Informationoverlord

For the second World Cup running Dutch beer company Bavaria have succeeded in becoming the brand everyone is talking about at the tournament. It seems this time around the company gave out lots of free tight fitting orange dresses to female Dutch fans prior to the game with Denmark and also allegedly paid 36 very attractive women to wear the dresses and stand together during the match cheering on the Dutch team. Unbelievably the Cameramen (and yes they still pretty much all are still men) found these attractive women in the crowd and cut to them on several occasions.

I saw it with my own eyes and besides admiring the young ladies talents, didn’t think anything of it. Bunch of woman dressed in Orange - the colour the natonal team play in - at a Dutch football game? I expect to see that. If you were a serious Dutch beer fan you might have picked up on the beer angle, though even that’s doubtful, but anyone else?

FIFA however also saw something totally different. They obviously cast their mind back to the last World Cup in Germany when Bavaria had handed out lots of orange lederhosen to fans – resulting in one set of fans being forced to either miss the game or stand in their underwear after being told they could not enter the ground in the lederhosen. Also it appeared that the tickets the ladies were using – which were close to pitch side - had come from an allocation given to ITV pundit Robbie Earle for friends and family. Earle has been sacked by ITV over the issue.

FIFA would be taking their action on behalf of the official beer sponsor Budweiser, who are the only beer brand allowed to advertise within FIFA venues.

The question of Ambush Marketing has been a major IP issue over the last decade or so, and understandably so. Big sporting events such as the Olympics, and the World Cup get much valued sponsorship money from big brand owners to be associated with such events – these rights do not come cheaply, and it is hard to argue that these sponsors should not be given some level of protection for that financial outlay which is often key financing in allowing the events to actually take place. However the manner in which this is achieved is often seem as heavy handed or misplaced.

In South Africa, there has been legislation covering ambush marketing since before the 2003 cricket World Cup took place. I particular, the South African Trade Practices Act (as amended) prohibits ambush marketing by association, and article 15a of the South African Merchandise Marks Act (as Amended) stipulates that:

“For the period during which an event is protected, no person may use a trade mark in relation to such event in a manner which is calculated to achieve publicity for that trade mark and thereby to derive special promotional benefit from the event, without the prior authority of the organiser of such event.
…the use of a trade mark includes( a) any visual representation of the trade mark upon or in relation to goods or in relation to the rendering of services; (b) any audible reproduction of the trade mark in relation to goods or the rendering of services; or (c) the use of the trade mark in promotional activities, which in any way, directly or indirectly, is intended to be brought into association with or to allude to an event.”

However, for the most part it is left to the Advertising Standards Authority to regulate, through their Advertising Code and Sponsorship Code.

Section 3.7 of the Sponsorship code states:
“The attempt of an organisation, product or brand to create the impression of being an official sponsor of an event or activity by affiliating itself with that event or activity without having paid the sponsorship rights-fee or being a party to the sponsorship contract.”

Additionally under the Sponsorship rules and provisions in Section 10 which “apply to all categories of sponsorship, parties to sponsorship and sponsorship practices, without exception” is adds that “A product or logo that is not directly associated with the sponsor of the event, activity, team, individual or organisation may not be visibly used or displayed during the [sponsored] event.”

In the current case this is particularly interesting as Peer Swinkels, Marketing Director of Bavaria beer, denying his company had done anything wrong stated that “The Dutch people are a little crazy about orange and we wear it on public holidays and events like the World Cup. We put no branding on the dress and FIFA don’t have a monopoly over orange.” This contrasts to the position in Germany, where their logo was visible on the orange lederhosen.

Which brings us to the question of who has won. Whilst I am sure FIFA feels the need to be vigorous in being seen to defend its official sponsors, whether the arresting of some of the ladies involved does anything to enhance the brands you’re protecting is another question. Meanwhile, the people at Bavaria beer must be sat with huge smiles on their faces as FIFA’s actions have brought global press coverage to something that should frankly have just been ignored.  Add to that the question of did Bavaria actually break the law, which seems at best questionable and we get:

Final Result: It’s Germany all over again: Bavaria Beer 1 FIFA World Cup 0.

UPDATE:  According to euFootball.biz, two of the women have now been charged with breaching the Merchandise Marks Act and FIFA’s head of media Nicolas Maingot has said: “FIFA has filed charges against the organisers of the ambush marketing stunt.”

And the prize for giving the story yet more oxygen? Anyone talking about the ‘official’ beer of the tournament? Nope.

Bavaria Beer 2 FIFA World Cup 0

I found this delightful animated promo for Vinyl a Spring Seasonal beer brewed by Vermont’s Magic Hat Brewery online today (Via LaughingSquid) and found myself thinking about whether or not they could run this as an ad on UK TV. One of those questions I’m sure you all think of when you see things like this. NO? Just me then. I Love the name of the beer and the whole tone of the ad.

It would potentially run into problems in the UK however under the TV and Radio Advertising Standards Codes (BCAP Codes). Section 11.8.2(a) , which deal with alcohol ads, states that ” Advertisements for alcoholic drinks must not be likely to appeal strongly to people under 18, in particular by reflecting or being associated with youth culture.”

With regulators erring on side of caution I would not be surprised to see them finding that the combined use of a child’s record player and toy fairies in this promo as being caught by their ‘ be likely to appeal strongly to people under 18′ rule.

As for me, I just want to try the beer.

And so it came to pass that Google decided it wanted to be Friendfeed. Yes, the Gman has rolled out its attempt to get in on some Twitter/Friendfiend/Facebook Lifestreaming action. Are you excited? No, neither is anyone else really. We remember that Google bought Jaiku a few years back, sat on it, did nothing and then stopped supporting it and left it essentially to die. In case you don’t know, Jaiku was the first real challenger to Twitter – and, get this, it was BETTER. No, really, it was. When Google bought it I was one of a number of people who thought that they were going to wipe the floor with Twitter with it. Back then they could have done it, Twitter was still mostly free of celebs and indeed anyone other than web2.0 obsessive’s, but they did nothing.

Then last year Google’s Eric Smidt called Twitter a ‘Poor Man’s Email System’ as opposed one presumed to Google Wave which is a ‘er, sorry but no one is really sure what the hell this is actually for yet system’

The Good

If you already have a Google account and a Gmail account you’re probably going to be tempted to play with Buzz because it’s there, especially if a few of your Gmail friends also take the plunge. It seems to pick up comments made on shared items in Google Reader, which is good. (Not sure whether it does the same on non-google stuff such as Flickr photos though).

Problems

You need a gmail account / google profile to use it. Are any of my friend who are happy with their Yahoo, Hotmail/Live accounts going to switch to Gmail for this? No, they’re not. They have their email and they have Facebook, they don’t need Google Buzz, just like most of them didn’t need Yahoo Buzz when Yahoo tried to do the same trick last year.

It routes everything through your Gmail inbox and doesn’t ask you if you want it there or not. Guess what? I don’t. Thankfully google has already attached the lable ‘buzz’ to things so if you create a filter for content ‘label:buzz’ then all you need to do is look at your buzz icon to see if there are any updates. Much better, but this should be a default option Google.

It needs to support more services if it wants to be a lifestreaming hub.

Seemless

Google is really good at this … oh hang on, no, sorry, I meant awful at this. Let’s take google profiles – can you find yours? I use iGoogle/Gmail all the time and you get a selection of other Google products listed in the top left hand corner as well as a ‘more’ drop down. Is ‘profile’ anywhere to be seen? No. Why not? If my profile is so important, why is this not a fixed link in ANY google product I’m in?

There doesn’t seem to be an iGadget yet for iGoogle. Again, where’s the integration.

What it is really about

Mobile and advertising. Yes, it is really about getting you to login on the move and tell your friends (and Google) where you are. At last Google Latitude may have a purpose. This also pitches Buzz into Foursquare’s back yard. This location info will in turn be attractive to advertisers.

Does it Fly

Yes and No. As with Yahoo’s attempt last year, if you live your life in the email client then there is a good chance that you might find yourself using Buzz, even if you are only using it as a lifestreaming service. Are people, even Google geeks, going to abandon Twitter or Facebook for it, no. Could Google conceivably get them to use buzz to interact with those services – especially for status updates – absolutely.

A mixed week for ITV this week. News that the Competition Commission’s provisional view
was that the Contract Rights Renewal (CRR) Undertakings, given to protect advertisers from the loss of competition in the sale of TV advertising, following the merger of Carlton and Granada in 2003/4 should stay in place, would have been a big blow. The purpose of the CRR is intended to protect the advertising market by putting in place an automatic ‘ratchet’ which reduces the amount advertisers have to commit if ITV’s audience shrinks, and giving advertisers and media buyers the right to renew their contracts on a rolling annual basis, adjusted for changes in ITV’s audiences, with no reduction in the discounts they receive.

The CC’s Provisional Decision is that the CRR needs to be retained – because with double the market of Channel 4 (for example) ITV is still the place advertisers want to be advertising, even in a shirking market. It remains the only commercial channel were an advertiser can potentially reach audiences over 6 million.

The CC accepted ITV’s argument that the CRR had affected ITV’s incentives to some extent – being more risk averse in programming choices/over-investing in daytime programming etc – but at the same time wasn’t buying ITV’s argument that these were largely or wholly attributable to the CRR.

The CC did however concede that some variations might be justified including widening the definition of ITV1 to include any ITV+1 or ITV1 High Definition channel that ITV decides to launch.

The CC is now seeking views on possible variations, which would:

(a) take into account the decline in ITV1’s market share and the increase in the ability of media buyers to run campaigns effectively without ITV1; or

(b) mitigate the unintended effects of the CRR Undertakings, while addressing effectively the continuing adverse effects identified in the 2003 report.

These variations include:

a) Limiting the scope of CRR to address only ITV1’s advantage in delivering large audiences;
b) Removing elements of CRR while maintaining protection of media buyers through a requirement on ITV to offer airtime on fair and reasonable terms.
c) changing the definition of ITV1 in the CRR Undertakings;
d) incentives for ITV to focus primarily on maximizing ITV1’s share of commercial impacts (SOCI); and
e) the difficulties for ITV in reacting to changing demand.

I think the CC’s preferred option of changing the definition of ITV1 in the CRR Undertakings is probably the correct one. It recognises that ITV is still the dominant force in terrestrial TV advertising. Yes, the market has splintered and there are more and more commercial channels out there for advertisers to attempt to sell their wares on, but viewing figures for most of the programmes on these channels is still tiny compared to the potential and actual audiences available on ITV1. In that sense nothing has changed since the CRR was imposed. A variation to Limit the scope of CRR to address only ITV1’s advantage in delivering large audiences would be great, but it is hard for me to see how this could be done in a satisfactory way at the moment.

Views on the possible variations are requested by 6 October 2009.

There was better news for ITV spouting from the lips of Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw. Not six months since the government ruled out any relaxation of rules surrounding product placement in TV programmes, they have reversed that view and are now all for it (a bit like their Volte-face on cutting off internet access to alleged repeat illegal downloaders). Back in the early 2009, when Andy Burham was in charge of the DCMS, he said allowing product placement would destroy UK viewers trust in TV and in broadcasters in the wake of the various TV cheating and phone voting scandals. Who knew, we’d get over it so quickly. Why didn’t Andy just say that whilst that was true then it would probably only take another 6 months or so for us all to get over such feelings?

The reason for this change of heart? According to Ben Bradshaw’s speech to the Royal Television Society yesterday it is because the government are not ‘interested in regulation for regulation’s sake.’ They apparently were six months ago, but not anymore. The Government will consult on its proposals shortly with any changes in place by the new year.

The UK is looking at the issue because of having to implement the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The Directive which updates and replaces the Television Without Frontiers Directive ( as amended) defines product placement as “any form of audiovisual commercial communication consisting of the including of or reference to a product, service or trade mark in return for payment or similar consideration”.

