Saturday, March 10, 2007
Let It Out
So, it seems to me that Kleenex is up there with toilet paper and hemorrhoid cream as one of the most difficult products to advertise for. It is a product that will always sell, no matter what, as it is a basic need that people use everyday. Because of this, advertisers for such products can focus on creative campaigns that people can relate to in order to make their brand stand out instead of simply explaining the benefits of their products.
I think that Kleenex's new "Let it out" campaign is a great example of this.
It touches on peoples emotions, gets the attention of the viewers and all audiences can relate to it.
I think it's great. What do you think?
Visit this link for more information on the campaign: http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/642668/Kleenex-gets-emotional-Let-Out-nationwide-push/
Sunday, March 4, 2007
More Britney
Britney Spears's publicist recently released a statement saying that Spears's recent erratic behavior is due to symptoms of Post-Partum depression.
However, in a recent interview, a few of Spears's close friends, including her ex-husband of 48 hours, Jason Alexander, stated that Britney has been invloved in drugs such as cocaine and ecstacy for over three years. Many, including radio-marketing specialist Sandra Poulin in this article: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-03/03/content_818642.htm find it hard to believe that Britney would have enough energy to party if she were truly depressed.
So, wasn't this a bad move on the part of Spears's publicist? The media are going crazy over this issue, and anything her publicist says will be heard or read by millions. If it is apparent that the publicist is lying, she is completely ruining her reputation with the media and with consumers of the media.
It seems to me that a statement more along the lines of "Britney realizes that she has issues in her life that needs to be resolved, and she is now doing whatever it takes to overcome those issues and be the best mother she can be." would have been more effective.
What do you think?
However, in a recent interview, a few of Spears's close friends, including her ex-husband of 48 hours, Jason Alexander, stated that Britney has been invloved in drugs such as cocaine and ecstacy for over three years. Many, including radio-marketing specialist Sandra Poulin in this article: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-03/03/content_818642.htm find it hard to believe that Britney would have enough energy to party if she were truly depressed.
So, wasn't this a bad move on the part of Spears's publicist? The media are going crazy over this issue, and anything her publicist says will be heard or read by millions. If it is apparent that the publicist is lying, she is completely ruining her reputation with the media and with consumers of the media.
It seems to me that a statement more along the lines of "Britney realizes that she has issues in her life that needs to be resolved, and she is now doing whatever it takes to overcome those issues and be the best mother she can be." would have been more effective.
What do you think?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Britney needs support...
So, according to this article:http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/issues/1_1/dailydog_pr_biz_update/6486-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS, Elizabeth Arden is sticking by Britney Spears, and continuing to support her perfume line despite her current personal difficulties.
This article initiated quite the debate in my head...when you become famous, and companies support your products because of your celebrity status, do you have an obligation to keep your personal life stable and private?
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past two or three weeks, I'm sure you have heard of Britney's recent breakdown and head-shaving incident. If you haven't, these images should pretty much sum it up for you:
From our point of view as unbiased people who have no connection to Britney, it is obvious that this is a troubled girl, who needs some serious help from those closest to her.
However, from those who endorse and produce Britney's products, like the people at Elizabeth Arden, the success of their company lies in the behavioral choices she makes. Britney receiving this much negative publicity turn fans off...not only from Britney, but also from her products.
Usually, when celebrities' personal lives go downhill, they are dropped from their endorsements and sponsors. Take Kate Moss for example: When video surfaced of Kate snorting Cocaine at a British night club, Rimmel, one of her biggest endorsements, immediately dropped her.
This is why I was so pleasantly surprised by this article. I believe that the personal lives of celebrities should have nothing to do with their professional careers. No wonder this girl is having a nervous breakdown, she has been in the public eye, scrutinized her entire life. The last thing she needs right now is another negative aspect to her life. This is why I admire Elizabeth Arden for sticking by the side of, and continuing to support a teen icon, who has helped them make quite a bit of money, in her time of need.
What she needs right now is empathy and compassion. Not judgement and scrutiny.
This article initiated quite the debate in my head...when you become famous, and companies support your products because of your celebrity status, do you have an obligation to keep your personal life stable and private?
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past two or three weeks, I'm sure you have heard of Britney's recent breakdown and head-shaving incident. If you haven't, these images should pretty much sum it up for you:
From our point of view as unbiased people who have no connection to Britney, it is obvious that this is a troubled girl, who needs some serious help from those closest to her.
However, from those who endorse and produce Britney's products, like the people at Elizabeth Arden, the success of their company lies in the behavioral choices she makes. Britney receiving this much negative publicity turn fans off...not only from Britney, but also from her products.
