The BadAds Weblog: May 2003

Two Servings of Spam News

Spam has received tons of press play in months past, but regrettably articles on the topic rarely do more than say there sure is a lot of it, by gum. To take action against spam, read the following and then write your Congresspeople. California residents can take an extra step by forwarding spam to their attorney general, Bill Lockyer; details below.

(1)

The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE) – together with Junkbusters, Commercial Alert, the SpamCon Foundation and other consumer protection groups – has written to a number of Senators and Representatives to tell them that the proposed spam solutions in the legislative pipeline are actually no solutions at all. The main problem is that all of the legislation is "opt out," meaning spammers can keep spamming until a recipient tells them to stop.

As the consumer groups say in their letter, "Opt-out places the burden on consumers to remove themselves from potentially tens of thousands of mailing lists that they never wanted to be on in the first place. Because most consumers do not wish to interact with the senders of unsolicited bulk commercial email, few consumers will have the time or inclination to comply with hundreds or thousands of different variations of opt-out procedures."

A better solution, say the groups, is something along the lines of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which outlawed junk faxes. Spam meets the same criteria as junk faxes – that is, invading your privacy and costing you money – so there's no reason Congress should adopt anything other than an "opt-in" law, one in which spammers cannot send their pitches unless someone specifically requests them.

Read the letter to understand what Congress is doing wrong and why its poorly designed legislation will result in even greater amounts of spam, then write to your representatives and suggest something better: the prohibition of unsolicited bulk commercial email, and the adoption of opt-in business models.

We've also included the cont act information for those Senators and Representatives who hold the most sway over spam legislation. Be sure to drop them a line as well.

Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
Phone: 202-224-5251
Online Contact Form

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member
Phone: 202-224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee

Senator John McCain, Chairman
Phone: 202-224-2235
Online Contact Form

Senator Fritz Hollings, Ranking Member
Phone: 202-224-6121
Online Contact Form

House Judiciary Committee

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman
Phone: 202-225-5101
E-mail: sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov

Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member
Phone: 202-225-5126
E-mail: john.conyers@mail.house.gov

House Energy & Commerce Committee

Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
Phone: 202-225-4031
Online Contact Form (Choose "Louisiana" from the menu, and enter "70043" for the ZIP.)

Rep. John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Phone: 202-225-4071
Online Contact Form (Choose "Michigan" from the menu, and enter "48124-2022" for the ZIP.)

(2)

Now, for those of you who live in the Golden State and receive spam, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer wants to hear from you. Specifically, Lockyer's office wants examples of spam that were sent and received by Californians and passed through servers located in California. (If your ISP is based in California, its servers are likely in California as well, so don't worry about this criterion too much.) The spam must also lack either the "ADV:" subject line or a toll-free phone number or e-mail address for removal from the mailing list, both of which are required by California law.

For complete details, as well as the e-mail address to forward spam to and a printable complaint form, visit the Office of the Attorney General's Web site.

May 27, 2003

Cinema Advertising Study Ignores Reality

Whenever you read a news article about a study that doesn't jibe with your own experience, you have to examine the study itself and draw your own conclusions.

Today's example is a Reuters story about a study of cinema advertising conducted by the marketing research firm Arbitron, in consultation with the National Association of Theater Owners and the Cinema Advertising Council. As you might expect from research by those who sell ad space in theaters, the study – lovingly titled "The Arbitron Cinema Advertising Study: Appointment Viewing by Young, Affluent, Captive Audiences" (Warning: PDF file) – extols the virtue of creating an "enriched" theater environment filled with pre-movie ads, video kiosks, audio ads, posters, and other sales tactics.

The Reuters story, written by Bob Tourtellotte, starts off with this stunning fact: "A study released on Tuesday showed two-thirds of moviegoers do not mind watching advertisements before a film begins, a statistic that should buttress efforts to put more ads in theaters."

The study finds, and Tourtellotte obligingly reports, that half of moviegoers agree "the ads you see before the movies are more interesting than the ads you see on TV" and that more moviegoers (67% to 49%) find advertising in the cinema acceptable compared with advertising online.

The article also includes a quote from Arbitron's president of new ventures, Pierre Bouvard: "Our initial thought was that there would be some consumer anger. But contrary to that, the more people go to the movies, the more they don't mind the ads."

