<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: COMMENTARY: Talk Isn&#8217;t Cheap -  Crispin Porter&#8217;s Fabulous Year</title>
	<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-talk-isn-t-cheap.html</link>
	<description>Straight Talk on Advertising from the Client Side</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: ThirdWay Advertising Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Burger King gets an Agent</title>
		<link>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-talk-isn-t-cheap.html#comment-6986</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-talk-isn-t-cheap.html#comment-6986</guid>
					<description>[...] What Doesn&#8217;t: This advertising blog is generally a great fan of consistency, except when it means stubbornly sticking to an advertising strategy that is not building the brand or increasing sales.  Undoubtedly Burger King and ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky have more research than we do about the effects of this campaign, but one thing cannot be disputed - Burger King itself has performed abysmally since hiring Crispin Porter and initiating the Burger King Campaign.  (See our analysis of the Crispin Porter relationship here and CNN Money&#8217;s take Burger King&#8217;s operating results here.)  From a brand positioning standpoint, we dislike this campaign because it does not define the core user for Burger King, show how the brand uniquely meets consumer needs or establish a relevant identity for the franchise.  The King character is all about attitude which we suspect is intended to appeal to teenage boys.  The flaw with this strategy is that brand loyalty for this category is established earlier and BK is now alienating families with the King campaign (the King spots were among the most disliked advertising produced last year in the United States.)  So while we normally support consistency, we feel it is time for a change at Burger King. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] What Doesn&#8217;t: This advertising blog is generally a great fan of consistency, except when it means stubbornly sticking to an advertising strategy that is not building the brand or increasing sales.  Undoubtedly Burger King and ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky have more research than we do about the effects of this campaign, but one thing cannot be disputed - Burger King itself has performed abysmally since hiring Crispin Porter and initiating the Burger King Campaign.  (See our analysis of the Crispin Porter relationship here and CNN Money&#8217;s take Burger King&#8217;s operating results here.)  From a brand positioning standpoint, we dislike this campaign because it does not define the core user for Burger King, show how the brand uniquely meets consumer needs or establish a relevant identity for the franchise.  The King character is all about attitude which we suspect is intended to appeal to teenage boys.  The flaw with this strategy is that brand loyalty for this category is established earlier and BK is now alienating families with the King campaign (the King spots were among the most disliked advertising produced last year in the United States.)  So while we normally support consistency, we feel it is time for a change at Burger King. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
