Hasta La Creative!

Are you addicted to the Big Mac, or can you stop anytime you want? Whatever your emotional issues with the burger, McDonald's is distancing itself from the mental-health parody ad above, which appeared on Boston's mass transit this month. (The 800 number on the ad is a McDonald's corporate line.) In a statement to Time magazine, Nicole DiNoia, a McDonald's rep for the Boston area, says the ad was "not approved by McDonald's" and that "we asked that it be taken down immediately." She adds: "We have an approval process in place with our marketing and advertising agencies to ensure that all advertising content is consistent with our brand values. Regrettably, in this incident, that process was not followed. We sincerely apologize for this error." Sounds like maybe a local agency rolled out the work without proper approval? We left a message with DiNoia—hopefully she can clarify. The ad was part of a series—another showed two corporate drones high-fiving just thinking about a Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Mental health is a particularly touchy subject for marketers, as last year's 7-Eleven fiasco reminded us. Photo via.

UPDATE: Arnold in Boston created the ad. McDonald's sent us the following statement, which is attributed to Arnold president Pam Hamlin: "Arnold apologizes for its mistake to McDonald's and to anyone who was offended by the ad. McDonald's did not approve the ad, and its release was our unintended error. We've addressed the issue and have improved our approval process to ensure this does not happen in the future."

Now that Tiger Woods has regained the top ranking on the pro golf tour, Nike is celebrating its star endorser's comeback with an online ad emblazoned with one of Woods's favorite soundbites, "Winning takes care of everything," along with the word "Victory" next to the company's swoosh logo. The ad has stoked the flames of controversy in social media, with some claiming it sends a bad message in light of Woods's marital infidelities that surfaced a few years back, costing him some endorsement deals, tarnishing his image and threatening to derail his career—not to mention crushing the marriage in question.

There are hundreds of press reports about the ad and countless tweets and comments, all manner of Internet chatter, folks expressing opinions pro and con. Much of the coverage has focused on what impact the ad will have on Nike's brand. That's a fair question, but as anyone who's followed marketing for more than 10 minutes should realize, it's answered almost as soon as it's asked. This is a blip that quickly stirs passions but has no lasting effect. By next week it will be all but forgotten. Nike and Tiger will carry on. (They been here before, of course, when Nike released that rather peculiar Tiger ad following the scandal.)

In a larger and more intriguing sense, the story is a microcosm of the state and price of fame in the digital media landscape. If you start winning in the public eye and achieve some notoriety, you'd better take care and be on your guard about everything, because legions are eagerly watching and waiting and we'll pounce at the slightest provocation. This says a lot less about Woods, Lance Armstrong or other tarnished icons than it does about the rest of us, who live vicariously to varying degrees through such "heroes and villains." Most of us will never experience the life-changing thrill ride of winning and losing on a grand scale, because for whatever reason, we can't commit our whole beings to daunting tasks, athletic or otherwise, and fight through the pain, injury and public pressure to victory. Hell, most of us will never truly win or lose at anything.

So, we cheer on Woods, Armstrong and the rest when they triumph, and weep at their defeats. We damn them when they fall from grace and welcome them back with accolades and big-bucks sponsorships when they've reformed enough for our liking.

In this way, such imbalanced relationships become symbiotic and reciprocal. Tiger and Lance play out high-def dramas with, at times, their careers and livelihoods on the line. We play along on our sofas, remotes in hand, flipping among our thousand channels. Social media intensifies and personalizes the experience. We become actors in their story—mostly in our own minds, of course, but in increasingly more palpable ways than ever before—as commentators and commenters, bloggers, tweeters and pinners. Our input flickers across PC desktops and smartphone screens, shared in real time with thousands, maybe millions, all eager to feel more deeply and understand—if only briefly, and through the exploits of others—what words like winning and everything really mean.

Amazon has taken some heat for offering T-shirts with extremely offensive, upsetting slogans—"Keep calm and rape a lot," "Keep calm and grope a lot," "Keep calm and knife her"—from a merchant called, appropriately enough, Solid Gold Bomb. The T-shirt maker apologized profusely and deleted the shirts, claiming the phrases were automatically generated by a computer script from thousands of dictionary words. It's tough to fathom how language referring to raping and groping could find its way via algorithm onto $20 T-shirts playing off England's "Keep calm and carry on" World War II mantra. Yet I doubt the company would try such a boneheaded stunt for publicity. (After this fracas, it might not survive.) Most media coverage has portrayed the episode as a complex, cautionary tale of technology gone awry, pointing out the need for greater human oversight in our age of cost- and labor-saving automation. Fair enough. It's not like the machines could comprehend such phrases. But if they could, it would mean only one of two things: it's their idea of a sick joke, or they're taunting us about the rapey, knifey tech-mageddon to come.

Teenage pregnancy is on the rise. Wait, no it's not! Teen birth rates were at an all-time low in the U.S. in 2011, according to CBS News. And according to New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the city's teen pregnancy rate dropped by 27 percent in the last 10 years. Nevertheless, we have some provocative new ads from NYC's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Campaign combatting the babies-having-babies epidemic. The campaign, which began running across town in subways and bus shelters this week, features adorable kids who are victims—just by being born—of their horrible, unthinking teen parents. One features a kid saying, "Got a good job? I cost thousands of dollars each year." Another, arguably the most most controversial, features a crying baby boy with text that reads, "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen." The ads have provoked a war of words between the mayor's office and Planned Parenthood of New York City, which has denounced the posters, claiming they ignore the racial, economic and social factors that contribute to teenage pregnancy and stigmatize teen parents and their children. But the message to teens is certainly clear: Don't want a weepy, resentful baby on your hands? Don't get pregnant. More ads below. Top image via.

