Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Subaru recently unveiled a new series of TV spots called "Dog Tested." The premise is this: dogs at the wheel of a Subaru Forester. The campaign follows two dogs on their driving adventures -- picking up a yippy pal at the airport, trying (and failing) to parallel park, losing a parking space to a cat in a sedan (you know how it is).

Depending on how you feel about dogs, you'll either find this campaign ridiculous or brilliant. I fall firmly in the Dog-Loving Camp, and I think it's brilliant -- but not just because I love dogs. This is not a stunt or a gimmick on Subaru's part. It's smart branding.

In looking at their market data, Subaru discovered that about 50% of their buyers are also pet owners. Last year, they ran a sales campaign that gave customers the option to donate $250 of their purchase to one of five charities. It turns out a large number of those donations went to the ASPCA (the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

So, the lesson is this:

Get to know your audience.

We tend to make a lot assumptions about our audience without talking to them -- or better yet, listening to them. Our default setting is to think about our product, our organization, our selling points, instead of thinking about what makes an audience tick. Isn't is annoying when someone is "me, me, me" all the time? Yes, it is. The best brands know their audience well and let them guide the message.

Look for the audience insight.

Subaru looked beyond basic demographics to learn more about their audience. That's when they discovered a dog-loving crowd. Sometimes the insight will surprise you. Be open to what you'll discover about your audience, and don't overlook a surprising trend in your audience -- it could be the connection point you've been searching for.

Love what your audience loves.

Here's what the Subaru spots says to their target audience: "We know you. We get you. You love dogs. So do we." A brand is a relationship, and like any relationship, it's part emotion. So, maybe Subaru isn't touting the Forester's super-charged GPS system or roomy cargo space in these spots, but they are cultivating a connection with prospective buyers, and they're giving current owners one more reason to love their Subaru.

 

 

One of the interesting subplots during the last couple of years of Super Bowl advertising is how well the "consumer-generated" commercials have fared against the big-budget spots created at traditional ad agencies. Last year, the "Crystal Ball" commercial for Doritos -- created and submitted online by two unemployed brothers from Indiana -- won the coveted top spot in USA Today's Super Bowl Ad Meter, which measures in real-time how much viewers like the game's ads as they air. And this year, another "homemade" Dorito's ad (featuring a dog's shock collar being put on its owner) ranked second on the Ad Meter (and garnered its Cary, North Carolina-based creators a $600,000 prize from Frito-Lay for the feat).
 
Statistical and contest measurements aside, my subjective take is that these low-budget spots stand up remarkably well next to agency-created work. But having worked at some of those large shops, I think I know why that's the case. When it comes to creativity, it's a good rule of thumb that the more people that get involved in a creative project, the worse the outcome will be. And when a client is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to have an agency create their commercial -- and another $2.5 to $3 million running it on CBS -- you can imagine how many layers of approval come into play, especially in these economic times. In the process, many of these spots end up suffering a death by a thousand cuts. The consumer-generated ads, on the other hand, get created in a relatively unfettered creative environment, and get a simple "go/no-go" call from the client on their finished product.
 
It's the classic problem of Creativity by Committee. This isn't to deny the value of collaboration, of course. But it does shed a little light on the all-too-common inverse relationship between the "stakes" of a creative project and the eventual quality of the outcome. (See: Most Hollywood movies and municipal art commissions.)
 
What's the answer? Nurturing as much trust as possible between any creative "patron" and the actual creative team. That trust is built up-front, by a proven track record on the part of the creative folks, and healthy ability to "let go" (within limits) on the part of the client. When all is said and done, creativity requires many leaps of faith. Companies who excel at spotting creative talent, then giving them room to do what they do best, will usually be happiest with the end results.

If you missed Adam Cohen's Brand Bowl insights on the WRAL noon news, you can check them out here:

Quick - name the big Fortune 100 consumer packaged goods company that chose not to advertise in this year's Super Bowl.

If you've lived on the planet over the past two months you know that answer is Pepsi. Frito-Lay, a unit of the Pepsi parent company, did show up on Super Bowl Sunday but the Pepsi brand itself sat the game out. Why would Pepsi do this, knowing Coca Cola would be there in full force?

This year Super Bowl ads actually went down in cost from last year's $3 million for a 30 second spot. In 2010 these same spots went for $2.5-$2.8 million. And that, of course, does not include creative and production costs. And the smart companies don't stop there. They follow up their Super Bowl ads with an online presence and ongoing social media tactics at the very least. The bigger budgets will include print and out of home advertising like billboards to continually drive awareness and demand.

If they choose to play in the Super Bowl ad game, Pepsi would surely have matched Coke's two minutes, costing at least $10 million. Instead, they announced that they would pass for the first time in 23 years - and they still got the coverage they wanted. Now, while other companies are figuring out how much of an increase in sales is needed to justify those Super Bowl spots Pepsi can move on with their larger marketing initiatives in positioning their brand. Which is . . . ?

A Google search on Pepsi Super Bowl resulted in 7.5M hits (Coke Super Bowl resulted in 1.75M). Among the top 10 headlines:

Pepsi Ditches the Super Bowl, Embraces Crowdsourced Philanthropy ...

Pepsi Drops Super Bowl Ads in Favor of Cause Marketing ...

And Pepsi's paid Google spot: Pepsi Refresh Project: Thousands of Ideas, Millions of Grants. Submit Your Idea Today! www.RefreshEverything.com

I'm not a Pepsi fan. I don't even drink cola (or pop, as we Midwesterners say). But Pepsi or Diet Pepsi went to the top of my list for my next soft drink purchase.

And here's a suggestion for next year: Anheuser-Busch should announce that it is foregoing the Super Bowl and its five full minutes of advertising across all its brands totaling at least $25M. Then tell the public it's lowering prices on beer for the month of February and see how many units it sells and if that good will extends beyond the game. Heck, I might even drink a Bud if they do that.

Nahhhh. I'll stick with my Pepsi.

As a diehard football fan, the Superbowl each year brings out some mixed feelings.  It is the championship game on the biggest stage which is very exciting, but at the same time, the Superbowl brings an end to the football season and I know I am going to have a long hot summer to get through until the season starts over again. 

For this year's Superbowl I did not have a strong feeling for either of the teams which gave me the time to focus more on the commercials and the subsequent Twitter chatter.  I found it amazing to follow #sb44 and #brandbowl hashtags and see what everyone was talking about in real-time throughout the game.  So many different opinions and thoughts, midway through the game, I could not help but to think, "How cool is all this technology?!".  

Here are my opinions on the best and worst of the Superbowl commercials:

Biggest failure - Dockers - They spend millions to develop and buy a commercial during the Superbowl.  They ask everyone who is watching to go to a URL to win a free pair of pants.  People do EXACTLY what Dockers asks them to do and in the millions they type in the URL.  What happens - a big, ugly 404 error.  In this day and age, it is inexcusable to not be prepared for that kind of traffic and have the boxes and bandwidth ready to handle it.  Did they not think they would get a bolt load of traffic from the Superbowl?  Fail.  I am not even going to bring up that their commercial immediately followed a commercial that also had guys with no pants on.

Best commercial that no-one remembers what it was for - Snickers - Everyone loved the Betty White commercial, unfortunately, no-one remembered it was an ad for Snickers.  I have seen so many tweets and blog posts asking what the Betty White ad was for?  The question is does Snickers consider their commercial a success if no-one can remember their product?

Weirdest commercial - Focus on Family - The Tim Tebow commercials were a hot topic of conversations before the Superbowl.  My issue with them is what was up with Tebow tackling his mother?  That brought a whole new set of issues up when it comes to focusing on family if Tim is tackling his mom.  I did not get it and it made me feel a little awkward.

Most tired and needs to go away immediately commercial - GoDaddy -This is coming from a red-blooded American male GoDaddy, I am soooo tired of your commercials.  They are boring, they are tacky and the only thing they make me feel is dirty that I do business with your company.  To the CEO of GoDaddy, Bob Parsons, it is time you realize that you are running a multi-million dollar business and you are not on an episode of HBO's Cathouse.

My favorite commercial - It was close, but I think the one that topped all others (drum roll please) - Google!  I loved the simplicity of it. If you had never used Google or any other search engine, the commercial effectively communicated what Google does and how it can bring value to your life. 

Well now the Superbowl is behind us, it is time I start preparing for my air-conditioned hibernation until August when this whole ride starts all over again.  Please feel free to comment with your thoughts on the Superbowl commercials and if you agree or disagree with my thoughts. 

It used to be that retailers and restaurants turned to radio or billboards to reach people on the go. Advertising on highway billboards not only drove business but also provided a useful service to motorists looking for a place to eat, shop and fuel up. For decades, radio ads have been a mainstay promotional tool to drive people into stores and onto car lots.

Smartphones are poised to change these longstanding approaches. According to research from Compete (link below,) 37 percent of smartphone users have used their phone to purchase something other than a mobile product. What's more, people are using smartphones for precisely the type of information previously provided by billboards and radio - research, including price comparison (41%) and locations or directions.

With e-mobile poised for explosive growth, what can get in the way? Well, according to the research, it'll be basic functionality problems that limit e-mobile in 2010. Consumers will leave sites that are not optimized for a mobile experience.

Once the mobile experience is enhanced and smartphones become more prevalent, what will happen to highway billboards and radio promotions? Doesn't the notion of a radio remote where a live DJ goes to a retailer and invites listeners to stop by seem quaint in a world with iPhones and Pandora?

http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/compete/41839/ 

Much ballyhoo was made about the record $3 million price tag for a 30-second spot. Heck, Miller Beer even based their one-second commercials on this. They received considerable buzz for that, too. Unfortunately, many spots won’t be buzz worthy next year. A few exceptions will be Pepsi Max–with its indelible pneumonic, “I’m Good”– telling guys it’s okay todrink diet soda. Slapstick rules. After watching this several times, I’m still in awe of how they pulled some of this off.

Speaking of diet soda, Coke hauled out the way-back machine to get Steeler Troy Polamalu paying homage to Mean Joe Green’s famous Coke spot. The twist of bringing the brand lawyers in was smart and on strategy.

Did you find the Anheuser Busch spots irritating? Clydesdales are your mascot. We get it.

The careerbuilder.com spot was fun and memorable…you hate to go to work…people talk down to you…etc. Unfortunately, that joke is tired after one viewing, though. Other notable spots were Monster.com with its relatable moose butt, Denny’s “Serious Breakfast” and the smart Teleflora talking flowers.

All advertising slots sold out only one day before the game. If you watched you noticed a higher-than-normal number of NBC/Universal promos. My guess is they were filling a few 3 mil slots themselves. One spot that felt like an NBC promo turned out to be for Hulu. “TV Star” Alec Baldwin tells of TV’s evil plot to soften our brains. While I doubt it’ll have the staying power of Apple’s “1984” it certainly felt like a big introduction.

There’s considerable concern about the viewing of commercials because of TiVo. However TiVo reports viewers tend to pause and rewind back to previous commercials they enjoyed. Probably won’t be doing a lot of that this year.

What do you think?

 

PS: Check out my pal, Will Langley's hit list!

Like rising and falling hemlines, Super Bowl ads are a cultural barometer: Their creators aim to measure the national mood and align their appeals with it. A decade or so ago, that mood was "wow, all we have to do is say the words ‘dot com' and money falls out of the sky." For Super Bowl XXXVI, played only months after 9/11, we saw patriotic Clydesdales, Rudy Giuliani's thank you to America (courtesy of Monster.com), and the ONDCP linking drug use to terrorist financing.

This year, the zeitgeist is all about austerity in a lousy economy. So here's the catch: How can your Super Bowl ad capture a spirit of belt-tightening when, at up to $3 million for 30 seconds, the ad's very existence is evidence of lavish spending? And everybody knows it?

Will the tone of this Sunday's ads pick up on Travelocity's newest spot? It's honest, but a little on the nose, and four hours of that would leave me seriously depressed. Will some advertisers go the other way with a lavish, distracting, fiddle-while-Rome-burns approach?

I'll be watching to see who comes up with a third way that makes innovative reference to the current climate without either insulting my intelligence or making my cry in my beer. If your client had one of those spots to fill, how would you go about it?

Email campaign or tote bag? Web site or ball cap? I don't know of any companies thinking about their marketing in these extremes but if a recently-released research report is to be believed, perhaps they should.

The study, not surprisingly from the Advertising Specialty Institute, claims that ad specialty items have the lowest cost per impression and as a result offer the best return on investment for marketers. Pens with logos on them are the best value, remembered by 54 percent of respondents. Hats are a high-frequency medium because they are worn over six times on average each month. Really?

I am not a cynic, but I have to wonder if this study came about after the pharmaceutical industry decided they would no longer supply physicians offices with branded pens, pads, shirts, golf tees, etc. Analysts report that this cut has cost the promotional industry billions.

Now don't get me wrong. I love my Capstrat fleece and some of the promotional items we've produced for Tobacco. Reality. Unfilitered. I'm just not ready to go a client and claim that exposure from a t-shirt is equal to the emotional or informational value of a well-crafted commercial or thoughtful Web experience.