Description:
This spot, reportedly a last minute buy for Google tells a love story using only the Google search engine.  The search queries show how boy takes a trip, meets girl, gets girl, gets married and has babies.

What Works:
Established agencies have had a difficult few years in the Super Bowl.  In the last two years, the winners of user created ad contests (for Doritos and the NFL) have been among the best entries on the Super Bowl.  This year, the most effective ad in our judgment comes from a surprising place - the in-house creative team at Google.

We love this ad because it is simple,  because the execution is tied directly to the brand (unlike other memorable spots, this one you can’t remember without knowing it was for Google), because it tells a story, and because it is a powerful reminder of how Google has changed our lives.  It is a classic “brand as hero” execution.  Given the production values and extravagance of some of the other spots in the game (more on this from us soon), it is shocking that the spot that does the best job of building the brand was undoubtedly the cheapest to produce.

Finally, we appreciate that Google brought this to the Super Bowl after it had been battle-tested on YouTube, showing popularity and staying power.  It’s another unusual move for advertising on the big game.

What Doesn’t:
The query at the end “how to assemble a crib” with the baby gurgle was a bit over the top.  The tagline “search on” doesn’t seem especially memorable.

Branding Bottom Line:
The marketers at Cars.com should take a close look at this spot after their big game fiasco.

Toyota’s recall of 2.3 million vehicles, and the unprecedented step of halting production at six of its U.S. plants may seem like the inflection point in its quality crisis.  Although the sudden acceleration claims have been circulating for at least three years, Toyota appears to be taking the problem seriously and responding strongly.  A parallel might be drawn with the 1982 Tylenol recall, where J&J chairman Jim Burke took the unprecedented step extending a local criminal issue into a national recall to avoid a loss of confidence in the brand (or copycat acts) and used the entire J&J workforce to physically remove the product from shelves.  (Ironically, J&J is currently experiencing another crisis with Tylenol.)

Unfortunately, Toyota’s current crisis is headed in a different direction.  Two minor facts in the news give us evidence that Toyota is in for more trouble.  First, The New York Times notes that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asserted on a Chicago radio show that the U.S. government requested the work halt - disputing assertions by Toyota North American COO Jim Lentz that the production stoppage was purely Toyota’s initiative.

The second minor news item was the assertion by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak that he has found a reproducible, software-based error causing unintended acceleration in his 2010 Prius, a car not on the recall list.

Either of these assertions may prove to be incorrect, but the mere fact that they’ve both reached the national news media suggests that Toyota has a bigger problem: brand hubris.

Brand hubris, shortly stated, is the tendency of successful brands to believe that they’re infallible in the areas of their greatest strength.  This puts them at greater risk of a catastrophic error.  A good example from the last decade was Dell, which once had an unassailable reputation for quality and customer service which was brought down by a single blogger (Jeff Jarvis).

In Toyota’s case, their sterling reputation for quality led to a customer service apparatus unable to comprehend the concept that a major error could have made it through their system undiscovered.  This attitude dictated the company’s response to early complaints - rejection and legal squabbling and forced the issue to bubble into a crisis before senior management would acknowledge it.

That same attitude guided the company when it refused to engage with Steve Wozniak, and kept it from getting its story straight with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.   Both of those were costly PR mistakes.  For this reason, it seems likely that Toyota’s problems will multiply, not ameliorate.

The lesson for other brands is this: don’t assume that you can’t screw up, even in the areas of your biggest strength.  Reward those who identify problems early.  Realize that some of the most important information on the quality of your products comes from your customers and don’t punish customers who take the time to complain.

Issue

Apple has just introduced the iPad - the long awaited tablet computer.  Just as this advertising blog predicted that the iPhone would revolutionize the mobile internet, we believe that Apple has taken an important step towards rescuing the print news media from oblivion.

As you may know by now, the device itself has a 9.7″ touch screen, wi-fi and some versions have 3G from AT&T.  Pricing runs from $499 to $829 (for the 3G version with 64gb of memory) plus $30 a month for unlimited data.

We have long believed that the Kindle will revolutionize publishing, but it is not a realistic device for advertising because it lacks color and a high resolution display.  Even the larger Kindle DX is too expensive ($489 - as much as the base version of the iPad) for a black and white low-res reader. On the Kindle, you can have newspapers delivered to the device daily and then read the text of each article.  The iPad allows you to read the newspaper as a newspaper, or a magazine as a magazine.  In fact, magazines and newspapers can improve on the paper experience by incorporating video, interactive and multimedia content.
This suggests that news organizations and publishers will be able to create a subscription model for iPad content which can be partially advertising-supported.  The advertising will be measurable, just as with online advertising.  Although this has not been discussed, it is reasonable to assume that widgets - or other functional ad units - could be created for this device.

Immediate reaction to the iPad has been somewhat muted because the technical characteristics did not excite tech fans.  Apple’s real genius, however, is understanding how to evolve consumer behavior - a far more difficult and important task.  The so-called “paperless office” has been hyped and discussed for over a generation, but it has not come to pass because paper is portable and easy to read.  Although the iPad and subsequent devices will not outdate paper, they take an important step forward.  Just as the iPod delivered the ability to carry around hundreds of cds worth of music in a tiny device and the Kindle allowed us to carry a thousand books, the iPad will allow average consumers to keep books, movies, pictures, magazines, newspapers and important personal documents on a device that is the right size to view them.  That’s a bigger deal than it may initially seem to be.

