#Maltesers tries mixing disability with humour, nails it

How interesting is this? Maltesers, a British candy brand, has taken the bold step of taking a humorous look at the lifestyles of people with disabilities in a new campaign for the Paralympics.

Instead of dewy-eyed homages to bravery and overcoming obstacles, these ads portray people with disabilities talking to their friends about real-life challenges like awkward sexual situations:

Another talks about a hearing aid being eaten and shat out by a partner's goofy dog:

Yet another is about a wedding dance floor disaster:

They're funny (the first one especially), respectful, and wonderfully human. They don't pretend the disabilities don't exist; they show instead that they are essential parts of the lives and identities of the people who live with them.

The other thing I like about these is that they're still ads. No product benefits (like taste) are mentioned, but the candies still play a big support role in these cute little vignettes.

And they're paying off! According to campaign, Britain's Channel 4 offered a million Pounds worth of free TV media during the Paralympics to the advertisers with "the best creative idea with diversity at the heart of a campaign."

Maltesers (a Mars brand) and its ad agency, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, were selected from a shortlist that included Amazon (Lucky Generals); Barclays (Bartle Bogle Hegarty London); Dove (Ogilvy & Mather); H&M (Adam & Eve/DDB); Lloyds Bank (Adam & Eve/DDB); Lynx (TMW Unlimited); and Purdey’s (Iris Worldwide).

My only criticism is of the third one, "Dance Floor," which seems a little forced at the end. But kudos to a brand and agency for trying something new with the right mix of bravery and sensitivity.

Bank of Montreal #RemembranceDay campaign does an about-face

A couple of days ago, I spotted this ad on Facebook:

Nice, eh? Except not really. It's a big bank, and they made a $1.2-billion profit in the third quarter of 2015. And they're buying social media engagement for $1 a pop?

I complained on Twitter, as did many other Canadians, but someone much more famous than most of us really got their attention:

@BMO u should add **up to a MAX of $50,000... of the $4.333 billion PROFIT u made in 2014. Charity or advertising? philanthropy or profit?

— Sarah Silverman (@SaraSilverman) November 7, 2015

@SaraSilverman 1/2 Hi Sara, we're encouraging our community to #TakePause from their social media activities and reflect -

— BMO (@BMO) November 7, 2015

It should be noted that this Sarah Silverman is a parody account. But it — and presumably the complaints of many other Canadians — seems to have convinced BMO to revise their message earlier today:

Can you spot the difference? The full donation amount is mentioned, and it is not contingent on the number of engagements or shares. The link still goes to their Thunderclap site. Here's how the promotion is worded now:

Remembrance Day is about taking pause to remember those selfless men and women who’ve put their lives on the line for our freedom. 

On November 11 at 11am, join us in a moment of social silence to honour these brave men and women. That means no status updates. No re-tweeting. No nothing. 

On behalf of all those who participate, BMO will be giving $50,000 to The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command Poppy Trust Fund. 

Participants have until November 11 at 10:59 a.m. local time to sign up. 

BMO proudly supports Canada’s veterans through the annual Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Campaign and our long-standing commitment to the Canadian Defence Community.

Their hearts may seem to be in the right place, but keep in mind that this is branded engagement piggybacking on a solemn national day of remembrance for Canada's war dead. No longer holding people's emotions for a $1-per-engagement ransom is a start, but don't fool yourselves: this is private sector marketing trying to earn social media reach on the cheap. Its shareholders wouldn't have it any other way, no matter how they — or the employees of the bank – feel about our soldiers and veterans. (I'm sure they are as good-hearted as the rest of us; but like any corporation the bank's job is to increase share value at all costs.)

Regardless, their YouTube video for the campaign is excellent:



Take a quiet minute tomorrow to remember. Not because it makes you look good on Facebook or Twitter. Not because a brand told you to. And not even to get them to make a token donation to a good cause.

Do it because it's right.

This is the ad that's appearing now:

That's better.

McDonald's comes through with "something bigger" for #PeaceDay

"We love the intention, but think our two brands could do something bigger to make a difference."

That was the rather chilly response by McDonald's to Burger King's cheeky McWhopper proposal for Peace One Day.

