Skip to main content

go drunk facebook, you're home

a lot of my friends can't believe that i haven't just blocked ads from my facebook feed. personally, i can't imagine why anyone would block ads from their facebook feed, because they're such an endless source of inspiration.

i've already talked about how facebook's targeting software seems to be a little like a pubescent boy, unable to process anything about female users other than "b00b$!!!" but i have to at least give the horny little hamsters credit for throwing an ad for skin care into my feed. you could at least make the argument that i have posted things [through this blog] that could lead someone to believe that i might be interested in skin care. but then, i looked at the ad:






facebook, you need to fire yourselves now. stop attacking people who want their private lives private and just show yourselves a red card. someone in your organisation has placed ads for skin care from a company called james' tire shop.


because when i want good advice about my skin, i like to go to the autobody and ask guys who work with steel and solvents. i'm sure they all moonlight for mary kay.

since i was writing a blog post on the subject, i figured that i'd at least google the name to make sure that i wasn't about to find out it was some hipster outfit and i was just hopelessly behind the times. well, i am hopelessly behind the times, but that's beside the point here. this is what you get when you google "james tire shop". and incidentally, this is what you get when you search facebook for james tire shop.

in the hopes of finding the punchline to the joke, i read the ad and noticed the following:





so this was your thirtieth high school reunion and you and your classmate are both in your fifties. let's say you're both fifty-one, ok? that means that you graduated high school when you were twenty-one years old.

i'm going to assume that anyone who graduated high school before they were twenty-one has figured out the problem with this statement.

i could leave it there, but i can't turn down the opportunity to comment on the image that the advertiser has chosen to go with the text, because it looks like a microwaved jellyfish. you know what i think when i see something that reminds me of a microwaved jellyfish? "get that shit away from me, pronto."

and i don't think i'm alone in that. i think that there are a lot of people who would scroll past a few posts they were actually interested in looking at in order to get that nastiness off their screen. i'm willing to bet a lot of you are trying to avoid looking at that image right now.

i'm not going to claim to be omniscient when it comes to advertising, but there are a couple of tidbits i'd like to pass on:

1. a shocking image will catch people's attention, it's true.

2. catching people's attention by showing them gross images in advertising is like waving your junk at a cute girl and then asking her if she wants to go to dinner. you've made your first impression and you're going to have to live with it.

last night, i had a dream that i was building a marketing campaign for a client that involved kidnapping children for a couple of days, feeding them a healthy meal and then returning them home wearing a t-shirt for the brand i was representing. i can almost guarantee you that after the fourth or fifth kid turned up, people would be talking about the brand. the problem is that what they would be saying probably wouldn't boost sales.

when i woke up, i found all of this very funny. i also knew that it was one of the most batshit insane things my brain had ever come up with, which is why i'm not actually going to suggest it as a guerilla marketing tactic. sometimes the most important part of creativity is knowing when to stop: don't kidnap children as a public relations stunt, don't buy your skin care from a mechanic [no matter how good a mechanic s/he is] and don't buy ads for your company on facebook.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …