My blog is now available at www.glassesandbeard.com
Drop on over and say hello
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Sharing is Caring
English comedian Charlton Brooker wrote a great piece in the Guardian this week on sharing. If you haven’t read it go do it now. I’ll still be here when you get back.
He was adding his voice to a debate which is popping up with increasing frequency online about sites like Spotify automatically posting stuff to your Facebook wall without even telling you they’re doing it.
With Netflix having just launched in Ireland us Irish FBers are getting a real taste of this as Netflix plays the same game as Spotify.
I don’t use Spotify and I didn’t use my Facebook account to join Netflix so it hasn’t happened to me (yet) but you can get the gist of why this irks people so here (with a response from Spotify in the comments section).
Stuff like this prompted a friend of mine to go on a little Facebook Status-sized rant recently that went something like this:
I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. A lot of people commented their agreement.
I only partially agreed. I actually like finding newspaper articles through the Facebook newspaper apps. Although it has the potential to cause some confusion, like when people started seeing the headline ‘Father Ted Actor Dies’ and thinking something dreadful had happened to Ardal O’Hanlon, only to discover that the headline was attached to a fourteen year old article about the death of Dermot Morgan. Perfect, the system ain’t.
But he does have a point.
And there are two points being raised here:
1. People use social media to share an awful lot of utter nonsense.
2. When did it become cool for third party sites to update my status without telling me they’re doing it?
The first point is patently true (although I’m sure we’ve all been guilty of it at one time or another) but there’s not a lot you can do except grin and bear it, unless you want to start unfollowing and defriending people like the plague just went digital. Alas, it’s the nature of the beast.
The simple answer to the second one is ‘it didn’t.’ The articles I mentioned above sum the situation up perfectly so there’s no need for me to but it’s not cool, not even if you hide a little button away somewhere with which you can unsubscribe from the auto-updates.
These two points may seem a little trifling against the backdrop of the larger debate that’s going on about content sharing online and, well, I guess they are.
If acts like SOPA and PIPA in the US, ACTA in Europe and Sean Sherlock’s Statutory Instrument on Copyright here in Ireland do to the internet what they’re threatening then I’d probably be damn glad to have the chance to tell 150 strangers that I just had a cup of tea that was a little too milky or to have Spotify reveal that I’m indulging in my secret passion of listening to 80’s Eurovision hits.
You’re wondering what my point is here, aren’t you?
Well I guess there are three:
1. The right to share and express ourselves online is a damn important one – don’t let anyone fuck with it.
2. When allowed that right some people with very little worth saying will say a whole lot. Screw ‘em, don’t get your knickers in a twist over it.
3. It’s MY right to share so I’ll choose what to share thanks very much, not you. You may make suggestions, and I may tell you to bugger off or to go for it, but at least do me the courtesy of asking me first. Got that? Great.
Now, if you'll excuse me I believe my Twitter followers are wondering how many Weetabix I had for breakfast this morning.
He was adding his voice to a debate which is popping up with increasing frequency online about sites like Spotify automatically posting stuff to your Facebook wall without even telling you they’re doing it.
With Netflix having just launched in Ireland us Irish FBers are getting a real taste of this as Netflix plays the same game as Spotify.
I don’t use Spotify and I didn’t use my Facebook account to join Netflix so it hasn’t happened to me (yet) but you can get the gist of why this irks people so here (with a response from Spotify in the comments section).
Stuff like this prompted a friend of mine to go on a little Facebook Status-sized rant recently that went something like this:
“Dear God people, I couldn’t give a sweet sticky banana what the hell you’re watching, listening to or reading at the moment. There’s more to life than mickey measuring and I'm-so-cool-ing on Facebook so kindly stop chucking that shit into my timeline.”
I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. A lot of people commented their agreement.
I only partially agreed. I actually like finding newspaper articles through the Facebook newspaper apps. Although it has the potential to cause some confusion, like when people started seeing the headline ‘Father Ted Actor Dies’ and thinking something dreadful had happened to Ardal O’Hanlon, only to discover that the headline was attached to a fourteen year old article about the death of Dermot Morgan. Perfect, the system ain’t.
But he does have a point.
And there are two points being raised here:
1. People use social media to share an awful lot of utter nonsense.
2. When did it become cool for third party sites to update my status without telling me they’re doing it?
The first point is patently true (although I’m sure we’ve all been guilty of it at one time or another) but there’s not a lot you can do except grin and bear it, unless you want to start unfollowing and defriending people like the plague just went digital. Alas, it’s the nature of the beast.
The simple answer to the second one is ‘it didn’t.’ The articles I mentioned above sum the situation up perfectly so there’s no need for me to but it’s not cool, not even if you hide a little button away somewhere with which you can unsubscribe from the auto-updates.
These two points may seem a little trifling against the backdrop of the larger debate that’s going on about content sharing online and, well, I guess they are.
If acts like SOPA and PIPA in the US, ACTA in Europe and Sean Sherlock’s Statutory Instrument on Copyright here in Ireland do to the internet what they’re threatening then I’d probably be damn glad to have the chance to tell 150 strangers that I just had a cup of tea that was a little too milky or to have Spotify reveal that I’m indulging in my secret passion of listening to 80’s Eurovision hits.
You’re wondering what my point is here, aren’t you?
Well I guess there are three:
1. The right to share and express ourselves online is a damn important one – don’t let anyone fuck with it.
2. When allowed that right some people with very little worth saying will say a whole lot. Screw ‘em, don’t get your knickers in a twist over it.
3. It’s MY right to share so I’ll choose what to share thanks very much, not you. You may make suggestions, and I may tell you to bugger off or to go for it, but at least do me the courtesy of asking me first. Got that? Great.
Now, if you'll excuse me I believe my Twitter followers are wondering how many Weetabix I had for breakfast this morning.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Choosing the Right Words
As a copywriter I spend a large part of my day thinking about words.
As a human I spend a large part of my day using words.
The difference between the two situations is that in the first I analyse each individual word that I use over and over again whereas in the second I usually use the first word or collection of words that come into my head.
But in advertising we would like to think that our copy sounds more like the second scenario than the first.
We want to write stuff that sounds natural and real, speak to people as we speak to each other.
But it doesn’t always work out that way.
I mean when was the last time you heard an ad on the radio that made you want to punch walls it sounded so ludicrous? Or saw a TV ad with such moronic dialogue that you ended up wanting to throw the remote at the telly, only stopping yourself because it's a fancy new 48inch widescreen HDTV?
I'll take a wild guess and say that it was the last time you listened to the radio or watched TV. Am I right?
As advertising copywriters we spend hours poring over each and every word in a radio commercial or outdoor poster. We let so many people have their say in what word should be used here or how this sentence should be phrased that we often end up removing any hint of naturalness that was there in the first place.
Natural sounding copy should be just that - natural. Dissecting each individual word under a microscope is not conducive to natural sounding writing.
That’s not to say that analysis, editing and revision of what you’re writing is a waste of time. I'm not that brainless.
At the end of the day we’re not writing for the sake of writing, we have a job to do. We have to sell stuff.
So it’s no good writing the most natural sounding copy if people aren’t going to pay a blind bit of attention to it or be motivated to take action.
But it’s also no good editing and overthinking copy to within an inch of its life in the pursuit of natural sounding copy.
People very quickly see through contrived ‘natural’ writing.
And they’re very quick to shut it out and ignore it as well.
The secret to good advertising (he says as if he has decades of experience and it were the easiest thing in the world) is having something good and worthwhile to say. If you have that as your starting point then natural copy should, well, naturally follow.
But just because the writing should be natural doesn’t mean the situations always need to be completely natural.
The latest John Lewis Christmas ad (which I think is great) has been criticised by a lot of people who say that you’d never see a real kid acting like that.
And they’re not wrong.
But when has anything creative been bound to rely on real characters?
Engaging, well developed characters, yes, but real?
Have the characters in every good movie, play or music video you’ve seen acted exactly the way people in the real world do?
No, of course they haven’t.
But if the characters are written well they can still draw you in and feel real and believable in the context in which they appear.
Whether it's in advertising or another creative discipline choosing the right words to put in the mouths of your characters can make you. But trying too hard to choose the right words will definitely break you.
As a human I spend a large part of my day using words.
The difference between the two situations is that in the first I analyse each individual word that I use over and over again whereas in the second I usually use the first word or collection of words that come into my head.
But in advertising we would like to think that our copy sounds more like the second scenario than the first.
We want to write stuff that sounds natural and real, speak to people as we speak to each other.
But it doesn’t always work out that way.
I mean when was the last time you heard an ad on the radio that made you want to punch walls it sounded so ludicrous? Or saw a TV ad with such moronic dialogue that you ended up wanting to throw the remote at the telly, only stopping yourself because it's a fancy new 48inch widescreen HDTV?
I'll take a wild guess and say that it was the last time you listened to the radio or watched TV. Am I right?
As advertising copywriters we spend hours poring over each and every word in a radio commercial or outdoor poster. We let so many people have their say in what word should be used here or how this sentence should be phrased that we often end up removing any hint of naturalness that was there in the first place.
Natural sounding copy should be just that - natural. Dissecting each individual word under a microscope is not conducive to natural sounding writing.
That’s not to say that analysis, editing and revision of what you’re writing is a waste of time. I'm not that brainless.
At the end of the day we’re not writing for the sake of writing, we have a job to do. We have to sell stuff.
So it’s no good writing the most natural sounding copy if people aren’t going to pay a blind bit of attention to it or be motivated to take action.
But it’s also no good editing and overthinking copy to within an inch of its life in the pursuit of natural sounding copy.
People very quickly see through contrived ‘natural’ writing.
And they’re very quick to shut it out and ignore it as well.
The secret to good advertising (he says as if he has decades of experience and it were the easiest thing in the world) is having something good and worthwhile to say. If you have that as your starting point then natural copy should, well, naturally follow.
But just because the writing should be natural doesn’t mean the situations always need to be completely natural.
The latest John Lewis Christmas ad (which I think is great) has been criticised by a lot of people who say that you’d never see a real kid acting like that.
And they’re not wrong.
But when has anything creative been bound to rely on real characters?
Engaging, well developed characters, yes, but real?
Have the characters in every good movie, play or music video you’ve seen acted exactly the way people in the real world do?
No, of course they haven’t.
But if the characters are written well they can still draw you in and feel real and believable in the context in which they appear.
Whether it's in advertising or another creative discipline choosing the right words to put in the mouths of your characters can make you. But trying too hard to choose the right words will definitely break you.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
An Interesting Concept
I’ve never been a particular Metallica fan. That’s not to say I dislike them. They have a bunch of great tunes - you'd have to be musically numb not to want to rock out to 'Enter Sandman' or 'Master of Puppets', and 'Nothing Else Matters' is one of the best tunes from the past 20 years, particularly when it's performed with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, but that's about as far as it goes for me when it comes to their music.
The same can be said for Lou Reed - who doesn't automatically think of 'Perfect Day' when they hear a mention of something that happened back in 1997? But again, I'm no hardcore Lou Reed lover.
And for me these two acts have always been in completely separate musical spheres, travelling on different orbits, never even threatening to collide.
I’m sure I’m not unique in thinking that.
That’s why my ears pricked up when I heard that Lou Reed had invited Metallica to collaborate on a concept album inspired by 2 plays by German playwright Frank Wedekind.
On first appearances it’s not exactly a musical combination crafted by the hands of the great Apollo himself.
I’ve been dipping in and out of the album for most of today and my initial reaction is, well, I don’t quite know what my initial reaction is.
Concept albums themselves can be dodgy territory. Sometimes they’re sensational, groundbreaking, era defining albums. Sometimes they’re annoying, musical wankery, full of their own self worth. Other times they’re just pure musical sludge.
Where Lulu falls I’m really not sure. Apologies for planting my arse so firmly on the fence on this one but all I can say for now is that, for me, it sits somewhere in the triangle of those three extremes. It’s exact position in that triangle? I’m currently undecided.
Lou Reed supposedly claims it’s the greatest thing he’s ever done. Album sales would beg to differ (it sold only 15,000 copies in its first week on sale).
Reviews can't seem to find a consensus. Some say it's 'excellent', while others claim it's the 'worst piece of junk to be produced in album form in the last 20 years.'
Luckily for us recovering students and people with security codes on our wallets we don't need to fork out hard-earned cash to figure out who we agree with because Lou, James, Lars, Kirk and Robert have kindly put it all online here, for free. Why, I don't know.
If you're not bothered listening to the whole thing here's one of the tracks, 'The View', for your aural pleasure:
Now, to go find someone I can pitch that Leonard Cohen/Slipknot duet album to.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
There's a War on. See Twitter for Updates
I’m a big fan of Twitter. I've written before about why I think it's so great and some of the incredible things people have done using Twitter as their foundation.
Well lately I’ve come across a great new account that's my latest obsession: @RealTimeWWII
It’s a fantastic idea. Someone (my guess is that it's a group of people) started tweeting on September 1st, the day in 1939 when the Germans invaded Gdansk in Poland and World War 2 began, real time updates as if we were back in 1939 and the war were taking place.
Something similar was done through Facebook a while back (you can see a jpeg of it here) and while it was impressive and well done, it wasn’t nearly as detailed or as engaging as this Twitter account.
This guy (or these guys) tweet several updates a day including quotes, pictures and videos. The amount of information and the level of detail is astonishing. We get tweets about the famous speeches and actions of Hitler at the major Nazi rallies as well as quotes and pictures from individuals you've never heard of who were living in the ghettos or concentration camps. It literally covers the whole spectrum, from the major turning points in the war to the daily lives of those suffering through it.
Here's just a small sample of some of the tweets:
Aside from being a really interesting account of the events of World War II it also gets you thinking; we’re so used to instant updates on major world events through Twitter, what would it have been like had Twitter been around for other historical events? Would it have shaped their progress and outcome, as Twitter has done with major events like the current ‘Occupy Protests’ or the political movements in the Middle East over the past few months?
Wouldn’t it be great to see similar accounts for other historical events – the Irish Civil War, Columbus’ voyage to America, the Spanish Inquisition.
Of course the thing about WWII is that it was in the very recent past so there are lots of video, photographic and documentary footage and resources available, that’s why this one works so well.
To say that something is ‘brought to life’ is a bit of a cliché but it definitely presents the events of the war in a way that hasn't been done before and a way that is really engaging and captivating.
There's also huge potential here to use Twitter as an educational tool. I reckon social media is going to be used more and more in education in the future and this is a great example of how it can be done.
So go and check out RealWorldWWII and if you know of any other Twitter accounts doing somehing similar involving different events from history please let me know.
Well lately I’ve come across a great new account that's my latest obsession: @RealTimeWWII
It’s a fantastic idea. Someone (my guess is that it's a group of people) started tweeting on September 1st, the day in 1939 when the Germans invaded Gdansk in Poland and World War 2 began, real time updates as if we were back in 1939 and the war were taking place.
Something similar was done through Facebook a while back (you can see a jpeg of it here) and while it was impressive and well done, it wasn’t nearly as detailed or as engaging as this Twitter account.
This guy (or these guys) tweet several updates a day including quotes, pictures and videos. The amount of information and the level of detail is astonishing. We get tweets about the famous speeches and actions of Hitler at the major Nazi rallies as well as quotes and pictures from individuals you've never heard of who were living in the ghettos or concentration camps. It literally covers the whole spectrum, from the major turning points in the war to the daily lives of those suffering through it.
Here's just a small sample of some of the tweets:
Aside from being a really interesting account of the events of World War II it also gets you thinking; we’re so used to instant updates on major world events through Twitter, what would it have been like had Twitter been around for other historical events? Would it have shaped their progress and outcome, as Twitter has done with major events like the current ‘Occupy Protests’ or the political movements in the Middle East over the past few months?
Wouldn’t it be great to see similar accounts for other historical events – the Irish Civil War, Columbus’ voyage to America, the Spanish Inquisition.
Of course the thing about WWII is that it was in the very recent past so there are lots of video, photographic and documentary footage and resources available, that’s why this one works so well.
To say that something is ‘brought to life’ is a bit of a cliché but it definitely presents the events of the war in a way that hasn't been done before and a way that is really engaging and captivating.
There's also huge potential here to use Twitter as an educational tool. I reckon social media is going to be used more and more in education in the future and this is a great example of how it can be done.
So go and check out RealWorldWWII and if you know of any other Twitter accounts doing somehing similar involving different events from history please let me know.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Facebook - You're off the Christmas Card List
Here, Facebook, Zuckerberg, listen up.
I’m angry. And it’s your fault.
I know how this game works. I sign up. You collect as much data on me as you can possibly get your money-filled hands on and then use that to sell access to me and my mates to advertisers.
Then you give me the option to choose exactly what updates I see from each of my friends so it seems like it's actually for my benefit that you're making all these changes.
I get that. Welcome to 21st Century internet, please leave your privacy at the door. I’m not totally cool with it but I don’t lose sleep over it.
And I’m still a Facebook user so I obviously don’t have too much of a problem with it.
But where I do have a problem, Mr. Zee, is when you make me miss out on cool shit. Cool shit like this:
I don't understand exactly how you’re doing it but you’re only showing me the things YOU think I’LL be interested in.
How do you know what I’m interested in? All your delicious data tells you everything you need to know about what I like, doesn't it?
Sure it does.
My brother posted that video by funny Ozzie Tim Minchin to Facebook a few days ago. It didn’t appear in my timeline because I’m automatically subscribed to most of his updates instead of all of them. Facebook decided that this was one I wouldn’t like so it kept it hidden from me (or maybe they decided I’d be offended by the repeated use of the most vulgar of words – boobies). When my brother asked had I seen it I went to find it on his page – no sign of it. So I signed out, my brother signed in and lo and behold the video was there.
Back the truck up a bit. Now you’re not even showing me everything on someone’s own profile page? What the hell is going on here? What's the point in posting anything if you get to decide who sees it and who doesn't? Are you only showing me what you think I’ll like or are you only showing me what you want me to like?
The thing is Mark (do you mind if I call you Mark? Mr. Zuckerberg is so formal), you can gather all the data you want on someone but it’s very bloody difficult to predict what they’re gonna like and not like. Start doing that and you might start pissing people off. Sometimes we only know what we do or don't like after we've seen it.
If I'm friends with someone I generally have something in common with them and want to see what they share. If I don't like it I'll unfriend them or else I'll comment and tell them that their tastes are far inferior to mine could they please stop wasting my time with mindless links and updates.
I don't need you to do it for me.
I know, I know. I can go and change the settings for each of my friends so that I see ALL of their updates instead of just MOST, but why make it so complicated? How about you just let me choose who to be friends with and who not to?
The thing is, you're hiding genuinely funny and interesting content from me (there were about four other posts on my brother's wall that were hidden to me) but I'm still seeing all those stupid posts about how someone had cold beans for dinner or how someone’s cat just winked at their frog and the frog smiled back.
You're doing a job I don't want you to do and you're not even doing it well.
Jeez, I’m a hard man to please, eh?
I’m angry. And it’s your fault.
I know how this game works. I sign up. You collect as much data on me as you can possibly get your money-filled hands on and then use that to sell access to me and my mates to advertisers.
Then you give me the option to choose exactly what updates I see from each of my friends so it seems like it's actually for my benefit that you're making all these changes.
I get that. Welcome to 21st Century internet, please leave your privacy at the door. I’m not totally cool with it but I don’t lose sleep over it.
And I’m still a Facebook user so I obviously don’t have too much of a problem with it.
But where I do have a problem, Mr. Zee, is when you make me miss out on cool shit. Cool shit like this:
I don't understand exactly how you’re doing it but you’re only showing me the things YOU think I’LL be interested in.
How do you know what I’m interested in? All your delicious data tells you everything you need to know about what I like, doesn't it?
Sure it does.
My brother posted that video by funny Ozzie Tim Minchin to Facebook a few days ago. It didn’t appear in my timeline because I’m automatically subscribed to most of his updates instead of all of them. Facebook decided that this was one I wouldn’t like so it kept it hidden from me (or maybe they decided I’d be offended by the repeated use of the most vulgar of words – boobies). When my brother asked had I seen it I went to find it on his page – no sign of it. So I signed out, my brother signed in and lo and behold the video was there.
Back the truck up a bit. Now you’re not even showing me everything on someone’s own profile page? What the hell is going on here? What's the point in posting anything if you get to decide who sees it and who doesn't? Are you only showing me what you think I’ll like or are you only showing me what you want me to like?
The thing is Mark (do you mind if I call you Mark? Mr. Zuckerberg is so formal), you can gather all the data you want on someone but it’s very bloody difficult to predict what they’re gonna like and not like. Start doing that and you might start pissing people off. Sometimes we only know what we do or don't like after we've seen it.
If I'm friends with someone I generally have something in common with them and want to see what they share. If I don't like it I'll unfriend them or else I'll comment and tell them that their tastes are far inferior to mine could they please stop wasting my time with mindless links and updates.
I don't need you to do it for me.
