I have to say that I was struck by LVMH’s new ad campaign portraying artisans lovingly creating Louis Vuitton products by hand.  I’ve seen three: one of a (from the ad copy) ”young woman and the tiny folds” of wallet leather, another of a “’seamstress with linen thread” hand-stitching  the handle of a handbag and the last – the one that particularly struck me – showing a man painting the bottom of a shoe by hand.

The sole-painting made me pause. I did not feel compelled to run out the door for LV shoes, though… it was more a gentle “Really? They hand-paint the bottoms of all their shoes?” 

Now I know how much Vuitton products cost.  They’re expensive – but probably not as expensive as they’d need to be for LVMH to clear a hefty profit after painting the soles of every pair of new Vuitton shoes.

So I took note when the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority banned the wallet and handbag ads, claiming they could “mislead” consumers into believing that Louis Vuitton products are handmade, when in fact machines are involved in the manufacturing process.  From the agency’s ruling: “We considered that consumers would interpret the image of a woman using a needle and thread to stitch the handle of a bag … to mean that Louis Vuitton bags were hand stitched.”  O&M Paris must pull the two offending print ads immediately. The ad of the man painting the shoe bottom did not draw objections. 

Interesting.

I guess part of my question is, Which consumers?  I’m curious, for example, whether a “reasonable person” in such an instance would be absolutely anyone seeing the ad in a doctor’s waiting room, or whether it would need to be someone for whom the ad would alter beliefs in a way that could misguidedly motivate a purchase.  Would the latter be more likely to be knowledgeable and savvy (and less gullible), or does it not matter?  Vuitton has never been secretive about the fact that it has factories in the U.S., France and elsewhere that some believe are the very representation of modern luxury good production, but I guess the ASA has made its call.

There are a number of fashion/culture tongues wagging online about the fact that the ASA had nothing to say about LVMH photoshopping Madonna until she looked like a 17-year-old.  Perhaps, but it’s probably a good bet that there were no ruling bodies that thought anyone might buy a piece of luggage thinking it would make her look like Madonna (at any age).

Why does this still happen?

Take a look at the June cover of Glamour Magazine at right (if you cannot see image, click HERE):

The photo of three attractive models on the cover is accompanied by the headline, “Curvy? Skinny? It’s All Good!” But… which one is the curvy one?  Is it the one on the far right?  The far left?  It’s the one on the left.  Yes, I said the one on the left.  I’ve added a couple other images of said model to this post (HERE and HERE), and let me tell you: any woman whose thighs (or other body parts) do not aggressively touch when at steady state is not “curvy” in my book.

I truly don’t understand this particular one, because no woman who is overweight believes she is also a thin model.  The average American woman wears a size 14 – and knows it.  She does not think that Crystal Renn is her spitting image.  Hair, cellulite, make-up, the size of one’s pores: the savvy woman generally knows that all of these can be drastically manipulated ad – sadly – some women still aspire to these things.  But chubby and frolicking in one’s bikini in a magazine? No.

Then why the fixation on imaginary weight claims?  Is it advertisers? And if so, go all out so an advertiser targeting a real plus-size girl might actually be able to see a real one.  There is no real-life party that is served well by this kind of activity.

I suppose I should just be thankful that Glamour didn’t pull a Ralph Lauren and get all drunk and stupid on Photoshop: see the related blog post I wrote and lovingly titled, “Can Someone Get That Turkey A Sandwich (you’ll have to read it to know why).   Do you think the average person knows that even photographs of food are fake?

No wonder people still don’t trust advertising.  Sometimes – a lot of the time – we lie.

Pringles has a new funny online campaign that skewers folks who “overshare” on Twitter and Facebook.

A key feature of the campaign’s website – http://www.helptheoversharers.com - has a ”Best of” Twitter feed that streams some classics: “My arm is itchy,” “Cleaning the kitchen,” and “New shower gel – hooray!”

Amazing: “hurray” is just the utterance I was planning – too bad P&G got to it first.

So anyway, the website offers tips for recovering oversharers, a plug-in that allows you to “shame a friend with just one click” (very popular, I’m sure) and even an interactive video into which you can drop some of your favorite inane comments.  And you can buy a t-shirt with a dopey tweet on it.  Of your choice.

