This is probably one of the coolest infographics I've seen in a long time:

So technically the headline above is correct. This week, I have increased the number of posts to this blog by 200 percent. But when you take a look at the raw numbers, you immediately realize that while accurate, that statistic is extremely misleading and pretty ridiculous. I'm estimating that I have written an average of one half of one blog post each week over the past four months. This week, I wrote two. See? Not that impressive.What's my point? Numbers don't tell the whole story, and even when they are 100 percent accurate, they can still be misleading.

Let me explain. One of the major stories of the day was that the state of Illinois increase its income tax by 66 percent. 66 percent! Wow. Impressive, and scary if you live in that state. Not only does that sound irresponsible, it makes it sound like Illinois residents will be broke as a result of their state's, uh, misfortunes.

The media quickly seized on this story, with most using the 66 percent statistic in their headlines and in the leads of stories.

But again, let's look at the actual numbers. Let's let the article do the writing: "It would temporarily set the personal tax rate at 5 percent, up from 3 percent now." But that's not the most important part. It's all relative, right?

How is the new tax rate compared to surrounding states? According to the Associated Press, "Illinois' tax rate will be lower than in many neighboring states — Iowa's top rate is 8.98 percent, Wisconsin's is 7.75 percent."

Sure statistics can tell some of the story. But they don't always tell the whole story. Just ask California about that.

Speaking of misleading media, something else caught my attention this past week, this time related to the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and injured a dozen other people, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I'm not going to sit here and write a media critique about the resulting coverage and how it's turned into a partisan game while a Congresswoman lay in critical condition. No, it seems like every journalist out there has already taken a stab at that. So I'll leave it to the professionals.

But here is my issue. In the rush to get the news out, NPR reported Saturday that Rep. Giffords had died. They were wrong. But before they could correct their mistake, major news outlets picked up the story.

At exactly 2:27 p.m. Saturday, WTOP passed on this information to me in the form of a breaking news alert. Since I didn't have access to a computer for the next few hours, and I didn't check any news on my phone, I took them at their word. Only later did I find out that Giffords was, in fact, alive.

Now the issue really isn't that they got the story wrong. I mean, it is, but it happens. The real problem is that they didn't send out another text updating subscribers of the real story, or issue a correction for the erroneous text. Mistakes happen. But you have to admit them in order to move on. Especially in journalism. Unfortunately, all too often, that gets lost in the rush to get the next major story out the door.

So there's a lot of reasons why this ad at the Branch Avenue Metro Station just doesn't work...
First, the main focus of the ad turns people off immediately. "Use $1 Coins." My immediate reaction: Why? and Don't tell me what to do! The support is even worse: "They last for decades and save our nation money." As a consumer, those are probably two of the least compelling reasons to switch from paper money to a coin...

Then, you read this article, and you realize just how insignificant those savings are in the grand scheme of things.

Which brings me to my second point. It's great to advertise this. But it's kind of like if Southwest advertised a sale for a cheap flight and literally sold a grand total of two tickets at that fare. When is the last time you saw a dollar coin? (Answer: Probably at the Metro, when instead of paper money, they give you coins. So, to their credit, at least they're advertising in the right place). But banks barely distribute them; retail stores barely give them out as change; and people just don't like using them.

Third, the URL is horrible. First of all, don't ever advertise a website using /TEXT (example:  www.example.com/text). Most people aren't going to go to the URL no matter what...for the people who are at least interested, you're creating an extra step by elongating the URL. They were just too lazy to create a microsite. Second, don't ever out $ in an URL. That just looks ridiculous.

But the previous three reasons are not what got me interested in the ad in the first place. Check out the slogan. (Yea, the one in really small text). Yea, you read that right. The $1 Coin. It's real change.

Ok, let's think about that for a second. The ad was paid for by the federal government. Barack Obama is the president, and therefore the "head" of the federal government. Barack Obama's central campaign theme in 2008 was Change. Many have argued that Barack Obama has not delivered on this promise to bring change to Washington.

Ok, now read the slogan again.

