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.
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:
I'm glad we got people thinking - and this is just the beginning.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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 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:
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.)
As seen in the window of BMW Park Lane, London. Tough cars for tough times. I guess seeing is believing.
A sight commonly seen in the Paris Metro these days. Along with H&M lingerie ads and some sort of frozen spinach thing.
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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]
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:
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:
Consumers have spoken. And they've said, "Here's to beer."
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:
And my favorite ads, purely by personal entertainment value:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.)
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 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 sketchi
