Do you ever wonder why you’re thirsty for a Coke after watching American Idol? Or suddenly have a hankering for an Oreo during a Friends rerun? This is the power of product placement; popular shows which draw thousands of viewers promote goods as part of the plot…  Notice as your favorite characters talk on iPhones, drive Fords or email from HP laptops. Coincidence?! I think not…

Also known as embedded marketing, this tactic became popular in the 1980’s. With the rise of DVRs and demise of commercials, marketers rely now more than ever on product placement as a form of creative advertising. In fact, 90% of people with digital video recorders skip TV ads altogether.  Most commonly placed products are automobiles, consumer electronics, computers, and tobacco. The queen of product placement herself, Ms. Carrie Bradshaw of the HBO series Sex and the City, touted almost every one of these categories and single-handedly increased Jimmy Choo shoe sales for the duration of the series.  Although, the series itself, as well as Apple, are rumored to have not accepted payment for placing certain products.

Its effectiveness is often assumed as the quantification methods used to track brand integrations are variable; however, it stands to reason products placed strategically in popular prime time series are likely exposed directly to their target audience.  So next time you turn on the big game, curl up for movie night or tune in to your favorite sitcom – notice what sports drink the players guzzle, what getaway car the villain drives and what cereal the family has for breakfast.  It may surprise you that they all have a brand name.

What are your thoughts on product placement?

I know, you’ve heard it before… But it’s official; Verizon announced yesterday the arrival of the iPhone 4 to their 3G Network (that’s right, the biggest disappointment was that the 3G, rather than the new 4G LTE, network would host the iPhone.) Still, after an exclusive 4-year contract with AT&T, Verizon will be the first carrier to offer the phone (I even got an exclusive invitation to pre-order before the February 10th release date, as an existing Verizon customer;-) So what does this mean from a marketing standpoint? Here are my assertions:

1. Competition – as ‘the world’s most reliable network’ Verizon already owns the lion’s share of the mobile market, now frustrated AT&T users will have the opportunity to switch carriers.

2. Marketplace – the new tag line “iPhone 4. Verizon. It begins.” and exclusive invitation to pre-order are more opportunities to advertise and perhaps, just the beginning.

3. Future – loyal Verizon patrons will likely extend contracts and new customers stand to be gained with the acquisition of the iPhone.

Overall, I think the addition (as well as anticipation) of the iPhone is a smart move by Verizon. Unfortunately, they turned the iPhone down initially, probably losing out on a monopoly. However, with Droid rivaling the iPhone and already on the Verizon network, maybe a monopoly is still to come…

What do you think of the Verizon iPhone announcement?

When I say Starbucks, you say_______. If you answered “sea nymph” that’s just what the company was hoping you’d say… I, on the other hand, would’ve said coffee.

I wouldn’t be in this business if I didn’t deem the new Starbucks logo blog-worthy, especially since it’s been covered by every media outlet imaginable. We were intrigued when Starbucks announced the addition of alcoholic beverages to its menu (Drink For Thought) and now, to commemorate their 40-year anniversary, they’ve introduced a new logo. The brand specialist behind the decision is Adam Hanft, who regarded the siren logo iconic enough to stand-alone… I couldn’t disagree more.

However, I do understand the company’s direction and certainly appreciate the less is more theory but I’m failing to see the benefit in this re-brand. Can removing the company name from your logo actually be good for business? It worked for Mac, Nike and McDonald’s; the apple, swoosh, even the golden arches are as synonymous with their brand as the name itself but I’m not sure the sea nymph makes this same statement. Is this another Gap Mishap or is it true that there’s no such thing as bad publicity?!

What do you think about the new Starbucks logo?

I can’t count the number of TV ads that I watch and just shake my head at – from the downright awful to the confusing and pointless. But, I find that my frustration and confusion doesn’t lie completely with the commercials content, but the concept of commercials in general.

I can only assume that commercials were originally created to promote a product or service by informing the population what it can do for you and why you absolutely must have to have it. But, over the years, this idea of commercials has been so mutated by the businesses that commercials are now not only a waste of money but a waste of brain power. Now, I am not unrealistic, I am not asking for all commercials to be done away with. What I am asking for is that companies stop creating the horrid drivel they are now and create simple commercials – promote their product, tell me why I need it, and be done. Stop destroying great music by setting it to a montage of stuff that has zero to do with the business (hey Chase…I’m talking to you). Get rid of the obnoxiously awful mascots that behave in ridiculous manners (Burger King, Jack in the Box, Geico..are you listening?). And convince me that your product is for me without awful gimmicks (hmm, this includes pretty much all of you big business!).

If companies could do the above 3 things, commercials might have a chance to be beneficial – and possibly cost a whole heck of a lot less. And guess where you could spend that extra money? Improving customer service, listening to social media channels and doing more research on ways to improve your products! See, this is a win/win situation!

Of course, this is only my opinion, but somehow I doubt I am alone.

What do you think of TV commercials? How could these companies spend their money more effectively?

Well, I’m embarrassed again. Embarrassed for our industry and fearful of where it’s headed. The recent work done by Ford has to be the epitome of either poor staff or just downright laziness on both the agency and client sides. Ready for this? Drum-roll please……Ford. Drive one. Really? That’s it? That’s the best you could come up with? I can picture my fifth cousin rolling over in his grave – Yes, I’m related to Henry Ford although we’re not getting a heck of a lot of work out of the deal! Anyway back to their new tagline. I can almost see it in the creative session – wait this has to be the client’s doing. So they’re in the conference room and the marketing staff is standing ready to work on the “new” Ford. The line of thinking goes a little like this:

Williams: “Well what is it we’re trying to get them – the audience – to do?”

Johnson: “Buy a car, sir?”

Williams: “Yes of course we want them to do that, Johnson, don’t be foolish! It’s got to be something more, something bigger, something emotional.”

Johnson: “We want them to, um, ahhh, drive one, sir?”

Williams: “Johnson, you’re brilliant! That’s it. Ford. Drive one!”

Johnson: “Wait! We need to instill a sense of urgency. How about: Ford. Drive one today!”

Williams: “Johnson. You’re an idiot.”

Or something to that effect. I can’t possibly imagine the agency coming in for their next big pitch with a whole bunch of research and strategy around “Drive one” and living to tell about it. I know I couldn’t pitch that. I think the US Big 3 car companies need to take a better look at who their competition is and how they’ve continued to be successful. As in a previous post, they’ve never taken the time to establish a brand in the first place so falling flat on their face with “Drive one” really doesn’t hurt them any more than they’ve already hurt themselves. But maybe they should peer across the pond at what success looks like. Ooops, I’m late for my next meeting. Need to hop in the Ultimate driving machine and step on it. I have to pitch a new tag line to a consumer electronics account of ours. Ready? [Brand of TV]. Buy one.

Awhile ago, I ordered some stationary from Vista Print. A site I was on had a great discount for them, so I decided to try them out (good prices, why not?). Unfortunately, my one order from them apparently read “I want you to email me with every offer you have”. About once a week I get an email with some great deal on something or other that they just didn’t want me to miss. Normally, I just trash them and don’t even look at the email. But this week, I was caught by surprise. The subject line for the email was “Sorry to bug you…” and my curiosity wondered if maybe they had figured out I wasn’t going to order anything else and this was their final email to me? So I opened the email. Nope, not the final email:

Just a clever tagline to tie into their current marketing promotion (see the little ladybug?). But what it really did was bug me even more than it would have were it a blatant “I want to sell you crap” email. I honestly thought they might really be sorry, that just maybe they were a company who didn’t want to annoy their mailing list to death and that they were really fixing their strategy. Instead, I realized even more that they are just another company who doesn’t listen to their buyers and cares even less about maintaining relationships with their buyers. The list of products isn’t even pertinent to me! I did cut off a bit of the bottom, but I assure you, not a single item on this list was stationary, the only thing I ever ordered from them. Which means this same email probably went to everyone. Really? How hard is it to create a couple different ones??

Maybe it’s just me, but I have zero understanding about why they think this mass mailing is going to work.

I don’t get it.  I go to a lot of events, many in sports.  From hockey, to football, soccer (the other football), even baseball and I love racing.  But it always kills me at how much sponsorship dollars cost, how rare they are to come by, and then to see how little consumer brands do with their sponsorships.  From what I see, it should be easier to get sponsorship dollars because all the sponsors do is provide a logo and a check and they’re done.  Event sponsored.  To coin a gross and old expression, they’re leaving a lot of meat on the bone.

Let’s use a racing example.  Take a look at the 7-Eleven sponsored Indy Racing League car driven by Tony Kanaan.  7-Eleven actually has it figured out: they only pony up a modest amount of cash for their primary sponsorship and they off-load the balance to some of the larger brands they carry in-store, like Kraft.  At the recent event I was at as a guest of the IRL, Kraft had the car sponsorship for that particular event.  It was still well-branded 7-Eleven, but the car also adorned a handful of Kraft logos prominently placed.  Not cheap by any means.  I asked one of the marketing reps for the IRL who deals with sponsorships, what Kraft was doing a the event.  He replied, “What do you mean?”.  “I mean, where else is Kraft at this event,” I said. “Surely they must have some on-track advertising, or at the very least please tell me they have promo-girls working the 100,000+ crowd of Kraft-consuming consumers with samples and coupons for their new cheesy, zesty whatever.  Where’s the Kraft RV?  Hospitality tent and suite for customers?”  Nothing. Not a person.  Not a rep. Not a slice of cheese.  Just a big check for a logo on the car for one event.  Not even a representative from the brand was present.  What if Tony won?

This is such an easy yet constantly overlooked part of marketing and only a few brands really do it right. But you might be saying, “Well, we’re just a B2B medical device company.  This doesn’t really apply to us.” Really?  You sponsored your last tradeshow by attending with a big booth, 100 sales reps, 50 corporate folks, etc.  What else did you do at the event? What in-show marketing did you deploy?  What “sampling” did you do?  How did you maximize your sponsorship dollars at the event?  You didn’t, did you?  You just showed up.  Well look at this way, you’re not alone, you’re actually in good company with big brands like Kraft.  Cheese anyone?

I wonder how much stealing someones idea and tweaking it a bit costs these days? I bet Mazda would know.

Confused? Check out the following two commercials:

Commercial #1 – Volkswagen (circa 12 months ago)

Commercial #2: Mazda (circa this month)

Hmmm….there is something similar here, I just can’t put my finger on…Oh wait! I know what it is! It’s the fact that Mazda’s creative team apparently has no creativity left. Or they left the decision making to someone who hasn’t seen another car ad in over a year.

I understand that the ads are different, Volkswagen was funny and caught your attention. Mazda wasn’t.

Volkswagen was original and clever. Mazda wasn’t.

Volkswagen was the first to come up with the idea. Mazda wasn’t.

Yes, the ads are completely different.

What do you think? Am I being too hard on Mazda or do you agree that this is unacceptable?