1. Royalty Free
2. 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”. 

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.

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?

Related articles

• Miracle Whip on YouTube: Haters Gonna Hate (clickz.com)
• Kraft’s ‘love-it-or-hate-it’ campaign whips up buzz about Miracle Whip (canada.com)
• Miracle Whip ads: Love them or hate them? (adweek.blogs.com)
• Someone has to hate your brand (drewsmarketingminute.com)

Drawing on my previous experience with non-profit marketing, I found that the single most useful piece of marketing communication is a business card.  However, I also see so many business cards done wrong.  Why?  Because they model it off of a corporate business cards, and that doesn’t really do justice to what business cards can do. 

Why do corporations use business cards?  Corporations don’t use business cards to market themselves.  (Granted, everything does reinforce a brand.  So, a natural company better have business cards printed on recycled paper.)  At the core, corporations use business cards as a simple communication tool.  They contain only the vital information.  Rarely do you see more than name and contact information.  Sometimes, you may even see a corporate motto, but that’s pretty much the end of it.

However, for non-profits, you don’t have the luxury to use a business card so simply.  You have to make every piece work doubly hard for you.  I would recommend the following layout:

Front:  Basic logo, name, and contact information.  This is the typical business card, including information like website addresses for your organization.

Back:  Give one piece of trivia that would really get people excited, and the next time they could get involved.  This gives them the reminder to follow up when they get home.  Following up on the Complete Streets example gave earlier this week, one could easily put a trivia “Did you know” on the back.  In addition, perhaps they meet on a monthly basis every Thursday.  Use this business card as an invite.  Or, if you print business cards locally in a simple printer (on-demand printing vs. printing by the thousands), I would suggest putting upcoming events.  Use the business cards as an invitation to the events.  You’d always have business cards with you, and this may be your most powerful marketing tool for your non-profit.

This worked well for me in the past.  What do you think?  Would it work for you?

Photo credit: Jim Larson

Wrapping up on the series on what we have learned thus far from the Japanese, honoring their thought leadership in the world of marketing, branding, and business.  With hope, prayers, and donations, Japan will be back of her feet soon, and her people go back to a routine life of simply marketing, branding, and business.

A series on what Japan had contributed to marketing has to include Quick Response.  Quick Response is better known by its short-form:  QR code.  It’s a barcode that can be read by readers, such as camera phones.  General embedded in these codes are links to the web for more information.  It was originally created by a Toyota subsidiary in 1994, and nowadays found everywhere in Japan.  You can find these codes on tissue packs, flyers, chopstick wrappers, practically everywhere.

Japanese consume technology at a much faster rate than Westerners.  QR code adoption is still low in the US.  However, we are seeing more of them.  We are beginning to see them on packaging, in-store signage, print ads, and even TV commercials.  However, if the popularity of QR code in Japan is any indication of future adoption of this technology here in the West, the potential appears to be limitless!

To help the Japanese people who’s still struggling with the aftermath of the earthquake, consider making a donating from the following links. Thank you.
【Amazon.com】【Google Checkout】【American Red Cross】【International Medical Corps】【AmeriCares】 【Paypal】 【causes.com】

Photo Credit:  Divergence

Related articles

• What does the future hold for QR (Quick Response) codes? (marcommics.wordpress.com)
• Using QR codes (elkrapidslive.wordpress.com)
• QR codes make your shopping experience interactive at Home Depot (jennstrathman.com)

So, a few decades ago, marketers came up with the idea of psychographic.  We want to target based on how they think and behave.  However, traditional media still had a hard time bringing this idea into fruition.  We can buy print ad on tech magazines, but really only the REALLY tech-savvy guys would have a subscription to tech magazines.  That seems somewhat limited, and doesn’t help to grow the market…

In comes social media and the digital revolution.  On digital and social space, it’s far easier to track what conversations you’re having.  It’s easier to track what websites you’re going to.  It’s easier to track what are you “liking” on Facebook.  It’s a whole new world of targeting.  As social media advertising is in its infancy, so is the concept of applying psychographic onto the social media space.  But the potential is here.  So, it’d be exciting to see how we can realize the potential.

