Lairig Marketing

No Longer A Green Light For “Green” ?

Way back in the day, we wrote a post about “Green marketing,” whereby companies tout their products or their corporate selves as being concerned about, and active in, environmental matters.

At that time, near the end of 2010, pundits were sensing some consumer pushback. How could people NOT do business with “Green” companies, they wondered? Even pay a premium price to do so?

We posited that brands weren’t targeting the marketplace properly – instead of focusing on early adopters and having them help spread the word, they were blasting the entire population.

A year-and-a-half later, where are we?

A Boston agency by the name of Cone Communications just did a survey of 1000 adults, and found interesting nuggets like these:

- Only 44% said they believe marketers’ environmental messages…yet…
- More than 80% would believe a “green” symbol or certification of some sort on a product’s package…while…
- Only 25% care about the “green” details on how a product is manufactured

Which implies that marketers are overthinking this “Green” thing by half.

On the other hand, consumers aren’t. Cone also found out in its survey that 42% of people still won’t pay a premium just because a product claims it is good for the environment (or at least won’t damage the world).

That 42% is about what you would expect at this juncture. But we think that might be the peak. In our original post, we said the “Green” window of opportunity was small. It seems to be nearly closed now.

For illustration, how many of you knew this Sunday is Earth Day? For the scant few who knew, how many of you are observing it in some special way?

To make it less personal, let’s look at the greenest industrial company on earth – GE (see “Ecomagination”). Not a word about Earth Day on its website or its Facebook page.

Not even on Twitter. Which is ironic, seeing as how GE could have done it without wasting a lot of “characters.”

You Are Not Alone – But John Hancock Is

While they still exist (* sarcasm *), let’s talk about four typical ways a company can use a 30-second TV spot:

1. Let the customer know that you understand his challenge/pain
2. Talk about what your company does
3. Focus on the benefits the customer gets from using your “stuff”
4. Portray how great life is for the customer once those first-order benefits are realized

Good commercials get at least two done. Great ones do three. The best do #4 in dramatic fashion (think “1984”).

Some companies, for reasons unknown, spend the full 30 seconds covering only the first item. Example: new work from John Hancock, themed “You Are Not Alone.”

A strong positive here is that JH’s new CMO has halted the much-parodied campaign of 55-year-old bald men INSTANT MESSAGING each other with their most deeply held thoughts about retirement.

In all other ways, though, the “YANO” work delivers the same thing it did before: a message that the broad economy, and thus your personal economy, is f&cked up. This time, instead of private, digital conversations, we see multiple people in each spot speaking the same lines over each other. Hill Holliday did a beautiful job with casting, scripting, staging, etc.

But…does any U.S. citizen believe they “are alone” in thinking about these things? The comments sections on Yahoo Finance and Reuters would seem to indicate, resoundingly, “no.”

Worse, the issues introduced in each spot aren’t resolved. Are you better off putting your money under the mattress? Should you wait to invest in the stock market until (whenever)? Is the sky falling? Don’t know.

Ahhhh, then the payoff in the last two seconds: “Talk to your financial advisor.” Which John Hancock doesn’t have. It does have the products that an advisor could sell you, though.

Got it?

No?

You are not alone.

As we have said in prior posts about financial services marketing and positioning, the way to skin this cat is to deliver on the third item listed above. People need a clear understanding of the first-order benefits of a financial plan. Bad on John Hancock for not providing any practical website assets associated with this campaign – no landing page, no Twitter, no home page call-out, etc.

For now, this campaign is simply the sound of one hand clapping.

Who is going to sign up for that?

ADT – Secure With Its Split Personality

Segmentation and targeting, as we have probably said here too many times before, are vastly underplayed marketing components. As hard as it is to find good examples of the basics, it’s nearly miraculous to find a company that takes targeting up a notch. Or two.

We think we found one. In a boring industry, in the supposedly dead medium of TV.

ADT is the top dog in the strangely underpenetrated home (and business) security industry. For years it has run familiar TV ads, with shadowy figures lurking among the bushes, window glass breaking, the patented burglar’s gloved hand reaching for the doorknob, and the wailing of sirens.

The current TV campaign for ADT takes a different, um, take. You can view them on ADT’s YouTube channel here. Out with the shock and awe. In with flock and awwwwwww.

And, to get back to the essence of this post, not one but TWO very different consumer segments targeted – in ONE 30-second TV spot (which we are told is also dead, but we digress…).

Open with a husband and wife, sitting with their young daughter – i.e., the flock – outside their home (symbolic).
“When we were looking at home security companies, it was all about reputation – who could we trust?”

Cut to a young couple, inside their home, in a room with various strategically placed consumer electronics (including a basic fan – again, symbolic).
“For us, it was all about technology – we want the latest, most cutting-edge stuff.”

Here we are, just eight seconds in, and the dual targets – which represent probably 80% of the prospects for home security – have been set up perfectly.

A quick skim of ADT’s main features and benefits that address both couples' needs, and then back to each family, who tip their hat to the other segment.

First family – “So it turns out they’re big on technology too.”
Second family – “All I know is we really trust ADT.”
There is your awwwwwww.

AND STILL 5 SECONDS TO GO!! Enough time to drop in a local offer.

ADT needed to take this step for two reasons:

• The cable companies are coming after this space in a hurry


• ADT will soon split off from Tyco and be its own little company

When it does the latter, expect to see it added to the Lairig Marketing Index.

Hopefully, this “tech” company will securely reward our trust.

Sling Shot Baby Was A Sure Shot, Baby

Yeah, we know, it’s not the proper spelling of slingshot. But who cares? We’re more interested in taking another bow for our prediction that the Doritos “Sling Shot Baby” Super Bowl spot would take #1 on the USA Today Ad Meter. Without seeing any of the other spots.

This was the proverbial marketing “slam dunk.” (Note to next year's Doritos contestants – start concepting around the Doritos “Slam Dunk” baby.)

You are the leading tortilla chip by far. You have been around forever. Everyone knows who you are. You command a premium, with per-ounce price rising faster than that of gold bullion. You could run campaigns that focus, like most companies do, on

• The heritage and quality of the product
• The breadth of flavors, sizes, etc.
• A direct attack on competitors
• The many, many ways you can enjoy the product
• The emotional benefits the product delivers

But, quite frankly, there is no need. The stuff sells itself. You knew this as far back as 2007, when you asked “consumers” to submit their own Super Bowl spots.

The basic brief is the same – people love Doritos so much they will do anything for them. Or with them. Or to them. Etc. Etc. The submissions flood in, and the excitement mounts.

Most of the other Super Bowl advertisers are not in your fortunate position. They need to craft a compelling story to get people to consider them. The result sometimes is that viewers don’t really get, or care, what those advertisers are hinting at. For example, viewers might think Clint Eastwood is running for President.

“Sling Shot Baby” had winner written all over it. Oddball characters, a baby, baby as hero, and a crazy-ass, nearly believable stunt. Forget how off target it was – babies don’t eat Doritos and neither does anyone over the age of 50 (read: Grandma). It perfectly hit the sweet spot for an audience of 111 million, just one step above the lowest-common denominator, which GoDaddy owns lock, stock and barrel.

No one else had a chance (although, if Budweiser had placed a baby in its "Weego" spot….)

It will be more of the same next Super Bowl. And perhaps for the three Super Bowls after that. But, at some point, you will lose share, badly, and you will need to think about that bulleted list above.

You’ll take back the reins from “consumers” and produce your own Super Bowl spot. And it won’t come close to the top of the USA Today Ad Meter list.

Which will be a good thing. Because it will mean that you are on your way to winning something a little more important.

It’s Back. It’s Back. “Bravely.”

We flipped a coin, and lost. Lairig Marketing is back. Fifty days have passed since we closed up the blog shop, early last December. In all that time, absolutely nothing new has been written in the marketing-sphere.

In fact, it has gone exactly as we said it would in 2011’s final post: All Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, and P&G. And, oh yeah, for the sixth year in a row, this will be The Year of Mobile.

It is so bad, we’ve unsubscribed from Ad Age and AdWeek. If it weren’t for George Parker, there would be no reason to open the computer each morning.

Maybe it’s time to get an academic perspective on marketing. Let’s consult with the #1-rated Marketing MBA program in the U.S. – Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management.

Oops.

Last summer, Kellogg’s new dean embarked on a long journey to remake the school. And just like the “new CMO” phenomenon we see so often in the private sector, she spearheaded the development of a new marketing campaign. Complete with a new tagline.

Ready?

“Think Bravely.”

Grammatically suspect, Kellogg’s tagline is one part derivative (see: Apple, circa 1997), and one part off-kilter. As cynical as this might sound, people don’t get an MBA for the experience. The school each one chooses is based on which will deliver the best outcome. How would a Kellogg committee of its best and brightest miss this?

Lead Bravely, maybe. Or Manage Bravely. Or Get Rich Bravely. Whatever.

The "Kellogg Marketing Makeover" team didn’t stop at just a tagline. A manifesto was developed, along with a video touting the school’s new point of view. It would seem the team consulted the famous bullshit generator.

Here is Kellogg’s new brand mantra: “We believe business can be bravely led [ed.: then why not Lead Bravely as the tagline?], passionately collaborative, and world changing.”

They couldn’t stop themselves. Alongside the new brand video is this: “Intellectually Vibrant. Innovative. Socially Engaged.” (Can a person be engaged without being social?)

Perhaps in a later post, we’ll dissect the buzzword-filled, nonintuitive and often contradictory script for the “Think Bravely” video. Or how, in another video on Kellogg’s website, the dean summarizes the new brand essence as “thinking outside the box,” a term so old it now induces derisive laughter when said in a business setting.

For now, though, let’s end with this question: Why didn’t the dean focus on the data that indicates less than one of every five Kellogg MBA grads takes a job in Marketing?

We have enough “innovators” and “collaborators.” What we don’t have enough of are “brave” marketers.

Benetton & Wodka Advertising – Shock & Flaw

Here is an extract from a presidential candidate’s platform:

“…we have decided, through this campaign, to give widespread visibility to an ideal notion of tolerance and invite the citizens of every country to reflect on how hatred arises particularly from fear of 'the other’…”

Just kidding. That’s actually from the website of Italian apparel retailer Benetton. Every few years, the company gins up some controversy through distasteful imagery in print and out-of-home marketing.

This go-round, its “anti-hatred” campaign managed to piss off even the Vatican. Benetton was compelled to pull its photo-shopped ad of the Pope kissing a Muslim cleric. An altar boy could have predicted that outcome.

Some might defend Benetton by saying it has established itself as a lifestyle brand, for people attracted to global causes and outspokenness. Lest you think that translates to a growing, highly profitable brand, consider this:

Benetton annual sales have come in almost on the nose at 2-billion euros every year, for the past five years. Profit margin has been 5% each year, plus or minus a couple tenths. This is the mark of a boring brand.

Wonder how well it would do if it focused its marketing on its product.

Meanwhile, a campaign controversy that didn’t get as much press as Benetton’s came and went last week. Polish vodka maker Wodka got itself into a stew with the Jewish ADL for a billboard that, in so many words, said Jews are cheap: “Christmas Quality, Hanukkah Pricing.”

So much for Benetton’s “anti-hatred” vision for the world.

This is of a piece for Wodka, who has hit this theme with high-minded stuff like "Hooker Pricing” and “Newark Pricing." That same altar boy could have told Wodka's execs that this one wasn’t going to fly. The billboards were replaced in less than 24 hours.

All vodka is the same, except for price and branding. For Wodka to go all Benetton on a positioning of cheap is about as dumb as you can get.

Sort of like “Affordable Product, Polish Marketing.”

One Potato Two Potato Three Potato…NONE?

That’s it. I’m joining the Tea Party. Or at least the Potato Party.

In one more illustration of its wrongheaded meddling, our government wants to legislate the number of spuds kids eat at school. Sounds like a paradox, coming from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, no? One would think it would be on the side of the farmers.

But, no. It is part of the “federal school lunch program,” probably one of the least effective initiatives per dollar of input ever created (thank you, Harry Truman). The USDA has the time and energy to waste on declaring that, starting next year, school lunchrooms must limit the number of servings of potatoes to twice a week if they want to continue receiving federal subsidies.

It’s all part of the war on childhood obesity, of course. However, until the USDA, or other federal agencies, can legislate the following for schools, the “potato cap” will get us nowhere:

• Mandatory exercise during the school day
• Inspection of bagged lunches brought from home
• Eradication of in-school vending machines

This whole thing has set off a Congressional battle, with potato-farming state Senators defending their literal turf. Won’t be long before we hear something like this in a Republican debate: “Mr. Romney was for potatoes before he was against them.”

Now you know why we have lobbyists and industry associations. Like the National Potato Council (hurry – tickets on sale for the January Potato Expo in Orlando – Orlando?!?!). They are a tax on every industry, to keep government hands off.

What doesn’t happen often enough, though, are responses directly from the marketers of “end products.” The CPG guys who market potato soup, potato pancakes, potato this and potato that, should think about the messaging they could add to their normal marketing efforts to counter what could become a slow, secular decline in potato demand promulgated by a school lunch cap.

In the meantime, the National Potato Council might steal a page from another food group's playbook.

Citi Strikes Tin Once Again

If you’re reading this, then that means you are not at the annual Mommy Blogger conference, “BlogHer ’11,” in globally convenient San Diego. Thousands of attendees, almost outnumbered by the number of speakers, and dozens of corporate sponsors.

But don’t look for Citi. The financial company couldn’t pony up enough scratch to make the lowest rung of sponsorship (“Exhibitor Level”), where you will find such luminaries as CouponCabin.

Perhaps Citi feels it is doing enough for Moms with its latest marketing initiative. We’ve talked about Citi’s advertising before. And we’re sad to report that the marketer has not found a cure for its “tin ear” syndrome.

To kick off a partnership with BabyCenter.com, Citi recently sponsored a survey of Moms. Guess which of these is the correct title of the study:

A. How Much Will Your New Kitchen Cost You?
B. How Much Will Your Home Equity Line Cost You?
C. How Much Will Your Variable Annuity Cost You?
D. How Much Will Your Child Cost You?

Did you choose “D”? No? Tsk Tsk. Really, what is the difference between a mortgage and a baby anyway?

So far, the study results have garnered zero Tweets (which means this study has zero Klout!) and all of three comments on BabyCenter.com. Here is the first one, verbatim and in full:

“This article is not accurate. I have four children and it has cost us NOWHERE near the amount listed above to raise them. Ridiculous. Who reads these anyway?”

Indeed.

Don’t expect this sort of controversy to be discussed over the next three days. Here are just a few examples of what BlogHer ’11 attendees will be sopping up:

Blogging Your Way to Self-Acceptance
Food Photography That Will Feed Your Soul
Your Blog Can Make You a Social Media Marketer (ed.: Duh!)

Come to think of it, San Diego is the perfect location for this conference. The sun shines there all the time.

But if by chance the Moms do latch on to the “baby cost” matter, the lone Citibank branch in San Diego is just an 11-minute walk from the convention center.

HSBC – Honing Significant Brand Confusion

Reading the news yesterday, you would think this item is due solely to our craptastic economy:

“British banking group HSBC said Monday it will cut 30,000 jobs worldwide by 2013 and sell almost half its retail bank branches in the U.S…”

In part, though, this outcome is driven by a rare phenomenon – a bad business strategy that was worsened by bad brand strategy. The former Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation long wanted to be, as its tagline says, “The World’s Local Bank.” HSBC’s marketing team never figured out how to turn this into a meaningful brand proposition.

If you live around the Flatiron District, you might recall HSBC’s “Soapbox” campaign – ads built around video of random people voicing their dopey opinions on often-controversial topics.

It was a part of HSBC’s “Values” campaign, that illustrated how one object (like a small sleeping tent) could have many definitions of value (holiday, hell, etc.). Somewhere in here was the point that a big global bank could understand local markets. Huh?

Bad went to worse last summer. HSBC tried a new angle, unearthing bits of trivia to show off its ability to spot local opportunities. Here is one it regrets making an ad out of: “Only 4% of American films are made by women. In Iran it’s 25%.” The U.S. State Department went up HSBC’s arse for selecting a bad “local.”

HSBC stated at the time, “the design of the adverts is intended to surprise people and provide food for thought.” Oh my.

You are a bank, not a think tank, with a “name” nothing more than a jumble of letters. Consumers don’t want a “local” bank that is “worldly.” Take a cue from how much we hate national banks like JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America.

Ironically, First Niagara, the Buffalo-based bank that is on a roll and which purchased nearly 200 of HSBC’s branches, now vaults to #1 in New York State, indeed becoming “New York’s local bank.”

And once again, that popular antidote to lousy C-level management and poor board-of-director oversight puts thousands of workers on the street – Heads Shall Be Cut.

Budweiser: Watery Beer, Watery Ads

I’ve written about Budweiser’s craptastic subway ads before. Lest I thought those days were over, whatever agency the now Belgian-owned brewer uses continues to churn out more surreal imagery that tells us nothing about the beer istelf.

I am no photographer, so indulge my attempt at capturing one of the executions of the “Grab Some Buds” campaign.
I am also no Creative, but WTF is going on here?

Why are we shown only the label portion of the bottle? Except for the brand name, the rest is illegible. If the concept is “grabbing,” why not show someone (you know, a “bud”) pulling the bottles out of a bucket of ice? Or at least a person’s hand?

Now, focus on that weird shape to the right of the bottle. What the hell is that? It can’t be a piece of ice, because the other stuff flying off elsewhere in the picture is liquid water. Why is it red colored?

Is it a big drop of blood? Is it a symbol of a heart (subliminal = “you will love Bud”)? Is it some icon of a religious cult? Is it a strain of E. coli?

Finally, why the use of water? Wouldn’t you grab some Buds from ice? Inadvertently subliminal, we are reminded that Bud tastes like water.

Bud’s agency should have done it the way the Belgians do it.