Archive for General Virtues
Social platforms like Groupon are advocates for collective consumerism but are their marketing attempts socially responsible?
Groupon has been named as the fastest-growing company ever by Forbes magazine. Their company is based off the premise of collective groups partaking in discounted shopping to create higher revenues for featured businesses. It relies on the social aspect of its service. Everyday subscribers are emailed the chosen limited-time bargain in hopes that enough subscribers will purchase the deal to “tip” the offering (cause it to go into effect). The company is very much reliant upon viral pass along for its success. Like word of mouth this is one of the most effect marketing strategies. It creates the opportunity for people to choose to participate or not in a financial deal that is as easy as the click of your mouse. It is easily accessible and cost the consumer nothing if they don’t participate. Their marketing strategy is genius. Seems flawless right? But I wonder if this type of advertising plays on the vulnerability of consumer’s decision-making processes.
When making high-effort decisions consumers can be affected greatly by a promotions perceived time limits or how they are framed. Pressuring a consumer to make a decision under a time limit can lead to low-level construals. These elements are focused on the immediate. In this example the immediate is the discount the consumer is receiving. It can also be framed in high-level construals that focus on the future. These purchases may be immediate but they are for used for future purposes. Groupon plays on the perceived risk that consumers will miss out on a great deal. They also emphasize the importance of group consumerism. It is up to the subscribers to purchase enough to make sure the deal goes through. If not enough people participate then the offer is off the table for everyone. This doesn’t seem to be a problem for them considering that 95% of daily Groupons “tip.” Are these marketing strategies socially responsible? On one hand it is promoting the collect buying power of consumers. Individuals can feel part of a movement that benefits a thriving company in need of promotion and financially gain discounts for things they might already be planning to spend money on. Might is the key word. Consumers could also be feeling pressured to make purchases they might not otherwise make because of the emphasis of a GREAT deal and social activism.
Groupon also creates an obstacle for the comparison type consumer. The simply formatted deal that appears in your email box every morning gives you the essential information needed for the decision. It doesn’t elaborate into this big selling ploy therefore making the decision to buy very easy. It doesn’t however led way for easy product comparison. This can help or harm the company. The consumer wont be bombarded with comparative advertising that might make them choose another option but they are also not allowed the comfort of knowing they made the right purchased based on all the factors. Consumers are given a day to take it or leave it.
Companies like Groupon are also infringing upon agency business. They have basically cut out the middleman and built marketing directly into their product. Individual consumers and companies rely on advertising agencies to sift through the clutter and present them with the best options and support of those options. If we have business that present the options for themselves there might be less of a desire to seek out more information which cant create for poor consumer decisions. The opposite is true that it could create for more product credibility because if the information is coming directly from the product the chances of perceived likelihood might be lowered. With an agency the advertiser can be blamed. With out the middleman the blame falls directly on the company potentially making for better business practices by companies.
Groupon: promoter of great social activism and collective buying power that creates unity among consumers or exploiter of the discount seeking customer?
References:
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3ie4f24b85cbd4c811b65148cd8af82f38
http://jordanballacm.blogspot.com/2010/10/groupon.html
Featuring Disabilities in Advertisements
Posted by: | Comments
Images of women portrayed in advertisements are continually causing controversies in the industry. We frequently see images of beautiful women all of whom where a size zero and are near perfection. As viewers we are rarely exposed to image of the “average” woman in advertisements. Recently, however, advertisers have been making great changes in order to depict a more realistic female portrayal in order to form a better relationship with consumers. By establishing a positive relationship, advertisers will be able to increase consumers recall of these specific brands from memory. However, although there has been a great effort by advertisers to depict both men and women of different sizes, ages, ethnicity, etc., very rarely do we see advertisements featuring people with disabilities.
In an article published in AdWeek, titled “Freak Week: Women’s Studies,” author Tim Nudd emphasizes the stir that arose from an advertisement in Belgium which featured graphic designer, Tanja Kiewitz who is missing the lower half of her left arm. Kiewitz quickly became extremely popular after appearing in a disability-awareness advertisement for Cap 48 which is a play off of a previous Wonderbra poster. The previous advertisement featured a photo of model Eva Herzigova with the headline reading “Look me in the eyes…I said in the eyes”. The same headline was shown in the PSA advertisement made with Tanja Kiewitz. This ad, however, was not made with the intention to sell lingerie but rather to emphasize the idea that people with disabilities can be sexy, attractive, and normal human beings.
