If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Last month in our Brogan :60 Impact we discussed the launch of Gap’s new ad campaign featuring 12 celebrities enlisted to help save it’s struggling sales. In that same article, we mentioned Macy’s taking a similar approach to increase it’s lagging sales. Now with the release of both campaigns, I have to say I think someone finally got the use of celebrity’s right, that someone is Macy’s.

I caught the :60 version (below) of the spot during a commercial break of my series premiere marathon this past weekend and it actually made me stop and rewind my DVR. I sat and watched it as if it was a series premiere itself and at the end my fiancé and I said at the same time, “that was really good.”

Check it out for yourself then come back and we’ll chat about what makes it “really good.”

So, what makes this so much better than Gap’s (current and past) execution? Well, Macy’s takes a different approach. It brings the brands to life by showing celebrities highlighting and essentially selling their own products. While Gap tries to convince us that the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker and Missy Elliot actually shop and wear Gap clothes on a regular basis.

Remember the JC Penny It’s All Inside Campaign? They almost had it but, not quite. Macy’s takes it to another level, by showcasing the brands (and the personalities behind them) instead of the traditional retail method of simply displaying a mainstream outfit here or a decent pair of shoes there. The spots are focused on the brands and quality of product that Macy’s carries. They are beginning to create a personal relationship with the customers and the brands. Isn’t that what it’s all about anyway, the emotional connection a customer has to a product or service?

Now, will this result in increased sales for Macy’s? I think this will depend on if they continue this customer experience into the stores and through the end of a sale. But, what I do know is with this great creative strategy and solid execution they are definitely in an excellent position for the upcoming holiday season.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the spot. Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment.

Check out the other spots in the campaign here.

Share This

Spam: no longer the weird pink meat-like product we ate as kids. The American classic has taken on a whole new meaning for email users. It’s sent by those inconsiderate junk mailers who want to clog our email system. We all get it. We try to block it. We delete it. We wish it would just STOP. But could you be a Spammer??? Do those massive group forwards or the “send this to 3,000 of your closest friends for good luck” emails make you wonder??? Well, here is what the folks at CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Market) canspam website define as SPAM and the guidelines they have devised:

• False and misleading header information is banned
  - This means that an email’s “From,” “To” and routing information, including the originating domain name and address, must be accurate and identify the sender.

• Deceptive subject lines are prohibited -
  The subject line cannot mislead the receiver of the message to open it under false pretenses, thinking it’s something else. The receiver must not be mislead as to the contents or subject matter of the email.

• Opt-out methods must be provided - A response mechanism must be provided for the receiver to opt-out of any future commercial messages from the sender. In addition, opt-out requests must be processed
  for at least 30 days after the initial commercial email was sent, and senders have 10 business days
  after an opt-out request to stop sending messages to that address. Messages cannot be sent to the opt-out requestor on behalf of the sender by any other entity.

• Commercial email must be identified as an advertisement and it must include the sender’s valid physical postal address
  The receiver must be clearly informed that the message is an advertisement or solicitation, he must be told he can opt-out of future mailings, and a valid physical postal address must be included in the message.

• Receivers must be warned of sexually explicit material
  - For any message that contains sexually explicit material, the warning “SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT” must be contained in the subject line.

Other interesting statistics:

• The most prevalent type of SPAM is advertising-related email, which accounts for about 36% of all SPAM messages. Can you guess #2?? Rhymes with the most searched topic on the internet…You GUESSED IT… pornography.

• Identity theft (or phishing) makes up at 73% of online scams.

• SPAM costs businesses about $20.5 billion annually in decreased productivity and technical expenses, according to Radicati Research Group, Inc.;

• And Nucleus Research estimates that the average loss per employee annually base of SPAM is approx. $1934.

I don’t know about you but I’m no longer hungry. Wanna know more visit spamlaws.com

Share This

I think I watched about 1 hour of TV over the last 3 months. There was nothing on. I’ve got stuff to do. I didn’t really miss it.

But then Monday: Wham! TV was back, and it wasn’t playing around. How I Met Your Mother, Heroes, the new weird show Chuck. Tuesday with Two and Half Men. All of sudden TV was back. And I watched some Monday and <<gasp>> even a bit more on Tuesday. (Completely coincidentally, I just overheard Chris in my office say to Erin: “Isn’t tomorrow the Office premiere? Boom. Done. I’m there.”)

There’s been lots written about fragmentation of TV channels, the proliferation of DVRs like Tivo, the rise of alternative entertainment choices (online, gaming, etc.) and much of it is true. But let’s remember that TV can still be an event that brings people together.

These events are advertising opportunities, and they are getting more valuable. Think season premieres, season finales, award shows, big sporting events… We’ve bought the Oscars for clients and been very happy with it. TV has problems, but to reach the world quickly, there are still opportunities.

What do you think? Leave a quick comment.

Share This

Rupert Murdoch is a smart man. He bought MySpace in 2005 when it made $23 million from ad sales. In 2007, it will make $525 million in ad sales. So he knows a thing or two about Internet advertising and the value of it.

So I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised to learn that he’s considering unlocking the Wall Street Journal online vaults. Currently, you need to subscribe to get “the good stuff,” although there are also some free articles.

The Journal makes a good living locking up “the good stuff.” The estimated loss from switching to an open system is estimated at $30 million. But since the Wall Street Journal has exceptional content, a great brand name, and a strong web presence already, Murdoch is pretty sure he can more than make up for that loss with Internet ad sales.

We’re in a new world, folks. The business of advertising is changing. What good content means, how it’s valued and who will pay for it is changing.

Depending on your business model, this could have profound effects on how you deal with your customers and prospects. Do you have great content hidden away on the one hand? Or should you be paying for highly targeted Internet ads on the other hand? One thing is for sure, hang on to the status quo and you’ll lose status…

Share This

With so many “citizen journalists” publishing so much content online, the issue of copyright is being tested in new ways. To deal with that in an open way, a non-profit organization called “Creative Commons” set up a series of licensing structures that let’s you define quickly and easily how others can use your work.

Good idea. Assuming you understand what license you are giving away. The Associated Press (and lots of bloggers) are talking about the lawsuit filed by a Texas family who discovered a photo taken of their daughter and uploaded into photosharing site Flickr was being used in an ad. The ad is shown here.

Turns out that Virgin Mobile Australia found the picture on Flickr, published by the photographer under an open Creative Commons license, meaning the photographer gave up his rights. The model, apparently did not. And apparently she’s not excited about the tagline, which says “Free text Virgin to Virgin.”

The damage to Flickr if they don’t deal with this could be enormous. People may think twice about using the site (even though you can indicate that your pictures are copyright protected if you so wish). Flickr’s got great momentum otherwise–they need to nip this in the bud quickly.

In the advertising agency business, all of our contracts talk about who is responsible for securing the rights to photography. It’s a big deal to get it right. Some folks believe that Virgin is on solid ground legally because the photographer donated the picture to the world (knowingly or unknowingly). But for a company as big as Virgin to use the shot without being sure they had permission was a significant mistake from a PR perspective, even if they get away with the legal side…

Shortcuts can hurt…  What do you think? Should Virgin be allowed to do this if the photo was published under Creative Commons license that allows them, too? After all, they disclosed right on the poster that they got the picture of Flickr?  Or should you always check?

Share This

How many times have you heard some jargon in a meeting or in conversation and just wanted to shout “Bull$#*% Bingo!”? We have all been there, a client or a co-worker is struggling with marketing problem and goes to the “thinking outside the box” well. As a well-known creative agency there is an expectation that we are going to come up with the prize-winning “out of the box” idea. Acquaintances speak of their envy and admiration for the fact that we simply sit around awaiting the arrival of the Wacky Idea Muse. Ahhh… little do they know that the best ideas are spawned by the unassuming Strategy Muse.

We never venture into the “out of the box” zone without clear strategic direction. The creative process here at Brogan & Partners is a powerful force, but always guided by strategic parameters. Creative without context does not create value for our clients and we are all about creating value for our clients.
Creative ideas generated within a strategic framework are no less original or inspired than free-range creative ideas. They just work better. Consequently we don’t ever forget to take strategic thinking out of the box or in the box or wherever we may be doing our thinking. Who is the customer? How do they think? How does the client’s product compare with the competition? What do we want the client to do? What is the message and why would anyone believe it?

“Creativity at Work” is our mantra. We never forget that Creativity and Work go together. Strategy is work. Results are work. Creativity with results is the end result. So whether we are inside the box or outside the box, we are ALWAYS where the strategy is.

Share This