Having never thought our way through mainstream/Social Darwinist dogma and pseudo-radical cant, we lefties have generally conceded the topic of culture — groups’ learned perceptual and behavioral habits — to the right. As a result, we tend to remain silent about paint-peeling things like this:
As the United States continues to cater to its enemy’s cardinal war aim — perpetual war between reactionary Islam and existing imperial powers, that enemy seems to be winning not only on that ultimate front, but is now also apparently learning to take its fight to the imperial powers’ vital organs. Hence, the reactionary Islamists’ recent announcement of their intent to attack shopping malls.
As the insane half of the U.S. population clamors to speed up the self-defeat and sanctify the war criminals and war criminal abettors (e.g. Bradley Cooper) involved in Clint Eastwood’s
Triumph of the Will American Sniper, the mall owners have this to say:
“There won’t be any mad dash or scramble to improve security because security is constantly evolving and improving,” Jesse Tron, spokesman for the International Council of Shopping Centers, told USA TODAY on Monday. “Security officials are not reactionary because they have been doing this all along.”
Translation: “We won’t be spending any more money on security.”
“In a world where many stick to the script, Audi chose a different route.” So says Volkwagen AG’s Audi luxury subsidiary. Yes, buying a differently-labeled car: What a stroke of creativity and rebellion!
In the United States, our overclass has used its ownership of politics to prevent serious regulation of communications infrastructure, to say nothing of public ownership. As a natural result, we get the highest prices and worst services in the supposedly developed world.
Of course, a small part of the gargantuan cash geysers the overclass reaps from such a sweetheart set-up is used in marketing the overpriced, inferior products underlying its profit ranches.
Having no rational product differences or genuine technological breakthroughs to describe, such marketing is always mere empty manipulation.
Consider this perhaps familiar example:
How, one might wonder, could such unfunny and ham-handed irrelevancies be profitable to AT&T? What’s the business rationale? Is AT&T stoned?
Turns out, as always, not in the least.
Per an Ad Age story titled “How Big Data Shapes AT&T’s Advertising Creative,” there’s rather rigorous method to the apparent superfluity:
It’s Not Complicated” may have been its name, but the insights that drove one of AT&T’s most successful ad campaigns ever were based on a massive three-year big-data project that was plenty complex.
The campaign featuring comedian Beck Bennett and little kids in a classroom was the product of a three-year project. It involved an analysis of 40 copy-test variables and tagging 370 AT&T and competitive wireless communications ads on everything from the type of humor used and how characters interact to type of storyline.
The BBDO-created campaign that resulted from the analysis generated an additional $50 million in sales in AT&T’s estimation, said Greg Pharo, director-market research and analysis for the telecom in a presentation at the Advertising Research Foundation’s Re:Think 2014 conference in New York today.
Here’s how that happens, per Ad Age‘s report:
Mr. Pharo and AT&T Senior Data Scientist Damon Samuel, who made the switch from working on the telecom company’s marketing-mix analytics team to working on the project, delved into sometimes surprising details about what works and what doesn’t in their ads and those of rivals. Among the lessons:
-Ads with storylines are very effective
-Informative demonstrations boost ad performance
-Simple outperforms complicated
-Slice-of-life and transactional or promotional ads can both work
-Humor is effective at driving recall, brand favorability and likeability, but not all types of humor are equal
-Character interaction matters a lot
Of course, some of those lessons have guided TV advertising since Mrs. Olsen was pouring coffee for Procter & Gamble Co. and Folgers in the 1960s. But AT&T’s analysis has helped delve deeper into exactly how elements work, particularly humor.
The team, along with its market-research shop Added Value, painstakingly code commercials for such things as the type of humor. And they found, according to Mr. Pharo, that ads featuring humor deemed clever, sarcastic or snarky tend to outperform ads with silly humor (though Mr. Samuel noted that ads with darkly sarcastic humor tend to underperform).
While ads with storylines do better generally, those with complex storylines, too many scenes or vignettes and complicated visual montages “underperformed very significantly,” Mr. Samuel said. “Thirty seconds is just not enough time to share all the story elements and come to a resolution.”
Particularly effective are ads with informative presentations when a character explains the benefits and presentation of a product, Mr. Pharo said.
While people demonstrating product benefits works, just showing phones and benefits, or what Mr. Samuel termed “phone porn,” doesn’t. At best, such primitive product demos drive a shift in the mix of handset types sold without increasing total sales.
The rewards for AT&T are substantial, Mr. Pharo said, with the project showing that 25% of AT&T’s total sales are driven by media advertising and 10% from TV alone. Creative quality and tonality rather than media weight or placement account for a third of TV ads’ impact.
Such are the building blocks of our market-totalitarian culture.
Cadillac’s extra-obnoxious “Poolside” ad was, it now says, this:
The “Poolside” spot, created by ad agency Rogue, is intended to serve as a “brand provocation,” according to Craig Bierley, Cadillac’s advertising director.
Of course, the deeper story is the usual one. The ad is a piece of flattery designed to push the marginally comfortable into proving their upper-classiness by buying the $75,000 monstrosity it promotes.
Advertising Age interviewed Cadillac’s Mr. Bierley on the strong reaction to the spot. He said the spot’s been “misconstrued” by some viewers. He wanted to set the record straight. Among the misperceptions:
It’s aimed at the richest 1%
Not so, says Mr. Bierley. Rather than millionaires, the spot’s targeted at customers who make around $200,000 a year. They’re consumers with a “little bit of grit under their fingernails” who “pop in and out of luxury.”