Hasta La Creative!

It's been a great year for women-empowering ads. Brands tackled everything from gender stereotypes (Pantene) to sexism (UN Women) to cultural repression (Tanishq), encouraged women to be kinder to themselves (Dove), got girls to celebrate their own strength (GoldieBlox, Mercy Academy), and even made a this-is-for-real ad about periods (HelloFlo).

Below, we've collected the seven most popular campaigns of the year. Popular doesn't necessarily mean universally loved; none of the work was received without some backlash or criticism. You can vote for your favorite with a tweet. Not seeing your favorite? Let us know in the comments.

UPDATE: The runaway winner is Mercy Academy. Congratulations!

"Perfume," the newest single off Britney Spears' latest album, Britney Jean, is ostensibly about a weird love triangle. But what it really seems to be about is selling the singer's fragrance line.

Fantasy—Britney's best-selling perfume—is heavily featured here (it also has a cameo appearance in her song "Work, Bitch"), with Britney playing the "other woman" and singing, "While I wait I put on my perfume / yeah I want it all over you / I gotta mark my territory."

Scenes of Britney spraying herself with Fantasy run throughout the video, inspiring teenagers everywhere to overload the olfactory senses of everyone who passes them in the mall. So was the song written specifically to market her line? I'd guess so, especially since—and I say this as a 1997 BritBrit fan—the lyrics are just awful. Via Mashable.

Every once in a while, giving a foul-tempered customer a public skewering can be good for business. At least that seems to be the lesson of Liberty Bottleworks, whose polite but eviscerating reply to a Facebook complaint has gone viral and generated vocal support for the small business. 

Although the original conversation has since been removed from the Washington-based company's Facebook page, a screenshot that's been widely passed around online shows a customer berating the business for botching her order and not responding to her calls. In a lengthy and detailed reply, co-founder Ryan Clark (seen at left in the photo above) described how the customer had actually been harassing his employees and ignoring Liberty's attempts to reach out.

Since the screenshot was posted to Reddit this week by a former employee, the Liberty Bottleworks Facebook page, phone number and website have been flooded with supporters who appreciate the company's "family first, product second" philosophy.

"Wow people, thank you again for the support – we are so thankful," the business posted Thursday on Facebook. "We want to reiterate to you all, the call volume, and visitation to our website are massive right now—more than we've ever seen obviously." Via NWCN.

You have to hand it to Kmart and Draftfcb. They've shown this whole year that they know how to whip up a good viral commercial. We had "Ship My Pants" in April and then "Show Your Joe" (aka, "Jingle Balls") in November. Now, they head back to the well with this humorously Dickensian reimagining of "Ship My Pants" just in time for Christmas. You can hear all the other retailers grumbling "Bah, humbug." Well played. Via Disco Chicken.

Credits below.

CREDITS
Client: Kmart
Vice President, Creative: Mark Andeer
Director of Kmart Marketing Strategy: Brandi Ply
Director of Advertising: Beverly Mason
Agency: Draftfcb, Chicago
Chief Creative Officer: Todd Tilford
Executive Vice President, Executive Creative Director: Jon Flannery
Senior Vice President, Creative Director: Howie Ronay
Vice President, Creative Director: Sean Burns
Creative Director, Copywriter: Tim Mason
Associate Creative Director, Art Director: Myra Mazzei
Executive Producer: Chris Bing
Director: Zach Math
Editorial: Casey Cobler

Just in case you thought the San Francisco Batkid story couldn't get any cuter, a mysterious billboard near the Bay Bridge is thanking the miniature hero, better known as 5-year-old leukemia patient Miles Scott, for keeping the city safe. Whoever paid for this thing employed some Bruce Wayne-level secrecy, because it surprised the Make-A-Wish Foundation—who helped turn San Francisco into Gotham City for young Miles—as much as everyone else. Batkid has turned into quite the donations magnet for Make-A-Wish, which is great and all, but gestures like this sign also offer a lot of value by keeping this story fresh in people's minds. 

In an era of "personal brands," there's one man who clearly needs his own style guide and appropriate-use policies: Santa Claus. Stepping in to fill the gap is British agency Quietroom, which has created a Santa Brand Book that would make any festive account planner swoon. 

Er, sorry, that should be the *Santa* Brand Book. The first asterisk "reminds customers of a snowflake alighting on the eyelash of a fawn," while the closing asterisk "points customers to the polar star, and hence the birth of dreams."

Delightfully overthought and packed with subtle humor keyed to those who've had to delve through such dreck for real consumer brands, the *Santa* Brand Book educates you on how to "live the brand" (Snap it, clap it, wrap it), which pantone of white to use, and why we do not refer to him as Father Christmas (because it anagrams to "The Rich Mr. Fat-Ass").

Hat tip to @Cloudspark.

For Instagram users like myself, today is a day of mixed blessings. Thanks to new features announced this morning, we can finally have private conversations in the app, but Instagram is also adding the ability for anyone to send you private photos. Anyone. 

Like Facebook, Instagram Direct essentially routes private messages (which must include photos or videos) into two folders: One for people you're following and one for "Pending Requests" from people you're not following. And like Facebook's "Other" inbox, a horrifying den of iniquity in which angels fear to tread, the Pending Requests folder seems almost destined to become awash in spam and penis-sharing creepers.

Or as my writer friend Curtis Silver described it:

Instagram direct! Dick pics with filters!

— Curtis Silver (@cebsilver) December 12, 2013

A few other observations from Twitter after today's announcement:

I foresee Instagram Direct being filled with spam and brands advertising directly.— Tejash Patel (@tejashpatel_) December 12, 2013

Instagram Direct ey? I have a feeling there will be a lot of strippers & "models" getn spammed w/ inappropriate pics of guys genitals. Lol— the Perceptive (@Arteest1) December 12, 2013

Instagram Nudes Are Here #instagramdirect

— ?LegendaryArt? (@LegendaryDEV) December 12, 2013

Instagram just made sending nudes 10x easier.

— Guala (@Ohmypreciosa_) December 12, 2013

Sure, spam and perverts can already be found in droves on Instagram, but their ability to really bother users has essentially been limited to posting comments on your images. Now they'll be able to send you images directly, and if they limit their prurient activity to private messages, they might be harder for Instagram to find and purge.

Here's the extent of what Instagram has shared so far on this issue in its initial FAQ about Instagram Direct:

Can I use Instagram Direct to send posts to people I’m not following?

Yes, you can send a photo or video to anyone when you use Instagram Direct. If you send a post to someone who doesn’t follow you, your post will go to their requests queue. If someone accepts your request, your post will go to their direct posts the next time you share directly with them. Posts that stay in the requests queue may become unavailable.

How do I report a post that was sent to me or block someone from sending posts to me?

You can report abusive posts that are sent to you. If you don't want someone to send a post to you, you can ignore their post in your direct posts by tapping x or you can block that person.

Key safety tips for Instagram Direct

Ignore people you don’t want to hear from. If you want to ignore all messages from someone you follow, you can always tap the ". . ." in your direct posts  and select the option to Ignore All from that person.

Block people that bother you. If someone bothers you through messages or anywhere else on Instagram, use our blocking function so that that person can't view your photos/videos or search for your Instagram account. People aren't notified when you block them.

Report problematic content. You can report content that may be in violation of our policies directly from Instagram app, with our built-in reporting feature.

So obviously Instagram is prepared for an influx of unsavory messages, but it still seems the service is missing an option for those who don't want to be subjected to requests from any random person or bot. Or at the very least, the service could separate the "friend request" aspect from the image sharing itself, allowing you to scan your Pending Requests inbox in a public place without fear of your screen being filled with snapshots of "single ladies" and some dude's junk. UPDATE: The "Pending" queue only shows you a thumbnail of the user's profile photo, not of the photo he or she is trying to send you. So, for better or worse, you won't see what content the person is trying to send you until you accept their messages. You'll also see the user's Instagram ID and full name, which hopefully will give you enough context to decide whether to allow them into your inbox. In the Pending list, you can click a green check to allow direct messages from the user or click a red X to decline. 

Once you allow messages from a user, you can later choose to "hide" their message, block the user, "ignore all posts from this user" or "report inappropriate." Here's a screenshot of your reporting options for inappropriate content:

For more details, be sure to check out Adweek's coverage of the Instagram Direct's features and the brand's video announcement below:

As if the yuletide media landscape weren't already littered with enough novelty fare, five famous Internet kitties—Grumpy Cat, Colonel Meow, Nala Cat, Oskar the Blind Cat and Hamilton the Hipster—join forces for a Friskies music video called "It's Hard to Be a Cat at Christmas."

I'm not convinced the sentiment is true, since during the holidays, most cats act just like they do the rest of the year; lying around, licking themselves and spitting up on the furniture (while their eggnog-and-fruitcake-gorged human masters behave the same way.) Still, the catty cuteness on display here supports a good cause, as Friskies is donating a can of wet food to a shelter or rescue group for each view up to 500,000, and the clip's already passed 300,000 in its first two days.

As for the cats, the Colonel steals it, looking grumpiest of all amid the tinsel and trimmings, poised to cancel all three-day passes for the holidays. Hey, keep those fur-ball-puking freaks away from the tree! Look out! Damn, there it goes, right into the fireplace. 

When some people say #brandsonly, they mean it quite literally. This week, SocialMedia.org has been hosting a Brands-Only Summit, and while a vendor-free environment can certainly sound appealing, it can also create a bit of awkardness when enforced on non-attendees trying to participate on Twitter.

