Hasta La Creative!

At a recent speaking engagement, David Simon, the creator of HBO’s “The Wire,” opined that advertising single-handedly wrecked the quality of television. The need to sell products put the onus on show creators to get more people watching, ultimately souring the art of television programming. This brings up an interesting philosophical question: is advertising really anti-culture?

As marketers and advertisers, our gut reaction is to protect our livelihoods and territories with a resounding, “No!” It’s often difficult to turn one’s gaze inward and scrutinize what we do. Yet, when magazines are filled with page after page of advertising that dwarfs content and TV shows are implicitly pushed to become formulaic simply to bring more eyes to the commercials, we might have to ask ourselves if advertising is a symbiotic part of culture or parasitic. I, for one, am not excited by digging through pages of ads just to find the article that caught my attention. I’m no fan of network TV, either, since too many of the shows are vapid retreads. So, I feel like there’s some merit to the idea that advertising has been the antithesis of culture.

This doesn’t mean that advertising has to go away, but perhaps it does need to change. With the power of the Internet and cheaper access to the tools needed to create and publish video and printed content, it may be only a matter of time before people leave TV behind for good. “Better” or “more original” programming online may draw people (and their commercial watching eyes) away from the boob tube. But the Internet provides a more pressing issue: its very size may cause audiences to spread out more and viewers may simply park themselves at the websites for their favorite shows.

Where am I going with all this? I think we can ask ourselves a question that is similar to my initial philosophical quandary but with a push towards action: Have we let ourselves become so bound to traditional methods that we aren’t doing enough searching for spectacular new ways to reach people?

Admittedly, I don’t have the answer to this one, but I think it’s a damn intriguing question.

Pedro Bonano has a background in Computer Science and Marketing, and has over 10 years experience working for small companies. Find me on LinkedIn.com.

A spankin’ new ad for Beatles Rock Band features the Fab Four alive and well, loitering with fans on Abbey Road. There’s even an almost-convincingly-cut scene of George Harrison strumming alongside a kid with a Rock Band guitar.

…I guess that makes sense, although the five spots featured for Discover’s new “Get Back” campaign do occasionally, if feebly, try suggesting you can also “get back” buddy time and family time and youth.

We dug the gimmick this time. And this time. And this time and this time. But this is one saunter-through-time too many.

Sometimes the past is fulfilled with wonderful memories of friends, music, good times and lots of laughter. Or, the past should remain exactly where it is, especially when remembering how you dressed, your bodily piercings, and that mullet with the spiked top that would never go out of style. If you remember the mullet, do you recall these lyrics?

Buying bread from a man in Brussels He was six foot four and full of muscles I said, “Do you speak-a my language?” He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich”
By: Men At Work, “A Land Down Under

What in the heck is Vegemite, anyway? Until writing this post, I didn’t know, nor care. Then I found out that Vegemite is actually produced by Kraft Foods, and that Kraft has developed a new Vegemite formula and has rolled it out in Australia…

My first thought: “Would this be the next huge marketing FAIL, akin to the New Coke Formula back in 1985?”
Knowing absolutely nothing about the product, I had to do some research. What is Vegemite?

Vegemite is similar to the British product Marmite, which is a tacky paste, brown in color, with a salty “beef broth” or “meaty-like taste.” Marmite is usually spread on toast or biscuits but can also be mixed with hot water to make a drink. Marmite is made out of yeast extract saved after the beer brewing process. During World War I, the flow of Marmite to Australia was interrupted and an Australian cheese company, Fred Walker & Co., commissioned an Aussie scientist to come up with similar replacement.

Vegemite was introduced with great fanfare (including a national naming contest) in 1923. The naming campaign was a big success; the product flopped. Despite various marketing efforts, Vegemite sales remained poor. Kraft purchased Walker & Co. in 1926 (forming the Kraft Walker Cheese Company) and in 1928, changed the name to Parmite, which killed Vegemite’s tiny though hard-won market share. Vegemite never recovered.

So, with plenty of Vegemite on-hand, the Kraft Walker Cheese Company started giving it away with Pontiac automobiles and cheese products. Sales responded positively; then, the British medical association proclaimed that Vegemite was a great source of Vitamin B. Sales increased more. By World War II, Vegemite was in 9 of 10 Australian homes, had become part of a soldier’s daily ration kit, and was even carried by Aussie’s traveling abroad due to lack of availability in other countries. Today, Vegemite is one of the most well-known global brands and outsells Marmite in Australia by huge margins.

