Today’s case in point is Justin Bieber. This young man is clearly everywhere on the Internet, and now he’s at the department store counters. His new fragrance “Someday” is introduced to us via this rather floaty and sexually implicit 30-second spot.

download .mp4 / watch on YouTube

The initial WTF in my mind is the fact that this is a perfume, and not a cologne. Obviously, it’s aimed at his teeny bopper fans — mostly girls. But wouldn’t a unisex fragrance help establish him as a desirable man, rather than float him into that pinkish grey zone of the sexually ambiguous? Heck, even Alan Cumming’s fragrance was for men. (I’m not gonna comment on those lavender/magenta hi-tops he was wearing in the video, this isn’t Gawker after all.)

Fragrance is such a weird sector. Not only because everyone from Michael Jordan to Jack Bauer can release a product line, but because it sells! The margins are high, and the promotion/marketing is fairly well established. (This isn’t an industry where the iPod generation has turned things upside down — it’s still bottles of smelly-water, y’know.) I consider myself a man of science, one who understands the power of the olfactory, but I can’t find a rationale as to why fragrances continue to be such an exploited channel for celebs and brands.

If you ask me, a better approach would be to create a sub-brand and release the fragrance under that name. A Heineken-Amstel situation, if you will. For example, if Justin Bieber announced a brand for personal care in general, it would make perfect sense to release a perfume. He could also bundle it with lotions, combs, and whatever else he needs to look pretty. The brand would take on its own traits and properties, and wouldn’t need to be tied to the man in every bit of imagery. That’s what I would do, anyway.

And if you ask me, that girl is too old for Justin.

What are your thoughts? Does every celebrity need a fragrance? Does it hurt the overall brand to extend into products outside the core skills and reputation? How can we do it better?

I suppose it is perfectly natural for the US Army, a large, highly visible, global organisation, to have a brand standards manual. Uncovered today from the folks at Core 77, we can see the Army’s Strategic Outreach Directorate, where logos, sounds loops, videos, ads, and other resources are available. Everything in sync. Lock-step, if you will.

This site is intended to provide current information to the United States Army Accessions Command community. It contains logo files, print ad samples, television ads, other advertising information and is intended to keep our community abreast of current advertising and outreach issues.

See for yourself »

Don’t have much to say here. I’m always curious to see brand manuals and how severely they police their standards. Working in the biz, we’re often charged with creating such a manual, and so knowledge is power.

via Core 77 »

download .mp4 / watch on YouTube

In case you’ve forgotten about Jennifer Aniston, here she is mocking internet culture, making fun of advertising agents, kicking unsuspecting guys in the balls, playing with puppies, and along with SmartWater, trying way too hard to cash in on the nature of viral videos and the success of brands like Old Spice.

And yes, I acknowledge the irony that I am sharing this video in spite of how I don’t really find it useful, witty, insightful, innovative, endearing, or remarkable. Blah.

The reason it’s a WTF for me is because I’m genuinely confused as to why this was even made. It is a different spin on water advertising, I’ll grant that, but if the point was to get Jennifer Aniston out there onto the Internet, she should have made fun of herself, not everyone else. She’s not known as a great societal commentator. Also, the production value is way too high to become and web sensation, Old Spice Guy excepted.

So will this video go viral or we the whole of the Internet roll their eyes as I have?

via GeekBeat »

I’m not a fan of the Super Bowl. Not only because I play and love Rugby, but because the Super Bowl has come to symbolise all the gloss and absurdity of consumerism, mass media, and ritualised sports in America. A friend of mine once labelled it “a de facto holiday to celebrate American sloth,” to which I quickly added, “… and wrath, and greed, and gluttony.” Pretty much all of our sins wrapped up in one shiny package.

Super Bowl advertising had a good run. Yes, I use the past tense. Super Bowl advertising peaked, and is now on the decline. As the influence of the 30-second spot continues to deplete, the continued dedication that large brands have for Super Bowl advertising proves more and more sad. Today, consumers just don’t care what’s on tv, no matter have shocking or cheeky. It shows a trend that big brands are out of touch, using the same old tactics to reach a brand new audience.

This year, for the first time in a while, I watched the game live, with attention on the ads. After filtering out all the FOX promotional junk and over-the-top movie trailers, I realised that every brand applies the same approach to their advertising: clowning. They’re attempting to hold on to our attention — and their influence — with a most pureil technique. They’re acting like clowns.

Theoretically, I don’t mind if a brand assumes the clown as a brand archetype. Brands like Bud Light have risen to prominence latching on to youth, careless, clown-sensitive beer drinkers (ie, bachelors). But now we’re seeing the same mindless clowning used ubiquitously by brands like Doritos, Pepsi, Cheverolet, CareerBuilder, Snickers, eTrade, and Best Buy to name a few. Check out the ads for yourself, and tell me they don’t all go for the same bottom-feeding humour — some kind of normal situation with an out-of-place character or dialogue. Maybe a device that backfires and causes bodily harm. Craig Ferguson, host of the Late Late Show on CBS, summarised the ads on the following Monday night asking his audience, “did you see the one where the guy gets hit in the balls … all of them?” The slapstick has to end.

My choice for ad of the night goes to one brand that actually treats the audience like adults. Royal Caribbean’s 30-second spot “February” promotes their cruises as winter getaways, not as the wacky neighbor. The ad features a soundtrack from yesteryear with wintery lyrics and on-screen copy set against the obvious summery imagery of folks in bathing suits and other relaxing outdoor scenes only available in latitudes afar. The subtle approach worked on me, as I not only remembered this ad, but thought enough of its execution to write this article. I haven’t quite taken the step of booking a cruise, but if I had the money (or a girlfriend) I’d be floating the idea.

Royal Caribbean “February” / download .mp4 / watch on YouTube

The reason this ad stands out for me is that it’s one of the night’s few that didn’t try to clown me. Royal Caribbean positions itself as a grown-up brand, easing my pain during tough winters, setting up a memorable experience, and generally being my buddy. In other words, they’re not the type to kick me in the balls.

Someone will point out how much money Bud Light actually makes on their Super Bowl impressions, but I’m not bothered solely by numbers. The long-term growth of a brand is about creating relationships, taking consumers on a journey, not just telling them a joke. Clowns are in-and-out in 5 seconds, friends stay with you a lifetime.

This article also appears on The Next Big Design, the blog of the FUSE Conference

Amber MacArthur, the Canadian TV host cum social media expert, has created a rather apt rundown of the five best and worst social media campaigns of 2010. I think we can all see that when done well, these campaigns — whether planned by big ad agencies or by the clone clever writer — can reach a tremendous amount of people and connect worlds. But when done poorly — or worse, insincerely — the results are painful.

I’m absolutely not going to be come a commenter on social media, as the Internet has plenty of those, but if you know me, you won’t be surprised to hear my theory on any campaign or social media effort. Ready? Here it is: stay true to your brand!

Think of how your brand communicates. Is it formal or down-home? Is it young or old? Do you value your product or the experience more? There are millions of questions to ask yourself regarding the tone of the communications, but the answers should be dictated by your brand strategy as a whole. Any video or sequence of tweets or guerilla ad campaign is just another arena for your brand to shine. Also, don’t take yourself so seriously.

via The Globe and Mail »

I recently spotted the very sharp campaign for Nike, “New York vs. The World”. I’m genuinely a little curious as to the origins of this project, but I have to admire the cross-media approach which includes outdoor posters, apparel, packaging, custom type, and more.

From what I can tell, it was designed by HORT, a German firm with a British web address. Check out their post for a more in-depth look.

This is the sort of work I’d love to be doing — full-scale branding that forces us carry out a creative concept across various delivery sources.

Packaging examples of region-branded Nikes.

Does anyone remember a brilliant series of ads in the mid-90s where Nike featured the NYC stories about basketball? They were black-and-white and didn’t actually show any ball being played, but instead featured a voiceover telling some random tale about New York, and then closing with the Nike swoosh over the three letters NYC? Anyone remember that? Those were very smart, and I think Nike should resurrect those 100% as is. No?

via The Artist and His Model »

download .mp4 / watch on YouTube

There’s really not much more to say about it, but if you’re interested in looking behind the curtain, here’s a “making of” video.

download .mp4 / watch on YouTube

I think my commentary rather ends here. It’s cats. In Ikea. Awesome.

via Gizmodo and The Guardian

I don’t think one needs speak Japanese to be puzzled by this. My mouth is agape. Wow.

Mad Men is a hit show — we love it. It’s about advertising, vaguely, and the characters have become quite iconic in only a few short years. So naturally, they’ve been made into Barbie Dolls. What?

Four characters from the show are being made into Barbies. But my immediate WTF reaction stems from the disconnect between the show’s very not-adult themes, and Barbie, which is generally a young girl’s toy. Apparently, Mattel addresses this by saying they’re not for kids.

Mattel is marketing the dolls for adults through their Barbie Fashion Model Collection. While they certainly have an adult pricetag of $74.95 each, according to The NY Times they won’t come with grown-up accessories like martinis and cigarettes.

In my opinion, the move to merchandise Mad Men is not a smart one for AMC and for the show’s brand. There is, throughout, an air of sophistication and class — even if it is only based on nostalgia and the fashions of yesteryear. Barbie cheapens the show and the characters, whether or not the craftsmanship is slightly increased.

But maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe these are for doll collectors and hardcore fanatics of the show only. To the rest of us, it’s a non-issue, absorbing almost no marketing dollars and making very little impact on the show’s general reputation. Yea, I think that’s it.

But I have to admit, the Joan doll is looking good! [insert remarks about the recurring debate of Barbie and unrealistic body image issues.]

Amid this story, we almost overlooked that Barbie turned 51! Having debuted 9 March, 1959. Perhaps we’ll see Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce pitching to advertise the fledgeling toy on the upcoming season 4.

There was also the Mad Men Suit from Brooks Brothers, which I wrote about a while back. That wasn’t such a bad brand extension because the costumer from the show helped produce the product line. I just don’t think folks want to have the clothing of a tv show is all. Especially not folks who wear Brooks Brothers suits.

via Gothamist »

Well, last night I snuck out to a preview and managed to watch the film. The two words on my tongue after seeing it: “so what?” The film is a little more than a trophy, acknowledging the rare moments in advertising that do, somehow, manage to cut through the shouting, and that can, admittedly, touch our lives. But we already knew that.

From the title, I imagined Art & Copy would be a sort of inside story into the day-to-day lives of ad agency workers. For once, the lay public will get a glimpse into how it happens, and see that behind these ads are real people, waking up and going to work. But instead, we see a reinforced stereotype of frustrated artists and eccentric creative directors who swear they are changing the world simply by breathing.

There has always been in our society a cynicism towards advertising. We don’t enjoy being interrupted, be it on television, radio, in magazines and newspapers, or even while walking down the street peering at bus shelters and billboards. We’re sick of this shit. But the film does nothing to assuage this cynicism, and instead helps solidify it by highlighting how each of the famous ad-men (and women) featured share a general hatred for their own profession. This is more apparent in the nature of the film itself — interview segments are intercut with montages of ad-saturated cityscapes. Statistics are displayed on-screen that quantify just how many ads we’re exposed to … and how the figures are getting worse over the years. So after a heart-warming tale about the golden age of the biz, we’re brought back to Earth by the reality that those days are, indeed, gone.

Advertising (at least in America and Britain) is overwhelmingly white and male. The industry continues to take criticism for this. And that lopsidedness is reflected in this film. I’m just saying. It also misleads the public by featuring only successful, distinguished industry veterans, thereby sidestepping the ugly issue of burnout, which is infamous within the profession. A lot folks don’t make it to the corner office, and are pushed out well before their hair goes white.

But to be fair, the Art & Copy does entertain. Featuring some of the most notable ad campaigns of the last 50 years, it literally makes us laugh and cry. After all, aren’t emotions slightly heightened by nostalgia?

There is an odd meta quality to the film — the whole thing is one giant ad in the sense that they use the medium of film, combined with moving music, well-chosen imagery, and clever text, to evoke emotions in the audience. And maybe we’re not supposed to notice, but I did, can still testify that in that regard, it’s done very well.

Sadly, the film represents very few campaigns (or thinking) from the 21st Century. Obviously, the Century is young, but with media and consumer habits changing so rapidly, I reckon it’s worth at least mentioning. One line, I believe, mentioned the need for more integrated campaigns going forward, and a few of the on-screen graphics acknowledged that advertising is no longer confined to the television set. But no attention was paid to the trans-cultural nature of brands, user-generated content, the push for online, the death of newspapers (and magazines), or TiVo, all of which are huge players in the constantly-evolving landscape of advertising today. With this oversight, Art & Copy might have been perfectly suited a release in 1999.

I am cynical about advertising. Perhaps because I like to focus more on the branding side of things, but I’m one of those guys who wouldn’t mind if all advertising disappeared overnight. (yes, I know there are economical logistical issues to work on) But even I, the cynic, have to give props to some of the campaigns over the years that have moved us forward. These are one that do become art, and do end up in that same corner of our brain where we store fond memories of childhood Christmases. Here are a few featured in the film. They are indeed timeless. (in no particular order)

Wendy’s – Where’s the Beef (1984)

MTV – I Want My MTV (1981)

Nike – Failure (1999)

Nike – If You Let Me Play Sports (1995)

Milk – Got Milk? (Aaron Burr) (1993)

Braniff Airlines – End of the Plain Plane (1965)

Reagan ’84 – It’s Morning in America (1984)

Johnson ’64 – Daisy (1964)

Apple Macintosh – 1984 (1984)

Apple iPod – iPod+iTunes (2003)

[someone please correct me if I got the years wrong. I'm not the expert here.]

So what’s the takeaway from all this? Basically the same thing we’ve been saying all along: advertising can push the limits of art, media, communication, storytelling, and society. But it usually doesn’t. If you’re a client, take a risk once in a while, it may pay off. If you’re an agent, try not to be a dick. Be creative. And don’t take yourself so fucking seriously. (I added that last one myself.)

PS, I think I might have voted for Reagan. A little hyperbolic, but man, what an ad.