brand as business bit:  What makes an ad something people want to share with others?  Is there a secret formula for making ads that are most likely to be shared?

The March issue of the Harvard Business Review included a report by Harvard prof Thales Teixeira who tracked viewers’ eye movements and facial expressions while watching ads.  He outlined five ways to get and keep people engaged with ads, including:

“Build an emotional roller coaster. Viewers are most likely to continue watching a video ad if they experience emotional ups and downs.”

The HBR recently published reactions to the report including mine:

These findings overlook two important factors in ad effectiveness:  branded recall and conversion.  If an ad is liked and passed along but the brand is forgotten or no further action is taken by the viewer, the ad may generate buzz but will do little to build the brand or the business.

BurgerKing, Volvo, Coke, LEGO, and ShoeDazzle were some of the brands in my recent conversations.  Peruse this recap of my content this month to see what you might have missed:

brand-building:

• What a Strong Brand Does for a Small Business — my OPEN Forum column on why small businesses should invest in brand-building from the start
• Has ShoeDazzle Lost Its Dazzle?  — a POV on ShoeDazzle’s move away from its subscription model
• Basketball Teams and Brands – a bit on what brand-builders can learn from Josh Harris’s moves to rejuvenate the 76ers

business and innovation:

• Once Upon a Company – a guest post of mine on the upMover blog about the internal power of storytelling
• Storytelling Strategies – a follow-up bit on storytelling best practices
• Could ‘Pink Slime’ Be Rebranded? – a comment from me on what “slimed” companies should do
• From Values to Action – a post relaying what I learned about values-based leadership from Kellogg professor Harry Kreamer
• Hip Help – a bit about how Help Remedies is turning drug marketing on its head
• Mary-Ann Somers on Coca-Cola’s New Ventures  — an interview about the work of Coke’s Venturing and Emerging Brands business unit

brand communications:

• Burger King Enlists Celebs to Call Attention To New Menu That McD’s Already Has — a quote of mine about how Burger King seems to be copying others, instead of leapfrogging them
• McCabe on Advertising – a bit about how Ed McCabe used an iconoclastic approach to etch into our brains Volvo’s brand identity

restaurants and retail:

• Make Your Ethnic Concept a Familiar Favorite – my latest QSR Magazine column about introducing an unfamiliar concept
• Five P’s to a Priceless CE Retail Experience – a guest post on CEA’s Digital Dialogue about how to combat the showrooming effect
• Fast Food Line-Up – a bit comparing brand perceptions and tagline recall for Burger King, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell
• Brand Experience Briefs:  video briefings of my insights and analysis of a Chipotle-inspired pizza concept, Pie-ology, and the LEGO store

Now…onward to May!

brand as business bit:  Tucked away in last week’s New York Times automotive section was a great piece about advertising.  The subject was Ed McCabe (of Scali, McCabe, Sloves fame) whose  iconoclastic approach to advertising etched into our brains safety as Volvo’s brand identity.  Three points  about Mr. McCabe’s strategy really resonated with me:

“Volvo’s reputation for crash safety…was solidified with a compelling statistic that Volvo used in its advertising for nearly two decades under Mr. McCabe’s direction: ‘Nine out of every 10 Volvos registered in the U.S. in the last 11 years are still on the road.’ Nowhere in that simple statement is safety mentioned, yet, according to Volvo, modern buyers overwhelmingly identify safety features as their No. 1 purchase reason.”

That speaks to the power of a simple statistic – sometimes you don’t need to explain it.

“’The client comes to me and says the dealers want to do an ad about colors to compete with Chevy’s many color combinations that existed at the time,’ McCabe said. Mr. McCabe pointed out that Volvo had few choices compared with Chevy‘s selection of more than 50, but the client was undeterred. The day was saved with a headline that shifted the focus to a different Volvo trait: ‘Volvos come in blue, green, white, yellow & red. No rust.’”

What a brilliant way to turn a competitive disadvantage on its head!

“’Weak advertising tells people what you want them to know,’” McCabe added. “’Strong advertising gets people to conclude what you want them to know.’”    [emphasis mine]

‘Nuff said.

A new definition of brand.  Inspiring employees.  My take on the Super Bowl ads and the new Taco Bell tagline.  Check out my writings on these and other topics in the following “brand as business buffet,” a round-up of content from me from this past month.

retail and restaurants:

• How to Keep ‘Em  Coming Back — my QSR Magazine column on how to increase purchase frequency
• So, You Want to Try a New Concept – a piece published by Smartblog on Restaurants about how to get the most out of a new concept test
• Brand Experience Briefs – insights, analysis, and photos from my audits of new and interesting restaurant and retail concepts:  Steak n’ Shake Signature and REI in SOHO
• Loyalty Payoffs – a quote of mine in a RGMT Magazine piece about effective loyalty programs

advertising and marketing communications:

• The Super Bowl’s Intended Receivers – a blogpost about lessons on hitting your target audience from this year’s Super Bowl’s ads
• Ghosts of Super Bowl Pasts – reminders of lessons learned from past Super Bowl ads
• Taco Bell to Exchange ‘Think Outside the Bun’ for ‘Live Mas’ – my response when Advertising Age asked me what I thought of Taco Bell’s new slogan
• Thank You and Come Again – a brand as business bit on the brand-building power of a heartfelt thank you
• Think of Ads as Movie Trailers – a brand as business bit on what ads can learn from best practices of movie trailers

brand as business:

• The Brand Equation – my first piece as a regular contributor to OPEN Forum suggests a new definition of brand
• Mutiny or Movement – It’s Your Choice – a guest post on Uprising Movements about inspiring your employees to greatness
• Employee Movements – my January “brand as business brief (tm)” with bonus content on employee engagement
• A Brand Lesson from Komen and Planned Parenthood – a brand as business bit on the importance of brand alignment

other brand-building topics:

• Brand Elephant – a few brand definitions from the world’s leading brand thinkers as compiled in Debbie Millman’s Brand Thinking and Other Noble Pursuits
• Justin McCarthy on Crossing the Chasm at Garmin – my interview with Garmin’s sports and fitness rep about how his company is trying to appeal to the mainstream consumer
• The Problem with Passion – an excerpt from a ChangeThis Manifesto by Carol Roth that challenges the myth of following your passion to success
• Would You Like a Coffee with That Wi-Fi? — a brand as business bit about  the value of the entire customer experience compared to the specific product purchased

brand as business bit:  I’m interested in the Komen/Planned Parenthood situation from a brand point of view, not a political or moral one.  That’s why a piece by James Gregory, CEO of Core Brand, a brand valuation consultancy, piqued my interest.

He says the Komen organization should have done things differently by focusing on:

“basic ‘brand alignment.’ The brand concept must align the business processes, and with the culture of an organization. Only then does the behavior match the communications. Business processes, culture, and communications are all equal partners in the process of building an enduring brand.”

I’m actually not sure which element – business process, culture, and communications — Gregory intended to point out as mis-aligned, but his point is an important one:  brand integrity is achieved when what you believe (culture) informs what you do (business process) and that in turn informs what you say (communications).

brand as business bit:  During the Big Game tomorrow, most eyes will be on Tom and Eli, but it’s David, Jerry, and Elton and the other celebs featured in more than a third of the ads who I’ll be most keen on watching.  That’s because Super Bowl ads make for great case studies on what works and what doesn’t in brand communications.

In preparation for tomorrow, it’s worth seeing what the ghosts of Super Bowl pasts teach us:

In 2010, I found most of the ads violated some of the fundamental rules of advertising:  know thy customer, know thyself, and avoid unsavory associations.  See my recap: “Manthems, Delusions, and Other Super Gaffes.”

A couple of years ago, the Super Bowl ads served to convey 5 advertising lessons including #1: creativity is a must, and #2: too much creativity can back fire.  Check out “My Super Bowl Was Filled with Guacamole.”

Check back next week for notes on what I learn this year.

The new laws popping up which require restaurants to post calorie counts next to food listings have me concerned. This may come as a surprise to those who know me – after all, I am a fitness enthusiast and I try to practice healthy eating.   So the nutritional content of food is really important to me.

But I just don’t agree with the menu labeling laws.  Here are my reasons why I think they’re bad for business:

1.    where to draw the line?

Most laws currently require the posting of calorie counts only.  But if you know anything about food, you know that calorie counts can be very misleading.  Not all calories are created equal.  Calories from protein are generally good; calories from sugar and fat are generally not.  Calories from good fats are OK; bad fats, not so much.  By limiting the nutritional information required to calories alone, lawmakers are actually doing a disservice to the people they’re trying to serve.

But, on the other hand, if you don’t put a limit to the nutritional information required, information overload is bound to happen.  “Nutrition Facts” labels might work on packaged foods but they’re not sensible for restaurant menus.

Below is the nutritional information menu provided to every guest at PF Chang’s – it’s 5 pages long and the data is overwhelming, even to someone like me.

So where do we draw the line?  Who’s to say that milligrams of salt should be disclosed but grams of fat shouldn’t?  Or whether or not grams of fiber should be broken out from total grams of carbohydrates? There’s no clear delineation.

Now, I’m the last person who says that just because something is difficult, it shouldn’t be done. (I love challenges and place tremendous value on perseverance.) That’s not what I’m saying here.  Rather, the difficulty of doing this actually points to the fact that it shouldn’t be done.

Lawmakers shouldn’t be determining what nutritional information is important enough to warrant being called out on a menu. The consumer should be the one who determines the right information for him or her.

PSAs can be deployed to educate the public on the value of different information and restaurants should make detailed nutritional information available to anyone who seeks it out — but the decision should be rest with the consumer.

My second reason for concern over menu labeling laws is related to the first.

2.    respect for the consumer

Regulating restaurants in an attempt to try to get people to eat healthy is like mandating that television networks tell people to cut back on TV watching because it’s detrimental to their mental development or requiring companies which make alcoholic products to tell consumers that drinking is bad.  There are no such laws because these points just aren’t true.

Eating at restaurants, even fast food ones, is not an inherently bad behavior – it’s only dangerous when it is done in excess.  Consumers know this and we should have enough respect for them to let them make their own decisions.

I don’t say this from a Libertarian point of view – I say it from a brand one.  Companies want to have authentic, trusting relationships with their customers – this is only possible if companies exhibit behaviors which demonstrate respect for them.

So again restaurants should make nutritional information available to people, but they shouldn’t force feed it to them as if to suggest they’re not capable of making smart decisions on their own.

3.    brand-building

Restaurants fill customers’ needs and desires for convenient meal solutions, or for treats, or for access different products and tastes – and in some cases, for healthy foods.  Good brands know their target customers well enough to know want they want and need — and know what and how to communicate with them in order to meet those needs.

If a restaurant is trying to appeal to a discrete segment of consumers who care about nutritional information, the restaurant’s communications touchpoints – whether menus, brochures, websites, whatever — will reflect this.  But if such consumers are not part of the brand’s target audience, then the company shouldn’t be forced to clutter its communication with irrelevant messaging.

Focused and streamlined messaging is an essential tenet of brand-building. No law or regulation should require that a restaurant violate it.

I’m sure there are many who disagree with my concerns and I’d like to hear from you.  Please let me know your reactions to what I’ve said.

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