A friend of mine actually told me about an ad for "clean coal" and sent me the link.
Clean Coal Ad
I can't say I agree or disagree with the ad itself because I don't know enough about coal technology to make an informed decision AND we have coal power in North Dakota that provides a lot of good paying jobs, just like we have oil work in North Dakota also paying well for a lot of people. So I don't feel prepared to make a hard and fast judgment about either, even though the environmentalist in me says "Down with fossil fuels!!"
The ad does the trick, however, in making a very vivid point about how 'clean' coal is. By spraying the coal dust around the room like an air freshener, it gives a great visual for what a coal plant is likely doing to our atmosphere.
And the fact that the Coen brothers directed it helps too.
I saw another ad by the same agency (Reality) on YouTube. The ads remind me of the Truth.com ads that warn about the dangers of smoking. This is the one I've seen most recently.
These ads are very provocatively done and do an excellent job of reaching people on a visceral level. And that seems to be the key to this type of ad campaign--get a gut reaction.
I do firmly believe smoking is bad for you and I do think everyone should quit. I have not made up my mind on the clean coal thing. But these types of ads would push me to lean in their direction because they make such striking points. After seeing them, I want to know more--know more details, know more facts, know for sure.
But I am a very inquisitive person. How do people who don't care to think much respond? Do they take the word of the ad? Or do they equally blindly dismiss it because it is so extreme in its point?
When constructing my own ad, I have to decide what kind of reaction I want in my audience--do I want a primal, gut-instinct response, or do I want a feel-good, warm and fuzzy response? Am I looking for a solely emotional connection at all? On what level do I want to connect with my audience?
Advertising becomes a very dicey psychological game, and if we aren't careful, it might take a sudden twist we weren't intending at all.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Down Side of an Up Economy
SYKES announced this week that they would be closing their Minot operation as of May 10, 2009.
My first thought when I heard the headline was, "Huh, must have lost contracts with Microsoft or something because of the economy." But as I listened to the story, I learned the actual reason for the closing is because they cannot find enough workers to fill their open positions.
Yes, you read that right.
They are not closing due to loss of work, poor money management, or some CEO scandal. They can't fill the open positions--they can't get enough bodies in the chairs.
Can you imagine this in any other state in the country right now??
This "problem" should be marketed to Job Service offices around the country! There are thousands lining up to apply for a few hundred jobs in some of the harder hit areas. While not everyone would be willing to move to North Dakota, I bet some would. This could be the state's opportunity to bolster their population and generate more good PR like the CNN story from a week or so ago.
North Dakotans for years have collectively wrung their hands trying to stem the tide of outmigration. This seems to me to be the perfect incentive to bring people in.
WE HAVE JOBS !!!!
Now, of course, there are those (like my dear husband) who do not relish the idea of a bunch of 'foreigners' coming in and ruining their solitude.
Don't worry dear.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to come build a shopping mall or apartment complex next to your uber-rural farm which lies 90 miles from anywhere considered civilized to outside folks.
And the rest of you who have this same concern, see the above statement.
When I was in NY a week or so ago, people said, "You're not from here, are you?" And I said with a wide smile, "No, how can you tell?" expecting some sort of "goober" answer.
"You're too nice," was the reply.
So not only do we have jobs and lots of space, we have a nice personality too! Now let's get out there and market it!!
My first thought when I heard the headline was, "Huh, must have lost contracts with Microsoft or something because of the economy." But as I listened to the story, I learned the actual reason for the closing is because they cannot find enough workers to fill their open positions.
Yes, you read that right.
They are not closing due to loss of work, poor money management, or some CEO scandal. They can't fill the open positions--they can't get enough bodies in the chairs.
Can you imagine this in any other state in the country right now??
This "problem" should be marketed to Job Service offices around the country! There are thousands lining up to apply for a few hundred jobs in some of the harder hit areas. While not everyone would be willing to move to North Dakota, I bet some would. This could be the state's opportunity to bolster their population and generate more good PR like the CNN story from a week or so ago.
North Dakotans for years have collectively wrung their hands trying to stem the tide of outmigration. This seems to me to be the perfect incentive to bring people in.
WE HAVE JOBS !!!!
Now, of course, there are those (like my dear husband) who do not relish the idea of a bunch of 'foreigners' coming in and ruining their solitude.
Don't worry dear.
I'm pretty sure no one is going to come build a shopping mall or apartment complex next to your uber-rural farm which lies 90 miles from anywhere considered civilized to outside folks.
And the rest of you who have this same concern, see the above statement.
When I was in NY a week or so ago, people said, "You're not from here, are you?" And I said with a wide smile, "No, how can you tell?" expecting some sort of "goober" answer.
"You're too nice," was the reply.
So not only do we have jobs and lots of space, we have a nice personality too! Now let's get out there and market it!!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Blogging in China.....A Lot Like Marketing in the US
I just read an article in Newsweek about bloggers in China. It seems that since the Chinese government controls much of what comes out of mainstream media, the blogosphere has taken up where traditional media has been forced to leave off.
Many bloggers have been able to expose corruption and scandal that otherwise would have been forced to stay quiet. There is some authentic journalism going on.
But just like media in the US, there is also a range in the gamut of quality--some bloggers are finding the equivalent of the Enquirer to be more their style. Others are opting for the capitalistic approach--they are paid by the government to post positive comments about the government and issues it deems important.
This is the part that reminds me of marketing in the US.
Some companies pay bloggers to write positive things about their products. Others pay people to go on sites such as Amazon and write positive reviews in the comment sections. This is a nice way to make a little extra cash for a starving writer who is still trying to get their 1800 page memoir published. But it's really not any more ethical than the bloggers in China posting things for the government.
Most US citizens would find it objectionable for the government to pay people to promote propaganda. They would especially feel indignant and possibly elevated in comparison if that government were a communistic one such as China. And they are probably justified in those opinions.
But why do these same people accept it as just part of a capitalistic society that companies are going to do whatever necessary to promote their product? It's marketing, they say.
Yes, there is a big difference between marketing a widget and a government. But in the end it's all ideas being pushed, right? And for that matter, everyone and everything is pushing an idea or agenda at all times. So who do you believe? How do you decide who is honest and who is blogging for the government?
I guess the upside of the democratic version is that we have the option to hear everything, even if we know most of it is a bunch of crap.
Many bloggers have been able to expose corruption and scandal that otherwise would have been forced to stay quiet. There is some authentic journalism going on.
But just like media in the US, there is also a range in the gamut of quality--some bloggers are finding the equivalent of the Enquirer to be more their style. Others are opting for the capitalistic approach--they are paid by the government to post positive comments about the government and issues it deems important.
This is the part that reminds me of marketing in the US.
Some companies pay bloggers to write positive things about their products. Others pay people to go on sites such as Amazon and write positive reviews in the comment sections. This is a nice way to make a little extra cash for a starving writer who is still trying to get their 1800 page memoir published. But it's really not any more ethical than the bloggers in China posting things for the government.
Most US citizens would find it objectionable for the government to pay people to promote propaganda. They would especially feel indignant and possibly elevated in comparison if that government were a communistic one such as China. And they are probably justified in those opinions.
But why do these same people accept it as just part of a capitalistic society that companies are going to do whatever necessary to promote their product? It's marketing, they say.
Yes, there is a big difference between marketing a widget and a government. But in the end it's all ideas being pushed, right? And for that matter, everyone and everything is pushing an idea or agenda at all times. So who do you believe? How do you decide who is honest and who is blogging for the government?
I guess the upside of the democratic version is that we have the option to hear everything, even if we know most of it is a bunch of crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
