As a digital coordinator, and a former media intern in both the traditional and online realms, I have seen how quickly things in media have changed – even in the three short years since I have started in this industry. It is in this day and age that Darwin’s theory truly comes forth: survival of the fittest. People have said it over and over again. Brands must adapt to the changing environment. Sure, it’s scary. Sure, no one knows what’s going to happen. But staying the same, staying with the status quo never got anyone anywhere. Big brands taking big leaps in the right direction will win.

So what’s the “right” direction?

If only someone had an answer. Last week, Advertising Age came out with its first ever Media Issue. An entire issue dedicated to media. Where is it going? What is happening to it? Will its quick evolution be its own death? Where are media agencies, much like Blitz, going to be in ten years from now?

So really. Where is media going? Where are we going? Many of these articles said that the important thing media agencies will need to realize is that media is no longer media anymore. Media is, in short, everything.

It already can’t really be categorized and shelved away the way library books can. That is, if people still go to the library with the Kindles, the iPads, and the Nooks of the industry coming out stronger than ever. But that’s besides the point.

The point is, the world is changing. Surprise, surprise. In the future, media agencies, and all agencies in general, will be less focused on the clicks and the impressions, the conversion rates, the ROI. This is not to say that these metrics aren’t important- because they are. They will still exist. They have to. But a media campaign will not simply be banner ads here, in-banner videos there, maybe a 00:30 second spot one week and a full page ad another.

I think it will be more about who is talking about what, where, when, and why. Yes, the dreaded word. It will be about “buzz.”  Say what you will about social media (and yes, I hate it too sometimes), but it has only expanded the net of conversations available to people. I hear about things on Twitter from people I have never even heard of, much less met. For example, I decided to try a restaurant last week with my boyfriend, not because we saw advertisements for it, but because one of my follower’s re-tweeted their follower’s re-tweet of something said by someone else that neither me nor my follower followed. Get it? Yeah, kind of confusing. But influential.

It isn’t all about sponsored Tweets or Facebook ads or anything like that. But it’s also not going to be about having a protocol. It’s not going to be about telling the client your process. Absolutely not.

It’s going to be about the consumer. I don’t know if that’s a beat-over-the-head point yet or not. But I really, truly believe that everything needs to move more and more towards the consumer. People are starting to pay attention to the way advertising works. And I’m not just talking about people like me, people who work in the industry. No. Everyone.

I was at trivia night the other day at White Horse Tavern (I’m very bad at trivia, I found out) and there was a picture round. You had to identify the “man.” There was the Blue Man Group, Redman, and other notable men. But the one man there that everyone knew (besides the Blue Man Group because how could you possibly miss that?) was “The Most Interesting Man in the World.” That’s right. The man from the Dos Equis commercial. After we had an embarrassing loss at trivia night, we went to buy some beer to bring home and wallow in how all of our knowledge of useless things…was simply not useless enough. I bought Dos Equis. I didn’t realize the connection until I was home, drinking a bottle of Dos Equis and watching late night Comedy Central.

Obviously, that picture round was not sponsored by Dos Equis. But Dos Equis knew just how to intrigue people in their demographic. I want to be classy. I want to be cool. I want to be interesting. I want to be that guy. Except female.

How do brands utilize media to make people want their brand, want to relate to their brand, the way I want to relate to The Most Interesting Man in the World?

They listen. Not just media agencies, but all agencies of the future are going to have to be better at listening. Not to the client,  because no offense clients, you know we love you, but sometimes you have no idea what you’re saying. To the consumer. To both the users and the non-users of your brand. What are they saying about you, about your competitors, about themselves? Most importantly, what are they saying about themselves? Does that fit with your brand truth? How can you use that compatibility in the world (currently known as media) to make those consumers see that you understand them? We all love to be understood.

So how will this effect media agencies? Well, for one, it will make all agencies more complex. Things will have to be more organized on a team-by-team basis because there will be no protocol. Things will have to be felt out on a brand-by-brand basis. Because, of course, no two brands are the same. And if they are, perhaps it’s time for a change. The media agency will be more about integration into the daily lives of consumers. I know that there’s already a shift towards that, but the truth is, commercials are still the most popular avenue of advertising.

I think in the next decade, there will be a dramatic shift towards immersion not interruption. I’m not saying commercials will be gone forever. I’m just saying things like commercials and banner ads and billboards will simply be reinforcers for the big idea for the rest of the campaign. I’m not sure where the center-piece of these new campaigns will be – perhaps in creative guerrilla marketing techniques or projects like Pepsi Refresh. By the time we get to a decade from now, projects like Pepsi Refresh will be able to be blown up to a much larger magnitude. Brands will regain personalities. Brands will be like people. They are already starting to transform that way.

I suppose this doesn’t really answer the question, “Where will media agencies go in 10 years?” Probably because there is no definitive answer. The future is blurrier than ever before. The only way to find out is to dive head first into it– like a new adventure. I like new adventures.  Bon voyage!

A screenshot of the Bonobos homepage. Chat with a style ninja today. Copyright Bonobos 2009.

Ladies, you know what it’s like to finish a big dinner (Thanksgiving dinner, anyone?) where you had no mercy on your body and inhaled almost everything on the table. Your stomach feels like it’s going to explode, you feel like you ate your weight in food, you don’t regret it…but when you look in the mirror, the first thing you do? Turn around and look at your butt. I do it. You do it. We all do it.

But what about the gents? Guys, you don’t really think about your butt that much, in fact, besides when you’re wiping it, you probably never give it a second thought.

Well. Bonobos is trying to change that.

I was scrolling through NYTimes.com today and I saw a feature on a new men’s clothing store, Bonobos. Founded by Andy Dunn and Brain Spaly, this e-commerce clothing company is not like the Gaps or the Banana Republics out there. In fact, it mocks them. Can you believe it? Those $50 pair of jeans you bought last week with your mom when she forced you to go shopping with her? Dunn and Spaly are trying to tell you they look horrible on you.

Bonobo’s mission is to revolutionize, not only the way men’s clothes fit, but also “the way men buy clothes.”

These pants are different because they are made to fit you. Gone away are the days of baggy, saggy jeans that droop all the way past your butt. Now, “fitted” has a new meaning. To top that off, you’ll never have to leave your home. The store is purely online, like Zappos, and you don’t even have to worry about shipping. It’s free. All the time.

Sounds like a guy’s store. Not only do they get free shipping, there’s a lifetime return policy. Go ahead. Return those pants. Keep trying new pants until you find your perfect fit. And then you’ll be able to customize your Bonobos homepage to your needs. Your favorite pants will be there, only pants in your size will show up. Makes shopping seem ridiculously hassle-free. Cool!

And it is true that guys are self-conscious about the way they look. Contrary to the way movies and TV shows depict men, I do believe that guys care. Probably not half as much as girls do, but the caring is there. They want to look good.

So the business model will work, it’s convenient, it’s helpful, it plays towards anxieties men have about their physical look, it sounds like a wonderful store with a variety of different clothing designed to fit.

Here’s where I see a problem: While guys care about how they look, the quest for a perfect pair of pants, or a perfect shirt doesn’t come cheap. Why pay $88(starting price!) for a pair of pants that will simply fit you better, when you can have a small imperfection and pay $38 less? After all, nobody’s perfect right?

And there’s something about calling your customer service crew “style ninjas” that leads me to believe it will be hard to catch on. Do you really expect a guy—a man, if you will—to refer to customer service as a ninja? A ninja? I guess it’s funny. I guess it’s kind of cute. But I’m not sure cute is what Bonobos should be going for.

And perhaps targeting men may be the wrong way to go. What about their wives? Girlfriends? Girl-that-he-hooks-up-with-but-isn’t-his-girlfirend-but-maybe-one-day-will-be? Unlike girls (who, let’s be honest, try to impress other girls before they try to impress guys), guys want to impress girls. Period. End of sentence. They don’t really care about what other guys think about their shirt (unless, of course, they swing that way). So why not target the females?

I may be totally off here, I’m not an expert in men’s fashion. But from a purely advertising perspective, I think there’s going to have to be some small branding adjustments before this will successfully reach their audience. And it would be a shame if a company that would bring us ladies some better-dressed men to look at went under because of some small branding technicalities.

Joining Microsoft in its efforts to bring the technology God that is Apple down, Verizon has decided to take a different route this time around. I’m sure we’ve all seen the “There’s a map for that” ads that counter the “There’s an app for that” campaign (and if you haven’t, refer to the YouTube at the bottom of this post). The direct attack is clever, witty, and effective. The Droid, however, has gone about a different approach.

Not only is the approach completely different, the target audience is too—a good way to get around the Apple market. The ads are targeted towards tech-savvy, gadget-buying, sci-fi appreciative males. As opposed to the quirky tone of the Apple ads, the Droid campaign is dark, heavy, and dangerous, touting the tagline, “In a world of doesn’t, Droid does.”

What does the Droid do, exactly? That’s also featured in the commercial, one of the only similarities the Droid commercials have to Apple’s iPhone commercials. Voice activation is one of the most heavily advertised features of the Droid, in addition to features such as taking clear pictures in the dark—something the Droid claims that the iPhone doesn’t do. The Droid is a Google-backed interface, claims to be highly intuitive, and is Verizon’s attempt to bring the iPhone down.

Problem? Their target market. Is it a viable market? Should they have tried to keep closer to the witty, quirky essence of Apple? Or was this deviation the reason they got noticed?

I know when I first saw the Droid commercial on TV, my friends and I was thoroughly confused. So what did we do? We went to the website listed at the end of the 30-second spot. And when we got to the website, all we saw was, “It’s Coming. November 2009.”

Anticipation built? Check.

For weeks after the initial exposure to the commercial, I saw ads everywhere—billboards, online, on TV, in magazines. I couldn’t get away from the brand.

Effective frequent exposure? Check.

But upon the day of release on Friday, Nov. 6? I was not waiting to get a new phone in front of Verizon. I didn’t know the release date, actually. The first I heard about it was on my Twitter-feed when AdAge tweeted about it. In fact, Verizon stores were pretty quiet that day. Except for the Verizon store in SoHo and the Best Buy on Houston Street, and a few other retailers across the nation, where they ran out of Droids by mid-morning, the Verizon home front was fairly…stagnant.

The campaign was effective, it was clever, it was good. But the execution during the most crucial days leading up to the drop date? Unchecked.

The Droid had a good chance at defeating the iPhone for Verizon, but its lack of anticipation in the days leading up to November 6 hurt Droid. This isn’t to say that it won’t take some iPhone users away from AT&T. It will. It has. But it won’t take as many as Verizon had originally hoped.

Still, it’s a valiant effort from a company whose reputation was suffering from the blows AT&T dealt. The Droid has salvaged Verizon, as the “There’s a map for that” campaign has helped to do too.

In times of economic recession like these, when people aren’t thinking about new cell phones as much as they have in the past, I think Verizon will take salvaging if it can’t get complete domination. Baby steps.

What does the beer in your hand say about you? Something to think about next time you're at the bar. CC License.

As if there wasn’t enough to worry about when going out on the weekends. According to an article on Adage.com, studies have shown that beer preferences have a correlation to personality type. Of course, this does make some sort of common sense, but I was surprised as to the major differences between fairly generic beers. The article, for example, states that people who drink Bud versus people who drink Bud Light? Completely different. And it’s not just the calories, either. Who would’ve thunk it?

Bud drinkers are “grounded and practical” while their lighter counterparts have “frat-boy like personalities, particularly when it comes to personal risk-taking.” However, Bud Light-ers are generally easier to get along with and less likely to…buy organic products?

Amazing how your whole lifestyle can be determined through the kind of beer you choose to drink. It’s studies like this one that advertisers anticipate. To have a detailed profile of your target market is to have the ability to reach your target in the best possible way, and it’s definitely illustrated in the differences in beer ads.

If you think about it (and I hate to burst your bubble, enthusiasts), there really isn’t too much of a difference between cheap beers. Yet their advertising boasts these ridiculous claims and people actually stay loyal to a brand. One of my friends has been loyal to Busch heavy for years and would only buy Busch, until recently. When I asked him what the difference between Busch and, say Keystone heavy was, he shrugged and said, “I just like Busch.”

It’s amazing to me that beer culture is so grounded in brand loyalty. That’s the ad industry’s doing. Especially among college students, cheap beer is cheap beer. But what kind of cheap beer you buy says something about you. Are you a Busch drinker? Perhaps you love the ‘Stones. Or, God forbid, you drink the Natty. Natty Ice.

We all do it. We all judge people by the beers in their hand.

Even at cramped parties where I am pressed up uncomfortably against a wall and a stranger desperately trying to breathe, I have received comments like, “Oh, you’re rocking the Bud Light, I see.”

In fact, two summers ago, I was at a party and there was a keg of Bud Light and this stranger came up to me and said, “Why are you drinking that shit?”

I looked at his beer of choice—Heineken.

“Why would I pay more than necessary to drink…Heineken?” I asked him.

“It’s better. Way better than Bud.” And then he promptly offered me one.

Because I am a good girl, a responsible girl, I declined the offer. My mom told me never to accept drinks from strangers.

But the difference between Bud Light and Heineken is small—little to none in my opinion other than the price. The marketing, though, for Heineken positions the beer as a “better” beer, a “higher quality” beer. And maybe it is, a little.

Now, I’m not picky about my beer, I’m not a beer connoisseur by any means. But I did choose the keg of Bud Light over the 30-rack of Natty in the fridge. Does that mean I’m fratty like? I don’t think so. But Heineken boy, he chose to spend extra money (in addition to the $5 he already had to pay to get into the party, he bought a 12-pack of Heinekens).   According to the AdAge.com article, he loves his “brand badges,” and he’s a “poser.”

I’ll be honest here: I judged. That is exactly how I perceived him to be, and as a result, I avoided him for the rest of the night. Who was he to tell me my beer was shit anyway?

Like I said, it’s okay, though. We all do it. People try to fight it, say it’s a terrible thing. I used to be one of those people. But as I continued on in my advertising education, I realized that it’s a losing battle. The media, not just in its advertising, has shaped the American culture especially to be a judgmental culture.

We have studies on beer preferences and personality. It helps the marketers define who they’re reaching, understand who they’re talking to. It creates brand loyalty. It creates niches.

And then we pass judgment on people in other niches. It’s a continuing cycle and as long as there’s media and advertising, it will exist. I suppose it sounds like a terrible thing. In some ways, it is.

But in other ways, it’s fascinating that we can be convinced that one cheap beer brand is better than another cheap beer brand, that we will continue to hand over our hard-earned, barely existent wallets over to these franchises that monopolize off of figuring out what our collective personality is and telling us they understand.

And we love to be understood.

Big Apple Coalition of Reason ad to be displayed in NYC Subway systems

Today, twelve New York City subway stations will adorn several advertisements touting the headline, “A million New Yorkers are Good Without God. Are you?”

These ads, part of a month-long campaign sponsored by a coalition of multiple atheist organizations called the Big Apple Coalition of Reason, are meant to inspire Americans, according to an article on CNN.com, and make them realize that they are not bad people if they do not believe in God, or deities of the like. MTA officials say that the ads follow all guidelines put out for advertisements in the subway.

The real question I have. Was this ad campaign a smart decision?

Me, personally, I have no religion. I respect those who do—many of my friends follow a religion. To each his own, as they say. I have nothing against religious groups advocating their beliefs to the general public.

But I suppose I was always under the impression that atheism meant a disbelief in deities of any sort. That’s how the Miriam-Webster dictionary defines it. So when I read this article after I saw it on my Twitter-feed, I was slightly confused, for two reasons: a) Are the atheists turning into a religion? b) If atheism is the disbelief in deities, and fundamentally about not having the concept of deities being pushing onto people, isn’t this campaign, with a headline as forward as it is, slightly contradictory?

Who knows, I could be pulling this out of my ass, but from over here, this ad campaign seems paradoxical.

