Efficient Spending: Advertising in this Economy

As a result of the recent recession, companies have certainly looked for ways to decrease spending. This article from the NY Times highlights how Hyatt has found a way to make less expensive commercials with the help of Funny or Die. The ads are meant to show different scenarios of what can go wrong at a corporate meeting that is at the wrong location, such as an interrupting mime (seen in the picture). A large part of Hyatt's business comes from meetings scheduled in Hyatt hotels, but the economy has made more and more people want to simply hold video-conferences in order to save money. So, to encourage corporate meetings at Hyatt, they decided to create these humorous advertisements.

The article states that Hyatt paid less than $300,000 for the project, which includes multiple videos. This is much less expansive than airing these videos on television. Not only that, but Funny or Die attracts millions of viewers; it has 1.5 million followers on Twitter. The audience of Funny or Die is mostly "young, male, and upscale", which seems to be appropriate for a company that is targeting workers in the business world. Another plus is that Funny or Die can get funny, popular actors for videos (an example was Zach Galifianakis) for a much lower cost than official ad agencies.

In my opinion, using and working with video sites like Funny or Die for commercials is pretty brilliant. Not only does it save money, but it allows viewers to learn about a product anywhere with Internet. In this struggling economy, this seems to be the perfect way to save money yet create a quality ad, where a large audience is available.

What is your opinion on the use of video sites with commercials? Is it worth it? Is a commercial more effective on t.v. or on the Internet?

The Best Advertisements

I recently found a link from AdvertisingAge (AdAge) that shows the "Best Ads" as determined by Creativity. One that I found clever and relevant was the giant Shamrock Shake that McDonalds put on the Chicago River. This image does not really show it, but the shake is spilling into the now green river for St. Patrick's Day. If I saw the Shamrock Shake along the river, I definitely think I would be tempted to try one. Due to the size and uniqueness of the model, this advertisement is particularly effective as it would certainly catch a viewer's eye.

This ad seems to reflect the "Scarcity: Rule of the Few" weapon of influence. Literally, there is only one of these Shamrock Shake models. The public is certainly more likely to be curious about the shake and look at it, as opposed to a commonplace billboard. So the physical ad itself appeals to the population. In addition, the fact that it is a Shamrock Shake indicates it is related to St. Patrick's Day and thus there might be a time constraint around the availability of the shakes. It's not St. Patrick's Day forever, so the shakes obviously won't be available 365 days of the year. Overall the concept of the Shamrock Shake and the physical advertisement exercise the "Rule of the Few" idea.

What is your opinion on this advertisement? Did McDonalds create an effective ad or not? In your opinion, what advertisements are the most persuasive?

March Madness!

This past Sunday the NCAA men's basketball tournament seeds were revealed, prompting excitement about brackets and pools for the upcoming tournament. Personally I can't wait to see how the tournament will play out. Unfortunately for many companies, their employees are very excited as well. An article from CNN.com highlights how March Madness is both hurtful and possibly helpful in the workplace.

The article states that according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., U.S. employers could lose as much as $1.8 billion during the first week of the tournament, a truly astounding figure. However on the other side of the argument, often times companies simply accept the fact that March Madness affects the work at the office. John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says that some companies have "found ways to embrace the tournament as a team-building and morale-boosting opportunity." All the excitement and disappointment during the tournament can bring workers together and even serve as a bonding experience.

Since you can't really prevent office workers from checking the scores of the games, it seems like the best thing for a company to do would be to either ignore the tournament altogether or promote it. If companies try to prevent workers from following the games, it seems like they would only want to do it even more. It's kind of like when your parents tell you not to do something and as a result you want to do it even more.

What do you think about March Madness? Should it be promoted in the workplace or does it create a negative work environment?

Also, what team do you think will win the tournament? :)

Hearst's Castle

As Mr. O'Connor briefly mentioned last Thursday, Charles Kane from Citizen Kane is loosely based on William Randolph Hearst, a newpaper mogul during the late 1800's. Over the summer I was in California and I took a tour of Hearst Castle, the enormous palace he built for himself and many guests much like Kane's Xanadu in the movie. Hearst Castle is now a state historic monument, and the tours of the castle rake in an enormous profit for the California State Parks.

Kane's life was certainly exploited even after his death, and the same goes for Hearst. In the beginning newscast in Citizen Kane one segment read:

"Few private lives were made more public."

Anything Kane did was put in the news, and after he died the public was determined to figure out who he really was. In doing so, all his possessions were sorted through. This is not that different from William Hearst, considering his home is now open for anyone to see. These two men had very public lives, but the fact is that they encouraged their public lives. While he was alive, Hearst was constantly inviting celebrities to stay at his house and spreading news of his wealth. It also helps to own a newspaper empire, which gave him the opportunity to share any information he wanted with America.

So it seems there are two paths of stardom: try to prevent your life from becoming public (and failing) or to embrace or even encourage a public lifestyle. What are your thoughts on this? Would you rather try and keep your life private or willingly share it with the rest of the world?

How does this relate to The Great Gatsby?

Also, below are some pictures I took while visiting the castle.

William Randolph Hearst's Castle is on the top of this mountain.

A fountain outside the castle.

The Neptune Pool, it was pretty sweet.