Apple just released their TV spot for the newly redesigned iPod Shuffle. The spot is great — and has a cool soundtrack featuring the song “Who’s Gonna Sing” by The Prototypes. The visual effect of having people change every time a shirt is removed is clever as well.

The spot also does not show the heads of any of the dancers, but only the torso of each person. This reminded me of a recent campaign that Hewlett-Packard did for their “Computer is Personal Again” promotion.

The spots are distinctly different in their tone, design, and messaging, but it is interesting that this technique is being used by another technology company while the HP spots are still in rotation. Perhaps it points to a new trend in featuring torso-only TV spots?

Check out the new site that Adobe launched last week targeting creative professionals for Creative Suite 2.3. Created by Goodby, Silverstein & Partners with our good friends at Unit 9, the site has lots of hidden treasures and easter eggs to discover.

Yesterday, I walked by a bus shelter on Van Ness and did a double take. I saw this seemingly standard ad for Listerine:

What made me stop was the claim in the headline, “If you think it’s just for your mouth, think bigger.” What? Listerine does more than simply clean my mouth? Reading the fine print, I discovered what Listerine was trying to tout:

“Emerging science suggests that there may be a link between the health of your mouth and the health of your body. Physicians and dentists don’t yet know the exact connection, but several theories exist. And because a healthy mouth is one thing everyone agrees is important, there’s Listerine — proven to help keep your mouth healthier by killing germs that cause plaque and gingivitis.*”

Emerging science? Doctors don’t know the connection? Theories? This is supposed to convince me to drop everything to go over to Walgreen’s a buy a bottle of mouthwash? Here’s a close up of the claim:

Advertising claims are closely regulated by the FTC, so I knew that if Listerine was going to make a claim as ambiguous as “emerging science” claiming a link between a “healthy mouth” and a “healthy body,” there would need to be some sort of evidence that Listerine used to make that claim.

It turns out that Listerine just launched its “emerging science” campaign last week, and has a website dedicated to the claims it is making. The site and corresponding press release explain that “while a causal link has not been established,” gingivitis, if allowed to progress to gum disease, “may contribute to broader health problems” including “cardiovascular diseases, pre-term low birth weight, diabetes and stroke.” Those are fairly hefty claims that Listerine is alluding to, especially since they have no true evidence to back it up. Listerine even goes out of its way to provide the obligatory legal line:

“It is important to note, however, that a cause and effect relationship between periodontal disease and systemic diseases has not been established. What is known is that emerging science suggests an association.”

So wait a second here. There may or may not be a cause and effect relationship between gum disease and say, diabetes? Why is Listerine even bothering to move forward with a campaign that has so little to say, and such vague associations? The reality is that advertising makes these sort of claims all the time, but generally, even so, the claims have more evidence backing up the claim than just the vague phrase “emerging science.” Digging through their site, little information is provided, with unclear references to “studies” and “theories” without providing concrete evidence. It seems so strange that Listerine would focus its ad dollars on promoting a claim with no proven causality.

Election day is here and I am in complete awe of the amount of choices we have this election. We have the potential to completely change the balance of power in the House of Representatives for the first time in 12 years. The California governor and state senator seats are both up. And little known offices such as BART Director and Community College Board are also being voted on. I hate voting without being educated about where my vote is going, so I spent a little time reviewing all the ballots, propositions and measures this afternoon so I could fill out my massive absentee ballot. A few random observations:

• San Francisco has a measure (J) to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, if passed. Wow. I wonder how that one will play out.
• Another San Francisco measure (B) would allow members of City boards and commissions to participate in meetings by teleconference if they are on pregnancy or parental leave. I wonder what the backstory is behind this one? Seems pretty logical, and not sure why we have to burden voters with this kind of measure.
• Oakland mayor and former presidential candidate Jerry Brown is up for Attorney General. He is definitely a serial politician
• Formerly up against Schwarzenegger during the last gubernatorial election, Cruz Bustamante is up for Insurance Commmissioner
• For Board of Supervisors in my local district, Dave Kiddoo is encouraging a write-in campaign.

I usually consult the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Chronicle to determine how I should vote on ballot measures and propositions, as well as to inform myself on candidates who are running. Much to my surprise, when I reviewed judical appointments for California, neither had any endorsements. I know this is a huge election year, but even these appointments should have some sort of endorsements. Judicial appointments do play quite significantly in how laws are created in my state, and I don’t want to simply vote without knowing who to vote for.

After doing some digging, I found the Los Angeles Times partial endorsements for Supreme Court Justices as well as an article on the reason for their picks for the Judicial Races. I also found an guide written by the League of Women Voters that explains how the judges are selected, that includes the breakdown of gender and racial representation in California Court System.

It will be interesting to see how the election results unfold tomorrow.