Amazon’s short film changes the rules

/ Angelo Fernando / 1 Comment

Fossil I keep discovering new variations on the subject of the New Advertising that I cover. Two classic examples are the Honda ad that is all about the people who buy the car, and not the car itself, and the Amazon.com short films now running on the ‘Amazon Theatre’ -er, the Amazon.com landing page. In case you haven’t heard, Amazon Theatre has been screening these films from November 9th for a 5 week stint.

First the neat trick about the Amazon films. They are billed as a ‘Fallon Worldwide production’ meaning they are produced by an ad agency. This has all the makings fo what  the Madison & Vine concept was all about –a marriage between hollywood and Mad Ave. One film, Be careful what you wish for’  is about a married couple, a confession, and an insect, with flashbacks to their youth. You bet it’s got wacky suspense.

Then there are the rolling credits, a great indicator of where things are headed in ad land. The CAST IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE has the wife listed at the top, ad the husband listed 5 credits below. Inbetween are –I am not maing this up- blankets and lamps.

Fallon throws in some star power by having Daryl Hannah play a tiny part. But it’s the storyline, and not the stars that matter, because you are always wondering what the catch is. No the products cannot be clicked on, and no there is no overt selling in the storyline. It is even –perhaps deliberately– slow moving story for a short film, but has a neat punchline/kicker.

The real deal turns out to be in the Credits. You can click any of the Credits and they turn out to be links to the the lamps and jewellery in the film. In another much more pacy film, ‘Agent Orange’ with a boy-meets-girl theme, credits for the Fossil watch, Diesel jeans, camera etc are also linked to items on sale on Amazon.

As a technique I can see where this is going. Amazon knows exactly who its shoppers are, and can nicely target the films at each demographic. A man buying CDs of Barry manilow, probably doesn’t need to be targeted with the Agent Orange film. The products listed could be someday worked in with more interactive features, rather than to pages where they are listed. Fallon is one of the few agencies following up with work that reflects the passing away of the dumb TV commercials.

Continue reading →

Marlboro Man in Iraq: The Washing Post Cover

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Nyp_1The cover of the New York Post, featuring a close up of a soldier’s face, with a cigarette hanging from his lips, does bring the stark reality of war. The Post ran it with the headline ‘Marlboro men kick butt in Fallujah.”

You’d think people who were upset by it should have been talking of the horror of war or the stupidity of the headline –in the face of so many deaths- but no, they are wondering if the Marlboro people were actually using it for a marketing purpose.

“How much did Phillip Morris pay for the front cover advertisement?” asked a reader, thanking the paper for "promoting cancer."

Then there was one reader comment in the Post who went:

“Thank God New York isn’t occupied by terrorists. Mayor Bloomberg wouldn’t allow a Marine who smokes to enter the city.”

Is this a byproduct of the mindset of folks who (still) believe Iraqi terrorists perpetrated 9/11?

But back to the cover, I wish people would treat the soldier in question, Cpl. James Blake Miller, with more dignity than make him out to be a poster boy in some reality show. How could we explain this comment, for instance from a Rush Limbaugh listener, at this Conservative site, who seems to want to get her hands on him.

"Rush mentioned this pic, so I checked out the site…need to see if my B&N has today’s issue…that is an GREAT picture…if he’s single, women are going to be seriously trying to track this guy down!"

If you’ve spoken to the mother of any soldier out there, the least she would ask for is some respect for her son. Behind the grime, behind the cigarette, behind the tough demeanor, is a human being doing an awful job –and not at the behest of some tobacco company or some dating ring.

Continue reading →

TiVo could create a new interest in Opt-In ads

/ Angelo Fernando / 1 Comment

TiVo is at it again, reinventing the format, the medium and environment it works in. A easy-to-miss news item talks of how TiVo will have ‘tags’ that appear as small icons on the screen, so that a viewer can click on them with a remote, to find out more.

If advertisers are smart, they will plan for segments when they can create interest in products –like the iPod– on TiVo. Wouldn’t it be ironical if people were to freeze a program in its tracks using TiVo, to watch a demo, or a ‘micro-episode,’ of a product in the storyline?

I like the idea of being able to ‘opt-in’ to advertising. It’s not often that we see a piece of (excuse the phrase) paradigm-shifting technology that could make marketers AND consumers happy.

Continue reading →

Monicagate, Rathergate. Bias or obsession?

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

You can tell that the media is under the microscope in the same week that Bill Clinton chastises the media and CBS announces that Dan Rather will resign.

