Tag: blockheaded

A tasteless energy drink marketing move

I’m sure Pepsi (who owns the AMP energy drink brand) really wants this one back. And yes, I know I’m late to the party on this a bit; I have a good reason for that, which I’ll explain in a future post.

Mashable reports on AMP’s new iPhone app “Before You Score” that was apparently released with one of two assumptions: AMP is only bought and consumed by men, or the women that learn of this marketing gaffe would be willing to look the other way and buy Pepsi’s products despite it.

I don’t know what Pepsi could have been thinking. I have never been that big of a fan of most Pepsi products; this does not help.

Not only is this a marketing blunder, it’s likely the women will be able to memorize the lame pick-up lines this thing spits out, so the men who rely on this get a really bum deal in the process. Shame on you, Pepsi; why not resurrect the Pepsi Challenge and see if you can get Coke to change their formula again? It can’t go any worse than this disaster.

Dogs on film

Okay, so not really on film, probably more like videotape or DVD, but the pun on the old song title was just hanging out there.

A recent story reported by Fastcompany.com, NPR, and ABC News tells the story of Robert Stevens. Robert is an independent filmmaker who compiled films of pit bull dogfights made in jurisdictions where dogfighting is legal, most notably Japan. He sold the films commercially to promote the proper care of pit bulls. For this, he received a jail sentence of 37 months, under a federal law that prohibits “knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty, with the intention of placing them in interstate commerce” which was passed in 1999.

Robert appealed his case, and won on First Amendment grounds. The government compares these videos to obscenity, or “patently offensive conduct that appeals only to the basest instincts.” And so the case winds up in the US Supreme Court, where it is still being considered as of this writing as far as I can tell.

What I find disturbing here is that Robert’s sentence exceeds Michael Vick’s sentence for actually running a dogfighting ring. This is in effect saying that selling videos of legally conducted dogfights is a worse crime than actually running an illegal dogfighting ring. That, and I fail to see why Robert’s actions should be illegal. I do side with the appeals court here.

This does not change my viewpoint on dogfighting, however. I believe wanton animal cruelty such as staged dogfighting is despicable, which has been my view for the entirety of my adult life. I could go on and on about how I’ve always been an animal lover (I prefer cats to dogs). Suffice it to say, there are certain places such as Japan where it’s legal to stage dogfights, and it is equally their right to make the law what it is there as it is mine to condemn it.

Not-so-clever photo editing

Mashable reports on an unbelievable blooper from a company that really should know better.

Microsoft published at least two different versions of an ad, editing the photo in one. The change made was to replace the head of a black man–and only the head–with the head of a white man. While the change is not as noticeable if one only sees the Polish version of the image, it’s glaringly obvious if one sees both versions.

This was a PR disaster in the making from the beginning. To their credit, Microsoft did issue an apology in a prompt fashion. But really, you’d think Microsoft would know better. So should their ad agencies. It would make more sense to have extra models and shoot two pictures. It’s understandable to localize advertising, but it’s inexcusable to be this sloppy and this insensitive about it.

The story of the stray apostrophes

I can see this one happening in the US, too.

The Daily Mail reports on a well-meaning resident of a street called St. John’s Close, off of St. John’s Road, near St. John’s Church. The residents insist upon naming it St. Johns Close–without the apostrophe.

Stefan Gatward objected quite vocally to the motion of Birmingham’s council to eschew the apostrophes for “simplicity.” And then Stefan got some black paint, and painted the apostrophes onto the signs missing them, in error according to him.

In return for his grammatical corrections, Stefan gets branded a “vandal” and a “graffiti artist.” Stefan was also told the Post Office would not deliver to the street if you put in an apostrophe, a claim I personally have difficulty believing and which sounds outrageous on its face. But then again, this is the UK we’re talking about.

My take: consistency wins over simplicity any day. If simplicity is really that desirable, why not get rid of the “s” and call it simply St. John Close while you’re at it? That would make everyone happy, I’d think.

Games book publishers still play

Josh Catone writing for Mashable reports on the not-too-surprising pitfalls of digital textbooks and why they are not ready for prime-time for many students. The primary focus of the article appears to be college students where textbooks are purchased. (If I have any readers still in high school out there, yes, it’s true, senior year of high school is the last time you’ll get to borrow your textbooks for free.)

Indeed, very predictable it is that the third reason (of three) is “questions of ownership.” Cited are DRM (digital restrictions management) limiting time of use to 180 days in one example, after which the books are automatically deleted. The example cited is a biology textbook available via both hard copy and electronic textbook distributor CourseSmart. (The article refers to CourseSmart as a publisher, but it appears this is technically incorrect.) The hard copy version is available for US$50 used, US$80 new; CourseSmart charges US$70 for what is in effect a 180 day rental. Given the cost, and that this is never a concern with printed textbooks, this is simply unacceptable. US$70 for a non-DRM copy is more in line with what I’d consider fair. If Pearson (the publishing) company insisted upon a silly, odious, and obnoxious 180-day time limit, I honestly think US$20 is more realistic. Yes, one-fourth the cost of the print version.

The lack of standardization doesn’t help either, which in turn highlights just how bad of an idea DRM really is, as that is a large part of the reason for lack of standardization. It’s similar to the reason Microsoft’s “PlaysForSure” campaign looked pretty dumb when Microsoft then came out with the Zune, in essence saying “Thanks, hardware manufacturers, for supporting our patented Windows Media format and making it easy for PCs running Windows to use your players, we like you so much that we’re going to say, here’s our Zune, and here’s our middle finger.”

Most digital audio players prior to Apple’s iPod, Microsoft’s Zune, etc. used a standard, if patent-encumbered, format called MPEG Layer III Audio or MP3. Most understood Windows Media (WMA/WMV) files alongside MP3, but MP3 was still a fairly reliable “lowest common denominator” format.

In the world of digital print publishing, despite the clear winner being Adobe’s PDF format (which is as far as I know not patent encumbered, or the patents thus covering it have been made available under a royalty free license), many e-book readers do not support plain PDF, or do so in a manner that’s obnoxious and clumsy compared to grabbing the DRM-infested version.

It seems like print’s slow transition to digital may be the last frontier for DRM elimination. College textbooks are just the tip of the iceberg, though I think students not being able to sell their books at the end of a semester anymore will be quite annoyed. Or, they may just shell out the money again for what’s in reality an expensive rental. Hopefully, the kids smart enough to get into college will be smart enough to see the shell game being played before them.