Brand

Description:
A multi-part webisode series produced by BBDO and directed by Tony Scott (director of Top Gun and brother of Ridley Scott).  The Dodge Ram Challenge is essentially a reality show where four two-person teams compete in a series of four races in new Dodge Ram pickups.  The teams are each composed of men from a single profession: contractors, cowboys, firemen and military.  The races involve extreme challenges of the sort often seen on television advertising - except that they are navigated in stock Dodge Rams with real people driving.  The campaign is viewable by webisodes but Chrysler is using significant advertising to drive traffic, including a major presence on NFL football.

What Works:
Brands can create and distribute interesting content without tv networks when they spend the time and money to get top talent.  Brand-based reality television has been done before (Brawny Academy by Fallon, for one), but Tony Scott and BBDO take it to another level with the Dodge Ram Challenge.  Scott understands that small touches create the atmosphere for real drama and he adds the sleek black military-style chase helicopters, pump-action shotgun as a starter pistol and a variety of scary-looking challenges to this series.  As with any webisode, only a fraction of the Ram purchase demographic will ever view the series.  But Dodge realizes that brand recognition is not really the game here: they are looking to convince people already contemplating a purchase to take the next step, which is no small task during a recession.  The Dodge Ram Challenge also helps the brand build authenticity against its key rival - the new Ford F150.

What Doesn’t:
You really have to enjoy reality television to appreciate this series.  Dodge also took the risk that they’d be filming on of their vehicle drop an axle or be demolished altogether.  While they might have elected not to show this footage, news of its existence would certainly have leaked. So this was a high-stakes gamble in more ways than one.

Branding Bottom Line:
Dodge boosts our testosterone just as the economy drains our wallet.

Brand

Description:
An e-mail campaign urging people to support Planned Parenthood with a small donation, but with a twist.  The e-mail reads as follows:

Hi allI don’t know how you feel about Planned Parenthood, but this is a great idea.  I just did it myself, and feel fantastic about it.  Simple, fast & cheap.  And toward a great cause.  Pass it along…Instead of (in addition to?) us all sending around emails about how horrible she is, let’s all make a donation to Planned Parenthood. In Sarah Palin’s name. And here’s the good part: when you make a donation to PP in her name, they’ll send her a card telling her that the donation has been made in her honor. Here’s the link to the Planned Parenthood website:https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000_inhonor

You’ll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the “in Sarah Palin’s honor” card. I suggest you use the address for the McCain campaign headquarters, which is:

McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202

PS make sure you use that link above or choose the pulldown of Donate–Honorary or Memorial Donations, not the regular “Donate Online”

Brand

Description:
Microsoft’s new Crispin Porter & Bogusky advertising continues with a new campaign intended to show the diversity of PC users.  “I’m a PC and I’ve been made into a stereotype” is the opening line of the spot, delivered by a John Hodgman lookalike (Hodgman is the actor who plays the PC in the “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” spots by Apple).  The spot then progresses to showing a variety of people, from celebrities like Eva Longoria and Deepak Chopra to astronauts, scuba divers and ordinary people.

What Works:
This is a very interesting attempt to take a common political campaign tactic and bring it to the consumer arena.  The tactic is the “Checkers” ad (from Nixon who once complained that the press was so vicious that they were attacking the gift of a cocker spaniel to his daughters) which complains that the opponent is running a dirty campaign and smearing the candidate.  This type of ad is also a negative ad, of course, as it attempts to impugn the character of the opponent.  Microsoft here is trying to turn the tables on Apple’s successful anti-PC campaign by showing that every type of person uses PCs and that the Apple ads are unfair.

This advertising is far more focused than the brief but expensive campaign that preceded it featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld.  These spots also feel crisper with better pacing.

What Doesn’t:
What you almost never see in political campaigns is a candidate who has the support of 90% of voters attacking a challenger with 10% support.  That’s exactly what’s happening here and it reflects the extent to which Apple’s unyielding campaign against Microsoft has rattled Redmond and caused them to respond.  This campaign is well-executed, but fundamentally misguided.  It adds credibility to Apple’s message by acknowledging it and will likely get some people wondering if there’s something to those Macs after all.

The campaign is also misguided because it tries to solve a strategic problem with advertising.  Windows Vista gave PC users something they were not asking for - a more elegant operating system that was less reliable than Windows XP.  This in itself was a reaction to Apple.  Microsoft should have ignored Apple and focused on a more elementary need of PC users - a faster, simpler and more flexible operating system which would be more reliable and adaptable than Windows XP.  Had Microsoft turned in this direction, Apple would have been irrelevant as a competitor.  They would have ceded the high end to Apple while digging a firmer foothold in the everyday world where 90% of computer usage happens.

As it is, Microsoft has given Apple a major strategic opportunity with the Vista debacle.  And now Microsoft is wasting nearly $800 million dollars trying to fix the strategic problem with advertising.  Add that to the $500 million already spent to advertise the Vista launch and you have enough money to accelerate the next generation operating system launch by several years.  Microsoft should stop letting Apple and Steve Jobs push them off of their game and create a “Windows lite.”  Then they can brag.

One last problem with the ads - and this is the only one that Crispin Porter is really responsible for - is that they lack permission to believe.  Watch the Apple campaign and you’ll see that each ad gives specific reasons that Apple is better than PC.  There are no specifics in this Microsoft campaign.

Branding Bottom Line:
There’s a reason that P&G greats like Dawn and Tide never mention competitors.  See you at the debates, PC bitches.

1. What is the biggest problem with branding as it is practiced today?

   It’s mostly useless.  Branding is glorified awareness, if that, and it’s more notable for what it doesn’t do, like drive sales, support higher prices, or improve customer satisfaction.  For all the talk of engaging customers, branding is inward-looking; it addresses absolutes of what marketers want it to be, instead of getting applied to outwardly-relevant behaviors that are motivating to consumers

2. Is a brand really just a shortcut – a way for consumers to save time?  What does that mean for marketers?

   Not any longer.  Brand was info shorthand in the days when consumers didn’t have ready access to information a la the web, nor did they have the collective experience of having had their grandparents and parents targeted by aggressively inventive marketers.  Brand doesn’t fill gaps in knowledge anymore; it emerges from consumers, and is a collection of info, opinion, experience, and intent.  This means that marketers need to address the context of those moments in order to be relevant and useful.

