Moved

The Ad Doctor has moved to: http://addoctor.wordpress.com

Do Geico Commercial Try too Hard to be Funny?

Blogger is still acting up and refusing to show my banner or blog titles for some reason unbeknownst to me, but I'll get it sorted out eventually.

If you can see the title for this post, it's clearly a rhetorical question. Just like Geico has decided would be funny to use for their TV spots. For example, the commercial asking, "Do the Walton's take too long to say goodnight?"




The problem with a commercial like this, aside from it being a sad attempt to be funny that pushes viewers away, is that it references a television show that ended 30 years ago. Now clearly it's been shown since in syndication, but still...it's a reference point that not many people care about. What if someone doesn't like the show? What if someone, like me, has never seen it, nor has any intention or desire to ever see it? You're banking on the popularity of an incredibly outdated show. They may be aiming to an older demographic, but I don't see how a reference to an ancient family drama has any effect over whether or not they'd want Geico's insurance. Clearly comedy isn't your thing, Geico, how about you stick to telling customers about your insurance being cheaper...at least that way you don't ruin your respectability with embarrassingly bad commercials.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

iAd

When I decided to write about Apple introducing a new advertising platform for mobile devices, I came up with the witty title of iAd to play off their newly released gizmo the iPad, but apparently that's actually what they're going to call their new service anyway. How creative of them...

This will allow Apple (and developers) to make money off advertisements appearing in various Apps. This benefits the owners of iPhones because it means that more content will be free, because developers will be able to make money off advertisements rather than charging a fee to download the App. This benefits the developers because more people are apt to download something for free rather than something they have to pay even a meager sum for. And it benefits Apple because according to the article linked above, it could mean $400 million a year in revenue.

So it's all a win-win-win, right?

Well, not so fast. What about the advertisers? How will this benefit them?

It allows them to reach individuals easily on their cell-phones. It also allows them to use Apple's customer data to create effective mobile ads targeted at specific demographics.

But are people really going to take kindly to advertisements on their cell-phones? I've had a few Apps with prevalent ads, and they're just as easy to ignore as banner ads on websites. They're just another nuisance to be tolerated while opening an app for a brief moment. So it's great that Apple is finding another source of income for their developers. But the only way this will work is if the advertisements actually generate awareness and sales, something that isn't guaranteed.

Technical Difficulties

I apologize for the inconvenience, Blogger is acting up again.

What to Expect with the Unexpected?

Commercials try a bunch of different tactics to make viewers laugh. Because one of the most effective ways to cut through the clutter is proper use of humor. Make a funny commercial, and people will talk about it for a good while. And if they're talking about your commercial it means they're at least aware of your product--a feat not so easy to achieve when you're exposed to anywhere from 150-3,000 advertisements a day (quite a wide range.)

Now, humor advertising can be risky, because many people have terrible senses of humor (as evidenced by Jay Leno's good ratings), and if someone doesn't get the joke, it's the waste of an advertisement. Or if it's the slightest bit offensive, overly-sensitive people could get turned off. Now to counter that, if it's a boring attempt at being funny, people with a good sense of humor could cringe (like I do every time Flo the irritating Progressive Insurance girl comes on the screen, or any Geico Caveman.)

But one of the greatest ways to produce humor is for the unexpected to happen. Not only does it grab the attention of anyone who was half-watching, but it also generates some laughs and spurs the viewer to watch the commercial again for anything they might have missed.

A perfect example of an excellent use of the unexpected for humor is this Old Spice commercial everyone loves so much. I've seen it plenty of times and it still hasn't gotten old. Then again, some people don't understand it at all--but I'd like to think these people aren't part of Old Spice's target demographic anyway. Nothing about it is funny in particular at first (except for the man's excellent delivery of the lines). It looks to be just a typical man talking about a shower gel, but then random unexpected stuff happens and it turns into hilarity.




Anytime a major celebrity invites an actor from a commercial onto their show, you know you made a good spot. Isaiah Mustafa, the actor from the commercial, was on Ellen DeGeneres' show explaining that the entire commercial was one long take that took over 80 tries to get right--giving me even more respect for the ad.

The moral of the story is that Old Spice took a chance on a commercial that some people might not understand, incorporating heavy use of the unexpected, and it has been a huge success. Does this mean that anytime something ridiculous happens in a commercial it will generate laughter? No. As with every advertisement, it must be well-made. But perhaps instead of focusing on corny jokes that are safe and forgettable, more advertisers should incorporate the unexpected. If done right, it makes for a far more effective spot.

Here's another excellent commercial that relies a bit on the surprise factor to create laughs. If you're a sports fan you'll get...if not, well, it's not targeted toward you anyway, so don't feel left out.




-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Coors Not Quite

The Coldest Tasting Beer...this was Coors Light's Marketing stance for a long time, I guess before they realized that being Cold has nothing to do with taste...it is a temperature. If I have a refrigerated Bud Light and a luke-warm Coors Light that's been sitting on the counter...both taste like crap, but the Bud Light feels colder on my tongue, regardless of Coors Light being "frost-brewed."

You know your product is in dire straights when its most marketable aspect is that it gets cold when refrigerated. That's like me starting a soup company and claiming I have the warmest soup cause it's cooked over a flame. "Flame-Boiled" if you will.

Oh, and about your whole "the label turns blue when it's cold" selling point, know how else someone knows when it's cold? By touching the bottle or can.

Now, Coors Light has changed their commercials to say it's "the most refreshing beer," which is far better than "coldest tasting," but you're still banking on an attribute that is controlled by refrigeration! Everyone knows your beer doesn't taste good. And I commend you for not trying to make that claim (as Miller Lite seems content to do now). But why don't you follow Budweiser's and Dos Equiis' lead and stick to commercials that make people laugh?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

For Whom the Bell Tolls...

