The videos, found on YouTube and at the WillItBlend.com site, blend everything from golf balls and Rubik’s Cubes to iphones. Blendtec even started taking personal requests from its viewers.

The most recent blending includes the new Weezer CD and a can of pork and beans (to coincide with Weezer’s new song “Pork and Beans” off of the Self-Titled “Red Album” which will hit stores in June). The word-of-mouth campaign now has a cult following, has garnered over 100-million views and has made over $50,000 in ad revenue. Will It Blend? That is the question!

While I respect the goal, the execution is south of the credibility line for me because I simply can’t separate Dove from Unilever and its many brands that perpetuate the beauty-is-everything stereotypes that are the core of the Onslaught message.

In the days since its launch, praise continues, but many have tempered it in the same breath…balancing praise with mention of the hypocrisy of the situation Dove finds itself in. From Bob Garfield’s AdAge review where he gives Onslaught a standing ovations but then goes on to say “Damn, if it just weren’t for the nagging hypocrisy of it all…. “What happens when Dove sales begin to flag and market share begins to slide? That will be the test of true righteousness. Does the “Campaign for Real Beauty” then get disposed of, like last year’s fashions, or dubiously “enhanced,” like a pair of fake breasts?” (Be sure to read the comments.) To this post from Stephanie Sage Smirnov of DeVries Public Relations. And this one by Danny G at one of my favorite blogs AdPulp. And there are more and more of this ilk daily.

In Wednesday’s LA Times there’s a story of a consumer group that has charged Unilever with hypocrisy “for running conflicting advertising campaigns — one for Dove that praises women and their natural beauty and one for Axe that the group said “blatantly objectifies and degrades” them. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood launched a letter-writing effort on its website and demanded that the company pull ads for the Axe line of grooming products for men, which one online pitch says makes ‘nice girls turn naughty.’ ”

So I’m most assuredly not alone in the reaction I had when I viewed the new film. But at the same time I feel a bit schizophrenic because I admire brands that take the risk to stand for something meaningful. I wish more had the guts. Yet I (and others) am calling them out for doing just that.

The reality is that putting a firm stake in the ground in a situation where you’re not pristine means you have to be prepared to deal honestly and openly with a whole different kind of onslaught…today’s technology-enabled, consumer-empowered world. And be able to deal with question about your motives AND the inconsistent behavior of those you are affiliated with. It’s a challenge AND an opportunity. Will they be up to the task? I guess time will tell.

The goal is to stop a generation from using meth. And in just two years, teen meth use in Montana has been cut by nearly half, while abuse in neighboring states is on the rise. Positive workplace drug tests are down by 70 percent, and 96 percent of kids polled say they have discussed meth with a parent. The project has been such a smashing success, 10 other states are poised to copy the campaign, and federal money will help produce new ads.

This gritty and powerful private sector campaign is a long way from the simplicity of the government’s metaphoric fried egg “this is your brain on drugs” ad campaign of old. The shear horrific nature of the ravages of meth use shown in the spots scares the crap out of me and hopefully every other sane human who sees just what that stuff can do.

I applauded the Dove campaign for real beauty. As a woman and professional. I admire brands with the guts to take a stand. And cheered on their efforts to reach 5 millions girls by 2010 with “feel good about yourself messages” as part of the Self-Esteem Fund. I’m all for loving yourself and feeling comfortable in your own skin despite flaws. As a mother of two teenage daughters, how could I not admire a company standing for self-esteem?

BUT…with the latest film, “Onslaught”, they went too far and lost credibility with me. Celebrating and promoting the concept of self esteem and inner beauty is one thing. Encouraging you to “talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does” is a worthwhile message. But doing it in such a hypocritical and arrogant way is another.

Dove doesn’t stand alone. It’s part of a larger company and consumers know it. Even my 15 year old knows it. Regardless of whether or not people see this as a powerful creative spot (I don’t think it has near the power of the original), using the attack approach against the industry begs the question… do they honestly believe that people will see Dove as “above it all”? When they are in fact part of a large marketing driven company [Unilever] whose own brands have and continue to perpetrate the “beauty industry” images that play right into our insecurities. The same type of images that they use in the film as examples of the exploits.

