Unilever Goes Way Beyond ‘Gamekillers’ for Axe

April 8th, 2009 Sara DaiVy Posted in International News No Comments » 129 views

“…Branded Content for New Line of Hair Products Plays Out Across Four Viacom Networks…”. How much work does it take to create a piece of programming that looks like a familiar show but also blasts out a marketer’s message? More than you might think, given the number of parties involved. So imagine, if you will, the work required to create about 50 such promotional pieces — 43 minutes’ worth of content — to play out across four different cable networks. Unilever is ramping up promotion for its new line of Axe hair products by running a bevy of nontraditional promotions across Viacom’s Comedy Central, Spike TV, VH1 and MTV.

The ads resemble everything from comedians on VH1’s “Best Week Ever” talking about the problems inherent in bad hair to video vignettes crafted specifically for Spike’s male audience. They will all push viewers to tune in to a March 15 block of prime-time programming on MTV. It will feature a mock telethon addressing the problem of guys’ bad hair, as well as other pieces of promotion, during commercial breaks that surround “The College Humor Show,” “Fantasy Factor” and “Nitro Circus.”

“This is pretty much the largest integration across our networks that we’ve ever done before,” said John Shea, exec VP-integrated marketing and brand partnerships at MTV Networks.

Past pieces of programming
In the past, Unilever has created clever pieces of programming designed to boost other Axe products. Among those efforts were “The Gamekillers,” a February 2006 reality special on MTV that ostensibly focused on forces that could keep a guy from attracting a girl but was really designed to promote an Axe antiperspirant. “Exposing the Order of the Serpentine” ran on Spike the same month and took on the look of a news expose, even as it helped burnish a product known as Axe Snake Peel Shower Scrub. Those efforts garnered attention, but they were, like many pieces of so-called branded entertainment, simple one-offs. This time, Unilever’s Axe wants to reach a broader audience.

“This is the introduction of Axe into hair care, shampoo, conditioner and styling, and so we’re talking about a major introduction campaign,” said David Rubin, director-Unilever hair marketing. Traditional commercials will also air across MTV Networks, along with the sponsored pieces of content. “This is a very large launch,” he added.

The effort isn’t aimed only at men but at women, too. Unilever’s research showed that 85% of guys think their hair looks pretty good, but less than half of girls agree that guys have great hair. The campaign is “about getting lots of people to participate in the discussion,” Mr. Rubin said. Relying on longer but less ubiquitous pieces of content would make it “harder to get the total eyeballs.”

Tailored to specific audience
The content pieces on each channel are tailored to the specific audience watching. Spike will place its “Men of Action” characters — guys who spoof famous action moments in already existing promos — in Axe’s service (bad hair gets in their way). Other promos shown around Spike’s airing of “Star Wars” will feature two guys who debate whether the “Dark Side” is better than the “Rebel Side,” and find that Axe can help solve the problem. On Comedy Central, coverage of a “hair crisis” will be the focus of a group of mock newscasts, said Dario Spina, senior VP-integrated marketing for Comedy Central and Spike TV.

On VH1, comedians from the popular show “Best Week Ever” will bring up the problems of dealing with hair in the show itself, which will also have content pieces in commercial breaks.

MTV Networks and Unilever have been working on this package since the upfront, executives from both sides said. Collaborating early on was essential to making the idea work properly, because it involves devising different pieces of content aimed at different audiences, yet is trying to roll them all into a bigger crowd for MTV on March 15.

As such, the effort also points to an emerging technique advertisers are tapping: They have to dig in deep among niche crowds in order to attract a bigger audience. “We are building several phases of this to build awareness amongst our individual set of audiences, and then ultimately we wanted to ride that swell, if you will, to push to MTV’s big reveal” of the faux telethon and other promotional pieces, Mr. Spina said.

Media working more closely with clients
MTV Networks crafted all of the promotional pieces, another sign that media outlets are working more closely with their clients on tasks that normally an ad agency might handle. While Bartle Bogle Hegarty, Axe’s agency, worked on the traditional 30-second spots that accompany the effort, MTV Networks created the new-fangled promotions. In recent weeks, NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” has created ads for Pepsi, and NBC Universal has made available a panel of prominent women to help clients address issues regarding marketing to females.

As the tough economy continues, media outlets may see opportunity to get additional ad revenue and secure relationships with advertisers by helping them craft promotions. After all, who knows Spike TV and MTV better than the people who run it? Letting MTV Networks “put their own voice to it just adds more credibility to us,” Mr. Rubin said. “In order to allow that, we had to make sure the point came through, but were willing to step back a little bit.”

