Archive for the ‘branding’ category

« Older Entries

AT&T and Blackberry Don’t Carry a Torch for Branding

August 25th, 2010

  • Who: AT&T/Blackberry
  • What: TV commercial
  • Rating: 8th floor

What do you get when two companies with an aversion to effective branding join forces to bring an exciting new product to market? In the case of AT&T and Blackberry, a  TV commercial that entertains but fails to effectively drive home the name of the advertisers providing the entertainment.

The premise of the commercial is simple: there’s a new smartphone that makes it fun to do business, and the visuals and voiceover cleverly make that point.  The new phone–the Blackberry Torch–makes a lot of sense strategically for Blackberry given its focus on the business market and the fact that it’s been losing market share to the superior “wow factor” of Apple’s iPhone.  And from the reviews I’ve read, the Torch is being very warmly received by the technology writers.

Unfortunately, viewers of this commercial hear the brand names “AT&T” and “Blackberry” twice and once, respectively, while “Torch” is nevered uttered.  (The word appears on screen for less than two seconds at the end of the spot.) Anyone who’s read about the Torch will have to be paying extremely close attention to realize that it’s the product being showcased–or not–in this commercial.

It doesn’t help that the lyrics of the background song–Buddy Holly’s “Every Day”–aren’t particularly pertinent to the product’s positioning.  The song is cute, but it doesn’t sell.

For as long as I’ve been in this business, I’ve been both amazed and appalled by how many marketers are reluctant to leverage their brands in their advertising.  It’s almost as if they feel it’s crass or in poor taste to call too much attention to their brand name.  The best marketers, however,  realize that branding doesn’t have to be boring.

In other words, if AT&T and Blackberry can combine business with fun in their product, why can’t they do it in their advertising?

No comments »

Posted in Buddy Holly, advertising, branding, communications, smartphones

Tags:

Better Branding Makes Humor Work Harder

July 30th, 2010

  • Who: Scottrade
  • What: TV campaign
  • Rating: 11th floor

Don’t you love those amusing E*Trade TV commercials featuring the old-school , fat-cat stockbroker who keeps losing clients to his high-tech, low-priced online competitor?  Me too.

There’s only one problem:  these ads are for Scottrade, not E*Trade.

As commercials go, these ads are well-above-average from an entertainment standpoint, but only average from a branding standpoint.  While they mention the brand name two or three times throughout each spot, they don’t do anything to really STAMP the Scottrade brand into your memory. As a result, what could have been a great campaign is merely good.

I would have liked to see these ads leverage–rather than just mention–the brand name.

For example, they could have our hapless stockbroker (nicely played by Brad Norman) changing his name to “Scott” in an attempt to stem the flight of his clients to Scottrade.  Or they could all incorporate a phrase like “Great Scott!”, or somehow play up the reputation “Scots” have for thriftiness (which would reinforce Scottrade’s low-price strategy).  They could even have our stockbroker wear a kilt.

Hokey?  Perhaps.  But I’m pretty sure that these or similar ideas could significantly increase the number of people who remember the brand that’s providing them these entertaining ads.

My advice for Scottrade: maintain your position in humor, but invest in better branding.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, brand, branding

Tags:

Back on Target!

April 29th, 2010

  • Who: Target
  • What: TV commercial
  • Rating: 14th Floor

For years, Target had one of the most consistent and stylish TV ad campaigns in any category.  The ads never said the brand name out loud, and they only revealed the brand logo at the end of each spot–normally two big no-nos in my book.  On top of that, the music varied from ad to ad.  Yet as soon as any given ad came on, you knew almost immediately that it was for Target.

One reason is that the ads were visually connected via a red-and-white color theme and the placement of circular objects to reinforce the design of the brand’s logo.  Another is the fact that all of the songs–while not necessarily familiar–shared an upbeat, contemporary, smart sound.  Add it all up, and you had a campaign that was fun to watch and that appears to have helped drive above-market sales growth for Target for several years.

But then Target’s advertising started to miss the mark.  Its ads no long stood out, and its brand personality was suddenly unclear.  The situation reached bottom as recently as Christmas 2009, when a new series of ads caused me to post a rant entitled, “Does This Campaign Seem Off-Target to You?”

But based on their new TV commercial, it appears that Target’s advertising is back and better than ever.  The first time I saw it, I knew within 5 seconds that it had to be a Target spot, even though there are even fewer conventional branding cues than in their past successful ads.  Frankly, I’m not quite sure how they pulled this off, but to me this spot screams “Target” from start to finish.

The intent of the spot was clearly an ambitious one:  to help reestablish Target as the leading-edge fashion mass merchandiser for young consumers while making those consumers aware of the many leading-edge brands it carries exclusively.  And as far as I can see, this mission was accomplished–big-time!  The ad’s song–”The A.B.C. of L.O.V.E.” by Pravda–is a high-energy tune that grabs your attention and doesn’t let go.  And the visuals are as fashion-forward as just about anything on the air right now.

Of course, I’m not exactly in Target’s target audience–at least for this campaign–so maybe the fact that it appeals to me is actually a bad sign.  Only time will tell, but until it does, I can’t wait for Target’s next ad.  And I’m betting that Target might be a good place to target not only your consumption dollars, but your investment dollars as well.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, branding, retailing

Tags:

That’s the Spirit…NOT!!!

April 7th, 2010

  • Who: Spirit Airlines
  • What: Public Relations
  • Rating: Basement

Spirit Airlines will go down in PR history for making one of the all-time moronic marketing moves:  announcing that it plans to charge passengers up to $45 for each article of carry-on luggage.  The story has been featured prominently today on virtually every national, regional and local television news program, and it will certainly be covered extensively on every other news medium in the country over the next 24-to-48 hours.

Never mind that Spirit offers extremely reasonable airfares; the company will henceforth be known as the jerks who dreamed up the idea of charging for carry-ons, and possibly for giving many other airlines an excuse to do the same thing.  (I say “possibly” because the public outcry has been great enough that other airlines may decline to follow suit.)   I suspect that much of the population had never heard of Spirit before, but they certainly know them now.

I certainly understand that most airlines are in severe financial trouble and need to find new ways to eke out a profit, but Spirit couldn’t have landed on worse solution.  Every consumer I’ve seen interviewed–as well as many of the anchorpeople reporting the news –are absolutely outraged at this decision.  After all, carry-ons have helped us avoid four major hassles associated with flying–damaged luggage, lost luggage, time wasted at the baggage claim, and fees for checking luggage–and now Spirit has the audacity to mess with this.

If Spirit wanted to enhance their revenues, they should have silently raised their airfares, which they could have done without jeopardizing their positioning as one of the lowest-cost airlines.  Few people would have noticed, and it certainly wouldn’t have been headline news.  And had United, American or some other larger competitor decided to test the waters of charging for carry-on luggage, Spirit could have gauged the public’s reaction before deciding whether to follow suit.

But now Spirit has taken a huge, self-inflicted hit to its brand equity, a hit from which it may never fully recover.

It’s great to innovate, but your innovations should be based on things you hope your customers will love rather than ones you know they’re going to hate.  In other words, you have to be smart enough to recognize an idea that isn’t going to fly–and especially one that’s going to crash and burn.

No comments »

Posted in advertising, airlines, brand equity, brand image, branding, public relations

Tags:

Liberty Mutual Files Irresponsible Claim

April 6th, 2010

  • Who: Liberty Mutual
  • What: TV Commercial
  • Rating: basement

Last night I  had a trivial but all-too familiar experience:  a TV commercial began, and immediately I realized that while it was one I had seen dozens of times, I had no idea who the advertiser was.  A whopping 51 seconds into the commercial, I learned that the advertiser was Liberty Mutual.

It’s bad enough that this spot does such a poor job of registering the name of the advertiser.  But what’s just as bad is this:  after nearly a minute of  watching people do good deeds while we listen to a background song with barely intelligible and rather irrelevant lyrics (HEM’s “Half an Acre”), we finally hear an announcer telling us something about the brand being advertised.  What’s even worse, here’s what the announcer says:  “When it’s people who do the right thing, they call it being responsible.  When it’s an insurance company, they call it Liberty Mutual.”

Oh, really?  Is that the way people talk about Liberty Mutual?   Have you ever heard anybody mention what a responsible company Liberty Mutual is?  Me neither; in fact, I’ve never heard anyone ever mention Liberty Mutual period. Don’t get me wrong; for all I know, Liberty Mutual is a wonderful company, but this commercial does absolutely nothing to persuade me of that.

If you’re trying to convince me that Liberty Mutual is truly a beacon of responsibility, give me some substance.  Build a commercial around a true story of how Liberty Mutual did the right thing when other insurance companies were shirking their responsibility.  Show me an actual client raving about how Liberty Mutual went above and beyond the call of duty for her.  Give me some statistics about how Liberty Mutual is ranked #1 by insurance clients for responsibility or integrity or customer service.

In other words, give me something I can believe instead of insulting my intelligence and wasting my time by simply making an empty, flat-footed and utterly unimpressive claim about how people talk about you.  Wouldn’t you think that an insurance company would be a little more adept when it comes to claims?

To paraphrase Liberty Mutual’s announcer, “When a company spends money on a bad campaign, they call it being irresponsible.  When it’s a really bad campaign, they call it Liberty Mutual.”

No comments »

Posted in advertising, brand name, branding, insurance

Tags:

Jonathan Adler’s Capitalist Manifesto

March 23rd, 2010

  • Who: Jonathan Adler
  • What: Branding
  • Rating: 14th Floor

jonathan adler
I would never admit it publicly–like in a blog or something–but my wife Mary has introduced me to many interesting things over the years that I would likely never have discovered on my own. These include various foods, restaurants, books and retail establishments, some of which I end up liking at least as much as she does. A great example of this is Jonathan Adler, a one-of-a-kind retailer of pottery, furniture, rugs, lamps, art, candles and other household items. While not everything they carry is a match for my personal tastes (which is a good thing for them, BTW), I could not be more impressed with the job they’ve done creating and maintaining their branding.

Have you ever noticed how often the most successful companies are a manifestation of their founder’s personality and vision? Just as Steve Jobs is Apple, Richard Branson is Virgin Atlantic, Jeff Bezos is Amazon and Howard Schultz is Starbucks, Jonathan Adler is, well, Jonathan Adler. And Jonathan is not only a very talented designer and retailer, he is a brilliant marketer. Everything his company does–from the products they design or carry to the layout of their stores to the design of their website–exudes the same sense of style, cleverness, personality and, most of all, fun. This is a company that knows exactly what it is, and what it isn’t.

So how do they maintain this impressive consistency? Do they have a sophisticated Vision Statement or Mission Statement or both? Actually, they have something much better: a Manifesto. It’s the first page after their home page on their website, and it’s showcased on a large sign in all of their stores. And it does more to capture the essence of their company, their brand, than any Vision Statement or Mission Statement I’ve ever read.

The opening line of the Manifesto is, appropriately, the simplest and most powerful: “We believe your home should make you happy.” But the second line adds a little flavor to give you an even better sense of the uniqueness of this brand: “We believe that when it comes to decorating, the wife is always right. Unless the husband is gay.” The rest of this wonderfully-crafted document contains several other gems, including “We believe our lamps will make you look younger and thinner,” “We believe colors can’t clash” and “We believe our designs are award winning even though they’ve never actually won any.”

I love the fact that they share their Manifesto so transparently with customers–and prospective customers. I suspect that anyone reading it for the first time in one of their 12 stores will have one of two possible reactions: either “Uh, I think I’d better leave now,” or “I LOVE this place!!!” Which is to say that Jonathan Adler isn’t for everyone; it isn’t intended to be. That’s the essence of effective branding.

No, Jonathan Adler isn’t for everyone, but for your sake, I hope it’s for you.

No comments »

Posted in brand image, branding, retailing

Massage Envy Not a Name to Be Envied

March 22nd, 2010

  • Who: Massage Envy
  • What: Brand Name
  • Rating: 3rd Floor

massage envy homepromogiftcard

I’ve recently been hearing a lot of radio ads for Massage Envy, which I believe is the first national chain of massage clinics. I know very little about the company other than two things: they have a clean, neatly designed website, and I don’t like their brand name.

I’m sorry, but since “massage” and “envy” are two words that don’t go together naturally, I can only assume that the brand name is a play on the phrase “penis envy.” If that’s the case, it’s a pretty tasteless play on words, and if it isn’t the case, it might as well be since that’s the association most people will probably come up with. (Unless, of course, I’m the only one, in which case I should probably be surfing for therapists rather than typing a blog post.)

I love brand names that are distinctive, and I have to admit that Massage Envy gets decent marks on that count. But that’s not enough. A brand name needs to evoke the kind of imagery you want people to associate with your brand. Based on the fairly professional look of Massage Envy’s website, I would have to guess that the imagery suggested by their brand name is not the way they want to position their company.

Selecting a brand name is like selecting a name for one of your children; you’re going to have to live with your decision for a long time, and life can be a lot easier–or harder–depending on what name you choose.

If you’re told that you’re about to interview a job candidate named “Jethro”, you’re likely to develop certain expectations and assumptions about him. Those expectations and assumptions my ultimately prove to be inaccurate, but they will nonetheless form an obstacle this candidate will need to–and might not be able to–overcome. In this age of increasing clutter and decreasing attention spans, new brands simply can’t afford to pose such obstacles to prospective new customers.

So…Is Massage Envy an ill-advised play on words–or is it just me?

3 comments »

Posted in brand, brand name, branding, trademark

New Charmin Campaign a Wipeout

March 6th, 2010

  • Who: Charmin
  • What: Marketing campaign
  • Rating: 2nd Floor

Oh, for the days when Charmin’s advertising consisted of dear old Mr. Whipple pleading with grocery store shoppers, “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin!” For the past year or so, Procter & Gamble’s marketing antics have surely had Dick Wilson, the actor who played this lovable character (as well as Darrin and Samantha’s neighbor in “Bewitched”), rolling over in his grave. They’ve certainly had me retching on my sofa.

First, about a year ago we were subjected to a TV ad promising that with Charmin you’ll have “fewer pieces left behind.” To make sure that we could grasp the concept, the ad showed an animated mama bear literally wiping pieces off of her baby bear’s behind. Recently, the marketing mavens in P&G’s Cincinnati headquarters have developed (or at least green-lighted) the theme “Enjoy the Go!”, which surely has the parody commercial writers at Saturday Night Live asking themselves, “Why didn’t we think of that!” The ridiculous phrase is not only featured in their latest TV ad (which I haven’t been able to locate online yet), it was the theme of a public relations event in New York City over the holidays. Among other things, this event encouraged people to “Do the Potty Dance.” As SNL’s Seth Meyers would say, “Really?”

I realize that the world is changing at a rapid pace, but I apparently missed out on this “Defecation Celebration” trend. If Charmin has its way, “Have a nice day!” will be replaced in our vernacular with “Have a nice poop!”

Procter & Gamble, which essentially invented the concept of brand management, is perhaps the most respected marketing company in the world. They’re also probably the most research-oriented marketing company in the world, which suggests that consumer research must have led them to conclude that America was ready for this rather graphic and even celebratory talk about the joys of using toilet paper. On the other hand, consumer research also led Ford and Coca Cola to believe that America was ready for the Edsel and New Coke. Sometimes you have to ignore the research and defer to your judgment.

I do have to give the normally risk-averse P&G credit for having the courage to take a bold step, and I suspect that this campaign has been the subject of great debate in Cincinnati. However, I have a hard time believing that this campaign is not turning more people off than on. Niche brands can afford to do things that offend a lot of people as long as they’re appealing to a meaningful minority, but mass brands like Charmin often have more to lose than to gain by employing controversial tactics. For this reason, I have to question P&G’s judgment in blessing this campaign.

So until I see evidence that this campaign is having a positive impact, I have no choice but to assign this campaign a rating of Floor Number Two.

2 comments »

Posted in advertising, brand management, branding, marketing, marketing communications

Tags:

An Easy Solution to a Tough Naming Problem, By Gum!

January 6th, 2010

Most of my posts involve rating an ad or some other marketing initiative, but on occasion I’ll use this space to float an idea. The impetus for my latest idea is today’s news report that the new owner of the Chicago Cubs, the Ricketts family, is seriously exploring the possibility of selling the naming rights to the Cubs’ stadium, which for years has been known as Wrigley Field.

Given what they shelled out for a team with a big payroll that fans would like to see get even bigger, the family can hardly be blamed for turning over every stone of opportunity in search of incremental revenues. But this naming rights situation could easily become stickier than a well-chewed piece of Juicy Fruit.

After all, many die-hard Cubs fans are at least as loyal to the ivy-covered “Friendly Confines” as they are the team itself; changing the name of this venerable structure won’t sit well with these folks. What’s more, they’ll likely take it out not only on the Ricketts family, but on whatever company signs on to put its brand over the door to the joint. (Many Chicagoans still call White Sox stadium “Comiskey Park” instead of “U.S. Cellular Field”, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who refers to the former Sears Tower as “Willis Tower.”) And all of this means that any company contemplating a deal with the Ricketts family will value the rights much lower than if they didn’t have to worry about offending the Cubs fan base.

Fortunately, I have a very obvious solution to this tricky dilemma. After minutes of thorough and painstaking study, I’ve come up with a company that could buy the naming rights without offending one single member of Cub Nation. It’s a well-known, iconic brand that’s as American as apple pie and, well, baseball. In fact, its products are already sold at this ballpark and virtually every ballpark in the country.

The company: Wrigley.

Admittedly, after having its name adorn the stadium for the past 83 years at no charge–since Wrigley owned the team for much of that period–Wrigley (or its new parent company, Mars) might not savor the notion of suddenly having to write a check for that privilege. But they have to recognize that there is some benefit in having your brand name associated with one of the most popular sports franchises in the world, and they should be willing to pay a fair price for that benefit. In fact, given that Wrigley is the only company in the world who could purchase the naming rights without upsetting fans, these rights are actually worth more to Wrigley than they would be to anyone else.

I would suggest that the Cubs and Wrigley agree on an objective third party to determine the fair market value of the naming rights based on what other sponsors have paid for naming rights across the country, and then have Wrigley’s price be two-thirds of that figure. This way, Wrigley can feel good about getting a healthy discount, and the Ricketts family can sleep at night knowing they have more money in the bank as well as an unruffled fan base.

Now that I’ve solved that problem, I’m ready to tackle a slightly larger one: what it will take for the Cubs to win their first World Series in 102 years.

4 comments »

Posted in brand strategy, branding

Tags:

Does This Campaign Seem Off-Target to You?

December 9th, 2009

  • Who: Target
  • What: TV ad campaign
  • Rating: 6th floor

For much of this decade, Target was one of the most sophisticated and effective advertisers in the retail industry. Their ads were bright, upbeat and infectious, and they made their products the heroes of every one. Most impressively, these ads were instantly recognizable as Target ads, even if you didn’t see the Target name or distinctive logo until the very end of the spot. In a word, this advertising was smart.

Several articles in various business journals have discussed Target’s recent strategic shift to increase its emphasis on low pricing in response to its soft sales trends. Changing your strategic stripes is always dicey, and based on the slew (sleigh?) of holiday ads Target has launched in recent weeks, it looks like they’ve yet to get a handle on their new tack. And the result could be a real dent in Target’s brand equity.

Several of the ads involve vignettes in which a gift recipient is concerned that the gift-giver has spent too much on them. Each time, the ad ends with the giver saying that the gift didn’t cost as much as it appears, and that’s fine. What I don’t like is what happens in the middle of the ad, which is invariably a downer. In “Confession”, a young daughter’s guilt forces her to confess bad things she’s done, like reading her older sister’s diary and forging her mom’s signature. In “There Yet”, a young woman feels compelled to let her gift-giver know that she’s not as into the relationship as he appears to be. Both spots are only marginally funny and leave you feeling a little sad, a little uncomfortable, or both.

Another ad called “Is It Working?” shows a boy projecting his father’s rear-end onto their big-screen TV, while the unsuspecting father is trying to fix the TV that his son has led him to believe is not working properly. Written or directed differently, this ad could be amusing or even charming, but instead it comes off as sophomoric at best and mean at worst. All of these ads end with a voice singing “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire,” but the feeling you’re left with is hardly a warm one.

A prior series of ads, including one called “Gingerbread”, featured an over-caffeinated Martha Stewart-like “perfect homemaker” who is clearly stressed out keeping up with all of her holiday projects. The first ad made me smile slightly, but by the third one I wanted this lady to leave me alone and return to her asylum.

I’m all for using humor in advertising, but–especially for a mainstream advertiser with Target’s upbeat brand image–the humor should be smart, uplifting and light rather than clumsy, cynical and dark.

It seems clear that Target’s marketers have abandoned their brand’s distinctive persona without identifying an appealing replacement, and I suspect that the result will be a 2009 holiday season with decidedly off-target sales.

1 comment »

Posted in advertising, brand equity, brand strategy, branding, retailing

Tags: