In an effort to promote the importance of keeping our nation’s beaches clean and trash-free, Barefoot wine decided to do something a little unexpected when it comes to advertising.

They have long been a part of promoting beaches that are “barefoot” friendly and free of litter, and along with sponsoring the “One Beach” video about keeping our beaches trash-free, as well as their 2011 Beach Rescue Project, they have opted for a nontraditional ad: a 14×10 foot outdoor poster created entirely of 18,000 pieces of beach trash and mounted in the busy, touristy city of Venice Beach, California.

From their many beach rescue events, to their extensive promotion of doing your part, and their partnerships with Surfrider Foundation, they have found their niche in the world of social responsibility and are definitely trying to get people thinking about the effects of their actions.

As you can see, the outdoor advertisement stands out from any other ordinary poster or billboard and truly sets the agenda that littering, especially along our coastline, is not okay. Barefoot Wine realizes something needs to be done about this issue in order to turn the problem around and promote cleaner beach environments that are safer for wildlife and tourists alike.

The outdoor advertisement, which promotes their movie while also promoting their brand, influences individuals in a creative way by showing them just how dirty some of our nation’s beaches are. Barefoot Wine’s ad was created to draw people to the ad and capture attention, creating buzz about the topic along the way.

Although the advertisement definitely looks cool, most people who stumble upon this ad while at the beach will have a relatively low level of motivation to process its message. However, the fact that the ad stands apart from other traditional outdoor billboards and posters, takes the peripheral route when it comes to processing information. Consumers form positive attitudes about the advertisement’s message once they realize what the ad is made out of and true intent of the ad’s meaning. Those who are motivated enough by the ad’s message will actually take it a step further and watch the complete 30 minute “One Beach” video on YouTube, which details the extent of the issue.

It is pretty rare to see shock advertising done in a way that actually gets people thinking about a socially responsible topic, such as recycling and reducing waste, but the local California company definitely created an ad that is getting people talking. After commenting on Barefoot Wine’s facebook page, they even sent me a message with more information on the stories behind their One Beach film and campaign, which feature even more amazing details about the people in the video and the steps they are taking towards helping our environment and beaches than I had originally thought.

All in all, the interesting and socially responsible ad by Barefoot Wine really does a great job at persuading consumers of the need for a solution to this problem. Although they are indirectly promoting their wine brand, they are creating buzz about a topic that many people do care about, leading to positive emotions and feelings about the brand in the end. The fact that they truly do care about this initiative is very evident when looking not only at their advertisements, but also at their website and social media pages. The hope is that people passing this particular ad, while walking down the boardwalk, will form a positive attitude towards the brand’s message and advertisement, eventually increasing their liking towards the company as a whole.

Barefoot Wine: Beach Rescue Project

AdWeek Barefoot Wine Ad

Barefoot Wine Dive Deeper: Stories Behind One Beach

We’ve all heard of cause advertising, right? You know, like when you see a big name brand that has partnered with a non-profit organization. Well, this trend is nothing new, we’ve all seen it, believed it, been skeptical about it, or probably had every other thought possible about it.

Over the course of the cause advertising trend, consumers have begun to become cautious of these programs. For example, AdAge writer Scott Pansky discusses how KFC raised over four million dollars last year through its “Buckets for the Cure” campaign. However, both KFC and the nonprofit organization suffered from a lowered brand image, simply due to the fact that many consumers questioned the partnership. On one hand you’ve got greasy, fried, unhealthy chicken and when consumers purchase that KFC will donate to support breast cancer research, a fabulous cause that is finding a cure to support a healthy lifestyle… That seems a bit odd if you ask me. In this specific case, it led many consumers to question why KFC was doing this. Was it simply to use breast cancer research as a way to generate sales?

Since there have many questionable partnerships ultimately resulting in skepticism, it has caused many to say that cause-related marketing (cause advertising) is dead. But, is it really?

In a Cone Inc. study (2010), cited by the Nonprofit Brand Institute, it was found that 59% of Americans are more likely to buy a brand that is affiliated with a nonprofit organization. 50% are more willing to donate, 49% are more likely to participate in an event for that nonprofit and 41% are more likely to volunteer for that nonprofit. So, this obviously proves that cause-related marketing is not dead. In fact, it greatly benefits the brand as well as the nonprofit. So, what needs to be done to reach the consumers in an effective way so that they don’t question the partnership or become skeptical of it?

The big question is ‘”Can we build deeper relationships with our customers (retailers and end users) through a cause relationship and still increase sales?”’ The answer, yes—this trend can be extremely beneficial for advertisers, but only if the campaign is done correctly.

