Advertising Fuelosophy 101

iPhone versus Droid ... Does Anyone Really Care?

In my last post, "Do You Love Your iPhone?" a mention was made about the recent advertising campaign for the new Motorola Droid and its direct attack on the iPhone. If you are one of the few who hasn't seen the commercial, here it is...

As you might expect united Apple iPhone users responded in kind. And just in case you haven't seen it, here's their response...

Finally, the aficionado's of iPhone have been busy at work measuring the validity of the Droid advertising. Here's a glimpse of what I found on another site:

What Verizon put together contains blatant inaccuracies:

• iDon’t have a real keyboard: Er, it does. Not to get all Spock, but nothing unreal exists, the iPhone’s keyboard exists, therefore it’s real. Sure, it’s soft/virtual (like the Verizon BlackBerry Storm2’s) rather than hard, but it’s certainly not imaginary.
• iDon’t run simultaneous apps: Again, it does. The iPhone can run iPod, Email, Phone, Messages, App Store/iTunes downloads, Quicktime streams, and other functions in the background with full multitasking. Apple restricts two or more 3rd party apps from running at the same time, but that’s obviously too subtle a difference for Verizon.
• iDon’t take night shots: Well, we guess they mean the camera’s ISO doesn’t produce good results in low light. Fair point. Arguably nothing short of a really good DSLR sensor does, tiny LED flash included. Though 5 megapixels is still nice.
• iDon’t allow open development. Really, Verizon, with your history, you want to play that card? Android is an about face for you, not a two-face. We’ll wait and see on this one.
• iDon’t customize. Okay, fair point. One out of how many so far? UPDATE: Shawn Roberts points out it remains to be seen how customizable the Droid is. If it’s just re-arranging icons, the iPhone can do that too.
• iDon’t run widgets. What’s a widget? Arguably iPhone Stocks and Weather are widgets not far removed from Mac OS X’s Dashboard counter-parts. We’re guessing they mean little, persistent on-screen information snippets. We’ll give them a second point for that.
• iDon’t have a removable battery. Third point. Apple’s driven away from that entire concept towards longer life, built-in batteries and external charging packs. If that’s something you can’t stand, fair enough.

Do you think the Droid will be the first iPhone killer? Verizon is putting all of its muscle behind this phone and to the best of my knowledge they are the largest wireless carrier to support an Android-based phone (Google must be smiling). Any prophets among us? I'm interested in your feedback. That's my thought, what's yours?

Do You Love Your iPhone?

Love your iPhone? You’re not alone. The iPhone has the most loyal customers of any brand according to the Brand Keys 2009 Loyalty Leader rankings.

In fact, six wireless handset brands in all fell within the top 30 of the Loyalty Leader rankings. The findings were culled from a poll of 26,000 people via the phone and in-person in September. The rankings were based on whether consumers felt the brands they used met or exceeded their expectations. For handsets, those criteria were connectivity and performance, product design, good value for the money, and applications and features.

If you're wondering why consumers have become so fiercely loyal to their mobile phones, Roger Entner, head of telecom research at The Nielsen Co., offered the following thought, “They are an integral part of us by now. Like underwear, people always have their wireless devices with them, plus, they are personalized and are not a commodity by any stretch of the imagination like a hotel room."

I must admit, I really do love my iPhone. I made the switch in 2008 and haven't look back. I've tried other pda mobile phones, but nothing compares to the enjoyment of my iPhone. It has made my life so much easier with its features, functionality and ease of use. I can honestly agree with Mr. Entner it's always with me just like my underwear ... sorry tmi.

So this has been a great year so far for Apple. While many companies are still feeling the effects of the "Great Recession," Apple has reached record sales in both computers and iPhones. Their stock prices soared. It's kudos to a company whose share of market is less than 10% in both computers and mobile phones. From all the telltale signs, this company has a fantastic upside in its future.

Finally, I guess that's why Motorola and its new Droid are taking a direct aim at the iPhone (sorry, Blackberry and Samsung you don't rank). I'll save my take on that advertising for my next post. Well ... iPhone lovers take heart, your brand is way cooler than an Aston Martin. That's my thought, what's yours.

Wendy's ... Is It "Real" Enough?

