Using the Obamas as a marketing asset

The Obamas are a marketing asset – as quite a few companies and organizations know. Going by the assumption “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission”, they use the Obamas in their PR.

The outdoor clothes company Weatherproof noticed that the President was wearing one of their coats when photographed on the Great Wall of China. The company promptly used this news picture for the advertisement touting the tagline 'A Leader In Style'. In the pic, Obama stands alone in a strike, rugged pose – perfect for the company’s image and brand. The picture was taken by the Associated Press, and the clothes company bought the right to use it in an advert. They promptly turned it into a giant-sized photograph on a Times Square billboard. AlthoughWeatherproof did not seek permission from the White House, claiming it didn’t need to since the billboard does not claim Mr Obama endorses the product.

Freddie Stollmack, CEO of Weatherproof stated: 'He didn't come to us. It's just a great looking jacket on a great looking president. Mr Stollmack said he thinks the White House should congratulate his company for making Mr Obama look so good. We did this in good faith. This is an image that we thought would enhance the President of the United States.' He added that although another advertising company had accepted the billboard, the New York Times, the New York Post and Women's Wear Daily had all rejected a similar advert for their newspapers.

The White House was not amused. Deputy press secretary Bill Burton said that the White House has a long-standing policy that disapproves of the use of President Obama's name and likeness for commercial purposes.

But also Mrs. Obama has been used for PR purposes –without her position. PETA used her image in a new ad. PETA states that the first lady has committed to not wearing fur and "the world should know that in PETA's eyes that makes her pretty fabulous." The anti-fur poster features an image of the U.S. First Lady along with presenter Oprah Winfrey, singer Carrie Underwood and supermodel Tyra Banks, under the slogan 'fur-free and fabulous!'

The image that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals used is the one from her first official White House portrait, taken in February last year. Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, confirmed that PETA had not asked for Mrs. Obama's permission to use the portrait, since they knew the First Lady could not officially endorse an anti-fur campaign advert. PETA also insisted, that they used her image in its Washington advertising campaign based on White House confirmation that she does not wear fur. The new adverts featuring Mrs. Obama appeared in Washington's Metro stations, magazines and PETA's website.

It is unclear whether the White House can prevent companies from using the Obamas’ images in advertising campaigns. Shortly after he took office last year, the White House launched a crackdown on 'Brand Obama' and insisted on control over the merchandising free-for-all in the wake of his inauguration. But it is difficult to enforce, especially since the chances for companies and organizations (especially outside of the US) to be sued are slim. Low cost, low risk, huge impact - a marketing dream come true…as the following clip shows....

Tweeting all the way to be bank

Celebrities used to tweet about their day-to-day life. “I must have pinched a nerve in my neck, I can hardly look to my left. I will pass on my workout today. I need a massage.”

But now, celebs have found out that tweeting-for-money is worth while. Top earner is socialite Kim Kardashian, who commands $10,000 per tweet. Her tweets include a Nestle commercial, and the background on her Twitter page features the fast-food chain Carl’s Jr. The number of followers (KK boasts a formidable 2.7 million), is the key to profitability.

Dr. Drew Pinsky (more than 1.8 million followers) promo-tweets include endorsements for Sonos music systems and Gogo’s in-flight Wi-Fi. Greg Grunberg (of Heroes fame, nearly 1.5 million followers) tweets about the Yowza iPhone application multiple times a day – for an estimated $ 7,000 and $ 10,000 per tweet. (In all fairness, he donates his twitter bounty to charity).

The deal broker between celebs and companies is ad.ly. According to Sean Rad, CEO of Ad.ly, the likes of Britney Spears or P. Diddy could earn up to $20,000 per tweet, should they ever go for Ad.ly’s pay-per-tweet model.

By law, celebs have to disclose if they are tweeting for money or just for fun/adoration/kicks. The FTC regulation applies to all bloggers, so cave bloggerati!

An FTC-compliant tweet looks like this:
U guys have to watch [http://bit.ly/] Dancing w Stars champ @ShawneyJ backflips over speeding bobsled! Pretty cool! (Ad) 10:59 AM Dec 29th, 2009 from Ad.ly Network

Violation comes with a steep price tag: up to $ 11,000 in fines. The FTC is on the lookout, stating: "celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media”. As it looks now, we might see a juicy Twittergate scandal in 2010….

The power of Facebook – the Pears soap campaign

Pears clear soap is a product consisting of a 221-year-old formula. It is also the world's first registered brand, and boasts a loyal customer base.

Recently Pears decided to change its age-old formula, changing and extending the number of ingredients and adding chemicals. The original Pears soap contains just eight ingredients, including rosemary and thyme extracts and “Pears fragrance essence”. The new soap replaced these with 24 new ingredients.

Customers labeled the new soap as “smelling and feeling disgusting”. The new soap, which is made in India, smelled strongly of frankincense, rather than the old “mild and spicy herbal fragrance”.

When customers found out that most shops were only selling the new variety, they started a Facebook campaign to force the makers of Pears Transparent Soap to abandon a new recipe after claims the formula. The group, called Bring Back The Original Pears Soap, was achieved what it wanted - the owners of the brand Hindustan Unilever Ltd (based in Mumbai) have agreed to produce something “much closer to the old soap” from March 2010.

The Pears case teaches us some important marketing lessons:

1. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. If customers are happy with the product, don’t try to change it.
   
2. Brand loyalty. Pears has built a loyal customer base throughout the ages and over generations based on its unique product.
   
3. Customers are active and vocal. In the age of Web 2.0, customers have the power to use social networks to get their point across. Journalists pick up stories from social networks; hence the impact of the small Facebook group.

Avatar – the marketing success of an expensive blockbuster

During the first weekend of 2010, Avatar passed the US$ 1 billion mark. This milestone has only be reached by a handufl of other movies.

This latest 20th Century Fox’s blockbuster was costly and complex to make. The accountants at the movie studio will be crunching numbers for the next few months to find out if investing in James Cameron’s Avatar will turn a hefty profit.

It is hard to determine the final cost of the movie – various numbers are flying around. The New Yorker quotes $230 million, while the New York Times estimates the total cost to be close to $500 million. Quite likely, the official budget lies somewhere in between – at $280 million for the production, plus marketing costs.

James Gianopulos, co-chairman and C.E.O. of Fox Filmed Entertainment, told CNN in early December: “it is the most expensive film we’ve made, but now, having the luxury of hindsight, it is money well spent, so I’m not concerned about it.”

However, a movie budget is limited to the production costs. In other words, it comprises of the wages of the actors, crew and special effects people. Marketing expenses, such as advertisements (billboards, trailers, etc.), promotion (events), merchandise (action figures, apparel, etc.) are not included in the movie budget.

In the case of Avatar, Fox cleverly shared the production costs with investor groups Dune Capital Management and Ingenious Film Partners to hedge the risk. They also took advantage of a tax credit in New Zealand (similar to Lord of the Rings), where they shot the live-action footage that comprises about a third of the film. These savings are estimated at $30 million. Fox is however responsible for the marketing (around $150 million).

Avatar has its unique selling point (USP) – it boasts its own 3D technologies, courtesy of Cameron who invested his own money, and backed by investors. They already got their investments back: the 3D cameras have been licensed for use in other films. Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson are making their 2011 film, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, using Avatar’s motion-capture tools.

From the movie industry’s perspective, much of Avatar’s value lies in the film’s ability to motivate cinema owners to convert to 3D screens, which would translate into an additional price increase of a movie ticket by $3-to-$5. Furthermore, blockbusters Star Wars and Titanic are slated to be released again in 3D at an investment of $30 million per movie, and an increase in consumer electronics sales of flat-screen 3D TVs is anticipated.

Anticipating the profitability of Avatar, Cameron already has the next two Avatar sequels plotted out. A lot will depend on Avatar’s global appeal. Although the US media are focusing on the earnings in the domestic market, it will be Europe, Russia, India, and China that will contribute to the movie’s bottom line. In its first three weeks, Avatar has earned twice as much overseas as domestically.

Avatar's foreign success is contributed to the marketing genius of Cameron, who zoomed in on the anti-American feelings abroad.

As it looks now, Avatar will enaable 20th Century Fox and Cameron to laugh all the way to the bank.