Each brand argued, when challenged, that the work was stylised, light-hearted or fantastical. Each was rejected by the same regulator. The question hanging over the past fortnight is whether three identical defences in a row represent three unlucky judgements or one structural flaw in how Australian brands are commissioning creative.

The Hnry ad was banned at the beginning of the month. The Kiwi-founded accounting service for sole traders produces most of its creative in-house. The same team made last year’s “Soul Trader” campaign, in which a Grim Reaper reminded self-employed Australians that death and taxes are both inevitable but at least one of them can be made painless. That work was provocative, smart and defensible. The Grim Reaper had a job. Every transgressive choice in the spot pointed at the product. The barbecue ad does the opposite. The violence is the spectacle and the cloud accounting is the alibi. Ad Standards ruled the assault sequence portrayed violence “not justifiable in the context of the product or service being advertised.” Hnry argued the spot was light-hearted.

A week earlier, the same panel …

Read The Full Article at Mumbrella

Törnberg’s research showed that, while numerous platform-level intervention strategies have been proposed to combat these issues, none are likely to be effective. And it’s not the fault of much-hated algorithms, non-chronological feeds, or our human proclivity for seeking out negativity. Rather, the dynamics that give rise to all those negative outcomes are structurally embedded in the very architecture of social media. So we’re probably doomed to endless toxic feedback loops unless someone hits upon a brilliant fundamental redesign that manages to change those dynamics.

Törnberg has been very busy since then, producing two new papers and one new preprint building on this realization that social media is structured quite differently than the physical world, with unexpected downstream consequences. The first new paper, published in PLoS ONE, specifically focused on the echo chamber effect, using the same combined standard agent-based modeling with large language models (LLMs)—essentially creating little AI personas to simulate online social media behavior.

Those simulated users were randomly programmed to either hold an opinion or its opposite and then interact randomly with selected members of a simulated online community. And if the proportion of community members who disagreed with those simulated users exceeded a given threshold, those agents were programmed to leave and join a different online community.

Filter bubbles: Not a culprit, but a cure

Consistent with…

Read The Full Article at ARS Technica

In 1967, a Super Bowl commercial cost $42,500. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $383,000 today. Prices have doubled in the past decade alone. This is not a market keeping pace with the economy. This is a market on fire.

Even VaynerMedia’s Gary Vee, TV’s self-appointed mortician, backtracks when the Big Game arrives. While insisting all linear advertising is “overpriced,” he admits that Super Bowl advertising is the opposite: “The best deal in marketing. Like, not even close… a steal!”

The contradictions are as obvious as they are important.

Personalization? Don’t know her

We say advertising must be personalized. Super Bowl ads are the definition of mass marketing: 127 million people, no targeting, no segmentation, no first-party data enrichment. Just a single creative bet placed in front of half the eyeballs in America.

We say digital is the future. Super Bowl advertising is…

Read The Full Article at Adweek

And while marketers spend months agonizing over a 0.5% shift in brand equity or whether a video spot has the “right” color grade, we are still, as an industry, collectively looking the other way when billions of dollars in ad spend are effectively being set on fire.

This isn’t just another “tech platform has a glitch” story, but a systemic, multibillion-dollar rot. And it makes clear where we (advertisers, agencies, marketers) stand in the pecking order of Silicon Valley’s priorities.

advertisement

advertisement

That fraud happens is not surprising. But that it is not addressed — in this case by Meta — because of the negative impact it would have on the company’s bottom line, is astonishing and very sad. It’s the classic “don’t ask, don’t tell” of the digital ecosystem. If the numbers look good in the quarterly business review, nobody wants to pull the thread that unravels the whole sweater.

But let’s be honest: As a marketing leader, you can’t afford to be the emperor without clothes.

When fraud of this scale is tolerated, it…

Read The Full Article at MediaPost

Despite its German launch and likely European rollout in the New Year, this move is all about China. It is a defensive play aimed at low-priced competition, specifically BYD, whose Atto 3 sells for €37,990 in Germany, and whose Dolphin Surf has landed in the UK at £18,650. Tesla’s European sales have collapsed by over a third this year (excluding Norway, where buyers are panic purchasing before incentives disappear).

There is no doubt that the Tesla 3 Standard is a step down. And not just in price. The new variant arrives with cloth seats replacing vegan leather, no rear passenger screen, no heated rear seats, a downgraded seven-speaker audio system missing its subwoofer, and steel wheels hidden beneath plastic aero covers. The panoramic glass roof remains, but Tesla has bricked it up with a headliner, sealing occupants off from the sky above like a budget airline blocking out the view.

And then there is the downgraded performance of the new model. The Model 3 Standard has slower acceleration, has a lower range, and is slower to charge. All very odd given the future focus of Tesla’s founder and the fact that the original Model 3 was launched almost a decade ago.

But it all makes sense when you realise that Tesla is launching a “fighter brand”. When your market share is haemorrhaging, and your competitor is undercutting you, there are only a few classic marketing moves available to you. And a fighter brand is one of the most ancient, and risky, responses.

A fighter brand is a very special kind of product because it’s the only one in the marketing playbook that takes its coordinates from competitors rather than consumer needs. Specifically, it is built to take on, and ideally take out, low-priced rivals.

Intel did it with Celeron to combat AMD. Qantas did it with Jetstar to fight Virgin Blue. When it works, a fighter brand is the closest you get to marketing jiu-jitsu: you use your opponent’s momentum against them, sparking innovation and agility, capturing a new value segment and all the while keeping your premium brand above the fray and – if anything – bolstered by the differences it enjoys over its lower-priced sister.

When it works, it’s a win/win of the highest order. The company behind the fighter brand not only nullifies a big threat, but the new product also opens a lower-tier market to add revenue and scale. But the key point about fighter brands is that while the initial brochure looks great, they usually end up being a lose/lose. The company launching the fighter brand not only fails to do anything about their low-priced rival, but also makes their own situation worse.

Most fighter brands fail. Badly. Specifically, there are five key threats to avoid when it comes to launching a fighter brand.

The first hazard is…

Read The Full Article at The DRUM

This is Svedka’s first-ever Super Bowl ad. The $8 million media buy is a massive investment for the brand’s new owner, Sazerac. While many might see the return of a retired mascot as a backwards step, this is actually a smart tactical move that will shore up the impact of an enormous advertising investment.

The Fembot first appeared in 2005, designed by various effects houses including Stan Winston Studio. She was positioned as a spokesperson from the future: sleek, chrome, provocatively shaped, and predicting Svedka would become the “#1 Vodka of 2033.”

The campaign was polarizing. The Distilled Spirits Council reprimanded the brand for violating restrictions on “graphic or gratuitous nudity.”

But sales exploded.

By the time Constellation Brands acquired Svedka in 2007 for $384 million, the Fembot had transformed the Swedish import into the fourth-largest vodka brand in America.

Constellation retired her in 2012, pivoting to flavored vodkas and less distinctive advertising. The robot powered down. The brand gradually declined.

When Sazerac acquired Svedka in early 2024, one of its first decisions was to bring her back. The Fembot’s resurrection is a textbook case of Distinctive Brand Assets—the concept developed by Jenni Romaniuk at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute.

DBAs are non-brand-name triggers that help consumers notice, recognize, and retrieve a brand from memory: McDonald’s golden arches, Netflix’s two-note chime, the Geico gecko.

Romaniuk’s research is clear: brand characters are among the most powerful DBAs that exist for driving branded attention and recall. On average, they significantly outperform most other distinctive assets including celebrity endorsements.

And brand characters don’t come with celebrity baggage. The gecko doesn’t have a podcast to promote. Brand characters lack the reputational risks of living, breathing, drunk-driving celebrities.

Best of all, they come cheap and exclusive forever. The Pillsbury Doughboy never asks for residuals or contract renegotiations. He just goes to work with a giggle.

That work is crucial because…

Read The Full Article at AdWEEK

There he is. The mighty Martin Lewis, Britain’s most trusted money man, sat in what appears to be his home office. He’s turned his attention away from ISA rates and toward crypto, explaining why Elon Musk’s new Quantum AI project is the “investment opportunity of a lifetime.”

The lighting is perfect. The voice uncanny. His blue sofa the exact shade you remember from a dozen ITV appearances. If you’re over fifty-five, male, and spend your days Googling “best pension drawdown rates,” this ad has been algorithmically selected just for you. Just click, enter your bank details, and watch the returns roll in.

A few days later the cushions arrive, and before you can say “it’s festive advertising time” the three friends are barreling down the slope with grins that threaten to outshine the Christmas lights. A string version of the tender Beatles classic “In My Life” plays as the old friends are briefly, magically, transformed into children once again.

If the spot feels comfortingly familiar, it’s because it is. “Joy Ride” debuted back in 2023 and quickly found footing as Amazon’s most lauded holiday effort. Developed by Amazon’s in-house creative team and production house Hungry Man, “Joy Ride” marked a departure from outside agency Lucky Generals for the season.

According to research firm System1, the ad was not only Amazon’s most effective of all time, it tested almost off the scale for emotional resonance and brand building.

But what makes the ad interesting now is that Amazon has decided to bring it back as its main emotional brand-building commercial for 2025. While some in the industry might regard the move as a backward step or a signal of creative exhaustion on the part of Amazon, it very much signals a brand and a marketing team who know their advertising onions.

Why tried and true works…

Read The Full Article at Adweek