Ries' Pieces

GM & the Implication of the Opposite

           

               Sometimes the harder you try, the worse off you are. Why is that?

            Branding can sometimes be like trying to pick up girls. It is not what you say that counts. But the implication of what you say that counts.

            Asking a girl out for a Saturday night date on a Thursday afternoon doesn’t say you like her. It says “I’m desperate. Girls won’t go out with me.”

            There’s an important principle here. It’s what we call the implication of the opposite. What you say often implies exactly the opposite idea.

            When crafting their advertising messages, too many marketers forget about this principle. As a result, while even if they are telling the truth all they do is convince consumers of the opposite.

            Look at General Motor’s new campaign and you’ll see what I mean.

            GM’s latest television commercials with Chairman Ed Whitacre Jr. promotes a 60-day money-back guarantee on the purchase on any new car or truck. Only a company that is desperate and unsure of itself would do that. It’s no way to get a date or sell a car.

            GM thinks the money-back guarantee says it believes so strongly in its cars that it is willing to give you your money back if you’re not satisfied. But it is the opposite message that gets delivered. We are so unsure of our products we’ll give you your money back.

            Money-back guarantees have been around for a long time. And while they are very popular and many companies have used them, I don’t think they are effective. If a money-back guarantee was the key to success, almost every small company in America would be rolling in dough.

            Check the yellow pages or Google and you’ll see. Hundreds of companies use them to beg for business.

            A money-back guarantee says there is nothing really special or different about your company or your products. The way to be popular and get the girl is not by begging her to try you out and promising to refund her movie money if she isn’t happy with the date.

                The way to be popular is by being the best football player, the best tennis player, the best chess player, the best photographer, the best singer, the best dancer or the best looking-guy in the crowd. In other words, by being a leader in a category.

            The biggest problem with GM is that they don’t lead in any category. Ford is the leading truck brand. Toyota is the leading car brand. Lexus is the leading luxury car brand. BMW is the leading driving car brand. Mercedes is the leading prestigious car brand.

            What is a Cadillac? What is a Chevrolet? What is a Buick? What is a GMC? None of these brands lead in anything nor do they stand for anything.

            Cadillac used to be a very strong brand because it was the leading luxury-car brand. But no more. Cheap Cadillac models like the Catera undermined its luxury position in the mind. Cadillac used to outsell Mercedes, BMW and Lexus combined.

            Today, Cadillac is stuck in fourth place. Here are the 2008 sales:

Lexus ……..……  260,087

BMW …………..  249,113

Mercedes …….  225,009

Cadillac ……..… 161,159

            Then there is Ed Whitacre Jr. Who? Exactly. Nobody knows who this guy is. Sure, he ran AT&T as Chairman and CEO for 17 years. But his Wikipedia page is smaller than mine. Ed Whitacre Jr. is not a household name.

            CEO ads that work best are the ones that feature a company founder like Dave Thomas for Wendy’s, John Schnatter for Papa John’s or Frank Perdue for Perdue. Not a CEO who was just appointed by the government.

            Apparently, the Ed Whitacre Jr. ads were supposed to resemble the iconic Lee Iacocca ads of the early 1980’s. GM was hoping that Ed do for GM, what Lee did Chrysler. I’ll give you three reasons why this strategy will never work.

1. Lee Iacocca was a celebrity. Ed Whitacre Jr. is a nobody.

            Lee Iacocca was very well known before being hired by Chrylser. Iacocca was closely associated with the design and launch of the Mustang. During the Mustang launch at the 1964 World’s Fair, Iacocca appeared on the cover of many magazines including Time and Newsweek. Most people have never heard of Ed Whitacre.

 

2. Lee Iacocca was a car guy. Ed Whitacre Jr. is a phone guy.

            If you want to fix a car company, why would you hire a phone guy? Only the government could think something crazy like that. Iacocca was a car guy all his life. He spent 32 years at Ford and wound up as President before being fired by Henry Ford II. When he arrived at Chrysler, Iacocca brought many good ideas, many good executives and a deep understanding of the industry. Ed Whitacre Jr. bought very little with him when he arrived at GM.

3. Iacocca’s plan was specific. Ed Whitacre Jr’s is not.

            What made the Iacocca ads so powerful was not just him saying “If you can find a better car, buy it.” It was the Iacocca talking about the new K-Car. The K-Car was the way for Americans to beat the pump. The K-car was the first 6-passenger, efficient, front-wheel-drive vehicle. And it sold like crazy. Soon after the K-Car, Iacocca followed with the Minivan. And as they say, the rest is history. The success of these two cars turned around the Chrysler Company.

            The Ed Whitacre Jr. ads with talk about nothing specific, because GM has nothing specific to talk about. Saying “May the Best Car Win” is laughable. If they really believed they had the best cars, why would they need the buyback guarantee?

            If there was a best-car bookie in Vegas, I’d bet it all on Toyota. GM is a suckers bet.

McCain vs. Obama. Coke vs. Pepsi

By historic standards, the next president of the United States, should most definitely not be John McCain.

With an unpopular two-term president and a sluggish economy, the candidate from the incumbent party is typically dead on the campaign trails, the polls and the ballot box. But not this year.

Even though he is from the incumbent party and even though he has been in Washington for over 20 years, McCain is unique because he can still credibility claim to be a reformer and an agent of change.

