today's AMAZING TV AD : honda's "cog" 2 minute tv spot

for more on this, go to this post : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/2008/04/cog-honda-tv-spot-another-amazing-ad.html; april 14 post.
the inspiration is mount pinatubo when some years ago, all of a sudden, after decades of being dormant, it decided to erupt, spewing debris and ash several kilometers high, blowing ashes to float everywhere, far and wide, turning the skies gloomy gray as far away as metro manila, hundreds of kilometers away, covering metro manila streets and rooftops with thick ash. the pinatubo eruption was so powerful that its ashes changed the color of sunsets not only in the philippines but also worldwide.

that's what happens when clients and advertising agencies decide to run ads not worthy to be called advertising. its dark, its huge and very irritating and unfortunately, everywhere!


all they are doing is wawam! what a waste of advertising money!


here is a first row view of Philippine Advertising and Philippine Marketing.

mount pinatubo erupts shooting ashes several kilometers high, then floating to blanket many other towns hundreds of kilometers away

new comments from WAWAM! readers

click to view comment in full. also, give us your own comment on any of the posts.

please note that comments are being posted here on a delayed basis, unfortunately, by a few hours from time of posting, so it seems. that is due to two things : (a) all comments are being moderated and (b) this program shows the comments on a delayed basis, not real time.

if you want to read the latest comments, go to the post itself and click "comments".

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

dm9 jayme/syfu's garbriela ad - a big misunderstanding, a new strategy at winning awards, copyright infringement

the ads are practically indentical and the implementation is exactly the same. so, i'm thinking there could just be a huge misunderstanding about dm9 jayme/syfu's gabriela ad.

they are actually not calling it as a print ad, they call it "ambient" advertising which is the use of unexpected and unorthodox medium for advertising, just like the use of electric posts and trees. it goes over and beyond non-traditional. and that does it, the gabriela effort is exactly what the amnesty international effort is.

so it's very possible the gabriela ad is a pool-out of the amnesty international ad.

question is - did saatchi & saatchi poland and amnestry internationl on one hand and dm9 jayme/sayfu and gabriela on the other talk about it and agreed to its duplication? amnesty international and gabriela are about the same kind of organization and it's most likely gabriela is affiliated with amnestry international (this is yet to be confirmed).

i am assuming they did. because if they did not, then dm9 jayme/sayfu has just exposed themselves to a copyright infringement lawsuit from saatchi & saatchi poland if not from amnesty international. it's clearly an exact copy, there is no way to go around an intelectual property rights violation. for our peace of mind, let's assume somewhere in the filing cabinets of dm9 jayme/sayfu is a written letter of consent for them to use exactly the same creative concept and execution.

which leads us to the last third of the title of this post. the gabriela ad won a bronze award in the 2008 cannes lions awards and that leads me to conclude "originality" is not a criteria in that ad competition. you can actually submit an ad for competition that is a copy of another.

i think we have found another strategy for winning ad competitions, specially in the cannes lions or maybe even other international ad competitions!

it's a simple strategy : to win an international award, copy the work of another award winning ad of years ago! a very simple and most likely a very effective strategy. the success rate must be phenomenal.

but before the creative types and ad agency people reading this blog call a special meeting of their exe com to enshrine this as an ad agency core strategy, please do not foget : it exposes your agency to a copyright infringement lawsuit and it violates intellectual property rights. you can lose huge amounts of $, yes US$ if you lose the case in a court of law.

who ever said life in an ad agency is simple?

dm9jayme/syfu's gabriela ad - a pool out

the whole creative concept and it's elements are exactly the same and the execution of taping the poster to a post/tre is the same as well. therefore, it looks like the gabriela ad is a pool out of the amnesty international ad. never mind that the time frames are far apart, the brands/clients are different (amnestry international and gabriela), the messages are different and there are two different and very separated countries where they ran the campaigns. those are minor things! it's a pool out!

just in case we all forgot, the dm9jayme/syfu gabriela ad won in the 2008 Cannes Lions awards. does it mean the cannes media lion awards do not have originality as a criteria for their winning ads?

http://www.canneslions.com/

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

DM9JaymeSyfu's award winning Bronze Cannes Lions 2008 Garbriela ad - separated from birth from Saatchi & Satchi Poland Ad?

the above ad is the award winning ad of DM9Jayme/Syfu at the 2008 Cannes Lions Awards held recently. it won the bronze award. this ad is for gabriela.

another blog, Pinoy Advertising Tsismax (link below), released the comparison, below, the ad being compared to is from saatchi & satchi poland for amnestry internations. from the comparison, it is obvious the two ads were serparated from birth. they were twins, a female and male, with exactly the same creative elements, including the electric post on a street setting and the all important creative concept of masking tape over the mouth. the last one is the strategy visual of both ads.

aslo, merle jayme is the creative in the shop ,whose name is on the name of the company. before DM9, she worked for ace saatchi & saatchi for many years.

shame! shame! or creative minds across time and space, lots of it always churn the same kind of ads? just a coincidence?

taken from : http://advertizzzing.blogspot.com/2008/06/hhhhhhhhmmmmm.html

comments / reactions, anyone?

Monday, June 30, 2008

URC's hunt's pork & beans ridiculous use of a "consumer insight" : part 4

i've been wondering about it and this is pure speculation on my part (or if this was a report done by an account manager, it is called "competitive ad analysis") - why did URC's hunt's pork & beans rice vs bread tv ad suffer a fatal flaw?

the concept of that tv ad begins with the idea of rice not being available, then makes a sale on hunt's pork & beans can be enjoyed not only with rice but also with bread. we will no longer go into discussing the logic, actually the absence of logic or even common sense in the way the copy was written (discussed fully in this post : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/2008/06/hunts-pork-beans-tv-ad-you-said-what.html), but will stay on why and how the tv ad used the "no more rice" idea as a take-off point. we will center the discussion on that point.

my conclusion is this, but if you find it hilarious and ridiculous go ahead and find it that way, because i think that is exactly what it is - this tv ad wanted to exploit the true to life crisis the country is facing - the rice crisis, or specifically the rice shortage in this country. they opened the commercial that way to grab the attention of the audience. given the peculating attitude among the audience, it's a powerful opening.

as far as that is concerned, it actually worked! as i have written in the previous post, this ad immediately caught my attention after the first sentence of the audio - "mom, there is no more rice." the rice shortage is in everybody's mind. unfortunately, after that sentence, i started laughing and totally tuned off from the commercial after the third sentence. because from that time on, i found the ad didn't make sense at all.

the "no more rice idea" i think is actually being used in this ad as a "consumer insight" and the set up for the ad. and that is where all the problems of the ad began.

in the first place, "no more rice" is not a consumer insight, it's a consumer finding on attitude, concern or fear. as written in the "anti-WAWAM!"section, any consumer finding will first need to be transformed into something else to make it into a consumer insight. that was not done here.

the second problem and this is as fatal as the first one, is that the "no more rice" idea is so far removed from the product sale for hunt's pork & beans that it is an almost alien idea. in other words it's actually unusable in this ad. putting that unusable idea eventually harmed the commercial.

using the "no more rice" idea created so many problems in the delivery of the sale for the ad. the creatives were so adamant at using this idea that they forced it into the commercial like pushing a square peg into a round hole, resulting to a warped sense of logic.

using it meant they had to go take a round about logic to make sure they will not alienate a large part of their consumers who eat the product with rice. saying the product can also be enjoyed with bread is good, but with the opening of the ad with the "no more rice" kine, to complete the "logic", the delivery of the message resulted gaping holes in the presentation of the thought.

the problem of this commercial, it's fatal flaw, is in the use of a consumer insight that is actually not an insight, but just a powerful consumer concern and one that does not lend itself to making a sale for the brand's proposition.

in other words, it's a ridiculous use of a "consumer insight". or as what we call it here, it's a WAWAM!

hunt's pork & beans previous ad campaign : part 3



picked up these ads from the URC website. they look like the previous ad campaign they ran before the current tv on air "rice vs bread" campaign. based on these ads, they positioned hunt's pork & beans on a nutrition platform, building kids' intelligence on performance in school.

is the current "rice vs hamburger" tv ad a better one than this one? that's next in WAWAM!

