Brand: Burger King
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here (move your cursor to ‘Explore BK’ and click on ‘BK Cinema.’ The reviewed spot is titled ‘Press Conference’)
Target: Teenage Football Fans
Rating: *
Reviewer: David

Description:
A press conference featuring the Burger King (a man in a king costumer wearing a large plastic head mask) and his agent, Drew Rosenhaus. Rosenhaus is a real sports agent and was the basis for the movie “Jerry Maguire.” Drew fields reporters questions for the King, mostly centered around the King’s ‘big head’ and his reasons for being an NFL holdout. As it turns out, the King is not holding out because he has a big head, but because of the success of the double Whopper. Then the spot shows a visual of the double whopper which is replace by the new triple whopper with the voiceover, “This season the King is bringin’ it.” The spot ends with the Burger King ‘Have it Your Way’ logo.

What Works:
The Burger King has become a recognizable icon and Burger King has shown some consistency in its advertising for period longer than a year which is a change from the company’s modus operandi for the past generation. The branding in this spot is excellent, both from the King himself and the product shots at the end. This spot is ownable and unlikely to be copied by competition.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog is generally a great fan of consistency, except when it means stubbornly sticking to an advertising strategy that is not building the brand or increasing sales. Undoubtedly Burger King and ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky have more research than we do about the effects of this campaign, but one thing cannot be disputed – Burger King itself has performed abysmally since hiring Crispin Porter and initiating the Burger King Campaign. (See our analysis of the Crispin Porter relationship here and CNN Money’s take Burger King’s operating results here.) From a brand positioning standpoint, we dislike this campaign because it does not define the core user for Burger King, show how the brand uniquely meets consumer needs or establish a relevant identity for the franchise. The King character is all about attitude which we suspect is intended to appeal to teenage boys. The flaw with this strategy is that brand loyalty for this category is established earlier and BK is now alienating families with the King campaign (the King spots were among the most disliked advertising produced last year in the United States.) So while we normally support consistency, we feel it is time for a change at Burger King.

Branding Bottom Line:
Forget ‘stay the course.’ Burger King should cut and run.

Brand: Nike
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here
Target: The Media Establishment
Rating: *****
Reviewer: David

Description:
Russian tennis star Maria Sharapova makes her Nike advertising debut with this spot.  The ad features Maria during her pre-game routine as she travels from her hotel to center court (the spot has been released to coincide with the U.S. Open, the largest U.S. tennis tournament.)  Along the way, everyone she encounters -hotel bellmen, fans and other players – all are singing “I Feel Pretty.”  Sharapova ignores the attention with a concentrated grimace on her face. . As she enters Arthur Ashe stadium, the entire crowd joins the chorus as the song reaches a crescendo. Then Sharapova’s opponent serves and Maria Sharapova hits an explosive shot, letting out one of her famous grunts.  The audience is silenced instantly.  The Nike logo and ‘Just Do It’ appear.

What Works:
This stunning commercial reinvigorates the Nike brand.  We are reminded that ‘Just Do It’ was a revolutionary statement when Nike first launched the tagline and the brand positioning nearly a generation ago.  Nike plays with the stereotype of female celebrity.  Sharapova is an attractive woman and a media star.  The chorus singing ‘I feel pretty’ around her as she makes her way through her life is attempting to marginalize her, to reduce her to the value of her looks.  This spot does a great job of putting us in Sharapova’s shoes.  We feel the opressive weight of the ode being sung to beauty and how it marginalizes Sharapova as an individual.  Even the tennis establishment plays into it as John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe and Mary Joe Fernandez appear in this spot.

When Sharapova drives her service return past her opponent into the opposite wall untouched, the stunned silence in the crowd mirrors what we’re feeling.  The only sound Sharapova makes in this spot is one of her famous, intimidating grunts.  Without saying a word, Sharapova delivers the most effective possible response to the image-obsessed society she moves through.  Take me for what I am, not what I appear to be, she says.  At its core, this is the essence of the Nike brand positioning.  ‘Just Do It’ means being the most you can be and concentrating on what is really important.

