Archive for the ‘advertising’ category

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

August 25th, 2010

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?

Quiznos Ad Is M-m-m-m…Moronic!

August 6th, 2010


There are two basic ways for an ad to get your attention: by being appealing, or by being annoying.  The former approach generally requires more intelligence and effort, but it delivers a much more positive long-term effect.  The latter approach is the lazy way out; it’s much easier to do, but it’s dramatically less effective.  In fact, its impact could actually be negative, which is a truly unforgivable sin.

Quiznos, which has long shown itself to me an adherent of the fingernails-on-the-chalkboard school of marketing, may have topped themselves with their new TV campaign.  How the company that has developed such a “toasty” menu could also create such grating, mindless advertising is truly beyond me.  I am simply at a loss to explain why anyone at Quiznos would expect that even one viewer in this entire country would enjoy watching these ads. Okay, perhaps there’s a two-year-old somewhere who enjoys the cats and the “Three Blind Mice” melody, but I can’t imagine that anyone old enough to eat Quiznos food can stomach this advertising.

I happen to like Quiznos food, and I know several people –including my son–who consider it to be their favorite fast-food chain.  The people who conceived the “toasted” angle clearly understand the concept of product differentiation, and the people who created their tasty menu obviously know what they’re doing.  So why are Quiznos marketing people so utterly clueless?  I can only speculate that Quiznos is one of those companies that simply don’t understand the importance of, or place a high priority on, marketing communications.  Such companies typically spend very little time evaluating their communications options or scrutinizing the results of their communications efforts.

Whatever the reason in Quiznos’ case, they’ll get a lot more mileage out of the things they’re doing right  with their menu if they’d finally fix what they’re doing so wrong with their marketing.

In other words, Quiznos needs to start giving us ads that make our mouths water instead of ones that make our ears and eyes ache.

Better Branding Makes Humor Work Harder

July 30th, 2010

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.

FedEx Office Should Be the World’s Proudest Advertiser

July 19th, 2010

It’s a rare commercial that can completely capture the essence of a product while also providing royal entertainment, but this one does it.  I’ve been wanting to write a post about it for months, but until now I couldn’t find it online.

It’s for FedEx Office, the company formerly known as Kinko’s.  As someone who spent most of his career as a corporate exec, I can tell you that one of the biggest adjustments involved with becoming an entrepreneur is that you no longer have a large staff to handle things like printing and shipping for you. FedEx Office smartly fills that void, and this spot does an exceptional job of making that abundantly clear.

More than that, it humorously but powerfully conveys the emotional attachment the customer feels toward “his staff,” who come across as smart, understanding and polite.  When they respectfully decline his invitation to take the day off, his response–”That…is why I hired you”–is perfectly written and perfectly delivered.   And when he exits the store saying “World’s proudest boss,” you know all you need to know about how FedEx Office wants its customers to feel.

Of course, this can be considered excellent advertising only if it accurately represents the service FedEx Office truly delivers.  Based on my experience with the branch office I use, it does, as  I’m consistently pleased with the quality, friendliness and pricing of the service I receive.  If my experience is typical, the bosses at FedEx office should be very proud of their company–and their advertising agency.

Seat Belt Ad Belts It Out of the Park

July 13th, 2010


Marketing is mostly about changing behavior, and changing behavior is mostly about finding and communicating the proper motivation.  For decades safety groups all over the world have been trying to motivate audiences to wear seat belts, but an alarming percentage of the population still refuses to do so on a regular basis.

I’ve always felt that one reason is that many people just don’t take their own safety all that seriously.  On the other hand, I’ve also felt that getting people to think about the impact their death would have on their family just might provide the missing motivation.  Personally speaking, a big motivator for me to wear a seat belt has always been that I don’t want my family to live with the thought that my  last act in life was a moronic one.

Maybe that’s why I was so knocked out by this provocative TV commercial from the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership in England.  The unusual format grabs your attention, the brilliant blend of super-slo-mo visuals and mesmerizing music reels you in, and the cleverly powerful ending brings a smile to your face–and perhaps even a tear to your eye and a lump to your throat.

All I can say is that if this doesn’t motivate you to wear a seat belt, you must not have a family.  Or a car.

Slimy Spirit Skids on an Oil Slick

June 28th, 2010

I’ve always suspected that one could make a bunch of money shorting the stocks of companies with really bad marketing, the theory being that if they’re screwing up their marketing, they’re probably screwing up a lot of other things.  I’m also thinking that a good company to put that theory to the test would be Spirit Airlines, because it would be just about impossible to screw up your marketing more than these yahoos have.

Several months ago Spirit kindly gave me fodder for a blog post after they had the idiocy to innovate the concept of charging customers for their carry-on bags.  And now, perhaps somehow determining that I was struggling for a topic for another post, they’ve deployed a new online ad campaign that exploits the tragic fate being experienced by the beaches–not to mention the people–of the Louisiana gulf.

As this Ad Age story illustrates, Spirit’s new campaign unconscionably urges viewers to “Check out the oil on our beaches,” Spirit’s “oil” being suntan lotion donned by bathing beauties on the beaches of Mexico and other locations served by Spirit.  One look at these ads raises the same question raised by Spirit’s April announcement about its carry-on fee: “Who in God’s name is  calling the shot’s at this place?!?!” Perhaps the CEO summoned his VP  of Marketing and said, “You know, I don’t think people hate us quite enough any more. I think it’s time we made fun of  the devastation happening down there in Idaho or wherever they had that oil spill thingy.”

I should caution you that I’m not an investment expert, so you probably should think twice about following my advice about shorting Spirit’s stock. In the same spirit of full disclosure, I’m not an aviation expert–but I don’t expect to be boarding any planes bearing the Spirit logo any time soon.

The Dawn of a Brilliant Idea

June 21st, 2010

It turns out that one good thing can be associated with the otherwise disastrous BP oil spill:  a brilliant TV commercial by Dawn dish detergent.  What Procter & Gamble has pulled off is truly amazing:  they’ve leveraged a national disaster, reinforced their brand’s reason-for-being, and done so in a way that doesn’t feel the least bit exploitative. On the contrary, it feels downright altruistic.

Since its inception, Dawn’s primary benefit has always been its ability to cut through grease, and in recent years its advertising has pushed gentleness as a secondary benefit.  What better way to illustrate this “tough on grease yet gentle” positioning than showing Dawn being used to remove oil from ducklings and baby otters?  And what better–and more timely–way to support a worthy cause than to donate proceeds from Dawn’s sales to cleaning up the gulf?

I must admit that the luster of this ad diminished slightly when I learned that it’s been running off-and-on for almost a year; in other words, it wasn’t created as a result of the BP oil spill.  It turns out that Dawn has been used to clean endangered wildlife following other less catastrophic and less publicized oil spills.  Still, I think it took courage for P&G to run this commercial now, given the risk that some people would charge them with greedily capitalizing on the gulf’s misfortunes.  And had this commercial been created will less sophistication, less warmth or less sensitivity, it could easily have come across badly.  This clearly was not the case, however, and the decision-makers at P&G were able to recognize this spot as the masterful piece of communication that it is.

I can’t remember when I’ve seen a marketing initiative that makes you feel so good about a brand and its parent company while simultaneously powering home its unique selling proposition.  I guess it just never dawned on me that such a thing was possible.

Olive Garden: When You’re Here, You’re Phony

May 11th, 2010

Ever since I started this blog, I’ve periodically considered doing a post about the Olive Garden’s incredibly sappy  TV commercials.   I’ve always resisted, however, simply because they were such easy pickings.   But for some reason, the commercial I just saw pushed my resistance past the tipping point, and I decided I need to get this rant of my chest.

When you’re creating advertising, especially about something fun like eating out, it seems to me you owe it to your audience–and to your stockholders–to at least make an attempt to be clever.  After all, you’re asking people for 30 seconds of their precious time, and it’s only fair that you provide some entertainment value in return.  Unfortunately, the Olive Garden makes no such attempt.  All of their ads feature insufferably sunny Stepford wives, husbands and friends making and laughing at really lame jokes about how much they love this restaurant chain’s food.

Despite this, however, Olive Garden’s sales are growing, and it may well be that the advertising is actually working.  How can that possibly be?  The fact is that Olive Garden does a lot of things right.  Their ads–annoying as they are–have a very consistent look and feel that make it very clear which brand is being advertised.  The restaurant decor is always quite pleasant.  Some ads tell how their recipes are created in an Olive Garden Culinary Institute of Tuscany in a restored 11th century village; while this might be a marketing gimmick, I think it’s a pretty good one that, if anything, should get more emphasis in the company’s marketing.  And I have to admit that the ads make their food look pretty tasty.

So why am I ranting?  Because I believe their ads would be even more effective if they replaced the saccharine with some Italian spice.  Dump the lame jokes and the lamer laughs and add a dash or three of sophisticated humor.  The food and ambience will still be as appealing, but more viewers will pay attention if they know it will make them smile or laugh instead of frown or retch.

What’s more, it will reduce the risk that viewers will avoid the restaurant for fear that they’ll be seated near a table of dorky people with really bad senses of humor.

GM’s Mr. Ed Has No Cred

April 30th, 2010

I think it’s fair to say that for decades General Motors has been fairly widely perceived as an ineptly-managed, money-losing manufacturer of unattractive, poorly-performing vehicles.  Moreover, most of its executives–from Roger Smith (memorialized in “Roger and Me”) through Rick Wagoner (memorialized not only for taking a private jet to the 2008 congressional hearings but for being so bad at his job that the President of the United States effectively fired him)–have come across as being woefully out-of-touch with the desires and morals of the American consumer.  If any company is in dire need of an image makeover, it’s GM.

The good news is that–thanks largely to the legendary and recently-retired Bob Lutz–the designs and quality of their vehicles are greatly improved.  The bad news is that sales haven’t responded as positively as had been hoped.  And I think one big reason is that the company is doing a lousy job of telling its story to the public.

What’s worse, their latest TV commercial is a serious step backward.  The first problem is that the star of the commercial isn’t their new technology or stylish new designs, but Chairman Ed Whitacre.  While the jury is still out on the job he’s doing leading GM out of bankruptcy, the jury is in on the charge that he reinforces every possible negative stereotype about GM.  And the verdict is: “Guilty!”

If GM’s message is that it’s transformed itself into a hip, exciting, state-of-the-art innovator, it couldn’t have picked a worse spokesman than a largely unknown 68-year-old in a Brooks Brothers suit and a monotonous Texas drawl.  In 1981, Lee Iacocca was the exact right person to star in Chrysler commercials; Chrysler’s stability was very much in question, and  car industry legend Iacocca gave the company instant credibility.  In 2010, Ed Whitacre could be the exact wrong person to star in GM commercials; America knows little about him, other than that he looks and sounds like just another out-of-touch GM executive.

And what makes the situation dramatically worse is the revelation that Mr. Whitacre’s boasting about GM’s repaying its government loan is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. For Mr. Whitacre to bless–let alone star in–this commercial raises huge doubts about both his judgment and his ethics.  So at a time when GM desperately needs to rebuild its long-eroding credibility, this ad could–and perhaps should–send GM’s brand equity plummeting to an all-time low.

GM founder Alfred Sloan once infamously said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America.”  If that’s true, then I think I speak for all Americans when I say that Mr. Whitacre needs to remove himself from GM commercials, and maybe from its executive suite as well.

Back on Target!

April 29th, 2010

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.