Advertising: A Social Experiment

Black Friday. These two words have a very polarizing effect on all of American society. The first group of people everybody recognizes are those who believe it is kill or be killed. These people salivate at the first sign of Black Friday advertising and plan their holiday around the best deals out there. If it comes down to the deal of the year or the person next to them, the deal will win nine times out of ten. Then there are the people who resent Black Friday, the fact that it distracts from the meaning of Thanksgiving, and all of the traffic and clashing shoppers driven to the store by some measly sales. Although these people resent what Black Friday is all about, some of them will still venture out to the stores late Friday morning and try to "see what is there." Black Friday advertising evokes plenty of emotions in plenty of people, and I wanted to explore the essence of this brilliant exercise in marketing and advertising.

This year distinguished itself from every previous year's advertising in many ways, but Wal-Mart dominated this new idea. Not only did they begin their deals in the evening on Thanksgiving, but they separated these deals into three separate sections. The first string of deals began at 6 pm and ran until 7. Now, what was unique about these deals is that they had a 1 hour guarantee. They were guaranteeing that if you were in line for any of their big-ticket items between the hours of 6 and 7 pm, you would be able to buy the product and if they were out of stock, they would have it shipped to you by Christmas. A pretty radical idea for Black Friday, and I was excited to see how that went. Slightly less exciting were the next two waves of deals. The second began at 8 pm and ended around midnight with some pretty decent deals. Third was their traditional 6 am sale and these sales had taken a drastic increase in price from the previous two deals, which made me wonder why anybody would wake up at that hour?

Admittedly,  Wal-Mart changed the game and the only adjustments other stores made included bumping up the time they open to 6 pm, which only angered the non-Black Friday goers that much more. In order to get a closer look at the type of impact these new advertising strategies used by Wal-Mart might have on their competitors, I ventured out into the wild that is Black Friday approximately one half hour before all hell broke loose. Target had a line wrapped all the way around the side of the building awaiting a plethora or door-busters and Wal-Mart's only visible sign of chaos from the outside was the parking lot.

My exploration of the Black Friday society began on the inside of Wal-Mart, after parking approximately a quarter mile from the doors of the store. What I saw was one line. Then another. Then another. After a few minutes I began to realize that every single deal in the store required the customers to stand in line! A brilliant move by Wal-Mart. Sure, you could save hundreds of dollars on their door-buster television, but that would hardly leave you with enough time to shop for another deal, let alone two! By drastically limiting the amount of deals per consumer, Wal-Mart was able to pack the store and save face financially by limiting items per person. Though this plan was devious, the deals appeared to still be good enough to pack every line front to back. The store was packed. Even with the new "wait in line" strategy, Wal-Mart's deals were good enough to fill the store to capacity and continue to cause avid Black Friday shoppers to butt heads.

Following my 1-hour guarantee adventure to Wal-Mart, I visited Target's earliest Black Friday door-buster sale to date. What I expected was far different that what I experienced. I expected the crowd to be depleted as a result of the excellent deals offered by Wal-Mart coupled with their guarantee. After stepping through Target's doors, all I could see was chaos. People running through each other to get to the televisions were the least of their problems. There were piles of people fighting for headphones and pushing and shoving for the best place in line. Target embodied everything those who avoid Black Friday dread. Overall, neither of these two places were any safer than the other, and it seems the population split was simple. The people who needed the biggest deals on a few products should attend Wal-Mart and those who needed deals on many products should have visited target. I can't verify whether or not that was exactly how the split worked out, but it sure would have been strategic from a consumer standpoint.

In the holiday season, advertising is king, and no one day is more powerful than Black Friday. These advertisers control the entire population. Whether you consider yourself to be a Black Friday participant or not, the truth is that most people will venture out to the store on Black Friday, or even Thursday night now that savings have interrupted the sanctity of a family holiday. If it weren't for the power which advertising holds over society, people would spend their whole day being thankful for what they already have. Even though the idea of Thanksgiving is a great one, it cannot stop the fire that is the inherent greed of man, especially not with advertising fuel the flames. 

The Advertising Spiral

Last time I posted, I mentioned all of the angles advertisers look at to prevent a misinterpretation of one of their ads which might lead to some type of conflict. But what if they want to make waves?

Most of you have probably heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity." If we look at this from an advertising standpoint, we can see some of the advantages of producing a controversial ad.

If there is even a remote chance that an ad will be misconstrued, you can almost certainly believe that it will be. Now with social media playing such a large role in today's society, a company can draw as much, if not more publicity from social media than virtually any other medium.

When somebody looks at an ad and sees an issue, there is a significant chance that it was placed there intentionally. An average consumer can reference the advertising spiral to try to help them determine if the controversy was intentional, or just an oversight.

The concept of the advertising spiral has been around since the inception of the industry. When it seems that a company has been using a particular advertising campaign or platform for a while, there is a good chance that any ad which might make waves is an attempt at a new pioneering stage. Even though they may be marketing the same product, taking a chance with a new wave of ads might be just what they need to get themselves back into the public eye.

Take for example, this Intel advertisement with some glaring controversy staring right back at us.

I will let you draw your own conclusions about what makes the ad so controversial, but there is no question that it stirred the proverbial pot. And why wouldn't a company such as Intel, which so many people take for granted, want to make waves?

You may not like what the advertisement says, but it catapulted Intel back into the public eye. As a company which finds its products inside of so many others, such as brand name computers, they need to do whatever they can to stand out.

Down the road, you may go to buy a laptop and see that it has an Intel processor. The name will ring a bell. They count on the fact that you don't know why you remember the name, but simply the fact that you do, and will buy the product as a result.

This practice is admittedly a risky one, but great risk is the father of great reward. If a company is willing to risk their reputation for a potential increase in sales, then they could be greatly rewarded for it.

Maybe companies shouldn't do this. Maybe it is offensive. Maybe the risk is too great. There are a lot of maybes in controversial ad creation, but there is also a lot of publicity. It simply boils down to believing if any publicity truly is good publicity. 

Societal Issues in Advertising

Every time an ad is created, teams of people examine how it could possibly be misconstrued. These same teams are the people generating the ads, and they must recognize that their ideas could be seen in a different light by others. The following is a short account of my experience in one of these situations.

On a Monday morning, much like any other, our team met in our conference room to discuss the generation of an advertisement for a current campaign we were working on. Because we had done this many times before, we recognized the pitfalls we would encounter along the way. There would be revisions, there would be technological limitations, and perhaps most obviously, there would be social issues.

The advertising campaign for which we were generating the ad was about the relationship people have with their vehicles. After much deliberation, we came to a conclusion. We would take a best friend approach and personify the vehicle as the driver's best friend or even significant other. It was at this moment that we realized all of ways in which these ads might be misinterpreted.

One of the most controversial ads we created was a male treating his car as though it was his significant other. The advertisement itself was both playful and informative, but the color of the car and it's setting raised an issue.

One of our senior copywriters, who has seen issues coming and going, pointed out the problem with the way we were portraying the car. The car was initially a royal blue (predominantly a male color) and it was parked in a garage full of tools. For these reasons, she noted that the car could be seen as a male significant other, and that people would begin to say that this company was a supporter of same-sex institutions, which was something they had no intention of incorporating into their ads.

I silently wondered to myself how such a portrayal could cause a problem before finally asking the designer who had created the ad. This designer told me that he had created the ad turning a blind eye to the gender of the car, but that the masculine setting and gender descriptive color of the car were a major red flag.

After we noted this issue, we met again on Thursday to discuss the problem as well as potential solutions. First, we discussed changing the ad altogether, but decided that the concept and the copy were too strong to waste. Second, we considered changing the setting to something a bit more feminine, perhaps near a garden, and a more feminine color, something of a lighter or pastel shade. However, we decided that that would push standard marriage practices and that should also be avoided. Finally, we decided that we should change the car to a gender-neutral white, and place it in a very generic driveway in order to avoid ascribing any gender to the vehicle.

This was my first real experience in the world of sensitivity in advertising, and it has drastically changed the way I look at the ads people compose. From the setting to the color scheme and even the music used, virtually any aspect can cause a conflict in one form or another. This experience taught me that the best course of action is to avoid specification at all costs, and to try to distance that advertisement from any controversial issue which may arise. 

"Make it Pop!"

Make it pop! This is the only thing company's demand from their advertising agencies.

For the first time this year, I actually worked in an advertising agency. What I saw in my short time there was nothing less than shocking.

We brainstormed an advertising campaign for a particular company, I shall not name the company. After offering several ideas for campaigns and definitive images, they finally chose a concept that they really loved! Or so they said.

They came back with a laundry list of specifications -make it bigger, change the font, that color scheme isn't ideal, animate the background but not the image - but one iconic comment found its way to the top of the list with every revision - "Make it Pop!"

Now that I was watching the changes being made and our original idea completely change shape, size, and even the concept, I was nothing short of amazed. Seeing all these changes prompted me to ask our most senior graphic designer, "What do they mean by 'Make it Pop!'?" To which he genuinely replied, "Nobody knows."

"Make it Pop!," is the most generic phrase containing a definite goal to ever be uttered by man. The agency can only do so much to make an ad stand out before it becomes overkill, and no consumer is a fan of an ad which obviously just tries too hard.

The point I would like to make here is that I heard the term, saw the evolution of the concept, and even the end product which "popped" according to the company for whom it was produced. I still have exactly no concept of just what made it pop.

Stories such as this pervade the history of advertising agencies all over the world, and they are the butt of many jokes at agency functions. The term is thrown around by those in the industry as a sarcastic way to refer to editing some or all parts of an ad.

If you don't know what you mean, chances are good that we don't either. Please be kind to the agency you contract and come back with specific revisions. If it pops to some, it may not pop to all, but really, we just want to know that it pops for you. 

Something Other Than Sports?

Keep our head in the clouds and our feet on the ground, right? That's what we were always told growing up and we still have that notion pounded into our heads today. So should an advertisement keep that in mind when they show us something to get our attention? Probably not.

As a high school student, my dream was to play a college sport at the highest level. Today, I can honestly say that I've made it. As I enter my senior year as a Division 1 athlete, my mindset has changed drastically from that of the eager, competitive, eighteen-year-old with lofty goals. I now think about what classes I can take to help in my career and not which classes will be the easiest A, allowing me to practice, lift, run, and go pro someday.

Should the NCAA be advertising to people like me, who have lived the experience and now see it for what it is? Or should they be advertising to kids like me at 18 and every other kid who thinks they'll be the next J.J. Redick or Bo Wallace and the parents who want to their kids to be these athletes?

The answer is simple. Advertise to the dreamer, not the doer. Most college athletes will have the same realization as I have, and lets face it, that takes the focus away from the sport.

The NCAA is all about the money, the fans, the prowess. For God's sake, it is the National Collegiate Athletics Association. Not the National Collegiate Academics Association. Let's run some ads that focus on the sport. March Madness, the BCS Bowls, and the College World Series shouldn't have to stand on their own. Let's run ads that call a spade a spade and let everyone know about the sports and the athletes.

We want to watch sports and you want our money. Please stop trying to save face about how we will all go pro in something other than sports. Those of us who care already know. As for these academic ads, it was a nice sentiment. But frankly, NCAA, we don't give a damn. 

How to Create a Successful Advertisement

I spend a lot of time talking about what is wrong with advertisements and what could be done better. The truth is that many people in the industry know what they should be doing, but the problem is that what you should do is pretty vague.

Creating a successful advertisement is much more than following steps. It takes creativity, knowledge of your audience, a ton of research, and talent to make it happen. That being said, advertising is an uphill battle as we market to more skeptical consumers year after years. Although, even with these changes, there is a winning formula that, given the right people and resources, any advertiser can follow to success.

• Don't just grab attention, force it into submission.
• Most people use a flashy sign, or a jarring headline, or shocking image but they don't account for the rest of the ad. Copy is the big player here. Make yours count. Make me read.
• Why should they listen to you?
• Tell me why what you have to say is so important. Make sure there is a value that I think I will miss out on by not purchasing your product.
• KISS - Keep it simple, stupid.
• Readers understand quickly, and a picture really is worth 1,000 words. Too much of anything can be a bad thing. Short copy. Effective imagery.
• Know your target and take aim.
• The best way to make a bad ad is simply to target the wrong group. Know your target market and define your position in that market clearly. We can appreciate an ad that is tailored directly to us.
• Every ad is a part of the whole.
• Any one advertisement is only as strong as it's campaign. If this ad doesn't fit your campaign either change the ad or change the campaign. There is no room in advertising for unconnected ads. Nobody has time for that.

