Other than the Prius, which is now nearly 10 years old, I can’t remember the last Toyota model that got people really excited.

Owners talk instead about how their Toyotas are “trusty” and “dependable.” They are “easy on gas.” And they “never, ever give them any trouble.”

Toyotas have been “safe bets.” Purchasing one wouldn’t raise an eyebrow at the water cooler. But it wouldn’t inspire a high-five either.

“Oh, what a feeling” has become “oh, it’s a Toyota.”

And that’s the car maker’s next problem. People may be bored with the brand and its ubiquity.

Toyota’s current gas-pedal crisis creates a disruptive environment that will lift the “brand blinders” of current owners, giving them permission to shop around—and creating social pressure to do so.

When those shoppers hit the showrooms, cars from Ford and GM, Hyundai and Honda, VW and Kia, may look unexpectedly exotic and alluring.

It’s not easy to enter text on an iPhone or Blackberry with BBQ sauce stuck to your fingers.

But millions of people at Super Bowl parties did last night, introducing Twitter to millions of others who still ask, “who the hell cares what you’re having for breakfast?”

Reading the “live” tweets of friends, colleagues and participants in last night’s Brand Bowl (co-sponsored by Mullen), Google’s Paris ad was the clear favorite among blue-staters and advertising/branding professionals.

That same ad, however, scored a disappointing No. 43 in USA Today’s more populist Ad Meter, losing even to Teleflora’s dreadful abusive flower box ad and Punxsutawney Polamalu.

That might just be because of the digital divide. (Although, I’m sure there will be many more Twitter adopters today, after watching friends use the service last night.) But I think it says even more about the creative chasm between how ad professionals and everyday consumers think.

Graphic: © The Boston GlobeIf you’ve ever wondered why Sarah Palin became an overnight sensation or why many people still base their votes on a single issue—abortion or gay rights, for example—I have two words for you: cognitive fluency.

That may sound like a put down. (It’s not.) Cognitive fluency is the rather hard to ponder name given to how easy it is to think about something.

In a nutshell: People like things that are easy to think about. And we’re less favorable to other things that are hard. So, simple makes sense. And, easy equals true.

There’s science to back this up, per this superb article by Drake Bennett in The Boston Globe. For instance, researchers have found that the stocks of companies with simple names outperform those with difficult ones.

People even find rhyming aphorisms (“woes unite foes”) to be “truer” than non-rhyming ones (“woes unite enemies”).

As the world becomes more complex, marketers can count on more people using this kind of shorthand. And, perhaps, as the Globe may have pointed out, that finally explains the whole Scott Brown thing. (But not anywhere near as hysterically as this “Saturday Night Live” skit.)

Keith Eldred of Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, doesn’t want to cure AIDS or feed the hungry.

He just wants $5,000 to fund an 8-foot-tall inflatable mascot named HAT HAT to promote his local library.

As crazy as that sounds, he just might get it, because Eldred’s proposal is currently ranked No. 6 among social causes seeking $5K funding through the Pepsi Refresh Project, which opened for voting today.

Eldred’s proposal to Pepsi features a homespun video, drawings of HAT HAT, photos and articles, and a credible pitch that he just wants to do everything he can to help his local library (and his wife, Janet, the library director) succeed.

What really makes Eldred’s proposal stand out, however, is its simplicity, sincerity and enthusiasm—the real keys to raising charitable donations from increasingly tapped-out contributors. And, for that, my HAT HAT is off to him.

(Pepsi Refresh resembles Chase’s Community Giving project in many ways. I hope the beverage giant also learned from Chase’s stumbles, as outlined in this terrific article by Beth Kanter, whose blog is a must read for anyone employing social media for nonprofit causes.)

A lot of people seem to think that President Obama’s State of the Union address was a home run last night.

But I wonder if the “symbols of the ceremony” outweighed the words. Especially for middle-income Americans, with whom the president and his staff are trying to reconnect.

Among the flurry of tweets that caught my eye last evening: “Tell Congress to stop clapping and standing, and start working and delivering.”

People have lost trust in our government. They are tired of bellicose bi-partisan behavior. And yet we continue to put on the same annual show, complete with cheers and jeers, back slaps and brickbats, and lapdoggish autograph hounds.

I can’t help to think that there wasn’t a widow in Peoria and a hardware store owner in Poughkeepsie who weren’t thinking: “Man, these people have lost touch.” (I am really starting to hate that whole “single mom from Montana” rhetorical device.)

So what if we changed all that. No fancy chamber. No walk up the aisle. No lavender-clad VP and Speaker of the House staring at me, uncomfortably, for more than an hour.

What if the president spoke to a group of real people instead? And what if he focused on a single issue—jobs, let’s say—and used another medium or forum for the balance of kitchen-sink SOTU platitudes?

And what if we actually used some 21st century media technology to bring some of these issues and potential solutions into sharper focus?

In other words, what if we truly overhauled the State of the Union? And not just the address.

I’m sure this new Bud Light “Clothing Drive” ad will be a viral hit—if it isn’t already. So much for “drinkability” and “not too heavy, not too light.”

President Obama and the Democratic party rewrote history in 2008 by using the Internet to inspire and unite people.

But they haven’t used the Internet—and particularly social media—to listen to what people are saying. 

If they had, Democrat Martha Coakley would never have lost to Republican Scott Brown in Massachussetts last evening. And the Dems would still hold a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

People are unhappy—vocally unhappy—with the government, with the economy, with bailouts, with fat bonuses, with paltry job prospects, with unkept promises, and with a perceived lack of leadership in the country.

Last night’s election should be a wake-up call to stop talking and start listening. Because whether you’re in politics or business, if people think you’ve lost touch with them, they’ll give you the boot.

(Sorry, the ZenDough police appear to have taken this “non-authorized” video down. And it doesn’t provide code to imbed its content. But you can still find the brand’s entire collection of ads here.)

Way back in 1989—when I could still be mistaken for a young man—I took the long drive up to Ithaca, NY, to interview for a spot in the MBA program at Cornell University’s Johnson School.

Things were going pretty well, I thought, until an older, tweedy professor of marketing asked me to name my favorite advertising campaign.

Infiniti, I yelped without hesitation, citing the zen-like “rocks and trees” campaign that launched the then nascent brand without ever showing what the luxury car looked like.

Hmmm, he said with a raised eyebrow and disapproving tone, making a note on a yellow legal pad, like a psychiatrist about to prescribe an anti-depressant to an unstable patient.

Well, I didn’t get accepted at Cornell. (The story is a bit more complicated, but we’ll leave it there.) And here I am 20 years later passing the same harsh judgment on this bonsai-and-lotus-flower ad for TransUnion’s ZenDough.com.

Did I just grow older? Or did the concept? Is it a poor fit for financial services? Or is it just the ZenDough name that’s making me wince? Perhaps it’s all of the above, just like a multiple-choice answer on the GMAT. Sorry, TransUnion but I’d have to give you a FAIL for this effort.

If  you have 30 seconds, like right now, text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to support the Red Cross’s earthquake-relief efforts.

The process is simple and smooth. And there’s a lesson at the end that is worth more than $10 to every philanthropic marketer looking to raise contributions for a cause:

Please ask my permission before sending me additional information—or asking me for more money via intrusive phone calls, e-mails and other solicitations.

Red Cross did—and I respect them even more for it. I just wish more charitable organizations would “opt in” for the same strategy.

Having rescued about 5,000 photos from my father-in-law’s dying eMac over the holidays, this clever ad for Verbatim portable hard drives caught my attention when I saw it on AgencySpy today.

The problem is that both URLs that appear in the video—Verbatim.com and Facebook.com/VerbatimUS—took me to a netherworld of knotty information, none of which related directly to the ad or product.

Unfortunately, this “catch-and-release” syndrome is still far too common in advertising, allowing a lot of interested prospects to swim downstream without ever making a purchase.

Hey, Verbatim’s ad agency, why not take to me to a site with a Converse-clad coffee cup, a CLON hard drive, and a great big button that says “buy me now for under $100”? Now that would genuinely be creative. 

(Oh, by the way, searching “Clon” on Verbatim’s website returns zero results. What’s up with that?)

Those “raw, never-before-seen” photos of Tiger Woods in this month’s Vanity Fair were taken by Annie Leibovitz four years ago, according to an online chat this week with Buzz Bissinger, the article’s author. 

According to Bissinger: “(The photos) were never used, which does often happen in her case, and went into her archives. When the scandal broke, she showed them to Graydon Carter at Vanity Fair and asked if he was interested in them. His eyes popped out.”

Bissinger’s article raises the question that everyone keeps asking today: How will Tiger restore his once immaculate image? But I wonder if the photos suggest a different strategy: What if Tiger rebrands? More maverick, less milquetoast. Less Gillette, more Ciroc.

If that’s truly Tiger’s character—and we’ve been seeing a facade all these years—it would make more sense for him to take this route, rather than face the impossible scrutiny of being “the perfect man.”

Sure his sponsors would change. But Nike could hold firm. (It might even benefit.) And perhaps Tiger could live more openly and honestly. Pitting the new, raw Woods against squeaky-clean stars like Phil Mickelson would also make for some great Sunday afternoon golf.

The most effective ad of 2009 was also one of the most boring.  

At least that’s the verdict of several Adweek readers commenting on Ace Metrix’s selection of this Rubermaid ad as its top scoring ad for creative effectiveness.

A tame sample: “What is this crap? Do you know when creatives read this we laugh—what business is Adweek in?”

That’s a big contrast to YouTube comments like this one from an actual consumer: “LOL! the tidal wave of plastics…happens to me all the time lol.”

This disconnect is that the creativity in the Rubbermaid spot isn’t in the excecution—it’s in identifying an insight that resonates with consumers and compels them to buy. And there’s nothing boring about that.