Ad Age predicts a small amount of growth:

If trends hold, online advertising will grow in the low double digits or high single digits this year, driven largely by search.

But that may be way too optimistic. A pessimistic view would be to compare this financial crisis to the end of the tech bubble years, when internet advertising dropped by about 25%. And then to note that this crisis is actually far worse than that one was. So while search ads will probably not stop growing, it's possible that the rest of internet advertising could fall by more than a quarter, taking the ho-hum companies at the bottom of the market straight into oblivion.

Recent startups will be quick to fail. Aspiring startups will fail to get funded. There will probably be a rise in sites charging subscription fees, as the ad model stops bringing in sufficient cash—which may itself fail, since people are so used to everything being free. And what about our heroes, smartass blogs?

Publishers may not be immune to a big cull after growing up in what Spark Capital principal Dennis Miller calls a "fantasy marketplace." "You will probably see a healthy movement to two or three in each category that are delivering visitors and time spent on the site," he said.

Gawker, Drudge, and LOLCats: the only news left at the end of the internet apocalypse. [Ad Age]

The first thing to get cut in everyone's ad budget was "experimental" ad buys, random things like branded pop-up games and ads in Virtual Worlds and other, mostly online things that probably never worked in the first place. Also getting chopped: mobile ads that go straight to your cellphone—which not only don't work, but actually annoy the consumer in the process of not working.

Areas like mobile, virtual worlds and widgets are expected to be hit particularly hard, as it remains unclear what kind of impact ads in these media have. These campaigns often reach a small number of people, and standard measurement systems have yet to be developed. "When we get into the need to drive results, you can't spend money on the experiments and hope to keep your job and get your sales goals"...

"Virtual worlds are probably one of the things that haven't been proven effective just yet. I can't see us selling virtual worlds to anybody right now," says Lars Bastholm, an executive creative director at independent digital marketing shop AKQA.

Good news for nerds of the purist variety! [WSJ; pic via FPSrantings]

A company called IMMI is perfecting software that goes in your cell phone and catches every snippet of audio you're exposed to, then automatically determines which ads you heard. And more!

To get a handle on the effectiveness of a given ad, IMMI's data can show, for example, when a panel member is exposed to a movie trailer on TV and whether that same consumer later goes to see the movie. Similarly, IMMI data can show if a panelist watching a promo for a TV program will later watch the show, either on TV or online. IMMI thinks it can expand that idea from films and TV shows to consumer products like shampoo or toothpaste. It is testing its technology with a national grocery store chain.

"We follow the same person from end to end," says Tom Zito, IMMI's chief executive.

I would recommend that IMMI start working on developing a cute, non-threatening mascot right now, because they are frankly talking about some scary shit. People volunteer to carry these phones for just $50 a month. [Obligatory ominous Minority Report reference here].

Market crashes are, almost without argument, the biggest business stories there are. They're the wars of the financial world. Bull markets, runaway successes, and bubbles are all well and good from the reader's point of view—and they do tend to spawn new titles—but they lack the element of tragedy and fear that mark truly great stories. Ten years from now, business outlets will be judged by their coverage of this meltdown in the same way that the New York Times was judged by its 9/11 coverage, or the Littleton Independent was judged by its Columbine coverage.

That said, the business side of business media should be booming, right? Audiences are up! Everyone is addicted to CNBC! The Wall Street Journal has been unmissable for a solid month! And it's fair to assume that readership and viewership is up across the board for business outlets, to varying degrees. Fear makes people extremely interested in information.

Here's the quandary: The biggest story for business media always comes along at the same time as the worst ad market. By definition, unfortunately! Market crashes are great from a reporter's standpoint. From an ad salesman's standpoint, they're horrible. So a site like The Big Money, which would seem to have had the good fortune to launch on the wings of a massive story, is actually getting choked by the very same conditions it's reporting on.

There's already speculation that Portfolio, Conde Nast's $100 million business offering, is on shaky legs. We know that the Great Magazine Die-Off caused by this shitty economic period is already underway. And ironically, mags like BusinessWeek or Fortune could be likely candidates for severe cutbacks, if not actually death.

And hey, the publisher of Fast Company—actually a good magazine!—was just forced to lay off 20 people. That's a lot for a mid-sized place like that.The publisher, Mansueto, is also ending free snacks, gym reimbursements, and, worst of all, closing its Events division.

That's a terrifying sign, since there are lots of business publications out there that (shhh!) make more money off their events than they do off their publication. In some cases, a shitty magazine is just a loss leader for a moneymaking side business of awards shows, seminars, and other branded events that companies will shell out for in order to "network" and have allegedly independent awards to use in their marketing materials.

But when the businesses themselves tank, the business media tanks harder. It's as if Sports Illustrated saw all of its ads evaporate at Super Bowl time. It sucks, but it's a fact of media life. The survivors will come out stronger than ever, and can feast on the carcasses of their dead competitors, picking off choice talent at low prices.

Journalism!

The archives! The CBS show Eleventh Hour has a "sponsored archive" of free NYT stories about cloning humans and stuff, which presumably is a topic related to Eleventh Hour. It might grate on traditionalists, but we can't hate on things like this too much. Better to sell new online ads than, say, start plastering the front page of the print edition with ads. Besides, Thomas Friedman's mustache wax ain't free.

"Suppose your Sim had a tough day, or the Sim kids are out of control, maybe the Sim worked out — that could be a moment for that particular [brand of] pain relief," [a Sims branding exec] said. "And they take that pain relief and feel restored, better rested ... less on edge."

Possibly the saddest quote ever. [Ad Age]

A couple of ad targeting firms let Steel look at what they had on her, and guess what: it was not totally accurate! They guessed that she liked luxury boats and was a newlywed, when actually she just had friends getting married, and has no boat. That's because tracking can't follow you across different computers, and guessing about demographics based on internet cookies is an inexact science. You might think that keeping these people in the dark would be a good thing, but Emily gives props to the firm that correctly pegs her as "someone who spends time exercising and socializing at bars and nightclubs." Psht, well that's not exactly ESP territory. She ends with this:

Meanwhile, marketers, here is some free intelligence about me that you won't find in my Revenue Science or Acxiom profile: I'm a bargain shopper who loves reading fiction, and I'm a huge Tar Heels fan. And for the last several months, I've been scouring the Web for running gear.

I'll be looking for the targeted ads.

As soon as every other American writes a WSJ feature on their shopping preferences we'll have this whole industry straightened out.

[WSJ; pic via]

[Agency Spy. More new ads at Valleywag]

Vagina-touting comedian Sarah Silverman!

Weed-burning singer Willie Nelson!

Motorcycle-riding person Travis Pastrana!

Laid-back actor of sorts Matthew McConaughey!

Hopeless politico Ralph Nader!

Mockery specialists Rob Cordrry and Stephen Colbert!

Deceased jokester Bernie Mac!

Sounds like a fine plan.

[Tina Dupuy at FBLA]

"They are not seen as cool," says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, a New York branding firm. "Apple is cool. Can anyone even recall a Microsoft ad? No."

And they won't be able to remember this one either, because using Seinfeld humor in ads was already considered tired three years ago.

Good luck with alll that!

[WSJ]

A company called NebuAd (free advice to them: think of a less sinister name) is under fire right now because its software tracks you everywhere you go on the internet, then records that info and puts it all together and to sell to advertisers. And—surprise—the people who run NebuAd used to be in the honorable business of crafting adware, that launches deceptive pop-up ads on your screen. Useful members of humanity! Lots of marketers would really love to use this stuff, but they're not sure if the public will go for it. So how is NebuAd assuaging privacy concerns?

In an interview, NebuAd Chief Executive Bob Dykes said Internet-service providers using NebuAd will be able to periodically notify customers online that their Web surfing is being tracked. In addition, the providers also will be able to offer their customers new ways to opt out of NebuAd.

"NOTICE: We are watching you. To opt out, follow this needlessly intricate procedure." Seems fair, as long as we're allowed to follow around NebuAd executives everywhere they go all day and try to steal their wallet. They can opt out if they guess what number we're thinking of.

[WSJ]

After the first guy jumped into his jeans, I realized what the whole video would be: a shot-for-shot rehash of a viral ad for Ray-Ban. The two ads are so similar that the creators (unless they're phenomenally short-sighted) clearly wanted to be discovered. First, let's look at the two ads:

Levi's, 5 May 2008: Guys do backflips, swinging jumps, and other stunts and land in their pants.

Ray-Ban, 6 May 2007: A guy catches sunglasses on his face in increasingly impossible maneuvers: Off a house, off a bridge, in a moving car.

Similarities
The stories are the same: A simple trick to establish what we're watching. Then increasingly elaborate iterations, culminating in a stunt so dramatic that it requires a slow-motion replay.

The music is the same: A cool innocuous background beat loosely timed to the action.

The editing is the same: Quick pacing. Slick with dramatic angles, but calculatedly rugged with lingering shots on the guys congratulating each other.

The packaging is the same: Ray-Ban's ad was posted by "neverhidefilms," a YouTube user with no previous videos. The new Levi's ad comes from "unbuttonedfilms," another first-time user. The new ad is one day shy of coming a year after the old ad. The titles are analagous: "Guy catches glasses with face" versus "Guys backflip into jeans." No product is mentioned.

Background
While Ray-Ban's ad was launched anonymously, the creative team behind it soon came forward. Josh Warner, president of The Feed Company, explained how he promoted this viral video to Adweek. The team posted more videos, now more obviously advertising Ray-Ban though still without using a traditional ad format, to the YouTube account that hosted the original viral ad.

Extra evidence
Note the line at 0:36 of the Levi's ad: "At least there's no zipper." That's what clinched it for me: Levi's is the only jeans brand to actively advertise its zipperless buttoned jeans. The user name "unbuttonedfilms" corroborates this.

