Halftime/Second Half

The GOOD:

NBC: LMAO. Normally, network spots promoting their lineup of shows are pretty lame, or just embarrassing (like the NBC “I’m feelin’ allright” spot earlier). This one was funny, and somewhat reminiscent of the eTrade “Money Coming Out of His Wazoo” spot from the 2000 Super Bowl. Wouldn’t make me watch their shows – but a nice effort, nonetheless.

Monster: Moose Trophy. When the spot started, the first thing I thought of was that bit in the movie Arthur, where Dudley Moore looks at a Moose trophy on a wall and slurs the immortal line, “Thish mush be very embarashing for you.”  My second thought was “where’s the rest of him?” I was gratified to see this line of reasoning pay off. A good spot that made a point that will resonate with those that have to deal with the south end of the north-bound corporate animal daily.

CareerBuilder.com: It’s Time. Just when I thought that Monster.com wouldn’t have any competition in this year’s Bowl ads, along comes Career builder with an ad that started slow, and built to something that got me laughing. The repetition was brilliant. And just like a good jazz improviser, changing the rhythm of the spot at the appropriate time, then bringing it home again with a recapitulation of the leitmotif was brilliant.

Coke: Bugs. Coca-Cola redeemed themselves with a second effort (see below) that was clever and charming. I particularly liked the butterflies masquerading as a Coke bottle, and the beetle as bottle opener. Smart. Although I wonder if the bugs wouldn’t enjoy a Coke made with cane sugar more than the domestic stuff made with high-fructose corn syrup.

Coke Zero: Rip-Off. The Mean Joe Greene Coke spot from the 70′s is one of the most famous commercials ever. Given Coke’s spotty record as of late with their creative, I almost expected a direct rip-off under the banner of ‘homage’ (read: plaigiarism is the sincerest form of flattery). I was wrong. They put a pretty neat twist on this, even down to the trophy shirt at the end. Not too bad.

Cash4Gold: Has-Beens. I wouldn’t have expected to see a cash for old gold service produce a watchable spot, much less a good one. At first blush, I thought this was gonna be “All Ed McMahon, all the time,” which would have put it in the “you wasted money on THIS?” category. But no. The juxtaposition between McMahon and MC Hammer was good – the gold stuff they were willing to part with was better. Especially Ed’s gold throne at the end.

The BAD:

Nextel Direct: Roadies. I thought the first spot in this series (What if Overnight Delivery Guys Ran the World) was lame. This one is worse. Roadies running the world? What? We’re gonna have to “just say no to crack” for our leaders? No thanks.

Coke: Avatar. Coca-Cola used to do the absolute best spots for the Super Bowl. This wasn’t one of them. Looks like they’ve chosen to pander to the video game-obsessed Gen-X crowd. Pepsi owns that market. Bad move. And not an execution that recalls all the warm fuzzies of previous Coke spots.

Bridgestone: Space Buggy. Aside from the fact that I got burned by the Bridgestone-owned Firestone/Ford Explorer debacle back in the late 90′s and will never buy a Bridgestone product – EVER – this spot was pretty lame by ANY standard. The too-hip-for-the-galaxy space explorers get their ride’s tires jacked by some interplanetary gang bangers? What’s the message here…that if I’m stupid enough to buy Bridgestone tires, that the bad guys will steal them off my car? Pu-leaze.

GoDaddy.com: Enhanced. I’ve got no problem with doing something that employs a little double entendre, and sex, obviously, sells. Stupidity and obviousness is a real turn-off, however. This spot wasn’t clever. It wasn’t really sexy, except in a really obvious and crude way. And it did nothing to make me want to see the rest of it at GoDaddy.com.

The STUPID:

Toyota Tundra: Ramp. This is so stupid as to be Brain-Dead On Arrival. I don’t know what kind of idiot you’d have to be to make a buying decision based on a spot where a truck hauls a loaded trailer up a spiral ramp of death, but if you’re that stupid, you deserve a Toyota.

Miller: Beer Distributor. Um…guys…a 5 second (maybe) ad where some mook shouts “High Life!” doth not a Super Bowl ad make.

Pepsi: MacGruber. If you didn’t watch Saturday Night Live every now and then (a fate I try to avoid like shingles or hives) you wouldn’t “get” this spot at all, as it’s based on a recurring sketch on the NBC show. That’s fine, if you’re a Gen-Xer. If not, Pepsi just wasted mountains o’ moolah on a spot nobody else will appreciate. Even if you’re a boomer and spotted the Richard Dean Anderson cameo, you’d still be in the dark. Dumb.

AWOL or So Bad They Were Invisible:

FedEx, Michelob, Miller Lite, Mountain Dew, Dodge, AT&T, all the mortgage guys (no, duh!), Buy.com.

The Bottom Line:

THIS was worth $206,000,000? Nice work if you can get it, NBC. The delusional President of NBC Universal, Jeff “I wouldn’t know ‘quality’ if it bit me in the A’” Zucker said “These advertising milestones show the power of the NFL brand and the strength of the Super Bowl as a TV property in this economic climate.” Well…he’s HALF right. The NFL brand is powerful. NBC? Not so much.

All the Marbles.

As a service to those that TiVO pas the spots to watch the game (both of you), here’s my crack analysis of the Super Bowl spots – at least the ones that stood out for me, for whatever reason.

First Half

The GOOD:

Doritos: Crystal Ball. I laughed out loud at this one. You could see it coming, and it was still funny. I like funny. Memorable. People will be talking about this one tomorrow.

Doritos: Crunch. Another laugh-out-loud, funny spot. Gotta get me some of those chips. So far, Doritos looks like the clear winner in the Super Bowl spot contest.

Castrol: EdgeMonkeys.com. Funny spot. Not sure if it sells oil, but it’s got enough connection to the product to make me remember the brand. Which is a good thing.

Pepsi Max: I’m Good. Very funny spot, as long as you like slapstick, physical comedy. (I do.) It’s definitely a spot that will appeal to guys…and 10 year old girls. Wives…not so much. The concept of a “cola for men” is a bit iffy to me, but I’m willing to listen.

eTrade: Golf. Loved it. The idea of this baby playing golf, with his excess of ‘tude? Classic.

Budweiser: Clydesdale Fetch. Who doesn’t love the Clydesdales spots? They are always good. And the idea of a horse playing fetch to show up a dalmation is a funny concept. Well executed, this spot is a feel-good valentine to a (formerly) American institution.

Budweiser: Lost Love. Cute, but not the home run that the “fetch” spot was.

Star Trek. I can’t wait. And casting Zach Quinto as Spock is an inspired bit of casting. With J. J. Abrams at the helm, it looks promising. The spot got me interested. Good job.

Cars.com: Confidence. Not the best car spot I’ve ever seen, but they do a good job with their assertion that they can make buying a car easier for everybody – even some super-genius that is intimidated by the car-buying process. If only it were true.

Cheetos: Pigeons. You know those people that think they are better looking/richer/more worthy than you? One of ‘em gets what they deserve in this spot. The 3D rendering of the Cheetos Cheeta was pretty good, too.

The BAD:

Bridgestone: Mr. & Mrs. Potato Head. They teased this one leading up to the Super Bowl, and it looked as if it would be stupid.It ended up a pretty funny spot, taking advantage of the way the Potato Head toys work. However, I’m not sure what it really did to sell tires. Funny ad, though.

Pedigree: Get a Dog. Pedigree: Buy a clue. The concept of inappropriate pets wasn’t funny. It was lame.

eTrade: Buddies. Just goes to show that even a good creative agency can lay an egg. They should have just reran the first spot.

The STUPID:

Don’t be an Asterisk. Huh? What in the HELL was THAT supposed to be about? Don’t be an asterisk? I don’t get it. On the other hand, what that kid needs to get is a tube of pimple cream. Stat. After a little research, it turns out that www.dontbeanasterisk.com is a public service site pitching the idea that taking performance-enhancing drugs is a bad idea. Noble cause. Stupid commercial.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of COBRA. I had G.I.Joe’s when I was a kid. You know, back before many of us were ashamed to be Americans, before some of us were ambivalent of our military, and before corporations began cowtowing down to focus groups, special-interest groups, and radicals. I missed that entire era of G.I.Joe toys when they took the “American Action Heroes” out of our military, and turned them into some kind of comic book-inspired force that fights super-villians (who conveniently have no ethnicity, no religious afiliation, and no relevance to the real world). Apparently, this movie will focus on G.I.Joe 2.0. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll pass.

Gatorade: G. Stupid. I recognized a couple of the people in the ad. Most, I didn’t. Maybe that was the point. The three clowns in the masks were just creepy. Way too “inside Baseball” kind of vibe for my taste.

Monsters vs. Aliens/SoBe/Chuck in 3D. I would love to see things in 3D. Really I would. If only it didn’t require me to ware cheesy, pasteboard glasses with colored cellophane lenses. As it stands now, this technology BITES.

On the BUBBLE:

GoDaddy: Dannica’s Shower. What do you do when your ads are too racy to air on TV? Upload ‘em to your website. What do you do to get people to your website? Run half the spot on the air. Problem is, what they ran is the equivalent of commercialus interruptus – ultimately unsatisfying.

Wanna see for yourself? Go to www.hulu.com to check ‘em out for yourself.

The web (still) represents a Brave New World for marketing, where many of the traditional rules go out the window, while a host of new opportunities present themselves. For instance, in the pre-Web days, companies would never know they had a hit on their hands, excepting some kind of spike in sales. Today, all you have to do is to Google “glade lady” and you’ll see what looks like a disproportionately large number of articles, speculating on Dori’s background, the wisdom of ads that feature a spokesmodel who seems to be an inveterate liar and somewhat ashamed of their product, and why Glade isn’t using her image on their website, et cetera.

On that last point, I’m really curious as to why 1) SCJ hasn’t picked up on this trend – after all, they are renowned as a marketer’s marketing company, 2) why they aren’t using their P.R. chops to generate some grassroots interest in Kelly (who, presumably, would then push their products in the stories generated by her interviews), and 3) why Glade isn’t using her on the web, and perhaps trying to come up with ways to parlay interest in Kelly into interest in Glade products.

I’m not suggesting they do what the GEICO folks did with their Caveman property – that spin-off TV show was major lame – but certainly they could do something online that would boost their traffic and sales. Maybe webisodes, or longer-form spots, where they could give her character a backstory, and show how her foibles have gotten her friends to buy Glade.

As a marketer, I’m always concerned when I see somebody missing an opportunity, and this is no exception. So…I guess I’m going to have to call SCJ and do a little phone sleuthing to find out why they are ignoring what could be a marketing gold mine in regards to Ms. Kelly. Stay tuned…

Things have changed.

