Posts Tagged ‘gatorade’

Cannes Takeaways Days 3/4 #canneslions

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

As we get closer to our Burning Question seminar on Friday I’ve had less time than usual to relay my thoughts and discussions here in this space. I’m forced to combine topics from Wednesday and Thursday (today) here in Cannes, and in fact I only wanted to touch on one takeaway today—but it’s a good one.

Content Creators Are Waiting for Brands

Lots of people have written or spoken about how brands are becoming media properties and how they can spawn the stars of tomorrow, but this idea never truly crystallized for me until viewing relevant, related seminars over the past two days.

On Wednesday, master director Spike Jonze spoke about his work on everything from short films to television commercials to major motion pictures such as the recent Where the Wild Things Are. He spoke about how he loves to work with brands when they come to him with an idea that excites him. It can be a music video for Bjork or a commercial for the Gap in which he got to destroy a store. Jonze talked about how he often works with agencies to re-imagine the ideas that they bring him—usually tearing up all of the “junk” that got added to the brief or after dozens of client meetings.

His biggest advice for the hundreds of creatives in the room: “The most powerful weapon you have is ‘No.’” Jonze said he took his fair share of bad projects, but he eventually learned that only work that excited him would result in a positive result. It’s a lesson that I believe more brands (personal and corporate) must learn.

Thursday’s highlight for me was the annual Saatchi & Saatchi New Directors Showcase. For 90 minutes we saw a series of short films from some of the most talented rising film directors in the world. Examples ranged from the comedic (Drunk History) to delightful (Tone of Every Day) to animated (I Lived on the Moon).

The usual purpose of this 20-year-old event is to expose agencies to talent who might be great at filming their commercials someday. But after seeing dozens of examples of great branded content—rather than a raft of 30-second ads—I came to see the new model falling into place before my eyes. Whether it’s big name directors such as Spike Jonze or up-and-comers such as those in the Saatchi showcase, clients and agencies of all types were looking not for commercial directors, but rather for partners who could help bring ideas to life.

These directors have the stories, the passion, and the ability to capture people’s imagination—but they often lack the resources or opportunities to put their ideas in front of a large audience. Brands have the money and desire to connect with consumers, but most are not in the business of creating entertainment. So putting them together could make magic.

But it’s no longer about hiring a young director to film your commercial. It’s about crafting content and giving up control to the artist. It’s Gatorade filming a replay of a high school football game. It’s Red Bull sponsoring a rising fashion designer. If you get this right, the result just might be Marketing with Meaning.

On Deck for Tomorrow…

I don’t want to give away all of the special things we have planned for our Burning Question seminar Friday at 5:15 p.m. Cannes time (or 11:15 a.m. for those back in the ET). But I will share one secret for readers of this blog. We’re going to be opening up our seminar tomorrow with a live lead-in by a group of “parkours” who we flew over from California. Parkouring or “free running” is a new type of sport in which athletes turn everyday signposts, buildings, and other street-side objects into a jungle gym. We’ve been filming them jumping and leaping all week in Cannes, and they will come from the streets into our seminar tomorrow. Our goal is to shake people up with some entertainment to close out a huge day of seminars and it should be a fun way to start. If you’re reading this in Cannes, you don’t want to miss it. And if you don’t happen to be in the South of France tomorrow we will be sure to capture everything on video at burningquestion.com.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Pepsi-Cola Brands Add Meaningful Mojo

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

In this blog and my book I’ve written often about my goal to drive a fundamental shift in the way that the marketing function is performed—rather than just some small experiments as part of a traditional, interruptive campaign, true change will only occur when major companies change their organizational alignment toward Marketing with Meaning. Well, dear readers, when I look at the pattern of work that is coming from the Pepsi-Cola brands I begin to gain confidence that the shift is indeed happening.

There certainly have been other companies that are farther down the road of turning Marketing with Meaning into their way of doing business. In my book I talk about Pepsi’s Frito-Lay subsidiary, which has shifted remarkably along these lines with brands such as SunChips and Doritos. There’s also some major change going on at Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble. Until recently Pepsi has been known more for continuing the pattern of big, traditional advertising campaigns. Its “Got G” campaign for Gatorade last year did not reverse a sales decline, and a rebranding effort on Tropicana bombed.

But if you were writing a history of Meaningful Marketing today you would have to call out Sunday, February 7, 2010. It was Super Bowl Sunday, if you remember, and it will be noted in the Museum of Advertising as the day that Pepsi decided not to advertise for the first time in 23 years. Instead, the brand quietly launched The Pepsi Refresh Project weeks earlier, an effort to provide funding to individuals and groups with important causes. Some say that Pepsi won by not wasting dollars on the big game, but I believe we all won because the company showed us how even a huge brand built on traditional, interruptive advertising could shift to Marketing with Meaning with a big idea.

But Pepsi Refresh has been the first of other major steps down this path of a new way of marketing. Another great example is the latest innovations on Gatorade. After years of simply reminding us that Gatorade exists with the assistance of a phalanx of highly paid celebrity endorsers, the brand has gone back to its roots in innovation. It recently launched a line called G Series with different SKUs for Before, During, and After a workout. Here the brand is giving its buyers something that is specifically formulated for each step, and instead of pricey pitchmen, the marketing is direct, informative, and—because the product is unique—interesting. This is the innovative brand that I’ve missed for years, and I look forward to trying this new regimen in my next long run. It is a reminder that Marketing with Meaning starts with a meaningfully different and beneficial product.

Another great example of the shift at Pepsi-Cola is the next chapter in DEWmocracy. I first wrote about this user-driven campaign around new Mountain Dew flavors in my book. It was originally launched in 2007, and I included this case study in my chapter about how you can turn a one-time meaningful idea into an ongoing source of engagement and sales. Even way back then, Frank Cooper, Vice President of Marketing for Mountain Dew, alluded to chance for this to be much more than a one-time win. Back then he said:

“If we get a significant reaction, we think there’s an opportunity to expand this game into a broader online property. We’re seeking feedback from the consumer about what parts of the game they enjoy; is the story resonating? And if it is, we do have plans to expand it.”

Over two years later, the latest “game” of DEWmocracy has launched its third iteration with a very impressive and engaging execution. It’s not the immersive game that was more appropriate for the Web in 2008; instead, the brand has evolved to use even more consumer creativity and direct involvement. Trucks sampled several new flavors with more than 200,000 people across the U.S. And 50 “Dew Labs” fanatics were chosen to narrow down to the final three flavor/color/name candidates. The brand then offered designers and art schools the chance to create the next can. And now Mountain Dew is tapping small agencies, digital content creators, and other small producers to create TV ads for each flavor. Even media companies such as CollegeHumor are campaigning for their ideas to win.

It’s no wonder that Frank Cooper was recently promoted to the role of Chief Consumer Engagement Officer and last week was listed as #6 on the Advertising Age Entertainment A-List.  Advertising Age praised the fact that Mountain Dew retained 80% of the citrus soda market from 2006 to 2008, despite seeing traditional media spending cut in half.

Three big beverage brands, all moving toward Marketing with Meaning, and all doing it in ways that are differentiated based on their brand equity and target consumer. I call it a trend. And I’m excited to announce that we will include executives from Pepsi in our “Burning Question” seminar at the Cannes Advertising Festival this June. We’ll get the chance to learn more about how this company is shifting its marketing approach toward purpose and meaning, and gain insights on how even a giant, traditional advertiser can learn new tricks.

We have a lot more news coming about our Cannes event in the weeks ahead!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Organizational Behavior | 1 Comment »

Pepsi Cuts All Ad Spending: Consider the Possibilities

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Onion Pepsi

A few weeks ago, one of the most re-tweeted links among us marketing geeks was The Onion’s article claiming “Pepsi to Cease Advertising.” The article is a classic, hilarious piece from the online newspaper equivalent of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, and many of us had a short chuckle and went back to work. But on second thought, maybe this article isn’t so crazy after all….

This week I got to spend some time with Frederic Colas, Chief Strategic Officer for giant European digital agency, FullSIX. We both are former P&G guys who left to take similar roles in digital agencies. We were talking about our concept of Marketing with Meaning, and Frederic brought up this Onion article as something that was suggesting what meaningful marketing is all about: dumping the traditional, interruptive model  and moving all funds to something that consumers actually care about. As Frederic wisely said, “Any good satire has a kernel of truth and believability.”

So what if Pepsi started from scratch on its marketing budget and adopted an entirely new approach? What if it decided that the purpose of its marketing was not to simply remind people that the brand exists, is refreshing, and is something that celebrities love to (get paid to) drink?

What if, instead, the brand chose to put its marketing dollars into something that its consumers choose to engage with, and marketing that itself adds value to people’s lives? Imagine what the company could do to inject joy into people’s lives through marketing, rather than mentally brainwashing them into thinking that a sip of Pepsi will produce said joy. By creating real joy, Pepsi has a much better chance of earning loyalty beyond reason for life. As for where to put these dollars, I envision everything from social gaming to enormous global cause projects.

Pepsi certainly could use something different. Revenue for PepsiCo fell by 1.5% in the most recent quarter, which was worse than analysts expected. Brands such as Gatorade have struggled as the old model of catchy ad campaigns have failed in this new economy with this new consumer. On the other hand, the beverage unit could learn and embed lessons that are coming from its Frito-Lay division, where brands such as Doritos and SunChips are experiencing sales growth and tighter consumer bonds through meaningful marketing.

I wonder what the conversations were in the halls of PepsiCo when this article made the rounds through email. If even a handful of its marketers paused to consider this article as a possibility, then the seeds of revolution might have been sown.

Pepsi-To-Jump-R

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Marketing Without Meaning, Organizational Behavior | No 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 »

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 »

A ‘Meaningful’ Super Bowl Postmortem

Monday, February 16th, 2009


It is the sworn duty of every agency thought leader to play Monday morning quarterback with the annual orgy of advertising known as the Super Bowl. Yeah, I’m a little late to the conversation, mainly because the whole “building the business” thing has sucked my time away. (But, hey—we pulled out a couple of new business wins!) My tardiness actually works to my advantage, as it allows some time for the Super Bowl marketing efforts to actually start showing postgame results in the market.
So, I present the Inaugural Marketing with Meaning Super Bowl Winners and Losers!
Let me begin by laying out a bit of the criteria for selection. First, just making an ad doesn’t count. I will leave that type of ranking to an agency I recently discovered called a&g, which has been running what it calls a “most meaningful” ranking for six years. a&g has a nice idea and good ranking criteria, but its focus is only on the ad itself, rather than a complete marketing campaign. The second requirement is that the marketing campaigns must fit with our twin definitions of meaningful marketing: (1) the work is something people choose to engage with; and (2) the marketing itself adds value to people’s lives. Enough with the rules; let’s play ball:
Winners
1. Denny’s—When people heard this fading diner chain was making a play for the Super Bowl, most people figured it was quite a Hail Mary. (Sports metaphors are fun!) But we never expected that the company would use its precious time to unleash an offer of free Grand Slam breakfasts on Tuesday, February 3. A campaign that cost $5 million (including $3 million to the single commercial) led to 2 million takers in 1,500 restaurants. CEO Nelson Marchioli felt the time was right to reintroduce people to Denny’s—and instead of spending money on more interruptive, over-promising TV ads, he gave something back and reaped great rewards. The $5 million generated $50 million in PR already, and Marchioli claims that with sales of drinks and other items they probably broke even on the day. Aside from great strategy, the company was prepared for its giveaway with extra wait staff and cooks.
2. Hyundai—The brand had two ad slots, and while one was a forgettable farce around how other auto CEOs are cursing the brand, the award goes to Hyundai for the promotion of its Assurance guarantee. This clever and beneficial marketing approach provides a service for wary customers by agreeing to take back bought or leased cars in the event that the household has an unexpected financial issue: losing one’s job. I blogged about this a few weeks ago, and shared that Hyundai claims the results are strong. It’s not a funny ad and falls near the bottom of popularity polls, but by sharing truly original news of a meaningful marketing program, Hyundai has a good chance of winning market share and greater profits—while its buyers receive some extra security in these troubled times.
3. Doritos—It’s hard to believe that a brand could win both in most popular and place high in my meaningful ranking, but they really scored with this ad. The ad itself is just one leg of a now third annual consumer-generated marketing contest. For months, people have been engaged in creating and voting on videos, because the brand learned in 2005 that its young consumers love to create content and make brands their own. The output is a little juvenile, but people take it as lighthearted fun and marvel that it was created by a couple of guys with a handful of dollars.
Losers
1. Go Daddy—Everyone is having a field day hating on this brand, which continues to think that the Janet Jackson episode is still relevant humor. One might argue that the ad is meaningful to some small slice of guys, who ended up scooping up the most domain names. But the reality is that the game’s audience is much broader, and, as a&g remarks, “These days, men are as likely to be offended by ads that disrespect women.” As a father of two young daughters, I agree wholeheartedly. Enough. And Danica Patrick isn’t helping her image, either.
2. Gatorade—”What is G?” Most people really don’t care to research an advertising tagline. I wrote about this campaign a few weeks ago here. Some brands and agencies still believe that a new advertising campaign will create news and turn around share—especially if you toss in enough celebrities. But the only real news this is generating is speculation about what the heck the brand is thinking. The ad itself fell near the bottom of the popularity list. Meanwhile, Gatorade misses a huge opportunity to follow Nike’s lead and actually create events such as the Nike Women’s Marathon and Nike+ service, both of which are great examples of the brand helping people actually achieve something.
3. Any other brand that just ran an ad—It is remarkable to me that after countless case studies of brands who used an ad to start a conversation or service, so many still spend 99 percent of their time and budget on this single 30-second spot. Brands that might have won a smile or two amid so many distractions, yet failed to really capitalize, include: Budweiser, Castrol, Cheetos, CareerBuilder, Pepsi, Vizio, and H&R Block.
Special Note: Pedigree vs. Kellogg’s
A few posts ago I commented on Pedigree’s move to join the list of Super Bowl ad entries on behalf of its campaign to drive dog adoption. My point was that after amazingly meaningful marketing around this cause, Pedigree took a giant step back with a funny ad that fails to connect emotionally, and fails to do more than tell people at the end to “get a dog.” Some commenters said I was too tough on the brand and that the humor might have tugged people.
To those who think you cannot win with emotion on the Super Bowl around a cause, I direct you to Kellogg’s, which used the time to launch a campaign for rebuilding sports fields in communities around the country. The ad informs of the idea, while pulling the heartstrings of everyone who remembers those days of biking to the park and playing until our mothers called for us. But what’s really meaningful is that the ad directs viewers to get involved at frostedflakes.com. There, visitors actually can nominate and vote for a specific local park to be funded. The competition will spread over several weeks, and when you vote, Kellogg’s provides a downloadable $1-off coupon.
Congratulations to Kellogg’s, Denny’s, Doritos, and Hyundai for using the spotlight of our industry to show stellar examples of Marketing with Meaning!

UPDATE: Here’s another very good post-mortem with consistent themes from Joseph Jaffe.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Achievement, Cause Related, Connection, Contests, Marketing Without Meaning, Solution | 3 Comments »

The Year of… Equity Campaigns?

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

It’s 12:18 a.m. as I write this. I’ve been continuing work since putting the kids down for bed at 8 p.m. But something is keeping me awake—marketing WITHOUT meaning. It will keep me up even later if I don’t address it now!

In the past few days, I have run across several examples of big, powerful brands that are attempting to correct falling sales by simply launching a new TV campaign. All are losing opportunities to actually do something for people, rather than simply talking about themselves (see last Friday’s post for a good review of “do”). The script is usually the same: Sales are down; CMO and ad agency are fired; new ones are hired, and they need to recast the brand in a more relevant light. Solution: a brand-new ad campaign (preferably with celebrities) and a few hundred million to put it on air (preferably during the Super Bowl).

Gatorade first caught my eye with its “What’s G?” ads. A series of black-and-white commercials with voice-over of rapper Lil Wayne scrolls past a who’s who of celebrity athletes. I captured a screen grab above of some other individuals who make an appearance in the ads.

Most people who view the “What’s G?” ads are saying, “What the heck?” Viewers debate on Web forums that it might be for Nike, Guess Jeans, or… God. Some even thought it was the next Saturday Night Live digital short (that’s never good). The brand actually says the mystery was planned. According to spokeswoman Jill Kinney, “Our strategy is to create consumer intrigue and insure everyone stays tuned for more in our quest for G.”

Unfortunately, most viewers have tuned out. Number of YouTube views is the closest thing we have to a measure of a video or commercial’s popularity. It’s a good way to measure meaningful marketing—if people like something, they will choose to engage with it and share it with friends, who will view it in turn. The brand’s YouTube page shows a total of around 180,000 total views across its six posted commercials since its launch on December 23. That’s not exactly a home run.

For comparison, we just announced today that our Working Lunch live improv program for Healthy Choice has gotten 2 million video plays in only three weeks. I can guarantee our budget was a fraction of Gatorade’s! The main difference? Our program actually delivers value—it’s an entertaining program that allows the audience to play a role—while Gatorade is just talking at its audience as usual.

Gatorade is certainly not the only one using this cliche marketing playbook. Microsoft infamously launched its Bill Gates + Jerry Seinfeld “ad about nothing” over the summer thanks to Crispin Porter + Bogusky (who I usually praise here). Honda has hired celebrities to talk about “The Power of Dreams” in long-form ads that are appearing before short videos on ABC.com and Hulu. And Coca-Cola will unveil its new slogan, Open Happiness, with feel-good Super Bowl ads in two weeks.

Let’s compare these to other, smaller brands that have succeeded with something different. Red Bull has gained on Coke and Gatorade by launching events around the world. Scion became the best-selling new car brand by hosting invitation-only underground art shows. Google has never advertised on television; it just keeps pumping out valuable services.

Look, TV still remains the largest stage to get in front of consumers, and each of these brands certainly sells a “mass” audience. But I’m disappointed that none of them is trying anything truly meaningful. I predict that none of these campaigns will make a significant difference in the equity or sales of the brands that launch them.

A new TV campaign is the old success formula and definitely the path of least resistance, but the only kind of marketing that will drive breakthrough results is that which people choose to engage with—and that which itself adds value to people’s lives.

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