There are two things that advertisers need to focus on. First, the cause must be a good match for the company, brand, and target audience. It needs to be relevant. Second, there must be an alignment within the business. Leadership roles and other employees must all be on the same page and understand that the goal is not only to drive up sales numbers, but also to make a lasting impact with a meaningful organization.

Pansky sums it up pretty well, “The bottom-line message to the C suite is that creating effective, meaningful cause relationships is a long-term process that will help them create a brand legacy, not merely a quick sale. It’s about employee recruiting and retention, and creating the next generation of leadership that not only embraces the corporate culture but also helps to create a better tomorrow for consumers. Marketers need to embrace the idea that this is not a quick-fix marketing solution but a long-term commitment to a cause that is relevant to a long-term relationship with your customers. It’s not a date, it’s a marriage.”

Cause advertising campaigns are a great way to be socially responsible. It is wonderful that companies and brands want to help nonprofit organizations that benefit great causes. I think it is pretty obvious that if a company is partnering with a cause, they are on the right track towards being socially responsible. Companies aren’t just in it for themselves anymore—they are trying to make a difference in things that really matter.

So, we know that cause-related marketing is good, but why does it actually make an impact with consumers? What makes these campaigns so different from standard run-of-the-mill advertising campaigns?

Well, to start with, consumer’s values play a huge role. For example, let’s say that a consumer values the environment and wants to help preserve it; in this case, a cause advertising campaign for a certain brand of paper products benefiting The Nature Conservancy may hit home with this consumer and make them feel very strongly about that brand. This also ties into personal relevance. Going back to the KFC example, maybe a consumer knows someone that is fighting breast cancer, so they may be more likely to purchase a KFC meal rather than Popeye’s.

While the campaign needs to reach the consumer in a meaningful way, a brand that partners with a great cause is also improving their brand image. If a consumer already has positive feelings about the cause, those positive feelings may be transferred to positive feelings about the brand. This can also be demonstrated with attitudes. If a consumer has positive feelings towards a cause, when they view the advertisement that relates to that cause, they will probably have positive feelings towards the ad. When a consumer has positive feelings towards the ad, it impacts the attitude towards the brand.

If the campaign is successful, consumers will develop a positive attitude toward the brand, categorize the brand with other favorable products, and ultimately develop brand loyalty. While all of this is being done, the companies as well as the consumers are helping to make an impact by supporting great causes. It can definitely be argued that cause-related marketing is not only beneficial, but also socially responsible.

With that, I will leave you with the new Coca-Cola holiday campaign developed by Leo Burnett.

(You must have known that it would be cause advertising, right!)

Working with the WWF and the new “To The Arctic 3D” IMAX, Coke will be “whiting out” it’s billboards and soda cans to benefit this great cause.

Articles Used:

http://adage.com/article/goodworks/marketers-core-consumers-demand/230061/

http://npbrandit.com/articles/nonprofit-marketing/study-shows-nonprofits-benefit-from-corporate-partnerships/

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/coca-cola-real-polar-bears-wwf-promo/230632/

In 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

Did you know that by submitting one photo that had water in it to GE’s ecoimagination website last year provided 480 gallons of clean drinking water to developing countries?  By posting a wind photo, 4.5 KW hours of wind powered health clinics in rural Peru and by uploading a photo of light, 175 hours of solar power were given to families in East Timor.  Through GE’s ecomagination website, GE encouraged a joint collaboration with Flickr members to take photos of these elements and “Tag Your Green” allowing for that one simple uploading of a photo affect lives across the globe.  The campaign was very successful and GE achieved their goal of 10,000 photos for each nature element thus changing countless lives.

Since global warming and energy crisis have become buzzwords in the media, companies such as General Electric have decided to turn the negative connotations of the words to a call of action utilizing social media.  Within doing this, they have created a branding moment that demonstrates their understanding for environmental concerns and how their brand in turn can contribute to a “greener” Earth by involving consumers.  On the photoproject website, GE gives tribute to Social Vibe http://www.socialvibe.com/an engagement-marketing website whose belief is the brand should be in the hands of consumers.  On SocialVibe’s website, the company portrays a large global cause platform that is meant to be indispensible to consumers.  By pairing social media to contributing to the greater good, SocialVibe and General Electric have positioned the role of social media to become an agent of change.
Consumers are not only becoming the agents of change, but theopportunity to affect change is in their (the consumers) hands.

GE’s tagline is “Imagination at Work” and it is evident that their imagination is cognizant of the need to be relevant to the younger generation and the countless number of people who interact with social media daily.    As evident of the 2010 campaign, they successfully completed their goal.  By being aware of the use of social media in promoting a cause, the company is not only enacting change, but also linking their name to good works.  General Electric does have quite an advantage for promoting a greener earth, but other companies could also join the cause of utilizing social media and sites such as Social Vibe to jumpstart change in the world.  If by taking a picture of water, posting it on Flickr, and then GE’s website and that one photo changed the life of someone else in the world, think about what would happen if more companies joined in to this concept of taking social media to a whole other level.  Imagination at Work.

Imagination at Work commercial:  http://www.youtube.com/embed/CsW1JE4Hg14?rel=0

September 11 represents a day that forever changed the American psyche.  It seemed for a small moment in time that people willingly took a break from their everyday lives of consumerism and capitalism and stood together to support those in need.  And now we will come together again this Sunday to commemorate the 10 year anniversary of that momentous day.

From a marketing perspective, we expect an aura of deference and caution to surround such a somber event.  And for the past 9 years we have been afforded that.  But something is different this year.  It seems that 10 is the point at which advertisers consciously or unconsciously decided that it was no longer “too soon”.  As a recent article in the New York Times explains, “marketers, media companies and advertising agencies are changing course, involving themselves with sponsorships, screenings, fund-raisers, programming and other highly visible activities”.

There seem to be two trends converging here.  One is the growing trend of advertisers trying to bring awareness of social issues by integrating them into their campaigns.  One well-known example is Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty”, which spoke out against the advertising industry’s love affair with idealized body image by depicting images of women that more closely resembled the average American woman. Because they bring to light social issues and help us to deal with them, it’s not hard to argue that this type of advertising is laudable (even if the bottom line is still ultimately about positioning products in a way that will best grow the brand name).

However, the other side of the issue is advertisers’ seemingly insatiable need to inundate consumers with every type of advertising possible.  Spurred on by changes in technology (such as the conception of DVR) that have made consumers less of a captive audience, advertisers are searching for more creative ways to imprint their messages upon society.  This has often manifested itself in the form of sponsorships and promotional activities.  The bottom line of advertising deals with selling, so we can’t entirely fault companies for these activities.  But do the ends justify the means?  Is 9/11 a day too sacred to sponsor?

We can’t automatically argue in the affirmative to such a question.  Some of the advertiser activities surrounding 9/11 are easily praiseworthy. For instance, the Advertising Council is coordinating a PSA campaign that encourages people to visit the 9/11 memorial.  PSAs provide consumers with important information and bring social issues to the surface (much like the Dove campaign mentioned earlier). Unlike normal advertising methods, PSAs are unconcerned with profits. Messages like these make people think about something bigger than just the product itself.  They encourage people to reflect on the attacks and to preserve their monumental impact in American history.

Watch 9/11 Memorial PSA

However some advertisers take ideas like these to the extreme.  The Lieb Family Cellars winery, for example, is marking September 11 with a bottle of Merlot that commemorates the opening of the national memorial.  Is this the company’s heartfelt way to honor such a historic occasion, or a marketing ploy designed to play off of the psychological aspects of consumer behavior in order to boost sales.  People often want the objects that they buy to act as symbols, to represent who they are as people.  Perhaps some people may buy into the idea of 9/11 wine in an attempt to persuade themselves that they are compassionate, generous, and genuine.  This masks the consumers actual need for the product and makes them reliant on their purchases rather than their true values. The issue is further muddled by the fact that the winery is promising to donate up to 10% of sales proceeds to the memorial.  Can we condone their marketing as tasteless or applaud them for helping to raise funds?

Because we live in such a consumer-driven culture, we had to expect that inevitably companies would attempt to somehow market an event that captures so much of America’s attention.  Perhaps the real issue then is where we draw the line.  We want to encourage PSAs that keep the impact of September 11 in the collective consciousness, but we also want to encourage consumers to draw a distinction between acts of respect that help the human good and acts of marketing that help one company’s bottom line.  Just because a PSA and wine promotion both deal with fundraising for the 9/11 memorial does not mean that consumers should view them in the same light. The PSA works because it is relevant to the actual day and it resonates with the true emotions of the people watching it. The wine promotion focuses more on the company and perhaps even encourages us to buy the product for the wrong reasons. The public should be spurred to action, but it should be the right kind of action.  For the sake of 9/11 and the reputation of advertising as a whole, we should actively encourage people to be cognizant of the differences between a message that keeps the history of the day alive in our culture and one that mainly serves to help a company’s profits.

