Well, this is just heartbreaking news for your Advertising Guide.  You know that hunky dude in the white towel?  Of course you do, because The Old Spice Guy and his commercial have been the best thing on TV and all the major social media for months!

Punch in Old Spice on YouTube and you'll see that the first TV spot, "The Man Your Man Can Smell Like," has generated well over 15 million views.  Find him on Facebook, and you'll laugh a manly laugh (not a lady-scented chuckle) at the 200 replies he filmed to "real" questions on topics ranging from grooming, to dating, to adoption, to flirting with Alyssa Milano.

TMYMCSL even won the prestigious Grand Prix, the top award at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival.

By every measure that your Advertising Guide holds dear, the Old Spice Guy and his campaign by ad agency Wieden + Kennedy are a huge success -- except for the ultimate one:  It's not selling Old Spice Body Wash.

I'm on a horse riding the wrong way?  Or something doesn't smell right?

A recent article in the marketing trade pub BrandWeek reported that "sales of the featured product -- Red Zone After Hours Body Wash -- aren't necessarily tracking with that consumer appeal: In the 52 weeks ended June 13, sales of the brand have dropped 7 percent according to SymphonyIRI," a retail research company.

You would think such a phenomenon could turn the brand around as fast as the beating hearts of the swooning ladies targeted in the commercials.  After all, W + K's research showed that 70% of all body wash for men is bought by women.  So, what went wrong?  Maybe nothing.

IRI's numbers exclude purchases at Wal-Mart, which accounted for nine percent of all retail sales in the U.S. in 2009.  That's one big gap in the sales calculations.

It should also be noted that the campaign started during the Super Bowl, on February 7^th, 2010.  Which means that no one can hang any weak sales from June 2009 through January 2010 on Sir Spice and his marketing team.

But I do have one nagging concern, no matter how brilliant the campaign is.  Perhaps no advertising in the world can turn around a brand whose best days occurred when your Grandpa went a courting.  And come to think of it, probably was picking up your Grandma on a horse.

Greetings, sports and media fans.  This is a rare year, where sofa athletes have been treated to two international events, the Winter Olympics and the World Cup.

So, Nielsen Nerds, which one scored the highest number of U.S. viewers on a per-game basis?  (And don't jump the gun and mention the Super Bowl, smarty pants.  We all know that's the Mothership of American TV numbers.)

According to the New York Times, the U.S. team's loss to Ghana drew 19.4 million total viewers.  In comparison, the gold medal battle between the U.S. and Canada that wrapped up the Winter Olympics drew a total of 21.22 million.  So the winner is the Olympics, eh?

Not so fast.

The World Cup attracted 14.9 million U.S. viewers on ABC -- which the Times called "an American record for the tournament." The Winter Olympics hockey final drew 8.22 million U.S. viewers on MSNBC.  The rest of the Olympic numbers essentially comprised the population of Canada.

The World Cup Wins.  International events dictate new media consumption

So, victory to the World Cup, and ESPN and Univision, the networks broadcasting the Cup.

For marketers and advertisers, there are a few lessons to draw from this.  Obviously, as the U.S. population grows more diverse, and younger viewers with new sports passions mature, the "international" game of soccer is finally becoming more of an American mainstay --  even if the rest of the world calls it football.

Another dynamic playing out is the way the changing audience is rewriting the rules about how it consumes its games.  While home TV viewership still controls the advertising roost,  smart phones, computers and bar screens are becoming more essential in the media mix, as foreign time zones dictate odd playing times.  And let's not forget those You Tube replays, also a source of advertising exposure if handled properly.

All of which makes the TV numbers for the U.S. World Cup match even more impressive.  It drew those 19.4 million viewers, as the Times noted, for a qualifying round on a Saturday afternoon at 2:30 p.m., EST.   This was not a final Olympics match, or a Super Bowl game dominating  Sunday evening.

Score, indeed!

A few weeks ago, I suggested that businesses and advertisers should be collecting "Fans" on Facebook, praising it as the ultimate social and viral marketing medium.

It's hard to ignore the power of having others distribute your promotions and publicity for you at no cost.  Even harder when you see big brands like McDonalds and Coke jumping on the bandwagon.

But the site has gone a click too far, experiencing what your therapist might call boundary issues. Privacy on FaceBook may be an oxymoron.

In an article entitled "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Doesn't Believe In Privacy," Wired magazine writer Eliot Van Buskirk says that he "wouldn't recommend posting anything there that you wouldn't want marketers, legal authorities, governments (or your mother) to see, especially as Facebook continues to push more and more of users' information public and even into the hands of other companies..."

When Wired, normally a fan of all things technological, has problems with a social powerhouse, it's time for the rest of us to pay attention -- particularly advertisers and agencies that are increasingly including FaceBook in their marketing plans.

Instant Personalization, a Synonym for Privacy Violation

Through a process they smilingly "Instant Personalization," Facebook is capturing the data we post on other sites, and then making it public on its own site. Thus, your "like" rankings elsewhere may appear without your approval on FB.

Did you give Lady Gaga a thumbs-up at Pandora? Show your love for a crossbow at a hunting site? Give a shout out to a stripper one wild and crazy night?

Well, don't be surprised if it shows up at FB. And then don't be shocked to find your favorite things showing up elsewhere.

According to the geek site Tech Crunch, Facebook has given Yelp, Pandora and Microsoft access to your data via Instant Personalization. It's not that you can't opt out; but you may need a minor degree in programming and some facility with Facebook's privacy settings to avoid having your profile data shared.

A few weeks ago, senators Al Franken, Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, and Mark Begich wrote an open letter to Facebook, threatening to bring in the Federal Trade Commission if the company didn't take concrete steps to make user information more private.

Two days ago, The Huffington Post reported that Facebook held an all-hands-on-deck meeting, apparently to deal with the potential backlash against Instant Personalization.

Marketers and advertisers should keep an eye on what may turn into an ugly reversal of fortune for the now mighty Facebook.

If you're a fan of PR crisis management -- and who isn't, really -- you'll want to pay attention to how  our government and the three companies behind the oil spill bespoiling the Gulf of Mexico are managing their media messages.

The real story, and tragedy, revolves around the lives lost on the oil rig, and how the oil spill affects the people who live and work near the Gulf. Not to mention the rest of us.

But for students and practioners of public relations and advertising, this is a living case history.

British Petroleum (BP), TransOcean and Halliburton are now in the public eye, with BP catching most of spotlight as it's their oil spilling at at rate of 5,000 barrels a day. But now that the government and company officials have turned on their spin machines, the PR tennis match is getting interesting.

An early serve that landed out of bounds came from energy company Halliburton, whose first comment sounded more like a scold than an apology.

Last Friday it issued a statement saying "it is premature and irresponsible to speculate on any specific causal issues." Now we don't want to be irresponsible, do we?

Contrast that with the on-camera comment from Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP: "It wasn't our accident, but we are absolutely responsible for the oil, for cleaning it up, and that's what we intend to do."

Okay, that was better, minus the finger-pointing about who is responsible for the accident.

Clearly the "not our fault" position was the BP company line, as another spokesperson essentially echoed Hayward the next day. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is classic PR management. Develop your strategy. Select your words carefully. Make sure everyone repeats them.

And TransOcean's response? Their spokesperson, Guy Cantwell, read a statement, without taking a stand. "We will await all the facts before drawing conclusions and we will not speculate," he said.

That leaves the White House, who I am guessing just finished watching Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds before issuing their comment. "We will keep our... boot on the throat of BP to ensure that they're doing all that is necessary while we do all that is humanly possible to deal with this incident," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

They're tough, and not going to take any guff, over at the Oval Office. At least, that's what they want us to think.

So stay tuned. The oil spill is horrific beyond words, a disaster whose measure we may not know for many years. But we can evaluate how the spinmeisters seek to manage their image damage.