I kind of like this.

From muchimuchi (a French ad agency with about the coolest name I have heard in six, no, eight months). Via Ads of the World.

OK, I'll save you the trouble. In sign language, she is saying "With the crisis, a lot of companies are cutting their advertising. To save money they are reducing their spending on communication. Too expensive and too little return . . . But then no one can hear them. It would though be a pity to lose their voice. Advertising is not just a question of cost. Give us a call."

Well, OK, so it's a little stilted. The point is a good one.

Give 'em a break --Ils sont français, savez-vous ?

Pay for Performance

There's an interesting article in Ad Age today. Coke, it seems, is pushing "value-based agency compensation". Just as Procter & Gamble has done before it.

It's not really a new idea. Performance-based compensation has been around for a long time and, if it's set up properly, I don't think anybody in the agency world would have a problem with it. After all, under this model, the more success you bring the client, the more you profit.

You can read all about it here , but basically, Coke will determine the value of assignments based on a range of factors. The agency's performance and the business results that follow determine what, if anything, the agency gets paid beyond its upfront costs. The agency can to make as much as 30% on a project. Or no profit at all.

Speaking for N+H (although I didn't ask N ahead of time) I think we'd be happy to be paid on a sliding scale based on how well the work we do succeeds. Most people I know would. But there's a snag in this model. If you're going to be held financially accountable for the work you do and your profitability depends on it, then the agency has to have a lot of control over things it often has little control over now.

Up front, it means both parties have to agree on the goals and how they will be measured. It also means creative and media strategies don't get killed for bad reasons. The project isn't underfunded. Concepts don't get revised or diluted. It means clients don't pass the work around the office and send back a list of changes based on what the boys in the back room think an ad or spot ought to be. Or even what the thing itself ought to be. It also means the agency ought to have some say in things like pricing. And customer service. The best ad campaign on the planet won't move the needle much for a product or service that is overpriced. Or for a company that treats its customers poorly. The point is, with accountability has to come a measure of control. Otherwise, it's a stacked deck.

As one commenter on Ad Age (Charlie of Indianapolis) said : "I don't see much mention of the client responsibility in this relationship. If the agency is going to be held accountable to results, then the client must be willing to go out on that creative limb with them. Marketers can not fear failure to protect careers such that the creative product is diluted to absolute safety." A guy from Winston-Salem (andrewcoleman) said "I don't mind being judged by my work; I just want to fall on my own sword." I'm with you there.

Here's a short story. Probably 13 years ago, we were trying to get in to do some work for a chain of local chili parlors. The marketing guy told the others in management that the thing to do would be to "let these folks do whatever they think it right and judge them on that", or words to that effect. We leaped at it. And our first and second concepts were shot down. Then the third one was revised and edited by the client to a point that we certainly knew it wouldn't work. Our bad for just going along. It wasn't what we thought was right, but what we thought was right as diluted and modified -- and then judged -- by them. Lesson learned. The effort didn't bring in the desired results, and I'll bet anybody reading this can guess where the blame was placed. I'll repeat: lesson learned.

Performance-based compensation is an interesting discussion, and one worth having. Like I said, I know that our agency would be happy to talk about performance-based compensation but with some caveats. Oh, we're not looking to shirk responsibility for what we do. But we don't want to be judged on something where there are critical factors beyond our control.

All that said, I think some form of performance-based compensation is a good thing. I mean, why the hell not?

Maybe we'll convene a group of agency folk and client-types one morning over coffee and doughnuts and talk about it.

Want to come?

If our client in Key West will let us do a spot like this, I'll tattoo her logo on my dog

Seriously.

I am not making this up

Near the end of the second period of the Washington Capitals 5-3 win over New York Sunday, one of the announcers, noting that there would be a seventh game on Tuesday said that the Rangers would have another shot at the Caps . . .

"In less than 48 hours or more."

I swear to God.

Just letting you know up front - this is a spot for a sex shop

But we're all grown-ups here, right?

This is really well done. The music is very cool. Production values high. Concept a good one. It's not smarmy or cheesy.

Stores in London and L.A., in case you are wondering. I don't know who did it.



Now go back and watch one of those cave-man spots again. Better yet, don't

For Coco de Mer. Found on Illegal Advertising.

This is why I watch basketball games with the remote in my hand

I used to worry that I would hurt myself leaping for the remote to change the channel when one of the perfectly dreadful, awful, insulting, ghastly, pathetic, garbage-like Ameritel Copy Services commercials came on. These things make my skin crawl.

