Advertising
Old fashion buzz
While I like the idea of crowdsourcing, I am reminded on how talented creative agency can truly add value to a brand team. You know a campaign concept has legs when a week after your Super Bowl commercial airs, you are still the talk of the town. Even today, you can find news articles talking about the Chrysler commercial. On my drive home from work, a chat on the radio about how Detroit is still buzzing about the Chrysler ad. While I don’t know the final impression number, I know that Chrysler must be very pleased with the media impression numbers on this campaign.  The campaign was also clearly focused on the American auto industry.  Chrysler’s commercial is expanding the pie of American made cars category, and every American car maker wins.  While all the buzz on blogs are about social media integration, and there may still opportunities there for Chrysler, a well designed campaign still deserves our appreciation.
iPhone 4. 2.10.11. And the digs begin…
iPhone 4 is available on the Verizon network starting today. But the battle for your attention started long ago. It started ever since the announcement was made by Verizon back in January. And the fight isn’t just between Verizon and AT&T. T-mobile released a commercial online the day after the announcement, positioning T-mobile as the best network of the three.
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)
How crowdsourcing win over ad agencies
The results are it. Crowdsourcing is making ad agencies obsolete.
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. Â Not my personal favorite and emotional Chrysler.
No. Â 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)
Jeannie Chan is a Brand Manager for a Fortune 500 consumer goods company. She considers herself a marketer, a traveler, and a foodie. Jeannie lives in NYC. 
