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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, May 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
