Selfish Saving

There seems to be a theme emerging this week. While watching TV last night, I happened to see yet another commercial utilizing controversial methods to sell their product. 

The advertisement was Groupon's 2011 Super Bowl Commercial, "Tibet." 

The ad starts off almost as a public service announcement, saying that Tibet is in trouble, that their culture is in danger and needs our help. It then cuts to a restaurant scene where Timothy Hutton explains that regardless of that fact, they still "whip up an amazing fish curry." He continues talking about Groupon and all the money people saved on Tibetan food by using the website. The unsavory tagline of the commercial is, "Save the money."

I must say that I was incredibly disappointed with Groupon's commercial. The entire point of the website is to offer people discounts on various merchandise, restaurants, concerts, activities, etc. The message should, in my opinion, be something that encourages saving money, one that tells Groupon customers, "we understand that everyone is on a budget these days, here's a way to save some money." Wanting to cut back on spending should be considered a good thing, especially by a company whose MO is offering discounts. 

What this commercial does, however, is portray users of Groupon as selfish, greedy and without empathy. It implies that the "struggles of Tibet" don't matter to Groupon users, they don't want to save or help anyone else, they simply was to "Save the money." 

I think that this ad does a poor job of shedding a positive light on Groupon. Instead of promoting saving, i.e. their livelihood, they are mocking it and making it into a selfish and greedy act. 

Sexism Sells

A pattern seems to be emerging in this blog because I was, yet again, inspired this week by an advertisement shown and discussed in one of my communications classes.

The ad in question is Dr. Peppers commercial for their newest soft drink Dr. Pepper Ten.

Just as a short introduction, I would like to say that I hate this advertisement.

I can honestly say that I have ever seen an ad -- print, television, billboard, or otherwise -- that is more sexist in my entire life. The main reason being because it is not just offensive to females, the tagline is "Not for women," but also stereotypes and degrades males, as well.

I consider myself something of an advertising nerd, so it's no surprise to me that sometimes shock-value and controversy are exactly what a company needs to sell products. It's hard to leave a lasting impression on a consumer in only 30 seconds, and pushing the envelope does greatly increase probability of information retention.

That being said, I can concede to the argument that Dr. Pepper's ad was effective. It certainly pushed enough buttons to get a people talking. And, in the advertising world, a lot of the time, all buzz is good buzz.

What I won't concede to, however, is the argument that this advertisement is funny, or entertaining, or good.

Not only does it stereotype women -- you're right, Dr. Pepper, no woman in the history of the world has ever liked an action movie. You got us -- but it also stereotypes men.

Or perhaps, like Dr. Pepper advertised, real men would never drink "girly drinks," all they want are explosions and guns and big, manly calories.

I understand why Dr. Peppers advertisement is effective. It uses it's controversy to create a lasting impression in viewers minds. But I believe they could have come up with a concept that was less offensive to it's target audience.

All airbrushing is NOT created equal...

So I might be breaking a couple rules of Feminism by saying this, but....is Julia Robert's Lancome ad really THAT bad?

If you don't know, the ad I am referring to is the following:

The ad was banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for being too "misleading," and not giving a true representation of what the product could actually do. In addition to the ASA, women around the world bashed the ad for being overly perfected and unrealistic.

While I am the first to complain about our society's standards for female beauty -- correction: our society's completely unrealistic standards for female beauty -- I cannot say that I agree with those who were truly offended by this ad.

The main reason for this is because I honestly cannot see the difference between this ad and every other makeup ad. The way I see it is that EVERYONE is airbrushed in makeup advertisements. I'd like one of these outraged women to show me a makeup ad featuring a model who isn't airbrushed to within an inch of her life. I can tell you right now that they won't be able to find one, becuase they don't exist.

The point of every makeup ad, and even more broadly, every ad in general, is to make the product look like the best product on the market, to make the product look like exactly what it's target market is looking for. Why, then, would Lancome want to produce an ad featuring a model who didn't look the best she could possibly look?

I know that I may be offending some by saying that, but when it comes down to it, in this day and age, shouldn't we know by now that advertisements are not the best representations of reality?

Misunderstood: Kenneth Cole's Ad Campaign

I was so inspired after a class discussion about a controversial Kenneth Cole ad that I decided to blog about it this week. Our class discussion stemmed out of the following advertisement and campaign website:


The class was, for the most part, extremely opposed to the ad campaign and didn't see the connection between fashion and politics. They thought that it was too controversial, too risky, too distant from traditional fashion brands.

I could not have disagreed more with my classes' general consensus.

I think that with this ad campaign, Kenneth Cole has really tried to create a brand, not just a fashion line. They are saying that the people that buy Kenneth Cole merchandise are people with a cause. People who shop at Kenneth Cole are looking for more than just clothes, they are people who care about politics and hot-topic issues like gay rights and abortion.

Some of my classmates thought that the ad campaign was Kenneth Cole's way of making a political statement, or rather THEIR political statement, but that was, in my opinion, completely opposite of their point. I believe the point that Kenneth Cole was trying to make is that their target audience has a stance, not that that stance should adhere to a certain end of the political spectrum, but that they should have opinions, whatever those opinions may be.

This political ambiguity can be seen in the issues that they chose to feature on the ad campaign's website. The four topics -- Gay rights, War, Pro-Life and Guns -- are issues from both sides of the political spectrum and each features it's own page with a discussion board where viewers can agree or disagree and explain why.

Kenneth Cole's ad campaign is obviously extremely controversial, and there are MANY people who would be completely turned off by their ads. Despite it's controversy, I still believe it is an incredible example of creating a true brand as opposed to simply a company.

Twitter Takeover

It's happened. 

Twitter has actually taken over the world.

....at least I think it has. Twitter is the social medium through which I get ALL of my news; it's where I communicate the most frequently with my friends and acquaintances and now, where I see the most effective use of advertising every day.

For example, one of the twitter accounts I follow is OnMilwaukee, Milwaukee's Daily Magazine. With their Twitter account, OnMilwaukee is able to tweet daily reminders about upcoming events and provide links for more information like they did with the weekend preview for September 23-25.

Another example of advertising on Twitter is the account of my own a cappella group here at Marquette, the Gold 'n Blues. We use our Twitter account almost entirely for advertising. Whether it's a reminder to buy one of our newly recorded CDs or an encouragement to attend one of our concerts [like the Tweet shown below], we rely heavily of Twitter's quick, accessible and easy nature to make the most of the small amount of attention expended by the average college student on a daily basis.

I think that the accessibility and speed of Twitter is what makes is so incredibly effective for advertising, and why I, in particular, find it so easy and, honestly, important to use. I can follow whoever I want, any company, any magazine, newspaper, website, organization, you name it, with just one click of a button I can have access to every bit of information I could ever need. I can get their tweets sent to my phone, I can click on links they provide to gain more knowledge of their brand/products/etc. And, by having the ability to Tweet at them, I can become more involved in the process of their business than ever before.

Stumbleupon for the win, yet again...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record or, God forbid, unimaginative and unoriginal, I must admit that another one of my blog posts was inspired by the incredibly addictive  procrastination tool Stumbleupon...

 After what seemed like days worth of boring home improvement and cooking websites I stumbled upon a website of the 13 most innovative ads in the world. 

The following advertisements we're among my favorites:

I absolutely love the way this billboard utilized 3-D design to really capture the viewers attention. It has a definite "wow" factor that I think is SO important in advertising, particularly, in print advertising. There aren't special effects in print advertising like there are in video advertising. You have to make an image or an idea jump off the page/billboard/etc. without the help of a catchy song or tricky editing. Heineken definitely captured that special something necessary for print ads to be truly memorable. 

This next ad is an advertising tool for a yoga studio in Hong Kong. The reason I chose this as one of my favorites was not only because it had the "wow" factor I discussed with the Heineken billboard, but also because it is so incredibly cost effective! I honestly can't think of a cheaper or more perfectly designed advertisement. Straws cost practically nothing and the fact that it uses an everyday object and connects it with what the studio does/provides via the image on the bended section of the straw is innovation in advertising at its finest. People will definitely not forget this one!

"Will It Blend?" has cult following written all over it

While aimlessly clicking through countless websites on my Stumbleupon account the other night, I miraculously came across one of the most entertaining videos I've seen in a very long time....

The "Will It Blend?" YouTube video series is the brainchild of the company Blendtec , a blender, mixer and mill manufacturing company based in Utah. Each video segment of "Will It Blend?" is hosted by Blendtec owner Tom Dickson and features one of the company's blenders annihilating one unbelievable object after another. Did you ever think that a blender could blend an iPad? What about an air soft gun or a Wii remote? Well Blendtec's blenders certainly can! 

The video series is innovative, it displays supreme knowledge of the importance of social media and, most importantly, is so funny and surprising that it has already become one of the most watched channels on YouTube.