6/18/09
As advertisers seek new wow factors to attract their target audiences, one idea that has emerged and seems to be gaining momentum is free music downloads. Given that 50% of us now pay for our music downloads the timing may be right.
On Friday, Toblerone announced the offer of a free exclusive track from Alesha Dixon with purchase. The UK promotion, which is sponsored by Kraft, also features a contest to win VIP tickets to a concert and meeting with Alesha, signed merchandise and free candy bars. (Paine, 2009)
Would this motivate you? Does the exclusivity matter when anybody can buy a candy bar?
Do you know who she is? Given the ever increasing fragmentation of the music industry is it possible to find an artist who would have mass appeal?
Paine, A. (2009, June 12). Alesha Dixon Fronts Toblerone Campaign. adage.com. Retrived, June 15, 2009 from
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/agency/e3i45a4bf33efc17917e66f43213e5d636c
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Is walking away from a winning strategy a good idea?
6/8/09
The Effie award winners for 2008 have been named and the grand Effie was awarded to Burger King for its “Freakout” campaign. In case you’ve forgotten it, it makes use of a hidden camera to show the reaction of real people when they are told that the whopper has been discontinued. You can check it out again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8fHfo4uEI
I knew the campaign was a winner when my nephew, who was 14 at the time showed me clips of it on YouTube. According the Effie application, Burger King’s sales went up by double digits when it ran. (“Burger King Wins”, 2009)
Now comes the news that in the face of an unimpressive +1% increase in sales during 1st Quarter 2009, BK has decided to focus future advertising on items from its value menu, despite the fact that it has traditionally focused its advertising on its premium products. (“Burger King Promotes Value”, 2009)
Is this a wise decision given the current state of the economy? Or are they foolish to stop promoting their signature item?
(2009, June 4). Burger King Wins Effie Grand Prize For ‘Freakout’. mediapost.com. Retrived, June 7, 2009 from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFriendly&art_aid=107275
(2009, May 29). Burger King Promotes Value. mediabuyerplanner.com. Retrived, June 7, 2009 from
http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/41524/burger-king-promotes-value/
The Effie award winners for 2008 have been named and the grand Effie was awarded to Burger King for its “Freakout” campaign. In case you’ve forgotten it, it makes use of a hidden camera to show the reaction of real people when they are told that the whopper has been discontinued. You can check it out again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8fHfo4uEI
I knew the campaign was a winner when my nephew, who was 14 at the time showed me clips of it on YouTube. According the Effie application, Burger King’s sales went up by double digits when it ran. (“Burger King Wins”, 2009)
Now comes the news that in the face of an unimpressive +1% increase in sales during 1st Quarter 2009, BK has decided to focus future advertising on items from its value menu, despite the fact that it has traditionally focused its advertising on its premium products. (“Burger King Promotes Value”, 2009)
Is this a wise decision given the current state of the economy? Or are they foolish to stop promoting their signature item?
(2009, June 4). Burger King Wins Effie Grand Prize For ‘Freakout’. mediapost.com. Retrived, June 7, 2009 from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFriendly&art_aid=107275
(2009, May 29). Burger King Promotes Value. mediabuyerplanner.com. Retrived, June 7, 2009 from
http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/41524/burger-king-promotes-value/
Labels:
advertising,
Burger King,
Effies,
value strategy
Monday, June 1, 2009
Would you enter this contest; forward the video to a friend?
6/1/09
As we have discussed in class, traditional advertising has not performed well on social networking sites, so advertisers are experimenting with a variety of different formats to increase effectiveness.
Here’s an interesting integrated effort from the Bahamas to consider.
Phearcreative helped them to create a viral effort involving a video, contest, and pass along element. The campaign also included a live event and the video was posted on a variety of social networking sites.
The easiest way to check out the video/contest is to go to:
http://www.bahamafridays.com/
I’m interested in knowing what you think about the approach. Did you watch the entire video? Enter the contest? Pass it along to a friend? Why or why not? Any suggestions for improvement?
As we have discussed in class, traditional advertising has not performed well on social networking sites, so advertisers are experimenting with a variety of different formats to increase effectiveness.
Here’s an interesting integrated effort from the Bahamas to consider.
Phearcreative helped them to create a viral effort involving a video, contest, and pass along element. The campaign also included a live event and the video was posted on a variety of social networking sites.
The easiest way to check out the video/contest is to go to:
http://www.bahamafridays.com/
I’m interested in knowing what you think about the approach. Did you watch the entire video? Enter the contest? Pass it along to a friend? Why or why not? Any suggestions for improvement?
Labels:
advertising,
Bahamas,
contests,
social media,
video
Monday, May 25, 2009
Has Starbuck’s missed the mark with its new advertising campaign?

5/25/09
In the beginning of May 2009, Starbucks, once famous for not engaging in traditional advertising, launched a campaign to address an -8% decline in same store sales during the first quarter of 2009. (Miller, 2009)
According to CEO Howard Schultz, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “We know from our research that customers are not defecting away from Starbucks; they’re just coming less often or cutting out the occasion”. (Jargon, 2009)
Given that input, do you think this ad makes sense? Does it make you want to go into Starbucks more often?
Miller, C. (2009, May 19) New Starbucks Ads Seek to Recruit Online Fans. nytimes.com Retrived, May 25, 2009 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19starbux.html
Jargon, J. (2009, May 4) New Ads Will Stir Up Coffee Wars. Wall Street Journal, pB7.
Labels:
advertising,
consumer insights,
Starbucks,
strategy
Monday, May 18, 2009
Isn’t it about time that all health claims were properly substantiated?
5/18/09
Although the FDA has been monitoring drug company claims for their products for years, there has been a huge gaping hole, when it comes to supplements and foods.
Not only have companies been able to get away without properly substantiating their claims, they have been getting away with outrageous disclaimers in support of them. Listen closely or look at the small type and you will see that Product X will help you lose weight when “taken in conjunction with a calorie restricted diet and moderate exercise”. Duh. If you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight regardless of what supplements or specific foods you eat.
While Cheerios seems relatively benign, they are still making a very hard claim – “eat Cheerios and lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” backed by a similar disclaimer. Their defense? We’ve been communicating this message for two years. Well, just because the ethically-challenged Bush administration was willing to go along with it, doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do.
I think its time for the truth. What do you think?
(2009, May 12). FDA warns General Mills over Cheerios cholesterol claims. latimes. com. Retrived, May 17, 2009 from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/shopping_blog/2009/05/fda-warns-general-mills-over-cheerios-cholesterol-claims.html
Here’s an opposing point-of-view
York, E. & Thomaselli, R. (2009, May 13) With Cheerios, has the FDA bitten off more than it could chew? adage.com. Retrived, May 18, 2009
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136636
Although the FDA has been monitoring drug company claims for their products for years, there has been a huge gaping hole, when it comes to supplements and foods.
Not only have companies been able to get away without properly substantiating their claims, they have been getting away with outrageous disclaimers in support of them. Listen closely or look at the small type and you will see that Product X will help you lose weight when “taken in conjunction with a calorie restricted diet and moderate exercise”. Duh. If you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight regardless of what supplements or specific foods you eat.
While Cheerios seems relatively benign, they are still making a very hard claim – “eat Cheerios and lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” backed by a similar disclaimer. Their defense? We’ve been communicating this message for two years. Well, just because the ethically-challenged Bush administration was willing to go along with it, doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do.
I think its time for the truth. What do you think?
(2009, May 12). FDA warns General Mills over Cheerios cholesterol claims. latimes. com. Retrived, May 17, 2009 from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/shopping_blog/2009/05/fda-warns-general-mills-over-cheerios-cholesterol-claims.html
Here’s an opposing point-of-view
York, E. & Thomaselli, R. (2009, May 13) With Cheerios, has the FDA bitten off more than it could chew? adage.com. Retrived, May 18, 2009
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136636
Monday, May 11, 2009
Finally, a triumph of common sense?
5/11/09
I’ve always been a fan of the first amendment, even when it has meant letting folks I disagree with say things that appall me. But even I have to draw the line at the mention of “4 hour erections” during daytime television; especially when my 10 year-old nephew happens to be watching the show with me.
Now comes the eminently sensible suggestion from Rep. Jim Moran that commercials for erectile dysfunction be banned between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. (Riley, 2009)
Works for me. What about you?
And here’s an idea for the companies that produce these products – why not advertise online on porn sites? There certainly seem to be enough out there to choose from and you won’t have to worry about children seeing your message.
Riley, C. (2009, May 6). Congressman: No Viagra before 10 p.m. cnn.com. Retrived, May 11, 2009 from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/congressman-no-viagra-before-10-pm/
I’ve always been a fan of the first amendment, even when it has meant letting folks I disagree with say things that appall me. But even I have to draw the line at the mention of “4 hour erections” during daytime television; especially when my 10 year-old nephew happens to be watching the show with me.
Now comes the eminently sensible suggestion from Rep. Jim Moran that commercials for erectile dysfunction be banned between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. (Riley, 2009)
Works for me. What about you?
And here’s an idea for the companies that produce these products – why not advertise online on porn sites? There certainly seem to be enough out there to choose from and you won’t have to worry about children seeing your message.
Riley, C. (2009, May 6). Congressman: No Viagra before 10 p.m. cnn.com. Retrived, May 11, 2009 from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/congressman-no-viagra-before-10-pm/
Labels:
advertising,
Cialis,
erectile dysfunction,
first amendment,
Viagra
Monday, May 4, 2009
Will GM’s portfolio pruning assure its survival?
5/4/09
As part of its restructuring, GM has announced that it is eliminating 4 of its brands – Saab, Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac. This will allow them to focus on their 4 remaining brands – Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.
In reading about this, I was reminded of the discussions that I participated in when Uncle Ben’s launched Uncle Ben’s Country Inn Rice Dishes ®. Those in favor of not including Uncle Ben’s in the product name felt that it was stogy and would prevent the brand from reaching its full potential.
But, the VP of Marketing, who had the final word, pointed out that since she would not be able to support the brand with its own advertising campaign for more than a few years, it would need to live under the Uncle Ben’s umbrella so it could be supported with synergistic ads after the launch period.
Supporting 8 brands was clearly cost prohibitive, and supporting 4 will be easier, but has GM gone far enough? As market analyst Todd Turner pointed out in the attached article, the GMC division only appears to be profitable because there are no development costs associated with it.
Perhaps it would make sense to eliminate this division as well, or bring all the remaining brands under a common umbrella. Since GM spent over 2 billion dollars for marketing in 2008, the potential for savings could be huge. What would you do?
Greenberg, K. (2009, April 27). GM To Focus On Four ‘Keeper’ Brands. marketingdaily.com Retrieved, May 4, 2009 from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=104881
As part of its restructuring, GM has announced that it is eliminating 4 of its brands – Saab, Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac. This will allow them to focus on their 4 remaining brands – Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.
In reading about this, I was reminded of the discussions that I participated in when Uncle Ben’s launched Uncle Ben’s Country Inn Rice Dishes ®. Those in favor of not including Uncle Ben’s in the product name felt that it was stogy and would prevent the brand from reaching its full potential.
But, the VP of Marketing, who had the final word, pointed out that since she would not be able to support the brand with its own advertising campaign for more than a few years, it would need to live under the Uncle Ben’s umbrella so it could be supported with synergistic ads after the launch period.
Supporting 8 brands was clearly cost prohibitive, and supporting 4 will be easier, but has GM gone far enough? As market analyst Todd Turner pointed out in the attached article, the GMC division only appears to be profitable because there are no development costs associated with it.
Perhaps it would make sense to eliminate this division as well, or bring all the remaining brands under a common umbrella. Since GM spent over 2 billion dollars for marketing in 2008, the potential for savings could be huge. What would you do?
Greenberg, K. (2009, April 27). GM To Focus On Four ‘Keeper’ Brands. marketingdaily.com Retrieved, May 4, 2009 from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=104881
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
