Then yesterday I saw an article on MediaPost about Rupert “So What If I’m Old I Got More Money Than Your Poor Ass Will Ever See” Murdoch that more or less said he’s tired of us getting to read Fox News for free so it’s time to open up our wallets.  Never mind that a lot of the stories they have can be found elsewhere, though it might be worth a nickel or so to read about “murder bombers” and “freedom fries” or whatever contrarian phrases they decide to use to show they’re not a part of the liberal press machine.

I think both of these guys, one a reporter on electronic media and the other the owner of such media, are missing the boat.  First, I think in Lyons’ article he has some good ideas on how Facebook and Twitter could generate a little revenue, but their broad appeal is based on the fact they are gratis.  Who the hell is going to pay to read about the minutia of a jerk’s life?  Do you really want to pay to know I’m watching the neighbor’s dog take a dump or that I think my toenail is infected?  Even if you were my friend?  Is there really a segment of society with enough disposable income that they want to be “friends” with someone they sat next to in friggin’ Health class who puked all over their shoes when discussing the female reproductive system?  But if they’re free, oh hell yeah, sign me up and I’ll even pretend to remember so-and-so or share my own inane thoughts.

The reason these sites are popular and we know the name of them is because they are FREE.  And we use them because they are FREE.  Sure, if they decided to move to some sort pay-to-play model, there would be people who’d be willing to pay their fee and keep using them.  But I imagine even more people would not, and Twitter, Facebook and these other sites would lose the name recognition, relevance, importance, and, perhaps more importantly, users.

I think Rupert Murdoch’s standpoint is worse.  At least Lyons doesn’t own those properties and has ideas to keep people using them while profiting off others who do get a monetary benefit from them.  Murdoch, I think, is crazy to think that the content his online outlets provide is so important that people would pay to read or view it.  Imagine if in the early days of radio or television, they could have come up with a way to get people to pay a premium for that content.  Those media would have died, just as Fox News’ website will likely do.  All Murdoch is doing is opening it up for CNN, MSNBC and other online news sources to eat his pie.

If he’s pissed about not making enough money off of his sites, perhaps Fox ought to develop an online marketing strategy that allows them to dominate the SERPs as well as paid listings.  By increasing the number of opportunities and times (or reach and frequency) humans can view this content, News Corp. can charge a higher premium for advertising on those properties.  With more people viewing the content, Murdoch’s advertisers will get a better return on their ad dollars since, with Fox’s new online strategy, their sites are everywhere and now relevant and important.

The thing I don’t think either of these guys are getting is the internet will largely remain a source of free information, entertainment and god-knows-what-else.  Like the radios and televisions or yore, having something to receive the signal, or 1′s and 0′s, is the entry fee.  Well, in the case of the web, internet access is the other crucial important element.  I just doubt that after people by their “receiver” and pay for their “antenna,” they’re going to pay for these services while there will still be so many other free alternatives.

What's the story?

Admittedly, the ad isn’t great. It’s busy, small, and looks slightly cheap. I understand it’s for either a scanner or a shredder at first glance, but that’s about all I can decipher. Here’s how I responded:

The message here is simple.

Basically, the couple can enjoy a night out because their storage room has been transferred to digital images and stored on an electronic device. Frankly, that’s why I haven’t been out of the house in nigh on to 8 years. Have you seen my storage room? It’s disgusting, files everywhere. Just once I’d like to head out for a night on the town, but every time I’m paralyzed with fear over what’s going on in my storage room. Didn’t know single guys with townhouses even had storage rooms? You bet your ass we do, and mine is ruining my life.

However, that’s not all this ad is saying. The subtext of this ad says something new in Obamerica. It says something about where we’ve come as a nation, as a society that not long ago had segregated drinking fountains, bathrooms, etc. due to something as trivial as race. It says that in today’s society a small device made in Japan (our enemies in WW2) can make life that much more simple for the now readily accepted successful black family from Chicago.

However, I’m sure everyone got that. The thing that is clearly troubling you is the fact that there’s apparently a 5 star restaurant in the middle of Lake Michigan. I don’t know how the hell that’s possible.

The ad became a great example of what not to do. There’s too much text in too many places, 2 starkly different images, and no call to action within the ad itself. Not to mention, the fact that it makes little to no sense without a lengthy back-story. In the end, a poorly designed ad, that suffered from poor execution.

It did make for a fun office joke though ;)

Have a great weekend everyone!

How often do you review your work? How thorough of a review process do you do? What do you do for usability testing? How do you find bugs? How many different browsers, comps, systems, monitors, etc. do you use? Do you re-read your copy aloud, do you pass it off to someone else?

Nature Valley didn’t, and now they’re stuck with this:

On Mountain???

Not THE mountain, but on mountain.

When the woman in front of me at the grocery store spotted this on my box of granola bars, I fully gave them the benefit of the doubt.

“On mountain…is that what the kids say? That’s probably slang,” I suggested.

“There’s no way that’s slang. Who’s their copywriter?! This is atrocious,” she retorted.

She was right.

Read that sentence a few times, say it out loud – it’s absolutely stupid. It sounds like something an unfrozen caveman might say. The concern I have is that this General Mills company either couldn’t afford an English major (a sucker is born every minute) or staff an adequate marketing department. In reality, one half-wit employee (perhaps, say, yours truly) could see that this was wrong at first glance. It would have taken a manner of minutes to have fixed this before the boxes were printed up, and the company wouldn’t have looked like imbeciles.

What does this mean for you?

It’s not hard to get lost in a project, and when you’re on an even smaller team than General Mills, it’s very easy to cut corners. Unfortunately, often times this comes down to skipping quality control (QC, QA, drafts, what have you), not hiring a competent copywriter, or skipping the user experience during design (talking mainly about website design, but this is applicable to tangible products too). While it’s easy for us to believe that we can get by on a smaller team of highly motivated and extremely talented individuals, there’s no reason to cut this many corners.

Grab your neighbor, your mom, have the shop take shifts going through the project. Ask if it makes sense, listen to them ask questions – why are they asking questions, is something too confusing?

Even if your shop is small, or if you’re just one person, it’d be better to miss a deadline than to send something out “on mountain.”

UPDATE:  Here’s another advertising FAIL. I’ve only seen screen captures of this one, so I don’t know if it’s a real ad.