Fashion Notebook

Oscar Wrap-Up: Why Marketing Was the Night's Most Interesting Star

So if last night's ceremony, presenter banter, and Jon Stewart had us yawning in our
seats, at least the marketing plugs were there to wake us up! In fact, we might go so
far as to say that marketing was the real star of the show.

Things kicked off with some good designer plugs in the women's dress category. Headline news: Cotillard up, Kidman down. For a more comprehensive breakdown, check out our previous Oscar post, here. (Or, er, scroll below!)

But we left one of those ladies out of the line-up, because she was just such a good piece of marketing collateral that we thought her more appropriate for this part of the wrap-up. Drum roll please: Heidi Klum in that gorgeous red dress by John Galliano, a philanthropic tie-in for Coca-Cola, which ran its Red Dress campaign spots during the event. The dress (pictured, with Klum, below) will be auctioned off on MyCokeRewards.com, with proceeds going to the charity Heart Truth, which raises awareness about heart disease in women.

Then there were the commercials, and I have to say that the fashion set more than represented. The new J.C. Penney ads for the "American Living" collection seemed to translate well (at least, among our viewing audience last night in a cramped Brooklyn apartment), and everyone seemed pleasantly surprised by the American Express ads with Diane von Furstenberg. Both ads got some prominent sponsorship play before the commercial break had even commenced.

So for the fashion marketers, it seemed like the night sailed on smoothly, unlike Cameron Diaz's attempt to pronounce such difficult words as "cinematography" (again, we still don't understand why she gets Galliano's Dior dresses!).

And then there were these weird product plugs.

Here's Jon Stewart bemusedly futzing with his iPhone. If ever there were a completely smooth pitchman, Stewart's not one of 'em. In a lame segue, he talked about getting to catch up on all of the year's great films right there at the podium. (Because, you know, the square inches of the iPhone really help to communicate the Old West grandeur of "There Will Be Blood." Seriously, has Stewart even used this device?). Then of course, he announces that they're better viewed in widescreen. He turns the phone horizontally and the camera pans in for a great shot of the iPhone and Apple logo. In the end, it's not a bad plug, it's just, well, kinda shameless and we're sure that even those who aren't marketers recognized this little bit for the sham it is. Kind of like the Bluefly.com "Accessories Wall" in Project Runway or the numerous mentions Coke gets during American Idol.

And then there was this COMPLETELY SHAMELESS PLUG for the Nintendo Wii. Coming back from commercial, Stewart and the little girl from that Gospel choir, were engaged in a heated game of Wii Tennis, projected on enormous screens for the whole audience to see. No joke followed, no setup really introduced the plug. It was suddenly just there.  Check out the video below.

Do marketers seriously think the American public is this stupid that they wouldn't know a complete corporate shill when they see it? Why not give away sponsorship titles for the awards at this point? And the Oscar for the Coca-Cola Best Actress goes to... Marion Cotillard! Just think of it! She could thank Diet Coke, of course, for all of those days on set when she needed a fizzy drink that calmed her stomach but didn't contribute to any stress-induced weight gain. Well, that's if San Pelligrino doesn't get the award sponsorship first.

Now that we're mulling it, is this a bad idea? Everyone knows these shows are rigged shams anyways, I don't care how many staged videos I have to see of Frank Pierson being denied at the doors of Price Waterhouse Cooper.

Research Desk: What's the Price of Love? Average of $128 Spent on Valentine's This Year, And Men Lead the Charge

What's the price of love?

An average of $128 will be spent on Valentine's Day gifts this year, according to a new study from Brand Keys, New York, though Brand Keys founder Robert Passikoff said, in a statement, that the spending increase was about half the jump in 2006.

The study surveyed 1,200 men and 1,200 women between the ages of 18 and 60 about their purchase intent and celebration plans for the Feb. 14 holiday.  Turns out the guys end up dropping more cash, averaging spends of $166 versus $90 for the ladies. Younger respondents, pegged at 18-34, planned to spend the most, at an average of $162, ahead of 35-49 year olds with an average spend of $69, and those over 50, who planned to spend an average of $52 on Valentine's Day gifts.

Maybe I'm just a big grump, but my boyfriend and I are clocking in at $0, since we don't celebrate Valentine's Day. (Of course, it doesn't hurt that our anniversary falls the day AFTER Valentine's Day, so perhaps our splurge is just time-shifted).

Anyhow, onto the good stuff. While the fashion biz seemed to fall towards the back half, still a strong showing for those looking to market their fragrances, apparel and jewelry collections. Here's the Top 10 Valentine's Day Gifts for 2008:

                            

And for those of you looking to size up which celebrities you'll be wanting to seeding your product to, here's a round-up of the Top 10 Fantasy Dates, broken out by gender. Don't forget, the Oscars are just around the corner! Or are they?

Hey, we didn't make this list, so feel free to post your disagreements below. While we understand George Clooney's placement (though we feel Owen should be up there), we're a bit baffled by Rebecca Romjin's top slot. Seriously? Guys would rather date her than Angelina?

And notice who didn't appear? While Nicole Kidman got a nod, seems like Tom Cruise is out of the picture. Guess no one wants to date crazy anymore.

Marketing Ethics in The Valley of the Stardolls

  Stardoll.com, a social-play Web site for 9 to 17 year-old girls, announced this week that it has inked a deal with supermodel/auf'er Heidi Klum to promote her latest jewelry collection.

Essentially, the deal shakes out in a Second Life kind of way. Heidi gets her own store, located in Stardoll's "Star Plaza" shopping center, where the girls can look through her collection, buy "virtual versions" of the product that they can use to bedeck their avatars, and talk shop about fashion. They can even look through Heidi's "closet" of favorite handbags, shoes, clothes and awards show outfits. Oh and she gets this avatar (see right) that doesn't really do graphic justice to Klum's on-screen beauty.

“I don’t just think about it as selling jewelry, [but] I try to make it about who I am,” Klum told me over the phone. “I think it’s great to be in connection with young girls who are interested in fashion . . . It allows [the girls] to interact with those celebrities they are fans of and get an insight into what that person’s favorite clothes are.”

Klum isn't the first to go this way with Stardoll. A partnership with LVMH in December landed DKNY (see store format below) and Sephora in the space, and before that young starlets like Hillary Duff, the Olsens, and Avril Lavigne had also set up shop on the site. And there are more to come! The site, which claims to have 12 million visitors, is seeking other high-end partnerships with brands including Stella McCartney, Vivienne Tam, Liz Claiborne and Henri Bendel.

No doubt, digi-deals like these are already popping up everywhere, but the fact that they're luxury players that are effectively marketing to kids—essentially recruiting future shoppers while their brand loyalties aren't yet set in stone, not to mention further glamorizing a materialist marketplace—seemed just a little bizarre to me.

So I rang up Susan Linn over at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood to  get her thoughts. Picking a fight, I know, but I thought she might be able to shed some light on this trend.

“The real purpose of social networking sites for young kids like Stardoll, BarbieGirl and even Webkinz and Club Penguin, is to train kids to shop,” she told me. “It’s a good thing for the corporations to make a lot of bucks, but it’s not a good thing for kids. What these companies want to do it get children in the habit of consumption . . . and instill the idea that they deserve luxury products."

But is that Stardoll's fault, really? If we're supposed to stop instilling kids with the idea that they deserve expensive things, why don't we just cancel any number of reality and "scripted reality" shows, not to mention MTV shows like "Cribs" or VH1's "The Fabulous Life Of" series? Certainly those shows glamorize opulent wealth and rampant consumerism.

To whit, Paul Kurnit, president of Kid Shop and a marketing professor at Pace University, told me that the children using sites like Stardoll are already exposed to hyper-consumer culture via television shows like those mentioned above.

“Luxury is aspiration and a lot of those brands and those celebrities are fashion and lifestyle brand badges that today's teen and tween girls want a piece of,” he said, adding that he feels Stardoll does a good job of delivering for both its users and brands.

So, dear reader, what's the verdict? Is Stardoll out of line, or is it merely keeping with the times?