Marketing and Advertising

Stop Making Me Defend Harvard!

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Not that I find the latest controversial course offering at Harvard ennobling or likely to prompt me remove my diploma from its place of shame—front to the wall, on the floor— in the hallway to my office, but it is defensible, which is not the same as calling it “good.”

Harvard University hosted OnlyFans drool-object Ari Kytsya….

….(she’s another “influencer”) at a business class discussion on the adult entertainment industry. Kytsya spoke at Harvard about her career on the adult live porn site and the business of being an online peep show entrepreneur. During the lecture, Kytsya discussed the nuances of profiting from making “adult content” and shared anecdotes from her work. For example, once she was paid to “shit in a box for 10K.” Nice. She also emphasized how important it is to enjoy one’s work.

Harvard is being criticized for hosting the lecture, the complaint being that the school is debasing elite education by elevating sexually explicit content and adult entertainers to the status of legitimate topics for academic study.

The criticism is, I think, unfair. OnlyFans was a creative use of new technology when it was conceived; it is also a model that allows individuals to build a brand and a business. I can certainly see how there are valuable business lessons to be learned from the OnlyFans phenomenon that can be applied to other, more traditional businesses.

Nor are dubious courses anything new at Harvard. When I was at the college, there was an infamous “gut”—Harvardese for a shamelessly easy course—nicknamed “Ships.” The semester course, taught by an amiable and ancient professor, covered the history of sea vessels, and if you couldn’t get an A in that course, you were probably dead. There was nothing useful in “Ships” unless one was considering landing on Plymouth Rock. The OnlyFans discussion, in contrast, could have practical applications.

Ethics Alarms recently relayed the news that has-been B list actress Shannon Elizabeth, well past her wet T-shirt pull date, was displaying her wares on the site. It was reported last month that the 52-year-old earned $1 million in her first week. Now, business courses are not the only academic settings where the porn site is worthy of study; sociology, American culture and psychology students, as well as technology scholars, should heed the phenomenon. Back in 2021, law professor Catherine McKinnon called out OnlyFans as a toxic influence on the culture, contributing to societal approval of pornography and sex work, and described the platform as a cyber-pimp.

She may be right. But that would make the case that OnlyFans is a valid topic for academic inquiry stronger.

Confronting My Biases #28: Shannon Elizabeth

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

I know this particular bias is probably indefensible. I know how I’m supposed to feel. I just don’t. A little help here?

Remember Shannon Elizabeth? I’d place her in the same category as Andrea Dromm, Michelle Johnson and Pam Austin, three earlier sexy, attractive starlets who had brief moments of B-level film success before they were pushed into obscurity by younger Hollywood “It” girls. It’s a cruel business, and especially cruel for young women whose main assets are their assets and not the potential to play Medea.

Shannon Elizabeth gained 10 minutes of stardom playing the sex kitten in the raunchy hit “American Pie”: that was her peak. “America Pie II” is where that photo above comes from, and professionally it was all downhill after that…a few forgettable flops, a TV series that was cancelled in its first season, nothing since 2006. Her Wikipedia page describes her as an “activist,” a professional poker player, and an actress. Her major recent accomplishment seems to be being named “one of the leading celebrity poker players”20 years ago.

I find all this ineffably sad, but that’s not the topic today. It is this: at the age of 52, Shannon just filed for divorce and announced that she was opening an Only Fans account, where horny middle-aged men can pay to see her ta-tas, and presumably other things.

“I’ve spent my entire career working in Hollywood, where other people controlled the narrative and the outcome of my career. This new chapter is about changing that, showing off a more sexy side no one has seen, and being closer to my fans,” Elizabeth told PEOPLE . “I’m choosing OnlyFans because it allows me to connect directly with my audience, create on my own terms, and just be free. I really do think this is the future.”

Fans can subscribe to her page starting today. Let me translate what her statement says to me.

“I have never developed any special skills and have the intellectual life of a salmon. My career was based entirely on my looks, my marriage went to hell, and I couldn’t write a book or host a podcast on a bet. Yeah, I’ve got some money saved up, but I’m addicted to being looked at. I’ve slid all the way down the usual greased poll of fading B-level celebrity: reality shows, Dancing with the Stars, so now it’s come to this. I know forty and fifty year-old men will pay to see me naked because they liked ‘American Pie.’ At least that’s something.”