Kraft tried to extend the brand with a cheese and Vegemite “single,” but failed. However, marketing contests, such as limerick and song competitions, boosted sales. Then, following the war, the baby boom hit and Kraft jumped on Vegemite’s Vitamin B content for infants;

“…baby care expert Sister Mc Donald, said in the Women’s Weekly that “Vegemite is most essential”, further cementing Vegemite’s reputation for nutrition and wholesomeness. Infant Welfare Centres were recommending babies have their quota of Vitamin B1, B2 and Niacin. Vegemite had them all!”

By the 1950’s, Vegemite was to Australia what apple pie is to America, aided in part by consumer-oriented campaigns initiated by J.Walter Thompson.

On July 7, 2009, Kraft released a ’second’ Vegemite. The new Vegemite is a mix of Vegemite and cream cheese, is less salty, spreads much easier, and supposedly tastes better. To coincide with the release of the new recipe, Kraft is running a competition to give the new flavor a name, hearkening back to the competitions that worked 50 years ago. Kraft recently launched a comprehensive marketing campaign to name the new Vegemite, drawing on the successes of past campaigns that involved the public.

In fact, the new campaign mixes both traditional and Social Media, including an interactive website that includes fun facts, the naming contests, and the history of Vegemite. The new Vegemite can be found on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Below is the one of several commercials. This one has been extended to be 48-seconds long:

And, just as in the early days, J. Walter Thompson was chosen for creative expertise. While some wait to see if this brand extension will be a coup or a pile of crap, early research shows that Vegemite has more brand affinity than Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and Nike (globally);

The research analysed 1.5 billion posts across 38 languages within social networking sites, blogs, message boards, and online news. The results discovered 479,206 mentions for Vegemite, with brand affinity found more often than any other product globally.

If this was an election, the early results would show that the new Vegemite is a serious contender; however, all the votes haven’t been cast. Based on my research, I believe that the new Vegemite will most certainly take space in Australian kitchens.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, blogger and aspiring writer. To contact Jeff, leave a comment here, or find him on LinkedIn or Twitter.

Fox Television has taken viral marketing to a new level.  Everyone should take notice.  Spawning from the new hit series Fringe, Fox has launched an ad campaign unlike any seen before.  Rather than relying on the staple marketing ploys of late night talk show rounds, standard TV ads and review/word of mouth popularity, Fox unloads a strategy that is both in-your-face and yet somehow subtle.

Introducing The Observer.  This secondary yet mysterious character now conspicuously appears at a variety of Fox televised events ranging from American Idol to most recently the Major League Baseball All-Star game.  His striking appearance (bald head, no eyebrows, always clad in a suit) and expressionless gaze render him unmistakeably recognizable amongst hordes of otherwise regular-looking people.  The genius of it all?  He goes completely unmentioned by hosts/commentators and the like.  He’s not followed by a screen-length banner trumpeting the show and its airing day and time.  He’s not discussed or called attention to in any manner other than a brief camera shot (as depicted above).

It’s product placement in the most brilliant, subtle manner.  Even those who don’t watch the show can’t help but be struck by his sullen demeanor.  It’s a face that sticks with you.  And for those of us who are annoyed with the banners and obligatory, “Folks, tune into…” spiels interjected into other aspects of our entertainment diet, it serves as the perfect marketing tool.

I, and I imagine many others, now feel compelled to at least sit down for an episode of the show just to see what it’s all about.  All because of a four second clip of a supporting character from a brand new TV show.  Now that’s effective marketing.

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.

Did you hear the one about the 15-year-old who decided to run his own study on the media consumption patterns of teenagers? It’s quite the research… er… story… lesson.

Ben Kellogg of Group SJR forwarded me the article after we had spoken about an entirely unrelated subject. To be quite honest, I didn’t jump right on it… my laptop had died, losing files, email contacts, and programs. I just kept resetting the email reminder. Until today.

Matthew Robson, a 15-year-old intern working for Morgan Stanley, conducted a media study called “How Teenagers Consume Media.” The conclusions caused a bit of an uproar, mainly because one teen does not represent all teens. Yet, it could also be said that the overall observations coincide with many teen media habits. The teens I know, for instance, would rather be online than in front of a television. Either that or doing both… watching TV and surfing the Web, interspersed with texting. Although there is absolutely no statistical backing for a survey of one, we can draw some general inferences from Robson’s writing.