It’s not as simple as it seemed before the U.S. elections, when the big 3 networks, with Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings were cast as the anti-Bush liberal lobby that was automatically pro-Kerry. (see RatherBiased.com cartoon of the CBS logo!)

People tend to forget –and Clinton reminded Peter Jennings– that the networks did relentlessly chase after every angle of the Monica Lewinsky story.

Continue reading →

Search for advertising: Yahoo finds Ogilvy.

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Yahoo must be taking Google seriously. Notice how it has just hired Ogilvy to do its advertising. Actually, with the new interest in Search –with the entry of Microsoft– both Yahoo and Google would be looking hard at communicating the larger strategic values of their brand.

There is another way, too to market your brand using advertisng: Get close to the ad community! Google, as this story shows, has moved to not just hire great agencies, but turn ad folk into evangelizers of the brand.

Continue reading →

Election Advertising

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Lest we forget, amidst the embarrassing campaign ads we had to stomach during the U.S. elections, there were some high points.

Take this copy for Mini Cooper:

“Let’s always be law-abiding liberals on the gas pedal and ultraconservatives at the pump….Let’s lobby Capitol Hill for more twisty highways. Let’s all skip the mudslinging and stick to the road ahead. Let’s motor.”

7-Election

Then there was the 7-eleven coffee promotion, called 7-Election. It was as simple as offering customers a choice of a John Kerry or George Bush coffee cup in the chain’s 5,800 stores in the U.S.

The race, predictably, was neck-and-neck –with 65.4% of coffee ‘voters’ undecided. But when the results were tallied, Bush got 51.08% of the votes! It may not be a scientific poll, but as this story shows, considering that a million people a day drink 7-eleven coffee, it’s a promotion that’s got some clout.

As for Brand Bush and Brand Kerry…

Since several other marketers had joined the brand-wagon, Landor Associates interview 1,262 registered voters and found that:

Bush was associated with Bud Light, IBM and Ford (“reliable”, “humble”, “heritage”, “solid”)

Kerry is associated with brands such as Heineken, Apple, and BMW (“high-quality”, “high-performance”, “hip”, “young”)

Among undecided voters: Kerry was Starbucks while Bush was Dunkin’ Donuts.

Continue reading →

Media Bias: Why would advertisers care?

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Here’s a different angle on last Friday’s post on Ads and politics, about attack ads and the ‘attack media.

It shocks me that so many are so shocked at media bias. It’s about time people stopped complaining about media ‘agenda setting’ and started accepting the reality of media ownership. It’s not just elections that bring this up. People questioned the BBC’s ‘objectivity’ in on his hostility concerning religion, and coverage of the Iraq war.

A recent Bivings Report looks at it from the perspective of advertisers, and essentially says that frankly, my dear they don’t give a damn.

Frankly, it does not ultimately matter. People have become accustomed to hearing advertisements for day-to-day, politically neutral products in all kinds of contexts that are biased. How many people have abandoned a company because it runs ads during NBC’s liberal drama on the Presidency, “The West Wing?”

Frankly, the media –be it cable, satellite radio, AM radio, NPR, or network TV– always throws in a dose of opinionated commentary, hate talk, political bias, and disregard for social norms. If advertisers are so upset by all this, they should be rushing for the exits from the Fox network (because of such fare as Trading Spouses) and the ABC (not because they don’t see eye to eye with Nightline, but because of fare such as Desperate Housewives.)

Just for the record:

Here is a top-10 list of media distortions, from Conservative Web site, MediaCenter.Org/

And here’s a link to Journalism.Org‘s study about people’s attitudes to media. (Increase in the percentage of people who believe the media is inaccurate, biased etc.)

If this is the reality of the media, no wonder advertisers hold their noses and continue to slot their ads.

Continue reading →

Product Demos work wonders.

/ Angelo Fernando / 1 Comment

After my post on Monday about the power of Brand Voice, and Southwest Airlines, I made a serendipitous discovery of an article (at MarketingProfs.com) by copywriter-turned-psychotactic idea man, Sean D’Souza (who also calls himself a cave guy and fire starter…)

His site, Psychotactics.com, is a wealth of ideas about ideas on marketing, including access to books with Tom peters-like titles (Lessons from the Cave, Brain Train etc) 

Check him out!

Continue reading →

Southwest Airline’s Brand Voice

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Hard to beat Southwest Airlines for examples of how employees build the brand. Scene: A busy flight from Phoenix to Las Vegas on Sunday morning (11/07/04)  The usual snafus: passengers late to the gate because of long lines at security chokepoints, etc.

