Sometimes you just have to go there

Just came across this print campaign on Ads of the World via Agency Spy.

The advertiser is Tzabar Travel Agency - a company I'd obviously never heard of before today. The fact that it's a random international travel agency makes my point even clearer.

This series of ads delivers its message so succinctly, viewers needn't bring any preconceptions about the brand to the table to get it.

This is fundamentally fueled by consumer insight and it shows without stumbling over itself. The insight here is smart - and accurate - in any country, in any language, and I'd venture to say, applicable to any demographic.

It's simple.

When relationships are new, we try harder. Some years in, we begin taking our mate for granted and we slack off. We're not as nice. We don't always dress our best or pick up our clothes off the floor and if we're really oblivious, we might perform one of the more extreme acts pictured here.

So call this travel agency and they'll help you plan a vacation that lets you and your partner rewind and reconnect.

Can't any travel agency book a trip? Wait, can't you book your own trip and skip the fee altogether? Sure, but when you're in the service business, as a travel agency is, you must sell more than the product you ultimately deliver to consumers. You need to sell your product - that is, sell the service part.

What this says to me is that this particular travel agency understands relationships and probably knows all the great romantic hotspots. They won't send me to a place that looks tropical in a photo, only to get there and find a bunch of little kids splashing around in the pool or crying at the top of their lungs while I'm trying to enjoy a romantic breakfast on the veranda.

Too much of the advertising out there today makes us, as consumers, work too hard. It assumes it's talking to people who have been living on the planet, tuned in to their brand's messages all along the way.

Stop that. For a minute, assume this ad you're creating is the first exposure consumers will have to your brand. Then for another minute, assume this is the only time they will see it.

You don't have the past. You don't have the future. You don't have a bunch of opportunities. Sell me your product now.

This one's ON STRATEGY.

Strategic Shilling

For those following, you've gathered by now I have little use for celebrity endorsement or product shilling UNLESS there's an iron clad ROI argument in its favor.

In HP's case, I believe there is.

I was a huge fan of Sex & The City. Arguably one of the decade's best programs. It influenced our culture in too many ways to mention. But that's not why I like this new spot.


Not a single SITC episode passed where Carrie didn't sit down to write on her Mac. Over the years, as new versions of the Mac were introduced, Carrie's equipment was updated as well. Given the show centered around Carrie's writings, the computer was not just an integration opportunity; it was a critical part of the show.

Frankly I'm not sure whether Apple won the bid, and was thus awarded the integration OR if the show's producers just figured Carrie's character ought to have a Mac because it matched her personality. Either way, anyone who watched knows that Carrie used a Mac.

So what?

Quite a big SO WHAT, actually. Carrie and the SITC women were a huge part of a cultural movement. Every woman wanted to be like them, even if just a little or just for a day. Every guy wanted to find women as playful, fun, carefree and liberated as these ladies.

It's good to be the hero product the lead character relies upon in a case like this.

So, how smart is HP to feature Carrie Bradshaw in its latest commercial, talking about all the hundreds of ways the new HP laptop can help her in her day to day life? WITH the SITC theme music playing in the background. And, if you don't believe me, then how come they can shoot the spot without showing SJP's face yet still deliver the message loud and clear?

Is she shilling? You bet. But there's a strategy here and it's not just use a celebrity so people will look up, awe struck by her good looks and stay fixated on the TV until we have a moment to plug the product.

Fundamentally, the strategy here is to debunk the Mac myth by taking a well-known Mac user (as so many of us have become) and addressing all the things we believe can only be accomplished on Macs and convince people they can also be done on a PC, in this case an HP PC.

We all know Carrie Bradshaw WAS a Mac gal. Her Mac was her oxygen. The fact that she's willing to make the switch and acknowledges all the things the HP can do that her Mac did or did not do, well that's powerful.

This is ON STRATEGY (and a good start - but it's gonna take more to convert Mac users).

Relevant is Relevant

I'm not a fan of the show LOST, you? It doesn't matter.

I am a fan of these three new spots from Target, which allegedly aired during the series finale last night. I wouldn't have seen them had it not been for the posting by the folks at Adweek. Thanks.

'>

As I said, I've never seen an episode of LOST, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the premise to understand why these would play well during the much-hyped finale. All the outdoorsy / jungle ques are in here, which seems natural since they were directed by the same guy who directed Lost. Talk about seamless - great idea.

In these spots, 15 seconds is all it takes to illustrate a problem and propose a solution. What's smart here is how the problem part could nearly be mistaken for part of the show or some kind of teaser / trailer. That is, if it weren't for the subtle placement of the Target logo up front which gets the point across without distracting or disrupting flow of attention. The solution comes in the form of products available at Target, each with a price point which makes the "at Target" piece relevant.

So, to recap - the media buy is relevant, the idea is relevant, the scripting is relevant, the choice of director thus the way these were shot is relevant, and the price point/Target linkage - all relevant.

In fact, these are perhaps the most literal translation the 'problem-solution' construct I've seen in a while (big smoke cloud chases after you...hey, you might need a fire alarm and fortunately Target's got one for $10.99).

That's all she wrote.

ON STRATEGY.

No Cart before the horse...Or, don't retrofit your strategy to match your tagline

I don't know where to start with this. Seems its creators had the same problem.

http://

Let's start here. I don't believe beer advertising has the same strategic mandate as say, technology or packaged goods. It's more about building a badge and reminding people why they want to be seen ordering or drinking from your bottle or can vs. some other. And for men, more than women, it's about flavor.

All that aside, I do think a smidge of an insight and a fundamental strategic starting point is a requirement. For example, Bud is the every man's beer and Heineken is for posers (subj) looking to get ahead. What does that make New Castle?

I didn't know and after watching this spot I still haven't got a clue. I actually think it's a pretty good tasting beer with nice packaging, probably some cool history and a loyal following that the folks over at headquarters probably wouldn't minde growing into a larger loyal following.

Given the tagline, I assume they want to tell people it's a dark beer that isn't as strong tasting or heavy as most dark beers. Frankly, I'm not sure how compelling that message is, but I didn't attend the focus groups so what do I know? Let's assume for the sake of argument they found this positioning had great traction with consumers. That all the dark-beer drinking folks out there are just sitting around wishing they had a dark beer that was less heavy and the light-beer drinking folks are interested in a dark beer, possibly because it makes them feel more mature or sophisticated or less like chugging through a funnel, but can't stomach the thought of drinking sludge. If either or both of these are true, it seems like they've got the right tagline.

What they don't have, in my opinion, is the right execution. First and foremost if the tagline is intended to reposition the beer based on taste, then the execution should do just that. Maybe you play off the 'I used to be a funnel chugging frat boy but now I have a real job and a kid and I need a different beer'. Or you go the route of 'I want a beer I can drink with my steak, not a beer that fills me up so I can't eat my meal'.

Instead, these guys elected to take the tagline and translate it to new meanings of "dark" (bad news) and "light" (silver lining). Why?

The only way this could possibly work is if the humor was just THAT funny its target audience would see it, laugh out loud, then go tell their friends about it. That won't happen here because the joke is cliche and forgettable.

I won't belabor the point any further. OFF Strategy.

Borrowed Equity Is a Tactic, Not a Strategy

This is the sort of advertising I just don't get.

http://

And that's not to suggest any ignorance on my part, either. In fact, I do understand why this might seem like a good idea. It probably does quite well getting attention. High energy, great editing, good looking jocks showing off their respective moves. But really that's not enough, because by the time we get to the brand plug at the end, we have no idea why we should buy this product.

The fact that athletes wear Under Armour is important, but it's really not the only thing that matters. Athletes also wear Nike for God's sake. And Adidas. And Reebok. And plenty of other brands. But at the very least, let's agree Under Armour hasn't established the same cache as Nike and move on.

