While the pairing of The Colbert Report with the national speedskating team seems beneficial to both parties, it’s also an example of how promotional content is becoming increasingly, insidiously embedded into “real life.”  In the past couple years, advertisers have begun experimenting with paid placements and sponsorships in which promotional content is closely aligned with programming content.  Consider L’Oreal’s prominent role in Project Runway, for instance.  Or the Beijing Summer Olympics, where the U.S. team sported enormous Ralph Lauren polo ponies on their jackets during the opening ceremony.

Promotional messages have become so enmeshed with regular television programming in some cases that the FTC is considering requiring advertisers and programmers to identify when they’re doing a paid-for product pitch.  Proposals include — get this — a flashing red light on the TV screen to alert viewers that they’re being exposed to promotional material.

Seriously?

Last month, the FTC enacted some vague regulations requiring bloggers to disclose when they’ve been paid or given something of value to talk about a product.  Now, they’re talking about trying to protect people from insidious forms of product placement.  The simple fact is, as DVRs, Internet-streamed video and other on-demand content become the norm, advertisers will adapt their approach to get their messages heard.  The coming years will present an interesting range of ethical dilemmas in what constitutes fair disclosure of paid product promotions.  At this point, however, it may be premature to enact national regulations governing product placement.

You’ll definitely want to visit TheFunTheory.com site for other examples — or to enter the global competition for behavior-changing ideas.  The concept of the World’s Deepest Trash Bin is sheer genius.

As marketers, we tend to default to to rational appeals, believing we can motivate desired behaviors by touting cost benefits, product features — or even more powerful, complex incentives such as self-interest and pride of association.  What I’m taking away from these videos is maybe, if we dig deeper, we can uncover some wonder, novelty and ingenuity in whatever it is we’re pitching.  Fun as a motive.  How disconcertingly obvious.

a.  Revlon
b.  FedEx
c.  Cheerios
d.  The University of Phoenix

The unexpected (and correct) answer is the University of Phoenix.  The online institution spent an estimated $134 million on measured media in 2008.  It’s on track to spend even more in 2009, buying $75 million in ads in the first half of the year.

For its money, the University of Phoenix has generated significant brand awareness, but it hasn’t built much of a brand.  Its ad spending has helped the school attract a record number of students, generate $3.1 billion in 2008 revenue and cultivate a reputation for quality similar to Burger King‘s and the Russian ruble’s.  The University of Phoenix brand is probably associated with convenience, accessibility and maybe low cost.  These are not the attributes of an enduring brand.  Even Burger King — also convenient, accessible and cheap — offers other attractions, such as made-to-order service (“You can have it your way!”) and, of course, onion rings.

The University of Phoenix, on the other hand, offers an intangible “product” that’s harder to measure.  Because of this, it’ll have to work doubly hard to imbue its brand with attributes such as legitimacy and achievement.  Such attributes are essential to the long-term growth of the franchise and to countering skepticism about the value of a University of Phoenix degree.

If nothing else, the online institution should try to create some pride of association.  The school may not be exclusive or rigorous, but it is extremely large.  To build esprit de corps, perhaps the University of Phoenix’s 420,000 virtual students could pick a fight with the neighboring city of Scottsdale (population 240,000) and Arizona State University (53,000 students).  Or, to highlight the school’s international presence, maybe Phoenix’s students could lay siege to Halifax, Nova Scotia (population 373,000)?

I’d love to see what a giant student body backed by an even larger ad budget could really accomplish.  With such resources, Phoenix should at least be able to shape a brand that’s differentiated from Burger King’s.

It turns out the “sign spinner” (that’s his job title) works for AARROW Advertising, a promotions company that mixes signboards and extreme sports to create an interactive “advertising experience with each person that passes, delivering what no other form of advertising can:  eye contact and a smile.”

This wasn’t the guy I saw, but it gives you an idea of what sign spinners do:

Each sign spinner is trained by AARROW, though many come into the job with a headstart from skateboarding, street dancing or some other acrobatic background in which there’s low regard for injury.  The sign spinners are paid about $20 an hour — plus tips sometimes — and, if they’re really good, they get to compete in the AARROW sign spinning championships.  No joke.

Sign spinning seems like a great way to build street cred for your brand.  I just wish I could remember what that spinning sign was advertising.

• Despite the tough economy, 75 percent of consumers are willing pay extra for products from socially responsible companies.  More than half are ready to pay at least a 6 percent premium to support such companies.
• Employees are willing to accept lower compensation to work for a socially responsible company, particularly employees between the ages of 25 and 49 with higher incomes.
• Consumers also report that a company’s honesty and trustworthiness have more of an impact on purchase decisions than the quality or value of its products.

Consumers define CSR as treating employees well, engaging in environmentally sound business practices, and giving back to the community.  Here are some companies that fared well in the CSR reputation survey:

CSR has come a long way.  It used to be an investment avoidance tactic — not buying shares in tobacco companies, for instance — and now it’s a business strategy that delivers not only a price premium but also recruitment efficiencies and marketing differentiation. Clearly, CSR is the way to go.

• 5% of users account for 75% of all activity, and 10% of users account for 86%.  “A steep curve of a small minority of actively engaged content creators generating most of the activity on a site is common among social networks,” notes Bhargava, “but it is steeper and more pronounced on Twitter.”
• 21% of Twitter’s registered users have never posted a single tweet.  Bhargava speculates these dormant users are simply staking out a user name for later use or just never followed through after signing up.
• 50.4% of all Twitter users post infrequently (less than once a week).
• 94% of Twitter accounts have fewer than 100 followers.
• The reciprocation limit for followers is around 150. Bhargava wrote, “In a particularly interesting data point from the survey, Sysomos found that Twitter users tended to ‘follow back’ all their followers up until about 150 connections. Then the reciprocation rate fell off dramatically.”
• Tuesday tends to be the most popular day for tweets. The next most active days are Wednesday and Friday.
• As Twitter users attract more followers, they tend to Tweet more often.  Someone with 1,000 followers will tweet six times per day, on average.  Someone with more than 1,750 followers will tweet 10 times per day.

First, Seth Godin posted this picture of a billboard he found in Ontario(?):

Omega Cleaning is the company to call if you need to tidy up after a homicide, suicide, “unattended death” (?), or just some unexplained case of “human decomposition.”

In a similar vein, while catching up on Adrants, we found this video about a guy who removes road kill:

The video is an ad for Westwood College, which offers degree programs to get people out of dead end jobs.  Maybe the employees of Omega Cleaning, who “handle all types of messy situations that can be dangerous, nauseating and emotionally draining,” should look into Westwood.

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Sarah Palin’s single, alarming Facebook post instantly garnered more attention for health care reform than the Obama administration has been able to muster through months of public education programs and town hall meetings.  The Obama administration now finds itself on the defensive.  It has launched a new website to debunk the myths surrounding health care reform.

It’s interesting to note that the Obama administration has chosen to characterize the proposed changes as “health insurance” reform, which sounds less personal and more bureaucratic than reforming “health care.”  Also, “health insurance reform” positions the insurance companies as the target for change, not the doctors and health care providers who hold the patient relationships.

Beyond the careful word choices, the administration’s communication posture is surprisingly defensive.  The website features videos of various officials talking about the proposed health care program, but they spend more time trying to correct the “myths” being spread about health care reform than trying to sell the program on its merits.  Also, President Obama doesn’t have his own video on the website, though he does appear in snippets of others’.

To win the health care debate, the Obama administration will obviously have to talk more about what the reforms are rather than what they’re not.  The administration will need to convey a sense of urgency for reform without resorting to degenerative soundbites and scare tactics that would erode credibility. Right now, the program’s critics are controlling the dialogue, and they’ve made the issues ridiculously personal — euthanizing loved ones who aren’t economically productive, for instance.  Their messages are largely based on FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

Perhaps more than any other political issue of the moment, the outcome of the health care debate hinges on the parties’ ability to frame the risks of change. The Obama administration will have to position systemic change as less risky than preserving the costly status quo.  Opponents will have to position the proposed changes as too drastic, too expensive and too risky to entrust to government.  It’ll be fascinating to watch the public persuasion programs unfold.

Yet another proof point for why Apple‘s brand deserves its reputation for obsessively good, customer-oriented design.