The Box...Disrupted.

Sorry you haven't heard from me in a while.

The first few weeks of my internship with TBWA\Chiat\Day have taught me so much. First, that it's normal to work daily from 8:45a.m. to 7:30p.m. and sometimes later, because you're just that busy; but second, it has taught me the value of a simple suggestion.

What makes a great advertising campaign? Is it the power of the research that goes into it, or is it the simple brilliance of a creative team? Is it a combination of both? Of course; but I think some luck has to be thrown in there as well.

Take, for example, TBWA South Africa's campaign for The Zimbabwean that recently won the Cannes Grand Prix award for one of the best campaigns created this year. Through the use of their "Disruption Days," TBWA managed to not only examine the many facets of what makes a reader interested in a newspaper enough to actually read it, but also look at the surrounding political climate in such a way as to see the importance (or lack thereof) of the monetary system's decline in Zimbabwe. But, you may ask, how did they come up with the idea to stamp individual pieces of money with headlines so shrewd and meaningful that they made The Zimbabwean popular overnight?

It's all in the power of a brainstorm. It's not a simple formula. It's the capacity to think outside of the box while still keeping the box, and everything that surrounds it, in view. It's the ability to let self-consciousness go and suggest ideas that are not only startling and surprising in nature, but that also hit a deep chord with the human psyche.

Advertising, like I've always said, is a give and take. You get out of it what you put in to it, and sometimes it means more than just trying to promote a product. There is a reason that advertising has been called the picture of a generation.

And this, I think, is what makes TBWA stand out. I'm not saying it as a pitch for them; I think their advertising speaks for itself. Their realization that the younger generation of Pepsi was getting smarter, more involved, and changing; their discovery that the Snicker's label was recognizable in and of itself; their amazing ability to transform a relatively cheap vodka brand into something world famous; I could go on. By not only keeping their current social climates in view, but also branching out in terms of their creativity, TBWA has discovered the ultimate compromise- reigning in creativity in such a way that it ultimately becomes more creative.

In advertising, we should only hope to do so much.

What's In A Name?

What goes into naming a company? How do they pick just the right order of their founders' last names, and how do they build the reputation behind it that makes these names iconic?

Is picking a name like writing a story? To me, it seems that it would have to be. When you write a story, you always write the text of it first- the actual plot, developing the characters, etc. The very last thing you do is come up with the title, because the entire point of the title is to sum things up, give an innovative and sometimes surprising aspect to the story in general. Some great stories have the most interesting titles, and not all are merely descriptive. In fact, it's the ones that aren't descriptive, the ones that lead you to believe something that may not actually be true in the tale, or may be inferred a different way than what is actually meant, that are the best stories. For example, take the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman. The actual titles of the books themselves- The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass- are all descriptive for their respective books; however, the title of the series itself- His Dark Materials- almost, one would think, has nothing to do with the books themselves! Who is "he" and what do "his dark materials" have to do with anything that happens in any of these books?

As a matter of fact, it has quite a lot to do with them. Read the series, and then let's chat about it. I don't want to spoil anything for you right now, but I will say that this title provides a significant amount of insight in to the series' atheistic overtones, and the fact that God may or may not actually exist in these books. How do we find this out? Why, through using the dark materials, of course!

This name provides a twist. It gives insight. None of the words in the title is used in vain. All have a purpose.

This is exactly what the name of a legitimately good marketing or advertising firm should have as well. If the founder has an already-established reputation that speaks of good things to come, then use it. If not, see what else you can come up with. But the first and foremost thing you should do is establish the mission. Tell the story. Expound upon the philosophy. Make people believe you, and then they'll know your name and come to respect it.

In society today, it seems that almost all names are descriptive. But the ones that aren't are the ones that have the most credible philosophies, and those are the ones that I'm most inclined to trust. Don't get me wrong; there are quite a lot of great and wonderful agencies whose names are just that, and that's fine. But when starting out in today's economic situation and in today's world of cutthroat competition, it's important to have something that sets you apart.

So that a rose by any other name would definitely not smell as sweet.

Florida Our Alma Mater, Thy Glorious Name We Praise...

When did you become a Gator?

This is the headline of the University of Florida's new advertising campaign. After several attention-getting runs of "The University of Florida is in Gainesville. The Gator Nation is Everywhere." and "Go Gators," the University has now turned its marketing and advertising focus to the people that really matter: the students and alumni themselves. Because UF runs rampant with school spirit all year round due to its highly successful sports teams, there really is no other school that can possibly compare in terms of the enthusiasm it encourages from its fans, students and non-students alike. Why not play off of this raving school spirit in order to make an advertising campaign that touches the hearts of those already emotionally involved in the school?

More universities are now trying to increase their advertising budgets in order to attract the nation's best and brightest. They've realized that in this struggling economy and the increases in both tuition and budget cuts throughout the nation, the time has come to use their staggering endowment money for more than giving outrageous bonuses to university presidents (ahem, Bernie Machen). There's something more to a good education, and now, it's no longer merely how much you can learn, but also how much you can experience outside of the classes themselves. Potential college students are now asking not if the universities can provide them with what they need educationally-speaking to be successful (because that's become par for all higher institutions in general), but how they can build their networks, what extracurriculars and activities they can get involved with, what leadership and job opportunities are available both within the university itself and the surrounding town or city.

For $40,000 a year (give or take $10,000 depending on the school), where is the place that will give me the absolute best bang for my buck? Oh, and what scholarships does it offer?

Nowadays, the world of higher learning is becoming just as cut-throat and competitve a market as any product brand. Colleges now have to establish new ways to reach the hearts of potential students and inspire in them a drive to both do well in school and reach their fullest potentials as human beings. In addition, they must deeply touch alumni and philanthropists to drive donations and endowments in order to make this level of experience possible. Because the costs of getting degrees are continually increasing, it's important that universities cater to both audiences, and, like UF, really encourage the school spirit that lends money and experience to both the university and the students and alumni themselves. College is the place where most people find out who they are, what they want in life, and determine where they're going.

Let's face it: where would we be without our college days?

I Am Rubber and You Are Glue. Whatever You Say Bounces Off Me and Sticks To You.

Sorry you haven't heard from me in a while.

There's been a new trend in advertising that lately has brought back images of medieval duels in 1500s-era France. When you're slapped across the face with a glove, what ensues is a fight to the death. May the best man (or company) win. Now, in advertising, competitors are increasingly slapping each other across the face...publicly.

Mac vs. PC. Powerade vs. Gatorade. Campbell's vs. Progresso. Progressive vs. All other insurance companies. Kia vs. Toyota. The list goes on, and all it takes to see the bloody battles is a search for them on YouTube.

Though comparative advertising is nothing new, the radical increase in the amount of it that has been appearing on air lately is slightly astounding. An article in AdAge brings to light this developing trend, citing the Campbell's soup corporation as one of the many companies for which this type of advertising has worked. In the past year, Campbell's condensed soup sales have gone up 6%, while rival Progresso's sales went down 7%. These commercials feature a blind taste test where cans of Campbell and Progresso are displayed prominently on screen. Other campaigns of this type include Powerade's billboard campaign in which consumers are strongly implored not to drink an "incomplete energy drink," featuring only half of a billboard for Gatorade and an entire one for Powerade directly behind it. Mac's "Mac vs. PC" commecials are becoming sharper and sharper, with future PC's freezing and legal copy pervading the entire screen.

Advertising is competitve, and comparisons between other tangible products are most definitely a workable way to market one's own product, because it prominently displays the benefits of the brand that is being marketed. However, are the increased insults, the snide comments, and the subtle derogatory statements becoming downright mean? If so, is this something that companies should fix, or if it's working for them, should they keep it? Is it ethical to so blatantly drown one's competitors in the sea of not-good-enough products, and even to ruin their painstakingly-established reputations among the buying market?

Is business becoming personal? And is it really ok if it is?

Though comparative ads do have their advantages, it's important to keep in mind the fact that an ad that is too hard-hitting and insulting may have consequences for the entire category in which this brand is marketing. Corporations should be careful about the amount of insults they throw at others, because karma really does come back around.

Fluxions in Fickle Faith

"'Look at the parallels between religion and marketing, and it's almost identical. People become attached to a religion in the same way someone takes on a brand,' said Mara Einstein, author of Brands of Faith, and associate professor of media studies at Queens College. She and others contend that it is marketing, and our consumerist society, that has given people the idea they have a divine right to choose whatever they like -- and to treat faiths just like they'd treat any other brands, switching religions or choosing to have none."

This is a quote from an AdAge article I just read, detailing how religions are trying to get into the consumer conversation by implementing new campaigns (such as the United Methodist Church's "Rethink Church" campaign) to turn once-apathetic 18-34 year olds into avid believers. The article examines religion's decline in recent years; now, 62% of young people ages 18-34 identify themselves as "spiritual," while only 43% have prayed in the last two months (all this information is taken from AdAge). More people than ever are seeing themselves as "non-affiliated."

The ways in which religion works in the mind of the people today is simple: take what you like, don't take what you don't. In other words, religion has become a brand. And not necessarily a luxury brand, either; these decisions don't seem to be too highly involved. On the other contrary, they represent a well-I-feel-like-this-now-but-may-not-later-so-I-think-I'll-try-on-another-one-for-size attitude that has permeated the ranks of this age group.

One of my best friends is half-Catholic, half-Jewish. She was Bat Mitzvah'd, but not Confirmed; however, on Passover, she's Catholic, and on Lent, she's Jewish. It's handy, and it's definitely not bad (at least in my own point of view. But then again, I'm not too terribly religious either), but it does seem to promote the give-and-take that religion has become, the commitment-phobia that's really only prevalent when we have to pick something to believe in.

I think it's very interesting how religions now must promote themselves through the very mediums which they once condemned. Not only is it ironic, but it shows the development of our society through which people are free to choose their beliefs as they see fit. Whether they actually commit to those beliefs is another issue (see above paragraph), but the fact is that we can now actively decide what we want to follow and when we want to follow it, no matter how "sacreligious" that makes us.

According to the article, most people are on the flux with religions up until the age of 24, in which they get serious about picking one that seems reasonable. By the age of 36, most of them have settled on the set of beliefs that they will live by for the rest of their lives, and by 50 these beliefs are almost impossible to change. So these establishments already know their target market of ages 18-34, and they know what they have to do to cater to people of these ages.

However, this pandering does raise several questions: by conforming these religious institutions into belief-ified entertainment centers, are they becoming as superficial as people tend to actually believe they are? In this age of skepticism, is this same superficiality taking away from peoples' own tendencies to believe, thereby adding to religious decline itself? Or is it the phenomenon of marketing altogether, and the fact that we've spoiled ourselves into choosing and getting what we want, when we want it, that is spotlighting this issue?

On one side, it's great that these once-archaic churches, temples, etc. are now getting up-to-date on their social and traditional forms of media and are learning how to reach out to people without merely preaching in the middle of a plaza; however, on the other hand, it is pandering to the wants of fickle individuals who may not necessarily know what they want until they absolutely have to, and even then, the commitment is shaky.

I guess all they can really do is reach out and have faith.

Life Is For Sharing: The T-Mobile Way

I love the new T-Mobile campaign.

There's a very cool blog post on it, with videos of the campaign and everything, at http://www.garethkay.com/.

Here, again, appears the theme of bringing people together through inspirational advertising. While Visa does it with encouraging people to "Go" places, T-Mobile is taking a different approach: bringing people together through doing common activities in public places. On the link to the blog above, you have thousands of people gathered together in Trafalgar Square singing "Hey Jude" by the Beatles, arms around each other, gathered around microphones with people they have never met. In this ad, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZrrbgCdYc, a handful of people in the middle of a subway station just stopped. And did nothing. For minutes.
And then they danced.
To the suprise and entertainment of all the passers-by, and even a brightening of several hundred days.

The best thing about this campaign is that it blends the nontraditional with the traditional. It takes events that normally would be construed as nontraditional, such as dancing in a subway station, brands them in that way, and then films it and airs it on TV, making it commercial and as such a common form of advertising. In planning their media this way, T-Mobile was able to not only promote their brand to those who were lucky enough to be in the station at the right time, but also the hundreds of thousands of other people around the country who happened to see the commercial when it aired.

It also has a different message than most of the other inspirational campaigns taking place now. Instead of trying to be inspiring or directly telling people that the only way to stimulate the economy is to go places and buy things, it simply promotes the fact that we can get through this together. Only by working with one another towards a common goal, whether that be a dance routine, a song, or a stimulus package, can we hope to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in.

In some ways, this message is even more effective because it plays off of the emotionality of people. Who doesn't love seeing thousands of people gathered together, singing a song that has been immortalized since the Beatles first sang it? Who isn't surprised and entertained to see a random group of people start dancing on their commutes to work?

T-Mobile (and Saatchi & Saatchi) have invented a truly great campaign. Let's learn from its message, and share it with each other.

Making Business Personal

I had two really awesome conversations yesterday about Business to Business advertising.

One question that I've really wanted to ask, and finally got the chance to, was about the current trend of optimistic advertising in the face of the economic recession we're currently finding ourselves in. I was wondering if this trend, geared mostly towards consumer advertising, also held true in the world of B2B advertising as well.

As it turns out, the answer was yes. Though these huge businesses (and especially their C-suite executives) make extremely important buying decisions involving tons of research, several company pitches, and a much more involved level of thinking than we'd make as individuals in our daily lives, B2B advertising has to have the information that will help companies make the right purchasing decisions. In order to put together an ad of this caliber, catering to the top executives of some of the nation's largest companies, a great B2B agency has to not only recognize that these executives need to know exactly how their client really meets the needs of this company, but also that the executives themselves are (a very important thing): human.

They, too, are subject to the emotions and the personalities that seem to plague all of us. They, too, are probably feeling the effects of this depression, both in their careers and their personal lives. As such, it's important to not only advertise to their logical sides, but to their emotional sides as well.

And the recognition of this core insight is what helps top agencies such as Doremus achieve the standing they have today and in the past.

I find this concept to be so fascinating, especially in the light of the subject of my last post. If these B2B agencies made use of Mindset Media's research about personality and media usage, both in their media purchases and also in their creative executions, targeted towards the traits of the leaders of their target companies, would this have a significant effect on how effective their advertising is? Would it change the way that B2B companies advertise, and would it have any effect on how they choose their target companies and audiences? Would this also hold true for the internal advertising that some agencies do, catered to the overall culture and traits of their clients' employees? It would be an extremely interesting study to see how the use of Mindset Media's findings would change the way that B2B advertising can be conducted.

On the flip side, however, would the likelihood that people with leadership traits are more likely to buy hybrid cars really have an effect on the decisions that these leaders are making for their companies? Who's to say that changing its advertising to fit more of a C-suite executive's personality will actually help an agency in its quest to increase demand for its clients?

Like I said: a very interesting study.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to relationships. How can you foster a friendly relationship between a manufacturer and the company that sells the manufacturer's goods? How can you advertise the manufacturer so that sellers actually want to buy the products it produces? How can you create and nurture that relationship- between the agency and the client, between the client and its audience, and ultimately, between the products themselves and their audiences- to help it become beneficial and fulfilling for all parties involved? Is personality targeting the way to do this? Or will a traditional selling approach work better?

After all, maybe a CEO's tendency to buy hybrid cars would blossom into a focus on sustainability for the entire company. And maybe this focus on sustainability will ultimately help the company prosper in regards to its consumers.

And if the company is high in demand... well then, it must have a good supplier.

The Psychology of Media Buying

This article that I've just read is so interesting I'm posting the link to it: http://adage.com/article?article_id=136408

It's an AdAge article that discusses the findings of Mindset Media, a psychographic research company that has recently discovered that personality may play more of a role in what media people tend to use than mere demographics would predict. Now, it's no longer that younger people like to use the Internet while older generations like print media; instead, "Top web users rank high in openness, and to a smaller degree, those who rank high in bravado are top users, too. Those highly open people who favor the web are 153% more likely to always buy organic products and 104% more likely to drive a hybrid car."

Now more than ever, it seems, it's important to know exactly who your target audience is, to create an actual person who embodies the core ideas of this market, and to really cater your advertising -especially your media buying- to this one person. Is s/he extraverted or introverted? Is s/he a leader or a follower? Is s/he a trendsetter or a conformist? Etc.

The breakthrough discovery of this research company may seem obvious at first glance; of course personality influences what media you use. Some people like TV while others don't, and some just don't have time for it altogether. Women are more likely to read magazines than men are. The same goes for other media- newspapers, the Internet, and outdoor advertising, among others. However, would you have thought that the amount that you watch TV, read magazines, or use the Internet would be influenced by how outgoing you are? By whether or not you look before you leap in making decisions? Maybe it's just the fact that I was a psychology major for a semester, but this finding seems to me to be an extremely meaningful one in the world of media buying, not to mention the entire marketing sphere.

If used correctly, this research would help both to make the media advertisers invest in much cheaper, and have more results in terms of consumers actually buying products. It would allow companies to speak to consumers on a more personal level, and isn't that what we're always aiming for?

I have to wonder, though, what effect this will have on the current trend of optimistic advertising in this economic recession. All automakers, for example, are offering some form of price protection, and these have made most of the car commercials that I've seen seem pretty generic. If they take into account their target people, and make their advertising prevalent in the media they know these people will use (based on both their personalities and their demographics), will these seemingly generic ads become differentiated and more effective? Does personality have an effect on how the creative for these ads should be executed as well? Perhaps that has to do with culture as a whole, but would creative be more effective if it really was catered towards the people it's targeting?

These findings bring up a slew of questions about the effectiveness of the advertising that we currently do, and about why, if these findings seem kind of obvious at first glance, we haven't already harnessed the potential of personality in creating campaigns for our products? Some brands have, and I think these are the ones that really have been successful- Dove, Visa, and American Express, to name a few.

Whether or not this discovery will indeed have an effect on the way media is bought and used by agencies and clients in the future, it nevertheless teaches everyone about the importance of psychology in every aspect of life.

A Foray Into The Financial World

It's interesting how in this time of economic recession, the last thing I've thought to write about is financial brands.

But this morning it occurred to me: how are brands that handle money really functioning in this time, and how to do they have to change their advertising and behavior to continue to be a source of comfort in consumers' lives?

I just read an article by John Quelch in the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly on how these financial brands are doing, and what consumers are really looking for when they go to invest in banks, insurance companies, and other financial resources.

With the death of brands such as Merril Lynch, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and especially AIG, it has become apparent that consumers really are looking for a company who can "do no evil." Instead of the media publishing stories on a company's bad social behavior or the extravagant bonuses it pays to its executives, consumers are looking for stories about companies who really are trying to help. Thus, brands such as Charles Schwab and H&R Block, with their "talk to Chuck" and "you've got people" campaigns, are becoming more and more valuable because of their exerted efforts to really bond with their consumers. By making themselves seem personal, like a friend on whom one can rely in bad times, they are not only avoiding a host of potential media attacks, but are also growing the relatability of their brands, and as such, their businesses.

It seems to be like I've said before. With this change of times comes a change in how companies should market to consumers. Now more than ever, consumers aren't looking for companies they can merely buy from; instead, they're looking for companies they can have relationships with. As such, a trend of optimisim and personality has emerged in almost every brand out there, and now consumer advertising will probably never be the same.

I have to wonder, though: does this hold true for business-to-business brands as well? Are businesses themselves, in making efforts to be a friend to consumers, really looking for friends to supply them with their own resources? Do these companies have to market themselves the same way as to consumers, or can they just go with a simple "we're better than the competitors" pitch and have a real chance of winning the business?

I would think that these companies would at least have to differentiate themselves, and perhaps create more of a "professional friend" than a "casual friend;" that is, they would want to portray themselves as someone you'd want to work with (and that you can see yourself progressing with) rather than someone you want to go out and have coffee with. And therein lies the major difference between business-to-business and consumer advertising.

So it all comes down to a difference in personality. But personality itself, really, is the core of everything.
More research on this later.

Satisfaction Guaranteed

How much would you pay for a diamond necklace?

How much would you pay for a high-quality Italian meal?

How much would you pay to use AIM?

What if your answers to these questions actually became the prices for these items? Would you be willing to pay them then? Would you be more willing to buy the product if you chose the price? Do you think it would make a difference if the price, without you choosing, was set at the price that you would pay for it if given the choice?

A new fad is emerging in the world of consumerism, it seems. Not only are companies making use of consumers' ideas and creativity on the Internet and social media sphere, but they're also letting the consumer, in some cases, even dictate the prices of their products.

It's an interesting phenomenon, and one that raises a lot of questions- about both what that means for advertising and what that means for consumers psychologically. In my second blog post ever, I mentioned a book called Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. The book details the "hidden forces that shape our decisions": why we buy certain products over other ones, the ways in which we make these economic decisions, and what our pattern of decision making means for us as consumers and as psychologically functioning human beings. He discusses a series of scientific experiments that he has conducted with partners in each chapter, and shows how humans really are irrational in their decision-making processes. It's a fantastic book, and one definitely worth reading for its insight and enlightenment.

As it turns out, the subject of consumers being more willing to pay for a product when they have determined the price for it is actually true, according to Mr. Ariely's book. Not only are consumers more willing to buy it (due to the fact that they believe they're getting a "better deal"), but they're also more satisfied with the product because they've justified the price to themselves. This phenomenon of adjusting attitidue to behavior is called cognitive dissonance, and it's a major part of the reason why we tend to convince ourselves that doing things that we may not have necessarily condoned in the past become ok once we've done them.

Since these consumers have convinced themselves that what they're buying is really worth the price, because they've set the price, they're more willing to pay it and more willing to enjoy it. We tend to overlook the flaws in something when we've already justified it to ourselves, and this effect is seen in things as simple as buying a Gator football ticket for $100 dollars after waiting in line for 6 hours. No matter how boring the resulting game is, it was worth it because of what you went through to get the ticket. You're more willing to enjoy the game, more alert in paying attention to it. In short, the fact that you've had to go through a conscious decision-making process when it comes to the product (do I want to wait in this line? What will I be giving up by investing my time and money into this ticket? What do I gain by going to see this game? Is it really worth it for me?) makes you more open-minded with facing it.

This is what companies are starting to realize in the growing world of consumerism which we seem to be entering. AIM is beginning to offer specialized packages to consumers for prices that they pay themselves. A local Italian restaurant in Gainesville lets you order, cooks your food, and then accepts whatever price you think will cover the cost and the quality of the food that you've just eaten. Surprisingly, people (even poor college students) will tend to pay more for the food, not only because the waiter is staring them in the face while they determine the price, but also because they really have become more satisfied with the food than at other restaurants where the price is already set.

It's an extremely interesting phenomenon, and one that marketers may want to make use of in the future due to its seemingly lucrative tendencies.

However, as with anything in life, this should be used if and only if a company can afford to use it, and if it does not have an effect on their reputation (for example, an already-established premium brand such as Apple probably would not be able to use this method because the prices they have set, though higher than other products of the same quality, have already proven themselves to be willingly paid by the people who buy them). Instead, this method seems to work with businesses who are just getting off the ground or companies who need to resort to a new method to bring in profit. In this way, the fad will probably spread to other new-starting businesses, and hence might even become the future of consumerism.

Will this trend become the future of consumerism, and will it have an effect on the way we view products and the satisfaction we get out of them?
You decide.

An Updated Portfolio

I have officially finished my portfolio for my advertising class. Here, I posted the updated and refurbished print ads from two of my campaigns- the New York Philharmonic and Lindt Chocolates. The body copy is beneath each of them.

The Philharmonic's campaign caters to working professionals ages 30-50, who have an interest in the arts and are looking to take their entire family to a performance that they would all enjoy. They know exactly what they think, about music and other aspects of their lives, and have a definite interest in the fine arts, having attended a public arts school or been involved in the fine arts during their education and childhood. To this effect, I've created the "Music is Everywhere" campaign, to show them that they can enjoy it anywhere they go, but mostly with the New York Philharmonic.

The Lindt campaign is primarily for people of the same age range as the Philharmonic, who know what kinds of chocolate they like and don't like, and are versed enough in the world of sweets to know a good chocolate when they see (or taste) one. However, they don't know that premiere chocolate such as Lindt provides is supposed to not only be an experience for taste, but also for the rest of the five senses. Chocolate is an experience unto itself, and to teach people this, I've created the Lindt "Five Senses Campaign." Each print ad is supposed to cater to a specific sense, with the first being sight, the second being touch, and the last being smell (the ad in a magazine would have a scratch-and-sniff over the truffles).

Enjoy!

The New York Philharmonic.

"It's there. All you have to do is look.

Can you hear it? It's blowing in the breeze, through the trees in the park. The kids playing baseball over there just add a different melody. The music is there, in the way we walk, in the sound our laughter makes as it peals through the air, creating notes we didn't even think were possible. It all comes together. Just listen to it."

"Do you feel it?

Listen to the fountain. The cars passing by just add a different tone. Those people going to the opera will tell you, there is no such thing as noise. All you have to do is ask them. Close your eyes, feel the mist, and listen to what is being created right in front of you. And what a masterpiece it's become."