This is a commercial for Under Armour, but the only reason I know that is because I pulled it off You Tube. Had I seen it on TV like the average consumer will, I probably wouldn't have had a clue.

Under Armour sells a particular type and style of athleticware (much of it form fitting and virtually none of it cotton), but there are a lot of me-too brands that sell similar LOOKING stuff.

UA's gear is made of a special fabric that wicks away sweat to keep the body dry, thus cool, thus better equipped to keep pushing ahead. Obviously if one's body overheats, it's all over.

But more importantly, UA was the pioneer of this type of fabric technology. No longer are they the only brand that offers a wicking fabric, but they were the first and there is huge credibility in that statement which I don't see leveraged here.

Imagine this spot, featuring all the same athletes, doing more to leverage the benefit of this superior wicking thing - rational and emotional. And a statement about how winning athletes don't trust the other knock offs and serious athletes shouldn't either.

Was there an insight here or just a tactical decision to pay athletes a lot of money to wear Under Armour and star in the commercial? If I were guessing, I'd say the latter.

This is a case where sweating the small stuff could have really paid off. For now, it's OFF Strategy.

Simple Sells Simple

This series of print ads speak for themselves. Literally.

And since the campaign was just awarded Grand Prize from the Magazine Publishers Association (less exciting) for efficacy in driving awareness (more impressive), it seems the deliberately simple approach didn't lose anything despite its nakedness.

When a product runs on a platform of simplicity, it's often a bad idea to crowd or over complicate the communication that seeks to peddle it. As consumers, our reaction to advertising just as any stimuli, is largely visceral.

Like the product, the insight here seems pretty simple too. Ice cream is an indulgent food and people feel guilty eating it for two reasons: a) the fattening monster lives within and b) the trying-to-be-healthy ice creams tend to replace sugar and cream with artificial this and thats, which negates its attempt to be healthy in the first place, plus it tastes bad.

In Haagen Dazs' case, there are 5 simple ingredients. Sure they come with the burden of fat and calories, but when you see what 5 real ingredients they actually are, it makes the thought of putting them in your body seem a little less harsh. Demystification at its best.

The photography here is gorgeous. And when you're selling food, appetite appeal is everything (more on that in future posts).

This one's ON STRATEGY, winning awards and probably selling ice cream.

Viral doesn't mean 'strategy optional'

Ever come across a power tool that doesn't make noise? Or run into a hammer you can bang against steel without producing a sound?

Didn't think so.

This two minute viral piece from Craftsman strings together sounds of various power tools to create a music track. The composition is nice enough, I suppose, but......huh?

'>

I took a business strategy course once, the key takeaway of which was just how important it is for a brand in a crowded marketplace to answer one key question: "so what?"

So you can string together power tool sounds to make a music track - but what message does it deliver about the product that is a) relevant or b) different from the rest of the category?

Since I already addressed "b", let's spend a second on relevance.

It's highly unlikely the average power tool consumer is interested in the type of music that can be made by stringing together power tool soundbites. That says nothing. Perhaps a better way in vis a vis music might have been the simple, yet powerful, sound of the tool itself. Some guy in his backyard all alone, early morning, blue sky above, a stack of plywood and a blueprint in his hand - and the simple sound of a buzzsaw or nailgun or hammer that signals the start of a new project. Now, that's more likely the type of music that would give these folks a buzz.

I wonder whether Craftsman would have given the green light to produce this if they had to put big media dollars behind it and run it on TV? Probably not. But, just because you don't have to pay for media doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the strategy. This cost something to make (production at least) and consumers or prospective consumers will (hopefully) see it. Viral is just another opportunity - a big opportunity - to make an important statement about your brand. Why waste it?

This is entirely forgettable and OFF STRATEGY. (and, frankly, I'm not convinced there was an insight to begin with)

Beautiful insight and out

Intentional typo. Insight...inside, get it? Have a look and you will:

'>

I had a tough time finding something worthwhile to blog about today. I hope that's just due to it being a Monday and not a sign of our industry's lack of creativity. So I pulled this spot from last week, which is both beautifully shot and driven by insight.

This hearkens a bit to the popular movie construct whereby several strangers concurrently have the same experience, each in his own walk through life. In this case, that experience has to do with getting someplace, guided by mobile GPS technology supplied by Nokia.

If the insight here wasn't that this thing works for all types of travel - from foot to bike to auto -well, then, it should have been. In either case, it nails it - intentionally or accidentally. That's what I get loud and clear, and for me at least, this is a solid perspective shifter for those of us who normally equate GPS direction technology with driving a car.

Nokia is obviously NOT the only brand with a product that can do this very thing, but it might be the only one to sell it on its ability to travel in your pocket so it's always ready to guide you, wherever you are and whatever method you travel...for walkers, Vespa riders and auto drivers alike.

ON STRATEGY with a side of global vista.

Narcism - as good an insight as any

I love this.



Don't get me wrong. I realize why the outcome would easily enrage great creatives with glowing portfolios who can't get an interview despite their best efforts and are thus forced to survive on unemployment and the occasional freelance gig. Sorry.

Does it make the guy a better creative talent because he knows how to buy Google Ad words? Probably not, but it does make him more strategically inclined and digitally savvy than some.

And remember the guy who sent a shoe to Harvard to get one foot in the door? He probably wasn't more intelligent than the other applicants, but he was cunning and that counts.

Back to this. There's a nice little insight here - CCOs are self absorbed (or just curious what people are saying) and spend at least a few minutes every day googling their own name.

Copywriter dude wants interviews with these big cheeses who are too busy to look at his book so he buys Google Ad words for each of their names and gets himself a spot right up at the top of the search query; here he posts his plea and a link to his portfolio.

Mission accomplished. He gets interviews and lands a great job.

A fine lesson in the ability of creatively leveraged insight to sell a product. In this case, the product happened to be him. Sell thyself!

Clearly ON STRATEGY.

Clean pants & strategy required

I want to get right to the point with this - it's terrific. In fact, it leaves me with very little to say other than "good job."



Simple, funny, insightful, genuine, and not shy about selling the product. Clearly a creative team that got the memo, eh, followed the brief.

Being funny is not easy - but it is easier than using humor intentionally to stay within a defined strategic framework and use the ha ha's to set up a premise that sells the product. That's why the later often end up getting ignored.

Fortunately, that's not the case here. This spot does it all without skipping a beat.

There's a great insight here too - and for a stain remover pen, of all things.

Boys learn from a young age that getting dirty is OK - it's what boys do. It may be OK for a boy, but as a grown man, you have a social responsibility to keep your clothes clean. And, important distinction,...there is a difference between bad wardrobe decision (that's your choice) and stained wardrobe (that's not).

Thanks to Tide To Go, keeping your ugly grey sweatpants clean is a cinch.

While I fear this may endorse bad male dressing, it is ON STRATEGY and likely to sell a few Tide pens to an audience that otherwise wouldn't give it a thought.

Must follow through

This spot makes a number of mistakes, but I'll just focus on failure to follow through.



Some people may find this funny, but I'm sure I don't know any of them. The humor is simply too gratuitous to pay off. But that's not really the point, since the humor has nothing to do with anything here.

There are far more interesting ads to talk about, but I chose to blog about this because the product appears to face a common problem. That is, figuring out what (if anything) makes it unique and what insight could possibly fuel inspiring creative.

I do believe there are cases where neither will be true. In other words, product will be a copy cat and there really won't be any compelling "new" insight to unlock some hidden door. None of this excuses the need for a strategy.

In this case, we have a fruit flavored energy drink (at least that's what it is since the spot doesn't offer much in the way of a description). And, what do fruit flavored energy drinks do? They rev you up, get you going, and set you on your way. Fine.

There are any number of reasons people need energy. Amp decided to focus on mornings at the office. That's fine too.

Presumably the nerdy protagonist is in need of a little spark to get his mundane day off to a speedy start, so he chugs one of these Amp energy drinks and....

Well, then he turns an old PC into an ice-cream serving robot and we spend the rest of the spot watching his co-workers dive head first into an ice cream feeding frenzy (that is ice cream, right?) There's oogles of obvious sexual innuendo, but certainly nothing gratifying, in fact pretty distasteful.

But most importantly, tell me again why we're watching this ice cream orgy in the first place, not to mention why it deserves more focus than the alleged product benefit? We don't even see the product for a second time until the very end of the :60 spot. We're offered no product description and the link between getting hyped up from this drink and building the robot is virtually imperceptible.

Let's assume the creators of this ad started with a nugget of a boring insight - work takes energy to get big, overwhelming, otherwise complicated tasks accomplished - well, then you've simply got to carry this through or the viewer will miss it entirely. No where do we see any of this toiling made oh so much easier thanks to the fire power of Amp.

This will end up on You Tube getting mashed up every which way by high school boys who will enjoy the part that has nothing to do Amp, but it certainly won't move the product.

I think this spot is just plain awful, but I'll just call it OFF STRATEGY and move on.

Good for all the right reasons

Good for all the right reasons

This spot supports a good cause, but that's not why I like it. Nor do I think the production quality is especially commendable.



What makes this a great ad is that it's driven by a very simple, easily relatable insight - that most people see a homeless person on the street and don't feel comfortable walking over to give that person money. The reasons why are endless - he might hurt me. She might be using the cash for things other than food. He might have a disease. How do I know she's really homeless and this isn't just a full time "job"?

Whether or not we agree with any of these reactions, the fact is they're real and most of us have probably reacted similarly at least once in our lives.

But what if we could donate money as easily as we text a friend to say hello? What if we could be assured the money we want to give to help the homeless was actually being used in a constructive way capable of real impact?

I realize the text-to-donate idea is nothing new - that's just a mechanism here; an effective one, but just a mechanism. The decision to use this mechanism in light of the insight is what I think is smart.

The genius here is how the spot paints a picture in 30 seconds of exactly how our money, should we choose to donate, will help transform the lives of the less fortunate into something a little bit bitter - by replacing their park bench or city stoop with a house. And we don't have to walk up to some guy laying on the side of the street and hand over dollar bills, all we need to do is send a text message.

There's a whole insight-driven problem-solution story here that speaks for itself, which is how you know it's ON STRATEGY.

Funny is not a strategy.

This spot is very funny.



Exceptional casting, brilliant performances.

But, let's talk about the message.

Is there really nothing more that can be said for these new fizzy fruit Skittles other than claiming superiority over a punch in the tounge by a giant tube sock? I'm half kidding, but unfortunately only half.

The assumption here is that people want their tounges to tingle SO bad, they'll do whatever it takes to get that tingly sensation.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't wake with a mission to make my tounge tingle.

This is obviously a far too literal translation, but I'm doing it intentionally to illustrate the faulty logic on which the humor is based. Perhaps if the logic WERE more fluid, this would work.

But it's not, so what I need is to hear more about this fizzy tingly thing - what it feels like, tastes like and why I shouldn't spend another day on the planet without experiencing it.

In its current form, this spot could easily be re-cut with any kind of candy on that tray table and the message would be exactly the same. Is there any candy that DOESN'T taste better than a sock?

I'm all for humor. And just to prove it, I'm going to give Snickers a big shout out here.

Snickers latest campaign, including the now-famous Betty White spot, is a good example of how humor and strategy can co-exist. In Snickers case, humor is used with greater purpose - to define the problem (when you get hungry, you're not yourself) and establish the product as a solution (Snickers satisfies your hunger so you can get back to yourself).

So, back to Skittles. I'm calling this one OFF STRATEGY. (But, funny.)

Underleveraging...or, if you've got a USP, exploit it!

Yesterday I blogged about overleveraging; today, the opposite.

This one hurts.

I've been a devout Starbucks loyalist for years. I'll be first to admit there's huge inconsistency from one store to the next, but for a brand with that sort of bandwidth to change the dynamics of coffee shop culture on the scale it has, well...bravo.

For years Starbucks got by with no advertising. Just grassroots, word of mouth, 360 experiential branding, 'build it and they will come' mentality. Their relative success is an early testament to the power of a brand gone right and an indication of how this stuff we now call "social marketing" can be really powerful.

Like most in the category, Starbucks happened upon some dull luck last year. Sales took a dive. McD's entered the coffee wars. Dunkin' tried to convince common folk it was capable of making real lattes (zzz...), but Starbucks stuck tirelessly to its innovative guns, introducing healthy new food and rolling out Via instant coffee.

If my experience was any indication, they did a bang up job with sampling. Weeks passed in 2009 when I couldn't walk into a Starbucks WITHOUT being handed a free 3 pack of Via and invited to take the Via taste test challenge.

They posted fill-in-the-blank notes on the wall, noting where employees and staff found Via coming in handy (on a plane, in a long meeting, when I'm stuck in the office and can't get out, when I'm in Ft. Wayne Indiana without a Starbucks in sight..) Smart stuff, all of it.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the product, but it's certainly better than any other instant coffee I've ever had. And there is a good reason WHY. And that's what matters. And that's what their advertising should be telling me that it's not.

Because, IF I am stuck in Ft. Wayne or on a plane or in a really long meeting, then I want to know there's a close approximation of the real thing (Starbuck's brewed coffee, that is). Something I can buy in advance, keep tucked away and whip up when low caffination strikes.

This commercial tells me nothing, except that Starbucks has instant coffee, it's better than old office coffee and a bunch of people from all different walks of life are trying it and liking it. If a whole bunch of people jumped off a bridge, I'm not jumping. You?

I need to be told HOW this instant coffee is different and WHY it's BETTER than other instant coffee. Tell me or show me the fresh ground beans used to make Via vs. the chemical additives and low quality beans used to make other instant coffee.

While I think there's some good stuff going on with this spot (well-paced, cohesive storyline, for one), it's a classic example of selling the category, and I'm not sure it's doing a great job at that by establishing Via as a better alternative to one thing, "old office coffee."

What I'm saying is don't just engage me; take the USP and exploit the hell out of it in an engaging way.

So, I'm calling this one OFF STRATEGY, but I'm pulling for you anyhow Starbucks.

Overleveraging..or, too much of a good thing can be bad

I applaud brands with the courage to leverage a consumer insight.
Sounds easy. And obvious. But, sadly too few brands actually do it.

There's probably a handful of reasons for this, which we'll get at in future posts, but quickly, my experience suggests it's most likely one of these 4:

a) marketer thinks brand speaks for itself; insights are for wussies. We just need logo, flash and celebrity talent.

b) marketer and/or agency uncovers insight, but they don't like it, so they come up with one they like better. unfortunately it's unlikely to resonate.

c) marketer and/or agency identifies a juicy insight, planner seeds it in the brief, creative team ignores it entirely as they get caught up making flashy ads, ad never delivers against the insight, rendering the earlier part of the process useless.

d) everything goes splendidly; then, in the eleventh hour, the client who thinks he knows exactly what the advertising SHOULD be, trashes the insight-driven ads, writes his own and tells the agency to produce it.

Enough about why insights don't get baked into the advertising. This post is about a brand that did the opposite. Indeed, they FOUND an insight, BAKED it into the advertising, and they are now undoing their earlier good by over-extending the strategy well beyond intelligible parameters.

That brand is Philips.

The insight: people (including and especially men) don't want body hair. They're trimming it off. It can be embarrassing to discuss and tricky to "do right". Check out their earlier work, which I believe was from Tribal DDB.

Enter the latest effort - some contrived linkage to deforestation?? I guess Philips wants us to know they're PRO removing your forest and AGAINST deforestation. They propose to solve the deforestation problem by planting a tree for every bodygrooming razor purchased.

Need I say more?

These are two very separate ideas that really ought not be linked. I could call green washing on this whole thing, but it doesn't seem necessary to go there.

We get it. You want to be viewed as a socially responsible company. But, really this is just too far a stretch. You had a good thing - a consumer insight, advertising and cool viral content that expressed it with some nice humor, a compelling product proposition ...and now you give us this.

I'm calling this one OFF STRATEGY.

Step 1: Admitting you have a problem

Seems this logic applies to advertising too.

At least, Domino's thought so. And now they're reaping the rewards.

Domino's latest effort had its fair share of critics (many ill informed about this category, but nevertheless..) I can proudly proclaim I was not among them. No Monday morning quarterbacking here; I called this one a winner from the jump.

Sales were in the toilet; where else to go but up?

Off they went to focus groups. But the difference is they LISTENED rather than rattle off predictable qualitative research excuses like "how can we listen to 8 people x 3 groups x 2 cities?" Or my favorite "that's just DIRECTIONAL insight".

I love "Directional insight". Translation: we heard something we didn't like and don't have the ability to fix so we'll dismiss it on the grounds of small sample size. N=...nevermind.

(caveat: I really have no idea whether they listened or whether someone at the top forced this approach down the CMO's throat or something else entirely, but as an outsider, it appears they went to learn and they listened.)

Customers (and perhaps no more than 8x3x2) told Domino's their pizza sucked. They listened. And then, they answered the critical question - and it appears, they answered correctly - do they launch a campaign that attempts to convince consumers they're wrong about what they think they tasted OR do they acknowledge the consumers might be right, head back to the kitchen, fix the product, admit there was a problem with the product, claim to have fixed it and THEN attempt to convince consumers to give it another try? They obviously made the difficult choice for the latter.

A smart business decision, for sure. But what I applaud here is the ability of the advertising to stay on strategy and deliver this message rather than bury it in flashy creative non-sequitor. The TV spots tell the course correction story in an arresting way and the pizza holdouts effort is both unconventional and impactful.

I've heard plenty creative teams rant and rave about the impossibility of delivering the entire message in 30 seconds. Apparantly Crispin's team didn't have that problem.

The proof is in the pudding. Or in this case, the pizza sales.

I say Domino's is ON STRATEGY.

Intent

To blog...

I was a late adopter of Facebook.
I've got a Twitter page I never use.
I'm an early Foursquare advocate, albeit still a bit of a skeptic.
And I'm determined to realize the value of building a cautiously robust LinkedIn Network.

As a member of the marketing community, dedicated to building brand awesomeness, I view all this social media connectedness as a professional responsibility. 20% fun; 80% job.

So, onward to blogging and a bloggER I will be...at least for now, until some 18 year old tech cadet invents something much better, faster, cheaper, +/or cooler and renders this useless.

First, to establish a purpose for this blog. (Because that's what I do.)

I'm dedicating my blog to a discussion of marketing efforts and ad like objects that just plain feel off strategy as well as those that appear to be spot on strategy. In fairness to the creators of the "off strategy" set, I offer this caveat - there may well be a perfectly acceptable strategy or juicy, well-baked insight that I've simply missed because I'm not the intended target. Perhaps.

As a planner and self proclaimed strategic stickler, I can't help but evaluate advertising through this lens. It begs the question (or, I do), if advertising is intended to build equity and sell product, is a relevant strategic insight an imperative or is it ok to let the former become a casualty in the process if you end up with a really cool looking or cool sounding or cool doing ad (or the crap a client just paid you dearly to create)?

I realize there's all sorts of good reasons WHY advertising gets strategically derailed, not the least of which is that C word that pays our salaries and keeps agencies in business.

So don't take it personally. It's just a blog. Now off we go..