Pages: 1 2

Update on “Ethics Observations On the Allied Injury Group’s ‘Your Favorite Attorney’ TV Ads”

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Last year, almost a year ago, I posted this commentary about the Allied Injury Group’s TV ad that embodied all of the horrors the legal profession used for a century to ban lawyer marketing and advertising (thus forgetting about the First Amendment thingy, you know, just like today’s progressives..). In the process, I managed to make an unethical mistake, mislabeling the slimy law firm involved and calling it the Allied Law Group, a non-slimy law firm that was none too pleased. I apologized profusely to the representative of that firm who called to ream me out and made the correction pronto.

The main thrust of the original post was that the ads seemed to present the silly character giving the pitch as a lawyer, and no matter how unlikely that seemed it was a bright line ethics violation as misleading advertising.

This morning I saw the firms’ new add, which dropped at the end of March. That notice, with chase lights running around “not a lawyer,” appeared a few second in.

Good. We ethicists have to take our meager victories, however rare, to maintain our sanity.

AI Robocall Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

This has to be illegal. If it isn’t, it is certainly unethical.

I got a call this morning with a caller ID that stated it was from a hospital. If I say “hello” and there is an odd pause, usually followed by a telltale <click> and voice saying “Hello?” I hang up immediately. because it’s a robocall. This time, however, there was no click, and a clear, unaccented, assertive voice called out, “Hello!” I was curious, so I responded,”What do you want?” “We’ve been trying to reach you,” the cheerful young woman said. “Have you been made aware of Medicare cash paybacks?” THEN I hung up. I know an AI bot when I hear one.

The problem is, most people over the age of about 40 do not. This one was good, the best I’ve heard yet. Way back in 2015, Ars Technica wrote about the then-new use of interactive robocalls, but that was before the AI revolution. Last night I had been watching a new streaming series starring Nicole Kidman and Jamie Lee Curtis in which a character is addicted to conversing with an AI version of her dead wife. These fake people are improving at a logorhythmic rate, and in about a week the non-humans calling me will be undetectable. That doesn’t mean they will be the same as real callers, which means neglecting to announce to an individual that the voice on the other end of the line is AI-generated is fraud, dishonest, a lie, and, of course, unethical.

There needs to be a tough law or regulation against this practice. Now.

“Shrinkflation” Ethics: Ritz Crackers

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

For some reason, a grocery store sale led me to purchase an absurd number of Ritz cracker boxes in late 2023. Those crackers lasted until just a few weeks ago, so I only had to buy another box last week. I knew immediately that the new box was smaller and lighter than the ones I had been staring at for over two years.

Sure enough, Nabisco replaced cracker packs with smaller packs in 2024 resulting in about 30% fewer crackers by weight while keeping the same price. But that’s not what most annoyed me. The crackers themselves are noticeably smaller, and also thinner. I’ve been eating Ritz crackers, the favored crackers in the Marshall family, most of my life. I knew their size like I know my nose. I can’t find a good photo that demonstrates the difference, but it is dramatic.

That means, of course, that the “ORIGINAL” label on the front of the box is a lie, and false advertising. The weight is on the box as required, and if an alert consumer is paying attention, he or she knows that the price is the same for fewer crackers. But there is no way the smaller Ritz can accurately be called the “original” version.

Who knows what other hidden surprises will be in store for cracker aficionados in the years ahead?

This was my last purchase of Ritz crackers.

Ethics Pro Tip: If You’re a Realtor Using AI To Scam Potential Customers, You’re Not Only Unethical, You’re an Idiot

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Since AI bots are gradually corrupting everything from funny dog videos to legal briefs, it should not surprise anyone to learn that the little buggers are making real estate ads unreliable too. “Realtors Are Using AI Images of Homes They’re Selling. Comparing Them to the Real Thing Will Make You Mad as Hell” lays out this revolting development. “Future” writes,

“Realtors have made extensive use of the tech, manipulating photos of properties beyond recognition by giving facades and interiors a heavy coat of AI-generated paint. Text descriptions of properties have turned into a heap of ChatGPT-generated buzzwords, devolving an already frustrating house hunt into a genuinely exasperating experience. Making sense of what a rental apartment actually looks like in the real world has regressed into a guessing game. We’ve already come across bizarre listings of inexplicably classified houses with smoothed-over architectural features, misplaced trees, nonsensically rearranged furniture, and mangled props.”