3. Comment on Sarah Palin from a marketer’s standpoint

   Utterly brilliant.  And the potential voters’ remorse has a 4-year tenure with no requirement for effective customer service.  The point is to win an election, and reducing her to a simple USP is crass, smart marketing.
   

4. What is the worst ad you’ve seen this summer?  Why?

   The Korean Air campaign continues to befuddle me.  A man or woman stands against a mostly-white background with a slash of green-blue color, over which some nonsense text says nothing about airlines, flying, etc.  It makes absolutely no sense, although I’m sure it’s totally ‘on brand.’

5. What do you think of the hype over social networks?

   It’s hype.  The idea that we’d replace the ‘interruption model’ of advertising with the ‘distraction model’ of social media is rather laughable; pointless conversations are, well, pointless.  But seen as true communities wherein information is shared and vetted, I think social media can and will be a powerful tool for helping consumers define brands.  The challenge is to stop talking about “joining the conversation” and focusing instead on “giving it direction.”

6. Do you Twitter?

   Nope.  Ambient noise is still noise, to me.  And I can feel close to people I know without knowing that the cup of coffee they just got served isn’t hot enough.  As for the acquaintances I barely know, I’m comfortable barely knowing them.

7. Give us five brands to watch for 2009 …

   Microsoft: how will they waste more money?
   Google: how will they react as privacy and consumer groups realize they want to rule the world?
   B of A: how will it get Mainstreet America to invest hard-earned dollars in stocks?
   Sears/Kmart: how will the stores capture recession-conscious consumers who would otherwise go to WalMart?
   Apple: how will its competitors knock off its latest branding, and fail to understand it’s all about the interface?

8. One piece of advice for a new marketer?

   Think behavior.  If anybody tells you that something is ‘good for the brand,’ attach an active verb to it, and see if it makes sense in a sentence that begins “Our customers will do X which will yield Y…”
   

9. Finish the sentence:  If I were creative director of a NY Advertising Agency right now …

   …I’d figure out how to get creative about getting people to do things, not just think them.”

10. How will the end of Wall Street affect marketers?

    It’s not the end, just the beginning of a new phase.  The real impact of the Wall Street meltdown will be to further drag down the overall economy, and make corporate leaders scared to spend money.  This will mean lots of marketers…especially those purists who hold tenaciously to the abstractions of brand…will lose their jobs.

Brand: Microsoft
Execution: Television (”Shoe Circus” , “New Family“)
Target: Insomniacs
Rating: *
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A new campaign for Microsoft features Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld experiencing life in the real world.  In the first ad, “Shoe Circus,” Seinfeld spots Gates in a discount shoe store.  He immediately takes over from the lackadaisical clerk and fits Gates for a pair of shoes.  This process takes 1:33 - a huge block of time by advertising standards.  The second ad, “New Family” has Seinfeld and Gates moving in with an average American family to try to understand how they live.  It doesn’t go well, and the pair are eventually set up by the pre-teen daughter and evicted.  Microsoft has already announced that this campaign has ‘run its course’ and will be replaced by an ad mocking the successful “I’m a Mac/I’m a PC” ad campaign from Apple.

What Works:
Precious little.  This ad functions almost as a signature for the style of Crispin Porter + Bogusky in its lack of focus, persuasion or relevance.  However it did draw much more attention than the failed $500 million campaign for Windows Vista.  See this Advertising Blog’s original advice for Microsoft on that campaign here.

What Doesn’t:
Microsoft (with help from Crispin Porter) spends a huge amount of money to remind us of the central failings of Windows: it runs slowly, is out of touch with average people and seems old and dated.  These are the only definitive impressions from nearly 6 minutes worth of primetime advertising.  The ads focus on two men who are no longer doing what they’re famous for.  Bill Gates -  who has left the helm of Microsoft to head the Gates Foundation - and Jerry Seinfeld - who long ago closed his hit sitcom.  The ad portays the two men on an ironic quest to try to understand average people.  They seem to comically fail to do this in both spots.

However the executional choices in the ad give the average viewer all the clues he or she needs about Microsoft.  The ad is as long as Vista boot times.  It’s as unfocused as the thousands of unnecessary features that slow down Microsoft Office.  And it’s as out of touch as Microsoft customer support.

Microsoft advertising ought to be focused on what Microsoft is doing to actually improve our interactions with the personal computer.  This ad only reminds us that we’ve had little choice for many years but to fork over hard-earned money and suffer.

Branding Bottom Line:
Never before have so few spent so much to accomplish so little with advertising

Issue

For a decade or more, advertisers and networks both have been bemoaning the loss of audience for advertising.  Part of the culprit was a drop in the overall prime-time television audience, which declined by a third or more in less than ten years (even as the overall U.S. population climbed).  To listen to the networks, however, we would think that digital video recorders and ad-skipping consumers were solely to blame.

Fox has just proven that this was never the case with an interesting experiment on the new prime-time drama, Fringe.   The show debuted with fewer ads in shorter blocks (Fox, of course, charged more per ad).  The result, according to AdAge:

Brand recall of ads that appeared during the first episode of “Fringe” was 32% higher than that of commercials appearing in traditional broadcast-TV programs, according to Nielsen IAG. The level of “program engagement,” or audience attentiveness, for “Fringe” was the second highest among debut episodes on broadcast TV in the past year (only NBC’s “Chuck” did better, IAG said).

We like this strategy for two reasons.  First, it re-contents television which for many years has been incrementally adding more commercials per hour (advertisements in the 1960’s ran for just 8 minutes in an hour - last year it was 18 minutes for the same hour).

Equally important in our view is execution.  Fox wisely inserted time markers before the newly shortened ad blocs.  “Fringe will return in 60 seconds” was a very effective inducement to keep viewers stuck in place, hands off the remotes.  Without these prompts, we doubt that the new strategy would have functioned as well.  They set expectations for consumers and allowed viewers to make rational decisions, which benefited the Fringe advertisers more than on similar shows.

Advertisers and networks need to continue to take responsibility for the sad state of broadcast advertising.  Showing more and more bad advertising just won’t work.  Thanks to Fox for taking a step in the right direction.

