The post I took issue with was your response to MacZilla where you wrote (and this a copy and paste from your post)...<br><br>" Actually, MacZ, the ad was to sell the song."<br><br>If you meant "Apple was using it to sell music - including Eminem's song", it would still have been incorrect. In the ad in question, there is no mention of any of the following:<br>The artist's name<br>The title of the song<br>The album from which the song was taken<br>The media on which the song might be purchased<br>The label on which the artist records<br>Any visual reference to the artist or album<br><br>Which would make it pretty darn difficult to justify as an attempt to "sell [the] music".<br><br>In fact the only branding in the ad is for Apple. Unless you suffer from myopia, it's glaringly apparent this and the other ads in the series are promoting the ITMS.<br><br>No, Eminem's music is highly unlikely to sell a Nana Mouskouri album, nor a Gregorian chant compilation But it is likely to catch the attention of people interested in the genre that Eminem's music resides within. But you already knew that, so I can only conclude that you were being facetious in the absence of any real point.<br><br>You may well disagree that the ad was also intended to sell iPods, but I would point out that Apple itself is on record as saying that it makes no money on ITMS and that the service is primarily a vehicle to drive the iPod's sales.<br><br>If you disagree with Apple on this, you might wish to take that up with them directly. I'm happy to take their word for it. <br><br>Since I originally replied in defence of MacZilla's position and since he has shown no interest in countering you position himself, I see no further need to debate this.<br><br>Thanks for the discourse hayesk, and have a good day.<br><br>Moo?