Having worked with Nestle on its Nescafe brand throughout the world I found this very interesting. I always believed Nestle should have created a Starbucks style cafe and add credibility to its coffee heritage for instant coffees. Now Starbucks has done it.

Starbucks launches its first major advertising and marketing campaign Tuesday for Via, the instant-coffee product it spent 20 years developing. The marketer is tapping traditional and social media, and asking consumers if they can tell the difference between the instant variety and the brewed coffee that made it a household name.

The chain is expecting between 8 million and 10 million consumers to visit its 7,500 company-run cafes in the U.S. and Canada to participate in a taste test that runs Friday through Monday. Participants will receive a “thank you” card good for a free coffee on their next visit, and $1 off their purchase of Via at any Starbucks.

Part of the idea for the taste test, said Terry Davenport, Starbucks senior VP-marketing, came from the Chicago market, where Starbucks did its only advertised test of Via. While the TV ads led to a high level of awareness, consumers weren’t motivated to visit stores — so the brand created an event in hopes of spurring its faithful into action.

“Instead of selling something at them, we ask them to participate with us,” he said. In so doing, “we’re using the best weapon in our tool kit, one that on one else has, our store-level partners.” Starbucks is sending its 4 million Facebook friends invitations to participate, with the anticipation that they will invite their friends. “It has a multiplier effect,” Mr. Davenport said.

“I’ve been fooling people for almost a year now, at home, at the office. I make coffee for my wife almost every day,” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said in a call with reporters. “I tell people this is the instant version of Starbucks brewed coffee and they’re shocked.”

With this launch, Starbucks is expanding distribution of Via from test markets Chicago, Seattle and London to stores throughout the U.S. and Canada. In addition to its own cafes, Starbucks Via will now be sold in REI, Office Depot, Compass, United Airlines, Barnes & Noble cafes, and Marriott and Omni Hotels. Via will break in to mass grocery in 2010.

Mr. Schultz said that the chain is looking to create “additional usage occasions” for Starbucks coffee. The idea is that heavy coffee drinkers may have a cup of Starbucks on the way to work and a mug of swill once they get there.

Starbucks sees additional opportunities with travelers and campers. Mr. Schultz initially defined instant coffee as a $17 billion market, but has expanded that estimation to $21 billion, based on updated international sales figures. Instant coffee is much more popular outside the U.S., making up about 40% of worldwide consumption.

While such a retail strategy seems unorthodox, it has worked for companies such as Red Box video, which rents DVDs outside supermarkets. Cranium, the popular board-game, grew its business by scoring distribution at Starbucks stores. Red Bull catapulted to prominence in part by its popularity as a mixer with vodka.

“All of those outlets make total sense,” said Lynn Dornblaser, director-consumer-package-goods insight at Mintel International. “But that’s not what a major market position should be, because it’s only going to be a tiny, tiny percentage of consumers.”

Starbucks acknowledged that another reason for holding off on mass grocery is ensuring that Via will be merchandised with other Starbucks products, and away from Nescafe. The Nestle product has mounted offensives in Seattle and Chicago, describing Via as a product that costs 400% more, or about $1 a packet.

I attended the Gala Dinner for the Atlanta Chapter of the Wilderness Society last night…will write more about their goals and plans for the coming year soon.

Mobile has become a go-to channel for film and television studios looking to build buzz for a new movie or show.

To promote Frank Miller’s film “The Spirit,” Lionsgate launched an iPhone application letting consumers project themselves photo-realistically into the digital realm.

“Mobile is always part of 360-degree marketing strategy for any new-release film that comes out, and increasing for new TV shows as well,” said Curt Marvis, president of digital media at Lionsgate, Santa Monica, CA.

“Our mobile strategy involves providing new, original content based on existing brands such as ‘Mad Men’ or ‘Weeds’ and figure out how to extend that through mobile channels,” he said. “We introduce new content via Web or via mobile or both, which encourages consumers to come back to traditional programming such as a theater or their TV.

“Mobile video is still in the early days, but we see a lot of potential.”

In addition to iPhone applications, Lionsgate has run SMS initiatives, mobile advertising campaigns, mobile sweepstakes, free mobile content and mobile video.

