Why Is a Swedish VPN Service Ripping Off A Classic Volkswagen Print Ad?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and leafing through the New York Times, when I came across this full-page ad on A5.

That’s hardly kosher, is it Doc – outright pirating Volkswagen’s revolutionary 1959 ad? Does there remain no honor among hucksters? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

– Really Bugged

Dear RB,

The legendary ad agency Doyle Dane Bernbach really did something miraculous in the 1960s: Barely two decades after the end of World War II, it turned Adolf Hitler’s “people’s car” into an American icon.

Twice. (VW Bug, VW Bus.)

Here’s the other DDB classic ad from its launch campaign.

That car, the ad tells us, was pulled from the line because the chrome strip on the glove compartment was – gasp – blemished.

Drive U.S. automakers nuts graf:

This preoccupation with detail means the VW lasts longer and requires less maintenance, by and large, than other cars. It also means a used VW depreciates less than any other car.

The kicker: “We pluck the lemons; you get the plums.”

But back to Mullvad VPN. Here’s the company’s pitch, which is a bit of a roundhouse curve.

That “leaks” reference accounts for the black blotches beneath the Beetle in the ad. But we’re still left with this question: Why would an essentially unknown internet provider pay six figures to knock off an ad that only a fraction of its target market might recognize?

Two reasons come to mind: 1) Digital media has made popular culture – like time – a flat circle, so large swaths of people know one of The Greatest Print Campaigns of All Time, and 2) Like Volkswagen in the ’60s, Mullvad VPN is a Euro-upstart battling the behemoths – and seeming to get pretty good reviews so far, especially in the area of privacy.

The Doc’s diagnosis: At a time when your car will soon be driving you and Mark Zuckerberg is driving Meta into a ditch and Elon Musk is driving everyone else crazy, maybe a private Swedish massage would feel pretty good right about now.

Your mileage may vary.

Is the ‘Ban Pharmaceutical Advertising’ Crowd on Drugs or Something?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and starting to paw through the New York Times, when I saw Rebecca Robbins’ front-page story about incoming Trump administration officials looking to euthanize pharmaceutical ads on TV.

Since the late 1990s, drug companies have spent tens of billions of dollars on television ads, drumming up demand for their products with cheerful jingles and scenes of dancing patients.

Now, some people up for top jobs in the incoming Trump administration are attacking such ads, setting up a clash with a powerful industry that has long had the courts on its side.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald J. Trump’s choice for health secretary, is a longtime critic of pharmaceutical advertising on TV, arguing that it leads broadcasters to more favorable coverage of the industry and does not improve Americans’ health. He has repeatedly and enthusiastically called for a ban on such ads.

What’s your professional opinion, Doc? Could Bobby Brainworm succeed where so many others have failed?

– On My Meds

Dear OMM,

Let’s start with a short history lesson, shall we?

Back in the ’90s, when the Food and Drug Administration first allowed pharmaceutical advertising to run on television, the ads could say the name of the drug but not what it did, or say what it did but not its name.

It was very Old Testament.

In 1997, though, the FDA bowed to the First Amendment and loosened it restrictions, “[allowing] drug manufacturers to describe the benefits of the drugs without providing long, detailed notices of the side effects. Instead, the F.D.A. said, the drug companies would be required to include in the advertisements a ‘brief summary’ of the major risks,” according to a Times piece that year.

Prescription drug commercials quickly developed a format to meet that requirement: The first half of the spot featured happy people living happy lives thanks to the wondrous effects of the drug; the second half featured a monotone voiceover intoning Contradictions & Side Effects (“Do not take Superion if you are allergic to it; side effects include headache, sudden death, something something something”) while images of windsurfers or giraffes or marching bands cranked up the Big  Pharma Distraction Machine.

(Nowadays, the Doc’s exposure to pharmaceutical commercials is largely limited to the ones that run on The Tennis Channel, most of whose viewers seem to be a) plagued by skin rashes, b) chronically short of breath, or c) allergic to whatever food their companion is enjoying.)

Those freewheeling days, however, appeared to be over when the FDA issued new rules for disclosure in the roughly $5 billion Big Pharma is slated to spend on national television advertising this year.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations concerning direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements (ads) for human prescription drugs presented in television or radio format and stating the name of the drug and its conditions of use (DTC TV/radio ads). Specifically, the final rule implements a requirement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), added by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), that in such DTC TV/radio ads, the major statement relating to side effects and contraindications must be presented in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.