Brand

Description:
The online site for personal meetings, Meetup.com has launched a new campaign aimed at getting the ’screen-addicted’ to leave the confines of their offices and meet other people in person.  The campaign features a claymation video in the style of  Wallace & Gromit.  It shows a lonely man obsessively updating his Facebook status (Q: What are you doing now? A: Updating my status) and IM’ing friends.  Then he sees the Meetup logo (which looks like a fill-in-the-blank event attendee sticker with the meetup name inside it).  He’s bedazzled and, sensing something behind the logo, stands on his chair and pries open his monitor.  There’s a long, dark tunnel behind it, which he crawls through resolutely.  Then he emerges (from his cave, we must assume) into the sunlight and fresh air, discovering a world of other people.

The viral campaign features a customizable “Intervention e-mail” that can be sent to a friend warning them of the dire consequences of their screen addiction in a sort of Madlibs fashion.

What Works:
This clever campaign comes to us from the low-profile but highly influential Meetup.com.  Meetup first gained attention in 2003 when the political campaign of Howard Dean used it to organize grassroot events through the Internet with great success (until his implosion in Iowa).  Meetup has continued to expand as a way for hockey-moms or photo enthusiasts or beagle lovers to meet each other in person, coordinating over the Internet.This advertising blog admires three things in this campaign:

1. Simplicity - Define the problem, illustrate the problem and solve the problem.  There is an elegant simplicity to both the concept and execution of this campaign.
2. Storytelling - As we frequently note, advertising works only when it offers immediate value to the user.  This viral video does so with an engaging story, told in a novel format for an ad.
3. Stickiness - Chip and Dan Heath might like this campaign because it offers a simple and engaging way to share the video.  The multiple choice e-mail is not a new tactic, but this is an amusing execution.

What Doesn’t:
The strength of the Meetup logo and website is also its weekness.  It is a clever pun on the anonymity that social encounters sometimes engender.  Meetup counters this by linking people through their passions, building communities of interest rather than necessity.  Sometime, though an execution of a meta-theme like this can be too clever by half.  While the campaign is excellent, the Meetup.com website seems too generic and perhaps not compelling enough on the home page.

Brand: True Blood (HBO)
Execution: Viral
Target: The Vampire Obsessed
Rating: *****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
To promote the new series “True Blood,” HBO drafted the agency Campfire to create an elaborate insider campaign.  Campfire sent 1,000 elaborate direct mailer pieces in May to vampire bloggers and “science fiction geeks” ( a good description of the program is on AdAge).  The mailer featured a message in an invented ancient language.  A few of the addressees had the necessary language or cryptography skills to translate the language (no Rosetta Stone needed, apparently) and it led them to a website, www.bloodcopy.com.  The website featured a gatekeeper (an actress) who would grant access only to those deemed “true vampires” after video chats.  She was instructed to be difficult to crack into, not easy.

What Works:
Brands often think that their task is to make it easy for everyone to find them.  For years Coca-Cola focused on the slogan “within an arm’s reach of desire” - the idea being to make Coke so easy to find that it was ubiquitous.  With the brand equity and resources of Coca-Cola, this might not be a bad idea, but it fails for many other brands.  HBO and Campfire take the opposite tack, one which resonates much more deeply with human nature: make it really, really tough to get inside and they will come.  They have harnessed the power of exclusivity.

What is brilliant about this campaign is that it is so focused, so precise and not at all interested in making sure that 99% of the target audience gets the message directly from the brand.  It offers a real challenge and doesn’t shrink from sustaining that challenge once the interested have found the brand (on the website).  There is real attention to detail in this campaign that gives it authenticity.

The results have been impressive - lots of youtube activity, press coverage and huge anticipation for the series.

What Doesn’t:
Was it J. Walter Thompson who said “Great advertising can kill a brand”?  The series really needs to live up to the promotion or HBO might find the well is dry the next time around.

Branding Bottom Line:
Campfire spins a tale that makes HBO go bump in the night.

Brand

Description:
Paris Hilton today posted a video response to a Presidential campaign ad for Senator John McCain.  The McCain ad ad, aired last week and compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and pop star Britney Spears.  The ad called Obama “the biggest celebrity in the world,” while displaying images of Obama in German, Hilton and Spears in an attempt to paint Obama as a celebrity rather than a true leader.  In the video response sponsored by Funny or Die, we see the same images of Obama in Germany, but the voiceover speaks insted of John McCain as the “oldest celebrity in the world - like super-old” and asks the same question - “Is he ready to lead?”  Then we see Paris Hilton in a skimpy swimsuit mocking both herself and McCain while declaring her own candidacy for President and then putting forward a surprising cogent energy proposal.

What Works:
Paris Hilton has an extraordinary sense of timing and a finely tuned radar for PR opportunities.  By taking advantage of a brief media flap over her unlikely connection to Barack Obama, Hilton has guaranteed herself another full news cycle and millions of earned media impressions on national news shows.  I found myself unwittingly part of this kerfuffle on Fox Business News this afternoon when an anchor brought up the ad following a discussion we were having about Whole Foods earnings.  After seeing the entire video, I had to agree that Paris Hilton got it exactly right, down to sounding well-schooled on policy when she moved off of the issue of “where to get the best tan.”The lesson for conventional brands here is to be agile.  Without Paris Hilton’s ability to respond to the McCain ad in just seven days, the opportunity for free PR would have been lost.  Most brands would find it impossible to craft and approve a clever spot in such a short time, let alone filming it.  But the benefits of taking advantage of opportunities like this are significant.  Witness the benefit Mentos yielded from the Mentos/Coke videos and how Coca-Cola failed to capitalize quickly enough.

What Doesn’t:
This advertising blog thinks the Paris Hilton response is entirely good for her brand, but it’s worth looking for a moment at the McCain ad for a moment.  Besides the unintended invitation for a smackdown by Paris Hilton, McCain violates important precepts of advertising in his campaign spot.  Attack ads are meant to put memorable images into the minds of voters.  Michael Dukakis was damaged by attack ads with graphic images of him looking very un-presidential in a tank among others.McCain’s ad has the opposite effect for Barack Obama.  It shows him addressing 250,000 people within sight of the Brandenburg gate in Berlin where the Berlin Wall stood.  While the language is meant to tear Obama down, the images make him look more presidential.  Which is not the point of competitive advertising at all.

Branding Bottom Line:
Forget President of the United States.  Paris Hilton ought to be running for CMO of General Motors.

A few weeks ago, I began to notice spam.  Not that I hadn’t noticed it before; the way a horse notices swarming flies.   But this was different.  An e-mail with the subject “Obama Shot in Colorado” set my hairs on end.  I almost clicked before I noted the sender and realized it was spam.  On the same day, I received a valid e-mail from a newsletter that I’d signed up to with the title “Get Ready to Shop” - and almost marked it as spam.

