This Old Spice commercial featuring Terry Crews, a professional athlete who we might consider hypermasculine, features the tagline "Smell is Power." If that is the case power in a masculine or in this case hypermasculine world is rather ephemeral. After all, linguistically, how can smell equal power? So, what is this commercial saying to its target audience? That you don't have any real or actual power, so you need to substitute some symbolic form of power instead? If that is the case, then what does this commercial also say about the status of males in U.S. society?

This is NOT what is meant by seamless integration

Product placement is a technique--perhaps trick--to get an advertising message across to a distracted audience. In other words, while members of a TV audience may turn away physically or mentally when the commercials appear on the screen, or when viewers choose to do something else like go get something to eat, product placement is offered as an antidote. Because the "ad" shows up in the context of the program, viewers cannot escape it (at least theoretically they can't). The product placement above is a really bad example. Here's a link to the full article with two more examples of how not to do this.

Advertising and Social Responsiblity in Network Television

To paraphrase the infamous Jerry Lee Lewis song, “there’s a whole lotta’ cusin’ goin’ on” in broadcast television, at least that’s what the Parents Television Council claims. The PTC just released a report detailing what they believe is an increase in foul language in scripted network television during the 2010 season. What might be of interest to students of advertising is that the PTC believes advertisers should exercise their power over the networks as purchasers of commercial time to, as the report says, “encourage greater responsibility in programming…” Well, ain’t that calling the kettle black. Advertising, which isn’t exactly known as the cornerstone of social responsibility itself, is being called upon to influence network television to be socially responsible. The report acknowledges these two “institutions” are tacitly in cahoots, as the only thing advertisers want is to reach a targeted audience, and the PTC believes that the only way broadcasters can attract those audiences is by pushing the edge of the envelope. Now let me be clear, I’m not a fan of the PTC, but there is a germ of truth to the point that those airwaves used by the networks are public and therefore subject to government rules and regulations. The question for you is: should the TV space be a free-for-all no holes barred arena, or do we as a society need to go beyond the “turn it off if you don’t like it” mindset to establish clear parameters in which broadcasters can operate?

Lady Gaga and the Illusion of Intimacy Video

When we consider the ways in which new media impact imaginary social relationships, the illusion of intimacy becomes more intense, as social media require such a high level of disclosure. Beyond disclosure, social media require celebrities to directly address their fans. In this way imaginary social relationships, a term John Caughey coined in the mid-1980s, are amplified. The 24/7 nature of new media suggests that such amplication may lead to greater volatility. Think about how quickly Tiger Woods lost some of his key endorsement deals as we learned of his gross infidelities. Lady Gaga, along with Kim Kardashian and several other celebrities are now masterfully utilizing new media in order to manage their public personae.

Emotions and Celebrity Endorsers

So, I’m really upset--that is to say I’m emotional--right now, because I read this morning that Baltimore-based Under Armour signed New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to a major endorsement deal that includes a owning a piece of the company. What? Tom Brady owns a piece of Baltimore? As a Baltimore Ravens fan, I think that sucks. Moreover, I don’t like Tom Brady on so many levels, and that brings me to the topic of my blog post. I’m speaking tonight about Imaginary Social Relationships we conduct with media figures. Sometimes these relationships are based on liking or love, sometimes on extreme admiration, and in this case it’s out and out hate. There’s an advertising connection here, because I buy Under Armour products, or at least I used to. Now I understand perfectly well that I am not the target audience for the line of products that Brady is going to be hawking for Under Armour. However, throughout the history of advertising endorsers were supposed to be those we admired, those we want to emulate. In fact, emulation is the basis for using famous people as product endorsers. So, what happens when someone like me learns that a nemesis is endorsing “my” brand, or for someone else who may have used a product endorsed by Tiger Woods before his fall from grace, or any number of celebrity endorsers for whom we have over the years changed our opinions from positive to negative. My point here is that using celebrities in advertising is always risky business. If there is a consistency between the celebrity, the product, and a set of values that are shared with the consumer, then perhaps it makes sense to use a celebrity as a spokesperson. But Under Armour just made a Nike fan out of me. Take that Tom Brady.

Calvin Klein is up to their old tricks again

Thank goodness Australia has an advertising standards bureau with the power to ban offensive advertising. In this case Calvin Klein has done it again. This time the offending ad depicts what some might interpret as a woman being raped while one man stands by looking rather nonchalant. In the past CK has been called down for their Heroin Chic campaign featuring super model Kate Moss, and  “kiddie porn” campaign that depicted what looked like underage models in sexually suggestive poses. Turns out, after a U.S. Justice Department investigation, those models were not underage, but you get the point, I think. So why do advertisers have to go to such extremes in order to gain our attention, and is it worth it from either a marketing point of view or from a societal perspective? I really enjoy much advertising, but sometimes campaigns like this really make me wonder. Maybe David Potter was correct way back in 1954 when he described advertising as an institution of abundance that, unlike some other institutions, lacked social responsibility. Although this is not the first ad campaign I’ve seen that depicts women in an intolerable situation, it doesn’t make it okay. I find the return to such a tired, old, and totally inappropriate advertising image, depressing. I hope Calvin Klein doesn’t try those ads out in the United States, although based on passed performance, I wouldn’t put it past them.

Super Bowl 46 Sells Out

You have to be impressed that it isn’t even November and the 2011 Super Bowl commercial inventory is already sold out. Just the other day the remaining two spots were sold at their retail price of $3 million each. The 46th Super Bowl will be played on February 6, 2011 at the new indoors Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas. It will be televised live on NBC in the United States and by various other broadcasters around the world. Historically, the worldwide audience hovers around 110 million viewers. Given the state of the U.S. economy, a sell-out is pretty spectacular in my humble opinion. I wish Super Bowl advertising served as a barometer of the economy’s future, however most of the ads are for familiar brands – Pepsi has purchased 6 advertisements. After being absent from the spectacle for two years General Motors is likely to return; that’s a very encouraging sign. But they have a good story to tell and a new tag line “Chevy Runs Deep” to sell. And of course we know there will be some consumer generated advertising (CGA) opportunities to ensure fan engagement. I’ll have more to say about Super Bowl advertising as we move closer to the event. But I’d say that selling out the entire inventory of spots, and these last two at full price, makes me feel very optimistic about the future.

Hope you will attend the lecture...

How much does that ad cost?

It's always interesting, I think, to consider how much one 30-second television spot costs on prime-time television. Advertising Age published an article today with the cost per spot for the programs listed above. Which program is the most expensive on which to advertise? American Idol. One 30 second spot on American Idol costs more than $400k, and of course one would never just purchase one spot, as repetition is an important part of the advertising game. By the way, the $400K does not include the cost of producing the commercial, which could easily double that figure.

How do you advertise a commodity?

While creating difference among razors is becoming difficult as manufacturers go from three to four to five blades and beyond, when it comes to commidities like milk, eggs, and veggies the process of creating difference seems unlikely. The "Got Milk" campaign doesn't brand milk, but rather encourages consumption of the category. There are brands of eggs, like Eggland's Best, but what about veggies? Is there a carrot with a difference? The creative folks at Crispen, Porter and Bogusky have come up with a campaign for Baby Carrots that is off the wall, attempting to align carrots with junk food. Novel idea. But I wonder if, beynd the commercial itself, there is anything in a carrot that will make someone turn away from their favorite chip or other snack food. Nevertheless, this is an interesting case study. I always think it's fun to develop creative ideas around products with no discernable differences. Take two quarters, for example. Do you think you could come up with a campaign that makes one 25 cent piece seem better than the other?

Does Grover Smell Like a Monster?

I thought this Sesame Street parody of the Old Spice commercials was a hoot. Thought you might enjoy it.

