Is loyalty dead?

If it isn't dead, it sure is holding on for dear life.

The recession is partly to blame. Commoditization is partly to blame. Marketers are partly to blame. The 'buy less, use less, want less' movement is partly to blame.

Fact is, consumers want the best thing available today. Whether it's better, faster, cheaper or all of the above. Whatever it is, what's generally true is that it won't be the same thing today as it will tomorrow.

DirectTV seems to be tuned in and riding this insight to the bank. That is, if said bank is a bunch of new subscribers who won't be paying a red cent for the next 5 months.

'>

Right. This spot does nothing to establish product superiority. No mention of better service, more channels, clearer reception, free additional services. Nor does it even attempt to demonstrate parity. In fact, it does nothing but dangle a carrot (5 free months) to get people to sign up.

I cringe as I consider the fine print. Not to mention the folks most likely to jump at this deal. I can only imagine there's a slew of people out there who either can't, or aren't able to pay their cable bill right now. Why not pull the plug on your cable service, give DirectTV a call and get cozy for 5 months until the free period expires?

This solves a short term consumer need, but where can this possibly get DirectTV long term? I should say, where other than sitting with a bunch of angry new subscribers who failed to read the fine print and at the end of 5 months will be trying to cancel what's no longer a free service?

Spending money to produce and air television commercials that give your product away for free seems like a really bad strategy to me. What am I missing?

I'm picking on DirectTV because it's just so obvious here. Certainly, this is not the only brand nor category, doing itself such monumental disservice. When we succumb to price wars, we need to be extra careful about reinforcing higher level brand benefits and emphasizing value beyond price.

There's a reason luxury goods tend to hold their own in a down economy. It's because those companies don't cut their prices to attract 100 customers today to generate the revenue 10 customers would have brought 3 years ago. Instead, they offer subtle reminders of what makes them special. They sit tight. They keep their prices locked. They hold their chin high and throw a couple loaners to Jay Z and Brangelina so as they hit the red carpet, the people at home watching TV see the stuff they wish they could afford and drool. This is how you protect a brand.

Morale of the story is this. We all need to buy back a little integrity lost over the past few years. Offering a discount or a special incentive, fine. Giving your product away for free without any acknowledgement about what makes it good in the first place? bad.

This may be Direct, but it's way OFF STRATEGY.

Don't become the butt of your own joke.

Jamba Juice makes smoothies. They have for years. Unfortunately for them, McDonald's is getting in on the smoothie game. This sucks for Jamba Juice because McD's outnumbers them by about 500 to 1.

I completely agree with the folks at Jamba who figured they ought to get in the ring and remind consumers why they must continue to get their smoothies at Jamba Juice.

I totally take issue with the approach.

This spot throws a cheeseburger in a blender and turns it into a smoothie. As you might expect, it turns brown with gobs of what are presumably condiments swirled on top. People sit there, licking their straws with brown goop dripping off. Then we're send to a website to learn more.

http://

This continues...

For about 20 seconds, the site continues to plug the cheeseburger smoothies. Then it fads to a page that reveals the joke...and the punch line. That punch line has something to do with the fact that they're sticking to what they do best. And others should too. Then it offers a $1 smoothie coupon.

First of all, there's one fundamental rule in food advertising that you just don't break. It has to do with appetite appeal. This violates it big time. I am sick to my stomach again, as I type this, remembering the brown liquid in the cup.

And what about the poor saps that don't make it to the website? Might there even be some loyal Jamba fans who are interested or curious in trying this disgusting mess?

Is there an insight here? Yeah, but it certainly doesn't come from consumers. It's a corporate insight - better described as fear. Fear that big giant McDonald's is going to steal all your customers away with their $2 smoothies because consumers don't know any better what makes a good smoothie from a faux one.

A far better approach would have been for Jamba to focus, as they claim to, on the things it ACTUALLY does well. The fresh fruit, the all-naturalness of it all. Show us the fresh fruit; tell us about what makes your product more natural than McDonald's. Hell, call the competitors bluff for all I care. It's all fair game.

But brown crap in a cup is, well, crap.

OFF STRATEGY by a mile.

Stay true to your peeps. Your consumer, that is.

