No matter what you do, social always gets the best of you in the end.

I heard about Skittles integrating with Facebook and Flickr, which on its own, is an innovative way to differentate it's web presence from other candy manufacturers. And can we all be honest here? Consumer packaged goods web sites are generally pretty boring on their own. How much can you really say about a fruit flavored candy wrapped in a rainbow colored shell? And we all know that these websites were really never intended as part of the purchase decision?

Stepping away from the endless number of sticky games, contests and promotions, this approach takes what consumers expect to see when visiting a candy website and turns the experience upside down. The issue – along with any social marketing execution – is the ability to give up control of content and how it is used. This is a risk that needs to be considered, especially when the visitors may be children.

So when I confirmed my age (by the way, I'm not sure who the legal loophole genius was who invented this concept and does nothing to really protect minors – that's for another posting) and allowed my Facebook to "connect" with the Skittles site, the above image is what I saw first, featuring a wonderful post by "Loui". I am sure that Skittles did not dream that their fans would provide such passionate wall postings.

So how does "MF" end up as Skittle's featured "adjective" on its "website"? It's human nature. When rolling out any social marketing implementation, marketers must always carefully think through how content may be inserted, modified and displayed by visitors. Any opening that provides a visitor to contribute content, also provides the same opportunity for negative, or at least, inappropriate content.

In this new age of giving up control of our content, we must all be prepared. Whatever that means.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Alan Rapp at Print provides an interesting review of Heavy Metal design in his article entitled "The Exile of Satan from Heavy Metal Design."

This comment, in particular, drives home what has changed in this design community, versus what had visually grabbed me in my youth:

Heavy metal design today comprises a vast field of images that no longer compulsively refer to adolescent power and provocation fantasies.

This evolution of design may provide additional diversity within the Heavy Metal scene, but the diversity has also erroded design's ability to define the "brand" for individual artists. The effect, while evolved, creates a watered down view and removes the "iconography" that this music category perfected, allowing it to connect and unify its target audience.

I commented on the value of rock branding a few years back. Check out my previous post related to rock branding. (Note: I am still working to migrate images into Posterous, so sorry the main photo for this post is not currently displaying)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I am currently on a flight from Las Vegas to ATL taking advantage of AirTran's Gogo WIFI partnership as a paying customer. It is my first mile high post, so bare with my as my bits make their way back to the hardwired Internet on the ground.

My initial flight out to Vegas a few days ago offered a free service trial for the flight, which I took advantage... since the flight offered no in-flight entertainment. Based upon my experience on that flight, I had no reservations ponying up the $9.95 to make my 3.5 hour flight back east a little more "entertainmenty".

For the most part I have been impressed with the service. Video sites such as Hulu and YouTube is a little spotty... as well, IM also lags a little, but was functional. I was able to write and send corporate and personal email, accessed a VPN, managed a hosting account at Godaddy, as well as keep up-to-date on blogs such as Lifehacker and iJustine. Overall the service offers relatively smooth connection with standard HTML content pages.

My real issue comes down to having enough battery life for a long flight. Airtran does not offer in-seat power (which is a contradiction to offering WIFI), so my use of the service is limited by my one battery... about 2.5 hours of the flight.

This leads me to one big question to consider... will the combination of business class drinking and WIFI serve as a gateway drug to unnecessary SkyMall purchases? I am guessing research will prove there is a direct correlation to post flight delivery of Harry Potter magic wand reproductions and Snuggies. Anyhow, 24 minutes of battery power remaining... better get back to Facebook.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This morning I noticed CNN launched its new website and the new design strategy aside -- my eyes were surprised by the fact that the site would not render properly in Firefox (3.5.3). I immediately tried it in Internet Explorer, Safari and Chrome... no issues there.

This only points to greater need and focus for all companies jumping into the "browser war" to focus on the Web Standards initiative and for designers, developers, corporations and media companies to put some weight behind this. The continued fluctuations related to a website's ability or inability to render -- which are directly related to the gray area of standardization -- puts a burden on companies trying to reach the widest audience possible. It also drives web users to make functional choices related to which browser they need to use when visiting websites.