Why did Reuters report this study and quote industry personnel as if Reuters were also a member of the Cinema Advertising Council? Let's look at the study ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

First of all, based on Arbitron's own numbers, one-third of moviegoers do mind watching advertisements before a film begins. Contrary to Bouvard's suggestion, forcing ads on an audience does generate anger in some. Thus we have anti-movie ad sites such as Didn't I Already Pay For This Movie? and the Captive Motion Picture Audience of America to fight against this trend. In fact, in February 2003, lawsuits were filed against two theater chains that showed ads at the announced start time instead of the movie itself.

Second, the Arbitron study shows that those who attend movies less frequently find ads before movies more objectionable. The two of us, for example, refuse to visit theater chains like Showcase and Hoyts because they show non-trailer ads before features. If a movie doesn't make it to one of the independent theaters near us – theaters that usually have lower ticket prices, mind you – we wait for the video. If more theaters decide to show pre-movie ads, they will lose customers like us.

Third, people don't go to the movies to see ads, so it's irrelevant that some prefer ads in the cinema to ads on television or the Internet. In fact, with half of the survey respondents not finding movie advertising more interesting than ads on TV, cinema owners would be crazy to show ads, make their theaters less inviting, and give those folks another reason to stay home.

In general, Arbitron tries to present cinema advertising two ways. It states that "short-form programming, movie previews and compelling advertising are all part of the movie experience today." Eighty-five percent of moviegoers, says Arbitron, find theaters better today than in the past, therefore "they like the changes that are happening at their local cinema." While respondents were likely thinking about improved sound systems and seating, Arbitron wants readers to think those changes include pre-movie ads and commercial kiosks.

At the same time Arbitron presents pre-movie ads as ubiquitous and accepted, it states that only a tiny fraction of the $800 million spent on pre-movie ads in 2000 was spent within the U.S. Most of those funds were spent in non-American theaters – which means the average American moviegoer's experience with these ads is small to non-existent and Arbitron's findings are therefore not representative of the market as a whole.

Arbitron is clearly using the data it gathered, however contradictory and meaningless it might be, to encourage marketers to think of moviegoers as yet another crop waiting and eager to be harvested. As the study puts it, "Cinema advertising is unique in that it reaches an attentive, captive audience."

Furthermore, cinema advertising "offers a unique opportunity to reach consumers. Going to the movies is a happy, transforming experience with family and friends – an environment where consumers are in a frame of mind to be entertained and receptive to advertising messages. Moviegoers sit comfortably in their seats. There is no remote control to zap through channels and miss the advertising. Theaters are a destination of choice and advertisers have the full attention of the moviegoer."

Arbitron is eager to help theater chains take "a happy, transforming experience" and reduce it to nothing more than another advertising opportunity through the use of misleading and biased statistics. Don't let the company get away with it.

1. Write to Arbitron and explain why the conclusions it draws in its "Cinema Advertising Study" are misleading:

Pierre Bouvard, President, International & New Ventures
Phone: 212-887-1348
E-mail: pierre.bouvard@arbitron.com

Joan FitzGerald, Director, New Product Development
Phone: 443-259-7551
E-mail: joan.fitzgerald@arbitron.com

Paul LeFort, Manager, Business Development
Arbitron Outdoor
Phone: 310-824-6662
E-mail: paul.lefort@arbitron.com

2. Write or call the theater chains in your neighborhood and tell them that you find ads other than trailers unacceptable. Even better, move your moviegoing business to theaters that refuse to show such ads. Contact information for most chains is available on BadAds' Movie page

3. Recommend theaters that don't show ads to others. Make others aware of this issue and encourage them to take their business elsewhere. Kelly at Shiny Blue Grasshopper offers a list of no-ad theaters but the list is still uncomfortably small. Break away from the chains, explore smaller theaters, and share your findings with her.

One final "warning" from Arbitron: "Since cinema advertising is still new, advertisers have the ability to 'own the medium' and build frequency for their target consumer in an environment where there is an attentive, captive audience."

Advertisers want to "own the medium" and the right to pummel you with ads whenever they choose. It's not too late, though, to tell them to buzz off and keep their pollution out of theaters. Write today and make your voice heard.

May 26, 2003

Horton Hears a Ka-ching!

The only thing worse than a new instance of stupid and insulting intrusive advertising is when that advertising receives loads of press coverage, thereby justifying the company's efforts and encouraging other marketers to birth even more annoying ad campaigns.

