I just discovered an amazing Google hack called a “Google Duel for Writers” created by Geoff Peters, a Computing Science and Business student at Simon Fraser University in BC, Canada.

Google Duel for Writers is an amazing way of finding out which words (or phrases) from a group of synonyms, rank higher on Google. You simply type in up to 10 words or phrases into GoogleDuel fields and the results pop up in a few seconds.
http://cgi.sfu.ca/~gpeters/cgi-bin/pear/writers.php

I typed in the following 7 words:
ambience
mood
environment
feeling
nuance
context
scenario

I then clicked on the ‘Let the duel begin’ button. Guess what won?

“Environment” took the victory stand with 25.2 million mentions.

“Context” got just 10.1 million mentions.
“Ambience” got a measly 412,000 mentions.

The original Google Duel works for any 2 words.

Continue reading →

“May I have a class-action lawsuit with that?”

The obesity debate has become extremely polarized, as the blame-game continues.
It picked up some steam as soon as McDonald’s announced that it was discontinuing its super-sized servings. These days, anything McDonald’s does is fodder for journalists, because it’s such an easy story to cover –especially since they can play the blame game no matter what side they take.

A Wall Street Journal Editorial (titled “Supersized silliness”) in March 2004 put it this way:

“If we want the country to resemble Jennifer Aniston rather than 747s, we first have to face up to what’s really causing the bulge.”

ABCs Peter Jennings put it this way:

“According to data from the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Working Group, sugars (and) fats, the foods the government says we should eat least, got 20 times more subsidies that fruits and vegetables.”

And, in a sound byte befitting the current war on everything, the president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, hit out at the burger:

“The most prolific weapons of mass destruction in this country are the cheeseburger and a soda.”

The voices that are least heard are those who blame the real culprit: the people who drive up to the restaurant, pry open their wallets, order the product, and actually ingest something they don’t have to.

The restaurant isn’t responsible for making make you obese, any more than a grocery store is responsible for making you buy lettuce, or Krispy Kreme is responsible for pushing up your calorie count for selling you doughnuts!

Continue reading →

Media Planners of the world, arise!

Media planning is so twentieth century! How could ad agencies have not seen this coming? They elevated it to a near science, making ROI the touchstone of all media choices, because they figured it was what clients wanted.

How wrong they were. Clients always wanted creative media plans, even though that might sound like an oxymoron. Proctor & Gamble pulled the rug under the feet of everyone by announcing that it wants “a broader approach to consumer planning.” Translated: think outside the spreadsheet!

The marketer has asked for its media planning agencies to turn into ‘communications planning agencies.’ Translated: include non media into media plans, for heaven’s sake! Jim Stengel, P&G’s marketing head, said it best last year. A few of his references to this:

“We must accept the fact that there is no “mass” in “mass media” anymore.”

“There must be and is life outside the 30-second TV spot.”

“Brands that rely too heavily on mainstream media, or that are not exploring new technologies and connection points, will lose touch.”

“Why are we still dependent on reach, frequency, and advertising pre-market scores?”

I have been taking pot shots at reach and frequency for a decade, so it is good to hear a heavyweight say it. Especially a heavyweight with a $2 billion budget!

Continue reading →

Advertisers have been getting off the hook. But for how long more? They are a powerful group, but if they are reading the signs, they should not kid themselves that they are untouchable. Even Oprah is under the microscope. Some marketers have begun to see the light. The Virgin group, for instance, notorious for controversial advertising (the Bennetton shortcut to fame), has changed its tack in the recent campaign for Virgin Mobile.

If you might recall, Virgin Mobile used what it called the “nominal gay reference” about someone arrested thrown into prison. The ad featured a burly prisoner asking another to pick up a bar of soap on the floor. In the late nineties, Virgin Cola dared the FTC with the same-sex kiss commercial. Abercrombie & Fitch was forced to discontinue its Christmas catalog after parent groups protested its use of sex to sell to young people.

But Janet and Madonna changed that for everyone –including the one-time untouchable, Howard Stern. You can tell Advertising Age is all upset about this. In the April 5 issue, it declares that:

“If the mainstream media opts to placate a moral majority, then younger and/or more sophisticated consumers will make their own choices –for cable, satellite, radio, the Internet, pay-per-view.”

The article is full of the standard ‘let the market decide’ bias. Sure, I like it when the market decides what’s viable or not, but the insinuation in the article is that the government is bringing the slam-the-evildoers act to the marketing and advertising world. It’s full of references to ‘the bid to cleanse content,’ ‘cultural overlords,’ and the ‘moral majority’ (as oppsed to the “more sophisticated consumers.”)

And get this: the article on the front page is carried over to page 34, with the lead in titled “Puritanism.” I bet you this is a hack job. It could very well be a ‘white paper’ for an advertising lobby against the FTC. They frame the debate as the “traditionalists” vs the “nonconformists,” “the moral majority vs the edgy elite.”

Great copy, Ad Age. Edgy elite! That’s a new one.

Continue reading →