Target proves why we can expect more.

About a week ago I had a conversation with some friends about Wal-Mart. At the core of that conversation, were the questions "who shops at Wal-Mart?" and "what makes Wal-Mart different from Target?"

Two big box retailers, carrying a fair number of the same brands/products, for roughly the same price. Sure, each has a handful of its own signature brands, a different logo and a different color scheme, but for the most part, it's the same space, similarly structured aisles, similar lighting, etc.

I think Target proves the power of branding better than.., well.., any other brand as far as I'm concerned. Sure, Apple is a powerhouse, but it's built itself in a very different way, a lot of which has to do with innovation. In other words, Apple actually has some hugely differentiated, not to mention slickly designed, products to rally around.

Target and Walmart are like Coke and Pepsi, minus the taste factor, which some swear is the reason for their allegiance. Perhaps Mobil and Citgo would be a better comparison, minus the price-is-all-that-matters utilitarian nature of a gallon of gas.

Beyond convenience (which one is closer to my house, on my way to work, on the right hand side of the road, has a better lit parking lot, etc), it comes down to branding. And, by "branding", I'm not neglecting the painfully obvious importance of price (make sure part of your positioning reinforces low price).

Target has a very fun, upbeat, 'hip to be frugal' positioning. Wal-mart has a very drab, utilitarian, 'low prices because we know you can't afford more' positioning, which they erroneously weave into some "live better" conclusion.

Which one of those sounds more aspirational?

Each retailer has a TV spot on air right now that deliver almost identical messages with ALMOST identical execution. By "almost", I am referring to intent or storyboard.

Essentially, each one is saying we've got everything your kid wants to see wrapped up under the Christmas tree this year. And kids are super excited about Christmas, so come on in and get everything to make their dreams come true.

The difference? Target's is soooooooooooooooooooooooo much cooler. It's inextricably linked to the brand. The music is playlist worthy. The energy is bright. The excitement is contagious.

This is just a remarkable example of the power of branding, as much as it is a reflection of how important each and every decision made during the production process actually is in building a brand. Music, casting, directors, editors, lighting, color, etc etc etc.

Take a look:





I'm not sure this is a matter of ON or OFF STRATEGY, but it sure is an example of how strategy is as much blue-printing and intelligence as it is execution and follow through.

This Christmas, AT&T gets a strategy. And a punchline.

I've long considered AT&T's brand positioning a seriously risky, vulnerable one.

The disproportionate amount of weight it chooses to let ride on the iPhone, which we all know will soon be available on Verizon's network is, well, a bit alarming. Some might say downright ignorant.

'App for that' says nothing about the network, thus nothing about the AT&T brand. It says plenty about the iPhone and leads the viewer to draw the obvious conculsion that the iPhone is an incredible machine + only available if you sign up with AT&T, therefore signing up with AT&T is the best choice.

From a strategy / equity building perspective, this is a big fat yawn.

Verizon's 'Map for that' was a great campaign, firing on all strategic cylinders, because it went head to head with AT&T on turf it had done very little to defend - its network. duh.

AT&T's new spots get back to the basics. And by 'back to the basics', I mean, they finally got a strategy. A brief. And a creative team that followed said brief. Congrats on all of the above.

Beyond the basics, the new spots are just plain funny. Good casting. Great delivery. Universally relatable. And, in some small measure, almost fun to watch.

Check out 'Taco Party' if you haven't already:


The morale of the story here is this: Better late to the taco party than never. And for AT&T, better late to the wireless party with an RTB than hanging your hat on a piece of technology that's about to snap its loyalty right back.

ON STRATEGY.

You talkin' to me? Nope. Just talkin to myself.

Say the guys at Droga5 and Puma.

Here's what talking to yourself looks like:



At first blush, this sounds like a really creative way to bring one's brand positioning to life. Look a bit a closer and you're left wondering what purpose a "life scoreboard" could possibly serve?

To drop some digi jargon, what is its utility? And if utility is neither your intent nor cup of tea, what level of engagement does it really offer?

I can see how an alumni frat boy type might find it cute to post a 'Me vs. My hangover' scoreboard on his facebook page. Once. But that's about where it ends. 'Me vs. the dishes that have been sitting in my sink all week'? No, probably not. And not that dishpan hands is an accurate characterization of Puma's target, but I'm just demonstrating the boundaries of the concept.

Puma is positioning itself as the sport shoe and apparel brand for the "after hours athlete." In and of itself, I actually think that's a great positioning. It's unique. It's legit. It has legs.

But, the life scoreboard, which includes everything from Chocolate vs. Peanut Butter, Mac vs. PC and Dog vs. Cat (www.lifescoreboard.com) seems to have overshot its strategic boundaries.

Now it just sounds like a couple guys talking to themselves about what a great idea this life scoreboard thing used to be.

A nugget of a good idea gone OFF STRATEGY.

Is that your mom's face on my coffee table?

Pardon my absence, between moving logistics and holidays, I've kept you all waiting far too long. But, alas, beloved blog followers, it is time to get (back) on strategy.

DDB Paris created an app that allows Facebook users to make a hard copy, bound book containing their facebook posts from days, weeks, months past. Take a look:

When Facebook becomes a book from Siavosh Zabeti on Vimeo.

Good idea? Bad idea? Something in between?

I view this as a muddling of two rather distinct, not necessarily related, insights. First, the digital era and the fleeting dynamic it naturally gives rise to. Second, the age old theory that, from time to time, friends and family share meaningful sentiment in the form of kind words, pictures, memories, etc. we want to hold onto.

But, where does Facebook fit in? Is Facebook truly a forum for meaningful sentiment? Or simply a place for casual banter, hellos, birthday wishes, nice to see ya's and other things best left in cyber dust? I vote that later.

Put another way, would you want your Facebook posts from the past month bound in a book sitting atop your own coffee table?

I'm calling this one OFF STRATEGY.

Keep it classy, Apple.

Full disclosure - I hadn't a clue the Beatles weren't previously available on iTunes.

But now I know they are, in all their glory.

A handful of new :30's out from Apple announce to the world that the Beatles have finally come to iTunes. Ready for downloading, uploading, and making the Global iPod listening public a far more gratified bunch. Here's one of five:



One might question whether Apple truly needs five 30-second TV commercials just to tell people there's new music on iTunes. After all, new songs - too many to count- arrive on iTunes daily. And frankly, anyone who really wanted Beatles tracks on their iPod has probably already uploaded via CD or something.

If you count yourself among those wondering "why", just google Steve Jobs. Take a long soak on what's made Apple the cool marketing engine that it is today, then see if you still have questions.

This has very little to do with information delivery and far more to do with branding. Ah, branding, that thing Apple does so damn well. Product launch after product launch, Apple is the consummate brander.

A good friend of mine loves the term "borrowed equity." I'll use that here, partly to see if he's reading, and partly because it's a very appropriate characterization of what's going on here.

Apple and the Beatles are two hugely powerful brands. Together at last. In all their black and white nostalgic splendor, The Beatles have managed to make Apple that much cooler than they were yesterday.

A bit more cool and sure to attract a new wave of young listeners...that's what five :30's will getcha when you're Apple. Here comes the sun.

ON STRATEGY.

Eye on the competitive advantage.

Great new spot from Best Buy with all the appropriate holiday flare any good retailer will have this season.

Santa. Elves. Gadgets. Sounds like a match made in technology heaven.



But none of that is what's worth talking about here. So let's skip to the good part.

The elves' dialogue has some to do with all the fun stuff available for sale at Best Buy. The computers, iPads, smart phones, tvs, etc. are all front and center in the frame, but the more important thing is the emphasis on after-market service which has become Best Buy's competitive advantage.

Because everyone knows you don't just buy a piece of technology, press the On button and start having fun. It's never quite that easy. Inevitably there will be programming questions, set-ups, start-ups, interface and connectivity issues. Inaudibles, buzzers, wires, missing buttons, invisible buttons, and the occasional plug that can't be found simply because over over-egg-nogging.

Best Buy makes sure we know their support staff is always standing by to help with all these annoying problems, big and small, and yes even on Christmas day.

While its name might imply a straight price advantage, Best Buy figured out some time ago how insustainable competiting on price actually is. There's always another retailer carrying the same items, willing to cut their price for a month, day, hour or minute - the real value is in the magic equation of price + experience + service ++

I've got two words for Best Buy...ON STRATEGY.

Now that's a happy meal.

This one is so near to my heart it hurts.

Almost.

In the earliest days of Foursquare - before it tipped, when it was strictly for hipsters and the only "brands" leveraging it as part of a marketing strategy were haute cuisine and artsy boutiques... (oh and then Starbucks). Way back then I had an idea that big chain restaurant companies should steal the platform and leverage the check-in concept to build a simple rewards program that wouldn't require any of the complicated back end POS programming because it would instead run off an existing platform.

As you may have guessed, the client was not ready to dabble in any of that crazy Foursquare nonsense, much less develop their own app. Foursquare was too new. Rewards programs were too complicated. And, what about that fraud risk? Triple yikes.

Kudos to Carl's Jr & Hardees for taking the plunge and building their own app, complete with a "wheel of awesomeness", big prizes and the most compelling reward to fast feeders..........free food!

The punch cards of yesteryear may be old and dated, but appeal of collect-to-get free food is still very much alive.

Here's a look at the app, which has some built-in viral features via Twitter, Facebook and other social networks that will help it gain free exposure too:



You guessed it....ON STRATEGY

Song can be sticky.

Another day, another diet soda.

Make that another diet soda attempting to juggle consumer demand for zero calories whilst escaping the growing stigma of artificial sweeteners.

The latest growth strategy for soda brands involves targeting men, hoping to get them hooked on diet pop the way women have become over the past few decades. This, of course, brings complexity with product naming as men aren't quite so naturally inclined to buy something with the word 'DIET' plastered all over it.

What's a carbonated pop marketer to do? Give it another name. Like "Max".

That could work. Except, much as we detest its connotation, the word "diet" translates quickly to "calorie free" and anything else requires explanation.

Here's a funny, simple new spot from Pepsi to support 0 calorie Pepsi Max that leverages the long running Coke vs. Pepsi guy routine in a fresh and memorable way. What I like about this isn't so much the banter between Coke guy and Pepsi guy, cute as it is, but the lyrics that roll off Snoop's tounge at the end.



Leave it to Snoop to make a few words leave a lasting impression. "I'm up to my knees in zero calories."

Nice work. Snoop helps get this one ON STRATEGY.

Listen. You might learn something.

We won't be looking at any ads today.

Instead, I'd like to share an editorial piece I came across in Ad Age. As with any, this is simply one person's opinion - one with which I happen to whole heartedly agree.

The subject is focus groups.
The position is for.
The rationale is simple.

The pestering trend to force all things digital has virtually rendered old fashioned focus groups a useless waste of money, capable of producing limited insight.

Given a linear sort of audit, the case in favor of digital crowdsourcing, blog scouring, community monitoring and other types of online peeping seems an obvious vote in its favor. What can 24 people in each of 2 or 3 cities possibly reveal that a digitally connected world of thousands can't produce in spades?

The answer to that question has everything to do with what happens when the wheels come off. When the conversation around (a traditional focus group) table takes a left turn. When people start talking and great moderators go with the flow. Therein lies the opportunity to capture tiny nuggets of might-be brilliance.

There's something finite and unforgiving about words typed on a computer screen and saved in cache. That's a very static sort of communication, thus a static sort of insight. Like this post I'm writing right now. Sure, I believe everything I'm typing, but given a forum and room of colleagues willing and able to discuss with me, my mind may wander elsewhere. I might think of other examples, other things that occur in focus groups - I might have more to share, thus more value to add my loyal Get On Strategy reader base.

Below is the text from the Ad Age bit in reference. Follow this advice and you'll be getting ON STRATEGY faster than you can say focus group.

Why You Shouldn't Forsake the Focus Group
In-Person Conversations Can Be Disruptive and Produce Breakthrough Understanding
by Pete Blackshaw

The other day, I spent several captivating hours with about 40 high-school students talking about the role of digital and social technology in their lives.

The experience bordered on transformative. Yes, this from the guy who thinks he knows everything because he's "wired to the conversation."

This exercise in "feet on the street" crowdsourcing was part of my due diligence as new board member of the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, a youth-mentoring organization.

The conversation from the diverse group of students flew in directions that I didn't expect or plan. Insights flowed like the great Niagara. It was deep, meaningful, and at times outright hilarious. Yes, teens text like crazy (the group I talked to average 50 a day), but the core motivations are more complex.

All of which left me with one screaming thought: I miss focus groups. In an age of almost unstoppable "conversation," this was a real conversation. Deep, authentic, unscripted, meaningful, unpredictable and even -- dare I say -- a bit disruptive. It felt good. It felt right.

Focus groups have become the whipping boy of the digital age. We trash-talk them all the time. They are highly inefficient, overly structured, excessively scripted and easily manipulated. And they're no competition for the seemingly unlimited focus group online.

I owe much to focus groups for igniting my passion for consumer understanding and marketing. Within a week of arriving at P&G for my summer internship in 1994, I was shipped off to Miami and then Los Angeles for a series of intense focus groups to glean key nuance between Hispanics "East of Rockies" (more Puerto Rican and Cuban influenced) and "West of Rockies" (Mexican dominant).

We learned tons. I was humbled. The faces, the body movement, the group interplay, the conversational flows all amounted to a treasure trove of insights. In the non-Hispanic groups that followed over the years, it always boggled my mind how much we could actually learn from engaged moms on something as ostensibly mundane as a paper towel.

I'm not jumping off the digital ship, but I do worry that we sometimes grossly misappropriate social media as a proxy for live interaction or offline conversation. It's not.

Looking ahead, we might be well served by reclaiming or rediscovering some of those "offline" encounters -- not as a replacement for our digital conversations but as a vitamin. As we're learning with TV, and certainly with customer service, social media might just make the core foundations even stronger -- but only if used correctly.

Breakthrough consumer understanding is a delicate (and empathetic) balancing act of what we glean and filter online and what we dig up in real conversations. It's far from an all-or-nothing proposition, and the advent of video digital "sight, sound and motion" blurs the line.

Indeed, the "Research Transformation" initiative led by Joel Rubinson and the Advertising Research Foundation hit the mark by challenging everyone to think carefully about the right balance between "listening and asking."

Both sides contribute.

Unprompted listening to social media, for instance, might sharpen the questions in the "asking" phase. Think about all the surveys or focus groups we've placed without properly identifying the right questions.

Conversely, focus groups can only take you so far without sufficient volume. High velocity of conversation can help us pinpoint "profitable demand pools" that may not be obvious in live conversation, a point implied in a new book, "How Companies Win," by Nielsen CEO Dave Calhoun and Cambridge Group CEO Rick Kash. (Full disclosure: I'm a Nielsen employee.)

But back to the texting teens. They are certainly living the bold new digital conversation, but don't always assume you need to connect with them online to figure out what's going on.

Sometimes we just have to "have a real conversation."

Hit & Miss

With so much focus on social media, TV has all but gotten off the hook for its ability to engage. Truth is, advertising is advertising - digital, mobile, social, or good old fashioned print and TV - it's all the same. It's all intended to get people (ideally, its target) to like, think about and buy a particular product.

Before the product or brand message can be effectively delivered, the ad must first get people to stop, listen, and then ideally, engage in some way.

Conversation-worthy TV ads have become fewer and further between. Some of this, I believe, is due to marketers' evolution in "objective" for TV and increasing reliance upon "new media" to do the engaging.

This new spot for ePrint by HP printers misses on one very important level, but it does well in two areas: it captures attention and is likely to get remembered / talked about.

Take a look:

">

A baby weaving through traffic in a runaway wheelie cart, ultimately showing up as a beautiful print from HP's new printer, delivers just the right amount of shock factor without overstepping its boundaries. So that's the win.

But here's the miss - I saw this spot 3 times before any more registered other than cute baby + capable printer. What I got the 4th time was the super important part about the direct email-to-printer capability. This new printer makes it possible to snap a pic with a smartphone and send it directly to print on your HP printer.

Suffice it to say frequency will be this spot's friend, otherwise I fear most people will miss the RTB entirely and never understand why they need to run out and replace their old printer with this one.

By the way, do people still BUY printers? But, that's another story..

In this case, the buried RTB miss outweighs the good stuff referenced earlier, so I have to call it OFF STRATEGY.

Get talked about without ruining your reputation.

When I first saw this, I figured they had to be joking.

(check it out in all it's glory here: www.charmin.com/en_US/enjoy-the-go/index.php)

But alas, Charmin's 'Enjoy the Go' Contest is a legitimate attempt to convert non-Charmin users on the basis that using Charmin will make the bathroom experience one to cherish. The implication being Charmin users are motivated to visit the bathroom simply because the toilet paper feels that good.

Putting context aside, because hey Charmin is toilet paper after all, let's focus strictly on the ludicrous proposition that toilet paper - soft, silky, beautifully designed or otherwise - has the ability to make people want to go to the bathroom.

I can't believe I'm writing about this.

I can't believe Charmin is promoting this.

And I can't believe someone with a marketing degree, the power to green light this, and a forecast to make is convinced there's anything believable about this proposition.

There is no RTB.

The only point I want to make with this one is about the insight - one that clearly did not come from a consumer. So, what's the upside? You get a bunch of juvenile videos from people who think bathroom humor is funny enough to spend 2 minutes filming themselves talking about it?

If the goal is to start a conversation about your brand, to what length should you be willing to go?

Naturally occurring conversation about ones' brand is a great thing - but for that conversation to translate to real value, it needs to become more than the butt of a joke - ideally, it's a conversation indirectly guided or influenced on some level by a real marketing strategy so the dialogue that evolves supports what you want people to remember about your brand.

This is a classic case of social media abuse and other decisions gone bad.

Do I even need to say it? OFF STRATEGY.

Men, beer, women and branding.

Most advertising that attempts to sell beer to men is funny in a sophomoric way. Typically the formula involves a couch or bar, a group of friends and an attempt to impress some scantily clad hot chicks.

That approach wouldn't be quite right for Stella Artois, but the fact remains men love beer the way they love women. Yes, it really is that simple.

Relying on generic "insight" (a super obvious one here) isn't necessarily bad - it's just a risky proposition, which mandates even greater attention be given to things like tone and manner.

Tone and manner extend well beyond vague decisions such as funny vs. serious to every nuance from casting to music to wardrobe to font to lighting to......

The point is, it's easier said than done to produce a brand equity spot that not only makes a unique, brand appropriate statement yet still is capable of resonating with its target. Because, yes, men love beer the way they love women. It really is that simple.

I think this spot from Mother does a stella job. Check it out:

Diving deep in shallow water.

Let's get back to Domino's, shall we?

Their latest spot begins inside a focus group, presumably a real group, that also ends up being the site of a real dairy farm - a farm whose cows produce the milk that makes the cheese that ends up on their pizza.

Catch all that?

Here's a look:


If you haven't been following my blog, do a search on Domino's and you'll see I've had plenty of good things to say about Domino's rebranding effort. More recently, however, they took a sharp left turn. The latest spot demonstrates more scattered thinking and isn't likely to do them much good.

First, I'm curious when this focus group took place. Curious because the respondent remarks about the cheese, stating she doesn't believe it's "real cheese." With all the money they've thrown at this campaign, one can only hope that by now she doesn't still feel the same.

My larger issue is this: the fundamental issue (I thought) was that people didn't think Domino's pizza TASTES good. The brilliance reflected in the earliest batch of spots was just that - the focus on TASTE.

Domino's CEO came out and revealed the alleged focus group learning; he committed to fixing the TASTE problem. He told us his culinary team reengineered the recipes. He enticed people to give Domino's pizza another try, promising we'd all TASTE the difference and love it.

More recently, they've gotten into ameteur photography contests and other antics that seemed to detract from the underlying taste conversation, and now gone a step further, talking about cows.

Do I think there's something to be gained by showing the origin of ingredients? Perhaps, but not for a fast food pizza brand, at least, not yet.

There's some serious strategy muddling at work here. What food tastes like and where its ingredients are sourced are two different things. Yes, they can overlap, but people who appreciate this type of nuance aren't eating Domino's pizza and if they are, they're throwing caution to the wind.

My message to Domino's is this - find those strategic guardrails and please get back on track. Explore some new topping combinations. Find some more pizza holdouts and prove to America you can win them over with better recipes.

The water is getting deep; it's time to get back to the shallow end.

OFF STRATEGY.

The art of painfully relevant analogy

Last we heard from Jet Blue they were keeping deliberately mum on the antics of rogue airline attendant Steve.

This time, a new campaign from Mullen paints a picture of their competitive advantage that's so clear, it's painfully provocative.

Take a look:



While "Happy Jetting" was warm and fuzzy, it never quite got to the point. To be fair, it worked wonders for the brand, helping elevate Jet Blue from a little known start up to a major player with "cool" factor the equivalent of iPod. For that, it must be commended.

But times have changed and it's time for a natural sort of evolution.

Fundamentally, "jetting" is all the fun and special things you get that you don't get when you simply "fly". When you start talking about a whole bunch of things - even if you tie them all together with a glamorous name like "jetting" - it can easily become difficult for customers to articulate your competitive advantage - or, what Jet Blue has that the others do not. "Jetting" is simply not the way consumers express "better."

By now, most of us have had the opportunity to fly Jet Blue. We know about the endless snack basket and the tv sets on every headrest. We know the flight attendants are nice....right? Or did that part of the "jetting" experience fall to the wayside when dear steve flipped the bird and popped the emergency exit slide?

Fact is, the personal tv sets have become common place and Steve is a perfect example of how we can't control flight attendants' personalities. But, the most legroom in coach is both relevant and defensible as a competitive advantage.

Niceness is debatable, but how far I can stretch my legs? Well, I either can or I can't.

Mullen pulls this together nicely with flawless casting (or is that really a hidden camera?) and humorous execution. The insight is sharp and the execution is dead ON STRATEGY.

Microsoft opens Pandora's box (again)

New spots out from Microsoft are both insightful and flawlessly executed.

The insight is rich, the delivery succinct and the message quick to resonate. These easily pass the "it should only take a few words to tell a story" test.

Here's one of two:



This is a bold, risky, and presumably carefully calculated, move by Microsoft. So, does that make their new product positioning and subsequent ad campaign a good idea or a bad idea?

What's for certain is that Apple has a hold on the smartphone market, having both first mover and innovator / status advantages. Blackberry and Droid, plus the handful of small players, continue to give it their best go, with promises to offer similar functionality with some other form of advantage - like better coverage or a keyboard that makes it easier to type, etc. Unfortunately for those guys, nothing comes close to matching the breadth of app options or non-business interface ease of iPhone. (Beyond that, I can't say much more in defence of the iPhone since I'm still a loyal blackberry user, and consequently not an app user)

Microsoft could have chosen to play it like Droid and simply introduce another app-friendly, cool looking phone. It would then have been forced to compete on price, app interface, usability, coverage with exclusive service provider, sheer new-news, or cool / slick looking factor, none of which are really sustainable competitive advantages, so it probably would have been destined to failure from the start.

Instead, they decided to do something else - expose the very phenomenon that iPhone created and revolt against it, exposing app obsession and promising an interface that offers the best of both worlds. That is, all the live feeds and updates one desires, without the obsessive button punching and tinkering that go hand in hand with using apps.

I think the 'zig when they zag' approach is smart, but then again, let's not forget what happened when they tried the same strategy with KIN, albeit a tween-targeted product, but one I personally thought would be at least a niche success.

The question is whether the Windows 7 smartphone is truly capable of transforming the behavior it promises.

The advertising has laid a fine foundation. It claims life altering potential.

The question is whether consumers want - or are really ready for - their lives to be changed. The heads-down-app-obsession is absolutely a real behavioral observation. It's annoying, for sure, but do people want to stop doing it OR just stop seeing it?

Is it simply annoying to watch? Or only annoying when you find yourself on the other side of the table attempting a conversation with someone who is doing it? What about when it's you doing the app'ing?

What if the evolution of consumer behavior has fundamentally created a more curious, introverted society? A culture obsessed and happily engaged with its tech toys and private world? A people with common desire to get lost rather than pay attention to the boring, mundane company we're forced to keep on a daily basis?

Could it be that talking smiley face or crazy bird game is simply.........more interesting than what our friend / boss / spouse / colleague / etc has to say?

Then what?

I think given the paths available to choose, Microsoft took the right one so I'm calling this ON STRATEGY, but the jury is still out on whether the phone is capable of actually changing behavior.

Strategy gets death by execution.

Today's post offers a perfect example of a promising strategy gone horrible wrong.

The wrong turn here is likely the result of a runaway creative team or a client who refused to shell out the cash to get a quick consumer gut check - or both.

Here it is - a new spot for VW Jetta:



The tagline is smart, and I presume plucked directly from the strategy. All that would have been needed to go right with this would have been a clear articulation of that tagline, which by the way, it nearly delivers until the end where it simply crashes and burns.

So, the folks at VW made a great automobile - with all kinds of bells and whistles, capable of passing all sorts of safety tests; it drives fast, handles well, etc, etc. Great. Literally, great.

Then they priced it just over $15k. That's a price point hard to find, let alone for a vehicle we just determined to be great.

Things are looking good so far.

So, why would the people who built the car fall over, crying at the end when the price is revealed? If you follow the logic, the only way one can interpret that is that these are greedy scumbags who want to take more money from people and put it in their own pockets.

Does that sound like the sort of company you would want to buy a car from? Better yet, what justice does it do the strategy? Forget logic, how does it advance the story being told?

The takeaway should be "The new VW Jetta is a great car for the price of a good car". Instead, it's a great car for the price of good car, made by people who aren't happy about it, in fact they're downright beside themselves and if you choose to buy one of their cars, you'll be stuck in a thankless marriage with a car company who won't be willing to shell out a cent to help you along the way, so let's hope those brakes work."

Sadly, this is a case of good strategy dismantled by bad execution. And since the the consumer never sees the strategy, all the intelligence is virtually undone.

For VW's case, let's hope no one sees the commercial and all they see is the price sticker on the car.

OFF STRATEGY.

What's your (brand) situation?

Today's post is not about advertising, but it is about a brand done right.

I'm sad to say the brand to which I refer is Jersey Shore's own "The Situation". I say "sad" because it's not a big, blue-chip marketer with deep pockets and a team of freshly minted ivy league b-schoolers behind it, navigating the choppy waters that are marketing strategy.


Instead, this brand is a guy who is arguably an egomaniac getting more free press and publicity than his acting ability deserves.

That's what makes this an interesting lesson in brand strategy.

A recent Miami ad school grad named Branden Kramer made up these Situation shirts and had his buddies model them as a goof (so he claims..) They are, if nothing else, a testament to The Situation as a brand.

For everything The Situation is not, including a guy most of us want to like, he is incredibly single minded when it concerns his own brand strategy. The Situation is a guy with 6 pack abs. Whether the camera catches him on Jersey Shore, hamming for the paparazzi or congratulating himself in TMZ interviews for Dancing with the stars, his behavior is consistent and predictable. He lifts his shirt and points to his rock hard abs.

The Situation doesn't talk much about his hair, his acting, his dance skills, his athletic ability, his family, future goals or anything else. He is a guy with a 6 pack. And he wants to be THE guy with THE 6 pack.

So, that brings us to the important part.

What is your brand's Situation? Is it equally single minded? Different from anything else? Can your target articulate (your positioning) without skipping a beat? Does your situation translate visually? If you saw it unclothed, without its logo, would you know it?

The above applies to whatever brands we support as marketers, as well as our own personal brands. Think about it.

There's one thing the situation is and that is ON STRATEGY.

A whole lot of song & dance

Virgin just launched a new :90 spot that sports a catchy tune, some sexy dance moves and not a whole lot more. Except, of course, if you count the tag line - "your airline either has it or it hasn't."

Have a look:



Virgin may be a cool airline, but this spot does nothing to reinforce the RTB or help convince those not already in the know.

Plus, "cool" is a nice to have, but airfare is too expensive to sell itself on cool factor. Unless the company's paying, that is.

First, let's address what an airline can "have" or "not have"? I'm no expert in this category, but I am a frequent enough traveler that I'd be willing to bet money that people choose an airline based on two things - first, are there flights available to and from the place I need to go from and get to and second, price. The only time most people make a conscious "decision" between two airlines is when more than one is able to equally satisfy those two requirements.

When I find myself in the aforementioned situation, I think about my experience on the two or three airlines that make the short list. My consideration process lasts about 60 seconds. I think first about whether I've had any horrendous experiences - cancellations, endless re-routing, hours on tarmac, rude customer service people, etc. Then I think about the comfort of the seat - how large, how much leg room. Then I consider the snack service - yup, no kidding - that $0.25 investment goes a long way. Airlines that don't even offer peanuts are far less appealing than others that roll out the snack tray and let you triple dip. Free headphones. Small individual bottles of water vs. the dreadful portioning system or worse yet, the water pitcher.

By the way, even if I'm NOT paying, I still go through the same process - I just skip the price comparison part.

The morale of the story is this: logistical things being equal, what separates one airline from another comes down to simple perks and little luxuries.

So, Virgin might be close when it suggests some airlines "have it" and others don't, but they seem to miss the "it" that matters.

Beautiful flight attendants and sexy stilettos won't quench my thirst or ease those nagging hunger pangs like a bag of Blue Terra chips, some almond biscotti and a liberal policy on handing out those cute little bottled waters that fit in my purse.

I'm left with no choice but to call all 90 seconds of this OFF STRATEGY.

Brand Onomatopoeia

Nike.

Says.

Boom.



A collection of awesome new :15's from Nike do something so few ads are able - they reinforce, arguably advance, its brand equity with a single word. That word also happens to be a sound, which contributes to the power of translation.

Nike delivers the boom not only through spoken word, but claps, bats, dunks, collisions, explosions, reactions, hand gestures and more.

Here's another:



(I guess Bo still knows.)

Sure, Nike has something going for it that most brands can't claim. Money. Money has made it possible to invest sufficiently to build a great brand, grow awareness to near 100% and enjoy a position where it needn't be as worried with selling individual product RTBs as it is reminding people why its brand marque is still as fresh as ever.

So, while Nike may represent the unattainable when it comes to ad investment, I would argue every brand, big or small, needs a little bit of boom. Boom is not a tagline - it's a statement that's made by the brand, not for the brand.

It's not what we, as marketers, want to say about our brands, but what our brands are capable of saying for themselves. If we were to go observe our brands in their own natural environment, what would they say?

These are rhetorical questions, of course, but it's this sort of smart strategy and powerful execution that makes it possible for Nike to make a statement with nothing more than that little swoosh.

ON STRATEGY. boom.

Not seeing the forest for the trees.

These new spots for Sierra Mist Natural are almost funny. But, as we all know by now, humor won't be enough to move product. Even really, really great humor, which this is certainly not.

I think you'll agree. Take a look:



Someone at Sierra Mist obviously got the memo that high fructose corn syrup is out and ingredients closer to the source are in. That's a tough pill to swallow when your brand's mission is to churn out high octane, syrupy sweet, lemon lime soda capable of competing with Mountain Dew, but it looks like the product guys stepped up to the plate with a solution in Sierra Mist Natural. That's the good news.

Now, the bad news...

Where did the agency and/or brand team(s) get the insight that Nature, itself (talking trees in this case) is the authority on natural things that taste delicious?

First and foremost, there's a positioning issue here - one that seems to have made its way into the tagline: "the soda nature would drink if nature drank soda."

To illustrate the ill logic, this is the equivalent of an organic egg company claiming: "the eggs hens would eat if hens ate eggs."

All the details seem to have been overlooked, the result of which is just a runaway execution.

So, yes, there's humor here - I just don't see the value or intent? I'd rather see some riled up UFC fighters chugging this stuff down, getting all hyped up and winning the match, then looking down at the can to reveal it's the Natural sort vs. the standard artificial-corn syrup variety.

I'm not saying that's the right execution, but this is certainly not it.

For a Monday, that's enough said. OFF STRATEGY.

What can FREE do for you?

In marketing, few words are more powerful than FREE and NEW.

As consumers, of course, we love to hear both. But marketers should be careful not to confuse what consumers want a brand to do from what consumers want in a brand.

Those might sound similar, but in fact they are two very different things.

Giving your brand away poses a serious threat to its health. Alternatively, it can present an opportunity. Giving product away for FREE can either cheapen the brand or remove the barrier for trial, thereby exposing new people to the product who may not otherwise have tried it. Following this logic, FREE can help win new customers as well as help lose customers who lose respect in the process.

Case in point for Bud. That's right, Budweiser beer. If you are like most of the US population, you've tried a Bud at some point in your life. In fact, you've probably had Bud several times. Here are a short list of times and places you may have had the pleasure of drinking a Bud:

* You went to college
* You went to high school
* You have been to a low budget office holiday party
* You have been to a keg party, referred to as "keg party"
* You like to drink cheap beer

It seems Budweiser sales have slipped and people are less interested in drinking Bud today than they once were. That's an awful problem to have and I agree it needs a solution, but giving Bud away for free as an attempt to solve it?

That's just an unbelievably lame idea. By lame I mean 'lacking creativity' as well as 'highly ineffective'.

The only way I support giving product away for FREE is if the people likely to engage in the FREE sampling haven't tried the product before and giving it to them for FREE makes it more likely they will try it than not giving it to them for FREE. None of these things are true for Bud.

What makes this dreadfully worse is that Bud plans to hand out the free samples in "trendy bars and eateries" to appeal to the "under 30 crowd that has ignored the brand, but are big beer consumers".

Dear Budweiser, please get a real strategy.

Where did Bud get the brilliant idea that talking to yuppy trendoids was the right approach? This crew may gladly take the free sample, but as soon as its not free anymore, you can bet they'll go back to ordering their Stella or Palm or whatever else.

If you insist on free, what about targeting the low hanging fruit? The Busch drinkers, Pabst drinkers, Coors drinkers, Miller drinkers. Hit the construction sites, stand outside the Irish pubs, hang out at college bars that surround campuses. Give these folks a free taste, show them a good time and maybe they'll forgo the Natty Light in favor of Bud for their next kegger.

In case this needs summary....it's OFF STRATEGY.

Where to stick that insight?

Today's post comes in response to a devout Get On Strategy follower who asked what I thought of the new Corona spot.

Truth is, I caught this a week or so ago and made the deliberate decision not to blog about it. Why? Because I found it, in a word, dull. Perhaps you will agree - here it is:



But dull is no excuse, so here goes, Brian..

Corona has long been heralded the beach beer, enjoyed by party goers whilst soaking in the sun, sitting on the sand, lounging on a boat deck, or kicking back at a BBQ. It is not typically the beer sipped while snuggling next to the fire, at the ski chalet or watching snow pile up outside as excitement builds about the occasional grown up snow day.

In this spot, Corona attempts to change all that by inviting people to "find their beach" - whether that's on a rooftop overlooking the city lights or in some other unlikely place.

The spot resolves with a bronzed duo on a beach, clanging their bottles together with crystal blue water ahead and white sand beneath, seeming to suggest that drinking Corona will transport you (at least mentally) to the beach.

There's an insight here for sure, but I'm not sure it's one that ought to feed advertising or one that would have better served to drive some really smart product innovation?

Actually I am sure -- And there's more on that below.

First, I'll openly admit to not being a beer drinker, but I do have a basic understanding of what drives beer decisions. Light beers in clear bottles that go down easy infused with fresh lime juice have greater appeal when consumed under the sun than they possibly could on a crisp autumn night. There's something about change of season, or equally so, change of venue, that dictates what is and is not the right fit - if you can buy into the idea of "beer fitting."

Consider the customs of champagne flights and wine pairings. I'm told there are similarly structured events where high end ales and lagers are paired with hearty fare too. It makes perfect sense that alcohol would be complementary both to flavor and atmosphere. So, follow me with this 'beer fitting' logic, if you will.

What I'm saying is this. Yes, indeed, Corona is a beach beer. But no, I do not believe there's any such thing as drinking it and "finding your beach". When the leaves are cracking under my feet or the snow is falling outside or the fire is roaring, I don't want to slice up limes and drink light colored beer from a clear bottle. I want something darker, richer and more comforting.

If I were heading up Corona's marketing team and had enough data to validate this insight, I'd go in a completely different direction. I'd think about a new bottle design and a darker beer inside. ?

My new bottle would not be clear. The beer in it would not be called Corona. The bottle would probably have a label vs. print on bottle. The packaging and fonts would not be reminiscent of beach bars or tiki huts.

I'd get my new product "right", then go see what consumers have to say.

Imagine Corona having a hold on the summer / beach market and a beer capable of evoking a similar, seasonally appropriate feeling in Fall and Winter? That would be a home run.

But this effort is simply OFF STRATEGY.

Starting with a strategy that's off strategy

Today's post is not quite about advertising. That's because the campaign hasn't hit the air just yet. Nevertheless, I'm afraid when it does, it's bound to be a huge flaming miss.

Here's an article that summarizes what Pizza Hut intends to serve up with its latest effort:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pizza-hut-unveils-your-favorites-your-pizza-hut-in-new-brand-campaign-103291134.html

The insight is simple, but what I question is where it came from. The idea baked in here is that people buy pizza based not on its flavor or the promotion that happens to be running or how convenient the pizza place is to their home, but (...wait for it..) rather based on the human experience they have with the staff who serves them their pizza.

Did you just hear the loud thud?

The campaign will feature real Pizza Hut employees "sharing their passion for serving more than just pizza."

I'm not doubting there are some nice folks donning the bright red Pizza Hut uniforms, wearing a big smile on their face, but I'd bet a zillion dollars to one this is in no way a compelling reason for consumers to order pizza from Pizza Hut.

Sure, the same might be true at Mom and Pop pizza joints. You know, where dear old Al has been flipping and firing your perfect pepperoni for years. He sponsors your kid's softball team. He comes out to ask how the new job is going. He sits and chats sincerely. He offers free soda refills. He slips you the garlic knots for free. Maybe there loyalty and authentic interaction with staff reign supreme.

But not at Pizza Hut. Nor Domino's. Nor Papa John's.

In this case, I'll call the strategy OFF STRATEGY, no matter what the execution.

Don't heart yourself too much.

What can brown do for you? Probably more than this new spot for UPS, which feels more like an internal rallying cry or corporate pep rally than consumer-facing communication. Here goes:



I wonder what % of UPS' target audience uses the word "logistics"? Even if the answer is 100%, that doesn't make positioning yourself as the company that loves logistics particularly relevant.

Logistics is one of the most functional words the dictionary has to offer.

Getting a package from point A to point B is what UPS does. It's also what DHL does. What Fed-Ex does. What the USPS does. It's simply cost of entry for any company that wants to be in the delivery business.

"What can brown do for you?" was oodles better. It screams customer service. It links inextricably to the brand, whose brown trucks and brown uniforms and brown logo are unforgettable.

I played this spot three times. On the third time, I was able to make out some of the song lyrics, which actually carry some decent RTB's. Buried among them, the idea of "less stress". That should have been the brief. That's what people care about when they ship a package - the stress of whether or not it will reach its destination on time.

Tell me your company will get it there with 100% accuracy because you have a fail safe system and I'll remember. Tell me you love logistics? I'm not making the link.

OFF STRATEGY.

BK is breakfast your way? Not quite.

Good morning, Burger King. I've been expecting you.

Having spent the better part of a year++ developing the launch strategy, positioning and marketing plan for Subway's breakfast program, today's topic is near and dear to my heart.

When it comes to QSR breakfast, I'm as tuned in as anyone would care to be. Tuned in enough to spot some holes in the new BK breakfast menu and this new spot that promotes it. Take a look..



Luckily for BK, it has a couple things going right when it comes to breakfast. Males are big breakfast eaters and consumers are less rigid about eating healthy at breakfast relative to other day parts. These facts make superfans and ginormous egg sandwiches two advantages.

Unfortunately, I believe there are a few problems.

First, "platters so big they'll block out the sun" are good in that they're large and filling; not so hot in the portability department, which becomes quite relevant when one considers the eating in the car and picking up en route to work dynamics that define most people's morning routines.

Second, there is a fundamental positioning issue. Some time ago, BK decided to position itself as the fast food place that lets you have it your way. Frankly, I'm not sure that's defendable (for BK) today, if ever it were. To let a customer have it his or her way, there need be more than just a willingness to hold the pickles.

I guess we've all gotten used to BK telling us we can have it our way with burgers, but the insincerity becomes abundantly clear with a new breakfast menu launch. Aside from letting me pick which item I want off the menu, what are they doing to let me have it my way? And if they are doing something, it's a point not made in this ad.

The biggest miss, in my opinion, is that there is virtually no food footage. New product names are sung, which makes them difficult to discern, and there's certainly no mention of ingredients. What's in that bowl? On that platter? Something sweet? Are those peppers? Onions? Sausage?

As viewers, we are left to guess what's on the rotating plates, which seem an obligatory inset, tucked in at the very end.

Breakfast is the most habitual of all day parts. This means if you want me to change my routine, you need to give me a really good reason. Start by making my mouth water.

Did I mention the spot is funny? Absolutely funny and spot on with casting, tone and manner sure to wake up the Superfans. But if history is any indication, BK needs to do more than get the same old people to roll out of bed and march through its doors.

BK is simply not serving up the RTB here, so I am left to call it OFF STRATEGY

If you can't outspend, outbrand or out-cool your competitor...

Then, outsmart 'em.

Here's a new spot for Kindle, which is mildly interesting in its attempt to defend against the behemoth that is Apple.




There they were, Kindle, sitting proud and content with their tablet, fending off the Nook and a handful of other small e-reader players, when Apple reared its slick, mod, innovative head and debuted the iPad.

Certainly Amazon's Kindle is no match for Apple's iPad on most functional accounts, not to mention the uber important brand love and loyal, 'gotta have it at any cost' following the brand attracts by simply unveiling a new gadget.

So how does a product capable of performing only a fraction of its cooler competitor's functions stay in the game?

What this spot lacks in engaging creative execution it makes up for in single-mindedness and relevant insight. And I like that price, which is lower, is woven in as support once the viewer has already been sold on the tangible product "advantage".

Fact is, Kindle is simply not a competitor to the iPad on most accounts, but it is a superior e-reader and that point is loud and clear here. If a consumer is buying it (as a good % presumably are) to read downloadable content, then Kindle is the better choice because the text is easier to read. Not to mention, it costs a fraction of what iPad costs.

A well-informed, calculated risk to go up against iPad and leave the other e-readers alone. Sourcing from the crowd considering iPad is easily the more lucrative move.

This spot probably won't win any creative awards, but it is ON STRATEGY.

The hidden danger of functional RTBs.

Body odor is a popular topic this year and Gillette arrives a bit late to the party on the heels of Axe and Old Spice.

Two tough acts to follow and a strategy that seems a bit absent.


A smart media buy, nevertheless. Subways are the perfect sort of cramped space you don't want to get caught stuck in without proper protection. Typically, though, you're more concerned with what others are wearing rather than you are your own odor protection, so I suppose this is intended to serve as some sort of PSA? I'm not sure what to make of it.

While Axe and Old Spice focused almost entirely on higher order emotional benefits, I'm afraid Gillette has done nothing but emphasis the obvious, functional RTB - presumably, that you'll stink less so others around you won't be too bothered...because when you ride the Subway you care more about those around you than you do yourself?

With a name like Odor Shield, isn't the stink-proofing benefit obvious?

Not sure anyone worked up a sweat trying to find a compelling way to differentiate with this campaign.

OFF STRATEGY.

Can advertising up your cool factor?

If the spots below for Baby Carrots are any indication, I'd say the answer is a resounding "yes". Take a look, then read on.

">

">

Nothing says 'cool' like this new TV campaign from the Carrot Industry (who knew such thing existed?), brought to us in all its splendor (no surprise) by the cool folks that are CPB. The graphics, the audio, the vignettes, the package design, the reference to "a bunch of carrot farmers", the obvious innuendo, the transparency with the 'junk food-like packaging' claim.

But, the BIG question is...WILL this make people eat more baby carrots? Will teens with raging hormones, rev'ed up metabolisms and a caution to the wind regard toward over-sugaring, really forgo the bag of Cheetos or peanut packed Snickers bar that taunts them at checkout in favor of carrots, however cool the packaging and reminiscent the ooh's and ahh's of scantily clad women?

I'm not sure, but these are very cool ads that give it a good shot.

Pardon me, though, as I play consumer insight police. Is cool packaging and crazy fun memorable advertising the reason people buy junk food or is it something else? Perhaps something more visceral....a physical craving for salt or sugar, maybe? And if in fact such is the case, will a cooler positioned batch of carrots prevail over sodium and fructose laden alternatives?

I don't presume to have the answer, but if those cravings really can't be stopped, maybe this super cool campaign would have benefited from a product that packages the carrots with a tiny scoop of honey or a savory maple pepper dip? Yummm...you're hungry aren't you?

The rest of it could then proceed as directed, but what I'm proposing may have up'ed the crave factor to match the cool factor.

Just sayin'.

ON STRATEGY with a 'we'll circle back' clause. Best of luck to the bunch of carrot farmers who are counting on this.

Alas, all good things must end.

Oh no they didn't.

Domino's has had a great run, but I think the latest spot is a huge miss

'

Recall that this all began when Domino's became enlightened through focus groups that consumers weren't ordering because they thought the pizza tasted like cardboard. Since then, Domino's admitted the problem, vowed to change, claimed to have fixed it, and has made its mission to convince the world that things are better.

They've stopped at nothing to prove themselves....signs on lawns, knocks on doors, and the latest stunt, which involved asking consumers to send in their own Domino's pizza pictures, which would be used in place of carefully lit and masterfully constructed beauty shots.

I love the idea, but caution that it's two completely separate promises - two promises that probably ought not be linked in the first place. First, that the pizza tastes better and second, that it looks as beautiful when it arrives in a box at your house as it does in TV advertising. Both promises are terrific, if true, but the second far more difficult to operationalize, thus far more likely to fail.

A re-engineered recipe can be managed; relying on thousands of hourly pizza cooks to box it up just right, inspect whether the cheese has properly browned and bubbled and the toppings are evenly placed, then relying on thousands of delivery drivers who work off tips to balance the same box properly on their passenger seat and delicately carry it to the door.....you get the picture.

The latest spot features a photo that appears testament to the later point, but frankly I question why they'd choose to feature it, much less use it as an opportunity to slap themselves on their own wrist?

This sort of feels like a runaway strategy train. Domino's focus needs to remain on the task it set out to achieve - make the pizza TASTE better and convince everyone it does.

Since when did food that tastes good also have to look good? In fact, the opposite is all too often true and no appologizes are necessary. This is pizza we're talking about, afterall.

I fear Domino's runs the risk of undoing all the good it's done with this latest act. If the objective is to extend the price point and you need a reason why, forget customer pictures; why not dig up some positive feedback about the flavor?

To be clear, I'm a big fan of the campaign, but can't help call this execution OFF STRATEGY.

Is your product worthy?

New spots out from everybody's favorite brand, Apple. Check 'em out below, then read on:





Steve Jobs essentially works off one golden insight - consumers get bored easily; continue to give them new tech toys that look cool(er), do cool(er) stuff and make their owners feel cool(er) and more gratified via gadgety badge equity.

In these new spots, we see (literally) how the iPod touch and nano have been upgraded, thereby making them, and their soon-to-be owners, cooler and more connected in numerous ways. The music is upbeat, the colors are sharp, the products are hero and, most interestingly, the talent is cheap - because it's virtually absent.

Save for the faces on the iPod touch screens, we never see any live bodies, nor hear any words exchanged, nor watch any interaction between people - just hands and fingers interacting with the product, demonstrating how it does its thing.

This sort of execution begs the question, if Apple can tell a compelling story, simply using product demo and get people racing to the stores, why can't most others?

The answer is equal parts brand equity, clean advertising (that is, advertising that doesn't compromise or screw up the former) and just plain great product.

They say nothing kills a bad product like great advertising, but I say nothing kills a bad product like a bad product - and nothing sells a great product like advertising that doesn't need to sell.

Frankly, Apple does all its "selling" through word of mouth, buzz, and general "cool" factor. People will buy, use, talk about and envy others who have its latest and greatest. For Apple, traditional advertising (TV commercials) simply needs to acknowledge what happens out there in the world on its own.

Case in point here, ON STRATEGY all the way around. But, we can't all be Apple.

Get your own strategy.

I came across this billboard on Agency Spy - it's for a Regional pizza chain based in the Denver area.





From their website, it appears they have about 20 locations.





I'd never heard of Anthony's and, unless you live in the Rocky Mountain state, unlikely you have either. Albeit small and unknown, I think this campaign illustrates well what not to do.





Clearly Anthony's headlines, which include the one shown as well as "If their ingredients are better, why isn't their pizza better?" are intended to take a strike at Domino's new 'we made it better' campaign.





This is a bad idea for a handful of reasons, but primarily because it 1) takes for granted people know what Domino's is up to enough to read between the lines and, more importantly, 2) does nothing to leverage its own attributes to build a brand.





Anthony's claims to be "real NY pizza", the kind "NY'ers are proud to eat" and you "fold in half to eat." Assuming it's true, isn't that a positioning better served with an equally authentic campaign rather than one that attempts to trash talk a mega brand that outspends about 500 to 1?

(Perhaps it's just an attempt by the creative team to get Crispin's attention in their own backyard.)

Most of us will never come across an Anthony's pizza joint, but there is a valuable lesson here about positioning for any brand - large or small. Get your own.

OFF STRATEGY.

Made you laugh.

Here's a funny new spot from Sprint. Check it out, then read on.

The bar is high for another wireless company trying to convince me to switch phone plans. Especially when you're Sprint.

Somehow Goodby manages here to give a value-oriented spot a little kick. When you're selling a number attached to a dollar sign, plus your the underdog, that's no easy task.

There's a rich little nugget here that's been leveraged in a way that can't help but get a giggle. That is, when we know our # of text messages and/or emails are "limited", even if limited means 1,000's beyond what we'd ever care to use, we're more selective in who we send them to. BUT, if our plan entitles us to "unlimited", well, we'll text anyone, anywhere, about anything - because sometimes (a lot of times), we just don't want to talk to you.

You can't miss the point here and it hits home on one level or another. Hopefully it hits home for people who are currently paying more.. otherwise, the point sort of becomes moot.

Not sayin' I'll switch to Sprint, but this is as good a try as any.

ON STRATEGY.

Unscripted.

Two new, unrelated spots are sure to remind you (whoever you are) that there's something you need, or just plain want, at Target.

The first is so adorable, I just want to pinch it! And since it managed to tell its own story with virtually no words, I'll do the same. Check it out:

'>

The second features Shaun 'the flying tomato' White doing what he does best - riding a board, in this case, one with four wheels attached. Shaun's promoting his new clothing line, available exclusively at Target. I don't know about you, but I think a Shaun White collection is a pretty damn smart move by Target. Here's a look at that:



Both use music and capture moments sure to engage their respective audiences, never delivering the product plug before establishing a basic human connection.

I'm in awe of the simplicity, particularly in the baby spot. There's hardly a retailer out there that doesn't face a competitor that offers close - if not exactly - the same stuff (tangible goods). Retail brands don't have the luxury of packaging to help them jump off the shelf or lure the impulse buyer with flashy graphics.

Sure, there's service and price and cleanliness and convenience and all that stuff that weigh in to consumers' decisions about where to shop. But the humanity, the spirit of the brand, this has to really take on the role of "packaging"...and this is something that needs to happen in advance.

Ironically, brand building often falls to the wayside as retailers focus on telling the "stuff" and "how much" stories.

Fortunately not so for Target, who has managed to strike the right balance and consistently keep it interesting. So ON STRATEGY

From insight to execution, well played.

I can't believe I missed this spot from Gillette, which it appears broke about 2 months ago.

Perhaps you did too. Take a look, then read on.



The insight here has to do with men's facial hair and the importance of a close shave - to the people who matter most in the equation - women.

(Positioning men's grooming products as appealing to women is the new black.)

The 65% claim is a tad misleading, but in the product's best interest nevertheless. While I think women prefer to kiss a man with a clean shave, they often prefer the appearance of some scruff. Kudos to Jack Morton for finding the bigger number and leveraging that.

The execution is funny and flawless, even if production value isn't much to write home about.

I'm engaged, I'm laughing, and most importantly, I understand how this links to the product.

The spot misses marginally when it fails to make a comparison to competitive brands. After all, you can get a clean shave with any razor, yes? The spot could have been strengthened with something like "...and Gillette's new Fusion Pro Glide helps men shave closer by x% vs. the leading razor." If that's not true, I'm sure it can shave closer than at least one razor out there, so get that data and use it here.

Enough said. Happy to end the week with an ad that's ON STRATEGY.

Crowdsourcing, you say? How about crowdselling?

It's partially my obsession with food and partially my obsession with product innovation that makes today's topic so fascinating.

Every ounce of me applauds the team behind the new burger concept due to open its doors in Midtown Manhattan next month.

The concept will be called 4Food.

Part of its brilliance comes from its simplicity. A burger joint that starts with high quality patty options - choices include lamb, fish, turkey, veggie and the standard beef variety, plus a couple others. The burgers have a hole in the middle so they can easily be loaded with a "scoop" topping, also of the customer's choice. There's a bunch of other choices to be made as well including bun, cheese, sides, veggies and so on.

The notion of customizing one's own burger is admittedly not all that revolutionary. But the next part is.

Servers take orders on iPads. Likewise, customers can place their own order using their own iPads (in advance or in store). Customers give their burger creation a name - whatever name they want, presumably. And it gets better from there..

Here's the part I'm calling "crowdselling". That's a made up term for now, I think. The customized creations, complete their given names, are fed electronically to a jumbo electronic screen that greets people as they walk in. Others will enter the store, see the creations built by others and elect to order one of those or build their own.

Still, there is more.

The creator will actually be compensated for "selling" his or her burger creation - 25 cents per burger creation sold. Customer-creators are thereby incentivized to "market" their burgers via twitter, facebook, iPad to the jumbo screen, word of mouth, whatever they like. The quarter is given in the form of store credit.

It's a great big cycle that not only involves asking people what they want and letting them have what they want, but essentially bringing them on as part of the marketing / sales team.

Time will tell whether this is a concept sustainable beyond a single unit and / or whether its just too complicated for its own good. For now it's just a cool glimpse into the way social media can be harnessed to leverage the strength of consumers in truly building a brand.

ON STRATEGY.

Over-positioning is bad for your (brand's) health.

I'm shocked at Chef Boyardee's new ads.

Not shocked in a good way. Shocked in a "I can't believe that passed legal muster" sort of way. Here's a look:



In my own experience, it's been a ferocious arm wrestle to call things like pickles healthy or even suggest they might be better than other alternatives, simply because of the sodium content. Where does Chef Boyardee get off calling this microwaveable slop "nutritious"? Children hugging vegetables? Give me a break.

I'm less concerned with the lawyers who let this stuff slide and more concerned with the disingenuous positioning - ultimately, because I think it does the brand a great disservice.

Parents today are a far more saavy bunch when it comes to judging what's healthy and what's not. Organic is nearly mainstream. Sugar is taboo. Sodium is the new trans fat. School cafeterias are under strict watch with what they're allowed to serve - even sell in vending machines. And though they may not do cartwheels over frozen peas, young kids have a much firmer grasp on what's good and bad for their bodies - and care- than this advertising gives them credit for.

So the insight about kids not wanting to eat food they know has veggies in it - or perceive to be "healthy" - frankly, I think that's antiquated thinking.

This is the sort of advertising that can't help but get a negative reaction from parents. While I'm sure the great Chef's microwaveable bowls have an infusion of liquid vitamins to check the boxes and cover the bases, "nutritious" is still a massive overpromise - the kind that's only apt to make moms and dads more likely to reconsider what they put on the table for their kid.

I think the miss is obvious here, so I'll stop and call this OFF STRATEGY.

Dear Jet Blue, it's time to board.

I hate to be redundant, but since the Steve Slater story seems to be getting so much continued attention, I must.

Time for Jet Blue to make a critical distinction - Steve Slater is now his own brand and Brand Slater is beginning to present a serious threat to Brand Jet Blue.

The guy now has his own PR manager. Reality show producers are interested in a spin off that leverages his 'stick it to the man' story? Really?

Frankly I find it hard to support Steve's behavior and I'm shocked at the outpouring of support, but nevertheless his story seems to resonate. And while he's getting TV deals by the handful, Jet Blue is keeping its mouth shut about the incident, instead tweeting about upcoming airfare promotions.

Judicial nuances aside, I think it's time for Jet Blue to take a stand here. And by "take a stand", I mean make some public statement about what happened and how it supports or flies in the face of its brand promise. To repeatedly say nothing but "we don't / won't comment on the ongoing investigation" is simply not enough given all the Slater buzz.

Jet Blue may have free snacks, decent deals, a pretty good flight schedule and a cushy terminal at JFK, but it built its brand on something pretty simple - better service. Jetting, unlike flying, is supposed to be nice - and that not only involves, but revolves around the customer service supplied by its flight attendants.

Time for Jet Blue to comment, as generically as it may need to at the moment, on how Steve's behavior is not in line with the Jetting principles.

As for Jet Blue's silence thus far.....OFF STRATEGY.