We’re not quite sure a brand would associate themselves with life-threatening lightning but McCann-Erikson New York has chosen to for Verizon’s Blackberry Storm 2.
In plain English, it’s a decidedly different car commercial.
Lame headline? Sure. But let’s not focus on that. What’s better than using Fred Willard in this new Alltel spot from Campbell-Ewald? Better than not using of elves and reindeer like most everyone else? The move to a 1-year plan with FREE, I said FREE, LG Touch.
Slow news day? Nah. We get everything sent in here. So if you’ve had your fill of foodie/celeb cook porn, avert gazes now. If you watch any deal of cooking on TV, Jamie Oliver is the UK version of Tyler Florence. But what I liked about this quick-paced Sainsbury’s spot came right at the end.
At first, it seems like another epic epic with a cast of cgi thousand$. But this :90 from Leo Burnett Sydney grows on you. (After the jump). As you watch, the visuals seem to cover off the usual stuff any car brand could claim or own as the “We support you” metaphor works overtime.
British humor–second to none. While it’s been 30 days since my last suicide spot, this one after the jump… isn’t. I explain–you follow along: It’s for the new VW Scirocco running on the UK’s Top Gear with car freaks Jeremy Clarkson and James May. Branded entertainment with a suicide chaser.
What happens when Dick’s closes for the night? Peyton Manning comes in and throws a few balls, Jeff Blake stops by to hit a few and Lindsey Vonn stops by to put Under Armour’s ColdGear through the Cold Abuse Simulato. (Perfect for Coors! I kid.) Production house Shilo says we got this.
As we continue to digitize everything in our lives, we need to remember not everything is meant to be digitized.
If you’re going to advertise a product that helps you tighten our ass and make your legs look great, you might as well highlight the results of using that product, right?
We’ve seen the ads of diet plans, workout equipment, regimens, and a slew of other lose-weight-and-look-great supplements. These ads have two things in common: attractive actors/models with desirable physiques and fine print that reads “results not typical.”
Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new set of guidelines to remove the ubiquitous phrase “results not typical” from all advertisements. Advertisers now have one of two options:
1) Reveal that a spokesperson lost weight (or inches) by working out regularly, eating a balanced diet, and using their product.
2) Reveal that despite the significant amount of weight the spokesperson lost, the average person will lose far less using their product.
Endorsers such as Valerie Bertinelli, Kirstie Alley, Dan Marino and others may not be too pleased with this ruling as they can now be out of a job. However, this is a win for consumers, as advertisements are forced to be more truthful, putting the consumers’ weight-loss goals in realistic perspectives.
I’m just glad the FTC regulated the phrase and not the hard-bodied models. No one would win in that scenario.
Tommy Liu, the man, the legend wields his pen of creativity against the injustice of mediocrity plaguing the world as the Executive Integrated Producer at Supercool Creative & SpotZero where he also manages the blog. View some of his battles here (he doesn’t always win).
Admit it. You’ve done it. At least once. You’ve walked into a glass door thinking it was open.
Advertising jingles are something consumers love to hate and hate to love. We hum them at bus stops and sing them in the shower. Sometimes (when done correctly), we even associate the correct brand with the right emotion every time we begin into its corresponding tune.
Why are these seemingly simple and oft-idiotic ditties so catchy? Where did they come from? Furthermore, how have they been so persuasive in advertisements for just short of a century?
It all began with a Wheaties radio ad in the 1930’s. A local radio ad implemented what we know today as a jingle. The Wheaties brand was about to plunge into oblivion, but shortly after the ad ran a few times, Wheaties sales shot through the roof. Upon seeing this explosion, the ad men on the account decided to test it nationally. The result was over 75 years of head-pounding, catchy infuriation (plus a box of Wheaties in every American pantry).
What keeps the tune of “Double Your Pleasure” in your head for hours, days, and weeks on end? Scientists have actually linked it to something within our inner ear known as the phonological loop, which remembers sounds in a chronological order and repeats these sounds to remember them (the same system we use to learn language in our infant years). By creating very short, simple tunes with heavy repetition and ease of recital, advertisers and jingle-makers are able to hack into our brains and insert a message about their brand that is harder to remove than Disneyland’s “It’s a Small World,” essentially enslaving us to their haunting taglines.
