Telescopic Explosion Mascara. This is the name of the product that was being featured in the: 30 TV spot that interrupted whatever slice of network or cable broadcasting that I was semi-engrossed in. I’m not sure what I was watching at the time. But no doubt I was drawn in to some programming that boasted women 25-54 as part of its demo. Otherwise I never would have had the opportunity to even know that something called Telescopic Explosion Mascara even existed.

Now, I’m the first to admit that I am not a member of the “target-audience.” I don’t really care about mascara, or make-up in general. I am, however, sometimes provoked by hair-replacement promises or products guaranteed to make you look and feel younger than you really are. But what 50+ guy isn’t?

So I digested the: 30 message as an un-informed, disinterested, innocent by-stander.
Telescopic Explosion Mascara.
hmmm……
That’s some name.

Telescopic Explosion Mascara is made by L’Oreal. Even though it sounds like it was made by Al Qaeda. I couldn’t help but wonder how on earth this product made to enhance the beauty of its hopeful users had a moniker that conjured up, for me, sci-fi movies and nifty spy gadgets. (Right now I can hear “M” telling Bond to be very careful when handling the Telescopic Explosion Mascara.).

I have no doubt that this name emerged from some very sound thinking. Telescopic likely represents the physical device itself. From what I can gather, this product can (and does) extend much like a telescope. Makes sense. The Explosion? Well, my guess is that this word is intended to capture the remarkable, (downright explosive!) improvement in eyelash beauty. Makes sense. And Mascara is a classic “have-to.” Always tell folks what product is in the aforementioned telescope. Makes sense, too. But put it all together and what’ve you got?

Telescopic Explosion Mascara.
I repeat. That’s some name.

So now I’m really curious. Do people like this thing - this exploding mascara? Apparently the answer is (as it is for virtually every product) yes and no. From a no-good “sea-urchin on a stick” to “Awesome – doesn’t clump” (It’s amazing what you can learn on sites like MakeUpAlley.com). To be candid, I found no real patterns in all the social media commentary about Telescopic Explosion Mascara, except for one; there are no mentions of explosions, positive or negative, of any kind.

Alas, maybe I am just a person who is out of his mascara league and can never fully appreciate the powerful pull of a name like Telescopic Explosion Mascara. Or perhaps am just to too anal, logical or linear. In fact, maybe I’m over thinking this name thing entirely. After all, my teenage daughter listens to bands with names like “Neutral Milk Hotel”. And, wait a minute; my wife buys shoes from something called “Zappo’s”. And, hold on, I “Google” everyday.

All of sudden, Telescopic Explosion Mascara seems like a pretty straightforward name to me. Even if it does seem like the perfect gift for Miss Moneypenny. So what’s in a name anyway? I guess, whatever you want to make of it. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Welcome to FarmVille. If you’re not already playing it, your Facebook friends are.



While you were checking your friend requests, social gaming has become one of the fastest growing activities on the web.

According to a study just released from Information Solutions Group (ISG), nearly a quarter of all US and UK consumers now play social games regularly. This is a significant audience of 100 million in just these two countries. With their own currencies, relationships, and, yes, farms, social gamers represent a significant segment of the social network universe.

The most popular social games are, Farmville (69% of all social gamers who play Farmville say they play once a week or more), Bejeweled® Blitz (65%), Texas Hold’em Poker (63%), Cafe World (61%) and Mafia Wars (59%).

So who is the social gamer? Well, contrary to popular stereotypes she’s a 43 year old woman. Hardly the teenager stuck in his room playing Halo3. In fact more than 80% of social gamers state that playing social games strengthens their relationship with friends, family and colleagues. “Social gaming reinforces the core appeal of social networks,” according to Robin Boyer, Founder and Principle of research and strategy firm, Think Tank. With over $1Billion being projected to be spent in this area this year, social gaming is no longer an emerging channel. It’s mainstream.

“Service” is becoming an endangered species in the consumer goods and services arena, as companies try to manage their way back to profitability. They’re squeezing us into tighter spaces and charging more for what used to be included in the purchase price. Regardless of the industry, it’s the same playbook. Somehow customers have become a given in the minds of these companies. Either consumers have stopped talking, or these brands have stopped listening. Given the fact that the number of blogs tracked by Technorati has doubled since 2007 (to over 133 million), my sense is it’s the latter.



There is, however, somebody out there who keeps getting it right; Sir Richard Branson, who has a habit of re-inventing every industry he touches. From aviation and health clubs, to media and beverages, it’s as though Sir Richard has a patent on success in a range of categories that have little to do with one another.

I heard Sir Richard speak at an event in Boston and during his remarks he revealed his (not so) secret formula. He looks for categories where the bar has been set low - categories with a tradition of under-serving the customer - and then enters the market with a service approach that seems nothing short of revolutionary. But is it really revolutionary?

The “innovations” that have made Sir Richard rich and famous are the very things that companies are taking away from their customers today. How many of Sir Richard’s competitors heard requests for more legroom, more titles, more pampering in every focus group they ever conducted? (But never did anything in response?) Sir Richard’s revolutionary re-sculpting of every industry he touches is based on the basic principal of listening to the customer and giving them what they want.



Sir Richard recently announced that his online lending service - Virgin Money - is going into the banking business; not just with an online offering, but with real live retail branches as well. Perfect timing! Can you think of a category that has lost touch with its customer-base more than banking? Virgin Money will most likely have little impact on community banks (and mutual banks in particular) that never lost sight of who they serve. For big banks, however, it’s a different story. Much has been written about their failure to connect with their customers on any level other than convenience. Despite the fact that the Branson Empire spans the globe, he’s never lost touch with his customers at a local level.

To prove my point, it wasn’t enough for Mr. Branson to launch a better airline; knowing that one in three air travelers experience anxiety when flying, Virgin Air launched an iPhone app last November to help travelers reduce that anxiety. Early returns show that the app has a 98% effective rating. Research shows that many folks are intimidated by the big bank experience. My money is on Virgin Money to provide the cure. No doubt the app to reduce banking anxiety will follow shortly.

Allen & Gerritsen’s 7th annual Meaningful Messages Super Bowl Ad survey ranks commercials by performance, not popularity. The survey gets to the heart of the matter: “Do you buy it?” In other words, do the ads have meaning and will you be persuaded into buying the product advertised?

Our survey found the most and least meaningful ads to be:

Most Meaningful Super Bowl Ads (Consumers “buy it”)
1. Snickers, Betty White
2. Denny’s, Chickens Across America
3. Anheuser Busch, Fences (The Clydesdale ad)
4. HomeAway.com, Griswold Trailer
5. Hyundai, 10 Years/Favre

Least Meaningful Super Bowl Ads (Consumers don’t “buy it”)
1. GoDaddy, News
2. Bridgestone, Your Tires or Your Life
3. Vizio, Forge
4. GoDaddy, Lola
5. Diamond Foods, Awesomer

According to Andrew Graff, CEO of Allen & Gerritsen, “The ads that were most meaningful were clear in what they were telling consumers what to do but were still entertaining: Revive yourself with a Snickers, get a free breakfast at Denny’s and buy a Hyundai that has a 10 year warranty that may or may not outlast Brett Favre’s football career.”

Graff added, “It’s not enough to be entertaining for 30 seconds. “Consumers don’t buy ads that are predictable and formulaic. We’ve seen the Go Daddy schtick for a few years in a row now. The least meaningful ads were certainly not worth spending $2.5 million for a chuckle.”

Survey respondents rated Super Bowl ads using a 5-point scale based on the 4 following criteria:

• Did this commercial clearly portray the value of the product or service advertised?
• Did this commercial respect you and what you believe?
• Did this commercial clearly communicate a reason to respond (e.g. purchase, go online, call for info)?
• Did this commercial fit in with the Super Bowl and did it make sense that it ran there?

GoDaddy.com has turned heads over the past few years with its raunchy, random Super Bowl advertising. To its credit, GoDaddy.com has stood out against behemoth advertisers - but do consumers know what product or service is being sold? Andrew Graff takes readers on a tour of a brand’s advertising objectives and motivations when it comes to the Super Bowl.

From the article:
According to Andrew Graff of Allen & Gerritsen, a Super Bowl appearance is a good way to change [low consumer awareness]. With “100 million captive viewers” and a bevy of media coverage devoted to Super Bowl ads, any company that shells out for airtime is going to get noticed.

But a marketing campaign cannot thrive on Super Bowl ads alone. “You have to make sure you have a strategy behind the one-time event,” Graff said.

For the full article, click here.

Even without our mighty Patriots playing in this year’s Super Bowl, local network affiliates have sold out of in-game inventory and have nearly booked pre- and post-game spots for this Sunday’s Super Bowl XLIV. Andrew Graff weights in on the ad grab.

From the article:

Andrew Graff, chief executive of Allen & Gerritsen and chairman of The Ad Club of Boston, said these advertisers “get the benefit of running [ads] in the most viewer watched program without having to pay the $2.5 million to run it nationally.”

For the full article, click here.

It’s that time of year again, when speculation runs rampant around which brands have abstained, which submissions are too risque or too conservative, and which have sunk a production budget that would make Cameron Crowe blush. This, of course, is Super Bowl season and the game is what happens in-between these breathlessly anticipated spots.

Agencies and industry thought leaders will be polling and prodding consumers to determine the ad winners – the funniest, the raunchiest, the greatest spectacle, the dud.

But is that really the point of our industry? Are we just making clever ads for ourselves, or are we trying to accomplish something greater? Being outrageous simply isn’t enough. Now, we’re not making the claim that advertising shouldn’t entertain. It should, while honoring both the brand (ROI) and the end consumer (transparent messaging).



Over the last 6 years, Allen & Gerritsen has asked consumers to rank the Super Bowl ads that are most meaningful – meaningful defined as provoking sales. Now entering our 7th year of the survey, we have discovered a significant gap between meaningful and entertaining.

This got us thinking, in an era when world events have heightened our collective skepticism, there is very little that we “buy” or believe to be credible. Bringing this skepticism to the biggest advertising opportunity of the year - the Super Bowl – the big question is, what do people “buy” figuratively and literally? What do consumers believe in and what converts a laugh to a sale?

We want to open the conversation beyond industry insiders congratulating or mocking each other next Monday. We want to know whether or not you, as the consumer, buy it.

Do you buy that Weird Science, Flashdance, and Danica Patrick have anything to do with registering a domain name? Does it matter?
Do you buy the phenomenon of wise-cracking babies championing E-Trade?
Do you buy Bridgestone’s adventure vignettes, including whale-whispering and MadMax like encounters on the road?
Do you buy the ref’s call?
Do you buy the hype?
Do you buy it?

We want to know, tell us at #dybi