Remember when we actually had to watch the Super Bowl to see all the creative quirky new ads…like the Budweiser Frogs, the McDonald’s “Showdown” spot between Michael Jordan and Larry Bird, the cowboys herding cats, and going way back in the day — the Mean Joe Green Coke spot with the kid. Great stuff, and the surprises were a lot of fun to watch with a big group of friends. Back then, ads lived primarily on TV and radio. Much has changed. There’s still an insatiable desire among consumers to see how far advertisers will go to push the boundaries each year, but you no longer have to wait until 6 p.m. on Sunday to see what they’ve come up with. At $2.7 million for a 30-second spot, advertisers simply had to find new ways to extend the reach and impact of their ads. Their answer: leverage PR opportunities created by expanded distribution options on the web and mobile media. Super Bowl advertising has morphed into an aggressive PR push that starts long before the game. Advertisers are engaging media with more previews, posting spots on YouTube, leaking concepts and video to bloggers and distributing through cell phones…anything to stretch their ROI. Leveraging the internet isn’t new. Stuart Elliott of The New York Times recently wrote that Budweiser estimates their Super Bowl commercials were viewed online more than 30 million times last year, most in the week following the game. What’s different is the increased use of the web and PR before the game. Five days before kick-off, a Pepsi spot featuring sign language and no sound has already been seen by 250,000 people on YouTube, and it has been picked up on dozens of sites like CBS News and U.S. News and World Report…oh, and of course right here on our blog…Pepsi’s strategy must be working.

I lost it in Abercrombie. You know the store with all the pre-teen and adolescent clones walking around in Abercrombie-wear amidst loud music, low lights, and large, framed b & w photos of beautiful, perfectly diverse, Abercrombie-clad teens?  My experience changed their “brand image” for me forever. Which is why I’m writing about it, as every marketing person knows negative w-o-m travels 9 times farther than positive.

Really long story somewhat shorter, my 11-year old daughter’s $10 Abercrombie gift card was faulty. After 20 minutes of the machine not working, the PIN number not working, whatever line they called by phone not working, and my usually relatively calm demeanor disintegrating by the minute, I was handed back the card with an ”I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do,” by a 19-year old Abercrombie clone.  I demanded to speak to the manager. To my horror, I was. She told me I needed to call Customer Service.

Livid, I left the store sputtering (now to my daughter’s horror), “WE WILL NEVER SHOP HERE AGAIN.”

So I called and was greeted by a “Brand Representative” (HA!), with whom I shared my plight. After trying this and that, he too said the dreaded words, “There’s nothing we can do.” Yes, I demanded to speak to HIS manager, and finally, after being put on hold for many minutes, my Brand Representative friend came back with a special PIN number we could use to redeem the gift card. Halleluiah! It only took an hour of my life.

Obviously, it wasn’t the 10 bucks that was eating me at this point - it was the principle.

How much does Abercrombie spend on advertising and brand identity development, only to have that invaluable brand integrity destroyed by inappropriate customer service? My problem should have been solved at the first experience touch point- the retail outlet.

This is called the brand experience and it’s a critical component of any brand. If we take this to the hospital level, there’s a new concept of a “Chief Experience Officer”, responsible for assuring a consistently positive brand experience throughout the entire organization. While superior clinical firsts and onlys are strong differentiators, if a patient has a bad experience with any touch point (i.e. valet parking, phlebotomist, kitchen service), the entire brand is tainted. Hospitals who are embracing this concept are identifying every interaction with every audience and working to exceed experiential expectations. And are thus creating a superior competitive advantage.

It all boils down to our emotions. We remember things by how they make us feel. No matter how much I dislike it, Abercrombie has succeeded in making my daughter feel cool if she wears their name plastered across her body.  So until she outgrows it, I’m gonna have to swallow my pride and go  back in there so my little clone can enjoy her brand experience.

Cheerios and Pampers are the new horse and carriage–they go together. Not as back-to-back stand-alone 15-second spots…not as the secondary product you get free when you buy the primary…but as an integrated, fully-shared 30-second TV spot.

First you see Dad diapering “mama”-spouting baby for bedtime, futilely encouraging the little ankle biter to say “dada.” Cut to next morning at breakfast table with baby gobbling Cheerios. And gleefully saluting “dada.”

Yep, it’s a cute spot–and it got my attention. But more importantly it’s a spot that advertises two different product categories from different manufacturers. Questions abound: Does the same ad agency represent both products? (Nope.) Was it their idea or the manufacturer’s? How much will this save the advertiser in media expense? But most importantly, what other pairings are we in for –and will they work as well as this one? Spanx and Levis? Hummer and Maybeline? Grey Goose and Pepto Bismol?

What’s your reaction to this combo :30 concept? Is it going on all the time and this is the first time it has penetrated my consciousness? Is it a fluke? Or is it a whiff of things to come?

Designer coffee doesn’t have to costs big bucks.  Well at least that’s the message Starbucks is sending by offering $1 cups of coffee as a “test” in Seattle.  Oh, and don’t forget the free refills.  This may be in response to McDonlald’s baristas.  Or is the highly trendy cappuccino, latte maker losing its designer edge?

According to Starbucks the test “is not indicative of any new business strategy.”  Well,whether they want to admit it or not, Starbucks is certainly feeling the steam from their latest coffee competitor.  They are losing ground and had better find a way to stay in the game otherwise it might spell the end of the road for coffee giant. In my last blog about the coffee wars, I asked for taste testers to try the new McDonald’s offerings and share their thoughts…the offer still stands.  If you’re out there, give us a yell. 

Sometimes the most revealing insight into a candidate comes not from their banter on health care or taxes, but how they handle the more spontaneous moments.

See the Democrats this week. Does anyone remember anything substantive that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama said during the South Carolina debate this week amid the repeated finger wagging and Terminator-like staredowns?

I do like a passionate candidate. But their intensity came across as petty, not productive. They tried too hard to seem real and knowledgeable, and in the process they let the theatrics steal the substance.

Then there’s John Edwards who, in 8 minutes on the Late Show with David Letterman last night, uttered not one word from his stump speech but captured the audience smack in the palm of his hand. He didn’t say anything about his stance on Iraq, education, poverty, etc. He simply seized the moment.

Edwards was likeable, funny, self-depricating and confident — the refreshing option to the Springer-esque feud the night before. He had a sharp answer for everything, yet didn’t come across as canned. He took at shot at President Bush, took a shot at his competitors, took a shot at Bill O’Reilly, and even gave Letterman a few jabs. He also laughed, a lot.

Mind you, the candidates on both sides are all seasoned politicos who know how to posture. They’re smart and polished. They’re also human, with emotions and egos that sometimes get in the way.

A presidential race is about, if nothing else, perception — do I want this guy or gal with their finger on the button for the next four years. Edwards may not even finish second in his party this year, but for one night he gave his challengers a lesson in schmoozing they might want to take to heart down the road.

There’s a science to pricing your product. No question about that. But most people join the race to the bottom, lowering their prices and competing on cost, when many should be considering raising their prices.

Now a new scientific study, “Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Pleasantness,” published in the prestigious (but poorly acronym’d) Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, says something marketers have longed to hear:

“If we believe the wine cost more, we truly believe it tastes better.”

Here’s what the researchers did. They gave 20 volunteers 5 sips of wine each. They told the volunteers the “price” of the wine and then measured the response of the pleasure centers in the brain.

The brain responded more favorably to the “higher priced” wine, even though each sip of the wine was the exact same Cabernet Sauvignon.

There are many anecdotal stories of increased prices correlating with increased perception of the value of the product. But this is the first study I’ve ever seen that shows the brain actually responding more favorable to the perceived luxury. As you can imagine, it’s getting lots of coverage.

This study is the latest (and perhaps most compelling) reason I’ve seen to re-evaluate how you sell, and what perception you trigger in someone’s brain when you’re willing to discount your services.

What do you think?

I saw the Whopper Freakout TV commercial for the first time last night with my teenage sons and it had us all in stitches. Talk about break-through. Imagine Candid Camera at Burger King. It starts with an ultra serious announcer…”We stopped selling the Whopper for one day to see what would happen…”

Innocent customers doing the most normal thing in the world to them - ordering their beloved Whopper - are told by workers (actors), “We’re sorry, but the Whopper has been discontinued.” Total disbelief, disorientation, outrage and sadness are captured via hidden camera as people react to this obviously distressing news.

“WHA…WHA….WHAT???!”

“You can NOT be serious.”

“I want your manager at the window when I get there please.”

“I could cry…”

“It’s a huge mistake. It’s the best burger nationwide.”

People go on and on about the burger, recounting their childhood and years of tradition. Vignettes of folks of all ages and gender literally “freaking out” makes this a strong seller for a diverse target. The announcer concludes with “What happened was people freaked.”

The call to action, whopperfreakout.com, is a mini-site with a 7- minute video showing more in depth emotional reactions. Like Candid Camera, the video includes a happy ending, whereby customers are told the truth by a dressed-up Burger “King” who presents them with a Whopper. Whew!

Way to go Burger King. It’s the best burger spot I can recall since Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef?” ads. Really different, really entertaining and brilliantly effective in communicating the “cherished Whopper” message. Check out one of the spots below or see the entire campaign at whopperfreakout.com. Let us know what you think.

I was listening to NPR on my way home last night. The story started with a statistic that grabbed my attention. Fully 66% of Americans are considered overweight. Humm, interesting. The market for big and tall men’s clothing is a $5billion dollar market. OK, that’s attention getting. The story went on to profile a company that is addressing this market. Trendy fashion designer Colossal Clothing  has partnered with America Apparel to manufacture, in Los Angeles, a stylish, high quality, well priced line of clothing for the big and tall market. Ahhh, a classic recipe for marketing success.

Now it gets interesting. The company is targeting the “Bear” market. A sports team? No, Bears are a subset of the gay community, known for their large waistlines, masculine physiques and “scruffy” appearance. Whoa! Now we’ve got us a marketing story! The estimated 1.4 million Bears in the U.S. have an average household income of $90,000. With gays, in general, known to be interested in men’s fashion and fiercely loyal to brands that understand and appeal to them, I have to conclude that Colossal Clothing is on to something.

This story has so many marketing lessons on so many levels. A thoughtfully designed line of products, made in the USA, smartly and cheerfully targeting an affluent, loyal and influential market. Access the full NPR story at http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/16/colossal_clothing/

Will Colossal Clothing make it big? What do you think?

A sure sign that times have changed is the day we hear, McDonald’s is pushing aside its burger competitors to start a coffee war.  Well, that day has come.  Soon ordering a grande McCarmelmacchiatoupsidedown will be as easy as ordering your morning McGriddle.

 That’s right, McDonald’s hopes to increase sales by $1 billion annually by offering customers a Starbucks-like experience in over 14,000 locations.   The Golden Archs plans to hire trained baristas (fancy word for graduates from coffee school) to up the ante on Starbucks.

 Innovative idea? Or another poor marketing decision by McDonald’s…Mickey D’s…McPizza…McFlurry, or whatever it calls itself these days? 

You be the judge.  If you live in one of the test markets, comment and let me know what you think of the new McLate. 

We bought a great new building here in Cary, NC (between Raleigh and Durham) back in June of 2007. Apparently the prior owners felt no need to tell people where they were, so there was no signage.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a sign installed in Cary? (It ain’t easy, from finding a sign maker to even give you an estimate to getting the concrete base made…) But for all of you who have driven around for 15 minutes before finding our new digs, so sorry. This should help all future visitors, eh?

Still looking for us? You can find us right here on Google Maps, too.

I had an epiphany the other day while watching TV. I came to conclude that there must be only one guy who is paying too much for his car insurance. Because consider this:

• o State Farm can save you up to 40% on your car insurance.
• o Geico can save you up to 40% on your car insurance.
• o AARP members save hundreds on car insurance.
• o Progressive can save you money on your car insurance.
• o Allstate can save you money on your car insurance.

Seeing a theme here? When everyone says they can save you money on car insurance, can anyone really?

State Farms newest ads have left the “good neighbor” theme and are going on price (with some service undertones).

I recognize that auto insurance is a competitive marketplace, and I recognize that it’s price sensitive. Nevertheless it is dangerous to position your brand as cheaper than the next guy, regardless of what industry you’re in.

Here’s why:

1. Positioning on price creates a race to the bottom. Your margins will be increasingly sacrificed in the name of revenue.
2. Innovation (which is fueled by profit) suffers.
3. Branding on price encourages the customer to think of your product as the same as everyone elses. In essence, you commoditize your product.
4. Like any brand positioning, only one company can really own “price.”

In auto insurance, I would argue that price is owned by either Geico (who started as discount insurance for government employees with really good driving records) or Progressive (who invented the online comparison shopping model, which was brilliant).

But now Allstate (which owns the word security, as in “you’re in good hands with…”) and State Farm (which owns the phrase personal service, as in “good neighbor”) are now joining this race to the bottom. The ads (with the exception of Geico’s) all run together and the distinctions are blurred.

Whatever you sell, do everything you can to avoid positioning on price. It’s not a stable place to plant your flag…

I was shocked by the research report released this week rating the U.S. DEAD LAST (pun intended) among NINETEEN industrialized nations for “preventable deaths”! PDs are those that could have been prevented by access to timely, effective health care. Heart disease, stroke, cancers, diabetes, bacterial infections, and complications from surgery were the key culprits.

Apparently, you have a much better chance of staying alive if you are French, Japanese or Australian. France rates best with 64 PDs per 100,000 people. Japan is 2nd with 71.2 and Australia is a close 3rd at 71.3. The U.S. trailed at 109.7 PDs.  If we did as well as the Top 3, we’d save 101,000 Americans per year.

As I read on, I realized this data is really not all that startling. It’s all about access — and the 47 million people who lack health insurance. So the message here is not that we have bad healthcare. Just that it’s really bad that so many people don’t have it.

To make matters worse, other countries are improving faster than us. Their numbers have improved over the last ranking, while the U.S. is falling even farther behind.

Makes me think Massachusetts may not have such a bad idea with their mandated health insurance. In MA, health insurance is kinda like car insurance.  You have to have it. You’re penalized if you don’t. Maximum penalty was $219 in 07 and may quadruple to $912 in 08. It seems to be making a difference as 290,000 residents have signed up since the law went into effect 6 months ago. In coming years, it would be interesting to see how MA compares with the rest of the U.S., the other 18 countries, and its past in the PD ranking.