Tenthwave, LLC's "Customer Obsessed" Blog Contributor:

The "Customer Obsessed" Blog, managed and written by Tenthwave, LLC employees. Contributions include insights, commentary and opinions focused on current social and digital marketing trends.

The Symbolic Product: The Dream of Making a Brand Iconic

You pass someone on the street and around their neck is a tan scarf with white, red and black lines. Your perception of them is changed instantly. It could be a knock-off, but with its visual signature, you know it’s Burberry. So the question remains, how is it that this singular item holds so much weight? 

All brands strive to make themselves iconic. So what does “iconic” mean? From the Greek word, eikon, meaning likeness or image, an “icon” is a “representative symbol of something”. Marketers try to make their brands symbolic for everything they want their products to stand for. However, there’s no guaranteed method to make one’s brand instantly recognizable, so how do they do it? 

In the past, advertisers were limited to appealing to their audience in an auditory manner, through radio and jingles. Popular ones like Dinah Shore singing about Chevrolet acted like a mnemonic device for listeners, and like a signature ear worm, the brand achieved recognition.

Chevrolet Jingle:

As time went on and advertisers began delving into the medium of television, the mnemonics became much more visual. At first, they relied on jingles and catchy slogans to give an auditory signature to their brands, but now, simply by witnessing the visual aesthetic of a commercial, a viewer may instantly recognize the product. For example, most Apple commercials are visually simple, employing a white screen, with simple text and the product. So anytime someone sees the ad, they know what it’s for before it’s ever announced or seen. Even the commercials that do not use this signature style were purposefully made to create a new memorable aesthetic. Viewers would know that the advertisement was for an iPod by the silhouetted dancing figures and the colorful backgrounds. Brands rely on their audience to see this visual authorship in their ads and, hopefully, connect it back to their product.

Ipod Ad:

Since television is now secondary to the portable screens we see each day: tablet, desktop, mobile, etc., how will the iconic brand market their product? Since each platform has focused on a different sense in order to instill a memory in the viewer, this new marketing technique may skip the “middle man”, or sensory stimulus, and move straight on to making a memory in the audience’s mind. The best way to do this would be for the tactic to be an experience in itself rather than a one-sided conversation. We can already see this in the popularity of quizzes and interactive digital media, but with newer technology, advertising may become a conversation rather than a monologue. So, to take it a step further, how will brands make their products iconic in this “brave, new world” scenario? That remains to be seen, but the more immersive the brand experience is, the more likely it is to be remembered and recognized in the future.

To Pass or Fail: The Bechdel Test in Advertising

In 1985, Alison Bechdel, a comic strip writer, created what is now referred to as the Bechdel test – a series of questions that ask whether or not the minority is fairly represented in a piece of fiction. Originally posed against the female to male perspective, the test consists of three parts:

1.     Is there more than one female character?

2.     Do the two or more female characters talk to each other?

3.     Most importantly, do they talk to each other about something other than the male characters?

The Bechdel test is usually set against pieces of fiction and film to see whether or not the female characters are self-sufficient enough to be viewed as real characters. While some films and fiction do fail the Bechdel test, there are some that pass quite easily. What I wonder is, should advertising be held to the same series of questions.

Understandably, some advertisements will only be targeted to men while others will only be targeted to women. However, there are some marketers that target women by foiling them against their male counterparts. Rather than appealing to the women in their focused demographic, they appeal to idea of what men want from women. This ideology denies the Bechdel test altogether. This year has seen some advertisements pass this test with flying colors while others have failed miserably.

Three Bechdel Passing Ads:

Always “Like A Girl” Ad:

Always’ “Like A Girl” ad went viral earlier this year and for good reason, it asked, “when did ‘like a girl’ become an insult?” Posing this question to girls and boys of all ages, it quickly became apparent that the phrase gained a negative connotation the older they were. Remarking on the idea of what it means to be “a girl” was a bold move for Always that aces the Bechdel test.

P&G “Pick Them Back Up” Ad:

P&G’s Sochi Winter Olympics ad was a two-minute tearjerker that showcased the support system mothers provide for their children as they grow up and face the trials and tribulations of life. This ad passes the Bechdel test because it focuses on the work and triumph of mothers all around the world rather than the accomplishments of the athletes themselves.

Dove “Camera Shy” Ad:

Dove’s “Camera Shy” ad is a great example of a feminine product being targeted at women and continuing the discussion about women and body image. Like their previous ads, “Real Beauty Sketches” “Patches” and “Mirror Test”, Dove continues the idea that women are much more beautiful and wonderful then they give themselves credit for. By bringing these values to the forefront, Dove empowers women and lives up to the Bechdel test.

Three Bechdel Failing Ads:

Veet “Don’t Risk Dudeness” Ad:

Veet’s “Don’t Risk Dudeness” Ad is why the Bechdel test should exist in marketing. Veet, a feminine hair removal cream, had controversial ads focusing on the idea that if you shave your legs, the stubble of your leg hair will make you seem “like a dude” in the eyes of potential lovers, other women and anyone who might come in contact with your “cactus legs”. While the spot is supposed to be humorous, the women it targets are left with the message that men will not find them desirable if they have leg hair, rather than Veet gets rid of your leg hair for longer. With this ad, Veet fails the Bechdel test by having their minority audience focus on what the majority will think of them if they don’t buy their product.

FCKH8 “Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism” Ad:

FCKH8’s polarizing ad does not pass the Bechdel test. While it does look to promote awareness of gender inequality and gender issues such as rape, violence and sexual assault, the ad only shows the issues of women up against a male dominated backdrop. There is no talk of women to women or the “minority” interacting within itself. While that may be the point of the ad, it still does not pass the test.

Chanel “She’s Not There for Coco Madamoiselle” Ad:

While perfume has always been marketed as “a way to win your man”, this ad for Coco Madamoiselle is especially disconcerting. A woman at a party grabs the eye of the man of the hour. Unfortunately, that is where her narrative ends. He follows her around the party, hoping to interact with her, only to find out she doesn’t really exist. This combination of the male gaze and the lack of a woman with her own narrative and her own existence fails the Bechdel test.

Granted, not all ads should be tested. Any ad focused on selling to men or to a majority would be neglecting their audience if they tried to include another audience as well; however, when a product for women is being advertised and the message used is “use [our product] to get your man”, the targeted demographic is being compared to that of their majority counterpart. Like all forms of art, marketing must move forward to reflect the evolution of the world around us. If it fails to do so, it remains stagnant and unchanging – an anchor in time.

Marketing for the Munchies: A Look into the Future of Advertising for Marijuana

With the District of Columbia legalizing the limited possession and cultivation of marijuana, the possibility of pot as a legal entity is becoming more and more prevalent.

While this many-sided conversation is filled with economic, social, emotional and medical pros and cons, one aspect has remain untouched; how will the new demographic of cannabis users be marketed to? With government sanctioned dispensaries and usage growing in pop culture, this new group can be focused on with more ease. For example, “Tim and Eric Awesome Show”, which is predominantly available on AdultSwim, has had a number of fake ads and sketches aimed at a demographic interested in their offbeat, jarring and bizarre humor. As of five days ago, they created a Totino’s Pizza Rolls commercial very much in their own auteur style:

While the commercial is odd, both the brand and the actors are performing for a niche demographic. Whether or not it is directed at marijuana users is up for debate; however, the show’s non-linear storylines, bizarre sense of humor as well as the brand pairing of Totino’s Pizza Rolls, the stereotypical munchies craving, begs the question, who else could this be for?

If targeting marijuana users becomes a possibility, what brands will use this information for their benefit? Perhaps makers of brownie mixes or other junk food brands will appeal to this demographic. Will these brands lose customers because of this change, or will they be applauded for finding a new subset of customers who will appreciate their product? According to a study by The Partnership at Drugfree.com in January of 2013, only a small minority is in favor of advertising the use of cannabis. The main opponent to marijuana marketing are parents who want the drug to only be advertised to those old enough to use it responsibly. Like alcohol and cigarettes, marketing for pot may be best received if it comes into contact with age appropriate consumers along with a warning about possible side effects.

Another group in opposition to the marketing of marijuana are the small vendors who sell in states that have legalized the drug. While they rely on word of mouth and the excitement driving this new movement, they are afraid that a nationwide legalization will bring in more powerful companies and lobbyists, such as Big Pharma or Big Tobacco, who will be more adept at targeting the consumer. Rather than the money going to support statewide dispensaries and proprietors, it may end up in the pockets of larger estates. 

So what can one expect from the possibilities of marketing for marijuana? While there will always be some aversion to it, the largest push will come from the American consumer and their interest in the product as well as the American businessman and his ability to advertise and sell it. Only time will tell what will come from this niche demographic. However, we can be sure that this growing group will inspire some outside-of-the-box marketing.

#SavingStephen: Responsibility of Context in a Context-Less Platform - March 31, 2014

Fourth grade teachers know the importance of context. They explain it to their students every day. Why would the character do that? Can we get an idea of why they would? What about the character tells us that they might do something like this? Fourth grade teachers try to instill this sense of curiosity, this understanding of the circumstances surrounding the actions, so that their students can be better informed, can gather information faster, can make decisions based on the set groundwork. Context clues are a basic element of understanding.

Social platforms don’t allow for context. Unlike, fourth grade teachers, they can be limited to 140 characters, they rarely have anything to tether them back to a source, and, on top of it all, they are grasping at the attention of their audience. Not to say fourth grade teachers don’t have a hard time with 20 plus students with limited attention spans, but social platforms get one chance and then they’re done. When a tweet is sent out, it’s like a soap bubble sent out into the ether. Who knows how far it’ll go before it pops and ceases to exist on someone’s feed. As someone who works in social media, I’ve found ways to make my bubbles go farther and last longer - add a hashtag for reach, anchor it back to the product with a brand specific tag, give it a call to action, make it “shareable”, and so on. However, on top of this list, and, perhaps, the most important, is to give your tweet context.

With the invention of technology, communication has become easier and more difficult in one fell swoop. While we’re able to communicate to people all over the world, break language barriers, time barriers and so on, the human qualities of communication have suffered, for example, intonation. Noticed those three exclamation points at the end of every text you send? That’s what’s being lost in translation. The same can be said of context. These minute moments of communication can be completely lost if the text that stands alone isn’t representative of the whole it came from. As someone in social media, we try to make digital communication human again. We work hard to find these quintessential quotes, these moments of “synecdoche” that can embody the context. It’s our responsibility to make sure that whatever is sent out into that ether represents the whole in some fashion.

Unfortunately, whoever sent out the Stephen Colbert tweet forgot that notion. To give you context (#BaDumTsh), Colbert had made a joke concerning the want to rename the Washington Redskins on Wednesday night’s show. As part of his satirical show, he plays a persona in which he takes things to the next level to amplify the issue at hand. He stated that, “I am willing to show the Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever”. @ColbertReport, a twitter handle from Comedy Central, then tweeted this statement alone without the context of the joke or any anchorage to the set up.

After the rogue tweet was sent out, numerous tweeters have demanded an apology from the comedian and have started the hashtag, #cancelColbert. While Colbert has stated that the tweet did not come from him or his team, he is now identified with this out-of-context sentiment.

“The Devil can cite scripture for his own purpose” while written for Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” could just as well apply to media. With sound bytes, clips, editing and youtube, any quote can be easily ripped out of it’s setting. It is the job of those involved in social media to instill that context. Like the fourth grade teacher, we have to play devil’s advocate, ask every question of our writing to make sure that there is no other possible outcome other than the one desired. It’s our responsibility to tether it down, make the words work for us, make it make sense, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing our job. One hundred and forty characters makes that difficult, but that’s what makes it all the more worthwhile when it does go right.