You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Advertising' category.
It’s been interesting to see the PR counter-offensive by the U.S. travel industry against the tide of criticism against so-called business junkets. A couple of weeks ago I saw full-page ads in several major papers suggesting that cancelled meetings translate into millions of lost jobs. The “Meetings mean Business” campaign includes a major PR and advertising push, a new Code of Conduct for companies using taxpayer dollars, personal video vignettes, advocacy outreach, a robust website, etc. The campaign appears to be working, at least in terms of political leaders like Barney Frank and even President Obama urging caution in branding travel as ill-advised spending. This may help differentiate the egregious retreats by AIG and other TARP recipients from the legitimate trips by thousands of organizations investing in their staff.
Major American banks continue to demonstrate they haven’t learned the lessons of their recent PR debacles. Wells Fargo recently took out full-page ads in several major U.S. newspapers announcing they had reluctantly cancelled employee recognition events, but they also defended the practice and blamed the news media for misleading coverage on the issue. Check out a story on the ads here.
The ads created predictable churn on the Web and among pundits. I found this commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown to pretty close to my view on the topic – Brown gives Wells Fargo the chutzpah award for a strong and spirited counter-attack, but argues the tactic ultimately fails and suggests the bank would be better served spending funds on their employees rather than expensive ads attacking the media. Wells CEO John Stumpf should certainly be commended for wanting to recognize his employees and giving them a public high-five in the ads, but his comments also reflect the hubris and insularity that has generated so much vitriol among critics of the banks. Notwithstanding the merits of employee recognition, this is not the time nor the channel to argue for costly trips. Would it not have been simpler to simply introduce alternate recognition tactics? I know of several companies who have eliminated recognition trips and meetings and replaced them with other rewards, with apparent understanding from their employees. A Wells spokesperson claims that in addition to setting the record straight on the trips, the ads were intended to publicly acknowledge the accomplishments of employees. Even if you believe that, it might have been more effective to use the cost of placing the ads directly on employee rewards.
In the latest Fast Company the authors of “Made to Stick” argue that the urge to use catchy slogans has created a cacophony of flip, empty catchphrases at the expense of substance. In their post, these guys raise some great points – namely that too many communicators (or wanna-be copy writers) focus most of their intellectual energy on developing snappy phrases and not enough on a broader strategy to communicate a marketing position or corporate program. I agree that the end result is often vacuous, misdirected top-heavy campaigns that are dead on arrival.
That said, a cogent, catchy phrase can play an important, even critical role in an advertising or communication campaign. There is logic behind the urge to develop slogans – as communicators we’re often trying to convey complex themes and messages in a crowded, busy environment. We’re competing for eyeballs, after all, whether we work in PR, internal communication or advertising. So it can definitely help to develop a phrase or slogan that nicely captures the essence of your message – if only to have a “label” and facilitate the promotion and delivery. The catch is that slogans have to be relevant and credible, and backed-up by supporting activities and information that provide the required context and drive the desired action (whether to buy a product or support a strategy.) The other challenge is that one slogan can be great, but in too many companies several teams are throwing a number of competing slogans (and brands and icons) into the mix, which dilutes the impact of all except the best.
Perhaps the lesson here is that execution matters. There is nothing wrong with a great slogan – as we’ve learned from the world of advertising. But making it great is more than a cool phrase.
The recent economic turmoil, and virtual imposion or acquisition of a number of celebrated financial institutions, raises interesting questions about the value of brand equity. In short, what is it really worth in times of crisis?
For years we’ve heard that a strong brand provides a cushion of goodwill in difficult times and allows firms to charge a premium for their products and services. There is a great deal of empirical evidence and logic to support that theory, but then what happened on Wall Street the past month? Firms like Lehman Brothers, AIG and Merrill Lynch have spent billions over the years burnishing their reputations and had what appeared to be strong brands supported by long histories. (Newcomers like WaMu and Countrywide were also big advertisers, but most would agree their positioning with customers was less solid and mature.) But those celebrated financial brands held little or no value when customers and investors began to doubt their liquidity and/or business acumen. Their reputation – built over years of consistent performance and marketing muscle – did little to slow or stop their disappearance. Whatever inherent confidence customers had in these customers was apparently fragile and transitory.
One could make a case that firms like Morgan and Goldman Sachs have survived the crisis partly due to their strong reputations – and brand equity – but their survival could also be due to smart management and a few lucky guesses on investments. And it’s certainly true that brands cannot survive serious strategic mistakes or bad financial bets. But the very brand essence of these firms was trust. Was all the marketing a waste of money?
I think the answer lies in the fact shaken consumers have lost trust in a wide range of institutions – not just Wall Street firms - and that goodwill and reputation is more ephemeral than ever. Furthermore, I believe the companies that have disappeared all did serious damage to the trust equity they had built by selling, promoting and investing in financial products built out of smoke and mirrors. When customers realized these firms had peddled risky products, they lost confidence and fled to higher ground - both for self-interest but also likely as a punishment for a breach of trust. Strong brands will still do better than others in most circumstances, but a powerful brand is not a guarantee of safe harbor in difficult times.
The new Microsoft ad campaign by iconoclastic agency Crispin, Porter & Bogusky has sparked a frenzy of debate in the past few weeks. This blog reflects the fairly negative slant of most of the commentary. But not all of the churn was negative. Check out this post by what appears to be an Apple fan, or this one, which points out that the initial TV ads were designed as teasers for a much broader campaign focusing on Windows and Vista. Mission accomplished.
The critics focused largely on several key points: the ads seem pointless – without a key message or “selling” line; focusing on geeky Gates was a mistake; the ads are unoriginal and dated (featuring Jerry Seinfeld); and they seem a poor response to the wildly successful Apple vs. PC ad campaign. All of these might be true, but the reality – and the point emphasized by fans of the campaign – is that they put boring old Microsoft on the top of the buzz meter. Heck, one of my older relatives, who rarely watches TV and thinks advertising is a bunch of balloons on top of a car dealer, asked me what they ads were about. Not all of the attention was positive, but there was clearly a great deal of attention and discussion. Now Microsoft has a rapt audience to launch the subsequent elements of the campaign – which are apparently designed to highlight the positive attributes of Vista and Windows.
While the initial broadcast ads were not my cup of tea, I admire Microsoft for doing something different and risky. For me there is no worse sin in advertising than being boring and forgettable. And there are many successful, celebrated campaigns that had little or no mention of specific products or a clear pitch in their ads – including Apple’s own legendary “1984″ commercial. I’ll take thematic and lifestyle ads over pedantic “hard sell” ads (hello Big 3) any day. So I say let’s give Microsoft a chance to show it’s full hand and give them credit for making some noise and appearing…if only tentatively… a bit hip.
As a Canadian, I have watched the presidential campaign in the United States with a detached fascination. As the campaign has progressed, I’ve become increasingly numbed and disappointed, and not just by the torrent of disingenuous and shrill attack campaign ads. What’s even more interesting – as a student of marketing and PR – is how the candidates have ignored some of the basic rules of communication – in particular the core tenets of marketing. If the candidates were being judged as brands competing in the marketplace - they would get very mixed reviews. Let’s review how they rank against some key elements of successful branding.
- Focus: One of the central tenets of effective branding is having a clear, cogent brand identity. If customers (or voters) don’t have a clear sense of what you stand for, you have a serious problem. I would argue both candidates have muddled their identity and messages to the point where most voters are unclear what they really believe and what they stand for. Take McCain as an example. He starts the year as a renegade maverick who proudly bucks most of the Republican establishment. In the past few months, he has predictably softened his message on key issues and taken on the mantra as the Straight Talk Express. More recently, shaken by the implosion of the financial markets, he has apparently turned his back on decades of traditional Republican dogma about small government and free markets and remade himself a deathbed convert to regulation and Wall Street bashing. His focus on key issues has gone through a similar windmill depending on the vagaries of the campaign. Now he has belatedly joined Obama as the candidate for change and positioned himself as the real outsider. Whatever your political views on these twists and turns, it’s likely unclear to many what McCain stands for anymore…beyond perhaps getting elected. It doesn’t help, of course, that McCain’s opponent Obama is doing all he can to attack McCain’s positioning (see friend of George Bush ads) and protect his own turf.
- Differentiation: As per the above, while both candidates are striving to carve out their distinctive positions (and inherent advantages as candidates) their drifting positions have likely made their pitches more diffuse and confusing. Here’s a test: who is running as the most credible change agent, Washington outsider and somebody who no allegiance to lobbyists? Yes…both of them. This one should be easy given the inherent polarization of politics and electoral campaigns, but aside from splits on a few fundamental issues the candidates are stepping on the same platform.
- Credibility: This is a tough one given the inevitable histrionics and exaggeration of political campaigns, but even by those low standards of probity I would suggest the aggressively partisan advertising – which is usually quickly debunked by most impartial fact-checkers – seriously erodes the credibility of both candidates. It’s never a good thing when voters (or customers) expect most of what you say to be only distantly related to the truth.
- Consistency: See comments above. Even the most ardent political junkie would be hard pressed to keep track of the protean positions of the two candidates. It’s fine to adjust your position on key issues, but another thing altogether to do so for political expediency. The only thing that is consistent is the reactive and poll-driven messaging. I would also give Obama some credit for being consistent about his campaign theme and core messages – despite pressure from insiders to change it when the polls dip.
- Relevance: Most brand stewards stive to get to know their customers and respond to their desires and aspirations so they’ll buy your products or services. In politics, you use the same method to get their votes rather than their money. Given the amount of polling involved in this campaign, it’s clear the campaigns are working hard to be relevant to the voters…all the way down to specific voter segments or even neighborhoods. I’d have to give them decent marks on this one – in fact this may be one area where marketing has something to learn from politics.
- Third-party (customer) endorsement: Though the parties and candidates have thousand of passionate fans, it’s much harder to find impartial supporters who are not partisan or dogmatic. It does appear Obama has generated genuine enthusiasm among many who have not traditionally voted, so give him higher marks for creating buzz outside the traditional Democratic circles.
- Positive word-of-mouth: See point above. Plenty of noise and ardent cheer-leading but it’s not clear how much is real or will last beyond the election.
- Compelling advertising: Though many pundits claim critical campaign advertising is effective it’s clear that most of the advertising we’ve seen in this campaign has been formulaic and largely lacking in creativity and imagination. You know the type: highly critical attack ads that stick closely to the tried-and-true formula of dramatic banner headlines and splashy visuals. No subtlety here. Ads that break the monotony (and cacophony) are very rare…I can’t honestly recall one that stuck out. And there lies a major flaw of these campaigns – they are hopelessly predictable. Even if they work and some of the mud sticks - which is debatable – I firmly believe they ultimately erode the reputation and credibility of the candidates rather than enhance it.
Of course, unlike the real world one of these candidates will end up making the sale – and getting elected – no matter what they do. That’s lucky for them, because if they were in an open marketplace they may not close the deal.
I continue to be fascinated by what appears to be a huge gap between the reality of the market and what I see on television advertising. Take automobile ads. For months now, we’ve been reading about disastrous financial results for the Big 3 automakers (and even some of their competitors) as customers move away from gas-guzzling SUVs and macho trucks. The CEOs of these companies are finally acknowledging that their business model is broken, and are belatedly changing their product lines, manufacturing priorities and supply strategies. So where does that leave their advertising? Apparently, firmly entrenched in 2002.
I’ve made no secret that I think most automobile advertising is depressingly timid, repetitive and devoid of creativity. But now the marketing also appears to be hopelessly out of sync with reality. In the past few weeks I continue to see numerous TV ads pushing trucks, SUVs and beautiful vistas. The push for large vehicles seem to vastly outnumber those for newer models (like Ford’s Edge.) Even Toyota has been relentlessly pushing their Tundra, their version of a truck behemoth. The one campaign that stuck out to me was, ironically, the pitch that Chrysler would guarantee 3 years of locked gas prices for buyers. How’s that for delaying the inevitable.
Even acknowledging the fact many of these campaigns were purchased and developed months ago and there is a built-in lag in the system, it’s surprising to see the torrent of advertising that appears oblivious to the existing reality. And most importantly, they are clearly not working. The Honda Civic has become the hottest selling model and smaller, fuel efficient cars are booming in popularity. This past quarter the U.S. auto firms reported decreases in sales ranging from 20% to almost 40%. The Big 3 appear to be mortally wounded, bleeding money and seemingly unable to change their fortunes. Perhaps their archaic advertising is part of the problem.
