Advertising Thingys

Battling Browsers: It’s Getting Personal Between Google and Bing

Nader Ashway2 Comments

Every now and again, you might notice that two competing marketers are duking it out in the marketplace in the battle for top of mind among consumers or business prospects.  In our business, this phenomenon has been given the populist term “cola wars” in reference to Coke and Pepsi’s long-standing barrage of Hatfield/McCoy eruptions on the television airwaves,  likely touched off by the “take the Pepsi challenge” campaign from the mid 1970’s. In some cases, (like political advertising,) competitive advertising gets downright ugly – strong marketing ideas are replaced with unfounded attacks or gross exaggerations of the competitor’s position. But in other cases, the battle for supremacy can lead to something refreshingly interesting:  really great work.

Such is the case with the recent browser wars between Google and Bing.  Both have rolled out some new features, (see PC World’s comparison here,) and Bing is actually gaining market share on Google at a modestly increasing pace.  All Things Digital’s Kara Swisher commented on this in a recent post.   Interesting similarity between the Google/Bing and Coke/Pepsi battles:  Bing has roughly ¼ the market share that Google enjoys; between them, they occupy the #1 and #2 spot in the market; and like Coke, Google was first to market.

Despite the numbers telling a very clear story, both the Goliath and the David in this scenario are compelled to articulate their positions.  And their recent work really shines for a number of reasons.  Let’s look a spot from each marketer:

Bing

Google

As you can see, both marketers have employed roughly the same strategy:  “humanize search.”  And in both cases, they have managed to do that very well. But there’s something interesting at work here that needs to be noticed: neither of these spots is trying to do anything overly persuasive.  Rather, the thesis seems to be “you’re going to search anyway, so you might as well use our browser.”

Google’s spot touts Chrome’s ability to integrate Google’s robust technology set:  mail, doc and video sharing, translation, social integration, maps and more.  As the main character in this spot tries to win back his lost love, he has the benefit of a wide variety of tools at his disposal.  The Bing spot focuses primarily on the social integration feature – the user in the spot is getting hotel and sightseeing recommendations from friends as he initiates his search of Hawaii – “try the spicy Poke!” becomes part of his search experience. (And then we see it come to life in the spot as the main character’s mouth is set on fire.)

As I’ve written in an earlier post here on Marketing Thingy, “Community” is ultimately the holy grail for brands.  So it makes sense that search engines should integrate the social experience into searching for information.  After all, while we have all come to trust Big Brother’s algorithms, we’ll always put more weight on the opinions of our friends and colleagues.  When you get them both, you’re pretty much rolling in tall cotton.

So each spot does a fine job of communicating both features and benefits.  Google’s feature set leads to a richer searching experience because it allows you to communicate your thoughts and feelings most completely.  Bing’s core feature of integrating search with social allows you to have a richer searching experience because of the value of your social network’s opinions.  Both are pretty strong positions.

If we’re scoring, I give the edge to the Bing spot.  It’s more efficient:  it does in 60 seconds what takes Google a minute and a half.  It’s more cinematic:  you have to read your way through most of the Google Spot.  And there’s an unexpected twist :  the innocent search for things to do in Hawaii turns into a life change as the last scene is our protagonist “searching” for a job in Hawaii while checking out a 2 bedroom ocean-view rental.

Both spots are equally smart and sensitive.  Both spots accomplish the strategic objective of humanizing search.  Both spots are a very strong reflection of the creative teams that worked on them – it’s hard to put a human touch on a largely unemotional information exchange experience.  Both spots create a compelling narrative of where search can take you.  And they accomplish the unenviable task of convincing you that if your friends are coming along for the ride, then those searches can take you around the world or back to the center of it. Bravo browser wars!

Hype Reaches New Heights

Nader AshwayLeave a comment

In yesterday’s New York Times, there was an article about the “Freedom Tower” claiming that, with one magic beam being installed today, it will become New York City’s tallest building.

Wow!  Isn’t that SO exciting?  Isn’t that a major accomplishment?  Isn’t that something that should be all over the news?

Actually, no.  It’s total hype.  Or to borrow my favorite new phrase from Tom Scott and his anti-Klout website Klouchebag.com, it’s total asshattery. And frankly, nobody cares.

So let’s explore why.

In marketing, celebrating milestones is very powerful, and can actually help in creating promotional punch.  Some brand-focused events are worth celebrating:  an anniversary, a milestone, a celebration of something or someone special.

Promoting such milestones can add color and character to your overall marketing plan.  Mostly, it can help you create discernible distance between you and your nearest competitors (or would-be competitors if that’s the case,) and importantly, it can create more top-of-mind awareness, even if it’s temporary.

But, as with almost everything in marketing, publicizing such an accomplishment doesn’t hold much weight if it doesn’t have an explicit VALUE to your consumer.  Seriously.  If the consumer is not at the very center of this milestone, then why bother?

Nobody cares if your millionth vehicle just rolled off the assembly line at your Alabama plant.  (Good for your shareholders, maybe.  But there’s no consumer benefit there.)

Nobody cares if you just flipped your billionth burger.
(Nice story for the trades, maybe.  But there’s no consumer benefit there.)

And REALLY nobody cares if your unfinished building is about to (technically) become the tallest in the city.  Especially when it’s still a construction site, is likely unoccupiable for at least another year, and is, oh, about 9 years too late to the party.  Nobody cares about that except maybe the developer who is hoping against hope to sell real estate on the uppermost floors or the mayor’s office that loves/needs a feel-good story about…actually, there’s nothing really about this building that makes anyone in New York City feel good.  Scratch that.

But the consumer (in this case we’ll identify the consumer as two groups:  the New York City area residents who are still rocked and spooked by what happened down there more than 11 years ago, and potential renters/leasers of the office space being created in that building,) could really care less.  First off, we’re measuring the top of this construction site against the top of the observation deck of the Empire State Building.  So, in that case, using this logic, with the shoes I’m wearing today, I’m actually one inch taller than the 6’ 11” New York Knicks star Amar’e Stoudemire.  (Top of my head to bottom of his goatee.  Whatevs.)

Let’s face it, The Freedom Tower is an epic fail of skyscraper proportions.  It’s a trite name.  (It’s so lame, they’re quietly going about a re-branding–before it even opens–to One World Trade Center.) It’s got trite features (including ultimately standing at 1776 feet tall upon completion of the spire. More on that in a moment.)  In response to the devastating attacks of September 2001, it’s a towering symbol of cowardice and compromise.

Now on the topic of height, if you really look under the hood, the building itself isn’t really that tall.  The spire/needle thingy that will top the building is 408 feet tall (that’s 40 stories, kids.)  An article on the AP website gives you some more background on this topic.

Here’s a rule of thumb: don’t bother promoting an anniversary, a milestone, an anything unless it has a built in BENEFIT to your consumer.  Celebrating your 100 year anniversary?  Nobody cares, unless you’re giving me a $100 rebate on any purchase of a major appliance.  Now the leading provider of toner in the laser printer category?  Great – but only if you send me my next refill for free.  And so on.  (I know I’m just using retail promotion examples, but you could do something good for the environment; something cool for charity; something that makes me think more highly of the brand and reminds me why I might prefer it.)

I once wrote that a marketing “gimmick” is something that focuses on the marketer and not the consumer.  And that’s exactly what’s going on here.  If you run a brand (a restaurant, a credit card, a line of clothing, a piece of technology, a building…just about ANYTHING,) keep the focus on your consumer.  Especially when it comes time to celebrate.  Otherwise, it may be the last milestone you promote.

Article first published as Hype Reaches New Heights on Technorati.

Sex Sells, But Who’s Buying THIS?

Nader Ashway6 Comments

This post is a review of the latest commercial spot for Clorox brands’ Liquid-Plumr Double Impact Snake and Gel System.  The product is a 2-task clogged drain treatment that includes a small plastic snake to first remove impacted sediment, then a liquid gel to dissolve the rest of the impediment. (Say THAT 10 times fast.)  The snake and the gel come blister packed in one package. The spot is from DDB San Francisco.

***

As much as I hate to admit it, I love this spot.  I submit that it’s sexist, and in poor taste, and overtly references hardcore porn, but it’s done in pure camp style, and that’s the rub.  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)  It’s a joke, and the advertiser has let us in on it right at the outset of the spot.

If you haven’t seen it, let’s dispense with that.  Click below and enjoy the next 60 seconds.

Okay, so the first thing you notice is this wonderful actress and her clearly over-the-top acting.  We know in the first three seconds that she’s totally goofing, and the dream sequence that follows is equally tongue in, er, cheek.  (Can I say that?)

So let’s play conservative politician for a minute and discuss what’s wrong this spot.  Yes, it’s WAY over the top.  If you’re going to borrow a porn reference for the camp factor, great.  Cue the 70’s funk soundtrack.  Get the Barry White voiceover.  Maybe even do the overt undo-your-pony-tail-and-lick-your-lips thing (which is hysterical in this performance.)  But to borrow a reference like “double impact?”  There’s way over the top, and then there’s way over the top, through the ceiling and out of the building.

The other issue with borrowing that reference (which I WON’T describe in any detail – look it up yourself,) is that it seems like, for most women that this actress identifies [I got stay-at-home soccer mom or maybe working mom who’s clearly repulsed–in a curious, grossed out sort of way–by even the name of the product,) the idea of the hardcore reference is really left field and really unappealing.  It’s not something a little risqué like doing it in the car, or in a public place.  For most women, this is not a “well, maybe I’d try that once,” it’s a No Way. Never.  Nuh, uh.