As the plane doors were closed, a flight steward came on the PA system delivering her chirpy welcome, and reminder about seatbelts and cell phones etc. However she prefaced it with: “I can’t believe we’re on-time!” Passengers laughed. Then, as the plane began to nudge out of the gate, the captain, in an equally cheery voice said “She better believe it! We are always on time! I know because I keep the log book in here!”

In most companies, a lesser mortal saying something not so complimentary about the brand would probably be fired! Not Southwest, where employees –and not just marketing people—manage the brand!

Such exhortations of the airline’s ‘brand voice’ are what differentiate products and services. For frequent fliers for whom short, no-frills, crampy flights are as uneventful as a bus ride, it’s these little things that make a difference. So many marketers forget this and are carried away with cool, predictable (excuse me for using this awful word) ‘touchpoints.’ So yes, I print my boarding pass at home before I leave for my flight, and yes, I subscribe to a customer-retention plan known as Rapid Rewards, but the thing that keeps me flying Southwest is how human and normal the brand is, free of hype, and overblown promises that most marketers adopt.

Imagine an alternative scenario. The flight steward makes an announcement that “It’s 8.30, and, as usual, Southwest is always on time! At Southwest Airlines, we are (extra chirpy voice here)dedicated to the highest quality of customer service and have been consistently known for on-time departures and arrivals. Please sit back, and relax and enjoy the flight…” That, by the way, is a part of the airline’s mission statement, but it rings so hollow, when compared to the real brand voice –those unscripted moments, from the mouth of its employees. Often this is the best PR of all –reaching 200 (captive) customers at a time.

See a similar example of ‘customer loyalty software’ here.

Continue reading →

The Attack Ad In Politics.

/ Angelo Fernando / Leave a comment

Bob Garfield’s   ad reviews may be sometimes out of whack, but this week he was spot on. In a column in Advertising Age (November 1st, 2004) that’s much longer than his regular weekly staple,

Garfield deconstructs a broad range of campaign tactics as seen through the lens of Bush and Kerry’s ads. His conclusion: the uber negative campaign has a toxic effect on America, and not just on our politics.

Interestingly, his column was penned before the results, so he sides with an Annenberg study that found how attack ads reduce voter turnout. Bush’s ability to get the popular vote, despite many predictions to the contrary–especially after 2000— is an indication of something else that neither advertising nor academic theory could explain. Maybe, just maybe, attack ads actually work, and all our nice ideas about brand image and consistency, and brand equity are irrelevant. Maybe politicians, not being boxes of detergent, do appeal to people because of something that works at a more visceral level. Speaking of brand equity, Bush yesterday spoke of the ‘political capital’ he has earned, and intends to ‘spend.’ Maybe the inarticulate one has a smarter understanding of his ‘brand’ than we think!

Both campaigns –and I refer to ads, speeches, debates, Web sites etc– made one thing clear: they didn’t give a hoot about traditional branding. They waged their campaigns, not as a cola war, or a beauty pageant, but as something more basic. We may have been appalled and made to feel queasy, whether it was the ‘wolves’ ad or the cheap shot about Mary Cheney, but the net effect was that we were spending less time thinking if the candidate was the fixit man for the economyhealthcarewaroutsourcingterrorism problem and more time wondering if he was on our wavelength. My personal stance was I was angry at both, and longed for someone with more common sense — like John McCain.

After listening to several Republicans and Democrats friends, and the respective media in the post-result whining/gloating phase (Hannity and Air America radio ) I got the feeling that both Bushies and Kerry huggers were struggling with the same queasiness because the two candidates were so unlike them, and their values. So, IMHO, the attack ads served the purpose of one thing alone: to ‘prove’ (with lies, damned lies and statistics) just how off base the opponent was, and what a terrible thing it would be to vote for him. Which explains the big ‘undecided voter’ phenomenon. Or, to put it another way, the attack ads were effective in giving the undecided voter a reason to vote with his/her gut –rather than heart. So, yes, I abhorred Kerry’s position/non-position on abortion, and gay marriage, and yes, I was appalled at Bush insisting on spending an insane amount of money on bringing democracy to a country that never asked us to deliver it. Neither was on my wavelength!

Thomas Friedman, in his November 4th column, seems to say it best, always drawing on an analogy that everyone can relate to when making a political comment.

"This was not an election. This was station identification. I’d bet anything that if the election ballots hadn’t had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way."

Continue reading →