Nike has struggled to maintain a positive consumer image and keep its brands focused as it battles with rivals like Adidas and the media pressure put on a giant company.  By turning its energy back to its core values and using advertising to deliver a timely and important social message, Nike reminds us of the revolutionary company that made athletes and consumers proud to wear the swoosh.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog does not miss the irony in this spot – Sharapova was hired as a spokesperson by Nike not just because she is one of the top female tennis players, but because she is very attractive.  So while she works unique well for this campaign, there are still lots of other players who will never have this chance because of the societal values that Nike is taking aim at in this spot.  There is also always some risk associated with making a big statement using an athlete just before she engages in a huge tournament.  Either misbehavior or bad performance could marginalize the effectiveness of this spot.  Fortunately this spot will never look as ironic as the disastrous “Andy Roddick’s Mojo” campaign that Amex ran just as Mr. Roddick was losing his mojo last year.

Branding Bottom Line:
It’s a relief to see Nike back in championship form.

Brand: Rabbit (Volkswagen AG)
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here or Here
Target: Young couples
Rating: ***
Reviewer: David

Description:
A black VW Rabbit (returning the Volkswagen Golf to its earlier U.S. name) chases a white Rabbit through the countryside, catching it in a tunnel. When the two cars reappear, they’ve spouted a brace of offspring, mostly gray rabbits with one black/white/gray mix. The party moves into a city where the Rabbits dissappear into a tunnel again, this time emerging with a legion of Rabbits who eventually cause Volkeswagen Rabbit gridlock in the city. At the end of the spot we see a silver VW Rabbit icon followed by the tagline “It’s back@$14,990.”

What Works:
This spot is nicely executed with a whimsical feeling, quirky, upbeat music and good product visuals of the new Volkswagen Rabbit. The proliferation of Rabbits at the end of the spot is a clear metaphor for the ‘people’s car’ that Volkswagen is meant to be.

What Doesn’t:
The concept of this spot seems simple (VW Rabbits breed like real Rabbits) but is surprisingly difficult to grasp upon casual viewing. In this sense, the spot is actually too high-concept. In an attempt to be witty, they’ve created a proposition which requires a close watch to follow. Without following the proposition the spot leaves you wondering why on earth Volkswagen would ever want to show the Rabbit or any other product creating gridlock. This is a good example of overthinking a spot and making the viewer work too hard. This spot also doesn’t answer the basic question ‘why’ for the rebrand from Golf to Rabbit. While this advertising blog believes that the VW Rabbit has more differentiated and unique brand equity than the Volkswagen Golf ever commanded, it is a mistake to slap the Rabbit logo onto a Golf product that hasn’t changed much.

Branding Bottom Line:
And we thought it was a pain just getting the dog fixed.

Brands: Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep (DaimlerChrysler)
Execution: TV, Web
Link: Click Here
Target: Science-minded car buyers
Rating: *
Reviewer: David

Description:
A series of TV spots featuring Dr. Dieter Zetsche, the current Chairman of DaimlerChrysler. The spots show Dr. Z seriously answering questions about American car brands Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge. The spots poke fun at Dr. Z (in one spot a rough working-class director fumes “actors” when Dr. Z misses a line) in a good-natured manner.

What Works:
It’s good that Dr. Zetsche appears to have a sense of humor and passion for the brands Daimler aquired during the supposed ‘merger of equals’ between Daimler-Benz (the maker of Mercedes-Benz automobiles) and Chrysler. The brands are featured prominently and – for better or worse – this is ownable advertising that competitors are unlikely to copy.

What Doesn’t:
Steve Miller at BrandWeek noted last week that Chrysler will continue this campaign, which broke in July, through the end of the year. While there is little great or awful enough in this campaign to merit comment, this advertising blog feels that the use of Chrysler Chairman Dr. Dieter Zetsche as the spokesmodel for the campaign raises a relevant and interesting question. Namely, when should the CEO or Chairperson of a company front the advertising.

Our answer is “never.” Why not? After all, companies like Wendy’s built their franchise with personal messages from Dave Thomas. And the CEO often has the most to gain or lose from the success or failure of the company. If these men and women have both a track record and a stake in the outcome, why shouldn’t they speak directly to the cameras?

Because there is nobody to tell them when the result is awful, as it is in this case. Is the ad agency going to tell the Chairman of one of the world’s largest automobile company that he is a disaster on film? Pity poor BBDO here because that’s the position they’re put in by this advertising strategy, even if they came up with it in the first place.

When you storyboard an idea and it seems to work and then film it and it doesn’t, you can always shelve the film and try again. Unless your CEO is the star.

