watch this video a half dozen times. the height on the launch, the kicking the legs mid-air, the back flop, the fact that she's probably 10 and crying when she comes up?
like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
also, the video is obnoxiously huge, and covering up some side-bar information .. but worth it i'd say.
_
Thursday, July 31, 2008
yes.
it doesn't play as well as the game obviously, because the game is the greatest game ever, but it's still pretty fun.
_
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
it's not a party without guinness (apparently)
this clip has been up on youtube for four months, and has 300,000 views. it's not the definition of viral per se (this ray ban viral video has 3.6 million views in a year), but it's gotten some decent exposure. i, for one, have had it forwarded to me by two friends in the last three days.
imagine if advertisers would go out on a limb more often and do something like what guinness did here. i've seen some of these 'never-made-it-to-TV' ads on youtube before, and they're usually a hit.
what does this say about this type of risque advertising? that people would like it more than the crap that's jammed down their throats? or does it not matter, because the realities of both the ad industry and society just don't allow for it to happen?
UPDATE: youtube pulled the clip. i hope you had an opportunity to see before it went MIA, but if not, here's the rundown. a naked woman (clearly on all fours) is slowly rocking back and forth, with a bottle of guinness resting in the small of her back. about 30 seconds in, a male hand from behind the woman reaches for the bottle, takes a swig, and let's out a refreshing 'ahhh.' 10 seconds later, a male hand from the front does the same. the tagline 'guinness: share one with a friend' comes up, then a third hand from the bottom of the screen reaches up for a sip, and the tagline continues .. 'or two.'
apparently the aforementioned 'realities of society' are responsible for pulling it down.
my question is - what the hell was the third hand doing down there?
_
imagine if advertisers would go out on a limb more often and do something like what guinness did here. i've seen some of these 'never-made-it-to-TV' ads on youtube before, and they're usually a hit.
what does this say about this type of risque advertising? that people would like it more than the crap that's jammed down their throats? or does it not matter, because the realities of both the ad industry and society just don't allow for it to happen?
UPDATE: youtube pulled the clip. i hope you had an opportunity to see before it went MIA, but if not, here's the rundown. a naked woman (clearly on all fours) is slowly rocking back and forth, with a bottle of guinness resting in the small of her back. about 30 seconds in, a male hand from behind the woman reaches for the bottle, takes a swig, and let's out a refreshing 'ahhh.' 10 seconds later, a male hand from the front does the same. the tagline 'guinness: share one with a friend' comes up, then a third hand from the bottom of the screen reaches up for a sip, and the tagline continues .. 'or two.'
apparently the aforementioned 'realities of society' are responsible for pulling it down.
my question is - what the hell was the third hand doing down there?
_
Thursday, July 24, 2008
"in a relationship"
it's pretty obvious to me that social networks are big parts of our everyday lives, and i especially like seeing references to them in daily reading.
this morning my people.com rep sent me 'the dirt', which is just a collection of all the celebrity headlines you will likely stumble across in the blogosphere that day. one of today's bits of information was about tim gunn (of television station bravo fame) giving dish on a romance that apparently starts between two contestants on the upcoming season of 'project runway'.
people.com then continues on to cite sources who say: Apparently [the contestants] have listed each other as the “top friend” on their MySpace pages and now list themselves as “in a relationship.”
ah, yes. 'top friend' applications and relationship statuses infiltrating your everyday news, ladies and gentlemen. the digital age is (read: has been) upon us.
this morning my people.com rep sent me 'the dirt', which is just a collection of all the celebrity headlines you will likely stumble across in the blogosphere that day. one of today's bits of information was about tim gunn (of television station bravo fame) giving dish on a romance that apparently starts between two contestants on the upcoming season of 'project runway'.
people.com then continues on to cite sources who say: Apparently [the contestants] have listed each other as the “top friend” on their MySpace pages and now list themselves as “in a relationship.”
ah, yes. 'top friend' applications and relationship statuses infiltrating your everyday news, ladies and gentlemen. the digital age is (read: has been) upon us.
Monday, July 21, 2008
gossip girl's advertising antics
i'll try not to do this often, but because i peruse the advertising blogs often, a lot of my personal blog fodder comes directly from there. a post on ad freak today warranted a contribution from yours truly, so here it is.
the CW's tween (and adult?) hit 'gossip girl' has been running ads in the digital space hoping to accomplish a number of things, including driving people to CWtv.com to catch up on the season they may have missed, creating buzz for the new season premiere in the fall, and just generating awareness of the show in general.
some of these you may have noticed, and ran with the tagline 'OMFG'. these were the first batch from what i can tell, and they're clever for a couple of reasons. first, they play off of the whole 'omg' thing, which i guess technically originated as IM and/or text message lingo, but has certainly earned its place elsewhere. yahoo! just named their celebrity blog 'omg', for christ's sake. anyways, the CW hit the nail on the head because this phrase (or abbreviation) resonates well with the tech-savvy generation Yers and millenials. by adding the 'f', it is clear that whatever is happening on 'gossip girl' is just shocking and awesome beyond words. oh my f*cking god.
the second batch just started running recently, and these are the ads that warrant some discussion. the ads feature racy scenes from the show's first season, and come full-circle with disapproving quotes from television critics. however, the catch is this: in one of the ads, blair waldorf's bikini that she had on in the actual episode from last season miraculously disappears. where did this bikini top go? (the shot from the actual season is below, followed by the ad.)
clearly, those involved in the creation of the ads (the creative agency obviously, and the CW, who approved them) are purposefully making the creative racier than the show content itself, in an attempt to attract those crazy kids. they're also choosing to use quotes from critics such as '[gossip girl is] mind-blowingly inappropriate.' these antics are breaking one of the fundamental rules of advertising: blatantly using sex (in this case, CREATING it!) to garner viewership. it'd be one thing if the scene was in the actual show - but here, the thought process is obviously 'sex sells', and that's pretty much it.
i have no personal qualms with the media and/or creative strategy, but when you're targeting 13-24 year olds (i'm sure the CW will tell you 18-34 .. ok, whatever), is saying 'watch gossip girl - it's inappropriate, and the chicks get naked and do it in the pool' ... dare i say, inappropriate?
the show:
the ad:
_
the CW's tween (and adult?) hit 'gossip girl' has been running ads in the digital space hoping to accomplish a number of things, including driving people to CWtv.com to catch up on the season they may have missed, creating buzz for the new season premiere in the fall, and just generating awareness of the show in general.
some of these you may have noticed, and ran with the tagline 'OMFG'. these were the first batch from what i can tell, and they're clever for a couple of reasons. first, they play off of the whole 'omg' thing, which i guess technically originated as IM and/or text message lingo, but has certainly earned its place elsewhere. yahoo! just named their celebrity blog 'omg', for christ's sake. anyways, the CW hit the nail on the head because this phrase (or abbreviation) resonates well with the tech-savvy generation Yers and millenials. by adding the 'f', it is clear that whatever is happening on 'gossip girl' is just shocking and awesome beyond words. oh my f*cking god.
the second batch just started running recently, and these are the ads that warrant some discussion. the ads feature racy scenes from the show's first season, and come full-circle with disapproving quotes from television critics. however, the catch is this: in one of the ads, blair waldorf's bikini that she had on in the actual episode from last season miraculously disappears. where did this bikini top go? (the shot from the actual season is below, followed by the ad.)
clearly, those involved in the creation of the ads (the creative agency obviously, and the CW, who approved them) are purposefully making the creative racier than the show content itself, in an attempt to attract those crazy kids. they're also choosing to use quotes from critics such as '[gossip girl is] mind-blowingly inappropriate.' these antics are breaking one of the fundamental rules of advertising: blatantly using sex (in this case, CREATING it!) to garner viewership. it'd be one thing if the scene was in the actual show - but here, the thought process is obviously 'sex sells', and that's pretty much it.
i have no personal qualms with the media and/or creative strategy, but when you're targeting 13-24 year olds (i'm sure the CW will tell you 18-34 .. ok, whatever), is saying 'watch gossip girl - it's inappropriate, and the chicks get naked and do it in the pool' ... dare i say, inappropriate?
the show:
the ad:
_
Thursday, July 10, 2008
my theory on color
i've come up with some strange theories in my day, but this one may take the cake. this is something i've been talking about for years, first mentioned to my buddy mike all the way back in middle school i believe, and mentioned to several people since then.
mike is one of the smartest guys i know. salutatorian of our class, straight a's at middlebury, works as an environmental geologist in boston now. when i gave him my theory on color, he just shook his head, told me i was being stupid as usual. so i asked him to explain why it wasn't possible, and he went off on this rant about the color spectrum and physics - whatever he said probably did successfully debunk my idea, but because i couldn't follow what the hell he was talking about, i still think it's interesting and maybe even possible. here goes:
when i see red, i see red. like a stop sign or a fire hydrant. and when you see a stop sign or a fire hydrant, you too see red. but who's to say that my red isn't your purple, and your red my blue? the same can be said for all the colors. because you really can't DESCRIBE a color without just naming something that is that color, i think it's hard to disprove this. imagine, if every single day we were all walking around, going about our business, but our physical perceptions of the things around us were just completely twisted. would anyone know?
is this (im)possible?
mike is one of the smartest guys i know. salutatorian of our class, straight a's at middlebury, works as an environmental geologist in boston now. when i gave him my theory on color, he just shook his head, told me i was being stupid as usual. so i asked him to explain why it wasn't possible, and he went off on this rant about the color spectrum and physics - whatever he said probably did successfully debunk my idea, but because i couldn't follow what the hell he was talking about, i still think it's interesting and maybe even possible. here goes:
when i see red, i see red. like a stop sign or a fire hydrant. and when you see a stop sign or a fire hydrant, you too see red. but who's to say that my red isn't your purple, and your red my blue? the same can be said for all the colors. because you really can't DESCRIBE a color without just naming something that is that color, i think it's hard to disprove this. imagine, if every single day we were all walking around, going about our business, but our physical perceptions of the things around us were just completely twisted. would anyone know?
is this (im)possible?
