With simple ideas, the little details can often make a big difference in the success of a campaign, taking it from good to great. As we’ve seen before, one example of this is the LeBron James ‘Chalk’ spot where Nike kept its ear to the street and incorporated an entire book’s worth of metaphor and meaning into 60 seconds of ad. For Lexus, their ‘Cards’ ad becomes more than just a sight gag when the behind the scenes story takes on a life of its own.

The premise of the ad is this: The 2009 Lexus ES has a very smooth engine that doesn’t vibrate. At all. According to Lexus, the ES is one of the smoothest vehicles anywhere, and to demonstrate that their claim isn’t based on a house of cards, they created one of the most fragile and unstable environments imaginable: a number of houses of cards built on top of and around the car. Then, they turned the car on. While the car is running, the houses all stay together, and it’s only when the door is closed after the experiment is over that we see everything come crashing down.

If the fact that the houses of cards all stayed together was the entire premise of the ad, you’d probably get the point, wonder for a second if it was CGI or actual houses of cards, and then never think of the ad again. However, if you follow the URL that Lexus predominately displayed at the end of the ad, you’re taken to a microsite that gives you the whole story behind the spot, and turns the simple idea into a very interesting ad.

For one, the cards weren’t just stacked by some intern or stagehand. Instead, these cards were stacked by none other than Bryan Berg, a self-taught cardstacker that has set seven world records with his skills, including the current world record for his structure that towered more than 25 feet above the ground. In addition, Lexus proves that Bryan doesn’t use glue, tape, notching or anything else to keep the cards in place, just a steady hand and a lot of patience:

Second, you find out that this wasn’t just a one-day, in and out shoot. To build the more than 30 towers (some of which are more than 13 feet tall), Bryan stacked for 18 days, using more than 2,016 decks (108,864 cards) at a rate of about 112 decks per day. You also learn that Brian’s not perfect, and that some of the structures actually collapsed during the setup of the ad before the final shot was made.

Lastly (and in my opinion unfortunately) you find out that in order to make the cards all fall at once at the end of the ad, they rigged them with fishing line and then pulled them down on cue. I guess Lexus does earn points for admitting exactly what was real and what was fake, but I just wish they would have found some way to make the slamming of the door actually bring everything down with it so that none of the ad would be faked

The Good:

• Lexus used a world record holding cardstacker, adding an entire sub-story to the experience.
• The online and offline components of the campaign compliment and support each other.
• The concept is simple, but there are a number of different levels for people that want to find out more.

The Bad:

• Despite everything else being real, they had to fake the grand finale effect.
• Lexus disabled video embeds from YouTube, drastically cutting down on the viral potential of the ad.

The Future:

• Behind the scenes ads continue to play a large roll in broadcast campaigns, and companies opt for the real deal instead of looking for shortcuts when putting together seemingly simple ideas.

Lexus – Cards

The post Lexus Takes You Inside Their House Of Cards appeared first on The Future of Ads.

The football part of the Super Bowl has recently taken a back seat to the advertising gridiron that plays out 30 seconds at a time as companies battle it out for Monday morning water cooler bragging rights. The spends are through the roof, the reach is unparalleled, and once it was established that the ads were going to be better than usual, people started to tune in just for them, all but eliminating the TiVo Effect.

Then, a few years ago, GoDaddy figured out that by making their commercials ‘too hot for TV’ and thus getting them banned from airing during the Super Bowl itself, they could actually get all the exposure of a typical Super Bowl commercial (if not more) without spending the millions of dollars required for 30 seconds of airtime. GoDaddy did create a toned down version that aired during the Super Bowl to entice offline viewers to watch the ‘unedited’ commercial on their website, but the simple addition of an online only version sent conversion rates through the roof.

As with any successful strategy, other companies soon followed, and ‘too hot for TV’ has since become an all too common tactic. The latest group to test out ‘too hot for TV’ advertising is PETA, and their pro-vegetarian ad, which features “a bevy of beauties who are powerless to resist the temptation of veggie love” was quickly shut down by NBC for being too hot for the Super Bowl.

In response, I’m putting my foot down to say that I’m tired of this tactic, and I’m tired of companies not giving consumers enough credit to know when we’re being taken for a ride. Does anyone actually think PETA was under the impression that NBC was just going to let this one air during the most watched television event of the year?

Networks need to figure out that they’re being played by the creators of these commercials, and stop giving elaborate and detailed responses as to why the ads are deemed ‘too hot for TV’. These rejection letters just provide third party verification of the ads hotness, and since NBC once again fell into the trap, they provided PETA with plenty of ammunition for a follow up campaign. According to an email from Victoria Morgan, the Vice President of Advertising Standards at NBC Universal:

The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards. Listed below are the edits that need to be made. Before finalizing the spot, we would like to view a QuickTime file as well as a DVD with high resolution.

• :12 – :13 – Licking pumpkin
• :13 – :14 – Touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli
• :19 – Pumpkin from behind between legs
• :21 – Rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin
• :22 – Screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)
• :23 – Asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina
• :26 – Licking eggplant
• :26 – Rubbing asparagus on breast

Victoria Morgan
Vice President, Advertising Standards
NBC Universal

In response, PETA, being the smart and press hungry organization that they are, just took the letter and posted it on their blog and on their website, resulting in a huge amount of additional exposure for the ad.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the PETA ad, and think it’s got just enough controversy to be a perfect conversation starter, I just don’t think NBC needed to add any fuel to the fire. In addition, I love that PETA created a bunch of additional content to go along with the ad that allowed them to extend this increased exposure, including a behind the scenes video that is almost as good as the original:

What I propose to companies thinking of doing ‘too hot for TV’ advertising is this: Rather than ‘submitting’ the ad to the network responsible for the Super Bowl and pretending that you actually expect it to pass, just create a sexy ad and promote it online as online only content. You can make the banners as risqué as you want, you can spend 1/100th of what you would spend on a Super Bowl commercial to literally blanket the entire web for a few days with your message, and by using this tactic, you’ll end up reaching the same number of viewers without having to resort to the silly games involved in submitting a commercial that you never actually expect to air. Sure, you pass up on the opportunity for the free press that a rejection letter provides, but when the networks finally wise up and stop providing you with these letters, you’ll already be ahead of the curve and on to the next latest and greatest tactic.

The Good:

• Sexy ads draw in a huge audience and encourage social sharing.
• The web is a less controlled environment, and companies can take more risks with their advertising.
• PETA used a ‘making of’ video, additional cuts, and other online only content to extend the reach of the campaign.

The Bad:

• ‘Too hot for TV’ ads assume that the consumer is ignorant and can’t figure out that the company never actually expected the ad to air on TV.
• Making an ad online only narrows your target market to tech savvy users.

The Future:

• Companies push the boundaries of online only advertising and use the additional capabilities of web video to their advantage.

PETA – Veggie Love

The post PETA Is Too Hot For TV With Veggie Love appeared first on The Future of Ads.

When you’re a company as big as Nike (their current market cap hovers somewhere north of $34 billion), it’s easy to fall back on brand awareness/brand management when it comes time to roll out a new commercial, and that can lead to laziness and stagnation, as you figure that as long as you’re getting the brand name out there and into the public eye, then you’re moving the brand forward.

However, Nike has stayed on top of their game not because they’re willing to sit back and reap the rewards of previous successes, but because they’re willing to push the limits of what’s possible with brandvertising, and prove to the world that they’re not just on the cutting edge; they’re defining it.

Their latest spot for the new shoes from LeBron James, called the Season Six, features LeBron and his now famous pre-game routine in which he throws a handful of talcum powder into the air. It’s an electrifying moment, and ‘Chalk’ captures the emotion and the power of that moment and turns it into a strong, beautiful, and inspirational commercial:

However, what you might have missed are a few of the finer details sprinkled throughout the commercial:

