Being Peter Kim

Involuntary advertising exploitation

This sign was on the curb outside the Austin airport.  If someone don't consent to being exploited in any media ever as stated, how are they supposed to fly home?

Reminder from an anonymous coward

Breaking a three year streak, I'm not writing about Super Bowl ads this year.  If I had investigated anything, I'd have analyzed social media campaign integration.  But something struck me as dissonant when I realized that I rarely watch TV ads - so why should I suddenly care now?

Looking back, my first Super Bowl ad post was in 2006.  Charlene Li suggested I cross-post on her blog, where I received some interesting comments, mostly in disagreement.  One particularly brash commenter wrote:

"Forrester needs to fire Peter Kim if he analizes stuff for them like he did that BK commerercial and If he is your friend run now and find a new one cause this guy is a complete moron if he thinks the BK ad was the big winner."

I was struck by the severity of the opinion, even if written by an "anonymous coward" with poor spelling and grammar skills. (click on the link for a definition if you're unfamiliar with the reference.)

It was a good reminder to me that it's impossible to please everyone all the time.  So I do my best to cite facts, use common sense, and give honest opinions.  That way, when disagreement occurs, it's a learning experience.  And sometimes you discover that a difference of opinion can actually be affirming, as in the case above!

UPDATE: Chris Brogan says that Opinions Are Every Bit as Important.  Of course they are.  If you've concluded that the point of this post is to suppress dissenting (or concurring) opinions, it's not - otherwise I'd turn off comments on my posts.

Motrin MANIA!

Lots of controversy this weekend about a commercial from Motrin.  The discussion on Twitter is particularly active and you can take a peek by searching for #motrinmoms.

Here's what I think about it.

Some of the unsolicited advice being offered to Motrin is good and all brands can pick up a pointer or two.  But most of it is just "me too" mantra from individuals trying to look like experts.

Anyone who has managed a brand will tell you that it is impossible to please everyone, all the time.  I've had to help manage some brand controversies in my career.  Family planning activists and primate lovers, in particular.   The world is too diverse for self-interests to not end up colliding.

What are the odds that this one makes it out of the social media echo chamber?  Will a mainstream media outlet bite?

Dads wear babies, too.  And in my experience, Children's Motrin works pretty well.

But here's the strangest thing about the whole Motrin Moms controversy to me:  I thought social media killed the 30 second spot.

I guess not.

Shifting The Line in Social Media Advertising

Over the weekend, I learned that Anna lost her phone. Jade and Luca did too.  You can find out more on their Facebook pages (linked).  And let me know if you notice anything odd about them...

We've been discussing social media marketing on this blog for the past couple of months. While updating the list of social media marketing examples - now 270 - I found out about Anna, Jade, and Luca. Without getting too deep into definitions, I think that marketing and advertising vis-a-vis social media require separate consideration. Max Kalehoff recently published some thoughts about the current state of social media ad campaigns:

"To be sure, there are a lot of promising attempts on both the media and agency sides. But most are short-sided. In fact, most seem disingenuous or uninformed..."

So back to our friends with the lost phones. It turns out that it's all made up, part of a campaign from W+K London for Nokia. As a story concept, I think it sounds cool. As an advertising campaign, it's different than most of the standard executions around today.  I like it.

But...it wasn't too long ago that advertising characters were off-limits in social media. Like GourmetStation's T. Alexander, L'Oreal's Vichy's Claire, or Wal-Mart's happy RVers.

More recently, you can make friends with VW's Helga or follow tweets from HBO's Sookie Stackhouse.  Bloggers don't seem to be up in arms about these developments.

It seems to me that "The Line" has shifted in social media advertising, separating what is and isn't commercially acceptable content.  Bloggers used to revolt against commercial profiles.  Now we lament the demise of them, witness AMC's Mad Men on Twitter.

Are you now more accepting of fake people posing as real ones?  What's the deal?  I have a few theories and would love to hear what you think...

Don't believe the hype (it's a sequel)

In the summer of 1999, I was subletting a place near Harvard Square while working at Fidelity Investments.  Near the end of the summer, my high school friend Dave moved to Cambridge to start his first year at HBS.  This was back when a book like Year One was invaluable, way before every student thought about bloging about the experience.  One of the things I found most interesting about the first years was that walking around the dorm, many had replaced the school-issued name on the door with business cards from their former employer - McKinsey, BCG, Goldman, etc.

I met up with Dave one day after work at an orientation happy hour at John Harvard's.  One of the people I met had previously been working in corporate finance for Paramount Pictures.  We discussed, among other things, the profitability of movie sequels.  Sequels are almost always profitable.  Why?  Among other things, they draft off the visibility of the lead, even if it tanks.  Assets can be reused and budgets more accurately scoped.  Distribution can bypass the expensive theater route and go straight to DVD or PPV.

So what does this have to do with marketing?  It has everything to do with branding and it's simple to make a connection with today's "viral" videos.  (I had a great conversation with Sam Ford from Peppercom/MIT last week about why the term viral is a misnomer - but that's a story for another post.)  Think Dove Evolution and Onslaught, for example.  At the time of writing this post, Evolution has 7.1 million views; Onslaught has 0.2 million.  So is Onslaught a failure?  No way - it's generated a ton of attention and surely Ogilvy didn't have to work nearly as hard to publicize #2 as #1.

Well, Kris Hoet from Microsoft Belgium emailed to let me know that a sequel to "The Break Up" has launched.  Even if you don't know the name, you've seen this video.  Now "Inspiration, Anyone?" is out - and has been since June 8th.

And I haven't heard anyone talking about it.

I don't know if it is just hasn't penetrated the echo chamber of marketing blogging or if most people have seen the sequel and thought "meh."  Or perhaps it hits too close to home for agencies - they can get very defensive, very quickly - e.g. check out this post.  Maybe it just needs time.  Some people have told me they think the first was successful because few people realized Microsoft was behind it.  But Dove was behind the Campaign For Real Beauty and that didn't seem to matter much.  Microsoft's making a point to sell more advertising services, Dove's making a point to sell more beauty products.  Maybe we can chalk it up to B2C vs. B2B.

If you haven't yet seen the sequel to The Break Up (it's 3:38 in length), I'd love to get your thoughts on why it does or doesn't work for you.

Guerilla allergy marketing - effective?

  1-800-4-ZYRTEC 
  Originally uploaded by Pete Kim.

Seen on the streets of Boston.  Amanda mentioned this on Adrants.  Wonder if the pulled tab was a prospect or PR?

