Advertising

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Will Firebrand Monday breathe new life into 30-second spots?

Share This!

The 30-second spot isn’t dead, just our patience with being interrupted by them. Those “America’s Favorite Commercials” specials in prime-time television draw strong enough ratings to prove that people—at least, some people—are willing to sit and watch half-minute tales used by advertisers to pitch their wares.

Nothing symbolizes the vibrancy of the 30-second spot more than the Super Bowl, even though many of the big-budget commercials produced just for the spectacle fall far short of expectations. (I look forward to the annual dissecting of the annual ad orgy by John January and Tug McTighe on the podcast, American Copywriter.)

Firebrand is another symbol of our affinity for commercials. The beta site is nothing bit 30-second spots, which you can select by brand, category (I particularly like the “banned” section). I wrote about Firebrand back in November, praising its procrastination qualities.

So it makes perfect sense that Firebrand would find a way to tap into the excitement about the upcoming display of advertising excess. Of course, there’s no official tie-in, but Firebrand has managed to ink a deal with obscure cable station Ion TV (get it? Eye On TV?) to offer a presentation of commercials each night leading up to the big event—which is Firebrand Monday, not Super Bowl Sunday. It almost hurts to think about a website dedicated to advertising doing a deal with a TV station to show commercials.

How obscure, by the way, is Ion TV? I had to do a Web search to find out that it was, in fact, available on my cable lineup, showing reruns of “Drew Carey.” It would be a hoot if the Firebrand campaign built awareness of Ion’s existence.

In any case, everything kicks off tonight with a look at “Big Budget Productions.” Tomorrow, it’s “Chicks in Charge,” a label that might rankle some, but I expect to see at least one of the GoDaddy ads here. “Big Time Celebrities” take over Thursday night and on Friday it’s “Big Time Brands.” Finally, on Monday, it’s the main event, with (as noted in the press release) “Reebok Office Linebacker, Terry Tate, heartbreaker Carmen Elektra and classic Super Bowl commercials!”

There’s more from the press release, where Firebrand CMO Shari F. Leventhal is quoted:

Most people watch the Super Bowl with hopes of seeing the best, most creative commercials the ad industry can serve up. The greatest commercials get to play every day at Firebrand. So the Firebrand Monday campaign is our way of saluting the best of these commercials, past and present, as well as the famous icons that make commercials so memorable, and in many cases, a part of pop culture.

The Firebrand specials air at 11 p.m., 10 central. And Firebrand has even produced a series of ads to promote the effort, like this one:

Still think 30-second spots are dead? Or just the old means of delivering them?

Oh, by the way, I think there’s also a football game on Sunday. Maybe my sports-fan friends in Boston can set me straight.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Rogers experiment is bad for business

Share This!

Companies should worry about the experiment Rogers is undertaking in Canada.

Rogers—one of the largest Internet Service Providers in Canada—has begun inserting ads at the top of screens, above the website to which customers have navigated. (A screen shot of Google’s spartan home page defaced by a Rogers ad was oroginally posted to Lauren Weinstein’s blog. Google, of course, authorized nothing of the sort.)

The messages in the experiment relate to customers’ accounts: The screen shot shows a message alerting the customer that he is about to reach his data limit and provides information on how he could upgrade his account to allow more surfing. It’s a small step, though, to using the technology to deliver targeted ads based on the kinds of sites a user has visited.

Most of the commentary on the Rogers experiment have pointed to the need to legislate Net neutrality, noting that this program puts the issues into sharp focus. Weinstein—co-founder of People for Internet Neutrality—said in an interview with Wired:

This is what Net Neutrality is about—it’s not just making sure that data is handled in a competitive and non-discriminatory manner, but it’s also that the data that’s sent is the data that you get—that the content is unmodified, not with messages that are woven into your data stream [from third parties].

Indeed, the separation of content from the pipes that deliver it is a founding principle of the Internet. Or, as ”Good Morning, Silicon Valley” put it, “Bits should be bits, and pipes should be pipes, and the latter should know or care nothing about the former, merely deliver them as instructed.”

From a business standpoint, though, there is more to worry about than the general creepiness of your ISP inserting content on the pages you visit. Consider, first of all, the amount of time and money organizations invest in site design. A lot of effort goes into ensuring key content appears on the home page. A look at the Rogers customer’s screen shows the account status notice occupies a good 25% of the screen, pushing the Google home page down. What vanishes below the fold on your website could be content you assumed people would see without having to scroll to get to it.

ISPs interfering with what people see when they visit your site will throw site design into chaos and render most current designs ineffective.

But wait. There’s more.

How would Mattel feel if the ad appearing over its home page was from Hasbro? The system analyzes past surfing habits but, as far as I can tell, doesn’t account for the actual site being viewed. Chervron ads could appear over Exxon’s website, Republican ads over Democratic content, Nordstrom ads over a Macy’s page.

I fear that a lot of businesses will simply look at the Rogers experiment as a new channel for deploying their own ads. Instead, companies should unite in opposition to the practice and people who didn’t agree with the desirability of Net neutrality should think again. This may be one more way for Rogers (and their ISP brethren) to eek a few more bucks out of the Net, but I would hope that the unified opposition to the program will spell its quick demise.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Firebrand: TV commercials as entertainment

Share This!

The whole Web 2.0 thing has produced a number of assumptions that a lot of people have started taking for granted. Among these is the assumption that there is no creativity in traditional advertising; all the creativity has transitioned to individuals who express it in the form of consumer-generated content.

It’s not hard to buy into this notion. After all, we use our DVRs to fast-forward through commercials we just don’t want to see, yet we readily watch the efforts of individuals who post them to YouTube. Blogs and books are dedicated to CGM. Joe Jaffe has built a reputation around the idea that marketers can no longer expect results through wanton upfront spends.

It’s silly, though, to presume there is no creative talent in the advertising business. It’s just that watching television in its linear format makes it hard to spot the creative gems among all the detritus. Which makes Firebrand, now in Firebrand such an intriguing concept.

I must admit that initially I scoffed at the idea of a website that aggregates mainstream television commercials for people to watch. But I have found the site strangely compelling, a first-class time-waster. The spots on display at Firebrand are inventive, creative, irreverent and just plain fun to watch.

The folks at Firebrand have ammassed an impressive collection of advertisers, including Coca-Cola, Geico, Trojan (with a standout commercial featuring pigs in a bar), Sony, XBox, Adidas, Apple, FedEx, Gatorate, Kellogs, Motorola, McDonald’s, Smirnoff, and dozens more. You find commercials by selecting the brand or choosing a genre (action, sports, animation, etc.). A few playlists are also available, like “Premieres” and “Firebrand Selects”. You can also select spots as your favorites.

As for interactivity, each video features a rating system and the ability to email it to a friend and to download it. There’s also a “Blog this Spot” link that provides you with the embed code and link to the video. A couple of links are disabled, including a shopping cart.

Firebrand is just entering into this public beta, so I’m not concerned about aspects that seem to be missing or some of the opportunities that haven’t yet been introduced. For example, commenting on commercials is a must-add. And just like I can compile a list of music in a Facebook application, a Facebook app that lists my favorite commercials on Firebrand would be cool, too. (Apparently, you can share your favorites on iTunes and a few other places, but I haven’t figured out how just yet.) Finally, there isn’t a way to engage directly with the advertiser (short of whatever the shopping cart will be used for); turning these ads into a two-way conversation with advertisers would take Firebrand to another level altogether.

It also sometimes locks up in Internet Explorer, although I haven’t had a problem in Firefox. These are the types of issues betas are designed to iron out.

But in its early beta, Firebrand is a lot more interesting than I expected it to be and reinforces that there’s still plenty of energy and creativity in those old advertising agencies we’ve all had so much fun bashing of late.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

WaMu: Hype vs. reality

Share This!

A marketing/advertising campaign that highlights the differences between your company and your competitors is great, assuming those differences are real. When they’re not, the perception you’ve created will only serve to frustrate customers who expect to experience the image you’ve created.

I had a direct experience with the gap between hype and reality this past week with Washington Mutual (WaMu), the bank that positions itself as the human, caring bank, drawing a line between their casual approach and the stiff, hidebound demeanor of the other guys. First, there’s the language WaMu uses to describe itself on its website:

You’ll know it right away: We’re really not like other banks.

We’re informal, friendly and fun. We take our customers’ money seriously, but not ourselves. We even call ourselves by a fun name that started out as a nickname years ago: WaMu.

We’re the bank for everyday people.

In fact, we believe no one else focuses on consumers, small business and commercial customers like we do. We listen to our customers and give them what they value--yet at the same time we make banking simple and enjoyable.

The advertising features a casually dressed young spokesman juxtaposed against a horde of older, stiff, formal competitors.

Nice image. Here’s the reality:

If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that my son, who completed his three-year enlistment in the U.S. Army two years ago, was activated for another 400 days in Iraq (he spent a year in Iraq with the 101st Airborne during his enlistment). Once he got his orders, he was in a frenzy of preparation for about a month.

Upon arriving at Ft. Benning, Georgia, where he was ordered to report, he realized he was out of money. He called and asked if I could put a couple hundred bucks in his WaMu checking account. I went to the bank with cash, but was told his account had been closed. It had been overdrawn for over 40 days.

