In this week’s Brandweek is an article about the internal marketing Pepsi undertook prior to launching its latest campaign.  The piece reported thatPepsi’s “Rally Day” efforts included things like 20-foot tall billboards in the parking lot greeting employees featuring images from the campaign — and an enormous refresh symbol flag unfurled from the headquarters’ roof.  Apparently one of the marketing managers at Pepsi coined the term “Invertising” to refer to the targeting of employees with a branding campaign before it goes public.

The article also recounted similar approaches by Coke, Kellogg, and others.  Comments from observers in the industry included, “Companies that are high performing and do well in terms of long-term profitability are more inclined to have programs that make sure employees are aware of the brand promise.”

Speaking to your employee base in a brand campaign is smart and important — but it’s only a piece of what’s required.  If companies only treat their employees as a target audience for a marketing campaign, the brand effort will still fall flat.

Instead of just exposing employees to the brand platform and getting them excited about it, companies need to ensure the brand is fully operationalized by all employees.  What’s needed is full brand engagement, alignment, and integration.  Here’s what I mean:

Brand Engagement — As with externally-targeted marketing, internal one-way communication is limited in its effectiveness.  It’s one thing to hear or see a message — it’s another to internalize, personalize, and process it.  Employees need to be engaged on three levels:

• heads — employees must be knowledgeable about what the brand stands for and how it is positioned, what the elements and objectives of the new campaign are, the rationale behind the strategy, etc.
• hearts — they must be inspired by the brand and motivated to change what they do and how they do it in order to operationalize the brand — while excitement and hype are important, today’s naturally-skeptical employees may need more than just a “feel good” effort to be motivated
• hands and feet — they should be equipped with and empowered by tools to use to interpret and reinforce the brand appropriately

Only when employees are full engaged with the brand will they align their behaviors and decision-making with it.

Brand Alignment — Most internal efforts are geared toward employees at lower levels on the org chart and/or sales/servicepeople on the “frontlines” with customers.  It’s equally if not more important to ensure those in leadership positions share the same understanding of and engagement with the brand.

You can’t assume the executive committee — or middle managers or regional heads — share one common vision and decision-making criteria.  Any internally-focused brand effort must facilitate alignment throughout the organization at all levels.  Posters and parties may work for some groups of employees — worksessions and personal meetings are probably needed for others.

Other stakeholders must also be engaged and aligned.  Brand stakeholders are people or groups that have an investment, share, or interest in your brand — e.g., business partners, agencies, investors/shareholders, etc.  These people a critical role in how your brand is experienced and delivered, so they should not be overlooked.

Brand Integration — This last point speaks to the fundamental role of a brand within a company.  Companies that leverage their brands to achieve phenomenal growth and market stature take their brands beyond marketing.  They use their brand an operational tool to drive what their company delivers to its customers and how it does it.

As such, their internally-targeted brand efforts are focused on integrating the brand into everything everyone does — using the brand to generate shared insights about new growth opportunities, make better planning decisions, and improve execution throughout their organization.  While such efforts might be kicked-off with a special day at headquarters or an awareness campaign, they don’t stop there.   True brand integration requires constant attention and could truly be considered a daily project.

So, I say kudos to companies like Pepsico which are investing in employee-targeted brand efforts — but I also encourage them to make what they’re doing about more than awareness and information.  The objective should be full brand engagement, alignment, and integration.

(One final note about “invertising” — Companies may try to use one campaign to reach internal and external audiences. While this approach sometimes works (think IBM’s e-business effort), most of the time it doesn’t. The same strategy, medium and message that motivate employees do not necessarily motivate customers — and vice versa.  Last year, Ad Age published an article of mine that explains how companies should consider different ways to engage different audiences.)

I noticed an interesting juxtaposition of taglines the other day — actually it was during the Super Bowl, but don’t worry, this isn’t yet another piece about Super Bowl ads (I’ve already said my peace, as I hope everyone else has.)

In some markets, the University of Phoenix ran several spots from its a new campaign during the big game

– the ads featured U of P students talking about their experience with the school and how they feel having completed their studies there — the spots closed with one student saying, “I am Adam (or whatever their name is) and I am a Phoenix.”

Then there was the ad from Toyota, promoting its new Venza crossover –

the spot drew parallels between African art owned by a good-looking man in an upscale home and the features of the Venza, closing with the announcer asking, “Are you VENZA?”

The juxtaposition between the two taglines — one a declaration by a customer, the other a question by what is essentially the voice of the brand — got me thinking about the nature of taglines.  There may be a subtle difference between the two, but it seems significant.  Both of the examples I mention reference the identification a user has with the brand, but one seems to be a positive self-affirmation while the other comes off more like an elitist challenge.

I realize my reactions to the taglines are affected by the ads in their entirety (I found the U of P ads quite inspiring and the VENZA one boring, despite me having no more interest in attending classes at U of P than buying a new car) — but even if I consider the taglines in isolation, “I am a Phoenix” seems more appropriate for our culture at this time.  I hypothesize this is because we, as Americans living in 2009, want to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to identify with a brand enough to call ourselves by its name (something that the featured U of P students have decided to do) — we don’t want some brand copping an attitude and implying that we should identify with it if we’re rich and beautiful and have good enough taste.  The VENZA approach might have been more appropriate in the status-a-go-go 1980′s — but now it seems elitist (which we know is not good — case in point:  Obama worked so hard to shed the label after being accused of seeming like he was elitist, as you may recall.)

Clearly there’s been an evolution in taglines over the years.  A look at historical taglines from Coke and Pepsi reveals some trends:

1903  Pepsi — Exhilarating, invigorating, aids digestion

1904 Coke — Delicious and refreshing

1913 Pepsi — Drink Pepsi-Cola.  It will satisfy you.

1929 Coke — The pause that refreshes.

1934 Pepsi — Twice as much for a nickel

1961 Pepsi — Now it’s Pepsi for those who think young

1963 Coke — Things go better with Coke

1969 Coke — It’s the real thing

1973 Pepsi — Join the Pepsi people, feelin’ free.

1976 Coke — Coke adds life

1982 Coke — Coke is it!

1984 Pepsi — Pepsi.  The choice of a new generation.

1993 Coke — Always Coca-Cola

1995 Pepsi — Nothing else is a Pepsi.

2001 Pepsi — Joy of Pepsi

2006 Coke — The Coke side of life

2009 Coke — Open happiness. / Pepsi — Every generation refreshes the world.

Examining these taglines, it seems in the first half of the 20th Century the lines mostly simply described the product benefits.  Beginning in the 60′s, Pepsi moved to taglines that referenced user identification with the brand, while Coke adopted a more declarative stance about its brand.  Then in the 90′s, Pepsi joined Coke in employing a brand statement approach and both brands used lines that hyped brand uniqueness.   Now in 2009, both brands’ taglines are more like commentaries about the times we live in.

It seems the most effective taglines capture the spirit of the time in which they run.  Nike introduced “Just Do It” in 1988 — a time when people were pumped up on power and status (Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities was published in 1987.)  Apple‘s “Think Different” line launched in 1997 — a time when most Baby Boomers were hitting their 40′s and adopting a socially acceptable, yet still free-thinking, challenge-authority mindset.

In my opinion, “I am a Phoenix” is a more culturally-right tagline for 2009 — and therefore a more effective one — than VENZA’s.  What do you think?

You didn’t think I’d let the Super Bowl ads come and go without commentary, did you?!  Although I was trying to sit quietly by while others Monday-morning quarter-backed about the ads, I just couldn’t do it.  I have to weigh in with a few points — so I’ll keep it short and sweet.

Here are 5 lessons I suggest be learned from the spots: (I’m not inserting the videos here since you can find them on pretty much every other site including USA Today.)

1.  Creativity is a must. As a general rule, TV advertising should be entertaining and engaging.  In the case of the Super Bowl, a show whose ads rival the attention of the show content, the spots need to be even more so.  VIZIO’s spot for its flat panel TVs was such a boring, low-production-value piece that after I watched it, I was sorry I hadn’t used the time to take a bio break.

A few years back, Jim Stengel, then CMO of P&G, charged his agencies to make the company’s advertising more watchable.  In an address called The Future of Marketing, he explained, “When we think of permission-based marketing, most of us think about opt-in online newsletters. We really need to expand this mentality to all aspects of marketing. We must develop creative that both maximizes the channel and appeals to the consumer.For each element of the marketing mix, we should ask ourselves ‘would consumers choose to look at or listen to this,’ and let that be the benchmark.”