Today I can blow off the concept of color seps entirely. I send out a PDF file (usually over the web) and the printer either sends it to a plateless, digital press, or makes the plates from the PDF. No need for color seps, and I seldom have to deal with Match prints or color proofs. (Granted, I don’t do a huge amount of exacting color print work right now – most of my business has moved to online work.)

Of course, online work brings a whole ‘nother set of challenges. No end-user calibrates their monitors – nor would even understand why that’s important. Browsers interpret HTML, CSS, and JavaScript differently, as do different operating system platforms. Consistency? Fergettaboutit. There is no way to build a website that looks and works the same way on every browser/platform, short of doing the entire thing in Flash, which opens up different – but equally as daunting – cans full ‘o grief. Add PDAs and palmtops to the mix, and you’ve got some Excedrin-sized nightmares.

So it seems things haven’t changed all that much, at least as far as the headache part.

What interests me from a marketing perspective, is that the media may have undergone a huge, tectonic shift, but the need to communicate the message has not. Fundamentally, all of marketing can be distilled down to telling a compelling story to enough people to make a difference. That’s it. The whole enchilada. No story, no marketing. No marketing, no sales. No sales…well, you get the picture.

When we talk about what’s changed, you really have to divide that into two groups – tools and techniques. Tools have changed so much that an artist trained in 1970s techniques would be lost – or useless – today. How we use those tools hasn’t really changed that much – but perhaps it should.

Take TV. The advent of the DVR (a.ka. “Tivo”) has revolutionized the way we watch television. To date, however, it hasn’t done much to change the way marketers use television to advertise. Thus, TV has become a much more expensive medium, CPM-wise, because so many are skipping the commercials.

How about radio? Terrestrial advertisers answer to the satellite revolution was to go online. That caused conflict with talent, who wanted to be compensated for the additional exposure – and overpriced themselves out of the market. The result is that advertisers have to buy space on the air AND online, and never the twain shall meet. Double your anguish, double your costs. Ouch.

Newspapers? Magazines? Readership is down, and if you believe all the “top of mind” hype they try to push at their clients and prospects, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.

Online? It can be effective, but most of the traditional advertising tools – you know, “bigger, louder, more annoying” – just don’t work online. Social networking sites and Instant Messaging are the Brave New Worlds to conquer for advertisers…if only they knew how to reach people without annoying them or losing all credibility.

What’s vital to understand is that what we are witnessing is a change from one era to the next, in the same magnitude (and with the same results) of the change from the eras where dinosaurs ruled the Earth to the one where they dissappeared. It’s not just the tools that have changed. It’s how we will have to use them in order to be effective marketers.

So let me pull out my crystal ball and see what I can see for the future…

TV. Wow. Big changes here. I predict a lot more annoying promotions at the bottom of your screen. Perhaps desperate networks (there’s a great name for a dramady!) may even try to pump ads into the space. Continually. Hopefully, they’ll stop covering up the story with their ads, and relegate them to the letterbox bars. Don’t hold your breath. I think product placements are the trend of the future here. Only the well-heeled need apply. TV spots as we know them today are an endangered species.

Radio: Local radio will be forced to evolve, and become more…well…local. Not much point in local radio if all they’re gonna do is to broadcast nationally-syndicated shows, when you can get the same thing – only better – from your satradio. Advertising won’t change that much, other than trying to find a metric that will let you know what’s working.

Print: Good luck. Newspapers are dying. Magazines are becoming much more the realm of narrow, specialized interests. That’s good news for targeting campaigns – but bad news if you want a generalized reach. There will always be a market for print, but it’s heyday or dominating the world of advertising is over, unless some global EMP shuts down electronics for good.

Email: Dead man walking. I wouldn’t suggest an email campaign to a client for any amount of money. Spam has all but killed the usefulness of email as a marketing tool – EXCEPT if you’re into permission-based marketing.

Instant Messaging: If anybody figures out how to SPAM phones, this will quickly become this year’s email…in other words, soon to be coming to a “useless technology” seminar near you. Until then, it’s great for permission marketing.

Websites: Few use the web to its fullest advantage. Websites should be targeted at specific user types. Don’t force users to figure out how to get info from you – figure out how they prefer it, and serve it up, fresh and hot to them. Lots of room for growth and innovation here.

Viral: This is the gold mine. Right here. Figure out how to grow your market by giving your clients respect, and allowing your market to grow through word-of-mouth. Figuring out how to use the tools we have available to accomplish this feat is the question of the new age.

Outdoor: The rules remain the same – it sorta works, depending on the client, and of course, location, location, location. Unfortunately, unless you’ve got a big honkin’ budget, the big guys get the best seat at the table.

Other: Advertisers are constantly looking for new ways to get their messages before the public. Shopping carts. Supermarket floors. Automobile wraps. Hot air balloons. You name it. If it works, do it, but keep in mind, the more ads there are, the more visual clutter results. Hard to cut through that clutter when everybody else is screaming just as loudly as you are.

The Secret: I dunno. Wish I did. My best guess is that it’s going to involve a lot of hard work, reading tea leaves, trial and error, and trying to build relationships with customers, instead of treating them as some generic demographic. Which is to say that, the more things change…

Have you seen T. Boone Pickens “Pickens Plan” ads? Unless you live sans-TV, you really can’t miss them. (That’s the big advantage of being a rich guy with a point to make – you can actually afford to get your message out there.) Pickens argues that the biggest threat to our national security is our dependence on foreign oil. I’m not sure that I agree with him that it’s the biggest threat, but it’s certainly in the top five, and it is arguably the biggest threat (other than Congress) to our long-term economic security.

