Tag Archives: CNN

Why Is Meta Letting Chinese Ad Scammers Rip Off Its Users For $3 Billion/Year?

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 Brian Stelter’s Reliable Sources newsletter, when I came across this item about the latest tech world ad scam.

‘Meta tolerates rampant ad fraud from China…’
“…to safeguard billions in revenue.” That’s the headline on a new Reuters investigation by Jeff Horwitz and Engen Tham that relies heavily on internal documents. The reporters found that Meta “decided to accept high levels of fraudulent advertisements from China” as the company “wanted to minimize ‘revenue impact’ caused by cracking down on the scams.”

WhatsApp with that, Doc? Strip-mining our data isn’t enough for Mark Suckaberg? Now he’s running Fleecebook and Instascam for Chinese fraudsters?

– Met-ad-verse

Dear M-a-v,

Let’s start with some backstory.

Last week we noted that Meta was one of the tech companies (along with Cash App, Coinbase, Match Group, and Ripple) involved in the Tech Against Scams Coalition, which had just launched a Potemkin marketing campaign purportedly to help consumers identify and avoid online fraudsters. It lasted about as long as a standard WhatsApp message, and had slightly less impact.

We also linked to Jeff Horwitz’s November Reuters piece reporting that “Meta internally projected late last year that it would earn about 10% of its overall annual revenue – or $16 billion – from running advertising for scams and banned goods, internal company documents show.”

Now comes this Reuters follow-up piece that zeroes in on the China connection to Meta’s ad-scam haul. In that case, fraudulent advertising generated not 10%, but 19% of the company’s revenues, or $3 billion of its $18 billion Chinese take in 2024.

Meta’s own internal audits showed that “Meta believed China was the country of origin of roughly a quarter of all ads for scams and banned products on Meta’s platforms worldwide.”  The company set up an anti-fraud team that “slashed the problematic ads by about half during the second half of 2024 – from 19% to 9% of the total advertising revenue coming from China.”

Then Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg weighed in.

“As a result of Integrity Strategy pivot and follow-up from Zuck,” a late 2024 document notes, the China ads-enforcement team was “asked to pause” its work. Reuters was unable to learn the specifics of the CEO’s involvement or what the so-called “Integrity Strategy pivot” entailed.

But after Zuckerberg’s input, the documents show, Meta disbanded its China-focused anti-scam team. It also lifted a freeze it had introduced on granting new Chinese ad agencies access to its platforms. One document shows that Meta shelved yet other anti-scam measures that internal tests had indicated would be effective.

So, to recap . . .

1) Meta knows.

2) Meta don’t care.

The Doc’s diagnosis: Mark Suckaberg never met a corner he wasn’t happy to cut. Why would he change now?

Can RFK Jr. Really Make Pharmaceutical Commercials Too Costly to Run?

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 Reliable Sources newsletter, when I came across this item about the latest incarnation of Health and Human Services head Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s jihad against Big Pharma.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s HHS is weighing a pair of policies cracking down on direct-to-consumer drug ads by making them more costly to produce. The rules could potentially “leave broadcasters in financial straits,” as they would choke off a crucial revenue source, CNN’s Liam Reilly and Tami Luhby report. Full story here…

What the hey, Doc – will RFK Jr. stop at nothing to land his white whale?

– Bitter Pill

Dear BP,

As you might have noticed, the Doc has been on Bobby Brainworm (pat. pending) like Brown on Williamson for months now over his Just Say No to Drug Ads campaign. Here’s the latest brainstorm from RFK Irregular, as detailed by CNN’s Liam Reilly and Tami Luhby.

While not an outright ban, the two policies would make it significantly more difficult and expensive for drug companies to push their products across broadcasters’ airwaves, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday. The policies look to either mandate that advertisers elaborate on the risks posed by their drugs — forcing ads to be longer and, therefore, more expensive — or bar drugmakers from writing off direct-to-consumer ads as business expenses on their taxes, also padding the bill, Bloomberg reported.

We’re talking real money here, folks: “Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in total, according to a report from the advertising data firm MediaRadar,” says Rachel Cohrs Zhang in her Bloomberg piece.

A whopping 59% of that money goes to TV spots. Case in point: “AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year, primarily on advertising for the company’s anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq.”

Representative sample . . .