I know, I know. I can go and change the settings for each of my friends so that I see ALL of their updates instead of just MOST, but why make it so complicated? How about you just let me choose who to be friends with and who not to?
The thing is, you're hiding genuinely funny and interesting content from me (there were about four other posts on my brother's wall that were hidden to me) but I'm still seeing all those stupid posts about how someone had cold beans for dinner or how someone’s cat just winked at their frog and the frog smiled back.
You're doing a job I don't want you to do and you're not even doing it well.
Jeez, I’m a hard man to please, eh?
Monday, September 12, 2011
All Aboard the Bandwagon
Yes I’m jumping on the bandwagon.
The bandwagon whose name I won’t mention because that’s what they want me to do. But you all know the one I’m talking about. The one with women playing sports and eating crisps.
I’m jumping aboard because it pisses me off.
Not because it’s offensive to women or anything like that.
But because it’s just stupid, and cheap, and easy, and it gives advertising a bad name.
And God knows it already has a bad enough name as it is.
Advertising is exploitative, manipulative, lowest common denominator stuff.
Or that’s what people tell me anyway.
But it doesn’t have to be.
When it’s done properly, when it’s genuinely creative and engaging, advertising can come up with some of the most powerful and impressive stuff you’ll see.
Sure, the objective is to sell stuff. But at the end of the day we’re all trying to sell something.
It’s a bit like in school when it’s always ‘a few of the bad kids that ruin it for everyone else.’ Easy, cheap and crap advertising like this just perpetuates the bad image that advertising has.
Sure the advertising world is populated by twits and tossers just out to make as much dough as possible, but you get people like that in all walks of life.
It’s also full of genuinely creative and ambitious people who want to make something new, worthy and interesting. Guys who want to do amazing stuff like the spectacular ‘1984’ ad to launch the Apple Macintosh, Bing’s brilliant Decode Jay-Z campaign from last year or the Voyeur Project from HBO in 2007, stuff that’s about much more than just encouraging people to put their hands in their pockets and splash out on your latest moneyspinner.
I’d like to think that most people get into advertising to be a part of really cool things like these. Using a hot model with digitally enlarged knockers to sell crisps just makes it harder for everyone else to get some credit and respect for the great work they do.
Selfish gits.
But what do I know eh? I’m just a noob. This whole business could chew me up and spit me out before I’ve had a chance to use sex to sell anything. All I'll have then are my naive ambitions and a packet of crisps (come on, I had to buy the crisps, did you see that girl's chest?).
The bandwagon whose name I won’t mention because that’s what they want me to do. But you all know the one I’m talking about. The one with women playing sports and eating crisps.
I’m jumping aboard because it pisses me off.
Not because it’s offensive to women or anything like that.
But because it’s just stupid, and cheap, and easy, and it gives advertising a bad name.
And God knows it already has a bad enough name as it is.
Advertising is exploitative, manipulative, lowest common denominator stuff.
Or that’s what people tell me anyway.
But it doesn’t have to be.
When it’s done properly, when it’s genuinely creative and engaging, advertising can come up with some of the most powerful and impressive stuff you’ll see.
Sure, the objective is to sell stuff. But at the end of the day we’re all trying to sell something.
It’s a bit like in school when it’s always ‘a few of the bad kids that ruin it for everyone else.’ Easy, cheap and crap advertising like this just perpetuates the bad image that advertising has.
Sure the advertising world is populated by twits and tossers just out to make as much dough as possible, but you get people like that in all walks of life.
It’s also full of genuinely creative and ambitious people who want to make something new, worthy and interesting. Guys who want to do amazing stuff like the spectacular ‘1984’ ad to launch the Apple Macintosh, Bing’s brilliant Decode Jay-Z campaign from last year or the Voyeur Project from HBO in 2007, stuff that’s about much more than just encouraging people to put their hands in their pockets and splash out on your latest moneyspinner.
I’d like to think that most people get into advertising to be a part of really cool things like these. Using a hot model with digitally enlarged knockers to sell crisps just makes it harder for everyone else to get some credit and respect for the great work they do.
Selfish gits.
But what do I know eh? I’m just a noob. This whole business could chew me up and spit me out before I’ve had a chance to use sex to sell anything. All I'll have then are my naive ambitions and a packet of crisps (come on, I had to buy the crisps, did you see that girl's chest?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)