If you haven’t seen the new “Love it or hate it” campaign for Miracle Whip, take a trip to Youtube and watch. If not for appearances by Pauly D and James Carville, view for the departure from traditional advertising puff pieces we’re inundated with as audience members.

Miracle Whip created unusual TV spots using self-deprecating dialogue to own up to all the reasons someone may not like Miracle Whip. Arguably questionable, but definitely memorable. Instead of running from consumer’s perceptions about the taste, the brand embraced comments and pushed forward seeking to polarize the condiment community. However, the polarization is where the campaign messaging ends.

Although it appears to mirror the Coke vs Pepsi Cola Wars, this campaign is vastly different as Miracle Whip is not targeting the broadest possible audience or competitor’s consumers by noting a point of difference.  Instead, Miracle Whip seeks to carve out its own elite place among condiment consumers with its “we’re not for everyone” market position utilizing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to hammer home the message.  Consumer outreach is geared at getting consumers to declare which condiment they prefer (Mayo or Miracle Whip) but does not encourage mayonnaise users to switch or outline WHY they should switch (i.e speak to the taste difference between the two products). The Facebook users can post thoughts about being part of this “elite group” of consumers but the brand does not encourage dialogue about taste, texture or other attributes to strengthen the product’s point of difference.   The branded Twitter page includes comments such as, “Then you can tell us what side you’re on!” further fueling the “war” but doing little to help the product differentiate itself to consumers.

Holistically, the campaign lacks a compelling statement as to why Miracle Whips is better than Mayonnaise (unless of course you prefer James Carville over Pauly D and are fully swayed by his product endorsement).

I’m in the same boat as  industry analysts when I wonder if the current campaign contains a strong enough message to move product. When interviewed, A Kraft brand manager only spoke to the campaign’s tone and “honesty” saying, “consumers may actually appreciate the brand’s honest approach. We are not pretending that we are universally loved. And we feel that approach will grab consumers in a very real way.” This statement continues to fuel the campaign’s lack of differentiation.

From an ad exec perspective, I cannot imagine why someone would be swayed to step away from their mayo and embrace Miracle Whip. No hard facts or ideas to sway a consumer. From a consumer perspective, I’ll stick with my mayo over Miracle Whip selection because I’m not impressed by James Carville’s endorsement.

What’s your opinion? Will you be switching teams?

• Mass Audience

YouTube provides marketers the opportunity to reach a mass audience with very little out of pocket expense. User age range for the site spans from 18-55 years old and is evenly distributed 50/50 among males and females, illustrating that more than just the “young generation” is engaging.

• Engagement

Dynamic content allows marketers the ability to connect with viewers where traditional media stops. Content can feature a brand spokesman or include imagery also found in print advertisements and expand on stories which started in traditional advertising, all without having to  worry about fitting the message into a :30 or :60 block of time (as YouTube videos can be as long as the creator would like).

So, you think you’re ready to jump in? Your next step should be…

As another year draws to a close, we can look forward to seeing numerous “best of” or compilations featuring the last year’s on-goings. From movies to sports, there’s definitely no shortage of lists.  Instead of adding to the category of what we already lived through, below are a few online advertising trends we can expect to live through next year.

• “Pay Per” Business Model will continue to dominate the online world – Thanks to Google, we’ll continue to see the “pay per” real-time bidding model continue to grow as advertisers embrace the ability to pay for only those eyes that see or click on an ad (no wasted money on uninterested audiences).  2010 saw Google launch their Pay Per Call service which allows users to select and call a phone number from within a browser. Advertisers are then charged for each incoming call generated from the banner or ad word served. Advertisers are handed leads and consumers no longer need to hunt for a pen.  Thanks Google! This advertising trend is sure to stay around.

• FCC will square off with online tracking advocates – We can also expect to see a strong stand against the FCC’s proposed “Do Not Track List” from various watchdog groups, creating a fierce battle with definite affects for advertisers.

• Availability and quantity of online content will continue to grow – If tasked with finding an online audience without behavioral or geographical targeting, advertisers will be forced to seek additional and different methods of delivery for their message.  The quantity of online branded entertainment will increase – allowing advertisers to create unique, interesting content with a message about their product woven in.  2010 saw  Youtube’s views per day increase from 1 billion to 2 billion illustrating people are increasingly turning to the internet for entertainment and content.

• Advertisers will seek new ways to online target/track consumers – Social media outlets will see a flurry of new companies looking to send their message via new opportunities such as promoted Tweets on Twitter. Especially if online tracking is no longer available. Best Buy, Red Bull, Sony and other influential brands have already signed on for the service. I’m fairly confident we’re not going to see Myspace rise up and grab some of the Social Media market share from Facebook, but then again I never would have predicted Farmville to be an internet phenom.

Thoughts on things I might be missing?

Picture this, you’re standing in front of a vending machine packed full of sugary, salty, divine treats and a disguised bag of baby carrots. All wrapped in glorious, colorful packaging. Ironic? The baby carrot cooperative is hoping to change (or trick) your minds about baby carrots (one “extreme” move at a time). The hope is that the vegetable in vending machines will be seen as a cool, kitschy endeavor driving you to purchase. Or if you aren’t sold on the “cool, veggies in a vending machine” angle,  you’ll be convinced by the new, flashy packaging.

But new distribution channels and redesigned packaging are just two pieces of the $25 million “extreme, in your face” new baby carrot marketing campaign that aims to parallel junk food marketing.

To kick off this new marketing push, agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky created a brand positioning that is very simple, and entirely unconventional. Instead of going the baby carrots = healthy route, they’ve opted for baby carrots = junk food. A VP at the agency was quoted as saying, “They [carrots] basically share all the exact same qualities as some of the more insidious junk foods.”

In fact, the CP+B team feels so strongly about this brand position, they’ve trademarked, “Baby carrots, eat ‘em like junk food.”  To which I reply, sure, baby carrots could be just like Doritos or Cheetos if they were covered in highly addictive sugar, salt, and preservatives. The slogan aims to convince (or possibly trick) consumers to believe baby carrots ARE just as extreme, tasty and gnarly as a big bag of Flaming Hot Cheetos (just minus the taste of the crave worthy snack).

To further capitalize on the whole “junk food = sales” concept, the CP+B team also injected the idea of “extreme” and “outrageous” into all campaign touch points. Check out their Facebook  page, twitter feed, mobile apps, website, TV spots and online banners to see all the extreme executions.  It is clear the campaign is similar in tone and aesthetic to the advertising created for junk food brands Mountain Dew, Burger King and Doritos.

Finally, the campaign also extends to redesigned packaging for the product that takes baby carrots from simple, clear plastic to shiny, colorful potato chip-like containers. If all consumers were so easily convinced this bait and switch approach might work. However, in the grocery stores, baby carrots are sold next to other vegetables NOT other junk foods (i.e chips, sodas, cookies).

I’ll stay tuned to see how the adopted junk food brand strategy impacts sales of baby carrots. Perhaps I’m jaded, but I’ll assume baby carrot sales will increase when the product becomes covered in chocolate, caramel, nuts, salt or bacon, just as Victoria Klein said in her post on Ode. Just sayin… But there are definitely some who see benefits to the campaign. Take Siel from the Green LA Girl blog. She notes that she’s glad to see carrots being made easier and more tempting, regardless of the the tactic. In the end, whether you love it or not, you have to agree with Jezebel that this marketing program is getting baby carrots a lot of press. Everyone from USA Today to NPR are talking about them in a big way.

Conclusion? We’ll just have to wait this one out.

Unless you’ve been sequestered in a location void of media access, you’re probably aware of the recent Gap logo flip flop branding fiasco. But, the launch, relaunch or however you want to view this has many layers.

Let’s rewind a few weeks.

Gap unveils a “new” logo to aid their goal of positioning themselves as a more “contemporary and current” brand. However, the new logo features Helvetica, which is often thought of by design professionals as a “bland, over-used font.” Numerous websites stated the logo was reflective of something a child might create.

The kindergarten comparison was just the beginning of “logo-gate.” Critics not only hated the design but they questioned the rationale behind the brand switch. Why all the fuss? Very rarely does a company abandon their established, identifiable logo in the hopes customers will like the “new one.” Why confuse shoppers and ask them to identify with a new icon? Bad brand etiquette.

As if the new logo and switch wasn’t awkward enough, the roll out of the icon added yet another piece to the launch fiasco puzzle. The new icon appeared on Gap’s website with no information or preceding announcement (giving critics room to question it’s validity and realness). And, if you’re still keeping score the unusual branding tactics continued.

Amid post launch criticism, the brand’s Facebook page asked customers to submit their best Gap logo design in an attempt to induce “crowd sourcing.” The Facebook post read, “we love our version but we’d like to see other ideas.” Could the social media outreach really be just a way to cover up a failed launch? Of course critics jumped on Gap’s crowd sourcing technique as design traditionalists lamented Gap would dilute their brand if they allowed thoughtless, researchless work to represent them.

And, if you’re still following (and keeping score at home) the controversy took another interesting turn when Gap suddenly reverted back to their original logo and abandoned the new brand launch. The whole fiasco left critics and fashionistas asking, “Was this all a branding hoax?” Or, was it just big misuse of funds and efforts?

