My Thoughts on the 2010 Superbowl Ads (Cross-Post)
by Brian Reich | 8 Feb 2010, 11:18am
I spent far too much time writing down my thoughts about the 2010 Superbowl advertising on my Fast Company blog. Anyway, here is my post:
I was unimpressed with most/all of the advertising during last night’s Superbowl — and I know I am not alone. There are, of course, several different lines of attack I could level against the brand and advertising community:
- The ads lacked creativity or originality — isn’t that the very thing the brand and advertising community pride themselves on most?
- The ads weren’t funny — and even if they were funny, was that the best (or only) way to attract attention and deliver a message to the audience?
- Most ads were clearly anti-women — is it really necessary to cut down a whole segment of our society, and the viewing audience, to sell your product?
- There was very little TV-to-online/mobile connection made — don’t you understand how people are watching television today, or the ways we get/share information about products and services?
But I don’t want to add to the pile of criticism that the brand and advertising community is certain to be digging out from underneath this morning. I want to try to help. I have made my share of mistakes when putting together campaigns for my clients and I know that constructive, focused feedback always helps me improve for next time.
Read the whole post here: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/brian-reich/im-media-te-impact/my-thoughts-2010-superbowl-ads?1265645619
What Attracts A Click Doesn’t Matter
by Brian Reich | 3 Dec 2008, 12:50pm
The New York Times reports this morning that advertising folks are changing their strategy — focusing more on things like color and font instead of ideas and messaging to get a user to click through an online ad. The article begins:
Online advertisers are not lacking in choices: They can display their ads in any color, on any site, with any message, to any audience, with any image.
Now, a new breed of companies is trying to tackle all of those options and determine what ad works for a specific audience. They are creating hundreds of versions of clients’ online ads, changing elements like color, type font, message, and image to see what combination draws clicks on a particular site or from a specific audience.
It is technology that could cause a shift in the advertising world. The creators and designers of ads have long believed that a clever idea or emotional resonance drives an ad’s success. But that argument may be difficult to make when analysis suggests that it is not an ad’s brilliant tagline but its pale-yellow background and sans serif font that attracts customers.
The advertising world is still missing the point. First, people don’t like advertising - at least not when it is presented as an interruption (something that will take you away from whatever you were reading/watching online). It doesn’t matter what color or font style that ad features, if it distracts from the user’s activity online, their likelihood of clicking on it will be low and their interest in the brand/organization/advertiser will be even lower. Second, the click-through is actually the easiest part of the process, and the least important when it comes to delivering value to your audience/consumer/customer or completing a transaction. The real challenge begins once you get a user to click-through, in terms of how you present information on the landing page and how you develop a relationship going forward.
I’m glad to hear that advertisers are trying to figure out how to increase the effectiveness of online advertising. I just wish they would think more about the user/audience and how to enhance their experience. And my experience would suggest that font and background color aren’t the way to get there.
TAGS
: Advertising New York Times
1 comment
Why Does Advertising Suck?
by Brian Reich | 12 Aug 2008, 2:00am
Most of the advertising on television sucks.
Some ads make you laugh. Others make you think. And, every now and then, you’ll actually see an ad that (gasp!) makes you want to buy the product it is promoting. But really, if you think about it, most of the ads that appear on television aren’t worth the air time they consume.
This point has been reinforced for me while watching the first few days of Olympic programming.
- VISA’s ads are boring.
- I have seen two McDonald’s ads - neither impressed me. The McDonald’s happy meal commercial (featuring the kids who lose the soccer game but get happy meals as a consolation prize - which of course is really better) is too long, and drags — and the commercial about the new southern chicken sandwich actually makes me want to be sick.
- The Budweiser ads are formulaic (and in at least one case, where the thoroughbred wants to make the team, a repeat from the Superbowl)
- The Barack Obama campaign ad confuses me while the John McCain ad just makes me angry.
- The Exxon Mobil ads are thoughtful, but I’m not sure it makes me want to buy more gas (or even visit their website to find out more about their science programs)
- The AT&T commercials are annoying (and the model is getting tired)
- The Nike ads are beautiful, but make me anxious (too much!)
- And not a single one of the car ads makes me want to go out and buy a vehicle (and I am actually in the market right now).
The closest thing to a good commercial I have seen this week is the +8 ad that AIG is running - and all they did was take a video from YouTube showing a laughing baby and add a couple sentences of dialogue.
So my question is this - why produce such bad advertising? Is it really that difficult to produce advertising that doesn’t suck?
Look, I am not stupid - I know that a big reason that companies spend millions of dollars on advertising is so that I will recall their brands. And yes, me writing a blog post that uses specific commercials as examples when lamenting the poor state of advertising is evidence that the advertising is serving its purpose.
But just because I can recall the brand doesn’t mean that a poorly executed ad is doing its job. Does the advertising industry really think that the work they are producing is good - or do they not care because they get paid regardless? Do the media that cover the ad space really think they are doing us all a service by letting mediocre (or worse) ads get off without a scolding?
I would love nothing more than to write a post about the wonderful ads I have seen, the creative ideas that were shared, or a product that I really felt was worthy of my investment after seeing it on television. But I can’t.
So my hope instead is that someone will tell me why so many of the ads I see aren’t good, and what I am supposed to do about it.
quarterlife crisis?
by Brian Reich | 2 Mar 2008, 2:00am
“Quarterlife,” the first Web-based drama to air on network television, has been canceled by NBC after a dismally rated first episode but will move to sister cable channel Bravo, people close to the show said on Thursday.
The highly touted online series about a group of young artists bombed in its NBC debut on Tuesday night, drawing the network’s lowest ratings and smallest audience for that time slot in at least 20 years, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Ouch.
Let’s be honest - ‘quarterlife’ was doomed from the start. It was designed for MySpace, to be distributed on the web, but it ended up on television instead. The subject matter was specific to the web. The production style was suited for online. Everything that Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick, the Emmy-winning producers of “thirtysomething” and “My So-Called Life” had put together was geared towards an audience of 20-somethings who get their content primarily (if not entirely) online.
So why did NBC buy the program and put it on TV? My guess is because they thought they could make more money with advertisers, get a larger viewing audience to tune in, instead of log on. They were wrong.
There is an audience out there that wants to see a well produced drama about 20-somethings. Some are still watching television regularly, and maybe NBC will find success putting ‘quarterlife’ on one of its more targeted cable channels (though I would guess not in this case). You see, the majority have found other ways to get their entertainment: through the web, on their mobile devices like cell phones and iPods, and within social networks (which, while online, have a whole different way of operating).
NBC should have known that, the evidence of this shift in how people get and share information is not hard to find. I think they did know, and they chose to ignore it.
TV networks haven’t found a good reason to break their old habits and old models. They still make plenty of money doing things the wrong way. And they get pressure from advertisers, who don’t understand that times have changed either, to keep doing things the same way they always have. Networks like NBC, and their advertisers, will probably make money this way, the wrong way, for a few more years. But, the audience is changing and their (our) expectations have changed dramatically. The networks, and their advertisers, must radically change their activities and recognize that a new world requires a new way of operating. Until they do, you will see them fall flat on their faces time after time, just as they did in the case of ‘quarterlife.’
Stay tuned, I guess…
TAGS
: Advertising Free Advice TV
leave a comment
I want XM and Sirius to merge
by Brian Reich | 20 Jan 2007, 2:00am
I really want XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio to merge.
Why? I want to hear Dave Niehaus, the best color man in baseball, call Mariners games for me every night. I want live happily in Boston and know how my Seahawks and Sonics are playing without stalking the crawl on the bottom of ESPN2 each night. I want to follow NASCAR without having to sit in front of my television for six hours on a Sunday. Its not just about sports though, I want to hear what Oprah and her friends have to say about eating healthy and decorating my house. I want to get public radio coverage from around the country without having to sit by my computer and stream it. I could go on.
All that is available to me, of course, but only if I subscribe to both XM and Sirius. I have come close to choosing before. I received Sirius as a Christmas present two years ago and never activated it - mostly because because the football season was already winding down and I didn’t want to wait until next season to start getting full value out of my subscription. I have gotten all the way to the checkout screen on the XM Satellite Radio website three times in the last few months, in anticipation of another exciting baseball season, only to bail out in hopes that the rumors of a merger will soon come true.
If XM and Sirius merged, I could buy one good piece of hardware and one subscription and get everything I wanted. I would pay good money for it. I would enjoy it thoroughly. I don’t think I would be alone.
