Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Silly Little Blog Post About Dumb Little Blog Ad: My Excoriation of Barclays Paid-For Name Building Earns More Barclays Spending To Get Its Name Out

For most readers this will provide a teensy little peek into the inside world of blogging. . .

. . Noticing New York is published on the web via Google Blogger. It's `free' but Google sells advertising, so, for instance, yesterday a Google Blogger advertisement popped up when I published a Noticing New York post. The post (No Sparkle In Barclays’ Bob Diamond: Societal Mores Unmoored, What And Who We Honor Today- That Which We Used To Shun) extensively castigated Barclays Bank (and its former, now resigned-in-disgrace, chief executive Robert E. “Bob” Diamond) for not being inclined to do the right thing by community standards but nevertheless paying to have the `honor' of having their names prominently appear on things like the “Barclays” Ratner/Prokhorov basketball arena opening in Brooklyn and the (Bob) “Diamond Building” on Colby College’s campus.

It’s scary to think but Google Blogger knows what I am writing about! Something in its algorithms was reading what I wrote and knew I was writing about Barclays. So when I finally finished and posted my excoriation of the bank, what advertisement did Google Blogger pop up for me to see? . . . . It was an ad telling me I should “open an account today” with Barclays!

So much for the `successful publishing’ of my blog post!: Barclays’ lavish spending had done it again!

So I am left thinking of the many fellow bloggers who are probably hither and yon writing articles about the imminently pending criminal indictments of NYC Barclays traders and I am figuring that those bloggers are probably similarly being told to put their money into Barclays deposits! Ah, the preciously paid-for irony!

This has happened before and it obviously says something about who has money to burn and how they are burning it. I’ve written a lot of criticism of Barclay-friend Mayor Michael Bloomberg, including criticism about his record-breaking spending to get elected to his purloined third term. To wit, the below:
. . . Bloomberg, having so far “spent $85 million on his latest re-election campaign” (that’s just his direct campaign expenditures), was “on pace to spend between $110 million and $140 million before the election on Nov. 3” and that “Bloomberg, in his three bids for mayor, will have easily burned through more than $250 million” (in direct campaign expenditures.)
(See: Sunday, November 1, 2009, Bloomberg vs. Thomson (54% to 29%?): It’s Not What You Think. (For Instance the “P” is Missing and What Might “P” Stand For?).)

This was during the campaign and Bloomberg, using his personal wealth, was on track to significantly outspend (by about twelve to one) his Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson, who was using conventional donations and campaign matching funds. In the end that was pretty much the picture,with Bloomberg spending over $102 million Bloom-bucks for this one election.

My Noticing New York posts were supplying people with an impressive panoply of reasons NOT to vote for Bloomberg. What Google advertisements was I getting when I hit the “publish” button? Ads telling me that I should vote for Bloomberg!

Good thing none of these ads are subliminally effective. . . or at least I hope they're not.

No comments: