advertising

"Bottled water sales in the past have grown mainly from consumers moving to water from soda and other sugary beverages," fueled by rising childhood and adult obesity rates. But ads for bottled water don't push the health angle, because many bottled water companies also sell soda. For example, Aquafina is made by PepsiCo and Dasani by Coca-Cola. Nestle -- which does not sell soda -- is now seeking to counter "concerns that bottled water is a bad choice for the environment" by raising concerns about the health impact of soda. Its new "antisoda" campaign is focused on "the Hispanic community because it drinks more bottled water than most other ethnic groups." Nestle's antisoda ads, which appear on U.S. Spanish-language channels like Univision and TeleFutura, promote the company's Pure Life bottled water. The ads feature talk-show host Cristina Saralegui, who says, "Drinking water instead of three sugary drinks per week for a year will spare you seven pounds of fat." The Hispanic marketing agency behind the ads, Castells & Asociados, says they have been "off-the-charts effective." Publicis' Dallas office is working on an English-language version.

Barack Obama has been named Advertising Age's 2008 Marketer of the Year for the simplicity, consistency and relevance of his campaign. Hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors attending the 2008 annual Association of National Advertisers conference voted for Obama's campaign over ad campaigns by major companies like Apple, Zappos, Nike and Coors. AdAge called Obama's historic November 4 win the "biggest day in the history of marketing," saying marketers have a lot to learn from his campaign. At a time when 70% of the population thought the country was headed in the wrong direction, Obama adopted a simple slogan of "Change" that never varied throughout his campaign, while his competitors tried for months to find similarly simple yet powerful messages. Hillary Clinton first tried the slogan "Experience," then shifted to "Countdown to change," and then used "Solutions for America," while the McCain campaign tried on a long list of labels like "Maverick," "Straight Talker," "Conservative" and "Hero." By the time the McCain campaign settled on "Country First," it was too late. The relentless focus on "change" pressured Mr. Obama's opponents to talk about how their changes would differ from his, rather than focus on their strengths, like their experience, track records and relationships with world leaders.

A full-page ad in the New York Times "accuses ACORN of a list of abuses that suggest hypocrisy on some of the group's signature issues: intimidating and firing its own employees if they try to unionize, misappropriating millions of dollars from taxpayer-funded government grants and advocating minimum wage hides while paying its own employees less than minimum wage." While the ad "does not indicate who or what organization paid for it," it comes from one of lobbyist Rick Berman's many front groups, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI). For years, Berman "has been fighting ACORN's efforts to increase the minimum wage at the state and federal levels." Tim Miller, the spokesman for EPI and Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, said they placed the ad because after the election, "a lot of the coverage of ACORN is going to go away, but they are going to continue the same corrupt and fraudulent practices." ACORN says the charges in EPI's ad are untrue. For example, ACORN "pledged complete neutrality" when one of its offices "wanted to form a union," said ACORN's Steve Kest. The employees eventually "decided not to pursue [the union], so nothing came of it."

A $13.2 million ad campaign thanks 28 members of Congress, 25 of whom are Democrats, "for supporting a children's health-care bill vetoed twice by President George W. Bush in 2007." The ads are by America's Agenda: Health Care for Kids, a new non-profit group whose sole funder is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The ads are one example of the drug industry group's attempts to adjust to a Democratic-controlled Congress. PhRMA's also "working with unions through another America's Agenda group to push universal-health-care bills in states and cities across the country," and "is now splitting campaign contributions between the political parties." In addition, PhRMA's trying "to restore the drug industry's tattered image," through its own ads "touting programs to help needy patients pay for their medicines; hurricane hotlines for drug supplies; and the syndicated TV show 'Sharing Miracles,'" which features PhRMA president Billy Tauzin.

"The world's best-known oil companies are pouring on the charm as they get ready this week to parade another round of fat profits before a public that is feeling suddenly poorer. The spotlight will shine on Exxon on Thursday and Chevron on Friday. Such advertising makes sense after a summer with oil at nearly $150 a barrel and a fall likely to bring renewed scrutiny of their investments and tax breaks. But when oil companies spend their money, it's less about you and me than about their shareholders. In many respects, industry experts note, what's good for Big Oil's bottom line isn't necessarily good for Joe Q. Jetta. 'That's a game that oil companies have been playing for a while, but they've been pumping more money into it lately,' said Sheldon Rampton, research director at the Center for Media and Democracy. 'They're hoping to mitigate their bad reputation rather than become beloved.'"

