My Top Five Posts of 2012

It's been a weird year for me, but I keep coming back to this blog as a way to think out loud about my complicated relationship with the advertising industry (on which I depend to pay my half of the mortgage). Luckily for me, quite a few people have decided that these thoughts are worth reading. Thank you for that. Here were your five favourites.

#5: FHM presents "The 100 sexiest women in nonexistence"
June 18

This was a silly self-parody of FHM's "100 Sexiest Women in the World" list, but open to user nominations and votes featuring imaginary women of fiction, legend, pop culture and advertising. The contest site is no longer live, so I have no idea who won.


#4: Jesus has a quickie with Lady Liberty in Ukrainian shock ad
November 20

This was a joke ad, by someone named Alexander Bozhko for "Altai Fake Festival" — something akin to the Chip Shop Awards. But that didn't stop it from being taken as real, once it showed up on Ads of The World.

Thanks to my Ukrainian friend Eugene Smirnov helped me get to the bottom (heh heh) of this one. Also to Mark Duffy ("Copyranter") who posted my debunking on Buzzfeed, leading to big analytics.


#3 Classic Venus nudes altered for today's beauty standards
February 7

This was a look at how Italian social issues artist Anna Utopia Giordano put classic Venus nudes under the harsh knife of photoshop to make a point about changing beauty standards in media. The post got a lot of viral lift after being linked on Sociological Images.


#2 Topless Female Trampolining World Championships
September 6



What can I say? Certain keywords always lead to high readership.

In this case, the post was a teaser for a campaign by Britain’s CoppaFeel! and Male Cancer Awareness Campaign (MCAC) about male breast cancer. I followed it up on Osocio.


#1 Train etiquette campaign parodies are "super simple stuff"
June 26

My most-clicked post of 2012 was a bit of a surprise to me, as it had no naked ladies in it whatsoever. It's about how a public transit etiquette campaign by Queensland Rail became a popular parody meme. I guess I need more like that.


Well, that's all for me in 2012. This year, I have give this blog a little more focus on the issues that are of most professional interest to me, particularly ethics. (Which is why the name is changing.)

But what would you like to see more of? I'd love to hear from you in the comments below.

SF public transit disclaims racist ad

The above ad, according to Mother Jones, was placed on San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) properties by anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller.

Muni felt they had to accept the ad, based on what they (and legal precedent) perceived as Ms. Geller's First Amendment rights.

So they used their adjacent ad space to run a disclaimer:

Apparently, Ms. Geller insists that the Ayn Rand-inspired quote in her ads refers to particular acts taken by Palestinian groups during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But that's not the Randian context of the copy.

Mother Jones quotes Ayn Rand in full:

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency. 

Dehumanizing your enemy — now who's the "savage"?

Nostalgic drug ads? So that happened.

I get what they're trying to do. The parents of today's teens are younger Boomers and older Gen-Xers, many (most?) of whom did not "just say no" back in the day.

So instead of lying that pot will make your kid into a zombie, this one tries to focus on the facts of hard drugs:

This one takes quite a while to get to its point, and I'm not sure the point is all that comprehensible. Purer must be better, right? Just like '70s ditch weed sucks when you compare it to 21st century wheelchair dope?

Seems like this is more of a PSA to let young junkies know how much better they had it than The Stooges.

Meanwhile, this one goes back to the old "lose all credibility among critical thinkers by exaggerating the risks" strategy:

"K2" and "Spice" are street names for synthetic cannabis. Being too effing old, I had to look that up in Wikipedia, where I also read:

No official studies have been conducted on its effects on humans.Though its effects are not well documented, extremely large doses may cause negative effects that are generally not noted in marijuana users, such as increased agitation and vomiting. Professor John W. Huffman who first synthesised many of the cannabinoids used in synthetic cannabis is quoted as saying, "People who use it are idiots. You don't know what it's going to do to you."A user who consumed 3 g of Spice Gold every day for several months showed withdrawal symptoms, similar to those associated with withdrawing from the use of narcotics. Doctors treating the user also noted that his use of the product showed signs associated with addiction. One case has been reported where a user, who had previously suffered from cannabis induced recurrent psychotic episodes, suffered reactivation of their symptoms after using Spice. Psychiatrists treating him have suggested that the lack of an antipsychotic chemical, similar to cannabidiol found in natural cannabis, may make synthetic cannabis more likely to induce psychosis than natural cannabis.

Doesn't sound half bad.

I would also like to point out that Lucasfilm does not take kindly to social marketing campaigns that "borrow" its intellectual property.

Besides which, we middle aged hipsters all know that R2-D2 is more of a tobacco guy:



Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey ads Via Animal NY

I like where this is going...

I've been doing public transit advertising for many years now, and it's become a real passion.

When I was a kid, my Mom didn't have a driver's license. But fortunately, Kingston did have a public transit system. Service was infrequent back then (before they were a client:) but I learned early that it's just a question of knowing your routes and schedules. Once you're a "bus person", it all just becomes second nature.

