make the logo bigger

The Duke did shots with kruschev—and you didn’t.

2009-07-14T02:25:00.009-04:00

There’s a few approaches to working on liquor brands. Disaronno? Lifestyle. Smirnoff? Beauty shot. Captain Morgan? Funny. Ketel One? Character-based. Having worked on enough tequila, rum and vodka accounts in tha’ day, the focus was basically lifestyle scenarios or beauty shots with close-ups of the bottle.

Now, brands are looser and do stuff that’s more fun. At some point in their advertising evolution though, many will try one of the approaches above. They’ll say each brand has its own identity, but the importer has a say in their overall messaging and direction.

At the time, Absolute pwned the classic ad while Skyy was just starting to shake things up with it’s D&G-inspired funk. (Which, apparently, they can’t seem to escape.)

Before working on Jose Cuervo, I got to work on its distant 26 light years away Vega cousin, Sauza Conmemorativo. (As far as the market went, it was Cuervo—and everyone else.)

What no brand would think to do then was the stuff that Canadian Club did with it’s Real Man approach, or that Ketel One is trying to do now with its cross of lifestyle and character. (Sure it’s a beer, but it could be considered funkier cousin of Dos Equis’ Most Interesting Man work.)

Sauza would never search the history of the brand and find out that John Wayne loved it. They wouldn’t know what to with that type of factoid even if they had, other than maybe throw it on a coaster as part of some bar promotion.

Sassy!

No, they wouldn’t use info like that to do something different for the brand. They preferred to show young couples doing shots off each other or dancing close like SoCo nation does now. (As do too many brands that play it safe.)

Excitement squared.

Never mind that his favorite drink was Sauza Commemorativo, and he often served it with ice that he had chipped from an iceberg during one of his voyages on his yacht, “The Wild Goose.”

It’s okay, you can say it with me: That’s hardcore.

Never mind that he went toe to toe and vodka shot for vodka shot with Nikita Khrushchev. Most Interesting Man in the World? Mojito boy with laceless Chucks?

Meet The Duke.™

Pound for pound, no Real Man had more body parts removed and lived to tell about.

The brand would likely not take this approach even though they have the heritage and authenticity to pull it off.*

No, for now, The Duke will have to wait for someone on the brand to allow an agency to bring him back to life.** Which is a shame.

Most brands spend a ton of money to invent character like that.

*The same importer had another brand—Fundador—favored by none other than Hemingway himself. Real Man reactor core now fully exposed.

**At least the Coen Brothers will with their remake of True Grit.

“There it is! It’s no big deal.”

2009-07-13T17:34:00.005-04:00

It gets your attention, and that’s all that matters, right? Any PR is good PR, no? Dog poop problems cut in half since this Torbay Council poster in the UK started appearing in April. It got the results, so why wouldn’t you run this here? WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM PEOPLE.

Worst case, the kid wasn’t hurt. (She probably got a tummy ache from all the candy bars she ate during the shoot.) But shocking for shocking’s sake sure worked, dinnit? Or maybe it was a flat fine of £75 ($121 dollars) and a potential £1,000 penalty ($1,623 dollars). I still say scary PSAs do shit (ouch) to curb repeat offenders. You need big-ass fines and enforcement. Park in a handicapped spot? $10,000 fine. Try it out for a month and see who parks there.

Here, scaring in-con-SIDERATE asshole owners by using kids might be a fail. Think they care that a kid will find it? When it comes to walking their dog, many people don’t care where it goes, and damn if they’re picking up after it. Besides, what parent watches their kid chow down like Bill Murray in Caddyshack?

I am the Snuggie, goo goo g’joob.

2009-07-13T16:45:00.000-04:00

All is explained in the first few minutes. This episode is about more marketing madness including why so many of you freaks abandon your online shopping carts. You do, don’t lie. Dr. Eamon Boyle, VP, Director of Analytics, The Martin Agency and Peter Shankman, Founder, Help a Reporter Out weigh in. We managed to throw in NO Michael Jackson references also. Download the show directly here. Topics here. (Subscribe through iTunes here.) Follow us on Twitter: TheBeanCast, mtlb, dabitch and Angela.
Tags: The Beancast

Branding, branding, branding!

2009-07-13T01:46:00.032-04:00

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! So here’s the latest in an unofficial series about stuff bugging me: The term branding. After reading yet another story about yet another brand “rebranding” itself (and likely dropping a ton of money to do so), I had to offer a different perspective as the voice of reason... in times like these.

So much of what makes up branding is how people perceive a brand based on their own experiences with it, as well as how the brand acts—not just the brand’s shiny new logo.

See. Above. Logos.

But branding’s one of those words that’s grown into something bigger than it what it originally started out as. It just used to be known as corporate identity. Or at least that’s what they called the design of a new logo as applied to the brand’s various communications materials like letterheads or websites. (When, um, websites were all the rage, youngins!)

Logos had certain attributes or descriptions assigned to them by the designer which told you how they expected you to feel about the brand. The description of the IBM logo is one example. Over 40 years old and still in use today, it was originally designed with horizontal stripes suggesting “speed and dynamism.” (Based on how people feel about the company now, I’m not sure that description fits any longer. Intel in that initial story link sure seems to own* speed now.)

Taking brand zeitgeist to extremes however, you have the new Pepsi logo that was developed using an almost biblical set of guidelines for the manual of the background behind the rational that describes the thinking. *gasps for air*

The term is also synonymous with standards manuals that most brands have to show how and where to use the logo, what the corporate colors are, how store signage should look, etc. And depending on how corporate a brand is, agencies often have to follow these guidelines closely when designing things like print ads, collateral, websites and the like.

Yea guidelines!

It’s here where I think the nightmare first began. As more and more brands redid their look, the makeover in effect became rebranding, all because a company or product reinvented, reimagined and rediscovered itself. Branding hat-trick FTW!

Personally, I could care less what people refer to a brand’s “new look” as. Rebranding’s simply an extension of the identity creation process outlined above, maybe with more bells and whistles. (For another good perspective, check out the Ad Contrarian’s free book on advertising and branding.)

Call it what you want, but the main problem I have is when people think the word branding somehow adds this mystical vibe to a brand that creates an unbreakable connection with consumers.

It’s a one-direction, push mindset though: The brand blows out a new look across all media channels, then sits back waiting for kudos to roll in. This is where things get ugly with the notion of branding because it doesn’t take into account the other key element of the entire process:

Consumer reaction.

I can tell you that a new logo won’t change the negative perceptions people have of your brand if: You always provide lousy customer service and/or expensive products that don’t live up to the hype. If you don’t believe it, how about a rebranding of one of America’s favorite brands that we saw up top:

So how’s that rebranding thing working out for you now?

No new slick look or color scheme could erase the baggage associated with the brand name in Enron’s case. Branding as damage control is an obviously fail because of everything that went down with the company and its leadership.

Or flail, depending on your brand.

The GOP is obviously trying the same approach in its effort to rebrand. Problem is, copying tactics such as your opponent’s colorful website is not the same as having a sound strategy. But you only had to see this in action during the last presidential election. You saw how similar both candidates’s websites and outreach efforts were, yet both were fundamentally different when it came to the issues.

This is why any brand that has a superior product or customer service doesn’t need rebranding. Examples of that little theory? Apple and Zappos. 50 free updates on Twitter if you can tell me without looking what Zappos’ tagline is. The core of what they’re about is right there in their logo, yet the majority of people I ask miss it. (It’s “Powered by Service.”) Their customer service is insanely good. People love working there.

How could a new logo ever hope to improve on that?

Take Apple. When’s the last time you heard about them rebranding. New logo? Haven’t heard about one. They evolve their look quietly on the site from time to time maybe or add a little something to their color scheme, but still leave it up to the fans to spread the word.

The logos below certainly represent a huge span in the evolution of their “look,” but I’m having trouble recalling press releases along the way shouting about their “new direction.” You?

There’s no major announcement that “Apple intends to rebrand to be more in touch with today’s consumers.” They don’t have to because they already do. In addition to their great customer service, their products are also insanely good. (Which also allows to them run insanely great advertising. Another by-product of getting the product right.)

People don’t care about your logo or your look if the brand is rocking in every other area. It’s just icing on the cake at that point. But when sales are down, or some time has elapsed between updates, the first thing most brands do is go “We need a new look!”

Fine. Whatever. Talk about rebranding all you want. Focus on a new logo with catchy tagline and awesome new site, but it doesn’t mean anything if you don’t start with improving the actual brand and customer experience first.

*Own being another word I will go off on in a future post.

EARN WHILE YOU TWEET!!!

2009-07-12T14:50:00.003-04:00

Twitter is hiring!!! Millions of people are making thousands of dollars every hour. WHY AREN’T YOU!!! What are you waiting for? CLICK NOW!!!

I suppose it would be like Dinero on QVC.

2009-07-12T00:05:00.000-04:00

Little bit, little bit. Flipping through the wonderful world of channels 2-13 this weekend and saw WCBS was running half-hour informercials—at 7:00 pm. Aside from thinking CBS = desperate for ad revenue, I thought I saw Clint Eastwood in a leather jacket. But it was the Easy Rider himself, Peter Fonda. Not that I was or am a fan, but I can see how some who are might feel seeing him shill for a summer of love. Escape From L.A. was one thing, but him and Dennis Hopper gave the finger to The Man!

And now, selling the Mamas and the Papas to grandmas and grandpas for Flower Power? (Dennis may be busy standing on chairs and selling out to The Man, but at least he’s living in the now, man.) Especially cool is the part when they round up the collection to the mid-seventies for some R&B. (Or is it groovy. Which decade are we in again?) Wonder who gets to repackage the Ting Tings around 2050.

“But we don’t broadcast in 1,000,080P... do we?”

2009-07-12T00:02:00.003-04:00

Great delivery of that line in this recent DIRECTV* spot, probably the best spot of the series to date. The brand is an advertising conundrum though: You may likely never use them but their ads sure are memorable. Pick any one and the sharp writing along with Best in Show’s John Michael Higgins’ performance likely carries it. So do the ads fail? Or do they work because you remember them?

*head and shoulder side shrug*

*AD BLOGGING DISCLAIMER: I had DTV for one year but because of where we lived, it kept cutting in and out when it rained or snowed. I also hate that their Sunday Ticket has a monopoly on being the only carrier that offers NFL game packages.

Here’s something you don’t see everyday.

2009-07-11T17:12:00.007-04:00

Actually, you do. I mean, did. Wait, what?

This stop-motion spot for the Olympus PEN is noteworthy for something besides its spin on Takeuchi Taijin’s very cool A Wolf Loves Pork I saw a few months ago:

Olympus actually gave him credit for inspiring their work.

It may seem like nothing, but considering how so many creatives scan YouTube for they can steal without acknowledging where they got it from because their executions are almost direct lifts without even attempting to take the idea in a new direction, but that is obvious to anyone except them who views it that it’s a ripoff inspiration, it’s a big step.

Whatever you call it, uncredited and uninspired “homages” are rampant in advertising. Here though, where Taijin’s idea focused on a brief story that interacted with its surroundings, PEN compresses someone’s entire life and messes with the surroundings in different ways. (Check out the scene at the end going up and then down the stairs with parachutes.)

The whole thing runs a little long only because I was used to the technique in Wolf, and some of the characters looked a little too perfectly cast, but still, it’s impressive.

While I disagree with their comment that they almost weren’t going to list his name without permission—I don’t know anyone who would say no to being given credit for their work—you have to give Olympus or whoever runs their YT page major props for doing that because it almost never happens.

(Via.)

Help win pitchs worth millions—for $25 an hour.

2009-07-11T16:31:00.005-04:00

Aka, another thing wrong with this business. Check out this ad below:

NEEDED IMMEDIATELY: INTELLIGENT SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANT

So when major PR firms write articles and appear at seminars talking about how PR needs to do a better job, and that they should take the lead on a brand’s social media initiative, is that job listing what they mean? When you scan the ad, it sounds great. Until you get to the bottom and see what they’re offering as compensation.

