How the internet sometimes exposes the alarming. Or, "The best advertising commentary you have ever read. Ever"

We would like to start by saying that we wish the people we are about to comment on well, and hope they and their clients produce satisfying and successful work. However....

Do you know the trends website 'PSFK'?

It has an area in which clients can get in touch with consultants of one sort or another. Curious to see the calibre of the consultants, and always keen to see what people a bit like us have to say we found ourselves browsing their blogs. We came across an entry entitled 'The Best Advertising Commentary You Have Ever Read. Ever'. The entry introduced another bloggers site in which he reviews the shockingly bad ad below.

Here is his review. Apparently it is 'The Best Advertising Commentary You Have Ever Read. Ever'. We suggest the author of this plaudit reads another piece of advertising commentary. Any piece will do.

Two nights ago I decided I wanted to get really, really, horribly, hungover-so-bad-that-you-seriously-question-everything-you’ve-ever-done-because-it-led-you-to-this wasted. And, somehow, I failed. Couldn’t get anyone on board, somehow. Ended up watching No Country for Old Men and turning in early. So yesterday I decided I was going to get wasted no matter what and I started drinking early and my memory is spotty at best after, say, 8pm, and thank god my wife doesn’t mind watching after me (or driving).

I’ve had worser hangovers, sure. That’s not the point. The point is that on the way to the French toastery, Simone stopped into a 7-11 to buy her wobbling, whining husband some Advil. I stayed outside. I couldn’t deal with fluorescent lighting, and the cold weather felt good. While Simone was inside, I saw this:

And my mind broke. I thought I was hallucinating, or that the world had gone crazy. There are so many things wrong with this ad that your mind basically won’t let you look at it for long enough to comprehend how intrinsically wrong the ad is. It’s too big for comprehension. You just scan it, think “Hey, taquitos!” and get on with your life. I must have looked hilarious, barely able to stand, in the cold, and engrossed in a shitty taquito ad.

Lets go over it, though, because holy shit.

First of all, seriously what the fuck could Sherlock Holmes and taquitos possibly have to do with one another? There is exactly zero common ground. I promise you that there will not be a scene in the Sherlock Holmes flick where Downey turns to Jude Law and says, “Watson! Quickly! Hand me that taquito!” Maybe, maybe this would work for like coffee or something. But taquitos?

Also, the tagline. “Get a clue.” A taquito clue? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN. What should I be clued into? That taquitos cost $.99? Is that a sale price? Is it a good deal? I’ve never, as far as I can remember, bought a taquito, but I can’t imagine paying more than a dollar for one. Maybe if it was a bad pun: “Get a taqueCLUE.” Maybe then it would have some direction.

Holy god are those things filled with smegma? They are straight up coming out of darkness and are full of spoiled cottage cheese or something. They are foreboding taquitos. They are frightening, and maybe even evil. They are not meant to be consumed. And yet their name is written in wacky font, which is in such sharp contrast to the somber feeling from the rest of the poster that it makes the whole thing feel psychotic. This juxtaposition is why serial killers dressed as clowns is infinitely more frightening than serial killers not dressed as clowns.

Robert Downey Jr. is not just a smug asshole in the photo, he is apreternaturally smug asshole. This makes me question his motivation in selling me these taquitos. What is his ulterior motive? And where is the other half of Watson’s golf club?

This poster is like a zen koan. The longer you concentrate on it, the more likely you are to realize that there is no correct answer. There is no sense to be made. The flag flapping in the wind is as much my mind as my mind is a flag in the wind. There is no spoon. And standing there, sick, dehydrated, and weak-minded in the cold, drizzly, hungover morning, I came as close as I ever have to breaking through the doors of perception — and what I saw was Robert Downey Jr., looking like the supreme dickhole emperor of douche, trying to get me to eat smeggy, fried, 7-11 food. And I am afraid.

What we do agree with is that the ad is bad. But 'The Best Advertising Commentary You Have Ever Read. Ever."? It isn't, is it? It's very far from it. The ad is just amateur and everyday. It is one of many and doesn't deserve analysis.

For the same reason we won't analyse the analysis.

The web is a great thing but it makes it even easier for people to set themselves up as experts and authoritative commentators. In much the same way the advertising industry bemoans not being held in the same regard as the big strategy houses, so the marketing community bemoans not being held in the same regard as the business professions.

Analysis like the above does nothing for the reputation of any of us.

Good advertising is simple but producing good advertising is anything but simple. And it certainly deserves better analysis than you have read above.

Publisher puts new author on T.V.

We work a lot in the publishing sector and have lifted sales for a number of established authors.


However, publishing houses are rarely able to commit to our sort of work for new authors.

Although understandable, this is unfortunate, as it is the place where the potential return for our work is perhaps the greatest.

However Faber worked with us on their new author Adam Creed. To the extent they are putting him on TV. In itself a rare medium for publishing clients, let alone for a new author.

