Tag Archives: Advertising and Marketing

Full Of Beans

Our Foodie Friday Fun revolves around stupid food labeling tricks.  It’s hard to believe some of the things food marketers do.  Some are just silly; others are downright deceptive by design.

From Alphaila.com

The latter is what I want to talk about today.  You really wouldn’t think that any smart brand manager would try this stuff in a time of massive social interaction among consumers.  You’d be wrong.  In fact, a bill was introduced last year (the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2013) which seeks to change food labeling requirements as well as dealing with package labeling and allegedly misleading claims about what foods are “healthy,” “natural” or “made with whole grain.”   Now given the state of affairs in Washington, it’s not unlikely this bill will become law (oops, no politics here!).  However, the fact that the issue of deceptive packaging and marketing  is on the minds of both state and federal legislators doesn’t speak well of the industry.

Just because a package can say “No Trans Fat” if there is less than half a gram in the product doesn’t mean “no trans fat.”  If there is a half gram per serving and you eat two or three servings (as if you only eat the amount of snack foods that’s a single serving…), you’ve ingested an amount that should be identified.  “Natural” is sold as healthy when it’s can be anything but (see “high fructose corn syrup“).  Telling consumers that high-sugar products are good for them (Nutella) or how they’ll protect a kid’s immune system (Rice Krispies) is more dumb than dishonest.  But food brands aren’t the only ones.

Since it’s that diet time of year, false weight-loss claims are in vogue.  So much so that the FTC has issued Gut Check: A Reference Guide for Media on Spotting False Weight-Loss Claims, which is an update of a 2003 booklet on how media should treat weight-loss advertising.  We still saw ads for wearing sneakers that can make you skinny.  Let’s not even get started on airbrushing models.  It’s nice that someone is charged with verifying advertising claims but it does raise a very basic question.

Why would you lie?  Labeling lawsuits are skyrocketing.  Maybe in part because we live in a litigious world but maybe because it’s much easier for consumers to get information and to communicate.  Why would you feel the need to lie given those things?  Why does it take a lawsuit or governmental intervention or a social media blow-up when all that should be required to fix this is a brand manager’s common sense? Your ad may be for cereal but it often turns out the box is full of beans (as my Dad likes to say about people who are full of something else…).

Consumers are smart and getting smarter every day.  Treating them any differently is dumb, which you’re not, right?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Huh?

Ads Are Easy – Content Is Hard

For some reason many of the people with whom I spoke  yesterday had content creation on their minds.

Old AD (L1010566)

(Photo credit: Foread)

All three were former clients who wanted to understand the latest buzzword, content marketing.  As with the use of any term, I first wanted to understand what they thought the term meant.  As it turned out, they had widely differing definitions.  These ranged from what I’d call advertorial to what the industry does term “content marketing.”

My point of view is that brands have always been content creators.  Ads are content – their channel of distribution is paid media.  PR is content – it gets picked up in earned media.  Today, websites, social presences, and who knows what else by the time I’m done writing this (things DO change kind of quickly) are also content and are put out through channels brands own themselves.  I think, however, this is missing the point.

Customers want to be educated.  Sure, it’s nice to give them a laugh or a tear as many brands did during the Super Bowl, but the nature of marketing today is that ongoing conversation I’ve written about before.  Customers want smart brand representatives who can educated them and help to solve their problems when they arise.  However brands touch and audience, I think it needs to be less about the sale and a lot more about engagement.  That comes from an honest and open dialogue with the consumer, not by tricking them into reading a sales piece in the guise of a magazine article.  Posting fake reviews to enhance your brand does nothing except risk massive embarrassment when they’re discovered and sound a discordant note when real reviewers point out how the fake reviews bear no resemblance to reality.

Creating ads is relatively easy.  Everyone sees them as a brand message, a certain amount (and it’s tiny) of hyperbole is expected, and it’s clear something is being sold.  Creating content that educates and informs is much harder.  Maintaining a transparent and open social presence is as well.  That, however, is what marketing has become, at least for those brands that are in touch with their consumers.  Are you?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Thinking Aloud

Getting Engaged

Last night was the annual advertising festival known as “The Super Bowl.”

The San Francisco 49ers' Super Bowl XXIX troph...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They play a football game while the ads aren’t running although the one they played last night was not great. If you think I’m emphasizing the ads over the game or being a little too tongue in cheek some polls find up to half the viewers consider the ads their favorite part of the viewing experience.

This morning there is ample discussion of the ads and given that time in the game itself cost north of $4,000,000 for a 30-second unit, the brands running these ads try to deploy them before the game in the hopes that they’ll “go viral” to some extent.  They were successful: Super Bowl ads running on YouTube weeks before the big game were watched 66,058,625 times before this weekend. Since that’s all the ads in the aggregate, it’s only a fraction of the audience the commercials had in the game broadcast.  However, every eyeball is valuable and the digital versions can be looked at in other ways that demonstrate engagement.

According to Tubular Labs, an analytics company,  a number of the ads also generated some buzz via tweets and  Facebook shares and they compared those activities to the ads’ YouTube views to measure the total viewer engagement with the ads.  That’s where I get a little lost and here’s what I mean.

There is an AXE ad with  3.6million views.  It was shared on Facebook 50,000 times and tweeted roughly 5,900 times.  The analytics company says these social actions translate into a 1.6% engagment rate which was the highest they saw.  The lowest engagement, for a Butterfinger ad, was tiny – .03% and shares were in the hundreds.  Interesting, but it leaves out a very key measurement.

What is every one of those shares for the AXE ad went something like this:  “Kiss For Peace” is the worst ad I’ve ever seen.  Why would you waste money on this crap?  I’m never going to consider AXE again.  Engaged?  Yes.  But is that the sort of engagement we want as marketers?  What if every Butterfinger share raved about how good it the ad was and expressed a desire to eat a Butterfinger immediately?  Better?

It’s always important to measure.  It’s also important to dig a little deeper into those measurements.  I’d take smaller positive engagement over larger expressions of anger every time.  It’s not just “what is it?” but also “what of it?” as we gather data.  Make sense?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting