What Sells? Technology or Personality?

Spokescharacters on TV, mobile phone circulars and a shopping cart Kinect prototype. All competing for consumers. Which is most valuable? Which offers a lasting connection? Which will pocket the cash? These answers and more…in this week’s post. Sounds like the opening to a reality show doesn’t it? I suppose it could be if you had agencies competing, but this is my post and we’re here to talk real life examples and their positives and negatives.

1) First up, spokescharacters on TV and Spam’s ‘Sir Can-A-Lot.’ Yes, spam’s agency has rolled out a spokescharacter to celebrate 75 years and its name is ‘Sir Can-A-Lot’ http://bit.ly/zCMgjS.

The positives: Spam is meat in a can, and they’re seeking to inspire people to spice up meals by adding spam. What kind of character typically saves the day? A knight, which is exactly the character chosen. It makes sense, and so spam wins some points there. Will it attract attention? Possibly, if anything because it’s new and different.

The negatives: Cartoon characters are becoming a turnoff for adult consumers, and this is spam’s audience because they are the ones cooking for their families. Just look at all the backlash about recent car insurance ad characters in a recent car insurance commercial. Cartoon characters? Not the best motivator for these consumers.

The verdict? Least likely of the three to rake in the best results. Sir Can-A-Lot doesn’t immediately make you think of spam, and isn’t likely to motivate consumers to buy it popping out of an egg carton. What spam should be doing? Some type of contest featuring recipes with spam and online voting via their social media site for the most creative one and best tasting one. 

2) Whole Foods’ Kinect shopping cart prototype. Whole Foods is testing the Kinect technology on shopping carts as a way to ease the shopping process http://bit.ly/y9KrbD. The technology identifies loyalty card shoppers, scans each item placed in the cart and checks out customers.

The positives: This could be a platform for advertisers, as their ads could be featured on the screen as customers shop. It would be the most profitable for stores and could even be called The Smart Cart. The convenience factor is another plus, as it even crosses items off your shopping list, essentially managing the whole shopping process for you.

The negatives: As it currently stands, this concept is quite futuristic and threatens jobs, which is not likely to make a big splash anytime soon. Also, as it doesn’t currently feature ads, it’s missing an opportunity to stand out.

The verdict? More likely to attract shoppers than Sir Can-A-Lot but a little too futuristic to be relevant in today’s economy. Also, without ads it’s missing a crucial selling point.

3) Mobile phone circulars a la Walgreens. Walgreens has partnered with LocalResponse to make the mobile check-in experience more like a circular http://bit.ly/AiWxPt. When customers check-in they are pointed to special products and given coupon incentives.

The positives: This idea has a lot of potential. First, companies who implement it can emphasize their efforts to go green. Getting customers into digital circulars would reduce or eliminate paper ones, saving paper and boosting their position. This idea also involves more direct interaction with consumers at point of purchase. The closer to point of purchase the better the outcome.

The negatives: Lack of targeting. The article mentions Walgreens’ partnership with Halls and how check-ins direct customers to Halls in-store. However, that’s not always what consumers have come for or need. The other offer mentioned is a coupon for batteries, which is generic enough that its widespread use isn’t a stretch. Still, no excuse for not targeting via customer history. Pointing you to common items you buy that are on sale or offering up a coupon for the same? Now we’re talking.

The verdict? Certainly more effective than Sir Can-A-Lot. However, this concept still needs some work. It’s the closest of the three because of its use of mobile and mobile being the go-to shopping device.

The overall verdict? Out of the three, Walgreens wins. When it comes down to technology versus personality, especially with these three examples, technology has the edge. Personality may draw people in but the interactive and convenience qualities of technology make it more accessible and effective.

Developing Retail App-titude

There is a distinct threat to ‘brick and mortar’ retail these days, and it can be summed up in one word: mobile. Companies like Amazon have apps that let consumers scan a barcode with the option to purchase the item on the spot. More of these apps are coming, but this threat can become an opportunity if retailers develop their retail app-titude. Yes, I made up a new word. It seems quite relevant though considering the topic of this post. How does that one saying go? Fight fire with fire? What I am trying to say is that it is time for retailers to fight apps with apps of their own.

Why is this important?