Dr. Zetsche is a shrewd individual, but corporate Chairmen don’t get to that position without a strong belief in their ability to make things happen personally. In this case, Dr. Z is trying to promote Daimler Chrysler’s middle-class American brands Dodge, Jeep and Chrysler. The rationale is probably that Dr. Zetsche represents German engineering which is something Americans understand and would appreciate in their American cars. But by reminding the heartland audience that their beloved brands are controlled from Germany, Dr. Zetsche is doing untold damage to the brand positioning for at least Jeep and Dodge, both of which have painstakingly built their Americana credentials over more than half a century.

Beyond this, these spots are unfocused and confusing. The entire campaign seems to promote the good humor of Dr. Z. more than any specific brand attributes of Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep. This advertising blog also disagrees with the practice of advertising more than one brand in a single spot. Multi-brand advertising for DaimlerChrysler implies that Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge are interchangable. This is a bad move for DaimlerChrysler because U.S. carmakers already have significant positioning and differentiation problems with their brands. The problem was created by the U.S. automotive industry’s practice of marketing the same car under two different brand names such as the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable.

So we urge Dr. Zetsche to retire quickly and gracefully – at least from the small screen.

Branding Bottom Line:
Why is this German dude talking about our Dodge Durango?

Brand: Coca-Cola
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here
Target: Male videogamers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David

Description:
A car in a videogame careens through the streets of a city. The owner, a guy in a leather jacket and aviator glasses steps out and into a bodega named Fung’s Mini. The startled owner raises his hands as if he’s being held up. The leather jacket grabs a bottle of Coke out of a cooler and slams payment down onto the counter as the store owner looks grunts, surprised that he is not being robbed. Leather jacket pulls a preppy who has been driving erratically out of his convertible and hands him a bottle of the Coke. They drink together. We hear a homeless main strumming a singing “Give a little love and it all comes back to you.” Leather jacket walks past a fire in a steel barrel and puts it out with a fire extinguisher that clicks into his hand with the sound of weapons being changed in a videogame. An armored car guard drops a bag of cash and leather jacket flips it back to the guard. He stops a mugger and gives an old lady back her purse as the music swells “You’re gonna be remembered for the things you say and do. You give a little love and it all comes back to you.” The city is transformed by these good deeds and people come together into a musical dance number.

What Works:
This brilliant take on the Grand Theft Auto genre by Wieden + Kennedy and Nexus Productions effectively takes the Coca-Cola brand positioning into the videogame world. Grand Theft Auto is the leader in an immensely popular genre of PS2 and Xbox videogames that are played by teens and 20- and 30-something men. The genre depicts lawless cities where the player is a two-bit street tough trying to work his way up the criminal food chain. Acts of violence and lawlessness are encouraged and necessary to win the game.

Enter Coca-Cola. As this advertising blog has long argued (back to here), Coca-Cola is most effective when it is a social connector that creates shared happiness. Along with two other innovative spots, this effort convinces us that Wieden + Kennedy is the first creative shop in a long time to really understand brand Coca-Cola. Their work with The Coke Side of Life and Happiness Factory has helped reestabish the brand as an authentic creator of social connections and producer of happiness. There is good research to back up this positioning and Coca-Cola has known for decades that the craving that Coke drinkers experience for Coca-Cola when they eat pizza or go to a social event is psychological as well as physiological. In other words, our soul craves Coca-Cola as well as our body. This happens because we associate the drink with happy times and celebration. The job of the brand positioning is to refine and support this subconscious association and to make it relevant to new generations.

This spot does an excellent job of creating cultural relevance by upending the violent videogame genre with wit and sensitivity. This spot will appeal to games and non-gamers and the production values are excellent. By staying close to the core brand positioning for Coca-Cola, Wieden has also made a spot that could not be copied by Pepsi.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog thinks this is a very slick spot that will be effective with its intended audience. Looking at three recent spots coming out of W&K (albeit Happiness Factory was from W&K Amsterdam, not Portland), one does have to wonder if there will be too much creative diversity on the brand. The creativity and effectiveness of each spot is impressive, but there is a danger that by executing against too many widely divergent creative concepts, W+K and Coca-Cola may lose the benefits of a more consistent campaign, particularly with longterm recall of the brand message.

Branding Bottom Line:
Coca-Cola scores at the video arcade.

Brand: Smirnoff Raw Tea
Execution: Viral, Web
Link: Video here, Website here
Target: Too-hipsters
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David

Description:
A viral video which has become an overnight success on YouTube, viewed over 600,000 times in the last 10 days. This is in fact viral advertising for Smirnoff Raw Tea, a new product launch. The video from Smirnoff’s agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty was directed by music video veteran Julien Christian Lutz of HSI Production. In the past few days, this video has garnered mainstream press coverage including stories on CNN. The 2:15 spot is a like a shrunken rap video featuring preppies instead of rappers. They talk about their life and lifestyle and make a soft pitch for Smirnoff Raw Tea.

