if “luxury kia” seems weird to you, read on

In teasers for what is sure to be a big Super Bowl ad push for Seoul-based auto manufacturer Kia (client of agency David&Goliath), the company is announcing the launch of a new model, hinted to be the brand's first true "luxury" vehicle. The jump into the luxury division is hardly surprising, as the brand has shifted towards more expensive models and trims over the last few years. While the decision is certainly bold, throwing a gauntlet at the feat of established luxury brands such as Audi and Lexus, it only formalizes what we already knew about Kia's future aspirations: To shirk its perception as an "economy" car.

Three years ago I wrote about the high cost of the redesigned Optima, which totaled around $26,000 at the time, and how it was an indication that Kia wanted to move up in the market. However, feedback on the article (available in the comment section) took issue with using the $26,000 price-point as a bellwether for the brand. The commenters all had fair points, but I believe were missing the forest for the trees, as the K900 clearly shows.

The point was not that Kia couldn't effectively reach various market-strata through trim options, but that Kia shouldn't try to do that.

Conventional wisdom suggests the greater variety of your offerings, the more customers you will reach (and the more money you will make). However, that's not the case when it comes to branding. Bygone are the days when companies made money producing average products for the average person. To paraphrase Darwin: The market today favors the extremes; not the averages. Brands who try to expand their territory -- either trying to move up in the market, or down -- often find themselves in a dangerous place branding pioneer Al Ries calls the "mushy middle" of the market. And, this is a place even the strongest brands go to die.

"When management sees the great success of its brand, the next thing they usually say is, ‘What else can we get into with our hot brand?'" writes Ries' daughter and fellow branding maven, Laura, in a 2010 article about this concept. "The answer is usually trouble." Laura uses Gap as an example; a brand once known as a "the" place fashionable, basics in apparel. Then, Gap success caused it to expand, adding GapBody, GapKids, and GapBaby. However, as Laura writes, Gap discovered that its core customers -- teenagers and 20-somethings -- didn't want to wear the same clothes as baby's and kids.

"All the expansion diluted the power of the Gap brand," Laura writes. Gap's hot brand turned into a hot mess. It lost its identity, and competitors had a foothold to overtake this once powerhouse name in fashion. It is no coincidence the company's strongest sister brands today are those occupying the low end of the market (Old Navy) and the high end (Banana Republic).

Taking this same principle and applying it to the auto industry, it's obvious why brands caught in the mushy middle, in particular American automakers, are struggling to carve-out an identity in a market that has evolved away from the everyday car for the everyday driver. The growing number of import options since the 1970s gave car consumers greater variety. As a result, the old model of a "one-size-fits-all" car gave way to a niche market where consumers could now be choosy about what they were looking for in a vehicle.

Today, there are domestic cars, "Japanese" cars (yes, people by cars simply by the fact that it is engineered by Japanese company -- the country itself has become a "reliability" brand), economy cars, luxury cars, hybrid cars, electric cars, etc. The strongest auto brands are those that clearly occupy a single space in the market.

There is little question that Kia is one of the strongest automotive brands right now. However, its success is largely because Kia is a brand born in the bottom of the market, which it then grew to dominate by producing a quality product for a budget price. In 2005, Al Ries even uses Kia as an example of a low-priced brand "doing great," while lamenting the "mushy middle" troubles of automakers like GM and Ford. Unfortunately for Kia, they must have overlooked his article.

Nobody can fault Kia with wanting to capitalize on its success. It's a natural thing, especially for an auto manufacturer; the existence of brands such as Acura (owned by Honda), Lexus (owned by Toyota), Infinity (owned by Nissan), and others are a byproduct of this desire for greater market share, especially at the top (Scion is Toyota's recent divergence into the low-end of the market). But, Toyota, Nissan and Honda recognized that it was better to create a new luxury brand than try to introduce a high-end model with mid-market brand ID. Many consumers have no idea those three luxury brands are really spruced-up, rebadged, lower-priced cars.

Even Hyundai, which debuted a luxury-model under its own brand, gave the Genesis its own logo and identity. Sure, it was the Hyundai Genesis, but you wouldn't know it from the badge. Hyundai recognized the need for keeping it at arm's length, even if it didn't want to fully commit to a full line-up of luxury cars.

However, Kia looks like it will release the K900 as a Kia, with a price tag decidedly un-Kia. And, that's the problem. The idea of a "luxury Kia" is an oxymoron in the consumer's mind; Kia stands for quality economy, not quality luxury. While the K900 is an astounding car on paper and will undoubtedly be one of the best "bangs for the buck" as luxury goes, the Kia consumer is not a luxury consumer, and portraying itself as a luxury brand dilutes the Kia name. Just like Gap, the move could have traumatic long-term consequences for the company.

At the moment, Kia enjoys the same sort of niche notoriety as its high-end German colleagues. Consumers know Kia as the premier economy vehicle, just as they think of BMW and Mercedes as the premier high-end vehicles. So, it makes little sense why it would want to leave a position occupied -- largely without rival -- in the economy market. A move to the middle would only cannibalize the success of its parent company, Hyundai -- just as Coke Zero merely cannibalizes the success of Diet Coke.

It's easy to sit back and suggest, "Well, surely if Kia got this far, it knows what it's doing." Yet, the same thing could be said for thousands of once-household names now defunct as a result of bad branding decisions, many of which were the same as Kia is making now. There is a reason why GM and Chrysler were bailed-out, and it wasn't all to do with Union-related overhead or quality issues. It was because everybody knows what an Audi is (German luxury, and thanks to the positioning work done by agency Venables Bell, it is becoming even more specialized as a German luxury auto for the younger generation), or knows what a Toyota is (Japanese reliability). There wasn't one "idea" consumers had about Ford, GM, or Chrysler, except they were "American" -- and the widespread availability of competitor imports (many of which are now more "made in America" than "American" cars) quickly showed how weak of a positioning that was.

In its teasers for the K900, the ad copy says "preconceived notions are the voices that distort reality." It's a great progressive philosophy, but it simply not true when it comes to a brand. A preconceived notion is the very definition of brand. Your brand is not what you say it is, but what a consumer believes it to be in his mind. That is why positioning in the mind of the consumer is one of the hardest, but most important aspects of brand management. It takes years, if not longer, to move the needle on consumers' "preconceived notions" about a brand. Hyundai's fight from the bottom to the middle of the market did not happen overnight.

Kia may very well think it's attempting to change the preconceived notions about the brand, but it's already been doing that over the last few years with industry-leading warranties, on top of industry-leading quality; not to mention stylish designs that challenge what an economy car has to look like. All Kia will accomplish with the K900 and the models that follow is muddying the waters for what the Kia brand "is" in the mind of a consumer.

an interview with paul venables

This week I'm writing an article for The Weekly Surge on Super Bowl advertising. I spoke with Venables, Bell & Partners Co-Founder and Creative Director Paul Venables about his experience putting together campaigns for advertising's biggest night. Venables and his team at VBP have handled Super Bowl ads for client Audi since its first spot in 2008. Since then, Venables helped rip apart the German luxury "aristocracy," campaign, after campaign. In this interview, he explains what goes behind making some of the Super Bowl's best commercials.

How does it feel to see your Super Bowl ad running?

"Having your ad play on the biggest stage imaginable, with millions and millions of viewers across continents, is a pretty darn exciting thing. Usually you're watching the Super Bowl in an atmosphere -- either party-like, or at least there's a spirit of good times and fun -- your ad comes on, and you just wish it could be longer. Commercials are so fleeting in our lives, so you watch a three-and-a-half or four-hour game…so you stole the audience's attention for 60-seconds but that's still pretty fleeting in the grand scheme of things. But it's worth it. It's a fantastic experience. When you go in designing something for the Super Bowl, I think your approach is a little different. There's higher stakes, so maybe you're a little bit more nervous. But, you know the opportunity is tremendous, and you keep kind of pushing yourself to do something great."

Was it Audi's idea to go for the holy grail of TV spots, or did you pitch that to them?

"We pitched that. When we pitched the business, we had a Super Bowl idea at the time. We, with Audi particularly -- this brand was doing all the right things from the product and engineering side -- the world just didn't know about Audi. The world didn't know that they were beating BMW and Mercedes at their own game. So we, with them, worked to shift their media dollars to be in more marquee events; to really stand out -- to create that conversation. And so we've done that from day one. The first one we did, you may recall, was the 'Godfather' spot, where the guy wakes up and instead of the horse-head in the bed, it's the front end of his luxury car. And we put old luxury on notice. That was our stake in the ground: Audi's here, shoulders back, chin up, we're coming at-cha. That was the gauntlet that we through down, and now here we are."

Is that why Audi is a good brand for the Super Bowl? It's not a mass market brand, but it's a brand that wants to get on everybody's radar.

"I think that's exactly it with Audi. They're not a mass market brand. We're never going to compete with the Doritos, and the Pepsis, and the Budweisers of the world, with slapstick humor and the silliness. And that stuff, I love it; it's all well and good. But, Audi has to do both. It has to appeal to the masses, but has to maintain its sophisticated persona. And, that's a trick for luxury brands to do. It's hard. It's hard to do both; something that wins on the Super Bowl with the mass audience, but is true to who you are. I think the Mercedes Benz [Kate Upton] teaser that they released is just a terrible embarrassment for them because they're trying to be…something that they're not. It's really, it's kind of sad."

"They're clearly trying to say, 'Hey, look at us! We belong in the Super Bowl and we can act like Doritos.' But no one wants to buy a Mercedes knowing they're acting like Doritos. You need to keep that allure of the high end premium brand, and still do something creative, provocative, and funny -- whatever your angle is. But, you got to be true to who you are in the Super Bowl. It's just that some of the rules, some of the guidelines, are less rigid. You can push it a little bit more, but you can't step outside and be somebody that you're not."

How do Super Bowl ads compare to campaigns that are otherwise run throughout the year?

"Well I think Super Bowl ads now are campaigns in and of themselves. You have to figure out your pre-Super Bowl strategy; are you releasing other content. You have to create a dialogue online. You have to use social media. You have to create content for social media. Do you do a YouTube channel? Do you launch it all on Facebook? Do you do both? You got a hashtag? We were the first to put a hashtag at the end of our Super Bowl spot two years ago to create a conversation in that regard. You know, how do you play the press angle? The traditional auto press, the USA Todays of the world. And, it's an onslaught; it's an entire campaign with other content created. And, I think that's the value of the Super Bowl. It's not just you buy a spot and you're done. You're basically creating a conversation that has a lot of people involved that lasts from several weeks before the game to several weeks after, and so there's value in that."

Is this a trend that you've seen recently, that Super Bowl ads are no longer a one-and-done campaign?

"Anybody that does the Super Bowl one-and-done is wasting an awful lot of money. It's too expensive to just play the game, hope you do well on some poll or meter, and be done. There's just way too much at stake. It's not a smart investment to approach it that way. I think very few companies do."

Has the style of Super Bowl ads influence advertising outside of the Super Bowl?

"I don't know. That's a good question. I think the Super Bowl in and of itself can be pretty predictable. There's going to be, you know, there's going to be a lot of dogs, I guarantee it. There's going to be some babies. There's going to be men being stupid. There's going to be men being too feminine and soft, who should be tougher. There's going to be slapstick; somebody is going to get hit in the nether-regions. There's going to be horses, probably Clydesdales. There's a lot of predictability, and I think that is comforting in a few ways to America; they have come to expect a kind of certain style of spot, but I think there's a huge opportunity for an advertiser to do something different, and stand out, and win people over with something different.

