Archive for Cultural Force
Chipotle is Going Back to the Start: Marketing with Integrity
Posted by: | CommentsIn a day and age where fast food is made up of ingredients many of us are oblivious to, it is refreshing to see a company stand out from the rest and base their entire marketing mantra on a concept unfamiliar to many people in this fast paced, “I want it now” society we live in. The idea of “Going Back to the Start” is the face of Chipotle’s new viral marketing campaign aimed at informing consumers that there is such a thing as “food with integrity,” which is simply natural, family-grown or raised, and ultimately socially responsible.
An article by the Chicago Tribune discusses Chipotle’s recently released video featuring Willie Nelson’s rendition of Coldplay’s popular song, “The Scientist,” which depicts a small town farmer shifting away from his traditional farming roots and adopting an industrialized and unnatural method of cultivating his livestock. Eventually, the farmer realizes his original way of farming was far superior and decides to do the environmentally responsibly thing and “go back to the start.” Chipotle does an excellent job in getting people to think about the serious issue, while promoting its brand in the meantime.
The advertisement, which is intended to create somewhat of an emotional reaction to people viewing the harmful effects that industrialized farming brings with it, creates a sense of sadness and empathy for the farmer. It really gets people thinking about the differences between Chipotle as a fast food chain, as opposed to say, your typical McDonalds ad.
Sustainable farming, which Chipotle bases their entire positioning off of, “uses techniques such as crop rotation, soil conservation, natural fertilization and polyculture planting. In livestock production, they use pasture-based systems, feed animals what their bodies are designed to digest, and treat their animals humanely. Sustainable farms produce foods that are tastier and more nutritious than foods produced on factory farms, while also preserving the long-term health of our environment.”
Simply said, this is responsibility at its finest, despite the negative stereotypes that many fast food restaurants must battle. Chipotle seizes that opportunity in the marketplace to finally provide a fast food experience that defies the typical processed and unnatural methods of creating food and opts for an experience that provides healthy, fresh, locally grown, and socially responsible options. By raising awareness about what responsible farming is, they are fostering a need for healthy and naturally raised food that many people were unaware they had.
As many people are trying to do their part in going green and helping the environment in any little way, Chipotle has made the responsible choice. The powerful “Going Back to the Start” video sets the agenda that people should be concerned about where their food comes from originally. But, while many people may view this as just a healthy food option, when going to the roots of what Chipotle is really doing, they are keeping small family farmers in business and helping the economy along the way.
Many people may think, however, why haven’t I seen these advertisements? Chipotle is again set apart from the rest, they choose not to engage in heavy television or radio advertising, but instead to stick to simple movie-theater ad placements, word of mouth, and public event sponsoring to raise awareness of their brand’s positioning as an environmentally responsible company. These ads create a positive impact on those who view them, while informing and motivating consumers to learn more. Chipotle also discusses their farming methods and responsibility in using sustainable farming techniques all over their website in order to raise awareness about the importance of such a trend.
This popular concept of going-green, being environmentally responsible, and incorporating organically grown food helps Chipotle to solidify their standing as a company that truly cares about the implications of their actions. Their growing popularity and extreme success in the business world teaches other companies in the fast food industry that caring about the long-term effects of your business’ actions will carry with it many positive benefits.
In the case of Chipotle, this is truly marketing with integrity.
Chicago Tribune Original Article
Chipotle’s Webpage: Food With Integrity
Sustainable Table: The Daunting Techniques of Factory Farming
Making and Breaking Social Class Distinctions
Posted by: | CommentsThough Levi’s Go Forth Campaign has often been one of controversy, it has also been one of empowerment. This campaign, set in Braddock, PA, shows a blue-collar town struggling to reinvent themselves after the recent economic downfall. In July of 2010, Levi’s, with the help of Wieden+Kennedy launched the Go Forth ‘Ready to Work” Campaign with such slogans as “Everybody’s Work is Equally Important.” Levi’s goal was to showcase real people doing real work in order to grab the attention of “the real American worker.”
