Category: Advertising

  • “Dumb Ways to Die” Campaign—Dumb Enough to Work?

    What do you think of when you hear “Australia”? Accents? Kangaroos? The Great Barrier Reef? Wouldn’t it be nice to be there in lieu of the recent frigid weather? I bet two things no one would ever put together is Australia and train safety, but you probably will after seeing the two awareness commercials Australia has recently released for the Melbourne Metro.

    In 2012 “Dumb Ways to Die” was launched as a train safety PSA. The three-minute animated spot features personified blobs making outrageously stupid decisions –  setting your hair on fire, eating out of date medicine, using the clothes dryer as a hiding place, selling both kidneys on the Internet. With these demonstrations, comes a catchy song that illustrates each scene as it unfolds. At the 2:24 mark, the audience is introduced to train safety in which the dumbest ways to die are: standing on the edge of a train station platform, driving around the barrier at a railroad crossing, and running across the tracks.

    This year, another PSA spot appeared just in time for Valentine’s Day. Titled “Dumb Ways”, the second video – this only ones 30 seconds – features the blob from the original spot who died from selling both his kidneys on the Internet and replicates the format of the first spot with the simplistic design elements, characters, and tune. Even though the new spot has absolutely no correlation with train safety, the advertisement’s copy reads “Be safe around Valentine’s Day*” and in smaller font, “*and trains”.

    With the release of the newest Valentine spot, it is obvious that McCann Melbourne realized the success first 3 minute spot reached with over 71 million YouTube views. However, the Valentine Day advertisement is relying on the presumption that the viewer has already seen previous campaign efforts, which include radio, print and outdoor advertising. The campaign even has some interactive media such as a fully functioning website and a mobile phone game app that offers short mini games where you can save the characters from their “dumb” deaths.

    There is no denying that the whole campaign is undeniably cute and captures attention, but the question is, is this direction effective?

    When asked about the creation and initial vision of the campaign, John Mescall, McCann’s executive director, said this, “The idea for a song started from a very simple premise: What if we disguised a worthy safety message inside something that didn’t feel at all like a safety message? So we thought about what the complete opposite of a serious safety message would be and came to the conclusion it was an insanely happy and cute song.”

    metrotrain_2

    What Mescall is describing is the use of logical fallacy or in our case irrelevant points. Usually the use of fallacies in an argument or message weakens it, but Mescall used it to his advantage, strengthening the impact.

    One logical fallacy, argumentum ad baculum, is an argument that uses threats or forces to cause the acceptance of the conclusion. Example: “Do this! Or ____ will happen!” “If you don’t this, ____ will happen!” The Dumb Ways campaign uses this fallacy’s appeal to fear in the explicit form of death – if you do these activities in the ad you will die – to remind people of the need for train safety.

    In addition, another logical fallacy is also used – red herring. In this type, a fallacy of diversion is created where irrelevant arguments or information is introduced into a discussion in order to divert people’s attention away from the issue under discussion and towards a different conclusion. No one needs to know all the dumb ways to die; almost all of the scenarios are things that are common sense. Except for the last 30 seconds, none of the scenarios are relevant to educating people on train safety.

    Over a year after the original launch of the “Dumb Ways to Die” commercial, the campaign has grabbed the attention of the world, educating all of us on train safety. What do you think of this PSA? Do you think the campaign could have been stronger if the agency had gone in a different direction?

    Savannah Valade, Elizabeth Harrington, Caroline Robinson

  • #VersaceLovesGaga

    Ever wonder what could happen if two fashion superstars like Donatella Versace and Lady Gaga got together?  They would open up a whole new world of consumers to both of their brands.  Versace is a well-known luxury clothing brand that been around since 1978.  The head lady in charge now is none other than Donatella Versace herself.  Although Donatella is distinguished as a talented designer, it’s her vibrant persona that makes her even more famous.  In recent years Versace usually went with non-famous models in their ad to focus more on the clothing instead of a celebrity name on it.  This spring fashion season Versace is trying a new campaign with Lady Gaga as the focus.

