Obama Continues Great Online Campaign Strategies

It's no secret that in the 2008 presidential election broke some records. One of them was the amount of grass roots fund raising and social media campaigning that Obama's campaign pioneered. Its success was, no doubt, a huge factor in his successful run for president.

Since 2008, politicians from the local to the national level have embraced social media and online marketing with the same fervor. You would now be a fool to run for even local office without an active and relevant Twitter account and Facebook page. Which brings us the 2012 presidential election and an interesting question:

How is Obama going to top that?

More specifically, now that every Republican nominee will use similar tactics, how is Obama's campaign going to stand out as different? His unique, cutting edge way of campaigning was such a large part of how he got into office and raised millions of dollars in $5 increments, one wonders how he'll top that. How he'll continue to get that kind of attention and support now that the idealist 'Hope' fervor and marketing differentiation that helped carry his first campaign is gone.

I was surprised and interested to see one of his new tactics emerge already:

Donate for a chance to dine with the president.

How cool is that? For any amount of donation, you can put your name in the hat to dine with the President. Its a standard sweepstakes, but twisted such that it fits campaign goals.

I find this to be a great tactic for a few reasons. First, if you're a liberal and an Obama fan it's your chance to schmooze with the President, get your ideas heard first hand like the top end campaign donors do—but at a much more affordable price. Even if you're an independent, someone not sure if they're going to vote for Obama let alone donate, it still seems to be a tempting offer. For $5 I can see a few otherwise non-donors dropping a few bucks for the chance to be heard first hand by the President. And finally, it's just pretty cool to meet the President, even if you don't agree with his politics. Tack the shear fact that, love him or hate him, Obama will go down in history books for being the first black President of the U.S. and it's quite an offer.

What do you think? Is a tactic like this going to up the amount of donations to the campaign? Or is it just a cheesy ploy?

Time Magazine Reaches Out ... To Gamers?

Time Magazine is doing an interesting cross promotion with video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 by lending it's iconic cover template for a faux cover claiming 'World Stands On The Brink' while Wall Street smolders in the background. Time apparently even helped art direct the cover.

Time says that it's involved in the cross promotion in order to reach a new demographic of customers, while critics have a hard time seeing it really reach gamers and in the meantime it dilutes the brand image. I think Time isn't far off in how their trying to reach a new demographic—the usage of the magazine is appropriate and similar to how it's used in say, product placement in a movie for example. I don't think this treatment necessarily dilutes the brand image any more than that would. If anything, it's reminding them of Time's iconic place in the realm of news magazines.

But there is a catch—if Time is looking for growth in magazine subscriptions and not just awareness we have a problem. Why? Because I don't think too many gamers are the types to buy paper news magazines. They're much more likely to get that news online and given the constant dialogue about the best way for newspapers and magazines will be able to monetize their online operations as print declines. But that's another story...

Cool QR Code Ads

The advertising world is becoming overrun with QR codes and they are usually used pretty poorly. Love them or hate them, QR codes do sometimes serve a valuable purpose—if your audience is technologically savvy smart phone users and if you want to drive them to a website that might be cumbersome to type into those smart phones. Most QR code uses don't fit those criteria, most of the time it seems like ads with QR codes fall into the "so we can say we did it" reasoning.

But if you're going to go that route, at least make the ad about the QR code. And make it cool. Like these fun QR code ads I ran across on Ads of the World a couple days ago. Otherwise you easily fall into the realm of marketers that have suddenly discovered they can scan ugly bar codes with their phones. How novel.

Is Audi Copying Chrysler?

It seems a tad hard to believe, but a new video (no advertisement, according to Audi spokespeople) airing in Europe has a pretty distinct inspirational vibe from the recent 'Imported From Detroit' Chrysler Super Bowl commercial.



I came across this European ad because Eminem is actually suing Audi for illegal use of his copyrighted music (if you notice, a minimally revised version of 8 Mile guitar tracks play in the background of the Audi commercial), not because it's being accused as a rip off (though it kind of is). Honestly, if they'd not used Eminem's guitar track it would feel less like a rip off and they wouldn't be in legal hot water right now.

On that note, I have to ask both Audi and their agency, 'What were you thinking?' Audi's response has been that this is not an advertisement and it's not running in the US (and that this doesn't involve Audi of America). Other than the target audience perhaps not realizing it's the rip off that it is, how is that helping your case? You used a well known music track illegally, and semi-copied rival car company's Super Bowl commercial. Shame on Audi and shame on their agency (I'm not actually sure who produced this).

On the flip side, major kudos to Chrysler for producing such a kick ass spot that a luxury German brand is imitating it.

Here's the Chrysler ad if you want to compare:

Turn Your House Into A Giant Billboard

A company called Adzookie, a web advertising company, is offering to pay your mortgage if they can paint your house into a giant billboard. The contract goes from 3 months up to a year at which point they'll paint your house back to it's original colors. Kind of a crazy idea, but not a bad gig for the homeowner if you don't mind a temporarily purple and yellow house. Free mortgage for up to a year and a free paint job at the end of it? Not to mention it could be a godsend for many of the homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments.


The company is looking for houses in California and as of last week had received over 1,000 applicants. It's definitely not for everyone, but it sure beats foreclosure.

Would you paint your house as a giant billboard for Adzookie?

The Anti Social Super Bowl?

Did the Super Bowl commercial lack social media components this year? According to this article from Ad Age, yes, they did. With the number of people with smart phones these days and the power of social media marketing it is surprising there weren't ANY integrated campaigns.

Granted, I learned from the Super Bowl of Social Media voting site that the Doritos and Pepsi Max spots were consumer generated concepts that the brands then produced for the Super Bowl. I had no idea. There was no press that I knew of and no indication prior to the spots airing that they were user generated. It does explain the fragmentation and appearance of a lack of a unified campaign. Honestly, they were some of my least favorite since they seemed contrived with too much cheap humor. Some of them actually offended my parents and I found them rather yawn-worthy. Haven't we seen that same crap in the last five years of Super Bowls? I'm actually more sad to find out those were user generated—there's got to be some better ideas out there.




Ian Schafer's Ad Age article cites some great examples of what could have been done with the campaigns that ran to make them more social. He chides Chrysler, Motorola and Coke for not reaping clear tie-ins that would have worked centrally with their Super Bowl campaigns. I loved the 'Imported from Detroit' ad from Chrysler, but why didn't Chrysler tie that in to some charitable cause for Detroit? It would have to be the right charity, but it would have been brilliant. You have millions watching, enraptured by the commercial, feeling the American Pride for Detroit—the right charitable tie in would have given Chrysler the image of a car company that cares as much about its city as it does about selling cars.


Schafer argues that incorporating social media would have given these campaigns legs beyond the Bowl. As it is, many of the commercials will continue airing for months, but I think he has a point. The social aspect would give you legs and interaction beyond the television. And isn't that what all brands are trying to do these days?

I wasn't watching the game, poised with my iPhone, but it was just across the room. I think I would have engaged if I'd been asked. Would you? Did you think the Super Bowl was lacking in social media aspects?

Super Bowl Ads: Celebrities A-Plenty, Hits A-Few

There were a lot of celebrities in this year's set of Super Bowl ads, from Joan Rivers for Go Daddy, to P. Diddy for Mercedes, to the Osbourne's and Justin Bieber for Best Buy, but few of them hit a home run. Honestly, I think my favorite commercial was the pre-released VW ad (sans celebrity) that I blogged about last Friday. You had to have a pretty good knowledge of pop culture to understand all of the references in the commercials and I happened to be watching the game with my parents, who understood very few of them. As the New York Times stated:

To fully appreciate the commercials, it helped to be at least passingly familiar with “Almost Famous,” “Back to the Future,” Roseanne Barr, Busby Berkeley, Justin Bieber, Adrien Brody, David Bowie, Diddy, the “Dogs Playing Poker” paintings, Howdy Doody, early video games, Thomas Edison and Eminem (who turned up in two spots, for Chrysler and Lipton Brisk).

There were also quite a few car commercials during last night's game, from the P. Diddy Mercedes commercial celebrating it's history to the tune of Janis Joplin's Mercedes Benz. The spot was pretty good, but P. Diddy seemed like a random, unnecessary add-on and distraction from the rest of the spot. Meanwhile, Audi targeted Mercedes as the confines of old luxury complete with a cameo from Kenny G and a stuffed Dodo bird.

In the realm of soda advertising, a few of the plethora of Pepsi Max commercials managed to completely offend my parents. Even I found them in rather poor taste. Buying that many Super Bowl spots doesn't help your brand if they're a total turn off. Coca Cola's 'Open Happiness' commercials were good, though underwhelming compared to some of their classics like the Happiness Factory from a few years ago.

Below are the best of the lot (in my humble opinion):

Volkswagon
I blogged about this one on Friday, but it's my favorite so it's getting included again.




Motorola
Motorola took a stab at Apple with it's 'Empower the People' 1984 reminiscent spot to introduce its rival to the iPad. Only this campaign is turning the tables to make Apple the drone-creating big brother company. (Check out the original Apple 1984 commercial here.)




Bridgestone
Okay, so the Bridgestone beaver ad is a little cliche and a little reminiscent of the Geico squirrel ad from years ago, but it still made me smile.




Chrysler
The best car commercial of the lot, in my opinion, and one of the only celebrity uses that seemed fitting, was Chrysler's 'Imported from Detroit'. There was something about this commercial that reminded you of the American Pride that Detroit used to represent. Something that reminded you that Detroit is part of our country and it's survival is important to the rest of the country too. It was a refreshing car commercial and Eminem, while not necessary for the spot's impact, exemplified working class Detroit and money at the same time, so at least his placement made sense and had some meaning.

The Pre-Super Bowl Super Bowl Ad Release

Has Volkswagen set a new trend? The Pre-Super Bowl Super Bowl ad release on the internet? Volkswagen 'leaked' its Super Bowl ad for this year a few days early. Personally, I think that's a trend that's going to catch on. I mean, millions of people watch the Super Bowl. Most people watch it for the game and continue to enjoy the usually high quality ads that accompany the game, as well as a few people that just watch it for the ads.

The trouble is, when watching 3+ hours of television, often at a party or bar, are you really going to have your eyes glued to the TV the whole time? Of course not. Which is why, inevitably, you miss 'that really good' commercial because you ran into the kitchen for a beer or more chips or whatever, and have to wait until the following day (when they're all on YouTube) to catch up with the spot everyone is talking about. Why not release the ad early, to the internet crowd and have them drum up excitement for its airtime on game day? Think about how many people will mention to friends, 'Did you see the VW Darth Vader spot? It's so cute—watch for it!' Plenty.

Granted, some of the talk will dissipate if more and more brands pre-release, but it is a good way to make sure you're spot is seen and remembered. What do you think?

Check out Volkswagen's pre-released tiny Darth Vader spot below. It's pretty cute.

Volkswagen: The Force @ Yahoo! Video

SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU!!!

At least that's what the F.D.A. wants to make sure you realize every time you pick up a pack of cigarettes. They just released some of the new warning labels for cigarette packs and they are quite the jump up from the old Surgeon General's warning.

But will they work?

This article in the New York Times references that research shows this type of communication does work to deter smoking. They remind me of the warnings I remember seeing on cigarette packs in Europe. That was years ago and apparently they've gotten even more graphic since I was reading (and I'll admit, laughing at) the warnings on those labels. Europe, and other countries in general, tend to have much more shocking PSAs than we do.

That being said, those strong warnings in Europe don't seem to be doing anything to help the problem. The U.S. is decidedly less smoke friendly than Europe—at least from my experience. I have a hard time believing that teenagers drawn to smoking won't just make fun of these. I hope they don't, I hope it hits home, but I'm really not sure that it will.

What do you think?

Does This Guerilla Marketing Campaign Help or Hurt?

Guerilla marketing is a tricky, but coveted thing in the world of advertising. It can be a highly effective tool, but it in this particular case I'm not so sure. In the grand tradition of shock value PSAs in foreign countries, Canada has this latest one attempting to keep people from speeding.



I first saw this via a friend's facebook post asking a similar question, and if you go by the comments on the Boing Boing post, most people think this campaign will actually have the opposite effect. Speculation ranged from The Boy Who Cried Wolf to possible accidents occurring from someone trying to avoid the girl in the street.

What do you think? Would it cause you to slow down?

**UPDATE: Apparently the decal was removed after one week**

Creative Job Hunting

Closer to the beginning of the recession, we blogged about a local guy putting up a billboard off of a busy freeway advertising how he needs a job. It was bold and unique enough to get a decent amount of PR from the local news and radio stations.

Alec Brownstein, a copywriter in New York, completely outdid that idea. He used Google advertising to target some of the best creative directors in the city. Check it out:



(via Direct Daily)

Nestle Crunch gets creative with fun hotline promo

Nestle has done something quite refreshing: It's made the always-dreaded automated caller system highly enjoyable.

To promote its Crunch candy bar, Nestle's developed some fun options on its 1-800 hotline menu. But they're not explicitly sharing the secret of calling this phone number as in the recent US Cellular commercials--it's only been passed virally through Facebook. I hadn't heard of the fun until a Facebook friend of mine posted this yesterday:

"TAKE A MINUTE AND DO THIS! Call the Nestle Hot line at 1-800 295-0051. When asked if you want to continue in English or Spanish, wait quietly for about 10
seconds and you will smile. Keep going and press 4. Then press 7. Don't give
away the surprise. Whoever thought of this at Nestle... deserves a raise and a
pocket full of sunshine!! Totally worth it!!!!! Enjoy"

It also seems that it's not new. This article about it was written back in November.

I'd recommend calling, perhaps a few times. Follow the instructions above, or take your own adventure. Just don't be surprised if you get a busy signal--seems it's pretty popular lately. You can also shortcut and hear the fun here: forthekidinyou.com.

Shamrock Shake In the Chicago River

This post from Direct Daily on Leo Burnett's Sharock Shake installation for McDonald's spilling into the Chicago River. Mostly I'm reposting it since I love Shamrock Shakes and the photo made me smile, but it's also a clever little installation to play off of Chicago's annual dying the river green for St. Patrick's Day.

Eat A Chiquita

Chiquita bananas are playing up their branded and recognizable blue and yellow stickers in a fun new campaign. instead of just blue Chiquita stickers, the new campaign has a whole slew of fun little blue and yellow faces.

One their Eat a Chiquita website, you can design your own sitcker face, watch videos and play games—oh and learn about bananas. It's a fun little site and a great campaign, all based off of those blue and yellow banana stickers that hold so much brand equity all by themselves. Brilliant.

(via Be Inspired Daily)

SuperBowl Ad Controversy

There's a big controversy brewing over a SuperBowl ad to be aired this Sunday, and no, it's not the latest censored ad from GoDaddy. This ad is controversial not just because of it's controversial subject matter, but because it's breaking a long standing SuperBowl rule.

I never knew this before, but apparently CBS had long standing rule that advocacy ads were not accepted as advertising during the SuperBowl. The reason being that the SuperBowl is a fun, family friendly event and let's not spoil it by bringing up sensitive, heated issues. Honestly, I think that's a great stance. I don't want to be watching political or controversial stuff in the middle of SuperBowl party, do you? This year however, CBS approved an advocacy ad on one of America's most controversial issues: abortion.

A pro-life ad featuring football star Tim Tebow was approved by CBS to air during the SuperBowl. Not surprisingly, this made a media splash, with advocacy groups on the other side calling foul. The ad—paid for by Focus On The Family, a conservative Christian group—features Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother. The speculation is that the ad tells the story of his mother's decision to have him despite doctors' encouragement to have an abortion due to health reasons. (Though the truth to that story is now getting questioned as well.) I have not seen the ad and as far as I know there isn't a leaked version anywhere on the web.

Focus On The Family says that the ad itself is not controversial. The theme is 'Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life.' Of course it's a bit hard to judge before seeing the ad, but either way, the press surrounding this controversy and it's sponsorship by a pro-life organization has made it controversial regardless. It boils down to CBS looking biased about abortion if they air the ad without offering the other side an option to air their opinion as well.

My original hunch (and hope) was CBS saw the ad and didn't think it was advocating pro-life so they approved it. But apparently, after push back from women's rights groups, CBS declared they're now accepting controversial ads—well except from the gay dating site that tried to buy a spot this year. To me, that kind backpedaling seems like a sorry attempt to keep the spot, and thus the $3 million dollar price tag, in the programming without having to accept any opposing opinions. When they rejected other controversial ads—particularly ones that would appeal to their liberal audience, like the gay dating site—CBS comes across as a conservative biased station.

Were they desperate for advertisers to pay the hefty price tag in this recession? Otherwise I can't imagine why they wouldn't dump that ad and fill it with something else. Is it really worth all the bad PR they're getting?

So to CBS, I'd prefer you didn't air the commercial during the SuperBowl, but if you are, at least air everyone else's advocacy ads too.That's my stance anyway. What do you think?

Attention Special Interests: Leave the First Family Out Of Your Ads

Back in August, I blogged about  Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a thinly veiled vegan promoting activist group, referencing Sasha and Malia Obama in an ad campaign for healthier school lunches and plastered the ads all over the DC Metro. The White House, not surprisingly, was not pleased.

It seems PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is up to similar tricks but took it a step further by actually using Michelle Obama's photo in a recent anti-fur ad. The White House has said was never authorized. Um, why does PETA think they can use someone's image without permission? Especially someone like Michelle Obama, who is not only a celebrity, but someone who legally cannot endorse an special interest group like PETA. According to this Associated Press article,

PETA says that they will not take down the ads and maintains that Michelle Obama's past anti-fur declarations essentially give them license to use her image in a campaign.

Whoa, hold on there. How is that even remotely their excuse? Michelle Obama's public stand on fur isn't exactly a model release for an ad campaign. Or am I missing something?

Like I mentioned in my August post, ruffling the feathers of the White House is maybe not such a good idea and if PETA thinks Michelle Obama is as fabulous as they claim, why can't they show her and her position a little respect? Breaking the rules, false advertising and ticking off a popular political figure doesn't help your brand.

Volvo's New (Moon) Consumer

Unless you've been living under a rock the past few days, you know that the second movie in the Twilight series, New Moon, is releasing Friday. It broke box office records for the most presale tickets ever. Ever. Like, more than Harry Potter or the Dark Knight. It's a pretty anticipated movie.

If you saw the first movie, Twilight, and especially if you read any of the books, you know the vampire hero of the story, Edward Cullen, drives around in a Volvo. He does this to seem 'less ostentatious' than his vampire siblings in their Porsches and Mercedes convertibles. The first movie capitalized on this a bit, putting Edward it quite the sporty little Volvo hatchback, the C30. In New Moon, Edward is apparently cruising in a different Volvo model, the XC60, which is a crossover SUV. 

Well Volvo is running a fun promotion, What Drives Edward, with the release of New Moon and offering the chance to win a XC60. That's a pretty awesome prize. There are 6 puzzles that you need to complete. The first five puzzles are available now and the sixth will release on Sunday. The first person to complete that sixth puzzle wins the car.

Its a pretty fun promotion with a great pay off, and the best part about it is it really does fit with the movie. Edward really drives a Volvo in the book. It's not simply a promo forced on the movie by Volvo which makes it feel less gimmicky.

NPR had an interesting take the on the promotion as well. When you think of Volvo and you think of the loyal teenage girl audience of New Moon, they don't really jive. But this bestselling book, and the extremely popular movies are providing Volvo with a priceless opportunity to reach a younger audience.

Most of the puzzles are just fun games with a New Moon twist but one includes features about the Volvo XC60. Happy puzzling!

Butt Smoking Kills More

I saw this poster campaign on AdFreak this morning and loved it. I've wanted to do a mosaic illustration like this for some time, but the once or twice it was fitting for a project, one thing or another fell through and it's never happened.

