Click here for the press release.

We’re in the market to lease a new mini-van.  After request a quote for the basic model and getting what was supposedlyy a very decent price (compared to two months ago), I did some quick math to find we were still paying a above the amount that Toyota advertises as the starting price on their web site (see picture).

I was then informed by the sales person that the basic model with that starting price on the Web site is without any options, and that kind of car isn’t available – they all arrive with some options already installed that drive the basic price for cars actually available up a few thousand.

In other words, Toyota is advertising a very enticing product and price combination…but they are not actually making it available.  Classic bait and switch.

Does every manufacturer do this?  No.  I did buy a car a few years ago where we wanted the absolute basic model…though the dealer did have to go out of state to get it for us.  But it’s not uncommon either.  And for an industry where so much of the purchase decision is based on buyers trusting the brand, it’s an odd way to use one of the most valuable marketing assets.

I’m not going to critique each ad, you should do that, but they are worth looking at to see interesting alternative ideas for how candidates can communicate their message.  Of course, some also highlight why the ad agency approach is not the best choice to lead in political campaigns which are zero sum  (e.g., do we really want the world voting as one proposes? It would raise awareness but being the global winner can easily backfire domestically).

Reading this did remind me that companies should also be looking for new ways to communicate their brand messages.  This does not mean constantly firing agencies (a common mistake), but having alternative sources of creative and strategic inspiration that the agency(ies) can then put into action.

A study by Simmons found that consumers are 47% more engaged by online TV viewing than by watching on a TV set.  You can read the article to learn more about the study itself but I think the article needs some context as it is comparing apples to oranges – in other words, you can’t compare television to online video…at least just yet.  When I watch an ad on Hulu it’s one ad per show, one break, and often has high relevance to the content I’m watching.    When I watch an ad on Heavy, Break.com or Dailymotion (disclosure: Dailymotion is a client), fewer ads are often directly relevant to the content, increasing engagement.  In other words, TV has lousy engagement but broad reach.  Video can have terrific engagement, but lousy reach.  

However, this is all likely to change.  Online video can afford the experimentation at this early growth stage.  Television, being a more mature and far broader audience medium (as of today) has to be more conservative – mistakes due to experimentation made on TV will be of a far larger scale than mistakes online.

At some point, the lessons learned online make their way to television due to innovation in technology and advertising formats.  Until then, it’s worth keeping in mind the differences both in their capabilities and uses while also looking at how we may see online lessons make their way to television.

All this is about the future, not the present.  While a lot of people watch online video, it’s only a fraction of those watching TV (essentially, everyone).  So if you’re looking to reach those demographics watching online video the above points are critical.  Otherwise, it’s going to be a bit longer before online video marketing has the same reach as television based marketing.  Of course, at that point we may be watching all that content on our television.

I’ve already been testing Facebook Flyers, and found it a great way to target specific groups by sending a specific message to a specific type or community of people at a specific time.  This is a valuable companion to keyword search advertising which allows me to send specific messages to specific people, based on their search criteria, but only when they come looking for that message.

My only complaint, or hope, for this beta service was that the targeting could be even more specific.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook and Myspace (through a new HyperTargeting ad program) are about to launch tools to provide more specific targeting.    Public relations, corporate communications and public affairs executives should all take note and follow this development closely.  These advertising tools have the potential to be the center piece of direct to consumer public relations.  I’ll be testing them over the next several months and reporting results.

I’ve been testing out flyers and here’s what I found:

1. They have the potential of targeting very specific interest groups.  Right now, you can either target everyone or university campuses.  If they take the university targeting capability and expand it to any Facegroup group, it would allow professionals to identify groups of individuals with appropriate interest, and post flyers (communicate messages) to those groups.
2. General flyers or flyers targeted to other groups can be used to build membership in new groups.  Direct to audience communications programs, such as ambassador programs, can form groups in Facebook then use Flyers to recruit (right now you can just invite people in).  Here is a group for mobile gadget users that I’m testing now: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5852073717
3. If Facebook’s approach takes off, then maybe other social networks will implement similar tools, making it easier for communications professionals to identify specific audiences and deliver messages only to those audiences.

