advertising

Notes from north of 49ºN, but at 37.9ºN at the moment.

Regular readers of ThickCulture will recall that I post quite a bit on the topic of Canada from an American expatriate perspective.  Way back in May, I blogged about attack ads being aimed at Liberal opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, framing him as an outsider.  Recently, the Liberal Party of Canada has announced their intent to trigger the next election with a no-confidence vote in Parliament.  In preparation of this, The Liberals started advertising with spots featuring Ignatieff in a forest.  Earlier last week, the Globe & Mail tried to stir up controversy about Liberal Party of Canada ads featuring Michael Ignatieff in a possibly ersatz forest or a forest that cannot be readily identified.  Quite the sin in a timber-bearing land, eh Globe & Mail?

Here are the ads:: “Worldview” & “Jobs”

In my opinion, this constructed “scandal” is meant to stir the pot to get pageviews for the Globe & Mail by feeding the sentiments that somehow he is not as Canadian as everyone else and there is something less-than-authentic about him.  Perhaps this was borne out of the media frenzy over the Obama “birthers” movement.

Interestingly, in the French ads {I didn’t have time to translate the copy}, there is no forest and no guitar strumming in the background.  Just straightforward delivery::

Strategically, candidates need to think about creating a “positioning” strategy, where they create a meaning system in light of the competition.  With voter data on attitudes towards the political leaders {Harper-Conservative, Ignatieff-Liberal, Layton-NDP, Duceppe-Bloc, & May-Green}, multidimensional scaling can be used to try to create dimensions based on the attitudes and positions for each of the candidates along the dimensions.  Ideally, candidates differentiate themselves from the others on the basis of salient voter perceptions, i.e., tapping into the zeitgeist.  On my other blog, Rhizomicon, I did a post that talked about the increased fragmentation of the Canadian electorate.  While the Conservatives are in power with a plurality, my take is that there are several oppositional positions that are distinct and are differentiated from each other.  The question is whether the positions are salient and resonate with voters, which I think is a tough thing to accomplish in Canada these days.

The key issues now are economic, despite the Bank of Canada announcing the economy is turning the corner.  Crafting powerful messages that resonate on this would be no easy feat for any of the parties.  I think the look and feel of the Liberal Party French ad is more effective in conveying an “ominous” message.  As for the attack ads on Ignatieff, this could be dangerous in a politically fragmented environment, as there are already political faultlines along east-west lines.  A strategy framing Harper as fostering policies that are out of touch outside of the West could erode Conservative support.  Ironically, Harper coined the term “Bloc Anglais” to characterize Jack Layton of the NDP, but that same term could be applied to the particular {Reform Party style} conservatism Alberta and parts of interior BC.

So, what’s next?  Maybe Ignatieff’s a robot from outer space…

Twitterversion:: Globe&Mail strts contrvrsy w/ #Ignatieff in forest ads,but how2frame #CanPoli parties givn fragmntd polity? #ThickCulture http://url.ie/2gxo @Prof_K

Song:: Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots Pt.1 – The Flaming Lips

Updated:: 18 June 2009 10:53 EDT

Overshadowed by rather serious events in Iran and subsequent stutter-steps by mainstream media in its coverage, David Letterman got into a dustup with Sarah Palin over allegedly tasteless jokes about her 14 year-old daughter, Willow.  The Huffington Post has a 1:43 compilation of the affair::

Dave went to great lengths to apologize and Sarah Palin accepted his apology on Tuesday.  Old news.  Now, one group is clamoring for Dave’s firing.  Just to be clear here, Dave is protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech, but that doesn’t guarantee employment.  Ask Don Imus about how big media can frown on inappropriate humour. The FireDavidLetterman site announced that Olive Garden supposedly dropped its sponsorship of The Late Show::

In a Politico article, according to Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager::

“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden.

but, this HotAir post finished the paragraph with this::

“There will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for The Late Show with David Letterman in this year’s broadcast schedule.

We have not yet finalized next year’s advertising plan but will consider our valued guests’ opinions when doing so.”

The context being that the contract was already allowed to expire and no ads were planned.  So, they caved to pressure.  Or, did they?  Apparently, the sources confirming the pulling of the ad sponsorship weren’t authorized to speak for the company and the NY Times reported there was no such decision.  The Politico article was updated and the title revised from this::

to “Olive Garden Backtracks on David Letterman Ads.”  Well, as the story d/evolved, quel surprise, comments from the Twittersphere started to trickle in, some defending Olive Garden, some critical of the chain, and a handful advocating a boycott for allegedly pulling the ads {recent} and for sponsoring Dave {2+ days ago}::

Olive Garden is in a tough PR spot.  If their online demos {Quantcast} are fairly similar to their customer base, their market trends towards being white, female, 18-49, with 0-2 kids, making under $60K, and with some college.  In other words, moderates.

Dave.  Well, he’s getting a bounce from all of this.  According to the NYTimes Media Decoder blog {16 June}::

“In preliminary national ratings, Mr. Letterman pulled in 700,000 more viewers than Mr. O’Brien Monday night, 3.9 million to 3.2 million, his biggest margin yet over his new competitor. Mr. Letterman routinely trailed the former ‘Tonight’ host Jay Leno by a million viewers or more.”

O’Brien still owns the coveted younger demos.

Update:: Video of Fire Letterman Protest from New York magazine

Twitterversion:: #newblogpost #Palin supporters want #DavidLetterman fired. Advertiser #OliveGarden flinches? Dave gets ratings boost. http://url.ie/1qzi  @Prof_K

Song:: Lolita – Throw Me The Statue

Video:: Directed by Matt Daniels

Notes from north of 49ºN

I remember how my parents said that RFK was accused of being a carpetbagger, coming to New York to become a US Senator in 1964.  Now that Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, finds his Conservative Party down in the polls by 5% {35-30%}, attack ads are being run tantamount to accusing the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, of being a Canadian “outsider.”  The ads accuse Ignatieff of coming back to Canada after being gone for 34 years::

The Conservatives are really slipping in the polls in Québec, so you think they would come up with a more engaging attack ad than this one in French.

This one paints Ignatieff as a carpetbagging opportunist, living in the UK and referring to himself as American::

The Liberals may be further undermined by attacks from the Bloc Québécois in Québec, which has 24% of the population in Canada.  Support for the Bloc is upwards of 40% in Québec, while Liberal support in the province is around 35%.

I find the anglophone ads to be rather effective at conveying the frame of Ignatieff as a elitist outsider.  I agree with the pundits that Harper is fighting for his political life and managed to get into a feud with Brian Mulroney, a conservative blast from the past.  Conservatism seems to be lacking cohesiveness on both sides of 49ºN.

While another Federal election is unlikely in the near term, it’s likely to pressure uneasy alliances between the Conservatives, the Bloc, and even the left-leaning NDP {read:: concessions by Harper?}.

HatTip:: LinnyQat

Twitterversion:: Harper {Tories} attcks Ignatieff {Grits} on nationalism frame. H. fighting 4 political life, Grits gaining. Strange bedfellows in store?

Song:: Jay-Z “Takeover”

Takeover – Jay-Z

This story on how the award winning Daily Bruin sold a “wrapper ad” made me think about the singularity of media and the future of print.  The PBS Frontline of The Persuaders shows how JetBlue used a similar wrapper ad in Boston to bump “real” content off of the visible front page and make JetBlue look like a front page story with a faux front page that was an ad.  Was it The Boston Globe?  Nah, it was a Boston-area tabloid, the Herald. 

I’ve been following The Daily Bruin story and saw the LA Weekly Tweet about it.  I saw the Innovation in College Media post on the issue, which had a good comparison of the real {right} versus faux {left} front pages.

Well, why would an award-winning student-run paper risk their reputation to sell ice cream?  On the other hand, is this even a big deal?  The editor of UC Berkeley’s Daily Cal up the road {down the street for me, this week} offered this::

“We were approached about the same ad, and we firmly decided against it. I really recognize the problems the Bruin are facing. We have them too, and considering we are one of the few papers that actually scaled back publication, we’re probably feeling the pain a lot worse.

We actually did end up running a similar ad, but inside (pp. 5-6) and more clearly labeled as Paid Advertising. Still not something I’m entirely comfortable with, but definitely something I can live with, considering we held on to the revenue. Would welcome your thoughts on it. Available at: http://www.dailycal.org/data/pdf/2249.pdf“

The economics of print media make advertising necessary.  This post on Poynter shows that print isn’t dead in light of online media, which {to me} highlights relevance.  Readers will seek relevant content regardless of the medium, up to a point.  

Many on staff at The Daily Bruin weren’t on board with the decision to run this ad and as it turns out, the editor of The Daily Bruin announced that there would be no more ads of this sort.  Those who have seen The Corporation have seen examples of media exerting great influence over content (Jane Akre & Steve Wilson), so we have a situation where the fourth estate has revenue imperatives at the school paper level and above.

I think it’s a bad idea to mess with reputation or audience perceptions.  If you’re a tabloid or crappy paper {or crappy blog for that matter}, it probably doesn’t matter that much.  Audience expectations factor in that constrain what one does.  The ad execution wasn’t that creative and there was no great payoff, so in my opinion, it wasn’t worth the stretch for The Daily Bruin.  If I were Haagen-Dazs and its ad agency {I do believe it still is Goodby, Silverstein & Partners}, I’d wonder if this press is a plus or minus.  At best, I think it’s a wash.  The ad execution was meh & I never felt the “honeybees” campaign was “on code”.  Nevertheless, there are economic imperatives for print journalism.  It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback the situation, but this situation isn’t going away any time soon.  Advertising content is becoming so pervasive, it’s in TV shows, movies, video games, etc.  Should a line be drawn at ads that look like news?

• Should journalistic news content and advertising be strongly delineated?
• Does it really matter to readers if it’s not?

Here’s one I’ll put away in my ever expanding “future research project file.”

Via

Recently Google began selling location-specific advertising on its search pages. Nancy Scola at TechPresident blogs on what she calls ambient advertising the use of location-specific ads by the AFL-CIO in the debate over the Employee Free Choice Act

Google ads now has a location targeting option, allowing advertisers to either drop a pin on a map or type in an address, and then set a radius within which their ads runs. (Google doesn’t set a minimum circle of influence, but suggests drilling in no closer than 20 miles.)

Scloa notes that the ads have been targeting readers in Maine, the home of the Senators Olympia Snoew and Susan Collins (a.k.a the moderate wing of the Republican party) with passages like “78% of Americans support workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.”

My question is whether Internet advertising of this form is a medium that lends itself to formal political appeals. The theory would be that people who searched for something related to the legislation would already be cued into wanting to know more about the bill and would thus be predisposed to click on a link to content related to the bill. Makes sense, but we know little about the political behavior of this population of “potential ad link clickers.” Is the group that would break the divide between legitimate link and Google Ad the same as the group that would not link to a Google ad under any circumstances. Are “ad link clickers” more or less disposed to be politically active.

On it’s face, one would think not. But I suspect there are differences between those who reject direct political appeals (i.e. they won’t click on a banner ad) and those who see no distinction (will happily click a banner ad). I’m in the former category. Not exactly sure why, other than most of my friends in high school became car salesemen (as did I for a short time).

Like I said…one for the “to do” file.

I saw this politically-flavored ad in New York City this weekend and it struck me as unusual.

In an election year, we can expect to see many product advertisements that utilize political imagery or poke fun at political culture. Along the same block, I saw a display featuring cardboard cutouts of the two presidential candidates bearing various wines and spirits. But most of these ads, do not take a political perspective or mount a critique. They tend to be of the “whether you support Obama or McCain” variety. This ad for a storage company make a very clear criticism of Sarah Palin — albeit on experiential and not policy grounds.

Is this actually unusual? Is it permissible because NYC is a fairly liberal place? Or perhaps because Obama-Biden are such clear frontrunner? What do you think?