Another Great Ad: Boeri
These are old ones, but great ones. Simple, yet strong. As I have stated earlier, ads that rely on the intelligence of the consumer make us all feel like we’re smarter for discovering something – even if it’s really easy. When Dora asks us for the third time where the massive green rock right next to her is, we kind of want to point at it and are somewhat happy for our glorious achievement.
Am I right?
It was your idea?
Windows 7 was your idea?
I’m not a Apple snob or a hardcore Microsoft user. Each day I use both. I do, however, have an opinion about the new Microsoft campaign where the actor mentions that “Windows 7 was my idea”.
Here’s the rub….
Even though I understand that this is only a commercial, I don’t want the regular Joe and regular Jane thinking up what features to place in Windows. Sure, I appreciate that Microsoft wants user feedback, but as a user I want features I could never have thought of. For example, if all we did was ask regular people what they thought should be enhanced on the Sony Walkman cassette player (the iPod of its time) we would just have a better cassette player. Could the every day regular John/Jane really conceived of a small white box that holds all of your songs that you access by running your fingertip around a small wheel on the front of the player? It’s only one example, but I think you get the point.
Instead of seeing a commercial were some guy or girl tells me that Windows 7 was their idea, it would be much more convincing to me to see some (excuse me for the stereotype) skinny guy in a dark room surrounded by energy drinks, wearing glasses held together by tape and sporting a star trek shirt and using a pocket protector to hold his pens, who looked like they haven’t seen the sun or stopped developing and designing for four days straight in order to create some futuristic feature that I could never have thought of even on my best day.
I want someone much smarter than myself or the average guy on my block designing the software I use. That’s where I see this campaign fall short.
Chew ‘em if you got ‘em!
On a recent hot sunny day in Southern California I heard the siren song of an ice-cream truck. My little grom and I ran to chase the van/truck/delivery vehicle and grab some ice cream. The big sweaty man in the drivers seat did not disappoint. You know how when you were a little kid you gazed upon the guy who seemed to have the coolest job in the world and how as you got older that job has slowly turned into what seems liked a dreadful existence for that employee? Hey…Ice Cream Man!! I wonder if the Ice Cream Man knows the man who dressed up as the overweight Spiderman at the community event. I digress.
Back to my thought(s)…
Staring at the dizzying array of crazy colors and shapes available for sale by the sweaty obese ice cream man, something caught my eye….candy cigarettes.
A company still makes these?!? Does the government know this?!? Sure, I chain smoked candy cigarettes as a kid, but then again, my dad drove around with no seatbelts smoking a grit in one hand, vodka soda in the other, and me on his lap pretending to steer the car. Times have changed, or so I thought. To use the overdone “period” thing that marketers are using these days: Holy.Crap.Candy.Cigarettes. In one sense, it’s great. It makes me nostalgic for the old days when a kids access to naked ladies was National Geographic or your friends dads playboy collection stuffed behind his Stroh’s Beer car in the garage (too specific?).
Speaking of old the days, during my deep investigative journalism for this story I read that R.J. Reynolds put out Twista Lime, Kauai Kolada and Warm Winter Toffee as part of its Camel Exotic Blends. Tasty.
How does this relate to marketing and this blog you ask? I have a strange feeling that if we dug deep into genealogy of the maker of these cigarettes, World Candies, we would find that the business, through several holding companies, DBA’s, partnerships, license agreements, etc. is owned by one of the big tobacco companies – much like GE and the Sheinhardt Wig Company as portrayed on 30 Rock.
Just check out what’s new from Camel – the Orb. They come in mint and caramel flavors and look like the candies that come out of a PEZ-type dispenser. … Rather than the traditional smokeless tin that leaves a noticeable ‘ring’ in one’s back pocket, these products look like cell phones in a student’s pocket. Brand extension to a new younger demo!
This opens up a whole new channel for other not-really-appropriately-kid-friendly but made to look kid friendly products! What are you waiting for Jack Daniels – the kids want drinky!
Another Great Ad: Nike
This is an old one, but a great one. Simple, yet strong. Ads that rely on the intelligence of the consumer make us all feel like we’re smarter for discovering something – even if it’s really easy. When Blue from Blue Clue’s asks us where the big red chair is, we all want to say the answer out loud. Am I right?
It's hard to run fast wearing turtles.
Do consumers care when your apparel brand started?
Do consumers really care when your apparel brand started?
Technology adoption rates are rapidly increasing. I recently dusted off The Tipping Point; time to dust off Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm (one business book-of-the-minute I can’t dust off because I threw it away as fast as I finished it Who Moved My Cheese…nonsense).
As Wikipedia states:
Crossing the Chasm is closely related to the Technology Adoption Lifecycle where five main segments are recognized; innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. According to Moore, the marketer should focus on one group of customers at a time, using each group as a base for marketing to the next group. The most difficult step is making the transition between visionaries (early adopters) and pragmatists (early majority). This is the chasm that he refers to. It can be argued, but the basic idea of the book is still relevant.
Technology Adoption Lifecycle
Technology adoption rates:
- 38 years for radio to attract 50 million listeners.
- 13 years for television to attract 50 million viewers.
- The iPod hit the market in 2001.
- Harvard students were using Facebook in 2004.
- Twitter was created in 2006.
Ok, so these examples refer to technology adoption. What about brand adoption as it relates to apparel? I mention technology because we all know that recent advances in social marketing and technology provide the platforms for your brand’s name to spread as rapidly as Jessica Simpson’s waistline before Tony Romo clipped her.
Are consumers more likely to buy your brand because you have been around the longest? Maybe at one time people were nostalgic for how long ago your brand started. I don’t think they care anymore – especially teens. It might even make you look old? Just ask Levi’s and Ford. Are its sales to teens helped by the fact that they were first or the one of the oldest? I don’t think so.
Teens are into what is now, what is current, what has strong design at a good price. Save your breath and copy space to tell the current brand story and don’t waste your time telling consumers when your brand started…when it started only matters to you.
But wait…I stand corrected.
Is my sunblock rubbed in?
Hollister makes a point to mention that it started in 1922 (not in 2000 as it actually did, but it sure is convincing) and was ranked as the second most preferred teen clothing brand in 2008 by US Bancorp Piper Jaffray. So unless you can beat 1922, you’re out of luck. Time to move on and stop mentioning that your brand was born when people listened to records while holding phones with cords and drinking Tang as an energy drink.
The Airwalk Syndrome…returning?
GEN X
In the early 90’s Generation X was anti-establishment, anti-parent, anti-authority, and anti-pop-rock. If the brand you liked seeped into the wardrobe of your parents it was instant death to the brand. The same phenomenon was somewhat true for bands. You wanted to be the only one with the recording of the hottest band. The parents of the Gen X’er were raised by parents who lived through world wars, the great depression, and hard times.
GEN Y
Then came Generation Y – the offspring of the baby boomers and a kindler, gentler parenting style. Suddenly, it wasn’t so wrong to wear what your parents wore. You even listened to some of the same music. With technology came exposure and appreciation for a more eclectic taste. This was fueled by economic prosperity as well. Everyone got a trophy and parents were all right. Jobs for Gen Y came easy and the Internet boom quickly expedited raises and promotions. Starkly opposed to Gen X’ers, Gen Y’s listed parents top on the list of best friends.
The stage is now set.
The Airwalk Syndrome will return. Airwalk was a brand on the rise that suddenly ended up in mass distribution channels making it available for your parents to own..and wear….at the same time the youth thought they were on to something special. Given the same scenario last year, Gen Y’ers may not have disapproved of the mass distribution and still backed the brand.
Dust off Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point” and find out more about Airwalk.
Airwalk was a very hip skateboarding shoe company that started in the mid-80s and had consistent sales revenues in the low teens in millions. With a large ad budget promoting a mixture of skate and lifestyle shoes – within three years, sales grew by more than 10 times to $175 million.
This success led to an effort to expand the market, doing deals with major shoe retailers at lower price points to try to entice people with less money to believe the hype. By the end of the decade, Airwalk was filing voluntary bankruptcy with more than $100 million in debt.
Will the recent economic downturn disenfranchise young adults because they don’t get the new car from their folks, they don’t get the quick raise, or the fast promotion, the large allowance, the trust fund, the extravagant prom? Time will tell.
If teens and their parents both wear your brand and it is accepted, be weary. Given the economic situation, today’s youth will start relaying on themselves, become a little harder, more entrepreneurial, and distance themselves from their parents brands even further. Gen X wanted to shake things up and did. Out of this recession will come amazing things from today’s youth as they start heir own brands because they can’t land a job or get paid enough.
The new is coming. It’s time to evaluate your distribution and voice and be relevant.
Rethinking Surf Ads
Here are a couple ads – one for Play Land – that work for surf brands.
Typical surf ad: action shot…team rider in his element…product shot…flavor of the month graphic treatment…
*Sure, there’s no USP, FAB’s, or LOL moments, but it’s creative.
To stand out, change the substance, not the presentation.
copy: "bad day"
*Features, Advantages, Benefits
Unique Selling Proposition
…you know what LOL means.
forsenorse.com
Most Valuable Global Brands in 2009
In the recent BrandZ report from Millward Brown Optimor, a subsidiary of the massive WPP, it broke out the apparel category. Here is what the researchers had to say about the global apparel sector:
Value is Setting the Trend
Spurred on by the credit crunch, shoppers are in search of value, H&M, the global chain known for offering high style at low prices passed Nike to become the worlds number one apparel brand.
The sector has been hit hard, with most brands experiencing a drop in brand value. Even the most exclusive brands have been forced to slash price to entice customers; Ralph Lauren lost 20 percent of it’s brand value although the brand held its place in the rankings at number six.
Zara fared better than many of the other apparel brands. It seems its just-in-time production model, developed to provide fast fashion in good times, is well suited to the current enviroment where declining sales require closel calibrated inventory control.
In contrast to many of the brick and mortar stores, online and direct shopping are performing well as consumers bargain hunt from the comfort of their own homes.
And the global winners are…..
Brand – Brand Value
1. H&M: $12,061M
2. Nike: $11,999M
3. Zara: $8,609M
4. Espirit: $6,751M
5. Adidas: $4,949M
6. Ralph Lauren: $3,031M
7. Puma: $1,892M
8. Next: $1,670M
9. Gap: $1,298M
10. Old Navy: $986M
Top 10 Product Categories for Teens
Brandweek recently published the Top 10 Product Categories for Teens based on 2008 ad spend with teen publications.
1. Apparel: $40.1M
2. Fragrances (female): $14.6M
3. Entertainment Software: $14M
4. Sporting Footwear: $10M
5. Department Store: $8.6M
6. Apparel Store: $8.6M
7. Shoes: $8.2M
8. Lipstick: $6.4M
9. Antiperspirant/Deodorant: $5M
10. Mascara $5M
Breaking through to reach teens with your apparel brand takes intelligence, direction, opinion, and a plan. Amazing that the second largest ad spend category in 2008 is almost three times lower than apparel. With teens wearing a multitude of brands – companies need to look well beyond their competitive set to ride above the noise and be heard. As action sports apparel companies continue to reach beyond beach wear, the ad spends from competitors get heavier, the research deeper, and the experience…well….more.
It’s time to place every brand that a teen wears and review their media consumption and the ads they view on the table – not just what they see in your industry.
Would you invite your brand to your party?
Brands are/have personalities. You know this, but maybe it’s time to rethink. What’s your brands personality? Would you invite your brand to your party? Would you invite your brand to work in your department at work? Depending on the objective of your brand, it must serve at least one of these two scenarios.
For example, you may not invite the dorky guy with the pocket protector to your party, but you definitely want him on your patent team. Your brands image and voice needs to reflect your strengths and ultimate brand direction. That’s the business example. Now let’s look at the “teen brand” example.
Here is an exercise…imagine all of the brands in your competitive set as stereotypes from high school. Which personality is your brand? Are you the jock, the cheerleader, the nerd, the dork, the stoner, the quiet one, the rocker, the drunk, the showman, the stud, the slut…you get the idea. Does your brand show up at the party first and leave early? Does your brand hang by the keg and get loaded? Does your brand get the hottest chick at the party? Does your brand even show up or care about the party? Is your brand desperately trying to get invited to the party? Are others at the party glad your brand showed up? Does your brand arrive and leave without anyone noticing?
Think about where your brand personality is today and where you want it to be. Does your brands personality meet with your business objective. If our goal is to take over the industry, but your personality is the stoner, you may only appeal to so many consumers. If your brand is so vanilla that no one responds either way to it, then you may be stuck in the middle. Would you want to be stuck in the corner talking to your brand? Is your brand too old to be at the party but is just there to relive its old high-school days? Is your brand passed out on the corner…playing good music…laughing…fighting…?
Now place these brands at the party and describe them as the interact at the actual event:
Nike – Ford – Budweiser – Apple – Affliction – Microsoft – Burton – Quiksilver – O’Neill – Nokia – Hollister – Grenade – Pac Sun – Volcom.
If you ran a focus group of teens and asked them…just based on brand personalities..who they would invite to their party…would your brand get invited?
forsenorse