Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Blockbuster CEO is a Moron

I came across an interesting article about Blockbuster's CEO. The original is located here.

As the risk of being sued and going to jail, I'm reproducing the entire article below.

February 27, 2007

Blockbuster CEO Disputes $2.3M Bonus, Says He's Entitled to $7.6M


By Bob Caswell

Blockbustertalogo_1
Blockbuster today announced a dispute with its CEO over the size of his bonus. The company's reported profit for the four quarter of last year fell 28% because of high costs associated with its new service Total Access. But despite that, CEO John Antioco says the $2.3 million bonus he received on January 25 wasn't enough. He claims his bonus should be $7.6 million based on performance goals.


True, the Total Access program has been gaining in popularity, which allows you to exchange DVDs received in the mail for in-store movie rentals. Blockbuster's stock price has increased about 77% since the Total Access launch in November of 2006. And 500,000 new subscribers signed for the program during the fourth quarter alone, bringing the total subscriber base to 2.2 million.

But while Blockbuster has found a temporary edge in the fight for online movie rentals, Netflix announced in January a new feature allowing you to immediately watch movies and TV shows on your computer for no additional cost (and will likely make online movie watching a reality).

Blockbuster is just beginning to catch up in the online rental industry Netflix pioneered, and Netflix is already hard at work implementing the next big thing: online movie watching. And get this: Blockbuster has mentioned that it may cut back on the size of its stores' movie catalog in order to get people to use the online service more. But I thought the advantage was the ability to go between the two, no? And rumors are already out that Blockbuster may get into the movie-download business (well, duh, the company will have to eventually, one step behind everyone else).

In any event, CEO Antioco is focused on the here and now. He said in a statement that Blockbuster expects a total of three million Total Access subscribers by the end of March. Whatever measurement ensures him his bonus, I suppose.


Where does this kind of greedy hubris come from? Who does he expect is going to side with him that "$2.3 million is not enough"? Consider the poor little clerk working in the local Blockbuster store making a little over minimum wage. He gets yelled at daily because there is nothing worth watching on the shelves, and then he hears his company's pompous ass of a CEO feels he was cheated out of $4.3 million and "only" got $2.3 million. It makes me hope there is a watchdog lawyer out there who can pull of Ken Lay on him and take it all away.

Boo hoo, Mr. Antioco. You are a sorry, clueless moron.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time


I can only imagine what went through this 4x4 owner's mind. "Hey, cool pile of snow. I think I'll drive up and over it!" Unfortunately it wasn't snow, but ice. Very solid, hard-packed, immovable ice. I guess the truck is going to be sitting there a while. At least until the weather warms up enough to melt the pile a bit. Hope he had another way to get around.

Keith Olberman Is Our BEST Watchdog

Keith Olberman has become the most profound voice of reason in America today. He absolutely refuses to allow anyone in the power elite to get away with the lies, misdirection and subterfuge in which they have become so proficient.

On February 26, 2007 he issued an 8.5-minute Special Comment regarding an absolutely outrageous comment made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during an interview on FOX the previous Sunday. She compares Sadam Hussein to Adolf Hitler and makes up history to suit the purposes of her boss and his administration's warped agenda.

It's marvelously intelligent. Watch.



Thank goodness we have Mr. Olberman looking out for us and MSNBC has the courage to counter all of the insanity that is continuously broadcast by FOX.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Religion Can Justify Anything

How can you convince religious fanatics that killing someone for "violating" your beliefs is wrong? Answer: You can't, because the inherent disparity between the real world and their belief in God has made them insane.

A site called the Jawa Report carries some disturbing news from the world of Islam in which devout believers have justified killing relatives, neighbors, customers and perfect strangers for violating some tenant of their religion.

If there is a God (or Allah), I respectfully request that he go away and leave Earth alone.



read more | digg story

Anna Nicole Smith's Rotting Corpse

I just heard on the news that the coroner cautioned the court in Florida that Anna Nicole Smith's body is decomposing more rapidly than expected. He recommended they wrap things up and get her buried pretty soon. Kind of gives you a warm fuzzy, huh?

