Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

No news is good news.

Or so they say. But in the world of sponsorship advertising, any news can often
be good.

After Big Brown destroyed the field at the Kentucky Derby on May 3rd, UPS decided to invest in a no-brainer of a marketing opportunity. No coincidence, owner Paul Pompa Jr. actually named his champion thoroughbred after the shipping giant. After Big Brown again blew past all competition at the Preakness on May 17th, UPS marketing execs must have been euphoric from their opportunistic foresight. The impressive nature of his victories fed a torrent of Triple Crown buzz around Big Brown, translating into big time free advertising for his corporate namesake.

But when heavily-favored Big Brown ran out of gas in the final turn of yesterday's Belmont Stakes and trudged across the finish line in last place, you might think UPS' free ride had come to an end. Much to the contrary, and thanks to savvy media placement and a little good (er...bad?) luck, UPS and its catchy tagline perfectly framed and captioned an historic moment in sports history. An image may be worth a thousand words, but this particular shot proved an AP photograper's dream, and six little words dug themselves a little deeper into our consumer lexicon.

 

Global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers projects worldwide advertisement spending to exceed half-a-trillion dollars by 2010. No doubt the intent of every dollar will be to convince our hapless selves that life is better with Product X or Service Y. It’ll be magical. Surreal. And, mostly unbelievable*

Perhaps, for credibility, the next wave of advertising needs to be more real, less adorned. Perhaps even more memorable because it zags against the convention of typical advertising. It’s been eighteen years since the movie “Crazy People” introduced us to the idea of hyper truth in advertising. Do you remember the legendary Volvo headline from the movie?**

I bet youdo. But, can you name Volvo’s current tagline?

See what I mean? 

I see a few ways to get more bang for our buck by embracing reality advertising.

1. Create more user-generated ads. Both Chevy and Doritos had high profile contests allowing consumers to create Super Bowl ads.

2. Present copy with a stunning degree of “truthiness.” Housework sucks. No cleaning product makes me dance around with a goofy smile while I dust or mop. Get real, people.

3. Create credible ads with unexpectedly low production values. Invest in creative concept but use production to match our lives; cell phone cameras, web cams and home video.

4. Present products in context of a consumer’s life, not the center of it. How many products do you come in contact with during the day? Do you stop, smile, and roll your eyes skyward with each one? Daytime consumer ads would have us to believe every person is blessed-out by cheesy goodness.

5. As provincial as it sounds, invest in the idea not the style.

These suggestions aren’t meant to be cost savings measures. Heck no! Run the ads as much as you can. The purpose of advertising is to compel us to act. Going against the grain of stereotypical ad will be refreshing and unconventional.

What if we reached for products and the label wasn’t face up?

What if we drank coffee without the can on the table?

What if we didn’t disguise other logos that were not ours?

What if people didn’t have rapture face when they tasted our product?

What if car ads weren’t on a closed track featuring professional drivers so we could try it at home?

C’mon Creatives! In this age of irony and user generated media let’s embrace reality in advertising.

*Edelmantrust barometer report that 76% of advertising is not believable.

**Volvo:Boxy, but safe.

HeadOn! Apply directly to the forehead. Repeat thrice. Become Internet meme.

The ubiquitous HeadOn ad is a 10-second destroyer of ponytail-pretenses that have gunked up the advertising industry for ages. Production values? Who needs ‘em! Persuasion? Emotion? Nah! Humor? Check. Especially if you find rubbing a gluestick on your forehead funny. I sure do.

In an interview with Slate Magazine assistant professor of marketing at Yale School of Management, Dina Mayzlin says, "Part of the charm is that it is so crude. The ad stands out in its repetitiveness. It's intriguing and breaks through the clutter."

Yes, clutter breaking. Like a fart.

That’s Badvertising at its finest. HeadOn sales are up 234% and will continue with an estimated ad budget of $30 million. Brilliant marketing I’d say. For every ad dollar spent they probably make back three because the ad gives viewers headaches, thus spurring demand.

We should expect to see two decades of homage to HeadOn ads. Axe body spray ads aren’t necessarily bad but they owe cultural debt to the B.O. (that’s Badvertising Original, what were you thinking?), Hai Karate aftershave. Sold from 1967 into the 1980s, Hai Karate’s creative strategy balanced on the notion that green gutter water could turn women into lusty cop-a-feel-a-holics. In a genius move, Hai Karate bottles even came with self-defense instructions to protect he-men from the onslaught of aroma-crazed women. Evidently the 1960s expanded the spectrum of advertising in both the good and bad direction.

