Have you heard of Adzookie? Unless you’re really into small-market mobile advertising start-ups, you shouldn’t have. Well friends, prepare yourselves to be introduced to the proud owners of one of the most ineffective and polarizing advertising campaigns in recent memory; which, in turn, is also one of the most creative and brilliant public relations campaigns.
Adzookie offers a fairly standard smartphone advertising platform geared towards small businesses,and by taking a look at their website I would say “fairly standard” is just about as accurate of a description of the company you can get.
In late March Adzookie launched their “Paint My House” campaign. The deal works as such: Adzookie will come to your house and repaint every side as a large advertisement for their company (see picture above, which would have caused Grant Wood to stab himself in the eyes with his pitchfork). For as long as the house remains painted, Adzookie will pay your mortgage. Mad Men-style genius? Not quite.
First, let’s examine the rarely-used “house as a billboard” advertising strategy in order to determine its effectiveness. In conclusion, it’s horrible. As an example we’ll take the house pictured above. By its appearance it looks like it is located in suburbia, Anytown-USA; not dissimilar to the area in which I grew up. On an average weekday I would estimate that about 25 different cars drive by that house, and about 80% of them belong to other people that live in the neighborhood. Mathematically that leaves five new people driving by the billboard each day. This number becomes even less when you take into consideration repeat visitors to the road such as friends, nannies, and these guys. Dismissing the increased traffic due to locals who “always knew the Johnsons would do something like this,” what are the chances that you are going to get a person who is driving down that road, who also happens to be a marketing executive, who also happens to be looking for a new mobile advertising platform? That’s a risky ROI when the average American mortgage payment is almost $1,700/month.
Now let’s examine the public relations impact this campaign had on Adzookie. The out of left field nature of the Orange, CA-based company’s plan immediately gained national coverage in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal, CNN, NBC, TIME, and Forbes. CEO Romeo Mendoza had crafted his message perfectly: He and his company were recession-era saviors of those most in need. Oh, and they just happen to also run a mobile advertising company. “We hit a nerve,” he’s quoted as saying in The Wall Street Journal article. “I knew people needed help, but I didn’t know so many. That’s kind of sad. We can’t help everyone, but we can help some.” For most of early-April, Adzookie was the most recognized mobile advertising platform in the country. I, as many others, took the time to write about this once-unknown company. Exposure has gone through the roof (which Adzookie doesn’t really care about because they don’t paint your roof).
What will be the result of “Paint My House” on Adzookie’s bottom line? It’s too early to say. They have obviously not gained enough funds to improve their website, and behemoths Google and Apple currently dominate the mobile advertising landscape. However I doubt that you will soon forget about Adzookie, the mobile advertising company that dared to dominate your landscape.
Last Sunday during the broadcast of the Academy Awards I couldn’t help but notice several commercials for the group buying service, LivingSocial. I found this interesting as Groupon, one of LivingSocial’s largest competitors, put major ad spent behind a series of Super Bowl commercials that wound up offending viewers and arguably damaging the brand’s reputation (you can read RaceTalk’s commentary here). I would have thought, given this blunder, LivingSocial and other group buying services would shy away from television advertising and focus on other mediums.
I was also intrigued that LivingSocial decided to advertise during the Oscars, a broadcast targeted almost exclusively to women. Does LivingSocial see their core demographic as mostly female?
In addition to the Oscars advertising, LivingSocial launched a deal yesterday for discounted movie tickets via Fandango. PC Mag reported that by 3:30pm the site had sold 609,000 Fandango offers. The deal was so successful, LivingSocial has extended it through the end of the day today.
PC Mag also reported that LivingSocial currently holds the record for the biggest online coupon deal with their Amazon.com offer, which sold 1,378,938 vouchers.
This is the week LivingSocial decided to put their stake in the group buying ground, and they are camped out right in front of one of America’s favorite places: the movie theater.
Are these kinds of ads and offers enough to inch them ahead of Groupon? What do you think?
Last night Groupon aired three commercials (see below) during the Super Bowl, and quickly managed to offend viewers everywhere. While the majority of the outrage was focused on the Tibet ad, all three commercials could easily be deemed offensive by certain groups of people.
