1.25.02
Peeping Tomfoolery
-- OR --
Close Encounters of the Ad Kind
The Trafalmadorians were fascinated with Billy Pilgrim. While sequestered in the Trafalmadorian Zoo's earth habitat, the human WWII vet was observed by the alien community. As many know, this scenario from Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five takes a Rod Serling-like approach to analyzing our natural human curiosity of creatures who appear to be different from us. The Trafalmadorians probably learned a lot by observing Pilgrim.

Still, it's too bad the aliens didn't have any packaged goods or brand name luxury items to sell us earthlings; they would have been able to take advantage of Pilgrim's imprisonment by engaging in some market research, too.

All the big companies are doin' it: that is, sending glorified voyeurs into people's homes to analyze their interaction with various consumer products. Apparently, since traditional focus groups just aren't cutting it anymore, big brands have found the need to go a few steps further by invading the personal lives of willing guinea pig people. A lengthy 1/13 NY Times Magazine feature provides a glimpse into this growing market research phenomenon through descriptions of various research sessions conducted by observational research/ethnography firm, Housecalls.

The company's site reveals, "We're in their bathrooms, their cars, their stores and at their computers, wherever they live with your product…. Housecalls offers the product experience as it happens to the consumer -- on the consumer's own turf, untainted by faulty recollection, peer pressure or an unfamiliar environment."

According to the NY Times piece, Housecalls charges advertisers $33,000 for a study of about 20 people; that's more than three times what the average focus-group study costs. Not a whole lot of that fee is passed on to the research subjects, it seems. One woman who agreed to let Housecalls videotape her while showering (in a bikini) got paid a measly $125. Perhaps the shower steam fogged her brain, because she also concluded that a previous experience with a Suave soap product "totally stressed [her] out." In fact, maybe the bathing exhibitionist ought to have paid Housecalls for helping her get her rocks off: according to the article, she intimated to the researcher that "putting Oil of Olay on [her] little pink scrungie" makes her "feel special.'' Does anybody else agree that somebody this kinky might not be the best person to represent the every-woman?

Despite the obvious similarities to anthropology, Housecalls calls its service "reality-based product differentiation." Video crews have shot moms as they change babies' diapers, guys as they apply antiperspirant, women as they relieve greasy-food induced heartburn and husbands as they grill burgers in the backyard. The company's site boasts a client list including Best Foods, Bristol-Myers Squibb, General Mills, Colgate-Palmolive, Hasbro and Johnson & Johnson. They've even conducted up close and personal studies for Playtex. As you probably know, Playtex makes intimate apparel and feminine hygiene products. That means some chicks actually allowed Housecalls to videotape their interactions with bras, undies and tampons! Now I'm convinced. Housecalls must be selling these videos on the sly to those Girls Gone Wild slimeballs.

Truthfully, my initial reaction is one of loathing and disgust towards Housecalls' study participants. Has the reality TV mentality pervaded our society so thoroughly that people will gladly become the subjects of intense scrutiny for meager monetary compensation? We all know the answer to that is a resounding "Yes!" Who knows? Maybe I'm the freak for insisting that my private life remain private.

Still, I can't help but wonder: if marketers begin basing all of their product development decisions on the habits and preferences of the dignity-devoid fools who take part in these studies, what good is that for the rest of us? Just imagine the array of ill-conceived products that could flood the market! Well, I guess I'll start to worry when Procter & Gamble launches a line of dildo-shaped shower soap dispensers for stressed out women.

Mad Cow Discharge
-- OR --
Cracked Lactose
Some folks just don't make for good spokespeople. You don't want to see Dr. Kervorkian representing Aetna U.S. Healthcare. OJ Simpson wouldn't be the most appropriate spokesman for J A Henckels cutlery. And some people are just such knuckleheads, they shouldn't be endorsing anything.

Take Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman, for instance. He's not exactly what you would call trustworthy. In fact, the guy's a goofball. His persona is one of frivolous immaturity and oblivious carelessness. He's the front man for a magazine that's dedicated to irreverent humor and lowbrow culture. Come to think of it, it's no wonder the National "got milk?" Milk Mustache Campaign has chosen him to help target teenage boys.

A recent press release posted on Newstream.com notes that the worry-free character will be featured in a year-long "got milk?" campaign aimed at teen boys, many of whom don't get enough calcium in their daily diets. A got milk? print ad starring the Mad mascot appears in the February issue of the magazine.

There's no doubt that boys dig Alfred E. Neuman, but whether they consider him to be a role model is a different story. Either way, I'm just glad to know that kids still read Mad. And I'll admit: promoting milk under the guise of the carefree Mad sensibility could help to remove it from the dweeb drink category. Still, will positioning milk as a drink for wacky wiseguys really get the message across that it's healthy and builds strong bones? I mean, Alfred E. Neuman doesn't even have bones for chrissakes!

How's this for a coincidence? It just so happens that, according to a 1/17 Yahoo News release, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has launched a campaign that aims to debunk claims that "fat-and-cholesterol-laden" cow's milk helps build strong bones. An ad displaying a crumbling plaster milk carton will run on USAToday.com featuring the slogan, "Milk. It's Not All It's Cracked Up to Be.''

So, why hasn't the PCRM gone for the obvious and hired Sylvester P. Smythe, cartoon rep for Mad rip-off publication Cracked Magazine, as campaign spokesman? Well, according to anonymous Lowbrow Lowdown Lackeys, PCRM did express an interest in pairing up with Cracked, but apparently the magazine's editors weren't sure how to respond. They had to wait for Mad's editors to give them a few ideas first.