"Can you hear it?

The sound is in everything we do, everywhere we go. There is no such thing as noise. It's only music. A harmony in the subway pulling into the station, a bass in the vibration we feel in our bodies, a counterpoint in the voices of all those telling stories on their phones, to their friends. It's all around us. Listen, and you'll hear it too."

Lindt Chocolates.

"Strength is the ability to break a chocolate bar into four pieces with your bare hands, and then eat just one of the pieces."

"Nine out of ten people like chocolate. The tenth person always lies."

"Nobody knows the truffles I've seen."

An English Major's Interjection

Since I have 20 minutes to write before catching the bus, and since I just got out of one of the best English courses I have ever taken in my life, I thought I'd write a little something about language.

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep."- Prospero, from Shakespeare's The Tempest

My Shakespeare professor just concluded a 16-week long course with the premise that our skin is the deepest one can go when trying to get "under someone's skin." The way to really do that, aside from cutting, gutting, or some other form of grotesquery, is to use language. Words are everything to us. I know this seems obvious, but if you really stop to think about it, language has an incredible impact on everything. People love, hate, die, cry, laugh, kill, educate, have epiphanies-- all through language. It's scary in its capacity to make us think, and in its own ability to move back on itself, play with itself, roll out from itself, and do things with itself that we absolutely could never dream of doing with our physical bodies.

The reason why so many serial killers don't speak is because they realize this. They're scared of the very language that may even have provoked them to do what they did.

How do we utilize this power? We advertise, we communicate, we try to sell, we write books and stories and papers, we talk, but do we realize? Do we fully understand the scope of the language we take for granted every single day we use it? The only way to "get under someone's skin," to affect them, to make them understand you, is through language. And isn't understanding what it's all about?

But how can you understand when all of these words, or almost all of them, may not necessarily mean what we take them to mean?
It's like conceiving a child (and this is relevant in Shakespeare). In the 1500s and early 1600s, you and your spouse could have a baby, but how do you know that it's yours? There's no way! S/He is fully in his/her head, and you are fully in your own. And whether or not the woman says "it's yours," according to Shakespeare in The Winter's Tale, "woman will say anything."
I don't mean to bring on the feminist criticism, but I just want to impress the point that we have no idea what words really mean.

And it's so wonderfully fascinating. Who knew that we could do so much with these letters, these symbols that don't really stand for anything, but that we've imbued with this absolute power that can make or break us in every single sense of those two words?

I could write at least four or five pages on that single sentence I quoted in the beginning. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is grounded in a sleep." And I bet you could too.

And I bet our interpretations would be completely different, and who knows if I would understand you or not?

Ten To The Thousandth Power

If I were to ask you to come up with a creative idea for me for marketing, say, a stuffed penguin, what do you think you'd come up with?

If I were to ask 10,000 people to come up with a creative idea for me for marketing a stuffed penguin, what do you think they would come up with?

The "voice of the consumer" has now, it seems, moved from the denizens of whether or not they like the ad for a product, to actually having input in creating that ad.

Crowdsourcing is an increasing epidemic among online web communities. Several online communities have sprung up recently for aspiring creatives and experienced creatives alike, as forums where they can discuss their art as well as make the art by redesigning web pages, messing with and creating colors and palettes, and even having input on the creation of advertisements by actual agencies. Companies themselves have made use of this recent trend, with Starbucks beginning its interactive, crowd-based MyStarbucksIdea website, as well as others such as IdeaStorm, The Netflix Prize, and Lego's invite-only community of Lego enthusiasts. All of these have in common their desire to really get the consumer's input on their products, so much so that they create these communities where people can discuss current products as well as recommend new ones to be tried out in the market. It's an infinite opportunity for companies to relate to their customers as well as to really try to tailor their products to what those customers will buy, both regionally and nationally.

However, this new fad in creativity is sparking some controversial questions. Ad agencies themselves are beginning to also take advantage of these online creative communities, using them to get inspiration as well as to actually take some of the colors and designs seen on the websites. The designers of these creations, however, aren't getting paid for their work; on the contrary, they do it out of love for the art and a desire to contribute something to a community. Several questions arise out of this, the most important being if those designers should be getting paid for the work they put up. At the same time though, by putting up their designs to be freely shared among people, and especially with uncopyrighted work, are they not giving up their rights to be compensated for their labor? Should agencies be taking advantage of these communities at all? And if they keep doing this, will all the work eventually start to look the same?

The most obvious question that arises out of all of these, and the one that most concerns me, is: if agencies are using these online communities to get ideas for ads, and if companies are making use of their own microsites to get feedback on products that consumers will actually buy, is the need for advertising in general eventually going to disappear? Will creativity just become the process of selling and making known the products that consumers have already recommended? Will there even be a need for agencies anymore, or will companies hire their own creatives (or even their own websurfers with which to look for creativity on the net without actually having to create any of their own) to create purely selling advertisements?

This might be seen as an extreme situation, but in the realm of the unknown, anything is possible. Crowdsourcing as a trend is incredible because it takes the consumer and allows them to experience the product, the brand, and the advertising in a whole new way, giving them a relationship to it that is unprecedented. It provides an endless world of opportunity to agencies and companies alike, and, if used wisely and moderately, can even be a more effective way of reaching into the hearts of consumers.

They say that the brainpower of even 1000 people combined on a single issue is mind-boggling, and it is. Just think of all the Alternate Reality Games that online forums have been able to figure out in a matter of weeks, which for any normal person would take months or even years. This phenomenon will not only provide that which I stated above, but also an entirely new perspective on everything one might think about a product. It's amazing, and it should definitely be taken advantage of, but with a grain of salt and a very good amount of caution and care.

Let's think of something together.

A Chocolate-y Superman and a Musical Batman

At last, my class members and I are in the final stages of putting together our portfolios for our final campaigns. For each one, we had to have a creative brief, three print ads, a television or radio spot, and a nontraditional ad.

Want to hear about mine?

My first campaign is for Six Flags over Georgia. It's not quite as built-up or as expensive as the Disney or Universal theme parks, but it nevertheless sports some roller coasters that have become quite famous. My concept came from the fact that it has a Superman roller coaster, which puts you on your stomach laying down so it seems like you're flying, and a Batman roller coaster that is currently being built. A lot of times, I hear people argue about which superhero is the better one- Superman or Batman, and so, taken with the roller coasters, I decided to create "Superman vs. Batman." It's somewhat similar to the "Mac vs. PC" commercials, except with more superhero pettiness. The print ads will have a comic-book type of look, and the TV ad will be guys dressed up in Supman and Batman costumes arguing with each other about the line lengths for their rides, the rides themselves, the villains each one fights, etc. against a backdrop of a roller coaster and some other things going on in the background. The nontraditional advertising will consist of hiring a couple theater majors on different college campuses across the country, and have them appear in certain public places on campus during the course of the semester and argue with each other. Of course, Six Flags will be included on the list of must-say topics.

My second campaign is for the Lindor (Lindt) Chocolate Truffles. That campaign's concept comes almost directly from the company's website: premium chocolate, the kind that Lindt offers, is supposed to be an experience for all five senses; not just taste. Lindt specializes in this because their chocolate is smooth to the touch, tantalizing to the eye, crip to the ear, irresistable to the nose, and wonderful in its taste. So my campaign, naturally, had to be the "Five Senses" campaign. The print ads look something like this:

The copy underneath reads, "Nine out of ten people say they like chocolate. The tenth person always lies." This ad appeals to the sense of touch through use of the satin. The other two ads in this campaign will appeal to sight (having a chocolate bar in the place of the satin), and smell (a truffle in the place of the satin that is able to be scratched-and-sniffed), along with similar quotes about chocolate. The TV ad will also center around this, with literal chocolate rain falling on people. The nontraditional ad will be called "The Lindt Experience," and be located in a major metropolitan area as a one-day event. There will be a table set up with different chocolate-related experiences for each of the five senses, including a box where you can put your hand in to feel the chocolate, a little cave that you can walk through to smell it, and a bowl full of truffles to try the taste.

My third and final campaign is for the New York Philharmonic. In order to get people (and especially young, artsy adults who make up my target market) interested in attending New York Philharmonic concerts, I came up with the idea that "Music is Everywhere." This campaign, then, focuses on juxtaposing New York City with musical instruments. The print ads are below:

The copy under all these ads has to do with performances during the months of April and May by the orchestra, including the website information and what is being performed, along with "Come experience the sound." I might have to think of a better tagline.

