After Six.

Somebody give LeBron James an Academy Award.

If you were wondering why Nike is paying LeBron $90 million to be a spokesperson, this piece of comedic gold below explains it all:

That’s advertising genius. Wonderfully written, amazingly delivered, and the message is strong. Oh, and Nicole Scherzinger is a stunner.

I don’t even wear basketball shoes, and I want to buy a pair of Nikes now. I say, $90 million well spent.

“That’s genuine leather right there baby.”

Bubble-gum pop.

“Double your pleasure, double your fun.”

Some of us may know that as the words from the old Doublemint ads from a few years ago. Others might know it as a lyric from Chris Brown’s hit single Forever.

Coincidence? Nope.

Turns out Wrigley commissioned Chris Brown and producer Polow da Don to create a new take on the famous gum jingle to be released as part of a new marketing campaign to be launched this week. Brown just took it one step further and added his own lyrics to make the song a viable pop single.

Needless to say, some people are upset.

I think it’s a brilliant business move.

Let’s face it: Chris Brown’s track was never supposed to be anything but bubble-gum pop (yeah, totally nailed that metaphor there). The lyrics — even apart from the Doublemint nod — were weak at best, and it wasn’t as if Brown was trying to create a song that would change the world. Instead, it’s a track that gets your feet moving and makes you want to dance — nothing more.

Why the uproar with the fact that it was originally a Wrigley ad then? It’s not as if Brown released the actual Wrigley ad on his album; he re-wrote the majority of the lyrics and used a beat that is undoubtedly extremely catchy. He’s not pretending otherwise.

Some music is created not to have a message, not to be provocative, and not to make you think. Some music was made just to make you dance.

Chris Brown’s Forever does just that. Why hold it to some standard of moral quality it doesn’t aspire to?

Ad networks: the new cool kid clique?

I’ve played with advertising on Eloquation and Squandrous in the past. While all my advertising experiments have been a relative success when it comes to making money, I really didn’t feel as though the Google Ads (or even the few ads bought directly) did much to enhance the experience on my site.

My rationale to get rid of advertising was based on the fact that the money I gained from advertising wasn’t worth the time and energy I put in and impact they had on my sites.

The real reason I don’t have advertising on my site? I’m not cool enough.

Ad networks are becoming new status symbols on the web. All the cool kids are part of some network, and those sites wear their ads like badges of honor instead of an attempt to make some money.

Tight Network

I came to the realization that ad networks are the new cool kid cliques after reading a post on Jonathan Snook’s blog where he introduced SidebarAds. SidebarAds, like The Deck, is a closed, invite-only network of sites that provide advertisers a targeted and engaged audience.

The advantages to the publisher are obvious, and the monetary advantages to the publisher are clear as well. The hidden advantage, however, is the prestige that comes from being part of an elite club. Slapping an ad on your site that is “Via The Deck” or “by SidebarAds” means that your site holds a certain value, a cachet, that is not only prized by advertisers, but also fits in to the ethos of the network — a type of badge of honor, let’s say.

As much as I love the money I’ve made from them, Google Ads serve as the exact opposite indicator. While the elite ad networks serve as markers of distinction rather than cash-grabs, Google Ads seem to say, “I need to make a few quick bucks from this site. Please click on these ads as much as possible.”

Larger Reach

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying everyone needs to be part of a network and stop using Google Ads. Everyone should use the tool best suited for their needs.

I’m definitely not complaining about the existence of ad networks like The Deck or SidebarAds. I think they’re genius, actually.

What I would like to see is more of these niche advertising networks that are as well executed and tastefully implemented as The Deck and SidebarAds (and are invite-only), but reach different niches than the tech-savvy crowd. Bigger blog networks (where people can apply to become members) like BlogHer and Federated Media are great for making money and still holding some cultural cachet, but I feel that there’s more room in the market (but only a little, nobody wants market over-saturation) for the smaller, elite networks that are prestige badges as well as revenue streams.

After all, everyone likes being a part of the cool kid clique. Making some cash on the side is just a bonus.

Is Victoria’s Secret too sexy?

The old adage of “sex sells” is impossible to refute. So when Victoria’s Secret CEO Sharen Turney started blaming poor sales figures on being “too sexy,” I was a bit taken aback, a bit stunned.

But she may have a point.

I was tipped off to Turney’s comments on a recent post by Melissa Shum on her excellent blog Just Cuz I’m A Girl:

Interestingly enough though, CEO Sharen Turney has not blamed this issue on the outrageous gas prices or the plummeting economy. Instead she claims that the Victoria’s Secret brand has lost touch with it’s sophistication and femininity by being “too young” and “too sexy”.

While it may seem ludicrous at first to associate lingerie store woes with oversexiness, Turney may have a point.

I have spoken to many women, young and old, who feel intimidated to enter Victoria’s Secret because they don’t feel as though they fit the image that the company has crafted in the past few years. While in the past, Victoria’s Secret’s products have been known as dependable, sophisticated, well-made, and sexy, the present focus on solely ‘sexy’ may alienate some customers looking for affordable yet alluring lingerie.

It’s not only the women I spoke to who feel that the store has gone “too sexy”: surprisingly, most of the men I spoke to share the same sentiment. While Victoria’s Secret may have started as a store where men could feel comfortable purchasing lingerie for their wives, men entering the store now are looked upon as fixated on the Victoria’s Secret Angels (a stigma brought on by the sexiness of the marketing of the brand) rather than looking for quality underwear and sleepwear for their partners.

I’m not saying that Victoria’s Secret needs to stop advertising its products as sexy — after all, sexiness is pretty inherent to the concept of lingerie these days — but I am saying that they need to re-evaluate their message among their core customers. Women I have spoken to shop at the store for quality and sophistication, as well as attractiveness. Men may love the sultry advertising, but when it comes to purchasing lingerie, most of the men I spoke to look for simplicity and ease of purchase.

Victoria’s Secret has done a great job in convincing us that it can bring sexy back, but still hasn’t proven to me that it can bring utility along with its sensuality. There are ways to combine practical messaging with tantalizing advertising. Like Melissa says, perhaps it is “time for a revamp in the Victoria’s Secret marketing department.”