Conversation Capital

As though Facebook hadn’t already infected all sectors of your life, it will now be in your body.

Thanks to Glacéau, the makers of Vitamin Water, you will soon be able to slurp the world’s first Facebook-inspired drink. The new black cherry-lime flavoured Vitamin Water, dubbed “Connect,” launches in March and will feature Facebook logos and slanguage all over the bottle, alongside a new label and the usual Vitamin Water bottle palaver. Recalling Mtn Dew’s Dewmocracy, the new flavour was the result of online voting and, yes, a little viral video hype as well.

See, the infomercial-style vid that Vitamin Water produced features the admittedly hilarious “Canadian celebrity” Steve Nash and it also leveraged the brand’s symbiotic relationship with 50 Cent. As BrandFreak recounts, the “two parts too-soon Billy Mays spoof” encourages Vitamin Water fans to participate in the “flavourcreator” Facebook application, where they can propose new flavours for the brand. Now, how Vitamin Water’s million-plus Facebook friends could collectively blunder and will black-cherry lime flavoured water into being is anyone’s guess, but they did. And now those same people are responsible for deciding the name and look of the new drink. Hello, “Connect.”

Now, it’s not all bad. Yes, there are finger prints all over the label (weird). And yes, it’s a “Facebook-inspired” drink (worse). But!, at least it reflects a brand’s strong commitment to its tribal

following and ensures that the opinions and ideas of its fanbase are being voiced in a reciprocal conversation. Democratic decision-making, social media call-and-response and, ultimately, the creation of a new drink experience are all part of what makes this initiative worthy of tribal

appeal. It shows that Vitamin Water has over-delivered when it comes to audience response and has created a product that’s devoted to those who are devoted to the product. What’s more, when people feel involved in the process of creating a product, they’ll be more apt to endorse

it to friends, family and colleagues.

And, hey, if all that fails, maybe the addictive capacity (burden?) of Facebook will somehow rub off on this flavour.

Maybe.

Quoth Kanye West: “This was well done.”

Well, thanks, Yeezy.

See, Kanye’s talking about the new spot that Sid Lee produced for adidas Originals in anticipation of the brand’s new 2010 adidas Originals Star Wars collaboration. The ad itself welcomes you to “the street, where originality comes to life as artists, athletes, and celebs celebrate their style. Everyone’s invited to our street corner along with some special guests, who traveled from a galaxy far, far away to launch a year’s worth of celebrations.” What this translates into is Snoop, Beckham, Darth Vader and a bunch of international celebrities partying in some Blade

Runner-esque landscape, except with more adidas and break-dancing and a lot less homicidal robots on the whole. (Daft Punk excluded, naturally).

Being a Sid Lee joint, the spot features some hallmarks of Conversational Capital

. For starters, it has leveraged the endorsement of certified taste-makers from a number of different industries and nations. That kind of trusted endorsement, from celebrities who remain relevant to various tribes, is exactly what persuades consumers to try new things. And I would wager that these tastemakers are exactly the kinds of people who will be able to successfully share their enthusiasm for the brand with a wide consumer base.

The myths of Star Wars and adidas Originals might at first seem disparate ones, but consider that the two overlap in being retro-revivals. That is, adidas Originals and Star Wars see their birth in the mid-to-late 20th Century but both have been retrofitted for a new generation. And so it makes sense that the collaboration (adidas Originals’ biggest to date) should bring together “a striking collection of sneakers and apparel inspired by the characters and crafts youve followed for a lifetime.” It’s all about the authentic, time-tested traditions that both brands exude.

In true Conversational

Capital form, the piece also features

“the most iconic moments and beloved figures from the Star

Wars saga” who have been “translated to the streets, telling their creative story across a forceful collection of adidas Originals footwear and apparel.” And that story–as I’ve mentioned–is one of originality, creativity, individuality and authenticity, the founding principles behind the brand. The iconic sounds of the Imperial March have even been remixed, providing a sonic boom to an old tune.

Launched only four scant days ago, the video has already scored over 430,000 views! Couple that with positive press across the blogosphere and it would seem adidas (and Sid Lee!) has a viral hit on its hands.

Congrats!

Dipping out of the world of advertising for a minute, the Germans now have a daily aggregate newspaper.

Launched in November, Niuu, has partnered with some 17 daily publications, from national (i.e., Berliner Morgenpost and Der Tagesspiegel

) to international (New York Times and The

Washington Times), to bring readers some choice in their daily news. With the service, readers can select exactly which pages in which publications interest them and build a 24-page, personalized newspaper out of that. Also offered are blog posts from RSS feeds and, for the lazy, premade newspaper templates with preselected pages.

So, to reiterate Niuu’s plan: pick-and-choose from more established publications, glue together pieces that are relevant to the individual reader, then turn around and issue those articles as a single newspaper. In print, no less. As in paper, with type. Which really makes you wonder: why not just put it together online? Well, as co-founder Wanja Oberhof explains, “we asked [students] what is the most comfortable and which is the best distribution channel; is it an e-paper, is it only on mobile, is it printed or online?” Their questionable response: print is apparently still the best man for the job.

But, really? Newspapers? Now? Haha. No. With 2009 just behind us, a year that saw massive layoffs at Forbes, the death of magazines like Domino and Gourmet

and scads of firings at all major newspapers, Niuu is hoping to make its patchwork periodical fly? Yes, of course, that’ll work. Niuu is simply indispensable to the modern thinker. And so it’s not like it might suffer the same fate as The Printed Blog, a similarly-conceived aggregate newspaper that went under in 2009 after being open no less than a year.

But even if some lessons just won’t be learned, others can be. And that’s because–at its core–Niuu has stumbled upon a genuinely awesome idea. Offering a pastiche of newspaper articles targetted at specific readers is a particularly nice application of Exclusive

Product Offering (EPO

). It reflects precisely what the reader wants to know without any of the padding found in so many large publications (ahem, Sunday NYTs). And this works perfectly with an industry like journalism because it’s an industry unlike most consumer products. Indeed, journalism seems to provide an almost unique resource for mix-and-match products like Niuu. Because each newspaper can be broken down into dissociable units (i.e., articles), a new user-specific publication can be easily built up from various sources. Sure, we might subscribe to particular journalistic brands for their quality or reputation (The New York

Times comes to mind), but doesn’t a newspaper curated to your interests sound more enticing? That’s why press sources like Gawker or Jezebel work. Hell, that’s why a Google Reader is one of the world’s best tools! Each filters down stories that are relevant to a particular audience from a number of (generally) acclaimed news sources. But Niuu takes it a step further. Beyond simply offering commentary on various news-stories, Niuu provides those stories as they’re published, making them completely curated to you as a reader. This really is the fourth estate at its best.

Now let’s just hope it’ll last the year.

[SOURCE]

According to this NYTs article, McDonald’s is launching an “American Idol”-style competition called “Voice of McDonalds.” Now in its third iteration, the competition gives regular McDonald’s employees the chance to achieve greatness: singing at an Orlando tradeshow!

Here’s how it all played out: McDonald’s employees across the globe were invited to submit a video of themselves singing their favourite song to McD’s headquarters. Some 10,500 entries were handed into McDonald’s, of which 30 were selected by trained vocal coaches to stand as semifinalists. The semifinalists were then asked to select a piece from a catalogue of Sony songs that McDonald’s had license to use and those were posted online. Using Facebook, Twitter and other social media conduits, McDonald’s customers were asked to vote upon their favourite entrant, the response to which has been hugely successful. Close to 700,000 customers have pitched their ballot in for the best vocalist, which has helped cull a list of 12 finalists who were given the good news at their places of employment by a camera crew and a McDonald’s representative. Now the final decision on who is the real “Voice of McDonald’s” will be made at a McDonald’s Worldwide Conference in Orlando, Florida.

Sound simple? It kind of is. But when you really think about it, it’s actually quite complex. Blending reality television and the virtual world of social media with the is-it-real-or-isn’t-it menu of McDonald’s is such a toss-up of artificial and real-world that it could’ve inspired The

Matrix. But it’s just crazy enough to work! And here’s why:

With “Voice of McDonald’s,” the fast food chain has invited people into a three-way conversation between McDonald’s the Company, McDonald’s the Franchise and, of course, consumers. As Rich Floersch, McDonald’s chief HR officer explains, “we know that customer perceptions about your employment brand do have some impact in terms of people’s decisions to frequent certain restaurants” and so this kind of internal marketing can bolster public opinion while ensuring a new generation of employees is there to follow suit in these pseudo-Cinderella stories. As for the consumers part, well…

This initiative also speaks to McDonald’s founding

myth

, which is apparently all about opportunity. The opportunity to rise from downtrodden burger bar brothers to billionaire, wingnut plutocrats, for instance. In any event, opportunity is being touted as a fundamental element of the McDonald’s narrative, with Floersch explaining, “our employees can become entrepreneurs and end up owning stores, or come up through the ranks in the company.” So “Voice of McDonald’s” aims really to inspire all would-be franchisees with the hopes that they too might secure a $25,000 prize presented by tepidly-famous stars like Ne-Yo. Really, what better a light at the end of McDonald’s’ three-way tunnel of opportunity, American idealism, and yes-we-can-do attitude?

Lastly, I would argue that this stands as an attempt to help create a loyal group of users. That kind of tribalism works by targetting a specific group (i.e., the far-flung fanatics of broadcasted song competition) and facilitates their bonding over a branded experience (i.e., Voice of McDonald’s). By playing on the need of associating with like-minded people, McDonald’s has ensured that their brand is more communicable within that group. And, of course, there are also ripple effects created outside of that tribe

, generating PR for the brand on a wider scale.

As someone who has no

interest in online song competition, even I have to admit that I find this initiative impressive, well calculated and well played.

What do you think? Let us know!

[SOURCE]

How would you feel about your credit card records being made public? Would you mind everyone seeing where you spent your hard-earned dollars? Or are there some unmentionables you’d rather keep concealed?

That’s the question being posed by Blippy, a soon-to-begin social networking site that allows users to publicize their purchases. The site publishes credit card purchases on a Twitter-like interface, letting everyone know where your money’s going. The experiment will be launched by social media impresario Philip Kaplan, who previously owned a website that documented the demise of the early-aughts’ internet bubble. Following that venture, he begun AdBrite, which places ads on more than 100,000 affiliated sites, before leaving the multi-million dollar business to take on Blippy.

So how exactly does Blippy work? Well, let’s say you buy $15 worth of books at Amazon.com or spend $30 at iTunes buying a few new albums. Blippy would then report those transactions via tweet-like submissions, documenting where you spent money and, in some cases, what you spent it on. The charges show up automatically in what Kaplan has termed “passive sharing,” although, as with Twitter and Facebook, users can select whether or not their profiles are public or private. Blippy, then, lets users endorse the brands or products that they like, proving that they spent their money on a new album, outfit, book or what-have-you.

Continuing, Kaplan explains that, “the idea is that most Americans have two or three credit cards in their wallet. You sign one of them up to be the social card — it’s connected to the site. The other cards you keep private. If I use my public card at a Starbucks, for instance, all my friends know that I’m at the Starbucks, and they can come and see me, or whatever.” Those approved to see your purchases will not only know where you’ve been but also where your money’s going, proving our point that consumers are interested in making brand stories their own. That is, consumers are increasingly choosing to move information horizontally, passively endorsing

products and brands with their buying habits. Blippy simply literalizes that endorsement by making a record of it.

The remaining question: doesn’t publically publishing your credit card information sound like a bit of a stretch? Like, are we really

going to give up our private information that easily? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But let’s consider that Facebook currently broadcasts and owns

hundreds of embarasssing photos of us that we all hoped would never see the light of day. Or that Twittererererrrrs spend hours a day distributing twitpics of themselves posing in the mirror across the web. The point is that the public/private wall has crumbled, unveiling our exhibitionist craziness for all the world to see. And like Kaplan says, “I guess you need to have the right temperament if you to want to blog and tweet and Facebook and all that. It’s just another way of saying, ‘Here’s what I’m doing,’ or ‘Here’s where I am,’ or ‘Here’s a band that I’m really into’ — obviously, because I just bought five of their albums.”

And besides, leveraging the social aspects of  consumption is really what Conversational

Capital is all about. When consumers find something meaningful in a branded experience, they want to make it known and are prepared to adopt that brand story as their own. From a brand-perspective, that can actually be quite important. Peer-mediated endorsement carries a greater authority than top-down communication strategies and so if you can facilitate that endorsement

with services like Blippy, consumers will be more open to sharing your brand story.

[SOURCE]

Hey gang,

We’re taking a break here at the CC blog until the new year, when it’ll be all about the ‘10jamins! Until then, here’s wishing you and yours a happy and safe holiday from everyone at the Sid Lee team.

See ya in the new year!

Making the rounds of web culture today is this viral video, simply titled, “HP computers are racist.” In the video, two people, a black man (Desi) and a white woman (Wanda), demonstrate that HP’s new face-tracking camera technology fails to respond to people with darker skin tones. Hence, “HP computers are racist.” The video is definitely worth watching and the point they’re making seems indisputable and evident, however awkward the running monologue might be (i.e., “once my ‘blackness’ enters the frame…”). But at the end of the day, viral effectiveness always relies on reaction, which, of course, has been mixed. Racialicious is calling HP’s camera just another aspect of structural racism (which it very well may be) while Geekologie ironically chastised the “sheisty bigots” at HP and Gizmodo deeply pondered, “this is awkward.”

But amongst the allegations of racial idiocy, HP has taken things fairly diplomatically.  Their response: “the technology we use is built on standard algorithms that measure the difference in intensity of contrast between the eyes and the upper cheek and nose. We believe that the camera might have difficulty ’seeing’ contrast in conditions where there is insufficient foreground lighting.” Oh yeah, they go on to thank Desi, the creator of the video, as well.

As far as that goes, I believe AdAge summarized it well in saying, “I can see two plausible explanations: (1) The company didn’t test this bit of technology at any time on anyone with dark skin. OR (2) The company did test it on various skin types but only tested it using optimal lighting.” Either way, isn’t it kind of moronic to have gotten into this position in the first place?

Yes. Yes it is.

In any event, though, HP has maintained face (continuity

) by recognizing their wrong, attempting to offer an explanation and by basically being cordial to someone that’s trying to point out what racists they all are. Given the circumstances, that’s actually probably the best they could do.

But the question remains: is

HP racist?

I have to say that I don’t see HP as a racist brand for this technology failure. A company is racist when it hates/fears/stereotypes/forbids/pigeonholes/intentionally inhibits/etc. a race of people. If HP deliberately designed inaccessible technology, then yes, it’d be racist and in that case it would deserve to go bankrupt. But can we really infer that HP chose for their cameras to not work on darker skin colours? No, of course not. Unlike this much-chided “$5 Holla” Subway ad, which was a clear mockery of African American subcultures, HP’s computer glitch was just that: a glitch. And so, while some of the employees at HP may well be ignoramuses (ignorami?) for not testing their technology on a variety of skin tones, I doubt that a deep-seeded hatred for darker-skinned people lay at the core of their error.

Your thoughts? Let us know!

This is the funniest morning news I’ve heard in a while!

Zip-car patronage, tremble in fear: according to this Consumerist article, the rental service’s fleet is prone to overheating…and exploding! Okay, so what actually

happened was that a man named John and his wife had reserved a Mini Cooper from Zipcar to drive to Catskills for their anniversary. While driving back to New York City, they noticed the temperature gauge on the dashboard red flagging them and thus slowed down and looked for an exit. With no exit in sight, the couple pulled over to the side of the road as the car started to make “odd noises.” Five minutes later: car fire.

Now, Zipcar did send roadside assistance in addition to offering the couple reimbursement for their car ride home and they even gave them credit for another day of car rental. Buuuut, they neglected to pay for the destruction of the items that the couple had in the car (totalling $300). Their reasoning: Zipcar isn’t responsible for items left behind in a car. Apparently, even in case of the car being towed away, completely incinerated. And that, it would seem, is John’s major gripe with Zipcar. Because, really, don’t you think that in the event of, you know, car-explosion, it should really fall on Zipcar to bear the costs? After all, anyone who has seen Fight

Club can probably remember how car explosions typically end up.

To me, this signals a gap in continuity for a company that proclaims to be all about ease, convenience and reliability. And in the era of the Consumerist, you’d think a brand would be aware enough to reimburse a person when its product literally explodes. Things get a bit murky when you consider those things that Zipcar did do for the couple (i.e., arrange another free day of rental and reimburse them for their trip home), but even so, if your

Zipcar exploded, would you expect anything but complete compensation? Would you otherwise feel that you had been reiumbursed?

And therein lies the problem. Brands should not simply exceed consumers expectations. They must also account for those times when their experiences break down (figuratively, or as the case may be, literally). And when that happens–particularly when that happens–brands should be quick to admit their wrongs and deal with them with the utmost attention paid to what the consumer needs or, as in this case, has actually lost as a result of choosing that brand. And here, in this case, Zipcar has failed to do that.

And that’s how you wind up on the Consumerist, for all the world to see.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal piece, Pepsi’s dropping its entire

Superbowl advertising budget. And what are they doing with all that extra cash? The answer may shock you.

Charity! Yes, Pepsi is foregoing their superbowl spot in favour of a new platform they’ve christened The Pepsi Refresh Project. With the Refresh Project, Pepsi plans to award grants to community-based projects that are proposed and selected by consumers online. The cause-related campaign, then, is less about a singular event and more about a sustained marketing platform and it comes in a move that The WSJ is calling “an about-face for Pepsi, which was the biggest advertiser on last year’s broadcast of the big game and has long made the National Football League championship the centerpiece of its marketing strategy.” Do you know what this means? No Britney! No Beyonce! Not even Ozzy Osbourne! And in their place: just some lousy charity money. Yeesch! What has that socialist President done to America?!

The Refresh platform will see Pepsi put 60% more of their advertising dollars into online marketing, relying largely on web ads and PR to market their various brands. The slogan of this new campaign will be “Every Pepsi Refreshes the World,” as a pitch to attract the attentions of the Generation O(bama) do-gooders.

The real question: does $20 million shovelled into “refreshing” communities (via online sources, naturally) signal TV’s swan song? I mean, when even the Superbowl’s biggest moneybuckets is jumping ship on the crown jewel of advertising spots, what hope does the rest of television have? There’s really only so much daytime television that Cellino and Barnes ads can fund, right? Answer: meh, we’ll see. But in the meantime, Pepsi’s archrival, Coke, is reportedly swooping in to fill the spot and is even now putting the final touches on the Simpsons

-cast ad. What’s more, Doritos, a Pepsi subsidiary, is also helping foot the bill for the big game with their own commercials. And besides, the Superbowl is still seen as a “must buy” for many brands, with a audience of almost 100 million annually. But, claims Pepsi, it’s just that “it would be too hard to explain Pepsi’s new marketing campaign in a 30-second TV spot.” (Umm, because this ad is so comprehensive).

From a Conversational Capital

perspective, I must say I like the direction Pepsi’s going. Rather than contribute further to the now $138 million Pepsi’s invested in Superbowl publicity since 1981, they’ve decided to engage their audience in an ongoing conversation. Better still, it’s a conversation that hopes to effect some positive change, which can really only benefit Pepsi. What’s more, Pepsi is over-delivering

by reaching out to charities in need and inviting consumers to do the same, contributing to a richer, deeper, more meaningful brand experience.

All in all, a good step. Now let’s see if it works out the way they plan.

What’s a juice ad without some interspecies S&M?

Orangina couldn’t tell you because they’ve so cleverly deployed a whole series of “sexy” ads featuring anthropomorphized animal-people. The latest from the Big O is this ad which features a middle aged man, a circus ring and a bikiniclad, dominatrix panther-woman. Hmm, how weird and irrelevant. The spot begins with a balding, middle-management type–not unlike Dwight Schrute–shaking in his brown dollarbin suit. A whip cracks and we’re suddenly eye-to-eye with his hellcat dominatrix (at this point the ad’s already taking the bullet train to Incomprehensibilitytown). The cat lady begins to whip the man and systematically undress him until he is literally balls-in-hand at which point the logo for Orangina Blood Orange erupts on screen.

Of course the ad is already being dismissed by feminist sites like Jezebel and Shakesville because, I don’t know. Because it’s sexist or racist or promotes rape culture or something. Meanwhile other sites like Ad Week are simply pointing out the sheer stupidity of the spot. But only a few have pointed out the weird string of “sexy” animal people that have been featured in Orangina’s campaign lately. A taste:

See how sexy those are?! And then there’s this ad, starring peacock showgirls and Jennifer Beals as a deer. So far Orangina’s TV spots also included animals gyrating around poles and beasts spraying Orangina onto the “breasts” of other animals and also ads in which they ride bottles until they explode. Weird, just weird. The ads have been criticized by organizations like Kidscape, a UK-based children’s charity and have been outright banned to air before 9 PM.

And so my questions: Who do these ads appeal to? Added value, where is it? What about experiential marketing? What sustains our interest in this campaign (other than sheer absurdity)? Also, who do these ads appeal to outside a fanbase of furries? And lastly, do we as a society really want them running our media?

Orangina, let us know!

This week, classic shoemaker Keds has announced it will be relying on minions to do its work. Not exactly a new idea, but Keds has nonetheless unveiled the Keds Collective with which users can design their own shoes online. With the standard Keds kicks at its base, users can select patterns, colours, trims and other details from a prescribed palette. THE TWIST: Keds is allowing consumers to sell their shoes through select stores at both retail and wholesale rates.

Yes, Keds will be allowing users to not only design their own creations but market and sell them too. The program involves a “wholesale business-model change” for Keds who will, essentially, be selling a pair of shoes at a time. But therein lies the problem. “How,” PSFK wonders, “does Keds expect to not only make a profit, but also promote designs that aren’t by big name collaborators?” Answer: word-of-mouth. Keds will be makin’ its moneys by “banking on the highly underestimated power of consumer word-of-mouth and the (not-so-recent) social media revolution.”