The television spot for this campaign is going to be focused around bringing the print ads to life. In this way, taxi cabs will have trumpets attached to the front to be used as their horns, the Statue of Liberty will be playing the violin, and subways will be flutes. This will all be to the tune of Rossini's "William Tell Overture" and be filmed in the same manner and as the same length as Sony Bravia's "Colour Like No Other" campaign.

The nontraditional element for this campaign will most likely be a music scavenger hunt arond the city, with large pictures of instruments in certain locations with clues on them leading to the next location. The hunt will be for high school and college students, and the reward will be either to meet a soloist or member of the orchestra, or free tickets to a concert or opera.

Those are my ideas, and some of my executions. I hope you enjoyed them!

The Greenest Form of Brown

I think my new update-blog days are going to officially become Sundays and Wednesdays, because those seem to be the days where I have the most time.

In other news, I recently read an e-mail with the quote, "Save the Earth-- it's the only planet with chocolate!" Which, of course, is so true. However, Mars, Inc., the producer of candy bars such as Mars, M&M, Snickers, and Dove chocolates, has recently announced its intention to certify its entire cocoa supply as being sustainably produced by the year 2020. This trend is just one of the many efforts by companies to save the planet which we have unwittingly hurt in past generations.

Mars hopes to achieve this goal by partnering with the Rainforest Alliance, an organization that helps to safeguard natural habitats and ensure that workers are fairly treated. If Mars is able to certify that a significant portion of its products is produced in this way, they will be able to put the seal of the Alliance on their products, and thereby market their sustainability efforts, setting an example for chocolate producers everwhere.

However, this raises the question: if the Rainforest Alliance ensures the safety of natural habitats and the fair treatment of workers, is this to say that Mars had no previous regard for the natural environment or its workers who help to farm the cocoa? If, by setting this example for other candy and chocolate producers alike, are these other companies also demonstrating less-than-significant efforts to make sure that animals are not deprived of places to live, or that farmers are working normal hours?

The trend towards sustanability is one that has been catching on over the last few years. Automakers seem to be the leaders in this, as most car brands now offer some form of hybrid or extremely gas-efficient automobile. Even the University of Florida is catching on, utilizing its College of Agriculture to help the University reach levels of sustainability that will make it an example not only in the state of Florida, but also throughout the Southeastern university community.

Sustainability in and of itself has also become an invaluable marketing tool, as more and more people are becoming aware of the importance of consciousness in utilizing the Earth's resources. However, though the Rainforest Alliance has been widely certifying products such as coffee for a long time, these certifications by nonprofit organizations don't necessarily resonate with consumers as they aren't the most familiar. This was found by a study by BBMG, a branding and integrated marketing company, and raises another question: if there isn't too much marketing value in becoming known for sustainability efforts by these unfamiliar organizations, is it worth it to companies to do it? And is that, perhaps, why so many companies have not yet made the effort?

In the rising fear of global warming, erosion, and the depletion of the ozone layer, sustainability efforts by individual people and companies alike are extremely important to the preservation of our planet. Though these "green" efforts are often more expensive than other alternatives, they nevertheless help greatly in the move towards extending the healthful life of the Earth. If used correctly, they can also be an invaluable marketing platform for most products, as the "green" trend in marketing is becoming extraordinarily popular.

So the moral of the story, today, is: Save the Earth, because it's the only planet with chocolate!

Me, Myself, and I, Inc.

Have you ever stopped to think about what your brand would be, if you had one?

Mine would be a blend of musicality, creativity, opportunity, hard work, and ambition. It would be the person I am, just emphasizing more of my qualities. My brand would love to read and take classes, play the cello while being in the marching band, do arts and crafts, and go to Disney. My brand is excited, fun-loving, open-minded, and optimistic.

Would I be a socially responsible company? Yeah, probably. I'd get involved in issues I cared about, probably helping sponsor events such as Dance Marathons at college campuses and helping causes that really meant something to me.

In an economic recession, would I increase fees, or would I come up with offers that would not only help stimulate some hope in the world but also give consumers a reason not to fear my product?

Guess I'll have to find that one out when I start to own my own company. But taking from that, AdAge posted an article a couple days ago about companies that are actually making it work in the state of depression we're in right now, and it's all about branding. Not to bring this up again, but all of these companies- JetBlue, Hyundai, XBox360, Bounty, and Miller HighLife- have all done something that has helped not just to sell, but to inspire hope and decrease the fear of spending. For example, Hyundai has put out an offer that if customers buy a car and then lose their jobs, they can return the car. Who knows if people will actually return their newly-bought cars, but the offer itself served to differentiate Hyundai from the rest of the declining automobile market. JetBlue, in the face of rising fees from other airline companies, has offered unlimited snacks and free DirecTV during the flight in their "Happy Jetting" program.

As a counter-example, Tropicana recently changed their logo, making it different from the orange with a straw sticking out of it that consumers have grown to know and love. Because of this, sales have declined 20% in the last month or so, and now company executives are discussing how to get the old logo back on the market. Gatorade's new G2 logo and brand hasn't worked for them either, and lately has become food for Powerade's "don't have an incomplete sports drink" campaign.

All's fair in love and war, and if we really think about it, advertising is a kind of constant battle. Who can be the most differentiated? Who can make the offer that no one else in that entire product category has made? And who can provide hope in an age of despair, merely through a simple sentence in a print ad?

Body Language

I knew gestures were important in talking face-to-face, and even that smiling was important on the phone, because people can always tell. What I didn't know, however, was that gestures might be just as important in the world of digital marketing as they are in actual person-to-person conversation.

I just read an article on AdAge that described this new phenomenon. In the world of digital marketing on everything that is now acquiring an "i(insert word here)," human gestures and the symbolic conversation between a product and its user is now becoming just as important as the product itself. Since everything is becoming touch-- Nintendo Wii, touch-screen phones, even the apps available on the iPhone and iPod Touch-- the typical mouse-click won't work for your product anymore. Instead you need to be real, you need to be connected, and most of all, you need to be up on the times in every sense.

This new trend in digital marketing is not only yet another progression that society has made in the world of advertising (as a small digression, it astounds me how far advertising has come in the last century), but it also opens up an amazing opportunity for creativity and inventiveness. I know I've said this before, but the creation of innovative advertising that will go through traditional mediums is much harder now than is breaking into the new sphere of the "i____" and the Internet. It's a new time and a new world, with something new every day that will allow you to connect to your friend who lives in Hong Kong, or will allow you to play a game with people you don't know and probably will never meet outside of it. Though there is a flip side to all this (see my previous blog entry on the digitalization of life), we're lucky to be living in a time in which so much is new, so much that we have not yet even scratched the surface of in terms of branding, creativity, and invention, and so much that it is now possible to do.

Advertising is no longer shout-in-your-face. Instead, it has become subtle, with a focus more on branding than on selling, because branding is what's going to get people to become loyal to your product. It's about relationship building on an individual level, talking to the users of your products and finding out what they like, what they don't like, why they use you, and even why they don't use you. Social media has become more social than ever, and a person's phone is now the embodiment of his or her life (especially in my generation). Now, it seems, is the time to break out of the box if you've been in it before, to try something totally outrageous for your product and just see what happens, because no one has done it before.

I mean, if I'm seeing twelve-year-old girls with Blackberrys walking on the street in South Florida, that's definitely saying something, right?

The You Evolution

There are a couple things I want to talk about today.

First off, how is a brand made, in general? How do brands such as Coca Cola and Disney gain the prominence that they have in today's market, and sustain the reputation that they've created for themselves over years and years? Is it a combination of luck and hard work, does it just have to be sheer genius, or is it all three?

I've learned from my Blake, Newton, and Disney class (an English class that I'm taking this semester which has been extremely enlightening), most of the origins of the Disney company-- all about Ub Iwerks and the original Disney-Iwerks animation studio, along with how Iwerks was the actual designer of Mickey Mouse. I know that Disney pioneered the use of sound and color in animation films, a feat that was the main attraction for audiences to the Mickey Mouse cartoons, which became extremely famous and were shown in actual movie theaters throughout the nation during the Great Depression. In that time of despair similar to what we're facing now in our economy, Mickey Mouse was there, providing laughs and mishaps, to the delight of audiences everywhere.
So maybe it was just good timing.

The development of the theme parks didn't come until much later after the Mickey Mouse cartoons, along with others such as the Silly Symphonies, were well-established in consumers' minds as a favorable, fun-to-watch entity, Iwerks had left the Disney company, returned, and left again, and several other deals were struck with sound and film producers ranging from New York to California. The parks were just an add-on to the already famous cartoons, a way for audiences to bond more with the Mickey Mouse character they had already become so fond of, but they exploded in popularity and today are the main fixture with which the Disney company is known.
So maybe it is luck after all.

Will people like your brand? That all depends on the time and circumstances in which you project it. The characters you create. The feelings you give people. The experiences you allow them to have. Will your brand become an epidemic of popularity across all nations and become an escape for people across the world, such as Disney has become? Probably not; I'm sure that only happens to one in a billion companies, the really, really lucky ones, with the really real geniuses and the really really hard work. Though Coca-Cola is an exceedingly well-known brand throughout the world, it still is not as prevalent as the Disney brand, and people have arguments as to whether Coke or Pepsi is better, in fact. Perhaps this is because Coke hasn't created any amusement parks, or perhaps it's because they're a completely different product. But they've still managed to become the undisputed leader in their category, and they did that as well as they could.

So maybe the key is just to really think about whether the way you want to project your brand is right for the times, its personality, its experience, its overall feeling. I think (and you've probably all heard this before, but I'm going to say it anyway) that brands are really people, and, as with any successful person, you have to make very clear to other people what type of person you are for them to really understand you. This is what Disney did with Mickey Mouse, and what Coke has done with their brand. The one is a good-hearted, clumsy fellow who gets himself into all sorts of entertaining conundrums, and the second is a happy, colorful, all around do-gooder. So who are you, product? What do you want from us, and more importantly, what can we get from you? Don't just tell us; make it fun, make it obvious, but most of all, make it relatable.

And perhaps, in these times, the key is...just to be yourself.

Who Knew Destruction Could Be So Creative?

Sorry you haven't heard from me in a while.

So AdAge has now crowned the superheroes of Digital Marketing for 2009. Among the top contenders is Apple, whose TBWA/Media Arts Lab-created web ads have become some of the most innovate digital creativity ever to exist on the web. It's not just that Apple is incorporating synched banners into their campaigns-- it's that they're doing it on a consistent theme. Other companies have developed one-shot banner ads like these for their products, but what makes Apple's ads unique is that they all unite under the "Mac vs. PC" campaign, which, in and of itself, is one of the most popular campaigns in today's advertising sphere. The banner ad campaign began on nytimes.com and has recently spread to other sites such as YouTube through user recordings.

AdAge cites consumer distribution as the most important factor in the success of these ads, and obviously, they're right. The popularity of the ads, along with their innovativeness in interacting with the pages on which they are located (through destroying navigation bars, etc.) make consumers constantly interested in what's going to happen next.

However, as previously stated, Apple is not the first company to do this, and some foreign companies have made use of these interaction capabilities on their websites, instead of just in ads themselves. For example, visit http://producten.hema.nl/ to find out how German company Hema promotes its products by having them wreak havoc on their own website, followed by celebratory music and confetti. It's endlessly entertaining, and has spread throughout several markets due to its originality that appeals to all ages.

This new phase of interaction and further progress of the phenomenon called "advertainment" goes along really well with the trend everything in marketing is taking towards digitalization. The new technology that allows marketers to create these interactive, innovative ads and websites provides exciting opportunities for advertisers to promote their products in almost wholly original ways. You can put a twist on almost anything.

Soon, this kind of interaction will be just as normal to us as the average banner ad, and what will we do then?
Invent something else completely awesome, of course.

The Way To Their Hearts

In this time of economic crisis, woe, sorrow, depression, and several other adjectives that may or may not adequately describe it, ad agencies are now turning to new ways to acquire new business. Since this is the subject I'm most interested in, the article from AdAge, posted two days ago, says a lot about the future of my potential career.

According to the article, there are six factors agencies are utilizing to drum up some new clients.
1. Innovative Networking
Apparently, a meeting of a close group of marketing executives at your agency once a month or so could be extremely good for business. AdAge cites Via Group's founder-CEO John Coleman, who does this every month, with extremely successful results. This way, they not only get a chance to discuss prevalent issues in the current world of marketing, but they also get your agency's name on the radar just in case those companies need a commercial or two...
So networking's not always about the martini lunches or the career fairs. Instead, maybe it, like an ad campaign, needs to be creative to be successful. Perhaps this is true of everything in life.

2. Show Your Social Media Savvy
Thanks to my best friend, I have now become a social media-savvy chick. Due to the epidemic success of social sites such as Facebook, the rapid development and expansion of Twitter, and the growing popularity of blogs, social media has become an essential factor to successful marketing. It's quite a plus to know what you're doing on the Internet these days. Not only does it provide great word-of-mouth marketing (which, we all know, is the most powerful type there is), but it also proves that you realize where the future of the marketing business will be: a bigger-than-ever-before mixture of digital and traditional, where the ratio of digital advertising to traditional ads will probably fall somewhere around the lines of 80%:20%.

3. Adopt A Recognizable Platform
To sum up this section: what is your theory of perception? How do you feel that advertising should be done, and how should the respective parts of your agency fit together to create a lasting campaign? Ogilvy makes use of its "360 degree Brand Stewardization" in which they monitor every aspect of a brand, from its inception to its execution, and Woods Witt Dealy & Sons has a philosophy where they have an individual team of account managers, planners, creatives, and media people working on the same client together, in a more intimate environment than those found in larger agencies. It's all about your brand philosophy, your perception of how these things should be done, along with (in most cases) a catchy name. And if that fits with the client, you're sold.

4. Be Willing To Contort
Haven't I said that advertising was like yoga? There's something in custom-made solutions. Obviously, you can't treat every client the same. And, let's face it, even though stretching hurts sometimes, in the end you end up feeling better and more flexible. A happy client breeds a happy agency. It's a win-win situation. Be willing to try something new.

5. Write A Book
Why, you may ask? Because it's fun, because it gives you a topic to explore in detail (I'm an English major, I love analyzation), and because it gets your name out there and brings you credibility. Authors of major works, such as John Steele's Truth, Lies, and Advertising, (also one of the best books I have ever read) are renowned throughout the advertising world, in agencies as well as in classrooms, and are always invited to speak at conferences and conventions due to their "expertise" on the issues discussed. Plus, how cool would it be to say you got a book published?

6. Offer A Direct Line to the CEO
AdAge cites this, but I'd like to as well: Zimmerman and Partners Advertising in Ft. Lauderdale, FL (the agency that I've interned for twice), is great at this. Jordan Zimmerman, founder and CEO, is available to his clients 24/7 and checks in with them on a daily basis. This not only breeds trust and companionability between the agency and its clients, but it gives the agency a certain edge over others who may not be as close with their clients. As a result of this constant attention, Zimmerman wins 85% of their pitches, and has managed to significantly expand the businesses of all of their clients. For specific cases, see their regional Nissan work and the results they've gotten for Papa John's.

All in all, the things that can be accomplished with putting in just a little bit of extra effort can be astounding. Even in today's economic situation, new businesses are still being pitched, fought over, and won. Everyone is looking for a way to get their product sold, and the way to help them lies in your agency's ability to break outside of the boundaries of traditional new business pitches. Don't just create a campaign to pitch, create a relationship. Create credibility, companionability, and compatibility.

And, most of all, create wonderful advertisements.

The One You Want To Know

Imagine this:

A black screen with sad, sentimental (yet simple) piano music playing in the background (under and throughout). On the screen in white type fade in the words, "Six Flags Presents," and then fade into a picture of the Joker (yes, the Batman villain) sitting on a stool, crying, against a backdrop of the Dark Knight Six Flags roller coaster. The screen fades to black again and fade in the words, "A Villain's Renewal." Fade in to the Joker again, who looks sobbingly at the camera and begins to speak. "I…I was just so..so moved. I mean, I expected to come and blow something up, but then I saw it, and I ….and I ….(stops, wipes away a tear, and sniffles) I just couldn’t. It was so big, and there were so many drops, and twists, and loops, and the people looked so….just so happy. I never knew Batman could have that effect on people….on me. My criminal days are over. I just want to ride. Again, and again, and again…(fade out voice)" Fade in the black screen yet again, with the Dark Knight coaster logo and "Only at Six Flags" beneath it.

And that, my faithful readers, is my television spot concept for Six Flags. Coasters so intense that they rehabilitate even the worst villain.

But speaking of people we've all heard of, today's discussion centers around the midday advertiser, Jim Sokolove the lawyer. We've all seen his commercials, at home in the middle of the day doing housework, homework, or just hanging out while we're supposed to be in school. AdAge posted an interesting article about him today that discusses his law firm in terms of an ad agency. He gets the most business out of almost any other law firm in the nation, but litigates virtually none of the cases the commercials bring to his firm. Instead, though his commericals air almost by the minute in certain media vessels across the nation, he routes these calls through to one of his hundreds of national affiliates, who handle the cases and then pay him a fee for referral. Though he states himself that his business is a law firm in the strictest sense of the term, it nevertheless acts like an agency in that it provides a conduit for the profit, through paid media advertising, of other clients in the industry of which he is a part. As a consequence, he is one of the most successful business owners in the nation.

It's interesting to think about the effects of this trend, if it were to spend. Sokolove's business model is a novelty, for sure, but will more companies catch on and attempt to do the same thing? Could this work in industrys such as insurance, where a giant company such as State Farm of AllState, through their advertising, can individualize each call that they receive for business so much so that they can find the best deal for each situation, and refer that person to the insurance agency that would be best for them (for a fee from the receiving agency, of course)? Would this only be able to be accomplished in these kinds of service industries? And most importantly, if this were to spread, would this revolutionize the way that these services are advertised by agencies themselves in the future?

If so, agencies would not just be advertising for only one client at a time. Through that client, they'd be advertising for possibly almost every business in that industry, or at least every affiliate of the client's. However, if this were to happen, it would only be possible if one or two firms in the industry in question were to take part. This would require inter-industry cooperation and would, most likely, lead to the creation of mega-giants in each industry, with one or two companies being in charge of how much business all the other businesses in that category receive. I'm sure this would finally incur government regulation and ultimately be stopped, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet, but regardless, the consequences are interesting to think about.

Sokolove's idea, though probably not feasible for the vast majority of businesses and industries in the nation, is nevertheless a genius way for him to not only receive business for his own firm, but also to ensure the success of his industry as a whole. Perhaps, in the future, ad agencies and companies alike can work together to create a workable approach to this system of advertising and referrals that is fair to everyone involved.

In An Age of Optimism

I'm going to digress a little from yesterday's track.

But going along with all the Obama hype, how everyone in America is and has been so excited for his promised "change" that countries around the world are seeing it as a possible fad or fashion, companies too are taking this hope and turning it into a form of optimism to try to get consumers to buy more, and "hope"fully (haha, get it?) try to restimulate our lagging economy. In this effort, TBWA/Chiat/Day has created a new campaign for Visa which I am a pretty big fan of: it's called Go, and it attempts to push people out of their boxes and inspire them to have hope that there are still possibilities out there, that they can get out and really do something if the mood strikes.

Their primary commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr42rfptEdg

Using the voice of Morgan Freeman, the commercial incorporates the word "Go" into inspiring, beautiful images of people doing things they maybe wouldn't normally do, coupled with upbeat music that uplifts the viewer. All in all, it is a commercial that expresses the fundamental feeling of today: though we are in a terrible economic recession that is having dire consequences not only domestically, but around the world as well, we have nevertheless entered a new era in which the times will change, and things will get better. It's not just the election of Obama; instead it is the core optimism rooted in each of us that brings hope to this struggling time. Things will get better, but we have to be willing to break ourselves out of our daily routines and try to make them that way.

On another note, for my advertising class yesterday we had to create a radio spot for our products. As mine is Six Flags, and there is a Batman roller coaster and a Superman roller coaster, I played off of the often heated debates that are incited when people get into arguments about which superhero is better- Superman, or Batman. In my spot (and subsequent ones if this became an actual campaign), they argue about the villains the other fights (making fun of them), the lines at their respective coasters, and the twists and turns that their coasters have. Since Batman won this first round of battle in my spot, I made Superman seem like, well, kind of an idiot, talkative and more sociable than Batman, who is sarcastic, pretty anti-social, and doesn't speak too many words; however, the ones he does say do have impact. It needs some tweaking so I won't put it up here yet, but the general idea is that even superheroes can be petty when it comes to rides as cool as the ones at Six Flags.

Carpe Diem!

Obamarama...or Not.

Who would have thought racism was international?
AdAge just posted an article about a Russian print ad from Voskhod for the ice cream bar Duet.

The interesting thing about this ad is that it not only plays off racial stereotypes between black and white, and holds both of them in contempt in certain ways, but it also alludes to the popularity of President Barack Obama, which some people contend, is only a fad (see the phrase, "Flavor of the Week!"). The ad features Obama holding his hand in a "peace" sign, signaling his attempts to bring Americans out of the war in Iraq; however, Obama plans to concentrate his efforts more on the war in Afghanistan, making the peace sign somewhat ironic. The rainbows in the background possibly also stand for the President's asserted support of the gay community, symbolized by his willingness to sign the bill that decriminalizes homosexuality worldwide, and has been supported by 27 nations in the European Union along with three dozen other countries.

Perhaps this ad was meant to be funny. Instead, it not only makes fun of Obama's campaign promises and the work that he has accomplished in his first three months in office, but it also discriminates against several minority groups, including blacks and homosexuals, and ridicules Americans in their efforts to change after the mess made by the Bush administration. Maybe this ad was just a failed attempt at humor, or maybe Russians just really don't like Americans.

On the other hand, however, one cannot see this ad as run-of-the-mill. It does, indeed, drive home the point that the ice cream bar does contain both chocolate and vanilla, and may even be quite tasty. The ad is brightly colored, and its political and racial overtones do stick in the mind. Though it will most likely increase awareness of the Voskhod brand, this awareness itself may not be entirely positive, with the amount of criticism that the ad is drawing, and there is no way to predict whether or not it will actually increase sales of the Duet ice cream bar.

I also have to wonder what consequences the ad will have for Voskhod's brand image. Will the image change at all, and if so, in what way? Will Voskhod be seen as a racist, bigoted, anti-American company, or will the ad's failed attempts at satire be forgiven by the Russian (and the world's) populace? Will the ad have an effect on America's (and Americans') relationship to Russia (and Russians)? More importantly, however, is it fair to generalize on agency's ad for a client that happens to negatively impact the feelings of Americans to the entire Russian populace?

The prevalence of advertisements domestically and intenrationally affects not only how countries relate to each other, but also the general opinions held by the masses of each country in which advertising is produced. In the worldwide sphere, these cultural icons can affect not only whether one product is bought or sold in certain quantities, but also the political and social atmospheres of the nations involved, as well as their relationships to one another.

No wonder advertising is seen as the core of our culture.

Surgeon General's Warning: Content May Be Dangerous

Interesting fact: I have an exam in my Law of Mass Communications class on Thursday.
Another interesting fact: today's current issue (a 3-Minute AdAge spot) is about the advertising issues that lobbyists in Congress are becoming upset about.

There is a federal act in the works that, if passed, would prohibit or severely restrict tobacco advertising, even more than it has already been restricted. This move, promted by the American Advertising Federation itself, has been the subject of much debate in the House since earlier this month. However, the new President of the AAF, James Datri, is now speaking out about his views that advertising, as a form of commercial speech, should not be curtailed. He says that not only was advertising almost the beginning and the core of commercial speech in this country, but it has also provided the basis for our cultural growth as a nation, and spearheaded the development of our market economy.

True though that may be, one has to wonder: by curtailing tobacco advertising, would we, in fact, be severely limiting our potential as an advertising nation? Is the cutting off of one (very harmful) product from the world of commercial speech- and not even entirely cutting it off, just limiting it- going to matter that much in the long run? The government, through agencies like the FCC, has already passed legislation requiring tobacco companies to join together to create the Truth campaigns about the dangers of smoking. This in and of itself is contrary to that which the companies would strive for- greater product sales. Is this really that different through adding more protection for children and their families?

On the contrary, however, is the government really being fair by curtailing one potentially harmful product when there are so many other harmful products currently in the market that do not receive the same amount of criticism? Alcohol products, for example, are largely advertised; in fact, alcohol advertisements are among some of the most creative and most prolific in America, let alone the entire world. However, alcohol if not used in moderation is just as- if not more- harmful to individuals as cigarettes or other tobacco products are. Though people do not become physically addicted to alcohol, it is a psychological addiction, and millions of people a year (maybe more if we're including college students) become alcoholics. There is a Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packs that includes all the potential dangers associated with smoking, but all that alcohol bottles are required to say are "Please drink responsibly," and include the alcohol content. Is this right? Should this be considered constitutional? Is the government interest in curtailing the advertisement of only one of the many potential harmful products in the market today really substantial enough to merit further regulation of the tobacco industry? And, more importantly, is the bill phrased in such a way as to narrow that substantial government interest in such a way that it doesn't limit other forms of commercial speech?