Get ready for an uptick in nasty "issue advocacy" advertisements in battleground states. The New York Times notes that wealthy right-wing activist Howard Rich recently mailed menacing letters to liberal contributors that read, "We are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftist organizations. ... Should any of these organizations be found to be engaged in illegal or questionable activity, it is our intent to publicize your involvement with those activities." Rich acknowledged that "he had read a letter that a pro-Democratic group called Accountable America," which is run by MoveOn's Tom Matzzie, "sent during the summer, which offered a $100,000 reward for information about 'unlawful conduct by business-oriented or conservative' nonprofit groups. ... [B]oth letters were intended to scare off the other side's Section 527 activities -- the lightly regulated money that swamped the 2004 election. ... This year, such spending is down by $104 million compared with 2004, according to Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. But he pointed out that a recent Supreme Court ruling will permit 527 money to be spent in the final days of the campaign this year, unlike 2004. 'If you were to write a dictionary definition for the 527s, first and foremost the purpose is to be disruptive,' Mr. Tracey said. 'Being allowed to run ads at the end of the campaign is most disruptive.'"

1974 ad for "True" brand low-tar cigarettes The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 session today by hearing a case about whether cigarette makers have defrauded smokers with implied claims about the relative safety of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes. At issue is the question of preemption, a legal doctrine that holds that federal laws can take precedence over some state laws. The tobacco companies are arguing that they should not be held responsible for labeling and advertising that was approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which has long required that cigarette packs be labeled as to how much "tar" and nicotine they deliver, argues that the agency itself was fooled because tobacco companies hid internal research data that showed smokers did not benefit from switching to light or low tar cigarettes. In August 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, in the landmark U.S. Department of Justice case against the industry, ruled that cigarette makers purposely misled smokers into believing that light cigarettes were more safe than regular cigarettes, and now more than 30 class action lawsuits on the issue of the tobacco industry's "light" and "low tar" cigarette fraud are currently pending across the U.S. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could either affirm or invalidate all of them.

"A new group financed by a Texas billionaire and organized by some of the same political operatives and donors behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004 plans to begin running television ads attacking Barack Obama," report Matthew Mosk and Chris Cillizza. The American Issues Project, funded by Dallas businessman Harold Simmons, has amassed a multimillion-dollar fund to run the ads. Republican activists Chris LaCivita and Tony Feather are also involved in organizing the group. "The resurgence on the right appears as though it will not go unanswered," add Mosk and Cillizza. "The Service Employees International Union is set to unveil a multimillion-dollar television campaign on Monday, and other liberal and Democratic-aligned groups are rushing to establish financing for efforts over the final weeks of the campaign."

"A hospital complains about a reporter and pulls ads from the paper. The paper reassigns him. The paper -- offered three chances -- declines to deny that one caused the other," summarizes the Columbia Journalism Review. CJR was following up on a Wall Street Journal article about Carilion Health System, which is Roanoke, Virginia's sole healthcare provider. Since Carilion established a local monopoly, "health-insurance rates in Roanoke have gone from being the lowest in the state to the highest." In 2006, independent local doctors concerned about Carilion's impact on the community and their practices launched the "Coalition for Responsible Healthcare." Roanoke Times healthcare reporter Jeff Sturgeon reported on the controversy. But the paper "moved Mr. Sturgeon off the health-care beat after Carilion complained repeatedly about his coverage. Carilion says it communicated its displeasure to the paper's editors, but never asked that Mr. Sturgeon be reassigned. Carilion withdrew most of its advertising from the paper, but says it did that as part of a reallocation of its ad budget." Roanoke Times' managing editor told CJR, "We feel like we cover Carilion better than any other news media organization." But he wouldn't explain Sturgeon's reassignment to transportation, saying, "We don't get into personnel decisions and why we change beats."

From Pfizer's new Lipitor adPfizer's getting ready to resume advertising for its cholesterol drug Lipitor. In February, the drugmaker pulled its Lipitor ads, over charges they were misleading. The old ads featured artificial heart inventor Robert Jarvik, who appeared to be giving medical advice though he isn't a practicing physician. The new ads feature "John E.," a baby boomer and heart-attack survivor who "didn't take a cholesterol-fighting drug before his heart attack ... despite a history of high cholesterol." A Pfizer marketing executive said, "When we did testing with consumers ... John really resonated with them." But will the ad boost sales? According to a new study, the impact of direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising on sales is "highly variable" and, for two of the three drugs studied, the ads "had no apparent impact." The study, which was published in the British Medical Journal, compared drug sales in French-speaking versus English-speaking Canadian provinces. Like most countries, Canada bans DTC ads, but Canadian viewers still see them via U.S. television. Advertising executives maintain that DTC ads do boost sales. "Had anyone ever heard of erectile dysfunction or overactive bladder before the drugs were advertised?" asked one.