Yeah, these are some very basic components that we all learn in school, but most of us forget them. Keep them in mind when you generate each and every ad in your campaign and just try to be sure that you would like to see it 100 times. If you couldn't stomach it every day, please don't make us. 

The Best of Stock Imagery

Are we lazy, busy, or just incompetent? Some ads make you scratch your head rather than reach for your wallet, and those head-scratchers are the ads I like to talk about. Fortunately for me, I follow one of my favorite blogs - Good Ad Bad Ad - quite religiously, and one of their newest posts had me completely dumbfounded.

Exhibit A:

Now this is bad. I mean really bad. And I couldn't be happier that Good Ad Bad Ad brought it to my attention.

I have a passionate hate for stock imagery, but I also understand that in some cases it is a necessary evil. Sometimes budget constraints stop you from getting the right picture, or maybe you just don't have the time. However, if you are a company like Southwest Airlines, this mistake just can't happen. The only thing worse than using a stock image in an ad is using a stock image in an ad and making no effort to make it look like your own.

Now Mr. Goldman made a valid point, maybe they didn't pay for the rights. But it should stand to reason that if you didn't pay for the rights and you can't remove the watermark, maybe we just shouldn't use the photo. Take your own. Create a similar image. Do literally anything besides announce to the public, "We copy-pasted this image and we couldn't care less." Whatever happened in the creation of this ad, Mr. Goldman was right when he said that the designer screwed the pooch on this one.

Ads like this help me justify my distaste for the stock photos and they also give us something to talk about. Keep it up advertisers. I love what I'm doing, and without you, there would be no blog.

Honesty Hour

David v. Goliath. The North vs. the South. Samsung vs. Apple. Every period in history has an epic battle, and for this generation its the clash of these smartphone titans. Fortunately for us as consumers, they don't always play nice.

Apple seems to be taking the highroad, and Samsung seems to be taking all the shots. Samsung's newest advertisement for the Note 4 is their most controversial ad yet.  

 Lets be clear, this has been the campaign Samsung has gone with since their inclusion in the battle of the leading smartphones, but this ad is on a new level. Making direct comparisons to the iPhone leads us to ask, "Can they do that?"

As I mentioned in one of my earlier blogs, A Grain of Truth?, yes they actually can do that. I actually made an amendment to a portion of a Wikipedia page regarding negative campaigning and how these claims against false advertising are regulated and this article was changed because it did not accurately describe what they wanted to say. Such are the struggles of Wikipedia.

My changes:

Critics of negative campaigns sometimes contend that negative ads are not always used for the stated reason. In some cases, negative campaigning presents twisted or spun information under the guise of bringing hidden negatives into the light. Sometimes those who practice negative campaigning fail to realize that if their claims are not facts, they may be sued for libel. Virtually any negative campaign can be run without fear of prosecution if the campaign makes factual claims.  

Wikipedia's Changes:

In commercial advertising, various regulations prohibit false advertising and broadcast campaigns to promote potentially 
harmful activities, such as advertising tobacco products. Similar regulations have at times been proposed to limit negative political campaigning. Such restrictions have been proposed to regulate political advertising on television and radio, where negative claims might not be fully explained due to time constraints, and would expand disclosure requirements in printed political advertising.

Well, not all things are permanent, but every statement lacking fact is subject to change or even punishment. Thankfully in our case, Wikipedia has no history of punitive action to my knowledge.

So as long as all of the statement Samsung makes are accurate, they can't have any legal action brought against them by Apple. If more people knew what I just shared, I think Samsung would have sturdier ground to stand on. 

Samsung is going to keep turning out entertaining advertisements and keep taking swings at Apple. While they keep with it, I'll keep watching, laughing, and yes, loving my Samsung smart phone. I may be biased on the product but that doesn't change the copy in the ads. Its accurate, and therefore legal and hilarious.