Cheap.  Effective?

Calling the number sends you to what's essentially a 40-second radio commercial.  "For more information visit zyrtec.com."

At least it's different, I guess.  Let me wait two hours and see if I feel anything.

Connecting the Connected Agency conversation

About two weeks ago, Forrester published the Connected Agency report.  As expected, the reactions have been both positive and negative; if everyone agreed about the shape of agency of the future, then the research wouldn't have been worth writing.

I do, however, see a rough separation in sentiment between digital agencies (positive) and traditional agencies (negative).  Why is that?

Some reactions:

• "There is an healthy pull pulling both corporate communications/marketing and agencies/vendors up to new heights, faster and faster." Ken Kaplan, Intel
• "'Where have you been, my friend?' to the thought that the digital guys are going to be any better: they're also mostly tied up with old ideas about influence and information being a key driver of behaviour." Mark Earls, Independent, formerly Ogilvy
• "When you look at this changes in context of the challenges for the CMOs -- then suddenly the urgency and seriousness of the problem facing Ad and Marketing Agencies becomes quite stark." Chris Tacy, Method
• "We’re not excusing the industry’s slow move to digital or failure to pick up on some of the changes in consumer culture, but it’s not always within our control. Trust. We wish it was." Agency Spy, Mediabistro
• "I do think its hard to consider the future of the agency business without recognising that the media agencies (or at least some of them) are driving real change for their clients." Simon Andrews, Mindshare
• "I'm a bit tired of constantly hearing how bad we are at what we do. the industry is changing, and rapidly. We get it. And some of us are actually trying to drive that change in ways that will help change the ways that agencies come up with solutions for our clients."  Mitch Caplan, Project Davinci (WPP)
• "Am I crazy about how ridiculous articles like this are…especially because they are re-run every. single. week. by the trades. Is this hell? Yes."  daily (ad) biz, Anonymous
• "Own up to the problem that most marketers are completely out of sync with the rest of the world, take some responsibility and then, just maybe, things might start to get a little better." Deb Wiseman, Crayon
• "Boy, did I screw up." David Deal, Avenue A|Razorfish
• "Instead of looking at what brands can tell people, we instead need to be looking at what brands can do for people." Paul Isakson, space150
• "I  believe that within a few years there will be less distinction between digital, advertising and pr agencies - we will in turn become influencer agencies that span multiple media." Jonny Bentwood, Edelman
• "Sometimes it sucks being ahead of the curve."  Tac Anderson, HP
• "Sadly, most agencies still don’t get the new space, or if they do, they lightly gloss it over by saying “Oh yeah, we’ve a blog” and when I look, it’s a bunch of self-serving posts written by a variety of different folks with little strategy and few comments." Jeremiah Owyang, Forrester
• "One major problem with advertising agencies is that they’re exceptional at believing their own bullshit." Jason Falls, Doe Anderson
• "I would argue if you have that experience, skills and aptitudes, then transposing them into the new techniques and channels offered by social media is a lot simpler than trying to come at it from the direction of the advertising agency." Steve Ellis, Metia Software
• "As communities & conversations become more and more important, there is a need to understand how to build analytical models around huge "conversational  databases" that will emerge." Sivaraman Swaminathan, Customer Equity Solutions
• "How much can an agency facilitate conversations and nurture connections? I feel this is primarily a job for the brands themselves." Shiv Singh, Avenue A|Razorfish
• "Despite the wealth of information out there, distilling it into useful, actionable insight isn’t easy, and in fact it’s one area where old-school disciplines can help new media and digital mature as a discipline." Outside Line
• "Agency expertise has always tended to be siloed so things really become interesting when you connect media behavior with front end data for segmentation and predictive modeling with back end website analytics. Suddenly a different picture starts to form." Steven Duke, Wunderman

I'm glad we got people thinking - and this is just the beginning.

The Connected Agency

Forrester published a piece yesterday that takes a hard look at the future of advertising agencies.  It's what used to be called, in Forrester parlance, a "Big Idea," i.e. a concept not necessarily in practice today, but best practices looking 5 to 10 years out and beyond.  (The first Big Idea I wrote was called Reinventing the Marketing Organization.)

The executive summary of the research:

Today's agencies fail to help marketers engage with consumers, who, as a result, are becoming less brand-loyal and more trusting of each other. To turn the tide, marketers will move to the Connected Agency — one that shifts: from making messages to nurturing consumer connections; from delivering push to creating pull interactions; and from orchestrating campaigns to facilitating conversations. Over the next five years, traditional agencies will make this shift; they will start by connecting with consumer communities and will eventually become an integral part of them.

Clients can access the report directly.  After you've read the report, we welcome your comments here and/or on the Forrester.com site.

Engagement and SB XLII Ads

Think back about the game.  Do you remember any of the ads - without any aided recall?  Did any of them really "engage" you?

For $3 million, I was curious about how engaging the ads would be.  I do marketing/advertising research for a living which means my perspective is biased.

To refresh your memory, going back almost two years:  "Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context."  Thus spoke the ARF.  I'd extend that definition because it could be as simple as "they liked our ad."  I say engagement means that people did something after watching.

Well, these days the easiest next step would be for consumers to find out more online.  So I was looking for ads that sent people to the web to find out more - and not just looking for the ads on myspace.

OK so were any of these ads really "engaging"?

As expected, the only one that did with any effectiveness was GoDaddy.com.  The trick wasn't the suggestive humor - it was their URL displayed on screen for the entire spot.  (I spoke with their PR director last month in Vegas who said this is a recognized value-creating tactic.)

I can vaguely remember some other vanity URLs:

• A talking stain during an interview.
• Sunsilk - something with music, nothing to do with shampoo.
• Doritos using snackstrongproductions.com again (remember I'm biased)
• Sobe had one, but I just remember Thriller.

I also remember some of the other advertisers - Bridgestone, Audi, Coca-Cola, Victoria's Secret, FedEx, Gatorade, and salesgenie.com (their URL was ../tv I think).  But if they had vanity URLs, I can't remember them.  (were there any others?)

Keep in mind that I'm biased, in the industry, and trying to keep the addresses in mind.  Blame the memory, I suppose.

Pew's latest survey shows over 73% of adults have internet access.  Forrester data shows 72%.  Of course we could go to myspace and look at all the ads.  But isn't the point of engagement to say something that a viewer will remember - and then do something about?  Seems like most advertisers did as well here as the Patriots' offensive line.

Read between the lines: Google and TBWA

Last week, I moderated a Sapient-sponsored panel discussion on the state of the marketing organization.  At the same event, there was a session described as simply "Andy Berndt, Managing Director, Creative Lab, Google."  If you recall, this executive appointment caused quite a bit of speculation that Google might have plans to start their own ad agency, which has been repeatedly denied by the firm and best summed up by this statement:  "It would be mathematically impossible for us to get into that business."

Nevertheless, I was looking forward to the discussion to hear what exactly what happens at the Google Creative Lab (which sounds really cool, especially if you think about analogies like Nike Lab) in a discussion that would be facilitated by Tom Carroll of TBWA.  What came out of it was a half hour of dead air spots and the delusions of a traditional agency trying its best to sound digital.

OK so what IS the Google Creative Lab?  Someone from the audience actually asked this question after Berndt and Carroll had wandered from topic to topic for about 15 minutes.  The answer:

"an internal creative and marketing resource at Google to help manage the brand -- our only client is Google."

To elaborate:  "we own the Google brand."  "We work on partnerships, brand-defining stuff."  "We work with agencies on more complex stuff."

OK fair enough.  So the audience is primarily client-side marketing leaders.  They can't hire the Creative Lab; maybe they could learn lessons from the inside then, which Abbey Klaassen at Ad Age summarized.

Other than that, I found the most value in what was being said on stage and the insight between the lines...

TBWA:

• "Everyone is in a panic about digital.  Stop panicking!"  "Take a deep breath, we'll figure it out.  No one has the secret."
• “People say it’s a new world.  No it’s not, it’s the same world evolving.”
• “I wish I was 25 because then I would understand more.”
• “Right before Christmas, our Chief Digital Officer said let’s get everyone in the company on Facebook.  I wish she had kept me off of it.”
• "We did an asthma website for kids to show how to learn inhalers.  Like a Webkinz-type thing.  These are 26-year old kids.  They were getting a far deeper connection to the brand.  A more enclosed space between people, everyone is better off."

Google:

• “Google is still a founder-driven company.  Engineers are usually not crazy about marketing people; taking soundbites and pieces where the company comes from leads to interesting things.  ‘Organizing the world’s information’ is the world’s largest hack – a display of ability.  It’s an amazing creative space.  The core behind that is an almost Quixotic, a bold, moonshot type of spirit that’s at the center – it’s less competitive than sort of aspirational.  That takes a lot of communication and translation to people who don’t live at the center of that community.”
• “The vision of the brand is to help people remember what they enjoy about the emotion of Google.”

Hey I wish I was 25 again too because I would have a higher vertical leap and a less receded hairline.  But you don't have to be young to understand digital.  And agencies - do you think Google hired one of the world's top ad execs to create internal feel-good campaigns?  Do you sense a bit of frustration brewing in the Lab?

[The panel also demonstrated the result of what happens when the people on stage are unprepared for a discussion, which is why some of those statements may have come out so unpolished.  Sure, anyone can talk for 30 minutes, but if you want to say something interesting - or not - you need to give it some forethought.  If you need tips, check out these posts by Guy Kawasaki on moderating and participating.]

Facebook ad targeting examples

Facebook advertising has changed significantly over the past year.  Seems to me that ads used to look like flyers you'd find stapled to a campus kiosk, with messages like "futon for sale" or "a capella concert this Friday night."  Now, ad serving on Facebook has gotten mainstream, which means...it's terrible. 

Granted, it only breaks one of the three deadly sins of advertising - irrelevance.  Speaking of which, check out three flavors that I captured via screenshot on the site:

1. Behavioral.  Reading my cookies, eh Facebook?  The one on the left shows a display ad for the Bellagio.  True, I was looking for a Las Vegas hotel for CES last week at work.  But right now I'm updating my status, cyberstalking, etc.  You know, the usual.
2. Geotargeting.  The one in the middle shows an ad for a Dutch discount travel site.  Although I was sitting at home outside of Boston, Massachusetts, I was connected to my corporate VPN through Amsterdam (because for some reason my computer can't connect using the Cambridge VPN - go figure).
3. Contextual?  Owen Mack sent me an invite to add a PUMA app.  But look at the text ads - for high blood pressure, insomnia, and asthma.  Hmm...I don't have any of the three nor have I been searching for those terms.  Honestly.  Maybe working at PUMA feels like that?

Maybe remove poke is a pretty good idea...

(BTW the other two deadly sins of advertising?  Interruption and clutter, some would claim social ads hit both marks.)

BMWs made for "diplomatic" purposes

As seen in the window of BMW Park Lane, London.  Tough cars for tough times.  I guess seeing is believing.

Dude

  L'Homme 
  Originally uploaded by Pete Kim.

A sight commonly seen in the Paris Metro these days.  Along with H&M lingerie ads and some sort of frozen spinach thing.

The Unilever Onslaught Effect

Did you notice this article in Ad Age today?  "Dove Viral Draws Heat From Critics."

The idea of two brands conflicted underneath an CPG umbrella crossed my mind back in June - of last year.  [Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming by any means to have invented this meme.]  My feeling is that the ends justify the means.  When I asked Babs Rangaiah about it during a panel discussion in March, his response was that they're separate brands with separate strategies.  Works for me.

Now someone's gone out and posted a viral video on the matter, which tells me that the meme has reached critical mass (that and the fact that there's a mainstream media article on the subject).

So - is this a case where Unilever needs to take on more corporate social responsibility?  Or is all fair in the name of shelf space and margin?

I know it's not black and white and thus probably a bit of both.  Just goes to show that the more successful you become, the more criticism you'll receive.  No one's crowing about Nike's ads anymore...because no one's talking about that ad campaign at every social media conference you attend these days.

Buzzlogic - WOM Ad Targeting

Buzzlogic is rolling out "conversation targeting" today at Ad:Tech - evolving online ad placement from contextual to super-contextual.  It's not the next step beyond behavioral, which keys off of client-side activity, but could evolve to include this as well.  Rather, we're talking about placing content-relevant ads with a dimension beyond reach/impressions - adding in a calculation of source "quality."  Quality has typically been left up to advertisers to determine for themselves based on clickthrough or conversion.

Right now the system only works with AdWords, so look for integration of other platforms - like blogads or adbrite.

This is an interesting product for a brand monitoring vendor - makes more sense to see this from an "engagement" type vendor like Buzzlogic or Visible Technologies.  Gives you an idea for where the market is heading.

