Tag: advertising

Reid Hoffman Funds SICK Propaganda Ad Showing Republicans SNATCHING Girlfriends For Deportation

A resurfaced ad funded by Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder mired in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, depicts a fictional Republican congressman abducting and threatening a young woman on a date simply because she “looks like” an illegal immigrant—despite her being a U.S. citizen.

The vile spot, part of a series of fear-mongering propaganda from the Progressive Action Fund, aims to terrify voters into opposing America’s long-overdue crackdown on illegal immigration, painting border security as a threat to everyday citizens.

The ad opens with a young couple wrapping up a pleasant date. As the man walks his girlfriend to her car, black-clad agents suddenly appear, grabbing her and declaring, “She’s coming with us.”

Confused and outraged, the boyfriend demands, “What are you talking about? Who are you?”

Enter the bald, suit-wearing “Republican congressman,” who smugly announces, “I’m your Republican congressman. Now that we’re in charge, we’re rounding up illegals.”

When the boyfriend protests that she’s a citizen born in the U.S., the congressman retorts, “I don’t care. She looks like one of them.” He then callously adds that she’ll have “lots of company” in an El Salvador prison.

This disgusting piece of propaganda isn’t new—it’s from June 2024, during the height of the election cycle when Democrats were desperate to block Trump’s return. The Progressive Action Fund, a Democrat-aligned super PAC, produced a whole series featuring this creepy “Republican congressman” character invading private moments to enforce caricatured conservative policies.

Keep reading

The Lost Dog That Made Constant Surveillance Feel Like a Favor

Amazon picked the Super Bowl for a reason. Nothing softens a technological land grab like a few million viewers, a calm voice, and a lost dog.

Ring’s commercial introduced “Search Party,” a feature that links doorbell cameras through AI and asks users to help find missing pets. The tone was gentle despite the scale being enormous.

Jamie Siminoff, Ring’s founder, narrated the ad over images of taped-up dog posters and surveillance footage polished to look comforting rather than clinical. “Pets are family, but every year, 10 million go missing,” he said. The answer arrived on cue. “Search Party from Ring uses AI to help families find lost dogs.”

This aired during a broadcast already stuffed with AI branding, where commercial breaks felt increasingly automated. Ring’s spot stood out because it described a system already deployed across American neighborhoods rather than a future promise.

Search Party lets users post a missing dog alert through the Ring app. Participating outdoor cameras then scan their footage for dogs resembling the report. When the system flags a possible match, the camera owner receives an alert and can decide whether to share the clip.

Siminoff framed the feature as a community upgrade. “Before Search Party, the best you could do was drive up and down the neighborhood, shouting your dog’s name in hopes of finding them,” he said.

The new setup allows entire neighborhoods to participate at once. He emphasized that it is “available to everyone for free right now” in the US, including people without Ring cameras.

Amazon paired the launch with a $1 million initiative to equip more than 4,000 animal shelters with Ring systems. The company says the goal is faster reunification and shorter shelter stays.

Every element of the rollout leaned toward public service language.

The system described in the ad already performs pattern detection, object recognition, and automated scanning across a wide network of private cameras.

The same system that scans footage for a missing dog already supports far broader forms of identification. Software built to recognize an animal by color and shape also supports license plate reading, facial recognition, and searches based on physical description.

Ring already operates a process that allows police to obtain footage without a warrant under situations they classify as emergencies. Once those capabilities exist inside a shared camera network, expanding their use becomes a matter of policy choice rather than technical limitation.

Ring also typically enables new AI features by default, leaving users responsible for finding the controls to disable them.

Keep reading

Real Estate Company Slammed for Blatantly Anti-White Super Bowl Commercial

On the field, Super Bowl LX looked a lot like the last time the Seattle Seahawks won the NFL championship.

Indeed, Sunday’s 29-13 win over the New England Patriots called to mind Seattle’s 43-8 drubbing of the Denver Broncos in early 2014, when the Seahawks’ defense smothered an overmatched opponent in a game that never really had a competitive phase.

How fitting, therefore, that the real estate company Redfin — much to the chagrin of users on the social media platform X — gave Super Bowl viewers a commercial reminiscent of the race-mongering of President Barack Obama’s years, albeit with a predictable update tailored to the age of President Donald Trump.

Not to mix sporting metaphors, but the Redfin ad, shorn of its subversive politics, could have hit a home run.

The ad began by showing two young girls, perhaps in their early teens, from two different families. Each girl looked forlorn as she contemplated her family’s move into a new home.

It bears noting, only because of the ad’s politics, that the first girl was Hispanic and the second girl was white. One suspects that most viewers would not have noticed as much if not for the subsequent injection of politics.

The two girls crossed paths about 20 seconds into the ad. At that point, the white girl’s dog barked at the Hispanic girl, which kept the two girls from saying hello.

Even then, however, nothing seemed amiss. In fact, the young white girl, having waved at a group of girls on bicycles and received only snarky comments in return, seemed the lonelier and more ostracized of the two.

The anti-white racism began approximately 24 seconds into the ad, when the Hispanic girl’s father tried to strike up a conversation about an impending thunderstorm with an older white man next door. Naturally, the older white man, who flew an American flag and had a pickup truck parked in his driveway, ignored him.

Then came the drama. During the storm, the white girl’s dog escaped her home. A frantic search ensued.

Happily, the young Hispanic girl found the dog and returned it to its grateful owner. The white girl hugged her dog’s rescuer. From there, the two girls rode bikes together and presumably became friends.

Again, shorn of its politics, the ad would have delivered a wonderful message.

Instead, Redfin decided to make a not-so-subtle political statement that undoubtedly appealed to virtue-signaling liberals everywhere.

“America could use a neighbor just like you,” the ad’s final message read.

The company even highlighted that message when it posted the ad on X.

Keep reading

P&G agrees to stop deceptive marketing of Crest toothpaste to kids

Procter & Gamble (P&G) agreed to change how it markets Crest fluoride toothpaste to young children following an agreement with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Under the agreement, P&G’s advertising aimed at children under age 6 must reflect age-appropriate amounts of toothpaste. The changes took effect this month.

Health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), recommend that children under age 3 use no more than a “smear” of fluoride toothpaste, and that children ages 3 to 6 use only a “pea-sized” amount.

Paxton said Crest’s marketing materials often showed toothbrushes covered with a full strip of toothpaste, implying that amount was appropriate for children.

Research cited in the case shows such images prompt parents to use excessive amounts of toothpaste. A 2024 study published in Nature found parents routinely overloaded toothbrushes by six to seven times the recommended amount.

Keep reading

Meta Chose Revenue Over Policing Chinese Scam Ads, Documents Show

Meta knowingly tolerated large volumes of fraudulent advertising from China to protect billions of dollars in revenue, a new investigation from Reuters unveiled this week. Internal documents show executives prioritized minimizing “revenue impact” over fully cracking down on scams, illegal gambling, pornography and other banned ads.

Although Meta platforms are blocked inside China, Chinese companies are allowed to advertise to users abroad, according to Reuters. That business grew rapidly, reaching more than $18 billion in revenue in 2024—about 11% of Meta’s global sales. Internal estimates showed roughly 19% of that revenue, more than $3 billion, came from prohibited or fraudulent ads.

Meta documents reviewed by Reuters describe China as the company’s top “Scam Exporting Nation,” responsible for roughly a quarter of scam ads worldwide. Victims ranged from U.S. and Canadian investors to consumers in Taiwan. An internal presentation warned, “We need to make significant investment to reduce growing harm.”

In 2024, Meta briefly did just that. A dedicated China-focused anti-fraud team cut problematic ads roughly in half, from 19% to 9% of China-related revenue. But after what one document described as an “Integrity Strategy pivot and follow-up from Zuck,” the team was asked to pause its work. Meta later disbanded the unit, lifted restrictions on new Chinese ad agencies, and shelved additional anti-scam measures.

Keep reading

Google and US government battle over the future of internet advertising

Google will confront the U.S. government’s latest attempt to topple its internet empire in federal court on Friday as a judge considers how to prevent the abusive tactics that culminated in parts of its digital ad network being branded as an illegal monopoly.

The courtroom showdown in Alexandria, Virginia, will pit lawyers from Google and the U.S. Department of Justice against each other in closing proceedings focused on the complex technology that distributes millions of digital ads across the internet each day.

