Can you imagine picking up a payphone and making a call to someone living 20 years in the past?

Right now in New York City you can do just that, thanks to Recalling 1993, Droga5’s incredible new campaign for the New Museum’s exhibition, “NYC 1993: Experimental Jet Set, Trash, and More Star”.

Since the exhibition was created to be a snapshot of life in New York City at that time, Droga5 had the brilliant idea of integrating the campaign with the city’s history itself.  The agency transformed over 5,000 pay phones on the streets of Manhattan into audio time capsules.  By dialing the toll free number 1-855-FOR-1993, callers can hear one of over 150 recorded narratives from actual New Yorkers.  The recordings are even geo-located by phone booth, so callers hear what was happening on the exact street they’re ringing in from.

Check it out:

The two things that really take this campaign above and beyond in my opinion are: 1) that they found a way to integrate their advertising into the existing environment, and 2) that they actually become a part of their client’s exhibition. Rather than creating more stuff to take up space in already-packed Manhattan, they decided to extend the exhibition into the streets by repurposing payphones that were already there.  And with all the buzz it’s generated, it looks like everyone in Manhattan is having a blast with it.

Talk about finding the perfect medium for the message.  Droga5 is doing it right.

According to AdAge, we can expect to see QR Codes disappear completely within the next few months, as they are quickly being replaced by new augmented reality apps that are much more efficient and easy to use.  The new apps allow consumers to simply wave a smartphone over content and immediately have access to digital features.

For example, a Japanese newspaper has already launched an augmented reality app that allows young children to scan specially-marked articles with a smartphone to get access to a more kid-friendly, simplified adaptation of the story, along with pictures and explanations to help them understand the content.

Another emerging technology that AdAge predicts we’ll soon be seeing a lot more of is an invisible, electronic linking code called Touchcode.  Once printed on paper, the code can be programmed to link any touch-screen device to an interactive display relating to the content on the page.

For example, advertisers could use the code to link readers of a gaming magazine to a free demo of a game mentioned in one of the magazine’s articles.  All a person would have to do is place a smartphone or tablet on top of the article and wait for the demo to appear on the screen. The technology could also be used to show visual demonstrations of products in a catalog, give out coupons and special event tickets, or even allow consumers to “try on” clothes in an virtual fitting room.

While QR codes did have a few very successful campaigns, they were often too difficult to access from the locations in which they were placed.  They frequently ended up on billboards, or worse yet, license plates, which made it practically impossible to scan the code successfully.  Plus, marketers didn’t do a good job of explaining how to use the codes to begin with, leading many potential consumers to simply ignore the codes entirely.

The good news is, we can learn a lot from the failures of QR Codes:

1. For one, the technology needs to be easy to use.  Consumers don’t want to waste time trying to figure out a complicated app.  It should be self-explanatory and obvious.
2. If the app is not completely self-explanatory, then marketers need to explain how to use the app in a very clear, simple manner.  If it can’t be explained simply, it’s probably too complicated.
3. Make sure you place the technology on media in areas where cell phone service is sure to be available.  The app is worthless if consumers can’t access it.  Subway tunnels and other obstructed areas tend to have block or lower service.
4. Only place the apps in locations where using it makes sense.  People probably won’t be interested in scanning the table to play a branded game at a fancy restaurant on date night, but they might be interested at a McDonalds when they’re looking for a way to occupy their hyper kids.

The point is, these new technologies are bubbling over with potential, but now it’s up to agencies to learn from past mistakes and use them more carefully this time around.  If done in a smart, creative way, these apps could stick around for a long time.

Alright, I’m going to go on a short rant because I am seeing an awful trend in digital advertising/social media that needs to be addressed pronto.

A lot of companies seem to think that simply being on social media platforms is an effective way to get consumers to fall in love with your brand.  Over and over I see companies making the same mistake of focusing on the spread of the message rather than the message itself.  Brands are purchasing retweets left and right when they should be investing that money into developing a creative message that will go viral on its own.  If the message is really reaching people and getting them interested in your brand, you won’t have to purchase retweets because your audience will be spreading your message free of charge.

Case in point: Oreo’s superbowl tweet.

The message was retweeted 10,000 times in just one hour, and 14,000 times that day.  And not a single tweet was paid for.

Oreo did it right.  Here’s how:

First of all, the content was relevant.  Oreo didn’t just put out any old ad.  They created a brand new message specifically tailored to the situation: a stadium blackout at the Super Bowl.  Why did this work? People like to talk about what’s happening now.  They want to be in the know.  And they don’t want to just have a boring old conversation about what’s happening either.  They want to hear something new and entertaining.  Oreo did all of the above.

Second of all, their team was quick and reactive.  The graphic was designed, captioned, and posted within minutes after the lights went out. Most brands would hesitate in making hasty decisions like this, but Oreo took full advantage of the situation the moment it hit.  They jumped on the opportunity and stole the show before any other brand could even think about putting their 2 cents in.  And do you think they just so happened to think of something clever and put it together?  No way, José.  Bet your bottom dollar they had a team of creatives and PR personnel standing by, just waiting to react to whatever situation was thrown at them.  They were quick because they were prepared.

Finally, the message itself was witty and unexpected.  The ad went viral on twitter because it caught everyone off-guard and resonated with them in some way. It was creative and funny and didn’t feel like an ad.  It broke the 4th wall by going meta and commenting on something extremely of-the-moment.  This sort of quick-wittedness isn’t something we see every day from a brand.  Oreo’s audience knew this wasn’t some ad that had been cooked up for months.  It was fresh, and everyone could feel it.

