Oh great. A new social network. Tell me about it. Tik Tok is a new social network app that sells itself as storytelling from the gut, “video storytelling told in 15 seconds.” Yes, the teens are all over it. China is behind it, but promises your data is secure thanks to recent updates (Tik Tok, 2019). Hashtags are where everybody’s at. Though most are still recommended by mother Tik Tok, the teens keep up with their hashtag chores. Challenges are big. Duets are big, where you sing along and complete or compliment another user’s video. Discovering music and comedy talent drives most of the activity (Cornish, 2019).
No wait, too busy, won’t read.
Tik Tok. All the teens are there. Hashtags are everything. VIDEOS LIMITED TO 15 SECONDS.
Let’s look at that length, though it seems short it is more than twice the length of the 6 second limit on the late video sharing app also popular with teens, Vine. Unlike Vine, Tik Tok videos will endure and not self-destruct. Why 15 seconds though? The tech world is plodding about and testing, trying to decide how much virtue your content has and how much time to allot to tell your stories. The short length raises the stakes. Let me quickly offer belated congratulations to Ann Lupo, changing the face of storytelling. Tik Tok and Film Independent L.A. joined forces last fall to honor Lupo as the first winner of the “Tik Tok Real Short Award” (Tik Tok, 2018). I didn’t see her acceptance speech, but I imagine she went, “I’d like to tha.”
Ann Lupo reflects on humanity in her award winning real short.
On the other side of the video
sharing court, Youtube’s algorithm is rewarding content postings over 20
minutes. Content creators there benefit financially for delivering more than 20
minutes at a time to Youtube, all for the purpose of working more ads in
(Peterson, 2018). When you sit down to watch a summer blockbuster in a movie
theater (usually well over 90 minutes of entertainment), you can easily sit
through more than 4 movie trailers with similarities to the film you paid to
see. With such extremes between content lengths, we can only hope that the
talent will naturally sort themselves to the length that serves their art the
best.
The marketing and advertising industries are still sorting out the best approaches to content length. Tik Tok started an ad platform this year, with Grubhub as the first advertiser, the ad popped up when users first opened the app and they could quickly click right out. Poshmark has one of the first in-feed ads on Tik Tok, where users have the ability to like, share, and comment on ads (Flynn, 2019). This could get dangerous fast for advertisers, since Tik Tok’s environment is designed for mockery. Fear of the negative and mocking advertisers is most likely why Instagram does not allow “using” in-feed ads as your own content. Advertisers will need to deliver their best, native feeling creative to encourage friendly clowning from users.
Tik Tok’s call to action.
Another big concern for advertisers is the length again. If a user sits through 4 or 5 user videos then sees an in-feed ad, they are being asked to pay for the pleasure of one minute of entertainment. When over on Youtube, 4 or 5 ads can be slipped into 20 minutes of entertainment, that is quadruple the entertainment. Tik Tok’s platform demands high-stakes and getting the most from every second of storytelling. Length of that ad after a minute of entertainment is going to be very challenging to meter correctly and that ad had better be the best creative. Mother Tik Tok’s challenge to advertisers: #StellarCallToAction.
References:
Tik Tok Corporate communication (September 25, 2018). Retrieved from:
Ah, listicles. Are they just clickbait? A harmless way to quickly digest information on the go? Or worse, a scourge brought on by the information age, threatening the very foundation of society itself? If that last one sounds like a bit much, a surprising tally of writers seem to hold this opinion (de Beer, 2014; Dube, 2015; Porter, 2014); still, many others (Denning, 2019; Edidin, 2014; Stewart, 2015) staunchly defend the practice. I’m probably somewhere in the middle, or as my old boss used to say when I needed feedback, “I’m strongly ambivalent.” (I wasn’t aware that this was a joke for waaaaaay longer than I should have.)
With that, let’s examine five random aspects about listicles… perhaps by the end I’ll form a coherent opinion.
1) A Respectable History
Some experts attribute the spread of the listicle technique to the “25 Random Things About Me” posting format that became wildly popular on Facebook way back in 2009 (Taylor, 2013). Research (Okrent, 2014) even suggests that the word itself — a portmanteau of the words “list” and “article” — connotes the same positive feelings to a reader that the word “popsicle” might. In other words, it’s fun and tasty, but don’t expect any real nutrition.