But it turns out they actually meant it:

According to Burger Business, McDonald’s was the key impetus behind this global initiative to provide food assistance to refugees and other displaced people by the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) food-assistance wing.

McDonald’s funded this 30-second TV spot, by their agency TBWA. Liam Neeson is the VO.

The objective, according to McDonald's, is to "raise awareness of the refugee crisis; and encourage people to donate to the WFP to make a tangible difference.”

Other participants in the program are  McCain Foods, Cargill, DreamWorks Animation, Facebook, MasterCard, OMD, Twitter, United Airlines... and Burger King.

Hunger is a root cause of human conflict, because people will do anything to ensure that they and their families can survive. In turn, conflict causes food insecurity, as crops are destroyed, farmers are displaced, and field-to-fork infrastructure is disrupted.

On a 2014 visit to Turkey, Pope Francis summarized the idea that the "war on terrorism" starts with fighting poverty and hunger in at-risk regions:  "What is required is a concerted commitment on the part of all ... [to] enable resources to be directed, not to weaponry, but to the other noble battles worthy of man: the fight against hunger and sickness."

Tylenol does a beautiful ad that says nothing about Tylenol #HowWeFamily

Sometimes, my industry makes me too cynical. I completely understand why brands want to associate themselves with progressive social issues. The inevitable blowback, from reactionary groups such as One Million Moms, get them oodles of positive earned media. But is it really moving product? Let's have a look:

Beautiful piece. It could have been produced by any one of dozens of human rights groups, if only they had the money. And there's a campaign microsite (of course) for online engagement.

But it's not a human rights PSA. It is an ad for a pain medicine. And the branding is stuck on so bluntly that it seems like more of a sponsored short film than an ad.

Don't get me wrong. I like the video and I agree with its sentiment. But at what point do we question whether consumer brands are manipulating us by piggy-backing on the important social issues of our day? And is that OK with us anyway?

I think it is, but only if we consume the media (and product) with the open-eyed awareness that we are being advertised to. Johnson &Johnson aren't just being nice. They're following a plotted brand strategy, after testing the market last Christmas with a similar ad.

Ad Age quotes Manoj Raghunandanan, senior director-marketing of J&J's McNeil Consumer Healthcare, saying that research conducted after the December campaign "brought significant improvement in brand-equity scores on such survey questions as 'this is a brand that understands me'," which translated into greater sales and market share for Tylenol, "despite the brand putting no other advertising support behind its Extra Strength Tylenol flagship products during that period."

Nothing about the product's efficacy, nor its price, nor even its safety. Just family-focussed branding that builds trust and positive associations.

Perhaps this is the future for brand advertising, and to be honest it feels pretty good. Just don't forget that you are always a customer.

Google's celebration of Jonas Salk makes a timely point

Google Doodles are well-known for hot political and social issues. A couple of years ago, their July 4th homepage was all about internet freedom. During the Sochi Winter Games, they doodled their defiance of Russia's anti-gay laws.

Today, they ran a comic that celebrates the 100th birthday of Jonas Salk, father of the polio vaccine.

So, what's controversial about that?

When my mom was a kid, polio was one of the biggest fears of every parent and child. One of her best friends, and next door neighbour, caught the disease. The disease could cause paralysis, sometimes permanently, and could result in being confined to an iron lung. In the worst cases, people died. Neil Young is among many celebrity survivors.

Although the disease is making a comeback in some parts of the world, polio is one of those diseases, like smallpox, measles, diphtheria and pertussis, that were no longer considered common threats to childhood health by the time I was growing up. And that was thanks to vaccines and public immunization programmes.

But the "anti-vax" movement, a loose conglomeration of people who have religious, pseudoscientific, or other non-medical objections to vaccines, has been gaining steam. No thanks to celebrity non-scientists like Jenny McCarthy, preventable outbreaks of things like measles are on the rise.

Dr. Salk, by the way, is also celebrated for his selflessness. He forfeited billions of dollars by refusing to patent the polio vaccine.

Now that another flu season is on its way, the push is on to vaccinate as many people as possible against it. Each year, approximately 3,500 Canadians die from the flu. But the flu shot can prevent up to 80% of flu infections in healthy individuals.

While we're waiting for that ebola vaccine, maybe it would be a good idea to get vaccinated against a disease that is statistically more likely to hospitalize or kill you. And say a silent thanks to Dr. Salk and all the other scientists who have made modern life much less scary.

Thanks to David for pointing me to this nice bit of public health advocacy.

JC Penney creates a truly clueless breast cancer awareness ad

What is this, even? Fumbled CSR? Trivialization of cancer? Terrible brand pun? Photoshop Disaster?

It's all that, and more.

Digiday's Joanna Franchini writes:

Someone please save JCPenney from itself: the company’s latest ad campaign, rolled out in October for Breast Cancer Awareness month, is a painful mess of mixed brand messaging, inadvertent sexism and cultural tone-deafness. 
...
The long hierarchy of people who approved this ad believed it was cool or clever to conflate pennies and breasts, making light of the nightmares of breast screening, lumpectomy, mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Very uncool and way, way out of touch.

While JC Penney is taking PR lumps over this ad (which appeared in People magazine), I feel really bad for the woman featured. She's trying to do something good for a cause that is really close to her (far too close!) and now she suffers embarrassment at the hands of bad advertisers.

Paddy Power are being assholes for a cause now

C'mon England! #BrazilNuts pic.twitter.com/8O1Ayyd8TR
— Paddy Power (@paddypower) June 7, 2014

The Tweet above showed up on Saturday, and people went nuts on the online gambling brand.

Is the picture real? If it is then theyre disgusting “@paddypower: Get behind Roy's Boys! #BrazilNuts pic.twitter.com/2lKLxPt6hR” cc @PicPedant
— 4tis (@4tis) June 8, 2014

That could be the cure for cancer gone right there. Oh well, it is the world cup. "@paddypower: #BrazilNuts pic.twitter.com/vs3FeeeUj4"
— Ben Prater (@benpratershow) June 7, 2014

Hoped it wasn't real. Wow. Away to close my account. RT “@paddypower: Run, forest, run! #BrazilNuts pic.twitter.com/Yk0vn77BrU”
— Kenny Stewart (@Kenny__Stewart) June 7, 2014

But then yesterday, they revealed the whole thing as a "corporate social responsibility" campaign:

Wood you believe it? http://t.co/DxupnvU2Lf #SaveTheRainforest pic.twitter.com/UT3DA4igl4
— Paddy Power (@paddypower) June 8, 2014

Of course it was faked. How could anyone doubt that? But it's interesting to note that Paddy Power, who are not exactly know for social sensitivity in advertising, used predictable outrage as a way to get rainforest issues in front of soccer fans.

No, deforestation is not a laughing matter. But they played Twitter like a piano. And like it or hate it, that's one for the record books.

Degree does one of the finest tributes to veterans ever #truepatriotlove

Forget stupid Axe ads. Move over, Old Spice. This is how it's done, people.

Toronto's Ariad Communications created this heartfelt and powerful look into the lives of Canadian military veterans who were badly wounded on duty, but through pure willpower manage to train for Tough Mudder Toronto — "probably the toughest event on the planet":



The campaign isn't just feel good, it does good: The Degree team is competing to raise money for the True Patriot Love Foundation in support of Canadian veterans and their families.

Thanks to Creative Criminals for the tip.

Stinky PSA campaign causes a real-life gas leak panic

Via NY Daily News

Here's a funny one.

According to the Great Falls Tribune, reports of a major natural gas leak in the Montana city's business section caused the evacuation of several buildings yesterday.

The cause? Scratch-n-sniff direct mailers designed to educate the public about what a gas leak smells like:

Nick Bohr, general manager at Energy West, said workers at the company were cleaning out some storage areas and discarded several boxes of scratch-and-sniff cards that it sent out to customers in the past to educate them on what natural gas smells like. 

“They were expired, and they were old,” Bohr said. “They threw them into the Dumpsters.” 

When the cards were picked up by sanitation trucks and crushed, “It was the same as if they had scratched them.”

Natural gas doesn't have a detectable odour of its own, but has a chemical (t-butyl mercaptan or thiophane) added to give it a foul "rotten egg" smell so that people can detect leaks.

Via Philly.com

Energy West had been distributing the PSA cards to customers as part of a safety awareness campaign.

