Tag Archives: advertising

Mixing genres with Sears’ “Connecting Flight” commercial

Posted on by

The Sears TV commercial running right now titled “Connecting Flights” turns a holiday romantic comedy trailer into an appliance advertisement. Watch here.

My Culture, Media, and Society class recently discussed genres and how they help structure narratives. If you have seen a holiday romantic comedy movie trailer or commercial, you have seen the opening part of this particular advertisement. Two people are trapped at an airport after their flights have been canceled. They meet and start enjoying each other’s company in the airport. Yet, when they finally find flights out, they realize they want to stay together and start running toward each other.

This is where the genre falls apart. Instead of running the arms of the other, each crashes into a stainless steel refrigerator. And it turns into a clear advertisement for Sears. On one hand, it is a smart use of an existing type of cultural work. On the other hand, the ending is so different than the beginning that I wonder how many people like Sears at the end. It is a bait and switch: what happened to the cheesy, feel-good romantic comedy?

In the end, Sears uses an existing narrative form to try to provide a new perspective on appliances, one of the few things Sears now has going for it. But, the contrast in genres, switching so abruptly from holiday romantic comedy to selling home appliances, is jarring.

Female characters in recent movies and TV shows still marginalized

Posted on by

A new study shows female characters in recent movies and TV shows still play very different roles than men:

The study, lead by sociologist Stacy L. Smith, analyzed 11,927 speaking roles on prime-time television programs aired in spring 2012, children’s TV shows aired in 2011 and family films (rated G, PG, or PG-13) released between 2006 and 2011. Smith’s team looked at female characters’ occupations, attire, body size and whether they spoke or not.

The team’s data showed that on prime-time television, 44.3 percent of females were gainfully employed — compared with 54.5 percent of males. Women across the board were more likely to be shown wearing sexy attire or exposing some skin, and body size trends were apparent: “Across both prime time and family films, teenaged females are the most likely to be depicted thin,” Smith wrote in the study’s executive summary. The ratio of men to women in STEM fields was 14.25 to 1 in family films and 5.4 to 1 on prime time TV. Perhaps most telling are the percentages of speaking female characters in each media form: only 28.3 percent of characters in family films, 30.8 percent of characters in children’s shows, and 38.9 percent of characters on prime time television were women.

In a summary of the study’s findings, the researchers reported that they found a lack of aspirational female role models in all three media categories, and cited five main observations: female characters are sidelined, women are stereotyped and sexualized, a clear employment imbalance exists, women on TV come up against a glass ceiling, and there are not enough female characters working in STEM fields.

This reminds me of the video Killing Us Softly 4: similar images of women are spread throughout advertising and other areas. Television and movies don’t exactly depict reality but we can still ask what values they are portraying. It is not just about entertainment; sure, people want to escape from the real world from time to time but any sort of media is creating and working with values an ideas. Of course, the real values portrayed by television and movies may be consumerism (for example, in the latest Bond film) and making money.

Turn your house into a billboard

Posted on by

Perhaps you have seen cars or trucks that have been turned into a billboard but what about a house? A marketing company thinks there is a niche here, particularly with homeowners who need some extra cash:

Continue reading →

Example of advertising language: “executive home” versus “McMansion”

Posted on by

In a longer article about the role of truth in advertising, an advertising executive notes how two different terms about a house raise two very different ideas:

Language gives marketers power to construct positioning. Consider the difference between using the following terms to describe the exact same house: “executive home” or “McMansion.” The descriptors shape a relative interpretation and even can deliver a value judgment.

Here is a brief overview of what is associated with these two terms:

1. McMansion: mass produced, low quality, emblematic of suburban sprawl, residents are social strivers, too large, not green, more about glitz than substance.

2. Executive home: aspirational (who wouldn’t want to be a executive?), quality, a home (which implies not being mass produced), impressive with gravitas (the executive label).

This difference between terms is not inconsequential: Toll Brothers, one of the biggest builders of large homes in the United States, has claimed to build “executive homes” and does not like the McMansion label.

The decision about whether to call a home a McMansion or an “executive home” often depends on one’s standing and relationship to the designated home. For example, a neighbor who opposes the teardown next door is likely to call it a McMansion. The builder who is putting up the new luxury home is likely to call it a McMansion while an architect who is building a similar home several miles away shuns the McMansion label. So there might just be multiple advertising truths about the same home.

Quick Review: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

Posted on by

I recently viewed the latest (April 2011 release) Morgan Spurlock film The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. Here are a few thoughts about this film which could be a nice conversation starter for a number of sociology courses.

1. If you know of Morgan Spurlock and his “formula” (Supersize Me, the TV show 30 Days), you won’t be surprised by how this film goes as Spurlock tries to finance his documentary about product placement (“brand integration”) by having corporations pay to sponsor it. Even though the process may not be a surprise, the movie still feels fresh in a way that many documentaries can’t match.

2. At the most basic level, this film is about raising awareness regarding advertising. It treads some familiar ground about how companies are really selling images or aspirations and how Americans are bombarded with these ideas. While Spurlock doesn’t offer much of a solution at the end (go out into nature for a little?), he certainly is drawing attention to an issue worth paying attention to.

3. Here are a few of the more intriguing sociological insights I picked out of the film:

3a. Spurlock wants to pull back the curtain on product placement and marketing but interestingly, the big companies don’t want to participate. In the end, he catches the attention (and money) of mostly smaller/challenger brands who don’t have the big marketing budgets. From a Marxist perspective, we could suggest that the big companies want to continue to “hoodwink” consumers while the challengers are really interested in doing anything to get product exposure, even exposing their marketing tactics.

3b. Spurlock spends some time in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a city that recently banned outdoor advertising. The mayor and residents talk about how this helps eliminate “visual clutter.” Could we imagine this ever happening in an American city? How many of our famous spaces, like Times Square or Las Vegas, would no longer be famous spaces if advertising was not present?

3c. One marketer suggests Spurlock could play off religious imagery, perhaps portraying himself at the Last Supper surrounded by a bunch of companies who want to use him or to show Spurlock carrying a cross covered in advertising stickers (like a stock car in NASCAR). While the marketer suggests this might be considered blasphemous, it would also get a lot of attention. Later in the film, another insider says to Spurlock regarding marketing his film that “the path of salvation” is to “Sell! Sell! Sell!” in America. What does this commentary suggest about the role of religion in marketing and selling “Christian products”?

4. Spurlock leaves us in a tough spot: can we do marketing with integrity? Can one really “buy in” without “selling out”? The answer is unclear but Spurlock provides us an entertaining venue for starting to think about answers to these questions.

(The movie received fairly good reviews from critics: it is 71% fresh, 77 out of 109 reviews were fresh, on RottenTomatoes.com.)

If you are for the Smart car, then you are against the McMansion

Posted on by

Scott Goodson, the founder of an ad agency, argues that the new trend in advertising is selling a movement:

When the Smart car wanted to sell you a new model earlier this year, instead of talking about the usual advertising claims, like how great the car drives and how fuel efficient it is, Smart USA took a radically different approach. It came out with an idea of being against certain things. It asked you, the consumer, to think about what you were against in life, like excess stuff you buy but don’t need, McMansions with four car garages and of course gas guzzlers.

This is an unusual thing for a car company to do. It was not simply pushing polished cars in ads, it was saying something controversial. It was taking a stand against something. And it went beyond advertisements and set up a Facebook page. Why would advertising do this, why would the brand have this message?

Well, the Smart car, with the help of my agency StrawberryFrog in New York, was trying to spark a national movement against dumb mindless over-consumption. The thinking was: “Hey, if we could get millions of people excited about joining the fight against waste and dumb consumerism, it’s a great way to get them excited about the Smart car.”

This is part of a larger trend in advertising. To get people excited about a brand in this new social-media-Facebook-crazy world, you need to dump the old advertising playbook and spark a movement that people can get involved with.

Goodson suggests that it remains to be seen how consumers will respond. However, these sorts of ads are needed because “traditional ads” no longer work and advertisers need ways to reach consumers.

I’ve seen some ads like this recently. Such ads still target the identity of individual consumers but with a twist. First, they suggest that there are morally good and wrong choices to be made. The Smart car ad is suggesting that people in four-car McMansions are on the wrong side while virtuous Smart car owners are on another side. Second, they tie individual identity to a collective of like-minded consumers. While a cynic might suggest that such consumers are simply participating in the capitalistic movement, Smart car owners are told that their purchase makes them part of something bigger. If you put these two ideas together, consumers can still follow their individual tastes (however influenced they are by outside forces) but feel like they are participating in virtuous action with others.

Regarding the Smart car ads: what would happen if Toyota started advertising the Fit with the Smart car as its enemy/opposite movement? It seems rather easy to pick on McMansions and excessive consumption but what if it was a similar product?

In the long run, does this cheapen more traditional social movements that are looking to right social wrongs?

I wonder if advertisers would say these these movement-based ads are more effective with younger consumers, particularly emerging adults who might be yearning to be part of larger collectives.

The similarities between selling kitchen appliances in the 1950s and today

Posted on by

Selling the kitchen has been a key component of the sales pitch for homes for decades. Adweek takes a look at how the sales pitch from the 1950s is similar to today’s pitch:

It goes like this: If you want to make that new fridge and stove desirable, advertise it as part of a kitchen that’s desirable. So long as homeowners blush with shame over their cracked linoleum and dated cabinetry, showing them the meal-prep space of their dreams is likely to spur them into buying the new appliances that go with it. Want proof? Take a look at both of the appliance advertisements below.

“History repeats itself because these ads are really quite similar,” observes graphic designer Ken Carbone, co-founder of the design and branding company Carbone Smolan Agency. “In their own way, they both say ‘modern’—and they both promise bragging rights, as in, ‘you too could have this!’”…

Move to 2011, and Jenn-Air appliances are using the same kind of dream-kitchen sell GE did 56 years before, but with key aesthetic variations. “In the old ad, color itself says modern, and stainless steel is the secondary element,” Carbone notes. “Today, it’s inverted. Stainless steel is the hero.” He’s right. We’ve entered the era of the home chef and industrial chic. It’s also obvious that the Levittown ranch house’s 32 x 25-ft. footprint has morphed into McMansion proportions. (How else to fit that granite-topped kitchen island?)

Thematically, however, it was the same old pitch about the same new kitchen. “Both companies knew their audiences, and both were selling bragging rights,” Carbone says. “It’s just that the first ad suggests macaroni and cheese and the second fusilli al pesto.”

As a bonus, you can look at the original 1950s Levittown kitchen advertisement below the story.

Doesn’t this suggest that Americans are still falling for (or attracted to, depending on your perspective) for the same pitch based on “bragging rights”? Is this a good or bad thing? The pitch is still the same: get the right appliances to portray a certain image to others. The content of this image has changed, domesticity in the 1950s versus “professional” cooking today, but it suggests advertisers correctly tapped into the American psychology.

Are there other effective ways to sell kitchen appliances?

Thinking about kitchen appliances, I wonder how many Americans replace them while they still function just fine in order to “keep up with the Joneses.”

Altoona, PA to become “POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold”

Posted on by

It is not just businesses that don’t mind being part of a film that negatively portrays product placement. Tomorrow, the city of Altoona, Pennsylvania will get a new name: POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. Why Altoona? Sheetz is a key sponsor of the film (paying at least $100,000 to Spurlock) and the company is based in Altoona:

Sheetz said it was Spurlock’s idea to have a secondary premiere, hopefully in a town that would name itself after the movie. Sheetz helped sell the idea in Altoona, and the locals seem enthused by the concept…The locals needn’t worry too much. The name change is ceremonial — meaning people won’t have to address mail using the movie’s title. The film was in the can before the naming rights deal was approved earlier this month by city council, on which Bruce Kelley serves as vice mayor. The money is going to the police department.

[Vice mayor Bruce] Kelley said he’ll leave it to marketing experts to debate how much advertising is too much, but said the city is solvent and doesn’t sell the naming rights to anything other than trees people can pay to have planted in someone’s honor.

“So we’re all going along with the gag. We’ve become part of the shtick,” Kelley said.

“But you’re not going to see ‘POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold’ on the side of our fire trucks.”

So, at least there are some boundaries! Seriously though, the city is getting $25,000 to be renamed for a short period of time and the money seems to be going to a good place.

But there are some larger issues that this article could or should address:

1. Aren’t there other communities that have done similar things in the past? Truth or Consequences, New Mexico (Wikipedia explanation) is a classic example.

2. The vice mayor says Altoona is solvent but I wonder what their budget status really is. Many communities are experiencing budget issues and I wonder how many might go through with something like this to get some quick cash. The CTA seemed to indicate that it is interested in such efforts.

3. This vice mayor suggests “marketing experts” should figure out how far is too far in the selling of commercial advertising. Perhaps we need a national survey on this: when Americans are presented options about how the Federal government or more local governments should raise money (or cut spending), why not include a questions regarding the option of selling advertising rights? While we have some commentators who seem up in arms about this practice (including Spurlock), what is public opinion on this issue? For example, Apple sponsoring a Chicago El stop drew some initial attention but I haven’t heard anything since.

Companies still willing to pay for product placement, even in a film criticizing product placement

Posted on by

Watch television or movies and it is not hard to find examples of product placement (some more obvious than others). But even with the negative attention this draws, companies are still willing to pay for it even when their placement is in a film criticizing product placement:

Though the film takes an all-out jab at this advertising trend, advertisers are on board. Morgan Spurlock’s “POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold,” opens Friday, and it’s the real deal.

Among the companies that participated, Chicago-based Hyatt Hotels Corp. paid $700,000 to “sponsor” the film, knowing it was buying into a documentary devoted to how stupid and awkward product placement can be. (Nearly every interview in the movie takes place at a Sheetz gas station where every beverage other than POM Wonderful is blurred.)…

“There are more and more attempts to avoid the commercial break,” said James Pokrywczynski, associate professor at the Diederich College of Communication at Marquette University in Milwaukee. “We use the remote control to change channels, we DVR shows or edit out the commercials or fast-forward through them.”

As a result, spending for product placements in TV, film, Internet and video games more than tripled between 2004 and 2009, from $1.1 billion to $3.6 billion, according to Stamford, Conn.-based media research firm PQ Media.

In the long run, the companies will take the negative attention as long as a media outlet puts their product in front of people. This seems to go along with the idea that “all publicity is good publicity.” And with more organizations looking for money, like Chicago being willing to have corporate sponsors for CTA stops, even this new film won’t be able to stop the trend.

Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing the sales figures of the new Kindle with a cheaper price due to “special offers.”

No surprise: Facebook wants to make money off advertising!

Posted on by

The current economic engine for much of the Internet is advertising. This includes Facebook:

Facebook’s first experiment with paid ads was a flop. In 2007 it rolled out Beacon, which broadcast information on Facebook about users’ activities and purchases elsewhere on the Web without their permission. Facebook pulled the program after settling a lawsuit brought on behalf of Facebook users.

This time around, company officials appear to be proceeding more cautiously. David Fischer, Facebook’s vice president of advertising and global operations, says Facebook delivers ads that are relevant to users’ lives.

“This is an opportunity for brands to connect with you,” Fischer said. “When someone likes a brand, they are building a two-way conversation, creating an ongoing relationship.”

A lot is riding on getting it right. Last year, online advertising in the U.S. grew 15% to $26 billion, according to the Internet Advertising Bureau.

People familiar with Facebook say its ad revenue doubled to $2 billion in 2010, and is expected to double again this year as more major advertisers including American Express, Coca Cola and Starbucks climb aboard.

In February, more than a third of all online display ads in the U.S. appeared on Facebook, more than three times as many as appeared on its closest competitor, Yahoo, according to research firm ComScore Inc. Facebook’s moneymaking potential has wowed investors. Its market value is estimated at $55 billion on the private exchange SharesPost.

This should really be no surprise to anyone. As others have noted, the real magic of Facebook is not in the personal connections people can maintain but rather is in the information that users willingly provide. Moving forward, the trick will be for Facebook to do this in such a way that a majority of users don’t become upset.

I find the language here to be particularly interesting: users are entering a “two-way conversation” and an “ongoing relationship” with corporations. This is what corporations want but if users/consumers really thought about it, is this what they desire as well? While the user pays for particular products (and perhaps is willing to advertise a product for free), the corporation provides functionality but perhaps even more importantly, status and prestige.

I’m also struck by another thought: this article suggests that Facebook still has a lot of financial potential due to advertising. At what point does Facebook hit a wall or lose its momentum? In a short amount of time, Facebook has become a daily feature in the lives of hundreds of millions but there is little to suggest that their growth is unlimited.