What Works:
Viral video, particularly the emerging YouTube variety, is a tricky game. Promoting a brand this way can backfire easily. If you push the brand too hard, users will reject it as overtly commercial. On the other hand, hiding the brand too carefully and you will be accused of deception. Tonality is also very difficult as YouTube is a democratic system and the standard ‘advertising as a committee decision’ product rarely rises to the level of quality and quirkiness that viral video demands.

Smirnoff and BBH have hit the mark with this spot, however, by embracing Ice Tea’s geekiness instead of trying to run away from it. Improperly launched, alcoholic ice tea would probably have all the appeal of a lime wine coolers. By confronting ice tea’s prissy image head-on, Smirnoff gives this new product a fighting chance. Consumers reward brands which are comfortable enough to make fun of themselves when the result is actually funny.

What Doesn’t:
The BBH video leaves the new brand with a perilously thin brand positioning which will need to be maintained for Smirnoff Raw Tea to have a shot at succeeding. The brand positioning here is based on the ultra-preppy, perhaps more of a mythical creature than a real demographic group. However this advertising blog believes that this can be an effective positioning. The user imagery is distinct and ownable. The product underlying the brand makes sense for this user and the effect should be to give the brand expertise which will make it appeal to a much broader audience. To make this work, Smirnoff has to play the risky game of truly embracing these absurd preppies and committing to them for the long-term, not just as a one-off stunt.

Branding Bottom Line:
The Tea Partay looks suspiciously like the last wedding we attended.

Brand: Hummer (General Motors)
Issue: Hummer puts itself in Happy Meals, New campaign to dispel myths about H3
Commentary by: David

We often comment on the brilliant or foolish choices that marketers make, but we rarely get to talk about a major brand doing both simultaneously.  General Motors has accomplished the unlikely with the brilliant move of putting toy Hummers in Happy Meals and the foolish move of creating an advertising campaign intended to combat misperceptions about the H3.

What is Brilliant:
Today, Jean Halliday at Adage comments on General Motor’s recent move to put toy Hummers into happy meals.  The compelling logic for this is two-fold.  Financially, this licensing deal is a bright spot for the troubled automaker which is one of the most aggressive licensee for its brands in the automotive industry.  The second motivation is brand seeding, which allows GM to get the Hummer brand into the hands of future consumers at an impressionable age.  Matchbox cars have long had the same effect, but carmakers seem to be waking up to the potential loyalty effects of early brand building.

This advertising blog won’t comment on the moral issue of branding to children, the environmental questions about Hummer or the overall merchandising strategy for General Motors.  We do feel that this particular move was brilliant for an entirely different reason.  The brand positioning for Hummer is straighforward and extremely effective when executed properly: Hummer is a toy for grown-ups.  The irony of this promotion is that the Hummer already looks like a toy and is already sold like a toy.  Putting a real toy version of the Hummer into happy meals will not only influence children – it will influence their parents.  It brilliantly reinforces the brand positioning.

What is Foolish:
After a great breakout spot for the H3 (the ‘One Little Monster’ spot -  which we review here), General Motors has been stumbling in its campaign to market the Hummer H3 by its insistence on trying to make the H3 friendly to women.  As Gina Chon writes today in the Wall Street Journal, General Motors is now taking this strategy one step further, with an ad campaign intended specifically to refute misconceptions about the H3′s size and gas mileage.  This strikes us as a radically bad idea for several reasons.

First, GM is using precious airtime to argue with consumers.  Hummer has a bad reputation with environmentalists for a good reason – they are SUVs which are fuel-inefficient.  While it is true that the H3 gets much better mileage than the much larger H2, highway gas mileage of 20mph is nothing to brag about for a vehicle which will holds no more than a Volvo station wagon.

The bigger problem is that the Hummer brand team is trying to make the H3 a different brand from the H2 and ignoring that the real brand in the mind of consumers is Hummer.  The reason to buy a Hummer (as some of the Hummer spots effectively show) is to compensate.  If your life is too unexciting, the Hummer is a toy that adds excitement.  If there’s too little testosterone in your vegan diet, the Hummer adds aggression.