While we all wait to see how the “logo fiasco” impacts sales, you can create your own “logo” via the crap logo generator in case you really ARE a fan of Helvetica. http://craplogo.me/

Due to the increase in TiVo/DVR use, many advertisers are looking for a way to reach potential consumers who buzz past TV spots. Enter product placement. A clever, creative way to place a product in front of consumers?  Or a sneaky way to push something on an unsuspecting audience?
Well, frankly I’m not sure I give the practice a solid thumbs up or thumbs down.

As a consumer I have a strong dislike for tricky ad tactics. I like my advertising obvious and in your face and I like to know when I’m being “sold.”  I hate hearing “just Bing it” with usual Gossip Girl dialogue or seeing a Coke glass front and center on American Idol. Why all the hate? Well, because then I focus on the placed product and I think, “Hmm I wonder how much Coke paid to get that logo in that shot,” and then I’m not being entertained by the entertainment. More importantly,  how was the content of the show effected by the product placement deal? Did the Gossip Girl writers really want Kelly Rutherford to reference the emerging search engine? Sure, a slight tweak to Gossip Girl’s script may not be a cultural snafu but in my opinion it raises the question of, “Where do we as viewers stop accepting entertainment/news content dictated by advertising dollars?”

And just when I’m ready to pick up my Motorola Sidekick and call my Congressman over the subject, I remember I’m torn on the subject of product placement. First, as an advertising traditionalist, I think it’s a sly, yet clever way to place a brand in front of TV audiences without the heavy production fee a traditional TV spot brings.  Also, product placement partnerships offer a way to easily link a brand with a sought after celebrity. A recent Don’t Drink The Koolaid post outlines Apple’s supposed partnership with snowboarder Shaun White. But if Apple did financially partner with White, this was a simple, effective pairing as the wholesome snowboarder is adored and worshiped by millions of fans wanting to emulate his actions.  And finally, in support of product placement, it’s important to mention the general consumer is not versed in the advertising world. Thus, most consumers are probably not keenly aware of the aforementioned deals and the fact that they’re being “sold” when seeing brands mixed in with their favorite TV shows. Brilliant. Keep the brand top of mind. Isn’t that the whole point of advertising?

While this fall’s TV line up rolls out I’ll be on the look for newly forged product placement deals to further my internal struggle.  Pillsbury and ABC Family sitcom “Melissa & Joey” recently announced Pillsbury products will be placed in two episodes this season.  I can picture the lead character opening a can of Pillsbury Cinnamon Rolls and sharing the warm treats with her family while they review the latest Facebook updates on their Motorola Sidekicks. I have to applaud the seemingly perfect pairing of ABC Family and Pillsbury’s virtuous brand.

What are your thoughts? And, do you suddenly feel the need for a Motorola Sidekick?

Chances are you’ve seen Nabisco’s latest campaign for Wheat Thins, “The Crunch Is Calling,” as the spots are online, in movie theaters and on TV. So, what’s so special about Wheat Thins? The snack cracker may not be special but the brand’s use of consumer driven content is special.

Prior to social media, advertisers would offer a vague print ad or minimalist teaser TV spot, encouraging website visits for “interactivity.”   However, these campaigns lacked real consumer interaction within the content.  “The Crunch Is Calling” is different because the content is driven by the social media user, giving the user a role in the brand’s promotion. Why did Nabisco embrace social and consumer driven content? A Brand Manager within the company noted, “We set out to reinvent Wheat Thins.” Looks like the company wanted something new as the social media tactics scream, “We’re not your grandma’s snack cracker.”

The campaign concept is simple. Nabisco brand reps mine Twitter for positive Wheat Thins tweets and surprise the author with a product delivery and a good amount of hoopla (reaction is captured for TV spots).  Winners are featured in the tweet-based spot. As an extension of the campaign, a “Crunch Den” tab on Facebook streams Wheat Thins themed tweets and a branded YouTube channel hosts fan comments giving the campaign a 360-degree feel. The social media efforts keep the marketing alive as users discuss comments.

Social media usage also gives the brand access to real time info without the costs and effort normally associated with focus groups or similar market research. It’s too early to know ROI for the “Crunch” campaign as spots initially dropped in July, however the campaign’s creativity has resulted in buzz and additional campaign reach online.

A quick glance around the social media sphere reveals a list of corporate users not limited to food and beverage brands.  Video game development company, Eat, Sleep, Play’s founder releases concepts and art via his personal blog to gauge player reaction in lieu of focus group, as he too is eager for consumer comments.   Behind the scenes photos drive enthusiasm and help strengthen the fan base as gamers are allowed to interact with the product before it is in home.  Marketing messages may not be driven by the consumer as with Wheat Thins, but blog reviewers react and share content which then could effect the final package product (thus ultimately creating content which impacts the company).

I’ll stay tuned to find out the social media efforts effect Wheat Thins’ sales numbers and how other companies are embracing consumer driven content to further their brand.