The advertisements above show that advertising can bring together many social classes through the targeting of just one. Here we see a diverse group portrayed as hard-working, determined individuals. This campaign depicts the working class in an uplifting way by bringing up the point that all work is valuable. “Everybody’s Work is Equally Important” was the perfect slogan to move this campaign towards a more socially responsible way of advertising. Rather than focusing on the struggling town of Braddock, PA, Levi’s and Widden+Kennedy focused on the idea of equality within social classes as well the work force. It would have been very easy for Levi’s to construct an advertising campaign like they have in the past with the shirtless models shown at swanky parties, etc. Instead, they chose to target a different group, who in a way is more relatable to the everyday consumer. They were able to bring their roots back to the American pioneer, the hard worker, and the equally important individual.
Advertising targeted at a specific social class has the ability to be extremely effective. By tapping into the groups shared values, beliefs, and distinctions, you are able to gain a sense of understanding and persuasion among the members. This theory backs up the idea that as a society, it seems as through we want what those around us, or those with whom we relate, have. Go Forth promoted this by displaying a more localized campaign focusing on the empowered worker with similar life experiences. Individuals belonging to specific social classes are likely to be influenced by members within their own class, however this Go Forth campaign has the ability to cross boundaries into other social classes. Not only will this ad campaign influence how the working class views Levi’s, but may also influence how the Upper, Middle and Lower classes do so. Seeing a campaign directed towards a hard working way of life may motivate and inspire workers everywhere to make a change. Persuasion is a powerful tool, and although this ad is not directed at necessarily persuading individuals, it has the power to encourage others to notice that no matter what you do, it is important, and has the ability to impact something far greater than yourself. With a mantra like this, Levi’s has a great chance of bringing their classic collection not only to those in the middle or working class, but to everyone whom can relate to the idea that hard work matters and hard work pays off.
Now Go Forth, continue this idea and break the barriers….for “Everybody’s Work is Equally Important.”
TED Identifies Good Ads
Posted by: | CommentsThe newsletter learnthe4Ps.com highlighted new TED activity!
Are you familiar with TED? TED (an acronym for Technology, Entertainment and Design) dedicates itself to promoting and disseminating “ideas worth spreading.” TED’s big event is an annual conference with 15‐20 presentations by leading thinkers (check out www.ted.com for more information). Many of these talks are posted at the TEDTalks Web site and later spread virally, where you may have seen one or more.
This past fall, TED moved on to our turf — advertising. It invited anyone to nominate “ads worth spreading” — with the idea that these ads deserved to be seen. TED wanted nominations in four categories: 1) social good, 2) infectiously compelling (viral), 3) industry impact (innovation), and 4) Talk – a format that follows the TEDTalks style.
After reviewing more than 1,000 ads, a panel of 24 judges picked 10 winners. You can see them at the TED Web site – see the first link above.
Take a look and see what you think. Are the judges getting it right?
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.
Did Nike Buy off More Than Tiger’s Reputation?
Posted by: | Comments
We all saw the ad: Tiger Woods stares stoically and misty eyed into the camera in his usual Nike apparel. The voice of Earl Woods, Tiger’s late father, questions him about his infamous adulterous escapades. “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion,” Earl Woods says. “I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. Did you learn anything?”
Talk about powerful advertising. Nike is a company that sells sports gear, but this commercial is proof of just how far advertisers in our culture have come from simply selling products. For years, Tiger Woods has been the face of Nike, establishing a fiscally beneficial situation for both parties, who grew into a kind of comfortable codependence. Tiger was able to finance his yacht (or whatever it is celebrity billionaires do with the cash from their endorsements) and Nike was able to capitalize on an athlete whose talent on the golf course was matched only by his squeaky clean image. Tiger was a marketer’s dream, and Nike amassed the revenue to prove it.
