One of my favorite social media sites would undoubtedly be Twitter. Besides being both fun and challenging to write an insightful comment in 140 characters or less, it's a great way to network and find out what people around the world are doing or thinking. I follow many different types of people/groups be it friends, family, co-workers, advertising agencies and businesses. I also follow various celebrities that I find interesting (I know, guilty as charged.)
A couple of months ago, I started to notice that some of the celebrities I follow were posting "tweets" such as the following:
A bit confused, I started doing some digging. I then came to learn that these "#ads" were sponsored tweets and that there is an actual company (Sponsored Tweets) who specializes in getting celebrities to tweet these ads! Pretty brilliant stuff. Celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Kendra Wilkinson and Carrot Top are among clients willing to be paid just for tweeting. If you watch the quick video below, you can basically see exactly how Sponsored Tweets work.
By gaining this sort of endorsement, people who look up to the celebrity follow the link to the advertiser's site, learn about the product or idea and can potentially increase sales for the advertiser. Pretty simple!
Advertisers are also able to decipher how well their sponsored tweet did based on the metrics the company provides you with. See the below screen-grab; it basically shows you how many times your tweet sparked enough interest to follow the provided link. This way, you can see which Twitter user is the most effective at spreading your message. You also have the ability to 'favorite' a user and can do multiple 'tweet-transactions' through them over the course of time.
Sponsored Tweets also makes sure to point out on their Web site that:
"SponsoredTweets.com facilitates an open relationship between our Tweeters and Advertisers. The Tweeters that engage in a sponsored tweets program are required to disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications with other consumers. Our platform programmatically requires disclosure from all participants, applying standards and compliance system wide."
This disclosure makes me feel that they are being ethical and still business-savvy. A win-win.
Though I am sure that some may be skeptical and critical of this type of advertising, all I can say is .. why didn't I think of that first?!
(Picture courtesy of me, icing my best friend, 2010)
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've likely heard of "Bros Icing Bros," which was a huge internet sensation this summer. According to CollegeHumor.com, the rules are simple and as follows:
Buy Smirnoff Ice, present it to one of your bros in any manner, your bro must instantly get on one knee and chug the Smirnoff Ice on the spot regardless of setting.
You cannot refuse an ice. If you refuse to drink the ice you are instantly excommunicated and shunned, and thus can never ice another bro or be iced.
If you are iced by a fellow bro you can ice block. When presented with an ice, you pull out an ice of your own and reverse the ice on your bro. The ultimate ice insult.
I was seeing and hearing about this happening everywhere. From college campuses, to the workplace, in grocery stores, at weddings and even on airplanes - icing your friends was "the" Summer 2010 thing to do. Thousands of people across the company were flocking to grocery and liquor stores to buy Smirnoff Ice, of all things.
Being a sucker for good advertising, I couldn't help but wonder if this was all a set-up and if Smirnoff was behind the whole thing. According to The Huffington Post, who quoted AdAge,
"[Smirnoff Ice Parent] Diageo has taken measures to stop this misuse of its Smirnoff Ice brand and marks, and to make it clear that 'icing' does not comply with our marketing code, and was not created or promoted by Diageo, Smirnoff Ice, or anyone associated with Diageo"the company said in a statement (Daly, 2010).
Hmm.
According to a New York Times (NYT) article written by J. Goodman, the game could either be a brilliant marketing strategy or could potentially tarnish the company's name. If the ploy was consumer-generated, this would be known as "brand hijacking" and many large brand names are no stranger to these methods.
No matter how the viral game came to be, a few things are for sure. The NYT reports that "such hijacking of a brand is not uncommon, and in this case, it has produced a short-term benefit for Smirnoff, raising awareness of the brand and extending it to young male consumers who formerly shunned the drink as one aimed at women. Sales of Ice products have taken off in in some southern college towns, including Sewanee, Tenn., and Charleston, S.C., where "icing" took early root" (Goodman, 2010).
