by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 16, 2007 | Blog, Resources
Lots of interesting bits and pieces in the Tip Jar this week:
- Dove has just unveiled the newest piece of its Campaign for Real Beauty. Its “Beauty Has No Age Limit” ads for Dove’s pro-age skin and hair care products are doing for older women what its “Real Women Have Real Curves” campaign and Evolution video did for normal looking younger women. The ads feature real women in their 50s and 60s who bare all for the camera to make the point that aging is not a bad thing. It’s not exactly a social marketing campaign, since at the end of the day they are still trying to sell a product, but the messages these ads promote are definitely working towards creating healthy social norms.
- In a sad social marketing-related link to the shootings in Philadelphia earlier this week, one of the victims, Mark Norris, was the head of the ad agency that created the controversial “Have You Been Hit?” HIV prevention campaign that portrayed young black men in the cross-hairs of a gun. How horribly ironic. My heart goes out to his and the other victims’ family and friends.
- Weight loss advocate Julia Havey is calling Coca Cola’s bluff on their My Code Rewards program, saying that in order to win any of the top prizes participants have to drink a lethal amount of soda to amass the correct number of points before the end of the promotion. She has filed a legal petition against Coca Cola to stop the program.
In order to be rewarded with the “Record like an idol at a recording studio in Los Angeles, California” reward, one needs to procure and redeem 41,600 points which would necessitate the consumption of 49,920 bottles of Coca Cola Product which, in the case of a non-diet product containing sugar, would give rise to the necessity to consume approximately 7,238,400 calories, which, in turn, would cause a human being to gain during the life span of the program approximately 2,068 pounds. On a daily basis, a participant would be required to consume one hundred fifty-one (151) 12-ounce bottles of Coca Cola, being a lethal consumption of the product.
- Tateru Nino of Second Life provided some examples of both individual and organizational aid efforts going on in the virtual world. Besides groups of friends banding together to help the people behind the avatars who have real-world medical problems, Oxfam, the Red Cross, and Alcoholics Anonymous are operating within Second Life.
- Have you seen the Indexed blog? Jessica Hagy uses Venn diagrams, graphs, geometry and other visual relationships jotted on index cards to make sense of the world in a clever and humorous way. Here are some of my recent favorites.
- The National Media Education Conference will be happening in St. Louis, Missouri on June 22-26. Sponsored by the Alliance for a Media Literate America, the theme will be “iPods, Blogs and Beyond: Evolving Media Literacy for the 21st Century.”
Photo Credit: Jay Dubya
Technorati Tags: marketing, dove, pro-age, Coca-Cola, Second Life
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 14, 2007 | Blog, Marketing
My latest post is up at Marketing Profs Daily Fix. What do funny face pancakes and IHOP waitresses have to do with your marketing? It’s all about the face your organization shows in its interactions with the people you are trying to reach.
And for the romantics among you, who like to find inspiration in the little things, here is a Valentines Day treat:
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 14, 2007 | Blog, Communication
With the gathering storm on the East Coast, I was reminded of an exchange that I’ve often had with non-Californians over the years. It goes something like this:
Friend: California is beautiful, but I could never live there. I’m terrified of earthquakes.
Me: Yes, but you have winter. Many more people die every year from snow and ice-related car crashes than from an earthquake. And you know for sure that snow is going to happen at least several times a year. It could be a decade before another big earthquake hits.
Friend: I’ll take my chances.
Me [basking in warm sunny February weather]: Me too.
I’m not trying to rub it in for those of you on the East Coast, but trying to make a point about our perceptions of risk.
Having been through several big earthquakes, I know that there is a very small chance of one being personally catastrophic (though every time I’m up on a ladder I wonder whether that will be the moment the big one hits), and there is a much bigger chance of it being simply inconvenient. The more prepared you are, the easier it will be when (not if) it happens. But while I went on a huge emergency supply buying binge after 9/11 after I went through training to be on my neighborhood’s Community Emergency Response Team, I have to admit I’ve become complacent and not kept the supplies up to date. As the memories of that day, as well as of the last big earthquake ’round these parts, grow more distant, my feelings of urgency have faded as well.
Many factors impact how people think about a particular risk, such as:
- Whether the problem has ever happened to them or someone they know
- How severe the consequences are
- Who is most affected
- How common it is perceived to be
- Whether it can be prevented
- Uncertainty about how or when it happens
- How often it is mentioned in the news or portrayed in entertainment media
- Whether it affects a lot of people severely at the same time.
So, how can we communicate effectively about risk in a way that will make people want to take action, but without causing panic? The University of Toronto’s Health Communication Unit has a couple of publications about risk communication that are oldies but goodies:
While these publications are worth reading in their entirety if you find yourself having to communicate about risk as part of your job (or even as a well-meaning friend), here are some quick tips from “Developing Your Messages” to guide your efforts:
- Respond as completely as possible to audience biases, misconceptions, feelings, concerns and needs surrounding the risk. That means you have to find out what people already know and believe about the issue and create your response based on that foundation.
- Use language and concepts that the intended audience already understands, whenever possible. Don’t use jargon, acronyms or complex scientific descriptions that the audience may not understand.
- Use magnitudes common in ordinary experience. Very small or very big magnitudes may be difficult for a nonscientist to conceptualize. Instead of stating a risk as 0.05, say that about 5 out of 100 people will be affected.
- Emphasize cumulative probability over extended periods of time, instead of one-shot probabilities, when applicable. People are more likely to overestimate the likelihood of a risk like HIV infection for a single encounter, and underestimate the risk of repeated exposures over time.
- Instead of expressing probabilities in quantitative (numeric) terms, try to use a qualitative term that is close in meaning. Rather than saying there is a 88% probability of something, use a term like “very likely” or “a good chance” to describe the risk.
Read the rest of the tips here (pdf). And I’d better go check the extra water in the garage and make sure we have working batteries for the flashlights. For my readers in the snow, be careful and stay safe. Hopefully your city’s snow removal plan is better than DC Mayor Marion Barry’s was when I lived there during the huge Blizzard of 1996: Spring.
Photo Credit: Night Owl City
Technorati Tags: blizzard, storm, snow, earthquakes, risk
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 13, 2007 | Blog, Miscellaneous
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 13, 2007 | Blog, Marketing, Social Media
I read a couple of recent posts that I wanted to share that both touch on the idea of influence, but in different ways.
In the first by John Bell, who is currently traveling through Asia for his work with Ogilvy, he shares their very useful model for rating “influence” among bloggers.
The elements include:
- Affiliation of blog writer(s)
- Number of links to the blog
- Number of feed subscriptions
- Search engine results position for relevant keyword searches
- Last update
- Industry mentions/lists of top blogs
- Inclusion in Technorati Blog Directory and other online directories
- Discussion Analysis – true discussion or bantering
In English-language, US-centric content, we can generally start the process of identifying potential candidates via search; usually either Technorati, Google or Google Blogs. Then we can refine down into highly linked sites (“most authority” in Technorati lingo).
According to a digital marketing agency, the list would be quite helpful in identifying appropriate bloggers to include in a PR campaign with a social media component. Any one of the indicators of blogger influence by itself would not necessarily provide a full enough picture of whom to target when you need to narrow down what can be resource-intensive outreach. But combine two or more (or all) of these and you will see the degree of influence become clearer.
I would also add to the list the appearance of the blog on other influential bloggers’ blogrolls beyond links within posts, and the numbers of comments left on other people’s blogs.
They do not include any indicators that measure the amount of traffic to the blog, perhaps for a few reasons: First, the current publicly available ways of measuring traffic (i.e., Alexa) are not entirely reliable, though they can at least give an idea of the scale of traffic (e.g., rank of 1,000,000 vs. 100,000 vs. 1,000). Another reason is that the blogger may be may be influential for a very specific niche of people that is too small to be measured accurately by traffic but still desirable from a particular organization’s point of view. Finally, the number of feed subscribers is a better indicator of loyal and interested readers than the traffic numbers, which can vary wildly based upon the spread of just one post.
The other interesting post on influence was by Chris Sandberg, and touches on the idea of social proof. This is the notion that people judge the value of something based on how they see other people respond (and is the reason behind the use of laugh tracks in sitcoms; when others are laughing, it makes the show seem funnier). Chris shares his experience at a basketball game, where Albertsons grocery store ran a contest only available to people who waved their Albertsons club card around at one point in the game. When people who did not have one saw how many others did have a card, they may have started wondering whether they were missing out on something.
Chris explains the concept’s usefulness in marketing:
Social proof can be a powerful marketing tool. If you can get your customers to vouch for your product (or at least make it look like they are) and find a way to advertise it to your potential customers your job as a marketer becomes a lot easier. People don’t want to feel left out and often look to others when making decisions they are unsure of. By being aware of social proof and taking actions to leverage it you can be there when people are looking around to others when trying make a purchase decision.
To bring this back to the discussion on influential bloggers, social proof plays a big role in how topics are covered in the blogosphere. When one or more influential bloggers writes about a particular news story or issue, that often sets off a flurry of other posts because the topic has been validated as being important. One influential blogger can provide the social proof that an idea or product has merit, paving the way for many others to adopt it as well.
Technorati Tags: blogging, PR
by Nedra Weinreich | Feb 12, 2007 | Blog, Marketing
I’m probably the only marketing person who did not watch the Superbowl – for the ads or otherwise. But I find it interesting to see the aftermath of what by many accounts was a less than stellar line-up of ads. As advertisers tried to go over the top and make an impact, they ended up alienating various contingents of of their viewers.
The GM suicidal robot spot, which was one of the few ads I was intrigued enough about to watch online, ended up being pulled after the company met with representatives of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. The group felt the spot was offensive and potentially dangerous:
“The GM ad is insensitive to the tens of millions of people who have lost loved ones to suicide,” said Robert Gebbia, the group’s executive director, in a statement issued on Wednesday. “The ad also suggests a troubling and potentially dangerous message: that suicide is a logical and rational decision should one experience failure or lose their job.”
The Snickers commercial featuring two guys accidentally kissing also got pulled after many complaints, including from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Matthew Shepard Foundation, that it was homophobic.
Even people in the restaurant industry found something to get upset over, with the “demeaning and offensive” Nationwide Insurance spot that showed Kevin Federline as a fry cook dreaming about being a rap star.
The Mad Scientist over at media brain discussed an article on what brain scans of individuals watching the superbowl ads can tell us about their effectiveness. He says:
The brain scan data indicates that advertisers went over the top on trying to develop edgy, attention grabbing content at the expense of achieving a positive communication effect for the advertised brand. As I tell my students, attention is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an ad to have a positive effect on the target. The FMRI data reported on this year’s superbowl ads indicated that several of the ads evoked very strong response in the Amygdala, an area of the brain responsible for processing threat and anxiety, but very little activity in other areas. Apparently, stimuli that evoke a strong response in the Amygdala are likely to be memorable but the memory is NEGATIVE! Not exactly the best effect for a client who just spent 2.6 million dollars placing a superbowl ad!!! The brand that “wins” the award for demonstrating this negative effect….drum roll please…..Snickers (2 men kissing ad). This ad evoked the strongest Amygdala response in viewers with little other activity in other brain areas.
This sounds about right to me, and I would suspect that the suicidal robot ad also evoked similar brain responses — lots of feelings of threat and anxiety.
Seems like the winners in terms of getting good free publicity from this year’s Superbowl ads were the advocacy groups who put their names in the news by protesting various multi-million dollar ad buys. Watch for this tactic to spread as nonprofits and trade associations scrutinize every commercial for possible offensive content related to their causes. Not a bad strategy, as long as a compelling case can be made; otherwise organizations risk a backlash as “the cause who cried wolf.”
Technorati Tags: superbowl2007, superbowl, advertising, ads, commercials, nonprofits, GM, Snickers, Nationwide
Nedra helps nonprofits and public agencies create positive change on health and social issues through social marketing and transmedia storytelling strategies at Weinreich Communications since founding the company in 1995. She helps organizations make a difference for the populations they serve by strategically designing programs that draw on state-of-the-art behavior change techniques, digital media approaches and the power of stories. 
