Pretty in Pink for Red (in the face) Party

Harriet Harman’s attempt to lure more female voters was criticised by the media last week and caused a storm across social media, with people taking offence over the use of pink.

They cited her campaign tactic of touring the UK in a pink van as 'sexist' and 'patronising', whilst pointing out that it didn’t even have eyelashes on the front - an oversight surely?!

 

 

Do they have a point with their colour criticism? Is pink a condescending stereotypical colour for marketing purposes?

 

According to Karen Haller Colour and Design Consultancy brands use pink to show that they are sweet or sexy, depending on the pink.

Pink stands for femininity, as well as love, nurturing and caring. A lighter pink is sweet, usually marketed to girls, whereas a brighter pink holds sex appeal.

Many trusted brands use pink in their marketing - and are not deemed sexist, condescending or patronising as a result. But they are more likely to be marketing fashion, cosmetics, cars and charities ….…not campaigning for political parties?

Not only was offence caused by the Pink Barbie battle bus, news broke yesterday claiming the van is in fact registered as a white vehicle with the DVLA. Reports claim that a change in the colour of a vehicle should be registered with the DVLA and failure to do so is a serious offence. 

'Any failure to inform the DVLA about changing the colour of the vehicle can be punishable with a £1,000 fine,' confirms a DVLA spokesman.

Looks like this gimmick recruitment tactic may have ‘backfired’ for the Red (in the face) party.

#PurePoint

And the winner is....

The 'big one' in American TV events took place at the beginning of February, with SuperBowl TV advertising costs reaching an astounding level, but last night another TV ad-spend bonanza took place, as the 87th edition of the Oscars was held at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood.

As time shift viewing continues to nibble away at the live TV market and reduce audience sizes, these huge live events (and the social media response they create) are becoming more and more significant for major brands in America such as AT&T, Samsung and JC Penney; but then, so are the accompanying pricetags. 

30"ads during the Oscars in 2014 sold at circa $1.8 million each, whereas this year they were pitched at a cool $2 million (11.11% increase YoY).

To contextualise this - a spot in the final of the X-Factor last year (one of the most expensive ad breaks on UK television) was valued at somewhere between £150,000 and £200,000, which would only be enough to get you 4-5 seconds of an Academy Awards ad.

The sheer audience sizes are a major reason for this; the Oscars offers a global audience of about 47 million and the SuperBowl 114 million, whereas the X-Factor...well, at c. 8 million it's not on the same stage. 

As we've recently pointed out, there is a massive shift towards digital spend in the UK, whereas this has yet to be entirely replicated in the US; only 28% of spend is on digital, compared to over 50% in the UK. Moreover, advertisers still pay premium dollars for the few spots remaining they are sure will draw big 'live' audiences, and major sporting and film events are top of the list for US advertisers.

These huge sums bought the advertisers an audience of about 47 million on Sunday evening, with a considerably higher proportion of females in comparison to the 114.4 million people who watched the SB. 

The balanced audience leads to the Oscar ad breaks traditionally having a more heart-warming feel rather than the stereotypical aggressive humour of the SuperBowl ads. 

The collection of celebrities at the Oscars also offers opportunities above and beyond spot-and-space, which Samsung famously took advantage of last year through product placement of Ellen DeGeneres' selfie, which has now been re-tweeted nearly 33 million times!

#PurePoint

The Year of Digital...?

The common assumption is that things happen first in America and then make the cross-Atlantic trek to Europe and then to the rest of the wider world. 

Jeans, fast food, music, melting pots....with their entrepreneurial history and subsequent corporate might - embodied by behemoths such as Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon - we are constantly being told through all sorts of media how advanced and 'ahead' the US is. 

It would surely follow that they are at the forefront of the digital revolution that has been consuming marketing for decades, but seemingly this is not the case; Europe - and especially the UK - has been edging further and further in front... 

Well, with the news yesterday showing that in 2015 the UK will be the first major advertising market where digital will account for more than half of all spend, the argument seems to have been settled. 

Western Europe spend on digital accounts for approx 33% while US ad spend is weighted towards TV, with digital only representing slightly more than a quarter of the total.

Although the infamous "Year of Mobile", which has been coming since the late '90s/ early 00's, is yet to fully arrive, what seems certain is that this is the Year of Digital in the UK....

When you consider that these figures don't take into account things such as digital outdoor, digital TV, etc, there are clearly more of them to come!

# PurePoint

Pantastic Day

So, on possibly the tastiest of all days, some brands look to interact with all the tossers out there through the medium of pancakes and perhaps more significantly, the vast array of toppings.

The sad passing of Michele Ferrero (founder of Ferrero Rocher and inventor of Nutella) over the weekend may see the spread of nostalgic nutty pancakes as a favoured topping selection, but somewhat surprisingly it's plain old sugar and lemon that has grabbed our attention.

All-in-all, things have been a little quiet on the pun-cake front, though there has been one noteworthy campaign which has caused some heated debate.

Cars and pancakes are not traditional bedfellows, but Dacia has tried to cook up something a bit different by taking either full page or page-dominant spaces in the front half of the quality, mid-market and free commuter press titles this morning.

There have been differing reactions at Pure Towers as to the way they've thrown themselves into the mix. As with our respective choices of pancake toppings there is a mix of taste - some think they've subtly battered the competition, whereas others think it's more like they've fallen a bit flat and ended up with egg on their face.

Firstly, the nay-sayers: For a car that "starts at £5,995" selecting the higher-end titles seems slightly incongruous with the price-point. Given that Dacia are presumably aiming for those looking at a second or third car, perhaps an image of the mystery car(s) to entice a buyer in would be a good idea rather than relying solely on the numbers.

Pancakes are undoubtedly powerful influencers, but we're not sure that they can ensure a relatively unrecognised brand sell lots of cars. Even with maths in their corner (NB: a pancake shouldn't really have corners), a couple of the PM crew feel there is a real disconnect here.

On the 'flip' side, there are others who believe the ads are highly impactful - both in the understated creative and the dominant page positions. The simplicity of the messaging reflects the simplicity of the offer (and presumably the car).

The fact that they have used Pancake Day as a creative medium is smart, catchy and offers an effective alternative to the standard formula that seems to pervade our print media (inspirational/ quirky car image + price/ special offer + terms and conditions = car ad).

We'll let you make up your own minds, but as a final aside this is amazing

Enjoy!

Happy Valentines Day ....

...... from everyone at Pure Media :)

#LoveMedia

"Pensions and Investmen"....?!

With our broad range of clients, that vary delightfully in size, shape and speciality, we at Pure Towers subscribe to some weird and wonderful titles, ranging from the likes of "Hairdressers' Journal" to "The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease" and from "Bloomberg Markets" to "Money Management".

With our geeky passion for media in all its forms, we love seeing the variety of ways that the print market tries to innovate through format changes, interesting creative and supplementary material including inserts and onserts.

As the global economy wends its way along the rocky road of recovery (with some definite stumbles from time to time), there have been undoubted impacts upon the world of print media, such as reduced circulations and paginations.

One thing we were not expecting, however, was the blows of austerity to have hit a title as prestigious as "Pensions & Investments" quite as hard as they have... Evidently they've had to shave off a little bit of the magazine. Almost two inches in fact!

Our copy arrived this morning nicely presented in its poly-bag as per usual, but once we'd eagerly torn off the wrapping, we found that we were being put on a bit of an information 'diet', with the outside edge having been decimated.

Wonder if this is just a one-off, or whether it's been an issue to affect the wider audience who pay $50 a copy for their industry news and opinion...

Brick Thinking

Away from the big-spending brand advertisers that we looked at and judged in our varied, whistle-stop tour of the SuperBowl media melee, there has been a really neat tactical piece of content launched.

Latching on to the post-SuperBowl buzz and excitement, a British animation studio has combined the best Super Bowl ads in a stop motion video made entirely of Lego bricks. 

We love this piece of (and very quick turn-around) tactical promotion, using an apposite piece of popular culture combined with a creative concept that has worked so well for the Lego brand in the past. 

The best example of this is the full ad break that ran, where they recreated existing TV ads using Lego. 

Innovation at its finest! 

Who won the #SuperBowl?

So – we’ve established that brands spent an almost unfathomable amount of money on a one-day event (in excess of $300,000,000 on TV ads alone), so now seems a good time to try and assess who made some headway in the marketing race and who was left floundering.

Oreo led the charge when it comes to doing something differently, purchasing the first ever Super Bowl ads with programmatic technology, although they were only shown regionally. Cited as being back to their old savvy marketing self and leading innovators adopting this game changing automated ad buying technology. Something to add to their impressive SuperBowl marketing history.

Moving on, here is a snapshot of some of our winners and losers .....

WINNERS

Missy Elliott 
The big winner of the half-time show was not, as might be expected, Katy Perry, but rather Missy Elliott, whose Spotify streams (already substantial) increased by 676%...OVERNIGHT. Her track, “Lose Control,” which she performed solo while KP had a quick change, achieved the largest jump, with a pretty out-of-control 1,396% hike. Indeed, the three tracks she unleashed (the other two being fellow 00’s classics “Get Ur Freak On” and “Work It”) ended up in the iTunes top 10 singles. Now that’s a result!

