Bush Ads Conjure Up Images of Shortcomings

gwad.jpg

A lot has been said about President Bush's use of 9-11 imagery in his recently-launched TV ads. Everybody seems to be concentrating on what 9-11 families think about the use of the imagery. I appreciate that these images take some of those families back to the most painful day of their lives, but the real sin is not simply showing this footage, but trying to gain favor from it.

If G.W. wanted to paint a picture of himself as a leader during trying times, he should have concentrated on his record of accomplishments rather than on leveraging something that conjures up images of senseless and unjustified loss of human life.

One of the most offensive things about 9-11 for me was walking the streets in the days following the attacks. Sidewalk vendors hawking American flags, racist bumper stickers and bandannas, NYPD and FDNY hats, anti-Muslim t-shirts and the like seemed to spring up faster than I had expected. Merchants and sidewalk vendors were appealing to everybody's emotions in order to make a profit - and I thought that was wrong. It was offensive to me that someone would be trying to sell this stuff while people were still missing and families were still in shock.

It's similarly offensive when someone seeks to make a gain from someone else's misfortune, which is what Bush has done here. There are so many other ways he could have attempted to convey the message that he believes he's a strong leader during times of national tragedy. The fact that he even references 9-11 in these ads makes my brain want to dismiss the whole thing. Instead of thinking "Gee, the President showed some amazing leadership in the wake of the terrorist attacks" I instead think, "Hey, he's showing images of the attacks because he has nothing else to say." In other words, the images are there because the accomplishments aren't.

When I think of Bush and 9-11, I think the following:

  • Bush and his administration have been using the terrorist attacks to promote a culture of fear in this country, prompting citizens to give up individual freedoms in exchange for safety (or perceived safety).
  • Bush was in an airplane. Cheney was in an "undisclosed location." If any politician could be thought of as a hero due to his actions on the ground, it would be Rudy Giuliani, not Bush.
  • Bush used 9-11 to lure us into an unjustified war.
  • Despite all the sabre-rattling and claims that "the people who knocked these towers down are going to hear from all of us" we still haven't been able to track down a 6-foot-5 middle eastern billionaire who's tethered to a kidney dialysis machine. (Or maybe we have and the Bush administration has yet to announce it.)

I think about all of this stuff and more when I think of 9-11. So maybe it would be best if George W. Bush never brought it up again.

Let's Get a Leash on those Legal Beagles

As is commonplace these days, almost everybody responding to Jimmy's column this week missed the point of his weekly Spin. Jim asked a smart question when he inquired about the point of having T&C standards if nobody adheres to them. What he's too nice to point out, however, is that corporate counsel seems to rule over the process of signing insertion orders these days. There are a bunch of lawyers working for publishers that seem to need to prove their value to their own organizations by attempting to reserve rights for themselves that are either redundant under the IAB's V.20 T&Cs, or they're just plain silly.

Case in point, Jimmy was working on one contract this week that made absolutely no sense. The publisher's legal team was trying to reserve the right to cancel the campaign at any time for any reason. Wisely, Jim asked, "Why?"

The ad sales rep responded that the publisher needed to reserve this right in case one of our ads was deemed inappropriate, offensive or indecent. But that can't be the reason why. The IAB T&Cs state: Media Company reserves the right within its discretion to reject or remove from its Site any Ads where the Advertising Materials or the site to which the Ad is linked do not comply with its Policies, or that in Media Company’s sole reasonable judgment, do not comply with any applicable law, regulation or other judicial or administrative order.

So the publisher already has this right and we find ourselves dealing with a lawyer who wants to inject all sorts of redundant crapola into the already-time-consuming process of approving insertion orders. What's driving this? An overzealous lawyer eager to prove his value to his company.

I want to point out that there's at least one smart company out there that realizes these legal snafus are a detriment to its business and has done away with it. That company is AOL.

A while back, I interviewed Michael Barrett as a follow-up to a Spin column about the elimination of their director of agency relations position. Michael promised easier T&Cs negotiation and delivered on that promise. Whereas doing business with AOL used to be a legal nightmare, these days it's as easy as submitting the IAB T&Cs and putting your John Hancock on the bottom line.

Publishers should take a look at the effect of protracted legal discussions on their bottom line business and make a decision as to whether all the extraneous BS is worth it.

Money-making Idea of the Day

antenna.jpg

LinSpot is a product that enables end users to sell access to their Wi-Fi network. I haven't tried it out yet (It only works on a Mac, and I'm G5-less right now), but this gives me an idea...

  1. Go to your favorite park, beach or place to hang out when it's nice outside.
  2. Bribe a store owner or homeowner nearby - Tell him you'll pay his monthly cable bill if he lets you bring wireless Internet into his house.
  3. Get your local cable provider to come in with a cable modem, then hook up a nice 54G wireless router and signal booster.
  4. Hook up a crappy old Mac, dowload linspot and get it going
  5. Post a sign at your favorite hangout - Wireless Internet Available
  6. Profit!