Now that summer is officially here, I wanted to take a look back at the past 6 months and see what kinds of conversations had been sparked by brand as business bites. The following are the top posts from each month in terms of number of re-tweets, comments, or emails they generated – I’ve also included some of the commentary.  I’d definitely like to hear more, so please take a look and then add your voice to the conversation by clicking on the “comments” link below.

January

Brand impact in 2010 – I started off the year with a post of three key areas that I predicted brands would have an immediate and significant impact – M&As, social media and networking, and workforce engagement.  Apparently this last point resonated with quite a few folks – including:

Jacco DeBruin:  Great points and couldn’t agree more. Especially the “workforce engagement” is often undervalued but essential since it is all about delivering and exceeding (high) expectations in this transparent era. Happy new year!

Ray Hartjen:  Interesting thought on workforce engagement, and really important for companies and employees to fully understand and embrace. After all, the brand is really nothing more than a reflection of the people of an organization, both past and present. Good post, DLY.

February

The post, in csr, nike just does it, praised Nike for its Corporate Responsibility Report FY07-09.  My read of the extensive report led me to believe Nike is giving CSR more than lip service.

Mark Anderson agreed:  As a prior VP/GM of NIKE Swim and NIKE Inneractives (intimates – Brandy Chastaine – world cup), I can tell you that NIKE practices what they preach and they were on the sustainability bandwagon way before it was the popular thing to do!  They did it a long time ago because it was the right thing to do – not because it would make them look like a participant to their consumers.  NIKE doesn’t just promote sustainability issues – they invest in it – considering it their responsibility and they employees are inspired by the commitment that they witness day in and day out.

Jonathan Salem Baskin didn’t:… I still don’t buy it (it’s still marketing hype). The reality of its business model is 1. Producing products in Third World factories is cheaper than doing so in factories closer to the markets it serves…If Nike cared about doing the right thing it would make gym shoes in Maine (or something), but that would never happen. 2. Shipping products around the world, which is probably one of the most environmentally wasteful/damaging activities any company can do… 3. No number of partnerships with special interest or single-issue pressure groups erases the simple fact that doing the right thing is about business practice, not how Nike chooses to narrate it….

And Tom Asacker left the cryptic comment:  Reality is the name we give to our disappointments.

March

Having completed an extensive retail audit for one of my clients, I wrote a post to share my thoughts on six best practices in retail.   I wrote about great retailers like Wegmans and The Container Store which have distinctive brand personalities, offer 2.0 cross-channel shopping experiences, and reflect strong organizational culture and values.  It got bounced around the Twittersphere a bit, thanks in part to John Moore.

It prompted Marc Rullo to ask:  While the retailer, any retailer is a brand destination unto itself, how does the assorted brands within that retailer (brand destination) fair?…Once upon a time a retailer was defined by the brands they assorted and the expertise they provided to support those brands to the end user.  Then the value of retailers brand (differentiation) and their house brand became much more paramount based on volume and obvious margin opportunities compared to historically established recognized brands with less direct margin opportunities.   These are elements of the bundle of attributes as well…..

Janet Morgenstern Passani commented:  Enjoyed your retailer post. IKEA’s out-of-box campaigns inspire consumers to be bold w/ their purchases. http://bit.ly/9Klpi1

April

Marketing myopia was a post I wrote after reading an op-ed written by Larry Light, marketing guru and former McDonald’s CMO.  Larry had argued that marketing “needs to assert its rightful role making it the central force of brand-business management.” I questioned if the issue is whether marketers should try to increase the marketing function in the organization — or whether they should try to increase the marketing capability of the entire organization.

Craig Hoffman wrote a couple of thoughtful responses – excerpts:  I’m a firm believer in making the marketing pervasive in an organization!  It only helps spread the message and reinforce the benefits of buying a product if everyone who comes in contact with the company gets a similar feeling… its up to management to keep the focus in the right place.  I think management has a role to create a belief for all employees about their company that makes them want to “sell” their company from all angles…I think companies who get this right will be more successful at generating and sustaining revenues with stronger margins, allowing for greater possible profits to retain!  Companies that “live their brand” come to mind – Google, Apple, Gore, Lululemon all come to mind as examples.

Ric Brockmeier added:  Well thought argument Denise. It’s critical for companies 2 see that they must be marketing driven not just have a mkt dept

Pierre Loic-Assayag offered a different perspective:  Marketers see the future of their contribution being jeopardized, squeezed between Executive Management slashing budgets and customers much more vocal and opinionated about “owning” the brands they care about.  As a recovering marketer, my sense is that the marketing function probably has a very bright future but it needs to be fundamentally redefined. Successful marketers won’t be defining the brand they represent but rather make themselves an indispensable resource to fans and brand advocates who will be the ones shaping the brand and probably products/services.  Twitter, Harley Davidson, Trader Joe’s are some very interesting examples of fans taking over brands and very skillful marketers trading control for greater brand equity.  Food for thought…

May

In May, Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.” The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).   It sparked a lot of commentary on AdAge’s site:

Richard Todd Aguayo wrote:  Give a million people a shot at making a hole in one, you’ll surely have a winner. That doesn’t mean you bet on that winner to win the Masters.  Professionals are called such for a reason.

Carl Hartman agreed:  Crowd sourcing is the same as Craig’s List or any of the sites that cater to freelancers. It is bottom feeders looking for a great deal, without regard to the quality of the message. Crowd sourcing is like using a shot gun to shoot down a jet flying at 30,000 feet. – Rarely, you’ll hit something. Usually a bird or one of Dick Cheney’s friends – but it won’t be the real target.  Everyone wants it cheap. The cheapest way is always the most expensive. — It is not about cost, it is about value.

Brian McMath dissented:  …Will UGC ever reach the ultra-polished, slick-as-hairgrease production quality that today’s average 30-second TV spot exhibits? Of course not. But why should it? That’s not what it’s for. Contrary to what the author thinks, these people are not out to replace you. UGC is just one more way to get people to engage with a brand, to open up that all-important dialogue with the consumer…

I wrote the consumers as creatives post to explain some of my thoughts further and to pass along the comments which ended up on the editing room floor.

June

Reposition? just do it was a post contrasting two big and juicy brand repositioning projects I’m working on.  I predicted one is going to be successful and the other, not, or at least less so, and explained why.  Essentially it comes down to whether or not the company leadership will decide that taking on such the risk of a significant repositioning is the right thing to do, and if they’re going to do it, to decide to “do it anyway” and to “do it well.”

Mark Gallagher commented:  As always, you make a great point. Fear of change is often the single biggest obstacle preventing companies from reaching their goals. However, what impresses me most about your post is your honesty. Not many consultants would preemptively state that their client was likely to fail. Usually that sort of talk is reserved as an excuse for why the new direction didn’t work, AKA “the client failed to properly implement the strategy.”  Your honesty is as refreshing as your insights.

Thanks for making it a great first half of 2010!

Rich Thomaselli from Advertising Age called me recently for some comments for an article he was writing, “If Consumer Is Your Agency, It’s Time for a Review.”  The piece turned out to be a great analysis of how the use of John Q. Public to develop ads has “jumped the shark” (as Rich refers to it).  He calls out companies for turning over their marketing to consumers through contests like Doritos’ Super Bowl campaigns and Folgers’ recent contest asking the Average Joe (pun intended?!) to update its famous “Best Part of Wakin’ Up” theme.

Rich reached out to me because of an article I had written several years ago for BrandChannel. In it I argued that “consumer-generated advertising as a marketing strategy is a lazy and irresponsible approach to branding.”  Because “brands are the responsibilities of the companies that produce them,” companies were missing out on the opportunity to demonstrate brand leadership and achieve internal alignment with the brand by leading the creative development of their ads.

It wasn’t a popular opinion at the time, since many brand managers were just discovering the benefits of a two-way dialog with customers and the creativity which new media unleashes.

But I stuck to my ground and wrote other op-eds on the subject, including a piece for imediaconnection which called for a reality check on “consumer-generated” ads: “The ads that win the contests and get exposure are not created by consumers. They’re made by aspiring film-makers and prosumers looking for their lucky break. By calling these ads “consumer-generated we are propagating the myth that they are engaging a brand’s users.”

Well now it seems others are coming around to embracing my point of view.  In the recent Ad Age article:

• Jackie Huba, co-author of the book “Citizen Marketer” and writer of the Church of the Customer blog, says “These contests asking people to create commercials and jingles are contrived…Marketers should be leveraging word-of-mouth jet streams.”
• And even Pete Blackshaw, who writes the Consumer Generated Media blog, concedes, “the novelty has worn off [and] brands are struggling with the harshness of the consumer voice. A lot of brands that jumped into CGA and the social-media conversation have found there are tradeoffs.”

The concerns I outlined in the piece were:

• “You’re getting these very poor quality spots, and it’s not even done in seriousness anymore…That’s definitely affecting the quality of what we’re seeing.“  When this new tact first started, professional or semi-professional people were the ones submitting their work, so even if it was off-strategy, at least it was good film.  Now everyone with a webcam or a Flip is making these ads and their amateur roots are obvious.
• Also using contests to get people to make ads about your brand seems disingenuous.  “…it lacks the authenticity. It’s going to happen with a brand real soon where there will be a backlash against this.“  People will realize that companies are essentially bribing them into promoting their brands.

I shared with Rich an additional point which got left on the editing room floor:   These campaigns are no longer necessary.  Brands which have enthusiastic customer bases don’t need to run contests to incentivize people to create ads – their fans do it on their own.

Having said all this against so-called user-generated ad campaigns, I do believe there are a couple of situations in which such an open approach might contribute real value:

• To promote consumer-friendly video production products – “User-generated” ads can showcase the results achieved by everyday people using your products.  So the aforementioned Flip camera might be an appropriate candidate for a consumer-generated ad campaign.
• To engage your employees – McDonald’s has been running a “Voice of McDonald’s” contest which has more recently evolved to include elements similar to a user-generated ad campaign. The program involves a contest in which employees around the world submit video entries of themselves singing a la American Idol.  They compete to become the official voice of the brand and to win a $25,000 prize.  McDonald’s has opened up voting to the public and used both traditional and social media to promote the program.  In this case, the “users” are actual McDonald’s employees and the program serves to engage them with the brand as well as strengthen their relationship with customers – it seems like a win-win-win.

So what do you think?  Are consumer-generated ads still an effective approach for brand managers?  Or have they lost their luster and should be put out of their (and our) misery?  Comments open.

related post:  a case against user-generated ad contests

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