Caffeinated posts from a copywriter/adgrunt. I write about advertising, design, astronomy, cooking, and pretty much anything else that strikes my fancy, including random bits of reference info for work purposes. You may also know me as 'that other gal' who helps run Adland. | make contact | RSS Feed | ATOM

Tuesday, November 30, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Economist and World AIDS Day ]

+ Hidden has posted a brilliant Economist ad done by O&M, Germany.

+ On a more serious note, tomorrow is World AIDS Day. Viewropa and Dabitch have created a banner demonstrating "the lottery effect of the indiscriminating AIDS virus. Every 157 times a page with the banner script is viewed, the AIDS banner appears. You could be the one to see it." Put it on your site and spread the word.


[ :: adgruntie :: Give me a break ]

+ During my search on google news for interesting ad news, I came across this study on environment and the objects in that environment effecting busniess attitudes that was done at Stanford. Now it all sounded somewhat interesting and really rather logical until I got to this paragraph.

"These are pretty big effects with pretty minor manipulations," he says. The fact that participants were unaware that their behavior had been influenced even when this fact was pointed out to them in the debriefing after the experiment is also significant. "We're simply not conscious of how many of the things all around us affect our behavior," he notes. This can be true, he says, even if we are not simply receiving the messages through subliminal tricks such as rapid image flashing in advertising, which is designed to circumvent our conscious awareness -- but when we are seeing the objects right in front of us, as the participants in the study demonstrated.

Excuse me, but I thought this old debate of subliminal advertising died a while back. In my 6 years in the industry, I have never ever seen these sorts of thigns worked into any advertisement. No one even uses the words subliminal in the editing booths, or talks about how we'll work in subliminal anything. It's all a bunch of bullshit. And i find it rather distrubing that it's coming out of a school like Stanford that is supposed to have a good reputation.

[ :: adgruntie :: ads and creativity ]

+ The National Film and Television Archive (NFTVA), part of the British Film Institute, is embarking on the enormous task of cataloguing its extensive collection of between 70,000 and 80,000 adverts. "The project has been given a healthy kick-start with a six-figure sponsorship from Coca-Cola UK, which is also donating its entire 50-year-old archive of 1,200 British commercials to be restored and archived for public access.

Work has already begun on sifting through advertising gems dating back to the end of the 19th century. The earliest work discovered so far in the archive, which is based at Berkhamsted in Berkshire, is a black and white film from 1897 showing kilted Scots performing a somewhat abandoned Highland reel to promote Dewar's whisky to Americans. Filmed in the days before cinemas, it was designed to be projected on to the sides of big buildings."

+ Consumers are becoming more sceptical of TV advertising.

Additionally, the presence of a brand on TV can lead people to think it is large, competent and trustworthy, simply because the brand can afford to use TV advertising. Retailers are also likely to look more favourably on brands that advertise on TV and seeing a TV ad can motivate employees of the company.
As long as positive results can be demonstrated, there will be a role for TV advertising. But it is important to recognise that the threats to TV are real.
While much of the emphasis has been on the threats from new media, the real challenge for TV advertising comes from the consumer, especially a group of people who may be termed the “empowered cynics”. These people do not feel obliged to watch ads (most people do not feel obliged to watch them, even though they are the only reason free TV can exist), they are cynical, and can easily recite examples of deceptive advertising. They are also concerned about the excessively materialistic nature of modern society and the negative effects of rampant consumerism, such as obesity. They accept that advertising has a profound impact on other people’s behaviour, although they believe it does not affect them.
This cynicism is empowering and makes them feel less like passive victims. It also makes them sceptical and they refute the suggestion that the mere presence of a celebrity gives a brand credibility or that it does not matter that the sponsor of a TV program has no real connection with the content of the program.
This empowered cynicism is not restricted to TV advertising, but these people readily feel empowered about avoiding TV ads.
This attitude leads these people to demand that the brand takes real steps to understand them as individuals and that its ads are creative and relevant to them. Some even suggest that brands should be punished for boring, unsubtle ads.
Similarly, they will not be hoodwinked by unrealistic claims or utopian idealism; they want genuine, thoughtful brands.
The upshot of the empowered cynic (although there is no indication of how many people fit this description) and the threats from other media, is that TV advertising needs to be creative and to demonstrate it truly understands the people it is reaching out to. Yet, this clashes with increasing pressures on ad budgets and what many people lament as a decline in creativity in pursuit of the “acceptable to all” kind of ad.

And so it seems that client restraints (budgets, expectations, etc) along with some other aspects are to blame for the majority of stale and stagnant creativity we see on our airwaves.

Mark Wnek's column in the Independent this week touches on this subject as he discusses the separation between winning awards and being creative when it comes to real clients. Here's an excerpt:

Awards competitions are the last bastions against the intrusion of business, where creative people can lionise their "art" unconstrained by commercial considerations. Criteria for victory have now become eccentric if not esoteric, removed from the real world in which advertising is supposed to function and be commercially effective.

Advertising with tiny or absent product logos does well in awards competitions. Ads in which the product barely appears do well. Stuff which is cool and groovy and young does well. Work which is original for the sake of originality alone does well. Commercials directed by directors with Hollywood or underground cachet do well. Advertising which is antisocial or offensive does well. Work which is little more than a sponsored joke does well. Work which is wild and crazy and incomprehensible does well.

Nearly all of the above advertising has as its sine qua non a would-be avant-garde but in reality highly narrow-minded aesthetic of cool - narrow-minded because it's not designed for anyone above the age of 24. That's leaving out quite a lot of people with quite a lot of money to spend. Like the whole of Middle England (and Middle America) for instance.

Friday, November 26, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Update to "So very pathetic" ]

+ UPDATE: On NetImpertative, they claim that the stunt first broke on MarketingVox.com- but if you look at the post date of the entry, November 7th, that's so inaccurate too.

After getting their email, which prompted the post below, I emailed Asa to inform them of their error. The reply stated that they would make the appropriate edit. Funnily, or not so funnily, enough- the article has yet to be corrected. All this seems somewhat suspicious.

AdLand has a post titled "ASABAILEY Ogilvy stunt jumps the shark twice over" that is worth a read. Here's an excerpt:

So lets see, what have ASABAILEY acheived? They have probably pissed off what was a likely client in napping the Ogilvy name. Check. Annoyed the ad bloggers that posted about the stunt first by forgetting they did and spamming them to post more about it. Check. Become famous with a stunt that was, as MarketingVox pointed out, a gag that had been done before and better when Rob Manuel of b3ta.com nicked Price Waterhouse Cooper new name. Check! Looks like ASA will have to stick to announcing their gags on the paid-for-pages viral and ad blogs in the future, hot tip guys I hear Fark accepts paid-for-placements too.

It's beautiful!

Also worth reading is a Dabitch interview of Justin Kirby. Interesting little chat about the difference between viral and deception. Quite appropriate. ;-)
Thursday, November 25, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: So very pathetic ]

+ So, today I got an email from ASA Bailey . They wanted me to talk about their interview in PR Week which discusses the Ogilvy hijack which I posted on November 6th, after finding it on AdLand that same day. Well, sad to say, I'm probably not going to talk about what they want me to.

You see, at the start of the interview as well as the end they get a fact wrong. An important fact when you're talking about seeding blogs. They should know better which makes me have trouble getting past it. It isn't the publication or interviewer who got it wrong, unless they heard ASA Baily wrong. How do I know? Well it's all in the last question.

Q."How did you push that message out?
A. As far as we know, we [track] the largest network of viral blogs and websites. It’s very easy for us to spread anything. The network currently has 22.4 million unique users. This is only through our knowledge of the system. How did we get the Ogilvy & Mather out? We got someone independent to do it for us. They sent it to Ad Rants. It’s how the blogs work. They create their own feeding frenzy. A blogger visits a blog, reads the article, and then puts it on [his or her] own blog.

So, here's the problem. AdLand posted Ogilvy London Hijacked November 6th, after getting a news submission from lpc24, a user (a.k.a. adgrunt) of the site. Adrants didn't post about this until November 7th. The AdLand post has 9 trackbacks and 35 comments. Adrants post has 1 trackback and 5 comments. It doesn't even come up in the first 5 pages of a google search for "Ogilvy Hijacked".

So it seems obvious that ASA has their facts wrong. Shame that. You see, as easy as it is to spread a viral campaign, it can also be just as easy to find the holes in the message that people want to send, especially with the internet and time stamped blogs. Perhaps ASA Bailey needs to go back to the basics when it comes to spreading information, and try to spread the facts. ;-)

Read related stuff here and here and here.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: As seen on AdLand ]

+ ClearChannel basically tells of it's political slant through a huge billboard in Florida. As Dabitch says it's "reminiscent of old Saddam, Stalin & Kadafi propaganda paintings." Quite disturbing. Even more disturbing are the billboards popping up by the same media company in Arizona.

+ After my post about the nauseating copy program, Dabitch found what seems to be a spoof follow-up called AdHacks. Love it. The copy on their purchase page is brilliant.

[ :: adgruntie :: Advertising by the numbers ]

+ Aussie advertising agencies need self-promotion. Or so states this article. But there are a lot of points brought up that make me wonder if perhaps all advertising agencies might need to consider the same things.

Many agency executives say their industry is in crisis. And it is a crisis that has been created by new rivals such as management and marketing consultants, a constant squeeze on revenue and profits, and the dwindling importance of traditional advertising in most companies' marketing plans.

"The big difference between the business of advertising and the advertising business is that the former is dynamic, changing and has evolved in recent years, while the latter hasn't," said Paul Gardner, chairman of ad agency Grey Worldwide.

"What the ad industry needs to do is get back an identity and reassert itself in a changing dynamic without trying to hold on to what has been lost."

At the same time, direct mail, online and mobile-phone marketing, public relations and other marketing has continued to grow, reducing ad agencies' revenue.

"Remuneration has changed dramatically since the old commission days," said Lionel Hunt, chairman and executive creative director of Lowe Hunt. "That has put agencies under enormous pressure.

"At the same time, clients have diversified their marketing budgets. They are not so obsessed with traditional media advertising."

