I’m trying to remember if Betty Spackman mentions this product in her Christians and Kitsch book:

Regardless, the product was pulled from shelves in Singapore after retailers received complaints about the product, according to NPR. “Get tight with Christ?”

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Some months ago, maybe even a year ago, a new “generation” of banner ads was born. These ultra-tacky and annoying ads employ small characters doing a two second dance that repeats itself. This alien

cluttered up a Hotmail page, underneath an ad announcing that “Mortgage rates drop again in Arkansas.” Oddvertising is one thing — done well it’s entertaining and can establish a brand — but these dancers are completely irrelevant to the products being pushed. I’m guessing said products are borderline scams anyway, and I don’t know, after all of the recent news coverage of housing foreclosures, how many people would give such an ad the time of day.

More recent iterations actually use three or four second videos of people dancing. These dancing cartoons and people serve only to stand out on static web pages. Such a strategy isn’t bad in and of itself, but these poorly done ads are on the same level of horribly annoying local TV commercials for things like car lots, with their meaningless antics and yelling personalities.

I’m slowly switching from Hotmail to Gmail anyway, so in the somewhat distant future won’t suffer the affliction of such gaudy images.

This is awesome!

From Newsweek:

“A city stripped of advertising. No Posters. No flyers. No ads on buses. No ads on trains. No Adshels, no 48-sheets, no nothing.”

Flickrite Tony de Marco is documenting the process:

I love the idea, decluttering the visual environment, getting rid of the perpetual brand noise around us saying “Buy, buy, buy” — encouraging a consumerist culture. But I’m not certain the old empty billboards are any more aesthetically pleasing. Read the Newsweek article for more opinions on this bold move.

Via Bunkre:

ZIA has published an article by Jocelyn Green talking about affluenza — a very seldom considered topic in our (artificially?) prosperous America. Much of the piece rehashes things I’d thought about and researched in the last few years, but there were some new tidbits:

• Cosmetics companies tell us we’re “worth it,” and Target’s latest TV commercial is set to the repetitive jingle, “A little bit more, a little bit more.” My personal favorite in the category of blatant appeal to vanity is the magazine ad for “The New Diamond Right Hand Ring” which reads: “Your left hand says ‘we.’ Your right hand says ‘me.’”

• The average North American consumes five times more than a Mexican, ten times more than a Chinese person and 30 times more than a person from India. As De Graaf says, it’s as if we are suffering from some kind of Willpower Deficiency Syndrome, a breakdown in affluenza immunity. When you’re never satisfied with your stuff but keep shopping anyway, you’ve probably reached the addiction stage. Shopping on this level is almost always to a futile attempt to fill some sort of void.In 1991, Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan figured that out and sold off three of his homes, 30 antique automobiles and his Detroit Tigers baseball team. He was quoted as saying, “None of the things I’ve bought, and I mean none of them, have ever really made me happy.”Monaghan got it right. Although people today are, on average, four-and-a-half times richer than our great-grandparents were at the turn of the century, Americans report feeling “significantly less well off” than in 1958. And research from the 1999-2001 World Values Survey suggests that the more consumer goods you have, the more you think you need to make you happy. Happiness through consumption is always out of reach.

Read the article in its entirety via this link.

Yesterday I received a copy of Outreach at the office, as I do once or twice a year in their attempt to persuade me to put a ShortTermMissions.com ad in their publication. I paged through the unsolicited magazine — which occasionally contains halfway interesting articles — and noticed an ad that was, well, peculiar.

I noticed the ad because of its significant use of white space. It’s a good ad, good design and witty writing. And it certainly stood out among the rest of the content in the magazine.

But the company’s identity is all wrong.

I thought this was an ad for a prescription drug. The name, Generis, could certainly be drug-like. The logo is worse yet. It immediately reminds me of a pharmaceutical company. And their website design only further gives me the impression that this company is peddling the latest pills:

I asked my boss to look at the ad and, without reading any of the content, tell me what he thought it was selling. He thought the same thing I did.

I don’t mean to come down too hard on this well-intentioned business, which actually has nothing to do with drugs. The design is actually sound. It is clean and professional. The problem is context. Certain imagery brings to mind certain products. Certain visual elements in a logo denote a certain industry, such as a reflection in a Web 2.0 design. Something about the Generis identity clearly reminds me of a prescription drug company.

The Generis logo fails to consider the myriad of images already pummeled into people’s brain by the insane amount of advertising Americans are subjected to on a daily basis. It does a poor job of representing to the public the nature of the organization. Designers need to always bear in mind the context of the viewer. Creating something that looks good and professional — as the Generis brand does — is only part of the design equation.

My wife, who frequents the Etsy forums, found this thread last night discussing (if you can call what goes on in most Etsy threads “discussion”) the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. Etsy users are significantly more female than male, and therein some of the responses surprised me (a couple of them are actually articulate):

* I’m probably one of the few people on the planet allergic to Dove! I don’t think their ads do much for me, because I see curvy women, but no scars, cellulite, saggy boobs…….

* GAHHHHHHHH! I hate Dove! Hate them with a passion. I bought Dove products occasionally before this campaign of theirs. Since then, never.

* I once showed the class I teach (they’re first year university students) a commercial for Dove and then a commercial for Axe body spray…and then told them that the same company makes both products.

* Ug, I hate those ads. They are doing the exact same thing the ads featuring size 0 models are doing, except instead of making you feel bad because you’re NOT thin & beautiful they are making you feel bad if you ARE thin…according to dove ads if you are not “curvy” or don’t have wrinkles etc. you are not a “real” woman or you don’t have “real” beauty.

* Dove is owned by Proctor and Gamble, which carries out horrendous animal testing. Just something to think about. No matter how many curvy women they show me, I won’t buy anything made by P&G. Besides, if I want curvy, empowering women, I’ll just wonder down to the local lesbian bar - or take a look in the mirror!

Take these comments with a grain of salt (do I actually have to say this?). Most of the responses in the thread reflect positively on Dove’s efforts, although some of what I posted above is certainly worth considering. Advertising is bound to be loathed by a lot of cynical Generation Y types, and even if the Campaign for Real Beauty is just a slick advertising ploy to pad the pocketbook, it’s still a good thing. If you’re going to give something for women to aspire to, at least make it attainable.

From ChurchCrossTalk, a follow-up to my earlier post Why bother with real people?:

“American Idol, The Real World, Big Brother and so on have become favorite TV shows of the “new generation.” It appears that this “new generation” of consumers are also requiring authentic advertising. Successful advertising campaigns such as the “campaign for real beauty” by Dove are winning awards left and right. Now I hear Kleenex, Secret (deodorant) and Commit (lozenges) are following Dove’s lead to be real, to be authentic. Overly hyped advertising promising outrageous results just won’t cut it anymore. According to ChurchMarketingSucks.com, consumers want to connect to “a story” that they can relate to. So how do we bring this type of approach to church marketing? Quite simple…we don’t promise roses and rainbows, instead we promise challenge and change”

Yes, being overweight is unhealthy. But so is being underweight. And since God has not defined for us what the most beautiful female body type is, and since aging is inevitable, and since the fashion industry seems to live in a hole populated with stick-people, and since different cultures through time (and presently) have aspired to widely different female aesthetics . . .

Metroblogging (via Rocketboom) featured this smashing rendition of:

The mailbox.

While I must applaud the iconic blue drop boxes the U.S.P.S. employs as letter receptacles, this little celebration of the 30th anniversary of the release of Star Wars is great fun (and good marketing on the part of the Post Office!). It’s reminiscent of the cows in Chicago, penguins in Tulsa or bicycles in Lincoln — that is, it’s almost civic art!

A good friend suggests the May 1977 (my own birth month) release of Star Wars Episode IV: A new hope is the best dividing line for Gen X and Generation Y (some of which prefer to be called “Millennials”). I like this idea, although it puts me right on the line.

See the Post Office’s Jedi Master website here, where it suggests even more will be revealed March 28th!