Dumb Things I Have Done Lately

Monday, June 22, 2009

Meet (Busty) Christian Women, Easy

I don't usually pay attention to the ads on my Facebook profile, and they're pretty easy to ignore. But this one stood out: Not only because of the mistargeting (Christian singles is pretty far off the mark), but because it features a model with huge tracts of Bible:

Busty Christian Singles Ad Then I realized that I'd seen this particular particularly pneumatic model before -- she's busty glamour model Denise Milani (she works non-nude -- barely -- but I wouldn't call the site SFW) and she's a former SportsbyBrooks girl.

TinEye reverse image search finds the photo in larger size, used in other, decidedly non-Christian contexts.

While it's possible, of course, that Denise Milani is a fine, upstanding Christian woman, and that her photo was licensed to this particular Christian singles site, it seems far more likely that whoever was responsible for the ad -- either the site or an affiliate -- just grabbed an eye-catching photo off the Web. *yoink*

Seems to be standard operating procedure for any dating site ads on Facebook, whether it's over 30s, Christian, or whatever -- find a pretty girl whose boobs take up 40% of the available image area. (Actually, I guess that's the SOP for pretty much any Facebook ad.)

I actually did click through to take a look at their site. (Their slogan is "The Community for [Busty] Christian Singles.")

It has a lot to offer -- for example, it has a wonderfully streamlined registration process. For example, it asks your gender, but doesn't ask what gender you're seeking. Simple!


Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 14, 2009

The key to saving the Washington Post is more Photo Hunt

In its wisdom, the advertising and marketing people at the Washington Post have decided that the key to turning around declining revenue and saving the newspaper industry is more Photo Hunt -- in the 2/15 edition of the Sunday Magazine, directly adjacent to the usual Second Glance feature, they're running an ad for the Outer Banks, mimicking the photo hunt style:


The answers aren't live yet, but I have, thoughtfully and helpfully, provided the answers:

1. Lighthouse level
2. Barely concealed disdain, envy
3. Asymptomatic congenital heart defect
4. Used condom 2 inches below surface
5. Some sort of blight or fungus
6. Vague sense of existential foreboding
7. Post-racial worldview
8. Proof of global climate change
9. SEO-optimization, Section 508 compliance
10. Ill-advised coastal erosion management project
11. Non-convict labor

The Second Glance feature has been subverted before, so perhaps that was the first step down the slippery slope.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Advertising on Internet Video: I Don't Get Not Getting It

I didn't watch last night's Saturday Night Live featuring Steve Martin's umpteen-gillionth hosting appearance. However, I did see that BoingBoing's Xeni Jardin recognized Laser Cats #4 as a Wonderful Thing, complete with the embedded video from Hulu:

It's funny because it's ironic. And meta. And DIGITAL.

The video is a bit of amusing fluff, no big deal. But I'm kind of baffled by this part of Jardin's nota bene (not the Latin abbreviation part -- I looked that up):
"...(nb: I hate that I can't find a version of this short without 30 SECONDS OF ADS preceding the content. NBC still doesn't get it.)"
I don't think a 30-second pre-roll on a 4min 27sec video is particularly onerous (granted, I also don't think pre-rolls are particularly effective, either -- I tend to mute and go to another tab for the duration) but I'm really curious as to what "getting it" would entail. Because, you know, advertisers tend not to care much for the ignorable, non-intrusive, dismissable types of ads that we users like so much.

So, pre-rolls are out. Post-rolls? Overlays? Persistant graphic bug in the corner? Interstitials? Premium accounts? Paid product placement? Throw everything out there without ads and hope to make it up on the back-end through increased DVD sales?

I like free and ad-free stuff, too, but somebody has to pay, somewhere, and there ain't no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution. I don't have the access, acumen, or arrogance to presume what's going on with the Hulu balance sheets, but I do know that what may work for BoingBoing or South Park Studios might not work for Hulu.

Labels: , ,