The site is accompanied by a utility on Facebook that Pringles’ 3 million fans (and anyone else who feels like it) can download and use to label boring Facebook updates.

To me, the campaign feels a wee bit derivative of Burger King’s 2009 ”Whopper Sacrifice Challenge,” which offered a free Whopper to anyone willing to unfriend 10 people on Facebook. That campaign was semi-criticized for being an “anti-social” social campaign – a page that Pringles appears to have torn out of the fast fooder’s playbook. And there have been a number of other brands – like Nestle and Skittles – that have leveraged the riskiness and “nowness” of featuring a live Twitter feed in their promotions.

But so far, this has been a conversation focused on techniques and tools – a plug-in, a feed, interactive videos and custom t-shirts.  I love tools just as much as the next marketer, but… what does the Oversharers campaign have to do with Pringles’ persona and the ultimate goal of selling more product? 

If there’s a second phase of this campaign that ties the downside of oversharing online to oversharing your Pringles (because you want to eat them all yourself?), P&G better get moving. It seems like that’d make sense… but I’m guessing and this connection isn’t made at the moment.

So from a business point of view, I don’t get it.  You’re the Pringles brand manager: what consumer insight led to this campaign? What are you trying to communicate? What differentiation would motivate trial, or make an existing Pringles eater feel good about the brand?

Don’t “overshare” social media tools because they’re cool.  It’s tempting – and I recommend social media experimentation all the time – but all of the standard rules of branding, communications and marketing (and revenue and market share and shelf space) apply.

When you’re in a business that relies on trust (meaning all of them), it’s vitally important to assess your words and actions in the context of (a) how they’ll be interpreted by clients and prospects, and (b) how that interpretation may further - or detract from – from your objectives and relationships.

This brings me to ad agencies: frequently the poster child of what not to do IMO.

Witness three stories in just one recent issue of Advertising Age:

(1) Not all clients appreciate the art of marketing and advertising. Some, sadly, have re-assigned the responsibility of selecting and retaining agency work to procurement departments.  That’s pretty bad.  And insulting.  No question. “We’ll take 300 staplers, 500 boxes of the medium-sized binder clips and a global ad campaign that communicates the power and flexibility of our brand.” Ick.

Agency response? I first blogged about this phenomenon and the agency community’s atrocious response back in July, and now TBWA comes up with the brilliant idea of broadcasting (aka signaling) the fact that it has created a Chief Compensation Officer role to negotiate with these binder clip-loving bureaucrats.  AND he’s a ”former CPA!”

You want us to negotiate with pencil-pushers? WE’LL show you pencil pushers!

CPA vs. Procurement sounds pretty anti-relationship to me.  And there was no business reason to use a press release to announce this “hire” – the exec in question has been at TBWA for over 25 years.  They moved him from one office to another (if he moved at all).

Former CPAs?  Agencies that create an “us vs. them” scenario typically become former agencies.

(2) Today’s second flavor of us vs. them: a lengthy article that reflects agencies’ “hardened stance” on the issue of owning all intellectual property created for a pitch if the agency is not ultimately hired.  “It isn’t because clients are a**holes,” says the owner of an agency (a named individual, not an unnamed source). 

In this case, if you have to say what it’s not… you’re pretty much saying what you think it is.  Thanks for letting us know what you really think of clients.

(3)  And lastly, we have a “highly regarded,” “profitable” shop with “an abundance of project work” closing its doors.  Independent NYC-based Toy (the agency who brought us the brilliant “Elf Yourself” campaign) is now history.  One of the reasons: “certain unbending principles of the founders.” Translation: they couldn’t find an office big enough for all the clashing egos.

Very unfortunate. There were bold clients who went with Toy instead of the big holding company-owned agencies.  CMOs/execs who chose an independent shop.  Not typically the safest decision.  Now they must move that business, with all of the dislocation that entails.  And we’ve lost yet another independent voice in the marketing community.

Agencies face a whole new world today.  Even I’m old enough to remember 15% commissions.  It was simple.  Today things are a mess.  But this kind of behavior doesn’t further any kind of positive agenda.

I am sensitive to dumb and/or insensitive imagery and statements in advertising and the media – I thought that the “How I Met Your Mother” Frosty the Snowman spoof was a little over the top, for example – but this is pushing it.