An increase in both brand awareness and sales are never bad things - but was the viral effort a bad one for the brand? No matter who created the game, it was a great move for Smirnoff, intentionally or otherwise. I truly believe that the more you can get your consumer to interact with your brand, the better.
As the old saying goes "all press is good press." And for Smirnoff, it was great.
Works Cited:
Goodman, J. (2010, June 8). Popular new drinking game raises question, who's 'icing' whom? The New York Times, p. B3.
Daly, J. (2010, June 9). Bros icing bros: not a Smirnoff campaign, Brosicingbros.com taken down. The Huffington Post.
I am sure everyone is familiar with The Price is Right. What is now Drew Carey used to be the infamous Bob Barker, and he would select contestants from the audience to "come on down .. you're the next contestant on the price is right!" People then proceed to flip out, jump up and down and make their way to the stage.
The show is based around countless products, where you have to guess the correct 'retail value' to each one. This continues on until the ultimate "Showcase Showdown" where two contestants battle it out to see which can guess their showcases price the closest.
Click 'play' below to see an example of the "Showcase Showdown"
I love the concept of the show and have grown up watching it, but doesn't it seem like an obnoxiously long 60-minute commercial (48-minutes give or take with the REAL commercials playing during breaks)?
In terms of the show, I think it's a smart move -- advertisers donate their products for free, allowing them to be shown in a great light and promote their features on the show. The show then has an incentive to give to contestants. It's a pretty endless cycle.
The Price is Right is not the only show who does shameless product promotions. Take for example another classic game show in Wheel of Fortune. Although their product promotion is a little less blatant, they still use brand-name prizes to create incentives for the contestants. By having the contestants play in order to win these prizes, people get excited about the brands and it creates a buzz around them.
I have been thinking, and I'd like to do a little experiment. Please answer the poll questions to the best of your ability - I'd like to see if these placements are effective, at least to my readers! If you scroll down a bit further, you will eventually get to see if you were right.
Give up?
Here are the answers:
1. Throughout the series, SATC's Carrie Bradshaw is always writing on her Mac computer. In the movies, she is even using an iPhone.
2. Fulfilling every little girl's dream, Reese Witherspoon is proposed to in the New York flagship store of Tiffany's. She gets to pick out any engagement ring she wants. Don't we all?
3. The characters in "500 Days of Summer" visit an IKEA and pretend to be living in each room.
4. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan frequent a Starbucks for "You've Got Mail." This movie also (obviously) was a huge product placement for AOL.
How did you do? Did you find that you could easily remember where products had been placed in certain television shows and movies? Or do you not really recognize the advertiser in any given entertainment medium?
Of all of the seasons in the year, I'd have to say that Fall is my absolute FAVORITE. Why, you might ask? Besides the gorgeous weather, beautiful colors and plethora of holidays, it is also home to the college football season. Yes, I'm a bit of a junkie. Having been spoiled enough to attend the University of Florida when we had not one, not two, not three, but FOUR different national championships during my tenor (two football, two basketball), I am really into competitive collegiate sports. Specifically the glory that is football.
Many also know that the regular season dictates which bowl game your team participates in. During the 2010-2011 season, there will be 35 bowl games including BCS games. Factor in two teams per game, and that means that there are 70 teams playing in a bowl this season! Though this seems like an astonishing number, it really come as a surprise. It isn't all that difficult to become bowl eligible. NCAA rules state that you must win at least 6 games during the regular season to be considered bowl-eligible. With most teams playing upwards of 12 games, it is seems relatively easy to make the eligibility list.
Bowl games are not standard games though. Since they are aptly-titled "bowl" games, each has a different sponsor. These corporate sponsorships range from Tostito's to FedEx, to even credit unions! The list of sponsors and bowl games can be found by clicking the following link: 2010-2011 Bowl Games.