Case in point: Ruffles' offer of $50,000 in scholarship funds to the first parents who deliver a child between May 13-20, 2003 and name their infant Horton, in honor of a cartoon spokesperson named "Baby Horton" that Ruffles used in the 1950s. The christening is only the beginning of this child's woes, however, as the official contest rules make clear:

"By accepting Award, Award Recipient agrees, and agrees to confirm in writing, that Sponsor shall have the right to use Award Recipient's and Baby's name, likeness, voice, and biographical information in any and all media now known or hereinaft er developed without territorial, time or other use limitations for advertising and promotional purposes (except where prohibited). By accepting Award, Award Recipient further agrees, and agrees to confirm in writing, that Award Recipient and Baby (where possible) shall take part in media events designated by Sponsor on times and dates as reasonably requested by Sponsor."

In essence, little Horton will be sold to Frito-Lay, maker of Ruffles, since the chipmaker can use everything about the child in any way it chooses nigh unto the end of time and space. Apparently the Thirteenth Amendment holds no sway in a world ruled by marketers and corporations.

In the long run, though, whether or not Ruffles pays the tuition is immaterial. This contest was designed solely to be covered in the "strange but true" slot at the end of the evening news and in the blank space at the end of a newspaper column – and by this standard the contest succeeded. GoMemphis.com covered the contest with the tagline "Horton's bling-bling"; television stations in Dallas, Louisville (KY), Lansing (MI), Portland (OR), and Los Angeles carried the sales promotion as if it were news; even protesting about the contest's stupidity and onerous requirements in a column such as this (please forgive us) only spreads the Ruffles name further.

Still, perhaps this column can do some good. You can write to the boneheads at Frito-Lay who conceived this scheme and tell them that what you think of this promotion. As Matt Kauffman says in a delightfully saucy column in the Hartford Courant, "[T]he company opens itself to backlash from the sizable portion of the consuming public who believe there ought to be decency boundaries on where marketers plaster their m essages. The identity of newborn children should be safely off-limits."

Abelardo E. Bru, Chairman and CEO
Frito-Lay, Inc.
7701 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75024-4099
Phone: 972-334-7000
E-mail: al.bru@fritolay.com

Thanks to Ruth Suehle for giving us the scoop on this promotion!

May 20, 2003

Keep Your Eyes on the Road

We hate billboards because they're in our faces 24 hours a day, looming over us with inane proposals that we'd rather not have in our heads. "Read our paper," they command. "Watch our TV show." "Buy our cool product." Feh.

Naturally, this means that advertisers love billboards, and if there were any more intrusive way to get in your face and make you love life a little bit less, they would do it. Oh, wait, just such an intrusive advertising medium already exists: mobile billboards. Mobile billboards take the regular annoyance factor of billboards and boost it by a factor of three. Trucks that exist solely to block the rest of the world from your view tote enormous signs – typically 10 x 22 feet – around your town, spewing exhaust and obstructing traffic.

Companies like Street Blimps, Billboards Will Travel, and Boards in Motion all thri ve on annoying the public on a regular basis. Street Blimps, for example, promises marketers that they can "Zero in or on the market and drive your message home! We surgically tailor our 'Blimp' routs to deliver your message to the demographic or ethnic group you choose. No hit or miss here!"

Blimp routs, eh? You'll certainly feel routed after encountering one of these monstrosities on the road. As Billboards Will Travel boasts in its online FAQ, "We travel highways and side roads with our billboard flood lights on so that your message will be seen even when the sun goes down." Yeah, that sounds safe.

Boards in Motion, which unfathomably touts itself as "the most unique media company ever created," goes even farther in distracting drivers through the use of scrolling, backlit billboards that change images every eight seconds. "The constant moving of images insures that people are intrigued and actually look forward to seeing what comes next!"

What's next, throwing advertising placards directly on someone's windshield while on the highway?

As annoying as these ads are, the attitude presented by the companies displaying the ads is even worse. In towns with anti-billboard laws, says Billboards Will Travel, "We do not recommend that you utilize our mobile billboard trucks for a stationary board in such places, however we do recommend that you utilize the mobile capability of our billboard trucks through these areas." You don't want billboards? Too bad, we're going to force them on you anyway.