• The background music is a song called ‘Candyman’, originally recorded in 1997 by the British indie group Cornershop. Though it’s more than 10 years old, it still feels fresh even today, and along with the fact that Nike gave the chart topping Lil’ Wayne a cameo in the commercial, shows that Nike understands the music that their target audience listens to.
• Lil’ Wayne, who grew up on the streets, is no stranger to the ‘candy’ (cocaine) during his rise to fame, and the symbolic brushing of the chalk from his shoes (rising from the streets to stardom, which mirrors LeBron’s rise), shows that Nike understands the streets that their target audience grows up on, and the challenge to rise that they are faced with.
• Jamie Nared, whose cameo in the commercial features her playing against a team of boys (Jamie was kicked off of her high school’s basketball team for being too good) as well as a shot of her standing alone in the girls locker room shows that Nike understands the struggle for success that their target audience must go through.
• In addition to LeBron and Jamie, the chalk is also thrown by a barber, an amateur basketball player, a student, fans at the game and a donut maker, covering them all and symbolizing the fact that inspiration from an amazing player like LeBron can touch the lives of almost everyone, and shows that Nike understands the power of the players that they sponsor. (Nike’s contract for LeBron was $90 million over 7 years, though they made it when his skills in the NBA were still untested. However, they were willing to support him because they believed in his potential. In addition, the fact that they sponsor the best of the best shows that they understand what it takes to be the best at any sport, and that their products are what players trust to get them to that level.)
• The chalk thrown in the donut shop (a central meeting place for the working man) and the barbershop (a central meeting place for the urban community) shows that Nike understands the communities that their target audience lives in.

The mix of music, street, struggle, inspiration and community all combine to show that Nike understands the target audience that it is advertising to better than any other shoe company, and if you’re part of that target audience, then Chalk shows that Nike understands you as well. You feel a connection to the brand, and you feel inspired to use your skills like LeBron has used his to conquer whatever obstacles stand in your way.

The Good:

• Strong connection to the viewer shows that Nike understands the audience.
• Complex commercials give different levels of meaning to each viewer.
• ‘Hidden’ metaphors increases repeat watch-ability and pass-along.
• Longer, slow motion cuts, a lack of color, and a basic storyline slow the message down and let the viewer enjoy the ad.

The Bad:

• Subtle messages can get lost when viewers are only looking for the punch line.
• Cutting edge, risky advertising (cocaine references) can lead to brand backlash.

The Future:

• Commercials tell stories through hidden metaphors and deeper meaning that draws in the viewer and demonstrates shared understanding, building brand recognition but also forming connections that increase brand loyalty.

Nike Basketball

Hat Tip: Ian Schafer

The post Chalk Shows Nike Understands The LeBron James Market appeared first on The Future of Ads.

For years, the taste test has been a staple of many food advertisers’ arsenal. It’s simple to do, it’s easy to explain, and most of the time the message comes across loud and clear.

Now though, Burger King has decided to follow their lost wallet and Burger King Studio campaigns by giving the taste test a twist, and is documenting the process with a campaign that they’re calling Whopper Virgins, which aims to put the Whopper to “the ultimate taste test without the benefit of brand recognition or marketing support of any kind.” (And specifically, “No kings or clowns.”)

The problem is obvious: When most people see a taste test, they assume that it’s biased; so how do you convince your audience that you’ve managed to assemble the only group of people in the world that have never eaten a burger before into an unbiased group of testers when almost everyone has at least tried a burger or two during the course of their life?

The answer seems even more obvious: Find people that have never before eaten a burger. However, this leads to additional problems, because now you have to find a way to prove that they’ve never eaten a burger. Enter: Whopper Virgins.

The idea is simple: Take people that have never before experienced a burger, prove that they’ve never before experienced a burger with the fact that their language doesn’t even contain a word for burger, and then give them your burger and your competitor’s burger to see which one they like more. Film the whole process (including the always important making of footage), stitch together a convincing story line, and call it a day.

The execution however is critical: You must be convincing enough to show that you actually ran an unbiased taste test, but one-sided enough to show that your brand was the clear winner. It needs to be equal parts documentary and mocumentary, and the taste test must be both entertaining and informational. According to Russ Klein, president of global marketing, strategy and innovation at Burger King,

“During a time when consumers are craving it most, honesty and transparency are the heart and soul of this campaign. By embarking on a voyage of this magnitude that held no guarantees and left us open to vulnerabilities, we took a leap of faith that our signature product would win people over at first bite.”

For the Whopper Virgin documentary, Burger King has only just teased what the campaign will be all about, with cliff-hanger TV commercials that lead to a microsite which features a slideshow and a countdown timer to the documentary’s world premiere, but even with just the few stills and short clips that are currently available, controversy around the ad is already starting to build.

Detractors include Duncan Riley from The Inquisitr who said “It doesn’t get much more offensive than this.” and Sharon Akabas from the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University who said, “It’s outrageous. What’s next? Are we going to start taking guns out to some of these remote places and ask them which one they like better?”

However, according to Brian Gies, vice president of marketing impact at Burger King,

“The people we encountered along the way were wonderful. They were enthusiastic about sampling our product and even more eager to share their culture, including their own food, with the team conducting the tests.”

Depending on how Burger King plays their cards though, this controversy could be what makes this campaign a success, as all eyes will be trained on the website once the countdown timer reaches zero.

In addition, Burger King has already started the process of answering to the criticism with a statement in their press release that said:

At the conclusion of each taste test, Burger King Corp. worked cooperatively with local authorities to make donations, tailored specifically to benefit each individual community that participated in the ‘study’ and make a lasting contribution in each region. The company donated educational supplies and children’s toys in Thailand and Greenland that will benefit local schools and increase learning opportunities for children. In Romania, the company helped fund a restoration of a 17th century church, which will enhance one of the community’s central gathering places.

So besides controversy then, how else does Burger King plan to win with this ad?

Simple: Make Whopper Virgins unavoidable by making it seem like the biggest blockbuster that’s ever been produced. Hire skateboard legend Stacy Peralta to direct it, use 13 Planes, 2 Dog Sleds and 1 Helicopter to help make it all possible, find stereotypes from all around the world will take part in it, and use footage shot in some of the world’s most remote places to bring it all together and make it all happen. Plus, considering the support that this documentary has received so far, it might as well have made its debut on the big screen!

Will it work?

We’ll just have to wait and see, but if you believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity, then the sheer number of times that Whopper Virgins has already been mentioned in the press recently before even launching the official documentary (though much of it negative) is reason enough to call this campaign a success.

The Good:

• Controversy leads to tons of press coverage.
• Unique spin on the taste test gives an old format new life.
• Campaign spans multiple channels, drawing viewers in from all around.
• Countdown builds hype and gives the campaign an official release.

The Bad:

• Controversy means much of the press coverage is negative.
• Hype must be lived up to.

The Future:

• Longer format commercials become documentaries about the brand, and old concepts are revisited with new spins.

Whopper Virgins

The post Controversy Makes Whopper Virgins A Success For Burger King appeared first on The Future of Ads.

Bosch let drifting champion Vaughn Gittin Jr. loose on the (closed course) streets of Los Angeles with his “Bosch-sparked” Mustang and a few extra sets of tires to create what they’re calling “Performance Art” (or “Abstract on Asphalt” depending on which version of the video you’re watching), and I’m sure the resulting commercial resonates well among the automotive audience that they’re trying to target:

They also took the extra step to create a ‘behind the scenes’ video for the commercial as well:

Unfortunately, what Bosch didn’t do (besides host the ‘behind the scenes’ on Vimeo) was use that ‘behind the scenes’ video to highlight anything drastically different from the commercial itself, so it ends up looking like a collection of B-roll footage, some close-up shots of their logo and Vaughn saying “Bosch” a few extra times.

For their Timesculpture commercial, Toshiba created such a unique and innovative idea that it needed its own ‘making of’ video just to explain the process; but Bosch’s video comes off as just another attempt at selling to their audience, and is differentiated from the commercial only by the fact that it includes a few extra shots of the car with another camera in them as well, and the fact that they show a few ‘pre-production’ screens that still have the film borders around them. (In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the ‘behind the scenes’ version should have just been the main commercial to begin with, since it’s interesting in its own way, and has a more raw and gritty feel to it that would probably have been a better fit for their target market.)

I’m not saying that the ‘behind the scenes’ video was a bad video, since it was obviously well produced and contained some interesting shots and angles, but rather, that when I watch a ‘behind the scenes’ style video, I want to see more than just a few extra camera angles, and not feel like I’m being sold to again just because I clicked Play.

Show me a little more about the video and how it was made. Slow the shots down and make them longer, remove the rave music, include some facts and figures, talk about the equipment, explain why the commercial was innovative, highlight a mistake or two made in the process and make it something that doesn’t just feel like a mishmash of shots that didn’t make it into the final production. In short, really take me ‘behind the scenes’ and make me feel like a part of the production crew.

Often, I think this problem stems from the fact that companies are planning out the ‘behind the scenes’ video in their heads long before the actual commercial starts filming. Instead of looking at the ‘behind the scenes’ video as a chance to explain their process a little bit and show off their creativity, they look at it as another chance to sell to their target market, and forget that they can expand that target market quite a bit if they just cater to a slightly different crowd.