A year ago who would have guessed we would be where we are today and that the race would be so close, so interesting and that the two contending candidates would be Obama and McCain?

Very few.

A year ago, who would have guessed there would be a woman on a ticket but not on the Democratic side. Not even Sarah Palin would have guessed it would be from the Repulican party and that it would be her.

One thing has always been clear, this election is about change. Change is what the voters crave most. The nomination of both Obama and McCain make that perfectly obvious. Whoever can effectively sell his brand of change will win in November.

Both candidates have credible messages of change, both have build strong brands and both have avid followers.

  

This is a battle of Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola. (Neither is weak like RC Cola or Mike Dukakis.) About half of the people prefer Coke while the other half prefer Pepsi. It is the sign of two powerhouse brands when there is no room left for a third brand. 

McCain is Coca-Cola. As part of the incumbent party that has dominated the White House for the past fifty years, he is the real thing. He embodies courage, duty and honor. As part of a legendary Naval family McCain has a long history serving our country, his fighting in Vietnam and years spent as a  POW are legendary. His reputation has always been as a maverick. McCain's strength is his experience. His weakness is that he has been around forever; he is not new and different.

Obama is Pepsi-Cola. Obama is the choice of a new generation. Pepsi said, "You don't want to drink what your parents drank. You are the Pepsi Generation!" With a whole new taste and look, Pepsi stormed into the cola aisle just as Obama stormed onto the political stage. Obama is new, young, different and embodies the idea of change and hope. Obama's strength is that he represents the choice of a new generation. His weakness is that not everybody wants a new generation to take over.

How can either McCain or Obama become President? I'm going to lay out my best plan for each not as an activist or a supporter but as a marketing strategist.

   

What should McCain do?

Whether you are selling popcorn or want to be the next president the key to success is owning a word in the mind. McCain's word is "maverick." He needs to reinforce and repeat that word as often as possible. His signs, commercials and speeches should constantly and consistently talk about his maverick reputation and how Washington needs a maverick to deliver real change.

Consultants love "attack ads." But attacking your opponent and calling him/her names is not the way to look like a winner, you look like a whiner.

A better idea is to start your dialog with an idea that already connects with what's in the voter's mind. State the obvious, focus on your word, give your position then reverse it for your opponent.

"I'm for cutting your taxes. My opponent is for increasing your taxes."

"I'm for less government. My opponent is for more government."

"I'm for straight-talk. My opponent is for highfalutin talk."

McCain definitely picked the best possible choice for VP. Sarah Palin reinforces his maverick position, and comes from as far from Washington DC as one can get and did I mention she is a woman. What more could you want?

Well how about that fact that she is a fabulous speaker, a hockey-Mom, young, attractive and conservative.

McCain needs to stop talking about "Country First." This was the slogan of the convention and has been dominating the rally signs. Forget it.

A good slogan is one that can be easily and credibly used in reverse. Does anyone believe Obama puts "Country Last"? Or that Obama is unpatriotic? (Sure a few right-wing nuts might, but they were already voting for Republican.) The reality is: everybody that runs for president loves America.

McCain needs to stick to talking about being a "Maverick" in order to win.

 

What should Obama do?

You got to hand it to Obama. Through excellent branding strategy, he was able to bring down the greatest living political brand in the business: Clinton.

How he beat Hillary Clinton was simple. He focused on one word, one message, one sign: "Change." Hillary waffled from "experience" to "change" to "ready" to "solutions." She changed message as often as she changed her pantsuits. Not a good strategy.

Obama has become a political superstar. He combines charisma, presence, eloquence, style and message.  His words inspire. His words give people hope. He has connected to the youth of America like no other leader of this generation.

Like McCain, Obama should refrain from negative attacks. And he should forgot about attacking Sarah Palin at all. Attacking the VP candidate just makes him look bad.

The key to running against the incumbent party's candidate is to say "Who wants a third term of this crummy guy's policies?" The problem is that McCain was not Bush's VP. The problem is that McCain is known as a maverick and has come out strongly against Bush so the third Bush term putdown has not stuck.

"No More Bush" gets people excited doesn't help Obama beat McCain.

Obama needs to run against the Republican party. Obama needs to say we CAN'T have four more years of Republicans in the White House. We have to get the Republicans out of the White House in order to bring about real change.

We need a new generation to come in and clean Washington up. Thank you Senator McCain, I look forward to working with you and praise your spirit of change, but now it is the Democrats turn to take charge.

Obama's word is "change." He has been so effective for so long because he uses change in every speech and every sign. He has been consistently and doggedly focused on change.

Obama needs to repeat his message of change but add the idea that electing a Republican would mean there is no change. In order to achieve real change we need to get the Republicans out of the White House.

Obama should say:

"I'm for change in Iraq. My opponent is for more of the same."

"I'm for having a Democrat in the While House. My opponent would mean just another Republican."

"I'm for changing the tax code to help the middle class. My opponent is same tax breaks for the rich."

Obama had a lose/lose/lose choice for picking a VP. If he went with Hillary, he might get the White House, but he would be stuck there with two people he cannot stand. (and who could blame him)

If he went with another young outsider, he would be labeled the ticket with no experience. If he went with (as he did) a respected, boring insider who has been around forever, he would get labeled as not being for real change.

I think he picked the best of three terrible options. With his choice of Sarah Palin, McCain exploited Obama's choice.  But in the end the candidate at the top of the ticket is the one who wins or loses the race.