The Directive actually prohibits product placement but allows for certain permitted derogations for:

It also adds that goods provided free of charge or at less than full cost will constitute product placement where goods are of “significant value” (although it doesn’t say what would constitute significant value)

I think relaxing the rules on product placement actually makes sense. It is an issue that people do tend to get their knickers ( theknickermafia recommends Seduction Lingerie ) in a twist about. No one wants their programmes filled with crass, obvious, product placements that are there for no reason other than to plug a product – the Cups of Coke in front of the American Idol judges for example – however most of us watch US produced TV drama and comedy, which already contain product placement. Ask yourself – do you find yourself endlessly distracted by all that product placement? No? It’s there. And that’s the point. It doesn’t have to be intrusive, and when done right, it isn’t. It can be as simple as The Queen Vic or the Rovers Return having Summer Lightning, Guinness and Stella on tap instead of ‘made up’ beer brands.

Some people, such as Richard Lindley, chairman of Voice of the Listener & Viewer, fear that opening this door means that we’ll have programs written for advertisers and not viewers. Were ‘The Wire’, ‘The West Wing’, ‘Frazier’, ‘Battlestar Gallactica’, ‘House’, written for advertisers and not viewers? If so, bring it on. The fact is, if the product placement is too obvious and too overwhelming, viewers will just stop watching those programmes that get it wrong – and I’m sure initially there will be some that do; but we shouldn’t fear product placement. To be fair to Lindley, he is probably worried about this kind of less than subtle – and read from autocue? – placement from US daytime TV

However, programme makers will still have to abide by rules, and I’m not sure this US example would pass muster under EU/UK law. The derogations in the AVMS Directive – which will have to be followed by the UK – will be subject to the following conditions:

Failure to abide by these rules will result in potential fines from Ofcom and in extreme cases could lead to the loss of a broadcasting licence by the broadcaster responsible for broadcasting the programme.

My prediction is two years from now we’ll all be wondering what the fuss was all about.

Further viewing pleasure:

David Lynch on Product Placement in Films http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4wh_mc8hRE

In a week where the Guardian Media Group was reported to be considering closing down its (and the UK’s first) Sunday newspaper, the Observer, as part of a strategic company review, Rupert Murdoch announced that News International was going ahead with plans to charge for content on all their newspaper websites.

According to Murdoch “Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting.” Ex journalist and creator of the Wire David Simon agrees. He told the Independent that last 10 years of giving away the content for free has been “destroying an elemental civic good in the name of technology, rather than hinging the technology to an elemental civic good. There’s nothing free about sending reporters to Fallujah or to cover the congress in Washington.”

Of course, many people would laugh at talk of quality journalism from the publisher of the Sun and the News of the World.

Why would people not just move to sites – whether other newspapers or sites such as the BBC - where the news was still free? Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content “better and differentiate it from other people”.

Better and Different

The problem of course is that ‘news’ is just that, news. Am I going to pay for the Times’ report on an event that happened that is being reported by everyone else – including the BBC, ITN etc – and that is available freely on those sites? Probably not, why would I – unless it is adding something new. If the question is paying for comment, good investigative journalism, or something I can’t get anywhere else, then I might think about it, but there isn’t much of that about.

You need to already have content that people put a value on.

The FT has succeeded in its charging because it is a niche product, and one valued in big organisations – such as the one I work for – as well as by the man in the street [by the way, I never have found that man or that street, and I have looked]. Likewise, the Wall Street Journal has a similar brand and audience, which again has made its charging model also seem to work. But for more mainstream press?

I’m going to be interested how The Times, The Sun and The News of the World are now going to start to contain better content that differentiates their content from what is on everyone else’s sites/publications. At the moment, I just don’t see it.

I believe the only way you can charge for access to ‘news’ is to have something that already has perceived value to the wider public – as shown with the FT. For example ,the Guardian could probably get away with charging for access to Media Guardian content, because that part of the paper already has value to a great number of people, built up over a number of years, so much so that people who might not buy the Guardian on other days of the week will buy it on a Monday or register on the website to access that content online.

