Advertising should stimulate debate. Where do you stand?
New Economist poster campaign asks provocative questions that are harder to answer than you think
This week The Economist announced a new campaign, “Where do you stand?” The campaign poses provocative statements on posters: Prisoners should/should not be allowed to vote. Drugs should/should not be legalized. Trading human organs should/should not be allowed.
Each poster includes a few key facts around each issue that make committing a lot harder than you might initially think. For example, in favor of selling human organs it declares:
There is a desperate shortage of organs. Around 1000 people die each year in Britain waiting for a transplant.
In 1988, Iran changed the law to allow people to sell their kidneys. Within three years, the country no longer had a waiting list for kidney transplants.
Banning the sale of organs drives the trade underground. That makes transplants riskier for both donors and recipients.
It then asks you to text your answer to the designated number in return for a free copy of The Economist. Presumably the magazine will aggregate answers and publish results.
In many ways the new campaign is brilliant. It demonstrates the thought provoking nature of The Economist, turns you into a participant rather than a reader, and gets you to actually think in the process.
While the posters primary call to action is to text your answers, it’s also cool that the magazine has created a new Facebook page where the debate can take place on line.
(Note that I have modified this post from the original. When I had initially checked The Economist Facebook page there was no mention of the campaign. Nor did it appear on their site. But shortly after this post went live, suggesting that The Economist had missed an opportunity by not extending the conversation to Facebook and elsewhere, I received a note from Jamie Credland, a marketer for The Economist who corrected me. Gotta love social media.)
For sure this campaign belongs on places like Facebook and Twitter, or even better on Livefyre, where it could benefit from a focused debate. It appears that Jamie and his colleagues get that.
If the initial news announcement in The Guardian is correct, the campaign runs for a mere two weeks. I find that a bit perplexing as it seems this is an idea with a much longer life.
But on the positive side we have a traditional medium and an advertiser that realizes a reader isn’t simply a reader but a participant, content generator and distribution channel. I’m willing to bet that The Economist will see the debate and dialog continue long after the posters come down and that this will not only be the beginning of another great campaign from the magazine that brought us the great red and white posters of the past, it may be something we see copied elsewhere.
So, is this the new advertising? Where do you stand?
Here are some links that I’ve been able to find so far. Perhaps there will be more to come from The Economist and its agency AMV BBDO. If you find out anything else, please share.
The posters in Campaign
Story in The Guardian
The agency behind it: AMV BBDO
Faris’s Blog: Talent Imitates, Genius Steals
Video promoting newspapers is more like a eulogy than a parody
I want to like this video. I really do. It’s a pitch-perfect parody of the new integrated social media campaign. A fictitious ad agency launches a fictitious car, the Zebra, with a cockamamie campaign that includes: opening an actual zoo; crowdsourcing its inhabitants; inviting consumers to engage via Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and other social networks; launching an online TV network called Zoo TV; and spreading viral memes in numerous physical environments before realizing the absurdity of the whole thing and deciding instead to run a print campaign. In newspapers.
If it weren’t so pathetic it would be hysterical. Here once again is another example of the newspaper industry — in this case the Swedish newspaper Dagens Industri — reminding us that it has failed miserably to convey the virtues of its medium to readers and advertisers. So in hopes of delaying its inevitable demise, and having nothing persuasive to proffer readers regarding its merits, it settles for a less than convincing swipe at the very media that are bringing newspapers to their knees.
This 1993 campaign for a fake beer demonstrated the power of newspapers 17 years ago
What’s interesting, for those of us who’ve been around a while, is that it’s also a bit derivative of the famous Neil French XO Beer campaign. In 1993, as an April Fools’ joke, and to prove the efficacy of newspaper advertising at the time, The Straits Times engaged French, who skillfully conceived a phony campaign for a beer that supposedly got you “pissed quicker than any other.” The purpose of the fake campaign was simply to demonstrate that newspaper ads worked. And in 1993 they worked pretty well. Ads like the one above, showing a guy in the men’s room passed out from drinking XO, generated so much interest in the beer that liquor stores had to fend off eager customers. When the campaign was revealed to be a hoax, it came with the claim that only newspaper advertising could create so much demand so quickly.
Unfortunately, the Zebra video, a modern version of the fake initiative, pales in comparison. Sour grapes don’t work quite as well as high alcohol content hops.
