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 Authoritybanned 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).
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.
Here’s a priceless and hilarious example of how overexposed, over-hyped, over-celebritized and Paris Hilton-addled our society has truly become.
You may have read about the massive insider trading case against Galleon Group. A former consultant, Danielle Chiesi, was a participant in and beneficiary of the conspiracy. Her criminal trial begins later this year.
Is she scared? Perhaps, but there seem to be more pressing concerns at the moment.
HERE is Danielle Chiesi last October, on the day the FBI led her away in handcuffs:
These two photos were taken about four months apart. In between, Chiesi began to morph a la Michael Jackson. Two months in, The New York Postnoted the disappearance of Chiesi’s “bloated face and dumpy sweater” (see first photo) in favor of a ”slim new look” that looked like it was ”straight out of central casting for a prison flick.”
I love it.
Next stop: Dancing with the Stars, or perhaps her own makeover show. Assuming, of course, she doesn’t spend the next 10 years in prison.
And I would definitely believe, by the way, that Ms. Chiesi is terrified of prison…. because it’s going to be very – very – hard to keep up her new plasticized look behind bars.
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?
To All The Worthy-Yet-Childless People Out There:
Have you ever felt disadvantaged simply because you haven’t procreated? Have you ever had to do extra work when a peer disappeared into a junior soccer haze or recital? Have you every suffered through phone conversations between a co-worker and her child that sounded like some demented episode of “Mr. Rogers Neighborhood,” only to have said anguished co-worker give you a back-handed slap by saying how lucky you are not to have kids? All that is about to change.
Yes, friends, there’s now a product made just for you: The Office Kid. When you buy The Office Kid (tagline: “Who picks up the slack? We do”) you get a framed photo of your fake child and some adorable fake-kid artwork to put up on your wall (drawn by one of the right-handed creators with her left hand). It’s like you had a child – only better!
No diapers to change, no private schools to pay for – just the goodness that comes with the kid guilt you can now foist on your co-workers and your boss. Imagine the possibilities…
So call 1-800-GET-A-KID and start leveraging your newfound parenthood today! And if your [apply air quotes here] “parent/teacher conference” takes place on the designer floor at Saks - or in a movie theatre – who has to know?
A new study released by Q Interactive indicates that – while women may be flocking to social networking – they’re not yakking about the favorite baby food or burgers. While 52% of 1,000 women said that they’d become a “friend” or “fan” of at least one brand, 75% of women in the study overall say that social networks do not influence what they buy.
I had to smile when Q’s president scrambled to make sure that marketers (with money) didn’t interpret the results in a negative way: Q calls the “disconnect” a “huge opportunity” for marketers and says that brands need to catch up to the needs of women online.
If I were an agency relying on clients, I’d say the same thing!
But what if that’s not true? What if the social media frenzy that’s been whipped up among advertisers is… overhyped? What if we find out that women love discovering new ideas and interacting with new people and new communities, but the commercial promise in these interactions isn’t there? What if online engagement doesn’t lead to sales? What if talking just leads to… talking?
I’m going to watch for new news and information about how women are interacting with social media because – if Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and all the other social sites do not turn out to be a brand bonanza for advertisers, we could see a major reset in expectations, involvement and, most importantly, dollars.
A recent Crain’s New York Businessarticle discussed what many retailers are doing to try to squeeze as much as possible out of what is expected to be a lousy back-to-school season.
One step: uniforms.
Not uniforms uniforms, but rather solid color separates – blazers, pants, polo shirts, skirts, etc. – that parents can mix and match to create multiple outfits for kids age 5-11ish. At stores like J.C. Penney, Target and Children’s Place (even Macy’s…) each piece is priced around $10 or less. As uniform sales in these stores have increased while sales of children’s apparel overall have been falling for the last two years, this is a step that is likely to help these stores hold onto customers who are trying to get through the recession.
But one thing: please think hard before “putting a small section in and [literally] calling it uniform” in otherwise non-uniform retail locations. Few parents (or children, for that matter) will assign positive connotations to the word itself… and it’s not all that great in quickly communicating benefits, either. “Budget smart”-like phrases may be a better way to go.
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.
Man, it’s a tough time to be a media company. What with News Corp.’s operating income dropping 47% (99% in the newspaper business and 97% in the TV division) and both Arianna Huffington and Jeff Bewkes declaring the death of big media, what’s a media mogul - or budding mogul – to do?
