For the other one, and the credits, go here.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Proving a Thesis
Thesis: Paris Hilton has the same smile for every picture ever taken.
The Proof. (turn your speakers down)
Also:best use of a Steve Winwood song on the web.
Also: Thanks to Jetpacks for pointing me to T.A. Negro who in turn pointed me to: YTMND. Genius.
The Proof. (turn your speakers down)
Also:best use of a Steve Winwood song on the web.
Also: Thanks to Jetpacks for pointing me to T.A. Negro who in turn pointed me to: YTMND. Genius.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Great
Adweek recently published a great article.
Webster's defines great as 1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions and 6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding
I don't know about outstanding, but I'll give it big. And remarkable.
Basically, it breaks down some market research on the current crop of presidential hopefuls. Comparing them to things like Lexuses, Olive Gardens and - my favorite: cast members of Gilligans Island. It's interesting reading for me, a man who generates plenty of pithy ponderings on an endless array of crap that may or may not have any significance on your day. But of course, the next president may very well have some significance. I'm kind of pissed off that I didn't put one of these together myself a lot sooner. The market research (JWT actually did some sort of official research on this subject. Slow summer, fellas?) offers few surprises. People think Hilary is an out-of-touch windbag, like Mrs. Howell.
But it brings up a funny thing about advertising. The term "brand" is so elusive and squishy, most agencies find it hard to define a brand without using other brands.
"If Senator Clinton was a bourbon, which bourbon would she be? Would you drink it? Would you be seen ordering it?" I find defining brands with brands troubling. In addition to the circular weirdness of using hard-to-define brands to define other brands, if a brand is defined as, among other things, a collection of values mirrored by a product or company to a particular group of people, doesn't the group comparing the brands bring its own collection of values to the party? By JWT's methodology, Democrats and Republicans and Independents (and a most disturbingly undefined other/none-of-these set) "perceived [Hilary] as more Morton's Steakhouse (and to a degree Olive Garden) than Subway and McDonald's, more Nordstrom than Gap or Wal-Mart."
But do Democrats associate Olive Garden with values like "down to earth" and "bland, but affordable"? Might Republicans see it as a brand where poor people go for all-you-can-eat breadsticks. Might Independents see Olive Garden as "the man, bent on homogenizing every eating experience in this country, burying us in a glut of stripmalls and Starbuckses and shittily landscaped office-parks"? Before you ask these groups to attach a brand value to a candidate, shouldn't you know how these parties feel about those brands?
Instead, the entire article is run through the secondary filter: How advertising idiots like me feel about those brands. How self-described advertising junkies and adnerds perceive these brands in a landscape of advertising and kick-ass viral marketing tactics. People who see Walmart as an account that does a TON of shitty talking head TV - not as a corporate behemoth which ran our stores out of town and shipped all our jobs to china. Atleast not yet.
Your comments are appreciated.
Webster's defines great as 1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions and 6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding
I don't know about outstanding, but I'll give it big. And remarkable.
Basically, it breaks down some market research on the current crop of presidential hopefuls. Comparing them to things like Lexuses, Olive Gardens and - my favorite: cast members of Gilligans Island. It's interesting reading for me, a man who generates plenty of pithy ponderings on an endless array of crap that may or may not have any significance on your day. But of course, the next president may very well have some significance. I'm kind of pissed off that I didn't put one of these together myself a lot sooner. The market research (JWT actually did some sort of official research on this subject. Slow summer, fellas?) offers few surprises. People think Hilary is an out-of-touch windbag, like Mrs. Howell.
But it brings up a funny thing about advertising. The term "brand" is so elusive and squishy, most agencies find it hard to define a brand without using other brands.
"If Senator Clinton was a bourbon, which bourbon would she be? Would you drink it? Would you be seen ordering it?" I find defining brands with brands troubling. In addition to the circular weirdness of using hard-to-define brands to define other brands, if a brand is defined as, among other things, a collection of values mirrored by a product or company to a particular group of people, doesn't the group comparing the brands bring its own collection of values to the party? By JWT's methodology, Democrats and Republicans and Independents (and a most disturbingly undefined other/none-of-these set) "perceived [Hilary] as more Morton's Steakhouse (and to a degree Olive Garden) than Subway and McDonald's, more Nordstrom than Gap or Wal-Mart."
But do Democrats associate Olive Garden with values like "down to earth" and "bland, but affordable"? Might Republicans see it as a brand where poor people go for all-you-can-eat breadsticks. Might Independents see Olive Garden as "the man, bent on homogenizing every eating experience in this country, burying us in a glut of stripmalls and Starbuckses and shittily landscaped office-parks"? Before you ask these groups to attach a brand value to a candidate, shouldn't you know how these parties feel about those brands?
Instead, the entire article is run through the secondary filter: How advertising idiots like me feel about those brands. How self-described advertising junkies and adnerds perceive these brands in a landscape of advertising and kick-ass viral marketing tactics. People who see Walmart as an account that does a TON of shitty talking head TV - not as a corporate behemoth which ran our stores out of town and shipped all our jobs to china. Atleast not yet.
Your comments are appreciated.
Putting the Ho back in ho hum
I feel like Rip Van Winkle. Like I woke up and suddenly things are important that were never important before.
I guess I can see why: not since the Osbournes have Americans so quickly invited a family to spend quality TV time with them. And family this has gold all over it. A minor pop wash-up marries the most recognizable name in European sports (I'm guessing Beckham is an even bigger name than Nadal). The two are lavished with stupid money and a herd of paparazzi. Hilarity ensues. See Posh get the plumbing hooked up. See Posh getting obnoxious with the pool guy/cable guy/dog groomer/nanny. It makes for great television: a broadcast version of Stars! They're just like us!
As I continue to agonize over whether or not to start spending stupid money on cable, I see entertainment like this eclipsing network television and think: I want me MTV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
