Is the hope that most people don’t like Jersey Shore’s Pauly D, and since he doesn’t like Miracle Whip, maybe we will — just to be un-Pauly-D-like?
(Remember when Coach sent Snooki a Gucci bag, so she’d stop carrying around one of theirs? But that can’t be the explanation here. Hellmann’s would get a call really, really fast from Kraft lawyers if they created spoof Miracle Whip ad and ran it on TV.)
I saw some research back in January that suggests celebrity spokespeople don’t make ads more effective. While I have not seen research to support the following, I can’t imagine celebrity spokespeople from the cast of Jersey Shore are good for anyone’s brand.
Combine the popularity of photos, the affordability of police mugshots, the tough economics at newspapers and the increasing population of employees who are required to wear corporate colors, and this is what you get: Brands showing up in all the wrong places. From BrandChannel:
“[A] kind of negative exposure is emerging as newspapers catch on to the grim popularity of publishing mug shots in a police blotter section. In addition to The Smoking Gun website, news outlets across the US, from St. Louis to Kentucky to Ft. Myers, are increasingly featuring mug shots. (Last year, Change.org even posed the question, ‘Can mug shots save the newspaper industry?’)”
“Since the 35 Chilean miners resurfaced, they have been wearing specially designed $180 Oakley sunglasses
to protect their eyes as they re-acclimate to the sun.
“An Oakley spokespersons stated they donated 35 pairs of Oakley Radar sunglasses with Black Iridium lenses in Path and Range lens shapes to the miners, who required protection as their eyes adjusted after spending more than two months trapped underground. Oakley was approached by a Chilean journalist about donating to the effort and was happy to oblige.”
As far as I can tell, this is just good corporate citizenship by Oakley (the primary motivation) that leaves onlookers feeling good about the brand (a collateral benefit). I like to think most companies would be willing to donate $1000-worth of their products, if asked, to a group of people in an especially needy moment. I’m just glad this idea came from a third party who recommended the plan to Oakley, and not an overly-clever marketing manager trying to capitalize on a high-profile news story about a group of people in an especially need moment!
I’ll admit it. On Monday, while giving some agency friends a tour of the new Digg, I came across an article on Jersey Shore star Snooki and had to ask who she was. But now that she’s the central figure in suspected plot by luxury brands to get their purses out of her hands, I can’t get enough.
“Here’s the deal: Remember how Snooki, drunk or sober, was never seen without that Coach bag dangling from the crook of her arm? Snooki and her Coach were as synonymous as The Situation and his six-pack. But then the winds of change started blowing on Jersey Shore. Every photograph of Guido-huntin’ Snooki showed her toting a new designer purse. Why the sudden disloyalty? Was she trading up? Was she vomiting into her purses and then randomly replacing them? The answer is much more intriguing.
“Allegedly, the anxious folks at these various luxury houses are all aggressively gifting our gal Snookums with free bags. No surprise, right? But here’s the shocker: They are not sending her their own bags. They are sending her each other’s bags! Competitors’ bags!
“Call it what you will — ‘preemptive product placement’? ‘unbranding’? — either way, it’s brilliant, and it makes total sense. As much as one might adore Miss Snickerdoodle, her ability to inspire dress-alikes among her fans is questionable. The bottom line? Nobody in fashion wants to co-brand with Snooki.”
Nobody does product placement better than 30 Rock. Instead of taking the money and quietly hiding the product on set, 30 Rock leans in — hard. In the latest episode, Alec Baldwin’s Jack Donaghy is required by circumstances to video conference, and the show’s writers take it over the top by working in lines that make Jack sound like he’s reading from the Cisco TelePresence brochure.
The lost opportunity (for Cisco and for NBC) is that the product-placement scene is locked up at Hulu. You can watch it there by scrolling through the episode, but it would reach many more eyeballs if fans could excerpt the clip and set free on YouTube.
According to Daily Mail UK, “secret” product placement in the show by brands such as London Fog and Stoli “could have been a plan masterminded by Donald Draper himself.” Secret?! Have you seen the show??
(Note: While product placement is a wide-spread practice in American movies and TV shows, it’s frowned upon in the UK and prohibited by the BBC’s internal guidelines.)
“A study released by the Department of Research and Economic Affairs at Arizona State University found that subliminal advertising through product placement in movies is becoming more effective than ever, which of course means advertisers are going to start doing it…a lot.”
Among other benefits, the professors at ASU observed a dramatic rise in the stock prices of company’s that successfully executed product placement in movies. Brands invested $722 million in product placement in movies in 2005. By 2010, the ASU team estimates spending will rise to $1.8 billion.