“In a sense, it worked the way it was supposed to,” commented Nick Bohr, general manager at Energy West, as part of the company's apology for the inconvenience. They also mentioned that there was no public safety or environmental concern about putting the expired cards in the trash.

If you want stinky PSA stickers of your own, you can order them by the thousand here.

Tip via The Consumerist

Humans don't look like fashion illustrations

This campaign by "Star Models" seems like spec work by Brazilian agency Revolution, but it makes an interesting point.

I have long pondered the problem of models being photo-manipulated in fashion spreads. I realize that Photoshop makes these unreal images look far too real and attainable, but I am constantly reminded of the fact that traditional fashion illustration, dating back to the mid-20th Century, was also completely unrealistic.

By manipulating models to really look like fashion illustrations, the creative team manages to show just how unhealthy those body aspirations are.

 It's likely inspired by projects such as popular speculations about what a Barbie doll would look like "in real life" as well as by the real-life tragedy of anorexic model Isabelle Caro.

This message is important, especially with all of the "pro-ana" and "thigh gap" nonsense being spread around the internet. Without a call-to-action or any other evidence that this is a client-approved campaign, however, I have to wonder why the agency didn't just do it under their own brand.

Via Ads of The World

Vanessa Paradis explores the domestic jungle for H&M

I like this new ad for H&M's "Conscious Collection" of more sustainable clothing.



Just because you have signed on Vanessa Paradis to be the face of your collection doesn't mean you have to focus on her sex appeal. Instead, this ad is a beautiful piece of eye candy for corporate social responsibility. The parallax-effect scrolling web site is also quite lush.

H/T The Drum

Let's Talk about Buyral Marketing #BellLetsTalk

Bell Canada has declared today (Feb 12) as "Bell Let's Talk Day." It's a corporate responsibility outreach that encourages Canadians to Tweet share messages to raise awareness of mental health issues. Furthermore, they're donating 5¢ " help fund mental health initiatives across Canada" for every text or long distance call made on their network, as well as for every sharer of their campaign images on Facebook, or Tweet of their hashtag #BellLetsTalk.

Great, eh? Well...

As I wrote earlier on Osocio, I have an issue with campaigns like this. Not about the issue, which is important and very close to home. It's the underlying strategy, something I call "Buyral Marketing."

I made up the term to describe the kind of social media campaign in which a major brand attaches itself to a popular cause, creates branded content, and provides an incentive — in the form of a small donation to that cause.

As an adman, I can't deny that the strategy can be extremely successful. My Facebook feed is full of Bell's facts about mental health, shared by good people who want to do something to help. Their ticker is almost at 10 million shares.

But you know what? Most of these people would share campaign material like this anyway. Bell isn't paying people (through a donation) to share facts about mental health. People on social media have shown that they can be motivated to share a feel-good campaign with very little incentive beyond a desire to belong to something good. It's paying them to overlook the fact that they are sharing branded advertising for a for-profit corporation.

Consumers aren't stupid. Many of my friends are fully aware of the ulterior corporate motives involved, and choose to participate anyway. Social media movements like Condescending Corporate Brand Page make it hard to let yourself believe that Bell is in this for anyone but themselves.

But I hope brands engaging in Buyral Marketing are aware that this tactic has its limits. The cynicism will grow, a little, each time consumers are asked to work for a brand's CSR department. 

Don't get me wrong. "Let's Talk" is great branding, highlighting the natural association between a telecommunications company and the need for a public conversation about mental health. Perhaps next year Bell will take a higher road, committing those nickels to the cause without requiring shares (or use of their paid products!) to do so, simply because their message is highly sharable on its own merits.

Times of India responds to sexual violence with "definition of a man"

Less than half, in my opinion. But good on the Times of India for taking a stand.

ourmobileworld.org says that these ads are currently running 1/4 page in the paper, which has the largest circulation of an English-language newspaper in the world.

The macho approach against sexism seems a little old fashioned, but anything to speak out against horrors like this.

H/T Cosmo

Is Buyral Marketing good CSR?

I just made up that term. I needed something to describe the proliferation of campaigns that buy social spread by promising to donate for each "like" or "RT" received.

Here's today's example:

"Zinc Saves Lives" is the corporate social responsibility brand of Teck Resources, a mining company that specializes in copper, coal and zinc. So by retweeting this post, you're acting as a free social media promoter for the mining company, as well as potentially saving a child's life.

When I see these campaigns, I can't help but by cynical. That's because I know how they work.

You see, most big corporations have a social responsibility strategy, both to enhance their brand and to earn social licence (that is, community support) in the regions in which they operate. These activities have a set budget, a chunk of which is earmarked for conspicuous corporate giving to a relevant cause.

In the case of Tek, it takes the form of "We Day":



You can see the actual donation budget if you look at the fine print:

Teck will donate CAD$0.50 for every retweet of the designated We Day tweet, up to a maximum total for each We Day event (CAD$20,000 for Toronto, CAD$20,000 for Vancouver, CAD$10,000 for Alberta, CAD$5,000 for Montreal and CAD$5,000 for Ottawa). The total donation from Teck for the entire campaign is capped at CAD$60,000.

So, Tek has budgeted a $60,000 gift to "Zinc Saves Kids, an initiative of the International Zinc Association in support of UNICEF." But instead of just giving their trade association the money (to enhance its reputation, too) Tek is emotionally blackmailing Twitter slacktivists to do their advertising for them — for free. Instead of the limited PR they get for just handing over a lump sum, they engage large numbers of social media do-gooders to spread their goodwill all over the internet.

Here's another example of buyral marketing, from the pharmaceutical industry (via Osocio):

In this case, a simple repinning of the image gets a hefty $10 donation to the Breast Cancer Society of Canada. All you have to do is help Bayer spread their one-a-day brand all over Pinterest.

And once again, there is a maximum. The donation cap is $30,000.

This isn't a particularly bad thing. Charities need private donations, and people love to feel like they're saving the world. But people need to know what they're being asked to do, and by who.

Are you concerned with the ethics of buyral marketing? Add your comment below.

The LCBO tries to guilt me out of parental drinking

Saw this while picking up wine over the weekend. I have to say, my son has never looked at me like that when I'm imbibing.

LCBO has a bad history with social marketing, being (literally) the poster child for unintended consequences in using guilt and shame as tools of corporate social responsibility.

If they really want results, they might want to try a more positive and constructive approach. What do you think?

Wendy's dabbles in the fine art of "Insulinwashing"

Making corporate social responsibility partnership decisions can't really be that hard:

1) Does this partnership enhance my brand?
2) Is this issue of interest to my customers?
3) Am I sure this won't backfire, by drawing attention to a negative aspect of one of our products?

Somebody at Wendy's never got past #2 when they greenlit this gem (via The Consumerist)

Don't feel bad. You're in famous company:

Read about it here.

Read about it here.

Italian fashion brand redefines "models"

Mi piace tantissimo! This campaign by Piazza Italia, by Diaframma (Florence) will hopefully get all the PR and social media goodwill it deserves.

Instead of featuring "models" chosen just for their looks, this campaign called on the brand's role models to stand for their fashion ads.

From Signora Capri (above), who risks her life fighting the Mafia to Signore Pisacane, a soccer player who refused a bribe to fix a major game, these are people who are really worth looking up to.

Via Ads of The World

A CSR ad with teeth

Rotten teeth. Ewwww...

It's for Industrial Strange Clubwear in Austria, by P&P Medien.

I don't thing they thought the English copy tthrough very well, though. (You don't need teeth to make the "B" sound, for example.)

Via Ads of The World

And now a Corporate Social Responsibility message from Big Tobacco

(Via 22 Words. Thanks to Jackie Di C for sharing.)

The killing probably has a bigger impact than the greening, though, because the locked-up carbon gets released into the atmosphere (and people's lungs) pretty damn quickly.

Getting pissed with drunk drivers

This ambient campaign from Publicis Milan is one of those that is probably more effective as a case study than as an actual installation.

McFarland Beer placed heat-sensitive ads inside urinals at a Milan nightclub. Whenever a guy let out a long-enough leak, it revealed a corporate socia responsibility message:

I'm not sure they really needed to focus so much on the stream... or the guy bending down to read it close up. Ew!

Tip (and video) via Ads of The World.