Sunday, June 29, 2008

on commercial load - gma7 misses the point : part 2

the press statement of gma7 on the issue of commercial load on tv programs is a lame attempt to justify or rationalize their action. assuming they mean what they said in the press statement, the only other viable conclusion is gma7 is missing the point on why the KBP has imposed a limit on commercial load in tv programs.

it's not about financials or revenues or as they call it "restraint of trade" that is being imposed on them by the KBP, it's about avoiding audience fatigue on watching too many commercials.

the audience watch tv to watch the tv shows, not the commercials. commercials shown in these tv programs are a disruption to the enjoyment of the tv shows by the audience. loading tv programs with too many commercials will force the audience to tune off when the ads are shown. tv commercials actually is actually an irritant to tv watching.

by now, the audience know that a commercial break will have 4 to 6 commercials and with the tv remote in their hand, the audience will probably change channel at the latest on the 2nd commercial that is shown. that means there will be a lot of ads in that commercial break that viewers will not watch.

that is not good for the ad industry. as abrera has said, by now it's possible this overload of tv ads would have taught the audience a new habit of zapping out of tv ads. what good will that do to the ad industry?

my point of view is that the broadcast industry should impose a low number of commercial load. to compensate, tv stations should increase their cost per spot accordingly so that the total revenues they earn from the total commercial minutes will be the same. if for example they now have a commercial load of 6 ads per gap, and they charge P200T/spot for a total of P1.2M per gap; they should reduce the commercial load to just 4 ads per gap but increase the charge to P300T/spot for still a total of P1.2M revenues per gap. no loss of revenue for the tv station but a more pleasant viewing experience for the audience and a better appreciation of the ads.

i think the ad industry as a whole will benefit more in the long run with less ads on tv. so what if the cost per spot goes up? that's a good thing. tv advertising is not for every client, we don't have to make it affordable to small clients or brands with small budgets. the truth is there are just too many brands advertising on tv who go on air just for a very short airing period for lack of budget. if the ad agency will be honest about it, the truth is airing a tv ad campaign on a short airing period is as effective as not airing a tv ad at all.

increasing the cost per spot of tv ads to the level of making it unaffordable to small clients and brands with small budgets will force ad agencies to be honest with their clients and will stop ad agencies from recommending tv advertising to all of its clients just for the sake of earning revenues but no real impact on business building.

tv is not the only advertising medium available for clients to use. and in fact media other than tv in many instances are a better fit for some brands and definitely more cost effective.

making cost per spot very prohibitive will also force ad agencies to work harder at coming up with better and more creative tv advertising. with it's cost very high, clients will now be more demanding on their ad agencies when it comes to tv ads. clients will say, you're making me pay so much for tv ads, you better make sure you come up with great ads.

also, the tv stations should know commercial air time is a seller's market. there are only two viable tv stations in the country, ABS-CBN and GMA7. the ad industry has no choice but to buy commercial air time from them. they can sell their tv spots at P200T/spot or P500T/spot and the ad agencies and clients will continue to buy them. they have no other choice.

just to illustrate the point i am making - look at the super bowl in the US. 1 30 second tv spot in the 2008 super bowl cost P2.7 Million! super bowl commercial airtime is the highest cost in all of TV in the US.

and guess what? the ad industry and clients continue ro buy commercial airtime in the super bowl, cost per spot does not matter. why not? that's because the super bowl has a very high audience rating, the highest in the year. that is also true in the philippines - ad agencies and clients buy spots based on audience rating. they will buy into a tv show no matter what the cost is as long as it delivers in audience rating.

what about the quality of the ads aired? clients and ad agencies air the best and the most creative ads during the super bowl. looking for the funniest. most memorable and most effective ad during the super bowl has become a side tradition to watching the super bowl for the audience. day after the super bowl the audience don't just talk about the great plays in the super bowl, they also talk about the great ads they saw during the game.

airing the best ad during the super bowl has even become like a side competition among the ad agencies. their work getting ranked as best in the super bowl earns them prestige and precious bragging rights.

and that is the point i am making here. if philippine television makes it's cost per spot higher but lower the number of commercial load per program, the audience will be happier and will watch all the commercials making the ads more effective in doing their job. and because it involves higher cost for clients, it will make them demand better quality ads from the ad industry.

the net effect will be : better quality and more effective ads and a happier audience. isn't that what we all want?

gma7 refutes KBP ad load rule

this is next in WAWAM! : the tv remote vs the greed of tv stations part 2

read part 1 here : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/2008/06/tv-remote-vs-greed-of-tv-stations-part.html

----
GMA 7 refutes KBP ad load rule
By Riza T. Olchondra

Philippine Daily Inquirer

First Posted 03:06:00 04/13/2008

MANILA, Philippines - GMA Network, Inc. said on Wednesday that the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) rule limiting the commercial load of programs to 18 minutes per hour will push commercial airtime prices up.

The network, which left the KBP in 2003, also said that the cap violates Philippine laws.

“A limitation on the supply of the very limited resource of commercial airtime would push commercial airtime prices upwards. Thus, time standard disrupts market forces that dictate supply and demand and is anti-competition,” GMA said in a statement.

Manipulative

Citing local and US laws, GMA also said that limiting the number of minutes per hour for commercials, among others, “had the actual effect of manipulating the supply of commercial television time.”

The network views the time standard “as a form of combination in restraint of trade and therefore violative of the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code.”

GMA officials could not be reached for comment regarding the network’s ad load, revenue from ads, and ad rates.

Full support

Last month, KBP member ABS-CBN declared full support for the ad load cap.
“The limit safeguards the public from possible abuse by broadcast organizations,” ABS-CBN corporate communications head Bong Osorio said in a statement.

“Limiting the number of TV and radio spots lessen the advertising clutter; thereby, making the ads more effective,” he added.

ABS-CBN head for business analysis Vivian Tin said on Tuesday that the ad load limit will not pull down the company’s ad revenue. “Last year, though KBP gave a little bit of leeway to the cap—to 20 minutes— we did not go beyond that out of respect for the audience. Between the price increase and the increase in number of minutes that’s coming out in terms of demand ... we think airtime revenues will grow healthily even at 18 minutes.”

Last Tuesday, ABS-CBN announced that it is raising ad rates by 15 percent, subject to negotiation with advertisers.


http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20080413-130041/GMA-7-refutes-KBP-ad-load-rule

Friday, June 27, 2008

WAWAM! pays tribute to Mr. Bill Gates

today, friday US time, bill gates will retire from microsoft. we all know who he is and we all know the kind of genius that he is. i think we are lucky to have lived at a time when bill gates did his magic and genius. his work has touched our lives and made it richer and exciting and has taken it through leaps and bounds things for the better. aside from being an intellectual genius, he is also a marketing genius. WAWAM! pays tribute to Mr. Bill Gates.

interesting picture on the right, with this caption :- "In 1978, the original 11 members of Microsoft: standing in back row, from left, Steve Wood, Bob Wallace, Jim Lane; second row, Bob O’Rear, Bob Greenberg, Marc McDonald, Gordon Letwin; front row, Bill Gates, Andrea Lewis, Marla Wood and Paul Allen."

----------

Microsoft Seeks Path Beyond the Gates Legacy
By STEVE LOHR
New York Times
Published: June 27, 2008

Bill Gates is retiring, sort of. He is still only 52, and he is going off to spend more time guiding the world’s richest philanthropy, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He will still be Microsoft’s chairman and largest shareholder, but Friday is his last day as a full-time worker at the software giant, marking the unofficial end of his career as a business leader.

And what a career it has been. Mr. Gates has been an animating force behind the personal computer revolution, helping to build a huge global industry and engineer blockbuster products like Windows and Office, used every day in offices and homes around the world.

read the complete story here : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/technology/27soft.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1214712000&en=4026f0e3cf93a6ef&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

brain food # 2 : the 22 immutable laws of branding


The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding
by: Al Ries & Laura Ries

1. The Law of Expansion: The power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope. Trying to be all things to all people undermines the power of the brand. The strength of brands lies in becoming synony-mous with a single category. Brands that spread themselves across categories lose brand focus, identity, and ultimately market share.

2. The Law of Contraction: A brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus. By narrowing the focus to a single category, a brand can achieve extraordinary success. Starbucks, Subway and Dominos Pizza became category killers when they narrowed their focus.

3. The Law of Publicity: The birth of a brand is achieved with publicity, not advertising. A new brand must be capable of generating favorable public-ity in the media or it won't have a chance in the marketplace. Anita Roddick built the Body Shop into a global brand with no advertising, but with massive amounts of publicity. On the other hand, Miller Brewing spent $50 million in advertising to launch a brand called Miller Regular. The brand generated no publicity and very little sales.

4. The Law of Advertising: Once born, a brand needs advertising to stay healthy. Sooner or later, a brand leader has to shift its branding strategy from publicity to advertising. By raising the price of admission, advertising makes it difficult for a competitor to carve out a substantial share of the market.

5. The Law of the Word: A brand should strive to own a word in the mind of the consumer. If you want to build a brand, you must focus your branding efforts on owning a word in the prospect's mind. A word that nobody else owns. Kleenex owns "tissue," Federal Express owns "overnight," Volvo owns "safety."

6. The Law of Credentials: The crucial ingredient in the success of any brand is its claim to authenticity. Coke is the real thing in the minds of many, even though the last "real thing" advertisement ran almost thirty years ago. A brand's credentials in a category as authentic, real, original, or the leader are very powerful indeed.

7. The Law of Quality: Quality is important, but brands are not built by quality alone. Does a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Does Hertz have better service than Alamo? Does a Montblanc pen write better than a Cross? Are you sure? The perception of quality, more than quality itself, is what builds a brand. And the best way to build a quality perception in the mind of consumers is by following the laws of branding.

8. The Law of the Category: A leading brand should promote the category, not the brand. The most efficient, most productive, most useful aspect of branding is creating a new category. Customers don't really care about new brands, they care about new categories. What was the market for cheap cars before Volkswagen? What was the market for home pizza delivery before Dominos? What was the market for in-line skates before Rollerblade?

9. The Law of the Name: In the long run, a brand is nothing more than a name. In the short term, a brand needs a unique idea or concept to survive. But in the long term, all that is left is the difference between your brand name and the brand names of your competitors. Shorter names that are unique and memorable are far stronger than longer, vague or generic names.

10. The Law of Extensions: The easiest way to destroy a brand is to put its name on everything. More than 90% of all new product introductions in the U.S. are line extensions. Line extensions destroy brand value by weakening the brand. The effects can be felt in diminished market share of the core brand, a loss of brand identity, and a cannibalization of the one's own sales. Often, the brand extension directly attacks the strength of the core brand. Does Extra Strength Tylenol imply that regular Tylenol isn't strong enough?

11. The Law of Fellowship: In order to build the category, a brand should welcome other brands. Consumers want to have choices. Choice stimulates demand. Healthy competition helps to build the category. The competi-tion between Coke and Pepsi makes customers more cola conscious. Per capita consumption goes up.

12. The Law of the Generic: One of the fastest routes to failure is giving a brand a generic name. The problem with a generic brand name is its inability to differentiate the brand from the competition. At your local health food store, you'll find Nature's Resource, Nature's Answer, Nature's Bounty, Nature's Secret, Nature's Way, Nature's Best, Nature's Plus, etc. Will any of these generic brands break into the mind and become a major brand? Unlikely.

13. The Law of the Company: Brands are brands. Companies are companies. There is a difference. Customer's think of brands, not companies. Procter and Gamble isn't Tide. General Motors isn't Cadillac. The brand itself should be the focus of your attention. Use the company name, if necessary, in a decidedly secondary way.

14. The Law of Subbrands: What branding builds, subbranding can destroy. Subbranding erodes the power of the core brand. Waterford is the leading Irish crystal maker. Introducing "cheap" Waterford as "Marquis by Waterford" only dilutes the Waterford brand. Subbranding attacks a brand's place in he mind of the prospect.

15. The Law of Siblings: There is a time and place to launch a second brand. A second brand can be launched to focus on a new subcategory within the same product family. Toyota launched Lexus because the Toyota brand couldn't fill the luxury ar category. The focus is on the brand, not the company. Customers buy a Lexus not because it's made by Toyota, but in spite of it.

16. The Law of Shape: A brand's logotype should be designed to fit the eyes. Both eyes. A customer sees the world through two horizontal-ly mounted eyes peering out of the head. For maximum visual impact, a logotype should have a horizontal shape. The ideal shape is 2 1 /4 units wide by 1 unit high.

17. The Law of Color: A brand should use a color that is the opposite of its major competitor. Coke is red, and Pepsi is Blue. Hertz is yellow, and Avis is Red. Color consistency over the long term can help a brand burn its way into the mind.

18. The Law of Borders: There are no barriers to global branding. A brand should know no borders. The perfect solution to growth in a competitive market is not line extensions, but building a global brand. A brand should have a consistent message globally, but must take into account the perceptions of its country of origin.

19. The Law of Consistency: A brand is not built overnight.Success is measured in decades, not years.This is the law which is violated most frequently. Once a brand occupies a position in the mind, the manufacturer often thinks of reasons to change. Markets may change, but brands shouldn't. They may be bent slightly, or given a new slant, but their essential characteristics should never be changed. Long-term, consistent programs might be boring, but they are also immensely powerful.

20. The Law of Change: Brands can be changed, but only infrequently and only very carefully. Nothing is absolute and there are exceptions to every rule. There are three situations where changing your brand is feasible: When your brand is weak or non-existent in the mind, when you want to move your brand down the food chain to a lower price and perception point, or when your brand is in a slow-moving field and the change is going to take place over an extended period of time. Remember, changing your brand is a long and difficult process. Change at your own risk!

21. The Law of Mortality: No brand will live forever. Euthanasia is often thebest solution. While the laws of branding are immutable, brands themselves are not. They are born, grow up, mature, and eventually will die. Yet companies that are willing to spend millions to save a dying brand, won't spend pennies to launch a new one. Opportunities for new brands and threats to old ones are constantly being created by the invention of new categories. The rise of personal computers created opportunities for Compaq, Dell and Gateway, but put pressure on Digital, Data General and Wang.

22. The Law of Singularity: The most important aspect of a brand is its single-mindedness. What is a brand? A singular idea or concept that you own inside the mind of the prospect. It's as simple or as difficult as that.

Excerpted from "The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding"

OgilvyOne Manila - PR 101, lesson #1 getting press conferences to work for you : part 3

memo to OgilvyOne manila:

for your information:

this was the statement in that press release that made me laugh and doubted its content: "Digital marketing has moved from being "niche and new" to being "mass and mainstream."

this was a newspaper article published in the philippines by the philippine daily inquirer coming from a press conference held in manila. that was essentially what was in the headline and is in the first paragraph of the article.

there was no way i was going to believe that. my eyes popped!

85% of the philippine population belong to the DE socio-eco class, 50%+ live below the poverty line and digital marketing has moved from being niche and new to mass and mainstream? who are we kidding here?

this is a market where "tingi" reigns supreme! the philippine market practically invented this new sku called "tingi" where we can buy a single stick of cigarette or practically one spoonful of cooking oil and one spoonful of soy sauce from the palengke. the philippine market has practically taught the rest of the world what one-use packaging and sku mean!

how in the world did digital marketing jump to mass and mainstream? what miracle was hurled at the philippines? somebody gave the pinoy masa, 85% of the population , computers and made the internet available in all homes? when did that happen?

of course "digital marketing" is not just computers and the internet, but that's the core of what digital marketing is all about. cell phone or specifically SMS, is the only widely used digital form in the philippines and can be argued as masa, all the others are still at their infancy. and the reason is simple - most of the population have very little income to afford anything other than today's food and transportation expenses.

so, OgilvyOne manila wants to leverage or make something out of the visit of the president of the asia pacific to manila. what could they have done?

first, do not make the asia pacific president talk about topics that are not relevant and meaningful to the philippine market.

not even topics that will not happen in the next ten years.

make the asia pacific president talk about something relevant and meaningful to the philippine market. things like:

  • how small digital markets evolved to being large digital markets
  • the asian psyche and how well it fits into the digital world
  • the pinoy passion of SMS and how that can be transformed into the true digital world
  • case studies of how digital marketing helped brands succeed
  • new technology and thinking that OgilvyOne has that can be used in the philippines

that's just a few and i suppose you get my drift.

if those are boring and not worthy of a press conference, perhaps you should have not called a press conference at all.

yours truly,

WAWAM!

dilbert on marketing

double click on image for a larger view


dogbert on marketing

double click on image for a larger view


dilbert on marketing




Thursday, June 26, 2008

dilbert on advertising

double click image for larger view


OgilvyOne's april fool's joke in june : part 2

it wasn't really a joke, but it did sound like one, like a nasty april fool's prank done in late june.

that PDI article has been appearing in the google "advertising in asia and the philippines" section of WAWAM! for a few days already. the headline read "'Digital marketing now mass and mainstream' - ad exec, author", and i ignored it and did not bother to read the article.

i found the headline odd and a little funny. i wondered why PDI the country's most widely circulated newspaper would print a preposterous article like that? the philippines - digital marketing mass and mainstream? hahaha

the comedy is completed when just below the article in the PDI about what OgilcyOne said, another article with a headline read "Philippine marketers still wary of online advertising" http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=122517

the OgivlyOne article obviously came from a press conference they called when Kent Wertime, president of OgilvyOne Asia Pacific visited the philippines. wertime is the president, visited manila and the OgilvyOne manila wanted to give their boss some press exposure. that's a good thing to do for your boss. and also use the opportunity to give OgilvyOne some press coverage and get more business in the philippines.

were the objectives met? no, i don't think so.

the timing of the press conference for OgilvyOne was pretty bad. another article casting doubt if not contradicting the statement of the asia pacific president appeared just about the same time as they had the press conference material printed.

what happened was a PR nightmare. ogilvy's PR agency has lots to explain on this one.

but the timing is not the only thing wrong about the OgilvyOne effort. something bigger than that - a bigger mistake, a more fatal one is the topic they chose for the asia pacific president to talk about.

i wasn't in the press conference so i really don't know what was talked about during the conference. i am only basing it on the news article. it's possible the writer of the news article screwed up that's why it's written that way.

but i doubt if it's the newspaper reporter's fault. they usually give out press write-ups for reporters to take with them to make sure there are no errors and the message is controlled when published. so in other words, the topic the asia pacific president talked about is the topic they want released in the papers.

the fatal error is this - "digital marketing now mass and mainstream" DOES NOT apply in the philippine market.

it probably applies in the US market (or does it?). if it does not apply in the philippines, why the hell did they make that as the topic for the asia pacific president to talk about? they just had the asia pacific president say something completely meaningless and irrelevant to the philippine audience. what's the point? will OgivlyOne get more clients in the philippines if the asia pacific president said something meaningless and irrelevant to the philippine market?

now, the fatal error does not end there.

the topic opened a wound in the heart of OgilvyOne and this one is the april fool's joke unleashed in the month of june, something like adding salt, actually two rounds of salt on the open wound.

read through the article, and you will see two elements in their press conference that effectively made OgilvyOne shoot themselves in the foot, well both feet.

1st shot in the foot: "Still, the "tectonic shift" toward digital marketing is increasingly felt in Asia where usage of mobile phones and the Internet is growing."

in other words, digital marketing being mass and mainstream HAS NOT YET arrived even in asia, it is just forming. they just contradicted themselves!

2nd shot in the other foot: "Puyat however admitted that digital marketing remains a young industry in the country."

and guess what, it's far from being here in the philippines!!! so, why in the world did the president of OgilvyOne asia pacific call a press conference in the philippines to tell us something that isn't here and not meaningful and relevant in the philippine market?

one of the key reasons one calls for a press conference is to make yourself relevant and meaningful. and saying something not relevant and meaningful will make them that? huh?

i don't think OgivlyOne will get new clients out of this press release and press conference. here's a more scary thought - OgilvyOne's existing clients who do use digital marketing with them might stop using digital marketing. the president of OgivlyOne manila just admitted they have been doing digital marketing for their clients that is not effective and does not bring anything to the business.

this very expnsive april fool's joke is a WAWAM! this is a self-inflicted WAWAM! for OgilvyOne manila.