The MPA wins a "Worstie."

In yesterday's New York Times I came across an article on a new ad campaign from the MPA, the Magazine Publishers of America. This new campaign is so bad it wins the eleventh or ninth or twenty-seventh Worstie award--Ad Aged's award for ads so bad we don't even keep track of how many Worsties we've bestowed.

Anyone in the reality-based community knows that magazines--all print media--are in trouble. Readership and ad pages are down. The Publishers Information Bureau (who spell their name with no possessive) reports that magazine ad pages have dropped 6.4% in Q1 2008 and 8.2% in Q2.

So the MPA, via Toy, an agency formed by ex-Fallon-ites and ex-Cliff Freeman-ites, has concocted a new campaign to illustrate how integral magazine ads are to the buying process of consumers. This campaign is headlined "Under the Influence of Magazines." Every visual shows a millennial who's bought too many of something because, I assume, of the mesmerizing effect of magazine advertising.

Humor, pure and simple, is based on exaggerated truth. There is no truth in these ads. So the situations depicted aren't humorous--they are absurd. If my industry were hemorrhaging, I might use humor to attempt to reverse the trend. But I wouldn't use absurdity.

The Worstie is herewith awarded to the MPA for taking the easy way out in its ads. For abnegating credibility in its work. For believing that viewers will believe this drivel.