Advertising Hell

Was that the makeup or photo editing?

admin — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:40:22 +0000

They yanked the Julia Roberts ads in Britain for being misleading. You can see a normal looking Julia in the first photo. But this is what she looked like in the ad:

Just a bit too much????

There is Julia Roberts as she normally looks without makeup.

There is Julia Roberts with makeup

And then there is Julia Roberts after the photo editing

Take a look at software such as Portrait Professional (great software, by the way) and see what it can do to a face. Not only can you alter the skin and all features but you can actually sculpt the face so it’s dimensions are altered.

Unfortunately a lot of cosmetics ad don’t just show you what their products will do, but instead highlight what great photo editing will do!

Who looks like this?

admin — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:38:20 +0000

Ever notice that cosmetics ads use images where the contrast is cranked up to max. Doing this ensures that no real facial features are ever visible – features such as pores, pimples, blackheads, fuzz, wrinkles, etc. Only the makeup is highlighted. Also, the actor acquires an otherworldly appearance that would not be possible without the technical trickery.

Remember the Julia Roberts ad that was pulled because it had been doctored to such a high degree that she was barely recognizable?

Moral of the story – you will never never never look like the people in the cosmetics ads, because that’s not how those people really look anyway.

Partial facts and figures

admin — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:37:59 +0000

There is a Michelin tire ad where a cartoon character is driving along, loses control on ice, skids and tumbles in the sky and the Michelin Tire man throws some new tires on the car and it stops just before running into some beavers on a fallen tree. OK, so it makes the point that Michelin thinks its tires will stop your car well in the winter on ice.

But the strange thing is that they quote some numbers, something to the effect of Michelin tires will stop your car in xx less feet.

Well that sure raises a few questions. xx feet less than if you were driving with what other type of tire? xx feet when you are driving how fast? xx feet when the car you are driving weighs how much?

If they just said that Michelin tires let you stop on ice in less distance than any other tire on your car – that would be easy to understand (and also to check).

But to cite an absolute number of feet just begs a bunch of other questions.

What exactly were they thinking?

Email Advertising

admin — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 03:30:48 +0000

The basic rule is very simple: never, never, never respond to an email advertisement. If you don’t recognize the sender, chances are it’s a scam. If you wish to contact a company on the internet, type in their real url into your web browser and go to their site that way. Email mail links are usually faked. There are so many email scams that it will take time to post them.

In the meantime – if it’s an email, work on the assumption it’s a scam and never never reply to it.

Internet Scams

admin — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:37:42 +0000

Take a look at this summary from the US government: http://www.ic3.gov/crimeschemes.aspx

Here is a partial list of links:

Quack Medical Advertising

admin — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:15:43 +0000

We will add to this section. Meanwhile, if you are as creeped out by the Cancer Treatments Centers of America ads as a lot of people, you have come to the right place.

A good place to start is here – great site dealing with quack ads: http://www.quackwatch.org/

If you want to catch up on the CTCA discussion, check here: http://www.cancercompass.com/message-board/message/all,38947,0.htm

Or this forum at the American Cancer Society: http://csn.cancer.org/node/179783

Need more, check out these FTC items: click here

A little hint – if you really want to asses how effective CTCA is curing cancer, compare the percentage of their patients that go into remission for specific cancers compared to other medical facilities. If you haven’t figured it out already, Peggy Kessler on TV is NOT proof of their efficacy. You have to look at the entire patient population and overall remission rates. CTCA knows that, but are not ashamed to use this technique to get those poor people who are terribly sick, desparate and willing to try anything. It’s sad.

Advertising by Category

admin — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:32:03 +0000

Top Ten Advertising Categories: January-September 2010¹

		Jan – Sep 2010			Jan – Sep 2009
Rank	Category	($Millions)			($Millions)			% Change
1	Automotive	$	9,151.5		$	7,399.8		23.7	%
	(Manufacturers)		($5,761.2	)		($4,691.8	)	22.8	%
	(Dealers)		($3,390.3	)		($2,708.0	)	25.2	%
2	Telecom	$	6,369.4		$	6,083.1		4.7	%
3	Local Services	$	5,932.8		$	5,577.3		6.4	%
4	Financial Services	$	5,604.6		$	5,122.3		9.4	%
5	Miscellaneous Retail²	$	5,108.8		$	4,639.5		10.1	%
6	Food & Candy	$	4,961.7		$	4,516.5		9.9	%
7	Direct Response	$	4,549.9		$	4,852.2		-6.2	%
8	Personal Care Products	$	4,446.7		$	4,050.2		9.8	%
9	Restaurants	$	4,267.4		$	4,190.4		1.8	%
10	Pharmaceutical	$	3,160.9		$	3,455.5		-8.5	%
	TOTAL³	$	53,553.6		$	49,886.8		7.4	%

Source: Kantar Media

Advertising by Company

admin — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:31:10 +0000

Top Ten Advertisers: January-September 2010¹

		Jan – Sep 2010	Jan – Sep 2009
Rank	Company	($Millions)	($Millions)	% Change
1	Procter & Gamble Co	$2,252.7	$1,897.1	18.7%
2	AT&T Inc	$1,510.7	$1,305.4	15.7%
3	General Motors Corp	$1,480.5	$1,227.4	20.6%
4	Verizon Communications Inc	$1,406.8	$1,618.9	-13.1%
5	News Corp	$984.8	$911.5	8.0%
6	Johnson & Johnson	$950.4	$1,024.9	-7.3%
7	Pfizer Inc	$895.7	$893.5	0.2%
8	Time Warner Inc	$863.3	$872.3	-1.0%
9	General Electric Co	$793.2	$752.6	5.4%
10	Walt Disney Co	$776.9	$746.9	4.0%
	TOTAL²	$11,914.7	$11,250.6	5.9%

Source: Kantar Media

Changes in Advertising Spending by Media

admin — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:28:11 +0000

Percent Change in Measured Ad Spending¹

MEDIA SECTOR

Media Type

(Sectors and types listed in rank order of spending)

Jan-Sep
2010 vs. 2009

TELEVISION MEDIA 10.5%

– Network TV 6.1%

– Cable TV² 9.0%

– Spot TV³ 27.8%

– Spanish Language TV⁴ 11.9%

– Syndication – National -8.3%

MAGAZINE MEDIA⁵ 2.6%

– Consumer Magazines 2.8%

– B-to-B Magazines -2.6%

– Sunday Magazines 8.1%

– Local Magazines -1.8%

– Spanish Language Magazines 5.2%

NEWSPAPER MEDIA⁶ -2.9%

– Local Newspapers -4.4%

– National Newspapers 6.8%

– Spanish Language Newspapers 2.0%

INTERNET (display ads only)⁷ 7.7%

RADIO MEDIA 6.2%

– Local Radio 3.8%

– National Spot Radio 15.9%

– Network Radio
1.7%

OUTDOOR 7.3%

FSIs⁸ 6.7%

TOTAL 6.4%

Source: Kantar Media

Welcome to Advertising Hell

admin — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:36:16 +0000

Ever cringe when a commercial comes on TV?

Ever watch a commercial and you KNOW they are lying?

Ever watch a commercial and afterwards you have no idea what they were advertising?

Well, you are NOT alone.

Welcome to a blog where we will highlight the idiocy and stupidity of modern day advertising. If occasionally we come across an advertisement that actually does its job well – then we will highlight that too.

Stay tuned as we build this site.

Please leave comments about what features to add and we will incorporate them. An advertisement survey form will be coming soon.

Percent Change in Measured Ad Spending¹

MEDIA SECTOR Media Type (Sectors and types listed in rank order of spending)		Jan-Sep 2010 vs. 2009
TELEVISION MEDIA		10.5%
– Network TV		6.1%
– Cable TV²		9.0%
– Spot TV³		27.8%
– Spanish Language TV⁴		11.9%
– Syndication – National		-8.3%
MAGAZINE MEDIA⁵		2.6%
– Consumer Magazines		2.8%
– B-to-B Magazines		-2.6%
– Sunday Magazines		8.1%
– Local Magazines		-1.8%
– Spanish Language Magazines		5.2%
NEWSPAPER MEDIA⁶		-2.9%
– Local Newspapers		-4.4%
– National Newspapers		6.8%
– Spanish Language Newspapers		2.0%
INTERNET (display ads only)⁷		7.7%
RADIO MEDIA		6.2%
– Local Radio		3.8%
– National Spot Radio		15.9%
– Network Radio		1.7%
OUTDOOR		7.3%
FSIs⁸		6.7%
TOTAL		6.4%