Orange Dress Uploaded by betsyjean79 on 21 Oct 06, 1.22PM BST.

Innovative marketing is upon us. I admittedly need to work a bit on that phrase since it sounds like I’m talking about the plague but that might not be miles away . . . → Read the rest of this entry...]]>

Orange Dress Uploaded by betsyjean79 on 21 Oct 06, 1.22PM BST.

Innovative marketing is upon us. I admittedly need to work a bit on that phrase since it sounds like I’m talking about the plague but that might not be miles away from where I want to take this post.

If you’ve read this blog more than once you’ll know that I’m not into marketing and so I am ill-equiped to judge whether getting 36 women clad in orange to promote your product in a football game is a good idea or not. (judging by the pics of males following the bra action rather than the football pitch action I would say it at least got people’s attention).

Anyway, because of my job the first thing that comes to mind when I see this debate is this: Policy.

The women were arrested under the Contravention of Merchandise Marks Act, which prevents companies benefiting from an event without paying for advertising. The 36 women were accused of being part of a campaign to promote a Dutch brewery.
(via World Cup 2010: Women arrested over ‘ambush marketing’ freed on bail in the Guardian)

The rule looks sound. FIFA organises and so it retains the right to the game. I have personal issues with sports for sale but it’s a discussion for another time perhaps.

On the other hand marketing has evolved. It’s not just about the posters and TV spots. Flash mobs, ambush marketing, take your pick – they are upon us (kinda like the plague – get that first paragraph now?)

When I see a debate like that I’m not seeing a “should they – should they not” type of discussion. I’m seeing a policy that is probably outdated and is in serious need of review, along with better external relations regarding the existing and developing policy.

Is it perhaps time for FIFA to revisit the rules?

What is important here is not to change the rules as such – I have no position on that one. What is important is to engage with stakeholders and communicate the actual benefits of the current policies. And who knows, maybe a better policy will come out of it all.

Share/Save

gaming in style Uploaded by PortugePunk on 13 Jan 06, 11.46PM GMT

If you have any desire to work in advertising and you haven’t heard of Saatchi & Saatchi I think it’s fair to say that you should consider an . . . → Read the rest of this entry...]]>

gaming in style Uploaded by PortugePunk on 13 Jan 06, 11.46PM GMT

If you have any desire to work in advertising and you haven’t heard of Saatchi & Saatchi I think it’s fair to say that you should consider an alternative career right about now.

Each summer, Saatchi & Saatchi offer up to ten graduates the opportunity of a place on their Summer Scholarship Programme. Graduates are given the chance to experience the industry first hand, and see for themselves exactly what is required for a career in a creative company. At the end of the programme, up to four of the grads may be offered a permanent role.
(via)

This year they are going through the selection process via Facebook – which I find very interesting. All you had to do (fine it started in January) was join their Facebook group and take part in a series of challenges – the first of which was to create a group of your own and attract members.

Over the coming weeks we will be setting a series of briefs that have been specially designed to test the various skills and attributes you will need to work here. Each brief will be fun, but challenging – that’s the point. It’ll be a bit like The Apprentice meets Big Brother meets The Blair Witch Project. Actually scrub the Blair Witch bit.
(via)

The group number over 6.000 members so no pressure.

I’m hoping they’ll come up with a report at the end about their experience.

—-
I read about it: Graduate recruiter employs social media by Sheli Rodney on CorpComms

Share/Save

It’s important that we learn how to talk in terms of benefits and not the features. (…) It’s not the various features that convince someone to buy. They might influence your purchase, but you buy benefits.

I couldn’t agree more.

This . . . → Read the rest of this entry...]]> Chris Brogan has a good point in his latest post ‘Sell Benefits Not Features’.

It’s important that we learn how to talk in terms of benefits and not the features. (…) It’s not the various features that convince someone to buy. They might influence your purchase, but you buy benefits.

I couldn’t agree more.

This is not a new ‘mistake’. It’s a very old one. At the start of major industrialisation in the United States advertising concentrated on features and not benefits as well.

Old time advertising
Originally uploaded by Swarup108

Products were being advertised in a descriptive manner, trumpeted as the new scientific miracle, the latest success of the industrial era. New products had to be ‘explained’, their technical features understood. One of the (many) reasons for this was that the products were thought of from the engineer’s point of view. This is exactly what is happening today. Twitter, Facebook etc. are being thought of from the programmers’ point of view or at least the point of view of tech savvy people.

So advertising kept going at it from the ‘science’ (or at times pseudo – science) point of view until at some point the industrialists (and the government) became worried that soon demand would not be enough for the level of production. Enter the psychologists (Ernest Dichter being a shining example) who saw the Truth: One car is very much like another car. But a Ford says something different about you than a Cadillac. So you don’t sell a car. You sell a lifestyle associated with your car’s brand.

Do we really think that the ‘lifestyle’ approach is too far for new and social media? All we need to do is wait for the time that demand will not be enough. And then the games shall begin once more. I just hope they don’t get as dirty.

Share/Save