Absolut has broken into the branded content game in a big way. I'm sure this isn't their first time -- but with big ticket names such as Jay-Z and Spike Jonze this surely stands out on its own. Overall, I think these are great, great films -- very authentic and original and I think they give the brand an aura of creativity, originality, and bigness. They clearly spent time and investments to create something of value to connect with their audience and grow their brand. Not only are these films of high quality, but they also are entertaining and make me want to tell other people about them. Also, not to quote Zoolander, but Jay-Z and Spike Jonze are at the top of their game right now and both had to work their way up from the bottom (selling drugs in one case and making skateboarding videos in the other). My only criticism (and I'm sure there are many from other viewers) is that they censored a curse in Jay-Z's film. I mean we're adults (and technically we have to be to watch these films and enjoy the product) so why bleep out the word shit or fuck. Even though its a minor thing I feel like that was the one point where they compromised the integrity of the effort...someone from PR or Marketing made the call that cursing in the film was bad for the brand...we'll what about all the people who get drunk off the product and do much worse. For me bleeping out the curse word in Jay-Z's film really ruined what would have otherwise been a brilliant coup for the brand and the marketing effort. Overall, I think Absolut produced a polished film and had a good vision for what they wanted to accomplish. I just wish they would have had the cojones to just follow through and let the motherfucker say what he wanted to say how we wanted to say it.
Anyways, you can see both videos here:
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Yup. This Guy.
I'm sure you've all seen this already, but if not take a moment to:
There are a lot of people that love it and find it powerful and intense, and a lot of people that don't and think its shallow, contrived and disappointing. I fall into the first group. I think that its smart and a great move by Nike/Weiden+Kennedy. There are few criticisms of the spot:
1. Nike's promotion of an individual versus a product crosses the line of traditional advertising
2. The use of his fathers voice (post-mortem) is shallow and self-serving on both the part of Tiger and Nike
3. The speed of which this was released shows that Tiger is not remorseful and has prioritized his career/image over his family
And, while that might be true, I think its being looked at from the wrong perspective. From a business perspective, Nike is invested in Tiger. His success as a golfer impacts their success in the golf vertical. It also proves that Nike didn't just use Tiger in the way that other advertisers did (Accenture, Gatorade, etc.). Nike didn't drop Tiger when times got bad...and what does that say about an advertiser that's so quick to drop someone for their faults. What I love about Nike is that they stand for something; right or wrong they stand for something and are willing to put their reputation on the line for it. If you love them for it or hate them for it, it doesn't matter because you'll still respect them for sticking to their guns. And at the end of the day they are still one of the only brands left that not only respect their consumers enough to appeal to them on an emotional level, but still create quality products.
I also think that the use of his fathers voice was really intense, emotional and powerful (not to mention the flash of lights towards the end). I think it really shows the dichotomy of his situation and how he not only has to endure private tribulations, but public ones as well. I understand that his father passed away and that people may think that using his fathers voice to extend his own career is shallow, but at the same time Tiger is a broken man (whether he deserved it or not) and he's just doing what he can to show his remorse (for better or worse).
Additionally, while I will agree that he quickly came back to golf and the public eye, I think it was the right thing to do. We are too forgiving sometimes. We let people hide away behind rehab and psychiatry and yoga and buddhism and whatever other forms of therapy there are. Then after a period of time they emerge and find success all over again (how many athletes, musicians, actors, politicians have done this before). And after a while they are forgiven. And as for their mistakes? Mere blips in an otherwise successful career of a person who faced hardships and climbed his/her way back to the top -- they are again praised. I'm sure not all cases are this linear, but they've happened before. What I love about Tiger is that he's not hiding. He's immersing himself in the one thing he can: golf. So let him focus on that while he's figuring out everything else. Let him channel his guilt, anger, embarrassment, failure into the game that he built his name on.
Often times we neglect to recognize that we are human beings and as human beings we are susceptible to vices -- we all have them. No one is perfect -- I mean we don't all have numerous affairs with strippers, but we all have vices. I think its time we embrace this fact and not pretend that we're all perfect beings. I think Nike and Weiden+Kennedy are on to that.
There are a lot of people that love it and find it powerful and intense, and a lot of people that don't and think its shallow, contrived and disappointing. I fall into the first group. I think that its smart and a great move by Nike/Weiden+Kennedy. There are few criticisms of the spot:
1. Nike's promotion of an individual versus a product crosses the line of traditional advertising
2. The use of his fathers voice (post-mortem) is shallow and self-serving on both the part of Tiger and Nike
3. The speed of which this was released shows that Tiger is not remorseful and has prioritized his career/image over his family
And, while that might be true, I think its being looked at from the wrong perspective. From a business perspective, Nike is invested in Tiger. His success as a golfer impacts their success in the golf vertical. It also proves that Nike didn't just use Tiger in the way that other advertisers did (Accenture, Gatorade, etc.). Nike didn't drop Tiger when times got bad...and what does that say about an advertiser that's so quick to drop someone for their faults. What I love about Nike is that they stand for something; right or wrong they stand for something and are willing to put their reputation on the line for it. If you love them for it or hate them for it, it doesn't matter because you'll still respect them for sticking to their guns. And at the end of the day they are still one of the only brands left that not only respect their consumers enough to appeal to them on an emotional level, but still create quality products.