Drive PhRMA nuts graf: “In ads in TV format, the information presented in the audio portion of the major statement must also be presented concurrently in text for a sufficient duration to allow it to be read easily. In ads in TV format, the information in text must be formatted such that the information can be read easily. The ad must not include audio or visual elements during the presentation of the major statement that are likely to interfere with comprehension of the major statement.”

Loose translation: No more giraffes!

Except . . .

In our admittedly unscientific survey, there ‘s been only one minor change in prescription drugs ads since the FDA’s drop-dead date of November 20: the addition of small type at the bottom of the screen during disclosure. Other than that, the distraction machine grinds on.

The Doc’s diagnosis: If the federal government can’t even effectively regulate pharmaceutical advertising on television, it sure as hell doesn’t seem capable of banning it outright.

Someone send RFK Jr. some migraine medication, wouldya?

Do We Really Need PRE-Teasers for the Next Round of Super Bowl Ads?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and clicking through MediaPost, when I came across Steve McClellan’s Marketing Daily piece about a new ad for – not Pringles, not Pringles’ Super Bowl ad, but Pringles’ teaser campaign for its Super Bowl ad.

Pringles announced earlier this month that it was advertising in the upcoming Super Bowl, which will mark its eighth straight appearance.

And now the Kellanova brand is beginning its teaser campaign – giving hints and snippets about the ad’s storyline.

It released a “pre-teaser” on social media this week with a close-up of two uniformed actors (maybe you’ll recognize them) in a patrol car. Through the car’s radio you can hear a dispatcher telling the two officers of “reports of objects flying overhead.”

What the hell, Doc. Is there no limit to the Big Game adstravaganza?

– Stupor Bowl

Dear SB,

You are correct. We have officially entered the age of Super Bowl Ad Nauseam.

Fox Sports, which will broadcast Super Bowl LIX, has been running a teaser campaign since May, as John Sigler reported on Saints Wire.

FOX Sports released a teaser trailer for Super Bowl LIX starring their mascot “Cleatus the Robot,” who found himself wandering the desert after Super Bowl LVIII in Las Vegas. The hitchhiking robot was picked up by revelers in a party bus, complete with a brass band, Mardi Gras beads, and a pet snake, before they hit the road for “New Orleans or Bust!”

Cleatus got himself a tattoo along the way and several weeks ago was wandering around the bayou asking for directions to the New Orleans Superdome.

Oh, yeah – Cleatus has also been seen clomping through the New Orleans Saints team store, for those of you keeping score at home.

Circle of (marketing) life, yeah?

The Doc’s diagnosis: Get ready for a lot more of this teaserpalooza. There’s no bottom to that well.

Have People Really Said ‘Humbug!’ to Coca-Cola’s A.I.-Created Holiday Ad?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and poking around MediaPost, when I came across Danielle Oster’s piece about a new Coca-Cola spot that has lots of people harrumphing.

Earlier this week, Coca-Cola kicked off its annual holiday advertising blitz — which has since generated buzz over the brand’s use of AI.

At the center of the campaign is a 30-second hero TV spot called “The Holiday Magic is Coming,” recreating a classic spot from 1995 while incorporating the use of AI technology in the making of the ad. Small text appears for a few seconds near the beginning, informing audiences that it was “Created with Real Magic AI” — but that announcement is s easy to miss.

For some viewers, the approach didn’t go down easy, with USA Today reporting the comments on the brand’s YouTube post of the video were largely negative.

What the heck, Doc. Does A.I. actually stand for Absolutely Idiotic?

– Xmas Xcess

Dear XX,

First things first: Here’s the Coke spot those people are snorting at.

As for that “small text” disclosure, here’s how it looks on-screen.

One YouTube commenter wrote, “Nothing like celebrating the spirit of Christmas with the most soulless commercial possible.” The MediaPost piece says, “Coca-Cola has since restricted the page, hiding comments,” but you can see 2283 comments here, so go figure.

Beyond snarky Santa claws, the inevitable culture wars have also flared up, as Salon’s Ashlie D. Stevens has detailed.

Many creators and customers were quick to criticize the campaign as being emblematic of a worrying trend of replacing human artistry with machine-generated substitutes. For instance, Alex Hirsch, the creator of the beloved Disney series “Gravity Falls,” joked online that Coca-Cola’s signature red color scheme was now “made from the blood of out-of-work artists,” while other social media commentators described the advertisement as “disastrous” and “dystopian.”

“Coca-Cola just put out an ad and ruined Christmas,” Dylan Pearce, a TikTok user, said of the commercial. “To put out slop like this just ruins the Christmas spirit.”

