I may be dating myself with this headline, but I’m hoping at least a few of my readers remember those Silkience hair care commercials from the 70’s because it helps make an important point about targeting.

You see, back then Silkience was marketed as a “self-adjusting” hair care brand and its popular commercials featured three women with different hair care needs. (I haven’t been able to find the actual spot that includes the “Chisa” line, but this is a good representation the campaign.)

Silkience worked, one ad claimed, by scientifically pinpointing where each woman needed conditioner – the blond needed the product at her roots, the brunette needed it all over, and Chisa, the Asian woman, needed it only on the ends of her hair.

If the trio seems to typecast women and be as stereotypical as Charlies’ Angels, I’m sure the spot got its inspiration from the show – and that’s the point. The ad, which was perfectly acceptable back then, would be too politically incorrect by today’s standards.

In the current hyper-inclusive, don’t-want-to-offend-anyone culture, a spot that dares to point out people’s special needs based on their ethnicity seems insensitive at best, racist at worst. And it’s not just ethnically-targeted efforts that marketers shy away from. Many companies avoid explicitly targeting men out of fear of offending women, older consumers out of fear of turning off younger ones, low-income families out of fear of alienating the more well-to-do.

Marketers don’t want to seem exclusionary, so they dilute their messages and stay away from media, locations, sponsorships, and any other signals that seem overtly discriminating. The problem is, by not clearly appealing to a single target, a brand loses its distinctiveness and draw.

On the other hand, a clearly targeted message and offering resonates with the intended customers and attracts them like a lighthouse to the brand. Bloomberg BusinessWeek has reported in recent months on three companies that are effectively using an exclusive target to differentiate their brands:

1.  Destination XL, a higher-end apparel retailer for the big-and-tall male set. Owned by Casual Male Retail Group, the largest U.S. big-and-tall retailing chain, Destination XL is finding success where traditional stores have fallen short (pardon the pun.)

The stores have wider aisles and larger dressing rooms to meet the needs of a, er, growing customer segment. High ceilings, track lighting, and hardwood floors, combined with a broad selection and higher quality brands attract large men who’ve been turned off by the cheap products found in mass merchandisers and the stigma of shopping at the end of the rack at department stores.

A BusinessWeek article reported that the NPD Group says, “A generation ago few male shoppers defined themselves by body type; now more than half of U.S. men self-identify as big, tall, or short, and they’re more willing to be marketed to as such.”

In a full embrace of this shift, Destination XL plans to open 50 stores this year. And they leave no doubt about it – the chain’s tagline: “A World of XL has arrived.”

2.  The Tropicana hotel and casino in Las Vegas. The casino’s owners, Alex Yemenidijian and Gerald Schwartz, who rescued the failing property from bankruptcy and bedbugs, have re-designed it to be “the best damn pretty good hotel on the Strip,” according to BusinessWeek.

Instead of rebuilding the property with luxury boutiques, celebrity chefs, and headlining entertainers, they went “full middlebrow.” The casino features a Las Vegas Mob Experience interactive museum, $5 blackjack tables, and shows from performers like Gladys Knight. The Tropicana unapologetically targets the market that Yemenidijian says is “between the low end and the snob…the vast majority of the country.”

Occupancy rates and customer reviews are up, since this approach to attracting a distinct crowd stands out in the sea of Vegas sameness and fills a real market need.

3.  Megabus, a “Chinatown bus”-style provider of transportation for young travelers on a budget. With its street-side pickup, express travel between midsized cities, cut-rate fares, and on-board Wi-Fi, MegaBus has cracked the code in appealing to a particular segment of the traveling population.

The company’s operating model is ideal for the 18-34 set, many of whom rely on the service during breaks from college for transportation home or to explore the country. Three-quarters of MegaBus riders fit that demographic.

BusinessWeek reported that analysts concede MegaBus is too down-market to draw business travelers or to go fully mainstream, but with ridership expanding 48% in 2010, the company’s focus doesn’t seem to be limiting. And, if social media chatter is any indication, it’s become quite the popular choice among its target.

BusinessWeek claims Megabus and its parent company Coach USA “have fundamentally change the way Americans – especially the young – travel, so much that they may help kill plans for new railroads.”

