Occasionally (all the days) I find my way onto Youtube, updating my subscriptions, checking my subscription activity, clicking through the videos I have to watch, and revisiting my favourite videos.  When I do this, and particularly when I watch ‘Beauty Guru’ videos- whether it has to do with makeup tutorials, monthly favourites, or collective ‘haul’s’ I notice that a portion of the video is regularly sponsored, be it direct or indirect. Indirect sponsorship can be seen in how cosmetic companies will send Youtuber’s their products, in hopes that they will review them-supposedly based on their own opinion- and perhaps even feature them in a video or blog post. Direct sponsorship is noticed when a company pays for the feature in a Youtube beauty video (ahem, product placement) and often the Youtuber will happily accept this offer and claim the purchase of the item(s) as their own and all reviews are 100% true.

This really goes to show the changing market environment and promotional tools used for cosmetic items and really, consumer goods in general. With the technological advancements that we’ve experienced in the past two decades, the trend of a time-poor society who don’t really have the time to spend an entire day at the department store, as well as the general shift to a greater reliance and enjoyment of technology, brands are faced with entirely new outlets of promotion.

By way of an outlet such as Youtube, brands have been successful in associating themselves with the popular and loved, very closely resembling a celebrity endorsement without the high price tag or risk involved in doing so. Taken even further, companies have been know to co-brand with Youtuber’s, evident in the Elle and Blair Fowler line of phone cases available for purchase at Cellaris.

Feel free to check out this video in which this particular Youtuber was sent an entire box of 16 items and further went to the extent of featuring the company mentioned in her ‘Drop Box’ below. While this may be a great PR stint and I applaud her and the company’s efforts, I do miss the days where we could drool over “real” video hauls and reviews.

This week on AdFreak, Sauza Tequila and Kraft Salad Dressing get into a little bit of a cafuffle. As the article (http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/did-kraft-swipe-sauza-tequilas-schtick-and-its-spokesman-148386) mentions, days before Sauza Tequila’s big 2013 ad reveal they saw their spokesmen acting in a very familiar manner for Kraft’s Zesty Salad Dressing.

If anyone’s unaware of the ever popular Sauza Tequila advertisement featuring “Make It With a Fireman,” just think back to when OldSpice came out with their first ads featuring Isaiah Mustafa (here I shamelessly plug in a picture of Mustafa). A little bit suggestive, a lotta bit half dressed, and hints of I-will-be-appearing-in-your-dreams-tonight. In his Kraft ad, male pin-up Anderson Davis (even his name is suggestive) talks suggestively to the camera as he prepares a salad… (here I shamelessly plug in a picture of Davis) 

which is really surprising considering he did the same thing for Sauza just with margaritas instead. So, did Kraft ‘swipe’ Sauza’s feature and what does this mean for their advertisements and subsequent sales?

To begin, it is very important to note that these two goods, respectively target very different segments to which they position themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum. Kraft, suggests a healthier lifestyle for individuals looking towards finding a particular zest (haha get it, Kraft Zesty Salad Dressing. No?) in their regular salads. The brand and product also suggest a more family-oriented lifestyle, and as such assume that their product will be purchased by the following individuals. Sauza on the other hand is looking for a young, energetic, vibrant and perhaps single individual simply looking towards enjoyment, fun, and perhaps even drunken debauchery. Through Davis, Sauza confirms that this is what their brand enforces (minus drunken debauchery) and aim to reenforce their market position. Through and through, I see no problem in airing the ads at the same time.

In his article, Tim Nudd mentions that neither company is particularly concerned with the similarity between the ads and I think I have to agree to that.