Archive for October, 2010
Sweet Holiday Memories… And a Coke.
Posted by: | CommentsAs October draws to a close and the trick-or-treaters make their last-ditch, mad grab at whatever remains of the Halloween candy, we (as consumers) know it’s coming. We can feel it…
Of course I’m talking about the annual, November 1st roll out of the holiday decorations and marketing material. From here on out it’s going to be nothing but evergreen wreaths, twinkle-lights and jolly men in red suits charging twenty bucks for a picture with the kids. And while some still manage to be enamored with festive cheer, most of us with ages in the double digits just bristle and steel ourselves in preparation for the onslaught of the holiday hustle and bustle, green and red price points, the must have items of the season, and two dozen of the same pop-singer-reengineered carol songs on repeat in every retail outlet. Tis the season for yuletide consumerism and its full swing, (Santa) baby!
However, I must digress from my traditional holiday humbugging to mention the one thing I do look forward to: the ads. This small stretch of the year between November and December has managed to produce some fairly iconic advertisements and commercials over the past decades. So much so, that some are even pulled out of the vault, dusted off and re-aired annually to inspire a sense of nostalgia in the consumer. For example, and my personal favorite, the Hershey’s Kisses holiday bells.
For others it’s the one where the M&Ms have a run-in with Mr. Claus resulting in Red and Santa fainting in shock. But I think for most of America, through-out the years, it’s always been the Coca-cola classic Commercials that are anticipated.
Starting in the 1920s with the iconic tin signs for Santa drinking a Coke Classic, Coca-Cola has established themselves as a brand with an annual holiday campaign, chalk full of memorable images and characters. As the years have rolled on, some of the other noteworthy holiday ads include the Coca-Cola Trucks in the 80s and of course most recently the Polar Bears (and subsequent penguins) campaign that’s been the Coca-Cola Christmas staple over the past handful of holidays.
This, in my opinion, is a great tactic because Coca-Cola Classic has not only managed to further their brand image, but establish long-term memory recall in the consumer base. When you think about it, the Coca-Cola commercials have, in some ways, woven themselves into the autobiographical memory of their target by purchasing key media slots so that the iconic commercials are seen during the seasonal, family get-togethers, traditional holiday parades such as the Macy’s Day, and of course on Christmas eve.
This year, Reuters is reporting that the brand is going to step away from the polar bears they have recently depended on. This year, Coca-Cola has partnered with the musical group “Train” and aim to produce a song akin in fame to the “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” campaign that ran in the 70s. They are banking on, if the song is a hit, to have audio memory recall of the brand whenever the song is played (on their commercial OR on the radio) in hopes that such a substantial recirculation and repetition will lock Coca-Cola in the #1 awareness slot of the consumers mind.
So, now the question is, since Train is a pre-established band that has a history of declining CD sales, will this go down in history as another Coke holiday hit? Or will it be an ill received, flash in the pan ad when compared against the likes of the classic polar bears? Only the iTunes download numbers will tell.
BP: Taking Responsibility or Polishing Up Public Image?
Posted by: | CommentsThough it seems like a distant memory to some, the fiery demise of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig occurred only six short months ago. Within this six-month time frame, BP has experienced relentless criticism from a surfeit of media, politicians, and Americans. (See: South Park’s interpretation or President Obama’s candid reaction)
Unlike the Exxon Valdez, BP faced a media landscape that disseminated information and images in a matter of seconds for the whole world to see. And while the Deepwater Horizon oil well was successfully capped in mid-July, enduring images of 4.9 million barrels of oil blanketing beaches, wetlands, and the ocean are engrained in the minds of Americans. Who could forget the oil-soaked pelican on the cover of Time magazine? Or the outraged shrimp boat captains advocating for financial assistance on the nightly news? The BP oilpocalypse is an unshakable memory.
In an effort to reshape public perception, BP spent $93 million in corporate advertising between April 2010 to July 2010 to inform Gulf Coast residents about the recovery effort. From a YouTube channel (with 5.8 million plus views to date) to national TV commercials, BP’s expansive Make It Right campaign delivers messages about the steps BP is taking to restore and revitalize the Gulf Coast in the wake of the oil spill disaster.
Initially, the campaign featured former BP CEO Tony Hayward assuring the American public that BP was taking responsibility for the spill by responding to claims at no expense to the American tax payer. However, the campaign quickly shifted its focus after heavy criticism about the message and the disgraced CEO.
Is it any coincidence that BP’s new messaging strategy incorporated iconic images from the spill? BP’s strategy is smart – reframe public perception by allowing the public to reinterpret BP’s role in the oil spill tragedy. In the BP Make It Right Wildlife commercial, Time‘s oil-soaked pelican is oil free and released into clean waters. In the Mississippi Fishermen message, the angry fisherman is happy once again and open for business. BP enhances the reinterpretation of their role in the disaster by recirculating the same message through a variety of different advertisements and vehicles that reinforce BP’s agenda – “BP has got to make things right and that’s why we are here”.
Once the well was capped, media coverage of the spill evaporated quickly. As a result, BP uses these messaging vehicles to improve the view of the organization in the eyes of the American public and company shareholders. The Make It Right messages provide insight into how BP continues to improve lives in the Gulf Coast area long after the TV cameras and journalists return to their news desks.
Yet, are these messages necessary? Does a $93 million campaign justify the means?
Some may argue that BP should be syphoning advertising dollars into the bank accounts of those impacted financially by the spill. And though this is a valid argument, BP must generate revenue in order to pay the hefty price of their transgressions. The mismanagement of the crisis in the early months of the spill is indefensible, yet the steps BP is currently taking to “right their wrongs” should be commended. If deemed a success, BP is faced with a unique opportunity to parlay this initiative into a model to follow for future crisis communication advertising.
Though the line is thin, BP has to take responsibility for the spill in order to polish their public image because the implications of this campaign are crucial to BP’s future success. After all, memories are powerful predictors of future behaviors.
In Search of the Next Fried Egg: Are Today’s PSAs Memorable?
Posted by: | CommentsIf you visit the Ad Council’s website you know what to expect; a page explaining the mission of the organization, information on how you can get involved with their programs, educational resources that can be helpful for both parents and teachers, and the prerequisite “Make a Donation” page that you’ll see on every non-profit website. What you don’t expect is a trip back to you childhood and adolescence.
Within the Ad Council’s Campaigns section, there is a page of historic public service campaigns that those of us living in the US during the 1980s and 1990s will never forget. In looking through these campaigns the thing that struck me was how each of them not only delivered a message, but also how vividly those messages reside in our memories. The campaign examples listed below were so powerful in their execution that a mere image can recall not only actual commercials, but also the message they conveyed. You will most likely recognize the campaigns before playing the video:
We remember seeing these ads as children. Sure, we may not remember exactly where we were the first time we saw them, but they made such an impact that the images and messages are branded in our memories. They reside in our autobiographical memory as part of our past experiences and ourselves. Even if we cannot relate these campaigns to a specific episode in our lives, they still reside in our long-term memory. This is significant because of the millions of ad messages the original audience for these campaigns has seen since then, there are few that we can recall quite as easily. What’s even more significant is that these ads weren’t meant to sell a product or service. They were produced for free in hopes of having a positive effect on society. These messages not only achieved their goals of public awareness and action, but also have had continued influence beyond their years.
So what was the key behind these ads’ success? What made them became embedded in the culture of America? With Vince and Larry, the Crash Test Dummies, the campaign walked a fine line. On one hand it started to evoke an emotional response from seeing the results of not wearing a seatbelt, but at the same time, it was artificial and humorous enough to still appeal to children. The humorous dialogue between Vince and Larry and the play on words used as taglines, “You could learn a lot from a dummy. Buckle your safety belt,” and “Don’t be a dummy. Buckle your safety belt,” helped to offset the negative response some consumers have to ads that evoke too much fear or discomfort. Additionally, the use of an actual crash test dummy, paired with the taglines acted as a redundant cue to reinforce the message of the ad. With the “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” and “This is your brain on drugs” campaigns, the imagery as analogies (of glasses crashing as cars might and the frying egg symbolizing the effects drugs have on your brain) used in both campaigns created such an impact in the minds of the viewers that at the height of these campaigns, few could crack an egg or make a toast without being reminded of the ad messages. In these cases the imagery used to convey the messages became a retrieval cue for the memory to recall the messages.
In looking at these campaigns I wanted to see how today’s PSAs stand up to yesterday’s standards. It’s not often today that you hear discussion about anti-drug campaigns even when working in the advertising business. This is likely because many of today’s PSAs take a much different approach to relay their message. We’ve already seen discussions on this blog about how some PSAs have gotten lazy in their creative and turn to violence and shock value in an attempt to get consumers’ attention. Many of today’s PSAs, especially with regard to the anti-drug campaigns, are using such shock ads featuring excessive violence or graphic images in an attempt to garner attention. See example below:
While this ad definitely evokes a strong emotional response, it’s certainly not an image that we as viewers want to retain in our memory. In this instance, the images may be so disturbing that the viewers retain them in their short term memory, but are so appalled, that they avoid rehearsing this image in order for it not to embed in their long term memory. Some argue that today’s messages use such strong images to break through the clutter of the thousands of messages to which today’s consumers are exposed. Conversely, how effective can a message really be when the viewers not only can’t, but don’t want to recall the message. In my opinion, this makes for an ineffective campaign. If put into a situation of being offered cocaine (the drug used in the ad), a young person is not likely to recall this message when considering his or her choice.
Others PSAs are using dramatic portrayals in “slice of life” style ads to illustrate the dangerous effects of drug use. These are designed to incite a strong emotional response from viewers, but without the ill effects of graphic images shown in the ad above. I think that these can be effective. Because they make the viewer consider what their lives may be like if they were to allow themselves into those situations, however, nothing particularly memorable struck me in watching any of these PSAs. Perhaps the most successful, in terms of memory and message retention, that I viewed is an anti-heroin ad that was released four years ago:
This message is effective for multiple reasons. First and foremost, it uses an egg to represent your brain and a frying pan to illustrate the effects that drugs have on your brain. This acts as a retrieval cue for those viewers who have been exposed to the 1980s anti-drug campaign. The original campaign was so effective that it lead to strong trace strength in our semantic network from the egg and frying pan to an anti-drug message. However this ad takes those images to a new level, illustrating not only the effects of drugs (represented by the frying pan) on your brain, but also on various aspects of your life, including friends, family, job, etc. This ad illustrates very effective use of memory and retrieval, but builds to add other associations in our memories to increase the effectiveness of the original campaign. In taking a technique that had proven effective, this ad was able to build on an existing memory and strengthen its message. It’s not to say that I believe that today’s PSAs are ineffective, but in terms of the messages achieving their goals of public awareness and action, and continued influence beyond their years, it may serve today’s creative’s well to take a cue from the past.
“Fast Don’t Lie” or does it?
Posted by: | CommentsHot off the press Adidas launched their new “Fast Don’t Lie” campaign including TV spots and music videos featuring well-respected athletes Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard and MR. T-esq character Slim Chin. The ads portray the idea that the new adiZero Rose and Beast, both footwear, give you speed that “Don’t Lie.” Each ad makes a humorous attempt to send the message that Slim Chin got rich because he’s fast and the rest of us can achieve the same goal if we wear gold chains, stand on top of bikini towers and hang out with pro basketball players. All the flashy bling and catchy songs, all the while blatantly shoving the shoe in our face, capture our attention. But is it too much? Are these ads over kill with the multiple spokes characters and peripheral, superficial cues?
We know that our attitudes towards products and brands can be influenced depending on the effort we place on them. The factors that affect our attitudes come from all different angles. Communication source can foster source credibility, strengthen or weaken company reputation and even lead to source derogations. Consumer attitudes are influenced by where and from whom the message is delivered. Consumers are more likely to trust ad messages if the spokesperson is perceived as knowledgeable or an expert as opposed to someone who has no experience with the product or industry at all. Research shows that credible sources have a higher impact on consumer’s attitudes when a message is hard to understand or complex than if Joe Schmo is the source. Consumer’s attitudes are also influenced by more credible sources if the spokesperson is a good match for the product. Consumer confidence in their attitudes about a product is heightened with better source credibility. That being said consumers with very confident attitudes are hard to sway using communication sources if there is already a firm belief in that attitude.
This Adidas campaign seems to contradict itself in few ways. Multiple spokespersons in the same ad seem like clutter. The fact that the two different spoke characters are on entirely different spectrums is another story. As discussed above in order to foster positive attitudes about a product the source credibility needs to be good. Having professional athletes advertising the shoes gives great credibility because they are experts. These men base their career on their performance and being fast is key desire for getting ahead in sports. If you want to be fast you are motivated by Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard to get the shoes that are best. On the other hand we have a humorous character that seems to be for entertainment purposes only and has no experience in the sports industry. One expert plus and one flashy unknowledgeable bystander cancel each other out. Another aspect of the ad is its complexity. This campaign is packed with gold chains, gold jumpsuits, gold jet skis, lady pyramids, cheetahs and side shots to basketball courts and shoes in action. Where is the focus? It is all so distracting. Consumer attitudes are influenced by this kind of confusion. If the sources are credible it is easier for them to sort through the clutter. Once again the more distracting spokesperson is the less credible source therefore motivation to organize the message is low.