AdFreak mentions how the campaign, by an Indian agency, is maybe too close to a campaign run by the Cancer Society of Finland. While they have the same kind of execution, which is not a unique execution, the look and direction of each is different. Personally, I like this poster campaign better. Yes, I agree with AdFreak that the idea of comparing smoking deaths to other types of deaths is nothing new, when you combine it with this fine execution, it makes a great public service campaign.

(Images via Behance Network)

Chasing the iPhone

I'm not a cell phone expert. I do not have an iPhone (though I want one) and while I'm usually aware of what hot new phone has come out, I don't necessarily know all the details about it or what little features make it distinct. Being in advertising, however, I do pay attention to all the cell phone service and phone commercials.

Over the weekend, I was pointed to two different phone commercials for smart phones meant to rival the iPhone. This first spot (above) is brilliantly done. It's emotional and pleasing to watch and moves to the instrumental rhythm of Sinnerman. The only complaint I have is that it seems to be an ad for a specific phone, but instead it's actually an ad for the company that makes the phone, HTC. Who is HTC? Good question. A little googling revealed that they're a manufacturing company that has previously done contract work for Palm and Compaq, but chose to branch out and launch it's own phone last year—the Android. Remember that Google phone from T-Mobile that everyone was talking about last year as being a major competitor to the iPhone and then promptly forgot about it a couple months after its release? That was made by HTC. This new campaign is their attempt to make themselves a phone manufaturing household name, like Motorola or Nokia. The trouble is, as cool as this commercial is, I don't understand that's what it's advertising. Maybe it's just to be memorable and get HTC in the consumer's head, in which case, it might be doing a great job. What do you think? Did you remember the HTC call out at the end? Did you wonder who or what it was?

Similarly, the other commercial called to my attention this weekend was for Verizon's new Droid phone. Droid? That sounds a lot like Android. Hmm. Well apparently it's another Google phone (the Google phones, unlike my initial and incorrect assumtion, are not actually made by Google, they're just using Google software) this time made by Motorola. The spot for the Droid phone, is also very good, but takes a hard hitting, and cleverly done, line against the iPhone pointing out all the things the iPhone iDon't. Make no mistake, this phone is intended to be a serious iPhone competitor from Verizon and Motorola. Will this Google phone actually compete this time? I've read arguments both ways. One says, yes, this phone finally has the right processor to compete with the iPhone's speed while another says Droid won't be intuitive or smooth enough to ever really compete with the iPhone. Well, Droid comes out in November, so we will see. You can find out what Droid Does on the website.

UPDATE: Just a day after this post, I stumbled across a great blog post comparing all the features of the new Droid phone to the iPhone. Definitely worth checking out.

Chris Farley DirecTV Commercial In Bad Taste?

Direct TV is currently airing a commercial that features the late Chris Farley in a scene from his 1995 movie, Tommy Boy. The spot also features Farley's Tommy Boy costar, David Spade, in the 'Fat Guy in a Little Coat' scene. It's a memorable scene in the movie and in the commercial, David Spade turns and speaks directly to the camera about Direct TV while the scene continues with Chris Farley in the background. Watch the spot below:

Some controversy popped up when fans of Farley thought the spot was in bad taste for featuring the late comedian. Farley died of a heart failure from a drug overdose in 1997. Recently David Spade told People that he didn't think the spot was inappropriate and that he agreed to do it because it thought it was funny and something he though Chris Farley would have agreed to as well. According to the People article, the Farley family agrees, but some fans are still offended and think David Spade was just using Farley's funny bit for a paycheck.

Personally, I don't think the spot is in bad taste—it's amusing and far enough removed from Farley's death that it shouldn't be offensive. If someone used Marilyn Monroe in a TV spot would it be offensive to anyone? I doubt it. Perhaps the offense is whether David Spade is using Farley's memory for a paycheck. It's possible, but I think I'd agree with Spade's statement that Farley would have agreed to do the spot too.

What do you think? Funny or offensive?