Last I checked people shopped for cars online
If the rate at which newspapers continue to shut down is any indication, recent campaigns — whether they criticize the competition (even with tongue in cheek) like the video above, or make declarations that are so far from believable they appear futile (like the ad to the left) — are completely and totally ineffective.
Meanwhile, the industry’s last remaining crutch, the Sunday circular, which generates significant revenue, isn’t long for this world either. As soon as retailers crack the digital code for how to replace this anachronistic marketing medium — and they’re all working on it, given that their customers spend more time online than in the pages of a newspaper — there will be even fewer reasons to advertise in newspapers.
Newspapers would be better off figuring out how to take what they do have to offer – quality content, reportage, celebrity reporters, objectivity, and a commitment to truth – and finding a way to make those qualities relevant.
Hey, here’s an idea. Perhaps the newspaper industry needs to embrace social media. Maybe it needs a campaign just like the one it made fun of in the Zebra video. Certainly wouldn’t be worse than what they’ve been doing, which from what I can tell is basically nothing more than praying.
The Kindle, the iPad and the defensive bookseller
Nearly 60 percent of independent bookstores have closed in the last 10 years.
I stopped in at my local bookseller today to pick up a copy of Ian McEwan’s Solar. Despite owning a Kindle and an iPad, I still enjoy holding a real book, admiring perfectly kerned type (in this case a digital version of Bembo, originally designed by the Bolognese Renaissance type cutter Francesco Griffo) and feeling the pages as I turn them.
Plus, for some odd sentimental reason, I remain dedicated to supporting local bookstores in hopes that my loyalty will save our downtowns from yet another Starbucks, CVS or chain of some kind. (Yes, I know it’s a futile effort, but one has to try.)
I asked how business was and got “eh” for an answer. A reply that suggested the cash register definitely wasn’t getting enough of a workout.
Having just read a number of pieces about publishers’ recent negotiations with Amazon and Apple, having observed the jaw-dropping reaction of kids turning book pages on an iPad, and believing that it’s only a matter of time before a generation of digital natives grows up and introduces their kids to Make Way for Ducklings on a digital screen, I suggested that local bookstores, even those woven into the fabric of a community, were facing an uphill battle.
“Nah, books will never go away,” the manager responded a bit defensively. “I’ve tried the Kindle and it’s just not the same.”
I asked if he’d experienced books on an iPad but he hadn’t. “Well you should see what it’s like to turn pages on that device,” I replied. “It’s pretty cool.”
“Maybe, but I still don’t think books will go away. We have parents in here all the time introducing their children to books. The tradition won’t die.”
Not one to pass up a good debate, I suggested that was only because most parents were probably over 35, and digital or not, they grew up with books as their primary medium for reading.
“But what happens when everyone under 25 reaches parenting age, having consumed most of their media on a screen, and introduces their kids to digital books, complete with interactive games, mixed media, sound and more?” I asked.
“I don’t know, but I still don’t think books will go away.”
The manager uttered that same sentence, unconvincingly I might add, at least four times during our conversation. But never once could he back it up with any reasons as to why he might be right.
The assumption held by the bookstore manager — that physical books, along with their most dedicated advocates, the local bookseller were too important to disappear — reminded me of Clay Shirky’s recent SxSW talk about abundance breaking more things than scarcity.
Shirky is fond of telling the tale of how 15th century scribes, honored and revered for their rare skills, were instantly made obsolete by the printing press. If Amazon and its Kindle along with Apple and the iPad aren’t the epitome of abundance today, then I don’t know what is.
The sad thing for books and local bookstores is that they’re both victims of a publishing industry that remains hopelessly archaic. As I reminded my bookseller, I’ve probably bought 50 Knopf titles in the last 10 years, yet the publisher has no idea who I am, what I read, the volume of books I consume, or what’s on my library shelves.
Amazon on the other hand knows a lot. As does Apple and iTunes. Enough to make recommendations, add my information to their clouds of content, and even predict my future consumption. Meanwhile publishers think that bookstores, rather than readers, are their customers.
If you read between the lines of Ken Auletta’s New Yorker piece this week, publishers are as defensive as my local bookstore. They believe that their talent –for identifying, nurturing, and supporting those needy authors who have to be constantly encouraged and coddled in order to finish a book — is indispensable.
