May 12, 2008
03:36 pm | 2 recommendations | 1 comment
"Gentleman Callers" candles. "Fat Pig" chocolates. "Dogmatic" gourmet
hot dogs. It's no surprise this slew of new tongue-in-cheek brands come
straight from the front lines of manufactured hipness: ad agencies. In
today's Advertising Age, Rupal Parekh
writes about a trend I highlighted in Fast Company's Annual Fast 50
awards; Madison Avenue's latest fetish--intellectual property.
Nowadays, as the industry grapples with how it's actually going to make
money now that media is no longer the cash cow, these brand mavens now
want complete equity ownership of these products ("We would rather
invent the next VitaminWater than do the ads for VitaminWater," Anomaly partner Carl Johnson told me when I interviewed him earlier this year).
In addition to Anomaly (our Fast 50 pick which just launched its new shaving line Eos at Target), Parekh rounds
up other IP-hungry brethren like Mother, Brooklyn Brothers, and Taxi
(incidentally, note how many of these mad men hail from across the
Atlantic pond). While many of the new product lines are quirky and
irreverent, the truth is, most of the crop including Anomaly are small
scale and appeal to a limited hipster demographic parallel to the one
they derive from. That said, it's not just these boutique shops chasing
the intellectual property train. Agency heads I've spoken to from much
larger shops--from JWT to Crispin Porter + Bogusky--all proclaim the next frontier is IP.
Which agencies have succeeded in creating a real, viable, disruptor product, like the green cleaners at Method? Or is all this IP hype smoke and mirrors, which ad agencies are acrobat at?
3
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 12, 2008
03:04 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment
It's been a historic week for gamers: Marvel Comics' "Iron Man" had stellar box office performance, clocking in an estimated $100.8 million in tickets in North America, while Take-Two Interactive's Grand Theft Auto IV sold six million copies during its first week of sales, raking in an astounding $500 million.
One of my editors pointed out to me the sharp contrast of the two
numbers: videogames are kicking movie studios' butts. And Take-Two's
stellar success with its violent video game franchise is not going
unnoticed; industry heavyweight Electronic Arts is in the midst of a $2
billion hostile takeover effort (which will most likely increase given
Auto IV's success).
To me what's more striking than the videogame vs. movie battle is
the disturbing sociological implications (and commentary) of 6 million
consumers and their friends flocking to plasma screens across the
country simulating violent gang battles, hate crimes, and bloody
murders. Call me puritanical, but I find it incredibly disturbing to
see mass enthusiasm around acting out gruesome crimes, and can only
wonder, scientifically speaking, how virtually repeating these actions
over and over again will actually rewire the brains of those 6
million-plus folks.
Personally, I'm fed up with our culture's hypocrisy. We have no
tolerance for our children to glimpse Janet Jackson's nipple--yet we're
fine sticking electronic guns and machetes in their hands. I'm all for
free speech, technology and creativity, but why does violence always
seem to get a free pass in our entertainment culture?
3
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 12, 2008
02:58 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Tim Gunn, our favorite sartorial critic, is in the eye of the storm--again. As I chronicled in Fast Company's April issue profile "Project Rehab," the former head of Parsons' Fashion program has had a dizzying career trajectory since turning 50 (take note AARP!): landing his own TV show on Bravo, recruited to rewire Liz Claiborne Inc's $5 billion design culture, and of course, breakout stardom on Bravo's Project Runway.
Of course, being on top always has its consequences. Last month, the Weinstein brothers dealt a blow to NBC Universal (particularly "buddy" Jeff Zucker and Bravo turnaround star Lauren Zalaznick), when they decided to sell five-year Project Runway rights to the tear-jerking chick network, Lifetime, for $150 million. NBC Universal is now suing The Weinstein Company for not honoring its first right of refusal obligations.
The latest development, according to the Los Angeles Times, is that the battle continues to heat up. Project Runway's producers--Dan Cutforth and Jane Lipsitz (the former Project Greenlight producers we mentioned in our Gunn story) and creators of show--have just signed an exclusive agreement with NBC Universal. That means now the talent is officially divorced: in Bravo's court are the brainchildren of Project Runway (and other Bravo hit Top Chef); in Lifetime's, statuesque Heidi Klum and every-woman's-B.F.F., Tim Gunn.
What this means for the future of Project Runway remains the lingering (and unfortunate) question. With the pool of talent carved up likes carnage from a Thanksgiving turkey, will both networks end up losing in the end? Will greed and ego (how unusual) be the downfall of one of the few innovative shows to surface on cable TV? I can imagine poor Tim--who in the time I spent with him reporting was clearly still too earnest for both Wall Street and showbiz--getting shuffled around like the child of freshly divorced parents.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
May 12, 2008
02:52 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment
A friend of mine who happens to be a political journalist just returned from a 10 day holiday jaunt through Europe last week. His most startling discovering, he told me: Europeans are gaga over Obama.
In Fast Company's April issue Ellen McGirt investigated "brand Obama." Even with all the recent Reverend Wright drama that's dented his street cred since our story hit stands, there's a brand in far more dire shape: brand America. In 2007, Pew Global Attitudes Project revealed depressing (but well deserved) global opinion of the US: 42% of Brits, 60% of French and Spanish, and 66% of Germans had an unfavorable view of America. Not pretty.
Reuters recently chronicled Obama's European love affair: Der Spiegel, the high-profile German weekly, dubbed the candidate "The Messiah Factor"; in Italy, Rome mayor Walter Veltroni emulated Obama by casting himself as the "change" candidate in an April election"; recent French polls show that Obama is the favored candidate over Clinton.
Plagued with a brand debacle that has global implications a little more important than say, Crest vs Colgate, is Obama America's best shot out of this PR nightmare? To what degree should Americans consider this when casting their vote?
3
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 26, 2008
01:50 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Today's The New York Times' "Business of Green" special
section has a fascinating article about the latest eco-marriage: Clorox
and The Sierra Club. The "green trench warfare" Method's Adam Lowry
refers to in our Fast 50 issue (#16) has officially gone full throttle.
With Method and Seventh Generation head to head in sales clocking in at
around $100 million, respectively, Clorox's newest posterboy is none
other than Sierra Club heavy hitter Carl Pope.
Pope has paired up with Clorox CEO Donald Knauss, to put
environmental muscle behind its new "99% natural" Green Works brand.
For Clorox, it's the first new line they've launched in nearly 20
years. What's more startling: in Sierra Club's 116-year-history, it's
the first time they've ever endorsed a product. Why, explains Pope? The
best way to convince consumers to purchase green cleaning products is
for the grandaddy of eco-activists to pair up with the grandaddy of
clean kitchens.
What's even more head-turning is that Sierra Club will "receive an
undisclosed portion of the proceeds." Over the past year it's been
remarkable watching activist groups turn from rock throwers to
deal-makers. Is this part of Sierra Club's new business friendly
strategy? Are we witnessing dollar signs in the eyes of environmental
groups--or is taking money the only way for these groups to get an
influential voice in company boardrooms? Which environmental groups are
taking it too far?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
March 26, 2008
12:58 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The deal's been sealed. As of today, Tata Group's bid for Ford's
Jaguar and Land Rover brands graduated to a completed purchase for $2.3
billion. Note, that's nearly half the number Ford originally paid for
the brands only a few years ago.
As we mentioned in our Fast 50 writeup, the $72.8 billion Indian
conglomerate has been accelerating its global footprint over the past
few years--from tea acquisitions to steel companies. Just last week I
met with Phiroz Vandrevala, an executive director at Tata Consultancy,
who filled me in on the new IT offices they've just opened in, of all
places: Cincinnati, Ohio. Comfortably hubbed between GE's Aviation arm
and consumer product behemoth, P&G, creating a hearty 1,000 jobs.
They're now giving us jobs.
With the Jaguar/Land Rover deal, it's interesting (and I imagine
gleefully ironic) that an Indian company will now be responsible for
reviving two iconic British brands. How cut out do you think they are
for the challenge? Is it a branding or manufacturing hurdle? Is Tata
Motors the one to pick up where Ford failed? With the global spotlight
on them, is this India's best shot to prove it's "not just a tech and
outsourcing ghetto"?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
February 20, 2008
03:13 pm | 2 recommendations | 2 comments
Last night, while chopping veggies with the TV buzzing in the
background, I suddenly felt the hypnotic pull of that song with the
drunken-piano-indie-chick-voice oozing, "Hoping I could learn bit bout
how to give and take...la la la la." It's a hip, lovely, and surprising
tune that's sound instantly grips a 30-year-old Brooklynite like
myself. And of course, is the backdrop for Apple's new MacBook Air commercial.
While the ad has only been running for a few weeks, the song has
already nested into my consciousness. And in my post-20-something
plight to continue discovering new artists, I ran to my computer,
Googled the song ("New Soul" by Israeli-French singer Yael Naim), and bought the enture album on iTunes.
It occured to me this wasn't my first Jobsian moment in the past few months. After hearing Canadian songstress Feist (I'm obsessed with this video) in a Nano commerial and Ingrid Michaelson in an Old Navy spot, I downloaded their albums to my playlist.
I'm sure I'm not alone, which confirms a hunch I had a couple years ago: brands are the new record labels. In our July/August 2007 issue we profiled five players in this space--Starbucks, Electronic Arts, Scion, Hallmark, and Grey Advertising--who
are breaking emerging musicians and bands: as new revenue streams, to
hippify their products, or to carve out unique brand identities. It's a
win-win for both sides: starving artists don't have to sell out to the
record labels, while getting instanteous distribution to the masses;
brands striving for cultural relevance can curate cool on the cheap.
Of course the cross-breed of music and advertising is by no means a new
practice, but many companies these days are less interested in coopting
a Britney Spears song than discovering the next Britney Spears (well
maybe the next Cat Power). What brands have you noticed are acting as
the new A&R guys for musical talent--and what great music have you
discovered through an ad?
3
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
