The Grain of Salt

One of the things I used to love about the radio business is that everyone was #1 at something.

Radio reps would come see you and, with an absolutely straight face, would say things like "Well, we're Number 1 in blond women who own Corvettes" or in "Hispanic Black Gay Males who also go fishing in the weekend" or some other incredible convoluted target.

And, to be fair, all media did it. We'd have magazines who were "Number 1 in fortnightly publications who come out on Wednesdays", cable networks who would imitate radio (Number 1 in Hispanic Asian Women who cook for families larger than 5 members and also had an MBA") or something.

I always told my media directors: Sit back. Take a breather. And ask yourself "does it make sense"? Then do a bit of research.

So I was happy to see this gem courtesy of Vme

I mean, it's still impressive, #2 and a far #2 compared to Telemundo.

Impressive, yes, but a bit misleading.

What is it running against?

Univision has "Muchachitas como Tu" Sundays from 9-10 and clearly delivers 4 times more audience. But... #2. I mean, not bad, right?

Telemundo runs "Pearlie", a cartoon aimed at what looks to be 5-9 year old girls and so cloying that a mom would have to be really dedicated to sit down with their 5 year old to watch it.

Galavision doesn't have programming from 9:00 - 9:30, it runs infomercials. At 9:30 it then runs "Al Sabor del Chef"

Telefutura runs "Plaza Sesamo" also aimed at what, 5-10 year olds?

Discovery? Clear VME win. They run animal shows.

Mun2? Morning Breath. Clear VME win. Then again, Mun2 is so on top of it that, on Monday at 5pm they were still "working on this week's grid". Really.

And Azteca America doesn't even show programming on Sundays at 9:00am, so, infomercials.

Bottom line: Any time you see a statistic like VME's, which clearly, doesn't make any sense a priory, take a couple of shots of salt and go to the bottom of it.

Why the web demolished newspapers as news sources

This was the view on Thanksgiving... maybe 4 or 5 times more FSI's than actual news. And even the actual news sections were full of ads.

Given the scant amount of actual news, any doubts as to why just about everyone gets his/her daily news fix on the web?

Lame Cliché Thinking – Reboot!

In what seems to be a time-honored tradition, one more consultant warns that “Holiday Season Price-Cutting and Hard Sell Can Damage a Brand”

http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/holiday-season-price-cutting-hard-sell-damage-a-brand/231023/

It’s time to re-examine that myth.

#1 – Price –not sex—sells.

Time Magazine reports that, for the first time in 20 years, the percentage of the population employed in the U.S. is lower than in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands.

The Govt. Poverty Line being set at $22,350 for a family of four. In September 2011, the Census Bureau reported that there are 46.2 million people living below it, an increase of 2.6 million people from last year.

The New America Foundation estimates that the share of middle-income jobs fell from 52% in 1980 to 42% in 2010.

So, first things first… today, if you are not on sale, you are not selling.

As I reported previously in this blog (http://salupmedia.blogspot.com/2011/09/braman-miami-how-to-destroy-and-image.html) even Bentleys and Rollers are advertised on price. A practice that, by the way, I don’t agree with, but they appeal to the upper 1% of the upper 1%.

#2 – When is a “brand” not on sale? When the retailer sells it.

Think about your day-to-day brands… the Nikes, Colgates, Crests, Pantenes, Folgers, Thomas English Muffins, Smuckers, Coca Colas, Budweisers, Canons, Sonys, Panasonics, iPads and the other hundred premium names that surround us in real life.

One of the common elements that they all have is that they are sold through retailers, be it your local Foot Locker, Publix, Ralph’s, Best Buy, Brands Mart and, naturally, Walmart.

Do you honestly think that Coke went flat, Thomas English Muffins grew moldy and Nikes are less desirable because a retailer decided to offer a discount or BOGO? Nah.

Do you really think that Macy’s shoppers will blame Polo for long lines at the register? Or for the crowding in the corridors? Nah. They’ll blame Macy’s.

Real consumers understand both concepts to the “t”. If not, they wouldn’t even bother using coupons to buy name brands, they would just buy the store brand for less money.