Do these types of advertisements work based on our attitude effort levels? On one hand we have source credibility issues that tap into central-route processing. Strong, accessible, persistent, and resistant attitudes are what we use to judge complex advertisements. If we are confident in our attitudes towards source credibility then it is easy to make a judgment about Slim Chin. On the other hand peripheral-route processing can be more prevalent because of all the visual cues this ad presents. Not having to process the information intensely might be appealing to consumers who are just looking for more entertainment in ads. Either way it is processed I think there should be only one attempt made by the message, high involvement by the consumer to process or low effort to entertain but sell.
Don’t get me wrong the ad is hilarious but will we remember it was for Adidas shoes for will we just be harmonizing with Dwight Howard “Fast Don’t Lie?”
What’s better, Pepsi or Coke?
Posted by: | CommentsA Coca Cola truck driver, who cannot resist the Pepsi Max for its taste, has been recorded by the Pepsi truck driver. And then the video has been sent to YouTube immediately.
Does this story sound familiar? Yes, it is a remake of the 1995 Pepsi commercial – only tiny changes in product and characters, as well as the contemporary social media – YouTube.
Truly, this commercial is undoubtedly a direct comparative message which emphasizes the “better taste” of Pepsi Max than Coke Zero. There are several scenes conveying this idea: 1) the Coke truck driver asked for confirmation: zero calories? It seems that he cannot believe that this product is zero calories – it doesn’t taste like that. What’s the implication? Usually people have the impression that something good for your health (i.e. zero calories) tastes bad. If you cannot decide whether this implies a better flavor, there are other two scenes. 2) The Coke trucker drinks a lot more. 3) The serving people’s conversation “maybe he likes this”. Why the trucker’s behavior can lead you to believe that Pepsi Max has a better flavor? First, you will never drink like that when it tastes bad. Second, remember he is working for Coca Cola. One of the assumption could be that he knew how the Coca Cola tastes. The taste of Pepsi Max seems to be so good that he cannot believe it is zero calories, and he forgets his employer, which is very important for him – or he may get fired.
In the book, it says that comparative advertising, especially the direct ones may remind the consumer of the named competitor, and may contribute to positive association to the competitor or heighten competitors’ awareness. However, the case here is that everybody knows Pepsi and Coke: whenever talking about soft drinks or cola, these two brands will be the first come to mind. Further, is this information less incredible because of being showed in a comparative way? Probably not. It seems widely acknowledged in the U.S. that Pepsi and Coke taste differently. So the problem for this commercial is whether it successfully conveys the idea that Pepsi Max’s flavor is purportedly MUCH better than that of Coke Zero. That is to say, no matter what is the attitude of the consumer (before or after watching the ads), as long as the audience realize “Pepsi Max has a good flavor even it is zero calories,” or “Pepsi Max tastes differently from Coke Zero,” this ads achieves its goal: differentiation.
Throughout the 1 minute commercial, there are a lot of things repeatedly tell you the idea “Zero Calories, Max Pepsi Taste”. Thus for a consumer who likes to devote much effort to processing marketing information in an elaborative and laborative way, this ads seems effective. And it usually help the consumers form a positive attitude towards Pepsi Max. Maybe next time if he/she want to have some soft drinks of zero calories, he will try Pepsi Max because he/she wants to feel better (good taste implies a good feeling).
Nevertheless, this comparison has risks. Taste is a subjective issue, so it depends on the personal preference. For consumers who like the taste, the ads will intensify their positive attitude; while for the ones who prefer Coke’s flavor, they may consider this ads incredible and might generate counterarguments toward Pepsi, toward the brand rather than the product itself.
However, is it possible for us to analyze the ads in a different perspective rather than a cognitive-based, high-effort route to persuasion? What if view it as a low-effort route?
In a cognitive perspective, this commercial repeatedly tells its audience two simple arguments: zero calories and better taste. And one of the unconscious influence theories or techniques it applies is Thin-Slice Judgment: the Coke trucker drinks Pepsi Max in a way that we will interpret as liking and then generate an association of good flavor. Also, how about the characters in the ads, the truckers that represent two brand? It seems that the trucker for Pepsi (the source) is more likable, or attractive. He is much younger, more handsome, sensitive and technique savvy (iphone, and YouTube) – is that consistent with the schema or associations Pepsi has tried to build from their first launch in the market? Pepsi is for youth, right? And perhaps it could be one of the reasons that Pepsi decided to remake the commercial by using a same plot.
This commercial chooses appropriate music, moderate level of humor, and evokes familiarity, and maybe a good mood – that’s mainly effective for the consumer who processes the message emotionally on low-effort base.
From the discussion above, we would learn that ads can synthesize techniques and theories to influence audience’s attitude in several different ways, and increase the likelihood of raising positive attitude as a whole. For example, processing in emotional way requires the participation of cognition, while in turn elements evoking good mood or pleasant feelings make consumers more willing to devote effort to processing. And it does not necessarily mean complexity to them. This commercial is a good example.
