Time suck alert.

I do a lot of shopping at Staples, so of course they have my email address. After all, sometimes I actually use the coupons they send.

This morning I received this email from them:

Dear Staples Customer,

Thank you for your recent purchase from Staples.

We invite you to provide feedback on the item you purchased. Your input will help customers choose the best products for their needs, and the process will only take a few minutes to complete.

It’s quick and easy to submit a review — just click the “Rate this product” button next to the product below.

As you can see in the screenshot above, the product I’m asked to rate is a 20-pack of Duracell AA batteries.

Really? Are batteries really a product that require a rating or a review? “I have to say, the color of the battery on the Duracell makes it far easier to ascertain which end is up when compared to the Eveready.” Please.

Seems to me that Staples’ automated email system would be better served if certain product purchases were tagged in a way so as to trigger or not trigger a review request. Printers? Laptops? Office furniture? Sure, a review is appropriate. Batteries? Manila folders? Scotch tape? Give me a break: My inbox is jammed enough as it is.

Takeaway for marketers: If you’re working on an automated customer communications system, try and configure that system in a smarter way that doesn’t irritate your customers and/or make you look ridiculous.

It’s hard to envision a half-billion eggs. That’s the size of the recall, but what’s the size of the omelet that could be made? Some people over on The Straight Dope have done the math.

I was going to post something pretty cool from Mattel, but then I went to create a graphic to accompany the story, right-clicked on the cool image accompanying the cool product, and got the uncool popup you see above.

In case you can’t read it, the text says:

This image is copyrighted, and it is owned by Mattel.  You may not reproduce, distribute, publish, transmit, modify, adapt, translate, display, sell, license, publicly perform, prepare derivative works based upon, or otherwise use or exploit this image.

I’m not sure how someone can “publicly perform” an image, but if I really want to reproduce or modify or otherwise display the image, I don’t need to right-click — I can simply print my screen and use Fireworks or Photoshop to create and upload a new image … like I did to capture the popup.

Memo to Mattel: All this legalese does is tell the site visitor who wants to spread the word about your product that you’re more interested in putting up barriers to that visitor telling your story than you are in helping that visitor tell your story.

If you really want to “protect” your image, go ahead and watermark it. Stock photo sites do this all the time. But this is a strident piece of legalese on a page that includes an image intended for press release purposes.

Think about that: Mattel has taken the very image they’ve created for dissemination to the press and added a barrier that serves only to make it more difficult for the press to use that very image that was created for the press to use.

Alrighty, then.

Takeaway for marketers: Talk to the lawyers. Do you really want to come across so hardass so often, or does such a stance undercut your larger marketing goals … like spreading the word about your product?

Seems that San Francisco isn’t happy about Zynga gluing fake $25,000 bills onto the city sidewalks. Who could have imagined?