Brand: Planters Nut Lovers Mix (Kraft Foods)
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here
Target: Nut Lovers
Rating: **
Reviewer: David

Description:
A dapper, animated Mr. Peanut rushes out of a cab at the bottom of the Empire State Building in Manhattan and up to the observation deck as dramatic orchestral music urges him on. He looks right and left coming out of the elevator, wanders around, almost giving us his search in desperation and finally sees what he is looking for - the winsome pistachio. He sweeps her into his arms as the voiceover says, “For those who love pistachios, new Planters Pistachio mix is made just for you.” The spot shifts to a package shot with the tagline spoken and superimposed “50% pistachios, 100% love.” The last shot shows the rest of the ‘Lovers Mix’ line extensions including Cashew, Macadamia and Pecan.

What Works:
Kraft and FCB New York do a nice job of creating a dramatic and memorable setup for the Planters Lovers Mix line extension. The Sleepless in Seattle parody is a nice metaphor for the Lover’s Mix as peanut meets pistachio. Full animation is a good choice here as it gives New York a vintage art-deco feeling that fits with Mr. Peanut’s monacle and top hat. The soundtrack does a good job of setting this spot apart from conventional animation. Because Mr. Peanut is in virtually every frame of this spot as the brand icon, the branding in this spot is excellent. The execution is ownable as it is impossible to imagine a rival nut manufacturer (like Emerald, for instance) running this spot.

What Doesn’t:
This spot raises the ongoing question of the effect of line extensions on core brands. From our perspective, while Planters may be a reasonable brand to guest host other nuts, advertising the mixes dilutes the core brand equity for Planters. Why? Culturally, there is an ingrained prejudice in the US to think of peanuts as ‘cheap nuts’ versus the more exotic, expensive and desirable nuts like Cashew, Pistachio and Macadamia. So while mixing peanuts with these premium nuts might increase the value and appeal of the peanut, it also reminds this advertising blog that peanuts are lowest-common-denominator nuts. This might not be a problem on shelf where we’re conditioned to look for the product mix we want. But as television advertising this comes off as an Arthur Miller/Marilyn Monroe marriage which tends to remind us that the peanut is just a working-class guy next to the glamorous pistachio. So although the execution on this spot is good we feel it is a mistake for the brand equity of the base Planters brand to be reminding us that we’d really rather splurge on Cashews or Macadamia nuts.

Branding Bottom Line:
Planters makes Mr. Peanut look frumpy next to Ms. Pistachio

Issue: TiVo inks Upfront Deal with Interpublic Media
Commentary by: David

AdAge reports this week that TiVo has signed a deal with Interpublic Media, essentially giving Interpublic’s clients preferred rates and access to TiVo advertising and data in return for an upfront spend commitment.

This is a big deal for TiVo, but also a big deal for an industry that keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop. In this case it’s a good shoe and TiVo may turn out to be the savior of the advertising industry instead of the execution it has been portayed to be.

Why? The conventional rap on TiVo is that it is really just ad-skipping technology. A way for consumers to watch what they want when they want without all those pesky commercials. In reality, consumers who want to avoid commercials have had lots of ways to do so for some time and while three-quarters of TiVo users do skip commercials nearly that many skip commercials in real time with channel surfing, refrigerator runs and the Internet.

But we’re not really defending DVRs. They are an inevitable development in an industry where power is increasingly shifting to the consumer. TiVo is important because it is a company of marketers who are actually thinking that there might be advantages to be had from DVR technology for the advertiser as well as the consumer.

If the war between old-fashioned television watching and DVR usage seems likely to be won by the DVR then advertisers had better hope that TiVo wins the war with generic DVR boxes in the war within DVR-land. Why? Because Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cablevision and other cable and satellite companies are just not set up to do anything useful with the technology that they are putting into consumer’s homes. They treat DVRs as an extension of the cable box - a piece of equipment.

TiVo sees the DVR as something more - a window into the mind of its consumer. By knowing what each consumer watches, it can set up mass customization to deliver relevant messages to consumers who may be interested in them. This works in a few ways. Currently, marketers can submit advertising content for a specific audience (viewers of American Idol, for instance) and have those people who choose to do so watch a commercial, enter a sweepstakes, etc. In addition, they can flag a physical commercial with a TiVo button to allow a consumer to request more information.

In the future, TiVo should be able to go a step further and customize the in-show advertisements to the specific owner of the box. As any TiVo user can attest, you have to watch those commercials at high speed to forward through them (there is actually a way to get around this, but few subscribers do it). When you see something interesting, you tend to stop and watch it. The trick is to make the advertising interesting which is easier to do when you can target the spot much more narrowly.

So this upfront deal is a good sign that some advertisers are wising up and looking to the future with and without TiVo - and recognizing that they’ll be much better off if TiVo succeeds.

Brand: BMW
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here (link is to AdCritic, a pay site)
Target: Affluent Free-Thinkers
Rating: **
Reviewer: David

Description:
In close focus black and white, we see an untrustworthy looking white executive smiling at the camera. As the spot progresses, we see a variety of these executives, all in close focus. The voiceover says, “Beware of the Benedict Arnold. He is behind your idea before the meeting. He even high-fives you and pats you on the back. But the second the idea meets the least bit of resistance, the Benedict Arnold flops like a pancake.” Then the spot shifts to an interior shot of a spotlessly clean factory. The voiceover continues, “At BMW, ideas are everything,” and the shot shifts to a view of the sealed assembly line tube with pristine sedan bodies moving through. “And as an independent company, we make sure great ideas live on …” here we see a completed sedan outside the headquarters, “to become Ultimate Driving Machines.” The spot closes with a view of the logo and the “Ultimate Driving Machine” tagline.

What Works:
This is a novel advertising strategy from BMW and one that gives us some clues as to their future brand positioning. Instead of simply touting BMW as the driver-oriented, no-compromises ultimate driving machine company, BMW is repositioning itself Saab-like as a company of independent-minded engineers who get what they want when it comes to car design. And on the positive side, this probably reflects reality, as any car maker more worried about corporate bureaucracy or consumer acceptance would have hesitated before introducing the Chris Bangle designed 7 and 5 series cars into the marketplace over the past few years. It also has some relevance against BMW’s biggest competition in the USA - Daimler Chrysler and General Motors. These are both vast bureacracies justly criticized for sometimes losing uniqueness in the design process.

The spot also has a unique look, crafted by the agency GSD&M in Austin which will not be confused with other car commercials.

What Doesn’t:
While we appreciate the originality, this advertising blog feels that BMW’s new spot is too high-concept to sell many cars. The selling proposition requires consumers to take to heart the proposition that an independent company will make more driving and safety innovations than a big bureacracy. Which makes some intuitive sense, but is left entirely without support in this execution. What features are there in a BMW that Mercedes, Volvo or Cadillac would have been too fearful to engineer into their vehicles? Is a BMW just supposed to feel quirkier or more individualistic? (And if it does, it creates another problem because quirky but smart cars was Saab’s longtime positioning.)

The other problem with this spot is kinetic. If BMWs are ultimate driving machines, one ought not to show them standing still. It sends the wrong message. As impressive as the assembly line and finished product in this spot look, they are both static images. If the BMW purchase is to be an expression of an individual’s passion for driving (on a smaller scale than a Maserati purchase would be), then the associate with the brand should not be static.

Branding Bottom Line:
BMW has us paranoid about buying a car from the Man.

Issue: Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola weaken the Upfront
Commentary by: David

Today Susan Vranica of the Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson & Johnson, one of the nation’s largest advertisers will skip the upfront and that Coca-Cola which will participate does not plan to make any upfront buys. The Upfront is the glitzy coming-out party for the new season of network television shows during which nearly 80% of advertising slots in primetime shows are traditionally sold. Johnson & Johnson is a significant player in the upfront, having spent nearly $500 million in television advertising last year alone.

The decision not to attend the upfront is a declaration of independence which has been a long time coming. The Wall Street Journal quotes Kim Kadlec, Johnson & Johnson’s chief media officer as saying”What we found is, if we can synchronize our business-planning cycle [with buying media time] it will benefit the brand and that is what this is all about.” In English that means that it was never helpful for large advertisers to have to buy advertising time in network television shows 5 - 11 months before the advertising actually was scheduled to run. The power of prime time television perpetuated this system for years and in spite of the J&J and Coca-Cola decisions it is likely that a significant volume of advertising will still be sold in the upfront.

