Confused.com? I am now!

Why are all adverts so criminally piss poor? I once heard someone say that "the worse an advert the more memorable it becomes" now judging by the continuing use of that fat git from the Go Compare adverts I don't think I need Adam and Jamie to say "Myth Confirmed" for this matter. Far more irritating though is when an advert becomes so bad that you can't actually remember what it's advertising.

Some of the offenders, the aforementioned Go Compare and Comparethemarket.com (granted I still have a soft spot for Alexander the meerkat, probably due to the voice actor being the legendary Michael from I'm Alan Partridge - and a meerkat) are at least obvious what they are advertising. It's still got the nuisance value but they at least sit there and make it obvious. Far worse though are sitting through adverts which don't actually seem to be that good at what they're doing.

Now let's look at the latest Confused.com advert shall we? We have some bint singing how she needs somebody to love and two random people from loads who join together and talking about two million people... When the blue Hell did they turn into a dating website? When they first started advertising it was obvious, show hopeless elderly person being shown how to use the internet and how easy the web site is. So why on Earth did they go with some cryptic thing which leads to any confusion. Rule number 1 of performance and PR, always assume that people have no idea who/what you are. Incidentally the blonde must have severe back trouble with bristols like that!

For a long time there have been a whole host of adverts along this line, generally they fit into three categories. Car adverts, men's deodorant (clearly we can't handle the scientific and hilariously small focus groups used for women's stuff!) and alcoholic beverages are the ones worst for this. Please, if you're going to wind us up at least could you do us the pleasure of making it obvious what you're trying to sell us!

Who are You? Who who, who who?

Strictly speaking that's a grammatical error but given the background I'm not surprised "The Who(m)" got that wrong. Useless detour many MOONS ago my friend Liz's mum was engaged to their drummer, can never remember his name though, the engagement was called off because "he'll never amount to anything". Well done Mummy Liz, a few months and a broken instrument or two and we have one of the most iconic bands of all time.


I digress from my point though, no nautical terms thankfully, as my topic today is the most watched program on the planet CSI - Crime Scene Investigation. William Peterson who plays Gil Grissom put it best when he said that this wasn't a bog standard "Whodunnit but a HOWdunnit" and I think that's one of the reasons it's so popular. Sometimes the penny drops too late and they don't get their man/woman or they realise they make a mistake. Also Catherine Willows (Marg Somegermannamer) is such a judgemental trollope she'll dedicate most of an episode harassing someone innocent then refuse to swallow her pride and say "sorry" after breaking up a relationship/shutting down a business/wasting an innocent mans time (always male suspects).


Recently me and Hannah finished sitting through the whole of the first series, most episodes of which we've not seen for a very long time if at all. During which I decided to play the "Catherine game" and judge someone's motives from their first line. Initially I'd been playing the "Metropolitan Police" method of "Black-Dude did it" and though it would've served me right in 3/23 episodes, in most cases the only "suspect" was Warrick Brown (I'm sure this is a writers error, in his script he wrote Enter Warrick, Brown, they assume its his name for PC reasons) and I can't believe he'd do anything wrong, ever, right? Playing more seriously I had a better success rate and would spot the key evidence as well but it's just not as fun.


The board game version as a result of the formula actually made it one of the best board games I've played for ages. In order to win you not only had to get the right suspect but the three key pieces of evidence that is 110% concrete in court, fail however, and you're "off the case". As a family we never managed to win. We've always had the right suspect but not the right evidence to get the arrest and conviction. So many criminals walking the streets of cardboard Vegas because of my inability to wait for evidence, though at least I've not yet done a Catherine and let my prejudism jade my judgement. Well there was the one time with my first role of the dice I went to Grissoms office and said "Black-Dude did it"... Don't know where that game is now, could be epicness next Forumbat sleepover!


So that's it for the day, finished the series one DVD box set and now to find a next film series to captivate me. Maybe Hannibal Lector (including Manhunter starring Grissom) will do, unless for the wenches birthday someone happens to have the series 2 CSI:Vegas box set available... Nah, didn't think so!