I RATE ADS

jtherkal: That’s it girls. Give it like you take it. A+.

jtherkal: Is it just me, or does this look like a banner ad for a man-on-man interaction site? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Somewhere the strategy of “use Mike and Mike to promote Valentine’s Day” doesn’t quite work the way I bet someone thought it would. I’m not really putting this up here to rate. But C+.

sjbooher: I believe the term is “man-on-man interceptions”.

jtherkal: I hate this song. I don’t like the dancing. It might make me hate Christmas. There’s nothing good about this. F.

Verizon fired a shot across the bow of AT&T’s wireless business by launching a campaign calling out AT&T’s spotty 3G service:

jtherkal: Without the iPhone, Verizon was at a bit of a disadvantage in the smartphone market. People love iPhones. Unfortunately, perhaps feeling a little too comfortable with their exclusive contract with Apple, AT&T didn’t put forth the same effort as Verizon did to ensure good service for their customers. Verizon points this out and it’s effective, because it’s true. AT&T didn’t help the situation when they filed a lawsuit against Verizon trying to get the campaign yanked. They lost the case, because the claim is true, which made Verizon’s campaign even more effective. It’s not a trick, the law said so. I’m still an AT&T customer because I love the iPhone. But once that exclusive deal runs out, well, why not switch to Verizon? A.

Feeling the need to respond to the attack, AT&T launched a series of commercials starring Luke Wilson:

jtherkal: What’s wrong Luke Wilson, not enough romantic comedies to pay the bills? Or maybe you’re buying up dinosaur skulls? This is a weak attempt at answering Verizon’s attack. I’m sure that a fast 3G network is great when you’re in the 20% of the country where it exists. The rest of the time, good luck. The other claims they make are based on the fact that AT&T has the iPhone. So you’re service claims are based on another company’s ingenuity. The fact is, AT&T couldn’t really retaliate, because the map claim is true. In the spot where Luke is standing on the map naming all of the places that have service, he names major cities. Oh, you have service in Seattle? And Chicago!? I certainly hope so.

They would have been better off not aggressively going after Verizon, instead focusing on the positive things AT&T has to offer. The more they attack Verizon, the more people pay attention to Verizon’s claim. Like someone’s mom said, just ignore it and it might go away. D-.

NY Lottery

jtherkal: This was the first nutcracker ad I saw this season and I think it’s a winner. While I might not always remember this is for the NY Lottery, it makes me laugh and I won’t change the channel when it’s on. The little details, like making himself crack the nuts, are nice. Overall, great use of a nutcracker. B+.

Garmin

jtherkal: Give-a-give-a-give-a-give-a-Garmin, give-a-give-a-give-a-Garmin, fun local tips at fingertips, Garmin dotcom, Garmin dotcooooom. I love that song. While the nutcracker is not essential to the ad (the song could star a snowman, a Santa, a regular person and it would still be good), it’s a nice (if not original this year) twist. A-.

IHOP

jtherkal: Eh. Get it? They both ate nuts? Deez nuts. D.

jtherkal: I love songs. I love Christmas. And as much as I don’t want to like these, as much as I think rewriting a holiday song is an easy way out, as embarassing as it must be to whichever creative sunk low enough to sell this idea through, I can’t help but like it. A little. My first instinct was to fail this. With all of the brilliant ways you could advertise electronics around Christmas, this doesn’t really warrant much notice. But it’s a song, and I sing it in my head.

There’s also a whole YouTube section with more songs and behind the scenes interviews, as if anyone cares. C+.

jtherkal: It appears that the T-Mobile Fav-5 ads featuring Charles Barkley will be pulled from the air. At least for now. It’s a sad day when a man can’t go out, have a few drinks and head off for a blowjob without losing his endorsement deal. We’ll miss you Chuck.

Remember the day when Dwayne finally got in!?

“That’s why I don’t eat shrimp.”

While I understand T-Mobile’s actions, you have to think this whole thing will blow over. If you’re not a serious sports fan, you probably didn’t even know about Chuck’s DUI. And if you are a serious sports fan, you probably still like him. We’re quick to forgive our athletes their flaws, especially when they’re hilarious. I think T-Mobile could have found a way to use this to their advantage, like having Charles at the bar, six or seven drinks deep, calling Dwayne for a ride to some girl’s house to get “taken care of”. Bring some of those socks. You know the ones.

Don’t drink and drive. Call someone in your Fav-5.

We love you Chuck. Get your life right.

jtherkal: Someone knows. Thanks to Gary for bringing this to my attention. Check out his blog.

Sony Bravia “Domino City” from Film Construction on Vimeo.

sjbooher: You know you love, jtherkal. Gush away.

jtherkal: Gush? Gush? While I do love the Sony Bravia ad series (bunnies & balls), I’m certainly not required to like all of the ads. Your gripe was that only people watching on HDTV would appreciate the vivid color in these spots. My love for them came from the life and beauty, which when viewed in HD really is great. This one misses the mark. I don’t feel inspired when I see this. The song makes me want to go to sleep and I don’t really care if I ever see this again, in HD or not HD. They’re trying to force more great spots out of the formula established by balls and bunnies, and it just doesn’t work this time. Sorry to disappoint you, C.

Why, Hasbro, why? Why did you murder Scrabulous?

Anyone living in the dark ages (or not working in an office with a computer) may not realize that yesterday marked the end of the glorious Scrabulous era; an era during which friends all over the world could compete in an online version of Scrabble on Facebook. It provided stress relief, a challenge, a way to stay in touch with friends, and more.

But in their infinite wisdom, the suits at Hasbro filed a lawsuit which ultimately led to the demise of Scrabulous. While it was clearly a ripoff of the Scrabble game–owned and trademarked by Hasbro–the online social networking version was doing more good than harm. A whole new generation of kids began playing Scrabble. Adults rekindled their love for the forgotten game. How could this possibly have hurt Hasbro? Were the developers of Scrabulous also selling an offline version of the game, distributing it to every toy store in the world, so as to strike a fatal blow to the ancient game of Scrabble? No. Instead, because of a refueled passion for the game, it’s likely that Hasbro’s sales of the physical Scrabble game increased. You can’t take Scrabulous to the beach, or play it at a family reunion.

Because I don’t work for Hasbro, nor am I one of the developers of Scrabulous, I can’t say whether or not Hasbro explored more rational solutions to their problem. Solutions like paying them for a brilliant adaptation of Scrabble and rebranding it. But I can say for sure that forcing them to take Scrabulous down was the wrong move. Bloggers and fans of Scrabulous all over America are cursing the name of Hasbro today, as they surf the internet looking for other enjoyable ways to wile away their boring day. That can’t be good for your corporate image.

Save Scrabulous.