Under the Influence with Terry O'Reilly - S5E25 - Ask Terry 2016

Episode Date: June 24, 2016

This week, we take a peek into the risky, yet delicious world of commercial parodies. Some spoof ads are created just for the laughs, while others are sharp critiques of questionable products, overzealous advertising claims and self-congratulatory corporations. We'll look at a magazine that satirized one of the most controversial court cases of the century, a company that parodied the competition, then sued another company for parodying their parody, and unpack the Saturday Night Live skits that brought commercial parodies into the mainstream. Commercial parodies didn't just lampoon the ad industry, they influenced it. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi, it's Terry O'Reilly. As you may know, we've been producing a lot of bonus episodes while under the influences on hiatus. They're called the Beatleology Interviews, where I talk to people who knew the Beatles, work with them, love them, and the authors who write about them. Well, the Beatleology Interviews have become a hit, so we are spinning it out to be a standalone podcast series. You've already heard conversations with people like actors Mark Hamill, Malcolm McDowell, and Beatles confidant Astrid Kershaw. But coming up, I talk to May Pang, who dated John Lennon in the mid-70s. I talk to double fantasy guitarist Earl Slick, Apple Records creative director John Kosh. I'll be talking to Jan Hayworth,

who designed the Sgt. Pepper album cover. Very cool. And I'll talk to singer Dion, who is one of only five people still alive who were on the Sgt. Pepper cover. And two of those people were Beatles. The stories they tell are amazing. So thank you for making this series such a success. And please, do me a favor, follow the Beatleology interviews on your podcast app. You don't even have to be a huge Beatles fan, you just have to love storytelling.

Subscribe now, and don't miss a single beat. From the Under the Influence digital box set, this episode is from Season 5, 2016. You're so king in it. You're going to love it in an instant. Your teeth look whiter than noon, noon, noon. You're not you when you're hungry.

You're a good hand with all things. You're under the influence with Terry O'Reilly. Often, during the course of a marriage, a wife will turn to her husband and whisper those five little words, Why do you love me? And husbands panic when they get that question. They panic because they know there is no possible answer they can give that will be satisfying. Young or old, gay or straight, doesn't matter. It's so strange that such a simple question can be so paralyzing.

I still find it difficult to answer that question after 33 years of marriage. In his terrific book, Start With Why, writer Simon Sinek offers up an explanation for this. He says there are three major areas of the brain, the outer neocortex and two inner areas called the limbic brain. The neocortex is responsible for analytic thought and language. The limbic brain is responsible for all our feelings and behavior, but has no capacity for language. That's why putting our feelings into words is so hard.

So when a husband says, I love you because you're smart and funny, that isn't the reason. There are a lot of smart and funny people in the world, but you don't want to marry them. Clearly, there's more to falling in love than IQ and humor. It's a feeling. The same is true for other decisions in life.

Simon Sinek says when a decision feels right, we have a hard time explaining why. This is where the term gut decision comes from. It just feels right in our stomach. Yet, no part of the stomach controls the decision-making process. It's all done a few floors up in the limbic brain. That's why smart marketers strive to form an emotional connection with their customers, because feelings determine behavior. As I've often said, the most successful marketers make people feel their messages,

not just intellectually understand them. It's the difference between understanding a commercial and actually acting on it. There's no question about it. Welcome to our final show of the season. It's an episode dedicated to questions. Each year we ask our wonderful listeners to send in any marketing or advertising questions they may have. They could be about the advertising industry, specific commercials, brands, or even our show. And thanks to everyone who sent in questions.

They were fun, insightful, and amusing. And I'll do the best I can to answer them. Just don't ask me why I love you. You're under the influence. So, let's start today with a question from Twitter. Derek Zito asks, In college I was told even if a bad ad gets you talking, it's done its job. True or false? Well, Derek, I think all marketing has two tasks. The first is to get noticed.

The second is to convince you the product is worth purchasing. Getting attention is important because that attention gets you a small window in time to deliver your message. But if that message is bad, it's a zero-sum game. Yes, sometimes bad ads get a lot of attention. Sometimes a bad ad gets more attention than a good ad. But the real measure of an ad is the quality of the message.

Is it persuasive? Does it make you like the company? A bad ad does neither. So, I would say a bad ad that gets attention is not a good ad. My two cents. On Facebook, Kevin Ratcliffe asks, What exactly is a copyright editor? I'm going to assume you mean copywriter, Kevin, which is a term I use often on this show. The newspaper business and the advertising industry both share the term copy. It seems to have originated from the Latin word copia, which came to mean transcript. By the 1500s, according to the Chamber's Dictionary of Etymology, the English word copy had evolved to mean any example of writing.

The newspaper business has copy editors who edit the story drafts written by reporters, but the term doesn't seem to have been used in advertising until the turn of the century,

where the term design and copy was used in a book titled The Art of Modern Advertising by Ernest Elmo Calkins and Ralph Holden. I own that book, and it's dated 1905. So, Kevin, an advertising copywriter writes ads. I was a copywriter for over 30 years.

Wow, that half hour went by fast. Just kidding. It's not the end of the show. That's our wonderful Under the Influence theme. Facebook listener Kim Logue wrote, I think many of us listeners are curious to know more about how the show all comes together, a look behind the scenes. Is the research team different for different shows?

How are assignments shared and in what timelines does it all come together? And Ryan on Twitter asked, how long does it take to make an episode? Well, as you've heard me say before, coming up with episode ideas is the easiest part of the show. The advertising industry

is constantly doing interesting things around the world, so the possible subjects are copious. Once we decide on a topic, I assign one of our four researchers to that episode. I'll do quite a bit of early research and determine what information I need. I'll then send a list of ten very specific stories for the researcher to chase down.

For example, in our recent commercial parodies episode, I remembered a great Saturday Night Live parody ad from the very first season in 1975, where a rabbi does a circumcision in the back of a moving car. I had trouble finding that old ad, so I asked one of our terrific researchers, Jillian Gora, to find it, which she did, in about nine seconds. Each researcher has two weeks to find the information. I usually get between 70 and 100 pages back. I'll pour through that research over the course of two or three days, make copious notes, and fold it into the research I've already done on my own.

Then I'll start to formulate the show structure in my mind, decide which are the most interesting stories, which ones create the best script flow, in what order, and which stories amplify our show topic to the fullest. Next comes the writing, which takes me about two days, with a third day to polish and edit. The very last thing I write for each episode is the beginning, strangely enough. Once the body of the show is written,

I sit back and decide what opening story might be best to set the table, as it were. Then it's off to the studio to record the episode. Believe it or not, it takes about 12 hours to record and build our 27-minute show. It's a very textured program, and Keith has to carefully mix lots of sound effects, music,

commercials, and news clips. Plus, we often have our favorite actors come in to do funny bits for us. We're always juggling four shows at any given time. One is out for research, one is being written, one is being recorded, and one is being revised after the initial recording,

as I always want to make small changes before it goes to air. Phew. Okay. There you go, Kim and Ryan. Hope that answers your questions. American listener Joe Isham tweeted this question. What's the deal with the skill test to win a contest in Canada? Contests and promotions are a big part of marketing. Every contest winner in Canada must answer a skill testing question. Even when you read the fine print on American contests, Every contest winner in Canada must answer a skill testing question. Even when you read the fine print on American contests, it says Canadian residents will be required to answer a skill testing question.

It all comes down to Canadian law. In 1892, the Canadian Criminal Code banned every form of gambling. Over the years, exceptions were made. For example, in 1900, bingos and raffles were allowed for charitable purposes. In 1925, fairs and exhibitions were granted the right to stage gambling events. In 1969, the government saw a big revenue opportunity with lotteries, so it began to allow provincial lotteries

and later licensed casinos. But that said, the Competition Act here still bans all other games of chance. So, enterprising marketers figured out a loophole. If a correct answer to a skill-testing question

was required to claim a prize, then the contest was no longer considered a game of chance. In other words, contestants had to do a little work to claim the prize. That's when the Canadian government accepted the skill testing question as a stipulation for winners. The feds aren't too heavy-handed with the rule, but they don't allow cakewalk questions like, what's your birthday?

Instead, math questions are usually employed, and they have to be three-step equations. Here's a typical skill testing question. What is 8 times 6 minus 5 plus 9? Which, by the way, was the actual skill testing question put to a winner during a Tim Hortons Roll Up the Rim contest back in 2008. The winning cup had been purchased in Sudbury, Ontario, and when the customer rolled up the rim, she had won a new GPS device. The winner was given a form to fill out, which included the skill testing math question. She was asked to complete the form and send the answer and the winning tab to Tim Hortons by registered mail,

which she did. Except she got the answer wrong. She answered 51, but the correct answer was 52. So Tim Hortons sent it back to her saying the answer was incorrect and to try one more time. She got it wrong again.

That's when Tim Hortons advised her that contestants are only given two chances to get the skill testing answer right. The winner wasn't happy with that response. As it turns out, she had a learning disability. After repeated calls to Tim Hortons to explain her situation, and with the additional help from the Sudbury Star who reported the story, Tim Hortons sent her the GPS. So, while buying a coffee at Tim Hortons is hardly gambling, big prizes still involve a skill testing question and the correct answer.

So there you go, Joe. That's the mathematics of winning in Canada. Miranda Gray asked the following question via Twitter. Is it true companies make deliberate spelling or grammar errors to cement their brand in your mind? That's a very interesting question, Miranda. Of course, many brand names are given inventive spellings in order to stand out, like Cheez Whiz with cheese spelled with a Z,

or Netflix with an X, or Toys R Us with a backwards R, or Flickr without the E. That odd spelling makes some brands easier to trademark as well. As for making intentional spelling mistakes in the actual wording or copy,

I don't think I've ever seen that. In all my years of writing ads, I was never asked to do that, nor did I ever employ that tactic. But there is a theory in psychology that says moderate amounts of incongruity can increase involvement. In other words, if something doesn't quite fit or is unexpected, it becomes memorable. The key to that theory is the word moderate.

The zig has to be small so the public gets the intention and is not completely puzzled by the grammar. In the book Drunk Tank Pink, author Adam Alter makes a very interesting observation. He gave his class three brain teasers. Half the class was given the questions in an easy-to-read font, and the other half was given the same questions in a hard-to-read typeface.

Here's a typical question. A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? I hate questions like that. Most people quickly surmise the bat costs a dollar, so the ball costs 10 cents, which is wrong.

The correct answer is that the ball costs 5 cents. But here's the interesting thing. Most of the students who were given those brain teasers in a clear, easy-to-read font got the answer wrong. But the students who were given the brain teasers in a difficult, hard-to-read typeface got most of the answers right. It turns out the complex typeface acted as a kind of alarm that signaled the need to recruit additional mental resources to overcome the typeface difficulty, which caused students to think more deeply about the problem at hand. When they slowed down because the question was difficult to read,

their problem-solving ability improved. So Miranda, making something more difficult could hypothetically make it more memorable because it requires more of our attention. Maybe a tougher typeface would have made the Tim Horton skill testing question easier. Which raises another interesting question. Why do you need a certain skill to use urinals in Brazil? We'll be right back to our show. On Instagram, EliIsGreat asks,

Where is the strangest place you've ever seen an ad? Well, you can probably guess the location. It was in a urinal in Brazil. In order to influence men not to over-spray, ESPN put a green pad in the urinal along with a miniature net and a tiny soccer ball. Men who have an inherent need to aim at things were encouraged to score by pushing the ball into the net over and over again. When they hit the ball directly, so to speak, the ball changed color. A small poster above the urinal said, Soccer is good everywhere, but it's much better on ESPN.

Funny, novel, and surprising. But there's also another idea I've mentioned in the past that I loved. It was a surprising message put in a surprising place. It was in a hotel room. Under the bed, sticking out just enough to catch my eye, was a small card

with the hotel's logo on it. All it said was, yes, we cleaned under here too. So smart, so surprising. On Twitter, at KindaRudeChild asks, what do you think of this trend of real people, not actors, in advertising? How do you think it came to exist? That's a very interesting observation and question. I think two forces converged that resulted in the wave of real people taking over so much commercial time. First, in the year 2000, there was a long commercial actors' strike in the U.S. It lasted over six months.

In that time, advertisers had to figure out something else in order to continue making commercials. One of the solutions was to employ real people. With no actors required, commercials continued to be recorded and filmed. With that, advertisers discovered that real people can be persuasive, and their fees were only a fraction of what actors demanded. So the strike cost the actors big time, because it not only cost them six months' salary, it created a lingering realization that commercials could be made without actors' rates,

and without residuals or royalty payments. At the same time, reality TV hit. Suddenly, primetime television was full of top-rated shows that featured no actors. Survivor, American Idol, Canadian Idol, The Voice, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Deal or No Deal, The Weakest Link, Project Runway, The Bachelor, Duck Dynasty, Dog the Bounty Hunter, and on and on. When you stop for a moment and think of all the primetime hours that are now filled with reality shows, imagine how many actors are not working.

It's staggering. And in the commercial world, much of the voiceover work is now being done by celebrities, so even that work is thinning out. So, this trend is now over 15 years old. Maybe you can't even call it a trend anymore. There is a place for real people in marketing, if done well. When it's not done well, it's painful. On Instagram, Georgio underscore goes says,

I would like to know more about dog advertising and the growth of the dog market. Also, any famously amazing campaigns featuring dogs. Well, pet food companies are big advertisers. And dog food in particular is the biggest pet food category. Here in Canada, just over $1 billion is spent on dog food every year to feed 6.4 million Canadian dogs. Our American listeners spent about $14 billion on their pooches. If you're looking for flexible workouts, Peloton's got you covered. Summer runs or playoff season meditations, whatever your your vibe peloton has thousands of classes built to push you we know how life goes new father new routines new locations what matters is that you

have something there to adapt with you whether you need a challenge or rest and peloton has everything you need whenever you need it find your push find your power peloton visit peloton To answer the second part of the question, have there been any amazing dog food campaigns, there was an excellent idea done in New Zealand recently. Pedigree Dog Food wanted to increase its share of market there and together with its ad agency created an actual radio station for dogs. They christened it Canine FM. The idea came from the science-based observation

that dogs get stressed and lonely when left at home alone. As a result, many owners leave the radio on to keep them company. But it's usually radio that isn't calming for dogs. And it's certainly not radio made for dogs. So Pedigree created this radio station. Pedigree presents K9FM. Sit. Stay. Enjoy. Research revealed that classical music calms dogs down.

So the music on the station was strictly of the Mozart-Beethoven variety. The fun of the station was that it offered features for both dogs and their owners. And they did it all with a sense of humor. So, for dogs, there was this. Virtual Outings on K9FM. The pleasant sounds of parks and backyards to set dogs at ease. There was a calming voice that would talk to the dogs.

Welcome to meditation and relaxation with me, Vet Joanna. I want you to picture yourself in a lovely green field. I want you to sit and now lie down on the soft grass. The station also invited dog owners to call a number and leave personalized shout-outs to their dog that would be broadcast throughout the day. Hello, this is going out to my little Louie. Louie, you're the best dog in the world. Yes, you are. He's a good girl. He's a good girl. This is a shout-out for Clooney. He's been such a good boy. He's become a big brother to a human baby. Good deal, Molly. To keep dog owners tuned to the channel, there were many funny moments, like this bit that was supposedly aimed at dogs.

Beef clod. Beef shank. Beef steak. That was cuts of meat on K9FM. The thought of the day was called, Chew on This. When different subjects were discussed, the segment was called, Talkies. Here's a panel discussing, Where's the Ball? Welcome to Talkies. Thank you for joining us.

Today's topic, Where is the Ball, Really? Today's experts joining me in the studio are quantum physicist, Professor Alfred Knox, and senior store manager of Jim's Sporting Goods, Simon Partridge. Thanks. Yeah. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us on Talkies. Where is the ball? Where is the ball?

I'll interrupt you there. Well, I mean... Is it not a more pertinent question to ask, what is the ball? I'll interrupt you there. Is it not a more pertinent question to ask what is the ball? Sorry, well before we move on to that, what I have got is first of all quite a direct answer to that, because if you

got me in here to ask me where exactly the ball is Jim's Sporting Goods has it in aisle three, halfway down fifth. And then there was maybe the funniest feature of all. Bengal. Stupid Bengal. Siamese.

Stupid Siamese. Russian black, white, or tabby. Stupid Russian black, white, or tabby. That was another episode of Stupid, Stupid Cats on K9FM. During the first three months K9FM was on the air, over 1,000 owners called the station to leave shout-outs to their dogs. And Pedigree Dog Food enjoyed a three-year sales high. It was one of the more novel pet food ideas I've seen in a long time.

If only regular commercial radio was this good. It was one of the more novel pet food ideas I've seen in a long time. If only regular commercial radio was this good. And that's a wrap for our 2016 season. And it's time for a few important thank yous. First, a big thank you to you, our listeners. You not only send me great comments and articles, but you also send us great ideas for episodes.

Your input is always welcome and appreciated here. And being that this is our last show of the season, I'd like to also thank the amazing people behind the scenes of Under the Influence,

who work their hearts out for you every week. Our sound engineer is Keith Ullman, who spends those 12 hours assembling and mixing every single show. Our theme music was written by the amazing Ari Posner and Ian Lefevre, two of Canada's best composers. Then there's the O'Reilly department. Our show is produced by Debbie O'Reilly.

She keeps the entire show on the rails. There are hundreds of moving pieces on a weekly show like this, broadcast in two countries, and Debbie keeps that train a-movin'. Every week, we post the entire transcript of the show on our website, along with all the commercials, photos, and videos. Our Facebook and Instagram pages are filled with lots of bonus material, and all that is managed by our digital content

producer, Sydney O'Reilly. The audio editing for our Sirius satellite broadcasts is deftly handled by Callie Rae O'Reilly. We have a remarkable under-the-influence research team on our show, as we mentioned earlier. They are Lama Balagi,

James Gangl, Tanya Morusef, and Jillian Gora. There is nothing they can't find or exhume. The show wouldn't be the same without them. Thanks to all the wonderful folks at Pirate who help us with the show every week. A heartfelt

thank you goes out to the amazing Barb Dickey and all the folks at CBC who have given us nothing but unwavering support since day one. By the way, the 10 most listened to episodes from this season will be rebroadcast this summer, starting the week of June 27th. You can find details at cbc.ca slash under the influence. Have a safe and happy summer. Meet you here next January.

I'm Terry O'Reilly. This episode brought to you by our amazing Under the Influence team. Hey, I like your style. I'd like your style even more if you were wearing an Under the Influence t-shirt. Just saying.

You'll find them on our shop page at terryoreilly.ca slash shop. See you next week.