to provide rescue and relief, it activates a worldwide network of volunteers and benefactors who can donate — instantly — online. (That's the international link. If you prefer to deal with Red Cross in Canada, go here.)

Say what you will about "slacktivism", but this is one of those days when the medium of concerned, connected human beings can actually make a difference and even save lives.

Please share.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Mad about high-speed rail

I love Mad Men. I also think Vincent Kartheiser (as Pete Campbell) is one of the best things about that show. I also have a history with public rail transportation marketing. So you can bet I clicked when fellow Osocio blogger Rueben Turner posted a little video called Mad Men sell high-speed rail.



Overall, it didn't disappoint. While not as crisp as the real show, the dialogue is funny as Mad Men parody — like when Pete, who can't drive, projects his anxiety about cars onto "a woman", and the references to smoking on the train and having a drink "for the long drive home". (And then there's the discussion of the price of gas in 40 years, which is way, way off.)

"And then, Harry, someday people will use supercomputers to write
articles about us and send them instantly around the world!"

"Pete, have you been smoking reefer with Peggy again?"
It's also nice that they worked with two of the most forward-thinking characters on the show. Pete is always bringing up prescient insights about future marketing opportunities — like realizing Goldstar TVs were a brand that had huge potential for target marketing to "negroes" or conspiring with Peggy to create a media stunt for a failing ham client. Harry Crane (Rich Sommer), on the other hand, is the media guru who saw greater potential in the just-maturing TV market and made his own position as "head of television". (Sounds like social media, doesn't it?)

In the end, though, it's all for a cause. And that cause is for U.S. citizens to lobby their federal government for fast implementation of high-speed rail. And the spot manages to get the key attributes across: downtown-to-downtown service, job creation, no traffic or parking hassles, and the ability to relax and socialize along the way (although no longer in a smoking car). They also address how hard it is to get people out of their cars and airplanes.

Improving the speed, convenience and price of public rail, though, may still be a dream for the future. It's one of those chicken-and-egg things: if you build the infrastructure, will they come?

Now that gas is well over $3/gallon in the U.S. (and much, much higher in Canada), maybe they will.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Brand Flakes

(With apologies to Brand Flakes for Breakfast)



The Consumerist today reported on a study from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication that simply validated every parent's fears: that kids are total suckers for branding.

The study itself is actually four years old, but I'm pretty sure little has changed:

Children who saw a popular media character on the box reported liking the cereal more (mean [SD], 4.70 [0.86]) than those who viewed a box with no character on it (4.16 [1.24]). Those who were told the cereal was named Healthy Bits liked the taste more (mean [SD], 4.65 [0.84]) than children who were told it was named Sugar Bits (4.22 [1.27]). Character presence was particularly influential on taste assessments for participants who were told the cereal was named Sugar Bits.

In other words Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, the Trix Rabbit, and all those other imaginary dudes have more influence over your children's dietary preferences than you do, and you were right to try to fool them into eating healthier food.

Parents, schmarents! Let's set sail for tooth decay and obesity, kids!

Of course, it's not only kids who are the brand victims. We all are. That's why only Coke will ever taste like Coke, even if the secret recipe is out. Or why trying to clone your favourite fast foods at home is pointless. (And kind of weird.) Our world is the world as we perceive it, and brands often guide our lazy perceptions by providing a short-cut to memory, emotion and experience.



That's the reason competitors to top brands use the blind taste test. You have to block the branding if you want a more accurate comparison. But you'll still have to battle for mindshare on the supermarket aisle.

If this makes you want to admit defeat as a parent, don't.

I have a six-year-old who consistently tells me that McDonald's burgers are better than my naturally-raised, local, aged patties cooked over charcoal. He prefers Kraft Dinner to homemade Mac and Cheese. And he'd rather eat candy than fruit. But that doesn't mean he gets to eat whatever he wants. Those things are given sparingly, as treats, while we keep putting healthy meals in front of him. He eats real food, and quite often enjoys it, even as he pines for the branded foods he sees on TV. But YMMV.