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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
