A brand is part of the meaning system of a product or service. Brand refers to the value added to a basic product or service. In this sense Starbucks isn't just a cup of coffee, it is the "place" between home and work. It is the latter that refers to the added value. So perhaps it's not surprising that a recent survey identified the following as the most trusted brands: 1. Johnson & Johnson 2. Sony 3. Apple 4. Colgate 5. Microsoft tied with 6. Coca Cola 7. Toyota 8. Nike tied with 9. Bank of America 10.Target tied with 11. Dell
How does this list gel with your own list of most trusted brands?
I have to admit I’m confused…I’ve been studying advertising for a long time, but I no longer seem to know what it is. If you “Google” the term advertising there is consensus that it refers to the promotion—informing and/or persuading consumers--of a product or service through paid announcements. But when you consider, for example the “dancing babies” video for Evian bottled water, how might we square it with that definition of advertising? The video’s distribution is not paid for, it contains no obvious message (what in advertising, they used to call a selling point), and it lacks persuasive elements and information (product features or benefits). So, how can you call it advertising? What the video does have is an emotional kick, which is intended to provide consumers with a vague association between those positive feelings the video evoked and the brand or product/service. Those feelings may be strong enough that consumers want to spread the word to other consumers.
In this way the advertisement is the consumer herself or himself. And, that is how products and services are being promoted in the 21st Century. This position is confirmed in an August 27, 2009 Wall Street Journal article in which Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP Group, the world's largest (by revenue) advertising firm, who says, “it’s not going to be in 30-second TV ads; it’s not going to be in newspaper or magazine ads; it’s going to be…digital.” So, perhaps a good starting point this semester is to reconcile the traditional definition of advertising with this newer form. Do we even want to call it advertising?
And, what skills do you think it takes to create successful advertising of this kind? I’ve always said that confusion is a mark of intelligence, so it is my hope that through this confusion that you will comment below regarding how you might explain the Evian dancing babies, Cadbury eyebrows, or T-Mobile dance viral videos. I think that would be a good place to begin our semester.
KFC has given us, perhaps, a good place to begin our Introduction to Advertising course. The story goes that KFC is testing a sandwich they call Double Down that places two fried chicken filets on a single sandwich. Oh, and it includes bacon and cheese as well as some secret sauce. Yum, right? If this were a calorie contest the KFC Double Down would probably win over other fast food chains. But this isn’t about calories, fat, cholesterol and salt – all that rational stuff. This advertising campaign is titled, “Unthink,” because KFC is asking consumers to “unthink” what they know about sandwiches. So, perhaps the first place to start this semester is to consider the difference between thinking, which in advertising parlance refers to rational decision making, or as in the case of KFC, unthinking, which is another term for feeling. In advertising parlance behavior based on feelings is non-rational. The difference between the two—rational decision-making and emotionally based behavior—will guide you for the remainder of this course. Check out the commercial and let me know what you think. You can read the article here.
Cultural theorists have written about two economies, one financial and one cultural. But I wonder as with the current controversy surrounding shlock jock Don Imus whether or not we can really separate the two. Within the financial economy at least three advertisers have announced intentions to withdraw their advertising support from the Imus program: Procter & Gamble, Bigelow Tea, and Staples office supply chain. As MSNBC decided to suspend airing of the program we could also say that General Electric owner of MSNBC also has for the time being withdrawn its economic support. The economics of syndicated radio are more complicated than this simple scenario for advertiser withdrawal suggests; there are plenty of advertisers, for example, including General Motors that have not as yet withdrawn their advertising from the program. Sometimes pop culture transcends the financial economy as controversies like the one Imus finds himself involved in enter the cultural economy. Think Calvin Klein Kiddie Porn, Heroin Chic. Think Benneton. One could suggest, perhaps, that within a capitalist economy there is a self-correcting mechanism: if demand for Don Imus remains strong then he will probably survive either over the airwaves or on satellite radio. However, if his listenership wanes or if the intensity of his current fan base lessens continuing interest on the part of advertisers may also become depleted. When it comes to culture we can see the cultural economy play out like a marketplace, although instead of trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange, trading in the “cultural shares” of Don Imus take place in the Blogosphere, talk television like The Today Show, among others as well as traditional media like magazines and newspapers. Day after day we can see in these various venues trial by pop culture. However, I do not think the financial economy operates separately from the cultural economy. Rather, I think they work together, not necessarily in tandem, but they reflect the complex nature of the players in this game of culture both corporate and political.
