Don’t Vote

When I started writing this blog, I made two rules for myself. 

1. Don’t get personal.

2. Don’t get political. 

This is supposed to be an advertising blog to help me communicate my ideas and help me stay current with advertising news and issues. This isn’t supposed to be about me. However, voting is so important to the upcoming election that I have to promote it. Even if it’s just to the handful of people who read this blog, I want to spread the message. 

And, I want to be in the company of all the celebrities who are in the video below. If I could only just hang out with one or two of them… This is a great video because instead of being a bunch of celebrities telling people who to vote for, it’s a bunch of celebrities telling you to make your own decision and then go vote. They’re not just telling you to vote OBAMA. They’re telling you to make your own decision. So, please take the advice of Leonardo DiCaprio, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston, Ellen DeGeneres, Justin Timberlake, Ashton Kutcher, Steven Spielberg and many more and go out and VOTE!

As a client, does Starbucks suck?

 

 

Wieden & Kennedy gave Starbucks the big boot. Who saw that coming? I most certainly didn’t. Despite Starbucks very overpriced and bitter coffee, it still seems to keep its hold on the coffee market. Wouldn’t this be a brand that Wieden would want to keep a hold of? Apparently not. It seems that Starbucks, along with bad coffee, is also a bad client. 

When hiring an advertising agency, a company needs to trust the agencies taste and talent. That is why there is a big pitch process, so both brand and agency can ensure that their relationship will be beneficial. Obviously, the company is expected to be involved in the campaign, but there is a line between being involved and micromanaging. This was apparently the line that Starbucks didn’t understand – they have been known as a difficult client for quite awhile.

Starbucks, as a brand, has been very under-advertised. This was how they saw their brand in the market and it has always worked. However, Wieden wanted to further the brand and Starbucks wasn’t into it. Remember the Holiday 2007 “Pass the Cheer” advertisements? Those were tastefully executed and fit the brand perfectly. You can practically taste the red cups. 

Television ads just don’t seem to be the route that Starbucks wants to take. Thus ends the professional relationship between Wieden & Kennedy (based in Portland) and Starbucks (based in Seattle). 

Neither party is going to suffer too greatly from the severing of ties. Wieden can continue to work on other successful campaigns including Nike and P&G and Starbucks can continue to provide morning java to the entire world. And, it seems that we will see more Starbucks ads in the future. The brand confirms that they will be hiring agencies in the future on a project by project basis.

Microsoft Ad: Win or Lose?

The new Microsoft ad featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld has been receiving a lot of flak since it debuted. I hadn’t even seen it before I heard a number of people who thought it was pointless. So, instead of waiting to see it on TV, I visited YouTube. 

My first impression was that I couldn’t believe it was a minute and 30 seconds. Thats a long commercial! And, after watching it, I was a little confused about why it was for Microsoft. Shouldn’t it be for that Circus shoe place or a local mall? No, it’s Microsoft. I actually enjoyed its randomness and light attitude. Seinfeld obviously has to carry the commercial on his shoulders because Gates has little entertainment value.

Despite what people may think about the ad, they are still talking about it. It has created a buzz that is more effective than an epic commercial. And, according to Microsoft, this is just the beginning of a new campaign to establish a new brand identity. Any commercial that kicks off a new brand identity is bound to cause a stir. This commercial was made by Crispin Porter + Bogusky and I can’t wait to see the next installment of the new campaign. 

 

 

“90210 2.0″ Premiers 9.02

I know that the new “Beverly Hills 90210″ debuting on September 2 (9.02) is kind of dorky, but I LOVE it. I love(d) “90210″ and I am stoked about the new version finally coming out. I am going to miss Dylan and Donna, but I will give this new version a try.

I especially appreciate the CW trying to win back old viewers by bringing back Kelly (Jennie Garth) and Brenda (Shannen Doherty!!!). That fact alone was the final deal maker for me to watch the new show. Brenda was an amazing character – the only one with interesting story lines in high school. I will be watching for two hours on September 2 simply to see Brenda and Kelly.

Now, what I find really interesting, is the fact that the CW is not going to allow the media or advertisers to view the show ahead of time. As a future media planner/communication strategist, this frightens me a little. Are they trying to hide something? Is the show actually terrible? How would I know if I wanted to spend the money to advertise during the premier on 9.02? To me, this is not a good sign for the show. It’s almost an admittance right away that the show won’t live up to the high expectations Aaron Spelling left behind. The CW recognizes the publicity and anticipation surrounding the new show and has decided that is all the media and advertisers need to know.

