Coke Creatures inspire thirst?

I saw on David Cameron's blog about a new ad for Coke featuring fuzzy little creatures. This is usually where ads lose my interest, but this ad wasn't too bad. It didn't make a lot of sense, wasn't particularly stylish, but had sort of a Muppet feel for me.



However, then I noticed that this isn't just an advertisement... this is a whole new brand direction for Coke, featuring these little Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, La, La, La creatures and suddenly it felt like the wheels were falling off.

The Coke Creatures have their own website(which I guess is not too far off into left field), and their own facebook page, flickr, and I gotta think will tweeting in no time.

All of which makes me question what the heck is going on over at the Coke branding department. If you want Coke to be equated to summer fun, do weird little musical creatures that are a cross between a mini-wookie, a muppet, and a gremlin really do it for them? Not to mention that everyone is drinking Cokes out of the classic glass bottle. I can only get those in one grocery store that happens to carry "Mexican Cokes".

Anyway, the music is pretty infectious and enjoyable, and as I said the commercial itself stands pretty well on its own. However, if coke were to ask me, trying to give life to these creatures and make them something "more" is a pretty terrible idea.

So, how to make the Coke brand = summer fun then? Running this music (even this particular ad) is fine, and I agree that its vaguely reminiscent of older Coke commercials when young people were holding hands on hills to Buy the World a Coke. Using the creatures as a tool for sprouting involvement with upcoming fun music for the summer is fine. I think that music and branding can work very well together because music has an emotional attachment and gives Coke the opportunity to get more direct interaction and actual conversations (instead of crazy made up conversations about photoshopped travel photos). If you really must include the creatures, why not have website visitors become more emotionally involved by making their own versions of the song by remixing using the creatures various "talents". (Oh lord, have I slipped into a Coke branding hallucination?)

Making the creatures the key feature and trying to build them as a branding tool, is likely to be a dismal (and creepy) failure (to wit: the facebook page has been live for almost a month and so far only 609 fans, with the power of Coke's ad spend, I would surely be disappointed with that slow a ramp-up). I have to wonder if Coke will be daring enough to measure the ROI on this ad: those little creatures are all animatronic and puppets, not digital! From an art perspective, that kicks ass. From an advertising ROI perspective, that's probably disasterous.

Positively Detroit!

This article is a little off topic for me, but there's been a lot of talk about it recently so I'll try and tie it back in at the end...

Author and columnist, Mitch Albom recently wrote an article in Sports Illustrated about Detroit. Detroit's been in the news a lot recently (not in a particularly positive light, unfortunately), and it seems that Mitch was attempting to counter that news. A good friend of mine, Jamie pointed me to a reply to Albom by Jim Boyle in Model D. Unfortunately, Model D won't get the same visibility as SI (or even probably the reprint of the article in Detroit Free Press), but I wish it would because I think both articles are important.

I've never been a big fan of Albom's writing style, but I think that both his article and Boyle's article say similar things about the city. I think the difference is tone. While both articles do point out positive things about the city, I didn't read either as particularly positive in tone. Boyle spends more time on specific neighborhood places that are positive - Albom spends more time on the sports (obviously, its in SI), big development, and ends with the general hopeful attitude of Detroit.

But unfortunately, both also spend a lot of time in negativity - Albom about the city ruins, Boyle about Mitch's attitude. Both seems somewhat self-defeating to me.

End of the day, I think these speak about different Detroiters - to me it seemed that both articles missed the demographic cohorts that the other picked up, and both are necessary to get a better picture of the whole. To paraphrase my friend Jamie, he said that these articles serve to divide Detroiters, while we should be spending more time trying to unify the two Detroits. So, this is where I can tie it back into branding - what we have are different brands for Detroit:
The Albom brand of a sports, ghost town with many problems, but a big can-do attitude.
The Boyle brand of an up-and-coming city filled with energy and activity.

Both are valid, but as Jamie points out we need some unification. Those trying to brand Detroit probably were pulling their hair out as they read these (both published just as the country started focusing on the North American Auto Show in Detroit). Wouldn't it be nice if we could come up with a simple, unifying theme for Detroit that shows both of these two Detroits?

How does the high-powered executive, the auto worker, the creative class professional, and the homeless guy with the mattress in the church came together? When do they come together? Tough questions, but in Detroit I believe they are coming together in some way. In the past that tie has been automobiles - they were the glue that brought everyone together in work and in play - but as that seems to be fading, we need to find that new identity.

Good Marketing for Bad Times

It's no secret that the Detroit area has been hit pretty hard by the economy. This all started about a year ago (or longer) here. The latest national news sounds like just a rehash of problems that Detroit has been living with for a while. When the economy tanks, there is a lot of news about big changes in American's lives. For example, a poll for Fortune Magazine from January 2008 shows that even back then (doesn't that seem like a long time ago now??)....

• Almost half have been cutting back on spending
• 4 in 10 believe that their personal economic situation has gotten worse in the last 12 months
• 1 in 4 believe that gas (and energy) prices are responsible for the slowing economy

Add to this the horror stories about getting financing we're hearing right now (auto loan refusal is at its highest rate since 1984, according to Businessweek), and you may find yourself wanting to run for the hills.

So, is it time to close up shop and take a long nap until this storm blows over? Hardly. It's time to get to work. From that same Fortune survey...

• Half believe that their personal economic situation has not changed in the last 12 months (15% believe it has improved)
• Almost 3 in 4 have been able to keep up with their credit card payments, and 9 in 10 are able to keep up with other payments (such as mortgage, rent, car payments, etc.)

What this tells me is that there is still money out there, and a savvy business can survive (some may even thrive) in this difficult environment. Additionally, there's an excellent change to set the stage to have your brand be force when this storm does pass. But it's not a time to cut back on that marketing budget. The key to surviving or thriving in this kind of economic environment comes down to refocusing your brand:

• Awareness Is Not the Ultimate Goal - while no one with any sense will tell you that awareness isn't important, keep in mind that just telling people you exist is not the ultimate goal of any marketing that your doing. A friend of mine runs a bike shop that sponsors a lot of events with a tent, repair equipment, staff, and even items to sell. A while back, I asked him why he sponsored them and the answer was "awareness" so that folks know about the shop. But if that's the goal, why spend the time, money, and energy to actually show up? He could have just sent a banner to do the same thing. The real goal of these sponsorships is to move one step past awareness to get entered into the consideration set for purchase (or even make a few sales at the event!). This is the start to an emotional attachment (something very difficult for banners to do by themselves).
  
• Find Marketing Activities that Connect with Customers Emotionally - one of the first things that get cut out of a budget are a business that don't add an emotional value for consumers. Consider Netflix: as they expand further into social networking so that consumers can share their movie lists or take recommendations from friends, the activity becomes more of a social outlet, a connection. This strengthens the emotional connection to the Netflix brand and reduces the likelihood that it ends up on the household budget chopping block.
• Deliver Greater Value with your Marketing - greater value is OFTEN talked about in board meetings and marketing meetings but seems to be lost or watered down too far to be actually useful by the time it hits the trenches. Award or frequent buyer programs are a great way to increase the value of marketing, and I think a very useful way to capitalize on viral marketing techniques. If you provided unique content, games, or parties for those who have X number of points or purchases at a level between your current "free stuff" or discount levels, folks are going to get more out of the path they are on with your brand.
• Understand Why/How People are Spending Money with You - As the household budget gets trimmed, folks are going to have to shift the way they spend their money. Maybe you'll be lucky enough not to be impacted by this, but chances are you've seen a change in sales in the last few months. Talk to your customers. Get a better understanding of what they are buying with you and why things may have changed. There's a chance that while you may not be able to talk them into spending a lot more, you may be able to make changes to the store layout or menu or whatever to help direct customers to more profitable items or items that supplement other products and thereby increase their value while increase the overall sale. But talk to you customers before you make substantial changes. They'll tell you the why and how they are making changes to their spending habits with you.

Now, obviously, it's not a time to relax, but it's not a time to panic and undermine your brand either.

Viral Marketing

This is a pretty funny new ad from "The Viral Factory" for Diesel clothing for their XXX Party.

The thing is, while its clever, funny and shocking and I'm sure will be emailed all over the place, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. From The Viral Factory website:

By tapping into our extensive network of highly influentlial media sites and blogs, we take control of the critical factors that lead to digital and viral marketing successes. ... But seeding isn't just about getting views. TVF also helps generate an unprecendented [their typo, not mine] level of engagement and depth of conversation among the audience.

I guess, I'm not sure I understand their process. I sent that above link to some of my friends. I then clicked over to my blog to write this. Does this mean I'm having an indepth conversation with Diesel? If so, how does my writing this help Diesel? I suppose the problem is, I'm not the target market for it. Perhaps if I were in my 20's, this video and website combo would make me want to be part of the XXX Party (does that mean Diesel clothing is 30?).

