Moshe Engelberg On Everything Marketing

So I open an e-mail from my sister that says this: Your friend Roz Becker sent you the following video from CNNBC: "Glenn Beck Attacks Moshe Engelberg." I click on the link and watch an incredibly well done video starring... me. Sort of.

The Huffington Post tells the story: MoveOn.org, in conjunction with SEIU and Brave New Films has put out a fake newscast (on the fake network CNNBC) in which the Fox News host goes through his usual moments of pique and emotional duress. Only this time, the subject of his conspiracy theories is the person signed in to watch the made-up video. And they show an example of the mock newscast.

As part of a marketing campaign, this approach has great promise. It personalized the video by using a Facebook interface that grabbed my photo and some friend's names to instantly create a fake newscast that was about me. Think about the possibilities for personalizing ads of all sorts. What a great way to increase the personal relevance of a product or service! Unbelievable.

Is this the beginning of Web 3.0??

In response to my prior post on the Census ad campaign, my in-the-know daughter Alyssa commented that some of the ads are directed by Christopher Guest (Best in Show, Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman), and feature his usual ensemble cast. You can watch them all on the Slash Film blog. Here's one example:

The marketing issue is this: Yes, the census targets everyone - by definition (all 300 million of us, as the ads point out!). But should the ad campaign? Or should the ads target those less likely to fill out their census forms? In other words, shoudl this be a niche campaign?

As always, the answers lies in the business objective. if the main goal is increasing general awareness that the census is coming and counts everyone, then this campaign can do a good job -- assuming that a broad audience "gets" Guest's quirky and satirical humor. If the goal is getting people who like sarcasm to laugh, the ads are great. But if the goal is to get the people who usually don't out the forms to do it, then I'm afraid the message is misplaced. 

My bottom line is assessing ad campaigns- and most any communication - is to ask what should people think, feel, and do, after watching the ad. So Christopher... what's the "do?"

BMW launched its U.S. campaign during the Winter Olympics with its "Joy" ads. Check out the 60 second spot:

Here's more detail from today's Marketing Daily. I thought BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" positioning and ad campaign was one of the best car campaigns of all time. It really showcased what was unique about the product and set BMW apart very effectively.

Not so much for the "Joy" campaign. I mean, joy is certainly a good thing. But it's not why people buy Beemers. Performance - that's why people buy them (and of course prestige for some). The attempt to connect performance with joy just doesn't cut IMHO. Not that it couldn't though.

I see this campaign as a well-intended "feel good" campaign that misses the mark. Soon sales will tell the story. What do you think?

TV ads for Orville Redenbacher's are popping up (pun intended!) on the Olympics. Many of the ads promise not good popcorn as the benefit of the gourmet popcorn, but bringing people together. Check out this "tea party" ad:

The ad closes saying: "Spending time together. That's the power of Orville Redenbacher's." When product ads connect through deeper shared experiences, they hit home. We don't just think about it, we feel it. And we all know that feelings and emotion is what drives most purchases, right?

The U.S. Census bureau is spending $133 million on on their 2010 campaign to get people to fill out and return their census forms. First ad I saw was during the Super Bowl and had some refreshing humor (for a government agency) and even a touch of "duh" style sarcasm. Now I'm seeing their ads in the Olympics coverage.

How do they justify high profile spending that kind of money in the current economy? They make a simple and effective ROI argument: The more people return their forms, the less money is needed for follow-up. Which means millions of dollars go back into local communities. Here's the Bureau's video overview of the campaign including a couple ad excerpts.

I'm glad to see the government using advertising this way. They appear to have a well-integrated marketing communications campaign going. Do the ads motivate you?

More to follow!

Google had one one of the best ads this Super Bowl- and it cost next to nothing to produce. The beauty of the ad was telling a love story in words- and in a way that shows the power of Google's search (and works for football fans!)

More and more, I believe "story" is one of the most effective marketing tools we have. While it's not always easy to tell a compelling story, when it works, people are engaged, immersing themselves in the story, and most importantly - connecting - on a personal and emotional level. And that kind of connection is priceless.

Many years ago, a study by OgilvyOne found that as much as 66% of brand preference is driven by emotional elements. So why is it that so many other Superbowl ads just tried to be clever or catch our attention. No one is complaining about the Danika Patrick commercial, wait... I mean the Go Daddy commercial... or what was it she was selling again?

The point is stories emotionally connect and resonate with consumers in a meangful and memorable way. It's just like the late great Don Hewitt (producer of CBS 60 Minutes) always said: "Tell me a story." 

To "prepare" us for the next Muppets feature film in 2011, Disney (who bought the Muppet franchise several years ago) has unleashed a brilliant and carefully orchestrated combination new and traditional media strategy that draws on Disney's many assets. A major communication channel is YouTube, and Muppet characters have been appeared in several ABC and ESPN programs. Check out the very cool Muppets version of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which to date, has been viewed by over 11.6 million viewers.

Soon we'll be seeing Muppets everywhere. The power of pop culture to influence our collective psyche!

The Tiger Woods brand identity is hurting. Tiger is laying low. His sponsors are running. What should he do? 

My daughter Alyssa showed me the interesting critique and ideas for reviving the Tiger brand in The Economist. But he's probably waiting for the official Moshe Engelberg brand identity improvement recommendation before he does anything. Who can blame him?! So here ya go Tiger! 

Come clean - totally clean, and make sincere amends to your wife and fans. Show your pain Tiger, show how deeply you hurt. You'll find that your attempt matters more than his wife Elin's acceptance. America so wants to sustain its belief in you not just as the world's best golfer, but you as a good man (which are of course the two parts of the Tiger Woods brand). We are very forgiving and love stories of good overcoming evil, even more than good, well just staying good.

The marketing lesson: The gap between Tiger's identity (who he is) and his image (how he is perceived) is the problem. People assume their perceptions match the reality, and have trouble reconciling a gap. Similarly, an identity-image gap really hurts companies too. For people and for businesses, closing the gap means one of two things: Changing who you are to match how you're perceived, or changing perceptions to match who your are. 

Tiger, for your integrity and for your money... come clean!

Viacom's movie studio Paramount needs a new way to make money since DVD sales are declining. They are now launching an online video clip service that makes favorite segments from its movie collection available for purchase. 

The price depends on your licensing agreement with them, and how you plan to use the clips. Heres' a link to their demo, which is only open to "friends" right now (if you have access, please let me know).

Techies call these clips "short-form video assets." I think they are the future of online video. We're working in this space too - more to follow!

Oral Roberts, the television preacher whose faith healing ministry had millions of followers, died last week. Here's a short video of him faith healing little Billy Ray, a boy with polio, so Billy can suddenly walk without crutches.

I remember as a kid watching Oral Roberts, and Jimmy Swaggart, the 700 Club, and other TV ministries with utter fascination. Even then I questioned what they said, but loved how they said it. They were experts at the art of persuasion! Their effectiveness had very little to do with facts, and everything to do with faith, and feeling. Which is, I believe, why the religious right is as powerful as they are. In public dialogue, they "own" feelings and emotion. As entertainers, they tap into our uniquely human ability to suspend disbelief and go along with the story. Those left of center are driven by logic and reason.

The promise of hope and despair of fear almost always trump rationale thinking, especially when it comes to the abstract values that guide our lives. What would happen if the pendulum shifted? Let's try it!

(P.S. When I start typing "Oral" into the Google search box, the first suggestion is "Oral Roberts" -- immediately followed by... "oral herpes." Be careful of the company you keep!).