My only thought was that she is just as self-destructive in death as she was in life.

It's time for this to be done - forever!

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

No News Is Now News!

Remember the old adage, "No news is good news"? Well, I guess in this age of journalistic competition and the industry's integrity void, it's been amended to "No news is news!"

The AP sent out a story today that was picked up by the website for The Detroit News. If you wish, you can view it here. This is what it says:


Late Late Show doesn't mock Spears

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Craig Ferguson decided not to poke fun at Britney Spears for at least one night.
The host of CBS' "The Late Late Show" told viewers Monday that after seeing photos of the 25-year-old pop star's shaved head, he reconsidered making jokes at the expense of the "vulnerable."
Spears made headlines over the weekend when she shaved her head at a Los Angeles hair salon and then went to a tattoo parlor where she had a pair of lips put on her wrist. Spears shaved her head Friday, the same day as reports on TV and Web sites that she had briefly checked into a rehabilitation center.
"For me, comedy should have a certain amount of joy in it," Ferguson said. "It should be about attacking the powerful - the politicians, the Trumps, the blowhards - going after them. We shouldn't be attacking the vulnerable."
Ferguson recalled his battle with alcoholism and said he worries Spears may be having troubles of her own.
"Now I'm not saying Britney is alcoholic, I don't know what she is - alcoholic or not - but she clearly needs help," he said.


(Yeah, I know I probably violating some copyright law by "republishing" this article. Tough.)

It must have been a really, really slow news day, or it's now acceptable to report on things that simply DIDN'T happen! I especially love that part of this story could also be titled, "Craig Ferguson does not say Britney is alcoholic!" Obviously this could lead to a tremendous amount of absurdity, so much that I'm not even going to provide the hundreds of examples that are running through my head at the moment.

I was kidding in an earlier post when I said the news of the day was:

This Just In - Anna Nicole Smith STILL Dead!

Maybe I was actually being prophetic! I sure hope not.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Letter to the Editor of Time Magazine

I just wrote a letter to the Editor of Time Magazine. This is my favorite publication of all time on the planet. They almost never let a typo slip through or make grammatical errors of any sort. It's one of the things I like best about the magazine. Well, in a recent issue the let TWO of the same error make it into print. I know I'm being very knit-picky, but I want them to continue to maintain the adherence to pristine English.

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Time:

I have been a subscriber to Time Magazine for 34 years. That’s pretty scary, but true. Over a dozen addresses in five states, Time has been a constant in my entire adult life.

One of the things I admire most about the publication is dedication to upholding the integrity of the English language. You adhere to the finest standards of spelling, grammar and style, which always makes the publication a pleasure to read. I can count on one hand the number of typos or errors I have encountered in more than three decades of reading the magazine.

So you can imagine my disappointment when I found two glaring errors in the otherwise outstanding article on The Strange Case of Haji Bashar Noorzai in the February 19th issue. On page 29 in the first paragraph of the story, Mr. Powell writes, “…who is a well-known ally of Osama bin Laden’s, says he had been invited…”

An ally of Osama bin Laden’s what?

This double possessive is grammatically incorrect and the type of error one would expect to see in a middle-school writing class. Then, on page 32, Mr. Powell does it again. “…and a second cousin of President Hamid Karzai’s.”

Even if the author of this excellent piece doesn’t know better, I’m surprised his contributors, an editor or a proofreader allowed this to remain in the final draft. Please don’t distract me from the important information and opinions conveyed in the pages of Time with any more grammatical gaffs of this nature!

Thank you for 34 years of excellent reading!


I don't know if I'll receive a reply, but if I do, you will be able to read it here.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Marketers Are Idiots - Doritos Edition

As many people are aware, Doritos came up with an idea to have consumers create their own television commercials with a chance one would air during Super Bowl XLI. They claim to have gotten over 1000 entries, and the winner was a guy named Dale Buckus who made a commercial called Live the Flavor. It's a rather innocuous spot that centers on a guy getting into a car accident because he saw an attractive girl eating Doritos. She bangs her head on his car door when she comes to save him. Not very funny, but it's full of product attributes in bold supers, so I'm sure the people at Doritos thought it was great.

Time Magazine had an editorial related to this promotion in the February 12, 2007 edition written by James Poniewozik (Culture Complex - Customer, Sell Thyself).

Mr. Poniewozik accurately points out that the primary reason people entered this contest was to either get some prize money, or the fame that would come about from getting a commercial aired on the Super Bowl. He challenges the idea that a deep love of Doritos motivated anyone to shoot a spot for a snack food.

There is a quote in the article from Ann Mukherjee, the vice president of marketing at Frito-Lay. She says:

Our consumers have a need to express themselves and interact. We wanted to give them an opportunity to express their passion about how they interact with Doritos.

This is so sad! I don't know Ms. Mukherjee, but I certainly know her type. Marketing executives as the large packaged-goods companies actually talk this way, and I actually think they believe these kinds of ridiculous statements. People don't have a "passion" about snack chips. And they certainly don't have a need to tell the world how they "interact" with them!

When she says something like this in public, of course the press and anyone with a sixth-grade education thinks "what crap!" But in the executive offices at Frito-Lay they consider this kind of talk to be important to their existence. And I think they believe it - or at least they will never admit it if they don't.

As proof of their delusion, just take a look at the Doritos website. They call it "Snack Strong Productions" (complete with a trademark symbol) and claim "we are determined to take snacking to a higher level." No, I have no idea what that means either. Then, if you go deeper into the site - and I can't image why anyone would want to - you'll see that they have spent a huge amount of time and money creating an over-produced website that truly seems to expect that people ARE passionate about their chips. If you'd like, you can sign up to have them e-mail you with important information and news about Doritos products!

Sad, deluded and scared. Good luck, Ms. Mukerjee, you're going to need it if this is how you think Doritos should be marketed.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Kelli Finglass Makes Simon Cowell Seem Nice!

I do a lot of channel surfing and it seems on CMT they are ALWAYS showing an episode of Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders: Making the Team. It seems rather innocuous since basically it's about a group of young, stupid, well-endowed girls who are trying to get a job as a sex object. I guess this appeals to the CMT crowd, but I find the whole concept of professional football cheerleaders shaking their barely covered butts and jiggling their breasts to be rather exploitative.

But it is Kelli McGonagill Finglass's whole life. Too bad it doesn't seem to make her happy.

Mrs. Finglass was a cheerleader for five years from 1984 to 1988. Now she pretty much "owns" the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders franchise and rules it with an iron fist. What's sad is how obvious it is that she can't stand getting old and wants to make the young and hopeful cheerleader wannabes as miserable as she has become. I've never heard her say a kind word to any of them. She calls them fat and will cut them for being two pounds overweight. She makes them read books and give oral reports as if that's somehow going to make them a better sex object for drunk football fans who want to see some T&A between plays. She constantly criticizes their effort, all obviously to feed her own ego. How dare anyone be more attractive or a better dancer than she was!?!? (The key word is "was.")

I have a very simple proof of my opinion that Kelli Finglass is full of frustration and hate and is living in her own past. Try finding a current photograph of her anywhere on the Internet. You can't! There are plenty of them from her cheerleading days in the '80s, but that's how she wants to forever be remembered; not as the aging, mean, wizened, sagging crone that she has become.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Stupid Local TV News Survey

I don't know why this stuff bothers me, but I get so tired of stupid people doing stupid things without realizing how stupid they are. I just witnessed an example of the type of thing that just drives me bonkers.

I was watching the local TV news. We just had a pretty severe ice storm in the area and I guess there have been a few power outages. This particular station likes to "engage" its viewers by conducting a daily survey. Tonight's survey question:

Do you think the power company will be
able to keep up with the power outages in our area?

