i'm a media person, so not everything discussed in the below video is stuff i deal with on a daily basis. but, through the experiences i have had in the industry so far interacting with account and creative folks .. it's pretty damn funny.
http://view.break.com/542649 - Watch more free videos
_
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
almost as good as a real beach!
go click around on corona beach. throw your blackberry into the ocean, put a lime in your beer ..
and draw in the sand. (yeah, i'm an artist. those are my feet, i'm lounging looking out at the water.)
i'm thirsty. for a corona. is that the desired effect?
_
and draw in the sand. (yeah, i'm an artist. those are my feet, i'm lounging looking out at the water.)
i'm thirsty. for a corona. is that the desired effect?
_
Friday, August 8, 2008
i need a statistics nerd's opinion
this has always bothered me. there are 10,000 peoplemeters in the whole country, being responsible for every single show on tv's ratings the following morning. is this a statistically valid sample size?
_
_
Monday, August 4, 2008
"find 5 differences" .. kinda, not really
print ads, in general, are not eye-catching. the reality is, it's not easy to make a reader stop and interact with - or even glance at - a magazine ad. it's even worse if they're in an awful position in the magazine, like smack in the middle.
i saw this ketel one ad smack in the middle of wired, and found myself spending time with it. after about a minute, i realized i had been duped - but as an advertising professional, i was okay with that.
you see, there aren't any differences between the two ketel one bottles. but, you sure have spent a hell of a lot of time staring at them!
good work.
_
i saw this ketel one ad smack in the middle of wired, and found myself spending time with it. after about a minute, i realized i had been duped - but as an advertising professional, i was okay with that.
you see, there aren't any differences between the two ketel one bottles. but, you sure have spent a hell of a lot of time staring at them!
good work.
_
Thursday, July 31, 2008
yes.
it doesn't play as well as the game obviously, because the game is the greatest game ever, but it's still pretty fun.
_
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
it's not a party without guinness (apparently)
this clip has been up on youtube for four months, and has 300,000 views. it's not the definition of viral per se (this ray ban viral video has 3.6 million views in a year), but it's gotten some decent exposure. i, for one, have had it forwarded to me by two friends in the last three days.
imagine if advertisers would go out on a limb more often and do something like what guinness did here. i've seen some of these 'never-made-it-to-TV' ads on youtube before, and they're usually a hit.
what does this say about this type of risque advertising? that people would like it more than the crap that's jammed down their throats? or does it not matter, because the realities of both the ad industry and society just don't allow for it to happen?
UPDATE: youtube pulled the clip. i hope you had an opportunity to see before it went MIA, but if not, here's the rundown. a naked woman (clearly on all fours) is slowly rocking back and forth, with a bottle of guinness resting in the small of her back. about 30 seconds in, a male hand from behind the woman reaches for the bottle, takes a swig, and let's out a refreshing 'ahhh.' 10 seconds later, a male hand from the front does the same. the tagline 'guinness: share one with a friend' comes up, then a third hand from the bottom of the screen reaches up for a sip, and the tagline continues .. 'or two.'
apparently the aforementioned 'realities of society' are responsible for pulling it down.
my question is - what the hell was the third hand doing down there?
_
imagine if advertisers would go out on a limb more often and do something like what guinness did here. i've seen some of these 'never-made-it-to-TV' ads on youtube before, and they're usually a hit.
what does this say about this type of risque advertising? that people would like it more than the crap that's jammed down their throats? or does it not matter, because the realities of both the ad industry and society just don't allow for it to happen?
UPDATE: youtube pulled the clip. i hope you had an opportunity to see before it went MIA, but if not, here's the rundown. a naked woman (clearly on all fours) is slowly rocking back and forth, with a bottle of guinness resting in the small of her back. about 30 seconds in, a male hand from behind the woman reaches for the bottle, takes a swig, and let's out a refreshing 'ahhh.' 10 seconds later, a male hand from the front does the same. the tagline 'guinness: share one with a friend' comes up, then a third hand from the bottom of the screen reaches up for a sip, and the tagline continues .. 'or two.'
apparently the aforementioned 'realities of society' are responsible for pulling it down.
my question is - what the hell was the third hand doing down there?
_
Monday, July 21, 2008
gossip girl's advertising antics
i'll try not to do this often, but because i peruse the advertising blogs often, a lot of my personal blog fodder comes directly from there. a post on ad freak today warranted a contribution from yours truly, so here it is.
the CW's tween (and adult?) hit 'gossip girl' has been running ads in the digital space hoping to accomplish a number of things, including driving people to CWtv.com to catch up on the season they may have missed, creating buzz for the new season premiere in the fall, and just generating awareness of the show in general.
some of these you may have noticed, and ran with the tagline 'OMFG'. these were the first batch from what i can tell, and they're clever for a couple of reasons. first, they play off of the whole 'omg' thing, which i guess technically originated as IM and/or text message lingo, but has certainly earned its place elsewhere. yahoo! just named their celebrity blog 'omg', for christ's sake. anyways, the CW hit the nail on the head because this phrase (or abbreviation) resonates well with the tech-savvy generation Yers and millenials. by adding the 'f', it is clear that whatever is happening on 'gossip girl' is just shocking and awesome beyond words. oh my f*cking god.
the second batch just started running recently, and these are the ads that warrant some discussion. the ads feature racy scenes from the show's first season, and come full-circle with disapproving quotes from television critics. however, the catch is this: in one of the ads, blair waldorf's bikini that she had on in the actual episode from last season miraculously disappears. where did this bikini top go? (the shot from the actual season is below, followed by the ad.)
clearly, those involved in the creation of the ads (the creative agency obviously, and the CW, who approved them) are purposefully making the creative racier than the show content itself, in an attempt to attract those crazy kids. they're also choosing to use quotes from critics such as '[gossip girl is] mind-blowingly inappropriate.' these antics are breaking one of the fundamental rules of advertising: blatantly using sex (in this case, CREATING it!) to garner viewership. it'd be one thing if the scene was in the actual show - but here, the thought process is obviously 'sex sells', and that's pretty much it.
i have no personal qualms with the media and/or creative strategy, but when you're targeting 13-24 year olds (i'm sure the CW will tell you 18-34 .. ok, whatever), is saying 'watch gossip girl - it's inappropriate, and the chicks get naked and do it in the pool' ... dare i say, inappropriate?
the show:
the ad:
_
the CW's tween (and adult?) hit 'gossip girl' has been running ads in the digital space hoping to accomplish a number of things, including driving people to CWtv.com to catch up on the season they may have missed, creating buzz for the new season premiere in the fall, and just generating awareness of the show in general.
some of these you may have noticed, and ran with the tagline 'OMFG'. these were the first batch from what i can tell, and they're clever for a couple of reasons. first, they play off of the whole 'omg' thing, which i guess technically originated as IM and/or text message lingo, but has certainly earned its place elsewhere. yahoo! just named their celebrity blog 'omg', for christ's sake. anyways, the CW hit the nail on the head because this phrase (or abbreviation) resonates well with the tech-savvy generation Yers and millenials. by adding the 'f', it is clear that whatever is happening on 'gossip girl' is just shocking and awesome beyond words. oh my f*cking god.
the second batch just started running recently, and these are the ads that warrant some discussion. the ads feature racy scenes from the show's first season, and come full-circle with disapproving quotes from television critics. however, the catch is this: in one of the ads, blair waldorf's bikini that she had on in the actual episode from last season miraculously disappears. where did this bikini top go? (the shot from the actual season is below, followed by the ad.)
clearly, those involved in the creation of the ads (the creative agency obviously, and the CW, who approved them) are purposefully making the creative racier than the show content itself, in an attempt to attract those crazy kids. they're also choosing to use quotes from critics such as '[gossip girl is] mind-blowingly inappropriate.' these antics are breaking one of the fundamental rules of advertising: blatantly using sex (in this case, CREATING it!) to garner viewership. it'd be one thing if the scene was in the actual show - but here, the thought process is obviously 'sex sells', and that's pretty much it.
i have no personal qualms with the media and/or creative strategy, but when you're targeting 13-24 year olds (i'm sure the CW will tell you 18-34 .. ok, whatever), is saying 'watch gossip girl - it's inappropriate, and the chicks get naked and do it in the pool' ... dare i say, inappropriate?
the show:
the ad:
_
Friday, July 4, 2008
a darn good idea!
a couple of days ago i was catching up on my celebrity gossip - and the headline was advertising related. being the advertising geek that i sometimes am, i was pretty excited. candie's apparently just paid fergie - female artist formerly of the black eyed peas, now doing her solo thing - $4 million to incorporate the brand into her songs!
i'll admit, i am new to the industry - but i've been paying very close attention to the world of advertising for the last five years, and i've never heard anything like this. blatant, over-the-top product integration by glad and whole foods in top chef? brand-sponsored vehicles? the "verizon wireless call to the bullpen"? i've seen all that.
but candie's - who has been celebrity-endorsed by jenny mccarthy, ashlee simpson, and hilary duff in the past - is paying money to be mentioned in a musician's lyrics. this is brilliant if you think about how many of fergie's songs get extremely popular, get played at parties and bars and a million other places, and get memorized my countless people. i don't want to say it's subliminal because it's not - but girls subconsciously singing 'i put my candie's on, and danced out the door' (or something much better) is what they're paying the $4 mil for.
i'll admit, i am new to the industry - but i've been paying very close attention to the world of advertising for the last five years, and i've never heard anything like this. blatant, over-the-top product integration by glad and whole foods in top chef? brand-sponsored vehicles? the "verizon wireless call to the bullpen"? i've seen all that.
but candie's - who has been celebrity-endorsed by jenny mccarthy, ashlee simpson, and hilary duff in the past - is paying money to be mentioned in a musician's lyrics. this is brilliant if you think about how many of fergie's songs get extremely popular, get played at parties and bars and a million other places, and get memorized my countless people. i don't want to say it's subliminal because it's not - but girls subconsciously singing 'i put my candie's on, and danced out the door' (or something much better) is what they're paying the $4 mil for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