Newcastle Brown Ale: 
Played the digital game brilliantly – especially through use of their social media channels. An ingenious satire of the media frenzy was delectably pre-promoted and then superbly executed as a great piece of ambush marketing. They couldn't afford the $4.5m for a 30 second ad and Anheuser-Busch (i.e. Bud Light and Budweiser) had airtime locked up, so they ‘crowdsourced’ a TV spot with 37 other companies and aired on NBC affiliate channels in their #BandOfBrands campaign. The spot - which you can watch here - was fun, catchy and used digital media in a lateral and hugely effective way.

Twitter 
Still the undisputed hub for real-time marketing. Despite attempts by its key competitors (see ‘Losers’ below) Twitter maintained its grip on the title. With over 28 million tweets referencing “#SuperBowl” or “#SB49” (let alone all the brands, people, teams, etc. attached to the event), it was certainly the crux of the frenzy.

Always 

The rehashed ‘Like a girl’ campaign stole the ad show. Although the Liam Neeson ‘Revenge’ ad for Clash of Clans was a Pure Media favourite and comedy highlight, the P&G brand has successfully highlighted the clear idiocy of “like a girl” as being associated with weakness and inferiority. It was a categorical insult which has rightfully been ‘called out’. As of Tuesday, the hashtag #likeagirl had in excess of 270,000 mentions and more than 340,000 tweets.

LOSERS:

Nationwide: 
The backlash against Nationwide’s spot (which focussed on children’s death by preventable accidents) was swift, prolonged and crushing. The callousness and lack of ‘fit’ for the occasion is pretty obvious, though the insurance company released a statement claiming that it was intending to start a debate rather than sell policies...either way, the internet is now awash with disparaging comment and parodies.

McDonald’s: 
The Golden Arches tried to schmooze pretty much every person and every brand on Twitter in some kind of love-in/ giveaway. Piggybacking on the respective spots, the fast food retailer didn't really earn themselves any positive vibes – it was a neat piece of real-time marketing, but didn't have the cut through of other campaigns…or the genuine feel.

YouTube and Facebook: 
YouTube boldly tried to divert its mainly millennial fanbase’s attentions and make their second screen into their primary one, by staging a competing half time show. However, this was – frankly – unsuccessful. Likewise, Facebook (despite claiming it’s “biggest ever SuperBowl”) ended up streets behind the powerhouse that is Twitter when it comes to real-time marketing.

The SuperBowl is a massive event in the calendar and as with every big game, there are winners and losers. There were brands (and individuals) that successfully navigated the melee to stand out and get their money's worth. 

On the flipside, there were those who blew their budgets - or hard-earned brand image and trust - without a lot to show for it. #PurePoint

Super Budgets, SuperBowl

Despite being what is (obviously) predominantly an American sport, the SuperBowl XLIX's global impact and reach was in evidence again over the weekend.

An estimated 115 million viewers tuned in last night to watch the New England Patriots defeat the Seattle Seahawks in Arizona, contributing to what is routinely the biggest televised event in American programming.

Social media and word-of-mouth conversations typically revolve around the event for days on end, turning the event into something more spectacle than sports; the half-time performers, generally huge names like Bruno Mars and this year’s Katy Perry, even perform free due to the returns they can expect a boost album sales which, according to Forbes, can be an increase as high as 92%

With that many bums parked firmly on seats in front of television sets – not to mention 2nd, 3rd and 4th screens such as computers, mobiles and tablets – the Super Bowl has serious attraction for advertisers.

This year’s broadcasters, NBC, were surely counting on that fact when they set the rates for advertising during the event. With a 12.5% increase on 2014’s pricing, a 30 second spot setting advertisers back a cool $4,500,000 for the media alone. The total event is reputed to have pulled in around $360m just in advertising revenue.

However, despite the staggering entry prices for advertising, having a spot at the Super Bowl can pay big dividends for advertisers. With millions of fans glued to screens around the world, Super Bowl commercials are generally the tour de force of each participating advertiser’s year, and the agencies involved generally try to come up with something pretty good for their spots.

So how did they go?

Other than the Patriots, one of the biggest winners this year was mobile game Clash of Clans, which had an entertaining spot featuring Liam Neeson in full Taken-esque personality: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuFebXDkI3k

As always, the airwaves were thick with a bevy of other celebrities, with big names including Kim Kardashian (T-Mobile), Kate Upton (Game of War), Bryan Cranston (aka Walter White) and Lindsay Lohan (both for Esurance),

Animals also featured strongly, with Dorito’s flying pigs and Budweiser’s horse-and-dog friendship providing both amusement and emotion to the masses.

The unanimous vote for this year’s worst commercial seems to go to Nationwide, who used the concept of a dead child to shock the audiences out of their sports-day festivity; whilst it was certainly effective in that context, the insurance company went a little too far in bringing the atmosphere down: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKUy-tfrIHY

Which do you think deserves the crown this year, and which the wooden spoon? Check out the full list of adverts here and let us know.

#PurePoint