Georg asked after our presentation about the brand experience audit yesterday why more companies are not clued in. With the benefit of more time to contemplate his question, I would like to further explain why car dealers probably do not feel the need to invest in improving the customer experience.
I think there are three reasons car dealers in particular do not feel the need to improve the customer experience. First, as Professor Fournier mentioned yesterday, they have a captive audience. If you want to purchase a VW in Boston, you most likely will go to Boston VW since it is the only VW dealer in Boston. Although you have the option of going to dealers located near Boston, such as Brookline VW, you will probably purchase your car at the closest location since you will need to service your car at least once a year and most dealers give service preference to the customers that have purchased from them. Second, as we discussed in the SCPT case, there are societal trends that will also influence whether Boston VW invests in improving the customer experience. For example, people are moving more often for job relocations and from the city to the suburbs. Assuming that the average person owns a car for 7.5 years, although you may purchase a VW from Boston VW, there is a good chance that you will probably not be a repeat customer for the dealer. You may feel loyalty to VW and want to purchase another VW in the future, but if you have moved, will most likely find a closer dealer to purchase from (again since you will want a relationship with the dealer that you have your car serviced at). Third, improving the customer experience may be helpful in helping sway the customers on the fence between fairly comparable cars, but if the customer has already decided to purchase a BMW for example, Boston VW will not be in the consideration group of dealers.
As Sein described yesterday during our recommendations, VW has a new concept for VW dealerships, but I believe it will be up to corporate to provide incentives to dealers to invest in the customer experience since it will help strengthen the overall brand.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Speaking of Experience Engineering...
Somewhat serendipitously this article appeared on AdAge today.
Starbucks Smells the Death of Its Brand Experience
CEO Confronts Missing Aroma of Fresh-Roasted Coffee
By Matthew Creamer
Published: February 26, 2007 (http://adage.com/article?article_id=115137)
What does your Starbucks smell like? Probably not fresh-roasted coffee, one of the many things Starbucks has become so efficient at packaging coffee to require minimal handling by its workers that its shops no longer smell of ground coffee.
That has the chain's boss worried his all-powerful brand is getting cold.
Internal memo
Last week, the blog Starbucks Gossip turned up a memo from Howard Schultz in which the chairman criticized a number of decisions that "have led to the watering down of the Starbucks experience and what some might call the commoditization of our brand." Mr. Schultz, who doled out some blame to himself, pointed in particular to the disappearance of the in-store coffee scent and the cookie-cutter feel of the stores.
It's a major epiphany for a brand that's been one of the marketing world's premiere case studies on how a commodity can be transformed into a premium-priced object of desire, or habit, by creating a comfortable spot in which to buy and consume it -- that third place that's neither home nor work. Starbucks' brisk growth -- stores now number more than 13,000, and the company wants to get to 40,000 -- raises the question of whether it's possible to scale the kind of experience that made Starbucks what it is without losing the flavor.
In-store coffee grinding eliminated
In the memo, Mr. Schultz blamed automatic espresso machines that don't require baristas to pull shots and that prevent customers from seeing drinks being made. He blamed packaging, chosen because of the need to distribute coffee to every North American city, that locked in flavor and eliminated the need to grind the coffee in-store. "We achieved fresh-roasted bagged coffee, but at what cost?" And he blamed uniform store design, financially efficient but suggestive of a "chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store."
As it's grown, Starbucks has worked to keep consumers interested, though many innovations have taken it far from java. WiFi and CD racks have been added in recent years, and the menu has been expanded to include breakfast sandwiches. Last year, Starbucks got into the entertainment business with the release of the film "Akeelah and the Bee," and it's expected to announce another book or movie project early this year.
Robert Passikoff, founder-president of the consultancy Brand Keys, said Mr. Schultz's concerns are legitimate. "They took their eye off the brand," he said. In Brand Keys' annual study of customer loyalty, Starbucks was knocked out of first place in the coffee-and-doughnuts category by Dunkin' Donuts, the first time in five years Starbucks didn't dominate.
'Lost its differentiation'
"You probably wouldn't leave a Starbucks dissatisfied," he said, "but satisfaction is just the price of entry. It has lost its differentiation, its crispness of experience."
The Feb. 14 memo, which the company confirmed as authentic, "is a reflection of the passion and commitment Starbucks has to maintaining the authenticity of the Starbucks experience while we continue to grow," a spokeswoman said. It didn't suggest a specific course of action; rather, Mr. Schultz, a Brooklyn-born, rags-to-riches story, asked CEO Jim Donald and top managers to "get back to the core."
He described the situation as "self-induced" but nevertheless one that's led to competition from fast-food companies and mom-and-pop operators. These rivals "position themselves in a way that creates awareness, trial and loyalty of people who previously have been Starbucks customers. This must be eradicated."
"We do not embrace the status quo and constantly push for reinvention," the spokeswoman said. "This is a consistent, longstanding business philosophy to ensure we provide our customers the uplifting experience they have come to expect."
Starbucks Smells the Death of Its Brand Experience
CEO Confronts Missing Aroma of Fresh-Roasted Coffee
By Matthew Creamer
Published: February 26, 2007 (http://adage.com/article?article_id=115137)
What does your Starbucks smell like? Probably not fresh-roasted coffee, one of the many things Starbucks has become so efficient at packaging coffee to require minimal handling by its workers that its shops no longer smell of ground coffee.
That has the chain's boss worried his all-powerful brand is getting cold.
Internal memo
Last week, the blog Starbucks Gossip turned up a memo from Howard Schultz in which the chairman criticized a number of decisions that "have led to the watering down of the Starbucks experience and what some might call the commoditization of our brand." Mr. Schultz, who doled out some blame to himself, pointed in particular to the disappearance of the in-store coffee scent and the cookie-cutter feel of the stores.
It's a major epiphany for a brand that's been one of the marketing world's premiere case studies on how a commodity can be transformed into a premium-priced object of desire, or habit, by creating a comfortable spot in which to buy and consume it -- that third place that's neither home nor work. Starbucks' brisk growth -- stores now number more than 13,000, and the company wants to get to 40,000 -- raises the question of whether it's possible to scale the kind of experience that made Starbucks what it is without losing the flavor.
In-store coffee grinding eliminated
In the memo, Mr. Schultz blamed automatic espresso machines that don't require baristas to pull shots and that prevent customers from seeing drinks being made. He blamed packaging, chosen because of the need to distribute coffee to every North American city, that locked in flavor and eliminated the need to grind the coffee in-store. "We achieved fresh-roasted bagged coffee, but at what cost?" And he blamed uniform store design, financially efficient but suggestive of a "chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store."
As it's grown, Starbucks has worked to keep consumers interested, though many innovations have taken it far from java. WiFi and CD racks have been added in recent years, and the menu has been expanded to include breakfast sandwiches. Last year, Starbucks got into the entertainment business with the release of the film "Akeelah and the Bee," and it's expected to announce another book or movie project early this year.
Robert Passikoff, founder-president of the consultancy Brand Keys, said Mr. Schultz's concerns are legitimate. "They took their eye off the brand," he said. In Brand Keys' annual study of customer loyalty, Starbucks was knocked out of first place in the coffee-and-doughnuts category by Dunkin' Donuts, the first time in five years Starbucks didn't dominate.
'Lost its differentiation'
"You probably wouldn't leave a Starbucks dissatisfied," he said, "but satisfaction is just the price of entry. It has lost its differentiation, its crispness of experience."
The Feb. 14 memo, which the company confirmed as authentic, "is a reflection of the passion and commitment Starbucks has to maintaining the authenticity of the Starbucks experience while we continue to grow," a spokeswoman said. It didn't suggest a specific course of action; rather, Mr. Schultz, a Brooklyn-born, rags-to-riches story, asked CEO Jim Donald and top managers to "get back to the core."
He described the situation as "self-induced" but nevertheless one that's led to competition from fast-food companies and mom-and-pop operators. These rivals "position themselves in a way that creates awareness, trial and loyalty of people who previously have been Starbucks customers. This must be eradicated."
"We do not embrace the status quo and constantly push for reinvention," the spokeswoman said. "This is a consistent, longstanding business philosophy to ensure we provide our customers the uplifting experience they have come to expect."
Customer Service Champs
Check out this week's BusinessWeek for a great article about the top client-pleasing brands. A good expansion on Brand Experiences we are talking about this week in class!
Customer Service Champs
BusinessWeek
March 5, 2007
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_10/b4024001.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_feb23&link_position=link1
Customer Service Champs
BusinessWeek
March 5, 2007
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_10/b4024001.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_feb23&link_position=link1
Joe Chernov, Director of Communications, BuzzAgent - Feb 27, 5 pm, SMG 211
As part of the BUAMA Speaker Series -
Joe Chernov, Director of Communications for BuzzAgent will be speaking about the unique services that BuzzAgent provides. We will be meeting at 5pm in SMG211 on Tuesday February, 27th. Dress attire is recommended. Please look up BuzzAgent to gain more knowledge about one of the first Boston word-of-mouth marketing companies.
Joe Chernov, Director of Communications for BuzzAgent will be speaking about the unique services that BuzzAgent provides. We will be meeting at 5pm in SMG211 on Tuesday February, 27th. Dress attire is recommended. Please look up BuzzAgent to gain more knowledge about one of the first Boston word-of-mouth marketing companies.
Nike's Latest Brand Positioning Efforts
Nike has worked steadily to support its brand image as a cool, hip, lifestyle brand, ultilizing celebrity spokespeople and partnerships to showcase who they want to be. Their latest branding project: Nike had a rap song commissioned in honor of the 25th anniversary of the Air Force 1 shoe. Nike hired prominent hip-hop musicians (Kanye West, etc.) to write the song and, given their partnership with Apple, have it available for sale on iTunes. The kicker: all proceeds benefit youth programs in Baltimore (where the Air Force 1 shoe originally took off).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/business/media/26nike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Nike Commissions a Rap Song in Honor of Its Air Force 1 Shoe
Since last summer, Nike has been selling workout music on Apple's iTunes store, including some original tracks from several electronic music artists. Now the company is offering songs for those who enjoy its sneakers as lifestyle accessories.
To recognize the 25th anniversary of its Air Force 1 sneaker, the company commissioned a song from some prominent hip-hop musicians: the producer Rick Rubin and the rappers Kanye West, Nas and KRS-One. It also paid for a remix by D J Premier that features the rapper Rakim. The song, "Better Than I've Ever Been," has been available on iTunes since Tuesday.
