Although, I did have a minorly Marketing/Advertising related thought:
Red Bull should do an advertisement containing someone drinking a can of Red Bull whilst in freefall. It matches their brand image (i.e. “Red Bull gives you wings”, etc.), and would look extraordinary! I envision the can beneath the skydiver (held by them, someone else or shots of a combination of both) and they drink the stream of liquid as the wind catches it & it flies upward into their mouth.
Do it like this (watch what happens when the third guy grabs the bottle towards the end of the video):
NOT like this:
And a note to Red Bull GmbH: I’d like a nice compensation plan for my magnificent ad suggestion. I can be contacted via email.
In a way, this seems a more intuitive way of connecting to brands you “like” not necessarily a “fan” of. Becoming a fan does seem to imply an intimate connection with the brand which requires more user commitment. This is detrimental to marketing a brand, since users that brands wish to be influencing and converting need to be engaged before “becoming a fan” to begin with. Facebook’s decision to transition this language to “like” a brand attempts to fix this problem.
But, is that the real reason Facebook has made the decision? I argue not!
Facebook says that users click the “like” button almost twice as much as they click the “become a fan” button. In real terms, Facebook is trying to boost the number of connections users have to brands.
What’s the reason for this? Revenue!
Most Facebook pages gain their user connections through Facebook advertising. So essentially, Facebook is endeavouring to double their revenue from brand advertisements with a simple terminology tweak.
They claim that liking a brand is a much more natural option that will streamline the site, but as Julian Cole contends on his Adspace Pioneers blog, it may actually create more confusion as to which Facebook adverts are for Facebook branded pages, and which are for external websites.
What do you think? Do you “like” Facebook’s new terminology?
In a recent developer conference, Apple previewed it’s new iPhone OS 4 (some really cool stuff coming, definitely worth checking out). At this event, they announced that there are now over 185,000 Apps available on the App Store for iPhone and iPod touch, including an additional 3,500 iPad Apps. This event took place on April 8, 2010.
Yesterday (April 22, 2010) I caught a glance of a Telstra brochure which was an insert to yesterday’s Herald Sun. On the back page was an advertisement for iPhone. As always, it was well designed and visually stunning, however it was vastly incorrect on a major detail – the number of Apps:
Sorry Telstra, but your lack of attention to detail has landed you this edition of the When Advertising Fails series.
The second instalment to the When Advertising Fails series is somewhat shocking to me considering the organisation who produced it.
The newspaper print ad was taken from the Melbourne Herald Sun on Labour Day this year (Monday, March 8, 2010) and features an awareness campaign about driver fatigue. It was produced by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and what disappointed me specifically was that TAC campaigns are usually very hard-hitting, emotive and effective. They’ve dropped the ball on this one.
Fatigue may kill on the roads, but a bland advertisement definitely fatigues your brand.
Advertisement Effectiveness: 2/10 (for lack of impact)
Wolfram|Alpha is a mathematical computational knowledge engine. Instead of searching the web and returning links like a conventional search engine, it generates output by doing computations from its own internal knowledge base and publicly available data then expresses it in a structured and intuitive manner. It really is quite amazing. Make sure you check out the introductory video, it’s something you do not want to miss!
Back in 2009, Wolfram tested their mobile optimised website as a trial for their iPhone App. Upon the release of the iPhone App shortly thereafter, they pulled the mobile website from free use and were controversially charging in excess of $50 for the Wolfram|Alpha iPhone App! This staggering price was clearly not a successful strategy and failed dismally.
However, over the past few days Wolfram has re-evaluated their strategy and decided to drop the price of their iPhone App. The price drop comes as Wolfram release their new iPad formatted App which comes at the same low price. Also, the mobile website is back!
The announcement comes as Wolfram is uncharacteristically offering to refund the cost of the App to customers who are unhappy with their original purchase. It’s not unusual for companies to amend their pricing strategies, however it is odd for one to offer refunds to customers who paid the high release price. Visit http://www.wolframalpha.com/iwantmymoneyback/ to claim the refund.
Commentary: Kudos to Wolfram for acknowledging their fault and fixing the problem. This is a great way to rebuild broken customer relationships, and gain new ones (I bought the discounted App!). Toyota could take a leaf out of the Wolfram|Alpha book next time to avoid their PR nightmare!
The following advertisement was taken from my local paper a few weeks ago, the Whitehorse Leader. It illustrates how a low budget can cost greatly in effectively delivering your message. The lack of budget being the lack of colour in the ad.
The lesson to be learned: don’t skimp on the budget when advertising. Or if you must, at least review the ad prior to it going live. The lack of colour in said advertisement renders it virtually useless.
Advertisement Effectiveness: 3/10 (for lack of proofreading)
Recently in Australia, the Coca-Cola Company has launched its new ‘Contour Grip bottle’ which has already been rolled out across the world. Looking beyond Coca-Cola’s useless claim of being more environmentally friendly by reducing the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in their bottles by 5% compared to the previous design (5% is hardly a commitment to sustainability), I do think that Coca-Cola is onto something here.
There are two reasons why this is a great innovation:
1. The new contour design of the bottle gives the impression that the new bottle contains more liquid.
Sure, consumers are not idiots and realise that it’s still a 600mL bottle as it always has been. However, one of the reasons Coca-Cola gained such a massive market share many years ago was from the visual illusion their contour bottle provided in their original design, released back in 1916.
2. I realised that when I used to hold a bottle of Coke, I used to hold it around the neck and/or label. By creating a section to ‘grip’, it essentially forces customers to grip the bottle in that section, and leave the label (i.e. brand advertising) freely unobstructed to the view of onlookers.
I don’t know whether these were two ideas Coca-Cola considered when developing the new design, but well done nonetheless.