Geo Ads Die

If there is one thing that is going to turn off a potential buyer, it's being lied to in the first place.  When you start off a business relationship with a lie, it sours the whole deal, even if the ultimate deal ends up a good one.

I remember seeing similar crap on the ads for the dating site True.  There some hot chick would pretend to be writing on her lap top while lying on the bed scantily clad.  The ad was designed to make you click to 'chat' with her, when in all reality she wasn't real.  It's a strange kind of advertising for a site claiming to weed out cheats and liars from its clientele.

In recent times, the latest trend is geo specific ads based on the location of your IP address.  You see ads like "Conroe Mom invents new product."  Or maybe, "Important message for Texas residents."  It's a pathetic attempt to appear local and therefore relevant.  After all, is some local mom from my community really going to rip me off?

It just bugs me to think that a company would stoop so low to create a sale that they would lie like this to get a click though.  The first time I saw this was some multi level marketing / pyramid scheme, where a web page personalized to your home town would appear, talking about a local man in his 20s who was making tens of thousands of dollars a week from his chosen scheme.

Now it seems slightly more mainstream products are jumping on this bandwagon, and they really need to stop and think what they are doing.

No matter how stupid you think your target audience is, and no matter how smug an executive you might be, the vast majority of people are going to see this bullshit for what it is.  So the question is, are the few suckers you attract like this going to be enough to sustain your business?  And if so, maybe you are a crook and not a businessman.

If It's True Why Lie?

I was on Yahoo! Answers today, and I kept seeing an ad that I've seen variations of many times before. It's an ad for the dating service True. Their gimmick is that they carefully screen their members to ensure maximum safety for the individuals who choose to meet up.

Their security protocol includes checking the marital status and criminal records of members to ensure they are 'safe' to date.

While that's all well and good, I have to question why this site uses such trashy techniques to attract people to their site. In fact they basically lie and cheat, to get you to visit a site called True.

The lower image was the one I found on Yahoo! Answers. It is a Flash animation of two sexy girls pretending to use a computer. The girls writhe slowly and seductively around the screen, rubbing against each other and faking interest in their computer, and by implication you the viewer.

Once you click on the ad you are taken to the True web site where you get another flash animation.

This time, it's a fake chat window (above) with another hot girl, lying seductively on on the bed in nothing but her underwear. She giggles and flirts, while the things she types come up in a fake chat window. She'll pause and pose for the camera a bit before faking some more typing.

As the tiny disclaimer states, these people are not actually members of their dating site, they are simply a sexist hook to drive traffic to their site.

Now I have no real problem with using sex to sell, it is after all a tried and tested method of marketing. But let's face facts here. This is a site that uses honesty as its primary value, even opting to name themselves True, yet they use underhand and dishonest marketing to get customers.

I just thought it was a bit fucked up.

John McCain: Straight Talk Express?

Sarah Palin - No Comment

So it's been a little while now since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Republican VP candidate. Many facts have come to light about this woman, and many lies have been told too.

But what is interesting is that despite all the mud slinging, and disturbing verified facts about this possible president of the USA, is the fact that Sarah Palin herself has been reluctant to speak out in her own defense (or for any other reason for that matter).

In this article by the Associated Press we learn that since her acceptance speech she has toured around with McCain. Made various public appearances, but said pretty much nothing. Sure some lucky folks have heard her regurgitate portions of her acceptance speech, but in terms of who she is and what she believes, nothing. Likewise no rebuttle of the scary things we have learned about her.

The press have been kept at arms length by a team of handlers, and almost all of her comments have been made off record.

The Republican campaign manager, Rick Davis, told Fox News that she would conduct an interview, "when we think it's time and when she feels comfortable doing it." But then added that she was, "not scared to answer questions."

So just to recap, she's said nothing to defend herself against the numerous allegations made against her. She's unwilling to tell us what she personally believes in, on pretty much any subject. And although she is not 'scared' to answer questions, she will hand pick an interviewer when she feels 'comfortable' doing so. Seriously, what the fuck?

The election is some 54 days away. And this radical right wing fanatic who believes in speaking in tongues and faith healing, is not going to share with us her views on the world?

But there is more to the story than this. It's not just the fact that she won't tell us what she thinks, the issue for me is the inherent sexism, control and secrecy of this campaign. We've just about reached the end of the Bush era of double talk, lies, and refusal to participate in transparent government, and now here we have old man McCain keeping his VP under total control.

Is this because he is afraid of what she might say? Is it because she is a woman and Republicans tend to be inherently sexist? Are they terrified that the truth about this woman will get in the way of their message (or scare the shit out of voters)? What's the deal?

Maybe they are just afraid people will find out that her assertion that she sold the state private jet on eBay was a lie, like so many other things she said in her acceptance speech.

Just The Facts Ma'am

Palin had a lot to say last night, but how much of it was true, and how much was a lie?

Thankfully the Associated Press keeps tabs on such a thing. Here are some bits I paraphrased from this article:

PALIN: I protected taxpayers from wasteful spending, and said no to the bridge to nowhere.

FACT: As mayor of that tiny town with less than 9,000 people in it, she was responsible for $27m in earmarks. She has requested $750m as governor; more per capita than any other state.

As for the bridge to nowhere, she only rejected the concept of the $398m bridge to a village with 50 people in it, after the idea became ridiculed on national TV. Prior to that she was for it.

PALIN: Obama has written two books, but not written any major legislation.

FACT: Not true. He has been involved in numerous major bills both at state and national level.

PALIN: Obama plans to raise taxes. (Frankly, someone needs to so we can pay off all the debt Bush has run up)

FACT: A recent study showed that Obama would raise middle class tax by about 5% by 2012, and McCain would raise similar tax by 3% in the same period.

However Obama would increase tax on people and small businesses that make more than $250,000 per year. But he also has plans to give over $80Bn in tax breaks to the poor and needy.

McCAIN: Palin is responsible for 20% of the nation's energy (Alaskan Oil). And runs the largest state in the country.

FACT: She is not really responsible for the oil at all. Just like Bush wasn't responsible for Texan oil when he was governor of Texas. And while Alaska may be physically big, by population it is the 47th largest state.

McCAIN: She's commander of the Alaskan National Guard.

FACT: Not really. There's only about 4,200 of them in Alaska and if they are ever to be deployed, they report to the Defense Department, not her.

HUCKABEE: She got more votes running for Mayor than Joe Biden got running for President of the United States.

FACT: Palin got 616 votes to become mayor. When she ran for re-election she got 909 votes.

Biden got 76,165 votes before dropping out of the race.

ROMNEY: We need change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.

FACT: George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been in charge of Washington since 2000. Congress only changed to a slight Democratic edge in January 2007. And much of their efforts have been vetoed and blocked by Republicans and the President.


So thanks for all the lies. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. In fact, I'm sold: let's vote old man McCain and his Hockey Mom VP!