Accenture announced over the weekend that it would sever its relationship with Tiger Woods, who has fronted a major advertising campaign for the consultancy over the past six years.  Nike, on the other hand has reaffirmed support for Woods after his accident and revelations of marital indiscretions.

This advertising blog has never been a great fan of celebrity endorsement.  As the Tiger Woods example illustrates, even the most stable of celebrities may expose a brand to negative attention.  However, celebrities play different roles for different kinds of brands.   As odd as it may sound, Accenture was right to drop Woods while Nike was equally wise in staying with him.

To understand the distinction between the type of endorsement value Tiger Woods has for these two different brands, we must consider the type of associative brand equity Woods transfers to each brand with his endorsement.

Tiger Woods is a world class athlete.  Indeed, winning the U.S. Open in 2008 with a serious knee injury may have been one of the most outstanding athletic achievements of the past decade.  For Nike, Tiger Woods endorsement is an endorsement of direct expertise.  Nike’s brand equity is based on understanding the needs of serious athletes.  The Nike brand values are about commitment and intensity.  In spite of taking a hiatus from golf, Nike has every reason to believe that Tiger will continue to be a serious athlete and a top competitor.  Nike has often successfully maintained association with athletes who have had some degree of personal notoriety because the brand equity it takes from these athletes is related to their dedication, not the conduct of their personal lives.

The Accenture relationship with Tiger Woods is one of the few sponsorship relationships with Woods outside of Nike that we believe has been effective for both parties, as we’ve argued previously. In this campaign, however, Tiger lends the Accenture brand equity through indirect expertise - in this case his focus and judgment.  Thus, when Woods’ judgment becomes suspect it eliminates his value as a brand spokesperson for the Accenture brand.  The past association may indeed hurt the brand in this case.

What’s the brand lesson here?  If you are looking for a spokesperson, try to pick a celebrity who has direct expertise in the problem your brand solves.   The celebrity should be a core user of the brand and someone who is highly credible with other users.  This doesn’t mean that they have to be aspirational.  In 2005, Alka-Seltzer very effectively used the late Peter Boyle (who played the father in the TV sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond”) as a direct expert in indigestion.  Most sufferers would have no interest in becoming the character Boyle was known for.  But an older, overweight cranky man who might have eaten an entire turkey was a credible expert for indigestion relief.

Using celebrities to promote brands is a risky business.  Most endorsements are meaningless and hollow.  But even those which are effective contain risks.  By focusing on direct expertise, brands can at least avoid some of the direct pitfalls of bad celebrity behavior.

Issue

This week, Starbucks announced “Via” - a new instant coffee.  The launch advertising was acceptable and the product has been favorably reviewed for taste.  But what does it mean for the Starbucks brand?

This advertising blog has long argued that a succession of financially successful Starbucks innovations, from blockbuster grocery store products like bottled Frappuccino, Starbucks carts and even drive through windows all dilute the Starbucks brand.  Even small-footprint Starbucks which drew long lines of commuters in the morning changed the “third place” atmosphere that was Howard Schultz’s essential contribution to modern American culture.

Via is not really a diversion from the Starbucks brand strategy.  It is really the culmination of a series of steps that have taken the brand away from its original mission.  Starbucks has now emerged into the full light of day as a convenience brand.  It will continue to compete head to head against Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds to own the morning convenience consumer and now adds Taster’s Choice to the list of packaged goods brands it counts as direct rivals.

It is hard to argue with the financial wisdom of this choice.  Starbucks as Howard Schultz first imagined it would be a much smaller company.  But the Starbucks that is emerging from this brand evolution is a weaker brand, more General Motors than Porsche.  Margins will be smaller going forward although revenue will most likely grow.

This last development is most surprising given Mr. Schultz’s recent return at the helm of the brand.  It may signal desperation, but more likely a sign that the corporation is looking to be acquired.  Don’t be surprised if a food giant gobbles up Starbucks soon, and ends the dream of empire that started in a coffee bar in Italy.

Issue

The Los Angeles Times reports that ABC is reducing the number of commercials to be aired on the premier of new fall shows:

The network is eliminating the first commercial break — which typically occurs about eight minutes into an episode for comedies — from new prime-time series, including “Cougar Town,” “Modern Family” and “The Middle.”

The strategy has a precedent - FOX last year dramatically reduced commercial interruptions on prime-time series “Fringe” and “Dollhouse” and sold each episode to a single sponsor.  This advertising blog commented on this experiment, which we found promising.  The strategy was discontinued by FOX as the economy faltered and advertisers willing to sponsor an entire hour-long episode vanished.

ABC’s experiment is less dramatic but equally important.  Some shows will run for as long as twenty-minutes uninterrupted - a lifetime by network television standards.  If viewer retention improves, mainstream networks may finally begin to learn one of the most obvious lessons of the Internet era: less is more.

An hour-long network television show averages 18 minutes of commercials, often in 2 minute or longer blocks.  If networks were to move to 6 ninety-second blocks (totaling 9 minutes) and thus cut commercial interruptions in half, they might dramatically increase the viewership of those commercials.  FOX did a good job of advertising the short length of its commercial breaks on Fringe and Dollhouse last year.

