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

I’ve been doing research on some companies and have spent quite a bit of time looking at companies’ corporate reports – e.g., annual reports, official statements, corporate presentations, etc.  I’m amazed at how many companies completely overlook these reports as touchpoints through which people experience their brands.  Often the reports are dry and pedantic or fluffy and full of corporate-speak – they don’t communicate or reflect what is differentiating or compelling about their brands.

What’s ironic is these reports are becoming increasingly important brand touchpoints.  The combination of Sarbanes-Oxley requirements and the increasing use of websites for communicating with investors/potential investors mean corporate reports are much more accessible.  And because of their accessibility, they’re used not only by the investment community, but also by prospective employees, vendors and customers, strategic alliance partners, M&A prospects, bankers, etc.

These people and groups are important stakeholders in businesses – and brands.  They’re usually juggling competing priorities and deciding among several alternatives — so opportunities to engage them with the brand should not be overlooked or underestimated.  As with consumers, if they share the understanding of what the brand stands for and the value it delivers to them and their stakeholders, they’re more likely to choose the company over other options.

Once they’ve signed on with a company, these people and groups can either build the brand or weaken it.  The values and attributes that define the brand must be embraced by everyone and every group. Just think how shoddy materials or shipment delays can negatively impact the experience a customer has with a brand.  The recent flurry of toy recalls and tainted food supplies have shown how seriously a brand can be damaged when a company’s business partners fail to adhere to its standards.  The actions of a shady salesman or an incompetent service provider may yield less critical consequences, but they nonetheless reflect on the brand.

As the number of ways different groups interact with companies grows, the importance of corporate reports as brand touchpoints grows.   Instead of churning out the staid and predictable reports, companies should determine the best ways to express and deliver their brand through their corporate communications.

Two companies stand out of as examples and inspiration:

lululemon athletica has produced an “Annual Report Video.”

lululemon Annual Report Video 2008 from lululemon athletica on Vimeo.

The six-minute piece starts off with various lululemon employees relaying what the brand means to them.  It also includes clips of the company’s leaders discussing the past year’s results and future plans, and of actual store activities, including their in-store yoga classes.  It’s a creative and engaging way to communicate key information and brand passion — and by posting the video on Vimeo, the company is leveraging the power of social media to raise the brand’s profile.

REI releases an annual “Stewardship Report” to outline the company’s activities and performance related to social and environmental efforts.

The report describes what REI is doing in terms of Community (philanthropic efforts and nonprofit partnerships centered on outdoor recreation and conservation, and advocacy), Environment (initiatives and efforts to reduce the company’s overall impact on the planet), and People (workplace and fair labor compliance with vendor factory partners).

As such, the report not only communicates key corporate performance metrics, but also expresses the brand values and attributes that distinguish the company and make it so strong.  Certainly REI’s structure as a co-op vs. a standard corporation means such a report makes more sense than a standard annual report.  But I suspect the reason why the company issues such a remarkable report is that it is the most appropriate way to bring their brand to life.

related posts:

• the branded vacation
• brand value creation — learning and growth

Last week I had the pleasure of hearing the Director of Vision, Innovation, & Strategy for the San Diego Zoo, Beth Branning, speak about “Implementing Organization-Wide Strategic Alignment.”  The story of her efforts to drive through the organization the Zoo’s 5-year strategic plan provides some valuable insights and takeaways.

In addition to the difficulties inherent in strategy implementation, Beth faces some unique challenges:

• The Zoo (actually the Zoological Society of San Diego, which runs the world famous San Diego Zoo, along with the Wild Animal Park and the Institute for Conservation Research) is a non-profit organization.  As a result, their payroll budget is limited and so they aren’t able to use monetary compensation as an incentive for employee cooperation.  And most employees are lifers (that is, they stay in their jobs until retirement), so upward mobility in the organization is also limited.  Therefore they can’t rely on the usual methods for motivating and rewarding employees for adopting the strategic plan.
• Another implication of having employees with a long employment history with the organization is that many of them are quite skeptical of management initiatives like strategic plans.  They’ve seen more than their share of organizational changes that have come and gone without gaining traction – so they’re not likely to readily embrace a new strategic plan.
• The Zoo also has an active Board of Trustees.  Unlike a typical non-profit board of directors, whose primary role is to support the organization financially, the Zoo’s board has been actively involved in the management of the organization.  Although Beth has no official authority over this additional group of stakeholders, she has to gain their support for and cooperation in implementing the strategic plan.

Some of the tactics Beth has deployed have successfully overcome these challenges:

-    Organization: They’ve created an implementation architecture in which organizationally-representative teams own every aspect of the strategic plan. For example, one part of the plan focuses on Identity (“transforming the identity of the Zoo into the global conservation leader by raising awareness of our conservation work, actively pursuing open strategic partnerships, and becoming catalysts for change.”)  So, a team of employees and managers from different areas of the company, along with selected board members, is responsible for the implementation of the Identity plan.

They’ve also designated “STAT” teams – Strategic Action Teams – that convene with express purpose of removing implementation roadblocks.  STATs only meet when issues arise and their decisions are final.  As such, the combination of the organizationally-representative teams and the STATs ensures implementation is operationally feasible and facilitates organization-wide buy-in, while offsetting potential inertia by establishing clear decision-making protocol.

-    Planning Framework: The teams apply a planning framework in evaluating if existing programs and activities should continue and if new ones should be introduced.  The framework incorporates a view of ROI (Return on Investment) and ROM (Return on Mission) and aims for all programs and activities to be classified as “home runs” (high ROI and high ROM.)

This framework has led them to identify quite a few things that are “profitable distractions” – those programs or activities that generate a lot of revenue but aren’t aligned with the Zoo’s vision and values.  Instead of simply shutting these down, however, they work on converting them into “home runs” by exploring how they could be modified in order to generate a higher ROM.  For example, a popular feature at the Wild Animal Park used to incorporate a Sponge Bob Square Pants video.  By switching the video out for a dynamic safari-themed one, they were able to maintain guest interest in the feature and improve its mission alignment.

-    Communication: Beth explained they have packaged the strategic plan into different formats that make it accessible and usable for different stakeholder groups. They named the plan “Lynx” (after the species of wildcat) and created a tool called “Pocket Lynx.”  It’s a business card-sized primer on the basic tenets of the plan for all employees to carry with them and refer to regularly.  So widespread has the adoption of this tool been, Beth encouraged us to ask a Zoo employee on our next visit there about Lynx and to see whether or not they could show us their Pocket Lynx!

They also hold an annual organization-wide “Lynx Expo” at which departments demonstrate to management, to the Board, to volunteers, and to each other how they are implementing the plan.  And they keep employees informed of progress through constant mini-updates in the Zoo’s regular communication vehicles and through regular email updates to all users and supervisors.

I really appreciated Beth’s talk because the approach and methods she outlined seem applicable to anyone trying to drive strategic change in organizations.  She seems to have connected the dots between strategy and implementation in a pragmatic, progressive way.

Thanks, Beth, for a great presentation and kudos to the entire Zoo organization for the rigor and commitment with which you’re fulfilling your vision of becoming the “world leader in connecting people to wildlife and conservation.”

related posts:

• corporate brand gaps
• leadership and execution

Thanks to the bailouts, marketers are finding our marketing plans being tried in the court of public opinion – and so far we haven’t been given much of a chance to defend ourselves. In a piece I wrote for MediaPost’s Marketing Daily, “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Public?,” I make three suggestions for maligned marketers.  Please let me know what you think.

My critique of Lucky Jeans‘ “Lucky Few” campaign was published in this week’s Brandweek.  For those of you who didn’t see it, here goes:

For decades, fashion advertising seems to have followed a formula that goes something like this: Gorgeous models + famous photographer = stunning print campaign. Perhaps models were switched out for celebrities or a gimmick was thrown in the mix but, overall, there really hasn’t been much in the way of innovation in apparel brands’ marketing. For the most part, the people wearing those clothes have been stunning, and chances are they don’t look anything like you do.

That’s why the recently launched “Lucky Few” campaign from Lucky Brand seemed to have so much potential. As the press release explained, the fashion label had selected a group of “artisans”—ranging from musicians to an aspiring actress—to model its fall 2008 collection. The idea of choosing real-life creative types as models was intended to underscore the brand’s “message of individualism and the belief that being original and creative should be celebrated.”

Sounds great, huh? I imagined an inclusive, celebratory campaign featuring actual people whose compelling-but-flawed selves would inspire us to carve our own creative paths through life. I think that’s the kind of fresh approach that apparel brands need. But it looks like we’re not going to luck out with the undifferentiated and unfocused campaign that Lucky’s delivered. Real as these folks may be, they still look like stars—just ones you haven’t heard of. They come off as contrived, unapproachable and, in some cases, irrelevant to the theme. Just how “ordinary” is an aspiring musician who’s already been to Juilliard? Sure, some of the winners of the national selection process came from humble beginnings and got, well, lucky. Maybe that’s the problem: “Lucky Few” smacks of elitism; these are not Average Joes like you and me.

They certainly don’t look like you and me, either. Remember the Dove “Real Beauty” campaign from 2004? That campaign featured everyday women, warts and all—and it worked. Granted, Lucky is selling fashion, not soap, and its core demo is cool and young. But instead of taking a creative risk, Lucky defaulted to the “beautiful people” shoot, courtesy of photographer/director Michael Bernard.

What’s so bad about that? Well, the stated goal is authenticity, and that’s been undermined by highly stylized images like these. Along the way, differentiation has been another casualty; these shots make Lucky look like all the other high-concept apparel brands littering the glossy mags.

Lucky also could have escaped the sea of sameness by communicating a distinctive POV, but the messaging is scrambled. The brand’s homepage claims the “Lucky Few” is an “amazing group of individuals who used their talent to make luck happen,” while its Facebook page says they’re “people that live for creative expression.” Is the campaign about luck? Creativity? Individuality? Dreams?

The campaign signage only muddles things further. The headline on one piece asks, “Who’s Your Joan?” in a somewhat esoteric reference to the inspiration one of the artists received after seeing a painting depicting Joan of Arc. Yet the same piece features the slogan, “Make Luck Happen.” I don’t know whether Lucky is trying to inspire me or cajole me. Either way, I’m confused.

Postings by the brand’s Facebook friends suggest that I’m not the only one, either. In answer to the invitation to submit their own “lucky stories,” people have posted everything from a recounting of how they met their girlfriend at a party to a promotion for their budding musical career. It’s an attempt to harness social media, but the lasso has clearly slipped. Lucky’s Facebook page is primarily comprised of images of the Lucky Few, and it looks as though the print campaign has just been peeled off and stuck there. It’s no wonder that three weeks after its launch, the page has garnered only 1,000 fans and wall posts by 30 people—many of whom are Lucky employees (Zara, which launched its page a month earlier, now has more than 160,000 fans and 500-plus wall posts).

At a time when brands have to take greater creative strides to get noticed, I wish that Lucky had done more than follow in the well-worn footprints. I guess that goes to show there’s a difference between wishing for something and making your own luck.