Today, we'll be tackling Taco Bell's commercial for their new Pacific Shrimp Taco. But first, here's a list of things I'd do before eating shrimp from a Taco Bell.

1. Roll around naked o'er the mountains of a garbage dump.
2. Walk barefoot on a beach coated in medical waste.
3. Swim in the Ganges River.

Now that you know where I stand on their product. Let's talk about the commercial.



Obviously, I'm not the only one with reservations about buying the seafood at my local Taco Bell, otherwise they wouldn't dedicate their advertisement to alleviating fears by claiming the shrimp is of high quality. But is a cartoonishly ridiculous man, a "shrimp blogger," really the best way to get people to consider buying your product. Everyone in the world knows it's not good shrimp. Regardless of the opinion of this man who dedicates his life to writing short posts about the world's prawn population (a completely reasonable profession if you ask me.) Though I find it hard to believe he could afford to travel so much on what must be a meager salary. I mean, making money from blogging is hard enough...but when your topic is shrimp...whew...good luck.

My point is...everyone knows it comes frozen in a big plastic bag. Everyone knows, while probably safe, it's not worth the chance. Even if it won't get me sick, I'd assume they're the size of a quarter and not nearly enough to fill a 5-year-old. So instead of making grandiose claims about the quality of your food that nobody will ever believe, why not instead address the reservations that would stop someone from purchasing your new offering. Show a commercial with someone making it...or someone eating it...or someone enjoying it. Don't show me a man with a ridiculous made-up profession in ecstasy over a meal at Taco Bell.

And next time you decide to offer a seafood product, put it out at the beginning of Lent when McDonald's starts serving their Filet-of-Fish, not at the end, when Catholics are on the cusp of being able to eat meat again.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Fake News Program Commercials

Let me tell you something. If you advertise a product using a commercial that emulates a news program, complete with a make-up swathed newswoman singing your product's praises and the words breaking news flashing across the screen, you're hurting your own credibility. I understand that it might help your advertisement cut through the clutter of others, but it is also deceptive. And when you are trying to get people to use your product or service, the last thing you want is for them to feel tricked by your advertising. Because if they feel tricked by your advertising, they won't take anything said in your commercial seriously. Thus rendering the advertisement a waste of valuable money. I respect that people are trying to be creative and find new ways to get TV viewer's attention, but deception doesn't help your cause.

I've seen a few financial services commercials, and a cablevision commercial using these techniques. I wouldn't trust the latter anyway, but making a faux-news program that looks more like a sleazy infomercial isn't the way to go.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who Loses? (HULUses)

It was announced yesterday that The Daily Show and Colbert Report, along with less popular Comedy Central offerings will no longer be available on Hulu. My first reaction was...that's dumb, offering streaming video of your episodes increases awareness of the product and viewership. Granted most revenue is drawn from television advertisements, which are not at all helped by online watchers, but still...a viewer is a viewer regardless of the medium, and companies are beginning to draw revenue from online episodes too.

But then I found out that they will still offer full episodes on TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com, which makes much more sense for them because then the people watching online see their advertisements without a middle man taking a piece of the pie.

The only thing Hulu has going in its favor is the convenience of it all...which as we know, American's love. But convenience doesn't matter to the companies who pay for the development and production of these shows. They want numbers...they want results. So Hulu needs to prove that having videos on their sight will provide more viewers, more advertising dollars, and more promotion for upcoming episodes, otherwise Comedy Central won't be the last to pull their programming away from the popular media streaming website.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The Importance of Innovation

In 2009, Blockbuster reported a loss of $558.2 million, in 2008, $374.1 million, and in 2007, $85.1 million. To put that into perspective...that's over a billion dollars lost in the past 3 years. In response to their gaping financial wounds, Blockbuster plans to close up to 545 of their retail locations and cut back significantly on advertising.

I never like to be the one to say I told you so, but this is what happens when people are late on the shifting trends in human behavior. In another retail business, Barnes & Noble, faces falling profits because of digital readers and online booksellers, forcing them to create their own contraption, much later than Amazon released its Kindle, and with much less hype than Apple will release its iPad.

With the internet and the instant gratification of knowledge being at ones fingertips, people are accustomed to being able to do everything from their home. And if they can get things instantly, like an on-demand video or an ebook downloaded directly to their digital reader, they're going to spend their money in that manner. They're not going to scour through a retail outlet for a product that might not even be available.

But what happens when a company is late to a party? They're not the belle of the ball. When people think of mail-service video renting they think of Netflix. They don't think of the blue and yellow of Blockbuster, and won't if the chain plans to cut back advertising. When most people order books online, they think of Amazon, not Barnes & Noble. They don't think of the Nook, they think of the Kindle and the iPad.

Blockbuster plans to place "Express Kiosks," like Red Box to compete with that source of video rental, but once again they're late. Red Box has its vending machines outside the most popular convenience store chain, 7-11, which are located everywhere and the perfect place for someone looking for an impulse $1 movie rental. So once again they're late.

There was a time when Blockbuster could have capitalized on its strong brand name to create a monopoly on these new technologies and services. But for some reason I feel like there was someone in the board room saying, "Oh, people won't go for that. Those businesses will never last." And I'm sure that same executive is asking himself every night, "How did we end up in such a dire situation?"

The answer is change. You must always be open to it, and when new technologies and methods are available...give them a serious thought. Because if it's convenient...it's going last.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The NFL Daft

Apparently the NFL isn't done trying to turn the draft into some spectacle second only to the Super Bowl. Not only have they turned it into a primetime affair, but now they're trying to make the second day of the draft an exciting event as well by inviting popular college prospects who aren't expected to go in the first round to sit around for the second day of the draft waiting to be picked.

