Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me recently for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.”  The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).  He calls out companies for turning over their marketing to consumers through contests like Doritos’ Super Bowl campaigns and Folgers’ recent contest asking the Average Joe (pun intended?!) to update its famous “Best Part of Wakin’ Up” theme.

Rich reached out to me because of an article I had written several years ago for BrandChannel. In it I argued that “consumer-generated advertising as a marketing strategy is a lazy and irresponsible approach to branding.”  Because “brands are the responsibilities of the companies that produce them,” companies were missing out on the opportunity to demonstrate brand leadership and achieve internal alignment with the brand by leading the creative development of their ads.

It wasn’t a popular opinion at the time, since many brand managers were just discovering the benefits of a two-way dialog with customers and the creativity which new media unleashes.

But I stuck to my ground and wrote other op-eds on the subject, including a piece for imediaconnection which called for a reality check on “consumer-generated” ads: “The ads that win the contests and get exposure are not created by consumers. They’re made by aspiring film-makers and prosumers looking for their lucky break. By calling these ads “consumer-generated we are propagating the myth that they are engaging a brand’s users.”

Well now it seems others are coming around to embracing my point of view.  In the recent Ad Age article:

• Jackie Huba, co-author of the book “Citizen Marketer” and writer of the Church of the Customer blog, says “These contests asking people to create commercials and jingles are contrived…Marketers should be leveraging word-of-mouth jet streams.”
• And even Pete Blackshaw, who writes the Consumer Generated Media blog, concedes, “the novelty has worn off [and] brands are struggling with the harshness of the consumer voice. A lot of brands that jumped into CGA and the social-media conversation have found there are tradeoffs.”

The concerns I outlined in the piece were:

• “You’re getting these very poor quality spots, and it’s not even done in seriousness anymore…That’s definitely affecting the quality of what we’re seeing.“  When this new tact first started, professional or semi-professional people were the ones submitting their work, so even if it was off-strategy, at least it was good film.  Now everyone with a webcam or a Flip is making these ads and their amateur roots are obvious.
• Also using contests to get people to make ads about your brand seems disingenuous.  “…it lacks the authenticity. It’s going to happen with a brand real soon where there will be a backlash against this.“  People will realize that companies are essentially bribing them into promoting their brands.

I shared with Rich an additional point which got left on the editing room floor:   These campaigns are no longer necessary.  Brands which have enthusiastic customer bases don’t need to run contests to incentivize people to create ads – their fans do it on their own.

Having said all this against so-called user-generated ad campaigns, I do believe there are a couple of situations in which such an open approach might contribute real value:

• To promote consumer-friendly video production products – “User-generated” ads can showcase the results achieved by everyday people using your products.  So the aforementioned Flip camera might be an appropriate candidate for a consumer-generated ad campaign.
• To engage your employees – McDonald’s has been running a “Voice of McDonald’s” contest which has more recently evolved to include elements similar to a user-generated ad campaign. The program involves a contest in which employees around the world submit video entries of themselves singing a la American Idol.  They compete to become the official voice of the brand and to win a $25,000 prize.  McDonald’s has opened up voting to the public and used both traditional and social media to promote the program.  In this case, the “users” are actual McDonald’s employees and the program serves to engage them with the brand as well as strengthen their relationship with customers – it seems like a win-win-win.

So what do you think?  Are consumer-generated ads still an effective approach for brand managers?  Or have they lost their luster and should be put out of their (and our) misery?  Comments open.

related post:  a case against user-generated ad contests

If you’ve been in the business long enough, you come to understand there are some basic rules to follow when running an ad on the Super Bowl.  Humor works best.  Use animals or big-breasted women – or both.  Wow people with extraordinary settings and production values.

Many of the advertisers on last night’s big game followed the Super Bowl advertising playbook to a tee (view all of the spots here).  And, yet, they violated some fundamental rules of advertising in general.

know thy customer

Last night there were at least three spots (I lost count after awhile) that tried to tap a certain manly spirit but failed.

Dockers called on all men to “Wear the Pants” and rebel against the growing movement of proud, but pants-less men.  In Dove’s spot for its Men+Care line, men were bolstered with the upbeat charge: “You can take on anything, of course you can — becaaaauuuse you’re a man!” The ad implied to men that although you previously felt inadequate or overwhelmed by others’ expectations, you can now “be comfortable in your own skin.” Chrysler’s manthem threw subtlety out the window with its defiant declarations of “I will drive the car I want to drive” and “man’s last stand.”

In each case, the message came through loud and clear:  Men have been oppressed and suppressed for too long.  Men, it’s time to stand up, take a stand, stand up for your rights, stand tall…in other words, be a Man!

Problem is, there is no problem.  Or at least, there’s not a problem men are willing to admit.

Such calls to arms fell flat with men because the consumer insight upon which they’re founded is inaccurate.

The movement in American culture of recent years toward Alpha Females, more matriarchal families, and Girl Power gave rise to the “I am woman, hear me roar” advertising anthems.  Ads which have resonated with women demonstrated that marketers understood their female targets and had something relevant to offer them.  Spots like Nike’s “I Feel Pretty” featuring Maria Sharapova proving that’s she’s more than a pretty face, and ESPN’s “Running Away” in which a woman goes running and leaves the burdens of her life in the dust, were inspired by years of women actually being oppressed and suppressed.

Men are in a different place.  They haven’t spent years trying to shed stereotypes and live up to impossible expectations.  They don’t feel misunderstood and misrepresented by advertisers.  There’s no widespread pent-up disappointment or resentment.  Perhaps there should be – and maybe there is, but it’s hidden.  And so rallying-cry ads don’t resonate with them.

Men don’t need to be inspired to embrace who they are.  In fact, I suspect men found such suggestions embarrassing, if not offensive.  They don’t need ads to tell them what to do – they’re men, after all.

These ads demonstrate that their creators don’t really understand their target. Instead of finding a message that resonates with men in a socially acceptable way, they simply took a formula that had previously worked on women and applied it to their male target.  Ironic, don’t you think?

know thyself

Second to knowing your customer, knowing yourself is the most critical rule for advertisers. A few of Hyundai’s spots make this point.

In one ad, beauty shots of a car getting a paint job and a voiceover talking about classical music sonatas are followed by the title card, “Better paint quality than Mercedes CLS550.”  Another spot suggests that Hyundai is the new definition of luxury.

With both of these ads, Hyundai is trying to position itself as a luxury brand — but it’s just not credible.  Comparisons to Mercedes and caviar are too far-fetched.  Given that the Sonata’s highest list price is still under $30K, it isn’t a luxury car.  Hyundai may be a very fine automotive brand, but it’s not a luxury one. It shouldn’t try to be something it’s not.

Instead it should embrace what it is – and right now, that is a superior choice to Toyota.  With all of Toyota’s recall troubles, this is Hyundai’s moment to shine.  And shine it did in its Body Pass spot.

In this ad, a Sonata is shown moving through “one of the most technologically advanced factories in the world” — but instead of machines and conveyor belts, Hyundai employees are shown passing the car above their heads like a rock star at a concert.   The spot closes with the title, “Assembled by 3,300 quality experts.”  This spot used a strong, visually-interesting way to make a credible and compelling point about the brand – it’s high quality.

I’m sure the spot was conceived and shot before Toyota’s troubles arose, but it is a brilliant execution – and, most importantly, one that is true to the Hyundai brand.

unsavory associations

The third fundamental rule broken by some of last nights’ spots relates to subliminal messaging.  Effective marketers use the power of suggestion in advertising to create associations to exist in people’s subconscious.  One might argue whether or not sexually-shaped ice-cubes and flashing images are used (and effective), but every advertising person knows to employ subtle tactics to create associations — like choosing to shoot an ad in an upscale setting in order to evoke a more premium image.

While these approaches are usually intended to create positive associations for the brand, occasionally unintended negative ones are made.  For this reason last year I criticized Cheetos for using pigeons in its Super Bowl ad – this year I have the same beef with Denny’s use of chickens.

Denny’s two spots featured lots of screaming chickens, panicked over the amount eggs they’d have to produce for the chain’s Free Grand Slam breakfast offer.  However, no one wants to think about live chickens when they think about eating eggs.  That’s why you don’t see cows in burger chain campaigns or pigs in bacon ads.

Denny’s not only made the association between their offer and the chickens their diners’ eggs will come from – they made it the core idea of their spots.  Most people might not have been turned off by the association when the ad ran, but the message was so powerful, some will likely experience a subconscious negative feeling if they recall the ad when they sit down at the restaurant.

Fortunately for Denny’s, their offer is so compelling, most people will ignore the cognitive dissonance.  But that begs the question – the offer is so compelling, why let a drove of chickens spoil it?!

Doritos is also an offender.  I don’t know which is worse — the thought of Doritos as dog food (as depicted in the dog collar spot) or the image of the gross gym guy spitting out a Dorito in the Dorito ninja ad.  Both have created negative associations in my mind that I’m not likely to forget soon.

Marketers should know better – and be more careful.

Just as winning in football requires mastering the fundamentals, winning in Super Bowl ads begins with adherence to simple, generally-accepted rules for effective advertising.

P.S. Most Super Bowl ad critiques are a matter of personal taste.  I’m hoping the above comments reflect a little less subjectivity and a little more critical thinking about advertising in general.  Having said that, I do want to give a shout-out to two spots which stood out to me simply because I liked them:

• NFL – the drama created by the super slo-mo of the tremendous play by Reggie Bush followed by the emotion captured in the multiple shots of fans made this spot captivating.  It stirred my passion for football even though I’m not a really big follower of the sport.
• Google – the Googly simplicity of this ad drew me in and held my attention.  Beyond that, it was such a great product demo:  it didn’t “tell;” it “showed” – the product wasn’t integrated into the story; it was the story.

I’m eager to hear your take on the spots.  Comment away!

related posts:

• my superbowl was filled with guacamole
• if a brand has something to say, say it