Take a test drive at http://www.facebook.com/flyers.php.  This is the basic version.  There is also a new pay-per-click version.

And please feel free to contact me with any questions at cohen AT fortexgroup.com

Apple does a great job of creating a commercial addressing this issue.  Apple leverages competitors’ (PC manufacturers) reputation problem into a strong messaged commercial.   The result, Apple takes momentum against craplets (as pre-installed programs are sometimes called) and turns it into mometum for Apple.  Take a look at http://www.apple.com/getamac/?apple-getamac-stuffed_medium.

The takeaway? When looking at competitive messaging, don’t just look at it from a public relations perspective but see how advertising can build momentum.  It’s just a perfect example of how PR and advertising are, in fact, one team.

But first, a small editorial to make sure you understand the secret to a successful work-of-mouth/buzz campaign. 

Buzz or word-of-mouth as marketing and communications disciplines have gotten way out of control.   We’ve actually managed to take the obvious (word of mouth recommendations are the most valuable kind) and turn it into a paid area of expertise.  Even worse, companies are convinced that a good buzz can be bought and paid for like an advertisement.

Wrong!  Good buzz is the result of properly communicating a strong business story.  Communications as a discipline does not create a great business story, it knows how to deliver it to the market.  It is an important and fundamental difference that is often ignored.  In the following equation, the first part is usually treated as almost incidental: great businesses+great public relations = great reputations. 

So, if you haven’t figured it out yet, I will now reveal the secret to successful buzz/word-of-mouth campaigns for free.  Using this secret ingredient you can spurr great word of mouth, phenomenal sales, a positive reputation and do it all while spending less on marketing than your competitors.  The secret?  A superior product that meets a strong consumer demand.  Need proof?  Just ask people why they love Chipotle.

I’ve tried Second Life and it is a great virtual platform.  It’s interesting, entertaining and shows the potential for virtual worlds…when the world is really ready for them.  Right now it’s still too slow, too ugly and too clunky for the average consumer as compared to the Web.  Doesn’t anyone remember VRML?

A Webcast is still easier for a press conference, an IM is easier for an online chat and a Web site is easier for commerce (sorry Dell).

As a practical platform, it’s slow and not conducive to today’s short-attention-span-must quickly-flip-through-web-pages consumer. 

As a social networking platform like MySpace of Facebook it’s too slow.  It doesn’t allow the quick in, check messages, read a message and out experience that so many consumers are used to.

As an entertainment platform for virtual economics and other forms of entertainment, it’s, well, entertainment.  Meaning it could one day lose its hype value and, along with that, its media and core user focus.

The bottom line is that it is the flavor of the day.  It gets attention as virtual worlds so often do – by captures the imagination of the media and forward looking consumer.  The problem is that people aren’t writing about imagination.  They are imagining business success.  It may happen at some point but that point has not arrived.

So take advantage of Second Life while it’s hot.  Maybe it will be a long term success.  But for the moment, companies that invest for the short term marketing value are placing the safer bet.  In the meantime, don’t forget to lookout for the next big thing…

As Jon points out, unlike marketers, campaign consultants are in a zero sum game. They either win and election or lose. That means they don’t have the luxury of experiementing with cutting edge marketing, they must go with what works. While many people do get information online, consultants know that many are still watching television and ads. They also know that only a small portion of the population has Tivo or similar capabilities which means people actually watch the ads, versus ignoring online ads while reading online information.

Personally, I’m not a big television advertisement fan. It seems a bit expensive for an ad outlet that so many people hate. And while I do think political ads will move to digital platforms like Websites, mobile and more, it will only happen as viewer habits move and to other non-TV mediums. It will happen, but it takes more than a few years of Internet penetration to change decade old viewer habits.

And I live in Connecticut where Lieberman lost to Lamont, due, many said, to online activism. Online activism may have helped boost Lamont, but I sure saw a lot of Lamont TV ads being used to push down Lieberman. Event Lamon’ts campaign seemed to know that old media isn’t old. It’s just older. And often, the older more experienced entity can be a lot more effective than the louder but still developing one.