Adidas shoots everything in the Ditch. They need to let it go already. Keep in mind though, UK standards are so strict they aren't technically supposed to show kids on skateboards unless they are wearing helmets. So I get why they'd pick a nondescript place, it's just that we've seen it so many times before it's boring.
Considering how many years this has been going on, and no one knows how much money is actually donated, it is defintely shady. I believe that is supposed to be public knowledge. Excuse me if I don't take Misha's word for it. Also most GISHERS as they are called are not visiting the Random Act. They're visiting the GISHWHES site. There is a banner on the site, but so what? Am I supposed to make a huge connection because they have a banner?
Maybe it's because Misha has diarrhea of the mouth, but in each of his 2,000 word posts there is scant information about their being tied to Random Acts at best, and certainly only in passing. Let's be honest, it is hardly the focal point of his stupid lists. It's a scavenger hunt, and occasionally one of the things on that list might have to do with charity. Being 'Random," and "passing on hugs," or whatever is not charity. It's bullshit.
They are doing more than screaming for his livelihood to be taken away. They are sending him death threats. So yeah, that's actually not false equivalency. That is quite apt.
No one is arguing the fact a business can do as it pleases. I'm sure of it because I wrote the article and never mentioned that. At all.
I am neither condoning nor condemning the content of Gavin's article. i was merely pointing out that the response would be as vitriolic, mean-spirited and bigoted as the presumed tone of Gavin's article. And judging by the extreme hate mail I received for for merely making that point, I wasn't off at all. I was right as right can be.
By the way, I could have chosen another analogy instead of communist Czechoslovakia, like McCarthyism, but it would have led to the same place. People on soapboxes don't want to hear that they are bigoted, or mean-spirited, or aren't in the right when they call for the head of someone. But that's on their conscience, not mine.
But i was told to go to hell for this, and the owner of Adland was taken to task by some twat who doesn't realize this has always been an open forum for all kinds of opinions for the past fifteen years. I don't wish to convince that person of the efficacy, nor do I wish to defend my opinion.
As for your last point, you'll see that I did blame the cowardice of management in the business place. It's even more of a joke since Gavin works for an agency he started, but again that's everyone's prerogative. I never said they couldn't put him on leave, or whatever.
The entire point of this article had nothing to do with what he wrote, but with how I assumed people would respond to what I wrote. With the same hatred and anger they assumed was behind Gavin's article, because that's what people do these days.
I wasn't wrong at all. Because I didn't call for his head, I am somehow complicit. Well guess what-- I'm not.
I also find it hilarious the guy made a living off of Vice and its mean-spirited critique of mankind but no one said a word until now. I guess morality is a moving target. Make fun of people all you want until you get to a certain group, then it's verboten.
I believe they call that situation ethics.
Lol, yes you're so ho hum about it you felt the need to leave a comment. I've done quite enough work on this, but you know it's kind of funny, when people say they give money to charity they generally mention a. how much money goes to said charity and b.mention the charity by name on their website. This does neither. In fact, going to Random Acts's website doesn't mention Misha or Gishwhes either.
But yeah, so far y'all have been insulting me on twitter for a week or so now, breaking Misha's commandment four, so obviously you fanboys and fangirls need to work on centering your moral compass.
P.S. threatening to shut down William Shatners website, may sound fun but it's actually a felony. And bombarding published authors with requests for free work for a stupid scavenger hunt they aren't involved in sounds more like being a nuisance than anything fun. And getting a crowd of people to annoy the hell out of NASA which is what happened last year, doesn't sound fun so much as psychotic.
Guess we have a different definition of fun.
As for Amanda Palmer-- wow I guess you don't know how she made musicians audition for her tour although she had no intention of paying them until enough people complained. She happens to be married to Neil Gaiman who wants no part of the Misha Freebie Cult. It's all very easy to understand if you, I don't know, click on the links and read?
Or is that too much work?
P.S. I'm always having lots of fun, thanks, and I have enough hugs, thanks.
Two years ago I wrote about how GM pulled all of its ads on Facebook but kept its Pages only because it didn't cost anything to maintain. I'm not sure how many other brands followed suit, but it's no surprise Facebook recently rolled out the "boost post," feature, which is nothing short of the Mafia style protection-money to ensure brands keep paying.
"That's a real nice bunch of likes you have there. It'd be a shame if none of your posts reached your fans."
The arbitrary nature of this scheme is not lost on us. Adland isn't a business with GM style money to spend on reach. And yet, our reach has also dwindled on Facebook. When I posted the original article two years ago it had reached nearly 300 people. Now if posts in our Facebook feed reach 30 people, we'll get a notification letting us know our post is "doing better than average." Now why do you suppose that happens? Of course there's no way to know, as you mention.
I think a lot of brands have come to the conclusion Facebook is not only a walled garden but as more effectiveness studies emerge, they realize it's not worth the effort unless they treat it as a traditional media channel and spend a lot of cash on reach.
Question is how much longer will brands continue to do so until they realize the ROI isn't worth it?
There is currently 1 user online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