A new commercial for the all-natural line of cleaning products, Method, has already been pulled – and that’s a pity.

Droga5’s “SHINY SUDS” is a silly send-up of Dow’s Scrubbing Bubbles commercials.  Method created the video to support the Household Products Labeling Act, which would require full disclosure of harmful chemicals in cleaning products. Here’s the ad (if you cannot see the ad below, click HERE):



Right after the video was posted online, women began to react negatively – and harshly.  A blogger accused the company of “humiliating women” and effectively saying that – if you don’t know exactly what’s in the products you use – “you deserve to be sexually harassed” in your own home.  A reader of the same blog post called Method to tell them that she was “curious of [sic] their perpetuation of rape culture.”

Rape culture? Sexual harassment? The “pornification” of a dull House act about cleaning chemicals? What am I missing here?

Apparently a lot, as the company received hundreds of calls and emails from outraged women before declaring itself a “values-based company” and pulling the spot.

Of course, there are other interested parties who struck back, most notably (a) the advertising community (which asks when brands are going to – ahem – “grow a pair” and tell zealot ”idiots” to bug off) and (b) both men and women who say that this “overreaction” is just another example of why many believe that feminism has become a joke.

I’m not going to lean that hard in either direction… but I didn’t see the danger in this video.  What do you think?

New Balance has created an online/social media campaign and (offline) line of shoes that marries both worlds in the most elegant way.

The 574 men’s and women’s collection is made entirely of left-over scraps of cloth in the company’s Lawrence, MA factory and, as a result, each pair is just a bit different – each has its own personality, you might say.  A very special, limited line deserves equally powerful promotion, and the company’s ad agency, Mother, knew it.

When you buy a 574 pair from one of ten boutiques in the U.S., there’s a special Polaroid photograph in the box.  The owner can then go to 574Clips.com, and match the Polaroid to a special mini-film about the shoe.  Once the film has played, the happy shoe wearer can add his/her name at the end of the film.  The film for 106Red appears to show a man dipping a carrot into the shoe (for dip, or course), while 115Green has a lovable furry muppet (with green nose to match) admiring a pair of shoes.  Each is very short and fun – check out one or two for yourself, and see if it doesn’t make you want to buy the shoes.

574Clips.com also features links to Facebook, MySpace, De.li.ci.ous and Tumblr, so buyers of these unique shoes can tell (and show) all their friends.  The campaign is also tied to sneaker culture blogs like High Snobiety and Nice Kicks.

Anyone who watches Entourage (Episode 3, Season 6) knows how culturally important “sneakerheads” are – the (mostly) men who must have the hottest, most limited sneaker available tend to be heavy influencers and leading indicators of pop culture trends and information.  It’s a valuable and – in their own milieu – sophisticated crowd, and Mother has delivered an equally sophisticated communications plan.  The blending of manufacturing, blogs, web, community, video and product is exceptional.

And now I must sign off – I’m on my way to Reed Space: the only shop in NYC to carry the $75 shoes with the special Polaroid inside…

So there’s a mini brouhaha in Manhattan these days because of a subway ad campaign created by New York City’s Department of Health.

Subway posters show someone pouring sugary drinks into a glass that, as a result, is overflowing with human fat. 

You know when Dr. Oz goes on Oprah and shows you your fatty liver, or heart, or whatever Big Mac-filled organ he can come up with that day?  It’s a little like that… but really, really gross.

But what’s even more gross – I have to agree with Bob Garfield on this one – is the nasty response from the industry’s lobbying association, the American Beverage Association.

“The ad campaign is over the top and unfortunately is going to undermine meaningful efforts to educate people about how to maintain a healthy weight by balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with calories burned through exercise,” said a 300-lb. ABA spokesperson (kidding). The ads will do “more harm than good.”

More harm than good?  How will the campaign do more harm than good?  I doubt the ads will make anyone barf on the train or reach for the nearest non-diet soda – the only two negative reactions that come to mind – so did the ABA really think before it chose to voluntarily and self-servingly stick its nose into this?  The real kicker is the fellow’s claim that the ads “minimize a disease as complex as obesity.” Please.

And this isn’t just a bunch of random ads: one of Mike Bloomberg’s harangues has been about healthier eating, specifically in schools, but also as it pertains to calories listed on menu boards and so forth.  A move that got particular attention was his appointment of Snapple as the exclusive vending partner in the schools – as long as the company stocked only bottled water and 100% fruit juices. The Mayor won an award this year for creating programs that increase access to healthy foods and free or inexpensive physical activity alternatives in the city, for cryin’ out loud.  This is not really a good issue to pick on in this city.

As a parting thought, there is one thing about which Garfield and I disagree with regard to this matter: he thinks it’s “obnoxious” for NYC to “assault” subway riders.  I am guessing that he doesn’t live in NY (or at least ride the trains a lot) because if he did, he might feel differently.  If the ads get just a few people to rethink their choices, the campaign will be a success. At minimum, it’s one less Dr. Zizmor greeting on my commute.

Well, my Tappening idols – Mark DiMassimo and Eric Yaverbaum – are back with a new campaign that got a big write-up in The New York Times yesterday.  Boo-yah!

As you may know, Tappening is a grass-roots effort DiMassimo and Yaverbaum started together as a laboratory for a social world marketing experiment focused on the negatives associated with bottled water (which – outside of convenience - turns out to be pretty much everything about bottled water).  I first interviewed them nearly two years ago about the initiative and covered their first ad campaign back in March of this year.  To date, Tappening has sold about $5 million worth of re-usable BPA-free plastic and stainless steel bottles, much of which is plowed back into the effort.

The team’s second campaign turns up the heat.  “Lying in Advertising” includes several treatments featuring such claims as “Bottled water causes blindness in puppies” and “Bottled water is the primary cause of Restless Leg Syndrome.” If you cannot see the posters below, click HERE and check out the bottom of the page.

The new campaign has a dedicated website at www.startalie.com from which you can easily ”spread” your lie about bottled water via email, Digg, Twitter and Facebook (a nice touch).  My first contribution was “Ben Bernanke says that bottled water caused the global recession.”

Hey, it could happen…

Pity the downtrodden marketing services community.  That bad economy-thingy appears to have smacked it right in the face.  No surprise.

And since price pressure should be no surprise, either, I’ve been startled by the snarly response emanating from the ad industry.  I’ve already forgotten a few instances I noticed recently, but the WSJ late last week offered an ok example.  In an article titled “Thrift Darkens [Ad] Industry’s Hopes,” Maurice Levy of Publicis sniffed, “The reality is that clients want more for less.  It’s something that is unfortunately becoming quite common.”

Is that right?  Really? Clients want more of the same quality work that you’ve been giving them all along for a lower price?  For some, this may be the case.  Then again, many of the large agencies in my experience became too big, spoiled and overpaid through the years.  Too many clients have been pithed by the senior staff, and left with inexperienced AEs.  You were supposed to fork over 15% just – I dunno, because.  Because advertising is magic.  Or whatever. 

Times used to be great, no question.  I’ve enjoyed some wonderful agency relationships and learned a lot of my craft from my partners in those shops and others.  We all have.  How many AdAge headlines have screamed about client cutbacks and layoffs in the last year?  More with less? I’d say there’s plenty of pain to go around.

AdAge really lit this match for me whenb I first read an editor’s reaction to a set of business decisions recently made by P&G: business decisions that - for a reason that cannot be justified -touched off a cascade of immature, naive and nasty remarks from this person’s bully pulpit.

According to this editorial, P&G’s decision puts the “still-moist notion that it’s possible to do interesting things for huge, unglamorous marketers” out of its misery.” That’s just embarrassing.  And my personal favorite – that the changes give ”the best talent yet another reason to leave the industry… buh-bye, innovators and creative geniuses” - is pathetic.  Wow: talk about turning on someone when times get difficult.  What does this solve?

The editorial concludes by toasting P&G for killing one of the “final drops of joy” (*gag*) left in the industry, and for making the business – and I quote – a “little bit shittier just because it can.”  I’m actually still appalled just typing these words weeks later.  This isn’t about freedom of the press: if the writer has her own blog, she should knock herself out.  But AdAge is a publication read by professionals and aspiring professionals on all sides of the business.  Such bitter statements are grossly unproductive and, frankly, more than a little silly.

I wonder if AdAge believes that this kind of vitriol will help the industry attract the ”creative geniuses” whose absence it so mourns.  I doubt it will.