Others (Poole, 2013) endorse the listicle’s literary roots, citing such works as Eco’s “The Infinity of Lists” (an actual book of lists) or Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Even religion echoes this format — Martin Luther’s “95 Theses” protest or (backing up a few thousand years) the Ten Commandments — also suggest that writers (and I guess prophets) have been using lists to share and persuade for centuries (Poole, 2013). Even before the advent of social media, “checkout lane” magazines have been exploiting this technique for years. We’ve probably all seen the slick Cosmopolitan cover that lurks nearby as our purchases are scanned, daring you to pick it up and throw it on the belt with alluring teasers like “10 Ways Your Husband Is At Home Cheating on you RIGHT NOW!”
(I definitely made that last one up, but you have to admit they’re usually ridiculous.)
I didn’t entirely get this at first, but sure enough my own listicle inspired me to research Eckhart Tolle, plus spend an additional 20 minutes on CollegeHumor.com.
2) Great for the
Interwebs
As the internet grew, bloggers everywhere were quick to capitalize on the technique (Okrent, 2014). Not only does the listicle format hint to the reader that the information provided will be succinct and palatable, it also presents multiple opportunities for marketers to leverage keywords, links, and images that make a company’s content easier to find through internet searches and media sharing (Edidin, 2014; Mulholland, 2018; Stewart, 2015). I tend to agree with Wired’s Rachel Edidin (2014), who pointed out that readers benefit because reading each list item feels like a mini-accomplishment. So true! I love checking off tasks, and listicles honestly provide me with a cheap thrill each time. Edidin (2014) also points out other interesting advantages, but mostly stresses that reading listicles actually encourages the reader to find out more about a particular topic, and the list format itself makes related information easy to curate.
3) Fancypants Writers?
No Les Gusta
On the other hand, I may have already proven that listicles aren’t always composed of easily digestible chunks of succinct information. In fact, most writers who apparently despise them (de Beer, 2014; Dube, 2015; Mercado, 2016; Porter, 2014) focus on the listicle’s chief vice: now we will all read less, so we’re all doomed to become bad writers ourselves. The easily-skimmed format sure is convenient, they continue, but it can lead to the loss of critical reading skills, such as learning how to follow narratives or substantiate arguments (de Beer, 2014). Some experts (Dube, 2015; Mercado, 2016) go as far to say that the advent of listicles will continue to lower the standard of journalism as a whole, and that it will eventually rot our brains. Yikes!
Surely there’s a third option.
4) You’re Still Reading
I don’t really need this fourth point here, but some bloggers like Mulholland (2018) suggest using nice round numbers like 10 or 15 in your listicle title to appeal to more readers. He argues that the opposite can work as well, as “interesting” numbers like 13 or 21 sound purposely specific, so they should generate curiosity and might solicit a few more successful clicks (Mulholland, 2018).
Future anthropologists should be able to easily identify the exact moment when we blew it.
5) Lighten Up Dude
I mean, most of us are not trying to take in Tolstoy on the subway. Let’s face it, we’re probably reading listicles in the bathroom, where the short format is convenient (and more sanitary?) for everyone involved. Buzzfeed sure as heck embraces this (Alpert, 2015), as they post hundreds of listicles every day. From a pure writing perspective, it’s safe to say that they aren’t out for a Pulitzer with “49 Photos That Will Permanently Mess Up Your Brain” (no link provided, you can thank me later). A perusal of historically bad listicles should help those “real” writers relax: just keep doing what you’re doing, man! They really shouldn’t feel threatened as listicles become increasingly more prominent online. Even if they are proven right, and we all become…well, bad writers — wouldn’t that just make those with more refined writing skills that much more in demand?
I think it really just comes down to the subject and the medium — if I want to learn about Tony Danza, I’m much more likely to read “Top 7 Roles Played by Tony Danza” on my phone, rather than some long-form prose about the actor. (Rest assured, the first four on this list are all characters named “Tony.”)
Still though, please leave Keanu out of this. He’s an American treasure.
I was going to expound on a point 7 about how listicles often leverage their title as clickbait (Porter, 2015), but (a) I don’t have a point 6, and (b) now that you’re here you knew that number 7 was not going to be that scandalous anyway.
So, how do you feel about listicles? Are they a fun, easy way to learn in our world of smartphone reading? Or do they require so little of the reader that it will ultimately bring on the death of journalism itself, followed by the end of our civilization?
Perhaps we can all just chill out and be happy readers (and writers) either way. I do appreciate you reading my own listicle here — hopefully you made it through with your brain intact.
Fight On!
Tripp
References
Alpert,
L. (2015, January 29). BuzzFeed nails the ‘Listicle’; What happens next? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/buzzfeed-nails-the-listicle-what-happens-next-1422556723
de
Beer, E. (2014, June 30). 10 explanations why listicles kind of suck. Thought Catalog. Retrieved from https://thoughtcatalog.com/emily-de-beer/2014/06/10-explanations-why-listicles-kind-of-suck/
Denning,
S. (2019, April 14). Five reasons why millennials love listicles. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/08/29/five-reasons-why-millennials-love-listicles/
Dube,
R. (2015, June 9). 5 reasons listicles are bad for you: So stop reading them. MakeUseOf.com. Retrieved from https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-reasons-
Edidin,
R. (2014, January 8). 5 reasons listicles are here to stay, and why that’s ok. Wired.
Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2014/01/defense-listicle-list-article/
Mantis,
B. P. (2013, February 18). 15 Hedgehogs with things that look like hedgehogs. BuzzFeed.com. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeed.com/babymantis/15-hedgehogs-with-things-that-look-like-hedgehogs-1opu
Mercado,
J. (2016, July 11). 5 reasons why listicles are a step in the wrong direction. The Odyssey Online. Retrieved from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/5-reasons-listicles-step-wrong-direction
Mulholland,
R. (2018, July 6). Writing listicle: The 11-Step guide and why they’re awesome.
Process Street. Retrieved from https://www.process.st/listicle/
Okrent,
A. (2014, January 30). The listicle as literary form. University of Chicago Magazine. Retrieved from https://mag.uchicago.edu/arts-humanities/listicle-literary-form
Poole,
S. (2013, November 12). Top nine things you need to know about “listicles.” The
Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/12/listicles-articles-written-lists-steven-poole
Porter,
E. (2014, March 17). Why “Listicles” are bad for your development as a writer. WordsbyEvanPorter. [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://wordsbyevanporter.com/why-listicles-are-bad-for-your-development-as-a-writer/
Stewart,
J. (2015, June 9). 5 Reasons listicles aren’t so bad. MakeUseOf.com. Retrieved from https://wpengine.com/blog/5-reasons-listicles-arent-bad/
Taylor,
M. (2009, February 10). Facebook mystery: Who created “25 random things about
me”? WSJ Blogs. Retrieved from https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/02/10
FaceApp is displayed on an iPhone Wednesday, July 17, 2019, in New York. The popular app is under fire for privacy concerns. (AP Photo/Jenny Kane)
By now you probably have a pretty good idea of what you’re going to look like in the next 3o years — thanks to the popular mobile app called, “FaceApp.” Originally launched back in 2017, FaceApp has regained popularity because this time, users have the ability to transform themselves into a younger and/or older version of themselves… because who doesn’t want to find out what side of the gene pool they’re going to inherit in the future?
The Russian-based app first went viral a couple years ago and is now having another moment in the spotlight for not-so-fun reasons. Users have been surprised to learn that the app’s creators have been gathering data from their photos and sign-in information. Understandably so, this revelation creates a big debate on whether or not private consumer information is being exposed and shared for unethical practices. I mean… do I need to recap what happened in the 2016 elections?
Not to worry, according to FaceApp’s statement toTechCrunch, the company isn’t doing anything unusual or sketchy in either its code or network traffic Truth of the matter is, there are probably a handful of other apps on your phone that are at risk of saving your personal information. Still, the conversation does bring attention to standard tech practices that have been long-questioned by consumers and policy makers. Are tech companies obligated to protect consumer information at all costs? If so, how can we measure these practices are being followed? And most importantly, how can we ensure our face is not included in facial-recognition databases that can harm us in anyway in the future?
WARNING: This post contains statistics on suicide and how the information caused recent changes to the series “Thirteen Reasons Why.”
Jay Asher’s 2007 novel “Thirteen Reasons Why” takes the reader’s through the story of a high school student’s reasons why she ultimately committed suicide. The book became a series on Netflix in 2017 and while the book received several awards, the series did not receive the same accolades. Much of the criticism is based on the graphic scene showing the main character committing suicide.
The Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found an increase of suicides rates in boys aged 10 to 17, specifically the month it was released, April 2017. That month had “the highest overall suicide rate for this age group in the past five years” (Carey, 2019, para. 2) and continued to remain elevated through the year. Although the study could not directly link if watching the show influenced the suicide of the viewer, the study took into account several other possible influences, but it was undeniable the spike of 30% for the 10-17 age group during the month the series was released.
Taking this study into consideration, the creator, Brian Yorkey, agreed to remove the scene of the character committing suicide, in addition to additional warnings before the entire series and specific episodes with graphic scenes.
While the scene is now deleted, it doesn’t change that some people may have been affected, consequently, having changed the lives of their friends and family.
In our efforts to connect with consumers through our creative campaigns, do we take into consideration the possible negative effects? In creating a conversation through social marketing to bring awareness on a topic, is it possible that we bring other unintended results that can be good or bad? Are we ready for those possible negative outcomes? By trying to capture the attention of our audience, is it okay to push the envelope on sensitive topics without consulting industry professionals?
While I respect the creative aspect of storytelling, a successful tactic in marketing, is it okay to bend ethics since a mistake can be deleted? Is it okay to offend your audience, especially if your tweet can be deleted or a commercial can be taken off the air/offline? Has our ability to easily delete things made it easier to push ethics aside? In this technological society, can we simply just delete the mistake?
When we think about
Apple, we think technology. We think of beautifully designed iPhones, iPads,
MacBook Pros, and even iPods. Apple also
has innovative services such as iTunes, Apple pay, Apple TV, and iCloud. All of these products and services integrated
under the umbrella of Apple, Inc. In
this technology-hungry, information-thirsty global world in which we live,
Apple satisfies this all-consuming appetite for information with its
masterfully designed products. There’s
only one problem. There’s a worm in my
Apple.
They also have created
an ever-changing money consuming need for updated accessories. It’s not the accessories that are added to
the device. These are the accessories
required for the device to operate.
Last month, in
preparation for my one-week vacation, I decided to upgrade and buy a new iPad
Pro 12.5” screen. I was expecting this
$1,000 investment to make the journey across the country more pleasant. I got home, opened the box, grabbed by older
model headphones, only to find the adapter no longer fit. I ran back to the Apple store to get some new
headphones, which cost $200.00. Now, I
probably could’ve found some less expensive headphones, but I was in a
hurry.
Thirteen days later, I
returned from my trip and was charging my iPhone, only to find my phone was not
charging. The engineer in me began to
troubleshoot. First, I got another cord
and tested the plug. Then I got another
plug and checked the cable. Nothing
worked. Perplexed and bewildered, I was
trying to understand how could a cord that worked just this morning, no longer
worked. This is not uncommon because
just about all of us have experienced this before.
What’s happening
here? Why are we continually purchasing
Apple product accessories? Why would a
trillion-dollar company nickel and dime their customers? Are the accessories poorly designed? Why does Apple redesign products and require
customers to purchase new accessories?
Are they merely looking to extort those of us who are hooked on their
products?
Back in 2009, Tim Cook set the vision for Apple, which states, “We believe that we are on the face of the earth to make great products, and that’s not changing.” I am hooked. I cannot change. Here’s my plea to Apple. You have made a trillion-dollars making beautiful products. Please get the worm out of my Apple!
Often known for keeping their viewership figures close to the chest, Netflix has decided to be transparent, sort of. Last month Netflix declared that viewership of season 3 summer hit show Stranger Things was viewed by 45 million household subscribers. Despite this transparency, the viewership shared by the company have been met with sharp skepticism.
Unlike traditional broadcast networks, Netflix self-reports their viewing figures to the public. In the past, shows aired on television networks like ABC, CBS, and FOX would have a third party media research firm such as Nielsen analyze viewership. Networks like ABC and CBS do have their own internal media research teams, but their numbers are often cross analyzed by third party media research firms. Netflix numbers are not vetted. They are simply funneled to news agency and posted on Twitter.
So what’s the big problem? What does this mean to you? Well, let’s break down how the traditional system worked. The traditional model for network television relied on commercials to make money. When an advertiser is alerted to high viewership on a network, they would advertise around the shows program blocks. To create trust with the advertisers, the network would be inclined to provide actual and verifiable data. Netflix has changed this model by making its money through its online video subscription fees. The online streaming service has gotten rid of airing blocks by allowing viewers to stream their programs when they want and where they want further complicating the analysis of viewing data. The company has a lower incentive to share data with the public because it doesn’t run ads. Inflating viewership numbers provides a greater opportunity to attract new viewers and top talent.
