Ries' Pieces

Visual Hammers speak to consumers

   A visual hammer is so effective because it says something about your brand. The “lime” that says Corona is the authentic Mexican beer. The “contour bottle” that says Coca-Cola is the original cola. The “cowboy” that says Marlboro is the masculine cigarette.

   A company makes a major mistake when it develops a verbal strategy without considering what visual hammer might help hammer that idea into consumers' minds. 

   In the year 2010, General Motors spent $1.1 billion advertising its Chevrolet brand. The verbal strategy? "Chevrolet runs deep."

   But how do you visualize an abstract idea like that?

   Most advertising slogans are abstractions impossible to visualize. To turn them into "nails," they need to be brought down to earth.

   Years ago, BMW could have used "performance," a typical automotive theme, to position its brand. Instead, it called its brand, "The ultimate driving machine."

   "Performance" can't be visualized, but "driving" can. So BMW ran television commercials with happy owners driving their BMWs over winding roads. A great hammer and a great marketing success. Today, BMW is the world's best-selling luxury vehicle brand, outselling Mercedes-Benz, Audi and Lexus.

   Look at the problems Brand Atlanta has had in trying to create a memorable slogan for the city. Created by Mayor Shirley Franklin in 2005, Brand Atlanta has the task of trying to make the city more of a visitor and business destination. (Trying to do both was its first mistake.)

   "Every day is an opening day" was the first slogan that quickly ran out of steam. My complaint, Where's the visual that could reinforce an opening day idea?

   "City lights, Southern nights" fared no better. (It was another slogan that couldn't be visualized.) At the launch of this backup campaign, the executive director of Brand Atlanta said, "I went to New York last weekend and it wasn't because of I love New York." Maybe she should have paid attention to the best-known city slogan in the world.

   It's the "heart" hammer that makes all the difference. Ironically, Atlanta also has two well-known verbal ideas that do suggest visual hammers.

   Atlanta is a fast-growing community because it's the transportation hub of the Southeast and home of the world's largest airport. Locals often call their city "Hotlanta," a verbal idea that suggests many possible visual hammers.

   The second idea has to do the environment. Compare Dallas, the city's only serious competitor in the South, with Atlanta. Compared to Atlanta, Dallas looks like a desert and Atlanta is loaded with trees. "City in a forest" is what people often say about Atlanta.

   If there is one case history that demonstrates the power of a visual hammer, it can be found just 145 miles east of the city.

   In the world of professional golf, there are four major championships: (1) The U.S. Open, (2) The British Open, (3) The PGA Championship and (4) The Masters.

  The first three are hosted by major golf organizations, but the Masters is hosted by a private club, the Augusta National Golf Club. Guess which tournament draws the most attention? The Masters, of course.

   If you want to make your brand famous, give your brand a green jacket.

 

Visual Hammer is on sale now at Amazon and iTunes.

Super Bowl of Advertising - 2012

While the gridiron battle between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots was close, the advertising battle on the tube was not.

The Super Bowl battle for commercial success might better be described as a mixture of the old classics, the new stuff, the overly sexy and the over the top.

Here is my brief recap on the best/worst ads of the night.

 

The Old Classics

The Super Bowl isn’t for also-rans. The big game is best served by big brands that are category leaders and that support the game year after year with consistent themes.

 

Coca-Cola

The three polar bear ads delivered. The ads were classic storytelling for the whole family from the world’s most valuable brand. Coke combined its well-known Polar Bears with a football theme and its iconic bottle to produce a series of commercials that were both entertaining and memorable.

 

Budweiser

When Budweiser does it right, it gets it really right. The “Return of the King” and “Eternal Optimism” delivered on a recurring theme of the night. Times are tough, but Americans pull through so why not celebrate with a Bud? On the funny side, Bud also delivered with a Weego  rescue dog that fetches beers. An overused gag, but Bud found a way to make it fresh and fun. The misses came for the new brand called Bud Light Platinum. Nobody has heard of it and nobody knew they needed another line-extension of Bud. But when they find out that Bud Light Platinum has a higher alcohol than regular beer, the brand could have legs with young adults.

 

E*Trade

The talking baby is now a classic for the brand. Consumers love the creative which conveys the message that E*Trade is so easy a baby can do it. The brand has nicely evolved and continues to introduce fresh, new ideas. This ad talking about “Fatherhood” had a nice connection with the Super Bowl and family time.

 

Doritos

Getting customers to create winning commercials has turning into a successful Super Bowl strategy for the chip maker.  The Doritos contest has become a classic and much anticipated part of Super Bowl Sunday. As in years past, amateurs turned in some of the funniest laughs of the night. Man’s Best Friend involves a cat-murder, a cover-up and bribery. And Sling Baby, has granny using a baby slingshot to get some Doritos. I love the creativity and fun these ads deliver for a brand that is addictive with bold flavors.

 

The New Stuff

The Super Bowl can be an excellent place to launch a new brand. Apple famously did that with its Macintosh ad in 1984.

 

Skechers

Dogs and kids always attract attention in advertising. In this commercial, a cute little French bulldog takes to the greyhound track and wins thanks to his new Skechers Go Run shoes. The line promotes a more-natural running experience that is all the rage these days. The spot was particularly good as compared with last year’s revolting Skechers commercial featuring Kim Kardashian rolling around with a personal trainer.

 

Acura

Since 2005, car enthusiasts have been mourning the end of the NSX supercar. So Honda’s plan to return with a new generation of the NSX has gotten a lot of gearheads excited. This spot nicely uses Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno in an over-the-top story line about bribing the guy who is first line to get the NSX. The only problem is the car won’t be in production until 2015.

 

M&Ms

This spot introduced the new brown-color M&M character. Ms. Brown is smart and sassy. And using humor and a killer song makes this ad melt in your mouth not in your hands.

 

The Overly Sexy

Using hot girls to sell everything from boats to beer is taken right out of advertising 101. But several ads crossed the line and were more repulsive than seductive. When it comes to the Super Bowl and sex, there really can be too much of a good thing.