Many agencies have responded to the less advertising-centric environment by moving into new areas.

John Singleton's STW Communications Group, which spans more than 60 marketing-services firms, generates 31 per cent of its net profit from non-advertising work, up from 24 per cent in December 2001. STW chief executive Russell Tate said that proportion would continue to rise.

But for many agencies, leaping into direct mail or public relations has been a financial disaster. Worse, it has failed to stop marketers from ignoring ad agencies' "one-stop shopping" business models and hiring specialist companies to handle specialised marketing tasks.

Large agencies face other problems: clients continue to turn to consultants for strategic marketing advice and rivals such as production companies and, in some cases, media companies are stealing work.

A larger question is why aren't these "one-stop shopping" models working? Is it pay rates? Is it resources? Is it a lack of "getting it"? At one time, this idea was huge. Now it seems that everyone is all over the place, with media, planning, etc all going to consultants and niched shops. And even on the creative level, it seems there's been a surgence of clients going to "hot shops" for projects rather than having their agency of record handle the project. What does it all mean? Are the agencies missing something besides profits?

And, I suppose, another question would be "would self-promotion make an iota of difference to this issue"? Unless ad agencies start talking numbers, I can't see their self-promotion doing them any good. Besides, don't most agencies use case-studies when pitching for an account? Isn't that the same sort of thing?

In a sort of related article, James Strong, chairman of Woolworths and Insurance Australia Group, feels that CEOs have let their role as chief brand manager slide. Because of lack of involvement in their coroproate marketing and advertising strategies, they are missing out on opportunities.

Australian companies "lacked flair" and had become "too rational" with their advertising campaigns and broader marketing communications, Strong told the Herald.

"Chief executives are not really involved in advertising the way they used to be," he says. "Everyone is pushed to believe it's more about the big strategic moves and advertising is almost an adjunct.

"Communications is one of the most important and creative things you do - I've always found it interesting and fundamental to what a business is doing to be involved in advertising."

Strong's comments come as debate rages globally about the extent to which marketing has lost power within organisations because of the complexities in measuring return on investment. The difficulties arise from isolating the influence of advertising on revenue and profitability from other activities such as pricing, product quality and distribution.

Strong says chief executives are "being told" to sideline advertising, though he is not convinced they believe it should be.

"You're supposed to get all the fundamental things right, which is true - but what a wonderful opportunity to talk about who you are and how you are doing, and to reflect some flair in your advertising," he says. "[Advertising] has become more analytical and literal these days. It really says something about them [chief executives] and who they are."

Which is funny because a good half or so of advertising isn't quite so analyitcal. Creating concepts for campaigns, design, even creative briefs shouldn't be so scientific that they follow some specific format. It's like asking for a chart of how to create an ad, so you can go through and make sure you've ticked each item off the list. Certain aspects of advertising are not linear, and to expect that it would be is just proof that someone isn't "getting it".

Of course, there's always talk about what people are doing or aren't doing in advertising. And if the clients are to blame, the agencies, or whoever. Will we ever get it perfect? Doubtful. But we can keep trying.

Saturday, November 20, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Kids as spokespeople ]

+ Teen recruits create word-of-mouth "buzz" to get peers hooked on new products. A worthwhile read. Discusses companies use of "teen influencers" and how they get them to spread the word about a product. Here's a bit from the article:

The Girl's Intelligence Agency, which provides boxes of promotional materials to organized slumber parties, promises that its girl agents are "dedicated to spreading the word on GIA-endorsed projects."

However, "we've also had clients suffer," said president Laura Groppe. "Word of mouth is word of mouth. It is its own power. We can say, 'Here is this movie, check it out,' but if they go and don't like it, believe me, they're text messaging their friends when they walk out of the theater and it can kill a movie.

"We have absolutely no control over who she tells or what she tells them. It's up to them if something has legs or not."

Likewise, "companies really have to stand for something teens care about," Boyd said. "Teens can spot fake from a mile away. Then word of mouth acts to the company's detriment."

If teens "find out later that someone recommended a product because they were getting paid, we'd think less not just of the product but the whole company," warned Jake Ferrigno, 18, an advanced marketing student at Lake Washington High School. "And maybe less of the person too. It's not good business ethics. It undermines the relationship between people."

To up their chances for positive chatter, marketers try to make teens feel special and personally attached to a product.

Thursday, November 18, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Persuaders, Part II ]

+ I had hoped to post part II sooner than today (part I is here, but life and work has gotten in the way. So here's a more indepth bit on topics raised from The Persuaders.

Let's start with a quick overview of the players in this advertising montouge. We're lead through this discussion by Douglas Rushkoff, media analyst and Frontline correspondent. Experts and commentators include Douglas Atkin - a partner and chief strategy officer at advertising agency Merkley + Partners, who talks about "cult brands", Bob Garfield- author of "Ad Review" column for Ad Age magazine, an essayist, critic, and broadcaster, feels that we can't be persuaded to buy or do anything we normally wouldn't, Naomi Klein- author of the book No Logo and journalist, Frank Luntz- a corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant to Republicans, Luntz's specialty is testing language and finding words, Mark Crispin Miller- cultural and media critic and a professor of communication and culture at New York University, Clotaire Rapaille - market researcher who believes there is a "code" for what products really mean to consumers, Kevin Roberts - CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi Worldwide, who talks about Lovemarks, and Peter Swire - professor of law at Ohio State University and an expert on Internet policy.

Branding and emotion
The show begins with a claim that "advertising wants to become our atmosphere", which I will agree is true. Why would you want to be considered a distraction, annoyance or other non-positive thing? You wouldn't. So the desire to become a part of our culture is no so shocking. Although another quote from the show states "Once culture becomes entirely advertising friendly, ceases to be a culture." Is that true? Can a culture ever become entirely advertising friendly? There are always going to be advertisements that people find intrusive, so I don't know that this is something anyone has to worry about.

During the show, they followed along with some of the advertising that Song was creating. From the beginning, they wanted to become culture- "we're not an airline, we are a culture." They even had people claiming "I'm so Song." It seems to be to force "Song" as a adjective on to people in an introduction campaign is a bit much. Although people did react to the advertising campaign which made no references to flying. They liked the ads but had no idea what Song was. How is that effective advertising? How can you get people to fly with your airline if they don't know that you are in fact an airline? The ambiguity of the campaign was shown by the man who they brought in to create the commercial with this little bit that escaped his lips during a meeting they filmed for the program, "This thing is about these things." I'm sorry, what? Song even opened up a concept store at the Prudential Center in Boston. Why a concept store? What do you get from going into a store that really isn't selling anything? I actually forgot that I had seen the store in the mall the last time I was there. They were having some opening party or some kind of shin-dig going on. But, beyond all the hype, what do people really care about when it comes to flying? Service, reliability, and price. They didn't touch on any of these things in their advertising. And I can see why leaving price alone would be an OK thing. Everyone is screaming price. But instead of making me feel fuzzy about your airline (which is also what United and American are doing), tell me that your customer service is heads above the other guys. That you will do what you can to make my travel as hassle-free as possible. Not just showing some people dancing around in a field. Companies and ad agencies need to stop talking to themselves and start talking to the consumers.

This change of pitches aimed at the heart vs aimed at the head has really gathered speed in the recent 10 years or so. Roberts talked about old ads using "-er" words like bigger, better, and stronger that tied into tangable concepts. But since you can say that about any brand of soap or paper towels, there's been a leap to what the products or brands stand for. They attempt to create emotional and spiritual bonds to consumers. As mentioned in the program, companies want to see their "brands as ready-made identities." Tide isn't about cleaning clothes anymore it's about being an enabler. The emotional pull people try to create in ads, doesn't always work. Garfield said that the "majority who try to use emotion fail". And he's right. Especially the majority who try to use humor. But can you make what Roberts calls "loyalty beyond reason" or do people have to create that for themselves? You can't force the public to become loyal to your brand, they have to find the thing in it that speaks to them, makes them love it- be it effectiveness or the company's ethics (like being against animal testing). People aren't going to be devoted to a product that is ineffective- it's that simple.

The next thing that the program talks about is ads in programming and integrating it so that the brand becomes the hero. Integrated Entertainment Partners looks to make matches with products and shows- like Absolut and Sex in the City. But this blur beteween advertising and content- has it gone to far? What's the threshold consumers will accept before rebelling against it? The whole motive of TV is now about selling. It's about selling advertising space - not about the programming. FUX is obvious about that with the way they air their programming. During the World Series they didn't return to the game when they should have because they wanted to run another commercial- and this wasn't a one time thing- it happened quite frequently. And fitting products into shows quite often is not seamless integration as they would like, but a more discordant product placement that is usually quite obvious. But then again, maybe they want it to be obvious. If you don't realize that The Donald is buying his apprentices lunch with his MasterCard, what's the point of putting it in the show?

Research
And all of this brings about trying to get the inside scoop on consumers. During the program they showed a man who was conducting marketing research and interviewing a guy about bread. He asked one of the most stupid questions. "When eatting white bread do you feel lonely?" What kind of marketing insight was that question going to give them? The reaction of the interviewee was fantastic as was his question if there were a lot of people who felt lonely while eatting white bread. If this marketing research is supposed to be helping you find out more about your product and how consumers feel about it, you shouldn't ask stupid questions that are random and mean nothing. Because the result is random, meaningless answers that don't help you to find out more about anything, except maybe to prove that you're a moron.

The show discussed how everyone now wants to get inside and find out what you feel not what or how you think. It's all about discovering the emotional context in which you view the world, because there are "disconnects between real reasons why people do what the do and the reasons they think they do what they do." Rapaille discussed unconscious assocations when learning words and unlocking the code behind all this. But can there really be a single code behind why people do things? Apparently some people think so becuase they give him a lot of money to research this sort of thing- and not surprisingly the code for SUV is domination.