After a lengthy trial last year, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in April that pieces of Google’s ad technology had been rigged in a way that made it an illegal monopoly. That set up another 11-day trial earlier this fall to help Brinkema determine how to remedy its anti-competitive practices.

Friday’s closing arguments will give both Google and the Justice Department a final chance to sway Brinkema before she issues a ruling that probably won’t come until early next year.

The Justice Department wants Brinkema to force Google to sell some of the ad technology that it has spent nearly 20 years assembling, contending a breakup is the only way to rein in a company that the agency’s lawyers condemned as a “recidivist monopolist” in filings leading up to Friday’s hearing.

The condemnation refers not only to Google’s practices in digital advertising but also to the illegal monopoly that it unleashed through its dominant search engine. Federal prosecutors also sought a breakup in the search monopoly case, but the judge handling that issue rejected a proposal that would have required Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser.

Although Google is still being ordered to make reforms that it’s resisting, the outcome in the search monopoly case has been widely seen as a proverbial slap on the wrist. The belief that Google got off easy in the search case is the main reason the market value of its parent company Alphabet surged by about $950 billion, or 37%, to nearly $3.5 trillion since U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s decision came out in early September.

That setback hasn’t discouraged the Justice Department from arguing for a breakup of an ad tech system that handles 55 million requests per second, according to estimates provided by Google in court filings.

The huge volume of digital ads priced and distributed through Google’s technology is one of the main reasons that the company’s lawyers contend it would be too risky to force a dismantling of the intricate system.

“This is technology that absolutely has to keep working for consumers,” Google argues in documents leading up to Friday’s hearing. The company’s lawyers blasted the Justice Department’s proposal as a package of “legally unprecedented and unsupported divestitures.”

Besides arguing that its own proposed changes will bring more price transparency and foster more competition, Google is also citing market upheaval triggered by artificial intelligence as another reason for the judge to proceed cautiously with her decision.

In his decision in the search monopoly case, Mehta reasoned that AI was already posing more competition to Google.

Keep reading

Backlash over Stagwell’s Israel work puts PR ethics in the spotlight

Stagwell, the US-based holding group that owns agencies including agencies Assembly, 72andSunny, Allison+Partners and Anomaly has come under scrutiny following reports of a major research and messaging program conducted for the Israeli government.

According to leaked documents first reported by Drop Site news website, the project involved research across more than 13,000 people and tested campaign messages designed to improve perceptions of Israel internationally. The recommendations included emotional storytelling, messaging around terrorism, and connecting Islamic radicalism to the conflict.

The presentation also recommended the “notion of radical Jihadism” being “universally effective” for conservative audiences. It said connecting radical Jihadism to a desire to dominate other religions was effective as communications means. The report also said that Mark Penn, chairman and chief executive of Stagwell, has long-standing links to Israel.

In a statement to MARKETING-INTERACTIVE, the holding group confirmed a small team had worked on the project, but stressed that each agency in the network operates with autonomy and that its portfolio spans clients “across the political and issue spectrum.” Still, the revelations have prompted strong reaction across the PR and advertising industry.

Strategy consultant Zoe Scaman called on talent within Stagwell-owned agencies to “walk away,” with her LinkedIn post attracting almost 1,000 likes and more than 140 reposts. A follow up post also read:

This industry has a problem with selective blindness.

“We’re brilliant at seeing every nuance of consumer behaviour, every shift in cultural sentiment, every emerging trend. But somehow we develop convenient myopia when it comes to examining our own moral architecture.”

Other agency leaders also voiced criticism, highlighting growing concerns about the role of communications firms in politically charged work.

Keep reading

Sweeping Trump crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical ads is first in nearly 3 decades

In a landmark move, the Trump administration has launched a sweeping crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical advertisements, the first major enforcement effort since direct-to-consumer drug ads were legalized in 1997. 

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary recently spoke with Full Measure about the unprecedented effort, stating that the agency is sending “thousands” of enforcement letters targeting deceptive promotions across TV, social media, and online platforms. 

The U.S. is one of only two countries allowing such ads (the other is New Zealand). Makary says the commercials often downplay serious risks, present false information, or mislead viewers by showcasing happy, dancing patients. He says FDA enforcement has been notoriously lax for decades, with FDA violation letters to drug companies dropping from 130 annually in the late 1990s to zero in 2024. 