The studio is also working on releasing several gaming-based applications for the iPhone.

Overseas, Lionsgate has launched shows that were financed exclusively through revenues generated from mobile, and Mr. Marvis believes that in two-to-three years the mobile commerce ecosystem may be mature enough in the U.S. to generate massive mobile content sales.

“Definitely we’re huge believers in the mobile channel as a video channel, and the bandwidth will have a lot to do with that, but the concerns about the small screen-size are bullshit,” Mr. Marvis said.

As evidence he cited the “incredible” number of TV episodes consumers have bought via iTunes to watch on their iPhone.

Mr. Marvis also believes that mobile payments using one’s handset will be a game changer. He was excited about ARL/VRL audio-based location technology that integrates voice recognition and mobile coupons.

“You’ll be able to say a brand name or movie title, find where the closest retailer is or the closest theatres that are showing that movie, also giving you a $1 off coupon,” Mr. Marvis said. “There are some of the things we see going forward becoming really valuable for us.”

Also, better devices and better networks will mean more opportunities for brands to reach consumers via mobile and provide better content and a better experience.

“Once bandwidth starts to expand, five years from now the mobile channel will be a massively important contributor to our revenue,” Mr. Marvis said. “It will probably revolve around the forward-going notion among consumers that everything’s free, and the entire entertainment business is faced with different models to cope with that.

“There will be subscription services such as TV anywhere, where cable is also available on subscribers’ cell phone wherever they are, and it will be much more ad driven than it will be transactionally driven—brought to you by brand X, Y and Z,” he said.

Naturally, privacy watchdogs answer the question in this post title with a resounding “Yes!” The answer is so emphatic, in fact, that the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group are filing a complaint with the FTC alleging that mobile marketers collect so much “non personally identifiable information” that it infringes on users’ privacy—and are “unfair and deceptive.”

Mobile devices, which know our location and other intimate details of our lives, are being turned into portable behavioral tracking and targeting tools that consumers unwittingly take with them wherever they go.

(Shh! Don’t tell them the FBI can remotely turn on the microphone of several cell phone brands and convert your phone into a roving “bug” even when it’s off!)

But is the Internet really private? Should it be?

Is a profile that states that you are interested in outdoor recreation and currently in the Santa Clara, CA, area an invasion of your privacy? And if so, should we ban all outdoor rec stores and centers in Santa Clara from collecting personally identifiable information like, say, a picture of you when you walk in their lobby?

Should we prohibit all employees from asking your name and if you slip and mention it, make sure they never call you by it?

Naturally, there’s a limit to how much information a mobile phone can give marketers (without some sort of lead generation input or opt-in).

As with PC-based behavioral targeting, mobile marketing companies do not typically collect names, phone numbers, email addresses or other so-called personally identifiable information.

But advocates say the information gathered is so detailed that it poses a threat to privacy.

“They don’t need to know a name to know that Mobile User ‘X’ likes to search for fast food, bought a new car recently, and went on the mobile phone looking for a lower-interest credit card,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

The complaint says that they want the FTC to look into behavioral and geographic targeting in mobile marketing, and require mobile marketers to use opt-ins and to disclose to users how their information is going to be used.
Presently, text-message (SMS) marketing is opt-in, but other forms of mobile marketing, such as search and display, aren’t.

Ultimately, however, it seems that privacy advocates are hoping for a world where we can be “safely anonymous” online, whether we access the Internet from our computers or our phones. But remember, in this world, advertising is no more targeted or helpful than it is on, say, television.

What do you think—is mobile behavioral and geo-targeting an invasion of your privacy?

2D or Data Matrix Codes could revolutionize the way we read printed materials. Magazines, newspapers and books could become interactive.

Bloc from hypnoticmedia on Vimeo.

Pabst Blue Ribbon is a recession juggernaut, but not just because it’s cheap.

Sales of PBR are up an astounding 25% this year, according to Information Resources Inc. And while cheaper beers — a group within which PBR has long been something of a mascot — are outperforming their more expensive peers as consumers look for low-cost options these days, there’s clearly more than pricing at work here.

So, what’s driving consumers to choose PBR?

For starters, PBR isn’t that cheap any more. The brand hiked prices this year, and a case of PBR now costs $1.50 more than MillerCoors’ Keystone, $1 more than Anheuser-Busch’s Busch and Natural brands, and 50 cents more than Miller High Life.

And it’s growing at a faster clip than all of the aforementioned brands — all of which are growing this year — despite the higher price.

So what’s driving consumers to choose PBR? It’s not media spending, that’s for sure. According to TNS Media Intelligence, PBR didn’t register any measured media spending during the first half of 2009.

Rivals bump ad spending


That’s a clear contrast from other cheaper brews, which increased spending during the period vs. the year earlier in order to get front of mind with drinkers seeking cheaper options. Natural Light, for instance, spent $1.4 million on measured media in the first half, up from only $350,000 a year earlier. And Miller High Life spent about $4.7 million during the first half of 2009, compared to $4.5 million a year earlier.

All of those brands are substantially bigger than PBR, which accounts for about 0.7% of the U.S. beer business, vs. Keystone Light’s 1.8% share, High Life’s 2.3% share, Natural Light’s 4.2% and Busch and Busch Light’s combined nearly 6%.

But still, if PBR costs more and advertises less, why is it up 25% this year, vs. an 18% gain for Keystone and low- to mid-single-digit gains for the others?

The answer, wholesalers and beer-marketing experts said, is likely found in marketing activity that occurred long before the current recession.

Back in 2004, Pabst executed a highly effective word-of-mouth campaign that made the long-declining brand an “ironic downscale chic” choice for bike messengers and other younger drinkers who viewed the beer as a statement of non-mainstream taste. PBR sales surged by nearly 17% that year, and have climbed at single-digit rates since, until this year, when the recession sent its sales soaring as more drinkers were pushed into the sub-premium category.
Think of it as conspicuous downscale consumption, or something like it.

“There’s still a bit of hipness to it,” said Benj Steinman, editor of Beer Marketer’s Insights. “Of all the sub-premiums, it’s got a little more cache.”

“It’s an anti-establishment badge,” added a major market wholesaler. “It seems to play to the retro, nonconformist crowd pretty well.”

Teen-focused shopping tech is hitting the marketplace, and teenagers are adopting it to get the automatic cool-factor associated with a new technology.

For a recent mobile pull coupon campaign, for example, in which shoppers text a code found on store signs to get the coupon and then show it displayed on their phone at checkout, the coupons had a 40 percent redemption rate compared with less than two percent for many print or online coupon campaigns.

Hard to be those response rates.

My colleagues and I have been discussing the new Jon Amiel movie, Creation, starring Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connolly. I believe it to be a thoughtful, well-made film that will change many views of Darwin held by the public. According to statistics only 37% of Americans believe in evolution.

The acting is strong, the visuals are wonderful, and it treats with loving care the Victorian details of the furnishings at Down house and other sites (such as Malvern), and the local church.

The movie takes place after Darwin has returned from the Beagle voyage, and has settled down with his wife, Emma. It concentrates on their relationship, on the growth of their family, and of course, on the production of his most famous scientific work, On the Origin of Species. It looks hard at Darwin and his growing disenchantment with Christianity, especially the concept of Providence, and how poorly it fits Darwin the naturalist’s knowledge of a very unpeaceable kingdom.

As someone with a keen interest in how the public understands evolution and it’s most famous proponent, the bottom line for me was that the science be presented accurately. Natural selection and evolution (common descent, expressed in the movie by the tree of life metaphor) are both presented accurately, and although the movie does not dwell a great deal on the actual science, the importance of science to Darwin was apparent. Darwin was accurately presented as a curious naturalist (engaging his kids in natural history—geology, beetles, nature walks—even scientifically studying his baby! etc). Darwin is seen as a careful scientist—lots of microscope work, lots of careful record-keeping of pigeons, barnacles, etc. It is also clear—which is historically accurate—that Darwin was held in high regard as a scientist by his colleagues.

Much of Creation‘s dialogue is taken directly from Darwin’s correspondence or that of his contemporaries. There is a TON of real history in this movie.

I think much of the public viewing the Creation think he wrote one not-very-good book, and is unaware that Darwin devoted his life to science, conducting experiments and making observations and being held in high regard by his contemporaries. In particular, Darwin as a passionate, loving human being is far from how most Americans picture him. I like to think that someone seeing this movie will be stimulated to read one of the many biographies found on the movie’s excellent website (www.creationthemovie.com), or otherwise easily accessible.

Creation is first and foremost a movie about the relationship between Charles and Emma. The actors, married in real life, and themselves parents, do an excellent job portraying the range of emotions that must have been part of the Darwins’ life together—from tenderness as they hold their baby Annie, through their shared grief over her death, to the tension over their different attitudes towards religion, and other aspects of their relationship.

By telling an interesting story, and making Darwin human, Creation will I think encourage some viewers to find out more about the historical Darwin and his ideas. The more people know about evolution and its most famous proponent, the less they will fear it. I’d like to see this movie get distributed in the US. Unfortunately, although Canadians and British will see it, there is not yet a US distributor. We can only speculate why, but the well-known American nervousness about evolution is probably and unfortunately part of the mix.

This movie deserves to be seen in movies, not relegated merely to Netflix on DVD. I hope the reviews following the North American premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 10 are good, and also the reviews following the British premiere October 25.

This time of year with NewYork’s Fashion Week upon us is the perfect opportunity for designers to dynamically and creatively encourage and join the consumers in a discussion. Fashion fans are chomping at the bit for content from their favorite designers — which is why fashion sites are thriving. Fashion sites and indie fashion bloggers may not have the fashion critics’ pulpit (yet), but they are creating the future of the monthly glossy, and the future of the fashion Marcom system.

Step one is listening and engaging with your customers via social media channels, step two is to create social shopping opportunities and provide easy paths to purchase via social media channels. While designers may be apprehensive in giving up control, social media tools are actually launching pads for designers to strengthen their customer base and ultimately, grow their sales.

Here are six social fashion sites that every marketer worth her Prada handbag should be familiar with:

Shopflick

Shopflick combines videos and shopping to create a truly unique online fashion and shopping experience and social community. The site draws from a strong network of indie and up and coming designers to provide shoppers the ability to find cutting edge, unique items and to helps brand touch base and engage with current and new customers through branded online stores, video commerce widgets and much more.

Us Trendy

UsTrendy is a place where designers can post their portfolios, fans can judge them and then each season a collection is chosen using the most popular styles. Its tag line is, “…today’s inspiration… tomorrow’s trend…” UsTrendy produces the popular clothes and hosts events. They provide interaction and showcasing opportunities to designers, artists, models and fans through galleries, industry exposure, events and social networking connections. The site is a mash-up of Etsy.com and Linkedin.com.

StyleCaster

StyleCaster is looking to become the future site of online fashion through optimized fashion advice that is targeted to each user. This is the Amazon of fashion sites, where with every click they get to know you personal preference and taste, thereby giving you educated advice and marketing. This site is a mash-up of social network, editorial content and shopping and has just been given 4 million in funding.

Sense of Fashion

Sense of Fashion is the marketplace for upstart fashion designers, fashion lovers and sellers. It has an eBay-like capability for people to sell their fashion, shop or interact in their social network. Fans can show off their individual styles, favorite brands or even do e-commerce. Their goal is to connect designers with the very people who may inspire them, to also provide a platform for users to show off and sell their merchandise.

Est.Today

Est.Today is a fashion site for tweens that gives young girls the ability to design, display and purchase their own clothes. With personal creativity being the most stylish accessory this season, and now that young girls are paving the way for many new trends today according to a recent article in British Elle, this site capitalizes a the younger generations need for individual creativity.

Style Hop

StyleHop combines fashion and gaming to provide users with a fun rating system to decide on the popularity of branded styles. It incorporates yelp-like functionality to provide viewers information on popular sweaters and shoes for certain cities. Brands are given visibility though outfits, and users are able to comment on each picture with the ability to share the pictures on their other networks.