Simply put, I don’t think my desire to hear a variety of different types of programming from one source is unreasonable. And I think it is well past time when the two satellite radio giants, and the government, got in line with my thinking.
Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times today (Times Select subscription required) about the possible merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. While most of his column is about the regulatory aspects of the proposed deal and whether the FCC would support the creation of a single satellite radio giant, he does get to the heart of the matter - and seems to be in agreement with me.
[The two companies] also compete, of course, for content. Most famously, Sirius has Howard Stern, who signed a $500 million five-year deal with the company and moved his shtick to satellite radio at the beginning of last year. (Last week, the company announced that Mr. Stern had earned an $82 million bonus, claiming that he brought in far more revenue than he cost the company.) XM has an Oprah Winfrey station. Sirius has professional football and has pried Nascar away from XM. XM has Major League Baseball — and took the National Hockey League away from Sirius. Both have loads of news and talk and music channels, but XM’s channels tend to be more eclectic than Sirius’s.
On the face of it, this all sounds terrific for consumers. “Choice is always a good thing,” said Ryan Saghir, who blogs about satellite radio at Orbitcast.com — and opposes the idea of a merger. But it is not quite as terrific as it sounds. For one thing, what if you are a fan of both baseball and football? What kind of choice is it to have to decide between them? Or what if you like both Howard Stern and Oprah? (Well, O.K., that’s not a good example.) It is hard to think of another technology that forces subscribers to make that kind of choice.
Joe Nocera wants to listen to baseball and football on the same device, and the same subscription, as well. His column sounds like a desperate plea from a radio junkie like me to make it happen. Hey, Sirius and XM… hey, FCC… if you won’t listen to me, will you listen to Joe Nocera?
I can understand why the FCC might be nervous about giving the green light for a merger of this size. But with appropriate monitoring and regulation - to ensure that a merger betwen XM and Sirius wouldn’t drive prices for consumers out of proporition with the market (something Nocera seems to argue isn’t likely because of the continued influence of free radio) - the potential benefits to consumers far outweighs the risks. And I can understand why XM and Sirius are both believers in their product so much that they would rather compete to the death than cede control of their operation to their arch rival. But really, would you all think about the consumer for a moment?
Rather than forcing customers to choose betwen services (a fact that I believe is actually driving down interest in satellite radio, and probably radio in general), the FCC could bless the creation of something that would provide a far better radio product than what is available today. XM and Sirius could create the ultimate radio programming center, pitting their efforts against folks like Clear Channel who have sucked all the feeling out of radio in their quest to dominate the airwaves everywhere. The merger would force traditional radio stations to compete with better programming and an alternative business model (advertising instead of subscription — a mix which I think is totally possible if you do it right). And, best of all, I wouldn’t have to live without access to the programming I want because I find it unreasonable to have to buy/subscribe to two services instead of one.
Please FCC? Please XM and Sirius? Do it for Joe Nocera! Do it for me!
TAGS
: Advertising Free Advice From the Trenches New York Times News Radio
leave a comment
Why Candidates Watch What You Buy
by Brian Reich | 31 Oct 2006, 2:00am
AdWeek has an article about micro-targeting - the political strategy of using lifestyle data (magazine subscriptions, shopping habits, etc.) to target and communicate with voters. I am quoted.
My first quote is about the value of micro-targeting:
“You are now targeting based on behavior,” says Brian Reich, a senior strategic consultant at Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a Washington public affairs shop that handles lobbying and ballot initiatives. “You understand a lot more about a person based on how they spend their time and money, rather than on how they identify themselves.”
My second quote is about the difference in approach to elections demonstrated by the Republicans and the Democrats:
The Democrats’ data-gathering strategy pales in comparison. Prior to this year, some states lost or discarded voter data between elections, according to the DNC. And unlike Republicans, who handpick candidates early on and develop corresponding campaign messages before the upcoming race, Democrats often find themselves playing catchup — waiting until a candidate gets the party nomination, then figuring out how to sell him or her to the voters.
