Dear Specsavers

Dear Specsavers,

Thank you for being the only thing with even the remotest iota of credibility to emerge from the abysmal Chelsea player Eden Hazard “kicks” ball boy debacle. In a Mexican wave of abhorrence, you’ve given me reason to smile with this press and digital ad:

 

 

 

So-called pundits may claim that the ball boy was “entitled” to writhe around, but to my eyes the whole sorry affair was a microcosm of almost everything that’s wrong with English football (Twitter (ball boy), cheating (ball boy), play-acting (ball boy), too much money too young (ball boy and players), harassing the ref (ball boy and players), being congratulated for cheating (players), the media’s reaction, the FA’s reaction…need I go on?)

But enough of that.

Well done you Specsavers and your in-house team for seizing the day and doing something topical. You’ve got form:

 

I like this kind of thing.

It’s quick, on-brand, thinking. And demonstrates that not everything in Marketing has to be passed through a complex series of approval committees. So thank you – just goes to show that a fantastic core brand idea – which I thanked you for here – can just keep on running and running.

Talking of great brand ideas, Lynx (brand idea: boy gets girl) did a similar thing after Prince Harry’s exploits in Vegas.

 

Doesn’t work quite as well for me as it’s based on supposition (i.e. that HRH might have been wearing Lynx) which is usually somewhat dodgy ground to be on, but nonetheless made me smile at the time.

Anyone got a snappy (cringe-worthy) name for what this type of topical, reactionary marketing should be called? Newsflash Marketing?

Thanks again,

Ned

 

Dear VW

Dear VW,

Thank you for introducing us to The Bark Side – your Superbowl 2012 teaser (over 7m+ hits on YouTube already) – and for putting a big smile on my face this morning:

(Big thanks to Andrew G. for sending me the link.)

For The Bark Side to make sense, I think people really need to have seen this (49m+ hits), from last year:

…which I thanked you for here.

(I also thanked you here, here, here and here…You seem to have earned a lot of my gratitude!)

Also want to thank Lynx (Axe) for using the “teaser” technique for their latest foray (this time, literally going after women) into the market, Lynx Attract…which officially goes on sale in the UK today.

Nothing will ever be the same again is quite a bold statement.

The Lynx Brand Key will probably never be the same again, might be a little less ambitious – just to start with anyway…

Thanks again

Ned

Dear Strongbow

Dear Strongbow,

Thank you for your “Hard Earned” positioning – it’s made me think about the massively important, apparently simple, but all too often confused (and confusing) topic of “targeting”.

It seems to me that you’re in the fortunate position where you couldn’t be clearer about your approach to targeting:

But what about all the brands out there who need to navigate the complexities and vagaries of human “aspiration”, for whom it’s not quite so straightforward?

• If a brand knows that more than 2/3rds of its volume is consumed by adults, but it’s  been a “kids brand” since the year dot, should it switch its approach to targeting?
• Is it better to hold up the mirror to reality in advertising (e.g. Maltesers) or to take consumers to an aspirational fantasy world (e.g. Bounty and/or Flake)?
• Do fat / old / ugly etc people want to be reminded of that fact or will they feel alienated by brands that sweep the realities of their situation under the carpet?
• Is it credible to show glamourous young things sporting incontinence pants or just patronising?
• Will changing the approach to targeting alienate those that have historically consumed the brand, even if it does bring in new consumers in the future?

Two very famous and much discussed – if somewhat hackneyed – Unilever examples come to mind:

Axe/Lynx where the User Target is (I’m guessing) 14-18 year old boys, but the Brand Positioning / Image Target is 20-something men.

And Dove with its Campaign for Real Beauty where the received wisdom of the mainstrean category (i.e. differentiating between Brand Positioning / Image Target (unattainable models, actresses, celebrities etc) and User Target (people you might actually know)) was turned on its head.

So thanks Strongbow for reminding me how important it is to be clear about the difference between User Target and Brand Positioning / Image Target.

On a different note, thanks for making me think about “demonisation” and “stereotyping” in branding and advertising with your follow-up executions:

I’m assuming that this is a viral campaign only, intended to do the rounds within your User Target and Brand Positioning / Image Target, but I think it’s inherently risky for a brand to demonise any group quite so overtly, no matter how deserving of criticism they are.

Sure it makes for a good ad / viral that everyone can jeer along to and agree with today, but I’m not so sure it does such a great job for your brand values /personality / tone of voice, in the long-term.

I’m not defending bankers for one moment, I’m merely observing that it’s a risky approach, that inspires some awkward questions about your brand personality – who are you going to pick on next, can I really trust you, are you actually as nice as you seem, do you hate me for not being you?

In a bit of a 7.50am BBC Radio4 “Thought for the Day” moment, the phrase “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” springs to mind.

Thanks

Ned

 

Dear Pepsi (Japan)

Dear Pepsi (Japan),

Thank you for your admirable run of bonkers line extensions and for showing us how innovation can be used to generate consumer interest and (euk!) “brand-buzz”. Thanks for demonstrating that just because a piece of innovation isn’t a huge seller, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a role and that it’s still worth doing…for the so-called “masterbrand halo effect” rather than the direct sales increase.

The latest innovation – Pepsi Mont Blanc – at least looks like a cola:

Now this is the type of innovation that would (nearly) keep a bunch of brand theory purists happy – it stretches the brand without taking the brand to its “breaking-point”, and it’s based on the core product (i.e. a brown, fizzy, sugary cola drink). Albeit with the addition of actual snow from Mont Blanc, which might get a few people mumbling about credibility, heritage, tramlines and other such limiting apprehensions.

This is more than can be said for the pretty off the wall ideas that you’ve been launching since 2007, which go way, way beyond a purists’ breaking-point:

Amazing stuff, but way too niche in terms of size of opportunity and mass market flavour appeal, grumbles our team of brand purists (and probably qual and quant researchers who no doubt will have been involved).

But that’s not the point! These have all been limited edition innovations. They’re not designed to be drunk in themselves (but great if they are), they’re not designed to open up new sub-categories and deliver massive volume uplifts…they are designed to get more Japanese consumers to buy regular bottles of Pepsi, more often, by associating the brand with a funky whackiness that so appeals to the Japanese youth. It’s all about the influencing their perception of the brand and not about the volume the products deliver. That’s what I reckon at least!

So thanks Pepsi Japan for showing us how you can use innovation in different ways. The “masterbrand halo effect” is impossibly difficult to measure, so I admire you for sticking to what you believe in, using your distribution power and making some noise.

You’re not the only one at it – Absolut, who I thanked here, are big fans of the limited edition and Unilever have been doing similar, if slightly less radical things with their Axe/Lynx and Magnum brands over recent years…but I’ll leave them to another post.

Thanks

Ned

www.pepsi.co.jp/