Pickens is doing a masterful job in getting people to discuss energy policy, something that makes most people’s eyes glaze over faster than you can say “1040 long form.” Since Congress does nothing (ever, about anything), Pickens has used the biggest bully pulpit money can buy, and taken his case directly to We the People. Good for him.

[Full disclosure: Mrs. Digital grew up in Boone's old stomping grounds of Amarillo, and her mom owns a spread right next door to Boone's world H.Q., outside Miami, Texas. She's known Boone since high school. ]

So since this is a marketing blog, I’d like to take this opportunity to step behind the marketing curtain, and take a look at the difference between what Boone is marketing, and what he’s actually selling. No judgments here – just observations.

Boone is, first and foremost, a businessman. (Yea!) He’s out to make money. Liberals/Progressives/skeptics think that the phrase “making money” is a conservative euphemism for “make money at the expense of the public.” Conservatives realize that this is not true. In a capitalistic, free-market society, everybody is trying to make money. The principles of Objectivism dictate that it is in everyone’s rational self-interest to play fair.

My take is that Boone is genuinely concerned that we are giving all our wealth to foreign nations, essentially bankrupting ourselves and our future, through a lack of a responsible energy policy. His commercials and website reflect that sentiment. His marketing push urges us to get off our collective butts and Do Something About This Before It’s Too Late. The something he has in mind is a way to get us from point A (a complete dependence on foreign oil) to point B (a reliance on home-grown, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydrogen).

Before we award Boone the Nobel Prize for Selfless Common Sense though, it’s useful to consider the Stanislavsky Method as it applies to marketing – in other words, “what’s his motivation?” In Watergateese, that would be “follow the money,” or in plain English, “what’s in it for him?”

When Boone says “we can’t drill our way out of this,” he’s partially right. Oil, no matter how much or how little of it we have, is (as far as we understand today) a non-renewable resource. Eventually we’ll run out. The key word here is eventually…until we start drilling again, we really don’t know how much oil we can tap on our own property. The pundits that keep saying we have but 3% of the world’s reserves are – at best – guestimating, based on old data, old technology, and old suppositions. What we do know is that using our own oil is better than buying someone else’s. Our current energy policy can best be summed up as “not in my backyard,” be it drilling, wind power, or nuclear. That’s got to change. Boone’s point is that we need to drill now – and do everything else we can do to be self-sufficient. But that alone is not enough. Our goal needs to be to transition from a dependence on oil to a dependence on renewable energy that we own.

Two things to ponder here – we need to start thinking about using energy appropriately – in other words, use renewable energy everywhere we can, saving the petroleum for things that can ONLY be done with oil. For instance, nobody’s talking about what we do to manufacture plastic, once all the oil is gone. Kind of important, doncha think? If we use wind and solar to light and heat our homes, maybe natural gas (for now) for our transportation, that would leave a lot more oil to make plastics and other things we need when we’re not lighting or cooling our homes and offices, or driving back and forth between them. But I digress…

Keep in mind, Boone was originally an oilman. If there’s one thing he knows about, it’s energy. It’s where he made his bones in the world of business. Pickens now makes his money in oil, natural gas, water, and wind power.

(Um…hang on a second? Did you say “natural gas” and “wind power”? Isn’t natural gas what Boone is advocating as a bridge to our “energy future”?)

Yes, it is.

The fact that T. Boone Pickens has skin in this particular game does not make him wrong. (Or “evil,” in liberal-speak.) Not at all. It’s useful, however, to understand that his position is that of someone who will benefit if people support and implement his plan. It’s not like he’s tried to hide this information from anybody. He just doesn’t mention in his ads that he controls a good bit of the natural gas fields in this country, and is busy buying up wind rights everywhere he can.

Boone will make a mint if the government starts converting it’s fleet of cars over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) power. But that’s just his Step One. Step Two involves investing in wind power. Don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Amarillo is lousy with wind. (Chicago ain’t got nuthin’ on us.) Amarillo is the wind capital of the world, far as I can tell. Pickens calls the USA, the “Saudi Arabia of wind power.” And Boone is busy negotiating with everyone in the Panhandle to buy up their wind rights, and put giant turbines on their farmland. Cool enough. But the thing about wind power is that it’s fairly useless, unless you can get said power from the point of generation to the point where it can be used (i.e.: your homes and businesses). That takes transmission lines, and for that, you need right-of-ways. To get right-of-ways, you need government help, to force gently twist the arms of property owners who are less than enthusiastic about having massive power lines cris-crossing their farms, ranches, and homesteads. Hey – somebody’s gotta do it. If not Boone, some other energy titan will do the same thing. We need power and wind is a great way to create it, especially as there will never be a shortage of wind.

Of course, Boone’s other hobby has been buying up water rights here in the Panhandle. Boone went to the Legislature here in the Lone Star State to get a law passed called “right of capture.” You see, unlike a lot of places in the country that depend on lakes and rivers for their water supply, in the Panhandle, we depend on an aquifer – essentially an underground lake. Our Ogallala aquifer covers parts of Wyoming, virtually all of Nebraska, parts of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico, as well as the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles. If somebody drains the Ogallala aquifer, a whole bunch of people in a whole bunch o’ states will have no water. You could kiss a good portion of the Midwest buh-bye.

The way “right of capture” works (as far as I understand it) is, if you own the water rights on a piece of land, you can pump as much water from it as you like, with no regard as to your neighbors’ needs. That’s rather like taking a milkshake, putting a bunch of straws in it, and letting all your friends share it, claiming that you’ll only drink your share, and will leave their parts completely unaffected. Um…not so much. If one guy gets a little thirsty, everybody else gets less to drink. Thanks to the right of capture law, whoever owns those water rights could potentially drain that aquifer any time they want, leaving everybody else dry as a bone.

Keep in mind, what Boone wants to do is to sell our water to places like Dallas and San Antonio that need it. (San Antonio’s Edwards Aquifer is so depleted at the moment that many homes in the greater San Antonio area have to buy bottled water, as their wells have literally run dry.) Selling our water to drought-stricken areas of the state wouldn’t be a problem, except that we’re in a drought as well, and have been for some time. Our biggest lake in these parts, Lake Meredith, is some 50 feet lower than it is supposed to be. It will take years of rainfall to bring it back up to the proper level. And that’s only if somebody (Boone) doesn’t make things worse by pumping our water to points South.

But wait…pumping water is an expensive proposition, and requires an extensive network of pipelines. He’d have to build the pipelines, but to do that, he’d…need…right-of-ways…across…the…state.

Uh oh.

Now I don’t wanna get all ‘grassy knoll’ on you, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the same right-of-ways that would allow for transmission lines could be used for a massive water pipeline. I’m not sayin’…I’m just sayin.’ And for the record, I don’t think that Boone would ever drain the aquifer to the point where the Panhandle becomes another Dust Bowl. However, I’m not sure we should be entirely comfortable with a situation where everyone here is dependent upon the kindness of one entrepreneur, no matter how sharp the guy may be.

Boone’s marketing pitch doesn’t go into any of this. And why should it – he’s a smart guy, and he knows what will resonate with the American people. Even better, he’s right – we need to do EVERYTHING to make ourselves as energy-independent as possible – drill for oil everywhere we can, build more nuclear power plants, use natural gas wisely, invest in wind power generation, solar power generation, and develop ways to turn clean coal and oil shale into usable energy, as well as encouraging private companies to come up with new ideas for energy creation. The fact that he’s gonna make money in the transition from oil-dependency to something else is immaterial. To properly evaluate the Pickens Plan, though, it’s useful to understand what’s behind the marketing message.

Boone’s plan is heavy on natural gas and wind power. No surprise there. What he doesn’t talk about, though, are options like building plants that would convert oil shale into diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. Seems that we have HUGE deposits of oil shale, which heretofore have been largely useless as far as energy goes. Since WWII, we’ve known how to convert this resource into usable fuels – but building the plants was way too expensive for the return on the investment. That all changed when oil hit $100 a barrel. The only thing stopping entrepreneurs from building those plants now is the knowledge that if they were to start, OPEC would simply drop the price of crude long enough to bankrupt them – then jack the price back up, once the threat had passed.

Boone also soft-pedals nuclear energy. Contrary to what Jane Fonda and the rest of the “China Syndrome” crowd, nuclear power is safe, cost-effective and practical. Just as France. Or Germany. France – home to tree-hugging groups like Greenpeace – has invested big in nuclear power. They’d be the first on the protest lines if it were dangerous. Done right, it’s a blessing. France has nuclear power plants all across the countryside. Stateside, nobody’s built a new nuclear facility – or expanded a current one – in years. Why? bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits from enviro-Nazis. They’d rather wear no-nukes shirts and protest than have clean, cheap energy. Nice.

Wind power faces some hurdles, too. Ted Kennedy and the Hyannisport crowd have taken a “not in my back bay” attitude – they don’t want anything spoiling their precious view. (Keep in mind – the longer the distance you have to transmit energy, the harder it is to do, and the more energy it takes to do it.) The PeTAmaniacs are up in arms, too. According to Leading Animal Rights Activists, those turbine blades regularly play Freddie Kruger to our feather friends. Well…it’s hard to say how big a problem this is, because the animal activist crowd tends to, shall we say…exaggerate the severity of any problem they think can get them some face time on the boot tube (not to mention YouTube). And I’d sacrifice an entire flock of seagulls for cheap, renewable energy any day.

Bottom line, Boone’s marketing is brilliant. But there’s more to the story than the part the public sees. I have no problem with what he suggests. But we all need to be aware that he has a stake in this game, and the Pickens Plan is not necessarily the only game in town. Unfortunately, with a Congress that seems only to care about being the antithesis to Progress, it might as well be the only alternative to our current dilemma. In this case, Boone’s marketing is providing a public service – while at the same time, helping him promote his own interests. Not a bad deal for everyone involved, when you think about it. And if Pickens can get Congress off the dime and get us out of the clutches of OPEC, more power – um…energy – to him.

Recently, I’ve seen a couple of spots that have been able to penetrate the general noise level and get my attention. They’ve done so, largely for a couple of reasons:

• They are well produced, directed, and acted.
• They feature some spokesmodels/actresses with talent well beyond their looks.
• They are part of a long-running series of commercials, so they have longer to make an impression.

The three series are:

• The Mercury spots, featuring actress/model Jill Wagner
• The Glade spots, featuring Dori Kelly
• The Progressive spots, featuring Stephanie Courtney as “Flo”

It’s nothing new, but a surefire way to get the public’s attention is to use SEX. Sex sells. However, with everybody and their funny uncle using sex to sell now-a-days, many marketers have found that they need a little something “extra” to rise above the noise of cleavage, hot, sweaty bodies, and innuendo. (When marketing ethics and morals exit through the door, sex comes innuendo. Ba-dum-DUM.) The latest vendor to try something even more outrageous in the SexOlympics is…drum roll please…Old Spice.

Old Spice? Yep. This is not your father’s aftershave. Old Spice (which is now not only an after shave, but a line extention to all sorts of personal grooming products), has treated us to a series of spots featuring a showering spokes-centaur. We hear all the deceptive cadence jokes – “I’m two things in one …a man…and a pretty smart shopper.” The pitch highlights their “dual formula ” body wash, with some nonsense about how it contains both moisturizer and body wash (a.k.a. “liquid soap”). Hang on a nanosec…

Here’s a question for you: What does soap actually do? Answer: it acts as a way to allow water and oils to bond, thereby helping the water to wash away the oils that trap dirt and bacteria on your body.

Here’s another: What are moisturizers? Answer: they are oily substances that lubricate your skin.

So if soap washes away oil, and moisturizers add oil, how exactly does a moisturizing soap work?

Be the inherent illogic of the product as it may, what Old Spice is trying to do here is to make the point that there product is really two products in one. No problem there. But they way they are doing it is to make the rather obvious implication (by using a spokes-centaur) that their product will somehow make you well-endowed. Sure enough, a babe wearing a shorty robe enters, and makes the same deceptive comparison, forcing the viewer to think “no, he’s a man…AND A CENTAUR!” Wow. So a centaur is well endowed…and he uses Old Spice…so buying…Old…Spice…would make…me…

Um…yeah. So in order to make a lame comparison, Old Spice is now essentially promoting bestiality? Okay, I know centaurs are mythical creatures. And I acknowledge that they, at the very least, had the good sense to only imply the bestiality- and avoid the worst jokes, puns, and one-liners. But just because they didn’t go for the jugular doesn’t mean what they are doing is a good idea. W’eve got enough organizations out there contributing to the decline of Western Civ. without having Old Spice go over to the dark side. Do we really need some company telling us that if we want to score with the ladies, we’re competing with the equine world? I don’t think so. Sorry Old Spice. Send this spot back to the showers. Or the stables. You decide.

In recent years, we’ve seen spin that would make a top envious from organizations like the tobacco growers, automobile makers, and scads of politicians (who virtually invented spin). Last night, I saw a TV spot for a group that has decided to take spin to a new level, proactively seeking to change the hearts and minds of the great unwashed before they even get their hackles up regarding the group’s product.

Know much about sweeteners? If you like sweets, sodas, bread products, or cereals and think sugar (cane sugar or beet sugar) is a major part of your diet, think again. Most foods today use what’s called High Fructose Corn Syrup (a.ka.: HFCS) as their sweetener of choice, instead of cane or beet sugar. Why? It’s cheaper and easier to transport than cane or beet sugars. Recently, a number of groups have raised questions about HFCS and health issues. These concerns have not yet gotten a lot of traction in the media or penetrated the conciousness of the general public. Which makes the nationwide TV/Web campaign currently being mounted by the Corn Refiners Association really interesting.

Before we go any farther, let me get a couple of things out of the way, in the spirit of full disclosure. I love soft drinks. I don’t drink diet drinks (I hate the after-taste), and while I try and watch what I eat (sort of) I’m not a crusader against food additives, genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, or anything else. If there’s something to concerns about HFCS, I’d like to know about it, but until I see some proof, I’m not up in arms about this. I’m not concerned about HFCS, aspartame, Olestra, saccharin, or anything else the scaremongers would have me believe will kill me.

Having said that, my big gripe about HFCS is that it doesn’t taste as good as cane sugar, at least in my vice-of-choice, Coca-Cola. In fact, I’ve taken to buying what we refer to around here as “Mexican Cokes” – Coca-Cola that’s bottled South of the border, where for some reason, they still use cane sugar.

Cane sugar has a ‘bite’ to it that HFCS just doesn’t have. Cokes made with HFCS taste better. Given that they are also more expensive, I drink fewer cane sugar Cokes, which is a happy thing for me and my wasteline. (Pun intended. A waist is a terrible thing to mind.)

Since I hit my fifth decade on Planet Earth, I’ve begun paying more attention to what I put in my body. I’m a believer in the idea that the less you screw around with additives and processing, the better off you are, at least in general. Given that cane sugar Cokes taste better, drinking fewer HFCS Cokes was an easy decision. What’s somewhat worrisome for me, though, is that some of the groups hitting the alarm button (including the USDA) claim that studies show that HFCS could be contributing cause of the increase in reported cases of diabetes. Since I have a number of friends that have been stricken with diabetes (and if you count all the diabetes products commercials on TV, I’ve got to believe that diabetes control is a growing business), this is worrisome. Of course if you want to eliminate HFCS from your diet – good luck. Fountain drinks aren’t available with cane sugar. Cake mixes, breakfast cereals, and thousands of other products are made with good old HFCS. You can run from HFCS, but I don’t think you can hide.

HFCS is big business for “Big Corn.” Aside from the windfall from the recent, misguided push towards using corn to make Ethanol, corn growers make big bucks from crops destined for HFCS production. (For every winner there must be a loser – sugar producers are taking it in the shorts as manufacturers move away from cane sugars and towards HFCS.)

So I suppose it’s logical that the Corn Refiners Association has come out, guns blazing, to convince people that HFCS is a beneficial, safe way to sweeten foods. And what better way to do so than with a TV campaign rife with a wholesome girl-next-door, a somewhat dense and inarticulate boyfriend, and a phallic symbol?

In the spot entitled “Two Bites,” we see a young, attractive couple on a picnic. The girl (we’ll call her “Eve”) proffers a juicy, red Popsicle to her guy. He resists, saying “that’s got high fructose corn syrup in it…and you know they say about that!” She smiles her knowing smile, professes ignorance of what “they” say. He fumbles about for a bit, not able to recall what “they” say, either (but he knows it was bad). In her best Socratic manner, asks “What? That it’s made from corn? That it has the same calories as sugar, and honey, it’s fine in moderation!” The guy (we’ll call him “Adam”) responds, “You only brought one?,” and happily accepts the treat, dripping with HFCS and symbolism, from his temptress girlfriend. The spot then ends with a tagline: “Get the facts…you’re in for a sweet surprise.” along with a URL for SweetSurprise.com, where you can learn “factual information about common sweetners like sugar, honey, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).”

The spot accomplishes a number of things you learn in P.R. 101:

1. Confront the problem – HFCS is starting to get a bad rep. The spot acknowledges this.
2. Don’t give credence to the problem by explaining it – The spot cleverly mentions the idea that HFCS is somehow ‘bad’ – but never offers any details or evidence that it is, thus discrediting it by discrediting the person in the spot espousing that opinion.
3. Explain your position/state your claims in a simple, factoid fashion – The spokesbabe cleverly works her three talking points into her answer – it’s natural (made from corn), just as sweet – and no sweeter – than (cane) sugar, and okay to eat in moderation.
4. Offer a tease/call to action to provide more ‘facts’ to buttress your argument – the URL and tag line lead the viewer to believe that they’ll be ‘rewarded’ when they learn the ‘truth’ about HFCS.

The site offers a number of things – a quiz, access to the media campaign, and a FAQ that is heavy on pro-HFCS data, but conveniently skirts any mention of a connection between HFCS and diabetes.

Is HFCS a danger to public health and a cause of diabetes? I dunno. I’m not a scientist. However, I’d like to know more – a lot more – about this, and not just take the word of an organization that has a vested interest in convincing me that HFCS is a safe alternative to cane and beet sugars.

In the spirit of providing as much information as possible, here are some links I found by searching Google for “high fructose corn syrup”:

The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

WestonaPrice.org article on the “Double Danger of HFCS

Mayo Clinic article on HFCS

LA Times article on HFCS

WaPo article on HFCS

SF Chronical article on HFCS

www.sprol.com

http://www.sweetsurprise.com

I’d suggest you read what you can, and then make up your own mind HFCS. No matter what you hear, or who you listen to, remember that everybody has an agenda. (Mine is to talk about marketing and how it relates to the world in which we live.)

Getting back to the matter at hand, kudos to the lobbyists, PR team, and marketers behind Big Corn. They’ve crafted a campaign that doesn’t miss a trick, and worked proactively to try and shut down the arguments against HFCS before they get enough play in the news to become a danger to their profits. That’s the way to use marketing effectively. Is that an ethical use of marketing? I don’t know. If HFCS is proved to be safe – yes, it is. If not, there’s gonna be a whole bunch of marketers burning in Hell, come the judgement day.

The latest spot from Microsoft has been unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. The good news: it’s (a bit) funnier than the last spot. The bad news: it’s still brain-dead stupid. According to a Microsoft spokespersyn, there’s to be a whole series of these spots (Oh, the Humanity! The Horror!) and we’ll just have to wait for them to do the ‘reveal’ as to what in the HELL they’re on about.

Color me underwhelmed.

At this point, Microsoft, I don’t care if your next product is an all-singing, all-dancing, walks-on-water, savior of the universe. You’ve broken a sacred trust with me (that would be “Vista,” and until you own up to that colossal mistake, I’m not gonna trust you with my money. Period.

It would be a better use of Microsoft’s marketing dollars if they simply came out with a mea culpa about Vista, and promised to fix things. Trying to divert attention from the train wreck that is Vista is not just ineffective – it’s stupid.

Apparently, Microsoft wants to re-brand “PC” to mean “Perpetually Connected.” Um…right. Here’s the deal, Bill – I can’t keep my friggin’ Windows Mobile Phone to sync with my Windows XP or Vista computers. How much credibility do you think you’ll have trying to convince me that you guys are suddenly gonna know how to keep things “perpetually connected”? That, of course, belies the REAL point, that Microsoft products are difficult to use, buggy as Hell, and make it much harder to be productive than the other guy’s stuff (that would be Apple).

I don’t see any good coming out of this. Microsoft is every bit as out of touch with their users as Washington D.C. is with taxpayers. Perhaps we should all send T-Shirts to CEO Steve Balmer, emblazoned with with message, “Stop! I am their leader! Which way did they go?”

Sad. Very sad.

Did you ever wonder why Microsoft and marketing both start with “m” but just don’t go together? I’m just not quite certain if Microsoft has an aversion to marketing in the same way that, oh, say, Oprah has to Governor Palin. But if this latest excursion into television advertising is any indication, I’d say that “Microsoft” goes together with “marketing” like “Congress” goes with “bi-partisan cooperation.”

Let’s recap: On the one hand, you have Microsoft, probably The Most Successful Computer Company Ever.™ On the other hand, you have Apple, the Little Company That Could.

Microsoft is the Übergorilla in the room – the company that practically owns every facet of your computer. Think about it. Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Mouse. Microsoft Keyboard. Microsoft Office. You name it, and the Boys of Redmond are doing their level best to corner the market in any given segment. Their sheer size and market penetration of so many mission-critical markets make them the big dog on the block.

Apple is the smaller, smarter, more agile competitor. Their products work better. They are easier to use. They are more fun. And they offer a legitimate alternative to Microsoft in every market in which Microsoft plays.

You’d think with all that money (I’m surprised they haven’t cut a deal with Uncle Sam to co-own a Treasury Printing Office…think of the time we’d save on shipping if we could get Microsoft to print the money, instead of printing it elsewhere and shipping it all to Redmond), Microsoft could afford to hire some people that actually understand marketing. In fairness to Microsoft’s marketers, they probably have – but the Microsoft culture refuses to listen.

Apple is different. (No, duh.) They seem to approach everything from a marketing point of view, i.e., “here’s a problem…how can we solve it to make people happy?” Then they think, “how can we make our solution the best possible of all solutions, making it useful, friendly, easy-to-use, and…well…fun.” Microsoft approaches things from a view of “here’s a market that’s making money. Let’s dominate it. Doesn’t much matter if we do it better – we just want the money.”

So every so often, Microsoft inflicts television spots on us. Some of them have been memorable – usually for all the wrong reasons. When they announced Windows 98, they used the Rolling Stones “Start Me Up.” Evidently, nobody thought to listen to the lyric just after the snippet they used – the somewhat prescient, “You make a grown man cry.” Another Microsoft spot famously used Mozart’s Requiem to pitch their products. The Dies Irae section’s lyrics go a little something like this:

Day of wrath, day of anger
will dissolve the world in ashes,
as foretold by David and the Sibyl.
Great trembling there will be
when the Judge descends from heaven
to examine all things closely.

If only. So Microsoft has a well-documented history of shooting itself in the foot with their marketing. (Of course, you can argue that they do the same thing with their products, and you wouldn’t be far off the mark.)

Vista is an unmitigated disaster, an operating system that only a sadomasochist could love. We have it on two of the computers at my house and it is universally reviled with the same enthusiasm one has for excrement found adhering to the bottom of one’s shoe. To make matters worse, Apple’s agency devised a brilliant, long-running series of ads that poke fun at Microsoft in general, and Vista in particular. “I’m a Mac.” “And I’m a PC.” is nothing short of genius. In every ad, the theme is hammered home that Macs are easy to use, fun, and help you get work done. PCs are dull, boring, difficult to use, and are best relegated to folks like “Mordac, Preventer of Information Services.”

As if to rub it in, Apple made one brilliant move after another. iPod. iTunes. iPhone. “iSurrender” would have been a legit strategy for the Redmond crew, but nooooooooo – they decided to fight back the best way they know how. With a new ad. Starring Bill “Mr. Personality” Gates and Jerry “I’m bored and the money’s good” Seinfeld.

In Damage Control 101we learn that the best way to deal with a collosal P.R. problem is to face it head on. Vista’s problems are no big secret. In fact, everybody but Microsoft seems to know about it. A spot where the recently retired Gates says something like, “Hey everybody…Bill Gates here. Sorry about that Vista thing. We’ve heard you. We realize our new O/S is a big steaming pile, and we’re gonna do something about it. Please be patient, and we’ll fix it. And we’ll never violate your trust in us again.” Now THAT’S a spot I’d like to see. Believable? Maybe…maybe not. But it would stand a much better chance of resonating with the public than the piece of ego-driven dreck they’re airing now.

No mention of the Vista Problem. No admission of culpability or guilt. All they do is to talk about the future. (Just between you and me, I could care less about a computer that offers chewey, yummy goodness. I’d be satisfied if the damn thing worked once in a while.) No, they do a riff on Bill G.’s status as the World’s Richest Nerd, allow Jerry to do his schtick about how he can’t wait for the NEXT Microsoft innovation, and then…nothing. No payoff. No big announcement. No “sorry about that Vista crap – but now for something really worth waiting for!”

Microsoft seems to have forgotten that, in order to make the FUD factor (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) work, you must first promise something more or less specific coming Really Soon Now. You can be vague about the details, but it helps to have something specific in your promise – especially if you’re trying to counter-sell against your competition. If they claimed, “Hey…forget about that OS/X stuff…we’ve got something that’s gonna blow it – and Vista – away!” You might not believe it, but (if you hadn’t heard it a thousand times before) you might at least let them sew the seeds of doubt in your mind. As it is, the spot is just…pointless. So what if they’re gonna do something cool in the future? We need solutions NOW. There’s nothing in that spot that convinces me to buy a Windows box – or to change my decision to buy Macs from now on. (Remember, until just recently, I’ve been a Window guy.)

Is there hope for Microsoft? I kind of doubt it. You see, inertia is the only thing they have in their favor. Bigger companies than Microsoft have imploded, flamed out or simply rotted from within before. Won’t be the first time. Google (a.k.a.: “The NEW Microsoft”) is busy pulling the rug out from under Microsoft’s kingdom. Google is doing a fine job of disintermediating Microsoft to the point where they’ll simply be irrelevant. Can marketing help Microsoft avoid that fate? In the short term, maybe. In the long term, not unless they actually deliver on the yummy goodness stuff, and stop shoveling things like Vista on to our plates and telling us it’s great.