The days of product puffery are over. I think it’s because we’ve developed a pessimistic and sarcastic outlook towards the world in order to shield us from looking happy-go-lucky and stupid. These days, telling everyone why your product “glistens and sparkles” just doesn’t reach the core of consumers like it used to, but whatever the reason may be for our new attitudes, advertising must reflect society’s mood.

Our audience wants honesty. They want to believe what we’re telling them; therefore, what we tell them must be believable, especially in the midst of an economic slump. People are looking for something they can believe and count on, nothing over the top. I’m not suggesting fast-food chains broadcast how many chambers of our heart will shut down after eating a large meal at their establishment, though that would be hilarious and could lead to some interesting contests.

Take a look at these examples of how honesty in advertising can be a funny and interesting tactic.

Buckley’s, a Canadian-based cough syrup company uses the slogan, “It Tastes Awful. And It Works.” It tastes awful? Why not buy a brand that works and tastes good?Because at least Buckley’s is being honest.

Anyone who has had a cold knows when mom tells you, “Drink this cough syrup; it tastes great,” she’s a blatant liar. (Love you mom, but get real.) Every cough syrup tastes like black licorice that has passed through the system of a mountain goat. Buckley’s capitalizes on the fact that no chance exists this thick liquid will taste good, no matter what brand you try, but Buckley’s will get rid of that pesky cough.

Avis will tell you they’re not the best. In fact, they’ll come right out and say they are number two in the rental-car industry. Why would a brand tell you something like that? Well, first of all, because it’s true. Second, they back up that fact with the poignant slogan: “We try harder.”

Obviously, number one doesn’t have to try as hard anymore because they’re at the top. Where else are they going to go? Avis is still working to get to number one by getting your business. They’re “trying harder” every time you rent one of their cars. Some of their ads go on to say, “We can’t afford not to be nice.” Touché, Avis.

Our cynical side wants to lash out at advertising that uses verbiage like “the best,” “unbeatable,” or “one of a kind” because we picture some guy in a fancy suit and a plastic smile pitching us an overused line. We’re not some cheap date to be picked up at a bar, and we’re not buying your product.

When brands are honest with us and say, “Hey, this is what we have to offer,” we’re much more receptive. Besides, we could use a little more credibility in our industry, for the last time I checked, the only people consumers trust less than advertisers are used-car salesmen.

What would happen if Avis became number one in rental cars? The company’s new slogan might be amended to “Avis: We used to try harder, but now we’re good.”

Stu Haack is a Copywriter & Social Media Guru at Aviatech.  He likes long walks on the beach and scary movies.  Learn more about him and his writing.

We’ve seen the ads of diet plans, workout equipment, regimens, and a slew of other lose-weight-and-look-great supplements. These ads have two things in common: attractive actors/models with desirable physiques and fine print that reads “results not typical.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new set of guidelines to remove the ubiquitous phrase “results not typical” from all advertisements. Advertisers now have one of two options:

1) Reveal that a spokesperson lost weight (or inches) by working out regularly, eating a balanced diet, and using their product.

2) Reveal that despite the significant amount of weight the spokesperson lost, the average person will lose far less using their product.

Endorsers such as Valerie Bertinelli, Kirstie Alley, Dan Marino and others may not be too pleased with this ruling as they can now be out of a job. However, this is a win for consumers, as advertisements are forced to be more truthful, putting the consumers’ weight-loss goals in realistic perspectives.

I’m just glad the FTC regulated the phrase and not the hard-bodied models. No one would win in that scenario.

Tommy Liu, the man, the legend wields his pen of creativity against the injustice of mediocrity plaguing the world as the Executive Integrated Producer at Supercool Creative & SpotZero where he also manages the blog. View some of his battles here (he doesn’t always win).

It’s times like these I wish more than ever I was a New Yorker.

On Thursday and Friday, Thomas Pink gave away over 1,000 individually customized shirts at a pop-up shop erected near Rockefeller Center. The stint, entitled the White Collar Shirt Bar, promoted “White Collar,” a new USA Network show that premiered Friday. Stars of the show Matt Bomer, Tim DeKay, and Tiffani Thiessen (Sadly, Mark-Paul Gosselaar was not in attendance) were on hand Friday to celebrate the launch of the show and probably to get a free shirt.

Keep in mind a basic Thomas Pink button-down shirt starts at around a whopping $150, let alone all the extra charges that must come with custom tailoring by expert seamstresses. Therefore, this might be the best promotion ever, complete with complimentary shoe shines and gourmet coffee for those waiting in the trenches. Although the lines started early and people were waiting for up to six hours (maybe more), everyone in line was guaranteed a shirt.

According to the promoters, the USA network and Thomas Pink joined forces to create a unique opportunity to share a piece of the show’s main character. According to whomyouknow.com, the white-collar shirts provided are “inspired by the effortless style of “White Collar”’s lead character Neal Caffrey, the world’s most fashionable ex-con.” Everyone who received a shirt also got a DVD of the premiere episode among other goodies.

Although not all can appreciate a plain dress shirt costing upwards of $200, Thomas Pink is truly the best of the best. Each seam and button is strategically placed, and the high quality two-fold cotton used lasts a lifetime. The USA Network hit a home run in pairing up with Thomas Pink to portray the luxurious lifestyle that the show is all about. It is one thing to give away promo T-shirts, but a giveaway of this caliber would have been truly worth the wait.

Anna Vortman is a marketing and advertising manager specializing in branding and new media. Contact her at avortman@gmail.com

Advertising jingles are something consumers love to hate and hate to love. We hum them at bus stops and sing them in the shower. Sometimes (when done correctly), we even associate the correct brand with the right emotion every time we begin into its corresponding tune.

Why are these seemingly simple and oft-idiotic ditties so catchy? Where did they come from? Furthermore, how have they been so persuasive in advertisements for just short of a century?

It all began with a Wheaties radio ad in the 1930’s. A local radio ad implemented what we know today as a jingle. The Wheaties brand was about to plunge into oblivion, but shortly after the ad ran a few times, Wheaties sales shot through the roof. Upon seeing this explosion, the ad men on the account decided to test it nationally. The result was over 75 years of head-pounding, catchy infuriation (plus a box of Wheaties in every American pantry).

What keeps the tune of “Double Your Pleasure” in your head for hours, days, and weeks on end? Scientists have actually linked it to something within our inner ear known as the phonological loop, which remembers sounds in a chronological order and repeats these sounds to remember them (the same system we use to learn language in our infant years). By creating very short, simple tunes with heavy repetition and ease of recital, advertisers and jingle-makers are able to hack into our brains and insert a message about their brand that is harder to remove than Disneyland’s “It’s a Small World,” essentially enslaving us to their haunting taglines.

With that in mind, the fact is the popularity of jingles rises and falls more than that of President Obama. Like many fads, jingles go through periods of heavy enjoyment and utter disgust. That’s because of the inner turmoil we experience in the midst of a catchy jingle. It may be momentarily fun from time to time to sing along with one, but after you’ve pounded your head against the door several hundred times in an attempt to literally and/or metaphorically knock the tune out of your head, we grow contempt for the once beloved jingle.

Jingles reached their heyday in the 1950’s and have waned in popularity since. Advertisers will go through periods of using full songs in their ads, essentially piggybacking on the popularity of the artist and capturing the emotional essence of what they represent. After those periods are played out, the general public is often ready to return to simpler time of the 10-second jingle.

Are jingles the craze again? Are we ready to form a nationwide mob to hunt the next McDonald’s jingle maker? Well, I’d say jingles are in, but this may be due to the fact that I live in San Diego and am subjected to the incessantly repetitive ditty tied to King Stahlman Bail Bonds: “It’s better to know me/And not need me/Than to need me/And not know me.”

Hopefully, it’s a jingle limited to San Diego.

Stu Haack is a Copywriter & Social Media Guru at Aviatech.  He likes long walks on the beach and scary movies.  Learn more about him and his writing.

The recession has either changed the way advertisers do business or has forced us to reevaluate the ways in which we do business. The focus has shifted to the effectiveness and efficiency of an ad campaign rather than stressing the  campaign or ad variables such as reach and effective frequency.

If you work in a media department, then measuring effectiveness and efficiency is something you’ve likely done for years with little to no fanfare from the client side. Well, the climate’s changed, and clients are concerned more than ever — with good reason — that their ads and campaigns meet efficient, effective, and measurable goals. Their priority is to connect with the target audience in a manner that’s more in-tune with a reduced budget. Clients are are requiring or searching for agencies capable of providing campaigns that work harder and smarter.

In addition, advertisers (namely P&G and Coca Cola), have instituted Value Based Compensation (VBC)  arrangements made up of a pay-for-performance (P4P) layout that can be attained in addition to a base fee.

The Nielsen Company has just announced that a new software product, Rapid Campaign Evaluation (RCE), a fast and inexpensive means to review ad performance in just over a week. Due to the costs incurred when an ad or campaign is launched, RCE will give agencies information quickly so as to allow them to respond in an appropriate manner.

Richard Reeves, associate director of Consumer Research Services at the Nielsen Company, notes an agency not only will have the ability to evaluate their own endeavors but the ability to evaluate their competitor’s as well.

“Whenever a new commercial is executed,” Reeves says, “there is always that element of anticipation about how it will perform in the ‘real world.’ If it’s a competitor’s ad — you are usually left worrying about the damage it will do to your brand.”

RCE was designed and tested in Australia to measure the strength (or weakness) of TV spots. How many people saw or heard the ads or whether the audience was able to determine the advertiser and the take-away message will provide advertisers with almost “real-time” data they can then use to readjust their tactics such as:

• An ad that performed strongly may provide justification to increase spend.
• An ad with mediocre results could be re-edited to clarify the brand message and increase brand cues, or it could be taken back into qualitative research for fine tuning.
• An ad can be created or ad spend can be increased if RCE showed strong effectiveness measures for a competitor’s ad.

In just over a week, agencies will be able to view data in order to evaluate effectiveness or lack thereof, ensuring clients get the biggest bang for their buck.

While advertising “gurus” have bandied back and forth as to the fairness or plausibility of the VBC model, companies, such as Coca Cola, have already put it into action. In truth, it’s the most equitable payment arrangement; agencies require media vendors to prove their performance. Why shouldn’t clients require the same from their agencies?

Nielsen’s new software is just another step in the ongoing evolution of the industry.

Jeff Louis has over ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing, while his strong suit seems to be sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.

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.

Rahm Emmanuel said Fox “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,” Dunn said.

 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
to stay out of such fights. The 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-likecontrol 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.

Throughout life, people become programmed to react in certain ways to certain stimuli. Fire drills, car alarms, and air-raid sirens all mean imminent danger and usually make us spring into action. If you are like me, police sirens have a special place in your heart, and you have an uncanny ability to be the person singled out from a group of speeding cars, forced to begrudgingly hand over a license and registration. Anytime I hear a siren closing in, my heart jumps up into my throat, and I take my attention off the road in front of me and start looking for those ominous flashing lights.

Just last week as I drove along on my way to a meeting, I heard a shrill siren that almost made me drive off the road into the storefront of a McDonald’s. I strained to see a police car or ambulance through the rain, but there was none. The siren was from a commercial on the radio. This brought to mind an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry David takes a friend’s new car out for a spin and hears a loud car horn. Thinking the sound came from the driver behind him, he slams on the brakes and is rear-ended. The two drivers holler for a while, and then Larry realizes the car horn was actually from an AAMCO commercial on the radio. It was a funny moment in the show, but it probably really happens to some unlucky drivers.

Seriously, how is putting loud sirens and car honking in radio commercials even legal? Faux sirens or car horns can be extremely unsafe for those on the road, causing unnecessary distractions and serious accidents. Furthermore, scaring the crap out of potential customers is definitely not going to get a company more sales or positive brand recognition. With all the energy the FCC expends fining DJ’s for saying “butts” on the air, it’s surprising the FCC hasn’t focused on an issue that potentially puts people in actual danger while on the road.

Anna Vortman is a marketing and advertising manager specializing in branding and new media. Contact her at avortman@gmail.com.

Maybe it’s the transitory nature of business these days or the the strict focus on business/clients and profitability, but finding and being a mentor is still invaluable to our industry and an enriching part of our humanity.

Early on, there were no formal mentoring programs where I began, but there were a lot of smart, fascinating people who were willing to talk about their work, their thought processes, and their clients. I’d watch how they presented, how they worked with clients, and how they handled themselves and their craft. There was much to study and absorb.

Slowly, I struck up conversations with them and developed relationships with my secret mentors, and it wasn’t just people from the creative side. I got to know senior account directors and media planners. Even the crusty, old guy in the studio was a source of wisdom and experience.

That’s one of the great things about our business: There’s always something new to learn if you’re open to it. I’d encourage people who are breaking into the business to poke your nose into a veteran’s office or cube and get to know them. Show some enthusiasm. That’s how you start a relationship. Later you might ask his or her opinion about your work or for career advice.

You don’t have to act on all you learn and hear, but you might walk away with a piece of knowledge you didn’t show up to work with. You can use what you learn from others to help chart your own course.

If you’re a veteran, show some patience and interest with the newbies. Don’t forget we were all newbies once upon a time. Spend more time chatting with your next generation, and get to know their work, life, and expectations. Your thinking and work will benefit from their freshness. Think of it as a reverse form of mentoring.

Give it a try. Ignore your e-mails and silence your Blackberries for a few minutes and reach out. It’s well worth the effort for everyone.

John Kistner is a freelance Creative Director/Writer/Closet Cartoonist. You can check out his handiwork here.

This week, Fox Sports and Burger King drew ire for an offensive animated segment poking fun at Jessica Simpson’s weight. The segment, aside from being in bad taste, was beyond insulting to women of all ages. Both Fox and Burger King have issued apologies to Simpson, but it may be too little too late, pointing out, yet again, that making fun of a woman’s weight is still acceptable, especially when done in a chest-thumping manner.

It doesn’t stop there. Ralph Lauren was also under fire this week for a print ad that was photoshopped to ridiculous proportions — the model’s head appears to be about twice the size of her pelvis. When called to the carpet, this is what Lauren had to say:

“For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately.”

Apparently, quality, integrity, and brand standards are quite slim. The model, size 4, 120-pound, 5-foot-10 Filippa Hamilton, claims she was fired in April for being “too fat.”

Meanwhile, German magazine Brigitte announced they would only use “realistic” women in their magazine from now on instead of professional models, prompting Chanel uberdesigner Karl Lagerfeld to pronounce that no one wanted to see “curvy” women and that only “fat mothers” object to thin models, despite the overwhelming approval of American fashionistas to plus-size model Lizzie Miller’s nude photo in Glamour last August, as well as the success of Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty.” To me, as well as many other women, healthy always trumps skeletal.

It bothers me that it’s 2009, and we’re still talking about body-image distortion in advertising. True, I could point out how these ads contribute to eating disorders and low self-esteem, but what bothers me more than anything is that this standard applies only to women. These archaic standards still say that fat (ie: larger than a size 4, a standard sample size) equals lazy, sloppy, and unworthy of respect and basic human dignity, despite studies showing an average American woman wears a size 14. There has to be a balance somewhere between art and commerce; a size 16 woman’s money is as legal tender as a size 2’s, is it not?

Sara Barton is a copywriter, social media strategist, and avid blogger in search of her next opportunity. Contact her via Twitter, LinkedIn, or her blog.

Life just keeps getting weirder and weirder. One day, boobs are good; the next, they’re banned in Britain on billboards for their portrayal of headlamps. Britain is the last place you would think the girls would be put away. Britain is (in)famous for its portrayal of plunging-cleavage shots on TV shows such as “Benny Hill” and “Ab Fab” (”Absolutely Fabulous”), but is also the same country that  publishes topless women weekly in newspapers, notably,  The Sun’s “Page 3 Girls,” and  the  Daily Star’s “Babes”

While both of the papers are entertainment and celebrity gossip-type tabloids, they’re given huge amounts of leeway with topless models. However, other nude or semi-nude ads seem to spark controversy: Last month,  American Apparel ran a print ad that took readers through unzipping a Flex Fleece Hoodie. The model eventually gets to point where a portion of her nipple is exposed. The ad ran in Vice Magazine, caused public outcry, and was banned subsequently.

Whether right or wrong (and I have no stance on British standards in advertising), the only difference I detect between the topless shots in the papers versus the questionable billboard is that the billboard is free while the papers require payment or subscription.

What’s all the hoopla about with this billboard campaign? It’s not any more or less, racy than a Victoria’s Secret ad or outdoor display.

Understandably, there are regulations to ensure no young minds are corrupted by breasts and marketers’ efforts to use breasts to sell stuff, and we’re well aware of the fact that sexually based ads and campaigns sell. This leads to the dilemma of morality and advertising, which is way too big to cover here.

However, my question is this: Whether used to sell headlamps in Britain or promote men’s awareness of breast cancer in North America, is it a fair advertising practice to approve or deny an ad based on the intent of the advertiser?

Rethink Breast Cancer’s spot, “Save the Boobs,” (below) follows a voluptuous woman in a bikini as she bounces her way through a swimming area.

Does this commercial merit approval based on the fact it supports a cause that could save a life, whereas the banned billboards are for headlights? Not using your headlights while driving could kill you, so don’t headlights save lives, too?

I would argue that if society’s intent is save the youth from corruption, both ads should be banned.

Here is where it gets weird: The headlight ad seems to succeed in purpose where the breast cancer spot fails. Why? Inciting controversy was the whole idea behind the cancer spot; stir people up, get them to react, get the spot on the news, and thereby raise awareness. Besides receiving accolades as being a great PSA by every 16-year-old with an Internet connection, it made but a ripple. The billboard got banned. Go figure.

Jeff Louis has 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.