2.  But too much creativity can backfire. As with many Super Bowls past, this year featured several spots in which the story line completely overshadowed the brands they were promoting — GoDaddy.com and Pepsi Max are just a few of the offenders.  Although GoDaddy.com has dramatically boosted brand awareness with past Super Bowl ads, I have yet to find someone who remembers the brand for what it is or what is does.

And while I know I just said that Super Bowl ads need to be entertaining, I should clarify that the entertaining element should serve to communicate the brand message.  Cars.com did this quite effectively — its spot featuring an overachiever who still gets nervous when buying a car wove the benefit of the brand seamlessly into a stimulating, imaginative story.

3.  Be mindful of unintended brand associations. Cheetos = pigeon food — need I say more?

4.  Always portray your products users as heroes — not losers. Pepsi’s MacGruber spot had so much potential — and I’m not just saying that because I loved the show McGyver.  Headlining Saturday Night Live’s MacGruber character in a campy story line served to capture and hold attention well — but the creatives missed the boat by ending with MacGruber failing in his effort to save the day after taking a swig of Pepsi.  Even in a scenario as far-fetched as this ad, the act of using the product should have been rewarded with success.

5.  If you have something to say, say it. Denny’s chief marketing and innovation officer, Mark Chmiel, was quoted as saying the chain’s Super Bowl spot describes “a customer offer that has never been done in the sit-down segment.”  Indeed, a free breakfast for all Americans (which was offered today — sorry if you missed it) is big news.  But I wonder why they chose to bury the message in a spot that also featured some pretty convincing mafiosi, clown pancakes, and a great portrayal of a diner waitress.  While I’m glad Denny’s didn’t choose the self-congratulating tack of running a spot that talks about how breakthrough the free breakfast deal is, they probably could have done a better job of making the offer more front and center.

OK, there you have it — I’m finished — thanks for listening.  Now, where’s that guacamole…

There’s been a lot of discussion about Pepsi’s new campaign – most of it negative — so I wanted to offer a different point of view.

Before I get to my POV, let me try to summarize why I think most people have a problem with the campaign.  Critics say the effort is commercializing the positive movement Obama has created, and its use of a graphic that looks remarkably similar to visuals from the Obama campaign and the words “Yes We Can” which are taken directly from Obama are crass rip-offs.  I think people find the campaign particularly offensive because it’s from a cola company, and to try to relate what little a soft drink can do to the perceived huge potential of Obama’s presidency is reaching too far.  (If I’ve failed to accurately capture the campaign criticism, please let me know — I really do want to understand it.)

Here’s my challenge to the criticism.

If I understand Pepsi’s objectives correctly, they are trying to facilitate people’s involvement in Obama’s movement to change (improve) the nation.  This doesn’t seem to be different from any other social responsibility effort we’ve seen from other companies — companies try to associate their brands with the positive, complementary attributes of an organization or cause by supporting it.  The run campaigns to increase its exposure and (hopefully) generate increased consumer participation.  It just so happens Pepsi is doing this with the President’s agenda — and while I don’t mean to suggest that a new administration is the same as a non-profit, I can see why brands would want to promote Obama’s values and goals.

It would be another thing if Pepsi were trying to subversively encroach on Obama’s campaign or make some sort of subliminal connection to the President’s message of change — instead they’re being upfront and clear about their intentions — which, I find, um, refreshing.

It would also be too much if Pepsi were claiming that the brand is doing what Obama is trying to do — but they’re clearly not.  The campaign simply promotes the sharing of ideas and positive spirit toward a common goal of “refreshing the nation.”

i also find the Pepsi effort more substantive than, say, Ikea’s decorate-the-oval-office campaign — that seems like the equivalent of putting a celebrity in an ad just to generate some buzz.

You can read another perspective on why “nothing wrong with spreading the joy of cola” by Bob Garfield, Ad Age‘s resident critic  — you can read his POV here.

P.S.  Just a reminder — my FREE webinar, “Get Your Brand Ducks in a Row: How To Achieve Brand Alignment with a Brand Toolbox” is this Thursday, January 29th 9:00-9:30am PT / 12:00-12:30noon ET — read more about this learning opportunity here — and please register at www.deniseleeyohn.com/webinar .