From a 202er:
I saw this article and thought it had some relevance as we are building our own IS sites and lab Web sites.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/media/11adco.html?_r=1&ref=media
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Video and advertising
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
9:42 AM
0
comments
Labels: advertising
Friday, September 18, 2009
Litigation in virtual space
Check out this new suit involving Second Life.
What does it mean to interact in cyberspace? How are marketing and advertising changed and affected when you move out of real life and into Second Life? Is Second Life "real"? What ethical responsibilities do we have in different spaces?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
8:39 AM
1 comments
Labels: advertising, cyberspace, ethics roundup, second life
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Viral video consequences
"Viral" has a certain meaning for us amid our spate of H1N1 warnings, but in marketing, the concept refers to getting your message consumed and extended via sharing among users on social networks. Facebook and Twitter matter, but e-mail is still a primary way we set viral messages in motion interpersonally.
A Danish organization learned something about this recently when a fracas erupted over a video "hoax" uploaded to YouTube. Check out the video and some of the reaction.
Some people are asking, "What were they thinking?" Others are saying, "They were thinking there's no such thing as bad publicity. In viral terms, this thing was a monster hit."
What say ye?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
11:38 AM
4
comments
Labels: advertising, ethics roundup, viral
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Sensitivity and advertising
Ad agency DDB Brasil is facing outrage over an ad it created that used imagery evoking 9/11 to make a point about the tsunami and conservation for client World Wildlife Fund (this story is a touch confusing, so I recommend watching the ad posted at the end).
A print ad ran once in obscurity, and the agency initially claimed it hadn't created a video that was working its way around the Web. But when the blogosphere lit up, everything came out.
What is the role of sensitivity in advertising? Give me an example of a time a shocking ad might be used to positive effect. Do you think this ad should have been created and run? What cross-cultural issues are at play, given that the 9/11 attacks were against the U.S. but this agency is international?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
9:40 AM
1 comments
Labels: 9/11, advertising, ethics roundup, sensitivity
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Cable ad targeting
Interesting cable industry development, enabling ad delivery according to customer demographics.
Online ads have been targeted (not just by demos, but by behavior) extensively. But that targeting is not without controversy.
It's well worth your time to understand why targeting is desirable and why it can be controversial.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
10:15 AM
0
comments
Labels: advertising, behavioral targeting, cable
Friday, February 27, 2009
Overbilling and ethics
Agency Leo Burnett settled an overbilling case with the Army, agreeing to $15.5 million in cash and credit for work performed.
What are an organization's ethical duties to its clients? How are those duties communicated and reinforced? What does this case do to Burnett's reputation, if anything?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
7:41 AM
0
comments
Labels: advertising, agency, ethics roundup
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wearing an advertiser's colors
A 202er submits this blog post on the Memphis hoops team's decision not to switch its team uniforms to the FedEx colors for a game.
She highlights an interesting ethical dilemma. What's the limit of corporate sponsorship and support? How far should a team go? What lines should not be crossed? For instance, the UW has an initiative to try to curb binge drinking. Does this mean its athletic teams should not accept sponsorship from Miller Brewing or Absolut? Where would you draw the lines?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
9:49 AM
2
comments
Labels: advertising, ethics roundup, media ethics, sponsorship, sports
Friday, February 6, 2009
Kellogg Dumping Phelps
The bong hit that continues to haunt:
http://adage.com/article?article_id=134363
Michael Phelps loses an endorsement deal, what may the first in a line.
What is a celebrity's responsibility to the clients that hire him as a face for their brand? What is his responsibility to the public in general? How serious was this mistake? How seriously should he pay for it?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
6:00 AM
8
comments
Labels: advertising, branding, endorsement, ethics roundup, media ethics
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Super Bowl flops
Adweek has a good roundup of famous (infamous?) Super Bowl commercials that failed. Worth watching the links.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
8:05 AM
1 comments
Labels: advertising, super bowl
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ads and Accuracy
The two presidential campaigns got into multiple kerfuffles last fall over the accuracy of campaign advertising. It's a pretty common development.
Here's just one example.
But now that we have the benefit of time and distance, did it matter? In what ways does campaign advertising sway the electorate? Should we expect it to be "accurate"? How is that accuracy determined in the arena of politics? Isn't one man's misinterpretation another man's firm conviction? Are these ethics questions only or should we think about legal ramifications?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
6:14 AM
9
comments
Labels: accuracy, advertising, campaign, ethics roundup, media ethics, obama
Promises, promises
So it turns out that Barack Obama handed out a lot of assurances during his campaign. Many, many more than his predecessors (about double Bush and Clinton).
These came out in speeches and his online content but also very prominently in his campaign advertising.
Now PolitiFact wants to check out how good he is at keeping them.
What is the role of campaign advertising in establishing policy? How closely should we scrutinize campaign ads? Are they really about issues or really about personality? How do they matter?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
6:06 AM
1 comments
Labels: advertising, campaign, ethics roundup, media ethics, politifact
Super Bowl Ads and the Blogosphere
Looks like the recession may cutting into chatter about the upcoming Super Bowl ads. Discussions are down, according to Ad Age and others.
What does this mean for these spots? Does it make the massive investment less worth it? How much does this buzz help a brand?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
5:47 AM
1 comments
Labels: ad age, advertising, blogs, branding, super bowl
Miller creativity
Here's more on the Miller 1-second ads we covered in lecture:
http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/ad-of-the-day/article_display.jsp?creativeId=269983
and you can view the set of ads at http://1secondad.com/VerifyAge.aspx
be sure to verify your age correctly : )
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
5:43 AM
0
comments
Labels: ad age, advertising, creative
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Political advertising
J-School affiliated faculty member Ken Goldstein has interesting followup to the debate and assertions about the negativity of political ads:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/14838
I also found this perspective intriguing:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163476
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
10:45 AM
3
comments
Labels: advertising, election, politics
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Ad controversy
When should student publications accept and reject advertising that prompts controversy? Conservative commentator David Horowitz has stirred the pot yet again, this time at UCSB.
What responsibilities do student publishers face? What's the role of free speech here? What's Horowitz's obligation in placing the ad?
This sort of communication reared its head here at the UW a few years back. Then some administrators chimed in. Then still more defended the students.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
1:44 PM
2
comments
Labels: advertising, media ethics, sensitivity
Friday, February 15, 2008
Ads and Newspapers in One Post
Great intersection of news and strat comm. A cooperative has introduced quadrantONE, a way for national advertisers to push their messages out to smaller local and regional newspaper sites. If you're Miller Beer, you're not going to negotiate individually with the Journal Sentinel, State Journal, etc., to post ads on their sites. The theory is that quandrantONE will give media buyers a chance to specialize without too much effort in contacting individual outlets.
Newspapers are in trouble. Ad revenues are down, as is circulation. Advertisers need new avenues to consumers. No one has figured out a way to truly leverage the Web as a revenue model. Will this work? What do you think?
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
4:15 PM
0
comments
Labels: advertising, newspapers, quadrantone
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Bowl Ads
So we didn't have much time to chat yesterday about the advertising bonanza that is the Super Bowl. Which ads did you like? Which did you hate? Which do you think have the greatest effect? And what about the Richard Simmons spot ... was it insensitive?
More on ads. It's Super Tuesday. What are you reading about candidates' ads? I'm getting a lot of that kind of traffic on Facebook, especially notes about this piece in support of Obama. Curious how this is playing with your generation.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
6:55 AM
2
comments
Labels: advertising, new york times, obama, politics, USA Today
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Accuracy in Advertising
A local example of how inaccuracy can bite you. Those ads cost a pretty penny to make and to run, yet their effectiveness has been significantly diminished by the simplest of errors. Media coverage of the mistake has outstripped the attention the spots may have earned on their own.
Makes a 10-point deduction for fact errors in J202 look like chump change. You've asked me repeatedly if we had a "10 Commandments of Media Ethics," what would be the first one. I'm nothing if not consistent: in news and strat comm, above all things, get it right.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
9:30 AM
0
comments
Labels: accuracy, advertising, media ethics, Wisconsin State Journal
Friday, December 14, 2007
Interactive and Advertising
OK, I'm putting this post up at my own risk, knowing that by the time you follow the link, the digital ad will likely have changed ... but here it goes.
Apple did a digital media buy on the front page of the NYT online today. It features a sidebar ad that interacts with a banner across the top below the masthead.
We all know I'm a cardinal among the Mac faithful, but I'd like to know what you think of this ad creatively and strategically. Does it make sense visually? Would you ever play it to get the interaction to work? Does it motivate you to buy? Do you think you're part of their target? Does digital make sense here? Does a buy with the Times make sense?
And I'll pull my soapbox out one final time this semester. If you're in strat comm and not thinking about digital, you are missing the biggest boat in the ocean right now.
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
11:02 AM
0
comments
Labels: advertising, apple, digital, new york times
Monday, October 29, 2007
Kid Creates Apple Ad
Lots of buzz in the marketing world these days regarding consumer-generated content. The theory is something like open-source in the computer world: the more people you let in on the creative process, the more likely you are to get new ideas and great advertising.
The problem is that you also get lots of dreck. Katy and the Culver kids tried creating an ad for Dove and while my 4-year-old looks darned cute, it isn't exactly something that would move a lot of soap.
So this week, Apple went live with a revamped version of an idea generated by an English student. I'm a fan. What about you? Think this is the future of advertising, consumers creating messages?
Note that this is also an "old media" story. The kid stuck his original on YouTube in mid-September and by mid-October, he had 2,000 hits. The New York Times put it in Stuart Elliott's column (on an inside page, mind you) and in less than 12 hours, the spot went to 20,000 hits. It's now at about 340,000.
Pieces like this often need the support of the (gasp) the "mainstream media." Now, if entities like the NYT can just figure out a way to make money off that hit-generating...
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
1:55 PM
1 comments
Labels: advertising, apple, new york times, youtube