There’s such irony in the fact that on Unilever’s own site they play to our insecurities in order to hype their beauty products. Like how you can get “Oscar-worthy hair” just like Nicole Kidman, Posh Spice and – oh yeah – Paris Hilton. And let’s not forget that Unilever is a major manufacturer of skin-whitening creams marketed in India (playing to a stereotype that, the lighter your skin, the more beautiful you are). And what about Axe body spray, whose sexist and stupid ads as well as the “humilidating” show, Game Killers, on MTV this year (a production of Axe spray) doesn’t exactly send the message that the Onslaught spot does.

Unilever wants it both ways. To be hero AND benefactor relative to our insecurities. And that’s hard to reconcile.

But, you have to give Martha Stewart credit. She’s a maestro of managing her own brand image.

She was branded as “expert”, then was indicted on federal charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice in an insider stock trading scandal, went to prison and emerged as “pop/celebrity brand”. Remember her first big project out of prison — the sister show to Donald Trump’s The Apprentice — where people competed to be Martha’s apprentice. There have been books, TV appearances on shows like Ugly Betty, a deal with Sirius.

And two years after her prison release, it’s clear she is actively evolving her brand back to “expert”. Earlier this month, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia announced that it inked a partnership with E & J Gallo Winery to produce a wine brand with label “Martha Stewart Vintage”. And she also signed contract with Costco Wholesale Corp. to offer frozen and fresh food under the Kirkland [Costco house brand] Signature.

And now Marthapedia, her own wiki website seeded “with existing content from Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, such as Martha Stewart’s Homekeeping Handbook, but will open for information and suggestions from the public.”

Wal-Mart rolled out a new slogan last week developed by its new agency, The Martin Agency —”Save Money. Live Better”—after having used “Always low prices” and the smiley for 19 years. And thankfully, it seems to be backing way off recent attempts to portray its stores as more upscale [that seemed like a major attempt at an illusion even David Blaine couldn't pull off]. Instead, promoting an image of what middle-class families can achieve by saving money at the registers. According to a quoted study [sponsored by Wal-Mart] done by Global Insight, it showed the average family saved $2,500 a year by shopping at Wal-Mart.

“Live Better,” reminiscent of Lance Armstrong’s cancer survival “Live Strong” line, is Wal-Mart’s attempt to change the story for consumers. Wal-Mart executives are saying that the new line is not just a slogan, but a four word mission statement for the retailer.

The new TV campaign is well produced, insightful and does incorporate much more of a warm and fuzzy emotional tone into its advertising than in the past, in an attempt to boost sagging sales. However, the move from fairly benign messaging [i.e. Always low prices] to putting the consumer at the center with the new line that adds “live better” [the benefit of saving money on everyday items] is actually a bold move [despite the rather soft sell in the commercials].

Think about it…publicly trashing and bashing Wal-Mart for turning small towns into ghost-towns, questionable hiring and benefits practices and contributing exponentially to the trade imbalance with China has damn near become a national sport — not to mention the nauseating coverage of Roehm-gate in the advertising industry. Yet, we’ve all felt fairly far removed from how they do business and thusly felt justified in commenting on their competitive, aggressive and sometimes questionable business practices. Confronting the consumer head on in the positioning with the fact they are the real beneficiary of the low prices, and the reason Wal-mart does what it does the way it does it, makes the consumer take some responsibility — whether they want it or not.

Focusing on the consumer as the beneficiary forces a change in the tenor of potential Wal-Mart bashing. It has to, because it’s no longer them focused, but us. And as much as I didn’t want to like the campaign [because it's more fun to bash Wal-Mart], I think it’s right on the mark from a marketing perspective. The whole position centers on the very simple premise: consumers want/demand a good deal…a low price for the things we need to buy so we can spend our hard-earned money on other things.

While done with a soft touch, the campaign gets at the hypocrisy in the anti-Wal-Mart sentiment. The fact is, I look on the Internet to find the lowest price I can when I buy airline tickets, book hotel rooms, merchandise and more. I buy from just about anyone anywhere with a click of a mouse. Don’t you? Do I look into the business practices of all the companies I buy from? No. Do you?

I am mesmerized by Sarah Jessica Parker’s new perfume “Covet” and I haven’t even taken a whiff of it yet. I have no idea what the combination of Sicilian lemon, lavender, chocolate and musk notes smell like, but I’ve already decided that I have to have it.

My love began with the commercial. Wearing a pretty white couture dress and stellar high heels, Parker walks up to a store front at The Place Vendome in Paris to admire a huge display bottle of her nouveau perfume “Covet.” She suddenly exclaims, “I have to have it,” and kicks in the glass of the display window with a force that would put a Tae Bo junkie to shame.

As she reaches through the broken glass to steal the coveted bottle, the Parisian police handcuff her and whisk her away to the police car. I completely connected with Parker’s ultimate need to have the perfume, but it wasn’t until I logged on to Covet’s Web site that I realized I was going to be sucked into a two-month interactive marketing campaign.

You too can play detective and solve the “Case of the Coveted Bottle” for a chance to win a $10,000 shopping trip for two to New York City (hotel and travel accommodations included). Every week through mid-October, the Web site is refreshed with a new blog from Parker’s Parisian publicist, Melisande Champney, who offers up information and clues that could possibly free Parker from the jail cell.

Little does the television commercial portray, but the bottle of Covet came up missing after Parker was arrested. Was this a set up? It’s up to you to follow the scent and bust through the clues using online French translators, Google, Flikr and other detective blog Web sites. Profiles on MySpace lend information on possible perpetrators and suspects. There are even bonus challenges where one can upload videos to enhance their chances to win.

I feel like a Charlie’s Angel trapped in an addicting mystery waiting for the latest news and clues to arrive each week. There is no doubt I will continue to scavenge through the end of the campaign and will soon smell like a bottle of Covet myself.

Besides, I have to have it.

Watching online videos is no longer cutting edge news, but rather a way of life as evidenced by stats released in a recent Pew study that showed 57% of adults online have watched online videos.

But an annual report on YouTube? That’s a fairly new concept, yet a great idea and some high-profile public companies are opting to use video to give their shareholder communications a little more pizazz.

I happen to pick up a CFO magazine while in the waiting room at the Doctors office today (why they had a CFO magazine in the waiting room, I don’t know), but I stumbled on an article that I just reread again tonight about the move by some innovative companies towards video annual reports in lieu of the printed version.

And it’s not just companies in the tech sector. Companies like Sealy Corp., California Pizza Kitchen and Ruth’s Chris Steak House Inc. have moved to this video format for their annual reports.

According to CFO Magazine:

The Hollywood approach isn’t just about image, however: a graphics-intense annual report can ultimately cost a large-cap company $1 million to produce and mail. A video report, in contrast, may run $20,000.

The embrace of video is part of a larger movement away from printed shareholder communications, a trend the Securities and Exchange Commission heartily endorses. In fact, the SEC has taken several steps to streamline the delivery of all proxy-related materials. In December, the commission tentatively approved a plan to allow Web-only versions of Schedule 14A proxy statements, Schedule 14C information statements, and annual reports to suffice.

The SEC’s proposal, which took effect on a voluntary basis in July, will ease that paper jam by making Internet delivery the de facto setting which will likely increase this video trend.

CFO.com quotes one observer this way:

In five years, a printed annual report will be a collector’s item.

And I’ll be less guilt-ridden for pitching the stacks right into the recycle bin.

I’m a total animal nut…who has 4 rescued cats and one dog and I’m pretty interested in seeing change happen to improve our political process. So the idea appealed to me right away.

On the site, you create a profile and register your pet with a political party. I didn’t have to think at all when I registered my cat Baxter. He’s democrat through and through. I also have two cats that are clearly republican and another that would probably advocate for a monarchy if given that option (with her as queen of course).

As it gets closer to the election, you’ll be able to cast your pet vote for one of the candidates running for President. It’s truly politics gone to the dogs…and cats…and birds…

It’ll be interesting to see if our pets’ votes can predict the next President.

Great idea. I wish I’d thought of it.

Image from GoogleBlogoscope

To this point, Google has simply aggregated and indexed news, but the latest roll out is an experimental feature that lets people or organizations who are part of a news story add a comment to the news that will then be visible on the search results. After being verified and approved, the comments will then be listed right under the story.

On one hand it enables a comment or other point of view that may not have been adequately covered in the story. On the other hand, it could dilute or even negate the story.

Read Steve Rubel’s POV on the new feature.