Archive for September, 2007

Marthapedia

Friday, September 28th, 2007

We all know about the fragility of brands invested mainly in a human being. Think OJ.

But, you have to give Martha Stewart credit. She’s a maestro of managing her own brand image.

She was branded as “expert”, then was indicted on federal charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice in an insider stock trading scandal, went to prison and emerged as “pop/celebrity brand”. Remember her first big project out of prison — the sister show to Donald Trump’s The Apprentice — where people competed to be Martha’s apprentice. There have been books, TV appearances on shows like Ugly Betty, a deal with Sirius.

And two years after her prison release, it’s clear she is actively evolving her brand back to “expert”. Earlier this month, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia announced that it inked a partnership with E & J Gallo Winery to produce a wine brand with label “Martha Stewart Vintage”. And she also signed contract with Costco Wholesale Corp. to offer frozen and fresh food under the Kirkland [Costco house brand] Signature.

And now Marthapedia, her own wiki website seeded “with existing content from Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, such as Martha Stewart’s Homekeeping Handbook, but will open for information and suggestions from the public.”

Game On

Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Nissan Maze TV

This new spot from TBWA\Chiat\Day for Nissan that aired this week in Heroes has some amazing special effects that make it fun to watch.

Via AdFreak

Can you say: Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Not that I’m all that comfortable with the ever-increasing power of Google…

BUT…

…to read a story about today’s congressional hearing on Google’s $3.1 billion proposed purchase of DoubleClick…and to see that…“A lawyer for Microsoft, which sought to acquire DoubleClick Inc. but lost out to Google Inc., argued that the deal would enable Google to become the overwhelmingly dominant pipeline for all forms of online advertising.”

Ironic! Don’t you think? Microsoft, the Bully, now arguing the other side. After years of stories like this…and this…and this…and this.

HeadOn Sells Despite (or maybe because of) the Cheesy Approach

Wednesday, September 26th, 2007

An AdAge story this week about the sales success of HeadOn states: “Those rapid-fire “HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead” spots are arguably among the worst commercials ever from a creative standpoint. They’re annoying, repetitive, obnoxious — and effective. ”

HeadOnCreatives everywhere probably gagged when they first saw the campaign. But when I posted this story about HeadOn back in November, I thought it was a smart strategy. And still do.

Regardless of how un-creative the spots are, look at the facts…sales are up 234% even though they annoy viewers. Millions talked about them. Thousands upon thousands blogged about the spots (there are 19,562 on Google blog search alone…a few thousand more show up on Technorati.)

The last time I remember such a high level of buzz about an ad campaign was for Deadenbacher, the ill fated Orville Redenbacher campaign. The Deadenbacher spots cost a fortune to make and were done by one of the most creative shops around. That “creative” approach didn’t work and Crispin lost the business.

On the other hand, Dan Charron, VP-sales and marketing at Miralus Healthcare, the marketer of HeadOn fully admits they weren’t out to be creative or win awards. Charron’s very pragmatic approach of testing for recall against ad clutter helped him hone in to find just what achieved his objective: just getting people to remember the product. And that they did…extremely successfully.

I found myself nodding my head when I read the following comment on the AdAge story. Since he/she says it so well, I’ll just quote it in its entirety:

In this article about the +200% growth of the product Head On, the author used the phrase “arguably among the worst commercials ever from a creative standpoint” to describe the infamous TV commercials for the headache product. And in using that phrase it shows that most advertising types have lost their way. It validates what I say here and on many sites on the web, a creative ad is not necessarily an effective ad. But I also think AdAge (mirroring most of the industry), doesn’t understand the term ‘creative’. This IS a creative ad. Yes it only says the same six word phrase over and over. Yes it is one single camera shot with a chromakey and two-dimensional graphics. So? It is creative, unique, and effective. Those six words do more for sales than those million dollar campaigns with big football stars. Just because it doesn’t have a cinematic look, some sort of cool special effect, or humor driving it does not mean it’s not creative. What it does have is a call to action, and highlights a products purpose, without having to show some esoteric shot of the cliffs of Ireland from a helicopter while offering a tongue twisting voice over from a smooth voice such as Peter Coyote that has the viewer wondering what it was they just tried to advertise. No not every ad should mimic this ad but the fact that it stands out amongst the field of much more expensive ads, yet does so much more for the product, rather than the ad agencies award wall should once again be a wakeup call to most big agency advertising, that advertising is broke and only sees ‘creative’ as what makes an ad good. As for annoying, try the Sprint ad with Peyton Manning that has a budget 100 times this, yet no one can make heads or tails of what it’s supposed to do, let alone what it’s trying to sell. Yet the agency for this Sprint spot made a behind the scenes video and posted it on YouTube so the world could see how a creative, high priced, award winning ad that does little for the product is done. Now that’s annoying. –New York, NY

What’s your opinion?

Human Flip Book

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

Human Flip Book
First time I’ve ever seen a flipbook on a t-shirt. Pretty cool commercial for Erbert’s & Gerbert’s Subs Clubs.

Free May Not Be Good Enough to Make Monitored Phone Calls Acceptable

Monday, September 24th, 2007

A new start-up called Pudding Media is offering free VoIP (PC-based telephone calls) if users allow the company to listen in on their conversations and serve targeted ads based on keywords in the conversation.
Pudding

Here’s how it works: The voice recognition software monitors the calls and based on what it hears, it will push the ads to the subscriber’s computer screen while he or she is still talking. A conversation about movies will result in ads for new films.

This one has a really tough road and I don’t think the odds are in its favor:

First, although consumers do flock to free web-based services, the concept of free VoIP calling is not new. Free, or nearly free, PC-phone calls are already available from dozens of companies, including Skype. The difference between 2 cents a minute and 0 cents a minute (for SkypeOut users) is almost negligible.

Secondly, for Pudding Media, being known as the VoIP provider with the most Big Brother tendencies puts it at a major disadvantage. So, except for people trying the service to check out the targeted ads (of which there will be many after today’s NYTimes article), users will be freaked out by the idea that someone (or in this case “something”) is listening in.

Pudding argues that their new technology is no different than that used by Google who scans in-boxes of G-mail users to tailor fit the ads they provide to them. But to most of us there’s a difference between written and spoken…we all know that most web activity is monitored in some way, yet anything that “listens” to voice communications feels very CIA-ish and way too close for comfort. Pudding says the keyword information is discarded after every call, but it will be up to consumers to decide whether or not that provides any reassurance. That’s a big stumbling block to get past.

And lastly, advertisers will be freaked out by freaked out consumers and the potential consumer backlash.

Google weathered the backlash when they launched the G-mail advertising technology, but they had street credibility already. Pudding is a start up. Much tougher position.

The Oreo Pizza Mustache

Friday, September 21st, 2007

Some hate it. Like Slate.

Some love it. Like David Burn over at AdPulp.

I’m with David. I love it. Great concept and acting. It’s witty and perfect for the audience it targets.

And judging from my experience (yes I tried one)…it’s reality based. But just the crumbs part. The taste is…well…absent. As an Oreo double-stuff fan, it just didn’t measure up.

Pluto’s Pissed

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

No idea what exactly happened, but the folks who witnessed it and the 152K+ that have watched the video will likely never look at those characters roaming through DisneyLand the same again.

Wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the Disney PR person who has to try and explain why Pluto took on a kid regardless of how obnoxious that kid might have been.

Holy Crap

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

I do it often. Too often. But I hate to fly. Hate it. Hate it. Horrible experiences. Too many of them. And a friend who knows it, sent me this link tonight.

I would have wet myself.

I guess it was some kind of stunt at an air show in Portugal. I sure hope that crazy ass pilot doesn’t fly for a commercial airline.

Wal-Mart Hopes to Change Story

Monday, September 17th, 2007

Wal-Mart rolled out a new slogan last week developed by its new agency, The Martin Agency —”Save Money. Live Better”—after having used “Always low prices” and the smiley for 19 years. And thankfully, it seems to be backing way off recent attempts to portray its stores as more upscale [that seemed like a major attempt at an illusion even David Blaine couldn’t pull off]. Instead, promoting an image of what middle-class families can achieve by saving money at the registers. According to a quoted study [sponsored by Wal-Mart] done by Global Insight, it showed the average family saved $2,500 a year by shopping at Wal-Mart.

“Live Better,” reminiscent of Lance Armstrong’s cancer survival “Live Strong” line, is Wal-Mart’s attempt to change the story for consumers. Wal-Mart executives are saying that the new line is not just a slogan, but a four word mission statement for the retailer.

The new TV campaign is well produced, insightful and does incorporate much more of a warm and fuzzy emotional tone into its advertising than in the past, in an attempt to boost sagging sales. However, the move from fairly benign messaging [i.e. Always low prices] to putting the consumer at the center with the new line that adds “live better” [the benefit of saving money on everyday items] is actually a bold move [despite the rather soft sell in the commercials].

Think about it…publicly trashing and bashing Wal-Mart for turning small towns into ghost-towns, questionable hiring and benefits practices and contributing exponentially to the trade imbalance with China has damn near become a national sport — not to mention the nauseating coverage of Roehm-gate in the advertising industry. Yet, we’ve all felt fairly far removed from how they do business and thusly felt justified in commenting on their competitive, aggressive and sometimes questionable business practices. Confronting the consumer head on in the positioning with the fact they are the real beneficiary of the low prices, and the reason Wal-mart does what it does the way it does it, makes the consumer take some responsibility — whether they want it or not.

Focusing on the consumer as the beneficiary forces a change in the tenor of potential Wal-Mart bashing. It has to, because it’s no longer them focused, but us. And as much as I didn’t want to like the campaign [because it’s more fun to bash Wal-Mart], I think it’s right on the mark from a marketing perspective. The whole position centers on the very simple premise: consumers want/demand a good deal…a low price for the things we need to buy so we can spend our hard-earned money on other things.

While done with a soft touch, the campaign gets at the hypocrisy in the anti-Wal-Mart sentiment. The fact is, I look on the Internet to find the lowest price I can when I buy airline tickets, book hotel rooms, merchandise and more. I buy from just about anyone anywhere with a click of a mouse. Don’t you? Do I look into the business practices of all the companies I buy from? No. Do you?