Walgreen's is running various programs with Twitter, including a customer survey about their Balance Rewards program which I filled out yesterday. I then was targeted with the below promoted tweet.
My first reaction to the promoted tweet was echoed by other users: "Walgreen's, are you calling me fat?".
Their tie-in with popular show "The Biggest Loser" has garnered them mainly negative replies by users. I'd say they fell into the trap of trying to leverage another brand's popularity, without considering the pre-existing negative associations with that brand - this has created a juxtaposition between their goal of trying to play in the health and fitness market with the belief many people have that the approach The Biggest Loser takes is "lose weight at all costs".
Key takeaway: chose your brand partnerships wisely.
How do you get an Oscar-winning actor to promote your brand?
Product placement has long been a tactic in the U.S. film and TV industry, but with the Netflix-produced show House of Cards (executive produced by Kevin Spacey), a new medium for product placement has emerged. In one of the first episodes of the series, Spacey's character Francis Underwood is seen playing with his PlayStation at home, then in episode four, there's this exchange:
Underwood: Is that a PS Vita? Russo: Uh -- Underwood: Which games does he have? Russo: All of 'em. Underwood: I have a console at home, I play sometimes to relax. I oughta get one of these for the car. [Pause] So, Peter. We need to close the shipyard in your district...
That's quite an endorsement, and much more powerful than pre-roll ads on YouTube or Hulu.com.
It will be interesting to see how much product placement infiltrates other series produced outside of the traditional network and cable TV channels. If funding from product placement results in shows as good as House of Cards, it will be worth it. Perhaps executive producer Kevin Spacey is as Machievellian a marketer as Underwood is a politican.
Could Facebook hold the key to MySpace's successful resurgence? With their repositioning as a "social and music discovery destination", MySpace can target relevant Facebook users. In fact, they can cherry pick the demographics they want to lure back by age, gender, location, and interest.
However, since I don't "like" any music-related pages or bands on Facebook, and I am presumably slightly (ahem) older than their target audience, it looks to me like they are casting a pretty wide net. Still.. maybe it's time to dust off my old MySpace profile.
For a location-aware mobile app, promoting a Baltimore Ravens pint glass the day after the Super Bowl to someone living in San Francisco seems like a pretty big fail to me!
Obama and Romney are using Google AdWords in an effort to control the message online. But how effective are they, and which issues do they think are important enough to warrant online ad spend? Here's how they stack up:
VEEP
Romney is capitalizing on the buzz that will inevitably precede his VP selection. Google "Romney VP short list" and you'll see an add promoting his new app.
Obama wisely doesn't have any ads if you search for "Obama VP short list" but if you search for "Obama Biden" the message is "we've come a long way, but there's still more to be done."
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN MOBILE APPS
Searching for "Romney app" leads to the ad shown further above, whereas Obama is promoting his own app to those searching for it.
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID
What message are the candidates trying to push on the economy and unemployment? The Romney campaign has cleverly hijacked the search phrase "Obama on the economy" with their pro-business message "you did build it," along with a call-to-action to download a sign. If you search for "Romney on the economy" you'll find his message "Romney wants less federal spending and regulation," plus a call-to-action to donate money.
On the issue of unemployment, the Obama campaign is mum (at least on AdWords) where as Romney promotes his message of "free enterprise, hard work, and innovation," plus -- surprise, surprise -- a call-to-action to donate. On the issue of job creation, Obama ads are again absent and Romney wants to "get America back to work" -- oh yeah, and "donate $5 now".
FOREIGN POLICY, GAY MARRIAGE, IMMIGRATION, GUN CONTROL
No Google ads from either campaign for these issues.
HEALTH CARE
Obama is playing defense if you search for "Obama care" with his message "I'm proud of Obamacare - Because it works".
Search for "Romney care" and you'll find that Romney will "Repeal Obamacare as Quickly as Possible". However, if you search for "Romneycare" (one word) you will find...nothing.
ATTACK ADS
For those looking for attack ads on either candidate, they'll find a pro-jobs message from Romney and nothing from Obama.
FIRST LADY
Score one the President when it comes to the first lady -- not only does the Obama campaign have an ad if you search for "Michelle Obama", but she gets top billing in the copy. Search for "Ann Romney" and you'll come up empty (in the ad space, that is).
So who is the winner in this online advertising battle between Obama and Romney? Why, Google, of course.
At MediaPost's Online Media, Marketing and Advertising (OMMA) Global Conference yesterday, the website's Editor-in-Chief Joe Mandese led a panel discussion about whether ad agencies are positioned to "tackle the opportunities and challenges" of social media.
At issue was whether the big guys can stave off competition of specialist agencies - something the industry failed to do during the first stages of the digital revolution which witnessed the birth of pure-play digital agencies and the created a major fragmentation in the way that clients' marketing and advertising needs were managed.
Play nice!
Antony Young argued that agencies must partner to adequately navigate through the social space - whether that is with their clients or other agencies.
“Social media isn't just this land grab that one agency ought to own. Everyone should contribute to how to expand social platforms. One important thing to not do is to say 'this belongs in one agency's court'. Every agency should bring a social prospective to their discipline.”
In regards to whether it is the agency's or the brand's role to manage the presence in social media, Young thinks clients and all their partners all have a role. “Everyone's got to bring a social lens to their role in communications – it shouldn't sit with one person or department.”
Marita Scarfi agreed that social is pervasive within an organization. “This is not just a marketing issue. This is a sales issue. This is a retail channel issue. It touches every part of the organization. We as a single agency can't solve all those problems...You have to partner. You need to know what the best strategy is and then partner with others [on behalf of] your client.”
Learn from the past
Big agencies were slow out of the gate in terms of integrating digital into their core offerings. Many struggled - and still do - with how to fit digital into their corporate structure and processes. I also believe that many agency teams become myopic and spend too much time focusing on the immediate needs of their clients, or the brief that just crossed their desk, rather than spending (unbillable) time learning about new technologies and trends that impact their industry.
“If you look at the creative agencies, they were slow to jump into the digital world. That's why a lot of digital agencies found their footing,” Young pointed out.
Scarfi feels that “it was a big mistake for agencies to separate media and creative into separate agencies...We shouldn't separate media and creative - they inform each other too much.”
Young countered that “collaboration is important [between media and creative agencies]…but you don't have to be sitting in one building.”
Challenges
Brands face more challenges than just figuring out how to manage social media internally (covering the needs of sales, customer service, marketing, etc.) and how to manage their marketing programs across sometimes multiple agencies.
With so many people trying to get a piece of the pie, and everyone from their customer service reps to Board members asking why the brand hasn't tried tactic XYZ with the latest flavor-of-the-month social media channel, brands need the confidence to stay the course.
“Brands have to be fanatical about sticking to their strategy and plan,” noted Joshua Spanier.
Scarfi agreed. “You must start with your brand experience. A lot of tactics get out there and it just makes things worse.”
Creating the right content is a challenge facing agencies.
“Creatives today are not good at coming up with long-form programmatic ideas," according to Spanier. "They are trained in short forms [banners, etc]. That is a challenge for creative agencies.”
“Long-form content is really key to social. That is the big shift for most of us...You have to understand that it's a relationship more so than it ever has been,” added Scarfi.
It's complicated
So CAN the big agencies integrate social? Joshua Spanier's opinion sums up the agency point of view nicely: “It's so complicated, we don't need more silos.”
How long before all agency media teams are replaced with trading desks and robotic tool sets that replace all of the grunt work?
That's the question the San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group attempted to answer at this morning's "Robotic Media: The Launch Of The Automated Agency" event.
There are a range of tools available to help clients automate their media buying and dynamically develop their display ad creative. But media agencies still think they have a place. Here are a few of the reasons put forward by the panel, along with my thoughts.
"Commodity ad stock is driving awareness but does not drive sales" This is a warning call to clients. Why? Clients expect sales; particularly from their online ad buys. Beware the media agency that simply measures the effectiveness of your campaign by "impressions".
Commodity ad buys will not prevail in the "last click wins" battle. Therefore it's important for clients to consider their objectives when buying these ads.
If awareness is the objective, then metrics should be put in place to measure the effectiveness of the ad. This should go beyond the number of impressions - after all, how many banner ads have you ignored today?
If generating sales is the objective, then don't pay per impression. Pay per click, or better yet pay per sale.
"It's too overwhelming for clients to get up to speed" This is true, too a point. The industry is changing rapidly, and clients should be focused on their core business, not trying to keep up with the explosion of tools from an ever-growing list of technology vendors. However, two things could happen. The pace of change could slow, enabling time-pressed clients to catch up. Or, they could simply hire someone with the expertise to bring the media buying capabilities in house.
"Automated creative can be powerful but it can't tell a story" As the social contract with brands evolves, customers are expecting more dialogue and fewer monologues. Brands with a powerful story and those who effectively act as curators of content are proving that "content is (still) king". However, I don't see media agencies as being equipped to be the story tellers.
Clients need their agencies to be connected to their brand story, to be knowledgeable about their customers and to be able to tell their story in a way that cuts through the clutter while honoring their social contract with their customers. In my experience, traditional ad agencies and digital agencies are much better at doing this than media agencies.
There was some discussion about how difficult it is to find people who have the skills to pull insights and opportunities from data. Direct marketers have been doing this for decades. Now it's time for the media (and digital) folks to play catch up and help their brands make use of the immense amount of data that's available to them.
Adapt or die
As the changes in the marketplace necessitate changes to clients' marketing departments, agencies will have to adapt to stay relevant.
Many years ago, DM agencies used to manage the print buying process for clients (i.e. commodity buying). This was a service to clients - it meant the agency could handle the campaign from end to end. But clients began having to answer to procurement departments. Was the agency really adding value by being a commodity buyer? Now clients generally have a list of preferred print suppliers who they have negotiated with directly. Will the same thing happen with buying ad space? Media agencies will have to make sure they are bringing more to the table to ensure their survival.
QR codes are being used by an increasing number of brands - from airlines to banks to retail. QR codes are two-dimensional barcodes which can be read by select smart phones. Users can scan the QR code to display a web page within their mobile browser, display text or access contact information.
The benefit for marketers is to be able to provide relevant information to users who are at a specific place, or who have your physical product in their hands. It also gives advertisers useful metrics to understand who is interacting with their ads and where.
Here's how it works:
The brand publicizes the QR code. In this case, it was on a print ad for Hearts of Fire diamonds.
Here's a close-up of the code:
The user then opens a QR code app on a smart phone to scan the QR code:
A customized web page opens in the user's smart phone web browser:
While it may seem like QR codes will only appeal to the tech savvy crowd, I think practical applications such as mobile boarding passes and bicycle registration will drive adoption.
In addition, Google sent out 100,000 QR code decals to businesses in December 2009, so expect to see an increasing number of these in store windows and point of purchase displays in the future.
QR codes are already being adopted by fashionable brands such as Missoni, Clinique and Calvin Klein.
In Japan, Louis Vuitton even used a designer QR code in one of their campaigns.
QR codes could be used in businesses with physical locations to encourage people to sign up for your email list, "like" you on Facebook or follow you on Twitter. Brands can use QR codes to create campaigns with hidden content or other game-like elements. Consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies can use QR codes to provide additional content about their product and drive people to their website for further engagement. QR codes are not complex and the cost is relatively low. The timing is right to start considering how QR codes can fit into your overall marketing mix.
Sex appeal has taken a back seat to practicality in the latest advertising trend.
When it comes to bras in advertisements, selling sex has long been the go-to with adds like this Wonderbra ad from 1994:
...or this 2007 campaign for Agent Provocateur:
Now brands want to give women a reason to buy a new bra that has nothing to do with sex. Whether it's to replace an old bra:
...to deal with the very unsexy issue of under-the-breast sweat:
...or just to provide a better fit:
Even Victoria's Secret is emphasizing function over form with this in-store display with quotes liked "I love the self-adjusting straps" and "supports all the way around". Ooh, sexy!
So, when will these brands get their sexy back? My prediction is that when the economy perks back up, sex will be at the front and center of bra advertisements once again.
Speech bubbles are popping up everywhere. I feel like I'm in a live-action version of VH1's pop-up video.
Charles Schwab is using speech bubbles in their multi-media "Talk to Chuck" campaign. I've seen this used on TV ads, billboards and even this digital display outside their San Francisco office:
Meanwhile, Bravo is using speech bubbles to encourage users to "join the conversation" on their website. They have even incorporated a speech bubble into their logo.
The new Bloomberg Business Week is using a speech bubble throughout their pages, but strangely with no clear link to conversation or communication.
I can only guess that the art directors for these brands have spent a lot of time text messaging each other on their iPhones.
I would not be surprised to find another agency trying to replicate The Bubble Project in the near future.
I've already discussed the trend for stylized Mad Men-inspired typography. But what's an agency creative to do if the target audience is women? Oh I know - paint it pink.
If, like many people in marketing and advertising, you are a fan of Mad Men, you may bemoan the fact that season four won't start until around July. Perhaps this has been playing on the subconscious of agency creatives, who can't seem to get enough of that Mad Men typography.
Here is the Mad Men logo and an intro to one of their online video clips:
This tagline from Kentucky Fried Chicken looks awfully similar:
I've been trying to avoid joining Foursquare, the location-based social networking service which asks users to "check in" at various locations in order to connect with friends, gain points, get recommendations on nearby places and access special offers.
My hesitation in signing up was twofold: I don't think it's a good idea to publicize on the world wide web that my home is empty and, well, let's just say that anyone who has ever had an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend turn up somewhere "coincidentally" can probably think of a reason not to post their whereabouts in real time. However, Foursquare just would not go away, so I succumbed. It turns out their privacy settings enable users to choose how public their whereabouts will be.
The points element of Foursquare (e.g. +1 point for checking in, +5 point the first time you check in at a new venue, +2 points for checking in at two locations in the same day, etc.) adds a gaming component which is mildly addictive, even if you don't have any friends on Foursquare. (In contrast, it's not much fun tweeting alone, which leads many people to abandon Twitter.)
Yesterday, I "checked in" when I was having lunch and up popped an offer for $1 off a frozen yogurt at Froots. All I had to do was show the cashier the coupon on my iPhone to receive the discount, which I could get on my first visit and every fifth visit. Although I didn't buy the frozen yogurt, I seriously considered it, but this may be due in part to my mild coupon addiction.
If you have a bricks-and-mortar business, it's worth being an early mover on Foursquare. I would suggest piggybacking this with a PR effort about your company's use of new media. This was one of the main benefits for companies who were the first to establish a presence on Second Life, garnering them mentions in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review and Business Week. Double bang for the buck. No one cared who joined Second Life after that first wave. For the record, I recommended getting into Second Life early or not at all.
I think Foursquare has staying power, although there are already similar services vying for share of market, e.g. Gowalla and Yelp, which has just added check-ins to its iPhone app.
If you're a Foursquare, Gowalla or Yelp user, please leave a comment and let me know what you think of the service.
As a follow-up to my post from yesterday about the UK launch of Chris Anderson's new book Free, I thought I'd share thoughts from the panelists: Stefano Hatfield, editor of thelondonpaper; Paul Brown, the UK MD of Spotify; and Rory Sutherland, Vice-Chairman of Ogilvy Group UK. All comments below are paraphrased.
MediaWeek: Who is making money out of "free"?
Brown: The general thought about music is that advertising is not the panacea. Radio has done very well with the free model. Pandora is projecting a turnover of $40 million this year. Licensing costs are high but there are successful free business models where there are paid and free elements. "Free" is a very powerful way of generating profit from high margin products. Spotify is only four months old but revenue is doubling month on month.
MediaWeek: How are free newspapers affecting consumers? Is the work of traditional journalists in jeopardy?
Hatfield: In the past three years, several jobs have been created at thelondonpaper and London Lite. But there aren't as many journalist jobs on each title. The Metro has about 100 people on staff. Fleet Street is going to have less journalists. It's a more dynamic and fast-moving process. When Michael Jackson died we did 24 pages in two hours.You have to be more creative when you can't spend 10 million pounds on a Madonna photo.
MediaWeek:Is there a down side to the "free" business model?
Sutherland: Jeremy Bullmore said some of the worst successful products in the world survived because they were free -- the metal coat hanger and the warm-air hand dryer. The end user had no say in it. White wine that is free is invariably worse than wine that you choose.
Other comments:
Free is not merely an extension of cheap.(Sutherland)
Every time Craigslist makes a few cents, a few newspapers in Alabama go bust. (Sutherland)
Volunteers do better than conscripts (employees), because they are passionate. (Anderson)
Avocations were previously done privately, for free. Now they are done publicly. (Anderson)
In the old days, "nutter letters" didn't get published. Now they do. They're called blogs. (Hatfield)
A little bit of transaction (e.g. charging even one cent) places an amazing amount of friction.
Once you're free, no one can undercut you.
If something is born free and remains free, like Google, we don't think less of it. But the same doesn't hold true for things that become free, like The Village Voice. (Anderson)
Last week I attended the UK launch of Chris Anderson's new book Free. Anderson is the former editor of Wired magazine and author of The Long Tail.
The event, hosted by MediaWeek, featured free drinks (or was that payment-in-kind for some publicity?) and featured panelists Stefano Hatfield, editor of thelondonpaper; Paul Brown, the UK MD of Spotify; and the inimitable Rory Sutherland, Vice-Chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.
No such thing as a free lunch? According to Anderson "free" used to be a "huckster's phrase" with offers such as "buy one get one free" and "free with purchase". Perhaps referring to advertisers as hucksters in a room full of people that work in the industry was not the best choice of words, but no one seemed to object. He gave examples of offerings based on "free" such as Jell-O giving away free recipe books to stimulate demand of a product no one had then heard of; King Gillette selling razors to banks who then gave away the razors with their "save and shave" program (customers then had to buy the blades); and mobile phone providers giving away the handsets for free in order to sell minutes.
He mentioned that advertising-based business models are also built on free -- a third party is subsidizing your free radio or TV programs. The internet has started with this "old media" model. "With a new media, you always adopt the old business model," Anderson explained. Freemium - 21st Century Free The new media model is freemium, where a company gives away 99% of its product/service/information for free and charges a premium for just 1%. This model is already in use by companies such as Spotify. Anderson's theory of the "radical new price" is based in part on the fact that "the cost of everything online falls by 50% every 18 months", a theory that is eloquently debated by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker. (Anderson's response is here.)
At what cost free? I would love to see a panel debate with those two, or a roundtable about the future of intellectual capital, creativity and investigative journalism. I briefly asked Sutherland after the event whether he thought the trend towards free resulted in creativity being devalued. After all, Ogilvy makes its money from creative ideas. He referred to former J Walter Thompson chair and Guardian columnist Jeremy Bullmore (who I find myself agreeing with more and more), who says that you should never write for free. But Sutherland added that writing for three hours per week is pleasurable, and people will do it for free, but any more than that and it becomes a job. And people want to get paid.
So are all of those people writing for free for three hours per week for online publications such as The Huffington Post who (unless there is more recent news) doesn't pay bloggers taking away jobs from people who are journalists by trade? This to me is where the debate gets interesting, but Anderson seemed to shrug off the notion that there would be a serious impact to journalism, giving an example of an exposé by a local blog about vegan restaurants selling products that were not, in fact, vegan. I doubt those same bloggers would volunteer to go to Iraq to determine whether the purported weapons of mass destruction were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction. Thank goodness we have the likes of Sean Penn for that. Hatfield did mention that we'd always have Reuters and the AP to cover those stories; however, isn't this consolidating information, power and influence on the some on the most important global issues - the issues that would most benefit from the opinions and investigations of trained journalists? But I digress. This is an issue for the intellectuals of our time to debate. At least, I hope they will.
More on "Free" I will post comments from the panelists tomorrow.
Last night I went to a Digital Lounge event with Spotify's UK Sales Director Jon Mitchell. Spotify is a streaming music service which was founded in Sweden in 2006 and has attracted one million users. The free service is also available in Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain. It's premium service is available elsewhere for £9.99 per month.
According to Mitchell, Spotify offers a "legal alternative to piracy". In fact, Mitchell boldly stated that their only real competition is music pirates, although The Independent has stated that they have "declared war in iTunes".
Spotify launched in the UK in October 2008; the UK has quickly become their biggest market with 10,000 people per day signing up for a free account. Unlike many "next big things", they have found that people who download Spotify use the service on an ongoing basis, with average user sessions of 60 minutes.
As a Spotify user and huge fan, I can say that main attractions for me are:
It's easy to set up and easy to use. The download is quick, especially as compared with the iTunes download which requires frequent updating and annoying prompts to download their preferred browser Safari. My view on new technology, as I've stated before on this blog, is that it must either be so simple that anyone can learn to do it, or so essential that everyone must learn to do it. Spotify is simple.
I can add as many tracks as I want, without hogging massive memory on my computer. Plus, there's no chance I'll lose the files.
They have a great selection of music, having signed deals with all four major music labels.
I don't have to deal with iPods, which are not built to last and contribute to electronic landfill.
The service is "smart" enough to not serve ads while you are working on PowerPoint or other documents.
They are the first streaming service to strike deals with all the majors, which took a major shift in the labels' attitudes. Mitchell said their initial response when asked if they'd provide their music for free was "F--- Off". It took two-and-a-half years to get them to change their minds. Spotify has also signed deals with CD Baby and independent music aggregator Merlin.
Freemium Mitchell said the free model is not going away, as with some other services who are ending their free love. Instead, they will entice users to join their Premium service with unique offerings, such as access to U2's latest album one week before it was released. "We want users to have access to the free version so they can test it and see that it's easy to use and have the music they love," explained Mitchell.
Because of the ad-funded model for the free service, they "don't need 80% of their users to pay for the Premium service." However, Mitchell admitted that take-up of the Premium offering is currently low, but he expects it to improve as they educate people about upcoming features.
Demographics Mitchell didn't go into too much detail about their demographics, but he did reveal that 20% of their audience is 45+. They can target ads based on age, gender and post code. This makes advertising on Spotify much more 1-to-1 than on traditional radio. What's next for Spotify?
Spotify announced this morning that the service will be available on the Google Android mobile. [Watch their video announcement.] Expect more mobile phone partnerships.
They are doing some deals with radio stations so they can recommend playlists (and share in revenue).
Their web site states they are looking to work with "ISPs or mobile operators wanting to stand out in the crowd by adding a very comprehensive, legal all-you-can-eat music service to their current voice, TV and broadband services."
Look for them to launch in other countries, with invite-only access or exclusively through tie-ups with telecomms companies.
I'll be interested to see what else develops. I think there are opportunities for brands to use Spotify in unique ways, perhaps through mashups. Their founder also started affilliate marketing company TradeDoubler, so he certainly knows how to work with brands. Mitchell said he "can't wait to see what happens when brands and bigger companies get involved." I guess as the sales director, he has more than one reason to be excited about that.
I don't know if I've ever written such a glowing blog post about one company. I hope someone from Spotify sends me a t-shirt.
Global brands often struggle with how to roll out a global campaign. I was reminded of this on a recent trip to Budapest, Hungary when I came across this ad for BlackBerry in Business Hungary, the magazine from the American Chamber of Commerce in Hungary. Surely no native English-speaking creative team would hyphenate "al-ready" and "busi-nessmen".
Although they use a photo of a business woman and the somewhat cumbersome "he/she" pronoun, they state that "the device appeals mostly to businessmen".
(click to enlarge)
It looks to me like BlackBerry probably decentralized their advertising and let the regions do their own things, for their own markets. This isn't a bad strategy, but usually that means the markets are doing the creative in their own language in a way that appeals to local audiences. In this case, they've gotten it all wrong by (I'm guessing) writing copy for an American brand in Hungarian, then translating it into English. Surely they could have just adapted a U.S. or UK ad?
iPods don’t take a licking. A few months back, my iPod stopped working. I got the dreaded “sad iPod” icon. I tried the suggested solutions on the Apple support page to no avail and was ready to try the controversial “6th” solution: ramming it on a pad of paper. I asked some people about how long their iPods lasted and no one seemed to mind that these things crap out regularly. (A sign of greenetically incorrect eliteness, if you ask me.) Although iPods, according to their own report, and other electronic items, according to The New York Times, are supposedly built to last for three years, the reality is that many break down before this.
I hate having to replace something that should have lasted a lot longer. It’s a waste of money and generates needless landfill. Can you imagine if Sony Walkmans broke down so easily 25 years ago? Why are we so permissive of non-durability? While in recent years, brands have been focusing on the “fluffy” stuff like inspiration, now that we’re in a recession, I predict durability will again become a selling point.
Which brands will deliver campaigns like The Energizer Bunny, Timex’s “Takes a licking but keeps on ticking” or Built Ford Tough? (The former two are on Ad Age’s list of the Top 100 Advertising Campaigns of the Century.)
Sites like eBay, Gumtree and Craigslist are establishing a re-sale value for every imaginable item. Will any brands follow the lead of the auto industry and promote a high re-sale value in their marketing communications?
Certainly, luxury brands with high-quality craftsmanship are in a prime position to respond to the current economic climate by positioning their product as an investment, something Patek Phillipe has done for awhile now with their ad campaign focusing on buying “for the next generation”.
A much smaller (and more affordable) example is our client ShopCurious which sells unique and designer vintage items. They have been encouraging customers to eschew a slavish addiction to high street trends and disposable fashion in favor of quality items which will last. The value in buying quality is that if you buy something classic that you really like, you can keep it for a long time and it will always look good and function well, i.e. they are “built to last”.
If this company selling trash cans can use "built to last" as their key selling point, any brand with a quality product can.
It looks like Ghostbusters is making a comeback - at least in the advertising world. 118 118 used the Ghostbusters theme song in their latest ad, even hiring Ray Parker Jr to sing updated lyrics such as "I ain't afraid of no goats".
Citroën has incorporated the tune in the latest ad from Euro RSCG.
If you look closely at the Justin Lee Collins Show ads, you'll spot an unmistakeable Stay Puft Marshmallow Man t-shirt. He's already tried to "bring back" Fame, Dallas and The A-Team. Can a Ghostbusters reunion be far behind?
I've noticed a new call to action: "search online for". For instance, the radio ads promoting Orange's "I am" campaign in the UK close with "search online for 'I am'" and Channel 4 TV ads simply display a search symbol with the text "search for Channel 4".
This is a departure from giving customers a web address to remember, or certainly giving them a toll-free number to call. It is also recognition that search is the thing. Most web surfing experiences these days begin with a search engine - so why not make your call to action relevant to the user experience?
There are a few side benefits of this approach. You can, to some extent, control what your customers and prospects are searching for. This means you'll be more likely to connect with those people, i.e. they won't get led astray by other competitors and unrelated companies who show up for your keywords, or keywords you haven't anticipated. It also means that you have a better chance of controlling your pay per click (PPC) costs. You don't have to guess what keywords your customers are most likely to use. You do, however, have to make sure that you show up on page one of all search engines.
Another benefit is that you can separate out campaign traffic from general brand traffic. Customers searching for their nearest Orange store could search for "Orange," "Orange mobile phones" or "Orange Chelsea", while customers searching for the campaign can do as they've been instructed and search for "I am".
It also means that you can use less attractive URLs. The "I am" URL is www.i-am-everyone.co.uk. So on the radio, it would be "visit us online at 'I dash am dash everyone dot co dot uk'." It doesn't make for very punch ad copy.
Finally, using "search for" as a call to action aids in a brand being able to "own" a word or phrase. If Orange wants its customers to associate the brand with "I am", telling them (on the radio) or showing them (in print or on TV) is not nearly as powerful as getting them to type the message into their web browser - this helps fix the term in their mind as being associated with that brand.
Below are the search results for "I am" across Google, Yahoo!, MSN and Ask. As you can see, not only does Orange have two PPC ads per search engine, they are in the top 10 natural search results for each. (Click on the image to see the details.)
Interestingly, Channel 4 did not run PPC ads; their number one natural search result must have given them confidence. Things change fast in search, however; I hope they are checking their search rankings frequently.