The headline reads like a challenge. I’m sure the Big Apple CoR didn’t mean for it to sound that way; in fact, from what I read in the article, they just wanted to spread awareness. Awareness of what?

Their lack of religion? The fact that religion isn’t the end all and be all of existence? Those are all values I, as someone without a religion, can appreciate.

But even if I can appreciate those values, I am not sure making subway ads to spread these values was the best advertising move ever made. People are already skeptical of religious advertising; it seems to go against the grain of the purity of religion—or at least the pure connotation associated with religion. Is it wise to use religious advocacy tactics to spread the word about…well, not having a religion?

On the one hand, it’s a clever headline, and it’s a great place to have an ad. Subway advertisements, in my opinion, are underrated. You are able to reach a multitude of people just because they have to be waiting in that one spot for their train to arrive. Especially in a city like New York, subways are a great place to reach a mass audience. The headline is thought-provoking, clear, and straight-forward.

Perhaps a little too forward. On the other hand, would advertising the values of not having a religion be seen as a step towards becoming an organized religion? Is the name of the Coalition of Reason too offensive towards established religious groups?   Sure, the ad headline isn’t offensive. But is the name of the coalition offensive?

I’m not too sure. As someone who doesn’t follow an organized religion of any sort, I don’t truly have an idea of what is and what isn’t offensive, I’m completely taking a  guess at what might offend me if I were a follower of a specific religion. However, one thing I am sure of?

This ad campaign is a bold move. Bold moves catch attention. If that was their goal, the Big Apple CoR subway ads definitely will deliver.

Already modern and clean looking, about to get the makeover of a lifetime. CC License

Disney has always been at the top of its game. With its incredibly successful theme parks, films, cruises, television channel, and celebrities, the company has captured the hearts of not just Americans, but the world. People of all ages, from all hemispheres, speaking different languages seem to find a common ground with the entertainment giant.

And now, in times of economic hardship, where companies and brands everywhere have been trying their best to stand out—without the heavy dent in their bottom line—Disney has decided to take the complete opposite route. The Disney Stores, known to be filled with toys and clothing and more toys with Disney characters emblazoned everywhere, are going through a little makeover.

In true Disney form, according to a New York Times article, the company is giving their chain of stores a floor-to-ceiling alteration. Even its name won’t be the same.

From Disney Stores to Imagination Parks.

Imagination Park. Sounds like a theme park. Funny thing is, it might as well be an indoor playground, filled with high-tech innovations fueled by none other than Steve Jobs, the beloved head of Apple.

Two mastermind companies coming together can only mean extravagance. And extravagance is exactly what the consumer is going to get. Imagination Parks has been designed to not just be a store, but an experience. There will be theaters, which will allow children to select and watch film clips of their choice, have karaoke contests with each other, and video chat with Disney Channel stars.

As if that’s not cool enough, Disney is also implementing the use of hidden features. With a push of a button, you could be talking to Cinderella when you walk by a mirror wearing a princess tiara. And as we all know, birthdays never go unnoticed by Disney. Let someone in the store know, and you’ll suddenly see eight 13-foot tall Lucite trees all around you, sparkling with digital fireworks. Happy birthday, indeed. Feel like the holiday spirit has withered away and died because everyone’s a Grinch lately? Imagination Parks can change that. During the holiday season, the stores will offer “A Christmas Carol” as a film clip available for viewing. Choose it and the store might just suddenly start smelling like…Christmas!

Yes, incredibly over-the-top. But with Disney and Apple working together, what else could we expect?

The real question, though, is how effective it will be. Truthfully, it sounds like the coolest thing ever. But how practical is it for Disney, and Apple, to waste millions and millions of dollars for something like this in times like these? Is it worth the risk?

To a certain extent, yes. Risks need to be taken. Especially in times like these. People are sick of the gloom and doom that news media headlines spout every single day. It’s time to get the nostalgic, happy feeling usually associated with Disney back into the foreground of our lives. And Imagination Parks will definitely not hurt Disney’s brand reputation either.

The most impressive thing about this grandiose project? Throughout it all, Disney has managed to continue capturing the essence of its brand. It’s just another addition to Disney’s consistent message over the entirety of its existence. And by getting Disney celebrities involved in the concept clearly depicts unity throughout the brand. I’m not sure how the celebs feel about having an added responsibility of knowing these children are watching, more than they ever were before. But for the brand, if no one screws up (even though I’m sure they will. These celebs are only teenagers after all), it will show that Disney is not just a brand—it’s a community. Their marketing team knows that what they already have works. And taking risks is good, but a risk like changing the brand image, one that is celebrated throughout the world? That would just be stupid.

I don’t know if Imagination Parks will work. It may be a little too over-the-top. It might not drive people to actually buy anything. Some malls probably won’t appreciate having to create space for the expansion of these stores. But it definitely screams innovation, and I know I’ve got my fingers crossed for Disney and Apple. Go team.

Well, it doesn’t take much know-how to realize that, since ordinary people are on all of these social networking sites, celebrities and opinion leaders will be too. It’s an often-lost concept, but celebrities are people. They have Facebooks and Twitters and MySpaces, just like the rest of the global population.

I guess it does seem like the next logical step, then, to solicit these celebs and opinion leaders to sponsor some media messages through their social networking accounts.

But now? I am conflicted. Not for the first time, my consumer self and my advertising self have hit a crossroads with one another. I am an advocate for preserving the spirit of Twitter and Facebook. They are spaces where people can share thoughts and pictures daily with the cyber world, where word of mouth explodes and people get to share ideas with other people. Yes. People. Not sponsors, not brand ambassadors. People.

And now, according to an article published in Ad Age, the advertising industry is trying to reach people in these spaces. Fair enough, considering we have every means to block out media messages whenever we want. But do they have the right to pay celebrities to tweet about certain products? Like a Twitter endorsement?

Legally, they can do whatever they want as long as the celebrity agrees, and especially if contracts are drawn up. It’s true that cyberspace is an extremely important space to cover in the ad world. But is it worth the compromise of the spirit of social media? How am I going to feel when I see John Mayer tweeting about some new energy drink and endlessly plugging it—just because he’s getting paid to say those things? Am I going to believe every witty joke he makes is still originally his?

You see, somehow getting into social media with your advertising message would be genius. It would begin to solve so many problems advertisers face today. But the problem is, people are skeptical of advertising in the first place. They have just truly started to accept that these celebrities really tweet their own tweets (although, honestly, how do we really know?). Is it worth compromising the integrity of Twitter for these celebs to get more cash (as if they didn’t have enough) and clutter up yet another space that has just opened up?

I don’t know. As I said before, figuring out a way to reach these Tweeters and Facebookers is crucial to the advertising process these days. But invading their Twitter-space and their Facebooks may not necessarily be the best way to go. Wouldn’t it give a brand more credibility if they reached out to the community in some unique way and got celebrities and opinion leaders to tweet and write about their brand products on their own will—free of charge? It would save the brand money, it would salvage what’s left of the advertising reputation, and it would preserve the integrity of social media. Well, at least that’s what we’re all hoping for. Fingers crossed.

[cross-posted]

And now, so is anorexia, apparently. New Zealand’s TV3 is has begun their promotion of popular show, “America’s Next Top Model,” and with it, comes their “Through the cracks” campaign. The campaign, done by BBDO Colenso, consists of models literally having fallen through the cracks because they are so skinny.  They add a bit of cutesy taste to each one with the small dogs trying to save their way-too-skinny owners.

I will admit. The dogs are cute. In real life, they’re a bit annoying, but nevertheless, small dogs are adorable to look at. It still doesn’t negate the fact that the ads are promoting the fact that models are so skinny they can fall through the cracks. It mimics the ads done by other agencies in the past decade for Pepsi Light, Slimfast, among others (also depicted below).

I think we all know by now how skinny models have to be. They act as living, walking, barely talking clothes hangers. I’m not bashing the modeling industry, I think it’s a profession in the entertainment industry just like any other. But to promote a show that is supposedly all about outer and inner beauty with ads that promote being so skinny you fall through the cracks?