One obvious answer IMHO should be an enhanced, more enlightened focus on women, because their behavior is changing and not enough advertisers and media companies appear to be keeping pace. 36% of women claim to be reading fewer magazines and 39% are spending less time reading newspapers. These are consumers – moms, in particular – who control 85% of all household spending and are worth more than $2 trillion in US spend each year. That’s “trillion” with a “t.”
A lot of these women say they’re migrating online. The fastest growing segment on Facebook is women age 40-50 in the home; moms aged 25-35 with at least one child are heavy online shoppers (see chart); and twitter moms showed Motrin who’s boss in November 2008. “Power moms” are also increasingly focused on video, and even upload their own on a variety of topics at sites like NewBaby.com.
Here’s a quick post about an article about Disney in the The New York Times today.
The piece is all about a Disney researcher considered to be “the kid whisperer.” Her job is to help the company understand the needs, wants and desires of boys age 6 to 14, and then use this information to drive incremental revenue. While 40% of the audience for Disney Channel is male, for example, girls continue to drive an outsized percentage of (merchandise) sales.
The article follows Kelly Peña as she walks through boys’ homes, unearthing insights such as – while a 12 year old is trying to be tough and mature – he still as stuffed animals on his bed.
While in-home anthropological research is becoming de rigueur in consumer packaged goods, it’s a pretty big deal in the entertainment space, where executives or creatives often believe they “know the target” and pursue a product development process not necessarily informed by real people and their real behavior.
This is a huge simplification, but there is a fundamental difference in both B2B and B2C companies alike that build something new by starting with their customer target’s belief systems and behavior vs. those who start with the best product development process. I was trained in customer segmentation – start with the consumer (or business target) – and build “to suit” – but not everyone is.
If pursued with rigor, I think this type of development work could be extremely helpful to the process of creating new entertainment vehicles and entertainment-inspired merchandise.
In December, Domino’s created an online-only promotion offering a free pizza to site visitors using the promo code ”bailout.” The promotion never got final approval internally… but someone didn’t tell the pizza retailer’s online tech team.
A clever consumer living in a suburb of Cincinnati somehow caught on to the live promo code last week and before you can see “meat lovers special,” Domino’s had given away 11,000 free pizzas. In less than 24 hours.
The news spread quickly, fueled in part by online moms at sites like www.CincyMomsLikeMe.com. If you’re curious about the power of online moms and aren’t familiar with the Motrin Moms event last November, I really would suggest you check it out. Do not screw with these ladies!
Things became even more complicated by the fact that Domino’s retail stores are franchised. A man who owns 14 locations in the Cincy area thinks he gave away somewhere between 600 and 700 pizzas. Corporate has promised to reimburse all franchisees. Maybe the stores will even see an upside: the event got hundreds of people to try the new ordering engine at Dominos.com (which is pretty good, by the way).
Depending on how you look at things, Dominos is either lucky or unlucky the promotion wasn’t discovered two days later – on April Fool’s Day…
P&G’s Charmin brand has found a fun sponsorship opportunity with SitorSquat.com.
A woman in New York, Danika Landers, started the site as a blog in 2007, and it uses Google Maps to help you find the nearest public bathrooms anywhere you may find yourself in need of one. It purports to be the largest (only?) “toilet database and locating service” in the world. It is essentially a wiki that is easily accessible via mobile devices including the iPhone and Blackberry. Both the site and the downloadable apps are free to use.
Danika describes the impetus for creating the site as a personal realization that “that the act of relieving oneself is somewhat an artform” that becomes suddenly complicated “when our personal space is not our personal space.” Anyone traveling with an infant or parent – or on any highway road trip in America – can attest to the veracity of such a conclusion.
Danika has a little extra fun with the site by allowing users to submit a rating for the public restrooms in question; a rating of a 2.5 or over will be characterized as a “sit,” while a toilet with a lower rating will be a “squat.” As such a rating might change with every use (ick!), I would suggest that a user make his or her own judgment in the moment: this is truly a case where past performance may not indicate future results. P&G jumped on the opportunity to sponsor the site and its sensibility as a great fit with the brand’s overall efforts to support grassroots activities that make the bathroom experience a positive one. The company has set up mobile bathrooms at events like state fairs in the past, has had Charmin Restrooms in NYC’s Times Square for three years running (see dramatic video here!) and – my favorite – toured the U.S. from 2003 to 2005 with a bathroom mobile nicknamed ”Potty Palooza.”
“Our goal is to connect Charmin with innovative conversations and solutions as a brand that understands the importance of bringing the best bathroom experience to consumers, even when they’re away from home,” says Jacques Hagopian, brand manager for Charmin.
This blog has commented on companies sponsoring public bathrooms before – remember Visa’s sponsorship of porta-potties at a music festival last year? While consumers may always appreciate this benefit, SitorSquat.com is likely to get bigger results for Charmin* based on brand fit and is the only site of its kind with which the brand has associated itself. 1,600 users have downloaded the mobile app thus far and the site has over 500,000 UVs since launch. Nice find!
* Lysol just announced that it’s taking over the women’s restrooms at 9 NASCAR races this year. This also sounds like a decent brand fit, obviously. Assuming Charmin’s sponsorship wasn’t too expensive, though, the remote/mobile aspect of SitorSquat makes it a winner as it puts the Charmin brand in the home and on the phone of thousands of users every day.
“New mover” marketing is huge. Most banks and many other types of institutions have individuals or teams assigned to the art of capturing business from consumers who move from one home to another. Banking, home improvement and security, auto repair, dry cleaning, groceries, pharmacy, electrical, plumbing, gardening… you name it and you need it in a new place.
17-20% of the US population move every year, and new mover total spending is around $170 billion. New mover list rental is a huge and attractive business because new movers are highly responsive.
I have seen QSRs market to new movers (they buy their way into “welcome wagon” programs with coupons or send stand-alone postcards, etc.). A Denny’s example pulled a 38% response.
Now comes a study from Epsilon pointing out that folks spend over 50% more on home decor and furnishings in the first year after they move than do people who stay put. These same movers, however, spend 24% less than non-movers on apparel and personal accessories in that same year.
So… Do national department stores and clothing stores purposefully promote to new movers? Nordstrom, Macy’s, Dillard’s? Do they market a specific message (and offer) to existing store cardholders who change zip, and new prospects (cut by income) living in an X-mile radius of a store?
The online/social media environment has greatly amplified the opportunities for customers who love you (or hate you) to spread the word – and spread it more frequently, to a broader audience and with a greater array of tools.
Colloquy has released a white paper reflecting the results of an October 2008 survey that measured the intersection between reward program membership and online word-of-mouth (WOM) activity among those members.
While I hope it won’t come as a big surprise, membership in and usage of a brand’s reward program is a significant predictor of a consumer’s likelihood to speak positively about your brand online. The more active the frequent user/shopper/flyer in your program, the greater the chance that you will experience the happy halo effect of him/her praising you online. This is particularly true among women, who have become a driving force in terms of discussing and sharing products and experiences on the Web (Motrin, anyone?).
The larger take-away here – the hardest one, I think, for large companies to absorb - is that everything is connected now. The idea that you could treat your customers one way and your employees another, without affecting your public persona, is no longer relevant. Cut your charitable activities without the “outside world” finding out? Forget it. Increase mileage requirements in your frequent flyer program, and it will not only affect the opinions of your members, but also those members’ Twitter readers (who may not even be your customers).
One person with an anonymous blog and a catchy URL can impact your reputation around the world.
Of course The New Champion Customers is just a tip of this iceberg, but it offers an interesting angel and chock-full of great charts. Take a look.
I’ve never been a big Costco person, probably because I live in an apartment the size of a postage stamp. But just this year – when my mom moved close to one in the New Jersey burbs – I took the leap and bought a membership. Now I love going there: the warehouses are like Disneyland! There’s a pie as big as my couch! Cool!
Sidebar: when I finally did buy, it’s because I saw a specific product I wanted that Costco carried at a great price. I bought enough of that product (plus some gum, I think) to “pay for” the $50 membership fee on my first visit. Making a purchase a no-brainer is every retailer’s goal , no?
Now we get a little glimmer into the company’s customer service smarts, as well. Like many membership-based retailers with preferred shopper programs, it’s easy for Costco to keep track of a member’s purchases and to retain specific transaction-related data, such as the date and time of purchase. It turns out that one of the ways in which Costco delivers value back to members based on this information comes in the form of product recall notifications.
While Costco routinely sends letters to customers who have purchased recalled products, it is now the first major retailer to implement an automated calling service that dials and leaves messages for members warning them of problem products.
Costco uses an external vendor that can make up to 500,000 calls per hour. The company estimates that it has already made 1.5 million calls so far related to the ongoing recall of peanut butter products alone.
Would a company focused only on this quarter’s profitability do the same? Probably not…. especially since Costco will give the customer a refund for any recalled product that is returned to a warehouse (with or without a receipt). But how much is a call like this worth to a customer about to serve tainted food to his or her family? It’s invaluable. And, if the company doesn’t already, it would be fairly straightforward to measure the monetary value of the program.
This is a worthy practice. Let me know if you see holes in it.
Monday January 26th 2009, 9:52 pm
Filed under: advertising, women
Simmons Research’s profile of Super Bowl viewers is fun to peek at as we head into this weekend.
A few highlights:
Folks in the Midwest and the Northeast are likely to watch the game at a higher rate than would be expected based on their percentage of the population overall. Couple this with the fact that 32% of all Super Bowl viewers watched the 2008 game away from home… and you’ll find me throwing a Super Bowl party at a sports bar in Cleveland!
And if I was really smart I’d get one of the game’s big advertisers to pay for it, since Super Bowl viewers are also more likely to have positive feelings toward commercials and say that ads help them get information about new products. And these are hardcore fans: football watchers watch football, period. If they can’t watch a pro game, they’ll watch a college game. If they can’t find a regular season college game, they’ll watch one post season. So if you advertise and like football as a medium, your next marginal sports dollar should most likely be spent on the ol’ pigskin, as well. Not all that interesting, but productive.
Lastly, over 37 million women watched the Super Bowl last year! 37 million. It’s hard to draw any advertising-related conclusions, though, because some women have been known to ”watch” against their will…
In last year’s film, Sex and the City, Carrie and John (that’s Mr. Big to you) finally get hitched at City Hall in New York City. I need to take a look at that scene again, but I’m vaguely remembering the fake location looking a whole lot better than the real one.
You see, everyone in New York knows that it sounds awfully romantic to just run down to City Hall to get hitched. We’re in love! Just get your shots first, because the room beside the County Clerk’s office where you’re able to get married looks like Gitmo. I mean, it’s bad. Perhaps “Gitmo” is a wee exaggeration, but it’s awfully depressing and you really do not want to know the source of the (4 decades old?) stains on the carpet.
Enter Businessman Bloomberg. Our Mayor has just completed a new $12 million, 24,000 square foot space “designed to put some glamour into City Hall weddings.” The mayor had his own interior designer consult on the project.
The guy’s a d*mn genius. Do you frequent skeevy movie theatres, even if the movie is ok? No. Do you return to restaurants with uninviting ambiance but decent food? Unlikely.
New York City issued 70,000 marriage licenses in 2008, putting it behind the #1 most popular destination, Las Vegas. With tourism down and NYC & Co. creating all sorts of promotions, look for programs that will get couples into the new space down on Worth Street.
Yesterday, I wrote a post saying that perhaps the press shouldn’t rule out weight-loss companies just yet: that perhaps cost-effective programs will actually fit nicely with the trend toward dining at home.
Now comes news that recipe websites are doing great business. I always knew that someone out there was cooking… [Sidebar: I had dinner with a neighbor the other night. He brought over take-out. He asked me for a big pan and a set of tongs. I had neither. It wasn't pretty.] Allrecipes.com had 8 million unique visitors in October! That’s a lot of tongs.
What other types of business and websites might benefit from the nesting trend? I know that some of the recipe sites allow a user to print a shopping list containing all the ingredients required for a given recipe. What if a site also allowed you to customize that recipe? Say you wanted to make a chicken dish, and you could enter a budget and the number of adults and children you wanted to feed? Or what if a site had a partnership with grocery chains, so it could tell you that chicken is on sale at your local Kroger but not Publix?
There have to be a lot of ideas (or at least good experiments) here for grocers. At stores with floor space, what if a grocer partner clustered all the ingredients for a site’s “recipes of the week” in one frozen and one non-frozen spot on the floor? For the grocers who already offer delivery, what if you could call or contact a grocer online, specify the recipe and have the store know what ingredients you needed?
Grocers have been on my mind as the economy has continued to crater. In a walking city like New York, at least, a grocer probably sees a person more frequently than just about any other retailer. What is that grocer doing to fully leverage that visit? Frequent shopper discounts are good, but standard. Once you’ve got a customer in your store – 3 or 4 times a week – there has just got to be opportunity at a time when everyone is looking for ways to make things easier (and less expensive than eating out). recipe_websitesAllrecipes.com
There have been a couple articles recently on how weight loss companies might fair in a down economy. The subtle or not-so-subtle implication is that this may be a very crummy time for Weight Watchers, Atkins, Jenny Craig and the like.
I’m not so sure. Nearly all the best-known companies have new work out right now in an attempt to take advantage of what is usually the plumpest (sorry) time for new sign-ups: each year’s first quarter, right after those resolutions are made. And some of the pricing is quite good. Weight Watchers can cost next to nothing if a member has enough willpower, and some of the others that do rely on selling there own food are offering some great deals.
I was smugly pleased when I saw a snarky article today mentioning that NutriSystem had recently lowered its price for a monthly program from $400/mo (including food) to $300. The point was that $300 was still impractical. I guess that writer doesn’t channel surf enough: just this weekend I saw NutriSystem selling this same program on QVC – and with a lot of bonus food - for under $200/mo. Forbes.com just found that NutriSystem is the least expensive holistic weight loss program available.
Whether these companies do well in a down economy will in large part depend not only on consumer priorities but also on whether committed people use these programs as substitutes for more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. these programs for other, more expensive behaviors, such as dining out. Having every week’s breakfasts, lunches, snacks and dinners delivered to your home could actually fit nicely with the trends toward budgeting and entertaining/dining at home.
Let’s not count all these companies out just yet. It’s possible that some clever investment in 2009 may help superior competitors scoop up savvy, motivated consumers who not only see the opportunity to lose weight but whose current (expensive) habits make weight-loss programs look like a pretty good deal. NutriSystemweight_lossWeight_Watchers
It’s been a very odd few weeks in the fast food marketing business.
First, there’s Burger King’s effort to spread “ugly Americanism” around the globe with its odd “Whopper Virgins” campaign. “What happens if you take remote Chang Mai villagers who’ve never seen a burger, who don’t even have a word for burger, and ask them to compare Whopper versus Big Mac in the world’s purest taste test?” I don’t know the answer, but I’m doubtful that this campaign will shift any new business to Burger King – it may fuel the fanatics (and I’m not knocking the importance of retention) but I wonder if it’s enough to balance the heat the company has received as a result of the campaign. Early results already show that the campaign is putting off women, and positive chatter on the Web is dropping quickly. Barbara Lippert judging the work as “culturally tone deaf” was one of the nicer phrases critics have used.
Then yesterday, the Pizza Hut “anti-Main Street” (my phrase) ad debacle hit Twitter, care of Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus. Pizza Hut has created this odd viral campaign in which actors walk into mom-and-pop pizza shops and order pizza delivery – from Pizza Hut. So… in a recession, Pizza Hut puts out ads in which people order pizza that we all know is not as good as the product you can find in your own neighborhood, AND mocks/steals business from little restaurant owners just trying to make a living.
While it has not received much credit for it, Burger King actually did donate some money to the towns in which the Whopper Virgins ads, so the company wasn’t entirely tone deaf. The Pizza Huts ads are just, well, mean.
And lastly, there’s just not a whole lot to say about a Burger King body spray for men that smells like… meat. “Flame” offers “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.” Nah, I’m not going to take the bait (pardon the pun) – it’s just too easy.
So there you have it: a strange time in fast food land. Go offer some love (and cash) to your neighborhood diner today!Burger KingWhopper VirginsPizza HutIan SchaferDeep Focus
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. 
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).
In the meantime, I’m enjoying the work of a good copywriter and have started following Zack on Twitter at 
Motrin moms
Colloquy
WOMMA
Costco
peanut_butter_recall
Super_Bowl 
Super_Bowl_advertising 
Mayor_Bloomberg 
Michael_Bloomberg 
New_York_City_Hall 
Yesterday, I wrote a 
recipe_websites
Allrecipes.com
NutriSystem
weight_loss
Weight_Watchers