I asked about the overdraft amount. It was $5.98, $5 of which was a bank charge. Fine; Ben was preoccupied with preparations for his return to war (and by the interruptions it was creating—he had just become engaged and was on the brink of beginning a new career). I would just pay the overdrawn amount and reopen the account.

Sorry, I was told. We can’t reopen the account. “The circumstances don’t qualify for an exception.”

I explained that Ben had been recalled by the Army and that his WaMu ATM was his only access to cash, and that he probably missed the statement because of the rush to get ready to report.

Sorry, those are the rules, I was told. Ben could open a new account online. Fine, I said. Can the new account be linked to his existing ATM card? No, I was told. It would take about a month to get him an ATM card. By which time, of course, he’ll have been deployed.

I called Ben to explain the situation and he was stunned. “I was in the bank three weeks ago handling the paperwork for direct deposit of my Army paycheck,” he said. “Nobody said anything about my being overdrawn.”

I explained what Ben had told me. The answer I got:

“It’s not our responsibility to tell him. He should have checked his statement.”

Strictly speaking, Ben was overdrawn and didn’t check his statement. His attention was elsewhere. But this is the bank that “gives customers what they value” and makes “banking simple and enjoyable.”

I’ve been racking up sizable charges sending money to Ben via Western Union as he opens a new account with Wachovia so the Army has somewhere to deposit his paychecks. When his ATM card arrives, we’ll have to ship it to him in Iraq. At the end of my last attempt to get WaMu to make an exception and reopen the account, I was reminded that he could open a new account. You think? When $5.98 matters more than the sacrifice a customer is making for his country? When their caring attitude is captured in the statement, “It’s not our responsibility?”

The Stanley Cup Playoffs will be held in hell before anyone in our family has anything to do with WaMu again.

When you hype your company the way WaMu does, you’d better make sure the customer experience is in synch. Otherwise, you wind up with posts like this one.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Facebook advertising: There must be a model that will work

Share This!

Much of the reporting of Microft’s acquisition of a piece of Facebook has questioned the ultimate value of the social network. (Microsoft’s investment puts the total value of Facebook at about $15 billion.) With advertising as the only significant revenue channel, many are wondering if people networking on sites like MySpace and Facebook are paying any attention to the ads.

In a tweet today, Todd Defren underscores the point:

For all the hoopla about Facebook, you’d think there would be a wider variety of (classier) advertisements. It’s all “romance” stuff now.

While I did see an ad on Facebook today from Chrysler, you still have to wonder about the generic nature of the advertising in what is surely a venue that is used for mainly niche-focused activites. Consider that I have 259 friends on Facebook, and 258 of them have something to do with the PR/communications business. (The exception is my son who, contrary to conventional wisdom, friended me.) For me, Facebook is a professional pursuit, even if it means keeping up with the personal activities of professional colleagues. (Any executive who ever closed a deal on the golf course knows the value of that.) But what interest would I have when participating in, say, Joseph Jaffe‘s “Jaffe Juice” group, in a Discover credit card? (That’s the ad being served up to me on Joe’s group at this moment.)

The “For Immediate Release” group associated with For Immediate Release—the podcast I co-host with Neville Hobson—is presenting an add from cbCampus.com; my own cause-focused group related to my Stop Blocking campaign dishes me an ad for home furnishings from JC Penney.

I gotta admit, when I’m perusing these groups for communication-related content, an ad for a lamp isn’t going to attract my attention.

On the other hand, an ad from, say CustomScoop, a media monitoring service, or Proofread Now might very well interest me. It’s all about context.

It would be in the interests of profit-motivated social networks like Facebook to explore models that would allow users to choose the ads that will apear on their profiles and groups—particularly if they can share in the profits. This isn’t exactly an original concept. As a member of the Blubrry podcast network, I get offers fairly routinely to run ads on FIR. The advertiser benefits from the aggregate total number of podcasts promoting the product or service.

Some customization is already in the works at Facebook, but most of it is geared to keeping unwanted advertising off off a profile or group, and is aimed at appeasing the advertiser, not the Facebook member. (This got a fair amount of attention when people started complaining about advertisers perceived to be supporting the extreme right-wing political party in the U.K. when their ads appeared in rotation on the party’s Facebook group.)

It would certainly be more labor intensive for Facebook and its peers to set up a targeted ad insertion effort, but the click-through rates derived from relevant ads would certainly be higher than they are now (according to some reports). Ultimately, I suspect Facebook could make more money from thousands of smaller advertisers (think the likes of PR Newswire or Ragan Communications in the communications space) than they can from a few huge, generic brands.