With games like Brain Age 2 and Big Brain Academy Nintendo has opened up niche markets that focus on the brain and health connection for the Nintendo DS.
I have a problem with this: It isn’t what they did. It’s how they did it.
The Scenario:
The latest efforts in marketing by Brain Age 2 can be seen in Toronto as part of a transit campaign. It features a variety of posters that seem to reinforce these key messages: 1) the brain shrinks with age 2) that stimulating the brain is important 3) pictures of couples with one member (always male) with a disproportionately small or shrunken head.
The Catch:
1) There is no evidence, proof or case study that states playing these types of video games will provide any advantage in brain health. Yet the connotation through the pictures and the advertising insinuates that there is.
Question: Is this a case of misleading the public and generating revenues at the same time? Or just developing a culture for the product?
Boys VS Girls
2) Reverse sexism? I take public transit every day. I’ve seen a lot of these ads that feature pictures of various couples that refer to Brain Age 2. Each poster seems aimed at a different demographic. This is good as it broadens the scope of target audiences. This is bad in that only the men are portrayed as the ones with smaller brains. While woman are 3 times as likely to suffer from dementia than men, men are 12 times more likely to play video games than women.
Question: If women are more likely to benefit from the ‘alleged’ benefits of these games why are the men being portrayed as the ones suffering the negative consequences?
What do you weigh?
3) The term is a ‘false’ negative or ‘false’ positive. It’s what happens when a test gives you the wrong score or a misdiagnosis. Imagine someone telling you that you have cancer. Then a week later you find out it was a ‘mistake.’ The key message I keep getting from this marketing campaign is that: the weight of your brain is an indicator of how healthy it is.
Stepping up to the plate:
So I took the challenge and played the game against an “acquaintance.” I lost three out of three. I guess my brain isn’t as healthy as his. Then again I’ve got two university degrees, two post graduate certificates, I am also a published author and have a vast range of real life experiences to draw from.
My acquaintance has a part time job, never completed high school and has a substance abuse problem. Though apparently his brain weighs more than mine. So the question is am I a ‘false’ positive or a ‘false’ negative? Either way I’d like to get some of that tuition money back.
For the record: While the size of a brain does shrink with dementia and Alzheimer’s these are symptoms of the diseases not the contributing factors. Plagues and tangles choke out living tissue preventing the brain from regenerating.
The only connection in the last twenty-years that has medical merit is that those who exercise on a regular basis and eat healthy are less likely to suffer from the effects of dementia. Note ‘less’ likely is not the same as ‘not’ likely.
It’s a play on words and meanings that most people are unaware of.
Sadly, I have a feeling that those responsible for marketing Brain Age 2 and its association with the Nintendo Ds are well too aware of it.
On my end it’s been busy, exciting and death-defying all at the same time. I’m currently finishing my internship as a communications associate at the Alzheimer’s Society of Ontario. This means most of my efforts have been focused on job hunting and hence my blogging has been a little more chaotic then what I am used to. So a big “thank you” to everyone for their support and patience these last few weeks.
You will notice along with these changes there are a few awe-inspiring and life-changing additions to the Blog Roll:
New perspectives from a new generation
Here you can find writing by Abby Martin, Rayanne Langdon, Bonnie Dean, Barb Petersen, Michael Bekiaris and Michelle Novielli. These are professional colleagues who are each gifted with an unique perspective into the field of communications and public relations. I’m also pleased to call them friends who I have learned much from both professionally and personally.
Jeremiah Owyang, Michael Allison and Joesph Thornely are all veterans of public relations and communications. I’ve met Joesph and Michael
Joesph Thornely
at Toronto’s Third Tuesday and both are incredibly nice guys who have earned their laurels several times over. While Michael is a newcomer to the field his insights and ideas place him well within this category. When I need to get at the heart of social media, public relations or just need an intelligent perspective this is where I go.
Agent M
Agent M offers something a little less ordinary. As a writer, editor and blogger for Marvel Comics he has a sense of humor and view of the comics industry that is almost unheard of. Here you can find news from Marvel, the comics industry and a sense of humor that is an all too rare commodity.
So check them out. Leave plenty of comments. Make sure you tell them who sent you.
The Watchmen is easily one of the most important comics to ever come out. I know it’s a bold statement but it’s also one that is hard to dismiss. The Watchmen was the first comic that took a look at the men and women behind the masks. It gave a chance for readers to see that being a hero is more than just superpowers in assorted tights. As a result, The Watchmen, have been a mainstay of pop-culture since the 1980s. TIME Magazine named this comic series one of the 100 best English novels to come out since 1923. It is also the only graphic novel EVER to win the highly prestigious Hugo award.
Zack Snyder, director or 300, is charged with the task of translating one of the most influential literary brands on the market into a suitable movie counterpart.
The problem: he may be attempting to fuse two incompatible (if not mutually exclusive) brands together.
(click on the fight scene to see the movie trailer)
The movie 300 grossed over $70 million in it’s opening weekend. Despite the numbers there were a series of blogs, critiques and forums on rottentomatoes.com that criticized the movie as being ‘eye candy’ that replayed itself on a 30-minute loop. Fair enough, I enjoyed the movie personally.
Also, as a brand, 300, was promoted as a movie with 1) incredible visuals 2) and as an adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel.
The Watchmen may share commonalities with this style of branding as it has strong visual elements but that’s not its selling point. Its significance is that as a work of literature it examined the detailed nuisances of the individual and weave a complex story that had the viewer not only re-evaluate ‘heroes’ but also themselves. This process took 12 issues and the span of year to tell. It succeeded.
So the $150 million dollar questions is can the brand of the Watchmen be fused with the brand of 300? More concisely is it possible for a brand that is based primarily on special effects, strong visuals and “eye candy” to merge with another brand that is a literary masterpiece whose brilliance is reflected in detailed insights and sophisticated story-telling?
If Snyder be successful he will not only have created a breath-taking piece of film he will also have created a fusion of two incredibly different “brands”. Should this happen he will have open the door to completely new ideas regarding brand infiltration in the market-place and no less amazing then the Watchmen himself.
6) Eye Contact: Don’t look them in the eyes contrary to popular belief this can make you look distracted, wooden or have others feel as though they are being excluded. Ideally, eye-contact should be aimed at the back wall or at a sitting individual’s forehead. Select between 3 – 4 different targets and rotate your attention to them. A minute tops is more than enough to make you conversational and engaging.
7 ) Everyone Wants You to Succeed: Many people I’ve coached are always afraid that the audience is looking to find fault with them or to see them stumble. In most cases the audience is more interested in being entertained, wondering where the food is or thinking about sex. The point is they want to see a successful presentation as much as you do. They’re really cheering for you: honest.
8 ) Dummy Verse: If you don’t know – fake it. I’m very cautious when I give this piece of advice out. It’s meant to be used for actors who forget their lines and need something to use fast so they can regain momentum and don’t botch the whole production. For important meetings with crucial issues riding on the line don’t use it. But in a do or die situation where you can sort everything out after the fact than its acceptable. Buyer beware on this one!
9) I Don’t Know: is a perfectly good answer. By adding in “… i’ll be happy to find out and pass along the information’ makes it even better. If you actually do this in the end then you are fabulous. What most presenters and those being interviewed like to do is field a ‘no comment.’ No comment is fine in certain situations but in most situations it’s used a carte blanche’ ticket to get out of dealing with the press. The thing is the press more times than enough will cash in on that ticket if it’s use too much.
10) Hack n’ Slash: This usually goes with rehearsing. Mark in those pauses so you breath comfortably. Cut down those run on sentences that are filled with five 19-syllable words. Remember to keep the tone and the content of the information the same but anything you can do to make it easier on yourself is fair game
The fact is that public speaking is rated more terrifying than ‘death’. While writing is heralded as the most important part of communications the public speaking is as vitally important. From interviews and pitches to delivering an annual report their are various challenges, pitfalls and rewards.
Strangely enough it’s the 24hr or less scenario that seems to come up for delivering speeches more often then not. Let’s imagine you have a meeting, interview, presentation or speech. Maybe even something a little more off the beaten path. When you get down to it you: 1) have to speak 2) people will have to listen 3) time to prepare is in short supply.
The tips presented are a few survival techniques that can help. I find that just like dancing that you just need a few basic moves to keep your feet under you. While you may not go home with the trophy (the first time) it’s all about practice.
While the following techniques are cursory at best but in an emergency they’re worth their weight in sanity. I introduced them with my team while we were preparing for our mock media news conferences in my post-graduate program at Centennial College. The results were great and my colleagues were pretty happy with them. It even scaled our delivery up a few notches so there’s definitely something to them.
I learned most of these from my years as a theatre student, Drama and English teacher, overseas language facilitator and reverent moviegoer.
(Disclaimer: results may vary depending on the context, individual and circumstance.)
1)Anchor: If you have a podium, a mic stand or even a spot on the floor by positioning yourself in relation to it. This will help you create a firm foundation. Along with this a sense of stability and security are also created. This gives the audience the idea that you are in a position of authority.
2)Music: It’s all a state of mind. Not only can music calm your mind it can also get you excited and enthusiastic. Another advantage is that the right kind of music can give you the tempo you need to follow for your speech.
3)Props: It can be a pen, laser pointer, clipboard or even a glass of water. For shaky hands it helps to have something to hold on to and makes any physical nervousness easier to hide.
4)Rehearse: Your music teacher was right: practice makes perfect. Confidence is the number one most attractive trait that both men and women look for in each other. This is also true for public speakers. The best way to obtain confidence is through experience. The more time you spend rehearsing the more comfortable you will be and this is something your audience won’t be able to miss.
5)Bridge: There are those questions that blindside us. There are also questions that come up during a speech or presentation that need us to do some tactical thinking on the fly. Using phrases like ” that’s an excellent question. I’m glad you brought it up …. ” will get you a few precious seconds and coupled with a sip of water can give you enough time to orient your ideas. Stalin did this all the time. He could speak English fluently but brought a translator along with so he could turn those much needed seconds into minutes.
I don’t know what Heath Ledger tapped into for the Joker but he got it right. The deeply psychotic villain played the perfect ID to Batman’s EGO. The terrifying thing about Ledger’s portrayal was that it was believable: a villain committing crimes not with powers or weapons but by the mere ingenuity of his imagination. This conflict between the intellect and emotions is something that most people can relate to on a variety levels. This makes it’s a great draw for those not necessarily familiar with the comic books genre. Along with this the ‘Joker’ has become a brand unto himself.
Two-Faced viral marketing
While the Joker was a known quantity and for moviegoers and comic book fans the other villain wasn’t. Nolan kept the Two-Face character hush, hush for most of the media campaign. This was brilliant as it kept fans speculating on who the other villain would be which in turn generated buzz. Even more intriguing was that all the initial depictions looked radically different. The result: even though we knew the villain we were curious to see the “real” merchandise. Not unlike wrapping graphic novels in cellophane we couldn’t find out what Two-Face was all about until we went inside.
The End.
While I don’t believe the death of Heath Ledger was a major draw to the movie I can’t argue that it didn’t have an impact. Not technically part of the rebranding process the Dark Knight Returns will always retain the Heath Ledger name as part of it’s legacy. This fusion of actor, brand and tragedy not unlike the character of Batman will live in the minds of moviegoers for ages to come.
How do we know the that rebranding Batman worked?
The true proof that Nolan’s rebranding worked is not only did the Dark Knight Return it returned to stay.
It’s been weeks since the “Dark Knight Returns” has been released. Surprisingly, each time I’ve been to the movies the Dark Knight always seems to be packed or at least doing better than the competition (Sorry Wall-E)
But why does the Dark Knight still have pull with the movie going public? Not too far in the past “Batman” was relegated to the campy movie graveyard for all eternity. Now even Marvel’s movie blockbusters this year (Hulk and Iron Man )have taken a back seat.
“The Dark Knight” has taken in $155.34 million to top “Spider-Man 3” for best opening weekend ever at the box office,” according to CNN. If those four words “best opening weekend ever,” doesn’t say something dramatically changed then nothing will.