Which raises the question - are spammers working harder for our attention than real marketers?  Have we surrendered creativity to the grinding data-consciousness of direct marketers (no offense)?   Have the spammers followed the adult entertainment marketers as the next generation of marketing innovators we will refuse to learn from?

Issue

It must be a slow week when a corporate logo change makes news, but that’s where we find ourselves with Walmart as it changes its logo for the first time in sixteen years.

The new logo has three distinguishing points from the old: first it removes the star that separated the ‘Wal’ from ‘Mart’ (a hyphen predated the star). Secondly, the new logo uses upper and lower case where all previous logos were all-caps. Finally, the new logo ads a starburst (or a six-pointed asterisk as we see it) at the end of the logo.

Wal-Mart’s press release sounds almost defensive on the logo update:

This update to the logo is simply a reflection of the refresh taking place inside our stores and our renewed sense of purpose to help people save money so they can live better.

This begs the question of the underlying brand strategy - what is Walmart hoping to accomplish? The answer seems regrettably clear. Walmart is in a strong competitive position given the downturn of the economy. They are using the opportunity to try to take market share from their competitors. Walmart believes that it “owns” working class families - they are value shoppers who are very loyal to Walmart. So the new logo, new tagline, new outfits for employees and freshened store layouts reflect Walmart’s desire to lure upscale customers from Target.

This is a reasonable goal but Walmart is pursuing it in the wrong way. The new logo with a six pointed star at the end (which bears an unfortunate resemblance to an asterisk) reminds us of nothing as much as Target’s logo with the bullseye. The new slogan: “Save Money. Live Better” does have the advantage of reaching an end benefit. But compare it to “Always Low Prices” and you’ll see that it again positions Walmart against Target’s lifestyle marketing.

To be successful, Walmart must stand for working families and focus on offering good products at the lowest everyday prices. When Walmart walks away from this mission it does so at its peril.

Walmart may replace logos and slogans but it should not replace the important mission it created - one which lifted the standard of living for millions of middle class families around the U.S.

Branding Bottom Line: Walmart gets a nice new logo *
* (but it reminds us a lot of Target)

Description:
Think of consumer generated advertising and you might think Doritos,  the NFL or Heinz.  But Brazilian author Paul Coelho has jumped headfirst into this space with a MySpace competition to make a collaborative movie of the book for film festival submission.  The rules are straightforward: pick a character and film the segment of the book in which that character is the narrator (there are fifteen).  The best segments get stiched together with a movie that, like the book, is told from multiple perspectives.  The entire movie will be submitted to film festivals.

What Works:
Paul Coelho has involved his most passionate fans with his brand in a way that few professional marketers manage.  While the standard user-generated advertising campaign is well understood - shoot a commercial for my brand and I’ll stick it on network television - Coelho has reimagined the boundaries of this very limited medium.

The framework for this project is what makes it so effective.  Rather than an open assignment, Paul Coelho gives his readers a specific challenge: film a portion of the book from the point of view of one of the narrators.  Narrowing the scope of creativity can significantly enhance both the results and the creative quality - if it’s narrowed intelligently.  And this is brilliant narrowing.

The second success factor for the Witch of Portobello contest is the attraction of the final project.  Instead of having one winner, Coelho will recognize fifteen, and their work will be stiched together in a way that will add unexpected elements to the final product.  This creates a good platform for extending the life of the contest and of the book.

Finally, Coelho hosts this contest through a social network (albeit MySpace) and will naturally attract the kind of talent he is looking for.  In fact, the contest has been so successful that he has shut down submissions for all but a handful of the narrative chapters.

What Doesn’t:
There actually is some corporate involvement here - from Hewlett Packard.  It’s not clear how broad their role is (or if they had any part in creating this competition), but the merest whiff of corporate marketing in this competition could hurt the authenticity of the final product.  This competition will pay back in user interest and loyalty - corporate money might do more damage than it is worth.

Branding Bottom Line:
A novelist takes the serious marketers to school.

Brand

Description:
A testimonial-style commercial for Baby Einstein. The spot starts off showing the green door to a suburban house and superimposes “A Real Mom Talks About Baby Einstein DVDs” over the door. Then we meet Antonia and her son Hudson. Antonia talks about how much she likes Baby Einstein DVDs. As she speaks we see images from the DVDs as well as scenes of her playing with her sons both in an out-of-doors. The spot ends with a voiceover “Make new discoveries with Baby Einstein DVDs” and a product shot of the DVD lineup.

What Works:
If you buy the premise that you must advertise mass-distributed brands on mass media (and we do not), then this spot does the job as well as it can be done. It is not overly slick and would look equally comfortable if shown on a cable access channel. It speaks directly from one mom to others, just as the Baby Einstein videos do. It is fairly single-minded about the brand positioning “by a mom, for moms” which is the strongest positioning for the Baby Einstein product. It doesn’t splash the Disney name - a temptation that lesser marketers in large corporations might have succumbed to. It also is simple, uses strong images and has a good product shot and good branding.

What Doesn’t
I was particularly interested in reviewing this ad because I wrote a chapter of Accidental Branding about the Baby Einstein founder, Julie Clark. When Disney bought out Clark and took over the Baby Einstein brand, they did a good job of keeping the Disney name away from the product. But to make their return, they moved Baby Einstein into broader mainstream distribution and created spinoff products - everything from toys to sippy cups. This expanded the sales of the brand tremendously, but it also began to erode the expertise of Baby Einstein which had been narrowly focused on producing videos for babies.

Disney also started advertising the Baby Einstein brand. It was an unsurprising move, as Disney clearly wanted to bring mass marketing to Baby Einstein. I was very curious to see if they could pull this off, because the brand always struck me as a consummate ‘insider’ brand that thrives on personal recommendation. It is impossible to know if any mass media campaign might be clever enough to sell Baby Einstein without ruining the “it’s my secret” appeal of Baby Einstein, but this spot does not work. The ad straddles the unhappy line between diet supplement testimonial and infomercial. The production values are not bad but it still feels far less well crafted than the Baby Einstein videos themselves and clearly a corporate product.

Branding Bottom Line:
Baby Einstein reminds us we still want a set of Ginsu Knives.

Last week, Disney closed the door on one of the most successful promotions in its history. Virtual Magic Kingdom was opened in 2005 as an online role-playing game set in a virtual version of the Anaheim Disney theme park. The game allowed players to create characters (commonly called ‘avatars’) who would roam the park, interacting with other players, participating in promotions and playing games in the virtual world. Some of these yielded virtual prizes like hats, pins or furniture for the game. Others could be used to get real world prizes or promotions in the (real) theme park.

Virtual Magic Kingdom was intended to last only for the duration of the 2005 celebration of DisneyLand’s 50th anniversary. Because of the tremendous popularity of the promotion, however, it was kept running and only in April of 2008 did Disney announce that it would close forever on May 21st.
Which raises the question: why? Disney’s stated reasons sound like political talking points:

As many of you know, Virtual Magic Kingdom was created and launched back in 2005 as part of the Disneyland 50th Anniversary Celebration. VMK exceeded expectations in terms of performance, and as a result we extended the promotion (that is, VMK, the game) well beyond the 50th Celebration.

Eventually though, all promotions must come to an end, so I’m announcing today that on May 21, 2008, VMK will open our virtual gates for the last time. You read that right: VMK was never intended to last forever - we’ll close the game for good at the end of day on May 21st, 2008.

On its face, this would be a terrible reason to close a world which has drawn such a dedicated user community. The cost of maintaining this virtual world is minimal compared to attracting the same users with new promotions. Simple ROI analysis on the existing users of this type of virtual community would almost certainly show that their increased interaction with the (real world) Disneyland more than paid for the cost of maintaining the promotion.

The real answer is disarmingly simple:

Disney says it never intended the 50th-anniversary promotion to run this long, but money is also a factor: Virtual Magic Kingdom is free, and full access to Disney’s other online game sites — like Club Penguin and Toontown — costs as much as $9.95 a month in the case of Toontown. - Peter Sanders, The Wall Street Journal

Viewed from the narrow lens of a Disney division responsible solely for online promotions, Virtual Magic Kingdom is a loser. Even if most of the users never return, and think horrible thoughts about the Disney brand, the small percentage who will migrate to paid content make this look like a sensible economic decision.

And this is where typical corporate organization fails the brand. In fact, closing Virtual Magic Kingdom is a mistake for the Disney brand and certainly a dis-economic decision for the franchise overall. Disney like most consumer marketers spends millions of dollars in advertising hoping to engage consumers for a minute or less and get them to think about the Disney theme parks. Virtual Magic Kingdom got consumers to engage with a faithful representation of Disneyland for hundreds of hours, even tying in actual on-park activities, for a fraction of the cost. These consumers became brand evangelists - the type who get others to engage with the brand.

Disney should not fool itself that its paid games are a substitute. Those are pure branded entertainment, and will be judged by a different yardstick. Many consumers who interacted with the free promotion will never pay $120 a year to play the online game.

When I was researching Accidental Branding, I discovered that successful entrepreneurs understand that everything affects the brand. They are loathe to turn every corner of their business into a profit center, understanding that generosity often builds brand equity. Disney’s move to shutter Virtual Magic Kingdom will certainly spruce up the balance sheet this year. But it’s a bad brand move and one that could have been avoided by tearing down marketing silos.

Issue: Dove Accused of Retouching ‘Real Beauty’ Ads
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

In Accidental Branding I write that brands need to ’sweat the details’ - meaning that paying attention to even small, innocuous details of the business that might not obviously affect the brand pays important dividends. A brewing scandal this week at Unilever with the Dove brand illustrates this. Dove has gotten into a mess because a profile of a professional photo retoucher in The New Yorker mentioned that he had worked on the ‘Real Beauty’ campaign - in which Dove explicitly argues against retouching reality. The details are complex, but Dove appears to have neglected to instruct a freelance photographer on the second iteration of the campaign in 2007 - the revered Annie Liebovitz - to avoid making any digital corrections to her photos.

The Dove Campaign for real beauty includes the following:

Original Print Campaign

Dove Pro-Age Print Campaign

Dove Evolution Video

Dove Onslaught Video

The campaign has been acclaimed for bringing body image issues to the fore. It has been criticized because Dove still sells products intended to beautify and because Unilever sells products like Axe that use the exact techniques that the Dove campaign criticizes.

Here are the facts in the unwinding mess:

Writing for the May 12th issue of The New Yorker, Lauren Collins profiled digital photo retouch artist Pascal Dangin. In her profile, Lauren writes:

To avoid such complaints, retouchers tend to practice semi-clandestinely. “It is known that everybody does it, but they protest,” Dangin said recently. “The people who complain about retouching are the first to say, ‘Get this thing off my arm.’ ” I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”

This paragraph was noted last week by BusinessWeek blogger Burt Helm on May 7th in his Brand New Day blog. Then Jack Neff from AdAge picked up the BusinessWeek story.

Unilever responded quickly, denying the accusations. Unilever’s PR department issued the following statement from the photo retoucher Pascal Dangin who was profiled in the article:

The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the [2005] Dove ‘real women’ ad. I only worked on the [2007 Dove Pro-Age] campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction — both the integrity of the photographs and the women’s natural beauty were maintained.

Unilever also released the following statement from Annie Liebovitz:

Let’s be perfectly clear — Pascal does all kinds of work — but he is primarily a printer — and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching, and there was not.

The New Yorker responded by standing by its story - only noting that the word “undergarments” was misplaced - meaning that they agreed Dangin might not have worked on the first campaign.

From this muddle, it is not clear whether Dangin made substantial alterations to the Liebowitz photographs. What is clear however, is that he did touch them and at a minimum made the “color corrections” that he claims in the statement delivered through Unilever. So it seems clear that Unilever and the Dove brand did not explicitly ensure that the Liebovitz photos were completely unaltered. It seems possible that the photos met the standard set for the brand - not altering the appearance of the women - but any retouching of the photos leaves the whiff of impropriety. For the brand, this is a disaster which could have been avoided with more attention to detail.

Branding Bottom Line:
Dove gets mascara all over the brand

Personality Not Included

Description:
Personality Not Included: Why Companies Lose their Authenticity and How Great Brands Get it Back is a new business book published last month by Rohit Bhargava, Senior VP of Digital Strategy and Marketing at Ogilvy PR. Bhargava is a first-time author, but confronts the publishing world with the experience of a new media expert. His Influential Marketing Blog is listed in the AdAge Power 150.

