For some time now, we've been hearing rumors that "the new at&t" would be changing the name of its wireless carrier, which is currently Cingular, but contains part of the old debacle AT&T Wireless, to at&t. Whether or not they are going to make it lower case or not isn't the issue here, it's the fact that they're changing Cingular's name at all. The amount of money that was spent to not only build the infrastructure and the customer base that it currently has, and have it be a "new" company (I've been a customer almost a decade, from when it was Cellular One in New Jersey) rather than an old world one that just happens to have bought its way into the future has to be staggering, but they for some reason feel the need to, now that the megaconglomerate with a lot less employees than it had before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the divestiture of Ma Bell has sort of reformed itself.
I'm not really sure what the point of it is, unless you really think that people are going to harken back to the olden days of yore (ten plus years ago) when good old AT&T was providing them with phone service at home, or maybe back to the 70s and 80s when you had a nice rotary phone that weighed a ton and you rented from the phone company. What, rented a phone? Wow, and we think that today's terms and conditions are out of control.
On Wednesday, Engadget's Ryan Block mentioned that the company was looking to have the rebranding in place by the time that the Apple iPhone was released, so we're talking June-time here. Aside from the fact that a rebrand may leave Jeff Burton's #31 Chevrolet without a sponsor, potentially, why are they just flipping the switch over to a name that isn't relevant to the younger generation in this company, except for when they are reading about technology? Kids these days don't have at&t products, unless they're (now) Cingular customers or happen to have DSL at home that's brought together by them. The only reason that the next generation is going to "know" at&t is because they bought their way into their lives and changed the names (back and forth) from a ton of companies that they sort of owned in the first place, but willingly changed the names of when the companies split up. I understand the value of speaking in "one voice" to your customers, and maybe that works with bringing in new ones, but what about your existing ones who actually like what Cingular is about, think the jack is a cool logo, like the orange and black colors, and so on and so forth? If investments such as that are waste-able (which is what is going on here) then why bother being creative at all? Why don't we just go back and call everything what it originally was, just so we can make a connection with people who aren't going to be your core customers for the next two decades? I think if A&P will change it's name back to The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, I'd definitely shop there more often. Not. Bell Atlantic changing its name to Verizon (say what you want about the name) actually made sense because the company wasn't just Bell Atlantic anymore. Cingular changing its name "back" to at&t is pure vanity.
Friday's Wall Street Journal carries an article by Adam Thompson and Brian Steinberg that has to contain reporting on one of the more stupid ideas I've heard of in a long time - that of the Russell Athletic Field moniker being added to Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams play. Oh, but wait. We've heard of things like this before. That's not the issue - it's that Russell, because of concerns with timing and the renaming - is going to have that name for just one game. So, the game will be played on Russell Athletic Field at Edward Jones Dome. Oh, wait, I mean Edward Jones Dome at Russell Athletic Field. Semantics aside (the field is INSIDE the dome, for those of you who missed that concept in real-world design class), what's the point?
While it's not really written up as if it's a publicity stunt of sorts, it ends up being one, because we're all here talking about. Damn, now I'm an enabler, I guess. At the end of the day, I'm not really sure why Russell couldn't just be content to clothe the team's coach, cheerleaders, and others, plus do other things in and out of the stadium. My only hope for redemption here is that this story wasn't pitched to the media as such.
A few days ago, Chris Thilk was writing about how Domino's was giving people Oreo face, or something like that. Turns out that the pizza delivery folks aren't just trying to make everyone get giddy on sugar from Oreos until they have to buy out all the milk in the neighborhood, but they truly are going into business for the dental industry. Check out this spot directed by the Perlorian Brothers, that features an old joke resurrected for a good old chocolate chip cookie eatin' time.
With Papa John's clearly having its own fun with dessert pizzas and pretty far-reaching online ordering, do we think that Domino's' new dessert options could make a differentiator to the point that they'll grab customers for it? The spot was done by JWT New York.
EA's new Need for Speed: Carbon is all set for your gaming pleasure as of November 1, but we've got the latest hot television spot kicking off the advertising campaign for you right now. No need to wait until Thursday night's World Series game on FOX to catch it, either.
The ad, put together by San Francisco-based HEAT, is titled "Night Sky," and offers a viewpoint that is a bit peculiar and disorienting at first, but turns out to make perfect sense once everything adds up. Without giving too much away, let's just say you have a firsthand experience of what it's like taking a bit of a bad turn in the game, but get your chance to redeem yourself in the end. This :60 spot will have :30, :20 and even :10 versions, and will be available in multiple languages, worldwide, as the game is launched. So without further ado, check out "Night Sky" below, or download the 6.4MB QuickTime here, and vote on it over at Netscape.
I've gotta say, it's a rare occasion that, as a blogger, I can't think of a wittier opening than the article I'm looking to reference in a blog posting, but the one that the New York Times' Richard Sandomir put together for this item takes the cake. For an item describing how the Chicago White Sox managed to change their game start times to 7:11, and then they received $500,000, from you guessed it, 7-Eleven. Sandomir said "It is not easy to conjure $500,000 out of the ether, but the Chicago White Sox have discovered a way."
