Moronic TRUE MySpace Advertising Campaign
I have had a business in some form or another since 1995, and overall, I am pretty tolerant about marketing. We live in a Market-driven economy, and advertising is part of the game.
When Spam comes into the Inbox, I chalk it up to aggressive marketing, tweak the Spam software a bit, and move on. When the advertisment post cards are sitting on my car on Sunday morning, I read them and move on.
From the earliest days of MySpace, I remember watching the advertisements surface within the interface. I remember actually being excited that Tom’s good idea was making money for him. And, dabbling with Google Ads myself, I certainly was not complaining.
When Fox bought MySpace, however, I was curious how things would change. What advertisers would pay to get their banners into the rotation, and who would opt out . . . or would be priced out of that marketplace.
The most noticeable changes after the ownership change were the addition of movie-trailers on the home page–including some temporary home page re-designs coordinated with a particular movie release.
The worst change, however, has been the addition of the STUPID True advertisements. They might actually be the most annoying banners ads in the history of the internet. And, if you are listening TRUE, let me tell you how your ads affect me. I am NOT compelled to click on the link of the pretend chat camera that has some poorly-acting woman pretending to be a stereo-typical “bimbo-blond” who has forgotten that the chat cam is on–while she just happens to be in her bath towel in the slightest way. I am, however, compelled to tell every single person I meet about your demeaning campaign–and encourage them to use your competitor’s services. If that is the effect you wanted, you scored a direct hit!
The newest generation of these advertisements are absolutely the worst. They show a camera angle looking up a woman’s skirt, down another woman’s shirt, looking at someone’s butt at the gym, and staring at a woman’s thighs under a dinner table, etc. In each of the advertisements, the “camera angle” gets caught by the girl, and there is some link that says “click to turn on the audio” while she is supposedly yelling at the Peeping Tom (sorry Tom, it is a colloquialism, nothing personal).
These advertisements are demeaning–to everyone involved. The women reinforce dangerously stereotypical and negative traits–in addition to objectifying themselves as simply legs, a butt, breasts . . . . I guess TRUE is paying the actresses enough money to demean themselves in front of millions of people on the internet.
It is also demeaning to me–your intended audience. It reinforces that women ARE objects, or at least that our civilization believes that to be correct. The women have no voices (figuratively, and literally). And, it demonstrates that it is acceptable social behavior to look up a woman’s skirt–when she isn’t looking.
The pretend web-cam concept also underestimates your audience. Do you really think the most web-savvy generation to date doesn’t understand that it is fake? There is NOTHING that I love more than being treated like an idiot. So, thanks again for breaking new ground on this one, TRUE.
Most importantly, your advertising campaign tells me something about the TRUE online dating service. Your campaign tells me that everything about your organization values Quantity over Quality–cash, rather than values.
It also tells me that if you are really producing content for your target audience, and your current campaign is built upon demographic research, I can infer that you have a bunch of idiots using your service who do not mind being demeaned, and that fools who click on demeaning advertisements are padding your membership numbers. Sounds like EXACTLY the place where I want to look for my mate . . . .
One word of advice: FIRE your advertising team.
29 Apr 2007 EWriter 0 comments
