A Few Quick Notes - 628

-Despite technically warmer temperatures on Saturday, both yesterday and today have felt a fair bit warmer.  Sadly, neither of these days has been accompanied by the sunnier skies of Saturday.

-Yesterday was Family Day in Saskatchewan.  Though I tried talking Jeannette into a day trip to Montana and North Dakota (Plentywood and Williston in particular), we spent most of the holiday cleaning the house.  Despite being a little disappointed that we didn't manage an international adventure, I'm quite happy that we did some long-overdue deep cleaning.

-One task I didn't finish yesterday is folding all of the laundry that I did.  Guess I should get down to that shortly (and because I've also changed the sheets since then theres even more to fold).

-In most cases I feel as though if I'm not completely unreceptive to ads, I'm relatively unreceptive to ads.  There are many companies whose ads I know I've heard thousands of time (if you listen to podcasts you know which companies I'm talking about) that I have no interest in patronizing.

One product, despite the low production qualities of most of its ads, I've long been tempted by is CLR - a product that promises to de-calcify household objects.  Even as a child I found this product tempting, though because St. John's has relatively soft water how or when this liquid would be used was never entirely clear.

Since we've lived in Regina the uses for a product that might de-calcify a household objects have become a little clearer.

Since first buying some CLR for Jeannette (so that I could clean our kettle) I've had the pleasure of using this product and observing that it works as advertised and did exactly what I wanted it to do.  It was strangely satisfying to finally buy this product after so many years of ads and then find that it works as advertised.

Oddly, I'm not sure that I have similar feelings about many of the other products I've seen ads for on a regular/daily basis for the past 15 years.

Cameron - 6
Neil - 0

Hot Podcast Cameo

A few weeks ago while listening to Backstory, a great American history podcast/radio show, I the against-character decision to provide requested listener feedback.  In this case, they were looking for advertising styles that they could use to create mock-up ads in the same style for the show.  I suggested the mid-20th century tobacco that featured advice from medical professionals about the benefits of smoking.

Much to my surprise, I was contacted by the show to say that they were hoping to go with my suggestion.  The only bummer is that they were hoping that I could call in to leave the suggestion as a phone message (I'd previously submitted the idea textually).

Somewhat begrudgingly, and with much uptalk and hesitancy, I left the requested message outlining my idea.

When I heard the show last week I was quite impressed with the segment that preceded my mocked up ad - it was about one of the individuals most responsible for this type of advertising.  I like to think that my suggestion not only lead to the mocked up ad, but also in the entire preceding segment.  I guess I could try and ask the producers of the show - but why risk it?

Anyway I recommend not only the episode in which I make an appearance, but the show generally - it is very well done (my only real frustration with the show is that a friend who applied for one of their producer positions was not hired).  I particularly looking forward to listening to this week's show about women in the workplace (as one of the stories is about the 'Rosies' - a in which my grandmother is a relatively proud and active member).

Cameron - 3
Neil - 0

Don't I feel classy and important

Just a few minutes ago Jeannette checked the mail and found that the only piece of mail today was a flier from Bloomberg Businessweek advertising a special introductory offer. If I take this offer I will get 26 issues of the magazine for only $20 (I am not as tempted by this deal as I am by The Economist deal that would see me get 12 issues for $15 if it is a better per issue rate).

What I found particularly interesting about this ad were a few of the passages that were supposed to convince me to accept their offer.

The first such passage I particularly liked as it makes it sound as though I am a global business leader. And isn't that something that we all want to be?

In an effort to attract our key demographic audience of senior executives and global business leaders, we're pleased to offer you a special discounted rate on the weekly relaunched Bloomberg Businessweek.

As as much as I would like the following passage to apply to me, I think it is very unlikely that as a TA I will be able to take advantage of this recommendation.

The cost of your Bloomberg Businessweek subscription may qualify for reimbursement from your company. Consult with your business manager and keep top portion for your expense records.

Seeing as I am not actually a "global business leader" or "senior executive" with an expense account that could be used to pay for this subscription I may have to give this promotion a pass. Maybe what I find more surprising is how I ended up on such a highbrow mailing list? I wonder if as I decline these offers I will gradually slide down the prestige scale until they hit me with an offer that is so cheap I can't refuse?

Has MUN gone viral?

Last night, on Neil and Rebecca's recommendation, I was watching a video on YouTube. All of a sudden I noticed an ad that had something to do with double rainbows. After a slightly closer inspection I noticed that the ad had something to do with Memorial University of Newfoundland, apparently it is an ad for their philosophy program.

I am not sure how effective viral video based ads on YouTube will be at attracting students to MUN, but I definitely found this one amusing. I generally feel that a move in this direction would be an improvement for Canadian university advertising campaigns, which to this point have generally pretty lacklustre and unexciting (at least as far as I have seen).

Score
Cameron 60
Neil 0

Isn't this the same guy who has the power to overrule CRTC decisions?

Tony Clement's Twitter feed continues to blow my mind. Earlier today he was talking about the songs he was playing on guitar, reminiscing about attending Super Bowls past, and now he is providing Canadians with access to American Super Bowl ads that are blocked from Canadian broadcasts of the game.

In one of Clement's latest tweets he provided a link to a YouTube account that seems to have copies of the Super Bowl ads that can be viewed world-wide (or at least in Canada).

I really wonder if Clement gets the irony of this last tweet.

The same guy who just used his Twitter account to announce that he would be encouraging the reversal of a CRTC decision is now using the same account to complain about another policy in the same policy area. Given that Clement is clearly aware of the popular opinion on the matter (people want to see these ads as part of the live broadcast) and that he is a member of a government that seems to claim that they want to represent such views, maybe he might consider using his Twitter account to announce that this policy will also be subject to further review or reversal.

By the way, is this now the position of the current government on Super Bowl ads?

Score
Cameron 17
Neil 0

Apparently it was illegal

A few days ago I noted the existence of a new series of graffiti ads from EastLink that were beginning to appear on local sidewalks.



Obviously, these ads didn't appear to be particularly legal, nor was I a fan of the idea of companies defacing public property for profit.

Eventually, though just before Hurricane Earl, I reported the ads to the City through an online form. While at first I saw no action and couldn't tell if my complaint had been acknowledged or not, today I was pleased to see that the ads have been removed from at least one location (the location I reported).



What I don't know is whether or not the company has been charged/fined for their offense. I guess I can use the follow-up number that was provided to me to learn exactly what will be happening to EastLink as a result of their graffiti ad campaign (which I hope they have now stopped).

Edit: Apparently The Coast also noted the problem. Furthermore, based on EastLink's Twitter account it seems that they had to deal with a degree of negative feedback regarding the ads, which were apparently made of chalk.

Is this legal?

This morning, while walking to a doctor's appointment, I noticed that there was more colour on the sidewalk than normal. Eventually I looked down and examined the situation more closely. What I found was a spray-painted ad about high-speed internet services from EastLink.



I was somewhat taken aback by this ad. Not only was it hard to read, at least I found it to be, but I don't know how it isn't illegal. Even though this was placed on the sidewalk by a company, I don't see how it isn't different than regular graffiti, except that it has as more obvious commercial purpose (which means that they are defacing public property for commercial gains). I wonder how long this ad campaign will stick around, or if there will be any legal repercussions for EastLink.

Seems a touch impossible to me

For quite a number of years Neil and I have been regular (though not continual) users or Ivory soap (sometimes we switch to cheaper generic brands or whatever is available). For more years than I have been a somewhat regular user of this product, which might be about 10 years, I have seen ads and marketing campaigns for Ivory soap that stress, even belabor, the claim that the product is 99.44% pure. Actually, I don't recall ever seeing a marketing campaign for this product that didn't feature this claim, it seems to be the backbone of all of their marketing efforts.

Though I can't say that our (and certainly my) use this product is because of the claims it makes about its purity. Nonetheless, I am certainly aware of these claims and would probably feel a bit cheated if they started releasing a version of the product about which they could no longer make such claims. How can one bring oneself to use an inferior version of a product (which presumably costs the same amount of money)?

I raise this issue because Neil recently purchased two ten packs of "Simply Ivory Aloe." When I looked at the packaging I was at first relieved to see that the same claim about purity was being made about the product. Once I stopped to think about it for a minute and realized that aloe is not soap. Once this thought started float around I started to become a little more unsettled. Has the value of the claim been diminished? Have they found a substitute for aloe that is made of soap? Have the replaced a particular ingredient with exactly the same amount of aloe? What is going on? (It turns out that Neil has been asking himself the same questions.)

This discovery has been somewhat alarming. If it turns out that the claim is untrue I fear that my faith in major multi-national corporations to tell me the truth about their products may be called into question. If this happens I don't know what I will do with myself or how I will make decisions about what to buy.