Olympic Links
Posted: Sat 14 July, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Cynicism, London Olympics, People, Thoughts 5 Comments »Lord, this is becoming a theme, isn’t it?
Another item in the long list of stupid bullshit that the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics are doing.
In this case, it’s an example of how draconian organisations really don’t understand complex concepts like Freedom of Speech, or t’Internet.
In London2012’s Terms of Use for the website, it says this…
5.a. Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games’ Marks.
(Bold emphasis is my own).
Yep, that’s right. You can’t link to the London 2012 Olympics website if you’re going to say nasty things about them.
Which is pretty fucking ridiculous, when you think about it.
Indeed, the links in this post almost certainly break those Terms. Ah well. Luckily the European Human Rights Act still allows me to say that in my opinion this kind of policy from the London Olympics is draconian bullshit.
Chipless
Posted: Wed 11 July, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Cynicism, London Olympics Leave a comment »Following on from other thoughts about Olympian Idiocy with regard to branding, rules and regulations, the following one came up today…
Yep – you can’t even get chips, except for McDonalds’ chips. (Or at least McDonalds soggy wet horrible version of chips)
Now, what I want to know is why on earth anyone would actually want to go to a venue/event so Draconian in its branding and obsession with sponsorship ? (Apparently, wearing a t-shirt that features non-Olympics sponsors has also recently been banned in the Olympic Park) If I want to see anything Olympian, I’ll be able to do so from home, wearing what I want, eating what I want, without feeling ripped off, abused, or corraled.
Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe that’s the plan. To stop the transport infrastructure etc. from imploding, maybe all of this is A Plan by Boris to stop people from wanting to go and see the Olympics at the venues?
UPDATED 12/7/12 – According to the Guardian, the ban has now been lifted.
Anchor
Posted: Thu 14 June, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Commuting, Driving, Sweary 2 Comments »I got sent this today, and loved it enough to want to share…
Don’t drive like a …
What’s next, I wonder ?
Don’t drive like a tw@ ?
Savings
Posted: Mon 28 May, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Business, Customer Services, Cynicism, Thoughts, Weirdness 5 Comments »Over the weekend, I was in Sainsbury’s, and saw a fine example of weird savings…
I’m sure I’ve waffed on about this before, but I can’t be chuffed to double-check. (Turns out, July 2009) Anyway, it’s hardly news.
In this case, a 4-pack of 2L Diet Coke bottles is retailing at £6.50. (And let’s not get onto the price-increase side of things – It’s not long ago that that 4-pack was £5) As a 2L bottle on its own is around the £2 mark – I think it was £1.98, but who’s counting? – then £6.50 for four isn’t a bad deal.
Except – except! – that if you pay a bit more attention, they’re also doing “3 for the price of two” on the individual 2L bottles.
So you can get six bottles for £8 ( or £1.33 a bottle) , instead of four for £6.50 ( £1.62 per bottle )
Supermarkets are very strange places when it comes to saving money…
Funding the Daily Mail
Posted: Wed 4 April, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Charm School, Cynicism, Daily Mail, Media, Stupidity 1 Comment »In yesterday’s Daily Mail, a woman called Samantha Brick wittered on wrote an article about how life was so difficult for her ‘because she was so beautiful’. (That’s a link to the story, if you really must read it – but hang on before you do so)
Predictably, t’internet – and Twitter in particular – frothed up about it massively, and the story went viral. Which is exactly what the Daily Fail wanted.
According to their own follow-up story, that original article garnered 4,500 comments. And the ‘top-rated’ comment received 18,000 ‘green arrow’ upticks. (Think of a Green Arrow as being similar to a Facebook Like)
The Daily Fail lives by advertising. The Mail’s Online Ratecard shows that they charge a minimum of £20 per 1,000 advert impressions – and it can be a lot more.
The original story had (at the time of writing the follow-up) received 1.5million hits – that’s a minimum of £30,000 they’ve made on the one story. Of course, the original story/page is still live, and there’s also a follow-up piece from Brick herself. From the Fail…
And today she is sure to provoke another avalanche of strong reaction as she defends herself in a fresh article on MailOnline, insisting that: ‘While I’ve been shocked and hurt by the global condemnation, I have just this to say: my detractors have simply proved my point. Their level of anger only underlines that no one in this world is more reviled than a pretty woman.’
So to all the people who comment, or even just click through to read the story, I say this.
YOU are the people who fund the Daily Mail. Every single one of you. Now, don’t you feel proud?
Advertising Excellence
Posted: Wed 29 February, 2012 Filed under: Advertising, Charm School, People, Sweary Leave a comment »Apparently, the ASA has told Sofa King to stop using this advert because of its rude phrasing…
Advert for Sofa King
I can’t understand what their problem is…
Marketing, Data, and Predictions
Posted: Fri 17 February, 2012 Filed under: 1BEM, Advertising, Business, Cynicism, Marketing, People, Shopping 4 Comments »Over at Forbes.com, there’s a really interesting article about how companies can make predictions about your life and life-events, based purely on your buying habits.
In this case, the US store Target did analysis on its customers who signed up for their ‘pregnancy club’, and then data-mined their buying habits in the run-up to the birth. Of course, you need something to identify these people by – that’s what ‘loyalty’ cards are for. (Tesco’s Clubcard, Sainsbury’s’ Nectar etc. etc)
And of course it turns out that they could then send out marketing to those people – in one case, knowing a girl was pregnant before her own father did.
It’s always worth remembering, stores don’t give you loyalty cards and ‘rewards’ for nothing. They own all the data about you that the cards give – what you’re buying, why, when, where etc. – and they’re using that for their own profitability.
As David Mitchell said, (and I think I’ve posted it here before) :
When you’re getting something free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.
Updated : A quick add – this was also something written about in the New York Times Magazine article ‘How Companies Learn Your Secrets‘