What makes advertisers want to sponsor these bowl games? Of course just having their name televised and attached to a rather lengthy program increases brand awareness. But do you think that the costs outweigh than the benefits? My personal opinion says that they would, however if you look at the history of these events, you see that many sponsorships last over a decade (this year FedEx ended their 21-year sponsorship of the Orange Bowl. This was the longest sponsorship of a BCS game.) Why do you think sponsors stay in it that long?
I often wonder if the sponsorships are entirely necessary. These sponsorships don't seem to bring much to the table besides money for the game and the two schools participating. Then again, I am not sure that the individual bowls would survive without a corporate name attached to it.
What are your thoughts? Do you think these games NEED corporate sponsors to be successful? Or could they thrive on their own?
There are many factors which play into consumer purchasing behavior. For example, when a consumer enters a grocery store, there are many factors that could potentially influence their purchasing decisions. These factors include (but are not limited to):
He/she may or may not have made a shopping list before heading to the store
He/she may have eaten beforehand, or they may be ravenous
He/she may have a lot of time to peruse the aisles, or they may be on a tight schedule
He/she may have watched television before heading to the store, and have now bought a product that was advertised on that commercial
He/she may be on a budget, so they are only purchasing store-brand items
There is an endless list of outside factors which potentially play a role in the purchasing process.
This begs the question of what can a company do in order to influence a consumer's purchase?One such thing would be to increase their brand awareness.
So what is brand awareness?
Kevin Lane Keller notates in his working paper, "Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands":
"Formally, brand awareness refers to customers' ability to recall and recognize a brand. Brand awareness is more than just the fact that customers know a brand name and the fact that they have previously seen it, perhaps even many times. Brand awareness also involves linking the brand -- brand name, logo, symbol and s forth -- to certain associations in memory...It is important that the brand not only be "top-of-mind" and have sufficient "mind share," but it must also do so at the right times and right places." (Keller, 2001).
Based on the above definition, a company must keep their brand front and center in the consumers' minds (the right place), so that when a purchasing decision is about to be made (the right time), the brand will be remembered and will be purchased.
Buh how does one go about creating and increasing their brand awareness?
Keller believes that depth and breadth are the key components to brand awareness. The author describes depth as "how easily customers can recall or recognize the brand." For example:
If I were to ask you which soup has a red label, which brand comes to mind?
If you answered "Campbell's" to the above question, it's because they have created a strong brand identity and brand awareness for their numerous product lines.
Keller describes the other key component, breadth, as "the range of purchase and consumption situations in which the brand comes to mind."
If I were to ask you what you would want to eat on a cold, winter night, many of you may also answer Campbell's soup. This thought process is again due to a strong brand awareness and relevance to the question -- on a cold night, you would want to consume a product which warms you up, like Campbell's soup.
Television advertisements (as shown below) also help to reinforce a brand's positioning and to help increase awareness.
Do you think Keller has it right -- is it depth and breadth which truly matter when building and maintaining a brand's awareness? Or are there other more important components?
Works Cited:
Keller, K.L. (2001). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands. Working Paper Series, 01-107. Retrieved from http://mktg.uni-svishtov.bg/ivm/resources/CustomerBasedbrandEquityModel.pdf
If you had asked me a year ago what some of the most well-known tequila brands were, I may have answered "Jose Cuervo", "Patron" and "Sauza."
Ask me today and I'd definitely throw "Avion" into that mix.
Does the brand "Avion" ring any bells? Perhaps if you watched HBO's hit series Entourage it would.
It has been reported that the creator of Entourage, Doug Ellin, was writing the storyline for Season 7 and needed a new business venture for Turtle (his car service had gone belly up in Season 6.) Ellin had heard about Avion from a long-time friend, who happened to be one of the partners for the brand; with this friendship a new sub-plot for the series was born. The interesting thing is that the placement cost the company $0 -- just a handshake. For a product to be woven so well into a series for free is pretty amazing.
Check out the quick clip below from CNBC's Fast Money where the hosts talk with Ken Austin, the founder and chairman of Avion.
Having only been on the market for three months now, it obviously begs the question if the Tequila brand will take off because of the placement. Only time will tell.
