For my last post, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss an advertising medium which is rich, robust, and instantly adaptive to change. This medium is a lot like you. In fact, it IS you.
Companies such as Under Armour, Adidas, Puma and others have ingeniously persuaded their consumers to wear shirts, shorts, hats, socks, bags and other apparel that spreads brand awareness. In postmodern society, many people define themselves and those around them by the images the consume. Wearing a Puma bag, for example, may be an attempt to tell the world "I play soccer. It's a part of who I am".
By convincing their consumers to express themselves in this way, firms can actually make money on their advertising. This strategy also allows the firms' message to penetrate areas where traditional advertising could never go. A woman in a shirt or a man wearing a hat can go into places where TV, radio, and the internet cannot reach.
Labeling their products in this way allows firms to double down on their apparel sales. They earn both the sales revenue from the initial purchase and the additional brand awareness achieved by widespread visibility of their logo and brand name.
Register tape advertising, such as the type featured in the image above, may be the most under-appreciated medium in all of marketing communications.
Firms such as Register Tape Unlimited, Inc. pull together advertisements from a variety of companies, bundle them, and pay grocery stores, pharmacies, and other retailers for space on their register tape. The idea is simple: "Everyone buys groceries. Advertising on register tape guarantees that your message will be seen by a steady stream of eyes every day."
This sentiment sounds good on paper, but the reality of the matter is that consumers rarely notice such advertisements. I will be honest, I only looked at the ads on my receipt from Pick 'N Save today because I thought it would be a good topic to cover for this blog.
So do these ads work? With no empirical evidence to reference, it is hard for me to make a convincing case that they do not. However, intuitively, the ads do not seem like they would work in the Information Age. Many consumers now pay with debit cards, eliminating the need for paper receipts to track expenses. Many shoppers throw their crumple up their receipts and throw them away without even glancing twice at them.
As I said, I have very little empirical evidence to support my claims. I'd love to hear your comments, using the discussion posts as a small focus group. Do you ever look at register tape ads?
In a capitalist society, all industries contain several competitors who, in theory, fight for consumers' dollars, thereby driving down the market price. This is the essence of perfect competition, and it explains the success of low-price leaders such as Wal-Mart, Payless, McDonald's, and many others.
In several industries, smart firms with large market share have realized the mutually damaging effects of the price wars that are characteristic of the retail and fast food industries. This is especially true of the mid-quality beer industry.
As recently as five years ago, Budweiser and Miller combined to hold a majority share of the light beer market in the United States. They aired ads such as this one which directly compared their products to their competitors'.
However, both firms soon changed their advertising philosophies. They learned that directly competing only allowed smaller competitors such as Keystone and Natty Light to eat up market share. By using ads which promote their own brands without hurting their competitors', Budweiser and Miller hope to grow the beer category while still maintaining their strong market positions.
Over the last several years, Miller and Bud ads have moved away from direct comparison. Instead, they attempt to create memorable scenarios which will prompt water-cooler conversations, and eventually sales. A few of the best new Bud ads are shown below. Note the conspicuous lack of direct comparison in the ads.
Celebrity endorsements are as American as Apple Pie, Chevrolet, and credit card debt.
But are they effective? In recent posts, I've discussed firms' desire to humanize their brands in the hopes of forging an emotional bond with consumers. The message for the brands mentioned in my earlier post about anonymous spokespeople is something like "If our brand was a person, this is what he/she would be like."
For firms that use celebrity endorsers, however, the message is a little different. It reads more like "If Dwayne Wade were a drink, he would be Gatorade".
This is a potent message, but also a dangerous one. Firms which lean too heavily on their celebrity spokespeople expose themselves to factors beyond the firm's control, such as criminal activity, immoral conduct, poor performance and other events which damage the celebrity's, and therefore the brand's, public image . While paid actors can be controlled, the firm has very little power over its celebrity endorsers.
The stories of Michael Vick, TigerWoods, and many others should serve as cautionary tales to potential celebrity-seeking brand managers.
Even once brand managers have managed to see past the inherent risks in celebrity endorsement, another hurdle remains: the cost. Some endorsers, such as Tiger Woods, command 7- or 8-figure salaries. This is an enormous sum, even for companies like Nike and Gatorade.
At the end of the day, it is important for brand managers to realize that celebrity endorsers are not a cure-all for stagnant sales. They come with a set of costs and risks which must be carefully weighed against their potential benefits.
Want to see what a bad celebrity spokesman looks like? Please enjoy the example below.
All music fans have probably watched a music video on YouTube before. In fact, most music fans have seen hundreds or even thousands of them.
The wide availability of music, video, images and more is one of the most fascinating characteristics of the information age. As YouTube has grown exponentially since its launch in 2005, content providers have struggled to find ways to monetize the service.
In response to this challenge, Sony Music Group, Universal Music Group and Abu Dhabi Media launched VEVO in 2009. The premise is simple: by pooling together the biggest names in commercial music, and giving VEVO exclusive rights to those artists' videos, they could attract huge advertising dollars to the online music video industry.
VEVO, whose videos can be viewed both on its own site and through YouTube, uses two advertisements. The majority of its ad revenue comes from 15-30 second gatekeeper ads which a viewer must watch before proceeding to their content. These ads are typically used only for recent or very popular videos. Many consumers have reacted negatively to the ads, and a number of online forums offer quasi-legal methods to circumvent them.
The second type of ads, which are full less obstructive but no less annoying, are the standard pop-up ads. These display at the bottom of the video pane, and disappear after 15 seconds.
The VEVO ad debate goes beyond VEVO or even video content itself. At a time when technology is advanced at a faster rate than any time in human history, how will advertisers handle the trade-off between market coverage and consumer tolerance for messages? I think that ultimately, this battle will be decided in the world of smartphones. Smartphones offer companies unrivaled access to billions of eyeballs, but also bring their messages closer to consumers personal space than ever before.
Across the country, marketers in firms of all sizes are turning to street art to convey their value proposition to consumers. Last week, I noticed one of the most interesting pieces of street art I had ever seen, right here in Milwaukee!.
The video shown below depicts Janet Zweig's "Pedestrian Drama", which can be found on East Wisconsin Avenue about a block from the lake. The small kiosks, which adorn 5 lightposts, show several short plays on flip-cards.
While not used for commercial purposes in this particular exhibit, I believe that the medium has serious brand-promotion potential. Can you imagine flip-cards of the Geico gecko riding a motorcycle around the pole? Or several scenes of parkour artists doing tricks while wearing Red Bull gear? This medium is a low-cost way to create a lot of buzz about a brand.
This post can be thought of as the climax of my three-part series the humanization of brands. No ad, after all, could be more human than the one above.
The nuanced and entertaining practice of street advertising has been a part of the American business environment for over a century. The concept is simple: advertising that speaks and breathes can reach customers directly and in a manner specifically tailored to them.
While print and digital advertising contains messages designed for broad market segments, human street ads can adjust their message instantly as the target customer changes.
For example, the Little Caesar's brand rep above can say "good afternoon, ma'am" to a passing young lady, give a passing group of a high school kids enthusiastic high-fives, and tell a man carrying a Burger King bag that he could have received a better deal, and a better meal, at Little Caesar's.
While these ads do run the risk of being perceived as gimmicky, they work on a small scale. They show that the sponsoring firm is fun and friendly. Well, ok, except for this one for the Amsterdam Torture Museum.
Overall, live street ads help a business embed itself in the community. Consumers form an emotional bond with the goofy brand rep outside and the gooey pizza inside.
For small-market franchising with a tight budget, that news is cheesy and delicious.
In an earlier post, I talked about the positive impact of giving your brand a human face. In this post, I'd like to examine the way that the "Wasting Water is Weird" campaign has successfully personified its message.
The ad above, and otherslike it, depicts a sweaty character known as "Rip the Drip" who makes people uncomfortable while they waste water. The campaign resonated with me; I think of this sweaty creep every time I brush my teeth or wash dishes.
By connecting with people on a personal level, the campaign hopes to accomplish what previous campaigns failed to. Reducing wasteful water consumption is about forming good water-usage habits. Previous attempts to dissuade people from wasting water have been bland and easily forgettable. These campaigns were ignored, or at least soon forgotten, by much of the population.
