Orange has eschewed the campaign URL in its latest campaign “I am” where the payoff asks consumers to search for “I am everyone”. When you do, you get a paid link to click on. The first natural link however, is for a site called “I am bored”, and there is no sign of Orange in the natural rankings at all.
As a control test, I searched for 'minimise-me', MRM Worldwide UK’s latest work for Windows Live Messenger, and the URL www.minimise-me.com is number 1 link, as indeed are all the following links (on Google). I was amazed to find that minimise-me and the personalisable emoticons dominated the top 100 search listings - literally, 90+ of the top 100.
Both these campaigns broke around the same time, with probably very different budgets and indeed objectives. If getting online 'buzz' was an objective for both campaigns (quite possible), I'd have to say Windows Live Messenger is winning by a country mile. You can see pictures at www.participationmarketing.co.uk. So which is the more clever campaign?
8 comment(s)
Being proven right isn't always a pleasure. A third consecutive IPA Bellwether wobble. Only a fifth of companies report upward online spend. The signals have been around for a while, though. Pitches that used to take two months are taking five months. More talk about efficiency than effectiveness. Incidentally, US ad spending growth forecasts have been halved this week, even though there is optimism in global markets like Argentina, China and Russia. I have always carped on about how digital agencies need to step up their management skills to be able to handle global problems for Clients. I also believe in how an understanding of technology can bring significant competitive advantage. More of our briefs are about building excitement around a brand's value proposition in the context of lower cost delivery of the brand to the consumer, in every way possible.
As McKinsey will tell you, technology is intrinsic to every lower cost delivery proposal in every FT100 company. All agencies like to talk about the first thing (especially with some digital seasoning sprinkled over it). Not many can talk about the second, which requires some understanding of business and technology and without which the 'excitement bit' can become rather fruitless and costly. Few can do both. The next two years will be an interesting filter. Campaign recently referenced the 't-junction' for digital agencies, where they choose to become 'production' companies or 'branding' agencies. It's not quite as simple as that, as good business people tend to be pragmatic rather than dogmatic, but in our sector it is increasingly about whether you can deliver the brand at a lower cost to the consumer. This demands an ability to help brands stand for something, and help consumers (who also, btw, stand for something too) get their brand.
no comments
I've signed off the agency's accounts recently, which are filed under compliance duty to US GAAP (generally accepted accounting practice) legislation. Is there such a thing as Generally Accepted Advertising Practice? By this I mean measuring what we do using common principles across all media. I know this argument rages up and down the lifts of the land, but where are we at with it? In the early days of digital agencies, we used to rail at TV being somehow less measurable that online. I'm reminded of the Simpsons character Crusty the Clown setting fire to the curtain exclaiming in outrage - "It says it's inflammable, what kind a of a word is inflammable, it's not supposed to go on fire." The impact of our TV campaign is immeasurable, one account director after another would claim over the years, and we would go, "oh ok then" and comment wistfully that click throughs did a different job and actually linked to selling stuff.
Now, the flaw of GAAP (the accounting one) is that it discounts, for accounting purposes, around $300 billion of shareholder opportunity cost. Does this apply to my new generally accepted advertising practice? If a brand isn't on air for a time, do people forget it? I remember an excellent question put by a former client (of a famous sports brand) about having to choose between a microsite campaign and some pitch-side panels with his brand logo at a football stadium, as they cost about the same and he couldn't do both. At the time, I argued that side panels probably reminded people of a brand they were wearing already, if they noticed them at all, and the online campaign (if it got noticed at all) was promoting a new trainer and linked to a site where it could be bought. We worked out match attendances versus the (rather more) impressions served, and talked about each doing the same 'branding' job, only more quickly impacting the bottom line with a sale. An argument that lives on today. The only difference is that technology has moved on considerably. We're already talknig about tagging TV ads, and when we do, we'll be able to add the feed to our black box (our very own, very clever and very secret one) that knows the answer to everything. And then we'll be investigating GAAP again.
Two commercials on the telly tonight made me think. And not in a good way. First was for Cadbury’s Twisted. Apparently it’s not a Crème Egg. It’s a “twisted” Crème Egg. This means that the Crème Egg is mashed up in a grater and turns into a chocolate caterpillar that grunts a lot and goes splat. Peperami did this years ago, only sooo much better. Gor’ bless ya Lever International Advertising Services, and Ade Edmonson. (And this is after Cadbury’s hired Dom Joly, as Peperami did a few football tournaments ago. See blogging for food passim.)
The second was for Abbey, converting a miniature Lewis Hamilton into some sort of corporate message about F1 and Abbey. Big change for the bank, building society, Banco Santader or whatever Abbey has become these days. The only problem is, the media placement, in a break before the clever but gruesome Criminal Minds show, makes me think of the miniature killer character from CSI. Not entirely the sort of association a brand like Abbey deserves.
Fashionable Shoreditch today hosted MPs, start ups, Nathan Barley agency types and all sorts interested in how technology is shaping the nation. As one of the all sorts I put a few questions to the house about the role of technology in everyday life. Online voting? Could happen soon.
If you can vote by SMS in Latvia, I'm sure it can be arranged in Hackney. Poking MPs? Well, certain fifth columnists know this goes on all the time in a lobbying (and allegedly Ugandan) sort of way, but does crowdsourcing political opinion actually give voice to the extremists who have an agenda to poke the most? Yes, probably. Has the internet broken the commercial stranglehold traditional media has had on presenting messages to the public? Perhaps.
Public opinion has become democratised, and this is a good thing. It has certainly made pretty much every brand owning organisation sit up and take note of publicly available opinion of brands. They have to be more 'open'. And the politicians are saying this too. I love the concept of open brands.
The issue is that the brand has to mean it, not just 'say it'. And how many of you believe the politicians mean it? For example, does a negative blog comment saying x brand is rubbish count as 'branded content? If it's honest and sustainable, then yes.
The interesting thing is (as the guys from MySpace and Facebook will confirm) communities do defend their brands. For every detractor, you will find an enthusiast. The ultimate test is, as always, whether people continue to buy the product. Social change through technology advances won't change that.
2 comment(s)
At another well attended and thought provoking MediaTel seminar on the future of newspapers, Lawson Muncaster of City AM came up with a neat summary of the condition of the newspapers, and indeed of all media owners, which is how to handle content production, content packaging and content availability.
He didn't say 'in a digital age', though this is the underpinning theme of change in so many industries, not just newspapers. There are two major influences at work here that we have to be able to 'get' as advertisers and brands looking to find, engage and keep audiences. Social change, and technological change.
They are not mutually exclusive, though often thought about separately by industry commentators. Social change means people don't have time to find newsagents or handle the transaction time of buying one. Technological change means that people listen to ipods on the tube instead of analysing the leader columns.
Both of these trends are here to stay, so adapt or die is the message. The good news is that adaptation is more fun than dying. The newspapers have made significant investment in online properties, and are going through the sometimes painful remodelling required to develop new content in new packaging.
We do have a curious commitment to national newspapers in this country, fuelled by national consciousness and the egos of wealthy men. We will see more innovation on how these media brands develop their commercial models for the future. Call me an optimist, or indeed old fashioned, but I think there is value to be had from newspapers for some time to come.
Alastair Duncan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 18 Nov 2008
Total Posts: 56