If you want to think nuclear damage to brands think Walmart, Costco and their brethens. And not because they sell brands cheaply (people see that as a benefit) but because in driving all profits from brands, they dis-incentivate brand creation. Why brand your Kellog’s Cereal Bars if you are going to make a few cents per sale? You might as well create more store brands!

So, most of the time, it’s not the brand that’s on sale… it’s the retailer holding a sale.

#3 – The brand “experience”

Go back to the brands that surround us on a daily basis… and what is another huge common element? Their transactional nature.

I go to Publix… then buy shampoo (Pantene), toothpaste (Colgate), coffee (Bustelo or Pilon Black), chicken (Purdue), soft drinks (Gatorade or Propel Zero), bananas (Chiquita)… and dozens of other products. All branded. All transactional.

I definitely like these brands –and go out of my way to buy them—but there’s no experience, just a transaction. A branded transaction, to be sure, but a transaction nevertheless.

More… my wife goes to Macy’s (a brand) and buys Clinique makeup. Again, transactional… she is replacing make up.

From a regular consumer point of view, I’d say that 90% of all brand “experiences” are transactional. Branded. But transactional.

#4 – So why brand?

A brand only has one purpose in life: get a consumer to pay a premium for what would otherwise be a parity product (think store brand, Sear’s sneakers…)

Branding as a discipline only has one purpose: get the brand to be in as many transactions as possible.

From my experience in consumer research in stores, restaurants, supermarkets, pharmacies… consumers can tell what brands stand for and what retailers do to them.

Moreover, consumers can tell very well when a brand is relevant and when it isn’t and make many of the store-brand decisions based on that mental map. I would venture to say that, whenever a store brand wins over name-brands, the name brand hasn’t done its job well.

Bottom line: There are so many lame clichés around the entire issue of branding and discounting that it’s time to try to see it from the consumer’s point of view:

• Discounts are seen as a regular event today; needed and welcomed
• Most discounts are seen –correctly—as coming from the retailer
• The consumer seems to be differentiate well between a brand’s activities and a retailer’s
• Consumers also seem to have no problem in determining when a product should be branded and when it doesn’t matter

Contextual advertising gone horribly wrong

Let me be clear. I am 100% in favor of every modifier in online advertising. Geographical. Behavioral. Conteextual. You name it, if it can help me focus my message, I'm there.

But wow, there must be some way to avoid this:

I am sure that the Motorcycle Superstore wants nothing to do with a picture of a supposed motorcycle crash victim with the head split open, brains spilled out and a bike very visible in the picture.

I have seen (less, way less, extreme) cases where I might type "escalate" as in "escalate a problem" only to be rewarded by banners from the Cadillac Escalade.

Wow.

Apple iPhone 4S... Ogilvy all over again

David Ogilvy once said "Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon"

He also said "The consumer is not a moron; she's your wife"

Which is why I am absolutely floored by the iPhone 4S's Siri spot

Here's a spot that is as straightforward as they come. It is blunt, uses no flowery language, no timeworn cliches, no puns, no lame jokes, no self-effacing but adorable dumb guy, no kid, no baby, no dog, no sincere-looking woman holding a steaming cup of java using both hands, no grandiose music... basically just tells you what the product does and how it will make your life better.

And treats you like an intelligent human being in the process.

Does it explain what an iPhone 4S is? Nope, we know what it is.

That the iPhone competes/is superior/trounces others? Nope

Does it explain how Siri works? Nope. Just what it does and how it improves our life.

Actually, does it even explain what Siri is? No. Someone assumed we'd have heard about it by now.

Does it tell us to log onto www.apple.com? Hey! If you don't know by now...

So why does it work so well?

• It really integrates everything you know about the iPhone 4S. It assumes you've heard about it, read about it, seen videos on YouTube, read the reviews, heard from friends... in short, it acknowledges you know
• It shows you what the product does
• Then it shows you how it is relevant
• Speaks to you in a straighforward, friendly, relaxed way
• And really, truly, deeply drives home product features and advantages

In short, this is truly a direct-selling, hard-charging, fact-based spot disguised via soft music, nice images and a friendly voice-over and minus the phone at the end.

Which treats you like an intelligent person.

And that's why it works so well.

New ad campaign from the U.S. Postal Service - Return to Sender!

From Ad Age: 


Postal Service Sticks With Pitch: Paper Mail Can't be Hacked

So... after losing 22% of its mail volume in the past 5 years, The U.S. Postal Service will continue attempting to slow the migration of first-class mail to electronic communications by sticking with an advertising campaign begun in September that tells businesses that refrigerators and cork boards can't be hacked.


Really?


The aim of the campaign is to slow down the loss by 1%. We also learned that every 1% in lost business translates to $300. So... so far, the USPS has managed to lose $6.6 billion in business and sticking letters to the refigerators or pinning them to a corkboard is the best they can do?

Let's talk messaging for a moment: Do something simple, like talking to consumers, business owners and executives and you'll quickly learn why everyone migrated to email:

1. Free
2. Immediate
3. Convenient


Now look at this spot:

So, from a messaging point of view... will Mr. Captain of the Industry or Mr. Head of Procurement turn around and say "Golly! This is terrible! I'm going back to spending 40 cents in postage, increase the number of mailroom employees and spend all the extra money in paper and envelopes to make sure that Mrs. Consumer's statement is not hacked by some evil force and she can either stick it on the refrigerator or pin it to a cork board. Yes siree".


And some people have to ask why the advertising industry is in trouble.


Then let's talk media.


On national TV. The super effective, magnificently-efficient media in which to reach high powered heads of procurement. Never mind that TV highly over-indexes against lower and middle class women.


Now let's talk real world:


I get my email on my computers (my home and business are fully synched), on my cell phone and on my tablet. And the USPS really thinks I want to get a paper statement?


My suggestions to Ms. Joyce Carrier (Carrier? For real?) USPS's Manager of Advertising and Media Planning:


#1 - Drop that pitch. It has no traction. Since the advent of https:// and other verification services, no one really worries about hacking, but everyone worries about cost.
#2 - Drop the TV. Waste of money if businesses are your target.
#3 - Instead, develop a campaign for mass mailers: it is way easier to hit delete on an email than it is to throw a circular in the trash can.
#4 - Go online, use search, use mail, something distinctive that someone won't "delete"
#5 - Invent new products because like King Canute found out centuries ago... there is no rolling back the tide


Oh... and, Ms. Carrier... drop me a line: marcelosalup@gmail.com 

I agree with the Junk filter

What to make of this cryptic email I just got from Miami Today?

This left me wondering if it was a joke or did someone actually think this would work?

1. Advertising Advertorial Opportunity with Photograph (???)
2. Have you shown interest (???)

Weird & Cryptic. And not persuasive at all.

New Fiat 500 spot... skidmarks all over

What can be said about the latest spot for Fiat 500 that hasn't been said before?

Worst car spot ever? Probably. And, if not, top 5.

Take a look if you haven't seen it in a dozen other places before (I haven't seen it on TV)

Completely irrelevant for the category:

• No mention of the price in a category that is amazingly price sensitive
• No real mention of the features
• No differentiation
• Borrowed interest

That's a big skidmark

The client backtracking from the previous TV spot by calling it "a trailer" as if that saved all the money wasted in the previous effort?

Big skidmark

The agency having no clue on how to speak to its target market or how to sell this poor little vehicle and winding up with some generic creative that could easily fit a credit card (like it did with the original of this particular spot: the American Express commercial with Robert de Niro), a perfume, a clothing line or... any of a dozen other products.

Big skidmark

More empty creative with no persuasion whatsoever

The biggest skidmark

What is it with Europeans when they move to the US?

Not to mince words, but the person(s) responsible for this sorry ad in today's Miami Herald should not only be fired, they should be made to restitute the wasted money back to the owners or shareholders of the company.

1. The English is atrocious (Discover with Air Europa the best fares...???)

2. No prices to entice people to call

3. No phone for readers to call

4. No web address for interested potential clients to click

5. Not even an SMS link so I can get the "only for you" offers

And, no, I don't believe, as a friend of mine suggested, that Air Europa is some kind of money-laundering scheme. This is just bad advertising foisted upon a client by people who have no clue.

Another business killed by Friendly Fire

In a very unsurprising development, Advertising Age reports that Friendly’s, the phantom restaurant chain will be filing for bankrupcy “as early as next week”

http://adage.com/article/news/friendly-s-explores-bankruptcy-high-fiving/230154

One reads these news and one can’t help wondering… is it stupidity? Blindness? Arrogance? Ineptitude? A cocktail of all of these factors and many more?

Because sometimes I am under the impression that companies like this are brought down by their own marketing team. Death by “Friendly Fire” as it were.

The chain plans to continue it’s “High Five” campaign. Their measured media spend, an anemic $7.3 million in 2009 (Kantar) was tracked at a still anemic $10.3 million in 2010). No word on 2011.

Let’s look at their top management:

1. Self Delusion: "People love our brand, but we've kind of lost relevance," Chief Marketing Officer Andrea McKenna told Ad Age last month.

2. Ineptitude: "People's lifestyles have changed, and they've gotten busy." CMO McKenna continued. To which one can only respond: no kidding.

3. More ineptitude: Friendly's spokeswoman Maura Tobias told Ad Age via email that the chain plans to continue the new campaign moving forward.

4. Irrelevance: In 2010 the company had $596.8 million in sales and dedicated $10.3 million in advertising. This is an anorexic 1.72% of sales dedicated to advertising. A quick search of Ad/Sales ratios shows that all “eating places” spend 2.2% of sales in advertising –down from 2.7% in 2010 (Shonfeld Associates). The same source shows “Eating and Drinking Places” as having an ad/sales ratio of 10.2%.

5. Even more ineptitude: In 2011, after 6 years of declining sales (Technomic) and decreasing stores (492 units in 2010, down 3%) Friendly’s finally introduced a “value menu” called High Five with 5 items for $5.00. Effectively killing their margin.

So how do they advertise their margin-killing “High Five” menu?

- Show the product?

- Big price?

- Show the product AND a big price?

Nope. See for yourself.

Because consumers don’t want to see the food. Or the price. McDonald’s conclusive proved that point.

Oh, no, consumers want to zip by some boring billboard, rip their eyes off their iPhone and Blackberries (and Androids) and try to figure out what the hell the billboard is saying… and then they react: “Oh, honey, listen, let’s not stop by any of the 15,000 convenient McD’s, let’s go out of our way to find a Friendly’s and reward them for appealing to our intellect with a campaign that dares us to guess what the hell they’re talking about”

Find your keys, indeed!

My quick 2 cents to Ms. McKenna (their CMO) and Harsha Agadi, their new CEO with the ambitious goal of getting to $1bn in sales:

• Get rid of your entire marketing team; they destroyed your company. You are now going into Chapter 11 because of their lack of hindsight, foresight, insights and everything-sight.
• Go out and talk to consumers. It’s a wild guess, but I’m fairly sure that your marketing team (including the agency) haven’t spoken to a real consumer in half a decade or they would have never created the silly “you found your keys” campaign
• Close the lowest performing 25% of the stores
• Over-spend on the top 25%
• Explain to the middle 50%’s management that they are fighting for their lives.
• Learn from Starbucks: consolidate your geographical presence to achieve a pocket of dominance. What’s your lonely store in North Miami doing for you? Really?

• Invest in search. I typed “Friendly’s” and instead of getting at least some restaurants near me, I get your going into bankrupcy.
• Invest in the web. My wife and I go out once or twice per week. We didn’t even know there was one of you near us
• Drop television. There’s no way you are going to compete against McD, Denny’s or anything in that range. If you are spending $10 or $11mm your creative can’t be at their level.
• Go heavy into radio (after web)
• Show the product; what’s this “you found your keys” nonsense? Really? Are you a car dealership? Show me the product
• Show the price

Contextual Targeting Gone Haywire

Hot after my critique of the Fiat 500, its ad campaign (the worst in modern years) and its dubious heritage (as the cheapest car in post-WWII Europe), I was rewarded by Google by placing Fiat 500 ads in my website.

Go, contextual, go!

Great Web Ads 2

So, like 99% of all of my friends, I absolutely hate the New York Times idea of charging for their website. The only person I know who doesn't absolutely hate paying for web news owns a call center and is evidently rich.

Nevertheless, I keep going back to NYTimes.com for my daily fill of news and commentary.

So, along comes Audi in this very well thought out effort and helps me get more articles for free:

I can now put in one of those "spare" Gmail addresses, choose a handful of articles and Audi will remember to send them to me over the weekend.

Big win all around:

• It appeals to both, my ego and my laziness -- great combo
• Audi does provide a useful service
• Sending me the articles will give Audi a chance to recontact me again and again for peanuts
• I am definitely going to be engaged when I download the articles
• And it is not an intrusive pre-roll, expansible or flash device jumping at me

Plus, I assume this will build a humongous database that will be marketed to, remarketed to and polymarketed to, which is not bad

Big win for Audi

Great Web Ads 1

Every so often, buried under the sheer monotony that is web advertising, where the degree of noise resembles a Moroccan Bazaar, I see some ads that really stand out.

They are not pre-roll, post-roll or during-roll... I usually just open up another browser window to let them run their course. It is not expansible... I usually spend more time looking for the closing button than I do at the ad. These ads really made me look twice... and participate.

So, first things first: Can there really be a wrong time of day to drive a Porsche? Seriously?

Me thinks not. So I was immediately attracted to this little box:

Evidently, I'm not alone. Just about everyone thinks that any time is the right time to drive a Porsche

Epic win in all fronts:

• Addresses my intelligence by assuming that I already know what a Porsche is and why it is desirable. If you don't know what a Porsche it... hey, buy a Lada or something
• It's always fun to vote; one never knows what to expect, but it being Porsche, you also assume that they are not going to do something untoward with your click
• Addresses my intelligence again by giving me little fun charts that I can read
• And then more wonderfully, it takes information --I assume-- from your profile and the LinkedIn profiles of everyone who clicked and gives you information about age, gender and even your place in the totem pole

Great way to pay off their new positioning: Everyday driving

The Continuing Saga of the Fiat 500... hardheaded marketing

Why is it so hard for marketing people to say "Oops! That didn't work"?

We said it here first: the Fiat 500 JLO campaign is a disaster. The worse car campaign on the air today. Now, Advertising Age confirms it:

Francois Fights to Right Fiat Fiasco

New Brand Chief Admits 'Awareness Problem' but Defends J. Lo as One Way to Fix It

http://adage.com/article/news/francois-fights-fiat-fiasco/230033/

It is always embarassing to see someone getting in deeper and deeper into intellectual quicksand by defending campaigns that are undefensible.

The JLO campaign fails in several fronts at the same time:

• Doesn't show the car (even in the last scene she is dancing and singing in front of the car)
• Doesn't give you a good reason to buy the car (or even like the car)
• Is awfully acted (the dancers are spasmodic, JLO is suffering while driving the car)
• Borrowed interest... which is not so interesting after all

But basically, it just doesn't give you any reason to visit a Fiat dealership at all.

My suggestions:

1. Scrap it. You don't even have to defene anything, Mr. Francois, people don't care and won't remember
2. Show more of the car, its features and give me a reason to like it
3. Forget about the fake heritage (it was famous for being the cheapest car in Europe) and the empty phrases that sound good only to copywriters and find a real positioning that the car can pay off and that consumers will find relevant.
4. Stick with the positioning for a year or two (meaning... choose carefully)

Talk to a couple of hundred consumers before you decide, not to creative directors, copywriters and account people who only talk to each other. Talk to the people who are going to have to get a bank loan to finance the car. The people who are going to plunk down $2g's and finance $15g's for 4 years because this is the only way they'll be able to afford it.

Then you're cooking

And, along the way, why not bring out the true heritage of the Fiat 500; the cheapest family car you can buy. With the average car in America being 9 years old, I'm sure you will find 6,000 people every month who will buy it.

Overpromise. Underdeliver. Wait! Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?

So Microsoft is abandoning its underwhelming "Decision Engine" positioning for Bing.

Wow. About time!

I always wondered when it would dawn on Bing's top suits that "Decision Engine" was a positioning that existed only in their minds and that it was both, irrelevant and unreal to consumers?

Was it when people continued using Google all the time? Or pehaps when they saw that Google continued to attract zillions of dollars in advertising? Or maybe when they saw that most of Bing's users came from that small group of discontents that always seem to exist in any service who don't like a product because it is too big or too popular?

In any case, I was always puzzled by their insistence on continuing an image that flew on the face of reality.

There are entire product categories where change is either cumbersome (checking accounts) or expensive (mortgage refinancing) or both (getting a new car). In these categories change has a high financial risk: make the wrong decision about a credit card, a mortgage refi or your new car and you are fried. Stuck.

But... search engines? Really? It's even easier than switching channels? You just type www.bing.com and presto! You are in the "Decision Engine"!

So, if you do, what will you see? Well, always the daring explorer, I typed "Things to do in Madrid, Spain" in both, Google and Bing. Here are there results:

Google

Bing

Pretty much the same thing! Even down to the layout.

Some thoughts about the not-that-difficult business of branding:

1. A brand needs to pay off its basic promise to the consumer. 
2. The basic promise needs to be relevant to the consumer.
3. If you are a challenger brand:
1. You need a meaningful difference
2. Which is strong enough to make me invest time, effort and money to switch
3. And you still need to pay it off when I get there

If I worked for Bing, I would certainly do the following:

• Change the layout completely. I really wouldn't want to look like Google.
• Invest money in some kind of welcoming interface or screen that at least gave me the semblance of improving my decision making
• Make a real kick-ass mobile app ("For when decisions just can't wait")
• Make strategic alliances with Universities (where they teach you to think and make decisions)
• Conduct millions of online surveys per year to really understand what consumers liked, didn't like, appreciated, loved, hated, found irresistible and found irreplaceable
• Be realistic in my communications

Start delivering on the promise

Is AdWeek Stalking Me?

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/digital-killing-luxury-brand-134773

A few days ago, I wrote about my tailor probably being a better businessman than Michael Roth.

AdWeek responded by publishing a not-too-flattering article on Michael Roth and questioning his being able to run IPG effectively.

You can see it here:

http://salupmedia.blogspot.com/2011/09/it-wasnt-my-fault-i-swear.html

A couple of weeks back I wrote about How to Destroy an Image Without Really Trying when Brahman decided to advertiser Rolls Royces and Bentleys on price like so many lowly Toyotas.

So what do I see today?

And I completely agree with all of their points.

Next thing you know, Macy's will be advertising LV Handbags for only $2,995.

Cheers

Fiat 500: In Search of Relevance

After trying “heritage” and “simply more” and “story”, in this second –and even more pitiful—spot for the oddly shaped Fiat 500, Fiat finally succumbs to the truism of “if you have nothing to say, sing it”

Or rather… it lets JLO do the singing.

One lesson that the industry learned –way back during the launch of the Infinity Q—was that people really want to see the car. This lesson was evidently either never learned or quickly forgotten in this spot.

From the quick edits to the frenetic pace of dozens of bystanders running and jumping, the spot steadfastly refuses to let us see the car, learn about the car or fall in love with the car.

I guess there’s not much to say about the car. It’s small (139 inches), underpowered (101 hp), slow (0-60 10.2”) and has very very nerdy wheels (15 inches).

Worse, unlike the Mini, the Civic or the Mazda 3, I guess there’s also not much fun about the car: JLO looks positively scared and uncomofortable driving it.

I would too, if I had guys climbing on my windshield and BMX’ers jumping out from nowhere. But the net effect is that she doesn’t look like she even wants to be there.

In the final scene, an oddly matronly-dressed JLO even sings right in front of the car, absolutely obscuring it.

The small/economy car segment has lots of great cars and is fiercely competitive. 

• The Mini won us on quirkiness and wit… but managed to weave the car’s attributes in every piece
• The Civic won us on reliability… and the fact that it was a favorite of tuners at every SEMA show
• The Corolla won us on reliability and quality
• The Mazda 3 won us with their genius campaign: zoom-zoom-zoom… and the fact that it could take on a BMW 325 and not be embarassed

The Fiat 500 comes across as being absolutely embarassed to be seen, reluctant to be known, with nothing to say. Not a good way to invade our garages.