Since the early 60s, the Godfather of Badvertising, Ron Popeil’s ads have littered the airwaves with their rat-a-tat, Sell-O-Matic goodness. Popeil’s first commercial costs $550 and soon appeared in 100 cities. Similar successes followed the Chop-O-Matic, the Veg-O-Matic. Mr. Microphone, Hair-in-a-can, The Pocket Fisherman, Inside-the-shell Egg Scrambler, Food Dehydrator and Showtime Rotisserie.

It got me thinking. What’s the difference between a bad ad and good Badvertising? I think it should be clear the marketer thinks it’s good, or maybe even not bad. Secondly, the script should rely heavily on mnemonics and repetition. Next, the production values have to be refreshing low and ripe for parody. Lastly, in spite of everything it has to work so well that it proves us ad snobs wrong.

A couple of weeks ago I read an interesting article on one of my blogs about the changing face of metrics, and what shifts in user data collection we can expect to see in 2008. Great read. My pappy always said that if you throw a fistful of rocks at the ground, you're bound to hit pay dirt.

Phorm, a new U.K. start-up, is joining forces with some major ISPs to serve targeted, relevant ads to users as they browse and surf the Web. Phorm has created a new ad platform called OIX - Open Internet Exchange - which promises to provide its backers with a more profitable cut of ad revenue. OIX is the first platform to use fully anonymous ISP data streams, and is guaranteed to protect the identity of its users.

Anonymous ISP data streams can only provide browsing subject histories, linked to an anonymous user profile. I say 'only,' but that's certainly enough to make marketer's salivate. Prepare to pay a little more for online media buys - but prepare to get excited about ROI's on those buys.
 
Phorm assures the media that their venture will not assault users with advertising. Rather, the level of online ads encountered will stay the same - but users will find the ads they encounter more relevant. And as for user privacy...well, they've covered that. According to the startup, the technology at the core of OIX 'doesn't gather personally identifiable information, doesn't store IP addresses, search terms or browsing histories, and only sees users as a unique, random number.' Moreover, user's can elect to turn the platform on or off at any point in their experience.

You’ve heard of jumping the shark, haven’t you? The colloquialism represents the precise point when a successful entity slips out of favor just enough to do something desperately stupid. Usually the desperation is met with a faster decline. The term is derived from a 1977 episode of Happy Days when the Fonz jumped a shark tank on water skis.

Sad. Very sad. I believe advertising also takes on the same past peak aroma with the“Wazzup” Syndrome.

Remember the first two "Cavemen" spots for Geico? “It’s so easy to use a caveman could do it.” Bruised Neanderthal feelings on the first spot turn into urbane esquire offense on the second. The third has the company spokesman attempting to smooth the Cavemen’s ruffled fur. The moment we see the characters we know the gag. No surprises. I say,“Wazzup?” They continue to produce nine more spots and a bad TV show that moves further and further away from the original pitch.

Uber risktakers Crispin, Porter + Bogusky resurrected J. Walter Thompson’s late 1970s Burger King in 2004. By 2005, parodies popped up on late night chat shows. Word of mouth spread and the term Creepy King surfaced on the Web. In a genius move, CP+B pushed the creepiness in subsequent spots. They know chatter works. Unfortunately, a recent campaign depicts mothers attempting to kill the King. How can we be creeped out if the King is off’d? We’re forced to empathize with him. That’s not right. It’s also been confirmed the King will be making a full-length movie. Wa-the-H-E-double-L-zup!

Signs of the “Wazzup” Syndrome are an unusual number of parodies, knowing the ending with 15 seconds to go in the spot and your grandmother quoting a catch phrase. Think about the bazillion times Master Card’s “Priceless” has been used and parodied or Alltel's Chad and the perpetually frustrated competitor geeks. We know the ending, which renders the spots less effective.

Advertising is a pop culture thread that briefly ties us together and moves on. For it to be effective it must engage, charm and reinvent itself. Once stale, advertising is chum.

I’ve been working on a personal project to help explain mysterious linguistic terms. Most we’ve heard but have unclear meanings. I was trying to make a set of 26 cards. One per letter of the alphabet. Problem is, I have a couple examples of “As” and need more examples of other letters. What I have so far:

Tongue Twister or Alliteration (Grey grub)

Anagram(Elvis lives)

Palindrome(Madam I’m Adam)

Oxymoron(Hot ice)

Reduplicative(Hoot Hoot)

Heteronyms(It’s the bass bass now)

Idiom(Kick The bucket)

Xeno(Alien)

Iwas trying to avoid the obvious like noun or verb. Might be impossible. Anybody have other ideas that fill out the rest of the alphabet or what I can call this project?

