Techno Slap Chop Informercial Remix... Infringement Or Brilliant?

from the welcome-to-the-world-today dept

Xanthir writes in to point to this Guardian article about viral videos that highlights the "Rap Chop" video that's currently got over a million views on YouTube. If you haven't seen it (and I hadn't), it's basically taking a silly infomercial for an "as seen on TV" chopping device, which you can see here: ... and remixed it into a techno tune, with some music, cuts and (of course) Autotune to turn the guy's voice into music, and you get this: As both Xanthir and the writer at the Guardian note, after watching the remix, they felt like buying the device. Either way, once again, we're seeing the convergence of a few different topics we tend to talk about here, including the creativity of remixed content and the benefits of making advertising into really good and desirable content, so it doesn't even feel like advertising. And, of course, there are copyright questions. The video is almost certainly infringing on the original, but it's yet another example where it would be a bad idea to try to enforce the copyright (and it doesn't look like the company has even tried to do so, which is good).

Filed Under: advertising, content, copyright, remix, slapchop

Is Casio Aiming For The Sexter Market With Its Latest Phone?

from the serious-questions dept

"Sexting," or kids taking nude or provocative photos of themselves and sending them around, is one of the moral panics du jour. While some people are working themselves into a lather over it, one can't help but wonder if Casio is trying to pitch its latest mobile handset to the teen sexter market with a couple of YouTube videos called "Sexy girl in the shower" and "Money shot." The videos have since been yanked, but the former touted the handset's waterproofing and 5-megapixel camera by showing -- no prizes for guessing -- a girl using it in the shower to talk and take a photo of herself. We won't get in to the content of the second ad, but suffice to say it's not something very many companies would be too comfortable with. Sure, showing somebody using a phone in the shower sounds like a great way to promote a waterproof handset, but given the sexting uproar, perhaps Casio's timing (and/or judgment) was a little off.

Filed Under: advertising, mistargeted, sexting

Journalism Could Be Funded By Advertising... If The News Organizations Gave A Reason To Advertise

from the disconnect dept

Mathew Ingram draws our attention to a thoughtful analysis of the journalism business model question, where it's noted that even a smaller amount of online advertising could clearly support journalistic endeavors -- especially if you take out the costs of printing newspapers and delivery. The problem, according to the analysis, is that advertisers have been way too slow to move from print advertising to online advertising. If there were a way to speed up the process, there would hardly be any complaining at all.

From a numerical point of view, this sounds right, but it may be missing a big piece of the puzzle. Throughout all of these debates, no one has explained why those advertisers should support newspaper websites. Those newspapers have done little to add real value over the past few years, while plenty of other online sites have actively embraced their communities, and done so in a way where advertisers can derive much more value putting ad dollars towards those communities, than the "hands-off" communities created by so many newspaper sites. The problem isn't that advertisers have been slow to switch to online advertising, but that the newspapers have done a terrible job building sites where it's worthwhile to advertise, and haven't done much at all to provide advertising options that are valuable. Instead, they treat it like a backlit version of the newspaper, where they'll show display ads. Yet, advertisers are quickly learning that display ads are ignored, and they also recognize that newspapers have done little to nothing to cultivate true online communities. So why should they advertise on a newspaper site when they can get much better returns elsewhere?

Filed Under: advertising, business models, journalism, newspapers

Once Again: Making Search Results Better Isn't An Antitrust Violation

from the at-least-it-better-not-be dept

And, here we go with more ridiculous antitrust lawsuits -- this time against Google. You may recall last fall, the NY Times ran a silly article focusing on one small company supposedly as evidence of Google's monopoly power. But that was hard to support when you looked at the details. Basically, this company was a pure search arbitrage player. It was buying ads on Google, sending people to a page full of links... and a bunch of Google ads. These pages are often considered spam by users for good reason: they don't provide value. They're a pass-through on the way to where you actually want to go. Because of that, people began to indicate to Google that such links were poor uses of their time, and Google's algorithm properly corrected for that, lowering the prominence of those ads. That's all about making the product better for end users.