The new plan targets not just TV but also social media influencers and online pharmacies. 

A key focus is closing the “adequate provision loophole,” which allowed vaccine ads to skip disclosing any risks at all by listing them elsewhere, like on websites. 

Makary argues this violates regulations against misleading impressions, and the FDA is moving to eliminate it.

No comparable crackdowns on misleading drug ads have ever been launched. Many observers say that’s in part due to the pharmaceutical industry’s influence with members of Congress who get big money from drug companies. They also blame inaction on the media that benefits from all the money drug ads bring in and make them more likely to defend the industry and downplay or censor prescription drug risks and concerns.

Keep reading

All The Companies That Advertised On The MSNBC Segment Blaming Charlie Kirk For His Own Death

Numerous companies, including Pfizer, The Economist, and P&G brands, ran advertisements on Katy Tur Reports on MSNBC Wednesday, during which Tur and one of her guests smeared Charlie Kirk following the news that he had been shot. These and other companies did not commit to pulling their advertisements from MSNBC in response to a Federalist inquiry

Analyst Matthew Dowd was sacked from the network after his implication on Tur’s program that Kirk’s assassination was a natural response to his rhetoric. “I always go back to: Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. … [Y]ou can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have, and then saying these awful words, and not expect awful actions to take place,” Dowd said.

The Federalist reached out to the companies (or their parent companies) listed below, asking whether they would publicly condemn the inappropriate comments made on Tur’s program, and whether they had plans to pull their advertising from MSNBC. Only one responded to the questions.

Pfizer, Kenvue (Listerine), The Economist, Pharmavite (Nature Made), Renewal by Andersen, P&G (Nervive and Zevo), AbbVie (Ubrelvy), Bayer (Aleve), Spectrum News 13, Spectrum Reach, Quincy Bioscience (Prevagen), GSK (whatisshingles.com), singlecare.com, Safelite, AliveCor (kardia.com), Morgan and Morgan law firm, Custom Ink, Bausch + Lomb (Blink NutriTears), Dexcom, Balsam Hill, Lipo Flavinoid, and Atlantis Consumer Healthcare (Senokot) were among the companies the Federalist contacted regarding their products’ advertisements.

P&G’s Herbal Essentials did not specifically condemn the comments but claimed “we don’t get to see the final program content, or indeed placement, before our adverts are aired.” They maintained “we support responsible broadcasters with our advertising” and said the matter “will be passed on to our brand team for consideration in the future.”

The Federalist was unable to get in contact with a media representative for Greenway Kia, who also ran an ad during the Katy Tur Reports segment.

Keep reading

The Return of the Most EVIL Political Attack Ever: Dems in Full Freakout Mode Over ‘They/Them’ Ads

I’m great at writing bios for my PR clients: celebs, entertainers, lawyers, businessmen, athletes—you name it. 

Not to brag, but they’re some of my finest works of fiction.

Because, in my profession, we don’t begin with “the truth.” (More often than not, “the truth” only gets in the way. Lousy reality! It’s always interfering with my creative storytelling!) 

Instead, we begin with the story we want to tell. 

And then we cherrypick the truthful bits and pieces of his or her bio to tell this one specific story. So, nothing in a client’s bio is actually false — you never lie — but you use reality as a springboard for storylines that’ll ring more registers.

Pinsker Law of PR #33: Clients don’t hire propagandists to publicize what the truth is. We’re hired to publicize what they wish the truth was.

It’s not my job to report reality. I’m not a documentary filmmaker; that’s not why clients pay me. Getting mad at a propagandist for inaccurately mirroring reality is kind of like getting mad at a dentist because he’s bad at carpentry: They’re different disciplines.

PR is strategic storytelling. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it’s ALWAYS driven by the beliefs, fears, and aspirations of your target audience.

This takes us to the latest Democratic freakout. Yesterday, it was gerrymandering; today, it’s the dreaded return of the most diabolical, meanspirited political attack of our era: the GOP’s “they/them” ads.

(Gasp!)

CNN issued the ominous warning yesterday: “Republicans reprise anti-transgender ‘Kamala is for they/them’ ads for the midterms.”

Why, how dare those Republicans double-down on a successful political campaign! That’s not fair.

Keep reading