Archive for category advertising
christine is not jared
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, branding on January 6, 2010
Way back in the “early oughts”, Pepsico / Tricon (now known as Yum!) employed Jason “george costanza” Alexander to make the pitch that Kentucky FRIED Chicken was diet food. It was attacked as a stupid outrageous advertising campaign and was quietly shelved.
But just because a stupid idea didn’t work doesn’t mean the same company can’t try it again a few years later.
Here in 2010, Yum! is trying to get me to go on the Taco Bell Drive-Thru Diet. The most striking thing is how the disclaimers outweigh the copy on the ads. It’s like talking to Mr. Subliminal:
- Try the Taco Bell Drive-Thru Diet! (not a weight loss plan)
- I lost weight! (results are not typical)
- Fresco is a healthier choice! (not a low calorie food.)
Rule of thumb: If you have more in the disclaimer than in the ad, then maybe it’s not a great promotion idea.
Companies almost always have cricks in their necks from looking at what the competition is doing. I’m sure Yum! thought they had found their Subway Jared when they found the face of the Drive-Thru Diet, Christine, who said she lost 54 pounds by eating at Taco Bell.
But healthy is a part of the Subway brand. If a major part of your normal promotional campaigns involve trying to get people to eat another “Fourth Meal” or getting customers to add more nacho cheese, then you should stay away from the words “diet” and “healthy“.
A consistent long-term brand image that consumers can identify with (even if it’s unhealthy) is more important that a New Years resolution inspired revenue bump in Q1. Pick a strategy and go with it. You can’t have your nachos and eat them too.
we’ve got trouble right here in Newspaper City
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, branding, media on December 2, 2009
For several months, the Newspaper Association of America has offered a series of free, downloadable print and digital ads that papers can run. The ads mostly talk to readers but are actually subversively directed at advertisers.
Newspapers are not in trouble. They just think they’re in trouble and these ads just reinforce that idea with them, their readers, and their advertisers. They do not inspire confidence.
Newspapers, like all media, are in the eyeball selling business. It doesn’t matter if those eyeballs are looking at column inches or pixels — just as long as those inches or pixels are filled with good content.
I’m offering this version of one of these ads that any newspaper can use for free.
(Click the ad for a larger version to read the copy.)
do as they say not as they do
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, online on June 30, 2009
Q. — As a general rule, what industry (as a whole) has the worst web sites?
A. — Ad Agencies.
I’ve noticed most agency web sites have a few common characteristics:
- Rule #1: Flash!
- Staff / Management Bios: Wacky, fun, and meaningless. There is a über-creative photo of the person pretending to have fun.
- Site Navigation: Not at the top, bottom, left, or right. In order to click around to the other pages on the site, you’ll need to take a bus to another location.
- Contact Info: Phone numbers, emails, etc hidden on the most illogical page possible.
- Office Pictures: Two ways to go here. 1) If it’s an “agency” of one guy with a Mac in his bedroom, then you’ll see some creative use of stock photography. 2) If it’s a real “agency”, the wackiness continues with pics of the foosball table, the aquarium, and the video game area to show potential clients how their billable hours are being wasted while creativity happens.
- Philosophy: Starts off with “We’re a new type of agency.” and the rest is filled with meaningless jargon and buzzwords.
- I don’t think we can say it enough: Flash!
- Portfolio: Just a few logos. Maybe a shot of an ad. The ROI is never mentioned. This link is always called “the work”
- Blogs: All staff members seem to take turns “writing posts” by copying / summarizing chapters out of the advertising textbooks they couldn’t sell back to their college bookstore.
- Content: It seems everyone shot down everyone else’s ideas until there was no content left
- Timeliness: Site is never updated. (except for every few years when the whole thing is torn down and replaced with something similar.) Rinse. Repeat.
I’m sure I’ve missed a few. Your thoughts?
bad realtor ads
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, marketing on May 11, 2009
I have expressed my general dislike of poor marketing techniques of local REALTORS® before. (Has the National Association of REALTORS® also registered® the overuse of ALL CAPS®?)
But now there’s a one-stop shop to highlight the worst of the worst. The blog realADtors showcases some real estate ads that probably will remind you of some of the horrible stuff you see everyday. In fact, you can submit bad ads. It’s like the Cake Wrecks of real estate advertising!
