The new Lexus campaign with Kylie, nobody really cares how silent their car is!

Usually car manufacturers emphasize power, speed and style in their cars. BMW will always be "the Ultimate Driving Machine". Technological advances in these areas will always be emphasised in advertising; Audi will continue to proclaim "Vorsprung durch technik". But now something new is moving to forefront of the consumers’ mindset; well let’s just say a segment of the consumer market. The environment; fuel efficiency and environmentally friendly practices have become more important to a segment of the market. Gas guzzlers are frowned upon and in recessionary times fuel efficiency has become more of a concern. You may be asking, what has all this to do with Lexus and their new ad campaign? Well their new ad campaign features their new brand ambassador. It’s not Eminem, who now fronts a Chrysler and it’s not James Bond who has supported BMW in the past; two "luxury" car rivals. It’s Kyle Minogue. The emphasis is not on the powerful engine, the style and performance traditionally emphasised with luxury cars it’s about the fuel efficiency of Hybrid cars and more importantly unlike the sound many men desire in a car, that monstrous rev of an engine, it emphasises silence and being almost unheard. To me the ad is too directed at women but that seems to be the target market for Hybrid vehicles. I just think the ad while certainly portraying environmentally sound values could emphasize the performance element more. I think this would entice a wider market segment. This ad is too targeted at the female consumer, it’s a decent car but by no means luxury, and let’s face it, we all want performance from our cars and anyone who knows cars knows that while they may be silent and kind to the environment Hybrids, including this Lexus, don’t offer the performance one would expect for the price they command. I think by going with Kyle Minogue, Lexus have pretty much said to the market were going after women who don’t really care about performance but care about the environment and driving the most “noise pollution” friendly car available, as if anyone cares that their car doesn’t make a sound, in fact I want my car to be heard revving through the streets as I listening to Kyle on my itrip, afterall I just spent over €15,000 on it!

Stella Artois' New Cider a serious risk to Bulmers/ Magners?

Stella Artois has decided to try and combat the growing number of beer drinkers lost to the over-ice cider segment in the UK by moving into the category with a new product extension; Stella Artois Cidre. This will be the first time a major lager brand has extended into this segment and the drink will be primarily aimed at affluent consumers aged between 20 and 30. The move is going to be backed by a new advertising campaigns s well as point of sale promotions in the coming months. Whether the brand can challenge Heineken owned Bulmers and Magners within the market is questionable however due to a distinct lack of consumer association between the brand name and cider. It will be interesting to follow the development of this link by the Stella in the coming months. I for one see this as a dangerous move as it will be extremely costly to penetrate this market place and the Bulmers brand itself has already found this market difficult enough to command in terms of profitability, particularly outside of the UK. I guess only time will tell how popular a high end cider labelled with a lager brand will be. I dont think Bulmers/ Magners position is under threat just yet!

Sean Wiemann

Irish Mail on Sunday, Sunday prank or completly unethical

Readers of the Irish Mail on Sunday might have noticed a slight change in the format of this morning’s edition, as the paper decided to take a swipe at almost down and out rival Sunday Tribune. It follows on from my previous post whereby the former has announced it will cease publication until the company has been sold and a new owner is put in place. I think that for the Irish Mail on Sunday while it may be a good media stunt it certainly screams out trashy, tabloid lacking in morals and character to me. I believe any serious newspaper relies on the standing and legitimacy of its writers and the articles they produce while this kind of stunt is left to the lesser tabloids who don’t sell on the basis of legitimacy but on gossip, rumour and sensationalism. To me this stunt is unnecessary, lacking in class and a clear kick to the side, from one editor to a struggling rival lying on the floor. I certainly wouldn’t buy a paper lacking in basic decency and integrity, which the Irish Mail on Sunday clearly does.

Sean Wiemann

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/irish-mail-on-sunday-uses-tribune-masthead-for-readers-of-the-sunday-tribune-2011-02/#slide-slideshow1

The beginning of the end for traditional Newspapers? Sunday Tribune ceases publication for 4 weeks.

Following on from my post regarding the Kindle and the possible beginning of the end for the traditional hardbook in the U.S RTE reported yesterday that the Sunday Tribune, owned in part  by Independent News and Media empire, would cease publication for the next four weeks. This follows a continuous decline in readership and more significantly massive debt accumulation. INM has invested up €40 million to date in the publication which continues to make losses. For me the most significant contribution to this decline is not only that people are buying less newspapers with the advent of free online news publications, which is true;. But it must also be considered that considering the global economic downturn advertising, a major source of income for the industry, is down. Social media which costs next to nothing to develop is proving far more cost efficient than traditional broadsheet advertising; particular when you consider that a majority of target audiences are now getting their news online. So just as intimated with the kindle is this the beginning of the end for a number of staple publications within the Irish market? Will more and more newspapers simply abandon print, and restructure to purely online publications? I personally hope not. For me reading the news on your iphone, laptop or blackberry (if your lucky enough to have one or all three) simply isn’t the same as the feel of a good newspaper. I guess the only ones happy about such a development would be the opticians!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0202/sundaytribune.html

Yves Saint Laurent ‘Belle d’Opium

I recently came across the new Yves Saint Laurent’s “Belle d’Opium” ad. At first it seems rather like your traditional perfume advertisement; not very imaginative. An attractive model posing provocatively accompanied by some dramatic music shot in a short sequence ending in a tagline. However, there is a slight twist. The woman within the sequence suggestively simulates the injection of opiates into her veins followed by her falling to the floor uttering the tagline: “I am your addiction, I am Belle D'Opium. The new fragrance by Yves Saint Laurent.” This has led to the ad being banned by the ASA prior to releaseThe ad pretty much spells out the brand name. But for me the most significant thing is not that the ad got banned, which would seem obvious enough but that the ad agency which created the ad thought they would get away with it. Which leads to ask: how much is too much? Where do we as the public draw the line when it comes to what is acceptable to show in the advertisements shown on TV. It’s clear to me that pushing the boundaries is something which all advertisers will aim to do and I’m sure that Yves Saint Laurent have shot this ad without the the controversial element. This ad will probably run in a slightly altered format; I would just pose the questions: did they really think this would get through the ASA? How far is too far in advertising? And I suppose more importantly is this what Yves Saint Laurent as a brand now stands? If it is hinting at the seedy past of its failed fashion houses, which were closed in 2002, an interesting story for future reading for those interested, then the ad is brilliantly relevant but perhaps a bit late!

Amazon Kindle e-book downloads outsell paperbacks in the U.S; will Kindle downloads spell the end for the old paperback?

Amazon has announced that in the US it sold more e-books for its Kindle device than it sold paperback books in the last three months of 2010.But its profit margins were down as it spent money on discounting, acquisitions and building new depots. Amazon shares fell 9% in after-hours trading as its sales were not as good as Amazon announced that in the US since the start of the year it had sold 115 “e-book” downloads for every 100 paperback books, even excluding its downloads of free books.But it stressed that sales of paperback books were also growing. It has not said how many of its Kindle devices it has sold, but did say that they had overtaken the final book in the Harry Potter series to become the top-selling item in Amazon's history.

So does this development present us with the beginning of the end of the old paperback? Will the days of the traditional bookstore become a thing of the past?

 I certainly hope not, give me an old coffee stained book any day! While I love the concept of the Kindle and the ability to hold a number of books in a handheld device, in an age where most of us spend half our time in front of laptops, computers or TV screens there is a certain level of calm and serenity associated with sitting down in a warm room reading a good book. I for one cannot see devices such as the Kindle replacing the book in the next 25 years as there will be enough of us who grew up with books to keep it alive but I fear for the future of the book in say 50 years when the new generation who has grown up with the advent of the kindle and such devices takes control and pushes the book into the past.

Amazon have recognised a change in the market and have accurately identified a new breed of consumer; but I hope there will always be a place in the market for those of us who enjoy reading the old fashioned way, the way it was suppose to be from the good old paperback.

Sean Wiemann

Link to article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12305015

Richard and Andy, lads just being lads or just plain unacceptable sexism

As an avid football fan weekends will never be the same again without hearing classic lines, bellowed out in that familiar Scottish accent, such as: "take a bow son!!"

Can this be accepted as just "off the cuff banter" amongst two men talking football; the kind of talk that would go on in any pub or bar across the UK and Ireland, or is it different?

Looking at it from the viewpoint of Sky as an organisation, I'm left with no option. This kind of thing can’t be seen to be associated with an established brand. Sky already battles with a reputation tarnished by squeezing out the little guy, having an owner who has a more than questionable personal history and a decade of high prices and market domination forcing a product upon the consumer.

Andy Gray and Richard Keys in no uncertain terms have made the Sky Sports brand, whose foundations lie around football, what it is today. They are recognised by aficionados of the game as the best around and will not be easily replaced.

All this being said it pains me to say that I'm glad Sky took a stand the football community as a whole suffers from a reputation of sexism and homophobia and this kind of thing only adds to making it seem more acceptable to the masses. While I respect Andy Gray as a pundit his personal character and values seem questionable at best!

Sorry lads but I'm with the women on this. In today’s culture and on this kind of global medium there is no place for this type of unprofessionalism and I dare were this the U.S Andy Gray would not be suing Sky the lawsuits would becoming the other way and fast!

Sean Wiemann