While having a conversation with my colleague Chris Thilk this afternoon about this disaster featuring Best Buy's "secret intranet" site that had different pricing when you were inside a Best Buy location that was not the same as the Internet site that you reached from outside the store, he mentioned the following:

Chris: now would be a great time for Circuit City to run an ad saying "no secret websites here, no sir"

And I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm making the offer that any retailer in competition with Best Buy (or even one in a non-Best Buy market, if there are any) would like to run an advertisement that states the fact that they don't have a secret site such as that for in-store customers (hopefully most don't), then I will gladly run it on this site, themediadrop.com, for the term of one month for a grand total of $1.

Last summer, Jennifer Love Hewitt was sporting Hanes' Perfect Panty in an advertising campaign that drew a few eyeballs, and it looks like she's back on track to do some similar work this year for Hanes, this time for its new line of bras.

The ad campaign, set to go live tonight during FOX's "American Idol," features a commercial, "Jennifer's Photoshoot," where Hewitt is shown enduring all kinds of issues that come about while on a photoshoot with a typical bra, and then (of course) the product is made the hero when she starts sporting the All-Over Comfort Bra (which, by the way, has ComfortSoft(r) Straps, in case you were wondering), making everything better. You can view the ad right now by going to photoshoot.hanes.com, or just wait until it hits your screen at home. While you're at the Photo Shoot site, you can also submit your uncomfortable bra stories, or play the bra toss game.

Seriously, folks, if Steve Hall posts a pretty spot on post about something, either he's lovestruck, or something else is wrong.

Chris Thilk just pinged me to let me know about Nikki Finke's post about how Cartoon Network boss Jim Samples has walked the plank after the whole Mooninites / Boston / Adult Swim ish.

As Portland Press Herald staffer Justin Ellis quotes local graphic designer Sean Wilkinson as saying, "I think we should give our government officials courses in pop culture instead of letting them go home and watch Tivo'd "Mad Money" and "Hannity and Colmes" all night." Seriously. Not that I'm condoning obnoxious behavior by businesses, but the fact that this signage was all over other major cities for like a week kind of says something.

Steve Hall @ Adrants does the still RSS and permalink-less Matt Drudge (could anyone else have become more irrelevant to the bloggerati?) one better and prints, permanently, Samples' resignation letter, or what we believe it is, at least.

[ed: in IM, Thilk says that "This isn't so much falling on a sword as falling on the Lite Brite." Props to Hasbro for making that comment possible]

I'm not sure I need to say much more. I was just over at the incredibly annoying to read superadfreak blog featuring a host of top marketing folks, and it seems that Seth Godin had so much to say that he just couldn't contain himself, and quit at 9pm after four "updates."

I'm sorry, but didn't we know that this was the sort of thing that Seth Godin would say in the first place? What was the point of doing that exercise? I'm not trying to be rude towards Seth at all, trust me. I'm just curious as to whether we couldn't have just paid attention to what Seth had to say on his own blog in the morning.

Anyway. Back to the annoying part. Was it so hard to have people have individual posts for their "updates" rather than one update every so often to each of their individual first posts? I don't want to have to keep looking at a refresh of when so-and-so updated last, I want to see the thread on a blog, naturally, not like something else that is happening to fit into a blog. C'mon, guys. Tim Nudd and the rest of the adfreak crew know better than that, so what happened?

So far, I'm very much enjoying CareerBuilder's spots, after the company chose to ditch the chipmanzees it had been featuring as "monkeys" in spots for awhile now. Comparing the business world to the "office jungle" is really smart, and the second spot that has run, "Promotion Pit" (you can see it as part of the series here) is just flat out hysterical. Aside from the whole "Lord of the Flies" concept that is in play here, the guy completely covered in stickynotes just slayed me.

Update: You can see the spot below.

