I have somewhat of an obsession with colors and their names or designations. Whenever I can get my hands on color guides or paint sample booklets, I snatch them up. For instance, I have boxes full of those Pantone Guide strips; and having worked in the automotive industry, I have literally piles of automotive production color books with samples of all the exterior colors from various cars. I have samples from nearly every year of nearly every major make and model of car. There is something about the classification of color; I’m fascinated with the taxonomic designations and, more importantly, the aesthetic of all the sample colors lined up in neat rectangles with numbers beneath them.

Anyway… Mimosa. Mimosa is the color of the year, according to the “global authority on color”, Pantone. Read on about 2009′s color:

Pantone makes its money by selling color measurement devices and color guides. They provide standardized palettes mostly for design industries: graphics, fashion, textiles, interior design, etc. So their main customers are design folks, people who would be interested in things like the Color of the Year.

But the thing about Pantone’s selection is that it’s meaningless. They write a blurb about the color, like how we need a cheerful hue for these difficult economic times; but really, they could relate any color to anything else. The real reason for the whole spectacle is marketing. The color of the year selection gets the design folks all up in an interested frenzy, talking about Mimosa and mentioning Pantone every time. And with every mention, Pantone becomes more the universal authority on color. Genius marketing, well done.

Burger King is all about the viral kookiness these days, and their latest advertising enterprise is actually pure genius. They’ve created the “Whopper Sacrifice,” Facebook application, which will give you a coupon for a free Whopper if you delete 10 people from your Facebook friends list.

Burger King got me interested with their Whopper Virgins ads, and initially I loved this campaign because of how it seemingly makes fun of all the Facebook obsessed freaks out there. The website says: “Now is the time to put your fair-weather Web friendships to the test. Install Whopper Sacrifice on your Facebook profile, and we’ll reward you with a free flame-broiled Whopper when you sacrifice ten of your friends.” And the app actually makes each “sacrifice” show up in your activity feed for everyone to see. It says something like “Vito sacrificed Jimmy James for a free Whopper.”

But I thought about it, and wondered what BK could possibly gain from this. And then it came to me:

The Kicker: The Foot-in-the-Door

In Social Psychology, there’s a tactic called the Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) technique which involves getting a person to agree to a relatively small request first, after which they’re more likely to agree to a larger request. Basically you ask for a small yes, then you can get a bigger yes, and so on. There have been a number of studies into the effect. For example, back in the 60s, some scientists asked people to either sign a petition or place a small card in a window in their home or car about keeping California beautiful or supporting safe driving. About two weeks later, the same people were asked by a second person to put a large sign advocating safe driving in their front yard. The people who agreed to the first request were far more likely to agree to the second. This tactic works because the human brain wants to be consistent, we always strive to align our opinions with what we know we’ve said in the past. That’s why “flip-flopping” is looked down on, even though, if you think about it… changing your opinion in the face of new evidence is actually a good thing.

So what Burger King is doing here is quite genius. Even though people think it’s no big deal to drop 10 “useless” friends to pick up a 2 dollar coupon, it may actually be having an effect on them. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after this campaign comes and goes, the customers who dropped friends for the coupon were actually more likely to frequent Burger King than those who didn’t engage in the friend dropping. Psychology plays a big part in advertising, now you know.

Brussels advertising agency So Nice sent out an email to its clients saying they need to shrink their staff, and asking the clients to choose which employee should go. The email had a link to youchoosewefire.be, where each of the prospective ex-employees lists their strengths and weaknesses.

The small 10 person agency has apparently been financially squeezed by it’s clients paying their bills later and later. Co-founder of the company, Laurent Duffaut, said the email was a “scandalous and provocative way to get a reaction from our clients”. But the email has generated a ton of interest outside of just its client base. In five days, the site has had 30,000 unique visitors casting 17,500 votes.

So with one simple email and website, they encouraged their existing clients to pay up, and spread their name around to new potential clients. Nice move. Unfortunately, it seems a little like holding a kitten hostage to me, appealing to your customers empathy…OR ELSE. It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

San Francisco-based Joseph Enterprises, the company behind the Chia Pet, will be spending almost $9 million dollars on advertising this year alone. Yet from the months of January to September of this year, they’ve only spent $5,000 dollars. This is because almost all of the advertising happens during the holiday season, and likewise, 90% of Chia sales occur during the holidays. They’re like the Jesus of the kitschy seed planter pottery world – big in December, ignored the rest of the year.

They were first introduced in 1981 and have continued to cling to the public consciousness despite being branded as just a fad product. Joseph Enterprises does a good job of keeping the public interested with new forms each year. For example, this year they have characters from the films “Madagascar” and “Kung Fu Panda” on top of their regular line of kittens and hippos and elephants.

Check out the timeline of all the different types of Chia pet:

* 1982 Wave 1 — Original Chia Pet (later called Chia Ram) introduced.
* 1983-92 Wave 2 — Chia Bull, Chia Puppy, Chia Kitten, and Chia Tree introduced.
* 1993 Wave 3 — Chia Bunny, Chia Turtle, and Chia Herb Garden introduced.
* 1995 Wave 4 — Chia Pig, Chia Frog, Chia Hippo, and original Chia Head (later called Chia Guy) introduced. Chia Ram and Chia Bull discontinued.
* 1996 Wave 5 — Chia Elephant, Chia Kid, Chia Professor, Chia Clown and Chia Terra Cotta Herb Garden introduced. Chia Herb Garden discontinued.
* 1998 Wave 6 — Chia Cow and Chia Lion Cub introduced.
* 2000 Wave 7 — Chia Dinosaur, Chia Elmer Fudd, Chia Taz, and Chia Tweety introduced. “Watch-Me-Grow Chia Cards” included. Chia Mr. T issued briefly for TV Land promotion.
* 2002 Wave 8 — Chia Scooby-Doo, Chia Shaggy, and Chia Homer introduced. “Watch-Me-Grow Chia Cards” discontinued.
* 2003 Wave 9 — Chia Bugs Bunny, Chia Daffy Duck, and Chia Bart introduced.
* 2004 Wave 10 — Chia Shrek, Chia Donkey, Chia Garfield, Chia Cat Grass Planter featuring Sylvester and Tweety, and Gourmet Chia Herb Garden introduced. Chia Terra Cotta Herb Garden discontinued.
* 2006 Wave 11 — Chia Bear, Chia Alex and Chia Marty introduced, Chia Ram and Chia Bull reintroduced, Chia Kid, Chia Clown and Chia Lion Cub retired, Chia Alarm Clock included with all Chia Pets, Chia Heads and Chia Tree, Cuddly Chia Puppy and Cuddly Chia Cub introduced.
* 2007 — Pack-ins expanded to include Mini Chia Cuddly and Chia Watch.
* 2008 Wave 12 — Chia Po, Chia Tree with Star Light, and Chia Cat Grass Planter featuring “snoozing kitty” introduced. Chia Ram, Chia Bull, Chia Turtle, Chia Bear, Chia Elmer Fudd, Chia Bugs Bunny, Chia Daffy Duck, Chia Tree, Cuddly Chia Puppy, and Cuddly Chia Cub discontinued. Pack-ins include Mini Chia Cuddly and Chia Playing Cards.

Many holiday gift givers are trying to save money by making their own gifts this year, or buying handmade gifts from others. Scrapbooks, jewelery, homemade soap, various knitted bits, etc. As a result craft stores are seeing a boom in sales. Sales of handmade crafts on eBay climbed 34 percent; and the online craft marketplace, Etsy, has been breaking records for the past 2 months. Last month, artists sold $10.8 million of goods on the site, compared to $4.2 million in November 2007.

The big craft chains are seeing profits too. The Michaels Stores chain has been selling record numbers of craft supplies and things used to make jewelry, baked goods, scrapbooks and decorated clothing. It’s going to be a Bedazzled Christmas.
Meanwhile, during this craft boom, the nation’s overall retail sales in November fell 7.4 percent from the same time last year.

Michaels has altered its marketing strategy to take advantage of the new trend this season. The company’s new advertising campaign is called “Endless Creativity, Endless Savings” and focuses on highlighting the craft supplies for handmade gifts that have been selling so well. They even started a website called Where Creativity Happens with how-to videos on making craft goods and gift ideas.

Very few people have the disposable income they’re used to this year, but they still need to feel like they did something special for the people they care about. Cue craft stuffs. Crafts have that image of being personalized. If craft stores and small scale sellers capitalize on this Christmas boom to keep the craft idea in the heads of consumers, they can hopefully keep some of their gains after the holiday season. They need to really push the idea that craft goods are more heartfelt and meaningful than the regular electronics that people get for Christmas, and hope the masses buy it.

Ok AdSavvyites, it’s time for some audience participation.

I was reading one of my favorite blogs, David Friedman’s Ideas, and he had an interesting topic: Ways to promote your political ideology. Let’s say you’re a moderately wealthy and talented individual with a strong desire to promote a certain political viewpoint. How do you go about doing it? What’s the most effective, efficient way to get it done? You want the most amount of change for the least amount of money and effort. I want to hear your ideas.

First, let’s consider some of the more common methods:

1. Political – You can try to work within the existing political framework. Find a candidate who agrees with your views, and work to get that candidate elected by donating and buying advertising for that candidate. You may even try to run for office yourself, although that has a pretty low chance of success relative to the amount of money you need to spend.

The thing is, when they make it to office, most politicians don’t do what they say they will on the campaign trail. Barack Obama is a good example of that. Many of his supporters are starting to realize that his policies won’t be as radical as they seemed to be, and he will end up just another American President, doing exactly what McCain would do, although for different reasons. So, judging from history and what you can see even today, the political route is the least effective way to spend time and money if you really want to political change.

2. Intellectual – You can work outside the political framework and try to use advertising or media. You can write a book, or in a blog, a newspaper, or magazine; or try to spread your ideas to people who are more influential than you are, so they can reach a wider audience.

Traditionally, this is the easiest way one person can make a change in the world. David Friedman wrote “The Machinery of Freedom“, which is one of the most influential books in the history of the whole anarcho-capitalist movement. He’s done more with that book than he ever could have with donations or political advertisements.

Ideas are powerful things.

3. Indirect – Instead of trying to spread an idea or working within the political framework, you can actually do something that may encourage changes in the world. An example of this is Kiva.org, founded by Matt and Jessica Flannery back in 2005. Kiva.org is a microfinance institution that allows regular people to lend money via the Internet to other regular people in developing countries.

An example that David Friedman uses in his blog post is the invention of the birth control pill. Apparently, the development of the pill was funded by a donor who thought a safe, reliable form of female contraception would have the social benefits that she wanted. Another great example is the Seasteading project, initiated by Patri Friedman.

The idea behind seasteading is to develop fairly inexpensive technology for floating housing and eventually small cities. The theory is that it would make citizens more mobile, and that would make governments more competitive. When the cost of switching governments decreases, governments start to operate more like businesses, since there is more competition, and that increases the quality of governments.

Now, my question to you is, what else is there? Are there any other ways that one man can promote his politics and change the world? Let’s hear them, AdSavvyites.

Human beings tend to think they’re rational creatures, and that they make sound decisions based on all the available facts. They think their memory is an accurate record of things that have happened to them. But the reality is that we all have a slew of cognitive biases that can alter our thinking… and even our memories.

Psychologists have names for all the different fallacies and biases that influences our thinking: cognitive dissonance, inattentional blindness, blind spot bias, better-than-average bias, introspection illusion, self-serving bias, attribution bias, representative fallacy, availability fallacy, anchoring fallacy, hindsight bias, and the one I’ll be talking about here: framing effects

The way a question is “framed” often has an influence on how people answer that question, that’s what the term framing effects means. For example, look at this classic study done on framing:

Let’s say you work for the Centers for Disease Control and there is an outbreak of a deadly disease called “The Mojave Flu” in a town of 600 people. All 600 people in the town are expected to die if you do nothing. Let’s say you have come up with two different programs designed to fight to the disease:

With Program 1: 200 people in the town will be saved
With Program 2: There is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved.

In the study, 72 percent of the subjects picked Program 1. Now consider the same scenario worded differently:

With Program 3: 400 people in the town will die
With Program 4: There is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

Now which do you pick? In the study, 78 percent of the subjects picked Program 4, even though the net result of the second set of choices is exactly the same as the first set (Programs 1 and 3 mean the same thing, and Programs 2 and 4 mean the same thing).

In Aldert Vrij’s book Detecting Lies and Deceit, he describes an even more interesting example:

Participants saw a film of a traffic accident and then answered questions about the event, including the question ‘About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?’ Other participants received the same information, except that the verb ‘contacted’ was replaced by either hit, bumped, collided, or smashed. Even though all of the participants saw the same film, the wording of the questions affected their answers. The speed estimates (in miles per hour) were 31, 34, 38, 39, and 41, respectively.

One week later, the participants were asked whether they had seen broken glass at the accident site. Although the correct answer was ‘no,’ 32% of the participants who were given the ‘smashed’ condition said that they had. Hence the wording of the question can influence their memory of the incident.

That example highlights an unsettling aspect of framing effects, the fact that they can actually influence our memories.

This concept is used in advertising all the time, but the most fertile ground for framing effects is politics. Buzzwords and political terms are constantly changing and being invented to try to stay on the positive side of public opinion.

Frank Luntz is a well-known example of a political consultant who has tried to work with Republican candidates on framing various talking points and buzzwords to make them more appealing to the general public. Among other things, Luntz is responsible for the re-framing of the term “global warming” to “climate change”.

Framing effects are powerful, they have a profound influence on people, but when we recognize that these biases exist, we can gain some measure of control. We all have to understand how fragile our brains and memories are, and that will strengthen them. If we know these biases exist, it’s easier to try to avoid them. So the next time you hear a politician speaking or an advertisement telling you to buy some product, listen closely to it, and try to decipher it’s real content. It’s one more step toward the eventual goal of overcoming bias.

The Economist is one of my top five favorite magazines, I read it regularly. I also live in the Philadelphia area and eat pizza quite often. So I’m excited about The Economist’s new advertising plan: they connected with over 20 pizzerias in the Greater Philadelphia area, most of them near college campuses or dorms, and supplied them with Economist-branded pizza boxes. Each box has a pie chart that connects pizza consumption with global economics and politics. They encourage people to “Get A World View”.

This kind of ambient advertising is always interesting. Publipizz, a maker of advertising pizza boxes, estimates that a box of pizza is looked at by 3 people for at least 8 minutes and results in an 80% memory retention rate. Plus, boxes with advertising on them are less expensive for pizzerias, which makes them more likely to join in.

I really love this idea. Pizza eaters will get to learn what it took to get that pizza to their stomachs. But the idea is more than just informing consumers about pizza production; it’s about getting youth interested in the news, economy, politics. Plus it reinforces how big a part capitalism plays in all our lives. Too often people, usually young people, forget how the free market brings people together, and they dismiss capitalism as a bad thing. Hopefully a small thing like these pizza boxes will help students realize how markets bring us all together.

It reminds me of Milton Friedman’s Pencil:

My vote for the most deluded advertiser of the month goes to Michael Maguire, the CEO of Structural Graphics for his ideas on the future of print magazines.

If you haven’t already seen it or heard about it, the October issue of Esquire is “battery-powered”. Yeah, it’s just as tacky as it sounds. It cost Esquire $250,000 dollars just to get the technology to do it and it falls completely flat. I think it may just signify the jumping of the shark for print media as a whole, or maybe not, who knows.

Michael Maguire had some pretty lofty things to say about it though, like the cover was “heralding a new era in the use of technology in magazine advertising”, and he played the futurist, saying that “there are a number of steps that we’re going to see unfolding in the years to come… like animated color video in printed media, etc”. I’m not so sure. People may cling to magazines the way we’ve clung to books, but I think it’s just as likely that some sort of product like the Amazon Kindle could become mainstream and people could buy magazines for their Kindle and download them directly. Who needs paper, anyway?

What do you think AdSavvyites? Esquire’s electro-cover, lame or not?