Fortunately, the people most likely to cheat using AI are also the ones who have exceeded their Peter Principle ceilings and are incompetent at their chosen fields, hence the felt need to used bots to try to fool others who probably are smarter than they are. The ethics values are incompetence and dishonesty.

And thus we have the risible tale of the listing for a property in Fort Totten, a suburb in northern Washington, D.C., that has been taken down from Apartments.com. While the ad was up, it seemingly promised that for just $1,800 a month, a lucky renter could have her own bathroom Hell-spawn. See it in the photo above, crawling onto the bathroom sink?

Giraffe360, an AI image editing tool for real estate photos, points out on its website that real estate organizations “consistently prohibit” edits that remove or alter structural elements, erase or modify views, or digitally renovate or upgrade interiors or exteriors. “Here’s a simple test: if an edit would require physical renovation to achieve in real life, it shouldn’t be in an MLS listing photo,” it advises. But there is a loophole: edits that create H.P. Lovecraft creature features on the property probably should also be taboo.

“How do you not notice the melted demon crawling out of the wall before you hit publish?” one user wrote, attempting to rebut the presumption that AI image editing tools were involved. That’s an easy question that regular Ethics Alarms readers can answer by quoting The Waco Kid: “You know. Morons!”

A Contrarian Ethics Take On “Body-Shaming” Performers

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I guess I’ve read too many articles like “Country Star Issues Blunt Response After Being Criticized for Her Appearance: ‘I’m Seething’” Not that I’ve read a lot of articles about country singer Lauren Alaina, yet another star in that genre introduced to the world by “American Idol”: I’ve never heard her, or of her. But I have been reading and hearing performers, particularly women, going into high dudgeon about fans, movie-goers, concert ticket-buyers and others who criticize them regarding their physical appearance, particularly their weight. Apparently Lauren’s furious because a lot of people criticized her weight based on a recent video of her performing. The singer wrote on Instagram in part,

“I’m literally so mad right now. I’m seething…We’ve got to change the way we’re talking about women on social media. We need to retire the obsession with women’s bodies. If you care about the music…talk about the music. If you don’t…. well, that’s fine too.
But this culture of speculating about women’s bodies?
It’s tired. Do better.”

Alana went on to emote about the phenomenon later. “A few weeks ago, I saw a TikTok of me up on stage singing, and all of the comments were about my weight,” she sobbed. “People were saying that my tour needed to be sponsored by Ozempic and just horrible things. It really affected me,” she said. “I am in recovery from an eating disorder that I’ve battled for a very long time. This just really upset me…I have an 8-month-old daughter, and we can’t talk about women this way. This is bull crap. If you’re a woman out there and people are commenting on your body, and saying this, myself included, we’ve gotta ignore that, and we all need to be better. This is crazy.”

“Well allow me to retort!” I say, in my best Samuel L. Jackson impression. (No, I’m not going to shoot her.)

Pages: 1 2

The N.F.L. Is Helping Chuck Klosterman’s Prediction Come True [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 45 Comments

I was going to get this up before the Super Bowl, but it turns out that the issue was further crystalized by the game itself. As happens approximately 50% of the time with this annual spectacle, the game was a yawn, and much of the news coming out of the contest involved the NFL’s deliberate transformation of what was once considered a unifying family cultural event, like Fourth of July fireworks, into a partisan, progressive statement about how America sucks, with expensive TV ads extolling capitalism and patriotism at the same time. That’s message whiplash, and ethically irresponsible.

As the New York Times explained, without criticism, the NFL took a hard turn Left when it put Barack Obama pal Jay-Z, the rap star and impresario, in charge of the Super Bowl halftime show after the 2018 Super Bowl had triggered anger from fans over players “taking a knee” during the National Anthem. The Times, spinning as usual, says that the kneeling was intended to “draw attention to police brutality and social justice issues.”

