Daily Post 10/25/11: TAKE THIS LOLLIPOP

Before reading please enjoy the video: www.takethislollipop.com

SM: From the genius behind Elf Yourself, comes the latest viral craze that may be the most haunting video you watch this year. Reactions to this video can be so extreme you can’t not tell your friends to watch it. I personally  told my 16 year old sister there’s this new online video they say is like the ring and showed her the website. She started freaking out after 10s, halfway through she was crying, and as it ended she ran screaming to my mother. (It’s what big brothers are for.)
The video purely seeks to stir emotions on the concern of privacy, but because this is an advertising blog I will try to analyze how this type of video could be used for advertising purposes. The standout feature of this video is it’s ability to personalize the content with information from an individual’s Facebook page. Obviously a company specializing in removing identity theft, ala old Ccitibank commercials, could have just slapped their logo in the top right corner. However, that’s too easy. Imagine if entertaining commercials used your social media information to better explain the benefits of a product. (This goes back to our post about the improvement of targeting in advertising. Link to Blog Post) Through location tagging, specific pictures and videos can be used to set the scene’s tone. Twitter hashtags allow for easy sorting of topics to be referenced in commercials. GetGlue & Facebook “Likes” can create a personal profile and better tailor the ad to the consumer.  THE OPTIONS ARE ENDLESS. Here’s just one idea video brought to mind for great advertisements.
For an intriguing television show: Have the commercial use a user picture with multiple people tagged in it. Then use different voice readers to read aloud comments you and your friends have made about the show on your social media sites.

What are some cool advertising initiatives you think this technology can produce?

Taking Patrick's place in commentary today is Jackie Bonifant, (a smarter more successful former advertising classmate of ours from Boston University.)

JB: You make some good points, but I think you might be misinterpreting the intent of this project. While it showcases the practically limitless potential of targeted content these days, it brings to mind the saying, “just because we have the technology doesn’t mean we should use it.”

To me, it serves more as a wake-up call than a demonstration of how cool targeted content can be. Almost everyone is connected to social media in some way these days, whether it be via sites like Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr, or location-based apps like FourSquare, Gowalla and SCVNGR. While these are all great ways to stay connected, find deals, and share content, these services also ask you to give up your privacy to a certain extent in order to access these advantages. “Take This Lollipop” shows, in an entirely possible (albeit dramatized) way, exactly what can potentially happen when you start getting careless about the information you hand out.

Marketers need to take notice just as much as consumers when it comes to hyper-targeted content. There is a fine line between serving personalized ads that are relevant in a cool way to your desired target, and serving overly-personalized ads that are downright creepy in the extent of their accuracy. I don’t mind ads that show up because they are geo-targeted and offer me discounts in the neighborhood I’m in: that’s useful. I would mind if I were served an ad because of something I looked up on WebMd: that’s intrusive. There’s a difference and right now, marketers are doing a pretty good job tiptoeing the line. But consider supercookies that don’t get deleted off your Web browser even after you delete them. Yes, they exist.

Whether you find it invasive or fascinating—or both—there are ways to engage in social technology without risking your safety. Don’t give away your last name. Your address. Even your school or birthday on some of these sites and apps. Just be smart about it.

PS – I x-ed out of the Take This Lollipop screen fast as I could as soon as it requested my personal information. If you’re creeped out by sharing your info, even for the sake of the joke, you can see a sample of the way it works here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DYFPupvo1Q

For logistical purposes, if you wish to vote in agreement with Jackie please select Patrick and we will adjust our standings tab manually. 

Daily Post 10/21/11: Is it bad that marketers know more about us than our mothers?

Article: http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/phone-mom/230507/