What is the point of asking a survey question to which the answer has absolutely no significance? Whatever you "think" is going to have no bearing on whether they are or are not able to deal with their power problems! What is the point of asking a survey question that has a factual, provable answer? It's like asking, "Do you think there is any water in the ocean?"

It doesn't matter what you think! If they are able to "keep up" (whatever that means), what does it possibly mean if you thought they would not be able to? Or what if you didn't think they could, and they did - or didn't - or CRAP! It doesn't matter!

It's just stupid, meaningless, pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

What's more - if your power is out - you can't watch their idiotic newscast!

Of course they'll probably get thousands and thousands of people calling or e-mailing their opinion and anxiously watching to see the results. I guess that's why no one has ever asked me to manage a TV station.

"NO" is the Only Safe Answer in Marketing

There's an important reason why marketing as a whole is bland, ineffective and boring. It's because the only safe answer any marketing manager can say to any innovative, new idea is a resounding, "NO!"

Consider this. Let's say someone - a marketing agency, a creative advertising executive, a sales promotion specialist, a savvy consumer - approaches the marketing manager of a packaged product with a new idea. The marketing manager listens and evaluates - and then must say "no." That's because he puts himself in extreme jeopardy if he does anything else.

Scenario #1
The marketer says, "no" and nobody else in the organization ever hears of the idea. He or she is safe.

Scenario #2
The marketer says, "no" and a competitor implements the idea. If it works, then all the marketer has to do is copy it - perhaps improve it - and he or she can justify the decision based upon the logic that the idea was untried and too risky. Now that someone else has worked out the kinks, his or her company can now implement it safely.

Scenario #3
The marketer says, "no" and someone else in the company - probably higher up the corporate ladder - hears about the idea and wants to do it. The marketer can justify the rejection of the idea because he or she is looking out for the best interests of the company and simply didn't feel the idea was right for the brand. Plus the cost didn't seem to justify the potential return. And besides, they hired this person to make these kinds of important decisions, so he or she is simply taking this responsibility seriously. How could the company be upset with such a dedicated employee?

Subscenaio #3A
If the higher-up approves the idea and it flops, the marketer is a valuable hero who probably deserves a promotion. Obviously "no" was the right decision.

Subscenario #3B
If the higher-up approves the idea and it does well, the marketer can fall back on the "it just didn't feel right" position, but has been proven wrong. This does nothing more than maintain the status quo in the company, and the marketer can keep his or her status as devoted protector of the brand without question. At the very least he or she is viewed as not being very visionary, but this is not a cause for termination as could result from saying, "yes."

If the marketer says, "yes" - then all sorts of bad can happen - the kind of bad that threatens the mortgage, car payment, retirement, happy children, a satisfied spouse, paying the credit card balances.

Scenario #4
The marketer says, "yes" and the idea flops. Loss of esteem, loss of credibility, loss of trust - probably loss of job. Marketers are too paranoid to risk this.

Scenario #5
The marketer says, "yes" and the idea does well. Unlikely, but now the marketer will be expected to repeat. Can lightning strike twice - probably not. This will force the marketer to consider saying "yes" again, which is fraught with so many risks that he or she will probably try to take this success to another company than continue struggling to repeat at his or her current one.

So, as all marketers in America know, the right answer to any new marketing idea is most certainly, "NO!" And we get to continue ignoring 99.9% of the marketing and advertising wastefully thrown in our direction.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Marketers Are Idiots - Part Three

I just saw another example of bad advertising that's actually quite insulting. Fidelity Investments has a commercial that uses Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida as the background music and for the majority of the spot they show a bunch of '60s-era animated flowers and butterflies. Then the announcer comes on and asks if your investments need a little more "flower power."

Obviously they are trying to appeal to the baby boomers who grew up in the 1960s. What is amazingly bad and insulting is that they think people born between 1945 and the mid 1950s are not only stuck in the 60s but that they would be influenced by this lame attempt at identifying with their generation.

I can only assume their expected response is, "Groovy man, look they're playing 'our' music and showing psychedelic flowers, man, I can't wait to give them my money because this company really knows where it's at, man!"

I have to believe this commercial was written and created by young ad creatives in their 20s who have no clue about the 60s, the baby boomers or human psychology and motivation in any way, shape or form. It's lame, stupid and insulting. What's worse, I'll bet anything it's also ineffective. And that's the worst kind of advertising there is.



Wise up, Fidelity. Sell people on what you can do and why you are a sound investment...man.





Update: February 19, 2007
This commercial is still running and it makes even less sense to me now that when I first started seeing it. Before the announcer condescends with his, "Need more flower power?" the spot shows a bunch of interest rates and mumbo jumbo about IRAs no load fees. Most of the screen is filled with tiny type disclaimers.

The thing is, isn't it a bit late to be talking to baby boomers of the In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida generation about IRAs and retirement? Hey, you're almost 60 - better start saving! Call us for advice! That's just a stupid strategy, but then the people who made and approved this commercial can't be very intelligent anyway. And it still offends me!

CNN Continues Their Anna Nicole Smith Orgy

Today was a rather historic day. Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States. It was an emotional, eloquent speech delivered from Springfield, Illinois in the same spot another "lanky lawyer from Illinois" spoke to the country over 150 years ago.

CNN carried live coverage of the event. However, scrolling across the bottom of the screen the whole time was "updated" coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, the speculation on who the father of her baby is, the location of the baby and repeatedly the fact that despite the autopsy, we still don't know the cause of death. However it seems murder and/or drugs have been ruled out.

STOP!

They also frequently promoted the exciting new Larry King show coming up that evening. Yes, Larry was going to interview Anna Nicole Smith's mother - LIVE!

I repeat - STOP!

Friday, February 9, 2007

CNN: Please Stop the INSANITY!

This just in: Anna Nicole Smith Still Dead!

I like to tune in to CNN Headline News in the morning. I like Robin Meade - and her "company." I get an update on what's going on in the world, the weather, some sports, a little financial news and a smattering of entertainment happenings.

Well, after devoting their entire lineup last night to the Anna Nicole Smith non-story, I guess CNN figured the American public still needed to know that nobody knows anything about this "celebrity's" death. They showed the now famous footage of a video zoom-in to something or someone being pulled out of the back of an ambulance and wheeled into a doorway that could be a hospital - maybe the morgue? It could be anyone anywhere, but we're told some guy with a camera climbed on a roof and got "exclusive" footage of Smith's dead, covered body being transported from somewhere to somewhere else. If you say so.

To make matters worse, Robin was interviewing some CNN legal affairs expert who admits he knows nothing, but continues to babble. What if Smith didn't leave a will? (Robin speculated that since she was only 39 and young people often don't do wills that she probably doesn't have one.) Who will have custody of her daughter? If her lawsuit is ever settled, who will get the money? What if she's not legally married? What if her residence was The Bahamas?

"Intriguing question, Robin...I don't know!"

I think CNN has completely over-estimated America's interest in Anna Nicole Smith.

Mercifully Robin moved on to other stories...more deaths in Iraq, continued snowfall in New York state, a new coach for the Dallas Cowboys. And then a commercial.

When the show resumed from the commercial break, Robin's first words were, "And now back to Anna Nicole Smith."

I screamed "NO!" and shut off the TV.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

It's Official - Journalism at CNN is DOA!

Anna Nicole Smith is dead!

Forget the war in Iraq. Forget global warming. Forget unity in Gaza, the psycho astronaut or the suffering Darfur. A former Playboy model who for the last 13 years has been famous for, uh, for being fat, uh, golddigging a millionaire, or, um, taking drugs and going ballistic on a really stupid reality show...she's dead!

Yes, it's was everybody's top story today - especially on CNN. And I'm totally disgusted.