Counting the cost

So how’s it going to work?

There doesn’t seem to be any information of the approach Murdoch’s papers will take. Will there be an annual or monthly subscription model? A micropayment model to buy one off access to certain items? A mixture of both perhaps? Also at what level will these costs be at ?? Get this wrong and it doesn’t matter how good your content is.

Hard copy newspapers already sell at low cost (The cover prices of The Sun is 20p and The Times 90p) and these themselves have been cannibalised – especially in the main cities of the UK – by freebie newspapers – Metro and City Am in the morning and London Lite and The London Paper – published, of course, by one News International – in the afternoon/evening. It does seem odd that a man who is so keen to give his content away for free in London in hardcopy print is suddenly in a hurry to charge people for that content online.

So if we take The Sun, if you bought The Sun in hard copy every day you’d be spending 20p a day Monday – Friday (and, I think slightly more around 65p ? on a Saturday). The exact numbers don’t really matter, but in this case a dedicated Sun reader would be paying out £85.80 a year to read the print copy of the paper. Will News International be looking for a similar outlay to access their online content? Will its fans think £7.15 a month is a good deal?

Another consideration for cost must be the potential for losing more ad revenue using a pay model. If less people are going to be seeing content then surely advertisers will be less inclined to advertise – unless they see value in a certain audience. Again with the FT you have a pretty good chance of having an easily identifiable demographic – but for other papers? It has to be more fragmented.

So, will the numbers add up? Will the revenues generated from online subscribers offset loses elsewhere ?? Will it succeed and herald the dawning of a new age or will it be a spectacular failure?

The mobile game

For publishers looking at how to present their data in a mobile payworld, they should look no further than the FT’s iPhone app. This is a thing of beauty. This is especially true if you compare it, for example, to the Independent’s iPhone app, which whilst perfectly serviceable just feels – and acts - like an rss reader, and is lacking an Identity: once the app is loaded you could really be reading anyone’s content. By contrast the FT app replicates the key aspects of the FT.com site and you are never in any doubt about where you are or where the content is coming from.

Casual Observer

Back with the Observer story. The loss of the Observer would be a very sad day for the newspaper industry, although it has for a long time now been a paper that loses money. Apart from killing if off entirely there are also option of continuing to publish it but in a slimmed-down format (whatever that might be) or turn it into a weekly news magazine – a daft idea.
One problem for the Observer and indeed the Sunday broadsheets as a whole is that now Saturday’s papers are so big, that people often just make do with Saturday’s Guardian or Telegraph and don’t see the need for a Sunday paper. I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone, and I’m someone that still buys a newspaper every day mon-sat. When I do venture out on a Sunday it is the Observer that I buy. And if I need to start buying it every week again to help it survive , then I guess I’m just going to have to start doing my bit the preserve the old thing. You should to.

It’s been a while since an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling made me laugh, but their decision against Alcohol in Emergency Ltd for a circular, for their alcohol delivery service (in the Southampton area) did raise a smile. Not due to the ruling, I might add, but due to the wonderfully believable response to the claims made by the complainant.

The Circular stated: “A in E” Southampton’s premier drink delivery service Your quick link to drink www.ALCOHOLINEMERGENCY.CO.UK.”, and, it would seen, also included a picture of a flashing light on the top of the van.

The complainant thought the play on words “A&E” was offensive in light of the number of alcohol related deaths and that the general tone encouraged an irresponsible attitude to drinking alcohol by portraying alcohol as indispensible.

Not so, replied Alcohol in Emergency (AinE). Alcohol in Emergency” was not a play on the phrase “Accident and Emergency.”, and “AinE” was just used for ‘brevity’ and again was not to comparable to “A&E”. And that flashing light? Merely intended to communicate to readers that they offered a night-time delivery service.

Ok, hands up if you believe any of that? Hmm, not seeing any hands …

No hands went up at the ASA either who found the phrase “Alcohol in Emergency” and its shortened “A in E” combined with the overall presentation of the ad was likely to be seen as encouraging and condoning irresponsible consumption of alcohol, and suggesting that someone might urgently need alcohol in a comparable way to requiring medical attention. They told Alcohol in Emergency it could not use either the name “Alcohol in Emergency” or its abbreviated form “AinE” in future marketing material.

