Creep of the Day

creep Hey, kids, let’s have a bit of fun, shall we? Which of these three realities, as reported upon in Advertising Age today, gets your vote as marketing creep of the day? All three strike your humble editor as strong, strong candidates.

(1) An advertising agency called Victors & Spoils, which operates thusly.

(2) A corporate lawyer arguing that the FTC should continue “encouraging industry self-regulation.” Because, you know, that’s what the people really want.

(3) A “mobile marketing” exec using his visit to his 10- and 14-year-old nieces to spy and report on their use of “social media.”

8 Replies to “Creep of the Day”

  1. Please, please, make this Friel fraud stop: “The FTC should maintain its course of recommending privacy best practices, encouraging industry self-regulation…”
    How do we deal with a world where this kind of bilge (“best practices” has been pointed out by Ben Ginsberg to mean plagiarizing the work of other entities) gets this creep six figures?
    A while back, the left-liberals were all fluttering themselves over the Occupado movement, presaging a political world where the “conversation has changed,” ridiculing critics who posed the Tea Party as an analogue to these intoners and speechifiers, and look who now make actual, real, dangerous political waves – not the Occupados, but the well-financed cult of Randian henchmen. So why does the left regard itself as a force when these catastraophe-courting criminals have the global economy bound and gagged, about to be shot while the ransom gets collected?

  2. I think the last entry had zero comments for reasons similar to why this one may not generate too much buzz – when the level of absurdity reaches such a level, there is little left to say, other than contemplate in quite desperation/serenity.

    (Still, I have to go with the creepy uncle though – yeah, it’s inherently too easy, but homie didn’t do himself any favors either. The thoughtless enthusiastic embrace of tech and not even attempting to think through the implications is one of the things that scare me the most).

    But, it’s all good – collapse, if it ever comes, will be beautiful. Once bureaucratization and rationalization aided by pervasive technology have become so extreme, it is indeed difficult to imagine any way out. Charismatic leadership? Please. There ain’t no place for this type of uncertainty in our system.

  3. I was initially repulsed by the soulless images on V&S’ staff page, but then I realized how reassuring they were if you believe in the system. When people whisper to you that the world is filled with war, disease, and starvation, you can always look at those smiling images of admen for reassurance that, at least somewhere, a few people are still throwing out extra food, buying plastic crap, and planning their next vacation package.

    /looks again

    Light, but those empty gazes burn the viewer.

  4. Quite so, Marla, though the use of “neoliberalism” in place of “capitalism” annoys me no end. Not only does it render critical efforts abstruse, but I smell a major kind of liberal practicality there, as if talking about neoliberalism will somehow get you admitted to the mainstream. There’s also simple logic. If one opposes neoliberalism, what does one want? Classical liberalism? Of course, neoliberalism IS classical liberalism, isn’t it? Phooey.

    Capitalists own the USA and the world. They hated the 1930s and 1960s in the US. In 1980, they achieved the Reagan Restoration, which continues full force. Capitalism: Are we for it or against it?

  5. Yes, I suppose that this is what makes this guy ultimately safe, and is why he is getting quite a bit of publicity – he manages to annoy the silicon valley types (hey, I’ll take what I can get…!), but he always stops way short of articulating a radical program that should simply logically follow from such diagnoses, and instead resorts to boring generalities about how “so and so needs to be a subject of intensive public debate”. The capitalists can take some jabs and still sleep well at night knowing well that there are no conditions for such a debate to take place.

    For or against capitalism? No such questions can or should be asked in polite company. Capitalism with a friendly face, that’s what we really want!
    (btw, ‘Socialism with a human face’ is an actual poorly thought through slogan that the decaying Eastern regimes used briefly in the 1980s)

  6. Capitalism- how could anyone with a reading capacity above Cinderella be “for” it? Every available piece of data shows the governing system of the world leading to the devastation of our natural world and the gross impoverishment of burgeoning billions – an unregulated crapfest. Whatver ill there is in the world, there are corporations profiting off the exploitation of them, riding every leak and corruption in the system to gather power and command.
    Yet what on earth could be seen as an alternative governing system? “Socialists” in name have dachas, bank accounts, second homes in Wellfleet, oil profits, drug proceeds, Wall Street money – who can tell the difference?

Comments are closed.