advertising – Page 4 – Media Matters

October 26, 2013

Word of Mouse and Reputation Management

Research suggests that personal recommendations are preferred by most of us when making decisions about future purchases. Whether you’re buying a car or selecting a movie, knowing what your friends and acquaintances think about a particular brand, model, or company can be an important factor in your decision. Word of mouth advertising has been around since the beginning of time (“Hey Adam, check out these delicious apples”) and it continues to be highly effective.

When WOM moves online, i.e., Word of Mouse, things get a little more complicated. The complication comes from the way that we define online relationships. Facebook “friends” are often not friends at all, but distant relatives or causal acquaintances. Even more removed are the reviewers on Amazon or Yelp. They are most often completely unknown to us yet we often grant them more influence than we ought. We decide which movie to see based on reviews at RottenTomatoes.com and we avoid certain restaurants because of what strangers post at Zagat.com. Most of the time that works out just fine.

However, like any trend this one is being hijacked by unscrupulous individuals and businesses out to make a quick buck. Just Google Ryan Holiday or read this article at Forbes to see how far someone will go to hoodwink gullible people, including reporters. Or check out this news story about Samsung hiring bloggers and students to attack rival HTC.

Public Relations firms and professionals have been involved in the business of reputation managements from the early days of Bernays and Lee. As this business moves online, new strategies and tactics are needed to stay ahead in the game. What to do if your law firm is getting bad reviews online? Write your own reviews under a fake name. What to do if your company’s Wikipedia entry does not present your brand in a favorable light? Just hire wiki-pr.com to come to the rescue. Wiki-PR will write or edit your Wikipedia entry and monitor it for future edits/changes. Because Wikipedia is consumer-generated it is vulnerable to manipulation by anyone who has a motive and, in many cases, money to hire others to do the dirty work. Wikipedia is aware of the problem and is trying to stay ahead of the curve, but the task for the editorial staff at Wikipedia bears a strong resemblance to Wack-a-Mole.

Bottom line: whether you’re reading an online review or an article at Wikipedia, a healthy dose of skepticism is your first line of defense. Don’t assume that the person on the other side of that recommendation or scathing review is honest and fair. Too often they are neither. And sometimes they are crooks with a financial interest in duping you.

September 11, 2013

Once was Enough

Marketing is tricky business. And creating a TV ad that strikes the right chord can be particularly difficult when sensitive issues are part of the equation. Once an effective ad is produced, the next trick is to pair it with the right audience and present it in the best possible context. One of two outstanding advertisements that seem to have hit all the right notes is the “Clydesdale Respect” spot that aired just once during the XXXVI Superbowl on February 3, 2002…just five months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The second is the “1984” ad for Apple Macintosh, which also aired only once. The Apple ad was broadcast during the XVIII Superbowl in 1984. Here they are in case you missed them the first time.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5YcOeQB4I&]

And the 1984 spot by Apple. This spot was directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed the scifi films Alien and Blade Runner.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSnW-ygU5g&]

June 3, 2013

Ask your doctor if ______ is right for you…

Advertising is everywhere. And you can pretty much bet that everything, at some time or another, has been advertised. Of course you won’t see ads for tobacco products on TV, but most everything else is advertised somewhere to someone. Sometimes an entire industry is created, with the help of advertising, when consumers become convinced that they must have a new product or service.

Take the pet food industry for example. Before the turn of the century, pet food as a product was not widely available in stores. Dogs and cats ate table scraps and whatever else they could find to eat. Advertisers discovered an untapped market and by the 1960s TV ads for dog and cat food became commonplace. Jump to the present. Not only do we have a pet food industry, but pet food comes in a wide variety of forms and flavors. To make sure that revenue continues non-stop, consumers are warned that feeding your pet table scraps is bad for their health. Consumers spend approximately $18 billion annually on pet food, and the pet food industry even has its own website.

Advertising products for human use and consumption is also experiencing significant changes. Take medications for example. Companies that develop and market remedies have been around since recorded history. Snake oil salesmen promoted their blends of turpentine and various inert ingredients to gullible customers for decades before the FDA and other agencies stepped in. Now, pharmaceutical companies have to pass stringent tests before bringing their products to market…and then they pass on those R&D costs to you, the consumer. But how do you convince the public that they need your product? Advertising of course.

In 2010 “big pharma” spent $1 million to advertise treatments for low testosterone. By 2012 that amount grew to $100 million. And according to Consumer Reports, the advertisements are creating an impression that many more men suffer from low testosterone than actually do. This may be a case where advertising is being used to create demand for a product that is often unnecessary.

Many countries are concerned about pharmaceutical ads directed at consumers. The concern is that they are, in effect, pushing products about which consumers have little or no expertise. Only New Zealand and the United States allow DTC (Direct To Consumer) advertising for prescription drugs. When you’re told to “ask your doctor…”, the pharmaceutical companies are using you, the patient, to exert pressure on your health care provider. My hunch is that coercion of this sort is unlikely to result in better health care.

Resources:

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2008/02/7026/beyond-advertising-pharmaceutical-industrys-hidden-marketing-tactics

April 9, 2013

The “Holy Grail” of Advertising

In this social media saturated landscape, word-of-mouth (or word-of-MOUSE as the case may be) advertising carries a lot of clout. Because so many of us are skeptical of traditional advertising pitches, a referral from a trusted friend…yes, even a Facebook friend…is highly valued. In fact, according to Reuters, “Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was quoted as saying that a trusted referral was the ‘Holy Grail’ of advertising.” And just as money is what advertising is ultimately about, money is also central to a class-action lawsuit that Facebook lost when it was accused of using Facebook users’ “likes”, without their consent, to pitch products to their Facebook friends.

This is not a new story. Most of it transpired in Summer and Fall of 2012, but the lesson is worth reviewing and repeating. The poster-child for this particular violation is Facebook user Nick Bergus. According to Venturebeat.com,

The most egregious example of a user becoming the inadvertent spokesman for a less-than-squeaky-clean brand, of course, is Nick Bergus, who became the leading pitchman for Passion Natural Water personal lubricant — in 55-gallon allotments.

A class-action lawsuit, brought in California court, sought damages from Facebook for their use of “sponsored stories” without paying Facebook users or allowing them to opt out. According to Reuters, “A ‘Sponsored Story’ is an advertisement that appears on a member’s Facebook page and generally consists of another friend’s name, profile picture and an assertion that the person ‘likes’ the advertiser.” In the case of Nick Bergus, his likeness was used to sell 55-gallon drums of personal lubricant.

Now that the lawsuit has been settled, a potential 125 million Facebook users are eligible for a settlement of … wait for it … two cents each, or up to $10 if they apply.

One thing is certain, the advertising business is changing. Native ads, what some are calling the “next wave” of advertising, are replacing traditional banner ads, pop-ups, and pre-rolls. As new media companies attempt to find new ways to monetize their business, too often they step over boundaries intended to protect users’ privacy.

February 2, 2013

The Eight Million Dollar Minute

Companies who want to be a player in this year’s Super Bowl are going to have to pony up some serious cash…somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.8 million dollars for a 30-second spot. That makes the Super Bowl the most expensive advertising venue out there. So why do advertisers continue to line up to get in the game? And what do they get in return for their money?

TV’s largest audience for starters. Nielsen reported 111.3 million Americans watched last year’s game. An advertiser would have to buy a 30-second spot in each of the nine top-rated network TV shows last week (American Idol, NCIS, NCIS Los Angeles, 60 Minutes, Criminal Minds, CSI, Big Bang Theory, 2 Broke Girls, and the NFL Pro Bowl) to get a comparable number of eyeballs. Or, they could buy a 30-second spot in each of the 30 top-rated cable TV shows to get a similar “reach.”

But a Super Bowl spot is about more than raw numbers. There’s a certain prestige that comes along with being part of this American tradition. There’s also an indirect stock market gain for participating companies that is apparently part of the equation, at least according to a study reported in Kiplinger. There’s also the tradition of Super Bowl spots that live on in infamy. The 1984 90-second spot for the Apple Macintosh is still considered by many to be the greatest TV spot of all time.

And here’s another factor that some advertisers (and would-be advertisers) have exploited to their benefit. An ad that is controversial–too racy or racist for example–can ride the coat tails of the Super Bowl buzz at a fraction of the price it would have cost the advertiser to buy the time. These controversial spots can be uploaded to YouTube, or any of several other internet sites, and have a life of their own…even if they never aired! Go Daddy has played this game as well as anyone in recent years.

Mildly controversial spots can also benefit from all the talk…even if some of the talk is critical. Arabs are insulted by this year’s Coke spot…and Jamaicans are (or are not depending on who you ask) offended by the VW spot. I suspect some will be offended by the Kate Upton spot for Mercedes-Benz.

More and more advertisers are pre-releasing their ads to try to generate hype prior to game day…and often to good effect. Two years ago VW’s little Darth Vader spot was seen by more than 17 million viewers before it actually aired. Last year 34 out of 54 spots were released online before the game.

The other big news in Super Bowl ads is interactivity. Coke wants you to pick the ending of their spot. Doritos invited consumer-generated spots to compete, and then asked us to vote for the winner. And YouTube has their AdBlitz channel ready to go…inviting live voting on all the spots as they air. Which means for many of you the Super Bowl will be a two-screen experience. And with two screens, at least you’ll have something to do if the game is a dud.

October 24, 2012

Political Ads Just Keep On Coming!

We’re approaching the end of another election season and the race couldn’t be tighter. Living in a “battleground state” I’ve seen my share of political ads, even while wielding my DVR remote control as a light saber to vanquish as many as I possibly can. With nearly a billion dollars spent on the presidential race alone, this has been a year for the record books. According to Wesleyan Media Project, this year’s presidential race has seen more than 915,000 ads air on broadcast and cable television.

