that DeclareYourself voting vid? think twice.

it seems that the Don't Vote video i discussed here yesterday has caused quite a stir in the advertising and marketing community, from a number of age ranges and locations, like Public School Intelligentsia and Dear Jane Sample, both of whom are devoutly, it seems, against it. in a way, rightfully so. it's unappealing. but...

i think that there has been sight lost on the target group for the video. it's not meant to convince jaded 30-40 somethings to vote through use of the wiles of overpaid celebrity--you and i see through that by now. neither does it appeal to my age group, unless they act younger, because many of us have graduated college, have decided to vote or not vote already, have assessed our politics, and so forth. as such, we likely won't care about the spot.

it is meant to appeal to high schoolers and recent high school grads, whose attentions spans, as i've mentioned and many know, are incredibly difficult to capture. you can't coddle them like mommy and daddy or tell them what they should do. they're teenagers, they're rebellious, and likely, they don't give two shits about you, the government, or Wall Street. but if you get their back up by being condescending, you may just have a shot. MAYBE. though to get them to watch for 4 mins is asking a lot of the ADD generation.

to verify my thought process on this, i tossed my brother, a high school aged kid, the video. told him to watch it and just tell me what he thought. no prepping, no framing. then i asked him a few pointed questions: would it have made you register to vote? what did you think about the use of celebrities? what did you think about the use of sarcasm?

--
the responses were as follows:

on voting:
it would have persuaded me to vote, within reason yes i would try to but it would be put on a list of personal priority meaning i'd get to it asap but i wouldnt go out of my way instantly to do so

on sarcasm:
if i could vote, and wasnt planning to, it sure would've made me feel like crap. their approach was very sarcastic (obviously on purpose). i think the sarcasm was just right, but as i said it would come down to personal priority to whether or not i left that second to register

on celebrity:
sarah silverman(silvermen? sp?) was a little over the top with her...nonsense - it didnt fit well with the seriousness of the video. otherwise they worked well together.

any other thoughts:
ME: if i hadn't told you, specifically, to watch the whole thing, would you have if you stumbled on it?
HE: with a proper description and/or title, yes. i dont just click randomly at yt vids
ME: do you want to add anything else?
HE: the length was abit much, only when they started "waiting" for you to register
--

i don't profess that my brother is the be-all end-all answer; in fact, he's atypical. he's highly aware, interested in politics, and extremely bright. if you were following me on twitter, you noticed that i didn't think he'd like it, since he tends to have views nearly as mature as ours. so if this video works for him, i urge you to think about that, and to ask others in the high school age group what they think. no prepping, no framing. just, does it make you want to vote? food for thought.

"rampant like herpes. for positive."

nice job declareyourself. via socialvibe.

i think the beginning shock value offers enough to keep a younger viewer watching/listening, but after the first two minutes of more and more people telling me not to vote, i may just turn it off before it even gets to the payoff. clever idea, but a bit lengthy. could have survived with slightly less celeb face time by about half. especially since some repeat, even in the "vote if..." section. me personally, i don't need Hollywood telling me to vote, but i've always been politically active. i think this may do well at speaking to the 'newly unregistered 'voter, that is 18-20 types who haven't yet had a big reason to vote, who are still swayed by pop when nothing else will. if, that is, the spot can get past the ADD factor.

good use of ad placement.

YES. YES YES YES.

very rarely do i find an ad placement that absolutely works.
but this absolutely works.

relevant? CHECK. Myspace users are totally the type who may be interested in seeing Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist when it comes out. actually, i intend to.

placement? CHECK. Myspace, having just launched Myspace Music which enables you to put not just 1 profile song but a whole playlist, showcases N&N's Playlist ad above YOUR playlist on your homepage.

was there an ad above your single song player before? no.
do you HAVE to upgrade to a multi-player? NO!

the ad comes with the upgrade, and if the ad continues to be this relevant, if the ads continue at all, then i have absolutely zero problem with them. nice tie-in. kudos. i'm a fan.

if you like Gaping Void...

in honor of my taking my younger brother to AnimeFest tomorrow looking like this, i am showering you with gifts of cartoons. [settle down, anime kids, i know anime is not manga is not cartoon, but, that's about as much as i know about anime.]

if you like cartoons drawn on the back of business cards, you may also enjoy toothpaste for dinner, which was passed on to me by my wicked awesome boss. and it that's not enough cartoon for one day, i want to tell you about My Adnormal Life, which is this really awesome project.

no really. click to see funnies on :15 spots and how clients deal with creative thought.

because pigs are trademarked, duh.

