Target takes advertainment to the next (cynical) level with "shoppable" film

I guess today's consumers are a cynical bunch. There was a time when product placements in entertainment were a dirty little secret. Then the '80s came, and a generation grew up with Saturday morning cartoons that were just 30-minute toy commercials. Young adult TV shows started to be sponsored by retail fashion brands. James Bond started selling BMWs controlled by Ericcson cellphones. Etc. Etc.

Fast-forward to the digital age of advertainment. People willingly watch long-form commercials that can be 5+ minutes long. They know it's all selling, and they don't mind at all. It's just the way it is.

Into this context comes the next convergence of advertising and entertainment: "shoppable film"



Next week, Target will launch "Falling For You," starring Kristen Bell (of Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Veronica Mars). It's "a romantic comedy highlighting fall fashion, beauty and home product from Target—a clever extension of the fall marketing campaign."

In three online episodes, the target market can watch Kristen, along with Zachary Abel (“Make It or Break It”) and Nia Long (Fresh Prince of Bel-aire”, “Big Mama’s House”) play three Target employees bumbling their way through planning a fashion show. The video hints that two of the characters fall in love along the way — I'll assume they mean the two white people of opposite gender.

As they watch the "film," viewers can e-shop the clothes they see from Target without stopping the action. Because I'm sure it's riveting.

As Consumerist put it:

Are you sick of movies that try to ruin solid product placement with things like plot, action, and characters? Do you also ache to see B-list TV actors cashing a paycheck by appearing in extended commercials for a discount retailer? Then the folks at Target have got the show for you!

The death of an ice cream brand.

Remember these ads?



Breyers ice cream was once a brand built on the "all-natural" mantra. (Their most famous ad, which I can't seem to find, had a kid trying to pronounce the ingredients.)

Here's a later campaign, built on the same USP:



That's history now. In 1996, they started adding the very ingredients they used to make fun of, as a cost-cutting measure. And as The Consumerist points out today, many of their flavours can no longer technically be called "ice cream" in the United States:

The Unilever-owned corporate web site explains:

Frozen Dairy Dessert products are made with many of the same high-quality ingredients that are commonly found in Ice Cream – like fresh milk, cream and sugar – and offer a great taste and even smoother texture. These products do not fall within the current FDA definition of standardized Ice Cream, so we call them Frozen Dairy Dessert. 

... 

Since 1866, Breyers products have consistently delivered high-quality ingredients, great flavors and smooth creaminess that our fans love, and we remain committed to that Pledge. Our Ice Cream and new Frozen Dairy Dessert varieties continue to use fresh milk, cream and sugar. What distinguishes our Frozen Dairy Dessert from our Ice Cream is that it’s blended in a whole new way to create a smoother texture.

...and a cheaper product.

Old Man Breyer must be spinning in his grave.

Sin tax on strip clubs to fund rape kits

Via Google Image Search

Here's one for you to think about: Houston's city council has passed a new tax on strip clubs within the city, adding a fee of $5 per patron to their cover charge.

The author of the ordinance, Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, put the motion forward as a way to subsidize the processing of the city's massive backlog of rape kits for sexual assault victims.

“We have to do something to help the 4,000-plus women, children and men who have been sexually assaulted,” said Councilwoman Cohen. “I think we’ve waited long enough.”

The victims certainly have waited too long for justice that has been delayed due to tight law enforcement budgets. But the tax also makes an official link between the above-ground sex industry and sexual assault, which is troubling for some (especially those who make money from it).

According to the Houston Chron:

A study Cohen relies upon to make the link states: “Are sexually-oriented-businesses, alcohol, and the victimization and perpetration of sexual violence against women connected? An exhaustive review of the literature says yes.” 

Several paragraphs later, though, the same study states: “However, no study has authoritatively linked alcohol, sexually-oriented-businesses, and the perpetration of sexual violence.”

Sin taxes are popular and profitable tools of social engineering when it comes to vices like cigarettes and alcohol. But whether you like them or not, do you think that consumers of legal sexual entertainment should be legally compelled to adjust their karma by paying to help sexual assault victims?


The Texas rape kit issue is a government funding issue. Last year, at the State level, Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, introduced a bill that would require a police department to submit a rape kit to a crime lab within at least 10 days, and complete the DNA analysis no later than 90 days after the sexual assault was reported. But it has since been stalled by police departments' inability and/or reluctance to do the inventories that would inform the legislators.

Councilman C.O. Bradford also called the nexus into question. He said that according to Houston Police Department, apartment complexes are the most common location for sexual assaults, and that sexually oriented businesses are 10th.

Still, said Bradford, a former police chief: “Victims have waited too long.”

Indeed they have. But is this what they were waiting for? Or did they want their government to pay to fix the problem?

Via Texas Tribune

Tip via Consumerist
Related: Houston Strip Club Accused Of Racism

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.

"Free small hot... redhead" #FdAdFriday

The Consumerist shared this unfortunate bit of Wendy's marketing that has been circulating on Reddit. Their coffee brand is, indeed, "Redhead Roasters" — a reference to founder Dave Thomas' daughter who is the fast food chain's namesake.

And that's what makes this extra awkward, considering the entire brand is built around a pig-tailed red-haired girl...

Footnote: Coincidentally, a GIS for "Wendy's" turned up this fan art in a link.

This is an example of what is known, in internet land, as "Rule 34"

Via xkcd

Used... WHAT?!? #FdAdFriday

Note that the "used" ones cost almost twice as much as the new. Is this some weird new fetish I am somehow unaware of?

Via The Consumerist

F'd Ad Fridays: Awesome (if crude) BK billboard hack

Via The Consumerist

F'd Ad Fridays: The Official Worst Ad in America for 2011

"According to The Consumerist, anyway:


For the second year in a row, we asked you, the readers of Consumerist to nominate and vote on the worst ads airing on American TVs. And after more than 115,000 votes, you have made it quite clear which commercial deserves the dishonor of being labeled the Absolute Worst Ad In America — Luvs Diapers' 'Poop, There It Is!'

The ad, which features an animated baby talent show where the only talent being judged is just how much fecal matter each of the three grunting tots can dump into their diapers, earned slightly more than 32% of the vote, beating out the AT&T ad (23.98%) in which a man's wife decides to unload what appears to be decades of pent-up anger after he tells her he signed the family up for some sort of unlimited texting plan."

So here it is...




I've seen worse.

Man math

I'm not even going to bother with the Dr. Pepper 10 "is just for men" trope. It's a cynical and insulting PR move, and let's leave it at that.

But The Consumerist (bless their hearts) have found a much more original reason to hate the brand:

That's right — the brand is based on 10 calories per serving. But with a serving set at 8 fluid ounces (~237 ml), that would give a 20 ounce bottle something like 25 calories by Consumerist's math. The package, however, rounds down. Considerably.

But what do I know. Me man. Me no do math.

Awesome Omaha hardware chain promotes zombie preparedness

So, the zombie apocalypse is upon us. You're going to need axes, chainsaws, wrecking bars, and lots of survival gear. Fortunately, most of it is available at your neighbourhood hardware store.

But why wait until the evil dead arise and start hungering for brains? You'll have to weave through shambling hordes of them to break into the hardware store, and it could all be for nothing if some other survivalist got there first. So if you're in or around Omaha, stock up today at Westlake Ace Hardware's Zombie Preparedness Center!

Liz Benditt, Westlake's director of customer relationship development, told Omaha.com "If we can help you with your lawn and your home, we can help you with the zombie apocalypse."

As you can see below, they even play both sides, offering zombies a way to "Delay Your Decay" (PDF).

The effort is an attempt to turn younger consumers on to the higher level of service and engagement offered by smaller hardware stores. And I think it's working. Their Facebook and Twitter are also worthwhile distractions.

Campaign by Omaha PR/ad agency Bozell
Tip via

F'd Ad Fridays: Free Flexor will give you abs of steel

...but only because its ad will have you laughing so hard:



This one's been around for a couple of weeks, but The Consumerist is already calling the Free Flexor the new Shake Weight of embarrassing ads.



I'll leave that up to you.

Mexican restaurant takes shot at anti-immigration laws

Well done, Lime Fresh Mexican Grill of Orlando. Well done indeed.

Via The Consumerist

If you don't get it, read the news.

Reebok forced to refund over $25,000,000 to gullible Easytone buyers

The Consumerist reports that the United States Federal Trade Commission has ordered Reebok to give back over $25 million in refunds to buyers of its EasyTone shoes because of misleading advertising.

Image from here

The article quotes the FTC:

"Reebok made unsupported claims in advertisements that walking in its EasyTone shoes and running in its RunTone running shoes strengthen and tone key leg and buttock (gluteus maximus) muscles more than regular shoes. The FTC's complaint also alleges that Reebok falsely claimed that walking in EasyTone footwear had been proven to lead to 28 percent more strength and tone in the buttock muscles, 11 percent more strength and tone in the hamstring muscles, and 11 percent more strength and tone in the calf muscles than regular walking shoes."

In addition to the refunds, Reebok is barred from the following:
• making claims that toning shoes and other toning apparel are effective in strengthening muscles, or that using the footwear will result in a specific percentage or amount of muscle toning or strengthening, unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence;
• making any health or fitness-related efficacy claims for toning shoes and other toning apparel unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; and
• misrepresenting any tests, studies, or research results regarding toning shoes and other toning apparel

I am always skeptical about anything claiming to make it easier to shape up and lose weight. The promises of these shoes, and all similar brands, are simply too good to be true.

Of course, this won't stop deceptive health and fitness marketing. They'll just go back to making their promises more vague, and will distract us with T&A and cute babies and stuff. As always.



(Updated with video link from Adweek.)

F'd Ad Fridays: Pawn shop niche marketing

Via The Consumerist

Apparently this was posted in Albany, NY. The metre's a little off, but it is memorable. Let's hope it doesn't get any vindictive single moms arrested.

Policing the bike lanes, Lithuanian style

My own city of Ottawa has just recently started getting hardcore on bike lanes, physically segregating them from car traffic and patrolling them. There has been predictable backlash from inconvenienced drivers and businesses.

In Vilnius, Lithuania, the bike lanes have a bigger problem: rich and obnoxious citizens who use them as parking spaces for their luxury cars. So the Mayor decided to stage this dramatic demonstration of how he intends to end the conflict permanently — with an armoured military vehicle:



Hard. Core.

UPDATE: Adland reports that this was actually a comedy segment of the Lithuanian Erik & Mackan comedy show. Running over the cars was apparently the Mayor's idea, though.

Brought to you by the generation who told women breastfeeding was disgusting and primitive

(Click to enlarge and read copy)

That's right! Seven-Up is so pure...so wholesome!

Via The Consumerist

F'd Ad Fridays: "No refunds if this movie goes over your Philistine little head"

From the Avon Theatre in Stamford, Connecticut:

This is apparently real, although it would also make a really great subvertising campaign to attract film snobs.

Via The Consumerist

Burger King SPAMs Japanese women

one of the most fascinating industry news sites online, Burger Business, has an interesting bit about BK's new "woman-friendly" marketing strategy in Asia: smaller burgers.

"Petite and Girl-Friendly"

And apparently what women really want is SPAM.

Mmm... Soylenty Goodness!

So, in closing, BK is offering cheap, small portions of suspect meat because that's what the ladies all crave.

I wonder if the dudes in this Singaporean ad have the... ummm... "sliders" she's looking for?



Tip via The Consumerist

Honest Logos?

These logos, by designer Viktor Hertz, are a dose of radical realism. I guess.

(Via The Consumerist and Behance.net.)

They're full of righteous anger and sarcasm, but I preferred this concept when it came in the form of Wacky Packages. 

It was a more innocent time...

Big Corn and Big Sugar: Fighting (sweet) tooth and nail

The Consumerist reports that Big Sugar is none too sweet on Big Corn's attempts to rebrand high fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar". In fact, Western Sugar Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company and C & H Sugar Company, Inc. are suing rcher Daniels Midland, Cargill, Tate & Lyle and the Corn Refiners Association in U.S. District Court for false advertising.

"This suit is about false advertising, pure and simple," sayeth the President and CEO of Western Sugar Cooperative. "If consumers are concerned about your product, then you should improve it or explain its benefits, not try to deceive people about its name or distort scientific facts."

The commercials in question are linked to the images below. (The Corn Refiners don't like embedding.)

Watch "Maze" (new window)

Watch "Question Mark" (new window)

The corn people are, obviously, not amused:

"The name 'corn sugar' more accurately describes this sweetener and helps clarify food products labeling for manufacturers and consumers alike. The Corn Refiners Association petitioned the Food & Drug Administration in September 2010 to more succinctly and accurately describe what this natural ingredient is and where it comes from—corn.
High fructose corn syrup makes many healthy foods palatable and affordable for American consumers. It is disappointing that another sweetener would sue the competition for its own gain - and stand in the way of consumer clarity about added sugars in the diet.
Simply, this lawsuit is without merit, and we will vigorously defend our right to petition the FDA to clear up consumer confusion about the name."

Interestingly, this new PR campaign comes at a time when consumers are starting to demand real sugar again — just look at the Pepsi Throwback phenomenon.

The health differences between cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup are debatable. But there is some evidence that HFCS, calorie for calorie, is processed differently in the body. A Princeton study, for example, found that HFCS led to significantly greater weight gain in lab rats:

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

Me, I'm just turned off by the whole corn situation in the United States: heavily subsidized, industrialized, genetically modified, and grown for fuel as well as being slipped into so many foods, it's a $15.1 Billion industry that obviously pulls a lot of weight as a political lobby.

I'm trying to cut down on all sugars, but somehow cane seems a little less evil — or at least more wholesome — these days.

Have you changed your sweetener habits lately? And why?