Recently, I curled up with Cosmopolitan, one of my favorite publications.  Bombarded with ads on every other page, I noticed a common theme: weight loss advertisements.  I decided to count each ad containing such messages. The total was 17, including a 4-page foldout from a weight loss supplement called alli, which claims it can stop certain fats from entering your digestive system. As I started plotting what fatty treats I would devour if I were to play into this particular diet scheme, I realized I had become a victim of deceptive yet ingenious advertising.

While societal “norms” influence us to judge our peers based on the outside, advertisers are stepping in to capitalize on the appearance appeal.  It’s not a new strategy, of course, but it seems that marketers are cashing in on our waistlines now than ever before. Weight-loss advertising isn’t “losing” much of anything these days and in fact it has grown into a billion dollar industry.  More than $34 billion was spent on over-the-counter weight-loss supplements in the past decade. On average, 6 out of every 10 Americans are overweight and an estimated 68 million American adults are “trying” to lose weight. To put the facts in perspective, that’s about 10 million less than the estimated 78 million Boomers currently living in America.

A recent study confirms 15 percent of weight loss ads reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission, contained false information. So how does the weight-loss industry turn such a high profit on ads based on lies?

Since obese Americans nearly outnumber Boomers, I can understand how the large (and getting larger) target audience can be profitable, but what I can’t comprehend is why we believe the deception? The scary amounts of money pumped into this competitive industry only make me wonder, what other forms of deceptive advertising I have been victimized by?  Is effective marketing more valuable than honest marketing in today’s society? It certainly seems that way.

Over the holidays, I found myself in an odd discussion with my grandfather. He wanted to know what a blog was. As we continued to talk, I assured him it was not a new breed of chickens but in fact it was a new breed of his “Lancaster Farmer.” In today’s information obsessed culture, limitless amounts of both useful and non-useful facts are at our fingertips.

The conversation reminded me how much many of us take for granted these “newfangled” communication methods and how a large segment of the 21st century population (older Americans) still has little knowledge of these channels (or little use for them). Will blogging alter consumer habits in the future? Some would say it already has, and the influx of “non-credible” blogging has become more worthy than the facts and ultimately change how people make decisions for their lives.

Fundraising no longer means reaching out to your network using traditional channels (phone calls and letters). The “new fundraising” means reaching people via social platforms like Twitter and Facebook while providing them accessible methods to easily donate.

Take the case of Haiti, a country ravaged by disaster that is experiencing much-needed relief thanks to Web 2.0 fundraising efforts.

Relief is arriving in the form of donations to organizations like the Red Cross, Yele Haiti Foundation, Doctors without Borders, The Salvation Army, UNICEF and many more. These organizations are not only receiving donations the tradition way of checks through the mail or credit cards over the phone, they’re also receiving them digitally. And we’re not just talking about credit card donations on a corporate website. Some of the most popular methods of donations include text messaging, iTune purchases and Facebook applications.

Text messaging is by far one of the largest generator of donations for the Haiti relief efforts. The Red Cross has raised more than $25 million dollars through texting “Haiti” to 90999. Wyclef Jean even got involved by driving his 1.4 million Twitter followers to donate to his charity Yele Haiti Foundation via texting “Yele” to 501501. It’s reported that he has been able to raise over $2 million for his foundation. Some carriers are even waiving their text messaging fees for these transactions.

You can even purchase songs and donate to the Red Cross via iTunes. Pop singer Rhianna is selling her performance of “Redemption Song” (as seen on Oprah) for $1.29 with proceeds benefiting the Haiti relief efforts. In addition to buying music, you can also donate multiple amounts to the Red Cross via iTunes.

iTunes will continue to provide opportunities to donate when it releases the video and performances from “Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief” on Saturday. The proceeds from these items will go to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, Oxfam America, Partners in Health, Red Cross, UNICEF, United Nations World Food Programme and the Yele Haiti Foundation.

Facebook’s Farmville even raised money for Haiti by selling “Sweet Seeds for Haiti.” Zynga donated 50% of the proceeds to help the children of Haiti. In all, Farmville raised $1.5 million dollars by selling virtual goods for this relief effort.

I could give even more examples, as new digital donation methods crop up daily, but I think you get the point. Personally, I find it both amazing and refreshing how digital and social media are not only impacting the lives of those who use the channels, but also impacting the lives of those who don’t.

Interactive TV was a technology that has been promised to us for so long. I remember studying it in college in the 90s. My textbooks talked about it as if it was right around the corner. You know, you are watching a TV show and the drink the actor has looks interesting. Interactive TV would enable you to click on it, find out more information and order it – all without leaving your couch! I have yet to see this.

But it started before I was in college. During the 1970s, QUBE was an interactive cable service offered to subscribers in Columbus, Ohio. QUBE customers were given set-top decoder boxes with five buttons and could participate in game shows, call plays in a college football game and take part in electronic town meetings.

Here we are in 2009 and we’re not doing things like seeing real-time sports statistics, selecting alternate viewpoints, or playing an interactive game on our TVs. The only major improvements in the past 15 years have been the mainstream availability of HDTV sets and programming, on-demand movie watching, and DVRs. So what happened?

In the nineties, various companies tried numerous approaches to introducing iTV services. Solutions tended to require new, advanced (and expensive) set-top boxes and huge infrastructure investments. Many companies did trial runs in local markets. They all failed. TVs were standard definition, Internet was dial up and there was little processing power available. In 1995 Apple announced their own set-top box (iTV) for a six-state trial of interactive television services.

Why hasn’t iTV attempted a resurgence? Maybe there is just too much new technology now. People are just now upgrading to HDTV, DVRs and BlueRay. Or maybe it’s because interacting with TV is already here–just in a different form. Tens of millions of people are texting in votes to American Idol and other shows. Fantasy sports websites spike to accommodate people checking their team stats while watching the games on TV. Shows like Heroes have real-time interactive chat sessions online during new episodes. And political and sporting events cause massive usage of services like Twitter. So maybe interactive TV is here. It’s just happening on our cell phones and laptops instead of through the traditional TV.

What do you think?

I think it s been about a year since the last time I posted one of my “Love/Hate” blog postings, and I’ll bet this Friday’s paycheck there isn’t a soul on the internet that actually took notice.  Never the less, I am going to bless you all with another useless rant on what I think is advertising awesomeness, and well as what I think is the Advertising equivalent of Tiger’s Wood’s marriage.

CAMPAIGN I LOVE

The entire HTC “You” campaign is brilliant.  It almost seems like this company held a series of focus groups and tapped into consumers’ heads to see what they really wanted in a phone.  Imagine that? If you watch this spot and you can’t relate to one of these scenarios, then find a bottle full of pills and swallow them, because your life is terrible.

I also love the tagline “You don’t need to get a phone, you need a phone that gets you.”  That statement couldn’t be more true.  Here’s an article about the campaign from a few months ago if you want a little more background.  What I think is so smart is their ability to find a point of differentiation for themselves, without taking potshots at the competition.  I know the $100 million Droid campaign has done relatively well, but to this consumer, all they really did was compare themselves to the iphone, making their #1 competitor the benchmark of smartphone success.  Thanks for taking the highroad HTC… you’re alright.

CAMPAIGN I HATE

Progressive’s annoying insurance lady. I must admit that I’ve never even paid attention to a word she has said in any of these commercials, because I was focusing all my attention on hating her.  But I know they’re the worst.  How did these spots even become a reality? Did someone say, “I have a good idea… let’s take the most annoying woman we can find, and have her represent our brand!  That way, whenever anyone thinks about Progressive car insurance, they will think about being annoyed!”

Sounds like a great strategy for a company who is in the business of selling a service.  That’s like having Bernie Madoff represent Charles Schwab,  or hiring the 2008 Detroit Lions to represent winning.  Oh, and one more thing… we should name her “Flo.” Yeah, that’ll work.

Thanks for listening.