But what’s stopping Amazon from hiring the best editors themselves, signing authors to better contracts, and taking publishers right out of the picture? I wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon eventually puts both publishers and bookstores out of business while the two insular industries are busy proclaiming their invincibility instead of pursuing innovation.
Ironic to think that booksellers and publishers — both of whom are literate, intelligent, and well-read — can be so good at seeing the writing on the page and so bad at seeing the writing on the wall.
I hope that physical books and the local bookstore are around for a long time. But I’m putting my money on Amazon and Apple. What about you?
Huffington Post’s Twitter edition: an idea worth stealing
Huffington Post's Twitter Edition offers lists you can follow
Last week Huffington Post rolled out its Twitter edition. Media, Politics, Business and Technology now have their own individual Twitter pages, each featuring a list of “notable tweeters.” Politics offers you national reporters and pundits. Media serves up personalities and media watchers. Business presents readers with insiders and analysts. The lists, aggregated by Huff Post, make it easy for you discover and follow a person, or grab an entire list.
For me there are a couple things worth noting. One, Twitter is rapidly becoming a serious business tool. It’s the new means of spreading and sharing content not only for individuals, but businesses and media channels. Two, Huffington Post’s beta experiment is a perfect model for any marketer or brand to emulate.
Consider that none of us can buy share of voice anymore (the Internet is infinite); that consumers and communities prefer to connect with real people rather than logos (think Zappos, Martha Stewart or even Gary Vaynerchuk); and that everyone wants to create and participate (that includes many of your employees); and it seems this is an ideal opportunity for any company.
Twenty five percent of all Twitter users follow brands, nearly 23 percent in anticipation of useful content.
Last November this Razorfish study concluded that while most people fan or follow a brand in hopes of receiving an offer, nearly 23 percent do so in anticipation of relevant content and information. Think about that. On the web, in social media, your product is not only the content you create, but the content you share.
Sure you can blog, carefully tag your bookmarks and make them available, but why not do a version of what Huffington Post did? Curate or aggregate relevant streams of Twitter content – from employees, customers, or suppliers – and make them easily accessible to your community.
You can categorize them. Organize them by subject. Even track how many people follow the lists, giving you a sense of whether or not you’re offering useful, RT-able content.
Think about how you use Twitter yourself – as the ideal filtering system to find content and links that make you smarter, save you time, and connect you to new people worth knowing. Doing the same for your community and customers could be a valuable service worth offering. As Clay Shirky once said, the problem isn’t that we have too much information, it’s that we need better filtering systems. Why not create one?
A social media presentation with a barcode attached
The Eisner is one of the only museums dedicated to advertising
This Thursday, March 25th, I have the privilege of speaking to the Milwaukee Ad Workers, United 208. The event will be held at the Eisner Museum, which is pretty cool. It’s the only museum in America dedicated to advertising.
I plan on opening with a short video and the story behind it. (Remember how in the old days when you went to the movies you got a short?) I’ll share some of my own experiences, observations on consumer behavior and what I/we/Mullen have tried to do over the last year or so to stay current, become more digitally centric, and experiment in the social media space.
The fact is I don’t know any more than anyone else — especially in social-savvy Milwaukee, home of AJ Bombers who made the news for its Foursquare Swarm badge event – but since I spend a fair amount of time thinking about social media, trying stuff out and working with clients to get smarter, I’ve got a few stories and examples; some of them are from Mullen, many from all the other agencies leading the way.
Whenever you speak anywhere these days, you can expect non-stop tweets from the audience. If you want, you can capture the stream in real time, project it on a screen, follow what people are saying, and even respond right then and there. A little too much multi-tasking for me and perhaps more suited to a panel or a Q and A session.
I thought I’d try something different instead: assign a Stickybits barcode to my presentation. That way, rather than simply shooting off tweets, people can attach all kinds of bits: photos, comments, links, even audio bites. And we’ll have them preserved in the Stickybits archive, accessible long after the hashtag stream has disappeared from the search.twitter.com. One of my main points is how we all need to conceive ideas that generate content (by getting others to tell brand stories for us, or co-create them with us) and experiment constantly. So here’s an example of both. Whether it’s foolish or brilliant remains to be seen.
So, here you go. If you want, you can scan the above barcode right now, and add stuff to it on Thursday. Log onto stickybits.com for an account or download the iPhone app so you can scan it. Look forward to seeing, reading and hearing whatever you want to attach.
