Hasta La Creative!

An interview with Adbusters Editor-in-Chief Kalle Lasn.

From Adbusters Blog

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.

In case you were unaware, the competition for the 2016 Olympics host city’s been won and the waiting is over.

It was a controversial ride, but in the end, Chicago got knocked out immediately and Rio de Janiero was bestowed the honor, marking the first time a South American country’s been chosen to host an Olympic Games. The news is bittersweet in Chicago; the city was split 54% For, 46% Against according to recent polls. The city’s debt, added traffic on over-burdened streets, and additional taxes were main contention points that kept Chicagoans from supporting the bid. Plus the knowledge that recent host’s were still paying off Olympic-sized debt.

Skepticism rose to National levels last week when President Barack Obama, and wife Michelle, agreed to attend the final stage of the Olympic pitch in Oslow, adding their political weight to a field filled with political, and royal, notables: A King and Queen (Madrid), Prime Minister (Tokyo), and another President (Rio).

Competition between Rio and Chicago was especially fierce, and accusations of unfair play were voiced by both sides: One of the larger controversies a website Chicagoans for Rio 2016. The Chicago Olympic Bid team accused Rio of setting up the site (makes sense), but it turned out that it was an inside job…really inside.

Meanwhile, a Chicagoan named Kevin Lynch is confessing that he’s the man behind the cheeky ChicagoansForRio.com, the Web site that’s been anonymously trashing Chicago’s prospects in the past couple of weeks.

Okay, so he was from Chicago. No biggie. The real impact of the story is that Kevin Lynch is one of the top creative execs at Energy BBDO’s Proximity Unit. Energy BBDO, and owner Omnicom, were both in support of Chicago’s bid for the games, providing creative services as part of their endorsement. Plus, there’s the fact that Energy BBDO’s largest client, Wrigley (Wrigley Field, Wrigley Gum, etc), supported the city’s bid.

Which led to “Drama, drama, drama”! Energy BBDO released a statement to Ad Age last week:

“I want to be clear: The agency is and has been fully behind the Chicago 2016 bid,” said Energy BBDO CEO Tonise Paul. “Our clients are aware of our position and understand the situation. The individual acted on his own accord without the agency’s knowledge.”

Kevin Lynch, the “instigator” of the controversy, said he had stopped supporting the Olympic bid for Chicago when Mayor Daley’s statements that Chicagoans wouldn’t be taxed for the games were reversed. (Chicago already carries the heaviest sales tax in the Nation at 10.25%.)

Now that the host city’s been decided, it will be at least a week to discover what becomes of Mr. Lynch…

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, blogger, and aspiring writer. Please leave a comment or contact him on Twitter. As always, thanks for reading!

During his rapid ascent from a senator to President of the United States, Barack Obama effectively rewrote the rules of political marketing. By embracing the Internet and relying on strong grassroots fundraising, Obama raised enough money to dominate opponent John McCain with television ads that included an unprecedented 30-minute documentary style ad that delayed the start of the MLB World Series.

Predictably, President Obama’s marketing methods have been embraced by the rest of the Democratic Party (note the similarities between the White House homepage and the Democratic Party’s homepage). Of course, it’s not just friends of the President who have taken to alternative advertising, but his enemies, as well.

Recently, images of President Obama made to resemble Heath Ledger’s Joker from the blockbuster film The Dark Knight have popped up all over Los Angeles.  Illustrated in a style somewhat similar to Shepard Fairey’s famous Obama ‘Hope’ portrait, the poster splashes the word socialism underneath the President’s creepily smiling face.

It is unclear at this point whether the Obama/Joker posters are the work of a lone individual or if they are tied to a formal guerrilla marketing campaign. For some reason, I’m inclined to believe the latter. We’ve seen Astroturfing campaigns from both side of the political aisle, so I wouldn’t be shocked to find out in a month that this was conceived by some Conservative organization. If so, the question is, “Why?”

Why appropriate such a well-known image from The Dark Knight? Is the artist implying that the President, like the Joker in the movie, is a terrorist? That tactic didn’t work in the Presidential campaign, so why would it work now? Furthermore, if these posters are indeed being bankrolled by members of a conservative group, why would these people risk being tied to such a blatant attack?

If Obama/Joker is actually part of a greater campaign, I can’t see how it will be effective. Despite the President’s slipping approval ratings, I believe that in these fragile times, Americans aren’t interested in getting back to divisive politics. What do you think?

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.

INTRO
For the 2008/2009 Year in Advertising Review (if there were such a thing), most of the pages would be filled with stories on Social Media Marketing, lay-offs, the automotive industry’s effect on the ad industry, and the economy. With much of the hard news skewing negative, now is not the best time to face a scandal, albeit a small one.

Based on a story released in The St. Petersburg Times (Florida), as well as their website TampaBay.com, it is been reported that a scandal is nearing hurricane force in the Sunshine State. Worse yet, it’s a political scandal. Finally, to top it all off, it involves a prominent Tampa Bay ad agency, a federal inquiry, and the FBI.

THE PLAYERS

Buddy Johnson was the Hillsborough (County) Elections Supervisor. Reportedly, prior to re-election he hired Schifino Lee to launch a “Voter Education Campaign” to the tune of $40,000. In February of 2008, Mr. Johnson found out that he would be facing “tough competition” on what was purported to be an easy re-election. The Voter Education campaign, scheduled to end in March 2008, was extended.

THE STORY
Buddy Johnson realized that he was in the fight of his political life; in February 2008, the former County Commissioner, Phyllis Busansky, filed to run for the same position and had surpassed Johnson in campaign contributions by March. Schifino Lee was retained to keep voter education at a premium. The campaign, paid for by county taxpayers, originally started to “educate voters” about an optical voting system that was idiot-proof. The debut of the system provided Johnson’s office the excuse to hire Schifino Lee.

But getting Johnson’s name and image in front of voters was a main goal from the outset, said the owner of a marketing firm who was hired by the elections office to conduct an outreach campaign for Hispanics.

The $40,000 educational campaign turned into a $640,000 re-election campaign, sixteen times the original amount, and ads began to focus on Buddy Johnson, rather than education. The campaign ran the media gamut, from campaign buttons and stickers to television spots and online ads. Few of the ads had anything to do with voter education. The agency claims they simply followed their client’s requests and handed files over to investigators. The agency also  provided copies to The St. Petersburg Times. While all information at this point is speculation, The Times mentions the following:

• Schifino Lee won the contract in a no-bid process
• Many of the ads were political in nature, but about Johnson
• Several pieces were identical [but charged individually]
• Some of the pieces were never used, and had little or no value

An article by Johnson that was ghost-written by the firm was never published. A two-page flier cost $1,854, but there is no indication it was ever used. Another flier told voters how to fill the oval on the ballot. “Completely,” it advised, a tip that cost taxpayers $765.

The Federal investigation was launched to review various aspects of Mr. Johnson’s management of the county’s elections office, and there are estimates that he overspent by $2.35 million before losing the race.

Rather than heaping insult on top of injury, it’s quiet possible that Buddy Johnson will receive  insult on top of felony.

Please remember that all parties are presumed to be innocent until jailed.

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.