Monday, July 7, 2008
welcome to the blogosphere
evan rutchik, welcome to the blogosphere. it may not seem addicting now .. and i'm not addicted to it yet .. but it will soon grow on you as a place to let your thoughts run wild. i'm trying to keep this blog in check in terms of personal posts, because eventually i hope to send it around to employers and co-workers in place of a boring, traditional resume - but we both know the things zipping around inside of this cranium.
your most recent entrepreneurial idea involved starting a blog 'battling' site, in which people can challenge others to a 'blog off', kind of like a dance off but .. well, lamer i guess. in response, i challenge you to describe this idea as your first true post.
i will say, you're off to a good start by naming yourself 'i am sooooo digital'. which of course, now that you signed up for twitter and started a blog on the same day, you are. (kind of.)
your most recent entrepreneurial idea involved starting a blog 'battling' site, in which people can challenge others to a 'blog off', kind of like a dance off but .. well, lamer i guess. in response, i challenge you to describe this idea as your first true post.
i will say, you're off to a good start by naming yourself 'i am sooooo digital'. which of course, now that you signed up for twitter and started a blog on the same day, you are. (kind of.)
Friday, July 4, 2008
a darn good idea!
a couple of days ago i was catching up on my celebrity gossip - and the headline was advertising related. being the advertising geek that i sometimes am, i was pretty excited. candie's apparently just paid fergie - female artist formerly of the black eyed peas, now doing her solo thing - $4 million to incorporate the brand into her songs!
i'll admit, i am new to the industry - but i've been paying very close attention to the world of advertising for the last five years, and i've never heard anything like this. blatant, over-the-top product integration by glad and whole foods in top chef? brand-sponsored vehicles? the "verizon wireless call to the bullpen"? i've seen all that.
but candie's - who has been celebrity-endorsed by jenny mccarthy, ashlee simpson, and hilary duff in the past - is paying money to be mentioned in a musician's lyrics. this is brilliant if you think about how many of fergie's songs get extremely popular, get played at parties and bars and a million other places, and get memorized my countless people. i don't want to say it's subliminal because it's not - but girls subconsciously singing 'i put my candie's on, and danced out the door' (or something much better) is what they're paying the $4 mil for.
i'll admit, i am new to the industry - but i've been paying very close attention to the world of advertising for the last five years, and i've never heard anything like this. blatant, over-the-top product integration by glad and whole foods in top chef? brand-sponsored vehicles? the "verizon wireless call to the bullpen"? i've seen all that.
but candie's - who has been celebrity-endorsed by jenny mccarthy, ashlee simpson, and hilary duff in the past - is paying money to be mentioned in a musician's lyrics. this is brilliant if you think about how many of fergie's songs get extremely popular, get played at parties and bars and a million other places, and get memorized my countless people. i don't want to say it's subliminal because it's not - but girls subconsciously singing 'i put my candie's on, and danced out the door' (or something much better) is what they're paying the $4 mil for.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
opposite ends of the (subway) spectrum
on wieden's blog, i stumbled across what i think is a very interesting destination. subwaycrush.com is a forum in which you can select a city - in my case, NYC - and a subway line - if i was a freak like these people, most likely the 4/5 or 6 - then write a note to someone that you pretty much thought was sexy on the subway and tell them you'd like to rendezvous at another time and place, preferably not on the subway. i read through quite a few of these, including one written to a woman on the A train entitled "dear suggestive banana eater" (... no, not a joke), and came to the realization that on one hand the manhattan subway, in all of its glory, can be a place for love. strangers eyeballing each other from behind dark sunglasses, undressing each other in their minds all the while keeping their feelings to themselves - that's what i'd call love, no?
then there's the other hand. this morning, at about 8:45 on the 4/5 train, the door opens at 86th street, and i hear a woman SCREAMING at another poor lady for being in her way. "f*ck you, dumb b*tch!" then, a third party from the peanut gallery telling everyone to just calm down got a big ol' "f*ck you too!" i almost interjected, just to remind this unpleasant woman that it was way too early in the goddamn morning to be cursing out strangers (not that any time of the day is acceptable), but instead i turned my ipod up and closed my eyes. not because i'm not a knight in shining armor ... just because it's not the first time i've ever seen this happen, and i can only do so much in a day.
ohh, new york city.
then there's the other hand. this morning, at about 8:45 on the 4/5 train, the door opens at 86th street, and i hear a woman SCREAMING at another poor lady for being in her way. "f*ck you, dumb b*tch!" then, a third party from the peanut gallery telling everyone to just calm down got a big ol' "f*ck you too!" i almost interjected, just to remind this unpleasant woman that it was way too early in the goddamn morning to be cursing out strangers (not that any time of the day is acceptable), but instead i turned my ipod up and closed my eyes. not because i'm not a knight in shining armor ... just because it's not the first time i've ever seen this happen, and i can only do so much in a day.
ohh, new york city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