What about ethical issues? Often, for a comparative ads, it is easier to be accused for misleading or untruthful message because their competitor will scrutinize it. But there is no material claim here, taste is subjective and no way to test the BETTER flavor. And Pepsi is very smart that there is no direct expression of BETTER – it is a comparison, but you cannot find any comparison LITERALLY. Well, at first glance there seems to be nothing unethical.
But, can you remember that the Pepsi trucker records the Coke trucker and send the video to YouTube without permission? It is one of the interesting points in the commercial, where debates arise. Is it right for him to do this while the Coke trucker may get fired and be accused by his surroundings even the public? And is it legal to record or photograph others and then distribute the photos or video (usually it will exert negative influence on the person’s life) without permission? Is it a violation to privacy? Maybe Pepsi just want to link the old plot to contemporary context. And it seems nothing wrong to do this because everybody does so in daily life. The majority of people won’t realize this – we take it for granted. Who is to blame? Pepsi, the advertiser? Maybe not. Actually, it just honestly reflected a social issue. Thus, it should be our responsibility, to think more.
Anyway, I should admit that I have held a positive attitude toward Pepsi. All of my opinions here are more or less affected by this attitude. And this commercial did enhance my attitude.
But you, my friends, what’s your choice, Pepsi Max or Coke Zero?
“Back to Basics”: Allstate Campaign Addresses the Real Lessons of the Recession
Posted by: | Comments
“Will we remember this as a Great Recession? Or the Recession that made us Great?” Allstate’s “Great Recession” commercial is one of several in their“Back to Basics” campaign.
Rather than ignore the fears and unrest of their consumers as we face the unknown in these tough economic times, Allstate’s campaign, featuring Dennis Haysbert, reminds us that despite our past behavior of spending money to have the best or the biggest, times have changed, and we have changed as well. “Living well now means “living within our means”. Haysbert reminds us that Allstate has made it through 12 recessions since the company first started, and that as scary as today’s economy is, we are still able to remember the joys that come from the basics in our lives. The phrase “Things are not as important as the future we’re building with our loved ones” reminds the viewer there is a future ahead, and because of the major changes brought about by the recession, we get to build what our futures will bring and placing our future in the “good hands” of Allstate will help us to get through. They have the experience and the means to make sure we are not alone. The “Back to Basics” campaign consists of several commercials—one including part of FDR’s speech from the Great Depression, which reminds us this is not the first time the country has experienced financial troubles and appeals to our knowledge that those who lived during the Depression made it through to a better future. The campaign appeals to the viewers’ multiple emotions surrounding the recent recession—our fears, anxieties, doubts, and hopes for the future. The advertisement does not appeal to our fears to coerce us, but rather implies that although everyone is scared, Allstate is here to help those who seek out their assistance. These ads stand out against many others by taking a serious and direct approach about our country’s situation, and by reminding consumers, businesses and the advertising industry we all need to remember the basic, fundamental parts of our lives-our families, our friends, our futures—and make sure those are secure. This campaign shows that the advertising industry has the ability to make appealing, effective advertisements. The industry has a responsibility, both to make a profit for their clients, but also has a responsibility for to the consumer. Here, these promote managing our money well, investing in the important things and reminding the audience they can still live happy, fulfilled lives and be secure in their financial situation – by simply reminding the viewer while money is an important part of our lives, being with the people who matter matters more. The ad’s calming feel—dimmed colors, shots of families and friends, and Haysbert’s soothing voice—all help to reduce anxiety over the unknown. The advertising industry as a whole should take note that this ad campaign went against the flow—it directly addressed everyone’s economic fears and by making us appreciate it’s OK to be scared, let’s us know we’re not alone and overall things aren’t that bad. The tasteful and creative manner of the ads should also remind advertisers there are ways to be creative and effective without using shock tactics or being “in our face”. Sometimes the best way to reach someone is by letting the consumer know, “uncertainty will not rule our lives, when we put our lives in good hands.”
KFC: Fried Chicken For The Cure Gets Burned, Chicken Breast Takes on New Meaning?
Posted by: | Comments
Advertising for a cause in tangent with a product is all the rage these days in the industry. When done tastefully, cause-advertising can really be an altruistic gesture and a way for a company to give back. Unfortunately, all too often it seems as though these philanthropic tendencies are supported by ulterior motives, mostly dealing with a company’s bottom line. Consumers today will get on board with almost anything that seems like a worthy cause. It’s trendy to be tolerant, chic to be charitable. But how far are some companies willing to go to make the public believe that they are in support of the various causes of today’s society?