General conclusions for the study include:

• Most teenagers are not regular listeners to radio, instead opting for online streaming services
• Most teens watch television, but frequency varies by season. Additionally, now that TV shows are webcasted as well, there’s less worry about missing an episode
• Teens do not read traditional papers because “they don’t have the time” (I am sure they have the time… it’s just that papers don’t rank highly on the priority list)
• Console gaming, interestingly, is not of interest to teenagers… and the main factor is cost. Costs for consoles and games are beyond most budgets; however, multi-player, interactive online games are popular
• The Internet is where teens interact socially, conduct research for school, create videos, IM, and otherwise connect to others… except for Twitter. Matthew states that teens do not use Twitter*
• Teens love music, but are not paying for it
• Viral marketing is enjoyed and supported by teens
• They do not use directories unless it’s online, etc.

*According to the graph below from Sysomos, teens comprise 30% of Twitter users:

This is directly in contrast with Robson’s assessment.

But hey, he is 15 years-old, and while he may be intelligent, his judgment is missing the crucial benefit of time. However, Morgan Stanley should not be lacking in the judgment column… or, in retrospect, maybe that’s exactly what they are missing…

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, Writer & Blogger. Unlike the all the other blog writers for Talent Zoo, Jeff is cute and nice. Tweet him @jlo0312. Just kidding about the nice part.

After Cannes and all the recognition many commercials and agencies have received, I feel it’s only fair to nominate five commercials that are on the other side of the spectrum. Usually, I like to write about advertising commercials or campaigns that are noteworthy, but lately, there seems to be a lack of stellar campaigns (besides the few I’ve outlined in past postings and, of course, at Cannes).

Due to this lack of creative advertising commercials, and the plethora of horribly bad ones, I managed to poll a few people about which ones make them want to change the channel the most. Here’s a list of the top five.

5. Five Dollar Footlong, Subway
Although the business concept of a $5 bargain meal is great and has caused numerous other restaurants to follow suit, the commercials are becoming annoying and missing creativity. Having different “customers” sing the theme song makes it seem as if this ad agency was procrastinating and threw this together at the last moment. Does it make me want a sandwich? No, it makes me wish I have TiVo to fast forward through it.

4. Volcano Taco Wedding, Taco Bell
First, as a woman, this commercial makes me so angry. If groomsmen showed up to my wedding sweating profusely, I would hurt someone. But, back to the point, I understand it’s a hot and spicy taco, but is it necessary to overreact to the point where it’s ridiculously stupid?

3. Toasty Torpedo, Quiznos
In the words of a fellow YouTuber, ”What was Quiznos thinking?” This commercial is beyond racy. I’m sure everyone agrees with me when I say, “Enough with the sexy sandwich campaigns!” I’ve noticed that the commercial has since been changed to something more family-friendly, but that doesn’t mean we all don’t notice and realize Quiznos messed up. Even YouTube has a montage of Scott saying, “Put it in me.”

2. Somebody’s Watching Me, GEICO
The pile of money with eyes is driving me nuts. The song alone will be stuck in your head for days. I do have to say that I absolutely love the commercials for Geico with Flo, but a pile of money that follows people across the country chasing after cars? *click* Change channel.

Drumroll please… and the worst commercial goes to –

1. The Young and the Wireless, Verizon Wireless
This one doesn’t really need an explanation. My friend said it best when she said, “Who was the executive that approved those commercials?” Not only is this commercial void of being catchy and interesting, a two year-old could have come up with something more creative.

AdWeek and Harris recently released a poll asking those not involved in the advertising trade what they thought of advertising’s “relevancy.”

The results show that most find that our jobs, as a whole, are rather irrelevant.

Advertising’s down, no doubt, and now Adweek’s heaping salt on the wound!

Well, Mr. and Mrs. America, let’s look at a life without advertising. A life of relevance.

First of all, without advertising, we would not have free access to television. Advertisers in essence pay for the shows we watch by running commercials. By the same logic, the web in that state would not be as comprehensive as the one we experience now. Radio would be a paid service with subscribers. Programs and shows with relatively lower ratings would be immediately slashed since they would no longer be able to support themselves.

The cultural art form of advertising would be lost.  The circle of life would be disrupted.  Just as life influences advertising, ads influence culture.

Without advertising, creatives would be cubicle-bound and non-imaginative. Serious. Boring. Sex would not sell, and neither would honesty. No one would fight for the cause. PETA would consist of two guys fighting for animal rights, and no one would care. Animals wouldn’t be cool to wear. Or not wear. Or own.  Times Square would be dimly lit. Your favorite beer would be just “BEER,” as the term ‘generic’ would dominate store shelves. Color would be sparse. Trendsetters would be trend-less. No brands, no logos, no icons or spokespeople. No sexy models, sexy shows, or suggestive commercials. We wouldn’t know who to vote for, or why. Four hour erections? Who’d need the pills, let alone use them? No body-image, no silicone implants, no tummy-tucks. No Jon & Kate. Michael Jackson would just be another singer. No Hollywood trailers, stars, starlets, tramps, red carpets, or blockbuster openings. No E! TV, no TMZ. No Paris, Lindsay, Nicole, or reality TV. No Tila Tequila.

No PSA’s warning that your brain on drugs was scrambled. Or that kids shouldn’t smoke crack and that crack kills. Rather than axing the marketing budget first, corporations would axe employees. And that would be just fine, because there would be no PR effort, no big news story, therefore no downside.

Life would go on, but it would be bland and tasteless. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and MySpace: no need for them.

Take a picture of the Cold War-era Russia and apply it to a life without advertising. Cold. Drizzling. Muddled.

The link to this study is now unavailable.  Was the issue so unimportant that Adweek pulled the article? Or was the study published on the wrong day?

Luckily, I printed it:

In an AdweekMedia/Harris Poll last month, respondents were given a chance to say they don’t feel strongly about the industry one way or another, and nearly half of them took it. Asked to characterize their overall impression of “the advertising industry in general,” 47 percent said it’s “neither negative nor positive.” Predictably, those with a negative view of the business (9 percent “very,” 28 percent “somewhat”) outnumbered those with a positive view (2 percent “very,” 15 percent “somewhat”). (The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.)

If such numbers count as not-so-bad news for the ad business, responses were less positive on the question of whether consumers find advertising relevant to their lives (”By relevant,” Harris told respondents, “we mean how it connects to things that are ongoing in your daily life”). Given the effort put into aiming the right ad at the right target, the numbers here were pretty lackluster. Eight percent of respondents said advertising is “very relevant” to their lives, and 42 percent said it’s “somewhat relevant.” Thirty-two percent termed it “not that relevant” and 14 percent “not at all relevant,” with the rest unsure.

Can you say “OUCH!”?

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.

How does White Collar crime work? What if the safety harness on the roller coaster broke? What are 10 inventions we use daily that was first used at NASA? How does WiFi operate? Who is Aaron Fotheringham?

Aaron Fotheringham is the seventeen-year-old athlete featured in HowStuffWorks.com’s online and television ad campaign in support of the popular website. The spots have been released on YouTube, and will also be seen on TV starting this week. And, it’s not who Aaron is; it’s what he does:

Aaron, born with spina bifida, and dubbed with the nickname Wheelz, lives in Las Vegas, Nevada (which may play a part in his penchant for taking risks). One day, while his brother and friends were dropping into empty swimming pools on skateboards and BMX bikes, his brother suggested that he “drop in.” Although nervous, Aaron took his first “wheelchair drop” into the pool.

He’s now known as the inventor and pioneer of an extreme sport called “Hardcore Sitting” and competes in BMX racing. Against cyclists.

He’s been competing alongside BMX bikers since 2005 and has more than 10 corporate sponsors. He won the trophy at the BMX Intermediate Vegas AmJam 2005 Finals and spends about 30 to 40 hours per week practicing the sport he invented.

In mid-2006, Aaron became the first person in history to complete a back flip in a wheelchair. On Halloween, 2008, Guinness Book of World Records certified Aaron as the sole inventor and performer of the wheelchair back flip. No one has duplicated his feat. There is a section on HowStuffWorks.com devoted to Aaron Fotheringham and his journey.

Along with the sponsorships, the accolades, and the TV appearances, he’s launched a website, AaronFotheringham.com, and was awarded $20,000 by the FOX reality TV show “Secret Millionaire.” The money will help form a company that teaches other children in wheelchairs the sport of Hardcore Sitting.

This is the second ad campaign HowStuffWorks.com has launched and builds upon the highly successful “Scuba Cat” campaign launched this time last year. The new campaign also features a skydiving car, with both video spots centered around the theme of “Keep Asking.” The spots ask all types of questions, along with a voice-over, “For expert answers to the world’s great questions, go to HowStuffWorks.com.” The tagline “Keep Asking” demonstrates the ability to utilize a single execution to capture a full range of emotions and tackle a wide array of topics.

Preston Kelly, headquartered in Minneapolis, provided the creative juice that powers the campaign.

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.