Nike sold Tiger’s image just as much as his short game and swoosh-embossed polos; he was a family man to be revered for his unwavering morals. In the face of the past and present multitude of adulterous athletes who still received millions in product endorsements after their transgressions (think Kobe Bryant), Tiger Woods was a wholesome breath of fresh air. As a company, endorsing Tiger Woods meant representing his personal life, which at the time, was all about the values of our country. Or so it appeared.
Did consumers buy Nike products partially because they believed that Nike was a company with a similar set of values to their own? I’m guessing the marketers at Nike have heard of value segmentation, and targeting consumers who placed high value on family or who admired Tiger Woods for both his professional career and admirable personal life wasn’t a coincidence. Tiger Woods was a figure whose life was consistent with Nike consumers’ values, or so it seemed. When the Tiger scandal hit the media, the endorsers who had made him the most highly paid athlete in the world were faced with the big decision: damage control or exit stage right.
Several of Tiger’s endorsers did in fact choose to bow out, deeming his reputation irreparably damaged. But not Nike. Nike’s response to the scandal was this commercial, which in one thirty second spot repositioned Tiger as a living commentary on our society’s changing values. Instead of marking him with a letter “A” and writing him off as another professional athlete turned modern day Hester Prynn, Nike did what they do best: emblazoned their famous logo on their fallen spokesman and used the media to cleverly redefine him as a man who needed his father to help him through a difficult time in his life. Nike battled the public’s critique of Tiger’s tainted family values with the ultimate trump card- more family values. The only way Nike could continue to endorse Tiger, who at that point was so ingrained in the culture of their brand image and company that dropping him would mean redirecting efforts towards an enormous and risky counter-campaign, was to fight fire with fire.
The question remains: did Nike make the right choice? Was this commercial just about the money, and saving face? Or does it speak to our culture’s values at large? In spite of his egregious transgressions, Nike supports Tiger Woods. Advertising as an industry now carries a lot of social responsibility that it never did before, possibly because agencies now brand their image with meaning beyond simply functions of the product they’re selling. No matter what, Nike’s decision was going to make a statement, and the impact of the decision and the ad are unmistakable. Instead of changing their spokesman to an athlete who was a better representation of their values, Nike changed their values, and attempted to change ours as well. Did we fall for it? Like I said: talk about powerful advertising.
Censorship or a Higher Calling? Media Outlets and Political Ads
Posted by: | CommentsI love my favorite radio station, KLTY 94.9, because of the positive music and the positive messages. It touts itself as “Safe for the Whole Family” and it is… Then why my beef? Negative political ads are infringing on my time with God. 
On my drive to work this morning, I was confronted with all of the terrible thingsSenator Kay Bailey Hutchison has done in Washington. Was it investigative reporting? No, an ad by the campaign to re-elect our current Texas governor Rick Perry.
On a station that promotes such positivity in all aspects of the way it conducts business, does it have a policy about negative political ads? Does the parent company Salem Communications? Wouldn’t the world be a better place if media outlets could refuse such ads and force the politicians to promote their own positive agendas instead of just focusing on the negative aspects of their rivals. Is this censorship or a higher calling?
Gov Perry and Sen. Hutichison…Please focus on what YOU can do for Texas as you have in other positive ads!
Obama, NFL players encourage kids to exercise for 60 min every day
Posted by: | Commentshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXsoDx9s0j0&feature=player_embedded
There is a series of great NFL commercials running on TV advocating for more active children. I think that this is a great initiative given the rising problem of obesity among young children and the common concern that children spend too much time at home infront of the TV and the computer. This is a great example of how advertising is good for society. I especially like President Obama’s involvement in the campaign as a role model to many Americans.
The campaign advocates not only active and exercising children, but it also encourages personal relationships among children. If kids spend too much time online while their parents are at work, their only friends will be the virtual ones and the ones on the online games. However, such kids are missing the personal touch and emotions they can have if they are playing outside with other kids.
This is a great example of a cause marketing campaign which proves one more time that advertising, if used right, is good for society. By recognizing the current problem in society of children obesity and addressing it in the campaign through providing a solution to it - exercising at least 60 min a day in a fun way (by playing with peers), advertisers can change behavior in a way beneficial to society. Here is when the persuasive character of advertising comes into play. Furthermore, by using of influential figures such as Obama and NFL players, the advertisers not only facilitate higher attention among consumers, but I also believe that consumers will elaborate on the message in the ad and hopefully change their behavior in the long run.
“Today’s the Day” at JCPenney
Posted by: | Comments
This is an example of using advertising as an effective sales tool while not being too in your face. JCPenney shows their wide range of products without reverting to the cliche “car salesman” technique.
The simple concept of having an item for every room in your house is combined with promoting family values and reminding consumers to stop and appreciate the little things in life. The simplicity of the spot is beautiful and the lack of a voiceover is a welcome change from the usual commercial.
It also uses vignettes from everyday life that the target market can relate to and see themselves in. Using this technique of self-referencing creates an affective involvement with the consumer and helps them to remember the brand.
The virtuous aspect of this ad comes into play with the potential impact it could have on society and family “norms.” This is a great example of how advertising can “mold” society in a positive way. By promoting family togetherness and a general sense of love, this commercial projects a slice of reality that should be more celebrated.
Since it’s the holiday season, maybe this spot will convince you to consider JCPenney’s for your holiday needs. And don’t forget, “Today’s the day” to start living your life, because “Everyday matters.”
Go World
Posted by: | Comments
Many of you may remember this Visa commercial that aired in the United States during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. It was a part of a campaign to support the 2008 Olympics through television, radio, print, and more. From May through the end of the Olympic games in 2008 Visa was given exclusivity in their category for advertising and sponsorship of the Olympics on NBC.
What is striking about this ad is that it not only appeals to Americans to unite in support of the United States athlete representatives, but it also reminds people that everyone on the planet comes together to celebrate these events and there is more reason to celebrate our similarities than our differences. It uses this point of view to show how diverse the world and American culture is. The television spots show a variety of American athletes as well as memorable athletes from years past from different countries.
Several Americans watched the Summer Olympics at some point in 2008, so Visa had the ability and opportunity to reach a wide variety of Olympic consumers who would find the ads relevant and moving. Visa uses several different tactics to appeal to consumers through these ads. They use the appeal of aesthetics and pleasant pictures throughout the commercial by portraying significant moments in a sepia hue. They also use emotional appeals through these memorable events in Olympic history. In television spots other than this one, Visa invokes nostalgia and memory retrieval through images of past Olympians.
This kind of support and sponsorship of world athletes during arguably the most significant athletic moments of their lives, shows consumers that Visa cares for America and the world. It builds Visa’s credibility, brand image, and company reputation through these messages, placing the brand in a favorable light in consumers’ eyes. These uplifting emotional messages serve to benefit not only the Visa brand and its marketers, but also consumers and athletes in the process.
MTV Switch
Posted by: | Comments
I want to start with the little known fact that I’m not a MTV fan. I haven’t turned on MTV since I was probably 16. But I came across this commercial which then brought me to the MTV switch website. I was blown away by the concept that a company that is generally known for is crazy tv shows, crude humor and much more was trying to educate their audience on what it means to “go green.” Now, obviously the “go green” theme is a little over used, but MTV has shown their audience what problem is out there and allowed the opportunity for the consumers to elaborate on this process and find solutions.
They also have a blog that allows readers to “GET INVOLVED – and find out what YOU can do to help the environment and STAY INFORMED – on the latest trends and fashions that are keeping the Earth clean and keeping you classy”
With their use of great music and visual aspects in their videos and site, it really engages the audience which leads to an interest to seek more information. I applaud MTVs efforts to reach out to the “unclean.” What other audiences could be reached by the media they watch?
Is there another organization that could help responsibly promote how to live e-friendly?