I also think that the use of his fathers voice was really intense, emotional and powerful (not to mention the flash of lights towards the end). I think it really shows the dichotomy of his situation and how he not only has to endure private tribulations, but public ones as well. I understand that his father passed away and that people may think that using his fathers voice to extend his own career is shallow, but at the same time Tiger is a broken man (whether he deserved it or not) and he's just doing what he can to show his remorse (for better or worse).
Additionally, while I will agree that he quickly came back to golf and the public eye, I think it was the right thing to do. We are too forgiving sometimes. We let people hide away behind rehab and psychiatry and yoga and buddhism and whatever other forms of therapy there are. Then after a period of time they emerge and find success all over again (how many athletes, musicians, actors, politicians have done this before). And after a while they are forgiven. And as for their mistakes? Mere blips in an otherwise successful career of a person who faced hardships and climbed his/her way back to the top -- they are again praised. I'm sure not all cases are this linear, but they've happened before. What I love about Tiger is that he's not hiding. He's immersing himself in the one thing he can: golf. So let him focus on that while he's figuring out everything else. Let him channel his guilt, anger, embarrassment, failure into the game that he built his name on.
Often times we neglect to recognize that we are human beings and as human beings we are susceptible to vices -- we all have them. No one is perfect -- I mean we don't all have numerous affairs with strippers, but we all have vices. I think its time we embrace this fact and not pretend that we're all perfect beings. I think Nike and Weiden+Kennedy are on to that.
Monday, February 1, 2010
How Far We've Come...
Augmented (hyper)Reality: Domestic Robocop from Keiichi Matsuda on Vimeo.
Directors note: "The latter half of the 20th century saw the built environment merged with media space, and architecture taking on new roles related to branding, image and consumerism. Augmented reality may recontextualise the functions of consumerism and architecture, and change in the way in which we operate within it.
A film produced for my final year Masters in Architecture, part of a larger project about the social and architectural consequences of new media and augmented reality."
OR HAVE WE...
Johnny Mnemonic VR Scene from Zalán Reiter on Vimeo.
The VR scene from Johnny Mnemonic, featuring Keanu Reeves and the Sogo-7 data glove.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Big 2-9
Man, my twenties are flying by. Tomorrow I'm turning 29. The penultimate. The last hoorah. It's not all wine and pain killers though. I actually don't feel that old. I'm not that old. I don't think I'm that old at least.
UPDATE: Ran my first half-marathon of the year on 1/24 (The Manhattan Half-marathon in Central Park, NYC)
Anyhow, I started this blog when I was 27. 27 was one of the biggest years of my life -- it encapsulated the bad and the good. I won't go into the gory details, but thought it appropriate to provide a quick run-through. Here's a summary of my life from 27:
1. Visit to family in Uruguay (with a stop over in Buenos Aires)
2. Met the love of my life
3. Changed careers (same industry, so more a shift in focus)
4. Ran the NYC Marathon
5. Long weekend in Nantucket
6. Mid-night run on New Years eve
7. Maine Half-Marathon
8. Sky diving in New Paltz
9. Built to Spill live
10. Moved to the Upper West Siiiide
11. Needed escape to USVI
12. Summer BBQs in Long Island
13. SOHO House Weekend stay-cation (good times)
29, although you suck, I'll make the most of you. Already have a few things lined up and some targets to hit. And I still have my eye on the western frontier god damnit. See you there.
UPDATE: Ran my first half-marathon of the year on 1/24 (The Manhattan Half-marathon in Central Park, NYC)
Monday, January 4, 2010
2010 All Over Again
Hearst Unveils Skiff E-reader.
I feel like we've been here before. Like back in 2007 when the industry went crazy and bought anything that was digital: Publicis purchased Digitas, Microsoft purchased a Quantive, Google purchased DoubleClick, WPP purchased 24/7 Real Media. There was a race to "own" digital; to be the leader in digital. The goal was to secure a future and win business in a changing advertising landscape. And some of the buys just didn't even make sense. I get that Microsoft had to buy Avenue A/Razorfish in order to buy Atlas, but it was still an awkward buy and a bit of a conflict of interest. The same goes for WPP purchasing 24/7 Real Media. I'm still not sure why they did that and what they're planning on doing with it (have they done anything with it?)
Well we're seeing this all over again with the race to be the best e-reader. Still, is there a conflict of interest when a publisher creates an e-reader? It might be the best and most usable, but will they support non-Hearst media? There are a lot of questions about this move and time will tell (although we won't have to wait too long...these days it only takes a few weeks before we know if somethings a hit or a bust).
In 2009 alone we saw the introduction of 10+ e-readers from the Kindle to the Nook to the Papyrus and now the Skiff (is that the name of this thing?).
We've been told that history repeats itself...coming out of the 2007 free for all we saw some winners in Publicis and Google. In 2010 we'll have to see who emerges as the winner of the e-reader. Oh, and let's not forget about Apple's highly anticipated Tablet...
Here's a fun video. Great work by Berg London:
Monday, November 30, 2009
Like a Prius, except with people
I must say this doesn't surprise me. Actually, I think it makes complete sense.
Along with all the other changes that are/will/have been happening to agencies, I believe you'll see more hybrid roles. This is an example of planner/creative hybrid, but what about analytics/account or account/media or media/analytics or account/project management. I personally see waste in having a account manager, project manager, creative director, media planner, analyst and account planner. Instead of cutting costs by charging less and having smaller margins, why don't agencies embrace more hybrid roles and charge slightly MORE per hour for each person. It will still be less than charging the client and paying salary for two people and in the end you'll have a higher revenue to employee ratio.
SEE full article here.
Along with all the other changes that are/will/have been happening to agencies, I believe you'll see more hybrid roles. This is an example of planner/creative hybrid, but what about analytics/account or account/media or media/analytics or account/project management. I personally see waste in having a account manager, project manager, creative director, media planner, analyst and account planner. Instead of cutting costs by charging less and having smaller margins, why don't agencies embrace more hybrid roles and charge slightly MORE per hour for each person. It will still be less than charging the client and paying salary for two people and in the end you'll have a higher revenue to employee ratio.
SEE full article here.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Cheap Content on the Fly
I recently read an article in the latest issue of Wired that was predictive of the direction online content production and distribution is heading. It was called "A fiendishly clever startup knows what we are Googling - then churns out thousands of cheap videos and articles to meet our every whim and wish: The Answer Factory" The title pretty much sums up the article: a media company is using algorithms to identify what people are searching for, then determines the profitablity for that query and ultimately bids out production work to freelancers, fact checkers, editors and bloggers to produce the content and publish it to their distribution platform.
What's interesting about this method is that its all predicated upon the long tail theory (coincidentally first mentioned by Wired EIC Chris Anderson). Because they filter all queries through a LTV process whereby they determine the profitability of each query based on competition and search volume most of their content relies on long tail search queries, such as Where Can I Donate a Car in Dallas?, How To Make a Breakfast Nook Out Of A Church Pew, or How To Draw A Greek Helmet? Once they determine the topic they bid it out to freelancers who could make up to $20 per video clip or $15 per article. Apparently the emphasis here isn't to provide high-quality content but to develop answers to questions people have and make money from it. It's the answer to Google. And so far it has done what its supposed to do: provide answers to some of the most common questions people have as soon as they have it. The quality of content is not a top priority either. Clearly there are some competitors to Demand Media who place a high value on quality, but for now the key to this model is to create the right content, have it appear at the right time and make money off of it.
So whats in it for content producers? No idea. $20 bucks per video probably doesn't even pay for the gas these videographers pay to drive from location to location, but in this economy I guess its better than nothing. And on top of that Demand has some aggressive goals -- upwards of 1,000,000 videos produced per month. Demands CEO (of former Myspace fame) Richard Rosenblatt's strategy has apparently been working. Not only is Demand projected to bring in $200 million in revenue this year (source Wired.com), but his aggressive production of video content has him enlisted as an informal consultant/partner to Google, where Demand already provides over 17,000 videos to Youtube (more than twice the content of CBS, AP, Al Jazeera, UMG and a few others combined). Rosenblatt has already been compared to Henry Ford for the digital era in terms of his video production efficiency, but more interesting to me is the tolerance of online viewers to accept low grade content. Clearly there is a behavior here that is different from traditional video consumption on TV and in theaters, where you can have poor content, but high quality. Online it seams the priority is reversed where content outweighs production value.
RELATED (in same issue of Wired): Ray Tintori DIY music videos for MGMT. New director getting praise from none other than Spike Jonze who's familiar with this method of content production - see Video Days (props to the version of Passing Me By by Pharcyde).
UPDATE: just after posting this article I came across this article from the NY Times about the fall and rise of media called The Fall and Rise of Media. In it is a reference to Demand Media: "Where do all the burgeoning pixels come from? Everywhere, and cheap at that. An outfit called Demand Media now tests headlines for reader salience and cranks out thousands of articles and videos daily that it pays about $20 apiece for."
Defnitely keep an eye on this company and trend...cheap content churned out fast based on real-time search query data from Google and other leading engines.
What's interesting about this method is that its all predicated upon the long tail theory (coincidentally first mentioned by Wired EIC Chris Anderson). Because they filter all queries through a LTV process whereby they determine the profitability of each query based on competition and search volume most of their content relies on long tail search queries, such as Where Can I Donate a Car in Dallas?, How To Make a Breakfast Nook Out Of A Church Pew, or How To Draw A Greek Helmet? Once they determine the topic they bid it out to freelancers who could make up to $20 per video clip or $15 per article. Apparently the emphasis here isn't to provide high-quality content but to develop answers to questions people have and make money from it. It's the answer to Google. And so far it has done what its supposed to do: provide answers to some of the most common questions people have as soon as they have it. The quality of content is not a top priority either. Clearly there are some competitors to Demand Media who place a high value on quality, but for now the key to this model is to create the right content, have it appear at the right time and make money off of it.
So whats in it for content producers? No idea. $20 bucks per video probably doesn't even pay for the gas these videographers pay to drive from location to location, but in this economy I guess its better than nothing. And on top of that Demand has some aggressive goals -- upwards of 1,000,000 videos produced per month. Demands CEO (of former Myspace fame) Richard Rosenblatt's strategy has apparently been working. Not only is Demand projected to bring in $200 million in revenue this year (source Wired.com), but his aggressive production of video content has him enlisted as an informal consultant/partner to Google, where Demand already provides over 17,000 videos to Youtube (more than twice the content of CBS, AP, Al Jazeera, UMG and a few others combined). Rosenblatt has already been compared to Henry Ford for the digital era in terms of his video production efficiency, but more interesting to me is the tolerance of online viewers to accept low grade content. Clearly there is a behavior here that is different from traditional video consumption on TV and in theaters, where you can have poor content, but high quality. Online it seams the priority is reversed where content outweighs production value.
RELATED (in same issue of Wired): Ray Tintori DIY music videos for MGMT. New director getting praise from none other than Spike Jonze who's familiar with this method of content production - see Video Days (props to the version of Passing Me By by Pharcyde).
UPDATE: just after posting this article I came across this article from the NY Times about the fall and rise of media called The Fall and Rise of Media. In it is a reference to Demand Media: "Where do all the burgeoning pixels come from? Everywhere, and cheap at that. An outfit called Demand Media now tests headlines for reader salience and cranks out thousands of articles and videos daily that it pays about $20 apiece for."
Defnitely keep an eye on this company and trend...cheap content churned out fast based on real-time search query data from Google and other leading engines.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The New Agency Model: Being a Movie Studio
Well, maybe not, but it does seem to be a new trend amongst agencies these days. Also, it makes sense to diversify in this way, especially with clients looking for more and more efficiencies (see recent adage article), with less offline production dollars coming in the door, and more smaller agencies stealing business away from larger global agencies (see another recent adage article). Here are some good examples of what I'm talking about:
Somers Town by Mother London
It's not like this is brand new...I think WK Entertainment has been around since 2001 and how can you forget about Fallon and BMW Films, but when smaller shops start to get in the game you have to think about what this means. I think it all comes back to cost efficiencies: why pay bigger studios to produce work when you can have an agency, with the same pool of talent and resources do it for much cheaper. You can still sell advertising against it for the same cost and with the higher visibility of film festivals these days, such as Sundance, Cannes or Tribeca, you can generate a lot of enthusiasm and grass roots support. There's also the opportunity to create more impact with your target audience considering they are paying for or choosing to watch the film instead of being interrupted by ads.
1. Avec Eric co-produced by Anomaly (see Reuters article)
2. Somers Town by Mother London (see Campaign article)
3. Ginga by W+K Entertainment (see movie)
Somers Town by Mother London
It's not like this is brand new...I think WK Entertainment has been around since 2001 and how can you forget about Fallon and BMW Films, but when smaller shops start to get in the game you have to think about what this means. I think it all comes back to cost efficiencies: why pay bigger studios to produce work when you can have an agency, with the same pool of talent and resources do it for much cheaper. You can still sell advertising against it for the same cost and with the higher visibility of film festivals these days, such as Sundance, Cannes or Tribeca, you can generate a lot of enthusiasm and grass roots support. There's also the opportunity to create more impact with your target audience considering they are paying for or choosing to watch the film instead of being interrupted by ads.
UPDATE: just read about a new arm of Lowe called Lintas Production, which is slated to produce up to three feature films over the next three years
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A Little Thing I Did
Literally. It's a logo for Advertising Women of New York. Breaking my chops on the minor scale, but better to start small. Overall, I'm happy with how it came out (not crazy about the colors, but what can you do).
