Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Nov 20, 2009
AirTran Airways Puts Ads Where Passengers Can't Miss Them (Los Angeles Times)
For many consumers advertising clutter abounds in mainstream media outlets such as television and print publications. But someday soon this may also be a problem in a place that is not commonly considered a media outlet – airplanes. While signage ads are not a new idea for transportation vehicles (e.g., trains), and have been tested before in airplanes, AirTran appears to be one of the first to slap signage advertisements throughout the interior of all its planes. And, passengers can’t miss the ads as they are stuck right in front of their faces on the seat-back fold down trays.
Since airline customers are relatively immobile, the eyeball time available for ads placed inside airplanes must have advertisers drooling while allowing airlines to charge potentially high ad rates. In addition, it appears consumer reaction to these ads could even be somewhat trackable.
The first ad on the AirTran seat backs will be for Mother Nature Network, a website devoted to environmental issues that is promoting itself by running a contest for a seven-night cruise. Mother Nature Network Chief Executive Joel Babbit said his company approved the ad for the seat backs because AirTran offers onboard wireless Internet service, which means passengers can see the ad and then immediately go online to register for the contest.
If airlines find the ads on the back of seats to be successful where else will airlines look to have signage ads appear within an airplane?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Nov 07, 2009
Kellogg Pulls Immunity Claim From Rice Krispies (USA Today)
Breakfast cereal maker Kellogg had what it thought was a good idea for promoting cereals as being healthy for children since these contain several vitamins that may be good for kids. They liked the idea to the point of adding a large area to their packaging aimed at parents that said the cereal “Supports Your Child’s Immunity.”
Unfortunately what was thought to be a good idea quickly turned to being a problem. The wording not only has critics in an uproar, given that many feel these cereals are not only not nutritious but may be unhealthy (see our post Research Report Has Cereal Marketers Playing Defense), but to make things worse the packaging is hitting store shelves at a time when there is worldwide concern for the H1N1 flu. (Although it is hard to believe some may think eating more Rice Krispies will help prevent a child from contracting the virus!)
Kellogg is far from the only high-profile company saying their products help the “immune system” (see Tropicana’s Orange Juice and Nestle’s Juicy Juice). So expect more reaction to this type of labeling.
With the swine flu virus of paramount concern to parents and children, there is increased sensitivity to any marketing claims that even touch on the topic. At the same time, the nation's foodmakers are being increasingly held accountable by federal regulators for claims.
What would happen if critics not only go after the manufacturers but also take their case to the retailers?
Posted by: Paul.Christ
on Nov 04, 2009
AT&T to Verizon: There’s a Lawsuit For That (MSNBC)
What do you do when a competitor produces a comparative advertisement that really hammers you hard? Well, one thing you may be able to do is take the problem to court. And that is what AT&T is doing because they are not very happy with new television ads being run by Verizon (see ad at YouTube). The ads claim to compare the 3G coverage (i.e., primarily high-speed data access) in the U.S. for both providers by showing a side-by-side comparison in the form of nationwide coverage maps. It really doesn’t matter that a very, very large percentage of the U.S. population is covered by both services. What does matter is that the visual suggests more are covered by Verizon and a voice-over suggests AT&T may leave customers without access.
While the voice-over is what AT&T is mostly complaining about (AT&T says customers will still be covered but maybe not by 3G in mostly remote areas), what makes this an interesting story are the maps. More than likely this ad campaign would not be much of a problem if the comparison was limited to just words in a print ad. Instead, this is a case where the visual (i.e., maps) probably caught AT&T’s attention as well as the attention of millions of television viewers. And AT&T is crying foul.
AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and is asking for a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction to stop the ads. The company requests an immediate hearing and said AT&T has "suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm" as a result of the commercials.
Do the colors used to represent each company’s coverage – red for Verizon and blue for AT&T – also suggest something to viewers?