Quite simply, the commercials were done in poor taste. But what’s more upsetting is that Groupon is better than that, and they didn’t need to go this route. Let’s look at the facts:
Groupon turned down a $6 billion acquisition offer from Google.
So why, must a company with so much success in their young history, risk offending their customers through these commercials? To me, a company like Groupon – tech-savvy and innovative – should have had the best commercials. But these ads weren’t funny, and the only talk they generated was negative.
With LivingSocial on their heals and putting up a big fight (partially thanks to Amazon’s investment), Groupon needs to focus on keeping their customer base happy and growing. Last night was a step in the wrong direction.
This morning during my commute I was listening to @MattyShow (Kiss 108′s morning show, Matty in the Morning) and DJ Matt Siegel was asking his staff why all of these businesses are paying big bucks for Super Bowl ads and giving it all away the week before the broadcast?
Siegel makes a great point. Why are all of these corporate giants paying millions of dollars for a 30 or 60 second spot and not waiting for a big reveal during the game? Not only are they not waiting, they are actively promoting their commericals now, the week before.
This pre-game promotion was confirmed to me this morning when I saw an article in my Twitter feed from Elaine Wong at Forbes called “The Super Bowl Ads You Can’t Miss.” Really? Two full days in advance?
“For decades, most Super Bowl advertisers followed a simple rule: Keep commercials under wraps until the moment they go on the air. But social media like Faceboo, Twitter and YouTube have ushered in a new era, and marketers are doing what was once unthinkable. In addition to offering sneak peeks of their spots and revealing contents of the commercials, many, like the vacation rental company HomeAway, are going the full Monty and sharing the entire ads in advance.”
I was discussing this with my RaceTalk colleague, Ben Haber, who echoed Elliot’s analysis, “You aren’t paying millions for the air time during the game. You’re paying millions to drive people to your social media channels and engage with your brand.”
Personally, I have always liked the mystery of having to wait until the game to see the commercials that score these highly coveted spots. While I understand wanting to maximize the investment and heighten the curiosity, I find it disappointing that these companies aren’t honoring the sanctity of the Super Bowl element of surprise.
What do you think? If you worked for a company who paid for a Super Bowl ad would you reveal and market it before the game?
The following is a guest post by RJ Bardsley, a SVP based in Racepoint’s SF office. If you like this post, check him out on Twitter (@rjbardsley) and his blog, BrandFiller.
By now you’ve all read that Steve Jobs is taking an indefinite leave of absence from his post as CEO of Apple. The news was hard to hear – for both technology enthusiasts and the financial community. Many are questioning Apple’s ability to innovate in the absence of Jobs. After all, it was Jobs who stepped in and not only rescued the company from the brink of extinction, but propelled it to greatness with game-changing products like the iPod and the iPhone.
It is fascinating to me that so much of this company’s image and respect hinges on one man’s name. Jobs is brilliant, but there are two reasons that I think Apple will continue to innovate.
First, there is and always has been a team behind Jobs. He is brilliant, but he has not been brilliant alone or in a vacuum. Success breeds success and while I am not deeply familiar with the personalities behind the Apple brand, I am sure there is a cadre of great minds already working on the next innovations in consumer electronics.
Second, Jobs built a culture of “design comes first” within Apple. This culture has set Apple apart from many of its competitors in the consumer electronics market. While Creative, RCA and others had MP3 players on the market as the Napster age swept the country in the late 1990s, Apple was the first to come to market with a sleek design for all three elements of consuming digital music: hardware, software and a commerce model. A corporate culture is bigger than one person – even the founder. It’s not impossible to dismantle that culture, but in my opinion it is unlikely to happen. Continue to expect beautiful things from Apple: they will probably deliver.
One other thing to consider with regards to Apple: over the last decade or so they have not been outside of the mainstream of ideas in consumer tech – they have just executed better. What I mean by that is they didn’t invent the digital music player with the iPod; they didn’t invent the idea of a lush mobile user interface with the iPhone; they didn’t invent the idea of a tablet computing device with the iPad; they just figured out how to deliver the most elegant products.
All that said, let’s hope Jobs is back at work and healthy in the near future.
The internet has been a buzz the last few days with the news of Starbucks’ logo change. Other than the fact that most people have a hard time accepting change in general, what is all the fuss about?
I’ll tell you. It takes brands years to establish strong, passionate brand awareness and loyalty. Starbucks has one of the most recognizable logos, a status that many other companies aspire to. It feels like a slap in the face to those aspirational companies to watch Starbucks just flip a switch and say, “We’re more than coffee, so we’re taking the company name off our logo. Done deal.” After all the hard work to establish Starbucks as the premium coffee experience, why change it? Or as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
In a Financial Times article, Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ chairman and chief executive officer, said: “We’ve allowed [the siren] to come out of the circle in a way that gives us the freedom and flexibility to think beyond coffee.”
The Financial Times article goes on to say, “The other advantage of a word-free logo is that is translates more easily across digital media and overseas. Starbucks, like many companies, is now targeting a global audience with a wide range of written languages.”
Now that makes sense. Why not lead with, “We’re removing the company name to make our logo universal across the globe.” That statement seems to be buried in all the media coverage.
In a Technorati post yesterday, Paul Kiser commented, “The controversy will serve to create free publicity resulting in increased revenue.” A bizarrely true observation.
What do you think? Does the Starbucks logo change align with their corporate goals to be more than just coffee and take their experience seamlessly across the globe?
Back in March 2008 we wrote about how SunChips was taking steps to make it’s production process more environmentally friendly. Well, today SunChips’ priorities are changing, as noise pollution is apparently a larger issue then actual pollution.
Apparently, SunChips has received complaints that their chip bags make too much noise when people opened them, and the company has decided to switch bags from a “green” version to a new one, which will sit in the earth for a very long time. While it’s great they are listening to their customers, it’s shocking that SunChips would actually switch to a bag that’s worse for the earth, rather then finding another alternative.
If you haven’t used or heard about Zappos, it’s all about the customer experience and their fabulous customer service. How Zappos achieves this is through hiring people who fit with their culture and by committing to a set of core values that are more than just a poster on a wall.
The 10 core values Hsieh discussed were:
Deliver WOW through Service
Embrace and Drive Change
Create Fun and a Little Weirdness
Be an Adventurous Creature and Open-Minded
Pursue Growth & Learning
Build Open and Honest Relationships with Communication
Build a Positive Team and Family Spirit
Do More with Less
Be Passionate and Determined
Be Humble
Hsieh is passionate about the linkage between culture and brand. He said, “Your culture is your brand.” You have to hire and fire people according to your core values.
Also, Hsieh believes that companies will be truly successful when their vision inspires, not just motivates, people. The Vision should have a higher purpose than just making money.
Social media is just another tool for fostering communications. Hsieh uses email, all-hands meetings and 5-week new hire training period to build the culture.
All in all, Hsieh made some excellent points about the importance of building a customer-oriented, service-oriented culture. To read more about the event and Hsieh’s take on company culture, customer service and brand building, you can view tweets posted under the hashtag #amabzap.
Back in April I wrote about Jeff Pulver’s 140 Character Conference that was taking place in New York City. I praised the conference and its attendees for providing advice on social media best practices live from the event. The live tweeting was so impressive I felt like I was there in the auditorium.
Yesterday, I actually was in the auditorium as Pulver brought his traveling conference to Boston for the first time. The conference began at 9:00 am and went until 6:00 pm with over 61 speakers on the roster. Each group that took the stage had 10 minutes to share how Twitter and/or the real-time web have impacted their goals professionally and personally. Below, a few highlights from the day:
Jeff Pulver, @jeffpulver – Check out Pulver’s opening remarks to kick off the day:
John Daley, @Boston_Police – Daley, deputy superintendent for the Boston Police, shared that the department is using Twitter to broadcast vital, public safety information to the city of Boston and their broader Twitter followers. The police see Twitter as an effective way to disseminate critical information in real-time. Daley also noted that citizens have begun reporting crimes to the police via Twitter. They tweet updates and photos, typically of crimes they consider “too small” to dial 911. Who knew!
C.C. Chapman, @cc_chapman – C.C. is on a mission. A mission to give dads who blog as much power and recognition as the infamous “mommy bloggers.” During what was by far the most animated speech of the day, C.C. shared his personal quest to force consumer brands to recognize fathers as a key sales demographic. Marketers, pay attention. The dads have wallets too.
Patrick Larkin, @bhsprincipal – Larkin is the principal of Burlington High School where he is trying to bring the school into the digital revolution. In addition to teaching a Web 2.0 class to his students, Larkin is working to educate families on the importance of digital education for students. During his panel, Larkin said, “We need to teach our children to use social media. Without that, the diploma doesn’t mean much.”
Amanda Palmer, @amandapalmer – Palmer, best known as part of the musical group the Dresden Dolls, shared with the audience that, “I was able to ditch my management and my record label to launch an album all via the internet.” She went on to say how her Twitter followers have been incredibly supportive and a resource she didn’t realize would be so critical. She said, “Life is becoming easier, faster and cheaper as we harness the power of social media.” Rock on, Amanda!
Georgy Cohen, @radiofreegeorgy – Cohen is the managing editor of web communications for Tufts University and has one of the best understandings of the power of social media that I have encountered. Not only does she see the value in active social media platforms for the university, but she is consistently engaging with students, staff and alumni to build meaningful relationships. Cohen hit the nail on the head when she said, “We have to be in the ‘now’ because our brands already are, whether we are or not.” I was also impressed by Cohen’s decision to harness the strength of content creation and launch a Tufts website called Jumble (their mascot is the Jumbo) to aggregate all of the best content created by students, staff and alumni. For colleges and university seeking social media best practices, look no further than Tufts.
Chris Brogan, @chrisbrogan – Brogan, a high profile social media player, author and the president of New Marketing Labs, spoke to the group about Twitter and other web applications simply serving as a platform for larger goals. In one of the best quotes of the day he quipped, “No one ever asked Hemmingway what kind of pencil he wrote with. Don’t ask me what blog platform I use! That’s not the point.” View Brogan’s entire talk here:
For more information on the speakers at the Boston 140 Characters Conference, check out my live updates @MollyGaller on Twitter or the #140conf hashtag.
At the close of the event, Pulver said, “This conference is not a tech event, it’s a life event.” Thank you, Jeff Pulver, for a superb day that reminds us all that the next big thing could be just a tweet away.
This is a guest post by Gemma Griffiths, Client Director, Racepoint Group London
There has been lots of talk this summer about the death of Advertising Equivalent (AVE), much of which has been spurred on by the European summit on measurement and the release of the hotly debated ‘Barcelona Principles’. For those of you who are not familiar with these principles, and where they have come from, allow me to do a quick recap of this summer’s event and outcome.
In June this year, leaders of global professional measurement and evaluation bodies – AMEC, Global Alliance, IPR Measurement Commission, PRSA and ICCO – and over 190 of the top PR measurement experts got together in the sunny city of Barcelona to finally bury AVE and discuss potential new ways of measuring the impact of PR.
Following the summit the Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles was released:
Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programme
Measuring the effect on outcomes is preferred to measuring outputs
The effect on business results can and should be measured where possible
Media measurement requires quality and quantity
AVEs are not the value of PR
Social media can and should be measured
Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.
It is worth noting that these principles are very broad and apply to measurement, which includes social media measurement.
Critics say that these principles are vague and don’t add much to the debate. I’d agree, but also add that Rome wasn’t built in a day. These principles look like a good foundation and it appears that there are a few experts and organisations committed to the cause and keen to drive this forward – AMEC’s Executive Director Barry Leggetter and Katie Delahaye Paine of KD Paine & Partners are two that spring to mind.
To hear more from these experts, check out an interview with Barry Leggetter and Katie Delahaye Paine on Jay O’Connor’s CIPR blog post. Jay is the President of the CIPR – the professional body for PR in the UK – and former European MD of Racepoint.
More thoughts / updates on measurement and the principles to come soon.
