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?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

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 …