Terry meet Russell, Russell meet Terry

Terry O'Reilly knows advertising. And now someone has snagged an interview with him where he is asked the question we all want answered. What is up with that Russell Oliver guy?

Here's the interview, pilfered from BlogTo.com

What makes these bad ads?

I feel all ads should give something back. At the very least, an ad should reward the viewer/listener for sitting through an ad with a smile, or a laugh. These hard-sell ads don't do that. They don't respect the audience's intelligence. I truly believe that when people say all advertising is bad, these are the ads they have in mind. Plus, these ads are also aired with high frequency, so hammer the audience.

If you were brought in to run Oliver's advertising strategy what would you change?

I would sit down with him and try and figure out what kind of a brand he really wants to be. If it is, in fact, a loud, hard-sell guy, i would try and bring some wit to it. Right now, it is silly and almost juvenile in its execution. I also think you can be hardcore retail but still have intelligence at work.

Toronto Tourism and the City of Toronto in general are also much derided for what many residents feel is their inability to effectively market the city. If you were tasked with marketing Toronto, what would you do differently?

I can't really say, because I'm not privy to their strategy. Oliver Jewellery aside, i don't like commenting on how I'd change ad campaigns without having a lot of knowledge about the product. I will say this - tourism campaigns are very tough to do well. It's tough because you are caught between projecting the image tourists already have about you, or projecting a completely new one that may not appeal to them.

Canada, for instance, is widely thought to be mountains, snow, rivers and moose. Europeans love this imagery of Canada, but that is hardly all that Canada is. Plus, Montana could also claim that imagery. It's not unique to Canada, but Italians, for example, dream of coming to Canada to see the mountains and the moose. I also think there are too many masters to please in a tourism campaign, too much vested interest. One of my first demands would be to streamline the approval process, so that it isn't left in the hands of a committee.

How do you feel about the increasing incidents of illegal, guerrilla marketing tactics in the city. Since these incidents often generate publicity (albeit not necessarily favourable) do you think it's paying off for marketers? Or is it ultimately bad for their business?

I think guerrilla advertising is a creative way for smaller advertisers to get attention. I don't think it is tolerated from bigger advertisers. The great thing about guerrilla advertising is that it is usually not paid media - therefore it levels the playing field for smaller advertisers. Some of it is highly creative, and I admire it. That said, illegal advertising is not smart. It can come back and bite an advertiser, as it did Ikea.

Toronto has a very active community aiming to keep ad creep in check. In particular, illegalsigns.ca works tirelessly to get the city to remove illegal billboards and now the city has introduced a sign and billboard tax by-law. Heroic work perhaps. But do you think more can be done to get marketers or industries to act more ethically or police themselves?

I think regulations and rules are very good things. Any industry needs to be regulated. There will always be companies that push the boundaries, or test the limits. Regulations make the industry behave responsibly.

You've just released a new book. What can you tell us about it? Can loyal listeners of your radio show on CBC expect to read some of the same or similar anecdotes?

Mike and I want people to judge advertising by the best, most creative advertising, not by the worst, bad ads. Most of your questions above focus on the worst of advertising, I want to celebrate the best of advertising. What if the music industry were only judged by the worst songs? Or the book industry by the most terrible books? There is some incredible advertising out there. Just look at the Advertising & Design Club of Canada Awards that were given out earlier this month - amazing work.

Canada ranks in the top five countries in the world when it comes to creative advertising. We have an incredibly high level of creativity here. That's what the radio show and the book celebrate: the stories behind the best campaigns ever done. We have over 600,000 listeners a week, so clearly, there is enormous curiosity when it comes to the 'behind the scenes' stories of Madison Avenue. Our biggest wish is that people start spending their money with the great advertisers, and stop buying from the worst advertisers.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Yes, there is too much advertising in the world. But remember that advertising does play an important role in a free-market economy. Almost everyone is connected to marketing. Most people work for companies that have to market their products. The marketing of those products keeps companies profitable and healthy, and consequently keeps lots of people employed. When Mike and i celebrate excellent advertising, it is advertising that is honest, smart and hopefully entertaining. That's the goal. And it is the kind of advertising most of the people I know in this business aspire to. We don't always hit the bullseye, but we try every time out.

Death of a Salesman

Interesting article about the viability of a campaign when the figurehead of it dies...

From dailyfinance.com

As the direct-marketing industry copes with the sudden death of pitchman Billy Mays (right), it's worth considering the fragile relationship between celebrity endorsement and mortality. The tragedy of Mays's unexpected death at age 50, of a heart ailment in late June, has practical implications for A.J. Khubani (left), CEO of direct-to-consumer merchandiser Telebrands. Yesterday, Telebrands rolled out a national marketing campaign featuring the infomercial star -- eight days after his death.

Unexpected deaths can derail an ad campaign when a brand is too closely identified with the pitchman. The death of New York Yankees catcher Thurman Munson in a plane crash, 30 years ago this summer, didn't harm the longterm sales of Williams' 'Lectric Shave -- but the demise of Wendy's founder Dave Thomas in 2002 devastated the fast-food company, which has struggled since then to re-establish an identity through an enduring campaign.

Mays's final pitch is for Telebrands's Jupiter Jack -- "the new revolutionary cell phone accessory for your car that turns any car radio into a wireless speaker system" (yours for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling!). The spot was filmed a month ago, and Telebrands spent millions on the airtime. Last week, Khubani decided to show it. "We struggled with this decision," he told DailyFinance. "There's no precedent, and we really don't know what's going to happen. There could be a tremendous backlash."

Mays is perhaps best-known for his booming endorsement of the cleaning products OxiClean, Kaboom, and Orange-Glo, all marketed by Church & Dwight, which has pulled its Mays spots and has not announced a successor. And Discovery Channel, whose series "Pitchmen" starred Mays, is scheduled to present many hours of reruns this week, plus a special, "Pitchman: A Tribute to Billy Mays."

Meanwhile, Discovery is devoting most of its programming on Wednesday to a Mays memorial. That will include a 12-hour Pitchmen marathon, ending with the season finale, which hasn't aired before. Don't be surprised if it gets huge ratings.

Discovery says it hasn't made any decision yet regarding a second season of Pitchmen.

Khubani was among a number of infomercial executives who consulted with Roger Pliakas, attorney for the Mays family, to decide how to proceed with their spots. "We decided collectively that this is what Billy would've wanted, and it's okay with the family," Khubani says. "Billy was the sole breadwinner for his family. They're looking for a continuing revenue stream from this and other products." He added, "Having known Billy for so many years, he definitely would've wanted it to run."

Mays is not the first pitchman to sell from beyond the grave. In one ghoulish example, popcorn magnate Orville Redenbacher was resurrected in 2007, 12 years after his death, for an unintentionally creepy commercial. A computer-generated, strangely androgynous Redenbacher sported an MP3 player and brandished a bag of microwave popcorn in a spot that horrified numerous cultural critics. "Grandpa would go for it," insisted Redenbacher's grandson. "This is a way to honor his legacy."

Another way to do that is by creating a public-service announcement with the pitchman's participation. Shortly before he died of lung cancer in 1985, acting legend Yul Brynner created an anti-smoking commercial intended for airing after his death. John Wayne also created promos for the American Cancer Society. Ironically, James Dean created a (listless and unpersuasive) safe-driving P.S.A. a month before he killed himself in a car crash.

In 2007, advertising powerhouse Saatchi & Saachi created a campaign for AirWair's Doc Martens boots, depicting various musical icons wearing the brand from their perches in heavenly clouds. The estates of Clash lead singer Joe Strummer and Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious did not comment, but the families of Joey Ramone and Kurt Cobain were furious. Ramone's brother, Mickey Leigh, said at the time, "I never would have approved this ad, as Joey never wore these shoes. And [...] the fact that he was Jewish, and this ad is not exactly kosher, makes it that much more inappropriate, inconsiderate, and contemptible." AirWair pulled the ads and swiftly fired Saatchi.

While that debacle demonstrates the dangers of plumbing the graveyard for pitchmen, it probably won't stop what appears to be a very lucrative trend. Nor will it clear up the issue of when it becomes tasteful to star a fallen icon in your commercials. When Orson Welles promised in the 1970s that winemaker Paul Masson would "sell no wine before its time," he never said he wouldn't sell Paul Masson after his time was up.

Truth, justice and marketing budgets

Here's an article from Consumer Reports about paid blogging and what the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is going to do about it. Short story, they're against paid blogging that masquerades as unsolicited commentary. So fawning reviews, viral campaigns and the like are going to have to jump through some pretty big hurdles in order to get away with it.

From ConsumerReports.org

"Is that blogger review really a paid ad? The FTC wants you to know.

The web was abuzz in April with scare talk about the Federal Trade Commission’s plans to put “bloggers in handcuffs,” “turn them into criminals,” and muzzle bloggers’ free speech rights.

What evil plan is afoot? The FTC is updating its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” which were last refreshed in 1980. What this has to do with bloggers is a new form of advertising, called word-of-mouth marketing, in which advertisers pay your favorite bloggers to “review” their products. The bloggers get paid, for example, with free product samples; gift certificates for JCPenney shopping sprees; cash payments; or the loan of a $30,000 Ford Flex for a year.

The bloggers are supposed to write whatever they want about the product—pro or con—but the payments put into question whether they would be inclined to seriously bite the hand of a “friend” lending a car or giving other valuable goodies or cash. (Consumer Reports buys and pays for the products it tests, and doesn’t accept free samples.)

The FTC aims to more explicitly bring advertisers who hawk their wares through seemingly unbiased bloggers under their truth-in-advertising guidelines, which would mandate the same thing required of traditional advertising: The honest opinions or experiences of the blogger/endorser, no false or unsubstantiated statements, and disclosure—by the blogger—that he or she is being paid.

In other words, an advertiser who greases the palms of bloggers to fabricate “spontaneous” Internet buzz for his product or service can’t pretend that he’s not advertising. Blogs that promote products “are consumer endorsements. To the extent they’re paid for, they come under jurisdiction of FTC,” Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices told me in a recent interview.

Consumers easily recognize a regular print, broadcast, or Internet ad for what it is—and know to be appropriately skeptical. But a sponsored blog post that doesn’t look like an advertisement at all can catch consumers off-guard. No wonder advertisers covet and court the endorsement of bloggers, and studies show that bloggers influence purchase decisions.

Under the proposed guidelines, bloggers who turn their supposedly independent daily musings into a paid commercial—like advertisers themselves— would have no special license to deceive just because they’re using the Internet."

I get my inspiration everywhere.

Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's use the Vimy Ridge Monument to sell something. Beer? Khakis? Lawn furniture?

That's the thinking behind this little dustup south of the border. My thinking is that war memorials are kind of like national symbols. Sacrosanct and not to be manipulated or used to sell something. But that's just me.

From the Washington Examiner site:

"Prominent Vietnam veterans and their families are appalled by an advertisement for a major local mall that shows a woman in front of a wall that strongly resembles the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with the names of the center’s stores appearing instead of the names of the war dead.

Tysons Corner Center reacted quickly to condemnation from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund and ordered the immediate removal of 440 of the ads from the Metrorail cars where they have been posted, mall spokeswoman Allison Fischer said Tuesday afternoon.

The Tysons ad features a black granite wall engraved with a list of shops over the slogan, “It’s time to defrost.” The store names are presented in virtually the same font on a highly reflective surface like the Vietnam Memorial. There is an image in the background of a what could be a rose, a flower commonly left at the Wall.

“There’s no question my generation will see this as The Wall,” said Marshall Carter, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange and a veteran of two tours in Vietnam. “There’s no getting around it. It jumps right off the page.”

Jan Scruggs, founder and president of the Vietnam Veteran Memorial Fund, said the ad is an “obvious and blatant misuse of the image of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which has a serious place in America's heart and soul.” More than 58,000 American men and women died in the war.

“There is nothing clever about this ad,” Scruggs said. “It is, rather, both distasteful and disgusting.”

The poster was spotted on an afternoon Red Line train and photographed by Dave Stroup, who writes for the blog Why I Hate DC. Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said Tysons paid $56,000 for a one-month run of the so-called “rail car card.”

“We honor the First Amendment, just like most newspapers do,” Farbstein told The Examiner before the mall said it would have the ads removed. “It’s a freedom of speech issue.”

In a statement, Fischer said Tysons holds “nothing but the greatest respect for the men and women who have served this country and we apologize to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund for any unintentional similarities” to the Wall.

“We are responding to the Fund's request and are moving quickly to remove this advertisement,” she said. “The ad design, which was developed as an evolution of the long-standing Tysons Corner Center campaign ‘Where the Stores are,’ was not intended to emulate any representation of the Memorial Wall.”

Veterans, however, were horrified.

“That the Wall be exploited for a buck is hateful,” Retired Rear Admiral George Worthington said in an e-mail. “I'd even suggest boycotting Tyson's Corner stores; they don't sell anything you can't buy at another mall.”

J. M. Martin, a disabled Vietnam Veteran, said the “tasteless” ad offends those who served and dishonors those who died. It is analogous, he said, “to having a family’s gravestone depicted as commercial advertisement.” Pascual Goicoechea, chief of operations at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, called the ad a “Madison Avenue flop.”

I just love the phrase 'Madison Avenue flop'. It sounds almost illicit.

Decision by committee, design by committee, death by committee

Pop quiz hotshot. How many people does it take to design and build a web site for a large corporation?

A) 5
B) 30
C) 200
D) 1000 monkeys

If you picked C, you my friend are a winner.

Here's whats happening. Company X is in need of a site, a site that allows consumers to interact with the company in what is hopefully a mutually satisfying fashion. A site that provides seamless movement across the company's many areas of specialization.

Then it goes to committee and it all goes to hell.

Here's a link to an article about one man who tried to take on this kind of design process, and the horrors he's suffering now. Give it a read. We've all been there. Or we'll be there soon.

Design with Intent

Architecture of Control / Design for Sustainable Behaviour

Check it out.

Now.

It's f**king magic.

When life gives you lies, call'em on it

Coca Cola in Australia recently ran afoul of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

And I quote:

"THE ACCC has found Coca-Cola was misleading in a "myth busting" ad about the soft drink.

Coca-Cola will have to publish corrective advertising after the competition watchdog found the company made "totally unacceptable" claims that its drink did not rot teeth or lead to weight gain."

Okay, we all know that Coca Cola is not the healthiest thing on earth and saying it doesn't lead to weight gain are quite specious. What is more interesting is that the Advertising Standards Bureau (an industry body) ruled that the ads were "truthful and honest".

So, Coca Cola is now faced with running corrections in 7 newspapers and on the net. Not quite the desired effect of the campaign one would think.

Here's the crux: the industry group used 'community standards' to evaluate the ad, while the government group used legislation. In a showdown, who do you think is going to win?