I watched Food Inc. Friday night and found it very interesting and insightful. What I found so interesting though, wasn’t necessarily the point of the documentary. The point was to expose the food we eat and how it may not be the healthiest because of the way its grown/raised and brought to market. While that was eye opening, I believe this is only a symptom of a larger problem. That problem being the way those businesses are run and to a larger point the way business is run in general.
In an effort to cut costs and raise profits, our food has become a mass produced commodity. To a large degree most of the American economy has become the same thing. Gone are the days of creating the best product you can possibly create and if you are the best, making a nice profit. The end goal has become profit, which has sent a shock wave down the supply line. It doesn’t matter if you make the best product anymore. If you create a decent product at a cheap price, people will buy it, you will make big profits and the cycle continues.
This has slowly eroded the point of business in my eyes. The point of business shouldn’t be to make money. The point of business should be to create the best product/service possible. In doing that, your product/service will be the category leader and thus, profit will be created. Not only does this build trust with the consumer, it builds trust within the company and only makes a company stronger.
From an advertising perspective I think a change in the way businesses are run would improve advertising. When companies start cutting costs, one of the first places they go is advertising. But if the goal isn’t to be the cheapest, but to create the best product, you can invest in advertising, make it part of the product and in the end have a better product.
I understand the need to control costs and I know it sounds like I’m pushing advertising, but I’m not. A holistic change of business, shifting the almighty goal from profits to product greatness would alleviate the need for cut throat pricing, by giving the consumer a choice of greatness, not a choice of price.
Maybe this will happen naturally through the “open market”. The organic foods market is one market showing signs of people choosing the great product over the lower price. If more segments followed in their footsteps, I think business, as a whole would be improved.
What do you think about profits being the end goal for a business? Am I just being naive in thinking about the greater good?
While looking at the progress I’ve made with my 2009 resolutions I started thinking about what my New Years resolutions would be for 2010. I ran through the normal list, exercise more often, lose weight, blog more, etc. Then I thought for a minute. Why do I have to wait until January first to start? I don’t have to wait, so I’m not going to. I always get stuck in that nasty cycle of “I’ll start that tomorrow”, but not this time. My 2010 resolutions are starting December First 2009.
So my first, and most important December First resolution is to focus on improving my self as an account person. I know the title of my blog is The Ultimate Account Guy. I hope to one day become that, but for right now I’m focused on improving my skill set everyday.
Since today is day one, I want to know from all of my creative friends out there, what is the number one thing, in your mind, that makes an effective account person? It could be a positive attribute that I should follow or a negative attribute that I should avoid. Either way, I just want to know what is essential to being an effective account person in the minds of a creative team.
I try to read a lot and on a wide variety of subjects. I just finished The Long Tail and since this book has been out for a number of years now I won’t give you a review. I did however find it amazingly interesting to see how the elements Chris Anderson spoke about are coming true today. Also, I am very interested to see how advertising will reach people as they become more and more niche-centric. If you haven’t already read this book, I highly suggest you check it out.
The main reason for this post though, is to talk about my newest reading adventure. I’ve decided I need to read some classics. I’ve chosen The Republic and Moby Dick as my first two. Both books come recommended by people I highly respect and from what I hear, they are both massive reads.
I’m very excited by both of these books, which is very different from how I used to think about these types of books. I used to approach books of this type with dread. In the past (read – during school), I would be faced with having to read a book like this and just shut down. I wouldn’t even try to read it. Now, I’m taking this on under my own accord. I’m taking this as a sign of intellectual maturity, or at least the desire for intellectual maturity.
First up, I’m going to attack The Republic which was recommended to me by Jim Mitchem . I’m going to take my time. Read it, digest it and hopefully understand enough to learn from it. And even if I don’t, I’m going to be happy in the effort of doing something I’ve never done before.
So my question to you is, what is the best way to approach a book like this? Have you read The Republic, any advice on my adventure?
- Dennis
Full Disclosure – I have no affiliation with the authors of these books or the publishers.
I recently watched the new Tyson documentary. Besides being an interesting take on a very complex individual, it revealed a side of Tyson I had never seen before. The big theme throughout the film was fear. Early in his career, Tyson used fear as a motivator. He was afraid of being embarrassed. He feared embarrassing himself in front of millions of people by losing a fight. So he used that fear to push himself to train harder.
Later in his career, after his release from jail for a rape conviction, fear changed for him. He was no longer afraid of losing or being embarrassed. He was afraid of being betrayed by those closest to him. He no longer trusted anyone after his (in his mind, false) rape conviction. The fear that once molded him into one of the badest men in the world, now became his demise.
This got me thinking about fear and how it affects everything. Everyone has fears that shape their lives. Fear of commitment, fear of moving to a new city, fear of moving to a new job, fear of taking a risk, fear of not taking a risk; you name it, someone has a fear of it. The thing I find most interesting is the difference between people who use fear as a motivator and people who allow their fears to hold them back.
Fear plays a big roll in business. The good companies seem to use fear as a motivator to try new things. Attacking the competition or going after a new target market, could open your product to a new line of consumers. Going with the new campaign, even though it might alienate a few members of your current customer base, takes a healthy control of fear. And if the new campaign is a total flop, using that fear to learn from it and make sure it doesn’t happen again is key to managing fear in the future.
So my question to you is how do you handle fear? Do you use your personal fear to make you better? Do you use the fears of your clients to make them better?
Sprite has continued its love affair with the NBA during the playoffs. Watching any one of the NBA games this weekend you would have seen this Sprite commercial dubbed “Slam”.
The strategy is the same as usual. Sprite is refreshing and quenches your thirst. The way the commercial conveys that main idea disappoints me. Having people in the spot jump into each other and combust into a spray of Sprite doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t convey a sense of refreshment and enjoyment to me. Why do they have to jump into each other to receive the benefit of the drink? Is the drink painful at first, then the refreshment washes over you?
On the other hand the Sprite commercial below does a very good job of conveying the main idea. Again, Sprite is saying their product is refreshing and will quench your thirst. To do that they have the people in the commercial jump into a basketball court that morphs into a pool. This makes me feel like Sprite is refreshing. I can picture myself standing on that blistering hot basketball court, taking a sip of a cold Sprite and being transported into a refreshing, cool, pool. We all have memories of being at the beach or a pool on a hot summer day, and how nice and refreshing it felt to jump into the water. This spot does exactly that.
What do you think about these spots? Do you think they both convey Sprite’s main idea well?
If you’ve watched an NBA game over the past couple of months you’ve most likely seen the Lebron James State Farm commercial. This is an all around solid commercial. It has an easy to understand strategy, a famous face, a little comedy and most importantly in my eyes it is easy to relate to.
The strategy behind the spot is simple and sound. Most people don’t understand insurance. They don’t really know what is in their coverage and what isn’t. But with State Farm, you don’t have to worry because you’re covered.
Having Lebron James in the commercial lends a memorable face. The “Kid and Play” dance session between James and one of the friends gives the otherwise serious commercial a moment of levity. These features combine to make a memorable and effective commercial.
What puts it above and beyond in my eyes is the selection of the friends. State Farm could have chosen to use three players from the Cavaliers or just two other famous NBA players. Instead they chose to go with Lebron James and two “regular” people. I think this was a great choice. It allows the consumer at home to relate with the “regular” person who had his car broken into. If it was James’ car that was vandalized, you would expect him to be covered because he has millions of dollars and can afford top coverage. Having the “regular” person’s car broken into allows the consumer to feel like they could be in that position. It allows the consumer at home to feel like calling State Farm is a good idea to make sure they are covered.
What do you think about this spot? Does it speak to the consumer effectively in your eyes?
Pampers’ newest commercial is spotlighting their “1 pack = 1 vaccine” campaign. The spot features a woman and her baby, as well as all the babies she helped get vaccinated by buying Pampers diapers.
The strategy behind the program and the spot is very simple. Buy a pack of pampers and an underprivileged child will receive a vaccination. The commercial does a great job of conveying the main idea by showing all of the smiling, healthy children hugging the woman and thanking her for, in effect, buying Pampers.
I think this program and commercial will be effective because it doesn’t ask you to change any habits. The commercial doesn’t ask you to fill out a post card on the package to donate a vaccine. It doesn’t ask you to go to a website to donate money. All you have to do is buy a pack of Pampers.
If you have a newborn baby at home, you are already buying diapers, you might as well buy Pampers and help an underprivileged child at the same time. Even if you normally buy a different brand or find Pampers more expensive, you may be tempted to ignore your brand loyalty or price sensitivity because it is such a worthy cause. Especially when all you have to do is buy Pampers.
What do you think about this program? Will it be effective? Is this commercial an effective vehicle for the program?
I’m guessing that over the last week you’ve seen the musical “lawn mowing” video by Wilkinson Sword. The minute long musical, along with the micro site has made its way around the Internet more for its unique musical topic than the product it’s selling.
As an American advertising professional, I’m always impressed by this type of advertising; advertising that pushes the boundaries on taboo subjects. I wondered to myself if something like this would fly in the states.
Then this weekend while flipping through my guilty pleasure, US Weekly, I found this print ad for the Schick Quattro Trim Style. I’m not sure of the association between Schick and Wilkinson Sword but there must be some as they are both selling a product called the “Quattro”. The ad does a great job of drawing from the video. It uses the same shapes seen the video and the same statue. The message is simple and easy to take away. The ad placement couldn’t be any better. Aside from me, US Weekly, has a predominantly female following and is the perfect age range for this type of product.
The print ad seemed like a smash until I thought about the American consumer who is reading this magazine. Have they seen the accompanying video to this print ad? I know it was popular last week in the advertising world, but did it make its way into the general American public?
I tried to look at it from the perspective of someone who hadn’t seen the video or micro site. It’s still interesting. It still grabs my attention, but the song doesn’t start playing in my head. I think the lack of tie in to the video takes away from the consumer’s experience. It makes the print ad and the product less memorable.
I don’t know if Schick has any plans of releasing the video in the US. I just hope, they don’t come up with some contrived version that takes all the fun and humor out.
What do you think about the video/site and the print ad? Does the print ad lose effectiveness without seeing the video?
At The Beach is a tanning salon with locations in Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado. I’ve never been to one of their salons, as I do not tan, so I can’t comment on the quality of their tanning products. But because I live in Colorado, I have been exposed to their unique brand of TV advertising.
The strategy seems simple enough. They have tanning beds, something called the mystic tan and you won’t have to wait. As far as that goes, everything is fine.
Then there is the issue of the character/voice over. Is the point of this to annoy you into paying attention? It’s brutal to your ears. It may make you pay attention to the commercial the first time. After that, you want to stab a Q-tip in your ear. I literally change the channel when this commercial comes on. That’s saying a lot for me. I purposely watch commercials because that’s what I do.
Not to mention the character is strikingly similar to Donna Versace.
Has anybody else seen this commercial? Is the point to annoy you into paying attention? Is that an effective mode of communication, or is it damaging to the brand?
