Friday, 13 May 2011
15 of the lamest Google Ads ever
Worst PPC ad ever?
Want to become a police officer?
Ford clearly forgot to check this ad
World of Warcraft
Flights to hell
Mating with animals
Leg amputees
Certificate in terrorism?
(via elistmania)
Corpses
eBay
(via eBads)
Thanks to a scattergun approach to PPC in the past, there are plenty of examples of eBay bidding on bizarre and inappropriate terms.
Skin cancer
Used toilet paper
Kick in the balls
Nuclear weapon
Crack baby
Great deals on fascists...
Ten horrifying display ad placements
1. Want to grill like an expert?
2. Hooray for beer!
3. Free dinner for two
4. Samsung blast
5. We've got you under our wing
6. Toyota
7. Dad, what would happen...
8. Evian
9. Point. Shoot. Wow.
10. Win a mini-break in gorgeous Greece...
The Reply Given in Arkell v. Pressdram
This case is well known among lawyers and journalists, especially the phrase 'I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram'.
But it really deserves to be better known, and so I set it out below.
Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.
His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.
We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Private Eye's reply:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
No further correspondence was received.
But it really deserves to be better known, and so I set it out below.
Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.
His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.
We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Private Eye's reply:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.
We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
No further correspondence was received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
