MadScam

iPad mania. Is Pope Jobs fallible?

2010-01-29T23:00:00Z

By now, unless you’ve been living in a cave somewhere for the last six months, you’ve probably had it up to the eyeballs with all the Apple iPad b*llsh*t, I know I have. So when it was finally revealed by Pope Jobs on Wednesday, it was actually a bit of an anti-climax. Oh yes, the Apple Freaks will all buy at least six for themselves, and go on and on about how cool it is ‘till they make your eyes bleed.

The trades and the IT press aren’t quite so convinced, with just a few of the usual hacks wetting themselves with excitement, while a surprising number are less than thrilled. Even the response to Steve’s on-stage demo was somewhat muted. Quite a change from previous years, when I have attended these shindigs at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, and actually worried that several members of the audience had reached such a frenzy of excitement and adulation, they were in imminent danger of popping their clogs. Not so on Wednesday.

Perhaps the best summation of what the heck it’s all about is in yet another of those YouTube Hitler rants using footage from that great movie “Downfall.” The latest, Hitlerrantsparody is brilliant. When Hitler is told that amongst other things the iPad doesn’t support multitasking, only runs one app at a time, and is on the world’s worst network, AT&T, he freaks… Well who wouldn’t? He even says… “It sounds like a fu*k*ng tampon!” Ha, then ends the video with… “I may as well wait for the HP Slate now.” brilliant.

U.S. Political advertising – The nightmare begins?

2010-01-10T23:00:00Z

Anyone who’s spent any time in the US during election season knows that you must be prepared to be bombarded with non-stop ads for candidates seeking thousands of offices ranging from Senator to dog catcher. Years ago, when I first came to America, the election season would be measured in months, whereas now it is virtually non-stop.

But, you ain’t seen nothing yet… On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will hear Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205. What this means is that they may overturn laws that have existed since 1907 prohibiting the funding of state, congressional and presidential campaigns by business and unions.

Which could mean coming soon to your TV screen: election-season Super Bowl-style ads promoting congressional and presidential candidates, paid for by some of the nation's largest corporations. And we’re talking billions of dollars here.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and others with very, very deep pockets contend they have a right to be involved in elections. Arguing that current spending and disclosure rules unfairly deprive voters of ads, threatening "the First Amendment rights of willing listeners." Claiming that requiring disclosure of donors for political ads inhibits companies from contributing.

I don’t know about the willing bit, but if these people get their way, I shall set fire to my television. It will be a nightmare, and in my estimation, will only serve to alienate the vast majority of the people they target.

Lemonade… The Must-See Movie!

2010-01-06T03:01:00Z

Here in the US, AdAge has just put out its “Annual 2010” issue, which gives all kinds of boring stats about the current pathetic state of the ad biz in America. However, the one that really stands out is the number 187,500… because that’s how many people in advertising and media have lost their jobs since December 2007, with employment down almost 20% since the dot com bubble burst. As one of the chief bugle blowers for the US industry, even AdAge admits “some” jobs aren’t coming back. Personally, I think the word “most” is more apt.

I just did a review on AdScam of a documentary film by the name of “Lemonade” Put together by Erik Proulx, an ex-Arnold writer, it’s a thirty minute piece about 16 ad people who were laid of by various agencies, who then set about turning their lives around, including one who stopped being a man and became a woman! A couple of w*an*ke*rs even decided to open an ad agency, which goes to prove some people are committed masochists.

Anyway, go to the Lemonade Web site and download the film. Definitely worth a watch. Then check out Erik’s blog, Please Feed the Animals It’s a place anyone laid off can rant and rave (bit like AdScam without the cursing) There are lots of interesting stories there that apply equally to the current situation on both sides of the pond.

The only sad part about Lemonade is that the sixteen people covered in the film have done OK… But there are still tens of thousands out there who are scr*ew*ed!

Facebook does it again!

2009-12-17T22:46:00Z

For a company as successful as FaceBook, I find it amazing just how clumsy, if not downright stupid they are when it comes to the matter of privacy. It seems like every other week, they make some dumb arsed announcement about how they are making members personal information available to everyone from third-party application developers that create games, contests, and other programs for Facebook, to some guy selling crack on the local street corner.

But then again, if you consider that sometime within the next hundreds years, they’ll have to justify their gazillion dollar evaluation, this is the only way they’re going to make the big bucks.

Word today that a group that advocates Internet privacy has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over Facebook's decision to open more of its members' information to public view unless they actively take steps to limit their data's exposure. i.e. They have to opt out.

The problem seems to be, opting out is as difficult as cancelling your account. These guys seem to think that once they have you, they have you. The biggest complaint about the new changes is that the default privacy setting on Facebook now opens users' status updates to the entire Web, unless the user proactively takes steps to modify the settings. And doing that isn’t easy.

It would appear that this whole privacy question seems to be getting worse with FaceBook, and as I have written many times in the past, when users start getting uneasy about the sites use of their personal information and the way it is made available to virtually anyone, there’s always another social network waiting in the wings… Just ask MySpace.

Murdoch makes waves. Microsoft provides paddle. Google sails into the sunset!

2009-11-26T18:10:00Z

With all the talk and media hype about the Wizened of Oz (Rupert Murdoch) deciding to put Google out of business and throw in his lot with the Borg of Bing (Microsoft), particularly as rumors abound that MS will pay the Dirty Digger dumpster loads of cash to block Google from indexing his news sites, you have to wonder how many pundits have actually thought this scenario through.

For a start, newspapers continue to demonstrate they have piss poor understanding of how Google works or of the many options they have for dealing with the 800 pound search gorilla. One of these is the “First Click Free” program, which allows them to have both a paywall and the traffic sent by Google.

As Google News exec Josh Cohen explains how it works: “If a publisher understands that quality, original content does best and therefore tries to create more, great. But there is still a lot of discussions taking place such as… ‘I have to make this content free or Google won’t index it,’ and that’s not the case. “First Click Free is only one example of the ways that publishers can make subscription content available. They can do previews, they can block it in different ways. I think there are a lot of those questions about the nuts and bolts of how you can work with us, subscriptions just being one of them.”

The funniest bit is that none of this addresses the “leaky back door” issue, whereby smart arsed users, like me, know all you have to do is copy the headline and paste it into Google Search and get the entire article placed behind the paywall for free.

Personally, I don’t think any of this *** will take place. It’s just a giant smokescreen from Murdoch, who has been known to do this kind of thing in the past. Threatening the search giant with the software giant to encourage some kind of financial deal, might just put a bigger smile on Wendy’s face when the Diggers will is finally read!

Eat your chips, or you’ll never get big and fat when you grow up!

2009-11-17T23:49:00Z

Unlike the UK, which has pretty strict guidelines on advertising junk food to kids, If you ever wondered why so many young Americans are spotty, overweight, and just generally a pain in the arse... Listen up... We are to blame. And no, I'm not talking about us as parents (well, maybe to a certain extent) I'm talking about the "Us" in the ad biz. Did you know that here in the US, food companies spent nearly two billion dollars to market products to children and teens in 2007. Of which nearly half was targeted to children under 12.

Makers of fizzy drinks spent the most on marketing to children and teenagers, followed by fast-food restaurants and producers of breakfast cereals. And the major advertising platform was television. Tons of television, particularly in the cartoon shows aimed at the really young.

McDonalds gives high schools report card holders that offer free burgers and chips to kids who get good grades. And the corridors of virtually every high school are lined with vending machines for everything from Coke to pork rinds.

As I write in the chapter devoted to advertising to kids in my last book, The Ubiquitous Persuaders, two years ago, the junk food makers agreed to regulate themselves, which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Since it was was formed in 2006 to fend off government regulation, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative run by the Council of Better Business Bureaus, has done virtually bugger all, in spite of its pledge either to stop aiming ads at children or to promote only what the council calls “better-for-you products” in ads directed at children.

Still, what can you expect from a country that once claimed (when Reagan was President) that ketchup was one of the essential foods groups necessary in a school lunch, and where in some states nearly half the population is obese… Not overweight… Obese. Although I hear it’s happening over there as well. Bloody advertising!

The social networking circle-jerk!

2009-11-04T12:45:00Z

Readers of my US blog, AdScam, where informed yesterday that I have given up on Twitter. Why? Because in the last few days, I have had dozens of emails from very pissed off people asking why I am bombarding them with shitty emails flogging everything from insurance to condoms. Obviously someone has hacked my account. Just as someone phished my Facebook account FIVE times a few weeks ago. That’s whey I am no longer on Facebook.

Ah, you might say, but there are steps you can take, like changing your password and blocking certain url’s and IP addresses… But why the f**k should I? It's too much like hard work for little return. As someone commenting on AdScam puts it so well…

I completely understand George, if you really look at it.. this is what happens. To all of us. 1 - you get pushed to blog 2 - you get pushed to twitter 3 - you get pushed to Facebook 4 - you get pushed to LinkedIn 5 - you get pushed to digg 6 - you get pushed to YouTube 7 - you get pushed back to your blog. At the end of the day you run around to 2000 social media sites and what did you accomplish... you talked to the same people you would if you only stuck to your blog. because like all of us, we all are cycling to each of them... I read your blog.. then check my twitter feed and see snippets of what I just read. You know... the more I think about it.. the more I think George might be right.. it's a massive circle jerk.

I think you will see an increasing number of people beginning to question the time we are spending churning out so much useless crap. We are not all Steven Fry's. So from now on if you want to read my pearls of wisdom, you’ll have to settle for AdScam, MadScam and psfk.

Your bank really, truly, madly, wants to make you happy!

2009-10-27T16:00:00Z

My last couple of posts have been about US health care and drug advertising, a huge cash cow for American agencies, and one that seems to be completely out of control as far as any kind of meaningful regulatory action is concerned.

The other sector of the American economy that has obviously been taking a lot of flak over the last year has been the banking and financial industry. With the massive bailout many of the banks have recently received, whilst continuing to pay top executives billions of dollars in bonuses, you would think they would at least have some kind of coherent communications strategy that did a couple of things. Admit they screwed up, big time. Thank the taxpayers for their money. And above all, promise never to *** things up again.

So, you have to laugh when you look at the new Bank of America campaign that’s just been launched to the tune of $40 million. In the words of a bank spokes-hack… We are using a series of spots with “simple, clear and direct” messaging to repair our relationship with consumers. They could start off by lowering their outrageous interest rates and banking fees. But no, these epics are all about how easy it is to buy *** you don’t need with your debit card, and how you can win useless rewards by spending more.

According to another spokes-hack, this one for the American Bankers Association… BofA’s move is indicative of a turning point in the recession. “There is still a lot of turbulence going on, and I don’t think it’s over yet. But they’re cuing in on some kind of consumer confidence and optimism that says, ‘Let’s get back to where things where.” Exactly what bloody consumer confidence and optimism would that be then?

It’s just another example of the disconnect continually demonstrated by both clients and their agencies (In this case BBDO) to their audience. All these bozos want is to simply get back to things “the way they were.”

Gentlemen… Things will never again be the way they were. Particularly for the ad biz.

More on US Health Care!

2009-10-22T15:51:00Z

One of the comments on my last post implied that people who work in advertising shouldn’t be too fussy when it comes to deciding whether or not they wanted to work on certain kinds of accounts… ‘Cos they pay your wages! This drove to write a comment in reply, which I then decided to turn into a post… Here it is…

@media village...
Does this mean you would like to see the return of cigarette advertising? I mean if it's all about holding down a job and paying the bills you may as well advertise everything with no restrictions. How about porn, snuff films, gladiator fights to the death, booze for tots?

The point is that right now in the US, as I am sure you know, there is a whole flap about reforming health care, which costs lots more than any other civilized country and delivers some of the worse results. In fact for 47 million with no insurance, it delivers no results. Standing right next to the insurance companies in this fiasco are the drug companies. And right next to them are the agencies, who have made hundreds of millions in the last few years.

As ad agencies we are tasked with encouraging consumers to demand very expensive branded products, when generics for a tenth of the price are just as good. And in a great many cases an aspirin would probably do as much good. I go into this in great detail in The Ubiquitous Persuaders. For some reason Amazon isn’t offering this in the UK… But, as it’s available on Kindle, come January, you’ll be able to get it on your iPhone… And because I am a prince. If anyone wants to read more, I’ll see if Gordon wants to run that health care chapter on BrandRepublic.

Hooked on Drugs!

2009-10-22T03:05:00Z

For many years Madison Avenue pigged out at the trough of tobacco advertising. Back in the Mad Men days, cigarettes, booze and car accounts paid for many a Westchester mansion, country club fees and the odd boat or two. But with the ever tightening restrictions on tobacco and booze advertising things started to get a littel tougher. Then along came drugs… No, not the stuff you shove up your nose, the kinds your doctor prescribes for you.

And the good times were back… With a vengeance. Billions of dollars are now spent on DTC (Direct to Consumer) campaigns in an effort to make American Consumers bug the *** out of their doctors to get them to prescribe outrageously expensive medicines, often for ailments that don’t actually exist, such as “Restless Leg Syndrome” or “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.”

No other country in the world allows this kind of advertising, and Madison Avenue laps it up. But perhaps not for much longer. Legislation has been introduced in the US Senate to eliminate the federal tax deduction on advertising for prescription-drugs. This could affect marketing budgets to the tune of millions, and as I say in the chapter devoted to health care advertising in my latest opus… The Ubiquitous Persuaders, US drug companies spend three times as much on marketing as they do on research and development.

I am sure, however, that the legislation will probably go nowhere. When the armies of drug company lobbyists flex their muscles and the senators are reminded that their re-election war chests might not be so full if they even think about voting for this bill, I’m sure in time honored tradition, it will languish in committee and eventually be forgotten.

There’s much more on this in The Ubiquitous Persuaders. Buy it for crying out loud.

Is George Parker too big to fail?

2009-10-16T14:26:00Z

Why am I not jumping up and down with joy when I read that Multi-zillionaire, Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chief Executive douchenozzle reported a 27% increase in profit in the third quarter, signaling what he referred to as the beginning of a recovery in the search-advertising market. He was also emphatic when stating that the worst of the economic downturn is over.

This on the same day that America’s biggest bank reports huge losses (no doubt requiring more of my tax dollars, cos it’s too bloody big to fail… Mmmm, as they happen to hold the mortgage on my house, I wonder if they’d help me out in the same way… Fat chance!) Also, GE reported quarterly financials that beat analysts expectations, even though profits fell 42% and revenue was down 20%… Which makes you wonder about these so called analysts.

Anyway, the point of this rant, isn’t necessarily political (Well, just a bit.) It’s that we have arrived at a situation where major corporations are underpinned their profitability by massive cost cutting and restructuring… Or in plain English, laying thousands of workers off. Ergo… No work… No money… No buying stuff… No advertising.

I don’t care how many times multi-billionaire CEO’s of advertising and marketing mega-companies tell us we have turned the corner with the light at the end of the tunnel showing us the green shoots… It’s bulls*h*i*t.

In the meantime, as my mortgage is too big to fail, please send donations to the George Parker Benevolent Fund. Ta very much!

President Sarkozy dans le mer*d!!!

2009-10-12T03:45:00Z

In the truth is stranger than fiction dept, French satirical investigative journalism weekly “Le Canard Enchaîné,“ has outed holier-than-thou French president, Nicolas Sarkozy for violating copyright laws.

In a stunning display of hypocrisy, the presidential department of audiovisual services produced 400 unauthorized copies of the 52 minutes documentary “A visage découvert : Nicolas Sarkozy“. This while President Sarkozy, just happens to be the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged copyright pirate after three allegations of infringement.

This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay €30K for using a song at a political rally without authorization. If he were subject to his own law, which is in effect a three strikes and you’re out provision, President Sarkozy would be having his Internet disconnected the next time he pirates something.

I wonder if Carla has checked her CD collection recently?

There’s now't so barmy as politics!

2009-10-04T15:53:00Z

I was a bit gob smacked to read that Tony Blair is likely to be the next head of the European Union… A job that The Times says, no one wants him for. Which means he’ll probably get it. Over here in America, they love him. That’s why Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, rather than JK Rowling, ‘cos Tony doesn’t go in for witchcraft. Mmm, I wouldn’t be too sure about that.

Anyway, the funniest bit was this… Meanwhile, Blair is said by some to have had some reservations about the presidency post, chief among them that he would earn less money than he does now giving speeches and other private work, and that the job would involve a lot of bureaucratic grind. But he would still earn about £250,000 a year with generous EU tax allowances, have a staff of at least 20 and a splendid Brussels residence.

Excuse me, but isn’t he rather busy at the moment bringing peace to the middle East from his permanent suite in the King David Hotel? And what about his two million pound a year job as an adviser to J.P.Morgan?

As described in The Telegraph at the time… Sources close to the bank said Mr. Blair would not need to have an office on Wall Street as he would be called upon "as needed" - and would give much of his advice over the telephone. He might occasionally attend a board meeting or go on visits to parts of the world where the bank had major interests.

Wow, sounds like being on the board of one of the agency holding companies!

Take your Olympics and shove it!

2009-10-03T20:06:00Z

Everyone over here is shocked that the International Olympic Committee had the unmitigated cheek to award the 2016 Olympics to Rio, rather than Chicago. Rubbing salt in the wound by eliminating Chicago in the very first round of voting. Wankers!

But, I’ll make you a bet right now that most Chicagoans are breathing a great big sigh of relief. ‘Cos based on just about every other host city, the citizens end up paying for it for years after the event has been forgotten. From what I’ve read, the costs for London to host the 2012 Olympics have already tripled, and we’re still three years away from the opening ceremony! Your children’s children will be paying for this long after you’ve gone to that big agency in the sky. Montreal’s 1976 Olympics left the city with $2.7 billion of debt that it finally paid off in 2005. That's almost thirty years.

Why cities want this dubious honor is beyond me. The whole thing has grown into a travesty of the Baron’s original dream. It is now a commercial, nationalist, jingoistic joke, stuffed with all kinds of events that are merely a vehicle to sell more swoosh emblazoned junk to kids who can’t afford it.

Make it all amateur again (are there any left?) And cut out all the sponsors. But, you say, then the host cities wouldn’t be able to afford to build all the different venues… Exactly. So you go back to the original events, running, jumping, throwing a big rock, and naked men wrestling. And you do it on the sports field of the local secondary modern. You make a profit selling tea and renting deck chairs.

Oh, and you can Tweet about it!

I just need $100 million to start this new social network. Trust me, it’s going to be worth billions!

2009-09-29T21:29:00Z

Did you happen to read the amazing interview in Monday’s Wall Street Journal with Jeff Horing, co-founder of Insight Venture Partners, a New York private-equity firm that was the lead investor in Twitter’s third and latest fund-raising round?

These are the geezers who just pumped in $100 million in funding to the 140 character wunderkindt, to give it a valuation of over ONE BILLION F******G DOLLARS. This for a company that to date, generates not one penny in revenue.

When asked about this amazing number, Horing said… “When we modeled it, we were looking at revenue somewhere between Google and Facebook. Google monetizes at $30 a user and Facebook is about $2 a user. If you look at Twitter’s user community and make some fairly conservative assumptions about revenue, we thought you could make a healthy exit at a multiple of a $1 billion.”

Hey, pardon me, but based on the Google and Facebook numbers, and the fact the Twitter's founders have made no bones about how at this stage, they don’t have a bloody clue how they’re going to start making money… For this guy to claim they are making conservative assumptions about revenue, smacks of either pig-headed bravado, or pig headed stupidity.

Remember, it was just three short years ago that Rupert Murdoch paid over half a billion dollars for MySpace, and all the pundit's said it was a steal? Now after massive layoffs, it’s leaking money like a sieve, and in all the happy chat about social media, it hardly ever gets mentioned.

In the Social-Sphere, three years is an eternity.

Something smells like Boo.Com to me.