The fact is that agencies and vendors work at the pleasure of clients and – in AdAge’s case - report on them.  I also believe it’s safe to say that both agency executives and marketing journalists fancy themselves articulate thought leaders… and they should be.  Clients would like them to be.  Throwing oneself on the ground and having an unattractive hissy fit helps no one and only makes a difficult time harder and needless (or at least more) contentious.

Grow up, people.

Which entities would have a really tough time attracting positive attention right now?  AIG, yes. GM, no question.  Bernie Madoff, no doubt.  

Added to the list are two little words that have to got to shake any agency to its core: Mexican tourism.

Yes vacationers, remember Mexico? That was the place to which thousands of you were headed before the swine flu outbreak… and the resulting fears have weighed heavily on Mexico’s economy. 

The United Nations World Tourism Organization says the country boasts one of the largest tourism businesses in the world, welcoming more than 20 million tourists a year.  It’s the only country in Latin America on the list of top 25 most popular vacation destinations, and tourism is the third largest contributor to the economy.  70% of all visitors come from the United States.

But that was before the cooties came.

President Calderon plans to spend $92 million on new advertising and promotion to bring tourists back.  With t-shirts boasting “I went to Mexico and all I got was the swine flu” in circulation, he understandably feels he’s got to do something.

There’s no real point to this post.  I think I just wanted to express a certain kinship and sympathy for a brand that feels it must include a medical update, the phrase “keep the people safe” and a quote from the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health in its new television ad.  

Oh, well now I’m definitely in the mood for a Cancun vacation! Que es muy terrible.

I have no idea if they’ll sell even one tampon, but P&G’s Tampax is the stealth sponsor of a series of viral videos that tell the story of a 16-year-old boy who wakes up with – uh – “girl parts.” And at least from an art point of view… they’re good. Click HERE if you do not see the ad below.

Leo Burnett created the campaign at Zack16.com.  Its big link to the brand thus far is when our hero, Zack, gets his first period in French class and sneaks into the girl’s bathroom looking for a Tampax vending machine.

P&G calls it “a learning lab out on the net” that’s “not very heavily branded at all.”  Hmm.  And so far the videos aren’t a huge hit, with about 10,000 views in the past week on YouTube and elsewhere. 

I really wanted to dislike this campaign and - if I were a P&G stockholder - I probably would.  I also wonder if the best way to pitch tampons to young women is with stories about young men baking brownies, but what do I know? I hope it sells something. 

In the meantime, I’m enjoying the work of a good copywriter and have started following Zack on Twitter at @ZackJohnson16.  He appears to be trying to figure out how to manage menstruating while at soccer camp.

 Note: the “hovers like a UFO” comment is from the Day 3 video.  Really – these are pretty humorous.

Each year, the Financial Communications Society (FCS) recognizes firms in various categories for excellence in financial services advertising, collateral and (now) digital.  You can read the press release announcing this year’s winners HERE.

There are two reasons I wanted to write a quick post on this event:

(1) FCS named two of my faves as Best In Show.  The first is American Express, which was named Best In Show – Corporate Image advertising for its Martin Scorcese-Tina Fey “Timeshare” (my label) ad.  The post I wrote about this ad is HERE.    The second is E*Trade which was selected Best In Show – Consumer Retail for its “Baby” campaign – and you know how much I love this campaign.  I first wrote after its premiere at the 2008 SuperBowl, then again this past January when the second round of ads came out (“I wanna punch the economy in the face“).  And E*Trade has kept it rolling with two more greats, Singing Baby and Golf. 

(2) It’s a walk down memory lane. 2009 is the 15th year FCS has given its Portfolio Awards.  1995 was the very first year – and my team won an award for our ChaseDirect launch campaign.  ChaseDirect was the U.S.’ first national direct bank (even before Bank One’s Wingspan, which many remember), and we won that night.  It was a business that we all felt passionately about and my team from Chase and Wells Rich Greene were there to celebrate. 

Congratulations to all of this year’s winners.

I may get in trouble for this opinion, but… so be it. 

This week’s AdAge features an editorial, “InBev abusing agencies with its payment terms,” written by the president of an advertising agency in the Midwest.  

