my perspectives
July 1, 2009: Pixar - Truly Words Worthy!
If you have been reading this blog on a regular basis, you'll know I've been ranting about marketing, communications and public relations items that have rubbed
me the wrong way. All that negativity does something to a person, to use impersonal language, so I've decided that I want to be positive for a change. Not only
that, on a sustained basis.
So today, I'm starting something new - the Worthy Award. There's no real award per se - we're a frugal organization here at the Words' Worth lab - but what
I offer is a shout out to organizations and individuals who are exemplifying or engaged in progressive, ethical, commendable or downright amusing PR, Marketing
or Communications practices or campaigns.
Today, I'm giving the first Worthy Award to Pixar. Why? Because, and you'll need a hankie for this - the company fulfilled the dying wish of a 10-year-old-girl.
It arranged a private DVD showing of its latest film Up for her. Seven hours later, the girl passed away. If that doesn't move you, you either have no pulse
or no heart.
I don't know much about Pixar beyond what I see and read in the media, but it has always struck me as a company that is very committed to producing only the
highest quality entertainment - entertainment that can be enjoyed by every member of the family. It has also seemed to me to be a company that sees its employees
and their families as part of a big Pixar family. One Pixar tradition is to list the names of all the babies born to employees during the production of a particular
film in the closing credits.
By responding to a call from a mother wanting to make her daughter's wish come true, Pixar reinforced the positive brand attributes I associate with the company.
But here's what impresses me most about Pixar as regards this story: they declined to comment for the news story.
Normally, I'd say no comment is the wrong approach to take. In this context, any comment by Pixar might have come off as a canned self-congratulatory, opportunistic
or self-promotional tract. That kind of false modesty where a company really wants to bask in the media spotlight for its own benefit. By design or inadvertently,
Pixar let the family tell its tragic, yet touching, story without hijacking it. Sure, the company may not have wanted to encourage more such incidents - it
couldn't fulfill every such request - but I like to think it realized that this was not the time or place to solicit attention for a good deed. Besides, anything
the company could have said would not have had the impact or appeal as the family describing just what that one act of kindness meant for a little girl. You
couldn't ask, pay, or create a better endorsement.
So, let me wipe that pesky tear from my eye and say that, Pixar, you are truly Words' Worthy.
June 1, 2009: A sweet reminder of the importance of brand experiences
This is a story of how a store manager and cashier saved a young girl’s birthday party and, in the process, protected the store’s brand.
My mom, who is an exceptionally gifted crafter of birthday cakes – she’s done everything from Smurfs to Scooby-Doo – was in a bind recently. She was pressed
for time and needed a cake for my niece’s 11th birthday party. So she went to a grocery store to order a special confection for the big event – one that would
be adorned with edible pictures from High School Musical. She chose the store because it was only one in her neighbourhood that could handle such an order.
She dropped off two 4”x 6” photos – the only size the store could use – and left her name and phone number.
On the big day, my mom went to pick up the cake and discovered that the photos she provided were replicated in wallet-size. Apparently, there had been a problem
with the machine that prints the edible photos, but no one had called my mother to let her know. Needless to say, she was disappointed. The store manager and
cashier were apologetic, and mom received a refund, but such concessions weren’t going to provide much comfort to an 11-year old girl. But an amazing thing
happened. The manager asked my mother for details about the party – where and when it was being held. Forty-five minutes after the party started, the cashier
arrived at my niece’s party with a new cake and a movie gift certificate, too.
The story could have had a different ending if the manager and staff had balked at offering a refund or had made no effort to accommodate my mom in a time of
need. You could say it’s an example of excellent customer service, but I see it more as an instance when a company turned a potentially negative brand experience
into a positive one.
Think about it: how many businesses have you boycotted because they delivered a product, service or experience decidedly inferior to the one they promised?
Consider how many people you shared your unsatisfactory experiences with, and how much detail you provided. Did you tell only your closest friends and family,
or did you blog and tweet about it? How many people indicated that they, too, would not be giving their business to a company based on how it treated you? Now,
flip that and think about the damage one or two unhappy people can do to your organization.
Clearly, this is a manager that understands the power of bad word of mouth to impair his business. He recognizes that customers have the potential to shape
public opinion about his brand based on the experiences they have. He knows that their word has more integrity, resonance or value among their friends and family
than any marketing or communication effort he might muster. And he realizes that their perceptions can spread far and fast, gaining enough traction to supplant
or negate his branding efforts. In short, this manager understands that his customers exert considerable control over his brand.
So he and his staff did the smart thing under the circumstances. They made the extra effort and saved the day, because they know one dissatisfied customer can
translate into several lost customers. They protected their reputation or brand from unnecessary criticism.
By the way, my mom went back to the store that same day and thanked the manager for making a little girl’s day. He informed her that he put in an order for
a new cake-decorating machine. Mom has been sharing her experience with friends and family, making her an invaluable brand ambassador for the store in her circle
of influence. Best of all, my niece got to have her cake and eat it too.
Share your brand experiences, sweet and sour, with me at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
May 2009
May 22, 2009: Vick rubs animal lovers the wrong way as Humane Society spokesman
Pro footballer Michael Vick had barely been released from prison when word began to circulate that he was angling to be a spokesperson for the Humane Society.
If it happens, it will be a very risky play for the Society. Vick, you may recall, served time for dog fighting.
The reaction to the news, at least the commentary I’ve encountered online, has mainly been disbelief and disgust. People are apoplectic that the Society
would consider working with Vick at all. Certainly Society president and CEO Wayne Parcelle has expressed doubts about Vick’s intent. But it does appear
that he and his colleagues are keeping an open mind about this, at least for now.
I’m guessing that the Society feels that Vick can help reach out to people who engage in or see nothing wrong with dog fighting. Perhaps Society reps believe
that this partnership will also translate into increased public awareness of the important work it does. Maybe there’s a willingness on their part to give
a disgraced individual a second chance.
Even so, it does raise some questions for me, and I wonder if Society reps asked themselves these questions. Does Vick have the cultural cachet to make
a difference? He’s been out of the public eye for the better part of two years, which is a very long time in an era in which celebrities have increasingly
short shelf lives. Could he backslide? Maybe not, but if he were to engage in any other actions that were viewed as questionable, it would hurt the Society
by association.
Even so, the main question on my mind is whether Vick’s good work could possibly outweigh the potential damage to the Society’s brand among supporters and
donors? The early commentary I’ve seen suggests it is unlikely. There is genuine resistance that could easily become a movement through social media channels,
possibly prompting people to withdraw financial and volunteer support from the Society. That would jeopardize the Society’s reputation and ability to prevent
animal cruelty, such as dog fighting.
That Vick could be a spokesperson for the Society is not such a stretch of the imagination. There have been instances where people have become effective
campaigners against questionable behaviour and beliefs, such as individuals who have quit hate-based organizations. If Vick is genuine in his intent, if
he has influence, he could make a difference. But I doubt he will get a chance, and suspect the Society will suffer as a result.
It’s odd. Most of us want to believe that, if we need it, we can have a shot at redemption. We certainly seem to like such stories. Yet we tend to be skeptical
when someone asks us for a second chance, particularly someone of prominence. So I have to wonder: If people prove unwilling to give Vick a second chance,
will they also deny such a chance to the Society if this partnership damages its brand?
Does the notion of Vick as a Human Society spokesperson make you sick?
Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
Is there anything that could damage Oprah’s brand integrity?
I ask this in the wake of controversy over the downloadable coupon on her website for a free two-piece Kentucky Grilled Chicken meal from Kentucky Fried
Chicken (KFC). Her intent was to provide food to people across America during these tough economic times.
But various writers and bloggers have criticized the offer as hypocritical. They’ve raised questions as to why Oprah, whose campaign against animal cruelty
led PETA to name her its 2008 Person of the Year, would associate herself with KFC. The basis for their outrage? One KFC supplier, Tyson, uses controlled
animal feeding operations for its chickens, which animal rights groups have deemed cruel.
Now comes word of several instances in which KFC restaurants declined to honour the coupons. The result: angry blog entries and at least one sit in. KFC’s
response? It was prepared for this promotion, but not prepared for the volume of response.
That’s a bit disingenuous. If one of America’s most popular icons promotes a free meal coupon on her website, you can expect there’s going to be considerable
take-up, or take-out, if you’ll pardon the pun. KFC only had to look at the significant spike in Twitter signups Oprah caused a few weeks ago to know the
kind of impact she can have when she endorses something.
So back to my question: is there anything that could damage Oprah’s brand integrity? Claims of abuse at the school she built in Africa for impoverished
young girls didn’t materially impact her. Nor did the controversy stemming from her endorsements of writer James Frey or The Secret. And I have every reason
to believe this incident won’t either.
Sure, the promotion runs counter to her values regarding animal rights. But Oprah didn’t build her brand on those values. She built it on aspirations and
interests she has in common with her audience, and her seeming candor on shared weaknesses, such as her struggles with her weight. The good will she’s amassed
as a result is the kind that can withstand an error in judgment like this, particularly one made with the best of intentions. What’s more, the individuals
who had trouble redeeming their coupons will likely associate their negative experiences with KFC, not Oprah.
No, I suspect it would take a gross miscalculation or a serious criminal offence to cause real damage to Oprah’s brand. Even so, it should serve as a reminder
to you to always consider the suitability, risks and ramifications of any public relations or marketing efforts for your organization before you adopt them.
That way, you won’t find yourself grilled by angry consumers for any real or imagined transgressions.
Does Oprah have egg on her face? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
For the past year, I’ve had a complimentary subscription to a local magazine. You could call it a kind of courtship, I suppose. As expected, the magazine
wants to our budding relationship to the next level. It’s seeking a long-term commitment in the form of a paid subscription. But I’m not feeling the love.
The announcement came to me in the form of a form letter. Apart from my name at the top, the letter could have been intended for anyone, not for me. The
content is short, which would be a compliment if it weren’t also short on reasons for me to become a paid subscriber.