I came across a great TED talk from Jesse Schell titled "When Games Invade Real Life." You can check it out by pushing the 'play' button below:
A big point of this TED talk was the discussion of 'reality.' Do we escape from true reality to only go into a virtual world and seek out reality?
This discussion really got me thinking. So often we seek out 'reality' through various mediums, be it games, movies, television, etc. Is this a way for us (as the consumers) to find similarities or a common bond to certain programs/games/movies, in turn creating a feeling of familiarity and relation to them?
For example, does the fact that Top Chef uses Whole Foods market as their "go-to" grocery store allow consumers to feel a connection with the show, since they can relate to a previous shopping experience there? Does this plug allow us to feel like we belong? Can we find a reality in all of this?
Gen Y. Otherwise known as "Generation Next," "Millenials" or my personal favorite "Echo Boomers." The demographic is typically made up of 20- and 30-somethings who are very comfortable with technology. This generation is worlds apart from previous generations (such as Gen X), who were "immigrants" to many technological advances, while my generation seems to be made up of the "natives."
Shouldn't it be a piece of cake to target Gen Y? We are eager and open to new things. We're big on multi-tasking. We take risks and aren't afraid to get our hands a little dirty.
Well, apparently it's not.
It seems that the question of, "how do we reach Gen Y?" is continually on the minds of today's advertising professionals.
To get some more insightful and in-depth answers, I decided to dig a little deeper to figure out what makes this demographic 'tick.' To my surprise (and delight), there are actually agencies built around the premise that my generation (and future generations) need to be marketed to in a very different way. These agencies really seem to grasp what these tech-saavy generations are all about.
Take Mr. Youth, an innovative social media agency headquartered in New York City. This agency is based around the fact that consumers (specifically those in the younger generations) need to better engaged with brands. How does one do that? Presenting Five Rules to Engaging a New Breed of Consumer. Partnered with RepNation Media, Mr. Youth relays five new rules to remember when marketing to "Consumer 2.0" and how to apply these rules to your strategy. I've included a small synopsis/excerpt below as a 'teaser' into their insights:
The rule that I found the most intriguing had to be Rule #5, specifically Insight #2. Chamath Palihapitiya, Vice President-Product Marketing and Operations for Facebook is quoted as saying "We are putting advertising back in the hands of the people, so ads are less like ads and more like content and information."
Why do I find this intriguing? Because it is 100% spot on. Gen Y is a generation of non-stop "voting" for the brand you like the most. We join groups on Facebook, "Tweet" about it on Twitter, check-in at certain places on Four Square -- we (as consumers) are a brand's best ambassadors. We have all of the information to influence or change people's opinions, right at the click of a button.
What are your thoughts after reading the above article? Do you think that Mr. Youth has it right -- do these five rules apply when marketing to Gen Y? Or is there another way to really hit home with the Millenials?
How many advertisements do you think that you have seen today?
Did you know that the average American views upwards of 3,000 ads per day (Abadilla, 2010)? Yes, I said that correctly -- 3,000! I couldn't believe it myself, but when I started to think about all of the distractions consumers face on a daily basis, it made much more sense. Advertisements are everywhere we turn in the form of television, print, billboards, radio, internet and countless other marketing tactics.
With so much clutter going on, an advertiser has to wonder how they will engage their target effectively. Luckily, there are quite a few methods that will really resonate with your consumers. Here are a few of my favorites:
Webisodes
A 'webisode' may be defined as an extremely short internet television show. Each webisode may run anywhere from 2-15 minutes in length (O'Neill, 2010) and is usually a part of a larger series. The webisodes are typically sponsored by a specific advertiser, who tends to have a :30 and :60 spot play at the beginning or end of the segment. These tend to be a quite popular way to drive viewers to the Web site of a popular television show and keep them interested, long after their television sets have been turned off.
