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, 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.

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.

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.

As this Wall Street Journal article shows, it seems clear that Apple’s vaunted product design team–including legendary co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs–dropped the ball in developing Apple’s new iPhone 4.  The otherwise well-reviewed device appears to have reception problems that result from a faulty antenna design that wasn’t subjected to adequate testing.

Surprisingly–and disappointingly–Apple’s initial reaction was to cavalierly suggest that the problem was the result of users holding the phone improperly.  They then copped to a software glitch, which they inexplicably tried to minimize by suggesting that it affects their earlier-generation iPhones as well.  And now both explanations are being challenged by Consumer Reports, which claims the problems are hardware-related.

Whatever the truth is–and all signs seem to support Consumer Reports’ side–Apple had better be completely forthcoming from this point forward or its credibility, and its brand equity, will take a serious hit.  Apple and Mr. Jobs have been on an infallibility streak for several years, so admitting they’ve screwed up will hurt.  But Apple’s fans–and prospective future consumers–will forgive imperfection much more readily than dishonesty or cowardice.

Apple has produced millions of sweet, crisp, juicy products that have thrilled millions of consumers–including me–and in the process created a company worth more than Microsoft or General Electric.  But if they don’t start displaying more candor, humility and urgency in confronting this rare misstep, they run a real risk of letting this one bad Apple spoil the bunch–not to mention a bunch of brand equity.

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.

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.

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.

The sculpture is generating more buzz than those obnoxious Vuvuzela horns at the World Cup.  (Click  news story to see an example of the coverage.)  Of course, part of the coverage is due to the fact that some Cub fans are outraged and insulted by the presence of a “noodle” outside the  venerable Friendly Confines.  But a little controversy can be a good thing, and in this case it appears that the majority of fans are “pro-noodle.”  (When you think about it, the Cubs should be thrilled to have a distraction from the fact that they’re in the midst of yet another lovably losing season.)

What I especially love about this publicity initiative is that Kraft had the guts–and smarts–to avoid splashing a logo on the sculpture.  Instead, the sculpture carries only the words “You know you love it,” which is the tagline for Kraft Macaroni and Cheese.  In fact, when you Google “You know you love it,” the first entry you see takes you to their website.  And when you go there, you see a graphic that is strikingly similar to the Wrigley Field sculpture.

Sorry, but I have to go now; I have a sudden craving for some Mac & Cheese!

As impressive as the video is–and I suspect that millions of people will eventually view it–think how impressive it must have been for the hundreds of thousands of people who saw the stunt in person!  And keep in mind that almost half of those people just got off an airplane that gave them a fraction of the legroom being demonstrated by Ramana.

The impact of a marketing message is often due as much to the environment in which the message is received as to the message itself.  In this case, the marriage of message and environment could not have been more perfect–or more magical!