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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a new spot for Starburst courtesy of TBWA/Chiat. I assume this sort of thing would be mildly amusing to the generically defined "male age 12-24", but that's about where it ends.
Check out the spot, then continue reading.
Personal reaction aside, I have no issue with the tone or manner. Afterall, it's an ad for candy - it probably should be silly. The execution even does a good job connecting to (what appears) the strategy, in a way its target audience will understand without having to think too hard.
The problem here is the strategy, itself. The tagline, "A juicy contradiction" is clearly pushing off some insight. The question is where this insight came from and I'd venture to guess it was in the client brief.
Imagine yourself sitting behind a two way mirror in the back room of a focus group in....oh, let's say Irvine or Atlanta or Chicago or Minneapolis or anywhere else for that matter. In the room, gathered around a table, sit 9 high school kids. They're clad in some combination of hoodies, denim skirts and baseball caps. It's a mix of boys and girls, with more boys than girls. After persistent requests from the moderator, their iPods have been tucked in bags or back pockets. Some are chewing gum. Some are checking out the opposite sex across the table. It's taking everything they've got to resist texting / checking email / playing with their app's, etc.
Cut to the moderator: "OK, so today we're going to talk about Starburst. Real quick, first reaction, tell me, what comes to your mind when you grab a Starburst, unwrap it and pop it in your mouth? Jack, let's start with you.."
Cut to Jack. Blond hair, freckles, DC t-, distressed jeans, black one stars. "A juicy contradiction. You know, contradiction - like a statement in spite of itself."
Right.
That never happened. Clearly, this is a marketer's insight. A brand push strategy. It's a smart brand manager - let's call him Jeff. Jeff is charged with growing share for Starburst. He knows his competition. He has $x for marketing investment. He's crunched his numbers and submitted his forecasts. In order to make bonus, get promoted and get any more funding for his brand he has to make goal. He is determined to make Starburst the most top of mind candy. He knows he needs to make Starburst stand for something different than anything else out there, so when Jack walks down the candy isle and gives 1/8 of a second thought to which candy he wants to pull of the shelf, he knows he wants Starburst and he knows why.
So Jeff sits and thinks and thinks some more. It's dense. It's chewy. It looks like rubber. It only dissolves with saliva. It's artificially sweetened to taste like fruit. It's bright colored. It's ingredients have nothing to do with fruit, but when it mixes with saliva it almost tastes like fruit juice. And while it's thrashing around in your mouth, getting stuck to your teeth, slowly making it's way into your digestive system, "juicy" might be a good description. But juicy isn't enough. Skittles are juicy. Tic tacs are juicy. And juicy sounds the opposite of dense or chewy. Alas, there it is - the contradiction! "A juicy contradiction".
Jack would probably say something like "it's like gum, but I can swallow it, so I chew it while it has flavor, then I don't have to bother with it any more" But that's much less interesting. Unless, of course, you find others in the room feel the same. And perhaps there's something to this gum you can swallow thing - like a final bit of satisfaction.
Enough hypothesizing, the point is this: if the insight comes from marketers instead of consumers, it's unlikely to resonate with the very people for which it was intended in the first place. The best insights are the dumb obvious ones - obvious to the people who use the products and can't live without them. Almost on the tip of their tounge when they start talking about it, especially in a room full of other people who also love the products.
As marketers, you are inclined to overthink it. Stop thinking about it at all. Head to Irvine, fill a room with the people who buy your products, shut up and listen.
In the meantime, I'm calling this STRATEGY OFF STRATEGY. No contradiction there.
Some quick thoughts about "social media" and the perils brands face when they assume social media is just another advertising push opportunity.
A valuable lesson comes to us this week from Jet Blue. And that lesson is, most marketers are doing it all wrong.
Jet Blue is a great brand, that really built itself from the ground up. In fairness, I'd book a Jet Blue flight over any other airline, any time the opportunity presents itself.
But, Houston, we have a problem. His name is Steve Slater. Acting as any other human being, pushed slightly over the edge, may be inclined, Steve faced his breaking point this week when a mouthy passenger used some nasty language and directed his anger at Steve. Taking matters into his own hands, Steve picked up the intercom and gave the passenger a perhaps well-deserved f-off serenade, grabbed a couple lukewarm cans of Bud, pulled the emergency slide and made a swift exit, eventually cuffed and thrown in lock up, but all the while smiling.
While there seems to be an outpouring of support and admiration for good ol' Steve in his hometown of Queens, NY, I've yet to see Jet Blue say anything other than this:
We're working with FAA & PANYNJ to investigate. At no time was security or safety of our customers or crewmembers at risk.
Repeatedly. On its twitter feed.
Here's the issue I have. First, I get the rationale. Jumping too quick to conclusion might cause the brand more harm than good. But there's a big "but." Social media is consumer media. It's not another advertising avenue. Is it an opportunity to evolve a brand's positioning and do all sorts of other positive things, sure, but only when done right.
When marketers decided they wanted to get in the social media game, they made a risky decision. They didn't realize they would be left no choice but to play by the ground rules consumers establish - and that means visceral reactions, prompt responses, dialogue that isn't approved by management. More than just posting ads, announcing offers and rattling off corporate jargon.
It's called social, not free.
It all boils down to one thing - TRUST. Trust in the brand - the people sitting at HQ, the customers, the management - the holistic "brand". Not the one person designated to update sites with pre-approved, triple screened, iron clad, buttoned up, messages. If brands aren't willing to play by these rules, they ought to sit on the sidelines and get their house in order before they jump in.
That it's been more than 24 hours since Steve flew off the handle and Jet Blue has made no comment about it other than the above, to me, feels like a huge miss.
From a brand strategy perspective, I'm calling this OFF STRATEGY for Jet Blue.
A few new commercials out from Citibank intend to do nothing more than announce the bank's sponsorship of the NY Mets.
These are a charming handful of spots. Cute. Funny. Sure to get a smile from Mets fans or people who know Mets fans, and maybe even people who hate the Mets and love the Yankees. There's nothing unlikeable about them. Check out two below.
What's smart here is actually pretty simple. It's that Citi keeps the focus on the Mets (and of course, recognition of the sponsorship.)
Sounds like a no brainer, but there's a huge opportunity to eff these things up. For instance, Citibank - the bank that gives you free checking, online bill pay, more ATMs per corner AND proudly sponsors the Mets. That would eff 'em up for sure.
Bottom line -- consumers are more likely to have a good feeling about Citibank after seeing these than they would after seeing some eff'd up version where Citibank touts everything under the sun and then eeks out an insincere sponsorship nod.
Everyone knows Citibank has the regular bank stuff. They spend plenty of money and devote plenty of other advertising to make sure people know alllll about the regular bank stuff. But, truth be told, people don't really like to like banks. So, kudos for Citibank for getting that and revealing a little humanity here.
There's been quite a bit of debate recently concerning the Old Spice campaign. People - and by "people" I mostly mean envious industry folk who wish they were part of something nearly as cool - are questioning whether or not the OS ads and all the social, viral groundswell and earned media have actually moved the business.
So let's put an end to all the wondering right now, shall we? Weiden just released this nearly 5 minute video that seeks to extinguish any lingering doubt. Check that out here, then read on.
This, in my opinion, is (and by "is", I mean "should become") the modern day equivalent of an agency reel.
Agency reels have historically been exactly that. A few minutes of what the agency believes to be its best TV spots, digital work, print ads, or whatever else, all wrapped up in a company positioning. The content of an agency reel is largely determined based on awards won, attention received, brand reputation, etc; it is less often concerned with advertising that moves product.
This W&K bit, on the other hand, is a case study of sorts that manages to keep the creative sizzle in tact, while giving itself credit for sales growth. It doesn't get too overwhelming with facts, but doesn't glaze over them either. It is in equal parts a testament to the agency's creative aptitude as much as a statement about the agency's responsibility for driving business.
By the way, I'm not suggesting W&K intends for this to be its "agency reel". What I am suggesting is that perhaps it - or some series of things like it - should be. To most prospective clients, something like this will have 10x the impact of the traditional agency reel.
Marketing people will eat up. It is the ultimate win-win.
Creative that's cool enough to get people engaged, talking and copying AND buying the product. Are there more cases out there just like this one, but simply not enough agencies looking beyond their own four walls to package the success stories? That's rhetorical.
Frankly I think case studies like this are indeed few and far between, primarily because most clients don't trust their agencies to make smart, "nontraditional" creative decisions that won't run them out of business. Clients have not bought into the idea of agencies moving their business. The majority think of agencies that do one thing - make advertising. This is a learned behavior that will take some un-learning.
So I hope this brings some closure to the did the campaign work or didn't it question. It's sure to bring some more business to W+K's doors.
I'm calling this one ON STRATEGY....for W&K. A fine piece of self promotion.
Every agency talks about how 360 they are. Integrated. Holistic. Surrounding the consumer at every touch point. Brand experience. Idea immersion. I'm getting bored just typing about it.
Very few actually do it well. Better said, very few clients allow agencies the latitude to do it well. Plenty of great ideas die on the table early in the process. Once the client-agency relationship really gets solidified, great ideas become good ideas, then OK ideas, and eventually we stop offering any ideas beyond the client "ask" because getting shot down and shrugged off gets old.
Somehow, Crispin pulls it through more often than most. It's not magic. Part of it is simply the fact that Crispin attracts the more fearless among the otherwise rational, pragmatic, fearful crop of clients. Those looking to push the envelope and take risk, even if it means a heated debate with their boss or standing up for the fact that there's no quantifiable ROI, it's just a great idea.
So naturally, that's what they create and that's what their clients buy. I'm sure a lot of great ideas still die on the table, but some interesting ones manage to survive.
Like this one for Old Navy, which includes TV and assorted "traditional" ad elements, along with an online 'booty reader', which encourages women to upload pictures of their booty and get denim style advice from a talking fortune teller.
How many women will actually do it? Probably not a ton, but the more important point is that everyone who goes to Old Navy's website will see this and will instantly get the message -- Old Navy's got jeans for every body (or, every booty, as the case is here). It's telegraphic.
Who doesn't have a difficult time finding jeans that fit just right? And what jeans company doesn't try to convince us they have the perfect pair? Right, so this is a pretty common proposition.
But the twist here is that Old Navy makes it possible to get educated before spending hours at the store, picking every fit off the table, wrestling with the fitting room and so on. All from the comfort of your couch and computer. Enter the store armed with a little more info than you would have otherwise. Save some time. Leave satisfied.
This is just a quick, interactive way to make the point and have a little fun with it. I don't think there's anything incredibly brilliant about the idea, frankly, but it's brilliant to see an agency still willing to go there and a client still willing to buy it.
Shocking as it may be, 90% of clients out there would be too gun shy to approve something that encourages rear end uploads onto their website. They just would.
On Friday, I reacted to a new spot for DirectTV. That one was from Grey. Its message was "sign up for DirectTV. why? because we'll give you 5 months FREE."
Hardly insight-driven.
Today, a couple new DirectTV spots from Deutsch - these focus specifically on Sunday Ticket. They are chock full of insight and funny.
One could argue Deutsch had the easier assignment of the two, since it was focused on selling the football package, which is just a rich, meaty ball of wax, out of which brilliant things can be sculpted, laughs come easy and all is right with the world.
That would be a cynical assessment.
I say Deutsch just got it right because they put on their consumer hats.
(by the way, does one sign up for DirectTV so they can have access to the Sunday Ticket package? Or, does one decide whether to order the Sunday Ticket package once he or she has already signed up for DirectTV? I think that's debatable - and thus, this Sunday Ticket stuff might have the power to sell DirectTV, once they get out of the business of giving it away for free, that is.)
Anyhow, the easy solve for Sunday Ticket would have been some crazy, impressive montage of great football plays. Game winning touch downs, comebacks, memorable rookie action, hail marys and so on. But that would have been a miss. Kudos to Deutsch for avoiding that path.
For me, what they decided to do instead works better - it leverages this insight about being away from your team's turf, where the local networks don't carry the games, but having the comfort of watching from home nevertheless.
Plus the insights from each of the fan cities are funny and accurate, even if a bit cliche.