Annoying? Perhaps. Lucrative? Definitely. “The medicines brought in more than $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025.” That’s $5 billion in three months (annualized return on investment: 1000%) for those of you keeping score at home.

Meanwhile, “Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King [have] introduced a bill to ban all prescription drug advertising,” according to Chris Williams at Fox News, thereby taking on both the pharmaceutical and broadcast industries.

Wake me when people start saying, “Doctor, I don’t see spots before my eyes.”

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.

Is Apple’s New ‘Crush” Advertisement As Soul-Crushing as Critics Allege?

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 Oliver Darcy’s CNN Reliable Sources newsletter, when I came across this item about a new ad for Apple’s latest iPad.

What do you think of Apple’s new “Crush!” advertisement? Julian Sancton writes that the “dystopian spot, which depicts the relentless destruction of instruments and artworks, marks a dark turn for the company, and begs the question: Will 2024 be like 1984?” (THR)

The spot has generated blowback, with actor Hugh Grant saying it represents “the destruction of the human experience.” (Deadline)

Whaddaya think, Doc? They sound kind of Appleplectic to me.

– Candid Crush

Dear CC,

Right now, Apple has a core problem: It revenue “declined for the fifth time in the past six quarters.” according to Aaron Tilley’s piece in the Wall Street Journal, with iPhone sales down 10.5% from last year in the most recent quarter.

So . . . the new iPad Pro to the rescue! Here’s how The Hollywood Reporter’s Julian Sancton describes Apple’s new TV spot, which is set to the Sonny & Cher oldie “All I Ever Need Is You.”

It seems at first like a brilliant, if unsubtle, piece of dystopian satire: countless symbols of human creativity — books, musical instruments, artworks, arcade games — crowded onto a platform and slowly, painfully, sadistically pancaked between the massive metal jaws of a machine. An upright piano splinters and cracks. Paint gushes like blood.

Sort of the flip side to Ridley Scott’s 1984 spot for Apple, this one “[reflecting] a widespread anxiety about the global advance of fascism and the inexorable rise of artificial intelligence: ‘2024 will be like 1984.'”

Uhh . . . no.

Deadline’s Dominic Patten points out that it’s not just Hugh Grant who’s pearl-clutching over the Apple ad. “Among those taking the tech giant, who is facing a Department of Justice suit over an alleged illegal monopoly over the smartphone market, to task for its sheer insensitivity and misstep are Hugh Grant and Justine Bateman.”

Also weighing in with critiques:  Creed II scribe and Luke Cage creator Cheo Hodari Coker; Emmy-winning and Directors Guild Award winning Handmaid’s Tale director Reed Morano; and Bill & Ted franchise and Men in Black screenwriter Ed Solomon – a regular Murderers’ Row of Tinseltown glitterati.

The Doc is laying plenty of eight-to-five that each of them will own a new iPad Pro before the month is out.

Don’t be crushed. That’s just show biz.

Can TikTok’s $2 Million Ad Blitz Buy Time For the Beleaguered Platform?

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 Oliver Darcy’s latest post at CNN’s Reliable Sources, when I came across this item about the video-sharing site TikTok.

TikTok has launched a $2.1 million television ad campaign as its fate is decided by the U.S. Senate, Brian Schwartz reports. (CNBC)

What’s the deal here, Doc – do U.S. Senators even watch TV? Wouldn’t TikTok be better off taking each one out to dinner at Cafe Milano? It is, after all, “Where the world’s most powerful people go,” according to the New York Times.

– TskTok

Dear TT,

Funny thing – TikTok’s ad buy is roughly the same amount as two anti-TikTok outfits (The American Parents Coalition and State Armor Action) are spending on national TV spots, which the Doc detailed the other day.

The difference is, TikTok is targeting U.S. senators who are just as beleaguered as the Chinese-owned platform is, as CNBC’s Brian Schwartz reports.

TikTok has launched a $2.1 million advertising campaign with a clear message for senators in tough reelection fights this year: Block the House bill that could effectively ban the app in the United States.

“Think about the 5 million small business owners that rely on TikTok to provide for their families,” one purported TikTok user says in the ad. “To see all of that disappear would be so sad,” says another apparent user.

The company has reserved television ad space in the battleground states of Nevada, Montana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio, according to data from AdImpact.

Here’s a transcript of the spot, which for some reason is not on YouTube, but is posted at AdMo. It features a series of people talking up the platform.

“There is no doubt that I would not have found the success that I have today without TikTok.”

“TikTok has made me a better teacher. It’s helped me to connect with people far beyond my classroom.”

“Think about the 5 million small business owners that rely on TikTok to provide for their families.”

“The village is always there for the moms on TikTok.”

“To see all of that disappear would be so sad.”

“It’s gonna affect a lot of people’s livelihoods.”

“We have got to make enough noise about this so that they don’t take away our voice.”

The spot ends with #KeepTikTok on screen. Not everyone, though, is putting on the pom poms.

The Doc’s diagnosis: TikTok parent ByteDance has flooded social media with testimonials from its users, so voices like the one above are largely drowned out. Whether any U.S. senators are listening, of course,  is another matter entirely.

Are Nikki Haley’s Grumpy Old Men Ads Really ‘An Example of Ageism’?

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 BU Today, when I came across Doug Most’s Q&A with Boston University School of Social Work professor Bronwyn Keefe about Nikki Haley’s new ad campaign mocking Joe Biden and Donald Trump as “Basement Buddies” and “Stumbling Seniors.”

BU Today: When I saw this ad, I admit that I chuckled, but at the same time I cringed a little bit. Is this going too far in your mind? Is the ad an example of ageism?

Ageism is just pervasive. When you go to CVS or someplace to get a birthday card, it’s everywhere, jokes about being older, not being able to hear—it’s so normalized . . . This makes older people feel invisible, small, and useless. It has an impact on the older adult population that is really detrimental.

Isn’t that the point of Haley’s campaign, Doc – to be detrimental to the presumptive 2024 presidential nominees?

– Bidin’ My Time

Dear BMT,

Let’s start by reminding ourselves that Nikki Haley is no stranger to the issue of ageism, having been on the receiving end last year of sexist/ageist comments from ex-CNN bigmouth Don Lemon, who declared in an on-air flameout (leading to his exit from the cable network) that Haley was past her prime.

Haley tweeted in response, “Liberals can’t stand the idea of having competency tests for older politicians to make sure they can do the job.”

So Haley’s new media  campaign – which consists of online videos, digital ads and voter emails according to Jazmine Ulloa’s report in the New York Times – is very much on brand.

As for the issue of ageism, it’s not like Haley is trying to take the car keys from Gramps. One of those two guys is going to occupy the Oval Office a year from now. Their age and mental competency are legitimate questions.

But that’s not the most important concern for voters this November.  The real issue, which Haley’s campaign blithely glosses over, is that both guys might be old, but only one of them is an unhinged anti-democratic grifter. We’re not talking six of one, half dozen of another here, folks. Joe Biden and Donald Trump are not a matched set, no matter what Nikki Haley or Cornel West or the No Labelsniks want you to think

Not to get all grumpy about it or anything.

Could a Never Trump PAC’s TV Spot Hold ‘Dictator Donald’ Accountable?

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 Politico Playbook, when I came across this item about a new ad campaign highlighting Donald Trump’s bromance with authoritarian figures past and present.

The Republican Accountability PAC is rolling out a six-figure ad campaign to take Trump to task, titled “Dictator Donald,” hitting the former president for his recent comment that he wouldn’t be a dictator if he returns to the White House “except for Day One.” The 60-second ad compares Trump to the likes of BENITO MUSSOLINI, HUGO CHÁVEZ, AUGUSTO PINOCHET and Hungarian PM VIKTOR ORBÁN.

In your home for the holidays: The ad will begin running nationally today on CNN and MSNBC. It will also be shown on the Hallmark Channel and during TBS’ “A Christmas Story” marathon in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

That’s some Murderers’ Row Trump is being compared to, eh, Doc? Think the spot might work?

– Christmas Jeer

Dear CJ,

So you’re sitting there watching Catch Me If You Claus when this commercial pops onto your big-screen TV.

Talk about the Ghoul of Christmas Future, eh?

As for how effective the Republican Accountability PAC ad might be, the spot has gotten 164,000 views and 706 comments on YouTube in 48 hours, along with a smattering of press coverage about the group’s six-figure ad buy. (Here’s a list of their donors, via OpenSecrets.)

Then again, anti-Trump ads generally face an uphill battle, as New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan noted several months ago.

A well-funded group of anti-Trump conservatives has sent its donors a remarkably candid memo that reveals how resilient former President Donald J. Trump has been against millions of dollars of negative ads the group deployed against him in two early-voting states.

The political action committee, called Win It Back, has close ties to the influential fiscally conservative group Club for Growth. It has already spent more than $4 million trying to lower Mr. Trump’s support among Republican voters in Iowa and nearly $2 million more trying to damage him in South Carolina.

But in the memo — dated Thursday and obtained by The New York Times — the head of Win It Back PAC, David McIntosh, acknowledges to donors that after extensive testing of more than 40 anti-Trump television ads, “all attempts to undermine his conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective.”

Of course, an ad campaign depicting Donald Trump as a five-and-dime dictator could conceivably be more effective than accusing him of failing to build a wall at the southern border. And yet . . .

“Even when you show video to Republican primary voters — with complete context — of President Trump saying something otherwise objectionable to primary voters, they find a way to rationalize and dismiss it,” Mr. McIntosh states in the “key learnings” section of the memo.

Regardless, the Republican Accountability PAC ad is a good start.  Let a thousand followers bloom, yeah?

Is Rick Scott’s New TV Spot Meant to Give Mitch McConnell the Finger?

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 Punchbowl News, when I came across this item by Jake Sherman.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the former chair of the NRSC, is running an ad nationwide touting his race against Mitch McConnell for Republican leader and his 11-point plan, which became a widely used Democratic talking point.

The new spot is running in D.C., New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Scott is up for re-election in Florida in 2024, but this ad isn’t running in Florida, according to AdImpact. This is sure to raise lots of eyebrows in Senate GOP circles.

It sure raised mine, Doc. What the hell’s that all about?

– Scot Free

Dear Mr. Free,

Let’s begin at the beginning.

Last March, Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R-Largest Medicare Fraud in U.S. History) introduced his 11-point Plan to Rescue America, as Jonathan Weisman reported in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the somewhat embattled head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, said one utterly indisputable thing on Thursday when he stood before a packed auditorium of supporters at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His plan for a G.O.P. majority would make everyone angry at him, Republicans included.

It was an odd admission for the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. His leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has repeatedly told Mr. Scott to pipe down about his “11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” with its call to impose income taxes on more than half of Americans who pay none now, and to sunset all legislation after five years, presumably including Social Security and Medicare.

According to this CNN report by Alex Rogers and Steve Contorno, other proposals in Scott’s plan included “ending imports from China, cutting the federal government workforce by 25% and building a wall on the US-Mexico border and naming it after former President Donald Trump.”

As everyone except Rick Scott could have told you, the whole thing went over like the metric system.

Especially lathered up was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-I’m de captain here!), as he made clear at a press conference reported by CNN.

“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

“That will not be part of the Republican Senate majority agenda,” he reiterated. “We will focus instead on what the American people are concerned about: inflation, energy, defense, the border and crime.”

Apparently undaunted by the widespread backlash he encountered at the time and his subsequent beatdown by McConnell in last fall’s Senate leadership bakeoff, Scott has doubled down with his current TV spot.

Here’s his pitch, annotated for your convenience.

People told me not to run for Republican leader against Mitch McConnell. They said I wouldn’t win. (Duh)

I knew it was gonna be hard. (As in, impossible)

But we gotta start somewhere. (Too bad Rick Scott is currently nowhere)

Look – we’re on the road to woke socialism. (His proof: A screenshot of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

And Republicans are just a speed bump. (Not even that smart, honestly)

We can’t keep doing the same old thing. It’s time for Republicans to be bold, to speak the truth, and to stop caving in. (The way Mitch McConnell keeps doing)

Help us change our party – join us at RescueAmerica.com. (Please give me money so I can run more noodleheaded ads like this one)

I’m Rick Scott. I approve this message. (Of course you do)

Scott is spending a reported seven figures on the national ad buy, which truly makes you wonder why he doesn’t just set his money on fire.

Meanwhile, Politico Playbook PM reports that a new ad campaign has been launched by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose chairman until 12 days ago was [checks notes] Rick Scott.

2024 WATCH — “‘Retire or get fired’: Senate GOP campaign committee targets Manchin, red-state Democrats with ad campaign,” by Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser: “The ad campaign from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), titled ‘Retire or Get Fired,’ takes aim at Trump-state Democratic Sens. JOE MANCHIN of West Virginia, JON TESTER of Montana and SHERROD BROWN of Ohio over what the NRSC calls their ‘liberal records’ and ties the senators to President Joe Biden.” Watch the Manchin ad … Watch the Tester ad … Watch the Brown ad

Here’s the Tester ad.

Inconveniently for the NRSC, Morning Consult’s Eli Yokley just reported that “60% of Montana voters approve of Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, making him the most popular incumbent expected to face a competitive 2024 contest.”

So maybe not the wisest use of the NRSC’s money.

The Doc’s diagnosis: It’s hard to imagine that those NRSC ads came together in the past two weeks, which means they probably represent more of Rick Scott’s handiwork. If so, the logical conclusion would be a) he has four middle fingers, and b) none of them are very flippin’ effective.

Or is our analysis for the birds . . .

Wait, What? Balenciaga Is Suing the Producers of Its Own Ad Campaign?

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 Oliver Darcy’s CNN Reliable Sources newsletter, when I came across these items.

• Kim Kardashian is “re-evaluating” her relationship with Balenciaga amid backlash over the brand’s recent ad campaign that featured children with BDSM items. (NBC News)

• Balenciaga, meanwhile, is suing the producers of the ad campaign. (NPR)

Really, Doc, they get to do that – approve an ad campaign and then sue over it? Sounds kind of addled to me.

– Trying to Keep Up

Dear Trying,

Actually, it happens more often than you might think. (See here for a bunch of examples.) One of the most famous cases was this Super Bowl ad that retail chain Just For Feet ran in 1999.

Back then one of the Doc’s good pals produced a piece about the spot for APM’s Marketplace. Here’s how his commentary began.

Retailers are the hypochondriacs of the business world – endlessly taking their temperature at the cash register, constantly checking for downdrafts in the market, and looking over their shoulder at last year’s sales figures so often, it’s a wonder they don’t have chiropractors on staff. As for adventurous advertising, retailers may not be allergic to it, but excess creativity does tend to give them the sniffles.

All the more remarkable, then, that Just For Feet’s Super Bowl ad ever saw the blue light of day. The spot shows a barefoot Kenyan runner being tracked by white paramilitaries in a Humvee. They pull up alongside him, slip a Mickey into a cup of water that he inexplicably accepts, and next thing you know the runner wakes up to find a pair of Nikes on his feet.

(RUNNER) Nooooooooooooo  (ANCR) Just for Feet. To protect and serve feet.

Apparently, protecting and serving clients was not a priority for the retailer’s ad agency, Saatchi and Saatchi Business Communications. The press alternately labeled the spot reprehensible and racist, and Just for Feet kept seeing itself in the same sentence as Texaco and Denny’s. So the retailer sued the agency for marketing malpractice, which immediately raises the question, CAN someone violate the standards of an industry that clearly has none?

At least that’s the response Saatchi & Saatchi has filed in court papers according to a story in the Internet magazine Salon. That should put the agency in solid with its other clients . . .

Meanwhile, Just For Feet’s stock is down 75% since last year. Thanks to Saatchi & Saatchi, the stock of the ad industry could be even lower.

Just For Feet eventually dropped its $10 million lawsuit against Saatchi & Saatchi, shortly before the chain filed for bankruptcy.

Back to the present, NBC Today show contributor Lindsay Lowe detailed the origins of the Kardashian/Balenciaga dustup.

Kim Kardashian says she is “re-evaluating” her relationship with Balenciaga in light of the brand’s recent ad campaign that featured images of young children posing with teddy bears that appeared to be wearing BDSM-inspired accessories.

 “I have been quiet for the past few days, not because I haven’t been disgusted and outraged by the recent Balenciaga campaigns, but because I wanted an opportunity to speak to their team to understand for myself how this could have happened,” Kardashian, 42, wrote in her Instagram story on Sunday.

 “As a mother of four, I have been shaken by the disturbing images,” she continued. “The safety of children must be held with the highest regard and any attempts to normalize child abuse of any kind should have no place in our society — period.”

A couple of the ad images, for those of you keeping score at home.

So what did Balenciaga do about the media critiques of its campaign? The fashion house turned around and sued the creative team that came up with the ads. Balenziaga’s lawsuit rolled in an additional campaign with a controversial image, as NPR’s Emily Olson related.

Balenciaga, the luxury fashion brand that sparked back-to-back controversies over two recent ad campaigns, has signaled its plans to sue the production company North Six for its role in creating one of the ads.

The backlash began when online scrutinizers noticed a page from the 2008 Supreme Court decision United States v. Williams in the backdrop for an ad showcasing a $3,000 purse.

The ruling upheld the constitutionality of a child pornography conviction.

The ad, which has since been removed from the company’s website, was part of the fashion house’s Spring 2023 collaboration with the activewear brand Adidas.

As in Adidas, the company that just dumped Kanye West, who was recently dumped by his ex-wife Kim Kardashian, nicely completing the Circle of Brandicide.

For those of you keeping score at home, here’s the ad for the $3000 purse.

For the life of us, we can’t locate the offending document anywhere in the photograph. Then again, the Doc’s not an optometrist, okay?

But Google Images found it.

Anyway, here’s the current state of play as reported by Nick Kostov and Stacy Meichtry  in the Wall Street Journal.

Balenciaga filed a lawsuit in New York state against Nicholas Des Jardins, a set designer who worked on that ad campaign, and North Six, a production company involved in the photo shoot. In the lawsuit, Balenciaga alleges Mr. Des Jardins and North Six were responsible for including the excerpt of the court decision in the ad campaign.

“In no way was any controversial material intentionally placed by me or anyone on my team,” Mr. Des Jardins wrote in an email to The Wall Street Journal. “There were literally tens of thousands of papers on-set rented from a prop house,” he said.

North Six declined to comment.

Kim Kardashian has remained mum about the second ad donnybrook, while Balenciaga has deep-sixed both ad campaigns, saying they “reflect a series of grievous errors for which Balenciaga takes responsibility.”

And for which Balenciaga should take a serious financial hit.

But that’s just our diagnosis.

Really? Americans Think Advertisers Are More Trustworthy Than the News Media?

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 MediaPost’s Marketing Politics Weekly, when I came across this Joe Mandese piece about the industries Americans trust most.

Americans Deem Ad Biz More Trustworthy Than Media, Both Trail All Other Industries

The good news is that as far as brands go, the ad industry is deemed more trustworthy than much of the media it buys to reach consumers. The bad news is that the ad business, “news media,” and “social media” all rank at the bottom of all brand categories American consumers were asked to rate as trusting “a great deal” recently.

The findings, which were announced Tuesday via a press release from brand researcher Brand Keys noting that “media brand trust took a nosedive” in its most recent tracking study, which surveyed 6,850 U.S. adults in July.

What the hell, Doc – hucksters get more respect than government officials and journalists? That’s messed up, yo.

– Trust Busted

Dear TB:

Wait – so this survey is saying that a buck hustler like Spike Lee is more trustworthy than, say, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt? That would be the same Spike Lee whose ad last year for Coin Cloud conned untold numbers of Black people into investing in cryptocurrencies.

Lee brazenly played the race card in touting crypto’s currency: “Old money, as rich as it looks, is flat out broke,” he says in the video, which has garnered about 1.5 million views on YouTube. “They call it green, but it’s only white. Where’s the women? The Black folks? And the people of color?”

Where the Black folks and people of color are, according to Madeline Garfinkle’s Entrepreneur piece last month, is in the red.

‘We’re the First Group Who Loses Out’: Black Americans Hit Hard By Crypto Collapse

As digital currencies continue to fall, a new report found Black investors to be disproportionately vulnerable.

Digital currencies have dropped drastically, with bitcoin alone losing more than 50% of its value this year.

With consistent reports of plunging value, the question looms: Who’s really getting hit?

A study by Ariel Investments found that, on average, Black Americans own significantly more cryptocurrency than their white counterparts. About one quarter (25%) of Black Americans own crypto, and when examining investors under the age of 40, that number jumps to 38%.

The Black community, Garfinkle adds, has a longstanding distrust of the establishment financial system. Crypto offers “[the] draw of gaining financial independence with a low barrier to entry . . . further enhanced by celeb endorsements.”

So, to recap: Americans apparently believe that Mr. Do The Wrong Thing, who has leeched off widespread losses by Black investors in cryptocurrencies, is more credible than, say, CNN’s Don Lemon?

That’s gotta leave a sour taste, no?