(found via jetpacks)
so bad it’s good
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, marketing on May 4, 2009
On the local level, small businesses develop their print/broadcast creative for ad campaigns in 1 of 4 ways:
- Some entrepreneurs are either creative or stole somebody else’s good idea. (the best ideas are always stolen ideas) These people either have a good marketing head or they hired someone who knew what they’re doing. Some of this local “homemade” advertising is as good (and some is much better) than what would come out of a traditional agency.
- Some small businesses waste their marketing money on generic template or spotrunner type ads where they just stick their logo and phone number in a generic ad and then wonder why they get generic results. (If your whole business can be represented by a generic stock photo, then it’s not going to be hard for a competitor to replace you.)
- Some let the graphic artist burger flippers down at the radio/tv station or newspaper develop their entire marketing philosophy for them on the assembly line
- And then there are the people who have no idea what they’re doing, but still decide to create their own advertising. For me, these have always been like watching car wrecks. It’s horrible, but you can’t look away. In fact, some of these ads are so bad — they’re good…like enjoying a really bad movie.
The comedy duo of Rhett and Link have capitalized on local bad advertising from this 4th group with their “Custom-built, Micro-Budget Commercials for MicroBilt Customers” series. They took a few real small businesses in North Carolina and made a farce out of a farce.
(Update: If you’re reading this through RSS, you may have to click through to the site to see the following videos)
One of the spots, Black and White People Furniture, is getting some buzz because of the racial issue and the simple fact it’s so bizarre.
There are lots of businesses that are the one stop shop like Bobby Dennings:
And the Cuban Gynecologist Auto Salesman is just odd:
Even though these spots are causing the phone to ring for these local businesses, I’m not ready to advocate that you change your tv campaign. But it’s a growing trend for professional marketers to “Astroturf” a grassroots phenomenon both online and in traditional media with a tongue stuck in their cheek.
The key to all marketing, homemade or store-bought, is grabbing attention and keeping that buzz.
on the right track
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising on April 13, 2009
I totally agree with Jetpacks. This is a great spot.
Actually, it rises to the level of a case study of how to use creative advertising that actually shows the benefit of the product. Without ever having to shove the message down your throat, you immediately understand and agree with the message.
Of course, the problem is that you realize on the subconscious level that the commerical is a complete lie. The product they’re selling doesn’t really exist.
- I can walk out my doorway, get in the car, and drive anywhere easily and cheaply (even with rough gas prices).
- I can drive 90 minutes north or south and be at an international airport.
- But to catch the closest passenger train, I would have to drive four hours on horrible roads in order to catch the City of New Orleans at 2 o’clock in the morning.
It’s all Ike’s fault. I’ve often said we should have poured the Interstate money into cost effective mass transit like trains. It would have stopped urban sprawl and maybe we wouldn’t have paved over half the country with zombie interstates. As Charles Karalt once said, “Thanks to the interstate highway system, it is now possible to travel from coast to coast without seeing anything”
may i have your attention
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising on March 3, 2009
I had a conversation today where one of the participants said that most people consider advertising annoying.
I responded that people don’t think advertising is annoying. They think irrelevant advertising is annoying. But these days it’s hard to separate the two.
I’ve often used the example that advertising is like the biblical parable of the sower. Too many advertisers broadcast their message to eyes and ears that really don’t care. Some of it takes root and grows, but most of it is wasted. It’s better to narrowcast the message to an audience that you’ve cultivated. You’ve done the work to find people who might be interested in your offering and are more likely to pay attention to a message that is relevant to them.
Narrowcasting takes more effort on the marketing side, but the ROI is incredible. It’s much more effective and cheaper just to talk to the people who have need of you. Today’s targeted technology helps. But you can also do a good job narrowcasting using traditional media too.
This type of advertising is extremely useful to the recipient. When you deliver a marketing message to me that solves a problem that I have, then we both win.
When you do a generic message thrown out to the masses, then…
You’ve wasted your money.
You’ve wasted your time.
You’ve wasted my time.
You’ve wasted my attention.
While money and time are important, the real trouble here is the attention. People recover pretty quickly after a waste of time or money. (some even enjoy wasting time and money)
But after you’ve wasted my attention a few times, I’m just not going to pay attention to your message anymore. And that’s a death knell that you can’t recover from.
exposure does not equal success
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, marketing, media on February 11, 2009
I’ve often said (and blogged here) that politics is nothing more than marketing.
The district adjacent to my own just wrapped up a special election to fill a vacated state senate seat. The race was between an ambulance chasing lawyer who is a common fixture in media in the area — and another lawyer who may or may not chase ambulances but does not promote it if he does.
The ambulance chaser already had ultimate top-of-mind name awareness in the market. No matter where you live, you can probably name 2 or 3 lawyers in your market/city who have advertised their practice to this level with wall-to-wall TV spots, full page advertising, wasting money with big listings in the Yellow Pages, etc. They’ve marketed themselves to minor celebrity status. If you saw them in the mall, you’d poke the person next to you and say “hey, it’s that lawyer from the commercials”.
The ambulance chaser heavily advertised his candidacy for the senate seat with the same gusto that he marketed his law practice. I have no concrete proof, but it also seemed the frequency of his law practice ads increased during the campaign as well. All of his marketing (both campaign and law practice) was well produced and well designed by professional agencies.
The other lawyer was known in the area, but didn’t have the “minor celebrity” status of his opponent. He didn’t spend a lot of money on the campaign (in fact, he was massivley outspent by the other candidate). The marketing that he did wasn’t as well produced. He wasn’t as comfortable on camera as the other guy. And last night, he won the race.
As with all politics, there were other factors at work here (weather issues may have affected turnout, there were some skeletons in the loser’s political closet, etc), but there are two marketing thoughts that come out of this:
1)You can’t advertise your way to success
Marketing just points people to a product. It doesn’t make the sale. All the marketing in the world won’t sell a product that people don’t want to buy.
2)You can advertise too much
Those 2 or 3 lawyers in your market who are mall celebrities? You probably also see them as parodies. Market yourself enough that you keep top-of-mind awareness, but not so much that it becomes annoying.
the chickens eat mice wearing red shorts
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, branding on February 5, 2009
It’s one of my major mantras. Brand does not equal logo. Brand is an emotional relationship with a product or service.
Too many times companies just slap a logo onto something and say they’re selling a brand.
Today’s Exhibit: Disney Eggs — Regular incredible edible eggs that have been stamped with a Mickey Mouse, Lightning McQueen, or other Disney character.
While on the surface it’s silly, it will probably work on the primary purchase level. The true decision maker on the grocery trip (the kids) will see the packaging and make someone buy them. However, the brand exposure won’t last beyond that unless the kid eats his eggs hard-boiled.
The real trouble is that brand extensions are like crack cocaine — once you start you can’t stop. When you dilute a brand like Disney so much that you’ve gone to raw agricultural goods, you’re severely damaging the brand.
rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin
Posted by Chris Houchens in advertising, marketing on February 4, 2009
There’s a fine line between publicity that makes people notice you and publicity that makes people think you’re an idiot.
The kids at Peta like to cross that line on a regular basis.
From suggesting that Ben and Jerry’s replace cow’s milk with human breast milk in its ice cream to the campaign to rebrand fish as “sea kittens”, it seems that Peta has been wackier than usual lately.
But Super Bowl “big game” ads bring out the truly stupid in every organization. Apparently part of Peta’s Super Bowl “big game” media strategy each year is to get their spots rejected by the network. (but unlike GoDaddy, Peta actually wants to be rejected. It’s exposure with no ad dollars spent!) Last year, they got creepy with their arch-enemy, the Colonel. This year, NBC’s advertising standards department rejected Peta’s ad–(maybe nsfw) because the ad basically was just several shots of women who appeared to be pleasuring themselves with fruits and vegetables.
And after Nipplegate, you just can’t have that sort of thing in the Super Bowl “big game” unless you count Bruce Springsteen’s crotch (hope you didn’t have the 3-d glasses on) or if you’re a Tucson Comcast subscriber.
Obviously, Peta is being outrageous just to get the attention. But after a few times of generating “false outrageousness” — you just become a laughingstock. And then people stop paying attention to you at all.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the advertising category.
Brand Zeitgeist
Book Retailers: Click here for the Brand Zeitgeist sell sheet.
Other places
Recent Comments