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”. 

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)

This smartly made ad quickly discredited both networks the iPhone would be on.  The ad clearly communicated T-Mobile’s point of differentiation – it’s 4G network.  Here is the marketing copy that went along with the ad on TMobile’s YouTube channel:

“Here’s a sneak peek at T-Mobile’s latest ad. T-Mobile offers the total package: great smartphones, a blazing fast 4G network with rich experiences at unbeatable prices. There’s no fun in having a great device if it is running on a slow network. Step up to Nationwide 4G! Check coverage at http://t-mobile-coverage.t-mobile.com/.”

I don’t believe actual on-air rotation has started yet for this commercial.  After all, our media planning and buying processes are not quite this flexible.  However, having this ad already available online speaks to T-Mobile’s foresight.  After all, this ad wasn’t made overnight.  (If it was, I’m even more impressed.  Scripting it.  Shooting it.  Editing it.  Yeah, not overnight.)  I’m sure this ad will be hitting the air soon enough.  In the meantime, it’s getting viral airtime on YouTube and through blogs such as this one.

Sidenote:  This series of T-Mobile ads are parodies of the old Apple ads, argued Daring Fire’s John Grubber.  In those ads, Mac was the attractive option compared to the old and ancient PC.  In the T-Mobile ads, the iPhone itself is attractive, but the networks are far less so… This keeps the options open for T-Mobile to put the attractive guy (iPhone) and the attractive girl (T-Mobile network) together down the road.  Another example of a forward looking play by T-Mobile.

Here’s a blast from the past:  15 Apple ads.

Video links:

T-Mobile Preview http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=6pb9-LbxFeU

Apple Commercials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCL5UgxtoLs

Related articles

• Will AT&T’s business go with the iPhone? (curiousmarketeer.com)
• T-Mobile Wastes No Time Taking A Shot At iPhone On Verizon (And AT&T) (techcrunch.com)
• AT&T and Verizon are the same bag of 3G hurt for iPhone owners, says T-Mobile (video) (engadget.com)

My post on CPGBranding.com this week was inspired by the latest Healthy Choice and U commercials. These ads chose to go into the future by abandoning their past. This is particularly the case with U by Kotex.

These ads mock every other feminine care ads in the past. The point was to say that “we get it” to their target audience: the young ladies who are newly initiated to the world of feminine care. However, such ad put forth a positioning that U is different, U gets it. Therefore, now we will have to see if U can fulfill this promise. U is now beyond its functions. It’s about the colorful packaging. It’s about the online knowledge and support. It’s about connecting with these young ladies.

Today, I was remind of an axiom: Great ads make bad products fail faster. So, the test for U is to see if it can really connect with these young ladies!

The other night, I came across a commercial for a local flower shop. With Valentine’s Day just two weeks away, it was the perfect time for a local flower shop to raise its top of mind awareness.

The commercial went something like this:

Valentine’s Day is on February 14th, and there is no better way to give something special to your sweetheart than to give a beautiful arrangement from our shop. In fact, you could make her whole week special by having the flowers delivered to her work earlier in the week. Remember, Valentine’s Day is on February 14th. Order your arrangement from us today.

Now, that was a horrible commercial for a local flower shop.

Why?

Because this ad did a lot more for the category than it did for the flower shop itself. This would have been a great ad for a shop that has dominant share of the market. In which case, as long as more people order flowers, the dominate player would be bound to get more business.

However, a local flower shop is rarely the dominate player, or even a big player. In which case, the goal of any marketing effort should not be growing the entire category, but to grow your own share within the category.

How could you do that?

By focusing on why consumers should pick you over all the other alternatives. What would make you better than the flower shop at the grocery store? What would make you better than an internet flower shop?

Would it be the personal attention? Would it be a timed delivery guarantee? Would it be the experience of the florist? Would it be the availability of unique flowers?

Reminding people that Valentine’s Day is around the corner was a great message. Giving people the idea to have arrangements delivered early was a great idea. However, even the best idea or the best message would be useless if the objectively of the commercial, or any marketing effort for that matter, was ill-defined.

Photo credit: FotoDawg

Very early in my career, I was introduced to the local paper headline test. Other knows this as the Wall Street Journal headline test, or NY Times headline test. Pick a newspaper of your choosing really. But the point was, if your action became public knowledge, could you live with it? Would you be ashamed of it?

In today’s competitive and confusing world, perhaps this simple test is not enough.

DDB Brasil made a very controversial ad in an attempt to win business with the Brazil chapter of WWF, World Wildlife Fund. This ad was submitted to WWF, and was rejected. If you haven’t seen it, it is an ad that has countless planes heading toward a Manhattan that still had the World Trade Center standing. The tagline was the Tsunami killed 100 times more people than 9/11. This was meant to highlight the power of planet earth and the need to preserve it.

This ad made DDB the worst person in the world by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. In fact, Mr. Olbermann listed individual’s names from the DDB roster on the WWF account responsible for this ad.

Does this mean that the ad went too far?

Hold on just one minute.

DDB also submitted this ad for an advertising competition. In fact, this ad won a best of 2009 award from the One Club.

I would think that they are quite pleased with that headline.

So, the new benchmark in this world full of controversial points of views… You may win big with some audience. You may at the same time lose big with others. Would the win be worth it?

And really, what kind of question is that? What kind of benchmark is that?

If DDB says yes, this generated more buzz for our business than ever. Are they immoral / insensitive / wrong or just pragmatic? Is being pragmatic wrong?

Such is the confusing world we live in…

The unauthorized ad, that was condemned by the WWF.

Related articles

• WWF ad causes a Tsunami for DDB Brasil (brandstrategy.wordpress.com)
• Updated Statement: WWF Strongly Condemns Brazilian Ad and Apologizes To 9-11 Victims and Families (prweb.com)

Nuvaring is at it again.

I wish I have some insight on ad awareness data.

I was not a big fan of the “Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday” ad. It started out as a really strange cartoon in August 2008. In September 2008, the cartoon was enacted by real people. In November 2008, the ad got a black & white treatment for the old pill method. Now, a year later, August 2009, I see ads that use the old ad as background, with women in the foreground talking about the contraceptive ring.

I have to say, the old ads were effective visually, and the jingle made the ads stand out. However, I still wonder how motivating they were. I think the latest version was the best version thus far. At the end of the day, they were trying to change people’s behavior. To do so, they had to address women’s concerns / fear, and offer them a reason why the NuvaRing solution was better than their existing solution. I felt the cartoon or cartoon-like ads were never truly relatable. I, while represented only one data point, would never be convinced by a cartoon on something so important to my health. Today, NuvaRing returned to having women talking to women about women issue, which seemed to me to be far more appropriate.

So, I wonder, what would have happened if NuvaRing had today’s ad in market a year ago? Would their sales have been better?

My conclusion: Make sure your marketing message is aligned with your brand equity. If it’s a cute product, by all means, be cute. If it’s a serious product, be serious. If even you don’t take yourself seriously, why would I?

See previous discussion on NuvaRing ads here.

Note: YouTube may remove the video without notice. You may also be able to see NuvaRing’s current commercial here.

Just saw the latest Burger King commercial, and I was perplexed. It combined an icon for adults and an icon for kids. The message was supposed to be targeted toward adult, but with a call to action for kids. WHA…?

Internet research indicates that this commercial first debuted during the NCAA championship game, aimed at the commercial’s target demographic of adult men. Well, that’s fine. In fact, I would suspect that many adult men would find this commercial very funny.

But, if that’s the case, why are they ending the commercial with the kid’s meal? Why not end it with an adult value meal?

Now, it hypothesized that Burger King had in mind a publicity stunt. However, despite what they say, not all PR is good PR. Considering that kids, and their parents, are a sizeable group of any fast food chain’s consumer base. This commercial could very well alienate this group of consumers… In this economy, could Burger King afford this? Is publicity bringing in enough foot traffic into the restaurant?

It just doesn’t end!

I posted Real People or Cartoon? Or perhaps Neither! back in September. That was when I wondered why NuvaRing would convert a cartoon commerical into one that was acted out by real people. Now, that question continues as why would they now “refresh” the commerical again by changing the colors of it?

Perhaps this was just a plot to get us blog about it.

September 2008 version:

August 2008 version:

So, when I first saw the “new” Nuvaring ad, I was intrigued.  This ad appears to be a huge departure from previous NuvaRing ads. Instead of featuring real women in real situations, it features cartoons in rarely happen situations (synchronized swimming). I must admit that there are elements that are consistent with their previous ad campaigns and are quite smart, such as the use of imagery and the suggestion of the pill pack. However, the ad remains strange and not relatable.  As a result, the ad has consistently appeared on the various online ads people hate discussions.

Now, imagine my surprise when I saw this ad RECREATED!  This time, it was acted out by people!  However, it is most strange that these real women look almost EXACTLY the same as the cartoons and are acting out the EXACT same ad…

So, in the end, Nuvaring STILL has a strange and not relatable ad… but they just about doubled the budget in creating two versions.  And yes, these ads have generated much online discussions, but are they successful in converting pill users to Nuvaring users?  Perhaps they should have used whatever budget they had and created a better ad to begin with.  Personally, I think this is a case of someone falling in love with cute ideas that are quite frankly too cute…