GLBT Advertising

Jonathon S. Felt's Mediaweek.com article, "A Quiet Media War" brings up the topic of the necessity of GLBT advertising. This target is essential because the GLBT audience is affluent and on top of all the latest and greatest trends. Although I believe it is possible to reach GLBT through general media, I think it might be more beneficial to use specific media.

Mainstream media content is somewhat paradoxical. Is it the media that reflects society, or is it society that shapes media? This dichotomy can be argued both ways. Either way, diversity definitely needs to more integrated into the mainstream media.

99 Bottles of Beer On the Wall...

Eric Asimov's article, "A Taste for Brews that Go to Extremes" gives information about small time brewers in the U.S. who are trying to make it by adding unheard of amounts of normal ingredients or adding interesting new ingredients.

According to the article, the market is saturated with brewers who are willing to put out not only the extreme beers to get attention, but also the more traditional beers that are likely to be ordered by regular drinkers.

The industry as a whole has tough competition in the mainstream producers like Budweiser, but these smaller brewers are mostly aiming at a different target audience. People who drink these carefully concocted beers are interested in the uniqueness and the taste, not merely getting drunk like a bunch of college students. We are talking about true appreciators of beer.

If I had a client that was going to enter the specialty brewer market, I would recommend getting creative. Come up with your own "it factor," whether it be adding the most hops, or sticking a spider in the bottle to taste. Whatever it is, run with it. Enter the taste testing competitions. Get word out. Make an interactive website. Sponsor a local event.

Math

As a child, I remember being terrified as I waited for my turn to be called to the blackboard...(yes, we still used chalk), to race to do math problems the quickest. I can do math perfectly fine when I have my own paper at my own desk. But when I have an audience full of peers watching my every move? That is traumatizing.

In Tamar Lewin's article, "Report Urges Changes in Teaching Math," the thing that stood out for me was:

"The report also cited findings that students who depended on their native intelligence learned less than those who believed that success depended on how hard they worked."

I believe that this statement is 100% true. I spent the majority of my life thinking that I was horrible at math and claiming that I hated it, all because I couldn't do problems in front of a crowd or do calculations in my head. In high school, math was the only subject in which I did not take honors courses. I thought that because I was a self-proclaimed "not a math person," that I couldn't do it.

In my family, my Dad and my younger brother are both very math-oriented, whereas my Mom also claims not to be a math person. She tells me her horror stories about taking upper level math classes in college by mistake and suffering through them. But then we go shopping and she figures percentages in her head.

It amazes me whenever people can do that. It is simply something that I'm not capable of, and it took me a long time to realize it. I am a visual learner, and just like I have to write a word down to spell it, I have to write out a problem to solve it. It took me even longer to realize that this does not automatically make me bad at math.

Getting over the hump of growing up thinking I wasn't capable of being good at math has been a lot of hard work, but I think I made it.

Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of people with issues similar to mine who never get over it. This probably contributes to the statistic from the article stating:

"...15-year-olds in the United States ranked 25th among their peers in 30 developed nations in math literacy and problem solving."

That is shameful and sad, but not surprising...just take a look at the image at the top of this blog. People (Americans) will take the easy way out whenever they can, and math is something that many people avoid simply because they are intimidated by it.

CPM & CPP

CPM means "Cost per Thousand." Media planners use it in order to compare costs of different forms of advertising based on exposure (to a thousand people or homes).

Cost of 1 unit (time, page, or ad)
_______________________ x 1,000 = CPM
# of people or homes (circulation)

This year, the Super Bowl had a rating of 55.6 and a total viewership of 97,500,000. At $3,000,000 for a 30 second ad, it breaks down like this:
CPM = $30.77
CPP = $53,956

In comparison, here are the top 5 shows and their numbers:

American Idol
(Tuesdays)
CPM = $20.50
CPP = $38,011
(Wednesdays)
CPM = 22.30
CPP = $40,625

Dancing with the Stars
(Mondays)
CPM = $17.30
CPP = $26,785
(Tuesdays)
CPM = $19.17
CPP = $29,527

Desperate Housewives
CPM = $17.43
CPP = $27,731

CSI
CPM = $19.34
CPP = $30,973

Grey's Anatomy
CPM = $24.50
CPP = $37,128

What these numbers indicate is that the Super Bowl ads are way over-priced. I can see why some media planners might find it beneficial to go the Super Bowl route and create a buzz for their product or company, but in reality, it might not make that much sense according to these numbers. In every case, the Super Bowl was higher priced by quite a lot, so I would say that the Super Bowl ads are definitely not a good buy.

Super Bowl Ads 2008

">This article from Adage.com states:

Super Bowl advertising is "less about the relevance of a message but more about the entertainment quotient," said Devika Bulchandani, exec VP-director of strategic planning at the New York office of McCann Erickson. During the Super Bowl, she said, marketers "aren't selling a product; they are creating brand buzz."




The atmosphere was certainly buzzing as I watched this year's Super Bowl with about a dozen college-aged males. Although easily entertained, they remain critical of bad advertising.

I'm going to get straight to it and point out the worst Super Bowl commercials I've ever seen: Salesgenie.com - What an awful idea all around. I don't see how those commercials would appeal to anyone. They were mostly ignored by my audience, however there were a few comments made. "How much money did they spend on that waste of 30 seconds?" After shelling out about $6 million, I think that was an overall stupid decision by an unrecognizable company on crappy commercials that will never be remembered by the general audience.

There were more spots that got a critique from my boys, including the Sobe Life Water "Thriller." Although everyone seemed to enjoy the view, someone was quick to point out what a bad dancer the girl was, and how fake the lizards were. It got a few chuckles nonetheless.

Another failure was Carmen Electra and the Ice Cube Ice Breakers gum. I heard a distinct, "That was gay," from my crowd. If these guys aren't the target audience, then who the heck is? Waste of money...

Careerbuilder.com's "Follow your heart" was a little creepy. Instead of receiving the message, the guys just thought, "That was stupid." But the response to the little fairy getting eaten by a spider was a little better, although I have a feeling that both those commercials are likely to be forgotten the moment they're over. I doubt that this was the target audience, but still...

One commercial that seemed highly out of place was the Sunsilk ad. Clearly these guys are not the target audience, but I'm sure I probably was. I already use and like their products, but it still seemed weird. That was definitely a bold decision to hawk hair care products during the Super Bowl. I guess maybe I would be able to agree with it more if it had been a more entertaining commercial in general.

The Coke ad with James Carville and Bill Frist was lost on my audience. It was very lame and forgettable. Jinx? I mean, really... The one with Stewie and Charlie Brown chasing the big Coke balloons got a lot of laughs though. But did it make anyone want a Coke? I don't think so.

Pepsi got some laughs with Justin Timberlake being dragged around, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they just liked to see him get hurt. I doubt this will be memorable.

Before I get into the more effective ads, let's take a moment to reflect on the fact that Fox lost no chance to promote itself especially in the form of The Terminator: The Chronicles of Sarah Connor, plus American Idol, Prison Break, and The Moment of Truth.

Budweiser was, of course, a top contender. I think it's safe to say that all of Bud's ads were appealing to someone. The "Ability to Breathe Fire," the "Ability to Fly," and the Jackie Moon ad were the top rung with a lot of laughs. Next in line came "Hank and the Dalmatian Coach" and the Carlos Mencia ad. Last in terms of effective popularity among my crowd was the "Wine and Cheese Party" and the "Cavemen Invent the Wheel." I heard one guy I was with say that Jackie Moon's slogan of "Bud Light: Suck One" should become official. My Grandma and Mom liked "Hank and the Dalmatian Coach" so much, they had to call me in the middle of the game and talk about it. For these reasons, I think Bud did an excellent job of providing a variety of commercials to target different groups of people.

Another standout was the ad for Planter's cashews. The not-so-attractive, unibrow-clad gal who used nuts as perfume was a funny idea that actually used the product, so recall value should be high. This was my Dad's favorite ad and he text me right away to let me know. Everyone got a big laugh out of this one. What a great idea! As Lisa Haverty states in her article, "Don't Flush Your Ad Down the Super Bowl," using the product as the punch-line is very effective in producing cognitive brand recall.

e-Trade.com had a good idea, with perfect execution. The investor baby was adorable but so funny in a Look Who's Talking Now kind of way. These guys were laughing all the way through. Although I would highly doubt that any of them went back to their dorm rooms and started an e-Trade account, it seems like that is the kind of thing where just getting people used to the name will be beneficial. These are a bunch of smart guys who are poor college students now, but should make quite a bit of money that they can invest later on. And I think that e-Trade will definitely stay in their top-of-mind.

Bridgestone Tires had a couple hits with the "Screaming Animals" and "Richard Simmons." Both of these got a lot of laughs out of my group, and are likely to be remembered with help from the Bridgestone Halftime sponsorship.

And let us not forget the Victoria's Secret ad. I'm confident in saying that all the guys thoroughly enjoyed that one. I think it was definitely money well spent, because that is one that won't be soon forgotten, and will be engaging a certain audience for a while...

Overall, there was good and bad, worth and waste, memorable and forgetful. The Super Bowl ads of 2008 were hit and miss for a target audience of college guys.

Trends Shmends

No one can predict the future, but suffice to say that technology will be a safe bet.

In my opinion, the next big thing will be sharing. Not toys on the playground, but rather Wireless internet connections. Sites like Whisher have already begun working on wifi sharing software. Further described here. Let's face it, it was only going to be a matter of time until all metropolitan areas went wireless (thanks, Starbucks). In the meantime, technology such as this will allow wifi connections all over the place, without the physical installation. With cell phones, PDAs, music players....and everything else that we carry with us enabled for internet use, Whisher and similar projects will be the next big thing.

As for this article, the standout prediction for me was the rise of the product placement. As mentioned in the article, Gossip Girl has recently been hawking Victoria Secret and phones. I can't even count the number of times that I've seen Apple products used or Coke products consumed in the movies these days. This is a trend that is definitely on the rise.

As an advertising/ marketing student, I am all for this. What better [subliminal] message could we give consumers? BUT, ...(and that's a big but and I cannot lie), as a consumer, I feel very conflicted about this emerging trend. How much is too much? As far as I know, there are no regulations in place to limit product placements. I fear the day when creative endeavors are completely controlled around the placements. As a media planner, I would definitely keep the consumers in mind. It would be a bad move to over-do the placement to the point where consumers really notice. An uprise is not the goal. Instead of trying to monopolize the all hottest movies, TV shows, and video games, I would think that it would be a good move for media planners to go for the less-mainstream projects that could be desperate for some funding. A cult-type following for smaller projects would be more beneficial than saturated mainstream markets.

...And now I must go contemplate Facebook suicide.