Hasta La Creative!

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.

If there are two things Americans don’t like, it’s paying taxes and not being the best at something we invented. Unfortunately, the government’s recent takeover of  General Motors handed us both of these bitter pills. As a result,  the GM brand has suffered tremendous damage, with many people being openly hostile towards the company.

Is it right for us to direct our anger at GM for not recognizing the changing auto market? Sure. Is it productive? No.

As painful as it may be for some to hear, now that “We the People of the United States of America” own a 61% share of General Motors, it’s in all of our best interests that the company succeeds. Part of that success will come from GM’s future marketing efforts.

On August 11th, at a GM press event, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz talked about the changes that are coming to GM marketing, his opinions on GM’s current commercials, and his desire to address the perception of a quality gap between GM and foreign cars.

Quoting from the Detroit Free Press:

Bob Lutz, in his new role as GM’s chief creative guru, already is shaking up advertising and marketing to close what he has long argued is a huge gap between the quality of GM cars and trucks and the public perception of them.

Asked how advertising will change, he contrasted a current Buick ad — one he doesn’t like — with a new Chevy ad.

The “Photo Shoot” TV commercial, which shows a Buick LaCrosse and an Enclave and a snooty film director at a fashion model pool party, reminds Lutz of old GM ads when its products weren’t so good.

“There was a natural tendency,” he said, “to do charming stories of the family washing the car and the kids putting the beach balls in the back, to give the viewer a kind of a warm feeling. That’s one type of advertising, and you’re going to see way less of that.”

By contrast, Lutz likes a new Chevy spot in which ex-football star Howie Long compares the fuel economy of several Chevy models favorably with Hondas, before cutting to a Honda product GM can’t compete with — a lawnmower. Lutz said the ad dispels “this commonly held myth that in every category the Japanese are the masters of fuel economy, when in fact they’re not.”

Here’s the commercial Bob Lutz doesn’t like.

Unfortunately, I cannot post the commercial Bob Lutz does like without a “written approval from GM.” But here it is via YouTube.

I agree with Lutz’s ad strategy, but it’s a strategy that should have been implemented a decade ago when fuel-efficient imports first started hitting the roads. Nevertheless, it’s no use looking in the rear-view mirror (automobile pun intended).

As an American taxpayer, you’re part-owner of the company. What do you think of the spots? Is Bob Lutz right to gear GM marketing away from high concept ads and toward direct comparisons?

Rob Frappier is a marketing copywriter and blogger working in the social media sphere. To reach Rob, visit his blog, or follow him on Twitter.

The Internet.  The greatest enabler perhaps ever known.  The ability to acquire and distribute information at a furious and daunting pace has proven to be the downfall of many a business, political candidate, celebrity etc.  However, those who seize control have experienced unprecedented success.  Capturing the minds of those fluent in Internet language proves to be the primary goal of advertisers for the future.

In May, the International Society of Human Rights (ISHR) released a group of 3 ads which succinctly and adroitly summarize both the fears and triumphs of widespread Internet distribution.

The political implications are clear: target and mock those who seek to suppress the free spread of information.  Labeled “To Teach Dictators a Lesson”, the sharp simplicity and wit of the ad depicts perfectly the conflicting opinions of those on both ends of the spectrum.  The brilliance of the ad lies in the subtle usage of the imagery of the stifled flow of information.

Subtlety is an art form lost on many advertisers who often go for gross exaggerations in the name of attention grabbing.  As depicted in my last blog, such strategies often undercut the intended message.  Quite oppositely, the subversive humor of this ad strikes a poignant note.

Delivering a meaningful but catching message to those who can rapidly attain information from a variety of sources proves difficult.  However, those who succeed do so in slight-of-hand subtlety rather than slap-you-in-the-face bravado.

Dan Davis is a Freelance Writer carving out his growing resume, specializing in copy writing, and subjects from sports to the arts.  Contact him on LinkedIn.

Google, the leader in Search Engine technology, handles approximately 66% of all search engine traffic. So much, in fact, that when Michael Jackson died and his name spiked, Google thought that it was a coordinated attack.

Much like AT&T did two decades ago, Google is fighting back over anti-trust allegations although no formal investigation is underway.

Dana Wagner, the Googler known as “senior competition counsel” explains in the New York Times that “competition is just a click away.”

Google has been on the PR warpath, partially due to regulators watching its every move. Other tech companies such AT&T, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft suffered much of the same thing when it became apparent that there was no “real” competition. Google is clearly the leader in the search category, and it’s possible that the only “competition” may be from the US Government’s possible intervention. In November of 2008, the Justice Department killed a deal between Yahoo and Google due to concerns over market domination. But who is kidding who, right? Google already owns the market.

There are other investigations taking place. The Justice Department is investigating Google’s hiring practices and the Federal Trade Commission is researching the ties between the boards of both Google and Apple. But nothing’s been aimed at the heart of Google.

…unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anti-competitive tactics. But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising.

However, Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, stated;

“Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.”

Google’s lawyer, Mr. Wagner, agrees that the company is a great success. He also noted that the environment is turbulent and highly competitive. Further, he said that Google wasn’t looking for sympathy, but simply telling its side of the story.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Account Coordinator. His passion is writing. Reach out and touch him: www.linkedin.com or www.twitter.com.

The newest “Priceless” ad shows a young father and his son doing what young father’s and sons do: spending quality time together. It begins with the boy filling up a water glass for his father (no bottled water here) and walks through how the boy helps his father become a better man by showing him how to save the environment by purchasing low-wattage light bulbs and choosing paper over plastic at the grocery store.

Honestly, I have always enjoyed the ads, (and the parodies) feeling that the campaign was well thought-out and made an impact. Until now.

This is a picture of my actual credit card letter that came in the mail prior to President Obama’s “reform” of the industry.

But it doesn’t matter anyway…the whole reform is a scam:

So notwithstanding today’s Obama ballyhoo, companies can and will continue to charge basic rates up to 30 %. Congress could have regulated interest rates limiting them to a few points above prime. But Obama and the Democrats (and, of course, the Republicans almost all of who take contributions from credit card companies) hypocritically caved in.

Raising Your Family With Good Moral Values: Priceless. For Everything Else, There’s Visa/Master Card.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you, so leave a comment or follow the links: linkedin.com or twitter.com.

Best Week Ever

Late last week, Chrysler filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and Omnicom’s BBDO Detroit was listed as the second-highest unsecured creditor, with some $58+ million in outstanding invoices. Most of the dollars are believed to be for spot TV buys placed when Chrysler opted to dump it’s national advertising to save money. The Chapter 11 filing gives the carmaker time to restructure under government protection from creditors. So, while Chrysler does NOT have to pay their creditors at the moment, they will still receive cash infusions from Uncle Sam. Now that is what I call the American Dream!
Like a spoiled child whose parents are too weak to say the word, “NO,” Chrysler now finds that they are in great shape: safe from creditors and still receiving their billion dollar allowance. Chrysler, of course, is not celebrating…or are they? The automobile company may not be dancing, but they are acting as if they’ve got America by the short hairs. Sadly, with backing from Obama, they do. Thus it’s no surprise that Chrysler is launching a national, prime-time TV, newspaper, and digital campaign set to hit the public on May 11th, 2009. The tagline for the campaign is, “We’re building a new car company. Come see what we’re building for you.” This move back to the national advertising arena must mean Chrysler does not need to worry about reducing expenses anymore. Whew!

What Do You Mean You Want The Money?

Well, no, that’s not the truth. The real story is that Chrysler does not intend to repay dollars borrowed from private interests prior 
to government intervention. The private “investors” are unlikely sources; the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods’ retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, and teachers’ credit unions. The Obama administration is not going to let that happen, and has even berated the companies that were willing to bet on a loser (Chrysler) as “a small group of speculators” who “endanger Chrysler’s future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else.” This, despite fact that the terms of the agreement state that lenders would be repaid first should bankruptcy became a reality.

The Final Straw

In a last “screw” you from the government and Chrysler, it is now being reported that taxpayers will never see a single dollar of the billions lent to Chrysler. From Monday’s bankruptcy hearings:

“They’re offering financing with a low likelihood of being repaid,” said Robert Manzo, an executive director for Capstone Advisory Group LLC, according to the Associated Press. As part of its Chapter 11 reorganization, Manzo wrote Chrysler expects the U.S. Treasury to forgive a $4 billion bridge loan the automaker received during the Bush administration, a $300 million fee on that loan, and the $3.2 billion in financing the Obama administration approved last week to help the company stay afloat while it is in bankruptcy.

CNN did confirm that the Obama Whitehouse stated that it did not expect Chrysler to repay the money. It’s interesting, but Bernie Madhoff went to prison for less than this.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: linkedin.com/in/jefflouis or twitter.com/jlo0312..Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: linkedin.com/in/jefflouis or twitter.com/jlo0312.

Most of us just happily blog-along, with no worries, really. We try to do our best, tell the truth, and use correct punctuation. We don’t try to misquote, and do work to give credit where credit is due. These practices, however, will most likely be changing in the near future as the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) looks at plans to regulate viral marketing and blogs.

As part of its review of its advertising guidelines, the FTC is proposing that word-of-mouth marketers and bloggers, as well as people on social-media sites such as Facebook, be held liable for any false statements they make about a product they’re promoting, along with the product’s marketer. This could present a significant issue for marketers, including the likes of Microsoft, Ford, and Pepsi, who spend billions on word-of-mouth and social media. PQ Media projects that marketers will spend $3.7 billion on word-of-mouth marketing in 2011.

Luckily, this monitoring will only apply to those who blog and are compensated for reviewing and promoting products. That would NOT be me. (So, if you have any questions regarding my policy, please send me an email…I’ll get some good juice going for your business…shh!) The best example currently is Ford’s Fiesta plan, where the automaker is giving 100 automobiles to influential bloggers for a six-month review.

The current FTC guidelines in the “Advertising-Practices” divisions are over 30 years old, and even prolific viral advertisers, such as Pepsi, agree that some sort of monitoring is necessary. One of the other items concerning the FTC are TV spots that make grandiose promises for making money or losing weight, and then scroll the words, “Results not typical, Individual Results May Vary” across the bottom of the screen in tiny 7pt type.

Everyone that uses the Internet is minimally aware of various scams and fraudulent business practices that thrive online, so it is surprising that the latest FTC move is coming relatively late. It is not policy yet, though. The FTC will vote this summer, taking the 4A’s and PCPC (Personal Care Products Council) comments into consideration.

Once they do get rules implemented, I have a couple sites I want them to look at that are hawking software bots that can break in to profiles on MySpace and Facebook. (Like this one…)

Jeff Louis is an professional Senior Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: www.linkedin/in/jefflouis or on twitter @jlo0312.

Hearken back to the days of yore, when America was Built Ford Tough and Chevy had launched what was the start of An American Revolution, became The Heartbeat of America, and grew strong, Like a Rock. At the same time, Buick offered consumers The Spirit of American Style. The cars and the ads were  inspiring…making us want to love America more than we already did. Yep, the good ‘ol days, how we miss ‘em. Thus, it’s fantastic news to hear that GM is gonna bring ‘em back!

Will they be able to pull it off? GM would like us to think so, counting on their new “Total Confidence Plan (TCP),”  announced by several new TV spots meant to inspire America. The TCP provides payment protection if you get laid off ($500/month for up to 9 months), guarantees trade-in value for your vehicle, and also provides a 100,000 mile drive train warranty. The premise behind the spots is that GM is rebuilding from the “ground-up;” but, based on the ouster of former GM CEO Rick Waggoner, it looks like they’ll be using the famous ”top-down” strategy instead.

The spot anouncer starts with: “You know what America needs right now? America needs a comeback…”

No, what America needs right now is for GM to pull their own weight. There are two primary goals in business: 1) Make a profit, and 2) Stay in Business. Very simple. The third thing most pick up along the way: Keep the Government out of your business. Although GM’s restructuring efforts don’t seem to address a single one these items as of yet, it is only fair to give them more time…

(This Announcement was paid for by the Automotive Bailout Package, with funding and support from taxpayers like you.)

The US Census announced this week that it is launching a $250 Million ad campaign aimed at reaching low-income, urban minorities, urging them to fill out 2010 US Census forms. More than half of the dollars will be spent on traditional and social media, and a quarter of the dollars will be devoted to Asian, black, and Hispanic media outlets.

Minorities have been hard to reach, according to Civilrights.org, due to “distrust or suspicion of government, leading to a fear that census responses may be used by immigration or law enforcement officials to deport or incarcerate or may disqualify (them) from social welfare programs.”

Well, that kinda makes sense, doesn’t it? If you’re breaking the law, you probably wouldn’t want too much attention drawn to your activities.

It’s estimated that the 2000 Census missed counting 3 million people, so basically we’re spending $83 bucks a missed head to improve accuracy (based on the 2000 estimate).

In a brilliant statement defining what the US Census is all about, Tom Mesenbourg, acting director of the bureau stated; “The primary goal of the census is to count everyone once, only once, and in the right place.” (FoxBusiness.com)

But that doesn’t address how the campaign will reach poorly educated, low-income, and disenfranchised people via Social and Traditional media channels. I guess we’d have to start by determining cable and Internet penetration…