This year's race is a classic battle between Coke & Pepsi, between McCain & Obama. But unlike soft drinks, you can't have both. Only one man will win.

An Achy Breaky Branding Blunder

She was named Destiny Hope Cyrus because her parents knew she would do great things. And that is exactly what the girl now better known as Miley Cyrus and/or Hannah Montana has done.

Miley has become an international pre-teen sensation and mega-brand for the Disney Company. She is only 15 years old but Miley is predicted to be a billionaire by her 18th birthday. Not too bad, all your typical teenager brings home is average grades and acne.

Miley Cyrus’ Empire includes:
- Hit Disney channel TV show: Hannah Montana
- 2 multiplatinum albums
- Sold-out concert tour and concert film
- Upcoming movie (due 2009)
- Book deal with Disney (reportedly seven figures)
- Merchandise including lunch boxes, bed sheets and MP3 players

Miley Cyrus is a teenager and a billion dollar franchise. That is a tough combination to manage from a business, branding and personal perspective. You have three forces at odds with one another.

Disney

Disney is in it for the short term. Disney’s goal is to milk the Miley brand as fast and as furious as it can. Why? Because of the short shelf life of a pop-princess. A pre-teen act has 3 to 5 years maximum before the kids grow up or their fans move on.

Disney can treat Miley like an ordinary brand. Ordinary brands in ordinary categories can develop, grow and mature over decades. (Like Red Bull introduced in 1987. )But in 20 years, Miley will probably be lucky enough to get a call back on a third-rate reality cable television show.

Miley Cyrus will grow out of her role as Hannah Montana brand before you know it. She has maybe 3 good years left. Nothing can stop time or puberty.

Ideally Disney would keep Miley in a bubble. With a short shelf life, nobody wants any major slip-ups.

Today Miley is incredibly important to Disney. But five years from now, they will have created another star to replace her.

Miley’s parents

While they are happy to make money now, Miley’s parents, who also manage her career, are also wisely keeping an eye on the future. Her Dad (Billy Ray Cyrus) knows all too well the realities of being a one-hit wonder.

Team Cyrus has to be very worried about how Miley can sustain her fame past 18 years old. It is not easy. There are very few Justin Timberlakes and Britney Spears who go from Mickey Mouse Club to mainstream stardom. Most fade into oblivion.

I imagine it was team Cyrus who wanted to do the Vanity Fair shoot. Vanity Fair is an upscale, sophisticated, cultural, adult magazine. It is the magazine that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes gave their first baby photo to. And the one Bono was a celebrity editor of last summer.

The thinking goes like this: Appearing in Vanity Fair would give Miley her own credibility and authenticity with an influential adult audience apart from Disney. The photographer, Annie Leibovitz, is one of the most respected artistic photographers of our time and her images would lend an edgy, sophisticated look to young Miley. Clearly Disney would be against this; they want Miley to always be Hannah Montana and stick to Seventeen magazine at the raciest.

Miley Cyrus

Let’s not forget, Miley is a teenager. And as any parent will tell you, teenagers are not the most predictable or reliable of creatures. But for Miley and Disney things have gone perfectly.

The clean-cut, church-going, modestly-dressed Miley has been a dream come true for Disney and parents alike. But you could have said that about Britney Spears 10 years ago. So it goes to show you, you just never know. And sometimes delayed rebellion is far worse than one can imagine.

Britney jumped from Mickey Mouse club to "baby one more time" to this Rolling Stones cover when she was 17. And we have all seen the photos of her today.

Was the Vanity Fair shoot a good idea?

No. From the very start this strategy was flawed.

A few months ago Miley turned 15 years old. She is at the height of her success. Vanity Fair is the wrong magazine, Annie Leibovitz is the wrong photographer and the back-bearing shot was the wrong photograph.

But that was the point of the picture and it shouldn’t be such a shock. An adult magazine wants adult photos. The shot of Miley is a beautiful, artistic, edgy, mature photo commonly found in the book. Vanity Fair does not publish publicity shots, it is known for pushing boundaries. When you play with fire, you can’t complain when you get burned.

The time to move to Vanity Fair is when Miley turns 21. Then you have a story to tell of her move into adulthood. Managing the transition is not easy. Start too young and it is child porn. Start too old and it is creepy.

Will this hurt her brand?

It certainly didn’t help. But it is unlikely to do any long-term damage to the Miley Cyrus brand because:

1: There is nobody else out there for teens to adore. The lack of competition is the best thing she’s got going for her. Hillary Duff is in her 20’s. The Cheetah Girls are in their 20’s. And her biggest competition Jamie Lynn Spears (Nickelodeon star and Britney’s sister) got pregnant last year at just 16 years old.

2: The photo of Miley was shocking but not pornographic. It caused so much attention not because of its raciness, but because it was the opposite of her brand image.

Like I said, being the opposite and looking grown-up was probably the intent of Team Cyrus, but the photo obviously went too far. Although other girls have gone farther, quicker, parents thought that Miley would be different and wouldn’t try to grow up so fast like most other pop-stars.

3: She was not on the cover. Not being on the magazine's cover and being mostly covered is Miley's saving grace. This will allow the controversy to blow off relatively quickly as long as she doesn’t hitting the clubs with Paris Hilton or doing cocaine with Amy Winehouse. And her parents don't book her the cover of Maxim magazine.

Miley immediately issued a statement saying she is “embarrassed” by the photos; so she is likely to get sympathy. Her managers and parents on the other hand will get hell.

While it is good for Miley she is not on the cover. It is bad for Vanity Fair. All this free publicity and they are unlikely to reap any rewards or much of a spike in newsstand sales.

The Future?

While it lasts, Miley needs to enjoy the Hannah Montana ride. Her future is uncertain. If she is like the Olsen Twins, she won’t make it into adult stardom. If she is like Lindsay Lohan, she will make it and then throw it all away by doing drugs. If she is like Madonna, she will be as famous 25 years into her career as she was when she started. The secret to Madonna’s success is that she starts a trend, she fades from view and then she returns reincarnated. Hard to do, but when it works, it is pure magic.

Tiger is the man, but still gets canned

Tiger Woods is the man. As an athlete, a role-model and an endorser, nobody can come close to his perfection. Tiger is young, articulate, attractive, charismatic, clean-cut, family-oriented, scandal-free and, don’t let me forget, he wins a lot of golf tournaments.

Tiger is the first athlete in history to bank $100 million in a year, a feat which earned him the #2 spot on the Forbes Celebrity 100 list last year. Right behind Oprah and just ahead of Madonna. Tiger was the only athlete who made the top ten.

So why did Buick and now American Express slice their endorsement deals with the star? Just because he is the man doesn’t mean that Tiger makes sense or is worth the price of endorsement for every brand.

Tiger and Buick

Endorsing the Buick brand makes no sense at all for Tiger. There was just no believability that Tiger was dying to drive a Buick. And without believability a celebrity endorsement is worthless.

The personalities of Buick and Tiger went together like oil and water. Buick is an older person’s car (Tiger is less than half the age of the average Buick buyer.) Tiger is young, very cool and at the top of his game.

And here is the killer. Sticking Tiger on Buick for the past 10 years has done absolutely nothing for the brand. Year to date sales at Buick dropped 28%, making it the weakest of GM’s original 5 brands. (Tiger will now promote OnStar for GM.)

Sure, without Tiger, Buick could have been doing worse but at least GM would have had $40 million plus in the bank.

Tiger and American Express

In terms of believability, the opposite is true of Tiger’s endorsement deal with American Express. There is extreme credibility that a man like Tiger Woods is a card-carrying American Express customer.

Anyone can easily imagine Tiger charging up exotic vacations, pricy jewelry, fancy meals and designer duds with a black AmEx card. What they can’t see is Tiger going to the grocery store and getting milk, Wonder bread and baby formula then swiping an American Express card.

American Express has not used Tiger to reinforce the brand’s dominance as the top high-end credit-card brand in the world. What they have been doing is trying to move the brand downscale to the mass market.

Tiger is at the top, you can’t move him down. He’s not like everybody else. There is no believability in making Tiger an average guy. Yet here is what an American Express vice president said about the company’s decision to cut Tiger Woods: the company was looking “to build a broader base of consumer experiences.”

In other words, we got the rich people, now we want to go after everyone else. Problem is Visa already has everybody else. By moving the brand downscale, American Express risks losing its bread and butter.

Tiger is taken

Tiger’s dance card is full. Nike has bought all the dances. Tiger has been with Nike since 1996, the year he went pro. The $600 million Nike Golf brand has been built on the shoulders of Tiger. The two are synonymous. It wouldn’t be Sunday at the Masters without Tiger wearing a Nike red shirt and a Nike swoosh hat.

It goes even further than that. Tiger always wears Nike, even when pitching products from other sponsors including American Express, Accenture and Buick. This is unheard of in celebrity endorsements but works in this case because it is so naturally to see Tiger in Nike. Other companies put up with it since they all want Tiger.

Nike has built its brand on celebrity endorsements both big and small. The essence of the brand is its association with top athletes.

Michael Jordan is the father all of endorsers, but it was his deal and his relationship with Nike that made him one of the greatest endorsers of all time. On the other hand, his work with Rayovac batteries, Ballpark franks or Hanes underwear was more embarrassing than effective.

Now that Michael Vick has gone to the dogs, Nike will be looking to Tiger even more.

Celebrity endorsements: good or bad?

It all depends. The right celebrity, at the right time, for the right brand at the right price is fantastic. But using a celebrity who has no believability with your brand is money down the drain.

The first thing to remember is that a celebrity is never a replacement for an idea. People might talk about the celebrity but that rarely translates into much for the brand unless there is such a strong tie like the one Tiger has with Nike.

What makes a brand successful is owning a word in the mind. Paying Tiger Woods or anyone else millions of dollars is not a replacement for that.

The second thing to remember is celebrity endorsements only work when the consumer has a credible belief that the celebrity would be interested in buying and using the product or service despite being paid to do so. If not, your money is wasted. Something Buick recently realized.

What is truly amazing and important about today’s news that American Express dumped Tiger is that even the best athlete and endorser in the world can’t score for any brand. And despite all the data, Tiger is likely to pick up plenty more endorsements deals in the years to come. Maybe Hanes underwear or Rayovac batteries?

Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrity endorsements remain a popular tool for marketers. But too many times brands use the wrong celebrities.

