
OK, one other post before I go on vacation. Take a look at the logo for the newly-redesigned New Yorker Hotel. (Saw it as part of a banner ad on AdFreak). If I were The New Yorker, I'd consider suing.
Everything you wanted to know about advertising and too much more
Found this ad banner on the home page of wsj.com today. There's nothing exceptional about what it says, but it had a subtle, pulsating feature that did a great job of being unobtrusive and noticeable at the same time. (Hmmm ... oxymoron watch!) In pulsating mode, it just ever so slightly gravitated into the next column, but not so much that it obscured any text. Nice, simple technique. With this post, I'm signing off for awhile—the family is going on vacation next week and there is much to do. Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
I'm finding the whole idea of a national TV campaign for Starbucks a little odd. It's so rare, really, that a brand has such a strong identity before they launch a big brand campaign that advertising seems besides the point. Except if the company is advertising a "buy one latte, get the second one free" promo effort (which it isn't), what news is there about the Starbucks brand that we don't already know? The company told The Wall Street Journal it is doing the campaign because of a slump in sales, but in this case, even that explanation doesn't really wash. We hardly need to be reminded that Starbucks exists; its ads—as in, its stores—are already everywhere.
I don't really get the point of not being able to embed this new Honda spot elsewhere—I mean it has almost 200,000 views so think what it would have if you could? Anyway, the commercial touts the still-in-concept-phase Honda that will run on water. (Which is great, unless you live in Atlanta.) Anywho, go check it out. The gunfight with water pistols replacing actual firearms is a nice touch. I'm spacing on who Honda's domestic agency is. Forgive me.
Ok, since people seemed to link to my first Facebook advertiser fans scoreboard, here's round two, which I'm posting more or less a week later. In other words, this is more or less how many fans these advertisers gained in a week. (I may add more but this list is made up of the ones who were Facebook advertisers right out of the gate.) Here goes:
By the time wsj.com is free to the masses, the story will be just another news blip to flip (or more likely scroll) past. Rupert, who doesn't yet own the Journal, told a bunch of his homies in Adelaide yesterday that once he actually owned the joint, he would stop wsj.com's subscription model and let the ad revenue flow in, which doesn't exactly rate as news since that move is all but assumed, but was covered as though it was. I haven't done the math on this, but I can easily see it making more money as a free site. The content is still coveted, but strangely, every time I've re-upped my sub the last few years I've felt like somewhat of a chump, even knowing I could write it off. I mean, who pays for content anymore? Probably not so many that it offsets the potential ad revenue stream the site could get. And brick-by-brick the wall is coming down even without Rupert's ownership. The Journal has actively sent links to free content to bloggers for several years. Now, I just saw on Mediapost that anyone who Diggs a WSJ story will automatically make the content they're linking to free to anyone who accesses it through Digg. I had once hoped that a subscription model could flourish on the Internet, but it's time to move on.
Spent most of yesterday working on stuff that did not involve ad agencies, only to come home and discover that they're all doomed. (Phew! Thank God for other industries!) So anyway, this news--and maybe it's old news--comes by way of Accenture, which, according to Adweek, "interviewed 70 advertising "decision-makers'" about which of several different strains of the media and marketing industry were least likely to cope well with the shift to digital advertising. Forty-three percent picked ad agencies as the sorriest of the lot, followed by broadcasters at 33 percent and cable operators at 10 percent. Stupidly, the survey asked how digital agencies and search advertisers might fare in a digital advertising world, and no one thought they were doomed! Sheesh. I looked on the Accenture Web site in for the study in all its depressing entirety, but alas, I couldn't find it.
Estates, our checkered past includes a lot of strange agency memorab
ilia, such as this "Truth Well Told" commemorative plate at left, now celebrating its 20th anniversay as a commemorative plate. (In case you didn't get it, "Lies Well Disguised" is a takeoff on the McCann-Erickson slogan, "Truth Well Told." Sheesh! Do I have to explain everything?) BUT, WAIT, THERE'S MORE: I knew that damn Bogusky plate looked familiar.
There's something weirdly back to the future about the restructuring of Leo Burnett under an "open architecture" structure that also encompasses Starcom Mediavest and Digitas with, according to Mediapost, "no default lead." You could ask (OK! I will!), did the whole company get itself over-siloed, and will we see more combines like this going forward? Starcom, of course, started as Burnett's media department. As for Digitas, it's new to the Publicis/Burnett fold, but does anyone remember Giant Step? Back in the 1990s, it was Burnett's digital arm, and one of the most well-regarded in the business; it eventually got merged out of existence. No, I don't think Giant Step, even in its heyday, would ever have held a candle to the pointy-headed data geeks at Digitas, but still, it's odd to contemplate how many big agencies got out of the digital game back in the day, as though the Internet itself had gone away instead of just a whole bunch of get-rich-quick stock options. What goes around comes around, I guess.
Took a spin this morning on the AT&T site that lets you make customized t-shirts and coffee mugs based on the places you spend your time. (It's a spinoff of the Wes Anderson-directed AT&T campaign themed, "Your Seamless World.") Doubt I'd shell out $17.95 for this "Pelcancy" t-shirt (that's short for Pelham, New Canaan, Quincy), but I guess it's fun enough to play around with the site. AT&T told Adweek that they've sold thousands of t-shirts—the site went live a month ago—but I'm wondering if the whole thing is under-promoted. I actually have tried to find it several times to post about it and I came up empty until I saw the Adweek story. True, AT&T is a huge company, but there's no mention of it on the company home page, or on the home page for its wireless services. It was also referred to as a "souvenir store" in the release that originally announced the launch of the campaign back in September, and yet, if you type that phrase into the search function on the AT&T site, you come up empty. Googling it gives marginally better results. There's no sponsored links about the site; it comes up third in the non-paid links, but hardly describes what it is. Sorry, I'm such a stickler.