About me:

I have been involved in car advertising since I was recruited in the middle of class (in the University) to work on the launch of the Renault 5 TS. I then worked on Renault, launched LADA automobiles in the Dominican Republic, worked on General Motors in Venezuela, General Motors in Mexico, Daimler-Chrysler in Latin America, launched GM in Argentina after their decades-long absence and, when I had my own agency, handled a bunch of car dealers (e.g., Gus Machado Ford and Gus Machado Buick) and dealers associations (Honda and Oldsmobile).

It wasn't my fault, I swear...

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/michael-roth-right-leader-ipg-134837

Eerie.

Fiat 500 - The Triumph of the Empty Platitude over Common Sense?

So 15% of Americans are living below the poverty line and unemployment is at a record 9.1%. And you’re launching a car, an $18,000 car. What would you do?

Whatever you would do… Fiat is not. The launch of their new 500 is a classic example of creatives talking to other creatives and forgetting the car buyer altogether. It is the triumph of the empty platitude over common sense.

Take the initial spot “Drive In”:

Begin with an instrumental riff of “Jailhouse Rock”. Very iconic. Except, it’s our icon, not Italy’s.

“Everyone once in a while” the voice-over intones “something comes along, so powerful in concept, so revolutionary in design”… then you see this rounded econobox that looks like 50% of all the rounded econoboxes you see at the Tokyo or Seoul Auto Shows.

“Cultural Icon” the voice throws at us. “Defines a generation”. “The simple things in life”. Can we please have one more cliché? One? “Simply more”! We’ve got it! And some copywriter is simply cringing somewhere.

If you are a car enthusiast, as I am, you already know the basics: 1.4 liter 4 cyl engine producing 101 HP, 15” wheels, 11 feet long, 9.5 cubic feet cargo space, 4 year warranty and the important 0-60 benchmark in a lackadaisical 10.2 seconds (not exactly highway merging speed).

For $18,350 price as tested as per Road & Track.

“Simply More”

Let’s look at it from the point of view of the new car buyer.

Having bought 3 new cars in 12 months: a BMW, a Mini and a Jetta, what can I get for $18,500 more or less?

• Chevy Aveo - $12 - $16k msrp
• Chevy Sonic - $15 - $19k msrp
• Ford Fiesta - $14 - $18k msrp
• Ford Foscus - $14 - $18k msrp
• Hyundai Accent - $10 - $17k msrp
• Kia Forte - $14 - $19k msrp
• Kia Rio - $13 - $17k msrp
• Kia Soul - $14 - $19k msrp
• Kia Spectra - $14 - $18k msrp
• Mazda 2 - $15 - $17k msrp
• Nissan Versa - $11 - $17k msrp
• Scion IQ - $16k msrp
• Scion XB - $17 - $18k msrp
• Scion XD - $15 - $18k msrp
• Toyota Corolla - $16 - $19k msrp
• Toyota Yaris - $14 - $15k msrp
• VW Jetta - $17k msrp

Note: All of these cars and prices are taken from the Road & Track Buyer’s Guide at (http://buyersguide.roadandtrack.com/) which I hope is accurate.

Three major points:

1. Empty creative: the use of cliches is teeth-grittingly bad. Lots and lots and lots of platitudes that don’t mean squat

2. Completely ignores the buyer at that price-point. Buyers of $15-$18k cars want value, features, reliability and they really compare prices from the get go

3. Completely ignores the super-tough competitive environment. I am sure some “strategist” told Fiat: “By ignoring the competition we position ourselves as a unique and therefore attractive alternative, we need to take the high road”.

Fail! That “strategist” is not in the market for an econobox and real buyers out there are not going to ignore the competition.

Bottom line: a wasted opportunity to try to destroy the bad taste and worse word of mouth surrounding Fiat in the U.S.

About me:

I have been involved in car advertising since I was recruited in the middle of class (in the University) to work on the launch of the Renault 5 TS. I then worked on Renault, launched LADA automobiles in the Dominican Republic, worked on General Motors in Venezuela, General Motors in Mexico, Daimler-Chrysler in Latin America, launched GM in Argentina after their decades-long absence and, when I had my own agency, handled a bunch of car dealers (e.g., Gus Machado Ford and Gus Machado Buick) and dealers associations (Honda and Oldsmobile).