    This change up in the ad routine of Versace is very positive considering the social power these women have.   In leading up to this announcement, the two have been seen together everywhere.  This new well established friendship is great for the Versace brand.  Lady Gaga is a very influential woman not only in music, but in fashion.  When someone thinks of Gaga, their first thought is “I wonder what she’s wearing this time?”  She has a major advantage because of her power to expose this brand as much as possible.   Versace is thought of more as a mature brand, but with Lady G’s influence over a younger generation this can reel in a completely different group of purchasers then before.

    Lady Gaga is quite possibly a twenty-four hour ad campaign for the Versace clothing brand.  She is constantly being photographed in this brand that is then exposed all over the internet and in magazines.  She truly has embraced the product, she is being paid to promote to exact detail including her new Donatella look.

    Not only do these ladies have reach on tabloids, but their social media sites are a huge way to endorse the company as well.  The combined followers on twitter for Versace and Gaga is over forty-two million people.  The two are always promoting one another on various media sites, creating this whole new revolution for Versace. Including a personalized hash-tag for the Versace endorser herself, #VersaceLovesGaga.  This has been trending all over twitter, just proving how much influence she has also in the cyber world. This seems to be an extremely beneficial partnership for both brands and we’ll continue to see growth in Versace and Lady Gaga this fashion season.

    Melissa Shampoe

  • Marc’s Makeover: Marc Jacobs’ decision to rebrand… is it the right one?

    Deciding whether or not to rebrand your company is an immense decision. Your brand is the face and personality of your company. It is what viewers connect with. Changing this identity will greatly affect your company, but if done right the market can soar.

    Fashion designer Marc Jacobs has decided it is time for his company, Marc Jacobs International to rebrand. In an interview with David Amsden from W Magazine Jacobs explains the troubles the Marc Jacobs brand had encountered. Describing the brand as having been “diluted” from his lack of creative supervision and merchandisers pushing his design team.

    In order to fix this Jacobs decided to leave his position at Louis Vuitton to grow his company, which includes boutiques, clothing lines such as Marc by Marc Jacobs and Little Marc Jacobs (a children’s clothing line), Bookmarc (a bookstore), and more.

    Some changes have already taken place such as his decision to move his offices from Manhattan to London and his decision to part with longtime campaign photographer Juergen Teller after he creatively disagreed on the Spring 2014 ad campaign which features Miley Cyrus. 

    marcmiley

    So what is Jacobs looking to do? He’s looking to redesign the logo and packaging, to build his shoe and handbag lines, and maybe even change the name, which he told W Magazine that he had always hated.

    Rebranding can be daunting between redefining research, audiences, creative campaigns, and even products, but for those experiencing continuous losses, it is often the best way to launch back into the market.

    In recent years, another clothing line, Burberry, underwent a widely recognized successful rebranding campaign. Over the years, the British line went from being known for its historically iconic outwear, to being associated with cheapest form of high fashion, and even gang wear.

    In 2006, the company hired Angela Ahrendts and in the next six years, she turned the ubiquitous brand back to luxurious. First, Ahrendts did what she called “buying back the company.” Reigning in the 23 licenses Burberry had around the world, control was brought back to the company with centralized executive and creative offices that could maintain product authenticity and exclusivity.

    Secondly, Ahrendts recognized we are in the age of digital consumption and a digital generation – tapping into the resources social media and technology offers. In stores, sale assistants are equipped with iPads, and mirrors transform into screens displaying catwalk images. Online, the company continues to grow its presence, attracting over 16 million fans on Facebook, and over 2 million followers on Twitter. Burberry also uses YouTube to broadcast campaigns, events, music, and even corporate news. 

    However, rebranding is not exclusive to high profile companies, the challenges above are things that can be experienced in all types of companies: personal, mid, or large. So how do you know if you should rebrand your own company? From Katie Morrell’s article “10 Signs You Should/Should not Rebrand” here are some warming signs that your company should rebrand.

    Macro problems

    Maria Ross, author of Branding Basics for Small Business: How to Create an Irresistible Brand on Any Budget (2010, Norlights Press) suggests that if a company notices that their target customers are choosing the competition over their own company and if a decrease in sales is also trending, rebranding should be considered.