If you know the automotive enthusiasts are already going to be giddy over your main commercial, then give the film geeks a version that talks all about the equipment used or the fight the sun put up during the filming process; give the physics guys a version that talks about the suspension setup and the way you positioned the camera to highlight the best angles and the most action; or even just create a video that highlights the director’s process and the way that he interacts with the crew for those that want to know the personality behind the lens. Maybe even consider hiring a separate film crew to shoot the behind the scenes footage, or make it as simple as a guy with a Flip camera that catches moments often left on the cutting room floor, since it’s this ‘uncensored’ take on the commercial that we’re looking for when going behind the scenes.

Make it different, make it special, and make it something worth watching for its own unique value, because if it’s just a few extra seconds of footage that didn’t make it into the final cut, you’re missing out on all that a ‘behind the scenes’ video can be.

The Good:

• Additional footage gives interested viewers more to look at.
• Raw and gritty style means a small budget can still deliver a large amount of value.

The Bad:

• Lack of additional information decreases the added value.
• Pass-along decreased by limiting the target market.
• Over selling is unneeded for an audience that’s already engaged.

The Future:

• Make sure your ‘behind the scenes’ video really takes us behind the scenes, because there are plenty of people that want to know more than just what a film set looks like.

Bosch Performance Art

The post Bosch Doesn’t Go Far Enough ‘Behind The Scenes’ appeared first on The Future of Ads.

Toshiba’s upscaling technology takes standard definition content and transforms it into near high definition quality.

The ides is that upscaling will “take anything you watch and make it astonishing”, so Toshiba needed to create an ad that would explain that concept in less than a minute. In short, they too needed something astonishing.

What they came up with was the concept of a “Timesculpture” where, through a combination of time shifting, clever camera work and post production magic, a ballet of movement is created that looks like the world through the eyes of a DJ:

The ad is beautiful, imaginative, unexpected and engaging, and goes beyond advertising and into the world of art.

Why would a company create art when it’s trying to sell you technology?

Because beautiful, imaginative, unexpected and engaging art tells a story that you want to revisit; it creates questions that you want to answer; and it draws you back in for more. Art can be appreciated independently of the message, and the ‘making of’ can become an ad in its own right:

Sure, it takes 2.9 million individual renamed frames, 20,000 gigabytes of material, 200 cameras and countless hours of editing, but when millions of people actively seek out your commercials to find out more about them, you’ve reached your audience on an entirely new level, and can call your campaign a definite success.

The Good:

• Timesculpture is so unique that it needs a ‘making of’ to explain the process.
• Audience seeks out the additional content.
• Subtle nuances mean the ad doesn’t quickly grow stale.

The Bad:

• High production costs.
• The ‘making of’ tactic only works if the audience really likes the ad.

The Future:

• Commercials become art, and the story behind the commercial becomes the commercial.

Toshiba – Upscaling

The post The Making Of A Commercial Becomes A Commercial appeared first on The Future of Ads.

Though more branded and less exclusive than Tabbloid, HP’s customized Skinit portal is another example of their ‘added value application’ approach to advertising.

Skinit is a service that allows you to personalize just about any tech device with a ‘skin that reflects your tastes and passions’. HP’s Skinit site allows their users to personalize their HP computers, iPAQs or notebooks with custom skins, but HP was also careful to add other, non-HP products as well, making it a one-stop shop for all of your skinning needs.

Stumbled across the HP Skinit site, but don’t have an HP product to skin?

Not a problem. You can order up ‘generic’ sizes for 12, 15 and 17-inch laptops, slap a skin on your Zune, or even cover your iPhone without ever leaving the site.

Need a skin for your HP laptop, but also want to cover your Sidekick while you’re at it?

Again, HP’s got you covered. Whether you’re using HP, T-Mobile, or even Apple to live your digital life, HP will gladly serve as your digital life provider, because they know that being the ‘cool’ company pays dividends down the road.

It’s All About Perception

HP knows that if they can provide you with a good user experience that serves your needs and doesn’t scream their branding at you the entire time, you’re more likely to look at HP products as an option when the next buying decision rolls around.

In addition, Skinit allows HP to partner with other ‘cool’ companies, such as MTV, the American Breast Cancer Foundation, and even colleges, sports teams and the military to create designs that fit everyone’s own personal style.

Plus, if you’re the type that likes to take personalization to the next level, then HP’s Skinit will even allow you to upload your own photos and skin any products with a look all your own. It’s your digital life to the nth degree, and HP wants to be there with you along the way.

Don’t Forget Extension

In addition to the direct benefits of having a Skinit portal, HP is also able to use Skinit to tie in other advertising campaigns that they’re running for a more holistic approach to the consumer.

One example of this is their HP Holiday Cheer campaign, which they launched on Twitter with the following message:

Just a few short hours later, and thanks in large part to the Skinit giveaway, they had more than their desired amount of Twitter followers, and the @HPHolidayCheer campaign was off and running.

Had they limited their Skinit store to just HP products, they would not have been able to entice anyone other than existing HP customers with the offer of a free skin, but by opening up to any and all users, HP can reach out to non-customers too and expose them to the HP brand in a very non-advertisey way. Suddenly, users start noticing that HP is behind all the ‘cool’ programs that they’ve been using lately like Tabbloid and Skinit, and they form positive impressions of HP before even purchasing a product.

Sure, there’s always risk involved when you run a campaign that other companies can get exposure from, but if your messaging is clear and you provide enough value to the community in general, the overall ‘goodness’ of the campaign will show through, and if nothing else, your brand will get a positive boost with a strength that few other advertising techniques can deliver.

The Good:

• Non-branded products allow non-customers to participate.
• Provides an additional tool for other campaigns.
• Great branding opportunity by being the ‘cool’ company.

The Bad:

• Message can get diluted by competition.
• Non-HP product options are still too hidden, and should be highlighted.

The Future:

• Added Value Applications allow companies to interact with customers and non-customers alike, growing their brand and providing value to the larger community.

Skinit

The post Skinit Helps HP Attract New Customers appeared first on The Future of Ads.

Magpie calls itself the “Ad Network for Twitter”, and has definitely caused quite a stir in the last few days as Twitter users debate the value of filling their tweet stream with ads in exchange for a few dollars on the side. But is this ‘in the stream’ advertising the future, or will users revolt against an ad network that treads on their sacred ground?

For those unfamiliar with Magpie, it works like this:

Advertisers buy ads for certain keywords, and create specific messages targeted to those keywords. Magpie then matches those ads to Twitter users that talk about each keyword, and automatically inserts an ad into one out of every X number of tweets, as dictated by the user. Costs are automatically calculated based on the # of followers the user has, as well as the ‘hotness’ of the keyword, and then the ads are systematically blended right into the message stream of the Magpie user/publisher.

Enticed by the prospect of turning my Twitter account into a revenue generator, I too signed up for Magpie and let it post a sample ad into my stream, at which point I reconsidered the decision, thought about what Magpie could turn Twitter into, and quickly canceled my Magpie account.

There are a few reasons why I’m not a fan of Magpie:

1. If adoption of Magpie grows, the annoyance factor grows exponentially. If one of the people you follow on Twitter uses Magpie, it’s pretty easy to ignore the occasional tweet that’s proceeded with #magpie. (To their credit, Magpie does require full disclosure at the start of any Magpie tweet.) However, if more and more people start to use the service, you have to spend more and more time weeding through ads to get to actual tweets from the people you follow.

Think about this: If Twitter had enabled this from the start as their business model, and used the default settings that Magpie uses, 20% of Twitter’s content would be advertising. Do you think Twitter would be as popular as it is today if 20% of every user’s time on Twitter was spent looking at ads?

2. Twitter is conversation. Blogs have ads because the blogger is spending their time to craft quality content that provides a value to the reader. In exchange, they show advertising to the reader, and earn money from the views or clicks that advertising generates. The blogger is getting paid for their hard work, and the reader is trading their value to the advertiser for free content. It’s one-way communication between a writer and his or her readers, and advertising is an accepted part of most types of one-way communication.

Twitter is different. Twitter is two-way communication, and closely mirrors the way that we interact in real life. If a blog is like a magazine, then Twitter is like a conversation between you and a friend, or you and a group of friends. Now imagine if one out of every six things one of your friends said was an advertisement for a company that they didn’t necessarily believe in. Sure, they might talk a lot about beer, and you might consider them a source of valuable information about beer, but if they spent a given percentage of their time talking about a beer made by the highest bidder, and automatically inserted those random facts into a pre-programmed part of the conversation, there’s a good chance you wouldn’t be friends with them for very long.

In addition, there’s no need to get paid for using Twitter. Unless you’re writing a story 140 characters at a time or publishing ‘tips of the day’, Twitter is as much about receiving value as it is about giving. The value of using Twitter is in the relationships that you make and keep, the up to the minute news that you receive from your contacts, and the ‘water cooler’ environment that Twitter fosters, not the few dollars that you could make by spamming your network.

3. Magpie pretends to be endorsement marketing, but is really just mindless shilling. If a Twitter user wants to recommend a product that they use to their Twitter network, then their network values that recommendation because the source acts as a filter, and passes along quality products that they think others would get use of as well.

With Magpie however, the source is providing an advertisement for a company that they may have never used or even heard of. Unlike a banner ad on a blog, which stands outside of the regular content, and is understood as being untested by the source unless it’s explicitly stated otherwise, Magpie messages are ‘blended’ into the message stream, and are often worded to read like an endorsement. Except for the “#magpie” tag that precedes all Magpie advertisements, the message looks like any other message, and is therefore much harder to filter.

To see if I was the only one that felt this way about Magpie, I did a little Twitter searching to find out what others in the Twitter world think about the service. After weeding through the Magpie ads, here’s a sampling of what I came up with:

Not too positive, eh?

Sure, it’s the dream of every marketer to have people endorsing their product directly to friends and family, but when those endorsements turn into unfounded annoyances, the tables can quickly turn, and an advertising campaign can turn into a spam factory that users will actively avoid.

The Good:

• Public conversations allow advertisers to accurately target an intended and relevant audience.

The Bad:

• Magpie interrupts the natural flow of Twitter too frequently.
• Magpie pretends to be endorsement marketing, but is really just mindless shilling.
• Magpie turns Twitter into a spam factory.

The Future:

• Companies find active users of their products through public conversations, and allow those users to directly recommend products to their contacts in unobtrusive and natural ways.

Magpie

The post Magpie Tries To Make Twitter An Ad Network, Fails appeared first on The Future of Ads.

Nintendo’s new YouTube ad for Wario Land: Shake It is a fantastic example of how to grab a viewer’s attention, create replay value, and ensure pass-along by using the element of surprise.

YouTube is the most popular video portal online, and because of this, we’re all used to how it looks, works and functions. When you first arrive at the experiencewii channel on YouTube, nothing looks out of the ordinary, and the video begins to play like usual, giving you no clues as to what’s about to happen.

However, after a few seconds, the hands in the video shake the controller, and the video starts to shake a little bit as well. Perhaps you don’t even notice the first time the video shakes, or you brush it off as just your imagination, but you don’t want to look away in case it happens again. Then, when Wario grabs a bag and starts to shake it, coins come spewing out of the video window and cover the page, and you suddenly know that this isn’t going to be a typical YouTube experience.

Because of these subtle yet significant changes to a site that we’re all familiar with, the ad has grabbed your attention and probably caused you to continue watching it just to see if there’s anything else that’s going to change.

And sure enough, there is. Suddenly the whole screen starts shaking, and the different buttons and bars and controls of YouTube are flying in every direction. When it’s finally done, the screen is in shambles, and what you’re left with is a simple text ad for Wario Land: Shake It, and the rubble of YouTube below.

Next, you probably clicked “Shake it up again”, and maybe even sent it to a friend so that they could be tricked by the same ad that tricked you. Replay and pass-along are sure to be high with an ad like this.

Nintendo didn’t just create a movie though. Instead, they went the extra mile and made each element function like normal in its new location.

Want to favorite the video?

No problem; the favorite button still works.

Because of this, you are invited to click and drag elements around within the page, and each element reacts with the others using real physics, which means they’ve got you interacting with the site, and are one step closer to clicking on the ad and continuing through to their landing page.

The Good:

• Unexpected changes to familiar environments grab viewer’s attention.
• Replay and pass-along almost guaranteed.
• Appeals to a broad demographic.

The Bad:

• Large file size means slow load times for some users.

The Future:

• Use surprise to grab and hold viewer’s attention.

YouTube – ExperienceWii

The post Nintendo Shakes Up YouTube With Wario Land Ad appeared first on The Future of Ads.