Coke Calls Foul on Blowjob Ad for Sprite

As pointed out by Gawker, there is now a somewhat rich history of so-called “spec” ads that get released online and quickly disowned by whatever product was being shilled in such an unspeakable manner:

A spec ad—at least the ones you hear about—is basically an unofficial ad that will never get officially sanctioned by the brand represented. Often because of too much sexiness! For example, that JC Penney pro-teen sex ad that caused such a ruckus last year, on the blogs, turned out to be a spec ad. Ad people make spec ads for many reasons: to audition their work in hopes of winning an account, for ad competitions, or just because they are bored and horny.

The most recent example of this trend is a spec ad for Sprite featuring a popular sexual act.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the spec ad was very popular and was generating plenty of views and mentions online.  While somewhat inappropriate, it certainly did a good job selling the product.

I’d love to show you the ad but Coca Cola Company, in their great wisdom, had the spot pulled from YouTube for violating copyright on the Sprite logo.

Who cares if the ad was popular are likely to put the word “Sprite” back in the minds of many a horny teen?

This approach of squashing what amounts to free publicity in the form of true fan dedication baffles me and makes it clear that old business models and practices have completely failed to take advantage of the opportunities presented in the digital age.

Five Bucks a Month for New York Times Online? Yeah, Right.

Lot’s of people are talking about a New York Time’s survey asking if folks would pay $5/month for full online access to the “paper.”

Gawker thinks its a great and necessary idea while Business Insider says they should charge more.

They’re both wrong.  Here’s why:

1) If the NYT erects a pay wall bloggers will be far less likely to link to them and their own readers will be less likely to share links. This is the life-blood on the online world and without it no site can survive.

2) There is FAR too little original content to convince readers to pay the New York Times for news that is widely reported by, well, everyone else.  Unless every single news reporting site agreed to similar pay walls (not gonna happen) the New York Times simple places itself in a barren desert with nary a reader in sight.

There are more minor reasons this would fail, but those are the big two.

Oh, and in response to Business Insiders comment that:

Kindle pricing also forces the question: If Times stories without video, without interactivity, without color — and without all the other stuff at nytimes.com — are worth $14 a month on the Kindle, why in the world is the web site only worth $5?

Except, how many Kindle owners are actually subscribing to the NYT via their Kindle?  Even if a good number are doing so, Kindle owners are by definition affluent and so what’s another few bucks.