In continuing on their consumer research part of the show, they interviewed Luntz who finds out what words resonate with conumsers in either a positive or negative sense and attempts to find the same words that people on opposing sides both like. His new phrases obscure the issues wtih politics- Death Tax vs. Estate Tax, War with Iraq vs. War on Terror, Tax Relief vs. Tax Cuts, Climate Change vs. Global Warming and most likely now Sears/KMart- head count changes instead of layoffs, job cuts, or terminations (although I have no idea if he is behind this, it definitely has a ring of his "magic" to it). He claims that these phrases don't "obstificate" the issues but clarify them and passes the buck by stating that "it's up to the practioners to use it for good".

The last segment talked about viseral appeal vs. facts and segmenting everyone into groups. But by segmenting everyone into groups, what is the result? You never have to hear about a different view than your own. You are kept in ignorance about other facts and the other side of the arguement. The demonstation was a political campaign to reach out on a one to one basis by finding out what information the person cared about and showing them a short ad on a PalmPilot.

Conclusion:
Overall, the program showed some of the very negative aspects of advertising. It didn't touch much on the positive side of things- like introducing new, useful products to consumers or that it is a key point in the economy. Although I did learn that there is absolutely no regulation on political advertising (which I mentioned in Part I). There are some things that the advertising business does need to improve upon, and there are some things that I think are going in the right direction. But, I feel that this program was definitely more aimed at the general public, which means that some things were simplified, and some things omitted. Klein talked about advertising trying get us to fill emotional voids in our lives with products. That kind of thinking is so trite and outdated. There's always going to be a need for toothpaste, detergent, clothing, and food. To say that consumers are so stupid that they think Tide will make their lives better because it proves they care about their family is a dangerous path to head down. And there are marketers who do still use this to try to get people to buy things. But we're heading into a new era where people are becoming more intelligent about the messages transmitted to them. Sure, there are still some people who think like sheep, but there is a movement towards independent thought when it comes to these kinds of messages. And to continue to send them out will be at their own risk.

[ :: adgruntie :: Ad news from around the globe ]

+ The face for Lentheric's new fragrance is animated. Rather than attempting to find the right celeb, Bester Burke went for an animated woman.

Hoity Toity girl, named after the fragrance, and created by local artist Riccardo Capecchi. She’s French-inspired, flirtatious, feminine, somewhat posh and irresistibly playful – and she’s a cartoon.
“We decided on an animated television ad so that we can stand out from the rest. We wanted to try something totally unconventional and fresh for fragrance advertising,” says Lentheric marketing manager Justine Worrall.
She adds that using animation made it that much easier to ‘find’ the perfect character to reflect the fun-loving, feisty, swish personality of the fragrance.

The ad breaks in South Africa this weekend and they hope to eventually send it international.

+ 'Miriam' advert found offensive in New Zealand. "A Tui beer advertising billboard proclaiming "There's nothing wrong with Miriam - Yeah Right" is seriously offensive, ridicules transgendered people and contradicts basic human rights, the Advertising Standards Complaints Board says." The complaint was upheld.

+ Kate Stanners takes new role as the executive creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi. "In her new role, Ms Stanners will head a creative team of 20 and report to Saatchi & Saatchi UK chief executive Lee Daley, who has made a number of management changes since joining the agency four weeks ago."

+ Lynx brand owner's former chairman Niall Fitzgerald admits that the success of the marketing campaign for Lynx deodorant is based on appealing to men's desire to attract women.

+ Director Jonathan Glazer and Campbell Doyle Dye founder Walter Campbell are leading an effort by the advertising industry to support Sir Bob Geldof's Band Aid 20 appeal.

Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO's executive creative director, Peter Souter, Nick Bell, the creative head at J Walter Thompson, and TBWA\London's chairman and creative director, Trevor Beattie, are among the industry names to have pledged their support.
The team, which is calling itself Ad Aid, is working on a commercial to drive sales of the original 1984 Live Aid concert on DVD, along with the recently re-recorded Band Aid.
Ad Aid hopes to use footage shot by Geldof in Somalia for the television campaign and is approaching clients to dedicate free airtime.

+ The making of the mini film for Chanel No. 5.
Monday, November 15, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Too funny ]

+ Gareth Kay, a planner over at Modernista! (newly added to the links over on the right), has some scary and funny dirt on Donny Deutsch.

But the reason for posting this today is my friend has just discovered this picture of a commemorative plate that Donny had made for himself. Quite possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen - and it's a real thing, not a photoshop joke. It's also pretty scary seeing he is the public face of US advertising.

Click on the link above to go see the plate. It's just too much!

[ :: adgruntie :: Monday morning roundup ]

+ From AdLand: "Glenfiddich has a new campaign running in the US featuring an imaginary man named "Brock Savage". Who is this man of mystery? And more importantly why should we care who he is?" Go read more- there's pretty pictures there too.

+ Are there too many advertising agencies? Mark Wnek says no. "Actually, the advertising market is, as ever, massively undersupplied ... by good agencies."

+ Style wins over value when it comes to choosing a credit card in the UK.

Around 16% admitted that they opted for their card based on the brand’s image, 15% because of its attractive or ‘stylish’ design and 14% for its advertising and marketing hype, the survey by the uSwitch.com website found.

And 15% of 18-24 year olds picked their credit card simply because they perceived it to be a ‘status symbol’.

This is compared to only 10% of consumers who chose their credit card because it had a low APR and fewer still (8%) whose decision was based on the fact that their card had the longest 0% introductory period.

+ Chicken Jerk and Alien Bees from the NY Post takes a look at viral online advertising.

Whether it's chicken tenders or cars, that's the dilemma for marketers everywhere: trying out "viral" campaigns — hands-on advertising that is meant to spread via word of mouth or be forwarded in e-mails.

With companies desperate to cut through a cluttered ad landscape, more are jumping on the "buzz" bandwagon.

In the race to come up with cutting-edge ideas, there is growing concern that these campaigns are becoming too weird, deceptive and confusing.

"This is where I find a lot of the disconnect," said Dave Balter of the ad agency BzzAgent. "Often, there is a big disconnect between the brand and the spot, and it loses effectiveness."

YES! Just like in any advertising campaign, you need to keep the message relavent to the message, brand, and consumer. Those who do weird for the sake of weird are not going to be a successful as those who integrate the weird into the message or some how relate it to the overall brand. (hat tip to Clay.)
Thursday, November 11, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Slogans and ad theft? ]

+ This article, "Super ad slogans, and super costs," takes a look at ad slogans. The overall gist of the piece is "keep it sweet and simple." Loads of great points are brought up, such as if you make your tagline/strapline/slogan obtuse and convoluded, you're just going to confuse the consumer. It happens all the time too- a slogan is embraced by the ad agency and company with everyone patting each other on the backs, and yet it really says nothing about them, their philosophies or have any meaning to the consumer. Which leaves them confused and more than ready to ignore your message. Everyone needs to constantly remember that consumers are the target. Not the employees. Not your stock holders. Tailor the message to them in plain simple words that actually have some kind of meaning or at least say something.

+ An ad pal over at texturl shares his thoughts on the new Eight O'Clock coffee campaign by Kaplan Thaler. But there's a twist too. A year and a half ago, spec work was created by him for this brand and now the new tagline being used by the company is the exact same one that he created. Not only that but the campaign concept is similar as well to the campaigns he created- except, as he points out- they don't deliver the same way his work does. Is this a case of thievery? Or just a case of brain sync? Either way, it's a case of a watered down, non-threatening concept- which isn't going to help them surprass Starbucks the way they'd like.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: This makes me ill ]

+ Someone on the email adlist I belong to notified me of a horrible site today. Seems like there's lots of stuff to get me riled today. Apparently Marketing Drive feels that it's necessary to eliminate work from copywriters. Heck, who knew someone would find a way that would be cheaper than outsourcing? It sickens me that people would 1) take work away from someone, 2) actually think that a program can come up with smart, engaging, on target headlines, and 3) openly prove that there is no respect anymore for professionals.

The site (which I refuse to link to- copy and paste www.creatingheadlines.com into a new browser if you want to see it) is a bland boring typical archetype of a corporate site from 1990. The god awful highlighting of words is sickening, along with the terrible prose they use to try to persuade you to get this piece of crap program. And, this program is only avaliable for PC users...which definitely says something. If you are using a Mac, you know better. You probably also understand the value you get by hiring a professional to craft headlines that will set you apart from the rest of your competitors. In the business world (and in life) you get what you pay for. Copywriters who charge a high hourly rate more often than not are very experienced and know what the hell they are doing. They are crafters of the language who painstakingly put words together to create unique concepts that connect to the people viewing the ad. Their ability to craft lines more interesting than "how to increase profits" is what makes them worth what their rate is. Not only that, but, using such a program almost guarantees that your headline will not stand out amongst the clutter of headlines out there and that it will be very similar to anyone else's that purchases and uses this dreck.

It's bad enough that the marketing and advertising world has turned to outsourcing the work to countries where they will work long hours and for cheaper rates - but now those people are going to have to find another or cheaper way to create copy to compete. It's one sure fire way to destroy lots of lives, our world economy, and the value of good advertising.

This lack of respect for the art of advertising is depressing. And by art I'm not talking about fine art or anything like that. I'm talking about advertising as a craft. Similar to furniture making, potters, and chefs, the creatives in the world of advertising are craftspeople. There is an art to creating an effective, compelling, engaging, entertaining advertisement. It's not just throwing a bunch of words or images together to make some hodgepodge of a mess. It's not about looking in a thesaurus for another way to say "fantastic". For example, they recommend ending each headline with a "." "!" or "?"....um, headlines don't have to have punctuation to be powerful. The words, the emotions, and the connetion to the person reading it is the most powerful part of a headline, not the punctuation. Exclamation marks are so over used in headlines, that they blend into the clutter! It also makes you look like a fool!

This is the kind of thing that really gets under my skin. I have to say that the lack of respect for professionals in advertising is absolutely disgraceful. This program is like instead of going to a doctor or lawyer, you punch in some stuff and cure yourself or defend yourself. I've ranted about this before, but it's something I think is very important. There's a reason why there are professionals out there who specialize in this kind of thing. There's a reason why you go to a doctor when you're not feeling well, or a lawyer when you're getting sued. It's the same reason companies go to advertising agencies or hire freelancers to help them with their concepts, branding, and headlines.

[ :: adgruntie :: Persuaders, Part I ]

+ Last night, PBS show Frontline aired The Persuaders. It's an hour and a half long show that takes a look at advertising and marketing. I've decided I'm going to do some commentary on the program and issues it raised, as it was interesting and provoking. Here's Part I:
One of the most poignant things that grabbed me during what I was viewing last night was the discussion of political advertising. The sleezy way in which "global warming" becomes "climate change", the "war with Iraq" becomes "war on terror" (even though there's no connection between the two). The feeling that it's OK to lie to the public. It's funny how corporate advertising has all kinds of standards to live up to while political advertising can legally lie as much as it wants to without any kind of repercussions. Where's the protection of the public where it really counts? Why are people screaming about morality issues, and letting this stuff slide? Sure, it's bad if a company says that its product will remove grass stains and can't. But it's even worse when the leaders and hopeful leaders of our communities and country blatently lie and are allowed to do so. And it's even sadder when we reelect them into office.
If you're interested in watching the show, it is reairing a couple times this week in PBS stations (look for Frontline on your local pbs web site for more info) and on Friday you'll be able to view the entire program on the web.

[ :: adgruntie :: web attack tactics ]

+ Update on the ASABAILEY stunt. Apparently, ASABAILEY, whose web site redirects to viraladvertisingagency.com didn't follow their own rules by not also purchasing the domain viraladagency.com, leaving themselves wide open for a pot shot back at them.
Monday, November 08, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Language ad and WK music ]

+ A fun little ad for Inlingua language schools. Found via Viewropa.com.

+ Weiden+Kennedy, London, is the advertising agency behind the television and radio campaign promoting Honda's new diesel engine featuring the tune 'Can hate be good? Can hate be something we don't hate?' featuring American author Garrison Keillor. The agency is figuring out what to do with the popularity of the tune and might possibly turn it into a record.

The quirky tune was composed for fun by one of the agency's own 'creatives', Michael Russoff, and the company's copyright agreement with him stipulates it can only be used to further the interests of its client, Honda.

Berry says that Honda has been inundated with questions about it. The ad agency has also received wide ranging responses, including a phone call from a drug rehabilitation centre which wanted to use the song's positive philosophy in therapy sessions. It has also been the subject of a spoof by DJ Christian O'Connell on the London radio station XFM.

Saturday, November 06, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: yah ]

+ Appologising to the world about the election.

+ Clay tipped me off to the fact that Burger King's Chicken Fight that aired on DirecTV is now online- all 11 minutes and 45 seconds of it.

[ :: site stuff :: Trackbacking ]

+ Cup of Java is bringing itself up to current blogging standards (with my help of course, it would be somewhat scary if the blog was able to do that on it's own). Now you can Trackback to any post you like! Enjoy!

[ :: adgruntie :: TBWA Lisbon ]

+ Go take a look at Adland's Spotlight On series featuringTBWA Lisbon. Adland calls them the "Blogging Agency" because of their great blog at TBWA.pt. They are the first agency to showcase their work in this new AdLand series. Check out the interview with Leandro Alvarez , the Creative Director and some of his collegues as well as some of their great press work.

[ :: adgruntie :: Absolutely Brilliant ]

+ The folks over at ASABAILEY gave me a heads up on their fantastic pot shot at O&M London with www.ogilvymather.co.uk. There's also a fantastic post about it over at Adland. "The viral advertising agency ASABAILEY has placed a well-aimed left hook on the chin of O&M, by scooping up http://www.ogilvymather.co.uk for £4.95." Total brilliance guys!
Friday, November 05, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Toodles to Mr. Wendy ]

+ Wendy's drops "Mr. Wendy- Unofficial Spokesman" campaign. HURRAH!!!! I am so glad. I hated this campaign. Adage reports "Facing declining sales and robust competition, and widespread criticism over the campaign featuring the hapless burger evangelist, Wendy's today said the chain would end its Mr. Wendy campaign at the end of the month." It's only been running for 8 months, but it feels like a lot longer. Hopefully McCann Erickson, NY will come up with something better. I'm sure Dave Thomas is happy about this wherever he is. :)
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
[ :: adgrunite :: Election day ]

Before I get on with news bits, I just want to remind those who are from the US who stop by here to remember to go vote today.
Ok, enough of that, on with the ad blather!

+ An poster advert in Peterborough, England for a pizza joint is causing complaint. There are claims that the ad is too distracting to drivers-causing them to look at the ad and not at the road. But the funny thing is that the woman in the ad isn't scantily clad or anything. Click on the link to go to the article and see the image.

+ From the Times Online, an article on women stereotypes in business and the workplace. Discusses how to be more empowered. Some good ideas-like FU money savings.

+ Spiced-ham maker Hormel has announced a massive UK advertising campaign attempting to revive the cache of it's name from associations with unsolicited email.

"For the first time ever Hormel will begin advertising on UK television screens next week with a campaign that cost £2m, according to a report on the BBC. The adverts will feature an array of 'typical' British characters - including builders, campers and pantomime performers - all enjoying spam. According to Hormel the UK consumes around £13.3m worth of spam each year.

But in recent years Hormel has become increasingly tetchy about the use of the word 'spam' to describe one of modern society's worst tech-menaces."

