Strategy / Tactics

Nuances of stock photography

Posted at June 22, 2011 // Advertising

Last week, I had to have a quick course on the pros and cons of stock photography. First of all, there are two kinds.

Royalty Free
Rights Managed

Both types could be easily found on archives such as GettyImages.com. GettyImages offers some definitions on these two. For example, Royalty Free photos depicts more everyday subjects while Rights Managed ones may be more conceptual. Both could be perfect depending on your creative needs. However, it isn’t that simple. The names of these two types of pictures say it all. GettyImages also says the following for these images:

Simple, affordable pricing. The cost of Royalty Free content is based on image size – just select the resolution you need and go.
Exclusive rights. Rights Managed content is priced and licensed based on usage, and some is available with exclusive rights – so your image doesn’t end up on a competitor’s billboard.

Allow me to translate: Royalty Free pictures are cheaper. However, you don’t get exclusive use of this picture. That means your competitors can use this same picture, at the same time! How embarrassing! Check out the examples below from American Society of Media Photographers. Dell and Gateway ended up using the same model on their homepage during the same Back-to-School push!

How did that happen? Well, every advertisers are looking for the best and cheapest option. Royalty Free photos are cheap (comparatively speaking). So, it may be a go-to option for many advertisers. Even so, everyone is looking for the best, and while the best is subjective, there is still a good chance that particular model / that particular photographer / that particular photoshoot was just that good! Multiple advertisers may find the same picture to be the best.

Rights Managed photos are more expensive, because you’re more or less renting that photo exclusively. You buy out the rights for that photo for certain usage in certain market for a certain time period. So, you lock your competitors out. Perfect for some local tactics. However, you do pay for that privilege. So, if you want exclusive use for a long time period all over the place, the price tag for that privilege can get quite high. If that’s your goal, you may be better off doing your own photoshoot.

For a giggle: “Alicia” from a particular photoshoot was so widely used that if you followed her ads, you could create “an unsolicited commercial love story”.

Tags : Strange ads

Geography based branding

Posted at May 23, 2011 // Advertising, Promotion, Public relations, Strategy / Tactics

My favorite Super Bowl ad this year was definitely Chrysler’s “Imported from Detroit“. It was many people’s favorite as well. In fact, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Chrysler is a little to flattered as knock-offs on that slogan quickly hit the market. This one car commercial had probably done more for some local businesses than years of marketing put forth by the city / state.

This made me think about if other brands can do the same…

I took Kansas, my residence, as an example to start a discussion on LinkedIn. After a month-long lively discussion, I concluded that branding a geography is probably harder than one may think. First of all, no geography is homogenous. This presents a unique challenge to branding, as it’s a discipline that is based almost entirely on consistency. For example: New York City – some brand it as the capital of glamour while others brand it as the capital of grime.

So, how could one brand leveraging geography? By the product that geography produces. Florida oranges. Kansas beef. Detroit automobiles.

“Imported From Detroit” is a trademark of Chrysler Group LLC.

Can a brand be defined by haters?

Posted at May 19, 2011 // Advertising, Strategy / Tactics

So many brands want to be everything for everyone. Even those who are more disciplined often think only about their users. Very rarely are brand marketers focusing on the non-users.

I have always been a fan of thinking through the non-users. Negative reactions are necessary evil to a strong brand that stand for something unique and special. If you achieve that, you are bound to have someone who’s not on that particular bandwagon.

The recent Miracle Whip “Love or Hate” campaign probably is one of the strongest campaigns I’ve seen that takes advantage of non-users. What do you think of this campaign? And what role in general should non-users play in building a brand?