A Different Sort of Mother's Day Ad

Not sure if this ad is offensive, funny, or both. It certainly stands out from the usual treacly ads that fill the airwaves before Mother's Day.

Dance in your undies and get famous

Here's your chance to pull a Tom Cruise, circa Risky Business. Bonds Youth Underwear is sponsoring an underwear dancing contest with entry via video submissions.

Visit http://bonds.com.au/mash/ for details.

To promote the contest, they created a dance mashup video. I wonder if it isn't a bit counterproductive. Seems to me that if you want to get normal people dancing around in their skivvies, it might not be the best idea to introduce the concept using tight-bodied teens. On the one hand, the video will go viral; on the other hand, after seeing this, who really wants to set up the camera to capture their own underwear moment?

It's in the Experience: A New Blog

I decided it was time I got serious about blogging, so I created a new blog just my professional ramblings about marketing, branding, Experiential Marketing, and the Internet. I'll still post the silly, useless, political, and funny stuff here, but if you're interested in my serious side--and yes, I have one--you'll find it at It's In The Experience: http://itsintheexperience.blogspot.com.

Orson Welles hates Frozen Peas

"Frozen Peas," as this audio clip is known, is an infamous recording of Orson Welles as he attempts to read an advertising script for peas, fish sticks, and beef.

The date of the recording isn't quite known, but it comes from later in his life when the once famous actor and director was reduced to advertising. Of course, his ego remained quite intact, as evidenced by this recording, which includes zingers such as, "You are such pests! Now, what is it you want? In your depths of your ignorance, what is it you want?"

You just have to feel sorry for the directors attempting to get their voice over complete, don't you? [Via MilkandCookies]

NXT, an anti-green product

On the one hand, I found this an interesting way for a product to cut through the noise and get some attention on the shelf: It's NXT, a shaving gel that lights up. The brand (claims it) is spending $0 on advertising because it thinks the lighted product will sell itself.

But on the other hand, doesn't this strike you as a very "anti-green" marketing approach that could backfire? While so many brands are "going green," this brand uses AAA batteries that will be disposed by the thousands (millions?) and collect in landfills for no reason but pretty packaging. Could there be a brand backlash?

GOP ad lies

I am a conservative Democrat who occasionally agrees with the Republicans (primarily on economic issues), but the GOP has two nasty habits that will always and forever keep me voting Democratic. Both of these tendencies can be seen in this ad from a GOP-associated organization, Defense of Democracies.

Gripe Number One is that Republicans lie. They think they are lying for good reason and that that end justifies the means, but in my book that doesn't excuse lying. You know what I'm talking about--Saddam has WMDs, we don't torture, Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, I can't recall why we disbanded the Iraqi army, the office of the Vice President is not within the Executive branch, etc.

Gripe Number Two is the constant use of fear to sway American voters: Immigrants are stealing your jobs and raising crime, terrorists hate us for our freedoms, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons tomorrow, taking steps to combat global warming will endanger our economy, the Democrats will take away Social Security, the Democrat's health program will mean you'll die waiting for medical attention, etc.

And here is an advertisement that manages to exploit both of my gripes in just 30 short seconds. As reported on FactCheck.org, most of this ad is simply false. The House didn't refuse to vote; in fact, it passed its own version of the legislation months ago and the bill is now in conference to resolve the differences with the Senate version, which is the normal legislative process. Worse, the implication that our intelligence gathering has been compromised is incorrect--most of the security bill remains in affect, and under existing laws the government can still get an immediate and speedy court order to eavesdrop on a person it suspects of being involved with terrorist activities.

But my favorite lie is that this YouTube video declares Defense of Democracies, the group that is running this ad, as a "non-partisan, non-profit" organization. The group is, in fact, closely associated with the GOP. The board of directors contains three people: Former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, famous neo-conservative Jeane Kirkpatrick (who remains on the board despite her death two years ago), and former GOP vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp.

Here is the ad that the GOP hopes will hoodwink and scare Americans:

Mac vs. PC - South Park Style

The Mac vs. PC ads are often copied and mocked, but this version gets it right...

Thanks to Micah for sharing it.

