… Massive Ad placement fail!

So doing my usual scour of Campaign etc this morning, and I came across a story about new anti-knife crime adverts. All fine and well, good campaign, testimonials warning of consequences and all that jazz. Nothing I would usually blog about. Until…


The story is interrupted with a small advertisement. An ad for a company specializing in targeting advertising to reach your desired market.

This ad features a man throwing knifes at a woman in a circus-setting.

A little inappropriate, no? Especially when the article mentions a campaign featuring a youngster rendered severely disabled after a knife fight.


People started commenting on the story about this unfortunate ad placement, and it was soon removed. I luckily grabbed a screen shot first so here it goes... Campaign being inappropriate:

Ad's 2nd frame in the grey shaded area there ^ 

Ad's first frame there ^ ! Eeek!

Oh dear! If you visit that story now (HERE) there is no ad at all, and comments have been removed. they must have covered their tracks pretty well and pretty quickly. just goes to show that smart arse targeting type ad programs really aint so smart all the time!


I regularly visit a website called ‘probably bad news’ HERE. It features a lot more of these ad placement faux pas, it'll make you LOL at work- embarrassing but worth it!

... Cadbury's Pop-Up Online Shop!

Finally, some brand promotions that I’m proper excited about!


Cadbury have been advertising their new Nibbles a fair bit recently, featuring a sexed up caramel bunny wearing a dress and scarf designed by Giles Deacon. Now they are giving the public the chance to win a limited edition scarf.

They will be given away via an online store this Thursday and Friday, but the catch is that a link to the store will pop up on various fashion websites, retail sites and blogs in a random, erratic manner. Once the user finds the shop they will join a virtual queue where they are eventually ‘served’ by a real shop assistant based in their temporary Carnaby Street Boutique. (this store is just for window shopping in real life!) for anyone who misses out, they can buy the scarf in John Lewis during November for £15 with proceeds going to Fashion Targets Breast Cancer UK.

The brand are hoping to create interest on Twitter with a #nibbles hashtag so that users can alert others to the stores location at any moment in time. There is also a Facebook page harboring discussions on where to find the store. Cadbury thought that this premier of a digital pop up shop would be a “perfect way to drive discussion and engagement” around their new product.


I think they are onto a winner here; the minute you say anything is ‘limited edition’ people will be jumping to get it! Couple that with great social networking discussions (already happening) and feed in the odd lead here and there and you have a great marketing campaign for this new choccie.


Really like the idea of you buying online but from a sales assistant in the actual wee boutique too. I mean, this obviously happens with online stores at the moment, but the fact this store was created especially, and isn’t actually a shop itself, is pretty cool.


I hope they have some good offline activity to accompany this. I assume the Carnaby street store will have some marketing messages on it, driving visitors to get involved, but I haven’t seen anything in my girly mags or on billboards yet. Even if it is just an online/social networking campaign, it would be nice to get some offline impetus; I’m a regular social network user but often leave the realm for a day or two and then i miss out on stuff like this. If they have some print ads in the metro etc tomorrow I will heart them massively ☺


I will definitely be joining in the treasure hunt tomorrow, fun way to get involved for once!!

... Apple Taking Advantage

I think this is the most ridiculous way to block users from using their computer in the way they want.


Apple have put in a patent application for a computer operating system that has advertising embedded throughout it. It would mean that users would have to interact with ads before being able to use certain applications on their computer, locking the system if they don’t reply! And it’s not just computers they are aiming for; ipods and mobile phones could fall foul to this form of coercion.


There is even talk of getting users to fill out questionnaires on interests etc to allow targeting. What I wonder, is would people buying these products have to sign up to a contract of some form, stating the terms of use of their new computer or whatever? Surely if your operating system locks when you try and access an application you are going to get a bit pissed off and want to complain; but will they let you? Or will it be written somewhere in small print that you have to submit to this ad interaction if you want to use your computer the way you want? Interesting….


Apparently there could be user benefits wrapped up in this, including free upgrades for accepting the adverts, but is it really worth it if? I guess if they are selling this computer operating system for really cheap, that is, if you are willing to put up with ads, then fair enough… then hopefully after enough ad interactions you could upgrade to an ad-free system, though I don’t think they would let you escape that easily.