"If you've been on planet Earth in the last 24 hours, you've probably heard the phrase "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig" more times than you can count. Well, we at PETA would like to put our own spin on this phrase and let everyone know that there should never be any real reason for lipstick on a pig unless it's because you've just given a pig a big kiss for being so darn cute." see more here.

i think, despite its political nature, that this approach is a good one for PETA. i actually wished they had thought of it before people decided to get up in arms over mammals in lipstick, metaphorically speaking (because we all know the GOP has a monopoly on the animal kingdom in rouge).

something that never quite made sense to me was the laborious use of half-naked women against animal cruelty. i mean, i get the shock value, and like anything else, if sex sells, why not use it to sell something worthwhile, like animal rights? i get that. but i didn't get what naked women had to DO with making me concerned about animals.

these kinds of ads, showing (in this case) pigs as loveable cuddle mongers in a near-grotesque Cosmopolitan socialite mask goes straight to the heart of the matter much more clearly. at least if you feel animals should be saved out of cuteness, and let's face it, cute is in. look at the news.

and if you're really still that heartless, check out the bacon links i've found. because apparently bacon is the new penguin. but really, check out the bacon flowchart (wtf?). okay. so where's the bacon flavored lipstick?

skewering women to save sharks

it's times like these that Riot's feminisms (that's right, plural, people) are at war with one another. [and if you're not sure the difference in the mindset of different 'waves' of feminism, drop me a line--i'd be happy to explain.]

the stunt at hand: Lush, a company i admittedly love [bring me those massage bars!], was raising awareness on behalf of Sea Shepheard about the hacking of shark fins to make soup [among other things].

at first, the ad-Riot says, okay, this is pretty sweet. using a skin pull, also called suspension, to attract attention from passers-by and draw the parallel that animal folks are into: "animals are people too." not dissing that. the performance artist, Alice Newstead, hung for fifteen minutes.

old-school second-wave college feminist Riot rebukes with, what the fuck is that shite? excellent. let's replace mutilated sharks with mutilated women. that's a brilliant statement. because what's better than information? a half-naked woman giving said information. duh! it only propagates objectification of women, and while that's almost forgivable by corporate slime, progressive groups should know better, or at least think harder. [aka: this is the feminist "external view" or appropriation of the gaze]

post/third wave real world feminist Riot retorts with, whatthefuckever, it's performance art. which is to say, Alice was not in pain, consented, views it as art, for a good cause, and it made her happy to do so. not to mention she had the balls to get those piercings in the first place, and probably did her fair share of skin pulls prior. which is to say: it's her own damn choice and don't put your politics on her beyond that which she is stating: stop cutting up sharks. [aka: the feminist "internal view" or, 'what makes a given female happy is inherently feminist for her']

[i always tend to go toward my third wave views, but the college breeding always makes me feel guilty for it... i hear my Womens101 prof in my head as she rants in disbelief over how i felt classic nudes were not always objectifications. ohhh well.]

anyway. cool and controversial. always a plus in the wondrous world of ads. via.

mad men, ogilvy: at least it's not 'shipping?

for those of you living under very tiny rocks this past week, i will give you a brief summary of the Mad Men AMC fiasco before proceeding. skip between the lines if you've followed.

