Recent ads by big companies go awry, spark controversy

Mercy, how I love advertising.

Good ads. Bad ads. Even mediocre ads ... yep, even the awful and the bland give me something to consider.

What do I like? What would I change? What were they thinking?

Speaking of what were they thinking? ... here are three recent ads that are in the news because some viewers or readers have found them controversial:

Recent ads by big companies go awry, spark controversy

• Burger King's "The King's Gone Crazy" campaign
  
• Nike's Tiger Woods comeback ads
  
• POM's "Cheat Death" campaign
  

Thanks to the sometimes-controversial Brett Michael Dykes and Yahoo's blog, The Newsroom.

And, say, Will Rogers: I love you, man, and I know where you're coming from, but we need to talk.

I'm a big fan of advertising ...

But some concepts escape me.

If this Time Warner Cable ad in The Dallas Morning News classifieds is required by law, why not make that clear?

If this ad isn't required by law, why is Time Warner wasting money on it?

That Stephen Leacock was ever so witty.

The "Quotes of the Day" gadget on my Google home page served up an item that led me to this tasty morsel from Canadian writer, economist and humourist Stephen Leacock (1869–1944):

"Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it."

Richard A. Solomon's response?

"Oh, Stephen, you wag. How terribly, terribly droll."