TV is the medium of choice for politicians hoping to reach the masses. No other medium offers as much persuasion power as video, and a well-crafted TV spot can be a powerful tool for energizing the base and persuading the undecided voter.

Another notable characteristic of the 2012 campaign is the prevalence of negative or attack ads. Obama’s campaign was more negative (73.3%) than Romney’s (36%), while both Democratic and Republican ads by outside groups and super PACs were almost entirely negative.

Given the deluge of TV ads, what is your strategy for coping?

October 10, 2012

Ruffling Feathers at PBS

For a generation raised on Sesame Street, Big Bird is the poster child for all that is right and good about children’s television. A creation of puppeteer Kermit Love, Big Bird was originally designed to be played by Jim Henson. While that never quite worked out, according to Wikipedia Big Bird has been “officially performed by Caroll Spinney since 1969.” It is worth noting that Spinney is paid more than $300,000 annually for the role, according to the Sesame Workshops forms filed for 2010 tax year (the Atlantic).

So why are we talking about Big Bird? Because in the first 2012 Presidential Debate, which aired Oct 3, Mitt Romney said that in order to reduce the federal budget deficit he would makes cuts to certain domestic programs. Here’s the quote:

“I’m sorry, Jim [Lehrer, moderator of the debate]. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

In response, the Obama campaign released this ad accusing Romney of going after Sesame Street while giving Wall Street a pass…

[youtube=http://youtu.be/bZxs09eV-Vc]

According to an article in the WSJ, Sesame Workshop would prefer to avoid being politicized by either candidate and has requested that the Obama campaign pull the ad.

“We have approved no campaign ads and, as is our general practice, have requested that both campaigns remove Sesame Street characters and trademarks from their campaign materials,” said Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit educational organization that produces and owns the show, in a statement.

What do you think about Big Bird, funding for PBS, and politicizing of both for the sake of political gain?

July 17, 2012

American Idol Tryouts or Presidential Campaign?

Colorado is a swing state which means we’re going to be seeing a lot of political ads between now and November. Two that just hit the web, and the airwaves, feature our presidential hopefuls breaking out into song. Both are attack ads, which means the ad for Obama features Romney’s singing and the ad for Romney features the crooning of the President.

Here’s the Obama ad for your viewing, and listening, enjoyment…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk]

I wanted to include the Romney ad, featuring Obama singing Al Green’s Let’s Stay Together, but a copyright claim by BMG Music resulted in the clip being pulled from YouTube. According to the Washington Post,

Romney’s campaign plans to fight the decision. “Our use was 100 percent proper, under fair use, and we plan to defend ourselves,” a spokesperson said. Other videos featuring the same clip of Obama remain on YouTube. (It’s not clear why the company has not challenged those videos.)

Now no one would seriously claim that vocal ability is a prerequisite for the highest office in the land, but the like-ability of the candidate is an important component and these ads may strike a chord with the electorate.

July 29 Update: According to Variety magazine, the Romney campaign came back with a new version of their ad featuring the singing of President Obama. You can see it on the Romney website.

January 28, 2012

Breaking Through the Clutter of Superbowl Spots

It’s nearly Superbowl time again, and of course America is all excited about….the TV spots. The TV event that year-in and year-out pulls the largest audience is not just about football. Superbowl spots are sometimes the only reason people tune in to watch two teams–often hated teams, e.g. the Patriots–fight it out on the field. Watching advertisers fight it out for our attention in between the gridiron action can be quite the spectacle.

Every year, it seems, some advertiser pushes the limits of broadcast decency (as determined by the FCC) and the host TV network has to decide whether to reject that ad from airing. Of course rejection has, in itself, become a strategy for some advertisers. For example GoDaddy.com has made a TV advertising career from ads rejected by the network. GoDaddy is happy to direct curious viewers to the “banned” ad on the internet where decency regulations do not apply. Other advertisers have also pushed the limits of sexual images or innuendo to generate “buzz” and attention. PETA submitted an ad in 2009 that was rejected for sexual situations involving vegetables and ManCrunch, a website for gay dating, was rejected in 2010.

But the controversies are not always about sex. Last year CBS finally approved and aired a spot by conservative religious organization Focus on the Family (located just up the road in Colorado Springs). The spot featured Bronco quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother who decided, against her doctor’s advice, to continue her risky pregnancy. The pro-life spot was opposed by a national coalition of women’s groups. In response to the controversy, Tim Tebow was quoted by the Huffington Post as saying,

“I know some people won’t agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe,” Tebow said. “I’ve always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it.”

The question for CBS was whether “issue ads” were appropriate for a TV event that has the broadest possible audience, in terms of demographics, of any TV broadcast. CBS had been criticized before for not airing an ad that they deemed to be a “contentious advocacy ad.”

This debate over what is and is not appropriate for a national TV audience is not going away. But one thing is for certain. Regardless of the network and their policies, advertisers will position themselves to benefit from the buzz that their edgy spots generate…either by being aired or by being banned.