Instead of a well-written reminder of all the great, exclusive content the magazine offered me this past year, I got a reminder that my subscription is
ending. Instead of persuasive words that communicated the magazine’s unique character, influence and perspective, I got a self-serving blurb about vibrant,
sophisticated and challenging content with out any evidence to back it up.
There were no incentives or promises of exciting upcoming content to entice and delight me, only a bald request for me to confirm and send my payment. There
was no attempt to demonstrate how the subscription fee offers great value, just the cost and tax all conveniently totaled for me. And instead of one final
attempt to woo me, the letter ends with a vague hope that I will continue to enjoy the magazine.
You have to wonder how much time and effort went into a drab, anonymous letter such as this. Did anyone involved in its creation remotely think that such
a weak and unengaging ask would be an effective tool for upgrading free subscribers? In an era where everyone is talking about the death of print media,
how could such a nondescript letter possibly make a case for a magazine’s relevance? The answer is, it doesn’t.
As always, I have a moral, and the moral is this: be strategic in your communications. Know your audience, know your strengths, and communicate those strengths
to your audience in a compelling, relevant way. People are skeptical, they want to be seduced and convinced. If you can’t speak directly to them and offer
a good reason to continue or deepen a relationship with you, they won’t.
So, it would appear my relationship with this magazine has come to an end, and this is a Dear John or break-up letter. It was nice while it lasted, but
I think I’ll be seeing other magazines from now on.
Dull marketing causing you to rethink a long-term relationship with a product or service? Email me at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
If you wanted any evidence of how social media is influencing marketing and communications, watch the
YouTube video apology of Domino’s President Patrick Doyle.
Domino’s posted the video last week in response to online video showing two Domino’s employees in Conover, NC engaging in some crude and disgusting behaviour
while preparing customer orders. A few years ago, a company president making such a video to allay consumer concerns would have been unthinkable. So I’ll
give Domino’s credit for taking its response to the medium where the damaging videos first appeared.
Even so, the video clearly demonstrates that, while many companies are eager to use social media in their communications efforts, only a rare few do so
effectively. On the evidence of the video, Domino’s is not among the elite.
Though Doyle foregoes a corporate suite and tie, he’s as stiff as a coat hanger. He’s positioned at an odd angle, his eyes constantly are focused up and
away from the camera, and he’s rather perfunctory in his delivery, like he’s reading from a teleprompter. It comes off stolid and staged, when it should
be engaging and conversational. His failure to look directly at the camera, and thus the viewer, undermines the intent of the video: to reassure consumers.
Though the messaging is relatively solid, if a bit hyperbolic, such a poorly conceived and executed video is likely to do more harm than good for Domino’s,
opening it to skepticism and ridicule. Obviously, it’s going to take time for companies like Domino’s to master the intricacies of effective social media
communication. At least more time than it took to come up with this half-baked effort.
Did Domino’s deliver on this one? Let me know your thoughts –
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
How would you advertise a kids’ meal? If you’re Burger King, you employ Spongebob Squarepants, Sir Mix-a-Lot and the company’s King in a parody of Mr. Mix-a-Lot’s
Baby Got Back.
In the commercial, young girls and sophisticated ladies shake oversized, square-shaped buns as the Mix (Let’s keep it simple, shall we?), extols the virtues
of said buns. All the while, Spongebob dances and the creepy, leering King measures and slaps ‘sharp right angle’ stickers on a behind or two.
As you may have guessed, the ad has stirred up controversy online, with accusations that it is too racy for kids, and that it is sexist. Though I was amused
by it, my first thought was: ‘I wonder how many viewers are furiously texting letters of outrage to Burger King and Nickelodeon (the broadcaster that owns
and airs Spongebob Squarepants)?’
Whatever entertainment value the ad may hold for adults, which both Burger King and Nickelodeon insist is the intended target market, Spongebob is a popular
children’s icon. Adults may enjoy the cartoons, but they are a secondary audience. It doesn’t matter what time the ad airs, kids are likely to see it, whether
on TV or the internet. Besides, the ad is peddling a kids’ meal, not a menu item geared to adults. So any argument that the commercial is not meant for
kids strikes me as disingenuous.
Whether it is Mickey Mouse, Tony the Tiger, the Pillsbury Doughboy or even the Burger King, It takes years to create and groom an advertising icon and its
persona. But it only takes one lapse in judgment to undermine it. Putting Spongebob in a commercial where the eerie King is sizing up a lady’s oversized
square rump strikes me as poor judgment, particularly on Nickelodeon’s part. In fact, I think the broadcaster has the most to lose if the outrage continues
and heightens.
Burger King has been cultivating a brand that courts controversy, as evidenced by its recent Subservient Chicken and Facebook initiatives. Nickelodeon,
however, has worked hard to build trust and equity as a family friendly broadcaster. Yes, its shows and brand are, to a degree, irreverent, but much of
its programming is meant to promote good values. Spongebob, for example, has on many occasions presented an underwater world built on gender equality –
that girls can do anything boys can. Allowing Spongebob to appear in an ad where only women shake their square butts around undermines such messages.