I should say that I have no problem with the idea behind the service, but surely someone there should have realised that advertising alcohol with a name playing on A&E is not very clever.

I could not resist a short blog post about Dell’s new netbook. It looks like a nice little machine. Dell obviously agree, and have also decided that what they need to do is target women. So much so they have set up a ‘Della‘ part of their website to tell women why they should get a Dell mini: It’ll fit in your handbag; you can find and save recipes and watch cooking videos; track your calories; download meditation podcasts, watch yoga videos…

Think they missed, we’ll patronise the fuck out of you. Why not just go the whole hog and say we’ve pre-installed a link to eBay and already saved searches on handbags and shoes for you, so you don’t need to.

This is a press release from a friend of mine who runs a small travel company with his dad - who has sadly now fallen ill. I post it here just in case anyone coming to the website is into the idea of a more bespoke holiday experience and likes walking/cycling. If so, please consider giving High Point a try.

Walk on the Wilder Side with High Point Holidays - And support cancer charity, Myeloma UK  

Tired of big tour groups, ‘one size fits all’ operators and impersonal package holidays? Bespoke walking and cycling holiday company, High Point Holidays ( http://www.highpointholidays.co.uk ), offers customers made-to-measure tours off the beaten track in Europe and Africa, including two mountain treks in unspoilt areas of Spain and Bulgaria - new for 2009.

And, for those seeking an active trip with a ‘feel good factor’, the company will donate £5 from every holiday sold to Myeloma UK, the bone marrow cancer charity. The aim is to raise thousands of pounds over the coming years as part of a long term partnership.

The founder of High Point Holidays, Tony Armstrong, has recently been diagnosed for the second time with myeloma, an incurable blood cell cancer that affects the bone marrow. A keen hill walker, Tony credits his quick recovery, after he was first diagnosed in 1996 and treated with a stem cell transplant, to regular exercise – he scaled the 15 peaks in Wales in a single weekend. Now, he wants to help improve treatment and fund research into a cure for the 4,000 people diagnosed annually with the disease in the UK.

Tony’s philosophy is to offer unusual holidays at affordable prices. As an antidote to the well-worn routes on offer through other operators, High Point Holidays specialises in finding forgotten trails and tracks rather than following the crowds. Customers can choose between guided tours and independent treks everywhere from the unspoilt wilderness of the Vanoise National Park in the French Alps to the majestic Picos de Europa mountains in the north of Spain.

And, after a long day in the saddle or on their feet, customers can look forward to staying in an independent guest house full of character - rather than an identikit hotel. Whether in an old farm, a former mill, a quaint cottage or a chateau, accommodation has been carefully chosen to guarantee an authentic local experience, home-cooked meals and a warm welcome.

Tony Armstrong says: “Before setting up the company, my experience of guided walking holidays was passing hordes of other hikers - all ending up in the same boring accommodation. We want our customers to feel like they’ve not only visited a place but been part of it as well.”

For 2009, High Point Holidays is offering walks in France and the French Alps, Spain and Bulgaria as well as some classic treks in the High Atlas in Morocco and Kilimanjaro in Africa. Its cycling holidays are based in the Beaujolais and Burgundy regions of France. Groups for the guided tours never exceed ten people, and itineraries are flexible to adapt to interests and abilities.

For those who prefer to go it alone, High Point Holidays can recommend tried and tested routes off the main tourist trails, complete with detailed maps and comprehensive notes about the walk and the region. Whatever option customers choose, their bags are always transported between guest houses, so they need only carry essentials for the day. And, to help cash-strapped customers, the 2009 holidays are available at 2008 prices.

Tony adds: “People may be wary of visiting the Euro zone because of the weak pound but we’ve frozen last year’s prices, making our tours great value for money. As people’s holiday time becomes increasingly precious, why not ditch the South Downs for the South of France or substitute the misty Malvern Hills for the majestic mountains of the Alps.”

