Every once in a while, some publication that considers itself "professional" does a reasonably good job of reporting on the themes typically covered by Drink Moxie.
On a completely unrelated note, I thought I would use this opportunity to throw in an entry while copping out of writing an actual entry by simply directing you to the following story from the The New York Times and pointing out how it touches on the theme of spokespersons becoming "brands" in themselves, as highlighted in this previous entry.
Do you think the folks over at NYT are readers? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
The French-maker
This is a particularly exciting entry for us here at Drink Moxie. The reason? I finally get to paraphrase Roddy Piper. That's right, this week, I am here to kick ass and chew gum.
We're not talking about Bubblicious here. We're going to focus on gum with an adult flavor - decidedly adult. And we're going to skip the Doublemint Twins and get right into the juicy stuff. No, not Juicy Fruit. I'm talking about the notion that's always right there in the back, if not the front, of our minds every time we pop a piece of minty chew into our mouths: making out.
Sucking face is a well-worn technique for moving gum. Particularly now, when so much of our economy seems to be directed towards products and services that enhance our reproductive capabilities, marketers seem more than eager to show us how gum might just serve as our bus ticket to Liplock City. But before we explore the modern variations on this theme, let's start where it all began:
(For those of you paying attention, yes that was Peter Billingsley, and you'll probably never be able to think of little Ralphie the same way again.)
Those of you who remember the 80s know that this was a somewhat remarkable ad for its time, even spawning an SNL parody. Comparable ads for comparable products, like Doublemint and Juicy Fruit, were themselves rather lurid and suggestive (all of these brands, of course, are part of the Wrigley company, and to the best of my knowledge all of their commercials were created by the perennial advertising giant BBDO). Big Red, however, was not afraid to show people really going at it. The word "kiss" was even right there at the start of the jingle. Keep in mind that for much of chewing gum's existence, it was intended and marketed primarily as an alternative, or at least a complement, to smoking or chewing tobacco.
Let's look now at what is effectively a more modern version of Big Red - Dentyne Fire - and see how they (with the help of McCann-Erickson's admen) approach the subject (I should note that this is an ad for mints, not gum, but I've seen so many of these commercials that I can hardly tell the difference):
Once again the kiss is front and center - little has changed there. But we notice a very significant difference. In the Big Red spots of the 80s, the makeout artists are assumed to be couples of some sort, married perhaps, or at least people who have some feelings of love towards each other. Dentyne knows that the modern hot-blooded consumer is not interested in this wholesome variety of kissing, but with the prospect of making out with attractive strangers. In the 80s, we were satisfied with the idea that cinnamon gum would make the experience of embracing our loved one more long-lasting and pleasurable. Have we now become naive enough to think that it will help us get to first base with that hot girl or guy in the drugstore without even exchanging a word?
Dentyne also bet that the kiss factor would sell minty gum in much the same way as it sells spicy gum, as evidenced by this spot for Dentyne Ice (by Bates USA):
Different types of people, different type of setting, a few special effects, same idea. I just wanted to show this one because it ups the ante of both cheesiness and shamelessness. It's practically a beer commercial, and frankly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. The idea of a woman who pops a piece of gum into her mouth, latches lips with a man chosen seemingly at random, and in the process freezes his ... well, let's just say it leaves me somewhat alarmed, very confused, and not really interested in picking up a pack of this gum. Maybe the ad is targeted to the ladies, after all.
But that was a bit of a digression, because I want to go back to the spicier side of the Dentyne brand with this commercial, which is surely infamous by now. I believe it was pulled from American airwaves after some time. That may also explain why I can't figure out what agency is responsible for it:
I like this one more than the previous ones. Yes, it's funnier, certainly more attention-grabbing, but I also think it's much more honest. Like that original Big Red commercial, the people who are going at it are actually couples. They aren't even presumed to be couples, they are explicitly identified as such. And here it is acknowledged that necking isn't just for the young folk. Older couples can do it too, even those old enough to have horny teenage kids. While some people might find this extremely edgy, even over the line, I see it as rather grounded and wholesome. As you know, Drink Moxie supports truth in advertising, and while we can hardly believe that chewing gum will give us a shot at sexy strangers, we think it might just facilitate some fooling around with our girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, ... whatever.
Finally, as always, I leave you with the most recent commercial that got me thinking about this topic, and the one that I haven't quite been able to figure out yet. I also haven't been able to figure out what agency is responsible, but I'll keep working on it:
Our friends at Mentos are pretty well known for their offbeat approach to advertising, and at least in the US, seem to have built a brand entirely around its oddly European-looking commercials. Now that they've made the move to gum, they seem to be taking on the kissing approach, which I can't remember them trying previously. Clearly, they have added their own, uh ... flavor to it.
I leave it for you to figure this one out, but here are a few observations of my own. First, they are apparently not afraid to gross people out. The prior kissing commercials, even the ones involving rather gratuitous frenching, were at least designed to titillate and not to nauseate. It's also interesting because it's not particularly clear what is even happening in the commercial. It took a few seconds to settle in before I got the joke. And in some way, I felt like the joke was on me. After being bombarded by spots like the ones I've previously shown, I was well prepared to see a commercial featuring a man popping a piece of gum and then being kissed by a beautiful, anonymous woman without a single word uttered. I have to believe that the Mentos people knew what I was expecting to see, and then led me right into an unexpected punch line, as if they were squirting water into my face as I bent down to sniff a boutonniere. I found myself feeling a little appalled but also a little impressed. But while they earned my respect, I still haven't considered putting down any money for their gum.
And I am, in fact, all out of gum.
We're not talking about Bubblicious here. We're going to focus on gum with an adult flavor - decidedly adult. And we're going to skip the Doublemint Twins and get right into the juicy stuff. No, not Juicy Fruit. I'm talking about the notion that's always right there in the back, if not the front, of our minds every time we pop a piece of minty chew into our mouths: making out.
Sucking face is a well-worn technique for moving gum. Particularly now, when so much of our economy seems to be directed towards products and services that enhance our reproductive capabilities, marketers seem more than eager to show us how gum might just serve as our bus ticket to Liplock City. But before we explore the modern variations on this theme, let's start where it all began:
(For those of you paying attention, yes that was Peter Billingsley, and you'll probably never be able to think of little Ralphie the same way again.)
Those of you who remember the 80s know that this was a somewhat remarkable ad for its time, even spawning an SNL parody. Comparable ads for comparable products, like Doublemint and Juicy Fruit, were themselves rather lurid and suggestive (all of these brands, of course, are part of the Wrigley company, and to the best of my knowledge all of their commercials were created by the perennial advertising giant BBDO). Big Red, however, was not afraid to show people really going at it. The word "kiss" was even right there at the start of the jingle. Keep in mind that for much of chewing gum's existence, it was intended and marketed primarily as an alternative, or at least a complement, to smoking or chewing tobacco.
Let's look now at what is effectively a more modern version of Big Red - Dentyne Fire - and see how they (with the help of McCann-Erickson's admen) approach the subject (I should note that this is an ad for mints, not gum, but I've seen so many of these commercials that I can hardly tell the difference):
Once again the kiss is front and center - little has changed there. But we notice a very significant difference. In the Big Red spots of the 80s, the makeout artists are assumed to be couples of some sort, married perhaps, or at least people who have some feelings of love towards each other. Dentyne knows that the modern hot-blooded consumer is not interested in this wholesome variety of kissing, but with the prospect of making out with attractive strangers. In the 80s, we were satisfied with the idea that cinnamon gum would make the experience of embracing our loved one more long-lasting and pleasurable. Have we now become naive enough to think that it will help us get to first base with that hot girl or guy in the drugstore without even exchanging a word?
Dentyne also bet that the kiss factor would sell minty gum in much the same way as it sells spicy gum, as evidenced by this spot for Dentyne Ice (by Bates USA):
Different types of people, different type of setting, a few special effects, same idea. I just wanted to show this one because it ups the ante of both cheesiness and shamelessness. It's practically a beer commercial, and frankly, it makes me a little uncomfortable. The idea of a woman who pops a piece of gum into her mouth, latches lips with a man chosen seemingly at random, and in the process freezes his ... well, let's just say it leaves me somewhat alarmed, very confused, and not really interested in picking up a pack of this gum. Maybe the ad is targeted to the ladies, after all.
But that was a bit of a digression, because I want to go back to the spicier side of the Dentyne brand with this commercial, which is surely infamous by now. I believe it was pulled from American airwaves after some time. That may also explain why I can't figure out what agency is responsible for it:
I like this one more than the previous ones. Yes, it's funnier, certainly more attention-grabbing, but I also think it's much more honest. Like that original Big Red commercial, the people who are going at it are actually couples. They aren't even presumed to be couples, they are explicitly identified as such. And here it is acknowledged that necking isn't just for the young folk. Older couples can do it too, even those old enough to have horny teenage kids. While some people might find this extremely edgy, even over the line, I see it as rather grounded and wholesome. As you know, Drink Moxie supports truth in advertising, and while we can hardly believe that chewing gum will give us a shot at sexy strangers, we think it might just facilitate some fooling around with our girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, ... whatever.
Finally, as always, I leave you with the most recent commercial that got me thinking about this topic, and the one that I haven't quite been able to figure out yet. I also haven't been able to figure out what agency is responsible, but I'll keep working on it:
Our friends at Mentos are pretty well known for their offbeat approach to advertising, and at least in the US, seem to have built a brand entirely around its oddly European-looking commercials. Now that they've made the move to gum, they seem to be taking on the kissing approach, which I can't remember them trying previously. Clearly, they have added their own, uh ... flavor to it.
I leave it for you to figure this one out, but here are a few observations of my own. First, they are apparently not afraid to gross people out. The prior kissing commercials, even the ones involving rather gratuitous frenching, were at least designed to titillate and not to nauseate. It's also interesting because it's not particularly clear what is even happening in the commercial. It took a few seconds to settle in before I got the joke. And in some way, I felt like the joke was on me. After being bombarded by spots like the ones I've previously shown, I was well prepared to see a commercial featuring a man popping a piece of gum and then being kissed by a beautiful, anonymous woman without a single word uttered. I have to believe that the Mentos people knew what I was expecting to see, and then led me right into an unexpected punch line, as if they were squirting water into my face as I bent down to sniff a boutonniere. I found myself feeling a little appalled but also a little impressed. But while they earned my respect, I still haven't considered putting down any money for their gum.
And I am, in fact, all out of gum.
Friday, May 23, 2008
I Love Options
Hi everyone. I know it's been a while, but I hope the wait was worth it, because I'm finally getting around to presenting ... my insurance commercial spectacular! You knew it was coming, so let's get right into it.
First of all, God bless deregulation. Because so many states now allow auto insurance providers to compete on cost, we get to reap the bounty that is an unending barrage of surprisingly offbeat ad spots for various providers. The competition is so fierce that I even get to see the commercials here in my home state of Massachusetts, which doesn't allow competition on price (and in which many of these providers don't even operate). The only thing better than a good commercial is a good commercial for a product I can't buy. But since I don't own a car anyway, this point is moot.
So there are a lot of insurance companies out there and a lot of ads, but what's so interesting about that? The interesting thing occurred to me a few months back when I saw a spot for the company Amica, which was mostly unremarkable until the point where a character uttered the line, "I love options," which on its own made me giggle (sorry but I couldn't find video of this online). It made me think about what kinds of options were offered by the competition, which I only knew about through their commercials. And thinking about this made me realize that it's not just volume and quality that makes these insurance commercials interesting, it's variety. Yes indeed, there are options.
So let's take a look at what some of these companies have to offer. First up is Esurance, the maverick online-based insurance provider, whose creative work is done by the company itself in partnership with an animation studio called WILDBRAIN. According to their website, this gives them the benefit of "face to face" collaboration. Let's see an example of the result.
Seems that options are not the major selling point here. No, their approach is a little more basic. Fast-moving, eye-catching animation and emphasis simply on the "fast" and "easy" aspect of their service. Perfect for the net-savvy motorist who doesn't have a lot of time for insurance, what with all that time spent making money, fighting crime or, more likely, surfing the internet for porn.
Next we move on to Allstate. This campaign, brought to us by the Leo Burnett agency, is a little more, well, stately. This is largely thanks to the Presidential star power of Dennis Haysbert.
Decidedly not as fast, nor as easy, as the offerings from Esurance. But clearly this is advertising a different product. This is dependability, and service. This isn't for young bucks who drive fast and loose. This is your father's auto insurance.
Or is it?
So apparently even Allstate will turn up the heat if it needs to, even cracking a joke or two. Still, I doubt that the allusion to The French Connection is meant to resonate with the younger audience.
Let's raise the bar on complexity just a bit by checking in on our friends at Progressive Direct. Over the past few years their campaign has been erratic, at best. In 2006 they switched their creative contract to Boston-based Arnold Worldwide. Since then, for a while they had a campaign fronted by broadcaster and ESPN horse racing personality Kenny Mayne.
Kenny's not a bad spokesman, I suppose, but I don't have a good sense of what message he was trying to get across. I suppose Progressive's thing is that they help you to compare their rates and services with their competitors. I suppose that's an interesting point, but isn't that something we all could do on our own? Yes Kenny, I trust you despite your known penchant for playing exacta wheels, and the little cow is adorable, but are you really selling me anything?
A little later Progressive tried a different tact with this frequently aired spot starring Colleen Crabtree.
This one could go into a file for a recurring commercial theme - the depiction of a very collected, professional service employee politely dealing with a rather nutty client. I like it. But apparently, the people at Progressive or Arnold didn't think the theme was quite what they wanted. So they essentially reversed roles. Let's take a look.
The odd thing about this is not just the change in theme of the commercials, it's that the messages of the commercials seem to contradict those of previous commercials. The original campaign spoke to the discriminating consumer who wanted to get the best price and service. The next campaign, or at least the one commercial, spoke to the harried consumer who needed increased personalized service. This recent campaign presents their product as a retail offering with various associated deals and cost-savings, presumably targeting the customer who just wants to buy and not think about anything else. It's almost veering in the direction of Esurance. Why? Perhaps people didn't like options so much, after all.
And last but not least, we turn the undisputed king of insurance commercials. This is the granddaddy of them all, the brand that the Martin Agency has turned into a household name just on account of its commercials. The ways in which these campaigns have mined pop culture gold are practically too many to count. I would have to write a book just about it - and I wouldn't be surprised if someone already has. But just to pick a few examples, let's start with the catchphrase.
No analysis needed there. Something strange is going on, you're not sure what, and the message to the consumer comes packaged in the punch line: "I saved a bunch of money." Well, you got my interest. Tell me more.
Next, skipping briefly over the gecko, a pop culture phenomenon in itself, we go to this gem, which as far as I can tell is the only ad campaign that spawned its own (albeit short lived) television series.
There it is. Again we have what is practically a minisketch, like a high concept Laugh-In bit, built around a very simple message to the consumer: "easy". I suppose we could have a side discussion on why the television series Cavemen failed so miserably. I could go on about this, but to put it simply, I think it simply forgot what it was selling. Some people think of TV commercials as short, stylized TV shows, but how do we know that TV shows aren't just elongated, stylized TV commercials? Chew on that one.
Now we come to my favorite. It speaks for itself.
They ran a whole series of these starring such luminaries as Don LaFontaine, Peter Frampton, Peter Graves, Burt Bacharach, and James Lipton, and I encourage you to watch as many of them as you can stand. Overall we see the same things we did before: high concept, good comedy. But this time the message is different. This time it's about the service, and the peace of mind that customers receive when in the unfortunate position of having to file a claim.
By now you all surely see where I'm going with this. These different campaigns aren't just scattered musings and random jokes. Each of these campaigns was tailored to deliver a different, specific message about the product being sold. It didn't try to be all things to all people at once, instead it gradually built up its image over time. First it was the cheap insurance (actually, I didn't even go back to the proto-message of their early commercial campaign, "everyone does stupid things," which can be interpreted as you like). Then it was the easy insurance. Then it was the service-oriented insurance. Now, it is beyond pigeonholing. It transcends description. It is Geico.
Okay, maybe that's overly dramatic. But still, Geico continues to push the envelope of how far its image can go, as evidenced in this new spot that I recently saw. This marks the first instance I can think of in which a corporate mascot is enlisted to endorse a product that it was not created to endorse.
It's a bit of a mind-bender, and I still haven't made up my mind as to what it means. Perhaps it is just a random joke that someone thought up and ran with, though I tend to discount those theories as too boring to be true. Perhaps this is their attempt to ingrain the Geico brand even deeper into American culture by associating itself with other well-known advertising campaigns. Perhaps they think the American audience is savvy enough not to be threatened by the complications of a commercial within a commercial. I suppose to determine its real impact we'll have to see if they continue on that theme, or if other brands begin to follow suit. I would like it if they did.
Well that concludes my survey of insurance commercials. Drive safely everyone. Or even better, take the bus.
First of all, God bless deregulation. Because so many states now allow auto insurance providers to compete on cost, we get to reap the bounty that is an unending barrage of surprisingly offbeat ad spots for various providers. The competition is so fierce that I even get to see the commercials here in my home state of Massachusetts, which doesn't allow competition on price (and in which many of these providers don't even operate). The only thing better than a good commercial is a good commercial for a product I can't buy. But since I don't own a car anyway, this point is moot.
So there are a lot of insurance companies out there and a lot of ads, but what's so interesting about that? The interesting thing occurred to me a few months back when I saw a spot for the company Amica, which was mostly unremarkable until the point where a character uttered the line, "I love options," which on its own made me giggle (sorry but I couldn't find video of this online). It made me think about what kinds of options were offered by the competition, which I only knew about through their commercials. And thinking about this made me realize that it's not just volume and quality that makes these insurance commercials interesting, it's variety. Yes indeed, there are options.
So let's take a look at what some of these companies have to offer. First up is Esurance, the maverick online-based insurance provider, whose creative work is done by the company itself in partnership with an animation studio called WILDBRAIN. According to their website, this gives them the benefit of "face to face" collaboration. Let's see an example of the result.
Seems that options are not the major selling point here. No, their approach is a little more basic. Fast-moving, eye-catching animation and emphasis simply on the "fast" and "easy" aspect of their service. Perfect for the net-savvy motorist who doesn't have a lot of time for insurance, what with all that time spent making money, fighting crime or, more likely, surfing the internet for porn.
Next we move on to Allstate. This campaign, brought to us by the Leo Burnett agency, is a little more, well, stately. This is largely thanks to the Presidential star power of Dennis Haysbert.
Decidedly not as fast, nor as easy, as the offerings from Esurance. But clearly this is advertising a different product. This is dependability, and service. This isn't for young bucks who drive fast and loose. This is your father's auto insurance.
Or is it?
So apparently even Allstate will turn up the heat if it needs to, even cracking a joke or two. Still, I doubt that the allusion to The French Connection is meant to resonate with the younger audience.
Let's raise the bar on complexity just a bit by checking in on our friends at Progressive Direct. Over the past few years their campaign has been erratic, at best. In 2006 they switched their creative contract to Boston-based Arnold Worldwide. Since then, for a while they had a campaign fronted by broadcaster and ESPN horse racing personality Kenny Mayne.
Kenny's not a bad spokesman, I suppose, but I don't have a good sense of what message he was trying to get across. I suppose Progressive's thing is that they help you to compare their rates and services with their competitors. I suppose that's an interesting point, but isn't that something we all could do on our own? Yes Kenny, I trust you despite your known penchant for playing exacta wheels, and the little cow is adorable, but are you really selling me anything?
A little later Progressive tried a different tact with this frequently aired spot starring Colleen Crabtree.
This one could go into a file for a recurring commercial theme - the depiction of a very collected, professional service employee politely dealing with a rather nutty client. I like it. But apparently, the people at Progressive or Arnold didn't think the theme was quite what they wanted. So they essentially reversed roles. Let's take a look.
The odd thing about this is not just the change in theme of the commercials, it's that the messages of the commercials seem to contradict those of previous commercials. The original campaign spoke to the discriminating consumer who wanted to get the best price and service. The next campaign, or at least the one commercial, spoke to the harried consumer who needed increased personalized service. This recent campaign presents their product as a retail offering with various associated deals and cost-savings, presumably targeting the customer who just wants to buy and not think about anything else. It's almost veering in the direction of Esurance. Why? Perhaps people didn't like options so much, after all.
And last but not least, we turn the undisputed king of insurance commercials. This is the granddaddy of them all, the brand that the Martin Agency has turned into a household name just on account of its commercials. The ways in which these campaigns have mined pop culture gold are practically too many to count. I would have to write a book just about it - and I wouldn't be surprised if someone already has. But just to pick a few examples, let's start with the catchphrase.
No analysis needed there. Something strange is going on, you're not sure what, and the message to the consumer comes packaged in the punch line: "I saved a bunch of money." Well, you got my interest. Tell me more.
Next, skipping briefly over the gecko, a pop culture phenomenon in itself, we go to this gem, which as far as I can tell is the only ad campaign that spawned its own (albeit short lived) television series.
There it is. Again we have what is practically a minisketch, like a high concept Laugh-In bit, built around a very simple message to the consumer: "easy". I suppose we could have a side discussion on why the television series Cavemen failed so miserably. I could go on about this, but to put it simply, I think it simply forgot what it was selling. Some people think of TV commercials as short, stylized TV shows, but how do we know that TV shows aren't just elongated, stylized TV commercials? Chew on that one.
Now we come to my favorite. It speaks for itself.
They ran a whole series of these starring such luminaries as Don LaFontaine, Peter Frampton, Peter Graves, Burt Bacharach, and James Lipton, and I encourage you to watch as many of them as you can stand. Overall we see the same things we did before: high concept, good comedy. But this time the message is different. This time it's about the service, and the peace of mind that customers receive when in the unfortunate position of having to file a claim.
By now you all surely see where I'm going with this. These different campaigns aren't just scattered musings and random jokes. Each of these campaigns was tailored to deliver a different, specific message about the product being sold. It didn't try to be all things to all people at once, instead it gradually built up its image over time. First it was the cheap insurance (actually, I didn't even go back to the proto-message of their early commercial campaign, "everyone does stupid things," which can be interpreted as you like). Then it was the easy insurance. Then it was the service-oriented insurance. Now, it is beyond pigeonholing. It transcends description. It is Geico.
Okay, maybe that's overly dramatic. But still, Geico continues to push the envelope of how far its image can go, as evidenced in this new spot that I recently saw. This marks the first instance I can think of in which a corporate mascot is enlisted to endorse a product that it was not created to endorse.
It's a bit of a mind-bender, and I still haven't made up my mind as to what it means. Perhaps it is just a random joke that someone thought up and ran with, though I tend to discount those theories as too boring to be true. Perhaps this is their attempt to ingrain the Geico brand even deeper into American culture by associating itself with other well-known advertising campaigns. Perhaps they think the American audience is savvy enough not to be threatened by the complications of a commercial within a commercial. I suppose to determine its real impact we'll have to see if they continue on that theme, or if other brands begin to follow suit. I would like it if they did.
Well that concludes my survey of insurance commercials. Drive safely everyone. Or even better, take the bus.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Horse Trading
I've been home sick, which has relegated me to spending the day on the couch watching horse racing. So aside from the fever and stomach ache, it's been a great day!
Many of you probably don't watch horse racing, I'll be the first to admit that it has a niche audience that most of my friends and associates don't fall into. This is great from a research standpoint, because it means that the advertising for horse racing is very different from the advertising you would see on other television programs, and even unlike other, more popular sports. It would take a long time to go through all of the case examples, so I'll just start with a taste for now and maybe go into it a little further as the racing season continues.
(I should note here for the sake of sticklers like myself that when I say "horse racing" I'm referring to thoroughbred horse racing. I would love to comment on advertising focused towards viewers of harness, quarter-horse, or other varieties of racing, but unfortunately they don't really show those on TV. Guessing from the crowd I see around harness racing tracks, commercials would probably focus in the area of beer, farm equipment, and antidepressants. To any relatives who might be reading, just kidding!)
Say My Name
One thing I tend to see a lot of during horse racing is advertising for financial services companies. I'm not sure if that's because they assume horse racing fans would have a lot of money, or because they assume that horse racing fans would have a difficult time managing what money they have. Yes, I know -- probably a little of both.
This allowed me to get a look at the campaign for Old Mutual, which apparently is a firm offering various financial services, and not a malt liquor brand as I would have initially guessed. The campaign is apparently several months old but I haven't noticed it before (they also sponsor pro golfer Trevor Immelman, so surely they received some boost in their notoriety when he won the Masters last month). This spot ran several times during the broadcast I was watching, although the version I saw, unlike this one, had inserted a horse racing-themed bit in place of some of the other stuff.
It's always hard to say what I think when financial services companies try to be "cool". On the one hand, this is certainly more notable than any of the dozens of other horse racing-themed financial services commercials that I have seen over and over again but still for the life of me can't remember enough information about to look up on the internet. Those commercials try to draw a parallel between the pedigree and performance of top thoroughbreds and the supposed upstanding reputation of a firm with whom you are supposed to invest your money (seriously, I wanted to show you a good example but I just could not recall enough about it). This one takes a more populist approach, perhaps paralleling an attempt on the part of racing promoters to make thoroughbred racing a popular sport again.
Does it work? Well obviously they don't expect people to start using "Old Mutual" in everyday speech. At the least, they probably hope that their viewers will interpret it as a joke, and assume that the company has a sense of humor about itself, which helps to build a sense of trust with the brand. Some of their creative people might even have the delusional idea that people would start trying to use it in ironic jest, which would probably be the best outcome for the brand; unfortunately (or fortunately), this campaign will probably not be pervasive enough to be as widely recognizable as, for instance, "apply directly to the forehead."
Overall, this idea seems like a pretty solid way to build recognition for the brand, but it could potentially go wrong. For instance, viewers with a less sophisticated understanding of humor could think that the company is being arrogant in assuming its brand is important enough to be integrated into popular culture. It could also turn off viewers with a disdain for the very idea of incorporating brand names into everyday speech. There's also the very real potential that a lot of viewers simply won't get it, as the joke is not well explained. By putting its ads so prominently into a horse racing broadcast, Old Mutual assumes not only that the audience has some money (and potentially some difficulty managing it), but also that the audience is savvy enough to get that it is a joke and to go along with it. Too much to ask of a racing audience? As always, the audience will decide.