---
1 - bored unknown assailants 'brand jack' characters from the tv show and portray them on twitter, interacting with one another and fans.
...see also: @Don_Draper, @Roger_Sterling, @Paul_Kinsey, et al.
2 - they develop following, and apparently popularity is bad for AMC, so they legally request the accounts to be suspended, of which the main characters' are. something something copyright.
3 - the awesome folks at Deep Focus convince AMC to stop being asshats. a 'gentle nudge' goes a long way--especially when done with a metal ruler.
4 - but not before the damage was done. the accounts are reinstated but the backlash from AMC's handling thrives.
---

moving right along.

there are a number of things that could have made this situation handled better, and other folks have said that better than i could, so i won't dally there. though i doubt they'll be paying the folks any time soon; that would mean condoning their behavior, and if they go against character grain, AMC will likely want to keep a distance. wtfever.

the greatest backlash, apart from the usual blogging wonders, actually comes from the fans who made the twitter accounts. for some interesting stuff, check out We Are Sterling Cooper [dot com]. they humbly request: "But please, don't treat us like criminals."

which led me to the question: where is the line?

there are fan fiction groups everywhere for everything (almost). i don't follow it, but i know there are ones for Harry Potter, Twilight, Star Trek, and any number of oddities that attract immersion in an 'other world.' (i think the 'other world' is most attractive--that a slip in time or place is more suggestive of immersion.)

these people rarely get sued, if at all, or asked to remove their written work, and often these fanfics greatly vary from the actual characters' intents. for example, 'shipping (a term i learned from @tokyohanna Amber @ Naked earlier this week). imagine Betty Draper and Joan Holloway as lovers. yeah, i didn't think so either--but people write it.

that's not to say you have to like it. this Mad Men twitter thing isn't for everyone. i'm not saying to run out and subscribe to it, proliferate or promote it, but i don't see how it's different from fanfic other than the medium. do you think the fact that it happened on twitter is really the reason for the uproar? twitter, where transparency is expected, even when writing twit-novellas?

~

what i find REALLY interesting, though, is this as of this morning: @David_Ogilvy. it's unverified as to whether or not this is actually him; he styles his name like the other mad men, and followed the mad men characters first. he is pitching @Don_Draper for a 'lunch meeting' concerning hiring.

Don insists he is happy at Sterling, as his character would. but the $5 million question: is Dave impressed by the tenacity of the twittering mad men and looking to hire the Man behind the Draper, OR, is even Dave a "character" and now the link between 1960s advertising fiction and post-millennial advertising fiction becoming a reality? bizarre to think about. which do you think?

branding makes you better in bed.

a funny facebook forward i got
---

You go to a party and see a sexy girl across the room. You go up to her and say, "Hi, I'm fantastic in bed, what about it?"
That's Direct Marketing.

You go to a party and see a sexy girl across the room. You approach her to get her telephone number. The next day you call and say, "Hi, I'm fantastic in bed, what about it?"
That's Telemarketing.

You go to a party and see a sexy girl across the room. Your friend goes to her and says, "Hi, my friend over there is fantastic in bed, what about it?"
That's Advertising.

You go to a party and see a sexy girl across the room. You get up, straighten your clothes, approach her and pour her a drink. You open the door for her, pick up her bag after it drops, offer her a ride, and then say, "By the way, I'm fantastic in bed."
That's Public Relations.

You go to a party and see a sexy girl across the room. She comes over and says, "Hi, I hear you're fantastic in bed, what about it?"
That's the power of Branding!

is your brand a moth or a butterfly?

i was reading Faris' blog, as i usually do, when i came across his post regarding The Moth, a slam-style storytelling circle in NY and LA. apart from the fact that it's bloody awesome (and that i will probably go to the Nuyorican showing), it got me thinking about moths and butterflies--a motif that has been following me for months now.

"the founders felt was analogous to:
the characters in their best stories would often find themselves drawn to some bright light—of adventure, ambition, knowledge—but then find themselves burned or trapped, leaving them with some essential conflict to face before the story could reach its conclusion."

the moth represents conflict with the world. it is the self which both loves and yearns. like the butterfly, it too forms a cocoon and transforms itself, but that is not what it has come to symbolize. the moth is about the tension of reconciliation; the struggle for understanding with the exterior world and our place in it.

the butterfly represents conflict with oneself. the symbolic butterfly is about the personal journey, the thing one must undergo in order to develop into our full potential. it is an interior search. the butterfly becomes a symbol of freedom and beauty once the insect emerges. the story ends there.