Tiger Woods endorsing the Buick brand makes no sense at all. There is just no believability that Tiger is dying to drive a Buick. And without believability a celebrity endorsement is worthless. The $40 million General Motors reportedly paid Tiger for his 5-year contract ending in 2009 is not money well spent.

The Buick/Woods example is the extreme of what not to do when choosing a celebrity. There was no believability; Tiger is overused and Tiger is too expensive.

The brand personalities of Buick and Tiger go together like oil and water. Buick is an older person’s car (Tiger is less than half the age of the average buyer.) Tiger is very young, very cool and at the top of his game. You imagine him driving a Bentley, a Mercedes or a Lexus.

Never in a million years would anyone imagine Tiger saying to his hot Swedish-model-wife “Hey Honey, let’s go get a Buick!” It was even worse when General Motors signed Tiger back in 1999. Then he was a cool, single guy in his 20’s. No guy ever got a date by driving around in a Buick.

If anything, it would have been a better idea for G.M. sign up Tiger’s dad, Earl Woods, as the celebrity endorser for Buick. At least he would be more of a believable Buick buyer but unfortunately it is too late for that since he sadly passed away last year.

There are times when a celebrity endorsement makes sense and can be tremendously helpful. Think Michael Jordan and Nike or Gatorade. Or Kristie Alley and Jenny Craig.

Here are the answers to some common questions to help you to decide if a celebrity is right for your brand.

How can a celebrity endorsement help my brand?

Having a celebrity endorse your brand can be helpful for a well-known brand in need of maintaining attention for its brand and category. Celebrities are most helpful because they can star in advertising campaigns and participate in company events. Consumers might be more apt to watch your ad if it has a celebrity. Employees might feel proud of having the celebrity endorsing their company. Customers might be more apt to participate in events when a celebrity involved.

A celebrity is not a replacement for an idea. A brand without a focus will never find the correct celebrity to match the brand.

Using a celebrity is also not a replacement for brand PR. Too many companies use a celebrity in an attempt to establish credibility with consumers. But the only thing that builds a brand in the mind of the consumer is PR and word-of-mouth generated by an idea. The PR attention generated by a celebrity does not build your brand.

People might talk about the celebrity but that rarely translates into much for the brand. The bottom line is that the only thing that makes a brand successful is owning a word in the mind. Paying Tiger Woods millions of dollars is no replacement for that.

When do celebrity endorsements work?

Celebrity endorsements only work when the consumer has a credible belief that the celebrity would be interested in buying and using your product or service despite being paid to do so. If not, your money is wasted on the endorsement. You can have any actor deliver your sales pitch. The celebrity might even be a distraction from your message.

Celebrity endorsements work best when you can line up a celebrity with as much exclusivity as possible. Athletes in their prime usually have endorsements with so many different brands that each has limited influence. Look at the cars of NASCAR drivers. Unless your name fills the whole car, forget it. All the little names get lost and ignored.

Celebrity endorsements work best when the celebrity is believable. Seems obvious, but many celebrities have the reputation for saying anything for a buck. This is compounded by having multiple contracts that are short-term and change frequently.

Celebrity endorsements work best if the celebrity is not too famous. Celebrities that are too famous and too much in the public eye are not as effective. They tend to overshadow the brands in the advertising. And consumers are fatigued of seeing the celebrities’s face all over the place.

Celebrity endorsements work best if you think long-term. Having a new celebrity ever few years doesn’t make sense. Consistency is key. Some brands associated with youth and fashion will have a higher turnover rate. But most brands should think about a partnership of five years or more.

Are celebrity endorsements worth the money?

A big, established, dominate brand has the money and weight to make a celebrity endorsement work. It’s usually a brand that consumers are familiar with and the exorbitant costs can be worthwhile in defending the brand’s position in the mind and keeping the category relevant and interesting.

Celebrity endorsements are usually not a wise choice for new brands with limited budgets. Better to use PR and a company leader as a spokesperson to build the brand first.

What if the celebrity gets in trouble?

The recent PR disasters with Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton and others makes many companies extremely nervous about signing up a celebrity.

People are fallible. Even Ms. Perfect (aka Martha Stewart) can suffer a fall from grace. But having a singular person as the spokesperson for your brand, whether it is a CEO like Steve Jobs or a celebrity like Tiger Woods, is extremely beneficial and so important in a brand’s success that is worth the risk. And if the worst happens, just be consoled that strong brands tend to survive regardless.

Some of the worst celebrity endorsement choices: (Please post a comment with some of your favorites, too)

Michael Jordan and Rayovac rechargeable batteries.
I think he can afford to buy the real ones and throw them away. Don’t you?

Michael Jordan and Hanes underwear.
Boxers or briefs? Neither. I am guessing Jordan would go commando rather than wear such stodgy drawers.

Paris Hilton and Carl’s Jr.
Stuffing her face with fast-food burgers, I don’t think so. The only thing this heiress indulgences in is champagne, clothes and cosmetics.

Fidelity and Paul McCartney.
When you have billions, who needs to worry about retirement planning?

Jessica Simpson and Pizza Hut.
The overexposed Simpson is definitely cheesy but popping cheesy bites from Pizza Hut is far from believable

The Imus brand implosion

How did the Don Imus situation get so out of control?

1. Imus should have caught himself and apologized immediately on the air. Instead, he dismissively said people needed to “relax about his idiot comments meant to be amusing.” This added fuel to the fire. Name-calling politicians and celebrities is one thing, picking on sympathetic college basketball players is another. He should have understood the difference.

2. Video-taping the show. What propelled the scandal into orbit was seeing Don Imus saying the words over and over again on television and the internet. I don’t think just the audio would have had the same impact. His performance is made for radio; he doesn’t have the right expressions for television. On TV he looks like a cold, mean, old, rich, elitist white man.

3. Trying to be a high-minded political commentator as well as a shock jock spewing locker-room humor. Where is the line? Hard to judge when you are trying to be two different things. Plus his “I’m-better-than-you” image, makes forgiving him more difficult.

4. His first stop on the apology tour should have been to the Rutgers campus. He should have run right over there and been at their press conference.

5. Going on Sharpton’s show hurt his case. With the Reverend taunting and antagonizing him, Imus understandably cracked and came off as confrontational. The show just produced more unflattering clips for the media to run. He said he was stupid more times than he said he was sorry about hurting the basketball players feeling.

6. Too bad Don wasn’t drinking. A rush to rehab would have given everyone a timeout to let the story die down. It would also have given CBS more time to think about it. The two-week suspension was a good idea.

7. Without someone in charge at CBS Radio, executives were left scrambling to deal with the crisis and I believe they prematurely fired Imus. They had already given him a two-week suspension. They should have taken the time to think through the issues and better gage the public and advertiser outrage. Firing him was always an option; there was no need to rush the decision. Having him come back and fail was also an option. In some ways Imus now looks like the victim and CBS Radio looks like the bad guys. If the Rutgers basketball team could forgive him and not want him to lose his job, why couldn’t CBS wait a few weeks to make their decision?

Lessons learned:

1. A well-oiled outrage machine can bring someone down. Sharpton and Jackson are the best. They have had a lot of practice and have obviously gotten really good at taking advantage of a news story to push their agenda. Mel Gibson, Isaiah Washington and Rosie O’Donnell weren’t taken down because the Jewish, Gay and Asian outrage machines are not as well developed. I can’t think of any Sharpton-like leaders of these groups.

2. Know your brand and watch what you say in relation to what you stand for. If you don’t, there will be negative consequences to your actions. Even if you don’t get fired, the negative PR firestorm can be terribly damaging. Mel Gibson will come back but there will always be a stain on his record.

3. Terrestrial radio could be in trouble. The talk-radio genre is filled with ranting, raving and name calling. If more of the big radio stars are kicked off or flee to satellite radio, the future looks bleak for the terrestrial folks.

4. Playing the “I’m-better-than-you” role is dangerous. Having some self deprecation is always better and makes people like you and more easily forgive you. Think Howard Stern or Jon Stewart. Don Imus and Martha Stewart come off as believing they are above it all and beyond reproach.

An airline analogy. The Imus situation is like when an airline has a crash due to pilot error. There is immediate panic and protest. No one wants to fly. But long term airline brands survive, because on most days, most flights land safety. And over time we forget about the bad and remember the good. Unless you crash a plane everyday.

I appeared on CNN Headline Prime News on Wednesday, April 11 and will appear tonight, Friday April 13 to discuss brand Imus again. Tune in to CNN Headline at 6 pm EST.

A New Yellow for the Wiggles

The Wiggles brand is back on track now that Greg Page officially retired from the kiddie super group on Thursday, November 30th. The ongoing saga has been put to rest as Greg’s mystery illness was finally diagnosed as orthostatic intolerance. (It is a condition which often makes him feel unbalanced and faint while standing because of a loss of blood pressure.) Luckily it is not life threatening, but it is chronic and will therefore prevent him from continuing in the Yellow Jersey. (Read my earlier post for more information.)

In a brilliant branding and PR move, Greg appeared in a video on the Wiggles website and made a ceremonial passing of his jersey to Sam Moran, his permanent replacement. A longtime backup singer and dancer for the band, Sam was Greg’s understudy for the past two years and filled in for him in the 150 live shows Greg was forced to skip due to illness.

Now that the brand is whole again, the future success of the Wiggles seems certain. What put the brand in serious danger was the missing Wiggle, the lack of information regarding his illness and the lack of media interviews with him. Nothing whips the media into a frenzy more that a missing celebrity. If Madonna walks the red carpet without Guy, the rumor mills starts up right away about trouble in the marriage.

The Wiggles can survive a new guy in the yellow jersey but they could not survive a missing guy in the yellow jersey much longer. I’m sure there was a lot of fear and uncertainly over what to do since Greg as lead singer was so instrumental in the success of the Wiggles. Many critics doubted if the Wiggles could survive without him. Even I myself have commented on how disappointed I felt after showing up at a Wiggles concert where Greg was a no-show and feeling like I came to a U2 concert where Bono didn’t perform. Could there be a U2 with no Bono, could there be a Wiggles with no Greg? The answer is no and yes.

What enables the Wiggles brand to continue, perhaps even stronger than before, is the enormous PR attention celebrities command. Powerful brands have endless opportunities for PR. And PR is what helps resuscitate even fallen brands. Everyone wanted to hear from Martha after she got out of jail. Or Mel after he sobered up.

Just look at the headlines the new Wiggle got. It made the FRONT PAGE of the New York Times on Monday. That’s right, not Entertainment Weekly but the New York Times; that is how powerful the brand is. Now that the group is whole again, the guys are wisely making the television rounds promoting Sam and the Wiggles big time. After 15 years together the group had run out of much of its PR potential. So the new Wiggle creates news value for the group and renewed interest in the brand.

Had the Wiggles dragged this out, not made a decision on a replacement and kept Greg away from media any longer, it could have been devastating to the brand. I can’t even put into words the beauty of the passing of the yellow shirt segment. I am personally saddened by Greg’s health problem because I loved watching him. But I am glad the Wiggles are on thier way to a fabulous recovery and that my favorite Wiggle Anthony is still performing!

Learning from the Wiggles

Do you have kids under five? If so, you need no explanation of who or what The Wiggles are. But for those of you who have not changed any diapers in the last fifteen years, I will explain the phenomena that are known as The Wiggles.

The Wiggles are an Australian pre-school sensation now celebrating their 15th year together. There are four members: Greg (Yellow), Murray (Red), Jeff (Purple) and Anthony (Blue). In 2003, they sold out 12 shows at Madison Square Garden in New York. This year they earned $38.4 million dollars with their tours in the United States and Britain helping greatly. The windfall meant that for the second year in a row The Wiggles were crowned the highest entertainment earners in Australia ahead of AC/DC, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban.

The Wiggles story began in the early 90’s when Anthony Field, Murray Cook and Greg Page studied early childhood education together at Sydney’s Macquarie University. The three began writing children’s songs as one of their music projects. They enlisted the assistance of Jeff Fatt, who played with Anthony in the popular 1980’s band The Cockroaches, and The Wiggles were born.

Kids and parents alike are drawn to the enthusiastic, educational and easy on the ears music of the Wiggles. While hearing Barney makes most parents gag, the Wiggles makes watching television with little ones actually enjoyable. I believe the key to the Wiggles branding success are the “real” guys of the band. They are cool guys who could have (and some did) played in a rock band, but instead took their talent and good looks and applied them to preschooler entertainment.

While Barney and the Teletubbies play down to kids, The Wiggles play up to them. A Wiggles concert delivers a song and rock experience akin to U2 for little ones.

But today there is some Wiggly trouble going on. I first realized this when I took my two boys to the show here in Atlanta on Wednesday. As the lights dimmed, it was announced that the lead Wiggle, Greg, would not be performing due to illness and a substitute would be filling in. OK, I thought, everybody gets sick. But then the Wiggles commented during the show that Greg was in Australia and hoped to feel better soon. Well, in Australia meant that he was not just sick for one day but likely to be missing the entire US tour. I made a mental note to Google the Yellow Wiggle upon returning to the office.

And here is what I found out from an Australian newspaper:

YELLOW Wiggle Greg Page is reportedly suffering a mystery illness that threatens his future with the children's music supergroup. News Ltd says Mr. Page, 34, is at home in Sydney battling a condition that includes regular bouts of fainting while The Wiggles tour the US with a replacement member. The Daily Telegraph quotes Mr. Page as saying that he's “not really well enough to talk”. But in a statement to fans, Mr. Page said doctors had yet to diagnose his health problem. “I have had numerous bouts of this over the past eight months but they are getting more frequent, and more concerning,” Mr. Page said. “So I have decided that I must go home, rest and seek further medical advice to assure myself that I will be OK for future tours.”

Wow, this is a major problem, not only for Greg Page (who I hope gets better quickly) but for the Wiggle brand. What should The Wiggles do? I think the first step is honesty. When facing a possible PR and brand crisis, getting out ahead of the storm with the truth is the best strategy.

The problem of Greg being sick does not hurt a majority of The Wiggle brand business. The television shows, DVD’s, amusement park rides and merchandise are pretty much unaffected. But the live shows which are the bread and butter of the band are hugely impacted. Can you imagine showing up for a U2 concert and having no Bono on stage? That is exactly how I felt with no Greg. (My kids could not have cared less, running out of popcorn would have been much more traumatic.)

The reality was, the show was fine without Greg. Luckily there are three other Wiggles still on stage and Anthony did a tremendous job of picking up the slack. But keeping Greg’s absence a secret could backfire. I believe parents and kids would be very sympathetic and understanding to Greg being sick. It is not as if he is in drug rehab or jail. But feeling duped by not telling people that he will not be on the tour is a pain many could find difficult to recover from. It is usually the lying that gets you in trouble more so that the act itself. (Just ask Nixon, Clinton or Martha.)

This is always the danger of having a live brand. What happens if something happens to my brand’s persona? If Martha Stewart goes to jail? If Jack Welch retires? If Kobe Bryant attacks a girl? If Steve Irwin gets killed? If Mel Gibson gets drunk? If Greg Page gets sick?

Brand building always involves taking risks. But without taking some risks, you are unlikely to achieve the reward of building a strong brand. It is the price you have to pay to get into the mind of the consumer. So never be afraid to put your eggs in the basket of a person to stand for your brand. Build a strong brand and succeed first. After you are earning $38 million a year you can worry about the what ifs.

Because even if Greg has to retire, the Wiggles brand will likely survive because it is so powerful in the mind. But without Greg the brand would have never gotten off the ground in the first place.

Check out my new post with the latest on the Wiggle brand.

Perfect Pitch People

When should your CEO make the move from the boardroom to the broadcasting studio to become the pitch person in your new advertising campaign?

Not an easy question to answer. It’s a move that can either lead to fame and fortune or embarrassment and ridicule. Dave Thomas is an example of the former and Dr. Z of the latter.

To help your company decide if your top person has the chops, I have put together a check list. How does your CEO score on the following criteria?

1. Authenticity. Does this person have an authentic link to the company? Is he or she widely known to be the leader? Founders, namesakes and longtime leaders have this built in. Michael Dell and Orville Redenbacher, for example. Bill Ford had the name but not the reputation as a leader.

2. Likability. Some people are instantly likable. Dave Thomas, Papa John or Lee Iaccoca, for example, are very likable. Dry and cold Jacques Nasser is not very likable.

3. Screen presence. Being likable in person and translating your likability onto the screen are two different things. A CEO needs to be natural, honest, and charismatic in front of rolling cameras. A little acting skill is also handy. Scott Blum of Buy.com has little on-screen presence or personality. Donald Trump seems to glow on screen.

4. Well-known. Is your CEO a household name already? Has he or she done enough PR so that the CEO is familiar to a wide audience? Dieter Zetsche was not widely known, especially as Dr. Z. In fact, most consumers assumed Dr. Z was an actor and not the actual chief executive.

5. Story. What is the CEO going to do and say in the television commercial? Is there a reasonable story that he or she has to tell? Frank Perdue talking marigolds was a great story. Or George Zimmer of the Men’s Wearhouse guaranteeing I will love the way I look also works.

Using the company CEO in the advertising is typically used for one of two reasons. One is that the company is in real trouble and putting the leader on television can repair confidence in the corporation. (By some it is seen as a desperation move.) It can either work wonderfully as with Iaccoca or miserably as with Dr. Z.

Another reason is that a company is young and the namesake of the company can sell the back story and heritage of the brand fostering credibility and authenticity. Papa John used this reason and built the #3 pizza chain in the U.S.

The truth is that all companies need a spokesperson, one key player that can be the voice of the company and/or brand. But the main avenue of communication for the spokesperson should be PR. There are many potential PR opportunities especially if the brand is first in a new category. Dell was the first to sell computers direct. Papa John was the first to sell pizza with better ingredients. Being first and using PR are how you build brands.

But in the case of well-known brands in mature categories where advertising plays an important role in the maintenance and defense of a brand, it can make sense to also use the CEO as spokesperson in the advertising.

However, it does work better when there is enough advance PR build-up to give the CEO credibility, experience and authenticity. In fact there are many high-profile CEOs who probably should have stepped in the role of pitch person for their brands.

With all the PR that Jack Welch received, he would have been an ideal pitch person for the GE brand. With all the PR Anita Roddick received in building her natural cosmetics chain she would have been an ideal pitch person for the Body Shop brand.

Going Hollywood is not for all CEOs; it takes a special combination of talents, skills and circumstance to really pull it off. And not pulling it off can be detrimental to your brand, not to mention your CEO’s ego.

Cristal kicks itself

The story is everywhere. French champagne snob disses hip-hop’s love of their jewel brand, Cristal. A PR nightmare for Frederic Rouzaud, managing director of Cristal. A PR coup for Jay-Z, the well-spoken senior statesman of the hip-hop community.

In case you missed it here is the recap from USA Today:

Jay-Z said: "It has come to my attention that Rouzaud views the 'hip-hop' culture as 'unwelcome attention,'. I view his comments as racist and will no longer support any of his products through any of my various brands including the 40/40 Club nor in my personal life."

Rouzaud did not return a message seeking comment. But actually it was the writer of the article, and not Rouzaud, who used the phrase "unwelcome attention." After Rouzaud's comments about Dom Perignon and Krug, scribe Gideon Rachman wrote: "Both Dom Perignon and Krug have had their share of unwelcome attention, too."

Call it is the curse of the leader. Leaders get picked on. They are the lightening rod of their industry. “Supersize Me” bit McDonald’s not Burger King. “The Devil Wears Prada,” not Gucci. “Wal-Mart uses illegal workers” What K-Mart doesn’t do the same?

In the Cristal case, hip-hop artists and young celebrity club-hoppers of all kinds have made the ultra-expensive bubbly the drink of choice since the early 90’s.

The job of youth culture is to rebel. And one sure fire way to rebel is to embrace a brand never marketed to you. A brand that stands for almost everything you are not. Cristal stands for rich, old, conservative, white aristocracy.

Club kids drinking Cristal are saying to the world: “We are hip, young, beautiful, rich and we have arrived. We are going to guzzle your expensive champagne and spray it all over us.”

Why did they choose Cristal? Because it tastes better than Dom Perignon or Krug? How can you really judge taste anyway? Taste is only a perception usually determined by price.

Cristal was chosen because it was the most expensive bubbly; it was the leader in ultra-premium champagne. Leaders are powerful icons and hold powerful positions in the mind.

Getting the youth to embrace a stodgy old brand is not easy. Levi’s has tried for years and failed. Why is Cristal trying to fight it? That’s insane to me.

Making champagne a more popular, more frequently consumed beverage among young people would be good for the category and for the brand. The only way to do that is with PR. And the hip-hop and celebrity crowd has done the work for them already. Just ask Cadillac how PR has helped turn that brand around.

Rouzaud should have been more careful. Rouzaud should have already had Jay-Z on his speed dial way before this incident. Never kick a PR gift-horse in the mouth.