In the 1987 movie “Wall Street” Michael Douglas playing Gordon Gekko famously said “Greed is good.  Greed works.”  Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked well for commercial advertising.  Less would be more.

Issue

The online marketing community is caught in a kerfuffle over Chris Anderson’s new book FREE: The Future of a Radical Price.  Malcolm Gladwell fired a salvo from The New Yorker and Seth Godin jumped in to defend Anderson.  Even John Gapper of the Financial Times has entered the fray, with a spirited interactive book review of FREE.

Anderson, in a straightforward extension of his thinking in The Long Tail, argues that with distribution costs declining radically (and marginal distribution costs on the Internet approaching zero), content wants to be free.  He points out that Free is a powerful concept, much more appealing than ‘cheap’.  As marketers have known for years, an offer of something for ‘Free’ fundamentally alters consumer psychology and decision-making.  He suggests that content should be free, that newspapers, record labels and other content providers should just get over it and find other ways to make money.

Gladwell makes a solid economic argument that content is not free, it’s almost free.  And that the only thing really approaching zero is marginal cost.  An airline might be able to put you in a seat for almost nothing, but someone still has to pay for the plane, just as someone still has to pay for all that bandwidth and infrastructure.

Godin makes the argument that Free is already here and that it’s good because it democratizes marketing and allows everyone to play.

Nobody, however, seems to consider the implication of all of this free stuff.  It is consuming the most precious resource in human history: Time.
For Anderson, Godin and perhaps even Gladwell, the Internet and all of the Free stuff is a goldmine.  As writers, they can spend their time panning the streams until they sift out enough precious dust to sate themselves.

For the rest of us, the new media world is rapidly giving us a headache.

Ask yourself the question, why do brands exist at all?  Because consumers are willing to trade something they make more of (money) for something they can’t (time).  Brands save us from the paralyzing indecision that we’d have every time we stood in front of a hundred kinds of toothpaste, or forty kinds of brown bread.

Yes, that’s right, we’re willing to pay more money for brands we know so we don’t have to spend Time deciding what’s good.

The fundamental problem with this world that we’re finding ourselves in is that consumers and marketers alike find ourselves drowning in free information.  It’s great that it’s free.  But we now spend more time than ever sorting and choosing and less time consuming.

The argument doesn’t matter, of course.  Godin correctly points out that what is happening will happen.  But the thought that newspapers will go away and their place will be taken forever by unpaid bloggers seems unlikely.  All of the good blog models on the Internet rely on people contributing ideas cheaply or for nothing.  Advertising hasn’t paid the freight for anyone.

So when this phase is done, when we no longer feel obligated to sort through 1000 meaningless, self-promotional Tweets on Twitter to get a good idea, what will exist?  Probably some big brands that charge us for stuff we all like and some small brands that charge some of us for stuff a few of us love.  And yes, some free stuff, too.

Of course it’s ironic that the one thing that’s clearly not FREE among all of this noise is Chris Anderson’s book.  That still costs $17.91.  To be fair, Anderson has said that Hyperion is going to let him make the book available for FREE online, but he can’t tell us just how.  We’re guessing that it will take us some time to figure that out.

The current fifth season of the reality show “Jon & Kate Plus 8” is the most popular in the show’s history, with the premier show drawing nearly 10 million viewers.  Part of the reason for the audience growth this season has been the marital troubles of Jon & Kate Gosselin, which came to a head as the couple filed for divorce on June 23rd.

One news item that followed this announcement begs a brand question: Kate claims in her divorce filing to have been separated from John for two years.   Initially the separation appears to have been limited to Jon moving to a room above the garage.  Now the couple has separated completely.  Other sources claim that the separation is “legal mumbo jumbo” and that the physical separation occurred just a week ago.  Whatever the truth, one fact is clear - the couple has had significant marital issues for much longer than they’d acknowledged.

Which brings us to the central brand question here: what is the brand promise of reality TV?  Is it to be real and honest?  Certainly a show on TLC (which was once The Learning Channel) would want to accurately represent the subjects.  And while Jon & Kate Plus 8 undoubtedly focuses on the kids, a primary reason many people watch it is to answer the basic question: how do you hold your marriage together with that many kids?

So the brand promise must be to honestly depict a family, with all of its flaws and foibles.  And by hiding that truth, for weeks or months, Jon & Kate Plus 8 let down its faithful brand advocates.  Which reveals an inherent problem with the reality genre.  Jon & Kate may have been doing the best thing for their family in trying to hide or at least minimize their marital problems.  But it was the wrong thing for the brand.  That is a difficult way to live.

Issue: The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) cozies up to IZEA - the former PayPerPost
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

David Gelles reports today in The Financial Times that IZEA, the former PayPerPost will be a sponsor of the upcoming Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) event WOMM-U in Miami.  WOMMA is an industry association that has created an ethical code that members abide by.

IZEA is the current incarnation of PayPerPost - service that allows companies to pay bloggers to write favorable reviews (paid advertising, essentially) of their products.  Current IZEA customers include K-Mart, Air New Zealand, Universal Music Group and the resort chain Beaches.

The paid blog posts are very similar to advertorials.  The difference is that these blog posts are not labeled as advertising. This violates WOMMA guidelines and is still roundly condemned by influential bloggers.

The surprise here is that WOMMA would accept IZEA as a sponsor.  As Gelles writes: “This is a bit like if McDonald’s were to sponsor a PETA convention.”

The brand question for WOMMA as well as IZEA customers like K-Mart and Universal Music Group is simple: what is the effect of insincere praise on sincere brands?

While consumers may stumble across these sponsored blogs in search (although Google has downgraded their page ranks), and consumers may make purchase decisions based on these reviews, the practice is built on a foundation of sand.  The moment the underlying motive for the recommendation is revealed - money - the negatives for the brand soar.  Advertising if done well can be effective and word-of-mouth marketing is ideal.  Masquerading advertising as word-of-mouth is worse than unethical, however.  It is a fundamental betrayal of the trust that is the primary driver of the relationship between the brand and the consumer.

And not surprisingly, there’s also the chance for brands using these unethical techniques, like K-Mart and Beaches to get negative PR attention by being outed in places like The Financial Times and this advertising blog.

AN AFTERNOTE:

Ted Murphy of IZEA writes the following in the comments on the FT article (addressed to David Gelles):

1. David,
I am the first person to admit that we made some initial mistakes with PayPerPost at launch. When we created the sponsored conversation industry there were no standards. We have had to make adjustments along the way and have since created the standards by which our properties currently operate.

While we have created our own standards I would actually argue that there are still no Internet-wide standards. WOMMA has done a great job creating guidelines and an ethical code, however that code is interpreted very broadly and the member base is relatively small. There is no universal form of disclosure among word of mouth marketers, not to mention online marketers and affiliate marketers.

We have taken it upon ourselves to create what I believe is the highest standard of disclosure and transparency in online marketing. In addition to operating a completely open marketplace we insist that bloggers abide by our REAL Code of Ethics.

http://socialspark.com/code_of_ethics

No other WOMMA member that I am aware of has standardized, machine readable disclosure. Bloggers cannot submit a post for payment without having our standard disclosure badge included in their post.

I do not deny our fumbles of the past, but I feel it is important to recognize our current state of operation. We have come a long way and we continue to innovate. Look for another announcement around the disclosure topic at WOMMAU next week.

Ted Murphy
Founder / CEO of IZEA
Twitter : @tedmurphy

Our response is as follows:

Ted,

Disclosure, even machine-readable disclosure, is not an acceptable substitute for transparency. Blogs are by nature conversations, and the form has grown and been sustained by original, authentic voices. When consumers read blogs they have the reasonable expectation of reading the honest and unbiased opinion of the blogger. By adapting paid endorsement (i.e. advertising) to the blog format, you are using the form to deceive. A disclaimer at the bottom does not remove your responsibility to the consumer.

So what are you doing six stories tall on the side of the NASDAQ building in Times Square in New York?
I was invited by GlobeNewswire as part of my World Wide Rave book launch to open the NASDAQ stock market in the first ever tweetup at a stock market opening. A tweetup is when people who know each other on Twitter meet in the real world.

Thirty people joined me on Monday morning March 30, 2009 at the NASDAQ MarketSite is located in Times Square, New York City. It was covered live on FOX Business News, CNBC, and other networks. I really appreciate everyone who took the time to participate with me. What a special morning.

In 140 characters or less -  Is Twitter actually useful for serious businesspeople?
Twitter is online conversation. Is conversation useful to businesspeople? Of course!

What social media tool do you see on the horizon as the potential Twitter of 2011?

The new social media tools that take off are those that provide a new and valuable way to communicate. LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are all examples of new ways for people to interact online. The next popular tool will not be a “me too” - it will be another service that allows us to communicate in a new way.

What are the simplest things that a brand manager can do to make his budget go further during a recession?

Realize that you can create valuable information online that people are eager to share for free. There is no cost to post a YouTube video, to distribute an ebook, to make a Twitter stream, to comment on a blog.

What was the most surprising story you heard while writing “World Wide Rave?”

I love the story of Lisa Genova. She’s the author of Still Alice and her manuscript was rejected by all the New York publishers so she self-published. As a result of her excellent blog and other social media initiatives, her book became a success and was acquired by a major publisher for a huge advance and the new edition debuted on the New York TImes bestseller list has been an international bestseller.

I love it. From rejection to bestseller all because of social media.

Tell us the best piece of marketing advice you’ve gotten from a non-marketer.

My father, a vice president of sales for technology companies, told me that if you are excellent public speaking, then you will always have a job.

If you became CMO of General Motors tomorrow what would you do differently?

I would immediately fire myself and name myself to a new position of “GM evangelist” and spend 100% of my time on social media and the speaking circuit.

What is one of your favorite small brands?

I really like GoPro - it’s a company that makes a camera that I use when I go surfing. http://www.goprocamera.com/

Your best travel tip?

Don’t stress. Relax. Read for pleasure. Chill.

What will the recession change permanently about branding?

There are better ways to get attention than buying it with advertising. You can earn it by creating valuable information that people want to share.

Brand

Description:
Amazon today launched the Kindle DX, a new eBook reader with a larger screen than the recently introduced Kindle 2.  The screen measures 8.5″ x 11″, the size of a sheet of ordinary notebook paper.  The device retails for $489 and appears initially to be targeted at students and newspaper readers.  Amazon has concluded deals with a number of textbook publishers as well as several universities including Case Western University, Pace, Princeton, Reed, Darden School at the University of Virginia, and Arizona State University.