Usually, when celebrities' personal lives go downhill, they are dropped from their endorsements and sponsors. Take Kate Moss for example: When video surfaced of Kate snorting Cocaine at a British night club, Rimmel, one of her biggest endorsements, immediately dropped her.
This is why I was so pleasantly surprised by this article. I believe that the personal lives of celebrities should have nothing to do with their professional careers. No wonder this girl is having a nervous breakdown, she has been in the public eye, scrutinized her entire life. The last thing she needs right now is another negative aspect to her life. This is why I admire Elizabeth Arden for sticking by the side of, and continuing to support a teen icon, who has helped them make quite a bit of money, in her time of need.
What she needs right now is empathy and compassion. Not judgement and scrutiny.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Kissing Controversy...
Who would have thought that a couple of simple kisses could cause such an uproar?
In the past month, two commercials, both including kissing scenes, have been the subject of much debate.
The first, shown on Superbowl Sunday, was a Snickers commercial in which two men eating a Snickers bar accidentally kiss. This kiss causes them to panic because they feel they have lost their manlyness, and so they proceed to pull out their own chest hair to prove themselves.
Many viewers saw this commercial as homophoboic, and demanded it be off the air.
This shows that the line between humor and insult is pencil thin.
I can see both sides of this argument, and am undecided. What do you think?
The second is a Rembrandt commercial, showing a simple shot of a man and woman kissing in a field to romatic background music.
The controversy comes from the level of passion in the kiss, and the up-close camera shot.
Some thought that this commercial was simply too graphic. In fact, in a couple of articles, some even referred to it as "soft-core pornography".
While it is a bit over-the-top, I think it is simple, romantic, and a brilliant way for Rembrandt to tie their product to Valentine's Day.
What do you think?
In the past month, two commercials, both including kissing scenes, have been the subject of much debate.
The first, shown on Superbowl Sunday, was a Snickers commercial in which two men eating a Snickers bar accidentally kiss. This kiss causes them to panic because they feel they have lost their manlyness, and so they proceed to pull out their own chest hair to prove themselves.
Many viewers saw this commercial as homophoboic, and demanded it be off the air.
This shows that the line between humor and insult is pencil thin.
I can see both sides of this argument, and am undecided. What do you think?
The second is a Rembrandt commercial, showing a simple shot of a man and woman kissing in a field to romatic background music.
The controversy comes from the level of passion in the kiss, and the up-close camera shot.
Some thought that this commercial was simply too graphic. In fact, in a couple of articles, some even referred to it as "soft-core pornography".
While it is a bit over-the-top, I think it is simple, romantic, and a brilliant way for Rembrandt to tie their product to Valentine's Day.
What do you think?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Share the love...
Here are some of my favorite PR-related links...
This is a great site that combines PR info with fashion images and stories.This week there is a lot of info on New York's fashion week, and a great post on fashion PR tips: http://www.prcouture.com/
OK, so this one is a guilty pleasure...it's a fabulously tasteless and controversial entertainment blog: www.perezhilton.com
This blog is by a man who lives in San Francisco, and works in the PR industry. The blog has a lot of interesting posts about the ethics of the "blogosphere" and PR events in the Calif. area. http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/
This blog is by my PR professor, Kelli Matthews. It is aimed at her students and others interested in Public Relations. It gives a lot of great PR tips, she shares other interesting PR professionals and her own opinions on a lot of what's out there in the PR and Advertising world today: http://prosintraining.blogspot.com/
PR propaganda?
One of the first questions we are asked in class as PR students is: How do you define Public Relations?
When I was asked this question in my first PR class as a Sophomore, I was extremely dissapointed in myself that I didn't know the answer. I chose PR as my major...PR is going to be my future...I should know what it entails.
Our textbook defines Public Relations as: "The art or science of establishing and promoting a favorable relationship with the public."
This sounds positive, right? Establishing a "favorable relationship" has to be a good thing...But now, in my last year of studies, I have come to second guess that definition and question the motives behind large Public Relations firms.
Is Public Relations simply ruthless propaganda used to make money for other large companies and to monopolize our economy? PR firms are sendng complicated messages to people through media every day, and those people are rarely questioning where that information is coming from. The audiences are too blinded by the brands, logos and celebrities, which are the face of the message, to question the authenticity of the infomation.
So is this manipulation? Just like any power or skill, Public Relations can be used for good or bad. We choose where we want to put our skills to use. The information I've learned in my classes, the talented PR professionals I have met and my short experience doing PR for a non-profit, have convinced me that my skills will not go to waste.
So, how would you define Public Relations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
