I recently read a blog post about the disposition of the current young generation of Americans. Basically, it said that most people feel young Americans are self-centered and feel that the world revolves around them. I couldn't agree more.
Our generation grew up in the prosperous ninties. The portion of our generation that is now entering the professional world has had a remarkably easy life to this point. Not only have we had it easy, the television that we watch instills in us a value system that is self-oriented. We look up to role models that are rich, famous and often times selfish. Due to the glamorization of the Hollywood lifestyle, we have come to love and expect attention. And due to the new-age style of parenting, we have come to believe that each and every one of us is, indeed, special.
Then, we get farther away from home and into situations with hundreds of kids from similar households--and everyone believes they're special. Now our generation is taking entry-level positions across the board, and, unlike with mom and dad, they aren't anything special yet. Dealing with the shock of a shift from one end of the spectrum to the other will be, and already is, hard to deal with for America's young men and women. Maybe it's time we went with th old school approach. It seemed like people came out a lot more hard-nosed and ambitious when people were still having twelve kids and ignoring all of them. I'm just joking that we should return to that school of parenting, obviously. But I think today's parents aren't doing their kids any favors by making them think that their interests are the only ones that matter.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Eye scanners and Tom Cruise
The 2003 movie Minority Report has it all. Action, drama and Scientology prophet Tom Cruise. But the futuristic flick set in Washington D.C. in 2054 also gives some interesting insight into our future.
In D.C. in 2054, people's eyes are their identification. Scanners read eyes as people board trains and buy products. Eyes, as in Tom's case, can work against you too, as he is tracked by these scanners when he is a fugitive from the law. To evade the authorities, Tom gets a now-common black market procedure, an eye transplant.
To match his new eyes, Tom heads to the Gap to get some new gear. As he walks in, a scanner reads his eyes and a young woman appears on a screen in front of him. "Welcome back to the Gap Mr. Yakamoto," she says. "How are those khakis working out for you?"
Even before the transplant, Tom, who plays John Anderton, experiences constant bombardment by futuristic advertising. As he walks through the mall, the walls shine with electronic displays. Vacation ads ask him, "Isn't time you got away, Mr. Anderton."
In most futuristic science-fiction movies, the future is too advanced and far-fetched . In "Minority Report," I could watch it and say, "Yeah, I can see that happening." Advertising is already creeping into our media so rapidly that it is impossible to avoid. It is constantly finding new ways to reach the masses. And, it is not so hard to believe that someday it will be precisely personalized while you walk down the street.
This kind of technology would allow companies to use all of your information and put you into a certain category. Then, they would formulate a specialized pitch for the category you fit into as your eyes got scanned. It would no doubt be a formidable advertising strategy.
Advertising is already inescapable. Perhaps, in the future, it will be even more assertive and specialized.
In D.C. in 2054, people's eyes are their identification. Scanners read eyes as people board trains and buy products. Eyes, as in Tom's case, can work against you too, as he is tracked by these scanners when he is a fugitive from the law. To evade the authorities, Tom gets a now-common black market procedure, an eye transplant.
To match his new eyes, Tom heads to the Gap to get some new gear. As he walks in, a scanner reads his eyes and a young woman appears on a screen in front of him. "Welcome back to the Gap Mr. Yakamoto," she says. "How are those khakis working out for you?"
Even before the transplant, Tom, who plays John Anderton, experiences constant bombardment by futuristic advertising. As he walks through the mall, the walls shine with electronic displays. Vacation ads ask him, "Isn't time you got away, Mr. Anderton."
In most futuristic science-fiction movies, the future is too advanced and far-fetched . In "Minority Report," I could watch it and say, "Yeah, I can see that happening." Advertising is already creeping into our media so rapidly that it is impossible to avoid. It is constantly finding new ways to reach the masses. And, it is not so hard to believe that someday it will be precisely personalized while you walk down the street.
This kind of technology would allow companies to use all of your information and put you into a certain category. Then, they would formulate a specialized pitch for the category you fit into as your eyes got scanned. It would no doubt be a formidable advertising strategy.
Advertising is already inescapable. Perhaps, in the future, it will be even more assertive and specialized.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Product placement to a whole new level
When I rented "Snakes on a Plane," I was pretty sure I knew what I was going to get--some snakes, a plane and Sam Jackson saying he's "tired of these muthafuckin' snakes on this muthafuckin' plane!"