It’s that time of year again. The chatter brews about the Super Bowl. Not the game—usually a snorefest—but the extraneous stuff that swirls around it. Ads, musical performances, drunken football legends, inappropriate comments…you get the idea. This year, as in recent years, I suspect our anticipation will be met with pretty much the same: nothing.

Think back to Super Bowl XXXVIII in 2004 and how Janet Jackson’s booby hypnotized the FCC into making Puritans out of networks. Remember the broadcast? Justin, Prince of Pop, gyrated. Diddy and Nelly checked their junk and Kid Rock sported a shirt made from an American flag. Even a professional streaker, usually a great 11 o’clock News digestif, was completely overshadowed by Ms. Jackson’s breast. Oh yeah, the ads. Who could forget the pooting horse for Bud Light? Ads for erectile dysfunction rivals Levitra and Cialis (introducing 36 hour power!) previewed along with old faithful Viagra.

In the aftermath 200,000 Americans complained, The FCC slapped CBS with record $550,000 fines and increased indecency fines more than 1,000 percent. While Nipplegate was the lightning rod, the pooting and repeated use of the word “erectile” got caught up in the storm, making that halftime show the poster child for low morality in pop culture.

A Time magazine poll in 2005 revealed 66 percent of Americans believed the FCC overreacted.

TV doesn’t raise our kids; we do. Sure, we don’t want them exposed to grown-up things too early, but things happen. We have to instill a sense of morality in them. Pop culture has always titillated. That’s its job. Parents can use these opportunities to give children reasoning power to hopefully prepare them to make tougher decisions later.

Super Bowl XLII rolls around on February 3. It’ll be hyped before and quickly forgotten afterwards. The acts will be tame and the ads lame. They’ll skirt controversy. By hiding unpleasant or unfamiliar subjects, we pretend they don’t exist. Isn’t that doing kids more harm than having a conversation with them? Are we too uncomfortable? My dear Puritans, the Internet doesn’t mind enlightening our kids. Unless I subscribe, I’m not a fan of gratuitous adult stuff in primetime. However, a little interest would bring the Super Bowl back into this century. Alas, thy heart believes it shalt not be giant, probably rather pat.

AnOpen Letter to Big-Time Television Advertisers

Quitthe willy-nilly desecration of popular songs. In just one Monday night ofcouldn’t-care-less-to-see TV, I was hustled down musical memory lane byfoolhardy pitchmen. They hocked all grades of things and tried to erase mysentimental memories in the process. Now, don’t get me wrong, I realizefamiliarity of a great song means bank to an advertiser. Audio branding cancreate a powerful memory from the sense of sound. But isn’t it stronger if theconceptual meaning of a song has more product relevance than just the passingchorus or familiar tune? After all, when taken purely at surface level, thewords of a familiar chorus may have zip to do with the artist’s true meaning(Hello...”Puff the Magic Dragon”). It’s clear big-spending advertisers don’tagree.

PizzaHut uses the Bee Gees’ 1977 chart topper “How Deep is Your Love” to schlepdeep-dish pizza. Get it? DEEP DISH! How DEEP is your love? Whoa, slow downgeniuses.

Theabuse doesn’t stop with only one pizza chain. Rival Papa John’s is currentlyusing The J. Geils Band’s “Centerfold.” Oddly, it’s only used as aninstrumental. With no lyrics to tell the story of a man shocked to discover hischildhood sweetheart is now a centerfold, will people born after 1981 get theclever tie-in? Oh, There’s a clever tie-in? Wait for it...mock photos flash tochange scenes of...wait for it again...pizza! Get it? Pictures? Centerfold?Goodness! These people deserve a Cannes Lion.

Anothercommercial break brings more abuse. From my kitchen, I heard the chorus of thelittle known 1979 Joe Jackson tune, "One More Time." I immediately thought backto learning guitar riffs and how cool Jackson sounded even though he waspleading with an unrequited love to say, one more time, she doesn’t love him. Iwalk into my living room to see that my sweet memory is now pitching thelimited-time return of Taco Bell’s Gordita! Sad. Very sad. I nearly dropped myChalupa.

TacoBell is also the most recent advertiser to use Devo’s “Whip It”–a song sowidely licensed for products like Pringles and Twix to Gateway Computers,Donkey Konga and Swiffer; it’s brilliant. The new wave wunderkinds worked sohard to package themselves with irony and self-mock that the song alwaysscores. Who would know if it didn’t? Some interpret the song as a paean tomasturbation and sadomasochism or a reference to inhaling nitrous oxide.Furthering the irreverence, Devo leader Mark Mothersbaugh says it’s about JimmyCarter. Advertising Age reported Devo agreed to re-record “Whip It” for Swifferand change lyrics to "Swiff it Good!" because it was so absurd. Somehow Ibelieve Mothersbaugh’s retooled post punk classic about an average Joe’s needto buckle up and overcome adversity was always part of their biggermoney-making scheme. He’s that dang smart.

Thenthere’s Nice ‘n Easy singing the three word virtues of hair dye with disco’slove fest “(Got) To Be Real”, Viagra sacrificing Elvis’ classic with "VivaViagra" and a bazillion Alltel ads proclaiming "Come And Get Your Love." That1974 one hit wonder from Redbone was this music nerd’s first K-Tel record.

SoI wonder, why is this so out of control? Are advertisers so apathetic thatcreative dribble sounds like Nietzsche? Are creative teams so lazy they need toborrow others’ creative equity? Are artists less concerned with integrity inlieu of "trying to expand their audience?"

Let’sface it. This musicidal revolution started in 1987 with...well..."Revolution." The Beatles’ song made this Nike commercial effective and brilliant because itwas so wrong and unexpected—just like the song. Paying a record (at the time)$250,000 to Capitol Records and Michael Jackson, Nike was able to be the firstto license an actual Beatles recording. Most will remember it caused a hugebacklash. Fans felt John Lennon would have objected, especially due to thecontroversy over Nike’s sweatshops. Paul McCartney protested, "Songs like‘Revolution’ don’t mean a pair of sneakers, they mean revolution." A tangle oflawsuits ensued.

Nikediscontinued the "Revolution" ads after a year. Four years later Yoko Ono gavepermission to use Lennon’s "Instant Karma" in another Nike ad. Karma indeed.

Justwhen I thought my favorite artists had collapsed dead at the feet of advertisinggods, a lightening bolt of irony bursts through my TV. Royal Caribbean CruiseLine pounds out Iggy Pop’s 1977 hard charging, snarky "Lust For Life." Eventhough it’s not Iggy singing and lyrics were sanitized to be more cruise-shipfriendly, the ode to drug culture bleats with the original ferocity of asmack-addled street junkie at the absolute depths of life. Screwing up everystep of the way. Iggy Pop’s hard living, gritty persona and strutting, sexualmachismo pound through defiant and strong. I recall the freedom and energy Ifelt when I first heard this song. I smirk thinking of the irony. I leap to myfeet, pump my fist and growl, "Join me for shuffleboard and Mai-Tais on theLido deck!"

Well,that’s like hypnotizing chickens.

Newspapers can’t get a break. Circulation declines, display ad declines and now a report from the Conference Board that help-wanted ads are at their lowest level since 1958.

Part of this decline is said to be attributable to business concerns about the economy and future hiring. The other part of the story is the migration of recruitment and job searching to online channels. Even when hiring picks up, don’t expect significant rebounds in newspaper help-wanted ads in the future. This is one more challenge for an industry struggling to define its future.

Recruitment advertisers are getting smarter about how they find job candidates. The days of running a few ads in the industry trades or the local newspapers to find your next hire are behind us. Online talent acquisition presents many new ways to source candidates from a global talent pool.

We are fortunate to be in a growing market with companies that are hiring. As we make recommendations to our clients we need to be mindful of this shift.

More Trouble for Newspaper Industry: In the Shadow of Services like Craigslist, June Help-Wanted Ad Placements Dip to 49-Year Low

The number of help-wanted ads in U.S. newspapers fell in June to a 49-year low, a private research group said on Thursday. The Conference Board said its gauge measuring help-wanted ad volume was 26 in June, the lowest reading since July 1958, Reuters reports. It was 32 a year earlier.

"There are signs that job advertising volume is edging a little lower, with very slight decreases in each of the past two months," said Ken Goldstein, labor economist at the Conference Board, in a statement. "Business caution about near-term prospects for the economy, and perhaps for their own businesses, may lead to a little less hiring this autumn. Plus, the online business is mature enough in that this is where help wanted ads originate and may never appear in newspapers."

Total online job ads fell 2 percent in June, the Conference Board said. Goldstein suggested an already-tight labor market and worries about where the economy is headed contributed.

Newspaper help-wanted ads were down in all nine of the board's regions in the last three months, with the largest fall, 24.6 percent, in the Pacific, the Conference Board said.

The research firm surveys help-wanted ad volume at 51 newspapers across the country each month.