Tag Archives: Xitter

Does New York’s SoHo ‘Fertility Concierge’ Really Need a 42-Foot Billboard?

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’s Marketing Daily, when I came across Les Luchter’s piece about a billboard currently looming over New York’s SoHo neighborhood.

Let’s talk about the high price of eggs these days!

No, not the eggs now selling for more than $9 a dozen in New York City.

Rather, the “fertilized, not scrambled” kind, as touted on an attention-grabbing billboard which went up mid-February in New York City’s Soho neighborhood.

A 42-foot-tall photo of Stefen D’Angelica, best known for his stint on Discovery Channel’s “Naked and Afraid of Love” dating show spinoff, graces the billboard. D’Angelica, clad only in boxer shorts, holds an egg carton over his crotch. Under that, the board reads, “Fertilized, not scrambled.  @getlushi.”

Don’t even know where to start here, Doc. Maybe with the egg carton/crotch thing?

– Egged On

Dear EO,

Yes well let’s start at the beginning.

Lushi, for those of you keeping score at home, is a “fertility concierge platform” for egg freezing and IVF. About its name: “The Lushi is a rare breed of chicken known for laying blue eggs, with only a limited supply produced in its lifetime.”

That mirrors, according to Lushi’s website, “an important truth about women: they are born with all the eggs they will ever have, a finite resource that is both precious and powerful.”

Okay then.

Luchter’s piece also notes this: “D’Angelica is ‘pretty well known in the city as a very eligible bachelor,’ [Lushi founder-CEO Jessica] Schaefer points out, and the billboard has resulted in significant boosts to both Lushi’s website and social media, with ‘very high’ engagement.”

Checking in with the 42-Foot Himbo, a Google search for Stefen D’Angelica Lushi yields two links – one the MediaPost piece, the other an Ads of the World review.

Moving on to your local fertility concierge (available in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Austin), here’s the @getlushi Xitter feed.

(To be fair graf goes here)

To be fair, Lushi’s Tik-Tok feed has five followers.

The Doc’s diagnosis: Seems Lushi’s marketing could use a bit more fruitfulness of its own.

Is My TV Really Smart Enough to Track – And Sell – All My Ad-Watching Data?

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 tooling around Xitter, when I came across this post from the always lively and informative David S. Bernstein.

Here’s the rest of Maggie Severns’ post: “. . . you’ve been hit with and how often. Sometimes they can connect TV data to a voter file, or tie your TV to your IP address, allowing ads to follow voters from one screen to another.”

That’s some serious surveillance, yeah Doc? Is that even legal? It sure doesn’t feel kosher.

– Oh Well

Dear OW,

It’s actually worse than you think, as NOTUS reporter Maggie Severns notes.

“Television now watches us more than we watch it,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Digital Democracy. “The same kinds of strategies used to track and target individuals in order to sell advertising popularized by Google and Meta have been purposely and deliberately exported to the television.”

Televisions that can stream platforms like Hulu or Max usually come loaded with technology that collects information on what viewers are watching, and buyers consent to have their viewing tracked when they open their new TV and click through terms of service agreements. Sometimes, data firms can connect those viewing habits to a voter’s phone or laptop via their IP address, promising a trove of information about an individual and the ability to track them across screens.

In other words, political campaigns can attach themselves to your digital data like Tim Scott to Donald Trump’s tush.

Of course, the question then arises: Does political advertising even work in this day and age? (The Doc diagnosed the current condition of presidential primary ads here.)

On the one hand, according to this piece by New York Times reporter Nick Corasaniti, traditional campaign ads are far less efficient than they used to be.

According to Cross Screen Media, an ad analytics firm, only 63 percent of Iowa Republicans [were] reachable with traditional or “linear” TV ads [this year], as viewers switch to streaming and social media. In 2016, that percentage was still in the 90s. At most, Republican campaigns this year reached 42 percent of likely caucus voters.

On the other hand, as Politico’s Jessica Piper reported, a study by Swayable, a platform used by Democrats to test the effectiveness of different messages and advertisements, was more encouraging: “[The] study’s authors . . . note that the greatest benefits would likely accrue to the best-funded campaigns and groups that can afford to create (and test) many ads in real time, not cash-strapped efforts further down the ballot.”

