Archive for the 'Creativity' Category

In 1985 Coca-Cola launched New Coke to replace the original version, which had been losing market share to arch-rival Pepsi for some time.

The Coca-Cola Company’s research had showed consistently in blind taste tests that Pepsi was preferred over Coke because of its sweeter formulation and they came to the, completely logical, conclusion that if they were to reformulate the product to taste sweeter, the decline in market share would be stopped. They tried a number of new product formulas and eventually hit upon one that beat Pepsi hands down in those all-important taste tests.

On April 19 2005 the company let the media know that it would be making a major announcement on April 23 regarding its product, and Pepsi correctly guessed it would be a change in the formulation of its flagship product. Then director of Pepsico’s North American operations, Roger Enrico, gleefully took a full-page ad out ion the New York Times declaring they had won the cola wars. Neh neh ne-neh neh.

On April 23 Coke made the predicted announcement that they would be replacing old Coke with New Coke. Shares in the company went up. Then the consumer backlash started. Pesky people, those consumers. Within a few short weeks a vocal minority, who didn’t want the product they had grown up with to change, became, well, more vocal. And soon Coke headquarters was being flooded with hundreds and thousands of angry letters. Even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coke drinker, declared New Coke to be a sign of American capitalist decadence.

The protests from consumers and bottlers got too much for Coke and in July 1985 it announced its decision to revert to its original formulation, which eventually became known as Coke Classic. By the end of 1985 Coke Classic was outselling both New Coke and Pepsi. Sergio Zyman, head of marketing at Coke during that time (and still in the job when I was working there), later said: “Yes it infuriated the public, cost a ton of money and lasted only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic. Still, New Coke was a success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.”

In other words, absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Crispin Porter + Bogusky’s have taken a leaf out of Coke’s play book for their “Whopper Freak Out” campaign for Burger King. TV commercials and an 8-minute web film show what happens when customers in a Nevada Burger King are told that the Whopper is off the menu. The web film goes further, showing reactions from customers when, instead of being served the Whoppers they have ordered, they are given products from McDonald’s and Wendy’s.

Research from IAG Research, revealed in Ad Age today, indicate that the “Freakout” spots are among the most highly recalled ever, ever, EVER.

It’s a brilliant campaign.

I love the fact they used what happened to Coke in 1985 to create a whopper of an idea, demonstrating in the most entertaining way possible how BK customers really feel about their Whoppers (if you see what I mean).

Here’s the secret formula they used for the campaign:

Great insight derived from marketing history + big idea executed well + understanding of the media = holy grail.

“Does Movie Violence Decrease Violent Crime?” was some freaky talk of the town last week. This is the most Punk idea I’ve seen yet. A study that inspired an article in the NY Times that says, and don’t laugh, “Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” and was conducted by two economists; it isn’t a psychiatric or medical study. Not too juicy in the end. But it is pretty funny! And it goes to show that any major corporation (moviemakers in this case) can lobby any real science into helping them prove a bizarre, albeit farfetched and stretched-to-the-limit, point.

Bottom line – some geniuses are using the new freakonomics (a word now…) to prove that yes, if you are a bad person who watches killings and rapes and muggings and the like, you will calm yourself from doing them – at least for a while. Really now.

“Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing” (Pieces Of The Article)

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not refute and in fact lends credence to the findings of laboratory studies. Neither does it address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious.

Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

Though such films may indeed stimulate a greater tendency toward aggression in audiences, the bigtime economist offers a rejoinder much favored by economists: Compared to what?

Young men are the most likely to commit violent crimes. In opting to see a movie — even one featuring, say, gang rape or chain-saw amputation — they forgo activities that have a greater tendency to encourage mayhem, like drinking and drug use.

“Economics is about choice,” he said. “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

“It’s not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book.”
Their entire study is super long, but I cut out a few choice snippets:

In this paper, we provide causal evidence on the short-run effect of media violence on violent crime. We exploit the natural experiment induced by time-series variation in the violence of movies shown in the theater. As in the psychology experiments, we estimate the short-run effect of exposure to violence, but unlike in the experiments, the outcome variable is violent crime rather than aggressiveness. Importantly, the laboratory and field setups also differ due to self-selection and to the context of violent media exposure. Using a violence rating system from kids-in-mind.com and daily revenue data, we generate a daily measure of box office audience for strongly violent (e.g., “Hannibal”), mildly violent (e.g., “Spider-Man”), and non-violent movies (e.g., “Runaway Bride”). Since blockbuster movies differ significantly in violence rating, and movie sales are concentrated in the initial weekends after release, there is substantial variation in exposure to movie violence over time.

The audience for strongly violent and mildly violent movies, respectively, is as high as 12 million and 25 million people on some weekends, and is close to zero on others (see Figures 1a-1b). We use crime data from the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and measure violent crime on a given day as the sum of reported assaults (simple or aggravated) and intimidation. We find no evidence that exposure to media violence increases violent behavior in the short-run.

After controlling flexibly for seasonality, we find that, on days with a high audience for violent movies, violent crime is lower. To rule out unobserved factors that contemporaneously increase movie attendance and decrease violence, such as rainy weather, we use two strategies.

First, we add controls for weather and days with high TV viewership. Second, and most importantly, we instrument for movie audience using the predicted movie audience based on the following weekend’s audience. This instrumental variable strategy exploits the predictability of the weekly decrease in attendance. Adding in controls and instrumenting, the correlation between movie violence and violent crime becomes more negative and remains statistically significant.

The estimated effect of exposure to violent movies is small in the morning or afternoon hours (6AM-6PM), when movie attendance is minimal. In the evening hours (6PM-12AM), instead, we detect a significant negative effect on crime. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crimes decrease by 1.3 and 1.1 percent. The effect is smaller and statistically insignificant for non-violent movies. In the nighttime hours following the movie showing (12AM-6AM), the delayed effect of exposure to movie violence is even more negative. For each million people watching a strongly or mildly violent movie, respectively, violent crime decreases by 1.9 and 2.1 percent. Non-violent movies have no statistically significant impact. Unlike in the psychology experiments, therefore, media violence appears to decrease violent behavior in the immediate aftermath of exposure, with large aggregate effects. The total net effect of violent movies is to decrease assaults by roughly 1,000 occurrences per weekend, for an annual total of about 52,000 weekend assaults prevented.

We also examine the delayed impact of exposure to movie violence on violent crime. While our research design (like the laboratory designs) cannot test for a long-run impact, we can examine the medium-run impact in the days and weeks following exposure. We find no impact on violent crime on Monday and Tuesday following weekend movie exposure. We also find no impact one, two, and three weeks after initial exposure, controlling for current exposure. This implies that the same-day decrease in crime is unlikely to be due to intertemporal substitution of crime from the following days.

While reading about the studies, I learned there’s actually a DVD player that automatically deletes all the juicy bits of movies. It’s a Mormon device.

It was invented four years ago, I read online yesterday–a trend I had no idea about: “What the world really needs now is more uptight little companies from Utah that will help us all block out the random messy naked blood n’ guts of the world. Companies that will, without anyone asking them to, protect us from media evildoers and exposed flesh and scary exploding things and that part in ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ wherein the universe is blessed, for the briefest of moments, with … Kate Winslet’s nipples.

…Utah-based ClearPlay, a shrill little corporation that has taken it upon itself to sit around the cube farm all day and watch countless Hollywood flicks and zap out any and all icky violent suggestive material in, say, “Lost In Translation.” For your protection. How kind.”

What is ClearPlay?

Great question! ClearPlay is a fancy DVD Player that can play regular DVD movies — but without profanity, violence and nudity.

Wow! How does that work?

It’s really quite ingenious. We create filtering information on a movie by movie basis, and then put those “filters” into the DVD player. This way, the DVD player knows when to skip or mute while the movie is playing.

But isn’t it choppy?

Nope. That’s the great thing about the ClearPlay service. We love movies just as much as you do, so we take great care to maintain the presentation quality of the movie– the only thing gone is “that one scene” you wish the kids never saw.

What about new movies?

Another great question! If you sign up for a ClearPlay Membership then we provide constant updates for your DVD player. This way ClearPlay works with new movies as they come out. It is really just that simple (and cool!).

Me again. The above was from their site. I’m wondering if parents do anything for their kids anymore. Besides cut their meat, of course.

Have you heard nuff? Go out and watch some gorey movies, kids, and I’ll see you on the street.

I don’t spend a lot of time in the cinema itself, it’s all payperview and downloaded crap these days, but I was with my parents and it was a choice between Atonement and… Wait! What about “Juno”? I happen to be a huge Michael Cera freak (www.clarkandmichael.com is mad hilarity) and so we went. Turns out the film’s fabulous - and finally a director, young Reitman, whose deft skill at creating coming AND serious turns, makes me sit up and go “I’ll tell everyone.”

However, there is a main character, Orange Tic Tacs, that actually threw me for a loop. Not since “My Big Fat Greek TV Movie” and the Michael Considine obsession with Windex, has a major American product placement (non-paid, I am told) been featured so “cool-y” in a major motion picture. And yet Ferrero USA, makers of the Tic Tac thang, have not done a thing to capitalize on Paul’s (Cera’s) nonstop fascination with the little orange one calorie treats (they actually use those words in the flick!).