the one, emphasis on the interactive journey; the other, emphasis on the personal journey. i identify a lot with moths in that regard, but i also came to think about it in terms of creative, and in terms of advertising. for a long time, advertising has been the butterfly. it has been about the personal, transformative journey of the brand. it is this point of view which expects others to love simply out of the respect and beauty of this journey.

this brand has not yet tried to find its place in the world. it has not reconciled itself to interaction, to the space outside of its own head. some advertising is handling brands like moths, are pursuing that tension between self and other, and are fostering those spaces. they are telling the stories not about themselves, but about connections.

in this way, moth branding is more accessible. it asks me to identify with our common spaces, rather than identify with your personal journey. i am not going to like you because you are a heap big 60 year old auto company that has survived through the years and shown your mettle; i will identify with you on my own terms, the ones that show the light of you and i.

but, like the moth, there will be tension. we are experiencing this now, with words like monetization, cashification, viral, social, what have you. we are trying to find our way through this jungle. advertising is romancing the light. only some will get burned. some will have never tried at all.

[photo shown left: Blue's Creative Outlet, specializing in funky moth & butterfly jewelry]

Enfatico... does something? really?

no, not really. they were just kidding.

as some of you know, Enfatico is the lovechild of the advertising world and Dell. unfortunately, on that hot steamy night of unrelenting passion, no one thought about the learning curve of raising said child. as a result, development of Enfatico has been slow to stunted. as pointed out by the Tribble clock and the now-defunct Enfartico parody website.

it turns out there are baby steps to be made, as released by Tribble this morning. one half jaded lover and one half awesome, Tribble gets the goods in ways i don't understand and won't question. it seems Enfatico has created a website (questionably. advised, a better word?) where you can win a signed Dell (...should i squee with excitement? i'm gonna go with a no. i don't even want a laptop signed by Jobs.) among other social insanity.

i agree with Tribble; with everyone raising emphatic Enfatico pitchforks, why has no one mentioned this site (theoretically a week or so old) in their defense? ...did they actually do something? or are we sitting like step parents at the graduation of some kid we barely know, only to find the kid didn't show?

new Greyhound murder ads, PETA.

first impression: poor form, i'd argue. found here. what do you think? good way to steal the hype and make people draw connections between humans and animals--or is it just too soon? (or just too stupid?)

thin women effect: hating self, loving brands.

according to a study reported on by AdAge, thin women in advertising make women feel poorly about themselves, but good about the brand. viewers will eat less or choose low-calorie options after seeing a thin model, feeling inadequate, but will like whatever product better; yet, when faced with a "normal" sized woman, women are less inclined to purchase the advertised product, but won't monitor their eating. the study was comprised of "a sample of 194 college students aged 18-24."

i feel the need to address this, especially because it's getting attention as a reason for marketers to return to skinny models: they sell product better.

i don't think this is the case. i think for a long time now, women have been living in 'the valley.' no, not like valley girls. i mean this trench from which we try to crawl out of. on one side, expectations and traditions (and don't you dare get me started in a debate by saying 'but they aren't there any more'--bullshit); on the other side, a long way up and out, paved with dogmas and philosophies difficult to navigate, aiming to feel alright in this world and in our bodies.

this shift is still changing.
the valley is getting smaller, but it will take time. this movement is helping more than hurting, if marketers/brands can suck it up a while longer. only in the past decade (being generous) have girls been able to see 'real women' in the media around them. wait for these girls to grow up. then tell me about their confidence, their eating habits, their response to thin models. if the same results hold in 20 years, then i'd consent to maybe there being something in it.

because right now, the valley effect is such that women see skinny women in skinny jeans (for example). that's a goal and aspiration that they were brought up (in many cases) to fulfill, understanding that this is what our Western society views as desirable. they want to be the skinny woman so they can buy the skinny jeans. thus, they get down on themselves, eat less, and do like the brand more--it's a status symbol, a version of self-growth and attainment/contentment.

