This brand is not for you

I've seen this Planet Fitness spot quite a bit the past few weeks. Ah, right, that's because it's everyone's favorite time of year to get in shape.

The credit cards have been maxed out, the gifts opened, the leftovers discarded, the tree down, and now, it's time to add another membership card to the wallet.

For those who haven't seen the Planet Fitness spot 100 times as I have, here it is:



Sufficiently amusing and fairly well cast in all its exhagerated splendor, but it got me thinking. About strategy, of course. What else?

The approach here is to depict the type of people Planet Fitness isn't for, rather than the kind of people Planet Fitness is for. It seems a natural sequitur here and perhaps because it's so over the top with illustration, it nearly gets away with it.

But is it a sound strategy? Is positioning your brand around who and what it isn't a smart way to communicate with whom and about what it is?

The spot ends and I have a very clear picture in my head of who I won't find as Planet Fitness. Eh hem, who I allegedly won't find at Planet Fitness. But what I don't have is a very good idea of who I will find.

The brief for this spot likely split gym-goers into two, fairly generic, groups; meatheads and everyone else. I'm a pretty dedicated gym goer and I've been a member of several of the larger gym chains. I can say with confidence there are many more types of gym-goers. (PS - every gym claims to be anti-meathead. My last gym had a "no grunting" policy. Trust me when I say, there were plenty of grunts and plenty of grunters. This sort of thing almost has the opposite impact.)

In any case, all these gyms running around claiming to be "the gym for everyone but meatheads" don't quite have a unique selling proposition. The anti-protein chugging, creatine inflated, swollen head grunting thing seems to be taken. And again. And again. And again.

So, while the spot is funny enough, I'm not sure the strategy does much to differentiate it from the rest of the six pack. (get it, six pack? just kidding)

Through no fault of creative execution, this spot comes up a bit OFF STRATEGY.

What can a logo do for your strategy?

New year. New strategy. New logo.

Or, in Starbucks' case, it would appear new logo comes before execution of new strategy.

That's the area I'd like to focus on today. But first, happy new year.

For all of you who follow, you know I'm as big a Starbucks devotee as any. I commend them on most decisions, (save for the Via positioning, but despite my criticism, it seems to have become a quick success story, most likely due to over-sampling and because it's just a damn good product.)

As for the new logo, my reaction is mixed. On the one hand, I believe changing logos is one of the quickest routes to brand suicide. As a human being (not a marketer, not a brand strategist), it signals weakness. It says "we're not feeling sure about who we are so we're trying out this new look." It's like the shy kid at school who wears a totally different kind of outfit on his first day of a new year, hoping others will see him as a changed person. A cooler version of last year's nerdy kid.

From a brand strategy perspective, I think Starbucks is wise to shift its focus beyond coffee. But, the cardinal rule still applies - never take your eye off that core equity. The equity upon which you built your kingdom. In Starbucks case, that core equity, simply put, is bold, over-caffeinated coffee.

But since Starbucks is as much about experience as it is java, food is a natural part of that evolution. And not just token food, but food every bit as good and every bit as unique as its coffee. Despite some recent attempts, I'm not sure they've nailed this yet. I'm encouraged to learn a new wave is afoot.

I wonder if the new logo may have been better saved for a bit further down the road? Once some of this magic extension they've foreshadowed has been unveiled to the public? By "wonder", I mean that's what I believe would have been the better move.

They say timing is everything and in this case, I think timing may be premature. For that reason, I'm cautiously calling this one OFF STRATEGY.
(but I wish them tons of luck with it.)

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.