 

Teleflora

The oh-so-subtle “give her flowers on Valentine’s day and you shall receive” pitch. I’m sure guys would send that Victoria Secret model anything for a peck on the cheek. But as a women, I cringe at the transactional tone of the commercial. But I am looking forward to seeing what they are going to do for Mother’s Day.

 

GoDaddy

The entire marketing plan for this Internet registration site is creating a “too sexy” Super Bowl ad that will hopefully get banned, thereby generating a lot of publicity. This approach has gotten stale. Body paint? There is way too much porn on the Internet already, nobody needs to go to Go Daddy to see more of it.

 

H&M

Equal-opportunity nudity alert: David Beckham in his underwear! Goes to show you, naked men can flop just as easily as naked women. He is beautiful, but fast-fashion retailer H&M needs more than a naked Beckham to run a successful Super Bowl spot. How about an idea?

 

Oikos Yogurt

Full House hunk John Stamos eating Greek yogurt “9 ½ weeks style.” There is so much good to say about the sky-rocketing Greek yogurt category. Too bad they resorted to sex to sell it.

 

 

The Over the Top

Too many superbowl ads try too hard and do too much. More often than not it falls flat.

 

Century 21

Smarter, bolder, faster might be the name of the commercial, but it fails to deliver on any of those traits. The real estate company selected celebrities they felt embodied these traits. Smarter: Donald Trump, Deion Sanders. Bolder: Apolo Ohno. But where is the connection to selling houses? And “smarter, bolder, faster” is the last thing people say or think about after a visit with a Century 21 agent. They should stick to the Gold Jacket.

 

Kia

Over the top and loving it. This testosterone-fueled ad has a little of everything, hot girls, fast cars, cool bands. It is turbo-charged and might appeal to the young men in its demographic but the brand would have been better off if the commercial had first provided an understanding what a Kia is.

 

Pepsi

Pepsi was once the choice of a new generation. But with Coca-Cola beating them up and bumping Pepsi down to 3^rd place behind Coca-Cola and Diet Coke, this spot doesn’t ring true. The cruel King Elton John isn’t keeping anybody from Pepsi. Kids just don’t want to drink it as much as they once did. They are drinking Monster and Red Bull instead.

 

Volkswagen

You know when the sequel goes right to video. Well this commercial is like that. After last year’s success with Star Wars’ themed The Force, Volkswagen this time mixed dogs, weight loss and some weird Star Wars stuff at the end. It wasn’t a cohesive story and didn’t ever connect to the brand. It was just Volkswagen trying too hard to make a Super Bowl commercial and it shows. Simple stories that relate to the brand work much better.

 

Chrysler

Chrysler gave us an inspirational, gritty, 2 minute mini-movie – Half-Time in America with tough guy Clint Eastwood. But what are they selling? Detroit? Obama? I don’t get the connection to Chrysler, who promotes all the Dodge, Ram, Jeep and Chrysler brands at the end.  My problem is not with the production or sentiment; both are over the top and terrifically powerful. But Chrysler is the weakest of the big 3 and only survived because it sold a 53% percent stake to Fiat an Italian company. More like imported and paid for by Italy.

 

Walmarts needs to stop being so cheap. At least when it comes to advertising.

Published by AdAge.com, August 22

            In a down economy with consumers pinching every penny, you would think that sales at a retailer synonymous with "cheap" would be up, not down. Yet sales at Walmart have been down for two years in a row. Actually, that's nine straight quarters of decline.

            The only good news at Walmart is profits rose this quarter 5.7%, but that was mostly due to cost cutting and international growth.

            The really bad news is that Walmart's core U.S. business, which accounts for 62% of sales, is in a seemingly irreversible slump with fewer consumers coming into stores. How can this be? And what can Walmart possibly do to reverse it?

            The answer has nothing to do with better-looking clothes, smaller stores or launching a Facebook page. The answer is all about reinforcing and defending the Walmart brand in the mind.

            So how does the world's largest retailer defend its position in the mind?

            Advertising. Massive advertising that reminds consumers in a memorable way what the Walmart brand stands for. But here is where Walmart is making three classic mistakes.

1. Walmart isn't spending enough money on advertising.

            Unless you spend enough to get above the noise level, money spent on advertising can be extremely wasteful. That's why mass-media advertising for a brand that isn't well known or doesn't have enough money to spend is ill advised. A brand like this is better off doing PR, social media and anything else it can think of.

            For big brands, there is little PR potential, unless it is bad news or an earnings statement. Nobody covers burgers at McDonald's or how real Coca-Cola tastes or how exciting cellphone plans are. For big brands, most other tactics like social media, when taken by themselves, are too small in comparison to the size of the company and number of consumers.

            The most effective way to protect a well-known brand with mass appeal is with mass advertising. If you can afford it, nothing is more powerful than mass advertising to protect and defend your position in the marketplace and in the mind. That's how leaders manage to stay leaders for long periods of time. By spending only a few percentage points of sales, they can dominate the media and outspend their competition. AT&T spends $2.9 billion on advertising. American Express, $2.2 billion. Walt Disney, $1.9 billion. Comcast, $1.8 billion. Toyota, $1.7 billion. Anheuser-Busch, $1.3 billion. McDonald's, $1.2 billion.

            The leader has the ability to way outspend the competition. Look at McDonald's vs. Burger King. Most consumers think Burger King's burgers taste better, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's dominates the category by spending $1.29 billion on advertising. Burger King spends almost $400 million, which buys a lot of advertising. But since McDonald's outspends them three-fold, Burger King's message gets lost and the brand suffers.

            Walmart spends $2.1 billion a year on advertising. But compared to other retailers, Walmart is underspending in relation to its sales. Walmart spends 0.8% compared to Target at 2.2% and Sears at 4.7%.

            Walmart should be way outspending Target. If Walmart spent 2.2% of sales on advertising, that would be a $5.72 billion budget, which would be almost four times that of Target's and make Walmart the biggest U.S. advertiser.

            That's what leaders do. And that's what keeps leaders more dominant, more profitable and faster-growing than their competition.

2. Walmart doesn't spend its advertising money in the right medium.

            Out of a $2.1 billion budget, Walmart spends only $524 million on TV advertising. While Walmart is a top 10 overall advertiser, it doesn't make the list of the top 10 TV advertisers. AT&T spends $1.5 billion on TV alone.

            Instead of TV, more than half of Walmart's budget is spent on unmeasured media, presumably newspaper inserts and shopper marketing.

            Can you name the last time you saw a Walmart commercial? I watch a lot of TV and I can't. But I do remember lots of Target ads. And a ton of AT&T ads.

            For most brands, TV is the place to avoid. But not for Walmart. The world's largest retailer needs to have a dominant presence on the world's largest advertising medium: TV.

3. Walmart doesn't use the right message.

What is a Walmart?

            Most consumers would answer "low prices." Many people say cheap, but Walmart didn't build its brand on cheap stuff, it built it on selling brand names for the cheapest prices. Which is why the "Always low prices. Always" tagline did such a good job of reinforcing the brand position.

            Why change a good thing? Marketing isn't about tinkering. It is about finding what works and sticking to that. Sure, some minor tweaks are needed over the decades but major change should be avoided.

            So what did Walmart do? It scraped its logo for a wimpier-looking font and sunburst trademark. Then it changed its tagline to the unmemorable, undistinguished "Save money. Live better."

            Everybody says they save you money. And who advertises they are making your life worse?

            What makes Walmart a powerful brand is the guarantee inherent in the name that it has the lowest prices. Always.

            So what is Walmart doing now? Advertising a "guarantee to match competitor's prices." Wait a minute, I thought the low-price guarantee was met by just walking in the door? Advertising that you will match prices is the same as admitting you might not always have the lowest price. Not a good direction for a brand like Walmart.

            Sam Walton might be proud of the meager 0.8% of sales that his Walmart is spending on advertising. But today Walmart isn't a handful of stores in a couple of small towns. Walmart is the world's largest retailer and it need to start acting like one.

Super Bowl 2011: Game scores big, Advertising mostly fumbles

The stand out star of last night’s Super Bowl was clearly Aaron Rogers. Most people will be talking about Aaron and the Packers today instead of the commercials. Because it was the game that was far more super than any of the ads. But with the most-watched commercials of the year, the Super Bowl provides a good picture of the state of the advertising industry.

Here is my roundup of who scored and who fumbled.

Touch-downs

BMW: “Advanced Diesel – Changes.” Good commercials use good visuals. And nothing beats seeing the ultimate driving machine on the road. Unfortunately, diesel engines connote strong images of “smog,” so BMW brilliantly counteracts that concept with the song “Changes” to introduce us to the new advanced diesel cars from BMW.

Doritos: “Best Part.” Again, Doritos has a strong visual to work with: Its unique triangle covered in orange goodness. Everybody knows how the chips stain your fingers and how the crumbs stain your clothes, so the guy licking his co-workers fingers was the perfect twist. The twist really hammers in the brand strategy. Viewer-created commercials like this one have got to make Madison Ave nervous.

 

First downs

Pepsi Max: “First Date.” What men are thinking vs. what women are thinking is a simple idea brilliantly executed. Again, this viewer-created ad shows that big budgets aren’t necessary for a super Super Bowl ad. The key is a powerful idea. It also makes me think that a lot of talented creative people are out of work and submitting ads. “Zero Calories, Maximum-Pepsi Taste” is the closing slogan. “Zero” is nice, but it’s too bad Coca-Cola grabbed it first. The other problem is that half the commercial goes by without the viewer knowing exactly what the commercial is for? That’s a problem. The guy could have just as easily been distracted by a beer, a car or a Snickers bar.

E*Trade: “Baby -- Tailor.” What I love about these E*Trade ads is that they are in the game every year and stick to one visual that hammers their brand idea. “The site that is so easy a baby can do it.” However, this wasn’t my favorite execution. I much prefer the iPad/dog commercial that has been running the past few months.

Volkswagen: “Darth Vader.” As a parent, the Darth Vader spot pulled at my heartstrings. As a piece of work, it was brilliant. It beautifully captured the innocence of childhood. What it didn’t do, however, was to connect the idea to Volkswagen. Any car with a remote start could have been slotted in.

Volkswagen: “Beetle.” I loved it. I would have loved it more, if I knew up front the beetle was suppose to be a “Beetle.” The arrival of a new Beetle car is a big deal, so they should have showed the new car. That would have also made news and increased the chatter about the ad.

Audi: ”Release the Hounds.” Well, at least they didn’t release any more dead horse heads: Audi ads have come a long way since. They now have come up with the idea of a luxury car for a new generation. The visuals (Kenny G, the hounds) were hysterical. The only problem is that consumers don’t necessarily buy the idea of Audi being more prestigious or cooler than Mercedes. First, they need to establish the prestige of the brand before they run ads like one.

 

Fumbles:

Pepsi Max : “Torpedo Cooler.” Not every viewer-generated ad was brilliant, including this one. The commercial relies on the classic joke of hitting the guy in the crotch. Funny, sure. But the idea has nothing to do with Pepsi.

BMW X3: ”Defying Logic.” I think it is great that BMW is building cars in America. I think it is great that they are designing the cars in America, too. But they shouldn’t throw out their German roots. The brand is German and most of the profits are going back to Germany. I think that people buy BMWs not because they are made in the U.S., but in spite the fact they are made in the U.S. I think they should have spent more time showing off the new car.

Sealy: “Super Bowl After Glow.” Since I was watching the game with my 8-year-old son, I wanted to immediately change the channel for this one. Advertisers need to remember the Super Bowl is a family event as well as an adult one. The other problem with the commercial is that viewers have no idea what the company is selling. I certainly would have never guessed it was mattresses! They might have started off with the line “It’s better on springs.” I like the idea of being the opposite. Bouncy springs vs. memory foam. However, Sealy has been trying to tell us springs aren’t bouncy, haven’t they?

Anheuser-Busch: All of them. How the mighty have fallen. For years A-B seemed to have a system for creating a stable of funny, talk-of-the-party Super Bowl ads, along with a killer visual, the Clydesdales. This year, the ads weren’t funny and the Clydesdales were relegated to a bit part.

Stella-Artois: “Crying Jean.” This ad made me cry for the brand. Absolutely horrible. Again, the brand has an iconic image, the Stella glass. They showed the glass but connected it to crying ladies and a moody, pathetic-looking singer.

GoDaddy: “New Girl.” The twist of using Joan Rivers was funny. But their sexist shtick is worn out. The site is very effective, the advertising is not. They are lucky because they face no real competition in the category.

Groupon: “Tibet.” We can chalk it up as a rookie mistake to run a shocking and disturbing commercial without much redeeming value. After the intense excitement about the company and a pending IPO, this was a big PR black eye. The first part of the commercial showing Tibet and the needs of its people was poignant, but then to make a joke of it and your company, not savvy. Groupon has a problem when creating an commercial since they don’t have a strong visual to work with. What they are known for are their email messages. It’s harder to advertise a service that is unseen. The most successful service-company commercials first develop a powerful visual like the Aflac duck, the Geiko gecko and the E*Trade baby.

Snickers: “Logging.” It is hard to follow-up on the commercial that brought back the beloved Betty White. It was a classic, Betty White getting tackled on a muddy football field. It was fitting and shocking. This year Snickers substituted Lewis & Rosanne Barr. Nobody wants these celebrities back, and who even remembers Lewis? And getting hit with a log, not funny.

Chevrolet: “Old-Age Home.” Funny! Very funny. But the spot never got the brand message across. Could have been a commercial for anything. Chevrolet ran several spots during the game. Each was totally different, each was a one-off joke. So typical of GM; they spend a ton of money but they never get an message or idea into the mind.

Chrysler: “Eminem movie.” Chrysler is going to need a lot more than Eminem to save the company. The commercial was powerful in showing the images of Detroit and using its hometown hero Eminem. But I’m not sold that Detroit will ever come back to past glory. It is sad. Chrysler and “imported luxury from Detroit” are just not an easy sell. Chrysler should have started with what it already owns, the Minivans. (For Ford, it’s trucks.) What also watered down this ad is that Eminem also appeared as a cartoon in a dreadfully-awful Brisk ice-tea ad.

Motorola Mobility: “Empower the People.” If you want to compare yourself to Apple’s 1984 Macintosh commercial, you’d better be able to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. The Xoom tablet? I’d rather see them hammer the success of the Motorola Droid, an Android phone has been the much talked about alternative to the iPhone.

 

Why Google should get out of China

   

    Sometimes the most illogical business decision is the right decision for the brand. This is certainly the case for Google.

    Google is pulling its company out of China, the biggest internet market in the world.

    Sounds illogical and crazy to me and most leaders. But it is the right call for several reasons.

 

1. Google wasn’t winning in China anyway.

    Google is the most popular search engine in the world and dominates the market in most countries, except China.

    Why is that? It’s simple, Google was late.

    Google only entered the Chinese market in 2006. Even a brand as powerful as Google is at a huge disadvantage if it isn’t first. Baidu was the first search engine in China and it is seen as the real thing in search with over 77% marketshare. By contrast Google has only around a 12% share.

    Of course, even a small share in a county like China adds up to a lot of users. China has the world’s largest online population with over 300 million people using the Internet, a figure that is expected to soon exceed the entire U.S. population.

    Google has had success with one part of the Chinese market; younger and more educated Chinese users tend to prefer Google. But Google has not succeeded in getting the general Chinese population on board.

    Google also is losing in Russia to a brand called “Yandex,” in South Korea to a brand called “Naver.” And in Japan to Yahoo. In all three countries, Google wasn’t first.

 

2. Google has a flag to carry. And is getting a lot of PR.

    Google equals “search” in the minds of consumers across the world. But what does “search” really mean? The dictionary definition of search is “the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something.” You ask Google to search for something and it does. Google searches for it, finds it and delivers it to you.

    It does that everywhere except in China of course. In China the government censors information. In China most internet users can’t even access this blog. It is crazy, scary yet true.

    In most of the world, the value of freedom of information is highly regarded. Probably in no place more so than the United States of America. Freedom, democracy and free markets are our core values.

    China has realized the power of free markets and since opening up its economy has seen great rewards. But information is not free at all in China.

    As a company focused on search, it is in Google’s best interest to fight for freedom of information around the world. The media has certainly rewarded Google’s fight with China with a massive amount of media coverage. There have been multiple front-page stories in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and many other publications around the world.

 

3. Freedom will eventually win.

    Google is picking the “freedom” side in this fight. In the short term, Google is going to suffer a loss of sales. But in the long term, Google is strengthening its focus on search and freedom. Around the world most people respect the idea that the Internet should be a place of freedom of information. Access to information should not be filtered by any government or any group.

    Because of its stand in China, Google benefits now in other markets. And if history repeats itself, freedom of information will eventually come to China. When that happens Google will be ready to claim itself the real search engine.

 

4. Age doesn’t always equal wisdom.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Google’s decision to leave the Chinese market involved a heated debate with CEO Eric Schmidt in favor of staying and the two young co-founders of the company, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, in favor of saying “zai jian,” Chinese for goodbye.

    Don’t tell my father, but sometimes kids are right. Schmidt was probably looking at the numbers while Larry and Sergey were looking at the message. Pulling out means losing millions but it also says what Google is willing to fight for.

    Sometimes the best decision for a company to make is based on gut instincts rather than spreadsheets.

    Sure, Google will lose a few dollars in the short term, estimates say up to $600 million in lost sales.

    But in the long term, standing up against censorship and promoting freedom of information will likely bring great rewards in the hearts and minds of the world.

Experience the Focus Effect

Friday, I discussed the state of the beauty business on Fox Business Live. Below is an overview of my comments and some of addition thoughts.

 

In spite of the economy, the beauty business is holding up quite well. Apparently most people are more concerned about their looks than the food they eat, the clothes they wear or the cars they drive. 

 

What works in the beauty business? The same thing that works in all businesses. Own a word in the mind. 

 

Typically, a beauty brand will start out by owning a word and then get line-extended like crazy. Still the brand might remain powerful because consumers remember the past. It wasn’t the line-extensions that created a powerful brand like Dove, it was the original focus of the brand that did that job.

 

Dove started out as “one-fourth moisturizing lotion” and is still the No.1 bar soap with 24 percent of the market. And lucky for Unilever, that focus helped maintain the brand’s power in spite of its endless extensions.

 

Olay is Procter & Gamble beauty brand, also line-extended to death. By like Dove, Olay still benefits from its history as “Oil of Olay,” apparently a magic wrinkle-remover ingredient. 

 

Aveeno, a Johnson & Johnson brand, became famous for its “active naturals,” a concept trading on the trend towards organics, naturals, etc. 

 

Neutrogena, also a Johnson & Johnson brand, was the first “hypoallergenic” soap. And today it still benefits from its association with the concept. 

 

Clinique, an Estee Lauder brand, became famous by being the first hypoallergenic department-store beauty brand, a concept the company apparently has forgotten about, but most consumers still associate the brand with “hypoallergenic” properties. 

 

Almay, a Revlon brand, was the first drug-store “hypoallergenic” brand and also benefits from its association with the concept. 

 

New brands in the beauty aisle are about as rare as a wrinkle on a super model in spite of the fact that launching a new brand is the real key to growth.

 

Look at the success of Axe, the first body spray for men. The brand has been wildly successful primarily for its sexual implications. Teenage boys will do almost anything to increase their odds with women.  

 

Except for Axe, there have been very few new brand introductions in the beauty business. It’s all line extensions.  Confusion reigns in drugstore aisles.

 

Walk into any drugstore and watch consumers spend an incredible length of time figuring out what to buy.   There are 26 types of Pantene shampoo, 42 types of Crest toothpaste.

 

It’s a pity. Companies believe consumers crave endless choice. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Consumers want simple, clear brands that stand for something.

 

Sometimes fewer choices are better. Compare shopping in a Walmart supercenter versus shopping in a Costco warehouse store.

 

My favorite beauty brands are Dove and Axe. Both have strong positions in the mind. Dove is one-fourth moisturizing lotion and advertises its “Campaign for Real Beauty.”

 

Dove’s moisturizing focus targets older users who have dryer skin. So the “real beauty” idea has resonated extremely well with them. 

 

Axe is focused on male sex appeal, "The Axe Effect." Unilever has cleverly verbalized the benefit of the brand’s core idea. One recent tagline said “Spray More. Get More.”

 
 

 Both brands have used extensive social media campaigns that have gotten rave reviews. But was it social media that created the brands successes? I think not.

 

Social media is a tool and a tactic. Not a strategy. For any tool to be effective, a brand needs an effective strategy.

 

That is why this sudden craze over social media doesn’t make sense. A company should set its strategy first, then pick the best tools to execute its strategy.

 

Doing it the other way puts the cart before the horse.

To get consumers excited about your brand in their minds, in the store or on the Internet just liberally spray on some Focus. I call it the "Focus Effect."

             

Super Bowl Ads 2010

Best ads of the game

Google: Google transformed how we think about search and now Google has transformed how we think about Super Bowl ads. Without any celebrities, special effects or juvenile jokes, Google did what Google does best. It showed us in a simple clear how Google had changed the world. The ad is unlikely to win any creativity awards but unlike most ads I think it made a powerful, lasting impact in the mind on consumers.

Doritos: Who needs a fancy award-winning agency when you can hold a contest and get your ads for free? Doritos showed us again that there are a lot of aspiring creatives out there with a lot of time on their hands and a lot of ideas in their heads. For a cool, fun, spicy, youth-oriented brand the strategy paid off big time. The dog with the bark collar was hilarious and had a great brand payoff at the end.

Snickers: When you brand owns a strong, narrow idea in the mind, it is a whole lot easier to make a great commercial. Snickers, the number-one candy bar, is focused on adults. Having a cranky Betty White turn into a young guy playing football was not only visually funny, but also packed a mean branding punch too.

Budweiser: Overall, I was underwhelmed with Anheuser-Busch’s ads this year. Usually Budweiser dominates the game and easily delivers among the best in the bowl. While Budweiser didn’t have its best  year, average for Budweiser is still pretty good. They own the Super Bowl and they are still the King of Beers. As usual, the best ad used the Clydesdales, the iconic symbol of the brand. But the ad itself wasn’t as great as the Clydesdale ads of past years. If they would stop line-extended Bud Light (now in Lime and Wheat), then maybe they would have more time to work on the ads.

Denny’s: The free-breakfast idea got people really excited last year. So Denny’s repeated the giveaway. And people probably got even more excited about the free breakfast this year. But on top of breakfast Denny’s delivered some of the top ads of the game. Again when you have a narrow idea, it is a lot easier to get good creative work. “It’s a good time to be an American, but a bad time to be a chicken.” Who can forget that line?

Coca-Cola: When your award-winning competitor suddenly drops the ball, it is wise to pick it up. Coca-Cola took full advantage of Pepsi dropping out of the game and delivered with ads that showed us why it is the world’s number one brand. I’m not crazy about the tagline, Open Happiness, but the message was clear, Coke is the Real Thing. My favorite was the terrific Simpson’s Hard Times ad which spoke to the mood of a nation and the thirst of the world.

 

Great ads, but no connection to the brands.

Boost Mobile: The Super Bowl Shuffle parody was wonderful! Nothing works like using nostalgia to create a great ad.  But there was no connection to Boost Mobile. Part of the problem of course is that nobody knows what a Boost Mobile is.

Dodge: Man’s last stand. The set-up was fabulous: still images of men’s faces, the voiceover about all the miserable things they were willing to do to be our man. The payoff was the problem. Man’s last stand is driving a Dodge? Come on! You have got to be kidding. You can’t take Man’s last stand with a Dodge. A Porsche would be much better. Or at the very least a Ford F-series truck.

Audi: Love the Green Police ad I was singing right along thinking how timely and appropriate to promote a green car. But wondering in light of the recent news why Toyota would run an ad for Prius? I know Audi owners love their cars. But Audi has a branding problem, it doesn’t own anything in the mind of the consumer. And the last thing it will own is green.

 

Nice ads, but the brands are in trouble.

Volkswagen: Working with an idea already in the mind is always good. Volkswagen brilliantly brought back the “Punch Buggy” kids game where you get to punch someone every time you see a Volkswagen Beetle on the road. The problem is that today Volkswagen has 13 different models on the road. Kind of defeats the purpose of the game and the ad.

FLO TV: And people thought the iPad had a naming problem. With a name like this, the first thing I think of is here comes the flow, get me a pad! Live mobile television is an easy thing to sell. Missing the big game or American Idol can be funny. The real question is other than these examples, who really cares about live television anymore?

 

They tried

E*Trade: Consistency counts. E*Trade has been in the Super Bowl for years with the same talking babies. The gag might not be as funny. But right away you know the brand and you remember the message.

HomeAway: Unlike Ed Begley Jr. there are some celebrities that it is fabulous to see again in a Super Bowl ad like Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo. I loved the idea of a National Lampoon’s Vacation spoof. But the jokes weren’t funny enough and the key idea not sold enough. Rent a house for half the price of a hotel, that is a powerful idea. Too bad they didn’t hammer it harder.

 

Shouldn’t be in the game

CareerBuilder: The company has made a career out of Super Bowl ads showing people working with horrible co-workers. Either they are a bunch of chimps or they are naked. Not sure which is worse. The idea comes across, your job sucks so it’s time to get a new one. There are two problems. First of all in this economy many people would happily take a job even if it meant having to wear underwear on Fridays. The second problem is the fact that CareerBuilder is not the leader. When all your ad does is sell the category you are essentially benefiting the leader. Even worse the category leader (Monster.com) was also advertising on the Super Bowl and delivered with a hilarious Beaver ad.

U.S. Census Bureau: Ed Begley Jr. is in charge taking a snapshot of 300 million people for the U.S. Census. This is a clear sign that government has drifted to the far left and has no idea whom to call to get something done.

Verizon and its Atomic Bomb

Marketing wars are fought with lots of words,
but wars are won when you combine your words with a visual.

 

                We have seen several epic marketing wars: The Cola War of Coke vs. Pepsi, The Beer War of Budweiser vs. Miller, The Mouthwash War of Listerine vs. Scope and The Battery War of Duracell vs. Energizer. But they all fail in comparison to the money and firepower currently being expended in the Cellphone War between AT&T and arch-rival Verizon Wireless.

                Last year AT&T and Verizon Wireless spent a combined $4 billion in advertising to blast consumers with 615,000 television commercials. Yet, despite the incredible sums spent and the enormous volume flooding the airways, most consumers are still confused.

                After all that money, the only thing that really stuck in the mind was that AT&T had the iPhone and Verizon did not. And this was accomplished not with AT&T’s advertising but with Apple’s brilliant PR launch of the iPhone. And to make matters worse, many iPhone users have been vocally complaining about AT&T’s poor service.

                The U.S. wireless market is estimated at $150 billion dollars and is predicted to grow much higher as more consumers ditch landlines and sign up for more expensive cellphone data plans. So despite the lack of success with the carriers’ advertising messages in getting into the minds of consumers, we are likely to see even more money spent this year by both AT&T and Verizon.

                The recent campaigns have done nothing but contribute to a scorched-earth policy that does little to enhance either brand. When you fight a war with lots of words and lots of noise, you tend to make little progress.

                Verizon are locked in a heated battle for domination. Currently, Verizon is No.1 with 89 million customers compared with 81 million for AT&T as of June 2009. Verizon also leads in revenue with $58.6 billion vs. $49.3 billion for AT&T in 2008, the most recent complete year figures.

                Verizon may be slightly ahead but it needs the ultimate weapon. The ultimate weapon is a verbal message combined with a visual. Wars are won when you can combine your words with a simple visual. It is this combination that gets into the mind and cuts through the clutter.

                AT&T’s strategy has mostly been about riding the luck of having an exclusive on the hot new phone on the market. Verizon has tried to fight back by promoting one phone after another, all positioned as “iPhone killers.” Unfortunately, none have done much killing.

                But Verizon did have an interesting tagline at the bottom of its ads: “Switch to America’s Largest and Most Reliable 3G Network.” Powerful, but I doubt many people noticed it or thought much about it. Why? Because these were just tiny words on a page. Words alone are not enough. Verizon needed a visual to focus the entire campaign on.

                Which is why Verizon created an atomic bomb and the ultimate weapon when it combined those words with a visual. A bomb that woke up consumers and actually made them listen to and remember some of that $4 billion in advertising.

                The visual was the map. The red Verizon map vs. the blue AT&T map that showed just how much larger Verizon’s coverage really was. The verbal was "America's Largest and Most Reliable 3G Network with 5x more 3G coverage.”

                You know the campaign was effective because AT&T took Verizon to federal court over the ads. AT&T claimed the ads were misleading because the 3G coverage map used in the Verizon ads inaccurately gives the impression that there are vast areas of the country where AT&T customers can’t get any cellphone service.

                A federal judge did agree that some viewers might get that wrong impression and that the ads were “sneaky” on Verizon’s part. But the judge in the end ruled that the ads were not strictly speaking “misleading” and therefore not illegal.

                After losing the battle in court, AT&T moved the battle back to the airwaves. In November, AT&T enlisted actor Luke Wilson to personify AT&T and defend itself against the map.

                The Luke Wilson ads have been running non-stop. Without a powerful idea AT&T has had to overspend the competition with its messages in an attempt to once again confuse consumers. If you can’t beat them, drown them out with noise.

                What makes Verizon’s verbal and visual leadership combination so impactful is that it reinforces what consumers commonly believe about each brand. Verizon has the better network and is more reliable. Verizon backs this up with massive spending on its network infrastructure. The spending gets lots of PR, and not all totally positive since the spending has cut into earnings.

                AT&T, on the other hand, is perceived to be a network overloaded with iPhone hogs, which has generated numerous complains of unreliability. AT&T with a name that reeks of old technology AT&T is in a bind. Is it too late to go back to Cingular?

                With its map Verizon has clearly won this battle, but the war is far from over. Neither brand is close to claiming “mission accomplished.” But my money is on Verizon. If they can keep hammering the idea of leadership and reliability with strong visuals the war will soon be over and I can go back to watching television without all the Cellphone War commercials interrupting.

Domino's Should Apologize

      Everybody knows the rule. When you do something wrong, you say you are sorry. As a society we love to scold but we also love to forgive. And the simple act of just “saying” sorry goes a long way in righting many wrongs.

      But how, when and why you say you are sorry also matters.

      Say it too often and nobody will believe you anymore. Detroit has been begging for forgiveness for decades.

      Say it with advertising instead of PR and it looks phony. JetBlue ran full-page ads saying it was embarrassed and sorry for holding passengers over six hours with no water on runways during an ice storm. Yeah, right.

      Say it when you don’t have to and you create guilt where it may not have existed before. Domino’s current ads do just that. Domino’s goes out of its way to portray its guilt and lack of action for decades. And in the process mocks the stupidity of its customer base.

      At its site, Pizza Turnaround Domino’s proudly asks and answers: “Did we actually face our critics and reinvent our pizza from the crust up? OH YES WE DID.”

      And I say, OH NO YOU DIDN’T! The lack of brand and customer respect is astonishing.

      In a display of contradictions,  Domino’s admits it has been producing a horrible product for the past 40 years, devoid of flavor, taste, aroma and even “real” ingredients. Yet, they also brag about the obvious success of the brand.

      Domino’s is the world’s #2 pizza chain with sales of $1.4 billion and almost 9,000 locations in more than 60 countries (5,000 of which are in the United States.) It must be some kind of miracle that a company could sell $1.4 billion worth of such a disguising product given the stiff competition. Somebody obviously liked the pizza.

      When a brand faces a crisis, there is no doubt that an immediate public apology is best. During a crisis the flood of negative stories need to be countered with the sincere voice of the brand giving an open, honest, direct apology. Tiger Woods should have immediately apologized to his fans, his sponsors, and his wife. His silence cemented his guilt and lack of remorse.

      Currently Domino’s is facing no immediate crisis on taste. There are no cardboard pizza protests or processed cheese boycotts in the headlines.

      Winning the “taste” battle isn’t always even important. Many leading brands don’t win any taste challenges. McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and Starbucks to name a few.

      Of course back in the spring of 2009, Domino’s did face a very real crisis when two idiots working in a North Carolina store posted vile and juvenile sandwich shenanigans on YouTube. Domino’s did the right thing by striking back with a message from CEO Patrick Doyle. It would have been better if his message was not pre-recorded, if Patrick had more television presence and if Domino’s had released it sooner. But hey, they tried.

      But in this case, Domino’s took decades of customer criticism presented a federal case against itself creating its own media firestorm.

      It reminds me of the commercials that launched New Coke. In the ads, Coca-Cola announced that the “Real Thing,” the most powerful brand in the world, wasn’t actually very tasty. So Coca-Cola was discontinuing it in favor of New Coke. Nobody said that the people running companies were always very smart. New Coke has gone down in history as one of the worst management decisions ever.

      Well, “New” Domino’s might be a similar case. The worst thing you can do to an iconic brand is enact radical change. New Coke and the disastrous Tropicana repackaging show us that change (even positive change) is most often greeted with anger and resentment by the public and especially by loyal fans.

      Consumers don’t want different. Customers don’t want to be surprised. As Holiday Inn used to say, “the best surprise is no surprise.” That is what strong brands deliver. No surprises. The same thing, the same look, time after time.

      That doesn’t mean that a brand has to remain exactly the same forever. But it does mean that brands need to change very, very slowly and subtly. Coca-Cola has changed its original formula several times, but nobody notices. UPS has updated it logo several times, but nobody notices.

      Sure, Domino’s needed to work on its quality, consistency, flavor and taste. But not all at once. Even worse than doing it all at once is the fact that Domino’s launched a massive television campaign and internet site to promote that the pizza has really sucked all these years.

      Why was Domino’s successful in the first place? From watching the current ads, you would think it was because they got lucky and had stupid customers who had no taste in pizza and who were too lazy to look up another pizza place’s phone number. Wrong.

      Domino’s was successful because it pioneered a new category in the mind. Domino’s focus on “delivery” allowed it to do delivery faster and cheaper than the competition. Domino’s burned its delivery focus into the mind with its simple and specific “30 minutes or its free” slogan.

      The reality is that Domino’s real competition is not Pizza Hut or Papa John’s. The real competition of all the chains are the local pizzerias that still make up the bulk of the pizza market, only 35% of the market belongs to the big national brands. How are local brands different? Local brands emphasis local flavors and tastes.

      You build a brand by being the opposite of the competition. To build an international chain, Domino’s pizza needed to a simple taste that everyone would enjoy. So Domino’s was rather bland on purpose.

        And the truth is that many customers actually prefer a bland experience. It’s why kids like McDonald’s hamburgers, they are bland. And it’s why McDonald’s is the world’s largest restaurant chain.

      What Domino’s is currently doing to one of the world’s greatest brands is criminal. Domino’s definitely owes us all an apology, but not for the taste of its pizza. Domino’s needs to apologize for its foolish brand strategy.

It's what Tiger does next that counts

    Tiger Woods was a rare breed. A phenomenal athlete who delivered consistent record-shattering victories on and off the course with style, grace and integrity.

 

    In an intense game like golf, Tiger built his reputation by performing under pressure. And like his idol Jack Nicklaus, Tiger transcended from being one of the best athletes ever to being one of the best celebrity brands ever.

 

    The latest Forbes Celebrity 100 list put Tiger at number five just behind Angelina, Oprah, Madonna and Beyonce. And ahead of Springsteen. Not bad company.

 

    In sports, Tiger reigns supreme. For the eighth straight year, Tiger was the highest paid athlete in the world and last year was one in which he rarely played golf after being sidelined following knee surgery. In fact, nobody even comes close to the Tiger Megabrand. Tiger out-earns the number two athlete by more than two to one.

 

    That was then, this is now. The world’s good boy has suddenly gone bad. The guy who seemed to be perfect in every way has been discovered to be a mere mortal like the rest of us. Even worse, he seems to be flawed in some very disagreeable ways.

 

    No one was as proud of Tiger Woods as his Dad, Earl Woods. In an 1996 Sports Illustrated article, Earl famously referred to his son as the “chosen one” and predicted he would have “the power to impact nations.” Tiger certainly has enormous power but poor Earl must be rolling over in his grave over the news of the past few days.

 

    Tiger’s fall from grace is a catastrophe we have never seen before because Tiger was a brand we have never seen before. Tiger’s image was so pure, so squeaky clean and so universally appealing that his God-like status, his walking-on-water video and the founding of the First Church of Tiger Woods all seemed so well-deserved.

 

    Tiger’s universal appeal and lack of negatives made him the perfect pitchman. The big blue-chip brands that were lucky enough to sign Tiger knew he was worth every million they spent because of the trust and image Tiger brought to the table. Brands like Nike, Accenture, Gatorade, Gillette, American Express and Tag Heuer banked on Tiger and that unflappable image. Each of these brands played off Tiger’s image of integrity and performance under pressure.

 

    Slogans like “Just Do It” for Nike and “Go on be a Tiger” for Accenture resonated with people in powerful ways. Today they taken on whole new meanings.

 

    My favorite Accenture headline says “It’s what you do next that counts” and shows Tiger with his ball on the rocks, focused on how to get back on the green. For anybody else, the shot would be impossible.

    This is the perfect metaphor for Tiger today. What done is done. You can’t change the past or your last shot; you can only focus on what to do next.

    

    The world is waiting to see exactly what Tiger does next. What he does next is what counts and what will determine his future.

 

    Keeping his endorsements isn’t really a concern. Companies like Nike, Gatorade and Accenture are so tightly tied up with Tiger they are unlikely to cut him loose unless he goes out and kills somebody. In addition, Tiger’s sponsors are heavily male-oriented brands, so Tiger’s new ladies’ man image isn’t likely to hurt him much. Married, middle age women were never the target market when it came to Tiger’s sponsors anyway. Tiger is unlikely to gain any new sponsors, but he is making so much money now he doesn’t need more sponsors.

 

    Keeping his wife is definitely a concern. Tiger could buy a “Kobe Special” (in reference to the $4 million ring Kobe Bryant gave his wife) and refocus and rededicate himself to her. Or Tiger could do an A-Rod and divorce his wife and start hitting the Hollywood scene. (A-Rod has been linked to stars such as Madonna and Kate Hudson.) What will not work well for Tiger and his brand is an uncertain situation and the continued tabloid storylines of ups and downs with his wife. He is better off deciding right now to stay or go right now. Or maybe his wife and her nine-iron will make the decision for him.

 

    Keeping his fans is a big concern. Tiger used to be a universally likeable entity. Things everybody loves? Puppies, apple pie and Tiger.

 

    Today, Tiger has become extremely polarizing. Topics to avoid at your next cocktail party? Religion, politics and Tiger.

 

    Oddly enough, the business of golf stands to benefit from all this hoopla. The next tournament and the next PGA championship Tiger plays in will likely garner very high ratings. Everyone wants to see exactly how Tiger will perform under the extreme pressure.

 

    And just like the Accenture ad says, it is what you do next that counts. If Tiger can win, keep his cool and reconnect with the public everything is likely to be OK. Winning changes everything.

 

    In 2003, Kobe Bryant was charged by a hotel employee with sexual assault. The case when on for over a year when the changes were dropped after the accuser became unwilling to testify.  The accuser eventually settled a civil suit with Kobe out of court. With his wife at his side, Kobe admitted in a press conference to an adulterous encounter with the young lady. Sponsors like McDonald’s quickly dumped Kobe and others like Nike and Sprite put him on the back burner.

 

    Today, Kobe is a leading sports and celebrity superstar. He ranks as #3 in the world in athlete earnings with $45 million a year in earnings, a rank he shares with Michael Jordan. Kobe has come out with the fourth edition of his signature sneaker line with Nike the Zoom Kobe IV. And he continues his relationship with Cola-Cola however Kobe has been moved from the Sprite brand to the hipper VitaminWater brand.

 

    What won over his fans and corporate sponsors? The $4 million ring he gave his wife? Forget it. It was his success on the court that turned it around for Kobe. After Shaq left the Lakers in 2004, Kobe became the cornerstone of the team franchise. He led the NBA in scoring in the 2005-06, and the 2006-07 seasons. In 2008 he won a gold medal at the summer Olympics. He won his fourth NBA championship in 2009 as well as the finals MVP award.

 

    Alex Rodriguez was tabloid fodder plagued by steroid rumors, a nasty divorce and poor playoff performances. But all the negatives seemed to be old news after the Yankees finally won a World Series with A-Rod this Fall.

 

    A lot of damage, ill will and misdoings can be corrected by excellence on the playing field. If Tiger takes a championship or two in grand style in 2010, we might look back on all this as a minor blip. An incident that brought depth, grit and humility to Tiger.

 

    If Tiger takes another wrong turn and underperforms on the greens, we might look back at him with the same disbelief and disgust as one views Lindsey Lohan.

 

    It is what you do next that counts Tiger. Go on be a Tiger. Believe it or not, people want you to win.