Parents talk sex with daughter

Very funny ad. I can't tell you what it's for, since that would ruin the suspense. (I wonder if this has run anywhere yet.) [Via OtherCrap]

Brand Obama versus Brand Clinton

Yes, we all claim to hate the "packaging" of presidential candidates as though they're products on the shelf a giant electorate grocery store. We all think we evaluate our preferred candidates based on a thorough consideration of their platforms, and even the hint that a candidate is being groomed or redirected to appeal to consumers--I mean voters--sends Americans howling. We expect our candidates to represent us, but heaven forbid they convene a focus group to see what is on our minds!

But here's the fact of the matter--we elect presidents with no more care and concern than we select toothpaste or peanuts. I'll bet the average American will spend more time watching the Super Bowl, shopping for their next automobile, or seeing movies in 2008 than they will examining the candidates' platforms.

Pollsters know that we vote for candidates we find likable and trustworthy, but it doesn't really take a research specialist to see this. Last election, we reelected a president who had gotten us into a war over unjust causes and erroneous intelligence because we didn't want the smart, dedicated, stiff guy. Bush was the guy many of us wanted to sit down and have a beer with, and no one wanted to listen to Kerry speak for more than 10 minutes out of fear they'd be put to sleep. That isn't much of a way to select the leader of the strongest nation on earth, is it?

So, if for a moment we can set aside our knee-jerk tendency to claim that candidates shouldn't be "branded" and that Americans base their voting decisions on policy and not brand attributes, I'd like to explore Brand Obama and Brand Clinton.

Brand Obama is a singular brand, while Brand Clinton is a brand family. Brand Obama is just Barack, but one cannot evaluate Hillary's brand without considering the positive and negative associations transferred from Bill.

The Clinton Brand family is a complex brand. Bill was leader during a time of positive economic growth, and he had charismatic appeal that worked for the left and middle (but drove the right crazy). He embarrassed himself at the end of his presidency with a sex scandal, but earned new trust by being a respectable elder statesman after departing office. Interestingly, he was elected despite being considered a little untrustworthy--you'll recall his nickname was "Slick Willy"--but Brand Bill was able to overcome the negative associations because voters found him so likable and genuine.

Chances are, the Junior Senator from New York would probably not be a front-runner for the office of President were it not for her last name. Brand Clinton carried her to victory when she ran for Senate in New York--a state in which she had never previously lived--and it gave her the boost she needed to be considered a serious candidate for the White House.

But while one cannot ignore Brand Clinton's impact on Hillary, she will win or lose the election as her own brand. And this is where Brand Hillary has some problems. There are doubts as to her trustworthiness; in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, just 34% gave Hillary good scores for being "honest and straightforward" while 39% rated her poorly.

This is a HUGE problem for her and the Democratic party. Lacking Bill's "man of the people" appeal, his easy charm, and his folksiness, Hillary is going to struggle to overcome the trust issue. And like any brand, she cannot get out of it by offering more product features; in other words, having better policy or being smarter simply isn't enough to overcome trust and likability issues. (If it were, we'd be voting to re-elect President Kerry this year.)

Brand Obama, on the other hand, looks pretty good. He's likable and trustworthy. The same poll that knocked Hillary on the trust issue showed Barack's decided advantage: 51% said Obama's "honest and straightforward," 17% did not.

Obama's got a strong brand, and Hillary is going to find it damn tough to overcome his momentum. You can complain all you want about the way I'm reducing the candidates to fluff over substance, but unless Hillary can find ways to convince voters she's not just smart and capable but also likable and trustworthy, it's all over.

Of course, Brand Clinton should never be ruled out. Party loyalists (a/k/a Superdelegates) continue to lean toward her (or, more accurately, to the Clinton brand), so she may yet capture the nomination. But versus McCain, the likely Republican candidate, she's going to lose out on those same important brand attributes of likability and trust.

I have no idea how, but Hillary's got to get likable and/or trustworthy fast, or she'll need to step aside for a stronger Democratic brand... er, I mean candidate.

"Um... hello? Only a few days to send for Valentine's! Save 27%"

Is this the worst email marketing subject line ever? ProFlowers sent me a message with the header: "Um... hello? Only a few days to send for Valentine's! Save 27%".

What's with the "Um... hello?" I'm trying to think of an appropriate time when one would use those words, but every purpose I can think of involves one person being annoyed at the stupidity of another. As in, "Um.. hello? Are you paying attention to the conversation" or "Um... Hello. Why are you telling us this? Everyone already knows Dane Cook movies suck."

So what did I do to annoy ProFlowers? Are they upset I haven't made a Valentine's Day purchase yet? Did ProFlowers think it had the kind of relationship with me that would permit the company to nag and insult me for having the audacity to do my holiday shopping elsewhere?

Well, I'm not sure what kind of relationship ProFlowers thought it had with me before sending that email message, but they know exacly what our relationship is now. I unsubscribed. (I'm not sure I've ever unsubscribed just because of a subject line.)

Prada's waifish obsession

I wasn't sure if I found this beautiful or creepy. Prada unveiled 'Trembled Blossoms', a fashion film, at their SoHo Epicenter store in New York. The short movie is a CGI journey as a character morphs "from a Lalique-like blossom, through a pastel coloured meadow and into a splendid, seductive glade, where she meets Pan," according to ShowStudio.

My problem is with the continued infatuation with youth and emaciation by the fashion industry. The character in question has the appearance of an undernourished 12-year-old girl, naked until she is clothed in magical garments. (Of course, Prada couldn't permit the naked character to trudge around in bare feet, so she is supplied with high-heel shoes to give her the appropriate model carriage.)

How many 12-year-olds buy Prada? Why not feature a more womanly character? Does anyone at Prada eat? Is Prada afraid of breasts and curves? What do you think?

You can view a larger version of the animated short at Prada.com.

The passing of a photographic era

Progress tramples older technologies. Usually this passes unnoticed, but sometimes we get the opportunity to pause at the grave.

Polaroid had already halted the production of instant cameras, but this week it announced it was closing the last of the manufacturing plants that make instant film.

Why wait for instant film to develop when you can see your shots instantly on a digital camera? Still, I'll miss shaking those instant prints to hurry their development (an action which apparently accomplished nothing but everyone still did.) Just think, Outkast's song "Hey Ya!" is just four years old and already it's as old and musty as "Surrey with the Fringe on Top."

I think Polaroid's and Kodak's fates are a great lesson for every big business: Don't lose sight of the business you're in!

I remember branding guru Al Reis once saying something along the lines of that Kodak's brand was about memories while Fuji was just about film. He was right, but Kodak forgot about it themselves. At some point they thought they were in the film business and not the memory business, so they missed what might've been a huge advantage in the infant digital photography market. They're still trying to catch up.

It's an important lesson: Companies can easily forget that their success and failure rests not on their ability to make or distribute physical things but instead on providing a solution, furnishing genuine experiences, and/or creating a meaningful and emotional connection in their customers.

Shake that thought around a while and see what develops.

The best laid plans of mice, men, and Reebock

I'm not all that impressed with this ad. It feels cheap, struck me as poorly edited, and ordinarily wouldn't have held my interest to the end to see the product being advertised. Perhaps the dopey soundtrack was going to be replaced with better music in the event the ad actually aired, which might've helped.

But, I still feel a little sorry for Reebok, who filmed this "19 and 0" ad in anticipation of a Patriot's win. D'oh! [Via Other Crap]

Target tells bloggers (i.e., you) to drop dead

I love when big companies don't get "it." So comfortable are they in their size and superiority that they miss the changes that are obvious to people like you and I.

Over ten years ago when the Internet was young, I operated a Web site and moderated a BBS dedicated to Disney news. Everything I posted was seen by thousands of rabid Disney fans across the globe. So, I reached out to Disney's various PR departments and requested to be added to their distribution lists. Some of their PR departments did so without question, while others told me they only dealt with "real journalists."

At the time, few people had any idea what bulletin boards were and many saw the Internet as a playground for geeks, so I understood the negative reaction. Of course, I still found it funny that they were willing to send thousands of press releases to people who couldn't care less and wouldn't do anything with the information, but a person guaranteed to share the news promptly and accurately with some of their biggest customers wasn't worth the cost of postage. The fact was I didn't work for a newspaper or magazine, and thus I didn't exist.

