digital

 
 

Suicide Kittens - finally, a use for trigonometry

My suicidal instincts aren't wha tthey should be, I kept trying not to hit the kittens, but the point is to kill yourself in 4mations suicide kittens flash game. You have to manoeuvre the 4mations' kitten-skull character "General Tiddles" and shoot laser beams from its eyes in a bid to ultimately self-destruct in a Kamikaze-style finale. The Ka-bloom is quite satifying. Trivia: General Tiddles also appears in two animated viral films ‘Driving School’ and ‘Deep Philosophy’ and an ‘interactive blog badge’ designed to let bloggers support 4mations by adding it to their blog.

Adland: 
 

American Titty Committee

With all this political hoopla going on, needy charities are going unnoticed......unless.....

Adland: 
 

One word.. Maverick. Maverick Maverick Maverick.

The Denver Egotist points out that Jeff & Rich totally pound McCain with these ads:

In a continuation of the entire creative world uniting against John McCain in support of Barrack Obama, comes this new set of spots that were supposedly funded directly by Jeff Goodby and Rich Silverstein out of their own pockets, uploaded onto YouTube, then sent around for coverage.

Maverick

Adland: 
 

Don't Vote.

A good example of reverse psychology in advertising. It's chock full of celebrities so it's semi-entertaining.

Adland: 
 

Oh Fuck! - The Economist Cover September 2008

Hats off to the uber-intelligent folks at 'The Economist' who have, in just two words, so eloquently captured how we are all feeling about the current state of the financial markets.

(via netzkobold.com)

Badland: 
Adland: 
 

Jill Greenberg photograph not cleared for banner ad usage. Ever.

Update time kids - I was right (ain't I always?) - the Jill Greenberg crying child photograph was not sold for commercial use at all. I knew that wasn't her style to sell her art project photographs for commercial use. I thought - even hoped, I'll admit - that there might have been some shady imagebank screwup involved, whom we could all agree to spend hate on, but as Admeta has told me over there telephone, it was all "a mistake".

A mistake. Taking someones artwork and making it an ad was just "woopsie".

Meanwhile Ms Greenberg has contacted me and confirmed that this is a case of copyright infringement, as well as a case of model release troubles. Remember, that little girl has parents who never agreed to this type of publication either.

Please see original thread here: Greenberg's crying toddlers used in ads for Admeta (Sweden).

Adland: 
 

Greenberg's crying toddlers used in ads for Admeta (Sweden)

Seems that I can't escape Jill Greenberg a.k.a the manipulator lately. I remember when people were yelling "child abuse" about her crying children portraits - see this post by Thomas Hawk Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse. (Thomas also posted the response he says he received from Greenberg here)


Most recently the outrage has been about her poorly set up shot of McCain with adgrunt BAP defending her right to creative freedom - which is fine even though, in my humble opinion she didn't even come close to creating another Alfried Krupp shot like Arnold Newman did which seems to be what she was going for. But I digress.


So I am somewhat surprised to find the artists child photo used in a humble banner ad for a small company in Sweden on Dagens Media today. Doesn't seem to be her style, to sell those images for banner ads. Do the toddlers parent's know? Little miss muppet is shilling Admeta. Is mum proud?

 

Update: Just to be clear: Jill Greenberg has not released this image for commercial use, and the little girls parents have not agreed to it either. Source: Ms Greenberg herself.
Adland: 
 

On Facebook, your face can be used in ads (without you knowing it) via SocialMedia

There's a new social media ad service posse in town, their name is Socialmedia - 'the social advertising network'. Their twist? To use your face with their ads, which they'll show to your friends -

We believe displaying friend pictures and first names within Facebook ads makes the content more relevant for you, and that you benefit from seeing relevant ads rather than being exposed to ads that may not have any meaning to you.

Flickr user Jakerome is not keen on these banners and wonders if they're even legal:

I believe what you are doing violates users rights to control their image. If a company wants to use my image to sell a product, they need to get a model release or another written contract. If you do not have a model release on file, then you are opening yourself up to civil liability.

Good Point.

While Social media themselves have jumped into that thread and state: "we make it easy for users to opt out of this program. and we also try to ensure that the only people that show up in ads are those that "raise their hand" explicitly and want to share their preferences with their friends (which we enable via the ad layer)" whatever the hell that means. So they reckon that they're covered.

Can we all aree that it's creepy though? And it might even mess up our carefully constructed cool / social standing - if something like this showed up, I would be excluded from the Madonna hater club and stripped of my stripes. I don't see anything on Socialmedia that says this won't happen.

Though, since I will have nothing to do with evil old facebook, who just hired Ted Ullyot, former right-hand man to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, as its general counsel - it won't happen to me anyway. Hat Tip newmateria.

Adland: 
 

Exxon's brand Hijacked on Twitter by a gal named Janet

Exxon Mobil's brand 'hijacked' by impersonator on Twitter reports thestandard.com. And unlike the Mad Men tweets (all posts linked below) this is not a fan-fiction case. Exxon hasn't approached Twiiter about this problem yet, but judging by how fast Twitter removed the Mad Men people (before coming to their senses), they might be just as quick to kill off Janet. All you got to do now is ask, Exxon. Is it fan fiction when were talking about a real company? Will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

But the user posing as "Janet" from ExxonMobil and posting what appeared to be legitimate "Tweets" is not authorized by Exxon Mobil to be posting about the company. Exxon Mobil does not know who "Janet" is or if he or she is even a company employee, Exxon Mobil spokesman Alan Jeffers said Monday.

"She is not an authorized person to speak on behalf of the company," he said. "There are several inaccuracies (on Twitter). We take great care in having authorized people speak on behalf of the company. We want to make sure anyone who is speaking for the company is doing so accurately."

At the end of the article, Shel Holtz, principal of Holtz Communication + Technology, gives out some free advice:

"Any company should be acquiring the Twitter account names that are most likely to be construed as official accounts," he noted. "Far too many organizations shrug off emerging social media channels like Twitter and Friendfeed. The Janet incident should make it painfully clear just how easy it is for somebody to step in and represent your organization with inaccurate and even damaging information using these very channels."


Going mad for Mad Men, again! 08/18/2008
Mad Men Tweets not issued by AMC - takedown notices sent 08/26/2008
Twitter and AMC get smart - reinstate the Mad Men Tweets. 08/27/2008
Adland: 
 

Are you coder enough to crack these problems?

Agencies Peacock and Lonely Duck got together and created the 100%-flash based code-cracking website "welcome to the list" where there are lots of interesting programming problems to be solved. The ones who solve the problems the fastest have 100 jobs at ÅF to choose from - because this is actually a recruiting site. The game ends the 31st of October.

But that's not all that is hidden on this site, there are also 1500 Jolt Cola's hidden as easter eggs everywhere. And since I'm not looking for a job as a programmer, I challenge you to find more of them than I have! ;)

Adland: 

Pages

Top