Category Archives: Advertising
A couple of months ago, an advertisement for the da Vinci Surgical System sparked quite a bit of controversy — and an interesting, ongoing conversation about the ethics and value of hospital advertising.
To refresh your memory: The ad, which appeared as a full page in the New York Times Magazine, featured a large photograph of a physician team from the University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System. Below the photograph sat the headline: “We believe in da Vinci Surgery because our patients benefit.” The kicker was that, in small print at the bottom of the ad, was a disclosure that explained some surgeons who appeared the ad had received compensation from da Vinci. And it was later revealed that da Vinci paid for the ad and not everyone in the photo was even a clinician.
After the ad appeared, Paul Levy, the former CEO of Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and publisher of the popular “Not Running a Hospital” blog wrote a scathing post titled, “Time to fire somebody,” that questioned the ethics of a public, nonprofit hospital promoting a commercial product — particularly given the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the surgical system. The post led to similar stories, including this piece by NPR that quotes Levy.
More recently, Hospitals & Health Networks contributor David Ollier Weber penned a column that, through the lens of the da Vinci ad controversy, asks whether hospitals advertising to the general public is in good taste, or even truly effective.
Worth a read, the article discusses the history of hospital advertising – formerly frowned upon by the American Hospital Association — and gives a snapshot of some of the current sentiment toward the practice, including questions about whether it’s “in good taste.”
Here’s the quote that closes the article, from a Minneapolis-based health care marketing consultant, taking aim specifically at mass advertising:
“In fact, the business case for hospital advertising — especially mass advertising — is extraordinarily poor. It’s notoriously difficult to measure the impact of the ubiquitous ‘brand campaigns’ that are all about awareness and perception-building and have no freaking call to action. But the effectiveness of mass advertising from a cost-benefit perspective pales in comparison to more targeted efforts, such as search advertising, direct mail, community seminars and more. Yes, some of that is advertising, but it’s the mass advertising that’s getting us in trouble.”
What do you think? Is “mass advertising” effective for hospitals? Are there ethical or “taste” pitfalls that must be avoided? Let us know what you think.
Google announced to the Securities and Exchange Commission it has no plans to release its 2013 revenues from mobile advertising since the definition of mobile is changing and it simply doesn’t make sense to break it out separately. Google informed the SEC in a December letter, which was disclosed publicly this week.
So, what does Google envision falling into the mobile bucket moving forward? According to the letter filing, the company said, “Our expectation is that users will be using our services and viewing our ads on an increasingly wide diversity of devices in the future.” To Google, anything that isn’t a desk top is considered mobile and they are already discussing future advertisements on refrigerators, watches, thermostats and car dashboards. (I know we are quickly moving towards a Jetson’s type lifestyle, but I’m not ready for my appliances to try to sell me something.)
I consider all of these products “smart devices” not “mobile,” but I guess Google can be convincing. Bottom line is Google sees a future full of all different kinds of new categories.
From a public perspective, I guess the SEC letter provided insight into what may lie ahead…a world of ad consumption overload.
The buzzword native advertising came on the scene a few years ago but didn’t really gain traction until last year when it began being thought of as the savior to publishing. It’s now one of the hottest things in the online advertising industry. Sorry banner ads, you aren’t what you used to be.
I don’t usually like to use Wikipedia as a source but honestly, it has the best definition for native advertising. It defines it as–an online advertising method in which the advertiser attempts to gain attention by providing content in the context of the user’s experience. The advertiser’s intent is to make the paid advertising feel less intrusive and thus increase the likelihood users will click on it.
Native ads provide valuable, relevant content and, to some readers, might appear like real editorial. Content marketing, a more commonly used term, is a form of native advertising.
A study conducted among more than 4,700 people last year found that native ads were viewed 53 percent more often by consumers than banner ads, and the attention people paid to native ads was nearly equivalent to the visual engagement of original editorial content.
So, are popular well-respected publications jumping on the native advertising bandwagon? The answer is YES.
Forbes Magazine created BrandVoice, described by one of its reporters as an innovative, efficient publishing platform, or brand newsroom, that is built on the belief that all content can be treated equally if its originating source is transparently identified. The reason for the formation of BrandVoice was the notion that marketers know their business better than anyone and they need new ways to reach their audiences. Statistics show that some of the native ad posts on Forbes.com are generating considerably more views, tweets, retweets and Likes than traditional editorial content. An effective revenue stream for publishers and a successful tool for advertisers…win-win.
Just like Forbes’ BrandVoice, the Washington Post created the platform BrandConnect to connect its advertisers with its readership, and earlier this month the Wall Street Journal launched its own native ad studio called WSJ Custom Studios.
You can scroll through the home page of most of the publications I listed and you will find an example of native ads. See one example below.
As long as publications and other online sources are transparent about native ads versus original content, I think it’s an incredibly effective use of ad dollars. What are your thoughts?
Many companies wonder if their logos and brand graphics need a fresh look after a number of years. Do we need to rebrand or simply tweak our current brand in order to remain relevant? Sometimes a brand tune up is all a company needs.
While I’d prefer to focus on Kmart’s radical attempt to make its brand more hip and
relevant (the brilliant and hilarious online ad that promotes shopping for Kmart products online, which resulted in a media frenzy and almost 15 million YouTube views in the last week) but some people have taken offense to the ad, so I’ll stay on safe ground and discuss a less radical but still relevant rebranding effort….the Kool Aid Man.
Starting in the 1960s, children grew up watching the iconic gigantic pitcher of red Kool Aid crash through doors and walls. This beloved mascot is definitely recognizable and possesses a lot of brand equity so it’s no wonder Kool Aid chose to keep its beloved mascot and simply update the look. The company is retiring the human suit and replacing with it with a technologically advanced GCI character that has a colorful personality, a distinctive new voice and a more robust vocabulary to increase the “mom appeal.”
The new look launched this month in conjunction with a new brand campaign called “Smile, It’s Kool Aid” and included new television ads and a Kool Aid man Facebook page, providing followers with games and giveaways in order to keep customers engaged.
Like I mentioned, the company is by no means abandoning the brand that made it the most popular flavored drink mix. The company reports that the newer, slicker, more well-spoken Kool Aid man will continue to bust through walls. Oh Yeah!
It’s been more than a month since the Democratic National Convention, where President Barack Obama quipped, “If you’re sick of hearing me approve this message, believe me, so am I.”
The president was commenting on the unprecedented amount of money pouring into political advertising during this general election season, which has resulted in a television-watching experience that can leave you wondering if that rerun of Seinfeld is sharing a time block with a political drama.
According to The Washington Post, which has a fascinating interactive map tracking “the spending race,” the candidates have spent more than $660 million on television advertising – $300 million for President Obama’s campaign, and $366 million for Mitt Romney’s campaign. And although it’s hard to believe, what you’re seeing in Tennessee probably isn’t as bad as what folks in swing states are facing. The Post indicates that both campaigns and their “allied parties and interest groups” have focused their television ad dollars in media markets reaching voters in swing states. Florida has seen the most spending, at $136 million. Iowa, Nevada and North Carolina – where airtime is cheaper – have experienced the highest number of political ads.
So has the ad blitz been effective in informing voters about their political choices this season? Or is all this communication just causing political ad fatigue? If you think it’s the latter, you’re not alone.
The Post’s spending map indicates that 81 percent of ad spending from the Obama campaign and 88 percent of the ad spending from the Romney campaign has gone toward negative ads. And it seems voters aren’t too happy about it. A Knights of Columbus-Marist poll released back in July showed that almost 80 percent of Americans were frustrated by ongoing political battle. About two-thirds, or 66 percent, say the candidates have spent more time on the attack than addressing important issues, and 64 percent say the negativity of these campaign ads harms the political process.
What do you think? Does the negative tone of political advertising hurt the political process? Has it turned you off from the election all together? Tell us what you think.
Every four years I prepare for late nights and touching stories that make me teary-eyed and proud as I watch American athletes sing our national anthem on the medal stand. Yes, I am talking about one of my favorite obsessions…the Summer Olympics. My devotion to the summer games started at a young age (I still love you Mary Lou!) and I have been fanatical ever since.
Record viewership numbers reported by NBC earlier this week (40.7 million viewers for the opening ceremonies and 28.7 million on the opening day of competition) prove that I am not the only one who can’t get enough of Phelps and Lochte. Those numbers might not be as impressive as the more than 111 million that tuned into the 2012 Super Bowl, but it is enough for companies to use this as an opportunity to showcase some creative advertising.
In honor of the games, I wanted to share my favorite television commercials so far.
The bronze medal goes to British Airways.
The silver medal goes to Visa.
And, the winner of the gold medal is Proctor and Gamble.
What commercial has impressed you the most?
Let me know and GO TEAM USA!
Every consumer brand dreams of a high-profile mention that suddenly propels its product it into the national spotlight. Right? Well, maybe. What if the attention comes in a politically-charged environment?
That’s the situation in which Ohio Art, creator of Etch A Sketch, recently found itself. And the way the company responded is an excellent example of “grace under pressure” and great marketing.
Etch A Sketch’s moment in the spotlight came as the result of a comment made by an advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In describing his candidate’s political positions, the aide said, “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You kind of shake it up and restart it all over again.”
The comment went viral and Ohio Art found itself with a potential opportunity or PR nightmare on its hands, depending on how you look at it. To its immense credit, the company made the most of its unintended moment of fame without weighing into a politically charged debate or alienating Americans of either the Republican or Democratic political parties.
Thus was born the Shake It Up, America website. The home page states:
We stand firmly behind our proclamation that “We have a left knob and a right knob for each political party.” And “…when both work together, we can do loop de loops.” We’re especially serious about the loop do loops part. We call on you to shake it up, America! Exercise your freedom of self-expression by voting on Election Day, and drawing on your Etch A Sketch every day. Our political neutrality is unflappable. And our stance on self-expression is unshakable.”
A new ad campaign released in conjunction with the website featured headlines like:
“We have a left knob and a right knob for each political party.”
“Etch A Sketch is a lot like politics – there’s a lot of gray area.”
“Politically, we lean right down the middle. Which way do you lean?”
Each ad ends with the same statement at the bottom: “Etch A Sketch is proud to be part of the national debate.”
But wait, it gets better! Now you can not only purchase Etch A Sketch with its traditional red frame, soon you can buy a blue or flag-themed version of the toy.
It’s a real pleasure to see how this iconic American brand took the high road, encouraged citizens to exercise their right to vote and turned an opportunity into a playful and notable campaign. And I know which color Etch A Sketch I’m ordering. How about you?