1) The Facts and Just The Facts: Pew Internet and American Life Project came out with a study that shows 52% of adult mobile phone users use their phone to help make purchase decisions. The ScanLife Mobile Barcode Trend Report, tracking mobile scans of UPC and 2D barcodes, reported nearly 12 million scans last quarter and a 300% increase from the previous year.

2)If Not You Than Someone Else Will: MediaPost’s Chuck Martin discusses how ShopSavvy Wallet, like Amazon, also offers one-tap buying http://bit.ly/AC7pzn. After an item is scanned, the app lets consumers compare prices and one-tap purchase from the retailer with the best price. The moral of this story is that retailers need to offer their own app to maintain consumers’ attention and money. If you can’t capture their attention then someone else will.

How do you capture their attention?

According to Mark Walsh, many retailers have weak apps because they’re not focused on making them shop-centric http://bit.ly/w9GNCs. Examples of companies with weak apps are Abercrombie and Fitch and Longhorn Steakhouse. Instead of focusing their efforts on informing and connecting, they go the flashy route with 3D graphics and motion-based effects. Walsh clearly states that retailers need to choose whether to enrich or engage consumers. With this there are four types of apps to choose from that enrich or engage.

1) Informational: These apps enrich by providing consumers with information on retail outlets, high-level and non-product-specific information. Examples include Century 21, Hilton Hotels and Toyota.

2) Buy/Ship: These apps allow consumers to look up items and purchases for later offline home delivery. Examples of these include: Amazon, Wine.com and Zappos.

3) Multichannel Lite: Designed to assist in-store shoppers, but not in the same way as multichannel heavy apps. Multichannel lite is focused on providing product information and solving consumer problems like in-store wait time. Examples of these are Starbucks and Best Buy.

4) Multichannel Heavy: Also designed to assist in-store shoppers, but allows for more interaction and the option to purchase the product through the app. Examples of these are Walmart and Walgreens.

What about mobile landing pages and websites?

eMarketer cites two studies and concludes that consumers prefer each for different tasks http://bit.ly/Ag7tW8. Consumers prefer mobile for shopping, searching and accessing entertainment and prefer apps for navigating and acquiring information. However, what this article fails to mention is that the two are often intertwined. Acquiring information is part of shopping and making a purchase decision and websites and apps can both be sources of a purchase decision. Mobile landing pages are important to have, but apps are also and are more likely to both inform and engage consumers in the purchase process.

No longer is shopping a point A to point B journey. There are many other points along the way and with them come many other apps competing for shoppers’ attention. If retailers do not develop their retail app-titude and make it the strongest than another will and will take their customers along with it. Ask yourself what the status of your retail app-titude is and what kind of app you wish to develop, because that is what will make the difference. Successfully fight fire with fire, and you win.

Social Engagement vs. Rewards Engagement

Last weekend’s Grammys brought increased ratings. Sure one reason was Whitney Houston’s death, but another was the result of live tweeting. Advertisers and networks alike have worked to draw viewers back in, and negate the effects of DVR, by encouraging and rewarding those who tune in live and engage with other content and viewers at the same time. During the Grammys, CBS, Shazaam and Yahoo’s IntoNow were engaging viewers alongside Twitter http://bit.ly/zUcjc5. CBS had its own app with backstage and pre-Grammy content, which featured prominent sponsor Target and generated music sales for them. With Shazaam an audio snippet opened up content that complemented every step of the show, including iTunes links to each performance’s download. Yahoo’s IntoNow featured discussion boards, tapped into Twitter, and focused on polls about viewer’s opinions of fashion and show content. All of these, an easy enough thing to be involved with during a live show with running commentary that’s not crucial to following the show and its key elements. Perhaps that’s why MediaPost’s Steve Smith points out that during a drama or comedy, where plot and dialogue are important, he’s more likely to stay tuned in and not engage on the side http://bit.ly/zu8sP2. He goes on to discuss how live-tweeting works for live programs but fails to capture an accurate picture of viewership and engagement with any other type of program. Some may say that is where rewards come in handy. On the flip side of social engagement is rewards engagement. Apps like Viggle reward viewers merely for watching the show. According to Daisy Whitney Viggle listens to a sample of the show and checks you into the show, earning you reward points simply for tuning into it http://bit.ly/w6jcuM. Additional points are gained from how long you watch, watching video ads, playing games and taking polls.

These points are redeemable for rewards, much like credit card purchases, as Viggle has paired itself with sponsors like Burger King, Fandango and Amazon among others. The recipient can either take the reward offer from the company or turn it into a charitable donation. While this seems like a more profitable way to measure engagement, it has its weaknesses too. There are not rewards for how often you tune in to a certain show, nor does it necessarily boost one show over another. In fact, neither of them measure any sort of continuity and can not physically see if you are really tuning in or just following along after catching a small bit of the show. Out of the two, social engagement is more likely to boost engagement because of the nature of the shows where it shines. Viewers are also more likely to tune in again if they make connections with other viewers. However it fails to work with other forms of programming. Rewards engagement sounds good in the short-term and seems to be able to sense how many people are tuning into a particular show. Yet its focus is too broad and fails to focus on retaining individuals. The engagement is a shallow one, i.e. watch a program and we’ll give you stuff, and so rewards engagement comes off sounding like a bribe. People do not watch to engage with the show or other viewers, they watch to get deals. They may watch one show one day, and another the next. It does not create long-term fans or necessarily long-term brand followers for that matter. It is hard to tell if viewers are tuning in for any particular reward or merely based on the fact that there are free rewards (brands being secondary to that premise). Perhaps some combination of the two or a more focused version of one would be more adept at gauging viewers and their engagement, perhaps not. The fact remains that different content and side content catches people’s eye and stations and advertisers still have a long ways to go in pinpointing that.

Best and Worst Ads of Super Bowl XLVI

Alright, I’ve made you wait long enough. As promised, here is my second annual review of the top two best and worst Super Bowl ads. As always there were some spectacular gems and others that made you wonder “what the hell were they thinking?” but I digress. There were some 30 second ads and, like I discussed in my last entry, a handful of 60 second ads. For the latter, that includes the Jerry Seinfeld Acura NSX ad, the Audi S7′s vampire ad, two for Budweiser and one for Bud Light, a few Coca Cola ones featuring polar bears, three Chevy ones, Honda’s Ferris Bueller one, Kia Optima and Pepsi. My criteria for what makes a great Super Bowl ad is the same as it was last year: An advertiser needs to get to the heart of the message and get the main point across. A consumer should be able to sum that point up by the end of the commercial and in discussing it there should be a consensus as to what it is about. With that said, here is round two of my Super Bowl ad analysis version 2012.

Top Two Worst Ads:

1) The worst ad of Super Bowl XLVI goes to…that’s right…GoDaddy.com. Again, like I said last year, I get their style but their ads are awful. This year’s low brow tatoo ad entry can only be summed up in two words: sex appeal. Their premise is to draw in male viewers by featuring beautiful women, and drive them to their website to register for a .co domain. However, the .co premise is buried beneath the sex appeal aspect of the ad. In all honesty, it’s also the same secondary premise as last year. I had to look back at last year’s ad to realize they were still focusing on the .co domain name concept this year. I think that alone sums it up. What do you remember from a GoDaddy.com ad? Not the .co premise.

2) The second worst Super Bowl XLVI ad goes to the E*Trade Baby delivery room ad. The E*Trade baby reassures a new dad about providing for his new daughter. What’s wrong with this picture? First, he’s a baby in a delivery room. Not exactly an original concept. Secondly, it’s very predictable. Lastly, it’s missing the usual humor of former E*Trade baby commercials. I think E*Trade needs to rethink its approach.

Top Two Best Ads:

2) Did you really think I was going to start with the best ad? Not a chance. The second best Super Bowl XLVI ad goes to Bud Light, which cleverly uses the repetition of a rescue dog’s name to help consumers remember its slogan “Here We Go.” When I first heard their slogan in other contexts it didn’t make sense to me or appeal to me. This time it had appeal and charm to spare. Basically, a rescue dog named Weego fetches beers whenever anyone calls him over by saying “Here Weego.” Clever, effective, and two-fold. In addition they tie in helping rescue dogs as a cause marketing angle by showcasing a Facebook link at the end. Bravo.

1) Ok, the moment you’ve all been waiting for, Super Bowl XLVI’s best ad is…the Honda CR-V Ferris Beuller ad with Matthew Broderick as himself in the style of his Ferris Bueller character. He calls in sick, goes on a bunch of adventures and ends the ad the same way he ends the movie. What’s not to like? In the movie they got to take Cameron’s dad’s car for a spin. Here it’s the same story, different car. The car is showcased, and a popular movie is brought back into the spotlight. My only question is why someone didn’t think of this sooner?

Well there you have it, my picks for top two best and worst ads of Super Bowl XLVI or Super Bowl 2012, whichever you prefer. Some left us annoyed, others had us laughing for hours. I hope you enjoyed my review and I hope to see you back here next year for another one.

Longer Super Bowl Ads, Epic Storytelling

We’re exactly 2 days away from one of my favorite events of the year, that’s right, the Super Bowl. Although I like football more than I used to now, I still watch primarily for the ads. Super Bowl 2012 looks to be another year full of memorable ads, but perhaps the most interesting aspect is the return of the long-form ad and a return to epic storytelling. I say this because storytelling is woven into American culture, woven into the fabric of advertising, and ads longer than 30 seconds boast superior storytelling. Randall Rothenberg and Mike Hughes point out that “If you’re in the media business, marketing business, or agency business, you’re in the business of storytelling” http://bit.ly/yvdKyT. They go on to talk about how “storytelling is central to building, maintaining, and strengthening the bonds between consumers and brands.” When I was in college, part of my Persuasion class focused on the American Dream myths and how they play a part in advertising. Likewise, Rothenberg and Hughes emphasize the effect creation myths have on company culture. These types of stories serve as something people can identify with and bond people to the brand. There’s no denying it, storytelling is an important part of advertising. Traditionally, Superbowl commercials are 30 seconds long and messages are condensed. In condensing messages the effect of storytelling is condensed and often requires other mediums (web, print, social media) to extend and build upon the initial offering. The rise of diverse mediums in advertising seems to be a direct effect of shorter advertising spots. It would be interesting to see what the effect of long-form commercials would be on diverse mediums. We might just have that chance, as it seems that this year’s offerings are trending towards an increase in longer ad spots. According to Brian Steinberg as of January 3rd, “a handful of sponsors for Super Bowl XLVI have bought time for commercials longer than the standard 30 seconds” http://bit.ly/ythGKX. This includes Volkswagen, which looks to top its infamous Darth Vader offering from 2011′s Super Bowl.

While longer ad spots are not new to the Super Bowl they have been rare in recent years. In 2011, we had Chrysler’s homage to its Detroit roots in a 2 minute ad spot and EDS, now part of Hewlett-Packard, had a 60 second western parody ad in 2000. In addition to trending in the Super Bowl, long-form ads are trending outside of the Super Bowl too. KitchenAid’s 60 second food processor ad led Ace Metrix’s top TV ads for 2011 with a score of 699 due to its innovation and storytelling http://bit.ly/ytzAy4. Ace Score measures ads’ creative effectiveness from the responses of a representative sample of the American TV audience. Final scores are based off of attributes such as likeability, attention, watchability, persuasion, relevance and information. All of these attributes, plus innovation and storytelling, are much more easily attainable in a long-form commercial. With more time comes the chance to develop the storyline more and draw consumers much closer to the POS (point of sale for those of you who don’t know). It’s not that this can’t be done in a 30 second spot, it’s just that it’s a lot easier and more effective in this format. Added to that is the fact that longer ads stand out because they’re rare. It seems to be that things can only go so far in one direction before the scale is tipped and they go back the other way. Case in point, McDonald’s used to emphasize the supersize and now it has gone the other direction and we have Chicken McBites. In a similar fashion ad spots have gotten shorter and shorter, but now it looks like we may be headed back to longer commercials. It will be interesting to see how many of this year’s Super Bowl commercials are longer than 30 seconds, and what effect they have compared to their shorter counterparts. Until early this season Monday Night Football used to open with Hank Williams Jr.’s Are You Ready For Some Football? song. Given that this year’s matchup is one that we’ve seen fairly recently, I think it’s safe to say that people are more so ready for some commercials. Enjoy, and be sure to check back next week when I name my top two best and worst commercials from this year’s Super Bowl.