So far we’re not even halfway through the Superbowl. I’ve found some wonderfully entertaining advertisements, but in all, very few that I think have the potential to drive sales, affect brand perception/recognition or change behavior.
I’ll post a blog tuesday with a more thorough evaluation of the advertising, but so far, I’m not impressed.
Are we environmentally responsible advertisers? Do we ensure that our environmentally branded clients are environmental in their advertising choices? It’s not often that we need to think of the environmental impact of our advertising. That’s not to say that we should.
Generally, our advertising doesn’t have a direct impact on the environment. Can a print ad, cable TV spot, or even a social media campaign really impact the environment? Yes, we can use our media buying to ensure that money gets spent with environmentally sound media companies, indirectly reducing carbon footprints.
But think more directly.
When was the last time you purchased a billboard that turns itself off after a certain hour. Unless you’re targeting the “grave shift” demographic, is there really a point for a billboard to be lit after hours? What about electronic billboards? Those billboards use electricity and create a bit of light pollution. Do we brief our clients on the impacts?
I think it behooves us to be a little more environmentally minded. We may not always make the best choices. Few agencies can afford to be activist agencies, especially in this economy. Our client wishes are paramount to our own in many cases. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t try a little.
Days like today I am glad I’m not a celebrity publicist.
Public relations professionals who work with brands have it easy. Those brands can’t speak for themselves and thus, they can’t put a foot in the brand’s mouth. Not so with celebrities.
In case you don’t know what I’m referring to: On the MTV Video Music Awards Kanye West, presumably drunk on cognac, interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech after winning the Best Female Video Moonman. Katy Perry described it as “stepping on a kitten.” In an open letter on her blog, Kelly Clarkson wanted to know if he didn’t get hugged enough as a child. I think part of the issue is that Swift is a new artist and still quite young. Many feel she deserved some spotlight and viewed West’s actions as heartless. Regardless of what you think, his PR team probably needed to change their pants.
You can’t fault his PR team though. They only have so much control. More so than with brands, PR teams for celebrities are often janitors for these open individuals who sometimes have eccentric lives. After all, could Spears’ publicist do anything to stop her from shaving her head? What could her little sister Jamie’s publicist have done to stop her from getting pregnant? Imagine the daily headache Michael Jackson’s PR team faced.
Granted, there are times a PR team can take a more active role in a star’s activities. Someone present at Miley Cyrus’s controversial “topless” Vanity Fair photo shoot could have suggested that it might not resonate with the Disney-level fans and parents.
So what’s a publicist to do for Kanye West? I’ve suggested that in the long term, maybe in a year or two, some form of duet with Swift would be the perfect fix. It would take some work to get to that point. A proper apology would be a good start, something akin to a heartfelt minute or two on YouTube. Anything written will not appear as sincere. After that, he needs to do the exact opposite of what he appeared to do on the awards show; he needs to disappear from the spotlight.
Granted, I’m un-researched in this area and a few months out of the music industry. Despite this, I think he can take a lesson from the airline industry. When a plane crashes, they silence the brand so the public can forget. If Kanye doesn’t want to look like he’ll step on anyone for the spotlight, he needs to follow that advice. He’s the brand, he needs to cork it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/09/14/kanye.west.reaction/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/14/mtv.music.video.awards/index.html
Three months ago, The SciFi Channel (scifi.com) announced that it was changing its name to Syfy today. It took all of three months for this news to finally reach me, but in all honesty, I’m not in the network’s core demographic. I actually caught the promo for it while watching a Twilight Zone episode over the weekend and really thought nothing of it until I read CNN’s article on the subject.
It appears from this article that the network wants to open the channel to a new, broader demographic. I assume that means they’ve saturated the science fiction genre and want to take on a larger audience. They probably feel that generalizing will give them a greater market. The name, I suppose, is an attempt to not alienate those embarrassed to say they watch science fiction. Lots of assumptions, but this is a blog, not an academic paper.
Those familiar with any of Al Reis’ writings and the general principals of branding already know this tune. It’s a bad move. Moving out of their key market and becoming just another channel isn’t going to help, it’s going to hurt. However, I’m not so sure I agree to the comparison to the New Coke situation, which was more a mistake in assuming that taste tests and quality matter over brand loyalty.
Here, you have a successful entity ruling a category trying to be generic. THAT’S the mistake. The name is irrelevant at this point. Those branding pundits that the CNN article seem to quote can’t be very good experts if their focusing on how the audience will react to the name. It’s not necessarily about the name, though it probably won’t help.
There exists a potential problem with a generic SciFi Channel name. Bravo and Spike did great rebranding with their names. However, they didn’t generalize. Spike moved to a male-central programming theme. Bravo devoted itself to “Fine Arts.” (Side note: how is ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ a ‘fine art’?) If Syfy is about a broader audience, they only stand to lose.
Could they have chosen a better name? Probably. Syfy is the same name in different clothing. They should look a little harder for a distinct name that stands out. Syfy still sounds like “SciFi” and still carried all the connotations associated with it. What we have is the potential to alienate a portion of their core audience while not really attracting who they want to. Sometimes you have to remember that a brand is spoken as much as it’s seen.
And who did it? According to several articles I found, it was an internal decision. That makes sense. Landor Associates, the branding firm for the network claims they had nothing to do with the name change. Do they want to distance themselves from such a possible err, I suppose I would to. I’ve had situations where clients ignore me and go on their own merry way. They do seem to be distancing themselves from the name more than the concept though, and in all honestly, while the name may not be good or thought out, that’s not the bad part of this decision.