Give 'em this much: they're at least making a decent media buy. Without seeing the ad I can't comment on it, but they hit the "point of relevance" pretty well. I guess if you're a grown-up with ADD, you're not ALWAYS scattered.

But this introduces an interesting possibility for advertisers--instead of the same old boring demographics and psychographics, we could now have "psycoticgraphics" and target people based on their various mental disorders. As opposed to or in addition to their income, interests, locations, etc.

Strange, Brad, that's what struck me as well.

In percolating media buys, I was considering -- if I may share your thinking -- the appropriateness of phobiagraphics (Eliot would prefer just about anything over demographics anyway). People cling to the television during troubling times -- for human connection, macabre entertainment, who knows what -- and when beset by turmoil respond instinctively to fears (executive parachute, Jenkins?). But given that a product may legitimately serve to relieve an anxiety, what ethical considerations are there in tying the product directly to those anxieties? With what execution could Garmin, for instance, ever tie their product to the unfolding of another tragic stranding drama? Is it always exploitive? Is it never valid? What if Garmin ran commercials during relevant news broadcasts? What if Garmin paid for the college educations of the victim's children?