The World Wide Web is like a girl

by Christina Knapp

A lot of people like to compare the World Wide Web and web trends to Jell-O or clay because it's constantly being molded or re-shaped. I think that's still a bit too slow for what is actually happening. I like to think of web trends like fashion trends. One day that awesome red scarf is the best accessory out there and the next it's sentenced to a life collecting dust. What happened? I see someone else with the exact same scarf, I see a better scarf somewhere, I read something online that the scarf was used in a gang fight and is now a suspect, whatever it is... I changed my mind and that's it.

As soon as someone completes a great idea on the web, a lot of times someone else suddenly realizes a better way to do it. So after all that time learning one way to do something, you must switch sometimes to a completely different direction and learn something else.

You might have heard recently of a little thing being released called the iPad and its issue with Flash. Apple will not be supporting Flash for web or apps on their iPhone or iPad because they say it is so buggy. So now we must look to something else to fill that media void that may happen. So why is Apple so quick to say "No" to Flash? A brief explanation is that every time Apple would want to come out with an update, they would have to wait on Adobe to make patches for Flash to run properly. But, you can't condemn a great media application like Flash without a replacement.

Click on the image to see CSS3 Animation in action. Like high fashion
this won't work for everyone you must have Chrome or Safari for now.

Enter HTML5 and CSS3. HTML is the language that the World Wide Web is built on. HTML5 and CSS3 seem to now solve all of those video and animation problems through the code without another program. To put it in my words, HTML5 is the satiny soft thread that makes up this beautiful new turquoise scarf I now find myself salivating over. Who needs red when you can have turquoise? I imagine, and am hoping a little, that Adobe Flash will come up with something to ensure they don't die a slow death due to Apple. But as Heidi Klum would say, “One day you’re in and the next day you’re out”.

Creepy or not? Are your customers relating to your brand?

by Carolyn Kiser



After hearing of the split between Palm and their agency, Modernista, it made me think about the creepy ads for the Palm Pre. For those unfamiliar, they feature actress Tamara Hope as an unsettling spokesperson for the smart phone. And while I’m sure the client-agency relationship ended because the success of the creepy Palm Pre ads was not realized, I don’t think that means that creepy ads are off limits completely.



You can’t argue that Tamara did not generate some buzz. If you type “creepy ads” into your preferred search engine, you will undoubtedly see Palm Pre appear with many comments about the creepiness of the ads and specifically, Tamara Hope. And the ads may not have created brand loyalists, but they did get people’s attention and they got them talking. This is true of almost any creepy ad. They are almost sure to get attention, but the most important thing is: are they driving people to buy your brand? Isn’t that the point of advertising, after all?

Some ads are intentionally creepy, others are not. It is questionable if the Palm Pre was intended to be creepy, but I would imagine most of the people who saw that commercial would agree it was. Now, “creepy” is a very subjective term but let’s consider other ads and or/brands that score on the creepy scale (intentional or not): Orville Redenbacher (posthumous campaign), the Quizno’s hamster, Snuggle fabric softener’s bear (who some adore), the Welch’s grape juice girl from the 90s, and the Sour Patch Kids candy commercial.











Perhaps the most notorious brand for creepy ads is Burger King. With a reel full of creepy commercials with the likes of the Creepy King and the Man in the baby costume, they walk the creepy line quite well. So why do their creepy ads seem to work while others flop? It comes down to knowing your audience. Humor and even a little creepiness can make great ads, but you have to know your audience. You have to use creativity in a way that makes consumers like your brand and what to be part of it. And while the Burger King king may be creepier than the Palm Pre girl, but the ads had an edge to them that appeal to their young male audience and that they can relate to. While I am not particularly fond of the ads, I realize that I am not their target. Which makes me wonder, who was Palm Pre targeting?




Next time you are about to launch a new ad, ask yourself - How well do you know your target audience? And are you speaking to them in a way that they can relate to your brand?

P.S. If I had written this before the Tiger Woods Ad launch, that would defiantly be included!

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://thebecheragency.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://thebecheragency.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Resurrecting the Cadbury Easter Bunny

by Ariel Clark

Recently, I had the experience of viewing an ad that took me back to my childhood. Not for being evocative of my particular experience but because the ad itself first aired in 1993, and I can recall it playing during Saturday morning cartoons. With some small updates, this spot has been given new life this Easter, and though its original broadcast was some 17 years ago, it's still fun, clever and relevant.



Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oamnDsxFLyg

OK, so the production quality reeks of the day, but it still gives me a chuckle. And it raises a lot of questions. Did Cadbury intend on this ad running into the 21st century? And in today's ever-growing, consumer-focused, social-media-2.0-viral-digital-everything market, is there value in designing a "classic" ad, or should the imperative be about trends?

Personally, I love poring over issues of Communication Arts from the early to mid-90s because, while they might not be as flashy as today's ads (and of course, there's no social media component), the copy is BRILLIANT. The concepts are simple and powerful, and they're delivered with efficiency. It's what makes them remarkable, and therefore memorable.

So what of today's advertising will be remembered in 17 years (or 17 months, even) and what will be forgotten? Could this Cadbury spot still sell chocolate to my kids? Or will the next generation need more stimuli and a more personalized advertising experience to be compelled to buy?

Only time will tell, of course, but it's my belief that wit will forever trump flare, and frankly, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups always beats Cadbury Creme Eggs.

Happy Easter!