I love the Realpolitik of Advertising Age. I mean, where else can you publish a headline like this and be taken seriously:

NEW EFFORT TO GLAMORIZE CIGARETTES LAUNCHED, R.J. Reynolds Opens Tony Chicago Smoking Lounge

I've been a little irritated at Joey Greco lately. I think he's being sponsored by Alain Mikli, because he keep on wearing great glasses. He's treading on my style with that gray hair and those outrageous glasses. You know, the ones that Daniel Libeskind wears:

Shouldn't I be a bit concerned about this?

I mean, this guy's business is invasion of privacy. And he has my look. Maybe he is the anti-Chris. He has some great glasses:

Anyway, I've learned a lot from Joey Greco. For instance, this guy...

he's an idiot for being angry that his girlfriend was dating another girl.

And this guy...this is the type that is reproducing in this country. His kids are our future. That's why I don't care about global climate change.

Don't mess with a guy with cow heads in his truck and a cattle prod.

And finally, this seems like a great site to pick up women you could probably cheat on.

If you read this quote, who would you guess the speaker was?

...the fact is we desperately need consumers willing to spend every dime they make and then some on items such as $50,000 SUVs and million-dollar vacation homes. If Americans ever started saving money like those prudent Japanese consumers, countless industries besides our own would be on the ropes...

...So the key question is this: Will U.S. consumers continue to consume as they have in the past decade? Or will they--­horrors!--­get real and start living within their means? We may not think that we’ve bet the ranch on the answer. But we have, because, besides our jobs, the rising value of both of our homes depends on the outcome.

A) A man screaming on the streets of Berkeley.
B) Adbusters Magazine.
C) Peter Francese, a from PR hack firm Ogilvy & Mather.

The answer is C!

And the class analysis continues throughout the article:

Former Sen. John Edwards had it almost right when he said there are two Americas. There are actually multiple Americas. Among them are: the very wealthy, the moderately affluent, the diminishing middle class, the recent immigrants, the urban poor and others.

Yikes. That sounds like class warfare to me!

Join us for the Jack Abramoff Happy Hour and a screening of "Red Scorpion" Saturday night in Noe! I'm dressing as Tom DeLay.

but this is just not at all sexy.

This is how I imagine an 10 year old would dress up a woman to be racy.

Ever wanted to be an industry-side lobbyist? You can learn the basics right here on choof.org!

I've made the entry to your new career simple with this privacy industry deck of cards. These cards articulate all the arguments you need to make your case, without actually knowing anything. Master these arguments, and you too could be a high-paid lobbyist for almost any tech industry. Update: Ed Mierzwinski of US PIRG has suggested some additional cards based on his years of experience of listening to inane arguments.

Before you play, it helps to know some strategy. Keep these rules in mind:

• Delay almost always works to your advantage.
• Muddy the waters where possible.
• Exploit staffers' ignorance, where possible.
• "Poison the well." If there is any flaw in the opponent's argument; suggest the entire campaign is unwarranted.
• When hearing a consumer advocate's argument, deliberately misunderstand it and interpret it in the most absurd way possible
• Employ the vagueness fallacy; speak of glowingly of the importance of "trust."
• Denigrate Washington broadly, speak of "bureaucrats," etc.
• If someone calls your bluff (for instance, when you say something absurd like "this law will cause our business to leave the state," use your joker or other face card.
• If a lower-value card doesn't work at first, just keep on playing it over and over.

Now that you have some strategery, here are the cards:

Play this one initially: Claim that no problem even exists.

If the problem is apparent, deny that it causes harm:

If there is harm, dismiss it:

You might be able to deflect some criticism by blaming the problem (that doesn't exist, and even if it did, doesn't cause harm) on a contractor. Spyware vendors are master players of this card.

You can always claim that the barrel isn't rotten, so there's no reason to take action. Blame it on "bad apples." For some reason, people find this argument compelling.

If there is serious harm, play this card:

Go on the offensive and accuse the consumer groups of being do gooders:

If the industry is new, say that the proposal is unnecessary because of the industry's competitiveness. It doesn't matter whether the field really is competitive. People just like to hear that word.

If the industry isn't regulated:

If that doesn't work, create a bogus self-regulatory body to whitewash the problem:

If the industry is heavily regulated:

A sure way to prevent substantive consumer protection is to call for consumer education. Just look at the tobacco industry--they can spend billions promoting their products and wash their hands of the problem by sponsoring some educational advertising.

If the proposal touches on business practices or technology, say it will stifle innovation.

Even better--if your opponent is a nitwit, argue that technology can't be regulated. A related argument is: "Punish the bad actors, not the technology."

Argue that the proposal limits consumer choice. Mention that, after all, you are a consumer too.

It's time to invest a little bit of money in your campaign. Hire a professor to write something supporting your position that has enough of a patina of legitimacy to fool reporters. George Mason University, which is well positioned near Washington, is a great place to find crackpots who will support your case.

Argue that the proposal shows a lack of understanding of the industry:

(If you employ this card, don't volunteer any information about the industry.)

Threaten that the proposal will cause the industry to leave the state:

No one with a brain believes that argument, so you'll probably have to move on to a market posture argument. So, if there's a bear market, argue that the proposal is untimely because the economy is a "finely-tuned engine," and that Congress is at best an "inexperienced mechanic."

You know what to say if we're not in a bear market:

This late in the game, you probably have to admit that the harm alleged by the consumer advocates is legitimate. But now it's time to revisit the issue and argue that people like the harm. This argument is unverifiable and basically cannot be refuted, unless you have a polling company in your pocket. This argument is especially effective when you ascribe the desire to be harmed to a different generation or group of people. So for instance, you can say, "this product/practice is the future, and young consumers, they really like this..." In the Wal-Mart wars, industry lobbyists employ this argument by saying, "you elitists don't like Wal-Mart, but poor people like the low prices, and so you are harming the very people you're trying to help."

The other approach is simply to suggest that consumers don't know what they want. We know what they want! And they'll take it! And be happy!

If you still haven't killed whatever proposal is vexing you, it's time to break out the high value cards. Almost any proposal can be read to be some sort of due process violation. So make an appeal to business civil liberties and inflate your unlikely likelihood of litigation success:

Another popular one is to argue that the proposal will result in the government competing against the private sector. No one likes that, except for people who like things like public schools. So argue:

If you're working on the state level, tell the staffers that the issue is being addressed at the federal level:

If you're working on the federal level, you know what to say.

By now, it's time for the really big guns. Time to play the Joker: Give money to the leadership. That way, the proposal might not even get a vote.

As an industry lobbyist, you must stop the establishment of "private rights of action." This isn't hard, because everyone likes to deride plaintiff's attorneys. Be sure to mention that if there is a right to sue, it will result in meritless litigation.

Proposal will create a "patchwork" of compliance requirements.

Alternatively:

If you're feeling bold:

By now, things are getting desperate. It's time to retreat to the last (or first) refuge for cowards: patriotism. Be sure to deride Europe and talk about how it's impossible to do business there, whether or not you've even been there.

And the related card:

Proposal will cost jobs. Foretell gruesome effects.

If you know the law is about to pass, make sure that it has no substantive protections, and that all it gives is notice to individuals of business practices. You can go back and replay the 8 of Clubs (George Mason) and find an academic who will argue that all consumers need is notice of a particular practice, and then replay the 6 of Spades (market will remedy all problems). Amen.

On one hand, you want to preach the benefits of the free flow of information to consumers and the economy. On the other, you don't want information to be too free. For instance, what if a pesky legislator wants you to disclose information about security breaches? There is an importance balance here that you need to explain: information that benefits your company is good. Information that embarrasses your company is bad. And because there is so much bad information about your company, publication of it would overwhelm consumers and cause confusion.

Argue that the proposal will limit anti-fraud, law enforcement, or anti-terrorism efforts.

Finally, when nothing is left, you can always argue that the proposal will cause the industry to lose money:

The WSJ reports: Lenovo Replaces Its Chief Executive With Dell Official. Time to buy a Mac.

When you see the subtitle on an article "Institute of Medicine Document Likened to 1964 Surgeon General Tobacco Report," you know it means bad news for someone. In this case, it's big food and advertising. Check out today's Adage:

A government report today that accuses food marketers of using billions in marketing dollars to woo children away from good diet choices could become a watershed on the scale of the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on tobacco.

“Ample information and studies [indicate] that television advertising influences the food preferences, purchase requests and diets at least of children under 12 and is associated with the increased rates of obesity among children and youth,” concludes the National Academies of Science’s Institute of Medicine report, billed as the ”most comprehensive review of the scientific studies.”

Those San Francisco dog nuts have done it again. They've created a website defending pit bulls. They have all these cute pictures of dogs with signs saying, "we didn't do anything wrong," along with a threat that these wacks are going to vote against the democrats because of "breed-specific legislation." Can you believe it? Single-issue dog voters?

Ha! How's this?

This article says a lot about China and censorship.

Magazines are experiencing a renaissance in China, as more consumers with more disposable income turn to glossy monthlies for guidance on how to spend it -- and there's plenty of room for growth. In the U.S., magazines account for more than 10% of spending on advertising, while in China, home to the world's fastest-growing major advertising industry, they still account for just 2% to 3% of ad spending.

[...]

While Beijing controls all Chinese media, and the government has clamped down on foreign content on TV in recent months, the barriers for magazines, especially lifestyle titles, remain considerably lower.

New titles abound. In August, Advance Publications' Conde Nast teamed up with a government-affiliated partner to launch Vogue China...

The New York Times reports:

Lewis H. Lapham, the editor of Harper's Magazine for nearly 30 years, said yesterday that he would retire as editor in the spring.

It's official! It's Xmas shopping season, according to our friends at DMNews, a direct marketing trade publication:

NEW YORK -- Let the games begin. The holiday shopping season started in earnest this week for several multichannel merchants unveiling attention-grabbing strategies that in at least one case saw excited shoppers snatching nearly everything in sight.

But what's even better is that this year, shoppers have fulfilled the marketers' holiday dreams by working themselves into a frenzy:

Inside [clothing store H&M], the mood was more intense than at Abercrombie & Fitch, with frenzied shoppers grabbing handfuls of clothing off racks without looking at the size. Several people were walking around with armloads of clothing ... which explains why within two hours of opening the store, most of the stock was gone except for a few T-shirts, scarves and jewelry.

Via Drew Curtis' Fark.

Radaronline reports:

The camera pans to reveal his pants dragged down around his knees and a pink vibrator resting on the crest of his buttocks, lazily gyrating with an irritating whine. The mood is hardly erotic. The man on the screen looks like a hostage in one of those videos streaming out of war-ravaged Iraq: disheveled, sleep-deprived, disoriented, and, just maybe, fearing something on the order of an on-camera beheading. “My name is Joe Francis,” he says repeatedly in a damaged monotone, slurring his words in a continuous stream. “I’m from Boys Gone Wild, and I like it up the ass.”

The copy of this tape currently in the possession of the LAPD is the unlikely centerpiece of a trial that is set to begin next year ­ one that pits Francis, the 32-year-old multi-millionaire kingpin of the Girls Gone Wild video empire, against a small-time hustler who allegedly video-taped Francis in humiliating positions while holding him at gunpoint and later tried to blackmail his victim by threatening to release the tape.

Ha! I ran into Manson at the new Gottfried Helnwein show. We kicked it and talked about Rose.