Nike paid the artists for their work, will own the copyright to the recordings and even supplied the song's theme -- perseverance.
The company will donate all sales proceeds to youth programs in Baltimore, where the Air Force 1 first took off in independent stores.
“We put together what would be the dream song,” said Jeff Tammes, a marketing director at Cornerstone, the promotions company that coordinates music products for Nike on iTunes. Cornerstone will also promote the song to radio stations. Nike also financed the production of an MTV special about the Air Force 1, which featured a performance by Kanye West, Nas, KRS-One and Rakim.
G. Roberson, who manages Kanye West, said that the rapper was interested in the project because it was an opportunity to work with musicians he respects. Matthew Kemp, who manages Rakim, said the same applied to his client.
“There’s compensation involved,” Mr. Kemp said, “but that wasn’t why we did it.”
ROBERT LEVINE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/business/media/26nike.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Nike Commissions a Rap Song in Honor of Its Air Force 1 Shoe
Since last summer, Nike has been selling workout music on Apple's iTunes store, including some original tracks from several electronic music artists. Now the company is offering songs for those who enjoy its sneakers as lifestyle accessories.
To recognize the 25th anniversary of its Air Force 1 sneaker, the company commissioned a song from some prominent hip-hop musicians: the producer Rick Rubin and the rappers Kanye West, Nas and KRS-One. It also paid for a remix by D J Premier that features the rapper Rakim. The song, "Better Than I've Ever Been," has been available on iTunes since Tuesday.
Nike paid the artists for their work, will own the copyright to the recordings and even supplied the song's theme -- perseverance.
The company will donate all sales proceeds to youth programs in Baltimore, where the Air Force 1 first took off in independent stores.
“We put together what would be the dream song,” said Jeff Tammes, a marketing director at Cornerstone, the promotions company that coordinates music products for Nike on iTunes. Cornerstone will also promote the song to radio stations. Nike also financed the production of an MTV special about the Air Force 1, which featured a performance by Kanye West, Nas, KRS-One and Rakim.
G. Roberson, who manages Kanye West, said that the rapper was interested in the project because it was an opportunity to work with musicians he respects. Matthew Kemp, who manages Rakim, said the same applied to his client.
“There’s compensation involved,” Mr. Kemp said, “but that wasn’t why we did it.”
ROBERT LEVINE
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Habitat For Humanity & Hurricane Katrina
I think that the article below really taps into a couple of key topics about HFHI, and is a well-timed follow-up to our discussion of the HFHI case.
1) Is their HQ/corporate control of affiliates too rigid for the chaos and differing circumstances that follow large scale disasters? I applaud the fact that they have not sold the brand short by quickly building large volumes of poor quality housing, but rather have stuck to their guns regarding quality, credit-worthiness recipients, and sweat equity. I do think that HFHI has the ability to further expand and build its brand in emergency situations – it is realizing that there are more politics and acute emotion involved, relative to the traditional community housing it builds. There is so much press surrounding emergencies that there is a high risk of both good and bad associations for HFHI, depending on how the HFHI response jives with what is expected. The fact that they reject over 90% of applications is difficult for many to swallow in a time of crisis.
2) It shows that despite their $1.8 BB brand (!), there are a lot of people who do not understand the core of what their brand stands for (i.e. it does not give away easy shelter, but rather builds and fosters a responsible, giving community through its actions). Brand building requires chronic effort.
Volunteer Group Lags in Replacing Gulf Houses
By LESLIE EATON and STEPHANIE STROM
Published: February 22, 2007
Correction Appended
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. — In the two years following the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Habitat for Humanity International, the nondenominational Christian ministry, built or repaired 8,500 houses in Indonesia, Thailand, India and Sri Lanka.
Volunteers at Musicians’ Village, a Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans that focuses on bringing back traditional jazz musicians.
Habitat for Humanity seemed poised to do the same thing along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Just days after the storm, its chief executive appeared on CNN, promising to build and repair as many homes as it could pay for, “hopefully in the thousands.” The organization quickly mustered 50,000 volunteers, raised $127 million, and attracted prominent backers like President Bush and the New Orleans jazz luminaries Harry Connick Jr. and Branford Marsalis.
But almost 18 months after storms destroyed more than 250,000 homes, Habitat for Humanity says it has built just 10 houses for poor hurricane victims here, 36 in New Orleans, and a total of 416 along the entire coast, from Alabama to Texas. More are under construction, for a total of 702.
For the full story, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/us/22habitat.html?th&emc=th
1) Is their HQ/corporate control of affiliates too rigid for the chaos and differing circumstances that follow large scale disasters? I applaud the fact that they have not sold the brand short by quickly building large volumes of poor quality housing, but rather have stuck to their guns regarding quality, credit-worthiness recipients, and sweat equity. I do think that HFHI has the ability to further expand and build its brand in emergency situations – it is realizing that there are more politics and acute emotion involved, relative to the traditional community housing it builds. There is so much press surrounding emergencies that there is a high risk of both good and bad associations for HFHI, depending on how the HFHI response jives with what is expected. The fact that they reject over 90% of applications is difficult for many to swallow in a time of crisis.
2) It shows that despite their $1.8 BB brand (!), there are a lot of people who do not understand the core of what their brand stands for (i.e. it does not give away easy shelter, but rather builds and fosters a responsible, giving community through its actions). Brand building requires chronic effort.
Volunteer Group Lags in Replacing Gulf Houses
By LESLIE EATON and STEPHANIE STROM
Published: February 22, 2007
Correction Appended
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. — In the two years following the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Habitat for Humanity International, the nondenominational Christian ministry, built or repaired 8,500 houses in Indonesia, Thailand, India and Sri Lanka.
Volunteers at Musicians’ Village, a Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans that focuses on bringing back traditional jazz musicians.
Habitat for Humanity seemed poised to do the same thing along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Just days after the storm, its chief executive appeared on CNN, promising to build and repair as many homes as it could pay for, “hopefully in the thousands.” The organization quickly mustered 50,000 volunteers, raised $127 million, and attracted prominent backers like President Bush and the New Orleans jazz luminaries Harry Connick Jr. and Branford Marsalis.
But almost 18 months after storms destroyed more than 250,000 homes, Habitat for Humanity says it has built just 10 houses for poor hurricane victims here, 36 in New Orleans, and a total of 416 along the entire coast, from Alabama to Texas. More are under construction, for a total of 702.
For the full story, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/us/22habitat.html?th&emc=th
Coke vs. Coke Zero Ads
I just saw Coke's new ads in which two Coke employees ask real lawyers (a la Punk'd) about whether they have a case against Coke Zero because the two products taste the same. I thought it was an interesting approach in light of what we discussed in class about consumers' negative reactions when Coke changed their formula to New Coke. The two employees discuss how Coke Zero is damaging to Coke's brand because it tastes just like the real thing and ask the lawyer if they can sue. Very humorous ads. To check them out, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrJ9hrAAeIU
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Another promotional stunt gone wrong...
I don't know if anyone has seen this story yet. Dr. Pepper, as part of their "Hunt for More" promotion, placed a coin worth $10,000 in the historic Granary Burying Ground, making city officials fear that the historic spot would be overrun with treasure-seekers. Apparently, Dr. Pepper changed the rules of the Boston hunt so that the prizewinner would be selected by random drawing instead, frustrating those who had spent many months deciphering treasure-hunt clues. Neither the Dr. Pepper or Cadbury Schweppes websites seem to make any mention of this incident, and in fact the hunt update page implies that the coin was actually found.
I'm not sure we'll be seeing more marketing stunts in Boston anytime soon!
I'm not sure we'll be seeing more marketing stunts in Boston anytime soon!
Made to Stick
I attended Chip Heath’s presentation yesterday about Made to Stick. His presentation, as the book, focuses on the six components of a “sticky” idea: Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories (SUCCES).
- Simple refers to the “occupational hazard” of knowing too much and needing to step back and explain your idea to others concisely.
- Unexpected refers to the fact that something out of the ordinary is more memorable than what is expected.
- Concrete is using language that is understandable (no jargon) and examples to illustrate your idea.
- Credible is believability.
- Emotional is getting people to care since recall is not enough.
- Stories allow listeners to create parallel stories in their head.
What struck me most was how his presentation reinforced the acronym “SUCCES”. First, his presentation was one of the simplest I have seen in PowerPoint: a black background with white, typewriter text, no logos, no graphics. The average word count per slide was about 5 words; no sentences, no bullets - he kept it simple. Second, he used many unexpected phrases to illustrate his points, such as the “tornado test” and “Sinatra test” – memorable ways to test your compliance with applying SUCCES. Third, he used concrete examples throughout the presentation. Although there were only a few words on each slide, he had at least one example of an organization applying that concept and many times he had multiple examples. Since the audience comprised mostly of representatives from nonprofit organizations, he often used at least one nonprofit example. Fourth, he is credible because he is a professor and also has worked with many organizations, including nonprofit organizations. Fifth, he appealed to the emotions of the audience members, relating why SUCCES was relevant to their organizations. Sixth, he used stories throughout his presentation. For example, he started the presentation and referred back often to the story of JFK articulating the goal of putting a man on the moon and how that was the rallying call for people across the country to work towards that goal. Not only is this a story most people are familiar with even if they were not alive during that time, but it was also a good way to connect with people from the Boston area and very fitting since the presentation was held at the Commonwealth Museum near the JFK Library.
- Simple refers to the “occupational hazard” of knowing too much and needing to step back and explain your idea to others concisely.
- Unexpected refers to the fact that something out of the ordinary is more memorable than what is expected.
- Concrete is using language that is understandable (no jargon) and examples to illustrate your idea.
- Credible is believability.
- Emotional is getting people to care since recall is not enough.
- Stories allow listeners to create parallel stories in their head.
What struck me most was how his presentation reinforced the acronym “SUCCES”. First, his presentation was one of the simplest I have seen in PowerPoint: a black background with white, typewriter text, no logos, no graphics. The average word count per slide was about 5 words; no sentences, no bullets - he kept it simple. Second, he used many unexpected phrases to illustrate his points, such as the “tornado test” and “Sinatra test” – memorable ways to test your compliance with applying SUCCES. Third, he used concrete examples throughout the presentation. Although there were only a few words on each slide, he had at least one example of an organization applying that concept and many times he had multiple examples. Since the audience comprised mostly of representatives from nonprofit organizations, he often used at least one nonprofit example. Fourth, he is credible because he is a professor and also has worked with many organizations, including nonprofit organizations. Fifth, he appealed to the emotions of the audience members, relating why SUCCES was relevant to their organizations. Sixth, he used stories throughout his presentation. For example, he started the presentation and referred back often to the story of JFK articulating the goal of putting a man on the moon and how that was the rallying call for people across the country to work towards that goal. Not only is this a story most people are familiar with even if they were not alive during that time, but it was also a good way to connect with people from the Boston area and very fitting since the presentation was held at the Commonwealth Museum near the JFK Library.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
An Apology from Jet Blue Airways
This letter was waiting in my in-box (along with thousands of other TrueBlue members)
Additionally, there was a link to a video of the CEO expressing his commitment to ensuring last week's events will never be repeated.
http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html?source=ap_2promise
Technology has made it so easy for CEOs to directly communicate with their customers and yet this is the first time I can think of that a CEO has spoken directly to their customer base in such plain and simple language. I think they have done a really good job of managing the crisis and I think they will perform even better as a result.
Dear JetBlue Customers,
We are sorry and embarrassed. But most of all, we are deeply sorry.
Last week was the worst operational week in JetBlue's seven year history. Following the severe winter ice storm in the Northeast, we subjected our customers to unacceptable delays, flight cancellations, lost baggage, and other major inconveniences. The storm disrupted the movement of aircraft, and, more importantly, disrupted the movement of JetBlue's pilot and inflight crewmembers who were depending on those planes to get them to the airports where they were scheduled to serve you. With the busy President's Day weekend upon us, rebooking opportunities were scarce and hold times at 1-800-JETBLUE were unacceptably long or not even available, further hindering our recovery efforts.
Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.
We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.
Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video to share with you about this industry leading action.
You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.
Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.
We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.
Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video message to share with you about this industry leading action.
You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.
Additionally, there was a link to a video of the CEO expressing his commitment to ensuring last week's events will never be repeated.
http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html?source=ap_2promise
Technology has made it so easy for CEOs to directly communicate with their customers and yet this is the first time I can think of that a CEO has spoken directly to their customer base in such plain and simple language. I think they have done a really good job of managing the crisis and I think they will perform even better as a result.
Dear JetBlue Customers,
We are sorry and embarrassed. But most of all, we are deeply sorry.
Last week was the worst operational week in JetBlue's seven year history. Following the severe winter ice storm in the Northeast, we subjected our customers to unacceptable delays, flight cancellations, lost baggage, and other major inconveniences. The storm disrupted the movement of aircraft, and, more importantly, disrupted the movement of JetBlue's pilot and inflight crewmembers who were depending on those planes to get them to the airports where they were scheduled to serve you. With the busy President's Day weekend upon us, rebooking opportunities were scarce and hold times at 1-800-JETBLUE were unacceptably long or not even available, further hindering our recovery efforts.
Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.
We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.
Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video to share with you about this industry leading action.
You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.
Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.
We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.
Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video message to share with you about this industry leading action.
You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
"Wuss Golf Is In"
Today's WSJ talks about how Callaway Golf is shifting the brand strategy of Top-Flite (which it acquired in 2003). Top-Flite sales used to be 25% of golf ball sales in pro shops and golf stores, now they are at about 7%, according to the WSJ. The new strategy- to attract hacker golfers and drop the focus on pros using their product.
A few things are happening to ensure the success of the new brand strategy:
A few things are happening to ensure the success of the new brand strategy:
- the ball has been redesigned- it's softer and can go farther distances
- marketing budget for Top-Flite has tripled -up from $1 million in 2006
- new marketing director to oversee Top-Flite campaign
The sports marketing firm hired by Callaway wants to get Top-Flite back to being a household brand and they have determined that positioning to the low-end of the market will increase sales in the "big-box" stores. They are shifting the focus of their marketing campaigns to the emotional aspect of the golfer, not just the characteristics of the ball, hence the new website campaign; "gutsy golf is in and wuss golf is out."
Gutsy move, but from the looks of their drop in market share, Top-Flite needs to revamp their brand since whatever they have been doing is failing. The new ads will include Kenny Mayne, ESPN interviewing "regular guys on regular courses in various go for it moments"- looks like Top-Flite really has nothing to lose at this point. It will be interesting to see how this new brand position is accepted (or not) over the next few years.
Personal Brand
Coincidentally, I'd like to follow the previous post about Country Brand with this new post about Personal Brand. I guess this just shows you that brand has a universal value, likely because it seems people, just like products, organizations, countries want and/or need to be marketable, and brand is what makes it possible. Why? Because it centralizes all the ideas and actions, filters out unimportant things, making us aware of the important ones, and guiding us to our goals.
The article I'm refering to points out that Personal Brand development should concentrate on the three concepts - Dependability, Novelty, Attitude, - making up a DNA of the Personal Brand.
Dependability: "What can others -- your customers, employer, and colleagues -- depend on you for? What kind of "sure thing" are you exactly?"
Novelty: "What makes you different (or better)?"
Attitude: "This is the most nebulous part of a brand. It is more than a combination of novelty and dependability. I call it the brand's predisposition to the world. It is about the vibe a brand puts out. It's about the demeanor and flavor and orientation. Attitude is how the brand -- "you, inc." or "organization, inc." -- presents itself to the world."
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/assessment/Develop_Your_Personal_Brand__20061026-101049.html?subtopic=Career+Assessment+Tips
The article I'm refering to points out that Personal Brand development should concentrate on the three concepts - Dependability, Novelty, Attitude, - making up a DNA of the Personal Brand.
Dependability: "What can others -- your customers, employer, and colleagues -- depend on you for? What kind of "sure thing" are you exactly?"
Novelty: "What makes you different (or better)?"
Attitude: "This is the most nebulous part of a brand. It is more than a combination of novelty and dependability. I call it the brand's predisposition to the world. It is about the vibe a brand puts out. It's about the demeanor and flavor and orientation. Attitude is how the brand -- "you, inc." or "organization, inc." -- presents itself to the world."
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/assessment/Develop_Your_Personal_Brand__20061026-101049.html?subtopic=Career+Assessment+Tips
Monday, February 19, 2007
Brand Canada?
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been described as many things – cool certainly is not one of them. In a visit last year to Chichen Itza, Mexico, he looked out of place next to Prime Minister Fox and President Bush. His stereotypically Canadian outfit was the butt of a month’s worth of jokes after the Mexican photo op.
So it came as little surprise to many Canadians last week when Prime Minister Harper – in line with his questionable fashion sense - decided that a wolverine (a smelly scavenger, related to the skunk, often described as rabid) would be the absolute best representation of the Canadian brand.
While reading the Economist article about Harper’s branding assignment, I was at first surprised by the notion of branding a country. But I realized that with an incredible reliance on international trade, it would be silly for Canada not to brand itself. After all, a branded product commands a price premium over generic products, and creates loyalty in trade. We rely so heavily on trade with the United States that it makes sense that we take the necessary steps towards locking our largest trade partner into a relationship with us. Communicating our branded identity is one such important step.
While it is important that a brand be believed throughout an entire organization, for Canada’s purposes this is impossible. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism and bilingualism, and so it seems impossible to capture in a brand the country’s meaning and mission. We would discover through the ZMET that Canada means vastly different things for different Canadians, but I think that a brand can capture this incredible diversity. Canada’s most differentiating factors is its mission to maintain unique cultures within its borders is, and I think its citizens will agree on that.
Thus, Canada’s brand mantra should be “Unified Cultural Diversity”. I can’t think of an animal that represents that. Certainly not a wolverine. The beaver, our industrious but (as Prime Minister Harper argues) too shy, is too one dimensional as well. The “moose with sunglasses” suggested by the Economist in 2003 – representing capitalism, democracy and cool – is the best idea so far, but still fails to capture the country’s diversity. Perhaps the absence of an animal brand representation is the way to go. The fact that Canada has no national animal image would represent the country’s embracing of multiple images.
So it came as little surprise to many Canadians last week when Prime Minister Harper – in line with his questionable fashion sense - decided that a wolverine (a smelly scavenger, related to the skunk, often described as rabid) would be the absolute best representation of the Canadian brand.
While reading the Economist article about Harper’s branding assignment, I was at first surprised by the notion of branding a country. But I realized that with an incredible reliance on international trade, it would be silly for Canada not to brand itself. After all, a branded product commands a price premium over generic products, and creates loyalty in trade. We rely so heavily on trade with the United States that it makes sense that we take the necessary steps towards locking our largest trade partner into a relationship with us. Communicating our branded identity is one such important step.
While it is important that a brand be believed throughout an entire organization, for Canada’s purposes this is impossible. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism and bilingualism, and so it seems impossible to capture in a brand the country’s meaning and mission. We would discover through the ZMET that Canada means vastly different things for different Canadians, but I think that a brand can capture this incredible diversity. Canada’s most differentiating factors is its mission to maintain unique cultures within its borders is, and I think its citizens will agree on that.
Thus, Canada’s brand mantra should be “Unified Cultural Diversity”. I can’t think of an animal that represents that. Certainly not a wolverine. The beaver, our industrious but (as Prime Minister Harper argues) too shy, is too one dimensional as well. The “moose with sunglasses” suggested by the Economist in 2003 – representing capitalism, democracy and cool – is the best idea so far, but still fails to capture the country’s diversity. Perhaps the absence of an animal brand representation is the way to go. The fact that Canada has no national animal image would represent the country’s embracing of multiple images.
VW's Jumper Ad gets pulled
Volkswagen recently yanked its "Jumper" ad off the air because of a Suicide Prevention network. In the ad, a man decides not to jump off a building after being told that there are three Volkswagen's that cost less than $17,000.
I do not see how these ads would really encourage anyone to commit suicide, but the fact that they are being pulled does increase media attention to the brand. While it may be negative press, it still keeps these companies that end up in such situations in the public eye. It seems like these are harmless ads and besides, Volkswagen hired Crispin Porter & Bogusky because of their creative energy and willingness to take risks.
We talked about the GM suicide robot ad (which was also pulled) a bit in class, but what does everyone else think about the amount of influence activist groups have in regards to these advertisements or the power they essentially have on the companies that produce these ads?
One other point is that by pulling these ads, Volkswagen and GM seem to be sending an inconsistent message. They are the ones that ultimately approve the production and airing of these advertisements, yet they cave in based on negative feedback from these activist groups. Shouldn't they stand behind their decision to take risks?
Read the news story here.
Watch the VW Jumper ad here .
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Harley straying from brand?
http://www.automotoportal.com/article/world-debut-of-unique-harley-davidson-prototype-at-intermot
Harley-Davidson released a prototype of a new dirt bike type motorcycle, the XR 1200. This bike is wildly different from the bikes we associate with Harley today, but not surprisingly it is focused on the European market. According to the Vice President of Harley-Davidson Europe, "We are experiencing strong growth in Europe and we anticipate that the XR 1200 Prototype will appeal to new customers, including younger riders currently using competitive brand standard and sports motorcycles. They probably like and admire the Harley-Davidson brand, but are not currently in the market for a more traditional custom or touring Harley-Davidson motorcycle."
It seems Harley wants to capture a new market, specifically European youth, but my first reaction is a negative one. Harley is very strongly associated with America and the culture here; how the European public will react to this new product specifically aimed at them? Will such a strong focus abroad dilute the intense loyalty and following of Americans? Will an influx of young riders shift the brand image and deter older generations from purchasing and remaining loyal? While the American and European markets are distinct, a brand as strong as Harley's will feel the effects of making a bad strategic branding move on either side. While the new model might prove lucrative in immediate sales and profits, I question if it is aligned with their historical and corporate mission and culture.
Harley-Davidson released a prototype of a new dirt bike type motorcycle, the XR 1200. This bike is wildly different from the bikes we associate with Harley today, but not surprisingly it is focused on the European market. According to the Vice President of Harley-Davidson Europe, "We are experiencing strong growth in Europe and we anticipate that the XR 1200 Prototype will appeal to new customers, including younger riders currently using competitive brand standard and sports motorcycles. They probably like and admire the Harley-Davidson brand, but are not currently in the market for a more traditional custom or touring Harley-Davidson motorcycle."
It seems Harley wants to capture a new market, specifically European youth, but my first reaction is a negative one. Harley is very strongly associated with America and the culture here; how the European public will react to this new product specifically aimed at them? Will such a strong focus abroad dilute the intense loyalty and following of Americans? Will an influx of young riders shift the brand image and deter older generations from purchasing and remaining loyal? While the American and European markets are distinct, a brand as strong as Harley's will feel the effects of making a bad strategic branding move on either side. While the new model might prove lucrative in immediate sales and profits, I question if it is aligned with their historical and corporate mission and culture.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Chipotle's "Fast Food with Integrity"
Check out this article on Chipotle from Businessweek. Chipotle's founder, Steve Ells, is trying to cash in on America's shift towards healthier foods by introducing organic food and utilizing an open kitchen. The company spends relatively little on advertising because Ells thinks it "isn't believable." Instead, he tries to communicate his brand through the Chipotle store design and product.
Even luxury brands need revisiting
Here's a story about how the sluggish Gucci brand was revitalized, in part by mining the past for present and future designs. Read the article here.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
This article has an interesting take on the idea that there is such a thing as bad press and the author even suggests that the call that started the panic in Boston was made to ignite the press. While I don't believe the call was made for marketing, and I don't think the author really does either, he makes the point that marketing needs to "open up a useful dialogue between brand and customer" to be successful.
Brandweek
Here's One Bridge That Went Too Far By
Eric van den Heuvel
February 12, 2007
W 've ALL heard a hundred variations of the same lament, each tinged with more panic: "Ad environments are too clut- tered," "Media is fragmenting," "Marketers have lost control to customers" and my favorite: "The 30-second TV commercial is dead."While there is an underlying truth to each of these exhortations, the greater issue at hand is the marketing industry's collective response to them: Disruption is the way we'll get noticed! In fact, being disruptive has become a key criterion we use to judge the ideas we create for our clients.
I, however, wish to question the efficacy of what we're doing and, in good faith, submit one question: At what cost?Unfortunately, the most recent example of disruption (disruption run amok, I should add) generated so many headlines that mine is no longer a question being pondered by marketers alone. I speak, of course, of the Cartoon Network's "Mooninites" invading Boston on Feb. 1, and being mistaken for terrorists in the process.
Although the guerrilla-marketing program commandeered attention far in excess of its news worthiness, was it good attention? And if you'll excuse me for using the old definition of good advertising: Did it work? Did it build the brand? Did it create a valuable dialogue between the brand and the customer? Or was it disruptive merely for the sake of being disruptive?
While all of us in the marketing business have much to learn from the legendary P.T. Barnum, I have begun to seriously question one of his most famous snippets of wisdom: "There's no such thing as bad press."
Sorry, Mr. Barnum, but there is such a thing. Sure, media hype can get people to notice your product. Yes, the press can get people talking about it. But there is a line, and when that line is crossed, we've gone too far.
Some in our profession seem to have forgotten that our craft, by its very nature, is a part of a larger social fabric: the culture. This being the case, we have a responsibility to apply our creativity within our culture's unspoken rules of good conduct; we need to use a little good judgment and professionalism.
For the same reason one does not yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, we should not go to extremes merely to get attention. We should not sacrifice being civil-minded in the name of exposure for a brand.
It's hard to believe that not a single person at Cartoon Network (which is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System) or Interference, the agency it retained, did not step back and think: "At a time when 19% of people in North America cite terrorism as their biggest or second-biggest concern, is it really a good idea to place flashing electronic devices on public transportation and beneath bridges in major cities across the U.S.?"
I'll give the agency the benefit of the doubt by assuming there were intelligent people working on this campaign. My assumption further leads me to venture that the campaign went forward with its creators fully aware that the magnetic Mooninites would, to some people, look a lot like explosive devices—and that they would attract press attention. The Boston project was launched two weeks before the bomb scare ensued. It makes one wonder if the call that started the panic may have been made specifically to ignite the press.
Before I come off as an unmovable foe of marketing that takes creative risks, I submit this: Marketing borne of good judgment can still be every bit as engaging. The BMW campaign showing a Mini perched atop a parked SUV charmed us; the Charmin campaign in Times Square gave us the novelty of a clean public restroom. Both programs used disruptive approaches to engage us. But both were tied to criteria more meaningful than disruption for its own sake.
Where in the Mooninites event was the unique brand benefit communicated? How did leaving flashing boxes beneath bridges narrow in on target consumers? How did this guerrilla project open up a useful dialogue between brand and customer? Quite simply, it didn't. Interference's marketing, in this case, wasn't marketing at all; it was a stunt.
Professionals in our industry should stop using the excuses of fragmentation, clutter and surrender of media control to customers to justify taking shortcuts that only result in fleeting, valueless noise. When we travel down this road, both marketer and consumer lose. As the Cartoon Network and its agency so ably showed us, this road only leads to annoyed consumers stuck in a traffic jam.
Eric van den Heuvel is director of media solutions at The Gate Worldwide, a New York ad agency. He can be reached at (212) 508-3450 or eric.vdheuvel@thegateworldwide.com.
Brandweek
Here's One Bridge That Went Too Far By
Eric van den Heuvel
February 12, 2007
W 've ALL heard a hundred variations of the same lament, each tinged with more panic: "Ad environments are too clut- tered," "Media is fragmenting," "Marketers have lost control to customers" and my favorite: "The 30-second TV commercial is dead."While there is an underlying truth to each of these exhortations, the greater issue at hand is the marketing industry's collective response to them: Disruption is the way we'll get noticed! In fact, being disruptive has become a key criterion we use to judge the ideas we create for our clients.
I, however, wish to question the efficacy of what we're doing and, in good faith, submit one question: At what cost?Unfortunately, the most recent example of disruption (disruption run amok, I should add) generated so many headlines that mine is no longer a question being pondered by marketers alone. I speak, of course, of the Cartoon Network's "Mooninites" invading Boston on Feb. 1, and being mistaken for terrorists in the process.
Although the guerrilla-marketing program commandeered attention far in excess of its news worthiness, was it good attention? And if you'll excuse me for using the old definition of good advertising: Did it work? Did it build the brand? Did it create a valuable dialogue between the brand and the customer? Or was it disruptive merely for the sake of being disruptive?
While all of us in the marketing business have much to learn from the legendary P.T. Barnum, I have begun to seriously question one of his most famous snippets of wisdom: "There's no such thing as bad press."
Sorry, Mr. Barnum, but there is such a thing. Sure, media hype can get people to notice your product. Yes, the press can get people talking about it. But there is a line, and when that line is crossed, we've gone too far.
Some in our profession seem to have forgotten that our craft, by its very nature, is a part of a larger social fabric: the culture. This being the case, we have a responsibility to apply our creativity within our culture's unspoken rules of good conduct; we need to use a little good judgment and professionalism.
For the same reason one does not yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, we should not go to extremes merely to get attention. We should not sacrifice being civil-minded in the name of exposure for a brand.
It's hard to believe that not a single person at Cartoon Network (which is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System) or Interference, the agency it retained, did not step back and think: "At a time when 19% of people in North America cite terrorism as their biggest or second-biggest concern, is it really a good idea to place flashing electronic devices on public transportation and beneath bridges in major cities across the U.S.?"
I'll give the agency the benefit of the doubt by assuming there were intelligent people working on this campaign. My assumption further leads me to venture that the campaign went forward with its creators fully aware that the magnetic Mooninites would, to some people, look a lot like explosive devices—and that they would attract press attention. The Boston project was launched two weeks before the bomb scare ensued. It makes one wonder if the call that started the panic may have been made specifically to ignite the press.
Before I come off as an unmovable foe of marketing that takes creative risks, I submit this: Marketing borne of good judgment can still be every bit as engaging. The BMW campaign showing a Mini perched atop a parked SUV charmed us; the Charmin campaign in Times Square gave us the novelty of a clean public restroom. Both programs used disruptive approaches to engage us. But both were tied to criteria more meaningful than disruption for its own sake.
Where in the Mooninites event was the unique brand benefit communicated? How did leaving flashing boxes beneath bridges narrow in on target consumers? How did this guerrilla project open up a useful dialogue between brand and customer? Quite simply, it didn't. Interference's marketing, in this case, wasn't marketing at all; it was a stunt.
Professionals in our industry should stop using the excuses of fragmentation, clutter and surrender of media control to customers to justify taking shortcuts that only result in fleeting, valueless noise. When we travel down this road, both marketer and consumer lose. As the Cartoon Network and its agency so ably showed us, this road only leads to annoyed consumers stuck in a traffic jam.
