Whatever happens on the political front, what's irking me is that so much Hollywood star power could turn out such a weak PSA. Not that I was expecting them to paint themselves blue and appear in 3-D or anything. But couldn't they have at least put some creativity into it?
Catching the tip on Twitter, I was able to grab this screenshot before the Admins intervened. cnet shared this screencap of some of their comments:
This is, quite simply, every client's social media nightmare. And it's the reason that so many of ours, especially in the public sector, are late adopters of marketing's great sea change.
Another recent trend that keeps Facebook admins up at night is "letterbombing", in which a group of people change their profile pics to letters, then post sequentially on a fan page to spell out a message. This one was a radio station pwning a rival:
This Facebook vandalism is organized and encouraged, apparently, at letterbombing.com.
So what is a poor client side Facebook admin to do? It's quite simple, really.
In my opinion, the biggest challenge to client adoption of social media is lack of resources. Or to be more blunt, lack of resource COMMITMENT.
Organizations that have armies of highly-trained telephone customers service representatives can't seem to find the time or money to train just a couple of shifts of full-time Facebook administrators.
In other words, many marketing and communication departments are failing to take social media as seriously as they take a dying medium like plain old telephone service. All it would take is one or two employees who could be committed to monitor the social media feeds on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., respond quickly to comments and criticisms (the same as they would on the phone!) and delete hijackers and trolls before they can get the upper hand. That's it.
This came out a few years ago, but it's still gaining fans. Especially since the trend of reaction videos has arisen. Seems like the right time to post it.
Don't worry, it's just an ad. But long ago, people noticed something funny near the end of the car beauty shot. And like the Time Travelling Hipster or the Chaplin Cell Phone Lady, it took off.
See if you can spot it:
And, if you're still new to the meme, check out this playlist of general takeoffs:
The popular doll who everyone loves to hate is undergoing a makeover.
No, she's not going back to her heavy-handed '70s eyeshadow. I'm talking about the brand.
This new ad, from California's Firedrill Productions, repositions the posable plastic person as an enabler for girls who have big dreams for their future:
That's right. Barbie has moved on from her dreams of marrying Ken and setting up a Malibu Dream Home. Now she can be whatever she wants to be, because that's how 21st Century girls role model.
Do you buy it? There has been a lot of attempt, over the past couple of decades, to give Barbie better prospects than just being pretty. And none too soon, either, since Ken is suspected to have switched teams back in the 90s.
Can Barbie ever become an ambition learning tool? I think the pressure is more on the parents than it is on Mattel.
The "Guy at Home in His Underwear" is the ultimate in slacktivism: A dude hanging out in his gitch (that's Canadian for "underpants") nonstop, for 25 days, to raise money for testicular cancer.
And since this is 2010, the whole thing is documented live online:
He also interacts with people who chat him up or Tweet online.
Mark, the underpants crusader, is actually a testicular cancer survivor. And his effort is sponsored by venerable Canadian underclothier Stanfields. So as slacktivism goes, it's pretty solid.
All you have to do is give Mark a "like" on Facebook, and his sponsor will give a buck to the Canadian Cancer Society (Max $50k). Or you can just donate directly. But you have to do the "like" thing before Friday, October 29 to fund his undies crusade.
AdFreak this morning had an article about the other shoe the entire ad industry was waiting to hear drop: What will Alex Bogusky do next?
The former "Elvis of Advertising" is the creative mind behind some of the most outrageous (and wickedly effective) campaigns for Crispin Porter + Bogusky clients like Virgin Airlines, Burger King and Domino's Pizza.
But, as is detailed in this excruciatingly overwritten Fast Company interview, the man who did so much for fast food found that his conscience had caught up with him. He actually hated the industrialization of food. He was anti-GMO. And he gave up eating meat. He even wrote a portion-control diet book critical of "corporate food" interests. So much for the King.
So Bogusky quit CP+B, and advertising altogether. Then he launched "Fearless Revolution". It's a stripped-down activist organization hell-bent of helping consumers gather their forces to fight back against the consumerism that is consuming their lives.