Last year, Netflix spent billions on content and on poaching top talents like Shonda Rhimes, Kenya Barris, and Ryan Murphy. Netflix has yet to reveal its content budget, the company still plans to bring in new creatives to fill its content library. It’s often perceived that Netflix is sitting on a mountain of money to which they have no end, however, last year the streaming had a negative free cash flow of $3 billion. Netflix is spending a lot more than it is bringing in. To make matters worse, the streaming wars are picking up with services from Apple and Disney slated to start later this year. So when Netflix posts viewership numbers for “Bird Box” 80 million and 45 million views per household for Stranger Things it’s a signal to investors, consumers, and content creators to support Netflix.
The question for me is this correct? Is it correct for Tesla to self-report that their cars are the safest in the world without a third party vetting? Is it good practice for a video game company to say their products are purchased the most with no verification? Do we enjoy when our cell phone companies say they have the best networks in the world without proof? Is it correct to do this to grow your company? I mean all companies try to present their product in a positive light. Right…?
Well, if we are playing the numbers game with Netflix here’s a number they have deal with 10.3%. Netflix’s stock dropped 10.3% or $17 billion after losing 126,000 subscribers and failing to reach its global subscription goal of 2.3million. Just to note a loss of $17billion would be the end of network like CBS. Netflix can recover from this financial blow, but this brings into question were the streaming figures ever true? Are Netflix’s viewing numbers the new fake news?
As I sat on the couch with my four-year-old nephew, he leaned over and whispered to me, “Auntie, McDonald’s has Lion King toys now, can we go?!” Mind you, we just finished collecting all of the Toy Story 4 Happy Meal toys a couple of weeks ago. All fun and games aside, it had me thinking about the marketing behind these Happy Meal toys, as well as other food products that entice children by including toys or prizes with the item.
In 1977, Dick Brams, the McDonald’s St. Louis regional advertising manager, created the U.S.’s first Happy Meal which included a hamburger or cheeseburger, French fries, cookies, a soft drink, and – of course – a toy.
But is McDonald’s getting the bad rap because they are one of the most popular and well-known fast food chains? After all, Cracker Jack has been including prizes in each of their Cracker Jack boxes since 1912. It is even speculated that McDonald’s decided to incorporate Happy Meals in their menu in response to one of its competitors at the time, Burger Chef. You can go down that rabbit hole here: Who Created the McDonald’s Happy Meal?
For some, the Happy Meal idea and its included toy does seem to appear harmless at first. That is, until you realize each Happy Meal toy is an individual component that comprises one large toy once all of the pieces have been collected. In fact, one father in Canada is suing McDonald’s because he believes that the fast-food chain is breaking laws set in place by Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act which bans most advertising to those under the age of 13. His lawsuit states that, “the toys that come with Happy Meals are marketed with the launch of children’s movies and are often part of a series, prompting his family to return to the restaurant to complete the set.”
Sure, parents always have the right to say no to their children who request Happy Meals, however, is there a larger underlying issue here? Is food marketing to children through toys okay? What other examples can you think of that targets marketing to underage audiences? Should there be stricter regulations on advertising and marketing to children?
References
Borrelli, C. (2019, July 5). Who created the McDonald’s Happy Meal? 40 years later, the answer is complicated. Retrieved from https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-happy-meal-anniversary-0707-20190703-4c7xooiaubdlddo2qsbsuny3me-4c7xooiaubdlddo2qsbsuny3me-story.html
Handley, L. (2018, November 20). McDonald’s is being sued by a father over ‘illegal’ marketing of Happy Meals to children. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/mcdonalds-is-being-sued-over-illegal-marketing-of-happy-meals.html
Webley, K. (2010, April 30). A brief history of the Happy Meal. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986073,00.html
As of late, my Instagram mainly consists of photography from my small business (Stargazer Photography) that I run. As with most posts on social media, most individuals consider a post “successful” by the number of likes it received. I too, fell victim of wondering what I had to do to get more likes and doubted my work based on the number of likes it received. Fortunately for me, I was able to quickly pull myself out of that black hole quickly and made the decision that I will post my work no matter what and as long as my clients loved their portraits, that is all that mattered. I noticed that the more I posted and the more engaged I was with my account the more inquiries I received. Note that I said I received more inquiries, not likes. So that made me wonder, how many people were engaging with my account that I did not know. These inquires were no where to be found in my likes list but yet they had seen my work and engaged with me in regards to it. And to me that was good enough.
playing smartphone closeup hand, vintage filter image
But that is not the same case for most Instagram users. In fact, a study was done by the Royal Society for Public Health and they deemed Instagram to be the most toxic social media platform. Due mostly in part to the younger users defining their self esteem based on the number of likes they get or lack there of. There are many cases where social media has proven to have a negative effect on the well being and relationships of its users due the large emphasis placed on likes.
In response to these studies among other variables, Instagram is currently conducting an experiment in a few countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Japan and New Zealand, that will remove likes from the view of your followers. While I think this is a brilliant idea because it will decrease the amount of focus on likes and get back to Instagram’s original intent and that was to engage with friends and family. Focusing on the content being shared not how many likes it received. Although there are a lot of people who are in favor of this new change, there are others that are not happy. These unhappy users are mostly influencers that feel the new format will make it harder for potential clients to seek them out to market their brands. Big name brands will not be affected by this change too much, because they will still be able to measure the metrics of engagement. “Key metrics include the post engagement rate (post interactions divided by follower count), impressions (the total number of times your content was served to users), and reach (the total number of unique accounts who saw the content).”
Although the owners will still be able to see their likes, in order for their followers to see them they would have to click on the list and count them. Who really has time for THAT!? Influencers that make millions will now have to provide that data to companies and they fear the ease of just looking at their account will decrease the amount of business they can potentially have. I was wondering would this new format cause more obsessive behavior for users and followers? Will they make comments more prone to bullying and scrutiny? Some influencers feel like it will demotivate them from posting. I find it odd yet not surprising that we are at a place in society where a simple double tap from a perfect stranger can make or break you as a person. How do we fix this? Are we too far gone as a society? What say you?
Our reading this week from Tugend (2016) “It’s chilling. It’s thrilling. It’s a 30 minute commercial” got me thinking about the lengths advertisers must go through to get their messages to the masses about their products. Tungend describes the trend of online advertisement posing as movies and documentaries. As profiled in the article, the 30-minute movie Lifeline is about a man’s search for his missing girlfriend… or is it? Tunged (2016) goes on to explain that Lifeline is actually “an online advertisement for the mobile technology company Qualcomm and, in particular, its Snapdragon 820 chip set, a smartphone processor.”
What? How can this be? Sure there is product placement and celebrity endorsements. But has advertising and marketing completely taken over our movie going experience?
Then I thought about the Toy Story franchise, the six Transformers movies, The Lego Movie series, G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, and the list of other toys that became multi-million dollar (and in some cases multi-billion dollar) box office hits goes on and on. At the end of the day, the movie version of these toys is nothing more than a massive ad campaign.
The Optimus Prime Cyberverse Ultimate Class Action Figure
Take for example Transformers from toy maker Hasbro. When the original Transformers movie was released in 2007 the toys generated $484 million in sales (Kowelle, 2009). By the second installment of Transformers in 2009, Transformers toy sales were up over 20 percent, bringing in $592 million in revenue for Hasbro (Szalai, 2011).
Another example is Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head who had major roles in the Toy Story franchise. Since their on screen debut in the original Toy Story movie release, sales of Mr. Potato Head increased by 800 percent (Jones 2019). Which means that more than 100,000,000 Mr. Potato Head toys have been sold in 30 countries around since toy manufacturer Mattel put Mr. Potato Head on the market in 1952 (Rocca, 2012). And here’s a fun fact: Mr. Potato Head was the first toy ever advertised on television (Kelly, 2012).
The original Mr. Potato Head funny face kit. The first kit included the face attachments that kids would attach to a real potato. Later, plastic potatoes were introduced with the toy. CBS/HASBRO
With just the examples of Transformers and Toy Story, it’s fair to say that the line between entertainment and advertising have been blurred. Back to the Tugend (2016) article, New York University Professor Mark Crispin Miller finds the boundaries between advertising and entertainment to be troubling, “the benefits or virtues of the products and, even more troubling, downplay the dangers or risk of a product.” Miller adds that using celebrities and big stars “makes the commercial intent even harder to perceive and blurs the true purpose behind the work” (Tugend, 2016)”.
As marketers and communication professionals, in the case of advertising and the moviegoing experience, what if our “true purpose behind the work” is to simply create entertaining advertising so the messages we create reach the masses? If that’s the intention, why not create entertaining advertising in the form of the various traditional advertising mediums, a 90-second video, a 30-minute movie, or even a full length feature film? And if the creative piece sells one more Mr. Potato Head or Transformer toy, then why shouldn’t the onus be up to the consumer to evaluate the dangers or risks of what they purchase.
It’s not a surprise that the food industry is getting more attention from the public. From food documentaries to food specified pop-ups, it’s clear the food scene is getting more popular. In recent years, food’s importance in pop culture has ascended, leading an increase in the media as well. With this in mind, many lifestyle corporations crafted their marketing campaigns to partner with food brands to increase their product/ brand awareness to the consumers, because in today’s culture, the conversation about food extends far beyond just what’s on the plate. Corporations are aware that consumers are willing to pay for special customized products in order to rep their ‘foodie’ obsessions. Below are some examples of these partnerships.
Red
Bull and GoPro
These
two corporations have partnered together to ‘inspire the world to live a bigger
life’. Although Red Bull is known for their energy drink, they have expanded
their horizon to showcase the best extreme sports in the industry. Through this
partnership, they showed the public that they are working together for a common
goal, which is to create more content, increase cross promotion and product innovation.
Although it’s not specifically food related, their partnership is unique so
they can deliver something unforgettable to its audience. https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/24/investing/gopro-red-bull-stock/
Momofuku
and Nike Jordan
Back
in 2017, celebrity chef and owner of Momofuku, David Chang, partnered with Nike
to create a one of a kind Nike shoes. As an avid fan of Chef David Chang, I
remember being bummed because the release was only in NYC. During the release date
at Momofuku, he posted a video on his social media account recording the long
line at his restaurant to buy the shoes. Within few hours, the shoes were sold
out. This shows customers and fans are willing to pay and wait in long lines to
wear and rep their food obsessions.
Stranger Things and Baskin Robbins
Although it’s not a lifestyle brand, Stranger
Things partnered with Baskin Robbins for a pop-up. Last month, Baskin Robbins recreated
the show’s fictional “Scoops Ahoy” ice cream shop at its Burbank,
California, location, where it served a special-edition Stranger
Things-inspired flavor. Baskin Robbins saw the value in this partnership as
Stranger Things is one of the biggest shows these days. The partnership was a success
as their sales jumped 150%. I live about 10 minutes away from this location and
saw the huge lines surrounding the store every night. It was quite a surprise to
see so many Stranger Things fans. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stranger-things-ice-cream-shop-scoops-ahoy-pops-up-burbank-1222210
Arclight
Cinema in Los Angeles and Boba Guys, McConnell’s Fine Ice Creams and Compartes
Chocolates
One
of the smaller partnerships, Arclight Cinema in Los Angeles partnered with
three unique L.A. vendors to pay homage to its classic caramel popcorn. The three
vendors included Boba Guys, McConnell’s Fine Ice Creams and Compartes
Chocolates and they had to create a new recipe inspired by the classic caramel
popcorn. This was a unique partnership as boba was never served in theatres. As
for McConnell and Compartes, it was their first time collaborating with a
cinema company. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/arclight-cinemas-launches-culinary-collaborations-1221289
Arizona Tea and Adidas
Recently Arizona Tea and Adidas partnered up to create a unique pair of shoes. This created quite a stir in the media as Arizona Tea rarely collaborates with a multi-dollar brand company. Arizona Tea is famous for its 99 cents canned drinks. With this in mind, Adidas was selling the shoes for 99 cents only in New York City. Surprising isn’t?! Due to the long lines, NYPD had to shut down the pop-up. Well now, it’s completely sold out and is going for more than $300 on eBay, which is also sold out as well. https://hypebeast.com/2019/7/adidas-originals-arizona-ice-tea-sneakers-continental-80-yung-1-release-information
With all these collaborations, it’s interesting to see how much the food industry is blossoming. As a foodie myself, I get excited seeing these partnerships and wonder what’s next in line for an innovation food marketing campaign/ partnership. What do you think? Are you liking all these collaborations you’re seeing in relation to food? Do you want to see more of these unique and innovative partnerships from the big corporations? I know I sure do. In my opinion, it shows the brands are getting creative and showcasing their uniqueness in the product they are collaborating with.