Is someone trying to make a political statement? Or is it just a bad ad? Or is it both? But this question is pretty much irrelevant. Here's why: Even if it's not a political statement, which to be fair, it probably isn't, why would you equate the dollar coin brand with the Obama brand? Sure, the word change is a (somewhat) clever double meaning. But most people who take more than a two second look at the ad (not many people), and actually read the slogan (even fewer) would think of Obama. You'd hope that's not what they were going for. How the creators of this ad didn't make this connection is beyond me.

These ads are pretty intense...not sure I would ever use this insurance (if they would even insure me), but I'm sure they'll get a lot of play out of these spots.

On a side note, on the streets of DC today, a Progressive "Rapid Response" car got into an accident. How ironic. Don't worry...everyone was OK. Getting in an accident with a Progressive car? Now that's Progressive.

Sure, Metro had its fair share of good ads. But come on...we all know you don't sell papers (or get blog hits, for that matter) with positive news. There were a lot of bad ads this year...but for the sake of people actually reading all the way through, I cut them down.

Take one look at this ad. Now tell me the message. What are they trying to get across, in one sentence? Don't get caught with a turkey on your head? Upgrade your prescription in case of emergency in Arlington? Please tell me. I have absolutely no idea. The only thing this reminds me of is Joey in Friends, you know, the one where he gets the turkey stuck on his head. I'm pretty sure that is not what they were going for.


Upon further inspection, it was revealed to be an ad encouraging people to establish an emergency preparedness plan in the case of an emergency. Probably a good idea, considering Arlington is right outside Washington, D.C., and is home to the Pentagon.

But here's one thing they forgot: Very few people besides me look at an ad for more than 4.7 seconds. (I made that statistic up, but while I was looking for the real statistic, which apparently doesn't exist, I found this could-be-clever-but-isn't-really-but-they-tried-with-the-name blog). The average Metro rider will pass the ad, think to themselves "What the hell is that?" then almost miss their train.

Now here's probably how it went...this ad was displayed around Thanksgiving, so they wanted a Thanksgiving theme...thus the turkey. But here's the problem: They stopped there. They thought they had their awesome, original idea, and kind of just threw in the towel. It shows.

And they wonder why I'm scared to move to Virginia...

This ad is just horrible on so many levels. Where to begin? First, the colors make looking at it almost unbearable. Second, it looks like it's an ad for a...actually, I'm not really sure what it looks like, because I can't imagine anyone except the government producing an ad like this. Third,  it just doesn't work. All this ad does is make you wish your train wasn't coming in 17 minutes.

That's it! It's an ad for a federal program! Got it. The ad is so busy it's disgusting. Where should you look? At the save money part? At the FSA logo? At the medicine? That brings up another point...what is FSA? Oh, you say this ad is targeted toward federal employees who already know what that is? Ok, fine, you win that round. But still, if this isn't one of the worst ads you've ever seen, please show me one that's worse.

On that note, here's another ad that also fails in every possible way imaginable. Now, before I start, let me just say that Shell and Giant have a good concept here. No, not for the ad, but for the actual promotion. With gas over $3 a gallon again, and with some predicting it to rise to over $5 a gallon by 2012, why not combine the two American necessities (food and gas) and create brand loyalty at the same time?


On first glance, the ad looks fine. It's pretty clear what the end goal for the consumer is: If you read the smaller print on the ad, you can find out how to save up to some money on your gas. Seems pretty cool (besides the fact that if you're taking the Metro, you're less likely to have a car in the first place, which defeats the purpose of placing the ad in the Metro, but that's besides the point).

But look at the picture. I don't know about you, but to me, it looks like a Giant pharmacist holding up a loyalty card. How does this translate to gas? To be fair, the program credits pharmacy purchases toward your savings. I get what they're trying to do...they're trying to convince the consumer that they should get all of their necessities (ie food, pharmacy items and gas) at Giant (/Shell). It makes sense. But it's way too much for one ad. (At the very least, even if you want to do the ad anyways, put a picture of kid in a cart or something, since this ad is obviously targeting women). The average consumer, taking a 4.7-second glance, won't make that connection. You have an ad for the pharmacy and a separate ad for the gas for food program. Don't combine them.

Ok, so these next two aren't on the Metro. And they're not really ads. And I may have already blogged about them. But still. They really piss me off. Who thought it would be a good idea to put a $25 bill on the CVS self checkout? And please, IKEA, please use Grammar Check next time..

Ever since moving from College Park to Silver Spring, then to DC, and soon, to Arlington, I've relied almost exclusively on Metro for transportation. I know what you're thinking...that's a horrible idea. But besides a tree incident in August, I actually haven't had that many issues. But that's besides the point.

Instead of spending my time listening to the elevator outage report (or worse, Department of Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano's really annoying announcement), I decided to spend my time paying attention to the advertisements in and around Metro stations. It all started one day when I saw a Metro ad arguing that, unlike other major subway systems around the country, it does not have rats. Two minutes later, I saw a rat on the platform. And so it began.

So here we go...a year end review of the ads that rocked, the bad ads, and the ads that just didn't work. Ads on the Metro, that is. This post will cover the good ads...other posts are coming soon.

What: Capital One Bank creating a unique advertising campaign in the Washington, D.C. area after they purchased Chevy Chase Bank.

Why it works: Capital One's national marketing campaign has one of the most recognizable slogans in the marketplace today. But that slogan wouldn't be of much use in the wake of Capital One buying Washington, D.C.-area bank Chevy Chase Bank. Although the deal was announced in December 2008, the transition didn't officially occur on the customer side until September 2010.

Capital One's challenge? How to make the transition without losing customers. Although customers are usually extremely loyal to their bank, they are more likely to switch after a local bank mergers with a national bank. The first step was to go about it extremely slow and methodically. As mentioned above, it took almost two years from the announcement until the actual transition occurred. When they finally officially transitioned, they launched a region-wide marketing campaign, with heavy emphasis on the Metro.

They designed a marketing campaign that could only be used in the Washington, D.C. area. Incorporating politics, history and humor, they bought out entire Metro stations and trains hammering home the local angle. By incorporating local landmarks and issues, they effectively deemphasized the fact that they were a banking conglomerate (which brings about the notion of poor customer service and a company that cares about profit first) and instead, positioned themselves in the marketplace as the local banking option.

To top it off, they even kept bank account numbers the same, along with the famous columns that had become synonymous with the Chevy Chase Bank brand.

What: Companies using a variation of the slogan, "It's personal."

Why it works: Click here to find out.

What: Regional TV stations using on-air personalities in their ads all across the Metro system.

Why it works: If you've been anywhere on the region's public transportation system in the past couple of weeks, you couldn't have missed them. No, not the rats. Rather, the TV ads. It seems that every single TV station in the region has been advertising on the Metro. NBC-4, FOX 5, ABC 7, Comcast SportsNet. The list goes on.

But it's not that they're all advertising at the same time. There's probably a good reason for that. It's that all of their ads use the same concept. Rather than emphasize the quality of their newscast, or the fact that they have the top rankings in the recent sweeps period, they are highlighting individual on-air personalities in the ads. Considering the current state of journalism, that's probably not a bad idea.

Rather than emphasizing their brand, they're branding their on-air talent, in the hopes that viewers will "buy" the product. Take a look at the NBC-4 ad below...notice how small the logo is. In a time of decreasing public trust of big media, they want you, the viewer, to focus on and trust the anchor who delivers the news, rather than the source of the news. In an ever-increasing competitive media marketplace, you have to give viewers a reason to watch when they can get their news from so many other places. This may be the first step...

What: The University of Maryland re-embracing the Fear The Turtle Slogan.

Why it works: Because that's what the people wanted.






Ok, a little background. In October 2009, the University introduced a "second" slogan to complement the well know first one: Fear The Turtle. A few months and $250,000 later, the new slogan, Unstoppable Starts Here, was introduced.

But people didn't give it a chance. Everywhere you looked, there was criticism. In The Diamondback, from NBC-4, from The Baltimore Sun...everywhere. (To be fair, I actually liked the slogan, and would argue that the reason people didn't like it was because that was the narrative the media drew up. The media set the tone, and the fans followed blindly. But that's besides the point).

So after all the uproar, they dropped the slogan. Sure, they didn't announce that, and there are still remnants of the slogan on the internets (here and here to point out a few). But they came out with a new video that doesn't mention the slogan at all.

But here's the kicker: The word "unstoppable" nor the slogan "Unstoppable Starts Here" appear in the document that spells out the University's marketing and communications strategy in FY2011. It does have passages like "We are provocateurs. Perfectionists. Entrepreneurs. Curious. Empathetic. Active. And hungry. Our path will be ongoing and will not be summed up by a single slogan." Ignoring the irony of that last sentence, it looks like the only remaining piece from the Unstoppable campaign is the shell.

Side note: According to that document, the poster above and ones similar to it appeared between Oct. 4 and Nov. 1 at "8 Metro stations, including Bethesda, College Park, Eastern Market, Farragut West, Federal Center, Smithsonian, Rockville and Shady Grove."

Here's some of the other designs they have either already used or are planning to use:

The controversy over Keith Olbermann's donations to three progressive candidates brings to light fundamental problems with the state of journalism today. But let me first start by telling you why Keith Olbermann is wrong.

Now, I don't have a problem with talking heads and pundits donating to political candidates. I really don't. After all, I think it's better that they put they're money where their mouth is...even if they are just repeating partisan talking points, at least they actually believe some of it, right?

But Keith Olbermann, and many other journalists today (and not just Fox News), continually cross the line. So many journalists ignore ethical and moral boundaries in this day and age, then they act surprised when they get called out for it.

Take Keith Olbermann's situation. After being suspended indefinitely (for MSNBC, that means less that a week...side note...see if you can find a typo in the LA Times blog post), he issued an open letter to his fans. Instead of coming clean saying he made a mistake by violating NBC's policy against political donations, he attacked the company for inconsistency applying the policy and argued that he previously knew nothing about this policy.

Sorry, Keith. That argument just doesn't work. A rule's a rule...and please excuse me for making a slippery slope argument here...but using Keith's logic, I could say that I didn't know I had to keep certain things at work confidential because I didn't realize I had signed a confidentiality agreement when I was hired. The burden is on you, not the employer, not the American public, to know and understand the rules.

Think about it this way: Olbermann's job as a journalist (if you want to call him that) is to keep politicians and public officials accountable. Imagine if a politician used that excuse..."Sorry, Keith. I wasn't aware storing bribe money in my freezer was against the rules. Now I know, but I don't appreciate the news media inconsistently calling out members of Congress..."

Fail.

But all of this underscores the larger issue in journalism today: the blurring of the line between journalism and news. Now networks will argue that in today's day and age, viewers are intelligent enough to understand the difference between opinion and news. But the fact is, viewers don't care. When they watch straight news, they take it as fact...when they watch opinion covering for news, they take it as fact. Why? Because they are limited in time and in the information they can take in, so they don't have time/don't care to separate the two.

This isn't an incitement on the viewer...it's more of an incitement on today's media environment.

And no matter what networks say, they don't separate the two. This is nothing new, and has only been getting worse over the past few years. All too often, pundits will go from offering their opinion on the news to reporting the news. That just doesn't work. Unfortunately, in today's media environment, it has become the norm. I'm not going to even begin to address Fox News...after all, that would be too easy.

All too often, the media is becoming the news, but that's another blog post for another day.

In my opinion, newspapers are still the best way to get news. Sure, they have their ideological slants, but you're going to get a much more fair and balanced story from a source that has all day to sort through the information and get it right, rather than rush the story to get it out first.

Keith Olberman: Worst person...in the worlddddddd.



Newsroom policies on political donations:

NBC News/MSNBC

"Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions.  You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the President of NBC News or his designee."

FOX News

"The prohibitions and limitations on political contributions outlined above relate only to the use of corporate funds and services and are not intended to discourage employees from making personal contributions to candidates or political parties of their choice. Personal involvement in political activity is permitted as long as the activity does not interfere with or impair the performance of the employee’s duties for the Company. In addition, any employee who becomes involved with a political group must make it clear that his or her activities are being conducted purely in a personal capacity and not on behalf of or in connection with the Company."

CBS News

"Avoid any active participation in politics and political campaigns. This prohibition includes wearing buttons or otherwise publicly identifying yourself on one side or the other in political campaigns. CBS News policy also forbids contributions to political campaigns."