The new Wendy's advertising campaign launched just last week emphatically states, "You Know When Its Real." And as the Wall Street Journal reported this campaign follows five different campaigns in almost as many years. So now the question becomes, is this campaign the real deal? Will it last? Will the company fulfill the promise of being authentic ... being real?

In an interview with Brand Week, Wendy’s CMO Ken Calwell explained their target consumer as more than just young males, but soccer Moms and stated, "they are label readers, they do care where the food comes from, they are smart shoppers, they’re going to places like Whole Foods and they care about where their food is sourced. They attract real, they desire real, they are looking for real in their lives and I think real is a very powerful idea. I say to people, “You’re not just looking for a job. You’re looking for a real job.” “You’re not just looking for a friend in tough times, you’re looking for a real friend.” The same thing goes here. It’s a powerful concept we feel we’ve leveraged off of."

Then Calwell added "Consumers themselves know when it’s real and they know when it’s not.” We wanted to give them that credibility, so [in the advertising] we don’t have to tell them: “We’re Wendy’s. We’re the real ones.” This challenges them to ask questions and look at [the issue deeper] because the more questions you ask, the more you know. So, when they ask questions about where we source our beef, how we cook or serve it, the better we look as brand and the better we look versus our competitors."

Now when it comes to eating a fast food hamburger, I must admit Wendy's is not my first choice and it may not even be my second choice. But every once in a while I will try one.

However, I was intrigued by this newest advertising campaign and actually enjoyed the "real versus fake" vignettes. They were clever and engaging from my perspective. In addition, it did make me stop and think about quality/freshness, which I'm sure is exactly the response Wendy's desired.

But ... and there's a big but ... here's another company climbing onto freshness/quality bandwagon and in the end for me its taste. I want to know if it tastes great or even better because of being real. Quite frankly my last burger at Wendy's left me with no thought of returning anytime soon. Does the Wendy's burger taste better than McDonald's or Burger King? For me, fresh never frozen, didn't titillate my taste buds quite like some of their competitors.

But according to Ken Calwell that's all about to change and I applaud Wendy's for taking the initiative, "So we went back and built a whole new discipline in the process and restructured the entire R&D team, which reports to me, and the marketing team, and we restructured them around innovation—not just any innovation, but innovation that lined up with the “real” positioning. So we’ve been working day and night to restructure and develop new products and build and [help develop] the team, and they’ve responded with an unbelievable pipeline. As of now, between May and November, we will be testing more new products in market than at any other time in Wendy’s history."

My final thought is that the advertising is much better than previous attempts and I'm looking forward to see if Wendy's becomes really real, not fake real. In fact, I may even go try a Wendy's burger instead of one of my favorite hockey pucks. That's my thought, what's yours? 

Of the World's Most Valuable Brands, Who's Most Engaged?

In July of 2009 an interesting report, titled The world's most valuable brands. Who's most engaged? was published regarding the true financial value of social media for the world's 100 most valuable brands (based on Interbrand Best Global Brands 2008 rankings). The purpose of the research was to evaluate how well these best brands are engaging their customers using social media and how that engagement correlates with their revenue and profit.

The conclusion of the research found that the most valuable brands in the world are experiencing a direct correlation between top financial performance and deep social media engagement. As the report states, "The relationship is apparent and significant: socially engaged companies are in fact more financially successful." The research was conducted by Wetpaint/Altimeter Group.

However, did you notice a vitally key word in this report's conclusion -- deep? The financially successful companies have a deep engagement, not merely a presence in the social media world. As I read deeper into the report, the return on investment comes only when you are extremely active and participating in the social media realm with your customers.

The definition the report gives to "deep social engagement" is as follows: resembling any in-person exchange, socializing requires more than just being there — you have to interact with others, instigate discussions, and respond during conversations. So there it is, a company can't dabble in social media and expect a return on investment — the plunge into social media requires a strategic intent and outcome, allocating the proper amount of resources and a commitment to stay engaged.

I was impressed by the four profiles the report presented regarding the level of engagement:

1. Mavens — engaged in seven or more channels and have an above average engagement score (think Starbucks or Dell).
2. Butterflies — engaged in seven or more channels, but have a below average engagement score (think American Express or Hyundai).
3. Selectives — engaged in six or fewer channels and have a higher than average engagement score (think H&M or Philips).
4. Wallflowers — engaged in six or fewer channels and have a lower than average engagement score (think McDonalds or BP).

The report goes on to outline why companies fall into these profiles, i.e., a Maven has a robust strategy and a dedicated team, and it's a core value for their go-to-market; while a Wallflower is slow to get started, testing a few channels, cautious about the risks and uncertain about the benefits so they engage only lightly in the channels.

Finally, click here for the link to the engagement scores for the world's top brands. There's much to be gleaned from this report so happy reading. The challenge still exists to move from being "I need to do this" and blinding jumping on the bandwagon to "Let's get it right" and develop the right direction to experience financial success. That's my thought, what's yours?

12 Causes for Advertising Failure

As I like to do from time-to-time, I was reviewing articles, materials and information from the past just to gauge the relevancy of the information in today's advertising world. We all know there are fundamental truths that can't be violated without effecting results.

So in my recent trek down memory lane reading, I came across a presentation that contained an adaptation from Roy Williams' The Wizard of Ads book, circa 1998. The title was Biggest Blunders, 12 Causes of Advertising Failure. I thought it would be interesting to post their list of 12 causes:

1. Desire for instant gratification
2. Attempting to reach more than the budget allows
3. Assuming the client knows best
4. Unsubstantiated claims
5. Improper use of passive media
6. Creating ads instead of campaigns
7. Obedience to unwritten laws
8. Late week schedules
9. Overconfidence in qualitative targeting
10. Event-driven marketing
11. Great production without great copy
12. Confusing response with results

The presentation went on to report that reasons #1, #2 and #10 are abused the most. And the conclusion in the presentation stated, "The lessons are three-fold: take a long-term approach versus the quick fix, focus efforts on fewer media and dominate, and establish brand marketing versus event only marketing."

As I reviewed and contemplated this presentation, one thought would not leave my mind, today's economy puts a tremendous amount of pressure on response that leads to results to meet business objectives. And just thinking out loud, why can't a company desire for instant gratification (#1- results) and establish their brand?

In my opinion, you don't have to exclude one from the other, it is possible to build your brand and build your sales at the same time. The key is combining a brand message with a brand offer. That is retail at its best. You still build consistency of message to influence perception of your brand and offer people the value they need to give it a trial. Once you have accomplished trial, the rest is in the hands of the company and consumer, but the advertising has done its job.

Well, there is definitely more depth to the understanding of a branded message with a branded offer, but I'll leave that for another day. However, I would enjoy getting feedback on your thoughts regarding the 12 Causes of Adverting Failure. Do you agree, disagree or even have your own list? That's my thought, what's yours?

Five Marketing Magazines to Help Keep You Up-To-Date

I know that there is plenty of information regarding marketing, marketing trends, what others are doing on the internet super highway, but I felt it would be interesting to share my top five marketing magazines that are available in print. From time-to-time I enjoy kicking back and reading a good print magazine without scrolling and searching. So here's five magazines worthy of a monthly subscription (not in order of importance) to help keep you in the know of marketing:

1. Target Marketing (they have made a nice transition from covering only direct mail marketing to include digital and social marketing as well).
2. OMMA (magazine of online media, marketing and advertising)
3. Promo (magazine for promotions both online and offline)
4. Advantages (mainly a magazine on advertising specialties, but always a great article or two on incentive marketing)
5. Brand Week (magazine on branding).

Please note that I have given an eclectic list since they cover different aspects of the marketing world. I would be interested in what magazines you think are worthy of the paper they are printed on to help stay on top of the changing environment of marketing. Well, that's my thought, what's yours?

Does a Brand have to Cut Through the Clutter by Going in the Gutter -- Part Two

Last week in our post, Does a brand have to cut through the communication clutter by going in the gutter?, one of the largest franchisees of Hardee's emphatically stated that his stores weren't going to use the restaurant chain's controversial biscuit hole ads. Well, Hardee's latest promotion is called "French Me" and continues their marketing theme of raising eyebrows with innuendo and sex to sell their brand.

This newest promotion is featuring its new French Dip Thickburger and the campaign enlists the support of four French Maids. The Maids have a tour schedule visiting stores in 11 markets throughout the South and Midwest during July and August. The campaign is event-based driven by social media. The microsite offers Facebook, You Tube and Twitter posts as well as the appearance schedule and reports on the Maids adventures. Also, guests can have their photos taken with the maids accessed online with a code.

