Archive for the ‘Marketing Without Meaning’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Starbucks Takes a Step Waaay Back

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

Starbucks used to be the “it” brand in marketing circles. For years we praised its high-quality product, its infinite number of personalized orders, its friendly serving baristas, its freakishly loyal fans, and the company’s status as a “third place” in our lives between home and work. But sales are down, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts are catching up, the brand is closing stores, and the company is desperate to pump up sales. This is certainly new ground for Starbucks and its CEO and founder, Howard Schultz. But that’s no excuse for this once forward-thinking company to delve into sponsoring a second-tier cable morning show. Alas, it seems the end may be nigh for this once-proud brand.

Yesterday we learned that Starbucks has entered a marketing deal with the MSNBC show Morning Joe with host Joe Scarborough, at a reported investment of “over $10 million.” The show has officially added a Starbucks logo and changed its name to “Morning Joe Brewed by Starbucks.” The hosts suggest that in the future they might broadcast from Starbucks locations. In the video here you can see that everyone is pretty excited about the deal. In a press release, Howard Schultz even claims this is meaningful marketing:

“This relationship is an example of the targeted approach we are taking to reach our customers in a meaningful fashion and highlight our exceptional coffee and values which have built our brand from the beginning.”

I doubt the Morning Joe audience or Starbucks loyalists are very excited. For evidence, take a read of my post last year about the negative reaction to McDonald’s similar sponsorship of the morning newscast at a Las Vegas FOX affiliate. Viewers don’t appreciate the mix between their news content and marketing interruptions. Conservatives who believe MSNBC is too liberal will turn against the brand (note that FOX & Friends has the #1 cable morning news ratings spot), and I doubt MSNBC will be as quick to report in on the brand’s troubles and controversies. There is nothing positive for the viewer such as fewer commercial breaks or better reporting. This is marketing without meaning.

Fans and employees of the brand over at the Starbucks Gossip blog don’t seem to be too thrilled about this deal. Comments include:

How much “in store labor” could $10,000,000 bring for better customer service? only time will tell if this is a good investment along with the $100,000,000 spent on the new ad campaigns.”

“Also…Morning Joe?? Really?? How relevant is that show to the coveted “Gen Y” demographic I thought Starbucks was going after with the next version of its digital strategy?”

“That adds up to 1,000 barista jobs that had to be cut for this worthless programing. I’ll give it one season before it is off the air due to low ratings. No one wants to watch a 3 hour long commercial.”

The remarkably sad story here is that for years Scarborough and crew have been drinking Starbucks on air and raving about the product for free. Now it costs $10 million for the same kind of airtime on a cable news show. I submit to you that this is a microcosm of what the brand is going through now across the nation: People are no longer proud to share their Starbucks passion, and require payment in the form of advertising reminders to keep buying the brand.

And, so, a once-great brand that generated its own marketing via great experiences and word of mouth must pay its way to relevance. I don’t have all of the answers for Starbucks. I certainly prefer efforts such as the My Starbucks Idea call for fan engagement, and the free coffee on election day. These are more meaningful efforts that forge brand relationships and pride, not to mention cost a lot less than $10 million to execute. This is one big step backward for Starbucks.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning | 7 Comments »

Gaming Product Placement Gone Wrong

Monday, May 18th, 2009

I’m starting to feel a little guilty for bashing Gatorade again on this blog. After twice firing at its “Got G?” campaign, it could look like some kind of personal vendetta. But I actually love the Gatorade brand and it is my choice for both after-hoops hydration and a drink to go with lunch at the deli. Maybe it’s because I love the brand so much that it kills me to see its marketing perform so poorly. I was actually hopeful last week when I saw the title of an article in Advertising Age about Gatorade winning an advertising award for its integration in the NBA 2K9 video game. Alas, I found the in-game placement anything but meaningful.

The product placement in question is a new addition for the annual NBA 2kX game franchise. For years, this popular NBA game with real players and teams has included advertising integration. Most of the in-game advertising mimics the real world. There are ads on and around the court, sponsored breaks in the action, and real branded clothing worn by the virtual players. I believe players accept and actually like these kinds of ads because they make the game seem more real. That said, they are pretty low on the meaning scale and likely become more wallpaper than anything.

This year the game did something new for Gatorade (at a special price, of course). It added something special, as best described in the brand’s application for a Cream award:

The Gatorade Thirst Meter [was] integrated seamlessly with the game’s artificial intelligence to recognize when a player was becoming dehydrated and losing energy. The “Gatorade Recommended Substitution” took over to designate which players should hit the bench for a quick Gatorade refill in real time. Once the player was sufficiently hydrated and his energy levels restored, he went back into the action. Dehydrated players who were not subbed out, began to show sluggish performance, indicated by a green Gatorade cup.

Marketers absolutely love this idea. Advertising Age wrote it up nicely, and it won the People’s Choice  Cream Award (those people being marketing folks) for Best Use of Gaming and Game Platforms. What’s not for a marketer to love? The brand being forced into the game play itself—that’s a high score!

Here’s where it gets interesting: Most game reviewers disliked the Gatorade integration. I searched beyond the marketers’ fawning and found some well-known reviewers who specifically pointed out Gatorade’s brand overload in both the Thirst Meter and its many other sign placements. For example:

  • “The biggest eyesore is the realistic overload of product placement. From the T-Mobile halftime report to Team Jordan player of the game to the Gatorade Thirst Meter, it gets exhausting.” —Planet Xbox 360
  • “Two things that do affect game play, however, are the Gatorade logos at the beginning of the half and the play-calling menus. Both obscure a large portion of the screen, often making it impossible to see the ball handler. This is inexcusable. —CNet Reviews
  • “NBA 2K9 features a mix of useful, interesting, and somewhat silly features. In the silly department is the Gatorade “thirst meter” icons that appear if a player is getting tired. Previous games already had fatigue meters, so this is apparently a creative way to get some extra ad revenue.” —Game Trailers.com
  • “The in-game presentation is rather well done as far as the graphical displays go, with the score and stats being easily viewed. Some advertisements, particularly the Gatorade one, block a portion of the screen.” —Total PlayStation.com

I think the big issue here is that the Gatorade Thirst Meter crosses the line because it has little to do with real-world game play. Players want realism; they want to try and feel what it is like to play in the real game. Real games do not feature the issue of hydration. Yes, players get tired and need to hit the bench for a bit. Yes, they might grab a cup of Gatorade (or whatever brand has paid millions to be the official drink of the NBA). But coaches, players, and announcers do not focus on a cup of whatever as a key part of the game.

Most gamers might tolerate this, but, as the reviews suggest, the makers of NBA 2K9 had better be very careful. Games for consoles such as Xbox and PlayStation sell for $40 to $60 a pop, while the company makes considerably less than $1 per unit from advertising integration ($1 would be a CPM of $1,000, by the way). So, just a handful of pissed-off game players could destroy the economics of these games.

There are many, many other great opportunities for brand integration into games that actually can help sell more games. My favorite examples are the bands that are providing free songs for Guitar Hero and Rock Band, and I love how the movie Tropic Thunder provided an add-on scavenger hunt level for the game Rainbox 6: Vegas 2.

At the end of the day, game marketing must be completely focused on adding value to the gaming experience. Gatorade might have won over the marketing gurus, but I doubt the players came away smiling.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning | 3 Comments »

Cheerios Wakes Up to an FDA Warning

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Along with many other people in the marketing world, I was shocked to see that the FDA wrote a warning letter to General Mills, charging that it was making drug-like claims on its Cheerios brand. For two years, the brand has spent tens of millions of dollars on TV, print, packaging, and the Web to advertise the claim that “Cheerios lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks.” The Cheerios brand has been around for decades and many adults and children have been raised on the popular cereal. It has become what its agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, calls a “Lovemark.” But its words seem to have gone too far, and I believe the brand could have done more action to lower cholesterol and improve lives.

In analyzing this case, I first went to my friend and coworker, Jonathan Richman, a former pharma marketer who is now running Business Development at Bridge Worldwide. Richman recently created a new blog, Dose of Digital, where he has attracted a huge following to his posts on pharma and health care digital marketing. He provided some very compelling arguments that the FDA is doing the right thing by questioning the Cheerios claims:

This protects the public because it ensures that there is consistent enforcement of very clear rules for making medical claims in this country. If a pharma company didn’t bother to do a randomized, controlled trial and claimed that their new drug improved cholesterol, there would be an outrage in the public and the FDA would act almost instantly. Why is it different when a cereal company does it? If you let one company get away with it, you embolden others and lose all of the precedent that the FDA has carefully created over the years.”

