Marketers become accustomed to defending, documenting and demonstrating the value of marketing itself – particularly branding.  A lot of us are pretty good at it.  When branding comes up, I stand at the ready.

Ready, that is, until I’m not.

And so it was with the news that Goldman Sachs is considering a big, broad, very public effort to polish its brand. “Public” as in advertising, letters to the editor(s), responses to media reports - even an appearance by CEO Lloyd Blankfein on Oprah.

Can you imagine? Oprah. I picture it as a cross between Tom Cruise’s 2005 crazy-eyed appearance and her skewering of James Frey in 2006, and not in a good way.

Lloyd Blankfein

Look, I may condemn the investment banking scoundrels for their wrongdoing when I’m out having a drink somewhere, but – behind closed doors with the Goldman team – this would be my position:

Goldman executives may indeed be shocked – even hurt – by the way they’ve been treated by Congress, or by the all-out vitriolic point of view on Main Street, but the fact of the matter is that these are not the audiences that really matter at Goldman… and this is the price to be paid for what they do for a living.

Goldman isn’t nor was it ever in the business of being loved. It’s in business to be 100% rational, not emotional, and to make money for itself and its clients. That mission defines a fairly narrow set of individuals and companies that really need to know what Goldman is doing. For these people, a big initiative is (a) likely to be a grossly inefficient way of communicating, and (b) even more likely to be seen by those in the know as a silly distraction that pulls Goldman away from (make me money) what it’s supposed (make me money) to be doing (make me money).

Strike One and Two.

Then there’s John Q. Public, who may not understand a lot of Goldman’s business activities but knows the firm was at the epicenter of a series of events that were highly disruptive and that made a very small number of already rich people even richer. For most, these beliefs are almost purely emotional, and no company can advertise itself out of negative sentiment. If you lay low – particularly when a bunch of abstract business concepts are involved – the public’s anger will dissipate, and soon another target will present itself.  Sad but true.  To communicate now would only inflame an audience that – to be brutal – Goldman doesn’t need.

Strike Three.

Branding, PR, advertising… none of these tools can be used to uproot deep-seated negative opinion while an issue is still hot. It’s tempting to buy full page ads in the Wall Street Journal that say you’ll make things right (paging British Petroleum) but you can’t win doing this and, frankly, it’s a bit immature and disrespectful. It’s like saying “Hey, I punched you in the eye, hard, and I can’t take it back or make it any better, but I still want you to like me.” In Goldman’s case, the firm plays hardball, it’s going to bruise some people and it’s going to make billions of dollars for its inner circle of stakeholders. Everyone knows that’s the game, and – when the spotlight turns toward them – those involved need to be able to put up with not being “liked” in exchange for their success.

Goldman’s communications advisors would do well to make sure that its client is staying focused on what’s important to its core business and true constituencies.  I disagree with those who say that Goldman must vigorously present  ”its vision of the ‘right thing to do’ in the financial services industry going forward.”  To what end?  To “clarify” its point of view, or contribute to the national dialogue? Through a branding campaign? On Oprah? Please.

No.  Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to simply live with a situation, keep going and accept that there are moments when the right kind of marketing may be no marketing at all.

There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Firms Hold Fast to Snail Mail Marketing.”  It seemed to be about small businesses who gave up their direct mail efforts in favor of email to either save money and/or because it seemed like the hip thing to do.

The particular companies profiled in this article told personal stories about how email didn’t generate the same positive results. In some cases, the owners actually heard from long-time customers asking what had happened to the letters/reminders/postcards they had received in the past.

This is because email is beside the point.  Establishing a connection with a prospect or customer is and always has been what’s most important.  Think first about your history and what type of communications have worked in the past. What kind of outreach prospects or clients appreciate. What makes them feel special. What generates orders, referrals and repeat business.  One of the owners profiled in the article discontinued his art-based postcard mailings, only to discover the cards permanently displayed in his clients’ offices.  His customers started calling him asking whether they’d been taken off the company’s mailing list.

What we have right there, friends, is some serious brand love.

Testing is fine.  It would be foolish not to test new technologies, which are usually cheaper and more easily wielded than the old ones.  And compromises must sometimes be made in order to preserve cash.  But – putting dollars aside – the beginning of the value chain is the relationship with the customer, and at the distant far end is the tactics you choose to reinforce and grow that relationship.  Too many executives (particularly those in small companies, who either can’t afford good marketing help or get less-than-great advice) are putting social media at the forefront of their thinking because they’re reading about whatever the heck it is everywhere they go. 

