Brand Story

Whose Brand Story—Hannah Montana or Milie Cyrus?

By now just about everyone has heard that Milie Cyrus posed "topless" for Vanity Fair magazine (news reports here and here). Okay, so it's not exactly what you expect when you hear the word topless. But the critics are right, no matter how unrevealing or artsy the photo is, it is simply wrong and exploitative to ask a fifteen-year-old to pose for this kind of suggestive photograph, even for Annie Leibovitz. 

So why did Milie do it? Why would her parents, who were reportedly on the shoot, allow it? Some have argued it's another case of Hollywood values and bad parenting (and they may be right), but I think there's something more to it than that. I think it comes down to competing brands.

Hannah Montana will make something close to one billion dollars for Disney this year. That's right, billion with a B. It's a great story, a more or less regular girl living a secret double life as a rock star. The best of both worlds, as the theme song says. And Disney has built the character into a powerhouse brand.

On the other hand, Milie Cyrus will take home something closer to twenty million dollars for playing the character on TV and in concert appearances. Now twenty million is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a billion. Not even close.

So how does Milie go from being the actress that plays Hannah to a rock star in her own right, and grab a bigger piece of the billion-dollar pie? How does she move beyond the eight- to twelve-year-old girls that make up the television-watching HM fan base and appeal more to the high school and college kids that attend concerts? How does she develop her own brand story, separate from Disney's Hannah Montana character? One way is to be more controversial. Get noticed.

So we get the photo (which may or may not have been a publicity stunt). Then a quick apology. But there will be more. Maybe not photos, but something else to make it clear that while Milie plays Hannah, Milie is not Hannah. Because when it comes down to it Milie Cyrus' brand story will always be more important to Milie (and her minders) than the Hannah Montana brand story.

One brand that is certainly enjoying the controversy is Vanity Fair.

More:
Here's what  American Copywriter has to say about it.
Leibovitz defends the photo here.

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.

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.

Who's Brand—American Express or M. Night Shyamalan?

I only saw about 10 minutes of the Oscars. But fortunately, the ten minutes I watched included this brilliant ad featuring M. Night Shyamalan (of Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable fame). You can (and should) watch the ad here.

It grabbed my attention immediately. I was intrigued by the music and the characters. It's a terrific ad, perfect for the occasion.

But I wonder: why did American Express pay so much money to create and run a spot about M. Night Shyamalan rather than their card? Is his brand so much better than American Express that they had to borrow his popularity? Is it too hard to demonstrate a brand benefit or sales proposition for the American Express card while entertaining or creating an emotional connection? Would this ad (or any other in the My Life, My Card series) work any less if the product featured at the end was a Diner's Club or Discover Card? Why not include specific reasons to consider American Express?

"Branding advocates might claim that such an approach is "too rational," and therefore not suited to building an emotional connection with customers—the underlying assumption being that reason and emotion are somehow opposed. In fact, the opposite is true: just as they do in their interpersonal relationships, people only connect emotionally with companies that provide a reason to choose their products or services."

I pulled this graph from an article by Being Reasonable's Marc Babej published in BrandWeek in 2003. You can read the rest here. And read what others thought about the ad here and here.

Both Discover and Visa have hit home runs using a rational point of difference to build a brand (money back and "everywhere you want to be"). But this effort fails to do that. Maybe I'm wrong. I like all the ads (and personalities) in the Amex series. But I'm not sure they help me like American Express. They don't give me a reason to reach for my Amex card rather than my Visa. Your thoughts?

SuperBowl Ads Wrap Up

You can read my thoughts about the SuperBowl ads here. But there are others who put it better than I do. Ernie Shenk's thoughts are here. Bob Garfield's review is here. And Marc Babej has a few things to say as well, here. USAToday's Ad Meter wrap up is here and David Kiley's BusinessWeek blog adds a few thoughts as well, here. Finally, the guys at Adverlicious were good enough to provide this link, where you can see all the ads and form your own opinions.

There are others at AdFreak, AdRants, and at American Copywriter. Take a look (or a listen, as in the case of the last link).

SuperBowl Ads: The BrandStory Round-Up

Maybe it's time to stop thinking about the SuperBowl as a showcase for great advertising. This year's line-up was notable for being rather lame. Though the ads were better than the channel-change inducing halftime show. (Note to AdRants, Bob Garfield was right.)

This year featured the usual line-up of B-List celebrities, silly jokes, over-the-top performances, mildly offensive spots, and a few ideas that were better left out of the show all together (the Emerald Nuts ad was just plain stupid). Having said that, there were a few ads that worked, though they probably won't be remembered long after next week.

