Archive | advertising RSS feed for this section

theweekmagazine: Walt Disney will no longer carry ads for foods…

advertising, child obesity, disney, health, nutrition, Obesity



theweekmagazine:

Walt Disney will no longer carry ads for foods that don’t meet strict requirements for sodium, sugar, and saturated fat content during its children’s programming. The company is the owner of ABC, ABC Family, the Disney Channel, and other TV outlets.

Disney Chairman Robert Iger said the move was part of an effort to combat childhood obesity. First Lady Michelle Obama, appearing with Iger, threw the White House’s support behind the deal, saying it was “truly a game changer for the health of our children.” However, while it’s assumed Disney will lose advertising dollars, Iger insisted that the initiative was also “smart business.” 

Will curbing junk-food ads help Disney’s bottom line?

fastcompany: Zynga, a publicly traded company, is trying to…

advertising, Draw Something, games, OMGPOP, Zynga



fastcompany:

Zynga, a publicly traded company, is trying to prove it spent hundreds of millions of dollars on more than just a blank piece of paper and a few digital crayons. Yesterday, the company’s advertising platform for Draw Something was unveiled for the first time—and, if not handled with some finesse, it’s a great potential example of forced brand interaction.

Advertisers now have the option to purchase drawing terms related to their brands. When a user opens Draw Something, the game gives three options to choose from—say, tennis, pancake, or snowball—which players then doodle for a friend, who in turn has to guess what that user has drawn. Soon, however, users will start to see brands among the fun options typically available—imagine trying to draw Hewlett-Packard or Toyota—which could quickly turn the game into a mobile version of Brand Tags. The NHL is one of the earliest advertisers on the platform, hoping to promote the Stanley Cup playoffs. But not all brands are as player-friendly as the hockey league.

Read more->

I AM THE ONE WHO CLICKS BANNER ADS.

advertising, satire, wall of text

I AM THE ONE WHO CLICKS BANNER ADS.:

youmightfindyourself:

By: Mike Lacker, McSweeney’s

For many years, I have remained a presence in the shadows. You citizens of the Internet have gone about your lives, navigating to this page and that, reading articles, watching videos, exchanging messages with friends, but all the while a single question has clawed at your curiosity each time your focus breaks and you notice the garish blinking ads strewn about your web pages:

Who, who is it that clicks these banner ads?

The time to wonder has ended and the time has come to open your eyes and to see the truth, to discover who has been clicking that which you so often ignore. 

It is I who click the banner ads.

While you check the weather, I find out why California dermatologists hate the one weird skin care secret discovered by a stay-at-home mom. While you read the New York Times, I rollover for more information about how to get my diabetes under control. While you search IMDB, I click for showtimes, tickets, and behind-the-scenes videos for Think Like a Man. Page after page, banner after banner, I click and I click.

It is not for myself that I click these banner ads, not because I yearn for exclusive local deals and belly fat-reducing tips. No, it is for all of you that I click to learn more, rollover to expand, and tap to download. Without me, your banners would go unclicked. And if your banners go unclicked, then who will pay for your web pages? Banners are the steam engine of the Internet, and I must shovel coal into the fiery maw.

It may be a sacrifice, to labor hour after hour, day after day, month after month in my secret lair, one hand on a mouse, the other on an iPad, furiously clicking and tapping every banner ad I can find. My ears have been calloused by movie trailers with autoplaying sound. My eyes have been warped and reddened by live streams of red carpet events presented by auto manufacturers. My hands have turned to gnarled claws from all the cartoon monkeys I have punched. My computer is but a shuddering pile of tracking cookies and spyware following my every move so that the next LowerMyBills.com advertisement I see is slightly better targeted to my gender, age, and browsing history.

Some may see me as a tragic husk, obsessed with duty but without friendship, without warmth, and without love for anything but all of you who I labor so hard to keep safe. I may have hundreds of free ringtones, thousands of exclusive promotional desktop wallpapers, and millions of special offer codes, but what good is a printable coupon for one dollar off a family-sized Stouffer’s chicken lasagna when you have no family?

But a hero is more than himself. I am the thin gossamer line between a free, sprawling internet and an oppressive desert bound in barbed wire and ruled by dollar-hungry warlords. Without me clicking to learn how New York drivers are saving hundreds on car insurance, you would be paying for what you are reading right now, throwing precious coin down an endless digital well.

So if you see a targeted text advertisement for debt reduction next to your email, know that I am there. If you see an animated custom background for the Call of Duty franchise, know that I am there. If you see a three-dimensional computer-animated dog run across the page and cover the video you are watching about dog food, know that I am there. Now get back to your reading, your posting, your downloading. The night will soon be over and there are still hundreds more credit card offers I must post to my wall.

theatlantic: Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic…

2012 Olympics, advertising, Logos, London, Mascots, Olympics



theatlantic:

Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?

After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.

Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.

A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.

So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.

Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]

Hello, nightmare fuel.

theatlantic: This Is Why You Fall in Love With Brands It’s all…

advertising, Brands, Consumerism, Products



theatlantic:

This Is Why You Fall in Love With Brands

It’s all too easy in our society to mock a person who forms brand relationships. Many charge that brand connections are dysfunctional in that they promote materialism, self-indulgence, and selfishness; and that consumers who engage in them are illogical, irrational, misguided and misinformed. This critique denies the very culture in which we live. Ours is a culture that is very much defined by consumption. In the U.S., the number one export is branded merchandise, both in the form of products and celebrities. We can critique this and lament the consequences, or we can embrace it and understand it for what it is. Are Obama’s supporters bad for society? Does love of the iPhone degenerate culture? In a foreign environment, is it dysfunctional to seek the refuge of a familiar brand?

Brands are a part of life in the 21st century. Consumers and academics must understand what this means and, at the same time, not take things too far. For example, despite research that demonstrates over and again that relationships are merely facilitators, some continue to reify brands and brand relationships. But a strong relationship develops by supporting people in living their lives, not by driving brand involvement. As I like to say, “It’s about the people, stupid.”

Read more. [Image: Reuters]