This post is inspired by this TEDWomen presentation by Johanna Blakley, the Deputy Director of the Norman Lear Center (a media-focused think tank at the University of Southern California): 

Link to presentation on TED.com

Verizon since has released two commercial.  The first one focused on the anticipation.  Overall, I thought it was well done.

Then, things took a different turn.  Days ahead of the iPhone launch, Verizon launched a more aggressive commercial, which also ran during the Super Bowl game in some markets.

I will say that the commercial is very well executed.  It delivered a single minded message of Verizon’s superior network coverage.  However, it’s not difficult to decipher the dig that was embedded in the commercial.  The (214) area code is a Dallas area code, which is where AT&T is headquartered.  Verizon Test Man saying “I can here you now” suggests a message that’s not simply Verizon’s superiority, but also AT&T’s inferiority.  This is just the latest chapter of Verizon versus AT&T.

I’m personally not a fan of negative marketing.  A brand’s greatness should be strong enough to stand on its own, without needing to put down its competitors.  First of all, negative marketing also invites a competitive response, which may further clutter the space and confuse the consumers.  Secondly, negative marketing screams you have something to prove.  Just like that bully in a school yard, the louder you scream, the more likely you’re covering up a deeper truth.

At least when it comes the iPhone, so far AT&T has taken the high road.  This is because it can afford to.  It already has the phone and has the subscriber base for the phone.  It also has a true competitive advantage against Verizon.  AT&T has the talk and surf capability, which Verizon lacks.  As one would suspect, AT&T is going to leverage this point of difference.

It’d be interesting to see how this battle will continue to evolve.  It’s a risk that Verizon has taken thus far because AT&T has proven himself to the subscribers.  Now, AT&T has its problems, but Verizon now can’t afford to have any problems.  A drove of new iPhone users just may challenge the strength of the Verizon network, like they did the AT&T network.  Also, the race is on for 4G.  T-Mobile and Sprint have it already.  AT&T has already started advertising against it.  Verizon is nowhere still in the race, and the strength of a network becomes a moot point if it’s the slowest network.  (I understand that Verizon has 4G plans in the works.  But let’s face it, when it comes to 4G, it’s not the real speed that matters.  It’s the perception of speed.  No one knows really what 4G means anyway.  So perception becomes reality.)

Email subscribers:  AT&T video link.  Verizon Test Man video link.  Verizon Announcement Ad video link.

Related articles

• The iPhone Ad War: AT&T vs. Verizon (mashable.com)
• AT&T Hits Back At Verizon With New iPhone Ad (iphonehacks.com)

The Pepsi company put $5 millions on the table to have the best Super Bowl commercials of the year for two of its brands:  Doritos and Pepsi Max.   This is true pay for performance.  The winners win $25,000 and get their commercials aired.  However, if the commercials end up rating on USA Today’s Ad Meter, additional prizes up to $2 million for the top spot are up for grab depending on how many spot the Pepsi company sweeps.

So, who ranked #1 on the USA Today Ad Meter? Bud Light’s Dogs at work and Doritos Pugs knocks down door tied for first.

What is the Ad Meter?  It’s a real-time survey on likeability in two controlled focus group setting involving near 300 volunteers.

But are likes worth $3 million?  Questionable.  So, let’s look at another measure that gets us a step closer to sales.  Let’s look at Nielsen’s Recall score.  This score is generated by a survey of near 15,000 Super Bowl viewers, and what percentage of those viewers can Recall the brand of an ad they were exposed to during the normal course of viewing the Super Bowl.  It’s not a controlled focus group.

Who ranked #1 on Nielsen’s Recall Survey?

No.  Not my personal favorite and emotional Chrysler.

No.  Not crowd favorite and lovable Volkswagen.

No.  Not celebrity driven Sketchers or Best Buy.

It’s Doritos Pugs knocks down door.

So, Pepsi company committed to $150,000 to produce the six spots, in additional to some contest administrative costs.  Pepsi would be paying an additional $1 million for the Doritos win on Ad Meter.  The likeability of the Ad Meter proved to be also translating into ad recall, which should raise unaided brand awareness and purchase intent.  And this top ranking commercial didn’t come from a top ad agency, it came from crowdsourcing.

First, it’s user generated content. This means Pepsi solicited creativity from all 50 States, not just from the 50 people working at its ad agency.  Pepsi opened up the field to have the best minds working for them, for a mere $25,000.

Second, it’s crowd approved. It was through the online voting process by the public that determined which commercial would go on air.  Long before Pepsi aired these commercials, Pepsi knew people would like these commercials.

Third, it had the buzz going. The public was engaged since the contest was launched back in September, 2010, over four months ahead of the Game.  The finalists were revealed since January 3, a month ahead of the Game, for public voting.  So, long before the Game, the public has been engaged with the brand.

Forth, it will live past the Game. The videos will live on various viral channels.  The loser commercials may get sympathy / outcry shares and likes.  The engagement and conversation about the brand will live long past February 7.

So, let’s take a moment to look at the best commercial of the year:

Related articles

• Six Consumer-Created Doritos and Pepsi MAX Ads Crash the Super Bowl Advertising Stage, Now Compete for $5 Million in Prizes (prnewswire.com)
• Doritos ‘Pug Attack’ director wins $1 million (adweek.blogs.com)
• Super Bowl Ads: Doritos Commercial a Huge Hit (bleacherreport.com)
• Can You Name the Brand Behind the Little Darth Vader Ad? (marketingpilgrim.com)

You see what I mean?  These two commercials, despite having a common spokesperson, could not be more different.  Such difference taught us three valuable lessons about using a spokesperson in commercials:

1.  Pick a relevant spokesperson.

During the game, I thought I saw Eminem selling Brisk.  I told my friend, who was the hostess of the party and another marketer.  She wouldn’t believe me.  She thought it was a commercial for an energy drink.  Why?  Because hip-hop doesn’t really reference ice tea.  On the other hand, everyone knows Eminem is from Detroit, which makes him one of the best spokespersons available for Chrysler’s Imported from Detroit commercial.

2.  Know what your spokesperson is doing.

Lipton Brisk’s Eminem centered around how Eminem doesn’t do commercials.  Well, Eminem does do commercials.  In fact, he was featured on a different commercial during the same game.  Make sure that you know that your spokesperson is not actively doing something against the message you’re putting out.

3.  Don’t let the spokesperson overshadow the brand.

The Lipton Brisk’s spent about 10 seconds referencing ice tea.  I’m being liberal, because only half of that time actually featured the brand.  On the other hand, there was little doubt that it was a car commercial with the Chrysler commercial.  The constant movement was very suggestive of the view out of a car window.  There were also many beauty shot of the actual car.  Eminem was merely the spokesperson that delivered the message, but not the centerpiece of the message.

I think it’d come as no surprise that I think Brisk was one of the worst commercials during the Game, and Chrysler was one of the best.  To me, there were a lot of good commercials during the game.  I enjoyed the Verizon and Volkswagen ones a lot as well.  However, I am going to say that Chrysler was my clear favorite.  It was emotional, and delivered a single-minded message on its point of differentiation.  Very well-done.

What was your favorite commercial?  What lessons did you learn from it?

Email subscribers:  Brisk Link (http://youtu.be/1DHo8fYFsd0).  Chrysler Link (http://youtu.be/SKL254Y_jtc)

Click here to check out more post-game analysis.

Related articles

• Eminem Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial: Detroit’s Finest (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Eminem Praised For Chrysler Super Bowl Commercial – MTV.com (news.google.com)
• Detroit Gets a Boost from Eminem, Chrysler Ad (mediabistro.com)
• “Eminem’s Lipton Brisk & Chrysler Super Bowl Ads” and related posts (missinfo.tv)