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.