So, it's more than just slapstick. Do you think there has to be a "prevailing idea" behind the campaign that makes it a 'good' ad?

"Yeah, in my book. And you know we all probably judge the ads with our own value set, but I think you have to have something bigger than the *schtick.* Throwing the celebrity in the ad just because you know you're going to get more followers on Twitter is nice, but it's got to be meaningful. There's got to be an idea there. In fact, I'm interested to see, you know, instead of celebrities, and dogs, and monkeys, and talking babies -- what about good, old fashioned storytelling? A nice piece of film that tells a story that's captivating, that's interesting, that's shot well, that's casted well, that doesn't rely on the usual gimmicks -- I would love to see some more of that on the Super Bowl. Just win with the value of the idea and the storytelling of it."

Do you think a lot of agencies are starting to get that, and move away from the banal, slapstick humor?

"No. I think in a lot of creative departments the call comes to do a Super Bowl spot, and they immediately go, 'Well we have to do something extreme and crazy and gimmicky.' I just think that's still how people approach it. And, sometimes that yields great stuff, but a lot of times I think it leaves people reaching for something that isn't quite worth reaching for, or is shallow because it's a quick gimmick."

From an agency standpoint, what goes into getting an ad ready for the Super Bowl?

"Like I said, we approach it like a campaign. We have strategy specific to the Super Bowl. We work out a range of ideas. I like to have some flexibility going into the creative development to make sure we know of the absolute best thing that's suitable for the Super Bowl and yet true to Audi, in this case. And, so we approach it with a lot of discipline on the front end. What do we want? What do we want to accomplish? There are a lot of ways to measure success. It could just be impressions. You know, we've hit billions of impressions with past ads. Or, it could be the amount of buzz generated, or the activity on Facebook, or the USA Today poll, [or] did you make it on Good Morning America -- or, whatever. And, you kind of need to be clear on what you're going for, and have some discipline and rigor on the front end, and really unleash creatively on a range of ideas, and then put the rigor back in when you evaluate and debate which things have merit and which things don't. So, a lot goes in. Usually a lot of ideas I want to generate. You know with Audi, we can do a brand specific thing that's just really about the four rings, or we could do something about a particular model. The Super Bowl ad that we're running this year features the S6. Or, we could do something about a technology; we could do a Quatro thing, or a TDI clean diesel thing. So, right there, those are three different briefs, really. And sometimes we open it up. We know generally the objective we want to hit, and then we might look at from each of those angles -- product, technology, and brand -- and see what's the best story; what's the most compelling thing for the Super Bowl."

Do you have any all-time favorite Super Bowl ads, other than your own, of course?

"Off the top of my head, some things pop-in just randomly. One is the old 'Mean Joe Green' classic Coke spot from, I guess it was the 70s. I'm pretty sure that was a Super Bowl spot. That was just phenomenal and endearing commercial. The 'morning after' spot -- I forget the name of it -- that Nike did after the 'Y2K' non-event. That was just epic and wonderful…I think '1984' is a great story, but a little overrated. And, I think it was for its time and all of those things, amazing -- it's nothing short of amazing -- but I still don't count it among my favorites for some reason. And, maybe it's just because it's been so hyped over the years."

Some in the industry have suggested that Super Bowl ads are bad for the advertising industry, suggesting that it conditions people into believe that all advertising is like what Doritos typically does during the Super Bowl. That is, putting slapstick ahead of smart ads. What's your take?

"You know what I say to that? Yada, yada, yada. Only in advertising, in the industry of advertising, would you have someone in the industry complaining that the entire world sits up and takes notice of our craft. [Laughs] Give me a break. Now I don't think the industry always does itself proud because I think that sometimes we put a lot of dreck out there on the Super Bowl, [but] I'll take the eyeballs and the attention for one day a year on advertising. …We do a Super Bowl survey every year, and I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it says something like people are just as likely to talk about the ads as they are the key plays of the game the next day, or on Twitter, or during the game. So, it's a day we're elevated to pop culture status and we have to accept that, and we, as an industry, have to do our part which is to deliver the good content. But, to complain that people are paying too much attention to the Super Bowl, or its not what it's supposed to be cracked up to be, or look at our ads for the rest of the year -- you know what, we're lucky they're looking at them that one day."

ahab

I wasn't always a Venables Bell & Partners fanboy. I thought their Audi "Green Police" commercial was wonderfully entertaining, but did little to move Audi's brand forward. I felt the "environmentally friendly" angle probably one of the more minor points that drive people to buy an Audi.

But, Venables responded with a new positioning strategy, couching Audi as the "new" face of German luxury cars.

Holy crap. I stood up and cheered. And, to drive this new position, Venables released a remarkably brilliant campaign that was not only entertaining, but on-point with the brand strategy.

See my take on it here.

I recently ran across one of their ads they did for Audi called "Ahab." Again, it's hysterical, but the sell isn't lost in the comedy. It's a fantastic example of how to make an entertaining ad without placing humor above the brand. (see it at the bottom of this post)

As a side note, Venables recently created a brand strategy company called vpborange. I encourage you to check them out, if only to see a great site using parallax scrolling. And, as a personal side note, I would kill an unicorn to work for them. Yeah, that's right...a unicorn.

call for reinforcements

A recent post at Nex Level Advisors, LLC has a headline that reads, “It’s important that you do everything possible to establish and reinforce a positive brand.” The article goes on to list several good suggestions for brands, such as basic (but, often forgotten) fundamentals like positioning and consistency. However, the headline itself drives home an important concept for brands: reinforcement.
 
The vast availability of knowledge now available at the fingertips of any one on the Internet has made for incredibly intelligent consumers. This has completely changed the game for branding, as not only are consumers demanding more from brands, but brands are also held to a higher standard.
 
Delivering a wanted product is no longer enough. Not only must brands deliver on their promised value, but they must also do it in satisfactory ways, and provide excellent customer service in the process. Oh, and brands should seek to create an exceptional “brand experience” for their consumers. A flat model for branding doesn't work when consumers expect brands to be three-dimensional. 
 
This wealth of information in today’s consumer environment means brands are no longer shaped by the messaging of their 30-second ad spots, or an endcap display at a grocery store. Brands are now defined by every thing they do — from production, to the actual product, to delivery, to answering the phones on the help line.
 
This is why brands should always “call for reinforcements” when taking an analysis of their branding strategy. Is there some process, or facet, of your organization that doesn’t enhance or help define the brand? More importantly, is there anything that underminesthe brand?
 
Chipotle’s emphasis on “food with integrity” digs out a brand position that their food is ethical to eat. You better believe they are constantly monitoring the sources of their food. With the speed at which information travels, a single chink in their armor — say, a source for their chickens that keeps them frozen in microscopic crates — could end up on a YouTube video exposing this hypocrisy, which would create a PR nightmare for Chipotle.
 
This situation is a bit more extreme, but the general principle of reinforcements for any brand is ensuring the branding signals all are aligned to promote, enhance, and reinforce your brand strategy.

the super bowl’s best and worst ads (based on what really matters)

Last Sunday, 111.3 million people tuned into NBC to watch the Super Bowl. It was the most watched television program in U.S. history. And, in among time outs, touchdowns, and player injuries, Americans were exposed to advertisements that cost brands an average of $3.5 million for 30-seconds of stardom.
 
Some brands nailed it. Some floundered. And, others should have never even set foot on the advertising field. The year seemed to be marked by a slew of cameo presences, most needlessly adding to an already bloated marketing budget. Some of the classics returned: the E-Trade baby, the CareerBuilder.com monkeys, and Danica Patrick’s boobs. Others, like the Budweiser Clydesdales, took us back in history to when the government did its best to keep people miserable (is Anheuser-Busch InBev seriously afraid of prohibition coming back?).
 
Yet, even commercials that are considered “Fan Favorites” may not have done what ads are supposed to do: move brands forward. While Super Bowl ads are expected to entertain, the pursuit of this goal sometimes leaves brands on the sidelines. But, no matter how entertaining an ad may be, it’s a bad ad if it doesn’t progress a brand in one way or another.
 
The following is a breakdown of the three best commercials, and the three worst, according to the four elements of an effective Super Bowl ad: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall.
 
The Best of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Kia: "A Dream Car. For Real Life" (David & Goliath)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
Kia missed big last year with a complex, strange, and downright confusing ad featuring its newly redesign Optima blasting through time and space. However, they finally got the absurdity clicking in this year’s spot for the Optima. Joining it on a dream voyage around a racetrack was the striking Adriana Lima, the Motley Crew, a bucking Rhino, and a sub-sawing lumberjack who looked strangely like a burly John C. McGinley. While the commercial was one of the most outlandish of the Super Bowl, it still managed to prominently feature the car (yes, that’s right, Acura…car ads should feature the car). And, the absurd scenario that surrounded the Optima not only helped capture the thrill of driving it, it also served to drive home an excellent tagline: “A dream car. For real life.”
 
Second Place — Teleflora: "Give and Receive" (in house)
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
In what usually is a showcase of advertising absurdity (Kia Optima), parody (Honda CRV), and slapstick (Acura NSX), Teleflora’s ad featuring Adriana Lima cuts right to the chase. And, in the process, it sent millions of parents’ hands over their children’s eyes. If there is one thing that will grab a man’s attention, it is a scantly clad Lima. And, watching her slowly prepare her lingerie will entertain that attention as long as she wants. This created a perfect setup for the ad’s theme: give, and you shall receive. It’s that simple (wait…really?). While women viewers may not have been enthusiastic about this ad, it wasn’t them whom Teleflora was targeting. It was the guy who decides at the last that he needs a gift. Thanks to this ad, I’m sure Teleflora is going to be at the front of his mind.
 
Third Place — General Motor's Silverado: "2012" (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: A
 
General Motor’s ad for its Silverado truck was one of the most controversial heading into the Super Bowl, largely due to the bellyaching of its rival, Ford. GM did a stellar job making the most of a post-apocalyptic nightmare as a stage for its manly Silverado pickup. And, ensuring things didn’t get too serious, over-acting and Twinkies (I hope GSP gave a hat-tip to Zombieland) lent it the scenario humorous edge. Hopefully the shot at Ford will be the opening salvo to fantastic advertising war between the two automakers.
 
Honorable Mention — Fiat: “Seduction” (Richards Group, Dallas) 
Attention Grabbing: A
Entertaining: A
Brand Promotion: A
Brand Recall: C
 
Fiat took the Teleflora model and applied it to a car. The sexual tension between the nerdy guy and his imaginary Italian seductress was palpable, which led to a fantastic setup to the revealing of the car, which was wearing the same “outfit” as the mirage. While the attention, entertainment, and brand promotion were all there, I’m skeptical about how well consumers will remember the “Fiat” brand, given its recent entry into the U.S. market.  
 
The Worst of the Super Bowl:
 
First Place — Samsung "Thing Called Love" (72 & Sunny)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: F
Brand Recall: A
 
If there is one person happy about Samsung’s 2012 presence in the Super Bowl, it’s probably one-hit-wonder “The Darkness.” Or, it could be Netflix, which was able to pass the crown for one of the worst product launches on to Samsung. While the commercial started with a strong concept (making fun of the Apple cult), it slowly drifted into a weird street party. And, when Samsung tried to pass off its “stylus” as the future of technology, it came time to call it a night. At least consumers will remember Samsung. Too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.
 
Second Place — Century 21: "Smarter. Bolder. Faster." (Red Tettemer & Partners)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: C
Brand Promotion: C
Brand Recall: F
 
The selection of a real estate agent is a serious decision, and the Super Bowl is not an environment to try to sell a brand like Century 21. Unfortunately, they took a shot at it anyways. Their effort came off as an attempt to squeeze in as many celebrities as possible in a 30 second spot, and try to somehow make it all relevant to the qualities that make up a good agent. The cameos of Donald Trump and Deon Sanders may have been mildly entertaining to some, but the commercial (and the brand) was entirely forgettable.
 
Third Place — PepsiCo “King's Court” (TBWA /Chiat/Day)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: D
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: D
 
Pepsi ended up plunking down some serious money to secure Elton John in one of the first spots in the Super Bowl. However, a better investment would have been using those millions to actually buy Pepsis for all, film it, and put it on YouTube. What TBWA/Chiat/Day produced for PepsiCo was downright stupid: from the premise of using the lovable Sir Elton John for a cold-hearted king, to the cheesy “No, Pepsi for all” line, to the gratuitous use of wash-up Flava Flave at the conclusion. For an agency like TBWA/Chiat/Day, it’s almost as much of an embarrassment for them as it was a missed opportunity for Pepsi.
 
Dishonorable Mention — Chrysler: "Halftime in America" (Wieden + Kennedy)
Attention Grabbing: B
Entertaining: B
Brand Promotion: D
Brand Recall: C
 
Nothing sells like America. Sarah Palin found that magic out early on and built an empire for herself. In a time of economic hardships, an emotional appeal that tugs on the heartstrings of Americans is a strong, strong technique. But, Chrysler is trying to sell cars— not American flags. And, unlike last year where a similar technique prominently featured Chrysler’s 200 model, the Chrysler vehicles in this year’s spot were virtually invisible. Americans may love the nationalist message that Chrysler was selling in the ad, but the fact remains that Americans aren’t looking to buy Detroit. They’re looking to buy a car that’s the best value for their hard-earned dollar. Chrysler’s 2012 Super Bowl ad received a standing ovation because everybody will clap for good old-fashioned American patriotism. But, that doesn’t mean people are going out to dealerships and buying Chryslers to save the country. People can do that with Ford and Chevy, which have done a far better job of marketing their vehicles.

four elements of an effective super bowl ad

According a National Retail Federation study conducted by BIGinsight, 73% of viewers of the Super Bowl see commercials as entertainment. This sets a high standard for advertisers for not only capturing the attention of viewers distracted at parties, or looking down from the television to check Facebook on their phone. It also requires that they keep consumers entertained.
 
However, this demand to create a commercial that can both capture attention and entertain sometimes causes creative teams to overlook the primary purpose of any advertisement: selling the brand. If consumers aren’t more motivated to support a brand after a commercial, then advertisers dropped $3.5 million to get a chuckle out of consumers. Or, if things get “overly creative,” they spent a significant chunk of change to either confuse or bore them. And, in the worst-case scenario, which occurred with Groupon in last year’s Super Bowl, the ad just pisses people off.
 
It’s a huge gamble. For many companies, a Super Bowl ad-buy is most (or, all) of the marketing budget for the entire year. If the ad bombs, or fails to drive the brand, all is lost.
 
“An ad can be funny, cute, viral, likeable, watchable, etc.,” writes Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix, in a recent editorial at AdAge about the gamble of Super Bowl advertising. “But if a consumer doesn't get anything out of it but a laugh, it's just not effective.” Daboll says Internet companies are particularly prone to Super Bowl failures, since their products are outside the norm, and their ads do little more than simply announce their presence to the world. On past Internet ads, Daboll says: “Not only did these companies spend millions on Super Bowl media, they also wasted significant dollars on hiring celebrities that did nothing to move their message or their brand forward.”
 
It’s easy to get a laugh. It’s much harder to get a laugh and then sell a product. And, even if an ad gets millions of YouTube hits, or is voted the viewers’ favorite, it doesn’t necessarily mean it was a “good ad” in what could be considered effective advertising. In the words of advertising legend Rosser Reeves: "Somebody, some day, is going to put advertising awards on the proper basis. And that basis is, does it work?"
 
Volkswagen had one of the most popular commercials last year. Yet, how many consumers remember the little Darth Vader compared to how many remember what that Volkswagen car looks like, or what model it was?
 
This year, I’ve decided to create an advertising matrix that puts Super Bowl commercials to the test. There are four key elements that make an effective Super Bowl commercial: attention-grabbing, entertaining, brand promotion, and brand recall. A commercial must grab the consumers’ attention, entertain them while promoting the brand in a relevant (and effective) way, and consumers should remember the brand at the end of the game.  If one of these elements is missing, then the commercial will have failed to fulfill its purpose.
 
To download the Super Ad Matrix for yourself, click here (or, you can find it on Google Docs by searching for "Super Ad Matrix"). And, come back after the game to report what you felt was the best commercial based on your findings.

billboard brands

Designing an effective billboard is always a challenge. This probably explains why so many are terribly executed. Billboards require concise copy — sometimes only a few words — that people are supposed to read, digest, and process in just a few seconds. If the copy is too long, or the billboard is too busy, consumers will take a quick glance and move on.
 
Branding should be approached in the same way.
 
You don’t want a billboard so junked up with extraneous items that consumers are unable to understand it. Brands, like billboards, should be simple and direct. The battle for a position in the mind of a consumer is much like battling for their attention in the few seconds they drive by an out-of-home advertisement. If it isn’t something they are already familiar with, you have but just a few precious seconds to grab their attention. The sharper, more narrowly focused your brand is, the likelier it is you’ll land a strike.
 
Brands that are complex, or vague, have a hard time fighting through the noise to reach the consumers. However, brands that are simple, narrowly focused, and clear as to their purpose, or value, resonate better.
 