Ends

Notes for editors

About High Point Holidays
High Point Holidays was established in 2007 and is based in Shaftesbury, Dorset. It is a family business: father Tony Armstrong runs the UK operation while his son, William Armstrong, is based in Beaujolais, France, where he works with local operators to develop bespoke tours.
Tony Armstrong, aged 66, is undergoing chemotherapy for myeloma and is taking part in a new drug trial.

About Myeloma UK
Registered as a charity in 1997, Myeloma UK is the only organisation in the UK dealing exclusively with myeloma and its related disorders. Its broad and innovative range of services cover every aspect of myeloma, from information and support to improving standards of treatment and care through education, research, campaigning and raising awareness. More information can be found at www.myeloma.org.uk

For further information, please contact:
William Armstrong, partner, High Point Holidays
Tel: 0033 474 68 86 63 / 01747 858 229
Email: william@highpointholidays.co.uk
Site: www.highpointholidays.co.uk

I’m often touched by a kind email. I’ve now won so many millions on Prize draws, and from Nigerians and others wanting to get their money out of countries that I just have too much - I mean there is only so much Viagra and Cialis a man can buy. I don’t want to be greedy, so feel free to let others share in this wealth and joy.

Jim Cragin of Dante Zeller Tuxedo however, doesn’t want to give me money or give me 6 hour erections. Instead, he sent me an email telling me how much he enjoyed meeting me at the bridal show. He hoped I was able to walk away with some great ideas that I could use for my special day, and informed me that the Manager from the location I selected will be contacting me shortly to arrange a time when we can work together in registering my wedding and selecting styles from their extensive collection.

Exciting, isn’t it. Only, I have no idea who Jim is, or Dante Zeller Tuxedo are. I have NEVER been to a bridal show, and have no plans to ever do so. Jim says ‘ thank you for stopping at our booth and signing up with Dante Zeller Tuxedo’. Just how I managed this as DZT seem to be based in New York and surrounding area, and I have only ever been to NY once, and this was a LONG time ago, is something I’d like to know.

I have often thought the idea of a clone of me would be quite nice, but if he is thinking of getting married without checking with me first, then I’m really not so sure I like the idea. Also, if he is the kind of clone that would go to a bridal show, then he probably deserves all he gets. As Groucho Marx once said: Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?

Jim, Jimmy, can I call you Jimmy? I feel I can, now that we have this special bond. I can see us getting closer and closer in the future, with maybe our children going to different schools together, our sons impregnating a vice presidental nominee daughter, us drinking beer and shooting some stuff. But, I digress, please can you remind me what did we talk about? how did I look? and am I really entitled to your Bridal Show Exclusive offer (”and as we discussed, the groom’s tuxedo will be absolutely free with five paid attendants and the ring bearer’s tuxedo is $79.00″ - Jimmy, I’d like you to be that man holding my ring). Of course, this might explain why I feel so tired this week, I obviously sleep-walked -via international plane travel (don’t you hate it when that happens) to the US and went to a bridal show. It all makes sense now.

Jimmy, what can I say, thanks for the canned precooked meat product.

Ofcom has been getting down with babe TV once again. It fined Satellite Entertainment Ltd £20,000 for breaches of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code in respect of its service SportsxxxBabes. Ofcom found that the channel had transmitted free-to-air ‘adult-sex’ material that was of an explicit nature including “sequences apparently showing intercourse, oral-genital contact, masturbation, the use of dildos, a woman gagged with her knickers, and full nudity.” -  In each case the most intimate detail was pixellated.

Meanwhile, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints against Apple for a TV ad for the iPhone. The ASA found that the ad which included the statement “all parts of the internet are on the iPhone” gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone, as many sites would not be viewable on the iPhone due to the fact that Java and Flash proprietary software, on which many sites are built, were not enabled on the iPhone.

This is all well and good, but the thing that pisses me off about the ad is just how fast everything loads on this obviously fantasy version of the iPhone - if that isn’t misleading, I don’t know what is.