Interactive Blog

Many apologies for being away so long, they’ve had me busy here working on a video for a recent personal branding seminar. It still needs a bit of tweaking, but I will have it up shortly. I am actually excited about getting back to my blogging thing. As the semester winds down and winds up at the same time, blogging is actually calming to me and I learn quite a bit at the same time. In the spirit of things, this is a less-than serious entry. A quick note, I am still making strides to contact KVBPR about their history, I just have not had the time, but will hopefully contact them in the next week or so.

With that out of the way… since when do fake tv anchors have so much power?

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have been delighting (or upsetting) the Comedy Central audience for quite a few years now. A Time magazine poll even shows that Jon Stewart is the most trusted news anchor in the United States with 44% of the votes, Brian Williams comes in second with 29%. Kind of scary that we place the most trust in a fake news anchor.

However, I digress. In their time these guys have started quite a few notable “feuds.” Events such as Stewart’s war with Jim Cramer and Colbert’s war with the Emmys (he has been nominated many times, but has never won). On October 15th, Colbert decided in midst of Miracle Whip’s new campaign declaring that they will “not tone it down,” that he would become pro-Mayo. These feuds gain a surprising amount of ground and sometimes result in action from those that were targeted. And Miracle Whip is no exception.

Colbert decided to create an ad for Mayo, similar to Miracle Whip’s ad in favor of his love for Mayo.

I realize how silly all of this sounds, a feud about condiments? Really? Why is this important? Well, this presented Miracle Whip with a huge opportunity to reach the audience that they were targeting, Colbert’s viewers. It is not a secret that our generation gets most of their news from Stewart and Colbert, what better way to reach them then to return fire from their hero’s attack?

Introduce the brilliant team behind this campaign, mcgarrybowen. Their strategy for Colbert’s “attack,” buy space in each ad segment that runs during his show. Then, run a letter to him in newspapers across the country, declaring that they are not standing down, they are “raising hell.” Next, go a step further and target the ads directly at him. Miracle Whip’s team ran three ads on November 12th declaring that they, “will not tone it down… Stephen.” Stephen admitted defeat during the show, but he did get in the last word, declaring, “Miracle Whip, I know when I’ve been bested. Thank you for buying ad time on my show. Because let’s face it, revenue is down throughout the television industry, and I could certainly use the money. To buy more delicious mayonnaise!”

The only thing that concerns me about the whole thing is that maybe it was one ridiculous marketing stunt, but I do not really care to find out the truth. The point is, it was entertaining, people actually paid attention to Miracle Whip for once (don’t be so Mayo), and Colbert still got the last word. However, his Mayo ad still makes me a bit sick to my stomach.

For additional information: Read about Colbert’s attack here. Read about Miracle Whip’s response here. Read about Colbert’s defeat here. And watch the three Miracle Whip spots here.

A girl is lost in drugs, alcohol, and general debauchery and she is trying to find her way out… (video)

RSS Feed here.

First, sorry about the lack of updates this week, I’ve been working on stuff for a video for the department, which will be very interesting. More info on that later…

Onto….. blogging. And, hey… you really, really might want to read this, it’s very important information about the changing times.

The new world of online advertising being outside of the control of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) might be hitting a few stops…

On Monday, the FTC announced that it has approved the final revisions of the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads within the FTC Act. These guidelines governing endorsements and testimonials were last revised in 1980.

The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. (FTC.gov)

What does this mean to you and the industry? You know those late night ads with “Results not typical,” in teeny tiny little print at the bottom of the screen? Those days are out the door! Under the new guidelines advertisers MUST disclose the typical results along with the extreme cases. AdFreak gives an example of the new situation:

While this could represent a much-deserved kick to the crotch of late-night snake-oil salesmen, it also seems to be bad news for mainstream brands like Bowflex and Subway, whose success stories (hot granny and Jared, respectively) center on rare cases of extreme willpower. Sounds like they might have to try out some new copy, like, “Bowflex. You’ll burn dozens of calories hauling it from your closet to your yard sale!” (AdFreak)

Since 1980 advertisers have been able to hide under the guise of, “Results not typical.” I’m interested in seeing when testimonial ads stop being nice and start getting real.

Now, why should bloggers care? Well, the FTC is already trying to figure out how to control the internet, and this is their first step… under the new guidelines, in summary, if you are paid for the blog post you are writing, you must disclose that someone PAID you and you must disclose WHO paid you. You can read the full guidelines here.

There are a few more stipulations about celebrity endorsements in the guidelines, but they are not my concern right now.

The fact that the FTC is attempting to control bloggers brings up a lot of questions…

Can you even control a blogger? How would the FTC know if the blogger was lying about being paid? What would even tip off the FTC that the blog was in-fact, an endorsement, and not an entry?

Big questions. With unknown answers. I think it would be a good idea to make bloggers disclose if they are paid, considering people believe anything that they read online. Well, maybe that’s a hasty generalization, but people believe someone’s review of a product online, far far before they believe an advertisement from an advertiser. That fact scares me, because you really should not believe everything you read online… there is so much false information out there.

What do you think?

• Can the FTC ever truly police the internet?
  
• Would it be a good idea?
• How can you control millions of people distributing their own content?
• Does this interfere with First Amendment rights?
  

I want to hear your thoughts on the subject! Please comment!

Today I am reviewing the new releases ‘Extract,’ ‘District 9,’ and ‘500 Days of Summer.’ Join me at the movies!

I’ve been so wrapped up in my other tasks that I do not have much to blog about today. I also realize that I will not exactly be able to follow a blogging schedule… I’m not really a scheduled sort of person.

With that out of the way, let’s move on… today I came across a very odd campaign poster created by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which was a response to a current campaign by New York City’s health department. NYC’s health department has been on a campaign against… well, fat people.

Their response (above) to the health department’s ad featuring human fat globs being poured out of a soda bottle that warns, “Don’t drink yourself fat,” (See the ad WARNING: it is rather disturbing) was one with a message. They created this ad in a 1984-esque manner. Read more about it here at AdFreak.

The NYC health department’s campaign is designed to discourage consumers from drinking sugary sodas. In an article from the New York Times, Cathy Nonas, a dietician from NYC’s Department of Health and Human Hygeine says that they were, “hoping that the biggest effect is, first of all, shock, and that the understanding is that when you drink extra calories, they will be stored as fat.” Shock is definitely a reaction… along with disgust… and a tinge of nausea. The ads will run in 1500 subway cars for three months. That is certainly not something I want to see on my morning commute to work.

The attack on fat is getting a little tired… fat people are going to be fat… you can’t hope they will change by assaulting them with vivid, disgusting imagery. While I think this was a decent idea, I think it oversteps the boundaries, though… I would admittedly throw out my soda bottle right now if I drank soda. So, maybe it is effective? Afterall, obesity is an epidemic in this country. But I think they missed the point. Being mean to fat people is, well, mean. Sure, yes, they are fat. For the most part though, fat is a choice. Another ouch moment occured at NYC laundromats in January. Tiny shirts in dryers commanded people to “Shrink a few sizes.”

What do you think? Is an assault to the emotions an effective strategy for trying to get people to lose weight? Personally, these ads would be very effective on me… they are already making me re-consider my rushed breakfast of an oatmeal creme pie. But, where do we draw the line on the attack on fat? Should these campaigns even exist? There is inspiring people to be active… but insulting them is possibly going too far.

I would love some feedback, sorry if I got a little rambly, I’m in a hurry… I look forward to hearing from you!