Then again, not everyone is all Grinched out by the ad, according to Oster’s piece: “System1 analyzed the performance of the full 80-second ad with audiences using its ‘Test Your Ad’ platform, and awarded it an ‘exceptional’ score of 5.9 (out of 6) in its star rating system. ‘Excited’ and ‘uplifted’ were the most common emotional responses reported.”

(None of the survey respondents were told the ad was A.I. generated, for those of you keeping score at home.)

The Doc’s diagnosis: This contretemps will go flat faster than the Coke you leave out for Santa on Christmas eve. Happy holidays one and all.

Did the Democrats Really Blow $1.3 Billion On Ads to (Not) Elect Kamala Harris?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading the latest Semafor Media newsletter, when I came across this item about the 2024 presidential ad bakeoff.

ROI: The 2024 election . . . demonstrated the limits of television advertising. Democrats spent $460 million more on traditional advertising than Trump and still managed to lose handily.

What the hell, Doc – all those dollars and no sense, eh? Shouldn’t the Dems have just set that money on fire?

– Battleground Burnout

Dear BB,

First off, before you start lighting any matches, let’s note this drought-induced ad that ran in the New York Times the other day.

Safety first, yeah?

Meanwhile, here’s the tab (compiled by AdImpact) for all the presidential sturm ad drang this time around, which mostly ran in the seven battleground states.

That’s $1.37 billion vs. $914 million, for those of you keeping score at home.

Then again, maybe not the best investment, as Trisha Oswald and Paul Hiebert pointed out in Adweek,

It’s telling that a recent survey suggests most U.S. adults think there are too many political ads on TV during presidential campaigns.

As Paul Dyer, chief executive of creative agency Prompt, put it, the Democrat’s strategy was to lead with paid media, while the Republicans started with earned media.

Trump’s October appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast—three hours of unscripted conversation that racked up 26 million views in 24 hours, per Newsweek—was a key moment. During the episode, he also made 32 false claims, per CNN. Trump also embraced the creator economy, teaming up with figures like Jake Paul, whose Instagram video with Trump in a playful moment amassed over 1.5 million likes.

Trump in a playful moment? That’s a phrase the Doc did not have on his bingo card.

Most of that two-plus billion was just costly noise, except for the $100 million that the Trump campaign dropped on a culture-war ad, as Rachel Bachman, Laura Kusisto, and Kris Maher detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece.

The political ad that Donald Trump rolled out in the closing weeks of his campaign was designed to confront voters’ feelings on one of the hot-button cultural issues of our time: transgender rights.

It featured 2019 footage of Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, saying she supported taxpayer-funded surgery for transgender inmates. The tagline: “Kamala’s For They/Them. President Trump is for you.”

The message hit the target for voters like Richard Amorose, a 48-year-old Philadelphia general laborer. He cast ballots for Democrats in the past, but these days he thinks the party has lost touch with working-class voters and is “all identity politics.”

“They need to stop a lot of their ideology, meaning like transgender, whatever. I have nothing against them,” Amorose said, but, “stop pushing it down my throat.” Trump flipped the blue-collar ward where Amorose lives from blue to red on Tuesday.

Just for the record, taxpayer-funded surgery for transgender inmates has occurred exactly twice, but why get technical about it when there are hot-button issues to demagogue?

The Doc’s diagnosis: As we’ve said before, presidential TV spots ain’t what they used to be. But that won’t keep the 2028 White House hopefuls from dropping three billion on them next time around.

All those dollars and no sense, indeed.

Is the NWSL’s BOS Nation Brand Launch Really ‘So Bad It Feels Like Satire’?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and clicking through the Boston Globe, when I came across Michael Silverman’s piece about the naming of the National Women’s Soccer League’s new Boston franchise.

Boston’s new professional women’s soccer team established its identity with what it believes is a boss move Tuesday.

The “BOS Nation Football Club” name is a play, team leaders explained, not only on “Boston” (with a nod to Logan Airport) but also on the “boss” mind-set needed by players to command attention and, ultimately, win championships here . . .

A number of billboards reading “There Are Too Many Balls In This Town” went up around Boston this past weekend, a cheekycampaign designed to show that the National Women’s Soccer League team that is scheduled to begin play in the spring of 2026 is intent on elbowing its way onto a vaunted local pro sports stage.

Kind of . . . well . . . ballsy – no, Doc?

– Jump Ball

Dear JB,

Here’s that billboard.

But wait! There’s more!

Via Michael Silverman: “A video accompanying the campaign features references to an array of ‘balls,’ such as old, new, steel, cold, and goat — the last mention followed by a quick video clip of Tom Brady saying, ‘Wait, what?’”

In general, the BOS Nation campaign has gone over like the metric system. First there was Print contributor Charlotte Beach’s blowtorching of the name itself.

BOS Nation FC is a terrible name for a sports franchise because, to put it bluntly: it’s corny as hell. “Lady Boss” culture and the “Girl Boss” discourse is over. In fact, it never started. It’s an inherently dated and regressive concept that is the opposite of empowering. “BOS Nation” is trying too hard. It wants so badly to be cool, and there’s nothing less cool than wanting to be cool.

Beach’s piece sports the “feels like satire” headline, but her thorough dismantling of this “lasagna of disrespect” should be read in its entirety.

As night follows day, the NWSL quickly moonwalked away from the balls-out advertising, as detailed by NBC News reporter Kyla Guilfoil (among others).

The National Women’s Soccer League’s newest team, Boston-based BOS Nation Football Club, apologized Wednesday after its name reveal and brand campaign launch garnered criticism online . . .

Many users on social media criticized the club’s ad for its emphasis on male athletes. “Why are we making our NWSL announcement about men?” one user on X wrote.

Other users complained that the campaign assumes that only men have balls, arguing that it makes the campaign transphobic.

The Doc’s diagnosis: The whole thing is bollocks.

Could Florida TV Execs Go to Jail for Running an Abortion-Rights Ad?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Brian Stelter’s CNN Reliable Sources newsletter, when I came across this item about the Florida Health Department’s cease-and-desist letters sent last week to WCJB in Gainesville and WFLA in Tampa.

The threat from the health department underscores the intensity of the political battle over Amendment 4, a ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in Florida’s constitution. The state government led by [Gov. Ron] DeSantis has campaigned aggressively against the amendment, including by running its own TV ads.

The cease-and-desist letters from John Wilson, general counsel for the state health department, appear to be part of that campaign. The letters were first reported by Orlando investigative journalist Jason Garcia and state news outlet Florida Politics.

In the letters, Wilson targeted an ad produced by the group Floridians Protecting Freedom, which is behind the “Yes on 4 Campaign” in favor of abortion rights.

What the hell, Doc – hasn’t Pudding Fingers Ron DeSantis heard of the First Amendment?

– Pudding People First

Dear PPF,

Clearly, pudding’s not the only thing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Can’t Wait for ’28) wants his fingers in.

As MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones reports, trying to bully local television stations is just the latest DeSantis attack on the abortion rights ballot measure.

The DeSantis administration recently had its election police unit investigate people who had signed a petition to get Amendment 4 on the ballot. Then the administration used taxpayer money to launch an anti-abortion website. The administration also used state money to air Orwellian television ads proclaiming that “Florida cares about women and families.”

Floridians Protecting Freedom has responded with this ad, which “depicts a woman named Caroline who became pregnant with her second child after a brain cancer diagnosis.”

This is nuts graf: “The doctors knew that if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom. Florida has now banned abortions, even in cases like mine.”

The CNN piece features this response from Florida officials.

Wilson’s letter says it is “categorically false” to claim that “current Florida law does not allow physicians to perform abortions necessary to preserve the lives and health of pregnant women.” Thus, he wrote, airing the ad is “dangerous” to the public’s health, and the health department could use its legal powers to initiate criminal proceedings.

The Doc’s diagnosis: The Florida Health Department’s approach to the First Amendment is roughly similar to Meatball Ron’s attitude toward silverware – useful at times, but not essential.

Chew on that for awhile.

What’s So Wrong With a Matchmaker Ad Pitching You to ‘Date Like a CEO’?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and leafing through the New York Times, when I came across this quarter-page ad on A7.

Really, Doc? Not to be cynical about it, but do CEOs really “date”? Doesn’t seem that way from news reports.

– Date Lyin’?

Dear DL,

Maybe this is unfair, but plug CEO sexual into Google and these are the first two Autofills.

Then again, plug CEO sexual into Google News, and here’s what comes up for just the last 10 days.

As Michael Peregrine reported in Forbes, CEO sexual harassment has become a major concern for corporate boards.

What is it about codes of conduct and sexual harassment that some CEOs apparently don’t get?

Most responsible corporate boards might be excused for thinking that they’ve already addressed the issue. Prompted by the “MeToo” movement, they’ve acted with a combination of internal education programs, new codes of conduct and strong disciplinary procedures in order to protect employees from sexual abuse and intimidation. For them, that particular “box” had been “checked off” the risk and compliance list.