Eric van den Heuvel is director of media solutions at The Gate Worldwide, a New York ad agency. He can be reached at (212) 508-3450 or eric.vdheuvel@thegateworldwide.com.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Jehana's Opinion on Building a Megabrand Named Dwyane
Gretzky, Tiger, Ali, Jordan, Shaq, Beckham, Sampras, Agassi, and Armstrong. You don't even have to be a sports fan to know these names....or should I say BRANDS? Sports marketing has instilled the ideal athlete in each and everyone of our minds. These athletes embody confidence,charisma, adroitness, and, of course, success. Marketers then take these ideals and embed them in athletic brands and sports equipment brands, through endorsements, to increase brand awareness and, thus, brand equity.
Dwyane Wade, the 25 year-old MVP basketball player for the Miami Heat, and, not to mention, the "soft-spoken family man", however, is "rewriting the rules of sports marketing". Instead of simply endorsing products, "he is partnering with major brands to design items other than sports equipment and apparel." HE'S BUILDING himself into A MEGABRAND to become one of the top 10 brands in sports. Dwyane has worked closely with wireless carrier T-Mobile to design a limited-edition "D WADE SIDEKICK" texting device to be launched on Feb. 17th, the weekend of the NBA All-Star Game.
Now, did you ask yourself, "a texting device?"
Although T-Mobile is a $100 Million sponsor of the NBA, will endorsing products not associated with sports enhance or deteriorate this innocent young man's rise to stardom? Better yet, can endorsing products that aren't even leaders in their field actually help this young leader in basketball? Furthermore, are the consumers really getting anything extra for the extra buck that they spend on one of these products? Will the Wade brand have the same meaning and the same strength in all of its products?
I do not think so! In fact, I think he will lose, not gain,brand equity.
What do you think?
For more information, please read:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_07/b4021082.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
_______________________________________________________________________
I had a meeting with the CEO of a large private architecture firm last night for another course assignment. It was interesting that when I asked him what thier strengths were he said that "What we are really selling is a brand". He is committed to maintaining the brand by keeping everyone in the company focused on it. They are located in 5 countries and growing rapidly. He said that he spends ~40% of his time on internal Branding efforts, "keeping the vision", alone and feels that it is not enough. He targets 2/3 of his efforts on such projects. They are very successful with this approach and new business comes in as fast as they can grow.
Citizen Ads
There was a lot of hype around the consumer generated advertising aired during the superbowl and we spent some time in class discussing whether or not we thought they worked. Jon Fine brings up an interesting idea in this article that these ads are successful because of the consumers' fanaticism for the product. If the product did not have that consumer product passion then the ads would not work. Do you agree?
What Makes 'Citizen Ads' Work
BusinessWeek
FEBRUARY 19, 2007
By Jon Fine
MEDIA CENTRIC What Makes 'Citizen Ads' Work This column requires ground rules in order to avoid hurting your eyeballs. Therefore, instead of the excruciating "consumer-generated advertising" and "consumer-generated marketing," I will use "citizen advertising" and "citizen marketing." In varying ways, all manner of companies solicit or encourage such efforts on the Web. As evidenced by two highly publicized Doritos ads that ran during the Super Bowl, these efforts sometimes cross media platforms to show up on TV screens.
The arguments for citizen ads encompass every current marketing cliché. A company invites consumers to submit ads to its Web site, which means said consumers spend much time thinking about the product (marketing cliché alert: engagement, interacting with the brand). These ads are shown online to let the public chatter and vote on which is best (cliché alert: community). That the ads come from the vox-pop ensures they are (cliché alert) authentic. With luck, what consumers submit is good enough to stand out from the omnipresent ambient marketing noise (cliché alert: breaking through the clutter). And good enough so people come back to the site for more. Also, lest we forget: Letting consumers do the work is cheap. While citizens' efforts are nascent, making it impossible to know how effective they are long-term, early blog buzz on Doritos' Super Bowl ads is easily as positive as what some traditional ads elicited.
Not every company has wild-eyed devotees. So thus far, citizen ads mostly push products that people adore—Chevy asked fans to submit ideas for its Super Bowl spot—or those that target young men, like Doritos. The people who create them have already joined the fan club and bought the T-shirt (or they're so rabid they make their own). There's a reason why the National Football League asked fans to submit Super Bowl ad ideas. Football freaks get very geeked-out about their sport, as do those who post homemade Apple ads to YouTube.
AND THERE'S A REASON WHY CLOROX (CLX ) hasn't asked for ideas. Many big advertisers sell commodities—soap powder, paper goods—that lack logos people tattoo on their torsos or paint on their faces. Many big budgets push products with very specific demands. For example, yogurt maker Dannon's (DA ) marketing strategy dictates that ads must help maintain consistent demand for a perishable product. Yogurt is "live and active," says Chief Marketing Officer Andreas Ostermayr. "We cannot keep huge stocks of it." He fears that citizen ads will elicit a "less predictable" response from consumers.Wary, too, are some top ad executives. "We are pros, and although it looks easy to create advertising, it isn't," writes Wayne Best, executive creative director of New York boutique agency TAXI, in an e-mail. "User-generated content reminds me that there's a reason I have a job." But I have little patience for arguments equating "pro" with "better." History is full of examples where "pro" turns out to be an artificial construct. (The music and film indie revolutions of the '80s taught us there was more and better talent than the major labels and studios would have had us believe.) Without all the hype, I doubt viewers would have known Doritos' ads were not made by an agency.
Many companies that hire ad firms get this. ("Agencies beware," exulted a Sony (SNE ) executive in Advertising Age, in discussing one citizen ad contest.) What they don't get is that not every product engenders fanaticism: I spent much time on the phone last week arguing with marketers about whether or not consumers get excited about soap. I should be sporting and point out that in places where citizen ads may not work, citizen marketing may well. In 2001, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) bought babycenter.com, a wildly popular community site for new parents. J&J opted, in other words, not to build a site about baby powder. Detergent buyers might not make ads for fun like Apple freaks do. Hanging out at a marketer's getitclean.com site? Well, that's a whole other story.
For Jon Fine's blog on media and advertising, go to www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia
What Makes 'Citizen Ads' Work
BusinessWeek
FEBRUARY 19, 2007
By Jon Fine
MEDIA CENTRIC What Makes 'Citizen Ads' Work This column requires ground rules in order to avoid hurting your eyeballs. Therefore, instead of the excruciating "consumer-generated advertising" and "consumer-generated marketing," I will use "citizen advertising" and "citizen marketing." In varying ways, all manner of companies solicit or encourage such efforts on the Web. As evidenced by two highly publicized Doritos ads that ran during the Super Bowl, these efforts sometimes cross media platforms to show up on TV screens.
The arguments for citizen ads encompass every current marketing cliché. A company invites consumers to submit ads to its Web site, which means said consumers spend much time thinking about the product (marketing cliché alert: engagement, interacting with the brand). These ads are shown online to let the public chatter and vote on which is best (cliché alert: community). That the ads come from the vox-pop ensures they are (cliché alert) authentic. With luck, what consumers submit is good enough to stand out from the omnipresent ambient marketing noise (cliché alert: breaking through the clutter). And good enough so people come back to the site for more. Also, lest we forget: Letting consumers do the work is cheap. While citizens' efforts are nascent, making it impossible to know how effective they are long-term, early blog buzz on Doritos' Super Bowl ads is easily as positive as what some traditional ads elicited.
Not every company has wild-eyed devotees. So thus far, citizen ads mostly push products that people adore—Chevy asked fans to submit ideas for its Super Bowl spot—or those that target young men, like Doritos. The people who create them have already joined the fan club and bought the T-shirt (or they're so rabid they make their own). There's a reason why the National Football League asked fans to submit Super Bowl ad ideas. Football freaks get very geeked-out about their sport, as do those who post homemade Apple ads to YouTube.
AND THERE'S A REASON WHY CLOROX (CLX ) hasn't asked for ideas. Many big advertisers sell commodities—soap powder, paper goods—that lack logos people tattoo on their torsos or paint on their faces. Many big budgets push products with very specific demands. For example, yogurt maker Dannon's (DA ) marketing strategy dictates that ads must help maintain consistent demand for a perishable product. Yogurt is "live and active," says Chief Marketing Officer Andreas Ostermayr. "We cannot keep huge stocks of it." He fears that citizen ads will elicit a "less predictable" response from consumers.Wary, too, are some top ad executives. "We are pros, and although it looks easy to create advertising, it isn't," writes Wayne Best, executive creative director of New York boutique agency TAXI, in an e-mail. "User-generated content reminds me that there's a reason I have a job." But I have little patience for arguments equating "pro" with "better." History is full of examples where "pro" turns out to be an artificial construct. (The music and film indie revolutions of the '80s taught us there was more and better talent than the major labels and studios would have had us believe.) Without all the hype, I doubt viewers would have known Doritos' ads were not made by an agency.
Many companies that hire ad firms get this. ("Agencies beware," exulted a Sony (SNE ) executive in Advertising Age, in discussing one citizen ad contest.) What they don't get is that not every product engenders fanaticism: I spent much time on the phone last week arguing with marketers about whether or not consumers get excited about soap. I should be sporting and point out that in places where citizen ads may not work, citizen marketing may well. In 2001, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) bought babycenter.com, a wildly popular community site for new parents. J&J opted, in other words, not to build a site about baby powder. Detergent buyers might not make ads for fun like Apple freaks do. Hanging out at a marketer's getitclean.com site? Well, that's a whole other story.
For Jon Fine's blog on media and advertising, go to www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Is the Coca-Cola brand worth $60+ Billion ..... to anyone?
The value of a brand is really only worth that much if you operate in the same industry, market, with the same customer base. Can all of the $60+ billion of Coke's brand worth be transferred to an industrial chemicals manufacturer? a real estate brokerage firm? an automotive manufacturer? How much would this name really be worth? Surely a Coke branded Intel processor would sell, perhaps to only a few windows programmers sustained by the bubbly black caffeinated concoction. Perhaps a brand extension strategy could replace the Centrino with Coke Light? But, would it really be worth $60+ billion to Intel? Would anyone but Pepsi really even consider paying that much?
Also simply through the act of purchasing a brand the brand changes. Volvo was bought by Ford, and now people say: "Did you know Ford owns Volvo now?" and with that comes a pause and a thought >>hmmm I like Volvo, but don’t identify with Ford... can I still feel about Volvo the same way?<< Often any future disappointments for Volvo supporters with Volvo products are pushed on Ford's shoulders. How does this affect the value of the brand? How can it be quantified? Is it incorporated in the original valuation? Should every company even seek to have an estimated brand worth comparable to that of Coke? Is there an optimal brand value for each firm? Is there a point where investing in your brand yields diminishing returns?
A formula/equation/framework which accurately depicts a brand's worth in all dimensions both hard and soft will exhibit chaotic behavior as everything inside and outside of the market with the consumer in between plays off everything else, hence making it impossible to accurately provide a an absolute value relevant to everyone. I don't think a lot firms would pay $60+ billion for the Coke brand, or $1.8 billion for the HFHI brand - even if they had the resources.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Brands and Buildings
This recent article in the Boston Globe is mostly about architecture but I found the discussion of the importance of the store/building/retail experience to the Apple brand interesting. How deep does branding go? How much control should a brand/company have over the space in which its products are sold?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Session on Brand Vision- BU Symposium 2007
I was in attendance at this year's Symposium, my third (yes, third) one since I began the program. One of the great benefits of being in the PEMBA...
The keynote speakers Kenneth Feld and Jim Koch were great. One of my favorite lines from Feld's morning session was "One day as a sophomore at BU, my dad called me up and said Ken, get on a plane now and meet me in Rome, we're going to buy the Circus." Interesting life story to say the least.
Jim Koch had a beer in hand during his speech, displaying the new ultra modern Sam Adams gla
ss with curves and ramps to enhance the full sensory experience of malt and hops flavors.
Interesting how Koch hired a professional firm to help him come up with the name and concept and he only got back "Mystic River", "Silver Cod" and a few other terrible names. Jim actually came up with the name Sam Adams, and it fits well with the company philosophy and shapes the brand personality. Sam Adams was a patriot, a brewer through his family, a revolutionary thinker, and even somewhat of a prankster. This all fits very well with Jim's personality and life story and helps shape the Sam Adams brand today.
In terms of the marketing session "Building a Brand Vision" Prof. Fournier moderated the morning panel of four speakers: Tony Marzulli from Workbrain, Barrie Mirman from Microsoft, Adrienne Kelly from PepsiCo., and Jerry Antl from Timberland. The discussion of metrics came up (Note our group is presenting something similar to this Monday 2/12) and there were some interesting comments from the group. Adrienne from Pepsi mentioned how Pepsi was all about personal development of employees internally (her goals were 50/50 business and people) and how this was measured through career development, relationship with management, leadership in organization among many other areas. This is something our group also found in research for our preso on brand metrics, the internal buy-in and development of employees and ability to share in the vision is crucial to the measurement of brand effectiveness and ultimately a gauge on how this will resonate to the external world with customers, partners, competition, etc. This could be measured through employee satisfaction, training employees should have each year, and the adoption of internal collaboration and learning tools for employees such as intranet portals.
Jerry Antl from Timberland was all about the ROI, and how there is an increasing expectation from upper management to see quantitative results in all of the marketing actions so it can be tied to corporate objectives. This might include the ad campaign response or success rates via the website, measuring response value, eyeballs or click-through rates, among many other metrics. Jerry seems like the example of the modern day marketer, where its less glitz, glam, and creative, and more analytical approach. This "left brain" approach reflects the trend towards increased accountability on marketing actions in organizations. I think the more marketing groups can show direct correlation to the top line, the more the CMO and others will have an influential seat the table with the CEO and Board.
When the discussion shifted to career development and the panelist job history, Tony from Workbrain got up and drew an interesting two-dimensional model on how you might consider different areas of marketing and deciding where you want to be: Corporate vs. field, and Product vs. non-product. He noted small lateral steps are fine to figure out where you really want to be. He also noted that recent MBA are eager to move up in organizations without having much to show. I agree as it takes many months and sometimes years to show your influence before you can try to jump to the next level of management.
And of course, at the end of Symposium they had Sam Adams for everyone which was a nice touch. Great event this year.
To Throw Out A Little Plug-
Our group (Josh, Patricia, Torrey, Tim and myself) have pieced together some ROI type metrics for measuring brands and their impact on organizations such as SCPT/Archstone. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a guide, we mapped to four main areas, including:
-Turnover/Retention
-Branded price premium
-Occupancy rates
-Lower acquisition costs
We will go into much more detail on these Monday night. We have developed a great model to adjust each of these areas in real-time and show how branding initiatives could influence each of these areas, enhancing top line growth. Don't miss it!
The keynote speakers Kenneth Feld and Jim Koch were great. One of my favorite lines from Feld's morning session was "One day as a sophomore at BU, my dad called me up and said Ken, get on a plane now and meet me in Rome, we're going to buy the Circus." Interesting life story to say the least.
Jim Koch had a beer in hand during his speech, displaying the new ultra modern Sam Adams gla
ss with curves and ramps to enhance the full sensory experience of malt and hops flavors.Interesting how Koch hired a professional firm to help him come up with the name and concept and he only got back "Mystic River", "Silver Cod" and a few other terrible names. Jim actually came up with the name Sam Adams, and it fits well with the company philosophy and shapes the brand personality. Sam Adams was a patriot, a brewer through his family, a revolutionary thinker, and even somewhat of a prankster. This all fits very well with Jim's personality and life story and helps shape the Sam Adams brand today.
In terms of the marketing session "Building a Brand Vision" Prof. Fournier moderated the morning panel of four speakers: Tony Marzulli from Workbrain, Barrie Mirman from Microsoft, Adrienne Kelly from PepsiCo., and Jerry Antl from Timberland. The discussion of metrics came up (Note our group is presenting something similar to this Monday 2/12) and there were some interesting comments from the group. Adrienne from Pepsi mentioned how Pepsi was all about personal development of employees internally (her goals were 50/50 business and people) and how this was measured through career development, relationship with management, leadership in organization among many other areas. This is something our group also found in research for our preso on brand metrics, the internal buy-in and development of employees and ability to share in the vision is crucial to the measurement of brand effectiveness and ultimately a gauge on how this will resonate to the external world with customers, partners, competition, etc. This could be measured through employee satisfaction, training employees should have each year, and the adoption of internal collaboration and learning tools for employees such as intranet portals.
Jerry Antl from Timberland was all about the ROI, and how there is an increasing expectation from upper management to see quantitative results in all of the marketing actions so it can be tied to corporate objectives. This might include the ad campaign response or success rates via the website, measuring response value, eyeballs or click-through rates, among many other metrics. Jerry seems like the example of the modern day marketer, where its less glitz, glam, and creative, and more analytical approach. This "left brain" approach reflects the trend towards increased accountability on marketing actions in organizations. I think the more marketing groups can show direct correlation to the top line, the more the CMO and others will have an influential seat the table with the CEO and Board.
When the discussion shifted to career development and the panelist job history, Tony from Workbrain got up and drew an interesting two-dimensional model on how you might consider different areas of marketing and deciding where you want to be: Corporate vs. field, and Product vs. non-product. He noted small lateral steps are fine to figure out where you really want to be. He also noted that recent MBA are eager to move up in organizations without having much to show. I agree as it takes many months and sometimes years to show your influence before you can try to jump to the next level of management.
And of course, at the end of Symposium they had Sam Adams for everyone which was a nice touch. Great event this year.
To Throw Out A Little Plug-
Our group (Josh, Patricia, Torrey, Tim and myself) have pieced together some ROI type metrics for measuring brands and their impact on organizations such as SCPT/Archstone. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a guide, we mapped to four main areas, including:
-Turnover/Retention
-Branded price premium
-Occupancy rates
-Lower acquisition costs
We will go into much more detail on these Monday night. We have developed a great model to adjust each of these areas in real-time and show how branding initiatives could influence each of these areas, enhancing top line growth. Don't miss it!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Brands and Celebrities
On the wave of a sad news about Anna Nicole Smith's death, there's an article that touches on the subject of dangers of brand-celebrity associations. Indeed, as much as the company has a control over selection of the celebrity to associate itself with, it can never have a full control of that human being and the image it projects on the brand. It can be manifested in the "innocent" situations like Charleze Theron's wearing Dior watch while being on the contract with Raymond Weil brand, to the life-and-death situations that had surrounded Anna Nicole Smith.
As for the Anna Nicole Smith being TrimSpa's face, "marketing experts say TrimSpa's close association with its spokeswoman could spell disaster for the business. "
"When you mention TrimSpa, the image that came to mind was Anna Nicole Smith and that's the difficulty with being so closely tied to a celebrity," said Robert Passikoff, a New York brand consultant. "You've just pulled the rug out from under what the brand was standing on," he added.
"TrimSpa has some major challenges given the loss of credibility about their product and [now] losing their spokesperson," said Britt Beemer, the chairman of strategic marketing firm America's Research Group. "It's a one-two punch and it does damage their marketing position dramatically."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/smbusiness/trimspa_annanicole/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wtheron08.xml
As for the Anna Nicole Smith being TrimSpa's face, "marketing experts say TrimSpa's close association with its spokeswoman could spell disaster for the business. "
"When you mention TrimSpa, the image that came to mind was Anna Nicole Smith and that's the difficulty with being so closely tied to a celebrity," said Robert Passikoff, a New York brand consultant. "You've just pulled the rug out from under what the brand was standing on," he added.
"TrimSpa has some major challenges given the loss of credibility about their product and [now] losing their spokesperson," said Britt Beemer, the chairman of strategic marketing firm America's Research Group. "It's a one-two punch and it does damage their marketing position dramatically."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/smbusiness/trimspa_annanicole/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/08/wtheron08.xml
Celebrity Endorsements?
I am interested in the benefits and detriments of closely aligning a company's brand to a singular celebrity or concept. It may be beneficial in the short-term, but I'm not sure that brands based on a celebrity has the legs to endure in the long-run.
TrimSpa's future in doubt after Smith's death
Marketing experts say TrimSpa's close association with its spokeswoman could spell disaster for the business.
By Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 8 2007: 6:55 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The death of sassy spokeswoman Anna Nicole Smith coupled with growing doubts about TrimSpa's controversial weight-loss products may prove too much for the closely held company, marketing experts said Thursday.
"Given the double whammy of who their spokesperson was and the other tangential difficulties, I don't think they're going to come back," said Robert Passikoff, a New York brand consultant.
Passikoff said news that Smith died in Florida Thursday could spell disaster for the small business.
"When you mention TrimSpa, the image that came to mind was Anna Nicole Smith and that's the difficulty with being so closely tied to a celebrity," he said.
"You've just pulled the rug out from under what the brand was standing on," he added.
The former Playboy Playmate and reality TV star became a spokeswoman for TrimSpa in October 2003, after losing a reported 60 to 70 pounds.
But Smith and TrimSpa have faced repeated legal difficulties over allegations that advertisements for the weight-loss pills were misleading.
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission said it fined the marketer of TrimSpa and other over-the-counter diet drugmakers $25 million for false advertising.
The government agency said that the company's weight-control claims were not supported by scientific evidence.
"TrimSpa has some major challenges given the loss of credibility about their product and [now] losing their spokesperson," said Britt Beemer, the chairman of strategic marketing firm America's Research Group.
"It's a one-two punch and it does damage their marketing position dramatically."
TrimSpa, which is owned by privately held Goen Technologies, is based in Cedar Knolls, N.J.
TrimSpa founder Alex Goen expressed regret at her death.
"Today, Anna Nicole Smith's grief stricken and tumultuous personal life came to an end. Anna came to our company as a customer, but she departs it as a friend," Goen said in a brief statement.
"While life for Anna Nicole was not easy these past few months, she held dear her husband, Howard K. Stern, her daughter, Dannielynn Hope, her most cherished friends, beloved dogs, and finally, her work with TrimSpa," he said.
The two-paragraph statement didn't address the company's business prospects, and officials at Goen were not immediately available for further comment.
TrimSpa's future in doubt after Smith's death
Marketing experts say TrimSpa's close association with its spokeswoman could spell disaster for the business.
By Jessica Dickler, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 8 2007: 6:55 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The death of sassy spokeswoman Anna Nicole Smith coupled with growing doubts about TrimSpa's controversial weight-loss products may prove too much for the closely held company, marketing experts said Thursday.
"Given the double whammy of who their spokesperson was and the other tangential difficulties, I don't think they're going to come back," said Robert Passikoff, a New York brand consultant.
Passikoff said news that Smith died in Florida Thursday could spell disaster for the small business.
"When you mention TrimSpa, the image that came to mind was Anna Nicole Smith and that's the difficulty with being so closely tied to a celebrity," he said.
"You've just pulled the rug out from under what the brand was standing on," he added.
The former Playboy Playmate and reality TV star became a spokeswoman for TrimSpa in October 2003, after losing a reported 60 to 70 pounds.
But Smith and TrimSpa have faced repeated legal difficulties over allegations that advertisements for the weight-loss pills were misleading.
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission said it fined the marketer of TrimSpa and other over-the-counter diet drugmakers $25 million for false advertising.
The government agency said that the company's weight-control claims were not supported by scientific evidence.
"TrimSpa has some major challenges given the loss of credibility about their product and [now] losing their spokesperson," said Britt Beemer, the chairman of strategic marketing firm America's Research Group.
"It's a one-two punch and it does damage their marketing position dramatically."
TrimSpa, which is owned by privately held Goen Technologies, is based in Cedar Knolls, N.J.
TrimSpa founder Alex Goen expressed regret at her death.
"Today, Anna Nicole Smith's grief stricken and tumultuous personal life came to an end. Anna came to our company as a customer, but she departs it as a friend," Goen said in a brief statement.
"While life for Anna Nicole was not easy these past few months, she held dear her husband, Howard K. Stern, her daughter, Dannielynn Hope, her most cherished friends, beloved dogs, and finally, her work with TrimSpa," he said.
The two-paragraph statement didn't address the company's business prospects, and officials at Goen were not immediately available for further comment.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Branding and Ethic?
While I am taking branding classes these days, one thought struck me that if company is fooling customers using "Brand". I like brand, but this brand doens't becomes meaningful product to me. Maybe my thought is what we discussed in our first class, is branding and product same.
However, what is the proper level of branding? Is it ethical to focus on branding without offereing proper product to customers? What is the proper level of premium for the brand.
For American Apparel which listed before, their product itself has no reason to be charged that much. Just because of branding, how far company charge customers. My thought is not organized, but I hope you can guess what I am trying to say. :-)
However, what is the proper level of branding? Is it ethical to focus on branding without offereing proper product to customers? What is the proper level of premium for the brand.
For American Apparel which listed before, their product itself has no reason to be charged that much. Just because of branding, how far company charge customers. My thought is not organized, but I hope you can guess what I am trying to say. :-)
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Super Bowl Ads: Amateur Hour
I found another article talking about Super Bowl Ads interesting from times.
Do Super Bowl ads still matter? If you're the network selling them, sure (CBS got a reported $2.6 million per 30 seconds this year). And the spots get a lot of attention--for a day or two. But as a pop-cultural force, the TV commercial may be, like the evening news, a pricey vestige of the mass-media era. In the days of TiVo and nichecasting, MySpace and spam, how often does any TV spot become a big, Energizer Bunny--big, part of mass culture? What recent commercial could you imagine Hillary Clinton citing in a debate, as Walter Mondale did "Where's the Beef?" in 1984? "If I were to ask you your two favorite commercials ever," says Joseph Jaffe, author of Life After the 30-Second Spot, "they would probably both be over 20 years old."
The closest thing to a mass breakout ad last year wasn't on TV, and neither its audience nor creators realized it was an ad. The Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments, the hit online videos in which the cola and mint explosively combined, were entertainment, but they were also effective product placements: Mentos saw a 15% jump in sales. Inspired, advertisers from Converse to MasterCard to Butterball invited consumers to concoct ads. Internet fan spots created the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon (even if seeing the actual movie then killed it). Echoing a certain magazine's choice of You (as in -Tube) as its Person of the Year, Advertising Age made the Consumer its Agency of the Year.
Now the Super Bowl is being invaded by the YouMercial. Doritos invited consumers to upload their own 30-second ads (at crashthesuperbowl.com) It got more than 1,000 submissions; the winner will air, unedited, during the first quarter. "Our consumers"--read, young people--"have a need to express themselves and interact," says Frito-Lay vice president of marketing Ann Mukherjee. "We wanted to give them an opportunity to express their passion about how they interact with Doritos." (I interact with Doritos using my mouth, but hey, whatever turns you on.) Chevrolet and the NFL invited amateurs to pitch Super Bowl ad ideas (to be shot by pros), while Alka-Seltzer held an American Idol--style contest to rewrite its Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz jingle, the winner to debut during the pregame.
One can see why advertisers want to join in the You-phoria. They're as nervous as any old-media sector about getting attention in the Internet age. "They're out of ideas," says Mark Stevens, author of Your Marketing Sucks. But why would consumers want to pitch stuff to themselves? It's like a pig entering a BBQ cook-off.
Some, of course, want jobs (several entrants study marketing or work in the film or ad business), but that hardly lends itself to the authentic fan spirit that the contest holders say they want. Some subjects are just made for fan ads--a sport, a place, a movie--but who has a "passion" for a nacho chip, a frozen turkey or a credit card? Very few people, which is why a whole industry exists to create emotional associations: snacks with fun, food with family, debt with love.
People do have a passion for fame and media exposure, though, and that has proved to be the peanut butter to the anxious ad industry's chocolate. Small surprise then, at how well the clever Doritos finalists, for all their lo-fi production, echo the old tropes of professional Super Bowl ads: funny animals, slapstick and double entendres. There's a future for You in the ad game, if You are this good at aping Them.
But it doesn't exactly square with the idealistic lingo advertisers use to discuss consumer-created ads: "authenticity," "bringing the consumer into the conversation," "crashing the Super Bowl." For all the populist, techno-utopian rhetoric, the upshot is someone giving cheap labor to a rich company. (Five Doritos finalists won $10,000 each, a net payout of less than 50 bucks an entrant.) Turning the Internet into a global intern pool has made some funny ads, but that doesn't equal empowered customers. "If you want to talk to your consumer, talk to them," says Stevens. "Ask them why they're not eating your chips."
The most famous Super Bowl ad played into the notion of consumer empowerment: Apple's "1984" ad, which depicted a renegade hurling a hammer through a giant TV image of a dictator. The rebel, of course, smashed only a picture, not Big Brother himself, and so it is with the new cadre of citizen-salesmen. The Super Bowl ad party may be admitting the masses this year, but don't expect them to arrive with a crash. More like a ka-ching.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584805,00.html
Do Super Bowl ads still matter? If you're the network selling them, sure (CBS got a reported $2.6 million per 30 seconds this year). And the spots get a lot of attention--for a day or two. But as a pop-cultural force, the TV commercial may be, like the evening news, a pricey vestige of the mass-media era. In the days of TiVo and nichecasting, MySpace and spam, how often does any TV spot become a big, Energizer Bunny--big, part of mass culture? What recent commercial could you imagine Hillary Clinton citing in a debate, as Walter Mondale did "Where's the Beef?" in 1984? "If I were to ask you your two favorite commercials ever," says Joseph Jaffe, author of Life After the 30-Second Spot, "they would probably both be over 20 years old."
The closest thing to a mass breakout ad last year wasn't on TV, and neither its audience nor creators realized it was an ad. The Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments, the hit online videos in which the cola and mint explosively combined, were entertainment, but they were also effective product placements: Mentos saw a 15% jump in sales. Inspired, advertisers from Converse to MasterCard to Butterball invited consumers to concoct ads. Internet fan spots created the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon (even if seeing the actual movie then killed it). Echoing a certain magazine's choice of You (as in -Tube) as its Person of the Year, Advertising Age made the Consumer its Agency of the Year.
Now the Super Bowl is being invaded by the YouMercial. Doritos invited consumers to upload their own 30-second ads (at crashthesuperbowl.com) It got more than 1,000 submissions; the winner will air, unedited, during the first quarter. "Our consumers"--read, young people--"have a need to express themselves and interact," says Frito-Lay vice president of marketing Ann Mukherjee. "We wanted to give them an opportunity to express their passion about how they interact with Doritos." (I interact with Doritos using my mouth, but hey, whatever turns you on.) Chevrolet and the NFL invited amateurs to pitch Super Bowl ad ideas (to be shot by pros), while Alka-Seltzer held an American Idol--style contest to rewrite its Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz jingle, the winner to debut during the pregame.
One can see why advertisers want to join in the You-phoria. They're as nervous as any old-media sector about getting attention in the Internet age. "They're out of ideas," says Mark Stevens, author of Your Marketing Sucks. But why would consumers want to pitch stuff to themselves? It's like a pig entering a BBQ cook-off.
Some, of course, want jobs (several entrants study marketing or work in the film or ad business), but that hardly lends itself to the authentic fan spirit that the contest holders say they want. Some subjects are just made for fan ads--a sport, a place, a movie--but who has a "passion" for a nacho chip, a frozen turkey or a credit card? Very few people, which is why a whole industry exists to create emotional associations: snacks with fun, food with family, debt with love.
People do have a passion for fame and media exposure, though, and that has proved to be the peanut butter to the anxious ad industry's chocolate. Small surprise then, at how well the clever Doritos finalists, for all their lo-fi production, echo the old tropes of professional Super Bowl ads: funny animals, slapstick and double entendres. There's a future for You in the ad game, if You are this good at aping Them.
But it doesn't exactly square with the idealistic lingo advertisers use to discuss consumer-created ads: "authenticity," "bringing the consumer into the conversation," "crashing the Super Bowl." For all the populist, techno-utopian rhetoric, the upshot is someone giving cheap labor to a rich company. (Five Doritos finalists won $10,000 each, a net payout of less than 50 bucks an entrant.) Turning the Internet into a global intern pool has made some funny ads, but that doesn't equal empowered customers. "If you want to talk to your consumer, talk to them," says Stevens. "Ask them why they're not eating your chips."
The most famous Super Bowl ad played into the notion of consumer empowerment: Apple's "1984" ad, which depicted a renegade hurling a hammer through a giant TV image of a dictator. The rebel, of course, smashed only a picture, not Big Brother himself, and so it is with the new cadre of citizen-salesmen. The Super Bowl ad party may be admitting the masses this year, but don't expect them to arrive with a crash. More like a ka-ching.
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584805,00.html
Monday, February 5, 2007
Who Really Won During the Super Bowl?
As discussed in today's Class about Super Bowl ads Brain Scan Ads, in many cases, were more a failure than a success, but there were some other ads that succeeded very well. Here is an article I found about Brain Scan Ads in the Super Bowl.
Who really won during the Super Bowl?
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 5, 2007, 12:31 PM PST
TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
And the other winner of the Super Bowl is...Coke.
That's according to brain experts, who for the second time in two years, have studied the neurons firing inside people's gray matter while they watched Super Bowl commercials. FKF Applied Research, with the help of UCLA's Ahmanson Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, said that Coca-Cola's "Video Game" ad--a 60-second animated spot that promotes random acts of kindness--scored this year because it elicited the most positive emotions in subjects' brains.
"Coke's ad did well because it engaged a full range of emotions, including the mirror region, which is associated with connection and empathy," said Joshua Freedman, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at UCLA and co-founder of FKF Applied Research. "Asking someone what is going on in their brain is in some ways like asking them what is going on in their heart."
FKF studied 10 men and women ages 18 to 34 by using UCLA's functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) brain-imaging system. fMRI is a relatively new technology used to analyze activity, or blood flow, in various centers of the brain that govern people's desires, fears and other cognitive control centers. When specific areas of the brain are active, blood circulation and oxygen increase in those regions, and the imaging technology can detect that activity
Here is a side-by-side comparison of brain scans. The more lively scan shows someone watching the Doritos "Live the Flavor" commercial. The weaker one shows someone viewing the Emerald Nuts ad featuring entertainer Robert Goulet.
Aside from the relative triviality of Super Bowl ad responses, the technology is fueling a revolution in scientific understanding of the brain and human emotions. In the last five years, fMRI has helped neuroscientists study human choices and behavior, laying the groundwork for the understanding of how people make decisions. Freedman said that the science is now also informing other academic fields like economics, sociology and, of course, marketing.
Through brain imaging, for example, FKF has found that people typically ignore between a third and half of all commercials. And while the Super Bowl is known for its standout and pricey commercials (advertisers reportedly dropped $2.6 million on 30-second spots this year), the 2007 Super Bowl was no exception. "The majority (of ads) elicited very little response," Freedman said.
Top-ranking ads
Coca-Cola: "Video Game"
Doritos: "Live the Flavor"
Bud Light: "Hitchhiker"
Worst-ranking ads
Emerald Nuts: "Robert Goulet"
Honda: "CRV Crave"
Sprint: "Connectile Dysfunction"
Source: FKF Applied Research
The commercials that did fire up people's neurons were largely playing on human fears and anxieties, according to Freedman. That's a recipe for bad marketing, he said, because people typically filter out such commercials after their first viewing.
"This clearly was the year of the amygdala, the brain's 'threat detector,'" he said.
As a result, the big losers were ads like GM's "Robot," which shows a carmaking robot that becomes depressed when it loses its factory job. Another low scorer was Sprint's "Connectile Dysfunction"--a play on erectile dysfunction ads, but for broadband.
The worst commercial, according to FKF, was Emerald Nuts' commercial, which shows entertainer Robert Goulet messing with office workers' stuff while they're asleep.
So if these commercials spark anxiety so well, why aren't they more successful? Freedman said that the brain works in a modular fashion, and a person can be like the CEO of many little brains, weighing various responses in the background like, "Does this make me feel safe? Is this something I want? Will this make me more desirable?" In general, when people are anxious, they will push away whatever is making them feel that way.
In the positive column, FKF found that Doritos' "Live the Flavor" commercial ran neck and neck with Coca-Cola. Doritos' 30-second spot depicted two people--a guy in a car and a girl on the street (each with a bag of Doritos)--who become instantly smitten and then fumble around until they meet.
There's something to be said for chemistry.
http://news.com.com/Who+really+won+during+the+Super+Bowl/2100-1008_3-6156330.html?tag=nefd.lede
Who really won during the Super Bowl?
By Stefanie Olsen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 5, 2007, 12:31 PM PST
TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
And the other winner of the Super Bowl is...Coke.
That's according to brain experts, who for the second time in two years, have studied the neurons firing inside people's gray matter while they watched Super Bowl commercials. FKF Applied Research, with the help of UCLA's Ahmanson Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, said that Coca-Cola's "Video Game" ad--a 60-second animated spot that promotes random acts of kindness--scored this year because it elicited the most positive emotions in subjects' brains.
"Coke's ad did well because it engaged a full range of emotions, including the mirror region, which is associated with connection and empathy," said Joshua Freedman, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at UCLA and co-founder of FKF Applied Research. "Asking someone what is going on in their brain is in some ways like asking them what is going on in their heart."
FKF studied 10 men and women ages 18 to 34 by using UCLA's functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) brain-imaging system. fMRI is a relatively new technology used to analyze activity, or blood flow, in various centers of the brain that govern people's desires, fears and other cognitive control centers. When specific areas of the brain are active, blood circulation and oxygen increase in those regions, and the imaging technology can detect that activity
Here is a side-by-side comparison of brain scans. The more lively scan shows someone watching the Doritos "Live the Flavor" commercial. The weaker one shows someone viewing the Emerald Nuts ad featuring entertainer Robert Goulet.
Aside from the relative triviality of Super Bowl ad responses, the technology is fueling a revolution in scientific understanding of the brain and human emotions. In the last five years, fMRI has helped neuroscientists study human choices and behavior, laying the groundwork for the understanding of how people make decisions. Freedman said that the science is now also informing other academic fields like economics, sociology and, of course, marketing.
Through brain imaging, for example, FKF has found that people typically ignore between a third and half of all commercials. And while the Super Bowl is known for its standout and pricey commercials (advertisers reportedly dropped $2.6 million on 30-second spots this year), the 2007 Super Bowl was no exception. "The majority (of ads) elicited very little response," Freedman said.
Top-ranking ads
Coca-Cola: "Video Game"
Doritos: "Live the Flavor"
Bud Light: "Hitchhiker"
Worst-ranking ads
Emerald Nuts: "Robert Goulet"
Honda: "CRV Crave"
Sprint: "Connectile Dysfunction"
Source: FKF Applied Research
The commercials that did fire up people's neurons were largely playing on human fears and anxieties, according to Freedman. That's a recipe for bad marketing, he said, because people typically filter out such commercials after their first viewing.
"This clearly was the year of the amygdala, the brain's 'threat detector,'" he said.
As a result, the big losers were ads like GM's "Robot," which shows a carmaking robot that becomes depressed when it loses its factory job. Another low scorer was Sprint's "Connectile Dysfunction"--a play on erectile dysfunction ads, but for broadband.
The worst commercial, according to FKF, was Emerald Nuts' commercial, which shows entertainer Robert Goulet messing with office workers' stuff while they're asleep.
So if these commercials spark anxiety so well, why aren't they more successful? Freedman said that the brain works in a modular fashion, and a person can be like the CEO of many little brains, weighing various responses in the background like, "Does this make me feel safe? Is this something I want? Will this make me more desirable?" In general, when people are anxious, they will push away whatever is making them feel that way.
In the positive column, FKF found that Doritos' "Live the Flavor" commercial ran neck and neck with Coca-Cola. Doritos' 30-second spot depicted two people--a guy in a car and a girl on the street (each with a bag of Doritos)--who become instantly smitten and then fumble around until they meet.
There's something to be said for chemistry.
http://news.com.com/Who+really+won+during+the+Super+Bowl/2100-1008_3-6156330.html?tag=nefd.lede
Sunday, February 4, 2007
American Apparel: Is their CEO the best brand steward?
I was watching "Sunday Morning"on CBS this morning and at first was really impressed. I didn't know that much about the company, but I knew that it was taking the US by storm. Their "no frills" advertising and "retro" design seemed to be truly all american.
After watching the segment and understanding more about the company and the brand, I was even more impressed. Not only do the products and advertising reflect the brand, but company's culture and mission are founded on the same priniciples. Everything from manufacturing in the US, to the anti-sweat shop mentality were truly impressive. Paying reasonable wages, on site english lessons, subsidized lunch, reasonable healthcare, really gave me that warm and fuzzy feeling. I saw myself wanting to be part of this and willing to purchase product, even if it cost a bit more.
That's when they introduced the CEO...
He seemed a bit sketchy, had nude pictures on his wall, and had been charged with multiple counts of sexual harrasment. Is this the guy I would really want representing my company and brand? Well, I guess the problem is that he founded the company.
What do you do? Do you support a company like this? Would you support this brand?
After watching the segment and understanding more about the company and the brand, I was even more impressed. Not only do the products and advertising reflect the brand, but company's culture and mission are founded on the same priniciples. Everything from manufacturing in the US, to the anti-sweat shop mentality were truly impressive. Paying reasonable wages, on site english lessons, subsidized lunch, reasonable healthcare, really gave me that warm and fuzzy feeling. I saw myself wanting to be part of this and willing to purchase product, even if it cost a bit more.
That's when they introduced the CEO...
He seemed a bit sketchy, had nude pictures on his wall, and had been charged with multiple counts of sexual harrasment. Is this the guy I would really want representing my company and brand? Well, I guess the problem is that he founded the company.
What do you do? Do you support a company like this? Would you support this brand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
