Some people watch the Super Bowl for the game; others watch it for the commercials. In fact, the commercials are one of the biggest draws of the Super Bowl, especially for the non-sports fanatics of the world. The hype surrounding the 10 second teaser of the Ferris Bueller inspired Honda commercial has been phenomenal. TV-goers immediately took to Twitter to dissect, speculate and rate the clip. It spread like wildfire over the Internet and through social media networks.

Realizing how social media has changed the way fans enjoy the game, Mullen, Radian6 and Boston.com are sponsoring Brand Bowl 2012, a social media event that will analyze the Twitter commentary and rate the most popular and disastrous Super Bowl commercials. The virtual event at BrandBowl2012.com will feature an up-to-the-minute stream of tweets about Super Bowl commercials to determine which brands are the most and least effective. The brands will be ranked based on volume (who has the most/least chatter) and sentiment (who has the most/least positive and negative comments).

Were you always picked last in dodgeball, baseball or soccer? Don’t worry about it. You don’t need to be recruited to play in the Brand Bowl. The power to rank commercials you liked best, or least, is in the palm of your hand – or really, fingertips!

For those of you who plan to tweet your opinions about this year’s Super Bowl commercials, include the hashtag #brandbowl or reference a specific commercial in your tweet. The tweets will be streamed live on Boston.com during the game.

Brands are beginning to realize the influence the armchair advertising critics of the world have in the social media realm. The savviest brands are recognizing the power of social media and are releasing their commercials before the Super Bowl to build buzz online, and are orchestrating large-scale social media campaigns to maximize the impact of their multi-million dollar investments.

Will you be participating in Brand Bowl 2012?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Advertising, Boston.com, Brand Bowl, brands, commercials, Giants, Patriots, Super Bowl, Twitter

Share/Save

Unlike (too) many of my posts, this will be mostly about PR – the PR nightmare resulting from the presidential candidates’ lack of transparency and foresight, and near-terminal indecision, with special attention to Mitt Romney’s PR fumbles.

The quick lesson: if you’re in a public role, either as a business leader or a politician, plan for the worst. PR people can help you: we’re natural-born catastrophizers. We see downside everywhere; it’s part of the job description. First we think of something positive about a client’s products, services and value proposition and then we turn around and attack those assumptions from all angles. It’s the only way to prepare for the tough questions inevitable from the press and, at some point, consumers.

Apparently Mitt Romney thought he was immune from catastrophe. Either that or his PR counsel didn’t worry enough about worst-case scenarios, especially with regard to timing of disclosure of details of his taxes, financial status and the disposition of his investments. Perhaps he was holding the story for the fall when the Democrats would certainly raise a challenge, and his PR counsel went along with it (which seems inexplicable). Whatever. The strategy failed. His own side attacked, making things much easier for the incumbent and making the GOP look like a pack of clowns.

As a mostly-private person I am on Romney’s side. I wouldn’t disclose that information. But he chose a public life, and with the choice comes a diminution of personal rights, especially the right to privacy. (That’s a whole separate subject with Google’s Monday announcement.)

It doesn’t matter that Gingrich soaked Freddie Mac for millions as an ‘historian’ or that John Kerry hides behind Teresa Heinz Kerry and tried to fool people and dodge taxes by berthing his (New Zealand built, for shame) boat in Newport, R.I. It doesn’t matter that the Kennedys built their fortune rum-running, or the Bushes through banking and oil. It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton is cleaning up, post House impeachment and general running around, giving speeches. What matters is Romney was caught flat-footed, and it’s critical for a politician to be on the front foot, anticipating everything.

PR, properly strategized and executed, keeps you on the front foot. It helps you prepare for questions you don’t want to answer. It makes you consider a position from many points of view. No one is immune from catastrophe. Plan accordingly.

Share on Facebook

Share/Save

Our media love scaring us. Whatever the issue, even when the government, allied advocacy groups, and media, are correct about the problem and solution, they can’t help but send a message in such a way that terrifies the general populace into thinking if they don’t do what the “experts” think is best, they will die a slow and painful death.

The newest controversy is about anti-obesity ads targeting children. NPR focuses in on Georgia, a state with the second-highest obesity rate in the nation, where close to 1 million children reportedly obese. The ads show obese children ‘scared’ of what’s happening to them and why they’re fat. Those children are accompanied by graphic images of other fat children or horrible diseases one gets from obesity, such as hypertension. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, which is spending $25 million on a five-year campaign to fight obesity, justified the scary tone it’s setting:

“It has to be harsh. If it’s not, nobody’s going to listen,” says Linda Matzigkeit, vice president of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, the pediatric hospital running the campaign.

Rodney Lyn of Georgia State University’s Institute of Public Health disagrees with the tone of the campaign, saying,

“This campaign is more negative than positive…We know that stigmatization leads to lower self-esteem, potential depression. We know that kids will engage in physical activity less because they feel like they’re going to be embarrassed.”

Both of the individuals are correct. People are naturally lazy, and if they aren’t scared, they won’t do something because they ‘don’t have the time’ (read: interest) in taking care of their health. The result? Millions spent on healthcare that could be saved if they weren’t so fat. That said, Lyn is correct that the campaign is a scare tactic designed to make kids and parents feel if they don’t immediately take action, they will suffer drastically. The fear-mongering is not necessary to inform the public about the dangers of obesity: too much scaring could lead either to more psychological problems, or more visits to the Emergency Room that increase wait time and over exhaust doctors, when those problems could have been solved at home instead.

I personally side with Matzigkeit (names NOT to be tested on the spelling), and say there are times fear-mongering is a good thing. Having just returned from Israel, I can contrast the foods eaten and portion sizes (smaller, more fruits and veggies, more natural) there to America (processed, hormone-injected, larger, more salt) and I felt like I ate much healthier there than I do here. Given the difficulty then of getting people into good eating habits (myself included) is no doubt difficult, but scaring them to take actions that ultimately lower healthcare costs might work.

What do you think? Is it justified for government and advocacy groups to scare people into doing something if it makes a positive difference? Or should they try to educate people rationally and make them see why eating healthier is better, all without fear-mongering?

Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Advocacy group, Atlanta, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia, NPR, Obesity, Public health, United States

Share/Save