A New York photographer claims that DKNY is using hundreds of his photos in international store displays without his permission. Brandon Stanton, creator of the Humans of New York photo project, says DKNY offered him $15,000 to use 300 of his photos in store windows around the world. He says he asked for more money, but the brand declined. "Today, a fan sent me a photo from a DKNY store in Bangkok," Stanton writes in a blog post and on the Humans of New York Facebook page. "The window is full of my photos. These photos were used without my knowledge, and without compensation." He asked readers to reblog or share his story if they support his idea of DKNY donating $100,000 on his behalf to the YMCA in New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. AdFreak reached out to DKNY for comment, but we haven't heard back yet. Within two hours of being posted on Facebook, Stanton's post racked up more than 16,500 likes and 18,000 shares. Quite a few of the Facebook commenters are skeptical of Stanton's version of events, but most are overwhelmingly supportive of him. Meanwhile, DKNY's Facebook page is being deluged with comments such as "SHAMEFUL!" and "Make it right, DKNY." We'll have an update when we hear back from the brand.

UPDATE: DKNY has responded, saying it was an isolated error at the Bangkok store, and promising to donate $25,000 to the Bed-Stuy YMCA. Full statement below.

Since its founding in 1989, DKNY has been inspired by and incorporated authentic New York into its imagery. For our Spring 2013 store window visuals we decided to celebrate the city that is in our name by showcasing "Only in NYC" images. We have immense respect for Brandon Stanton aka Humans of New York and approached him to work with us on this visual program. He declined to participate in the project.

For the Spring 2013 windows program, we licensed and paid for photos from established photography service providers. However, it appears that inadvertently the store in Bangkok used an internal mock up containing some of Mr. Stanton's images that was intended to merely show the direction of the spring visual program. We apologize for this error and are working to ensure that only the approved artwork is used.

DKNY has always supported the arts and we deeply regret this mistake. Accordingly, we are making a charitable donation of $25,000 to the YMCA in Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn in Mr. Stanton's name.

Advertising Agency: Adrenalin Communications, Riyadh Associate Creative Director: Paul Labban Art Director: Nasser Hulleza Copy Writer: Georges Maalouf Via [mediaME]

Life just keeps getting weirder and weirder. One day, boobs are good; the next, they’re banned in Britain on billboards for their portrayal of headlamps. Britain is the last place you would think the girls would be put away. Britain is (in)famous for its portrayal of plunging-cleavage shots on TV shows such as “Benny Hill” and “Ab Fab” (”Absolutely Fabulous”), but is also the same country that  publishes topless women weekly in newspapers, notably,  The Sun’s “Page 3 Girls,” and  the  Daily Star’s “Babes”

While both of the papers are entertainment and celebrity gossip-type tabloids, they’re given huge amounts of leeway with topless models. However, other nude or semi-nude ads seem to spark controversy: Last month,  American Apparel ran a print ad that took readers through unzipping a Flex Fleece Hoodie. The model eventually gets to point where a portion of her nipple is exposed. The ad ran in Vice Magazine, caused public outcry, and was banned subsequently.

Whether right or wrong (and I have no stance on British standards in advertising), the only difference I detect between the topless shots in the papers versus the questionable billboard is that the billboard is free while the papers require payment or subscription.

What’s all the hoopla about with this billboard campaign? It’s not any more or less, racy than a Victoria’s Secret ad or outdoor display.

Understandably, there are regulations to ensure no young minds are corrupted by breasts and marketers’ efforts to use breasts to sell stuff, and we’re well aware of the fact that sexually based ads and campaigns sell. This leads to the dilemma of morality and advertising, which is way too big to cover here.

However, my question is this: Whether used to sell headlamps in Britain or promote men’s awareness of breast cancer in North America, is it a fair advertising practice to approve or deny an ad based on the intent of the advertiser?

Rethink Breast Cancer’s spot, “Save the Boobs,” (below) follows a voluptuous woman in a bikini as she bounces her way through a swimming area.

Does this commercial merit approval based on the fact it supports a cause that could save a life, whereas the banned billboards are for headlights? Not using your headlights while driving could kill you, so don’t headlights save lives, too?

I would argue that if society’s intent is save the youth from corruption, both ads should be banned.

Here is where it gets weird: The headlight ad seems to succeed in purpose where the breast cancer spot fails. Why? Inciting controversy was the whole idea behind the cancer spot; stir people up, get them to react, get the spot on the news, and thereby raise awareness. Besides receiving accolades as being a great PSA by every 16-year-old with an Internet connection, it made but a ripple. The billboard got banned. Go figure.

Jeff Louis has ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing and his strong suit is sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.

Zeid Nasser, Founder of AdBlgArabia and mediaME, at Cannes Lions 2009

Entrance into Cannes Lions 2009 Exhibition & Shortlists Gallery area

Cannes Lions T-shirts for sale

Scenes from an Award ceremony

More scenes from Award show

Awards Show Ends

And that’s when I get my chance to get onto this impressive stage

People streaming out of Awards hall after the show

Some winners with their “Lions” posing on the red carpet

Global warming melts the ice caps, in Cannes!

Bob Geldof speaks at launch of Kofi Anan’s “Tck Tck Tck” campaign

Maurice Levy of Publicis speaks to Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google

Scenes from one of the Workshop/Seminars held in a casual setting

The Press Room at Cannes Lions. Free Internet & Coffee for press!

The Microsoft Advertising lounge. Free Internet for all, no coffee

The Young Lions Competition area

Stunning interactive ‘touch & drag’ screen featuring the Cannes programme

Tags: mediaME at Cannes, Lions 2009

Agency: FP7 Dubai

Agency: FP7, Dubai