Those logophiles at Lake Superior State University have unleashed their 2009 list of words deserving of banishment, and as one might expect, the surfeit of “green” terms has them seeing red. So does “it’s that time of year again,” which is how I might have started this post.
“Green,” “carbon footprint” and “carbon offsetting” were among the most off-putting terms nominated by thousands of language guardians. “WallStreet/Main Street,” “Bailout” and “maverick” also boarded the list from the political-social commentary side of the street.
Ironically, the school could use a bailout, as falling enrollment has led to layoffs.
The list, with samples of comments from those who nominated them, can be found here. Located in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., LSSU is already accepting nominations for its 2010 list.
Meanwhile, CNN.com contributor Frances Cole Jones published her list of 10 phrases not to use around the office (or at home, in my opinion). The list parallels a longer one appearing in Britain’s Daily Mail.
And the Irish Parliament is reviewing its banned word policy after discovering that the so-called “F-bomb” or “F-word” isn’t (I’m nominating “Blank-bomb/-word to LSSU).
So at this time of year, here’s wishing fewer cliches and old chestnuts for the New Year.

Christmastime is magical at Tryon Palace, the Georgian-style palace in historic New Bern, N.C., gracing the November/December issue of American Spirit, the magazine we publish for the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Once known as the finest public building in the Colonies, the palace, which was built around 1770 as the royal governor’s home and North Carolina’s first permanent capitol, hasn’t always been so radiant. It was reduced to ruins, until local preservationists launched a campaign to resurrect it. Thanks to their tenacity and the discovery of the original architect’s plans, the palace still enchants the public today, 50 years after its restoration.

Why would a marketer buy a Superbowl ad rather than hit a home run with a year-long content marketing strategy?
Yesterday, I wrote about some of the year-long content marketing plans I’d execute instead of spending $3 million on a Superbowl ad. (If you read to the 5th point, my list of ideas had more than $2 million left over.)
But why do companies keep spending money on the hail-Mary passes that a $3 million Superbowl ad represents? In some cases — Budweiser beer springs to mind — an ad during the Superbowl makes lots of sense. Budweiser probably generates tens of millions in revenue during the game itself, making the ad something of a “Let’s go out to the lobby” jingle from the old days at the movie theater.
But for advertisers who are using the ad to generate conversation about their brands or products, the venue and costs make little sense. So why do they spend such a significant portion of their budgets on a 30-second ad and not a year-long content marketing strategy?

Next Feb. 7, a 30-second Superbowl ad will cost around $3 million — just for airtime. That doesn’t include creative or production costs.
So what do you get for that $3 million? Lots of eyeballs and, the theory goes, lots of people talking about you before and after the game. Lots and lots of blog posts and Twitter users talking about your ad and pointing to your YouTube account.
The PR bonanza is supposed to make the $3 million airtime seem like a bargain.
I’m sorry. I believe most Superbowl ads are a waste of money.