Now, I’m not trying to assign any alchemy to social media and say a only select few know how to do it properly, nor am I saying all you need is a Radian6 account and Powerpoint. But the ad points out the need to be able to do a lot of other stuff that simply having a 3-month old Twitter account won’t qualify you for.

Assuming that you were to put in a minimum of 10 hours a week, *still laughing my ass off* but okay, whatever. Their $1,000 a month divided by a 4-week average nets you basically $250 a week, or $25 an hour. While it offers additional commissions based on wins, I’m assuming it’s peanuts if all they’re offering is that monthly grand. And there’s no way that’s all the time you’ll end up spending either, not when faced with writing multiple proposals or showing up to review stuff.

There may be a few new social media metrics apps out that help anyone grab a snapshot of a brand these days, (I’m trying viralheat.com a test run this weekend in additon to having used Radian6), but so much of what goes into a proposal and pitch will not be found in the number of followers someone has on Twitter. You need to understand the core strategy behind what will work for a brand, not just whether they have a Facebook or not.

If PR wants to clean up its name, it can start by paying someone what their time is really worth. It can also leave a URL to a legit agency name. If Wieden, Crispin or Edleman can do it, there’s no excuse for any other agency in the industry to hide behind a gmail.

jeff Goldblum is still not dead and it’s your fault.

2009-07-11T15:26:00.010-04:00

Yes, that’s Kevin Spacey, not Jeff Goldblum. Kevin’s the one that scolded everyone over the fake Jeff Goldblum demise stories* during the Michael Jackson newsalanche a few weeks ago. Usually I love Mashable, but in this case, they wasted no time in joining the fray.

Now that the hoopla’s semi-over, here’s more on that!

The point at the end of the Mashable article sums up the problem with online conversations. It said a few unscrupulous users were able to gain momentum from the story, but the bigger implication pointed out by Spacey is that everyone who had retweeted or published anything related to the Goldblum story was complicit in spreading false rumors.

Normally, I’d agree, if that’s what’s really happening here.

People who say with nearly almost definitive realiable alternative confirmation that they know for sure so-and-so is dead, and who do it without providing even a link to a credibile source, have issues. (And of course, opportunists are always lurking since Yea Me! is the new black.)

In this case though, the article takes the journalistic high ground but ends up being right for the wrong reasons. The point that a lot of people miss is that when it comes to online discussions, what is being “spread” is part of any normal conversation you have when something major happens.

Sure, I can agree with their contention that social media eventually filters what’s true or not, but it does that by having to go through all of those rumors and confirmations first. If you look at the screen grab of the updates in that article, you’ll see what I mean.

One or two seem to say for sure that Jeff is dead, while the overwhelming majority seem to question this “fact.” Take Twitter out of the equation for a second though.

This could be you and your friends in a bar when something comes on the news or your friend asks if you heard about what happened to (insert X). Normal back and forth would then have everyone questioning it, saying “No way,” or otherwise confirming they saw it on CNN.

Just because you then carry on that simple act of conversation online doesn’t mean you’re spreading rumors.

Not to complicate things, but we’re also talking about a negative story in this case. What about the “rumors” planted by PR people for an upcoming CD release or concert, or getting an actor mentioned on a blog, all to build buzz. Talk about this story, don’t talk about that one. How can you have it both ways?

Afterall, they wouldn’t discuss it if it weren’t true, right?

*Goldblum’s fake death was part of an interent hoax from a site that creates false news items. Since my Jeff Goldblum enabling days are over, you’ll just have to Google it yourself.

(Image via.)

Weekend YouTubage

2009-07-11T03:23:00.005-04:00

Mankind Is No Island was shot entirely on a cell phone, and uses found images as well as type from around the city to make its point about the homeless.

(Via.)

Everyone out of the water, sha... tampons!

2009-07-10T14:53:00.004-04:00

The clip is in Dutch, but that’s okay: One tampon is worth a 1,000 words. Dutch tampon maker Libresse airlifted and then dropped hundreds of tampons to stranded beachgoers behind enemy lines. (Good thing they hit the beach and not the water.) I do not know what else to say about that except to throw out quotes from Jaws:

“Take a good look at that tampon. Those proportions are correct.”

“That’s a 20 footer. 25.”

I leave the rest to you...

But wait, there’s more.

2009-07-10T13:46:00.005-04:00

– Tax ’em if ya got ’em. Pharma ads under fire.
– Ron Paul Singles dating site. (Via.)
– Not your dad’s Economist anymore.
– Making something of Philip “Tubbs” Michael Thomas’ career.
– Orange casket, no?
– Heavy metal snow nazi zombies.
– PSA fun. Can’t a droid just get five minutes to himself?
– Kim Jong’s 11.
– I don’t live far from here. I really don’t. Metaphorically speaking.
– Crabcore explained.
– Was it for a lawnmower? Not exactly.
– Copying the site while forgetting the strategy.
– Moving overseas? Try one of those Perfect Storm things.
– Yea, YOU!
– Time for new Madison Avenue roommates.
– Dorothy Vader.
– The infamous Kissing Frogs of McDonald’s.
– The anti-socila media expert cloaking device.
– Profiles in chattage.
– Word of mouse, people.
– Our hamburger God is a merciful God.
– Is your beer in trouble? Call the Coastcard.

I just need another $2,700 to exploit the memory of 9/11.

2009-07-10T01:04:00.004-04:00

While not as cool as $20 of nearly almost silver, this lovely Tiffany tray is one of many items that can carry your name into battle when The USS New York is commissioned in November. Tiffany provides silverware for many ships, but this one is special. Seven and a half tons of steel from Ground Zero are welded into the bow of the ship. The motto:

Strength Forged through Sacrifice: Never Forget

I don’t. That’s why I blog about this stuff. Something feels a little wrong though about companies that can have their names engraved like they were picking out corporate seats at Yankee Stadium using Navy ranks. (Complete list of sponsors here.) But hey, maybe it’s me.

There’s still time to get in on some flatware.

Think a rat’s bad, wait until you see what’s in Viagra.

2009-07-09T17:05:00.004-04:00

Loyal MTLB loyalists know my love for pharmaseutra—advertising’s orgy of medaphors. Marc Brownstein on Ad Age recently asked why most of it is so embarassing. Long and short, the creativity that people want pharma advertising to have ain’t happening here in America, simply because the FDA has too many guidelines in place to prevent it. While the Taxi work for Viagra up in Canada is stuff people wouldn’t mind seeing, good luck trying it here.

Problem is, the U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries allowing DTC advertising, (direct to consumer), along with strict guidelines that the rest of advertising doesn’t have to follow. You can’t just show a product, someone using it, then they’re cured.

Best you can hope for is to imply said product might get the person back to a reasonable facsimile of the person they were before said condition—which you have to mention carefully—took hold.

This isn’t like saying brand x of paper towel picks up 50% more spills and hilarious ad scenario ensues! Not even close. If that were pharma, you’d need to warn about possible side effects of wet paper towel not making it to the garbage before it tore. Or how the paper towel should never be used as a tourniquet. Or that it should never be used to plug holes in tires.

No, see, Canada doen’t have the same restrictions, plus, they don’t mention a specific medical condition that would require the ton of disclaimers we need here. (Antiquing is not a medical condition. Well, for most anyway.)

They simply poke fun at the limitations American advertising has on it in the spot. It’s stuff any creative would like on their reel.

So while the rat spot above passed muster over in the UK, and while several people give it props for being effective, it wouldn’t run here. (The point about rats, while dramatic, is a little unclear. Just where in the life cycle of the med is the rat and the rat poison getting in, the factory? They’re literal about everything else in the spot, why not say it in the voiceover then.)

Regardless, it talks about a category as a whole and not any specific product. No advertiser here though will waste money buying air time to talk about the general idea of heart attacks unless they’re also showing off their new heart drug.

(They will do this online though in what they call unbranded ads and sites. This is where they create a pseudo site about headaches called, um, helpmymigraine.com, which then leads you into the back door of the main product from said manufacturer, thus avoiding the required fair balance which cripples most creative effort.)

That aside, loosen the guidelines here and I guarantee more creative work would be done along these lines.

Can social media be too honest?

2009-07-09T05:21:00.004-04:00

Or is this where it needs to be?

I saw this update on Twitter last week and discussed it with several people. For me, it’s everything that’s both wrong and right with social networks. The one implication of social media that I never bought into was that somehow it was this open and honest dialog, where people shared true feelings; certainly, their honest opinions of things, right?

Okay, well, after being around it for some time, dream over, because social media does the opposite.

It forces people to behave with this type of politeness, much in the same way you would act at a party. You don’t walk up to a stranger and start talking about your favorite position in bed or how much money you make. (If you’re a narcissistic asshole, then yes, you probably might.)

Regardless, most of what you read on Twitter or blogs is guarded conversation. There are those exhibitionists who don’t care what they write or who they offend. Call it Post Secret with a real name. These are the same people who’d just as soon fault you for holding back on your honest opinion as you would them for being too open.

So when I saw that update, it hit me in an odd way.

On one hand, I was thanking him for being someone sharing a truly private moment, because, well, again, what’s really private about social media.

The other part of me went, timeout, WAY too much information.

Not because I couldn’t handle it. I can. Several readers know how many family members I’ve seen go in the past year. Another person also commented that they appreciated the honesty because of a similar situation they’re experiencing now.

I even toyed with a really hard update myself after seeing a baby on a stretcher in the ER last week, but couldn’t pull the trigger on Twitter because it just would’ve been too odd an update for me. Not because of honesty, but context, both in terms of the “voice” I’ve established and the physical context of Twitter.

As I thought about it his update, my reaction was entirely based on the latter.

If I get that as an email from a friend? I’m feeling bad. Not that I wouldn’t feel bad wherever I read it, but because of the context of Twitter, I’m reading it as part of a stream of completely different tweets:

“Top SEO tips for better traffic.”

“Anyone see Letterman last night?”

“Having a wonderful salad while listening to Bach. Joy!”

“My brother is flying in tonight...”

A little jarring. Now, he put it out there for all to see, so that’s why I’m reposting it here. (Another issue this raises is how we become “comfortable” in whatever space we choose to publish stuff, to the point that we think nobody outside the readership will see it.)

I’m also not trying to single him out for anything bad, far from it. I’m sure he’s a nice dude and all and it sucks having to go through what he must be going through.

It just felt like this one update pointed out how the forced world of social media had just run head first into what it was supposed to be about: Honesty, no?

Once, I made a set of coasters out of post-it notes, if that helps.

2009-07-09T02:29:00.007-04:00

Yeah, it’s probably not the same thing as this.
(Via FFFFOUND!)

What would be worse on Mt. Rushmore: A Greenpeace banner or Corey Feldman?

2009-07-09T01:54:00.015-04:00

Thankfully, we now know. I suppose in one regard we should be thankful they took care not to be too much of a PITA and pour fake blood coming out of Lincoln’s head. On the other though, do they really think Obama needed convincing on global warming, seeing how it was such a big part of his campaign? They got PR, sure, but save that shit for the non-believers, no? By the way, I appreciate great placement as much as anyone, but Greenpeace can’t be under the delusional illusion that being both politican and leader are mutually exclusive, can they?

Axe to grind? YouTube that thang!

2009-07-09T00:59:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: Oh no they didn’t. Yes, they did: “It struck a chord with us,” via MiaCucina, United responds to original story below.

“My wife left me and took my pick-up, my best friend, and my dog—and United breaks guitars.”

My career as a country songwriter now officially over, this clip is racin’ up them there consumer generated charts. It’s Dave Carrol’s response after getting nowhere with United Airlines after he claims they broke his guitar. (Check out the rest of this sad tale at Live and Uncensored.) Only thing I’d suggest is to trim that thang. Cute song, but whenever the Beatles wrote about customer service, they kept them to 3:00 minutes or less.

Taking advantage of the negative space and capitalizing on the PR...

First, if I’m another airline, I’m offering Dave and his new guitar a free trip anywhere they fly so they can get over the “heartbreak.”

Second, Taylor guitars could offer to fly him on a different carrier to pick up his new free axe.

United? Your turn.

Social courtesy does pay, doesn’t it!

2009-07-09T00:48:00.004-04:00

Shut-ins can learn a lot from this classic 1951 training film on getting out more and interacting. You know, “socially?” Check out the low-budget film reversal backwards thing at 4:26 as Bill learns everyone rises when an adult speaks to them. Yes, yes they do.

Then there was the time I sent the pics of my boss and the goat. Good times!

2009-07-08T15:15:00.011-04:00

Okay, maybe your email “Reply All” miscues weren’t that bad, but at one point or another, you’ve experienced the shock of hitting “Send” and then noticing the name it went to. It’s that feeling you get when flying past the state trooper hiding on the side of the road. (And, depending on the addressee, that feeling is either magnified by 10 or 1,000.) See more responses from people in this Creative Group survey. Though not nearly as exciting as a good goat story, Speedo pics will get yer ass terminated.

(Image via.)

“Our live late breaking local smiles are better than their live late breaking local smiles.”

2009-07-08T03:33:00.008-04:00

No matter where you are, live, local and late breaking means one thing: An overused line? Yes, but also, shiny happy people that look like they could switch stations without missing a beat. In the case of Reno’s WKNRV News 4 up top, they’re going beyond the call and holding officials accountable. But who holds the weatherman accountable?

J-E-T-S-A-T-L-A-N-T-I-C-H-E-A-L-T-H!

2009-07-08T02:36:00.006-04:00

JETS! JETS! JETS!

Add another team to the list allowing sponsor logos on NFL practice jerseys. (Gonna be real hard to work that long name into the chant though.) Even the Giants went one step further and not only allowed Timex logos on their jerseys, but gave up naming rights to their practice facility for 15 years. As I wrote previously, I really don’t mind additional logos unless:

1) It starts to look like NASCAR quarter panel

2) When they intrude on the actual team logo. (As the Jets’ logo above does.)

3) Because the team claims it needs the money. I’m not buying that one at all, not with the cut they get from TV revenues. (Maybe if they were small-market teams I could sorta buy that excuse, but the Jets and Giants are anything but.)

So is this just getting out of hand or are wall-to-wall logos inevitable?

Do the Dew. Lather. Drink. Repeat.

2009-07-07T15:09:00.005-04:00

I’m all for brand extensions, but using Mt. Dew scented shampoo makes Axe wearers seem like they’re wearing Obsession, no?

(Via.)

Tags: Mt. Dew

The Big Idea vs. social media.

2009-07-07T13:05:00.012-04:00

Aka, can’t we all just get a blog?

It’s not that everyone who talks about the divide between a traditional advertising mindset and the thinking behind social media is wrong, they just have their own interpretations, tending to favor one side over the other.

In other words, everyone’s right.

After seeing a lot of back and forth on this topic, thought I’d come at it from a different angle though. I’m no more right or wrong than anyone else.

I’m also not going to quote thought leaders or ad industry vets either, I just want to make a few observations about where I see all of this going. Having had my feet in both worlds for some time now, I see the argument not as either-or, black or white, take it or leave it.

Maybe we can introduce a little grey.

As such, not every social media person thinks traditional advertising is dead, and conversely, not every traditional shop laughs at social media. Refer to them however you want, for now, I’m using those specific terms to label things here. Maybe it’s here where the notion of labels for the different type of agencies there are needs to disappear too.

“They’re a digital shop. They only do TV. That one only does social stuff.”

Many agencies coming up now do TV, digital, social and all the rest. Your agency should be able to think of great ideas for a brand no matter where they’ll ultimately live.

So what’s up with social?

If you’ve listened and read enough articles on social networks and what brands are doing, you know that “conversation” is thrown around a lot. For now, Imma leave it in. There are two general concepts I’ve been using to explain to agencies and clients lately about the bigger purpose for social networks:

First, social media is the thing that can help facilitate and integrate the rest of a brand’s overall marketing efforts, (TV, print, radio, OOH, point of sale, and so on). Call it the glue that ties it all together if you want.

Second, brands that are afraid to get into the space think consumers will take over, control and own their brand, so they respond in typical PR mode trying to spin everything. This is where I usually tell them to relax.

Consumers don’t control or own everything about your brand, just how they experience it and let the world know about it.

I think you do need to break it down that specifically because the problem I see is that too many general statements are made that while sounding great, miss out on key differences which help maintain this traditional vs. social rift.

That’s where the concept of owning needs to be rethought. If consumers are under the illusion they’re in complete charge, than brands need an even bigger wake up call because never owned how people reacted to their product or service.

They only thought they did.

Advertising is all that a brand needs.

As for traditional agencies, many social media people don’t understand that agencies do something that no other part of the machine can do: Create the Big Idea.

It’s the overall emotion around a brand that shapes how they want you feel about it. (I don’t mean branding either. Another term bastardized for too long now. That’s another post however.)

The Big Idea though is the notion that there are consumer insights which can be culled from focus groups or 140-page PowerPoint decks full of endless psychographics, which then lead planners and creatives to find the one truth that’s executed in a way that will resonate with consumers. (Funny spot, emotional spot, etc., whatever.)

This one truth will be the basis for the taglines and look of the campaign in whatever media channel we happen to roll it out. This is has always been TV first and everything else supporting that second, such as print, radio, outdoor and so on.

If the agency nails it, that one truth creates a connection for the consumer with the brand. (They hope.) Sometimes, the truth in question isn’t really about an overall emotional tone for the brand, but something much simpler:

“Studies show consumers didn’t know you could save X-amount by doing it yourself online. We ran new ads telling them about this discount and sales increased.”

In this case, there’s no “deep” emotion involved except exploiting what was in the data and appealing to the desire people have to save money. The Big Idea can also be this grand re-imagining as you saw with the Pepsi logo, or it can be smaller and focused on short term goals for the brand, like, selling during a particular promotional window. (See the recent Glidden post for a look at how this plays out.)

Mostly though, it’s the general approach creatives take when facing any assignment, large or small: What’s the one truth that we can show that resonates with someone.

Here-in lies the problem as both sides butt heads though.

Traditional agency mindset: Only The Big Idea is the only thing that matters in the process. As such, we need to drive it home everywhere. Pepsi on Twitter? Great, but the My Generation spot during the ~~Super Bowl~~ Big Game is what really moves the “brand” needle as far as consumers go. All marketing channels beyond TV had better execute against that Big Idea because we didn’t do all that research for you to do things your way.

Social media mindset: We’ll build or unite a community online and connect people for real, giving them a virtual experience that TV can’t possibly offer, because consumers want value and a great user experience, not emotional TV spots.

Okay, you two, stop fighting and go to your rooms because it can and should all work together. For the brand’s sake, both sides need to recognize that the other isn’t going away.

There’s no one single piece of the marketing puzzle that will make or break a brand in the long run. That doesn’t mean you can only do one one thing and expect success though. If you only ran TV by itself with no website or point of sale display to support it, you’re in trouble. Likewise, great website and “branded entertainment” clip on YouTube, but the stores all ran out of your product? Dead.

To that point, Domino’s and Oprah’s KFC fiascos seemed to me to be more of an example where the brand failed and not the marketing.

(The brands in both cases were strong enough to overcome those events by using other media channels along with basic PR damage control techniques. In the case of Domino’s, they responded by using the same site (YouTube) that had originally blindsided them. Ironically, KFC used PR to bail them out from what was essentially a PR miscue from the start: Underestimating the audience Oprah brings to the table.)

Lemmee say it again: It. All. Has. To. Work. Together. Every single aspect of a brand’s marketing efforts, from web to shipping to the customers’ in-store experience to billboards to...

Before I open another can of worms regarding the silo mindset that exists in the internal channels of brands, I should make a final point: I don’t see the advertising agency problem being one of traditional mass media going away soon.

What I see as a bigger issue is the mindset that says only an ad agency can provide the big thinking a brand needs, not some small shop or social media consultant.

Agencies are big on saying that a great idea can come from anywhere—unless someone else came up with it. Clients may buy execution, but they should be also be able to have a wider pool from which to get ideas too. (Even social media freaks like me.)

Why? Because we all know different little cool things about brands, and we all have different specialties. Seems a waste not to pool all of that, no?

Now, you kids come out of your rooms and go outside and play. And leave the muskets inside.

(image via.)