Despite the fact that Kiewitz has a disability, she is still portrayed in a very sensual manner in the advertisement which demonstrates that people with disabilities can be sexy too. Kiewitz stated to the GlobalPost that people often believe that handicapped people “don’t have a personality, that they are strange people”. Through her portrayal in the Cap 48 advertisement, Kiewitz made an effort to display that she is a beautiful, sexy, woman, and that her handicap is secondary. In her interview she also mentioned a need for more advertisements to portray people with disabilities. She makes a point to question why the advertising industry does not have more people in wheelchairs speaking on TV, or anyone with a handicap for that matter.
This advertisement brings up some interesting points regarding the portrayal of people in advertisements and leads to many implications for advertisers. The industry today has a focus on upholding responsible standards, yet there are no advertisements featuring people with disabilities. The Tanja Kiewitz advertisement has gained a vast amount of attention simply because something like this ad has never been done before. In an effort to promote more responsible advertising, the industry should create more advertisements similar to this one. In doing so, companies will receive positive attention from the public and will be able to increase the recall of their brands.
I believe that the use of advertisements similar to this one will be extremely influential in the advertising industry and will be viewed positively by the public. This gives advertisers the opportunity to reach out to more people and provides a way for them to gain consumer attention. The CAP 48 PSA advertisement quickly became a symbol of encouragment and inspiration for all. Despite Kiewitz’s handicap, she is portrayed as a powerful women who is making a statement about the need for change in the advertising industry.
We have seen a recent trend in advertising leaning away from the stereotypical size zero woman as typically portrayed in ads. Advertisers are now incorporating women of different sizes, ages, and race. The next step for the industry may be to include portrayals of people with disabilities similar to the Cap 48 advertisement. Based on the popularity of the Cap 48 ad, similar advertisements may encourage consumers to become more engaged in products and brands. Through the introduction of these advertisements, the industry will promote more socially responsibly advertising and in the end gain positive recognition by the public.
References:
Nudd, Tim (2010). “Freak Week: Women’s Studies.” AdWeek
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3ilc1499752deb3a603a094ab292fc2286
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.
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.
“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.”
“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.
“Find Your Beach”-Beer with a Purpose
Posted by: | CommentsWhat motivates us to choose a particular beer? Is it just accepting what’s available or the brand everyone you know drinks during a football game? Do you change brands depending on where you are? Lots of people do and do so for a variety of reasons. I know people who never drink beer, who need to have Abita Strawberry when it comes out each spring. A typical college student might buy whichever brand at the bar is the cheapest, since saving money is their motivating factor. To an average beer drinker, the motivation may stem from a desire to either relax, or to have a social drink during a vacation, football game or other group activity. So how can a beer company appeal to this variety of motivating forces and entice a consumer to choose their particular brand of beer?
For a long time Corona Extra has been a favorite imported beer among U.S. beer-drinking consumers. In recent years, a typical Corona ad shows two people sitting on a beach looking out at the water with two Corona bottles between them. As a result, when the average consumer thinks of the brand Corona, a white sandy beach typically comes to mind. As a brand position, this image has created a the concept of “vacation in a bottle.”
One of Corona Extra’s new ads, “Moments”, however, puts a new spin on the brand’s traditional message. In this new commercial one sees young adult couples and groups of friends sitting in a similar position, but now in different settings—sitting beneath snow-covered mountains, in a field, on a cliff by the water or on a city rooftop—in each case with a Corona in hand or Corona in a bucket between them. The commercial then continues, ending with the well-recognized image of a couple on that classic, Corona, white sandy beach with the words “find your beach” appearing on the top center of the screen as the commercial ends.
This “find your beach” instruction offers new incentives for young beer drinkers when they look at the Corona brand. Instead of their focusing entirely on a white sandy beach and vacation-like setting, consumers are now able to expand their vision by connecting the idea of drinking Corona Extra beer with whatever “beach” they may wish to find – real or imagined. In other words, the image now suggests a relaxed state of mind, in whatever environment works best for the viewer. This new concept to “find your beach” appeals to both the needs of the consumer for pleasure, as well as to their need for an optimal level of stimulation. By drinking a Corona Extra beer, not only can the consumer enjoy the sensory pleasures that come from the drink itself, but they can also escape from the over-stimulation they may be experiencing in their daily lives, and relax on whatever “beach” they may choose to imagine. Many beer advertisements depict people out partying (reinforcing the concept of binge drinking) or watching football, but Corona’s advertisements tend to show the more responsible and socially acceptable way to drink, while still appealing to a large audience. As socially responsibility in ads becomes a growing concern in the advertising industry, Corona Extra has found at least one suitable way to depict responsible behavior, without alienating any audience members.