On the other hand, as a viewer, I could see this as an opportunity to watch the premier without the tainted opinions of critics. The critics will be watching the show at the very same time that I get to watch it. I hate when I hear about something before it comes out, or hearing a friend talk about a movie before I’ve seen it. But, that won’t have a slight chance of happening when the new “90210″ premiers.

In the end, though, my career self wins. It is going to be hard for media buyers to decide whether they want to use their budget to advertise during the premier when they know nothing about the show. The hype and anticipation that comes with the new “90210″ is not enough evidence to make a buying decision.

Below, for old times sake, is a picture of my favorite cast. I actually have a bookmark with this picture on it. And I still use it.

Sorry Kobe

I am not the biggest basketball fan, but I did sit through most of the playoff game last night with the Lakers and the Celtics. Kobe Bryant is amazing, but there is just something about him that I don’t like. That’s a whole different story, though.

I watched the game so I could watch the commercials during the commercial break. And to see what celebrities decided to make the trip to Boston… The NBA has the absolute best commercials right now! The split screen of two players giving the same speech was an absolute genius move by Goodby Silverstein & Partners. It is such a simple idea that was executed so well. It also allowed them to match up different players faces depending on who was playing.

Or, just match up players who have an interesting history. For example, Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant. When Kobe joined the Los Angeles Lakers right out of high school, Shaq acted as his mentor. Now, with each player on a different team, a rivalry has formed. It makes this Joker-esque commercial almost comical.

But, there can only be one. And it was Kevn Garnett.

Happy ‘Sex and the City’ Day!

Unless you live in  a cave, you know that the “Sex and the City” movie comes out today. I will be seeing it in an hour!!! But, I couldn’t help noticing the marketing that takes place during television shows that are targeted at younger audiences. Today, the Wall Street Journal featured an article specifically about this. Lauren A.E. Schuker states that now the show has been been airing a toned down version on TBS and these cleaner episodes have become a favorite of teenage girls who were too young to watch the show when it first aired on HBO. So, the producers of the movie have to decide if they want to market to this new group of fans who are not actually old enough to go see the movie in theaters without a parent (‘Sex and the City’ with your dad? AWKWARD!)

Where have these ads appeared? During shows watched by this new underage demo including “Gossip Girl,” “My Super Sweet Sixteen,” and “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila.” Hmmm. I don’t know how I feel about this. When I was 16, my friends and I were also into the show. We just rented the DVD’s at Blockbuster. Then we could watch them over and over. Were we too young to watch the show? Probably, we couldn’t relate to it. But, were we old enough to understand the content? Of course. Did we enjoy the show? Obviously. It opened our eyes to the world of make believe adulthood. And, I can confidently say that if the movie came out when I was 16 I would have successfully snuck in to the theater. With that, though the movie shouldn’t be aimed at teenagers, it is going to attract them anyway. They are going to see it no matter what. Might as well break records with the amount of money this movie is going to make.

The Abercrombie Emergency Room.

On Wednesday, “The New York Times” published details behind the Abercrombie & Fitch Emergency Department and Trauma Center that is being constructed for the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Abercrombie and Fitch donated $10 million to the hospital and, in appreciation, the hospital decided to name the new emergency center after the company.

This provoked much opposition from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood coalition. The coalition claims that advertisements for Abercrombie and Fitch are too provocative and use sexuality to market to children and teens. They argue that naming the emergency room after the company would marry the Abercrombie brand and reputation to the children’s hospital.

Donating money to a children’s hospital is generous and necessary for the life of the hospital. A donation of $10 million to a single hospital is worth erecting or re-naming a hospital wing in the honor of the donator. No matter if that contributor is a single person, family or brand. This decision should not take into account the type of advertising strategy the company currently employs.

Take a second to consider the commercialization of the Mattel Children’s Hospital U.C.L.A. or the Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Rhode Island. Granted Hasbro and Mattel are children’s toy makers, but they are also successful companies with the ability to donate in large quantities. This is also the case for Abercrombie and Fitch. Should it matter that the money comes from a company with provocative ads? Should it matter where the money comes from at all? Shouldn’t it be about the children and their needs that can be met through donations? Would the name of the emergency room really stop a worried parent from taking their sick child to the hospital? It shouldn’t and it won’t.