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…

Tonight marks the beginning of the Olympics but we’ve been seeing Olympic-related advertising for several weeks now (some examples: adidas ad ; McDonald’s ad)

What results can marketers expect from the collective $1BB in media spend they dished out on Olympic ads? As with all high profile media (e.g., Superbowl ads, billboards in Times Square), advertising during the Olympics…

Is effective at:

- generating brand awareness – increasing the number of people who have heard of the brand

- making the brand salient – making the brand stand out in people’s minds

- producing good will - generating positive feelings toward the company

Is less effective at:

- differentiating the brand – making the brand stand for something distinct

- communicating specific messaging – making a specific point about a product/service

- triggering a purchase – getting people to buy

Therefore for advertisers with Olympic aspirations, I recommend they use spots that skew toward the “entertain” end of the “entertain-inform” continuum of advertising – likeability should be a key criteria for the creative. And it should be only one element of the marketing communications mix, with other media in the mix serving to drive people through the purchase funnel.

I’m curious — which Olympic ads do you think are effective? do they seem to follow these rule of thumbs?