Folgers goes online to refresh 25 year old jingle

Interesting campaign from Folgers to celebrate their iconic jingle’s 25th birthday which seeks to build a connection through consumer generated content. I give them kudos for continuing to reinvent the jingle and keeping it relevant – there is certainly a lot of equity there since they emblazoned it into most Americans’ minds through one of the more epic (and expensive) TV awareness campaigns of all-time in the 80s and 90s. probably hard to find many people over the age of 25 who don’t remember it.

When you watch the videos however, you kind of wonder if it really is engaging with their “consumers” since all the entrants seem to be not much older than 25 themselves, and, given the production values, could easily be mistaken for aspiring actors, musicians, or filmmakers. When I think of a Folgers consumer I think of somebody who is probably over the age of 40, at least…and probably closer to my parents generation (baby boomer) – though, admittedly, I don’t have any data on their core consumer.

I know these are the semi-finalists, which have been filtered by the judging panel, and I know that the digital medium probably self-selects a younger age group to some extent but it just feels a bit too American Idol and not enough friendly, approachable comforting coffee. It would be nice to see a Susan Boyle type character in the mix, that’s all.

Trend in Umbrella Brand Communication

I got to thinking today, while reading an article about Diamond Foods recent strategy of promoting three of their brands with a single campaign, that there seem to be more than a few companies using a similar or related strategy during this recent economic downturn. It must be an appealing strategy for a number of CMOs and marketing executives as a way to stretch marketing dollars and increase exposure of multiple brands without a corresponding increase in spend. It seems an especially likely scenario for Diamond who went as far as splitting a 30 second Superbowl spot into two distinct commercials for Pop Secret and Emerald Nuts. But they aren’t the only ones taking that strategy. P&G also launched their new “Proud Sponsor of Moms” campaign during the Olympics in which they tout the P&G corporate brand with a last second nod to their major women-focused brands (Olay, Tide, Bounty, Pampers, etc.)

Now, I haven’t been in the marketing field long enough to recall if similar strategies were used in the last recession but, in the case of P&G, this seems a bit of a departure. While most people are probably familiar with P&G as a company, I would bet that the vast majority of Americans couldn’t name more than one brand under their umbrella. From a brand strategy perspective, this approach would raise significant concerns for me were I a stockholder in either company.

Unbranding, the Starbucks’ way

As brand marketers and strategists we are often so focused on creating, building and strengthening brands that we can be blind to the fact that there is often value in unbranding – diminishing or somehow concealing the overt nature of the brand. Never is this more important than in our current brand saturated culture where we are beginning to see backlash to ubiquitous and behemoth brands, especially chains like Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks in favor of local, more ‘home-grown’ alternatives – or at least ones that cultivate a local feel, whether they are genuine or not. I was reminded of this fact recently by an article in Entrepreneur magazine about Starbucks’ foray into a new model for coffee shops that seeks to provide just that – a more community feel without the brand trappings of a formulaic Starbucks. I’ve used the term unbranding (not mine by the way) to describe this trend but it isn’t a lack of branding at all, just branding in a different way; a way that doesn’t involve being smacked over the head with logos, color schemes and the “cookie-cutter” menus. Basically, Starbucks is testing its concept by setting up three beta stores in its home market of Seattle. According to the article,

…coffee is made cup by cup from a small-batch-roasted beans…the pastries come from the local Essential Baking Co. One wall is papered over with pages from Plato’s dialogues, and the chairs were salvaged and refurbished from other cafes. The communal table is made from weathered ship timbers and…every morning there’s a “cupping,” a tasting of some of its more exotic brews.

In other words, there is a concerted effort by Starbucks to distance these cafes from their chain store brethren that faithfully respect the sacred franchise mantras of familiarity and consistency of product. The menus are unique and you won’t find recognizable drinks like Frappuccinos in funny sounding sizes like tall, grande, or venti. What little mention there is of any connection to the Starbucks brand is understated and indirect. Apparently there is only a modest stencil on the window stating, “inspired by Starbucks“.