Richman’s recommendation is for Cheerios to either drop the claim or to invest in the randomized, placebo-controlled trials with tens of thousands of people like pharma companies do. After 2 to 3 years including study time and considerable expense, the brand might have something that it can take to its advertising agency for TV and print ad production.

Richman and other experts predict that Cheerios will press the issue a bit but will eventually have to withdraw its claim and pull the heart off the box, as it should. But it didn’t have to be this way. I believe Cheerios missed an opportunity to make more of a commitment to its consumers by going beyond a claim and developing a program that can make a real, proven difference in people’s lives.

Let me share the example of one of our clients, the Glucerna brand at Abbott Nutrition. Glucerna is a brand of shakes, cereals, and bars for people with diabetes. These products offer a meal replacement or supplement for a group that has to watch its food carefully. Glucerna has a slow-absorbing carbohydrate, among other benefits, which helps avoid blood sugar spikes.

More than seven years ago, the Glucerna brand saw an opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the lives of people with diabetes. In 2002, it created Diabetes Control for Life, a customizable program that helps people change their lifestyle and eat better, exercise more, and measure their blood sugar levels more often. The program does not require people to eat or drink Glucerna, but it suggests meals and snacks where its products are a good choice. Other foods can easily be substituted in the plan.

The company funded a 24-week clinical study to prove the benefits of the program, which were significant:

  • Average of 7.5% weight loss
  • 61% reported lower A1C levels.
  • 73% felt more confident in managing their disease.

Five years ago, we moved the Diabetes Control for Life program to the Web, which includes a very in-depth interactive meal and exercise tracker. We have continually added many other features to help people with diabetes, including a diabetes glossary, discussion board, and ability to IM a dietitian. Traffic continues to increase and other retailers and brands have partnered with us to expand the program.

Cheerios could have done something along these lines. A vast majority of its spending has been on traditional marketing of its claim through mass media. At Cheerios.com there are a few resources for overall cholesterol improvement, essentially a handful of articles and a printable PDF tracking sheet.

With a more comprehensive plan that offers more resources and doesn’t require Cheerios consumption, plus proven test results over many weeks, the brand might have been able to make more than a supposed 4% improvement in cholesterol levels, and it might not have the FDA breathing down its back today.

But it’s not too late! If the brand truly believes that it can make a difference and is truly committed to improving consumers’ health, it can pull back for now, and build out a bigger and better program. So, General Mills, call the lawyers back, pull the claim off the market, and drop us a line if you’re ready to embrace true marketing with meaning.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in healthcare, Marketing Without Meaning | No Comments »

Big Brands Borrowing Interest Everywhere

Monday, May 11th, 2009

I’ve been watching more live television than normal lately, mainly because I’ve gotten the NBA Playoffs bug. Something that has amazed me as I dip back into “normal” non-ad-skipped TV viewing is that there are a LOT of television commercials for big brands that advertise completely different products. Here are some examples:

Microsoft advertises Quiksilver. In this ad, Microsoft plays a sketchy and scratchy phone interview with Quiksilver President and CEO Bob McKnight, and we learn that “without technology, we would be nowhere.” There’s nothing in the ad about Microsoft, other than an animated, wadded-up piece of paper suggesting that Microsoft technology is “people ready.”

AT&T advertises TOMS Shoes. In the ad below, we follow the day of Blake, Chief Shoe Giver of TOMS Shoes. During a 30-second span, we learn that for every pair of shoes the company sells, it actually gives away a pair to a child in need. Blake is running around the world giving away shoes, so he depends on a global communication network that works. While his company doesn’t clearly endorse or even mention AT&T, there is a simulated, branded screen on Blake’s BlackBerry.

TrueNorth Snacks advertises Inspiration Cafe. This is one of a handful of ads in which TrueNorth (a Frito-Lay brand) highlights the story of an individual who is improving the world. The ad below (which I wrote about in this blog post a few months ago), tells the story of Lisa Nigro, who created the Inspiration Cafe to serve Chicago’s homeless population with dignity and respect.

There you have it: Three really big companies are spending millions of dollars on media and commercial production to advertise other brands. In each case, the spending brand plays a very minor part in the background of the message, somehow “powering” the featured businesses, or in TrueNorth’s case, sharing a mission to change the world.

