Not to criticize Time two weeks in a row, but COME ON. Why are you letting Shell advertise on pages adjacent to stories about the oil spill? The ads are huge, and there’s more than one style of them (keep reloading). Totally not ethical in light of the spill. Look, this whole situation is awful all around – don’t get us wrong – but this kind of schadenfreude advertising isn’t helping anyone. Least of all Shell, who just a few weeks ago was on the hot seat for after an Amnesty International anti-Shell ad was pulled from an issue of the Financial Times. Bad form, Shell. source
$48
milliondecrease in AOL’s profit
between this quarter and the
same quarter a year ago
4.6
millionnumber of people who STILL subscribe to AOL’s legacy service after all these years source
» Why the cruddy profits? It’s worth keeping in mind that AOL is a different company than it was a year ago. The company, fresh after leaving the disastrous merger with Time Warner which hurt both companies, is in the midst of making a big push into content, away from its core subscription business. (Disclosure: We freelance for AOL News occasionally.) Even considering that, their profit picture is significantly lower than expected – instead of the analyst-expected 70 cents per share, they could only muster 39 cents per share. Part of this is due to the quickly-falling legacy subscriber base and part of it is due to continuing advertising declines.
Look guys, we know. Getting attention is tough, and you want people to listen to your band. But this ad has seriously been everywhere this week (including on this site), and is annoying as heck because, even if you roll over it by accident, you can’t turn it off. So we have no choice but to tell people not to listen to this band. You heard it here first, kids: New Politics sucks. source
Well, that’s a clever twist on the whole campaign ad. An ad by the other side, mocking stuff the one guy said. It was clearly made with no money and liberally infringes on copyright. But it might be just what McCain needs to stay in the race.
If you can’t get rid of him, might as well traumatize him. Woods, who lost his beloved father a couple of years ago, gets to hear his voice asking the kind of questions one in Woods’ situation might not want to hear. It’s a vaguely brilliant move on Nike’s part, but on Tiger’s, it doesn’t really help him.