    Look and function don’t match

    Another element that should be considered when having a decrease in customers is “From a cosmetic point of view, when you look old and your looks don’t reflect what you are or what you deliver, it may be time to rebrand,” said Susan Betts, senior strategy director for New York-based FutureBrand North America.

    Attracting the wrong customers

    Rebranding is beneficial when a company wants to change their target customers. It gives a company an opportunity to create a new brand identity that the new target audience has the chance to connect too.

    Management change

    When a company changes management, it is normal that policies and values change as well. When a companies values change, rebranding is a good idea.

    Philosophy/function change

    When a company changes it’s direction, rebranding can showcase to customers what they may or may not be aware of concerning this change. Betts also mentions rebranding should be considered when a company has a “New philosophy or a changed philosophy”.

    These signs are great examples to take heed from, but it is important to note rebranding should not be done unless it has been proven your brand identity is the root of your problems. Branding is the largest initial investment for a company, it sets the spring board for your identity, association, and customers. Rebranding is an even bigger investment – an attempt to reintroduce ideas to already established and preconceived perceptions is no easy task, it is one that must be thoroughly strategized. For Burberry, reigning in and refining their identity proved to be the best decision the company has made. For Jacobs, we will see what his creative vision produces.

    What companies do you think have faltered recently or over the years? Who needs to rebrand?

    Caroline Robinson, Savannah Valade, Elizabeth Harrington

  • P&G Sochi Countdown Ends Today!

    Grab your patriotic gear and set your TV recordings—the 2014 Winter Olympics begin today! While the official opening ceremony will not be held until tomorrow, the first five events of the Olympics are being held today. As the world has anxiously been awaiting the kickoff to the winter games, official sponsors have been preparing promotional material for months in order to promote their brand in conjunction with the Olympics.

    One of the Olympics’ worldwide partners, Procter & Gamble, created an entire “Thank You Mom” advertising campaign for the 2012 London Olympics, thanking moms for their hard work and dedication in assisting their children to become Olympic athletes. Whether it was waking their children up for early practices, or simply driving them to training sessions, the campaign highlighted the mother’s supportive role of the athlete’s journey to worldwide success.

    This year, P&G won over the hearts of many with an emotional second chapter to the campaign, titled “Pick Them Back Up”, specially crafted to promote this years Winter Olympics. Check out the video below.

    Tear-jerking, right? Since its premiere during the Golden Globes, the video has gone viral and has been viewed over 13 million times on YouTube. With the slogan, “For teaching us that falling only makes us stronger,” the commercial effectively hits America’s soft spot by thanking mothers for encouraging their children to pick themselves up after they fall and keep working towards their dreams.

    In addition to the heart-warming tribute to moms, P&G also created feature videos on specific 2014 Winter Olympic athletes and their mothers. Each video gives the world insight on the athlete’s unique journey to the Olympics, and the backbone behind their success—their mom.

    P&G strategically incorporated pathos into their campaign in order to entice and persuade viewers using an emotional appeal. By inviting the world into the Olympian’s lives and sharing their stories, P&G gives viewers the chance to connect and relate to the athletes on an emotional level before the games begin. We watch as the future Olympians stumble, fall, get back up and push forward on their journey to become professional athletes.

    untitled

     The commercial gives the audience an opportunity to join and follow this year’s Olympians on their path to success by utilizing elements of pathos. The story has all of the warm and fuzzy emotions people typically like to see: smiling babies, determined children, great triumphs and most importantly, supportive mothers. After viewing the video and witnessing the athlete’s triumph over hardships, we feel the emotional obligation to follow the stories of the current Olympic athletes.

    “A mom’s love of a young child who is an athlete is a universal emotion,” Vice President of P&G said about the advertisement, “These commercials create positive feelings. When consumers think about the brand, the feelings will transfer over.”

    With the special “thank you” being directed at moms everywhere, the idea is that parents and children will want to immediately run to one another and share a misty-eyed hug. P&G  wants to associate themselves with the inspiration that accompanies the supportive relationship between a mother and child, as well as provide an opportunity for the viewer to join in on this feeling.

