Product placement is so ubiquitous that it hardly needs an explanation — the embedding of brands into media that are usually ad-free. It’s hardly a new phenomenon, happening as early as 1873, in Jules Verne’s Around The World in 80 Days, but it has experienced a real evolution. Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future notoriously showed Pepsi as the drink of the future, while Sam Mendes’ upcoming Bond 23 will break records, raking in 1/3 of it’s $135,000,000 budget from product placement.

It can range from the painfully contrived, such as this recent Hawaii 5-0 clip, to the iconic, like the Reese’s Pieces in Spielberg’s E.T. (Fun fact: M&M’s famously declined to be included in the film, citing reservations about the plot.

But just like anything, technology is changing things. What inspired me to re-visit this oft-cited facet of advertising was the relatively new process of inserting new ads into re-runs. The “Big 3″ networks in the United States have begun to sell ad space in their re-aired TV programs. You can see an ad for Kevin James’ auteuristic art-house film Zookeeper in this episode of How I Met Your Mother, originally aired in 2007. I’m generally pretty ambivalent about product placement, especially because I think an increasingly media-literate audience is able to recognize it, but I find something particularly sinister about this method specifically. It’s like advertisers aren’t able to leave the past well enough alone, they’re trying to time-travel advertise. That coupled with the glaring continuity error of advertising a new movie in an episode I know to be a re-run feels like an affront to my intelligence. That being said, I won’t really be bothered until Chiquita forks over the dough to re-brand the Banana Stand in old Arrested Development episodes.

So what do you think? Is product placement a necessary, even beneficial part of the marketing mix, or is it concentrated evil?

Editor’s note: It’s also Sylvie’s birthday today. Enjoy her article, and round out your brilliant comments with some birthday greetings!

By now you may have heard the talk about how engagement levels on brand pages on Facebook are steadily declining. Ad Age reported in Q3 last year that engagement on the Facebook walls of leading brands is down 22%; a scary thought for marketers who are finally comfortable with the platform and are investing more dollars into Facebook apps and community management than ever before.

Many theories exist to try to explain this decline. Some say it’s due to inherent behavioural shifts; others blame it on the idea that Facebook users are jumping ship onto the shiny new Google+ platform. The reality is that Facebook activity overall in Canada is not declining. In fact, Canadian brand pages get 70M+ new fans each month, according to a source from Facebook Canada. So what’s the problem here?

The problem is that many community managers (the person or people responsible for the daily maintenance of the Facebook brand page) are not truly communicating with their fans; many community managers only respond to fans when spoken to and they don’t take advantage of what fans are really saying to them and to each other. This kind of flaky relationship with a brand on Facebook is what leads to declining engagement rates and, eventually, what will cause a brand’s fan count to go down. To reverse this trend, community managers can put an end to superficial dialogue and mine their fans for relevant content.

I’ve seen many brand pages move towards a more effective communication style on Facebook by ending the wall-as-broadcast-channel method and instead using more relevant and relatable wall posts. For example, moving from “[ExampleKitchenBrand] can solve all of your kitchen problems” to “what is your favourite meal to make for Sunday dinner?” Asking fans about what they like and what matters to them in a context that connects to the brand is one way to build a better relationship with fans and should naturally lead to higher engagement.

Another way to maintain or increase engagement levels is to put an end to superficial dialogue. I often see community managers responding directly to fans’ wall posts on brand pages only when it involves answering product-related questions or as a general “thank you” for leaving a comment on the page. This kind of speak-when-spoken-to conversation is superficial and can hardly be considered as proactive communication. The community manager for ExampleKitchenBrand, for instance, can build stronger relationships and a stronger community by making recipe recommendations to individual fans who they know like gourmet nachos or by connecting a group of fans who they know are all interested in cheese graters. These are just a couple of examples of how really knowing your community and putting an end to superficial dialogue can give your Facebook page a boost.

Being that connected to the community also allows community managers to put what their fans are saying to better use. Community managers have a key role as the person with the closest relationship with their best, most loyal customers. Community managers are uniquely positioned to listen to what fans are saying, identify trends, and act on that information. For example, the community manager for [ExampleKitchenBrand] may notice that there is a lot of chatter about pancakes on the wall, identify a trend with flavour infusions and berries, and filter that trend back to the content creation team who can start developing new pancake recipes. This kind of activity allows the group to develop content and messaging that truly meets the needs and interests of their fans and, in turn, increases engagement levels on the brand page.

When it comes down to it, community managers need to treat their fans like they would treat their friends and do more than simply hear and respond. They must become active listeners, interpret and evaluate what their fans are saying, and give their fans what they want and need. Following some of these basic systems of communication means community managers will never be without inspiration for content and, best of all, the brand page will keep fans engaged.