The interesting thing is I think the website that goes along with this campaign is pretty well done. By the time I got around to actually looking at the website, I found it to be stylish and engaging. It will be interesting to find out if it actually contributes to sales, or if Diesel is simply providing entertainment.... I'm leaning towards the latter.

Is your brand dead? Does imagery matter anymore? (Part II)

I (finally) finished the book, Branding Only Works on Cattle by Jonathan Salem Baskin. The basic premise is that communicating brands as we know it is actually dead. Before you start writing a eulogy for your long, lost pal, Tony the Tiger, Baskin does have some fascinating points. As you may recall from Part 1, I claimed to not be fully on board with Baskin’s claims in the book, then he called me out on some of my points (see comments from Sept 21 post).

Now that I’ve read it, I think that Baskin and I are not that far apart actually. I think that the main area we differ is in the definition of branding. I suspect that my textbook definition that I provided was not complete enough to clarify how I actually think of branding. Baskin summed it up perfectly on page 185 of the book:

“Company activities and customer perceptions are intertwined in many ways – communities, dependencies, partnerships, outsourcing, transactions, partnerships, product or service experiences, - and it is in these relationships that brand and business are realized. Brand is the verb of these behaviors made relevant to your bottom line.”

This definition of branding is a much more “practical” form than Tony the Tiger or the lust for Louis-Vuitton handbags implies (perhaps “useful” is the word that Baskin would use). I must admit that the more I thought about it, the more I agree with Baskin. His book lays out a nice road map, particularly for small or midsize businesses that are looking to grow and don’t quite get how branding could work for them.

In my opinion, if marketers (note that I don’t just limit this to branding experts) only take one thing from the book, it is to think of branding as game theory. Baskin purports that games have:

• Goals/a payoff – a purpose that requires an action (a.k.a. give branding a practical goal).
  
• Context – the universe where the game is actually played must guide the branding
  
• Narrative flow – prompt action, facilitate learning during the game, and then only talk to those who its relevant to talk to
• Use a variety of tools – the entire company is your toolbox (customer service, shipping, finance, etc.)
• Winners and Losers – engage with people to push them forward (winners), though there may be some that will therefore be pushed away (losers). That's ok, not everyone will buy your product anyway.
  

This kind of thinking, positive customer engagement with the company at a variety of points, is the definitely the direction branding communications needs to be moving.

So, am I a convert? Is branding dead?

Well, hold on a second. Brands are still very much alive. Another book I’m reading by Lucas Conley, “Obsessive Branding Disorder”, shows many different examples of branding out of control - both the comical (Christina Aguilera trademarking her name to market 450 separate products including modeling clay and contact lens) and the tragic (like New Orleans Mayor, Ray Nagin, who declared that New Orleans murder rate was “…not good for us, but keeps the New Orleans brand out there, and keeps people thinking about our needs…”). Conley proves that branding is still very much alive and still highly profitable (for both the branders and the branded business). People are still buying products because of its brand. But businesses are having to work harder, advertise in more places, and creative (read as, "crazy") things that in many cases make no sense to keep their brands in front of potential customers.

So, yes, Tony the Tiger is still going to don the cereal box and your kids will still scream for him. Louis-Vuitton will still drive people to buy (and make) cheap knock-offs. Paris Hilton will still draw millions of dollars for putting her name and likeness on perfume, bad music, or whatever else her agents think they can sell. A lot of companies will continue to brand in much the same method. But as Baskin (and Conley) points out, the challenges of communicating is getting increasing difficult, and the companies that can recognize this and truly connect with their customers on a variety of levels and points are the brands that will remain relevant and important.

Walking away from Starbucks...

I read the (supposed) real reason that Starbucks ad agency walked away from the Starbucks account on Advertising Age this morning. There has been substantial upheaval at Starbucks recently, starting with a return of the original CEO, job losses, and store closures. This is all a result of poor financial performance starting last year. All of this has resulted in Weider & Kennedy (Starbucks ad agency of record) has decided to quit the business... not something typical of agencies.

The reason that the Ad Age article gives is that:

...Starbucks was simply a very frustrating client for Wieden, an agency that other marketers have described as unusually honest in its communication with clients. Other agencies that have worked with Starbucks have felt frustration with the marketer too. Rich Silverstein, co-founder of Omnicom Group's Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, which did two stints representing Starbucks, said much of the fault lies with the mercurial Mr. Schultz. "He does not appreciate advertising," he said. "Any agency that comes in has one foot out the door already."

The thing is, this may be the reason that Wieden & Kennedy quit working for Starbucks, but its not the reason Starbucks is having problems. The problem is that the "brand promise" of Starbucks is not being fulfilled and that's not an advertising problem... its a coffee problem. Or rather it's an experience problem.

Starbucks growth has been its own worst enemy. As the commoditization of the atomosphere has been spread across the U.S., the folks who first supported Starbucks are now turned off of it. How to fix this? Localization - not advertising. Coffee Shops are one of those businesses that has to fit very specifically with the local market demands. In many ways, Starbucks in Malibu looks and feels the same as a Starbucks in Buffalo, but what do you think? Are people in those two cities the same? If so, put someone from Malibu on a plane to Buffalo in January!

The other part of the problem is the coffee. I have argued that Starbucks roasts are all too similar to each other. A mild coffee gets the same (or at least very similar) roast as a robust coffee giving it a burned flavor. I have also argued that this reduces the quality of the Starbucks coffee itself.

So, Starbucks has found itself becoming a commodity with (arguably) mediocre quality beverages in a tough economic time when "luxuries" like $3 lattes are getting trimmed back. This is not advertising problem - Wieder & Kennedy likely recognized this, and gave up the fight rather than be doomed to failure in Starbucks marketing department's opinion. That would be my guess for the REAL reason they walked away.

Fortunately for Starbucks, Howard Schwartz (returning CEO) knows his stuff, and has taken some steps to try and fix this already. Perhaps he will fully recognize this in time to save your favorite Starbucks store.

Is your brand dead? Does imagery matter anymore? (Part I)

Yesterday I read an article on Bnet entitled "Kiss Your Brand Goodbye". This is a book review of Jonathan Salem Baskin’s new book “Branding Only Works on Cattle”.

The book is an interesting opinion on a larger trend in advertising and branding to deal with the new influence of integrated marketing (combined traditional advertising and web based marketing) and consumer mindset in the new millennium. His hypothesis is basically that a "brand" is an emotional association that marketers have created but consumers no longer buy into that association. They have become smarter and now look for product attributes that offer "actual" value rather than emotional brand attachment. This book is part of a trend to kill branding and in essence completely revise the advertising industry (some argue this has already happened). Well, I’ll throw my two cent hat into the ring (if you’ll allow me to mix sayings)...

First, brandchannel.com (article by Vincent Grimaldi) provides a pretty concise definition of branding:

Branding is the foundation of marketing and is inseparable from business strategy. It is therefore more than putting a label on a fancy product. Nowadays, a corporation, law firm, country, university, museum, hospital, celebrity, and even you in your career can be considered as a brand.
As such, a brand is a combination of attributes, communicated through a name, or a symbol, that influences a thought-process in the mind of an audience and creates value.

Ok, full disclosure, I have not yet read Baskin's book (I plan to), so I won’t be able to delve too deeply into his specific arguments. However, the article gives the background, and the book has several points that he claims prove that branding should be dead:

1. “There are no more trends, only moments” – shattered attention spans of consumers have killed the trends
2. “Subtlety is dead” because “people are more literal now” – our diversity means we no longer share as many common experiences. This means that “repetition risks becoming noise” and brand “recognition isn’t the same as brand relevance”
3. “Choice is real-time” – in other words, brand messaging doesn’t matter, and “forget about inspiring purchases through appealing to fantasy”
4. The “Virtual Experience is the new dreamscape” - social media “conversations are just the beginning”

As Michael Fitzgerald, the author of the bnet.com article points out, this is ahead of where we are in the market right now, and as such, I don’t actually agree with all his points.

I think of branding to be more like developing a friend – the brands are perceived to share consumers beliefs or interests, and consumers are likely to start the purchase process by looking at their "friends." Setting the attributes of a brand is an excellent way to set guidelines for the way a business will be marketed. For almost four years now, I’ve read about how the branding world is dying (Baskin’s book is just the latest shot across this bow), but then brands like Apple, Coke, Pepsi, BMW, Budweiser, Columbia, etc. remain stronger than ever.

In my mind, Baskin's argument only works if you don't believe consumers make image-driven purchases. Does just advertising product attributes or benefits really hold greater value than advertising a brand image? Frankly, I would argue that this isn’t the right question. We should be asking whether the current advertising model is working properly in the integrated social media millennium. Does the current media mix really work to advertise product benefits and image or is it all just becoming noise? I would argue that (as in the past) the two still can't be truly separated without disastrous results, but creating a truly integrated mix to reduce noise and target niches is the key to branding now.