Visa Black Card

I got one of those pre-approved credit card offers in the mail last week – or rather my wife did. Normally they go straight to the trash but this one caught my eye because it was for something called the Visa Black Card. Now, living in New York and LA over the past decade, I’ve been exposed to the American Express Black Card a few times over the years and this immediately struck me for the simple fact that it was so me-too in nature. Admittedly, I know very little about the Black Card but I am aware of the cache that it carries as well as its exclusivity, given that I can count on one hand the number that I have seen it. I have no idea if it has been a commercial success for Amex but I’m aware that it carries strong brand equity for those in the know. It tends to conjure up images of jet setting business moguls or Hollywood stars.

After seeing the Visa mailer, I did a little digging to learn more. It turns out that the American Express card often referred to as the “black card” is, in fact, called the Centurion card…which may explain why Visa chose the Black Card name. I also learned that the new Visa card is not nearly as exclusive (or expensive) as the Amex card. According to Wikipedia,  the Amex Centurion card is by invitation only and the requirements are thought to include exceptional credit history, and holding a platinum card for at least one year with a minimum of $250k in spend. All of that and a discreet annual fee of, wait for it…$2500 – after the one-time $5000 initiation fee. Clearly not intended for people like me or my wife. The Visa black card, on the other hand, states that it is limited to 1% of US residents but only carries a paltry annual fee of $495. Nothing to smirk at, certainly, but hardly the gag inducing $7500 chez American Express. In case you were wondering, 1% of US residents is roughly 3 million people. According to this blog dedicated to the Centurion card, about 17,000 people currently hold Amex Centurion cards. Even if many more than that get invited, I doubt the number approaches anything close to 3 million. As it turns out the Visa Black Card is much closer to the Amex Platinum card both in terms of requirements and benefits – the notable difference being that both the Amex Platinum and Amex Centurion are charge cards (balance must be paid each month) while the Visa is a credit card.

Social Media hyberbole?

Came across two great posts yesterday that really resonated with me. They both covered ideas that I’ve been struggling with of late. The first was a post from Tuesday on Brains on Fire entitled Why You Don’t Need Social Media Consultants. I thought this summed it up nicely:

Because you have all the basic tools you need: Your humanity. Your ability to communicate with people around you. And your intuition. Because when you think about it, using social media is just a natural extension of yourself. Asking questions. Listening. Responding. And remember, social media apps are tactics. And tactics are tools. Sure, you might need some guidance on how to use that bandsaw, but you picked up a hammer and pretty much got the gist after you hit your thumb a few times.

Some of the comments were equally thoughtful. I especially liked one from Amber Naslund:

My issue with the SM consultant sphere is the focus on tactics. And even the ones that rage against focusing on tools can be seen framing out a Twitter strategy instead of focusing on a *business* strategy that happens to employ some social media tools.

You see, I’ve been struggling lately with what seems like the disproportionate amount of buzz and chatter paid to social media that seems to pervade the marketing/branding blogosphere. To listen to it, you would think that social media drove marketing budgets at every Fortune 500 company and that it was the primary vehicle for brand communication….

Simple brilliance in OOH marketing

On my daily commute to work, I walk from Grand Central here in NYC to my office 5 blocks away. Most of the time I walk above ground but when the weather is bad I take a tunnel that runs from the station to within a block of my building. I don’t even think most people know about the tunnel except those that commute in on metro north. Recently, I was making this walk and after a minute or two (the entire walk probably takes 5-7 minutes total) it occurred to me that I was walking by ad after ad for the same product. In this case it was the liqueur brand Grand Marnier. As there was nothing else in this tunnel to look at, I began looking at each ad noting that they were different. Some had images of the packaging, others had images of cartoony people, and some even had recipies for cocktails incorporating Grand Marnier – they all had pictures of the Eiffel Tower. My stream of conciousness thoughts went something like this (and, no, I don’t use capital letters when I think):

hmmm…grand marnier. haven’t had that in awhile. that’s the orange liqueur, right? all the ads have drawings of the eiffel tower. makes sense i guess since it is a french brand. i like the imagery. seems sophisticated. colors are nice too. maybe i should try one of these cocktails. how am i going to remember the recipe though. it’s probably on their website. i’m sure i’ll forget to check. who am i kidding, i don’t drink alcohol at home much anyway. maybe i’ll order one in a restaurant next time. what time is it? shoot, i’m late for work again. wish I didn’t have to go to work. wish I could be like the cartoons in the ad – enjoying a grand marnier cocktail in paris. aaahhh, paris. i need a vacation.