Obese men, middle America, and college students on a budget may not seem like attractive target segments — but as these companies show, it not only makes sense to go after them, it pays to be absolutely clear about your intentions.

related posts:

• what the hottest brands have in common
• the business of managing tensions

The fundamental tensions which companies must manage well was the primary topic of a panel I spoke on last week.  We discussed H2OAudio, a company which makes waterproof cases, waterproof headphones/headsets, and waterproof armbands for iPods and MP3 players.

The panel was part of the MIT Enterprise Forum, a regular gathering of business leaders in which a case study method is used to uncover valuable business insights.  Each month a presentation is made by a CEO of an innovative technology company and then panelists discuss the key challenges the company is facing.  An audience of nearly 250+ people attended this month’s forum which focused on “re-starting the start-up” H2OAudio.

The discussion ended up focusing a lot on the tensions which most growth companies have to figure out how to manage well. Tensions like:

-    core customers vs. new markets – H2OAudio’s CEO, Tom Kampfer, gave an overview of the company’s current customers and his vision of its future customer base.  While it currently targets the “niche” swimming market, he wants to appeal to the much larger fitness and active lifestyle market.

On the one hand, it makes sense – according to the SGMA, there are only 7.3MM active swimmers while there are over 220MM fitness/gym/running/cycling participants.  So the larger market offers more growth potential.

But targeting the larger market isn’t a slam dunk:

• There are a lot more players competing for that market’s business
• H2OAudio’s sales force, distribution, and marketing budget are all fractions of those competitors’ so it will be difficult to breakthrough in the broader market
• Those consumers probably place less value on H2OAudio’s advanced performance and are more price-sensitive

Plus, going after the larger, less hard core market is probably not going to be well-received by the company’s current customers.  Like many growth-minded sporting goods companies before it, H2OAudio may be charged with “selling out” and watering down their products.  A start-up can’t afford to alienate its current customers – it needs every sale it gets.

So H2OAudio may need to manage this tension between securing core customers and expanding into new markets by adjusting its target strategy and pursuing only adjacent markets which are closer to its core, like amateur competitors and serious fitness enthusiasts.

-    distribution vs. marketing – Companies trying to grow small market shares tend to struggle with expanding distribution vs. advertising and PR.

They have a limited amount of working capital and so they can channel it EITHER toward growing the sales force, pursuing new distribution, and paying steep slotting fees, OR it can be used to fund advertising and PR to generate broader awareness and stronger preference among consumers – but not both, or rather, not both very well.

It’s the classic conundrum – you need to make sure people want to buy your product but you also need to ensure your product is readily available in channel so that people who want to buy it can.  Also retailers are more likely to pick up your product if you are giving it strong promotional support.

It’s hard to find the right balance between the two and there isn’t one right answer.  But in H2OAudio’s case, it seems distribution is probably the better investment. That’s because they can promote their products quite cost-effectively through social media (provided they stick to a narrowly-defined target, per the point I made above) – and because they can use targeted channels to help develop awareness and preference on shelf (again, a more focused target which shops at fewer distribution points makes a difference.)

-    function vs. form – Tension in product development arises between increasing functionality and improving form.

H2OAudio is planning some significant product changes to move from a heavy duty action sports look and feel to a slim, multi-sport use focus.  The changes are important in order to broaden the brand’s appeal beyond big male athletes with physiques and style sensibilities like Michael Phelps and Laird Hamilton (two of the company’s celebrity endorsers.)

But Tom also talked about expanding into colors and designs to make the products more fashionable — and that’s where the product development tension arises.

Should product development be focused more on improving the technical functionality of the products (for H2OAudio this might mean wireless headphones which seem to be a real need for swimmers and other athletes dealing with equipment and gear like paddles and surfboards)?  OR should energies be channeled to making the products more stylish and fun to wear (H2OAudio is probably looking to follow in the footsteps of iPod and mobile phone skins and cases)?

I’m guessing that making the products more fashionable is a less expensive undertaking than making them more technologically advanced – and changes in form may be more immediately noticeable to the shopper.  But H20Audio has built its brand and its business on making purpose-built waterproof products for athletic performance.  New products and new features which reinforce performance seem a more effective way to strengthen the company’s differentiation and competitive advantage.