There are more recent ones and older ones, but they all have something in common. Somebody, somewhere believes in putting these four unfortunate children in the spots. God only knows why. The people who do these things ought to be taken out and shot for the good of the country. (But they must be proud of them; they put them up on You Tube! They probably figure it's a pret-ty slick marketing move to do it.)

When I was in college at South Carolina, there was a car dealer who used his son in his spots. The kid - he was about 12 my freshman year - would bang on some drums and then tell us all that he was "drummin' up bidness for mah Dayuddy!" Even as an 18 year-old I knew they were stupid. And, even as I am today, I was an idiot.

By my senior year, you could tell that the kid in the spot thought they were stupid too. Poor guy sat there like somebody off-camera had a crossbow pointed at his head and gamely delivered his lines. Admittedly, he had a much better set of drums by then, but the ridicule he must have suffered in school probably scarred him forever.

I'm sorry, but wretched commercials like these aren't campy or anything. They just suck. S-u-c-k.

I have some very good friends who put out Bethesda Magazine. And when I win the lottery, I will have a standing offer to them that I will give them $22,886 cash every time they refuse to accept an ad from somebody who wants to do some variation on "Got Milk?" Seems like you run across those things daily. Somebody ought to sue.

Point is, there is some really, really terrible advertising out there that people are spending good money on.

If an agency does these horrible spots and terrible ads, the rest of us should storm the place with torches and pitchforks. But my guess is that it's usually the advertisers themselves who dream those things up. And you know what lawyers say about a lawyer who represents himself or herself. **

And while we're looking at horrible spots, the one below for Senate Insurance was on You Tube right there with the terrible Ameritel one at the top. Why they decided to feature cave men humping a parked car is anybody's guess, but that's sure what it looks like.

Enjoy. We didn't do either of them.



** Well, maybe you don't. They say that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Read this after the one above it, or we'll both be confused

(Blogger puts up the most recent post at the top, so if you want to have one follow the other, you have to do the second one first, which means you have to think the whole thing out ahead of time and that, boys and girls, was asking a lot for a Saturday. But I did it. Who loves, you huh?)


. . . But even if I think commercials like these and their print counterparts are horrible, do they work?

I mean, my guess is that the people who pay for them must think so, or they wouldn't keep doing them. Right? Huh?

As a card-carrying creative person (I even have a t-shirt to prove it), I have to believe that creativity is a practical business tool. And I have to believe that as bad as these things are and even if they work in some twisted, Bizzaro-world kind of way, that they'd work better if they were actually well thought-out and produced.

God I hope so. Strike that. I know so.

Then again, if anybody can prove that crap works a lot better than quality, everbody's job in advertising just got a hell of a lot easier.

Oh, I know how to DO this stuff. I just don't actually do it myself.

I never cease to be amazed at people who don't recognize that the quality of their approach to me is an indication of the quality of whatever it is they might be trying to sell me.

Especially when they are selling something that revolves around, um, you know, selling something somehow.

There is a copywriter in New Jersey who sends me her resume and business card and some testimonials on a regular basis. About every two or three months. I should start collecting them. Absolutely nothing else is included. No cover letter, no examples of her ability to persuade (me?) with the written word. Nothing. Just her business card and resume. Over and over and over again. I will never call her for a freelance job.

Every time we advertise for an art director or copywriter, there is always at least one poorly written letter from a copywriter. You know, the two-page variety. A stunningly perfect example of their inability to produce effective written communications. Or perhaps an unwillingness to understand that they need to do so.

And there are always art directors who send in a resume done in Word. No design whatsoever. Or way too much.

I mean, geeze, if you can do creative stuff, why the %$#@ not do it for yourself? Certainly you'll never find a more appreciative client.

This train of thought was pushed to the front of my brain today by the e-mail I received from a company promising (I think) to help us build new business. This company will help us embrace technology. I mean, they understand this technology and e-communications stuff.

I know this, because they told me so in a 552-word all-text e-mail that I only fooled with so I could count it for this post.

If there was ever an example of someone who does not know WTF they are doing, this is it.

Have a good weekend. In fact, take the rest of the day off.

Another example of things that make small agencies with small clients with small budgets jealous

What a wonderful promotion for Gillette Fusion razors.

Of course, you need the cash to modify a Zamboni, but they could have just poured that cash into scoreboard advertising. Besides, the big differentiator here isn't the size of the budget but rather the size of the idea.

By BBDO New York, Proximity Canada. Via I believe in Advertising.

At the speed of light

I mean seriously, it seems like every day that goes by attention to Twitter and the like increases exponentially. I even heard a new term today -- Twintern. A Twintern, boys and girls, is an intern whose whole job is to Tweeting, enhancing or following a company's profile in social media.

Anyway, I found this on TweetFreak today (via AdFreak). Signs that you might be a Twitter Ad Douche. My apologies for the language, but I didn't say it, somebody on TweetFreak did.

My favorite on the list is the last one: "You follow Ashton Kutchner."



(Love the multiple turned-up collars on the guy above.)

A very short story

"Hey man, you're bleeding!"

"I know. It's awful, Blood everywhere, and it just won't stop. I think it's getting worse too."

"You know, I have something here that can help that. Stop the bleeding, let you get your strength back and all."

"No, thanks. I'm going to hold off on doing anything until the bleeding stops."

This is some very good sports advertising

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They coulda done spots and print ads about beer night or "everybody wear red" or "come see our big star" or something. But Mullen took a different approach for the Boston Bruins with a series of "Bruins Hockey Rules".

I don't follow hockey enough to know whether or not the Bruins are any good, but I think this makes Bruins Hockey look appealing. Fun even.

And speaking for aging Boomers everywhere . . .

Last September, Bart Cleveland put up what I thought was a great post on the Ad Age Small Agency Diary. You can read it and all the following comments here.

The title is "Never count out those with gray hair", and as a card-carrying Guy With Gray Hair I thought it was pretty interesting. One paragraph says : "There's been some banter in the industry pubs lately about an uncommonly large number of older professionals being put out to pasture because they just don't get it anymore. "

Here's more: "It has always been true in our industry that the best work comes from those who are not only in tune with the latest cultural practices but also keenly aware of what is over the horizon. In fact, they are shaping future culture by putting this knowledge to use in the marketing of their clients' products. It has always been the case that there are people who are hopelessly out of touch. . . . [but] to suggest that people who are a little older are obsolete as a group is naïve. There are many "senior citizens" in our industry who are moving the industry forward. Chuck Porter, Lee Clow, Jeff Goodby and Rich Silverstein are examples of leaders who are still plowing new ground by using their considerable experience as a springboard to what's next. "

Well, today's New York Times has an interesting piece titled "An older audience is looking better than ever before."

" . . . as the recession grinds on, writes Stuart Elliott, [there is] an increasing interest in marketing goods and services to consumers age 50 and older. Among those aiming more at the older demographic are giants like Chrysler, Kraft Foods, L’Oréal, Procter & Gamble and Target.

"For decades, older consumers were largely shunned by marketers because they were deemed less wealthy, less likely to try new products and less willing to change brands. Campaigns directed at them were described dismissively as made for the “Geritol generation.” As much as older consumers were to be shunned, young consumers — ages 18 to 34, or 18 to 49 — were desired for what were deemed their free-spending ways, eagerness to sample new products and brand-switching proclivities."

Well, that's changing. For one reason, older consumers who may have paid off mortgages seem a safer bet than younger ones who may get laid off in last-hired, first-fired downsizings. Also, there is a demographic change. The first boomers are turning 63 this year, and the youngest are turning 45.

Also, Brian Gordon of ebeanstalk.com says that older consumers are the most demanding customers -- but also more willing than their younger counterparts to pay full price.

There's more, and both pieces are interesting reading.

I especially liked this one comment in Ad Age that I thought was probably partly in jest: "Let them (the younger people) work on xbox or iphone. Sugar cereals, toys or condoms. But what about industries like life insurance, pharmaceuticals, luxury goods, real estate, cruises, luxury automobiles, investments, travel destinations, parenthood or responsible causes. Are you gonna tell me some VCU graduate is better prepared to work on those assignments. Maybe. I think not. Mother started in London as some 50-something guys thinking they still had what it took to create great work. They have proved age is relative."

I guess my point is, perhaps there is a good reason to keep some of those old farts around the agency. This is not an us-old-folks-versus-young-bucks thing, but rather a it-takes-all-kinds comment.

(Of course what REALLY struck me was the $205 parking fine in in the picture above.)

Heh, heh, heh . . .Hey Beavis, he said "hard"!

But, as Adrants noted, it is hard to believe that this spot actually ran. Call it the sophmorization of advertising, Chapter Whatever.

Then again, I guess the people who really should be buying rubbers are mostly high-school kids, so maybe this makes sense.

I just kind of hate it when I'm watching TV with a friend and a spot like that comes on and they turn to me with a smirk and say "So that's what you do for living, huh?"


(Except I swear to God at first I thought the VO said "The Trojan Fletcher Pack". That sounds uncomfortable somehow.)

Mies in Reverse

We were talking with a magazine art director pal of ours this morning about how so often clients and advertisers want to put so much stuff in their ads.

I certainly don't agree with it, but I do kind of get where this thinking comes from if it's a small business owner who is spending his or her own money. They think they have to protect their investment by getting every possible thing in that print or broadcast real estate they paid for. They don't want to leave anything out that they think might make the sale. What they don't realize is that by putting so much stuff in the ad, they actually make it less effective. The concept of "everything in an ad devalues everything else in it" is not always easy for them to understand.

It's gotta be "Call today for a free-no-obligation estimate in your own personal home by our trained estimators", or the phone number is repeated three times in a radio spot or they want to show a selection of lovely, but teeny and only-distracts-from-the-main-message thumbnail shots of their rooms, golf course, spa and restaurants. That kind of stuff.

Mies van der Rohe adopted the motto "Less is more" which really, no kidding, honest-to-God nails it.

Then again, so does the reverse. "More is less."

We've established that I'm not exactly a Twitter maven

But I think this is pretty cool. Spreadtweet. I found it on the Denver Egoist. (But of course! All the cool stuff is there.)

It's a program that disguises your Twitter feeds to look like an Excel spreadsheet, so you can spend the whole day at work staying current on the intimacies and random thoughts of 80 or 100 of your closest friends, and your boss will think you're hard at work on Some Damn Thing or the other.

Enjoy. And extra-special thanks to the Denver Egoist for once again doing my work for me.

Dibs!

In an e-mail to a co-worker just now, I referred to myself as the N+H Chief Idiocy Officer.

Not a bad idea actually. The economy sucks. People are killing each other at an alarming rate. Everybody is expected to do more for and with less. And Rob Schneider still makes movies.

Somebody has to take charge of ensuring those moments of idiocy that keep everybody in the office sane. I don't mean idiotic things that some in senior management tend to do naturally. I mean fun stuff.

It's a dirty, sweaty, dangerous and thankless job, for sure. But the skills requirements are low.

Some of us were born to it.

A few things I found on the web while Karen and Rick were meeting with a client

The price of competition

I can make this short. Whether I will or not remains to be seen.

Karen was talking with a friend of hers this afternoon -- a guy in the hotel bidness. Guy told her that he is all about tactics these days. Guy said he was going after new categories. Guy said it's all about price now -- cutting your price to get the business.

That's cool. But you know what? If you have a strong or even just an established brand, you're going to engender more customer loyalty than if you don't. And, while you still may have to give way some price, you won't have to give away as much. So the ROI from Brand Development is measurable.

Not only that, but inroads are a lot smoother into new markets and categories for an established brand with a clear brand promise.

People -- whether they are meeting planners or vacation planners -- will pay more for a brand they know and trust than one that is unknown to them.

I'm not making this up. More about Brand Development on our web site here.

Frank was pretty much right. Lori is too.

There is a great editorial in the new issue of Meetings and Conventions magazine by Editor Lori Cioffi. Everybody should read it.

I tried to find a link to it on their web site, but could not, so I'll quote some of it here.

The headline is "Fear Itself", and while it's about meetings, it has a broader application, I think. "I'd wager no one in our government set out to intentionally hobble our industry," she writes "but hobble it they have."

She's writing specifically about the rush these days to cancel any sort of offsite meeting. In the hotel industry, this is known as the "AIG effect" for obvious reasons. Organizations who might otherwise benefit from something like a training meeting, retreat or sales meeting are afraid of running afoul of TARP guidelines. In fact, the Treasury Department has set up an abuse hotline, so citizens can phone in (perceived) abuses -- like the example she mentioned, a training meeting in Florida for Merrill Lynch employees. This is getting ridiculous. Large companies and small ones, like caterers, production teams, florists and the like, are all suffering as a result of meeting cancellations. And last I looked, these folks -- like ad agencies -- are part of the economy.

As Ms. Cioffi said in closing, a simple training meeting is something "that quite possibly could have spurred business activity -- something our economy could sorely use." She's right.