How well it's worked
Blogs like Laughing Squid and Neatorama posted the video with no guess about the creators (though political blog Hot Air guessed this might be a Levi's ad). Even G4TV's Attack Of The Show discussed the ad, crediting it to an unnamed group of gymnasts and making no mention of Levi's.

And of course even this debunking is giving them publicity. (Not that I mind as long as I'm getting some too.)

My Theory
Obviously the new ad has the same goals as the old: to market a product without actually naming it, by appealing to the public's love of Internet stunt videos. Most likely, The Feed Company made the new Levi's ad. If any other agency was ripping them off, they wouldn't release the ad a year later with the exact same techniques. And in a few days, The Feed Company will come out, because who can really deny themselves another round of publicity?

The rules make it an offense to blog, use brand ambassadors or seed viral ads while "falsely representing oneself as a consumer." They also apply to bloggers who fail to disclose they have accepted money to write about a product.

This is not of course, happening in the US. But maybe bloggers should rethink their opinions about accepting free shit in return for positive reviews. Word of mouth marketing online is big business here, but most companies and their marketing agencies are smart enough to realize already that disclosure can save them a world of scandal and bad PR.

So far the exact penalties haven't been spelled out, and it will likely take a test case, reported to the Office of Fair Trading and prosecuted, to make clear the size of the penalty and whether jail time is really likely.

Flogging?

Also, here we gratuitously bring up once again Edelman's famous fake Wal-Mart blog. If only it had happened after May 26, and in the UK.

[Ad Age]

Wired: Apple to New York City: Bite Me

The team conducted an experiment in which 341 university students completed what they believed was a visual acuity task, during which either the Apple or IBM logo was flashed so quickly that they were unaware they had been exposed to the brand logo. The participants then completed a task designed to evaluate how creative they were, listing all of the uses for a brick that they could imagine beyond building a wall.

People who were exposed to the Apple logo generated significantly more unusual uses for the brick compared with those who were primed with the IBM logo, the researchers said. In addition, the unusual uses the Apple-primed participants generated were rated as more creative by independent judges.

"This is the first clear evidence that subliminal brand exposures can cause people to act in very specific ways," said Gráinne Fitzsimons. "We've performed tests where we've offered people $100 to tell us what logo was being flashed on screen, and none of them could do it. But even this imperceptible exposure is enough to spark changes in behavior."

[Science Daily via Neatorama]

This is a conscious move by Microsoft, which bypassed more traditional super-agencies to give the account to CPB, which prides itself on making ads that are too smart by half. Maybe that's what Microsoft needs to kickstart its image, but it's a big gamble, considering the size of the market at stake. Or maybe CPB will pull back a bit on the wackiness. But in all likelihood, that's what they were selling, and that's what the company wants.

No word yet on what the campaign is gonna look like, but you can use your imagination, based on this small and selective sample of some of CPB's past work:

BK's Kick'n Chicken

Miller Lite Man Law

Volkswagen Unpimps The Auto

Yesterday, Gizmodo, Gawker Media's "gadget guide," posted an Intel ad (which I sent them) that provoked well over 100 comments from those left-brained sprockets and pulleys folk. So, since I am lazy and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is happening in advertising, I thought I'd post the ad here to get the more creative, media-savvy opinions of Gawker readers.

In the comments of the Gizmodo post, there was quite a bit of e-yelling over the supposed racist/sexist overtones of the above ad, which then (d)evolved into a discussion of the equality of all men or something.

Anyway, I'll now give you my expert, former guest FIT advertising class teacher analysis of it. If you're busy or bored, I invite and strongly encourage you to skip these couple of paragraphs and opine away in the comments.

First off, a creative analysis: The ad's execution is hopelessly hackneyed. Wow, sprinters to represent speed? I've only seen that a couple hundred times over the last 20 years in idiotic business ads. You photoshopped one sprinter into six, and crammed them into a "work" environment so's that I would understand that this is a BUSINESS ad, not an ad for a sports drink. Very subtle. Such a nuanced visualization tells me that you, Intel, are a whip-smart company that I'd be stupid not to throw my money at. If a student put this up on the wall, I'd spit on it, rip it off the wall, wipe my ass with it, and then forcibly jam in into his/her mouth. (Like I said, "former" teacher).

Secondly, is the ad it racist? Yes it is. As a slow white man, it offends me to the core of my whiteness. What, Intel, I need to install your Duo Processor thingy in my computer to have the work-speed of a cloned black sprinter, and thusly appease my khaki-panted boss? You know, sometimes, slow and steady wins the race. (Yeah, I know, the best marathoners are Kenyans. Shut up.) Plus, the black men's rippling musculature forces me to contemplate my own physical inadequacies. Fuck you, Intel.

Like I said, you should have skipped it.

Previously: Good Silly vs. Bad Silly