Now that’s a creative move because, you know, “marketing has evolved into a conversation with the consumer.” And that, it seems, is a good for a brand like Keds that has already incorporated social media into its website with useful initiatives like its user-based lookbook. The brand’s ambition hasn’t stopped there and I would wager that the Keds Collective will be successful on the basis of Conversational

Capital. Being more or less customizable, each pair of shoes is relatively one of a kind. (Hello, Exclusive Product Offering). What’s more, “social media,” sez the Wall Street Journal, “can turn those custom sneakers into an advertising juggernaut when the designers—you and me—proudly holler about them from the rooftops of the Internet.” (Endorsement

! You’re here too). And, of course, the playful experimentation with shoe design hints at Relevant

Sensorial Oddity

as well.

Letting would-be designers create their own Keds may seem like a slightly sketchy idea, but that DIY mentality has surrounded the brand since the ’90s. And isn’t it inspiring to see a brand willing to hand over its aesthetic reins to consumers? Ultimately I think that this initiative sounds intriguing, even if the financial technicalities of it are a bit dubious. I guess we shall see where this lands Keds. Only time will tell.

You know when you hear about people who aren’t

on Facebook and you think, “there’s no way they could be so socially isolated and incompetent?”

Well, turns out they are. According to a recent article over at 1 Good Reason: Social Media, giving the gift of a Facebook page is the newest trend this holiday season. Now that Facebook is the number three most visited site on the web for the 65+ set (yes, number three

), the social networking monolith needs a helping hand in mentoring those apprentices. And who better to tap for that job than the Youngs?!

Yes, Facebook is petitioning the youth of today to get out there and start up accounts for their family members. That includes selecting a profile picture and setting up a friends list (with the “gift” reciever’s siblings, children and loved ones included). You’ll probably also be asked to adjust privacy settings and to set their homepage to Facebook (for those who can’t grasp the URL function). Then the real treat: teaching them how to use Facebook. What a total nightmare!! 1 Good Reasons claims, “for an older family member this gift for the holidays will have an incredible impact upon their life,” but of course you know better. Gift-wrapping the blackhole of time that is Facebook? Giving the gift of the inevitable road to Facebook stalkerdom? No thanks. Savour those grins, Facebook-givers. You’re history’s monsters.

Jokes aside, this completely works to Facebook’s advantage as a sweet, loving form of initiation. Better still, it’s a perfect example of endorsement-it comes straight from a family member. Although, at this point, I’m not sure if we need to talk about Facebook’s Conversational

Capital

credentials. And, really, when you think about it what could be more age-appropriate for retired people than Facebook? They’ve got all the time in the world, it helps them maintain social ties with people outside their homes and it lets them watch their grandchildren grow. Of course, by “grow” I mean “pass out at house parties” and “sip on Grey Goose in gold-lame hooker tights,” but they will get to witness those miracles all the same.

Also, it’s not exactly for people our age to get on our high horses about Facebook-use when morning, noon and night we’re glued to various glowing rectangular boxes connected to the web (see: iPhone, laptop, Kindle, etc.) You know that expression “the ghost in the machine?” Well, that refers to our collective generation. We are one with the internet now. We are it. It is us.

There’s no going back.

Lipstick: the silent killer.

Apparently in her lifetime a woman will eat enough lipstick to fill a shoebox. Gross. In light of that disturbing information, Burt’s Bees has asked a simple question: if you’re gonna be ingesting that stuff, shouldn’t it at least bare a trace of natural ingredients?

So far the answer for most brands has been a resounding no. For Burt’s Bees, however, the answer has always been yes. They believe that the ingredients we use to scrub, moisturize, cleanse, hydrate and revive our bodies should necessarily be natural because…well, why exfoliate with bottom of the barrel oil derivatives? Natural products, of course, are also better for the environment in terms of their production (they aren’t petroleum derivatives that need to be chemically processed) and consumption (cause, you know, when you rinse them down the sink they don’t simply marinate the chemical stew that is our drinking water). So, yeah, Burt’s Bees has some reason to gloat about its products.

For our purposes here, Burt’s Bees is a terrific example of a brand accruing positive and sustained word-of-mouth for its strong continuity

. Its integrity and commitment to transparency with customers has driven them to embrace and endorse the brand. One such example of that integrity at work has been the online posting of ingredient lists for every product Bees makes. Another would be the brand’s insistence on listing what percentage of its product’s ingredients are natural on the packaging, in effect making their promises viewable at a glance. That way the brand doesn’t get away with promising that its products are natural when only a small percentage of its ingredients in fact are. And with sales north of $125 annually, Burt’s is a brand that’s chuztpah matches its cashflow.

From what I can glean, that sense of continuity seems to be justified. The brand scored an overall grade of 8.6 from GoodGuide, claims AdAge, a mark much higher than most beauty product brands. Atop that high horse, Beez took the initiative to develop its own standard of product certification, vowing to stay true to its own rules as it worked to get other brands to follow its guidelines. AdAge sez, “Burt’s Bees is proposing a standard that would require personal-care products labeled natural be made with at least 95% ‘truly natural’ ingredients, contain no ingredients with ‘any potential suspected human-health risks’ and use no processes that ’significantly or adversely alter the purity/effect of the natural ingredients.’” Ultimately, that commitment to integrity has reinforced a deeper meaning, brandwise, serving to garner strong continuity

for the brand.

Only problem with this lipstick communication strategy: wouldn’t people prefer not to eat lipstick at all? Like, why would you even want to ingest Burt’s beeswax lipstick? Think, sheeple. Although, hey, if people figure that one out then Burt’s Bees can just hit new-moms where it hurts most: their babies.

Bombs! Boobs! Bare midriffs! Please, won’t somebody think of the children?!

Victoria’s Secret has managed to distill the essence of Michael Bay’s career into 90 seconds. And, man-oh-man, people will just not shut up about this ad. The commercial features about every trick in Bay’s arsenal: a coterie of scantily-clad supermodels, knife play and, yes, about a million unexplained explosions. All I know is that one thing’s for sure, Victoria’s Secret is headed straight for an American Family Association-banning (who, incidentally, more recently deserted Darwin).

All of this comes on the heels of the release of the Bay-commissioned spot on Wednesday. Starring the likes of Alessandra Ambrosio, Giselle Bundchen and Doutzen Kroes, the ad is, true to Bayian form, plotless and exciting. Funny thing, though: this commercial actually works better than most Bay films ’cause at least this way we don’t have to hurdle over the pesky afterthoughts of acting, pacing or character development. The interesting thing about Bay is that his “work” is at a point where you’re left wondering if he’s just parodying himself. Either way, I suppose, it’s made him an obscenely rich man. Even if Megan Fox hates him. Nope, with these ads Bay can just focus on what he loves most: tits and explosions! Perplexingly–and perhaps unfortunately–no actual tits explode in the ad, but who knows? This is already Bay’s third collabo with Victoria’s Secret, so–I’m just putting it out there–exploding boobs could be in our future.

Like I said, this ad has got people talking. (See: Ad Week, Gawker, Cinematical, The LA Times, New York Magazine for a taste). But I wonder, is this really

the type of attention that translates into Conversational Capital? Or is this word-of-mouth as shortspan as Bay’s attention? Normally celebrity endorsement

is beyond ridiculous and unconvincing, but something about this collaboration plays into Victoria’s Secret’s whole schtick (i.e., hiring 3/4 celebrities to hock their products). And I think it’s pretty undeniable by now that models like Bundchen or Tyra Banks or Naomi Klein have served the brand well in the past. They truly have managed to garner the brand success and, yes, lasting attention.

But the question remains: will Bay?

Gone are the days when Hollywood would paste together a trailer, hold a premiere and host a junket. In its place: all types of crazy shit.

Ever since the whole Why So Serious campaign that we blogged about months ago, Hollywood has been especially hard-pressed to up the ante on movie promotions. And, surprisingly, that boot-strap-pullin’ demeanour has managed to extend to the lusterless world of TV movies too. See, while Tim Burton was busy salivating over his new CGI-ridden, live-action version of Alice

in

Wonderland, the Syfy channel was busy with plans of its own. In lieu of much real vision or budget, the cable network developed its own mini-series version of Alice–but with a futuristic twist. By all good sense and reasoning a mini-series like this would be begging to be ignored completely, but its accompanying campaign has definitely piqued my interest. Here’s a recipe for viral success:

1. Get 50 masked strangers to walk around New York City dressed as suited white bunnies. If you want them to choreograph a Stomp

the Yard-themed dance, so be it.

2. Project bunnies running, crawling and climbing around town that are accompanied by an invitation to “follow me” (read: Twitter). Record it. Post it to Youtube.

3. Project advertisements elsewhere amongst town.

4. From the Alice Twitter account, direct fans to The White Rabbit, Inc., a mock detective agency. From the site, another man-rabbit will taunt you into following him to The Wonderland Tea Shop. And from there, you can dip further into the rabbit hole, coming out at the The Happy Hearts Casino.

5. From there, direct users to the actual Alice homepage, on which you will feature summaries, behind the scenes video and interviews with the series’ stars, including the likes of Kathy Bates, who will be playing the Queen of Hearts herself. (Incidentally, the role won’t be much of a stretch for Bates who perfected the part of heavy-set, controlling psychopath years ago.)

6. Notify Not Cot of all your goingson, thus ensuring viral success.

And there you have it: viral success. This campaign, put together by Fallon for Syfy, combines elements of Relevant Sensorial Oddity, inventing an immersive world for Alice fans, while highlighting the rabbit-hole myth that’s at the center of the Alice story. What’s more, it initiates TV watchers into the experience Syfy is hoping to convey while over-delivering on exciting, experiential marketing goodness.

With all of this creativity, however, it’s too bad that the show kinda sounds like a ludicrous, stale flop. I mean, the basic premise is this: Alice Hamilton is a “young, martial arts instructor with commitment issues.” When she rejects her boyfriend’s engagement offer, he gets picked up by a mysterious gang of suited men who are out to nab the precious engagement ring he intended Alice to have. Anyways, one thing leads to another and Alice finds herself trailing one of the men into a looking glass where adventure awaits her. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Blade

Runner meets The Matrix (which, of course, was already Alice in

Wonderland meets Blade Runner), but with a ’90s, 3rd-wave feminist, Buffy the Vampire Slayer slant. Couple these enormous red flags with the production value of Sliders and I’ve lost all interest in the project completely. But, who knows? Maybe these promotions will get people to tune in.

Maybe.

The premise behind Adidas’ new Teamgeist site is a simple one: “every team needs a jersey with a story.”

Touted as a graphic novel advergame, Teamgeist features members of Die Mannschaft, the German national football league, and tells the story of their team’s identity. The game aims to convey the history behind Die Mannschaft’s involvement at the world cup, working to make a truly engaging and fantastical story. Indeed, the storytelling in the game can only really be described as epic, taking visual and auditory cues from–amongst others–300, The Lord

of the Rings, and Sin City

. The advergame is accompanied by an Interactive and downloadable comic and the obligatory social media channels are all there to get users involved. The online commerce section, of course, is also at the ready, ensuring that buying a jersey is just a click away.

The game’s cinematic aspect is really what’s important here. It’s prologue situates us in a Sin

City

-esque landscape, as the German team strolls through the desolate streets of a post-apocalyptic Berlin. Meanwhile, a spooky narrator sets up the premise for the advergame, telling us that “a jersey with a story is much more than a jersey; it’s a symbol for belonging, passion, expectations, ambitions. Every player, every team, every fan should know this. Understanding this will make them stronger, but what if there is no story? No History? No Identity?”

After that, a whole lot of X-Men shit goes down and we’re told that we will be taking part in a game that forces us to go back in time to recapture Die Mannschaft’s three world cup stars. Beginning with Germany’s 1954 game against the Hungarians, you take the reins of mobilizing little avatars that resemble Die Mannschaft’s current team (with bios of each player at right). You must get through a total of three games to get the full story. Admittedly, though, I don’t really have time to do that because, you know, I’m at work and all. BUT, if you do have some free time you should definitely retrieve those three world cup stars and get the facts behind the team.

Not to be over-complimentary but, shit, this game is impressive. In terms of RSO, it’s got beautiful art direction, orchestral music and special effects as well as the fun interactive computer soccer game. It evokes the founding myth of the team in a very creative and completely intriguing way while bringing their endorsement of adidas to the foreground. What’s more, it’s a terrific form of initiation for users who have never had any interaction with the brand and, to top it all off, it’s over-delivering

on the adidas experience.

Really, then, this game is almost as close to a perfect example of Conversational

Capital

that we’ve seen. And so it’s no surprise that it’s popping up on everyone’s radar (see: Trendhunter, Creative Criminals, Creativity Online).

Congrats, adidas.

Apparently “it’s time to answer the call of manhood.” And who better to field that call than Dockers?

Yes, Dockers is screaming “wear the pants!” because, of course, women have overpowered us. The situation has gotten so bad that they’re literally making 75 cents for every dollar men make! The nerve! Anyway, Dockers is here to right those wrongs. And, oh man, have they got something for you. Enter: The Man-ifesto.

Dockers’ Man-ifesto is the brand’s credo of what makes men men and where we’ve gone wrong. Quoth it, “somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny.” This new persona that the Man-ifesto introduces will be accompanied by a new range of pants in more colours and fits than ever before, all in an effort to reorient the brand toward a younger audience, claims this New York Times’ article (which, incidentally, begins with this complete non-sequitor: “first, Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. Now, Dockers will try to bring khaki back”).

In sum, Dockers is targetting the Youngs by showing them what real men do. And, fehh, I’m of two minds about this whole campaign. Here’s why:

Point: Dockers is a brand for grown-ups and that is exactly what this campaign conveys.

Dockers is communicating the experience they believe their product offers and they have no gripes about asking a particular audience to listen. And yes, you’ve got to give a brand some credit for displaying a modicum of courage. It’s not as though boasting about your masculine credentials is an easy thing to do, which is exactly why the campaign has already been lambasted by Jezebel and Heartless Doll.

What’s more, I like that they’re appealing to the tribe

of men who actually aim to look like grown ups. I mean, isn’t that better than them trying to target “cool dads” and Jon Gosselin enthusiasts? And it makes sense; grown ups are the ones buying Dockers. As the ad below argues, “you’re not a bloke, not a fellow, chap, dude, gent or bro-ham. Face it, you’re a man.”

Counterpoint

: Who. Are. They. Kidding?

Is anyone convinced that Dockers is the last bastion of masculinity? I mean, isn’t everyone aware that Dockers is a freemason regatta party mainstay? But, yes, let’s pry the ivy-league brotherhood away from those “salad bars” and place them squarely within the icy, staid confines of blue-blooded get-togethers. I don’t care if it means that we have to drag them kicking and screaming all the while! Our national supply of masculinity rides on it!

Seriously, though, I think Jezebel put it nicely when they said, “can I tell you something about Dockers? My father loves them. Wears them when he’s golfing or on a casual business day. They are stain resistant and wrinkle free. They look nice with a sweater or a golf shirt. They are sturdy and reliable and reasonably-priced and my mother has been buying them at the mall for approximately 20 years.” All of which is to say that these pants aren’t being worn by construction workers, cowboys or any of the others badasses of Dockers’ imagination. And it seems entirely contradictory to try to shove this macho bullshit down our throats when meanwhile they’re peddling ads like this:

I mean, just look at that. Now isn’t that the type of latte-drinking, salad-eating, umbrella-twirling dandy that Dockers claims their pants aren’t

made for? He’s carrying a murse for godssake! (Sorry, “European carry-all”). I kid you not when I say that I also found another Dockers ad in which two male models were spritely leaping over a puddle. It was only a thumbnail, though, and so it didn’t make the cut. Rats! Point is, Dockers is a gentlemanly brand and anyone who will tell you otherwise either (a) doesn’t know anything about it or (b) is a dupe to the Man-ifesto.

What say you, internet people of webland? Do you like this campaign? Or aren’t you convinced?

Let us know!

Drive-by Targets, no longer exclusive to South Compton, are popping up all over the place!

Yes, the lesser of two evils, Target, has developed pop-up stores modelled on fast-food joints. Cropping up in New York, Washington and San Francisco from the 11th to the 13th, the stores will stock 50 popular gift items which will range in price from 99 cents to $250. Clients will be able to pick up the prewrapped gifts from the store’s window where they order them by number.

Reminescent of Target’s Bullseye Bodegas, these fast food Targets are “reflective of where guests are at now,” claims Target’s VP of marketing, Shawn Gensch, who adds, “they’re time starved.” Also facing literal starvation, consumers who are staving off welfare this holiday season will no doubt be pleased to hear that Target’s also offering “great products at great, wallet-friendly prices.” Because, lest we forget, Christ was a broke construction worker too.

Capping off the initiative will be the usual social media channels that’ll advertise store locations and give consumers an idea of what’ll be offered at each outlet. Via Twitter, Target will drop hints as to where they’ve planted some 1400 oversized gift tags, each of which is redeemable in cash for anywhere up to $500. For each gift tag redeemed, Target will also donate $100 to the Salvation Army.

AdAge reports that Target’s efforts are meant to attract attention in urban markets where it currently lacks a distinct presence. That’ll no doubt be important for the holiday push, as same-store sales slid as much as 1.5% in November, the seventh consecutive month of same-store sales decline this year. (Alternatively, they could just take the Wal-Mart route and stop providing monthly sales information). Really, then, it’s an effort to reach new audiences who perhaps doubt Target’s urban credentials. In the process, Target has made it easier to shop and cheaper to buy. Meanwhile, it becomes more efficient and less costly for Target to maintain its operations.

Really, though, the important thing is Target’s innovation in retail design. What this reconfiguration of retail space really does is change the retail experience, much to the benefit of both consumer and producer. Target has over-delivered

on what consumers need most this year: the most time- and cost-efficient means to buy. And so this is definitely something to talk about.

[SOURCE]

‘Tis the season to be good for goodness sake. And setting that credo into motion this week is Honda. Honda, for those of you not following online news, is proving its cavalier spirit this month as it gears up for Honda Helps, a campaign that assists Honda drivers in a number of ways.

One such way is by offering drivers roadside fuel-ups, serving gas from a truck on the side of Californian highways. Honda Helps workers have also been spotted handing out umbrellas to Honda customers during rainstorms and distributing reusable grocery bags at supermarkets. What’s more, Honda has taken the intiative to hold doors for coffee shop patrons and they’re even feeding their most profitable consumers, the homeless.

Okay, so jokes aside, it’s always impressive when large companies prove they aren’t the bottom-line profiteers some people make them out to be. And, yes, you could point out that this kind of campaigning no doubt precipitates profits for Honda, but still, let’s applaud Honda for revving up the experience it offers its consumers and proving that money isn’t the keypoint on its agenda. And really, Honda Helps is a perfect example of over-delivery

, rewarding consumers unexpectantly with things that are actually quite beneficial and enrich the consumer experience.

And while this kind of initiative isn’t exactly groundbreaking, it is

the kind of “corporate responsibility” that should be desired–and expected–of every brand. It’s the type of circumstantial evidence that supports strong brand continuity, proving that what a brand proclaims to be (i.e., a good corporate citizen) lines up with what it actually is.

Mind you, this is just one brand and one instance of corporate responsibility. There are, as Honda is proving, a variety of ways in which you can directly benefit your customers.

Ah, how quickly the internet coughs up hilarious findings when you just dig a little. Like today, for instance, when we’re told that cognac makers Courvoisier have been hard at work casting a punchbowl big enough to serve 25,000, a bowl “so large that you boat across it!” That’s the kind of forward-thinking innovation this economy needs!

Yes, beginning December 8th, Courvoisier will begin to construct the architectural-scale bowl in London. The trick, some say, is in ensuring that something the size of a building is food-safe and at the perfect temperature. Further complicating matters, the bowl needs to be structurally sound enough to withstand the weight of all the alcohol. And so, consulting engineers from Arup are working on the project, ensuring that the porringer doesn’t crack and unleash a tsunami of cognac on the streets of LDN.

To get their swill to taste just right, Courvoisier has assembled a crack team of researchers, sommerliers and mixologists (real word? an actual career path?) that have slaved endlessly in the laboratory to concoct the perfect punch. Tell us, Cakeheadlovesevil.com, what hath science done: “The recipe combines Courvoisier Exclusif, a cognac specially designed for mixing in cocktails, berries, organic cider vinegar, and winter spices and impressed 13 independent judges including Jonathan Meades of the BBC and Ruth Reed the president of RIBA.” All told, the end product will require over a ton of cognac.

The actual consumption of the punch will take place on Christmas day. If you’re in London then and are interested in attending, it’s £6.50 but be forewarned that no swimming in the punch bowl is allowed. Sorry, but this truly is the Real World equivalent of Charlie

and

the

Chocolate Factory’s river of chocolate. And we all know how that ended for poor Augustus Gloop.

Now, onto Conversational Capital. In the first place, I think this initiative is a great example of Relevant Sensorial

Oddity. Beyond the obvious taste factor, the architectural prowess involved in the bowl’s construction will also no doubt be a feast for the eyes. Secondly, an event like this is also an inventive way of initiating a wide audience to your brand. Meaning, for those who’ve never had Courvoisier before, this is an opportunity to introduce them to the brand experience in an engaging way. Finally, this is an obvious example of over-delivery, creating a vast and unexpected project that will no doubt raise consumer expectations of the brand. What’s more, Courvoisier is also donating funds from the project to the environmental charity Article 25, again offering more than might be expected of them.

All told, then, this project seems inventive, interesting and fun. While I’m sure it will generate “buzz,” it’s also not the type of experiential marketing that is irrelevant to the brand experience or something that is easily forgotten.

Cheers!