I doubt, however, that anyone will be able to forget my buddy Rip any time soon.
In the world of mobile phones, LED screens, and increasing worldwide internet access, it is easy to overlook one of Marketing's first, and perhaps greatest, tools: packaging.
By devoting serious time and thought to the design of their product's packaging, firms can greatly increase the value of their brand. Distinctive packaging allows a firm to differentiate its offering from those of its competitors, and facilitates brand recognition. It's simple, brilliant, and effective.
Coca-Cola is a great example of this. Millions of consumers around the world can easily identify the above image as a bottle of Coke. Don't believe in the value of this association? Let's try a short experiment.
Draw a Pepsi bottle.
....
.....
No, it's ok. I'll wait.
....
....
Nothing? That's what I expected.
With its unfathomable distribution, Coke is most likely in the maturity stage of the product life cycle. In this stage, the goal of marketing and advertising is to remind consumers of the product. Coca-Cola's globally recognized logo allows the company to promote its namesake soft-drink without a disproportionate devotion of creative talent.
Coca-Cola's iconic logo has made it one of the best-recognized brands in the world. That is the sweet, refreshing truth.
The images above should not be new to Milwaukee residents. They adorn many of the city's bus stops, billboards, and street publications.
The campaign, which the City of Milwaukee Health Department rolled out in late 2011, aims to reverse a horrifying trend in the city: infant mortality rates that rival those of the world's poorest nations (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2011). Milwaukee's infant mortality rate for 2011 was 10.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, among the worst in the country.
One cause of SIDS (spontaneous infant death syndrome) is unsafe sleep. Children, especially those in the earliest stages of infancy, who sleep in the same bed as their parents or older siblings are vulnerable to being crushed or suffocated to death. The Milwaukee Health Department decided to target co-sleeping with its advertisements because it is, as mayor and gubernatorial hopeful Tom Barrett noted, "so preventable".
Within a few months of its launch, the campaign received national media attention. ABC News, the Huffington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News, and many more news agencies brought the Health Department's message to cities across the country. Understandably, many Americans were upset. Mothers around the country protested the demonization of a practice which was, in their minds, a legitimate and necessary part of raising a child.
Regardless of your opinion of the ads' content, it would be very difficult to say that the campaign was unsuccessful. Every mother and father in Milwaukee who saw the ads walked away with an unforgettable, terrifying image burned into their consciousness. The campaign certainly reached its target audience, and millions of mothers outside that narrow target, when national media outlets began to discuss it.
The oft-repeated cliche, "A picture speaks 1,000 words" is especially pertinent to PSA advertising. The harsh images above effectively convey both the message of the campaign and the gravity of the infant mortality crisis in this city.
Such advertising must be used very carefully, however. A continued pattern of harsh, graphic advertisements could eventually desensitize the audience, rendering future campaigns less effective.
Do you think this campaign will lower the infant mortality rate in Milwaukee? If not, what would you do differently? Comment below.
In 2007, Apple began airing a series of 30-second television ads that were perhaps its most underrated innovation. Several of these ads are featured above. The brief spots feature two actors who personify a Mac and a PC. The Mac character, played by Justin Long, has all the features that Apple wants its users to associate with its products: youthfulness, wit, and confidence. The PC character, played by John Hodgman, is boring, businesslike, and insecure.
This campaign was extremely effective in fostering an unrivaled degree of loyalty in Apple customers, and added tremendously to the brand's value as a whole.
It would be very difficult to argue that the Apple brand is not a Lovemark for consumers all over the world. Consumers connect with the brand on a deep emotional level, as evidenced by the fervor caused by each new product launch. Given its breathtaking lineup of innovative, high-quality products, it is no surprise that Apple is successful. The campaign featured above, however, has created the type of "loyalty beyond reason" which has allowed Apple to distance itself from competitors and become one of the most successful companies in human history.
By giving their products a face and personality, Apple has tapped into its consumers' desire for a company that they can see and hear and talk to. Instead of focusing on product attributes, this campaign urged users to fall in love with their computers.