I'm just thinking out loud and I know retailers for years have used sex to sell stuff, but how far is too far and when does the it all become me too? It seems only a few used the racy stuff, but now its not just a few chains, but many that are choosing to grab attention by going to the sexual edge.

I had to laugh out loud by one comment from Ron Ruggless, southwest bureau editor for Nation's Restuarant News, "Hooters has been seeing a growing number of competitors successfully engage them in the lure for the customer. Concepts such as Tilted Kilt, Twin Peaks, Bone Daddy's and Brick House are enjoying success in the 'breast-aurant' category." In addition, he stated "...restaurant chains and the people who market them just have to make sure they don’t over-sell the sex and underestimate their patrons’ sensibilities. The race for the bottom line can only be so racy." Click here to read his editorial.

I'm really curious to know, what consumers think, have the "breast-aurant" wars passed the fine line of sensibilities? Do the frequent diners of Hardee's, Quiznos, Burger King really get turned on for the brand because of sexual innuendo (sorry couldn't help myself on this pun)? I wonder if these tactics turn off just as many customers? I would love some feedback from customers and experts. That's my thought, what's yours?

Starbucks Rebranding its Concept?

As reported by CBS News, Starbucks Coffee is testing a rebrand of their coffee shop complete with a name change in three newly remodeled Seattle area stores on 15th Avenue. They are trying to tie into a stronger community personality. Their new name? 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. Wow, that rolls right off the tongue doesn’t it.

But wait there’s more. Not only are they serving the obvious (coffee and tea), but they will also be serving beer and wine and feature live music and poetry.   Is this a return to their roots? Are they trying to be “real”? Or are they scrambling and grasping at straws trying to save their business? The company has been unable in recent months to keep its sales growing as more consumers cut out small luxuries to save money and the competition with lower-priced rivals like McDonald's Corp. has heated up.

Does a Brand have to Cut Through the Clutter by Going in the Gutter?

Does a brand have to cut through the communication clutter by going in the gutter? According to the largest franchisee of Hardee's the answer is no way! Boddie-Noell Enterprises in North Carolina has vowed not to use the restaurant chain's controversial biscuit hole ad and also says it will press Hardee's parent CKE to clean up the campaign and eliminate the spots "in all markets."

The franchisee's move came after it received a complaint about the spots -- which uses terms like A-hole, B-hole, sweet balls and "bisticals" as potential names for the new biscuit holes that compete with products such as Dunkin' Donuts' doughnut holes. The complaint was rendered by Parents Television Council. The PTC objected to the "racy" and "brainless" nature of the biscuit hole campaign, which it contends is inappropriate for family viewing.

Boddie-Noell Enterprises chairman Ben Mayo Boddie agreed and said they do not plan to air the spots in any markets they control. The company operates almost 350 Hardee's restaurants in the Carolinas, Virginia and Kentucky.

The response from CKE was classic and said it would not pull the ad: "CKE Restaurants, Inc., owner and franchisor of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's restaurants, adopts a creative approach to our advertising. It is intended to communicate the core message of our premium quality food to our target audience of Young, Hungry Guys. We do not aim to exclude or offend any other group with our efforts, but merely to appeal and amuse a very specific audience." Click here for more of their response and story.

I find CKE's response interesting with two notable phrases: "premium quality food" and "young, hungry guys." And to me I'm struggling to completely understand their strategic intent.

Keep in mind, I'm not the target audience (too old), but had to laugh at the statement of "young, hungry guys" since it conjured up visions of elementary school and junior high where all guys laughed at body parts and body functions. I'm wondering, beginning in high school, then college and on to 20 something workers if body humor starts to wane.

Then what about the terms of A-hole, B-hole, sweet balls and "bisticals" being associated with their  premium quality food. Here's where I really scratched my head. We work with a few restaurant brands and what we have learned over the years is it's about the food ... good food brings diners (fast food or otherwise). So when you make an association for those sophomoric young, hungry guys that your premium quality food is compared tongue-in-cheek with an orifice or reminds you of the male anatomy ... yeah I guess that is appealing ... not!

Last, but not least, I'm sure CKE and their agency feel that the advertising will capture the attention of their very specific audience. In reality, it may because my guess is that they have generalized that all young, hungry guys don't think, they just eat, so let's just get their attention any way we can. But we all know that young, hungry guys think about sex even more, so why didn't the company think about that.

Well, here's a few of the spots for your review and I've given you my thoughts, what's yours?

Does Social Networking Help Brands?

According to a study recently released by WorkPlace Media the answer to the question posed in this blog's title is no. The overall impact of a brand's presence on social networking sites is minimal in terms of impact and perception, according their conclusions.

The major findings in this study state that 96% of respondents said their opinion of a product brand did not change if that brand had no presence on a social networking site, and only 11% of social networking users reported following any major brand through a social networking site, and just 12% of respondents said their opinion of a brand changes if that brand maintains a social networking presence.

In addition, the study found that only 25% of respondents recommend a business/product via a social network site and just 18% acted upon a business/product recommendation from a social networking site.

Stephanie Molnar, CEO of WorkPlace Media, says "When it comes to influencing brand perception and purchase decisions... social networking... has a long way to go."

Well, the opinion of this writer is what would you expect? Much of the social media environment was built upon the premise of "keeping in touch." Facebook was started so college friends could connect, Twitter began with the simple thought of "what are you doing," LinkedIn was the business version of Facebook and You Tube was created to upload and share videos. And if you check into the histories you'll see all of these social sites (and more) are still in their infancy.

Think about it, if the goal is to connect with friends, family, coworkers, business associates, laugh over a video, then it makes sense that it is not a brand influencer ... yet. The key word here is yet. As the social networking sites continue to evolve (and they are evolving ... who doesn't get irritated when someone tweets what they're having for lunch), a brand can have an impact. But the brand must think like a person, not a product, not a service, but a person.

You might be thinking what a stupid thought, brand think like a person ... bear with me ... people connect with each other, they gain value, support, help, enjoyment, etc. by sharing life ... a brand can do the same. A brand can offer value, insight, support, help, enjoyment by sharing its attributes with people who are interested or part of a community. What a brand shouldn't do is think like an advertiser and just blanket the social sites with offers, deals and more. This is mass advertising, not social networking.

And as us in the industry grow in understanding of evolving social media, the better we can help brands think like a person. In a year from now, I would love to see this study again ... because smart people are already figuring this out. That's my thought, what's yours.

Detroit Lions- King of the Letdowns

 
Wow! What a letdown. I’m really used to saying that about the Detroit Lions, but I’m usually referring to their playing, not their logo. Yes, the Lions have a new logo and surprise! It looks just like every other professional team franchise logo that has been re-designed in last few years.

 

I can’t say that I’m really hating it and I’m definitely not saying I like it either. But it definitely is a “me too” logo. They've succumbed to the woosh factor! What ever happened to originality? Does the NFL force all teams to use the same graphic designer? Why can’t they just win a stinking game?

Well, I can only hope the new design breathes new life into the team and reinvigorates them. Let’s hope for a 1 and 15 season! After all, there’s no where to go but up!

Where Do Trust and Influence Converge in the World of Brands?

Today I read two different reports from two different companies and I thought it would be interesting to link the reports, in a casual kind of way, to see if there is a learning lesson for brands. The first report comes from Razorfish, titled "Fluent." The second report comes from Nielsen, titled "Global Online Consumer Survey."

The Fluent report concludes, "traditional top-down branding will become increasingly  impotent as social media grows. Consumers continue to rely on personal  networks to learn about products and services. Consumers are shaping brands as much as brands themselves are. Brand management will require greater transparency and a stronger connection to consumers than ever before." And just for the record, we have known this fact for a while and agree with its premise and direction.

Razorfish advises that all brands should at least grasp how social media plays into purchase decisions. The study indicates that "social influencers," people active on social platforms, tend to hold the most sway during the consideration phase leading up to a purchase. Close family and friends play by far the biggest roles at the initial awareness and final "action" stages relating to a purchase. Corporate bloggers typically rated at or near the bottom among influencers at each stage of the process.

 The Nielsen report offered these conclusions, "recommendations from personal acquaintances or opinions posted by consumers online are the most trusted forms of advertising worldwide. 90% of consumers surveyed said that they trust recommendations from people they know, while 70% trusted consumer opinions posted online. However, in this new age of consumer control, advertisers will be encouraged by the fact that brand websites, the most trusted form of advertiser-led advertising, are trusted by as many people (70%) as consumer opinions posted online."

