Irresponsible advertising - Ford's turn

In recent posts I've called out BMW for irresponsible advertising (talk about one car, show a picture of another, and pass them off as the same car) and Ford for competing with itself.

Well, time to talk about Ford's irresponsible advertising.

In this ad, their headline is: "Ford sweeps North American Car and Truck of the Year Awards"

So, how would you interpret that? To use the word "sweeps" implies that several awards were won, across several categories, and from several reviewers.

But no.

They had one car that won one award in one category, and one truck that won one award in another category. That's HARDLY "sweeping" the awards, as the headline claims. Plus, you can't tell who awarded these titles.

They're clearly trying to create an impression that they win all kinds of awards for their cars by stretching the truth and using carefully selected words to deceive the audience.

Sadly, it's probably working (because the ad itself is so boring that it's unlikely that anyone, other than me, will read the copy).

Doesn't mean it's not irresponsible.


TAKEAWAY FOR YOU:

• Don't try to be something you're not. Let your product/service do the talking.
• Maintain your integrity.
• Maintain your ability to look yourself in the mirror.

Your brand reputation will thank you.

Avatar as an examination of marketing

According to BoxOfficeMojo, Avatar has grossed more than $1.4 BILLION, and counting! There is no definitive answer at the time of writing this, but production costs for the movie appear to be close to $300 million, and marketing costs close to $200 million.

So, here's a question (for which there is probably no answer):

How much would the movie gross if they had spent less on marketing? Or more on marketing? How much would the movie gross if they had spent less on production (presumably weakening the quality of the product)?

This is a very common question - one that we grapple with all the time. Will more marketing lead to enough sales to earn our money back? Is the product good enough on its own to be successful without extensive marketing?

And here's another thing business owners and marketers need to keep in mind: It's possible that the movie would have grossed, say, $1.25 billion with no marketing, putting them $50 million ahead of where they are now (saving $200 million on marketing but earning $150 million less). Would that mean the marketing was a waste? It's tempting to say yes, but think of all the awareness for the movie and for James Cameron and for Fox that was generated!


All marketing has benefits beyond its direct impact on sales.


Remember that as you consider investing in marketing.


Your turn: What's your guess about the box office sales with more (or less) spending on the product or on the marketing?

Auto industry ads continue to drive me crazy

The auto industry is notorious for stretching the boundaries of acceptable advertising practices.

From price wars among dealers from the same auto maker (see post) to price promises that aren't really promises (see post) to mice type that no one can possibly read (don't get me started!), this is a new low.

BMW (who otherwise does everything right if you ask me) is running a campaign to promote their 2010 323i. This ad CLEARLY promotes the 323i, and the 323i only. You can tell this by the headlines and copy, and they even go so far as to break down the lease rates for the 323i specifically.

But the image, which is predominant, is of the 335i. If you look closely (click image below to enlarge), there is a line of mice type (don't get me going!) that admits they are showing a picture of the 335i!! How can they be allowed to do that?! The 335i looks better, performs better, costs more, and has clearly different lease rates.

Now, the 323i is from the same family as the 335i, but that doesn't excuse this manipulative advertising practice.

They need to advertise more responsibly.

People that aren't car fanatics like me or that don't pay as much attention to advertising as I do would understandably go to the dealership looking for a car that looks like the 335i for the price of the 323i. Such a car does not exist. "Sorry consumer. But since you're here, why don't I put you into this more expensive car?" Oh, sorry, it's more like "What do I need to do to get you into this more expensive car?"

I know they're legally allowed to do this, but they shouldn't.

They're not the only perpetrators, but I just happen to be picking on them because they are advertising fairly heavily.

My new favourite print ad.

It's true - a picture says 1,000 words. This ad is from Lazer Bike Helmets.























So succinct. So precise. So effective. So simple. So good.


Your turn: I want your input - what are some memorable SIMPLE ads like this?

Worst flyer EVER?

I wish this wasn't real.

It's sad to me (as a Marketing Consultant) that this would even happen. That something so truly fundamental could be overlooked.

As you flip through this flyer, there is NO WAY TO CONTACT THE COMPANY!

No phone number.

No web address.

No street address.

Nothing.

Nothing on the inside pages. Nothing on the back cover. Nothing.

So as a consumer, if I am at all compelled to respond to this flyer (which I received in the mail), I would have to Google the company name (McNain TV and Communication) and try to find them. Do you think ANYONE would do that? NO!

It would appear that they are assuming we already know how to contact them! What a colossal blunder. I live in their retail footprint, and I have never even heard of them (I Googled them out of sheer morbid curiosity - they have 4 locations in south/central Ontario). And I'm in their target market (I buy too many electronics products).

In some ways I'm sad because it's possible that my profession - the collection of marketing advisors across the globe - has failed them somehow. How could they not have known to include this information?!

Imagine building a car with no ignition.

And it gets worse: a graphic designer likely did the layout for them and didn't notice it or say anything, and someone obviously printed it and didn't notice it or say anything either.

It's just sad all around.

I guess I have more work to do! To spread marketing best practices across the country!

At least now I know where to start.

What will ads look like in 40 years?

Here's a beauty print ad from about 40 years ago (click to enlarge).


And another gem:
Here's a thought: which ads from today will be the ones that raise eyebrows tomorrow?

Print ads done right - Porsche

When it comes to automobiles, I would consider myself a modest enthusiast. I know enough to know that Porsche makes arguably the finest sports cars in the world.

When it comes to automobile advertising, I would consider myself a very observant analyst. Local dealer ads are usually laughable, and larger manufacturer ads (with the mice type financial disclaimer that no one can read... even when paused... and that appears on your TV screen for about 0.8 seconds) are even worse (sounds like two upcoming blog posts - stay tuned!).

Then there's Porsche.

In marketing, consistency counts. You need to send the same message every time, and send it many times. Each message is only similar to the last if fonts, logos, tag lines, colours, and messages are consistent. Porsche sets the standard in this regard, especially in their print campaign.

It's been running for more than 6 years in its current form. And its form, much like the automobiles it promotes, is flawless (Carmichael Lynch is the agency). Top quality image always in the same location. Always a white background. One short, clever headline. Three lines of copy. Never more. Never less. Same tag line... every time (you know it: Porsche. There is no substitute.). Logo in the same location... every time.

Porsche. There is no substitute... for the perfect ad.

Anybody else have an issue with milk advertising?

We all know that the collective milk producers and dairy farmers are advertising heavily (with their "Got Milk?" campaign), and I can see why. They want people to drink more milk. The campaign has got to be the most successful in history (they claim more than 90% awareness). I can believe that number - their ads are EVERYWHERE.

My issue is more with the scope of their campaign. In an previous post I talked about the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement, if done well. They are taking this to the extreme! According to Wikipedia, no few than 200 celebrities have donned the milk mustache. And these are premium-priced celebrities - from Tiger Woods to Angelina Jolie. 200!!! And that's just the non-fictional celebrities! Add a couple dozen more fictional characters, such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Garfield.

Is that necessary? C'mon, I get it. I should drink more milk. But I would rather you use only a handful of these celebrities so that you don't have to charge me $6 for four litres to cover your marketing costs!

I know, I know, how can I, as a marketing consultant, advise against advertising spends? Well, because I think we also have a responsibility to make sure we're not excessively overcharging in order to recoup the costs associated with blatantly glamourous campaigns. In this case, it even seems somewhat monopolistic, since there isn't really a direct competitor to milk. If I want my cereal, I have to spend the $6!

Have your say: What are some other offenders? Who else overcharges to seemingly recoup marketing costs?