Paula Zahn pre-empted what would have been a really interesting show on religion featuring Richard Dawkins to devote the entire hour to Anna Nichole Smith's death. The thing is, in the first 30 seconds she covered everything there was to know. But she goes to a reporter LIVE at the hotel in Florida, who goes through the timeline and questions the actions of everyone involved. Then Paula grills her to make sure they are completely clear on what they don't know. This is followed by a LIVE report from a reporter at the hospital. They go to an interview with a "witness" who saw the ambulance arrive at the hospital. He describes how Ms. Smith looked on the gurney, down to how much of her body was covered by the blanket on top of her. This is cutting edge journalism, folks.

What amazes me is how they managed to fill an hour when, once again, everyone kept saying "we don't know."

Nancy Grace simultaneously on CNN Headline News covered the story "in depth." She had two expert guests who proceeded to speculate on what drugs Anna Nicole might have taken and whether her insurance would pay out if it turns out this was either a suicide or homicide. WHAT!?!? "Why was she travelling with a nurse?" "Are you aware that one of her bodyguards is also a nurse?" "Could her death be related to the recent death of her 20-year old son?" "Where is her infant, and what will become of the baby now?"

Then they bring on their medical expert, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who discusses whether or not Anna Nicole's heart might have given out due to her battle with weight, drugs and stress.

CNN has no shame and as far as I'm concern, no right to call itself a "news" organization. They are no better than the horrid tabloids that invade people's lives and spread lies when they have no facts. The fact is that this "celebrity" died and nobody knows what happened or why yet. To devote a full hour of programming devoted to speculation and uneducated guesses is criminal.

But I'll bet they got their highest ratings of the year. We should also be ashamed.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Journalists Can Be Idiots Too

I'm not much of a Prince fan. I think he's a great guitar player, but I just don't like his music that well, and I like his singing even less. He's just so freaking odd! I thought he was a strange choice for this year's Super Bowl halftime show, but I know he's very popular and sells a heck of a lot of CDs.

There's been some controversy about his shadow show. It seems pretty obvious that the only reason this was included was to make his weird symbol-guitar look like an oddly hooked penis. The whole section of the show was so out of place that this can be the only explanation for doing it. To me, if was the weakest part of the entire performance, but if little Prince needs to try and convince people he's got a huge barbed boner, so be it.


The story was covered today by MSN online in their Music News section. The story is titled: Prince's Halftime Imagery Questioned. Basically it says there haven't been many complaints. The story is uncredited, probably for a very good reason.


Near the end it says:


Prince's previously most talked-about performance came at the 1991 MTV Video Music Awards, where he donned yellow, butt-baring pants, (a stunt later spoofed by Howard Stern). Always eccentric, he famously changed his name to The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, then to simply a symbol and finally back to Prince. He also became a Jehovah's Witness in the mid-`90s.


Why would MSN hire a writer to write about music and someone as famous as Prince, and be so completely ignorant?


Prince changed his name to a symbol that had no name. He justified it on some offbeat grounds about society putting labels on people and mixed in some sexually neutral philosophy. He thought he was being real cutting edge. The thing is, no one knew what to call him anymore, so the press adopted the name, "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince." He did NOT change his name to this and actually hated being called that! A music scene writer should know this - or at the very least look it up.


Because of pressure from the record label and the fact that he was now being called this stupid name every time anyone referred to him, "The Artist" decided to change his name back to Prince. The whole thing pretty much backfired on him and I'm sure he regrets ever making the switch in the first place.


One funny side note to this. I remember around the time Prince went back to using his name, a few sarcastic writers began referring to him as, "The Artist Formerly Known as an Unpronounceable Symbol." I love it! But I'm surprised the idiot writer from MSN didn't include this as one of the names Mr. Rogers chose for himself.
The original article can be found here.

Saturday, February 3, 2007

Marketers Are Idiots - Part Two

There are so many ridiculously bad television commercials and ads today that it's often hard to decide which one is most deserving of my time to rip it to shreds. Have you seen the one currently running for Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold Relief? I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the advertising agency was presenting this concept to the client.

Imagine half a dozen brand managers sitting around a conference table as they are pitched on the exciting new campaign by the agency's senior VP, account executive, creative director and copy chief. There are boxes of all nine variations of Alka-Seltzer Plus Effervescents sitting in the middle of the table. (Yes, NINE different products - good luck figuring out which one you need!)

"OK, we have this woman standing in a completely white studio and she's got a terrible cold."

"How do we know she has a cold?"

"Her nose is kind of red and, uh, the announcer says she has one. Then she shivers and sneezes. OK, now imagine this...she plops a couple of Alka-Seltzers in a glass of water and sets it on the floor by her feet. Then she jumps up in the air and magically drops into the glass of bubbling water!"

"Magically?"

"Yeah, kind of like if she jumped into a swimming pool feet first, except it's a glass of water with Alka-Seltzer in it! Then we cut to her like she's under water, but she's smiling while she fights to keep her eyes open. But the cold is gone! She's smiling!"

"More magic?"

"Yeah, and then she pops out of the glass, back onto the empty white studio, but she's cured!"

"Is she all wet?"

"No, she's magically dry - and cured! (long pause) So, whatta ya think?"

"Uhhhh..."

"Oh, and we've got a great tagline! LIQUIDATES YOUR REALLY BIG COLD!"

(Yes, they actually say that.)

The most amazing part of all this is that at some point the client said, "Yes" and gave the ad agency permission - and a lot of money - to make this commercial and broadcast it all over network TV. Then again, some know-it-all at Bayer could have forced this concept down the agency's throat and insisted this is a great way to market their product. This sort of twisted, reverse strategy happens all the time.

The point is, this is as lame as it gets - uncomfortable to watch - and certainly doesn't do anything to enhance the brand or convince people they should buy it. A doctor in a lab coat would be preferable, but it's certainly not as much fun or as expensive as dunking a poor woman under water and trying to make it look like she's enjoying the experience.

One last comment about the marketing of Alka-Seltzer, which I happen to think is a great product - it's their stupid advertising with which I take exception. On their website they have a Student Science Experiments page with eight fun things you can do with Alka-Seltzer tablets. One of them is called "Alka Rockets." It shows you how to create a paper rocket propelled by Alka-Seltzer and water, purportedly to demonstrate Newton's third law of motion!

Hey, whatever helps you sell more product! You can check it out here.

How I miss "I can't believe I ate the WHOLE thing!"

Mystery of the Apostrophe Revealed!

Thanks to a very nice comment from a reader of my previous post, I feel obligated to express my concern with how poorly understood the lowly apostrophe is by most writers. Just a teeny little line placed between two letters - but it seems more and more people just don't get it!

The most important thing to understand is that the apostrophe does NOT make anything plural. Most words in English become plural by adding an "s" to the end of it. One cat...ten cats. One dog...three dogs. Just because something is abbreviated or somehow doesn't fit the norm, doesn't mean you automatically add an apostrophe. One TV...two TVs. One PC...an office full of PCs. No apostrophe. Two TV's or a bunch of PC's is WRONG!

Now, if you're writing about something that belongs to the TV or PC, that's completely different. The apostrophe is used for possessives. The TV's speaker is broken. The PC's keyboard is white.

I hope you can see the difference.

One area in which the apostrophe is almost universally used incorrectly is in relation to dates and decades. Maybe some examples will show proper usage:

There were a lot of hippies in the 1960s. (Plural - not a possessive, hence no apostrophe.)

Woodstock was a 1960's phenomenon. (Possessive - it belongs to the decade.)

Most people really mangle this when they start abbreviating the decade. There's a very simple way to remember what's correct, thanks to a television show that did it RIGHT!

That '70s Show

The apostrophe is correctly used as a substitute for the 19 and there is no apostrophe after the number because it is a plural, not a possessive.

So don't use an apostrophe to make plurals of any sort. Ever.

If you can understand the difference between a plural and a possessive, you shouldn't have any problems knowing when to use the apostrophe and when to just add an "s". The thing is, you're going to see lots and lots of examples of improper usage in everything you read and see today. I encourage you to sanctimoniously point out the error of the author's ways at every opportunity!