Last night I saw a Burger King TV commercial in which two guys dressed in hamburger costumes go to Wendy’s to order hamburgers, only to conclude that Wendy’s doesn’t offer burgers as good as BK.

The primary visual displayed on the screen throughout most of the commercial is the giant Wendy’s sign in front of the Wendy’s the burger guys go to.

In their argument with the server about who has the best burger, the name “Wendy’s” is mentioned about the same number of times as the name “Burger King.”

Consequently, the average viewer who sees the commercial is more likely to think of Wendy’s than he is of BK.

In fact, if he was paying scant attention as so many viewers do, he may even think he has just seen a Wendy’s commercial.

Does BK’s ad agency not realize they have made a giant blunder here?

Hard for me to accept that grown adults hold those agency jobs, created the commercial, and thinks it’s good — and that grown adults at BK approved it.

Did none of these folks pass Advertising 101?

When I took his direct marketing course at NYU back in the early 1980s, Milt Piece taught us that “the ideal mail order product is one that is not available in stores.”

But the catalog company Harry & David sells mainly fruit (also chocolates and cakes) through mail order … all of which are also available in stores.

An article in the October issue of Catalog Success notes that Harry & David has annual sales well over half a billion dollars a year.

Why do you think they are able to generate these huge revenues selling mostly pears, apples, grapes, and other produce you can get at your local supermarket?

What’s the secret of Harry & David’s success?

Anyone?

JJ, a marketing consultant who is an advocate of social media, confided in me that to get significant results takes 10 to 15 hours of participation a week — EVERY week.

For most of us, that’s time we don’t have to spare.

So I’m wondering: do you think a company or solopreneur can PAY someone to handle all of their social networking for them?

Could someone like me or you hire a consultant or freelancer to answer all the “join me as a friend” e-mails, spend the necessary hours reading and responding, keep Facebook and other profiles updated as needed, and otherwise outsource our social media marketing?

If we had to pay someone $1,000 to $2,000 a week or whatever to do this for us, would you spend the money — or would social media’s ROI suddenly become less appealing?

Would it even work? Can a “ghostnetworker” genuinely represent a client in secret and still have social media be effective — or would it be transparent and ineffective?

What say you?

A sin to be avoided in copy is using words that remind the prospect you are in actuality selling a product, not just educating or helping him out of the kindness of your heart.

One of the words on my forbidden list is “product.” Today I heard a radio spot for Joint Flex, an arthritis supplement, that repeats the word many times.

The announcer says: “Doctors love the product, patients love the product, you will love the product.”

Why call it “the product”? Why not be more specific and use the name?

My rewrite: “Doctors love Joint Flex, patients love Joint Flex, you will love Joint Flex.”

A yacht salesman refers to his top-of-the-line model as a “yacht” or “she.”

A car salesman refers to a sports car as a sports car, automobile, or “a beauty.”

You never hear a good salesperson say “our product” or “my product.”

Neither should a good copywriter.

“Product” instantly breaks the spell of enticing copy and says to the prospect, “Don’t forget, we want your money.”

In his October 2008 Fast Company column, Robert “Odd Bob” Scoble says he will never buy another physical newspaper again in his life but instead subscribes to more than 600 news feeds in Google Reader.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time to look at 600 of ANYTHING — let alone RSS or Google feeds.

I was thinking of telling Robert to do what I do: look through a daily newspaper for 10-15 minutes each month to find items of interest, and supplement with Google searches for facts and news you need right now.

Advantages of a real newspaper over Google Reader:

1. You get to read nice large type in print instead of tiny type on a screen.
2. It’s portable. You can carry the news with you without a power supply or gadget.
3. You can rip out articles of interest for passing along or filing.
4. It’s fun, entertaining, and relaxing. Do it while you eat breakfast or lunch.
5. It gives you clear coverage at just the right level of information density of what happened within the last 24 hours (for news in real time, I go to cnn.com).
6. The newspaper is delivered free to my front door every morning.

One newspaper — or 600 news feeds? Which would you prefer?

Not me, because I don’t carry a BlackBerry, BlueTooth, wireless laptop, or even a cell phone — no PDA, no beeper, no mobile technology of any kind.

But that’s because I’m not mobile; I’m here at this PC 12 hours a day, and at home the rest of the time. I don’t travel.

But I’m in the minority. According to a survey of 6,500 executives, conducted for Sheraton Hotels and reported in the Daily News (9/15/08):

>> 85% of professionals feel compelled to be on call around the clock.

>> 85% occasionally get up in the middle of the night to check their e-mail.

>> 87% bring their BlackBerrys into the bedroom at night, and 84% check their e-mail right before going to sleep.

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her essay “The Cult of Busyness,” said that being busy has become the new status symbol, more than cars, homes, clothes, or money.

And although if I was a road warrior, I think I WOULD carry at least a cell phone and maybe a BlackBerry or wireless laptop, or both ….

I can’t help wandering if carrying all this mobile technology reflects a subtle or even unconscious desire to show off how busy or important we are to others (like not wanting to be the only business person not doing work on the airplane).

What wireless gadgets do YOU carry?

Do they really make you more productive?

Or make you feel more important (come on, admit it!)?

Do they add to or relieve stress?

A popular piece of advice given by Internet marketing gurus is to market yourself by writing and posting articles on article submission sites such as http://www.articlehub.com/

The idea is to write a zillion articles, post them all over the Internet, and generate a ton of traffic as people who read your articles click on the link to your site in your bio or resource box at the end of the article.

Oddly, though, while this “marketing with articles” approach is widely recommended and sounds sensible, almost no one I know actually does it.

The usual reason given: “I know I should, but who has the time?” — the implication being that article marketing is a low priority compared to PPC advertising, SEO, e-mail, and other online tactics that presumably have better ROI.

Are YOU one of the smart minority of marketers who actively markets by writing and posting short articles at all of the online article directories?

If so, how do you manage to get it all done? Not just producing all those articles, but posting them on all those sites and tracking the results?

And speaking of tracking results, does article marketing give you a big ROI? Or is it a marginal marketing activity at best?

Does the quality of the content in the articles matter at all? Or does article marketing work just as well with crappy articles you pay some elancer to write for you for $25 a pop?

A few minutes ago I got an e-mail from Angus, one of my e-zine subscribers, who objected to the frequency with which I send e-mail marketing messages to him.

“I don’t mind getting your offers, but you are sending too f@#$%ing many,” said Andre (using the F-word).

I replied, “There is no need to use abusive language with me” and told him I would unsubscribe him immediately.

He replied that I was coming off to him as “rude” and “thin-skinned.”

Folks, I think we have entered the Twilight Zone here.

This guy e-mails me an e-mail with an obscenity … but it’s ME, not him, who’s rude?

Anybody see a disconnect here?

There are many things I love about the Internet.

But one thing I dislike is how the anonymity of e-mail emboldens some folks to lose all inhibition, and say anything they please — things they would never dream of saying face to face unless they were looking to start an altercation.

Am I right saying that Angus, not me, is the rude one here?

Or am I so out of touch that Netiquette today says it’s fine to use profanities when e-mailing strangers?