It’s not an either/or decision but a start-up company’s resources are limited and so product development direction needs to be prioritized.

As I reflected on these and other tensions which H2OAudio is working through, it reminded me of something I had seen in the feature Fast Company magazine ran on Nike’s CEO Mark Parker last month.  It was an image of a page from Mark’s journal with the word “Balance“ at the top – it listed all the different dimensions of his business which he works on keeping in balance.

The image served as a telling reminder that all business is about managing tensions – these struggles are not the sole purview of start-ups like H2OAudio.  And while they might seem like major challenges to H2OAudio’s Tom Kampfer, I’m guessing Mark Parker would forewarn him that it only gets harder as the company grows.

related posts:

• nine lessons from the mit enterprise forum

I usually try to keep my critiques to categories I’ve worked in, primarily because I think it’s irresponsible for me to comment on what works and what doesn’t when I have little basis for my assessment other than being a consumer.  So I initially demurred when some folks have asked for my POV on AT&T’s new campaign, Rethink Possible.

But then I started wondering whether my expertise in other categories might actually shed some light on the issue — that’s when I realized that there are some instructive parallels between AT&T and fast food chains.  And while AT&T has adopted some of what drives fast feeders’ success, there are a couple of important lessons it might want to learn.

Before I get into those takeaways, though, I do feel the need to address two of the more inane criticisms I’ve heard about AT&T’s new effort:

To those protesting the incorrect grammar of the tagline, Rethink Possible, I say, “get over it.”  It’s important to note that I consider myself somewhat of a verbifore, or at least a lover of language (R.I.P. William Safire), so I don’t take grammatical errors lightly.  But I do understand and value the use of creative license, and I see this tagline as just that – a creatively-worded phrase that is meant to evoke and provoke by the use of seemingly grammatical incorrectness.

The folks who take issue with such license are probably the same ones who would criticize the highly successful lines of Apple’s “Think Different” and the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” campaigns, so I’m not giving them a lot of credence.

Also people have been critical of reports that AT&T is pursuing this tact in the hopes of becoming a “lifestyle brand.” To some, it seems ludicrous for a telecom company to have such lofty aspirations.  Others reject the idea of any brand promoting a lifestyle.

But the reality is, becoming a lifestyle brand is a common brand development goal – brand managers in automotive, nutritional supplements, apparel, consumer electronics, and fast food — practically every brand I’ve ever worked on – have wanted to be known less for the products they sell than for the lifestyle their products facilitate.  I’m not saying this is right but let’s not be too hard on the folks at AT&T.

telecom and fast food – who knew?!

The telecom and fast food categories are actually quite similar in some respects.  The major brands are targeted to the mass market.  Commoditization is prevalent, as are price wars.  Competitive advertising is the norm.  And purchase/usage is driven as much – if not more — by availability (that is, coverage and hardware in telecom land, penetration and prime locations in fast food land) as it is by any sense of brand loyalty.

With these parallels as a backdrop, it’s clear that brands in both categories need to rise above the fray.  McDonald’s sponsorship of the Olympics earlier this year gave it an important reprieve from the tit-for-tat price wars which have been littering the fast food promotional landscape.  Many QSRs are trying to go head to head with Subway’s $5 foot-long offering; others are pushing unbelievably low prices.  But McDonald’s was able to increase its brand appeal with its inspiring and emotionally resonant campaign for the winter competition.

AT&T is making a similar move, abandoning its back-and-forth map and app wars with Verizon and communicating the bigger ideas behind the brand.  They’re getting away from that petty competition and trying to remind people of other factors in the value equation.

AT&T is also smart to consolidate its efforts and promote one brand/one message to all stakeholders.  In telecom and fast food both — where billions of ad dollars are spent each year and priorities among different groups often conflict — the norm is to operate in silos and this leads to message fragmentation.

