Community

Winner:

I want to start by saying that from all that I hear, MTV’s new series Skins sounds like another deplorable step down for our culture and yet another blow against civility.

That said, MTV is simply doing what MTV does best—and its viewers want their MTV.

From the beginning, it was obvious that Skins, a dramatized take on teenage life that has been accused of possibly violating child pornography laws, was a show that would offend, alienate adults and make MTV look like a renegade.

That might be death for other networks but what is MTV but a network that built its reputation on offending, alienating adults and looking like a renegade?

Its Target Market, the same demographic depicted in the show, expect this behavior—in fact, to the extent that MTV doesn’t offend and look like a renegade, its brand loses credibility in its audience’s eyes. Think Elvis Presley shaking his hips a little too much on The Ed Sullivan Show. Think The Doors going even farther just a decade later.

MTV will lose sponsors you say? Of course they will (Subway and Schick just dropped out). But assuming this is contained and doesn’t lead to wholesale legal action and other problems, MTV will find other sponsors more in line with the Target Market for this show—and don’t be surprised to see the old sponsors come trotting back if the show succeeds and the outrage dies down.

Again, from what I’ve heard, this show might indeed be a sad testament to how low we have sunk as a society, but in strict brand terms, MTV has done exactly what it needed to do.

You simply don’t get a reputation for going too far unless, occasionally, you go too far. The same rules that apply to an NBC just don’t apply to an MTV.

There’s another element at work here as well: adpublitizing. Or shall we say, showpublitizing or networkpublitzing (now that’s a mouthful). Today, in a fractured media landscape, one way to supplement advertising dollars and gain product/service visibility is by creating a controversy that the media will cover. Usually, this controversy surrounds an advertisement that gets pulled by jittery networks.

But in this case, MTV has used a show with many objectionable qualities to get an ongoing cycle of press at the series launch of the kind that promoters can usually only dream. In the process, it has cemented its brand image with their audience. This is basically a repeat of what it did and still do with Jersey Shore where both onscreen and offscreen scandals generate ongoing attention.

Folks, let the adult world (justifiably) lament this next chapter in the history of our teens, but no one can expect MTV to behave any differently.

Fact is, if history is any guide, today’s scandalous series is tomorrow’s “groundbreaking,” “risk-taking” television. Remember Smothers Brothers?

Loser:

Folks, here we go again and this year I want to get in there a little early:

Super Bowl advertising is a waste of money!

Last week, Anheuser-Busch decided to preview its Super Bowl ads (FedEx has already decided to continue their absence from the big event). Both these facts are evidence that companies are finally beginning to understand that Super Bowl advertising is a monumental waste of money.

Super Bowl ad buys make little sense from a practical advertising point of view because they violate the” law of frequency.” Countless studies have shown that for advertising to work it must be seen by a viewer at least five times with the optimal frequency being ten. The Super Bowl’s prohibitive advertising spot costs make this frequency unlikely.

Why do otherwise savvy marketers, who for the other 364 days of the year believe in the “law of frequency,” suddenly abandon it? There are numerous reasons: the glamour factor, the celebrity factor, the showcasing of the “creatives” at advertising agencies and the hope that a company might just hit some kind of elusive jackpot. But the jackpot never happens.

Moreover, the hope of many advertisers to create a memorable or witty spot that gets replayed in perpetuity on the Internet and thus earns back the huge Super Bowl advertising expense is misguided. Check out the YouTube viewer numbers for some of the most famous and beloved ads and you will see that they are anemic seldom exceeding one million views over four years. Super Bowl ads with an interactive component and contests can offer limited help.

The main hope for Super Bowl advertisers is the concept of adpublitizing. As I discussed with MTV, adpublitizing is the creation of an advertisement for the specific purpose of creating controversy or buzz—both of which will ensure greater viewer frequency by the use of free media publicity (e.g., talk shows covering the controversy and inevitably naming the company and the product).

Fact is, a company’s best bet is to make an ad controversial in a way that doesn’t hurt the company image but causes the ad to be banned. Then the law of frequency kicks in on the publicity side and the Internet re-airing side. But this is an incredibly risky strategy that can easily see a company overshooting the mark and ending up on the wrong side of publicity.

What about Anheuser-Busch’s decision to preview its ads before the game? I believe that the beer company is probably using an approach that intends to increase frequency by way of adpublitizing. But the company is also showing that Super Bowl advertising isn’t really about the advertising, in Anheuser-Busch’s case it might very well be about throwing a kind of appreciation “party” for its distributors who, after all, are the folks that close the sales week after week by getting the product to the shelves.

Overall, a Super Bowl ad buy is simply a waste of money. Thus, it is no mistake that companies like FedEx and General Motors have begun to actively find much more cost-effective alternatives to the big game.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Let's salute Jack LaLanne who died this past week! To learn a lot more about brand consistency read The New York Times obituary here.

Editor's Note: Read the next edition of Marketing News Exclusives, Marketing News' e-newsletter, for more about Skins. You can access the article here beginning Feb. 3, and subscribe here to get issues in your inbox.

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 Piet at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you read today's edition of our e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives, you'll notice a story about Quicken Loans, the Cleveland Cavaliers and homeless man-turned-Internet sensation Ted Williams. Williams, as you may know, was discovered by a Columbus Dispatch reporter to have a great speaking voice suited for voiceover and announcement work. After the video blew up on YouTube, the Cavaliers and Quicken jointly offered Williams a job as a voiceover talent.

Since that offer was extended, Williams has announced he was going to rehab, putting the brands in a little bit of a tight spot. They had jointly launched WeWantTedWilliams.com promoting the offer, Williams and Quicken Loans, and in light of the news, took the site down last Friday, redirecting visitors to a blog about Quicken Loans' community involvement that made no mention of Williams.

After the article's deadline, the site added the following statement about Williams and the job offer:

As many of you visiting this site are aware, the Cleveland Cavaliers and Quicken Loans extended a job offer to Ted Williams nearly two weeks ago. Since then, Ted has been forced to confront some serious issues in his life. All of us in the Cavs and Quicken Loans family wish Ted well on his journey toward recovery, and remain excited at the possibility of working alongside him when his recovery allows. Last week, both the Cavaliers and Quicken Loans issued the below statement in response to the flood of requests we have received regarding Ted and our job offer: "The Cavaliers, Quicken Loans and our entire family of companies wish Ted Williams and his family the best as they continue their unique journey. We hope they have many great days ahead of them together, but understand they also have some very important issues they must address. When Ted is healthy and has successfully worked through the critical personal challenges he faces, and should he want, we will be there to discuss his work interests and help him create a path for future professional success.”

Posted by Piet at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ted Williams was a homeless man in Columbus, Ohio turned Internet star turned smooth-talking voiceover talent for Kraft Homestyle Macaroni and Cheese in less than a week. The story's evolved since then. Williams appeared on Dr. Phil saying he would enter rehab, seemingly halting any other marketing opportunities for the moment.

But as he tries to get better, Kraft is already seeing some benefits from employing Williams for its ad.

Kraft put together a behind-the-scenes video showing Williams recording voiceover for the spot and placed it on YouTube. So far the below video has generated north of 256,000 hits.

And while Williams wasn't identified in the commercial itself when it aired, news about his participation may have affected its favorability scores with consumers. According to Ace Metrix, a TV analytics agency in Los Angeles, the ad scored a 565 when it debuted during the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl on ESPN. That score is almost 5% above the norm for commercials promoting packaged foods, faring primarily well in the desire and information quadrants.

For Kraft, Williams provided a benefit. For the Cleveland Cavaliers and Quicken Loans, which jointly offered Williams a job, it provided a slightly tricky situation. The brands were behind a website called WeWantTedWilliams.com promoting their job offer, Williams' talents and Quicken Loans as a great place to work. But in light of Williams rehab announcement, the brands took the site down, while suggesting in a statement an interest in talking to Williams about job opportunities after he seeks treatment.

Learn more about that development in this week's edition of our e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives, available here beginning January 20. Or you can get the story and MNE and other e-newsletters in your inbox by clicking here.

Posted by Piet at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

As I’ve said many times, a great brand distinguishes itself not by ever getting into trouble at all but by responding to trouble with greatness—and that means swiftness, comprehensiveness and the customer-is-always-right high road.

This is exactly what Ruth’s Chris Steak House did last week.

The story is simple and upsetting. A restaurant manager sent a racist insult about an African-American customer to another employee via email. This offensive email made its way to the customer by accident.

Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse’s response was excellent.

The company fired the manager, they reached out to the customer who had rescheduled her mother’s 60th birthday dinner at another restaurant after the incident and actively made amends by apparently offering a free meal to the party.

Bottom line, the company did not let the crisis fester and they showed by their definitive and positive response that they, the institution, had no part in the manager’s racism, but acknowledged unhesitatingly that the nasty incident had indeed happened. No hedging.

Moreover, the company statement, also issued immediately, sounded sincere and believable: “[We are] saddened to hear and so very sorry that anyone associated with Ruth's Chris Steak House would think or make a statement so misaligned with our culture. On behalf of all our employees and franchises I am sorry that this ugly, inappropriate incident happened.”

Hear that “so very sorry.” That’s not public relations corporate speak. That’s human speak from a corporation and doesn’t it sound great?

My prediction? Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse is already on the mend and, even more important, they’ve probably restored the faith of that one justifiably injured customer. After all, great brands are built one customer at a time.

Loser:

Playboy, that once great brand, is the loser of the week.

Why?

The brand has been declining for years but this formerly seemingly sophisticated “gentleman’s” magazine has most recently suffered from a bout of Hefneritis.

That’s right, Playboy’s aging founder, Hugh Hefner, once an asset to the brand, has become a liability.

First, his recent engagement to a woman 60 years his junior doesn’t play as sophisticated, it plays as grotesque. More than this, the marriage (or travesty) plays to the wrong Target Market.

Are any men really going to be impressed by this? Will this attract new readers or users of the brand’s goods and services? Will even one more customer fly to its resort in Macau?

I don’t think so.

Moreover, Hefner’s successful move to buy the remaining 30% of shares in the company that he already didn’t own have made his identification with the Playboy brand complete. But even his purchase of the shares did damage to the brand by valuing the company—once estimated to be worth one billion dollars—at a mere quarter of that price.

In other words, hope of turning the brand into something that would appeal to today’s young and middle-aged men has gone out the door. Like so many corporate branding mistakes, it’s the ego of the owner that gets in the way of clear-sighted marketing decisions.

Maybe with the now ready availability of porn, Playboy was already finished (its third quarter loss was even bigger than last year’s). But the brand had reinvented itself in the past in the face of great competition. (Hef’s daughter, I believe, had a lot to do with that success).

Bottom line, I’m afraid the Playboy brand has been permanently marred by too many reality television features, too much bad press and, finally, Hefner himself, who has refused to get out of the brand’s way. A young Hefner, a branding master, would have made sure that everything that an old Hefner did supported the company’s brand—but, folks, young Hefner is simply no longer with us.

And, remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

Today's Tantillo Takeaway:
Great brands respond to customer need and Target Market perceptions (and misperceptions) immediately.

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 Piet at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:


Don’t listen to the pundits: Barack Obama is finally appealing to his base. No, I’m not speaking about his imagined base of died-in-the-wool Democrats and far left ideologues.

I’m talking about his real base: the majority of Americans who elected him to serve not as a left-leaning president but as a centrist.

That’s right. From the very beginning of his presidential ascent, his brand was about appealing to a very broad coalition of Americans. His first two years ran counter to his brand and the people reacted poorly.

Bottom line, the Americans who elected him are business-friendly and against government-financed solutions to their problems on any permanent basis. They’ll accept situational help when times are tough (i.e., extension of unemployment benefits) but reject permanent entitlement growth (i.e., universal health care).

But with his shakeup of his administration’s inner sanctum, Obama is revealing a return to his brand’s essentials.

The most striking evidence was last week’s appointment of corporate titan and political insider, William Daley, to the role of Chief of Staff. This sends a very powerful signal that Obama is recalibrating things so that he is in tune with what the electorate voted for in the first place.

Fact is, President Obama is making these changes from relative strength. Sure he took a beating in November but his job approval rating still briefly hit 50 % last week. Moreover, history has shown that presidents can suffer midterm election setbacks (Reagan and Clinton both did) and then come roaring back … If they listen to what the voters are saying.

It looks like Brand Obama is doing just that. Stay tuned.

Loser:


What could Starbucks possibly be thinking?

The international coffee powerhouse has just served up a worse-than-decaffeinated branding strategy by choosing to eliminate its entire name from its logo.

The original logo had the word “Starbucks” on top of a green mermaid image and the word “coffee” below. Both words were in large letters, all capitalized. Now those words are gone and only a slightly souped-up version of the green mermaid remains. If they wanted to emphasize a new side to their company, Starbucks could have just gotten rid of the word "coffee." But get rid of both?

This is one of the stupidest moves I’ve ever seen from an established company.

Remember when Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol (that some later referred to as “Love Symbol #2”)? That didn’t last long. I guess we can call Starbucks’ move its Prince-identity crisis.

My guess is that the inmates have taken over the asylum and decided that the company is simply so well known that a graphic treatment can tell the whole story. And also that eliminating the words will permit expansion into new business areas.

This brand confusion seems to originate at the top, where Howard Schultz, Starbucks' longtime CEO, seems on the one hand to be talking about a new future for the company as it approaches its 40th anniversary, but simultaneously insists that the company's aim remains the same: to be the number one purveyor of high-quality coffee in the world.

This much I can guarantee. The wordless logo won't provide Starbucks or anyone else with any clarity. It will reduce recognition and the all important repetition of its name in the marketplace and the minds of consumers. It’s a fundamental branding mistake.

Current and future customers have been totally forgotten in this self-absorbed decision. If the deluge of angry comments about the logo change is any indication, current customers worry that the company they have come to love has abandoned its roots. Future customers risk simply being confused about what it is the company does.

Why? Because it is incredibly hard to build brand name recognition in our competitive world and it is the height of arrogance to ignore the importance of your brand's name and how your customers perceive you. After all, we think and say Starbucks ... we don't think green blotch with mermaid symbol. In the marketplace, it's the Starbucks name that matters.

Logos have to use our common language. You can’t foist some private code onto people just because you think it’s cool, clever or memorable. Logos must reinforce and support how the customer relates to your brand. Logos are there to remind present and future customers of the brand and the products associated with that brand. Simple, straightforward and repeatable is the name of the game. Moreover, in an important way, logos aren’t really even the company’s property alone – they belong to the customer.

Federal Express wisely adopted how people referred to them when they shortened their name to FedEx. Everybody was already saying it anyway. Kentucky Fried Chicken did the same by abbreviating to KFC. People encounter a brand name and a logo and they it make their own.
Good branding is alive to actual needs and customer behavior, not the product of pie-in-the-sky concepts that might sound great around the corporate conference table or at high-end spitball sessions.

No one referred to Prince as Love Symbol #2 or The Artist Formerly Known As. And no one refers to Starbucks with something other than the name Starbucks.

Coca-Cola, which took a wrong marketing turn with New Coke but recovered, has never pulled something as dumb as this. And if anyone could get away with no name, Coke could. After all, its classic red and white colors even shaped our modern image of Santa Claus.

Procter & Gamble was originally a candle maker but that didn’t stop them from branching out into a multitude of products including soap and food without changing the name. Its key was brands. To the extent that the P&G name helps one of its products, the company uses it, but if it doesn’t help, the product stands on its own name.

Bottom line, people buy brands, not companies. Right now, Starbucks’ main brand territory is its coffee chain and related coffee products. Nothing stops them from launching products without its name attached.

Moreover, there’s significant marketing precedent for using a great company name to introduce and support a new product in the marketplace. Take Kellogg's. Kellogg's makes brand-by-brand decisions on using its name. Cereals get the Kellogg’s monikers; upscale Carrs crackers don’t. Kellogg’s is a food portfolio company and its great name usually adds values to its brands.

Unless Starbucks plans on becoming an anonymous global corporate behemoth owning everything from uranium mines to dentures and occasionally selling coffee, it needs to stop this madness now.

Fact is, if your name is recognized favorably, don't change it. The first rule of branding is do no harm. Blackwater Security Starbucks is not. Starbucks might have gained some short-term publicity with this logo move, but the long-term consequences simply aren’t the worth the current buzz.

After my article on this topic was posted on foxnews.com, I received some interesting data from Dmitry Dragilev over at zurb.com. The zurb folks, always eager to dive into the actual numbers, found that 72% of 258 people polled preferred the old logo to the new one. Here are the findings.

And, remember, it's always easier when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

TODAY'S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
If your logo works, why change it?

Editor's Note: The next edition of Marketing News Exclusives, Marketing News' e-newsletter, explores the branding ramifications behind Starbucks' logo change. You can access the article here beginning Jan. 20, and subscribe here to get issues in your inbox.

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 Piet at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Winner:

As 2011 begins, I want to salute a great brand: the American people.

The last two plus years have been tough, but the American people have shown their resilience and the strength of the American dream.

Let’s face it, millions of people don’t arrive here to start new lives because of the promise of free health care — they come here to be free.

As I’ve said before, most Americans don’t want permanent government help. They want situational help that will allow them to help themselves.

That’s been the message of the Tea Party and the midterm elections. And if the Democrats want to stay in power, they will finally have to absorb this lesson. I wouldn’t bet on this happening (but keep an eye out for the dynamic Evan Bayh).

Bottom line, never sell the American people brand short. We may be a motley bunch but we are possibly the most hopeful and optimistic people on the planet and we tend to meet (and exceed) the challenges we face.

So Happy New Year to a great brand!

Loser:

One brand characteristic of the American people is fairness.

Fact is, Americans can forgive mistakes in their politicians especially if the mistakes are understandable, the politicians are hard working or there are extenuating circumstances. But, folks, woe to those politicos who are perceived as thinking of themselves first and the people second.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is our loser of the week because he has done just that by staying in Florida while his state was buried in up to three feet of snow.

Bottom line, if you are the governor of a state experiencing a major blizzard, you move heaven and earth to be with your people.

He did not do this and no amount of excuse-making will help his brand.

If he wants to heal his brand, what Christie needs to do now is acknowledge this whopping mistake, ask for forgiveness and then show by subsequent action that this was an anomaly.

Brand image starts with brand integrity. Christie needs to show through his words and actions that he is not aloof from the guy and gal on the snow-covered street. Christie is already controversial enough as he does the hard — but necessary — work of facing down unions and getting his state into fiscal shape. He simply cannot afford to be seen as just another politician who holds himself to a different standard than those who elected him.

It doesn’t look good. Here is a Christie quote on his Disney World trip: “I wouldn’t change the decision even if I could do it right now,” he said. “I had a great five days with my children. I promised that.”

Can you imagine FDR saying something like that during the depths of the Depression? Or almost any other leader during any major crisis? The statement sounds arrogant, it sounds entitled and it overlooks the fact that his place was in New Jersey and with New Jerseyians — not in the Florida sun with Mickey Mouse.

Wow! This is the kind of mistake that can end a brand.

Governor Christie, it’s your move.

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

TODAY’S TANTILLO TAKEAWAY:
Messaging alone is worthless if a brand does not walk the talk.

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 Piet at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)