Take It Face To Face

Ever since Twitter joined the social media club its usefulness has been a topic for debate. For those who argue against it, this post is for you.

Sockington, the Twittering Cat with over 500,000 followers

Every time I begin to think I understand Twitter’s purpose, an article like this comes along and I’m back to square one. More than 500,000 people are currently following “Sockington”, a cat that Twitters. Really? Of all the people in the world that Twitter, one of the most popular is a 38 year old man that Twitters as his cat?

Jason Scott, Sockington’s owner, believes Sockington is a “21st Century Garfield” and is actually selling t-shirts with famous Sockington one-liners on them. I really find it hard to believe Stockington’s popularity will continue to grow, but I also thought Twitter was going to fade after a couple months.

While it offers marketers and companies an opportunity to interact directly with consumers, what is the draw for other people? Twitter has been described by many as a “Facebook status, without the rest of Facebook” and undoubtedly leaves the majority of individuals asking “so what?”

Maybe I don’t get it because my personal Twitter page is dominated by NFL Agent Drew Rosenhaus’ minute-by-minute updates of his clients, but I know I’m not alone. Do you Twitter? What do you like/dislike about it? Do you find it useful or do you think its popularity will pass?

WARNING: The following post contains dated advertisements that are politically incorrect and may be found offensive, shocking, or hilarious, depending on your personal beliefs. Same warning applies for the modern site.

Times are constantly changing and marketers must do their best to keep up, right? Out with the old and in with the new?

The vintage ads ranging from lipstick to kitchen appliances seem to violate every sensibility regarding gender roles that we live by today. However, these ads were completely acceptable and likely popular, and effective, when they were originally published.

The modern website for Mars’ Fling Chocolate Fingers depicts one modern marketing effort towards women. As opposed to being the brunt of jokes, Fling uses an overwhelming amount of suggestive language (“a ménage of flavors” “sneak in a quickie” “any time is the right time for a FLING”) to market towards women.

I began writing this post with the intent to compare the two methods and show progress and changes in marketing towards women over the last several decades, but now I’m not so sure. How big is the difference between eating a “naughty” chocolate bar or having a “fling in the bedroom”, and “the harder a wife works, the cuter she looks” or “the brightest jewel of all can be your lips…”?

The shift in method appears to be from bold to subtle, with the underlying message varying only slightly. Do you think objectification will continue in advertisements? What shifts or changes could marketing towards women take?

Dwight leaves the office to work at Staples , the crew at Dunder Mifflin celebrates Christmas at the Asian Hooters (Benihana) Vince is given a Maserati then goes to Koi and pays for both with his Black Card, Hank Moody loves his old Porsche, and Michael can’t rest on the bench without his Gatorade.

These are just a few examples of product placement that I am regularly exposed to while watching some of my favorite shows (The Office, Entourage, Californiacation, Chicago Bulls NBA basketball) on TV, and barely even notice it.

And that is exactly what marketers are going for. Companies and brands combine to spend over $1.5 billion on product placement (the US alone makes up 68% of the global market) trying to reach consumers in their comfort zone to create a subtle association between characters on their favorite shows and the brand/product.

Movies have long been used as a channel to reach consumers, and 2007 release Disturbia is no different. In a clip lasting barely over a minute, Shia LeBeouf’s character plays Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on his Xbox 360, and then listens to music on both his iTunes and iPod.

Ubisoft, Microsoft, and Apple are the companies behind these products and were able to masterfully position their products in the film. They have essentially created a minute-long commercial using a member of the target audience without the “buy me” and aggressive feel of traditional advertising.

While movies were the past of product placement, video games are likely to be the new battleground for brands. Games like Call of Duty and Halo have millions of loyal followers worldwide that play those same games thousands of times. The background in games such as these are likely to be sold as advertising space before too long. Racing games have already done so, whether it be street racing or NASCAR.

While some methods of marketing are often questioned and scrutinized, I believe product placement is not only fair, but awesome. Every time I watch Entourage, I want to eat dinner at a fancy restaurant, and seeing Shia LeBeouf playing Ghost Recon on the big screen makes me feel a little better about playing it, and that’s fine by me.