In a recent article on Advertising Age, KFC takes heat for joining forces with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation in an effort to raise money and awareness for breast cancer research. For every pink bucket ordered, KFC pledged 50 cents to Komen. While this certainly seems like a philanthropic cause, it raises a few questions.
For one, it’s hard to understand the correlation between breast cancer awareness and a bucket of fried chicken. KFC probably could have found a more relevant way to show support for a cause. That aside, it is difficult to understand who exactly KFC is trying to target with this campaign. Instead of advertising with the intention of being perceived as a restaurant chain that offers delicious crispy fried chicken, KFC is attempting to be branded as a cause worthy, charitable corporation. In reality they should probably stick with that they’re best known for and not try so hard to fit in with the multitude of other corporations aligning themselves with the next popular movement.
The FTC had bigger problems with KFC’s campaign. The article cites (then) Federal Trade Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour:
‘KFC … is fully aware of our nation’s struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising. Companies should not be allowed to benefit monetarily from this kind of deception, especially where the health and safety of consumers are compromised.’
KFC broke a golden rule: When advertising for one cause, make sure you aren’t simultaneously undercutting another one. It seems obvious, especially since “fried” is in the name. The article begs the question, why does KFC feel the need to be perceived as a company filled with philanthropic ideals and healthy attitudes? The whole campaign seems like an oxymoron, and completely incompatible with the fact that fried chicken is a guilty pleasure, not a fight against cancer. This incongruity makes KFC’s efforts seem transparent and their motives questionable. Regardless of whether or not KCF was trying to advertise responsibly, the campaign was interpreted as simply another means for KFC to make a profit off of charitable consumers. Consumers can be manipulated by advertising messages; they form inferences and interpretations based on marketing elements, a concept called subjective comprehension. KFC’s campaign seems more like an attempt to twist their image into something that will be misinterpreted by consumers as “good for them,” rather than a genuine concern for breast cancer awareness. This misuse of cause advertising is irresponsible and a poor reflection of the industry.
KFC can’t be blamed for the fact that they sell an unhealthy product. Tons of companies sell products that are bad for people. However, if KFC is going to continue to advertise through causes they would be wise to do so more tactfully, and more virtuously. Since they are a company that sells food, perhaps they should look into joining the cause against hunger. While they might take some criticism for the obesity epidemic sweeping our nation, at least they could make a case about the relevancy of their contributions. Ultimately, they could argue that they do have a genuine interest in the fight against hunger, as opposed to the seemingly irrelevant breast cancer awareness campaign, and in a less blatant way than trying to make people feel good about themselves for getting overweight.
Article: http://adage.com/article?article_id=144143
“Don’t be a Sue” – Members Project from American Express
Posted by: | CommentsDo you record your TV’s shows and fast forward through commercials? Or scan through the other channels to avoid advertisements while you anxiously wait for your show to come back on? With recent technology, it is becoming easier and easier for people to avoid advertisements, specifically commercials. This raises a great concern for advertisers because they now have to develop other ways to reach their audience in order to grasp their attention and maintain the exposure to the public that they once had. As we all know, our attention is limited. While watching TV, you can also be talking to friend, on the Internet, eating food, etc. To have a successful commercial, the advertiser need to figure out a way to gain the viewers undivided attention and distract them from other tasks such as talking or browsing the Internet. The standard 30 second advertisement during a commercial break is definitely not as effective as it used to be.
Knowing this information, American Express has taken it upon themselves to create a new form of advertising which is both effective and grasps consumer attention. Members Project from American Express partnered with FOX’s popular hit TV show Glee on a brand new type of campaign. Members Project is a program devoted to making a difference through volunteering, voting, or donating to charity. The program strives to gain people to volunteer and donate to a variety of charities, organizations, etc. in order to make our world a better place. To advertise the program, American Express decided to work with the inspirational characters on Glee in order to inspire viewers, gain attention, and educate the audience on the Members Project.
Together, FOX and American Express have created a new type of commercial which incorporates the characters of the TV show Glee as they speak about Members Project. The main voice in the commercials is actress Jane Lynch, who plays Sue Sylvester on Glee. The unique part of the commercials is that Jane Lynch is not standing as a spokesperson for the Members Project, but rather her character of Sue is the lead voice of the advertisement. This creates an interesting way to communicate a message because it adds an element of surprise, which in turn draws consumer attention.