(Source: Advertising Age)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Top 50 Social Brands of 2008

April 8th, 2009 Sara DaiVy Posted in International News No Comments » 101 views

Pop quiz: What was the brand or branded product most often mentioned in social media at the end of last year? If you guessed the iPhone, as probably 90% of you did, you’d be right. But you might be surprised at just how dominant Apple and its brands are in terms of online chatter: IPhone is joined by Apple and iPod in the top 10 most mentioned brands or branded products list. The analysis is from social-media-services provider Vitrue, which launched a social-media index last year. It measures the conversation volume around 2,000 brands on a variety of social-networking, blogging and micro-blogging sites.

This survey stuck to a pretty rudimentary metric — it measures mentions, not the sentiment of those mentions or the word pairings.

“This is measuring velocity and volume in December 2008,” CEO Reggie Bradford told Ad Age. We asked him for full disclosure of how many are clients and he said, “Some are, some aren’t, and many more clients didn’t make the list.” He wouldn’t specify who exactly has employed Vitrue’s services, but noted that of the top 20, “just a handful” were clients.

In addition to Apple and its branded products, media brands also dominated the top-10 list: CNN bested Disney and MTV for the No. 2 spot. The rest of the top 10 was consumer-electronics-heavy: XBox, Starbucks, Sony and Dell.

The only auto to sneak into the top 20 was Ford, at No. 12. Honda was the next-most talked-about, in the No. 25 spot. Surprisingly, Lincoln followed that, at No. 28. One important caveat, however: It’s unclear whether the chatter was positive or, perhaps, related to the government auto bailouts from late 2008.

Anything surprise you about the top 50? (The rest can be found on Vitrue’s blog.)

iPhone
CNN
Apple
Disney
Xbox
Starbucks
iPod
MTV
Sony
Dell
Microsoft
Ford
Nintendo
Target
PlayStation
Mac
Turner
Hewlett-Packard
Fox News
BlackBerry
ABC
Coke
LG
Best Buy
Honda
eBay
Sharp
Lincoln
NBA
Pepsi
General Motors
McDonald’s
General Electric
Walmart
NFL
Mercedes
BMW
Samsung
Nike
Subway
Dodge
Pandora
CBS
Mercury
NBC
Disneyland
Last.fm
Toyota
Cadillac
Chevy

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Reality Sinks in at Online-Advertising

April 8th, 2009 Sara DaiVy Posted in International News No Comments » 72 views

For five years online was advertising’s growth business, but 2008 delivered a wake-up call: Online advertising isn’t immune to the recession, and it’s only just begun. 24/7 Real Media chairman David Moore is worried about irrational marketers. That reality has clearly sunk in at the annual meeting of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which brings together the nation’s biggest online publishers. The confab is known for its optimists, but the prevailing notion is that, like in 2001, online media is fighting for its very existence. “There are companies that are going to go out of business this year,” said David Moore, chairman of WPP’s 24/7 Real Media. ”

As the fight for digital dollars intensifies, I worry that people will do irrational things to gain market share.”

By irrational, Mr. Moore was referring to unethical ad-sales techniques as ad networks get desperate, and pushing the boundaries on privacy, which would invite government regulation. “If we don’t regulate our industry,” said Scott Howe, Microsoft VP of advertising solutions, “the government will regulate it for us.”

Yet five years after the internet bubble forced the online-advertising business to assess what it would take to become mature as a marketing medium, many of the same issues are no closer to resolution. Issues from data ownership to privacy to metrics to differing standards for ad insertion agreements are as far from resolved in 2008 as they were in 2001.

“It’s like nothing’s changed because no one has faced the fundamental issues to make this a viable marketing medium,” said Richy Glassberg, senior VP at TV Guide Network, who helped create the IAB nearly 12 years ago. “The last five years there’s been a growth curve and all of a sudden they’re realizing this is an across-the-board downturn in every sector.”

And at least one speaker suggested publishers face extinction if they think advertising is going to save them. Bob Carrigan, CEO of tech publisher IDG Communications, said he no longer sees traditional advertising as a growth business. Rather, his company is relying on lead generation and an ad agency-like “media services” division that creates custom websites and custom content to pay the bills.

“We love standard media and sell ads all the time,” Mr. Carrigan said. “But we’ve seen a lot of companies become extinct or on their way to extinction because they protected their legacy businesses too much.”

The reality for publishers is they’re facing a flat market at best in 2009. Including search marketing, online ad spending will grow 4.3% in 2009, but display advertising will essentially be flat, growing slightly to $8.27 billion from $8.1 billion in 2008, according to Citibank internet analyst Mark Mahaney.

The good news, if there is any, is that Mr. Mahaney is expecting a 20% rebound in 2010, largely due to share shifting from newspapers, yellow pages, direct mail and local TV and radio.

And online, like every other medium, is fighting for its share of a shrinking pie. Total ad spending — online and offline — is expected to fall 7% in 2009.

“The challenge is, ‘How do I increase my share of a flat market?’” said Mr. Moore. “People say flat is the new up, but display could well be down.”

Publishers bemoaned that brand advertisers still see the web as a direct-response medium and aren’t placing display budgets commensurate with the amount of time consumers spend with media. “Advertising simply cannot support all the media that’s out there,” Martha Stewart Living co-CEO and IAB Chairwoman Wenda Harris Millard said in her keynote address.

From the agency side, Robert Bagot, chief creative officer of McCann Erickson, San Francisco, said budgets spent on banner ads were “misappropriated for the first 10 years” and that his agency is “moving to a model to use the web for more interactive experiences.”

Ms. Millard also criticized two high-profile appointments at two of the internet’s biggest advertising companies: Microsoft and Yahoo. Microsoft appointed former Yahoo search technologist Qi Lu to head its online services group; Silicon Valley tech exec Carol Bartz is the new CEO of Yahoo, the largest publisher on the web.

“We shouldn’t let marketing decisions be made by a technologist who has never met a CMO,” she said. (Still, it could be posited that the biggest innovation in online marketing has been paid search, invented by technologists.)

While strapped publishers blamed ad networks for driving down ad rates, networks said they’re better positioned as marketers demand more immediate, measurable returns on their marketing dollars.

Said PubMatic CEO Rajeev Goel: “Six months ago, companies were out building their brands, but now there is a different need in the marketplace.”

(Source: Advertising Age)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Cutting Spending Hurts Brands Long Term

April 8th, 2009 Sara DaiVy Posted in International News No Comments » 79 views

Household and personal care might once have seemed recession-resistant, but last year U.S.-based personal-care marketers actually cut ad spending faster than the general market. That could be potentially damaging for their brands, according to one study that shows that marketers that cut spending during a downturn lost share to private labels — share they didn’t regain. According to TNS Media Intelligence data analyzed by Sanford C. Bernstein last month, eight U.S.-based household and personal-care marketers covered by the company cut measured media spending an average of 8.8%, compared with a 5% cut among advertisers overall.

The fourth quarter, in particular, was the culprit, according to separate research by Goldman Sachs based on TNS data, which found that U.S.-based household, personal-care and beauty marketers slashed spending 14% on average in the quarter, reversing a 3% year-on-year increase in the third quarter.

The reasons behind this surprising turn of events vary, but the implications are potentially dire. Research presented by University of North Carolina marketing professor Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp in a Bernstein conference call last month indicates that companies that maintained or hiked ad spending generally, and TV spending in particular, lost limited share to private labels in recessions between 1985 and 2005.

Companies and brands that went with the flow of the boom-bust cycle by cutting ad spending — as data suggest household and personal-care players did last year — tended to lose more share to private labels both immediately and longer term.

Companies whose ad spending didn’t vary according to economic cycles — based on an analysis of Ad Age data on global ad spending — also tended to increase their stock prices an average of 1.3 percentage points annually ahead of others from 1986 to 2006, said Mr. Steenkamp, who analyzed global results of 26 marketers across multiple industries.

‘Takes courage’
“Companies and categories that are able to turn a recession into an advantage are [those] going against economic trends,” Mr. Steenkamp said. “Ultimately, it takes courage. But it pays off in share and in terms of the stock market.”

About half the share lost to private labels in past recessions has never been recovered, he said.

A variety of factors likely played into last year’s spending retreat by package-goods marketers, and some contend the U.S. measured-media numbers don’t tell the whole story.

The pullback by U.S.-based marketers in the fourth quarter was likely prompted in part by the sudden strengthening of the dollar, which drained earnings from overseas almost overnight and spurred cuts in one of the only budgets that can be cut quickly: marketing. By contrast L’Oréal, a French company for which a stronger dollar boosted U.S. earnings in the fourth quarter, hiked media spending in the quarter.

TNS data showed only a 3.6% spending decline for personal-care marketers overall last year, according to an Information Resources Inc. presentation in March, vs. the 8.8% decline for the U.S.-based group covered by Bernstein. That suggests spending by foreign multinationals lifted results pulled down by U.S. companies.

The Goldman report showed some signs of strategic spending hikes in the fourth quarter. Procter & Gamble Co. — and, to a lesser extent, Kimberly-Clark Corp. — upped measured spending in paper categories facing the most erosion from private labels. And P&G hiked spending on laundry detergent, particularly on Gain, a midtier value brand that can benefit from trade-down but also is more vulnerable to private labels.

(Source: Advertising Age)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button