With that in mind, the fact is the popularity of jingles rises and falls more than that of President Obama. Like many fads, jingles go through periods of heavy enjoyment and utter disgust. That’s because of the inner turmoil we experience in the midst of a catchy jingle. It may be momentarily fun from time to time to sing along with one, but after you’ve pounded your head against the door several hundred times in an attempt to literally and/or metaphorically knock the tune out of your head, we grow contempt for the once beloved jingle.
Jingles reached their heyday in the 1950’s and have waned in popularity since. Advertisers will go through periods of using full songs in their ads, essentially piggybacking on the popularity of the artist and capturing the emotional essence of what they represent. After those periods are played out, the general public is often ready to return to simpler time of the 10-second jingle.
Are jingles the craze again? Are we ready to form a nationwide mob to hunt the next McDonald’s jingle maker? Well, I’d say jingles are in, but this may be due to the fact that I live in San Diego and am subjected to the incessantly repetitive ditty tied to King Stahlman Bail Bonds: “It’s better to know me/And not need me/Than to need me/And not know me.”
Hopefully, it’s a jingle limited to San Diego.
Stu Haack is a Copywriter & Social Media Guru at Aviatech. He likes long walks on the beach and scary movies. Learn more about him and his writing.
The recession has either changed the way advertisers do business or has forced us to reevaluate the ways in which we do business. The focus has shifted to the effectiveness and efficiency of an ad campaign rather than stressing the campaign or ad variables such as reach and effective frequency.
If you work in a media department, then measuring effectiveness and efficiency is something you’ve likely done for years with little to no fanfare from the client side. Well, the climate’s changed, and clients are concerned more than ever — with good reason — that their ads and campaigns meet efficient, effective, and measurable goals. Their priority is to connect with the target audience in a manner that’s more in-tune with a reduced budget. Clients are are requiring or searching for agencies capable of providing campaigns that work harder and smarter.
In addition, advertisers (namely P&G and Coca Cola), have instituted Value Based Compensation (VBC) arrangements made up of a pay-for-performance (P4P) layout that can be attained in addition to a base fee.
The Nielsen Company has just announced that a new software product, Rapid Campaign Evaluation (RCE), a fast and inexpensive means to review ad performance in just over a week. Due to the costs incurred when an ad or campaign is launched, RCE will give agencies information quickly so as to allow them to respond in an appropriate manner.
Richard Reeves, associate director of Consumer Research Services at the Nielsen Company, notes an agency not only will have the ability to evaluate their own endeavors but the ability to evaluate their competitor’s as well.
“Whenever a new commercial is executed,” Reeves says, “there is always that element of anticipation about how it will perform in the ‘real world.’ If it’s a competitor’s ad — you are usually left worrying about the damage it will do to your brand.”
RCE was designed and tested in Australia to measure the strength (or weakness) of TV spots. How many people saw or heard the ads or whether the audience was able to determine the advertiser and the take-away message will provide advertisers with almost “real-time” data they can then use to readjust their tactics such as:
In just over a week, agencies will be able to view data in order to evaluate effectiveness or lack thereof, ensuring clients get the biggest bang for their buck.
While advertising “gurus” have bandied back and forth as to the fairness or plausibility of the VBC model, companies, such as Coca Cola, have already put it into action. In truth, it’s the most equitable payment arrangement; agencies require media vendors to prove their performance. Why shouldn’t clients require the same from their agencies?
Nielsen’s new software is just another step in the ongoing evolution of the industry.
Jeff Louis has over ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing, while his strong suit seems to be sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.
It must be slow in the Capital these days; it seems that although our world is going crazy, the president and his staff have taken time out to wage a media attack on Fox News, making the rounds on all the Sunday morning talk shows, with one glaring exception: Fox. The gloves were certainly off as Obama’s team struck back at Fox News accusing the network of opinionated reporting. Some of the quotes from the barrage include:
Fox is “not really a news station,” said David Axelrod.
Fox, said Rahm Emmanuel, “is is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”
They also urged the other networks not to treat Fox News as a news station because the White House certainly did not think of Fox as news-oriented. A week ago, communications director Anita Dunn opened the White House offensive on Fox on a Sunday show: “Let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.” She then stated that Fox was the communications arm for the Republican Party.
The cable news networks are highly competitive, and Fox is not only the second highest- watched cable TV network, but it carries 9 of the top 10 cable news shows as of Q1 of 2009. Despite the heavy competition, the White House’s attack has actually begun to backfire.
Helen Thomas, the senior White House reporter in Washington (serving from JFK to
present) warned the Obama administration: “Stay out of these fights,” and Washington Post’s blog stated: Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault.
Some have even called the attack “Nixonian” in nature. However, the White House has an out. If the strategy fails, Anita Dunn can be tucked away easily, as she is expected to leave the administration by the end of the year.
While Fox has not attacked Obama directly, they’ve unloaded on his aides, especially Dunn. Her statement naming Mao Tse Tung as one of her favorite politicians did not help nor did her speech explaining the censorship-like control exercised during the election. If team Obama felt they couldn’t control the message, or the press, they would use YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook to communicate.
While America thought that the Obama Campaign was tech-savvy, it was really just an exercise in message management.
Jeff Louis has over ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing and his strong suit is sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.
Throughout life, people become programmed to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. Fire drills, car alarms, and air-raid sirens all mean imminent danger and usually make us spring into action. If you are like me, police sirens have a special place in your heart, and you have an uncanny ability to be the person singled out from a group of speeding cars, forced to begrudgingly hand over a license and registration. Anytime I hear a siren closing in, my heart jumps up into my throat and I take my attention off the road in front of me and start looking for those ominous flashing lights.
Just last week as I drove along on my way to a meeting, I heard a shrill siren that almost made me drive off the road into the storefront of a McDonalds. I strained to see a police car or ambulance through the rain, but there was none. The siren was from a commercial on the radio. This brought to mind an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry David takes a friend’s new car out for a spin and hears a loud car horn. Thinking the sound came from the driver behind him, he slams on the brakes and is rear-ended. The two drivers holler for a while, and then Larry realizes the car horn was actually from an AAMCO commercial on the radio. It was a funny moment in the show, but it probably really happens to some unlucky drivers.
Seriously, how is putting loud sirens and car honking in radio commercials even legal? Faux sirens or car horns can be extremely unsafe for those on the road, causing unnecessary distraction and serious accidents. Furthermore, scaring the crap out of potential customers is definitely not going to get a company more sales or positive brand recognition. With all the energy the FCC expends fining DJ’s for saying “butts” on the air, it’s surprising the FCC hasn’t focused on an issue that potentially puts people in actual danger while on the road.
Anna Vortmanis a marketing and advertising manager specializing in branding and new media. Contact her at avortman@gmail.com.
Life just keeps getting weirder and weirder. One day, boobs are good; the next, they’re banned in Britain on billboards for their portrayal of headlamps. Britain is the last place you would think the girls would be put away. Britain is (in)famous for its portrayal of plunging-cleavage shots on TV shows such as “Benny Hill” and “Ab Fab” (”Absolutely Fabulous”), but is also the same country that publishes topless women weekly in newspapers, notably, The Sun’s “Page 3 Girls,” and the Daily Star’s “Babes”
While both of the papers are entertainment and celebrity gossip-type tabloids, they’re given huge amounts of leeway with topless models. However, other nude or semi-nude ads seem to spark controversy: Last month, American Apparel ran a print ad that took readers through unzipping a Flex Fleece Hoodie. The model eventually gets to point where a portion of her nipple is exposed. The ad ran in Vice Magazine, caused public outcry, and was banned subsequently.
Whether right or wrong (and I have no stance on British standards in advertising), the only difference I detect between the topless shots in the papers versus the questionable billboard is that the billboard is free while the papers require payment or subscription.
What’s all the hoopla about with this billboard campaign? It’s not any more or less, racy than a Victoria’s Secret ad or outdoor display.
Understandably, there are regulations to ensure no young minds are corrupted by breasts and marketers’ efforts to use breasts to sell stuff, and we’re well aware of the fact that sexually based ads and campaigns sell. This leads to the dilemma of morality and advertising, which is way too big to cover here.
However, my question is this: Whether used to sell headlamps in Britain or promote men’s awareness of breast cancer in North America, is it a fair advertising practice to approve or deny an ad based on the intent of the advertiser?
Rethink Breast Cancer’s spot, “Save the Boobs,” (below) follows a voluptuous woman in a bikini as she bounces her way through a swimming area.
Does this commercial merit approval based on the fact it supports a cause that could save a life, whereas the banned billboards are for headlights? Not using your headlights while driving could kill you, so don’t headlights save lives, too?
I would argue that if society’s intent is save the youth from corruption, both ads should be banned.
Here is where it gets weird: The headlight ad seems to succeed in purpose where the breast cancer spot fails. Why? Inciting controversy was the whole idea behind the cancer spot; stir people up, get them to react, get the spot on the news, and thereby raise awareness. Besides receiving accolades as being a great PSA by every 16-year-old with an Internet connection, it made but a ripple. The billboard got banned. Go figure.
Jeff Louis has ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing and his strong suit is sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.
For weeks now, my old Creative Director Andrew Schmeling has greeted his IM buddies with the following statement: “Is it compellevant?” (Being a Creative Director, he gets to make statements, not ask questions.) However, each time I sign on, I’m reminded this neologism serves as a portmanteau for two key ingredients of great ads: They’re both compelling and relevant. As we’re all subjected to daily, there are far too many pellets of capitalism that are only one or the other. You’re talking cultural milestone when you find one with both.
This is clear from a quick retrospective of the some of the high points of the last half-century of advertising. Love or hate smoking, Leo Burnett’s Marlboro Man rode for decades because whether you were Daniel Boone seeking “more elbow room” or Chris McCandless going Into the Wild, open space has always been part of the American Dream. That’s compellevant. DDB’s classic “Think Small” campaign? It’s compellevant because in the crowded seascape of land yachts that was the American car industry in 1959, a plain little Beetle with a lot of white space couldn’t have spoken louder to those questioning the Don Drapers of the world.
Wieden’s Just Do It in the ’80s? Compellevant. A few lucky folks out there might still look and feel as good as they did when they were 18, but for the rest of us, the clock’s ticking. Recently, there’s the iPod Silhouettes campaign: iconic art direction (branding the non-color white?) and direct copy plus a simple, non-verbal message (music is fun). These are just a few notable examples, of course, but you can pretty much take it to the awards podium (or bank, if you’re concerned with selling stuff) that the best work is compellevant, right?
Well, it is for the most part. Over the last few decades, as certain categories have drifted free from the moorings of Rosser Reeves-style USP-based claims, a number of notable campaigns and ads have appeared that can’t make any plausible claim to relevance but have compelled their way to sales, awards, and in the age of YouTube, the ultimate tribute, spoofs. What are some of these campaigns?
The Budweiser Frogs come immediately to mind. While Miller was going for compellevant with “Less Filling, Tastes Great,” Goodby had put together this slow-building three-syllable chorus of croaks, and the dramatic timing seems impeccable 14 years later. What relevant message does it have about beer? None.
On a similar note, just a few years later, Leo Burnett came out with the Real American Heroes/Real Men of Genius radio spots, and Mr. Centerfold Retoucher, Mr. Jelly Donut Filler, and their worthy compadres didn’t tell you anything about Bud Light, but these ads help vault Budweiser as the top beer in America and inspired countless web searches to hear the ones you’d missed.
More recently, TBWA/Chiat/Day’s tragicomic Skittles storyof the office worker afflicted with the candy touch swept the interwebs and the awards shows with its unexpected premise and compelling humor, but did it say anything close to relevant about the product? Nah. Ditto Fallon UK’s Cadbury spot. On paper, a formula of Phil Collins plus drumming gorilla equals a straight line from Doobieville to WTF-land, but increased sales don’t lie. My left brain is still outraged every time this is being used to sell chocolate, for it’s the perfect portfolio school case study of what not to do, but both my eyes can’t stop watching and neither could millions of others.
What’s the moral of the story here? Don’t be afraid to venture a little bit off the straight, strategic path, especially if you’re working on one of those fun food or beverage accounts. Sure, it’ll be harder to sell to the client, but gold (and a gold lion) might be in them thar hills.
Nate Davis loves advertising, the interwebs, and social networks, yet looks askance on many of their cultural offspring. Read more at www.natedaviscopywriter.com.
The product is way cooler than the advertising behind it but, like a fart joke, there’s something about ads in which all the nasty words are bleeped out.
I just finished watching a Twitter reality-show pitch, and I have to say, I’m interested. The reality show, @whoisthebaldguy, has viewers following him on Twitter and making suggestions on what he should do next. It’s a great concept and could be the wave of the future for entertainment, leaving traditional TV in the dust.
Facebook has had some similar shows broadcast, as well. The first made-for-Facebook series, Ashton Kutcher’s KatalystHQ, debuted in February, detailing the day-to-day events happening at Kutcher’s production firm, Katalyst Media.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the show is the traditional integration of products, such as Cheetos and Hot Pockets. According to an article on Real-Time Advertising Week, Kutcher opined that when product placement is done in funny and tasteful ways “people are happy to consume it.”
I can’t help but feel we are getting closer and closer to making a real-life version of The Truman Show.
Both of these new shows could signify the end of television as we know it and put advertising in a whole new, but good, ball game. Where will this lead us? We’ll just have to wait and see.
Megan Green is a freelance propagation planner who has had her work published on PR News Wire, as well as many other outlets. Contact her on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, or at megankategreen@gmail.com.
Recently, I watched “ 100 greatest hits of YouTube in 4 minutes,” and afterward, I immediately had three thoughts: 1) Hmm, I hadn’t seen all of those, so maybe I’m not as interweb-urbane as I thought I was; 2) How is it possible that people have watched drivel like a baby biting a toddler’s finger 60 million times? and 3) what can I infer from this swab from pop culture’s cheek as I continue perpetrating advertising? After a few viewings, I came up with seven ideas:
1. Slapstick never gets old. The Three Stooges were doing it since the beginning of Hollywood, but bike crashes, faceplants, jumps, and asking if things will blend, it’s still a great way to get attention. But once you have those eyeballs, you better be selling something relevant, like health care, stunt bike instruction, or table-dancing classes so Scarlet doesn’t take another tumble. We’ve all felt ripped off by the ad that ensnared us with shtick, then slapped us with the shill.
2. Sometimes cheezy is the right ingredient. How many years has Rick Astley been sneaking up on us unawares? Not to mention Snuggies, the late Billy Mays, and other so-wrong-it’s right singers and pitchmen? I’m not saying you have to like it. I’m just saying millions of us can’t help watching it.
3. Pet tricks rule. Sleepwalking dogs, curious cats, loving lions, dramatic chipmunks–whether we’re pet people or not, we love watching furry, fanged, and feathered escapades. eTrade’s chimps Super Bowl spot from a few years back, and the more recent Cadbury Gorilla show how effective a well-placed primate can be.
4. Kids are funny. Novocained out, biting fingers, delivering oddly self-aware monologues to the camera, or, of course, saying bad words. It’s an old device in the persuasion business, but tens of millions of views don’t lie: out of the mouths of babes can come the meme that sweeps the nation.
5. We may not like dancing, but we sure like watching others do it. Suave or stupid, sexy or stumbling, krumpers to presidents, we can’t take our eyes off of folks busting a move. A lot of great ads, like Levi’s “crazy legs” and the Nike soccer and basketball “freestyle” spots, brought this same basic idea to life with impeccable production values.
6. We want to get bowled over by greatness. Paul Potts and Susan Boyle from Britain’s “Got Talent” stand out as recent titans of YouTube, but in a world where many of us don’t do anything more unusual than maxing out on the bench press or keeping kids from killing each other in the back of the car, encounters with the exceptional still stop us in our tracks.
7. Even if you hate pop music, you better keep up with it. If checked YouTube’s most popular yourself, you’ll know that this isn’t really them, it’s “YouTube’s top 100, not including music videos.” If this clip were re-cut to reflect reality, it would sound more like a mish-mash of pop and hip-hop from the last five years; 36 out of the top 50 are professional music videos (I wouldn’t count OK GO), and Michael Jackson is the exception in a crowd of flavor-of-the-month entertainers.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to the Miley Cyrus/Avril/Jonas Brothers playlist I’ve got on repeat for inspiration.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
