Published on .

In the Bag?
Tazo Calm. Is the depiction of this particular herbal infusion making you all, like, mellow? Rate it on a six-degree taste scale of excellence on the Sweet Meter, with 5 being the top score: 5 Very Sweet, 4 Sweet, 3 Semi-Dry, 2 Dry, 1 Extra Dry, 0 Sour. And feel free to offer your comments on the photography, the art direction, the typography, the copy, the concept, the logo, the tagline, whatever. Click here to play.

One Lobe or Two?
Last week's Rate the Ad. This was a little experiment to see if we could find an ad that, while interesting on a variety of levels, would poll even lower than last summer's 1812 tequila debacle, the one with the female flasher. Rate the Ad veterans may recall this weighty albatross. (It's in the PDF as a point of reference.) Well, this brain drain came close, but no cigar. The Good/Bad ratio — comparing the top half of the Sweet Meter to the bottom half — bottomed out at 21/79, with a 65% in the lower tiers of the meter known as the Grimace Zone. The 1812 ad went 12/88, Grimacing to the tune of 79%. The Akademiks ad, of course, has booty going for it — arguably ill-posed, ill-shot and ill-styled — but we still have to consider the uplifting "booty effect," though there were plenty of complaints about this model's horrendous panties, not to mention her seemingly gigantic shoes. Moreover, the ad boasts a subversive street cred that few ads can match; as a handful of pollees knew, this Akademiks campaign was pulled from New York buses last year when the Metropolitan Transit Authority got a hot tip that "get brain" was sex code — alas, how far cogitation has fallen! But it can be argued that the campaign, at least in its transit iteration, is jeanius level marketing. What's more hip-hop than being too raunchy for the MTA when they thought they were running a literacy promotion? Anyway, here are the results.

5 Very Sweet 5%
4 Sweet 6%
3 Semi-Dry 10%
2 Dry 14%
1 Extra Dry 19%
0 Sour 46%

And here are some of our fave responses.

2 All those patches have to chafe, don't you think? Maybe that's why she's holding her butt out like that.

0 That is one nasty photo that has nothing to do with anything. Ewwww!

0 !!!! There are just no words for an ad this bad.

0 That's it. I'm officially an old fart who just doesn't get it anymore. Everything about this ad makes me wince, from concept to execution.

5 Young guys will get it but their mothers won't, and that's a good thing.

1 The girl's not that good-looking, whatever it says on her panties can't be read and it's a poor Photoshop effort.

0 Not only does this ad make me uncomfortable because the clothing is ugly, but please, God, don't make her give me brain.

5 A good message to kids on the street looking to get laid. It works.

0 Thank God for women's rights, or this woman would never have had the freedom to objectify herself and thus morally dehumanize the rest of us. And men: is this how you prefer to be marketed to? Like a drooling idiot who has no control over what he chooses to look at?

1 SEX . . . Now that we have your attention, we'd like to sell you some crap clothes made by kids in a Third World country, yet so hip-hoppity . . .

5 Very sweet in a double-meaning sort of way.

0 OK, who let Snoop Dogg wear the panties?

3 I've seen worse, but I think it would work better if the Akademiks type were spelled out cleaner on her rump. Looking at a dark brown, felt scripted logotype on someone's ass is weird.

0 I've been reading this for 10 minutes and I still don't get it.

0 They didn't even bother getting someone who can actually spell in Spanish, never mind a creative with an idea.

0 It's so bad on so many levels, I am, for once, speechless.

0 What was the budget for this ad, $10? Looks like it was shot and styled in a basement by someone with a girlfriend and two rented lights who found a Dumpster full of old books.

1 If I were teaching a course on advertising, this would go under the lesson "Sex Doesn't Always Sell."

0 I'm a woman who's offended by this ad, and I'm not a feminist-zealot ugly chick who berates any ad with a pretty girl in it.

0 I can almost see the attempts at humor in the books, the grammar and the horrible panty shot . . . but why?

4 This ad speaks to the heart of its 13-25 male (and female, I would guess) target. Which is to say — their crotches.

0 From top to bottom, every element in this ad sucks so bad, I'm at once deeply disturbed and spitting angry.

1 Glad to see the Bush Administration's No Child's Behind Left Behind program is working.

Most Popular