Quick Summary: Smartphone adoption has been the fastest of any technology. Ever. It is close to 50% in the United States, and could be as high as 90% next year. When using a smartphone’s apps and browser, you are generating data for your carrier and the phone’s maker. This data mining is used to re-target you with advertising based on the content you view online and in apps. The constant information your phone is gathering about your preferences means these data companies probably know more about you than your own mother. And yet, with new innovations like swiping our phones to pay at checkout or starting our cars with a downloaded app, it is likely consumers will share even more data in the future. PW: This article is the writer’s opinion about the future, but he does back it up with solid facts. People rely on their Smartphones to provide constant contact to work, friends, and current events. But not many people understand what they are giving up in exchange for this service, their privacy. Having this wealth of data about your interests and purchases is a marketer’s dream. They can now predict your needs better than ever before and serve you ads you might, actually, not ignore. Personally, I find this incredibly creepy that random companies are compiling a “file” on me? Gathering every bit of data so they can sell me the new Hugo Boss cologne? Man, their right. I do need a new bottle, but I don’t want them to know that! It limits my freedom to make the purchase when I want to. Okay, seeing that limited time offer correspond right when you actually need the product is great. But imagine that happening all the time. It won’t be special any longer. It effectively puts the brands in control of your purchasing power. That is the one thing that makes the consumer king, the choice to buy when he/she wants to buy. By knowing exactly what you want when you want it, then giving it to you, the brand has taken control. SM: I’m concerned with the amount of information compiled on me through new technology as much as the next guy, BUT it has nothing to do with understanding my interests. With the amount of information I give out over the web for purchases, certain websites, and social media sites, I feel it’s inevitable I’ll eventually fall victim to identity theft, again. As far as trying to analyze my personality, heck share that information with me, I’d love to see what you think of me. The purpose of advertising is to inform a certain person that there is a product that satisfies a need they have. When an ad actually addresses a current need you have it’s NEVER annoying, but actually quite helpful. (Hence, why Point of Purchase advertising is so effective.) I love how I get an email from Ticketmaster when my favorite bands come to town, just imagine if they could do that without me telling them my favorite bands. Envision this slightly exaggerated down-the-road hypothetical, Old Spice based on my purchase history and personality will know when I will need a new stick of deodorant. Using this information, they are able to send me an ad at that time detailing a new deodorant product, accompanied by a coupon for the closest store to me selling the product. Who wouldn’t find that amazingly helpful? People seem to forget that ADVERTISING IS GOOD FOR SOCIETY. Without advertising we all might still be listening to CD players instead of iPods. The better advertising gets at targeting their consumers, the less consumers will consider it annoying and spam. We get no benefit from the hundreds of so-called Facebook Friends who know where we ate dinner every night this week. Why do we care if a brand is using that community knowledge to try to discover and satisfy our future needs? Who do you guys agree with? Vote and let us know with a comment.

Daily Post 10/19/11: Pepsi/X Factor launch new co-viewing platfrom

Article: http://adage.com/article/news/pepsi-launches-social-viewing-platforms-x-factor/230473/?utm_source=mediaworks&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage

Quick Summary: X Factor’s sponsor, Pepsi, will launch its social campaign built around the show’s content this week. The campaign is comprised of two social platforms. One, called Pepsi Pulse, is a visualization of trends within the online conversation, like a beating heart when three commentators like competitor, Tiah Tolliver. The other is a conversation stream similar to Twitter called Pepsi Sound Off. It provides not only a constant stream of comments in real time, but also perks when your comment is liked the most. Your comment could even appear on a Pepsi commercial during that same show. Pepsi hopes the platforms are a hit, so they can use them for other events such as The Oscars or festival streams like Coachella.

PW: On first thought, I didn’t see the point to building a new destination for socializing about a TV show. We have GetGlue. Well not many people know about that site yet... wait, we have Twitter! But the article brings up a good point: when you tweet, ALL your followers see it. If half of your followers don’t care about X Factor, they will not appreciate your comment entering their stream. By providing a platform specific to X Factor, Pepsi can attract (and data mine) only the loyal X Factor socializers. It is a brilliant way to attract their target audience THEN gather substantial data about the audience to use in their brand promotion. The tough part will be attracting users to the platforms. People are used to Twitter and Facebook, so it might be overload to adopt another stream (see our Google+ analysis). With that said, I think this will work and will help the Pepsi brand because as an avid watcher of X Factor, I want to discuss the show with other fans. Every viewer is judging the contestants alongside Simon (just from their couch not his million dollar mansion.) This new platform gives them a way to connect to other home judges without alienating their friends/followers, who just plain don’t care about a silly singing competition. Pepsi will benefit from “hosting” this conversation with the branded content surrounding the stream and the insights it gathers from “mining” the stream.