As Ethics Alarms pointed out at the time, none of the kneelers, including its cynical originator, over-the-hill quarterback Colin Kaepernick, ever explained coherently what they were kneeling about. What “police brutality”? Oh, you know, Mike Brown, whom Black Lives Matters still says was “murdered” on its website. What social justice issues? Oh, you know: it’s time for white people to be discriminated against to make up for slavery. The left-turn was a greed-induced mass virtue signal to blacks, clueless young fans, and Democrats. (It helped that President Trump vociferously attacked Kaepernick and Co., so the kneeling appealed to the Trump Deranged too. (See Dissonance Scale, Cognitive)

The Times:

Pages: 1 2

From The “I Did Not Know That!” Files: The History of Crisco

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

A British personal trainer and fitness coach named Sama Hoole posted this on “X”:

1866: Cotton seeds are agricultural waste. After extracting cotton fiber, farmers are left with millions of tons of seeds containing oil that’s toxic to humans. Gossypol, a natural pesticide in cotton, makes the oil inedible. The seeds are fed to cattle in small amounts or simply discarded.

1900: Procter & Gamble is making candles and soap. They need cheap fats. Animal fats work but they’re expensive. Cotton seed oil is abundant and nearly worthless. If they could somehow make it edible, they’d have unlimited cheap raw material. The process they develop is brutal. Extract the oil using chemical solvents. Heat to extreme temperatures to neutralise gossypol. Hydrogenate with pressurised hydrogen gas to make it solid at room temperature. Deodorise chemically to remove the rancid smell. Bleach to remove the grey color. The result: Crisco. Crystallised cottonseed oil.

Industrial textile waste transformed through chemical processing into something white and solid that looks like lard. They patent it in 1907, launch commercially in 1911. Now they have a problem. Nobody wants to eat industrial waste that’s been chemically treated. Your grandmother cooks with lard and butter like humans have for thousands of years. Crisco needs to convince her that her traditional fats are deadly and this hydrogenated cotton-seed paste is better. The marketing campaign is genius. They distribute free cookbooks with recipes specifically designed for Crisco. They sponsor cooking demonstrations. They target Jewish communities advertising Crisco as kosher: neither meat nor dairy. They run magazine adverts suggesting that modern, scientific families use Crisco while backwards rural people use lard.

But the real coup happens in 1948. The American Heart Association has $1,700 in their budget. They’re a tiny organisation. Procter & Gamble donates $1.7 million. Suddenly the AHA has funding, influence, and a major corporate sponsor who manufactures vegetable oil.

1961: The AHA issues their first dietary guidelines. Avoid saturated fat from animals. Replace it with vegetable oils. Recommended oils: Crisco, Wesson, and other seed oils. The conflict is blatant. The organization issuing health advice is funded by the company that profits when people follow that advice. Nobody seems troubled by this. Newspapers report the guidelines as objective science. Doctors repeat them to patients. Government agencies adopt them into policy. Industrial cotton-seed oil, chemically extracted and hydrogenated, becomes “heart-healthy” while butter becomes “artery-clogging poison.”

1980s: Researchers discover that trans fats, created by hydrogenation, directly cause heart disease. They raise LDL, lower HDL, promote inflammation, and increase heart attack risk more than any other dietary fat. Crisco, as originally formulated, is catastrophically unhealthy. This takes 70 years to officially acknowledge. Procter & Gamble’s response: Quietly reformulate without admission of error. Remove hydrogenation, keep selling seed oils, never acknowledge that their “heart-healthy” product spent seven decades actively causing the disease it claimed to prevent. Modern seed oils remain. Soybean, canola, corn, safflower oils everywhere. Same chemical extraction process. Same high-temperature refining. Same oxidation problems. Just without hydrogenation so trans fats stay below regulatory thresholds. These oils oxidise rapidly when heated. They integrate into cell membranes where they create inflammatory signalling for months or years. They’re rich in omega-6 fatty acids that promote inflammation. They’ve never existed in human diets at current consumption levels. But they’re cheap. Profitable. And the food industry has spent a century convincing everyone they’re healthy. The alternative, admitting that industrial textile waste shouldn’t have been turned into food, would require acknowledging the last 110 years of dietary advice was fundamentally corrupted from the start. Your great-grandmother cooked with lard because that’s what humans used for millennia. Then Procter & Gamble needed to sell soap alternatives and accidentally created the largest dietary change in human history.