The spot features Brian and Stewie from Family Guy, engaging in an alternate (but nearly verbatim) version of their “Cool Whip” schtick. The spot ends with a super of Wheat Thins’ tagline “Do What You Do,” closing the loop on why the characters are given free rein to do just that. Curiously though, there is no mention of product benefit or attribute. The ad is a pure spoof, playing off a tagline with nebulous meaning. It may be a soft sell, but it has unquestionable entertainment value. The question is, does it make you want to buy crackers?

What do you think? Are ads that tap into cultural vernacular just as effective as hard sell? Is product benefit instrumental to good advertising?

Diehard fanboi or extreme couponer? When it comes to corporate logo tattoos, there are two distinct markets. There are those who do it out of love and loyalty for a brand, and those who do it for (you guessed it) cold hard cash.

If you fall into the later category, today is your lucky day. Ecko is currently running a promo called “Branded for Life.” Simply get their iconic rhino or shears tattooed on your body and you’ll enjoy 20% off for life when you flash your Ecko ink at the checkout.

Makes you wonder if the participants in this promo would be less willing to do it if they had to get the words “Shop Ecko” tattooed on their bodies instead? Do the majority of them even think of this as advertising?

A more extreme example is Karolyne Smith. Does the name ring a bell? Perhaps you’d recognize her if you saw her face. That’s because it has goldenpalace.com tattooed across her forehead. Prime real estate that went for the lofty price of $15,000.

And she’s not the only one. Brent Moffatt did it too.

Then again, these two actually sold the ad space on their heads to the highest bidder on eBay. No brand loyalty required. A pretty solid way to make a quick chunk of change if you ask me. That being said, you won’t be finding my forehead up for auction anytime soon, unless it comes with a lifetime supply of Vichy’s Dermablend.

It’s time to answer that eternal question – which came first, the marketing campaign or the charitable cause?

‘Tis not always clear, is it? Is it? Corporate do-goodery has long been part of a broader strategy for many brands, but it is increasingly becoming “the” strategy. (Many examples abound, which I shall not list here because I’m too lazy.) If one were to examine this (not so recent) phenomenon cynically, one would conclude that brands are supporting causes not for the cause itself but rather for how this “cause-supporting” positively reflects on their brand. But does that matter? Aren’t millions of dollars being made available to charities, eco-groups, etc., to assist in their help-the-planet nice-making? I dunno. But I will say this – clearly there are a lot of people in focus groups declaring they’d prefer to make their purchases from a company that has a charitable presence.

Which in turn begs the real question: when the hell did everyone become so bloody nice?

For a one-to-one dialogue to be useful, you must know who you’re talking to.

There is no shortage of brands looking to strike up one-to-one conversations with their consumers. With new technologies and an “always connected” consumer base it is only logical that brands want to evolve from a mass approach to a more targeted approach. In theory, a well-targeted, personal conversation with an end consumer has a greater chance of driving consideration, preference and ultimately loyalty than a mass approach. Tough to argue with the logic here. But the critical point, which many marketers seem to miss, is that of the communication being well-targeted.

I am sure we have all received misguided email communication from companies and brands. There is the ever-present “thanks for being a customer” email that comes from a company that you have not done business with for a number of years (banks, I am looking at you here). Even better, there is the “switch now and you can get this great deal” email from your existing service provider (over to you, cable companies and telcos) – particularly fun seeing as the deal can’t be honoured because you are an existing customer.

And then there’s the email that prompted this post.

The email in question came from a Ford dealership in California offering me a free car wash for my Expedition, as a way of saying Happy Birthday on my special day.  This would have been a powerful gesture but for a few minor details:

1.  I live in Toronto. California is a long way to go for a free car wash.

2. I do not currently, nor have I ever, owned a Ford Expedition.

3. My birthday is in August not November

This email was sent to me because “you either have bought or serviced your 2005 Expedition VIN# 1FMPU16585LB09XXX at XXXX Ford.  Emails are sent for important events such as service reminders, safety related recall announcements, and special offers in our Service, Parts and Sales Departments.”

As we get more sophisticated in our approach to marketing, we are going to need to get more diligent about checking our facts to ensure that the people we are reaching out to are indeed the people who we are intending to reach.  With this increased capability comes an increased responsibility.  If we are not careful, we run the risk of inverting the desired response with a current or potential consumer. If you buy a TV ad against the wrong target, your dollars are less effective at worst. On the other hand, if you directly target the wrong consumer with an email communication you run the risk of looking completely incompetent.

I have a confession.

When I’m not using Starbucks to up my cool quotient at the office, I’m happy to grab coffee from the first place that doesn’t have a nightmare lineup. Being a coffee agnostic has allowed me to enjoy (read: judge) the brand experience of a few different places.

Over the last few years, one of biggest changes I’ve noticed in coffee is lid engineering. There seems to be a healthy interest in redesigning lids so that they spill less. Pretty good deal. But it’s baffling that one of Canada’s largest coffee suppliers, Tim Hortons, has failed to switch their lids over. In fact, they’ve been pretty mum on the issue, even as it picks up some chatter on blogs and a few news sites. Yes, I’ve done my research.

Ignoring the fiscal or engineering challenges involved, the chatter got me thinking about brand experiences.

Spilled coffee is an inconvenience, but having all of your competitors offer a better solution to this problem is another realm entirely. Ignoring room for improvement to basic offerings moves it into the realm of a failed brand experience.

Think of it this way: between innovating new donuts, marketing, new contest and events, etc. someone forgot the table stakes: the coffee itself and the “on the go” experience in general.

Starbucks and Second Cup are one thing. But when McDonald’s – a “cafe” bandwagon jumper of the first order – even opts to address the issue, Tim Hortons’ omission becomes all the more glaring. They’re the odd-one out in a world where a few innocuous design changes mean the difference between my soggy jeans and actually enjoying my coffee.

Whether Timmy’s wakes up and notices this silent revolution is yet to be seen, but it’s a good, caffeinated reminder that we need to keep our eye on every part of the brand experience — not just the parts that have maple leaf die-cut sprinkles on them.

Attention marketers! Your brand is probably on Facebook, right? And I’ll bet getting “likes” is Priority One because it’s the closest thing you have to a brand relevance barometer. I bet you think the more likes you get, the more you’re in the hearts and minds of consumers. Which in turn gives you permission to fill their news feeds with product information and attempts to create culturally contextual and relevant status updates in the hopes of keeping the dialogue going. Right? Maybe. Up to a point.

But for most brands in the social space, the conversation is decidedly one-sided. Or in the case of the lucky ones where it IS two sided, it’s actually “bilaterally unilateral.” (I just made that up). You talk about what you want. Your consumer talks about what they want. But you pass like ships in the night.

This is a missed opportunity that can actually a negative impact on brand equity, the very thing you are trying to bolster on Facebook. While it takes very little effort for a consumer to “like” your brand, it does take effort to write on your wall or post picture or a video. And when you ignore it, it’s like ignoring a complement; a virtual slap in the face. The inverse is also true. If you take the time to like your fans’ posts, nurture the friendship, even write comments, their love for you will grow exponentially.

I speak from personal experience. There have been numerous times when I have posted videos and pictures to the wall of some of my favourite brands. Usually, it’s me using the product along with a comment about how much I love it. Only twice has a brand bothered to respond. And let me tell you, when it DID, I was really happy about it. So kudos to you, Big Green Egg Canada and Memphis Drum Shop. Thank you for liking me back. You’ve done more than validate my existence. You’ve reinforced why I “liked” you.

Now I know what you’re thinking. It’s not cheap to put resources against Facebook community management. But ask yourself what true loyalty is worth. If you are serious about participating in the social space, then take it seriously. Develop a community management strategy, please. Mine your wall for insights. Respond to consumers. Play to Facebook’s strengths: being social and creating dialogues.

And for those brands who ignored my posts of good will in the past? You can go to hell.

You’re in the middle of the cosmetics/electronics/frozen foods aisle, scoping things out. Suddenly a trigger goes off somewhere in your cerebrum. “Wait,” you think to yourself, “isn’t that the brand my best friend raves about?”

We’re a new generation, we’re hyper-connected and savvy about the information we consume. But the fact is that the most credible source of persuasion comes from those you trust: your friends and your family. That’s why word of mouth is the best kind of marketing. It’s honest and personal.

When consumers are weighing their options, how do you leverage the positive word of mouth influence that gets consumers to reach for your brand?

Meet the YouTube influencer.

There’s a sense of trust that comes with seeing an average person demonstrate the use of product without all the sparkle and shine of a professional shoot. The personal nature of the communications has an added layer of credibility. We believe the person is speaking honestly and is unlikely to have an ulterior motive. We believe them to be ‘regular’ people like you or I. YouTube does a great job of creating a sense of community and connecting you to the person you’re watching.

While a few brands have tested the waters with YouTube influencers, only a few have done it well. Take Michelle Phan, for example. She’s a 24-year old art student living in Florida, who used to work part-time as a server in a sushi restaurant – and she’s the number 1 most subscribed woman on YouTube with over a million subscribers. Phan made her YouTube debut in late 2006 with her beauty tutorials and has since posted over 135 videos.

Eager to leverage the power of Phan’s subscriber base and tap into the younger mindset Lancôme hired Phan as their official video artist. Co-branding a line with the YouTube sensation and having her incorporate Lancôme products in her videos has helped infuse youth back into a brand that was spiraling towards the archaic.

The key to partnering with a YouTube influencer is that the content must continue to engage users, but in an organic way. The positive buzz needs to be injected into conversations directly. The desired end goal is that consumers feel like they can trust the influencer as they would a friend.

Food for Thought: How can we organically create positive ‘word of mouth buzz’ and help our brands to become more trusted among consumers? Is there a way to transform the positive impacts influencers can have on brand image into measurable results?