Macy's wants me and you, and everyone else, to be unique...by buying their mass-produced goods after viewing their mass-produced ad. In other words, Macy's is telling us that we should be unique, just like everyone else. What forward thinking.

Now take a closer look at the lower right hand corner, and notice how they successfully integrated the Facebook logo and the URL, while ensuring that it didn't take up too much real estate or detract from the ad's message.

_Problem solved.

And, yes, before you ask: I am now a Fan of the Salvation Army on Facebook.

Two of their biggest selling points are that they are open seven days a week and that they have longer hours than most traditional banks. Pretty cool, but I'm still not sure that's enough for consumers to switch banks, although the recent fee increases by Bank of America and Citi may offer an opportunity. But that's besides the point.

Back to McPherson Square and the convenience thing. As I was walking to the Metro, I saw this:

But instead of thinking that was a bank I would want to switch to, all I could think of was The Truman Show. And this.

Sure, you could argue that that is the purpose of the sign. After all, TD Bank provides service all times of day and week, while Truman is watched all times of day. And the target of the larger campaign is those consumers aged 18 to their mid-20s, meaning most of this target presumably has watched or at the very least, heard about, this movie. So maybe that's what they were going for?

But even then, it doesn't really work. Don't get me wrong -- I find the concept of The Truman Show fascinating. But at the same time, it's kinda creepy...after all, this guy's life is being recorded 24 hours a day/7 days a week for broadcast to the greater world.

In an age of ever-increasing controversy over government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, is that really the message you want to be leaving potential customers with when they think about your product or service? Probably not.

The second article was one that focuses on Obama losing thousands of followers on his @BarackObama Twitter handle after he (meaning his campaign) tweeted the names and contact information of every Republican legislator in an effort to encourage the public to contact their member or Senators in regards to the debt deal. The story, and every other subsequent article, focused on one thing, and on one thing only: that he lost the Twitter followers, as if that is the most important thing out there.

First thing's first - the premise of the article is correct -- they did lose thousands of Twitter followers. But if you use the number cited by the New York Post - 37,000 (although that's probably never a good idea, but here goes), that means the account lost 0.004 percent of its more than 9 million followers -- a drop in the bucket. But even given that, the news coverage is still missing the point. This only matters if Obama's (team's) long-term goal is to gain a maximum number of Twitter followers.

But why should that be the only metric that is measured? Who's to say their long-term goal isn't awareness of not only the debt issue, but the fact that the Obama campaign is still at the forefront of new and innovative ways to use the Internet that allow ordinary citizens to engage with their government? They may have lost a lot (actually, only a relative few) of their followers, but how many of their followers actually contacted their representatives? While we don't know, I would presume it was at least some. Even the NY Post acknowledges that point -- from a previous version of the story:

"The campaign appears to have served its purpose: Republican Twitter accounts were flooded with pleas for compromise."

Obama doesn't seem to be hurting for Twitter followers...

"While his follower number appears to have taken its biggest dive in recent memory, Obama’s Twitter account still had a whopping 9,362,880 followers at 7:30pm Friday night, down from 9,402,898 Friday morning - and he's still the third-most followed person on the planet."

Even if they didn't contact their representatives, it allows the Obama team to continue the narrative that they're using technology to give ordinary citizens a voice. And ultimately, that's more important than the actual number of Twitter followers you have at the end of the day. Twitter followers don't get you votes. Why? Because I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people following @BarackObama already have an opinion on him that Tweets won't changes. You're already following the account for a reason -- Tweets probably won't change your opinion on the President; rather, they may help influence what your thinking on particular issues or help shape your exposure to certain issues.

The perception that the President is engaging with ordinary citizens through nontraditional means plays a part in getting you votes. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. Oh, and raising the debt ceiling.

That brings up a whole different issue, one that goes beyond politics and even journalism. In today's horse-race driven media culture, numbers are the only thing that matters in politics. Whether it's money or social media, if you have the "most," you're the automatic frontrunner. While that's true in a lot of cases, few journalists dig deeper to analyze the impact of those numbers, especially with social media. Just because you have a lot of "fans," what are you doing to mobilize them? Are you just pushing out talking points, or are is there two-way communication? Journalists don't take it one step further and analyze the overall strategy and impact of these social media tools. Just as journalists don't know how to cover social media as part of the larger campaign narrative, many brands still don't know how to effectively use social media to get their message out. They make the same mistake the media makes -- that it's only about the numbers rather than the quality of the fans and the quality of the communication you are having with them. There's an ongoing debate in the advertising world about how much a Facebook "like" or a Twitter follower is actually worth, a debate that won't end any time soon, I'm sure.

Let's hope the debt debate ends sooner...

I think for the audience it is targeting, it is a pretty effective ad. It's timely, relevant and gets at the conservative anger over a (hopefully potential?) debt limit compromise. I especially like the "The 90s brought more compromises...more broken promises" voiceover that happens at the same time the video shows George H.W. Bush, famous for breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

But what was really interesting to me was the concept of the spot: The movie preview. Sure, it's not necessarily an original idea (see other examples below). But it just worked here. It's a showdown between essentially two options: raise the limit, or don't raise the limit. It's clear where Paul stands on the issue, and this concept allows the viewer to see what Paul argues are the dire consequences if politicians don't listen to what he is saying. I am also a big fan of the "leader shots," the shots that make it look like you're looking up at Paul, in the positive section. While I'm generally not a fan of political contrast ads, this one did a good job laying out the differences. Let's be honest, though -- Ron Paul doesn't actually have a chance, but at least he has good ads, right?

Here are some other political commercials that incorporate the movie preview concept, some kind of effective, and some, well, not so effective. See for yourself below.

Considering how airlines have become the prototype for how to run an impersonal, penny-pinching business, this message would most certainly not work for the airline in today's day and age. But I feel like other industries out there could use this same general concept. Not only would it be interesting to see how it would be executed today (it would more than likely be much easier), but at the same time, executed correctly, the message would resonate even more today.

And for good measure, check out the ad we launched starting last week for my Client. (Also check it out on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, FOX Business Channel, History, Travel, ESPN, ESPN2, and HGTV).