I guess it was only a matter of time before dealerships started taking this type of strategy towards facilitating the purchasing decision. I'm kind of surprised it didn't happen sooner, but with GM and Ford approaching their last laps, different practices had to be taken. When your GM and your up against the wall, you have little to lose. In today's world, it's about: Choice, Choice, Choice. The auto industry is no exception to this reality. Dealership business models are getting flipped on their heads. The article mentions a number of potential advantages to this type of approach, but they didn't address what could be most powerful, the instant feedback. Just think how great this is. The customers driving experience with both the GM and Toyota vehicles can be heard first hand (Customer --> Salesman). At this most important touchpoint, customer disclosure is heard and can latter be documented by the salesman. Now, the challenge of this system will undoubtedly be creating an effective feedback loop. This will involve the continuation of breaking down old top-down business models that used to sell cars. But in the end, this last step of the purchasing process turns into the first one. The salesman's duty to the car company has shifted, they are now the researcher. Harder said then done, there is a need for the car industry to change along every step of the process. Internal communication models shouldn't resemble ladders. There's is a long way to go but this is a nice step in the right direction for GM!
I promise you I'm not trying to turn this blog into a place that tracks Microsoft's every step. But, this video produced by Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions is an excellent characterization of why advertising needs to change through moving away from tradional one way communication models, towards a more interactive and conversational approach. I swear conversation is becoming the new marketing buzz word (Armano's BusinessWeek article, Jaffe's new book). My hope is that company's like Microsoft will fully embrace openness and transparency. Today's world demands that we be engaging in dialogue and not just monologue with our consumers. This video is the first in a series of ad's for the campaign. An ongoing blog about the campaign and the making of these films can be found here.
Last January, The New York Times ran a piece on Microsoft's promotion of the new Vista operating system. Seth Godin first critiqued the photo but I wanted to take the opportunity to offer mine. First of all, let me just say, contrary to popular belief, I think Microsoft is an extremely innovative company, especially from a business model stand point. Innovation is more than just coming up with the latest and greatest product, service, or idea. I currently own stock in Microsoft that has faired very well over the last 6 months. I will reserve the rest of the innovation discussion for another post. Back to what's really on my mind. What's wrong with this picture? The "Wow" starts now". Words can't replace context! Don't let your message be inconsistent with the actual experience delivered. Look at the posture, expressions, and overall attitude being presented by this group of executives. No one looks to be having fun! That being said, it seems important to recognize that in thinking about context, from the picture, it's impossible for us to tell what atmospherics might have caused this moment in time. But the reality is that for those of us who weren't in attendance, this snap shot is characterizing the event in its entirety. The excitement level of Microsoft's launches have always dwarfed those surrounding MacWorld. I remember how everyone was talking when XP first came out, everyone went out and upgraded. But this time around, even though Vista sales have kept up, no one seems to be talking about it. Bottom line, don't disappoint, you have to deliver along every step of the way, especially first step!
Being politically correct counts, it goes a long way when making marketing decisions. Yet, there always seems to be business names or slogans that I just don't understand. Sometimes it's like, "what the hell were these people thinking" or not thinking about when they come up with that idea. This example is no exception either. Granted, it is only a thrift store, we're not talking about a more established and visable business that probably thought long and hard about their name like "Stupid Prices" or something of that caliber (sarcasm). Talk about missing the boat. We all know what we're talking about here, we see it every day, especially in small business. For many small businesses, just like Retarded Children's, there is a huge lack of multicultural sensitivity as well as creativity when it comes to branding. I can't say I feel the need to elaborate on why there are probably better names for a thrift store business. You can probably come up with dozens of more appropriate alternatives just off the top of your head. This is precisely the point! I will say that I believe polarization in marketing is an approach that can be very effective, yet is often under utilized. But, there are many variables in a market place that will limit the level of polarization, if any, that can be effectively achieved. So, what's the lesson here: Choose a name carefully. One of the most basic and important lessons of successfully marketing your business is having a successful name. It's your cheapest (free) and most important (most paid attention to) message that can be communicated to consumers. And lastly, at the end of the day, for this thrift store, it will be all about context and connotation, and I'm sorry to say that "Retarted Children's" has struck-out big time.