InBev is the Belgian company that bought Anheuser-Busch.  The brewer is notoriously cheap and frowns on pricey marketing and advertising, both of which had been a highly visible of A-B’s strategy for decades.

The editorial points to numerous cost reductions and policy changes that InBev seems to have implemented after the purchase.  The author mentions a couple internal corporate changes, such as the replacement of offices with bullpens and the elimination of first-class travel and baseball tickets.  There’s a snarky retort after each mention including, “So what?” and “Hey, times are tough.” So much for this agency executive’s public expression of empathy for (or any effort to protect the privacy of) InBev/A-B employees.

He’s far clearer in his disdain for the company’s treatment of external partners.

“The company has gone one step too far” by announcing that it would now take up to 120 days to pay its bills - a “horrible precedent.”  After InBev’s CEO says (in an unrelated WSJ interview) that he’s going to run the company on a tight leash, our author quips “… that’s true of any company, but we all still need to pay our bills.”  Oh, snap!  He grinds on, quoting a Morningstar analyst as describing the InBev team as “ruthless” “machete-wielding investment bankers.”

Finally, the writer crows that the Belgian government may soon examine the new policy to determine whether it is an abuse of power.* I suppose he throws this in to point out that others (a whole government!) see what he sees.

And here’s where I may get in trouble.

I’ve been an executive for 20 years.  I value and am grateful for my relationships with the agencies that have made me look good and helped grow my brands.  There are many in the agency business whom I consider friends.  But there are some fundamental, DNA-level business principles and tenets that are not negotiable.  Discretion is on the top of the list.  

If the Belgian government instructs InBev to reverse the policy, great. If I worked at InBev and one of my agencies was hurt by this new policy, I would take up its cause with my superiors and encourage the agency to privately protest and/or resign. 

And if that agency went to the press to air private and confidential matters such as billing and payment policies, I’d dismiss them on the spot.

This is such an unholy, obnoxious breach I wouldn’t think twice.  An agency executive who takes a business matter to the media cannot be trusted with a private conversation, negotiation or anything else.  You do this and you’re done.  At least in my backyard.

What purpose did this agency president believe his editorial would serve? Is he an InBev agency or did he simply decide to speak out on behalf of his trade? ‘Doesn’t really matter.  Could anyone believe, particularly in this economy, that he could or should pressure a global company by throwing a temper tantrum in public? 

I’m tempted to tell him, “Hey, times are tough” (where have we heard that before?), but the policy may in fact be unreasonable. It would be unjust for a small agency to suffer or even go out of business because InBev wants to make money on the float.  Not my point; I plead no contest.  But an agency leader who takes private business and/or contractual matters out into the public forum should perhaps consider a different line of work because – in the increasingly fragile, trust-based business of advertising – I wouldn’t trust this guy to pull out my chair at dinner. 

* Update: the Belgian government has dropped its probe, determining that InBev’s new payment policy does not violate any antitrust regulations.

SFMOGD came across two ads this week that are real… which just seems sort of impossible!

Ad #1 was brought to our attention by our friend, Jonathan Gilbert, and has some disturbing things to say about the condition of German underwear.  Here is a billboard currently posted in Berlin’s shopping district:

That would be Chancellor Angela Merkel on the left posing in front of various undressed members of the German government, with her ”weapons of mass destruction” in full view.  The ad is part of an underwear company’s national ad campaign. Modeled after the country’s successful ads promoting ”cash-for-clunkers” exchanges, the ad’s copy offers Germans who trade in their old underpants a €5 credit toward a new pair with the slogan ”The country needs new undies.” No mention of whether the old panties need to be (*gag*) washed before you trade them in. 

Ad #2 appears to be a real television commercial for a North Carolina furniture store that takes race relations very seriously.  Based on the company’s perfectly normal description of the ad on YouTube, the weird humor and full-on racial context appears to have been lost on The Red House.  Luckily, it’s not lost on us:



“I’m Stephanie, aka Big Head…”

I just want to say how relieved I am to discover that I am NOT the only one who is totally digging the song in State Farm’s TV commercials.

I’m serious:  I’ve been pondering a blog post about this for awhile, but assumed that I was just an ad nerd, grooving to some random tune in a car insurance ad.  That State Farm had come up with this insurance jingle… and you would mock me.

