Allstate Corp. made a bit of an error recently in its attempt attaking a lighthearted look at how zodiac signs influence drivinghabits.

In my opinion, the problem was that Allstate mixed up two thingspeople get a bit crazy about sometimes: auto insurance and Zodiacsigns (althoughit certainly wasn’t the first).

At times it feels like most people don’t know much about either,which doesn’t stop them from opining as if they are experts aboutboth.

You go ahead, like Allstate did late last week, and mix autoinsurance and the new Zodiac calendar and you get – well, you getmayhem. That’s what you get.

I glanced over an Allstate press release issued Jan. 27entitled, “What Does Your Zodiac Sign Say About Your Driving?” Ittook a look at what astrological signs are involved in the mostaccidents and posed the question, “Can an astrological sign reallyinfluence driving habits?”

It posited that, maybe because Virgos are said to be shy,perfectionist, worry-warts, they are the tops among drivers in 2010that got into accidents. Scorpios were involved in the leastaccidents, perhaps because they are passionate and resourceful.

I did not write anything about it for two reasons: I didn’t feellike it was news, and I don’t even understand the new Zodiaccalendar, which apparently has added a sign. I barely understoodthe last calendar, but I have to admit I owned some Sagittariantraits (I’m on the cusp, Nov. 22.). This new calendar puts me onthe cusp of Libra and Scorpio, and I just can’t handle that. But Idigress.

The point is, two days later, Allstate felt it had to issueanother press release. This time it was entitled, “AllstateCorrects Misperceptions Zodiac Press Release May Have Created.”

Now I’m interested.

(You can no longer find the Zodiac release on Allstate’s site,but last I checked you could here. You can find the follow-up release here. )

Allstate said its release on Zodiac signs and accident rates“led to some confusion around whether astrological signs are partof the underwriting process.” The insurer felt the need to clearlystate that was not the case – that such a practice would not beactuarially sound.

Really? Allstate had to say that? Someone somewhere thought thatits Zodiac-accident-rate fun was a hint that the company actuallyuses the stars to come up with what you pay for car insurance? It’strue! I found the articles. Some implied that, indeed, Allstate wasup to some trick.

I am not sure why Allstate spent time looking at the new Zodiaccalendar and figuring out which sign had the most accidents in2010. If everything about astrology is scientific fact, Allstate’slittle study would still be off because some signs have more daysthan others. Scorpio may indeed be in fewer accidents because theyare resourceful, but it may also have to do with the fact thatunder the new system the Scorpio sign only contains six days. Virgohas 44 days.

Allstate was probably looking for a not-so-serious way to drawattention to itself and auto insurance via its Facebook page(though other than Allstate Insurance, the word “insurance” isnever used in the press release). The original release asks readersto comment on the social networking giant.

It simply backfired. A little research in the name ofplayfulness resulted in Allstate coming to the conclusion that itneeded to say something like, “We realize that our hard workingcustomers view their insurance expenses very seriously. So dowe.”

Oh, so stern and somber. Lighten up, everyone.

Is this a lesson on the dark side of the Internet’s viralcapabilities? Much of the “misunderstanding” surrounding theZodiac-accident fiasco was not generated by the mainstream press,but bloggers and comments to stories and news sources I have neverheard of. One thing is for sure, it did create a buzz. Just not thekind for which Allstate was hoping. Did the company need to issue asecond release and try and make the first one disappear? Would amisperception about Allstate using astrology in underwriting affectstock prices? Maybe.

What do you think about this?