Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to top

Top

Innovative Marketing

| On 01, Jan 2010

Message: 224
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Thursday, 1st February 2007


Following up on the discussion of innovation in marketing –

The Turner Corp's stunt in Boston seems to be an innovative marketing campaign – gone wrong potentially in the eyes of the law – it's brought worldwide attention to it's new cartoon.


Message: 229
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Saturday, 3rd February 2007


Are you refering to the magnetic signs?


Message: 233
Posted by: Fabio Pesenti
Posted on: Sunday, 4th February 2007


I think yes, it was initially thought they were bombs


Message: 234
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Sunday, 4th February 2007


I don't know about magnetic – I thought they were electronic?


Message: 235
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Sunday, 4th February 2007


Kelly,

My understanding is they attached to things with magnets and were powered by electricity.

I am not sure why you consider it a stunt. It had been done in two other major cities without the reaction that happened in Boston. It would definately be questionable to create a sign that had a cartoon character making an obscene jesture but the Boston reaction had to be a surprise for Turner Corporation. The idea of arresting the two guys that hung the signs is certainly an over reaction.

Back to the original question – I see it as innovative. Create a new method of advertising – it is like portable graffiti you don't have to wash off and you can sell it on eBay.

It fits the definition that was dicussed for innovation.

Regards


Message: 236
Posted by: Kelly
Posted on: Sunday, 4th February 2007


Mike,

I think that what they did was a pretty classic stunt. I double-checked with dictionary.com and found this definition: any remarkable feat performed chiefly to attract attention. Although “remarkable feat” is debatable, it was certainly design chiefly to attract attention. It just attracted the wrong attention in Boston.

Interesting to think about innovation in relation to marketing, though, because the benefits from marketing can be hard to quantify. In this case, the goal of the innovation is to attract attention. Is innovative success measured by viewers, by advertisers OR by that “Q” rating – name recognition, association? Or a combination thereof?

Kelly


Message: 238
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Monday, 5th February 2007


Kelly,

I would have to believe that any marketing effort that didn't attract attention would be a failure in terms of marketing? Remarable feat is one of those subjective things that don't mean much unless you are at a NBA game.

I might even understand some of the Bostonian reaction but when you have cracked 5 or 10 open and there isn't anything inside it is time to ease up on the public and back the alert moodstone ring down to a blue or puple.

I have worked with some good marketing people and a whole lot more bad. I have never figured out if the good ones were just clarvoiant or had some secret source of data.

Regards