If You Can't Beat 'em Sue 'em
-- OR --
Smoking the Competition
It's amazing to think about the plethora of products retailers manage to cram onto store shelves. In one convenience store visit, you can pick up a sack of kitty litter, a chili cheese dog, a tin of shoe polish, windshield wiper fluid and a Neil Diamond greatest hits cassette tape. There's one thing, however, that you may not have realized stores are selling: your attention.

That's right. Product marketers pay retailers good money for prime placement of their wares on store shelves to ensure that consumers will notice them. It's no big surprise; it's simply part of the business that has gone on for years. However, what goes on behind-the-counter in the battle to win the attention of cigarette buyers is startling.

An 1/14 Advertising Age report (Store Wars, by Cara B. DiPasquale) covers the fascinating practices of tobacco marketers, focusing on the controversial contracts between store operators and tobacco companies. Basically, cigarette manufacturers give stores payments known as retailer incentives which are based on the number of cartons displayed and placement of those cartons. In the case of Philip Morris, maker of behemoth butt brand Marlboro, the incentives range from 40 cents to 90 cents per carton. Those micro payments add up to big payouts. As noted in the Ad Age story, "$6.6 billion was spent by tobacco companies on retail incentives in 1999…That outlay includes promotional allowances, coupons and other retailer incentives, far eclipsing newspaper and magazine ad expenditures at $428 million."

Although other prominent cigarette makers also rely on incentive programs to ensure desirable shelf placement, Philip Morris goes a bit farther to out-wrestle its rivals. For one thing, the company insists that participating stores devote to its brands the amount of shelf space equal to its market share of that particular store. In other words, the more cigarettes Philip Morris sells, the more shelf space its brands get in stores receiving its incentives. That's not all that smokes the competition. According to Philip Morris' Retail Leaders program stipulations, participating stores that display the firm's brands in the most prominent and therefore highest paid shelf placement are prohibited from displaying competitors' permanent signs outside the store, or inside the store except in designated (and much less noticeable) spots.

None of this has helped Philip Morris' fuming foes gain any more of that precious market share. So, rather than unseating Philip Morris by devising equally cut-throat marketing strategies or developing a tobacco product that can out-sell the Marlboro brand, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard filed an antitrust suit against Philip Morris back in 1999. Brown & Williamson has even claimed that Philip Morris is using its efforts to reduce underage smoking to "further its leadership position in store." Philip Morris' Retail Leaders rules require retailers to eliminate self-service tobacco displays and participate in the "We Card" program in order to receive all of their incentive fees. Although it is not discussed in the article, one can assume that Brown & Williamson would like to have the opportunity to have its brands displayed in self-service fixtures since they are so often relegated to less-than-prime locations behind-the-counter.

Excuse me. I must have gotten some Marlboro brand smoke in my eyes because I'm crying. It's just so sad, you know? These downtrodden tobacco underdogs just can't seem to keep up with big bad Philip Morris. It's no wonder they had to sue, poor things.

Boo hoo.

If they could market their brands as well as Philip Morris markets Marlboro, store retailers may consider those brands to be just as necessary to promote and stock prominently. A stronger market share could warrant demands like the ones Philip Morris makes. Anyways, although shelf placement plays a role in some purchasing decisions, it rarely does when it comes to cigarettes. The majority of smokers is adamant about smoking their beloved brand and only their beloved brand. And if a store doesn't stock that brand, they'll more than likely seek it out elsewhere rather than buy a competing brand.

As for the push to use the We Card system and remove self-service displays, if an action has a dual purpose, one of which may be self-serving, does that negate the overall value of that action? Brown & Williamson seems to think so. Man, who allowed these crybabies to get their wittle hands on the cigarettes in the first place?

Jeep Season! Hunter Season!
-- OR --
Ad Killers
Is there some reason why companies can't stand behind their advertising, rather than pulling it at the slightest sign of outcry from some oversensitive demographic group?

The ad portrays used car salesmen in a bad light. The Latino midget population isn't represented. The ad hurts cows' feelings because it promotes beef. It seems there's always some lobby getting its proverbial panties in a bunch because of a silly ad that would normally be ignored by the wider population if it weren't for their rabblerousing.

Regardless of all the time, effort and research that go into a campaign, advertisers seem to insist on maintaining a façade of political correctness. This time it's ridiculous. This time, the advertiser has pulled an ad because its political correctness offended the politically incorrect.

In a recent TV spot, DaimlerChrysler aimed to present the Jeep as a safe vehicle. As featured in a 1/18 post to adland, a Jeep with two deer tied to it "in the traditional way of conveying animal carcasses" drives through a wooded area past hunters. The Jeep stops once a no-hunting zone is reached, and the driver sets free the (apparently live) deer, ensuring them, "you're safe now". A voiceover explains, "With all of our patented safety systems, it's no wonder a Jeep four-by-four is one of the safest ways ever to cross treacherous terrain."

Not surprising, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have praised the ad. However, when the spot got trapped in the crosshairs of a pro-hunting organization, Chrysler reacted like a you-know-what caught in the headlights: they pulled the ad.

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance VP, Rick Story bemoans, "This ad painted the whole concept of hunting, and deer hunting in particular, as a negative, and in a shallow light…. Essentially, it attempted to communicate that if you're a Jeep driver, you are enlightened and hence, wouldn't engage in deer hunting." Evidently, Story received lots of messages from alliance members who were offended by the ad which, according to the adland story, prompted a press release stating that Chrysler had " 'turned its back on American sportsmen' by running a commercial 'that glorifies anti-hunters and vilifies hunters.' "

I can't help but wonder what the conversations that led up to that over-reaction were like: