Banned in 'bama

Are you morally offended by this wine label? According to an article I just caught on Canadian Press, it violated the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's rules against displaying "a person posed in an immoral or sensuous manner." (Too bad nobody told the French ad industry over 100 years ago.)

The California vintner, Hahn Family Wines, doesn't mind too much, though. They say sales and interest in less prudish states are really popping.

The organic dilemma

My wife's grandfather was literally a "meat and potatoes" farmer. For over 50 years, he coaxed seed potatoes and feed for his cattle out of the thin, rocky soil of south-central New Brunswick.

He also used a lot of what he called "spray" — pesticides. And over half a century, he sprayed and inhaled just about every nasty substance science has unleashed to control vermin.

But that's not all the "spray" did. A couple of years ago, I shared in the sad experience of watching a formerly tough and independent man waste away from multiple ailments, including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. He did not survive.

To this day, my wife blames "spray". As a result, we have changed over a significant amount of our weekly grocery budget to tracking down local, organic, and farmer-direct foods whenever possible.

Unfortunately, the whole organic foods movement was dealt a PR blow this week with the release of a British mega-study claiming that organic foods are no more nutritious than "conventionally" grown ones.

In relation to my own purchasing motives, this was a big "so what?". But it shines light on a real marketing problem when it comes to organics.

First of all, what is organic? According to the Canadian General Standards Board, it must have involved none of the following:

• All materials and products produced from genetic engineering.
• Synthetic pesticides, wood preservatives or other pesticides, except as specified in CAN/CGSB-32.31.
• Fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a prohibited substance.
• Sewage sludge used as a soil amendment.
• Synthetic growth regulators.
• Synthetic allopathic veterinary drugs, including antibiotics and parasiticides, except as specified in this standard.
• Synthetic processing substances, aids and ingredients, and food additives and processing aids including sulphates, nitrates and nitrites, except as specified in CAN/CGSB-32.311.
• Ionizing radiation and forms of irradiation on products destined for food.
• Equipment, packaging materials and storage containers or bins that contain a synthetic fungicide, preservative or fumigant.

And, after years of trailing the U.S. on federal standards, Canada just passed Organic Products Regulations to make it official.

Now, I like organic food because I hate pesticides. But I am not 100% against chemical fertilizer (as long as it doesn't pollute waterways), irradiation, or even GMOs. In worldwide agriculture, these are complicated issues that affect the food supply for millions of people. Even limited use of pesticides, when there is no other alternative, is understandable to me.

And then there's meat: I'm more interested in humanely-treated, local animal products than I am strictly against the use of non-organic feed or antibiotics on individual sick animals as a last resort.

My issue is just the industrial mass-application of pesticides, drugs and hormones to drive down food commodity prices, which in the process makes it hard for independent family farms to compete without taking on the same harmful practices. Organic for me was never just a question of nutrients, or even residual pesticides that I had to wash off my food. It's about the health and sustainability of my wider community, which includes regional farmers who take care of their land and take pride in their products.

I could be the only one who thinks this, but I believe that in future the organic "brand" should be less about politics and nutrition, and more about environmental and community health.

Most importantly, farmers shouldn't have to die for our fries.

What do you think?

The mile high club

British Internet marketers Joe Trinder and Sam Kendall are getting married. Big deal, eh? But the way they're raising money for the wedding kind of is.

From their FAQ:

Joe thought of the idea one sunny summers day when realising he wanted to make a name for himself on the world wide web as it dawned on him he couldn’t save for the wedding he and his girlfriend Sam dreamed of, especially as the credit crunch of 2009 was pulling tighter. He knew he needed a new idea on the Internet, something that had not been done before and something slightly mad. The result was what you see on the homepage now. A mile of advertising banners. A real mile.

The result is Mile Long Advertising, a collection of online banner ads, stacked one on top of another, with the intention of making a web page a mile deep. (And yes — it takes forever to load!)

The press release gives more detail:

The billboard is made up of over 5300 individual Internet banners advertising thousands of brands, websites, businesses, blogs and individuals and totals
160,934.4 centimetres in length. In other words, should you print the image to scale, it would run a whole mile.

...

Each advertiser has a banner that measures 200 x 1057 pixels. There are a total of 5365 banners lined up together, meaning the whole billboard image stretches 5,670,805 pixels in length. That's the equivalent of three and a half Empire State Buildings tall!

According to the couple's blog, they're a quarter of the way there.

Ad rates vary from $99 to $275 USD,ranging from 200x1057 to 200x1057 pixels. From what's up there now, they seem to be attracting a decent assortment of brands from around the world.




But is it worthwhile? Here's their pitch:

Because your website or business will have a full sized banner advertising you as well as a link to your site from our homepage which should potentially be seen by millions of people over the coming years.

We guarantee you place indefinitely and the site will be there for at least 10 years, though we aim to have it online forever. You really will be making Internet history.

Also $99 for a vertical banner is a very cheap method of advertising.

Joe and Sam also claim that a portion of the profits will be donated to UNICEF, Red Cross, WWF, RSPCA and Cancer Research. But the site is light on details.

I'm not rushing out to suggest to my clients that they put their ad on a mile-long browser killer. The clutter on a regular advertising page is noise enough. But here's hoping the happy couple get what they wish for.

Breakfast of Champions (of work that matters)

As I've said before, we at Acart want to "walk the walk" when it comes to using our advertising powers for good and not evil. But we're also aware that we remain incredibly fortunate people with good jobs and a high quality of life.

Living and working in Ottawa, we also benefit from a surplus of food. Between catered meetings, work lunches, and the constant availability of various office treats it seems like Acartians will never go hungry. But this is not the case for many Canadians — including the children of low-income families in isolated communities.

We’d like to change that, for at least one child, by asking ourselves, our colleagues and clients to donate spare pocket change to a breakfast program in Nunavut.

Starting Friday, there will be a collection jar to collect spare change in our agency kitchen. Our first goal is to raise $360 by the end of August, which will ensure one child gets a nutritious breakfast every day for the 2009-2010 school year.

You’d be amazed what a difference a good breakfast can make. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, almost one-quarter of Canadian elementary school kids do not eat breakfast daily, which affects learning ability and physical development, and can lead to lifelong health problems.



We launched the program today with a pot-luck breakfast donated by our "Cause Loop", and the jar is already filling up. Want to help? If you drop by the agency, or know someone who does, please feel free to add to the change...

Kiddie Advertising

In today's Ottawa Citizen:

Canada's big-name food and drink companies are meeting their commitments to advertise less to children and to promote more nutritious products and an active lifestyle when they do target youth, according to a compliance report from Advertising Standards Canada.

The article references the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which companies such as McDonald's, Kellogg and Kraft voluntarily sign on to.

It states:

In advertising directed to children, it is appropriate to favour foods that contribute important nutrients that may otherwise be at insufficient levels in children’s diets; moderate the consumption of fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sugars, and sodium, which are generally over-consumed in the typical Canadian diet; or, of particular importance, moderate total calories in their diets.

Sounds great, eh? But this little gem was buried in the Citizen article:

The nutrition criteria also varies by company. The guidelines that McDonald's uses meant the only brand it advertised directly to children last year was its Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal with milk and apple slices. McDonald's has also changed the way it uses its famous Ronald McDonald mascot in advertising and the red-headed clown character now promotes an active lifestyle, not hamburgers and fries.

Okay, so McDonalds complies with this by putting Ronald in yoga pants and telling them to eat their McNuggets with milk and apples dipped in sugary sludge? Seriously?

Suspiciously, McDonald's nutrition calculator doesn't even seem to have options for kids meals. But I'll propose that deep fried chicken and caramel are not exactly "healthy" meal choices. Fun, sure. Even tasty. But it's not something I'd let my son eat regularly. It's treat food — not sustenance.

And there's the problem. McDonalds is still advertising to children. (As are others, but McDonald's is the leader.) It's still targetting kids so they'll associate McDonald's engineered flavours with comfort foods early on, and will drag their parents to the golden arches at every opportunity.

This is progress in responsible advertising? I must be missing something.

Or maybe I'm just mad because my son recently told me that my gourmet, hand-made, organic beef burgers grilled with hickory smoke and served on a whole wheat bun don't taste as good as McDonalds. That's right — they got him too.

(Image taken from here)


UPDATE: Validation from Quebec...

In light of the report released on the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, the Quebec Coalition on Weight-Related Problems (Weight Coalition) is encouraging Canada to develop legislation that is similar to Quebec's, to govern this type of advertising. According to the Coaliton, Canadian companies do not deserve the congratulations they are nevertheless receiving from Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), following the self-regulation measures that were implemented in 2007 and are being evaluated today.

Golb ym wollof!

On what one has to assume was a slow news day, the National Post dusted off a classic advertising story: "Do subliminal messages work?"

But after the requisite references to debunked 1950s studies and Led Zeppelin, the article gets to the real point: that of course certain messages can work subconsciously, if they reinforce a desire the subject already has.

This should come as no surprise to anybody in our industry, of course. The article points out that product placements are like subliminal advertising, except that you have to see them.

"If you see them, they're not subliminal," Psychotherapist Helena Kedziora is quoted as saying, and points out the confusion between the "subliminal," "subconscious," and "suggestive".

"Subliminal" means to be beneath perception. But the most insidious advertising — product placements, catchy jingles, mouth-watering photography, and impulse shopping displays — feed your urges by accessing them through the senses. You just aren't necessarily consciously aware of why you suddenly want a cheeseburger. (Crap! Just typing that made me want a cheeseburger... I should be careful how I wield these magical adman powers!)

Advertising is persuasion, and persuasive techniques succeed by appealing to baser instincts and emotional triggers that are beyond rational consumption. It's just a fact of life.

The article concludes:

...people seem fascinated by the idea of what it would mean to live in a world where marketing has the ability to direct people's behaviour without their awareness -- erasing the last square inches of private space between the self and the marketplace.

I hate to tell secrets, but advertisers broke that barrier with the invention of consumer branding in the industrial revolution. Ever since then, consumer behaviour has been shaped by irrational attachments.

So will backwards masked messages and split-second images change my consumer behaviour? The National Post article implicates that, if I'm open to messages pushing me in a certain direction, I will be more easily influenced by them.

In other words, it's about as effective as hypnosis...

How to succeed in viral advertising while getting your sweet, sweet revenge

There seem to be three things you need to succeed in the viral world:

1. An idea everyone can relate to
2. The talent to make it interesting
3. The cojones to put yourself out there

Halifax band Sons of Maxwell has all three. I had never even heard of these guys (well, "guy and his brother", anyway...) But yesterday, all of a sudden, people started sending me this YouTube link:



I don't get the sombreros, but it's funny and accessible stuff. As of this writing, it has 1,325,267 views. Yowza!

The backstory is that singer Dave Carroll took a United Airlines flight to a gig last spring, only to find on arrival that his $3,500 custom-made guitar had been trashed by the airline.

According to the Globe and Mail, after 15 years of international anonymity, Sons of Maxwell are now getting offers to interview and play on CBS and CNN.

Bad news for United's brand: A Google News search for "United Airlines" brought up 381 international articles on the video as the top hit.

The airline's response is somewhat lost in the rush to join in on hating luggage throwers and customer service reps: according to local news in Nova Scotia, United was "good-natured" about the whole thing and "wanted to use it as a textbook case on how to handle customer complaints in the future."

I just hope Sons of Maxwell makes the most of this sudden shot to funny Internet fame. Maybe they could go on tour with The Lonely Island...

See You Next Tuesday, on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is causing a stir today with its decision to feature on its main page an article about the traditional name for the main street of the red light district in medieval British cities: "Gropecunt Lane".

Now, I'm sure I've bruised eyeballs and shattered innocence by even dropping the C-Bomb in historical context, so to prevent further injury, all further references to the offensive word will use the obscure Chaucerian spelling "queynte".

As someone who deals with words in a professional manner, every day of his life, I look at our language's most offensive words with a mixture of curiosity and amusement. Why is queynte such a big deal? People use every possible crude euphemism for the male equivalent in work situations pretty frequently; when clients aren't around, the F-Bomb can be dropped without a second thought.

But queynte remains taboo, even in civilized boys-only discourse. Drop it in mixed company, and you're over the line. Drop in in front of my wife, and I sleep on the couch.

But will this ever change? Will popular culture and mass media defuse the C-Bomb?

As far as I'm aware, nobody dared say "Hell" on TV until 1967 when Captain dropped it at the end of "The City on the Edge of Forever". Twenty years later, the "Bitch" and "Bastard" frontier was crossed in primetime in a very special episode of Moonlighting. Since then, pretty much every other taboo word has made an appearance in the North American mainstream... except queynte.

The British islanders are a little less shy about it, as anyone who has seen movies like Trainspotting will attest. (If you click the link, be ready for a carpet-bombing of various naughty words.)

As a writer, I realize that words lose their power in overuse, or simply fall out of favour. The term "swive", once a shocker, is now meaningless. "Damn" was once written "D__n" because of its religious implications. (And, of course, "Taking the Lord's Name in Vain" is now as common as using "like" as a placeholder in casual speech.)

So, is the Wikipedia article the beginning of the end of queynte's power to shock and awe? And what new crudity will take its place?

My spellchecker and I will be keeping watch.

Stay classy, Australia

In an era when Ontario rules against ads that "imply alcohol is necessary for social, professional, personal, athletic, sexual achievement, enjoyment, resolution of problems" and the EU bans alcohol ads that "create the impression that the consumption of alcohol contributes towards social or sexual success" Australia may be one of the last bastions of sexy/ist beer marketing.



Skinny Blonde, a low-carb beer created by a drummer, a winemaker and an artist down under features a label with a classic pin-up girl illustration, named "Daisy", whose top disappears when the bottle warms up (i.e., is emptied).

Women's Forum Australia spokeswoman Melinda Tankard Reist (ironic name, btw) called the labels and campaign "demeaning, inappropriate and troubling".

Apparently, Australia does actually have an Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code, who recently upheld three separate complaints against the brewers, including using their Facebook page to promote underage drinking even before the label was released. Since that time, according to a somewhat-incomprehensible blog called Crikey, the "squiz-copping function" (whatever that means) of their web site, which also featured topless women, had been disabled and no further promotion of the heat-sensitive labels was made.

So, is this just another example of shock advertising that misses the point of the product (i.e., is the beer any good without its gimmick)? Or is it "further proof that boobs can sell anything"?

Whatever the case, this domestic Aussie brand is spilling over into international media. Skinny Blonde proudly displays its press clippings on the home page, with an invitation to submit more.

But what can we expect from a rock 'n' roll beer? Brewer/Drummer Hamish Rosser of The Vines, countered, "The label and web site is in no way meant to offend women or anyone else, rather embrace the Australian beach culture."

Or as Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap more famously put it, "what's wrong with being sexy"?

Let's just hope Hamish doesn't end up drumming for the Tap.


UPDATE: I sent this blog to the Skinny Blonde site for comment, and Hamish wrote me right back. His comment?

What?
Are Spinal Tap looking for a drummer?
I've always wanted to spontaneously combust in a flash of green light.

And here I was hoping he'd offer to send beer...

Signs of change

What differentiates us from many advertising agencies is that Acart's purpose is not to stimulate excess consumption. As Social Issues Marketing specialists, we often try to get people to consume less, such as when we promote public transit and other sustainable options.



But within the agency, like any business, we face corporate responsibility challenges of our own. That's why we're continually adding to our agency environmental policy, moving towards reusable dishes, cups and glasses for meetings (instead of styrofoam plates, plastic forks, bottles, cans and takeout coffee packaging), installing lower-consumption lighting, and trying to decrease internal printing.



As well, we're looking into enhancing efficiencies, like motion sensors on lights in meeting rooms. Even the traditional use of environmentally-nasty foamcore for presentation boards is on its way out.



With our social marketing background, we realize that policy is not enough; you've got to change attitudes. That's why we formed "Cause Loop", our in-house environmental team that organizes charity and consciousness-raising events such as Stairs for Wheelchairs and our street cleanup.

But the challenge is ongoing. That's why, if you visit Acart, you'll notice all these little signs hanging around to remind ourselves and our clients that more sustainable living is an ongoing commitment.