My Takeaways:

1. Many brands are struggling to find a purpose and become meaningful. The fact that these brands cannot find a way to stand out on their own suggests a breakdown in their brand equities. I cannot fault these brands for leveraging others’ stories to break through and attempt to connect with their target customers, but I believe borrowed interest is very, very difficult to win with in today’s market. First, in a 30-second sitting when people are barely paying attention, they are lucky to recall the featured brand, much less the “sponsor” of the ad. My wife, for example, recalled everything about the TOMS Shoes commercial when the topic came up over dinner the other night, but she had no clue that AT&T was involved.

Second, people love TOMS Shoes for what it does, and likely cast aside the very weak connection to whatever global communications network the company happens to use. Further, I find it weak that none of these brands is actually doing something to be part of the mission/vision of the organizations they are borrowing interest from. AT&T is not offering free mobile service to TOMS Shoes efforts around the world, and TrueNorth is not actually helping establish new Inspiration Cafes around the country.

2. Meaningful brands attract attention, and maybe even free advertising. I tell people all of the time that there has never been a better time to launch a new brand. The costs of launching a new product are declining everywhere thanks to contract manufacturing efficiency and low-cost global marketing tools on the Web. All you need is a quality product, great story, and some fans to personally spread the buzz. Now add in the fact that big companies just might swoop in and put tens of millions of dollars of marketing support into your lap for the chance to borrow your mojo. Hell, the ads above show that your new brand doesn’t even have to explicitly endorse the big spenders.

So what should Microsoft, AT&T, and TrueNorth be doing instead? Simple: not rest until they have found a way for their brands to become cherished by their customers. Commit the entire organization to a brand purpose that resonates with the target customer, and then create marketing that itself delivers meaning.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, non-profit | 3 Comments »

Results Update from Previous Posts

Monday, April 27th, 2009

On Friday afternoon, I was trading blog war stories with my friend Jonathan Richman (check out his fantastic healthcare marketing blog, Dose of Digital). We agreed that it was unfortunate that some great posts that we wrote early on in our blogging days were basically unseen because they came before we had a critical mass of readers. That’s a shame because there’s some good content back there. At the same time, I don’t want to simply republish old work. But today I have a solution: I will bring new data to two older posts that can add value for recent and longtime readers alike.

Hyundai’s Assurance Program

Back in January, I wrote about Hyundai’s novel promise to allow customers to return cars if they lost their jobs during the time of a lease or loan repayment. Some of the reasons I loved the program include:

  • New and novel idea at a time when people need economic insurance the most
  • Plays on the insight that a lot of people really are delaying big purchases such as this
  • Differentiates a small player in a big market
  • Draws enormous free PR coverage
  • Builds a very positive long-term equity for Hyundai, a brand that has struggled to break through

Even within its first weeks, Hyundai spokespeople claimed that the results were encouraging and traffic to their dealer lots was up.

Today, just about everyone knows that this program has been a grand slam for Hyundai. Sales for Hyundai were up 14% in January 2009 compared to the previous year, while the entire industry’s sales are down dramatically, including GM and Ford down 32% and 42%, respectively. Meanwhile, not a single customer had returned a car through March!

The only downside of the program is that it was quickly copied by others. GM and Ford now have programs that match it, and Hyundai has added an Assurance Plus program that will fund your car payment for 90 days if you lose your job. Meanwhile, many other companies have been inspired by the economy and Hyundai’s example, including Pfizer, JetBlue and the Minnesota Timberwolves. And there’s now a parody ad of the Hyundai program.

Gatorade’s “Got G?” Campaign

In another post from January, I wrote against the raft of new equity campaigns from brands such as Honda and Coke—my point being that these brands under pressure are simply using the old playbook of hiring a new agency and trotting out another meaningless and interruptive TV campaign. I saved my biggest dose of venom for Gatorade, which has just launched a campaign called “Got G?” The screenshot below pretty much sums it up:

According to the Sarah Robb O’Hagan, Gatorade’s chief marketing officer, as written in Slate, “…the idea behind the new look and the new ad campaign is to make the brand feel more contemporary and to appeal to the next generation of electrolyte drinkers.”

Here’s what I disliked about the Gatorade solution to its rising challengers and a crowded market:

  • Overall, the new generation isn’t watching television, and they don’t respond to an advertiser’s slick message jammed in their faces. I believe this ad is what a group of 30-year ad-agency veterans would think that the next generation wants.
  • People won’t spend their time searching Google to figure out what your new TV campaign is about.
  • Pure equity ads that add no value won’t work anymore. You can no longer tell and sell.
  • Gatorade missed an opportunity to add value to athletes’ lives, like Nike has with Nike+ and countless events and training websites.
  • The star-studded lineup of actors in the ads signifies only that the client had a big budget; consumers see through this today.

Well, Gatorade spent millions on expensive actors, high-end commercial production, and heavy media weights during major sports events. The brand also underwent packaging changes that focused on the “G” of the brand. This was the brand’s big move to regain momentum. A second ad with Kevin Garnett and others offered a mock-up of Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Again, more sizzle but no steak.

The results are now in: Gatorade sales were down 13.7% in the first quarter of 2009. Yep, that’s in a quarter in which it likely spent well north of $50 million on media and commercial production. About half of the sales decline can be attributed to a 6.3% drop in category sales, but Gatorade also lost 6.4% share. Gatorade’s only strategy now seems to be suing Powerade for product disparagement. That’s just another old-school strategy that won’t work either.

I actually like the Gatorade brand a lot as a consumer. I first got turned onto it while running 10k races as a 12-year-old in Atlanta. Back then it was really like a secret formula for athletes. Today it’s my drink of choice at the convenience store. But the brand could be so much more, and the solution is sitting in front of it in the form of case studies from brands in its own (Pepsi) holding company, such as Doritos, Mountain Dew, and SunChips. All three brands have created marketing that people choose to engage with—marketing that itself improves people’s lives. And all are seeing sales increase despite tough competitors and a sagging economy.

Tags: ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, Solution | 2 Comments »

Ad Agencies to Blame for Recession?

Friday, April 24th, 2009

There is no shortage of people to blame for the economic crisis that we find ourselves in today. Rogue traders, greedy i-bankers, poor government, and credit-card companies just to name a few. But yesterday I discovered the latest group in the bull’s-eye of angry public opinion: those of us who work at advertising agencies. It’s yet another shot against a group that is traditionally rated alongside lawyers and used-car salesmen in terms of public respect, and another example of how we need to collectively get our act together.

A Harris Poll released on April 15 asked more than 2,000 people, “How much responsibility, if any, should the following groups take for the current economic crisis because they caused people to buy things they couldn’t afford?” As you can see in the chart above, advertising agencies received the highest share of the blame among the group, with 66% of people assigning us at least some responsibility for the country’s troubles.

Interestingly, I tweeted this survey result yesterday and got back some interesting responses. (Side note: This proves another real benefit of Twitter; you can get instant feedback and create a “micro-discussion” at any time). Some of the responses were:

  • @leighhouse: “Could be that 66% of consumers are just looking to blame someone, anyone to blame”
  • @caffeinatedkate: “That article makes me think of someone blaming the baker for making the donuts they can’t stop eating”
  • @adamkmiec: “We share part of the blame. We don’t have to do the work. Are agencies doing cigarette ads part of the prob?”
  • @LeighGeorge: “Sounds like the Twinkie defense to me ;)

Three of the four responses here show a very rational defense of our industry. I would also throw in there that the survey is pretty slanted toward putting ad agencies in the worst light—after all, where are the other groups that bear a lot of the responsibility? The people at the Harris Poll even admit that, “Americans are angry and upset about the state of the economy and need someone or some group to blame.”

I feel this survey and this view of advertising agencies is unfair. But then again, everyone was warned at an early age that life is not fair. We as an industry have to accept society’s judgment: We’re currently seen as part of the problem.

But we can choose to do something about this perception and strive to be part of the solution. Every person in our industry can choose to shift away from the activities that anger consumers, and embrace the meaningful-marketing mantra that I’ve been dedicated to sharing with you here.

Years ago agencies started to shy away from certain products that fell across the moral line as judged by the court of public opinion; the biggest example is cigarettes. Many passed on the chance to collect millions in fees because it was not worth the ethical cost. It’s going to take a lot longer, but what if account planners, creative directors, and client service managers around the world woke up tomorrow and decided to begin dedicating themselves to more meaningful marketing—and started driving their clients and teams to accept the reality that interruption is no longer working, nor is it responsible.

And if I get off my earnest high horse for a minute, this is not just about doing work we feel more proud of—it’s plainly about doing the kind of work that consumers will choose to engage with and tell their friends about. It’s the kind of work that is going to keep meaningful-marketing practitioners employed.

So let’s admit the reality that we’re part of the problem, and start striving to lead the world to a much more meaningful solution. In the next few months, create a community for like-minded marketers. It’s going to be a kind of tribe that I hope will become much bigger than me and much bigger than Bridge Worldwide. And I hope you will choose to join us.

Tags: ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning | 2 Comments »

An Offensive ESPN Ad Unit

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

This is my favorite month of the year: March Madness. As a Duke grad (hopefully that didn’t lose me too many readers), basketball is in my blood. And when I have spare minutes I am constantly checking out the latest and greatest news and analysis as my Blue Devils prepare for their next game in the NCAA tourney. Like many sports fans, I choose ESPN.com as my go-to website. But I was shocked and angered recently to see that ESPN is hosting advertising that uses the names and IQs of student-athletes. This is an offensive and likely illegal practice that must be stopped immediately.

I took the screen grab above from the bottom of an article about Duke’s basketball team. Note that one of the Duke players, Kyle Singler, is specifically mentioned in the ad. Further, his IQ is claimed. There are so many problems with this ad, but let’s focus on the main two: (1) an amateur student-athlete’s name is mentioned as part of an advertisement; and (2) the ad claims to know his IQ score, a very personal number that I guarantee Singler never provided to this company.

The ad comes from a program ESPN is running called “Quigo Ads.” It’s a copy of the Google AdWords model in that you can quickly create and place small ads according to keywords and only pay when they are clicked. As this Kyle Singler ad proves, the restrictions on content are very limited.

Shame on ESPN for allowing this reprehensible form of advertising to exist on its website, and for what? I can’t imagine that these tiny, hidden, idiotic ads get more than a few bucks per week, likely a rounding error in the billions of dollars that ESPN rakes in each year from legitimate marketers.

I believe that publishers must take 100 percent responsibility for the advertising that is displayed on their pages. The national TV networks force advertisers to share proof of claims data before approving commercial runs. Even Google closely monitors legal regulations around the world and screens out ads that do not meet the standards.

ESPN is hurting the image of the very athletes that fuel its core business, including college athletes who don’t make a dime from the billions that they help churn out for ESPN each year. I will be writing to ESPN to register my unhappiness and I suggest you do as well.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning | No Comments »

TrueNorth Needs ‘Acts, Not Ads’

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

“Without action, thought can never ripen into truth.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson

Several people over the past week or two pointed me to a new campaign for the TrueNorth snack brand from Frito-Lay, suggesting that its ad campaign might be a good example of Marketing with Meaning. The brand broke a television campaign during the Oscars last week, celebrating the efforts of individuals who are making a difference in the world. But does the new campaign bring meaning to customers’ lives? Does it support its good thoughts with actionable deeds? I’m not so sure…

Back in fall 2008, the TrueNorth brand began a search for inspiring stories from real people. The prize offered was $25,000 and a chance to have one’s story turned into a 60-second commercial directed by Helen Hunt during the Academy Awards. The winner was Lisa Nigro, founder of Inspiration Cafe, which feeds homeless people. Other ads featured the stories of a program that organizes kids to gather pennies to help others in need, and an environmental program in the Bronx.

These are worthy causes and moving stories, but I’m not sure this passes the test of meaningful marketing. There are two basic tenants that we believe marketing with meaning must fulfill: (1) it is marketing that people choose to engage with; and (2) it is marketing that itself improves people’s lives.

My biggest problem with the campaign is that it is simply a television ad with a small contest attached. The brand has chosen one of the largest interruptive advertising audiences, the Oscars. These awards are known as “The Super Bowl for Women” because they provide a large audience for advertisers, and they come at a cost of $1.4 million per ad for media alone. It is one of the few remaining “scale” tools for reaching a large audience, but simply airing an ad—no matter how meaningful the story—is not engaging. And it’s a stretch to say that a simple commercial—even one directed by Helen Hunt—can itself improve people’s lives.

It’s a strong positive to read that more than 1,000 stories were submitted, but I grow concerned that a special YouTube channel with behind-the-scenes Helen Hunt coverage has gotten less than 150 views.

It is not a completely meaningless campaign, and I believe TrueNorth does have potential with its brand and marketing. I love that the brand has a desire to “own the idea of finding your singular passion.” Although it might seem a stretch for a nut brand to think it can stand for this, the right kind of marketing can make a successful connection. But an ad campaign alone is not enough.

Overall, I believe that TrueNorth is halfway to the promised land. On the positive side, it has recognized the need to become a purpose-based brand. As described by Jim Stengel and Roy Spence, brands with a purpose have a guiding drive to improve consumers’ lives in a higher-level way. Pampers has a purpose of “helping moms develop healthy, happy babies” and the purpose of Southwest Airlines is to “democratize air travel.” TrueNorth has a purpose of helping people pursue their personal passions.

But it falls down on the marketing execution of its purpose. The marketing itself must fulfill the purpose, not just shout the purpose aloud. Pampers fulfills its purpose with cause-related marketing that donates vaccinations to poor children. Southwest fulfills its purpose with a desktop widget that notifies people when their favorite routes are on sale. To quote too many marketing gurus to credit here, TrueNorth needs “acts, not ads.”

TrueNorth needs more than an ad campaign—it needs to trigger actions that help people actually fulfill their dreams of improving the world. While expensive ads might inspire some, imagine what else the brand could do to actually help make a difference. It could shift the $1.4 million Oscars buy toward investing in small businesses and worthy causes, it could sponsor local events and activities, and it could help organizations attract donations from corporate sponsors. TrueNorth might hire community activists to run its marketing instead of traditional MBAs and advertising agencies.

If these ideas are not inspiring enough, TrueNorth can look to its sister brands at Frito-Lay. Doritos has embraced participatory marketing by hosting contests for young adults to create commercials or name its next flavor. And SunChips has gone as far as to build a new solar power plant to truly live what it stands for.

Kudos to TrueNorth for a noble beginning, but I hope it changes course toward a more true course to marketing with meaning.

But maybe I’m being too tough on the brand. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, purpose | 3 Comments »

Bailouts Sparking an Ad Revolution

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

Last week, my friend Rick Miller sent me a link to the Twitter post above. It seems that Frank O’Mahony, a self-described “Dad, eTwit, tech-driven realtor, immigrant, happy SantaFean,” is not happy that Citibank is using its billions of dollars in federal funding on wasteful advertising during the television programs he watches. And, so, my friends, this is how the traditional advertising world ends—not with a bang, but with a Twitter.

I have written here often that the catalyst of great change in marketing is the rise of the empowered consumer. Usually we think of “empowered” in terms of media; consumers can use DVRs to skip our ads, hit shuffle on their iPods instead of listening to commercial radio, and get their news and weather from websites instead of newspapers and the 11 o’clock news.

New technology and media choices are certainly a huge factor in the marketing world, but another, perhaps more powerful force is the growing number of consumers who are actively fighting against advertising through public protest and government legislation. The Federal Do Not Call Registry was a celebrated bill that led 76 percent of all Americans to register their phone numbers and threaten the $80 billion telemarketing business. Sao Paulo banned outdoor advertising throughout the city. And people are even organizing to protest annoying, repetitive ads such as Toyota’s “Saved By Zero” campaign.

So it comes as no shock that the sweeping bailout programs across banking, automotive, and other industries are coming with a big string attached: They give taxpayers more of a voice to question advertising that seems wasteful of their hard-earned dollars. Frank O’Mahony’s cry out on the fast-growing soapbox of Twitter is just one of many complaints that are happening across the country. Other examples are spreading quickly:

  • Bank of America, which just received $45 billion in bailout funds, was attacked by Congressman Elijah Cummings for spending $10 million on sponsoring the NFL, including a pregame carnival and free luxury box for executives.
  • GM, a regular Super Bowl advertiser and NFL sponsor, chose not to advertise in or attend the game this year, in part because of public pressure resulting from its own multibillion-dollar bailout.
  • Morgan Stanley, which just laid off 5,000 people and took $10 billion in government aid, went through with a three-day client conference in the five-star Breakers resort in South Florida.
  • Citibank has been criticized for pushing forward on its $400 million sponsorship deal for naming rights to the new New York Mets baseball stadium. This comes after the bank received $45 billion in funding and the government just took ownership of 36 percent of the company’s stock.

I believe these protests are just the first signs of a tsunami of consumer outcry. The worse the economy gets and the more taxpayer dollars are pumped into failing companies, the more that people will demand from business. Of course this will hit various issues, such as CEO pay, for example. But expect wasteful advertising to take a very hard hit. The problem for advertising is that everyone is exposed to it so often that it is a very visible example of a company’s actions—and so much of it is personally annoying and obviously misspent.

Any company that has or expects to accept government funding needs to pull its marketing team together and fundamentally rethink everything it does. The right course is to use the crisis and public pressure to fully embrace Marketing with Meaning. Marketing that itself improves people’s lives is not only an incredible business-building proposition (as described in nearly 100 blog posts here), but it is the kind of marketing that is defensible—even embraced—by the tax-paying public.

A shift to meaningful marketing just might be another powerful return on taxpayers’ trillions of dollars in business investments.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government, Marketing Without Meaning | 1 Comment »

Cessna Flies Into a Headwind

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009

Last week Advertising Age published a fascinating case study of a company in the crosshairs of changing times: The Cessna brand is seeing sales slow not only due to the overall economy but additionally because media coverage and everyday citizens have made corporate jets the new pariah. Exhibit A is the virtual riot against the Big 3 CEOs who all flew to Washington, D.C., in their own jets. What to do? An advertising campaign, of course! But Cessna’s strategy looks flawed from the beginning.

Cessna has decided to support its business by releasing full-page advertisements in the Wall Street Journal, with a copy message (see above) that essentially encourages corporate executives to ignore the naysayers (“Timidity didn’t get you this far”), and to continue to use “the full range of tools to do your job.” While this attitude might help a few CEOs screw up their courage and ignore the complaints from shareholders or the finance department, I believe Cessna is doing a disservice to its customers with this campaign.

There are a few big reasons why this campaign won’t stop the bleeding. First, it defies reason to expect that a full-page print ad is enough to tip a corporate executive into feeling better about flying a personal jet. “Taking advice from print ads” didn’t get them this far either. If anyone actually bothers to read the ad while flipping through articles, he or she would be more likely to see this as a blatant self-interested message.

But the bigger issue is that Cessna is completely ignoring the winds of change, which no well-placed print ad can hold back. Private jets are expensive, luxurious, and out-of-reach of most workers in this country. Those of us who fly around the world for a living (and are increasingly told to take coach overseas or drive 90 minutes to a cheaper airport) resent that top leaders get to avoid the surly security guards and greasy food-court meals. Other workers who are losing their jobs and benefits cringe at the idea that their bosses are too good for commercial travel.

Because of economic pressure and growing excesses at the top, the court of public opinion has shifted, and private jets are much less acceptable than only a few years ago. Cessna cannot change the movement of public opinion, and it will fail as a company if it doesn’t figure out how to change its image to adapt to modern times.

The good news is that I believe Cessna can shift public thinking by moving to Marketing with Meaning instead. What if the company started by focusing on its customers’ situation. Here’s one thought: The CEO with a private plane is feeling pressure from shareholders and stakeholders and is looking for ways to pare back for PR sake at least. Cessna could do something to meet this need while propping up its demand and brand image.

For example, Cessna could create a private social network that executives could use to coordinate flight sharing. After all, many executive offices are clustered around the same metro areas and they often travel to the same large cities or customer locations. Throw in the fact that they just might enjoy some value from the networking opportunities, and grow some much-needed digital sensibility.

Another option is for Cessna to create a software system that companies could use to coordinate flights by other employees who have reason to go to the same destination. Both systems would take some extra effort by executives’ administrators, but imagine the boost in media and public opinion that both Cessna’s customers and its brand would enjoy. I guarantee that both moves would generate significant, positive news coverage.

By being part of a solution instead of generating more problems, Cessna has a chance to salvage its image and its sales. My examples might not be perfect, but they show that meaningful marketing ideas can be generated very quickly as soon as you start thinking about how you can solve customers’ problems by doing something through the marketing itself.

UPDATE: JetBlue is advertising a welcome to C-Suiters who are downgraded to commercial flight. More of a laugh than actually adding value, though.

Tags: ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »