Probably not … but it seems like it would be a good way to introduce your brand to people that will soon be buying houses and appliances with their new-found income.
My apologies for the blurry pictures.
This is from www.birdflubreakingnews.com.
Kind of makes you wonder about using internet sources. Who's actually writing all of this stuff? Well it turns out that it's me. Don't be jealous.
See my previous post to read all about my bird flu expertise.
Used by some guy being interviewed on the news. A more pleasant way to say "if any of these chickens get Bird Flu we're going to destroy them."
How wonderfully Orwellian.
The recent eruption of my sinus cavities was severe enough to get me to the store to pick up some Sudafed. I haven't purchased Sudafed in a few years, so I was surprised to find that if you want Sudafed you have to grab a card from the medicine aisle, take it to the store pharmacy, and then show your ID to get entered into some database. This is all to prevent Sudafed from being turned into Meth. My first thought was that Sudafed must be losing a ton of money on this. There are a lot of other medicines on the shelf that alleviate the same symptoms in different ways. I wonder how many pick something else rather than be inconvenienced.
Then I remembered the Meth campaign that Venables Bell did for the Montana Meth Project, and then I remembered why it was so important to put Sudafed behind the counter. Check out the ads that were done for this. They have been incredibly effective, probably because they scare the hell out of people.
Here's some of the print work:
Malcolm Gladwell recently posted about the problems of finding out deeper information in focus group type scenarios. Jason Oke, a senior planner at Leo Burnett in Toronto, responded with the following. I think it's really important to keep this in mind when doing research:
I think, as I gather you do, that how we feel about a brand,
and which products and services we choose, is usually explained by a
fantastically complex set of factors: the brands our parents used, the
brands we see people around us use, the image of the brand, our
personal experience with it, a sale, a half-remembered ad from 10 years
ago, and so on. This is probably best explained as a story – we may
both buy Tide, but there's a different narrative that brought each of
us to pick it up.
But in market research, the answers people
give sound more like conventions: "It's a good value", "my family likes
it", "it tastes good." And it seems that because of the artificiality
of the situation, the perils of introspection, etc, most market
research actually encourages people to answer in conventions, and
doesn't encourage the telling of stories. Many of these stories are
probably complex and deeply buried such that they are hard to
consciously access anyway.