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

The General Electric’s “Road Trip” commercial by BBDO New York is a clear and clever example of how the institution of advertising reflects society’s consumer trends and goals. Currently, there is an active movement towards eco-friendly lifestyles and therefore by design, corporate social responsibility. According to an article in AdAge by Bob Liodice, while this is vastly argued, exhibiting corporate social responsibility supports both the consumers’ agenda to do good and benefit oneself as well as the company’s agenda to profit. Liodice supports this argument with GE’s revenues for the Ecomagination program increasing over 20% in a year’s time, which is ever growing. Ecomagination was designed to build up consumer awareness of how the company works to improve the environment through renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. This ad for GE’s Ecomagination with a tag-line of “Imagination at Work,” illustrates what GE is doing to encourage and contribute to the eco-friendly movement prominently associated by consumers with the electric-car. This coalition helps push the message presented in the ad by personifying the car’s goals and saying GE watt stations are “going to change the way we get to where we all want to go.” Even within the context of this singular statement one can infer the juxtaposed meaning of literally where we want to go as well as where we want society and the green movement’s influence to go or endure.

This ad influences consumers through various consumer behavior specific tactics in, including but not limited to: attention and motivation driven through relevancy to the audience and society. According to Hoyer and MacInnis’ text Consumer Behavior, to capture consumer attention–which is noted for being limited, divided, and very selective–this ad is relevant, pleasant, surprising, and easy to process. Relevancy to the consumer is clearly seen in the message illustrating the importance of using energy sufficient vehicles. The ad is viewed as pleasant, which can be attributed to certain aspects such as the music (“I’m Glad I Hitched My Apple Wagon to Your Star” by The Boy Least Likely To) and the portrayal of young hipster attractive people, which can be construed as a reference group depending on the target audience. The ad is also surprising by nature solely based on the innovative product being showcased and the breadth of locations with the implemented watt stations. Finally, the ad is easy to process because it is simple, has a clear message, and presents contrasting visuals between the novel product and its environment. Without having captured the consumer attention, motivation (which is critical to the message) is impossible.

General Electrics is already established as a well-known brand, which is positively associated with its programs such as Ecomagination supporting the consumer and corporate agendas. Therefore, the consumer has established a positive brand familiarity that builds credibility for the brand image, meaning, and actions. Also increasing credibility is the fact that this ad is an information based message not asking the consumer to buy something, but rather simply to get involved in addressing the needed change between the actual state (current environment) and the ideal state (healthier environment). This in itself increases the perceived consumer effectiveness, which is supported by the classical liberal tenant of quietism stating that as self-focused consumers we want a benefit (making a difference) before entering in consumption. The benefit or perceived effectiveness stimulates the viewer to actively inquire more about Ecomagination via the website call-out strategically placed at the end of the segment. This further outside research, seen in the classical liberal tenant of intellectualism meaning that the viewer is an active rational consumer, expands the message’s influence from that of solely the advertiser and brand on the consumer to the consumer on society as a whole because their intrinsic role as an newly educated consumer to spread the message and further the cause or movement.

Overall, as seen by the example of GE’s Ecomagination ad, corporate social responsibility can positively influence the corporate agenda to profit and maintain sustainability as well as the consumer’s agenda to fulfill needs, values, emotions, and goals for the self and one’s environment. As James Datri, president of the American Advertising Federation, said during the recent ExxonMobile Lecture Series at Southern Methodist University, “doing good is good business” for all parties directly and indirectly involved.

References:

http://www.adforum.com/affiliates/creative_archive/2007/ACT/reel_detail2.asp?ID=34460571&TDI=VDn8gdI3rW&PAGE=1&bShop=&awcat=&ob=&awid=

http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=143323

Though 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.

          Do 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!

http://www.americangreetings.com/channel/kraft/

Kraft Foods and American Greetings have teamed up to help provide meals for the hungry by donating 10 meals for every free e-card that is sent by users. Donations benefit Feeding America, the largest hunger relief charity in the US.The company had originally committed to donating at least one million meals, but the program has been so successful they are increasing their commitment by offering 3 million meals.

The e-cards include recipes, and entertaining tips for the holiday season. Users can create online recipe boxes, and share their favorites with other users or friends. Users who had shown interest in giving back to their communities inspired the program.Kraft has been a longtime supporter of Feeding America, donating $770 million over the past 25 years.Promotion for this program has been on online social networking sites twitter and facebook, as well as the kraftfoods.com site. The company has also sponsored a holiday movie on the hallmark channel.

I think the fact that Kraft and American Greetings have kept a relatively low profile on this promotion is great. Kraft is trying the help their site users feel like they are  making an impact and giving food to the hungry this holiday season!