|
Number
74: October 20, 2004
If you think your friends and colleagues would enjoy this newsletter
feel free to forward it to them. If someone
sent this to you,
today. Outlook 2003 and AOL 9 users, please add us to your trusted or buddy lists, so you won't miss an issue.
This week in Katydid:
Queen
for a New Day
Our lives are miserable. We don't have the things we want. But if we had
a new Sears Kenmore front-loading washer and dryer, our lives would turn
around. Some version of this argument has played out in consumer
cultures around the world. Part of the marketer's job is defining the
problem and solution equation for their target markets: you lack what we
have to offer.
Product placement can be an ideal way to connect emotionally with a
product. When you see your Friends drinking their favorite soft
drink, you transfer your emotional connection from the characters to the
product. It becomes your favorite soft drink.
However, simple placement often is not enough and any effort to
increase the emotional intensity of the product (Gosh, I just love this
soft drink! Smile. Twinkle.) will seem forced. Two popular television
shows, The
Apprentice and Extreme
Makeover: Home Edition, provide examples at opposite extremes of
effectiveness in product placement.
Reality programming appeals to our voyeuristic impulses, and like any
art form, it can be demeaning or uplifting. I've written before about
the darker side of reality transformations. As you consider placing
your product, you'll want to make sure that the context of the
programming aligns with your company's values.
The original Extreme
Makeover, which involves people submitting to cosmetic surgery,
has a value proposition that holds personal attractiveness as the key to
self-esteem: only the beautiful have value. The obvious corollary is
that ugly people are worthless. You should consider these opposites
whenever you develop value propositions.
For example, "Choosy
moms choose Jif®," while uncaring
mothers give their kids cheap peanut butter. Our culture is much more
cynical and tends to parse advertising slogans in this way. While Jif is
an established brand and will not soon abandon the recognition of that
slogan, if they were developing a slogan today, they might be wise to
select a value proposition that linked Jif to increased health or
quality rather than a judgment on motherhood.
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is a much different program
than the original. In a new spin on the old radio and television show Queen
for a Day, each week Home Edition showers a new family
with products. It goes further though by building the families a
completely new house, complete with the most modern appliances and
conveniences.
The show has a great deal of product placement. Sears is the major
sponsor and each show features one or two additional brands prominently.
Shea Homes
and Viking Pools
were recent sponsors. In addition to the product placement, the vendors
often run commercials tailored to each episode.
The recipient families are key to the show's value. While Queen
for a Day made women compete with each other to spin the most
pathetic stories, Home Edition selects the winners from
videotaped applications. True, the families may need to exaggerate their
pain or their nobility in order to attract attention, but few could
protest the worthiness of the makeover winners. Most are coping with
crowded conditions in homes that should be condemned, or are dealing
with specific problems that require custom designs.
In a way, the families are vetted for worthiness by their local
communities that show up in numbers to pitch in with the work. The show
also uses local contractors to oversee building. In exchange for the
free merchandise and labor, the vendors and suppliers receive national
exposure associated with the sincere gratitude and praise of the
recipients who are literally overwhelmed with kindness.
The general message is that good things happen to good people. It
wouldn't work as well though if the sponsors did not participate
actively. In an episode where Shea Homes built
a three-story home in South Central Los Angeles in less than a week,
one could see that the builders were as moved by what they had done as
the families were. It seemed a sincere execution of their brand slogan,
"Caring Since 1881."
The show demonstrates the concept of Pay
It Forward, where caring is contagious. All the participants are
transformed by the experience in a way that the original Extreme
Makeover could never accomplish with surgery. The number of sponsors
continues to escalate with as much a desire to contribute as to receive
publicity. Who wouldn't want their brand associated with that level of
caring?
By contrast, product placement in The Apprentice seems more
arbitrary. The program has participants compete with each other to win
an executive role for one of Donald Trump's enterprises. In the current
season, the competitions often relate to a prominent company such as Mattel
and Procter &
Gamble.
The show, however, has less to do with altruistic business values and
more to do with the cutthroat tactics and backstabbing politics of young
professionals (though Trump often favors us with business insights such
as "focus on the market" - so glad I watched).
The featured companies get to talk about their brand values and
demonstrate their high standards. However, the amateur and
counter-productive efforts of the participants add nothing to the brand
value of the sponsors.
Some sponsors receive placement that has absolutely no connection to
the storyline. In a recent episode, Trump had the candidates meet him on
the dock of a UPS distribution center. While the UPS logo and trucks
received prominent placement, Trump made no connection of UPS
to the actual task, which was selling a product on QVC.
Outside of impressions, the sponsors receive no extra glow from
associating with The Apprentice. In fact, the nature of the show
could undercut the value messaging. In fact, in casting the show with
candidates of questionable judgment and character in order to create
conflict, the show may damage Mr. Trump's reputation as well (though it
has increased the number of impressions for the notoriously
publicity hungry mogul).
Finally, the website for The Apprentice gives its sponsors
short shrift. They provide
a list of vendors with unlinked web addresses for products used in
the candidates' suite, but they give no attention to key sponsors. On
the other hand, Home Edition gives great prominence to Sears and
provides branded links for other vendors. Most of the these use unique
URLs to track the performance of the show, which helps justify the cost
of participation. Sears even includes a link on their home site for products
featured on Home Edition.
In large part, we are measured by the company we keep. You
want to be sure that any public use or placement of your product or
services aligns with or demonstrates your brand values. This extends
to case studies as well. It also applies to your customers and partners.
After the corporate scandals, how many links to Arthur
Andersen were removed from corporate web sites? How about resumes?
As usual, context matters most.
Top »
Thanks for Reading
This e-mail newsletter spreads mainly by word of
mouth. Please send it on to your colleagues. Also, you can
read other back issues.
If you have suggestions of web sites to review, writing that buzzes,
or a new way of looking at things, let me know. Send your suggestions to
.
If you received this newsletter from a friend, please
today. Our subscriber lists are confidential; we never sell or rent our
lists to third parties. If you want to
from this newsletter,
please let us know.
Kind regards,
Kevin Troy Darling
Top »
|