…and so on. 

Rebranding Saturn as a foreign car company?

Buried in the back pages of the Oct 5 Advertising Age was an editorial about Saturn and the missed opportunity at creating an auto-maker that fully outsourced production. An interesting idea, undoubtedly, but I couldn’t help but wonder what David Aaker would have to say. I’ve been reading his tome on branding, Building Strong Brands, and he gives significant lip service to the brand devoting more than one chapter to the Saturn story and uses as a recurring case study throughout the book.

The author of the editorial conjectures that, instead of dissolving Saturn, GM could have taken the brand into uncharted territory and used it as an experiment to test the idea of a car brand that outsources its own production – unique for the automotive market but commonplace in electronics, apparel, and countless other categories. He/She argues that by narrowly focusing strategy on the designing and selling of automobiles while exploiting the growing competitiveness of manufacturing (India, China, and even other American or Japanese car makers), Saturn could simultaneously shake up the industry and reap big rewards. I have to admit that I love the innovative thinking and given the travails of the American automobile sector, they certainly couldn’t be worse off for trying. Yet, in thinking deeper about the prospect, I couldn’t help but channel Mr. Aaker. In his book, Mr. Aaker argues (correctly I believe) that Saturn’s early success was the result of GM’s ability to break the mold and create from scratch a strong brand equity. Aaker’s brand equity model involves 5 key assets – if you need a refresher, you can read my review of his book here. Saturn succeeded in his opinion because they delivered on all 5. He cites several specific critical factors many of which involve the relationship with dealers and their interaction with customers. There is one however which was both extremely important to Saturn’s success and which would be most impacted by a model that involved outsourcing manufacturing as the editorial proposes:

CREATING PERCEPTIONS BY SELLING THE COMPANY NOT THE CAR

Saturn did this in a way no other car maker had and it worked really, really well. They realized that being successful meant more than just building a high-quality product since that quality is only as good as consumers perceive it to be. They had already won awards on quality and received strong marks from JD Power and other car rating publications. But it was all for naught if consumers didn’t perceive the quality themselves. And that was where they showed their mettle. Instead of touting the quality of the end product in a me-too fashion, Saturn touted the quality of the company. The brand slogan summed it the strategy:

A different kind of company.
A different kind of car.

Television ads showcased employees and the pride they took in building each car. It was about a culture, fueled by honest people in a small Tennessee town that was as American as apple pie and that most US consumers could relate to. It was genious because it gave consumers something tangible. It was a powerful RTB. When dealers and print advertisements talked about the superior quality, the safety features, the performance, consumers said, “That makes sense. The cars are made by hard working individuals just like ones I know in my town.”

Value branding in a bad economy

I’ve got a lot of pet peeves when it comes to branding, but there are two which have been bugging me most of late. The first is related to the concept of convergence and divergence – both principal topics of the latest book I’m reading, The Origin of Brands. I will write about that in a later post. The other is a reaction to a predictable, yet nonetheless destructive, phenomenon that I see occurring with increased frequency is this economy: marketing value.

It seems that many brand managers have suddenly decided to pitch their brand as a ‘value’ brand. Clearly it is one thing to promote your brand with value incentives such as rebates, coupons, freebies, etc. The purpose of those tools is to drive trial and sales, and given tighter consumer wallets, many of them make a lot of sense in this economy. It is another thing entirely to position your brand around price. Golden rule from Marketing 101: Price is not a sustainable point of differentiation. Furthermore, value is not a point of differentiation. Value can be a feature or benefit of your brand but not its positioning – Wal-Mart and Target both offer value but neither one uses it as their point of differentiation. What I see happening far too often is that, in difficult economic times, brands begin hanging their hat on price or value. They may even see upticks in sales because of it. It is empty brand equity however and as soon as the economic tide turns, it will erode faster than the Malibu hillside in a hurricane.