Social Media's Power: Motrin Angers Online Users

There are certain groups of people advertisers want to particularly avoid angering. One such group is mothers who are pregnant or have recent newborns. It is especially essential if these mothers are your target audience. A recent advertisement for Motrin, a pain relief medicine, seems to have taken an entirely wrong approach towards selling their product. The ad portrays a cartoon depicting the words orated by the voice over to tell a story about mothers who wear their babies in slings. But the ad goes about this message of back pain caused by the slings entirely wrong. The online ad has received such harsh feedback recently (this ad has been online since Sept. 30th though), that the entire Motrin website was eventually closed down for hours to be later revealed with an apology on the homepage where the video used to be. A few ways the predominantly negative publicity about this Motrin ad was spread online were from blog posts, YouTube video responses, and probably most importantly Twitter. Twitter is a social networking site that allows users to constantly update their statuses for friends to read and interact with. This site had a profound impact by instantly spreading the word about Motrin's ad to other users. Motrin quickly became one of the most searched topics on the entire Twitter site and the medicine's mistake was gaining interest on the blogosphere as writers were updating posts according to developments with the response to the ad. This is a grand example of what advertisers try to avoid when releasing new campaigns and these types of negative feedback are usually gained early on in testing the ads before release. It seems that a simple lack of care by Motrin and/or their advertising agency to put out this controversial ad without testing it for feedback. This lesson however, will prove as a prime example of why it is necessary to not only properly test ads before release but also how to closely monitor the follow-up and reactions given off by the target audience. If Motrin had kept a closer eye on the initial feedback the ad was producing, this story, which has been picked up by just about every advertising blog I could find, would have blown over as a small mistake. Instead, the company has been forced to take on a large public relations effort to control any damage that was done to their image. The task at hand is not yet over for Motrin despite having taken a few of the necessary steps since the video's release, but I have explored the blogosphere to read a few posts and comment on them with my own insight on the story. The first post I commented on is from Shankman.com by Peter Shankman, on his post "The REAL problem with the Motrin ads..." And the other blog I wrote a comment on, was the What'sNextBlog.com by B.L. Olchman in a post titled "Social Media Storm Spreads as Motrin Ad Angers Moms."

"The REAL problem with Motrin ads..."
Comment:
Peter, thank you for writing an informative and useful post to your expanding blog. This story has recently gained ample attention across the Internet, most importantly on Twitter and blog sites. I enjoyed reading your stance on the situation and also your tips in aiding others to not make the same mistake were very relevant and practical. You were wise in your writing to maintain an inoffensive stance on the situation while providing your own input into the story. Much of your opinion is backed by current trends and is also reflective of some of my own points. I agree with your argument about "Mommy-Bloggers" and that they truly are influential, not only due to their frequency of posting, but also due to the community aspect they feel and relate to online. Also your idea about using a mother in a position of power is a great point as this seems like an act of utter disregard by the company or agency to acknowledge a now-common technique practiced in marketing, gaining constant insight from the audience themselves. Could this just have been a campaign by Motrin that came about with all "gut feeling" and no substantial evidence to support it? It sure seems that way judging from the negativity that has sparked all of this. But then again, how could a company under a division of Johnson & Johnson make such a large mistake with their target audience?
AdAge's story on the topic does bring about a topic worthy of noting, that the online ad has been out for a few weeks now and it has not been controversial until now. Perhaps this is because some powerful social networkers have recently picked up the problematic story to spread to others. It already seems that issues like this arise all of the time, stemming from the fact that those with influence, like widely read bloggers, are able to dictate what their readers see or hear. It is interesting to ponder how many ads could potentially fall victim the same way as this Motrin ad if they were all to be discussed so widely. Thank you for this insightful and educational post and I look forward to reading more of your scholarly advice in the future.

"Social Media Storm Spreads as Motrin Ad Angers Moms"
Comment:
Thank you for your timely and intuitive post on this developing story. I appreciate your consistent updates to keep your readers informed as the issue at hand progresses. I applaud you on your assessment of the story and the feedback you then provide of how to handle the situation from the brand's side. Your advice to Motrin of what they should do is practical and useful and seems like the most logical steps that the brand should take in order to repair any damage that was done. I particularly enjoyed your fourth tip to "Spend money creating a socially responsible program that helps real mothers with a real issue - preferably one they vote on." This appears to be the best step that Motrin can take to move on from this while still acknowledging the fact they made a mistake in a way that spins the issue from negative to positive in one fell swoop. I believe this is a practice other brands have used in the past to advance from prior mistakes similar to this one.
I was amused by your remarks about brands and their use of marketing efforts on the weekends as, just like you said, the Internet is a 24/7 thing that most brands often do not keep track fully of. Things happen instantly online and I agree that brands should keep a never-ending watch to how their brand is perceived and written about online. With the future of branding at stake, does this vivid example of what not to do set a standard for other Internet efforts? This surely seems like a widespread point of learning for other brands but with the consistent pace and ever evolving form of the Internet, will brands ever be safe to make a mistake again? The room for mistakes is constantly narrowing down until we may see the loss of any risk-taking efforts.
Your blog posts are continually of the highest caliber and I am glad you covered this topic with such detail and opinion. Thank you for your post and I look forward to gaining some feedback from you on this subject matter.

Monkey See, Monkey No Longer Do: PETA Tries to Remove Apes from Ads

A growing trend in advertising has been the comical use of our primate relatives. They act just like use and provide some easy laughs. But now they may no longer show their opposable thumbs in TV commercials again. This past week PETA released a statement saying they are partnering with the Ad Council to remove the use of great apes in ads. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has long been an advocate for proper treatment of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, but their involvement in this issue has yet to impact the advertising world until now. This overlap has arisen due to the recently increasing use of these animals in television and print campaigns (see photo to right). There has been speculation of illegal practices and inhumane conditions that these primates are put through in order to create these ads, yet no direct charges have been made in recent times. The Ad Council, based in New York "is the leading producer of public service announcements (PSAs) since 1942," issued their statement supporting PETA from president and CEO, Peggy Conlon. She addressed their lack of use of any great ape in their 66 year history and that there is a need to outlaw the use of these animals as they "endure abuse as part of their behind-the-scenes training." However, with all of this, I feel the issue at hand should not be dealt with by removing great apes from the advertisements themselves, but instead PETA should be advocating for stricter practices in the treatment of the animals during their time being raised for acting and while working on the ads. To ask for a prompt and entire removal of chimpanzees and orangutans from commercials seems a little extreme, thus PETA and the Ad Council should steer their efforts towards gaining more humane treatment of these acting primates.

This recent story has allowed many blogs online to take a humorous spin at the issue, while others simply state the ridiculousness of it all. PETA provides their description of the use of these primates in the news release and on their blog, The PETA Files, to portray the trainers of the monkeys as the problem and the use of their acting in ads as the original source causing this problem. Yet others who pick up the issue would rather point out what no longer will be seen in advertising instead of focusing on any positive outcome of their removal. Bloggers would rather scheme up the funny "what if" situations that could occur if all other agencies abide by this proposal. AdFreak entertains the thought that we should be glad PETA stopped these primates before they could become "intelligent enough to unionize one day and bring commercial production grinding to a halt" or even they may possess the "desire to subjugate humankind in a post-apocalyptic world" (see Planet of the Apes reference). From the mouth of a credible news source, even AdAge adds a spin to this issue by saying "this is one more step toward a chimp-free Super Bowl" and throws in its own reference to a previously famous commercial starring a monkey.

Meanwhile, AdRants.com takes off with the story to send a witty message about the life of the now out of work great ape that had appeared in the award-winning Cadbury commercial (photo below left). Yet, this point goes barely beyond its screen-limited comedic tone because that great ape was obviously fake. But who knows what could come about, what if more great ads like this will never be taken beyond the drawing board because of this proposed limitation, why should the use of primates be wiped out entirely? There is still the chance to use people in costume ape suits or to show animated monkeys, but where is the fun in seeing that. The point has always been to see an animal that is so closely related to own human DNA that the actions are comparable enough for us to picture ourselves as them (perfect example was from CareerBuilder.com's Super Bowl TV spots showing chimps as your bosses). Having a live animal reenact our mundane lifestyle is often refreshing and warming. So far the agreement between PETA and the Ad Council has only limited influence on the advertising industry's broad reach, but with enough pressure this issue may soon be recognized by all major agencies and lead to the elimination of primates from commercials. What's next...the Aflac Duck? The Geico Gecko? The Coca-Cola Polar Bears? This problem is relevant but only within a certain extent of live animal usage and in the future we may see this set a standard that the industry will not be able to keep up with as a potential spark that causes exponential downward use of any live animals in commercials.

Debate on the Rise: Similar Bread Ads Stir Agencies

Yeast makes bread rise. Copying advertisements makes agencies' blood levels rise. A recent online debate has begun over an ad for Qatar Airlines, as it appears to be similarly styled like an ad created for Lurpak Danish Butter. It is not the brands here at war, instead their creators are the ones from which the words are flying over the blogosphere. World-renowned agency Wieden + Kennedy London (see photo below), have stumbled upon a YouTube video depicting a recent ad for Qatar Airlines that is surprisingly alike an ad they released in March 2007. W+K London managing director, Neil Christie, first acknowledged that another agency "copied" his work on his agency's blog this past week. He offered evidence of both videos with embedded YouTube clips and directly called out to those at the other agency, Batey Singapore, through some choicely aimed words. The normally scarce to truly participate advertising blog world has blown up with comments supporting both sides of the debate, with the most commented site being the W+K London blog. Other blogs which also report this story have received increases in knowledgeable comments, as even Neil Christie, himself, has been dropping lines in defense of his statements and following many of the arguments on this topic. I was able to comment on a two of these blogs and truly dive into the online warfare with my contributions. The first blog I commented on was BusinessWeek: Brand New Day, a blog written by Marketing Editor Burt Helm and Senior Correspondent David Kiley, my submission was on the post Wieden & Kennedy Cries “Ripoff”. Another blog I contributed to was a blog that is related to AdWeek and a personal favorite of mine, AdFreak, which is created by multiple writers (see photo below). Brian Morrissey, who is not the most frequent poster to this site, yet maintains his authority with his writings for AdWeek, generated this post, titled Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot. I have commented directly onto each of these respected blogs and have also posted my words here below.

"Wieden & Kennedy Cries 'Ripoff'"
Comment:
Thank you for your insightful post on this recent and still developing story. I am glad you covered this event, as it is a topic that deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. The controversy at hand stems from the fact that it seems creativity may soon reach its limit and the thresholds of originality may be stretched beyond any point of return. With this thinking, nothing is original. I feel that the two advertisements portray their own unique artistic expression and though overlap is present, the two ads remain apart. This is not to say that the opinion of Wieden + Kennedy London's Neil Christie should go by the wayside. The fact that he took the time to publicly defend what he felt was an injustice to his agency's creative work shows his dedication to his career as well as his drive to express a need for change in this industry practice. I understand it is not uncommon to use similar tactics as other campaigns yet with the lack of original content being created, Mr. Christie has the right to try to hold on to what may have been his to begin with. You say in your post "most times, it is the creative director's delusion" that his or her work has been "ripped off," yet I feel that without speaking out about such incidents, whether they be true or not, would only lead to worse offenses. Perhaps Mr. Christie is doing only what others are incapable of doing (and might I add he is going to some length to do so, by commenting on blogs to defend his words).

When watching the ads, it is hard not to instantly agree with the claims of copying or even going as far as plagiarizing, due to the similarity in visuals and scripts used. It is apparent why these ads are even being compared but you simply write off Mr. Christie as having a "preposterous claim." There may be little to no way of proving him right for his complaint against the alleged agency, Batey Singapore, but it would only seem appropriate for the agency to at least acknowledge his blog post and respond accordingly. The advertising industry would benefit from a peaceful resolution to this incident but it would make further progress if Batey did, by chance, acknowledge their reuse of Wieden + Kennedy London's material. What are your feelings on the shady practices that currently go on in the advertising world? It will be interesting to see what will result from this but for the meantime I appreciate your time and work on this blog and look forward to your response.

"Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot"
Comment:
I would like to thank you for reporting on this controversy, as it has been a topic of much discussion throughout the advertising blogosphere. There have been many comments preceding my own on your blog, yet I feel that this story is one worthy of more acknowledgment. The issue of copying creative efforts has rung loudly throughout the advertising industry with this incident and stands as a reminder of a problem that will see no end in the near future. With all of the copyrighting and other efforts to ban such copying practices, the responsibility then falls onto the individual to stand up for one's own work. This can cause great backlash to occur as is evident from Neil Christie's call out of the agency that he felt was "bloody copying his ad" and has since proceeded with follow-up comments. The mounting pressure to be innovative in this business causes strain for creatives, especially as the ability to be "original" seems to be nearly dead. Much of what creatives do is to draw from others for inspiration and sometimes instead of viewing others' ideas and moving forward, the inspiration acquired becomes drawn too directly from its original source.

You wrote in this post "these things always perplex me. Could the breadmaking have been presented differently, or is any breadmaking a no-no?" I like your point that often agencies can hold on too tightly to the work they created and all of the gray area that coincides. In this case, at least the products being advertised are entirely different, but then again I am sure that Mr. Christie was wondering why Batey Singapore chose to depict a similar breadmaking process instead of how to make any other food item the Qatar Airlines might offer?

You also say, "the grumbling over these...tribute ads is done sotto voce. But sometimes not." However I feel it could perhaps be a good thing that Mr. Christie spoke up for his work. It should be seen as progressive by the overall industry to do what most others do not. He has set an example to follow when others may otherwise feel too timid to speak out. This can even serve to quell fears in agencies worldwide that they will be chastised for publicly protecting their ads. I would be curious to hear what you feel about this incident in more depth; especially how you think the practices of mirroring others will be affected by this powerful agency voicing their opinion on it. Thank you for your continued work on this blog as it is a favorite of mine and I look forward to more from your side of this story.

Political Ad Season 2008: Hollywood Encourages Voters

Just about every major TV broadcast channel is currently dedicating a majority of its programming to the 2008 presidential election. And rightfully so as the election is the topic on the top of Americans' minds right now. So much emphasis on the election comes from the current economic downturn striking our nation or perhaps it is because the election is only a week away. Either way, advertisers have picked up on this hot topic and have been busy cranking out their finest political work to keep up with the intriguing points of this vote. Not only has the advertising industry been generating ads for each candidates, but there have been numerous advertising campaigns created to promote the act of voting. The stress from each political party of actually encouraging Americans to vote seems to be a bigger issue this election than ever in the hopes of properly shaping America's future.

The effort put into persuading people to go out and vote has arisen heavily from motivational sources such as Rock the Vote and other mass registration initiatives. But this movement has recently gained more support by some unconventional, yet very effective and useful sites, such as Google Maps. An online video is helping to drive traffic to the Google Maps site, which points visitors to their local polling station, features dozens of celebrities encouraging viewers to do the opposite of conventional voting public service announcements: not to vote. Throughout the first two minutes of the video, the repeated message is "don't vote," "don't vote," "don't vote," until one really does not want to vote anymore. Eventually though, the true objective of the video reveals its antagonizing ways of saying that one really should vote, all the while feeding the viewer quick frames of recognizable faces like Forest Whitaker, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jennifer Aniston, to name a few. I have seen that things like this consistent barrage of visual name-dropping seems to be the common trend, when dealing with young adults signing up to vote, especially more than ever on the Internet, likewise other efforts have received a great amount of press coverage, including those by the organization, Declare Yourself, which features images of celebrities like Jessica Alba (see image to left) and Christina Aguilera bound and unable to speak out, or rather depicting their inability to vote. The illustration of these images is focused more on using sexuality and shocking brutality instead of emphasizing the real message that one should not allow your voice to go unheard this election. Of course these videos and images are not without opposition by critics or comedians, as online user generated content mocking these messages frequently appear (one of the best examples is actress, Hayden Panettiere, telling the viewer not to support John McCain). However, I feel the overall significance of these efforts so far suggests that these ads are more than enough encouragement to get voters out to the polls. This is indicated by the youth voter numbers from the state primaries earlier this year. A recent article in AdWeek, outlined a majority of the marketing and advertising efforts that incorporate Hollywood stars. The article goes on to touch upon the fact that the vividness of celebrity endorsements seen in this election is more so than in any past election.

While there may be some successful inspirational campaigns from celebrities, not all voter registration campaigns are equally effective. Gap generated the "Vote for ____" campaign aimed at stimulating youth voters through a series of videos that also use a wide variety of different spokespeople to spread their message. The vast range represented in spokesperson demographics such as age, race and interests, reaches far beyond those seen in the Declare Yourself video. But instead of quick snippets of each celebrity, Gap strangely lets Bill Maher ask you to vote for BBQ, or has Kristen Bell saying to vote for those who cannot. Many corporate sponsors, similar to Gap's own initiative, have joined forces with the likes of Declare Yourself and Rock the Vote, amongst others, by backing their efforts with exposure and money. I feel, however, as though these Gap ads in particular are an easy way for their recently struggling company to become incorporated into the politically responsible category. All Gap did was simply front a budget to slap their logo on the cluttered list of corporate-backed celebrity endorsements. Meanwhile their image may increase as a result, but sales and profits may not be so lucky in the long run. The warmth in all of this lies within the companies who care enough about actually being useful in their own ways to this political season. For instance these companies may be inspired enough to hold voter drives or even passively take the backseat in image advertising for a few months while politics takes over, instead of salivating at the opportunity to improve brand value or awareness.

The funniest but most self-serving video of those released online is an advertisement by the forgotten Reebok spokesperson, whom also conveniently links to the Google Maps page, Terry Tate, in which he pummels Sarah Palin in his own version of a voting initiative video. Other videos have humor involved as well but are steered directly at voting in a partisan way. One such video from numerous popular young actors includes Blake Lively, from the TV show Gossip Girl, in a promotion for assisting in the cause at MoveOn.org that encourages young adult viewers to talk to their parents about voting for Barack Obama (see image to right). It is a uniquely twisted ploy diverting away from the usual PSA's that encourage parents to talk to their young adults and instead empowering the young adullt to talk to their parents. Much of the voter initiative seems to be attempts at driving voters towards the Obama campaign perhaps due to his relation and appeal to younger voters over the older McCain. The efforts by celebrities to incorporate their image into strong messages is a continuously useful medium and whether or not their messages are serious or not, or even partisan, it is necessary for those who can impact the masses to continuously make the right choices to voice their opinions to guide those afraid to use theirs.

The Advertising Blog Community: Seek and Inform

With the abundance of information on the web, it may be difficult to find reliable news sources worthwhile of taking the time to read and check back with on a regular basis. This week, I searched the Web to find resources that are available to aid in the quality and consistency of my blog posts and to allow my readers to utilize the other sources of information relating to the advertising and marketing industry. I used the Webby and IMSA criteria to properly evaluate websites and blogs, which lead me to find more than 20 additional sites to add to my linkroll and to evaluate them with some brief analysis below. These links include websites of respected blogs, newspapers, and periodicals and inclusion was based on their influence, credibility, style, design, timing, and interactivity. Due to the vast resources discovered, I broke the websites into four distinct categories: Direct News Sources, Related to News Sources Blogs, Highly Established Blogs, and Independent or Less-Known Blogs. First, in the Direct News Sources, are two of the most relied upon sites in advertising and help to inform the professionals in the industry. Advertising Age, a veteran website amongst a young online advertising community (see photo to right), covers the most important and large scale agency and client news, and also comes in a printed weekly copy. Direct competitor, Adweek, follows closely as a site for consistent and relevant information yet is seen to be a more inclusive feed as it utilizes integrated video features. The two sites are often heralded for their special summations of the industry, whether it is about the clients or agencies, and both maintain widespread reach with their sibling sites throughout the news sector of marketing and advertising. The most prominent website with this direct relation to Advertising Age is Creativity-Online, which is the online supplement to the print periodical that looks at the designs and ideas backing the world's best advertisements while providing in-depth news on the people who make these ads happen. One of these siblings reaching from Adweek (and their parent Nielsen Business Media) is Brandweek, another weekly periodical respected by many to be the leading source for information regarding current branding and marketing practices. Following suit, an additional sibling is Mediaweek, a site laden with plentiful news of mass media especially focusing on television by using ratings and other data to generate useful stories about the media industry. The final prominent website, actually a blog, with relation to Nielsen Business Media is NielsenWire, where the world's leading provider of marketing information, Nielsen Company, uses their extensive research to provide advanced and current knowledge on everything from sports to politics to consumer trends in an easy-to-use blog format.

There are many blogs on the Web that are now written for news providers' websites and I was able to find numerous of these blogs that pertain to the advertising community. AdFreak is one such blog that falls under the powerful empire of Nielsen Business Media. It is a much respected blog and is frequently updated with witty and informative posts using numerous different writers whom all add their own flair to the site. BusinessWeek has a blog named Brand New Day, which often writes with a focus on current branding techniques but also divulges into other popular marketing and advertising stories. Brand New Day sometimes though struggles to keep away from too much analysis of current politics and may also be slow on generating new posts from its two writers who are already staff members elsewhere in the publication. The Los Angeles Times has a fitting blog as well, Web Scout, yet it seems to steer much emphasis towards online entertainment and does not consistently enough blog about online advertising. Yet when the blog does deliver worthy content, writer David Sarno, covers advertising's online efforts with great form and depth.

To cover my category of Highly Established Blogs, I was easily directed to many of the most respected blogs that are featured on just about every linkroll in the blogging community. Jaffe Juice is a weekly column turned blog and revamped to now be a self-described "unshackled, uncensored and uninhibited dialogue on the subjects of new marketing, advertising and creativity," but the one thing missing from his description is frequency of updates, as this seems to be his downfall when posting only in clumps at a time. Following this trend is Adverblog, which too lacks consistency in posting, yet makes up for this by finding extraordinary features to discuss when covering the field of interactive marketing. Though the writer of A/D Goodness often has little to say with his posts, he focuses heavily on new, innovative design elements of advertisements to showcase all forms of advertising media that have been done exceptionally well. A blog that mixes a sense of quirkiness with seriousness is AdPulp, which balances well between reporting major news stories and just posting for humor's sake. One of my favorite blogs is AdRants (see photo to left), a blog that has an outstanding pair of writers and has strength in opinion and defined character, as is surely summed up by its website title "Marketing and Advertising News with Attitude." The What's Next Blog has gained success and praise by sharing useful professional advice amongst humorous posts and has especially excelled due to the outstanding writing abilities of the author, B.L. Ochman. Last in this category is Make the Logo Bigger, which is a strongly opinionated blog with the stories delivered to you in an often rude and negative way but the author does consistently provide a wealth of useful links and strives to constantly update the blog.

My final set of blogs encompasses those in the Independent or Less-Known Blogs category. I hold these blogs to less rigorous standards, knowing that they are not the primary sources of information and often have difficulty posting constantly or etcetera; however I do feel that many of these blogs are better written as the authors care more about those posts. The Responsible Marketing Blog brings about marketing practices and examples that are extremely useful and pleasing to hear for their caring spirit. Also using practical marketing teachings, the Marketing Profs Daily Fix blog uses multiple writers to generate intelligent posts aimed at informing university educators. Ads of the World loses almost all of the written aspect of an independent blog and instead focuses on the strength of imagery advertising worldwide by picking monthly "winners" to feature in the blog and on the homepage. Last but not least is Madvertising, a blog that reminds me of the same content that I am trying to cover with oddities of advertising, except that the posts are more visually driven and less opinion/explanation based than my own. Overall, the vast array of websites and blogs on the Web have allowed me to gain more influential and active sites to use to propel my blog and increase my understanding of the industry.


Also, I would like to acknowledge and thank the first website to link to my blog, Contaigous Magazine, a magazine, DVD and online effort to identify the world's revolutionary marketing strategies.

New, Evolving Chances for Online Marketing: "Webisodes"

As more and more marketing efforts are shifting towards generating a greater Internet presence, the success surrounding viral online content and videos are quickly catching the interest of the marketing industry. One of the newest forms of integrating a brand's target message into online content is to create video miniseries. These are popping up from numerous brands and feature the product or service throughout the online series, or "webisodes." This week I decided to explore the blogosphere for the most talked about new webisodes and found that a series created by and starring Illeana Douglas, with an Ikea-backed storyline, has received the most discussion. Douglas' series, titled "Easy to Assemble," follows her experiences as she goes through training and the adjustments of working in a Burbank Ikea after recently having quit her other profession: a struggling actress. The series was picked up by CBS earlier this week to be shown on its newly acquired TV.com, where it becomes the website's first scripted original show (see photo to left). With progressively more of these webisodes being generated, questions arise about the effectiveness of these shows as well as wondering if these branded shows will become a lasting form of media? It is tough to answer either of these questions as of yet from a marketing perspective, but the cheap production cost and easy distribution are certainly enticing reasons for advertisers to buy into the creation of more shows like this. On the other hand there is still the tried and true "integration package" (or product placement) route available for dropping massive amounts of money on a few screen shots. Yet with all of this, Douglas' "Easy to Assemble" webisodes are well done, featuring a few notable actors and is comically driven enough to allow the Ikea brand to make light of itself and especially its Swedish history. The first post I commented on, Are Web series generally worth your time?, was written by Rebecca Cullers of Adfreak.com, a blog affiliated with trusted advertising source AdWeek, in her post Cullers briefly details the "Easy to Assemble" series before CBS picked up the show. Correspondingly, in another post I commented on, New "season" of web series is most mature yet, by Maria Russo, of the LA Times blog Web Scout, provides a review of the series and others while later providing follow-up analysis after the show was picked up by CBS. I have commented directly onto each of these respected blogs and have also posted them here below.

"Are Web series generally worth your time?"
Comment
I enjoyed this post a lot, seeing as this is an increasing area of marketing interest and although brief, you provided many details, links and points. Even though a few weeks has passed since you wrote this post and new developments have arisen, I will stick to what you have written here and express my opinion on this post. You were able to make relevant references to Ikea's efforts and those of other brands like Johnson & Johnson and Holiday Inn, while incorporating your point throughout the post. I thought that when you said "But do Webisodes really enhance a brand? Not always. Case in point: Ikea...," that this statement is not true, seeing as I feel they did do a good job of appealing to an appropriate market while incorporating humor into a brand that may have seemed foreign. The use of witty and quirky jokes, especially the extensive job Illeana Douglas does to mock the Ikea brand itself (see photo below) in these webisodes shows that Ikea wants to not only gain recognition but also have fun with this. You also said you had a "hard time getting through the first (episode)," but I thought this was an entertaining introduction into the series, it may seem tough though for the series to develop much of a plot through the season but overall I feel that it definitely has room to grow. However, you did make a good point in questioning the length of the episodes in comparison with normal 15 to 30 second clips as I think it is valid to say there could be a happy medium between where the series is now and a common TV spot. With this too, I enjoyed your commentary on the “webisode envy“ due to the lack in TV time as I strongly agree that a brands money may be better off being placed into the production of an entire cult series online rather than a few ads on TV that might allow viewers to “get a taste of your logo.” I am a big fan of the AdFreak blog and enjoy reading your insightful and up-to-date posts, thank you.

"New 'season' of web series is most mature yet"
Comment
I appreciate your analysis of the new web series which are coming about as modern marketing tools. This topic is becoming increasingly important especially with all of the financial woes our economy is experiencing currently. I feel that these shows are a relatively inexpensive way to produce content that may provide longer lasting and be more potent than a simple TV spot. When considering all of the costs to buy TV air time, this appears to me to be a greater cost than to simply add a little bit more time and care into the production of the "webisodes." The fact you bring about, of the creation of these webisodes being the now dividing line between "amateur 'user-generated content' and the new wave," struck me as an important point here. This really resonated with me to show the constant evolution of marketing and that there is always a way to take a trend like online content and viral videos and to make them better. My favorite example that you highlight is the Ikea "Easy to Assemble" series, put together and starring Illeana Douglas. As her second episode has now been released, we can see her creative use of these short, 5-6 minutes clips to bring about a funny storyline of her new job at the Burbank Ikea. Just as you pointed out here, and in your later review of CBS' newly acquired series, Douglas does a great job of producing a satire-laced show that plays a lot on Ikea's "foreign" culture and quirky aspects. You point out too, the incorporation of a lot of Ikea's brand associations in the episodes, "there's a whole lot of yellow," but still note that Douglas controls the humorous image of "the company’s can-do, relentlessly cheerful aesthetic and its meatball- and lingonberry-saturated Swedishness." I wonder though how far the show can be stretched on this small premise and it seems difficult to continue this cute "gig" with a consistent enough audience for Ikea to get their money's worth. It seems that the success of this and other early sponsored miniseries will shape the interpretation and future development of similar shows. Where do you see the future of these webisodes going and do you think this can become a new prominent form of media? Thank you for your time and I enjoy the great work you have done here on this blog.

A Sweet Reminder: The Corn Syrup Campaign

Too often, consumers often find themselves being fed advertisements of products or services that seem unnecessary of needing any reminders. Brands like Coca-Cola, Nike, and other big name category leaders use their advertising as brand reinforcements, yet smaller, unknown products can, too, use their time and advertising budget to emerge from the shadows. One such example of this emergence is the campaign launched earlier this month by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) titled SweetSurprise. But why would the Corn Refiners possibly need to advertise to Americans (the same Americans who currently consume the most corn per capita in the world)? Well, the broadcast message is not merely about the corn itself, but rather about the high fructose corn syrup product which has recently received a bad image from our increasingly health-conscious nation. This high fructose corn syrup has taken on many negative connotations and it is still debatable whether all of these perceptions are true or not. But the CRA surely will no longer sit dormant while their syrup product is replaced with "healthier" alternatives. The fact that a non-necessity product that has never been branded before needs to take on such an overhauling of its image means that advances in consumer knowledge are bringing about an abrupt and disruptive change to the many fabrications used in advertising. This is not to say that high fructose corn syrup is the only product to have launched a massive campaign on behalf of revamping their position in the minds of consumers. Moreover, other products that are struggling as of late on market shelves, including common goods like milk, cheese, and various fruits, have also taken to the TV screens and billboards in an attempt to reestablish their favorablility among consumers. However, unlike the others' efforts, corn syrup is not as strongly backed by its product’s parent association.

The SweetSurprise campaign, generated by the DDB Chicago agency, launched with TV spots, print ads, and a website. Unfortunately, the ads initially came off almost humorous and as a result sparked much media coverage. Yet not all of the coverage was exactly supportive. The print ads (see example above) are being run in magazines and newspapers and seem to carry a more serious tone with the textual support and design. On the other hand, the TV spots feel like a Saturday Night Live skit mocking the syrup product. The creative executives in charge of the SweetSurprise TV spots must have just finished working on an awkward-to-sell medical product as the setting and scripting feels forcibly cliche while pressingly informative. Yet when all seems lost, there is that slight bit of comedic relief to close out the spot. The three TV ads- the mothers at the picnic party and the young couple in the park, and the (just released) brothers at home use similar punchlines where the character debating the consumption of a product with corn syrup is quickly stumped when asked to tell of a reason why the syrup is unhealthy. These overtly biased messages did nothing but relinquish the connotation these products' producers, who are obviously aware of their potentially detrimental effects, try the hardest to reverse the conceived negative imagery. To do so, their attempts are focused on swaying the current consumer perception to highlight an often unproven, yet positive aspect. Much of the media coverage, be it mostly online, belittles the Corn Refiners for using marketing tactics similar to those practiced by the tobacco industry (see image to left), while forgetting the importance of a catchy cigarette jingle. Just as was the case in those old black and white tobacco commercials, where viewers were informed by a doctor that smoking cigarettes was a safe, reliable choice. As we are all aware, this eventually was proven to be a mistrusted source. To further illustrate this in a post on the blog AdFreak dealing with this subject, David Gianatasio uses a bit of sarcasm to point out this comparison, "Here's an old Chesterfield cigarette ad that seems to imply that smoking isn't so bad for your health. I wonder why I felt like including it." So, too, it does not help the CRA to provide facts in the ads that seem superficially appealing to the eyes and ears, until they are consistently refuted by numerous current medical studies.

Being compared to the tobacco industry may not have been exactly where the Corn Refiners wanted to come out of this campaign, but it has increased overall awareness of the sugary foods America is eating. The impact of the news coverage has had an apparently reverse effect from the intended one, as more consumers have now become more conscious of their food purchases, or just angrier at the CRA. However, if the future holds strong evidence to back these SweetSurprise claims, the only ones truly enjoying these ads will be the refiners themselves. It is not illogical that the sugar alternative may in fact be the best ingredient to nutritional health after all and for proof the SweetSurprise website offers a title display with numerous references to recent studies conducted by researchers. While the website is a good source of information, regarding the healthiness of corn syrup, the visitors must ultimately decipher just what to believe in this sticky (and sweet) debate.

And in the end, here is the advertising industry stuck in a battle of moral and ethical practices, where agencies struggle with a balance between dollar signs and company values. This campaign may not be quite as controversial from the agency's perspective, as much so as say picking up a pro-abortion client. Yet, this campaign has, however, extended ever so widely across the media likely because of the large categorical span touched upon by the various issues present. Categories ranging from the environmental impact of growing corn for syrup production, to the relation of corn syrup and obesity, and even the morality of “lying” to the public through advertising are covered. Initially the SweetSurprise campaigning appeared to be a smart investment choice as a hope to boost the Corn Refiners declining sales, but the lasting results have detracted from their original, subtle message. Such lessons learned in advertising and marketing will serve as reminders for future campaigns of how to steer their message clear from a nationwide rebuttal.