While the "Hi, I'm a Mac" campaign was technically a marketing campaign for iMacs and MacBooks, the ads endeared millions of consumers to the entire brand. Soon after, Apple was able to use that brand equity as leverage in its wildly successful launch of the iPad 1. Droves of Apple fanatics, who were undeniably "loyal beyond reason", flocked to Apple stores around the world, clamoring for the product which many consider to be the crowning achievement of Steve Jobs' unbelievable career.
The impact of this campaign extended well beyond the walls of Apple's Cupertino, CA headquarters. Many companies operating in other "black box" industries, such as insurance and telecommunications, quickly launched their own ad campaigns aimed at creating emotional connections with consumers.
Of these companies, the most notable (and relevant to this discussion), was Microsoft. The first ad shown below is a part of the "I'm a PC" campaign, which was a direct response to Apple's "I'm a Mac" campaign. Although Microsoft's attempts to humanize its offering were encouraging, the company could not bring itself to completely abandon its roots. The "My Idea" campaign for Windows 7, which ran around the same time that the "I'm a PC" ads originally aired, were certainly friendlier that past Windows ads, but still focused on technical capabilities of the operating system.
Microsoft- "I'm a PC"
Microsoft (Windows 7)- "My Idea"
As I noted above, many other companies soon rolled out ads that personified their respective brands. A few examples include Verizon Wireless, Progressive, and AllState.
Overall, the move to this form of advertising suggests that firms have begun to accept the realities of the Attraction Economy, and are doing everything in their power to maintain a competitive advantage.
Just days before launching its $19 billion IPO, Facebook was hit with shocking news: auto giant General Motors would be pulling all Facebook advertising immediately [You can read the full story at Reuters]. As investors anxiously gathered capital for Facebook's impending launch, the move by GM led many analysts to question the Facebook's long-term viability. Facebook relies heavily on advertising, and could disappoint a lot of investors if the ripple effect of GM's exit is large enough.
The question remains: Is Facebook advertising effective?
Let's take a look at a few Facebook advertisements. The image below depicts several examples of Facebook sidebar advertisements.
Do these ads look appealing to you? In my mind, they all look like scams. In my opinion, this "scam effect" is what limits the value of Facebook sidebar advertising in its present form. Every firm, from Apple to Joe Schmo's Hardware Shack, receives an identical ad placement and configuration. Because every firm is granted an identical thumbnail-and-two-sentences format, consumers who briefly glance over ads fail to differentiate between them.
To put this principle in perspective, consider the following example. Imagine that you are paging through everyone's favorite street paper, The Onion. You flip to the back page, where you are hit with a barrage of advertisements for dive bars, fortune-telling hotlines, rummage sales and garage-rock concerts. You miss it on first glance, but upon closer inspection you notice that, nestled inside this circus-like collage of absurdity is an advertisement for the Capital Grille. The ad simply state's that on Friday night, the restaurant will be serving food prepared by world-famous chef Mario Batali. Despite its wonderful, authentic message, doesn't it seem like such an ad placed in such a setting fails to effectively convey its message?
The same effect is visible in Facebook advertising. The very first time users notice the sidebar advertisements, their interest is piqued. They read each one, hoping to find exciting offers perfectly tailored to their individual tastes. After 2 or 3 times, however, users soon realize that most of the ads on their screen are irrelevant, untrustworthy, or both. Soon, they subconsciously develop the habit of ignoring ALL the side ads and focusing solely on their profiles and time lines. This leads to low click-through volume and even lower sales per click, which may have ultimately led GM to retract its Facebook advertising investment.
So I ask you, fellow classmates and aspiring marketers. Is Facebook advertising and effective use of Advertising dollars?
I look forward to reading your comments and discussing this further.
Welcome to my blog for ADPR 1400, Principles of Advertising. I am excited to begin learning about the thought process that goes into the swirling mass of sights and sounds known as modern advertising. I am looking forward to explored the way that advertising and society simultaneously influence each other. I will do all that I can to keep this blog fresh and interesting.
For now, enjoy KRS-ONE and the homie Lupe Fiasco in this Nike Christmas cut from 2009.