So what was is the secret to the Dark Knight’s success?
Answer: DC Comics rebranded their most important movie franchise. Whats is rebranding? Simply put: it is the process by which a product or service developed with one brand is marketed or distributed with a different identity.
Nolan and Gotham: the right fit.
To begin with DC brought in a ringer: Chris Nolan. As a director, Nolan, is a master of edgy films and is credited for reinventing the genre of psychological thrillers. His repertoire includes movies such as Memento, Following and Insomnia.
The connection between Nolan and Batman was crucial. Many of the characters in Dark Knight Returns are taken from Noir archetypes. The Joker was a re-working of the 1921 classic “The Man Who Laughed” starring Franz Höbling. Theses noir characters are themselves the embodiment of the ‘psychological’ and ‘edgy.’ Nolan not only knew the genre (or the product) he helped define it. This is exactly what DC needed: someone who knew the product and had the right “fit”.
The Stars at Knight.
The trick to rebranding is getting the target audience to notice and care. We call this the ‘WOW’ factor. This is the cool, catchy and awe-inspiring that makes people take notice.
This technique has two key advantages: 1) Each actor is an accomplished professional and their names lend credibility to the film (and the brand.) 2) The collective filmography of each actor resonates with a diverse group of audiences. The result: the brand infiltrates a large number of different markets increasing the chances of success.
When my Online PR course started two months ago, Twitter was declared to be the next big thing. Presentation Skills also started at the same time and claimed to be around forever.
I have a problem with the first statement.
Someone shouldn’t have to tell me what the next big thing is. If something “is” the next big thing whatever comes down the pipe is so important, wouldn’t it be obvious that it doesn’t need mentioning? Now Twitter, a cornerstone of social media, has been declared passé and dead by numerous sources my instructor included.
Interestingly enough my Presentation Skills class started at the same time. The skills that I’ve learned are still as valuable if not moreso then they were at the start.
How can this be?
As post-graduate students we spend an inordinate amount of time writing, learning the latest technology and little learning soft skills such as how to network or deliver a pitch in front of our peers. While technology and writing are fundamental skills, should they be studied at the exclusion of everything else?
If the “next big thing” comes and goes, how will that benefit a new practitioner over having a functional network, a good reputation or pitching ideas worthy of bringing in an account?
The logical answer: you need both.
The problem is that I have yet to encounter a single professional, practitioner, professor or pal that has advocated this middle ground.
Not one.
From everything I’ve learned about corporate communications there is an element of experimentation, development and creativity. We aren’t advertisers nor are we marketers. We are a completely unique and wondrous species unto ourselves. If this is the foundation we are provided entering in the field is there hope for growth?
In 1985, Bruce Sterling wrote Schismatrix , a story about conflict in the twenty third century solar system. Humanity is divided among: the “Shapers” who are employing genetics and psychology, and the “Mechanists” who use computers and body prosthetic. Replace “computer and prosthetic” with “social media.” Then replace “genetics and psychology” with core skills and you’ve got the idea of current public relations.
I’ve heard it said that, “public relations is going through a renaissance.” From where I’m standing it looks more like a civil war. I only hope it can end better the Sterling’s book.
Here’s something for the Marvel and Canadian Political Science geeks.
Stephen Harper has made it to the front page again with the G8 summits on climate control. For the last few days poor Mr. Harper can’t seem to do anything right according to the national media.
On one hand he’s revered for influencing the key nations to “avoid overly ambitious emission-cutting goals,” according to the Toronto Star. On another hand he’s been accused of refusing to meet Canada’s emissions – reductions under the Kyoto protocol.
You can substitute any issue and the result will be the same: Harper comes out on bottom.
Why?
Simple: In 2006, the Canadian Prime Minister went to war with the national media claiming they weren’t treating him fairly and he would not be dealing with them outside of the strictest channels. I can imagine the forehead slapping that went on with his PR department after this.
The truth is that the harder you try to control the media the less likely you are too be successful as any PR practitioner will tell you.
Instead Harper should have watched the Iron Man movie and taken notes.
In the movie millionaire industrialist Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man, hosts two news conferences that get at the heart of Public Relations. In each press conference he deviated from the ‘official company line.’ Whether he was sitting with the press eating a hamburger or telling the world he was Iron Man he got a few things right: he was transparent, honest and gave the media what they needed to make their own judgments.
The media didn’t always give him good press but it served the foundation for a relationship of trust. It was this “trust” that served Tony Stark allowing for the transition from man to hero seamlessly.
This is a transition that I hope our next Prime Minister can make. If Tony Stark runs – he’ll have my vote.
(Special thanks to fellow Iron Man fan Michael O’Connor Clarke for making this post possible)
(Check out the counter-blog to my post, Michelle Novielli’s She Said: Facebook )
Love?
Our relationship started innocently enough. After much coaxing from friends I got a Facebook account. It started with a little social networking and a few invitations to parties. Soon Facebook and I spent time together and got to know each other. For the most part we enjoyed one another’s company and we seemed to hit it off … for a while.
It wasn’t long before I started noticing “changes” in our relationship. A few private messages between friends turned into applications being added. I mean it wasn’t serious: a scrabulous application here, a pet dragons application there, flog-blog and many others. Soon I woke up and realized that I didn’t recognize my Facebook page anymore. I quietly wondered if Facebook had the same feelings about me?
My relationship changed.
The endless application and Facebook requests were making demands on my virtual space and robbing me of time. My “friends list” was growing by leaps and bounds yet I found myself surrounded by strangers. I was getting requests from “friends” I haven’t seen in more than twenty years.
The carefree days are gone.
Things got serious after that. I had professional colleagues wanting to join my friends list. I had family members wanting to add and be added. Everyone wanted to know about “my” relationship with Facebook. Was it serious? Where was I planning on taking it? Was there a future between the two of us? One night I happened to take relationship status: off my profile (I was listed as being single.) That night I received five phone calls from “friends” wanting to know who the new girlfriend was? Then the big question came u over dinner one night: was I showing a true representation of myself while meeting the criteria, ideals and expectations of everyone else? It was too much. The demands of future recruiters, family and friends had taken over what was once a simple and enjoyable relationship.
The break-up. In frustration I walked out. Everyone wanted my relationship to be something it wasn’t. In one night, I removed applications and threw my galleries in the virtual garbage can. At the end of the evening my Facebook page was generic at best. It had three applications each one respectable and none of which I used. My Facebook page was respectable, credible and not me in the least. As headed out the door I wanted to take a few “virtual” keepsakes back but then I learned Facebook owns EVERYTHING the moment you put it online. I felt used. I felt betrayed. I felt alone.
One more chance.
One Saturday night I went back. It was uncomfortable at first. I spent a few moments staring at the empty template space where my applications had once been. The mailbox which had kept dozens of messages was now vacant. I didn’t want closure I wanted my Facebook back.
I wanted things the way they were before they got ‘complicated’. I wanted it to be the way it was before prospective employers wanted to add me. I wanted to feel the freedom before family members and strangers began begging me for more than a limited profile.
Get a room.
It has taken some trust building but I’m back on facebook. Slowly, the features are being added along with new features. One more thing: I’m making my profile completely unsearchable. Like any good neighbor, you won’t even know I’m there. Facebook and I are trying again but this time we are doing it on our terms. Occasionally, we will drop an email or stop by on the Facebook chat. For the most part we are very happy.
(Check out the counter-blog to my post, Michelle Novielli’s She Said: Facebook )
campaign. It features a variety of posters that seem to reinforce these key messages: 1) the brain shrinks with age 2) that stimulating the brain is important 3) pictures of couples with one member (always male) with a disproportionately small or shrunken head.
demographic. This is good as it broadens the scope of target audiences. This is bad in that only the men are portrayed as the ones with smaller brains. While woman are 3 times as likely to suffer from dementia than men, men are 12 times more likely to play video games than women.
problem. Though apparently his brain weighs more than mine. So the question is am I a ‘false’ positive or a ‘false’ negative? Either way I’d like to get some of that tuition money back.