    P&G has done an incredible job  branding themselves as a family-valuing company. Through the newly released commercial for the “Thank you, Mom” campaign, that began back in October 2013, P&G has reinforced consumers that they believe in family and are devoted to all of the hard working mothers in the world. In the first video in the campaign P&G stated, “The hardest job in the world, is the best job in the world. Thank you, Mom.” This campaign has become one of the largest multi-brand activations in the company’s history. P&G is delivering their brand message for the Sochi Olympics through a variety of media channels globally.

    Marc Pritchard,P&G CMO, states that the focus of their marketing tactics have shifted predominantly to the internet. “I really think about it as digital first. We think of search and social and video and display as the first focus. That’s where our consumers are spending their time” stated Pritchard. The campaign has already been a huge success through its emotional components accompanying the Olympics to market its products’ relationships with consumers, especially to the mothers of the world.

    By incorporating pathos and reinforcing their family brand image using mothers as a focal point, P&G aims to increase brand propensity within their target audience. They hope that connecting to the audience on an emotional level, and in conjunction with the Olympics, will persuade consumers to chose their brand over their competitors. Do you think this ad worked? Does this campaign make you want to watch the Olympics?

    -Briana McWhirter, Emily Foulke, Hannah Turner

  • Ambush Marketing, Rule 40, and the Sochi Controversy You Aren’t Hearing About

    Have Olympic advertising partnerships gotten too big? Have rules and restrictions protecting these “official sponsors” gone too far?

    Dawn Harper Tweets her Opinion of Olympic Rule 40
    Dawn Harper Tweets her Opinion of Olympic Rule 40

    Two-time track and field medalist Dawn Harper thinks so.  That’s why she posted this tweet with #Rule40 in protest of the IOC’s infamous Rule 40 during the 2012 Olympics in London.

    If you aren’t yet familiar with Rule40, it is a total ban on an athlete’s promotion of personal sponsors and their ability to acknowledge those who helped them get where they are today. It is especially focused on social media, where it has become a commonplace for athletes to thank sponsors with pictures and personal statements.

    Harper isn’t the only athlete to voice her displeasure with the effective “gag order” on competitors, but with companies spending upwards of $100,000,000.00 to associate their brands with the Olympics Games, is it really that hard to see why #Rule40 is in effect?

    Some have even gone as far to refer to the situation as a “battle”. Yet, despite the activism surrounding #rule40, without a doubt the biggest threat to the official Olympic sponsors is the ever-pervasive ambush marketers, silently stalking and waiting for their chance to steal some the Olympic brand name.

    These controversial ambush marketing campaigns attempt to capitalize on high-visibility events and locations through brand association without having to pay for the high-cost of officially sponsoring an event. My favorite example of ambush marketing involved the Minnesota Timberwolves selling this advertisement on the side of their stadium, where it happens to only be viewable from inside the nearby Minnesota Twins baseball stadium (where the official sponsor is Target).

    View of Timberwolves basketball stadium from inside the Twins baseball stadium
    View of Timberwolves basketball stadium from inside the Twins baseball stadium

    Ambush marketing may have been around in the advertising world for years, but the Olympics are seen as “the flagship event for ambush marketing”. Creative campaigns by infamous ambush advertisers like Nike often times attract more online buzz and conversation than the actual official sponsors.

    During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa officially sponsored by Reebok, advertising juggernaut and infamous ambush marketer Nike, placed an eye-catching ad on the fourth tallest building in the entire city of Johannesburg. When paired with a lengthy viral video, many agreed that Nike had effectively hijacked the sponsorship from Reebok and gained closer brand association with the World Cup event.

    Nike ad in Johannesburg during World Cup 2010
    Nike ad in Johannesburg during World Cup 2010

    Another ambush marketing giant, Subway, has already launched its attempt to steal some association from the upcoming Sochi games.  Summer Olympian Michael Phelps and retired speed-skating icon Apollo Ohno both appear in TV commercials for Subway’s “$5 foot long campaign” due to some legal loopholes discovered by Subway.

    So is it reasonable for the IOC to implement Rule 40 to help protect sponsors? Freeskiier David Wise recently commented that, “[he] understand[s] the Olympics are a moneymaking game, but it’s sad for [him] to have all these sponsors who have really taken care of [him]…[he’s] on the biggest stage [he] can possibly be on and [he] can’t give them the representation they deserve.”