At Acart, all signs point to positive change. Take it, boys:

The subtle art of viral surprise

My colleague Liudas sent me a link to this social marketing campaign last week:



The big shame is that whoever posted it on YouTube blew the reveal by telling you what it was about in the title. You figure the spot out halfway through.

Surprise endings are a great way to make a strong first impression on an audience, but only if you can keep the ending under wraps.

This one, from a couple of years ago, was effective not because the topic was hidden, but it had a good ending I didn't expect:



Fortunately, it didn't lend itself to someone calling it the "meth ad where the dude is robbing himself" ad.

This next one is for a commercial product, but a responsible one. (Plus, it won at Cannes a couple years back.) Check out the good use of misdirection:



Sorry about the poor quality; it was the only upload without a give-away title, like this one (in English):



The moral of the story? If you're hoping to spread the viral joy of a great surprise spot, don't put spoilers in the title or tags! Sure, you may limit searchability, but you only get one chance to make an awesome first impression.

What a bunch of _ holes!

I'm going to write a second entry today, just because I can't wait until Monday to talk about the new viral campaign by Hardee's:



This first arrived on my radar on Monday, in a post by @Hardees on the Twitterfeed. It went to the "Name Our Holes" microsite, where users are invited to submit their own text and video suggestions for naming Hardee's new "biscuit holes" (they look like Timbits) with tongue firmly planted in cheek — so to speak!

Referring to the campaign as "Intentionally awkward" in my own feed, I ended up getting quoted by their corporate Tweeter twice. He/she used the phrase to then plug their YouTube channel. They also have a Facebook fan page with lots of digital swag.

As silly as it is, this is one of the best and most integrated social media campaigns I have yet to see. And it's getting buzz.

But in the end, is it any less smutty than that BK 7-incher ad? In my humble opinion, it's different because it's much less sexist in its innuendo. It's just harmlessly childish.

It may not sell more B Holes, but it's much more likable branding.

Holy Branding!

There was an item on CBC today about an Alberta milk ad featuring a group of Hutterite farmers:



Apparently, the ad's been around for a couple of years. In the spirit of the slow news day, however, someone finally got around to noticing that what's strange about it: most Hutterites won't pose for pictures, let alone ads. (Even though these guys, apparently, do.)

Religious orders and consumer products have a long and involved history. From the days of Benedictine monks creating beers, liqueurs and cheeses that are still popular today, to the famous Shaker furniture of the colonial U.S., sectarian reputations for craft and wholesomeness created some of the western world's first real "brands" (in the true sense of the word).

In a less organized fashion, Old Order Mennonites own the brand of choice at every farmers market I patronize, from Ottawa and St. Jacobs to Woodstock, New Brunswick, and a village near Sault Ste. Marie. For a family like ours, who look for organic foods and natural processed meats, the carts, hats and bonnets are a sign of quality. And the practitioners can't be unaware of their favoured status over many of the aging hippies and produce resellers who make up the rest of a typical organic market.

But is it credible for a provincial milk association, representing producers of every cow and creed, to use the Hutterite religion to promote product purity? Especially when doing so violates a belief held by some colonies that photos are sinful graven images?

I'm not offended on religious grounds, but it does seem to break some branding commandments. What do you think?

Have a great weekend.

Don't look now...

Reader Patrick B. sent me an interesting item on an experimental "aware" ad in Hamburg, Germany, that "sees" when it's being viewed.

Placed by Amnesty International, it uses a camera to determine if it's being looked at head-on, then changes the creative from a contented-looking couple to a man battering his partner as you look away. (I have no idea what happens in a crowded bus stop, BTW...) The headline reads "It happens when nobody is watching".

Here's what it looks like:



Powerful stuff, with a focussed message. And while it won a silver at Cannes, Copyranter points out that it's a one-off intended for that sole purpose.

Hopefully, though, this technology will add to the arsenal of social marketers trying to make a real difference. Although its consumer applications could get annoying (remember the urinal ads that talked to you while you peed?) the international press this ad is garnering should at least add to awareness on the issue.

Award info and full credits are here.