I get the whole angle that this one pick can change your team's fortune--even though that one pick costs a fortune and could tie up a sizable portion of your salary cap preventing you from fielding a competitive team. And the whole guessing game aspect of who's going to pick who is fun for fans. But in the end, the event consists of fifteen minutes of talking and then a man coming to a podium and saying a name. Not too exciting is it.

So now they're planning on trying to bank on the starpower of elite college players, whose game's might not translate well into the pro's (see Tebow, Tim), to try and turn the rest of the draft into a television event worth watching. But that's not what the draft is about. The draft is about fans hoping their team gets better, not to see where certain college players go. Because if they're not going to have an impact, the fans who actually watch this event, won't care.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

When Comedy Becomes Tragedy

I watch a lot of TV. Well...actually no I don't. At least not when compared to a majority of people, but I do watch my fair share, which is more than I'd like. Naturally, I tend to turn to comedy when it's on. Not sitcoms, because they're all pathetic, tired, and I don't need a laugh track telling me something's funny when it clearly isn't. To me causing laughter is the greatest achievement...this means that an ill-fated, miserably-failing attempt to draw my laughter the greatest offense.

That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.

You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."

And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."

The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.

I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Grow Up, America!!!

I was reading something today about Nipplegate (the incident where Justin Timberlake pulled off Janet Jackson's top or something), and it reminded me how sickeningly unclever it is when people put "-gate" at the end of whatever new conspiracy arises, and consider themselves a reincarnation of George Carlin. It's not creative...it's not funny...it's stupid and cringe-worthy.

The next thing I thought, "Really? Still this..."

Don't courts in America have more important things to worry about? Like the fact that the whole "all men are created equal" part of our Declaration of Independence is undermined by the fact that homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else because of an argument that is easily countered and dismissed by the theory of "separation of Church and State."

But no, the courts are too backed up because the FCC is still trying to reach into other people's pockets. Who knows, maybe someone from the FCC untied her top because they needed some new computers for the office so they could be more effective at taking away liberty with their out-dated standards of propriety. Let me tell you something, FCC: People curse, women have breasts, and sex sells. No matter how many people you steal money from, it won't change that.

Kids are exposed to enough explicit content in movies, magazines, and advertisements, so get off your moral high ground and stop claiming your purpose is about protecting kids or preserving decency. All you're doing is promoting more neglectful parenting from this nation by crucifying certain networks as scapegoats. If children are subject to coarse language or the human anatomy (both of which they become well acquainted with early), it is up to their parents to shield their eyes, or tell them it's wrong. Not only are you strangling freedom, but you're also making excuses for people to be poor parents. You taking money from a big corporation does nothing but get your top level workers a new Mercedes.

You serve absolutely no public good.

In fact, your publicizing of these outrageous and unconstitutional fines brings far more attention to these events than the occurrences themselves. In essence, you are contributing more to the corruption of the youth of America than these networks are by drawing awareness to these minor occurrences of innocent words and harmless sexuality. Perhaps you should fine yourselves, or better yet...close down your hypocritical and useless organization.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Human Signage

I was walking through Times Square today and saw someone wearing a sign around their shoulders advertising some product (it's hard to tell when every square inch is trying to sell you something) and thought to myself something smug and demeaning like, "Wow...you know it's bad when your job can be done just as effectively by a wooden or metal pole." But then I got to thinking and you know what, paying some shlub minimum wage to stand around in the rain during peak foot traffic hours makes a lot more sense than spending tens and hundreds of thousands a week to plaster your poster ten stories up where you have to crane your neck back so far its bound to snap just to see the advertisement.

So kudos to you, inventors of human signage...your message still gets lost in the clutter, and your credibility may be called into question the same as any establishment that has some guy handing out flyers that everyone in the world is going to crumble up and throw in the next garbage can...but at least you're wasting less money.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

NBC Pucks Up, Yet Again...

Please, tell me something NBC. You and I have had our disagreements in the past, and we all know my stance on the Olympics. And then there's the matter of me dissing the NHL by excluding them when I make broad statements about major sports (NFL, MLB, NBA). But how, could you take the USA-Canada game, and put it on MSNBC where nobody is likely to look. People flipping through channels tonight who want to check out what's on the Olympics will likely flip to whatever channel your main network is on in their area, and if nothing entertaining is on...they'll move past it.


Well, tonight...nothing entertaining is on...because you took one of your most exciting and marketable events and decided to put it on a different channel (MSNBC). Now maybe you did this because you thought the event would draw enough buzz of its own that people would scour your family of networks to find it. Or maybe you overlooked the fact that it is an all-star grudge match between neighboring countries featuring the most recognizable names taking part in the Olympics. Or maybe Jay Leno decided he wanted to watch men in full-body spandex suits skate around in large white ovals over and over again.



And for that matter...how many different speed skating competitions could they possibly have? It seems like every day, the only event ever on is speed skating. I respect what they do, but watching people glide over a plane of white is pretty boring. Even watching it on an HD where you can see the reflections of people in the audience yawning it gets tiresome. And if it isn't speed-skating on...it's a taped skiing race, whose outcome has already been broadcasted all over the world on ESPN for the past seven hours.




But here you have a live competition (an actual head to head event, rather than people competing against a clock), and you figure "Eh...let's give our prime time spot on Sunday night to the same damn event we've been showing for the past ten days straight."

You continue to exceed my expectations NBC (my expectations are for you to make exceedingly unintelligent programming decisions.)

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

A Rose by Any Other Name

Names are important in business. It is the first impression you make with a potential consumer and you always want that to be great. Or even if it isn't great, you at least want it to be memorable. I'm going to begin talking about basketball in a moment, and you may get confused why I would start a post discussing the importance of a name, and then delve into a conversation about sports, but bear with me.

New York sports teams are usually global brands or at least have a sizeable national following. Part of that comes with marquee players and championships, and the other part comes with the fact that the city they represent is the worldwide center for business. This is certainly a case with the Yankees, as well as the Giants and Jets (the football teams don't have a global appeal because it is very much an American sport despite how many games they stage a year overseas).

In basketball, it seems to be a different case though. In basketball, the storied franchises are the Celtics and the Lakers. New York just doesn't have the appeal of those other two. Part of it is the fact that they have become a laughing stock, and the other part is that they really have no identity. And here is where we come back to this name business.

They are known as the New York Knickerbockers. Knickerbockers are a pair of baggy knee-length trousers that were worn while playing baseball in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was eventually adopted as the name of the sports club who played the first game of baseball in Hoboken in 1846. Because of this legacy the first owner of the basketball team adopted it as his team's name. It would work fine in baseball where teams are named after the color of their Sox (baseball apparently doesn't care for spelling), but in basketball it doesn't quite fit. Might as well call yourselves the Manhattan Pantaloons.

While we're on the subject of names, let's turn to a team that will soon make New York it's home. The current New Jersey Nets, who in three years will become the Brooklyn Nets. That's like a football team being called the New Jersey End Zones, or a hockey team known as the Brooklyn Goals, or maybe if the United States wants to try out a new name for their Ryder Cup golf team they can go with the Holes.

I understand the importance of a name and a tradition. The Devil Rays changed themselves to the Rays because omitting that one word was meant to erase their long penchant for losing (which it did). But teams need to understand the importance of a name as a marketing tool. Do you know how many people root for the Titans because of their awesome name and sweet uniforms. Or the Buccaneers because of their name, uniforms, and the fact that they have a pirate ship in their stadium. Are these true fans? Some could argue no, and if they don't follow the players and the teams progress I would agree with them. But do they buy jerseys, hats, and if they live around the area...tickets? Yes, and that's reason enough to do it.

Fans want to be excited by sports. And in order to attract new fans you need an enticing name, and stylish colors that even people who aren't fans will buy, so you can make money on merchandising. Do the Nets and their Navy, Silver, and Red appeal to anyone? Do the Knicks and their Orange and Blue?

No, but they have their history and to change a name would be to alienate the fans that are invested in that history. I would never expect a team with a legacy like the Knicks to do such a thing. But the Nets are a different story. They're moving to a new city in a new state, so why not have a new identity for your new fanbase. Especially after the historically bad season they're having this year.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Note to Southwest Airlines

If you have a celebrity on one of your flights, especially a respected one with a group of loyal followers who he keeps a constant dialogue with, you do not treat that person with disrespect. Word will get out and generate a great deal of negative press. Overweight people are becoming a larger and larger demographic (in both ways) and to alienate an entire growing contingent of Americans is not the best idea for a business.

Can one person really drag down a flight? How do they decide, does the pilot come out and start poking the overweight party in question? You don't know how much weight is jammed into the overhead compartments, or below deck in luggage. One person can't make that great a difference.

Another bad idea is broadcasting an individual's travel habits in an insincere apology. It is a violation of privacy and very unprofessional.

Here's a solution...instead of trying to cover up your mistakes with your see-through corporate condolences...do something about your problem! Offer wider seats! Don't single out people and embarrass them in public. Admit your fault, and turn the negative into a positive. We live in a forgiving culture...repent and offer some plus-size promotions, and you can have overweight people everywhere flying your airline.

But no, you'll go with the typical response of "well...it's not our fault," and spew nonsense about it being your policy. Times change...people change...and guess what, you need be ready to alter your precious policies to adapt to these changes.

Here's a new slogan for you:

You're now free to move about the country...unless you're overweight, then you might as well just roll yourself to your destination cause you're not getting our planes, tubby.

Sounds about right.

-- Steve Creswick
Steve Creswick.org

The Lunch of Champions...

While checking the Olympics for an exciting event like snowboarding or any sort of sport where I can see people jumping and doing flips, a commercial came on for McDonald's. I realize the company is one of the Olympics' major sponsors, along with Coca-Cola, and the global appeal of the event meshes well with McDonald's strong grasp over every inch of the world. My issue with the company is their advertisement.



I realize you are trying to make the most of your sponsorship by proclaiming your food is eaten by Olympic Athletes...but are people really supposed to believe that these world-class ambassadors of sports and their highly-trained physiques are fueled by chicken nuggets dipped in some new-fangled sweet chili sauce? It's insulting to people's intelligence. At least if you're going to market your meals as something a physically active person would enjoy show the salads you offer. Maybe advertise your healthy choice menu. Because everyone in the world knows that Olympic Gold is not won with Golden Brown Chicken Nuggets.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

NBA All-Star Weekend

Comparing the major sports in this country is a difficult task that can never really be done definitively, because they all bring different enjoyable aspects.

For instance, Major League Baseball has the single hardest act in sports (hitting a baseball), an underlying mental match-up between pitcher and hitter, and also between manager and manager, that the common fan might not know about, or realize the severity of, and it is the only sport where time can not run out on you. You will always have a chance to come back until you give up that very last out.

The National Football League has unparalleled parity, whether for good or ill, jaw-dropping hits, and an emphasis on teamwork, as every single player in the field has an impact, whether directly or indirectly.

The National Basketball Association has constant scoring, unlimited highlight plays, and as I mentioned in my Olympics post, one of the most important facets of American Sports, star athletes. This last bit being the one area where the NBA far-and-away beats both Major League Baseball and the National Football League. That's not to say it is a better sport, just that it's all-star game offers something the other Big Two cannot.


The Pro-Bowl has long been a joke, and while Baseball does have all of its well-recognized stars in attendance, the sport can be so fickle based on so many aspects that they don't always excel during the all-star exhibition, not to mention the aspect mentioned before (about the clock never running out) can make the event go too long, and often does.

But the NBA has an excellent showcase of all their talent, where everyone has a chance to put up points and make a few highlight plays. Not to mention contests like the Dunk Contest and Three-Point Contest that can wow the audiences, and leave them talking about it the next week, further exposing their star talent. (The Home Run Derby did that same for Josh Hamilton, though it is rarely an exciting event.)

So since the NBA has a head-start when it comes to promoting their best players, what can other sports do to catch up?

MLB could have better talent in the Home Run Derby which might make things more interesting, and perhaps add some sort of fielding competition. But when it comes to the exhibition game the old mantra that good pitching beats good hitting is often proven true, so there is an unfixable fundamental flaw right there that might prevent an overly exciting exhibition.

The NFL has a harder time because it is such a physical game that the toll taken on the bodies of its best athletes prevents them from wanting to take part in the unneccesary punishment. And part of the appeal was that they at least got a week vacation in Hawaii out of the deal, but now with the game moved to the Super Bowl city, it is not nearly as appealing for the players. Maybe if they made it a flag football game, so people weren't afraid of injury? No, people like to see hitting too much. They would never go for that watered-down a version of the sport. I guess there's really nothing they can do.

Maybe the NBA's ability to host a compelling all-star weekend is just another innate aspect that differentiates it from the other two major American sports.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Why Watch the Olympics?

This weekend the Winter Olympics start on NBC, and I know everyone in America is on the edge of their seats. (I realize sarcasm does not translate well in the written word, so I'll point out that the previous statement was meant to be sarcastic). I should also point out that NBC instead of spending money securing rights to NBA or MLB games decided instead to lock-up the Olympics long-term, which could lose up to $200 million this year, and Notre Dame football, who haven't been good in years. The executive responsible for these shrewd programming decisions, Dick Ebersol, was just extended until 2015 at somewhere between $10-$15 million. Clearly, NBC isn't too busy ruining late-night to take some time to sabotage their sports department as well.

But this article is not about incompetent executives or their terrible business decisions...this is about the Olympics, and me trying to determine why people have no interest in them.

1. One of the first lessons learned in sports marketing is that America favors their professional leagues while Europeans live for international competition. This is probably because European countries are all so close to one another, so it is easier for a rivalry to build, and because America has enough heated match-ups in their own sports. It also hurts that America has never excelled at soccer which is the premier international sport in the eyes of our friends across the Atlantic. The only time we ever developed an interest in international competition is when we felt the need to display our superiority. Since sports are now big business, the best players of other nations now come to the United States to play, so the highest competition in most sports is right in our own backyard.

2. With Television packages showing every single game by every local team and major networks showing the match-ups of the best teams in the nation, there is an abundance of sports goodness every evening on television. Back when the Olympics were popular, they were the only sports on TV. Now, there are so many contests of familiar sports, that the American people are more emotionally invested in that they have no interest in watching the Olympics.

3. The United States likes stars and story-lines. Yes, Bob Costas does plenty of profiles of athletes to attempt to get the American people in their corners, but with the Winter and Summer Olympics switching off, and having 4 years between each competition, it is impossible for Americans to follow certain athletes when they're not seeing them every day.

4. Time Zone Difference. This is not the case this year, with the Olympics so close to home, but most of the time there is a substantial time difference, which causes NBC to delay the popular events so they can show them in prime-time. The only problem with that, is with the internet, everyone already knows the outcome and it ruins the surprise and excitement of it all.

5. Drama. We are used to last-second buzzer beaters, walk-off grand slams, and 4th and goal down-by-a-touchdown situations. All those situations involve one team getting the best of another team. That drama can not be matched by people sliding down ice only competing with a clock. I have nothing but the utmost respect for every athlete, and their respective sports, but sports is a form of entertainment, and the sports the American people have embraced also happen to be the most entertaining.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

I'm Going to Disneyworld!

I was watching Sportscenter today and saw the annual post-Super Bowl Disney advertisement of the Super Bowl MVP saying "I'm going to Disney World!" or "I'm going to Disney Land!"

It got me thinking, how exactly in the chaos of the postgame with every player mobbed by a swarm of cameramen and reporters jabbing recording devices at their jaws do they manage to organize the player saying it? What if among the hundreds of people shouting at the player, the voice of the Disney producer gets lost? What if the player simply pushes through the go celebrate with his teammates where he should be? Or what if the person refuses to do it because they want to be compensated? Are they compensated? Does Disney have a deal with the NFL where their players are contractually obligated to do the commercial, and told to be ready for it should they win the Super Bowl? Or the only question I know the answer to...Does it matter? Nope, but I was just curious how it all comes together in such a hectic environment.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

No, Daddy, No

The Super Bowl has become more of an advertising expo than a football game for a sizable portion of the American public, and every year the top advertising firms try to put together a creative list of ads for the top companies. It's a hard task to make millions laugh with only a thirty second spot, but more times than not the creative departments pull through and make a few memorable ads. But the important thing to note is that they try new things every year. They do not recycle the same style of advertising over and over again. This brings us to Go Daddy.

Go Daddy has long been using what is known as shock advertising, overtly sexual ads meant to cut through the clutter because they're controversial. The only problem is that Go Daddy advertisements, while trying to be risque...are not at all. They're tame and tiresome. I respect that Danica Patrick is the only female race-car driver, but the fact that she is marginally attractive as well does not make her a sex symbol.

So to pair her with other decent looking females in a suggestive setting, and imply that the unrated continuation of the advertisement on the internet is even more racy...is not effective for two reasons.

1. The internet has no shortage of places to look for celebrity nipple slips and pornography. Viewers do not need to go to Go Daddy.com to see anything remotely sexual...it's everywhere! As a register of domain names, they should know that better than anyone.

2. You are basically using the biggest stage in the world to advertise another advertisement. They are not selling their product, they are trying to get people on their website to view the more steamy version of the advertisement. I realize they hope the increased traffic will result in some sales from people who after viewing the "shocking scene" take a look at their services, but chances are, the only people who have any interest in seeing this unrated commercial are twelve year old boys who don't even know what a domain name is. Not to mention the fact that you are asking the American public to get off of their couches and go over to the computer to seek out something they will be disappointed by.

Go Daddy really needs to try something new...it was fun the first year, but you can't keep doing the same thing over and over again. It cheapens the advertisement, especially when aired on the one day that people are actually paying attention to them.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who planned this?

Funny how when CBS has the Super Bowl, the halftime show is performed by the band whose songs are used as the theme songs for the network's most popular franchise, CSI. Talk about making the most of your programming.




-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Can a Writer Be a Celebrity?

The beginning of every form of entertainment is written. Whether it be the cheesy dialogue of an old action flick or a literary masterpiece that puts the entire human condition into perspective. Even your favorite reality show or Hollywood gossip host has an entire team of scribes feeding them lines.

Why then, if these are the brainchilds of every popular production, do they get none of the recognition? Why do they only get a few hundred-thousand for creating the backbone of an entire film, when the recognizable faces who mouth their written words get millions?

Perhaps, we can delve into an old adage for inspiration. A mainstream mantra I've heard more times than I would have liked during my ongoing job search is, "It's not what you know...it's who you know." Well, in this case, "It's not what is said...it's who is saying it."

The sad truth is, we live in a visual culture, where seeing is believing. In order for someone to become famous, they need to be visible. They need to be on television talk-shows and internet video. They need to have a plague of paparazzi swarming them at every second of their life. People need to be able to put a face to name. Because with so many voices vying for attention, a human being needs some way of deciding which ones are important enough to lend their ear to. And if someone is a celebrity in our sycophantic world, they're worth hearing.

With the internet and web 2.0 technologies, everyone has a voice and the opportunity to carve out a nice little fan base, but if someone who makes a living as a writer ever wants to achieve celebrity status they will need more than their words. If not, they will continue to toil in obscurity until their work is read by a more worthy media figure.

It is possible for people with a background as a writer to break through the mold and wrestle their way to stardom. Look at Conan O'brien. He began his career penning skits and episodes for SNL and the Simpsons, but once they put his fiery red mane in front of the camera...he became an icon. So there is hope for writers to become recognized by the masses for their talents, but the only problem is that they'll first have to develop an image and a whole new array of talents before they can get the attention they deserve.

Any thoughts on why writers rarely achieve celebrity status?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Credentials of Being a Photographer

It seems like if you want to be a photographer or cameraman, you need not waste all your precious time and money going to college. You do not need a keen eye or an expert knowledge of lighting. In fact, you don't need anything. It's more about what you need not have...emotion, shame, and courtesy to name a few. In our culture, being a photographer is all about being able to angle a lens to catch a glimpse up a starlet's skirt when she's getting out of a car, or having the resolve to keep a camera plastered two inches from some distraught person's face while they wrestle with their tears on a reality tv-show.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who wants to read an E-Book?

Over the weekend, Amazon and MacMillan book publishing got into a little scuffle over how to price their e-books. Amazon wants all e-books to be priced at $9.99 to entice people to buy a Kindle and read using their technology. When the Kindle first came out I remember an army of nay-sayers claiming people would never pay for both the expensive gadget as well as the 10 dollars for each book, but that is in the past and the venture has been successful enough.

Still, Amazon refuses to price e-books at anything other than $9.99, which has angered publishing companies. The bookseller take a loss by pricing them so low, but they make up for that loss by selling Kindles. The publishing companies believe that pricing e-books this low can last forever, and will even take a less percentage of profit to have their products priced higher. Apple will allow publishers to price their own books for the iPad, and they want the same from Amazon as well.

But the real question is not about Amazon or MacMillan or Apple. It is, why would the consumer want to pay close to the price of a regular book for an e-book? They're not thinking about the author who put so much time and effort into the tale they're reading. The reader is thinking about what they get for their money.

They do not get a tangible product they can lend to their friends. They get words on a screen, which can be found just about anywhere one looks on the internet. So, if you want to price e-books higher, there should be an incentive to purchase them over a hardcover or paperback copy, shouldn't there?

Well how about we borrow some marketing practices from other mediums.

1. Downloadable Content: It is popular for videogames in the digital age to offer free downloadable content with pre-orders of all the big releases, whether it be extra missions, or unique equipment. Maybe include a short story download, an extra chapter(not essential to the story of course), or access to those in the future.

2. Embedded Soundtrack: Set the mood with fitting music to accompany whatever chapter or page the reader is on.

3. Commentary: DVDs have optional commentary, so maybe e-books should have optional notes written by the author to clarify certain things, and expand on certain reasons for taking the path he/she did when writing the narrative.

