All You Need Is A Good Idea!

QUICK. NAME A BRAND.

If I were to ask you to name a brand that prominently displays in front of its locations the number of units it has sold, I’m fairly certain you would say McDonald’s.

So why would KFC pay tens of thousands of dollars a month to prominently display the identical message? This billboard is on Broadway in New York, and I defy anyone to look at it and not think of McDonald’s.

And as this old sign from 1962 attests, McDonald’s numbers, even then, are a lot more impressive.

Do “me-too” marketing and you’ll never have to worry about building a unique brand. If you want to make a similar point to one your competitors are making, at least think of a distinctive way to do it. Bet there are at least ten different ways to make the point that you are selling lots of product. But who’s counting?

What do you think?

 

TOYS 'R' NOT US

Discovering that Toys “R” Us owns FAO Schwarz is as discomforting as finding out that until 2008, Godiva chocolate’s owner was Campbell’s Soup. No real reason why it should make a difference, but it does, at least to me. As it would to find out that Donald trump was owned by Lefrak city. Sort of diminishes the quality brand image that makes people willing to pay a premium for the perceived luxury, and justifies the indulgence.

But no harm is done to an image if most consumers aren’t aware of which company really owns what brand. Which is why I was surprised to read in the New York Times that Toys “R” Us is planning to open FAO Schwarz boutiques inside about 600 Toys “R” Us stores. Gerald L. Storch, the chairman, was quoted as saying that “This assortment makes FAO accessible to all of America. I don’t want anyone thinking that FAO merchandise at Toys “R” Us is super expensive, because it’s not.”

Whoa! So FAO is planning to take a toy brand that represents luxury, quality, and exclusivity, and make it just another me-too brand? To me, it’s a lose-lose proposition. Shoppers at Toys “R” Us will not feel comfortable seeing Cadillacs at a Chevy dealer, and those who are interested in FAO will not be at ease going to a Toys “R” Us to make their purchase.

Now I may be wrong about this, but we should soon find out. The point for you is to carefully consider with whom you partner. While it’s a great way to extend your brand and get more reach in difficult times, make certain you are not going to damage your image.

What do you think?

I'M NOT LYING. I DON’T GET IT.

The Walt Disney Company has 340 stores in the United States and Europe, according to Brooks Barnes in Tuesday’s New York Times.  And they are planning an aggressive floor-to-ceiling reboot of the stores, with the help of Steve Jobs and his Apple retailing team.

The stores will be given a high tech makeover (spending about $1 million per store); the goal is to make children clamor to go to the stores and spend more time on each visit. All this sounded great, especially while many retailers are cutting back.

But then I got to the sentence that made me feel that perhaps the folks at Disney had not finished reading my book: “Disney Stores, which the media giant is considering rebranding as Imagination Park….”

So if I understand this correctly, they will be eliminating a name that is among the top ten most recognized global brands, in favor of starting anew with a generic label. I don’t get it. I am sure Steve Jobs never considered calling his retail stores “Computer FunLand.” Again, I simply don’t understand this.

You can add this to the other Disney questions I have. Such as why Goofy is a dog that talks and is fully clothed, while Pluto, also a dog, has a leash and is treated like, well, a dog.

Please leave a comment if I am missing something. (Even if you just know the Goofy/Pluto answer.)

NO SECRETS. JUST LOTS OF QUESTIONS

Above is an ad for Secret Clinical Strength antiperspirant.

Below is my list of questions.

·      What the heck does “Clinical” strength mean? That’s right up there with “Hospital Tested,” which, though it may be accurate, does nothing to convince me that it is passed the test.

·      Isn’t the claim “all-day protection” a cliché in the category?

·      Do they really have research that indicates that people stash antiperspirants nearby, due to a compulsion to reapply?

Granted, this may be a difficult category (as opposed to the many easy advertising categories that I have yet to discover). And Procter & Gamble may want to differentiate this product from the many other Secret forms and formulations available. But this ad has nothing convincing or credible or distinctive about it. 

I am not sure what the most recent campaign for this product was. Or why they moved away from it. (Drew McLellan’s Marketing Minute blog has some interesting thoughts on this.) But if you’re looking for a good idea for your marketing, stay away from generic promises, meaningless claims and completely borrowed interest to make your point.

Get my point?

 

 

YAWN

I am trying very hard to find something positive to say about this ad for Caribou coffee. Well, it does have a $2.00 coupon…a meaningful amount.

O.K. I have stopped trying. I am now imagining the creative briefing, the essence of which must have been, let’s copy the ideas of the category leader, but use an image of a cup of coffee, instead of a burlap bag. Hence, the me-too line: We search the globe for the best coffee. The only word they left out, which would have been more truthful, was “also,” as in, We (also) search the globe for the best coffee.

In addition it says it is available at a grocery store near me. I am relieved, and will no longer inquire at my barber or garage to see if they carry the product.

I realize I am being overly snippy, but please, even if you have not purchased my book (yet) surely you appreciate that to stand out you have to be conspicuous. Your look, your language, your idea must serve to make you a valid alternative, not a strategic clone of the market leader. If you are being outspent, you must out think.

Don’t emulate. Innovate.

DON’T OVERLOOK YOUR INSTRUCTIONS!

Above is the front of my new automobile registration sticker.

Below is the back.

 

 

 

 

 

WHERE’S THE CRUNCH?

Following up on my last blog about getting out of your marketing comfort zone, may I present this recent ode to dullness.

Yes, I understand the strategy; to remind adults of how much they once enjoyed Nestlé Crunch, so they might consider eating it now as an adult.

But couldn’t they…

• Create a less generic slogan?

• Find a more interesting visual?

• Use more interesting language?

I think that they ended up with an ad that works about one tenth as hard as it should. It is most assuredly harmless, and certainly won’t bother anyone, but those are not good things; inert is not really the point of a marketing communication.

What do you think?

I DIDN’T KNOW YOU WERE HAVING A PROBLEM, TILL YOU TOLD ME

Sometimes it seems as if the damage control folk are trying to put out a fire with lighter fluid.

Zicam is a cold remedy that I had never heard of. Till I saw this ad.

The awkwardly phrased headline made me pause, but only to try to figure it out. Did it mean that thanks to their millions of loyal users they are still here? And if that was the case, that what was the exclamation point doing after “users”? Or did they mean that (We give) Thanks to our millions of loyal Zicam users! (Because of you) We’re still here for you!

More important than imprecise headlines is the tone of the body copy. The second paragraph starts off, unsurprisingly, with an affirmation of their faith in their product: “We firmly believe in the safety and effectiveness of our products.” Why are they telling me this? I was not aware that someone has said they were not safe and effective.

At least, till the next sentence. “Based on the FDA’s recommendations, we have voluntarily taken two nasal products off the shelves till we can resolve this issue.”  What recommendations? And if the FDA suggested doing it, why do they consider it voluntary? And what issue is waiting to be resolved?

In fairness, perhaps those who know about the product already knew about the problem. But I don’t think this ad will make them feel any more comfortable. And I wonder how many others, like me, will only remember that the FDA had cautioned users about Zicam.

As a wise man once said, “Be careful what you say on Tuesday, because it can come back and bite you on your butt on Friday.” So if you are having a public relations nightmare, it's a good idea to be truthful, be responsive, and act promptly. No hemming, no hawing, no bull.

What do you think?

DISRESPECTFUL LAUGHTER

My blog title is a definition of the word snicker, which is also the name of a candy bar. In fact, according to Wikipedia, Snickers is the best selling chocolate bar of all time. Created in 1930, and named after a horse, it has annual global sales of US 2 billion. So they must be doing something right.

But not, I think, with their current ad campaign. It uses its iconic packaging as the basis for a silly series of ads, each with a weak, forced play on word replacing the word Snickers. Such as:

Now, it is more than possible it is a generational thing, and their target demographics think it is clever beyond imagining. And they do even have an interactive site for their audience, where you can type in a word and it changes into what they call Snacklish. In fact, here is what “dumb campaign” turns into:

 

 

Candy is a treat, a small indulgence and just plain fun, and does not need a lot of intellectual marketing arguments to get people to enjoy it. It just has to taste good. And Snickers certainly fills that bill (have you tried them frozen? Exceptional).

I guess it just comes down to personal taste, the same way you may (erroneously) prefer black licorice, while I always choose red. But I simply believe that Mars has missed a chance. If the purpose of this marketing is to gain further name recognition, well, hey, they already obviously have that. Why not spend the massive budget to expand their user franchise?

What do you think? 

BAD TASTE

It is impossible to miss the ad campaign for the new Edie Falco TV series, “Nurse Jackie,” on Showtime. It is everywhere. And every time I see it, I wince.

Provocative is great. Relevant surprise is terrific. But using the shock of a single entendre to grab attention for no real reason (yes, I get the hypodermic needle thing) I find to be in poor taste.

I realize I may (must) be old-fashioned, considering the raw language and graphics used in music and movies, but I naively believe you can have clever marketing without crudeness.

You may not agree. But please tell me why.