At this point in time, practicality is very top-of-mind for consumers. Rising gas prices, climate change, and the economy have consumers looking for vehicles that will meet their needs and desires, while being light on their pocketbooks and friendly to the planet.

But I’d argue that buying a car is almost always an emotional decision. There’s a reason that car marketers appeal to the emotional aspect of driving – the freedom, the luxury, the comfort, the perks. The car on the lot that tickles your imagination will likely be the one you drive off in. No matter how we try, what we feel about a car will ultimately influence our decisions.

At first glance, these forces seem opposing, but they are not mutually exclusive. This is the way I approached this year’s Auto Show.

Now, I’m in the market for a new car myself. I would like something fun and sporty, light on emissions and roomy enough for my family. I wanted to see which manufacturers presented their offerings in a way that moved me, while making me feel like I was being practical in my search. Here are the three major brands that did it right at the Auto Show, and the three that disappointed me.

Those who showed up:

Honda
Full disclosure, Honda is a client of ours. But that’s not the only reason why I felt they stepped up to the plate. Honda seemed to respect the consumer better than anyone else. They showed off their models in the context they would actually get used. The Civic, Accord, and CR-Z were fully decked out in high-end aftermarket audio equipment. The SUVs, crossovers, and other vehicles were displayed with stuffed trunks. All this was combined with a spacious floor area, great lighting, and a really warm, yet forward-thinking feel.

GM
Chevy brought me back to a time when the muscle car was king with their museum-like approach. They didn’t cleave to newer models, preferring instead to show off the legacy Camaros and Firebirds from the 50s and 60s right up to the present day. These classics were presented alongside the various model versions of the 2011 and 2012 Camaro. For a good 20min I was convinced my next car was going to be a Camaro. Then I sat in one. The trim level was similar to that of an ‘87 Hyundai Pony.

Nissan
The people that were manning the much smaller Nissan booth were friendly and passionate about their vehicles. They knew everything about the vehicles they were selling, from BHP to cup holder specs. They were also armed with arguments as to why each vehicle could provide bang for your buck.

Those who let down:

Volkswagon
Great brand, but their booth felt like an IKEA show room with no one in it. As the lone person walking through the expanse, I was approached by a CSR. The pitch? I give them my personal information, right down to my mailing address, and in exchange, I will be entered into a draw for a laptop bag and coffee mug. Needless to say, I left.

Ford
This is a company trying really hard to bring value and looks to the market. I was expecting a strong presentation from the once-proud giant. What I got was lack of rhyme or reason, bad lighting, and a magician drawing the crowd away from the cars to show card tricks.

Toyota
I like Toyota, but was disappointed that they only showed their 2012 line-up. No more, no less. Their 7-seat Prius looks exactly like their 5-seat Prius. Which, come to think of it, resembled pretty much everything else. I felt it was worse than generic, it was transparent.

With the exception of a tuned version of the odd $250k Mercedes, most manufacturers treated the Auto Show like an extension of a showroom. In the end, I was surprised at the lack of focus on both the practical and the passionate.

If technology or pageantry are on reserve, then auto marketers would do well to remember why consumers are coming in the first place – their love of cars.

When winter comes I find myself watching a lot more sports on TV than usual. It’s not just that the weather’s cold, but there also happens to be the Super Bowl, hockey and March Madness. And while watching one of these many games, in particular a recent hockey game, I noticed an increasing trend in sports television sponsorship.

We’re already exposed to a great deal of ads in sports, but the other night I discovered that the Washington Capitals weren’t on a power play, they were on a TurboTax Power Play. It immediately caught my attention because my friend and I looked at each other and said almost simultaneously “the what power play?” It’s not that I object to parts of sports games being sponsored – far from it, but it did get me thinking: where exactly does it end?

We already have things like the Budweiser Cable Cam in the Super Bowl and the Jobing.com hockey arena, but those aren’t part of the game itself. If power plays are being sponsored, how soon until every sports play becomes branded?

Passes brought to you by FedEx?

Touchdowns sponsored by Mr. Big?

Home runs courtesy of a Acme Fencing Co.?

I’m willing to accept that pro athletes and sports broadcasters make exorbitant salaries these days and money needs to be made in order to pay them, but at what cost to the game? How much branding can we take before it borders on the parody we saw in Baseketball? Watching sports might feel as stupid as that movie. I fear that if every part of a sport I love gets sponsored, I’m not going to be all that interested in watching it anymore.

It would be really hard to cheer for the Maple Leafs if they ever won a championship again and the trophy they received was the Eggo Waffles Stanley Cup.

Ed. note: In a curious turn of events, two Grippers unexpectedly wrote on two aspects of a similar subject this week. So now, a second (and slightly more musical) look at novel uses of teasers.

______________________________________________________________

When you think about it, film trailers may be the best part of the movie theatre experience. Short, sweet, exciting. Stirring music paired with the better (and sometimes the only good) parts of the movie. Recently, I’ve started to notice the music world adapting this idea too. Allow me to introduce you to the music video teaser.

Traditionally, music videos are just the length of an average song – a short format glimpse into an artist’s world. In some ways, they bolster the artist’s brand, and act as an ad for a multitrack album. In a similar way that brands ran previews for Super Bowl ads this year. the music industry has taken to building hype by releasing ads for music videos.

The first music video teaser to make a huge splash last year was for Kanye West’s song “Monster.” The video has all but disappeared from the Interwebs (including Kanye’s page), and can only be found on random blogs and YouTube pages. The teaser, created by HipHopConnection.com, took the form of a 40-second short film, featuring clips of Kanye, Jay-Z, Nicki Minaj and Rick Ross – as well as a series of somewhat over-the-top images of Kanye rapping. The upshot: everyone from Perez Hilton to MTV to news outlets in Australia were talking about Kanye’s misogynistic, racist, shocking, awesome, genius upcoming video before it even came out.

It did the trick: Get the press, build the hype and get millions of hits on your video on release day. That being said, I still like the Muppet version better.

Most recently, a music video teaser has been released for Britney Spears’ upcoming video for “Hold it Against Me”. Being Britney’s first single since…well, let’s just say that finding footing with any audience is key. Her first teaser was timed to release at 13 days to the launch of her video on YouTube. The curious piece? The teaser itself has over 1 million hits.

I’m impatient, but must admit that anticipation sometimes trumps the actual event. Whether or not the videos for Kanye and Britney are valuable artist experiences is almost beside the point. They are very measurable ways of determining public reception of the track – and very tangible ways to get people talking.

Advertisers refer to a mysterious, enigmatic “clutter” that must be broken through. Naturally, after spending time and money on a project, the last thing you want is for your work to be overlooked – especially if the project in question is a multi-million dollar Superbowl spot. Whereas the work used to have to speak for itself, there has been an intriguing new trend: advertisers promoting their work before it is released.

In other words, advertisers are now advertising for their upcoming advertising.

Super Bowl spots have hype built into their placement. This year, however, we saw a few spots that offers up trailers before they even aired. Pre-game teasers were released weeks in advance, and brands told their audiences to “watch for our Superbowl ads.” The 60-second “Wild West” Budweiser spot was preceded by a 15-second sneak preview titled “Giddy Up” that was released a week earlier. Groupon released a teaser about a Groupon addict that was twice the length of their much-derided (and, eventually, pulled) spot.

Of course, teasing content in the same way motion pictures do presupposes that advertising is content worth advertising. You’re not likely to see teasers for a furniture blowout sale tout, but you would see them for something of surpassing story value or craftsmanship. Even more so now that advertisers are looking more and more at the possibilities of branded entertainment.

Take the example of branded short-filmmaking. Hugely popular in the fashion and automotive industries, this form of communication combines brand values with the art and entertainment value of film. Great examples include: BMW’s “The Hire”, Louis Vuitton’s “Hide & Seek” and, I’d argue, Tom Ford’s feature length film “A Single Man.”

Prior to launching branded shorts, it has become common for companies to circulate online trailers to promote the film. Previous to the release of the trailer, footage is often leaked intentionally to media outlets. Before you know it, the impending short-film – fundamentally an advertisement – has its own media buy, press release, movie trailer, and trailer teasers.

The creative pieces we produce are what we have to offer audiences. The goal should be for an audience to buy into a brand for the artistry of its communications. In the case of branded content, advertising is adopting the attributes of longer-format entertainment pieces. But does spending huge amounts of time and money on your typical mass campaign mean you should promote the shit out of it? In one camp, advertisers should aim to have the work stand on its own. On the other hand, there’s an argument for giving the message more of a fighting chance.

Is the promotion of advertising just part of a healthy integrated campaign? Or just milking it?