Why Is Most B2B Advertising So Awful?

If you don't work for a B2B company, this blog may not mean much to you. Unless you've ever picked up one of those B2B targeted magazines and had a chance to check out the ads in them.

Most are strategically confused, poorly targeted, graphically sloppy and loaded with jargon and techno-babble. Or, they adopt another tried and true B2B ad tactic. They feature a really pretty woman who has absolutely nothing to do with the product, service or company running the ad (Think "GoDaddy.com" and you'll have the idea).

There are an assortment of reasons for this huge waste of money.

1. Most B2B companies do not have a CEO who understands marketing. They are usually either operations types or they've come up through finance or sales.

2. Consequently, most B2B companies do not have a trained marketing person in the CMO job. It's usually someone who has somehow demonstrated a bit of creativity in some other corporate job and that has qualified them to run marketing as far as the CEO is concerned. The CEO has no idea that the person running marketing is really clueless about marketing because the CEO is equally clueless.

3. These clueless people then think they're being frugal by developing their marketing plans and programs in-house. They don't hire marketing consultants or agencies that can help them. They use an in-house graphics team to do their ads or find a cheap freelance source that is often someone's relative.

4. They think that their product or service is much more interesting, relevant and important than it really is. They've drunk so much of their own Kool-Aid that they've lost touch with their customers. Instead of building advertising that is customer-focused, they build advertising that is self-focused. Blah blah blah blah about them and their products and their services. Marketing 101: You must focus on your customers and what they think, what they need, and what they want.

5. Some only want their ads to get attention. Those are the ones who tend to adopt the "let's just put a hot babe in the ads" approach. Silly and embarrassing and a stupid waste of money. How do Boards of Directors look the other way when this is going on. Hello???

6. They never develop long term campaigns or treat marketing like an investment. They create ad-hoc one-shot ads and manage marketing like it's only a cost-center.

7. They think that unless you're an expert in their product or service, that you can't possibly market it effectively. This leads to industrial inbreeding (only hiring or promoting from within that industry) and the inevitable retardation that follows. It stifles creativity and prevents progress.

The good news is that whenever a B2B company comes to its senses and brings in a real marketing pro from "outside", the improvements are dramatic, fast and easy to make. The bad news is that so many B2B companies don't have the sense to do this. If you're in one of those B2B companies and the top marketing person is not a true marketing pro, but a marketing amateur who's faking it for a CEO who's "marketing-challenged" then you need to think about heading elsewhere.

Hyundai - Give Them a Round of Applause!

Have you noticed how many smart things Hyundai has been doing over the past year or so? They are on fire!

First, their product line-up (job #1 for any automobile company) is outstanding. Every vehicle they offer is a high quality option in the segment in which it competes. And they are all priced intelligently. Each model is selling at a great "value" price versus its more entrenched competition. Hyundai's market share has got to be skyrocketing.

Second, a few months ago, Hyundai breaks new ground with a promise to "forgive" missed payments from newly unemployed Hyundai owners. Instead of being the bad guy creditor breathing down a distressed unemployed person's neck, Hyundai positions themselves as an understanding and sympathetic friend. What a brilliant way to earn customers for life. This was an incredibly innovative offer that was timed to perfection.

Lately, Hyundai's new promotion is to guarantee a low gas price of $1.49/gallon for a year to new Hyundai buyers. I don't know exactly how they are fulfilling this offer or making it work, but it is another smartly innovative and distinctive promotion that is punching through the clutter of other automotive marketing.

In a few short years, Hyundai has grown from a fringe brand without much perceived quality to a major competitor in the US market. Great products. Value priced. Backed by savvy, distinctive, gutsy marketing.

Hyundai is a textbook example of how to market smartly. I'm looking forward to see what they do next because they are on a roll.

Radio Shack Becoming "The Shack"

A few weeks ago I blogged on Kentucky FRIED Chicken spending millions to reposition the brand as the place for UNFRIED chicken.

It's always sad to see a brand come to the realization that their name is WRONG. Clearly. "Fried" has not been exactly a desirable food attribute for about the last ten years or so. So what else was KFC to do? They first tried to get us used to calling it "KFC" instead of" Kentucky Fried Chicken." They spent years on that. Now, they've actually changed the product offering, too. I haven't been to a KFC in years, and I doubt that the allure of their now unfried chicken is going to get me in the door. If I do get the urge to visit a KFC, it's going to be because I have a craving for their good old fried chicken. I guess they must have data that convinces them that new customers will come in now that they are offering unfried chicken. Seems to me that it will just be the same customers who simply end up cannibalizing fried chicken sales in order to try/buy the unfried chicken. Time will tell.

Now, in today's news there is another retailer who has finally realized that their name is part of their problem. It's Radio Shack. They are about to launch a massive marketing effort to get us to think of them as "The Shack." But according to what I've read, they are not officially changing their name. They are still "Radio Shack."

OK. I agree that the "Radio" in "Radio Shack" is a big problem. Not contemporary and no longer relevant. It's all about cool wireless gizmos now. I just don't understand this half-pregnant move they are making. Why not go all the way? If the name is wrong, bite the bullet and change it. I suspect they are being overly cautious and that an actual name change is probably being planned as Part II of this effort. Name changes are expensive propositions. It's probably hundreds of millions of dollars just in signage alone. But the fact remains. If the name is wrong (and clearly the Radio Shack name is now definitely wrong), you have to face up to that fact and change it. Why fool around with this "half-change?" My message to Radio Shack is to have the courage to do what's needed. And if it's needed, it's needed right now. Timidity is not a winning strategy.

Dos Equis - What Are They Thinking?

Since Obama is having his Beer Summit today, I think a blog on beer is appropriate.

Have you seen the Dos Equis campaign featuring "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?

I saw it one too many times last night and I have to call them out on the silliness of their advertising.

First, beer is consumed mostly by young men (under 30). The Dos Equis guy is like 65 if he's a day. He's a geezer. Way outside the age range of beer's core demographic. What's up with that? I don't believe that this guy is a beer drinker for one second. He's more the scotch type. Definitely!

Second, the guy is a pretentious sleaze bag. He's hanging out with women at least half his age. The only way this happens in real life is if the guy has oodles of money. Old guys with fat wallets can attract young women. Old guys who are simply "interesting" are not chick magnets.

Third, (this is subjective I admit) the guy is doing weird stuff in these ads, not interesting stuff. He's rescuing a fox during a fox hunt! Has anyone outside of British gentry ever even been on a fox hunt? And why would this guy be out there hugging a fox and keeping it away from the dogs, horses and the folks "riding to the hounds"? Beyond silly. This is stupid. Do you think Mr. American Bubba Beer Drinker can relate? No way, Jose.

I'll give Dos Equis some points for trying to stand out and be different. But his campaign can't be working, can it? It's wrong on way too many levels.

Some TV Ads That I Like

The vast majority of the ads that run on TV are forgettable, boring and unpersuasive.

That's one reason why the good ones stand out and work so well, because they're surrounded by so many poor ones.

There have been a couple of really good new TV ads that have caught my attention over the past week that I'd like to single out for well-deserved praise.

Omega Watches

They're doing a wonderful job of capitalizing on the 40th Anniversary of the Moon Landing. In a riveting spot that opens with President Kennedy's speech about going to the moon and includes footage of the Apollo launch, moon landing and first walk on the moon, Omega reminds us that they are the only watch that's ever been on the moon. The spot is wonderfully edited and Omega has done a smart job of capitalizing on all the attention that has been generated by the 40th Anniversary of the first Moon Landing. Well done!


Mercedes Benz

They're launching a beautiful new coupe with a series of dramatic TV ads that put Mercedes Benz back where it used to be at the apex of automotive brand imagery. The spots feature a dramatic sequence where the new car appears to literally crash through a large glass wall in Mercedes' ultra modern office building in Germany. The car and its entrance both make quite a statement. I hope Mercedes is finally getting its ad mojo back, because for a long time, they seemed to have lost it.


Two "I Told You So" Ad Changes That I've Also Noticed

Geico

They have finally started to use the Gecko to tell their "value" story rather than that ill-advised stupid wad of cash with hooky glasses. I criticized them a few months ago and wondered why they weren't leveraging their two strong ad assets (the gecko and the cavemen) instead of creating a new (and BAD) third icon.


Budweiser

"Drinkability" seems to have finally bitten the dust. They wasted millions on this bad idea. I criticized them for this awful strategy months ago and I think they have finally dropped it. At least I hope that's what they've done. I haven't seen any of those dreadful "drinkability" spots lately but it may just be wishful thinking to hope that they have done away with it for good.

Grocery Stores - Customer Service? Low Prices? Or What?

There are "Grocery Wars" going on in my neighborhood. Some are slowly sliding out of business, new ones are opening and some established ones are clearly headed for trouble.

We've got Market Street, Whole Foods and Central Market occupying the high end in my area of the world. Each is different and each has their advocates and loyal shoppers. But what they all share in common is that they are focussed on customer service, selection, and creating a wonderful in-store experience for their shoppers.

At another extreme is Costco and Sam's. They also occupy a solid niche. Value. You've got to buy in bulk but you get great pricing.

The competitors I can't figure out are all the "traditional" grocery store brands. I visited a Kroger this morning (we'd run out of milk and you can't have breakfast without some milk) and here's what happened.

I was greeted by a giant display on the way in the store for Vitamin Water (normally $1.59/bottle, selling for $.99). I put eight different flavors in my cart and headed for the milk section. So far, so good. They got me to make an incremental purchase, one I was not intending to make.

The problem came at check out. Kroger has implemented these self-service check out lines which I normally avoid like the plague. This morning, I had no choice. It was early and these self-service check outs were the only ones open. I think these self-service check outs are a really bad marketing idea. Kroger makes you do the scanning and bagging yourself, so they make the shopping experience harder (not easier). They also remove the one opportunity they have for you to interact with a Kroger employee, which could be a nice branding opportunity for them. That would all be bad enough, but those self-scanning systems never seem to be working right. So instead of speeding up the check out process (which might actually appeal to some people), Kroger usually creates an additional hassle when you have to track someone down to come over and solve a problem you're having with their system.

That's what happened to me this morning. Six of my eight Vitamin Waters scanned correctly but two failed to ring up the correct price (I was paying attention because I KNOW this self-scanning system is full of bugs.) We're talking a $1.20 here. Not a lot of money, but it was the principle of the thing. It took two different Kroger employees and about 10 minutes to straighten this out. So, instead of a nice and quick "in and out" shopping stop this morning (along with maybe a pleasant "hello" or "how are you" from an employee), I got an impersonal, needlessly delayed, flawed and aggravating shopping experience.

Why should I ever go to this Kroger again? I have other better options that are just literally a few minutes further away. Whole Foods is right across the street. Market Street is two blocks down.

Kroger and many other of their traditional grocery store competitors are in the unenviable position of being stuck in the middle. They are outflanked at the high end by service oriented options and they are outflanked at the low end by Costco. When you're positioned in the middle of the road like this, you only get run over. Nothing good happens when you occupy this grey middle of the market.

We've recently lost an Albertson's in the neighborhood. I'm betting that this Kroger is next. There's a Tom Thumb just a block away but I think they'll hold out longer. They still scan and bag your groceries for you.

Michael Jackson was a Purple Cow

I was one of those people who was stunned by the recent death of Michael Jackson. Whatever else you may have thought about him, he was a pop icon right up there with Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. As Yoda might have said, I felt a "disturbance in the force" when I learned he had so unexpectedly died.

First of all, from a marketing perspective, Michael Jackson was a one-of-a-kind brand, a purple cow. His uniqueness started with his incredible ability to sing and dance as a precocious young child. Rather than fade away as so many child stars do, Michael Jackson exploded into a mega-star fueled by incredible music, incredible videos and incredible dancing. The first time he moonwalked was one of TV's most electrifying moments. It was other worldly. It seemed impossible for anyone to move like that. His videos broke new ground and rewrote the music video business.

His uniqueness unfortunately spun off into tragedy. His plastic surgeries turned a handsome young man into a freak. His fixation on re-capturing his own lost childhood led to an unhealthy attraction to young boys that may or may not have been sexual. His success led to wealth that led to ridiculous and offensive extravagance. His desire to have children and appear more normal led to "marriages" that were obviously farces. His fame led to reclusiveness and he all but disappeared from the public eye. He seemed to have flamed out.

But a few months ago, he announced a "This is it" comeback. A "final" series of live performances in London that he was preparing for up until his death. Would he have electrified us again? We'll never know.

The lesson for marketing people in Michael's life is that distinctiveness wins. We may not like it, but it's undeniably memorable and it makes us pay attention. And when it disappears, we feel a sense of loss because we cared. Because something that was special is now gone and we're sad that we may never have anything like that again.

Yes, Michael Jackson was very weird. But so was Elvis. I suspect that Michael Jackson's estate will reap the same kind of long term rewards that Elvis' estate has. There will always be a market for something that is brilliantly original.

Automated Phone Answering Systems - Worst Possible Way to Communicate with Your Customers

Why have virtually all of America's larger companies adopted these absolutely horrible and hugely frustrating automated phone answering systems to deal with their customers when they call?

I don't know a single person who likes to deal with those stupid automated systems.

When you call a company with a question or a concern or an issue of any sort, YOU WANT TO TALK TO A REAL PERSON. Yet, you're forced to go through a long and usually frustrating list of "menu options" before you finally navigate your way to a real live human being. The message being sent is "We really don't want to talk to you. Please go away." Is this smart marketing?

I don't believe in these systems for any company, but companies that are in any kind of customer service business are really shooting themselves in the foot when they adopt these systems. The phone is still an important customer contact tool. It always will be. Why lose the opportunity to personalize this point of contact and use it to differentiate your service and make your company stand out? Automated phone systems are dehumanizing and impersonal. Are those attributes desirable ones for your brand?

I once worked with a mobile phone company that wanted to differentiate itself. At the time, all the competitors were dong "me too" advertising featuring the latest hot rate package (this many minutes for this much money). We did some research and consumers told us that the single biggest thing that this company could do to differentiate their service was to have "live" operators instead of an automated system. You'd think this would be a no-brainer for a phone company. NOT! They ignored the research results and adopted another differentiation strategy instead.

This opportunity remains low hanging fruit for any service oriented company. When people call you, have a real person answer the phone. Train your people to deliver consistently pleasant "on strategy" brand and service experiences to these callers. Your own people can be your most powerful marketing tools and they can make a strongly positive first impression if you let them. Don't let "operational efficiency" mislead you into making a foolish marketing mistake.

General (Government) Motors - A No Win Situation

As GM reorganizes and survives on bailout money, they are faced with the marketing challenge of how best to support the brands that will be the future of the company.

One brand that is receiving relatively heavy marketing support right now is Cadillac. They're launching a new model, called the CTS Sport Wagon. It's basically a station wagon.

There are three things fundamentally wrong with this. All of these are symptomatic of why GM is in trouble in the first place.

1. Their timing is awful: Launching a new model NOW? Right in the teeth of all the negative publicity they are receiving related to going bankrupt? Tell me how this makes any sense.

2. The new model is a STATION WAGON! Station wagons haven't been popular since SUV's took over that market niche. After working pretty successfully for years to modernize the Cadillac image and make the brand younger, they decide to go retro with a station wagon? You've got to be kidding.

3. The splashy spending is no longer perceived as GM's marketing investment but as a wasteful use of taxpayer bailout money. Our tax dollars are being spent by GM to advertise an ill-advised new model being launched at the worst possible time. A really bad way to spend our money (it's not their money anymore.)

Cadillac should probably never have conceived and launched this model in the first place. I'll be amazed if it succeeds. Cadillac and all the other GM divisions should not be doing splashy big money marketing right now. They should be using PR tactics, not advertising, to set the stage for the relaunch of the entire company once the reorganization is complete. That's when they'll need to stun us with great new advertising that makes us truly believe that there is indeed a new smarter and better General Motors.

What they're doing now just looks like "same old same old." In fact, it strikes me as even stupider than some of the moves that got them to bankruptcy court in the first place.

How'd You Like to Have Any of These Marketing Challenges?

Think your job is tough? What would you do if you were the top marketing person responsible for any of the following - all of which would be contenders for "toughest marketing jobs of 2009- 2010."

1. Chinese Hummers

Not only are Hummers suffering from the double whammy of being gas guzzlers (swimming upstream against both the Green Movement AND higher gas prices) and being built by now bankrupt General Motors, but Hummer is now owned by a Chinese company that has never built cars and that nobody in our country has ever heard of.

2. Un-fried Chicken at Kentucky Fried Chicken

Here's a brand that's been selling "Fried" to America for about the last 50 years. Now they're trying to get people to overlook that and drop in for grilled chicken. You know things are bad when you have to ask consumers to ignore your name as part of your ad message.

3. General Motors Cars

Bankrupt company being run by the government asking consumers to trust them and still buy their cars. My hunch is that most of us are taking a wait and see attitude about GM and its cars right now. They've got a big opportunity to re-invent the company, but will they? And even if they do, will we believe that they have? How can they convince us?

4. Playboy Magazine

Hugh Hefner is now like 100 years old and is no longer an icon for the brand. He's a joke. The Internet has completely filled the "need" for the cheesecake that once drove the brand. Magazines, in general, are in trouble. What was once "cutting edge" and "cool" (at least to guys) is now hopelessly "old fashioned" and very "uncool."

5. Arnold Schwarzenegger

California's economy and state budget are a disaster. The former Mr. Universe is looking more like Mr. Whimpy. He's a Republican in an Obama Democratic dominated political landscape. The Terminator is almost certainly going to get terminated when he's up for re-election. He's too old to go back to being a movie hunk. Senator Schwarzenegger? Not likely. Talk show host? Who can understand that accent?

6. Blockbuster

Going to a brick and mortar store to rent a movie or video game is now completely unnecessary. Technology and the Internet and NetFlix have made the movie rental retail store concept obsolete. Blockbusters customers are gradually deserting them for these more convenient and more immediate options. What can they do to reverse this trend? How can they re-invent themselves?


Every job has its challenges, but these are a few of the marketing challenges that may all border on the impossible. But it's going to be fun to see what happens. It will take some very shrewd marketing (and probably some good old fashioned luck) to turn these lemons into lemonade.

Look Who's At War: McDonald's vs. Starbucks and Banks vs. All of Us

A couple days ago, you may have noticed that McDonald's has declared war on Starbucks.

Here's a quote from one of the stories. "The coffee war is on, and the spoils are big: 57 percent of American adults drink coffee every day. And as CBS News correspondent Seth Doane reports, McDonald's is taking aim at Starbucks and making its biggest menu addition in three decades. Cappuccinos, blended coffees and pastries are traditionally Starbucks' ground. But, now, McDonald's wants a shot at the espresso market, too. Famous for the Big Mac, the fast food chain has brewed up a plan to add high-end coffees and bottled beverages to their menu. By doing so, they hope also to add a billion dollars to their bottom line."

If I were doing a positioning map, I wouldn't have Starbucks and McDonald's anywhere near one another. Would you? So this strikes me as a very interesting and curious move. Does McDonald's really think that a lot of Starbucks customers are going to be easily persuaded to abandon their daily Starbucks fix and visit a McDonald's instead? I'm sure that the wizards at McDonald's have researched this up the ying yang, but it seems to me that the in-store experience at Starbucks is a big part of the whole Starbucks attraction. In no way does McDonald's come close to matching this experience. Maybe McDonald's is going to focus on all those people who are drive-thru customers of Starbucks. Since they never get out of their car, they don't get the whole Starbucks experience and might be more easily swayed to drive thru at the nearby McDonald's instead. This battle will be interesting to watch, but my money is on Starbucks to weather this storm.

Earlier today, there was another marketing war that got some publicity.

Here's a quote on that battle. "Banks Have Declared War – On You. Changes are coming fast to the credit card world, and you can expect your bank to raise rates, slash credit limits, add fees and cut rewards. Consumers, brace yourselves, MSN Money's Liz Pulliam Weston says." Now here's a battle that makes even less sense. The banking industry is generating tremendous negative publicity on itself by actions that are obviously being taken with no regard for their marketing impact. Banks are quickly becoming a universally recognized "business bad guy" in America. I have blogged on this subject in the past and I remain flabbergasted at the marketing ignorance being demonstrated by our banks. Their disregard for their own customers and their willingness to alienate them is stupendously short-sighted.

There is going to be a huge opportunity for one of them to wake up and really differentiate themselves from the banking pack by doing the most basic and simplest thing in marketing.....siding with their own consumers - duh.

Sports Marketing - Objective Investment or Fantasy Fulfilled?

I'm a sports nut. I love to watch and I love to play, so I'm one of those people who gets exposed quite often to how companies use sports to market themselves. When I ran Coca-Cola's U.S. marketing, we were deeply engaged in sports marketing of all sorts - from The Olympics to NASCAR to the NFL/NBA/NHL to MLB to World Cup Soccer. So I know something about this.

If you market sports equipment or sports related clothing, it would be awfully dumb if you didn't associate your brand with your sport. Nike markets using sports. Under Armor uses sports. So does Gatorade. Duh.

It's more interesting to look at the companies that aren't directly related to sports and consider why they are using sports to market themselves and is this smart business. In some cases, it is. In other cases, you've got a CEO who loves a sport (say golf or tennis or NASCAR for instance) and who makes more of a personal decision to invest marketing money in a sport they happen to love. It's certainly a nice executive perk to be treated like a big shot at some major sports event while entertaining company or customer VIPs. But is it really justifiable from a marketing ROI standpoint?

It is rare to find a non-sports company investing in sports marketing if the top executives aren't big fans. I'll bet if you took a survey of all the companies that buy naming rights to major sporting events, 95% of them have top executives who are gigantic fans of that sport. They can use their company's money to buy an association that allows them to fulfill a dream.

The biggest sports investments of all are the deals to acquire the naming rights to a new stadium. These are $100 million deals and more, depending on the stadium. Is this EVER a smart investment? I think not. Remember Enron Field? Enron spent a fortune on that deal. Was that the best place for them to invest that money? Of course not. But those jail bird top Enron executives sure got their egos stroked whenever they went to games.

When times were rosy, companies could get away with doing these deals. Today, it looks ridiculous to invest money this way. Jerry Jones wants HUGE money for the naming rights to the new Cowboys Stadium. In this economy, it isn't going to happen. Jerry is going to bide his time. The new stadium will simply be Cowboys Stadium...for now. Visions of a stupendous naming rights deal are still dancing in Jerry's head. He's just waiting for the economy to turn around. Some company with a CEO who's a lifetime Dallas Cowboys fan will eventually get suckered into a deal.

Associating your brand or company with a sport makes sense when the demographics are right and when the imagery of the sport is reinforcing of the imagery you want associated with your brand/company. But the approach to analyzing these deals should be no different from analyzing what TV shows to advertise on. You'd never advertise on a TV show just because you were fan of a certain actor or actress. In the same way, companies need to objectively analyze any association with any sport to make sure that it is a financially sound way to build your brand equity and create sales.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm....

The most recent ads for Las Vegas

The originals were brilliant. Adult. Sophisticated. Clever. Engaging. The ones they're doing now are awful. Silly and stupid. What went wrong? Are the same people still in charge? How does a great campaign go so bad so fast? Too bad!

Fast Company List of "The 100 Most Creative People in Business"

Two advertising agency people are listed. Has there ever been a more loud and clear warning signal for an entire industry? The agency model is in very serious trouble. This is not a business that you want your son or daughter to get into. Trust me.

FiOS TV

Just got it. Verizon has hounded me for weeks to sign up. I finally succumbed (shows you again how important it is to be persistent in your marketing). It was a good call. Beats regular cable and satellite by a mile. And it costs less! You need to check it out. Why didn't the cable companies do this first?

Star Trek Movie

OK. I'm a closet Trekkie. Have been since high school. But the PR and marketing build up to the movie's release was brilliant and then the movie lived up to the hype. Kudos to the marketing team. Of course, brilliant products are always the easiest to market. But it's also a huge danger to over promise and under deliver. They got it right with this movie.

Retro Pepsi

Real sugar instead of corn syrup. What if the world likes it better? Can they really go back to the modern version? This will be interesting to watch. Could be a brilliant move or could be a major marketing blunder. Time will tell.

Fiat and Chrysler

Did you ever think you'd see the day when Fiat ("Fix it again, Tony") would be the savior of one of America's major automobile manufacturers? Will Fiat save Chrysler or will Chrysler ruin Fiat? If Mercedes couldn't fix Chrysler, why do we think Fiat can?

Cheerios and Cholesterol

How many of you ever really believed that eating Cheerios in the morning would lower your cholesterol? I guess they forgot to tell us that it only works if you substitute the Cheerios for the cheese omelet with bacon and sausage and buttered toast that you were eating.

Microsoft and Apple

Why doesn't Microsoft make Apple versions of all their software? Do they really think this is going to hurt Apple? Microsoft is simply missing an opportunity. It's time this silly practice comes to an end.

A Simple Thing That's Been Brilliantly Marketed - M and M's

Over the past decade, the folks at Mars have done an absolutely brilliant job of transforming M and M's (this blog won't let me use an ampersand, so the brand purists our there will have to tolerate this incorrect usage) from an ordinary candy to an icon brand - as powerful as any brand in the world.

They've done it using every weapon in the modern marketing arsenal. But it's really a story of crafty and consistent marketing investment behind one truly BIG IDEA that has been brilliantly executed and extended for many many years.

Here are just some of the things they've done that have leveraged the brand shrewdly.

1. Creating the animated characters: They gave the brand personality, charm and dramatically enhanced its distinctiveness. The team that originated the characters created a BIG idea that has made billions for Mars.

2. Leveraging the characters consistently over the years. They recognized a good thing and had the good sense to "keep on keeping on" despite what has probably been dozens of different executives managing the business over the years.

3. Using the power of licensing. Once the characters had established their appeal, Mars began cleverly licensing their use to build even greater brand ubiquity.

4. Opening Retail Stores. NYC has a great one. So does Las Vegas. Check one out the next time you have a chance. The NYC store is particularly brilliant due to the tremendous digital outdoor signage that is part of it and how that signage is being used to enhance the brand and draw people into the store.

5. Marketing product news on a regular basis. New colors. New things printed on the candy. Customizable candy. A "Premium" version of the basic product. The latest is Disney characters on the candy. Fun stuff that keeps the brand interesting.

6. Using NASCAR. The M and M Racing Team helps broaden the brand's appeal even further.

7. Investing in all the basics. TV. Print. Internet. They continue to throw gasoline on the fire. Smart!

I remember the brand before it became supercharged. It has taken Mars decades, but they have done a stupendous job of transforming a simple candy into an American icon brand. Kudos to everyone involved over the years!

YouTube & Domino's: It Could Happen to You

Last week, Domino's had to deal with a PR nightmare when two of their employees filmed a disgusting prank and then posted it online. In a few days, the prank had circulated widely over the Internet and Domino's was dealing with a potential marketing and PR disaster.

We all understand the world's greatest intellects are not likely to be found working in the back room kitchens of places like Domino's. We also understand that every restaurant chain in America does the best they can to hire and train good people and then provide them with the tools and systems to generate consistent meals that will satisfy their customers. Lastly, we also understand that things can go wrong in those kitchens and that no system is ever going to be perfect. Mistakes can happen and, while we don't like it when they do, we can also be understanding, especially if they are dealt with in a very positive way. In fact, sometimes, dealing with a mistake in an exceptional way can create one of the most positive brand experiences possible.

What we don't understand is when idiots decide to do something incredibly stupid, record it, and then, thinking it's incredibly funny, they decide to post it on the Internet for the world to see. That's what happened to Domino's. It's bad enough that these videos get exposed so easily on places like YouTube, but they eventually generate millions of PR impressions when the story hits the newspaper and the network news programs. TV news, in particular, can't resist showing us videos like these, because they are both disgusting and fascinating at the same time. And, then it becomes a spectator sport to see how the targeted company responds.

Domino's seems to have responded quickly and well to this episode but the damage was done. What are the implications for marketers everywhere because every one of us is vulnerable to something like this? You're especially vulnerable if you manage a highly visible, familiar consumer brand like Domino's.

First, realize that YouTube can be your enemy just as much as it can be your friend. Yes, you can post your own marketing messages out there, but the images that interest people the most are not these packaged corporate communications. It's the underground "behind the scenes" scandalous images that capture attention, become viral and get widely circulated. As a marketer, you must image your worst PR nightmare and then develop a marketing and PR contingency plan to deal with it. You must be ready because if something like this occurs to your brand, its impact moves at the speed of light and you can't take days to figure out how to respond and what to do. What is the worst possible thing that could show up on YouTube that could severely damage your brand or your company? Are you ready to deal with it?

Second, shouldn't YouTube be more accountable for episodes like this? As marketers, shouldn't we be talking to the YouTubes of the world about what can be done to protect businesses from this type of damage to their reputations. Do we really think it's right that two idiot employees can have this kind of impact on a company? Is YouTube doing an adequate job policing the videos that are posted to their site?

Third, anyone who knowingly inflicts this kind of harm on a company should be legally liable for their actions. It's not enough to simply fire an employee for this kind of damage. It should be illegal. That would go a long way to discourage these malicious acts.

Signs of the Times

Consumers everywhere are in a serious "recession mind frame." They're delaying purchases or deciding simply to forego things that they would ordinarily be buying. It's a scary time if you're a trying to market anything that's not pretty much an absolute necessity. If it's a "nice to have" thing but not a "must have" thing, then you are definitely feeling the impact of this recession mindset that gripping most Americans.

Here are a few things that illustrate how bad this recession mindset has become and how lasting its impact may be.

1. The Cute Puppy No One Wanted

I attended a charity event recently that I've attended for the last three years. The event includes both silent and live auctions to raise money for the charity. In prior years, the highlight of the event is the live auctioning of a cute puppy. The biding is spirited and the puppy generates a multiple thousand dollar contribution for the cause. This year, when the puppy went up for auction, no one bid. It was sad and embarrassing. The puppy was as cute as ever, but this year, no one wanted to come home with a new puppy. Another mouth to feed? Vet bills? Buying a new puppy in this economy? It was a sobering moment, because this was a relatively wealthy crowd. It really brought home how bad things have gotten.

2. Outrage at Excessive Executive Compensation

No matter how well a company is performing, it is now PR poison to grant large bonuses and multi-million dollar compensation packages to top executives. When so many are out of work, forced to cut back and losing their savings, it does seem ridiculous and unfair to read of CEO "Mr Big Shot" and his $25 million bonus. I think we've gotten to a point where this type of compensation is no longer routinely accepted. I think the press will now focus on these types of comp packages and report on them and that Board of Directors will be forced to react. Is it more important to keep a few top execs fat and happy or is it more important to protect the public reputation and image of the corporation? It will be interesting to keep an eye on this issue and see if it goes away once the economy returns to health. I suspect we may have experienced a watershed moment that could forever change the excessive compensation earned by a select few.

3. GM Headed for Chapter 11

An American Icon company looks like it is about to declare bankruptcy. Any guess on how the stock market will react to this event if it happens? Can you imagine what it must be like to be a GM Dealer these days? How many of them are about to go out of business, too? Last night a friend told me he just bought a new GM car and got $17000 off the list price. How desperate did that dealer have to be to unload a new car at that steep a discount? GM is trying hard but everything positive that they do right now is overshadowed by the mass of negative publicity they're getting.

4. Banks Only Want to Lend Money to People Who Don't Need to Borrow

Isn't one function of the banking industry supposed to be to loan money to entrepreneurs and aspiring small business owners so that they can create new businesses, employ more Americans and fuel the overall economy? This financial crisis has made banks so conservative in their lending that the only people who can get money now are those that don't need it. Banks want to make money and they want to minimize bad loans, but don't banks also have a social responsibility to help create more jobs and grow the economy?

There is a lot of ill will being created right now by many American businesses. I'm not sure that this recession will be like the other ones I've live through. The impact of this one feels like it will be more permanent. My dad grew up during the The Great Depression and his outlook on life and money and business was fixed during that era. I suspect that many Americans are being affected just as deeply now by what we are experiencing. The impact on marketing will likely be permanent and immense.

Can Anyone Explain These Crazy Things?

I admit that it's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. But there are some things in the world of business and marketing that just seem so hard to understand when you first see or hear about them that you've got to wonder "what were they thinking?"

Here are a few recent examples:

1. AIG

How could they have not known that passing out bonuses using government bailout money would finish off the company's reputation permanently and forever kill the AIG brand? There is no way that AIG as a brand can survive now and I doubt that any attempt to rename the company and continue in business will succeed either. The leaders of AIG have got to be the all-time biggest business boneheads in history. Are we going to put even more bailout money into this disastrously mismanaged company? I sure hope not. What were they thinking?

2. Gatorade

An old colleague of mine responded to one of my recent postings where I criticized Coca-Cola for some of their latest brand positioning moves with a right-on comment about Gatorade's recent re-branding. For now, they're still calling themselves "Gatorade", but the brand name has disappeared from the front of their packaging. We now see nothing but a big ugly generic-looking capital "G". Why on earth did they do that? How did they convince themselves that it made sense and was a wise thing to do? Are we about to start hearing them call the brand "G"? What were (are) they thinking?

3. MSNBC

They decided to air a segment that attacked consumers suffering with "underwater" houses due to the mortgage lending/housing market crisis. There may be a few scrooge-like ultra right wingers out there that have no sympathy for fellow Americans having to deal with this crisis, but that is not exactly the prevailing sentiment. MSNBC rightfully got taken to the woodshed by John Stewart of Comedy Central and then the media circus was on. An avalanche of negative publicity for MSNBC ensued. How could MSNBC have lost touch with their viewers and American public opinion that badly? Fat cat on-air announcers with big-money contracts who are not feeling any financial pain are not representative of the average American. What were they thinking?


I'd love to hear from anyone out there who doesn't think that each of these things are crazy-headed "what were they thinking" examples of pure marketing insanity.

Direct Response TV - When "FREE" doesn't really mean "free" and other bogus practices

There is a subset of marketing people, agencies and production companies that specialize in a unique form of American marketing collectively called DRTV (direct response TV).

These are those generally awful ads selling products you can't buy in stores but are only available through these "amazing" and "incredible" and "fantastic" tv offers. It's the closest marketing comes to the old wild west huckster selling magic elixir out of the back of his covered wagon.

Cable broadcasters air these DRTV ads when they have no real honest-to-goodness paying advertisers. So rather than fill commercial time with dead air or a barrage of network promos (neither of which generate any revenue for the broadcaster), cable networks assault us with these hard-sell intrusive long-form (usually 60 seconds or more) ads. They give away the air time for nothing. All you need to be in this business is a slick selling spot that gets gullible viewers to call that number and order that gizmo. Cable networks play along because if you're sucker enough to call those on-screen numbers and actually order something, the cable network shares in the revenue. Hey, it's better than earning nothing for that ad time. Right?

Wrong. And here's why.

Most of these ads use tried and true DRTV practices that are at best "unethical" and at worst "outright fraud." Here are some of the "Hall of Shame" tactics that are their standard tools.

1. "It's FREE". No it's not. Check out the shipping and handling fees. Those more than pay for the cost of the item and provide a profit margin to the seller, too.

2. "Act now and we'll double the offer." All that means is that the price they're charging is more than enough to give them comfortable margins even if they supply you with two instead of one, four instead of two...you get the idea.

3. "Not sold in any stores!" That's turning a negative into a positive. There's no place to take this back if you don't like it or it doesn't perform as advertised. And that number you called to order.... it's a call center. It's not any kind of company HQ. Good luck getting a refund if you call back with a complaint or because you're dissatisfied. And if they really were selling some sort of truly amazing product, why wouldn't they be selling it by the millions through conventional retail channels instead of one at a time over the TV?

The cable TV networks that broadcast these deceitful ads are valuing a few dollars of incremental revenue over their own ethical standards. As a paying advertiser, I certainly wouldn't want any of my spots anywhere near these sleazy DRTV ads. These ads tend to sully the reputation of all ads and all marketers. They aren't doing anything to enhance the image of the cable network airing the ads either.

I'd like to see the cable networks implement higher standards in determining which DRTV ads they agree to run. If they don't police themselves, it's time that the FCC get involved and put an end to these shamefully misleading ads. They don't entertain. They don't enlighten. They just try to trick you into ordering something that probably doesn't work.

Coke's Brand Strategy for Colas - How Times Have Changed!

Here's an opening disclaimer: I used to be in charge of cola marketing at The Coca-Cola Company back in the late 80"s and early 90's. I helped make Diet Coke the success it was in the early 80's when I managed its advertising while at one of Interpublic's agencies. Therefore, I'm probably not completely objective about what Coke is doing these days, but I also know a lot more about their brands than the Average Joe.

Here are some of the things that puzzle me about what Coke is doing.

1. Coke Zero is directly positioned against brand Coke.

The Coke Zero ads feature two bogus brand managers who try to be funny while communicating the message that Coke Zero has stolen Coke's taste. The target of the advertising seems to be Coke drinkers who they are trying to switch to Coke Zero. Huh? Unless the brand economics make Coke Zero a lot more profitable than Coke, why would Coca-Cola want to introduce a brand with the apparent purpose of simply cannibalizing the mother lode? What happened to competing with Pepsi? I don't get it.

2. Diet Coke has become what Tab used to be.

Now that Coke Zero is on the scene, Diet Coke has ben re-positioned squarely and only against women. Diet Coke became a success by breaking the "Diet" stigma and convincing cola drinkers that it tasted good enough for everybody - men and women. It was launched "Just for the Taste of It" with advertising that was broadly targeted and definitely NOT diet focussed. Coke invested in that strategy for about 20 years. They must have spent a billion dollars on it, literally. In the last few years, it's "never mind." What a titanic waste of money! As someone who devoted years of their life to building the Diet Coke brand, I REALLY don't get it.

3. Coke's advertising is a mess.

Is it my imagination or does every single Coca-Cola ad now try to equate the brand with lofty things like "goodness"and the environment and education? The brand is taking itself so darn seriously now that it's no fun. It's become this pompous overblown brand that relies on high tech animation techniques and other whiz-bang effects because it is without a core brand idea that is fun and relevant. Every so often they stumble onto something that people like (remember the Polar Bears) but that's been more luck than strategic marketing acumen. Pepsi has finally got it right again, returning to the basic Pepsi Generation positioning that makes that brand young and fresh and fun and relevant. Coke's advertising is bloated, too self-important and increasingly irrelevant (and Coke Zero is helping this happen!).

Over the years, I've watched Coke be a revolving door for marketing people and advertising agencies and brands. The guys at the top find scape goats and they dodge the bullets and continue to blunder along. Coke is still one of America's great brands in spite of all the recent incompetence. Maybe, one of these days, they'll figure things out and get the brand back on track.

Some Thoughts on Marketing's Role in Today's Depressed Economy

The economic news continues to be bleak with no upturn in sight. Layoffs are continuing. The stock market continues to decline. Every night, the network news is loaded with stories of corporate and human distress. The marketing fundamentals of our economy may be undergoing permanent change. How should your marketing team respond?

I'll start with a principle that needs to shape your marketing actions: Marketing can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do.

So, in this economy, if most of your customers don't want to spend money right now to buy whatever it is you're selling, what should you be doing? The correct "marketing mindset" for your company should be "how can I help (not sell) my customers in the short term in order to gain even more of their business in the long term."

There are many companies that are responding to today's economic conditions with deep discounts and deals and special offers to try to get reluctant customers to buy NOW. No doubt, some customers will respond to this. But most will not. However, they will remember the special deal price and when the time comes that they are ready to buy, they will not be happy about the return of "regular" pricing. Discounting is generally a one-way street. When you set a new lower price, it usually very quickly becomes the price that your customers expect to pay from that point on. So discounting may generate a short term lift, but the long term impact on future revenue and profits will be significant. Beware!

Smarter companies are shifting their marketing tactics without resorting to cutting their prices. One interesting example is Hyundai. They are promoting a "Forgiveness" plan that promises that if you buy a new Hyundai and then find yourself in economic distress and unable to make your payments, that they will simply allow you to return the car, without all the ugliness that is normally associated with that type of situation. Hyundai could easily have been investing the same marketing resources into promotions and discounts in order to sell more Hyundais RIGHT NOW. This softer approach is much more compelling and. I bet, more effective for them.

Other companies are recognizing that their customers simply want to exercise more buying caution in these uncertain times. Caution means "slow down" and "learn more" and "be sure." So the tone and style of your marketing should reflect that. You should expect longer sales cycles and be creating marketing materials that will gently push your customers along, providing the information they need and providing it with more frequency than in the past. The information you're providing may need to be more detailed and the after-the-sale service may need to be more robust (and less expensive). You're financing options may need to be expanded, with more options offered. Your guarantees may need to be strengthened or promoted more aggressively. All of these tactics will reflect your customer's mindset and, as a result, be more effective.

Marketing is about understanding your customers and communicating with them in ways that demonstrate understanding and provide compelling information that motivates them to do business with you. If your marketing shows that you don't understand the economic realities facing your customers today, then you're not doing a smart job of marketing.

Marketing with Music - Not What It Should Be

There's rarely a TV commercial that gets produced today that doesn't use music in some way. Yet most marketers are getting far less brand impact from the music they use than they should be. Music can be so much more than an underlying soundtrack to the words and pictures of a TV ad. Music can be brand cement. It can be a marketing communication tool that enables you to plant a brand message in a viewer's head FOREVER.

Here are some great examples of branded music that many of us can probably not only remember, but most likely still sing along with.

Almond Joy/Mounds - "Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut"
Meow Mix - "Meow Meow Meow Meow"
Roto-Rooter - "Away Go Troubles Down the Drain"
US Army - "Be All You Can Be"
Alka Seltzer - "Plop Plop Fizz Fizz"
Chili's - "Baby Back Ribs"
Oscar Meyer - "I Wish I Was an Oscar Meyer Weiner"
Campbell's Soup - "M'm! M'm! Good!"
Hertz - "Let Hertz Put You in the Driver's Seat"

There's another really good way to use music and really BRAND it. That's to steal a song that's become a hit on its own and apply it to your brand in such a strong way for such a long time that it's impossible to hear the song any more without thinking of the brand it has now become associated with. Here are a couple great examples of that.

Chevy - "Like a Rock"
Heinz Ketchup - "Anticipation"
California Raisins - "I Heard It Through the Grapevine"

Another approach that also works is the short musical button that ends a spot and becomes an instantly recognizable element of the brand. Two examples of this are:

Mennen - "By Mennen"
Intel - "Intel Inside"

Today, music in marketing has essentially become a throw-away. Part of this is because so few marketers are now committing themselves to long-term campaigns, which is a requirement if you want to establish any branded music. It's a shame because music can and should be a powerful branding weapon.

Does it really make sense to pay for the rights to use the music of some hot recording artist only in one spot for only a limited period of time? Almost never! Unless you're Apple marketing the iPod, in which case using interesting new music is a big part of what the brand is all about. But exceptions like this are rare and only prove the rule. Don't invest big money in music UNLESS you're committed to making the music a big part of your brand identity for a substantial period of time - like FOREVER.

The Obligatory Super Bowl Advertising Review

It was a great game. Certainly one of the best Super Bowls ever.

One of the unique aspects of The Super Bowl is that the "day after" evaluation of the ads has become such a part of the game itself. It's one of the reasons why advertisers invest in those high-priced ads. They command the attention of everyone and the one exposure the advertiser pays for in the game itself is multiplied many times over with the "day after" exposure that each of the ads invariably receives.

By now, you'll have formed your own opinions about the ads, read what others think and probably debated the merits of the ads with relatives, friends and co-workers. Rather than bore you with just another opinion on all those ads, I'll take a slightly different approach. I'll take issue with some of the ads that most reviewers are praising and support one of the ads that most of the reviewers are criticizing.

Were These Ads Really Any Good?

1. Doritos "Office Ball": Isn't a guy getting nailed in his family jewels the oldest and stalest slapstick gag in the world? Aren't great ads supposed to be original?

2. Coke Zero "Polamalu": Ripping off the classic Mean Joe Greene ad was another example of failed creativity. The original ad generated powerful and sweet emotion. This one went for silly slapstick humor and just ended up cheapening the original.

3. Coke "Bugs": Wonderful animation, but what else was there in this spot? Using fabulous production technique does not mean that you don't still need a core selling idea. And bugs are not nearly as cute as polar bears.

4. Cash4Gold.com: Some reviewers actually liked this ad. Unbelievable! It was sad seeing winners who are now losers (Ed McMahon and MC Hammer) depicted in such chessy desperate fashion.

Was This Ad Really That Bad?

1. Heineken "Vanguard": John Turturro is a great actor and not just a pretty face. The copy was intelligent and Turturro's direct to camera reading was riveting. Was he too old and too pretentious? Maybe. But I paid attention and it was definitely distinctive from other beer ads.


I Agree That These Ads Were Terrific

1. Bridgestone "Potato Heads" and "Jump Around"
2. Budwesier "Clydesdale Plays Fetch"
3. E-trade "Babies"
4. Pepsi "Forever Young"
5. Monster.com "Moose"
6. CareerBuilder.com "It's Time"
7. Denny's "Wise Guys"

I Agree that These Ads Were Terrible

1. Bud Light "Skiier" (Drinkability MUST go!)
2. GoDaddy.com "Enhanced"
3. SoBe "Ballet"
4. Pepsi "MacGruber" (Beyond bad. Embarrassingly awful.)

The Top Dog as Talking Head

Are you a fan of those TV commercials that feature the CEO as the company's spokesperson?

Over the last few decades, there have been some notable marketing successes using this approach. The ones that come immediately to mind are Orville Redenbacher, Frank Perdue, and Dave Thomas (Wendy's). I think what made each of these campaigns work was that each spokesperson/CEO was an original. Quirky and believable and amusing. They were execs that didn't take themselves too seriously and they allowed their agencies to use them in light-hearted ways. Over time, they became rather endearing and that helped make us pay attention to their marketing messages.

In today's economic climate, CEOs are generally getting bad press. They're in the news either for laying people off, needing bail outs or posting poor results. I don't think that most Americans are predisposed to like CEOs right now, so it's a particularly dicey time to use one as the centerpiece of your marketing campaign.

Here are a few companies using their CEOs as their TV spokesman today and, without fail, I think these approaches are not working.

Sprint: We see the CEO (Dan Hesse) in dark, nearly black and white, spots as he casually strolls through various Manhattan settings and tells us how cool Sprint is and invites us to join him and his company on the mobile technology highway. Nothing charming or interesting or endearing about these spots. In fact, the CEO just comes across as an egotistical guy who seems to think he's persuasive and cool. Is anyone switching to Sprint based on this campaign? I doubt it.

Community Coffee: The young fourth generation CEO of his family tells us why Community Coffee is so good. The idea here seems to be "trust me. I'm so sincere. Buy my family's coffee." I always find myself wondering, "would this guy be the CEO if his great grandfather, grandfather and Dad hadn't just handed the company over to him?" A distracting thought that definitely gets in the way of me being persuading to buy the coffee.

Papa John's Pizza: The CEO has been their spokesperson for many years. He's always been very stiff on camera. Not a natural who looks like he actually enjoys being the spokesperson. I find the spots always awkward to watch and I'm always distracted by the poor acting ability of the CEO.

I've never been personally involved in a CEO As Spokesperson campaign, but I can imagine how awkward they must be to develop and produce. If it's the CEO's idea, how do you gracefully advise him/her against the idea and keep your job? If it's your idea and the CEO turns out to be an on-camera stiff, how do you persuade him/her to give up the newly found TV fame and return to being just the behind-the-desk CEO? Difficult issues and it's got to be hard for everyone involved to maintain objectivity and do the right thing.

My advice... unless you've got a Frank Perdue or an Orville Redenbacher as your CEO, develop your marketing campaigns without using your top dog as your talking head.

B2B Technology Marketing Blunders That Bug Me

Blunder #1: B2B Web Sites That Fail to Communicate Clearly.

Have you ever visited a technology company's web site, studied the home page, browsed around a little and still had no idea what the company does/makes or why you should do business with them?

It happens to me all the time. I'm a smart guy, but I'm definitely not a technocrat. I want to understand the technology that I'm considering buying without being dazed, confused or intimidated by it.

Most technology companies are loaded with techno-geeks who all speak the unique language of that particular technology. It's often an impenetrable argot of acronyms and arcane language that only fellow geeks in that particular technology will understand. When these people are in charge of an important marketing tool, like the company's web site, bad things start to happen. While the technocrats can communicate with each other, they leave the majority of us in the dark. This is NOT communication. It's obfuscation. That's why it's a terrible marketing blunder to let technocrats be in charge of B2B company web sites. The only time it makes any sense is if the only people who will have anything to do with buying your techno-product or service are all fellow geeks. In my experience, this is almost never the case.

The art of brilliant marketing communication is to take a product or service that is potentially complex and confusing and present it so that it seems clear and relatively simple. Most IT-oriented people simply don't understand this basic truth. They embrace technological complexity and thrive on it. They think everyone shares their desire to dive deeply into the details. Apple is an example of a technology company that has mastered the art of brilliant and eloquently simple product communication. Apple is a rare and wonderful exception in the world of technology marketing.

A former colleague once told me "the confused mind says no." "No" is not a good word when it comes to marketing or selling. If you want to get more "yeses" let your marketing people translate your technology into language that will communicate rather than obfuscate.

Blunder #2: Wasting Money on B2B TV Advertising.

I am almost always puzzled when I see a B2B ad on TV. Why do some B2B companies think it's smart to invest millions of dollars reaching tens of millions of people who will never have anything to do with purchasing their product or service?

The creative people who work in advertising agencies love to develop and produce TV ads. But how does this ever make media sense when your target audience can be so precisely defined and reached directly with much more targeted communications? I have no logical explanation for this, but I have three remedies for this foolhardiness.

First, cut the marketing budget so that all temptation to spend lavishly and wastefully will be eliminated.

Second, measure the impact and effectiveness of what you're doing and force B2B TV ads to be completely and utterly justified by rigorous ROI analysis relative to other uses of those same marketing resources.

Third, hire more outside-the-box thinkers to lead your marketing teams. Throwing money at TV ads is about the least creative marketing idea that anyone can have these days.

Following Up on Previous Blogs: Credit Card Companies, Budweiser and Dr Pepper

Hallelujah!

The Federal government has finally outlawed some of the most onerous practices of the credit card industry. I blogged (ranted) on these practices back on 11/18 and was thrilled to read yesterday that many of these practices will no longer be allowed. Starting in July 2010 (why we have to wait so long is beyond me), credit card companies will not be allowed to change the APR they are charging on existing balances. They will be allowed to raise your APR if you are late (more than 30 days) but this new APR can not be retroactively applied to existing balances. It will only apply to your new balances. WOW! Finally some fairness in financial marketing. Better late than never.

But wait a minute. How are the credit companies responding now that they have almost 18 months to get ready for this new fairer reality? You guessed it. They're going to shaft us as much as they can between now and then. Many have already started to raise their rates to squeeze their customers as hard as they can between now and when the new regulations go into effect. Boneheaded, short-sighted marketing thinking if you ask me.

Wouldn't it be cool if just one of these credit card companies finally wised up and took advantage of the situation to implement the new policies NOW - way ahead of the deadline? Imagine the marketing power of positioning your company as leading and embracing this change. It's a major opportunity for someone in the industry that has the guts to step forward and outdistance the competition. Will it happen? Probably not.


Moving on to the world of beverages......

In my blog on 11/25, I chastised Bud and Dr Pepper for wrong-headed communication strategies on two of their brands - specifically the "drinkability" strategy that Bud is trying to leverage and the "complex flavor/drink it slow" strategy that Dr Pepper is using.

Well, Bud is now on its third campaign trying to bring this weak "drinkability" strategy to life. I assume they've probably looked at dozens of others that have been rejected. What a titanic waste of time and money! Bud is normally an exceptionally savvy marketer, so this is out of character for them. I'm betting that we won't see a fourth iteration of this failed strategy and that something new will be with us by The Super Bowl, when Bud always seems to make a big splash with something new and wonderful.

Unfortunately, Dr Pepper shows no sign of wising up. The wrong-headed campaign that I want to comment on today is for Diet Dr Pepper. The gist of the strategy is that Diet Dr Pepper tastes too sweet to be called "Diet." Spots show a six pack marching down the candy aisle in a grocery store and being hailed by sugary treats as one their own. This strategy is wrong for two reasons. First "sweetness" is relative. What tastes sweet to me, may not taste sweet to you. Second, "sweetness" is not universally positive. I may like sweet things but you may not. What is "too sweet" to me is not going to be "too sweet" for you. Diet Coke broke diet soft drink tradition when it was launched over 25 years ago with a "Just for the Taste of it" brand positioning that was brilliant. It was the first "diet" soft drink that said nothing about dieting or calories in its advertising. It focussed on great taste and fun and refreshment. This Diet Dr Pepper advertising team needs to study the early work on Diet Coke. This "sweetness" strategy they're currently following is all wrong.

I predict that Bud will be back on track a lot sooner than Dr Pepper. The fact that Bud is moving from campaign to campaign shows that they know they have a problem. Dr Pepper seems oblivious.

Geico: Hit, Hit, But Now a Whiff

Geico is an interesting advertiser to watch.  

First, they created their Gecko campaign, which was a very memorable and distinctive way to capture attention, create brand recognition and get people to listen to Geico's marketing messages.  Then, Geico topped themselves with the wildly successful Caveman campaign (Geico.com:  So Simple a Caveman Could Do It).  I don't think any other advertising campaign has ever been so successful that Hollywood made a sitcom out of it.  Well-deserved congratulations are due to everyone at Geico and their agency for these two advertising home runs.

Unfortunately, Geico has just launched a third campaign that's a dud.  It's focussed on how much money you can save with Geico.  Not a bad message in this time of economic distress, but why did Geico think they needed a third campaign to deliver this message?  Couldn't the Gecko or the Cavemen have communicated this message?  Yet Geico went to the time and expense of creating a third campaign.  Not only has this cost them time and money, but it has diminished their focus on two proven campaigns.  

I'm sure the logic behind this move had something to do with Geico wanting to keep the other two campaigns' messages "pure" and feeling that they needed a new campaign to focus on what Geico must believe is a very important "value" message that's obviously extremely relevant right now.  

I could ALMOST agree with this logic if Geico's third campaign weren't so poorly executed.  It features a stack of money with some weird looking eyeball type of thing sitting on top of the pile of cash.   This money/eyeball thing shows up unexpectedly to the background tune of "Who's Watching Me" and puzzles people (including viewers in my opinion) who wonder what the heck this stack of bills with the odd peepers is all about.  That's when the Geico value message kicks in. 

On the plus side, the new campaign has the same quirky brand personality of the other two Geico campaigns.  However, it lacks the appeal and humanity of the Gecko and the Cavemen.  As viewers, we LIKE the gecko and the cavemen.  There is nothing to like about this odd stack of money with the creepy eyeballs.   The casting of the spots is equally puzzling.  The people in them aren't funny or amusing or even appealing.  They're all kind of clueless, much like I have been every time I see one of these new ads.

No one hits a home run every time.  Geico's ad and marketing people have certainly performed far better than most.  They have two campaigns to be proud of.   I think the "marketing sanity" thing to do would be to retire this new effort sooner rather than later.   I hope Geico gives us more of their two powerhouse campaigns.  More of the gecko!  More cavemen!  

I HOPE that this new effort does not signal that Geico is getting tired of their gecko or getting bored with their cavemen.  They've got two thoroughbred campaigns.  They ought to ride them until they drop.  And both still look pretty darn fresh to me.