Johnson & Johnson’s withdrawal, however, marks a decisive and permanent shift in the balance of power between content providers and advertisers that mirrors the power shift also taking place between consumers and advertisers and is no less significant. Sumner Redstone famously said ‘content is king.’ There are still destination shows and superpower-scale events (like the Superbowl), but there are now many, many options for content. Not only have the number and quality of television shows increased but they now compete directly with web-surfing, satellite radio, podcasts, blogs, and other forms of new media for eyes and ears. Beyond that the same content may be found in different distribution channels (watch Lost live, record it to your DVR, stream it from ABC.com or buy and download it from iTunes).

What does this mean? It means that content providers must think carefully of consumer needs, distribution channels and the revenue model for each and every piece of content they produce. It means that advertisers will increasingly be able to choose the platforms that they prefer to support and will get a say in how these function. And it mean that consumers will ultimately accept or reject each model that advertisers and content providers present to them. Where consumers rejected individual shows before they may now reject entire revenue models.

Television networks should take this as a good thing, in spite of the loss of early revenue for the television season. They are still the kings of content - very little of what is produced in the other distribution channels (save print media and the slickest of online) approaches the production value of network television. What the slow death of the upfront proves is not that television is going away but that expansion opportunities are opening up. If some of the myriad creativity that is put into developing programming goes into thinking how best content can be delivered through new media, consumers, advertisers and networks alike will benefit.

Brand: Yellow Book (Yellow Book USA)
Execution: TV
Link: Not Available Online (website here)
Target: Small Business Owners
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David

Description:
Yellow Book discusses the possibility of extending the brand now that they are so successful. They show us a host of different possibilities from Yellow Book cereal to Yellow Book Sneakers and Yellow Book gas. Finally, they point out that since they are the best at what they do, they should focus on what they are good at.

What Works:
This clever spot is perfectly pitched at small business owners but resonates for a wider audience. Yellow Book manages to neatly spoof the trend of absurd line extensions while at the same time reinforcing their brand. The spoof is accomplished by fully realizing the crazy Yellow Book line extensions in vivid yellow. The brand reinforcement is all of that yellow along with the Yellow Book name in virtually every frame. It is more effective than a standard product shot, because each dubious new line extension focuses our attention right back on the Yellow Book brand name. This is one of the most effective executions of product-as-hero (or in this case, anti-hero) that we have seen.

This spot would not work if the execution were not dramatic and crisp. Each line extension is brought to life and vividly rendered with bold cinematography. The pacing of the spot is excellent. There is enough content to get target audience viewers to watch carefully the second and third time they see the spot.

What Doesn’t:
This spot does not position Yellow Book with a unique, ownable benefit over its competition. This ultimately makes it category advertising - which we believe should be acceptable for Yellow Book. As the branding is so strong, it may have the effect of narrowing brand recall for the competitor.

It should also be mentioned that Yellow Book does not have PR acumen on par with the execution of this spot. When asked for an MPEG copy of this spot to stream online, they responded as follows:

Since our Yellow Book “Cola” TV spot began airing across the country, we have received an encouraging amount of positive feedback, and have also rec’d a couple of requests similar to yours. As in the past, we continue to maintain a policy of not releasing the spot electronically for use on any Internet outlets. Our Agency also advises that there would be incremental Talent payments that would be incurred for Internet Use (as required by SAG/AFTRA).

This is remarkable considering that Yellow Book made a significant investment to produce and air the spot and considering that advertisers are among those who read this advertising blog as well as excellent industry blogs including Adrants, Beyond Madison Avenue, Jaffe Juice, Adverblog, Adjab, Adfreak and Adland which might also have covered this campaign. This is a good modern example of ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish.’

Branding Bottom Line:
Yellow Book punches holes in our marketing playbook.

Brand: Microsoft

Execution: TV & Print

Link: Click Here

Target: Corporate Information Technology Managers

Rating: *

Reviewer: David

Description
We see the furrowed rows of a farm at sunrise and hear the hum of insects. A lone bicyclist pedals through the narrow streets of a European village. A Japanese man sleeps as his wife walks through the bedroom. A couple sleeps. A woman wakes up to the call to prayer as we see the Aya Sofia of Istanbul in the background. Another lies awake in her bed. We see an empty office and then another as the lights come on. The sun comes up over Prague. People getting up from their beds in two starkly different apartments. A child jumps on his mother as she stretches. A woman opens the blinds to her room, letting the light shine in on a series of paintings. A man pours a pail of water over his head, a woman puts on mascara, another hands orange juice to her son. We cut to a very different breakfast table in Japan and then another in India. Then some of these people we have seen waking up leave their houses. We see them making their way to work in Japan, in Russia, in Istanbul, in America and Europe. Finally, over the music we hear a male voiceover saying, “The most important part of any business walks through the front door every day. Will they be ready? Ready to have ideas? To build relationships. To help customers and invent new products? Ready to make a difference? They will, if they have the right software. People ready software. Microsoft. Software for the people ready business.” Through the course of this narrative, we see these same people we have tracked through the morning arriving at work and starting their day. The word ’software’ arrives first as a man opens his laptop. The signature line ‘Software for the people ready business,’ is superimposed over the Japanese businessman at his computer. The last screen has the Microsoft logo and the url microsoft.com/peopleready. The print ads (4 executions) show groups of co-workers in different work settings and reinforce the point that people and their imaginations make businesses run - and that software enables this.

What works:
This spot is artwork and it captures our attention. Every frame has been labored over and every shot purposefully conveys a mood. The spot achieves universality by literally roaming the planet and capturing the morning experience in almost every continent. Thus whether you are viewing this from Peoria, Prague or Pusan you will feel the combination of weariness, anticipation and beginning that each morning brings. The basic insight in the spot is both obvious and one that many businesses ignore: at the end of the day, business is about people. If you support them and they are productive, your business may be successful. If you do not, you will not be successful. Although not Tivo-proof, this spot certainly provides some intrinsic value as entertainment through gorgeous cinematography and stark visuals.

What Doesn’t:
Regular readers of this advertising blog know that however much we appreciate the execution and aesthetic merits of an ad, our ratings are based on two criteria:

1. Will the ad increase sales?
2. Will the ad build the brand and increase the value of brand equity?

Ads that fail to do either of these two things cannot succeed, no matter how beautiful they are. And therein lies the problem with this new, $500 million dollar Microsoft campaign. It will not increase sales of Microsoft products and it does not build the brand because the basic message is neither ownable by Microsoft nor uniquely linked to the Microsoft brand. Here are the problems with this spot by the numbers:

1. No Reason for Being - The fundamental issue with this advertising is that we are not exactly sure why it exists and what it is supposed to be doing. Is it image advertising? Category advertising? Corporate advertising? We don’t know. As Ad Age points out, this advertising is driven by the same insight that is driving IBM’s new strategy: that the focus of CEOs for information technology will be to drive growth rather to cut costs. That means that companies will be more focused on how technology drives creativity, productivity and empowers people. This shift in focus works well for IBM because they spent over a decade reincarnating themselves as a consulting company. Microsoft is not perceived as this sort of organization and has not changed the underlying products or organization to accomodate this new advertising strategy.
2. Not Persuasive - After watching this spot and seeing the print elements of the campaign, we agree that people move businesses and that software needs to be focused on unlocking their creativity. But we do not believe that Microsoft is particularly good at doing this and we don’t have any warmer feelings about Windows, Office or any other product.
3. Weak Branding - Microsoft does not show up until well past the halfway point in this :60 second spot. We assume that the $500 million being spent on this campaign will ensure that everyone eventually makes the brand connection, but we would prefer to see stronger branding.
4. Targeting - Microsoft also did not think clearly about whom they are targeting. To the extent that this advertising will change anyone’s mind (and we do not believe it will), it should be most appealing to CEOs or HR Directors. But are they actually making the purchasing decisions for Microsoft products? It seems unlikely. If this spot is targeted at the ordinary worker, then we know it won’t work because ordinary workers never get what they want when it comes to technology. If Microsoft is really targeting chief technology officers, then they must believe that those folks are much, much different as a group than they were just a few years ago. That they are much more aesthetic and less quantitative. We don’t believe it.
5. Media Strategy - If Microsoft is trying to persuade the entire world that they understand people and are uniquely able to provide software to empower creativity, then they have chosen the right media strategy. (Even though we do not find the message persuasive.) But is that the most effective way to build the brand or increase sales? Would one message even play to consumers, corporate IT decision makers and business leaders as well as programmers, educators and everyone else? It seems unlikely. The huge media buy seems like a waste of money and a lack of targeting.

It is easy to pick apart advertising, but harder to offer positive suggestions. So we would offer just one to Microsoft: learn from X-Box. Instead of trying to convince the world that Microsoft is a great company with a vision by screaming it out (however elegantly), show one small product that improves peoples lives in some way. And use that as the metaphor for what you can do as a company. As we have said in the past, we know brilliant, creative people who work at Microsoft. But most people do not and public perception of the company is more driven by Windows security gaps, slow Office applications and memories of the blue screen of death. So in a fundamental way, this campaign argues with people’s perceptions.

Branding Bottom Line:
Spending the $500 million through the Gates Foundation would have done more for Microsoft’s brand.

BBDO scored a trifecta yesterday, nabbing “Agency of the Year” honors from AdAge, AdWeek and Campaign. In this difficult year for advertising this was a huge honor for an agency that was in no way connected with the Subservient Chicken. In addition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City designated January 10, 2005 as “BBDO Day” in New York.

This advertising blog concurs with the selection. BBDO was one of just two agencies (the other being McKinney + Silver) with two advertising campaigns to win one of our ten “Most Effective Advertising of 2005” awards. We picked the Cingular Motorola ROKR “Alter Ego” campaign as the #6 and Alka Seltzer “I Ate That Whole Thing” as the #3 campaign for 2005.

Our only disagreement with AdAge, in fact, is their urging BBDO to create the next Subservient Chicken or Burger King. While buzz and viral marketing are both important marketing tools, we feel that these campaigns both illustrate the dangers of buzz without purpose. Starting a conversation about the brand is great, but it must do something for the brand.

To BBDO we would say only”Congratulations and Continue On.”

Commentary by: David
Issue: Best and Worst Campaigns of 2005 Named by WSJ

Susan Vranica and Brian Steinberg of the Wall Street Journal today named their picks for the best and worst advertising of 2005.

This Advertising Blog will announce the “ThirdWay Awards” - our picks for best spots and campaigns of 2005 as well as our choices for the year’s worst efforts on Monday, January 2^nd. In the meantime, however, we offer you a brief synopsis of the Wall Street Journal’s picks (read the original story here) along with our thoughts and links to our reviews of these spots.

The Best Advertising of 2005 –

1. Dove “Real Women” (Unilever)
• WSJ Rationale – Unilever broke new ground with this campaign which championed the cause of real women with real curves. The campaign created a public dialogue about our society’s sometimes unhealthy beauty ideal and generated a tremendous surge of media coverage for the ad.

• ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ** (Click Here for our review)

While we agreed with the cause and applauded Unilever for supporting the Campaign for Real Beauty (the partner non-profit in these spots), we believed that Dove as a brand was not a good match for the real beauty message. Dove lotion is still a beauty product, intended to enhance a woman’s looks and ends up feeding the self-doubt the campaign seeks to end.

1. Target “New Yorker Issue” (Target Brands)
• WSJ Rationale – Buying out an entire issue of the New Yorker magazine and commissioning original artwork was “gutsy”, generating the kind of attention the retailer is looking for in a medium that has gotten short shrift from advertisers of late. Target showed how it and print can make a difference.

• ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ***** (Click Here for our review)

With one masterstroke, Target sealed its ownership of “Design for All” – a bold step forward in its decade-long move away from Wal-Mart in the mass merchandiser retail sphere. In spite of these years of steady progress in bringing design to everyday life, Target seemed to arrive all at once last year and the New Yorker spread was the tipping point. Suddenly, Minneapolis and not Bentonville looks like the capital of the retailing world – as evidenced by the fact that Wal-Mart hired away a top marketer from Target and started running design-centric advertising (click here).

1. Budweiser “Superbowl Salute to the Troops” (Anheuser-Busch)
• WSJ Rationale – A smart turn to the right from the usually “sophomoric” Superbowl ads from the leading American beer-maker, this “poignant” spot featuring soldiers returning from overseas to spontaneous applause in an airport featured understated branding but a powerful message. Budweiser executes perfectly and scores a big win.

• ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ****

We agree that this spot was perfectly executed. Anheuser-Busch precisely judged the mood of the country and was rewarded with generous press coverage and strong recall for the spot. This was a tactical move, no doubt, and doesn’t build the unique rationale for the brand but does connect to some of the core brand attributes for Budweiser. And most importantly it stood out against some of the cheesier executions in the all-important Superbowl ad war.

1. Nike “Tiger Woods Miracle Shot” (Nike)
• WSJ Rationale – When Tiger woods sunk an improbably chip shot and the ball hung for a second on the lip of the cup with the Nike swoosh featured prominently, it was a moment made for advertising. “With incidents like these, who needs to make actual ads?” says the Journal. They also applaud Wieden + Kennedy’s deft use of humor to set off the ad. The ad ran only briefly to avoid sounding too self-congratulatory.

• ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ***

The actual event generated so much publicity for Nike that the ad seemed unnecessary and was very different in tone from Nike’s normal ad message. However the execution by Wieden is so spot-on that it is hard to argue with Nike’s decision to run the spot.

1. Audi A3 “Stolen A3” (Volkswagen AG)
• WSJ Rationale – Seamlessly using TV, Print, Billboards and even classified newspaper ads, Audi set up a mystery that led 500,000 consumers on a hunt to find the stole A3 which involved e-mail, IM, pagers and all manner of online and electronic clues. 500 A3’s sold in the first week of availability, in this high-profile test of viral marketing.

• ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating – ****

This campaign is a powerful argument for well-designed viral marketing. Volkswagen and McKinney + Silver orchestrated a seamless campaign that had huge awareness among the target audience and lots of targeted chatter, online and off. What surprised us most about the campaign was how invisible it was outside of the target audience. We did not really understand the extent of the cleverness here until we started adding up the media costs for the campaign and realized how much smaller the budget must have been than we would have guessed.

The Worst Advertising of 2005

1. Coke Zero “Chilltop” (Coca-Cola)

· WSJ Rationale – The spot was intended to launch Coke Zero but fell flat because it did not explain the product which confused consumers. It also left Coke open for a successful jab in an ad by Pepsi. The WSJ thinks the problem is that Coke pitches commercials at youth but tries to appeal to older people at the same time.

· ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ** (Click Here for our review)
While two-thirds of the editors of this blog are former Coca-Cola marketers, we must agree that ‘Chilltop’ was a failure. And it will surprise many regular readers of this advertising blog that we do not blame the failure of this spot on Crispin Porter + Bogusky. Our belief is that what could have been an excellent execution for Coca-Cola classic was subverted by the Coke Zero launch. This ad was indeed confusing and in spite of Coke’s assertion that “strong year-to-date sales” for Coke Zero prove the ad worked we noticed that Coke quickly withdrew the spot and started running another campaign behind Coke Zero.

1. Domino’s “Apprentice Placement” (Domino’s Pizza)

· WSJ Rationale - a mismanaged product placement allowed Domino’s to be outflanked by rival Papa John’s. Domino’s promotes the meatball pizza on the show but advertises a cheeseburger pizza on associated spots. Papa John’s in the meantime is barred from buying network advertising on the same show but sneaks in by making local buys in 64 markets advertising a meatball pizza. At the end, Papa John’s stole the show from Domino’s.

· ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - *

When product placements are heavy-handed and the monetary exchange is clearly the only rationale for the placement, they are ineffective. Domino’s managed to turn wasted money into lost revenue by mismanaging the execution and allowing Papa John’s to insert the “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza,” tagline they have litigated so hard for into the middle of Domino’s expensive product placement.

1. Carl’s Junior “Paris Hilton” (CKE Restaurants)

· WSJ Rationale – A terrible example of trying to cater to the “lowest-common-denominator” this spot was bad advertising and bad publicity as it stirred up a firestorm against Carl’s in spite of limited airing.

· ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - *

This advertising blog avoided commenting on the ad and surrounding controversy on the off-chance that it is true that all publicity is good publicity for Carl’s.

1. Lincoln Mark LT Truck “Clergy Lust” (Ford Motor Company)

· WSJ Rationale – Ford made a bad decision in producing a spot featuring a clergyman lusting over a Lincoln truck after finding the keys in a collection plate (and subsequently returning the keys to the owners and writing a sermon with the heading “Lust”). The spot had to be pulled before the Superbowl and never ran despite Ford’s huge investment in production costs.

· ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - ****

We agree with the WSJ that this spot was in poor taste and would not have been effective for Ford had it run. But Ford made the right decision in pulling the spot and did so quickly and without triggering a national scandal. While the advertising was not good, we believe that this was a good example of successful public relations. Anyone can make a mistake but to deal with it effectively is the sign of character.

1. US Department of Education “Planted Stories on No Child Left Behind” (US Government)

· WSJ Rationale – When the government hired Omnicom’s Ketchum group and they hired conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and he wrote favorable stories on No Child Left Behind he hurt his reputation, Omnicom’s and that of the Bush Administration.

· ThirdWay Advertising Blog Rating - *
This advertising blog believes that the real problem here is not that the government engaged in planting stories but that in doing so they were engaging in standard PR industry practice. We believe that many current PR practices are creating great risks for valuable brands and that the day of reckoning may be soon. But that is an issue for the new year.

A report released today by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science harshly criticizes the effects of marketing to children on obesity and children’s health. The report charges that, “Ample information and studies [indicate] that television advertising influences the food preferences, purchase requests and diets at least of children under 12 and is associated with the increased rates of obesity among children and youth.”

Advertising Age, clearly sensing the shifting zeitgeist suggests that this report may become, “a watershed on the scale of the 1964 surgeon general’s report on tobacco.” Even allowing for some journalistic overstatement, this advertising blog would agree that the turning point seems to have been reached on this debate. We believe the question is not whether we are witnessing the beginning of the end of some forms of advertising to children but how far this tide will take us. Specifically, we ask whether toy manufacturers ought not to be as worried as cereal companies. As loyal readers will know, the ThirdWay Advertising Blog has argued strongly against advertising to preteen children (Click Here to read “The Boomerang Effect: Advertising to Children”). We believe that children are not equipped to critically evaluate advertising messages and that the brand relationship established through advertising is inherently flawed if it is established before a child is old enough to meaningfully consent to a brand’s selling proposition.

Marketers developing products for younger children should consider returning to influencer-based strategies (reaching the parents) and look at ways to differentiate their products after purchase with children, not before. The opportunity for damaging PR for companies advertising to pre-teens will increase dramatically before this debate ends.

Commentary By: David
Issue: Wal-Mart’s Black Friday Pricing Choices

A quick update on our commentary posted Wednesday on Wal-Mart’s Holiday 2005 pricing strategy for ‘Black Friday.’ As we noted, Wal-Mart moved aggressively to drive store traffic in the critical holiday period. Measures used this week included destination advertising (Garth Brooks new album), competitive price match guarantees and ‘door busters’ (deep discounts on a few select products available in limited quantities.)

The measures were indeed successful at driving traffic, but as we suggested in our commentary, the traffic came at a price. It wasn’t the price we named - erosion of the brand equity in Wal-Mart associated with ‘Always Low Prices’ (we suggested that by offering price-match guarantees, Wal-Mart was validating competitors as being legitimate sources for low prices). It is too soon to judge the long-term effect of this pricing behavior on consumers’ brand perception of Wal-Mart. The immediate, obvious price Wal-Mart payed was in more bad PR - something the chain can ill-afford. Several people around the country were trampled by crowds at Wal-Mart stores as they opened for the morning. In addition, CNN covered the angry reaction of consumers realizing that the deep discounts offered for Wal-Mart specials were available on a very limited supply of items. So even before the long-term consequences are assessed, Wal-Mart has paid a price for top-line results.