MarketingInsideOut.com

I was enjoying a glass of wine and surfing when I clicked.

I was mid drink when the chipmunk started singing and I laughed so hard I sputtered wine all over my laptop screen. And my laughs got louder as the spot when on. When the wolf (or whatever it is) coughs up the bird, I lost it. Both my husband and daughter came in to see what had me laughing so hard. This spot is awesome!! I can’t remember the last time I watched a spot multiple times and laughed as hard each time. But not only is it hilarious, it’s brilliantly strategic. Fun is right. Love it.

Agency: Cutwater (formed by Chuck McBride former TBWA\Chiat\Day North America ECD)

Payback’s a bitch….and then you pee.

The Montana Meth Project campaign, launched two years ago by billionaire philanthropist Tom Seibel, is absolutely horrifying to watch. But it’s working. Big time. If you missed the Nightline segment on the effort, it’s worth checking out (it includes the commercials).

The goal is to stop a generation from using meth. And in just two years, teen meth use in Montana has been cut by nearly half, while abuse in neighboring states is on the rise. Positive workplace drug tests are down by 70 percent, and 96 percent of kids polled say they have discussed meth with a parent. The project has been such a smashing success, 10 other states are poised to copy the campaign, and federal money will help produce new ads.

This gritty and powerful private sector campaign is a long way from the simplicity of the government’s metaphoric fried egg “this is your brain on drugs” ad campaign of old. The shear horrific nature of the ravages of meth use shown in the spots scares the crap out of me and hopefully every other sane human who sees just what that stuff can do.

If this were running here, I’d bet it would have even more people up in arms than this for the Folsom Street Fair.

Via AdFreak

Via Adverganza

What would’ve happened if Apple’s classic “1984″ was focus grouped? Arnold found out, by asking people who’d apparently never seen the spot how they’d change it—and it involved putting Apple logos on the t-shirts of the huddled masses, and the recommendation that the spot: “Use real people, preferably without gas masks. Make fewer references to Nazism” and so forth. Only one focus group member thinks the spot should be produced at all. Arnold produced this as the intro film to the Boston Ad Club’s Hatch Awards, which were held last night, but that’s incidental.

2.5 tons of play doh. 3 week shoot in the streets of New York. 40 animators. Amazing stop action animation. Wow!

I applauded the Dove campaign for real beauty. As a woman and professional. I admire brands with the guts to take a stand. And cheered on their efforts to reach 5 millions girls by 2010 with “feel good about yourself messages” as part of the Self-Esteem Fund. I’m all for loving yourself and feeling comfortable in your own skin despite flaws. As a mother of two teenage daughters, how could I not admire a company standing for self-esteem?

BUT…with the latest film, “Onslaught”, they went too far and lost credibility with me. Celebrating and promoting the concept of self esteem and inner beauty is one thing. Encouraging you to “talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does” is a worthwhile message. But doing it in such a hypocritical and arrogant way is another.

Dove doesn’t stand alone. It’s part of a larger company and consumers know it. Even my 15 year old knows it. Regardless of whether or not people see this as a powerful creative spot (I don’t think it has near the power of the original), using the attack approach against the industry begs the question… do they honestly believe that people will see Dove as “above it all”? When they are in fact part of a large marketing driven company [Unilever] whose own brands have and continue to perpetrate the “beauty industry” images that play right into our insecurities. The same type of images that they use in the film as examples of the exploits.

There’s such irony in the fact that on Unilever’s own site they play to our insecurities in order to hype their beauty products. Like how you can get “Oscar-worthy hair” just like Nicole Kidman, Posh Spice and – oh yeah – Paris Hilton. And let’s not forget that Unilever is a major manufacturer of skin-whitening creams marketed in India (playing to a stereotype that, the lighter your skin, the more beautiful you are). And what about Axe body spray, whose sexist and stupid ads as well as the “humilidating” show, Game Killers, on MTV this year (a production of Axe spray) doesn’t exactly send the message that the Onslaught spot does.

Unilever wants it both ways. To be hero AND benefactor relative to our insecurities. And that’s hard to reconcile.

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

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. ”

Creatives 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?

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