Here at the ThirdWay Advertising Blog we are not shy about our opinions. We often tell our readers that companies are wasting money with ad campaigns. However, we have always stopped short of actually throwing down the gauntlet and challenging a company to stop doing something we think is foolish.

That ends today.

There were two big pieces of news out of Microsoft this week, both of which will affect the Microsoft brand. The first (which we covered in our most recent post) was the launch of the new operating system Windows Vista. We commented that the $500mm being spent to launch this product is wasteful and will not help Microsoft or Vista. We base this on the absurd spending levels, recent Microsoft campaigns and previous Windows launches.

We also pointed out that spending $500mm to promote a product that will get 90% market share without a cent of investment is a little batty, to say the least. It seems that Microsoft is really trying to generate excitement around the product and the company, which sounds more like a job for PR to us.

This is where the second big piece of news comes in. This week, a poll by Harris Interactive and The Wall Street Journal ranked Microsoft as the company with the best corporate reputation, ahead of perennial favorite (and our alma mater) Johnson & Johnson. What was most intriguing about this result is that one of the prime reasons for Microsoft’s huge jump in this poll is the work of the Gates Foundation. After years of being considered the ‘evil empire’, Bill Gates has single-handedly changed the image of his company in the mind of the public with his impressive and original contribution to American Philanthropy. The Gates Foundation is not only huge – it genuinely operates like a business and brings entrepreneurial smarts to big social problems worldwide (like malaria) that were not getting adequate funding and attention.

It turns out that philanthropy has been a better business proposition (in terms of corporate reputation) than the $500 million spent on the ‘People-Ready Software’ campaign last year. Ironically, we predicted this (look at the bottom of our post on People Ready Advertising here). And it makes sense that a company which enjoys a monopoly in many markets should benefit more from image-enhancement and a corporate reputation overhaul than traditional advertising.

So here is our challenge to Microsoft. Cancel the ad buys for Windows Vista. Get a microphone and hold a press conference and say that you’re giving the money to the Gates Foundation on behalf of Windows Vista. And then see what happens. We predict stratospheric media coverage, significant improvement in likeability for Microsoft and even a noticeable sales bump for Windows Vista. Yes – we’re saying this would be a good business investment.

Too much money is spent every year screaming at consumers with messages they have either already heard or do not care about. Microsoft is about to add to the din. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a company do something genuinely useful and see good business results for it?

We suspect Microsoft will not listen to the lonely voice of one advertising blog, but they will listen to you. If you are reading this and you blog it, the voices will accumulate and be heard. And perhaps we can do something good for everyone – including Microsoft.

Issue: Windows Vista Ships – Microsoft Announces $500mm Ad Spend
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri
After over five years, Microsoft is shipping a new operating system, Windows Vista.

Just like the Windows launches of yore, Microsoft is trying to make this a big event (remember the Rolling Stones licensing “Start Me Up” for a Windows launch as their first major sell-out to commercialism).

And this time, Microsoft is upping the ante – literally. AdAge reports that Microsoft will invest an eye-popping $500mm to support the Vista launch.

From a branding perspective, this is an obscene waste of money. Why?

1. More frequency isn’t better:
   Microsoft will overdeliver advertising to many television watchers causing ad fatigue and risking a significant backlash against the company.
2. A technology company should spend smarter:
   Instead of creating a clever viral or online campaign Microsoft is blowing the conventional media trumpet and essentially proving that it just doesn’t understand the modern consumer or the Internet.
3. Vista Will Achieve 90% Market Share with $0 Spend Anyway:
   Which makes it incredibly difficult to understand why Microsoft is advertising to begin with. This is a distribution play – Microsoft will ship Vista with every PC sold in the world in just a few months. Companies will be forced to migrate to stay in synch with the market.

Taken together, these three elements make us think that Microsoft just doesn’t understand how the terrain has shifted underneath them in the years since Windows 3.0 originally launched. Even this advertising blog knows it’s not about the operating system any more. Vista is an important release for Microsoft simply because Windows has too many security holes and is giving consumers an excuse to migrate to Apple’s OS-X. Instead of a consumer company, the Windows division of Microsoft should think of themselves as an infrastructure company. The best publicity for this division would be to ensure that the new system works seamlessly, securely and that future releases trim the fat of unnecessary features that add complexity and bleed processing power.

Brand: Chase Freedom (JPMorgan Chase)
Execution: TV
Target: Reward card holders (both points and cash back)
Rating: ***
Reviewer: Bob Bader

Description:  The McGarry Bowen spot announces a new credit card, Chase Freedom, that provides the option of choosing reward points or cash back.    The execution opens with a reveal of the new Chase Freedom credit card.  The card rotates into a horizontal plane to serve as the flat-earthly platform for a vacationing couple, who traverse the card while a tropical beach scene sprouts upon them.  The voiceover announces the ability to use the card to earn points (hence the vacation setting) or get cash back – and the flexibility to switch between the two.  To illustrate this, the beach scene dissolves through the credit card and is transformed into a flow of dollars, and then back again into the tropics (an effect reminiscent of the old paper-to-dollar magic trick ).

What Works:
The Chase Freedom concept – a best-of-both-worlds solution – is communicated clearly in this spot with an introductory, breakthrough tone – and a touch of hyperbole.  Chase has unshackled consumers from a world of reward card tradeoffs, freeing them to pursue their dreams in ways undreamt of before.  This positioning aligns well with the Chase brand tagline, “Your Choice, Your Chase.”

Next, the spot adroitly employs the Fatboy Slim “I’m Free” remix for content reinforcement.  The timelessness of the base tune is significant.  Were 80’s products peddled to the melodic strains of Tommy Dorsey?  Interestingly, the Jagger audio isn’t heard until about a third of the way into the execution, a delay that amplifies its impact, helping to turn functional features into existential empowerment.

Finally, the tropics-to-dollars metamorphosis is confusing.  However, in the post-Tivo age, ambiguity in the eye of the beholder may be the price of entry for repeated viewership.  Today, the archetypal P&G product demo may only create detachment from peripatetic viewers.

What Doesn’t Work:
Chase Freedom mimics successful products from Capital One (No Hassles Rewards) and Citibank (PremierPass), so there is no news here.  The freedom message is being played out in different ways from the recently defunct Citi “Roman and Victor” spots to the “Stranded in the Antarctic” spots for CapitalOne Rewards.

Chase Freedom represents a strategic foray into the land of sub-branded products, vs. the current Chase branded products.  Managing one or more sub-brands can be deceptively difficult.  Will dollars committed to Chase Freedom help differentiate the parent Chase brand equity, building brand share over time?  Or will it prove equity dilutive, with a sub-branded product focus leading to fragmented media spending and messaging?

The current inquiries in the U.S. Congress on credit card industry practices including hidden credit card fees also creates some risk for the Chase Freedom card.  Unless the card is truly ‘free’ of huge late fees, interest-rate jackups and the other mean, consumer-unfriendly tricks that so pervade this industry, the positioning of this card will seem ironic rather than progressive.

Branding Bottom Line:
Chase joins Capital One and Citi with an initiative the credit card industry should have provided ages ago – reward flexibility.

Brand: Match.com
Execution: TV, online
Links: Cute Brit Chick, LaSirene7, MrChicago9, DanishBeauty22, Buddy20, 1Eamonn4U, ArtfullyUrs
Target: Singles
Rating: *****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A series of :15 second TV spots featuring real Match.com users in candid moments, shot in black & white. Each spot has a minimum of dialogue and showcases the originality of the Match.com member. The username of the member is featured at the beginning of the spot. Each spot ends with the tagline “It’s okay to look,” followed by the Match.com logo.

What Works:
Match.com gives us a new take on the consumer-generated marketing craze with a series of spots that showcase some of the unique and intriguing single people who are looking for love on the site. The execution does a superb job of balancing professional, elegant black & white camerawork with highly personal and unguarded moments (such as when the user ‘ArtfullyUrs’ says ‘actually, I’m prrrrrobably pretty shy,’ as he literally paints himself out of the picture.

Strategically, this campaign is a brilliant countermove to eHarmony’s successful ad campaign (our review here) promoting its scientific matching method. eHarmony’s pitch is that knowing whether people share basic compatibility is the most important ingredient to a good match. True or not, the rap on the site has been that users do not get to see the people they’re being matched with until late in the process, and there is no browsing.

Match.com responds with a powerful argument – a picture is worth a thousand words. By showing how the personality of their users comes through in these videos they make a convincing argument for our ability to boil hundreds of questions down to a chemistry test. The users selected for these videos are polarizing and they’re meant to be. Even if they don’t appeal directly to us, we understand that we’ll be able to find someone we really like because the people on the site are so unique.

The consumer-generated aspect of this campaign intrigues us. While this advertising blog is supportive of the trend, consumers are not creative directors. Many consumer-generated ads look awful in the light of day and brands are understandably reluctant to engage them. By combining real users and their distinct personalities with professional lighting, cinematography and sound editing, Match.com has found a happy medium.

What Doesn’t:
These spots make a promise that it may be hard for the Match.com brand to keep. If the quality of its profiles don’t match the excellence of these quirky videos, new users will be disappointed rather than engaged. By showcasing appealing and unique individuals in videos with strong production value, the necessity for moving their users towards well-constructed video profiles increases dramatically. And the net effect of this shift could be to make it even harder than ever to assess true character as those users with access to better quality video production will have a significant advantage.

Branding Bottom Line:
Match.com makes ‘desperately seeing someone‘ look appealing.

Brand: Orville Redenbacher Gourmet Popping Corn (ConAgra Foods)
Execution: TV, Website
Target: Morbid Movie Lovers
Rating: *
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
Orville Redenbacher, iconic American businessman and inventor of gourmet popping corn who died in 1995 has been resurrected by Omaha-based ConAgra Foods and Crispin, Porter & Bogusky in a new campaign for the popcorn brand which is owned by ConAgra.  In the first spot, Redenbacher marvels at how light MP3 players have become, then transitions into his product benefit (Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn pops up lighter and fluffier than ‘ordinary popcorn’). CGI graphics apparently render the movements of Redenbacher’s mouth as well as his post-mortem appearance in the commercial.

What Works:
If ConAgra (or more likely Crispin, Porter) was looking to draw some attention, then they will certainly get it with this jarring spot.  Anyone remembering Redenbacher from the commercials of the 70′s through early 90′s will have a strong opinion about this campaign.  We suspect that the recall of this spot will be extremely high.

Younger audiences may not be familiar with Redenbacher and might not understand the implication of his appearance.  The selling proposition of this spot is still relevant and might work if the central issue of Redenbacher’s appearance after his death is overlooked.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog witnessed a lively debate over the Gap/Audrey Hepburn spot (see our commentary here).  While the ad was well-executed, creative and cast an interesting light on Hepburn and Gap, many felt that it was morbid and inappropriate to resurrect Hepburn to peddle a product she never used in her life.

This appearance by Orville Redenbacher is ethically simpler, but much more distasteful in execution.  Redenbacher is resurrected to tout his life’s work, the product he loved with virtually the same words he used in the 70′s and 80′s.  Crispin, Porter and ConAgra, however, seem intent on pushing the viewer to acknowledge Redenbacher’s demise and resurrection by having him comment on MP3 players – an innovation that wasn’t around while he was.  This is what makes the spot feel so jarring and disconcerting.  CGI animation which makes it clear that Redenbacher’s lower jaw has been resynched to his new words like a marionette reinforces the chilling effect of this spot.

The problem with this spot is really that it is more provocation than sales pitch.  Crispin, Porter shoves our nose in the superhuman power of corporations to revive the dead for their own ends.  The crudeness of this effect makes it feel like subversive social commentary, striving for the exact effect it produces.

We doubt it will sell much popcorn.

Branding Bottom Line:
Redenbacher makes us think about death every time we eat popcorn.  Thanks, ConAgra.

Brand: Escada (Procter & Gamble)
Execution: Online Serial Web Video Drama, Blog, Podcast
Target: Men who buy perfume for women
Rating: *
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
The perfume Escada by Procter & Gamble gets full new media treatment with a website, podcast, blog and a serial drama (of sorts) intended to promote the brand.  The drama features short vignettes revolving around fashion including “The Dress” where the drama is supplied by Eva, who borrows a dress from Sophia only to find Jenny wearing the same dress.

What Works:
It is important for brands to try to understand social media and new media and to experiment with these media.  Sometimes these experiments will fail.  It does not mean that the lesson will not be worthwhile.

What Doesn’t:
To the casual brand observer, it looks like Procter & Gamble took a cosmetics brand and said to a new media agency “Do that web 2.0 stuff – you know, blog, podcast, webisodes, myspace.”  And that is exactly what the brand received – all of the stuff with no rhyme or reason whatsoever.

It is easy to count the successes of brands in new media because they are so visible.  When you’ve been forwarded the Smirnoff Raw Tea Video or a link to Brawny Academy for the ten-thousandth time, it seems obvious that these companies have done something useful.  Because new media is promoted by consumers, it is much harder to spot the failures.

Escada’s “Sunset Heat” is a failure.  It is so bad, in fact, that we are tempted to rank it as the worst of 2006 but we are certain there is worse that we simply have not seen.

The problems with this campaign?  Here they are by the numbers:

1. Shallow Characterizations -  The very short webisodes have no character development and virtually no plot.  They may be ironic, but they make the characters look unbelievably shallow, even by soap opera standards.
2. No Brand Positioning - With P&G as the author, we find it difficult to believe that there is no discernable positioning for the Escada brand but try as we might we cannot find it here.
3. Scattershot Approach – The choice of new media here seems to have been ‘try everything’.  Almost everything is tried here – badly.  It would have been better to choose one platform and devote real resources to it.

This campaign falls into the ‘scrap it and move on’ category – we really don’t see enough that is useful to attempt to salvage any of it.

Branding Bottom Line:
Watching Sunset Heat is more painful than reading Ulysses at the beach.

Brand: Burger King
Execution: Adver-game (Self-Liquidating Promotion)
Target: Kids and young adults
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
Burger King and Crispin, Porter & Bogusky have created a series of Adver-games for the Microsoft X-Box 360 featuring the Crispin Porter character “The King” and sold at Burger King stores. Kate Macarthur at AdAge reports:

Sporting titles such as “Pocketbike Racer,” “Big Bumpin”‘ and “Sneak King” and featuring the King, his pal Brooke Burke, the Whopper Jr. and the Subservient Chicken, the games are compatible with the Xbox and Xbox 360 platforms. Each game is available for $3.99 with the purchase of a BK Value Meal. Some stores sold the titles individually, while others sold them as packs.

Crispin, Porter reports that the games have sold 2.7 million copies in the first five weeks of availability, putting them on the top ten list of games sold for the X-Box 360 in 2006.

What Works:
While we have been critical of Crispin, Porter’s efforts on behalf of Burger King in the past, we feel that adver-games are a great idea for Burger King and an underused marketing tactic overall. Even given their low production value relative to commercial games, an entertaining adver-game gives the marketer an opportunity to deliver the brand message in a more relevant and impactful manner than through conventional media. And as a self-liquidating promotion (i.e. a promotion whose minimal cost to the consumer nevertheless pays for the production and distribution cost of the promotion), it is an extremely effective way to reach nearly 3 million brand users with a strong brand message.

Using the King as the hero in these games also puts them a step above the famous ‘Subservient Chicken’ promotion (also created by Crispin Porter for Burger King) in branding terms. There is no question that kids playing these games will remember Burger King and that the brand experience will be enriched. Adver-games also play more to the important youth audience for the brand than bored office workers.

What Doesn’t:
Although these adver-games are extremely effective at delivering the brand message for Burger King, we still do not agree with the brand message. In fact, we are not sure that we understand it. The King is an edgy action-figure-cum-celeb-cum-best-friend, but what does that say about Burger King? What does the restaurant own in positioning terms? We’re not suggesting a features and benefits pitch here, but we’d at least like to see Burger King staking its claim on a particular user or context for the brand.

Adver-games can be tricky, too because marketers are not game makers and may not be able to judge whether the game product coming from an agency will be greeted enthusiastically by gamers.

Branding Bottom Line:
Crispin Porter puts the creepy King where he belongs – in an X-box.

Starting this week, our client-side advertising review staff has added a new voice.  Bob Bader is Group Director responsible for strategy development and marketing intelligence at Coca-Cola.  Bob wrote our review of Geico’s Caveman advertising this week and will soon be reviewing the Chase Freedom campaign.

Of course, Bob will not be writing about Coca-Cola or its competitors.  The rest of us won’t stop reviewing Coca-Cola or be any easier on Coke when we review their new campaigns.

Please join us in welcoming Bob to the ThirdWay Advertising Blog.

Steve Jobs introduced the long-anticipated Apple iPhone today to great acclaim (and a significant rise in Apple share price). You can read the play-by-play on Engadget. Jobs teased the intro by telling the audience that Apple was introducing three significant devices: a new iPod, an Apple Phone and an Internet device. The big revelation was that the three devices were actually one – the Apple iPhone.

Over the next few weeks you will read a lot of justified praise of the Apple iPhone. Most of it will focus on how it appears to out-Treo the Treo, offering full computing features in a smaller, slicker package. And there is no doubt that the organizer capabilities, e-mail and iPod (4 or 8gb) attributes justify the $499 to $699 price of the phone and represent a major step forward for the phone industry.

But we think the most important feature of that little phone might be the third part – the Internet connectivity. For the first time we’ve seen on a mobile device, web pages can be pulled down crisply and usably on the real Internet instead of a scaled-down version.

Back in 2000, we kept hearing tales of convergence, but the supposed devices that were going to bring it all together (Internet, telecommunications, video) failed to execute well. Apple under Steve Jobs has become the master of fulfilling unrealized consumer promises. iPhone finally may create the convergence that the industry has so long sought.

Two other news items from today’s MacWorld keynote address support this thought. First, Apple also introduced the apple TV device, which brings movies and video from the computer to the television. Secondly, Apple Computer changed its name to Apple, Inc.

Even five years ago the thought that a computer company with less than 10% market share would introduce the hottest mobile phone of the year would have been laughable. Now it seems almost a certainty.

It will take marketers some time to realize the implications, but it seems that the mobile Internet may become a reality for the mainstream consumer sooner than we thought.

Brand: Geico
Execution: TV
Target: Insurance policy holders
Rating: ****
Reviewer: Bob Bader

Description:
In this execution of the “Caveman” campaign, the angry caveman is “in session” with his therapist, who asks the caveman why the “so easy a caveman can do it” Geico tagline is offensive to cavemen. “It’s just a commercial,” she says. The caveman ends up exposing the therapists underlying racist (species-ist?) attitude. The spot ends with a joke about putting Caveman mom on speaker phone.

The caveman campaign is running concurrently with two other Geico campaigns, the celebrated Gekko ads, as well as the Celebrity campaign. The three campaigns all focus against Geico’s core brand promise of convenient savings.

What Works:
This Caveman Therapist spot fits well within the successful Geico advertising formula. First, by stressing the simplicity of applying with Geico, it addresses one switching cost that could dissuade consumers from initiating the evaluation process. Second, the spot contains the necessary irreverent, humorous elements common to all their ads. Geico’s skill is to consistently hit the right levity note. Too much frivolity or slapstick won’t work: nobody wants to buy their insurance from the Budweiser lizards or Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. (As proof, save for a Gekko or two, Geico’s website is indistinguishable from those of its competitors.) The Therapist spot, with its mainstream cleverness and use of political correctness as a safe foil, lands within the appropriate whimsical zone.

The Caveman spot also continues Geico’s practice of satirizing the disingenuous, be it ad icons, celebrity spokesmen, actors portraying “real” people, or insincere psychoanalysts. Of course, Geico’s real target is the unnecessary insurance middleman. “Insurance is insurance. By going direct, we can save you money, fast, so let’s dispense with the gravitas and get talking.” This approach lends the brand a common-sense, straight-talking, independent persona. Viewed from this angle, the therapist is a stand-in for traditional insurers, who believe they’re smarter than the average consumer – until exposed by the rational, grounded, caveman: i.e., the Geico customer.

What Doesn’t Work:
The Caveman Therapist supports Geico’s advertising strategy and brand positioning. However, there is one future watch-out. To minimize consumer tune-out to a saturation level of message bombardment, Geico is running several campaigns concurrently. This strategy also allows them to calibrate the campaigns against selected consumer targets. The challenge inherent with this approach – increased here due to the use of multiple satirical executions – is to ensure that the medley of messages harmoniously support the brand proposition, and not diverge into competing, confusing claims.

To date, the sum of the Geico ad parts has exceeded the whole. Cavemen therapy may represent the outer limits, beyond which the comedic setup, against a backdrop of other brand claims, becomes less impactful.

Branding Bottom Line:
Most challenging therapy client since Tony Soprano keeps Geico rolling along.