that is removed for current 18-24 year olds, many of whom grew up on Britney Spears and Spice Girls, when they are shown images like themselves. there is no push to better oneself, no goal to reach, no status attached to something they can readily buy. to put it in perspective: the iPhone. if it was cheap and easy to get, tech geeks wouldn't be all over that shit. the iPhone are the skinny jeans of today's market gurus.

but that desire for the skinny jean will dissipate when it is no longer a status symbol. if the regular jeans are as desirable as the size 00s. to extend the metaphor, when it becomes more about the cut and style of the jeans, rather than the size. this is the shift. don't cut it off from happening. the study also found that seeing regular women was self-affirming, though brand-denying. but i should know better than to ask the industry to consider the end user over the almighty dollar.

[side note.
i'm not even getting into the fact that 194 students is a shitty sample size to be parading this data around on.]

you can still scramble an egg.

or hard boil it. or poach it. serve it benedict or sunny-side-up.
...you get the picture. all i mean to say is perhaps the "chicken-and-egg" theory isn't entirely irrelevant with regards to content vs. context, as a recent AgencySpy post discusses.

as for the preliminary topic of whether content or context is more important in advertising--that is, creating engaging stories versus knowing consumer values--i agree with Frank Scherma on that one. or at least, i think i do. a link was not provided to his actual opinion, but i'm told that it lands a mixture of the two. (test tube eggs?)

i think that, in order to be effective, you need to understand and know your audience first. really know them. don't "think" you know them--most likely, you don't. know them again. you need to care about what they care about. love what they love. be intrigued by the same facets and hold similar priorities. at least when considering strategies.

then, taking that understanding, you craft engaging stories to communicate how a good product can be great for them. because no one wants to hear those exact words: "our product is wicked awesome! for all your _____ needs!" yeah, sure. it could be the exact bloody perfect thing i need, but by then i'll have already tuned it out.

as for the argument that ads may become the overbearing father at a malt shop (to mix blog metaphors for a moment), i'm not sure that's entirely true. YES a lot of purchasing now relies on word of mouth and on credible consumer reviews. YES this shifts the way that some products communicate. key word being some.

"clever ad campaigns be damned" only works when i really give a shit about where my money is going. for example, i'm going to research my digital camera, or my wireless mouse, or what flight carrier i choose, or my cell phone, lap top, insert fancy toy of choice here. point being: fancy toy of choice. i will research when i have to. i will take consumers into account when i want the most value for my buck.

but if i'm buying a new food product i've not heard of before, or buy new music i hadn't heard before, i am not researching that. i am looking at packaging (especially for those impulse buys that get me going back for more). i am watching commercials (anyone notice how more and more, commercials will have little paragraphs at the bottom citing song & artist? no joke.). i am remembering that advertisement i had to sit and stare on for an hour on a bus ride. or a billboard in traffic.

because, dammit, i don't need your opinion on my pack of gum.

consumers are willing to be more risky (take less advice) with (relatively) less expensive items. because of this, we are never going to get rid of the context/content part of the advertising show. we just don't want to be bothered researching every little thing. so while an iPod adapter, of relatively significant cost and quality, will be researched, that song on the commercial i heard will not.

i think the propensity to believe that everything will move toward consumer reviews and recommendations is a symptom of the echo chamber of us tech geeks, who like to be in the know and research every bloody thing, right down to whether or not i should purchase a $34 dress from TrashyDiva (i did, by the way). but take a step back.

try asking people how they came to purchase their last new items (new, meaning have not purchased before). i think you'll find the trend. at least, that's how this observation came to me. i do believe alan's "prom king" theory is entirely correct because it relies on what brands we spend money to care about; brands who say something about us when we choose them. but for those products we can afford to care less about, clever commercials still suffice.

people ignore irrelevant advertising. make it relevant (know your audience and apply that knowledge) and people will start to care, too.

ceci n'est pas un oeuf.

you didn't want that finger, did you?

world's best warning sign evarr, found here, where this spiffy author Shaun has a possible living pic of the Montauk Monster as his user icon. okay, i'm a liar. he has nothing to do with the Montauk Monster. i think his user icon is actually two meercats spooning. check it out. he says some clever stuff, too.

on that note, i'm going to go vacation on Fire Island until sunday. you kids don't get too drunk without me. oh--and if you are the sort who thinks "don't touch that" really is reverse psychology for "please touch that" and you wound up without a finger--check out this youtube video for The Kelly Affair with a drag queen cannibal. it's a badass song by Be Your Own Pet based on the cult film Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. cheers!

relevant ads are relevant?

"If you have an ad that is relevant, you are more likely to pay attention," said Juenger.

really? you think so? you mean ads can be funny... or inspiring... or have a good soundtrack... or generally try and notify us of things we may actually need? ...you mean people haven't entirely lost all interest in trying to spend money? you mean that possibly, just maybe, good advertising is... good? well-targeted? dare i say relevant? nofuckingshit.

but in case you needed a case study to tell you something you could have probably deduced (that the :30 isn't going anywhere, that people watch good advertising, and that like everything else as we move forward, it's about relevancy) then you can read this TiVo study. have fun.

[note: no offense to the blog. studies like this just never cease to amaze me. because what's worse than the deductions is that someone is sitting on a conference room asking for these supportive stats. hello. you watch tv. you are a consumer. what do you do? it slays me when people stop acting like people and become marketers 24/7.]

small town bar supports stumbling home.

drink, don't drive.

travel destination: LIRR, Westin.

so, coming home from a yummy sushi dinner at Azuki last night (if you like sushi, do it up; they're 520 8th ave), i got to staring (as i always do) at the often inane ad posters on the inside of the LIRR trains.

now to begin with, i find these sort of things often funny. frequently the same ad goes up, in the same entrance/exit car, facing each other. as if you didn't get the point on your left, you may need it mirrored on the right. regardless.

this is actually about a train ad i like--mostly.

Westin has been doing some halfway decent advertising in the past year, really breaking the clutter from competitor hotel advertisements by using the age old trick of not showing what you're selling. these train ads, i presume, are part of that campaign. they are really high quality nature images with one phrase of copy and the logo. that's it. if anyone can find a shot of these, let me know--i looked.

they caught my eye because they were nice to see on a dreary train. the copy was even clever. one was a shot of an immense tidal wave and the words "rush hour." another had incredibly tall trees and the word "skyscrapers." another was a shot of para sailing, from the feet down with the ocean, and the words "middle seat." the message was relevant and acute.

there was only one problem ad in the campaign. a pristine shot of a path through the woods. the phrase? "avoid the traffic." this breaks the noun trend they've been using. moreover, it lost relevance. we're on a bloody train. relate to the train, not the car i'm not in. a better phrase? "public transportation."

has anyone else seen these ads elsewhere? what did you think?

how facebook ads are expanding gender use.

i think i'm actually an advocate of the above ad. minus the "fail" part.

courtesy of failblog.org

bits of wisdom.

--Noah Brier

and a story between the lines:


--A.V. Flox // Evelyn


--Joel // Alisa

[some of my 'favourites' starred from twitter]

first impressions. i want to go to prison.

...i mean CP+B. or are they one and the same?
they bring us Prison Bus, their mode of agency public transportation.

excerpt:
"It's designed to look like a prison bus," Bogusky said. "I didn't want it to look like regular public transportation [...] We were trying to describe what we do in a way that's fun. It creates so many different reactions in your mind."

The idea to provide his employees a free means of commuting to the Gunbarrel Business Park offices from Vic's Coffee, Target and area hotels where new recruits often stay was born out of Bogusky's own passion for public transportation.

"I like buses," he said. "But there's a certain hurdle to get people to accept them. I didn't expect that."

yeah. cos dressing up ride to work to look like i'm heading right into prison make me more accepting of buses. public transportation = good. save gas, meet people. making it look like you're heading to work prison = not so good?

---

other first impressions:

Mobile Sensors = scary.
Dimpls = possibility.
Postmodern Social Media = trippy.
Cell Phone Popcorn = funny.
[even funnier when it makes my parents rush out to buy bluetooth headsets.]

all of these to be followed up with further commentary... except the last one.