That this controversy follows on the heels of the network’s ill-conceived effort to relaunch a more mature version of Dora raises serious questions over
how it views and markets its iconic characters. In short, with one ad, the network has unnecessarily damaged the integrity of Spongebob and its own brand
equity.
The thing is, there were many other ways to go here that would have been more innocuous. For example, the ad could have been built around a square-butted
King dancing with an equally square-butted Spongebob. But, pardon the pun, they chose otherwise. For now, Burger King and Nickelodeon are standing behind
(sorry, couldn’t help it) the commercial. Even so, I wouldn’t be surprised if they scrub this ill-conceived campaign in the weeks to come.
Do you like ‘square buns’ or is the Burger King ad waterlogged? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
By now, you may have heard that Billy Bob Thornton gave a rather disastrous interview to Jian Ghomeshi on Q, a pop culture program broadcast on CBC Radio
1, Canada’s national public radio. Perhaps you’ve seen the not-safe-for-work
footage
on the radio show’s YouTube channel. Thornton embarrassed the host, himself and provided a textbook example of how not to conduct a media interview.
Thornton was on the program with his unfortunately named band, The Boxmasters, to promote their latest CD, and he looked anything but happy to be there.
It was the kind of look you give a relative who has overstayed his or her welcome at your house. Only Thornton was the ungracious guest, and he didn’t even
wait until the host had completed the introduction to reveal his disdain.
You could tell very early in the proceedings it wasn’t going to turn out well. Asked when the band had formed, Thornton said, ‘I don’t know what you’re
talking about… I don’t know what you mean by that.’ It deteriorated precipitously from there.
Questions about his formative musical interests were met with comments about baseball and a movie magazine he subscribed to. When the host attempted to
get Thornton’s to discuss his passion for music, the actor set aside all common sense and tact and raged that he told the show producers that his film career
was not to be discussed. It was a reference to the host’s introduction, which had made reference to Thornton’s day job.
On radio, it must have sounded belligerent, but watching on video, there is an occasional a gleam in his eye as he pleads ignorance to the meaning of subsequent
simple questions. It’s as if he’s playing the role of difficult artist deliberately to get a rise, to get attention. Or maybe he just decided to top Joaquin
Phoenix’s oddball appearance on David Letterman. I don’t know.
I do know this. His band mates looked mortified and grim. More important, his behaviour and actions disprove the old cliché that there is no such thing
as negative publicity. If you act and talk with a lack of respect, you may get attention, but most of it is likely to be scorn. You only have to look at
message boards on YouTube and pop culture sites to see that it is unlikely that The Boxmasters will be selling many CDs.
Remember, it’s not just the host or interviewer you are talking to in an interview. You are also talking to the viewers, who will judge you on everything
you say or do. If you present yourself as genuine and approachable, they will have a more favourable opinion of you and your position, service or product.
If you appear irritable, bored or contemptuous, chances are your message will be poorly received. Worse, the interviewer may adopt a harder line of questioning
that only serves to further undermine you and your brand.
In short, conduct every interview with grace and courtesy. Be a good sport, not a Bad Santa like Thornton.
Does Thornton merit a poor review, or was it stunt? Share your thoughts:
mark@wordwsworthinc.com.
Recently, a local publication featured a detailed article chronicling one company’s efforts to downsize. Most of the story focused on the perspectives of
the affected employees, mainly because company representatives did not make themselves available for a detailed interview. In fact, the writer made several
references in the article to failed attempts to get the company’s side of the story.
As you may have guessed, the story was rather negative, and company representatives contacted the publication after it appeared, citing several details
as erroneous. Though the company may have had valid concerns, I wonder how many people gave its arguments and clarifications due consideration. After all,
they had several opportunities to speak to the writer before the article was published, and they declined.
There are a few lessons to learn here. First of all, no comment is not a wise strategy to use when you’re dealing with media. Lawyers and other professionals
may tell you it eliminates the risk that you’ll say something that can be used against you in a court of law. The problem is, you lose credibility for your
organization, and your brand, in the court of public opinion. People typically interpret ‘no comment’ as ‘we have something to hide.’
Moreover, when you refuse to give a comment, you give others the power to influence or shape the story. Often, these are people who do not see you in a
positive light, which means the coverage is likely to be negative as well. By participating, you have an opportunity to get your side of the story on the
record, provide facts or data that supports your position, and ensure some degree of balance or fairness in the reporting.
Equally important, if you make no comment now, you may find it difficult to secure media coverage or public interest when you do have news you want to communicate,
such as a product launch. Media outlets are less inclined to give you the time of day if they suspect you will only interact with them is when it is strictly
in your interests.
Remember, too, that trying to set the record straight after a negative article is printed is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. People
have read it and formed an opinion of you before you’ve formulated your response. By the time your response appears, they’ve moved on, and you have to work
that much harder to shift their perceptions to a more favourable light. In short, it’s easier and less expensive to maintain a solid reputation than to
rebuild it.
So when you are approached by a reporter who is looking for a comment, offer one. Even if you have to ask for time to check details and get your story straight,
it’s in your interests to participate. Your brand is at stake.
Still think silence is golden? Tell me why at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
It’s always interesting when a company attempts to rebrand itself. Witness the announcement by Sci Fi that it will soon be known as Syfy. That’s right,
Syfy. That’s not a typo. There’s even a slogan to go with it: Imagine greater.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I could imagine greater. I don’t even think I could even imagine what that means, let alone what ‘Syfy’ means.
It sounds like ‘siffy’, which could be a period of time shorter than a jiffy, or maybe a nasal infection. Actually, it strikes me as kind of dorky. It’s
something a 16-year-old might scribble out in making a list of potential band names for a prog-rock group, only to reject it for something better. But then,
Sci Fi, I mean Syfy is 16, so maybe this is just an awkward phase the channel is going through.
What’s the thinking behind this rebranding? Well, the network’s president, Dave Howe, was quoted in TV Week saying something about maintaining a legacy
while building out into something more ‘relatable’ and ‘human-friendly’. Does that suggest the network’s established fan base wasn’t human or friendly?
Perhaps. Tim Brooks, who helped create the network, said the Sci Fi name was limited in its appeal to ‘geeks’ and ‘dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their
basements with video games.’ Nice way to acknowledge and respect your core audience.
Network reps say the new name is ‘hip’ – is that word even hip? – because it’s the way that people would text sci fi. But early reaction on Twitter and
message boards suggests maybe that’s not the case. Fans have had a field day making a mockery of the new name. In fact, some of the criticism (‘(it) makes
me vomit tears’) indicates that the fans do indeed imagine greater (ugh) than Sci Fi’s marketing mavens.
My take? I think it’s pretty foolhardy move by Sci Fi. A channel that has posted virtually no growth in the key 18-49 demographic for several years seems
determined to alienate an established, loyal and defined fan base in some vague quest to broaden its viewership. Clearly, Sci Fi’s, or Syfy’s executives,
live in a world of fantasy.
Will Syfy boldly go where Sci Fi couldn’t? Let me know your thoughts at
mark@wordworthinc.com.
Snacklish, do you speak it?
If Mars is successful, you will soon. The company is unveiling a new campaign for its Snickers bar, driven by an invented language called Snacklish. It
works like this: take a common word or ordinary name and infuse it with all or part of a word associated with snacking, with Snickers ingredients or the
candy bar’s brand-name. Viola, you are now fluent in Snacklish.
For example, J.R. Ewing, the iconic character from Dallas, becomes J.R. Chewing. An LP worth of songs would be an LP-nut, which sounds more like a music
collector. You could visit Nougat Orleans or Nougat Jersey, or we could wish each other Happy Nougat Year, and so on. Why, my name could be Marcaramel Caramelbell.
The mind reels with the limitless possibilities.
So far, Mars has launched the campaign on Snickers’
Facebook page, which you can link to from its
website. There will also be billboards,
with Snacklish words framed like the Snickers logo, and a series of ads this spring.
Though a rather novel campaign, my immediate impression is that it may not have much impact for Snickers. Clearly, Mars wants to court youth who have already
invented language through texting, online chatting and the like. The hope, obviously, is that young folk will make Snacklish part of their vocabulary and
contribute to it, thus raising awareness of and sales for Snickers.
Yet much of the invented language youth use originates organically. There’s little reason or incentive for them to embrace or acknowledge Snickers’ bid
to get in on the action. Moreover, it is not a given that youth who do use Snacklish terms will associate it with Snickers, or that those terms will endure
in popular culture. Finally, there is the possibility that people may invent or use Snacklish terms in a negative or controversial way, taking control over
the language away from Snickers and its marketers’ original intentions.
So, chew I think the Snickers campaign is a winner? Nougat much. Caramel to disagree? Email me:
mark@wordworthinc.com.
Skittles has taken a major leap of faith. It has transformed its website into a portal to online sites
such as Wikipedia, Facebook and Twitter. In other words, they are giving their brand over, by and large, to consumers in the virtual realm.
It’s a bold move in part because Skittles is basically giving up control over how it promotes and represents the brand. Yet its decision is masterful in
one regard: Skittles has managed to focus attention on and generate considerable chatter and coverage for the colourful candy.
Certainly, it’s a decision no company should make lightly. It means you have to accept harmful or potentially controversial commentary and content, whether
warranted or not, along with the positive. Not every company is going to have the courage to see that through.
In fact, reports suggest that Skittles may have soured a bit on the initiative. It quickly lost control of conversations about the candy on Twitter, as
users filled the page with profane and unrelated tweets. As of this writing, the Twitter feed is still available, but now under the header of ‘Chatter’.
To Skittles’ credit, it is still filled with comments highly suspicious and critical of the intent behind this unique campaign.
Having made this decision, I think Skittles will have to stick to it in the long run. If they try to rein in commentary or switch back to corporate control
of the brand, they are likely to earn the ire of users. The result could be significant and lasting damage to Skittles’ reputation, at least in the online
community, making it impossible to engage that audience again.
For now, Skittles is riding a rainbow of media attention and blog coverage. Moreover, in these tough economic times, it has likely lowered the costs of
its online marketing. But I have to wonder at what cost to its brand integrity?
Is the Skittles ploy sweet? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
February 2009
February 19, 2009: What message does your marketing material communicate?
Recently, I saw a commercial for Microsoft’s Photo Gallery. It featured a very charming young girl, Kylie, using the application to send a picture of her
pet fish to her family.
The intent of the ad, I gather, is to demonstrate that Photo Gallery is so easy to use, even a child can do it. But I was distracted by the fact that the
ad showed a small child using a computer to send photos without any parental supervision. Surely, someone at Microsoft or the ad agency must have noticed
that. I’m not saying that the ad is irresponsible, but in that regard, the execution struck me as ill conceived.
Here’s something else that stuck in my mind: the young girl was sending the picture to her mom. Again, cute idea in theory, but it started me wondering
why a child would have to send a picture of a pet fish to her mom. Is it symptomatic of a society in which all of our connections – even familial ones –
are made through technology and not in person? Do the mother and daughter use their PDAs to schedule face time, or does the mom reads her daughter a book
via a webcam? Or could it be that the daughter lives with her dad and communicates via the web with her mom? Needless to say, these are not the kinds of
associations I should be making with a particular product.
I concede I may be reaching a bit, but I offer these observations just to remind you of the importance of looking at what your marketing materials communicate
beyond the message you want to communicate. Elements from the setting to body language and beyond all have the potential to spark perceptions and interpretation
that go beyond, or run counter to, your intent. Simply put, you could be creating negative perceptions among your target audience and not even know it.
My advice is to take every marketing idea, however brilliant, and look at it from all angles. Try to anticipate how your audiences will see it, what they
might react to and how. Then refine the idea until every aspect supports and enhances your intent. That way, you can be sure that your message, like Kylie’s
photo, is well received.
Have you noticed any recent ads that undermined their key messages or intent? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
From time to time, I participate in Marketing Monitor, a regular feature in Halifax's Chronicle-Herald newspaper. Basically, local marketing professionals
offer their opinions on recent commercials and advertising trends. This month, the topic is whether the messages of change and hope that President Barack
Obama has inspired among U.S. marketers can be effectively adopted in Canada. Here's what I wrote:
In tough times, marketing campaigns must be carefully calibrated to avoid any appearance of opportunism, or the likelihood that consumers will view products
or services as something of value only in hard times.
Messages of hope or change work best if there is some societal or cultural phenomenon occurring that gives substance to the optimism. Obama provides a perfect
catalyst for such messages in the U.S., precisely because he embodies real and significant change. Given his considerable appeal and the influence the U.S.
has on our economy, it’s a given that marketers here will attempt similar messaging to win the hearts and minds of consumers. Though the messages may be
universal, without a profound change in our political or economic landscape, they may not prove as effective with Canadians. Even so, if the campaigns are
well executed and consistent, the messages may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that’s at least a good start on the road to recovery.
February 4, 2009: Pepsi Super Bowl Ad - does mixing advertising and entertainment
work?
I’m a little late to the game on this one, but I think NBC, Saturday Night Live and Pepsi fumbled the ball with their MacGruber campaign over the weekend.
If you haven’t yet heard, MacGruber, an ongoing SNL parody of MacGyver, was featured in what appeared to be a series of skits on the late-night program.
In fact, they were advertisements for Pepsi, and one of them also aired during the Super Bowl.
Viewers, particularly young viewers, are very savvy about marketing; they can tell when something isn’t on the up-and-up and don’t like to feel deceived.
My take is that viewers felt misled by the execution. The MacGruber ad I watched online – the one that aired during the Super Bowl – starts off looking
like a regular SNL skit, only to become very heavy handed in promoting the Pepsi brand. I think the intent was to make it so over the top that it would
be clear it was a Pepsi ad and, in the process, achieve hilarity. But the intent of the spot felt muddled to me, and the slack pace and lazy writing ensured
it wasn’t amusing.
Many viewers appeared to agree, if you use poll results of the most popular Super Bowl advertising on USA Today as your yardstick. I think the ad would
have benefited from being more upfront and honest: start with an announcement that MacGruber is endorsing Pepsi and demonstrate why he made that decision
by showing his failed attempts to pull himself out of harm’s way using other soft drinks. At least, then, it would have been clear to viewers that they
were about to see a commercial for Pepsi, not an SNL skit.
Ultimately, the spots were an unfortunate miscalculation on the part of NBC, Pepsi and, particularly, SNL. A skit show with a long tradition of skewering
bad ads should have done better than producing a bad ad that compromised its satirical legacy. NBC can talk about this spot as being an ad for Pepsi and
SNL, and being in the business of selling entertainment and marketing ‘platforms’, but at the end of the day, the MacGruber ad fails to entertain or market
any product effectively. Sure, they’ve garnered a lot of blog and media coverage for their efforts, but what I’ve seen isn’t very encouraging. And it should
serve as a lesson to anyone looking to combine advertising and entertainment, regardless of the medium.
Though I don’t think the MacGruber ad will necessarily do much damage to the parties involved, it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth.
Did MacGruber fall flat with you or did you find it refreshing? Let me know your thoughts at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
These may be recessionary times, but why was much of the advertising during last night’s Super Bowl broadcast so bankrupt of inspiration and creativity?
Being in Canada, I’ve had to catch up online and I have to say I’m disappointed at how overly familiar and misguided much of the messaging was. Let me run
down a few lessons learned from what I’ve viewed:
- Bridgestone executives, their agency and Playskool see women as incessant nags. Lovely message to send to a potential target audience during an
economic downturn.
- Audi shelled out for Jason Statham and the ad plays like a PSA for car thieves: ‘Our cars are the ones you want to steal.’ Good way to build peace
of mind with your current customers, Audi.
- Doritos are like the monkey’s paw of snack foods. They can strip women of their dignity and empty an ATM, but once they are gone, the payback is
pretty nasty.
- Even worse, Doritos encourages you to steal their product from vending machines in the midst of a recession. Bonus points: pretend a snow glob is
a crystal ball and throw it at your boss’ groin. Thanks for the advice, Doritos.
- Being a mean-spirited jerk when other people are clueless jerks is the most appropriate way to handle the situation, according to Chester Cheetah
and Cheetos. Boy, Chester’s become a creepy little snot of late.
- You can get a little too wrapped up in your own creativity such that, when you finally do get to your message, it’s wasted. I’m looking at you,
Cars.com.
- Overweight people falling is always good for a laugh. Thanks, Budweiser.
- Monkeys and talking babies have been thoroughly exhausted of their pitch potential.
- Pepsi and Bob Dylan seem to think that Will.i.am, who is partly responsible for giving the world My Humps, is the voice of a new generation. Sigh.
- You can create a spot that looks very much like Pixar made it and somehow forget to include any of that studio’s imagination or humour. I’m looking
at you, Coke.
- The sight of Troy Polamalu, in a nod to the classic Mean Joe Green Coke spot, tackling a heartless ad guy, tearing off his shirt and throwing it
at a kid as a souvenir was amusing. But how many kids are going to be happy that they’ve got an ad exec shirt full of flop sweat?
- Persistent guys are creepy. Thanks for the reminder, Taco Bell.
- Play on women’s anxieties? Stay classy, Teleflora.
- Size counts for men and ladies. Stay classy, Bud Light and GoDaddy.
- Violence equals funny.
- Death had better lines in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.
So what did I like?
- I liked the Pedigree ad about the hazards of keeping exotic pets, but couldn’t help picturing PETA members clogging phone lines to verify that the
bull, which gets a Frisbee in the face was unharmed.
- I also liked the Denny’s ad featuring mobsters trying to have a serious breakfast. Amusing and memorable.
- I was amused by the Hyundai ad, but surprised there were no U.S. car makers complaining about its status as car of the year.
- Is there anything that Alec Baldwin can’t enliven? Thanks Hulu, I always knew he was an alien.
Gatorade recently introduced new branding and advertisements for its energy drinks that downplay its iconic lightning bolt in favour of hyping the letter
G. The company appears to be aiming for a bit of mystique, and I have to say I’m feeling mystified.
Consider
this ad, which features a voiceover by hip-hop artist Lil Wayne. A camera
pans along an array of athletes, among others, as Wayne tells us what G means. It’s the ‘swagger of the athlete’, it’s ‘gifted’, it’s ‘golden’, and it’s
‘the heart, hustle and soul of the game.’ At the end, a letter G appears, sporting a design that seems like a calculated attempt to appeal to a generation
raised on hip-hop music and fashion. That's it. In short, G is a lot of things, but it is never once made clear that it means Gatorade.
Clearly, the creative is meant to make people curious as to what the G stands for. Here's my initial impression: it looks like an ad for a fragrance, or
a line of athletic wear. It also plays like an envelope-pushing segment for Sesame Street about the letter G. I noticed that viewers on YouTube had similar
reactions. I cannot understand why the company and its ad firm did not use the lightning bolt at the end, which is as well known as, say, the NBC peacock
or the McDonald’s arch. Even an altered design of the bolt would have made for a more powerful reveal, helping to cast the drink in a whole new light.
I admire the company for being bold in its attempt to, pardon the pun, reenergize its brand, but the campaign is a little too clever for its own good. I
think Gatorade has sacrificed a highly recognizable and very potent logo for one that, as yet, lacks relevance or meaning. Moreover, the company missed
the potential to play on a well-established meaning of G among the hip hop audience; it should have gone with a slogan like, 'you feelin' it, G?', for example.
Though the ads will generate some buzz, I think Gatorade has some tough work ahead to make this new direction work. To borrow an old slogan, I wonder if
they have it in them to stay the course and see it through. A
Are you feeling pumped up by the new direction and branding Gatorade is pursuing? Your opinions are welcome at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
Though some advertisers are sitting out the 2009 Super Bowl broadcast on NBC, the network has managed to sell about 90 per cent of ad time at a cost of
$3 million for each 30-second spot. Though General Motors and FedEx have taken themselves out of the game, but several new sponsors, including Pedigree
pet food, a Mars Inc. brand, are gearing up for the big day.
It's easy to see why. Last year's telecast drew nearly 100 million viewers, according to reports. That's a large audience, and it is one of the few broadcasts
that actually offers up that level of penetration anymore. Apart from American Idol, very few US programs crack 20 million viewers in the weekly ratings.
Even big events such as the Oscars have fizzled a bit of late. So if you want exposure, the Super Bowl remains the best show in town.
Of course, it also helps that the appeal of broadcast for many viewers is, in large part, the opportunity to catch the premiere of big-budget commercials
with major stars. Given that more people are using DVRs and DVDs to avoid advertisements, the Super Bowl is something of an anomaly. There's a highly motivated
audience you can tap into if you have an ad that create buzz and captures the essence of your brand in an appealing way.
Although the audience is broad, it is predominately male and mainly young, which means that the sponsors likely to get the most out of their investments
will be alcohol, automobile, movies and fast or junk food-related. What will be interesting to see is the tone the advertisers take in light of recent economic
conditions. A light approach is probably best, one that entertains as it reinforces key brand messages. Such ads are more likely to score with viewers than
commercials that remind people times are tough.
Like many of you, I'll be interested in seeing which companies score a touchdown and which ones fumble the ball. In the meantime, feel free to send me your
predictions at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
It’s pretty tough to live up to the billing of
Best Job in the World. But that’s what Tourism
Queensland representatives are promising in an effort to promote the Australian state.
Officially, the position is called Caretaker of the Islands of the Great Barrier Reef. One lucky person will spend six months on Hamilton Island enjoying
and blogging about its pleasures and receive $122,000 Cdn for his or her efforts. Gimmicky as it may seem, there is a real job up for grabs, and 11 people
will be flown to the Island in May to compete for the position.
It sounds like my dream job, and thousands, apparently agree. Officials say they had 200,000 applications within 24 hours of the campaign launch. Equally
impressive is the fact that Tourism Queensland has garnered millions of dollars in media coverage for what must have been a very modest investment. Thanks
to stories on BBC and Yahoo the campaign has reached more than 29 million people, meaning greater awareness of and interest in Queensland.
Granted, that interest may not translate into immediate increases in bookings and tourism revenue, but I think the campaign will generate benefits over
the long run. The content the blogger creates is likely to have more appeal or be more convincing to potential visitors than content generated by Tourism
Queensland. After all, it will be content developed by an actual visitor blogging his or her experiences, all of which can be archived and used for years
to come. Moreover, flying 11 contestants in to compete for the position is a shrewd move. It means there will be, potentially, 11 people spreading positive
messages about the region to colleagues online and otherwise. And media from the markets where contestants live will likely cover the story, giving the
campaign added life and reach.
Simply put, I think this marketing campaign is brilliant. And I’m not just saying that in hopes that Tourism Queensland will invite me down to see the beauty
of the region first hand. Though I wouldn’t turn them down if they did.
Is this campaign a great job or a dead-end position? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
Everybody’s trying to make sense of the marketing potential of social media – the opportunities and the right strategies to capitalize on it. Burger King
has launched, in my opinion, one of the more intriguing campaigns of late. It’s called
Whopper®
Sacrifice, a Facebook application that works like this: if you drop 10 friends, you earn a free Whopper®.
Personally, I think it’s a rather inspired campaign, asking folks to determine what matters more to them: their friends or a flame-broiled slab of meat
wrapped in a bun. It stands in sharp contrast to what Facebook is all about, which is adding friends or people to your group until you have enough to fill
your local sports arena. Think of all the “I-bet-I-can-find’ campaigns you’ve encountered on this website. Need I say more?
Obviously, and pardon my pun, not everyone will bite for this campaign. But I think the target audience will get a kick out of it and be curious to see
what happens when friends find out that they’ve been kicked to the curb for a burger. I think most will understand they can be added back at some point.
Plus, it’s perfect timing; most people take the New Year to give up bad habits or clear clutter from their lives, and others are looking for bargains. This
application allows you to do both: streamline your friend list and save a couple of bucks on a meal. Just don't try to impress a date by producing such
a coupon. Best of all, from BK’s perspective, it’s an attention grabber, one that starts people talking and garners free publicity.
It’ll be interesting to see the extent to which it catches on with Facebook users. As of January 13, over 200,000 friends have been dumped, according to
the BK website. I’m pleased to say not one of my friends would prefer a burger to me, at least not as I write this.
What do you think of the Whopper® Sacrifice? Let me know at
mark@wordsworthinc.com.
Outstanding writing and editing for any marketing or communications project