But when will we ever escape eh? People go on their computers for work or pleasure; in work you don’t want to waste time clicking on ads so you can access your word processor, and during your down-time you want to browse facebook, blog and game at your pleasure, without being pestered by annoying ads. I think it’s a bit of an invasion of privacy! And surely by integrating ads into the computer system itself, this will only serve as a massive irritation to user, pushing them away from Apple, towards ad-free systems? Will be interesting to see if their patent goes through, but I might buy my new ipod touch kinda soonish to avoid falling foul to these sneaky, money grabbing ways…!

... McDonald's recent Ads

I am a veggie so find a natural aversion to places of this type. Plus my wee mum is a nutritionist so we rarely got to go to fastfood joints when i was a kiddie, the odd happy meal here and there but that was it. 


I still dislike these kind of places and this feeling of hatred has been multiplied by the recent TV ads for McDonalds where everyone is 'just passing by.' I really don't like it and find it irratating as hell. (See it HERE)

I personally don't know many people who go into McDonalds because they were ‘just passing by’ (def not my grannie in anycase!) but the busy-ness of so many of their stores suggests that it must happen an awful lot more often than i would like to think.  


To be fair on them, they've done a good job on the equality front here; think they have catered for almost every demographic. I still hate it though. To be fair i haven't hated an ad in a while.... well, since the Go Compare Tenor ones; it's nice to have somewhere new to direct my anger. Thanks McDonalds.


On the other hand i really do like this new print execution that i've seen on billboards round busy London areas:

(stole this pic off flickr, will try get my own version shot soon...)

Quite clever and made me smile as it is obviously in busy areas where pickpockets may operate but is also tongue in cheek, referring to those annoying mates who always nick your chips. Well done on that one Maccy D's, but i've still not forgiven you for the annoying TV spots yet...!


(This ambient advertising was also pretty cool... no idea where it came from but it got circulated round work a wee bit ago.)

... Cadbury Complaints

The latest Cadbury ad promoting its Fairtrade-ness has received a bunch of complaints for 'racial stereotyping'. The ad, set in Ghana and featuring a giant tribal head that rains cocoa beans, has prompted 15 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. It has yet to decide whether to investigate the complaints, which claim that the ad is demeaning to African people.

Surely this ad is there to celebrate, not exploit the fact, that it’s sourcing fairtrade from Africa? If aim was to give a ‘typical’ view of Ghana then hasn’t it done this? According to wonderful Wikipedia, Ghana consists of mostly Black ethnic groups, with only 7.8% of the population classed as ‘other’ e.g. White British. Therefore, how is this ad demeaning? It’s a celebration and noone is portrayed negatively. Think this just a case of people being pernickety and submitting to Britain’s complaining culture. Boo to them.

... Government stopping tobacco ad cuts

I’m not a fan of smoking. Or social smokers. Or people who try and get other people to smoke. So I guess I’m definitely not a fan of tobacco companies trying to get the general public to start this dirty habit.


Today I read that ministers have blocked a proposal from Labour’s former health secretary (Frank Dobson) who wanted to force these manufacturers into submitting detailed figures on their marketing and research spend to the Dept of Health every 3 months. This was put forward as part of an amendment to the Health bill and it would also outlaw point-of-sale ads and vending machines, extending the 2002 law banning press and poster ads. Basically it means that manufacturers would have to detail their online marketing spend, any trade press adverts and brand development costs and these would be published. It’s thought that these would eventually be used to help limit spend on promotions for tobacco agencies even further.


To be fair, if you look at some of the old tobacco ads, Hamlet cigars, the Marlboro man, Silk Cut, they were considered really creative at the time, and often feature in any top 50-countdown program on ads that e4 likes to throw out now and then. But its been seven years since Labour passed the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, and the days of this kind of above the line advertising for tobacco products is long gone. But marketing on the whole is getting more and more creative (especially with the boom in digital marketing) so if that ban wasn’t in place I’m sure there would be plenty more interesting and engaging methods of grabbing a consumer and hooking em in to the habit.


Dobson preached about the increased creativity in marketing cigarettes over the years to bypass the ban, claiming that the Government was continually "playing catch-up with the latest scams". I’m sure that giving them access to the digital realm will only be adding to their ability to be sneaky and bypass the ban in clever ways.


So I kind of agree; more stringent measures do need to be in place.


But alas, nothing has come of his proposals: health minister Gillian Merron ‘appreciated the sentiment’ but couldn’t accept them due to the burdens it would put on those businesses concerned including issues of confidentiality, proportionality and effectiveness.


Now I’m not a business-minded person and find it hard to see the big picture here, but surely transparency with costs is a good thing on the whole? Wont it lead to better understanding of market/consumer behaviours etc? if the measures for the stats to be submitted were regulated properly then surely issues of confidentiality shouldn’t be an issue either? Pffft I don’t really understand business-related issues so maybe its not a place I should be meddling.


End of the day though, I think that smoking=bad and as many measures should be taken as possible to stop the tobacco agencies marketing themselves to new generations of consumers, increasing the threat of lung cancer across our population. 

(-rant over-)

... Kelloggs Going Crazy

Kelloggs have gone a little crazy. Nutty if you will. Crunchy nutty infact!

To ‘protect’ themselves from imitation products they have decided to start branding the actual individual Corn Flakes with the company logo!


They are going to laser on the logo and bung in a bunch of the branded flakes into each box. Could be rolled out to more of their cereal if it’s a success.


They want to stop the increase in the number of own brands trying to ‘capitalise on the popularity of Kellogg's Corn Flakes.’


I really don’t understand. Really?!


So they are adding their own official ‘stamp of approval’ to ‘reaffirm that Kelloggs does not make cereal for anyone else.’


Were people really buying own-brand cornflakes under the impression they were the exact same as the brand-name? of course not. They know that own-brand ‘cornflakes’ are just imitations, and don’t expect any extra ‘quality’ that may or may not be offered by buying brand. They wont be looking for little logos on their flakes to suggest their quality.


Or are Kelloggs worried that the brand name- Corn Flakes- is becoming synonymous with that type of cereal, much like the Hoover/vacuum cleaner and Google/search engines…. Do they want to stop this by ensuring they are totally separated from own-brand imitations? I would have thought that’s kind of a good thing if your brand name gets used lots by consumers, even in error.


Oh well, all seems a little crazy to me, I mean, branding Skittles, m&m’s etc; totally cool and makes sense. Cereal flakes however; just a wee bit strange.

... PETA Scaremongering

Oh dear, so I wrote about PETA getting ads banned last month (HERE) Since then they’ve run a much-complained-about billboard ad featuring Baby P’s murderer’s name stating “animal abuser, rapist and murderer….people who are violent towards animals rarely stop there.” And now they’ve gone and caused offence again.


This time, they are being told off for swine flu fear mongering. They’ve had a campaign poster banned by ASA for spreading “undue fear and distress” about swine flu. It featured on a billboard in Glasgow in June.


The ad states ‘meat kills’ then lists diseases such as e.coli, mad cow, and swine flu features prominently. It’s to encourage people to go veggie (YAY!) ASA banned it as it might infer, to some readers, that eating meat causes swine flu.

PETA are saying that the ad was aiming to “highlight the role that livestock production played in the incubation, development and spreading of fatal infectious diseases.”


Today, PETA released another poster with the same message. It follows a similar theme, showing a conveyor belt of diseases (including swine flu) travelling from a factory farm into a person’s mouth. It states: "Your demand for meat creates disease. Stop factory farming. Go veg now."

I do love PETA and all they stand for, and this ad is a big improvement both conceptually and visually. I think it gets the point across much better, and is far more hard-hitting than its predecessor. Hopefully no silly people will complain this time, though i'm sure there's always going to be someone who just 'doesnt get it'....!

... Easy Jet Draws From The Past

I do love a bit of remediation and this latest ad for an Easy Jet campaign is great.


Rolled out to put pressure on Luton Borough Council surrounding a dispute on landing charges, Easyjet have used the old 1979 ‘Labour isn’t working’ ad by Saatchi & Saatchi.


It’s going to be in regional press and will hopefully encourage the council to step in on resolving the row on charges.

Me likey

... Impulse Revisiting Their Old Marketing Tricks

Impulse have signed up the girly pop group The Saturdays for a new integrated campaign that aims to make their brand ‘relevant and exciting.’


It’s called ‘The Impulse Diaries’ and features a behind the scenes look into the girls in the band’s lives via an interactive diary they will ‘write’ on Facebook. The band will post up exclusive content and invite users to interact for the chance to win prizes. The site will be supported by other online activity, PR activity and TV sponsorship showing the girls backstage at a gig, in hotel rooms etc.