I remember a billion years ago (94) when Quiz Show came out and Geritol was featured as a sponsor and it took six months and a few Oscar nods before that brand did anything to make hay with the news. And back then, social networking did not exist- not to mention the fact that Geritol was a sponsor of a SCANDALIZED show within the movie, so in fact it wasn’t too positive.

But heck, Ferrero, most known for Nutela and other badly-named old brands, has an opportunity to go for broke here with the one movie everyone is talking about that doesn’t star Johnny Depp.
They have their arms folded, I can tell, and it’s probably because “Juno” is about a 16-year-old pregnant kid — a brilliant and mature one, mind you — and they don’t want to get caught up in a debate about whether the candies support unwed young Mommies.

This is where the Punk mentality about making noise comes in handy. I can only hope that the Tic Tac makers out there somehow, somewhere, get their shit together and create a Tic Tac Orange subsite for people to share what’s orange about their lives — and even maybe create a little old chat room for lovers of this fine new American-made talk of the town. I want to see a Tic Tac character that, like that dancing baby of yore, appears in the oddest places throughout our Wide Web world.

If not, they are going to have orange mud all over their face. And in the DVD, you can best be sure a clever mini-doc on how Reitman and screenwriter Diago Cody (whatta name) “chose the Orange Tic Tac” …will be a wasted opportunity because by then we’ll have moved onto the next gimmick in our fast and fickle lives.

Here is an editorial written by a college student who is one of four winners of this Fall Semester’s Weekender College Edition contest, and which brilliantly encapsulates what it means to be a young adult consumer in the new media lansape. This and the other three winning entrants can be seen on www.cynopsis.com

“An Open Letter From The On-Demand Generation:
by Michael Krepack, Senior/New York University, Major: Entertainment, Media & Technology

We, the On-Demand Generation, would like to respectfully inform you that the future of TV is here. No longer will we be bullied into watching TV on your time. Welcome to a new era: “Appointment TV” is now “Instant TV.”

We’re well aware that today’s media landscape is rapidly changing, but for those of us in the On-Demand Generation our lifeblood necessitates consuming content in myriad platforms. We read The New York Times online; we scan YouTube for the latest viral videos; we download music from the iTunes Store. We require one thing: instant gratification.

Yet, you insist on distributing content the old fashion way (especially you, the five major broadcasting networks, you’re on notice). Granted, you have begun to embrace new media (mobisodes anyone?) and made some inroads in distributing your TV shows online (and, from what we garner from the WGA strike, at a financial loss), but you’re selling us short.

While you toil developing the right platform to deliver your content (as if there has to be one correct method), the era of “Primetime TV” has vanished just as fast as Viva Laughlin! Until we take over as gatekeepers, we request you give us what we want, when we want it. How about embracing, instead of admonishing time-shifted viewing?

As we shy further away from the TV dinner programming schedule, take a page out of the Pay-TV playbook - repurpose your shows on an on-demand platform. Create a world where each broadcast channel has its own on-demand channel where full episodes of shows appear alongside made-for-demand programming.

In terms of a revenue source, why not charge a monthly premium for subscribers? Then again, you could make it free and tack-on commercials in the same vain you do now for shows online (just air them in HD, please).

This new interactive TV connects you with us. Directly. Adapt or lose. The On-Demand Generation is here to stay. Armed with our DVRs, iPods and Slingboxes we are loud, proud and always tuned on.

Sincerely Yours,
The On-Demand Generation
Sent Via iPhone, while watching TV on the iPhone”

Yes, that Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play. But also the stock markets around the world went into free fall in the worst crash since 1929. I was there, working as a financial futures broker in the City of London. Starting on Black Monday - October 19, 1987 - indexes like the Dow Jones Industrial lost a third of their value over the following weeks.

But the reasons for the dramatic sell off were not particularly rational - in fact within 2 years the markets were back to where they had been before the crash - there was a ‘group think’ going on by the institutional investors that turned a market correction into a blind panic. They were all using computer programs based upon a set of almost identical assumptions to help them decide how to buy and sell stocks, so when certain prices were breached massive numbers of sell orders were triggered at the same time. As the market started to drop, more and more sell orders were automatically triggered and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy: sell the market because the market is going down.

The group think I saw 20 years ago is happening now in marketing. The mentality is to do something because that’s what others are doing, without thinking through the assumptions and to stop and ask ‘why?’ And, you know what, we’re starting to see the effects. The ‘business as usual’ crowd are losing out to the marketers and agencies who are questioning the assumptions about the role marketing plays in consumers’ lives and can find ways to do things in a fresher way.

As we say in the Punk Marketing Manifesto, “why not ask ‘why not?’” Assumptions are there to be questioned, not followed without thinking. As the money moves from the old ways of marketing to the new the need for change has never been clearer.