If, like me, you were unable to keep your eyes open until 4am on Monday morning, you likely watched the highlights of this year’s Oscars online the following day. Unfortunately, for the advertisers that paid around the $1m-per-slot mark to gain a highly coveted slice of the limelight, this means you missed out on the commercial gaps.

However, the chances are far greater that you will have seen those brands who advertised in the Best Picture nominated movies. Fenton’s Creamery ice cream in Disney’s Up? BMW and Taco Bell in American Football drama The Blind Side? American Airlines, Hilton Hotels or Chrysler in Up In The Air? Ringing any bells?

It’s always quite amusing to survey friends and colleagues on their recollection of product placement on screen - the latter especially given that they work within marketing and are arguably more watchful of brand presence within entertainment platforms. If you mark this against the reality (superbly documented by Brand Channel’s Brand Cameo database), I have found that by and large people’s recall is probably less than 5% of the actual brands exposed on screen.

To make things interesting, those clever Brand Cameo folks have taken the brands present in this year’s Oscar contenders for Best Picture and plotted them on a matrix: pitching memorable versus instantly forgettable, against those that provided significant profit versus those that did not.

Hopefully, they won’t mind me reproducing it in full here:

(c) BrandChannel.com 2010

Now for the really interesting bit. Of those featuring in the most memorable segmentation, both Günther’s in District 9 and RDA that featured in Cameron’s epic Avatar were actually fictional brands.

Having written previously on how events, rights-holders and entertainment platforms are increasingly feeling the need to get a ‘brand stamp of approval’ on their project (even if they have to make one up), I am now more convinced than ever that we all now require a brand presence within our entertainment to validate its grounding in reality.

Though in the case of both District 9 and Avatar, paradoxically the branding was exercised to validate their grounding in un-reality. I guess given their sci-fi nature, it seems to make more sense to create a fictional unknown brand, thereby emphasizing the futuristic setting. But nonetheless, Günther’s and RDA still fall firmly on the ‘memorable’ side of scale - despite their non-existence in our reality.

Was this a missed opportunity for ‘real’ brands? Would South African-born Nando’s or thoroughly American N.A.S.A. have offered anything more? Would the producers have allowed it? Would the brand managers have wanted to association? And would the brand messages have been more - or less - memorable as a result?

I would love to know what goes in to thinking up these fictional companies. Do production execs or screenwriters work in a name that states a subtle (or not-so-subtle) socio-political message to fit with the film’s thematic development? As one District 9 viewer pointed out in a fan forum, sometimes the connotations have more meaning than at first it might appear:

‘Why were the South Africans patrons of a restaurant named Günther’s? Günther is the name of a king of Burgundy and means “warrior” or “soldier.” In effect, the South African blacks had a white warrior to thank for their sustenance.’

Either which way, we are entering an era where commercialism of movies - on and off screen - may fast become the life-blood of the industry; if, in fact we are not there already. How many years before an esteemed member of the Hollywood glitterati stands before the Academy audience and announces, ‘And the Academy Award for Best Product Placement goes to….‘?

Judging by the above, this year it should have gone to a brand that doesn’t even exist.

If this year’s Oscar-winning animated short film Logorama is anything to go by, it won’t be long. For those who have not yet had the pleasure of this little piece, the entire premise is the over-branded commercialisation of modern-day America on film. Watch the trailer below, and try to count the brand logos. There are over 2,500 in the full piece. Utter genius.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 9th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, American football, Brand marketing, Film, Product placement

No comments

Just yesterday at Synergy towers, there was some collective musing going on around how the face of sponsorship could change in the next few decades. And that got me thinking about that ever-elusive demographic - the 16-24 year olds - to see how they might be running businesses and consuming media in 25 years’ time.

One area of interest is how immune (or not) youth of today have become to brand presence in their everyday lives. Do they reject it (oft-quoted myth)? Do they embrace it (when it suits them)? Do they challenge it to give them added value before giving it their valuable attention (’what’s in it for me’)? Or do they ignore it altogether?

Or, have they come to expect it as par for the course of being entertained? I wondered if the ’such and such, brought to you by…’ had become such a ubiquitous tag to music concerts / sporting fixtures / televised events, that people in 10 or 20 years might actually notice an absence of brand more than its presence. After all, I was hearing this mandatory credit line before I could even read, from the loveable muppets of Sesame Street (’Sesame Street was brought to you by the number 8 and letters D and M…’ etc.)

But one interesting application of the sponsorship concept was brought to me today by Britain’s favourite ‘University Outfitter’, Jack Wills.

Having just returned from a summer of fun in New England, the brand’s bright young marketing things are about to embark on another grand tour of the UK’s trendiest universities. JW will be partying at various Freshers’ Weeks in the next few weeks, combining their ‘fabulously British’ fashion with cutting edge, fresh new music - via the brand’s evolving unofficial music label, JWUnsigned.

But what caught my eye in the creative flyer for the Tour was the sponsorship line. Bearing in mind that this is a Jack-Wills event, delivered as a music tour produced by a Jack Wills sub-brand, it is ’sponsored by’ - wait for it - a Jack Wills clothing line. This year’s JWUnsigned Freshers Tour is brought to you by No.350-4-842 - the brand’s denim range.

This I feel points to some interesting signs about the presence that sponsorship has in the lives of youth culture today. Sponsorship in its very basic sense (brand-pays-rights-holder) cannot apply here given that both the sponsor and property are from the same stable. So one assumes that JW is using the Tour platform to leverage awareness of its 350-4-842 denim as almost a stand-alone brand, instantly recognizable in and of itself but crucially as part of the Jack Wills family.

But I sense that there must be an implicit acceptance here by the Tour’s marketeers that their target consumers are so expectant of a live event being sponsored, it has become a necessary element of the Tour name. ‘Sponsored by…’ acts in this case as a ready-made stamp of officialdom: all big music events are sponsored so the JWUnsigned Tour needs to be too, in order to gain stature and acceptance within the youth marketplace.

St. Andrew’s, Leeds, Edinburgh, London, Bristol, Nottingham, Guildford and Brighton all appear to be on the list of host cities for the Tour events, and I’m intrigued to see what these will look like. How will JW use the opportunity to engage with their fans? Will they be actively spreading the word of their ‘Worn in but not Worn Out’ denim range to a captive audience of indie music fans? Will the bands be wearing the jeans during all their sets? Or is that ’sponsored by…’ tag ultimately just that - a tagline?

And most interesting of all - will the legions of JW-loving Freshers either notice or, perhaps more importantly, care?

By Lucie Bartlett on September 9th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Experiential marketing, Fashion, Music, Sponsorship, Synergy

1 comment

© Nick Potts / PA (Telegraph Media Group)

One highlight from the rather depressing cricket news today.

With England cricket fans still reeling from the devastating announcement of KP’s withdrawal from the remainder of the npower Ashes series, the above image found its way into two of the national broadsheets today.

PA photographer Nick Potts managed to capture and distill into one image the cloud of troubled thoughts surrounding England’s would-be captain at the present time. Standing in front of the sightscreen branded with title sponsor npower’s latest slogan, the hoarding rather ironically conveys: Home Team - Service and Repair - this summer… just what KP had hoped for and, unfortunately, was denied.

Don’t worry folks. He’ll be back.

By Lucie Bartlett on July 23rd, 2009

Tags: Ashes, Cricket, ECB, Sport

No comments

Seriously. Sounds simple? Well sometimes it is the smallest gestures that have the greatest impact.

I blog, Tweet and share on Facebook most of the cool stuff I come across on a daily basis. According to Rupert Murdoch, this makes me a ’digital native’, but whatever label you want to apply, today it totally paid off.

As a long-term fan of the Jack Wills brand, my support of the British fashion label has, over the years, transcended both online and offline platforms - along with a lot of my closest friends. We shop with Jack, we party with Jack, and when we do, we tell people about it.

Take the annual Varsity Polo tournament at Windsor (JW’s sole, perfectly conceived sponsorship property): we’ll not only attend the event, but with a desire to soak up every last drop of JW goodness that can be squeezed from the day, we’ll also make sure we hit the renowned pre- and post- parties. Each of these supporting social events is a prime opportunity for JW product sampling, mobile shop units and giveaways - all wrapped up in a perfectly ‘fabulously British’ parcel of fun that completely encapsulates the brand’s personality.

But it doesn’t end there. Like us, each attendee (usually residing firmly within the 16-24 age bracket and thus 100% digitally native) will tweet, blog, share links, upload photos and update statuses continuously in the run up to and aftermath of each fully branded event - therefore spreading the word to their like-minded friends and colleagues, all of whom sit slap bang in the middle of the JW target demographic. They in turn will add Jack as a friend on Facebook, become a fan of the JW page and follow their every update on Twitter… and so it goes on.

However, little did I know until yesterday just how savvy the JW marketing team could be. Evidently all too aware of their mini ready-made army of (free) brand advocates online, they have decided to recognise and reward those who share the JW love.

Having over 2,000 followers on Twitter, they follow themselves only 21 (to date) - including, as of yesterday, me. This in itself (for an avid brand fan) is pretty cool in the Twitter-verse as it’s a stamp of approval from a brand you love - especially if you’re one of few. But, hey presto, at 8am this morning a special delivery package arrived at my door… a surprise thank you gift from the JW team no less. Complete with a handwritten note (-’Just to say thanks for being a fan! Keep the word up… Love Jack x’-), I had been sent a whole collection of JW goodies for doing no more than shouting about the things I love.

What is so clever about this smart move from them, is that not only I am now pretty much a fan for life (or at least, the foreseeable future), but they know that I will make sure everyone knows about it. For them, a minimal outlay has cemented the loyalty of one particularly vociferous fan, knowing that I would return the favour ten-fold in brand advocacy for them.

Naturally I did: by 9am I had updated my Facebook status and Twitter feed accordingly.  By 10am I had three messages from other JW fans asking how I managed to get presents from Jack. After sharing by my own blog post on the subject via Facebook at lunchtime, Jack Wills picked it up, shared it on their Facebook feed, and in literally minutes 19 people had said they ‘liked’ it, 14 people had commented on it and my blog traffic (relatively) sky-rocketed with over 200 page views.

Offline, I’ve also told pretty much everyone I know.

For Jack Wills, engaging with their audience using the platforms that will give them the biggest share of voice is absolutely key. But what did surprise me is how they strive to show their fans how much they are valued - turning their online advocacy into currency for tangible, offline rewards. Cute, surprising recognition for those who love them best will, in the long run, grow their business exponentially.

No Jack, thank YOU.

By Lucie Bartlett on June 19th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Experiential marketing, Fashion, Sponsorship

No comments

Marketing Week today issued a story revealing the latest brands to top Brand Finance’s Global 500 list of the world’s most valuable brands.

Wal-Mart topped the bill, bumping incumbent Coca-Cola from the top spot, which the soft drinks giant had held since their research began in 2007.

But it was the Coke vs. Pepsi battle that caught my eye:

It’s not all bad news for Coke, however. It is still the dominant beverage brand on the list. While Coca-Cola’s total enterprise value of $104.5bn (£71.2bn) is just 22% greater than that of Pepsi (which is 21st in the table), the Coke brand is 118% more valuable than its arch-rival.

This reminded me of a fun little experiment that I have been meaning to post for a while, taken from Rob Walker’s excellent work on the relationship between who people are and what they buy, Buying In.

Walker was writing just last year, but for some time prior, traditional advertising methods were well on the way to being usurped by their younger digitally native upstart cousins in the social media space - invoking mass fear across the industry that brands and branding in the traditional sense no longer held the sway they once did.

So, taking the world’s biggest Superbrand (as it was then) and its arch rival, Pepsi, scientists at the Baylor College of Medicine put brand loyalty to the test amongst the disenchanted, anti-establishment student population. The results were, I thought quite remarkable.

First, they conducted the classic blind taste test - white-labelled, un-branded Pepsi vs. white-labelled, un-branded Coke. Unsurprisingly, given the very similar ingredients, the split was more or less half and half (with a slight favour for Pepsi).

In the second round however, the subject had to choose between a labelled can (Pepsi for some, Coke for others) and an unlabelled one. Properly labelled, Pepsi again finished in a tie with its unknown competitor. But Coke on the other hand was by far the decisive favourite above its mystery rival.

And here’s the twist. In this second round, subjects were told that the unlabelled drink might be Pepsi or it might be Coke. In reality, the labelled drink was always competing against itself. Thus, branded Coke totally trounced its unbranded self . Bizarre.

Or not so bizarre when we look at the neurology behind it (courtesy of BrandChannel.com), where we actually get scientific proof of brand impact. Ready? Here comes the science bit:

When Montague gave a taste of an unnamed soda to his volunteers he found that, technically, more people preferred Pepsi. On the scan images the ventral putamen, one of the brain’s reward centers, had a response that was five times stronger than for people who preferred Coke.

The shock came when Read repeated the experiment, this time telling volunteers which brand they were tasting. Nearly all the subjects then said they preferred the Coke. Moreover, different parts of the brain fired as well, especially the medial prefrontal cortex, an area associated with thinking and judging. Without a doubt the subjects were letting their experience of the Coke brand influence their preferences.

The work of Montague and other studies prove that branding goes far beyond images and memory recall. The medial prefrontal cortex is a part of the brain known to be involved in our sense of self. It fires in response to something — an image, name or concept — that resonates with who we are. Something clicks, and we are more likely to buy.

Brand immunity? We’re certainly not there yet.

And while we’re on the subject of the big red machine, take a look at their 2006 - most successful ever - advertising campaign, The Happiness Factory (below). It’s fab. So fab in fact, that they they are now rolling out a multi-player game version of the concept as an iPhone application - on top of the interactive site already online. Brilliant.

By Lucie Bartlett on April 16th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Digital marketing, Mobile

No comments

At Synergy, while we work exclusively on the brand and sponsor-side of the industry, we still frequently receive unsolicited requests for sponsorship from hopeful individuals looking for funding to achieve their goals. One such enthusiastic sponsor-seeking individual caught my eye last week, fielding a rather unusual campaign.

Last October world pole-vault silver medallist Romain Mesnil suffered a disappointing withdrawal of sponsorship from his backer, Nike. In an attempt to gain awareness for his sponsorship proposal, the Frenchman stripped off, and jogged through Paris with, er, pole in hand, and posted the final video on his personal website. In one afternoon, Mesnil had whipped up nearly 300,000 views.

Viral heaven. Within hours the video clip, hosted on YouTube, had gone global. Media outlets and news wires all over Europe could not get enough of the naked French athlete who was prepared to do whatever it took to make potential sponsors sit up and take note. Well, they certainly couldn’t doubt his genuine enthusiasm and dedication, nor his athletic prowess.

Mesnil followed up the stunt a couple of days later with a slightly less controversial approach by launching a ten-day attempt to get sponsors via the French version of the eBay online auction website. After the buzz that his naked jog created throughout the industry and the media, he told a French news conference that he planned to offer sponsorship deals of himself through the online auction site to the highest bidder. Those who click onto his website can place a bid to sponsor the athlete with any profits going to a brain tumour research group.

A rather novel approach to rights fee negotiation, but hats off to him for fully embracing Sponsorship 2.0 in order to achieve, well, ultimate exposure.

In recent weeks, Mesnil has also sported a black kit with a big white question mark where the sponsor’s logo would normally be. When asked about his whole campaign by the press, Mesnil’s response was remarkably astute:

‘In times of crisis, you have to come up with a novel approach.’

How particularly relevant to the current times, and how very, very true.

By Lucie Bartlett on April 6th, 2009

Tags: Athletics, Public relations, Social Media, Sponsorship, Viral Marketing, YouTube

No comments

When was the last time you donned a pair of 3-D glasses?

I’m pretty sure that I was about 5, but this year 3-D is, apparently, BIG news. It started with the NFL Super Bowl in January. One of the most widely anticipated ads of this year’s Super Bowl ad breaks was Dreamworks’ trailer for its upcoming feature Monsters vs Aliens. Given that the movie (and thus, the trailer) required special 3-D glasses to see the full effects, in the run up to the Super Bowl, 150 million pairs of glasses were made available from Pepsi retailers across the US.

Later this year, we will see both Disney/Pixar and FOX getting in on the action with their releases Up and Avatar respectively. Even the Disney-produced Jonas Brothers have produced a ‘concert experience’ in the format (thus possibly supporting my it’s-for-5-year-olds theory).

But Time Inc. (the magazine division at AOL Time Warner) is trying to convince us all that it is far more than just child’s play. And to get their message across, they’ve done something pretty cool in five of their top magazine titles this month.

Readers of five fairly dissimilar sibling magazines - Time, Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated and Entertainment Weekly  - will find each title giving big editorial coverage to the subject of new-wave 3-D.

Each magazine has filled its section on 3-D, which was ordered up by corporate executives, its own way. Time is reporting on the new wave of 3-D movies, while Sports Illustrated is running a 3-D photo section (not the Swimsuit edition, sorry guys).

It was the SI version that brought the campaign to my attention, landing on my desk this morning. The sizable 14-page (7 DPS) chunk dominating the first section is impossible to miss. Half of the space has been dedicated to carrying the magazine’s usual content (their ‘Leading Off’ big action pictures of the week section), and the rest to willing ’sponsors’ - in this case, HP and Intel (both pushing their Monsters vs Aliens sponsorship through retail advertising), RealD 3D (again pushing the movie) and, seemingly randomly, McDonalds. A handy pair of 3-D glasses is inserted into the first DPS, bringing alive the visuals on all 14 pages, so that college basketball, NHL, monster trucks and hamburgers alike are all thrust off the page towards you.

The blurb that Time Inc. published in their advertorial page vaguely outlines why they feel 3-D is worth shouting about:

3-D is about to get serious…At Time Inc., we think 3-D is pretty darn cool, a technology that’s certain to have an impact across entertainment, business, and even sports. So we decided to cover it in a special way.

But what really struck me, is rather than simply taking out four pages trailing dull technology services, or a kids movie (neither of which would appeal hugely to most readers of the five magazines involved), each feature is aimed at the interests of that title’s particular readers - a seemless synergy of advertising and editorial, all physically viewed through the medium that the message tries to convey.

I loved it. But maybe that’s just because it made me feel 5 again.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 25th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Film, Media, Sponsorship

No comments

Back in February, Evan Davis and the Today programme team challenged viral marketing agency Rubber Republic to make a viral campaign to test the concept of viral marketing. Inspired by a number of successful brand virals (including Cadbury’s Dancing Eyebrows advertisement that did the rounds not long ago), the Today programme is running an experiment to see if Rubber Republic can make Evan, Jon, Jim and the whole gang go viral.

The final result went live on YouTube today:

On its own merits, it’s a fun little clip and worth a watch - especially for regular listeners who are familiar with all the personalities involved. Having picked it up from Twitter this morning, I sent it straight around the office, and on to friends and family who I knew would appreciate it. So, I guess in that sense, it is a good viral.

However, measuring its success as a stand alone viral will be tricky. For starters, they announced that it had gone live on this morning’s programme, which makes it impossible to discern whether any subsequent YouTube views are a result of that broadcast, or of having been passed the link virally.

Evan Davis suggested that Today would herald the project a success once the clip found its way back to the Today show’s inbox - but when you broadcast this live on air, how can such communication truly be the result of viral marketing, and not just fans of the show wanting to be the first to send the link back to Today?

Which points to another difficulty in measuring the project’s success: how many people sent on the clip for its genuine viral qualities (funny, worth sharing etc.), and how many forwarded it simply to be part of the experiment or, for those in the marketing industry, to share with colleagues the latest example of viral marketing?

In other words, by overtly referencing the fact that their viral content is part of a viral marketing experiment, have Today and Rubber Republic rendered the viral quality of that content obsolete? Hence making it impossible to measure its effect?

But then again, does any of this actually matter? Surely the whole point of the exercise was to get Today talked about, and to potentially reach a new audience of more social-media-savvy (and therefore potentially younger) listeners by engaging with blogs, Twitter and YouTube to convey a slice of Today humour.

Ultimately, my main question would be: has this engaged anyone who didn’t previously listen to the show? Would anyone unfamiliar with Today’s personalities actually see the humour in the clip, or see any relevance to make it worthy of sending to their like-minded friends?

I’m not convinced.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 11th, 2009

Tags: Radio, Social Media, Viral Marketing, YouTube

1 comment

Amongst all the clamour extolling the numerous marketing values to Twitter, this morning I came across a sage example of when it can rather spectacularly backfire.

Last week’s UTalkMarketing.com newsletter displayed a lead story on the subject of Twitter: a Marketing Director’s guide to utilising the platform best, a list of do’s and dont’s for PR’s and the like. The whole article is definitely worth a read for those of you considering using the service for more than your own personal ramblings, but particularly worthy of note is the now classic ‘Watch your mouth’ anecdote teaching all Twitterers when they should know to keep quiet.

Ketchum, the US PR and marketing agency, keen to impress upon their client (FedEx) their expertise in all areas of social networking and digital media marketing, sent a young executive by the name of James Andrews to their HQ in Memphis for a meeting. Unfortunately, the said executive was rather too down with the kids, and sent out a tweet upon landing using his own personal moniker @keyinfluencer, decrying the desperately uninspiring state of his client’s home city, in his own tweet words:

True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say ‘I would die if I had to live here’

Perhaps more savvy with social media than Mr. Andrews had anticipated, FedEx employees, already following Andrews on Twitter, promptly caught the offensive Tweet and emailed round the offending tweet internally (copying in the top executives in FedEx’s front office as well as the corporate comms department) - all before Andrews had even set foot through the door.

Safe to assume he received a less than warm reception upon arrival - in fact, the full response that FedEx immediately sent through as a Direct Message to Andrews is now available online. As well as a public FedEx statement on the incident. Check it all out here.

And so the term CLT (Career Limiting Tweet) was born.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 3rd, 2009

Tags: Blogging, Brand marketing, Public relations, Social Media

No comments

On Friday of last week, I finally fully embraced the world of Twitter (better late than never). Given all the press garnered by the social media service in the last couple of weeks - including a full page feature in the FT on Thursday - I thought it was about time I learnt what all the fuss was about. Safe to say, I have been unreasonably addicted all weekend.

In the interests of fully inter-linking my online presence (with no expectation of any tangible consequences), I duly added an RSS link to my Twitter feed to my own blog and, in turn, my Twitter profile links back to my blog landing page.

Imagine my (perhaps naive) surprise when my blog Dashboard this morning displayed an instantaneous leap  in traffic figures from Friday onwards - and I hadn’t even posted anything new on Friday. Thus, I can only ascribe this bizarre heightened interest in my random musings to joining the Twitter universe.

Admittedly, when the average views figure for my posts tends to linger around the 30 mark (with a high to-date of 87), this humble ‘leap’ still only draws 125 views a-day. But, while I appreciate that such traffic is unlikely to crash the Wordpress server any time soon, relatively speaking, that is a 4:1 increase in web traffic, solely derived from opening up that additional avenue to my blog through Twitter.

Or at least I assume so. The raised figures were maintained through the weekend, and I can’t imagine that the usual ramblings on Vanity Fair, Gossip Girl and the Olsen twins were that ground-breaking.

All hail Twitter - the latest undeniable force in self-marketing. Just imagine what it could do for brands and sponsors too…

By Lucie Bartlett on March 2nd, 2009

Tags: Blogging, Digital marketing, Social Media

1 comment