The emergence of social networking sites like Twitter have allowed companies to reach out and really connect with their consumers. Companies such as Home Depot, Bank of America and Rubbermaid have devoted entire teams of people to listen to consumers' questions, concerns and suggestions. You no longer have to call an "800" number and sit through an automated recording before you can talk to a "real" person. All you have to do is log on to Twitter, search the company you'd like to get in contact with and "tweet" them in 140 characters or less. Don't think it sounds easy? When I was upset about a recent happening at Wachovia, I quickly "tweeted" them, letting them know my thoughts on the issue. Within an hour, I was "reply tweeted" by a representative who sent me the direct phone number of someone who could help. Companies are now using Twitter for customer relationship management (CRM), to help solve their problems and keep up brand loyalty (Razorfish, 2009.) In my opinion, it's definitely working.
Sponsored Television
Sponsored television is certainly not a new concept. Since the advent of the television, companies have sponsored popular cult-classics such as I Love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver. Now, however, companies are not just sponsoring a hit show; they are nearly becoming a part of it. A recent example of this would be Unilever's season-long sponsorship of Mad Men. Unilever has created six ads, set in the 1960's which will run during the current season of Mad Men. According to an article in The New York Times, "The first Unilever brand in the spotlight is Dove, to be followed by Breyers, Hellman's, Klondike, Suave and Vaseline" (Elliot, 2010.) This is the first known instance of incorporating numerous product lines from the same marketer (Elliot, 2010.) By utilizing the look and feel of Mad Men, Unilever is able to connect with the show's viewers and bring relevance to their products.
So what's your take on all of this? Do you think the methods shown above are good ways to allow your consumer to engage with your brand? Feel free to drop me a comment.
~ E
Works Cited:
Abadilla, E. 2010, April 4. 'Advergaming' arrives: RP ripe for digital advertising. Retrieved from: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/250977/advergaming-arrives-rp-ripe-digital-advertising
O'Neill, M. 2010, August 6. All About Webisodes and Brand Content. Retrieved from: http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/223825,all-about-webisodes-and-branded-content.aspx
Elliot, S. 2010, August 3. Commercials in 'Mad Men' Style, Created for the Series. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/business/media/04adco.html
Razorfish. 2009. FEED: The Razorfish Digital Brand Experience Report 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/razorfishmarketing/feed-the-razorfish-digital-brand-experience-report-2009
Eye tracking has long been of interest to me, as I believe it is an extremely fascinating way to discover what really draws a consumer in to a given marketing tactic. As an undergraduate, I was taught that consumers will typically view an advertisement in a "Z" or "Backwards S" pattern, starting at the top left and working their way down to the bottom right.
In recent years, however, studies have shown that consumers are actually viewing advertisements in a "F" pattern. Similar to the patterns listed above, the "F" pattern states that consumers first read the top portion of an advertisement first (from left to right.) The "F" pattern notes, however, that consumers then move to the second line and read from left to right, making the second bar of the F. They then make one vertical look at the page before moving on. The picture below demonstrates a "heat map" where you can see how long subjects' looked at a page and where they looked.
The above is also a great resource into this topic, specifically related to online copywriting. It's a great quick read related to this subject.
So what does all of this mean for your brand? Essentially when trying to reach your consumers, studies are indicating that you need to place your product in the top left corner for the most accurate brand absorption. It has been reported that you will reach between 80-100% of participants by having your name featured in the top left of a marketing element, as opposed to only 10-15% in other areas (Eyetools.com).
Unfortunately I do not have the facts regarding the brand retention rate, but it is still certainly something to keep in mind when placing your brand name or logo anywhere. Top left is the way to go!
Works Cited:
Eyetools.com.Google Search's Golden Triangle [Blog Message]. Retrieved on October 24, 2010 from http://eyetools.com/research_google_eyetracking_heatmap.html
Have you been watching Top Chef this season? If you have, you may have noticed how certain products keep popping up, such as Dial Nutriskin. Not surprising because they are furnishing the $125,000 grand prize for the winner, but the way the products are almost unconsciously placed around the house to get maximum exposure doesn't always leave the greatest taste in consumers' mouths.
So, what is product placement?
According to Meriam Webster, product placement "is the inclusion of a product in a television program or film as a form of paid advertisement."
Do I agree with this definition? Yes and no. There are many times where a company is well aware of their product being used in conjunction with a form of entertainment. There are other times they do not. Regardless of the definition, it is an interesting concept to understand, especially with the invention of TiVo and DVR's, where we can "cut out" commercials by fast forwarding through them. Having an advertisement almost integrated into a program can be a brilliant (or annoying) way to get your product noticed.
Though no one is 100% sure of when the first legitimate product placement took place, most believe that its beginning was in the mid-twentieth century. Whether it was panning over a brand name candy bar or a large, well-known retail store, the use of recognizable products in movie and television story lines started to become more and more prevalent, especially in the 1980's and 1990's.
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
A few of my favorite product placements can be found below. Some of these placements have been good for business, others have not. See if you can guess which ones were a success by watching the clip, then read below to see if your guess was correct.
1. Reese's Piecesin E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial (1982)
Many of you have likely seen the above clip from the 1982 hit movie, E.T., prominently featuring Reese's Pieces in the storyline. Steven Spielberg originally reached out to Mars, Inc. to feature their M&M product as a luring device for the world's most famous alien. The company politely declined. Spielberg then approached Hershey's, and catapulted the relatively unknown Reese's Pieces into mainstream popularity. Sales for the candy reportedly increased by 65% after making their big screen debut. (Marich, 104-105)
This clip shows quite a few spliced scenes in which Tom Cruise is seen sporting Ray-Bans. Perhaps this is because Ray-Ban signed a reported $50,000-a-year deal with Unique Product Placement in order to get their sunglasses placed throughout various movies and television programs (Select Specs, 2009.) Ray-Bans went on to appear in over 60 entertainment programs between 1983-1987; throughout 1983 (the release year of Risky Business), the company reportedly sold 360,000 pairs of Wayfarers. This was HUGE for the company, as they were rumored to potentially discontinue Wayfarers before the release of the film.
3. Reebok in Jerry Maguire (1996)
Many of you may not have known about the above "commercial" which was to be featured during the credits of the hit movie Jerry Maguire. I'm sure you do know, however, that the movie was HUGE for product placements -- over 25 brand names were featured, from Coca-Cola to Gatorade to Toshiba. Reebok was among those companies, reportedly paying Tristar $1.5 million dollars in "merchandise, advertising, promotional support and other benefits" to be featured in the movie (Elliot, 1997.) The agreement was that along with being a part of the storyline, the above "commercial" was to be run during the credits. This of course never happened and the footage ended up on the cutting room floor. Reebok sued for breach of contract, and eventually settled out of court with the studio.
There's no escaping the fact that product placements are everywhere you turn these days. So I want to know your opinion. Product placements: friend or faux?
Feel free to leave a comment for me in the area below.
James. (2009, March 9). Ray-Ban Wayfarer Sunglasses - Popularity of an Iconic Design. [Web log message.] Retrieved from http://www.selectspecs.com/blog/ray-ban-wayfarer-sunglasses-popularity-of-an-iconic-design/
Stuart, E. (1997, February 7.) Reebok's Suit Over 'Jerry Maguire' Shows Risks of Product Placements. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/07/business/reebok-s-suit-over-jerry-maguire-shows-risks-of-product-placement.html?pagewanted=1
Merron, J. (2002, July 15.) Reel Life: 'Jerry Maguire'. [Web log message.] Retrieved from: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020716.html
Marich, Robert. Marketing to Moviegoers: A Handbook of Strategies Used by Major Studio and Independents. Focal Press, 2005. 104-105. eBook.
Welcome to Presence Makes The Heart Grow Fonder, dedicated to helping you understand who today's consumers are and what they are looking for. I hope you find the tools and information presented here both useful and informative. Enjoy.