I tell these folks that they were right the first time when their gut was to do something special – something that showed they cared.  If you can replicate this more cheaply, by all means do it:  but don’t let any new whiz-bang communications vehicle get in the way.  

I knew it.

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.

There was a bona fide reason that I used to react badly to – well – bad gifts.  Despite my mother’s it’s-the-thought-that-counts coaching, and the annual ”You don’t have to actually wear it” rationale, I was powerless to resist the disappointment. 

The whole thing’s a set-up.

Since 1993, Wharton economist Joel Waldfogel has been studying the value created (or not created) by holiday spending, and how we may react badly to gifts because we see the opportunity cost of not buying ourselves something we actually wanted. In his new book, Scroogenomics, Waldfogel tells us that, although warm and fuzzy U.S. folk gave $66 billion worth of holiday gifts in 2007, the value of recipients’ satisfaction is much lower: so low, in fact, that it actually created an “annual deadweight loss of $12 billion.”

Waldfogel estimates such “lost value” from student surveys he’s conducted at Princeton over many years.  When a student is asked to (a) guess the value of a gift and (b) guess the same for items she purchased herself, she will almost inevitably underestimate the price the gift giver paid and overestimate the value of products she buys herself by 18%.

Amazing.

I completely understand the psychology of overestimating the value of something I might buy for myself because doing so helps reinforce my purchase decision. What cracks me up is how low our expectations of others are – and how accurate.  The least “efficient” gifts, says Waldfogel tend to be from relatives who haven’t seen you in a long time (and so do not know your preferences).

So suck on that when the niece you haven’t seen for 11 years tells you she hates the color pink – while she’s holding the pink sweater you just gave her.  Your goth niece just can’t help it: her reaction to your lame gift is bigger than both of you.

The only smart things to do are give gift cards (less tacky than cash) or overcome your embarrassment about not knowing her and email your niece to ask what she’d really want.  She won’t assign as much value to the black nail polish, eyeshadow and lipstick as she would have had she bought them herself… but it’s a start.

The economic news these days is, uh… bad.  It turns out that the productivity increase in the 2nd quarter was due to companies letting more people go and freezing the salaries of those who remain.  And then there’s unemployment.  And retail sales.  And GM.  And the banks.  And the entire state of California.

Shampoo.  Rinse.  Repeat.

So I was somehow heartened by an issue of the Wall Street Journal this week that just happened to include stories about a lot of companies trying to grow and people looking to better times.  Here are just some of the stories I noticed in the WSJ on just one day:

– Disney buys Marvel
– Baker Hughes agreed to pay $5.5 bil to purchase BJ Services
– Walmart is creating an online mall and will sell merchandise from other retailers
– Restaurants like The Cheesecake Factory are testing healthier menu selections and kids-eat-free nights to try to get families to eat out again
– Payless Shoes is expanding into Russia
– Companies are doing more pro bono work – and finding that it’s earning them paying gigs
– Dell is going to sell Brocade networking gear under its own name
– Samsung is launching an apps service for cell customers in Europe
– Blue Nile is undergoing a major overhaul in an effort to attract women (most of its customers are men)
– Some people are making fools of themselves with wacky job-hunting tactics that may not close the deal today, but have helped garner them some positive media coverage and made them stronger for it

Anyone who knows me knows I’m not exactly a blind optimist, and it’s not the first time I’ve noticed that newspapers are full of stories every day (wow!).  But there was something about that particular issue that just seemed bursting with hope and –  on that singular Tuesday –  I appreciated and was grateful for it.

Yet another result of the flailing economy:  truly new brand launches are faltering while brand extensions are succeeding. 

In 2008, less than 10% of new products were “net new brands,” even though the pace of product introduction was about on par with the last five years. Take a look at the top food and non-food brand launches of last year:

If you remove the pharma/DTC products (which are in a psychic/regulatory/financial class all their own), all the products on these lists are extensions or reformulations.

In the best of times, launching a truly new product is extremely difficult and expensive.  Manufacturing, distribution, marketing – starting from scratch is daunting.  In a recession, success is even more difficult to achieve.

Then there’s the consumer psyche to consider: what are the monetary and non-monetary risks of trying something truly new?  Who hasn’t been curious enough about a new launch – let’s say something perishable that cannot be returned – to try it out?  But when money is scarce, the news is full of stories of imprudent spending and people are making trade-offs among the smallest of purchases, the price of “wasting” money suddenly becomes very high. I will feel foolish if I buy this and don’t like it when there are existing substitutes that I know are good enough.

The other thing that’s noticeable about these lists and others is that the “closest in” extensions win: an existing brand holds a space in the consumer’s mind, a range of functionality and messaging in which that brand has credibility.  Hershey’s can launch new candies, Porsche can introduce a “wireless racing wheel” for gaming, Mr. Clean can (sort of) try out the car washing business.

But a $1,200 Disney Sleeping Beauty fountain pen or Kellogg’s hip-hop streetwear? Not so much.

A recent Crain’s New York Business article discussed what many retailers are doing to try to squeeze as much as possible out of what is expected to be a lousy back-to-school season.

One step: uniforms.

Not uniforms uniforms, but rather solid color separates – blazers, pants, polo shirts, skirts, etc. – that parents can mix and match to create multiple outfits for kids age 5-11ish. At stores like J.C. Penney, Target and Children’s Place (even Macy’s…) each piece is priced around $10 or less.  As uniform sales in these stores have increased while sales of children’s apparel overall have been falling for the last two years, this is a step that is likely to help these stores hold onto customers who are trying to get through the recession.

But one thing: please think hard before “putting a small section in and [literally] calling it uniform” in otherwise non-uniform retail locations.  Few parents (or children, for that matter) will assign positive connotations to the word itself… and it’s not all that great in quickly communicating benefits, either.  “Budget smart”-like phrases may be a better way to go. 

Pity the downtrodden marketing services community.  That bad economy-thingy appears to have smacked it right in the face.  No surprise.

And since price pressure should be no surprise, either, I’ve been startled by the snarly response emanating from the ad industry.  I’ve already forgotten a few instances I noticed recently, but the WSJ late last week offered an ok example.  In an article titled “Thrift Darkens [Ad] Industry’s Hopes,” Maurice Levy of Publicis sniffed, “The reality is that clients want more for less.  It’s something that is unfortunately becoming quite common.”

Is that right?  Really? Clients want more of the same quality work that you’ve been giving them all along for a lower price?  For some, this may be the case.  Then again, many of the large agencies in my experience became too big, spoiled and overpaid through the years.  Too many clients have been pithed by the senior staff, and left with inexperienced AEs.  You were supposed to fork over 15% just – I dunno, because.  Because advertising is magic.  Or whatever. 

Times used to be great, no question.  I’ve enjoyed some wonderful agency relationships and learned a lot of my craft from my partners in those shops and others.  We all have.  How many AdAge headlines have screamed about client cutbacks and layoffs in the last year?  More with less? I’d say there’s plenty of pain to go around.

AdAge really lit this match for me whenb I first read an editor’s reaction to a set of business decisions recently made by P&G: business decisions that - for a reason that cannot be justified -touched off a cascade of immature, naive and nasty remarks from this person’s bully pulpit.

According to this editorial, P&G’s decision puts the “still-moist notion that it’s possible to do interesting things for huge, unglamorous marketers” out of its misery.” That’s just embarrassing.  And my personal favorite – that the changes give ”the best talent yet another reason to leave the industry… buh-bye, innovators and creative geniuses” - is pathetic.  Wow: talk about turning on someone when times get difficult.  What does this solve?

The editorial concludes by toasting P&G for killing one of the “final drops of joy” (*gag*) left in the industry, and for making the business – and I quote – a “little bit shittier just because it can.”  I’m actually still appalled just typing these words weeks later.  This isn’t about freedom of the press: if the writer has her own blog, she should knock herself out.  But AdAge is a publication read by professionals and aspiring professionals on all sides of the business.  Such bitter statements are grossly unproductive and, frankly, more than a little silly.

I wonder if AdAge believes that this kind of vitriol will help the industry attract the ”creative geniuses” whose absence it so mourns.  I doubt it will.

The fact is that agencies and vendors work at the pleasure of clients and – in AdAge’s case - report on them.  I also believe it’s safe to say that both agency executives and marketing journalists fancy themselves articulate thought leaders… and they should be.  Clients would like them to be.  Throwing oneself on the ground and having an unattractive hissy fit helps no one and only makes a difficult time harder and needless (or at least more) contentious.

Grow up, people.

Which entities would have a really tough time attracting positive attention right now?  AIG, yes. GM, no question.  Bernie Madoff, no doubt.  

Added to the list are two little words that have to got to shake any agency to its core: Mexican tourism.

Yes vacationers, remember Mexico? That was the place to which thousands of you were headed before the swine flu outbreak… and the resulting fears have weighed heavily on Mexico’s economy. 