1. Allow readers to upload their own notes and commentary, like when you buy a used book for class and most of the important stuff is already highlighted.
2. Access to commentary and opinions of reviewers, or academic essays in the case of certain books

4. Include concept art: We live in a visual culture. Some video games and movies offer concept art with their Collector's Edition packaging, so why not have an artist rendition of major scenes or characters included?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Academy Award Nominations

The Academy Awards nominees were released today, and my prediction is one step closer to becoming true. I've only seen three of the ten nominated movies (Inglourious Basterds, Up, and District 9) and none of those three were worthy of being Best Picture. Inglourious Basterds was pretty good, and Quentin did an excellent job of building tension and suspense, but it wasn't anything ground-breaking. Up was heart-touching and original, but I can't see an animated film winning a Best Picture award any time soon. And District 9 was interesting, but is probably a little too strange for the Academy to consider. Unfortunately, the unknown actor who single-handedly carried that film and improvised most of his lines wasn't given a nomination for his excellent performance.

For some reason it feels like this year they're making up for quality with quantity.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

What I Learned from the Grammys...

Life imitates art...it's a well known mantra...the yin to "Art imitates Life's" yang. Either way you shake it though, according to the Grammy's, our country's pulse is to be measured by a teenage girl whining about trying to steal someone else's boyfriend. And you know what? That sounds about right. We live in a high school, not a nation. We live in a country where people care more about gossip and lies than politics and world policy. Where even elected officials lower themselves to making insults rather than offering constructive criticism or logical arguments. Where music, or anything for that matter, is not about a substantial product, but about a quick sale. Where everyone has this innate sense of entitlement bred by their being able to broadcast their every insignificant, uneducated thought to the world on Facebook and Twitter--I better be careful not to border on hypocrisy with that statement, although our nation is built on that too.

But, Steve, it's just an awards show...those are always wrong...they always honor what's popular (a.k.a. what record companies and radio stations force on the public) rather than what's good...

For the most part, but do the Academy Awards do that? Do they honor what's popular over what's good? No. Otherwise every year an Academy Award would be won by whatever CGI-infused, cliche-driven blockbuster happened to be the runaway summer hit that year. (Although, this year it probably will be a CGI-infused, cliche-driven blockbuster named Avatar.)

But anyway, enough with the futile fight against tastelessness. I could go on and on about the assassination of rock n' roll by talentless pop groups like Green Day, or about the lack of value or meaning in virtually every song nominated this year for the major televised awards, but I'd just be playing a broken record. And playing the same tired tune would just make me more like the modern music industry, wouldn't it?

So onto what I've learned...

1. If you want to get recognition in this country...you need to do two things: (a) make a song that's highly repetitive and only has lyrics so the listener has a break between hearing the hook too many times and (b) dress in absurd, childish outfits to get people to look at you. And when they insult you for your embarrassing attire, you can claim it's an artistic expression even though it's just a simple lack of shame and the knowledge that being different will get you noticed, which will get you more exposure. (If you couldn't tell I'm talking about Lady Gaga and the Black Eyed Peas, although I guess Jay-Z falls into the first part of that as well.)

2. Slash is no longer a guitarist...he's a cartoon character, an image, a brand, a top-hat with curly hair coming out that happens to be holding a Les Paul. I'll get to this in a later post, but it's pretty evident by his desecration of the sacred November Rain solo among the likes of a lip-syncing auto-tuned Jamie Foxx and T-Pain that he has lost all respect for himself and music.

3. Awards shows are just one big commercial for whatever station they happen to be on. Having nobodies from CBS sitcoms and dramas presenting awards does not gain exposure for your shows, CBS. It's a music awards show...do I need to see the guy from the Mentalist, or the chick from the Big Bang Theory, handing out trophies? No, because they have no music credentials, they're simply there for shameless self-promotion. Plug your shows on the commercial break. Nobody will tune into your shows because they saw one of your "stars" hand out the award for Best Comedy Album. Instead bring out interesting music figures people actually care about.

4. Here's a positive I'll sneak in here for you: Eminem is really good live, and rightfully won the award for Best Rap Album, although it wasn't shown on TV, probably because Jay-Z wasn't up for the Award. Then again, the Blueprint 3 really isn't a rap album, it's just a bunch of good beats with a once-talented rapper mouthing mediocrity over them. Eminem's performance with Lil Wayne and Drake was also excellent except for the censor's itchy trigger finger.

5. I already mentioned this, but it might as well be the fifth thing I learned, and continue to learn every year...who picks these awards? Pearl Jam put out one of the best rock albums in years, and they get nominated for one category (rock song or something like that) and lose to Kings of Leon? Come on... And how does Dave Matthews not win something for his excellent album? Oh, I know why...because both groups have talent instead of mindless teenage fans, and in the eyes of the music industry...talent always loses.

I've angered myself enough talking about the Grammy's for one day...

Oh, that Michael Jackson tribute was pretty good too



-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The following RANT has been approved for ALL AUDIENCES

What is the purpose of a movie preview?

Is it to promote awareness of an upcoming film, or is it to entice viewers to go to the theater and spend $10 on a ticket, $10 more on popcorn and soda, $7 for each action figure, $25 for the t-shirt, $15 for the poster, and eventually $30 for the three-disc special collector's edition dvd (pre-ordered, of course)?

I don't remember when movie executives made the decision to include the name and release date at the top of the screen throughout the entirety of every television trailer, but it needs to stop. Have our attention spans really become this embarrassingly short? Are some people really incapable of waiting to the end of a thirty second spot to see the release information?

If you have half-a-minute to make an impression, you should want all eyes on the small collection of images flickering across the screen, and not at the words plastered above them. People get distracted easily enough. Since this post is about film, it's only right I borrow a timeless phrase from the medium. "If you build it, they will come."

Well...if you build a compelling conflict in thirty seconds, the audience will find out when the movie comes out, because they'll be there at the end of the television ad. The inverse is a whole group of viewers who know nothing but a name and date, and have no inclination to see the film because they were too busy glancing up at the annoyance above than seeing anything compelling below.

I understand that in the Information Age marketers are just trying to get their name to cut through the clutter with the hope that merely recognition of the title might compel viewership or further investigation by watching the trailer online, but can 30 seconds of obstructed view really generate greater sales?

If it does...it's only a matter of time before every commercial has a bothersome black banner blotting out the top of the TV screen. And if that happens...it's only a matter of time before my TV has a big hole right in the center from where my shoe went through it.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Late Night Ramblings

All this news of late night television tore open a long-forgotten wound, which had since scabbed over ages ago. Luckily for me, the reason this scar was ripped open was because I found a way to heal it.

When Conan O'Brien left the 12:35am timeslot for 11:35pm, I wasn't sure how to fill that void. His replacement, Jimmy Fallon, has long been seen in my eyes as an incompetent entertainer with no comedic timing or any semblance of a stage presence to keep me from changing the channel. The Roots, who he hired to be his late-night band, are one of my favorite acts and I respect the fact that Fallon introduced the greatest band of all time, Guns N' Roses, at the VMAs with genuine enthusiasm, but the man's musical taste can never make up for his inability to flawlessly deliver a truly funny joke.

My schedule for TV viewing was pretty set for awhile. 11pm-12am I'd watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report before tuning to CBS where I could watch Letterman interview his guests. Then at 12:35pm, the show I'd been waiting for all along would come on, and the night would be set. When Conan moved to 11:35pm, I had to change my viewing habits, which of course I did for him. Even though I have nothing but respect and admiration for Colbert and Letterman, they'd have to be viewed as either reruns or on DVR.

But what would I watch at 12:35am?

Jimmy Fallon? No.

What about Craig Ferguson? I loved him on the Drew Carey show, but I'd never watched him before, and it didn't occur to start now.

Eventually, I forgot about how comforting it was to have Conan there at 12:35am to keep me company in bed, and stopped looking for a daily replacement. But recently, upon recommendation from a friend, I gave Craig Ferguson a shot. And you know what? He was hilarious. His jokes were great, his improvisations when things didn't go according to plan were priceless, and his interviews were honest, relaxed, and thoroughly entertaining. So I started asking myself, Why haven't I given this guy a chance before?

I began to think about it, and came up with one major issue.

• His Set

The reason I always changed the channel was because the man's studio is so small. It looks like the crowd has to hunch over if they ever think of standing up. Ferguson is also forced to do his monologue standing directly in front of the camera, which is probably psychologically threatening in some way. Not to mention the claustrophobia invoked by the whole combination. And then there's the lighting situation. With everything so dim it borders on depressing, not something a late night comedy show wants to convey.

But regardless, now that I realize how enjoyable his program is I have no choice but to apologize to Mr. Ferguson for never giving him a chance, and make-up for it by giving him my dedicated viewership. I'll just have to hope his success will bring him a studio bigger and brighter than a closet of unused clothes.

And hopefully you'll watch too.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Coo Coo for CoCo? What's next? How about some wild speculation...

$40 million dollars, reportedly, and the undying support of an entire nation. This is what Conan O'Brien received as his severance from NBC's decision to abandon comedy for the sake of God knows what Jay Leno provides--certainly not anything entertaining. But what is next? We know the future of The Tonight Show...it is once again unwatchable and now I can give David Letterman the love and attention he deserves at 11:35pm until Conan settles elsewhere.

Rumors have the Tonight Show Pariah heading to FOX for a substantial deal. It makes sense for FOX to have a late night show of their own to compete with the other major networks (CBS, NBC, and ABC), but after a lifetime of Simpons and Seinfeld syndicated re-runs, a nighttime talk show seems a little out of place.

But where else can Conan go?

Does a late-night show really need to be on one of the big networks to succeed? In the 90's, the Emmy's were dominated by major networks with a few scattered wins from an HBO show here and there. In the new millennium, and continuing on further, cable networks have been showing an increased presence on the awards circuit, and FX, USA, Comedy Central, Showtime, and AMC have all been getting in on the action. Some of the best comedies and dramas are on cable networks, as well as the late-night show that has held the Emmy for that category since 2003, The Daily Show.

But despite The Daily Show's success, it still at best averages under Conan's mark of 2.2 million, and less than half as many viewers as The Late Show(1.5million versus 3.5+ million). Its spin-off, The Colbert Report, averages a similar number. With Conan's deserved cult following, could he average this many viewers on a cable network? I would think so. Could he rival the ratings of Letterman or Leno? Probably not, unfortunately.

For the sake of argument, though, let's defy the conventional wisdom of going where the highest ratings await and try to conceive the best possible product. The popularity and viewership of cable networks is on the rise, so eventually the ratings will be there. It just needs someone to take the leap(no George Lopez does not count because he is neither funny nor on a channel with entertaining original content). So imagine Conan and his unique brand of comedy on FX, following the funniest show on television, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, almost entirely unrestricted. Or better yet, picture a late-night line-up of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Conan O'Brien--two hours of heralded comedy icons every evening.

Now which would you rather do: follow the ten o'clock news and a re-run on FOX, join a growing network in FX and further the evolution of cable TV, or combine forces with two brilliantly successful satirists to form a late-night powerhouse on the aptly named Comedy Central. Options two and three sound exponentially more appealing than the former.

If I were a cable executive at Comedy Central, FX, or a handful of other stations trying to make a splash, I'm calling Conan with the biggest offer my budget can handle, and then some. Because along with the good publicity and popular support, you'll get one hell of a funny man and a franchise to anchor your network for years to come, as cable continues to push the boundaries, and network TV remains stuck making the same formulaic sitcoms and talk shows.

No matter what happens, wherever Conan goes(even if he does delve into pornography), I'm sure he'll succeed and make me laugh in the process.

Where do you think Conan should go?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Support Conan - I'm With COCO