Perhaps I am missing some sort of satire or mockery ANTM was trying to make about their own industry. Perhaps there was supposed to be a hint of sarcasm in there. I’d like to think I’m an intelligent human being who understands satire or sarcasm when she sees it. And I definitely didn’t see it here. Just like the adage, “Bronze is beautiful,” is so trendy these days, the obsession with being skinny has caught on to be more than just an epidemic.

We say we aren’t a superficial culture at all, we promote that beauty comes from within. But what we say and how we react to people are two completely different things. We still value the stick-thin over the slightly-chunky. We love our ridiculous carb-free diets while we work out absurd amounts of hours everyday at the gym.

Sure, let’s promote that so we have even more people going on stupid diets and starving themselves. Go America.

The first, the “Let a stranger drive you home” spot, is targeted towards trendy, young adults (probably the college-age range) and it features Biz Markie’s “Just a Friend.” The use of this extremely catchy and well-known song was an excellent choice. The fact that these partiers are in a cab on the way home from a bar or club is also an excellent choice in terms of scenario. How many times have college students drunkenly stumbled into cabs together, probably making huge fools of themselves to the cabbie? Probably a lot. How many times has the cabbie sang along with them to a song on the radio? Probably almost never. I  have never watched this commercial and NOT have people around me (myself included) start singing along with the commerical, then AFTER the commercial is over, continue to sing the song for the rest of the night. Brilliant.

The second, and most recent, Heineken commerical on the air is the “Walk-in Fridge” spot. This one is targeted towards men. Also brilliantly playing on a common facet of married life, this 30-second spot is memorable and hilarious. The scenario? House-warming dinner party. The wife is showing all her girlfriends around the new, gorgeously modern house. And then they reach the walk-in closet. Female heaven. The women start freaking out as they do, and then we hear male screams. Not only does this house have a walk-in closet, there is a walk-in beer fridge. Filled with Heineken. What man wouldn’t want that in his new house? “Honey, you can have a walk-in closet as long as I can get a walk-in beer fridge.” Sounds like a good deal to me. I have never not laughed when seeing this commercial, and I am never the only one laughing.

Good job, once again, Heineken (or should I say, Wieden & Kennedy). You never fail to impress.

In the vast advertising space, there is a lot of clutter to break through and very few brands are able to rise above the muddle of mediocrity. This winter, though, Snickers brand has been one of the select few who have succeeded in breaking through the ad-space.

Their campaign, using “Snacklish” to branch off of their already iconic logo, is a highly effective use of wordplay targeted towards college-aged individuals, such as myself. Snickers has created an identity of its own by creating a language that only the brand and Snickers fans truly appreciate and understand and, by having that connection, it brings the brand closer to the consumer.  The print ads are relevant to the college generation, due to its pop culture references and college stereotypes that individuals in college will pick up on immediately. They include slogans like, “Take night classes at the Chewniversity” and, “Pledge Sigma Nougat,” which appeal to the college-aged consumer. The ads themselves are visually simple, adding to the effect of the advertisement. The iconic Snickers logo is replaced by the Snacklish word that is central to the ad. “Snickers” itself is never on the ad, but the logo is so recognizably symbolic of the brand that the name does not need to appear. I have not seen the digital or television components yet, but the print component of this campaign stuck with me for weeks after I first saw it in a gossip magazine, which was a good choice for Snickers since its references are so deeply intertwined with pop culture.

Perhaps I am biased since I grew up eating this delicious combination of chocolate, nougat, peanuts, and caramel, and perhaps my childhood love for Snickers would sway me to pick up a Snickers bar at the Campus Convenience store anyway. And I’m not really positive about how this ad effected (or didn’t effect) sales of Snickers candies, but I am positive that I hadn’t had a Snickers bar since I was in middle school. Until that ad stuck with me. The next time I went to a convenience store, I picked up a Snickers bar to snack on during class. 

Way to go, Snickers. You just took $0.99 out of my starving college student bank account. Well at least I didn’t spend it on a Hershey’s bar, huh?