Appetizing!
Some of you might have known that the reason I was watching horse racing today was because it's Kentucky Oaks day at Churchill Downs, which traditionally occurs the day before the first Saturday in May, when the running of the Kentucky Derby occurs. The Oaks was a good race on a sloppy track, as Louisville experienced torrential downpours all afternoon. Conditions for the Derby will probably also be sloppy.
Speaking of sloppy, one of the interesting features of the Kentucky Derby coverage is that its lead sponsor is Yum! Brands, the biggest company you've probably never heard of. In case you don't know, Yum! Brands, Inc. is the unholy polymarriage of KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken), Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, A&W Hot Dogs and More, and Long John Silver's. Although the world's collective arteries harden a bit every time they proudly proclaim it, they are the largest restaurant company in the world. Those of you who have seen a KFC/Taco Bell or some similar mash-up and wondered how it came to pass, now you know. If you're like me, such conglomerations have inspired titillating thoughts of possibilities such as popcorn chicken chalupas and fish stick pizzas.
As far as I can tell, the Derby is the only thing that Yum! sponsors as a company, and since the company is based in Louisville it seems as if the Derby is simply something it makes sense for them to sponsor. On any other broadcast, at any other time of year, advertising is limited to just the component brands. So when Derby time rolls around, I always wonder, is it helping or hurting the company to advertise its own existence? Wouldn't it seem to be the conventional wisdom, in this day and age, that consumers prefer products that appear to be somewhat independent, instead of parts of large corporate conglomerates? Food products that are subsidiaries of Nestle or Coca-Cola, as most food products tend to be, don't advertise themselves as such.
So why do they do it? Well, maybe since it's just limited to one broadcast at one time, they figure it doesn't really matter. Or maybe given the reputation of the component brands, and the proliferation of the aforementioned hybrid restaurants, they figured it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they are part of a larger corporate entity. In fact, if it is the case that most people assume these (I hesitate to use the term) restaurants are part of a larger entity anyway, maybe promoting Yum! actually does the brands a service by providing a "face" to what is otherwise a faceless corporate mass. Furthermore, it reaffirms that these brands are not subsidiaries of McDonalds or other such insidious chains, but of an independent company that is based right in America's heartland. Can't you taste the freedom?
Mull it over while you're sipping your mint julep and nervously adjusting your wide-brimmed hat.
Many of you probably don't watch horse racing, I'll be the first to admit that it has a niche audience that most of my friends and associates don't fall into. This is great from a research standpoint, because it means that the advertising for horse racing is very different from the advertising you would see on other television programs, and even unlike other, more popular sports. It would take a long time to go through all of the case examples, so I'll just start with a taste for now and maybe go into it a little further as the racing season continues.
(I should note here for the sake of sticklers like myself that when I say "horse racing" I'm referring to thoroughbred horse racing. I would love to comment on advertising focused towards viewers of harness, quarter-horse, or other varieties of racing, but unfortunately they don't really show those on TV. Guessing from the crowd I see around harness racing tracks, commercials would probably focus in the area of beer, farm equipment, and antidepressants. To any relatives who might be reading, just kidding!)
Say My Name
One thing I tend to see a lot of during horse racing is advertising for financial services companies. I'm not sure if that's because they assume horse racing fans would have a lot of money, or because they assume that horse racing fans would have a difficult time managing what money they have. Yes, I know -- probably a little of both.
This allowed me to get a look at the campaign for Old Mutual, which apparently is a firm offering various financial services, and not a malt liquor brand as I would have initially guessed. The campaign is apparently several months old but I haven't noticed it before (they also sponsor pro golfer Trevor Immelman, so surely they received some boost in their notoriety when he won the Masters last month). This spot ran several times during the broadcast I was watching, although the version I saw, unlike this one, had inserted a horse racing-themed bit in place of some of the other stuff.
It's always hard to say what I think when financial services companies try to be "cool". On the one hand, this is certainly more notable than any of the dozens of other horse racing-themed financial services commercials that I have seen over and over again but still for the life of me can't remember enough information about to look up on the internet. Those commercials try to draw a parallel between the pedigree and performance of top thoroughbreds and the supposed upstanding reputation of a firm with whom you are supposed to invest your money (seriously, I wanted to show you a good example but I just could not recall enough about it). This one takes a more populist approach, perhaps paralleling an attempt on the part of racing promoters to make thoroughbred racing a popular sport again.
Does it work? Well obviously they don't expect people to start using "Old Mutual" in everyday speech. At the least, they probably hope that their viewers will interpret it as a joke, and assume that the company has a sense of humor about itself, which helps to build a sense of trust with the brand. Some of their creative people might even have the delusional idea that people would start trying to use it in ironic jest, which would probably be the best outcome for the brand; unfortunately (or fortunately), this campaign will probably not be pervasive enough to be as widely recognizable as, for instance, "apply directly to the forehead."
Overall, this idea seems like a pretty solid way to build recognition for the brand, but it could potentially go wrong. For instance, viewers with a less sophisticated understanding of humor could think that the company is being arrogant in assuming its brand is important enough to be integrated into popular culture. It could also turn off viewers with a disdain for the very idea of incorporating brand names into everyday speech. There's also the very real potential that a lot of viewers simply won't get it, as the joke is not well explained. By putting its ads so prominently into a horse racing broadcast, Old Mutual assumes not only that the audience has some money (and potentially some difficulty managing it), but also that the audience is savvy enough to get that it is a joke and to go along with it. Too much to ask of a racing audience? As always, the audience will decide.
Appetizing!
Some of you might have known that the reason I was watching horse racing today was because it's Kentucky Oaks day at Churchill Downs, which traditionally occurs the day before the first Saturday in May, when the running of the Kentucky Derby occurs. The Oaks was a good race on a sloppy track, as Louisville experienced torrential downpours all afternoon. Conditions for the Derby will probably also be sloppy.
Speaking of sloppy, one of the interesting features of the Kentucky Derby coverage is that its lead sponsor is Yum! Brands, the biggest company you've probably never heard of. In case you don't know, Yum! Brands, Inc. is the unholy polymarriage of KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken), Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, A&W Hot Dogs and More, and Long John Silver's. Although the world's collective arteries harden a bit every time they proudly proclaim it, they are the largest restaurant company in the world. Those of you who have seen a KFC/Taco Bell or some similar mash-up and wondered how it came to pass, now you know. If you're like me, such conglomerations have inspired titillating thoughts of possibilities such as popcorn chicken chalupas and fish stick pizzas.
As far as I can tell, the Derby is the only thing that Yum! sponsors as a company, and since the company is based in Louisville it seems as if the Derby is simply something it makes sense for them to sponsor. On any other broadcast, at any other time of year, advertising is limited to just the component brands. So when Derby time rolls around, I always wonder, is it helping or hurting the company to advertise its own existence? Wouldn't it seem to be the conventional wisdom, in this day and age, that consumers prefer products that appear to be somewhat independent, instead of parts of large corporate conglomerates? Food products that are subsidiaries of Nestle or Coca-Cola, as most food products tend to be, don't advertise themselves as such.
So why do they do it? Well, maybe since it's just limited to one broadcast at one time, they figure it doesn't really matter. Or maybe given the reputation of the component brands, and the proliferation of the aforementioned hybrid restaurants, they figured it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they are part of a larger corporate entity. In fact, if it is the case that most people assume these (I hesitate to use the term) restaurants are part of a larger entity anyway, maybe promoting Yum! actually does the brands a service by providing a "face" to what is otherwise a faceless corporate mass. Furthermore, it reaffirms that these brands are not subsidiaries of McDonalds or other such insidious chains, but of an independent company that is based right in America's heartland. Can't you taste the freedom?
Mull it over while you're sipping your mint julep and nervously adjusting your wide-brimmed hat.
Friday, April 18, 2008
I See London
All right, I'll just say it straight out: This entry is about ladies' undergarments. Let's all have a giggle about that and then get serious so we can move on.
A couple weeks ago I saw this commercial and noticed something that I thought was interesting. Check it out:
Did you notice the same thing I did?
Of course you did.
Maybe?
That's right, I noticed that one of the stars in this spot, albeit very subtly, seemed to use the word "boob". Now, it's not that I'm surprised to hear the word "boob" on television, I'm pretty sure I hear it several times per day, and certainly in the context in which it is used here. But I don't believe I've heard it in a commercial, let alone in a commercial for a brassiere, where one might more likely expect to hear it than in a commercial for, let's say, Kraft macaroni and cheese. Commercials for ladies' underwear are on all the time, and they don't seem afraid to use fairly suggestive imagery and language. But the word "boob" seemed taboo, apparently until now.
So I made this observation and I didn't think it was interesting enough to go on about, and didn't think that I would explore it in much detail. Then, not too long after, I saw a commercial that was part of a new ad campaign for the Hanes "No Ride Up Panty" that was promoted as "Wedgie-Free". (This commercial is so exclusive that YouTube won't let me embed it, but it can be viewed in an online press release here.) Again, a word not often heard in commercials for underpants, and this time it is right there in the campaign's tagline.
So is this minor explosion of terminology like "boob" and "wedgie" indicative of some larger trend in the world of advertising womens' underwear? Readers right remember a previous post about All Bran that discussed "telling it like it is" when it comes to subjects that are somewhat awkward to discuss in an open public forum, and whether or not that approach is really effective, or even notable. But watching any Victoria's Secret commercial would show you that there are less-awkward approaches to marketing brassieres and the like. Are these campaigns from Playtex and Hanes trying to grab hold of female consumers who are disillusioned with the sexy underwear fantasies, tapping into their desire to see down-to-earth underwear, addressing down-to-earth issues with down-to-earth language? Or are they actually trying to be a little edgier themselves to compete with the Vickie's crew, only in a different way? Or are they just trying to be cute and funny?
This one has me a little stumped, for now. We'll see where this trend, if it can be called a trend, goes from here. Some guidance from my female readers might be helpful; but not required.
A couple weeks ago I saw this commercial and noticed something that I thought was interesting. Check it out:
Did you notice the same thing I did?
Of course you did.
Maybe?
That's right, I noticed that one of the stars in this spot, albeit very subtly, seemed to use the word "boob". Now, it's not that I'm surprised to hear the word "boob" on television, I'm pretty sure I hear it several times per day, and certainly in the context in which it is used here. But I don't believe I've heard it in a commercial, let alone in a commercial for a brassiere, where one might more likely expect to hear it than in a commercial for, let's say, Kraft macaroni and cheese. Commercials for ladies' underwear are on all the time, and they don't seem afraid to use fairly suggestive imagery and language. But the word "boob" seemed taboo, apparently until now.
So I made this observation and I didn't think it was interesting enough to go on about, and didn't think that I would explore it in much detail. Then, not too long after, I saw a commercial that was part of a new ad campaign for the Hanes "No Ride Up Panty" that was promoted as "Wedgie-Free". (This commercial is so exclusive that YouTube won't let me embed it, but it can be viewed in an online press release here.) Again, a word not often heard in commercials for underpants, and this time it is right there in the campaign's tagline.
So is this minor explosion of terminology like "boob" and "wedgie" indicative of some larger trend in the world of advertising womens' underwear? Readers right remember a previous post about All Bran that discussed "telling it like it is" when it comes to subjects that are somewhat awkward to discuss in an open public forum, and whether or not that approach is really effective, or even notable. But watching any Victoria's Secret commercial would show you that there are less-awkward approaches to marketing brassieres and the like. Are these campaigns from Playtex and Hanes trying to grab hold of female consumers who are disillusioned with the sexy underwear fantasies, tapping into their desire to see down-to-earth underwear, addressing down-to-earth issues with down-to-earth language? Or are they actually trying to be a little edgier themselves to compete with the Vickie's crew, only in a different way? Or are they just trying to be cute and funny?
This one has me a little stumped, for now. We'll see where this trend, if it can be called a trend, goes from here. Some guidance from my female readers might be helpful; but not required.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Satisfied
Hi folks. I haven't had a whole lot of time lately, so instead of doing my usual thorough analysis I'm just going to follow up on the theme of how marketing can reinforce the incorporation of a product into one's lifestyle with a simple, direct message.
This thought actually came from an associate who has noticed a subconscious association with Snickers and their "Hungry? Why Wait?" campaign. Some of you may remember commercials like this one from some time ago (courtesy of BBDO):
The commercials themselves have been popular with viewers for their jokes, but my associate notes that it's really the "Hungry? Why Wait?" tagline that comes to mind while standing at the vending machine trying to decide which selection will do the job. The commercials grab the attention just enough to slip in a relatively subtle yet effective message.
Advertising has a somewhat odd track record with rhetorical questions. Many of us remember the shameful "Why Ask Why? Try Bud Dry" campaign, the only admirable part of which was its honesty in suggesting that this was a product there was no reason for anyone to purchase. The Bud people didn't realize that Americans don't appreciate being told what they should and shouldn't question. "Why Wait?" however, is a perfectly appropriate question to associate with a product that is most likely purchased from a machine, checkout line, or sports team fundraiser, if not pulled from the freezer. Why yes, I am hungry now, thanks for asking.
Despite this success, Snickers hit a bit of a stumble with the infamous Super Bowl ad from last year that was perceived as either distasteful or homophobic, and resulted in many retractions and apologies. Now they're working to get back on track. Or are they?
You decide.
This thought actually came from an associate who has noticed a subconscious association with Snickers and their "Hungry? Why Wait?" campaign. Some of you may remember commercials like this one from some time ago (courtesy of BBDO):
The commercials themselves have been popular with viewers for their jokes, but my associate notes that it's really the "Hungry? Why Wait?" tagline that comes to mind while standing at the vending machine trying to decide which selection will do the job. The commercials grab the attention just enough to slip in a relatively subtle yet effective message.
Advertising has a somewhat odd track record with rhetorical questions. Many of us remember the shameful "Why Ask Why? Try Bud Dry" campaign, the only admirable part of which was its honesty in suggesting that this was a product there was no reason for anyone to purchase. The Bud people didn't realize that Americans don't appreciate being told what they should and shouldn't question. "Why Wait?" however, is a perfectly appropriate question to associate with a product that is most likely purchased from a machine, checkout line, or sports team fundraiser, if not pulled from the freezer. Why yes, I am hungry now, thanks for asking.
Despite this success, Snickers hit a bit of a stumble with the infamous Super Bowl ad from last year that was perceived as either distasteful or homophobic, and resulted in many retractions and apologies. Now they're working to get back on track. Or are they?
You decide.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Slam Dunk
I don't normally use this space to post raves. The last thing I would want to do is compromise our organization's reputation for being a thoughtful, objective critique of contemporary advertising culture. However, today I have to risk venturing into fanboy territory to say that I am quite fond of Dunkin' Donuts commercials. More on that shortly.
In particular, like much of America I've been taken with the series of spots featuring original (and uncredited) music by They Might Be Giants. Those readers who know me will understand why this one especially resonates:
There have been many more like this and I encourage you all to check them out if you haven't seen them. Apparently they are all online here.
Why do I like these spots so much? Well, I have liked They Might Be Giants for a long time, and I have liked Dunkin' Donuts for some time as well. It's kind of a no-brainer for me. But it's not just the elements that are appealing, it's the genius of the combination, and what it says about the band and the brand alike.
As a rock band known for its offbeat lyrics, TMBG has often been able to transform everyday phrases, actions, and thoughts into unexpected lyrical triumphs. They have turned "theme songs for the mundane" into something of a cottage industry. Someone at Hill, Holliday (Dunkin's advertising company) must have recognized this and realized that this cottage industry was rolling out a product they could use. (Even if They weren't actually selling it, yet.)
Why is this a perfect match? Because the Dunkin' Donuts brand is all about the mundane. It's not snooty Starbucks. It's joe for the Average Joe, the guy who works in the municipal building, takes the kids to karate, goes fishing (early), and generally does things. And Dunkies is where you get the food and drink you need when you're doing things. Dunkin' Donuts is not something spectacular and exciting that makes your life better in some important way. It is, simply, an integral part of your everyday routine. And your everyday routine, including your coffee and donuts and what-have-you, is important enough to deserve its own theme music. Brilliant.
The "America Runs on Dunkin" campaign is the latest in what has been a fairly successful series for the brand. Most people probably remember "Fred the Baker", played with gusto by Michael Vale (who lived in Lenox, MA, near my hometown - another reason I've always had a soft spot for Dunkies ads), who captured the ears of a generation with the simple catchphrase, "Time to make the donuts." Then, as now, their commercials worked on the three key levels: They reinforced the brand image, they were amusing without trying too hard, and they even managed to advertise the product - probably the least important aspect of a commercial, but impressive when they actually manage to do it right. The only thing that has changed has been a diversification of the target audience. Only Dunkin's can simultaneously run ad campaigns featuring They Might Be Giants and Rachael Ray. You can't help but be impressed.
If I had a faculty appointment, I could teach a class.
In particular, like much of America I've been taken with the series of spots featuring original (and uncredited) music by They Might Be Giants. Those readers who know me will understand why this one especially resonates:
There have been many more like this and I encourage you all to check them out if you haven't seen them. Apparently they are all online here.
Why do I like these spots so much? Well, I have liked They Might Be Giants for a long time, and I have liked Dunkin' Donuts for some time as well. It's kind of a no-brainer for me. But it's not just the elements that are appealing, it's the genius of the combination, and what it says about the band and the brand alike.