I like the Axe work. I like Old Spice more. And, yes, I realize Axe was cool first.



Now that we got that out of the way...



Here's an Axe spot that feels almost like a trailer for a chick flick; one of the sort men would refuse to go see.



http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1329217856?bctid=96963188001



I actually thought this was cute, but it's a little too.............. girly. Is the idea of destiny - missing it, meeting it, it's mere existence - is that a guy thing? Do guys care about destiny? Maybe when they hit 40 and realize they're still single, all their friends are married and they no longer have someone to sit on the couch and watch football with every Sunday. But between the ages of 18 and somewhere in the mid to late 30's area, most guys aren't looking to meet "the" one.

Put simply, the young male audience does not get Destiny.

Aside from a couple underwear shots, this seems to lack the hard-hitting young male appeal of most of their others, which really push the envelope. Even the music feels off with this one. It's too dramatic or too feminine or something.

I'd challenge the premise of this spot based on the above. Had I seen this on TV, rather than posted online and tagged as an "Axe commercial", I would have missed the brand reference entirely.

Make no mistake - this is not a commentary on the AXE campaign, just this particular spot, which feels, well, just a bit OFF STRATEGY.

The best test of relevance.

Take your awareness, persuasion, engagement and whatever other metrics you use to vet advertising and evaluate how capable it is and put them aside for a moment.

There's one thing that matters more than any of it. Relevance. Specifically, whether consumers find your brand and your product relevant. There's a functional level of this and then there's an emotional level. And the decision to mash, share, tweet, or otherwise give your message free exposure is a good litmus test.

The word's out. I LOVE the Old Spice work. And this takes my admiration to a new level.

Why? Because it's not slick. It's not advertising. The client didn't produce it. The client didn't approve it. The client never even saw it. If you were a client, would you approve this? Take a look:



This takes the inappropriate (alleged) Mel Gibson phone rants and mashes them up with the Old Spice guy. The OS guy is the cool, calm headed, suave one. Mel Gibson is portrayed as the crazy bastard that he is.

The fact that people want to make Mel Gibson look like an ass - no surprise.

The fact that people want to juxtapose Mel Gibson's lunacy with the Old Spice, fast becoming iconic, chiseled black dude from a commercial? A huge compliment.

Marketers can lay some good ground work in social media, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all they can do. From there, we must rely on consumers to carry the torch. In the new world, consumers are armed with the resources. They can be dangerous. Or they can do your brand a really big, free service.

Aim for the later.

ON STRATEGY. just is.

Consumer need meet product solution.

Last night I saw a spot that made me stop and think "Wow. now, that's great."

Not the commercial itself, per se, but the product.

The spot was quick, clear, concise and to the point. Nothing too fancy. No confusing storyline. Nothing to get in the way of selling the product.

I wondered whether I ought to write about the commercial or the product. Or both, perhaps.

Fact is, there are two good lessons here. First, I should tell you about the product.

It's a new iPhone app from CHASE. It's smart and it's easy and it's something we all want and probably never thought we could have. Download the app and you'll never need to visit a bank again to deposit a check. You just load in your CHASE account information, then take a picture of the front and back of the check and viola - it's deposited virtually!

The insight here is all about convenience. Just about every retailer has an online buying option - for the exact same reason. Banks have been good about keeping pace, with online access to account information, online transfers, online bill pay, etc. But one thing you absolutely had to visit a branch for - until now - was to deposit a check. Sure, you could deposit it at an ATM, but that still involves finding one, walking or driving to it, and physically handing the check over. No more.

The second part of the learning has to do with the commercial. As I said, there's no bells and whistles and nothing sexy about this spot whatsoever. Which makes you wonder, why do we need that stuff in so many other commercials - just to get our attention? Fact is, sometimes an absolutely awesome "wow" product or service CAN sell itself, just by getting the message out there that it exists.

If product innovation occurs in RESPONSE to a consumer need - a real, legitimate consumer ask - the advertising doesn't need to oversell. In fact, advertising needs to be careful not to get in the way.

Which makes you wonder, if a product isn't created in response to a consumer need, why is it created? Rhetorical, but a good question.

This is both product and advertising ON STRATEGY.

Saying it all with less

Good advertising can often be judged by the number of words required to send its message.

It's true.

That applies universally - print, TV, web banners, PR, viral, social, You Tube, etc.

Twitter is making us all better at saying more with less.

This spot from Am Ex is nearly a minute in length, but you won't hear a single word until about 40 seconds in. The story is well told with a montage of video and great editing. It moves quick, without skipping a beat and never becomes redundant. Clear, linear, uplifting.

'>

The insight here is that small businesses must spend money to help move the economy forward. Big corporations move too slow and too politically. For a big company to do something like change a supplier, even with a rock solid case that doing so will save money, simply takes too long to have a real impact on the economy today.

We are all counting on small business owners, whether we know it or not. There's a lot of them out there and they stand to make a huge difference. We're specifically interested in those armed with their trusty AmEx cards. Go forth and charge it!

To the point I made earlier in the week about Goodwill, this one will score off the charts. And with the commoditization of credit cards, AmEx needs to ride the Goodwill train as far as it can to get new cardholders.

ON STRATEGY.

Simply brilliant

It is rare something speaks so easily for itself.

It is equally rare that I have nothing more to say.

Carry on.

http://

Too much left to the imagination.

The average person is, well, average. That's not to say he or she is ignorant or clueless or out of touch, but just average. The average person knows an average amount about an average number of things. He's not a rocket scientist. She's not glued to the morning and evening news. And the average person definitely does NOT ready the marketing trades.

Where do you think the average person stands on carbon footprint reduction?

You're correct if you said half of the average people know nothing about carbon footprints. The other half know somewhere between a little and a lot.

Now, how many people know what sneakers are? That's right, almost everyone.

So, if you were a sneaker company, do you think it makes good financial sense to devote 60 seconds of air time to positioning your product as a good way to reduce one's carbon footprint?

Check the simple math above if you said "yes". If you said "no", I agree.

Now, check this out:

http://www.trustcollective.com/portfolio/content/suspect_runninggreen.php

This spot is nicely shot, but boy does it leave a lot to the imagination. And when I say "a lot", I mean a whole #$%*load. Close to 100% left entirely to the imagination here.

No words, just an image of a pair of shoes running along an urban street leaving grass and flowers where there was once concrete and one, final glimpse at an explanation in the tag line - 'New Balance. Reducing your carbon footprint one step at a time.'

Guys, this is not only a miss, it is a very irresponsible way to burn a marketing budget.

I suppose the insight here is meant to be that people want to reduce their carbon footprint; that is, all of us or a good number of us are really concerned about doing positive things like this for the planet so we'd like to run rather than take a cab or drive or something. And why not run with New Balance sneakers?

First of all, what research led anyone to think that there's enough people out there SO concerned about reducing THEIR carbon footprint that they will run rather than take some other form of transportation? Yes, indeed, these people exist - but they are primarily concerned with broader reductions, beyond those they can make by running rather than taking a cab. Not to mention, the vast majority who live in cities like new york (where this is shot), do not drive! They rarely take taxis due to the expense; they typically walk and/or enjoy a hot, sweaty, cramped, uncomfortably shared ride on a subway!

That's nearly beside the point.

The point is, the insight is flawed and the execution, if it intends to deliver on this insight, is very vague. And even if they were to get that far, what makes New Balance the answer any more than any other running sneaker? Or flip flops for that matter? Hell, why not go barefoot and reduce the carbon footprint required to manufacture your shoe in the first place? If you miss the tag line, you might miss the point entirely. And for once, that may actually be a good thing.

New Balance is a very solid running sneaker. It offers good functionality, good sport versatility, decent fashion, helps support the foot, align it properly and protect against injuries. It enables athletes to perform. There are at least 100 other ways to position a running sneaker as good as New Balance. Why try to sell them on the basis of carbon footprint reduction?

This is so nonsensical, I can't stand it.

OFF STRATEGY. And I don't even feel bad about saying that.

The classic 'Near Miss'

For those following religiously, I've been on vacation, so please excuse the absence.

Here's an interesting selection for my first day back. This one's from Nissan; a brand I truly like. Not the advertising, necessarily; more a holistic sort of like. And the SHIFT mnemonic is smart too.

Their latest spot is what I call a 'near miss'. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's nothing right with it either. Sort of like being back from vacation. It happens.

This one features Lance Armstrong (OK) sending a message about an all-electric car with no tailpipe and no emissions (quite cool, actually).

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1315793544?bctid=110931199001

That almost makes for a good story, but it misses and after it misses, it becomes suspect. Obviously Lance is a survivor. He had cancer, fought it and won. Is this spot suggesting auto emissions were the cause of his cancer? Perhaps it's possible. Perhaps it's true. But unless that's absolutely true, I think this is frightening in an unnecessary way.

They either need to make the point that Lance, like any other biker, just gets to enjoy a more comfortable ride behind cars - no smelly stuff, and yes it's good for the planet, or they need another path. This one's a long way around the barn just to leave us all wondering about Lance.

And the spot is supposed to be about an electric car.

If this is intended to go the green route, I think it misses there too.

I'll make a rare call here. This is neither ON or OFF STRATEGY, it's nearly both. Perhaps I'll make the NEAR MISS a new category.

Be liked. Make friends. Sell stuff.

Goodwill is a measure commonly observed in copy test research, yet unless it really tanks, there aren't often many arguments waged over stopping production to strengthen it.

Marketers tend to focus on things like breakthrough and persuassion or awareness and engagement or some other measures that determine whether people will be stopped in their tracks and will then motivated to spend their money on a particular product or service.

The fact is, Goodwill really is a pretty important measure, but in my opinion, has little to do with the ad being viewed and more to do with general perception of the brand. In other words, it's a cumulative effect no matter how much any research vendor tries to convince you otherwise.

At the end of the day, we don't want to spend our hard earned money on stuff being sold by corporations we think are greedy scum bags; we'd rather spend it on companies we think are doing positive things. More and more I think this goodwill measure will start to become important in consumers' purchase decisions. (for a number of reasons, we'll probably touch upon in future posts, but for now, I'll leave it at that)

Here's a great spot from Dawn that seems to be scoring high on copy efficacy testing, but that's not why I'm pointing it out. I'm pointing it out because it's the sort of thing that helps your brand "along the way", as I like to say. It's not an immediate reason to run out and buy Dawn, but with the proper frequency of exposure, people will come to think of Dawn as the brand that does good things; does the right thing with it's product for the benefit of the broader world around it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJUU8L5MPI&feature=player_embedded

Hey, everyone needs dish detergent, so why not support the company doing the right thing...along the way.

ON STRATEGY.

The art of the sequel.

Sequels are hot right now.



Twilight Eclipse is being heralded as the "best yet". Michael Douglas' ex-wife is demanding $ for Wall Street 2, claiming spin-offs (for which her divorce contract stipulates compensation) and sequels are one in the same. And the Old Spice "man your man could smell like" is back in his own right.



The rule of thumb for sequel success goes something like this. If it's worse than the first, it's a failure. If it's as good as the first, it's not quite good enough. And if it's better than the first, it's a huge hit and opens the door for a series.



For me, the latest from Old Spice delivers somewhere in between 'as good as' and 'better than' its predecessor.

'>

The first spot was heroic largely because it was completely fresh for the category. For starters, it leveraged an insight that hadn't been tapped - or at least not approached with the tone & manner seen here - this notion of appealing to women's sense of desire and suggesting their significant other could become more desirable by using Old Spice products. A far fetched premise indeed, but the stuff fantasies are built upon.



The cheesy soap opera thing works here, and in fact, sets the stage perfectly for more.



Really, can you ever appeal too much to a women's sense of desire? Of course not. So, just the very fact that there is a sequel, makes this great. It's a bold move that suggests this wasn't a one-off, but a statement about who we are as a brand. For that alone, I give the Old Spice team a big high five.

So what's next? Women will run out and buy Old Spice for their boyfriends and husbands. But then it becomes a matter of whether or not the guy wants to smell like this guy. That might be Old Spice's next challenge... to convince men the chicks who want them to smell like this guy are worth it. So, yes, the Axe strategy, which is exactly the opposite of this.


For now, the strategy follows the purse strings and that makes this ON STRATEGY part 2.