Brand: Coca-Cola (The Coca-Cola Company)
Execution: TV (1 and 2)
Target: Soft Drinkers
Rating: *****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
Two Super Bowl spots for Coca-Cola, both of which broke for Super Bowl XLII. The first spot features Democrat Jim Carville and former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist arguing on a talk show. They say the word “wrong” at the same time and Frist says, “jinx – buy me a Coke!” “Right now?” Carville asks and Frist says, “No talkin’ – jinx rules!” The two leave the show and walk outside to a hot dog cart where Carville buys Cokes. Frist sees a tour bus and says, “How ’bout it?” “Why not,” Carville shrugs and the two take a tour of Washington, D.C. where they rediscover their love of America (even riding on Segway scooters at one point). The spot ends with them having another Coke while sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, looking at the sun setting over the reflecting pool and Washington Monument.

The second spot starts with a tranquil aerial view of Central Park in New York City. Three floats for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, Stewie (from The Family Guy), Underdog and a Coca-Cola Bottle (which we don’t recall seeing in the most recent parade) are being handled by their teams. Then a gust of wind takes the Coca-Cola bottle aloft and Stewie and Underdog immediately begin to fight for it. The battle continues over the streets and sidewalks of Manhattan until, unexpectedly, Charlie Brown catches the bottle over Central Park.

What Works:
The New York Giants may be going home with the rings, but from the brand manager’s perspective it looks like Coca-Cola won the Super Bowl. Although perennial favorite Budweiser won fan polls in such forums as Adbowl, Coca-Cola scored more points from a brand equity standpoint by surprising viewers with two strong messages about the brand – each of which place the brand itself (and not secondary brand equity props like the Budweiser Clydsdales) as the hero of the spot. In fact, the spots mark a remarkable turnaround year for Coca-Cola which has taken itself from the depths of advertising irrelevance (perhaps epitomized by the failed remake of the iconic 70′s spot “Hilltop” called “Chilltop” as an introduction for Coke Zero – an effort so profoundly bad that an online version cannot be found) to a fresh rediscovery of the brand in the hands of Wieden & Kennedy.

Coca-Cola as a brand is most successful when it used as a social catalyst – the profoundly unique element that brings people together. Even though Stewie and Underdog are fighting for a single bottle in the “It’s Mine” spot, the real story is all of the New Yorkers watching the proceedings in wonder, remembering their first trip to the Thanksgiving Day parade. On a small island, events can unite people quickly. Such is the message of this Coke spot. The Frist/Carville spot is expertly timed – coming as it does just a few days before the socalled “Typhoon Tuesday” when nearly one-half of the U.S. electorate goes to vote in primary elections. Speaking as it does of transcendent values that overwhelm partisan issues, it aligns Coke with an important cultural moment.

Taken together, these spots remind us of the profound impact of an iconic brand, one that has been easy to forget for more than a decade.

What Doesn’t:
The Atlanta beverage giant’s future fortunes may hinge more on water and non-carbonated drinks (as evidenced by the recent acquisition of the Vitamin Water brand) but Coca-Cola needs to remember that the equity of all of its brands is enhance by the goodwill that the Coca-Cola name generates. Other than a few noble efforts by Wieden & Kennedy (and Psyop who collaborated on the magical “Happiness Factory” campaign” ), Coca-Cola has significantly under-invested in a brand that drives much of its brand equity as well as employee and distributor morale.

Branding Bottom Line:
Squint and you’d think Coke just aired an Obama commercial and an outtake from Cloverfield. But it’s still a home run.

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.

Issue: Will 2008 presidential campaigns waste millions on strike-crippled network television?
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

As the Hollywood writer’s strike spins through the holiday season into 2008, the distinct possibility of a perfect storm for advertising in the 2008 US Presidential campaign season looms.  Could the combination of the strike with lavish television  advertising spending on the race waste millions in donated money?

If it lasts any longer, the Hollywood writer’s strike will have two significant victims: the fall TV lineup, and the presidential campaigns which already upend conventional advertising wisdom every four years with absurdly over-saturated media plans.  This all comes at a time when television advertising is already a dubious proposition: primetime television reached just half the households last year as it did in 1994, even though the U.S. has added 40 million residents.  In the same period, primetime CPM (the cost to reach 1000 prime time viewers) has spiked from $7.64 to over $20.

The effect of the Hollywood writer’s strike thus far has been modest, evidenced mostly from the emergence of questionable reality tv pilots and gameshows onto the prime time schedule (Battle of the Choirs, anyone?)  But the strike is already threatening the traditional winter/spring pilot season, when networks invest in producing test episodes for a host of potential new shows for the fall.  Even if this archaic system is restructured, a strike lasting into the Spring would wreak havoc on the fall television lineup.

Add to this the enormous and distorting effect of presidential campaign television spending.  The Wall Street Journal estimates that “candidates, political parties and issues groups are expected to spend $3 billion this election cycle.”  Most of this will be spent on television.  These will mostly be spot purchases in local markets, but they will have a tremendously distorting effect on an industry much in need of reform.  And television depends on high-visibility content from primetime to drive overall viewership.

So the likely result may be this: billions of dollars will be spent on clumsy, unsubtle television advertising.  In order to reach the least frequent television viewers, candidates and other political ad buyers will scrap conventional wisdom on ad wear out rates (how many times a person can see the same ad before it starts to wear out and have the opposite effect intended) and oversaturate the medium.

The shame of all of this is that campaigns seem to be ignoring a huge opportunity with new media.  There are more people than ever watching video on the web.  A number of advertisers, from Smirnoff Raw Tea to Brawny have demonstrated the ability to create appealing branded entertainment with video on the web.  And if the Hollywood writers strike continues, the audience for this type of programming may skyrocket.  In addition, there are a large number of talented writers currently idle, unable to work for studios or production companies, who could still be engaged directly by advertisers.  In spite of this, web campaign spending is below relative viewership rates of television to the Internet.  Ironically, politicians may be the ones getting sold a bill of goods in this election season.

Brand: OfficeMax
Execution: Online, Viral
Target: Bored White Collar Workers
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A viral campaign in its second year, Elf Yourself from OfficeMax allows users to upload photos of friends and loved ones, crop them and then watch the results in a fun animation.

What Works:
One of the most successful viral campaigns in recent memory, Elf Yourself has reached Good Morning America as well as households across the nation.  From a execution standpoint, Elf Yourself works because it allow users to become part of the promotion and because the details work:  it’s easy to use and the results are extremely amusing.  The campaign does not work hard to be promotional, but does give some equity back to the OfficeMax brand.  The first year of the campaign generated over 36 million visits and this year promises to be stronger.

What Doesn’t:
The linkage to the OfficeMax brand is weak – because the elves really have nothing to do with OfficeMax.  In fact, Elf Yourself could have been created by virtually any brand.  On the other hand, this advertising blog finds it hard to imagine how an execution as clever as this could be tied more directly to the OfficeMax brand.

Branding Bottom Line:
Elf Yourself is fantastic – who did that again?

Issue: Does a funky new website point to the future of journalism?
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

There’s something new, and distinctly odd, out there on the frontiers of the Internet.  The site Truemors aims to empower ordinary citizens to spread, well, rumor.  Ideally those that are true.  Anyone can contribute, and the rules are simple – write stuff that is actually true and don’t break the law.  The result is a very eclectic stream of information which users can rate, and thus sort.  What rises to the top is the stuff the most people believe – or like.

Whether Truemors will prosper remains to be seen. But the central idea behind it – that citizens can report information directly on a joint forum – is an intriguing step forward.  The success of blogs has proven that credible reporting need not come from the most established sources.  Even mainstream media like CNN and Fox have solicited and run video taken by eyewitnesses.  Truemors tries to take the process a step further, shoving the microphone directly into the hands of the average joe.
Part of the concept has already been proven.  Perhaps one of the most important developments on the Internet has been the rise of social bookmarking with sites like Digg, Del.icio.us, and Stumble Upon.  These sites allow ordinary people to organize the Internet by explicitly selecting and tagging sites they deem worthy.  It is a much stronger approach than Google search for finding contextual information when it works, and it is one of the core ideas behind the Web 2.0 concept.

Truemors, founded by entrepreneurial guru Guy Kawasaki (The Art of the Start)  along with Will Mayall and Kathryn Henkens faces a high hurdle (and indeed some initial skepticism from luminaries like Seth Godin).  The result of putting publishing power into the hands of absolutely everyone is chaotic (a recent scan of the homepage contrasted stories on Dora the Explorer and the Liberty bell with an expose on a couple charged in an identity theft case.

Beyond the marketing question of whether Truemors will catch on is the bigger question of whether unmoderated citizen journalism will degenerate into gossip and innuendo or whether a Wikipedia-like effect will raise the level of contributions.  Voting on posts creates a ‘greatest’ list which is placed above the running list of posts.  But ‘greatest’ may be more like ‘best of craigslist’ than a highly combed-over Wikipedia entry: it may be more about entertainment value than accuracy.

In truth, Truemors may have just reinvented the oldest network of all – the ancient marketplace where news, gossip, rumor and innuendo walked hand in hand.

Brand: Buckley’s (W.K. Buckley, Limited)
Execution: TV, Social Networking
Target: Listerine Users
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
A series of simple ads featuring a comparative taste test between Buckley’s and various awful alternatives including Spring Break Hot Tub Water, Snail Trail Accumulation, Used Mouthwash, Public Restroom Puddle (which is yellow),  Trash Bag Leakage,  Pig Tongue Scrapings and Cardio Workout Perspiration.  In each spot (shot on video and with a hum in the background to simulate a handicam),  the subject is shown drinking the second alternative (Buckley’s being the first) and commenting that it either tastes the same as or better than Buckley’s.

Accompanying the TV spots is a MySpace campaign including a consumer generated photo contest for the worst Buckley’s face.  There is also a contest for selecting a town to be crowned “The Capital of Bad Taste” between Buckley, Washington and Buckley, Illinois.  Both Mayors are featured showing their Buckley’s face.

What Works:
This advertising blog is not normally a fan of gross-out humor but it works well here.  Buckley (a Canadian company, founded in 1990, now owned by Novartis) borrowed the brand strategy which had been so successful for Listerine in the 1970′s.  Listerine had long struggled with it’s unpleasant mouth feel and finally hit on the idea that the bad taste could be used as proof that it was actually doing something (killing the bacteria that cause bad breath, in Listerine’s case).  Buckley took this strategy and made it more explicit with the “It Tastes Awful, And It Works” tagline and a campaign exaggerating the terrible taste of Buckley’s cough syrup.

The result is a clever and memorable campaign which creates an ownable brand positioning for Buckley’s as the ‘no frills’ cough syrup for people who just want to stop their cough.  This will be impossible for any other brand in this category to copy, and we expect the brand will do as well in the U.S. as it has done in Canada.

What Doesn’t:
Any campaign that uses exaggeration as a technique treads a fine line and Buckley’s is clearly on that line.  A step further and it will actually suppress sales – which is probably not the goal of the campaign.

Branding Bottom Line:
We’d like to say that Buckley’s left a bad taste in our mouth – but we’re not that brave.

Issue: The Hollywood writers strike may have unintended consequences
Commentary by: David Vinjamuri

This morning at 12:01 am, Hollywood writers went on strike for the first time since 1988. Most of the commentary around this strike has been focused on the earlier writers strike and its estimated $500mm cost to the industry.  Media critics and stock analysts are wondering how great the revenue loss to the industry will be and what burdens any eventual deal with the writers will place on the industry.

Instead of looking to the 1988 writers strike for historical lessons, pundits should reach a year further back, to the 1987 NFL strike.  In that strike, professional football players were replaced by scabs – mostly undrafted former college players willing to cross a picket line to be able to wear the uniform of an NFL team for a few weeks.  Although the interval was short – after a few games, pros began crossing the picket line and the season was not lost – those few weeks were interesting.  Fans saw a lower level of football, but also a lot of people playing for nothing more than passion.  Although most of the scabs disappeared immediately with the return of the regular season, a few joined the big league.

Hollywood is far too unionized for this scenario to play out on in the writers room for The Tonight Show, Desperate Housewives or Heroes.  But if the writers strike creates an extended dearth of new material on the big screen and televisions nationwide, new media may have its moment in the sun.  Sites like YouTube have already shown that American consumers are willing to watch consumer-created media.  If television content disappears – creating an extended summer break of sorts – the conditions might suddenly exist for a tipping point shift towards new media.

Hollywood knows that it has a lot to lose from the writers strike.  But the real loss could be much larger than anyone imagines.  When consumers become more expert at finding video on the web just as amateurs are getting better at delivering it, the advertising model behind network television, which depends heavily on the scale of the audience watching commercials, could vanish.  Then Hollywood writers could return to work and find the stadiums empty, the fans gone.

Brand: Apple
Execution: TV: iPhone / iPod Touch
Target: Business People / Mainstream Users
Rating: **** / ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
Two new campaigns from Apple feature real Apple consumers.  The new iPhone campaign features a variety of real consumers, from a businessman to an airline pilot.  Each explains how they use the iPhone to help them with real everyday problems while visually demonstrating on the iPhone.  The second campaign is for the new iPod Touch.  This campaign does not feature a consumer, but was created by a consumer from stock footage and gained a viewership on YouTube.  Apple began running this spot last weekend nationally as the launch spot for the iPod Touch.

What Works:
Apple has suffered from a series of missteps over the summer which showed the company to be somewhat removed from the everyday concerns of its core brand followers.  First was the $200 price drop on the iPhone.  In itself a good idea (a classic skim-pricing strategy), Apple neglected to consider the impact on those who had waited in long lines just a few months earlier to pay more for the new phone.  After some waffling, Steve Jobs announced a $100 consumer credit on the iPhone for early purchases.

The next misstep – also affecting the iPhone – was the strategy Apple initially adopted of keeping the phone locked from outside developers.  This may have resulted from Apple’s contract with AT&T, but it mirrors Apple’s general approach to design which is to tightly control all aspects of the final product.  In the case of the iPhone, this strategy proved unpopular as developers and consumers alike wanted to add functionality to the phone.  Compounding the issue, a number of users who had made unauthorized alterations to their iPhone – including unlocking it to use on other carriers than AT&T – found that installing phone updates disabled the phone entirely.  Apple eventually reversed course by allowing outside developers to design applications to run natively on the phone.

Beyond the specifics of the new spots for the iPhone and iPod Touch – which are both extremely well executed – there is a more important underlying theme for Apple which is a good sign for the company.  Pulling a video off of YouTube and blessing it as the launch spot for a major new product is a startling development for this close-lipped organization.  Spotlighting ordinary consumers is an old ad technique (the testimonial may pre-date even print advertising) but shows an engagement with real consumers that is a definite change for Apple.  In sum, we think Apple is starting to realize the power of the brand cult it has created beyond their usefulness in populating the churches they have built for the – the Apple Stores.

Allowing consumer to engage in co-creation with the Apple brand is a good sign for the brand as well as a sign of the times for marketing.

What Doesn’t:
Co-creation is a process that is difficult to stop once the lid is ripped off the top.  Apple needs to carefully map the path of its upcoming brand extensions to ensure it will continue to listen to and engage with consumers.

Branding Bottom Line:
The iPhone proves more useful than the U.S. national air traffic control system.  Scary.

Brand: Toyota Tacoma (Toyota)
Execution: TV
Target: Young Men
Rating: ****
Reviewer: David Vinjamuri

Description:
The spot opens up showing a World of Warcraft game screen with three players.  They are chatting as they might do during a game session for this massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG).   The three are preparing to battle a dragon.  The first says, “I’ve gone ahead and equipped my Epic Axe.”  The second, (a female avatar but a male voice) replies, “switching to explosive arrows.”  The third says, “Yeah, I’m gonna equip myself with a little – uh – FOUR WHEELS OF FURY!!”  and suddenly his character is inside an animated Toyota Tacoma.  “No Way,” the first character says.  “There’s no trucks in World of Warcraft,” the second complains.  The character drives forward in the Toyota until he confronts the dragon, saying “let’s do this!”  The dragon swallows the Toyota Tacoma and the other two characters groan.  A moment later the dragon clutches his chest and the Tacoma bursts forth from the monster’s chest as it collapses.  The dragon’s heart is in the flatbed of the pickup.  “Did you see me lay down the Law?” the character in the Tacoma gloats, “I am the lawgiver!”  The spot ends with the Tacoma name and the Toyota Trucks logo as a character says, “I gotta get one of those.”

What Works:
This brilliant “product as hero” spot for Toyota Tacoma builds exceptionally well on a well-established campaign displaying Toyota Tacoma’s durability in cleverly imagined fantasy situations including being hit by a meteor, attacked by the Loch Ness Monster and crushed by a robot at a monster truck rally.  These spots all looked extremely realistic and gave the Toyota Tacoma a sense of being larger than life.

This new spot cleverly reverses the paradigm, putting the Tacoma into the wildly popular World of Warcraft backdrop.  Toyota shows an understanding for the environment as the action parodies real gamers realistically.  The result in the game, as in the other spots, is that the Toyota Tacoma emerges unscathed.

This interesting and clever spot will be much more arresting to the young male demographic Toyota is seeking because of its portrayal of the in-game environment of World of Warcraft.  The brand positioning is consistent with earlier executions and the pitch builds on the establishing work of the earlier spots.  Toyota again shows (as it has done consistently with the marketing for the Scion) that it understands new media environments.

What Doesn’t:
We don’t see many weaknesses in this advertising from Toyota, but it is important that Toyota continue the “fantasy tough” campaign with the elegance and flair observed in this and previous spots.

Branding Bottom Line:
Toyota finally slays the beast – but it’s not GM.