The disparity between these arrangements is obvious. “If you wait until [a nomination] to tell people you have to mobilize, you have a problem,” argued Reich. The Democrats are now in a scramble —and the stakes are high. Many political observers are predicting that the GOP may lose its lock on both houses of Congress. But for that to happen, the Democrats must win 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
I have never tried hid my frustration with the Democratic Party and its use of technology. I wrote an article for Personal Democracy after the 2004 cycle about the mistakes I felt the Democrats had made in developing their database for example. And while the Democrats have made a much larger commitment than many expected over the past two years, I think the Republicans are are still far ahead of the Democrats, and have a more practical approach to the use of technology to support their election activities.
The Democrats will probably win big next week — take control of the House, maybe the Senate as well. Still, the Democrats will lose some close seats because the Republican message and turnout machines are using technology in a more focused and efficient way. They have identified the most important political activities and found ways to use technology to support their efforts - whether its targeting and message delivery, opposition research, Get-Out-The-Vote or similar. In other words, technology is not the story.
If the Democrats do win big, the message that more needs to be done will likely be lost… the focus will be on the President’s failures in Iraq or the corrupt practices of the Republican leadership in Congress. Political experts and the media give credit to liberal bloggers, or the few candidates who found a way to tap MySpace or YouTube with changing the face of politics. And while there is some truth to that, and they all deserve some credit for pushing this discussion forward, there is more to the conversation.
Democrats continue to invest in technology, and I believe they are closing the gap that exists between them and the Republicans in this area. But, there is still a fundamental difference in the philsophies of the two parties — and until Democrats position technology as an element of the campaign, and not the story itself, the Republicans will continue to have an advantage.
TAGS
: Advertising Campaign Web Review Clips and Tips Commentary Free Advice politics Technology
leave a comment
SRI In the Rockies: The Big Picture
by Brian Reich | 30 Oct 2006, 2:00am
I spent the weekend in Colorado Springs, CO attending SRI in the Rockies, the annual gathering of the socially responsible investment industry in the United States. I was there to participate in a panel about online marketing and host a topic table at lunch on the same topic. I also had an opportunity to attend some of the speeches and sessions — and learned some new things about climate change its impact on disease, micro-finance and, perhaps most interestingly, the future of the internet.
Bob Veres, an author, speaker, and one of the most influential people in the financial services industry (socially responsible or otherwise) gave a talk entitled ”The Next Society.’ The focus of his talk was how the world of sustainable investments has changed, and continues to evolve, and how the world is now following the lead of SRI - for the better. He noted that a decade ago, social screens were seen as a depressant on fund performance while today, social screens are the very best way to evaluate corporate character and avoid surprises in your portfolio.
Then he launched into a commentary on the changing nature of communications and how it relates to the tough work of changing the world. Here are my (rough) notes:
- The media industry is in crisis. Stories are covered and then disappear. Stories are covered by people who don’t know much about the subject and who have a very short attention span. The future of news will be an environment where you can access a lot more information, a lot better information, from people who know a lot more than reporters. And it will make everything more focused, more meaningful, and more actionable.
- The web has created a hostile world for advertising. As we move towards the web as a content delivery vehicle, corporate america will not be able to artificially create demand for their products and services. It is harder and harder for advertisers to gain interest and traction. That is why TV advertising is suffering and that is why the future of communications will be information/content-centric, and not marketer driven.
- We are experiencing the death of the consumer economic system. Why? It doesn’t relate to the issues that people actually care about most. That has also given rise to the concept of “Life Planning.” People are finding they don’t want more stuff. They want more fulfillment from their lives. How do they know?
Ask yourself, if you had one day left to live, what would be your biggest regret? Write down 30 goals you want to achieve this year (the first ten will be easy, the second ten more difficult, the third ten will make you did deep). If you had all the money in the world, what would you want to do?
- How can we change the world? He offered two directives:
1) Operate in your zone of personal genius. Imagine a circle, with a circle inside that, and a circle in side that. At the center of that innermost circle is a blue dot that represents your greatest energy, focus, and passion. That is where we must all operate - get rid of the distractions and just work within our blue dot.
2) Hire a coach to help you get there. They will help you put aside all of the work you do for others and help you focus on just what you need. The coach will nag you because they will present your own goals back to you in such a compelling way that you will do for them what you can’t seem to find a way to do for yourself.
- The way we work is changing. You are going to see most of the world’s work being done by ad hoc teams who are experts in their field and who are operating within their blue dot. You will see corporations (who right now have office buildings filled with generalists and inefficient information flow based in hierarchy not expertise) “melt like sugar cubes in the rain.” The people who own the assets will control them - you won’t need marketers, etc.
- The internet will become the superconductor of human and financial capital.
The speech made me think. Not sure quite yet what it all means, but rarely does a conference speech make me think like this one did, so that must mean something.
TAGS
: Advertising Citizen Journalism Citizen Marketing Conferences/Events Event Coverage From the Trenches Journalism Marketing News
leave a comment
Candidate Wal-Mart
by Brian Reich | 29 Aug 2006, 2:00am
The New York Times reports this morning that Wal-Mart has launched a political-style advertising campaign.
In a local experiment that is eventually to be seen across the country, the giant discount retailer began broadcasting two television spots that, in unusually detailed terms, trumpet its health care plans, charitable contributions and positive impact on the American economy.
The ads do not attack Wal-Mart critics but introduce its merits, much as a candidate would. “Our low prices save the average working family $2,300 a year,” says the narrator of one ad. “Which buys a lot of things — and a whole lot of freedom.”
The article explains that the ads “represent a significant departure from its practice of rebutting critics in the media but presenting itself, at least in consumer television marketing, as untroubled by its image problems.”
I actually think the Wal-Mart folks are doing something more meaningful with this ad campaign… or at least are on their way. Americans are fed up with angry politics. The average person wants to be represented by individuals and organizations who stand for something, or who genuinely seem interested in helping make their life better. They want to know someone is on their side.
Sure, Wal-Mart is an easy target for a political candidate. And this campaign is probably more CYA than anything at this point. But millions of families across our country depend on Wal-Mart. Do you think those people who shop at Wal-Mart, or who are employed by Wal-Mart, see Wal-Mart as a bad thing? Maybe they can’t afford to shop anywhere else on a regular basis. Maybe Wal-Mart is the only store who has located in their community and brought real jobs when other companies closed down. Whatever the reason, beating up on Wal-Mart to score political points is a cheap score. Politicians should be working with Wal-Mart to make our communities stronger and support American families, just as Wal-Mart can be doing more to look beyond profit as a motive for its actions. Trust me, there is profit/benefit for everyone in this kind of model.
Wal-Mart still has more work to do in order to truly engage American consumers and build their trust. A couple of commercials aren’t going to do it. Wal-Mart has an obligation to launch a real conversation about the important issues facing our country. As the leading retailer in virtually every consumer brand category in the world, Wal-Mart is in a unique position to impact how people think, how they shop, and how they live, and they should use that power to show people how to improve their lives. They are already made strides on clean energy by committing to use environmentally friendly light bulbs in their stores. Well, we have an obesity problem in this country and Wal-Mart can help to address it by encouraging (and facilitating) the sale of low-fat foods to families who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them. We have a health-care crisis in this country, and Wal-Mart can do its part (not only by providing better health care to employees, but also) by training employees, even communities, on how to live healthier lives. And on, and on.
I applaud Wal-Mart for talking about serious issues in ther advertising and I hope that this campaign is the first step towards a real commitment to engaging the American public in a thoughtful dialogue about how we can all grow stronger as a nation.
Roddick vs. Pong
by Brian Reich | 27 Aug 2006, 2:00am
Its US Open Time, and that means lots of creative tennis themed TV commercials. I was watching the USA Network (don’t ask) and saw one for American Express featuring Andy Roddick vs. Pong in a tennis match. In a related ad, viewers are invited to see if they could beat Pong in a tennis match. Log on to http://www.stoppong.com/ and see how good you are.
TAGS
: Advertising From the Trenches Games Sports TV
leave a comment
Recruiting for Straight Talk America
by Brian Reich | 25 Jul 2006, 2:00am
I came across two ads this morning on Boston.com from Republican Senator and rumored Presidential Candidate John McCain. The ads are simple, encouraging online users to “Join Senator John McCain’s Straight Talk America.” When clicked on, the page drops to a simple landing page with a sign-up form.
I will assume that Senator McCain is trying to recruit support for his campaign in New Hampshire — why else would his ads appear on the sports section in the Globe (online)?
TAGS
: Advertising politics
leave a comment