Consumers Don't Trust Advertising

Max Kalehoff points out a Nielsen Buzzmetrics brand association map outlining terms associated with advertising in blog chatter.   The "inner circle" represents most frequent terms, grouped into four categories:

• Media:  commercials, ads (makes sense)
• Stakeholders:  marketers (naturally)
• Campaigns:  dollars, revenue (ok...)
• Negative associations:  false, misleading (uh oh)

This mirrors Forrester's data that only 6% of North American consumers agree with the statement "Companies generally tell the truth in advertising."

Interesting stuff.

Some thoughts on time spent vs. page views

As you probably know, last week Nielsen//NetRatings added "total minutes" and "total sessions" to their site measurement.  But reports of the page view's demise are greatly exaggerated.  Or at least they should be.  Here are two reasons why:

1. Critics claim that sites are designed to goose page views, adding extraneous clicks on the way to fulfilling user goals.  Well, SEO has always been a grey hat discipline.  This could be a huge setback for site usability:  the more a site confuses visitors and obfuscates desired content, the "better" those sites perform.

2. Different sites have different purposes.  It's like investing - two stocks may have the same price but totally different fundamentals; you might like one for the dividend and another for the growth potential.  Total minutes and sessions make sense for content/media sites, e.g. AOL or YouTube.  Page views still make sense for "utility" sites, e.g. Google Search.  And for e-commerce sites, neither of these matter as sales metrics like conversion rate.

What's the purpose of engagement?  To make money.  Yes, we build brands to create favorable thoughts in consumer minds and make good on our promises through customer experience.  And we hope that over time, people buy more stuff from us and tell their friends about how great we are.  Thus in my opinion, the only reason for a new "engagement" metric is whether you convinced someone to buy something.  Otherwise, we've got some good ideas out there already, like brand recall and recognition or click-through and conversion rate.

The lesson here is that advertisers need to have their act together when it comes to metrics.  If you're selling ads on your own site - you should know what the optimum balance of page views and time spent are for each persona.  If you're an advertiser, you should know the role that sites play in the customer experience (brand building?  direct response?)  and buy on the appropriate metrics.

From another perspective - if I'm on ur site, ignoring ur ads...then what?  In the long run, cost per action and other performance-based metrics are the only ones that matter.

iPhone: advertising and brand monitoring

The iPhone goes on sale today, which you probably knew.  Do you remember seeing any ads for it?  TV?  Print?  Banners?

I've seen some paid keywords on Google.  Given the amount of buzz, hype, anticipation around the launch - why even bother?  (unless you're marketing Blackberries.) Today I got an email with the image at left.  Search ads and email - that's it.  Compare that to the consumer-generated content around the product:  on YouTube, Flickr, and in blogs.

Here's what brand monitoring experts have to say about the launch:

- Matt Hurst at Microsoft predicts the topic will garner 1% of blog discussion today.  Looks like he's right.
- Nielsen Buzzmetrics indicates positive sentiment around features.  Relevant Noise disagrees.
- BrandIntel points out that although discussion levels are high, purchase intent remains neutral.

So it seems as if we have a Subservient Chicken question here:  lots of buzz, but what about sales?  At minimum, the iPhone is already a huge success for the Apple brand and time will tell us about the bottom line...

Windorphins.com

This afternoon on the subway, the car I was in had been taken over by different executions of windorphins ads.

Read about the guy who gave the domain back to eBay - seems like for free - despite the big bucks being put into a nationwide ad campaign this summer.  Now he says "eBay stole my windorphins."

Honestly, my first reaction when I saw the ads?  It was a Microsoft campaign to give Vista some momentum.  (starts with windows without the 2nd "w")

Anyone know if the "it" campaign is done?  I thought it was pretty much spot on - whenever I need to buy anything online, I look in three places:  Amazon, eBay, and the brand website.

Worth 1000: Fine Art + Ads Mashups

Fine art meets advertising, thanks to Photoshop.  Check out the Worth 1000 Artistic Ads contest.

Be forewarned that fine art is often religious in nature and some might find the images sacreligous.  You might find others LOL funny.

Microsoft to purchase aQuantive for $6 billion

News this morning that Microsoft is purchasing aQuantive for $6 billion.  From the press release:

"This deal expands upon the Company's previously outlined vision to provide the advertising industry with a world class, Internet-wide advertising platform, as well as a set of tools and services that help its constituents generate the highest possible return on their advertising investments."

What I see missing there is a reason for the company to keep the Razorfish part of the equation...an ad platform doesn't need the capability to build websites and intranets.  Look for a spinoff in the near future where Microsoft recoups some of their investment and another holding company gains digital expertise.

I'll probably update this post after we're officially briefed by MSFT/AQNT.

UPDATE: A quick thought when putting this deal in perspective of Google/Doubleclick and Acxiom and Epsilon being purchased.  Even related to TNS MI/Cymfony and Nielsen NetRatings/Buzzmetrics.  There's been a lot of talk over the past year about money sitting on the sidelines.  It looks like that cash is finally in motion, with investors opting for proven bets this time around, very unlike the dot-com bubble.

Do you qualify to be a Unilever model?

Unilever has posted guidelines for models in its advertising - going forward, they must have a "normal weight" as calculated by BMI.

Calculate your BMI now and see if you'd qualify.  If you were a model.

Is Hurley the future of advertising?

My panel at ARF re:think

I had a short panel discussion at the ARF's re:think conference on the gap between marketers and agencies.

This being a research conference, I expected questions regarding research methodology.  Fair enough.  The research clearly got some audience members feeling defensive - one exchange went like this:

Audience member: "What's the purpose of advertising?"
Me: "Is this a trick question?"
Audience member: "No."
Me: "To drive sales."
Audience member: "How do you define sales?"
Me: "Is that a trick question?"
Audience member: "No.  The purpose of advertising isn't to drive sales."

This is what's wrong with advertising today.  More people need to be aware that they're part of a business.

Digital Agencies at ARF re:think

The second panel of the day at ARF's re:think conference was "The Agency of the Future" including R/GA, Avenue A|Razorfish, Nitro and Digitas.

Continuing on the one-of-these-outfits-is-not-like-the-other theme, Nick Law, Chief Creative Officer from R/GA shows up in short sleeve shirt, jeans, and swooshes in stark contrast to other panelists in standard business casual.  Interactive is the new traditional and its agency executives appear to have followed suit, so to speak.

Get it?

Followed suit?

Ok moving on, Rance Crain of Ad Age did a nice job of moderating and stirring up the pot.  He suggested an alternative title for his panel as well:  "Digital:  Just Another Silo?"  BTW, I'm guessing he's not a big fan of subservient chicken, either.

Torrence Boone of Digitas described his company as a "full service agency" with roots in direct marketing and capabilities today in integrated and digital marketing.  Which is a good thing because I'm planning a Forrester Wave on integrated agencies later this summer.  Torrance defined a big idea as a filter on what to do or what not to do.  It's built out of consumer insight, media context, and consumption patterns, along with a good dose of gut and intuition.

Steve Marrs of Nitro spoke about his company's small size and global reach.  They have three main offices, in London, New York, and Shanghai (the largest).  Shanghai as largest is intriguing (unless I heard wrong).  Steve said that his agency approaches work by separating strategy from advertising - the way it used to be.  Nitro defines a big idea in part as something that drives business results.  Note to Nitro:  a good place to start would be SEO for "nitro."

Clark Kokich of Avenue A|Razorfish described his company as a "full service interactive advertising agency."  He mentioned that he's been in the agency game for a long time and left his first stint because of a feeling that what matters to client businesses happens inside the core of their firm - untouched by agency projects.  He brought this focus back to AARF to focus on what's "crucial to the client's business."  Clark also mentioned that his agency's purpose is to drive business results, because "you can't build a brand through advertising." 

Nick Law of R/GA showed how the "Agency of the Digital Age" is helping one client - Nike - beyond advertising.  Their work on Nike+ gets deep into product as well as promotion - these being "wearable, networked computing devices."  Not much more to say, because Nick showed how R/GA is doing it.

These agencies are certainly well-positioned for the future, especially given the way consumer behavior is shifting to digital.  However, as interactive agencies compete for strategy work, they are going to run into formidable competition - traditional management consultancies.  We've been here before and last time the old guns won.  This time around...?

Research Agency CEOs at ARF re:think

The second day of the ARF's re:think conference opened with a panels research agency executives, called "The Research Agency of the Future" with the CEOs of GfK, Kantar, TNS and Nielsen.  Moderator Jim Figura of Colgate-Palmolive said it should have been called "Insights Agency of the Future."

Most of what these CEOs had to say didn't get beyond what you can read in the press today.  Thus as Joe Mandese wrote in his post on the official re:think blog, the interesting parts of the panel came from reading between the lines.  In fact, most of the talking points were so generic that I didn't know what company was being referenced for the middle two speakers.  GfK was introduced by the moderator and Nielsen went last by process of elimination.  But for Kantar and TNS, it was a few minutes before I knew what company was being represented.  This was because none of the CEOs told the audience their name, title, or company when they took the podium - they all just started talking.  Perhaps these guys are rockstars of research to the ARF audience.

Klaus Wübbenhorst from GfK proposed his company was best positioned to help businesses - after all, GfK stands for "growth from knowledge."  I asked Klaus about GfK's brand monitoring plans after the panel.  No response - he looked at me as if I had just asked him to go a grab me a coffee with cream and two sugars.  I asked again, mentioning how TNS and Nielsen were building capabilities in the space.  He mumbled something to the effect of "sure, it's important."  I asked him if he thought brand monitoring were an important capability for a research firm to have in its portfolio.  Certainly a slow-pitch underhand softball in my book, but it must have looked more like a Matsusaka gyroball.  No response.  Pretty clear he just wanted me to leave; unfortunately, I had to in order to deliver my breakout session.  Note to Klaus:  70 million and growing.  Think about it.

Credit to Eric Salama from Kantar who was aware enough that the Blackberry in his pocket was creating interference with the mic.  Salama says it's time to mind the gap between what research firms promise and what they deliver.  His firm's strategy hasn't changed for four years, built on three principles:  people, innovation, and data quality.  I asked Eric about brand monitoring, too.  He said none of his companies were doing it.  I asked about Visible Technologies - he said, "yes, we have a partnership with them."

David Lowden from TNS had this to say:  "The research company of the future will be a partner with its clients."  "Cost-effective servicing is an increasingly important issue, but quality must remain."  "Clients will only commit to insight that positively impacts business in a meaningful way."  He did mention the Cymfony acquisition as part of their efforts to stay cutting edge.

David Calhoun from Nielsen was certainly different in appearance - he was the only panelist sans jacket.  He also heavily referenced his client-side experience, which others did not.  Calhoun was formerly at GE and mentioned his experience and mentors from there both in his prepared remarks as well as the Q&A.  These remarks certainly pointed out management acumen that puts The Nielsen Company in good hands - hopefully Calhoun will be able to change the industry standard as well and help marketers make advertising work.

Publicis creates the Client-Centric Advertising Agency

There's great news this morning - P&G's Oral-B brand has dragged the agency model into the 21st century and a client-centric Publicis team has won the marketing account, including advertising, package design, public relations, in-store communications, and direct mail, among other duties.

Multiple Publicis silos will come together to get the job done.  21st century agency, hired.

Links:
- WSJ:  Procter & Gamble Seeks New Agency Approach
- Brandweek: All for One: P&G's Oral-B Assigns All Duties to One Company

Reverse Product Placement - coming to a 7-11 near you

Article in the Richmond (Virginia) Times-Dispatch via Boing Boing that 11 U.S. 7-Eleven stores will be rebranded as Springfield-style Kwik-E-Marts, complete with reverse product placement of Krusty O's and Buzz Cola.  No word on whether the stores would be staffed with their own sleepless Apu Nahasapeemapetilon or carry frosty Duff Beer in the cooler.  Taking convergence culture even further, 16 different towns of Springfield are competing to host the Simpsons movie premiere.

For some smart thinking on reverse product placement, check out what the minds at MIT's C3 have to say about it.

UPDATE:  Locate a Kwik-E-Mart on the 7-11 website.

Ad engagement

Quick test.  Do this without going to Google or Wikipedia.

- Who won this year's Super Bowl?

Now think about your last trip to the grocery store.  Did you:
- Buy any beer?  Specifically, Budweiser or Bud Light?
- Buy any tortilla chips?  Doritos?
- Buy a candy bar?  Snickers perhaps?

- And finally...did thinking about any of these brands make you recall a Super Bowl ad or just visualize the product?

Bonus points:
- Rent a movie lately?  From Blockbuster?
- Sign a new insurance policy?  From Nationwide?

No?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  Me neither.

Help Wanted: 21st Century Agency

I recently published a research piece on advertising agencies the marketers that hire them, called Help Wanted: 21st Century Agency.

Agencies - your clients need you now more than ever.  Technology change has driven consumer behavior to somewhere it's never been before.  Marketers - most of you agree that agencies aren't ready for the change and don't even rate themselves very highly.

This issue has clearly struck a chord in the marketing industry - the piece was a cover story in last week's Ad Age and this weeks AdWeek.  It was also picked up by ClickZ, iMedia, MediaPost, BtoB, eMarketer, and Marketing Vox.

So what to do?  One idea - pay Joseph Jaffe a visit and join the conversation.  We've been guest speakers at the same event twice already this year (and will make it a 3rd next week for the Ad Club of Boston).  Better yet - teleport over to Crayonville in SL and see what's going on.

Advertising Works! Here's proof.

More results were released from Project Apollo, showing a lift of 5 - 8% for consumers exposed to advertising.  The potential here is enormous.  Start with timing and creative insight here and use household level targeting from a company like Visible World - and the industry just might be able to get past clutter and irrelevance.  Interruption is a bigger programming issue - but throw branded entertainment in there and you've got yourself a winner.

For anyone who reads the news and thinks, "so what?  we already know that ads work."  Because believe me, I've heard this sentiment many times before.  You show ads, you sell more products.  But that's the shotgun approach.  Technology allows you to answer the more refined question, "how well?"

And that's approaching the issue like a ninja, not like a frontier settler in a coon-skin cap.

[photo:  rahen z]

The Best Super Bowl Ad of 2007

A progression from last year's Super Bowl has been the proliferation of voting sites, giving consumers a chance to vote on their favorite ads.  In true consumer-generated fashion, the people have spoken and chosen their 30-second winners:

1. Bud Light :: Rock, Paper, Scissors
2. Bud Light :: English Class
3. Budweiser :: Stray Dog/Fake Dalmatian
4. Blockbuster :: Rabbit & Mouse
5. Doritos :: CGM Car Crash
6. Bud Light :: Horror Flick Hitchhikers
7. Snickers :: Chest Hair/The Kiss
8. Nationwide :: K-Fed Fast Food
9. Bud Light :: Wedding Auctioneer
10. Bud Light :: Crabs

The methodology - I took the top ten winners from sources that tallied consumer views and votes:  AdBowl, AOL, iFilm, Spotbowl, TiVo, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and YouTube.  Each source was weighted equally; a #1 ranking was worth 10 points, #10 ranking was worth 1 point.  (I've published the raw data in a Google Spreadsheet.)

Some takeaways from the top 10:

• All used humor in their creative executions
• Five were from the 1st quarter, two from the 2nd quarter
• Six spots were from Anheuser-Busch; the only two that didn't make it were Apes and Fist Bump
• What didn't chart:  Car ads; sexually-oriented ads (e.g. GoDaddy, Chevy HHR); 3rd quarter ads

Consumers have spoken.  And they've said, "Here's to beer."

Super Bust XLI

Outside of Indianapolis and Chicago, most of the U.S. will have forgotten who won Super Bowl XLI by Monday evening.  Nationwide, most of the ads were forgotten by the time viewers fell asleep Sunday night.

Enough about how bad the ads were in general.  [Along with the halftime show.]  Many ads deserve their own special recognition and I'd like to highlight some of them here, by category.

Most violent:
1. King Pharma, BeatYourRisk.com
2. Bud Light, Fist Bump/Slaps
3. CareerBuilder.com, Promotion Island

Most use of sex:
1. GoDaddy
2. Chevy's Consumer Generated Ad
3. Snickers, Chest Hair

Most emotional appeal:
1. Coke, Time Line
2. NFL, Brett Favre
3. Budweiser, Fake Dalmatian

Most use of facts:
1. Toyota, Tundra actual demonstrations (and an interesting contrast to their recent ads)
2. Revlon, Sheryl Crow on tour
3. Salesgenie.com (j/k)

More takeaways and my 2007 Super Bowl ad review:

• Consumer generated ads weren't any better or worse than the "regular" ads.  Ad agencies need not fear consumers taking over the world of 30-second spots - but that's not what social computing is about...
• Integrated marketing didn't show up, again.  The only advertiser guaranteed to drive traffic to their site?  GoDaddy.  Biggest misses?  FedEx uses another grey-on-white 1 second end-cap logo.  Impossible vanity URLs like rocksolidretirement.com and snackstrongproductions.com.  HP lists a vanity toll-free number (800-525-MYHP).  I hope this is part of an A/B test...
• Guerilla search ads?  Non-existent.  Lots of cheap keywords out there like "map robot" for TomTom, "chest hair" for Philips, or "promotion island" for Monster...

And my favorite ads, purely by personal entertainment value:

1. Coke, GTA.  This ad was produced for cinema and launched in August 2006.  Maybe not true machinima, but great that they used the same style.
2. Garmin, Maposaurus. I'm not going out to buy a GPS, but I was laughing.  (Then I said, WTF?)
3. Budweiser, Shawn Carter + Don Shula.  Love the 007 style.

Super Post XLI

I get the feeling that coverage of Super Bowl ads has stepped up a notch this year, don't you?  At the same time, I'm not excited about what we'll see because:

1. it will be available online anyway and
2. only one or two advertisers will really use their spot to drive web traffic (GoDaddy will be one).

Here are some of the useful and/or interesting sources I've seen regarding the game:

During
- Spotbowl:  vote on ads during the game
- Akamai's Advertising Net Usage Index
- AdFreak live blog
- YouTube alternative dot-com ads

Pre-game
- Ad Age roundup and ad matrix
- New York Times on how to get more mileage out of a spot
- Wall Street Journal on ads for the ads
- Consumer ads:  NFL, Doritos, Chevy

And if you care about the game, there's ESPN's Super Bowl Central.

Campaign for real beauty - do ends justify means?

So much great press for the Dove brand and its Campaign For Real Beauty.  No doubt that on the surface, the concept has touched a global nerve and has hopefully started to drive real change.

But isn't the campaign really just one step away from astroturfing? As a brand, Dove's purpose is to sell "beauty" products.  Soaps, shampoos, lotions, deodorants - 16 different categories in all.  The end game here is to use the feel-good message to sell more products.

I find it wildly ironic that Dove creates an ad that blasts the beauty industry - in order to sell more of its own beauty products.  Yet few people, if any, seem to pick up on this.  They're too busy praising Dove for being bold and showing "reality."

The fact that Unilever owns both the Dove and Axe brands should be a hint.  Both brands are winning truckloads of advertising awards - testament to hype overcoming reality.

In the end - if Dove can help a generation of women feel better about themselves and increase their bottom line along the way - I guess the end justifies the means.

How to improve TV ads during football: a season of storytelling

Yesterday ensures that I'll be watching the Super Bowl for the ads, not the game.  At least it wasn't a  last second #4 field goal that won it.  Anyway, if you're a fan of American football, you've been watching the season unfold over the past 20 weeks.  What do ads say about an audience?  Football says that they drive trucks, use mobiles, and drink beer.  But for every Chevy ad, there's a Ford and Toyota ad.  For every Sprint ad, there's one for Verizon and another for T-Mobile.  And Bud has company from Heineken and Coors Light.

The net effect is a ton of frequency for categories, but the noise makes it difficult for any single brand to stand out.

Here's an idea: given that you've built up a relationship over the season - why not create a story arc to keep viewers engaged?  It's a way to stand out...create a plot that unfolds over the course of a season that culminates when?  Yep, with a big Super Bowl spot.  Add some meaning and anticipation to that $2.6 million.

The NFL's own spots start to get at this, with the idea of "revising predictions" made early in the season.  Burger King went halfway last year, with a viral campaign culminating in the "Whopperettes" spot.  But no one's taken an integrated season the length of the field for a real advertising touchdown.

This can work for any industry.  Fidelity could showcase just how much people saved for retirement and what that will grow into over the next 10, 20, or 30 years.  GEICO can count up how much people have saved on car insurance by switching.  Cingular can track the number of minutes people have saved with automatic rollover.  Toyota shows how much gas you've saved and emissions reduced by driving a hybrid.  Bud shows...how much your spare tire's grown over the course of the season, I guess.

You get the picture.  Is it really that tough?  Lots of talk about storytelling as branding's next big thing.  So what are advertisers waiting for?

Wanted: DHL ad, currently running in Paris

Has anyone seen the DHL ad currently running outdoors in Paris?  I saw one on my way to CDG that said in essence, "DHL is fluent in customer."  Underneath, this statement was translated into French.  Does anyone have a pic of this?  A link would be greatly appreciated.

Is it just me, or is this completely ironic?

The future of mass advertising is direct

Technology transforms marketing.  Mass media need suffer no longer from 50% waste.  30" TV spots can regain efficacy utilizing technology vendors like Visible World.  And now digital billboards are popping up across the country, where allowed by law.

MINI takes outdoor a step further - MotoringFile reports that owners can sign up to receive personalized messages as they drive by RFID-enabled billboards as part of the "Motorby" program.

The future of mass ads is digital and direct.

Get To Work, Agency You!

adland points out that TBWA London has created a portal to solicit consumer input on real, live briefs.  It's called "the big what adventure."

Will you get paid?  No.  Will you get credit?  Not necessarily.  Can you take back your idea?  No.

So what are You waiting for, agency of the year?  Get on with it!

(OK, here's a better idea - check out this customisable commercial from HP.)

French ads can be...different.

Just a reminder that cultural norms and creative can work differently in countries other than your own.  I was walking down Avenue George V today and surprised by this movie ad - something you'd never see in the U.S.  (yes, I'm sure it wasn't the Moulin Rouge) (I also edited it).

Context is critical.

Ad Age Celebrates The Consumer, Disses The Agency World

Ad Age has named The Consumer as their 2006 (?) Agency of the Year.  Kudos for sticking with the idea, even though the Time "me-too" criticism will undoubtedly follow.

Jim Nail of Cymfony says "Ad Age got it wrong."  I think it's a matter of perspective - and here's a different take on why I think this is a bad pick.

Given:  companies need a fundamentally "good" product and/or service.  That is, a company must produce something that meets consumer needs better than alternative choices.  (Brian, when's that Big Idea coming?)

Understood:  Clever advertising won't help a "bad" product become good.  It may help in the short-term, but you can't fool consumers once they've had a bad experience.  As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still going to be a pig."

However:  (1) Advertising is about marketing communications.  Agencies produce campaigns, not products.  (2) Invention is difficult; innovation is easier.

So:  Agencies invent the concepts behind campaigns - from scratch - that get consumers riffing and sketching their innovative ideas that turn into YouTube videos and blog posts.  Plus, we're only talking 1% of the public here - and strictly speaking, I'd say that 1% is more likely innovating, not inventing.

Let's deconstruct Mentos/Diet Coke.  The majority line of thinking goes something like this:  Mentos got it right for embracing the community and was rewarded with a 15% spike in sales.  Coke got it wrong for taking a pass and was "forced" into a community-based response.  However, the best thing the video did for Mentos was to raise brand awareness - which doesn't mean that more people are going out and eating more Mentos.  If anything, the short-term spike was probably from people going to to replicate the experiment.  This is where Diet Coke got it RIGHT - the video wasn't going to drive long-term value from people consuming product.

If you believe otherwise, then you must also agree that more people are buying Bic pens for writing after hearing that they're good for picking Kryptonite locks.

The point is - brand awareness doesn't necessarily drive sales.  You may think that the Ritz-Carlton is a great hotel brand.  But if you never stay there - does it matter?

So agencies are forced with the unenviable task of inventing new ideas, while facing increasing pressure from the misconception that consumers can do it better.  But there's no single agency that can be singled out for methodically harnessing consumer input, so go with option #2:  the consumer.

Look, I get the whole social computing idea.  But realistically, let's not forget about the "institutions" - they create the concepts like PC guy vs. Mac guy, bodygrooming, or even Head-On that inspire consumers to do their thing.

And remember, just as "the consumer" incorrectly connotes one massive, homogeneous swarm of people, "the agency" consists of highly creative individuals, too.

UPDATE:  Ad Age publishes its "A-List" a day later...can we just call TBWA\Chiat\Day Agency of the Year?

Publicis + Digitas: some additional thoughts

It's a slow media week - but the Boston Globe provides some more insight on the financials behind the $1.3 billion merger of Publicis Groupe and Digitas.  The market certainly likes the deal - shares of both companies have been up since the announcement.
Thinking through the deal (briefly) with Harley Manning and Suresh Vittal, there are a couple of interesting aspects that aren't being mentioned:

• Digitas has a heritage in direct mail and brings left-brain skills to the table...
• ...but recent history shows that other Publicis agencies are unlikely to benefit from the interactive skills at Digitas.  But the stock price will.

Forrester clients can read more here.

UPDATE:  Article in Friday's Wall Street Journal with deeper background, based on information from David Kenny, CEO of Digitas (subscription required)

YouTubers love to hate AOL

Consumers love to hate advertising.  Don't just watch the video, read the comments.

Visit the AOL profile for more.

Consumers Love To Hate Advertising

I published a new research piece last week called "Consumers Love To Hate Advertising."  At first glance, this seems like a big "duh."  However, the research uncovers some deeper insights.

Forrester has tracked consumer attitudes toward advertising since September 2002.  Things look grim, fsho.  However, consumers aren't just whining about ads anymore - they're taking action:

• Since 2004, the percentage of consumers using spam filters and TV ad-skipping technology has almost tripled.
• In that time, the percentage of consumers using pop-up blockers has more than doubled.

Why?  Clutter, Interruption, And Irrelevance.  The same reasons Jaffe would never recommend a pre-roll ad.

So imagine the alternative: an ad-free world.  That would be synonymous with a content-free world.  Consumers will not pay to replace lost ad revenue.  85% of consumers told us so.  You think that cable is the answer?  Hello, product placement and branded entertainment.

Until integrated marketing becomes a reality, advertising will continue to be a necessary evil - which is why consumers love to hate it.

Here's a mini-metafilter on sites carrying on a discussion sparked by the piece:

• Information Week:  "Consumer Use Of Ad-Blocking Technology Doubles"
• Techdirt:  "People Don't Hate Advertising; They Hate Bad, Intrusive And Annoying Advertising"
• Dvorak Uncensored:  "Popup Blockers, DVRs and “I Get No Spam” Are The Bane Of Advertisers"
• MarketingFacts (NL):  "Gebruik ad-blockers verdubbeld"
• i-Wisdom:  "Consumers Love To Hate Advertising"

(Personally, I fall into those small minority percentage that likes ads.  My favorite?  Miller Lite's Evil Beaver.  It's funny how times change - 20 years ago, beer and shoe ads were the most creative.  These days everyone raves about computers and mp3 players.  The geek have inherited the earth.)

Advertisers and Agencies - Getting Along?

As previously mentioned, I'm currently exploring advertiser - agency relationships.  It's an extension of my work into reinventing the marketing organization as one of the four keys to becoming more customer-centric:

1. Redesign P&Ls and metrics;
2. Shift culture away from marketing communications;
3. Invest in a customer relationship infrastructure; and
4. Rethink agency relationships.

We are conducting this research in conjunction with the AMA's Mplanet (29 Nov - 1 Dec) and results will be released at the event.  If you'd like to participate and get a full copy of the completed research, here's the survey link:  http://www.gmi-mr.com/survey/s.phtml?sn=58793.

Also - please feel free to pass this link on to anyone you'd think is relevant and interested in this topic.

Machinima goes mainstream

Brentter has posted an ad by W+K in GTA style, as part of the Coke Side of Life campaign.  Awesome.

More companies need to pick up on this and other emerging design treatments - this is advertising that consumers will want to watch.  Might not make you buy more in the short term, but definitely moves the needle on the brand.

UPDATE: More on the background to this ad, including storyboard  - from the W+K Portland blog.

Reinventing The Agency Relationship

The followup piece to my Reinventing the Marketing Organization piece is going to focus on reinventing the agency relationship.  Why is this necessary?  Because Forrester researches technology and technology is the primary catalyst driving change in consumer behavior and marketing strategy today.

Case in point:  someone at BBDO has just discovered Gillette's No Scruf microsite.  Which has been out for about three months now.  The irony is the blogger's call to action:

"Gillette brand managers… tune in for some girl talk, straight up."

Pretty sure that's stated without irony, as the agency behind the site is Digitas.  You'd think that agencies are at least monitoring each other, let alone social media.   

Are all impressions good impressions?

According to MediaPost, "HEAD BUTTS MAY LOOK VIOLENT, but it's a great way to advertise."  Excuse me?  If this is true, then why would MySpace be trying to clean up its content for advertisers?

True or not - it goes to show that you can place your bets as strategically as possible, but then what happens with your brand is out of your control.

Everyone affiliated with your company is a marketer, whether they are on the payroll or whether they've paid you!

Some more examples:  Seth Godin blogged recently about receptionists.  Luggage tags displaying your business card and corporate logo.  Bank robbers wearing your apparel.  Customers reviewing your products.

Are all impressions good impressions?  Was Oscar Wilde correct in saying that "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about"...?

Google Pontiac. Then use your Mac to research Nissan.

Caught an interesting commercial tonight that seems to draw on the same strategy as Google Pontiac.  Id est, advertise your product in conjunction with another brand that's cool and hope that some magic will rub off on your sales results.

In a new Nissan Altima commercial, a young woman is using an iMac to configure her new car.  Both the back and front of the computer get nice logo exposure.

Apple may only have 11% of the market for computers - but what an influential minority that apparently represents.

Tags: nissan, apple

CNN: Welcome To The Future

One of the great things about being a Forrester analyst is the opportunity to share thoughts on my coverage area with the media.

Recently, I spoke with CNN about TV advertising for a piece in their "Welcome To The Future" series.  You can see the video segment here or on this page (click the Interest Me! link in the "Watch Free Video" section).  The piece took practical and realistic view of things, which you don't see too often in TV advertising coverage.  It aired yesterday on CNN and will be on Headline News and Airport Network this week.

Firefox users beware - the video player seems much better suited for IE.

UPDATE:  See the video, embedded below.

Tags: cnn, tv advertising

Snakes On A Plane - MSM vs. CGM

Last night during ESPN's Home Run Derby, I noticed two advertisers.  One was hard to miss - Century 21, the sponsor of the event.  I guess the word "Home" creates a natural tie-in, if not in meaning then in pronunciation.  The other was during a 30-second spot:  for Snakes On A Plane.

This was the first time I'd seen the CGM phenomenon mentioned outside of the internet.  I was online while watching TV, so I went to the official site and found this fan site:  All Your Snakes Are Belong To Us.  So much better than the high-production value "official" spot.  Another case in point:

The problem is, given that the consumer content is so much broader and deeper than the mainstream, does the film have any chance of living up to its hype?  Certainly a very different hype problem than the Star Wars prequels, but definitely of a similar fang vein...

Tags: snakes on a plane  :: Add to del.icio.us