    Another athlete and social media enthusiast, Nick Goepper, has stated that he will be completely off of social media for the entirety of the Olympics. “I think it might be safer not to tweet anything,” said Nick, the 19-year-old favorite to win Ski Slopestyle gold. “All I know, it’s pretty much zero tolerance for branding.”

    The Sochi games are only 3 days away, but the media blackout protecting the games’ sponsors has been in effect since January 26. When the final medal is awarded and the closing ceremonies complete, which brands will you associate with the games? Which advertisements and commercials will be the most talked about and discussed? Is $100,000,000 too much to pay for a loose association with the Olympic rings?

    Will the “ambushers” steal the spotlight once again?

    – Greg Rothman

  • Tackling Consumers

    A round of applause for the Seattle Seahawks as the champions of the Super Bowl XLVIII. Even if you were not a fan of either the Broncos or the Seahawks, it almost a sure bet you tuned into the game. Every year over 100 million people observe what is arguably the sporting event of the year.

    The Super Bowl, however, is known for more than a fierce round of football – it’s known for the commercials. Here is time where advertisers pull out all the stops. Audiences expect commercials of both artistic and humorous grandeur. Prices for spots annually rise, this year topping at $4 million for a 30 second spot.

    Yet companies don’t spend millions for spots merely to entertain viewers. Unlike in decades past, advertisers are no longer in the business of explaining, but in the business of convincing and reinforcing. This is often the purpose of commercials we see every day. So, other than the guaranteed viewership, what is the worth of a Super Bowl spot?

    Credibility, claims Joe Glennon, assistant professor of advertising at Temple’s School of Media and Mass Communication. In an article for the Philadelphia Business Journal, Glennon explains that many advertisers walk away from the exorbitant price tag due to the simple financial standpoint that $4 million for 30 seconds is a largely impossible return on investment. He explains that of those who do justify the expense there are two primary advertisers – large, well known, companies who use the spots to reinforce brand propensities among current users, and smaller companies who use the spot as a means to launch into the market by gaining notoriety.

    So, in the myriad of last night’s entertainment, we have selected four commercials that beautifully represent the two credibility building categories Glennon noted; some attempting cut into, or further into the market, others reinforcing brand attitudes.

    Squarespace

    Squarespace created a spot that was a humorous, but accurate depiction of what the Internet is like – cluttered. Personifying memes, obnoxious advertisements, and the “duck face”, Squarespace offered to consumers that when using their services for website building and maintenance, the company could alleviate such distraction. So, why did Squarespace make it onto the list today? Simple, the Squarespace commercial introduced the company values and brand in a creative, weird, funny, and somewhat true way. Justifying the $4 million dollar expenditure seems to working so far – we are talking about – there’s probably a good chance other people are too.

    WeatherTech

    Although the ad was neither humorous nor heart-warming, WeatherTech’s commercial built on a sacred theme in the Super Bowl: American pride. Their slogan, “American Factories, American Raw Materials, and American Workers”, was enough to draw people’s interest and introduce their company as a defying the odds, sticking with their gut, and overcoming obstacles many American companies have faced. During a time when many gripe about US jobs becoming outsourced, it’s hard to say that WeatherTech didn’t prove their credibility with their national pride.

    Cheerios

    Yes, the adorable little girl is back and this time she is getting a brother. This 30-second ad wraps up what all of us remember of Cheerios and what the Cheerios brand wants us to remember about them; families coming together over love. Here Cheerios is showing how they are continuing to be a hearty and healthy part of growing families.

    Bank of America/(RED)/U2

    What does this commercial not do? It introduces U2’s new song “Invisible” (there is still time to get your free download if you haven’t done it), it highlights and raises money for the charity (RED), increases knowledge of AIDS/HIV, and shows Bank of America’s humanitarian efforts. Reinforcing their slogan, “Life is better when your connected”, Bank of America is giving a chance for its customers and the world to connect by helping to end an epidemic.

    What is your opinion? Do you think these commercials deserve a spot in these categories? What other commercials did you see that introduce the brand or reinforce existing brand propensities?

    Caroline Robinson, Savannah Valade

  • What is Sex Really Selling?