The girls were chosen as “they embody the fun, flirty spirit of the brand” and the Impulse spokesperson believes they will really engage with the brand, providing a fresh, relevant and exciting new approach for Impulse.


I remember when the Spice Girls got involved in Impulse, back in the day! I bought loads of the limited edition body sprays, convinced they would make me smell just like the girls themselves. Of course at that time I was probably around 10, and obsessed with this band; they were my idols! I would have bought anything they put their name on, odd smelling body spray included. (there's actually a Facebook group asking for this to be brought back. oh dear.) I guess hearing that the Saturdays are in on it now makes me feel old and realize that I can no longer related to the ‘kids of today’ and their obsession with ‘cool’ older girls in poppy bands. Eek!

Who even wears body spray nowadays anyway? Is it still wee girls before they get into perfume? (that’s how it worked with me…!) Oh dear, I feel like my youth has slipped away faster than I thought…!


The target audience will obviously relish in the vast amount of brand interaction on offer with this campaign though; competitions, hints and tips on Facebook- perfect! And if limited edition ‘Saturdays scents’ are brought out at the same time (not sure if they are planning this) then I think Impulse are onto a good thing here.

... The Royal Mail Strikes

I don’t really understand all this Royal Mail strike malarkey. All I know is that it’s a pain in the bum. I bought some books I really needed off Amazon, asked for next day delivery, and didn’t get them for a week. And it was VERY annoying. Obviously Amazon can afford to send deliveries via alternative carriers if need be, so they aren’t too fussed, but other wee businesses and us common folk are a bit screwed really aren’t we? Does this mean that other businesses could potentially start moving away from using the good old queen’s postal service? I think it’s a wee bit sad, I’ll miss seeing her lovely profile, staring squintly to the side at me, when I receive a letter. But to be fair, mrs queen, do you really want your face on letters being delayed by your ‘royal’ service? I don’t think so.


So a national strike looks on the horizon, which I really think only one person can solve.


Bring back postman pat. (in a non specsavers’ ad capacity.) I think that’s the only solution.

Update 13/10: Postman Pat & Jess have been having a tiff over the strikes now.... (HERE)

... Bad Bad Vitaminwater Ads

Coke’s Vitaminwater ads have been banned by ASA after only 3 complaints!


This handful of people felt that the ads were misleading when talking about the related health benefits, and suggesting the drinks could be substituted for one of your five a day.


A main source of contention seems to be one of the campaign’s poster executions that claimed Vitaminwater had "more muscles than Brussels." This was apparently meant to refer to the "muscles from Brussels" actor Jean Claude Van Damme, not the minging vegetables dished out at xmas… ASA considered this ambiguous as consumers could make a comparison between the drink sharing the nutritional benefits of brussel sprouts. I thought that at first to be honest, and I wouldn’t class myself as dumb.

The "keep perky when you’re feeling murky" execution of the ads was also challenged as it was felt to suggest that the drinks could make you resistant to illnesses. It would be magic if they could do that but obviously there is no proof to suggest it really works…. (misleading eh…?)


Complaints also challenged the ad claims that the drinks were healthy AT ALL, as they are believed to contain muchos sugar in the style of the rest of the Coke product line. Coke denied this, however ASA discovered that the drinks contained sugar levels amounting to 26 per cent of the recommended daily allowance; not low-cal at all really! That’s really cheeky trying to argue against figures showing just how sugary your ‘health drink’ is, and it’s very very silly indeed.


So Coke can’t show these ads again in their current form, and it serves em right. They are trying to sell drinks that taste like crap by claiming they are good for you, when in fact its just a cocktail of sugar and bland flavours that inject you with a short burst of a sugar rush. 

-rant ends-

... Celeb Product Endorsement Policy Clampdown

The US Federal Trade Commision is beginning a clamp down on any untruthful statements made by advertisers and celebs when endorsing products/services.


New rules will come into place at the start of December, saying that people being paid to endorse products should explicitly state what compensation they are getting from the company in return. So no more celebs ‘naturally’ dropping brand names into conversations from now on I guess?


The FTC hasn’t updated its policies since 1980 but I assume the increase in digital media now means better policies must be in place. It should allow for better transparency in places like blogs where people can say anything they want without us readers knowing how much truth lies within.


In the past only companies themselves could be pulled up for false statements about products, but now the celebs being paid to endorse them will also be liable; which I think is kinda a little bit crazy really! What if a company spokesperson got a thick celeb, e.g. er…. Paris Hilton, on board and explained everything about their product, the benefits etc, which she then later mis-remembered, making up her own mind on the product and declaring its new magical attributes? Does that mean that she is liable, just because she is stupid? I’m not totally sure how celeb endorsements work, I mean, they might be given a script to follow rigidly when talking about the product, with full Q&As to help them in their endorsement, or they might just have to be seen using it and hence believing it’s the best. Either way, I think we some celebs could get into a fair bit of trouble now, where endorsements are concerned.


The new guidelines also mean that advertisers can't use statements likes ‘results not typical’ when showing what their wonderful products can do; they must actually show the proper average results achieved by typical consumers. This makes me think back to all the chat I’ve had on airbrushing recently. There was talk of having health warnings on ads containing air brushing, warning that the results seen in the pictures had been enhanced. These were rejected but I guess the new FTC guidelines mean a way-in, in a sense, which I am happy for.


Cant wait to see if any celeb endorsers are caught short on their blogs or interviews in the near future. Or if any of their airbrushed mugs fall foul of enhancing product results…

... The Meerkats. At Last.

I’ve avoided talking about meerkats so far, but they seem to be everywhere I look at the moment; probably no thanks to the fact my mother has ‘befriended’ Aleksandr, the main meerkat from the ‘compare the market’ ads, on Facebook. Therefore Facebook finds it essential to keep recommending that I become ‘friends’ with him too; I can’t escape!


So unless you’ve been living under a rock recently, you’ll know that the ‘compare the market’ ads have become somewhat of a phenomenon. And online this phenomenon continues, with Aleksandr the meerkat having his own profile/fan page, with almost 600,000 friends!


‘Compare the market’ decided to therefore launch their new ad exclusively on Facebook this morning, featuring meerkats in a Jacuzzi. (TV launch due on Sunday.)


I don’t mind the ads really; I find them very clever, and a smart marketing ploy in an area where so many comparison sites are competing for visitors. The slogan ‘simples’ even entered into the AdSlogans Hall of Fame for 2008/2009.


There’s just something that irritates me about the ads that I cant put my finger on though. Not sure if it’s the worry that my generation of TV ads will be defined by a foreign meerkat, (becoming the new sugarpuff monster or smash alien)….. or if I just find it annoying that my mates feel the need to say things along the line of ‘oooh look suzy, this is what constitutes good advertising’ whenever it comes on the TV.


Either way, I think VCCP have done a pretty good job at differentiating the ‘compare the market’ site for consumers, and when you see the bloody annoying ads for ‘go compare,’ it makes you realize much more how clever a meerkat is at encouraging people to visit a website instead of a fatty repelling your target audience. Silly, silly, silly.

(For really interesting background info on the ‘compare the market’ ads check out the APG creative strategy awards report here)

... Labour U-Turning Over Adland Budgets

So quite some time ago David Cameron started harking on about a Tory win meaning a cut in government advertising budgets…. He claimed this would lead to a two year freeze in council tax bills. A promise they most definitely wouldn’t be able to deliver on, regarded as pretty much unworkable by Adland.


Now the Labour Treasury, in its attempt to reduced government spend, is planning to cut the advertising budget too. Boo.


At the Labour party conference, Gordon Brown pledged that, to start, the Dept of Health’s comms budget would be cut in order to help fund free personal care for 350,000 OAPs in their homes. Basically, in their attempts to hang on in for a 4th term, Labour are going to be making commitments to various causes left, right and centre, so they have to start saving money elsewhere, and their advertising/marketing comms seem to be the area that will be hit significantly. There’s no clue what areas will be hit the most but obviously the DoH has suffered the first blow publicly during LabCon.


Apparently the COI’s ad spend rose 35% to £211million in the last financial year, so government advertising is obviously a key area where the treasury will try and make savings… though the topics covered by the gov advertising coming- obesity, sexual health etc- are surely important issues that still need to be tackled, and remain areas of public interest?


A Labour source told ‘Campaign' mag: "We have to look at everything. Nobody wants to stop vital campaigns on matters of public health and safety but some others may have to be a lower priority in future."

Gonna be keeping an eye on this one in the run up to the next budget!