FTC Investigates False and Deceptive Health Claims

It’s like someone turned the lights on at the FTC and FDA, as these agencies have become quite active in their pursuit of false and deceptive advertising. A current complaint relates to the POM Wonderful Pomegranate Juice claim that it treats or prevents diseases including prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction. Is there research to back up these claims? The FTC says no. Government regulation seems to ebb and flow depending on which political party is in office. As a Democratic administration is presently in charge of the White House, we would expect government regulators to be quite active. What is disturbing to some is that in the pursuit of truth and justice, the government is spending the public’s money during a time of fiscal crisis. Consider the FDA’s investigation of Lance Armstrong, the American athlete and winner of the Tour de France. The FTC’s investigation of POM contends that their advertising is misleading, because there is no scientific evidence that the product prevents any disease. The FTC, if it proves POM’s claims to be false, can issue a cease and desist order, which would greatly inhibit the company’s ability to market its products, since the only reason to purchase POM at $3.99 a bottle is because you believe it will prevent or treat a particular disease. Perhaps because of the weak U.S. economy sales of POM, according to one newspaper article, are down 50 percent from a year ago, while advertising expenditures rose 26 percent. This, I would submit, is a good example of the old saw: economics trumps advertising every time. POM executives state on their website they plan to fight, claiming the FTC violated their first amendment rights. While there is no question that the government plays an important role in regulating the marketplace of ideas, it does seem a little odd that agencies lay dormant for so many years (e.g. during the Bush administration) and then become activist when the other political party is in charge, which raises the question: is this regulation or is this politics?

What channel are you watching?

Watching NBC, CBS, Fox? What about the Old Spice channel on YouTube? Now that’s a new one, isn’t it? Hard to believe that, according to an article in Advertising Age, the Old Spice commercials featuring Isaiah Mustafa and his responses to viewers Tweets have garnered 57 million views—yes, your read that correctly, 57 million views. Not only were the initial commercials creative in their use of Mr. Mustafa and their special effects – shot in one take. (Look at one closely to see if you can see any cuts between scenes. You can’t.) What impresses me is the interactive quality between Mr. Mustafa’s video responses to Tweets from celebrities and everyday people (Are they fake. I don’t know, but I don’t care.). There’s pleasure to be had here, and pleasure is the key to engagement. All of this taking place outside of mainstream media. 

Dazed and Confused by Advertising

Did you ever watch a TV commercial and then say to yourself: “What was that about?” You may not be alone as the trade publication Adweek reported the findings of a poll indicating that “significant numbers of viewers find TV commercials confusing at least some of the time.” This doesn’t surprise me in the least, as my research on advertising related thoughts indicates that we often “get it wrong.” For example, consumers viewing a Doritos commercial, upon being asked to recall the ad may reference it as an ad for Tostitos. That’s an expensive mistake for Doritos. Beyond confusing brands, we don’t pay close attention to advertisements, as there are elements--what I call cues--in advertising that serve to direct our minds elsewhere. I have written about memories and anticipations as the two directions we go in when we are “cued” by ads to think about other things. In other words, while watching an advertisement, or reading one in a magazine for that matter, we may begin to think about something out of our past that has little or nothing to do with the brand, product category, or advertisement. Same thing goes for anticipations. I have described three processes in which consumers either totally blank out when the commercial comes on, fade in and out as the commercial runs, or experience what I call lucid thinking in which the consumer simultaneously watches the commercial and has a thought. All very complicated and perhaps sophisticated activities that I maintain advertising actually trains us to do. But the main point is: no wonder we are confused by the commercials we see; we aren’t paying close attention, and as a result we tend to get it wrong, mixing one brand with another.

New CGA Campaign for 2011 Super Bowl

Pepsi Max will be joining Doritos for a consumer generated advertising competition in which prize money totaling $5 million will be offered to the winning advertisements that score highest in the USA Today Super Bowl Ad Poll. While Doritos has been participating in this venture for several years, Pepsi, which stayed out of last year's Super Bowl, appears ready to take the CGA leap. According to a news report in USA Today, Pepsi Max has suffered from a "somewhat confusing image." The target audience is males who show disdain for products with "diet" emblazoned on them. Pepsi Max competes against Coke Zero in this category. The campaign, according to the news article, isn't so much about boosting sales as increasing awareness and knowledge about the product.

Gatorade takes social media very seriously

The marketing people at PepsiCo, Gatorade's parent company, are taking their social media very seriously by setting up a "mission control" center in the middle of their marketing department's headquarters. This control center allows the company to monitor its brand on social network sites on a 24/7 basis. There are a number of interesting screens reported on the Mashable/SocialMedia website. Marketers like Gatorade want to monitor consumer sentiment in real time in order to evaluate the nature and level of engagement; engagement being all the rage in advertising circles these days. Engagement, you might say, is the new metric (measurement) of advertising effectiveness.

The most fun you'll have with a viral ad...

What do Facebook, Multitasking and Advertising Have in Common?

A recent study of college students in the Netherlands concluded that multitasking while studying will likely reduce a student’s grade by 20%. You know the drill: you’re reading your class notes on the computer and every few minutes you switch over the Facebook to see if anything’s going on. Well, that model of multitasking behavior is also the same process through which we consume other media content, like advertising. In other words, we may watch TV and then turn away to focus on the computer when the commercials come on, or engage in any number of related behaviors. The implications for students' grades are clear. But what are the implications for advertisers? I would suggest to you that similar or worse issues arise when it comes to advertising while multitasking with multiple media, if for no other reason, advertising is not a significant part of our lives, at least not as significant as studying for an exam. My study on the subject, Living in an Age of Distraction, describes how difficult consumers find switching back and forth from one medium to another. And, just like the difficulties encountered by college students who multitask while studying, consumers find it difficult to recall the advertisements they have seen. There’s a lot of research starting to emerge regarding the perils of multitasking. Advertisers are already attempting to circumvent what I think are consumers resistance to their messages. Product embeds, although rarely done well, are one approach. But the cat and mouse game between advertiser and consumer goes on; multitasking is just one tactic employed by consumers to resist the reach of advertising. As for multitasking while studying for an exam, well, that's another story.

Comparing ourselves to those who are less than perfect: An advertising conundrum

There is a trend afoot that is worthy of note, I think, because it goes against the grain of the way beauty has been presented--sold--in American culture since the beginning of advertising. The new trend I’m referring to is the depiction of stars without make-up. To date the only time we have been shocked by a make-up-less star is when there is some sort of expose’ in a magazine like People. But now it seems that celebs like Jessica Simpson, who appeared in no makeup on the May cover of Marie Claire, are leading us in a different direction. (Who would have every thought that JS would lead us anywhere?) Turns out those unattainable traits--Angelina Jolie’s lips, for example--are harming both men and women, and may lead to, among other things, eating disorders. But the list of those celebs who appear in advertisements sans make-up are beginning to grow, and advertisers have been led by the use of realistic models like those in the Dove Real Beauty campaign, which stands out as an example of selling against itself in order to sell itself – an interesting contradiction. And, oh by the way, the campaign failed to boost sales significantly. I’ve done some work in the area of social comparison theory—that is the way we use the media in order to measure our own self-worth against what we see in others—and the findings of my research suggest that viewers of TV commercials (the subject of my study) actually prefer more realistic portrayals because the images they see are ones they can identify with. Moreover, the images in some cases are one’s to which they feel superior. That was probably the most interesting finding. My research revolved around men’s reactions to images of the GEICO cavemen, and other what I referred to as “less-than-ideal” images. For the whole history of advertising, emulation was seen as a cornerstone - you know, we look up to the stars. Isn’t it ironic to find in the 21st century that consumers would rather look down at others, rather than up to them. Looking at less than perfect images simply makes consumers feel good and that’s exactly what advertisers want.

A lesson in values-centered advertising from Steve Jobs

As we begin a new academic year, I think it’s appropriate to attend to this timeless lesson in advertising from Apple’s Steve Jobs. In this circa 1997 video Jobs announces a new ad campaign—Think Different—for Apple computers, he tells us that advertising is not about promoting a product’s features, rather it is about communicating values. That’s a time-trusted vision of advertising’s role offered up many years ago by Albert Lasker, who built the advertising business into what it became in the 20th Century, and it is an approach best exemplified by brands like Coke and Nike. However, with new social media quickly becoming advertising friendly—and new digital ad agencies popping up all over the place—advertising in the 21st Century is beginning to look quite different. Values-based advertising? Perhaps. More likely the instant gratification offered by a message on your mobile phone will more likely rule. Values-centered advertising may be usurped as marketers increasingly employ geo-location, behavioral tracking, SEO and other means and methods to narrowcast a message directly to you when you are in the best physical position to take advantage of an offer. These technical newer approaches, like Facebook Places and Foresquare, among many others, seem to lack the emotional connection Jobs talks about in the video; perhaps these newer approaches are appropriate for the hard economic times in which we live. I don’t know if emotionally driven, values centered advertising is on the wane, but it is clear that new approaches that take advantage of new social media and associated technologies are on the rise.