Honestly, does anyone confuse Spam-in-a-can with spam emails? I highly doubt that this is really anything for Hormel to worry about.

+ Raising the standard of South African creativity.

Velocity is also throwing in a free trip to Cannes 2006 for the scriptwriter, if the end product actually does bag us a Lion.
But, says Velocity’s executive producer Peter Carr, it’s not really about the Lion.
“Sure, if we actually won a Lion with this competition, that would be the cherry on top, but we’re not after an award. What we really want to achieve with Cannes Do is to raise the standard of creative thought in South Africa generally, and through that, raise the country’s creative profile. When we’re up there, when our profile is high, then the advertising industry thinks about coming here to shoot commercials. It creates employment, it’s good for the economy, and that benefits everyone.”

The competition is open to all South African copywriters, art directors and creative directors. All simple, single-minded script concepts qualify, but entrants should bear in mind that the production budget is set at R350 000. They also need to bear in mind, stresses Carr, that client involvement is paramount – “We don’t want a scam ad, we’re not interested in creativity for the sake of creativity. It must be an ad that flights, that the client is proud of, and that works.”

Deadline for entering scripts is Nov. 15. Definitely an interesting idea. And it's nice to see that they do not want to produce scam ads.

+ Catchy ad tunes. There's a large group of people who surf the net looking to find out about the music in ads. Sites like Adtunes and even Adland (in the forums section) are full of information about the bands/singers and song titles.

In 2002, the group's mellow dance track, "Days Go By," became a hit and won a Grammy for Best Dance Recording after it was featured in a spot for the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse. In the ad, a young woman with a rubbery spine pops some dance moves with her upper body. But did it help sell cars? Not so much, according to Ian Beavis, Mitsubishi Motors North America's senior vice president for marketing, product planning and public relations.

Beavis, who joined Mitsubishi after the Eclipse ad was produced, said the spot - and others like it - did a great job of creating a feeling within the viewer, but did little to convey anything about the car or any of the deals Mitsubishi was offering.

"I get concerned when the music is the only message," Beavis said. "That's fine if you are MTV. It doesn't work if you are trying to sell a $25,000 car."

What is remarkable is that the spot was able to drive Dirty Vegas' success, even though there was no credit for the band, the song or the album. The concept is referred to as "viral advertising."

"It catches like a cold - it's as easy as that," said Marcia Christ, who worked as a creative director with industry giant Ogilvy & Mather and now teaches advertising theory at Marist College. "One person hears it. The next person sneezes it. And before you know it, that is the next thing everybody is listening to."

So it seems like music in ads may not be as good for the product as it is for the artist(s). Thing is, music is a very powerful piece of the ad equation- especially on TV. It's all about finding the right music that reflects the idea and helps push it further along.

+ Controversial campaign for The Number won the gold award at the effectiveness awards run by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. The campaign was created by WCRS. "Top prize of the night went to a new advertising agency, Vallance Carruthers Coleman Priest, which beat dozens of more established rivals to the grand prix. VCCP won the award for turning the old BT CellNet mobile phone network into O2, which outperformed its rivals." You can check out the full list of winners here.
Monday, November 01, 2004
[ :: adgruntie :: Mindless ramblings ]

+ New system makes it easier to complain. "UK regulators are bracing for an increase in complaints about advertisements thought to be misleading or offensive because of a new system they say makes it easier for consumers to submit such objections. The self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority has created a single repository for all complaints about adverts, taking over the ones concerning broadcast outlets from media regulator Ofcom. "More than 5,500 people have approached the ASA already this year wanting to object to a TV or radio commercial," the group's Director General Christopher Graham said. "Up until now we've had to turn them away.""

+ Rance Crain at Adage.com writes a blurb on "The Growing Impact of Consumers' Web Publishing." Funny how this "news" stuff comes around in spurts. Here's a bit from the article:

What's clear is that advertising no longer has the luxury of being a one-way monologue. Consumers, much like voters, have the ability to not only absorb advertiser messages, but to change other consumers' minds about the message content and the product itself.

So marketers must now be ready to change their communications based on consumers' own feedback. Political ads have long adapted to what their polls show voters are most concerned about, and now consumers have the same opportunity -- only consumers, through their blogs, are polling themselves.

I'm fasinated by this. Before weblogs/blogs/etc, this same sort of thing happened, yet it was only via word of mouth- friends talking to friends, co-workers gabbering away by the watercooler, etc. Now because of the fact that anyone, anywhere can access this information (as long as they have a computer and internet access), it is creating a platform where information about products and companies is global. Consumers from Japan can find out about a UK company trying to sell their product - which in a way does break down the regionalization of marketing those products- allowing for advertiser messages to be absorbed in a broader sense. This also leads to marketers being more accountable because of the way in which people are now delving more into the background of messages they are being fed, like the iPod battery issue discussed in the article. Making companies more accountable for their products is not a bad thing. Consumers speaking out and not being drones to what is fed to them are key points in keeping companies on their toes. Plus, what better way to improve or sustain your brand/company image with the public than to listen to what your consumers have to say and actively act upon it.