Now I live in Ottawa, and I still take the bus to work. It has allowed us to be a one-car family, and I relish the chance to get some work and reading done on the way.

But I realize that not everyone loves transit. That's why I'm so keen to do whatever I can to make it less of a mystery to people. If you can get the attention of non-riders, show a transit benefit, and get them to check out the online info, you can at least start to put transit on their consideration list.

That's why I loved working on this campaign. York Region Transit is a large system that connects with the TTC and gets people all over a large suburban and commercial area. We won the account last year, and ever since we have been enjoying one of those great client relationships that some ad people only dream about: a client who has great creative (as well as business) ambitions, and the means to let us bring them to life.

ACD Vernon came up with the concept. The messaging is mine. And Javier did most of the Art Direction heavy lifting. Chris from Photolux shot the originals.

(See full credits and production details at Change Marketing.)

I hope we can get more of York Region on board with their transit system. And I'm raising another transit baby, back here in Ottawa.

Now, that's a reach...

Usually, this is a criticism of someone's really obscure creative rationale for a pet idea that doesn't work. In this case, though, I meant it literally.

These "prop" versions are cool gimmicks, but you have to wonder how long the extensions will last on the streets of Toronto. (If the vandals don't get 'em, the snow probably will.)

What I like even better are the diptych and triptych versions. What can I say? I'm a sucker for any social campaign that takes the piss out of consumer advertising.





Inspired? Give to the Salvation Army here.

By Grey Canada, via Ads of The World.

My other bus is a streetcar

Toronto media planner fail:



For those of you outside of our fair country, Canada's largest city (and advertising epicentre) of Toronto has streetcars. They're rather cute.

However, when creating and placing a national campaign, you may wish to consider that none of the rest of Canada's five largest municipalities has streetcars. (Okay, Vancouver's getting surface light rail, but I'm not sure that counts.)

What's extra-specially sad about this placement, which I shot this morning, is that Ottawa is hosting the Canadian Urban Transit Association's 2010 national conference at the moment.

I wonder how many delegates now wonder why CMA can't tell a streetcar from a bus?

Somebody needs to tell their agency's creative and media teams to get out more.

No sex please, we're Calgarians

Have you seen the Virgin Mobile bus shelter campaign showing people making out with male and female angels?



Apparently, they're too hot for Calgary Transit.

According to CTV:

"Calgary Transit says it received several complaints that the ads were too sexual and were close to areas where children could easily view them."

Heaven forbid kids see a couple making out in a bus shelter. (Considering Calgary's significant hooker problems, we're lucky if that's all they see!)

Mississauga has also pulled the ads, for basically the same reasons.

Chris Baines, spokesperson for Virgin Mobile is unapologetic:

“We’re very proud of our ads. We don’t think there’s anything wrong with them. They are just young couples passionately embracing or kissing. It’s no more than that and they’re a lot of fun.”

An ad featuring this couple was allowed to stay up, because it has less groping.

Meanwhile, in the Toronto market, and in the replacement ad for the two yoinked ads in Mississauga, the angels go both ways.



One can only imagine why that one wasn't chosen for the Calgary market.

Throwing free speech under the bus

Ottawa City Council is looking to update its transit advertising policy, after receiving complaints that they had a double standard for ads that talk about God.

The incident earlier this year saw the Transit Committee first refusing to run, then eventually allowing, ads by the Humanist Association of Ottawa that read, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Well, as a result of all the hoopla, The City of Ottawa is changing the advertising policies of its transit company to conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Here's what will not be accepted as transit advertising in Ottawa, according to the Citizen:

If the revised policy is approved by the transit committee and council, the city will not accept an ad that:

• Is of questionable taste or which is irritating in its content or method of presentation;
• in the opinion of the city disparages any city service, or promotes a product by drawing negative comparison with a city service; or
•Discourages the use of public transit.

The new policy will only encourage ads that "portray positive images of people, avoiding the use of extreme and inappropriate postures that inappropriately accentuate one part of the body."

Ottawa Transit Committee Chair Councillor Alex Cullen also made a statement about decency: "Questionable taste is a large grey area and we have to be conscious of the Charter, but there are times when the majority of people will say something crosses the line."


Clear Channel, who sell the space on OC Transpo bus shelters, is concerned about this proposed policy. And so am I.

The broad wording about "taste" and "positive images of people", combined with the Councillor's statement about the sensitivities of "the majority of people", basically continue the City's ability to subjectively ban any ad that it doesn't like.

There was also this frightening comment: "We own the buses and we don't like somebody putting on ads that say, 'Don't take this bus'."

City Council does not own the busses. We all do. That's why it's called "public" transit.

That's also why we need fair and transparent policies around the kind of ads that are placed on our shared properties. People have the right not to be bullied or slandered in public communication. But they do not necessarily have the right not to be offended. As long as they are not being targetted by hate speech, obscenity, or other legally-defined nastiness, who is to say what does and does not cross the line? Will we have to start having an ad referendum every time an edgy new campaign comes to town?

I'm just glad nobody complained about this one: