advertising

People are questioning the propriety of a new TV and Internet ad that resurrects the voice and image of murdered Beatle John Lennon to promote the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) Foundation, which supplies durable, low-cost laptop computers to underprivileged children in foreign countries. The ad digitally recreates Lennon's voice, with his bespectacled face appearing to mouth the words, "Imagine every child, no matter where in the world they were, could access a universe of knowledge. They would have a chance to learn, to dream, to achieve anything they want. I tried to do it through my music, but now you can do it in a very different way. You can give a child a laptop, and more than imagine, you can change the world." Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, gave permission to use her husband's image free of charge, and the ad was created pro-bono, but still people are finding the idea of manipulating dead celebrities to promote products "creepy" and unsettling. A comment in a Laptop Magazine blog laid out a common opinion of such ads: "What's next? Elvis for peace in Darfur? John Wayne would probably have gotten behind AIDS education and prevention measures ... Where does it end? Why do we need dead people to help us envision a better future? I suppose there's nobody alive that would agree to this? Sad times."

The draft bailout for the U.S. automobile industry calls for the appointment of a "Car Czar" who, if the bill passes and is signed into law, would instantly become the most powerful marketing and advertising executive on Earth. The Czar would be charged with overseeing auto company expenses over $25 million, which means he or she would control the companies' media buys. An estimate from Advertising Age places the auto industry's marketing spending at about $7.3 billion in the U.S. alone -- $2 billion more than the next largest advertiser, Procter and Gamble, which spends some $5.2 billion per year. This will effectively make the Car Czar the single most influential marketing executive on Earth. The only catch? Ad agencies that work for automakers under the bailout will be effectively working on a government account, with all the bureaucracy and restrictions that entails. Depending on when the bill is signed, the Car Czar could be appointed by George W. Bush, but could be replaced by Barack Obama after his inauguration.

Freedom's Watch, the conservative 501(c)(4) organization that was set up earlier this year to help Republicans win elections, "is closing after just one cycle in business," reports Reid Wilson. "The group, which ran television, radio, phone and mail campaigns against dozens of Democrats this year, received most of its funding from wealthy gaming mogul Sheldon Adelson, chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corp." Although Freedom's Watch originally said it would be spending as much as $200 million for ad campaigns, the reality was only about $30 million. The recession has hurt Adelson financially, cutting into tourism and gambling and sending Sands stock tumbling from $122.96 per share to just $2.89, a loss of 95 percent of its value. Freedom's Watch originally claimed to offer a conservative answer to the liberal advocacy group MoveOn. As one blogger pointed out, however, the "biggest difference" between the two groups is that Freedom's Watch "had a handful of mega-wealthy donors," while MoveOn "has an email list and funding base of 4 million."

It's never good to get your target demographic really mad at you. Johnson & Johnson managed to do exactly that with a recent on-line commercial for its Motrin pain reliever. In the ad, a "mom" talks about how much carrying her baby around is hurting her neck, shoulders and back. It starts with "Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion. I mean in theory, it's a great idea ... " But then the voice over says she cries more than moms that don't carry their baby around "hands free." It's worth it though, because when people see her with her little bundle of pain, she says,"it totally makes me look like an official mom." The reaction from parenting groups was quick, and the ad was pulled just days after launch. Because of long lead times for print publications, however, it will be around to haunt Motrin for a while.

"A ban on fast-food advertising to children would cut the national obesity rate by as much as 18%, according to a new study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research and funded by the National Institutes of Health," reports Emily Bryson York. The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for the restaurant and fast-food industry, has responded by calling the study "erroneous" because one of the study's authors acknowledges that "a lot of people consume fast food in moderate amounts and it doesn't harm their health" (as though this observation contradicts the study's findings in any way whatsoever). Previous studies have reached similar conclusions (and have likewise been attacked by CCF).

"Bottled water sales in the past have grown mainly from consumers moving to water from soda and other sugary beverages," fueled by rising childhood and adult obesity rates. But ads for bottled water don't push the health angle, because many bottled water companies also sell soda. For example, Aquafina is made by PepsiCo and Dasani by Coca-Cola. Nestle -- which does not sell soda -- is now seeking to counter "concerns that bottled water is a bad choice for the environment" by raising concerns about the health impact of soda. Its new "antisoda" campaign is focused on "the Hispanic community because it drinks more bottled water than most other ethnic groups." Nestle's antisoda ads, which appear on U.S. Spanish-language channels like Univision and TeleFutura, promote the company's Pure Life bottled water. The ads feature talk-show host Cristina Saralegui, who says, "Drinking water instead of three sugary drinks per week for a year will spare you seven pounds of fat." The Hispanic marketing agency behind the ads, Castells & Asociados, says they have been "off-the-charts effective." Publicis' Dallas office is working on an English-language version.

Barack Obama has been named Advertising Age's 2008 Marketer of the Year for the simplicity, consistency and relevance of his campaign. Hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors attending the 2008 annual Association of National Advertisers conference voted for Obama's campaign over ad campaigns by major companies like Apple, Zappos, Nike and Coors. AdAge called Obama's historic November 4 win the "biggest day in the history of marketing," saying marketers have a lot to learn from his campaign. At a time when 70% of the population thought the country was headed in the wrong direction, Obama adopted a simple slogan of "Change" that never varied throughout his campaign, while his competitors tried for months to find similarly simple yet powerful messages. Hillary Clinton first tried the slogan "Experience," then shifted to "Countdown to change," and then used "Solutions for America," while the McCain campaign tried on a long list of labels like "Maverick," "Straight Talker," "Conservative" and "Hero." By the time the McCain campaign settled on "Country First," it was too late. The relentless focus on "change" pressured Mr. Obama's opponents to talk about how their changes would differ from his, rather than focus on their strengths, like their experience, track records and relationships with world leaders.

A full-page ad in the New York Times "accuses ACORN of a list of abuses that suggest hypocrisy on some of the group's signature issues: intimidating and firing its own employees if they try to unionize, misappropriating millions of dollars from taxpayer-funded government grants and advocating minimum wage hides while paying its own employees less than minimum wage." While the ad "does not indicate who or what organization paid for it," it comes from one of lobbyist Rick Berman's many front groups, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI). For years, Berman "has been fighting ACORN's efforts to increase the minimum wage at the state and federal levels." Tim Miller, the spokesman for EPI and Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, said they placed the ad because after the election, "a lot of the coverage of ACORN is going to go away, but they are going to continue the same corrupt and fraudulent practices." ACORN says the charges in EPI's ad are untrue. For example, ACORN "pledged complete neutrality" when one of its offices "wanted to form a union," said ACORN's Steve Kest. The employees eventually "decided not to pursue [the union], so nothing came of it."

A $13.2 million ad campaign thanks 28 members of Congress, 25 of whom are Democrats, "for supporting a children's health-care bill vetoed twice by President George W. Bush in 2007." The ads are by America's Agenda: Health Care for Kids, a new non-profit group whose sole funder is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The ads are one example of the drug industry group's attempts to adjust to a Democratic-controlled Congress. PhRMA's also "working with unions through another America's Agenda group to push universal-health-care bills in states and cities across the country," and "is now splitting campaign contributions between the political parties." In addition, PhRMA's trying "to restore the drug industry's tattered image," through its own ads "touting programs to help needy patients pay for their medicines; hurricane hotlines for drug supplies; and the syndicated TV show 'Sharing Miracles,'" which features PhRMA president Billy Tauzin.

"The world's best-known oil companies are pouring on the charm as they get ready this week to parade another round of fat profits before a public that is feeling suddenly poorer. The spotlight will shine on Exxon on Thursday and Chevron on Friday. Such advertising makes sense after a summer with oil at nearly $150 a barrel and a fall likely to bring renewed scrutiny of their investments and tax breaks. But when oil companies spend their money, it's less about you and me than about their shareholders. In many respects, industry experts note, what's good for Big Oil's bottom line isn't necessarily good for Joe Q. Jetta. 'That's a game that oil companies have been playing for a while, but they've been pumping more money into it lately,' said Sheldon Rampton, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy. 'They're hoping to mitigate their bad reputation rather than become beloved.'"