We hope they succeed.

Crowdsourcing gone wrong?

Or maybe gone right?

Crowdsourcing is a new word for an old idea, but when should it be used?

Have you come across the saga of the new Vegemite sub brand in Australia called....well we’re not sure what it’s called. And neither is anyone else, it would seem. And neither does anyone seem to know who should decide.

The story goes like this:

Kraft have launched a line extension of Vegemite containing cream cheese. Apparently the original Vegemite was named by the public in a competition judged by Fred Walker’s daughter. (Fred was the founder of the business.) This was in 1923, showing crowdsourcing to be a very old idea.

So there was a clear rationale for asking the public to choose the name of the new line extension: it went back to the roots of the brand, which is of course a national institution in Australia, and asking the nation their view about a brand that is as much theirs as it is Kraft’s made a lot of sense.

It is of note that the invitation to come up with names and then vote for the winner all took place online. This of course reaches a particular type of consumer in a particular frame of mind. 

48,000 people responded. We can’t work out whether that is a lot or a little. 

The name chosen was ‘iSnack 2.0’. On the face of it, an entirely inappropriate name for a yeast based cream cheese spread. But is it really inappropriate? Google isn’t an appropriate name for a search engine but it doesn’t stop it entering the dictionary and the world is full of irrational brand names or names that in themselves mean nothing (‘HP’ sauce?).  ‘iSnack 2.0’ implies it’s a modern variant and the second variant, so could it be OK, even if it lacks any of the brands heritage. The obvious derivation from Apple sub brands is a bit disappointing, but no more disappointing than many marketing moves. 

Now comes the twist. The product was launched and consumers, who remember chose the name,  have said they don’t like it. And so it is going to be renamed. The new name is going to be chosen....by consumers again. They are going to choose from some of the less popular ideas from last time!

On the face it this is a shambles. Responsibility for the brand has been handed over to the consumer to far too great a degree and a mess has occurred. And what if people complain about the new, new name? Will it change again?

But maybe things aren’t so bad. Kraft applied a contemporary technique, crowdsourcing, to a brand that was relevant by virtue of it’s original naming process. What seemed to go wrong was that the consumer was allowed to decide with absolute freedom, not simply to express an opinion, or to decide with some constraints. 

Names can be imbued with meaning and the most unlikely names can succeed. (To Google again. It’s easy to forget that when it launched only a few years ago it’s name was laughed at. No one’s laughing now.) But ‘iSnack 2.0’ isn’t just meaningless. It is misleading and irrelevant and that’s where it fails. It started from the wrong place:  from a consumer mindset that was engaged with the web, not with the brand, the product, the consumer, or the occasion.

To Kraft’s credit they haven’t just changed the name themselves. They have stuck with their original (1923) approach of crowdsourcing but have learnt from their recent experience. This time the consumer is being asked to choose from a shortlist of eminently sensible names, even if some of them are a bit dull. But better that than daft, and they’ll probably lose anyway. Because the names are safe consumers won’t reject them like last time. At worst they’ll be a bit underwhelmed, although we like one of the options a lot.

We admire Kraft for what they’ve done, they’ve applied a new approach to an appropriate brand and they haven’t run away when things have gone a bit awry.

But there do seem to be some lessons:

1: By all means embrace the consumer and let them participate in your brand but don’t  forget who’s responsible for managing it. It’s not the consumer.

2: We like the web. You wouldn’t be able to read this if we didn’t. And we like a lot of the changes it has brought, and continues to bring. But the moral of this story is make sure you use it appropriately. 

3: In an age of change, of new methods and of new relationships with consumers, common sense remains as valuable as it ever was.  

If you would like to vote for the new name, go here.  

http://www.vegemite.com.au/vegemite/page?PagecRef=758

Do it quickly. Voting closes on Oct 5.

Our Culture Panel starts today

Most of Britain’s leading museums, galleries and arts venues are participating. It will quickly and cheaply allow organisations to track consumers attitudes and behaviours towards the sector over time and also get answers to topical questions in a matter of days. One or two organisations have used it prior to going fully live. One venue was concerned about poor attendance for an exhibition. We established why within 48 hours of being asked to investigate.

If you would like to find out more about our panels, click here    

We are back from social networking in Malaga

We are just back from presenting at the Digital Social Networking conference in Malaga. Lots of organisations have leapt onto the social networking bandwagon. Lots of consumers disapprove of their efforts. We have done a significant piece of research into consumers views of organisations social networking offerings and are working with a number of organisations on developing social networking strategies. 

If you would like to find out about what we found in our research, click here.

Work aside, the conference was a ball: a week in one of the most up and coming cities in Europe, and meeting up with friends from all over the world we haven’t seen for a year. If you ever go to Malaga (which we strongly recommend), stay in Molina Lario. Very good, very urbane, very good value.