Brand: Burger King (Burger King Corporation)
Execution: TV, Online, Viral
Target: BK Families
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A series of online and TV spots that feature hidden camera footage of actual Burger King customers being told that the chain no longer serves Whoppers after ordering one. The spots document the range of reactions from the upset customers.

What Works:
This campaign works well because it borrows wisdom from one of the biggest marketing blunders of all time: Coca-Cola’s conversion to New Coke in 1985. Sergio Zyman, marketing chief at Coca-Cola at the time learned that although the flavor profile of the revised Coca-Cola formula was indeed preferred to the old version in blind taste tests, consumers had a strong emotional attachment to Coca-Cola. The surprising and unexpected consequence of the botched move to New Coke (which was eventually withdrawn from the market) was to boost share of Coca-Cola (renamed Coca-Cola Classic). Why? Because consumers threatened with losing something remember why they value it in the first place.

Crispin Porter & Bogusky, creators of “The King” (spots this advertising blog panned) has done an excellent job of translating this painful marketing lesson into an entertaining series of hidden-camera spots. The simple setup (tell a customer ordering a Whopper that Burger King no longer serves them, wait for the reaction, then deliver the burger after all) effectively makes the viewer focus on the emotional connection between BK customers and their whoppers.

A side benefit of this advertising is to reach customers that Burger King has been neglecting of late – adults and families. Although not the core audience for Burger King, these groups build loyalty among children who become the young men that drive fast food sales nationwide.

What Doesn’t:
Although The King – in his trademark plastic head – is not nearly as distracting and alarming in these spots as in previous versions, he still is a polarizing figure who may not help the Burger King brand in the long run.

Branding Bottom Line:
Finally something from Crispin Porter we can sink our teeth into.

Issue: Howard Schultz back as CEO of Starbucks
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

Two news items today put a glaring light on the diminished fortunes of Starbucks. McDonalds announced that it would add baristas to its staff and serve cappuccinos, lattes and espresso as well as smoothies and frappes from stainless steel espresso machines.

Simultaneously, Starbucks announced that chairman Howard Schultz would replace Jim Donald as the company’s CEO. This amounted to an admission of very serious issues for the Seattle corporation. “We must address the challenges we face and we know what has to be done,” Mr. Schultz said in a statement.

Followers of Starbucks know that the challenges Mr. Schultz referred to have been reflected in the dismal stock performance – down 48% over the past year. The most commonly cited causes for the share performance are a decline in same store sales, saturation of the U.S. market and operational issues around new product lines.

Beneath this, however, lies a more serious branding crisis that Starbucks has faced and failed. And it may have started in the supermarket.

When Howard Schultz created the vision for Starbucks, he talked of creating a ‘third place.’ Like many creative entrepreneurs, he was synthesizing several very different trends he had observed in diverse arenas. One came from the old world – the cafe experience in Italy and the ability to find refuge in a small bar and sip a tiny cup of espresso for three hours as the world passed by. The second was from the U.S. itself. Borders and Barnes & Noble reinvented the bookstore by creating an environment where customers would feel more comfortable picking up and reading books – going so far as to put cafes into bookstore where customers were encouraged to bring books they had not yet purchased. This seemingly heretical thinking spurred sales as browsing customer turned into buyers.

Starbucks initially did a great job of creating this ‘third place.’ Baristas were well trained and well compensated. They memorized customer names and drink preferences. In urban areas, Starbucks became the preferred spot for impromptu business meetings or for students or writers whiling away a day.

But very early on, Starbucks made some fundamental decisions about brand extensions that weakened the brand. Those decisions led lesser brand leaders than Howard Schultz to take Starbucks in dangerous direction. The culprits? The frappuccino and the Starbucks cart.

The frappuccino itself was a wonderful invention, offering the Starbuck’s lover a new treat and the first blockbuster sub-brand within the Starbucks franchise. The decision to sell the Frappuccino in grocery stores under the Starbucks name, however, was a brand disaster. As was the decision to sell Starbucks coffee from carts, and later from drive-through windows. And to permit huge lines of walk-through Starbucks customers in Starbucks stores.

It would have been very difficult to argue this point a few years ago. The Frappuccino was a huge financial success and Starbucks ubiquity strategy made it a global brand. Bigger was better for Starbucks for a dozen or more years. The result, however, was to create exactly what Howard Schultz primarily despised – another fast food outlet. Year after year in small, barely noticeable ways, Starbucks retreated from being the ‘third place’ that Schultz had envisioned. It added more food, changing the atmosphere. Then other types of merchandise, from coffee mints to music, were promoted, each making Starbucks feel minutely more like a retail chain and less like a refuge. Catering to commuters further shifted the dynamic, as long lines inside the cafes made the morning an unappealing time to sit down for coffee. And the carts, supermarket items and even Starbucks coffee in hotel rooms and homes made the brand into a mass market commodity.

Starbucks points to the central difficulty with great branding in all public companies: investors want public companies to grow as quickly as possible while brands are more conservative and sensitive to change. By pursuing all opportunities, Starbucks fatally weakened its brand, and greatly diminished its unique cultural contribution.