medium & the message

We all know that in this day and age everything is for sale. I mean, even the space on a someone’s arm is up for grabs. If you haven’t heard, the arm of actress Charlize Theron had a contract with luxury watchmaker Raymond Weil to wear their watches. However, she recently got herself in a bit of trouble. I originally read the article in the National Post but couldn’t access it online. Here are the details.

The idea of endorsement isn’t new. Associating a celebrity’s face with a product is a time honoured tradition of getting people to buy buy buy. But what makes me scratch my head is how responsible are the celebrities to the product itself. For example, Wayne Gretzky does commercials for Ford (among many). Does that mean he can only drive Ford? Technically, it would only make sense. As the consumer, how am I supposed to trust the endorsement if the person endorsing it isn’t using the product? I guess that would mean Britney Spears could only drink Pepsi and Sarah Jessica Parker could only wear clothes from the GAP (until, of course, they get dropped by their respective sponsors).

But, like you and I, celebrities don’t drink one kinda of pop, wear one brand of clothing or drive one type of car. Does it really harm the advertising strategy for the public to see the diversity among the endorsements? Do people actually expect Gretzky to drive a Ford? Is it really that big a deal?

In this particular case it is a big deal. Theron’s contract was meant for her to make Weil THE watch she wears, not A watch she wears. She is undermining the ad campaign if she publicly defies this principle. And that costs Weil a lot of money in bad publicity. Even more bad publicity now that they are suing her. I am curious to know how she is going to defend herself on this one…..

Weil: But Charlize we are paying you millions of dollars to wear our watch.
Charlize: Yeah, but I like this watch.
Weil: But Charlize, we are PAYING you. You signed a CONTRACT.
Charlize: Yeah, well, I signed with Dior as well.
Weil: To wear their watches?
Charlize: No. To look pretty in their perfume ads.
Weil: *&%^$!!!! Then why don’t you just stick to our contract, wear our watch and their perfume?
Charlize: I dunno. I guess it looked better with my outfit.

(this was a dramatization. no celebrities were harmed in the writing of this blog.)

I am feeling a little nostalgic. It is was just over a year ago when I first saw the trailer for Snakes on Plane and fell in love. It’s not often that movies come out like this….soooooo bad but oh so good. Usually, movies are just bad.

It was the movie that got its hype off of blogging. It has a fantastic back story which is hilariously reviewed at radicaltrust.ca.

It reminded me about the time I bought the DVD for myself. It was a little more than a month ago that it was released. The cover was cardboard with raised bumps to make the paper feel like snake skin. Best of all, Blockbuster was giving away a 27 inch gummy-worm snake with each purchase! This sealed the deal.

When I went home, I wanted to see if this gummy-snake really was 27 inches. So, my friends and I got out the tape measure and stretched it out…it reached over 5 feet long just before it broke (see picture). The best part was how tasty it was. The best candy ever.

As good as that candy was did it make me buy the movie? No, and I don’t think it would really influence anyone else. If it doesn’t entice me to buy then what is it for? As a “thank you” for buying this DVD? I thought that’s what i was supposed to do in the store anyway. Y’know, buy stuff.

Truthfully, even the smallest promotional tools should be thought out. Was it really worth it, financially? It would only be worth it if the money made on how many more people bought the movie because of the gummies is more than the cost of the gummies. Got it? Allow me to simplify:

A X B =C

but if B=0, then ?

Then Blockbuster wasted their time and money. But I don’t care because I loved those worms.

photo tuesday: laughter

MYTH: If you do enough informational interviews you will land yourself a killer job.
TRUTH: False. Informational interviews are NOT job interviews and should never be used as such.

Sure, every young PR flack has been told of the gleaming qualities of doing info. interviews. Unfortunately, not many of us have been told how to properly have one. Unfortunately, many disguise themselves as interested individuals, only to really be seeking one thing: employment.

Julie Rusciolelli, founder and president of PR agency MAVRICK and author of the blog Voice from the PR Maven, seems to have run into many of these types of interviews. She brings up a good point, “How much information do you need about MAVERICK that’s not already out there?” [by 'out there' she means the Internet]

When did Google become such a qualified measure of research? [You hear it all the time, when people say "I looked it up"...it really means they just Googled it] Don’t get me wrong, I love Google, but it can really only take you so far. You can’t get out of the Internet what you can get out of real time.

For starters, you can see/hear the flicker of passion when someone talks about their work; you can learn what the culture is of their office/agency; you can better decide whether this person could be an adversary; is this someone you can trust? And most importantly, is this someone you could work with in the future? Much like in the world of PR you build relationships.

Of course, in turn, you hope that they gain the same knowledge of you. It may not be for a job, directly, but I’m sure if both of us work in the same industry, in the same area, it is likely that our paths will cross. Is it such a bad thing that I want to intimately get to know the industry I want to work in? Personally, I’m already employed, am not looking for alternate employment and I still do informational interviews.

I was continuously surprised to read that she would prefer us to use the cold, hard informal way of the Internet, when just a couple of posts ago she was commending people for doing business the “old-fashioned way” - snail mail instead of e-cards and phone calls instead of emails [which I agree with]. How is this so different? It’s not.

I understand that many people do use the guise of the ‘information’ interview to get their foot in the door. It really speaks volumes of their character when they can’t be upfront and honest. It’s unfortunate that these incidences could sour such fun networking path for me. I, also, am weary of mingling and meeting new people but it is a wonderful feeling to sit among minds that have such similar interests and such a breadth of knowledge. It is refreshing to have the opportunity to chat with people way smarter than me. And it can be some of the most educational conversations I could have, none of which could ever occur on the Internet.

So, Julie, thanks for letting me know you like organic chamomile tea. I may find myself in the situation where that would be good to know.