Dying a trendy death: Crocs

Lots of products come and go. Some are huge flash-in-the-pan products that are selling faster than they can be made one year and forgotten the next. We can add Crocs to the list of companies that grew fast and died even faster according to the Washington Post.

They now join the ranks of jelly sandals, POGS and lawn darts. I'd say a word in rememberance, but the only pair I ever had were a gift and I got rid of them pretty quick.

Savings minutes saves nothing

AT&T, like many companies has jumped on the saving bandwagon. After all, saving is cool now, as is prudent spending. Opulence and excess will have to wait until the Dow gets back above 10,000 or more.

On first listen, AT&T's spot, one of a series that uses little orange ticking clocks to symbolize phone-plan minutes, seems to make great sense as a penny pinching mother admonishes her blazee son for trying to sell their unused minutes.

"You know, saving minutes saves money and we can't afford to be wasteful," she snipes, "Not every one gets to keep their unused minutes."

It makes sense until you start doing the math, anyway. In reality, you pay the same amount for your allotted minutes each month, so you can't save by using less of them. If you have unused minutes, it means that you essentially have unused goods that you've paid for. And since the cost of your minutes is fixed, the less you use of them, the more you're paying per minute. So, saving minutes doesn't save money. Saving minutes actually wastes money, and from a theoretical perspective makes every minute you do use more expensive. And if you're wondering, the bulk of Americans ends each month with plenty of minutes they neither used, nor needed.

So, kudos AT&T. You pulled a fast one that I'm sure that a great multitude of people will miss and get to pad your bottom line with their misunderstanding. Let's just hope education reform doesn't help out America's math skills and start skimming away your profits.

When the economy gets tough the tough get chauvanist

I don’t know what it is about tough times, but it seems to have spurred a (hopefully brief) renaissance in chauvinistic advertising. One of the more notable examples was the Bridgestone spot on the Super Bowl with a stereotypically naggy Mrs. Potato head and a Mr. Potato Head that’s only happy when he figures out a way to shut her up.

Recently, Burger King joined the ranks of those who think one of the best places to cut in a recession is gender sensitivity. I’m talking about the new spot for Burger King’s tiny burgers.

For starters, the idea that women would react the same way to tiny burgers as tiny animals simply because they are also tiny is pretty insulting.

Second, the giggling, swooning and sexually suggestive dialog like, “I just wanna squeeze ‘em [the bugers]” means the benefit of these burgers is getting laid. Somehow I fancy if you eat too many, they will have just the opposite effect. There’s absolutely nothing to tie the alleged benefit to the product or its attributes.

Third, the women are clearly objectified sexual objects intended only to serve the whims of the average, but worlds-smarter males in the spot. The wardrobe gives us plenty of cleavage that the males ogle and one woman seems to be dressed as a sexy librarian.

I don’t see how less product-related and more blatantly chauvinist it could be. Beautiful, seductively clad women swarm unsuspecting average guys and lather them with suggestive comments and moaning because they can’t tell the difference between a puppy and a small burger.

Burger King, I hope the Burger Queen didn’t see this or you might be in the doghouse. Unless of course, she’s got a mouth like Mrs. Potato Head that you can chuck out the window when you’re tired or listening to her talk.

Strike the iron while it's cold

Mountains of studies, books and evidence show companies who maintain or increase advertising spending during tougher economic times almost always come out of those economic difficulties much stronger than their ad-cutting competitors. However, the knee-jerk reaction of most companies still seems to be cut cut cut. Once again, a company has proven the old wisdom.

Hyundai, a car company largely not taken seriously even just a few years ago, seems to be solidifying its position as a major competitor in the US auto market, bucking industry trends along the way. I'm not sure of the exact numbers on Hyundai ad spending, but I do know they have at least maintained, if not increased their advertising presence in the marketplace during the downturn. Their reward while other automakers are cutting spending? Two models that have actually seen serious sales GAINS - the Hyundai Elantra is up 33% over last year and the Hyundai Accent is up 30%. That's on top of an '09 North American Car of the Year Award for the Hyundai Genesis.

Take notice automakers. Hyundai's been at the books, using proven wisdom and gaining ground quickly.

Great advertising, terrible PR

Apple is regularly hailed as one of the pinnacles of advertising that other companies should strive for. I have to agree. However, it seems when it comes to PR, Apple seems to feel that outright lies are the way to go. After all, they have to defend the almighty stock price right? After lying about Steve Jobs health for months, saying he had a minor illness, which turned out to be a major and potentially crippling health condition, Apple has pulled another doosey.

Apple has denied denied denied rumors that it laid off staff recently. However, some of the very people laid off had a different story to tell. Apple did, in fact, lay off about 50 people. It's not a huge number, considering the size of the company. And considering they could make a case that the layoffs were inspired by a shift in corporate philosophy, rather than financial troubles, it begs the question why they decided to lie about it in the first place. I can only posit that it's the result of a very backward PR philosophy that's building growing distrust for the once pristine company. If Apple's not careful and doesn't change their approach to public relations, they could end up irrevocably marring the image that they've spent so many years and millions building.

Should they stay or should they go now?

If you're wonder what makes and models of cars are going to stick around and which are going to get the axe, here's the latest from Yahoo Autos. While talks and plans change every day, this list is probably pretty close to where things are going. Getting rid of under-performing products. Who'd of thought it would come to this?

Want advice? Ask someone with a vested interest!

My new favorite billboard on my gruellingly long commute is one for Realtors. Its says, "Is now a good time to buy a home? Ask a Realtor." And of course, this billboard was put up by some sort of association of Realtors.

It's unfortunate, because they probably are some of the most knowledgeable people about that question. However, I don't care who you are, if you have a vested interest in the answer to a question, I'm going to be have a hard time taking your advice. Realtors only make money when they sell houses. No houses selling, no money. Who in their right mind is going to tell you not to buy a home if their entire livelihood (today a very battered livelihood) is 100% dependent on you doing exactly that? If I sell apples and someone says, "Is now the time to buy apples?" It would be stupifying for me to say, "No, now is not a good time to buy apples." Of course I'm going to tell you to buy what I'm selling, just like the Realtors are. And it's unfortunate, because there's a good chance their advice is good, despite their built-in bias.

I think everyone needs to take a course in third-party credibility.