 |
|
|
|||||
The whole idea of advertisingusing pictures and words to get people to buy stuff, or to do somethingis old indeed, with the first known example dating back almost 5,000 years to the heady days of Ancient Egypt. The ads business changed a lot since we were writing notices on papyrus, but one thing thatuntil recentlyremained the same was that it was a deeply intentional business. The advertiser had to think about the language they used, the imagery they employed, the types of people they sought to reach, and how they would go about doing that. Whether the advertiser was touting a weaving shop on the banks of the Nile during the days of the Pharaohs, or selling detergent or cigarettes through new mass media innovations like the television or the radio, that same thoughtfulness was a constant. Advertisers had to thinkand, by virtue of the fact they were forced to make decisions, they were in control of everything. My biggest complaint with the digital ads ecosystem is it, by design, strips the ability of the advertiser to make some of those decisionsnot merely placement, but targeting, and with the emergence of dynamic creative and generative AI, messaging too. In the process, weve turned advertising from a very deliberately engineered systemwhere the architect knows what each part of the process should dointo one thats, essentially, a black box. And within this black box, theres little room for creativity. The Process Is Creative When we think about advertisingand, in particular, good advertisingwe always think about the messaging. Its true that some of the best campaigns in history have always used clever wordplay, or coy psychological tactics, to drive a point home. The Pepsi Challenge, for example, started off as a series of in-person taste tests and culminated in a campaign that could confidently say (though some have identified flaws in the test itself) that Pepsi was Americas preferred cola. Not only did this directly undercut Pepsis main adversaryCoca-Cola, which easily had the most powerful brand perceptionbut it also allowed people to differentiate between products that people might otherwise think of as identical. Messaging is important, but its far from the only creative part of the marketing process. Take Subaru, for example. In the 1990s, it was a struggling car brandeclipsed not only by its Japanese rivals like Nissan and Toyota, but also by fierce domestic competition in the U.S. market. Subaru hired a new advertising firm to turn its fortunes around, which ran a series of focus groups that asked why existing Subaru owners chose its vehicles, as opposed to those from one of its healthier rivals. That firm noticed that women dominated those focus groups, and many of those women identified as lesbian. The company then launched a campaign that targeted both women and lesbiansitself a brave choice, considering the climate of the 1990s, which saw the passage of both the Defense of Marriage Act and Dont Ask, Dont Tell. To help it reach lesbian audiences, it hired Mulryan/Nash to create content specifically for the gay press, and to handle ad buying. This campaign wasnt just pioneeringit also, arguably, helped revive Subarus fortunes, and the brand remains vibrant and relevant, especially in the U.S., where it sold over 667,000 cars in the 2024 calendar year. The Subaru example is a potent one, not simply because it was so successful, but because it illustrates how each step of the processfrom identifying the customer, to determining where to reach them, to crafting the messagingrequired human thought and human creativity. If were looking for a more contemporary example, Spotifys controversial Thanks 2016, its been weird springs to mind. Capitalizing on a year defined by seismic political shifts, celebrity deaths, and countless surreal moments to mention in the confines of this piece, Spotify tapped into its data, identifying equally surreal trends and turning them into highly relatable billboards positioned in prime urban locations. These billboards featured pithy one-liners (for example, Dear person who played ‘Sorry’ 42 times on Valentines Day, what did you do?), with the text localized for target markets (Dear 3,749 people who streamed Its the end of the world as we know it the day of the Brexit vote, hang in there). It served as a reminder of how music isnt simply a form of entertainment, but a way in which we process events in our personal lives, as well as those happening within politics and culture. Again, this process required creative thinking at every levelfrom identifying the patterns within the data that would lead to the funniest trends, to choosing the most valuable locations to place the billboards. I write all of this not because I believe that all digital advertisingwhere these decisions are outsourced, particularly to third-partiesis bad, but because I believe that the most effective and memorable campaigns are thoughtful ones. The reason why I believe digital advertising is the enemy to advertising is because, by design, it strips us of the ability to use that creativity across all stages of the advertising process, from conceptualization to creating the final product. Battling the Black Boxes Last year was the 30th birthday of digital advertising. Its interesting to see how, as the internet grew and an adtech ecosystem emerged, the very nature of how this segment actually works changed. Whereas at one point advertising deals were inked between companies, with money changing hands in exchange for prime placement for a set number of days, those manual transactions are now a thing of the past. Todays digital advertising mechanics are based on systems which the advertiser doesnt control or even understandand in the case of those which heavily rely on AI, even the developers dont have full insight into the factors behind each targeting and placement decision. This opacity also allows the adtech provider or advertising network to act in ways that are contrary to the interests of the advertisereither by obfuscating data that could allow them to make more effective decisions, or by failing to protect said advertiser from, for example, click fraud. Although digital ads allow a company to target and market at scaleand, arguably, with the economies of scale that wouldnt be otherwise possiblethe downside is, arguably, a degradation of the online experience for end users, profound concerns about user privacy, and an absence of transparency for those actually purchasing the ads. Arguably, the biggest downsidefrom someone who cares profoundly about the intellectual and creative brilliance of the ads industryis that digital ads havent really produced something thats memorable, or has had any meaningful cultural impact. Coca-Cola gave us Santa Clauss red outfit and the iconic flashing delivery trucks. Decades after tey commercials first aired, we still remember the Budweiser frogs croaking bud-wise-er, or its later ads that turned wazzup into a legitimate pop culture phenomenon (albeit a really irritating one). And thats because creativity is like a muscle, and if you dont exercise itor dont have to exercise ititll wither away.
Category:
E-Commerce
To announce its entrance into 5G home internet service, Mint Mobile found the real-life version of a new AI-generated actress, even if only in (nick)name. Tilly Norwood is the name of a so-called AI actress launched by AI talent studio Xicoia. It also happens to be the name of a woman who stars alongside Ryan Reynolds in Mint Mobile’s new ad for its home internet service, which its branding “Minternet.” “It’s hard to believe that Mint is launching 5G home internet. It’s also hard to believe that a real version of an AI actress is out there,” a Maximum Effort representative tells Fast Company. “And thanks to the incredible and somewhat disturbing stalking detective abilities of our team, we found her. Just outside of Dallas, Texas, just one day before filming the commercial. Luckily she responded to our random DMs and was happy to assure the world that both she and the internet are very real.” The fake Norwood has inspired backlash and a Wikipedia page, and the labor union SAG-AFTRA refused to say in a statement that the AI character is an actual actor, instead stating its “a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performerswithout permission or compensation.” As it happens, the real NorwoodNatalie “Tilly” Norwoodis a real Mint Mobile customer. In the commercial, Reynolds, a former Mint Mobile co-owner who still makes ads for the wireless service provider through Maximum Effort, a production company he cofounded, asks if Norwood is real and “not an AI-generated combination of actors.” “I’m a combination of my parents,” the real Norwood says. Mint Mobile’s parent company was acquired by T-Mobile in 2023 in a deal worth up to $1.35 billion, and its 5G home internet service shows the brand is broadening its ambitions beyond mobile. The brand says its home internet service will use T-Mobile’s 5G network, and Mint Mobile is offering it for as low as $30 a month for customers with a Mint Mobile phone plan who prepay for three months. In an advertising landscape that could increasingly see more AI-generated ads, sticking to real people is a smart strategy. A 2024 YouGov poll of respondents from 17 markets around the world found 51% were uncomfortable with a brand creating a virtual ambassador (34% were comfortable with it; 15% didn’t know how they felt about it). In other words, using a fake Tilly Norwood in your ad could turn away half your audience. Meanwhile, the real living, breathing Tilly Norwood appears to be anything but polarizing.
Category:
E-Commerce
The J.M. Smucker Co. says it doesn’t have a problem with other companies selling their own prepackaged, crustless sandwiches like its own popular Smuckers Uncrustables. They just have to get their own design. Uncrustables is on its way to becoming a $1 billion brand, so of course there will be knockoffs, but according to Smucker, a recent Trader Joe’s version of Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches is a bit too blatant. The company is using the design of the Trader Joe’s product and packaging to prove its point in a new lawsuit. Smucker accused the grocery store chain of “an obvious attempt to trade off of the fame and recognition” of Uncrustable’s protected design marks in a suit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The round shape and crimped edges of Trader Joe’s crustless sandwiches, which it released in late summer, look too similar to Uncrustables, Smucker says. [Photos: Smucker’s, Trader Joe’s] “Smucker does not take issue with others in the marketplace selling prepackaged, frozen, thaw-and-eat crustless sandwiches,” attorneys for the Orrville, Ohio-based food and beverage manufacturer wrote in the suit. “But it cannot allow others to use Smucker’s valuable intellectual property to make such sales.” Smucker, which reported annual net sales of $8.7 billion in the most recent quarter, says it has invested nearly $1 billion over 20 years to grow its brand of crustless sandwiches into the No. 1 frozen handheld brand in its category. It’s paid off even as Smucker’s snack brands like Hostess Twinkies and Ding Dongs, which have recently rebranded, struggled in a shifting snack food landscape. CFO Tucker Marshall said on Smucker’s August earnings call that Uncrustables is a “growth brand” for the company, along with the pet food brands Meow Mix and Milk-Bone. Marshall said that “people who are consuming Uncrustables for the most part are athletes, families with kids,” and that the brand performs strongly at universities and convenience stores. “We really haven’t seen any impact at all from the GLP-1,” Marshall added, referring to weight-loss medications that are driving a trend toward healthier, high-protein snacks. The importance of Smuckers Uncrustables in the companys portfolio helps underline the urgency of the lawsuit. In the suit, Smucker argues its trademarks for images like a “pie-like shape with distinct peripheral undulated crimping” as well as “a round crustless sandwich with a bite taken out showing filling on the inside” are being duped by Trader Joe’s without authorization. The suit extends to packaging concerns, as Smucker believes even the blue used for Trader Joe’s box of crustless PB&J sandwiches is strikingly similar to the blue used in the Uncrustables logo. Smucker is seeking damages and demanding that Trader Joe’s destroy all the products, packaging, and promotional materials that use the current designs. Trader Joe’s did not respond to a request for comment. There are other crustless sandwich brands that don’t use the Uncrustables-style circular shape and crimped design, like the square-shaped Jams and Walmart’s Great Value No Crust Sandwich. Chubby Snacks originally launched with circular sandwiches before getting hit with a cease-and-desist from Smucker. It pivoted in 2021 to a cloud-shaped sandwich. Smucker’s suit follows a May lawsuit filed by Mondelez International against Aldi accusing the grocery store chain of duping the packaging of popular snack brands like Oreo and Nutter Butter. Aldi unveiled redesigned private-label packaging in September amid a wider industry trend toward upgrading generic branding that has spanned from Amazon to Walmart. As lawsuits like those from Smucker and Mondelez show, with a rise in private-label competition, the big industry players are ready to protect their own branding, and with teeth if necessary.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||