Jonathan Carson, President of Online, International, for the Nielsen Company, said "The explosion in Consumer Generated Media... means consumers' reliance on word of mouth in the decision-making process... has increased significantly."

So what does this all mean when you link the influence of Razorfish's report with the trust of Nielsen's report? In reality I think it is quite simple, people trust people ... the little guy ... the voice of the people ... and social media has given the voice of people a very large stage. And the people are looking to shout good or bad their experiences and every so often the shouting gets very, very loud.

In day's past, all of us in this industry knew that word-of-mouth was always the most powerful form of advertising and we could quote the rule-of-thumb: one good experience is told to 10 people and one bad experience is told to 100 people. Well, today, word-of-mouth is exponentially larger, think You-Tube, think Facebook, think Twitter, it doesn't take long for a message to reach out and touch someone.

To end where we began, where do trust and influence converge for a brand ... in the hands of those who type 140 characters, post to a wall and search for information ... and all tell a story about your brand ... so how about it joining in on the conversation. That's my thought, what's yours?

 

GM Looking At Green Has Me Seeing Red

According to the AP, GM is looking into changing the corporate blue of its logo to green. They say it’s to “show consumers that it’s more focused on fuel efficiency and better able to make quick decisions.”

What? The fuel efficiency angle I can understand, but not really agree with.  Better able to make quick decisions? Please. Isn’t that the type of thinking that got them into this trouble in the first place? Why on God’s green earth (pun intended) would they want to convey quick decisions? Wouldn’t it be better to convey that you are making smart decisions?

During a time like this wouldn’t it be smarter to convey that they are a stable company? A company that isn’t going away. One that is focused on what’s really important- fixing what is really wrong with the company and not sidetracked by what is trendy.

Saying that you a green company by making your logo green is just a little passé, don’t you think?

Besides, changing the color of a logo is no small feat. It’s not just uploading a new file to your website to replace the current blue logo. The logo needs to be changed everywhere- on letterhead, buildings, trucks, on everything and everyplace that you see the current logo. That will cost the company MILLIONS of dollars. In my opionion, that’s millions of dollars wasted.

Here’s a better idea- take the money you are going to spend on the logo change, and keep a few more people in your company employed.

I say out with the new and keep the old. Go blue!

Mozilla Firefox Updates It's Logo ... Really!

With the upcoming release of Firefox 3.5, there’s refined logo to go along with it. While I’m always open to a logo or brand refresh every few years, sometimes I just have to wonder why.

Overall the new design is very similar to the old one. The new one has more detail, and less contrast in the fox, and the earth land masses have shifted, has less contrast and another coat of shellac added to it to give it that extra oomph.

I personally do like the new logo better, but would I (or 98%) of Firefox users ever have noticed if Mozilla had not announced it?  

What's Happening to Brand Loyalty in this Recession?

One of the hallmarks of any brand is loyalty. Much of what we marketers do (agency side and client side) is to help a customer become a raving fan who won't switch just because they got a "better offer." But it appears this recession is creating quite a problem for brand loyalty ... most definitely for the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry. And there is a lesson to be learned for the every other company who has a brand whether they know it or not.

The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Council and Pointer Media Network recently released a study on CPG brand loyalty and defection among American shoppers. Their discovery: for the average brand, more than half of all loyal consumers in 2007 did not remain loyal in 2008 and the overall level of consumer loyalty appears to be declining year over year. They identified the problems to loyalty as follows:

1. Consumers are seeking new experiences in terms of product attributes, such as flavor, packaging and ingredients (variety);
2. Consumers are interested in or compelled to save money (value);
3. New loyal customers are not being added fast enough to replace those who switch and defect.

The study concludes that the loss of loyalty is higher than many thought and that the current recession is accelerating the impact of brand defection. In other words, brand loyalty is a consistent problem only made more severe because of the economy.

Even though this study specifically relates to the CPG industry the lessons exist for any company who wants loyal customers. So what should you do to foster brand loyalty? Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Think paranoid (in a good sort of way). Realize that brand loyalty is fragile at best. And this paranoia should drive you into action ... protect your brand ... there is always someone ready to entice your good customers.
2. Think Experiential. Today's consumer/customer seems to be looking for that next experience, a good experience. Develop a variety of ways someone can connect with your brand and the key is think connection, not intrusion.
3. Think Incentives. For the loyal customer, reward them and offer relevant information that communicates you're valued; for the newer customer, drive them in with the deal and win them over with the experience.
4. Think behavior. Remember an old saying about real estate and what's most important -- location, location, location; well here's what's important to your brand -- customer, customer, customer. This means it's not about what you like, but what they like and want. Your brand serves them. Elementary, but so often forgotten.

Earlier in this post I included a link to be able to read the study, please take advantage of it. This was a great reminder for me today that we all need to work hard for what we have been so blessed to receive -- clients/customers. That's my thought, what's yours?

This Newbie's Got Game ... Branding Game That Is!

Fresh Fuel has expanded its expertise by adding the newest Fuelie to the crew. His name is Bill Hadden and he takes on the important role of Account Planning and Management along with a dose of new business development. We've been persuading Bill to come aboard for quite some time and we finally got him to say, "Ok, let's do this."

He was a tough sell, but like any high quality, strategic-minded, consider everything to the nth degree account person, he saw the wisdom and potential of joining our crew of fun-loving, smart-thinking, creative-creators and honest-to-goodness brand builders. Can you believe I got to say everything that is important to us only one long run on sentence.

Well here's a little something something about Bill ...

• He came to us from Big Boy Restaurants International. He was Executive Vice President Marketing and Innovation.
• Actively lead brand development and innovation strategies focused on creating relevance which resulted in winning the following awards: 2003 Nation’s Restaurant News Successful Settings Award for new prototype restaurant design and Nation’s Restaurant News 2007 Hot Again Concept Award.
• Brand steward and lead contact for all advertising agency relations and work. 
• Winner Nation’s Restaurant News MUFSO Excellence in Television Advertising Award 2005 and 2007 for “The Boy I Love” and “Big Boy, It’s a Michigan Thing” campaigns – lead strategy development, creative execution and launch. 
• A highly accomplished marketing and advertising executive with agency and client experience.  

As we continued to pursue Bill, one item on his resume really stood out for us -- he was a key member of executive team responsible for the overall vision, strategy and growth plan that pulled Big Boy Restaurants from bankruptcy in 2001. Bill's role in this turnaround garnered industry recognition and awards for the Big Boy's brand renaissance.

Congratulations Bill and welcome to the Fuelie crew! We look forward to working together and building/enhancing the brand work for our clients current and to come.

Who's Got Brand Equity?

On June 8, 2009, Harris Interactive released the 2009 results of EquiTrend, their annual brand equity study that measures more than 1,000 brands across 39 categories. EquiTrend uses six base measures familiarity, quality, purchase consideration, brand expectations, distinctiveness and trust. And this year, given the difficult economic times, a seventh base measure was added to capture the value consumers feel they receive from a brand for the money they pay.

Would anyone be surprised that the top brands for 2009 are comfort foods? Yes, eat a little chocolate, then add some peanut butter and crunch the candy shell, topped off with a good cry (maybe because you ate too much to feel better) and you've got this year's top brands. Here's the chart as published by Harris Interactive:

Rank       Brand                                           Overall Equity Score
  1          M&M’s Plain Chocolate Candy               79.54
  2          Hershey's Kisses Chocolate Candy          79.45
  3          Arm & Hammer Baking Soda                  78.30
  4          Reese's Peanut Butter Cups                  78.14
  5          Hershey's Milk Chocolate Candy Bars     78.06
  6          Kleenex Facial Tissues                          77.47
  7          Campbell's Soups                                 77.35
  8          Google                                               76.70
  9          M&M’s Peanut Chocolate Candy            76.61
10          Crayola Crayons                                   76.61

It is also notable, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that at the bottom of the list were brands tainted by the perception of "bad for you" both in health and finances. The firm says tobacco and financial service brands, particularly AIG, joined the ranks of these weaker brands on the bottom.

However, my favorite quote in an article about the number of comfort foods, i.e., chocolate, that have such strong equity in 2009 comes from Wes Brown, an analyst at Iceology, "It's something you choose to reward yourself with, so you are going to buy what you like because, 'Screw it, everything else in my life may suck so why get rid of the one thing I like?'"