Fortunately, the Firefox community has created add-ons to help solve this issue. With one click of the mouse to the IE rendering engine, all of the content elements on the CNN Home Page did a jig and properly aligned. Problem solved. I wish.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

“The Hut”, “The Shack”… what do these "names" really mean to you? If you believe Pizza Hut and Radio Shack, they stand behind their efforts at weaving these new “nicknames” that may evolve into the future brands for these American staples.

AdAge profiled the obvious confusion with Radio Shack’s positioning shift with the introduction of “The Shack”. Critics, including myself, feel that this marketing effort is only a surface level approach to solving a much larger problem for the company… notably the retail chain’s ineffective positioning in the marketplace versus other big box retailers and customer service struggles at the store level. While Radio Shack may not accurately deliver the right positioning, trying to make a branding switch under the guise of a marketing campaign tells me everyone at the company is not singing from the same song book.

Back in June 2009 MSN Money highlighted Pizza Hut’s issues and thoughts behind their brand switch. According to the article, the fast food chain will now brand some stores as simply “The Hut.” Obviously there is some testing underway. The company has added a range of non-core items to its menu, including pasta, wings, desserts, etc., but does its target audience really identify with these new offerings, or merely see them as an extension or alternative choice. My guess is like “Wing Street,” this positioning will not resonate with the audience and will further dilute the chain’s positioning.

The common thread with these two companies is their inability to focus on what matters most to their core customers, and not catering to fringe influences or fads. Is Pizza Hut a pizza joint, an Italian restaurant, or a hot wing stand? Does Radio Shack sell radios (who has a radio these days, by the way?), electronics, or is it really a cell phone stand? Right now, both companies are guilty of trying to be “everything to everybody.” And that is never a good thing. Re-branding may start with a new name, but it must be supported at all levels of the company and continually tie back to the real needs of the prospect and existing customers.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Has Microsoft finally succeeded in search? With the roll out of Bing, previously know as Kumo, the company has generated a large amount of attention in a short amount of time within the blogosphere. The question is… Does the hype live up to what was delivered?

The company was obviously hurting with the failure of Microsoft Live search, a concept and approach that just did not connect with web users. Microsoft is repositioning Bing as a “decision engine,” with a goal “to provide customers with intelligent search tools to help them simplify tasks and make more informed decisions,” according to the company. A search for it in Google even returns a listing titled “Bing Decision Engine” in the paid search listings.

What’s different this go around? Is it just the marketing and packaging? That is a big part of it, but the introduction of Bing includes steps forward in the previous Live Search’s core search, such as entity extraction and expansion, query intent recognition and summarization of documents technologies. It also offers a new UX model, which changes based on the user’s query to offer more relevant decision-making tools along the way.

There as been a move by web applications to act as a “sherpa” along the way, helping users make the right choice about what their primary intent is. This approach has helped the e-commerce side, including Amazon. It will be interesting to see how this benefits the search providers as they adopt it as a standard.

Only time will tell how big Microsoft’s Bing will really impact search and how web users perceive it. Now it’s time to see what Google will do in response, specifically since Microsoft is riding such a large wave.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

With all of the activity, news and information coming out of San Francisco this week at Web 2.0 Expo, deciding what to focus on has been a little overwhelming. In catching up on activity, I happened across a presentation by Jason Grigsby of Cloud Four. His presentation, titled “Native vs Hybrid vs Web” provides one of the most clearly communicated impact of the emerging mobile market (I know, its not really emerging, but after 10 years of mobile Web talk, the actions are finally catching up to the hype). Some of this may get a little geeky for you, but stick with it, because there are all kinds of nuggets in this deck that will expand your understanding of the importance of mobile web…

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In the world of contrasts, Microsoft has pulled of one of the most disparate acts of brand inconsistency in the past year.

Its corporate campaign, initially using Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates in a “buddy picture” approach to building warmth with the general consumer market. While the general concept of the paring seemed promising, the actual implementation failed to connect with the message to be delivered as well as with its intended audience. Not only did the concept come off half-cocked, the writing generally assumed that Jerry Seinfeld is funny in any circumstance and that standard “geek cliches” are all that are needed.

