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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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.
Lindt Chocolates.
"Nobody knows the truffles I've seen."
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."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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?
"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?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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 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:
Those are my ideas, and some of my executions. I hope you enjoyed them!
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!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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!
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!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
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?
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?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
