<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for efficientcom</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/efficientcom/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/efficientcom/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:47:29 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Top Creative Minds in Digital</title><link>http://edit.adweek.com/node/135810#comment-339525197</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This isn't an affirmative action list. I'm guessing the major players are male. Sure, plenty of women are doing great work, but by the looks of things, not at the executive level. By the way, most of the work cited isn't even that good anyway. Call me jaded. Call me old school. But a wise man whose name rhymes with Smee Dow once said, most digital work is like TV was in the 50s. And much of it still is. Have any of you ever even bought anything from a banner ad? Who gives a bleep if Coke has a facebook page? Maybe I'm cynical but the ad industry hands out more awards to themselves than any other out there. What is anybody doing that is actually great? If I move my mouse over a page for 30 seconds then leave to go to the bathroom for a few minutes is that really success? When are people going to realize that some of the best opportunities for branding are online? Not retail-oriented sell, sell, sell. Most advertising is still intrusive because it's not any good. Btw, there are a lot more women in creative departments now and more men in media. I'm sure the digital space will show the same progress. But I digress, the only ones doing any good work is W+K. And that's because it's branding or brand advertising that happens to be for a product.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:47:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Chrysler&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;Born of Fire&amp;#039; Wins Emmy for Best Commercial</title><link>http://edit.adweek.com/node/134823#comment-339370480</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This ad deserved the Emmy. It was head and shoulders above the other nominees. The whole campaign is genius. And having Eminem wasn't crucial but it does reaffirm Detroit's coolness and pride in American auto manufacturing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:45:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Pres. Obama to Ed Henry: ‘I didn’t know you were the spokesman for Mitt Romney’ - TVNewser</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/pres-obama-to-ed-henry-i-didnt-know-you-were-the-spokesman-for-mitt-romney/93599#comment-334222961</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Mitt Romney makes the most sense as a candidate to endorse. He's the most successful of all of them. But it's too bad the GOP can't endorse someone with a differing theological view. In these dire economic times we need someone with the best economic experience. Our economy could use some magic underwear.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:51:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Gay Ads: Miller Lite</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/node/133076#comment-331025610</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That ad is the polar opposite of gay.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:54:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Advertising | Ads | Advertising Agencies | Campaigns | News: Adweek</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/ad-of-the-day/article_display.jsp?creativeId=274363#comment-153568386</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Choosing to Jim Beam will lead you to life as a manure shoveler.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:42:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Yahoo's Lip Service</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/creative/critique/e3ib36f6aee9fd639726cec729e8953df3c#comment-56967659</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Oh, no. that's "not too slick at all" It's a decent spot a little hyperbolic perhaps.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:53:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Advertising | Ads | Advertising Agencies | Campaigns | News: Adweek</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/ad-of-the-day/article_display.jsp?creativeId=270449#comment-49862833</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Like it. I used to have a sword in (replica) in my office. wonder if this is based on me. hmmm.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 02:52:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Creation of Super Bowl Spots a Whites-Only Affair</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3if2e371e23945e3cf8b21cd4a1a396622#comment-48622813</link><description>&lt;p&gt;might explain why there were two different spots with guys w/o pants.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 01:58:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why Taglines Are Keepers</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/community/columns/other-columns/e3if6cb56a5cc3a087dfebb6afa2d4aa007#comment-47623964</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Some think his hat is his tagline. Nee. But the man's got a point. With this digital age, there is less branding going on and more ads thrown about willy-nilly. As a writer and instructor, I can tell you tags elevate, codify and make the brand more memorable . By the way, I don't think anyone has figured out how to advertise on the internet yet. The only people clicking on banners are people in advertising and their clients. I've never heard of anyone buying anything through a banner click-through. Advertising people will eventually figure out the main purpose of the banner ad is branding. Without tags, banners aren't doing as much as they would otherwise. &lt;a href="http://www.dirkvandeman.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="www.dirkvandeman.com"&gt;www.dirkvandeman.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:59:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: ilovebacon.com - dumb but fun</title><link>http://www.ilovebacon.com/archive/033109/e.shtml#comment-45542050</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It pays to be nice.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:12:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Tiger, Who's Your Daddy?</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/creative/critique/e3i25d5a034c5bd6dc5c906e03c6740fc74?pn=2#comment-44469139</link><description>&lt;p&gt;there is no shortage of opinions on this spot or tiger. personally i dont' find it "grotesque". it will be a long time before people forget and forgive--one 30 second spot isn't going to do it, nor is a scripted response in front of a cyan curtain. the bottom line is it was a ballsy, well-produced, poignant, controversial ad that, like the scandal preceding, won't be forgotten any time soon. most of all, it offers something endearing people haven't really seen before from tiger--fallibility.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:15:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: We Hear: Lee Clow's Had Enough - mediabistro.com: AgencySpy</title><link>http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/tbwachiat_day/we_hear_lee_clows_had_enough_140721.asp#comment-20727937</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Lee Clow has done some great work but the coolest thing he EVER did was wear shorts to work everyday. The advertising world should take notice. The guy is really ahead of his time.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:24:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: MattAndAdam Awkwardly Welcome ECD Al Kelly - AgencySpy</title><link>http://www.adweek.com/agencyspy/mattandadam-awkwardly-welcome-ecd-al-kelly/4626#comment-10828160</link><description>&lt;p&gt;when i worked at chiat day, there were ass-kissers. it was pathetic. i remember seeing two guys about to meet with a cd to show some work. they were prepping--smiling obsequiously and getting ready to laugh at anything our boss would say. but my partner at the time, actually was the most pathetic of all. his fake laughter was unnerving. you could hear it echoing off the rafters from a nearby office. i really don't know how he was able to comb his hair because it must have been painful to look at himself in the mirror. but that's not what's happening here. These are A/V guys. and while i agree it could have been better. They were probably in need of a project and didn't know they would become the target of scorn from bitter adnazis. they don't deserve it. while it sucks that cds like brown-nosers. becasue many cds have had their egos shot full of holes so a little insincere smoochery can feel like cold vaseline on a roadrash. but if it makes you mad. and it clearly makes a lot of people mad. you may in fact be mad at yourself. because you've probably had to kiss some arse too. so let's end ass-kissing. don't let it happen to you. don't do it. report it here. if you know anyone who likes it let us know. And LET'S END ASS KISSING ONCE AND FOR ALL. SFX: APPLAUSE.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:02:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Complaint #350</title><link>http://whitewhine.tumblr.com/post/72039984#comment-7999538</link><description>&lt;p&gt;so many of the complaints on this website sound gay.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:05:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Complaint #393</title><link>http://whitewhine.tumblr.com/post/94152115#comment-7999548</link><description>&lt;p&gt;so many of these complaints sound like they're made by gay men.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:05:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Complaint #369</title><link>http://whitewhine.tumblr.com/post/81061114#comment-7999514</link><description>&lt;p&gt;make a wish. you cna't lose.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:01:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Complaint #376</title><link>http://whitewhine.tumblr.com/post/84869068#comment-7999475</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It ain't like the chord's not long enough. if it was on the right side, there would be more chord laying around. anyway, you should try using your mouse with your left hand for a while. It will prevent tightness in the trapezius and it also works the other side of the brain.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">efficientcom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:56:14 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>