Brand Story

Fast Company Gets Microsoft Story Wrong

In its most recent cover story, Fast Company, gives a big wet kiss to ad industry icon, Alex Bogusky. The article is supposed to be about whether CP+B can make Microsoft cool, but is more about how cool Bugusky and his agency are. It's a little over the top. The article compares Bogusky to Jesus: "There was, like, this halo over him." Note: I'm not a CP+B hater. I love the work they did for Mini, though I hate the stuff they've done for Burger King.

Regardless of how you feel about Bogusky or his agency, the article makes some pretty silly claims about the relationship between Apple and Microsoft:

"Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft’s reputation—and contribute to its loss of market share—than the assault launched by Apple two years ago in the form of the “Mac vs. PC” spots featuring The Daily Show satirist John Hodgman…  Gartner media research analyst Andrew Frank credits Apple—whose annual media spend is less than half of Microsoft’s nearly $1 billion budget—with single-handedly rebranding Microsoft “as a kind of self-conscious and self-absorbed nerd that is out of touch with the normal lives and needs of its users.”

Let's see if I have this straight. Apple produces some clever (and often funny) ads and spends a couple of million dollars to put them on television. And that is what has defined Microsoft as uncool?

What about the years-late and buggy release of Vista? Or the monopoly issues here and overseas? Or crazy Steve Ballmer's antics on stage and threats to Google and Apple? Or bloated software that is expensive to upgrade? Or the blue screen of death? Or .NET? Or the very unhip Zune—supposedly the iPod killer? What about Windows security, viruses, and spyware? Where exactly do those things fit in the creation of Microsoft's reputation? I think they're giving Steve Jobs a little too much credit.

Apple does a great job telling its brand story. And Microsoft, well, what exactly is their story, if not the above? For their sake, I hope that CP+B is smart enough to see that Microsoft, not Apple, is the biggest threat to Microsoft's image. Note to FC writer Danielle Sacks (and Microsoft): brand stories are built almost entirely by the things a company does every day, not a competitor's ads.

***UPDATE: Danielle Sacks was kind enough to reply by email that she takes issue with what I've written above. She marked the email private, so I won't post it here, but her criticism of what I wrote above deserves to be heard. Here's the gist of her response to me: I left out some of what she wrote about Crispin's failures, the comparisons to Jesus were to illustrate how over the top the agency world is in its Bogusky worship, and she does write about Microsoft's missteps and failures. She writes it was incredibly irresponsible and sloppy to leave these out of my criticism of the article.

My response: I stand by my description of the article in its over-the-top reverence for Bogusky. It may have been presented to show how ridiculous the ad world's worship of this "mechanic of cool" (her words from the article) is, however I can't find anything in the article that makes that point. It reads like hero worship whether it was intended that way or not (and I'm not the only one who has noted this—see the links below). I apologize for my inability to infer the intended nuance and humor.

As for the parts of the article I left out, I linked directly to the article so anyone who reads this post can go back to the source. Yes, my description is simpler than the article. After all, it's difficult to reference everything written in a nine page article with a six paragraph blog post. Danielle did reference a few of Microsoft's failures, but the exact words used in the article are: "Nothing is doing more to carve away at Microsoft's reputation—and contribute to its loss of marketshare—than the assualt launched by Apple..." This is what I think she got wrong. And if the experts she quotes believe this, then they are wrong too. Just about everything Microsoft has done has a bigger impact on Microsoft's brand image, than what Apple is doing.

Readers, please take a look at the original article linked above and add a comment if you agree or disagree with my characterization. I'd be interested in knowing if you think I got it wrong too.


Read more:
Bob Bly criticizes the article here (read the comments, they're fun).
Spike at Brains on Fire is a little less critical, here.
AdFreak's take is here.
Here are a few ideas on what CP+B can do.

Super Bowl Ads: The BrandStory Round-up III

Obviously, the BrandStory staff is a little late in getting to this story (for good reasons and bad). But hopefully we'll make up for it with the breadth of links about this year's Super Bowl ads.

A couple of thoughts:

Why exactly did the ad for AMP energy drink need the disclaimer: "Warning: Do Not Attempt." So you're telling me I shouldn't attach jumper cables to my nipples and to a car battery? It seemed like a such good idea while I was watching your ad.