But AT&T’s Senior VP-Brand Marketing and Advertising Esther Lee is quoted as explaining, “It’s not going to be the old model that there’s brand work, and then there’s consumer work or enterprise work; it’s all ‘Rethink Possible.’”  The singular message route worked well for McDonald’s ever since it launched “I’m lovin’ it.”  The theme and what it stands for has unified diverse product efforts and served as a rallying cry for all of the company’s stakeholders.

lessons yet to be learned

Despite these smart approaches, there are a couple of things AT&T could learn from fast food companies. The first is:  you’ve got to deliver on the basics before you can you credibly promote innovation or image.

New products have become the life blood for many fast food chains, but slow speed of service, unclean facilities, and rude servers quickly take the wind out of the sails of these innovations.  McDonald’s understands this and that’s why they continue to emphasize solid execution amidst their McCafe concept, McWrap Snacks, and other new product introductions.  Mastering the basics is not only the cost of entry into the category – it’s also the cost of compelling innovation.

A lot of the criticism directed at AT&T’s effort is really about the company’s failings in providing basic service. Whether it’s fewer dropped calls, broader coverage, or the ability to tether the iPhone, people want their basic needs met.  People argue that the money the company is spending on the new campaign would be better spent on addressing infrastructure and service issues (an argument I’ve previously made about Microsoft’s lavish ad campaigns.)

I’m not an AT&T customer so I’m not in the best position to judge whether or not such claims are warranted but perhaps perception is more important here anyway.  AT&T must have a base of credibility today in order to present a credible vision for the future.

The second lesson from fast food is related to the first – that is, the battle is fought in the trenches. Fast feeders know that they must win at the store level.  Regardless of the brand image the chain might enjoy, the offer at the restaurant has to compete head to head with the one across the street.

In the same way, AT&T needs to focus on their points of purchase.  Whether it’s retail stores or the company website or VARs, their new brand promise must be delivered at all of these channels.  I haven’t read anything about the company’s efforts in this area and a cursory attempt at shopping on their website didn’t reveal anything different from the norm.  Rethink Possible shouldn’t just be a brand campaign idea – it needs to drive sales at retail as well.  AT&T needs to establish competitive advantage where it really matters – that first moment of truth.

I realize there’s a limit to the relevance of fast food lessons to AT&T – the breadth of usage/applications, the purchase cycle, and the price points are just a few of the significant differences between telecom and fast food.  But I do believe AT&T would do well to embrace the commodity-like nature of their offering and glean appropriate lessons from those who have mastered such competition.

related posts:

• perception is at&t’s reality
• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista

If you’ve been in the business long enough, you come to understand there are some basic rules to follow when running an ad on the Super Bowl.  Humor works best.  Use animals or big-breasted women – or both.  Wow people with extraordinary settings and production values.

Many of the advertisers on last night’s big game followed the Super Bowl advertising playbook to a tee (view all of the spots here).  And, yet, they violated some fundamental rules of advertising in general.

know thy customer

Last night there were at least three spots (I lost count after awhile) that tried to tap a certain manly spirit but failed.

Dockers called on all men to “Wear the Pants” and rebel against the growing movement of proud, but pants-less men.  In Dove’s spot for its Men+Care line, men were bolstered with the upbeat charge: “You can take on anything, of course you can — becaaaauuuse you’re a man!” The ad implied to men that although you previously felt inadequate or overwhelmed by others’ expectations, you can now “be comfortable in your own skin.” Chrysler’s manthem threw subtlety out the window with its defiant declarations of “I will drive the car I want to drive” and “man’s last stand.”

In each case, the message came through loud and clear:  Men have been oppressed and suppressed for too long.  Men, it’s time to stand up, take a stand, stand up for your rights, stand tall…in other words, be a Man!

Problem is, there is no problem.  Or at least, there’s not a problem men are willing to admit.

Such calls to arms fell flat with men because the consumer insight upon which they’re founded is inaccurate.

The movement in American culture of recent years toward Alpha Females, more matriarchal families, and Girl Power gave rise to the “I am woman, hear me roar” advertising anthems.  Ads which have resonated with women demonstrated that marketers understood their female targets and had something relevant to offer them.  Spots like Nike’s “I Feel Pretty” featuring Maria Sharapova proving that’s she’s more than a pretty face, and ESPN’s “Running Away” in which a woman goes running and leaves the burdens of her life in the dust, were inspired by years of women actually being oppressed and suppressed.

Men are in a different place.  They haven’t spent years trying to shed stereotypes and live up to impossible expectations.  They don’t feel misunderstood and misrepresented by advertisers.  There’s no widespread pent-up disappointment or resentment.  Perhaps there should be – and maybe there is, but it’s hidden.  And so rallying-cry ads don’t resonate with them.

Men don’t need to be inspired to embrace who they are.  In fact, I suspect men found such suggestions embarrassing, if not offensive.  They don’t need ads to tell them what to do – they’re men, after all.

These ads demonstrate that their creators don’t really understand their target. Instead of finding a message that resonates with men in a socially acceptable way, they simply took a formula that had previously worked on women and applied it to their male target.  Ironic, don’t you think?

know thyself

Second to knowing your customer, knowing yourself is the most critical rule for advertisers. A few of Hyundai’s spots make this point.

In one ad, beauty shots of a car getting a paint job and a voiceover talking about classical music sonatas are followed by the title card, “Better paint quality than Mercedes CLS550.”  Another spot suggests that Hyundai is the new definition of luxury.

With both of these ads, Hyundai is trying to position itself as a luxury brand — but it’s just not credible.  Comparisons to Mercedes and caviar are too far-fetched.  Given that the Sonata’s highest list price is still under $30K, it isn’t a luxury car.  Hyundai may be a very fine automotive brand, but it’s not a luxury one. It shouldn’t try to be something it’s not.

Instead it should embrace what it is – and right now, that is a superior choice to Toyota.  With all of Toyota’s recall troubles, this is Hyundai’s moment to shine.  And shine it did in its Body Pass spot.

In this ad, a Sonata is shown moving through “one of the most technologically advanced factories in the world” — but instead of machines and conveyor belts, Hyundai employees are shown passing the car above their heads like a rock star at a concert.   The spot closes with the title, “Assembled by 3,300 quality experts.”  This spot used a strong, visually-interesting way to make a credible and compelling point about the brand – it’s high quality.

I’m sure the spot was conceived and shot before Toyota’s troubles arose, but it is a brilliant execution – and, most importantly, one that is true to the Hyundai brand.

unsavory associations

The third fundamental rule broken by some of last nights’ spots relates to subliminal messaging.  Effective marketers use the power of suggestion in advertising to create associations to exist in people’s subconscious.  One might argue whether or not sexually-shaped ice-cubes and flashing images are used (and effective), but every advertising person knows to employ subtle tactics to create associations — like choosing to shoot an ad in an upscale setting in order to evoke a more premium image.

While these approaches are usually intended to create positive associations for the brand, occasionally unintended negative ones are made.  For this reason last year I criticized Cheetos for using pigeons in its Super Bowl ad – this year I have the same beef with Denny’s use of chickens.

Denny’s two spots featured lots of screaming chickens, panicked over the amount eggs they’d have to produce for the chain’s Free Grand Slam breakfast offer.  However, no one wants to think about live chickens when they think about eating eggs.  That’s why you don’t see cows in burger chain campaigns or pigs in bacon ads.

Denny’s not only made the association between their offer and the chickens their diners’ eggs will come from – they made it the core idea of their spots.  Most people might not have been turned off by the association when the ad ran, but the message was so powerful, some will likely experience a subconscious negative feeling if they recall the ad when they sit down at the restaurant.

Fortunately for Denny’s, their offer is so compelling, most people will ignore the cognitive dissonance.  But that begs the question – the offer is so compelling, why let a drove of chickens spoil it?!

Doritos is also an offender.  I don’t know which is worse — the thought of Doritos as dog food (as depicted in the dog collar spot) or the image of the gross gym guy spitting out a Dorito in the Dorito ninja ad.  Both have created negative associations in my mind that I’m not likely to forget soon.

Marketers should know better – and be more careful.

Just as winning in football requires mastering the fundamentals, winning in Super Bowl ads begins with adherence to simple, generally-accepted rules for effective advertising.

P.S. Most Super Bowl ad critiques are a matter of personal taste.  I’m hoping the above comments reflect a little less subjectivity and a little more critical thinking about advertising in general.  Having said that, I do want to give a shout-out to two spots which stood out to me simply because I liked them:

• NFL – the drama created by the super slo-mo of the tremendous play by Reggie Bush followed by the emotion captured in the multiple shots of fans made this spot captivating.  It stirred my passion for football even though I’m not a really big follower of the sport.
• Google – the Googly simplicity of this ad drew me in and held my attention.  Beyond that, it was such a great product demo:  it didn’t “tell;” it “showed” – the product wasn’t integrated into the story; it was the story.

I’m eager to hear your take on the spots.  Comment away!

related posts:

• my superbowl was filled with guacamole
• if a brand has something to say, say it

T’was the day after Thanksgiving and all through the mall
Shopkeepers and sales staff had prepared for it all

They’d hung their over-sized sale signs and filled all their racks
“Shoppers start your engines,” they suggested, “not a moment to relax.”

Windows were a sea of red posters, red tags, and red decorations too
Promoting not the color of Christmas but the more common sale hue

Advertisers had stuffed local newspapers with flyers and FSIs
Featuring deep discounts, limited quantities, and other special buys

E-tailers stuffed my in-box full of promotional emails
Every subject line was announcing a deal or a sale

The signs of sales desperation were everywhere I looked
Even TV ads eschewed entertainment and went straight for the sales hook

Instead of enjoying shopping and having some holiday fun
Finding the best price seemed to be job number one

Looking for good gifts and their trimmings lost its appeal
Since I wasn’t sure each offer I would find was the absolute best deal

I got tired just thinking about shopping before I headed out the door
All the talk about prices made it seem like a chore

And so I decided to pass on Black Friday and just stay home
In feeling overwhelmed I’m guessing I wasn’t alone.

(the image above is a partial view of all of the FSIs from my local Thanksgiving day newspaper — the stack was almost 2 inches piled high)

Last week Ad Age announced that Anheuser-Busch InBev is holding an online contest in China in which consumers can pitch ideas for a Budweiser TV spot which will run during next year’s Chinese New Year.  The only brief to the aspiring ad-makers:  the commercial must include ants (a recurring theme for the brand’s Chinese New Year ads.)  I’m liking this idea as much as I did when these so-called “user-“generated content first emerged as an advertising approach a few years ago – which is to say, not much. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not against engaging consumers in conversations about brands as a way of stimulating word of mouth.  And surely content that brand fans create can be powerful expressions of the brand.

What concerns me is established brands actively soliciting “user-“generated commercials in widely publicized contests.  A few years ago I wrote a couple of pieces explaining my concerns about and words of caution for such an approach (one published by brandchannel.com; the other by imediaconnection).  Here is a recap of my main points:

•    lack of brand consistency. Branding 101 says brand strength is developed by expressing and delivering the brand promise consistently across all touchpoints and over time. A clear, specific strategic brief is the tool that delivers such consistency.  When a marketer invites different people to create ads without such a brief, isn’t brand inconsistency sure to result?  And just so we’re clear, I don’t think requiring the use of ants counts as ensuring brand consistency.

•    not demonstrating brand leadership.  The TV ads everyone points to as having been the most disruptive, and therefore the most successful, are ones that represent the thought leadership of the brand. Think Apple’s 1984 commercial and Nike’s original Just Do It campaign (p.s., if you know where i can find this online, please let me know). No consumer, no matter how talented or cool or brand fanatical, would have ever come up with those ads.

This is because consumers only know what they know at the moment—e.g., they know why they like a product—but they don’t know the vision of the brand. They don’t know the company’s dreams and aspirations for the brand, and so they lack the insight and foresight to realize an ad’s full potential. Their ads may be entertaining, but they won’t further brand leadership

•    missed opportunity to foster internal brand integration and alignment through the creative development process.  I fear ad contests cheat the companies that run them. Part of the benefit of the creative development process is the internal discipline it requires and the unity it creates. A team that takes the time to develop a campaign (to do the hard work of distilling down everything that could possibly be said about a brand into a simple, single message) and to search for a way of expressing the message that is worthy of the brand is all the better for it.

The debates and trade-offs inherent in the creative process result in a clarity on and commitment to the brand. This clear, consistent, common understanding of the brand serves the company well in everything else it does. Companies that side step this valuable process and simply screen consumers’ ads like judges of a beauty contest are cheating themselves (and all their stakeholders, including customers) out of the critical benefits of internal brand integration and alignment.

•    not real consumer engagement.  The ads that win these contests and get exposure are rarely created by regular users of the product. They’re made by aspiring filmmakers and “pro-sumers” looking for their lucky break. Case in point: the Doritos contest winner whose spot aired during the 2007 Super Bowl is not a consumer. He is a partner at a firm that specializes in creative video production.  According to Doritos’ website, his firm was “looking for any opportunity to launch the company into the public eye.”

This last point actually leads to my overarching point of view about “user”-generated ad contests.  I believe consumer-generated content is most effective when it happens organically – that is, when real brand users feel so strongly about a brand that they take the initiative to create something which expresses their feelings and then share it with their friends and, sometimes, the world.  The authenticity of such content makes it a much more effective promotion for the brand.

Do you disagree?  Please share your point of view.

related posts:

• my super bowl was filled with guacamole
• creative brief template

Advertising legend David Ogilvy once said, “Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon.“  Those are pretty harsh words and I’m not sure I agree (entirely), but sometimes I see ads that seem to have been written by folks who are trying to impress vs. persuade or sell.  Their words, it seems, have gotten in the way of their points.

Here are few recent examples:

Honey Nut Cheerios FSI

I had to read the headline of this FSI three times before I understood what it meant.  I don’t know if it’s the awkward sentence structure or the use of a non-word (“non-challenge”), but the point of the ad — that Honey Nut Cheerios helps lower cholesterol — got lost in my confusion.  It seems the writer of the line sacrificed clarity for cleverness.

Canon Powershot magazine ad

I’m guessing the objective of this ad is to highlight the cool style and size of the new Canon PowerShot SD780 IS Digital ELPH (say that 3 times fast).  And the image in the ad does indeed make this point compellingly.  So, then, why is the headline needed?  It doesn’t add anything — in fact, it doesn’t seem to be saying anything at all.  Perhaps if the headline pointed to the combination of the camera’s style and power (or functionality or quality), there might have been a reason to include it — but as is, the words seem to get in the way of the striking visual.

Pearl Izumi magazine ad

This last example comes from Pearl Izumi.  I point this out because unless you’re very astute or you’re familiar with the logo, you probably might not figure that out — which brings me to why this is another example of copywriting gone bad.  If you take the time to read this entire ad, you’ll see the headline is talking about sperm and the copy is calling on readers to procreate in order to populate the world with more real runners (vs. ones in quotation marks.)  Regardless of whether you find the ad humorous or offensive, I think you will agree that it says nothing about the product or brand.

Regular readers of mine know that I don’t often rant — and I intend this post as no exception.  I’m not highlighting these examples just to point out how bad they are.  Instead I hope to encourage people who create ads to consider how words can add or detract to the point they’re trying to make  — and perhaps to focus first on the advertising objective and then on the creative way to fulfill it.

I think this is what Ogilvy meant in another of his famous quotes, “If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative.”

related posts:

• if a brand has something to say, say it
• logic and magic

This post was inspired by a recent tweet from Gabriel Rossi, a “branding strategist” (as he calls himself) based in Sao Paulo — I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Gabriel through my blog and Twitter (one of the great things about social media is connecting with new folks like him).  Recently he twittered a question, “What brands inspire you?” and that got me thinking about what differentiates a brand that inspires from one that doesn’t.

I mean, there are some really great brands out there that don’t necessarily inspire people, right?  I’d list a few examples but I fear I might offend someone by naming a brand that does indeed inspire that person — and so that’s not my point.  Inspiration is quite a subjective, personal thing — and so, differentiating brands by their ability to inspire vs. not is probably not very instructive.

But perhaps a definition of inspiring brands might be helpful.  After all, I would think many brands aspire to be inspirational and so perhaps if we can agree on what makes a brand inspiring, that would provide some direction and guidance for brand-builders.

So here’s my suggestion — an inspiring brand is one that makes me want to be a better person.

as in, “you make me want to be a better man,” from the movie, As Good As It Gets. Thanks to Jack Nicholson’s memorable delivery of the line and the touching story of the movie itself, the idea of someone having such a profound effect on another has always stuck with me.  When someone challenges me to rethink who I am and how I think/feel/act so that I want to be a better person, I regard that person as inspirational.

And so it goes with brands.  For me, for example, Nike is a brand that inspires me.  I know, it sounds cliche, but I really feel like Nike not only “gets” me, they make me want to be a better person — they make me want to push beyond myself beyond what I think are my limits and to really accomplish something significant.  Naturally these feelings are in the realm of physical fitness and athletic achievement, but I don’t believe that diminishes their importance — bottom line, I’m inspired.

On the flip side, I realize part of my ambivalence to Frito-Lay‘s recently launched brand platform, Only In a Woman’s World, is because, for all its good, it doesn’t make me want to be a better person.  The platform is for the company’s health and wellness brands, Flat Earth, Baked, and Smartfood, which have all be re-vamped, expanded, and improved.  That a company which has been known for being synonymous with junk food has invested in such a platform is remarkable; the products themselves are quite good (almost too good!  can you pass more of those Tangy Tomato Ranch chips?!); and the communications campaign is funny and entertaining.

And yet, the platform tends to reinforce stereotypes and an unhealthy cultural phenomenon (i.e., women feeling guilty about snacking — you can read more about this on the Gender Bender blog).   So if I really think about it, I’ve come to realize that the brand makes me want to be a different person, not a better one (big difference) — it just doesn’t inspire me.

A few important points about this definition of an inspiring brand:

1. the inspiration can’t just be an advertising message — the brand must inspire through everything it does — don’t think I really need to say more on this point.
2. relatedly, the inspiration doesn’t have to be the advertising message — Bounty paper towel’s select-a-size feature (which allows you to tear off smaller or larger pieces depending on the need) inspires me to use products (theirs and others) more responsibly; Jamba Juice‘s upbeat in-store experience inspires me to pass along positive energy to others; etc.
3. the inspiration doesn’t have to be serious or significant — the quirky sense of humor of Ben & Jerry‘s inspires me to find the fun in every day and the eclectic collection of tastes and treats at Trader Joe’s inspires me to try new things
4. inspiration is personal — as stated above, what is inspirational to one person may not be to another, so companies must be clear on who they’re targeting and how they can be inspired

I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this definition — comments, please!

Once again Microsoft’s ad strategy is off-base.  Their newest ad criticizes Apple for being expensive by “documenting” one woman’s quest to find a laptop that meets her needs for under $1000.

The ad falls short on several points (lack of creativity being only one) but the biggest issue I have with the spot is the woman’s mutter, “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person.“

What is Microsoft trying accomplish by including this remark?

-  false humility?  Is Microsoft going for self-deprecation, kind of like a person who always criticizes herself so that you feel obligated to affirm her in some way?

-  sarcastic jab?  Is the tech giant once again trying to make fun of how cool Mac users think they are?

-  reverse psychology?  Or perhaps Microsoft is secretly hoping that by saying they’re not cool, people will think they really are?

Whatever the goal, it’s not working for me.  I previously made the point that Microsoft isn’t cool and that’s OK — but actually coming out and declaring “we’re not cool” isn’t the solution.

Instead of reinforcing the comparison with Apple, Microsoft should focus on a positive message about itself — that is, their advertising should be about what it is, not what it’s not.

Perhaps Microsoft should take a page out of the lesson book of another corporate giant that used to struggle with countering its cooler, more stylish competitor — Wal-mart. After several attempts to position itself against Target, Wal-mart found its voice (and helped turn around its declining sales trend) and ran a campaign that transformed its often criticized size and ubiquity into a positive brand-building platform, the company’s green efforts — (Brandweek ran a POV of mine about this last year).

Microsoft’s last ad effort “I’m a PC” was, while also flawed in some ways, certainly a better effort at reinforcing the brand’s positive equity.  Not sure why the company didn’t stick with the strategy and work at optimizing it, but perhaps “I’m just not smart enough to be a Microsoft critic.”