Either way, traditional television spots are definitely the wave of the past. Which makes the smart TVampires even more attractive to political campaigns, as NOTUS’s Maggie Severns wrote.

Today, more than half of ads booked on traditional television go to target only 11% of swing voters, according to data collected by Cross Screen Media, an analytics firm started by GOP operative Michael Beach.

Cross Screen Media estimates that close to 40% of video advertising budgets — around $4.2 billion — will go to digital ads this cycle, up from about 27% four years ago.

The Doc’s diagnosis: When your TV is smarter than you are, go listen to the radio.

Will the Biden/Harris ‘Snapped’ Ad Really Make Donald Trump ‘Snap More’?

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 tooling around Xitter, when I came across this post from corgi lover/Never Trumper/legal eagle George Conway.

That’s Adrienne Elrod, senior adviser and senior spokesperson for Joe Biden touting his latest swipe at the Cheeto in Chief, which “reminds voters of Trump’s presidency, which was just the beginning of Trump’s decline into the unhinged, power-hungry candidate he is today.”

Whaddaya think, Doc – is the Biden campaign on to something here?

– Snappy Comeback

Dear SC,

According to this piece by The Hill’s Alex Gangitano, Snapped “is part of the [Biden] campaign’s $14 million paid media buy for May and will run on general market television and digital platforms across battleground states, as well as on national cable television.”

De Niro: “From midnight tweets, to drinking bleach, to tear-gassing citizens and staging a photo-op, we knew Trump was out of control when he was president, and then he lost the 2020 election and snapped. Desperately trying to hold on to power. Now he’s running again, this time threatening to be a dictator, to terminate the Constitution . . . Trump wants revenge, and he’ll stop at nothing to get it.”

Nidia Cavazos of CBS News reports that the Biden campaign is also running this spot “slamming Trump on gun control 2 years after Uvalde shooting.”

The Doc’s diagnosis: George Conway is on to something. We’re likely see gun control before we see self control from Trump.

Did Adam Schiff’s Ad Strategy Really ‘Rig’ The California Senate Primary?

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 Xitter, when I came across this tweet in “semi-recovered lawyer” George Conway’s feed.

@Out5p0ken elaborated in a reply:”Seriously, wtf and let’s all thank her for giving away a House seat and then calling the election rigged and not congratulating Schiff. Deplorable.”

What’s the deal here, Doc. Just sour grapes? Or something more rigorous?

– Katie Didn’t

Dear KD,

Katie Porter is upset because, as Joe Perticone reported in The Bulwark, “[Adam] Schiff’s campaign and his allies have shelled out millions of dollars to boost [Republican candidate Steve] Garvey’s bid and box out the other Democrats” in California’s jungle primary for the seat vacated by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Here’s a representative sample of the knee-buckling $11 million worth of ads the Schiff forces ran teeing up the former pro baseball player for GOP voters.

Post-primary, Porter cried foul, as The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis noted.

In a tweet that has evoked controversy, Porter complained that her campaign had to withstand “3 to 1 in TV spending and an onslaught of billionaires spending millions to rig this election.”

And in a weak-sauce follow-up statement meant to clarify her tweet, Porter explained that “rigged” means “manipulated by dishonest means”—and that billionaires spending money to defeat her constitutes “dishonest means to manipulate an outcome.”

Some of Porter’s supporters protested Schiff’s strategy as “sexist and cynical” in pushing her aside for another male candidate. But that wasn’t the only factor in holding Porter to a disappointing 14% of the primary vote. As Jill Cowan reported in the New York Times, “[i]n the final weeks of the campaign, a cryptocurrency super PAC spent millions on ads attacking Ms. Porter, who has supported more regulations on the industry and has rebuked various corporate leaders in congressional hearings.”

Beyond that, there’s this inconvenient fact, which Maeve Reston pointed out in the Washington Post: “[T]o hold down Garvey’s support, Porter . . . countered with similar tactics — running at least a half-million dollars in ads raising the profile of another long-shot GOP Senate contender, Eric Early.”

Sauce for the gander, anyone?

Could a TV Spot From U.S. Families of Hamas Hostages Actually Work?

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 item about a new effort to free the eight American hostages held by Hamas since October 7.

FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — A new national TV ad from the families of U.S. citizens still held hostage by Hamas calls on U.S. officials to do more to help bring them home alive, and soon. “Act now, or more will die,” a narrator says. “Every second counts.” The eight Americans have spent nearly three months in captivity, and the spot highlights the brutality of the Oct. 7 attack. Targeting elite audiences, the six-figure ad buy from the Hostages and Missing Families Forum will run for a week.

Think that might make a difference, Doc?

– Fingers Crossed

Dear FC,

Given that the Hamas hostage standoff includes more moving parts than an hourglass, it’s tough to gauge what impact – if any – this ad from the Hostages and Missing Families Forum might have.

Start with the six-figure ad buy, which could be anywhere from $100,000 to $999,999. Assuming the ad budget is at the lower end of that range, the group might be hoping to create a news ad – “an ad that is designed to give news coverage,” as media theorist Kathleen Hall Jamieson has defined it.

So far, the ad hasn’t gained much traction, at least according to Google News. That might change, though, now that the New York Times website has posted this Michael D. Shear piece.

The families of Americans held hostage in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in southern Israel have released a television ad to press for urgent action to rescue their loved ones.

The 30-second spot, which is set to air on cable networks and during Sunday network news programs in the United States for the next several weeks, shows grainy images of the hostages being seized by Hamas militants, and black-and-white images of the captive Americans.

Given that the Times is still the assignment desk for much of the news media, that could jumpstart more coverage, especially tomorrow when the story will likely run in the paper’s print edition. Maybe by then the Hostages and Missing Families Forum will have also produced a press release about the ad, which it has inexplicably failed to do so far.

There’s also social media to give the group’s plea a boost. Although the ad’s YouTube video  has garnered only 1400  views in its first 24 hours online, #BringThemHomeNow has lots of activity on Xitter, and the Bring Them Home Now Facebook page has 52,000 likes and 71,000 followers.

In the end, who knows whether the “elite audiences” the group is targeting will get the message. Regardless, the Doc’s fingers are crossed as well.

Is Presidential TV Ad Spending Really Idiotic, Like Vivek Ramaswamy Says?

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 Xitter, when I came across this post on David Axelrod’s feed addressing the latest nonsense from Vivek Ramasmarmy – sorry, Ramaswamy.

Two questions for you, Doc – is presidential TV ad spending more idiotic than Vivek Ramaswamy? Or is it vice versa?

– On the Spot

Dear OtS,

This one looks like a photo finish, yeah?

Let’s start with Vivek Ramaswamy’s X-clusion of TV spots from his primary campaign.

Given that Ramaswamy spent $200,000 on TV ads during the first half of December, as NPR’s Ashley Lopez reported, presumably he’s had some kind of IQ boost in the past few weeks. Regardless, his campaign told NPR it hasn’t entirely stopped spending on ads.

“Our spending levels haven’t changed—we’re just following the data,” said campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. “We are focused on bringing out the voters we’ve identified—best way to reach them is using addressable advertising, mail, text, live calls and doors to communicate with our voters on Vivek’s vision for America, making their plan to caucus and turning them out.”

Yeah – that and going to six Iowa Pizza Ranches in one day might actually get you within 40 points of Donald Trump. Or maybe not, considering that some – like the New Republic’s Jason Linkins – think you might not even make it to caucus night.

As for how idiotic presidential TV ad spending in general might be, it certainly hasn’t paid off for the super PACs that have dropped tens of millions of dollars touting presidential primary hopefuls, as The Bulwark’s Tim Miller has painstakingly documented.

The Super PACs Are Worthless. Donors Should Stop Torching Their Cash.

SUPER PACS FOR SEVERAL GOP CANDIDATES challenging Donald Trump have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund efforts to displace him as the party’s nominee—and they have absolutely nothing to show for it.

No progress. No signs of life. No movement. Nada.

The impotence of the super PAC efforts is an all-the-more-inviting target for ridicule when you consider that this entire strategic approach was discredited in the 2016 and 2020 presidential races. (I can speak from firsthand Jeb! experience about the law of diminishing returns on super PAC dollars.)

Case in point: The pro-DeSantis super PAC Nevar Back Down, whose $25 million worth of ads have gone over like the metric system, rocketing the Florida governor from over 30% in the national polls to 11.7% in ten short months.

So yeah, some presidential ad spending is in fact idiotic. But that doesn’t make Vivek Ramaswamy any smarter.