Badvertising

I'd be surprised if this outdoor ad went through a focus group, then again maybe not. There is something about it that just does not scream ' let's go get me some Mexican food". I can't put my finger on it but really, who'd want to.

And, how the hell do you pronounce Chipotle anyways?

Thanks to the lovely folks at The New Shelton Wet/Dry.

Jackie Hubba of Church of The Customer Blog and co-author or the book Citizen Marketers has a great post today about the retail experience at Whole Foods. It is based on her spending a week on-site at the Whole Foods flagship store in Austin, Texas. I had the pleasure of meeting Jackie and hosting her at one of our Geek Dinners last year in Toronto. Very nice and very smart individual.

Being a foodie, I totally get what she is saying. Whole Foods has many interesting and unique products to offer accompanied by knowledgeable and enthusiastic employees. The Whole Foods retail presentation is a theater where food is on stage. It is a unique shopping experience that has all of the details covered nicely. They are aware of what will help them spread their word-of-mouth. As Jackie puts it "too many American businesses are culture-less shlubs." So true. Same up here in the Great White North. Very few exceptions.

Target does retail quite well too. Target stores feel different when you are inside. People notice and talk about how it is fun and unlike other bigger box stores (at least the Canadians I know who cross the border to shop there have noticed and talk about it). However, the last time I was in a Target store one of the employees spoiled the experience. It was enough to detract from the theater feel. All of the sudden the curtains closed and it became very much like everywhere else.

I bring Target into this post/discussion on the point of being aware of how word of mouth spreads. I saw this story by Warner Todd Huston (hat tip to C.C. Chapman) about how Target reacted to a complaint by a blogger concerned about Target's advertising.

Whether or not you agree with the issue that Target's ads are "sexualized" which was raised by Amy Jussel of Shaping Youth, the response from Target seems to lack any sort of knowledge of the digital world in 2008 (or 2007,2006, 2005). The flippant response is more than likely to overshadow the original issue. One wonders what they are thinking when they alienate the online world by stating that they "do not participate with non-traditional media outlets". The details of today's consumer conversations are clearly not very well understood at Target.

Non-traditional media outlets are today's media outlets. It is where real customers are searching, where real information is being gathered, where real reputations are being made or destroyed. And, it is where real word of mouth is taking place.

Will this hurt their bottom-line? Likely not. If they are smart they'll learn. My takeaway is that we just witnessed the uninformed and not-so-impressive man behind the curtain in the theater of retail.

Bob Garfield of Advertising Age and NPR's On The Media has just reviewed what he claims is is the most sexist beer ad ever. He says the Heineken ad is"uncivilized by the most basic notion of respect" and that Heineken has "reduced half the world to a man-servicing beer tap"

Check out the offending Heineken video and see for yourself. Do you find it offensive as Bob does? Read some of the comments on the post and see what others are saying.

Me? Do I think it is sexist? Perhaps a little bit, but this is a beer ad folks. We have come to expect juvenile humor, girls in bikinis and nothing compelling enough to actually make anyone want to switch brands.

This ad, however, is just bad. It is annoying. Would anyone want to watch this more than once or twice? My guess is no. In my opinion, there is so much more Heineken could have done with the mini-keg concept than this spot. They blew it (or the agency blew it for them). Whatever.

Maybe I'll find out what Peter Mosley thinks about this little kerfuffle. I know he is a really big fan of the big beer companies and their marketing efforts. Mose, what say you?

Back to the tactics of the "Acqua Teen Hunger Force" Lite-Brite debacle for a moment.

If you are an exec at Turner Broadcasting and their agency (Interference Inc), do you laugh at those fools who spent $2.5 million for a thirty-second Super Bowl spot when they only got a fraction of the audience and attention that was gained with the bomb scare tactic? I mean just look what was achieved. Adult Swim made headlines across North America with a mere $1-2 million in reparations to be paid. Pete Blackshaw of Nielsen BuzzMetrics said "I'm sure (Turner's) secretly happy, they have built the brand, but it definitely raises some tougher questions".