From the site:
Something is definitely happening in our culture.
We think it's a new consumer revolution.
The fact is we all consume to live. The food we put in our bodies, the clothes we put on our backs, the devices we use to do our jobs, and the energy that goes into everything we touch. Together we consume A LOT. Yet our expectations are too low. We think we have to accept the bad that comes with the good. The pollution that comes with the energy. The unsafe working conditions that come with low prices. The toxic materials that come with convenient packaging.
We can do better. Wanting stuff isn't going to change. So maybe it's time to want more – more from ourselves and more from the people who make our stuff.
The duties of citizen and consumer are colliding.
To be a concerned citizen requires that we become concerned consumers because the reality is, corporations will impact our future as much as governments will. Voting beyond the ballot box with our purchasing power is rapidly becoming a powerful individual tool in the democratic experience.
That's right, kids. Adweek's Creative Director of the Decade is now the anti-adman.
...and I don't mean "Jessica™" and "Arnold Palmer®" brand shoppers.
For Halloween, Sears has actually decided to do something interesting. So if you're among the living dead, or just have a little craving for a cerebral snack, check out Sears' new Zombie Department. You'll be glad you did.
There are two campaigns circulating currently that have got me thinking about food trends and how they play out in advertising.
Those of you who know me know that I can be a bit of a food snob. With a few comfort food exceptions, I tend to buy stuff that is locally raised and processed, or from a trusted source, and that never touched a factory farm.
I guess I'm not alone. A couple of generations ago, the mechanization of the food industry was seen as a way to ensure quality, purity and cleanliness. In the decades after The Jungle was written, the industrial revolution — then the space age — completely changed people's relationship with food. It was processed, preserved and packaged by SCIENCE. And it was convenient, too!
But times have changed. Instead of The Jungle, we are reading Fast Food Nation. And factory food has gone (in the public mind) from ensuring cleanliness to efficiently spreading pathogens.
So, how should big food brands respond? In the case of fast food, it's to try to convince customers that their ingredients really are "real food", and that the chain of custody can be trusted.
I don't like them either. They seem desperate, and they're not very appealing.
This one, on the other hand, for Domino's Pizza, shows how CP+B keeps earning its reputation as a creative powerhouse:
AdFreak adds that the whole thing is real: the agency actually recruited focus group members, drove them to the room in cars with covered windows, and recorded authentic reactions.
Same strategy, very different approaches. But does either convince you that fast food is wholesome?
One thing I try to do in this blog is bring up current social issues as they apply to advertising.
Well, here's one for you to chew on: In a secular society, are some people's sacred religious icons fair game for satire?
These transit ads (via IBIA) by Ogilvy in Aukland, New Zealand, for a local pizza joint are pretty cleverly irreverent. They are sure to offend some, and amuse others. But is this a socially responsible move at this point in history, where the religious divide is becoming more and more polarizing in politics?
Not that I would want to actually stop anyone from gleefully offending in this way. It's their right, at least in some countries. But I am also a little uncomfortable with mocking people's most closely-held beliefs, even though the pizza nimbus is pretty chuckle-worthy.
I should add, though, that the Chapel Pizza ads are not nearly as tasteless as this gelato ad that got banned in the UK:
That one made news all over the place, which I suppose was the intent. But how does it make you feel about the brand?
There is a Canadian campaign from a few years ago, though, in which I feel irreverence was entirely well-placed. And that's because it was a campaign from a church that wanted to spark discussion about religious issues for their own sake.
For the United Church of Canada's online discussion site about faith and religion, this campaign challenged viewer's opinions about sexual mores, biblical literacy, religious symbols, social justice and more. Check out the whole campaign. It's fascinating.
Now, I am biased because the UCC is the church I grew up in. But I still think there's a big difference between challenging the sacred to sell pizza and ice cream, and challenging beliefs as an invitation to philosophical debate.
According to Ads of the World, this pension ad for a Norwegian pension fund is the biggest thing on the "viral" circuit this week:
Created by TRY, the ad certainly stands out. But how do you feel about it? Especially if you're one of my many friends who have ink?
Bad tattoos are a staple of schadenfreude on the Internet, with sites like Tattoo Disasters. But some of the tatts on the models in the spot are quite expressive and artistic. I'm not into body art for myself, but I feel like the anti-tattoo mockery is ill placed. Especially since the old man at the end is the only one with a permanent display that was guaranteed not to age well.
As for the boob jobs, well... the less said the better.
I wonder how the talent feels now about the way they were portrayed?
I'm not going to beat around the bush: I think American Apparel is a sleazy advertiser. But I love their t-shirts. So I'm both impressed by, and suspicious of, this little piece of corporate social responsibility:
The ad was run in AA's newsfeed, with the following explanation:
"Last week, American Apparel was contacted through Facebook and informed that a student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater was physically and verbally assaulted for her sexual orientation. The victim was wearing one of the company's Legalize Gay t-shirts at the time of attack. Hate crimes such as this are abhorrent and we deeply condemn them. Despite the unfortunate event that triggered it, the immediate response of this young woman's fellow students to hold a campus wide rally as a show of unity was incredibly inspiring. In response, we have run the following full page advertisement in the university newspaper offering free Legalize Gay t-shirts to any member of the student body who can put it to good use."
I get these anti-distracted-driving ads from Romania. And they're well art-directed. But I don't like them.
It's quite simple, to me: These ads are offensive to people with disabilities.
Okay, so blind people should not be driving. But amputees can, and do, drive without any problems.
The message that you're disabled from driving when you're texting is clear enough, but I just don't believe that a social marketing campaign to raise awareness and compassion for one issue should be inconsiderate towards another.
I wanted to get a local cultural opinion on this campaign, for balance, but the only person I know in the Romanian ad industry just had a baby (Felicitări, Roxana!) so she's busy.
Audiophiles have long known that fake processed stereo sucks as hard as colourized movies. But Bob Dylan would like to save you from this crime against music.
In a PSA on the Onion AV Club, you'll find out why Bob's older albums must be heard in their original format.
This is a promotion for Bob Dylan's The Original Mono Recordings box set. Visit the AV Club for a chance to win one.
A group called Malaria No More has engaged a large group of American entertainers to laugh in the face of death — and spread awareness of a deadly disease.
Malaria has essentially been wiped out on North America for decades, but it continues to kill thousands of people a day in places like Africa.
"Comedy Fights Malaria shows that the disease is no laughing matter — every 45 seconds, a child in Africa dies from malaria — but humor can keep malaria in the spotlight and in the conversation. The result is always amusing, often absurd and sometimes downright bizarre messages from a broad range of stars.
"Our goal is to engage people in a new way of talking about malaria and see how each person can contribute their own unique skills to keep malaria at the forefront of the conversation."
Look for Aziz Ansari, Will Arnett, Lake Bell, Orlando Bloom, Elizabeth Banks, Ted Danson, Lisa Edelstein, Sarah Gilbert, Elliott Gould, Josh Groban, Rachel Harris, Ed Helms, Rob Huebel, Ellie Kemper, Nick Kroll, Natasha Leggero, Riki Lindhome, John Mayer, B.J. Novak, Jeremy Piven, Jeff Probst, Rob Riggle, Paul Scheer, Jason Schwartzman and Scott Wolf:
What do you think of comedy being used to fight tragedy? (Even absurd, lightweight, too often unfunny humour li
ke this.) Is it appropriate? And more importantly, will it work?
As far as this specific NGO is concerned, awareness is a key step in achieving their ambitious vision:
"We’re determined to end malaria deaths in Africa by 2015—and we’re helping the world get it done. Malaria No More leverages high-impact awareness campaigns to engage the world, global advocacy to rally leadership and strategic investments in Africa to accelerate progress, build capacity and save lives."
Today, bloggers all over the world are speaking out about access to fresh water for Blog Action Day 2010.
You'll see stories about all the things we need to do to guarantee fresh water to people in the third world and poverty and conflict zones. But all far away from home, right?
Wrong.
For the past several months, we have been working with Amnesty International Canada on strategies to rally public support for the Lubicon Cree, a band of indigenous people who are living without land rights, stewardship of their traditional resources, or even drinkable water. In Canada.
You often hear about human rights horrors committed in the name of cheap oil. But once again, these stories tend to happen far away. This, however, is happening in Alberta.
The Lubicon, you see, have the misfortune of having their ancestral lands sitting on top of Canada's oil sands — a massive, if "dirty", reserve of petroleum.
"More than 2,600 oil and gas wells have been drilled on Lubicon Cree land in northern Alberta, Canada. This intensive development has taken place against the wishes of the Lubicon people and has led to tragic consequences for their society. Even more destructive forms of development – including oil sands extraction – are planned for the future.
International human rights bodies have long been critical of the poverty, widespread ill-health and culture loss that has resulted from the near total destruction of the Lubicon economy and way of life.."
And it's not just Amnesty who have given this issue, and Canada's human rights record, world attention on this issue. In 1990, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Canada had failed to protect the Lubicon Cree's rights by allowing the development of logging, oil and gas on the community's traditional hunting and trapping lands. (not that Canada is showing the UN much respect these days...)
So why don't the Lubicon just move, you might ask? Would you leave your homeland to someone who was planning to rip it apart?
The Lubicon situation is further complicated by the fact that they never signed a treaty with the British Crown. The sad truth is that when Canadian government commissioners negotiated Treaty 8 with other northern Alberta "Indians" in 1899 they travelled down the the Athabasca and Peace rivers and missed the "isolated community" who were not on the route.
In the many years since, there have been some federal government attempts to reconcile this mistake, but no mutually satisfactory deal has been reached. In the meantime, the Province of Alberta, which manages its own oil and gas development, continues to grant licences to global oil companies to exploit these "Crown Lands".
And how does this all relate back to Blog Action Day? It's something in the water.
In 1992, Lubicon Cree Rose Ominayak read this statement to the Alberta Commission of Review:
"Our children are sick from drinking water that oil has spilled in. They are sick from breathing the poisoned and polluted air the pulp mill has made. We are sick from eating animals, animals that are sick from disease from poisoned plants and water. Our children have nothing–they can’t breathe–even that has been taken. Their culture, the bush life, has been destroyed by development. When we were young we lived in the bush–it was a good life. Now, we have no traplines, nothing to hunt. There are no jobs, no money to live a decent life. We see ourselves, our men and our children falling into despair, hopelessness, low self-esteem and drinking. Families are broken like never before. Drinking and violence rise as our spirits fall."
Osocio posted this hilarious link on Twitter. It's a Brazilian cartoon PSA telling people that peeing in the shower will save 12 litres of water per non-flush:
Who knew that being a lazy slob could be so virtuous?
AdFreak posted this campaign by Air New Zealand. It's part furry, part French stereotype, and all double entendre:
Don't forget, this is the airline that had its crews strip down to body paint last year. Is there something wrong with just trying to promote yourself with decent service and edible food?
Adrants and Copyranter posted this Dutch video promoting a study at Raboud University in Nijmegen. Apparently (according to Google Translate) they found that men experience cognitive disability in the presence of an attractive woman, while women are immune to men's charms.
I got word last weekend from MTV Canada's Aliya Jasmine Sovani, better known to the world as the star of last year's controversial and popular "Save The Boobs" video, that this year's promo video is out.
Interestingly, after last year's swimsuit edition provoked controversy over the sexualization of breast cancer, this year the Boobyball crew decided to take a more humorous approach to promoting their Rethink Breast Cancer charity party:
Okay, so it's pretty goofy. But at least they had some fun with the send-up of 70s porn.
Unfortunately, as of this writing, the video is still unavailable on YouTube. I can only imagine that MTV, after seeing diverse postings of last year's video getting hundreds of thousands of hits, decided that all that traffic should be directed to their corporate site.
The problem is, the video is not easy to share or embed. This will inevitably lead to far fewer views, and far less awareness for this year's event.
Ever since the late '70s, I've been kind of a crotchety old man when it comes to Lego. That was when the iconic building blocks went from focussing on generic pieces to what can only be described as glueless modelling kits.
Okay, so a Lego AT-AT is really freaking cool, but where's the imagination in that? And how impressed would you be if your kid was able to design one using only those old primary coloured blocks?
But these fancy model kits aren't necessarily the end of imagination — just a lazy way out. Really creative kids ignore the instructions and make whatever their fantasies demand.
Today, Acart celebrated survival and hope... for women who have lived through breast cancer.
Our "Breaks for Breast Cancer" event, in support of the Canadian Breast Cancer Network, raised over $800 to help survivors across Canada. It's a small event, but as part of a national movement, every dollar matters.
To give this fundraising effort legs, we also produced our own book of recipes. "Tidbits" shares some closely-guarded heirloom dessert recipes — including my mom's WWII-era "wacky cake", which is vegan from before vegan was on the radar.
You can get your own copy of Tidbits for a minimum $5 donation to CBCN. We don't have any e-commerce available, but if you're in Ottawa you can pick one up at Acart reception. Otherwise, you may want to befriend an Acartian willing to spot you a fin + postage!
Find our more about this event, and meet the people behind it, at Acart's Corporate Blog.
Via Popeater, here is Ozzy Osbourne's cover of John Lennon's 1971 song "How" from the iconic Imagine album. (Click pic for vid)
October 9, 2010, marks what would have been the 70th birthday for the ex-leader of The Beatles, and this December 8, it will be 30 years since he was murdered in cold blood by a total asshole.
"This year the whole world is celebrating the 70th anniversary of John's birth," Yoko Ono tells Amnesty. "His spirit and influence is stronger than ever. John shared a common purpose with Amnesty International - shining a light on wrongs and campaigning to protect people's rights. We all shine on!"
Amnesty's USA's Executive Director Larry Cox says of Osbourne's effort, "Once again Yoko Ono has shared the extraordinary legacy of her husband's music to make a difference in the lives of those who have no voice. We continue to be enormously grateful to her for her support and generosity. Yoko and John Lennon were devoted to seeking a better world and used the power of their artistry to work toward that goal. Ozzy Osbourne's gift, with Sharon Osbourne's strong and generous support, makes the same powerful statement today: that individuals can make a difference when they join with others who share a commitment to justice and freedom."
I love the new social media landscape. But every once in a while, as I walk through my city, I am reminded that I am also still in love with one of the oldest ad media in existence: hoarding posters:
This campaign, from Plan Canada, shows how good old fashioned physical presence can still dominate the attention of an audience.
The campaign,"Because I Am a Girl", is "a global campaign to claim a brighter, safer future for girls. Investing in girls is key to eliminating poverty and creating a better world."
The campaign is a combination of membership drive, fundraising, and awareness for the women in poverty.
• 70 per cent of the one billion people living in extreme poverty are women and girls.
• Girls are 3x more likely to be malnourished than boys.
• Over 60 million girls are denied access to primary school.
But the opportunities are inspiring:
• An extra year of school for girls will increase their lifetime income by 10-20%.
• Children of women who have completed primary school are less likely to die before age 5 than children of mothers with no schooling.
• Women who do work reinvest 90% of their income back into their household.
The Because I Am A Girl campaign funds projects to promote water and food security, health care and education and microfinancing livelihoods in Africa, South Asia and South America.
Adrants posted this Globe and Mail ad, in which an iconoclastic young woman on a bicycle tells Canadians to forget about their country's past accomplishments, and put all eyes on the future:
From the YouTube link:
On the first of October, The Globe and mail will reveal a new look.
This change coincides with the launch of a discussion that begins in our pages, but ultimately lives beyond them.
We hope, and intend, for this discussion to strike at the heart of how Canadians define ourselves, and our nation. It is meant to go beyond words. We hope it will become a turning point.
We need to re-examine Canadian institutions, and conceits, that we hold dear. Instead of locking ourselves in celebrations of the past, we want to explore our future -- and all we can do to make it brilliant.
But what really can eight discussions over two months achieve? We hope they ignite a million great Canadian debates, at breakfast tables and board tables.
Start with The Globe and Mail. From there, it's up to you.
Canada, it's our time to lead.
While I appreciate the bold sentiment, I believe that there shouldn't be such a radical break between past and future. All breakthroughs built on other people's work. If people had to reinvent the wheel every generation, they never would have invented the car! (Or, indeed, the bicycle!)
On the other hand, it's also good to understand that we're making history every moment. It just seems ironic that this call-to-arms is coming from a medium that is so representative of the old way of communicating...
On the weekend, Osocio posted this lengthy and bizarre campaign from 10:10...
It's not that the campaign is bad. As a piece of video, it reminds me of early Terry Gilliam in its insistence on making us cringe:
The problem is, not everyone appreciates this nasty kind of humour — especially when it involves children. In fact, following an outpouring of outrage online, 10:10 themselves pulled the ad:
Sorry.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website. We won't be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.
We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.
At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team
The bigger problem is that 10:10 put forward a sophisticated approach into a debate that is anything but. Critics of the environmental movement were only too happy to jump all over this video as an example of the hidden evils of the greens:
...if the blowing-up bit was jokey and post-modern and not meant to be taken seriously, then what about the rest of it? Were we supposed to think the earnest environmental campaigners in it weren’t meant to be taken seriously either?
Of course not. The joke was only about blowing dissenters to bits and raining their flesh down on terrified people. Because exterminating human beings is acceptable to greens as a joke.
From which we can only assume at best indifference towards and at worst a profound loathing of the human condition. And if you think that’s an exaggeration, ask yourself if Curtis would ever have made a similarly playful satirical point by showing winsome furry animals being repeatedly blown to bits. Unthinkable. But exploding global warming sceptics? Hahahahaha!!
So, an interesting piece of art, but piss-poor judgement on the part of social marketers.
It's October, and that means it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month. You can expect to see lots of touching, provocative, heartfelt, and inappropriately sexy awareness and fundraising campaigns in the next four weeks.
And you will also see a lot of this:
What Miley is telling you is that you can raise a whole dollar for breast cancer research buying a pink Sharpie, autographing a piece of paper, scanning it and uploading it to their site.
Did I mention buying a pink Sharpie?
This is what is known as "pinkwashing". A play on "greenwashing", where companies take on superficial environmental programs and loudly tout it as corporate social responsibility, pinkwashing refers to companies that jump on the pink bandwagon without really doing much. (And in the worst cases, actually contribute to rising cancer rates.)
According to Think Before You Pink, there are some key questions to ask yourself before diving in to a private sector breast cancer initiative.
Let's see how Sharpie does:
1. How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer? Is the amount clearly stated on the package?
In this case, it is. It's a buck.
2. What is the maximum amount that will be donated?
$10,000 Not bad. But then again, Sharpie is ultimately owned by a company that did $1.5 Billion in sales last quarter.
3. How are the funds being raised?
Through purchase and user engagement. Since purchase is an honour system (I doubt they know if you used a Sharpie or another brand) this seems direct enough on their end.
4. To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?
City of Hope, a U.S. National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. miley Cyrus is a spokesperson there, as well, which explains here (obviously fleeting) involvement in this campaign.
5. What is the company doing to assure that its products are not actually contributing to the breast cancer epidemic?
There seems to be a lot of urban legend online about getting cancer from Sharpies... but it appears to be just that: myth. The manufacturer, Sanford, makes liquid paper, which is pretty damn toxic, but apparently it has also been cleared of carcinogenic effects.
So, should you buy a pink Sharpie, write your name, scan it, upload it, and generate a dollar for breast cancer research and treatment? Sure. But you can also just send a cheque directly to City of Hope. You'll do more good that way.