If you have just a few seconds to reach consumers about your brand, what would you say? Think of what you would put on a billboard to describe your brand. Ideally, it would be just one key word. It would be the one word that your brand has come to dominate, and one that defines it. For example, here is what some of the top brand billboards might look like: “Apple: Innovation in Technology;” “Google: Online Search;” “Burberry: Fashion’s Luxury;” “Marlboro: #1 in Cigarettes;” “Toyota: Automotive Reliability.”
 
Just two or three words, paired with a logo, would be all these brands needed to not only advertise the brand visually, but also tell consumers everything they need to know about it. Apple is where to go for the latest technology. Google is where to go for online search. Burberry is what you buy to look posh. Marlboro is what you smoke (because if they are number one, they must be the best). Toyota is what you buy if you want a reliable car.
 
Taking a look at your brand, could you explain it to consumers in just a few seconds, with just a few words? Could you turn your brand into a billboard? If not, maybe it is time to revaluate the brand, and trim off some of the excess. The best brands are ones that are narrow in focus, simple, and consistent. If you have a busy brand — trying to be everything to everybody — it will never hold a spot in the minds of consumers, just as a busy billboard will never register with consumers.

outsource your marketing, outsource your ethics

Perform a Google search for the Avenger controller, made by video game controller manufacturer N-Control. Doing so will query a variety of sites containing information about the device. The search will also include stories about how a marketing firm contracted by N-Control nearly destroyed their brand.

When N-Control outsourced their public relations to Paul Christoforo at Ocean Marketing, they had no idea they were about to enter a PR nightmare that has forever tarnished the name of N-Control and the Avenger controller. While the actions of rogue egomaniacs can never truly be foreseen, N-Control should have known the dangers of letting their brand image be controlled out-of-house.

As attorney Eric Turkewitz says, “outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics.”

Managing a brand is more than deciding the colors on the packaging, or keeping your marketing message consistent. Brands are constituted via hundreds of moving parts, including every facet of the organization. From the ease of getting to customer service agents, to the copy on the packaging — everything a company does feeds into its brand image.

When marketing is outsourced, so are the ethics. And, if brands don’t keep a constant eye on the marketing, it can’t possibly ensure that the marketing tactics are within the ethics of the brand. This is why Popehat.com added to Turkewitz’s maxim, saying that one also outsources their “reputation” with their marketing, as N-Control saw in the worst way possible.

Outsourcing happens. Nearly every product that has been manufactured (outside of the lonely, wooden toy maker in a rustic Prague neighborhood) has used outsourced parts or labor. However, outsourcing a highly visible brand component, such as marketing or public relations, is a completely different story.

While not every instance is going to turn into Christofoesque nightmare, it has the potential to if not carefully monitored and managed. The Internet is fast. Christoforo’s infamous emails were sent on Dec. 26, 2011. The next day, they were on Penny-Arcade.com, one of the most highly trafficked sites in the nation (ranked 1,006 of US sites by Alexa.com).

The word “blindsided” does not even begin to describe what happened to N-Control. But, by handing the branding keys to a little man with a big ego, N-Control opened the door for this to happen, and was crippled when it came to responding.

The lesson here is to outsource what you need, but be wary about doing so with crucial elements to your brand’s image. All it takes is a few emails to cripple a brand.

value is the deal

At Forbes.com’s MarketShare, BrandKeys Founder & President Robert Passikoff is highlighting 12 branding trends for 2012. “These 12 will have direct consequences to the success, or failure, of next year’s branding, engagement, and marketing efforts,” says Passikoff. Trends such as “Inward Bound” (using a brand’s resonating emotional qualities to differentiate itself in the minds of consumers), and “Real-Time Branding” (the consumer’s expectation for immediate customer service responses from brands) are just two of things discussed by Passikoff.

However, Passikoff’s trend, “Value is the deal,” has perhaps the best lesson for brands of them all.

“Differentiated and believable brand meaning — emotional, rational, functional, and experiential — becomes a more effective and profitable surrogate for value than low-lower-lowest pricing strategies,” writes Passikoff. “But only the consumer gets to say how ‘valuable’ is actually defined.” To do this, Passikoff suggests that brands listen to consumers, and use their feedback to help shape and grow the brand by "tuning in" to the consumer’s frequency.

At Beneath the Brand, the hidden dangers of the “daily deal” and discounting have been covered extensively. However, the lesson can’t be repeated enough, and the “Value isthe deal” branding trend once again reinforces the idea that discounting won’t save troubled brands.

Just as Passikoff put so succinctly, a brand’s value is the deal for consumers — not the price tag. Even in a down economy, consumers are willing to pay more for a trusted brand if they perceive a greater value in it over a cheaper competitor brand. To consumers, the true “value” of a brand is in how it improves, enhances, or positively changes their lives. It doesn’t necessarily have to be profound, but even saving a few minutes — or even seconds — in their daily routine may be enough to gain a consumer’s loyalty.

But, only listening to consumers, and knowing what they see as value, will allow brands to maximize their full potential.

Daily deals are a distraction from gaining this type of insight into consumers. And, for brands already on shaky ground, the effects can be devastating. Businesses that opt for the allure of daily deals without first understanding what consumers find valuable about their brands — and making the changes to maximize this value — is like holding an open house on a building that’s only half complete. Sure, consumers may see promising signs of brand value, but the promise of potential value isn’t actually value. And, it surely isn’t enough to turn a one-off, daily deal customer into a loyal consumer.

Brands should take a hard look at BrandKey’s trends, especially the first. Brands must take the time to listen to consumers and discover the differentiating factors (this is the "value," in the minds of consumers) that separate them from competitors.

marketing may fade, but the brand is forever

Apple’s marketing budget is $5.5 billion. Microsoft’s is $17 billion. Yet, according to BrandZ’s Top 100 global brands chart, Microsoft holds the number five spot, behind brands such as McDonald’s, IBM, Google, and…Apple. Why? According to conventional wisdom, the companies that spend the most on marketing should have the best brand, right?

Not so, according to a recent article at Fast Company's Co. Design, which suggests that the days of marketing are fading. “In an increasingly transparent, digitally empowered economy, where everyone potentially can know everything, companies can no longer use the other three P's (Price, Promotion, and Place) to gain a long-term competitive advantage,” writes Jens Martin Skibsted, founder of design agency Skibsted Ideation, and Rasmus Bech Hansen, London-based strategy director at Venturethree. “These P's, in other words, are becoming strategically less significant; they are still valuable, just less so than they used to be, and they don’t provide any long-term edge.”

Is this true? That’s the ongoing debate, and one that has monumental implications for brands large and small.

Skibsted and Hansen write further:

We, however, still believe that where a company sells and distributes its offerings is becoming less important relative to what it sells. The rise of e-commerce makes it much easier for consumers to buy the best product irrespective of where it is sold. Sites like Yelp, Lonely Planet, and Zagat point consumers to restaurants, hotels, or shops that provide real value and good experiences even if they are off the beaten track. And we think Apple’s retail success has a lot to do with creating an amazing brand experience that is an extension of the product experience by offering a real service (the Genius Bar). If you have an extraordinary product, customers will find it and buy it in a transparent economy.

So, is a brand strategy more important than a marketing strategy? Can a company with a strong brand stay afloat with a small advertising budget? Can a company with a lousy brand make it by pumping money into marketing? Or, are they both necessary?

Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

yes, consistency in your brand is still important

If you're not already following Kaitlin Gallucci at BeneathTheBrand.com, you really should. She has a post everyday, and they're all branding gems that you shouldn't miss. Hers today on "consistency" in branding is especially relevant because, as she explains in the article, people seem to think the days of consistency are over.

Wrong.

According to Hunt, “research shows that businesses with well-managed, consistent brands are worth up to 20% [more] than those who aren’t.”

Gallucci continues:

Branding consistency is a primary means of brand recognition. Imagine if a company didn’t maintain a consistent brand name; not only would it probably go virtually unknown, it would appear unreliable, not to be trusted.

Bingo. If there are two things you should remember about branding, it's that consistency and singularity are the building blocks to brands with staying power. Change your brand, or junk it up with line extensions or silly bells and whistles, and you lose value -- or, kill your brand altogether.

how apple and google came to dominate the world

Apple and Google. They are respectively the number-one and number-two brands in the world, according to BrandZ’s ranking of the Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands of 2011. Compared to other brands in the top-10 — such as IBM (1911), McDonald’s (1940), Coca-Cola (1886), and Marlboro (1924) — Apple (1976) and Google (1998) are relatively new brands. So, how did they come to dominate the world?

At the center of brand building is creating an idea in the mind of a consumer that his life will be improved should they buy your brand. This is what industry jargon terms as the “value proposition.” However, Apple and Google have gone beyond simple value proposition and have built products that consumers feel they can’t live without. They reinforce this “life-altering” benefit through simple, yet powerful, advertising.

See for yourself with one of Apple’s advertisements for the iPhone 4S and Google’s “Dear Sophie” campaign. Both commercials are simple in their execution, which allows them to masterfully drive home the value proposition built into their brands. The truly genius aspect of the brand advertising is that it injects their products into the consumer's life through the timeless technique of “demonstrations.”

As I wrote in “Why Apple Can Get Away With Murder,” Apple and Google didn’t build their brands through things like product quality or the exclusion-factor inherent in luxury goods. Google offers many of their products for free, and there isn’t an Apple product launch that isn’t followed by days of consumer gripes about build quality or battery life. Apple and Google built their brands on the idea that their products were not like anything else, and that your life is made significantly better by their use.

Small-business owners with struggling brands may look to Apple and Google and say, “Well I could never do that. They have the most brilliant minds in marketing, and a massive advertising budget, to help them stay at the top.” While this may be true now, it wasn’t always like that. Apple began in the family garage of Steve Jobs, and Google started out as a PhD research project.

Brands with larger advertising budgets than most companies gross in an entire year, who hire the best and brightest from Madison Avenue, have failed miserably in launching new products or even keeping their current brand alive.

The key to Apple and Google’s success was building products that set themselves apart from all other competitors and provided benefits to consumers that they cannot now ever live without. Does your brand do that? If not, focus on how you can get it there, then align your entire organization behind that idea.

for online brands, play to the niche

In his book Meatball Sundae: Is Your Marketing out of Sync?,marketer Seth Godin defines two eras of marketing: old and new. Godin describes the era of “Old Marketing” as "interrupting masses of people with ads about average products." This type of marketing would be non-targeted advertisements for products designed for non-targeted demographics. Essentially, a product designed for the masses, advertised to the masses.

However, Godin describers “New Marketing” as that which “leverages scarce attention and creates interactions among communities with similar interests." This would essentially be advertising to targeted audiences with products designed for a target demographic.

Old marketing was for the masses. New marketing is for the niche.

In the era of old marketing, microtargeting was hard to accomplish, at least relative to what is possible today. Therefore, products were created with mass appeal, and advertisements were broadcast to the masses in order to reach the most people. "Masses of people could be processed quickly and cheaply, and some would respond to your message and become customers," writes Godin. "The key drivers of this approach were a scarcity of choice and a large resource of cheap attention."

As a result of this style of old marketing, brands weren’t focused, but built for the masses.

The rise of microtargeting, especially with online mediums of advertisement, has completely changed the game. No longer do brands have to sacrifice a narrow focus in order to have a broader range of appeal. In fact, the ability of brands to microtarget audiences amplifies the strength of narrowly focused brands.

For online brands, this means playing to the niche. One of the keys to brand strength is keeping it narrowly focused, simple, and consistent. Online advertising now makes it easier than ever to find new customers, and let them find you. Even the most narrow of brands is able to ring-up sales, which would have been impossible in the era of old marketing.

In the era of new marketing, the niche is no longer the trap that it once was. In fact, it is now a positive because it allows brands to stay on the narrow track. As some brands continue to play to the masses, play to the niche. You don’t have to appeal to the 99% if your customer base is the 1% you want to reach.

a conversation about branding with stanley hainsworth

Advertising is very much a learning experience. Even the advertising greats received valuable knowledge from their predecessors. Before today’s advertising legends, there was David Ogilvy. And, before Ogilvy, there was Claude Hopkins. Each generation gives the next lessons from which they can draw upon in creating better advertisements, and stronger brands.

Over at Fast Company, Debbie Millman, president of Sterling Brands, sits down with a man who helped build Starbucks into one of the world’s most powerful brands. Stanley Hainsworth, who has served as the creative director at Nike, Lego, and Starbucks before leaving to start his own agency, knows something about branding, and making brands superpowers in the marketplace.

The whole interview (available here) is full of expert wisdom worth an entire read, the following excerpt is the most valuable for those seeking to build a brand with staying power. Hainsworth describes how Howard Schultz took a coffee shop in a crowded marketplace, and turned it into a global icon [parts bolded for emphasis]:

When Howard Schultz first came to Starbucks, he wasn't the owner of the company. He joined a couple guys that had started the company. He went over to Milan and saw the coffee culture and espresso bars where people met in the morning. He saw how people caught up on the news while they sat or stood and drank their little cups of espresso. That inspired the vision he crafted from the beginning--to design a social environment where people not only came for great coffee, but also to connect to a certain culture.

Howard was very wise in knowing that Starbucks was not the only company in the world to make great coffee. On the contrary, there are hundreds of other companies that can make great coffee. So what's the great differentiator? The answer is the distinction that most great brands create.There are other companies that make great running shoes or great toys or great detergent or soap, but what is the real differentiator that people keep coming back for? For Starbucks, it was creating a community, a "third place." It was a very conscious attribute of the brand all along and impacted every decision about the experience: who the furniture was chosen for, what artwork would be on the walls, what music was going to be played, and how it would be played.

Differentiation. That’s the key.

Starbucks didn’t just make coffee. Starbucks made an “environment” for coffee. It was this differentiating factor — a conscious decision, executed to perfection down to the very art that was hung on the walls — that moved Starbucks beyond its competitors and into branding glory.

What differentiates your brand from your competitors? How are you creating an emotional connection with your consumers? Read the interview, and take a lesson from one of the masters of branding.

the daily deal emperor has no clothes

“Coupons for the spa drew women from around the metropolitan area eager to see their bulges melt and their wrinkles removed,” reads a New York Times article. “Once.” The article, detailing the rise — and, subsequent waning—- of coupon sites like Groupon, features a New York spa called Wellpath who tried to use the service to drive customers into their business. Unfortunately, the results were a story all too familiar (and predictable).

“Then they would get another coupon and go do it with someone else,” Wellpath’s director, Jennifer Bengel, told the Times. “There was no loyalty.”

No loyalty? No surprise.

Groupon is in trouble, and not because the rise of localized, competitor brands has already begun to take a huge chunk from Groupon’s market share. More and more businesses are learning just how disastrous daily deals can be for their bottom line. “We’re giving [customers] a discount when we could be filling that seat with a full-paying customer,” Arlington, Virginia pizzeria co-owner Joel Mehr tells ARLnow.com. “If we are giving discounts when we don’t need to be giving discounts, that doesn’t benefit us.”

Mehr says that despite selling more than 5,600 Groupon deals for his restaurants in the area, the pizzeria still lacks name recognition. Worst of all, they can’t control when customers come because the deals can be used anytime. “We are seeing people come in one time only, on a Friday night, they’re not coming back,” says Mehr, echoing a common theme among disgruntled Groupon users.

However, the discount emperor, Groupon, isn’t the one at fault. While Groupon has its own internal problems, from a business model that has investors worried to its new-found appetite for line-extensions (Groupon Now!, Groupon Getaways, Groupon Goods), it can’t be blamed for customer loyalty issues. When businesses use discounts and deals, loyalty issues are right around the corner.

Discounts are not a permission slip to excuse oneself from brand-building strategies, nor are they a panacea for driving business through the doors. Businesses that use deal sites as a marketing device can quickly find themselves drowning in customers who are only looking for one-off purchases at a discount price. One owner called using Groupon the “single worst decision I have ever made as a business owner thus far,” after the deal nearly put them out of business.

Yes, Groupon can help businesses find new customers, but the very nature of discounting undermines customer loyalty — especially when driven by daily deal sites. And, even more so when businesses aren’t prepared to convert new “discount” customers into loyal “full price” customers.

For example, oil changes are one common deal on Groupon, and they come from a variety of businesses. It isn’t out of the question that a Groupon deal for an oil change will come about frequently enough where a subscriber would never have to pay full price for an oil change, if he were to use the deals that came about every so often on the site. Therefore, the subscriber never establishes a bond with any of the businesses that advertise on the site — especially if those businesses have not put effort into retaining new customers.

Daily deal sites should be regarded with a huge caveat emptor for businesses looking to use them. There have been a number of success stories, but on the other hand, they can absolutely ruin a brand — as they have, and they will continue to do.

Discounting in and of itself isn't a brand killer. Just look at major department stores, which have opted for discount strategies instead of brand strategies. Rather than rushing to discounting sites for growing businesses, focus on building the brand through good branding fundamentals. It may take a little longer, but in the end, brand integrity is improved — not diminished.

On a side note, I would be remiss if I didn’t note the unfortunate passing of Apple Co-Founder Steve Jobs. The death of genius is truly like extinguishing a candle. The world is less bright without him around.