As a rock band known for its offbeat lyrics, TMBG has often been able to transform everyday phrases, actions, and thoughts into unexpected lyrical triumphs. They have turned "theme songs for the mundane" into something of a cottage industry. Someone at Hill, Holliday (Dunkin's advertising company) must have recognized this and realized that this cottage industry was rolling out a product they could use. (Even if They weren't actually selling it, yet.)
Why is this a perfect match? Because the Dunkin' Donuts brand is all about the mundane. It's not snooty Starbucks. It's joe for the Average Joe, the guy who works in the municipal building, takes the kids to karate, goes fishing (early), and generally does things. And Dunkies is where you get the food and drink you need when you're doing things. Dunkin' Donuts is not something spectacular and exciting that makes your life better in some important way. It is, simply, an integral part of your everyday routine. And your everyday routine, including your coffee and donuts and what-have-you, is important enough to deserve its own theme music. Brilliant.
The "America Runs on Dunkin" campaign is the latest in what has been a fairly successful series for the brand. Most people probably remember "Fred the Baker", played with gusto by Michael Vale (who lived in Lenox, MA, near my hometown - another reason I've always had a soft spot for Dunkies ads), who captured the ears of a generation with the simple catchphrase, "Time to make the donuts." Then, as now, their commercials worked on the three key levels: They reinforced the brand image, they were amusing without trying too hard, and they even managed to advertise the product - probably the least important aspect of a commercial, but impressive when they actually manage to do it right. The only thing that has changed has been a diversification of the target audience. Only Dunkin's can simultaneously run ad campaigns featuring They Might Be Giants and Rachael Ray. You can't help but be impressed.
If I had a faculty appointment, I could teach a class.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Shill of Victory
As Americans, we're more than used to watching athletes promote all manner of products. It just seems to make sense. Sports are a big part of culture everywhere, and here in the States the only thing more important is buying stuff. When it comes to athletic shoes, apparel and equipment, what would make you want to buy the product more than knowing your favorite pro player is paid to use it, too?
But we know that it goes beyond athletic products. Athletes can endorse virtually anything. We don't bat an eye when the appropriately-named Curt Schilling shills for Chevy trucks and Dunkin' Donuts at the same time. After all, we expect a major-league pitcher of Curt's stature to eat breakfast and haul brush. Two of the most dominant athletes in history, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer (along with a decent soccer player nobody's heard of), show us that their exceptional performance is due in no small part to an exceptionally close shave. Sometimes the match-up seems like a bit of a stretch. I for one had never thought I'd be thinking about meaty NFL linesmen every time I eat Campbell's Chunky Soup.
There must be a line beyond which the partnership becomes untenable. This was theoretically proven by our friends at Saturday Night Live when they showed Michael Jordan doing a spot for "Feminine Secret", which I think about every time I see him do yet another spot for Hanes underwear (as a matter of fact, there's one on right now).
And here is the latest example of a head-scratching promotion that dances on the line of what we expect pro athletes to endorse.
In some ways I'm impressed by this spot, for it demonstrates that David Beckham can get paid for a commercial which does not use his image, does not use his voice, and only makes an indirect reference to the sport he plays. Apparently he's so huge that his name alone is valuable enough to build an ad campaign around.
Indeed, David Beckham is possibly the most famous athlete in the world. Certainly, at one point he was by far the highest-paid athlete in the world. So of all the things he could be endorsing, why a magic marker?
Athletes need to worry about how much they are giving up in exchange for whatever kind of check the endorsee is giving them. A bizarre partnership like the fictitious Feminine Secret deal is funny, in part, because we know that it would influence our image of the athlete. That has an impact on the athlete's value as an endorser. In this real-life case, we have a commercial suggesting (to me, anyway, possibly to others as well) that Beckham spends most of his time these days signing autographs and playing golf. All true, perhaps, but does it help Beckham's marketability to reinforce this image?
These issues are also important to the endorsee, because an endorsement deal inexorably intertwines the public images of the two parties. For instance, the Michael Jordan/Nike deal, the archetypal modern endorsement deal, worked off of both parties' strong performance and the connection between the product and the athletic dominance to boost their respective popularities into almost mythological status. Conversely, an athlete or a brand with a deteriorating image can bring down the image of the other, thus potentially sending the athlete and the brand plummeting into a vortex of mutually-reinforcing shame. It doesn't always happen that way, but does Sharpie want to take that risk? Sharpie is a member of that elite set of brands whose name is a synonym for the product it makes. Do they think people are out there saying, "Could hand me one of those, you know, one of those fine-point markers ... like the kind Beckham uses?" What happens to all those name-brand Sharpies when the autographs stop coming?
Moral of the story: I need a better agent.
But we know that it goes beyond athletic products. Athletes can endorse virtually anything. We don't bat an eye when the appropriately-named Curt Schilling shills for Chevy trucks and Dunkin' Donuts at the same time. After all, we expect a major-league pitcher of Curt's stature to eat breakfast and haul brush. Two of the most dominant athletes in history, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer (along with a decent soccer player nobody's heard of), show us that their exceptional performance is due in no small part to an exceptionally close shave. Sometimes the match-up seems like a bit of a stretch. I for one had never thought I'd be thinking about meaty NFL linesmen every time I eat Campbell's Chunky Soup.
There must be a line beyond which the partnership becomes untenable. This was theoretically proven by our friends at Saturday Night Live when they showed Michael Jordan doing a spot for "Feminine Secret", which I think about every time I see him do yet another spot for Hanes underwear (as a matter of fact, there's one on right now).
And here is the latest example of a head-scratching promotion that dances on the line of what we expect pro athletes to endorse.
In some ways I'm impressed by this spot, for it demonstrates that David Beckham can get paid for a commercial which does not use his image, does not use his voice, and only makes an indirect reference to the sport he plays. Apparently he's so huge that his name alone is valuable enough to build an ad campaign around.
Indeed, David Beckham is possibly the most famous athlete in the world. Certainly, at one point he was by far the highest-paid athlete in the world. So of all the things he could be endorsing, why a magic marker?
Athletes need to worry about how much they are giving up in exchange for whatever kind of check the endorsee is giving them. A bizarre partnership like the fictitious Feminine Secret deal is funny, in part, because we know that it would influence our image of the athlete. That has an impact on the athlete's value as an endorser. In this real-life case, we have a commercial suggesting (to me, anyway, possibly to others as well) that Beckham spends most of his time these days signing autographs and playing golf. All true, perhaps, but does it help Beckham's marketability to reinforce this image?
These issues are also important to the endorsee, because an endorsement deal inexorably intertwines the public images of the two parties. For instance, the Michael Jordan/Nike deal, the archetypal modern endorsement deal, worked off of both parties' strong performance and the connection between the product and the athletic dominance to boost their respective popularities into almost mythological status. Conversely, an athlete or a brand with a deteriorating image can bring down the image of the other, thus potentially sending the athlete and the brand plummeting into a vortex of mutually-reinforcing shame. It doesn't always happen that way, but does Sharpie want to take that risk? Sharpie is a member of that elite set of brands whose name is a synonym for the product it makes. Do they think people are out there saying, "Could hand me one of those, you know, one of those fine-point markers ... like the kind Beckham uses?" What happens to all those name-brand Sharpies when the autographs stop coming?
Moral of the story: I need a better agent.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Morning Sickness
We're back after a brief hiatus, and what a great time to be back! I'm referring, of course, to the fact that a newcomer has recently made a claim to the title of "Dirtiest Commercial on American Television." Appropriately, the title goes to The King:
This one raises a few interesting questions.
Question 1: Is this the first commercial that uses an erection-related innuendo?
Absolutely not. Have you ever seen the commercials for Enzyte? I guess a more appropriate question is whether there are erection-related commercials for products that do not have any relation to erections. A quick web search on "commerical" and "erection" brought up a few ads for construction jobs and this, which I can only assume is European and at least a year old.
Question 2: Does an erection-related innuendo sell cheesy tots?
A much more interesting question. One might think that sexual arousal is not what people want to be thinking of when making decisions about food. Perhaps not everyone feels that way. But this is probably the wrong way of looking at the question. Instead the King is probably just banking on the fact that the people who giggle when watching this commercial are the same people likely to be craving artificial cheese-filled hash browns first thing in the morning. Time shall tell.
Question 3: How many times will we see this commercial before they pull it?
Again, only time will tell. Commercials like these for big companies don't tend to stay on the air for long before the company moves towards a more conventional campaign involving promotional giveaways, movie tie-ins, or celebrity cameos. It's possible that the company ultimately gets pressured into dropping the commercial by complaints from people or interest groups prudish enough to be offended yet offensive enough to write all kinds of colorful nasty letters. More likely, the company eventually realizes that while it might attract some attention, the novelty of a commercial like this wears off quickly, and in the end it probably doesn't boost sales much at all. Seems like it's just something they do every once in a while to maintain their cred with the small portion of the public that has a sense of humor.
So like the subject matter in question, I will enjoy this unexpected delight for the brief time it lasts.
This one raises a few interesting questions.
Question 1: Is this the first commercial that uses an erection-related innuendo?
Absolutely not. Have you ever seen the commercials for Enzyte? I guess a more appropriate question is whether there are erection-related commercials for products that do not have any relation to erections. A quick web search on "commerical" and "erection" brought up a few ads for construction jobs and this, which I can only assume is European and at least a year old.
Question 2: Does an erection-related innuendo sell cheesy tots?
A much more interesting question. One might think that sexual arousal is not what people want to be thinking of when making decisions about food. Perhaps not everyone feels that way. But this is probably the wrong way of looking at the question. Instead the King is probably just banking on the fact that the people who giggle when watching this commercial are the same people likely to be craving artificial cheese-filled hash browns first thing in the morning. Time shall tell.
Question 3: How many times will we see this commercial before they pull it?
Again, only time will tell. Commercials like these for big companies don't tend to stay on the air for long before the company moves towards a more conventional campaign involving promotional giveaways, movie tie-ins, or celebrity cameos. It's possible that the company ultimately gets pressured into dropping the commercial by complaints from people or interest groups prudish enough to be offended yet offensive enough to write all kinds of colorful nasty letters. More likely, the company eventually realizes that while it might attract some attention, the novelty of a commercial like this wears off quickly, and in the end it probably doesn't boost sales much at all. Seems like it's just something they do every once in a while to maintain their cred with the small portion of the public that has a sense of humor.
So like the subject matter in question, I will enjoy this unexpected delight for the brief time it lasts.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
28
Howdy readers. Yesterday, as every year, I spent the day honoring the birthday of our former and possibly future First Daughter, Chelsea Clinton. I've done so ever since she captured the heart of the American people as a lovable, awkward teenager back in 1993. And now, at 28, we see how much she's grown. But why should I go on, when ABC News says it best? Secret weapon, indeed!
It seems only yesterday when she spent her 18th birthday partying away with celebrities in New York, while the rest of us had to go to school. Now, as a successful, responsible adult, she spends the day campaigning for her mom, while the rest of us slogged through a day at the office before whiling away the evening at bar trivia. Amazing how much can change in 10 years.
I bet you're all wondering what this has to do with advertising. Maybe nothing. But perhaps it's important to remember that in spite of advertising's relentless efforts to turn us into stable, reliable consumers, we continue to grow and develop nonetheless.
My loyal readers should know that Drink Moxie will be on hiatus next week. In the meantime, you could check out this other site that I like:
jeffsamerica.blogspot.com
It seems only yesterday when she spent her 18th birthday partying away with celebrities in New York, while the rest of us had to go to school. Now, as a successful, responsible adult, she spends the day campaigning for her mom, while the rest of us slogged through a day at the office before whiling away the evening at bar trivia. Amazing how much can change in 10 years.
I bet you're all wondering what this has to do with advertising. Maybe nothing. But perhaps it's important to remember that in spite of advertising's relentless efforts to turn us into stable, reliable consumers, we continue to grow and develop nonetheless.
My loyal readers should know that Drink Moxie will be on hiatus next week. In the meantime, you could check out this other site that I like:
jeffsamerica.blogspot.com
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bran on the Brain
I'm sure everyone remembers the SNL gem Colon Blow from 1989 (if not, you can see it for free here). So why did it take 18 years to come out with this?
I was reminded of this after seeing a recent installment of the All-Bran campaign starring John McEnroe unleashing scatological innuendo on the viewing audience (they have a disappointingly innuendo-free website here).
This really got my juices flowing, so to speak, on the subject of honesty in advertising. Well, maybe not honesty per se, but straightforwardness. On a list of issues we humans typically need to deal with, #2 is very near the top of the list. And I am a strong believer in the magic of fiber. Still, if I had a concern that a product such as All-Bran might be able to alleviate, I'd have a hell of a time knowing that from a typical commercial without having somehow developed an understanding of the euphemistic vocabulary of the toilet. Even laxative commercials are advertised to address "bloating" and promote "regularity." Regularity? I'm pretty sure I was well into my teens before I knew what "regularity" was supposed to mean, let alone more clinical terms like constipation. It's not stuff you learn in kindergarten.
And the viewing audience is dumb, right? Aren't commercials meant for the lowest common denominator? If so, why aren't commercials like they are in the movie Crazy People, where toilet paper is advertised as "for wiping your ass with." (By the way, if you're looking for a source that thoroughly plumbs the depths of poop culture, try this -- but don't say I didn't warn you.)
But to get out of the toilet for a second, what does it say about commercials generally when the imagery becomes a little edgier, perhaps a bit cruder, definitely funnier, and yet still relies on euphemisms and innuendo? The entertainment value in the All-Bran commercial, like Colon Blow before it, is its unabashedness in acknowledging what the product does. But it still does it in an indirect way. It amuses us because we're used to commercials being shy and inoffensive, but does it do a better job advertising the product? Are we more likely to buy it?
Maybe not. Subsequent commercials have backpedaled significantly, like the McEnroe one, which contains a few cheap jokes but focuses more on the "All-Bran Challenge," a shameless ripoff of the already shameless "Special K Challenge" (which is a whole other topic I shouldn't get started on). If the first commercial didn't resonate with the spending audience, was it because it was too low-brow, or too high-brow? Too honest, or not honest enough?
Just something to think about the next time you have to drop the kids off at the pool.
Monday, February 18, 2008
No Crash Later
Today's installment is a good example of how a simple commercial can belie an unexpectedly complex phenomenon, and how a seemingly simple analysis can get me in way over my head.
Apparently, the TV shows I watch are popular among "energy-deficient" types, because I find myself often viewing this commercial for a product called "5 Hour Energy":
I was going to write about what a poor job this commercial does in illustrating what the product is and what it's for. The problem with energy drinks, I am told, is that they are all sugar and caffeine. This energy drink has no sugar or caffeine! Amazing. Only 8 calories, and amino acids as well. Fantastic, sign me up! Makes me wonder, though, with only 8 calories, exactly where is that 5-hours worth of energy coming from?
The version of the commercial I've been seeing is slightly different. It actually does have caffeine, but only as much as a cup of coffee. That's not much, after all, a cup of coffee is ... well, I suppose it's about as much caffeine you can get in a cup of any beverage. But that's OK, because in this case, they've put it into a 5-ounce shot. And there's no guarana, so that's ... great. I hate guarana. So let's cut to the chase here, commercial. You're selling me a 5-ounce shot of concentrated caffeine. If you just came out and said that from the beginning it would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. Instead, you've wasted your time trying to sell me a product I'll never buy, with a commercial that in no way entices me to buy it.
So that was my observation and I was pleased with myself, another successful job illustrating how ineffective a given commercial can be. Then, in order to finish this project by showing you all the commercial, I entered the mystical parallel universe of pop culture they call YouTube. Once again, I was proved to be the proverbial chump, as I discovered that not only is 5 Hour Energy a product people are purchasing and using, but a phenomenon that has made solid inroads into cyberspace. Of course, now that I've seen what YouTube has to offer, I have a much better sense of what -- and whom -- this product is for.
And now, all of a sudden, I'm interested. I still wouldn't buy it, but at least I understand why I might, and I believe that there are people out there who do. If the 5 Hour Energy marketing team was really on top of things, they would just use these videos as their ad campaign.
But the commercial itself has even been popular enough to warrant a parody. Well, I suppose a parody is what you could call it.
Thus concludes my unexpected adventure into the world of alternative energy drink advertising. I hope you learned something. I know I did. But I'm not exactly sure I feel smarter for it.
Apparently, the TV shows I watch are popular among "energy-deficient" types, because I find myself often viewing this commercial for a product called "5 Hour Energy":
I was going to write about what a poor job this commercial does in illustrating what the product is and what it's for. The problem with energy drinks, I am told, is that they are all sugar and caffeine. This energy drink has no sugar or caffeine! Amazing. Only 8 calories, and amino acids as well. Fantastic, sign me up! Makes me wonder, though, with only 8 calories, exactly where is that 5-hours worth of energy coming from?
The version of the commercial I've been seeing is slightly different. It actually does have caffeine, but only as much as a cup of coffee. That's not much, after all, a cup of coffee is ... well, I suppose it's about as much caffeine you can get in a cup of any beverage. But that's OK, because in this case, they've put it into a 5-ounce shot. And there's no guarana, so that's ... great. I hate guarana. So let's cut to the chase here, commercial. You're selling me a 5-ounce shot of concentrated caffeine. If you just came out and said that from the beginning it would have saved us both a lot of time and effort. Instead, you've wasted your time trying to sell me a product I'll never buy, with a commercial that in no way entices me to buy it.
So that was my observation and I was pleased with myself, another successful job illustrating how ineffective a given commercial can be. Then, in order to finish this project by showing you all the commercial, I entered the mystical parallel universe of pop culture they call YouTube. Once again, I was proved to be the proverbial chump, as I discovered that not only is 5 Hour Energy a product people are purchasing and using, but a phenomenon that has made solid inroads into cyberspace. Of course, now that I've seen what YouTube has to offer, I have a much better sense of what -- and whom -- this product is for.
And now, all of a sudden, I'm interested. I still wouldn't buy it, but at least I understand why I might, and I believe that there are people out there who do. If the 5 Hour Energy marketing team was really on top of things, they would just use these videos as their ad campaign.
But the commercial itself has even been popular enough to warrant a parody. Well, I suppose a parody is what you could call it.
Thus concludes my unexpected adventure into the world of alternative energy drink advertising. I hope you learned something. I know I did. But I'm not exactly sure I feel smarter for it.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Whatever Happened To The Bud Bowl?
So Sunday was the biggest day of the year for television commercials, and I haven't had a chance to comment until now. I figured if I waited a few days, then I would be forced to discuss only the memorable moments. Now, I remember virtually nothing. I suppose even I outsmart myself sometimes.
I'm a big fan of Super Bowl commercials. Not so much because they're clever and funny. More because they are comforting and familiar. Ever since the point in the early 2000s when Super Bowl commercials became fully self-aware, we've been able to count on them to know exactly what we want to see and to deliver it to us in neat 30-second packages. As always, Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. Bud Light is the choice of middle-aged men who are whipped by their wives yet defiantly wily and inventive. E-Trade proved that if monkeys are cute and funny, then talking babies can be cuter and funnier. Athletic apparel and sports drinks can turn us all into Nazi supermen. Consumers are smart. Money-savers are dopes.
But it goes deeper than that for me. Super Bowl commercials remind me of what I should be striving for in order to be the best American I can be. I should be considering a new job. I should be buying mid-priced foreign cars, web domains, and low-calorie, high-caffeine, vitamin-infused alcoholic beverages. I should be keeping my kids off drugs. I should be worshiping models, pop music stars, and sexy race car drivers. These reminders are especially important during the coldest time of the year, when we're about to face 6 months without football.
Speaking of football, we seem to be seeing less and less of it in Super Bowl commercials these days. I suppose that's evidence that the scale has finally tipped, and consumerism has eclipsed football as the national sport. The only football I recall seeing in a commercial was being daintily manipulated by a lingerie model, a far cry from the days when it was coldly and deliberately manipulated by teams of beer bottles.
So perhaps Super Bowl commercials have gone somewhere since the days of the Aluminator. That's only to be expected in a world that is getting progressively faster, more caffeinated, and more tethered to technologies that we used to do just fine without. But as we are reminded, we can take solace in the fact that beer and sex will always be there. And football, maybe.
I'm a big fan of Super Bowl commercials. Not so much because they're clever and funny. More because they are comforting and familiar. Ever since the point in the early 2000s when Super Bowl commercials became fully self-aware, we've been able to count on them to know exactly what we want to see and to deliver it to us in neat 30-second packages. As always, Pepsi is the choice of a new generation. Bud Light is the choice of middle-aged men who are whipped by their wives yet defiantly wily and inventive. E-Trade proved that if monkeys are cute and funny, then talking babies can be cuter and funnier. Athletic apparel and sports drinks can turn us all into Nazi supermen. Consumers are smart. Money-savers are dopes.
But it goes deeper than that for me. Super Bowl commercials remind me of what I should be striving for in order to be the best American I can be. I should be considering a new job. I should be buying mid-priced foreign cars, web domains, and low-calorie, high-caffeine, vitamin-infused alcoholic beverages. I should be keeping my kids off drugs. I should be worshiping models, pop music stars, and sexy race car drivers. These reminders are especially important during the coldest time of the year, when we're about to face 6 months without football.
Speaking of football, we seem to be seeing less and less of it in Super Bowl commercials these days. I suppose that's evidence that the scale has finally tipped, and consumerism has eclipsed football as the national sport. The only football I recall seeing in a commercial was being daintily manipulated by a lingerie model, a far cry from the days when it was coldly and deliberately manipulated by teams of beer bottles.
So perhaps Super Bowl commercials have gone somewhere since the days of the Aluminator. That's only to be expected in a world that is getting progressively faster, more caffeinated, and more tethered to technologies that we used to do just fine without. But as we are reminded, we can take solace in the fact that beer and sex will always be there. And football, maybe.
Friday, February 01, 2008
A Message To Our Readers
Thank you for reading. For some time now, Drink Moxie has entertained about a half-dozen people on a quasi-regular basis with bizarre thoughts ranging from the absurd to the irritatingly uninteresting. It was fun for the staff here and at least bearable to the people who looked at it and decided to come back for more. (I have Google Analytics so yes, I know you exist.)
The dream could only last for so long. Eventually, the aimlessness of this pursuit would start to wear on the staff. As entries became more scattered, so did the lives of their creators. Some interventions needed to be made, and some were institutionalized, though briefly. It was a difficult time. Worst of all, for everyone's safety, Drink Moxie had to be discontinued temporarily.
After some retooling, I'm happy to announce that Drink Moxie is back with a new focus on its core mission. If it surprises you that Drink Moxie has a core mission, you're not alone in your ignorance. But that is no excuse. I shouldn't have to tell you that the core mission of Drink Moxie, as its name would imply, is to analyze and react to current developments in the art and science of popular culture advertising. So I won't.
Anyhow, I hope you decide to join us again for more. You'll find a more focused, intelligent commentary about the state of our culture, or if you prefer, a string of jokes about television commercials. Coincidentally, the Super Bowl is coming up today.
All the best, and see you soon. The Management.
The dream could only last for so long. Eventually, the aimlessness of this pursuit would start to wear on the staff. As entries became more scattered, so did the lives of their creators. Some interventions needed to be made, and some were institutionalized, though briefly. It was a difficult time. Worst of all, for everyone's safety, Drink Moxie had to be discontinued temporarily.
After some retooling, I'm happy to announce that Drink Moxie is back with a new focus on its core mission. If it surprises you that Drink Moxie has a core mission, you're not alone in your ignorance. But that is no excuse. I shouldn't have to tell you that the core mission of Drink Moxie, as its name would imply, is to analyze and react to current developments in the art and science of popular culture advertising. So I won't.
Anyhow, I hope you decide to join us again for more. You'll find a more focused, intelligent commentary about the state of our culture, or if you prefer, a string of jokes about television commercials. Coincidentally, the Super Bowl is coming up today.
All the best, and see you soon. The Management.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Save the Cheerleader ...
Has anyone else noticed that "Heroes" is just one small typo away from "Herpes"? Just throwing that out there.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Harry Potter Sequels We (Probably) Won't Get to See
Harry Potter and the Order of the Fraggle
Harry Potter and the Flying Toasters of Microsovia
Harry Potter and the Evil Novelty Wind-Up Teeth
Harry Potter and the Beckhams Do Lunch
Harry Potter and the Endless Taxi Queue
Harry Potter and the Waffle House Off I-75
Harry Potter and the Travolta Prophecy
Harry Potter and the Half-Stuck Zipper
Harry Potter: Miami
Harry Potter and the Crippling Student Loan Payments
Harry Potter and I'm Officially Out of Ideas Now
Harry Potter and the Flying Toasters of Microsovia
Harry Potter and the Evil Novelty Wind-Up Teeth
Harry Potter and the Beckhams Do Lunch
Harry Potter and the Endless Taxi Queue
Harry Potter and the Waffle House Off I-75
Harry Potter and the Travolta Prophecy
Harry Potter and the Half-Stuck Zipper
Harry Potter: Miami
Harry Potter and the Crippling Student Loan Payments
Harry Potter and I'm Officially Out of Ideas Now
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Grand Prize
I've won a few trophies in my life. Not that many. But I've found that most of them have some figure on top representing what the trophy is for. Sometimes it's an athlete like a skier, or a dude bowling perhaps. Sometimes it has a cup, vase or bowl on it, presumably representing achievement in the field of flower growing or general liquid collection.
I think the best trophy you could win would have, on top of it, a smaller version of the same trophy atop which it rests. Thereby, that smaller trophy would necessarily have atop it an even smaller version of itself, and that even smaller trophy would have a still more smaller trophy at its top. And so on. Forever.
What would such a trophy be awarded for? You'd think it would be for trophy-making, but you'd be wrong.
I think the best trophy you could win would have, on top of it, a smaller version of the same trophy atop which it rests. Thereby, that smaller trophy would necessarily have atop it an even smaller version of itself, and that even smaller trophy would have a still more smaller trophy at its top. And so on. Forever.
What would such a trophy be awarded for? You'd think it would be for trophy-making, but you'd be wrong.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