A couple friends and I popped it in and strapped in for the wild ride. Then, in the first ten minutes, we all noticed something that detracted from the movie. First, let me define "detracted." I realize that "Snakes on a Plane" is hard to screw up. "Crash" it is not. No, what we saw detracted from the actual experience of watching a movie altogether. Usually, product placement is subtle and clever. In about half of the shots in the first ten minutes of "Snakes," it seemed like half features a clear shot of a Red Bull can, or cans.
I know all about product placement, and I usually notice it. When I saw James Bond briefly driving a Ford in "Casino Royale," I noticed it, but it was not overkill. When I see a guy downing a Red Bull, followed by a shot of a case of Red Bull in the background, followed by a shot of the guy setting down his finished Red Bull, it's a little distracting.
It's so distracting that I'm more focused on when I'm going to see more Red Bull than on what is going on in the story. I realize that product placement is now a reality in television and the movies, but I refuse to accept it. When I see a movie, I want to be entertained. I want to enjoy art for art's sake. I don't want movies to be peddlers of the cool, new energy drink. Obviously, some brand names have a place in movies. Gangsters drive Cadillacs and basketball players rock Nikes. But that's part of the culture now. Not all cool, good-looking movie stars drink Red Bull.
The worst thing is that it will only get worse. Advertisers have their hands everywhere and product placement has proved quite effective. My only hope is that Hollywood won't sell out. Oh--wait, I think that already happened.
A couple friends and I popped it in and strapped in for the wild ride. Then, in the first ten minutes, we all noticed something that detracted from the movie. First, let me define "detracted." I realize that "Snakes on a Plane" is hard to screw up. "Crash" it is not. No, what we saw detracted from the actual experience of watching a movie altogether. Usually, product placement is subtle and clever. In about half of the shots in the first ten minutes of "Snakes," it seemed like half features a clear shot of a Red Bull can, or cans.
I know all about product placement, and I usually notice it. When I saw James Bond briefly driving a Ford in "Casino Royale," I noticed it, but it was not overkill. When I see a guy downing a Red Bull, followed by a shot of a case of Red Bull in the background, followed by a shot of the guy setting down his finished Red Bull, it's a little distracting.
It's so distracting that I'm more focused on when I'm going to see more Red Bull than on what is going on in the story. I realize that product placement is now a reality in television and the movies, but I refuse to accept it. When I see a movie, I want to be entertained. I want to enjoy art for art's sake. I don't want movies to be peddlers of the cool, new energy drink. Obviously, some brand names have a place in movies. Gangsters drive Cadillacs and basketball players rock Nikes. But that's part of the culture now. Not all cool, good-looking movie stars drink Red Bull.
The worst thing is that it will only get worse. Advertisers have their hands everywhere and product placement has proved quite effective. My only hope is that Hollywood won't sell out. Oh--wait, I think that already happened.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Shock Science
With shocking images such as a man chisling a cat out of an ice block in recent advertisements for Popular Science Magazine, they have shifted their focus more from "Science" to "Popular."
As we have seen on television with the Discovery Channel and the advent of The Learning Channel, science can sell. But not any kind of science. The science that interests our modern culture is only the most shocking, ridiculous, seemingly impossible science.
In our modern society dominated by technology, it is no longer "uncool" to be science-savvy. In fact, you pretty much have to be a computer geek these days. The reason that these advertisements are interesting and will be successful is that they are playing a different angle from that. We know about all the big issues. We know about how small cell phones will get; we know about global warming; and we know about cancer. For better or worse, many are getting (for lack of a more sensitive word) tired of hearing about these things.
When you show us scientific oddities and completely unheard-of accomplishments, then you have our attention. If it's weird and unique, it will sell. I have read countless articles and seen countless shows about global warming. It no longer shocks me. But show me a cat being frozen and brought back to life after a state of suspended animation? Now I'm listening.
As we have seen on television with the Discovery Channel and the advent of The Learning Channel, science can sell. But not any kind of science. The science that interests our modern culture is only the most shocking, ridiculous, seemingly impossible science.
In our modern society dominated by technology, it is no longer "uncool" to be science-savvy. In fact, you pretty much have to be a computer geek these days. The reason that these advertisements are interesting and will be successful is that they are playing a different angle from that. We know about all the big issues. We know about how small cell phones will get; we know about global warming; and we know about cancer. For better or worse, many are getting (for lack of a more sensitive word) tired of hearing about these things.
When you show us scientific oddities and completely unheard-of accomplishments, then you have our attention. If it's weird and unique, it will sell. I have read countless articles and seen countless shows about global warming. It no longer shocks me. But show me a cat being frozen and brought back to life after a state of suspended animation? Now I'm listening.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
March Madness
Once again, it's my favorite time of year, when I let everything in my life slip dangerously close to critical levels so I can spend more time watching some great college basketball. March Madness has always been a big deal, but ever since the NCAA and CBS worked out an 11-year, $6 billion dollar contract for coverage rights in 1999, it has become a HUGE deal. Everyone wants in on the madness, and advertisers have been no exception.
There are so many issues around March Madness--like the yearly debate of whether the key instruments in this whole industry (players) should see some of the considerable revenues they help bring in. But I won't touch that here, seeing as I don't want to spend a few weeks outlining all the different arguments.
Every year, though, you see your local, sleazy used car dealer doing a "March Madness Sale" commercial while he clumsily dribbles a basketball around. Aside from being painful to watch, I wonder how many of these commercials are violating trademark laws. In one case involving national advertising, the NCAA successfully ordered Liberty Mutual Insurance to cease use of the March Madness phrase, which was used in a print advertising campaign. I never knew before this that "March Madness" was a registered trademark of the NCAA.
But, even if these local businesses are using the phrase illegally, is it likely that the NCAA will stop them from doing it? They are no doubt benefiting from use of the phrase whether it is endorsed by the NCAA or not. And it would be too hard for the NCAA to police all of the local advertising areas in America to make sure no one is using its phrase. I would be curious to know how much this goes on with other nationally held trademarks. Local advertisers seem to have some room for more activity such as this due to their small markets, and the fact that people outside these markets are not exposed to the ads. In most cases, it is probably not worth a national company's time to deal with the legal aspects surrounding a case like this.
My conclusion would be that many local companies illegally use registered trademarks in their advertising. They can do this because corporations do not have the time and money to go after them, and the revenue they bring in from these ads is likely small when compared to what a national company would bring in with them.
There are so many issues around March Madness--like the yearly debate of whether the key instruments in this whole industry (players) should see some of the considerable revenues they help bring in. But I won't touch that here, seeing as I don't want to spend a few weeks outlining all the different arguments.
Every year, though, you see your local, sleazy used car dealer doing a "March Madness Sale" commercial while he clumsily dribbles a basketball around. Aside from being painful to watch, I wonder how many of these commercials are violating trademark laws. In one case involving national advertising, the NCAA successfully ordered Liberty Mutual Insurance to cease use of the March Madness phrase, which was used in a print advertising campaign. I never knew before this that "March Madness" was a registered trademark of the NCAA.
But, even if these local businesses are using the phrase illegally, is it likely that the NCAA will stop them from doing it? They are no doubt benefiting from use of the phrase whether it is endorsed by the NCAA or not. And it would be too hard for the NCAA to police all of the local advertising areas in America to make sure no one is using its phrase. I would be curious to know how much this goes on with other nationally held trademarks. Local advertisers seem to have some room for more activity such as this due to their small markets, and the fact that people outside these markets are not exposed to the ads. In most cases, it is probably not worth a national company's time to deal with the legal aspects surrounding a case like this.
My conclusion would be that many local companies illegally use registered trademarks in their advertising. They can do this because corporations do not have the time and money to go after them, and the revenue they bring in from these ads is likely small when compared to what a national company would bring in with them.
International Celebrity Advertising
After seeing Jack Bauer, or Kiefer Sutherland to non-24 fans, in an international Calorie-Mate commercial, it got me thinking about market research--and fat paychecks.
I know that many American movies, television shows and celebrities are popular overseas. And apparently, Germany has the market cornered when it comes to loving failed American celebs (see: D. Hasselhoff, M. Jackson). I was more curious, though, because Jack (I'm referring to Sutherland as Jack Bauer from now on because Bauer is much more exciting) speaks english in the commercial--and he is the only one who does. Is the mere presence of such a person in a foreign advertisement enough to sell the product? And, since the paycheck to come do a commercial overseas would seemingly be much more than that of a domestic commercial, is it worth it to pay Jack that much money to do his thing when most of the audience can't understand him?
Obviously a wildly popular show both at home and abroad, it is easy to see 24's international market potential. However, I am curious to see the market research statistics of how people respond to an ad when much of that ad is in a foreign language. Obviously, he's not describing the product, but it still adds that element. If a foreign celebrity such as Dirk Nowitski was on television speaking strictly German, it would no doubt throw some people off.
What this commercial makes me wonder most is, are some foreign countries so saturated with American pop culture and entertainment that it can be used successfully in advertising, even when it is not in a language people can understand?
I know that many American movies, television shows and celebrities are popular overseas. And apparently, Germany has the market cornered when it comes to loving failed American celebs (see: D. Hasselhoff, M. Jackson). I was more curious, though, because Jack (I'm referring to Sutherland as Jack Bauer from now on because Bauer is much more exciting) speaks english in the commercial--and he is the only one who does. Is the mere presence of such a person in a foreign advertisement enough to sell the product? And, since the paycheck to come do a commercial overseas would seemingly be much more than that of a domestic commercial, is it worth it to pay Jack that much money to do his thing when most of the audience can't understand him?
Obviously a wildly popular show both at home and abroad, it is easy to see 24's international market potential. However, I am curious to see the market research statistics of how people respond to an ad when much of that ad is in a foreign language. Obviously, he's not describing the product, but it still adds that element. If a foreign celebrity such as Dirk Nowitski was on television speaking strictly German, it would no doubt throw some people off.
What this commercial makes me wonder most is, are some foreign countries so saturated with American pop culture and entertainment that it can be used successfully in advertising, even when it is not in a language people can understand?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
An easier way to watch your fav TV shows
So you missed LOST this wednesday? No problem. Hop on the computer and go to abc.com, where you can watch the episode in its entirety absolutely free. And you only have to sit through 30 seconds of commercials at a time--which you can mute. Check it out here: http://dynamic.abc.go.com/streaming/landing
It is so easy to completely ignore all advertising throughout the show, it raises the question of why ABC would provide the service. Even for 30 seconds, you can click on another tab and check a basketball score in the time it takes for the commercial to run. I honestly do not see the point of advertising on an online broadcast such as this, and would love to see some statistics on how many viewers actually watch the ads. Perhaps the ad rates for the online broadcast dip significantly.
I love this feature, because I don't have to schedule a day around a show I want to see. Also, once I watch it, I don't have to put up with long commercial breaks. Granted, the quality of the online broadcast is slightly lower than the one on TV. This might be one reason that they are confident this service will not steal loyal viewers of the television broadcasts. Either way, if you want to watch your favorite show virtually commercial-free, then don't worry about missing it and check it out online.
It is so easy to completely ignore all advertising throughout the show, it raises the question of why ABC would provide the service. Even for 30 seconds, you can click on another tab and check a basketball score in the time it takes for the commercial to run. I honestly do not see the point of advertising on an online broadcast such as this, and would love to see some statistics on how many viewers actually watch the ads. Perhaps the ad rates for the online broadcast dip significantly.
I love this feature, because I don't have to schedule a day around a show I want to see. Also, once I watch it, I don't have to put up with long commercial breaks. Granted, the quality of the online broadcast is slightly lower than the one on TV. This might be one reason that they are confident this service will not steal loyal viewers of the television broadcasts. Either way, if you want to watch your favorite show virtually commercial-free, then don't worry about missing it and check it out online.
Political Ads Already?
About a year and a half until the 2008 presidential election and we already have our first political ad. Mitt Romney, the republican former governor of Massachusetts, has graced us with the first of what will surely be way, way, way too many political ads. Americans shouldn't put up with anymore "dithering" in Washington, says Romney. Do you mean dithering like filming TV ads when you should be coming up with a feasible plan for the Iraq situation?
All political affiliations aside, I find myself wondering what the purpose of these ads is. There will be so many of the same vague ads making sweeping generalizations about America and then ending with the same lame campaign slogans. The name on the commercial is the only real difference. The only reason candidates keep advertising, and advertising heavily, is because if they don't, their opponents will. And a presidential hopeful can't afford to let any opponent have more time on the air then him or her. It is, after all, a game of publicity.
I believe there is an easy solution to this: Make campaign ads illegal. First, they are a waste of money. Second, any voter who bases his or her opinion on one commercial should not be deciding the future of America. Do some research for God's sake. And finally, it gives unfair advantages to candidates who can afford more commercials than others.
Imagine it. Not only would the presidential election process be more fair and intellegence-based, it would be a lot less annoying too.
All political affiliations aside, I find myself wondering what the purpose of these ads is. There will be so many of the same vague ads making sweeping generalizations about America and then ending with the same lame campaign slogans. The name on the commercial is the only real difference. The only reason candidates keep advertising, and advertising heavily, is because if they don't, their opponents will. And a presidential hopeful can't afford to let any opponent have more time on the air then him or her. It is, after all, a game of publicity.
I believe there is an easy solution to this: Make campaign ads illegal. First, they are a waste of money. Second, any voter who bases his or her opinion on one commercial should not be deciding the future of America. Do some research for God's sake. And finally, it gives unfair advantages to candidates who can afford more commercials than others.
Imagine it. Not only would the presidential election process be more fair and intellegence-based, it would be a lot less annoying too.
Advertising and White Rappers
If you don't know about "The White Rapper Show" by now, then you betta axe somebody. VH1 dipped back into the same well that brought us intellectual classics like "Flavor of Love," and decided to bring in a whole bunch of wannbe rappers into a contest for $100,000. Just for a little taste: A little white guy with a camo bandana raps about Humpty Dumpty getting murdered ("I told you Humpty, this wasn't a game!"). Get your fix of hip hop hilariousness here: http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/white_rapper/series.jhtml
Anyway, during the commercial break, I noticed something I had not seen before. I don't watch a lot of VH1, so this might not be new, but it was new to me. When it went to commercial, the screen got smaller, and two colorful bars inched in on the top and left sides of the screen. Also, the first commercial was not a commercial. It was extra footage and information about some of the white rappers. On the left bar, an ordinary product name was listed, like "Next: Chevy." On top, it read, "Now: Behind the Music." After about a minute spot, it played a Chevy ad. During the entire commercial break though, they alternated commercials with continuations from the same "Behind the Music" spot.
I thought this was an interesting way to keep white rap enthusiasts glued to the screen and willing to sit through the commercials. It worked on me. Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it anywhere else. Of course, throwing in something like that might affect ad rates, and some companies might not want to be stuck between VH1's own segmens. However, it was an interesting way for VH1 to keep viewers watching. Perhaps segments like this will change the way networks air commercials.
Anyway, during the commercial break, I noticed something I had not seen before. I don't watch a lot of VH1, so this might not be new, but it was new to me. When it went to commercial, the screen got smaller, and two colorful bars inched in on the top and left sides of the screen. Also, the first commercial was not a commercial. It was extra footage and information about some of the white rappers. On the left bar, an ordinary product name was listed, like "Next: Chevy." On top, it read, "Now: Behind the Music." After about a minute spot, it played a Chevy ad. During the entire commercial break though, they alternated commercials with continuations from the same "Behind the Music" spot.
I thought this was an interesting way to keep white rap enthusiasts glued to the screen and willing to sit through the commercials. It worked on me. Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't seen it anywhere else. Of course, throwing in something like that might affect ad rates, and some companies might not want to be stuck between VH1's own segmens. However, it was an interesting way for VH1 to keep viewers watching. Perhaps segments like this will change the way networks air commercials.
Welcome to Jay's Ad Blog
Hello, everyone. I am a senior in the University or Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. This blog will feature some of my thoughts and insights regarding advertising in all its forms. So if you're into advertising and you like reading random thoughts from random college students, then this blog is for you. If not, you've probably already stopped reading. Well, let's get right to it.
The New York Times reported recently that a study conducted by the Nielsen Company found that DVR and Tivo owners, on average, still watch roughly two-thirds of television ads. Many viewers tune in for their favorite shows at their scheduled times, and sit through the ads anyway. Many viewers who use the DVR feature, though, still sit through the commercials.
After hearing from professors for years how Tivo will change the television ad business forever, I guess I'm a bit surprised. After all, it's much more convenient and much less time consuming to watch a 20-minute show than a 30-minute show. So if these people are recording these shows, why would they still watch the commercials.
For my part, I believe that the commercial break is so ingrained into our brains that many people probably forget. Also, instead of pausing to grab a snack or go to the bathroom, commercials offer built-in stopping points. And, of course, there are the people who live for commercials--whom I will never understand so I'm not even going to try.
What all this means for the future of television ads is hard to say. But maybe now we'll stop hearing rumblings about the end of TV ads.
The New York Times reported recently that a study conducted by the Nielsen Company found that DVR and Tivo owners, on average, still watch roughly two-thirds of television ads. Many viewers tune in for their favorite shows at their scheduled times, and sit through the ads anyway. Many viewers who use the DVR feature, though, still sit through the commercials.
After hearing from professors for years how Tivo will change the television ad business forever, I guess I'm a bit surprised. After all, it's much more convenient and much less time consuming to watch a 20-minute show than a 30-minute show. So if these people are recording these shows, why would they still watch the commercials.
For my part, I believe that the commercial break is so ingrained into our brains that many people probably forget. Also, instead of pausing to grab a snack or go to the bathroom, commercials offer built-in stopping points. And, of course, there are the people who live for commercials--whom I will never understand so I'm not even going to try.
What all this means for the future of television ads is hard to say. But maybe now we'll stop hearing rumblings about the end of TV ads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)