Jason Maltby of MindShare was quoted in Advertising Age on the impact of the stunt saying it was a "double-edged sword" for the client, Turner. "If it has any positive impact, it will probably be small, in terms of maybe getting people to tune in and find our what 'Acqua Teen' is all about".

It begs the question, 'what was the point'? At the end of the day, the net-new viewers brought in as a result of this ham-fisted guerilla campaign has to be a big disappointment. Only a 1% increase in viewership has been gained thus far.

So what do you think? One head has rolled and there are future court dates for others involved. Does this kill the momentum for really smart and strategic guerilla marketing campaigns? Is the potential share-of-budget from client around these types of initiatives now dead? In other words, was it all worth it?

Or, are these guys brilliant? My guess is that they are smart like the folks who took the "new" Coke lemon and made profitable lemon-aid out of Coke Classic? A Monday morning kind of smart. What I really think is that "stupid is as stupid does".

Let this be a lesson to all client side marketeers (yes, as in musketeer) who feel compelled to employ the dumb-ass tactics that brainless agencies present over bad coffee and stale muffins.

Jim Samples, Head of Cartoon Network, has resigned over the Adult Swim fiasco that has cost Turner Broadcasting Systems a mere $2 million to make good again.

Hey folks, here this loud and clear: If you have a sneaking suspicion your agency is smoking bad weed at their guerrilla marketing brainstorm session, run their "brilliant" concept by your legal group and see what they have to say. Call it an exercise in job security.

Hat tip to Steve Hall at Adrants.

Ok, here are the rest of them.

My bottom line is that the Consumer Generated Content was rubbish. The biggest thing to happen was the notion that consumer generated content will win out over agency concepts and creative was crushed.

It all fell very flat, like an open can of warm beer on Monday morning. The ones that made the cut should have been cut. Yes, the contests were an interesting way to differentiate for a few brands in the mix, gain some website traffic for Doritos and Chevy, .and get some attention in the run –up, but ultimately failed to deliver.

Did the CGC angle come close to what it was reported to do in media/advertising circles? I can’t say that it did. I will bet that the average Super Bowl viewer did not even know what CGC was all about, nor did they care.

On a side note, Ed Lee asked me (via comment on last post) how much money was wasted. According to Anheuser Bush, it costs them approximately eight cents per beer drinker to advertise, and I have to think they know the numbers. For them, I am sure it still makes sense.

Now, I am not going to jump on the “super-waste of money” bandwagon. The hype and hyperbole goes both ways. I personally believe the Super Bowl represents a great opportunity for some brands that can manage to get it right. Do I think $80,000 per second is justified when you see some of the crap like we did last night for FloMax and Budweiser’s Jay Z and Don Shula snoozer-bowl? Nope, not even for $8 per second.

Anyhow, the whole bunch was a bit lacklustre. Nothing stood out this year, it was terribly mediocre at best. If there is one ad that was a clear winner it was Toyota Tundra. See my comments below. And again, you can view all the ads here.

Here is my run down of the remaining ads:

Garmin Navigation:
Leave the Godzilla stuff to Taco Bell. This must have looked great on story boards. Not so great on TV. They had a hard time navigating their way to a hit here. Rating 2/5

GM
We got love: Sweet little spot. Everybody can sing along with this one. Nice showcase of the GM brands. Rating: 4/5

GM
Robot: Another sweet little spot. Says volumes about working at GM. If they can fire a robot, you can be damn sure you are next my blue-collared friends. Rating: 3/5

Go Daddy.com:
They make fun of themselves a bit in this spot and apparantly boobs still sell domain names. “Everyone wants to work in marketing” (yeah, right!). Rating 3.5/5

Snapple:
Beautiful shots, decent gag & funny ending. Gets the point across about the Green Tea beverage and something called EGCG. I’m still going to drink water. Rating 3.5/5

Heart Association:
The Matrix meets Heart Disease prevention. Point taken, not too badly done. And, there was a URL in the spot – raises this a 2.5 to a 3. Left me thinking “what if all that money they spent on production and placement were put to better uses” ? Rating: 3/5

Honda:
Great gas mileage, nice looking cars and pretty damn reliable too. No wonder they are beating the pants off of the domestic producers. Key message of the spot is loud and clear and visuals help to reinforce everything. Money well spent (well sort of). Rating: 4/5

HP:
You can be “biker cool” with an HP computer. Orange County Chopper head honcho Paul Teutel Sr. explains how HP helps his business. Paul, Paul Jr. and Mikey are the winners of the Super Bowl, hands down. They appeared in this spot and in the Go Daddy.com spot. Goulet and K-Fed only had one apiece. What does that tell you? Rating: 3/5

Izod: I’ll bet they spent a whole lot for this. I don’t know about you, but this glossy fluff job would have looked a whole lot better in print. That said, I’ll bet it looked awesome in HDTV mode. Either way, I thought it was a waste of time. Rating: 1/5

Van Heusen:
Average. If you are going to be this average, do it on Oprah or the 11 o’clock news and save a few bucks. Rating: 2/5

Revlon:
Sheryl Crow, as the ad says, was “not convinced”. Yes, they actually say that within the first few seconds. “Even her stylist came around”. Boring, boring, boring… and still boring. This is the reason that celebrities should not do product endorsements. I just did not see the connection or reason for having someone like her in the spot. The funniest part is that she still looked unconvinced at the end. The unbelievable part is that it was mostly shot in black and white. Rating 1.5/5

Sales Genie:
Terrible, awful, low budget and it showed. “Work smart, not hard” and you’ll get a Ferrari and the hot chick too! You know something, as bad as it is at face value, this junky little spot works for all the wrong reasons. It is a hit in my book. Rating 3/5

Sierra Mist:
I viewed two spots (although apparently there were reported to be three) and they were decent. In terms of content, they did a good job of engaging the viewer to watch. After all, this is a soft drink pitch. All in all, Sierra Mist ranked as some of the more watchable and word-of-mouth repeatable content. The “bear comb-over” was a hoot. Rating 3.5/5

Snickers:
Very memorable. Gross, not because of any homophobia. It is because, even if I were a gay mechanic, I won’t be likely to share my Snickers bar in that manner. This spot is offensive at the end of the day, but it will be talked about. I know Bob Garfield hated it, but I did not think it was all bad. Rating: 2.5/5

Sprint Broadband:
I liked this. It seemed very cheesy with overly fake smiles and the like but it makes a real-life connection (pardon the pun) if you have ever suffered from “Connectile Dysfunction”. Made it’s point and was pretty clear in it’s message. Rating: 3.5/5

T Mobile:
Made me laugh. Must have spent a load on celebrity factor with Chuck and Dwayne. The spot speaks to a useless feature that could have easily been conveyed by nearly anyone. This product attribute is not only available on T Mobile. Or is it? The spot does not really let you know. No substance here. T-Mobile should have sat this one out. Rating: 1/5

Toyota Tundra:
As far as product demonstrations go, it can be a slippery slope to get to the brass tacks the features and benefits . Toyota manages to pull this one off very well. I enjoyed watching these. The voice over and lighting added intensity.

In my book, these two spots were great and extolled the virtues of the Toyota truck brand. I somehow think this spot is the reason Toyota decided to let Chevy and Doritos host the amateur hour. These two spots were the best of the Super Bowl bunch by far. Rating 4.5/5

Taco Bell:
Talking lions. Once again, monkeys are funnier. Rating 2.5/5

Foot Locker:
Funny. Wonder how much they paid Kevin Garnett. At the end of the day, this ad could have been for any product or brand. Rating: 2/5

NFL:
This was the best of the consumer content gang. Although, that is not saying very much. Kind bittersweet to be the best of the worst. Rating 3/5

NFL Players:
This was a great PSA for the NFL. Rating 3/5

Movie Trailers:
Standard stuff, nothing ventured nothing gained. I would have loved to see unique trailers just for the Super Bowl, but it is a huge audience and Rating: no rating on these – c’mon, they are movie trailers.