There are two sides to any issue. Yes, tobacco as a product is incredibly harmful and, though the use of has been declining in recent years, it is still a widespread epidemic among young and old people alike. However, there are other harmful products in the market today that do not face the same criticism and social ostracism that the tobacco market faces, and perhaps this is for good reason. But we should ask ourselves- is the cost of further limiting the creative and essential core to our country that is advertising really worth cutting off the commercial speech of one of the many industries in today's business world?

The Downward Dog of Advertising

Everything in life has a little bit of yoga in it.

I know this is a departure from what we've been talking about in our last few posts, but I feel like it's necessary. Advertising, especially, is like yoga.

This requires some background on the yoga front: taken in its own context, yoga is all about balance. Not just "Tree" pose, or any of the ones where you're only standing on one leg. Yoga is feeling the tension between the down and the up, finding the center between right and left, in order to discover a place within yourself that is totally free and balanced. Building the foundations in any pose requires this, but especially in poses such as Warriors I and II, in which one leg is bent while the other is straight. Your first instinct is to lean into that bent leg, bringing your entire body forward and putting undue pressure on that leg. It may be a great quad workout, but your knee will definitely not appreciate you after all the time spent on it. Instead, you're supposed to balance the weight between your front leg and your back leg by grounding your back foot in such a way that the outer edge of your foot is pressing into the ground. That way, you find the balance between your bent leg and your straight leg, and allow the lower half of your body to sink into the ground while at the same time reaching upwards with your arms. You're spreading yourself out, you're up and you're down, and ultimately, you're balanced.

It works the same way with any campaign. They key to an effective advertisement is all about the insight, finding the balance between the obvious and the unseen, and discovering the space, the niche, in which no other advertiser has ever been. A campaign cannot be too funny, too sarcastic, too depressing, or too cliche; instead, it has to be some of each. It cannot just be one of the above, it has to be a personality. It has to be a human being- relatable, understandable, and knowable. Any brand is the person behind the product, and not just the target market; it is everything that that product would be if it were an actual person. And to find that person, you have to find the space out of which that person is created.

This is why one has to know a little bit of everything in order to be successful in the advertising business (not that I would really know, but this is just what I think)- you have to know enough about what the brand would be made up of in order to bring it down to the consumer's level. There's a fine tension there, and it begs a lot of questions about the brand personality itself. What are its axes? What pulls and pushes it around? What stretches it out?
But most importantly- how can we take that personality and contort it, put it through its paces, so that the consumers can see the space that is created? And even more prevalent than that, how can they appreciate and become loyal to that space?

Just like any person, brands can become more flexible with time. They can hold themselves up through trials and tribulations, and sweat out any toxins that are built up within them. They are malleable, and in the end (if they're successful), they're appreciated just for who they are.

Namaste.

Results Not Typical

Since I haven't updated any work that I've done from my Copy & Vis class lately, let's start with that today.
Last week, we had to come up with 6 creative concepts for yet another product (for a potential campaign). This time, I did Lindt Chocolate Truffles. Some background information on them: they're the round chocolate truffles that are solid on the outside, but then when you bite into them they're filled with a melty chocolate center on the inside. They come in every type of flavor- white chocolate, milk chocolate, dark chocolate, hazelnut, peanut butter, espresso, etc., and on the back of the packages it has information about when they were created and their most special aspect- that they can make you "melt."
Taking all that into account, here were my creative concepts:
1. Show people biting into the truffles and then melting in interesting ways, because the truffles make you melt (literally, get it?). For example, have a picture of a lady biting into the truffle, with her legs merging into a puddle. The only problem with this idea is that it would probably only generate three or four ads at most; not much of a campaign.
2. Make the chocolates (still in the wrappers, because the wraps are so distinctive and multi-colored) into forms of things that chocolate goes with- strawberries out of the red ones, coffee cups or a mug of hot chocolate out of the white and brown ones, a marshmallow, etc.
3. Have ads like most resorts do, where you don't show the resort, but instead show a picture that describes some sort of feeling, or the escape you'd get from being at that resort, but instead make it about chocolate. For example, have a fireplace in a cozy room with snow outside. These truffles make you warm on the inside.
4. Have famous quotes about chocolate next to a simple picture of the truffle- in the wrapper, out of the wrapper, with only the wrapper left after the truffle had been "eaten," with a half-eaten truffle, etc. Quotes can be along the lines of, "Lead me not into temptation. I can find the way myself," or "Enter the chocolate kingdom."
5. Similar to number 4, but going along the same lines, have lines of poetry describing warm feelings, feelings of being in love, feelings of happiness and contentedness, next to images of the truffle in various states, as in number 4. Could these possibly be combined into the same campaign?
6. Show images of objects that are hard on the outside but melty on the inside, or things in states of melting- for example, a rock with a slice cut out of it oozing chocolate, or a half-melted ice cube, or a frozen pool with steamy water underneath- anything describing the feeling you'd get from eating these truffles.

Ironically enough, I read an interesting article in AdAge today that, if what it described comes to fruition, would have dire consequences for the diet and fitness infomercial business. The article talked about an idea circulating around the FTC to make disclaimers such as "Results May Vary" or "Results Not Typical" in these types of advertisements illegal. Instead, the diet or fitness companies would have to create commercials that demonstrated the "generally accepted results" or make it obvious that the consumer is likely to have a similar success as the person used in the testimonial when they use the product for themselves. This would not only completely change the way these companies do their advertisements, but it would also have several consequences for how these products are viewed and received in the general market.

Though Bob did lose 50 lbs. on NutriSystem, not everyone who uses that particular brand does lose that kind of weight. In fact, a good friend of mine barely lost 10 lbs. when she tried the product. However, the disclaimer in the commercial stating that Bob's results were not the results of the majority of people who used NutriSystem, though small and hard to see, was there. But I have to wonder- if my friend had heard that Susan had only lost 5 lbs. on 10 weeks of NutriSystem instead of Bob's 50 lbs. on 5 weeks of the same, would she have still wanted to try it? Even though Susan's results were more representative of the majority results, would NutriSystem be doing as well as it is today?

But this begs the question: if these companies are getting financial support from consumers who believe that their products will work weight-loss miracles on them, and then getting disappointed when the results displayed in the commercial don't apply to them due to their non-typicality, do the companies deserve to have their products bought by these unsuspecting consumers? Instead, shouldn't the companies be required to post information about the real results that people are gettting, so that their products can be bought on a more reasonable basis, and an arguably more deserved one?

It may be said that all's fair in love and war, and if you think about it, advertising is a kind of war. Competition itself is a series of constant battles. But does that mean that we should sacrifice our time and money to try products and solutions that advertise the extraordinary results that we cannot necessarily hope to achieve?

The answers to these questions may vary.

More on the Digital Age

This is going to be a short one, folks.
Continuing on the trend we've been talking about for the past couple posts, I just read an article in AdAge by Noah Brier, head of strategy and planning at the Barbarian Group. It was an interesting post about how display ads really aren't that creative. And it was so true.

Display ads, according to Mr. Brier, should be developed with the same kind of tender love and care (aka, strategy and planning) with which a print or a TV ad is developed. With all the increased opportunity and exposure a client can get from a display ad- a more narrow audience, tailored to exactly the buyers who want or are looking to buy the client's product- why wouldn't you place as much or even more importance on developing these ads? They don't necessarily have to get you the correct CPM, or even click-throughs, though those would be nice. They just need to grab attention, and, like billboards, embed themselves in the consumers' subconsciouses to come into effect at a later date. They don't have to be huge flash productions of ads, either; a simple smart headline would do the trick, or a smart picture, or any combination of the above.

The trick of these ads, however, is to blend in while standing out. Brier provides two main points for creators of display ads to keep in mind while developing these ads:
1. Make a different ad for a large site than you would for a small site. Pretty self-explanatory. Large sites are probably more important, or at least get you more exposure, no?
2. Design things that belong. Ads that stand out so much on a page that they just have to bring attention to themselves almost scream "Don't pay attention to me!"

Like all ads in today's day and age, display ads have to blend in with the website on which they're being displayed while at the same time standing out enough to attract attention that sticks. Like everything in life, it's all about finding the balance.

More about comparing advertising to yoga later.