Every time I see this ad on the subway I'm a bit mystified. I got the idea pretty quickly--that by using Lavalife you can expect to find a quick hookup and be happy right now, rather than a good long-term relationship, as advertised by other dating services. The picture also suggests, as their other ads have, that you'll get to go on a lot of dates with different people. But I continue to ponder the linguistic and philosophical implications of how they chose to deliver this message.

1. If the words 'ever after' were simply not part of the ad, the phrase 'Live happily' would not suggest short-term happiness. Only having the words there and crossed out communicates the desired meaning. It's a linguistic device that I don't recall seeing before, though I'm sure it's all been done.

2. If the choice is between living happily for a short time and living happily ever after, would people really rather live happily for a short time? Naturally living happily ever after is much more difficult to achieve, and a more ambitious promise from a dating service. But having 'ever after' crossed out, to me, implies forgoing eternal happiness for the short-term variety. I understand what they're trying to say, but with my literal mind I can't get past the irrationality at that level. If you're happy ever after you get to be happy in the short term too! Don't you know that, cartoon woman!?

Also odd is that most companies, Lavalife included, love to deploy a few related ads at a time on the subway, all delivering the same message, but with a few different clever turns of phrase. I'm sure there's a term for it in the ad biz. An ad campaign, I guess you could call it. But this ad has no partners, so I have no other context by which to judge their message.

This is another ad I've been puzzled by (what can I say, it's been happening a lot lately). In this case I feel more like a sucker for writing about it, because merely by hiring 50 Cent to be a spokesman for Vitamin Water, I think they must be going for some kind of studied absurdity.

In the photo, 50 is reading the Wall Street Journal with his Vitamin Water beside him while women in bikinis dance in the background. This, with the accompanying text, appears to be suggesting that behind all the champagne consumption of his public image, 50 needs to focus and take care of business without any distractions, and Vitamin Water is the beverage of choice for that hour. And here the questions begin.

First, it's pretty funny that even during his 'focus' time, 50's not going to actually leave the room in which the groupies dance in bikinis, presumably with loud music playing. Or is their presence figurative, showing that even though they are available, he is ignoring them, but not that they are physically behind him?

Second, does 50 read the Wall Street Journal? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of top artists are pretty business-savvy, some after having learned the hard way that it's a good skill. I know far too little about 50 Cent to say whether the photo is a plausible scenario; maybe someone can help me out with that. But is this how his fans want to picture him? I thought the idea in hip-hop was to make it look easy to be so successful. Odd, but I guess praiseworthy, that he's willing to be shown this way.

Lastly, wouldn't this be much funnier if it were a WSJ ad?

* * *

Bonus edition: the moronic Washington Mutual ads in which archetypical aged white executives in suits are shown unable to countenance the idea of free ATM withdrawals (example). A while ago WaMu, as they like to be called so that one sounds like a baby or as though one's mouth is full of food when referring to them, had a policy that customers of other banks could use WaMu ATMs with no fee (although they might still get charged by their own bank). This always seemed strange: a policy that benefited everyone except than their own customers. Evidently the strategy was just to get these people into their banks and liking WaMu so that they would become customers, even if they knew that the policy would cease to benefit them as soon as they did. It must have worked, even if it seemed irrational, otherwise why would they do it? But then they eliminated the policy, so maybe it didn't work after all, or stopped working.

Now they expect us to believe that executives have fits over no-fee withdrawals from WaMu ATMs by WaMu customers, a service offered by every bank in existence? And they also expect us to believe that their own executives are not like the ones shown in the ad? Their own page suggests otherwise. Two out of twelve execs are female, and twelve out of twelve are white. All in all, it's a solid record of insulting the customers' intelligence.