To market Personality Not Included, Bhargava drew from his blogging and new media PR experience to create a variety of attention-getting stunts, the largest of which was a simultaneous interview with 50 bloggers for the launch of the book (here’s one) which amplified the viral nature of his book launch. He also created a facebook add-on to a book signing event to increase turnout and a group blog called The Personality Project to complement the book’s website. Bhargava has a twelve month plan of activities to launch the site. Rohit is speaking in New York on Wednesday, May 14th.

What Works:
Marketing a business book can be a daunting task for a first-time author who is not a celebrity. Most publishers view new authors the same way that venture capitalists view start-up companies. They make a good number of small bets and then see which author manages to make their own work successful. So authors are left to their own devices to market their ideas.

Bhargava has done an excellent job of mining his expertise in new media, particularly social networking, to build a base for his book. He recognizes that a campaign of this nature is by definition a slow build, and that his chances of hitting a bestseller list are most likely a year or more down the road. He has cleverly co-opted the interest of bloggers and colleagues by creating event-driven online properties. The 50-blog simultaneous interview which he used to launch his book was particularly inventive, as it provided real sales momentum but a better artifact (in the form of a variety of interesting author interviews permanently archived by Google and a competition among bloggers to see who came up with the best questions) than the “social media bum rush” done for The Age of Conversation.

Bhargava has also strategically done a good job of positioning Personality Not Included against the anticipated book “Groundswell” by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff from Forrester. While that book handily outsells his at the moment, by positioning Personality Not Included as a new-media-aware branding book rather than the chronicle of a fundamental change in consumer behavior he has given his work a longer shelf life.

What Doesn’t:
This is a significant book and Bhargava may have lost an opportunity by not engaging professionals to help him get mainstream media reviews. This would have been tricky however, as he is a senior executive in a PR firm himself. However his expertise is in digital media and he does not have the same relationships with traditional print media as he does in the digital sphere. While there have been some very good examples of books launched entirely in the blogsphere, notably The New Rules of Marketing and PR by David Meerman Scott, a gentle push from BusinessWeek or The New York Times can be invaluable for a new business book.

Branding Bottom Line:
Bhargava finds new ways to turn the web on its head. We would hire him.

BONUS: Interview with Rohit Bhargava

How did you come up with the idea for your 50-blog interview?
The nice thing about having your own book is that if you have an idea that you think works, you can do it. The idea for the blog interviews came out of my desire to do a promotion that bloggers would be interested in because they get something in return. For me, I wanted them to write about the concept of a book that they hadn’t read. For all the 55 bloggers that decided to ask me 5 questions about the book, they were getting good customized content for their blogs and the chance to win a prize (and fame) for having the best interview. I had the idea on a Sunday and launched it on a Tuesday, so sometimes when the right idea comes along, it just works.

What are the biggest challenges for a first time author marketing his own book?
The biggest challenge is to realize that all the marketing and publicity will fall on your own shoulders. I knew this going in because I had some great advice from other authors that I talked to, but you’re never quite ready for how much you actually have to do yourself. The other challenge for someone like me is that I still have my full time day job, which means much of my book efforts are in the after hours or not full time.

You talk about a slow build and a 12-month calendar. What are some of the things you have planned for the rest of the year?
Well, I have an overall strategy that I’m working towards which has lots of different elements but I can’t really say what is exactly going to happen over the next 12 months because some of the efforts I have not come up with yet. Right now I’m spending a lot of time talking about a new site I launched for the book that I am really excited about called The Personality Project (www.thepersonalityproject.com). I can tell you there are quite a few more activities that I have planned over the next few months that will likely duplicate the amount of buzz of the launch and hopefully eclipse it!

With thousands of business books published each year, what do you think the key to differentiation is?
I spent a lot of time on this - researching other books that could be considered “competitive” to my book. I think the answer is twofold. Part of the theory of the book is that personality sets companies apart, and to a degree the personality of my book sets it apart from others in the same space. In addition, I focused very much on writing a book that was fun and engaging to read, and ultimately useful. It was this focus on being actually useful that sets PNI apart as well, because so many books are written in a theoretical way instead of a practical way.

In your first few weeks what have the biggest surprises of new authorship been for you?
The single biggest surprise has got to be just how much weight people who organize events and conferences put on authorship. I always suspected that if the book became successful, I would start to get better speaking invitations for more prominent slots or keynotes instead of panels. I expected this would take some time, but it was almost overnight that this started to happen. That was surprising, as I don’t quite feel that the book has earned that for me yet … but I plan to try and make the most of the chances I’m given!

What has been your best use of social networking to promote your book?
So far, I’d have to say the launch interview idea was the biggest success because of the buzz it generated. There are a few other ideas that I will be launching (which I mentioned above) that should equal or better that buzz as I roll them out.

You launched at nearly the same time as an anticipated book in a similar area: GroundSwell. How do you compete with that marketing machine?
I am actually a great admirer of both Charlene and Josh, so when I made it to their launch party for the book a few weeks ago, we talked about this. I actually think it’s a great thing because our books are very complimentary. PNI is not a book about social media, but it does incorporate social media into it - so I could see many people getting very different things from both. What I realized after launching my book is that the real competition is other books that my publisher (McGraw-Hill) launched in the same timeframe because I am competing with marketing resources with those books. If I have competition to fight against, that’s where it really comes from.

Which did you enjoy more ˆ researching, writing or publicizing your book?
I love marketing and am really passionate about actually putting theory into ACTION, so I’d have to say the best time I’m having is right now with all the promotion for the book. The writing and researching, for me, is the hard work that got me to this point. When you’re actually marketing, that’s the fun part!

You have focused your launch efforts in San Francisco although you live in D.C. Why?
Focusing on SF was a deliberate choice because I have a lot of contacts through the Web2.0 crowd on the west coast and wanted to make the most of this community. In addition, during the weeks of the launch of the book, most of my speaking engagements were on the west coast, so it made logical sense to do the launch party there. I have lots planned for DC too, though, and will be in several other markets over the next few months before I start heading international as well.

What one piece of advice would you give to a first-time branding book author?
I would say, take an honest look at what your goals are and publish your book with that goal in mind. For me, PNI is a chance for me to make my reputation and share something useful with people who need to market something. The international component of the book and distribution was most important to me, so I went with the publisher that I did because they have a really strong distribution arm. That has turned out to be a great decision so far.

Brand

Description:
Heinz launched a promotional blitz in December of 2007 for a consumer-generated advertising contest called “Top This.” The challenge was to create a new television spot for Heinz. The winner would get $57,000 (the number taken from the ‘Heinz 57′ days) and would be aired on television. Runner ups would receive $5,700. Heinz promoted the contest on-pack with mentions on 57 million customized bottles and 200 million tailored packets with catchy taglines such as “Hungry for Fame?” and “Starving for the Spotlight?” Heinz also ran full-page ads in the New York Times and USA Today to promote the contest.

The winning ad was created by Chicagoland resident Matt Cozza, a Northwestern graduate, freelance cameraman and award-winning documentary filmmaker. The ad takes off from a personal experience of Cozza’s, where he sat down at a restaurant and found that Heinz ketchup was missing from his table, proceeded to swipe a bottle from another table and set off a chain reaction.  The ad will air on the Food Network.

What Works:
A win-win campaign for both Heinz and its consumers.  The 130-year-old brand pours some vitality into its creative efforts from outside the walls of agency-of-record Cramer-Krasselt.  Heinz consumers get to dream about creating a spot to air on national television and of winning a substantial prize.  Heinz builds momentum for the contest by picking the finalist videos from the thousands of entries itself, but allowing consumers to choose the winner.

This is all, of course, textbook script for a consumer-generated marketing campaign, but Heinz has been exceptionally savvy in the way it has managed the process.  The promotional efforts sound impressive and reach a huge number of consumers, but they’re also exceptionally thrifty.  On-pack advertising has virtually no incremental cost for Heinz and one-time insertions in two newspapers are small cost items done more for publicity than actual consumer awareness.  Heinz also creates a customized, low-cost forum to air these spots before a friendly audience (on the Food Network) and consider them for further exposure.

The announcement of the winner creates a big PR opportunity for Heinz and results in some national news media coverage including a Fox Business News segment.

The final benefit may be as important as the rest.  Without abandoning its agency of record, Heinz essentially gets thousands of fully produced concept ads for free.   And many of these are not handicam efforts.  The myth behind consumer-generated marketing  campaigns is that every Dick and Jane can win.  The reality is somewhat different.  These campaigns have become a resume-builder for talented film school grads and independent producers.  Just the sort of folks that brands have difficulty accessing directly.

What Doesn’t:
Brands rarely consider that a consumer-generated advertising contest will wind up putting a new tagline - and possibly a new brand positioning - on air nationally.  While it seems inevitable that consumers play an increasingly large role in positioning and marketing brands, this is something different.  The contest format is artificial and can result in a tug on the brand in a particular direction that is larger and less gradual than consumer co-creation would normally produce.

While the campaign winner was a very solid ad, it does not break new ground for Heinz, which as not yet found as compelling a positioning as it achieved with the iconic spot “Anticipation” of the late 70’s - fueled by the Carly Simon hit of the same name. “Now We Can Eat,” positions Heinz as “what goes with food” but the product-as-hero format features the bottle more than the Ketchup.  Heinz already owns the category - it needs to create more hungry people to expand the category.

Branding Bottom Line:
A better spot than 80% of what’s on television.  For $57,000.  Top that.

Brand

Description:
The newest in a series of intriguing online marketing initiatives for the Brooklyn Museum, Click! is an exhibition taking place from June 27 - August 10, 2008 which will be crowd-curated until May 23rd, 2008. A full description from the Brooklyn Museum Website:

Click! is a photography exhibition that invites Brooklyn Museum’s visitors, the online community, and the general public to participate in the exhibition process. Taking its inspiration from the critically acclaimed book The Wisdom of Crowds, in which New Yorker business and financial columnist James Surowiecki asserts that a diverse crowd is often wiser at making decisions than expert individuals, Click!  explores whether Surowiecki’s premise can be applied to the visual arts—is a diverse crowd just as “wise” at evaluating art as the trained experts? Click! is an exhibition in three consecutive parts. It begins with an open call—artists are asked to electronically submit a work of photography that responds to the exhibition’s theme, “Changing Faces of Brooklyn,” along with an artist statement.

After the conclusion of the open call, an online forum opens for audience evaluation of all submissions; as in other juried exhibitions, all works will be anonymous. As part of the evaluation, each visitor answers a series of questions about his/her knowledge of art and perceived expertise.

Click! culminates in an exhibition at the Museum, where the artworks are installed according to their relative ranking from the juried process. Visitors will also be able to see how different groups within the crowd evaluated the same works of art. The results will be analyzed and discussed by experts in the fields of art, online communities, and crowd theory.

Click! follows a series of other new media initiatives at the Brooklyn Museum, including the online exhibit Hiroshige’s One Hundred Views of Edo and the Graffiti Exhibit from 2006.

What Works:
Necessity begets creativity and so it is perhaps not surprising that one of the most creative series of new media marketing initiatives in recent memory comes from a budgetary-constrained arts institution, the venerable Brooklyn Museum. The Click! exhibit shows that meaningful online interactivity can be as simple as asking the public to choose the works for an upcoming exhibit, thus giving them a stake in the outcome and a good reason to visit.

This advertising blog does not give many five-star ratings, and this one is earned not just for the clever use of the online medium, timely jump onto a popular bandwagon (crowdsourcing) and strategic pandering to a popular author (James Surowiecki) but for the continuation of a two year series of clever, low-budget new media initiatives which have effectively served to position the Brooklyn Museum as a daring innovator among its peers.

Even better for students of new media, the museum has documented the journey along with its results in an excellent white paper. This type of sharing is rare in the private sector and much needed in an industry where most of the big advertisers are struggling to understand the online medium.

The best parts of the Brooklyn Museum’s approach to using new and emerging media is its focus on simplicity - from the cellphone tour to the crowd-curated exhibit. It is a refreshing change from some of the lavish but unnecessary innovations foisted on us by the Fortune 100.

What Doesn’t:
Although straightforward, the website for the Brooklyn Museum is not nearly as innovative and user friendly as the online exhibits.

Branding Bottom Line:
The Brooklyn Museum makes us wonder what we got for the last million we spent with our online agency.

[Image from NALIP.org]

In Accidental Branding, I write “Do Sweat the Details”. By this I mean that very small actions that do not at first seem to be related to our brands often have very big consequences for the brand. What I meant when I wrote this is that consumers often cue off of small details that are of no interest to brand marketers, like how the package opens, how customer service handles complaints or how business partners speak about our business.

This week, Wal-Mart has provided an excellent example of how decisions seemingly unrelated to marketing can affect our brands. It’s a big enough deal that I would call this Wal-Mart crisis a textbook example of “Brand Karma” - meaning that what you put out into the world eventually comes back to you. Wal-Mart has never had a great reputation among its suppliers. For years it has been accused of sourcing goods locally in new markets only as a competitive tactic to drive out other retail customers and then ending the relationship in order to bankrupt the local supplier.

This general attitude towards suppliers bit back recently as The Wall Street Journal reports. The company which Wal-Mart used to capture video of sales conferences and other internal meetings for thirty years, Flagler Productions Inc. was dismissed two years ago. It does not take much reading between the lines to suspect that this termination of a longtime relationship was not handled well. INstead of maintaining a fondness for Wal-Mart and seeking to regain the Wal-Mart business, Flagler has gone into the business of selling these candid and embarrassing videos of Wal-Mart events to the general public. It appears that in spite of Wal-Marts general legal rectitude, they never secured exclusive rights to this video.

It’s a brand disaster. The videos, as Gary McWilliams reports, contain:

A former executive vice president and board member challenges store managers in 2004 to continue his work opposing unionization. Male managers in drag lead thousands of co-workers in the company’s corporate cheer. In another meeting, managers mock foolish or dangerous use of a product sold in its stores.

I have written a lot about Wal-Mart in the past several years, and I don’t think it’s an evil company. Their basic goal of trying to reduce prices for average working families is a good one. They have made some good steps forward (along with Target) on trying to bring prescription drug prices down. They’ve also tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to bring down the horrible, predatory purveyors of pay-day loans with fair competition.

Where Wal-Mart seems to falter is that they have no corporate instinct for the integrity of their brand. A corporate obsessed with costs is bound to bruise a lot of “little guys” in the process. (See Wendy Bounds nice blog post for more on this.) And not shockingly, one with the ability to really hurt Wal-Mart has finally bitten back.

The lesson? Everything affects your brand. If the way you treat your employees, suppliers or customers is not consistent with your brand, they will become a cancer in your system. Brands may not practice Buddhism, but they should believe in Karma. It all does eventually catch up with you.

If anyone has links to the Wal-Mart videos, please feel free to post them in comments.

Accidental Branding has just been released in the U.S. and is available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders and Books-a-Million. If you have a group of 30 or more entrepreneurs or marketers and are willing to buy and read the book, I’ll be happy to speak to your group on the phone or in person for free during the months of May or June this year.

EXCERPT FROM ACCIDENTAL BRANDING: HOW ORDINARY PEOPLE BUILD EXTRAORDINARY BRANDS

CHAPTER 3 – THE STORYTELLER JOHN PETERMAN (J. PETERMAN)

“This is a single-action Colt 45 Peacemaker, the gun that tamed the West,” Peterman says, as he slides the long revolver out of his custom-made shoulder holster, flicks opens the cylinder, and loads .45 caliber bullets one by one. Then he hands me the gun. The sun hangs low in the Kentucky sky, pouring red light over Peterman’s ranch on this midsummer’s evening and making me squint as I inspect the Colt. It is a craftsman’s piece that looks like it has been hammered out of a single hunk of iron. The handle is inlaid with smooth Bakelite, which is cool in my hand. It is heavy, much more so than it looks, and as I extend my arms to aim it I feel gravity pulling it groundward. I hold the gun carefully with two hands and sight down the barrel. Then, releasing my breath, I gently squeeze the trigger. Nothing happens.

“Just ease back the hammer when you’re ready to fire,” Peterman says calmly, as if he has not even noticed my failed attempt. I nod and slowly thumb the hammer toward me until it clicks into place. Then I line the shot up and pull the trigger again. This time the Colt jumps in my hand. It is loud, much louder than gunshots in the movies. Peterman looks through binoculars at the can I’m aiming for, which is 40 feet away. “You’re down and to the left. Don’t flinch when you fire.” I hadn’t realized I’d flinched, but I notice it the next time, and the next. I continue firing through two reloads, shooting 18 rounds in total. My flinch gradually lessens, but although a stout poplar tree showers chips every time I fire, the can sitting in front of it does not seem to budge. Peterman is gracious with the limited supply of bullets. He gives himself a mere six shots. When we retrieve the coffee can, there are five holes in it. Peterman says, “Looks like you hit it a few times.” He is being polite. I am pretty sure I’ve missed the can altogether and he’s hit five of six.

The Peterman in question, the one I’ve come to central Kentucky to visit, is none other than that Peterman: John Peterman, the founder of the J. Peterman Company. He is the man who built his mail-order business to $70 million dollars in sales and reinvented the catalog as we know it. His name is familiar to over 40 million Americans. In 1991, Holly Brubach in the Sunday New York Times called Peterman a “merchant poet.” He is also famous because of the buffoonish caricature of him played by John O’Hurley on Seinfeld starting in 1995. Four years later, Peterman went spectacularly bankrupt at the height of his fame. And now he’s back, quietly rebuilding the empire he lost.

Peterman has invited me to spend two days with him in Lexington, where I will interview employees at the J. Peterman Company (including his wife, Audrey), sit in on merchandising meetings, and see how the business runs. I am not sure he realizes that my central goal for engineering the entire trip is to visit the ranch I’m now standing on. After spending four hours interviewing Peterman in New York City a few weeks earlier, I’ve become convinced that the ranch will explain some of the mysteries of the myth he so successfully created. Even before Seinfeld, people were telling stories about J. Peterman. He was the world traveler who had fought in three wars, who hobnobbed with sheiks and maharajas, who looked equally comfortable at a state reception or tending a farm in Provence. Peterman’s little Owner’s Manual was a secret handshake for a certain set of people.

Along the way, the J. Peterman Company attracted some incredibly loyal customers, loyal enough to see their beloved business go bankrupt and still return as consumers two years later when Peterman revived it. In Lexington, I hope to answer a simple but elusive question—how did Peterman build this myth that motivated so many fanatic customers? And I have become convinced that the answer lies hidden at the Peterman ranch.

Excerpted with permission of the publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from Accidental Branding. Copyright (c) 2008 by David Vinjamuri. This book is available at all bookstores, online booksellers and from the Wiley web site at www.wiley.com, or call 1-800-225-5945