So there you have it, folks.  Oreo’s tweet went viral because it had a message that met at the intersection of content, relevancy, speed, and wit.  It may seem like a complicated formula to nail, but with as much money as brands are spending on retweets of irrelevant content, they would be making a very smart move to shift that part of their budget towards a more reactive creative strategy.

One of the best classes I’ve ever taken at UT was Intro to Sociology with Dr. Anthony Vigorito.  I initially took the class as a freshman just to fulfill a credit requirement, but it ended up having a huge impact on my perception of the world, and eventually, my choice of major.

A large part of the class involved analyzing mass media’s impact on society.   One of the clearest ways to see how our culture influences the world around us is by looking at the images it produces, and ads are a particularly powerful example because they not only create, but also reinforce social norms and power constructs (ex. ideas about race, gender roles, etc).   And because we are constantly bombarded with these messages from a young age, we often don’t even realize how much they affect us.

Professor Vigorito demonstrated this concept with harsh clarity on the first day of class that semester.  When we came in, there were a series of print ads projected onto the screen in the giant lecture hall. The ads portrayed women and men in various poses and scenarios, normally with men in dominant positions and women in more submissive poses.  Some of the ads showed women painted to look like the product being advertised, and others even went so far as to attach women’s body parts to the product.

We were told to write down our impressions of the ads, and share our thoughts with the class.

The responses varied, but most of the girls and a few of the guys said that the ads made them uncomfortable.  Interestingly, however, while many people expressed strong reactions to the ads, no one was able to pinpoint exactly what it was that got under their skin.

I was one of those people who sensed something was off, but couldn’t quite determine what it was.  I remember looking at the ads on the projector and having this kind of sick feeling in my stomach, but I couldn’t identify precisely why they made me feel that way.  Some people suggested that it was the overt sexuality of some of the ads, but I knew that it wasn’t sexuality alone that was hitting a nerve in me.  It wasn’t the sexual nature of the ads that was a problem, but rather, the context.

After we discussed and debated the ads as a class, Professor Vigorito had us watch Killing Us Softly 4, a documentary about the ways gender is used to advertise products.  If you haven’t already seen it, I would highly recommend watching it.  Here’s the trailer:

This was the first time I’d ever heard of the concept of objectification, but it made perfect sense.  It was like a lightbulb went off in my head.  I finally understood why those ads bothered me. It wasn't the sexuality of the ads, it was that the women were being objectified.  In each ad, women were presented as somehow less than human—as objects.

Since learning about this concept had such a profound impact on the way I analyze ads, I wanted to use my notes from my Sociology class to share a brief overview of objectification for those who aren’t familiar with it.

So what is “objectification,” exactly?

It’s essentially making someone into something.  It’s normally carried out in ads by giving the properties of an object to someone who is, in fact, a person.

It can be hard to explain in words exactly how objectification works, so I’m going to try to explain by giving examples of some of the most common ways it pops up.

In these pictures, human beings are presented as inanimate object.  These are some very obvious examples, but it's not always this black-and-white.

Then there's objectification by dismemberment.  Some ads take this kind of objectification one step further by not only dismembering the body parts of the person, but also presenting these parts as inanimate objects.

Sometimes it’s slightly more subtle, with the body being compared to an object rather than explicitly rendered as the object itself:  Here, the enlargement of a woman's breasts is used as a really awful "metaphor" (if you can even call it that) for the difference between low and high definition photos.

Advertising showing violence against women is harmful for a number of reasons. For one, these ads mock the seriousness of abuse and gendered violence, which is clearly a very real threat in our society.  Another problem with these ads is that they reinforce the idea that women are the property of men: a possession to be used, abused, and disposed of.  These ads tell men that it's okay, and even right to think of women that way.

But perhaps the most damaging message they send is that violence against women is not only acceptable, but “cool.”  And that is a really scary message to be sending to young, impressionable men, some of whom will do just about anything to fit in.

While it's true that most victims of objectification are women, that doesn't mean it never happens to men.  It’s less widespread, but men definitely get objectified to an extent as well.

A particularly common theme with the objectification of men is presenting them as animals:

In some ads, this human-to-animal objectification is reversed.  This Trojan ad uses actual pigs (well, computer-generated, but you get the idea) behaving like men, instead of men posing like pigs.  But the message is the same.

Another common form of male objectification is body dismemberment (although they normally aren’t presented as inanimate objects).  Teen outfitters like American Eagle and Hollister are notorious for this.

So what’s the problem with objectification in ads?

For one, repeated exposure can lead people (women especially) to internalize objectification and begin to view themselves the way they are portrayed in the media — as objects of desire.

Another negative effect is that sexually objectified women are seen as being less human and less competent by both men and women alike.  Some studies have even found that long-term exposure to stereotypical media portrayals of women is correlated with greater tolerance of sexual harassment and acceptance of rape myths among men.

But we can’t possibly know the full extent of how these messages effect us, since we’ve been bombarded with them our whole lives.  The consequences probably reach a lot further than we’re able to measure scientifically.  The media plays such a huge role in influencing and reinforcing social norms, and we have all been impacted by the mass messages we see, whether we want to admit it or not.

The first step to change is admitting that there’s a problem to begin with.  It’s easy to dismiss the issue, since we’ve never known anything else, but if we take a step back and look at what our society from the perspective of someone who isn’t constantly immersed in it, the cruelty and harmfulness of the media's "objectification habit" becomes clear.  We have to demand for it to stop now, before it takes on a life of it's own.