When first viewing the commercials, the viewer anticipates hearing the perspective of Jane Lynch. However, the viewer soon realizes that she is portraying her character of Sue in the commercial. For those of you unfamiliar with Glee, the character of Sue Sylvester has an “I hate everyone” attitude which is depicted in a comedic sense on the show. The commercials feature the characters of Glee doing a variety of charity work such as collecting old books and instruments to donate to other organizations. Following, Sue comes into the picture and questions why they are donating to charity. The characters of Glee are used to inspire people to take action. The clear conflict between Sue and the students is used to spark attention and interest. Would you rather be involved and donate to charity? Or be like Sue?
The new campaign educated Glee viewers on what the Members Project is and how they can get involved. By using Glee characters, the audience will be inspired because they can easily relate to the characters and see how they can take action as well. These commercials are targeted directly towards the Glee fan base. By incorporating characters of the show into the advertisements viewers can easily understand and relate to the advertised product. This new form of product placement has had an extremely positive reaction from viewers and has gained a lot of attention in the media. The shows fan base has commented on the new ads through the Internet and Facebook and the response has been nothing but positive.
The commercials have many positive features which are reflected by its success. For one, this is a new kind of product placement which incorporates the characters from the show. This concept in and of itself is new and unique to the industry and adds a shock factor to the commercials which automatically gains the viewers’ attention. FOX and American Express have blurred the lines between product placement, entertainment, and commercials. The ads are also socially responsible in that they are promoting community service and doing good deeds which has been highly praised by viewers. Overall, this will most likely lead as an example for other advertisers in the industry to incorporate characters from shows directly into their ads in order to grasp consumer attention. Do you think this new concept of product placement will be incorporated by other TV shows in the future? So far, with the success of the Glee Members Project…I would think so!
Socially Responsible Social Media?
Posted by: | CommentsSocial media is truly the wild, wild, west of the advertising industry.
This is especially true when deciding how to regulate information as it is disseminated throughout social media channels. The regulatory bodies are struggling to police an overwhelming amount of new content (the internet) while staying current by creating and enforcing applicable regulations.
One example of regulation in the new medium comes from the Food and Drug Administration’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. The FDA was able to find and reprimand a pharmaceutical company based on its use of social media.
The company, Novartis, was providing information through a Facebook sharing widget on the company’s US consumer website. The widget is simply a clickable button (Pictured below) that will allow consumers to share the Novartis generated content with everyone in their Facebook and Twitter networks.
The content would be shared without the normal regulations placed on pharmaceutical companies such as conveying risks, directing them to more information or possible side effects.
In a letter sent to Novartis, the FDA stated that the shared content is deceptive because it “makes representations about the efficacy of Tasigna but fails to communicate ANY risk information associated with the use of this drug”. Tasigna is a drug that treats chronic myloid leukemia and the FDA realized that the risk to consumers was substantial.In this case, the FDA was fortunate to catch the unintentional deceptive practices but the era of relying on regulators to help weed-out misleading messages is over.
Social media has many murky areas for advertisers, including marketing of alcohol. In the past, manufacturers have required everyone to enter their birth date when entering their private website while Facebook and Twitter don’t require a minimum age to access content. The general rule in television advertising is that the general audience for the ad should not have more than 30% of the audience under 21. With social media, curious consumers of any age can access pictures of adults at various stages of intoxication, read comments advocating the use of alcohol, see promotions, and play games directly on the libation manufacturer’s page.
The Federal Trade Commission and consumer watchdog groups are doing their best to monitor alcohol-related content, but are having little success because of the overwhelming number of outlets.
So where does the responsibility fall?
The responsibility falls on the shoulders of the institution of advertising, now more than ever. Advertisers and other message builders must step-up and take responsibility to police their own actions and realize the impact that the institution has on society. Not only does the institution of Advertising reflect societal and cultural beliefs, it also models ‘rules’ of behavior. If agencies continue to use misleading practices and model negative behavior they could change the normative values of society.
These ideas are especially important when addressing the issue of social media because the enormous volume of messages shared daily can never be monitored comprehensively. So with the shift of power from the few traditional gatekeepers to the general public, the institution of advertising must mirror this move and take on more responsibility.
In the fast evolving and quickly changing landscape of social media, the responsibility must shift toward individual agencies to produce work that is beyond the obligation to the client by serving the good of society.
Indulgence vs. Indecent…when advertising takes guilty pleasures too far.
Posted by: | CommentsFast Food, Shoe Sales, Ice Cream, Reality TV…The things that we absolutely adore, but rarely admit for fear of facing judgment. Things we don’t need, are not necessarily good for us, but we occasionally justify because they make us feel so good.
