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.
Showing posts with label Coke Zero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coke Zero. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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.)
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.)
Labels:
Cash4gold.com,
Coke,
Coke Zero,
Doritos,
Heineken,
Super Bowl ads
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