As a contrast, Microsoft’s efforts toward supporting its ad network through its “Bring The Love Back” campaign, not only carries the intended message well, but provides a strong viral appeal. It is true that this is a highly targeted message, geared toward a small audience of advertising professionals. However, in this case it is not the message as much as the success of this campaign appropriately balances the message with the delivery concept. The combined approach of the campaign, through the positioning of this as a romantic comedy, packaged within a faux movie trailer, general commercial and a “behind the scenes view” of the production gives the campaign legs, no matter which version of the advertising you see. It just works and is easily apparent when contrasting it against the Seinfeld/Gates “buddy picture” concept.

Microsoft Good Part 1:

Microsoft Good Part 2:

Microsoft Good Part 3:

Microsoft Bad Part 1:

Microsoft Bad Part 2:

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

After a career full of seeing cliche ridden photos used for B2B marketing initiatives, I believe I can confidently say that I am done, finished, can’t take it any longer!

For some reason the marketing community (yes I am talking to my peers here) continues to believe that photography does not have to be original. What does this mean? Well, for starters the problem with originality relates directly to three segments within the marketing world.

Clients. Yes, as clients we’re all guilty of cheaper and faster practices of developing creative, whether it is interactive, print, or packing (I am guilty as charged). We’d much rather report that we saved thousands in our budget on photography, only to produce creative that does not fully speak to our target audience.

Agencies. I know that agency folks (myself also included in this category) have the opportunity to push the envelope in terms of setting the example for our clients. We usually take the easy way out and resort to royalty free sites. Not that these are bad options, but they definitely don’t fit all of our needs in helping to differentiate our clients from their competitors.

Stock Providers. When it comes down to it, it is the stock agencies that are really putting the reigns on clients and agencies abilities to make photos their own. Why else would they post photos that are already cropped to the point that the creative cannot “be creative” with its use? Why would they provide a photo of people in a group, then not take individual photos? Or, if they did take individual photos, why would they not include individual photos of everyone in that group?

“But, I Don’t Do That!”
Come on, let’s get real here. Take a look at the image above. Where do you think this example came from? Some narrow-focused, underfunded vertical industry? Nope. I’ll stay neutral and not name names (NewsGator). Whoops. Did I say that out loud? This example was on one of their “promotional” pages… a company who is going after large enterprises, redesigning and refining their brand to speak directly to these decision makers (which I am a part of). Right now I am considering leading a full charge with Mr. Webster to make “promotion” a synonym with “crap.”

My Challenge To All Marketing Folks
If we all can step up to the plate, we can truly add value to the marketing process, rather than to water down consumers’ perceptions of what we offer. Let’s get crazy and think out of the box for once. We all have digital cameras today, why don’t we try to take some photos? We’re called marketing managers and art directors aren’t we? Do we need to rely upon someone else to make the wrong choices for us? If that doesn’t work for you, let’s hire a real photographer. I know, I know. I am really talking crazy now. You’re saying “that brings up the dreaded usage rights, ownership, etc.” That may be true, but there are many qualified students out there who are dying to get an opportunity to get their work into the mainstream. My experience is they are very adept at balancing the needs of the client in order to get some exposure.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Does your MySpace page play the cha-cha? Does your Facebook account organize social schedules? Does your blog deliver financial information streaming at 20 minutes behind NASDAQ market activity?

If so, you are taking part in a big trend in web-based tools. In addition to providing additional stickiness and personal interaction with visitors, web widgets (also referred to as gadgets) solve functional needs of web users. And used in the right context, their value can help build a brand. Yes, I said “when used in the right context.”

The problem, as with many “free” web resources, many site administrators, bloggers, etc. can’t see the forest for the trees and most follow the “if 1 is cool, then 30 is even better” approach to “adding value” to their site.

It’s not just open-source geeks who are building widgets now. Marketers have seen the value of taking over “free” real estate on blogs and social networking sites. Success will come to marketers that can build functional and intuitive web gadgets, that can also fit within the context of an existing site’s functionality.

The downside is for every quality widget there is out there, there are 1,000 crap widgets. If you don’t believe me, peruse the following sites and comment on the ones you think are truly useful, and why.

Widgetbox

Vizu

Wigipedia

While you're pondering your next move on your Twitter account, take a moment to play a useless, but fun, web widget...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Come on. Really? When I opened my Adage email today I saw a headline titled “Apple Wants to Take Bite Out of Big Apple”, I was sure the story would be about a new marketing effort by the warm fuzzy company. Wrong.

Apparently, a new green-themed campaign to help elevate “The Big Apple’s” environmental efforts features… you guessed it, an apple. And apparently any apple used today to promote something directly infringes on Apple’s ability to build and market computer and other media hardware and software. Not my words, here are theirs:

“Any defect, objection or fault found with [GreeNYC's] goods and services marketed under [GreeNYC's] marks would necessarily reflect upon and seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services,” the claim states.

I know we now operate within a “convergence” marketplace. However, it is unreasonable to think that one company should be able to hold control of a mark within any and all categories it feels may diminish its own mark. Whatever happened to category ownership? Examples include Delta Air Lines and Delta Faucet Company. I know that brands that grow have a much larger mind share. But what if we give these brands carte blanch outside of their category? More importantly, what happens when this brand begins to falter down the line (Air carrier, are you paying attention?) Would we then give the “second” stronger brand in another category the ability to capture control back? Could we then assume that the “second” company in another category that gets “bigger” has the ability to take the first company’s mark, domain, etc.?

When I read it, my mind instantly flashed back to an article that I read on The Onion in 1998 about Microsoft taking action to patent ones and zeros (0, 1). While this was sarcasm at its best, it pointed out the obvious self-importance that Microsoft was feeling for itself at the time. Has Apple finally arrived to the same place? Someone in Cupertino should give this article a read and realize they are now the pot calling the kettle black.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Checking email this evening was depressing. Hal Riney, one of my advertising mentors, is gone. His approach to advertising and communicating resonates within me and when thinking about truly great advertising, very few move me the way his work has done. Riney’s words and pictures conveyed sincerity, credibility and warmth. When I started my career there were so many greats who inspired me. Today, my number is finite and rapidly dwindling.

Hal Riney was able to deliver strong and appealing messages through his advertising, without having to resort to the hard sell. That was his amazing and unique approach. Moreover, Riney’s commercials contained very powerful and positive messages and ideas. His work has forever changed the perceptions about traditional or political advertising campaigns.

His work spanned decades and crossed all industries. Hal was as well known for his agency’s work as much as his voice over talent. He not only did voice over work for his agency, but also lent his pipes to other agencies’ best spots. He was recruited from Botsford Ketchum by David Ogilvy and opened O&M’s San Francisco office in 1976. His solo rise to greatness started in 1985 when he bought the San Francisco office from Ogilvy (another of my advertising mentors). As I jumped into the advertising world in the late 80s and early 90s, the work produced drove my communications thirst.

Earlier, the 1984 political advertising campaign, created by the Reagan’s Tuesday Team (featuring Hal Riney’s golden voice), did not only bring him the victory at the elections, but also showed how this kind advertising works, without the nasty PR attacks and media combats that we’re now used to (hey Obama, Clinton and McCain, take note). The “It’s morning again in America” 1984 Reagan for president political advertising campaign has rightfully taken its place of honor among the hundred of the most fascinating advertising campaigns of the 20th century… along with some other Riney greats.

Here are a few spots that highlights Hal’s unique approach…

Hal Riney working on behalf of Ronald Regan's Tuesday Team

Hal Riney & Partners Controversial Spot for First Union

Audio Only:

Hal Riney provides background on the Bartles and Jaymes Ads (MP3)

So long, Hal. We'll miss you!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Can we all agree that the buzz around Web 2.0 has reached the heights that the term “Information Superhighway” did back in 1996? Virtually every marketing and technology blog known has written about it and have beaten it into the ground. So why am I writing about it now? Laziness? Apathy?

The truth is, Web 2.0 and the range of supportive technologies, coding standards and widgets have finally allowed community site administrators as well as ALL of their users to interact at a much deeper level than has ever been available before. Hence my attention.

Whether it was dial-up bulletin boards of the 1980s or Internet access providers like Prodigy and AOL in the 1990s, people with common interests have always found a way to get together online. Today, community development tools such as Ning have empowered site administrators to quickly and efficiently build and manage community sites. From the user’s perspective, members can now share their perspective just as easily using Web 2.0 enhancements. The increased user — and very friendly functionality — is quickly becoming the norm of community sites.

Interaction within community sites has also moved to a much deeper level as the diversity of use increases. Take for instance the rise of Health 2.0, the related term of health care community sites that utilize Web 2.0 attributes to build greater interactivity for members. Health 2.0 buzz sites include ICYou.com (a new video player aspiring to become the “YouTube of Healthcare.”), PeerClip (a “social bookmarking tool” for physicians) and Imedix (peer illness interaction), just to name a few. In addition, web widget resources relating to specific use cases are being used by community users to greater build their personality or link to like minded individuals (see WidgetBox.)

Keeping the health perspective in mind, the improvement for community members to interact has driven the creation of a new level of social networking, or micro-communities. Until relatively recently, patients didn’t network. The fact is that “Health 2.0″ technology is now now enabling people with like backgrounds, causes or interests — even if they are a very small percentage of a larger-smaller group — to truly interact in a good way.

And that’s what the Internet is all about, isn’t it?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Finally, a return to greatness. The Coca-Cola’s entry into the 2008 Super Bowl cavalcade of commercials returns the embattled brand to greatness. After years of letting Pepsi steal the thunder — using celebs like Britney Spears (now that was a great choice, Pepsi) — the drink giant last year made it a priority to leverage this global marketing opportunity to its advantage. In 2008, it really paid off.

Weiden + Kennedy helped to elevate the sugar water giant’s marketing game by delivering a spot that not only delivers the brand essence, but also plays to the human emotion of overcoming adversity (was this foreshadowing of the Giant’s ultimate path in this game?), all without in-your-face music, fast cuts, or inappropriate content. A novel approach to marketing in today’s world.

Great job to Coke, its brand managers, agency and senior management who embraced the simplistic greatness of this spot. Check out all of this year’s Super Bowl ads and more about the agency’s that delivered greatness — or not so greatness — on Ad Age’s website.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Over the holidays I came into repeated contact with an area of the brand experience that is often overlooked -- in contrast to other areas (including advertising, websites, logos, product design, customer service, etc.)... packaging. It seems that within the toy industry there is now a requirement that toys must be hermetically sealed, with little to no hope of escape from the package without the help of an adult, armed with a plethora of cutting, twisting and scraping tools.

With three kids, my Christmas mornings are now spent on a parallel course with my children. They unwrap their presents and it is my job to safely remove them from the package while they are opening other presents. When I mention "safely," I am referring to (1) keeping my children safe by not allowing them to handle to toy removal, (2) keeping the toy safe from damaging it during the removal, and (3) not damaging myself in the process. This cycle continues until all presents are unwrapped, and all toys are removed and available for play.

Gone are the days when a kid could open a present, then using only scissors, open a toy package. Today's toys and electronics are packaged within the box in thick sealed plastic, tied down with a range of heavy gage wire fasteners (see photo above), or screwed in place. The result is the need for heavy cutting tools, wire cutters and a range of screwdrivers to begin the true "experience" with the brand. What does this have to do with branding? Actually, it has a lot to do with branding.

While toy marketers have, in many cases, over thought the presentation of the toy within the retail environment -- ensuring all of the key attributes are teasingly shown -- they have neglected the post sale experience. What if the toy is damaged trying to get it out of the package? How are returns handled at the store when the package was destroyed upon opening the product? What does the consumer think about this added post sale hassle? I think I am not going out on a limb when I say that adults hate to have to remove toys from packages, and kids hate to rely upon an adult before they can begin playing with a toy. Some manufacturers spend as much time thinking through the packaging process that it actually enhances the product. Take for instance, Apple's iPod packaging. Back in 2004 ID magazine summed it up perfectly:

"Flawless," "inventive," and "utterly consistent with what we've come to expect from Apple" were some of the praises the jurors heaped on the computer maker's packaging for the iPod. Opening the box requires a series of motions, beginning when you slide a paper sleeve off a cardboard cube and ending when you lift flaps revealing egg-carton nests holding the music player and its components. With each move, the suspense builds. There's this ballet of unwrapping that is clearly intentional."

Yes, Apple's iPod packaging did all of the things packaging is supposed to do: protect the product, market the product, provide ease-of-shipping, etc. It also added additional value to the product by creating an experience when opening the product, which I believe, has helped contribute to the loyal feelings people have for their iPods. To sum up, it is time that marketers begin thinking about how packaging contributes to -- or takes away from -- the brand experience after the sale. If they did, I may have more quality time on Christmas morning to watch the magic of my children opening their presents. Maybe they can get this done by next Christmas... they only have 355 days, 5 hours and 2 minutes left.

How not to do it:

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A recent trip to the Big Arches has me scratching my head and thinking: Whatever happened to the McDonald's of my childhood? I took my kids for a morning of play at a McDonald's in East Cobb to get out of the late Summer heat. Besides a general lack of cleanliness in the bathrooms that has become the norm at McDonald's I visit, I noticed the above pink flaking paint directly over the children's playground. I understand that restaurants have day-in, day-out wear and tear to contend with. However, in trying to focus on new product offerings and marketing campaigns, McDonald's has let go of a key component in its branding efforts: the physical location.

Contrast this against other quick serve restaurants and McDonald's is in dire need of a makeover. In the last year I have seen a two competing quick serve restaurants get a makeover in the same area that were already heads and shoulders above this McDonald's relating to the "restaurant experience." The marketing efforts that used to go into building a positive experience for visitors (e.g., clean and shiny restaurants, inviting characters) have been lost. In its effort to be "everything to everybody" McDonald's has lost the essence of the brand and therefore risks losing a new generation of loyal customers.

During our visit my three year old looked up at a mural that had been painted on the play area wall. It featured the McDonald's characters that have long supported the brand. Perplexed, he pointed to The Hamburglar and asked "Who is that?" Wow, that really sums it up. If McDonald's isn't connecting with kids, what does that say for the rest of us?

Check out the above commercial from the 70s. It features a direct approach to the pride that was taken in communicating with McDonald's customers, even with subjects not relating to the product. And the scary part is -- the floors and decor in this commercial match the store I recently visited, here in 2007.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Is it just me, or do 90% of the billboards you pass by are subject to TMI, or too much information? Living in a major metro area, billboards are as commonplace as churches and taverns in small towns. With all of this emphasis on transportation advertising, you'd think the advertisers that pay big money for the real estate would spend some time on what they want their prospective customers to take away from their 10 second peek as they pass by each day. They obviously think we all have 20/20 vision and are speed readers. Billboard after billboard follows this TMI trend by offering concepts that cannot be "consumed" by the driver in a 5-10 second window of time.

Maybe I am just crazy, but do these advertisers hope that commuters will look at their billboard each day, taking a new piece of information away on each day of their travel in the hopes that at some point in the near future the message will sink in and drive some type of action? I wish that I could start an uprising with this post, driving marketers to get in the shoes of the commuter and remember one thing: They really could care less about you or your offering. With that understood, marketers should drive their agencies to s-i-m-p-l-i-f-y the the goals of outdoor advertising, focusing on the core message and one call to action takeaway for the commuter.

So with all of this ranting, I wanted to point out someone who is doing it well, at least in the Atlanta metro. Chick-fil-a has been advertising on I-85 south at the Brookwood Interchange coming into downtown Atlanta for a few years. And, unlike many other advertisers, are actually utilizing the medium effectively. This space is what I would refer to as an "extra jumbo," covering the side of a building. Chick-fil-a has been effective over time, offering a unique creative experience, with a simplified message. They actually get it right, time and time again.

Here's your challenge: over the next few mornings, spend some eyeball time checking out the billboards in your area. Do they suffer from TMI?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Walking the isles at the local music shop, you could quickly spot a new album by Boston, Kiss, or Iron Maiden, simply from the unmistakable brand. While the music industry is currently getting blasted about their inability to stay in check with consumers, they were well ahead of other industries who continue to not understand the value of building a consistent brand.

Album artwork often offered the most consistent brand reinforcement over time. Many bands of the 70s and 80s had a defined logotype and design style that carried from album to album. While general creative themes changes over time, many musical groups opted to deliver a consistent feel. This consistency build brand loyalty for teens, looking to embrace their rock Gods. Essentially, music promoters recognized the power of building a brand, and ran with it.

With the migration to digitally downloaded music, the industry is going through a change. Gone are the days perusing the isles at the local music shop. "Albums" purchased through iTunes now offer "e-booklets," essentially the album / CD artwork in digital format. Even though I was programmed to be hypnotized by this artwork and copy, I'm sure today's musical youth - along with me - don't spend the quality time reviewing the nooks and crannies in the online version of "album liners."

If you were a musical consumer from the 70s and 80s, I'm sure you'll be able to easily identify what musical groups are associated with the above. Can you name them all?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I admit it. This post isn't so much about a marketing campaign so much as it is about how fast food companies can put marketing dollars behind what I refer to as the "taco-bell-ization" of America's quick service food industry.

What is taco-bell-ization? It's a concept that Taco Bell has proven successful for years: (1) take a core set of ingredients (e.g., ground beef, flour tortillas, cheese, and some type of sauce), (2) put these ingredients in some configuration (e.g., a taco, a burrito, a quesadilla), and (3) market the configuration as a brand (e.g., Crunchwrap Supreme, Meximelt, Grilled Stuft Burrito).

So what's the big deal? It obviously works well with Mexican fare. The deal is, other franchises have gotten to such a desperation point of coming up with new offerings, that they're taking their ingredient list and forcing the same concept with it. In this case, KFC. I've seen the offerings for a few months now and hoped that this would quickly pass by the wayside. Last night I sat through a commercial and almost had to yack from the visuals. KFC is now offering KFC Famous Bowls which feature... you guessed it... the staples from a KFC menu, all mixed up in a bowl.

Take mashed potatoes, add fried chicken, some corn, and top it off with some cheese and white gravy. You've just created American food at its lowest level. I am not sure if I am more upset about stealing a concept (especially one that is not easily transferable), the resulting concoction (Famous Bowls), or that marketing is skillfully being used to position the product as hip, cool, and a "must have" for American stomaches.

It's only a matter of time before the other giants of quick serve dining take this concept and run with it. Be on the lookout for the Whopper Bowl... coming soon to a drive through near you!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As a marketer, having participated hip-deep in the post world of the Telecommunicatons Act of 1996, I have always been fascinated in the re-merger of the telecommunications companies and the brand transformations that happen, again and again. Specifically, I'm most mesmerized by the branding tricks that have to be pulled over consumer eyeballs in order to "make them feel good" about what's going on. I call this the "Passing of The Brand." With it, involves some wit and general consensus that consumers are stupid.

The following are two examples that have continued to haunt me in my sleep. I'm not really sure why, but I've been drawn to them. Some of it has to do with my personal experience in working with these brands, but much of it has to do with a general interest of how the brand evolves over time. What is "Passing of the Brand" you ask? The following are two of my favorites. 

Passing of the Brand Example 1: AT&T

• 2004 - AT&T sells wireless business to BellSouth's Cingular.
• 2005 - AT&T gets acquired by SBC and applies AT&T brand to its businesses.
• 2007 - The "new" AT&T acquires BellSouth, and its wireless company, Cingular.
• 2007 - The "new" AT&T moves to change the Cingular brand to AT&T.

Passing of the Brand Example 2: Fox

• 1996 - Turner Entertainment sells SportSouth to Fox, who ultimately turns station into FSN South.
• 1999 - Turner launches Turner South, offering a range of Southern-themed programming.
• 2006 - Turner sells Turner South to Fox, who changes the programming format to sports and changes the name... guess what... to SportSouth.

I know that there are a lot of details that were involved with both of the examples above. But I often wonder if any of the executives involved with the "Passing of the Brand" really think about what could be implanted in the consumer's mind? Do they assume consumer's can't remember what happened last year, or the year before. I'm sure they're fairly confident that they can't recall what happened 10 years ago. I just happen not fall into line with those consumers.

What is your favorite "Passing of the Brand" example?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »