Employing what must be some kind of a semi-legal bypass program, advertisers are now invading computers with their second generation of pop-ups and these are beyond annoying. They not only invade my screen, but they assault my sense of hearing with loud, unidentifiable music and grinding used car voice-overs. Even worse, they begin their audio onslaught as soon as the page begins to load. Thank god I work at home, because I cannot imagine how this new scourge impacts cubicle dwellers.

While there are too many offenders to mention by name, I can list my two most frequent (and grating) advertisers: “Mac Cleaner” and “Netflix”. It is almost impossible for me to log onto the Internet without one of these unscrupulous hucksters invading my privacy. Do the decision makers at these two firms realize how their pop-up campaigns hurt their brands? Do they even ponder the number of people (like myself) who will NEVER buy their products or services? Have they even read the emails from people who have been victimized by their reverse branding? If they have, they must thrive on ignorance and ill will as they only continue to expand their idiocy to more online users.

Advertisers (especially national ones) have a duty to not abuse the public at large with harassing ads. The continued abuse of these pop-up that bring unwanted sounds and images to viewers who did not ask for them is just begging for retribution and horrific word of mouth. Even if these misguided messages are effective with a small percentage of online viewers, they do not come close to justifying the brand damage they create. Advertising is already at an all time low in terms of public trust and these new pop-ups only exacerbate the feeling of disillusion.

His basis for the certain death of traditional advertising is his assertion that the last 100 years of American advertising has only served one main purpose – to cover up the treacherous behavior of the corporate overlords willing to pay agencies their inflated fees to deceive a gullible public. He argues that the invention and popularity of the Internet has finally provided consumers a way to thwart this deception and as a result, traditional print and broadcast media is finito. Rosenblum even goes further down the rabbit hole by proposing the only hope for companies to advertise successfully in the new century is to stop advertising completely. He firmly believes businesses should redirect their ad dollars to fixing their company’s “problems” first. (What those problems are, he never specifies). And that by “making their companies great”, they will be prepared to brand their products and services via social media to a now empowered populace. Kind of like Apple on steroids.

His master plan for the new ad biz is to get agencies to quit “lying” for their clients and instead adopt a business model suited more for consulting than selling. For proof as to the logic in his radical thinking, he uses the work his firm did for Suzuki. To help market their new Hayabuse bike, a motorcycle capable of exceeding 200 mph, Questus dumped traditional marketing for a campaign that consisted solely of social media. They developed a website where Hayabuse owners could not only share their devotion to the bike, but could actually upload original rap songs about their bikes for other owners to enjoy. Suzuki then sponsored a contest for the best Hayabuse-based rap song, with the winner receiving a custom version of the cycle for their efforts. This, he insisted led to thousands of individual online campaigns initiated by owner’s encouraging their friends to visit the site and vote for their song. The contest was so successful that the winner actually went on to release an entire CD of his music.

While I agree with Mr. Rosenblum about the continued importance of social media marketing, I have real doubts as to the accuracy of his “death of traditional advertising” thoughts. It’s a lot easier to market a youth driven product (like a fast motorcycle) by social media branding, but it’s not the end all to beat all for most products. I would love to see Questus do the same thing for say, Tide detergent or Brawny paper towels. Let’s see what our domestic DJs can do to get people rapping for State Farm or Crest. I bet Eminem can’t wait to lay down some tasty tracks for Pampers, Fixodent or Summer’s Eve. The possibilities just blow my mind!

I also reject Mr. Rosenblum’s assertion as to all agencies are simply de facto liars for unethical clients. First of all, companies that have made shoddy or dangerous products have been denounced by consumers long before the invention of the Internet. It is called “word of mouth”. The Internet has just made it much easier and faster to get the word out to more people. I find it amusing as well as utterly ridiculous to believe even the best ad agency could lie well enough to make something dangerous or ineffective a popular sales item. For proof, we only need to remember Firestone Tires, Tylenol and the Ford Pinto. All of these products were recalled by a combination of unfavorable national media coverage and bad world of mouth, sans social media.

The future of effective advertising and marketing lies in successfully mixing traditional techniques with new channels and technology. A well-produced thirty-second TV spot will always have a place in the biz, regardless if it’s viewed on network television or YouTube. Branding products or services exclusively with social media is not only dangerous but also shortsighted. Even the definition of the term ‘Traditional Advertising’ is subject to debate because smart agencies seamlessly incorporate all the tools of the trade into their campaigns. It’s called evolution and it’s something that keeps us all in business.

As word spread about the shooting and the lack of an official investigation, over 584,000 people visited Change.org and signed a petition demanding an in-depth inquiry. That works out to over 10,000 people an hour taking the time from their daily grind to demand justice for a young man none of them knew. Now, thanks to the public outcry, the Justice Department has ordered the FBI to begin an official investigation into the matter. Hopefully, they will do their job in a timely fashion and bring the facts of the incident into the light of day. Unfortunately, Florida’s incredibly liberal gun laws may protect Mr. Zimmerman from felony prosecution.

In 2005, the Florida legislature passed the “Stand Your Ground Law”, which provided the legal authority for any Florida resident to use deadly force in public as a FIRST reaction. They don’t have to warn their intended target, nor are they required to either seek police protection or to mollify the situation by leaving. If they feel threatened, they can fire first and ask questions later. This is apparently the case with Trayvon Martin. Mr. Zimmerman, eleven years older, 100 pounds heavier and armed with a semi-auto 9mm handgun felt so threatened by the unarmed teen he deemed he had ‘no duty to retreat’ and shot the young man after a brief struggle.

Until all the details are made public, we can’t fully condemn Mr. Zimmerman’s actions. But so far, all the released facts of the case point to an overreaction from someone who had appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Records indicate that Zimmerman had called 9-1-1 over 40 times concerning ‘suspicious people’ since January. Clearly this guy had an agenda and the lack of any serious criminals in his housing development didn’t stop him from creating one. And just in case some may think this a racially motivated killing, you can rest assured it’s nothing of the sort. Robert Zimmerman, George’s Father put those thoughts to rest by telling reporters, “(my son) has many black family members and friends.” This is the same thing we’ve heard from everyone from Michael Richards to Mel Gibson to justify racial prejudiced behavior and it never works.

Regardless of the final verdict, this sad incident proves the real value of social media. As I’ve written previously, social media may not be the best place to sell widgets, but it is the place for uncovering and righting society’s ills. What used to slip through the cracks is now finding a home under the spotlight of online justice. Here’s to hoping Trayvon Martin’s family gets the justice they deserve.

The only good thing to come from this open act of hostility is the blowback Limbaugh and his EIB network is facing from the American public. At last count, at least twelve national sponsors have abandoned his show, including solid supporters like Sears, Carbonite, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Allstate and LegalZoom. The drumbeat against Rush has grown to the point where even VoteVets.org is lobbying the Department of Defense to stop carrying his controversial show on the Armed Forces Radio Network. And how has Mr. Limbaugh responded to his sponsor’s concerns? By attacking them. Surprise!!! His only comeback was to tell his listeners that these companies don’t want their business and to imply that replacement sponsors are already lined up.

As if that isn’t bad enough, Rush attempted to stop his PR train wreck by offering a truly insincere apology. Rush’s apology was so blatantly fake that it was not accepted by Ms. Fluke or the public at large. In fact, all it did was to fan the flames of discontent. And while his show may not be in immediate danger of cancellation, the steady drip of desertion has already begun. At least two radio stations have dropped him from their lineup and others can’t be far behind. Clearly, Rush has never had to answer for his mean spirited vitriol, but now that has all changed. Perhaps Mr. Limbaugh should consult Paula Deen as to how best to prepare crow.

Prior to the horrendous accident of the Costa Concordia off the coast of Italy, Carnival Cruise Corp. CEO and Miami Heat owner Micky Arison was an avid Twitter and Facebook poster who’s average day included over twenty fresh posts to his followers. Then, after the scuttling of their largest ship and the unfortunate deaths of 25 passengers, Carnival Cruises’ social media interaction came to a deafening halt. If was a full week before Mr. Arison decided to get their apologies and explanations out to their customers. During his absence, comments on Carnival’s Facebook page tripled, with many posters wondering why Carnival had nothing to say. The overall effect of the communication black out was that Carnival’s reputation took a beating, lowering their positive ratings by over 50%.

Clearly, Carnival had no crisis management plan to refer to and as a result, the public controlled the company’s brand — to its detriment. When a major disaster occurs, the public needs timely information and in its absence, will fill the void with angry rumors and misinformation. Had Carnival a plan in place, perhaps the decline in cruise bookings would not be as steep as the industry currently faces. This is a glaring example of a complete failure in crisis management 101. One would think that a business that deals with the inherent propensity for disaster a cruise line faces would be ready for a worst case scenario, but obviously one would be wrong.