So in that sense, I don’t quite get it.

Having said that, it’s executed really well.  She’s standing in the plumbing and home cleaners aisle in the supermarket, and gets lost in this fantasy with two strapping men who arrive at her door to service her completely.  “I’m here to snake your drain,” says the well-bicepped young man (not unnoticed is that he’s gently stroking the snake.)  She’s already woozy. And before she can even compose herself, hunk #2 shows up with “I’m here to flush your pipe.”  She giggles, almost anesthetized, “..huh, uh, okay.”  Again, I can not understate the value of this actress’ performance…she is KILLING it!

Then we get to the really well-done product demonstration.  We cut from video to some smart, well-executed motion graphics, and then back to video as that deep-throated (sorry) VO gives us the product features (“…and a powerful gel to finish off the rest, baby.”  Classic!)

And then in an instant, she snaps out of her sexy daydream and realizes she’s standing in the supermarket.  [Great cinematic work here too…the lighting is suddenly harsh…the clothes go back to ordinary and drab colors…her glasses and her hair are competing for most disheveled accessory…) She glances over at the deli guy (slicing meat) and then a produce worker, (holding some healthy melons) and it turns out they’re the hunks in her daydream.  Both empowered by her ability to entertain this fantasy and equally shocked by it, she clumsily turns her cart around and flees the scene…but NOT before grabbing an additional TWO packages, just in case the, um, urge, hits again at home. (Nice going, Clorox…sneak in a little serving suggestion of buying multiple packages.)

So this ad goes right to the edge of good taste then takes a giant leap PAST that edge.  But it does so with so many elemental factors and advertising conventions intact, it works and entertains and educates all at once.  If you don’t get that it’s a joke, your name is likely Rick Santorum, and you’ve actually watched porn with a “double impact” scene and are repulsed that you liked it – all 17 times.

If you do get it, you recognize that, while it’s a pretty big leap and a pretty big borrow from a pretty dark porn place, it’s a really strong piece of advertising.  And it’s no surprise that it’s gotten more than 1.6 million views (at the time of this writing) on YouTube.  We could explore another whole post on THAT value alone.

Super Bowl Advertising on AUTO-Pilot?

Nader AshwayLeave a comment


For the most part, the super bowl spots this year were, well, less than super. No really big ideas. No breaking of any molds. No we’ll-be-talking-about-this-in-20-years executions. It’s not that they were bad. They just weren’t memorable. And in the world of advertising, if you can’t do memorable, you can’t do anything.

Let’s spare the knocks and gaffes. We all know what those were. (A kid peeing in a pool for a free online tax service? Really?) Instead, I’ll focus on the few standouts in the automotive category and see if we can highlight some themes to remember if and when you ever have the chance to put your brand on the grandest stage of all.

For my money, GM wins the night with their “2012” post-apocalyptic survival spot for Silverado. A Silverado pulls out of the gray rubble of the aftermath with every cliché in tow: a rugged middle-aged man, his trusty dog and, of course, Barry Manilow crooning “Looks Like We Made It.” Even the Transformers (yup, that’s Bumblebee’s head laying on the side of the road,) and the alien ships couldn’t outwit the Mayan foreshadowing. But Silverado did.

And in the gutsiest move of the night, GM takes on the competition by name. The main character meets up with three other Silverado drivers and asks, “Where’s Dave?” A saddened friend reports the dreary news: “Dave didn’t drive the longest-lasting, most dependable truck on the road…Dave drove a Ford.” Home run. Say goodnight Gracie. That’s all she wrote. Best spot of Super Bowl R2D2. Take on the competition by name, and kick ‘em in the ding-ding. Then share a Twinkie.  Wow.

In general, cars made the best showing as a category, but also seemed to demonstrate the weirdest strategies. Audi (with agency Venables + Bell) spent $7 million on the 2-minute “Vampire Party,” which is a neat little spot that goes a LONG way to make a point about their LED headlights, which apparently recreate daylight so well they fry vampires. I love advertising that’s singular and focused and creatively makes a point about a particular feature. So points for telling us SOMETHING about the car. (More than others can say.) But on the Super Bowl? Let’s keep it brand-ey, okay?

Fiat: fantasy about a gorgeous Italian woman with all the soft-porn of latte foam. Chevy: “stunt drivers” thing was kind of done already by Nissan earlier this year. Cadillac: let’s take on BMW on the positioning they’ve owned for more than 25 years. We know the creatives came out to play, but where was the CMO in all of these executions?

Clint Eastwood enlisted to do a tug-at-your-heartstrings-but-watch-out-cuz-I-can-also-kick-your-ass sendup for Chrysler. Okay, this is exactly the kind of thing Americans who are feeling patriotic and puffed up want to hear. And the spot is well done, and turns last year’s coming-out party into an extended affair. All good. But I think we’ve all come to expect more from Wieden + Kennedy than a reboot of the 1984 Hal Riney “Morning in America” classic.

VW also took the let’s-build-on-last-year strategy with “Dog Strikes Back,” a touching anthropomorphic vignette of a dog who’s lost his mojo. The dog can hardly chase a car anymore because he’s gotten too complacent. So he embarks on a disciplined workout regimen, resists the temptation of mom’s table scraps and gets back into fighting shape so he can hustle out the door and chase that flashy new VW Beetle down the road. Really good work from Deutsch. Nice little tag on the end to connect the dots to last year’s “Vader” spot for Passat. Another winner for 2012.

One thumb up to Hyundai for a number of reasons. They’re feeling their oats these days (and they should – their sales are killing,) so they decide to invest in some Super Bowl branding. The “cheetah” spot and the “think fast” spot (both from Innocean) weren’t feats of advertising genius, but they were solid entries into a pretty crowded field of automotive advertising. Compared to Toyota and Lexus, they were smarter. Not as funny as Honda’s “Ferris Bueller” or “Seinfeld,” but probably did more to educate viewers about the brand. And by the way, where was Ford, the company that bragged all year about not needing a bailout?

This article first appeared on Technorati.

Curation: The Magic Word for Marketers

Nader Ashway2 Comments

Marcel Duchamp Cubist Painting 1912

I recently attended CES in Las Vegas to do some research for a client.  CES was huge and hyperactive and I hated it. My resistance was not due to the size or number or quality of exhibits, but rather the show’s inability to navigate me through any of it.

We live in a consumer-centric world, powered by immediacy and universality of choice (otherwise known as the Internet.) Today, we can shop for anything online, customize the features, and dictate how it’s delivered. Everything from clothing to cars to medicines to media.

And that’s pretty peachy. We all love choice. We all love control. But the surprising truth in many of our brand interactions is that we’re not all very good at it. Especially when the choices are overwhelming.

At CES, I longed for a GUIDE of some sort. I wished there was a handbook that outlined what I wanted to see if, for instance, I only had 2 hours to spend there. Or if I was only interested in “small, cool audio stuff.” Or if I just wanted to knock around and see celebrities. (There were many in attendance. I passed on Snooki and 50 Cent and took a front row seat at Earth, Wind & Fire. Call me old school.)

Such a guide would have still afforded me choice, but those choices would have been curated for me. And curation is the magic word for the new consumer world.

Curation is the antidote for a world of infinite choices. It relates to both content and the methods of its consumption. Those marketers who can provide guides or maps or recommendations for their consumers will have a much more fruitful relationship with them as a result. This is true in both the consumer and business-to-business galaxies. Some examples:

Museums curate exhibits. Of all the Duchamp cubist paintings, a certain museum might choose 30 of them. They would then arrange them in a distinct order, put them on certain walls, make you stand in directed spots to view them. Remember, content and the mode of consumption. The subtext here is “the museum strongly suggests you view Duchamp this way.” It’s a very specific experience. If I want some other experience, I can gladly seek it elsewhere.

Restaurants curate food experiences. The menu, by definition, is a curated presentation of food. The chef took all the ingredients available that day and culled them to eight appetizers, eight entrees and five desserts to choose from. Would going to a restaurant and just seeing a big buffet of basic ingredients (vegetables, fish, lettuces, meats, sweets) be the same? Not a chance. Here’s exactly where I DON’T want to have too much choice. (Sidebar: this was how the original “Craft” restaurant in New York started. Chef Tom Colicchio just presented the menu items, and left the pairing decisions to guests. In the June 2001 review of Craft,  New York Times Restaurant Reviewer William Grimes stated “…(the culinary arts,) function more efficiently as dictatorships.”)

Brands in virtually all categories curate personal experiences. Whether it’s how your clothes smell, or what your ringtone is, or what color the dashboard lights are in your vehicle or the editors of your favorite business magazine – we, as consumers or business customers, are seeking features and experiences that enrich our lives in some way. But for goodness sake, we want someone ELSE to tell us what those are.

We want Amazon to tell us it has “recommendations” for us. We want Google to auto-fill our search terms. We want the Gap to recommend a sweet belt to go with that sweater we just purchased. Sure, we ultimately want to make the buying choice, but what we need brands to do is present the pathways to making them.

Marketers, take note. Curate an experience for us. Stand for something. Deliver something specific, that no one else can deliver. Or deliver something that lots of other people can deliver, but do it in a way that’s unique, or cool, or fun, or hip or technologically cool or convenient. Because we all want choices…we’re just not all very good at making them.

This article first appeared on Technorati.