There were a couple of ads that made me think, "just because you can animate it, doesn't mean you should" including the lame Chinese-accented pandas for SalesGenie, the dancing lizards for SoBe, and the seemingly endless Fox promotions for NASCAR. Did the fake race through the engine make you want to watch? Me neither. And I have a hard time believing that it didn't occur to anyone on SalesGenie marketing staff that their ad would be offensive. Could it be a deliberate strategy to get us talking about the ads days later?

Just in case you were wondering, my favorite ads were for Tide (talking stain) and Coke (Jinx). Both were terrific examples of brand stories demonstrating the product benefit.

On to the links:

The guys at American Copywriter talk about the ads  here. Give them a listen.
You'll find the USAToday Ad Meter here and here. There's a write-up on the ads here.
The Wall Street Journal wrote about it here and here (these links likely won't be free forever).
Some thoughts from MSNBC are here and the NYT wrote about the ads here.
And a more scholarly look (if that's possible) from the Kellogg School of Management here.
More from AdFreak and AdWeek. Or if you prefer the tabloid size, from Advertising Age and again here.

UPDATE:
Advertising for Peanuts talks about next year's ads, here.
Beyond Madison Avenue posts their take, here.

If you have a Super Bowl Ad write up or favorite article you'd like me to add to the list, please leave a comment.

Where's The Sausage? The Brandstory Review.

One of my favorite web logs is David Taylor's BrandGymBlog. David's no-nonsense approach to marketing is one that really appeals to me, so I'm a regular visitor to his site. A couple of months ago I got a copy of David's latest book, Where's the Sausage: Branding based on substance not spin. It's a serious marketing book wrapped in a short parable.

Though I really like David's thinking, I'm generally not a fan of business parables. Too often they use silly characters, absurd situations, and overly simple solutions that don't always transfer well to real business situations--like this book. Books like this include a lot of "what", but not a lot of "how". And when I heard that WTS? was a parable, that's what I expected to get. But then, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

To be sure, the story isn't high literature. But this book contains a generous helping of useful marketing ideas, ways to get insights from your customers, and smart thinking (the how in addition to the what). And the characters ring true more often than not.

It's the story of Bob Jones, salesman at Simpton's Sausages who is asked to spend a year as a brand consultant before being promoted to Sales Director. He's unenthusiastic about the opportunity and immediately sees through the typical marketing BS that comes from his boss and agency contacts. Rejecting their approach to branding (and rebranding), he finds his own way as he manages the neglected sausage brand. He records his feelings several times a month (in a blog or journal) and includes much of what he is learning from his experience. The story is okay, but the real power of the book is in the chapter summaries and ideas Bob uses to rethink his product—all of which (I assume) come from the BrandGym play book.

Among the observations Bob makes:

• A brand should drive the whole business, not just the image wrapper of communication    
    and brand identity.
• A new logo can't cover up the shortcomings of a poor product.
• Many brand extensions are brand ego trips offering nothing new.
• True insight doesn't come from focus groups, it comes from immersing yourself in your
    consumer's world.
• Having little or no funds for conventional marketing can be a great stimulus for creativity.
• Communication that has only emotional sizzle and not product sausage is 'sponsored
    entertainment'.

Add to that the simple exercises and processes that Bob takes his brand through (and that the reader can do with their own brand) and you have a decent little marketing book. Thanks David.

If you're looking for a quick read peppered with smart thinking, you'll like Where's the Sausage.

More Where's the Sausage? Links:
Other reviews of the book can be found here and here.
David's description of the book is here.
Buy it at Amazon.
Read the BrandGym blog.
Video of Hugo Gaines (the book's star marketing,um, expert).
Video of David talking about the book.
Buy David's other books here, here, and here.

McDonald's Proves Branding Works

As if we needed more proof that branding works...

A report in the New Scientist details a recent study revealing that pre-school kids prefer foods wrapped in McDonald's packaging over foods served in unwrapped packaging. Most parents are thinking, no duh. From the report:

"Dina Borzekowski at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health in Baltimore, Maryland, US, and her colleagues asked 63 preschoolers, aged three to five, to sample two meals, each consisting of a chicken nugget, a quarter of a hamburger, french fries, two baby carrots and a small cup of milk.

Although both meals came from a local McDonald's, only one of them appeared in its original packaging. Researchers presented items from the other meal in plain wrappers, which lacked the company's distinctive logo.

In most cases children said they tasted a difference between the two meals, and they overwhelmingly preferred the McDonalds-branded foods."

Interesting. Kids preferred McDonald's branded carrots by a margin of 2 to 1. Same carrots. Different packaging. They preferred the french fries 73% to 13%. All because of the golden arches. It's not like we don't know that branding/marketing/advertising works. After all, we spend well over $10 billion a year marketing products to kids. And billions more to advertise to adults. But it is somewhat disturbing to see the affects on kids as young as three.

Of course McDonald's has known this for more than 10 years—watch the proof here.

Might be time to unplug the television.

AdFreak has also written about this.

14 Awards for Rozerem While Ogilvy Spins in His Grave

Leslie at AAA Aardvark Marketing Blog points to this announcement that AbelsonTaylor has won 14 awards for their work on Rozerem, including:

"a silver World Wide Web (WWW) Health Award for the Rozerem Web site, and two DTC National Advertising bronze awards for most innovative campaign and best new brand of the year. The agency also won a Pharmaceutical Executive Ad Stars Award for a Rozerem TV ad co-created with Cramer-Krasselt and special recognition for co-developing one of the most "intriguing icons" of 2007—the Rozerem beaver featured in the ad."

AbelsonTaylor's website includes this gem:

"At the 16th annual Med Ad News Manny awards, AbelsonTaylor, won the 2005 award for most creative pharmaceutical ad agency. This marks the 10th year in a row that AbelsonTaylor has been given this accolade, a remarkable achievement sure to solidify our reputation as the most creative agency in the business."

I guess congratulations are in order. At least they're in order if you're content being creative, but not effective, which is all most agencies seem to be shooting for these days. You see, according to Brandweek,

"[Rozerem] is a distant sixth in its category, with a 2.4% share behind two unadvertised generics and the category's titans: Ambien (36.8% for Ambien, 17.5% for Ambien CR) and Lunestra (12.3%), per IMS Health. Worse, Takeda [Rozerem's maker] may have spent more on ads than the drug made back in sales: between January and September 2006, Rozerem earned $48.7 million in estimated wholesale revenue, according to IMS Health (that number does not include prescriptions handled by mail). But the company has spent nearly $100 million on ads, per Nielson Monitor-Plus."

Yes, you read that right, in the first nine months of the product introduction, Rozerem trails two UNADVERTISED generics in sales and has spent $2 in advertising for every $1 they made in sales.

But they've got 14 awards. Let's see, that's just about $7.14 million per award. Nice work.

I've written about Rozerem's problems before, specifically that the advertising ignores the killer brand story: this drug isn't habit forming. But try to get that from the ads. The competitors don't offer this unique benefit, but the ads focus on dreams/sleep which is exactly what all the other drugs in the category offer. The creative is different, but the benefit is exactly the same. So what's the reason to buy?

The whole thing reminds me of this post from David Taylor at Where's the Sausage about David Ogilvy who introduced an award for the ad that did the most to increase sales for the client. It came with a $10,000 prize and this inscription: “If you, my fellow copywriters or art directors, want to win the award, devote your genius to making the cash register ring.”

None of this is to say that creative advertising doesn't work. Clearly it does. But it works best when the people making it don't forget that their first (and possibly only) job is to move product.

And as an agency, isn't that the the very best brand story you could share with your clients?

What You Want Is Coupons, Am I Right?

If advertising were human, would you have a relationship with it (or, um, him)?

Self absorbed, non-communicative...

"You can't tell me you missed the billboard in Time Square. That's like a 200-foot declaration of love."

There's a website too.

Hat tip: John Winsor.

Dave's Insanity—The Brand MakeOver Story

Here's a great story about the back and forth between Dave's Gourmet (maker's of Dave's Insanity Sauce as well as other products) and creative branding shop DESKEY. Short recap: DESKEY offers to help Dave's with a complete rebrand of the company's products at no cost. Dave goes through the process, then balks. Did he do the right thing? Read the whole article here.

Something to think about: Would the final decision be different if the agency were more focused on growing consumption of Dave's sauces, rather than changing the labels? What exactly is the agency selling? Is it different from what Dave needs?

I've been on both sides of these kinds of meetings. There's enormous value in thinking through what a brand represents. And in the end, the process changes Dave's thinking in a good way. But when the product of the process is a new label or ad campaign, I don't think the process has gone deep enough. Branding is about the entire business, not just the look or cohesiveness of the packaging.

DESKEY's website says: "If branding is all you do, sooner or later you're going to get pretty good at it. And we were branding before 'branding' was a word." Well, that all depends on your definition of branding. If branding is advertising, packaging, and design, DESKEY is darn good. But branding is more than marketing. As I've written before, branding is the process of building a great business—from supply chains and ingredient choices to delivery channels and the end-user experience. Yes it includes marketing. But it is so much more. How many successful businesses has DESKEY built? How many has Dave built? Who knows more about branding—really?

Disclaimer: Of course, the article shortens several days worth of discussion into a couple of pages. DESKEY may have discussed other business issues that didn't make it into the article. If they did, great. But it wouldn't be typical of my experience in the advertising industry.

Hat tip: Brand Autopsy.

Brands that Leave A Bad Taste in Your Mouth

I've written about Buckley's Cough Syrup before. For the past 15 years, it's a brand that has built itself on its horrible taste. The idea is, if it tastes this bad, it has to work. And it's a great story.

BrandChannel just published an article about Buckley's (and Listerine mouthwash) that is worth passing on. Check it out here.

The strategy is dead on. Not only does it take a negative product trait and give it a positive spin, but it targets a specific audience: people who want to get better at any cost. You either love Buckley's or you hate it. There's not a lot of middle ground. And that's a good place for a brand to live.

From the article: "It's a medical product, and medicine isn't supposed to taste like an orange drink. It's supposed to taste bad to kill the nasty virus in the back of your throat."

Read the whole thing.

Rozerem—A Case Study in What Not to Do with Your BrandStory?

Years ago, Al Ries and Jack Trout wrote a little book called Positioning, about choosing one brand attribute and "owning" it. Great idea. Lots of successful brands have used the practice to build brand equity—Kodak and memories. Nordstrom and service. Volvo and safety. Rozerem and beavers playing jump rope with Abraham Lincoln in some guy's kitchen.

Okay, this last one isn't exactly a shining example of great positioning.

A few months ago I noticed a very weird ad featuring Abraham Lincoln and a beaver sitting at a kitchen table with a chess board. In the background is an obviously tired guy sitting on his bed. The headline: "your dreams miss you" in small type. In even smaller type, the payoff: "when you can't sleep, you can't dream." Other ads show them jumping rope and sitting on a teeter-totter.

The copy introduces a new kind of sleep aid. Apparently it's the first ever proven in clinical studies to have no potential for abuse or dependence. (Talk about burying the lede.) And that's it. No explanation of Lincoln, the beaver, or the chess set.  I don't get it.

Now before anyone comments that the ad obviously worked, because I remembered it, you should know that I read ads for a living. Heck, I read my junk mail. I saw the ad, but didn't bother to read the copy for weeks until after I saw the television version. It took the extra dialog between the man, Abe and the beaver to let me in on the gimmick. Apparently this is all a dream. There's a bus board too. And a podcast. How did I miss those?

There are so many things wrong with these ads, it's hard to know where to begin. Does anyone you know dream about Lincoln, rodents, or chess? What's the deal with the astronaut? Is this a common dream I've been missing out on? Choosing a metaphor that nobody understands is a bad idea. Frankly, if this is how my dreams will go with Rozerem, I'll take insomnia.

Thanks to DVR, I rarely take the time to watch ads any more. It was a fluke I saw this one. Does Takeda Pharmaceuticals really want to bet the ad budget that I'll see both the print and television ads to get what's going on? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. How many people have skipped over the ad (or the bus board), thinking WTF?

And what about the killer point of difference? Unlike Ambien and Lunestra, Rozerem isn't habit forming. And it works. That's your brand story. But you have to look pretty hard to find this benefit. In fact, it's hard to find any benefits at all. Instead we've got honest Abe and a beaver. Not only do I not get a reason to buy, I don't even get a reason to investigate.

I'm the first to admit, you can tell a very compelling brand story with advertising. But if you choose to do this with your brand, don't make your advertising the story. There's a difference. Your story is bigger than the ad. It has to last longer than the latest campaign.

What will people remember after Honest Abe and the beaver are retired? My guess is, not much. And that should cause a few people in Rozerem's marketing department to lose a lot of sleep.

Others disagree. But even they didn't get the spot when they first saw it. More here, here, and here.

Life After the 30-Second Spot: The BrandStory Review

Last week I heard a few minutes of NPR's On The Media, where Bob Garfield laid out a doomsday scenario for broadcasters (transcript here). Bob said:

"A little over a year ago, we floated a theoretical chaos scenario. It goes like this. Mainstream media, especially network TV, lose so much audience, they can no longer attract the advertising revenue they need to sustain their content, leading to still more audience defection, then more advertiser defection, and so on into the toilet, all before the on-line brave new world is ready to take over. In this past year, plenty has happened to add to the chaos. TiVo and DVR usage is rising, with Forrester Research estimating that by 2008, one in four households will be DVR'ing their favorite shows and skipping past commercials. ITunes has started selling hit TV shows for $1.99, and now all the networks are offering free streaming content on their websites. More options for us, and more jeopardy for the old model."

Sounds like the premise for Joseph Jaffe's recent book, Life After the 30-Second Spot, which lays out the same nightmare and about ten different alternatives to traditional, interuptive advertising.

Joe's not the first person to argue that the 30 second spot is on life support and that consumers are about to pull the plug. Even he admits that the death of the 30 is, by now, a cliche. But it is coming. And marketers who are willing to take a few risks and try new ways to reach their audience may actually look back and agree with Joe that "there couldn't possibly be a better time to be working in this business."

Jaffe's book outlines (in detail) many causes of death for the 30 second spot: fragmentation, commoditization, information overload, clutter, crappy advertising, better educated consumers, and so on. Then he lays out a few ideas for rethinking the way marketers engage consumers. My favorite quote comes from Chapter 9: Re:think Advertising: Make Advertising Relevant Again. Jaffe writes,

"There's a rather putrid stench emanating from the world of advertising right now. And if you can't smell it yourself, then you're either used to it or you've lost your sense of smell altogether (in which case, it's time to consider another career)."

Here, here.

Jaffe goes on to detail newish areas where marketers can get their message and brand in front of consumers: Internet, gaming, experiential marketing (emphasis on physical contact with the brand), search, consumer generated marketing, and more. But Jaffe doesn't just provide his thinking on the matter. He also includes several short essays by other marketing experts to back up his thinking. Some of these extra essays are better than others, but all provide food for thought. It's not that there's a lot new here, but Jaffe wraps it all up very well in one place.

Clearly the jury is still out on the effectiveness of some of these avenues. Do gamers really respond to ads displayed on their PS2s? Do gift bags stimulate trial or simply eat up placement fees?  Did subservient chicken or BMW films really sell anything? Some of the ideas Jaffe lays out will work better than others. But the fact remains, the 30 second spot isn't working like it used to, so why not try something different (and hopefully effective)?

Overall, this book is a good read. I get the feeling that Jaffe's just scratched the surface and has even more to say on the subject. If you're looking for an overview of where advertising/marketing may be headed in the future, check out Life After the 30-Second Spot.

Also of interest:
Joe Jaffe's Blog, Jaffe Juice.
Get a free chapter from Jaffe's book, here.
Buy the book from CEO-READ, here.
The first half of Jaffe's podcast with American Copywriter.

Full disclosure: Mr. Jaffe practices what he preaches, when it comes to consumer generated marketing. I got my copy of the book on the condition I would read and review it. I agreed, noting that if I didn't like the book, I would say so (I've done that before). Mr. Jaffe had no hesitation, saying, "...all I ask is an authentic review."