This simple twist on the original theme allows more people to relate to the ad since it now expands the “beach” concept to include other traditional Western values centered on work & play. In today’s recession, people are working harder but making less money. This new Corona ad allows a viewer to believe that by simply having a Corona Extra, without any additional travel-related expense, they can find themselves experiencing a more relaxed state of mind. Since the audience has can now see Corona Extra presented as that same “vacation in a bottle” to suit their individual needs, the advertisement provides them an opportunity to mold their own version of relaxation, motivating them to seek out Corona Extra over other imported beers.
While maintaining the Corona brand’s established identity, the new Corona Extra’s “find your beach” commercial gives consumers more reasons to achieve relaxation and escape merely by drinking their product. If drinking a Corona Extra beer can help you to achieve that vacation state of mind, why wouldn’t you give it a try?
It’s a New Barbie World
Posted by: | CommentsRemember those lyrics – “I’m a Barbie Girl, in a Barbie World . . . Life in plastic, it’s fantastic”? Sure, I’ll admit that I do. But I spent most of my childhood years playing with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Transformers action figures. I was more concerned with Master Splinters and Megatrons than with Kens and Dream Houses. Yet I still know the song, and I’d venture to guess that most everyone does. If not, they definitely know Barbie. From toddlers to grandparents, all of us – regardless of age or gender – know who she is. And that’s the point: We really do live in a Barbie World. Whether we’re active participants, or casual by-standers, we are indeed living in it. Well hey, haven’t you heard? That world is changing, and it won’t be the same again.
(a snapshot of the interactive Barbie Channel)
Please say hello to the newest Barbie for our digital age. An article from Advertising Age explains how since October 2008, Mattel – the company that produces the Barbie dolls – has been running an interactive “channel” (more of an interactive web portal) on cable television that is all things Barbie. This channel functions as a one-stop-shop where viewers can get videos of Barbie on demand, play games, and immerse themselves in the “Barbie World” experience. Now Mattel is gearing up to launch yet another Barbie Channel on AT&T’s U-Verse starting this October. One channel; now another. So why the forward progression? Mattel has found that between September 2009 and April 2010 they were effectively reaching their targeted audience of girls, and they’ve got the numbers to prove it. Girls were spending about seventeen minutes per day interacting with the Barbie channel and 17.7 million consumers were viewing the Barbie webpage. Of course, their 2010 sales were looking pretty good, too. With such strong numbers backing up their efforts, the new Barbie Channel is estimated to reach an expected 19 million people. Don’t be surprised if in the near future you witness more marketers turning to this new trend of interactive television. This same article shows how according to the findings of a survey of 100 national marketers conducted by the Association for National Advertisers and Forrester Research, 75% of the respondents said they thought interactive television would be the next big source of marketing and advertising. Break out the Dream Houses everyone ‘cause Barbie’s coming home.
So what are the potential implications of such an expanded Barbie World? If things shift from being a Barbie World to a Barbie Universe, where does that leave us? Barbie, and her maker Mattel, have for years come under fire, with concerned parents and advocacy groups questioning whether Barbie is a responsible role model for young girls. For the most part, we’ve all heard the basic general complaint that Barbie is too perfect and that this causes lower self-esteem among girls who wish to, but can’t (for obvious physiological reasons) emulate her appearance. It seems only natural that citizens of this new digital Barbie World will again pose the same questions. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t do so. It is vital for consumers, especially parents, to examine this new trend of interactive television – not limited to solely Barbie, mind you, but everything their children may potentially watch.
Was the creation of the Barbie Channel a responsible decision on the part of Mattel? On the one hand, one cannot blame Mattel for doing business; it’s what they are, after all. Does anyone blame Apple for creating the iPhone? Most likely the answer is no. However, it probably won’t be too surprising if Mattel and the Barbie Channel come under attack yet again. “They’re targeting children in a whole new way, which will in turn make them feel bad because they don’t look like Barbie.” “Mattel is invading our homes with ads for products and toys to make themselves richer.” These may be two hypothetical complaints regarding the launch of the new Barbie Channel. Is Mattel is doing at least one thing right, though? In one instance, they are bringing parents into the process and offering a way for them to request information about Barbie through the interactive channel with the click of a button. They want everyone to be involved in the Barbie experience. Win the parents over, win the kids – that’s their mentality. Should Mattel be congratulated? It’s difficult to say. While they do provide parents with requested information about Barbie and her products, Mattel is providing a host of other things – products, ideas, and feelings – to the children who, one could argue, do most of the actual television viewing. And these offerings are loaded with potentials risks – risks that will soon be accessible with the press of a button on the remote control. Is this responsibility? Providing children with an interactive channel that seemingly fulfills their every Barbie desire, while promoting Barbie products within an inclusive Barbie world comes close to resembling a kind of hypnotism. There’s got to be some lasting effects from all this Barbie exposure at such a high, interactive level. So is this healthy for kids? They might as well be making their products with poisoned plastic parts.
Earlier it was mentioned that the usual questions of self-esteem will again surface in the face of a new digital Barbie. Let’s examine some of the potential risks. First off, with increased interactive exposure to Barbie through various means such as videos and games, one must be sure to monitor the self-concept of the channel’s viewers, which have the potential to be altered. Children watching the new digital Barbie may be more inclined to create a negative self-concept of themselves due to the highly interactive nature of the channel. Negative self-concepts existed back when it was only toys, so imagine how it will be in the new world of on-demand videos and interactive play: the effects of these risks may be multiplied in their strength and influence. These kids may wonder if they are pretty enough, or why they aren’t blonde. In addition, there may be increased desires to fulfill symbolic needs – this includes everything from purchasing the latest Barbie products and toys to even buying make-up so as to look like Barbie – so that these girls will feel pretty enough. An increased motivation to acquire these products will eventually occur. Wanting new toys in not inherently bad, of course. Yet if this desire becomes paramount to a child’s maintaining high self-esteem, a line has been crossed, and a psychological risk could potentially develop. In the short-term, it may be that parents spend a little extra money on Barbie products so their kids stay happy; in the long-term, however, the cost may be a question of more than mere dollars and cents. As will be seen next, the risks do not stop once children reach adulthood. In fact, they may become life-long ghosts that haunt Barbie-stricken individuals.
Issues of low self-concept, unfulfilled symbolic needs, and psychological risks that stem from Barbie exposure can extend into adulthood and cause people to drastically alter their outward appearance. There is even a term of this affliction known as the Barbie Syndrome. An article from CBS News illustrates how in one case, a woman was reported as having undergone 31 plastic surgeries over the course of 14 years (the cost coming close to $100,000) in order to come closer to resembling Barbie. Spending over $100,000 on 31 surgeries! When is it too much? The woman who underwent these procedures stated that at age 6 she looked at a Barbie doll and wanted to be like her, seeing Barbie as glamorous. The article states, according to the woman who had the surgeries, “’I just wanted to look better,’” she says. “’Barbie was the blank canvas I filled in all those years ago. It was still my role model.’” Bull’s-eye, folks! When Barbie becomes the role model for looks for any person – there is a Ken Syndrome, too, gents – there is an inherent problem with the values it is sending to consumers. This case occurred years ago, before the advent of the interactive Barbie Channel. With a result like this that speaks for itself, what does it say about the implications of an entire channel devoted to Barbie that’s targeting girls ages 2 and up? Well, for one, plastic surgeons may soon be cashing larger checks. Here’s the overarching issue of the interactive Barbie Channel: it increases the ability for young girls to immerse themselves in Barbie, and come out of the experience with feelings of inadequacy. Before, one had to actually acquire the doll, open it, and play with it for this psychological process to take place. Now it’s as easy as clicking a button. Less time can have major implications for the young generations. This isn’t a Barbie you can hide in the toy box anymore.
Tomorrow’s Barbie World is here. Like it or hate it, there is no real escaping it. There hasn’t been any escaping from Barbie since it was first created back in 1959. It’s part of our culture, and world culture for that matter. But does that mean we should lower our defenses just because something is familiar? I know my neighborhood, but I still lock my doors at night. The implication is simple: a life in plastic is NOT so fantastic.
