Fine, I give in--thoughts on the Sprint Widget

I first heard about the Sprint widget a few days ago at about 2am from a Google alert (I'm a Goodby Silverstein and Partners fan and I have a GSP alert--no teasing please) and was excited to find a little late night entertainment. I regret to say, however, that my initial response wasn't much more than a shoulder shrug and I deleted the email. 

But since those early morning hours, I can't seem to stop finding people talking about it, so I'm breaking and joining the discussion.

In favor of the work, I think Mike Kellogg did a beautiful job and certainly made each tiny space a part of the experience, which ended up keeping me playing with the widget much longer than I would have expected to have done. And in favor of the strategy, it directly relates this idea of "now" to measurable and entertaining bits of information, even if they aren't actually accurate or are based on annual (or longer) averages instead of actual up-to-"now" updates.

But my frustration with the piece is that they were so close to bring their strategy to life, and yet they missed the opportunity.  As you all probably know by now, I'm a big fan of adding value to the consumers. Tweeting back and forth with Paul Isakson, we discussed how the widget was alright but would have been significantly cooler if the features were more useful, which brings us to the big missed opportunity: If it had more useful features that were up-to-the-minute, people would be more apt to want the product for on-the-go internet. This would take the idea of "This is Now" and make it much more relevant to the consumer and the product, supporting a much more direct path to sales. 

Some may argue that they didn't have to make it about the product, that reflecting the idea of instant needs and instant knowledge is enough to support the "This is Now" campaign, which in turn would drive the sales, but I think that both the sales and the widget experience would improve with more useful features on the widget. Besides, just using that insight can open you up to getting lost in the category; there are a number of tech products that could have been promoted using this widget, so Sprint should make sure they get the most out of this extensive project and do what they can to hit it outta the park.

Sponsored Video Streaming: Comfort Inn- Good Work

In the last post, I talked about how Prudential sponsored the entire program by placing the same commercial in each break, much to my chagrin. In stark contrast, I found that Comfort Inn took the same opportunity and did something great with it. 

In each break, Comfort Inn had a different 15 second commercial from their campaign, "Get Back to your Comfort Zone," so although I had the same brand offering the same medium each time, I got to see the strategy in a new scenario each time, as well as get entertained (god forbid!) And the best part is that the ads themselves are great, minus some bad acting. Each has a scene where a normal situation gets incredibly awkward. Then it follows up with the tag, "Get back to your comfort zone." One of the best parts about these ads is the fact that the tag line includes the name of the hotel as well as what it stands for as a brand (clearly the point in the naming, I know). It connects the funny ads to the brand and has an easily memorable brand promise. It's witty and it's simple. I like simple. Simple is good.

I only wish they would have had a micro-site where they extended this idea. If you get people entertained, you don't want to let them down. I looked for one but came up with nothing except a really boring and intimidating-looking reservation site.

I can't find the videos on youtube at this time. I'll be sure to post 'em if I find them.

Sponsored Video Streaming: Prudential.com

Again on abc.com, I found an incredibly uninspired "campaign" for prudential.com. With every break during the episode, I found myself watching the same 15-second spot. Never changing. No option to pause it and get just a link to the site. Just the same spot...over...and over...and over. It was frustrating, because not only was my show being interrupted, but the ad did nothing to distract me, and each repetition only increased my irritation.

It reminded me of what a cool opportunity sponsored video streaming presents. If one company sponsored a real-time television show, it'd be considered an innovative media buy, especially if done well. But consider this: you'd never buy all the print ads in a magazine and put the same ad over and over (unless you're Apple and you want the world to know you're nano-chromatic). You'd never buy all the commercials in a television show and put the same 30-second ad over and over. While HeadOn proved that annoyance can sometimes work to your benefit, it generally isn't considered a great move to annoy your viewers.

So get with it, Prudential, and either produce some more spots or get on some interactive.

Sponsored Video Streaming: Florida Orange Juice- Good Work

While watching an episode of Grey's Anatomy online on abc.com (I've recently discovered I'm a girl) I found one of the first great examples of sponsored videos. The episode was sponsored by Florida Orange Juice, starting off the episode with a 30-second commercial. Having been disappointed and annoyed in past viewing experiences, I quickly looked to see if there was a pause button, which I indeed found. Instead of the commercial, the screen was replaced with a "Fast Fact" about Florida OJ. I read it, and was surprised to find myself slightly interested--it had taught me something and thus had added value, not to mention the filling orange juice glass made a cute loading image while I waited.

At the next commercial "interruption," it had a game with one orange and three bins. You had to follow which bin the orange was in as they moved around the screen, and each time you got it right, it got harder. Before I realized it, two minutes had gone by and my video was more than ready to begin. I played one more round because I actually had fun with it and then continued to watch the show. The next break had statements about orange juice for which you could guess true or false. Again, I learned some interesting tidbits. The last break was a choose your own adventure story type game about starting your day with or without orange juice. 

The weirdest part about all of it though was that I actually wanted to participate with the brand, and despite the fact that a lot of it applied more to category than the brand, I still remembered it was Florida OJ. By entertaining me and teaching me, Florida Orange Juice not only got me thinking about their product but actually stole the show. When I finished the episode, abc.com gave me the choice to look at all the ads again, which I did use to go back to watch the first commercial I initially passed over and play another round of Find the Orange. 

Needless to say, my standards for sponsored videos greatly rose upon discovering this campaign. Unfortunately, the bad just seems worse now. Here's to hoping the ad community picks up on these kinds of successful campaigns.

Before it's terribly old news...

I read a post today in my Google Reader from the lovely ladies at Yaybia-- I admit I was a few days behind on my subscriptions. This post about the Starbucks give-away caught my attention because it was a great discussion of marketing from the price perspective and basic branding that pulled in so many things I've learned in school and beyond. And while I agree with many of the things Libby had to say and know that many of the ad community feel the same way, I wanted to throw my two bits into the pot.

Starbucks has always been a premium-price brand. We started using the price of coffee as a benchmark for how much money we spend. ("For the price of only four of your morning coffees, you could get a whole month of digital cable!") They raised the prices, and we complained. And yet as they lowered the prices, the ad community sang out "The alpha brand that was Starbucks is fading fast! They're pulling at straws by lowering their price now that McD's has cheap iced coffee! They're clearly losing it." I disagree. McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts are on a totally different price point, even after the price drops. And furthermore, as Libby points out, its unlikely that the same folks who used to drop into Starbucks every morning are now opting for some McDonald's cafe lattes. Though they seem to have missed the mark a bit with the random brand extensions with the breakfast foods and whatnot-- who wants to walk into a coffee shop expecting coffee and instead smelling omelets and bacon? Ew. --Starbucks ultimately has a brand experience that goes with the coffee (not to mention the whole status bit.) It's still the third space. It's still about the aesthetic. It's still about the music and the coffee and the feel. 

But the big to-do lately has been the coffee giveaway for voters. It seemed the ad community taunted them again with claims of losing their grip, but to me, it seemed a return to brand even if it didn't follow traditional pricing rules. Starbucks' brand personality includes music, philanthropy and politics--with the Ethos Water sold there and the distribution of Good Magazine and free music downloads, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think encouraging citizens to vote is a bad brand fit.

If anything, Starbucks found a way to be relevant again-- they recognized that the economy sucks and we're gonna love a little boost with some free coffee. They realized that getting out to vote was crucial for getting us out of this economic crisis (regardless of which candidate you thought was capable of doing so). Starbucks was there and I don't think we should have been surprised. And if I had more than $5 in my bank account (no, for real) I would go and buy myself a tasty hazelnut hot chocolate and curl up with a book at the Starbucks on Van Ness. Alas, instead I'll just have to stick to blogging about it and congratulate them on what I thought was a great move.

Well played, Starbucks. Cheers.

Google Image Labeler

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with branding, but I thought this was interesting. 

Google image is a great resource, but there's a number of ways it could be improved.  One piece that Google is addressing is the photo tags. To help give users better search results, they are improving the search tags through the Google Image Labeler. You and a randomly selected partner are paired up for two minutes and are given a number of images. You write as many tags as you find appropriate (with the exception of some "off-limit" tags that are more obvious). Once you and your partner come to the same conclusion for a tag, you get points-- the more specific the tag, the more points you get. After two minutes, you get a final score. 

I played a few times and had a good time, and I liked that I was helping Google help me. 

Good move on their part? Bad move? Lemme know what you think.

Sponsored Video Streaming: A Series

It's no secret that there have been quite a few growing pains within both the entertainment and advertising industries with the overwhelming increase in online video content. It seems that the entertainment industry has tried a number of solutions, from trying to shut down anyone sharing the content (and this goes all the way back to Napster), regulating the content by sharing it themselves, and finding ways of using it to their own financial benefit. This final solution has certainly been met with its own roadblocks (we all grimly remember the 14-week writer strike) but it seems the dust is finally starting to settle and some truces have been called.

Many of the major networks began streaming some of their shows online with full episode players, including ABC, Fox, The CW, CBS, and NBC. Not all were as quick onto the train, but now most channels offer their shows in this way. Some only have a few episodes, while others have entire series. Some require that you be a registered member, and others let you flit in and out at your pleasure. And MANY frustratingly only will show you previews and clips, driving you to your television, however begrudgingly.

More recently, Hulu came out as a new hub with sponsored content much like the network sites. 

Even more recently, CBS has decided to take this further by finding viewers where they already are. In a new partnership with YouTube, CBS is sharing full-length shows on the site with ads before, during, and after the videos, allowing both CBS and YouTube to cash in on the online viewing trend.

But what about Surf the Channel, Ninja Video, and all the sites these hubs collect their content from? The world may never know...

...but until then, there's a lot going on with these sponsored episodes. Some innovative, some boring, some downright maddening--it's time we look at what works, and what's gotta go.