What Works:
The Kindle DX will undoubtedly be revolutionary for students if textbook prices can be lowered enough to compensate for the cost of the device.  Parents and orthopedists will ultimately thank Amazon as younger children ultimately adopt the device and ditch absurdly heavy backpacks.

The bigger news about the Kindle DX is that it shows that there is still a slim chance that traditional newspapers might avoid extinction if they act quickly and decisively.  The availability of newspaper content for free on the Internet, the defection of classified advertising to Craig Newmark ’s brainchild craigslist as well as the increasing use of Google News and Google search by consumers to source news have combined to put newspapers in a dangerous state.  A number of smaller papers have closed and even giants like the New York Times show signs of weakness.

Large screen eBook readers like the Kindle DX show a possible path to salvation.  By eliminating the cost of printing and distribution and making the screen large enough to accomodate some advertising, the Kindle DX may persuade readers to subscribe to newspapers again.  Like the Kindle 2, the Kindle DX has a 3G wireless cell chip in it that allows newspapers and books to be downloaded immediately without connection to a computer.  The Kindle DX also has a more substantial web browser - presumably to allow the newspaper advertising to be more funtional for advertisers.

The concept is good.  This reviewer often reads the NY Times on the Kindle 2 long before he ventures to the lobby of his manhattan building to discover which creative new place the delivery company for the Wall Street Journal has deposited the paper.

What Doesn’t:

Amazon is not helping itself with the absurdly high price for the Kindle DX of $489.  This makes the Kindle DX more expensive than most netbook computers which allow readers to wirelessly read newspapers for free, as well as accomplishing other tasks the Kindle DX cannot do.  While this is also true of the Kindle 2, the Kindle 2’s size makes it feel more like the replacement for a paperback book.  Amazon may be able to achieve economies of scale for the Kindle DX simply by pursuing it as a textbook replacement, for which it is better suited at the pricepoint.  But it will not create a breakthrough for newspapers without a minimum 50% price drop.

Amazon also touted newspaper partnerships which would help subsidize the cost of the device with a long-term subscription.  This turns out to have been more wishful thinking than substance, as the New York Times announced these subsidies would only be available for rural readers who could not get home delivery.   This is really a missed opportunity for the newspaper industry which should be supporting these new devices in every way possible (free reader with three year subscription, anyone?).  Instead the New York Times continues on with the stone age marketing techniques that brought us the classic ploy of penetration pricing (offering new subscribers lower prices for a short time), thus assuring that the most loyal readers will be punished with the highest prices.  The Times business managers should peer from the top floor of their new building over to Sony-BMG and the ruins of the rest of the music industry to understand what happens when an industry fails to adapt its revenue model to technology.

Branding Bottom Line:
Amazon introduces an amazing innovation for the citizens of Monaco.

Today Walt Disney is reported to be taking an equity stake in Hulu under a deal that will bring ABC content like Lost and Desperate Housewives to Hulu.  In just over 24 months, Hulu has gone from being yet another silly startup funded by old media giants NBC (GE) and Fox (Newscorp) to the dominant long-form video destination on the web with ad revenue expected to surpass Youtube in 2009.

The formula to success however, has nothing to do with Web 2.0 wizardry.  Quite the opposite.  This advertising blog believes that Hulu is great because it’s brought the simplicity of the 1950’s to online video.  The magic formula has two parts:

1. Put everything in one place
2. Don’t overwhelm programming with advertising

Hulu defied corporate tradition by linking to content they did not carry.   If a prime-time television show could be found anywhere on the Internet, watching it was as simple as going to Hulu and searching, whether that landed you on Hulu or a media web site.  This probably seemed foolish to competitors at the time.  Why send customers away?  But it turned Hulu into the Google for long-form video content - the best, most relevant place to search and find television shows and movies.

The second part to Hulu’s success was dictated by the online environment, which is notoriously unfriendly to interruptive video advertising.  Consider two ways of watching an episode of FOX’s hit drama ‘House’.  Turn on FOX on a Monday night and you’ll get the full episode of House - 42 minutes - served up with 18 minutes of advertising.  On Hulu, watch the same episode with just five commercial breaks of thirty seconds each.

What’s not immediately obvious is that the second strategy works better - even before Hulu starts targeting the ads it shows based on your user profile.  Why?  Because you’re much more likely to watch a :30 second ad than a three-minute advertising pod.  In fact with DVR penetration increasing to record levels, it is becoming clearer that fewer and fewer television viewers are watching advertising at all.

Hulu is a great success, but the point here is that part of their magic formula is simple: they aren’t greedy.  If television networks hadn’t progressively crammed more and more commercials down viewer’s throats, we’d probably still be watching there, too.  Ask FRINGE …

Brand

Description:
To launch the 2011 Ford Fiesta, a new version of the subcompact car, Ford is using a year-long experiential marketing campaign called Fiesta Movement.  Ford interviewed over 1,000 hopefuls to award 100 of them keys to their own new Ford Fiesta for six months.  They will complete “missions” which will involve using the cars in different ways and “lifestream” the results over social media.  In parallel and during the week of the New York Auto Show’s opening, Ford invited key Twitters and Bloggers to test-drive a 2009 Euro-spec Ford Fiesta, which will is the car that the U.S. 2011 model will be based on.

What Works:
Ford hired Crayon social media guru Scott Monty to run its social marketing programs and he has put together a clever offering for the Fiesta.  Ford realized that a significant portion of subcompact sales (particularly of hot models like the Honda Fit and Nissan Versa) are clustered in five key cities around the U.S.  This made a social networking strategy viable for the brand launch of the new Fiesta. The Fiesta occupies a key market niche for Ford, one which has been long dominated by Japanese brands and is led by the Honda Fit.  The 2011 Fiesta will bring a Euro-sensibility to the small car niche as the design will be brought over from the model currently on sale in Europe.  Ford is following a classic influencer model on one end, with activities like blogger/twitterer test drives conducted around the time of major Auto Shows.  At the same time, the Fiesta Movement offers both the chance for word-of-mouth marketing and consumer generated advertising similar to the Nissan Sentra launch where blogger Adam Horowitz was challenged to live out of the car for a week.

The targeting and the social networking make this launch a good test case for both twitter and expanded social marketing programs in the car arena.

What Doesn’t:
A movement that starts a full year before the product launches is a huge commitment, so Ford will have to keep its eyes on the road to avoid crashing this one.

Branding Bottom Line:
Ford thought it was all a great idea until it put this blogger behind the wheel.

Description:
Following its longstanding theme of using experiential marketing to help people find good toilets, Procter & Gamble brand Charmin has introduced a website and iPhone application that allows users to locate a free toilet anywhere in the world using Google Maps.  The application is GPS-enabled on the iPhone 3G.

What Works:
A simple, brilliant application that may be the best brand-sponsored widget ever created.  Procter & Gamble solves a real-world problem by cataloging the world’s free toilets and connecting this information to Google Maps which is already the preferred location application on the iPhone.

What Doesn’t:
Reports have not yet come in to assess the accuracy of the Charmin toilet database.  If the information is not kept accurate and up-to-date this little iPhone application could become a big pain in P&G’s behind.

Branding Bottom Line:
Charmin mapping the world’s free toilets is probably more useful than NASA charting the lunar surface.

1. Find your core customer  - This is trickier that it sounds because your core customers may not be the biggest spenders.  They are the people who attract others to your business, who are the “acid test” for your brand and who represent your brand in the minds of other customers.
2. Become a direct marketer - Test everything before you commit large dollars.  Instead of running a huge promotion, try it on a small group of customers and see how it does.  Send out an e-mail to 1,000 prospects before you reach out to 100,000.
3. Add value instead of cutting price - If your price is grossly unrealistic, lower it.  But first consider bundling in extra value at current prices.  Add samples, extra services or custom consultations.  You’ll increase the value of your offerings but help maintain your price points, which are harder to raise than cut.
4. Narrow your brand positioning - A recession is a tempting time to try to be all things to all people just to maintain revenue.  But people are drawn to expertise more than ever in a recession and nothing shows expertise better than a narrow focus.  Even if you don’t cut products or services, make sure your communications focus on your core expertise.
5. Look for opportunities - Save marketing dollars to spend opportunistically.  Large competitors in particular tend to make marketing cuts in big chunks and implement them very quickly.  This can leave bargains in media or even PR.  Watch your competitors closely to find the best moment to spend instead of pre-planning all of your expenditures.  If your business is seasonal, save extra money to capitalize on unexpected media or PR opportunities during your high season.

You may know the details by now (and if not see Jackie Huba, Susan Gunelius or Stuart Elliott at the NY Times for excellent recaps), but Tropicana has suffered a new media thrashing at the hands of brand advocates unhappy with the new packaging by The Arnell Group.The enthusiasts are correct here, the packaging does indeed look more generic than the familiar packaging it replaces.  The brand name is recessive and the product shot of the glass of orange juice stretched over two panels of the carton makes the product look like private label.  The new packaging is also less functional, as it is harder to identify the form (with or without pulp, with added calcium, etc) as that information was banished from the main panel to the top flap only.  Finally, in spite of Peter Arnell’s elaborate doubletalk, showing the juice on the package rather than the orange was a huge mistake for a brand whose primary competitive claim is that it is squeezed fresh from oranges and not made from concentrate.

The two more interesting questions from our point of view are:

1. When should I spend the money to redesign packaging?
2. How can I avoid a Tropicana fiasco with my own re-branding campaign?

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Rebrand when you have news - a significant product innovation or dramatic improvement is a good reason to rebrand
2. Rebrand if your market position changes - if a competitor threatens your brand positioning and you need to focus, narrow or shift the position
3. Rebrand if you have new, innovative packaging - a packaging innovation is a good time to rebrand or just refresh the packaging look
4. Refresh if you want to update the brand image - if the brand is stale and needs an update, make evolutionary changes to modernize the packaging

The Arnell Group would have served Pepsi and the Tropicana better to focus on refreshing the packaging rather than entirely rebranding it.   The Pepsi logo rebrand was no less pointless than the Tropicana packaging overhaul, but it will be far less damaging because Arnell merely refreshed the logo by tilting it and adding a bulge.

Part of the lesson here is that if you don’t really understand what a creative guy is telling you, there’s probably a reason for that.

Brand

Description:
Two celebrities from the 1980’s - Johnny Carson sidekick Ed McMahon and rapper M.C. Hammer expound on the joy of selling all of one’s gold possessions for cash with numerous ironic references to their own troubles.

What Works:
This ad is brilliant not because of the execution - which looks similar to dozens of late-night cable ads - but because of the media placement on the Super Bowl.  Trained as we are to spot irony and wait for the punchline, this ad delivers exactly because the punchline never comes.  We expect an Energizer bunny to interrupt the ad, but it doesn’t happen.  It really is a spot featuring Ed McMahon and M.C. Hammer mocking their own bankruptcies and faded celebrity for the online equivalent of a pawn shop.  As such, this ad was one of the 10-most remembered ads of the Super Bowl even though it came from a brand with no brand recognition and cost a fraction of many of the other spots on the show.  Probably the most brilliant media placement decision of the decade.

What Doesn’t:
Even if the service is necessary, seeing the ad connected to the Super Bowl reminded us just how far our nation has fallen.   It’s never a good sign when the bottom-feeders look like the most savvy marketers.

Branding Bottom Line:
A brilliant media coup that still makes us feel violated.

Issue

As President-elect Obama has often noted, the international perception of the United States of America has a huge influence on our ability to accomplish our foreign policy goals.  Terrorism is more likely to be thwarted by the cooperation of the local police in Munich, a school teacher in a madrassa in London or a minor warlord in Somalia than by the direct efforts of the U.S. intelligence services.  Similarly, friendly governments cannot support U.S. policy goals without the support of their electorates, something that has been in short supply in recent years.

Electing an African-American, bi-racial President and one of the most charismatic and internationally popular politicians in a generation to our highest office will do much to change world opinion of Brand America.  It is only the first step, however.

Under the Bush administration, these duties were concentrated in the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  The post was taken by key bush communications advisor Karen Hughes.  Ms. Hughes travelled and spoke widely in an attempt to improve America’s image abroad, and the budget for advertising the United States was $685 million as recently as 2004.  This (as Forbes notes) is not as much as Coca-Cola spent on advertising in the same year.  However, considering that it had little or no impact on the actual brand perception of the U.S. (which declined), it is a huge amount of money.

Heretical as it seems for an advertising blog, I would suggest a completely different orientation for America’s next brand manager - one which does not involve advertising.

Instead of limiting U.S. brand efforts to the State Department and the Office for Public Diplomacy, President Obama should put a real, live brand manager in the West Wing.  The incoming administration understands that the largest part of perception of the U.S. will be shaped by the President and by foreign policy.  These issues are obviously out of the reach of any brand manager.  Therefore, the U.S. brand manager should focus on becoming the “God of Small Things.”  These small things can have an enormous impact on the way that the United States is viewed internationally and they are routinely ignored.

What do I mean by this?  The new U.S. brand manager should focus on small improvements in the way that the U.S. government interacts with its own citizens and foreign nationals.  These improvements can fundamentally alter the perception of the brand overall (this is one of the things I learned from Roxanne Quimby from Burt’s Bees, Craig Newark from craigslist, Gary Erickson from Clif Bar and wrote about in Accidental Branding: How Ordinary People Build Extraordinary Brands last year).

A good example of this focus can be found in the Bloomberg Administration in New York.  Mayor Bloomberg stepped into office at a historically difficult time in New York City’s history.  It was just weeks after the September 11th attacks, he was succeeding a suddenly enormously popular mayor, Rudy Guiliani and the city was in the midst of an epic financial crisis compounded by the attacks on the financial district.

One of the seemingly small things that Mayor Bloomber did (although it involved a huge amount of effort) was to create a single number - 3-1-1 - where New Yorkers or visitors could call to get information from all of the agencies of the city.  Calling 3-1-1 could do anything from checking on local tax laws, reporting noise complaint or open fire hydrants, checking the status of parking tickets or voting registration.  The city of Baltimore was the first U.S. city to implement a 3-1-1 number in 1996, but the New York implementation was vastly larger.  And the surprising thing was that it improved both the perception and the reality of city government.  Before 3-1-1, New York City had a wealth of resources and programs that could be of help to citizens but most of them were buried in layers of bureacracy.  By training individuals to navigate the system, 3-1-1 added transparency and also gave local government a way to check redundancies and track actual citizen needs.  3-1-1 became an interactive tool, allowing city managers to concentrate resources on the areas of greatest demand.

A new U.S. Brand Manager could focus on a number of small improvements to the manner in which the U.S. government touches U.S. citizens and foreign nationals including:

1. 3-1-1 - Implementation of a national 3-1-1 number (1-1-1?) which would consolidate all U.S. government functions from the IRS to National Passport Service to Homeland Security
2. Online Immigration Access - Creation of online application and tracking system for H1B and other visas which would include stage-by-stage tracking, similar to the UPS or Fedex scanning system
3. Customer Service Training - Comprehensive and standardized training of U.S. government workers in contact with the public in private sector customer service techniques.
4. U.S. Brand Environment - translating our values (democracy, fairness, ingenuity) into a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. public spaces abroad.  Ensuring that waiting areas and lines in U.S. embassies and overseas offices are efficient and unexpectedly pleasant experiences.  Good analogues exist in the overhaul of Department of Motor Vehicle offices in a number of U.S. States (including New York) as well as the marriage bureau in New York City to be faster and more pleasant experiences.
5. Disaster and Relief Services - Giving a common “look and feel” to U.S. disaster relief and giving first responders - from the U.S. military to the Coast Guard and others comprehensive training and tools in disaster relief.  Coordinating with private companies like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart and others to create a standard “U.S. Care Package” for post-emergency relief which reflects the U.S. brand.
6. Customs and Immigration -  Use the “dead spaces” in the customs process to help create a U.S. brand experience with video and visuals which are informative (meaning that they contain constantly updating information) and represent our values.

By comprehensively studying the individual interactions between U.S. government employees and foreign nationals, a new U.S. brand manager could improve the tone and quality of these interactions.  This would make a real contribution to U.S. Public Diplomacy.

Brand

Description:
The Sony album “Elvis Presley Christmas Duets” pairs Elvis with Martina McBride, Carrie Underwood and others on some of his Christmas classics like “Blue Christmas.”   To promote the album release (which has already put Elvis on the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart for the first time in a decade),  Sony is giving fans a chance to record a duet with Elvis and send it to friends and family as an e-card.  Sing With The King allows fans to either record their own voice or send the Martina McBride “Blue Christmas” duet with Elvis as a less painful alternative.

What Works:
Sing with the King is a clever extension of a time-honored holiday tradition of cute send-alongs (dancing elves, anyone?) by Sony.  From the brand manager’s perspective both this album and this promotion remind us of the enduring value of iconic brands like Elvis and how easy it is to renew them when it’s done with taste.  The promotion is simple and well-executed.  This advertising blog expects it to be among the top-10 virals this holiday season.

What Doesn’t:
Given our enduring fascination with YouTube and the success of American Idol, it is more than a little surprising that Sony hasn’t launched a “Sing with the King” contest or challenge.  As with Idol, the losers would undoubtedly be more appealing than the winners.

Branding Bottom Line:
The holiday is with us for just a moment, but The King lives on …

1. In your new book you analyze the Harry Potter phenomenon. What part did the personal story of J.K. Rowling play in the success of the book?

J.K. Rowling’s personal story actually played a big part in the initial success of the Harry Potter brand.  Her rags-to-riches Cinderella story was a goldmine for the press who ate it up and spit it back out to anyone who would listen.  As the brand grew, more and more people became intrigued by the first-time author/poverty-stricken single mother who wrote a book that so many people were talking about, thus generating more word of mouth marketing and more sales, but without that initial attention from the press, the brand may not have taken off the way it did.  We’ll never know.

I didn’t realize when I first started researching Harry Potter that the online buzz played such a significant role in the success of the brand.  Blogs were just starting out when Harry Potter began picking up steam.  At a time when most companies and brands were trying to crush that type of citizen journalism, J.K. Rowling and Scholastic embraced it.  Of course, their first reaction was to bring lawsuits against bloggers and fan sites, but they quickly realized that the power of what would eventually come to be known as the social web was too big to turn their backs on.  By letting the online conversation grow and flourish, the brand did, too.  In other words, by letting consumers experience the brands in their own ways, talk about it, and live it, the brand thrived beyond anyone’s expectations.

3. Is there also a lesson about the unexpected benefits of blogging that you can share here?

This goes back to the power of the social web and the early recognition by J.K. Rowling and Scholastic of the power of the online buzz that played a big part in the ultimate success of the Harry Potter brand.  Companies and brands are still not 100% supportive of bloggers, but they can hold an enormous amount of influence.  The success of Harry Potter by way of a strong online buzz, fueled primarily by bloggers and fan sites, is evidence of that.

4. What is your take on the Motrin Moms controversy?

As the mother of 4-year old triplets, I can say without a doubt that I don’t carry my kids as a “fashion accessory” as that Motrin ad implied.  With that said, I think the controversy is another example of the power of the social web wherein a vocal few can influence many (you know the old phrase, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil,” regardless of how right or wrong that is).  It goes back to the old shampoo commercial from the 1970s, “and she told two friends, and she told two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on…,”  The only difference is that today messages travel much faster, and influential bloggers, whose posts get syndicated, appear high in search rankings, etc., have the ability to reach a broad audience very quickly.  Marketers have to be careful to be politically correct these days, to a point where it’s nearly impossible not to offend someone.  It’s a challenge that’s far more difficult today with the existence of the social web than it was even a decade ago.

5. What is your favorite online marketing initiative right now?

The first one that popped into my mind is one that I just wrote a blog post on my company blog this week .  It’s about the new JCPenney viral video, Beware of the Doghouse.  The video and corresponding website were created to support the JCPenney in-store jewelry center.  The video is funny and timely, and the interactive website is really amusing.

6. What did you learn as a marketer from the U.S. Presidential campaign?

Branding consistency and inclusive marketing are more important than ever.  I wrote a post about that on my blog, too.

7. 3 Tips for Entrepreneurs in a recession?

To build business - keep networking (online and offline).  To save money - ditch your website and replace it with a Wordpress CMS site and use freelancers and open source applications.

8. One book in addition to Harry Potter: The Story of a Global Business Phenomenon that you’d recommend?

My copywriting book, Kick-ass Copywriting in 10 Easy Steps.

9. One online resource you could not do without?

Google - I use it for so much - search, email, applications, Alerts, Reader, YouTube, AdSense, AdWords - you name it.

10. Your favorite brand for the month?

I’ve been on an Apple kick lately.  It’s such a great example of relationship branding and societal branding.  I even fell victim to Apple’s marketing messages and got a Mac a couple of months ago.  Now, if only I could get an iPhone without AT&T as the carrier, but that’s another story, entirely.