So here's to eating more chocolate and feeling good about it ... that's my thought, what's yours?

Mobile Marketing: A Best Practices Guide

I recently ran across an article with the title above and thought it would be good to pass along. It was written by Mike Wehrs, president/CEO of the Mobile Marketing Assocation. The Mobile Marketing Association is a nonprofit trade association dedicated to growing the mobile channel by establishing guidelines and best practices.

Here's a synopsis of the article:

1. Since the consumer is central to the mobile marketing experience the only way to ensure success as marketers is to build faith that this is a positive way to engage with their favorite brands.
2. Because mobile devices are so personal the marketing messages must engender trust. To engender trust, deliver messages that are positive, highly relevant and contain specific value.
3. The marketer needs to know how to develop a true dialogue of interaction with its customers.
4. Marketers must move away from traditional push (interruption-based) advertising and adopt the tenets of positive consumer experience.
5. The tenets of a positive consumer experience are as follows (according to Mobile Marketing Association's global code of conduct):
   1. Choice: consumers must opt in and make it easy to opt out if so desired.
   2. Control: consumers should have control of when and how they receive messages.
   3. Customization: any information provided by consumers is to personalize content.
   4. Consideration: offer value to consumers who allow you to communicate with them.
   5. Constraint: manage and limit communication.
   6. Confidentiality: don't share consumer information with non-affiliated third parties.

Wehr states "the ideal ambassadors for the mobile marketing cause are consumers ... brands should make sure their communications are interesting, relevant, valuable and, above all, requested."

In the end, I guess that is what we all want ... to be wanted! That's my thought, what's yours?

P.S. If you would like to read the article in its entirety, just click here.

The End of Advertising as We Know It ... Tell Me Something New Please!

The IBM Institute for Business Value originally published in September 2007 a research study titled, "The end of advertising as we know it." The summary stated "Traditional advertising players - broadcasters, distributors and advertising agencies – will need innovative new approaches to respond to major industry shifts underway." DUH.

The study was updated in March 2009 and here's the concluding statement to the research, "There is no question that the future of advertising will look radically different from its past. The push for control of attention, creativity, measurements and inventory will reshape the advertising value chain and shift the balance of power. For both incumbent and new players, it is imperative to plan for multiple consumer futures, craft agile strategies and build new capabilities before advertising as we know it disappears." DUH 2.

I'm sorry but the title is cliche, the content yesterday's news, and the direction seems like it could be regurgitated by any first year college student studying our industry. We all know the landscape is changing (not disappearing) and every day is a challenge to get a handle on the digital dilemma of consumers in control of brands. And as professionals in this industry this becomes our value ... helping clients navigate the loss of control and then embrace its power by nurturing zealots for the brand.

Hey, IBM if you published research that would help us understand the true nuances of the changing landscape in advertising and brand development versus broad statements from the negative side (of which we already know), I would be among the first to shout you out positively. Sorry, but that's my thought, what's yours?

Take a Poll: Brand Obama ... Are Fried Chicken Fingers Taking It Too Far?

A recent article in NYDailyNews.com featured the headline, "Finger lickin furor: Obama Fingers, Barack-branded fried chick fingers, spark anger" and it certainly caught my eye!

The article went on to report that Sprehe, a German frozen food company, seeks to capitalize on President Obama's popularity by marketing a new fried chicken product called "Obama Fingers." A company spokesperson, Judith Witting, (sales manager) told Spiegel Online, "It was supposed to be a homage to the American lifestyle and the new U.S. President."

The reaction to Obama Fingers is sparking outrage from African-Americans on this side of the Atlantic. The NYDailyNews.com quotes, Councilman Charles Barron of Brooklyn, NY ... "It's racist and inappropriate." He is calling for a boycott of the company's products. "We should do all that we can to see to it that no [company] disrespects the first black President." In addition, state senator Bill Perkins, states, "Without a doubt it does raise concerns that are rooted in the history of racism and stereotypical types of characterizations of AfricanAmericans. It reminds us that [Obama's] victory does not automatically end that which we've been struggling against."

In response, Judith Witting said the connection between Obama and fried chicken - a stereotype long associated with African-Americans - never occurred to her. The company alleges it didn't intend to offend anyone.

So what do you think? Please take our simple poll and let us know.