While I’d prefer to come up with these on my own, I’m afraid that I would be the one who’s hard of hearing if I didn’t pick a recent Pepsi ad for G2 (low-calorie Gatorade) as the tone-deaf ad of the week.
You can see what Pepsi was trying to do almost immediately, but BLAM: this thing has really come back around and smacked them in the head. This means Pepsi now have something in common with AIG – but I’ll get to that later.
The spot switches back and forth between NBA player Kevin Barnett and a normal, suburban-looking guy – also named Kevin – swimming like crazy. The voiceover also switches back and forth and herein lies the problem. In trying to write a standard “athletic striving” ad, they get seriously tangled in a lot of language that many are considering cruel and insulting to people who have lost their jobs and are otherwise suffering because of the economic crisis. See for yourself (if you can’t see the ad already, click HERE)
When I first heard about this controversy, I really, really wanted to support Pepsi. Then I saw the ad, and that became impossible.
The lines hurtle between insensitivity and cruelty:
Garnett: “I’ve never been handed a pink slip and “I’ve never had to tell me wife ‘We can’t make the mortgage.’” (Kevin “The Big Ticket” Garnett has a $24.75 million NBA contract)
Normal Kevin: “I’ve never had to fill the holes in my sneakers with cardboard.”
That last one IMHO is the most offensive of all. Normal Kevin appears to be taking us past unemployment and foreclosure straight on to visions of being homeless in the park.
The tragedy here is this was completely unnecessary. The financial services companies got into trouble for how they handled their (financial services) business! Gatorade just runs right into a buzz saw for no reason at all.
And so, let me wrap up a Friday by coming back to how Pepsi is now an AIG comrade. Both companies have fundamentally failed to grasp how people are feeling today… how many people are suffering. 1.3 million children in the United States were homeless at some point in one year – and that was before the recession started. I would assume that many of those children have had to use cardboard to plug the holes in their shoes.
If you think I am overdramatizing, I would respectfully suggest that you could make a mistake not dissimilar to the ones made by Pepsi and the banks, either while on the job or at a cocktail party. This is vast, vast pain.
I am counseling clients today to look hard at the need to advertise. If you are running ads, make sure they are seen and tested with a much broader swath of consumers and experts – ones who may not be in your target audience.
Is all this fair? NO ONE CARES. We are all in the business to sell, of course, but think long-term. If you’re not 100% secure in next week’s flight, cancel it. Because getting this wrong could negatively affect your brand’s reputation for years, if not a lifetime.
I realize that I’ve taken up a semi-habit of posting something goofy on Fridays… and there is definitely something goofy about McDonald’s new Filet-O-Fish ad.
Have you seen it? If not – and you don’t see a video box in this post - click HERE. There’s just something mesmerizing about it - hypnotic almost, as the fish turns and sings “Gimme back that Filet-O-Fish, gimme that Fish!” in a weird voice. And a lot of people seem to agree with me, given that the ad’s been viewed on YouTube more than 300,000 in less than two weeks! DJs are remixing the song in clubs, and fans are using it as a ringtone.
Most marketers will appreciate the business reasoning: the ad developed from the challenge of producing a spot that could be used in both English and Spanish, minus the idiosyncrasies in dialogue that have plagued many an advertiser in the past. Singing fish turns, dub in any voice and dialogue you wish, and it’s spot-on everywhere.
It’s been nearly 18 months since I interviewed the marketing and communications brains behind the highly successful tap water effort, Tappening. Man, time flies when people are out saving the planet!
I also covered Tappening’s first ad campaign right HERE, which took iconic imagery and – without being too heavy-handed – delivered a hard message about the global impact of bottled water.
Mark Dimassimo and Eric Yaverbaum created Tappening as a fun and meaningful consumer movement to sensitize everyone to the financial and societal costs of bottled water and to “make tap water cool again.” Since then, the effort has gone so public, and reached so many fans, that not only are average people making fan videos on YouTube but the effort was recently the cover story of Brilliant Resultsmagazine. To see a pdf of the cover and the full story, click HERE.
Keep up with Tappening: it’s not only a model for how to create a messaging phenom from nothing – drinking tap water is a quick and easy step you can take to help preserve our world and save money.
Skittles’ foray into the social media universe had the marketing blogosphere and Twitterverse on overdrive week.
On Tuesday, Mars replaced the candy’s “normal” website with a live feed from Twitter.com of tweets that mentioned Skittles. If you click HERE, you’ll get a current snapshot of what that site might have looked like several days ago when this experiment first began, but things have calmed down dramatically since then. When I took a look at the feed on that first day, there were tweets full of curse words, comments such as “I found a finger in my bag of Skittles,” “Skittles are made from dead animals,” “Skittles gives you cancer and kills babies,” “Eating Skittles will kill your parents” and so on.
In other words, the idea that anything in a tweet would instantly appear at skittles.com brought adults out of the woodwork to see just how outrageous and inappropriate they could be before Skittles changed strategy. Alas, all these tweets did appear on the site, and it was child’s play (pardon the pun) to get around the site’s age verification tool in order to see every word.
That’s just dumb – and dangerous. If one 8-year old had done something awful as a result of viewing some sort of silly fake directive as to what to do with Skittles… Mars would have had an enormous and entirely self-provoked communications disaster on its hands.
So while many marketers labeled Skittles’ experiment as bold and exciting, I stand with a minority who is not with the “lemmings” on this one. The site started as a confusing mish-mash of wildly unacceptable language attached to a candy, and has since evolved into the most boring site in the category.
Social media is not an end in itself. No tactic ever is. Advertising’s goal is to create goodwill and sales among a product’s target market. Will this effort do that? No. And did the stunt bring non-buyers out in droves? You bet.
While Mars (or its ad agency) may certainly win some wacky 2009 social media award when all is said and done, look for the company to announce that this “successful experiment” has come to an end, and that it is returning to a more standard interactive (and managed) site. It couldn’t happen soon enough. Skittles Skittles_Twitter
One of the mini-economies that is thriving in New York City is healthcare/pharma ad agencies. Always have, always will. You can imagine the regulatory knowledge, the stamina, the patience, the detail that must go into such work – or I can, at least.
Case in point… Bristol Myers Squibb recently pulled the ad on the right (if you cannot see the ad, click HERE. The ad was part of a print campaign that suggested HIV/AIDS patients “ask your doctor” about drugs that may have a lower incidence of diarrhea (a common side effect of certain drugs). The ad was yanked under pressure from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest non-profit HIV/AIDS organization in the US.
And while declaring the ad ”a blatant attempt to scare and mislead patients and… intimidate patients into switching to BMS’ own HIV/AIDS drugs,” the AHF is driving the point home with its own new parody ad, which it called a “public service announcement.” The parody uses a similar image, with the words, “We don’t give a crap how you live as long as you buy our drug!” scrawled across the toilet.
The AHF says it sent a letter to BMS’s CEO last August asking the company to stop running “these types of advertisements,” but received no response.
As a total outsider, I can see that the ad clearly leverages fear to make its point. But what are a drug company’s options?
A bit of research reveals that, in 2005, the AHF asked BMS to pull a campaign that the foundation claimed wasn’t serious enough: ads, the AHF claimed, that underplayed the risks of HIV. A BMS ad showing two men playing backgammon on a beach under a headline of ”The Word on HIV: Fight HIV Your Way” was faulted as delivering the message that ”‘I don’t have to be that careful about getting HIV because I can go to the beach and pop pills.”
Let me be clear here: (a) it’s a drug company’s job to get these messages right, and (b) they make millions of dollars on the sales of these drugs each and every year.
But in a business that is all about life or death, about pain and caring and emotion, one could see how it might be difficult to balance all the messages required in a way that could satisfy all parties involved. Bristol_Myers_Squibb drug_advertising pharmaceutical_advertising
Well, this is pretty amusing. Dick Fuld and his wife are flying JetBlue, and their fumbling at a self-serve kiosk in Florida last month has triggered some timely and clever work from the airline and its agency, JWT Partners.
“Welcome Bigwigs” not only invites former masters of the universe to “jet” with JetBlue anytime, it also offers some handy advice about how to fly – SHUDDER – commercial. Click on the image to the left to see one of the ads.
Next up in the campaign: instructional videos for confused titans who must learn to share armrests, eat teeny tiny bags of peanuts and stand in line for the most skeevy restroom experience of their lives.
“Executives haven’t thought of JetBlue as viable for businesses and that’s wrong, because you can watch CNBC and CNN all the way to the destination,” says JWT’s Kristen Lenz. Is that tongue in cheek? If not, the ads serve up a hearty helping of satire and mock sympathy, cooing “Nobody will blame you if you just want to watch kittens on Animal Planet.”
This extension of JetBlue’s “Happy Jetting” theme does a nice job tapping into the current public zeitgeist, without going overboard one way or the other. It’ll be interesting to follow the campaign and see how it performs. JetBlue Dick_Fuld Welcome_Bigwigs JWT_Partners Lehman_Brothers
Anyone who knows me has probably accused me of burying the lede at some point. More than once. Whether it’s in writing or during a conversation, I will sometimes work up to the main point in a timeframe that’s somewhere between annoying and infuriating.
But compared to these guys, I’m practically a hit and run.
A blind email has been making the rounds, inviting its recipient to get a tan from the comfort of her own desk via ComputerTan. Only the agency, McCann-Erickson is mentioned in the email that delivers this clever video:
—–ComputerTan, the world’s first online tanning service, offers a deep, long-lasting tan from the convenience of your computer. ComputerTan’s revolutionary technology remotely manipulates the electrical impulses delivered to the Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps present in every computer monitor, which transmit different wavelengths of light, from Infra-Red to Ultra-Violet. ComputerTan can control the level, intensity and exposure times of this light according to a person’s skin profile and usage history.—–
The video and viral quality of the work is quite good. It’s a shame there’s no way to know who the client is unless you watch the entire video, go to the related website on your own, click around to “try” out the tanner yourself and then wait until a message comes up about the horrible effects of skin cancer. That is just waaay too long to wait. Too clever by half. And too bad, too, because when your screen actually begins looking like the inside of a tanning bed, you do wonder, if just for a split second…
A viewer on YouTube, Gutsy9, writes “This is a joke… right?”
I saw an interesting story today about Virgin America – a company infamous for its own tongue-in-cheek advertising approach – suing an ad industry blog for libel.
It seems that Adrants posted a parody ad showing a photograph of the US Airways Flight 1549 jet in the Hudson River along with Virgin’s name and mark, plus the message “Fly Virgin.” Here’s the ad:
The initial blog post, titled “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin,” provided a disclaimer that the ad’s origin was “suspect” but also mused that perhaps the ad was real given that Virgin had “turned ugly situations to its advantage before.”
While Adrants updated its original post to point out that the ad was a spoof (and removed it altogether after 3 days), Virgin went ahead and filed a complaint in a California district court claiming, among other things, ”trademark infringement, deceptive advertising and defamation.” The outrage! How dare you take advantage of such a horrible event… we would never do that. We are forever damaged! GAH!”
Most experts believe that Virgin is on thin ice (pardon the pun) given that the medium (in this case, Adrants) is commonly known to report “news” with a certain irreverence, therefore making it highly unlikely that a blog reader would be confused into believing that the ad was factual.
But is this even a real lawsuit or simply another “real” example of Virgin’s ability to spot and take advantage of a timely marketing opportunity? I vote for the latter.
Crazy kids! What do you bet this lawsuit will disappear altogether after Virgin has squeezed all the word-of-mouth mileage possible out of it?
Now don’t get too excited – I hope that this is the first in a weekly series presenting tone deaf ads, but we’ll have to see. Companies are scrambling so crazily trying to figure out what to say in this economy that I think the odds are in my favor, but the proof will be in the… tone deaf ads.
Let’s knock it out of the park this first week, at least, OK?
May I present to you… Bessemer Trust. Henry Phipps founded Bessemer over 100 years ago to manage his family’s proceeds from the sale of Carnegie Steel. Today, the firm’s website states that Bessemer manages in excess of $50B in assets for over 1,900 families, and that its “history of serving wealthy families affords us an understanding of the issues that matter to you.”
Really? Let’s review some of the issues that are, in fact, on everyone’s minds these days with regard to the financial markets: Economic meltdown. Uncertainty. Greed. Irresponsibility. Misrepresentation. Anxiety. This means that any financial firm today has a choice to make: either don’t advertise – which is a perfectly acceptable option for now - or advertise a message that is very, very carefully crafted to take these concerns into account.
So I was shocked when I saw Bessemer’s ad in The Wall Street Journal yesterday: a half-page ad with huge type, saying “We invest your money right along with ours. Needless to say, you benefit from some very careful thinking.”
My reaction: “They’re joking. Bessemer is an honorable and discreet company. Why would they get down in the mud with a bunch of other companies that followed this same practice and scr**ed over their investors?” Investing your own funds is no guarantee of anything – it’s not a guarantee of wealth, intelligence, integrity or the “alignment of interest” explained in Bessemer’s ad. Lots of categories currently in the hotseat invest their own funds: venture capital firms, investment banks, mortgage companies… Enron invested its own funds alongside clients, for goodness sake!
To make matters worse, the small type does actually call out some positive characteristics and benefits of being a Bessemer client “as the credit crisis loomed.” Unfortunately, I can guarantee that no one who saw this ad ever read the small type.
Does the firm have an executive tuned in to the American zeitgeist today? If not, they need one; if so, that person needs to get his hearing checked. This is truly a frustrating example of a company deliberately and needlessly putting itself in harm’s way.
I love the E*Trade baby and am so jazzed to see him back!
And not only will he be returing to the Super Bowl, but the company is wisely stretching its $3 million as far as it possibly can with a YouTube page, a Twitter account and a Facebook effort.
E*Trade says that its 2008 Super Bowl ads were viewed more than 5 million times online, and there were 5 million searches for the ads after the game. Social media tracker Collective Intellect also claimed that E*Trade’s spots produced the most positive social media sentiment of any game ads. Check it! Super_Bowl Super_Bowl_advertising ETrade ETrade_baby Super_Bowl
How long did you think I could go in 2009 without talking about Starbucks, hmmm? C’mon, I think 20+ days is pretty good.
The latest ragging I’m going to do is about Starbucks’ weird Obama-based feel-good advertising effort. WHAT does this message have to do with coffee… particularly Starbucks coffee?
“Starbucks and Hands On Network are supporting the President’s call for national service. From January 21-25, 2009, pledge 5 hours to the cause of your choice and Starbucks will salute you with a free Tall brewed coffee in participating U.S. Starbucks stores.” First of all, I think it’s hilarious that a twist on this message is that you need to work 5 hours to *afford* a small cup of Starbucks coffee. That’s priceless. Second, Starbucks is behaving as if its world has not changed. I’m not saying that a brand should give up its principles in a recession – not at all. What I am saying is that (a) consumers process information and behave differently in a down market (like dropping Starbucks in favor of cheaper coffee), and (b) they look at a brand’s behavior differently, as well. Anyone paying attention knows that Starbucks is closing stores and laying people off. It means nothing to me that you did a cute ad. I would much prefer to see you give the money you spent on this ad effort directly to Hands On Network. Or – better yet – lower your prices on Inauguration Day.
And if you wanted to let me know – because I am a loyal Starbucks customer, and exactly the kind of person you want to hold on to now – you could email me. You know where I am. Too bad I’ve never heard from you except when you want me to buy something. I see no indication that Starbucks has grasped its “new reality,” and predict further self-inflicted pain in its future. This company needs a brain transplant, and fast. Starbucks Hands_On_Network
The Financial Timesrecently ran an article claiming that social media networks are a threat to advertising agencies.
I can’t decide whether to respond with a “Duh” or simply say that social media is barely the tip of the iceberg re. the decline of ad agencies. I’m not even sure that social networks can see the iceberg – that’s how far downstream they are from the major problems of the agency community.
There is nothing unique about social media in that – to use it - an agency (or brand) needs to: (a) understand the audience, (b) how, when and why members of that audience have selected the medium in question, (c) what messaging would be most effective as a result, and (d) how to craft that message so that it specifically meets the expectations a user may consciously or unconsciously have in that specific environment (i.e., the same person will consume a message differently when it’s delivered by radio vs. Facebook).
The FT article is a bit of a “when you have a hammer…” situation: it’s written by the paper’s digital media correspondent and cites exactly one study on (only) social media.
If only agencies could fix all their problems by “getting” social media. Agencies are going to need to fundamentally alter their compensation, organization and recruiting models if they are going to pull even with brands forever changed by the economy, a more knowledgeable consumer and the information overload we all wade through every day.
It’s been a very odd few weeks in the fast food marketing business.
First, there’s Burger King’s effort to spread “ugly Americanism” around the globe with its odd “Whopper Virgins” campaign. “What happens if you take remote Chang Mai villagers who’ve never seen a burger, who don’t even have a word for burger, and ask them to compare Whopper versus Big Mac in the world’s purest taste test?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m doubtful that this campaign will shift any new business to Burger King – it may fuel the fanatics (and I’m not knocking the importance of retention) but I wonder if it’s enough to balance the heat the company has received as a result of the campaign. Early results already show that the campaign is putting off women, and positive chatter on the Web is dropping quickly. Barbara Lippert judging the work as “culturally tone deaf” was one of the nicer phrases critics have used.
Then yesterday, the Pizza Hut “anti-Main Street” (my phrase) ad debacle hit Twitter, care of Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus. Pizza Hut has created this odd viral campaign in which actors walk into mom-and-pop pizza shops and order pizza delivery – from Pizza Hut. So… in a recession, Pizza Hut puts out ads in which people order pizza that we all know is not as good as the product you can find in your own neighborhood, AND mocks/steals business from little restaurant owners just trying to make a living.
While it has not received much credit for it, Burger King actually did donate some money to the towns in which the Whopper Virgins ads, so the company wasn’t entirely tone deaf. The Pizza Huts ads are just, well, mean.
And lastly, there’s just not a whole lot to say about a Burger King body spray for men that smells like… meat. “Flame” offers “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.” Nah, I’m not going to take the bait (pardon the pun) – it’s just too easy.
So there you have it: a strange time in fast food land. Go offer some love (and cash) to your neighborhood diner today!Burger KingWhopper VirginsPizza HutIan SchaferDeep Focus
Earlier this month, I was alarmed to see a blogger label a pricing action taken by JetBlue as following “the battered wife customer service model.” While the author may claim to “lead a movement to inspire people to do things that inspire them,” I find little that could be inspiring about the thoughtless application of this phrase to the airline’s decision to charge for a pillow and blanket kit.
I sort of chalked this up to bad taste and moved on.
Then this week’s AdAge showed up with an article on the front page entitled “Brand vs. Brand: Attack Ads on the Rise.” Attack? The article asks whether it’s the tight economy, or the effective PC vs. Mac ads, or maybe the Presidential election that have “set the tone” for some “pretty aggressive” comparison ads. Except… there’s no there there. When you read the article, the ads discussed include the Pepsi Challenge, Dyson vs. Hoover and Time Warner vs. Verizon. None of these strike me as “attack” ads. I don’t think that anyone experiences the PC vs. Mac executions as “attack” ads. Even the head of branding at Dunkin Donuts, which is currently running ads taking direct aim at Starbucks, says that it’s important not to get nasty.
So what exactly is being “attacked?” Perhaps the publication’s own need to drive circulation and ad revenue (this is, after all, the same pub whose front page screamed about clients losing business due to the economy, while the inside featured a full page about agencies who employ their own bartenders), because there is nothing in the article itself to warrant its title.
Do marketers have any responsibility to use language that does not deliberately offend when discussing the average no-big-deal topic? I think we do: as marketers and as humans. The word “attack” may be appropriate in the title of an article about Obama supposedly consorting with terrorists, but it’s just gratuitous when applied to a taste test ad comparing Progresso to Campbell.
Everyone knows that social networking is today’s IT girl of marketing. Most people aren’t exactly sure why, but there you are. What’s given me a chuckle are networks tossed together on a very loose definition of “shared” interests. Facebook, ironically, may the best example of them all. While it’s the media darling, to be sure, and has a kagillion members (including yours truly), most of whom have little in common. So its cosmic customer growth has been great for news outlets, but not so wonderful for marketers who quickly discover the limitations of Facebook applications and the difficulty of uncovering and aggregating “like” people.
Enter Unilever and their ad agency, Bartle Bogle Hegarty who chose Kodiak, Alaska for its harsh physical conditions and promptly set up a storefront where they began giving away free bottles of a new Vaseline lotion, Clinical Therapy. From there, Vaseline representatives began asking visitors to pass the word and subsequent visitors had to name the townsperson who had referred them. In other words, they went hunting for a key influencer: a “tipping point person” whose advice people heeded and who could influence others to try a new product.
This is the way they found Petal Ruch, who tried the lotion when she read that the company was giving away samples.
Once she did, the company claims that she passed the product along to 1,000 town residents in only two weeks. The company set up a special website, www.prescribethenation.com, where visitors could see individuals who have tried the lotion and how many people they passed it on to. Unilever also spent several days filming documentary-like footage for the ad campaign, and site visitors can watch videos of each person talking about why they like the product.
This is an outstanding word-of-mouth effort that I hope wins some awards. The effort itself could not have been that expensive (no doubt the filming was the most costly element, not the consumer/storefront piece) and, most importantly, Unilever built a “social network” from the inside out: by finding a passionate advocate first, rather than building the network and hoping someone will pop out of it.
I just saw a Tide TV ad that compares the contents of other detergent brands to Tide. In a split-screen comparison, the voiceover says that other brands contain a lot more water and less of the elements that actually help clean your clothes. The curious part is the language the ad uses: other brands ”have very little cleaning ingredients” vs. Tide which “has much more cleaning ingredients.”
Does that strike anyone else as weird? “Very little ingredients” and “Much more ingredients?” With the plural subject “ingredients,” the correct adjective clause would also need to be plural, such as ”very few” and “many more.”
Hotels have prompted a couple of my rants lately – like HERE and HERE. Both of these posts posit that hotels seem to talk a lot about things that aren’t the things guests most care about.
Unfortunately, Extended Stay America has taken this trend to a new low.
The chain’s new advertising emphasizes the idea that you will be “so relaxed,” you’ll feel comfortable farting anytime you like. I’m sorry: should I have given you some sort of lead-in to that?? See for yourself:
Why, why, why?
It’s particularly funny to me that Bob Garfield thinks these ads won’t generate much awareness not because they’re disgusting, but because – assuming Extended Stay was going for gross – they didn’t go far enough! Ah, so tragic. And ironic.
Lesson: if you’re going to deliberately take it to the edge, make sure you push it all the way over. Extended Stay AmericaAdvertising AgeBob Garfield advertising
Westin’s current ad campaign promotes its hotels as veritable oases of renewal and inspiration. On everything from TV to print to outdoor, the ads beacon with beautiful imagery and the line “This is how it should feel.”
Since I stayed at a Westin recently – and the bathroom was dirty – the only thing I’m feeling is slightly annoyed and a little skeevy.
The latest execution I noticed is a print execution in Fortune. It’s a full-color ad showing nothing but rows of what looks like lettuce, growing in ripe, red soil, bathed in sunlight. Tell me again why my hotel stay is supposed to feel like rows of lettuce?
ChiefMarketer chose “Breathe” as the best 15-second TV promo because (the site was trying to be nice and) it’s the only one that comes anywhere close to presenting a consumer benefit. A soft-focus swirl transforms into the word “Breathe” on-screen, after which a text line informs the viewer that Westin is the first major hotel chain to go smoke-free. That is a long, long way from the way harangued travelers actually want to ”feel” which, for many, would be closer to hoping that the batteries in the TV remote work, the wireless Internet access is easy to use and the bedspread has been washed since the last Presidential election.
Part of my overall philosophy is that a brand must do what it is supposed to do, and do it well, before a consumer can give it emotional permission to venture into untested waters. If ”core” doesn’t come before ”quirky,” the latter will be met with indifference, at best, and frustration or even disgust, at worst.
Prior to the “This is how it should feel” mantra, Westin focused on the Heavenly Bed - remember that? It is actually a pretty great bed and – unlike lettuce - this message delivered on one of the core expectations of every hotel guest: a good night’s sleep. WestinStarwoodHeavenly Bed
I was trying to think of a clever title for this post, but I can’t. It’s just, well, it’s just gross! I’ve certainly flagged interesting ads in the past, but this may be the first that made me want to throw up.
Is that a category at Cannes?
I wonder if this will actually sell more rooms…
There is a blog at photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com, where folks send in photos that have clearly been butchered at the hands of a dangerous individual wielding Adobe Photoshop software, along with their own captions. It’s pretty funny.
Check it out. Here’s one – can you detect the missing body part?
“Summer Rayne Oakes (warning: stripper name) is that most mundane of species, a stunningly beautiful environmental scientist who helps injured kittens against the the decepticons, or something equally unlikely. Because of global warming she frequently has to take off her clothes, as shown here in Austria’s Weekend magazine. Her belly button is currently in Sweden accepting the Nobel prize for narcissism.” (Caption by Anna K copied from here.) ****
Tappening 
Mark_Dimassimo 
Ericho_PR 
Eric_Yaverbaum 
tap_water 
Dimassimo_Goldstein 
Skittles 
Skittles_Twitter 
Bristol_Myers_Squibb 
drug_advertising 
pharmaceutical_advertising 
JetBlue 
Dick_Fuld 
Welcome_Bigwigs 
JWT_Partners 
Lehman_Brothers 
Adrants
Virgin_America
Virgin_America_Adrants
Super_Bowl 
Super_Bowl_advertising
ETrade 
ETrade_baby 
Starbucks 
Hands_On_Network 
Financial_Times 
social_media 
The latest execution I noticed is a print execution in Fortune. It’s a full-color ad showing nothing but rows of what looks like lettuce, growing in ripe, red soil, bathed in sunlight. Tell me again why my hotel stay is supposed to feel like rows of lettuce? 
Westin
Starwood
Heavenly Bed