The take-away from this disaster is to always be ready for the worst. Sticking your head in the sand is not an option in crisis management. A pro-active approach is the only way to handle a major tragedy. Social media is a two-way street and one that you don’t want to drive the wrong way on, which is exactly what Carnival did and why they are now paying for their serious lack of planning.

While I totally understand the jump in online sales, I am still having major problems with clients who think that social media is the end all to beat all. As I have blogged before, studies have proven that social media sites are great at spreading word of mouth recommendations on products and services already tried, but are flat out lousy at introducing a new product or service. In other words, product/service debuts still require the usual mix of standard advertising avenues – print, broadcast, etc. and that is something clients need to learn and agencies need to reinforce. I hope to never take another meeting with a potential client who tells me, “We just want to stay fluid…you know, twitter and Facebook.”

No, I don’t know and the facts don’t either. Every competent ad consultant knows social media is a now crucial element in most campaigns, but not the ONLY driving force. Some people are under the mistaken impression that all one needs for a successful ad campaign is a few dedicated tweeters and “presto”, the phone starts ringing. Wrong. A few dedicated tweeters can really help maximize the branded message of a product, but only once it has been established through more traditional channels.

The limitations on social media are even truer with video. The one question clients sometimes pose to me that I really have trouble answering without rolling my eyes is, “How do we get us a viral video?” First off, if I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn’t be meeting with you, I would be cashing checks in Tahiti. Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows how to make a video go viral. It’s just that certain something that connects with viewers that makes a video go viral. Secondly, how many viral videos can you name that actually sold a product or service? Cute cats playing the piano are one thing, but trying to get that cat to endorse Steinway is a whole different kettle of fish. For the most part, viral videos are for amusement purposes only.

Social media has its place and that place will continue to grow and evolve. The need for branded messaging through more conventional channels will not change for the foreseeable future. SM should be thought of as the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. And speaking of cake, have you seen that cute video where the puppy tries to eat a cake right off the table?! I don’t know what kind of cake it is, but that puppy sure is cute!

While I totally understand the jump in online sales, I am still having major problems with clients who think that social media is the end all to beat all. As I have blogged before, studies have proven that social media sites are great at spreading word of mouth recommendations on products and services already tried, but are flat out lousy at introducing a new product or service. In other words, product/service debuts still require the usual mix of standard advertising avenues – print, broadcast, etc. and that is something clients need to learn and agencies need to reinforce. I hope to never take another meeting with a potential client who tells me, “We just want to stay fluid…you know, twitter and Facebook.”

No, I don’t know and the facts don’t either. Every competent ad consultant knows social media is a now crucial element in most campaigns, but not the ONLY driving force. Some people are under the mistaken impression that all one needs for a successful ad campaign is a few dedicated tweeters and “presto”, the phone starts ringing. Wrong. A few dedicated tweeters can really help maximize the branded message of a product, but only once it has been established through more traditional channels.

The limitations on social media are even truer with video. The one question clients sometimes pose to me that I really have trouble answering without rolling my eyes is, “How do we get us a viral video?” First off, if I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn’t be meeting with you, I would be cashing checks in Tahiti. Nobody and I mean NOBODY knows how to make a video go viral. It’s just that certain something that connects with viewers that makes a video go viral. Secondly, how many viral videos can you name that actually sold a product or service? Cute cats playing the piano are one thing, but trying to get that cat to endorse Steinway is a whole different kettle of fish. For the most part, viral videos are for amusement purposes only.

Social media has its place and that place will continue to grow and evolve. The need for branded messaging through more conventional channels will not change for the foreseeable future. SM should be thought of as the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. And speaking of cake, have you seen that cute video where the puppy tries to eat a cake right off the table?! I don’t know what kind of cake it is, but that puppy sure is cute!

The list of mediocre to horrible films cranked out in 2011 surpassed any recent year to my memory. There seemed to be an inordinate amount of monotonous movies foisted upon the public last year. While I was compiling this list, the number of just plain flat pictures almost overwhelmed me. I had to struggle to fight through the ‘simply bad’ movies to compile my ‘truly worst’ list. Same with the good ones—I really had to remind myself as to why I liked some of them. Perhaps it was because they had at least given me something to remember them for, as opposed to the endless number of nameless, mediocre releases I sat through in 2011. So, with these caveats in mind, here are my best and worst films of 2011:

BEST: (in no particular order)

Attack the Block, Carnage,
Tabloid, My Weekend With Marilyn,
The Descendants, The Adjustment Bureau,
The Guard, Cave of Forgotten Dreams,
Ides of March, The Artist,
Lincoln Lawyer, Midnight in Paris, Corman’s World

I will give Midnight in Paris my best picture of the year. As someone who is not a Woody Allen fan, I can only say that this movie totally surprised me with its plot twists and with a great performance by Owen Wilson.

WORST:

Super 8, Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene
Young Adult, New Year’s Eve,Twilight Breaking Dawn*,  Zookeeper, The Sitter*, Cowboys & Aliens, Jack & Jill, TheHangover II, Larry Crowne

* (I didn’t see)

I had a tough time limiting my worst to just 12, as last year delivered a record bounty of bad celluloid. I felt compelled to do something I have never done with my worst movies list—I included three flicks I did not personally see. How can I include something I didn’t even see? Because I was warned by friends NOT to see them and the published critical reviews proved my friends right. I felt compelled to include them because they were soooooooo very bad. I consider it my duty—sort of like a public service announcement for moviegoers. (Although anyone who thinks the premise of Adam Sandler playing himself and his sister is funny deserves to waste ten bucks on a turd like Jack & Jill.)

WTF? MOVIES:
These are two of the films I saw last year that left me wondering WTF?:

TREE OF LIFE – Don’t have any idea what this film was about. While it was confusing, it did have some great acting and cinematography.

DRIVE – Ryan Gosling’s performance is great, it just needed a script to go along with it. Lots of build up for an action pic without much action. It should have been called, “Parked” because it never drives anywhere.

One of my New Year’s resolutions is to see less bad movies. For the most part, I know how to avoid dogs; I just sometimes can’t help myself. I love movies and therefore I will get burned at the box office from time to time. Let’s just hope 2012 has less releases to bait me.

For the record, I am not a Grinch. I do my best to stay upbeat around people who insist on wishing everyone who cross their paths a, “Merry Christmas”, but the music, the horrible music is more than my tiny brain can handle. That’s why I was thrilled when I came across this posting on Jezebel, where they feature an NCAA-type of bracketing system for determining the worst Christmas song of all time. It’s truly shocking to see how many bad X-mas songs there are to vote for. (To see the brackets, go to: http://jezebel.com/5865954/december-madness-the-tournament-to-crown-the-worst-christmas-song-ever ).

My only problem now is how to choose which songs are truly horrible, as opposed to just really annoying. I mean how do you decide between such memorable losers like, “All I Want For Christmas is My Two Front Teeth”, versus “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”? Or, even harder, between “I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas” and “Nuttin’ for Christmas”? It is truly too rich a bounty to decide without some serious thought.

Lest you think I only dislike novelty Christmas tunes, think again. I am still deciding between “Feliz Navidad” and “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” for the worst heart-felt carol. And I would be remiss if I did not mention “Mele Kalikimake”, the sole Hawaiian entry, as one of the most obnoxious songs to hear repetitively. Throw in “Little Drummer Boy” versus “Frosty the Snowman” and you can get a feel for how tough this contest can become.

Before you write me off as just some Bah-Humbug type, allow me to pose this question: Can you make it through an entire dental appointment with “Frosty the Snowman” and “Let it Snow” playing constantly in the background of your dentist’s office? I can’t. That’s why I avoid making dental appointments in December. Adding Christmas music to the mix is about the only way I know to make getting a root canal worse. And with the irritating practice of beginning Christmas marketing earlier every year, I may only be able to get my cavities filled in the spring. Just another reason to hate Christmas.

Where once was an empty corner of your TV screen, is now a prolific platform for all kinds of animated insanity. Greed has motivated the networks to evolve from simple ownership logos to fully animated promos lasting for several seconds. These new bugs are pushing the envelope of viewer patience. To me, they are like nails on a blackboard and I really want them to go away.

Not only are they annoying, but most of them are wasted on the wrong demographic. It seems as though the network suits give little thought as to what show or special they are plugging, they just like the idea that they are using as many pixels as possible. How else can you explain such questionable placement as ads for shows like “Rizzoli and Isles” getting pushed during live sports? Or, how about placing bugs for Nascar during first run airings of “American Idol”? Clearly, someone is missing the boat and viewers are expected to pay for it by having to endure on-screen bug ads for shows their demo clearly isn’t in to. Por que?

I understand that it is inevitable for marketers to market with everything at their disposal. But using robots with sound effects (FOX) just doesn’t work for me. It’s distracting and obnoxious. I would love to sit in a focus group when they test their latest ideas, but that would require the networks to actually care what their viewers think. And if there is one thing we all know, it’s that American television programmers seldom listen to those outside their bubble. How else do you explain “The Playboy Club”?