Review: Smart Tags

Description: A lost pet recovery system
Main Pitch: "Guaranteed to find your pet within six hours or your money back"
Main Offer: $19.95 for two (with purchase of Lifetime Protection Plan)
Bonus: Pet First Aid Kit
Starring: Dr. B. Voynick, veterinarian
Marketer: IDTag.com
Website: www.SmartTags.com
Prediction: Unlikely to succeed

I've known about this product concept for some time, and I always loved the idea. With the right creative, I think this one could be a hit.

While this creative isn't terrible from a production standpoint, it's confusing and (to use a favorite expression yet again) confusion is a sales killer. The commercial I saw is a 60, which exacerbates the problem. This product, which is really a service, needs a 120 at minimum to explain. It may even need a longer format like a 5-minute or perhaps a long form to get the features and benefits across. On top of that, the offer is also very confusing, leaving unanswered an important question, "How much will the string that's attached cost me?"

Another problem is the lack of testimonials. More than with other product categories, I think emotion is a major driver of sales in the pet category. There is almost zero emotion in this spot despite all the potential that's there. Lost pets are almost as emotionally devastating as lost children for many people ... and that's all the free consulting I'm willing to give today!

Review: Blend Buddy

Description: A personal smoothie maker
Main Pitch: "The world's only blender that mixes right inside a portable sports bottle"
Main Offer: $29.95 for one with color caps and Smoothie Guide
Bonus: 2nd kit (just pay P&H)
Marketer: Allstar
Producer: The Schwartz Group
Website: www.BuyBlendBuddy.com
Prediction: On the fence

Years ago, I worked on a product concept similar to this one that never got off the ground because of a cost-of-goods issue. But I liked the concept then, and I like it now. Also, while I rarely talk about the strength of a creative these days because most commercials are typically excellent (if it's a top producer) or typically mediocre (if it's a lesser producer), this spot deserves praise. It's excellent. It flows smoothly, hits every note and is beautifully produced. Kudos to The Schwartz Group team.

Despite all of that, I have two reservations about the campaign. The first is the price, which is what kept us out of the market years ago. Although the BOGO offer helps reduce the "perceived price" of the product, the hard price on-screen of $29.95 is $10 above the known price barrier for a short-form DRTV item. Perhaps the obvious high quality of the product will compensate for that.

My other concern: Is it too soon after Magic Bullet, which is still widely available? True, that product is more costly ($50), more elaborate and doesn't have the same exact features. But if the core market for this type of product has it, they may not be ready for a replacement.

Review: Easy Shaper

Description: An exercise bar
Main Pitch: "Hundreds of body shaping exercises in one compact system"
Main Offer: 2 pay of $24.95
Bonuses: Four workouts on DVD, one-year personal trainer helpline, wall chart, eating guide AND buy one, get one free
Starring: Tony Little
Marketer: Fitness Quest
Website: www.EasyShaper.com
Prediction: Unlikely to succeed

This commercial is a good example of why most DRTV marketers say you can't do fitness in short form (unless you go narrow like Iron Gym or Shake Weight, but that's another topic).

The issue here is the product does too much and comes with too many bonuses. There just isn't enough time to explain everything ... even if you're a hyperactive fast-talker like Tony Little.

And how does that fast talking come across to the viewer? I think Ron Popeil put it best in an interview he did with me last autumn (yes, that was a shameless name drop). He said such pitches "sound like a machine gun" and that the perception is "they are trying too hard, so it’s too good to be true."

Another problem with such commercials is they create confusion and (to use a favorite experession once again) confusion is a sales killer.

For these reasons, despite the talented people involved, I think this one is going to be a flop -- at least in short form.

Review: NuBod

Description: Shapewear for arms
Main Pitch: "Makes flabby, jiggly arms look lean and shapely instantly"
Main Offer: $19.99 for one in black
Bonus: 2nd one in ivory (just pay P&H)
Starring: Jen Boyett
Website: www.Nubod.com
Prediction: Unlikely to succeed

Earlier this summer, Allstar tested a product similar to this one called Skinny Arms. The commercial starred HSN's Stella Riches and was produced by Hutton-Miller. I didn't get a chance to review it, and now the Website is no longer live online. Given the players involved, that's a good indication this concept wasn't an instant hit.

One potential problem I see is that most shapewear is under-wear, meaning it's hidden beneath clothing. This product is visible and can only be hidden if a woman is wearing long sleeves. It also targets a narrow problem area that will be of less concern than other areas (e.g. the waistline).

However, I think this product may still have potential. Shapewear is a hot category, as the success of Spanx and similar products demonstrates. If I'm wrong about women's perception of the product, which is quite possible, it could find its market.

SciMark Report from September Response

Last month's SciMark Report in print is now available on the Response Website. Reviews include: MicroTouch Max, Hex Light and the Just Air Backpak.

Before everyone bombards me with emails about how I've suddenly gone ultra-negative, please note I've changed the star rating system to reflect more accurately my opinion of a campaign's odds of success.

The old rating system gave a number of stars based on how many of the SciMark Seven criteria were met. However, as I explain in the intro to my September column, one signficant weakness can make an entire campaign unlikely to succeed. For instance, we know the odds of success go way down if the product doesn't solve a problem. That shortcoming can doom an otherwise brilliant campaign to failure.

The new star rating reflects these nuances. Four stars is "likely to succeed," two stars is "unlikely to succeed" and so on. I even have the possibility of a wishy-washy three stars, which I will probably use when I like the marketer and the producer but hate the strategy or product.

As always, I welcome your feedback.