This is a single-minded message that works extremely well for the brand.  But General Motors is making an elementary branding mistake by trying to please everyone.  ‘More people will like us if they know the truth and then more people will buy’ goes the corporate mantra.  In reality, those predisposed to hate Hummer will not listen to the ad.  Those who like Hummer or might respond to the real brand message will be confused by this campaign.

General Motors must remember that it is okay for some consumers to hate Hummer as long as others love it.  Hummer has the makings of a cult brand and will find greater sales volume by narrowing rather than broadening its message.

Branding Bottom Line:
Hummer takes one step forward and one step back.  Much like General Motors.

Issue: Consumers Balk at the High Price of Fusion
Commentary by: David

There is a certain trepidation that a critic feels when challenging a huge brand. Especially when that brand has just been validated by the one of the largest and most successful brand factories. But such was the case last September when we challenged Gillette Fusion and the pricing and product strategy behind this new razor. This month in BusinessWeek, our challenge was validated by Robert Berner and William Symonds.

Our argument in a nutshell was that Gillette had created a monopoly in the shaving business (which had evolved into a minor duopoly when Schick regained some luster with the Quattro) where pricing increases over a decade had far exceeded the innovation delivered to the consumer. For all but the most affluent consumers, the marginal increases in shaving closeness delivered by each successive generation of Gillette razor have been outweighed by hefty price increases in the vicinity of 30%. And don’t try buying in bulk. For years, Gillette has been one of the few companies which reverse prices razor blades, making it more expensive per unit to buy 8 than 4. But inertia and residual brand loyalty kept people coming back and bolstered the stock price, netting former CEO Jim Kilts an absolute fortune when Procter & Gamble acquired Gillette last year.

Now consumers are starting to react. According to Berner & Symonds, sales have been disappointing in spite of a record level of spending behind the brand:

For all that, Citigroup analyst Wendy Nicholson figures that Fusion’s market-share growth has been far weaker than what Gillette saw after the Mach3 and M3Power launches. Mach3′s U.S. market share, excluding Wal-Mart and warehouse-club stores, rose from 6.6% in the launch quarter to 11.7% in the second full quarter, she figures. But Fusion’s has hardly budged, from 10.6% in the launch quarter to 10.8% in the second, she adds. “Given that (the Fusion launch) included two Fusion products, we would have hoped that the initial shares would have been considerably higher,” she writes in a recent report.

From the perspective of this advertising blog, this reaction is nothing more than marketing karma balancing the scales. Gillette took advantage of consumers for too long, increase margin and complicating the product in marginally useful ways. Now consumers are reacting. Unfortunately, many of those who created this mess have already cashed out. We pray that the rest will work hard to add real value to this category.

Brand: Sprite (The Coca-Cola Company)
Execution: TV, Online
Link: TV Spot Here, Online Here
Target: Attention Deficit Soda Drinkers
Rating: *
Reviewer: David

Description:
The spot starts with a shot of the classic Sprite can which morphs into the new can. A voiceover says, “Welcome to Sublymonal Advertising.” The voiceover and style sounds big-brotherish and may be familiar to computer games from the game title “Command & Conquer.” The spot then displays the words “Sublymonal Advertising.” The spot shifts to a huge greenhouse where a gardener with a backpack full of Sprite lymon and a squirt gun is watering the flowers. When they are hit with the limon they open up revealing mouths including lips and teeth and say “aaaahh.” Then the flowers start singing, “Time of the Season” by the Zombies. Intercut with this action are individual frame shots of “Obey” (familiar from the last campaign, ‘obey your thirst’), a rotating lemon with a school alarm bell ringing and eventually a lemon exploding, lemons and limes hitting a man in a tongue suit and another man cleaving through a lemon with a sword. Just as soon as it has begun the song and greenhouse scene end with a flicker of the words “Sublymonal Message Complete” (complemented by the voiceover saying ‘Sublymonal Advertising Complete), a corporate suit and the word “Obey.”

What Works:
As we have come to expect from the creative work of Crispen, Porter+Bogusky, this is a visually arresting spot. The editing is jarring and disconcerting which also makes it mesmerizing. The spoofs of Orwellian advertising techniques from ’1984′ also do a nice job of keeping our attention focused on the ad. The branding is very good as the Sprite can makes an early appearance and is reinforced with the familiar “Obey” message as well as the constant appearance of lemons and limes. The focus on ‘Lymon’ is clearly meant to return Sprite to a focus on the taste benefit of lymon which in this case is competing more with colas than in the eighties when Lymon was created to counter a strong showing by the ‘un-cola’ 7-Up.

What Doesn’t:
While we believe that rational and creative thought have gone into this spot, we have difficulty understanding the advertising strategy behind it or the brand positioning for Sprite. Sprite has magical properties, that is clear. Is it the antidote to the controlled, nightmarish society portrayed in the spot? Not likely. In fact, it appears to be the agent of control, the Soylent Green for this repressive regime. The most obvious clue is the simple play on words (Subliminal Advertising has been replaced by Sublymonal Advertising) which shows that Sprite is being insinuated into your unconscious brain by the makers.  This impression is reinforced by the ‘sublymonal’ website which features a verbal version of the subservient chicken where the female voiceover voice from the spot shoots big-brother-esque definitions back to you for virtually any phrase you enter.
We are not teenage boys, but we are hard pressed to understand how portraying the Sprite brand as the agent of mind control might help the franchise which did terrifically well with ‘Obey Your Thirst.’ However, the last Crispin Porter campaign we did not like and did not understand was for Burger King and we feel more confident in our assessment of this campaign after seeing the terrible operating results reported by Burger King after a year of running the ‘King’ advertising.

Although this advertising blog is open to hearing other interpretations, our strong feeling is that this spot is intended to attract eyeballs and spawn conversation.  However we do not feel that it strengthens the brand or will sell much Sprite.
Branding Bottom Line:
ThirdWay recommends strict Freudian analysis for the Sprite creative team.

Brand: Gap Jeans (Gap)
Execution: TV
Link: Click Here
Target: Lapsed Gap-ers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David

Description:
To the track “Do Ya” from Peaches, a series of attractive people dance in different jeans. Animated borders playfully intertwine with the dancers. The titles announce “Jeans Take Shape” followed by the different jean silhouettes featured in the spot, including The Pencil, The Mini, The Shirt, The Skinny, etc. The spot ends with the ‘Fall Into The Gap’ which is accented by the music.

What Works:
Gap has been off air for a year, during which time they have obviously done some soul searching creatively. This spot is equal parts classic Gap and Apple imitator, borrowing handily both from a genre Gap created and one that has blossomed while Gap withered. The combination is effective, much more so than any of the last several efforts by the retailer. Here’s what works in this spot:

1. Visual Impact: Gap created the dance spot with its iconic ‘Gap Khaki Swings‘ spot, so it is only appropriate that they return to the form borrowing some innovation from the solo dance trend used so successfully in recent Apple iPod spots. Bi-coastal design studio Shilo successfully weaves abstract animations reminiscent of pen and ink drawings through the morphing images of dancers wearing different types of Gap Denim. The effect is novel and arresting.
2. Branding: By using a style of commercial so closely identified with Gap and quickly focusing on fashion, this spot becomes ownably Gap within seconds. Very few former Gap customers will forget that they are watching a Gap spot.
3. Product Focus: Gap’s main challenge these days is to regain relevance in a fashion world that has largely passed them by (more on this below). A good way to do that is to remind people what you do well. Gap became famous for offering stylish basics at an affordable price. By highlighting the classic denim silhouettes they remind us that these are, after all, simple things and Gap might be a better place to buy them than a department store or designer shop. Gap is nothing when it misses the heart of a fashion trend, so the success of this spot will be tied largely to whether Gap has accurately taken the pulse of the consumer.
4. Familiar Tagline: The not-so-subtle tug of nostalgia we feel when Gap resurrects the “Fall Into the Gap” is a good idea for the struggling retailer. Reminding us of the relationship we had with the brand when we were younger will not hurt Gap as long as their styles and prices remain relevant.

What Doesn’t:
Advertising cannot save a company from a strategic positioning mistake and in some sense that is what Gap is asking of Laird+Partners and Shilo in this spot.  Gap’s real problem is that its parent owns Banana Republic which has peeled off the Pottery Barn crowd and Old Navy which has a Target-like appeal to fashionable value shoppers.  What’s left is not enough to sustain a vibrant business.

Gap really needs to focus on refreshing the value proposition and understanding why any twentysomething should go to Gap before any other store.  As often happens, acquisitions made in the name of corporate synergy have hurt the Gap by diluting its brand strategy and taking the edge off of its once-potent marketing.  To meet the promise of this appealing commercial, Gap will have to rethink retail.
Branding Bottom Line:
Gap has got us so excited about denim that we’ll definitely pick up a new pair of skinny jeans next time we’re at Old Navy.