After catching Angela Natividad's take on the GM spot featuring the suicidal robot who had a bad dream the night before, my thoughts have completely changed from moments ago when I gave Chevy and GM credit for the creativity behind it. Aside from the fact that it's probably a big deal to take a step to show a robot being "fired" from an auto assembly line, it was a great way to execute the need for quality, across the board, and that even the robots were "scared" about making sure it was always achieved.

You can see the spot here at the GM.com site, and it hasn't come up yet on IFILM that I can tell.

But what killed me was what Angela had linked to, which was this "promo" on YouTube:

Which, when you click on the link for the "user," robot2407, you'll land on this profile for, what appears to be, the robot who had a bit of a bad dream in the spot we saw during the game. I must have missed Steve's post about this from Friday while I was traveling out in St. Louis, because I would have absolutely slaughtered this the first time I mentioned it. I mean, the robot has this blog, which is like flat out empty, sans some repetitive posts. GM, please, tell us this wasn't you that did all of this? Pretty please? I won't go nuts on it too much at this point, as a few other people already have, including my pal Josh Hallett, who asks if it's a fake blog or not. Amusingly, this blogger gave GM credit for using YouTube, which I would agree with, too, if it didn't begin to look like GM was behind the blog as well.

If you happen to be searching out IFILM and wondering why the links on the ifilm.com/superbowl link (which is on the front page, btw) aren't updating with new ads, it seems they're having a publishing glitch, at least as far as I can tell. You can see the ads showing up more regularly here or by clicking on "Video Blog" underneath "2007 Super Bowl Ads" on that ifilm.com/superbowl page.

[update: 8:37pm] Thanks!

Ford and Chevrolet have taken two different tacks to advertising so far in the Super Bowl, with Ford focusing on the qualities of its F-Series trucks, and Chevrolet focusing on who the people are who love the cars.

Ford's ad, here:

I like the "split up" vehicle, all over the place, that is supposed to evoke a sort of respect for all the parts - moving or otherwise - that make up an F-Series truck. Considering the company is looking for the way forward (political comments aside), I think it's smart of them, fiscal responsibility and otherwise, that they ran something that wasn't goofy or out there. The only other thing I could have seen Ford doing at an event like this is leveraging its NASCAR interests to put together a big spot.

Moving over to Chevrolet, on the other hand, who focused on people - famous or otherwise - who like their Chevrolets, or at least drive them for sport. We're shown Mary J. Blige to open, Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to close, and a bevy of people in the middle, my favorite of which was rapper T.I. Check it out here:

Whatever that has to say about those two companies (though Chevrolet might have gotten some points back a little while later with an awesome spot featuring a robot from the assembly line, but we'll discuss that when we get to that point), you can definitely see that there at least appears to be some business focus or thought going into the advertising concept, rather than simply dropping more than two million bucks in CBS' bucket.

I'm actually a really big fan of how Toyota handled its "Tundra Stops on a Dime" advertisement this game. Considering the silliness of some of the other commercials in Toyota's stable of ads for its trucks, such as this one featuring the Loch Ness Monster spitting out a Tundra, you wouldn't think they would do something quite so truly product-savvy.

While that ad campaign features meteors hitting the truck and it surviving, among other things, this one did use some obnoxious behavior, but in a well-done way that showed the truck handling a serious bit of acceleration, not being squashed in a pair of giant closing doors and then stopping before falling into a canyon. Note: "Actual Demonstration" in the first two seconds of the ad. Aside from the fact that I had bad memories of the giant walls that closed to separate my high school gym into two gyms from one giant one, I thought it was pretty slick.

I'm also imagining that that spot would have looked absolutely awesome in high definition on a giant screen.

So while Chevrolet has tried to focus on the people and quality behind its products so far, and Ford has given us feature and product-specific info on its F-Series trucks, Toyota has done a little bit of quality and feature, while adding in some Hollywood fun to improve on the whole thing. It's not enough that Toyota is getting huge as far as autos sold in the U.S. and will be part of the Nextel Cup Series in NASCAR this season after a few years on the Craftsman Truck circuit, but now they're making serious headway into the advertising ballgame as well.