The United Nations World Tourism Organization says the country boasts one of the largest tourism businesses in the world, welcoming more than 20 million tourists a year.  It’s the only country in Latin America on the list of top 25 most popular vacation destinations, and tourism is the third largest contributor to the economy.  70% of all visitors come from the United States.

But that was before the cooties came.

President Calderon plans to spend $92 million on new advertising and promotion to bring tourists back.  With t-shirts boasting “I went to Mexico and all I got was the swine flu” in circulation, he understandably feels he’s got to do something.

There’s no real point to this post.  I think I just wanted to express a certain kinship and sympathy for a brand that feels it must include a medical update, the phrase “keep the people safe” and a quote from the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health in its new television ad.  

Oh, well now I’m definitely in the mood for a Cancun vacation! Que es muy terrible.

Each year, the Financial Communications Society (FCS) recognizes firms in various categories for excellence in financial services advertising, collateral and (now) digital.  You can read the press release announcing this year’s winners HERE.

There are two reasons I wanted to write a quick post on this event:

(1) FCS named two of my faves as Best In Show.  The first is American Express, which was named Best In Show – Corporate Image advertising for its Martin Scorcese-Tina Fey “Timeshare” (my label) ad.  The post I wrote about this ad is HERE.    The second is E*Trade which was selected Best In Show – Consumer Retail for its “Baby” campaign – and you know how much I love this campaign.  I first wrote after its premiere at the 2008 SuperBowl, then again this past January when the second round of ads came out (“I wanna punch the economy in the face“).  And E*Trade has kept it rolling with two more greats, Singing Baby and Golf. 

(2) It’s a walk down memory lane. 2009 is the 15th year FCS has given its Portfolio Awards.  1995 was the very first year – and my team won an award for our ChaseDirect launch campaign.  ChaseDirect was the U.S.’ first national direct bank (even before Bank One’s Wingspan, which many remember), and we won that night.  It was a business that we all felt passionately about and my team from Chase and Wells Rich Greene were there to celebrate. 

Congratulations to all of this year’s winners.

I may get in trouble for this opinion, but… so be it. 

This week’s AdAge features an editorial, “InBev abusing agencies with its payment terms,” written by the president of an advertising agency in the Midwest.  

InBev is the Belgian company that bought Anheuser-Busch.  The brewer is notoriously cheap and frowns on pricey marketing and advertising, both of which had been a highly visible of A-B’s strategy for decades.

The editorial points to numerous cost reductions and policy changes that InBev seems to have implemented after the purchase.  The author mentions a couple internal corporate changes, such as the replacement of offices with bullpens and the elimination of first-class travel and baseball tickets.  There’s a snarky retort after each mention including, “So what?” and “Hey, times are tough.” So much for this agency executive’s public expression of empathy for (or any effort to protect the privacy of) InBev/A-B employees.

He’s far clearer in his disdain for the company’s treatment of external partners.

“The company has gone one step too far” by announcing that it would now take up to 120 days to pay its bills - a “horrible precedent.”  After InBev’s CEO says (in an unrelated WSJ interview) that he’s going to run the company on a tight leash, our author quips “… that’s true of any company, but we all still need to pay our bills.”  Oh, snap!  He grinds on, quoting a Morningstar analyst as describing the InBev team as “ruthless” “machete-wielding investment bankers.”

Finally, the writer crows that the Belgian government may soon examine the new policy to determine whether it is an abuse of power.* I suppose he throws this in to point out that others (a whole government!) see what he sees.

And here’s where I may get in trouble.

I’ve been an executive for 20 years.  I value and am grateful for my relationships with the agencies that have made me look good and helped grow my brands.  There are many in the agency business whom I consider friends.  But there are some fundamental, DNA-level business principles and tenets that are not negotiable.  Discretion is on the top of the list.  

If the Belgian government instructs InBev to reverse the policy, great. If I worked at InBev and one of my agencies was hurt by this new policy, I would take up its cause with my superiors and encourage the agency to privately protest and/or resign. 

And if that agency went to the press to air private and confidential matters such as billing and payment policies, I’d dismiss them on the spot.

This is such an unholy, obnoxious breach I wouldn’t think twice.  An agency executive who takes a business matter to the media cannot be trusted with a private conversation, negotiation or anything else.  You do this and you’re done.  At least in my backyard.

What purpose did this agency president believe his editorial would serve? Is he an InBev agency or did he simply decide to speak out on behalf of his trade? ‘Doesn’t really matter.  Could anyone believe, particularly in this economy, that he could or should pressure a global company by throwing a temper tantrum in public? 

I’m tempted to tell him, “Hey, times are tough” (where have we heard that before?), but the policy may in fact be unreasonable. It would be unjust for a small agency to suffer or even go out of business because InBev wants to make money on the float.  Not my point; I plead no contest.  But an agency leader who takes private business and/or contractual matters out into the public forum should perhaps consider a different line of work because – in the increasingly fragile, trust-based business of advertising – I wouldn’t trust this guy to pull out my chair at dinner. 

* Update: the Belgian government has dropped its probe, determining that InBev’s new payment policy does not violate any antitrust regulations.

There have been several articles recently pointing to the rise in both offline and online coupon use.  While consumers 65+ are more likely to use newspaper coupons and younger individuals prefer online coupons, there’s no real news here given that these stats will change over time as newspapers become less available and older consumers become more and more comfortable on the Web.

In the meantime, don’t leave home – or buy online – without it!

I’ve become accustomed to checking online for coupons and promotion codes prior to making either a store or Web purchase.  There is an art to this and, once you get the hang of it, you’ll become savvier about what sites are likely to bear fruit and which will not.

There are four general categories of sites I’d recommend you consider:

1.  Aggregators – these are sites whose sole purpose in life is to offer coupons and “promo codes” from many retailers, typically across multiple industries.  Some examples would include:

Coupons.com: the best-known source for printable online coupons
RetailMeNot
UltimateCoupons
DealCatcher
CouponCabin
CoolSavings
CouponCraze
CouponMountain
FatWallet
DealofDay
CouponNerds

2. Industry-specific couponing/deal sites:

Rental cars: RentalCarMomma
Grocery: CouponMom, GroceryCoupons, TheGroceryGame
Hotels:  Roomsaver, HotelCoupons
Computers, peripherals and accessories: TechBargains
Restaurants: Restaurant.com,

3. Clubs and affiliations that may offer codes and deals:

WorkingAdvantage, StudentAdvantage and VeteransAdvantage
Alumni clubs (check yours)
Bulk buying clubs such as BJ’s Wholesale Club and Costco
www.entertainment.com (Yes, the old Entertainment Books still exists…)
AARP (American Association of Retired Persons)
AAA (American Automobile Association)

4. Forums - some activities tend to make people want to vent (like having to take your shoes off at the airport…), and folks on these sites love to let others in on a deal:

Airline travel, rental cars and hotels: FlyerTalk,  WebFlyer, FlyerGuide, MileageManager
General shopping (usually bricks and mortar stores): ShoppingForum

If you’re set on a particular brand, it only takes a second to check out that company’s own site, too.  KFC, for example, has a pre-set button on its home page pointing visitors to printable coupons.  I’m actually surprised that more brands don’t take advantage of this simple way to build a solid customer database.  If a consumer is a fan, he will part with valuable demo and psychographic information in exchange for a steady stream of deals delivered by email.

And as a final tip: consider opening a brand new email account exclusively for your interactions with coupon and promotional sites.  You’ll be able to see all your coupon- and deal-related email in one place without clogging your own email inbox.

So start looking for coupons online and, pretty soon, you too will understand the nirvana of “stackable codes…”

While restaurant chains suffer, and the industry predicts a “purge,” one restaurant has decided to let its customers take more of a direct role in its future.

Sghetti’s Italian Bistro, a local restaurant in Pennsylvania, has established a “pay what you think it’s worth” policy.  The menu no longer shows specific prices, opting instead for a suggested price range by category: appetizers $3-$9, pasta $6-$12 and so on.  The offer is good for parties of 8 or less at dinner only, beginning at 4pm.

“[The recession] is sad, for senior citizens and young families,” says the spot’s owner, Eugene Razzano. “…we can do something to empower people.”  Razzano recognizes that some diners won’t be fair, but believes that the press coverage and increased traffic – particularly return traffic – will make this a successful proposition overall. 

I think this is brilliant.  Razzano has been very clear that he is assessing the program on a week-to-week basis.  High-margin beverages are not included, and parties are asked to tip the wait staff, as usual.  He’s getting full-blown word of mouth, while still protecting himself on the downside.

Part of the commentary on this blog lately has seen me preaching restraint to businesses advertising at such a sensitive time.  If you’re going to put a message out there, be 100% certain that it connects to how people are feeling and what they are experiencing.  Even if a negative reaction happens “outside your target audience,” it can have an outsized ability to impact business over the mid- to short-term.  My opinion is that companies including Pepsi and Hawker have taken risks with their brand images by promoting messages that are out of tune with the public zietgeist.

Sghetti’s is spot on.

Online retail sales are bleak – no question – but there are some opportunities for sharp loyalty marketers.

I say that because some gift types actually saw an uptick around Valentine’s Day this year vs. month prior or year prior or both – ok, the only gifts in the latter category were pets and outdoor gear, but still…

Internet Retailer looked at both shopping cart completions and sales totals for February 09 and gifts, pets, jewelry and sports apparel & gear all saw increases in the percentage of orders that were completed vs. February 08.  That does not mean that order sizes increased – ticket size, in fact, decreased in all of these categories – but more customers completing any orders offer a smart online retailer the opportunity to capture:
- incremental email addresses
- more refined SEO information
- additional data about the relationship between ticket size and order completion
- increased data regarding site visit and purchase behavior

All of these factors permit more accurate and efficient site design and offer development targeting a broader consumer base.

‘Definitely a glass-half-full approach to some pretty dismal numbers, but both more and less of just about every kind of behavior online can make you a better marketer over time.

While I’d prefer to come up with these on my own, I’m afraid that I would be the one who’s hard of hearing if I didn’t pick a recent Pepsi ad for G2 (low-calorie Gatorade) as the tone-deaf ad of the week.

You can see what Pepsi was trying to do almost immediately, but BLAM:  this thing has really come back around and smacked them in the head.  This means Pepsi now have something in common with AIG – but I’ll get to that later.

The spot switches back and forth between NBA player Kevin Barnett and a normal, suburban-looking guy – also named Kevin – swimming like crazy.  The voiceover also switches back and forth and herein lies the problem.   In trying to write a standard “athletic striving” ad, they get seriously tangled in a lot of language that many are considering cruel and insulting to people who have lost their jobs and are otherwise suffering because of the economic crisis.  See for yourself (if you can’t see the ad already, click HERE)


When I first heard about this controversy, I really, really wanted to support Pepsi.  Then I saw the ad, and that became impossible.

The lines hurtle between insensitivity and cruelty:

Garnett: “I’ve never been handed a pink slip and “I’ve never had to tell me wife ‘We can’t make the mortgage.’” (Kevin “The Big Ticket” Garnett has a $24.75 million NBA contract)

Normal Kevin: “I’ve never had to fill the holes in my sneakers with cardboard.”

That last one IMHO is the most offensive of all.  Normal Kevin appears to be taking us past unemployment and foreclosure straight on to visions of being homeless in the park.

The tragedy here is this was completely unnecessary.  The financial services companies got into trouble for how they handled their (financial services) business! Gatorade just runs right into a buzz saw for no reason at all. 

And so, let me wrap up a Friday by coming back to how Pepsi is now an AIG comrade.  Both companies have fundamentally failed to grasp how people are feeling today… how many people are suffering.  1.3 million children in the United States were homeless at some point in one year – and that was before the recession started.  I would assume that many of those children have had to use cardboard to plug the holes in their shoes.

If you think I am overdramatizing, I would respectfully suggest that you could make a mistake not dissimilar to the ones made by Pepsi and the banks, either while on the job or at a cocktail party.  This is vast, vast pain.

I am counseling clients today to look hard at the need to advertise.  If you are running ads, make sure they are seen and tested with a much broader swath of consumers and experts – ones who may not be in your target audience. 

Is all this fair?  NO ONE CARES.   We are all in the business to sell, of course, but think long-term.  If you’re not 100% secure in next week’s flight, cancel it.  Because getting this wrong could negatively affect your brand’s reputation for years, if not a lifetime.

As a promotional tactic, BOGO (Buy One, Get One Free) has been around for decades.  Now Coca-Cola has put a fresh spin on the concept.

Coke is offering a free bottle of Vault (its own Mountain Dew competitor) when you buy a bottle of Mountain Dew – a program it’s calling the “Vault Taste Challenge.”  That’s right kids, Coke is giving you its product for free when you buy the competition.

Based on the sites I’ve scanned, no one seems to remember any other marketer trying this; it’s really fascinating if you think about it. 

Why doesn’t Coke just offer coupons to get its product free?  A couple reasons: (1) The gimmick is getting a lot of mostly-positive attention in the marketing world - when was the last time an average free coupon landed on the  of AdAge? and (2) Maybe Coke actually thinks that a one-on-one taste test will show customers that Vault tastes better.  Mountain Dew has an 80% share of the citrus segment and Vault has 4% so Coke doesn’t have a lot to lose.

I feel I must report that some are griping that the program will be super-expensive, and that “a few million people” who might not have otherwise bought a Mountain Dew will now do so in order to get a free Vault.  Not likely.  Given the recession and the particular preference for citrus soda that a shopper either does or does not already have, I don’t think that helping the competition (with its 80% share) is a real concern for Coca-Cola in this instance.  No, in this case, Coke can only win with the press and the public.  And you gotta give the company points for guts.

So, rock on – promotional innovation is not dead!  I hope that some sort of results are released; it’d be interesting to see if Vault does the Dew (get it?).

As you may know, there is a dust-up going on between – no, not Jim Cramer v. Jon Stewart – I’m talking about Burson-Marsteller v. Rachel Maddow.

AIG opened a Pandora’s Box when it sent a media advisory to MSNBC notifying the network that the company was adding a new shop to its list of PR firms. List, you say??  This peaked MSNBC’s/Rachel Maddow’s interest, and she has twice run lengthy segments this week regarding the firm at the top of that list:  Burson- Marsteller.

And aside from being absolutely beside herself that AIG is spending taxpayer money on spin, she offers a quite lengthy history lesson about BM, including specific references to the following Burson-Marsteller clients (Oh yeah:  she’s irritated):
- Blackwater after it killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad
- The folks at Three Mile Island post-nuclear meltdown
- The Bhopal people after the disaster that killed thousands of people in India
- The Romanian dictator Nikolai Ceauşescu
- The government of Saudi Arabia three days after 9/11
- The military junta that overthrew the government of Argentina
- The government of Indonesia, accused of genocide
- The government of Nigeria, accused of genocide and Biafra
- Philip Morris? *cough*
- A silicon breast implants manufacturer
- The government of Columbia after killing unionizers
- They Aquadot people, after it was found that the toy produced the date rape drug.

She concludes this first segment with the following statement: “When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson Marsteller on speed dial.“

Wow.  So I waited with interest to see Burson-Marsteller’s reaction… and think the shop missed an opportunity to sound like the grown-ups in the room.

After reading Mark Penn’s (BM’s President) response, which includes a great deal of “for 50 years” phrases and chest-clutching indignity, I posted the following comment on www.PRWeek.com:

—- Penn had a shot here at a succinct, fact-based response, but blew it with a reaction that IMHO comes off as self-promoting, and his “mock outrage” mutes the core of his message. Phrases such as “our corporate values over the past 50 years”and “never forget over the past 20 years…” are entirely irrelevant and, more importantly, causes the reader to wonder as to the actual intent of this response.

From the way this is written, it appears to me that Penn felt he needed to address at least four different audiences: MSNBC/the cable news business, employees, clients and potential clients. I would propose that the firm would have been better off with shorter and more customized messages to each rather than this rambling catch-all that had to do double or triple (or four-ple??) duty.

And one last thing: I only read the entire statement because Penn’s statement that B-M wasn’t hired to help “burnish [AIG's] image” caught my eye. As a long-time marketing/mgmt exec, let me be clear: regardless of the specific task my team may give an agency, it is ALWAYS a PR shop’s job to help build (or “burnish,” if you will) a client’s image 24/7. If I were under siege at AIG, this comment alone would make me wonder, “What am I paying these guys for??” —–

And in a Penn v. Maddow mud wrestle?  My money is on Maddow.

It’s been nearly 18 months since I interviewed the marketing and communications brains behind the highly successful tap water effort, Tappening.  Man, time flies when people are out saving the planet!

I also covered Tappening’s first ad campaign right HERE, which took iconic imagery and – without being too heavy-handed – delivered a hard message about the global impact of bottled water.

Mark Dimassimo and Eric Yaverbaum created Tappening as a fun and meaningful consumer movement to sensitize everyone to the financial and societal costs of bottled water and to “make tap water cool again.”  Since then, the effort has gone so public, and reached so many fans, that not only are average people making fan videos on YouTube but the effort was recently the cover story of Brilliant Results magazine.  To see a pdf of the cover and the full story, click HERE.

Keep up with Tappening:  it’s not only a model for how to create a messaging phenom from nothing – drinking tap water is a quick and easy step you can take to help preserve our world and save money.

Tappening Mark_Dimassimo Ericho_PR Eric_Yaverbaum tap_water Dimassimo_Goldstein

Brilliant Results-Tappening

I follow Jeffry Pilcher’s TheFinancialBrand.com on Twitter and have enjoyed his insights.

Recently, Jeffry caught something that tells us just how bad the financial situation is.

Yes folks, these institutions are so upset, and have become so unstable, that they are literally peeing their own metaphorical pants.  And their grammar stinks.  Oh, I know:  it’s shocking!

Jeffry points out something that shouldn’t be a surprise, however:  anything that represents a financial company today that is viewed or experienced by the public – even signage in a local branch - deserves additional scrutiny.  The smallest failure in personal service can undermine costly efforts elsewhere.

Did I mention that this sign was posted on the door of a credit union inside the U.S. Capitol Building?

Jeffry_Pilcher TheFinancialBrand.com Politico.com

It is a good thing that bank and investment advertising no longer touts high-higher-highest (!) returns, Morningstar stars, 40-something couples retiring to their house(s) in paradise, and the like.   Outside of just a few stalwarts, such as Vanguard with its measured point of view and Bogle-esque approach, many of the siren calls in the newspaper, on television and online had all begun to (or already did) sound and look the same.  That’s not effective.

Now we appear to have swung all the way to the other extreme.  Take a look at a list of advertisers, all crammed into today’s Wall Street Journal, along with text pulled verbatim from their ads:

MORGAN STANLEY:  “To find the smart investments today, you need to be world wise.”

MERRILL LYNCH (aka Bank of America):  “Seeing clearly.  Acting confidently.”   “With personal insight into your goals and an understanding of the market…” “…Find a smart place for your money.”

CME GROUP: “Rise Above the Risk.” “For more than a century CME Group has provided competitive, transparent and safe markets.” “…protect customers and ensure financial integrity by guaranteeing the performance of every transaction on our exchange.”

TD AMERITRADE: “There’s never been a better time for a second opinion.”

FIDELITY: “Guaranteed income you can live with.”

GLENMEDE: “There’s no substitute for safety and stability.”

PNC:  “…It’s also a way of doing business that has strength and stability at its very core.”

Safe, smart, transparent and guaranteed: these are the adjectives financial firms are now scrambling to use, as they adjust to our new reality  The problem is – well, it’s the same problem as before – if you sound like everyone else, the messages essentially melt into one and stakeholders become unable to distinguish one from the other.  If I held a focus group tonight, and scrambled the names of the above firms and the quoted text, I would challenge anyone to re-match the elements correctly.

I’ll also say this:  killing your ads’ effectiveness may, in fact, be the most benign result.  Worse?  Just as when every firm claimed great returns – which turned out to be untrue and, in some cases, unscrupulous – everyone claiming safety now looks equally unlikely and untrustworthy.

All of these brands are more and are capable of doing more: the “more” being the hard work needed to determine exactly what it is about the brand that is unique and distinguishable from the competition.*

Without doing this work, going out with a “safety” message isn’t safe at all.

* I am aware that many of the above firms are in different businesses and are not competitors per se.  It does not matter, because it does not matter to the public. For individual investors (and Congress…), too much of the same becomes one, amorphous perception.

Morgan_Stanley Ameritrade PNC Fiduciary_Trust_International Glenmede_Investment Fidelity CME_Group

The enormous matters of CEO and corporate trust and transparency - or the lack thereof – are everywhere these days.  The need for CEOs to be open and honest… to communicate with all of their stakeholders about what’s happening and what they’re doing to ensure their companies survive the recession.  Weber Shandwick, a very large PR agency that’s won many accolades, has taken a position at the front of the line on this topic.

Weber Shandwick has a practice called ReputationRx, and its site offers numerous press releases and papers, including “Seven Out of 10 Global Executives Fear For Their Corporate Reputations As Online Risks Grow” and ”Company Leaders Not Communicating To Employees On Financial Crisis.” The agency’s CEO, Harris Diamond, penned an Op-Ed for The Washington Times in October titled, “A crisis of confidence, The lost art of communication.”  Etc. etc.   The place takes reputation and open communication seriously.

So I had to laugh at the inadvertent comedic timing of a just-received business school event newsletter [verbatim] :

THE C.E.O. SERIES: MANAGING AND COMMUNICATING IN ECONOMIC CRISIS
Tuesday, 3/31/09 at 12:00pm
Harris Diamond, C.E.O. of Weber Shandwick Worldwide, will share his thoughts on communicating to stakeholders when your company is going through a rough patch. THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELLED!

After offering a trustmeister wince of sympathy (these things happen) all I can say is…

Come on: that’s funny.

Weber_Shandwick Columbia_Business_School