(A favorite story of mine from this era was the argument I had with one Disney PR employee about the value of providing PR digitally. At the time, I was receiving press releases in hard copy form, so I had to scan and run them through OCR software in order to turn the information into digital text for sharing online. I called Disney and suggested that a site with downloadable files would make it easier for journalists and was told there was no doubt that real journalists preferred press releases on paper. Apparently journalists back then really liked typing!)

You'd think that in 2008 that companies would get it, but Target managed to stumble into a high-profile mistake recently.

According to Chief Marketer, ShapingYouth.org blogger Amy Jussel contacted Target to complain about a Times Square billboard that depicted a young lady making a snow angel with the Target bullseye in the middle of her crotch. Target's response to this blogger--who is read by thousands of consumers--was to drop dead.

Okay, the didn't literally say "drop dead" but instead told Amy, "We are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets." As if that wasn't bad enough, Target's anonymous PR flunky made sure to demonstrate how much Target doesn't understand social media by adding, "This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest."

Major bloggers don't reach your core guest while newspapers do, huh? Apparently Target is aiming for the senior citizen demographic!

The lunacy of Target's response earned it bad press, with negative articles appearing on FOX news, CNET, and the New York Times. Which goes to show you exactly what the power of consumers and bloggers is nowadays. The era of tightly-controlled PR being offered to select news outlets that have all the power to distribute information is long gone. Someone tell Target, please!

Miller High Life Guy talks common sense about Super Bowl ads

Forget Donny Deutsch and the USA Today, for the real common sense view of Super Bowl ads, turn to Wendell, the Miller High Life delivery guy.

I found his observations funny, and the concept from Miller is a brilliant use of viral media. (For the record, I do some work for Miller but had nothing to do with this funny video.)

Miller High Life Delivery Guy Rant
Uploaded by Shoutlet08

Sexism in Tab Cola Ads

Even though there's always progress to be made, it's good to every now and then remember how far we've come in the work for gender equality. Check out the Tab Cola ads over at Sociological Images. It's shocking to think how casually these sorts of ads were not only accepted but in fact worked, which demonstrates that our common understanding of the societal roles of men and women are very, very different today than they were just 30 years ago.

For your enjoyment, here is one of those ads: "Be a Mind Sticker" asks women to keep their shape by drinking Tab Cola. Doing so will help their men think positively about them during the long hours toiling at work while the women enjoy their time running in soft focus slow mo through park-like settings. The mellow soundtrack actually contains the words, "Don't you want to have a good shape? He wants you with a good shape."

What does this do for Danica Patrick's brand?

We already know what GoDaddy's brand is about; every Super Bowl they roll out another titillating ad designed to stir up controversy and thereby generate publicity. Unfortunately, it's worked, and half of America knows you can register domain names at GoDaddy (and the other half probably think it's a porn site.)

This year's ad was a teaser because Fox wouldn't run the ad GoDaddy submitted. The teaser shows Danica Patrick beginning to unzip her race suit, and viewers were invited to visit GoDaddy.com to see the rest of the ad, which they entitled "Exposure." The ad appears below, and of course, there's nothing nearly as titillating as promised--just the same tired "beaver" joke that was recycled from the Naked Gun movies.

While I am sure it garnered traffic for GoDaddy, I wonder what the hell this sort of ad does for Danica's brand. She wants to be taken seriously a driver, yet she appears as nothing more than eye candy in this ad, like some sort of Victoria's Secret model. Why would a professional woman agree to do this sort of ad?

Domino Advertising

Good advertising should encourage people to watch, which is where most ads fail. Marketers forget they are making ads for consumers and not for themselves or their bosses, which is why most advertising is so boring (and so very easy to ignore).

Advertising featuring dominoes or Rube Goldberg-like situations could get boring if everyone did it, but here are three great ads that demand you pay attention.

Sad, strange, ominous ad

This is a weird, sad, and ominous find. AdRants found a 1979 ad for a Pakistani airline promoting its new flights to New York city. The juxtaposition of the plane's shadow and the famous twin towers must've seemed brilliant back in '79, but it sure looks different today.

Talk to your kids about sex

I'm confused as to which is the appropriate approach. (But I know which is the funnier approach!)