However, the company in that NY Times profile, TradeComet, still isn't satisfied, and has now sued Google for antitrust violations claiming that it purposely tried to destroy its SourceTool site (and, of course, it should come as no surprise that there's a Microsoft connection for all you conspiracy buffs). There are numerous problems with this argument. First, it was TradeComet that made the decision to rely almost entirely on Google to send it traffic. That was a strategic decision (and a bad one). Second, Google has every right to make its search results better, and getting spam-like pages out of sight is one clear way to do so. Third, it's almost laughable that Google would "target" SourceTool as a site to be "harmed." It's not like SourceTool was a threat to Google in any way. Fourth, even more ridiculous: since this was a search arbitrage play using Google's ads on the results page as well, Google was making money from sending traffic to SourceTool. All in all, it seems unlikely that TradeComet will get anywhere with this, other than making people think that it picked a really bad business model, almost entirely reliant on one channel partner, and then performed poorly for that channel partner. So Google isn't violating antitrust laws -- it's just doing business.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, monopolies, search
Companies: google, tradecomet

Content Is Advertising; Advertising Is Content... On SNL

from the blurring-boundaries dept

If you're in any business that relies on "advertising" for revenue, you need to stop thinking of it as advertising -- and start realizing that advertising and content are the same thing. All traditional "advertising" is content -- and if you want anyone to pay attention to it, it had better be good content. At the same time, all traditional "content" is advertising -- it's just a question of what it's advertising. But as more companies recognize this, we're going to see an increasingly blurry line between advertising and content. While some purists decry this situation, they shouldn't worry so much. It will improve both the overall quality of the "content" that you see all the time in two ways: it will allow for better financing of that content and it makes sure that the formerly "bad" advertising content isn't sustainable and goes away.

Reader James Thomas sends in an example of this blurring of the lines that occurred recently with Saturday Night Live. Apparently, on the SNL the night before the Superbowl, there were three skits "MacGruber" skits (a parody of the popular classic TV show MacGyver) each of which had a totally over-the-top promotion of Pepsi. That part may seem like traditional product placement (though, oddly over the top), but the interesting part was that the next night, during the Superbowl, NBC actually showed one of those sketches during a commercial break. In other words, the sketch itself was then repurposed as "commercial" content -- thus blurring the lines completely. I'm not sure how effective this was (personally, I don't find the MacGruber skits funny at all), but it does demonstrate some of how things are changing. If you did the same thing with content that actually was enjoyable, I could see it getting a much better reaction.

Filed Under: advertising, commercials, content, content is advertising, saturday night live
Companies: nbc, pepsi

It's Not Ad Standards That Have Killed The Online Ad Business

from the it's-crappy,-annoying-ads dept

We've been pointing out for some time that any business that relies on traditional display advertising to make money is in for a world of hurt because almost no one pays attention to those ads. There's a simple reason for this: they're not at all relevant or useful. They're often annoying. And, most importantly, they're not what anyone is on a page to see. When people surf to a web page, they're looking for the useful content -- and most advertising is not useful content.

This seems rather obvious, but it hasn't stopped some folks who tend to rely on such bad display advertising from trying to rationalize why that market is rapidly shrinking. The NY Times quotes MSNBC.com's president, Charles Tillinghast, who says the real reason that display advertising is drying up is because the IAB agreed to standard sizes for display advertisements earlier this decade. To him, that meant that the display ads were distributed everywhere via ad networks, creating over-supply and commoditization, driving down prices.

While I don't deny that there may be an oversupply -- I doubt that a more limited supply would have made a big difference. The problem isn't with the supply. It's with the demand. Most people don't want such useless advertising, so they ignore it (sometimes with help from Adblock). If you want to make advertising work, the issue isn't getting rid of standardization, or worrying about commoditization, it's about making the advertisements into good content that people actually want to participate with, rather than annoying "ads" that they want to avoid.

Filed Under: ads, advertising, content, display ads, standards
Companies: msnbc

Bell Canada Caught Lying In Advertisements... Continues Advertising Because It Doesn't Believe Ad Review Group

from the hear-no-evil... dept

Bell Canada is taking an interesting approach to being called out for lying in its ads to consumers concerning network performance: it's simply ignoring the whole thing. Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) found that Bell Canada was being quite misleading in claiming that Bell Canada was the "fastest network across North America." Now, there may be different ways to judge the speed of broadband offered on a network, and you would think that a company would respond with some data to support its side. Bell Canada, on the other hand, has said that it simply doesn't recognize ASC as a legitimate organization, and therefore, it can go about its business and advertising.

Filed Under: advertising, truth in advertising
Companies: bell canada

Little Trees Air Freshener Company Ads Warn People Not To Mess With Its Trademark

from the seems-a-bit-proactive dept

We've seen a variety of overly aggressive actions concerning trademarks lately that go well beyond the stated purpose (and the letter of the law) concerning trademarks. However, one of our readers, BendWeather, sent in something we hadn't seen before. He was reading the latest (paper) copy of PhotoShop User Magazine and discovered the following advertisement: Now, I have no problem with the company, Little Trees, that makes those "car-fresheners" enforcing their trademarks when there's a real violation of the trademark, but it seems quite odd to become so proactive that you would take out an ad specifically warning people that it's a trademark violation "no matter how you use it." That, of course, is false and a misstatement of trademark law... as is the information on Little Trees' own web page about its trademark, where the company incorrectly claims that "the law requires that we take action when someone is using them without permission."

