Archive for the ‘love it or hate it?’ Category

El Pollo Loco adds heat to KFC challenge

Monday, May 11th, 2009

One way or the other, you probably heard about KFC last week.

If you didn’t see one of their ads for their new Kentucky Grilled Chicken (the largest ad blitz in KFC history) you probably heard about the Oprah catastrophy. KFC was caught off guard when a promotion for a free two-piece meal featuring its new grilled chicken created such an overwhelming response the company ran out of chicken and customers had to be turned away.

KFC wasn’t execution responsible, but most companies would love to be overwhelmed by new customers. Especially El Pollo Loco, the 418-unit Costa Mesa, California-based chain that challenged KFC to a taste test in late April.

The company wants to pit its citrus-marinated grilled chicken against the KFC offering and has taken specific aim at KFC’s cooking process. While El Pollo Loco grills its chicken over an open flame, KFC’s chicken is cooked on a griddle—a point that the smaller contender hasn’t missed:

In KFC’s defense, if El Pollo Loco wants a taste test, all they have to do is conduct one, and by definition, grilling doesn’t require an open flame.

Amid the Oprah firestorm, KFC issued rain checks for anyone that was turned away. The rain checks were good until May 19, 2009—excluding Mother’s Day, May 10, 2009.

El Pollo Loco’s response: Ask KFC what they have against mothers, and honor KFC’s coupons on Mother’s Day.

In this David v. Goliath story, Goliath has yet to throw a swing.

It’s familiar territory for KFC—the company has failed to effectively respond to PETA’s long-running Kentucky Fried Cruelty campaign.

El Pollo Loco is receiving national attention playing chicken with KFC.

Do you love their tactics or hate them?

Should KFC accept El Pollo Loco’s challenge?

If not, how should they respond?

. . .

UPDATE: QSRWeb, an online publication covering quick-service restaurant ideas and trends, covered this topic in detail, interviewing me for the Responsible Marketing take in El Polo Loco winning this round of chicken war. Check it out.

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Thanks for Matthew Mason for the KFC tip.

Rude, crude and funny ads: Love ‘em or hate ‘em?

Friday, February 13th, 2009

We all love to laugh, and when we find something genuinely funny, we love to share it.

But humor is subjective and what’s funny to some is offensive to others.

Case in point: One of the following ads was banned, the other wasn’t.


View this video on YouTube


View this video on YouTube

I’ll admit, crude, sophomoric ads like these are a guilty pleasure for me. They make me laugh out loud, but I’d be embarrassed if my young children saw them. For that matter, I’d be embarrassed if my mom saw them, and I’m over 40.

So do you love or hate ads like these?

And how far is too far?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

Facebook disables BK’s Whopper Sacrifice app

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Whopper Sacrifice has been sacrificed

Facebook “helps you connect and share with the people in your life.”

But as anyone that has used the service knows, sometimes those connections can become, well, tenuous.

Enter Burger King, who last week saw this as not a problem, but an opportunity to help Facebook users cull the unworthy using an un-friend app at WhopperSacrifice.com.

Leading with the headline “You like your friends, but you love the Whopper,” for every 10 friends you dump, Burger King provides a coupon for one of their signature burgers.

The application went viral, and in one week, 82,000 people deleted over 230,000 friendships on Facebook.

Vince Veneziani of GearFuse had this to say about the app on his blog:

It really wasn’t tough finding ten people on Facebook that I wanted to delete. I just needed a reason and a juicy burger was sufficient enough. This is one of the most twisted, yet delicious, marketing ploys I’ve ever encountered.

Yesterday, Facebook shut the application down citing privacy concerns. According to Inside Facebook, it was because the site “sent a notification to the friend being removed letting them know they were being “sacrificed for a Whopper” before finalizing the removal.”

Here’s Veneziani’s notification page after un-friending 10 of his unfortunate contacts:

Whopper Sacrifice - Vince Veneziani - Gearfuse

Facebook claims the application still exists and will be enabled when the privacy issues are addressed, but clearly, Whopper Sacrifice won’t be nearly as controversial or interesting with the notification disabled.

What do you think?

Do you love or hate the BK app?

In trying to get attention and go viral, did Burger King go too far with the Whopper Sacrifice application, or did Facebook go too far in the name of privacy?

Comment below to share and/or friend me Facebook.

Subscribe to this feed.

Comparitive advertising: Love it or hate it?

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

You’ve probably noticed there’s a lot more comparative advertising being done lately.

Miller Lite v. Bud Light, Whopper v. Big Mac, Campbells v. Progresso and Dunkin’ Donuts (or McDonalds) v. Starbucks all immediately come to mind.

Of course, the poster child for comparative advertising is Mac v. PC:


View Mac v. PC on YouTube

Is comparitive advertising good or bad?

In New ads: battle of the brands, the Christian Science Monitor argues all this comparative advertising might backfire.

Why?

After a negative, protracted political campaign season, people are fed up with negative advertising. And when one brand compares itself to another, both brands receive publicity.

I’ll buy that.

But while some ads can be downright brutal, the fact is consumers are overwhelmed with choices and information, and by comparing one product to another—even though it’s biased—they are learning about differences they might not have been aware of before.

So, do you love or hate comparative ads?

Are there particular brands that you think are doing this type of advertising particularly well?

Comment below to share.

Subscribe to this feed.

. . .

Thanks to Bill Boyd for sharing the CS Monitor story with me.

The JCPenney Doghouse: Love it or hate it?

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

When I was a boy, a trip to JCPenney for school clothes was like a trip to hell. Their clothing was so—Penneys, and though I was able to persuade my parents to let me shop where the cool kids shopped when I got older, I still avoid the store today.

I can’t tell you what it’s like inside the store today, but with a hat tip to their ad agency Saatchi and Saatchi, some of their new adverts are quite good.

In fact, I’ve been sucked into a few of their T.V. ads that held me to the very end. When I learned they were for Penneys, I wasn’t sure if I felt good for JCP since they had improved or if I thought the ads misrepresented the “real” JCP I knew (over 30 years ago).

Here’s a new 4:45 viral video called The Doghouse from JCP’s Beware of the Doghouse campaign:

I find the video entertaining and particularly well done, but it’s yet another example of the way advertising portrays and reinforces the stereotype that all men are idiots.

I’m a husband that struggles to find his wife the right gift and I’m not offended, but some in the blogosphere are.

What do you think of “The Doghouse?” Do you love it or hate it?

Comment below to share your opinion.

Subscribe to this feed.

Love it or hate it? “Kiss my Astra”

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

Saturn's Kiss my Astra

Do you want to Kiss my Astra?

I didn’t think so.

But Saturn’s new campaign asks you to do just that, then share it with the world.

Join Saturn’s Ning-powered ImSaturn social network, then upload a picture of you kissing a Saturn Astra and you could win one.

Is “Kiss my Astra,” just a low-brow way to get attention or is it a brilliant piece of marketing? Sure, people are kissing their product, then talking about it and sharing it online—but is Saturn cheapening their brand in the process?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Do you love it or hate it?

Comment below to weigh in.

Love it or hate it: Jawbone viral video campaign

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

Surely you are familiar with Jawbone, the makers of the excellent noise-canceling Bluetooth headsets for mobile phones. The product really is amazing. I love mine.

But I don’t love their attempt at creating buzz.

I’d rate the first video PG-13.


View the video on YouTube

Two women are sitting in a pub having a casual conversation when a rugby team storms the pub, making a huge ruckus. The production quality is good, and you feel for them. Their conversation is clearly over in all this noise, then the phone rings and one woman picks up her Jawbone.

Of course, the noise is gone and she’s able to begin a conversation.

Message sent. Jawbone plain works.

But that wasn’t enough.

Two of the rugby players begin to kiss. Well, not just kiss, but make out. They take off their shirts and really go for it.

Like the the Snickers kiss ad, this video exploited sexual orientation for shock factor or laughs.

There are so many other things they could have done. A brawl could have broken out–chairs and bodies could have flown over the woman’s head. They could have broken into song. A leprechaun could have walked in and done a jig on the table. Whatever.

Instead of creativity, they chose exploitation.

I’d rate the next video R:


View the video on YouTube

An agitated man walks into an Asian dry cleaner and proceeds to rant about the amount of starch in his shirts. Racial slurs, stereotypes and f-bombs fly.

Then a man ‘in the peanut gallery’ gets a phone call, and since he’s using his Jawbone, the noise is gone. He closes his eyes and enjoys the peace of hearing his call and nothing more.

Once again, message sent. Jawbone works.

But that wasn’t enough, either.

The jackass gets his comeuppance when the family puts a bag over his head and then brutally beats him to death. Oh, wait, he dies of suffocation. There’s no sound, except for the man on his call.

I don’t have virgin ears and I’ve dropped an f-bomb or two in my life. But this video is incredibly insensitive, offensive and violent.

Instead of creativity, they chose cheap racial slurs and Quentin Tarantino-calibre violence.

There are other ads, but it’s really more of the same:

In Hot Girl Gets Wet, a girl relaxing by the pool is interrupted by three loudmouth guys trying to impress her. They jump in, and lo and behold, Jaws Redux.

Wait Staff Eliminates Noise features a rowdy Russian mobster being drowned in his soup by restaurant employees.

THE IRONY

The Jawbone brand is creating buzz all on its own. They have major distribution and are considered by many to be the best Bluetooth headset you can buy.

They didn’t need to resort to exploitational or offensive virals. With minor tweaks, they could have had videos that were immensely entertaining without casting Jawbone as a callous, bigoted and desperate startup.

Put it another way. Can you imagine Apple doing virals like this? Or Red Bull? Or Pepsi? No way.

I noticed jawbonefilms.com is now routed to the company homepage. Maybe they’ve come to the same conclusion.

These videos have been rated well on YouTube so apparently some people like what they are seeing.

So do you love this campaign or hate it?

Comment below to weigh in.

Viral video: A little mystery goes a long way

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

In the last week, the above video has been viewed 444,117 times on YouTube.

Question is, what is it?

I did some sleuthing for you.

Go to the video’s YouTube page, and you’ll find a link that takes you to a splash page:

Click on the splash page and you’ll find another page with the video on it, and the following copy:

My friends, my name is Papi. Viva Chihuahuas. We have been dressed in sweaters and carried in purses. I say no mas! I am tired of the jokes about our size. Will not be toys or fashion accessories. Will not answer to Fee Fee or Foo Foo. No mas! Viva Chihuahuas. Who is with me? Heel!

There are no links to click.

No “contact me” fill-in for your email address so they can contact you with more information.

Nothing.

So I did some more sleuthing and discovered this is a viral video produced by none other than…

Disney.

It’s a promotion for a movie coming this fall:

Here’s an entertaining video, probably out to sell jeans. It’s been viewed nearly 800,000 times in five days.

Viral video can be pretty entertaining, however, it often forces you to jump through a few hoops to figure out what’s being sold.

But isn’t it a good thing if the creative gets your attention, the mystery holds it, you interact with the brand and then you tell others?

So, do you love or hate viral video?

And can you figure out what brand the “unbuttoned” video is promoting?

Comment below to weigh in.

. . .

Inspiration for this post came from illegaladvertising.com.

Love it or hate it? Heineken’s “Share the Good”

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

With the title “Share the Good,” Heineken’s new campaign sounds promising. But it’s not about Katrina relief, reducing the company’s carbon footprint or feeding hungry children.

Nope.

It’s all about the beer, and sharing your Heineken with a stranger.

While the ad is visually interesting and the art direction is quite good, something isn’t quite right. It actually feels more Pepsi or Coke than it does Heineken. Maybe they should have called it, “Share a Heineken and a smile.”

You can interact with the brand at sharethegood.com, and there are tools to drive word of mouth. The tag cloud representing happy Heineken drinkers just like you is intriguing, but is so stylized it feels fake.

The biggest problem with this campaign is that it implies there’s more to it than there is. To most people, “Share the Good,” doesn’t mean “share the beer.”

Any socially conscious consumer that pays attention to the ad, then invests the time to visit the website to learn more will be let down, or even worse—they’ll leave feeling duped when they are left to ask “where’s the good?”

What do you think? Do you love it or hate it?

Comment below to weigh in.

. . .

Inspiration for this post came from adrants on twitter

Easter Bunny hogtied, candy stolen. Story at 11.

Friday, March 21st, 2008

Hogtied Easter Bunny

Rest assured, I understand no bunnies were harmed during the photo shoot for this ad. This is from the following ad for Shaw’s Candies of San Francisco:

Hogtied Easter Bunny
+ enlarge

The other ads in the campaign include X-rays of teeth and a belt from folks that couldn’t resist their chocolates.

Kind of makes me think of a sign I saw at the local Fatburger: “We’re not for every body.”

Honest.
Direct.
Fearless.

What do you think? Love it or hate it?

Images from AdsoftheWorld.com