The DisneyWorld spots (featured before and after the game) were right on strategy. Showing football players practicing how they would say "I'm going to DisneyWorld" after winning the game. Mildly amusing, they effectively tied Disney's brand story of dreams and magic to the "reward" of winning the big game.

The best spot of the night was Budweiser's Clydesdale ad featuring the young Clydesdale trying out the harness and wagon. It was emotionally appealing and continued a long-running storyline.

Also decent was the Mobile ESPN spot, showing a sports fan surrounded by sports while he watches ESPN on his mobile phone (though this was reminiscent of XM radio's launch ads). The spot showed a clear product benefit in an amusing way.

Honorable mention to CareerBuilder for demonstrating a need that their product solves. I have a few former co-workers who are rushing to post their resumes even as we speak. A second honorable mention to American Home Health for their ad showing there's a safer way to kill bacteria and avoid getting sick than wearing a haz-mat suit. Not great, but at least it's about the product.

Overall, the creatives who came up with the rest of the SuperBowl ads proved the point made by Rosser Reeves when he defined the problem with modern advertising:

"1.) Advertising (not the product) must compete with a tremendous number of other advertising messages.
2.) Therefore, the advertisement (not the product) must get attention.
3.) Therefore, a given advertisement (not the product) must be different.

Such reasoning bypasses the product and, when it does, it bypasses the advertising function. It is a classical example of confusing the means with the ends, for if a product is worth paying money for, it is worth paying attention to."

SuperBowl Ads are generally produced as entertainment, so I have my doubts about whether or not they actually sell the products they feature. One thing can be said for them: they sure beat watching a bunch of 60-year-olds skip around on stage during the half-time show.

You can read other SuperBowl Ad round ups here and here.

What's In A Name?

I am not an expert in naming, though I have participated as a writer on several naming projects for both companies and products. However, two announcements this week got me thinking a bit about how names impact the story you tell your customers (intentionally or not).

The first is the announcement of the new Houston professional soccer team, the "1836". Great story-related name, harking back to the founding of Houston by two brothers in 1836. Sort of like the 49ers, and the 76ers. Only there's a lot more to the story than that. 1836 also happens to be a year that lives in infamy among the franchise's Latino consumers. Read it here. From the article:

"Clearly, not enough homework was put into this," said Paco Bendaña, a prominent Houston-based authority on marketing to Latinos. "Historically speaking, 1836 is not something we celebrate."

And it's not a story the soccer team wants to tell either. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.

The second is the merger and renaming of the WB and UPN networks into the "CW." I may be wrong, but I can't imagine why this is a good name. What does it stand for? Conventional Wisdom? Not likely. How about creatively wretched? Or Chris [Rock] and Wrestling. Or Cat World. The CW doesn't strike me as a brand name you can build a compelling story around. But then again, there aren't many broadcaster brands with a great story (HBO and PBS are exceptions), so maybe it's not a requirement. My guess is most viewers will continue to ignore the new network as easily as they did the old ones.

Last word on naming. This didn't happen this week, but it's a reminder of the implications of naming products for markets you are not familiar with. Go here, and scroll down to #93. Very bad for business. But it does make for a good story.

Is Christmas a Brand?

The good people at Segwick Rd. think so. And they're doing everything they can to support it. Watch the story, here. Best line from a featured ad: "Tisn't the season to be frugal." Thanks to AdFreak for the link.

Seriously, is Christmas a brand?

It certainly fits under some definitions. Tom Asaker, author of A Clear Eye for Branding, says "A brand is an expectation of someone or something delivering a certain feeling by way of an experience." And Steve Hardy, the Creative Generalist calls a brand, "the total perceived attributes of something to someone who, in some way, interacts with it."

One thing is for sure, there are plenty of expectations around Christmas. And plenty of experiences. Plus, most of us feel differently about the Christmas season than say, the third week in June. Do these perceived attributes add up to a brand?

Christmas doesn't have a brand manager. No one owns the copyright. And while there is certainly a lot of commerce around Christmas, no one collects a royalty or commission on the overall sales. Rather it is "managed" by a community of consumers, churches, organizations, businesses, and detractors who choose to celebrate the holiday in hundreds of different ways. Each of us experiences Christmas in a somewhat unique and personal way. So is Christmas a brand?

What about Jazz (or Country or Opera)? What about Islam (or Christianity or Hinduism)? What about the Caribbean (or Asia or Africa)? Each is a collection of expectations, experiences, and perceptions of anyone who interacts with them. Are these brands or some kind of collective ideal/constructs?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I lean toward calling them brands (maybe something along the lines of comuno-brands or collective-brands). Given the ongoing talk about brand managers losing control of their brands to consumers, debate about whether organizations ever owned their brands in the first place, and discussion about the wisdom of crowds, some poorly managed brands might be better off being managed like Christmas, by a community of interested consumers and other stake holders, without top-down brand management.

It's working rather well for Christmas. Your thoughts?

First in Thirst—A Review

Sometime between the turkey and the five day James Bond-a-thon on Spike TV, I took some time during the Thanksgiving Holiday to read Darren Rovell's new book, First in Thirst, about Gatorade. It's a great business story. Gatorade dominates its category, with more than 80% of the market, and 546 million cases sold every year. So what did it take Gatorade to get there?

1. A great story. Gatorade was developed on the playing field. It was tested on athletes in real game situations. And it (probably) made a difference to the Florida Gators' endurance. During the 1965 season, the Gators outscored their opponents by 158 points in the second half. Since then, athletes have depended on Gatorade to help them hydrate before, during, and after games. It's a killer story. And Gatorade has stayed true to it for more than 30 years. The story is so engaging, that fans often embellish it to make it better than it really is.

Other sports drinks were invented in boardrooms to fill holes in a product line, not to meet the need of athletes. Even though some of these drinks may actually have more effective formulas, they simply don't have the story, history, and cultural influence that Gatorade has today, and so they don't break through.

2. Engaged Consumers. The Gatorade dunk is the single most visible use of Gatorade in sports every week. And it wasn't invented by the company, but by a (high-profile) consumer. And rather than stepping in to encourage the dunk every week, or in new situations, Gatorade simply let this phenomena grow on its own. If it had been a "marketing event," the dunk would have been phony and would have within a few weeks. But because it was a spontaneous activity every week, it grew until today you can see hundreds of gallons of Gatorade dumped on dozens of coaches almost every week. TV cameras still look for it twenty years after the first dunk as if it were the first time it ever happened.

3. Natural Product Placements. Before Michael Jordan, Gatorade focused on making its product available on the sidelines of major sports. It was where you would expect to see Gatorade in use. Sideline shots of athletes off the field naturally showed them drinking from their Gatorade cups and water bottles. Anyone watching the show would naturally assume that Gatorade was the athlete's choice for an endurance drink. Note: this is very different from writing the product into the plot of a sit-com or providing a cooler of the product on a reality TV show (yes, I know Gatorade has done both appearing on The Contender and Two and a Half Men, but the important placements are on the field).

4. Serendipity. The break-through campaign featuring Michael Jordan almost never happened. A series of high-light reel spots was planned when Bernie Pitzel, the creative responsible for the first Jordan campaign, went home to watch a movie with his son. When he heard "I Wan'na Be Like You" from the animated Disney film Jungle Book, he knew he had to use it. But when Disney wanted $350,000 for a 5 week run, Pitzel penned his own version, "Be Like Mike." Paired with kids trying to be like Mike, the ads were a hit. And they humanized Jordan in a way that made Gatorade appealing not just to athletes, but people (and kids) who wanted to do something athletic.

5. Authenticity and Relevance. Everything about Gatorade is authentic, from the product's heritage to its placement at sporting events. You expect to see it on the sidelines of games from the NFL to little league, from college basketball to youth soccer. And Gatorade management hasn't tried (very seriously) to take the product beyond that market, despite the huge temptation to grow into the much larger soda market. Because of this, Gatorade has stayed relevant to its core market—athletes and others who want to hydrate, whether they are playing in an important game, or just watching one of TV.

First in Thirst is a fun, well-written profile of an interesting company. There are a lot more ideas in the book. Get your copy, here.

Media Drives Consumer Behavior

There's been a long standing debate about whether the media (television, cinema, theater, music, advertising, etc.) reflects the culture or drives it. For those that believe media drives the culture they need look no farther than the poker phenomenom.

As long ago as 2002, the American Gaming Association reported that poker was losing its popularity to other forms of gambling like lotteries and slots. Then ESPN broadcast the World Series of Poker in 2003 to fill a hole in its programming schedule. The ratings were huge. Other broadcasters quickly followed with Celebrity Poker Showdown and the World Poker Tour.

Today it's hard to turn on the television and not see a poker game. And poker is big business. Chips are on sale on the end-caps at local grocery stores. Free poker websites have sprung up luring gamblers to free games in an attempt to promote them to higher stakes gambling. Casinos are expanding poker rooms that sat completely empty just three years ago. Consumer spending on poker doubled between 2002 and 2004.

Whether you think the poker craze is good or bad for society, it's obvious that the media has ample power to drive consumer behavior and popular culture. Yes, media reflects our culture back to us, but first it sets the standard that consumers embrace.

And that in a nutshell is why advertisers are willing to spend billions every year in the media to drive consumer behavior. It works.