Vox

New Pet

I just met Melvin over at Paul Valach's site Since we are still in a bit of disarray, and unlikely to get a puppy anytime soon, FooPets seemed like a fun substitute. So, meet Dexter (yes, I love that show)

UPDATE: It appears they may want actual money to buy virtual food & water, so I might have to fing Dex a good home - or send her off to live on a farm. Still figuring it out so we'll see.

The Great Pumpkin

Another bad ad that has been bothering me lately - Drew Barrymore for Cover Girl.

Why, when advertsing foundation make-up, would you allow your star's skin be orange & blotchy? I actually like Drew Barrymore, but she looks AWFUL in those commercials - hardly makes a girl want to buy the product.

What in the World?

I am not nearly funny enough to come up with anything to say about this.

Muslims outraged over puppy ad

Maybe someone in the Exurbs can come up with something.....

UPDATE: Good comment on the story

Wait a minute. Has the country gone barking mad? This advert was produced by a British police force for British people. The British are a nation of animal lovers. How can this possibly be offensive?

- Jan (British), South Africa, 01/7/2008 12:59

I'd say they've gone beyond Barking, to at least Becontree.

Rachel Lucas "Yes. Someone in an official capacity APOLOGIZED for this, in a Western, supposedly Christian country. Beautiful. Way to keep the pain coming, morons"

The Coffee, The Cook and The Wardrobe

Do I (or anyone I know) think that Dunkin' Donuts or Rachael Ray are anti-semitic and/or terrorist sympathizers? No. Obviously.
**********************************
Humans are programmed to respond to symbolism.

From the earliest times we have used symbols to indicate ownership, allegiance, status... The earliest languages were symbolic rather than the letter-based forms we most often use today.

In Medieval times, heraldry allowed the use of symbols to convey not just what tribe/clan/family you belonged to, but what that group stood for. Countries adopted flags, perhaps the most powerful symbols known.

Other symbols were not created for their current purpose, but commandeered. The most common one referenced is the Swastika which originated as an ancient religious symbol (apparently used by Buddhists, Hindus, Celts, Greeks...), but was so successfully 'owned' by Hitler and his Nazi party, it is no longer used in it's more peaceful form. Take also the rainbow. A pretty little symbol, historically associated by Christians with "God's promise" and by everyone else with the end of precipitation. Nowadays it symbolizes homosexuality. In fact, I had a rainbow colored lei hanging from my rearview mirror (I loved the colors, and it made me think of summer) but I grew so tired of explaining that, "no, I'm, not gay, but thanks for the interest" that I took it down.

Marketing agencies spend billions of dollars every year hammering symbols into our brains. Some are wildly successful - Apple, Nike, McDonald's, NBC, Shell.... You know instantly what company goes with which logo, no words needed.

Now the issue at hand - Dunkin' Donuts, Rachel Ray and THAT scarf.

Why would a marketing company, clearly a business well aware of the power of symbols, not notice the potential PR misstep they were making?

Other companies have made the same error; e.g. Intel and their sprinters ad, Starbucks with the towers... In the case of Intel, it is easy to see why it was pulled - hard to imagine a time or a context where it would not be considered offensive. In the case of Starbucks, the imagery is much more subtle, but in the time immediately following 9/11, in the city that suffered the biggest loss, it is easy to see how it would cause offense, or at least heartache.

The bottom line for me is: Dunkin Donuts should have known better, it is their brand to protect. Rachel Ray should have known better. The advertising company should DEFINITELY have known better. The kaffiyeh associated with Fatah, Hamas and other murderous thugs is black & white or red & white. It isn't ANY kaffiyeh, but a very specific color combo which they commandeered. Though the scarf Ray was wearing was a paisley print, it still read as a black & white kaffiyeh - and it still raised concerns in many of the people who saw it.

That kaffiyeh-ness lead to some calling for a boycott of Dunkin' Donuts based on the impression of callousness in the face of the Iraq war and ongoing terrorist threat. A definite over-reaction.

When the ad was pulled, it resulted in calls for a boycott of Dunkin' Donuts based on their caving in to the pressure. A definite over-reaction.

It's been said that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but no good seems to have come to them from this - and it seems odd they didn't foresee it.

This isn't about Rachel Ray making a fashion choice in her normal life. If I saw her wearing it on the street, I doubt I'd have batted an eye.
It certainly isn't about whether or not college students & hipsters wear kaffiyehs, people have proven idiotic in their offensive fashion choices throughout history. (and the fact that rappers and athletes throw the word "nigger" around, doesn't make it less offensive when Michael Richards says it on stage)
This isn't even about whether it was a kaffiyeh, whether it was a terrorist specific kaffiyeh, or whether there is even such a thing.

It is about whether a company that works hard to project and protect a brand (or brands in the case of the ad agency) should have known they were featuring an offensive symbol in one of their ads. The answer is yes, clearly.

*********************************************
Another issue that this raises, however, is the lack of humor on the left. The original ExLg post regarding this was funny - and incredibly, blatantly sarcastic (particularly in light of the fact that ExLg is often incredibly, blatantly sarcastic) The humor was, as usual, lost on those who disagree.

Pending

Just heard that someone managed to steal the Lifelock guy's identity (you know, the guy who puts his social security number out there and dares people to try and take it)

Someone did. Now several Lifelock users are suing him for false advertising.

Details as they become available. Story here

Missed It By That Much

I was in a Washington Mutual branch today and noticed that they are offering an 8 month CD with a 4.00% APY - with a $1,000.00 minimum and early withdrawal penalties. Not too bad, except...

ING is advertising in Kiplingers for a savings account with a 4.10% APY - no minimum, and easy access to your funds with no penalty. Oh, and they throw in a $25 bonus when you sign up.

Hmmmm......

Gross Out Advertising

I've been seeing a new Carl's Jr ad lately, I think the product was a chili cheese burger. The script has a girl telling her companion he has a little something on his face. When he asks, "Here?", she replies. "More in this area". Then they show him as he asks, "Did I get it?"

And it looks like he has thrown up all over himself.

Were they hoping to make potential customers lose their appetite? Because I sure did.

Why People Hate Lawyers

After the murders at Virginia Tech,

At least one legal advertiser has bought Google AdSense words in quest of victim families.

Via Overlawyered

Oh, That'll Fix It

The bureaucrats in our local government have decided to tackle the need for affordable housing in Phoenix. And, in the proven method of campaigns past they are spending the money on...advertising.

Look for posters and billboards around the city that feature the slogan, "Meet another member of our community who needs an affordable place to live."

I'm sure many people will see that message and ...? What? What response are they hoping for? Perhaps they are trying to capture hearts and minds, so when they increase spending for actual housing projects the taxpayers will buy it?

Just another waste of tax dollars in a misguided attempt to help - in a way that offers no help or change whatsoever.