    Everywhere you turn, you see it — advertisements that feature models in seductive poses or racy images that entice customers to purchase the product. Advertisers are increasingly utilizing the theory that “sex sells” in order to promote their products. Why? Because it works.

     The link between sex and advertising has been traced back all the way to the beginning of advertising in the 19th century. One of the earliest known advertisements that used sex to sell were trading cards tobacco companies placed into their cigarettes packages. These collectible cards featured women wearing scandalous outfits (for their time) with excessive skin exposure, encouraging men to smoke a specific brand of cigarettes.

     However, the use of erotic images in advertising didn’t stop there. Later in the 19th century, Woodbury’s Facial Soap released an advertisement suggesting intimacy between a man and women. With the tag line, “A Skin You Love to Touch,” the man faces the female model while embracing her, clearly showing the mans desire. It is apparent that the continued use of erotic advertising over the years has stuck, simply because it works.

    The use of sex in advertising has been a long-standing tradition in the history of advertising and continues to increase in today’s society. Researchers conducted a study looking at 3,232 full-page advertisements in popular magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Time, Newsweek and Playboy, published in three different decades –1983, 1993, and 2003. In 1983, 15% of advertisements used sex to promote their products and increased to 27% in 2003.

    Sex appeal could arguably be the leading technique that advertising agencies use in America to attract certain audiences. So it comes to no surprise that Hardees would use attractive females eating a large, oh-so-juicy hamburger in slow motion. So the question being asked is, “Is it ethical for the new Hardees advertisements to set a new standard for sexualizing food by using a sexy woman making love to a burger?”. Objectifying women in advertising is very prominent for the targeting to male audiences. The message Hardees would appear to be establishing is, “Hey, boys, you have next to no chance of ever having sex with a woman who looks like Kate Upton unless you save your money and pay for it. But you can satisfy your hunger with one of these salacious sandwiches she has blessed”.

    untitled

    The burger giant, Carl’s Jr. hired socialite and reality TV star Paris Hilton to star in several commercials and print ads for its Spicy BBQ burger. The advertisements utilizes sex appeal with the famous male anatomy logo “She’ll tell you size doesn’t matter. She’s lying”. The intention of this ad was targeted mainly for men to relate that size really does matter, and to women that fit girls can still indulge a greasy cheeseburgers. But the hair flipping, sliding around on a wet car minute long video was too over sexualized and banned from airing during the Super bowl. Carl’s Jr. did not consider ethical approaches or consider the different audiences that would see this ad as morally wrong, like the Parents Television Council. mqdefault[10]Carl’s Jr. CEO Andy Puzder responded to this threat with, “This isn’t Janet Jackson — there is no nipple in this. There is no nudity, there is no sex acts — it’s a beautiful model in a swimsuit washing a car.” But it’s not just the act of having a woman half-naked in a commercial, it is mostly about the misleading message in the commercial. But, as always, there are people who are going to be offended by this kind of publicity by stating that they are portraying women as sexual objects. What’s your opinion on this?

    Food companies weren’t the only ones using sex as a selling point. Last Fall, Adidas also joined the sex appeal craze. They created a controversial advertisement that essentially showed a woman stripping her clothes purely because she was a fan of his Adidas shoes. The ad is being directed toward younger men who thrive to appear attractive through their style. However, it is questionable whether it is actually selling the shoes, or the idea that a woman is easily convinced to undress for a reason such as one’s appearance. Adidas has continuously presented their brand as one that stands for teamwork and the value of sports. They slightly re-branded themselves in this advertisement as a company that also cares about the style Adidas shoes can bring into your social life. A little re-branding is necessary every now and then to keep a product’s image fresh, however an ad such as this one also represents a gender stereotype that women will strip their clothes as soon as they see a pair of stylish clothes. There is a very thin line between proper sex appeal and the use of offensive gender stereotypes, and it is difficult to tell if Adidas actually crossed this line.

    In today’s culture, audiences are bombarded with advertisements left and right. In order to distinguish themselves from the crowd, some advertisements are using sex appeal to grab the attention of consumers. Is it ethical to use sex appeal as a way to persuade consumers? Have advertisements gone too far?

    -Briana McWhirter, Emily Foulke, Hannah Turner