Monday, July 9, 2007

Mount Vernon is the happiest place on Earth. No. Seriously. It beats out Disney in my book. Everything about it is a historical site gone right. From its painstakingly accurate representations of George Washington's home and grounds to a state of the art museum that matches media with in depth historical interpretations, Mount Vernon is a testament to the man Washington was.

The highlights:

1. Only 25 visitors at a time are allowed into the actual house, preventing it from getting unbearably crowded. Each section has its own guide that points out items of interest and tells you what occurred in each area. These people know their stuff - I didn't hear a question they couldn't answer. And Martha Washington had some good decorating sense!

2. Washington's tomb, built to his specifications in the early 19th century. It's in a secluded area of the grounds and it almost feels magnetic, pulling you forward to look upon the markers for George and Martha. It was quiet and serene, and twice daily ceremonies are held at the site.

3. The view! Washington was right when he said "No estate in United America is more pleasantly situated than this."

4. The education center, which just opened recently and is a testament to where museums can go with a little funding and a lot of ingenuity. From videos to interactive exhibits to a great children's room, the Mount Vernon museum did so many things right. The best part, by far, was a film about Washington's role in the American Revolution, complete with rumbling seats, fog machines, and multiple screens showing reenactments. So cool!

5. The Mount Vernon Inn, with its 18th century theme (including costumes for the servers!) and really nicely priced lunch menu... rosemary chicken to die for!

I think that's it. I also visited American University and absolutely loved it! Oh, and we visited the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and I was consistently underwhelmed... I also felt bad for Pluto, whose "dwarf planet" status led workers to cover it in black plastic bags and attach tacky captions explaining its new title. An example to come once I find internet that works consistently (which is why this post has no title).

That's all for now! More museum reviews to come, I'm sure!

Monday, July 2, 2007

GM misses the point... again

"As you know my online handle is Optimus Prime. So I'm like set up...or whatever...with the best possible net handle for when the movie comes out."
-Elias, Clerks II

I'd like 5 minutes in a board room with GM and their ad agency just so I can talk to them and they can hear the voice of someone from their so-called "target" of young people 18-34.

I'm most upset by this heinously underinformed and completely biased article that appeared in the New York Times today. I'll pull out a few quotes in case you can't access it or don't feel like reading an article that shows exactly what people don't get about product placement.


''You're going to see these cars as the heroes. You're not going to see the other actors,'' said Dino Bernacchi, GM's associate director of branded entertainment. ''These cars are the stars, literally, in the movie.''


Hey Dino. Listen up. Product placement is NOT supposed to be at the fore of an "artistic" production (artistic in quotes as the director is Michael Bay, who has produced such gems as "Pearl Harbor"). The cars are supposed to complement the overall plot line, blending seamlessly in and giving viewers only a hint of the brand, so they merely walk away with more brand familiarity and perhaps a better opinion of the brand.

''Product placement has never been so blatant, and the potential for a global platform to build brand awareness could not have come at a better time for GM,'' said David Koehler, a clinical marketing professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Dave - As a marketing professor, you should know that overly blatant product placement has, for the most part, met with negative reactions from the general public (for example, Heroes fans complaining that the Nissan Versa has too much of a role in the plotline). Repeat after me: blatant is bad, subtle is super! (Edit: from a New York Times article on 6/13 - "For example, many viewers of the NBC series ''Heroes'' scoffed at scenes in which, as part of a deal with the Nissan Motor Company, characters not only drove a Nissan Versa but referred to it by name continually in the dialogue."... just to back this up with sources, unlike other stories I could mention.)

Those who shell out to see ''Transformers'' probably aren't all that concerned about free-falling market shares or upcoming union negotiations. They want action, and that's what they're going to get from these GM vehicles.

This is a quote from the article itself. Clearly, making assumptions is good journalism. So is promoting the GM brand by saying that these vehicles provide action.

The Solstice, TopKick and Hummer can be seen driving down a local thoroughfare on any given day, but the Camaro won't be produced until late next year.

This is an insult to the practice of product placement. Why place a product that's not even available for sale? If this does even appeal to a 28 year old with thousands to burn on a GM car, they can't even get it.

GM has some serious issues with advertising, this I already knew. But even when they turn to alternative means, they screw it up. This blatant show of the GM name is sure to alienate their 18-34 target audience, who are very advertising savvy and, unlike Elias from Clerks II, unlikely to buy a car just because it played a Transformer in a movie.

So, GM, before you spend hundreds of millions more on your advertising budget and continue to cut employees to compensate, why not have a few focus groups, maybe hire a few interns, and get a grip on reality. Oh, and drop $20 and pick up a copy of "Life After the 30-Second Spot". It'll save you millions.