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. 

Ad of the Day: Sean: Branded Entertainment

Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division from President Bill Clinton

SM: I hate to be a broken record, but here is just another example of solid branded entertainment.
In one day, as the featured video on Funny or Die’s home page, “Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division” has amassed upwards of 135,000 views.
Why is this considered successful? Functioning as a general awareness initiative, the collaboration of A-List actors were able to cohesively integrate the key facts of the Foundation into the overall sketch. By the end of the video, you’ve definitely caught some of the facts and now possess a general understanding of the organization (which is the purpose of an awareness campaign.) Those 135,000 people, who have clicked on the video, opted-in to hearing the Clinton Foundation’s message. What more could a company want from a marketing venture?

PW: This ad is an excellent piece of writing, but it is NOT an awareness campaign. It is a call to action. At the end, they ask you to donate to the fund. The success of this campaign will not be measured on total views, but instead on total GREEN. So, does the message persuade you to donate? Not me. What will the money be used for? The ad barely mentions the past initiatives, and the message is lost under the star power. This is the problem with most celebrity endorsements. Personally, seeing Jack Black improvise a theme song doesn’t make we want to donate, it makes me listen to Tenanious D. (And why is Matt’s head shaved? What his next movie?) For branded celebrity endorsements, the product must at least share as much of the spotlight as the celebrity if not more (See Kobe’s Black Mamba for Nike). Advertisers rarely use celebrities effectively. Think about it like this. If you want to see Kobe Bryant play, the Lakers’ front office makes you pay for a ticket. Same for movie stars. We are willing to pay to see them in action. But, what this? We can see them in action without paying? Oh, you want us to pay (donate) AFTER seeing them? Fat chance.