All the ads can be found on YouTube.

It started with a bang, the first kick off return for a TD in history. Things kind of went downhill for Chicago from there. Congrats to all the Colts fans.

The ads are up. Check them out here.

Bob Garfield of Ad Age weighed in and, for the most part, we agreed on what worked and what did not. Please note, I wrote my reviews before checking out what Bob had to say as I really respect his opinion and did not want to be swayed. Here is my run down:

Doritos:
Dude crashing car was cute. Nice graphics. Somewhat believable too (trust me on this, I have a friend who slammed into the back of a bus while driving his Dad’s Jaguar checking out some girls walking to the beach in Florida). True story, although no Doritos were involved.

Check-out girl: Made me smile, although I ended up feeling it was thoroughly average.

Was this really the best out of all the consumer generated content that was submitted?
Rating: 2.5/5

Frito-Lay
Touching. Rating: 3.5/5

Budweiser:
Rock Paper Scissors: Funny and to the point. No brain surgery here folks, just a funny beer ad. Doug Walker, were you watching? How did you influence that one? Rating: 3/5

Select: Whatever. Half a field goal for trying. Loose the CGI. Rating: 1.5/5

King Crab: I liked this one, although this is exactly the type of ad we have come to expect. Rating: 3/5

Spot Wink: Cute, but that is about all. I will say that people will probably love this ad. I say it is just ok. Rating: 2/5

Bud Light
Fist Bump: Good stuff here. I liked this one, some huge slaps in this ad. Rating: 3/5

Great Apes: Monkeys are funny. Way funny. Apes, not so much.
Rating: 2/5

Reception: This works for me. I liked it a lot. True insights into the male psyche in this spot. Any guy who has been in a wedding party, standing on the side bored out of their tree will adore this spot. Rating: 4/5

Movie: Nice bit. The gag works with the joke at the end. Rating: 3/5

Emerald Nuts
GOULET!!! K-Fed and Goulet should tour together. Damn this spot is funny. Emerald Nuts is the hero of the Super Bowl. This spot will be water cooler conversation on Monday for certain. Rating 4.5/5

Career Builder.com
Two commercials, same theme. Survive the work week, yeah yeah yeah. Wake me when they are done. Nothing special here. Nothing to see folks, move along. Rating: 2/5

Fed Ex
Same ol, same ol. Some one bought a dime store joke book and apparently read it cover to cover. Rating: 2/5

Chevrolet
Sorry, I don’t get it. I watched twice. Still don’t get it. I’d say shite, but I just don’t get it. If this is the best consumers can muster up on their own, I am buying a lot, I mean a lot of stock in BDA (big dumb agency) holding company stock. (Thanks to George Parker of Adscam for the BDA reference) Rating: 1/5

FloMax
I do not go often, nor do I have a weak stream. I do not stop and start. I do not strain nor have incomplete emptying. I do not wake up to go, I do not go urgently. I do not like green eggs and ham. Sam pees fine, I am. Rating: 2.5/5

E*Trade
Two spots, bang on their brand. Well done. Rating: 4/5

Schick Quattro
Two words, dumb-ass. Rating: 0.5/5

Nationwide
K-fed finally finds a role that suits him to a “T”. FRIES ARE UP. Loved this ad. Nationwide is on my side. Props to K-fed for knowing the joke is on him and embracing it.Rating: 4/5

Coke
Grand Theft Auto: This is a brilliant ad. I liked it better on YouTube when the segment that got what it was all about could seek it out. As part of a Super Bowl broadcast, I cant help but think it went over most viewers heads. Rating: 3.5/5

Happiness Factor: Another great ad. This one actually worked better on the Big Screen.
Appeals to everyone. Rating: 4/5

Black History Month. Nice spot. Well done. Rating: 3/5

Tired, need rest now. More to come in Part 2 tomorrow.

Who thought up this one? If this is just a media stunt then I get it (well sort of), but I think it is weird.

Gregg Dedrick, President of KFC went on the record stating that “If there are extraterrestrials in outer space, KFC wants to become their restaurant of choice”. Nice. Is ET market-share something that shareholders bought into?

The folks at KFC seem to be confused as to which elements are problematic with their brand - like redesigning the Colonel's image at every turn in the road. Tinkering with the iconic Colonel Saunders logo has been overdone like a bad batch of popcorn chicken. They tried to get their “bling on” with the Colonel a while back and now he is in an apron. Nice. Just what the Doctor ordered to pump up sales.

The constant refinements are likely unnecessary as KFC needs more focus on the core product given the trans fat concerns, the obesity epidemic and bad dietary habits of the general population. Those are the larger evils to address and tackle. A super-sized logo seen via Google Earth will not resolve anything.

Too much superficial tweaking tends to be a sign of a brand in decline. Cosmetics do not address the things that need attention – it is just putting lipstick on a pig (or chicken in this case).

Out and about today I saw a sign for a travel business. I could have sworn it said "Lime of Your Life Tours".

Upon closer inspection it was really "Time of Your Life Tours". Why the confusion? Blame it on really bad logo design that distorted the "T" and made it look like an "L" (if I would have had my camera with me I would have taken a shot to illustrate). I was almost resigned to the fact that somebody named it "Lime of Your Life" and, like most other nonsense that enters my brain, it got me thinking.

My point here today is to ask a simple question, when is a bad name for a business not so bad?. In support of this question I found this site called Shop Horror. I will let you be the judge. Is it "Wok this Way", "Austin Flowers" or "Vinyl Frontier"?

How about this one below I found at Spinfluencer. This I believe is bad. Or is it?

Do you have any examples that are just plain bad? Or any that are so bad they are actually good? Post a comment. Enquiring Blinds want to know...

Interesting article over on iMediaConnection by editor Nanette Marcus on a few examples of marketing on MySpace. Five that work and one that does not. It is not an in-depth kind of piece, but provides a glimpse at what is going on with some visuals.

I see the attraction and potential target market/audience for Nike and Cingular Sounds. The others I am not so sure about.

Wal-Mart is the lone example of a MySpace loser cited for The Hub - School Your Way.

Ok, first off, in my day "school my way" meant spending quality time at the video arcade / pool hall across the street playing Frogger and Defender (I hope my Mom does not read this post).

Second, in one of the videos on The Hub, schoolboy sk8tr Luke tells us to "be yourself" and "don't conform". Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't conformity the only way to do business with Wal-Mart?

Can you imagine Luke all grown up as a potential supplier... "but Mr. Wal Mart Buyer, we just want to be ourselves, do we really have to conform to what Wal-Mart says to do business with you nice folks? That's precisely the moment when Luke hears "Ah, you're the kid from that video, we had good chuckle with that one. Life ain't like that son. Thanks for your time, NEXT!"

Bill Green over at Makethelogobigger points us to a huge time-waster of a site called giantmonster. It is full of neat stuff like this wonderful looking vehicle that is just begging for the Maaco man to show up with a bazooka.

Think back to high school, hanging out with your friends infront of the main entrance after class is over. Now, imagine your Dad pulling up in the Mickey D's wagon, horn-a-honkin' and waving you on over.

All your friends are so jealous, wishing it was them being picked up in the freakmobile. Talk about a walk of shame and a ride of shamer!

Hey, how come that girl who's mom is named Wendy is looking so nervous?

Do men really want to read a novel with advice on how to do a load of laundry and learn new vacuuming techniques? Cook something other than a pack of Doritos? Load up a dishwasher and remember not to include paper plates? ? Well, Swedish appliance maker AB Electrolux seems to think so.

I found this little gem of an article by Alex Dobrota in today’s Globe & Mail (thanks to Dave M for pointing it out).

In an attempt to reach the “newly-single male” segment (otherwise know as the Archie Bunker 2.0 set), Electrolux commissioned a 171-page novel about a recently dumped guy who’s girlfriend/wife packed up all the appliances on her way to independence. Because no self-respecting woman can face her new life without her blender by her side.

Here is how the initiative was explained:
“ the company came up with a plan to publish a novel chronicling the hardships of one such young man in dealing with the single life and working the brand name into the work.
Men in Aprons, Electrolux's brazen attempt to win the hearts of young males, is the latest twist on a new sales strategy called viral marketing, one expert said.
And while the Swedish company is not a pioneer in this field, it's on the cusp of a trend that could revolutionize the marketing world, said Alan Middleton, an assistant marketing professor at York University.”

I think Prof. Middleton is off here. This is not viral. It is long form content using product placement that may contain word of mouth potential. And, I don't agree that it is controversial. Controversial is creating a version of FHM or STUFF with scantily clad ladies (or the equivalent for men for the gay market) playing house with some bullet point tips on doing the chores.

I am really not trying to be overly critical of Electrolux. I applaud them for moving into newer forms of marketing and testing out the non-traditional concepts. I'm just not sold that this novel approach (full pun intended) is the right combo. Does the demographic information on this niche segment indicate they have time to read given all the cooking and cleaning that they now face?

Now the bigger question: Is it any wonder these guys are recently single? Any self-respecting man I know pitches in, does the work around the house - complains a bit - but shows that we live in today’s world, not yesterdays.

And really, in a pinch, don’t these guys have Mom’s number?

Kate found this neat site called Ad Access. The fine art of advertising going back to the early days of the trade. Thanks Kate. Quick description:

"Images for over 7,000 ads printed in U.S. and Canadian newspapers and magazines between 1911 and 1955. Focus on: Beauty, TV, Radio, WWII & Transportation."

Remember when all a young ad exec needed to do was dream up a darn good campaign for print then have an artist draft it up to pass it along for typesetting. Then, wait a few days until the client recieved it by post or perhaps have the ad team run it by the client offices. All that just to be told the logo was not big enough!

It always seemed that way on Bewitched with Darrin Stevens and Larry Tate, of McMann & Tate (it never did get changed to McMann, Tate & Stevens - poor Derwood). I never cared much for Larry Tate, he always seemed so fake and "put on" for his clients. Was he the Eddie Haskel of advertising?

He always seemed so scared of his clients. Are we client-siders responsible for creating that kind of fear? Or, was it just that he felt his work was always one step away from a review?
--------

I've never been in the beverage or beer business, but if I were client-side over at Alexander Keith's brand, I may have challenged the thinking behind a recently launched contest. Here is how Marketing Magazine describes the new promo:

"Keith's is asking customers to "Turn Over The Tartan" as part of its first national integrated promotion. Customers can peel away a specially-designed tartan label on Keith's bottles to win Roots apparel and HMV Gift Certificates" along with other prizes.

I wonder if the Keith's client considered any of the items below which, for myself, seemed out of step:

· Turn Over the Tartan seems to be the alcoholic equivalent to Tim Hortons Roll-Up the Rim to Win. Nothing new or exciting here.
· Given the recent publicity surrounding the arrest of Keith's spokesperson who is accused of possessing child pornography, it is a questionable image to put out to the public (i.e. to look under anyone's tartan) given the timing since this news broke.
· Aside from the above point, is this the right message to communicate assuming that the target audience is likely heterosexual twenty something guys? Are they really keen to look under any tartan? Or, am I missing the point here when I assume that the tartan they are referring to is supposed to be on a Scotsman, or is it on Britney Spears?

I like Keith's, I think it is a good beer. For all I know this promo may work well. The site is ok but, I don't see anything breakthrough here.

On another note, I was at a party recently and Heineken was all the rage. Why? The new aluminum bottle packaging. Very cool. The sexiness and appeal of the packaging is working overtime for the brand image. Everyone was talking about it and the chatter was all good for Heineken.

I'd really love to know your comments on this one. Do you think Keith's is on or off with "Turn over the Tartan?
--------