We traded animal fats that built civilisations for factory waste that causes disease. The soap company won. Your health lost.

I have no idea if this is all true, partially true, a matter of dispute, or complete fantasy. But I bet RFK Jr. likes it. The story, which certainly has the ring of truth, also raises the issue of trusting science and experts, especially when business interests and money are involved.

My personal favorite use of Crisco was when people would mix it with food coloring and sugar and call it “frosting.”

Ethics Alarms #&%@ed-Up. Again. Abject Apology Follows…

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Why not start off the day with a humiliating confession? Nothing else has been working lately…

Back in May, I wrote about that ad above in which a goofy pitchman for the Allied Injury Group nicked or squashed a couple of legal ethics rules in the course of exactly the kind of lawyer advertising the profession was afraid would result when it had to eliminate the unconstitutional ban on the practice. It was a harsh post and should have been. I wrote in part,

“…the spokesperson calling himself “Your Favorite Attorney” is an actor, indeed a stand-up comic named Shaun Jones. All of the jurisdictions prohibit lawyer advertising in any form that is misleading or that includes false information. A sole practitioner can’t call her firm “X & Associates,” for example, if she’s the only lawyer in the firm. Putting a non-lawyer in front of a camera and calling having him call himself an attorney is an undeniable violation, and an intentional one… Jones also says that if the client doesn’t make money, “I” don’t make money. That is deceit. The firm will argue that the actor is only saying that if the firm doesn’t win its cases, the actor won’t get paid. But his statement is intended to refer to contingent fees for attorneys, and he isn’t one. “

Having done my duty to flag these hacks, I then proceeded to put the wrong law firm name in the headline! I have a typo and proofreading problem, as even casual visitors here know; I’ve gotten better, but the fact that these posts are usually written in fits and starts while I try to complete actual income-relating work [Thank you, by the way, to those of you who sent me generous contributions or gifts over the holidays, or kind words of encouragement that I appreciated just as much.] means that I sometimes miss glaring errors. That’s not an excuse. But it’s true.

This one was a doozy, made worse by my obstinate habit of proofing everything but the headlines. And so it was that The Allied Law Group, a distinguished and, based on my research, an impeccably professional and trustworthy firm that specializes in civil appellate law, media and First Amendment law, open government laws, regulatory litigation, legislation and general litigation, but not personal injury law, was unjustly and wrongly impugned.

That firm’s clients include lawyers, public interest groups, trade associations and media organizations. Their website is impressive and professional; I would even say, as one who is often asked to review the content of lawyer websites for ethics violations, exemplary.

So this was a really bad mistake on my part, and I could not be more sorry, embarrassed, contrite and remorseful. I apologize to the firm, its lawyers, its staff and clients. The post has been corrected, and let us never speak of it again.

I want to note that the firm attorney I spoke with was thoroughly civil, respectful, and, frankly, nicer than I might have been in a similar situation. She did not threaten me, as many lawyers are wont to do. She did inform me of the undeserved abuse that her firm has been getting—even death threats!—from people who have confused the firm with Allied Injury Group. People want to kill unethical lawyers now? I did not see that coming. I do have a hard time believing that anyone inclined to send death threats reads an ethics blog, but never mind: I accept responsibility for contributing to the confusion.

The Allied Law Group’s representative also didn’t make any demands during our conversation, because before she finished her second sentence I said: “I’ll fix that post immediately.” Nor did not instruct me to post this: I told her that I would compose an apology and get it up as soon as possible, because that’s my policy when I screw up.

Finally, I want to thank commenter Ric, who sent in a comment flagging the error last November. As Herman Kahn said, unlikely disasters occur when there’s a 1% confluence of bad management and bad luck. I try to read all reader comments. I missed that one.

Thus endeth the grovel.

Now to proof read the headline…