Take It Face To Face

Doritos’ new campaign promoting its “Late Night” taco chips is an outstanding blend of new marketing methods.  It introduces an innovative use of packaging, ties it in with Doritos’ website and internet marketing, and, to top it off, aids in the launch of Blink 182’s summer tour.

The packaging encourages consumers to use the bag as a means of entry to the Doritos Late Night website.  Once on the site, chip eaters will be able to view a virtual 3D concert, playing songs by Blink 182 and Big Boi.

On top of the unprecedented creativity and the music/technology combo, the Late Night chips are a great product.  The “concert bags” are only going to run for a limited time, but should see outstanding results.

I believe the key factor in the success of Doritos’ campaign will be the use of music in the branding and advertising effort.  It can be assumed, through the dark packaging and use of Blink 182, that Doritos is trying to reach teenage/young adult males. This demographic has been successfully reached in the past using similar efforts.  For example, Mountain Dew achieved its “extreme” and “cool” positioning through ads using rock music and related technology to reach young males.

I can’t tell if the bag, the return of my favorite band, or some combination of the two is what’s exciting me right now, but I do know I am going to buy a bag and try this 3D concert thing out.

Can you remember any examples of innovative marketing efforts?  Do you think music is a good way to help brand a product?

While doing my daily internet surfing I came across a link to Crossroads Dispatches, a blog written and managed by Evelyn Rodriguez.  The link directed to one post in particular,  “Slow food, Slow Sex, Slow travel…Slow marketing”, where Rodriguez uses a unique blend of life stories and foreign cuisine to discuss marketing on a personal level.

Writer/Blogger Evelyn Rodriguez

The idea of “slow marketing“, according to Rodriguez, revolves around one-on-one human connection between marketer and consumer, not the buzz/guerilla/viral tactics that have become common today.  What’s interesting about Rodriguez’s approach is its timing.  The “Slow food” post was originally written September 28, 2006.  This is two days after Facebook became open to anybody 13 or over, long before its popularity exploded into what it is today, and ever longer before Twitter joined the scene.

If Evelyn Rodriguez was calling for more human interaction in 2006, what would she say today?  The rate at which information is exchanged seems to get faster daily, with new outlets and channels popping up all the time.  Personally, I used to look forward to watching ESPN’s Sportscenter on a nightly basis to catch up with my teams and the sports world.  Now, by 10:00 PM CT, I already know the scores, have read all the blogs and articles, and could tell you what my favorite players are doing.

And marketers?  We’re able to create accounts for our clients on various social media pages and gain fans and followers without ever actually interacting with an actual person.  I don’t count typing “@_____” as actual human interaction.

I believe that the important message lost in much of the hype surrounding social media and buzz marketing is that, at the end of the day, people are people and while the “buzz” is nice, there is no substitute for directly interacting with the consumer.  What I mean by “people are people” is that regardless of the demographic you are reaching out to, everybody is still human and has the innate desire for human interaction and connection.  This doesn’t change if you’re pitching services to a CEO or starting a lemonade stand at the end of your block, if you make an honest effort to listen to your consumers, you will be rewarded.  And don’t worry about the exceptions to the rule, those who would rather hang out with their Blackberries or Excel, they’ll figure it out eventually.

The Simpsons, viewed by many as an American institution, are currently celebrating their 20th year on TV..with an interesting twist.

It has recently become more expensive for advertisers to run their ads during the popular animated show on Hulu, than on TV.  30 second TV ads run at a rates between $20 and $40 per 1000 viewers, while the Hulu ads cost $60 at the same rate of impressions.

While this day may have been inevitable, with the emergence of websites such as Hulu and major networks putting their own content online, it still has an odd feeling to it.  It raises the question “what about TV?” and the traditional 30 second spot advertisements?

For the time being, the 30 second spot isn’t going anywhere.  Hulu only shows 37 seconds of ads during its shows, while half hour TV segments include 9 minutes worth of ads.  This distribution shows the majority of advertising money is still spent largely on the traditional TV ads, but this shift towards online may be a growing trend.

One ad offering for online TV is a sponsorship of a specific episode, such as Sprint’s for this episode of NBC’s The Office.  The company, or brand, sponsoring the episode has an outstanding opportunity to create a unique experience for the viewer.  The most common approach has been a combination of a “skin” for the webpage and short video clip (or commercial).  The spot is then ran 4 times during the online viewing, and a “brought to you by” message is displayed at the bottom of the screen throughout.  It’s a golden opportunity for marketers to reach their target in an environment they willingly enter, by choosing to watch the episodes online.

Moving forward, do you believe more TV shows will become more expensive to advertise with online than during the actual TV programming?  Do you watch TV shows online?  Have you seen any online TV ads that you liked?

Unless you are one of the few Team USA soccer fans, you probably don’t know about the Confederations Cup currently being played in South Africa.  The tournament acts as a World Cup tune-up for global soccer powerhouses, and normally public humiliation for American soccer fans.

Team USA advances to play Brazil in Confederations Cup Final

A six-goal swing in the standings after quarter final play allowed the Americans to advance to the Cup semis, played this afternoon, where the United States beat Spain (who was on a 15 game winning streak, and 35 game unbeaten streak dating back to 2006) 2-0.  This stunning upset could be considered a “Miracle on Turf” and has led ESPN.com to ask fans the anti-climatic question, “Do you care?”

Its poll currently says 80% of the 35,000 respondents care “A Lot”, while only 7% have said “Not at all”.  Yes it’s early and the game only ended an hour ago and people responding to the poll now probably watched the game, but if there’s so many die hard soccer fans in the United States, shouldn’t the MLS and its affiliates begin to pour marketing dollars into its product?  Strike while the iron’s hot?  Turn things around (since Beckham sure didn’t work)?

My answer is no, please don’t.  While it is closing in on that time that comes every four years, when the World Cup is played, that soccer makes it on to ESPN (rather than ESPN2) and the bandwagon fans slightly turn their attention to the sport, it is no time to go overboard.

The MLS, while not at the level of many European leagues, is a good (not great) product.  There is a large percentage of American children that are growing up playing soccer in some form, whether it be AYSO or club teams, that should be growing up to be MLS fans.  This isn’t the case, and it’s not necessarily the MLS’ fault.

The problem lies in its “packaging.”  Soccer, similar to hockey, is a great sport and even better sport to watch live.  However, the speed, excitement, and violence of the sport is dulled in a TV broadcast.  Regular season MLS games don’t carry the same excitement as World Cup games for viewers, and don’t receive near the ratings of other televised sports.

Rather than go overboard trying to force feed the sport as it currently is, the MLS needs to find a way to liven the broadcasts.  Whether it be different camera angles or finding a way to get closer to the action, something needs to be done.  The market is there, the excitement can be generated through the World Cup or Team USA success, but unless its presentation can be changed, it will continue to be a second tier sport in the United States.

The diehards won’t be discougared though, and as one fan puts it, “Soccer can’t be that bad, the rest of the world is on the bandwagon.”

At FaceTime, we are a forward thinkers and do our best to focus on innovative marketing techniques. That said, it’s also fun to take a look in the past every now and then.

In this case, the topic is beer advertising. Beer advertising is everywhere, and it has been there for a very long time. Long before “drinkability”, color-changing cans, or walk-in fridges, there was….

and if you’re really feeling crazy….

Yes, those are brutal. The combination of cheesy jingles and themes make any viewer wonder what the ad’s creator was thinking. But, during their time and place, they were effective. This begs the question, what is it about beer ads?

Is there a prerequisite that all beer ads have to be slightly, or not so slightly, over-the-top and border on extremes? Regardless of the time period they air, beer advertisers always find a way to tip toe the fine line between really funny, and really bad. But, when those really funny ads come around, they definitely make putting up with the bad ones worthwhile. The following clips are current beer ads, and show how much beer advertising has changed.

I believe the following ads, from Bud Light and Heineken, are some of the funniest beer ads that I have ever come across. Their stabs at humor don’t come off as a stretch, and are subtly hilarious.

And have Jennifer Aniston…

…Dude.

..and my personal favorite…

What are your feelings towards beer advertisements? Are you influenced by their ads? Or are you loyal to a particular brand? What are your favorite beer commercials?

Cheers.