"The commercial opens with a newspaper photo of Muhammad, who faces charges in the shooting deaths that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area this month. That fades to the image of a barrel of a gun on one side of the screen and a picture of Garrett (running against Ann Summers for an open house seat) on the other."
A politician has actually used the Sniper in ad ad to atack the gun control position of her opponent.
Combine this with the sickening babble and childish catfighting in the Massachusetts Governors race and many other political races for that matter and you begin to wonder if advertising like this should be permitted.
It's really no wonder why voter turnout is so low. No one wants to hear this crap. It is unimportant. We want to hear the issues discussed in a mature and considerate way. The mudslinging an negative advertising trend has simply gone too far.
It wouldn't be perfect but I'd be all for a ban on all political advertising thus having politicians have to fight it out editorially. Say what you will about the media, but news editors still have a far better objective handle on things then campaign management.
Infringement of free speech? Sure it is. A radical suggestion? Of course it is. But do you really like listening to ads speaking half truths about politicians? Of course we'll still hear the half truths in debates but at least there will be some modicum of control.
In the post below, I make mention of national newspaper companies creating versions to target the Gen Y audience. A recent study reported on Yahoo by 360 Youth states that college students still look to their college newspaper for daily news and information. From the study:
Despite the impressive connectedness of the youth sector, students continue to read their campus newspaper on a regular basis, making it a highly targeted means for marketers to reach this age group. In fact, a study conducted by Student Monitor found that students prefer their print editions over the online versions, reporting only 8% visited their newspaper websites over the course of a month, while 45% of students had read at least 3 out of the last 5 issues of their campus paper and spend an average of 19 minutes with each issue. The College Explorer study found that 75% of all students read their campus newspaper, finding 25% have read all 5 of the last 5 issues.
As Gen Y uses the Internet more and more in their daily lives, they seem to have lost the need for the good old newspaper. Several newspapers, in an attempt to stave off decline in readership, are launching editions written specifically for the younger reader.
Whether this is successful or not, it makes all the sense in the world for newspapers to try. Interestingly, there is not much talk about creating supporting Internet versions of these endeavors. Sure, go ahead and attempt to keep readers but also go where the readers are: online.
Yes, this has been reported everywhere, the fridge with built in PC and internet browser. In it's present form, the company will sell very few units. Unless you are rich, no one is going to spend much more then $1,000 on a fridge. Do we need it to tell us when food is bad? Maybe. Emailing and calendaring are the two most useful aspects of this device. It would be better if it had a fold down keyboard so you could actually respond to the email. And, if it was a TV as well, you wouldn't miss anything when you got up to go to the kitchen for a snack. Of course, we will all have VOD and Tivo like technology so missing a show will become a non-issue.
The price of this thing is ridiculous. You could mount a flat screen monitor and a keyboard on a regular fridge and get all the same functionality for one third the price!
An "internet fridge" is really just another access point inside the home. Just like the TV will be and the embedded screen in your bathroom mirror. They will all be wired (wirelessly most likely) together to feed you whatever you want whenever you want in whatever format you want. It's all about the proliferation of connectedness.
"A leading TV research analyst says it's time for ad agencies to embrace the concept of PVRs and �proactive TV� as a revolutionary force in the media business."
I have written several posts on the topic of PVR's and the "time shifting" of media. It amazes me how so many people are still trying to stand by the old traditions of media. They are dying if not dead. We need to move on. Change is coming and rather then complain about it, let's embrace it.
I just read that Steve Case is telling his senior management that he would like to take back the unit spinning it off from the Time-Warner group. Now, I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to M and A issues but this one never seemed to be the right match from the start. And I guess that line of thinking has been born out. For whatever reason, AOL and Time-Warner have not clicked. Call it a culture class or irreconcilable differences. There are too many strings between the two that are hampering the growth of both. Bigger is definitely not better.
When alone, AOL was lithe, quick to grow and yes, had problems. But it appeared as though it had a singular mission: to be the biggest and the best packaged online experience. Well, it's certainly the biggest but far from the best. I say the best thing for AOL and Time-Warner is to split. Go off and do what each is best at doing. Doing it together is not working.
In a study conducted by the National Retail Federation and BIGresearch entitled The NRF 2002 Holiday Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey , consumers plan to spend an average of $649, an increase of 2.6 percent from 2001 projected spending.
"We expect pent-up demand for apparel and electronics to play a strong role during the 2002 Holiday season."
I would agree with this cautiously. Yes, there has been pent up demand caused by a slow economy and just the plain old need for things to be replaced. However, I do believe that given the economy, shoppers will be cautious and frugal.
But older viewers and men -- not the network's primary targets -- are helping to fuel much of the WB's ratings growth in the genre.
Reach to 18-49 and 35-54 demos are up. This is not all that surprising when you think about it. What "older" man wouldn't want the guilty pleasure of watching Katie Holmes of Dawson's Creek or the ever growing babes of 7th heaven, or any of the babes on Birds of Prey?
Now, even if you take all that sexism away, we all want to be young. What's wrong with any "older" person wanting to watch a so called "younger" show?