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).

KFC anti-nugget spot - Amazingly well done

Taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, this KFC commercial does a fantastic job at attacking McDonald's and other nugget manufacturers in a succint and elegant way:

1. Certainly drives home the product advantage
2. Makes the Popcorn Chicken look amazingly tasty and desirable
3. Weaves in an offer

And, in spite of what Tim Nudd from AdWeek's AdFreak says, really does answer the question: what part of the chicken is the popcorn? Had Tim actually watched the spot instead of looking for a snide cutesy remark, he would know it's "premium off-the-bone breast meat"

Kudos to DraftFCB.

Great spot

Braman Miami - How to Destroy an Image without Really Trying

There's an old joke where a guy is talking to a beautiful woman.

"Would you go to bed with me for $10,000?" He asks
"Of course" She says
"How about for $100" he says
"Who do you take me for?" she says
"We both know what you are" he answers "now we are talking about price"

In running this ad, Braman has reduced both, Bentley and Rolls Royce (which no longer are made by the same company, Rolls is made by BMW and Bentley by VW) to essentially Kias and Chevys.

What's even worse, from my point of view, in being so upfront about the price and large inventory, Braman has also demolished a lot of the mystique of marque: now I know that, all costs considered, a Bentley is about $5,000 a month (plus tax, of course) and a Roller is about $7K.

Expensive, no doubt, about 80% more than what a typical American home makes, but, nevertheless, dimensionalized.

So, what's the point? Well... two.

1. Each brand --whether Kia, Audi or Roller-- has an image. It makes more sense to have all the communications around that brand at least coherent. 

2. Targetting. The average reader of the Miami Herald is the average Miami guy (and gal). Take a look at the ABC statements and the average HH income of the Herald reader is around $60k while the average household income of an American home is $58k

It would make even more sense to send target individuals via Direct Mail and offer them an exclusive, limited-time only offer. The cost per useful impression would be lower and the results would be better.

And you wouldn't then "just argue about the price"

Is my tailor a better businessman than Michael Roth?

To be honest, no, he's not. I'm sure my tailor couldn't run an ultra-galactic multi-billion dollar communications network.

Nevertheless -- here's something interesting.

I just lost 30 pounds since May. Got inspired by what Dooner had reputedly done when he wanted to be CEO of IPG (lost 60 lbs reputedly) and just decided to lose them. Finally, my wife prevailed on me to buy some clothes, so I went to Macy's, bought 8 pairs of pants and took them to my tailor. Along the way, I also had another, older, pair, where the cuff had torn lose and was dragging a bit.

After measuring all the pants, I also showed him my torn-cuff pants.

"Can you fix it?" I asked.
"Sure. No problem. $8."
"But I just gave you $96 worth of business and this will take you a couple of minutes to fix." I said
"A bit more. I have to line it up, iron, sew it, re-iron. $8." he said "Cuffs are normally $15, but this is only one leg, so one-half. $8"

He knew what his job entailed. What the end result was going to be. How I would judge if his work was good. And he knew his price. $8.

Any ad agency would have done it for free.

Think about that next time you are sitting down in front of a client.

$8.

By the way, this is his shop.

If the buck doesn't stop with the CEO's, why do they make the big bucks?

http://adage.com/article/agency-news/pressure-cooker-marketers-lay-blame-advertising/229621/

From Ad Age

The Headline itself is bad enough:

In Pressure Cooker, Marketers Lay Blame on Advertising

Ad Age continues to report:

• Last month, Gap Inc. CEO Glenn Murphy bluntly told analysts on an earnings call that he was "disappointed" with marketing efforts for the company's largest brand, Old Navy. 
• General Motors' Global CMO Joel Ewanick doling out [barely passing] grades for his highly-regarded agencies, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners and Fallon, to the press. 
• And when Groupon's Tibetan plight-themed Super Bowl spots were deemed tasteless, CEO Andrew Mason vented to Bloomberg BusinessWeek about its work with CP&B, saying he placed too much trust in the agency. "We learned that you can't rely on anyone else to control and maintain your own brand," he said.

Are these guys kidding?

These guys are CEO's, entrusted by th shareholders to run the entire company. Not the company minus the advertising. Or minus the marketing. The entire company. 

Nevertheless, it is true that the ad industry has reached a very low point (is it the "lowest"... who knows, it could be worse): we get hired and fired as commodities, second-guessed at every turn, drawn & quartered by procurement, dismembered by our own CEO's and drowned in pontification.

And, of course, the problem is that ad agencies have no clue if their advertising works, doesn't work, maybe works or even what works.

So... here's what I would do if I were Michael Roth (IPG), Sir Martin Sorrell (WPP), John Wren (Omnicom), Maurice Levy (Publicis) or David Jones (Havas) since they control 85% of the world's advertising:

1. Drop $2-$5mm in a formal, serious research as to what works in what is broadly defined as advertising. And by that I mean the mix of advertising, PR, social, digital, experiential and all other little silos. Bottom line: How do I make consumers choose?

"When Ads Work" the seminal work by J.P. Jones in 1991 took two years or so. I assume such a major piece of work will easily take that or more. So, this is medium term.

2. Accept the results and redesign my entire company around these results. 

3. Rebundle disciplines under real brands. Actually, I would probably get rid of a bunch of brands and create completely new ones to make sure everyone in the company gets the message

4. Invest money in doing parallel tracking. It is naive to think that major advertisers are going to accept all the findings just like that. They won't; though for sure some of them might accept them and become "test cases". So, I would just get all the data and run two sets of metrics: the client mandated ones (like awareness, intent to purchase, engagement, whatever) and the metrics resulting from the research. This will validate the research in real-life.

5. At some point, say 3-5 years from "Point Zero", that company will have an armor-plated business case: it invested its money in validating its work, redesigned its structure, hopefully hired and/or redeployed the right people to the right places, got rid of silos, rebundled the work coherently and can prove to clients that it knows what works.

Then, let's see whom advertisers choose to blame.

Prohibido Prohibir

Having gone through a solid week of listening to serious pontification about "what really works" from a bunch of suits, it was a real delight to re-watch some of the great Apple spots published in this article by Advertising Age

http://adage.com/article/news/10-songs-steve-jobs-apple-made-famous/229471

The Miami Herald - Solidly living in the past

In what is easily the worst-designed, most un-intuitive "news" site ever, on Sunday, September 4, they were still running news from last Friday, August 27

I guess this is normal, when they consider that the news about the lead singer of Green Day being kicked out of a flight for saggy pants happened yesterday, but it is still in their breaking-news section

These are the four people responsible for the site. Let them know it is not OK to have such an embarassment of a "news" site in a major city.

Raul Lopez, Interactive General Manager  (305) 376-5187  RLopez@MiamiHerald.com 

Suzanne Levinson, Director Website Operations (305) 376-4676 SLevinson@MiamiHerald.com 

Alex Fuentes, Director of Interactive Products (305) 376-4719 AFuentes@MiamiHerald.com 

Katia Lopez, Sales Development Manager (305) 376-4966 KLopez@MiamiHerald.com

They should talke a serious look at the New York Times' website and just imitate it.

Boardwalk Empire's Amazing Experiential Hit

So, HBO and the New York Subway's MTA teamed up to create a 1920's Subway train to run on the 2/3 line. That is amazing and potentially a real hit.

Take a look

AdWeek's AdFreak reports:

Pretty awesome: HBO has partnered with New York's MTA to put an actual 1920s subway train back in service on the 2/3 line during weekends in September to promote Boardwalk Empire, the Prohibition-era drama whose second season premieres Sept. 25. The train was originally used for the IRT system, and began service in 1917, reports the Village Voice. It will be making short runs on the express track between 42nd and 96th Street between noon and 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays this month. The cars will feature authentic details such as rattan seats, ceiling fans, and drop sash windows—as well as some inauthentic details like a shitload ofBoardwalk Empire ads.

Normally, I am not a fan of a lot of these shennanigans; they tend to be really expensive, reach a very limited number of people and, by nature, are not very targetted or segmented.

I find the whole thing to be very well thought out (or I would hope it is):

1. First, everyone in NY rides the subway. Executives do it. Park Avenue moms do it. Regular Joe's do it. So you reach a huge cross section of actual and potential viewers

2. Second, HBO is not really THAT expensive. At $10 or whatever per month, it offers a great entertainment value, so reaching the middle classes makes all the sense in the world.

3. Since NY is heavily cabled (and DIRECTV'ed) adding HBO to your present configuration, if you don't have it, is a cinch

4. And I hope they do this, you can fill the entire wagon with subscription advertising for HBO, so one should get a response out of that

5. Finally, I would get actors to dress in Boardwalk Empire fashions and ride in the cars taking pictures with strangers. I mean, who doesn't have a camera phone?

Finally, think about all the other advertising they are sure to get

Beauiful idea. A winner.