Not so much, apparently. But beyond the board’s responsibility to preserve and protect the company’s reputation and workforce culture, there’s this: “[The] most current, and likely most significant, incentive is the 2023 decision of the Delaware Chancery Court concluding that sexual harassment by an officer or director constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. In such a situation, the board should have a claim against that officer or director for the harm his/her action caused the company.”

Date like a CEO? That would not only be good business, but a blessing, no?

Can a ‘White Dudes for Harris’ Ad Really Turn Out . . . White Dudes for Harris?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and scrolling through Politico Playbook, when I came across this scoopy item about a new ad campaign in the presidential bakeoff.

FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — White Dudes for Harris is launching an eye-popping eight-figure ad campaign targeting, you guessed it, persuadable white male voters in swing states, trying to draw a sharp contrast between the so-called “toxic masculinity” Trump displays and Harris’ campaign pitch.

The ad is airing in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on YouTube, streaming and social media platforms with a buy in the $10,000,000 range. It is backed by the Beige Rainbow PAC.

Bro-tastic narrator: “Hey, white dudes – so I think we’re all pretty sick of hearing how much we suck. Every time you go online, it’s the same story: we’re the problem. And yeah, some white dudes are. Trump and all his MAGA buddies are out there making it worse, shouting nonsense in their stupid red hats and acting like they speak for us when they don’t.”

Whaddaya think, Doc – could that pitch actually work?

– White Knuckles for Harris

Dear WKfH,

First off, ten million dollars is real money, bru.

Here’s what Beige Rainbow PAC is buying with all that dough.

As the dude puts it, this “isn’t about picking teams [but] who’s got a plan that’s gonna make life better for me and my family . . . [Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz] are actually talking to guys like us — no lectures, no B S. Just real solutions that protect our freedoms and help us take care of the people who matter.”

Not surprisingly, the MAGAsphere thinks the ad is just cringe. The Twittersphere, on the other hand, likes it just fine.

White Dudes for Harris is only one of the grassroots groups jumping on the Coconut Train, as The Hill’s Judy Kurtz reports.

Many organizers credit the “Win With Black Women” call for getting the ball rolling and igniting the virtual fundraiser trend. The July event drew more than 40,000 participants.

Since then, countless other calls have been organized from a dizzying number of groups, including “White Dudes for Harris,” “Cat Ladies for Kamala” and “Comics for Harris.”

Bill de Blasio helped coordinate “Paisans for Kamala” (ciao, Robert De Niro and Nancy Pelosi!), while Swifties for Kamala was up and running well before she officially endorsed Harris.

Still waiting for Comma Nerds for Kamala (Harvard Division). Shouldn’t be long now, yeah?

Is Donald Trump Really Hawking His Suit From the Debate With Joe Biden?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and checking out the latest dish from Vanity Fair, when I came across this item from the always entertaining Bess Levin detailing Donald Trump’s latest batch of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) glorifying himself.

Donald Trump is a serious contender for president who is absolutely not hard up for cash, and if the video he released on social media Tuesday morning makes you think otherwise, well, that’s on you . . .

Yes, that’s Trump, who is hoping to win the race for leader of the free world, telling his supporters about an exciting opportunity to purchase “Trump digital trading cards” that feature illustrations of the candidate with a halo above his head, wearing boxing gloves, praying (?) in front of another illustration of himself, holding a giant bitcoin, and more. Any single one can be yours for the low, low price of $99.

But wait! There’s more! “Not only will you receive a physical trading card (for every 15 digital cards purchased) but you’ll get ‘an authentic piece’ of the suit Trump wore for his debate with Joe Biden.”

Geez, Doc – is there anything about this guy that’s not for sale?

– Grift Rapped

Dear GR,

Of course you can eliminate “his soul” right off.  Beyond that, the latest batch of Trumpabilia is pimped in this video.

You really should watch the whole thing. It’s Trump at his carnival-barker best, the ultimate infomercial huckster.

One last tidbit from Levin’s piece: “Considering dropping $7,425 plus tax on 75 trading cards? If you do, you’ll be invited to join Trump ‘for a gala dinner’ at his club in Jupiter, Florida, which yes, sounds like a poor man’s Mar-a-Lago, but don’t dwell on it.”

The Doc’s diagnosis: We’re laying plenty of eight-to-five that if said gala dinner ever did happen, Trump would – at best – “join” it by video. More likely, though, it would feature  yet another NFT (No Frickin’ Trump).

You heard it here first.