SM: Social TV/Co-viewing is the new hot topic in advertising, but I think that it will take time to truly catch on. The concept is based on the ability of television users to multi-task while watching a show. The nature of shows like X-factor, award ceremonies, and political debates present a small inconsistent mental engagement that can allow the viewer the chance to successfully multi-task. I like the platform that will present the general trends, but for anyone who’s tried to simultaneously use twitter and watch a show understands the information overload of just irrelevant tweets. I think for this to gain momentum, either the program in question needs to be watched on a computer or this platform needs to simultaneously function on a television set, which for the time being is not the case. Until that day comes, I project this concept will also suffer a major setback when it’s tried for shows like Dexter, AHS, or even the Office where if you don’t give your full attention you’ll miss something. Overall, there’s definitely something innovative here, but I project only a small group of viewers to actually adopt this technology at the current time.

Let us know what you think by voting and/or leaving comments. Vote:
Patrick if you like this new social platform and plan on trying it
Or
Sean  if you aren’t sold on the idea of this new social concept

Check back later today for the Ad of the Day

Daily Post 10/18/11: The IGen

Article: http://adage.com/article/news/igen-influential-peers-household-buying-decisions/230427/ Daily Post: IGen Influential With Peers: 10/18/11 Quick Summary: This article stresses the importance of the newly coined “IGen’s,” children 4-16 yrs old, influence on their peers and parents’ spending. It also should be noted that this demographic garners an average of $10-39 in weekly spending money from jobs and allowances. The IGen is equipped with an array of new media devices, i.e. smartphones, laptops, ipads, and gaming consoles, leading them to spend less time watching television than previous generations. Thus, marketers should try to focus on reaching this generation online. SM: Thank you Ad Age for stating the obvious. Is there anyone who didn’t know that kids in grade school are highly influenced by their peers? And was there ever a time when a child didn’t scream and annoy their parents to buy what the cool kids had, and they didn’t give in and buy the damn toy? One kid got a (insert elementary fad, i.e tomagachi, yo-yos, pokemon, etc...) and everyone in school had one until the tyrannical institution banned them for (insert lame principle loud speaker message, i.e. theft, distraction, Tommy tried to flush Jenny’s beanie baby down the toilet, but it got clogged, flooding the east wing, resulting in Mrs. Friendly to fall and sprain her ankle and Mrs. Smiley to knock over the classroom pet cage, releasing 5 chicks and a duck into the school. Also if anyone sees a chick please inform the main office right away.) There are two big stories to be mentioned here. 1) The IGen is more technologically savvy and sophisticated than anyone gives them credit for. By growing up with an established Internet media, this generation is able to choose their entertainment with greater freedom. Instead of being stuck choosing the best show on Nick, Disney, and PBS, the IGen can search the web to find the most entertaining and interesting content for their age group. COMPANIES NEED TO START TREATING THE IGEN LIKE THEY WOULD COLLEGE KIDS. There is an ability to interact with kids on the social media landscape unlike anything before. You still need your product to appear cool, but with an array of interactive media the possible options to achieve this goal are endless. 2) The increased interactivity among the IGens through social media has resulted in an increased speed by which trends spread and can be monitored. Social media allows this generation to assess the current trends in a real-time manner, making the evaluation of the cool trend much easier to diagnose. (Imagine how much faster stupid trends like the bleached-blond boys hairstyle and avril lavigne fishnets would have ended if it’s criticism was spread throughout Facebook.) While social media helps the IGen establish its own trends, marketers now have the ability to gauge these trends and react accordingly. PW: Above, Sean points to two insights advertisers should learn from the article.

1) The IGen is more tech savvy then we give them credit. Correct. but I would go further to say: they are the most tech savvy of all the generations. As the article says, they spend almost double the amount of time on their mobile devices than the average Millennial. Is this a good thing for advertisers? Heck no. Spending time with a medium helps you understand all the ways it communicates, including advertising. Every Millennial knows there’s a right side bar of Facebook advertising and so WE IGNORE IT. Expand this “talent” to all social platforms and you have a Gen Zer’s vision. With these kids understanding the message platform better than you, how will you get them to digest your message? If it wasn’t for child labor laws, all major corporations would be hiring these tweens for buko bucks. I think the best bet for marketers looking to influence this generation is through content laden messaging. Games and contests. Perhaps build a contest around the tweens making branded content: t-shirts, hats, wristbands, etc? Sean is right to think advertisers need to target this generation in the digital space, but they should not treat them like college kids. This generation is smarter than those Millennials and advertisers need to think at a tween’s lofty level.

2) We all know these kids set the fads and trends. Heck, how many times has #BiebersFutureWife trended on Twitter? Tweens set the agenda in the social space especially leading the conversation when it comes to celebrities, TV shows, and music. Brands should be very wary to enter these conversations. One “lame” comment and the brand is part of the out-crowd. Brands should use brand ambassadors within the age group to help promote the message (and some brands already do). These ambassadors have much more influence than the brand’s past youth ambassadors because they harness the social power of the web. This way the brand enters the conversation with the most influential message: peer-endorsed.

Lastly, an insight that Sean looked over. Advertisers need to realize how much TWEENS INFLUENCE THEIR PARENTS. No, I’m not talking about what they parent’s buy for the child’s use; I’m talking about what the parents buy for the family’s use. Do you think that IPad was purchased without the gentle nagging of the 8-year-old casual gamer? Do you think the decision to buy a PS3 over a 360 was the sole reasoning of the Tetris-playing Father? Children today influence a family’s entertainment platform purchases more than ever before. Maybe advertiser’s should market their TVs, tablets, and other products to the kids specifically. That way when their parents inevitably ask them how to make a web purchase, the advertiser’s product is top of mind for the kid.

Let us know what you think and check back later for the Ad of the Day

Daily Post 10/17/11: Droids for a Cent

ARTICLE: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394726,00.asp

Verizon’s “Hit Em While Their Down” Marketing Strategy: Droids for A Cent

Upon reading about this promotion last week, I was immediately crushed by the fact I am a Verizon subscriber. Droid Smartphones for only a penny? A lousy cent? How could the brand’s value have dived quicker than the RIM’s Playbook? Not to worry folks, Android is as strong as ever. Ice Cream Sandwich is coming soon(!), but that is for another discussion.

What this promotion means is Verizon is ruthless and brilliant. Last week, both Apple and Research In Motion (Blackberry’s maker) courted the media for vastly different reasons. With Apple’s announcement of the Iphone 4S and RIM’s rolling “berryouts,”  the media couldn’t care less about the little green robot. So Verizon throws out this undeniable deal promoting their Droid phones, which hits the consumer in the sweet spot: the pocket book. It beckons the distraught Blackberry user to try a different (and better) smartphone software. It dares the IPhone user to waste $300 on a new phone that ISN’T EVEN the IPhone 5, when they can get a brand new Droid Bionic for a mere cent.

But it really targets those suffering AT&T users, poor consumers who love their IPhones so much they will deal with terrible service and dropped calls. Verizon perfectly timed this promotion to coincided with AT&T users ending their 2-year contracts. Now they can transfer to a better carrier on the cheap. This way, Verizon draws consumers away from AT&T with a 2-year agreement, and may sell some more IPhones if their newbies don’t like the Droid. Now, if only Verizon was this generous with its current subscribers, I would have a new Droid Bionic. Guess I’ll stick it out with the Droid II a little while longer.

-PW

SM: Despite Patrick’s optimism, I can’t help but hear this news and say what’s the catch? Yes, on the surface this promotion is great PR to counter your competitors and maybe it’ll help steal some customers. However, what does it say if you’re selling a product for a penny in a market where the standard cost for smartphones range in the hundreds. What would the perceived value of a Lexus be if they sold it at a Toyota Level? No matter what way you look at it, when you see a Droid phone for a penny and an iPhone for $300 you’re automatically going to assume the iPhone is a better choice. Yet that’s just the tip of the Ice Berg. Verizon justifies this deal because it locks in the consumer with the company for two years. Are they overcharging so much for service that it’ll make up all the money they lose on the sale of the phone?

In the end, the true losers are Verizon customers. The company should be doing more to focus on improving their relationships with current users than spending money on consumers who are going to jump ship in two years for the next great deal. Not to worry though, these new customers will be as angry as true Verizon customers when they realize this is simply a ploy to get rid of excess inventory before the holiday releases hit the shelves. Just two summers ago my friend used one of these types of promotions to get the original Droid. Two weeks later, Verizon announced the upcoming release of the Droid 2, which by using a phone upgrade I got a month later for only $50 dollars more than he paid. Closing words: consumers beware!


Let us know who you agree with and be sure to check back tomorrow for a new post and Ad of the Day.