Have you ever seen a product/store/restaurant in a TV show or movie and wanted to purchase it? Do any of your favorite shows consistently have brand/products placed in them?

Throughout the last six months it has been nearly impossible to avoid talks of recession, cost-cutting, and layoffs.  They’re online, on tv, in class presentations, and seemingly every other outlet possible.  While this information may be valuable, I believe some of this attention should be focused on those succeeding in the “tough economic environment.”

In the spirit of the NHL playoffs, I believe the Chicago Blackhawks organization should receive some recognition.  When owner Rocky Wirtz took over the team a little over a year ago, they had lost $31 million during their 2007-2008 campaign and $191 million over the last 10 years.  The team didn’t even have a receptionist at its offices, where only 12 people were employed, and, to be blunt, things could not have been any worse.

New owner Rocky Wirtz and recently hired President John McDonough embraced this situation and, when spending was down everywhere else, bumped the Blackhawks’ marketing budget 300% to over $1 million.  This budget has allowed for unique marketing tactics such as bringing back Hawks legend Bobby Hull as a team ambassador, to a playoff “Beard-A-Thon” to raise money (currently over $15,000) for Blackhawks Charities.  McDonough also arranged for sponsoships of the local MLB teams, the Chicago Cubs and White Sox, making the Blackhawks the first professional sports team to sponsor another in its marketplace.

His unique strategy and aggressiveness was crucial in reviving the Blackhawks organization in Chicago. McDonough’s success was rewarded this winter, when the NHL awarded Chicago the “Winter Classic” outdoor hockey game.

Wirtz and McDonough have orchestrated one of the most drastic franchise turnarounds in professional sports history during one of the worst economic times in decades. Their marketing efforts were vast and often unorthodox, but nobody can argue with the results. Go Blackhawks!

Have you noticed any organizations that are succeeding and increasing their spending? Have they been able to achieve their desired results? Have you been enticed to watch a sports team or become a fan of one?

The examples are mind-boggling: celebrities that take advantage of their fame to launch a product line. Restaurants. Perfume. Clothing. Handbags. Salad dressing. No industry has gone untouched.

The late Paul Newman (the sole food-unaffiliated celebrity I can recall to ever venture into the condiment market) turned it into an art with Newman’s Own. The company’s motto “shameless exploitation in pursuit of the common good” speaks for itself.  His company didn’t take itself too seriously. If only more celebrities took a page out of Newman’s book…

Shameless exploitation is what these stars bank on. Whether simply to turn more profit, or to fulfill an alleged lifelong dream (Dear Monica Lewinsky, I’m skeptical), fans can be relied upon to pounce on whatever product their idol might choose to send their way.

It seems like a foolproof formula, but on the whole these brands don’t seem to stick around that long. They fizzle out rather quickly into relative oblivion. Remember Mariah Carey’s signature perfume? Yeah, neither do I.

The kink in the plan comes in when the products are just, well, bad. When their success hinges solely upon the popularity of the spokesperson, consumers will quickly figure out it’s not worth their money.

The onslaught of celebrities pimping out their image to sell stuff has become so intense lately that an endorsement now has the exact opposite effect of what’s intended. Oh, a celebrity developed it? It must be garbage.

A recent New York Daily News article about Justin Timberlake’s new tequila shines light on the fact. Three aficionados who pre-tasted the product were stunned, read STUNNED, that it was not only drinkable, but rather good. Said one, “it’s actually a nice product,” and another, “I gotta admit, I’m a little surprised.”

The small number of other celebrity ventures who have gotten their hooks squarely into the consumer market did so simply by proving their product was quality. Sean John, for example, doesn’t look to be going anywhere anytime soon.  Perhaps it’s becuase the company distanced itself enough from its creator image-wise that I often forget where it came from. Good work Puffy/Diddy/whatever your name is.

Moral of the story: quality product first, PR and marketing later. We can only do so much.

What’s your favorite celebrity product? Which do you think is the worst? Tell us your thoughts.