Case in point: Here's a tweet from Whole Foods senior social media program manager Ryan Amirault:

How many sales guys are going to mooch off of the #BrandsOnly hashtag? Lots.— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 8, 2013

Shortly after, social media management service Sprinklr made the mistake of responding to one of Amirault's tweets from a #brandsonly session, and the company included a link to one of its recent blog posts:

@RyanAmirault Focus on good ideas, the rest will work itself out #brandsonly #content http://t.co/Ik39Thvwq3— Sprinklr (@Sprinklr) December 10, 2013

Amirault told Sprinklr to cut it out:

@Sprinklr #brandsonly, please don’t mooch the hashtag.— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 10, 2013

Sprinklr responded, noting that it actually had employees at the event:

@RyanAmirault Not trying to mooch Ryan, just trying to share. We are actually at Brands Only as well. Hope you're enjoying!

— Sprinklr (@Sprinklr) December 10, 2013

But Amirault still felt the vendor's tweet was out of line:

@Sprinklr nope, you are mooching. Cut it out.— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 10, 2013

So I asked Amirault whether he felt the hashtag should be limited solely to non-vendors attending the conference:

@RyanAmirault So in your opinion, who should be allowed to use the #brandsonly hashtag without it coming across as mooching? Attendees only?— David Griner (@griner) December 11, 2013

Here's the conversation that followed:

@griner yes, attendees for sure & I find it uncomfortable to have vendors use it as a sales tactic. (1/2)— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 11, 2013

@griner many vendors even bought twitter ads around the hashtag, which I find to be in bad taste. (2/2)— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 11, 2013

@RyanAmirault The idea of an attendee-only hashtag seems somewhat antisocial, though. Shouldn't others feel comfortable responding?— David Griner (@griner) December 11, 2013

@griner sure, but my point is that using it as a sales tactic is not cool. Folks here are already bombarded with sales pitches enough.— Ryan Amirault (@RyanAmirault) December 11, 2013

Interestingly, AMC Theatres' socially savvy loyalty marketing manager, Shane Adams, also weighed in at this point, taking a bit more of an accommodating stance on outsiders' tweets:

@griner The theme of the conference is brands only because http://t.co/OxMpoeZyWA is a brands only organization. However, by using a public— Shane Adams (@shaneadams) December 11, 2013

@griner …hashtag, they are still giving the option to participate. Don’t think the point is to allow only brands to contribute to the convo.— Shane Adams (@shaneadams) December 11, 2013

As someone who has attended a lot of conferences and seen how aggressive or just annoying vendors can get with consumer brands, I understand why there would be some tension on this issue. And I understand why a "brands only" event would have some appeal.

But the conversations coming out of this week's #brandsonly conference raise several issues that are probably worth debating:

• How do we define a brand these days? Is it a company that only targets consumers? If so, why are so many of the Brands-Only Summit attendees from b-to-b services like staffing company Adecco, IT hardware provider EMC and aerospace firm BAE Systems?
• Brand marketers spend every day of their professional lives trying to get sales messages in front of potential customers, so is it hypocritical to get upset when vendors do the same?
• What is the point of an event hashtag, anyway? Is it primarily to help attendees better engage with the content and their fellow audience members? Or is it a way to propagate speakers' information to a larger crowd that couldn't or normally wouldn't attend?
• Where do agencies fit in this mix? They're vendors, certainly, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a content-creating powerhouse like 360i wouldn't bring a lot to the table at these events.

On that last note, at least the agency types appreciate they haven't been perma-banned from listening in:

Learning a lot of #brandsonly secrets from the tweets I'm seeing. Luckily, they forgot to ban agency folk from the hashtag.— Michael Kasberg (@ksbrg) December 10, 2013

The fair-use fight between Beastie Boys and GoldieBlox isn't over.

After sparring several weeks ago over the unauthorized use of the Beasties song "Girls" in a GoldieBlox commercial that went viral, the toy company deleted the video and uploaded a new version with a different track (see below). But that did not satisfy the band, which has now countersued, demanding that GoldieBlox hand over profits it earned from using the song without permission, reports Gigaom. The Beasties also seek damages, lawyers' fees and an injunction preventing GoldieBlox from using the song in the future.

The suit claims GoldieBlox is liable for copyright and trademark infringement and sets the stage for a judge to decide whether or not the company's parody of "Girls," with different lyrics, constituted fair use—as GoldieBlox contended in its earlier, preemptive suit against the band. Also interesting: The band says it first heard about the GoldieBlox ad when an ad agency that was submitting the spot to Intuit's "Small Business Big Game" Super Bowl contest (in which GoldieBlox is a finalist) inquired with Universal Music Publishing Group about whether GoldieBlox had secured the rights. (They would have heard about it eventually, of course.)

So, it seems likely that we'll get a decision on the fair use question after all.