I really should have more confidence in myself.  Not only is it not a jingle… it’s a remake of the The Sound of Music song, “Sixteen Going On Seventeen,” by Modern Music.  And it’s all over the web, like HERE and HERE and HERE.

Perhaps the strangest cover of a song ever – but brilliant just the same (and not a Von Trapp in sight).

See the ad (and hear the song) for yourself.

While I’d prefer to come up with these on my own, I’m afraid that I would be the one who’s hard of hearing if I didn’t pick a recent Pepsi ad for G2 (low-calorie Gatorade) as the tone-deaf ad of the week.

You can see what Pepsi was trying to do almost immediately, but BLAM:  this thing has really come back around and smacked them in the head.  This means Pepsi now have something in common with AIG – but I’ll get to that later.

The spot switches back and forth between NBA player Kevin Barnett and a normal, suburban-looking guy – also named Kevin – swimming like crazy.  The voiceover also switches back and forth and herein lies the problem.   In trying to write a standard “athletic striving” ad, they get seriously tangled in a lot of language that many are considering cruel and insulting to people who have lost their jobs and are otherwise suffering because of the economic crisis.  See for yourself (if you can’t see the ad already, click HERE)


When I first heard about this controversy, I really, really wanted to support Pepsi.  Then I saw the ad, and that became impossible.

The lines hurtle between insensitivity and cruelty:

Garnett: “I’ve never been handed a pink slip and “I’ve never had to tell me wife ‘We can’t make the mortgage.’” (Kevin “The Big Ticket” Garnett has a $24.75 million NBA contract)

Normal Kevin: “I’ve never had to fill the holes in my sneakers with cardboard.”

That last one IMHO is the most offensive of all.  Normal Kevin appears to be taking us past unemployment and foreclosure straight on to visions of being homeless in the park.

The tragedy here is this was completely unnecessary.  The financial services companies got into trouble for how they handled their (financial services) business! Gatorade just runs right into a buzz saw for no reason at all. 

And so, let me wrap up a Friday by coming back to how Pepsi is now an AIG comrade.  Both companies have fundamentally failed to grasp how people are feeling today… how many people are suffering.  1.3 million children in the United States were homeless at some point in one year – and that was before the recession started.  I would assume that many of those children have had to use cardboard to plug the holes in their shoes.

If you think I am overdramatizing, I would respectfully suggest that you could make a mistake not dissimilar to the ones made by Pepsi and the banks, either while on the job or at a cocktail party.  This is vast, vast pain.

I am counseling clients today to look hard at the need to advertise.  If you are running ads, make sure they are seen and tested with a much broader swath of consumers and experts – ones who may not be in your target audience. 

Is all this fair?  NO ONE CARES.   We are all in the business to sell, of course, but think long-term.  If you’re not 100% secure in next week’s flight, cancel it.  Because getting this wrong could negatively affect your brand’s reputation for years, if not a lifetime.

I realize that I’ve taken up a semi-habit of posting something goofy on Fridays… and there is definitely something goofy about McDonald’s new Filet-O-Fish ad. 

Have you seen it?  If not – and  you don’t see a video box in this post - click HERE.  There’s just something mesmerizing about it - hypnotic almost, as the fish turns and sings “Gimme back that Filet-O-Fish, gimme that Fish!” in a weird voice.  And a lot of people seem to agree with me, given that the ad’s been viewed on YouTube more than 300,000 in less than two weeks!  DJs are remixing the song in clubs, and fans are using it as a ringtone.



Most marketers will appreciate the business reasoning:  the ad developed from the challenge of producing a spot that could be used in both English and Spanish, minus the idiosyncrasies in dialogue that have plagued many an advertiser in the past.  Singing fish turns, dub in any voice and dialogue you wish, and it’s spot-on everywhere.

It’s been nearly 18 months since I interviewed the marketing and communications brains behind the highly successful tap water effort, Tappening.  Man, time flies when people are out saving the planet!

I also covered Tappening’s first ad campaign right HERE, which took iconic imagery and – without being too heavy-handed – delivered a hard message about the global impact of bottled water.

Mark Dimassimo and Eric Yaverbaum created Tappening as a fun and meaningful consumer movement to sensitize everyone to the financial and societal costs of bottled water and to “make tap water cool again.”  Since then, the effort has gone so public, and reached so many fans, that not only are average people making fan videos on YouTube but the effort was recently the cover story of Brilliant Results magazine.  To see a pdf of the cover and the full story, click HERE.

Keep up with Tappening:  it’s not only a model for how to create a messaging phenom from nothing – drinking tap water is a quick and easy step you can take to help preserve our world and save money.

Tappening Mark_Dimassimo Ericho_PR Eric_Yaverbaum tap_water Dimassimo_Goldstein

Brilliant Results-Tappening

Skittles’ foray into the social media universe had the marketing blogosphere and Twitterverse on overdrive week.

On Tuesday, Mars replaced the candy’s “normal” website with a live feed from Twitter.com of tweets that mentioned Skittles.  If you click HERE, you’ll get a current snapshot of what that site might have looked like several days ago when this experiment first began, but things have calmed down dramatically since then.  When I took a look at the feed on that first day, there were tweets full of curse words,  comments such as “I found a finger in my bag of Skittles,” “Skittles are made from dead animals,” “Skittles gives you cancer and kills babies,”  “Eating Skittles will kill your parents” and so on.

In other words, the idea that anything in a tweet would instantly appear at skittles.com brought adults out of the woodwork to see just how outrageous and inappropriate they could be before Skittles changed strategy.  Alas, all these tweets did appear on the site, and it was child’s play (pardon the pun) to get around the site’s age verification tool in order to see every word. 

That’s just dumb – and dangerous.  If one 8-year old had done something awful as a result of viewing some sort of silly fake directive as to what to do with Skittles… Mars would have had an enormous and entirely self-provoked communications disaster on its hands.

So while many marketers labeled Skittles’ experiment as bold and exciting, I stand with a minority who is not with the “lemmings” on this one.   The site started as a confusing mish-mash of wildly unacceptable language attached to a candy, and has since evolved into the most boring site in the category. 

Social media is not an end in itself.  No tactic ever is.  Advertising’s goal is to create goodwill and sales among a product’s target market. Will this effort do that?  No.  And did the stunt bring non-buyers out in droves?  You bet.

While Mars (or its ad agency) may certainly win some wacky 2009 social media award when all is said and done, look for the company to announce that this “successful experiment” has come to an end, and that it is returning to a more standard interactive (and managed) site.  It couldn’t happen soon enough.
Skittles Skittles_Twitter

Phew:  pharma advertising.

One of the mini-economies that is thriving in New York City is healthcare/pharma ad agencies.  Always have, always will.  You can imagine the regulatory knowledge, the stamina, the patience, the detail that must go into such work – or I can, at least.

Case in point… Bristol Myers Squibb recently pulled the ad on the right (if you cannot see the ad, click HERE.   The ad was part of a print campaign that suggested HIV/AIDS patients “ask your doctor” about drugs that may have a lower incidence of diarrhea (a common side effect of certain drugs).  The ad was yanked under pressure from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest non-profit HIV/AIDS organization in the US.

And while declaring the ad ”a blatant attempt to scare and mislead patients and… intimidate patients into switching to BMS’ own HIV/AIDS drugs,” the AHF is driving the point home with its own new parody ad, which it called a “public service announcement.”  The parody uses a similar image, with the words, “We don’t give a crap how you live as long as you buy our drug!” scrawled across the toilet.

The AHF says it sent a letter to BMS’s CEO last August asking the company to stop running “these types of advertisements,” but received no response.

As a total outsider, I can see that the ad clearly leverages fear to make its point.  But what are a drug company’s options?

A bit of research reveals that, in 2005, the AHF asked BMS to pull a campaign that the foundation claimed wasn’t serious enough: ads, the AHF claimed, that underplayed the risks of HIV.  A BMS ad showing two men playing backgammon on a beach under a headline of ”The Word on HIV: Fight HIV Your Way” was faulted as delivering the message that ”‘I don’t have to be that careful about getting HIV because I can go to the beach and pop pills.”

Let me be clear here:  (a) it’s a drug company’s job to get these messages right, and (b) they make millions of dollars on the sales of these drugs each and every year. 

But in a business that is all about life or death, about pain and caring and emotion, one could see how it might be difficult to balance all the messages required in a way that could satisfy all parties involved.
Bristol_Myers_Squibb drug_advertising pharmaceutical_advertising