Business cards should be power, yet they are usually pretty boring and you don’t see many successful variations. But for Poul Nielsen, a personnel trainer from Toronto, this card is totally appropriate. It may seem to have some functionality issues, but I think the engagement potential here is huge, it holds your attention. The business card is so important, the last impression if you will. The cards I’ve always found to be successful are simplistic; simplistic in the sense of “less is more”, especially when it comes to the information being displayed. This card accomplishes that goal. It’s simple, just a name, occupation and phone number. But, what’s most powerful about this card is the dialogue and conversation it creates, and at the end of the day, that’s what’s important. It’s the new marketing way, integration and extension. The design facilitates the exchange, and again, it’s the exchange that’s important. The connection, the interaction, the sharing, this is the true power behind this card. Great concept.
So I was at the Bellingham Fred Meyer yesterday and as I was walking down an aisle, this can of refried beans caught my eye. I couldn’t believe it! Can this really be a good idea? Is this the result of thinking outside the bun? I mean who is buying this stuff, especially in Bellingham? I’m sure we’ve all had those late night cravings for "The Bell", especially after a long night of drinking. But Taco Bell can’t be more than a few steps above dog food, especially the refried beans. I really don’t think this is much of an exaggeration either. Apparently in Bellingham, health code standards restrict Taco Bell from being able to build a closer location to WWU then the current Sunset spot. I couldn’t find it written down anywhere but I’ve heard this from several people and if it is indeed true, it’s incredibly embarrassing. I’m not really sure if Taco Bell’s brand equity is going to help here. I know what the Taco Bell brand means to me, so I guess at the end of the day its still all about context. Sorry Taco Bell, you might be my fourth meal, but I won't let your nasty food infiltrate the first three meals of my day. Either way, I highly doubt these refried beans are flying off the shelves.
This is interesting! So Jessica Simpson is the cover story in the latest issue of Elle magazine. During the story interview, she talks about some of her health problems and confesses to Elle that she is allergic to a number of things:
"Health problems? There was that internal bleeding discovered last year around the time she was filming Employee of the Month;
doctors found the presence of the little bugger thought to cause
ulcers. Recently, Simpson tells me, after she was still feeling not
quite right, an allergist delivered news that would chill the heart of
anyone reared on Texan cuisine: She's allergic to cheese. And wheat.
Oh, and tomatoes, hot peppers, coffee, corn, and chocolate."
So, Jessica Simpson, being the Pizza Hut spokesperson, can't even eat pizza. She gets sick; and the ingredients in pizza will cause her internally bleed. We are all aware of the transparencies in celebrity endorsements these days. But, this is pretty bad! I don't know what Pizza Hut was thinking? There isn't exactly a shortage of celebrities who can eat pizza!
Joseph Jaffe is in the process of writing his second book titled "Join The Conversation". It should be out sometime in September. Jaffe decided to have a cover design contest for his book. You can also join the conversation and pick your favorite cover. This is the cover I voted for. Right now I'm the only one who's voted for it. You can see the results here. But I voted for this cover because it has significance in the place I'm currently at. How true is this! Being in the business school, and the marketing program more specifically, it used to amuse me but now I'm getting nothing short of pissed off at how disconnected some teachers are with reality. Lets be honest, some of these teachers in the business school have never had real jobs and it reflects in their curriculum. Why are they still talking at us with their theories, models and principles; or trying to shove everything into a metric or something linear. Is this education? No, it's definetly not. True education just like new marketing is conversation. Some teachers try to create conversation but they fail misserably and it's cause they are asking the wrong questions about the wrong content. Every quarter I keep think it will get better but there always seems to be a few classes that are just a joke. For example, no one cares about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the ABC Model of Attributes, 5 Factor Theory of Personality or the infamous 4 P's of marketing. We all know there is no application to any of this. What if my employer asked me to develop a marketing strategy or campaign? What am I going to do, busted out my college text books and apply some of the stuff in there? I'd get laughed at and probably fired for incompetence. Teachers need to speak from real world experience and talk about current issues. I didn't decide to major in business or more specifically marketing because I wanted to learn about history. Last time I checked that's why colleges have history departments. Institutions need to be forward thinking and if teachers can't incorporate this philosophy into their classes and/or can't speak from true business experience because they've had very little or none at all, then they shouldn't be teaching. A PhD means nothing and it's one fucking shame that WWU's business school, to make itself look more "qualified" from an evaluation stand point, laid off almost all of its professors who only had MBA's and not PhD's. In addition, weren't most of these professors teaching here in the first place not because they had the most advanced degreee but because they had a lot of real world experience? Education within the institution as we know it needs to change. I've learned more about marketing from the free resources in reading blogs and listening to podcasts then from the "education" my parents have thus far been paying thousands of dollars to WWU for. Final thought: with the internet as developed as it is and our ability to connect with others who have very narrow and focused interests, from a learning standpoint, do we really need the institution anymore? It used to make total sense in bringing the human and informational resources together from geographically dispersed area's; but the college in its present state, if it hasn't already outlived its usefulness, in time, it surely will.
I love this new ad by Hawaiian Tropic. This is a great example of simplistic design that not only gets your initial attention, but its practical and there are many associative qualities that help this ad come to life. Now, even though this is one of the best abstract ads (if you will) that I've seen in a long time, there are still some implications that can be explored as well as some questions that came to mind for me. First, the ad pictured above is interesting to me because it serves as actually advertising an advertisement. I'm not sure if that was the intent of Hawaiian Tropic or just the ad agency "Grey" promoting themselves. But nonetheless, I never thought about this. Has advertising as content and in all its transparency ever been so desired that we need to promote it? Will it ever be? In terms of story telling and puzzle solving, this ad seems to give the viewer a chance to find an answer without just hitting them over the head with it; "oh in case you didn't know this advertisement can be used to help you get a tan". I love the "Enjoy the Sun" slogan that is used because it's just a big enough hint for viewer if they are not getting it. Beautiful engagement.
Well, this year's Super Bowl Sunday has finally come to a close. After all that went on, I'm still lamenting over who I feel more sorry for: The Bears (specifically Rex Grossman cause he sucked), The Advertisers (because they each spent at least $2.6 million and combined $100's of millions of dollars on another unmemorable year of Super Bowl commercials), or is it The Viewers (who had to not only watch a pretty boring game but ended up sitting through all of these unimpressive ad's). Now, this is not to say that there weren't some memorable ad's but for the most part I was unimpressed. The Super Bowl is the one event of the year in which we as viewers and consumers actually view the advertisements as positive content supplements to the actual event itself. Seth Godin talks about Permission Marketing and that's precisely what Super Bowl ad's are about; they're the pinnacle of mass marketing. Nonetheless, we can learn a few things from this year's line up.
Also, with 2006 being the year of CGC with the YouTube's and other social media alike, we saw the 3 winning CGC entries including: Car Wash by Chevrolet. Now to be generous, it was almost funny. But, it was poorly executed, involving a bunch of guys taking off their t-shirts crowding around a car and going crazy. There's a lack of clarity, what are they going crazy for the car or the girls in it? My understanding was that this contest only involved the conception and not shooting or editing the actual ad itself. This is a pretty weak attempt in terms of extension and vertical integration. How much interaction with the brand could have been going on if the contest only involved conceptualizing the idea? Also, this is a new car, the HHR I believe it's called, so what the hell was Chevy thinking by picking an idea that doesn't allow for showcasing the car. Decide for yourself:
The NFL's Hard To Say Goodbye was probably the best entry of the three. It really captured the moment of the end to the football season. One discrepancy though, at the end it shows Brett Favre as if he is retiring but he did announce that he is coming back next season. Even though this commercial was most likely shot before the announcement it was still confusing none the less.
And then there was the Dorito's CGC spots. First off all, there were 5 ad's that were finalist for the contest out of over 1000 entries and I think the chosen winner and runner up were in my opinion the weakest spots of the group. The winning ad could be described as nothing more then a recycled idea that we've seen many times before. "Guy gets caught staring at girl and crashes his car." This was nothing new. Was this really the best they could come up with out of 1000 ad's? Why did people vote for these?
The other Dorito's ad Check Out Girl that was also shown:
My favorite of the finalist which wasn't shown had to be Mouse Trap. Check it out:
At the end of the day I think that this year's CGC entries into the Super Bowl were for the most part boring and they did raise some questions as to what their place should be on advertising's main stage. I just felt it was disappointing when you think about all of the brainpower and effort that went into making the spots that were submitted. Were those really the best one's? Also, besides the quick and subtle references to the creator of these ad's in the commercials, no one can tell that these ad's are CGC. Not one of the 15 people I was watching the game with knew about any of it. These ad's look exactly the same as the in house or agency created ones. So everyone is ranting and raving that CGC is better for the extension and vertical integration purposes, and while this is clearly the case, especially in light of all the time spent by the CGC creators with brand's like Doritos, I think CGC is presently overinflated because the extension is just not taking place on such a large scale. Bottom line: CGC's place in mass marketing doesn't seem to be a very effective one.
Finally, my picks for this year's best and worst Super Bowl spots. We'll start with the best.
My vote for the best commercial of this Super Bowl has to go to the controversial but flat out hilarious Nationwide spot featuring the Britney Spears ex Kevin Federline as a part of the "Life Comes At You Fast Campaign". I thought this commercial was great and it really seems to connect with the younger generations who conclusively hate K Fed. This commercial will most definitely have post life and let me just say prop's to K Fed for working with Nationwide to film this. Thanks for making yourself vulnerable and the butt of jokes for millions of viewers.
My pick for the worst commercial of the night has to be a tie between the salesgenie.com ad and the robot ad by GM. First, the sales genie ad sucked. I mean it really did. What the hell were they thinking. Who created it and who signed off on this stupid thing. Do they really think consumers are that gullible? What a horrible first impression, trying to use the GoDaddy formula, it surely didn't work. It was only a waste of everyone's time and a waste of $2.6 million. Enough said. Second, the GM ad I must say was thoughtfully put together from a production stand point, but at the end of the it's all about the context of your message. So here's the premise: this robot drops a bolt and is fired at the end of the day for being clumsy. But what was this ad really saying? Well, it says a couple of things to me. First, the message of "GM is obsessed with quality" is instead interpreted as "GM sucks at making cars so bad that even their robots screw up." And, this idea that "General Motors is the place where everyone including our robots gets fired". In addition, the robot commits suicide and even though this might be an extreme point, what is this saying to all of the GM employee's who have been laid off as of late. WTF?
Honorable mentions have to go the careerbuilder.com and Coca-Cola for their contributions of great ad's. In the case of Coke, it's just a shame that they are plagued by a poor product line because their marketing department is producing excellent content and doing some innovative work with social media. Furthermore, the most memorable punch line of the night might be "everyone wants to work in marketing" by GoDaddy.com's spot. However, this is actually saying very little because this ad features the same played out claim to fame of using sex to sell domain name's. One more thing, CBS, no one cares about your stupid self promotion of your network. Surely a waste of everyone's time. Although, the short Letterman/Oprah spot was hilarious. Your 1 for 50. All in all, it was mixed reviews from the center stage of mass marketing as we witnessed yet another year of advertisers making their individual contributions to the overall level of wastage that is the Super Bowl.
Great article just posted on CNN: GM dealers offer Toyota test drives 
