Issue: Philips Files for a patent on a device to prevent ad-skipping
Commentary by: David

If you are reading this advertising blog, the chances are that you have already read all about the controversy surrounding Philips application for a patent on a television that would make it impossible to fast-forward or channel surf during ads, even with a digital video recorder. [You can find the facts here.] For the record we agree with the opinion of Steve Hall at Adrants, Catharine Taylor at AdFreak and Chris Thilk at Adjab – it is a bad idea. The horse has left the barn when it comes to controlling consumer behavior and coercive devices will never be accepted into the market.

More surprising than the story itself is the source. Not a press release, not leaked information from a company insider about near-term marketing plans, not even a careless comment by a senior executive at an industry dinner (remember the stir caused when Carnival Cruise CEO Robert Dickinson calling the murder of a George Smith aboard a Royal Caribbean ship ‘entertainment’ and a ‘non-event’ at a Miami conference).

All Philips did was to file for a patent. Now they have most of the blogging world in a lather. And unfortunately for Philips, this has led to a swarm of mainstream media reports and a consumer reaction against Philips.

All of this over a patent filing.

Did the Philips CMO approve the patent filing? Not likely. Did the U.S. PR agency for Philips advise on whether such a filing was wise? We doubt it. More than likely, there was a single marketing person – perhaps a product director for new products working with a team of European scientists who thought it would be wise to seek patent protection for this technology even though commercialization plans had not yet been developed or debated.

The actions of these few people, relatively obscure and insignificant from the viewpoint of the Philips shareholders could possibly have a material effect on the stock price if this story hits the mainstream media.

The real question here is – what does that mean for your company?

Our suggestion is to treat everything that leaves your office as a part of the brand – and realize that it may ultimately reflect on the brand. An angry letter to a supplier, the denial of a consumer claim, filings in a lawsuit, musings of the CEO – these things all reflect on your brand.

There will be mistakes. If your company has more people than you can know personally, there is bound to be miscommunication and different interpretations of brand strategy. When you make a mistake, however, make sure you know how to spot it and how to correct it. A couple of questions to ask yourself:

1. Do You Know When Someone is Blogging Your Company? Does your company have someone responsible for tagging Technorati, Bloglines, Google Blog search and watching key blogs for mentions of your company?
2. Can You Respond Quickly? A quick, professional response that is not defensive and understands the viewpoint of the consumer is the key to managing a blogsphere crisis.
3. Do You Have Good Advisors? Do you work with a PR or Crisis Management Agency that understands the online world and how best to react to a quickly escalating problem?
4. How Do You Prevent Mistakes? Do you have a committee that includes senior managers, brand experts, PR people, regulatory, legal and scientific advisors who screen anything that can potentially reach the consumer?

Just a few thoughts as you watch this Philips story unfold.

UPDATE: Here is the statement Philips released as pressure on this story mounted.  Our take is that it will not defuse the story:

We developed a system where the viewer can choose, at the beginning of a movie, to either watch the movie without ads, or watch the movie with ads. It is up to the viewer to take this decision, and up to the broadcaster to offer the various services.

Brand: Philips Norelco Cool Skin Shaver w. Nivea
Execution: TV
Link: Not Yet
Target: Irritated Men
Reviewer: David
Rating: ****

Description:
A new product announcment for the “Quintippio Multi-Shave” opens the spot and we find out that it has fifteen blades. Then a puzzled man looks at it, wondering how he is going to shave his face with it. A voiceover says “Everyone’s talking more blades – we’re talking less irritation.” The selling point is an electric shaver that has a pump for dispensing Nivea skin cream as a shaving lubricant and moisturizer. The spot ends with the clam “As close as a blade with less irritation”

What Works:
It is a real treat to see a commercial that is genuinely funny – but which uses humor to serve the advertising strategy and reinforce the brand positioning.

Norelco takes a very good – and well-deserved shot – at both Gillette and Schick for their multi-blade obsession.

Here’s what works

1. Norelco makes the category leader look out of touch - although the end-benefit of “multi-blade” is supposed to be “close shave”, it is not clear that either Gillette or Schick remember this. Gillette’s macho, tech-oriented advertising is so obsessed with the product that it seems to forget the consumer in the process. Schick played a neat trick by out-Gillette-ing Gillette with four blades, but it is not clear that it helped consumers at all.
2. Cool Shave focuses on a relevant, ownable end-benefit - “We’re talking about less irritation” which presumably is a secondary benefit for many users but not owned by any male shaving system. This spot does a great job of using humor, voiceover, visuals and co-branding (with Nivea) to reinforce this end-benefit.
3. Humor reinforces the brand positioning – After watching hoardes of beer and alcohol advertising where the humor seems to change the strategy of the spot rather than working with it, it is refreshing to watch a spot where the humor serves the brand. Showing that Gillette and Schick don’t ‘get it’ with their blade-spawning razors and focusing on a different benefit is worlds more effective than trying to argue that rotary shavers have more blades than multi-blade razors, for example.

It is important to remember that this spot works because it is careful to insert a parity claim against the #1 consumer benefit of “close shave” with the language ‘as close as a blade with less irritation.’ This, combined with the Nivea skin cream gives the permission to believe that the Norelco product will give acceptable perfomance with fewer unwanted side effects.

What Doesn’t:
The delivery system for the lubricant looks a little inelegant in this spot and does make you wonder how it is better than just slathering on some moisturizer and shaving through it. The cooperative promotion with Nivea smacks of salesmanship even as it reinforces the underlying message of ‘less irritation.’

Branding Bottom Line -
Norelco cuts to the quick of the mess that Gillette and Schick have made.