You may recall that extinct neoconservative vanity paper New York Sun used to run a little telemarketing scam in which it claimed to be a "snapshot" or "smaller version" of the Times. Misleading and dishonest, right? But there was a clue this was coming: The original incarnation of the Sun, which the new Sun zealously aped (save for certain inconvenient political positions), also scammed people. This fact was lost to history until a summer 1944 Sun sales rep described the setup, which involved the Lost & Found ads traditionally used to find pets and wedding rings and so forth. From a letter to the editor in the Times:

Apple's 3G iPhone commercials, shown here, are a big lie. But at least they're a pleasant falsehood. And they don't display a disregard for proper wordsmithing the way T-Mobile's new G1 "with Google" commercial, below, does in some misguided attempt to be irreverent, hip and Internet-trendy. Dissing the dictionary isn't hip. Ask Yahoo's Jerry Yang. "Smarterer, funnerer, connecteder?" Someone should be fireder.

This is what happens when stupid magazine staffers get ahold of them. The internerds at Ectoplasmosis can't decide whether to be appalled or amused by this unfortunate juxtaposition of advertisements in a vintage magazine."Don’t the editors look at these things, or is it just that we here at Ectomo have really twisted senses of humour?" asks one. But the magazine is obviously a teen magazine from the nineties, which means it might actually be Sassy, which means it is possible silly production guy was doing it for the lulz more than a decade before lulz were even invented. [Ectomo]

The olden days were full of free-flowing psychoactive drugs, grotesque torture machines for the advancement of human beauty, and creepy children intent on eating anything in their path, judging by the advertising way back when. From a longer list at Weirdomatic, we give you seven classic ads to make you glad you live in our modern age, when Ritalin has replace Nembutal as our drug of choice for small children:

Friday is usually a pretty inoffensive day for the Times op-ed page. (Dowd saves her punny schlockicisms for Wednesdays and Sundays, Kristol gets Mondays, and the worst administration actually made honest men out of the formerly-predictable ideologues [Krugman and Brooks!] who run the Friday shift.) But today right underneath Paul Krugman's column about how the plutocracy's geometric accumulation of wealth has caused the merely superrich to consider themselves and their own warped senses of reality somehow normal we have an advertisement posing an intriguing ethical dilemma! "You see a nanny at the park seemingly mistreating her charge," it reads. Then it lists some possible responses.None of them are "Presume that if I am an adult in the sort of park where I can safely assume such a woman is a nanny, than I too am a nanny, and thus inclined to believe any nanny with the audacity to 'mistreat' her 'charge' in public is probably acting in self-defense." But that's not the point. The point is, yes, there is actually a blog dedicated to nanny snitching, and yes, it contains actual photos of black women being, for instance, not "abusive, per se, but neglectful for sure" in the presence of white children, which yes raises many ethical questions I'd rather just sum up as "WTF." So who do we have to thank for this? It's the same classy insurance company that bought the name of that adman who committed suicide after being called a dick by lots of people on the internet as a Google Adwords search term to promote another installation in the same stupid "Responsibility Project" campaign! The whole point of that campaign is allegedly to get people to think about tough ethical dilemmas. The genius of it is that the tough ethical dilemmas are the types experienced exclusively by very wealthy people whose sense of ethics have already no doubt been warped by their sizeable wealth, because those are the types of people who are most likely to think, "Oh fuck, you know what? If all my bad rich person karma isn't already in the park beating my kid I am going to need some INSURANCE." Now That's Rich [NYT]

Perhaps you've heard the news that Nike has pulled its "That Ain't Right" balls-in-face ads after an outpouring of outrage sparked largely by this very website (though we weren't the first to address it). Are you proud of yourselves, commentariat? You are feared in all corners of corporate America. But the larger point here is that advertising is getting to be a very touchy business; companies are making fools of themselves nearly every week because of the crackheaded work of one of their ad agencies. After the jump, we look at five ads that had to be yanked recently, where they went wrong, and who came out ahead. Read and learn:

Deep down in our hearts, where we keep our darkest fears hidden, we knew this day would come: the day when you find out after the fact that a hit song is actually an advertisement. Let the tears of rage flow. Chris Brown is not the vessel of true love that you thought! When the R&B star sang "We can go anywhere, go anywhere/ But first, it's your chance, take my hand, come with me," he wasn't talking to you, girl; he was talking to your Wrigley's Doublemint gum. But the company is only revealing its sponsorship after Brown's song, "Forever," had become a top-10 hit. We don't want to appear as if we invest the music of Chris Brown with any meaning whatsoever; but now would be an appropriate time to begin boycotting Wrigley, if you would like to have the option of listening to songs that aren't sponsored by mega-corporations in the coming decade.

When you see some random guy walking down a crowded street talking on his cell phone, lost in his own world, you probably think to yourself: there is a man I would like to smash right in the face. If a cell phone company were to find some way to successfully incorporate that feeling into its marketing plan, it would be genius. Instead, US Cellular goes and makes what is, by critical consensus, the most asinine cell phone ad of the year. That's because its premise is that that same man walking along yakking obliviously into his cell would actually make the entire world around him happy. Which just makes you want to smash him even more:

You'd think at some point, in a creative review meeting, some advertising exec would stand up and say, "Maybe the 9-11 picture's not such a good idea." Such a simple sentence. But no! The latest example of incorporating a nationally traumatic terrorist mass murder into an ad: this spot for SABC Radio [via AdScam], with the tagline "There's More To See On Radio." Such as the Twin Towers burning. So hey, listen to the radio! Click through for a larger image, and pictures of the five worst 9-11 ads we've covered in the past:

A tipster in Hell's Kitchen writes in to say that marketers for allergy medicine Zyrtec have been tearing down fliers in her neighborhood and replacing them with fake guerilla-style advertisements for their product. The worst part? "Yesterday there was a flyer for a missing kitten here, apparently they took it down and put this ad up." They are endangering kittens in order to make money. Simply despicable. Below, a picture of the fiendish ad—do not be taken in by its similarity to a flier offering guitar lessons.

Online dating site True.comcongratulated the New Jersey legislature for passing a law that will require online dating services to disclose their criminal background screening practices and offer safe dating tips. We too applaud the law, but also True.com as well. Because as you can tell from the pictured ad, ("Girlfriend Season Is Here") it's a site committed to preventing predatory behavior against women.