But here's the variation on it from from the ad agency point of view, since we've done a lot of hospitality work over the years: This is no time for the hospitality industry (or anybody else, for that matter) to roll up its ears and figure they best not reach out to any potential customers until it's all over. Or just rely on their web site and SEO to bring in business. I'm sorry, but whether it's a real or perceived budget issue, real or perceived AIG Effect or a desire to "wait and see what happens with the economy" (and how many times have you hear THAT one?), I can't see dropping out as a good strategy.

I've said it a zillion (well at least 2 or 3) times before. Stopping or cutting anything that can help you generate new business until your business gets better all by itself makes no sense at all. Change your message or your strategy, sure. But disappear? Never.

In this case, maybe drop the old emphasis resorts used to put on their golf or tennis or the beach and develop marketing materials that emphasize the business ROI of an offsite meeting. Or (gasp) consider dropping "Resort" from the family name. Maybe even focus on developing a for-real, serious meeting capability as a value-add for clients to help them have more productive meetings. Build your brand as a meetings destination.

Recognize, as my friend Mike Fahner told me once long ago when he was with Marriott, that it's not about the hotel, or the F&B, or the meeting room or the beds. It's the meeting you're selling and what the client can accomplish at it.

Back when I was a Healthy Young Man, I played rugby. And one of my best coaches was the late Al Long. Al used to say that we could play reactive rugby and let the other team dictate the flow, pace and style of the game, or we could dictate those things ourselves and play our game. In other words, we could choose to try not lose or choose to win.

I know the sour economy is real. I know the crisis is real. I know business sucks in general. (Trust me, I know that one for sure.) But freaking out will only make is worse.

Reactive rugby will not win the day here.

My dogs would never do this

Eukanuba trained dogs to carry bags of dog food and then took them to busy shopping centers (or, as they call them "shopping centres", they being in South Africa) and had them carry the bags from one point to another.

Pretty cool. If I saw a dog trot out of a grocery store with a bag of dog food in its mouth, it would certainly get my attention. By Saatchi and Saatchi, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Via I believe in Advertising.

For the record, our dogs (Chloe and Zoe, both Basset Hounds), being the most undisciplined dogs in Montgomery County, would simply rip open the bag of food and chow down. Than again, Chloe is partially blind, so God only knows where she'd take the bag once she got a hold of it.

This has nothing to do with advertising

Those of you bent on studying the causes of various revolutions take note.

On the one hand:

Foreclosures are up. Personal bankruptcies are up. Unemployment is up. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement go up in smoke. Somebody you know has been laid off. Somebody else you know has been out of work for a long time and can't seem to catch on anywhere. (Both of these people have something to offer.)

On the other hand, the annual Parade Magazine "What People Earn" issue is out:

Jennifer Aniston, a woman we might, in a weak moment, laughingly call an "actress" makes $27 million a year. Will Ferrell is less talented than Jen and yet makes $31 million a year. Bloated, bellicose, blowhard Rush Limbaugh goes for a cool $38 million a year. Singer Beyonce gets $80 million a year, and rapper Jay-Z takes in $82 million.

The average teacher salary in Washington, D.C. is $48,304. This is higher than average teachers' salaries in 44 states.

Something is seriously messed up here. And that's even without talking about the cost of tickets at the new Yankee Stadium.

Pitchforks and torches anyone?

Hie thee to a newsstand

Unless you already subscribe to Advertising Age, that is.

The new print edition -- which you can access online -- is a special Marketing in a Recession issue. Packed with lots of interesting articles.

Two I particularly like are "Deal or No Deal? Cheap Prices Can Maim Your Brand" and "Study: Cutting spending hurts brands long term". Probably because both of them have to do with protecting the brand.

For example, part of the "Deal or No Deal?" story says " . . . the question becomes how much marketers can discount without doing permanent damage to their brands. "

A paragraph in the "Study" piece notes that "Companies and categories that are able to turn a recession into an advantage are [those] going against economic trends," Mr. Steenkamp said. "Ultimately, it takes courage. But it pays off in share and in terms of the stock market."

There's more. Like "Five Brands Doing it Right, Doing it Wrong" and "10 Principles for Bad Times that Work in Good Times Too."

Lots ot stuff to learn.

Awww man! We gotta do an ad for PAINT?

From Euro RSG Chicago (via Ads of the World), this very cool campaign for Valspar paints and coatings. If you don't feel like blowing it up, the copy reads: "Now the colors of life can last a lifetime."

They used the idea very nicely on their web site too.

Hmmmmmm? I'll have to think about that one . . .

Regular readers of J.I.T.D (both of them) know that I like the Denver Egoist.

"Felix", whoever the hell that is, puts out a good blog. Interesting, thought-provoking and all the rest. Recently he published a rant (Volume 26 in a series, if you're wondering) the topic of which is "Would you be as brave with your own money?" A pretty good question, I think. The whole thing is worth reading, but I especially like this graf:

"Whether you’re working with pennies or the contents of Fort Knox, the outcome is usually the same; your creative vision will end up being compromised in some way by the spineless client and you’ll argue until you’re blue in the face that your solution is the right one. But how many of you would actually back that up with your own cash?"

I don't necessarily agree that the outcome is "usually" that your creative vision is compromised by a "spineless client", but we all -- clients included -- have to admit that it does happen. The key for me is the second part. Would we argue as vehemently for an idea if it was our own money?

Seems like a good little internal check for all of us in the creative business. Because if the answer is yes, that's a damn compelling argument to make to a client. On the other hand, if the answer is no, we're not doing right by our client.

Frankly, it's probably a questions every client ought to ask.

Cheech and Chong saw the future and it was Twitter

Or Facebook. Or, LinkedIn any one of those online places where people tend to keep the whole world informed about their every move and thought.

I check Facebook every now and then. I even have a page. I use it mostly to communicate with nieces and nephews and interns, who tend to check Facebook more frequently than they check e-mail. And, while I understand that social networking is a significant fact of contemporary life (until somebody thinks up the next thing), I just can't understand why so many people go to the trouble of accessing their account to keep the rest of us up to date on the inanities of their lives. Of their every move and thought. Not just the interesting or relevant stuff, but freaking everything.

Somebody went for a walk. Somebody else is thinking about chicken. Yet another person is glad it's spring! Another "is like yea! Craigslist!" One intern we know logs on to let the rest of us know when she is "soooooo bored!"

I mean, I love my wife Karen and my son Larry and think they are interesting people. But not every single thought even they have or thing they do is interesting. Jeeze, my guess is that maybe 2% of what I do and think is interesting to anybody. If that. It's not even all that interesting to me. (And yet, you say, he writes a blog.)

Forgive me, really. It's not that I don't think people are fascinating. It's just that not every single thing people do or every thought that flies through their head is worth sharing. Edit people, edit.

Sometimes, Twitter, Facebook and all the rest remind me of this one part of the classic (get ready, I'm about to date myself) "Sister Mary Elephant" routine by Cheech & Chong, which I have thoughtfully reprinted here for you:


TEACHER:
Now class, Sister Rosetta has informed me that your assignment for the last two months has been to write an essay entitled "How I Spent My Summer Vacation". Who would like to read theirs before the class? . . . Young man?

STUDENT:
Okay. The first day on my vacation, what I did on my summer vacation, the first day on my vacation, I woke up. Then, I went downtown to look for job. Then I hung out in front of the drugstore. The second day on my summer vacation, I woke up, then I went downtown to look for a job. Then I hung out in front of the drugstore. The third day on my summer vacation, I woke up...

TEACHER:
Now that`s fine, young man!

STUDENT :
...Then I went downtown to look for a job...

TEACHER:
Now that`s fine, young man!

STUDENT :
...Then I got a job, keeping people from hanging out in front of the drugstore. The fourth day on my...

TEACHER:
Young man? Young man? Young man!? SHUT UP!!!!!

This is kind of heavy, kind of powerful

According to AdFreak, Keira Knightley and director Joe Wright (who directed Atonement) donated their time for this anti-domestic abuse spot. It runs in movie theaters in England.

Um, holy _____!

I'd like this even if I didn't have a gecko tattoo

A now-retired client in the hotel business told me one day that people will "steal anything that isn't nailed down."

According to I Have an Idea, Taxi, Vancouver, totally understands this human need to take things. For Telus network, "hundreds of gecko-shaped magnets were placed over transit shelter ads in high traffic areas in downtown Vancouver. The underside of the magnetic geckos prompted people to 'Bundle and save on the sure-footed network' and visit telus.com/bundle. By the next day, consumers had taken all the magnets home."

I love this idea. I like geckos regardless.

We're not here

April Fool's Day is an official holiday at Nasuti + Hinkle.

Really.

Nobody is here. The hallways are empty, the lights are turned out, and my guess is that tumbleweeds are blowing through the lobby. If you were thinking of robbing the place, today would be a good day to do it.

Because April Fool's Day is an official holiday at Nasuti + Hinkle.

Really.