+ 009 - 04.13.2010 - INDUSTRY

IN RESPONSE TO: OLD CAMPAIGNS THAT WON'T DIE OR FADE AWAY

This article interested me for a few reasons. One, because we had talked about humor in one of our classes, and how effective humorous advertising doesn't have a particular life cycle, and two, because I wasn't conscious of how ubiquitous this sort of thing is. I'm talking about advertising longevity. Stuart Elliott, a journalist whose work I have talked about before, talks about particular campaigns that have stood the test of time, even after the advertisements have gone off the air.

Of course, with tools like YouTube and Facebook, Elliott points out, viewing campaigns past is totally possible, but we're talking about network television. When these ads are cast off into the greener pastures of campaign retirement, their legacies live on. Too epic? Maybe, but we all remember Fred Flintstone's Winston endorsement. We all remember the "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" chihuahua. The advertisements may be long gone, but there are certain things we can recall to a T.

If marketers are striving to “build and foster a community of advocates,” Mr. LeBrun said, they ought not be like “politicians who go online around election time and then disappear after the election.”

This goes back to the life cycle discussion. Advertising can't be looked at as having a birth, life and death. It needs to be examined as something circular and fluid that will always have relevance or appeal. Advertising shouldn't even have the possibility to get stale.

This possibility is taken away, the article later explains, when objectives are in line.

To keep ads from a former campaign alive, “the messaging has to be consistent with your overall brand identity,” Mr. Castellini said, and Monk-e-mail fits that bill because it suggests to people with each e-mail message they send that “CareerBuilder is the destination to find your next best opportunity.”

If your priorities are straight when you advertise, if your creative thinking caps are on and you have a direct objective, you're more likely to be successful in your campaign.

+ 008 - 04.06.10 - NEWS

IN RESPONSE TO: BRANDING DEALS COME EARLY IN FILMMAKING PROCESS

Product placement is something that I've come to accept and almost tune out when it comes to films because it's become so commonplace; a Coke can in a characters hand, Nissan sponsoring a television series, it's all something that audiences have begun to acknowledge and see as normal. I think what audiences are also becoming aware of is the fact that such a thing is mandatory to make a film these days. Stephanie Clifford, author of the article writes that "... having Campbell’s Soup or Chrysler associated with your project can be nearly as important to your pitch as signing Tom Cruise."


Clifford is correct. Celebrities and product placement both bring in much-needed funding to an industry that is not ultimately affordable in terms of professional production. An example of this can be found in 2009's Up in the Air.

In the 2009 film “Up in the Air,” Jason Reitman, the writer and director, wanted a real hotel brand for his frequent-flying character.

As a Hilton HHonors Diamond V.I.P. member himself, Mr. Reitman urged the studio to make a deal with Hilton, which offered free lodging for the crew, sets and promotions of the film on everything from key cards to in-room televisions to toll-free hold messages. Hilton worked with the production company to make sure everything from staff uniforms to hotel shuttles was portrayed correctly.

Deals like that mean lower-budget movies like “Up in the Air” can be made. They also mean movie viewers are increasingly paying to see more elaborately constructed advertising.

The article goes on to talk about debates about infringing on creativity. Product placement limits direction, for example, a deal with Dodge may result in only Dodge RAM trucks being used in a film. But what if the character isn't a 'Dodge RAM' type of person? Does that take away from the creative cinematic experience?


I say yes.



I think in some respects, entire product sponsorship of a film project limits what the writers and designers are capable of. To be able to make the film, however, may come with creative compromise. A writer/director/producer/designer shouldn't have to compromise their artistic vision because of a sponsorship, but in this economy, the most efficient thing to do would be to make the economic choice and deal with the sacrifices later.



It's an unfortunate truth, but it's something that Clifford has hit right on the head.