That is not true. The law requires that a trademark holder actively police infringement on its trademarks and activity that would likely cause confusion or dilution of the trademark. That does not mean any use that is without permission. For example, in writing this post about Little Trees' trademark policy we did not ask permission, nor should we need it, since we are commenting on the policy itself. We are not competing with the company, confusing anyone as to the origins of the mark, or diluting the value of the mark, unless you consider explaining how the company is overly stating the rights associated with the mark as diminishing its value (which would be quite the legal argument).

Also, in looking at the ad, the company is being somewhat misleading in claiming that the image is "private property." It is not. It is covered by trademark, which is not the same thing as private property, and the company is doing a disservice to everyone claiming that they are the same thing.

Filed Under: advertising, air freshener, trademark
Companies: little trees

The Death Of Online Advertising Is Greatly Exaggerated

from the precision-targeting dept

Over at his personal blog, occasional Techdirt contributor Tom Lee weighs in on an interesting discussion going on around the blogosphere about who, if anyone, is to blame for the precipitous decline of the newspaper business. My sympathies are with the pessimists: in principle, there are a lot of things newspapers could have done to better manage the transition to Internet-based news, but as a practical matter it's really difficult for large organizations to adapt to disruptive technologies. Tom makes some sensible points about the newspaper business, but then makes a claim about the broader advertising industry that I didn't agree with. Tom suggests that the online advertising market may be fundamentally doomed because now that advertisers can more precisely measure the effects of advertising, they're discovering that it "just doesn't work very well."

I think there are a couple of problems with this. In the first place, advertising has never "worked very well" in the sense that any given ad impression doesn't exactly get the viewer to run out and purchase the product being advertised. In the traditional advertising business, companies didn't know which specific ad will work on which specific viewer, so they adopted a scattershot approach where they exposed millions of customers to dozens of ads and hoped a few of them would have the desired effect. But despite our ignorance about precisely which ads "work" on which viewers, it's pretty clear that advertising "worked" in the aggregate. McDonalds and Coca Cola clearly get some value from the millions of dollars they spend on TV and print ads.

On the Internet, the scattershot approach is no longer necessary. Digital media allows advertisers to be a lot more specific about the users they want to target and to collect a lot more data about their effectiveness. Tom suggests that this is a bad thing because once companies discover their ads aren't working well, they'll stop spending money on them. But the flip side is that advertisers can measure when a particular ad is working, and that ad inventory becomes correspondingly more valuable. Even better, better measurement means that the average ad should improve over time. Ads that don't work can get dropped more quickly, and the ones that perform well can be put on heavy rotation, emulated by other advertisers, and so forth. That can only be good for ad revenues.

Tom also suggests that advertising is doomed because the Internet makes it a lot easier to avoid it. But peoples' hatred for advertising isn't inevitable. It's a consequence of the limitations of 20th century media technologies that required advertisers to adopt "scattershot" approaches to advertising. There was no way to target car ads at the 5 percent of the population that's in the market for a car at any given time, so the other 95 percent of us had to sit through endless car commercials. But online there are lots of ways to more narrowly target ads at people who are likely to be interested in them. In the long run, as we've said before, advertisers are going to have to realize that content is advertising. If you can make ads relevant, interesting, or entertaining, people aren't going to try as hard to avoid them. Search engines do this by only showing ads relevant to the particular keyword a user entered. Other advertisers have figured out that if they make their commercials fun to watch, people will be more willing to watch them. Of course, it's hard to predict whether the total amount of advertising revenue will go up or down over the next decade. But as long as people buy stuff, companies will be willing to spend significant amounts of money to influence their decisions.

Filed Under: advertising

Apple: It's Not Like Anyone Believes What We Advertise...

from the great-defenses dept

With Apple getting smacked down in the UK for misleading advertising, it appears the company is also facing a variety of similar challenges on the homefront. However, Apple tried a rather odd defense in a similar case. After first claiming that everything in its ads was accurate, the company also noted that any reasonable person would know not to believe what they saw in the ad anyway:

"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact."

I could see that argument making sense for extreme and over-the-top demonstrations, but somehow it seems unlikely to fly in this particular case.

Filed Under: advertising, truth in advertising
Companies: apple