Don't take this type of offense by pulling over to the side of the road and crying. Take action! Write your local or state representatives and ask them to sponsor legislation prohibiting mobile billboards in your area. To find your representatives, enter your nine-digit zip code in the left column here. In addition to beautifying your town, you'll keep these distracting nuisances off the road and make it safer for everyone else. We've included sample legislation below, based on material presented before the New York City Counc il.

Suggested mobile billboard prohibition:

a. For purposes of this section: (i) The term "mobile billboard" shall mean any motor vehicle or trailer which is not designed or constructed to transport property and which displays or has affixed to it in any manner any writing or pictorial representation other than those required by law;

(ii) The term "trailer" shall mean any vehic le not propelled by its own power drawn by a motor vehicle, except motorcycle side-cars, vehicle s being towed by a non-rigid support and vehicles designed and primarily used for other purposes and only occasionally drawn by such motor vehicle.

b. The operation, standing or parking of a mobile billboard on any city street is prohibited.

c. A violation of subdivision b of this section shall be a traffic infraction and shall be punishable in accordance with vehicle and traffic law. Any person who is found guilty of operating a mobile billboard on any street shall be subject to a fine of not less than three hundred dollars. Such person shall also be liable for a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for a first violation; a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars not more than two thousand dollars for a second violation; a civil penalty of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars for a third violation; and a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars for a fourth violation or any subsequent violation. Such civil penalties may be recovered in a proceeding before the traffic violations bureau.

d. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the departmen t and the police department.

Thanks to Redstone f or opening our eyes to this problem!

May 13, 2003

Massachusetts Sells Out

Just as Mayor Mike Bloomberg appointed a chief marketing officer to license the hell out of New York City, legislators in Massachusetts have proposed doing a similar number on approximately 600 state parks, forests, and recreation areas.

In a budget amendment filed in late April, House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) and other Republican legislators proposed auctioning the naming rites to public areas as a way to help balance the budget, which is projected to have a deficit of $3 billion for fiscal year 2004.

Jim Gomes, executive director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said in an article by Glenn Drohan in the Berkshire Eagle, that the proposal should be rejected without a second thought. "We have a tradition in our country of naming public places, whether it be parks or buildings or rivers or lakes, after people who have made significant contributions to the commonwealth and to society," he said. "We do that based on our ju dgment that the person is praiseworthy rather than on the basis of who puts the most shekels on th e table and says name it after me."

One of Jones' aides defended the proposal by saying, "I think the purpose is pretty self-evident: to raise money."

Raising money is a noble goal, right? And with 600 public areas on the block, we have to net only $5,000,000 for each of them, payable this year, to balance the budget. That's surely an accomplishable goal – in Jones' dreams.

The selling of naming rights to public areas as a quick fix to budget problems should not be contemplated. For one thing, there's no chance of actually balancing the budget by undergoing such a sellout. Another, more compelling reason is that once such a sale has been made it cannot be unmade. That permanent resource, that element of our culture, will be replaced by a marketing pitch and lost forever.

Legislators in Massachusetts – and in deficit-riddled states across the nation –- would do their citizens far greater justice by investigating the issue of corporate tax loopholes. For example, a report by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Council (Warning: PDF file) in late March 2003 estimated that adopting a "combined reporting" accounting system – one that more accurately reflects the total profits earned – would net the state an additional $76.5 million to $195.8 million in corporate tax revenue each year. What are the chances that a state park sale will bring in that much?

Instead of leasing public lands to private corporations, our legislators should ensure that current laws for tax revenue collection are being enforced. Don't ask us to rely on corporate benefactors who generously pony up $100,000 for a state park after letting them make off with millions in unreported income.

Massachusetts residents should write their representatives and senators and urge them to strike down this amendment. Find your legislators by searching this list.

Those of you who don't live in the Commonwealth shouldn't rest easy. Watch your legislatures for similar sellouts and don't be shy with your complaints when you spot them.

Thanks to Paul Iadonisi for speaking up about this topic!

May 5, 2003

Back to the Main Page

Get the BadAds Weblog updates via e-mail! We'll keep you up-to-date on news in intrusive advertising, changes to BadAds.org, and new ways you can fight "ad creep."

You are the
[an error occurred while processing this directive] visitor
to d raw the line on
intrusive advertising.

sunny-clams knoll Feel free to reprint
any of the text on
this site - just
include a link to
www.BadAds.org.

- - - - - - - - -
Web design
by NewsJobs.Net
Perl CGI & HTML Code
by LServ