Haagan Daz Print
Sound familiar? It should, even if you never fall prey to temptation. Ad agencies learned long ago how effective it is to appeal to consumers’ hedonic needs. Of course consumers purchase products and services to fulfill functional needs. We need water to stay hydrated, food for sustenance, gas to make our cars run, but often the things we really desire; decadent food, lavish clothing, and sex, drive our behavior. Marketers and agencies alike have told us to spoil ourselves, to give in and let our temptations take over, be it chocolate, ice cream, a soothing bubble bath or big greasy cheeseburger.
Adrina Patridge for Carls Jr.
Some of these indulgences are worse than others and because many of them conflict with our symbolic needs, (our desire to be perceived in a particular way by and how we relate to others), many people keep their “guilty pleasures” a secret.
Yes, consumers go to great lengths to hide these little imperfections. Women cut the tags off of new clothing before slipping it in the closet, hoping their husbands won’t notice. Meanwhile their husbands are careful to dispose of the cheeseburger wrapper from their fast food lunch before pulling in the driveway. And who hasn’t spent a Saturday in your pajamas watching an all day marathon of Jersey Shore or Top Model, all the while hoping your friends don’t call so you won’t have to come up with an excuse for missing spin class.
All of these things, despite the pleasure they provide us, create turmoil in our minds because although they bring us pleasure, “we know better.” It’s an approach-avoidance conflict that we all experience when we desire something that fulfills one need, but fails to meet another. These examples are mild; we know that all things in moderation can be healthy, but what happens when the desire is truly wrong? As consumers, where do we draw the line at acting on our hedonic needs and overlooking our symbolic needs. And as advertisers, is it right to encourage an unethical action to fulfill these needs?
Earlier this month the Buffalo Bills radio network dropped an advertising campaign for AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that uses the tagline, “Life is short. Have an affair.” This isn’t the first time that this site has been dropped from or denied an advertising buy based on the ethical position of the network or broadcast association. The site also tried to purchase a spot in the 2009 Super Bowl and the 2010 Academy Awards. Both networks denied the site’s bid for airtime citing a conflict of interest between the ad content and the demographics of the audience. The site was however, allowed to run an ad during the February 2010 Pro Bowl which reached an audience of 5 million viewers.
Jenna Jameson for PETA
It’s no secret that sex sells. In recent years we’ve seen ice cream, fast food and even PETA embrace sexual images as a way to capture attention and sell their products and ideas.
Obviously everyone has a set of values and ethics that we live by and we make choices based on these values, a sort of internal monitor as to what we find offensive, inappropriate, or edgy, but acceptable. Sometimes these perceptions very by situation and company, but with changes in social values, the proliferation of free media and a desire for networks and terrestrial radio to keep up with cable and satellite competitors, it’s no wonder ads are constantly pushing the limits of social propriety.
Advertising has the power to persuade. It’s dependent on each of us within the Advertising Institution to determine how we use that power. Some say because a product is legal, it’s fine to promote, while others think there is a right place and time for specific products and messages given possible dangers, i.e., alcohol, and tobacco. Given the content of the AshleyMadison.com commercials, what do you think?
The 30-second spot is beyond suggestive. It outright tells you to go out and cheat on your spouse. The company even has additional campaigns running online to teach you how to cheat without getting caught. Talk about a guilty pleasure you want to keep under wraps!
You might expect to see commercials like these on an adult cable network, or hear the radio version of it while listening to Howard Stern on satellite radio, but during the Super Bowl or any other professional sports event? Never! There are children watching those games, who follow their favorite players week after week, dreaming of emulating their performance on the field. It’s bad enough that parents have to hope their son‘s or daughter’s idol is truly someone for them to look up to, without also having to censor the ads they will see while watching them perform.
I applaud the networks that denied AshleyMadison.com these opportunities. Everyone knows that extra-marital affairs happen. In fact, Americans are seemingly intrigued by adultery scandals involving celebrities, professional athletes, even the President of the United States. The more scandalous, the better, but that doesn’t make it right.
In a society where bisexuality, homosexuality, co-habitation, divorce, and multiple marriages are widely accepted there should be no need for a service like AshleyMadison.com or for the promotions of the service to be placed in mainstream media where inappropriate audiences could be exposed to the messages. We as advertisers need to recognize that there is more to life than pleasing a client and making “funny” or “pretty” ad. We need to show more social responsibility when considering the time, place, content, and context of the messages we produce and places in which those messages are received.
AshleyMadison.com can keep running on the Playboy Channel, Howard Stern Radio and in Maxim magazine where the appropriate (if there is such a thing), audiences can receive their messages. The only guilty pleasure I want with my football is a big plate of hot wings and a frosty beer.
