•
A lot of companies are hesitant to take a stand on what they consider social or political issues. They feel the best bet is to keep their mouths shut and, by doing so, no one can have too big an issue with them. Not Manhattan Mini Storage!
The New York Sun reports that a new(-ish) billboard by the West Side Highway in Manhattan has the typical Manhattan Mini Storage look and branding. On the left side an image of a hanger in the background with the text “Your Closet Space Is Shrinking As Fast As Her Right To Choose.” An earlier ad of theirs read “Your Closet is Scarier Then Bush’s Agenda.” Wow! Way to take a stand.
Of course folks from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights are saying the sign is highly offensive and insulting (though I am not quite sure how since the New York Sun doesn’t have any details on that), Planned Parenthood loves it. The article claims that “Passers-by had mixed reactions” (of the two they mention one said they thought it to be a little tasteless and the other had no problem with it: not exactly a spectrum of folks with solid opinions).
The comments I found to be most interesting was from the editor of the conservative journal First Things, Joseph Bottum. He said: “Manhattan Mini Storage must have had a pretty good idea that the sign was not going to hurt it. ‘One of the things that has helped American democracy survive is the fact that commercial enterprises have not generally entered the political arena.’
Also it is interesting to note that the building that the advertisement is on is a Manhattan Mini-Storage. No surprise there.
•
Okay, the other day I complained about the New York Times with their “Times Select” Feature that they slap onto popular articles so you actually have to pay to read them, well they did it again with another article I was planning on writing about here. Almost came to be that you wouldn’t be able to read it, fortunately, I discovered a work around to this solution. Let’s say I retyped the entire article here and it is available to read after the post (with proper credit to the author and the NY Times of course).
Anyway, we are back to my favorite topic to write about: Water.
We’ve previously noted that drinking water is on the rise, over taking soft drinks, coffee, milk, and encroaching on beers territory. We’ve also noted that NY has begun to campaign to get people to drink more tap water instead of fancy bottled waters. Now we have an article from the New York Times (posted after the jump since yo can no longer access it online) titled “A Battle Between the Bottle and the Faucet” which briefly touches on the uphill battle tap water is going to need to fight to prevail over bottled water. Multiple government agencies are getting involved with this one as well: “The city Health Department, mindful of high obesity rates, says water is more healthful than many other, sugar-filled drinks. The city’s Department of Environmental Protection touts its low environmental impact. Both note that it’s practically free.”
Read more »
•
Carlsburg is a beer that has recently been doing some popular advertising in London.
Taking £5,000 of £10 and £20 notes they slapped stickers on each of them saying: “Carlsberg don’t do litter. But if they did it would probably be the best litter in the world.”
They then proceeded to place (or drop) the notes randomly around the city. Anyone lucky enough to find one was £10 to £20 richer and, as Carlburg hopes, then headed to the local market to pick up a six pack.
Although it is a nice advertising stunt, which probably will get them plenty of news as well, what is the return on investment here? Even if each of the folks who find the notes runs out and buys a pint, or even a six pack, in the end aren’t they going to lose money?
Of course the argument could be made that that the recognition and “cool points” they get for such a campaign (or stunt) ut weights what they will make off their £5,000 investment (plus what ever it cost to thinkup and execute this idea)
•
Okay, I am questioning myself here, maybe I am wrong about this, but is it me or do these new viral ads for the Nokia N95 look a bit too much like ads for spousal abuse awareness?
The profiled picture, the lack of identifying features, just the “wound” of a keyboard slapped across the face. Similar to a hand slap across the face.
Their other 2 ads a similar (1, 2) and play off the “attacked by a computer” concept recommending a Nokia phone a solution.
As I said though, maybe I am just being a bit of a stuffed shirt here.
The actual videos of the attacks are kind of humorous, the concept is funny- It is just those posters I guess I have a problem with.
What do other folks think about this one?
[UPDATE 7/30] Gerdien also apparently told BoingBoing about this. Though they got to it a few dates after we did
•
Clothing company Sisley has a new ad campaign out now called Fashion Junkie. We’ve all heard the term before (or some variation on it) and think nothing of it.
Well, Sisley actually did start to think about it and decided to run with it, producing a line of ads depicting addiction (at least to drugs and booze)… I don’t know about these, they could have gone with a light hearted play on the term, but they seemed to go a bit extreme in their imagery.
Also with 2005’s Kate Moss cocaine scandal still seeming kind of fresh (since every time she becomes “the new face of…” a product they bring it up) the idea of models and drugs doesn’t quite seem as funny as maybe they were hoping.
Also note that beyond just the idea of the dress straps as lines, the MasterCard sitting on the table is covered in a white powder… Of course maybe these ads are meant for Vice magazine, where they would be pretty fitting actually.
