Community

Winner:

I haven’t minced words when it’s come to my take on the Tea Party in recent months. Here are a few:

The Tea Party is like a 500-pound gorilla in the room that’s ripping everything off the walls: Its energy is awe-inspiring and its rage is understandable, but it’s unfocused. More than that, this gorilla is impossible to focus—meaning the only way to deal with the gorilla is to calm him down. The problem is, once calm, all the gorilla’s energy is gone and the force for change vanishes.

If the Tea Party has a genuine, politically productive future, it will be discovered the moment a politically experienced visionary—someone who hews to conservative ideals but knows how politics really works—comes along. If this happens, though, it will be the members of the Tea Party supporting him or her and not the other way around.

It’s not surprising that this past week saw some major primary wins for Tea Partiers and I hold by my belief that, in terms of actually getting elected to office, these people have a long way to go.

But the real winner out of all this aren’t the candidates; it is Sarah Palin.

Somehow the brand of the former governor of Alaska is stronger than ever, despite leaving her job before her term ended and unending media scrutiny much of it unflattering.

Bottom line, people like her. A lot of people. Who she endorses gets a leg up. Now it might be that we are seeing a kind of Obama effect with Palin. She might be a fad for the right and even center, the way Obama was a fad for the left and center. But if she is, she’s another very powerful fad and this alone might sweep her into contention for 2012.

She’s also beefing up her intellectual-policy credentials which is evident when she speaks about both domestic and foreign policy issues.

Fact is, she has a strong brand that appeals to people and speaks to them and the times we live in more vividly and compellingly than anyone else in the field right now.

But it’s early days and there could be “brand blowback.” One test will be to see what happens to her brand when (not if) some of the candidates she’s endorsed turn out to be duds. Will their failures stick to her or will she have that Reagan Teflon? Also, will she reach saturation too early to be a contender for 2012? In other words, will people get tired of her? They didn’t get tired of Barack Obama even though he was stumping for several years before election night. However, Palin has arguably been stumping for longer (four and a half years as of 2012 compared to President Obama’s two and a half).

Still, she’s an impressive brand. Hats off for now.

Loser:

In all my years of marketing, I have never heard of a major player being as stupid as the following. The Corn Refiners Association has decided to change the name of their embattled lead product corn syrup to corn sugar. Besides the fact that it could take the FDA a long time to decide in their favor thus creating years of negative publicity, this is simply marketing at its worst.

A brand is more than a name. Corn syrup is still going to be corn syrup no matter what it is called. So unless the Corn Refiners are somehow able to alter corn syrup for the better so that some or all of the health concerns connected to it are addressed (and then do a name relaunch), this name change will fail. It is the equivalent of a questionable individual in hot water who decides to change his name and hope the trouble he created won’t catch up with him.

Like this individual, the Corn Refiners require a case of universal amnesia. Maybe the people behind the name change idea are simply cynical. Do they think that consumers won’t connect the dots?

Even if this is true and many consumers won’t make the connection between corn syrup and corn sugar, the association is missing the point. Those forgetful consumers don’t matter. The consumers who do matter are the ones for whom corn syrup is an issue. These consumers are sophisticated and read ingredients.

And this is the key to why the name change is so utterly stupid. Corn syrup is not really a retail product. It is an ingredient product. Its presence is only known to those who look for it and those who look for it are going to be following this story. They are going to know that corn sugar is the new name for corn syrup. Just like people pursuing the fellow with the name change, those who are concerned won’t be thrown off the scent that easily.

In fact, for these people, the name change might actually serve to ring more alarm bells. After all, you’re drawing more attention to the “undesirable” ingredient. If you kept the name the same, even the sophisticated consumer might still have a margin for purchasing the product based on other factors. In other words, today they like Coca-Cola and while wary of corn syrup, its presence in their beloved drink is not a deal breaker. However, draw attention to the fact that there might really be something wrong with the ingredient and you’re likely to lose a sizable number of these consumers too.

What probably happened here is the corn syrup people are very concerned that the food industry will start using reduced quantities of corn syrup and even promoting this reduction (i.e., 25% less). So they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too by the poorly thought out name change. If I were the corn syrup folks, this is what I would do. Corn syrup is already an integral part of the food supply and nothing short of radical government intervention is going to change that. I wouldn’t draw any more attention to my product, expect the food industry to reduce their use but hope for the best and start developing a healthier corn-based sweetener that will deserve the new name it gets.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
A name change is never marketing’s first step.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

For more information on the Corn Refiners Association's effort to change high fructose corn syrup's name to corn sugar, check out the next edition of Marketing News' e-newsletter, Marketing News Exclusives, available here starting October 7.

Posted by Elisabeth at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On his first full day as president of CNN’s HLN network (the “News and Views” branded channel that counts Nancy Grace and Joy Behar amongst its star personalities), former CNN Worldwide CMO Scot Safon told Marketing News his main short term order of business will be getting a “true handle on the HLN brand story.”
“[‘News and Views’] is a strong promise, but it's not a specific promise,” he said Monday from his Atlanta office for his first interview as HLN president. “We have got to in the coming year take the brand out in a bigger way … to potential partners, to audiences, to advertisers, to everybody who has a stake in the brand [who] wants to know more about it. They want to understand it better, they want to understand where it's going.”

Last Friday, Safon, one of the major movers and shakers behind the news organization since 2002, became the news when CNN.com reported a management shake-up in the wake of dropping ratings (main network CNN has particularly suffered, with prime-time numbers down 38% for year through mid-August). Safon’s predecessor, Ken Jautz, was appointed to replace Jonathan Klein as head of CNN, effective immediately.
Jautz’s transition was expected, considering the similar role he held at HLN. Safon, on the other hand, is a more curious transition. While Safon has been at CNN parent company (and TimeWarner company) Turner for 19 years, and served as CNN CMO since 2007 (he oversaw marketing of Anderson Cooper 360° and the ongoing “CNN=Politics” campaign, among other accomplishments), he does not have TV programming experience. Furthermore, CNN is now running without a CMO at a particularly pivotal time for the network as it unveils a new show co-starring former New York governor Eliot Spitzer (disgraced in a prostitution scandal in 2008) next week and a new talk show featuring America’s Got Talent judge Piers Morgan to replace Larry King Live in January.
But while Safon acknowledges he lacks TV programming experience and will eventually learn production content from the ground-up, he said his marketing background makes him the right leader for HLN at the right time. “The most important thing that I will bring from the beginning is a focus on what is the audience experience with this brand,” he said. “The answer for [CNN Worldwide President] Jim [Walton] was that brand needs to step out into the marketplace much more actively and therefore a marketer’s skill set might be very much needed and very much desired in the leadership role at HLN. That was the first insight that he had that probably led him to consider me. Related to that, I think he wanted some reassurances that whoever stepped into the role of leading HLN would be somebody who cared about the journalism, cared about the people that worked there, cared about the brand and cared about how it related to the bigger business at CNN Worldwide. And I’ve worked for Jim for eight years and he knows that all of those things are things that I care about deeply.”
While CNN is currently without a CMO, Safon speculates a replacement will be found by January, just in time to strengthen the CNN brand beyond the media blitz of two new shows and the end of Larry King’s reign. In the interim, Safon will likely weigh in as a temporary marketing coach; he sat in on a conference call regarding an upcoming campaign minutes before his interview.
“The more middle management people will really start to step up and start to take lead on things.,” Safon said of CNN’s marketers. “The main business at CNN U.S. will be show launches. … My team will be fabulous at doing that. ”
Marketing News’ e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives will feature excerpts from this exclusive interview in the Oct. 7 edition.

Posted by Piet at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Seems there's a new hot ad agency on Madison Avenue--SmithWinterMitchell--and its landed six lucrative accounts with Dove, Breyers, Klondike, Suave, Hellman's and Vaseline.

But truthfully, the fictitious SCDP ad agency from the 1960s-set AMC drama "Mad Men" should feel more flattered than threatened.

That's because SmithWinterMitchell is a fictious, circa-1960s agency itself, created in the likeness of SCDP to star in new commercials airing during "Mad Men," where it hashes out campaign ideas for the six real products. It's an interesting advertainment strategy from the brand's parent Unilever meant to stop "Mad Men" viewers from zoning out during, or fast-forwarding through, the ads.

From my perspective, it's a cute, creative, attention-grabbing concept, and as a result, these ads are the only ones I bother watching when I catch up with "Mad Men" on my Tivo. Given how so much of the show is about the creation of advertisements, it's an interesting angle watching advertisements about the creation of advertisements. The retro style in the ads, evocative of the pristine set design and period-perfect tailoring on "Mad Men," only adds to the fun.

That said, beyond turning some heads, how effective is it really from a marketing perspective? "Mad Men," while certainly one of the most acclaimed, buzzed-about shows on television, is by no means a ratings darling. The average number of viewers per episode watching the show live or within 7 days of recording it on their DVRs is 2.9 million, according to Nielsen. With numbers like that, "Mad Men" would have been cancelled if it were on one of the big four networks long ago.

So essentially, Unilever, with partner agency Mindshare, has taken on the expense of creating ads that, on TV, can only work within the context of a show with ho-hum ratings. While that means ad buys for "Mad Men" are significantly less than hit broadcast dramas like "CSI," from my perspective, its hard to see how the concept can be justified from an expenditure point of view.

Kathy O'Brien, vice president of personal care for Unilever U.S., wouldn't discuss budget details or metrics but indicated in an e-mail interview that the campaign was worth it.

"The cultural phenomenon of 'Mad Men' provides a great forum in which to showcase our iconic brands, which are as popular today as they were in the 1960s when the show is set," she wrote. "What’s more, we know that the 'Mad Men' audience is a particularly engaged and educated one. The vignette series we have created is a creative and custom approach to advertising, something that we know this particular audience will appreciate. ... In addition, the vignettes have spurred conversation and reactions online and off. At the end of the day, that is what advertising is meant to do."

The ads have been airing one episode at a time all season long on "Mad Men," with a spot re-airing each week until season four ends next month. You can also catch all the ads at the SmithWinterMitchell YouTube page and see an example at the bottom of this post.

What do you think about the ads, from a personal perspective and from a marketing perspective? As always, feel free to post your comments.

Posted by Piet at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

The New York Times is this week’s winner.

When the writing is on the wall for your industry-–whether it’s buggy whips or newspapers— you need to adapt or perish. For a while, it looked like the Gray Lady was going to do the latter.

The expensive new building near Times Square and the bloated newsroom staff were all part of the old business model when print advertising could amply support things. But since all that’s changed, it’s left the Times scrambling for a business model that works and hemorrhaging money.

But this past week, they’re showing that from the top down they’re on the move in the right direction. Arthur Sulzberger, the long-time publisher, acknowledged that the Times would eventually go out of print and live exclusively in digital format. Next year they will be introducing something called a “metered model paywall” to its website to increase revenue.

Bottom line, Sulzberger is saying that a huge cost of running the newspaper is going to be eliminated. This is like GM saying that they still have a product to sell but can cut out the costs of producing a physical model. It’s huge because what the Times is really saying is that their brand is probably going to find a way to thrive in the new environment.

Fact is, the Times already has one of the most visited websites on the planet. Combine this with the reduced production costs and you’ve got the potential for a long-term winner. Times, remember the Gourmet lesson: Do not gut the content of your brand!

More proof of a rosier Times future: This past week also saw the Times enter the “hyper-local” news market with a joint venture with NYU. The site will be produced by NYU’s journalism institute but run off of the Times website. Again, great narrow target market focus combined with lower cost content production.

I think we’ll be seeing a lot more from this great brand.

Loser:

Why are my Democratic friends in denial about why they will be losing the house and quite possibly the Senate this coming November?

Last fall, they boasted that the Democrats had the power to pass whatever legislation they wanted and that since they had the power to do it, they should do it. After all, isn’t that point of political power: If you’ve got it, use it?

Wrong.

The Democrats have been confusing communicating political power with marketing political power. Let’s call what they have been doing the communications model of politics. In this model, the politicians in the majority (or in the White House) have an agenda which they believe in with such incredible zeal that they are convinced that everyone else will too –if only everyone else gets the agenda communicated to them right.

Take health care: With the communications model, the problem wasn’t that the idea was something that most Americans were against; it was that the idea itself hadn’t been effectively communicated. That’s why much of the blame in the Democratic camp was about effective messaging and not the message itself.

The communications model has been a mainstay of politics for a long time, but it’s limited. Don’t get me wrong, getting your message out there clearly, compellingly and widely is important, but it’s the crafting of that message that matters most.

Bottom line, communication is the last step; marketing is the first. Raw political power without marketing spells disaster. What do I mean by marketing? I mean developing a message that actually meets needs and that requires genuine listening, active research, politics that keeps going to the people to find out what matters to them (and what doesn’t).

Had the White House and the Democratic leadership done this instead of using raw political power and the communications model to force through an agenda, they would not now be facing a potential disaster in November.

Americans are historically wary of big government and where was the market research that said that they wanted health care reform of the kind delivered by Congress?

How could smart politicians with years of experience make such a serious error in judgment? It was because they made the mistake in believing that one can sell anything to anyone if you have the right communications strategy and communicator in place.

This is the classic mistake many business clients make: “How do I sell my product to my customers (even though they don’t really like the product)?” The short answer: You can’t. You must find out what your customers really want and then design a product around that. In marketing, it’s called “concept testing” and it can takes months and years to develop –but it’s worth it.

In the meantime, the communications model has hurt Democrats because they managed to get a lot of attention for a “product” that no one wants.

In advertising folklore there is a famous case study of a New York Brewery named Piels that had such a great communications strategy that they actually went out of business.You see, an advertisement campaign with Burt and Harry, two animated characters, became so popular that many consumers went out to buy the beer. The only problem was that the beer was so bad that most of those who tasted it never bought it again.

Only now with the November elections looming do the Democrats and our president seem to be shifting the focus to where it should have been all along: the economy. It is probably a little or a lot too late.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY
Marketing comes first, communications second.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

Continental Airline’s historic takeover of United Airlines confirms a golden rule of marketing: a patient and consistent delivery of what your customer wants will always bear fruit. Successful branding is never a superficial thing; it is always the result of unflagging marketing from the top to the bottom of a company.

Continental went through a rough spot a few decades ago, but it turned itself around by doing three things right day after day and year after year:

1) The airline renewed its fleet so that it was one of the newest

2) The airline committed itself to outstanding customer service both on the ground and in the air

3) The airline stayed competitive price-wise. Do an Internet fare search on almost any route and Continental will be there with an attractive price.

As I said, Continental did the above time and time again, and the result was the establishment of a brand and a balance sheet that became so formidable that something inconceivable even just a few years ago, the acquisition of United Airlines, is now a reality.

Great marketing may not be easy, but its fundamentals are simple.

Loser:

I want to put into words what has become apparent to me in recent months: Our President is a fad.

Here’s the standard definition of a fad from Professor Philip Kotler: a temporary period of unusually high sales driven by consumer enthusiasm and immediate brand popularity.

Yes, Barack Obama, whose meteoric rise as a brand amazed everyone, seems to have fizzled. Does our president have more in common with Justin Bieber or the Hula Hoop than anyone might guess? The answer is a resounding yes.

Looked at through the marketing lens, the classic fad pattern is easy to see. Let’s take the Hula Hoop and our president:

1) Sudden and unjustifiable adulation and excitement for the product and the person. Overnight a piece of plastic becomes something everyone must have. Overnight a junior senator from Illinois becomes the man to beat in the race for American president

2) Massive demand for the product and the person. Demand is not controlled by the producer and often far outstrips supply. Hula Hoops sell out and are back ordered; candidate Barack Obama is barely able to keep up with campaign trail demands. Every word out of his mouth and slightest gesture makes waves. He can fill any size arena while his competitors struggle to draw crowds

3) Product and person achieves market saturation. Finally, Hula Hoops are owned by everyone in America; Barack Obama was elected president of everyone in America

4) Product and person over-saturate the market and begin to wither under ensuing scrutiny. Too much exposure means that what might have been a longer life cycle for a product or personal brand is condensed. More important, characteristics that people once considered virtues now seem to be shortcomings. Hula Hoops are a cheap plastic toy that are easy to use but can only really do one thing well: go in sometimes entertaining circles. Barack Obama is a skilled and dispassionate speaker whose once dazzling speeches now begin to be seen as circular exercises in talking without any passion or conviction.

The next stage of the fad product life is the most tragic and the most inevitable: rapid brand decline. The Hula Hoop becomes unwanted and even embarrassing. People are at a loss to explain why they ever liked it and thought it was so great.

In personal brands, like presidents, the same sort of thing happens. Suddenly, people can no longer understand why they once worshiped or even admired the person. Every gesture and word becomes a source of personal reproach. Instead of perceiving motivating speeches and noble purposes, one-time supporters only see their own disillusionment thrown back at them. Where once the person could do no wrong, now he can do no right.

Fact is, this is the kind of feedback I’ve been getting in President Obama’s case from some surprising liberal corners of the political spectrum. Where people once saw a young man with endless potential and possibility who would rebuild a broken world, they now see a kid in an oversized suit whose presidency looks in danger of being broken by a world that he doesn’t even know how to begin to rebuild.

Last week’s speech marking the end of the Iraq War might have just been part of the awakening for many of these one-time supporters. President Obama spoke clearly and even eloquently, but his words simply didn’t resonate or connect.

Bottom line, these folks might not have been Reagan fans, but they could never say that Reagan didn’t get the importance of symbolism and, more important, manage to inhabit that symbolism in an authentic way.

President Obama is an extremely likable man and a very smart one, but somehow he’s not really presidential.

This week he’s proposing a new fix for the economy that, for the most part, seems to be more big government spending with a few free-market teasers thrown in. But none of this will matter, if I’m correct and we elected a fad. Fads don’t have marathon legs and once their short run is over, it’s over.

And, remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY
Analysts will often nitpick brands and worry about things that aren’t relevant to a particular brand’s ultimate success. The question you need to ask yourself is simple: What powers my brand? Everything else doesn’t really matter.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

Glenn Beck is our winner for the week.

Let’s be frank, no one really expected this man to become the spokesperson for the strong patriotic fervor sweeping the nation.

But he has. This past weekend’s rally has proven everyone wrong. The official estimates pegged attendance at 300,000-plus strong. That is a mighty turnout.

How did he do it?

First and foremost, Beck is an entertainer. His skills as a stand-up comedian have come in handy… but only because they have been harnessed to a man who clearly is sincere and driven by beliefs that millions hold in common with him.

He is what I would call a poli-entertainer. He clearly has a political element, but he understands that entertaining and being likeable are critical components of the message.

Glenn Beck is a marketer rather than a self-promoter. He doesn’t really talk about himself; he talks about the product and always insists that the product is larger than himself personally.

What is the product?

The product is the re-establishment and renewal of what the American people want and many of them believe they are. Glenn Beck voices and showcases this product better than anyone else.

Fact is, the event at the Lincoln Memorial was masterfully conducted and showed a generosity and respectfulness of spirit (i.e., the many references to Martin Luther King, Jr., often in the same breath with Abraham Lincoln and cheered by the huge crowd). This must have really rankled those who wanted to depict the gathering as a group of crypto-racists and bitter paranoids.

Given Glenn Beck’s performance and his presence across all media, this is probably just the beginning.

Stay tuned.

Loser:

Barnes & Noble has just announced that one of its largest and most legendary stores (Lincoln Center, New York City) is slated to close.

This is only the latest in bad news for the company which has tried desperately to survive in a new kind of book-buying era.

I think what we’re seeing is sampling gone wild. Traditionally, sampling is one of the best ways to initiate sale… Sampling for video and music now seems to be generating sales, but does this work for books-- at least with respect to the big-box bookstore model?

I don’t think so.

Basically, the large chain store loses both ways. If the customer browses the book and doesn’t like it, no sale is made. If the customer browses the book and likes it, two things are likely to happen 1) he/she stays in the store reading the book for free and never purchases or 2) leaves the store with the book in mind and buys it for less online. Sure, there are impulse buys, but impulse buys do not a bookstore business model make. Whatever happens, the bookstore becomes a costly showcase for products that will be purchased elsewhere.

Basically, the Barnes & Noble idea has fallen victim to its own success. To be a powerhouse in the industry, B&N had to offer huge stores that cost them huge overhead. But the advent and proliferation of Internet book buying has now caught up with them. The consumer uses them as a sampling base but because their giant, faceless business model has not built customer loyalty; the consumer simply, and without a pang of conscience, goes somewhere else to buy the book or downloads it to his or her Kindle or hand-held device.

Bottom line: B&N is scrambling to make money from the shift to e-books and online buying, but the outlook is grim. One B&N in Manhattan is stocking its shelves with toys, not books, to bring in customers. But this isn’t really being true to their brand and it screams of desperation –something a company or personal brand never wants to do.

One interesting note: The independent bookstores that have survived the B&N onslaught may very well be in the best position. Not only do they offer highly-trained staff who genuinely help their customers have the best reading experience possible, but also they engender loyalty for the long term and this should see many of them through.

And remember, things are always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY –
Even if your brand is facing challenges, remember your fundamentals.

John Tantillo is an AMA member and president of the Marketing Department of America, a New York-based marketing firm.
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/

The opinions expressed in this post are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the American Marketing Association.

Posted by Elisabeth at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)