Ain't that the case. I really had thought I'd seen it all when it comes to various branding and advertising opportunities, but this one has to take the cake, doesn't it? At first I was a little bit offended, but honestly, I'd been thinking that 7:05 was a bit early the last two seasons anyway, so 7:11 gives just that much extra time to stop and pick up a Slurpee or a Big Gulp on the way home to watch the game. Hey, I just came up with a great portion to their campaign! Who's paying me? And while we're on this subject, go learn more about the stores.
Just a year off an extended lockout and painful memories for hockey fans, the National Hockey League is clearly looking to appeal to the average fan or non-usual hockey watcher with its new campaign, "Game On!" The spots were put together by a combination of the League's own resources, director Jason Reitman, and Mother New York, and are already running on outlets that will feature NHL games. Shortly, the ads will be seen on other cable network outlets, as well.
The two spots that the NHL has published online include the San Jose Sharks' Jonathan Cheechoo out reminding people to watch the games by hanging out on a surfboard near some surfers. If that's not weird, then nothing is. Another shows what happens when you come out from the bathroom after brushing your teeth, and Peter Forsberg is in bed with your wife. Okay, that's not really what they're saying, but that's how it looks. And hey, he's got a whole new method of turning out lights!
The glazed eyes look on both these players either proves the fact that these guys aren't actors (shocker) or the concept of the ad campaign was to make us all feel a little strange. So much so that we'd turn on NHL games? Well, as a hockey fan, I'll be watching (sorry, Thilk), but what about the rest of you?
Kuklas Korner also has full screened links of the same video, should you be so inclined.
Do celebrities make a difference in advertising campaigns? Sure, people remember them. Sarah Jessica Parker was successfully annoying (no really, the ads were rated that, I'm not just saying it), and we could probably come up with a dozen more. And don't even get me started about Antonio Banderas playing the bee in Nasonex commercials.
So what's the point of this random banter? Well, T-Mobile USA has stated that it will be removing stalwart ad lady Catherine Zeta-Jones from its commercials and marketing materials when her contract is up next year. The Wall Street Journal's Amol Sharma reports that in fact, you'll probably see her a lot less than you've been used to. Maybe she'll be relegated to her head in a little box at the end of ads, saying "Get More" and that's all. This is all in an effort to go "more man-on-street" for the company, apparently. First, Jamie Lee Curtis was the pitchwoman for VoiceStream, now known as T-Mobile, then CZJ hit the scene. Not a bad couple of choices, as far as celebrities go, but are we seeing a legit backlash to celebrity usage here, in that the company feels that Zeta-Jones isn't selling product or keeping the company top of mind? I'd say the latter shouldn't be the case, because if you ask just about anyone on the street, they'd recognize her from her association with T-Mobile, but "man-on-street" may be similar to how companies are realizing a more one-to-one communication method is more in line with relating to customers, rather than top-down communication.
It'll be different to see T-Mobile spots without her, but as our own Chris Thilk said to me this morning on IM, "most. useless. celebrity. usage. ever." That's not to say that he doesn't get that she's recognizable, more that she doesn't sell product. What will Alltel do now?
Just a few months after a head-butting incident that closed out the career of France's Zinedine Zidane and maybe led to France's demise in the World Cup final, Nike Italia and epithet thrower Marco Materazzi have the last word with an advertisement currently being shown in Italy - and of course, on the 'net. The spot shows Marco Materazzi in training, wearing a new Nike product that, of course, is shown as the hero that saves Materazzi from all sorts of pain and suffering. Between battering rams, a faux Washington Redskins player, and a monster truck, among other things, trying to take Materazzi out is a bit of obnoxious humor stating that while he's a tough guy, the gear he wears is tough, too. Ho hum.
Now, I'm all for mashups, but this is just ridiculous. Check out this latest ad (from somewhere on the globe) for Axe [thanks, Brian!], which features some dude on a scooter cruising around town, only to have two decently attractive girls, at every turn, running or jumping into one another - literally - to form a new, more impressive woman. Obviously we can have lots of complaints about looks and whatnot, but apparently these days Axe is saying that if you wear it, that you can have everything you want in a woman - instantly - through the power of collisions and osmosis, or something. Hell, even Steve Hall at Adrants points out that this works by "demeaning [two] women at the same time." Even better is the fact that the clothing even changes when you get your new and "improved" model. And by model, I mean model. Wait, nevermind. Go buy some deodorant or body spray or whatever it's called these days.
It's been a long time coming, but we'd like to bring you, again, the latest and greatest ad-related snapshots people have snagged and published to photo sharing site Flickr. So check 'em out, and feel free to submit any to us that you've noticed, and we'll publish them in the next instance!
WAY back in September of 2005 I had covered the launch of Staples' Easy Button campaign, actually before they were ready to really launch anything formally (though putting it on your darn website tends to get people to notice it), and have since purchased 10 of them for my own use. No, my life hasn't gotten that much easier, but the darn thing certainly adds to the amusement of my friends and colleagues. That's why I'm psyched today to write that Staples, just recently, has sold its one millionth easy button. Not only does this mean that 999,990 others were sold outside of the ones that graced my presence, but that the company can easily max out its donation pledge of $1 million to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, considering the red life-changers go for $4.99 a pop.
In the last year, we've seen everything from a person making a video of how the Easy Button changed his life, all kinds of odd things going on on Flickr with Easy Buttons, and even some improvements(?) to the Button. This morning, an announcement from Staples informed that a National Football League coach bought Easy Buttons for his team (hmm, wonder which team it was), and that the Easy Button even made it on the air when Canada's Prime Minister was doing a TV interview. Hell, we even used the thing in a new business presentation at my day job.
How about you all, AdJab readers? Surprised that they've sold a million buttons? I'm not. What kinds of things have you been doing with yours, if you have one?
Check out this latest spot, "Wake Up," for Beck's beer in which a ton of statistics - er, made up ones - are used to prove a point. The best part is, they're probably somewhat believable if you do some basic math, but hey, who wants to do that. The gist is that you spend all kinds of random amounts of time doing things like brushing your teeth or whatever, and *too* much time at work, and sleeping. And when you notice the nice things in life, you're not spending enough time on them. So hey, go open up your fridge, grab a Beck's, and live some life while you've got it to live.
The ad was directed by Rich Wafer, for Leo Burnett, Chicago, and produced by the Argyle Brothers. Full credits after the jump.
From agency to in-house. Leslie Dach, who was a big part of Edelman's work with Wal-Mart on its corporate image, will be moving to the retail company next month.
Word has been out for a bit now that OLN would be changing its name to Versus, but word has just come out that the rebranded network will be using Taxi, New York, on its creative and media planning. Wonder if Taxi prefers taxi rooftop advertising.
A-Team Advertising Advisors (which has such a cool name ... wonder if they have a cool van) has snagged Russel Wohlwerth as a partner. You might recognize him from some of the work he'd done bringing on firms to work with Intel, BMW of North America, and others. It must be nice living in a world where you're advising people on which advertising firm to use.
Posted Jul 7th 2006 9:26AM by Tom Biro Filed under: Gripes
Typically, I'm 100% with it when it comes to the humor, especially in advertisements, from Great Britain and points East of the States. For some reason, I'm kind of missing something when it comes to two new spots for Kellogg's Crunchy Nut. Now don't get me wrong, they completely *make sense* to me, if a guy riding a dog home or a woman sliding out the window of an office building until she safely reaches her kitchen can make any sense, but it just seems like we're taking the "really strange thing happening and no one seems to notice" thing a little overboard. What do you think?
Check out "zip line" here and "dog jockey" here, courtesy of Reginald Pike for JWT London. Full credits are after the jump.
For some time now, we've been hearing rumors that "the new at&t" would be changing the name of its wireless carrier, which is currently Cingular, but contains part of the old debacle AT&T Wireless, to at&t. Whether or not they are going to make it lower case or not isn't the issue here, it's the fact that they're changing Cingular's name at all. The amount of money that was spent to not only build the infrastructure and the customer base that it currently has, and have it be a "new" company (I've been a customer almost a decade, from when it was Cellular One in New Jersey) rather than an old world one that just happens to have bought its way into the future has to be staggering, but they for some reason feel the need to, now that the megaconglomerate with a lot less employees than it had before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the divestiture of Ma Bell has sort of reformed itself. 
Friday's Wall Street Journal carries 
A few days ago, Chris Thilk 
It's been awhile - again - since a solid Flickr Fiend, and I promise that you'll enjoy this one.
EA's new 
I've gotta say, it's a rare occasion that, as a blogger, I can't think of a wittier opening than the article I'm looking to reference in a blog posting, but the one that the New York Times' Richard Sandomir put together for 
Just a year off an extended lockout and painful memories for hockey fans, the National Hockey League is 
Do celebrities make a difference in advertising campaigns? Sure, people remember them. Sarah Jessica Parker was successfully annoying (no really, the ads were 
Just a few months after a head-butting incident that closed out the career of France's Zinedine Zidane and maybe led to France's demise in the World Cup final, Nike Italia and epithet thrower Marco Materazzi have the last word with 
WAY back in September of 2005 I 
Check out this latest spot, "
From agency to in-house. Leslie Dach, who was a big part of Edelman's work with Wal-Mart on its corporate image, will 
Typically, I'm 100% with it when it comes to the humor, especially in advertisements, from Great Britain and points East of the States. For some reason, I'm kind of missing something when it comes to two new spots for Kellogg's Crunchy Nut. Now don't get me wrong, they completely *make sense* to me, if a guy riding a dog home or a woman sliding out the window of an office building until she safely reaches her kitchen can make any sense, but it just seems like we're taking the "really strange thing happening and no one seems to notice" thing a little overboard. What do you think?