I have got to say I *so* agree with Bob Sassone's comments about SalesGenie.com's advertisement in the first quarter. He asks if it's effective if people go to the site, and I guess technically he's right in saying that yes it is, but not if we're all going there to link to it and say how disastrous it was.

If you noticed, late in the pregame show, SalesGenie.com was placed strategically on the screens behind the CBS football crew, which means they dropped some serious coin on this particular game. If you want my opinion, they should probably stick to doing their jobs and maybe running an infomercial or two, because that was just embarrassing. Conceptually, it felt dorky and made me wonder if it was going to lead to something for hair regrowth or would be a total spoof of something.

Check out the early part of the spot, and the promo SalesGenie.com is running, here, or watch it below. And by the way, why would you have something like "forward to your mother-in-law" on your site? What, so people could torture their mothers-in-law, if they're not in sales?

Snickers has so far unleashed what I'm finding as the funniest spot of the Super Bowl so far, "Mechanics." It features two mechanics working under the hood of a car, and when one unwraps a Snickers and has it hanging out of his mouth, the other one leans over and starts eating the other end, "Lady & The Tramp"-style, when they just "accidentally" kiss. At that time, they decide they have to do something manly due to their situation. Now, you can vote on something that you think is the best ending - "chest hair," or three others. Whichever is chosen will be shown when Snickers runs its next spot during this year's Daytona 500 on FOX.

Check out the spot, and place your vote, here.

In case you're looking for it, here's the list of expected ads, their durations, and expected locations during the game, sorted by company. Earlier, GoDaddy updated people by letting them know that one of its spots had moved slightly in the sixth break, and will be shown later on in the game as well.

Something that is a common thread you'll see across the 'net, whether it be what bloggers are doing or content providers, portals, etc. are putting forth is rating the advertisements. AOL has its ad poll, YouTube is holding its "Supervote voting, USA Today's ad meter is well known as the "rule" that a lot of people follow in the coming days. What you'll notice this year is that it isn't as much of the individual being forced to get caps of the ads up on their own, like it was two years ago - on AdJab in 2005, that's what we ended up doing - but more and more advertisers, if not all of them, are making ads available in decent resolution to outside partners as well as their own sites. The site I'm the most critical of, honestly, is GoDaddy, which has people putting in security codes to view the ad. I know that probably helps them with measurement and whatnot, but it's annoying, kind of like trying to read Bob Parsons' blog. I don't want to have to click into every single post to read more than one line of text. Come on. Think you're progressive? No, you're growing pageviews.

But, back to business. AOL, looking to incent people - not just its traditional user base - to take part in the Ad Poll, has teamed up with Publisher's Clearing House, which is one of the official sponsors for this year's poll. Fans who vote on the spots will be able to register to win a $5,000 prize, and all entrants will also be entered to win PCH's $10 million sweepstakes that will be announced on Feburary 28, 2007.

Well, with AdJab having bit the bullet, and some of the folks from Weblogs, Inc. blogging some ads over at TV Squad, along with some other folks deciding they needed to get in the game, years after the rest of us found out that it was a great experience, I think I'm going to drop dime on my thoughts on the Super Bowl ads here on TMD, since this has always been the go-to place for the most part for big topic things that I'm thinking about. So keep your eyes peeled. I won't be writing everything up, some for conflict of interest reasons for work, and others because I actually want to watch the Super Bowl this year, which I haven't done for the most part for the last few years - and with good reason. So, without further ad, keep an eye out here.

For anyone who's been blogging for awhile, you're probably familiar with the volume of pitches and other materials that have begun landing in your inbox from public relations professionals (and some not-so-professionals), especially in the last year or so. As someone whose day job it is to work with clients and our own business on developing relationships with online outlets and writers, working with them in a manner that is good for everyone, I'm able to shed light on a daily basis on what works and what doesn't, based almost exclusively on the fact that I've been at this whole blogging thing for a few years now. Something that I'm a fan of explaining to my colleagues and anyone else who asks is that to get the attention of bloggers that you're trying to reach out to, you need to a) personalize what you send to them, no mass-mails will do, b) actually show that you've read what the writer(s) have written in the past, especially if they've covered your company / client, or competitors, and c) stand out from the rest of the pack.

What's this all about? Well, about a month ago, I was contacted by someone at Sony Pictures Television, who commented on this blog, and noted that the company was going to be sending out a mailer to some bloggers, and that they were interested in sending me something if I would like to receive it. I'd accepted, and was expecting to see perhaps a screener or some basic press materials, something that I do receive on a regular basis, most of which I either pass on to other bloggers who might cover those spaces, or I pick up over at TV Squad if someone else hasn't already. A short while later, during a week of business travel, I came home to a package that I wasn't expecting to receive, as I had blanked on the fact that I had corresponded with SPT on this issue when I arrived, so it was a pleasant surprise. Next up comes where the whole "stand out from the crowd" came from in this situation.

So, as I opened up the box, I found a letter describing what was in the box - which was bigger than those that usually contain screeners, mind you - which included a Sony PSP, but not just any PSP, one that contained high-res images and interviews from three of Sony Pictures Television's new shows for the fall season, including "'Til Death," which features Brad Garrett of "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame. All these materials were available to be used by those of us who received them, before FOX, NBC, or the CW, or anyone else, was able to publish them. Of course, my receipt of all of this coincided with a vacation, some quirky TMD blog software happenings, and a number of other things, so I missed the exclusivity window, but not everyone did.

So, aside from the fact that this might seem completely outrageous to some people, let's think about the fact that this move, unlike a lot of other "send people stuff and see what happens" campaigns work, makes logical sense. Sony isn't just sending a PSP to people and then giving them access online to screeners and images and whatnot, they're actually using the PSP to show how that device works with different things. Now, I don't have a PSP, or didn't until this point. I do have two console systems, a Sony PlayStation 2 and an XBOX, and a computer capable of gaming, but nothing to take with me. On planes, I usually bring my iPod along, but it's not a video version, and I think the screen's a little small for that considering what that device can do, so I'm not such a fan anyway. Let's just say that watching these interviews on the PSP - which has a nice widescreen view to it - was flat out amazing. The still images of the shows were just like looking at high-res graphics on any computer screen I have, and the UI of the device is astounding. Heck, even connecting to the airport WiFi at Newark Liberty was a snap. And for a product with no keyboard, that's saying a lot, IMHO. So not only has Sony been smart and gotten the shows in the hands of persons who review and write about such things, but they're provided a device that is part of the Sony family of products and services to view it on. So not only am I talking up the PSP, which I hadn't really played with outside of in a store before, but I'm in the cool kids group with my friends who think it's awesome that I've had access to these shows well before they're aired.

There are pro- and con- arguments to whether people who write online should be accepting products such as this, and it's definitely in my own hands whether or not I choose to send it back or not, and I'm sure that people will criticize one way or another. And, to get facts straight, this isn't the first item that's landed in my meatspace inbox, but it's one of only a few that I've actually written something about. Journalism aside for a moment, let's just look at how this was done, and what it gets for Sony's various companies. Sometimes it's all about getting something in the hands of people and just letting it ride. For instance, I was given the opportunity to test out a Sprint phone and all of its' network services earlier in the year, and as someone who was never a fan of the phones they offered or the ability to make calls on the network, I've got to say that I have probably raved to dozens of people about the quality of the Power Vision network that you can get from them, television and all. Same deal here. Attempt to influence people you consider as influential.

On to the television shows, though. I'm not one to usually hit the sitcom scene, especially in the last few years - I just don't find them funny. "'Til Death" does its part to not be yet another show about a married couple by adding the twist of a newlywed couple living nextdoor to Brad Garrett and Joely Fisher's characters, and taking a lot of what worked for Garrett's character on "Raymond," which should help attract the audience that really enjoyed him as a costar on that show. Just as TV Squad's Joel Keller suggests in his review of the premiere, it feels a little more realistic than the average sitcom (no ridiculously built apartments that would never possibly exist here, thankyouverymuch), and offers a little bit of obnoxious behavior that FOX's "War at Home" also prides itself on, though not so "Ferris Bueller-ish" with the cutaways and whatnot. I'd expect this show to stick around, even if people aren't used to going to FOX for this type of comedy.

As far as the other two included programs, I'd say I was much more intrigued by "Kidnapped" than "Runaway," by far. For those of you into the whole TV Squad spiel on shows, you can check out Joel's writeup here as well. What caught me here was almost exclusively the "tone" of the show. It moved along nicely, had a realistic premise, and the cast is flat out fantastic. I'll have to echo Joel's sentiments about the length of this show as far as a season - or multiple seasons - goes, though. How long can this go on? Then again, I totally thought the same thing about FOX's "Prison Break," which not only is still going and in a second season, but made what I thought was a grave error in taking months "off" mid season to allow for other programming to take hold. I'd have thought that would slaughter a show, especially one that was minute-by-minute such as this one. NBC has had a kinda iffy experience with shows that have a take-no-prisoners cast. I mean, "Las Vegas" is amusing to watch, with James Caan, Josh Duhamel, Nikki Cox, Vanessa Marcil, and a host of others (how DID they get them all stuffed in this show, anyway?), but it isn't exactly breaking down doors. Cast doesn't make a full season, but if it did, along with some solid acting, then "Kidnapped" could stick around for awhile as well. Seeing Delroy Lindo, Dana Delaney, Timothy Hutton, and more on the small screen - together - could prove that the big cast formula will work, or could at least become a trend.

Today's Press Kit?
So, does that make this kind of communication and outreach the new style of press kit? Public relations firms and clients themselves have been coming up with creative ways to market their clients to journalists for years, and it's all about getting that particular piece of mail or package opened from the inbox in a timely manner and spark interest. Obviously they're not usually contained in an electronic gaming device - most of the time - but it appears that we've reached a point where certain companies and individuals have chosen to take a big step - no baby steps here - in order to catch the attention of those that they feel can push the needle. With those individuals not bound by the tenets of journalism, for the most part, that leaves some grey area that can be worked around. I'm not expecting any big screen televisions to start showing up at the Best Week Ever blog anytime soon, but I guess you never know.

A couple days ago, Jeff Jarvis was buggin' about advertisements that Infinity-owned WFAN was putting up all over the tri-state area for the "Imus in the Morning" program. I've seen these billboards as far away as Independence Township, out near Buttzville, NJ, and in the same city that I live in outside of NYC. Jeff's qualm here (other than the fact that he thinks Imus is a "half-dead cowpoke") is that Viacom did nothing to defend Howard Stern on First Amendment issues, and is putting up Imus as "the posterboy for the First Amendment."

I couldn't disagree more. It's an advertising campaign, for one thing. In no way is Viacom "defending" Imus against those who might disagree with what he's saying. They're taking advantage of the fact that even though David Lee Roth & Co. are going to take Stern's slot(s) in the morning show timeframe, they might as well attempt to appeal to people who aren't going to buy Sirius Satellite Radio service, and cover the bases completely. It's not like everyone who listens to Stern will convert to Imus, nor will they to Adam Carolla or Roth.

Additionally, this is a WFAN advertisement, not a 20-page Infinity buy. WFAN doesn't have to run every single ad, I'm sure, through some sort of Infinity wheelhouse for approval - it's still in the top two or three billing stations in the damn country, after all. So, I say it again, it's an advertising/marketing ploy, not a corporate stand. Whether or not you want to call it Infinity's (or terrestrial radio's) white flag, that's up to you. I call it smart marketing - or at least a kickstand.

Dave Winer mentioned on Friday that he'd be unsubscribing from BusinessWeek's RSS feeds soon, because of the volume of ads that are showing up. This isn't the only example of complaints I'm hearing about this right now, hence this site's using of them every third entry - but it's going to be a big concern, because if the "early adopters" of RSS and those who have followed already have a problem with it, what do you think those who eventually hop on the RSS bandwagon are going to think?

The Dallas Morning News' Tom Maurstad writes about a television commercial for a Dallas/Fort Worth radio station, KLIF 570AM, that the station claims that local broadcasters won't take because of its content.

The ad focuses on terrorism - and goes well beyond being suggestive about it. It appears that the station was more interested in getting buzz about the ad, and probably should have taken a cue from viral marketers and just put it out online, rather than even shopping the ad.

You can view the ad here at klif.com.

The Media Drop (TMD) believes that editorial content and advertising shall operate in seperate "houses," and neither shall affect the integrity of the other. That said, advertisements may promote products, services, companies, or ideologies that do not necessarily reflect those of The Media Drop or its author(s).

However, The Media Drop may choose to decline advertisements due to objectionable content, for reasons including, but not limited to: materials or statements that are false, libelous, hateful, or being below our lower limits. Advertisements seen on this site are the sole responsibility of their owner(s), and will be reviewed in advance of their placement on TMD.

Advertisements / sponsorships will all be clearly labeled as such. Currently, these includes ads served by BlogAds and Google AdSense. Additionally, links to affiliate programs for Amazon.com or Apple's iTunes may periodically appear on the site, and will be plainly labeled or carry a disclaimer.

Any comments, questions, or concerns about advertisements seen on any portion of this website are gladly accepted, and can be emailed to themediadrop@gmail.com. Inquiries about placing advertising on the site can also be sent to this address.

Note: This policy may be amended at any time and will be permanently linked on the sidebar menu.

[ed: Thanks to Steve Rubel and Joe Territo for their inputs]

The Pennsylvania State Tourism Office goes online with a slick little teaser film series to promote visiting the state. Let's just say it's....unique.

[link via Uncle Horn Head; quote from Groundhog Day via IMDb]

This week, the Chicago Tribune announced its new advertising campaign, the concept of which is around "What's in it for you?" The ads look to "demonstrate how someone's day was made better by interaction with the newspaper."

With Sprint and Nextel Communications seriously discussing a merger this week, and a "tentative agreement" is reportedly on board, could there be possible implications with regard to Nextel's exclusive sponsorship of NASCAR's top level of championship racing? The 2004 season has been widely regarded as a huge success with its vaunted playoff format, the "Chase for the Cup," along with Nextel taking on the naming behind the Championship itself - the rights of which had been held by Winston from 1971 through the 2003 season. Both the "mouthful" aspect of the branding and the recent changes could potentially be an issue, IMHO.

So the question becomes whether or not the "Sprint-Nextel Cup" would be something that NASCAR would go for. One would think there are varied contractual terms related to mergers involved in the sponsorship that Nextel currently has with the racing league, but would they ever have agreed to sign on if a merger would invalidate their contract?

Representatives from Nextel and NASCAR were not immediately available for comment.

The American Marketing Association is running three blogs-meet-marketing (yes, I meant it in that order) events in the U.S. over the next three months.

The pitch:

Internet surfers, advertisers, journalists and even politicians do it. But are blogs a credible marketing strategy for your brand or company? Experienced bloggers answer your questions and show how to incorporate the newest internet-based strategy into your organization’s marketing plan. Leave this marketing blog workshop with innovative ideas and specific techniques to apply directly to your own marketing strategy.

Robert Scoble will be participating in the Seattle, WA event December 17, Steve Rubel will be at the January 21 gig in New York, NY, and Scott Rafer, president & CEO of Feedster, will be at the Chicago, IL session on February 18.

The Associated Press reports that "retired" NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw will be doing voiceovers in commercials for the University of South Dakota, his alma mater.

The Boston Globe's Eileen McNamara suggests that due to the recent tentative behavior of broadcasters, that perhaps "the head of the FCC is less of a threat to free speech in this country than the heads of CBS and NBC." McNamara is referring, in this case, to those networks' decisions to decline advertising from the United Church of Christ because of the "controversy" it might cause.

Jeff Jarvis sums up that situation very well.

Earlier this week, Slate's Seth Stevenson commented on the Netzero spoof ads of AOL's latest ad campaign. Yesterday, his comments aired on NPR's "Day to Day" - you can listen here.

Earlier today I was alerted to TissueBox Advertising, a company whose purpose, even by just reading the name, should be self explanatory. TissueBox states that it can put together a campaign of particular school-age demographics for a potential client, print up the tissue boxes, and distribute via donation to a school. To this point, many schools have chosen to "opt-in" to distributions in the future, with only 7% opting-out, according to the company. And to the company's credit, they do have current/former school employees on their Advisory Board, as detailed here - but does that really matter?

So the question is, is it a good thing that companies are sponsoring tissues in school classrooms? Sure, it's great that the products are there, because everyone knows what a problem it is to get your kid to have tissues of their own r not wipe their nose on their shirtsleeve - but what's the cost? Now I don't have children of my own, and am a marketer by trade, but sometimes something feels a little iffy to me. In this particular case, I cannot decide if it's just the methodology that bothers me or something else.

The problem a lot of people have with marketing to teens (and younger children) is that it is, in a lot of cases, an effort to get individuals, many of whom don't have money of their own just yet, outside of a few dollars' allowance, to become brand loyal, and push for certain products to be purchased by their parent or guardian. While I'm sure all intentions are good here, and I for one do not take too much issue with advertising to young people in general, is a school the "right" opportunity to advertise your product or service? In this particular case, I think a serious look would have to be taken at the benefit of having your ad in front of students on a daily basis as opposed to the furor that could be caused by parents and kids who took offense to the tissue boxes. A school system is more than likely going to "go" with a plan to have tissues donated to it because of the value proposition put forth. I can't say that parents and students would feel the same, unfortunately.

Related: The Media Awareness Network looks at marketing to teens and young children.

Just a few days ago, NetZero television ads spoofing AOL's "Make the Internet better" campaign went on the air. On Thursday, it appears that Budweiser has joined the fun, creating a spoof of their own on Miller's "Referee" spots that feature football referees calling penalties on people drinking Budweiser or offering it to others.

The first time I caught it was during CBS' Thanksgiving Day coverage of the Colts-Lions NFL game. It features some referee-dressed people going up to partygoers, taking their "fresh beer" and replacing it with "this Miller Lite," much to the chagrin of the people being de-beered. It seems the referees didn't want the Miller, and thought that "fresh" beer was a better choice.

Damian Penny caught it as well. He thinks the refs are "the most annoying on television," so I'm not sure if this is good or bad from his perspective.

I just saw what has to be the single most messed up "spoof" of an ad campaign ever. In it, NetZero uses what appear to be exactly the same actors (or really really really good facsimiles) and exactly the same set as AOL's latest campaign, specifically the "All of them" ad where the receptionist tells the AOL executive that "some members" are there at corporate headquarters to make some suggestions on "How to make the Internet better." You can see the original AOL ad here in an article on Slate from Seth Stevenson - it's the second ad, about halfway down the page.

In the NetZero spot, some members are on line in the offices, meet the receptionist, and say that they want to tell AOL that they're leaving. The receptionist opens the door to the exec, states that "There are some members here. They say they're leaving for Netzero." To which he replies, "Which ones?" as his smile turns to a frown. She walks into the office futher, and says "Looks like....all of them." At which time the same campus appears to be on the video, full of people - in the closeup, the people are holding signs that read "$9.95" and "See Ya," as they shout "Bye!" out loud and wave to the camera.

VodkaFish points out a nifty new tv ad campaign, that combines "Star Wars" characters with personalities from ESPN's "SportsCenter." Following the much-adored "This is SportsCenter" campaign of a few years back, the first ad features Darth Vader facing off Lennox Lewis, R2D2 making a mess of a live broadcast, and more. You can learn more and see the ad here at starwars.com.

Digital Producer has the scoop on the new Ford Mustang commercial that features actor Steve McQueen checking out the newest iteration of this famous automobile. J. Walter Thompson is the ad house, and R!OT Santa Monica and POP Sound put together some fantastic video and audio.

Autoblog has more details here and some shots from the ad here.

There's nothing like being upfront about what you're interested in - just ask Toshiba.

End the Stealing

At first I thought they had really screwed up here, but it turns out that you can just click "Proceed" and go right through the checkpoint. I think they probably need to add "Word of Mouth" to the selections, though.

MediaPost's Michael Shields writes that while the American newspaper circulation declines that were announced earlier this week came out lower than expected, "advertisers are expected to demand lower rates."

I finally found the one thing absolutely worse than using the same stock images in print/online advertisements that someone else is. It has to be using the same commercial actor in television ads that run to a similar target market during the same programming. Case in point:

Taco Bell is currently running an ad for its Zesty Chicken Border Bowl, which has a guy who asks the help at the counter if it's true they don't make his "bowl" until he places the order, then proceeds to taunt the employee by not completing the words "Zesty Chicken Border Bowl" over and over. I'm sure you've seen it, if you've watched ANY television with commercials in the last month. [ed: Bill Simmons comments (see 8:24)]

So tonight, I'm watching the ESPN's NFL coverage, and sure enough, there's the guy again in one of those nifty new Miller Lite commercials where the referees are throwing flags at unsuspecting Bud drinkers. In this spot, the actor, "Dan" as he's named, is trying to act all cool delivering Budweiser to the local bar, staffed by two women. He's pummelled with at least three yellow flags from the Miller refs, who call him on "illegal use of a handtruck" and "taste masking." This ad seems to go directly after Budweiser's recent ads claiming that its "Born on dating" and new "Same day" beer in "select cities" makes it superior to its competition.

Needless to say, I've seen "Dan" working for multiple companies within the same hour or two - I'm sure I'm not the only one. Not to hold "Dan" back from making a living, but I think advertisers need to think a little bit on this one.

Friday night, Jason Calacanis challenged Vibrant Media CEO Doug Stevenson to a debate at the AD:TECH event a little over a week from today in New York City.

Vibrant Media, you might remember, is the maker of IntelliTXT technology. This product adds "contextual" advertising links into webpage content, with "double underlines" to differ the advertisement hyperlinks from usual ones. The company believes that this method is helpful, and are standing behind their clickthrough rate, which seems higher than other ads in the contextual arena. However, they do not address the fact that these "advertisements" aren't necessarily helpful at all for the people reading the articles. Links were put in the text in order to give people background or further information about the topic they are reading - not to have someone looking at some information about earthworms and see an advertisement on the word "worm" that takes you to a software security firm.

[Previously discussed here and here]

Friday's New York Daily News has an article by Richard Huff about a recent "slip up" by New York's Channel 4 NBC affiliate. According to the story, NBC featured a corporate sponsor of their Democracy Plaza exhibition, currently inhabiting a good portion of Rockefeller Center, on-screen during a newscast. Of course, showing "sponsors" of the news really isn't legit - NBC states that it was an accident. But it brings about an interesting question - transparency. Obviously there are commercials during television newscasts, and those are generally accepted. But with increased focus on "time shifting" via DVR/PVR technology with regard to other programming, the world of :30 spots is going to change eventually. And unless the news is the only place we're going to see that style of advertising, newscasts will most likely have to accept some sort of change in order to keep their broadcast on the air.

Kevin Brass at the Austin Chronicle covers the recent booting of radio commercials for wine selling under the "FAT Bastard" brand name on stations in the Austin, Texas area. The curious thing is that the commercials are only being removed from stations where quite a few complaints have been received, not across the board in the market at all stations owned by the same broadcaster.

Over at AdLand, they're celebrating (?) the 10 year anniversary / birthday / hellspawn launch of banner advertising. This might be the first and only time I suggest you check out some banner ads, so don't hold it against me.