Picture this.  How do you share those “special moments?” Think back.  Is there an old family photo album somewhere gathering dust in the living room?  Sure.  Ours has one of me and brother in the bathtub, naked! Thanks mom. As disturbing as it is, it certainly is a memory (probably not one I wish to share with you).  How about those old school portraits? Reunions? Sporting events? Birthdays? Vacations?  How do you share those memories?  From the early 1900′s and on into today’s digital age, we’ve all done the same thing.

Take a picture, it lasts longer…

Last night, while watching Glee (yes, I’m a Gleek), I was sitting and lamenting over the how Miss Sylvester  was treating poor Mercedes, and off to a commercial break we went.  Now, I normally channel surf or jump up to get another Popsicle at commercial breaks, but last night I was held in my seat by the following Kodak spot.

I loved it immediately.  While I’m a sucker for any squeaking baby, I thought the spot, from a brand marketing standpoint, was perfect! It was targeted, engaging, current and allowed a brand, Kodak, who has been languishing in technological and directional confusion to stand up and re-root itself in our communication and social culture.

On the Kodak blog, A Thousand Words, Leslie Dance, VP of Brand Marketing & Communications for Kodak shared their vision with for the new marketing:

“As our agency Partners + Napier, who helped us create our new campaign defined it, the core insight into what really motivates our consumer (whom we call Katie) is that ‘My memories make me, me, but it’s only when I share them that I become complete.’

Which led us to the campaign idea, ‘the real Kodak moment happens when you share’.
 We’re taking the Kodak Moment of the past 50 years and redefining it to make it relevant for today.  The Kodak Moment that used to be the moment of capture, when we take the picture, is now more powerful when we apply it to the moment of sharing the picture.”

As a photographer, I’ve been painfully aware of the dilemma the photography industry has been in.  Since the mid 1990′s, it’s been go digital or pack up your lenses. While I love digital photography for its ease and speed, as someone that was educated in the techniques of traditional photography, processing and lab printing, I long for the days when I can turn a photo over and see “Printed by Kodak.” And with online printing taking quality and speed, and economy to new levels, I’d basically given up on Kodak.

Boy, was I wrong!

This is why Kodak has been around for over a century:

Kodak took the right (smart) approach to the technology challenges that faced them and their industry.  Instead of folding up and saying “Woah, It’s been a great 120 years, we’ll see ya’ later…” they chose to innovate, recreate and re-engage, sidestepping the “road block” and blazing a new trail for future market growth.

By providing people easier, more economical digital access – just push the button to share your memories - Kodak has positioned itself as the leader in the (previously unoccupied) “memory sharing” niche…  A brilliant way to redefine your brand for changing times and subtly shut my doubting mouth for ever.

Kudos!

So, what’s the next step for Kodak?  How can they continue to broaden their relevance with their new campaign.  How do they compete with the ever evolving mobile phone/camera niche? Can you think of other companies that have created a brand shift like Kodak’s?  I’d love to hear more!

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

“I’m sorry, our network only features prefabricated breasts. If you’re a woman with a healthy body image, you’ll need to step to the back of the line.”

Or so I expected to hear from networks ABC and FOX after reading a BrandWeek post this morning.

Reportedly, on Lane Bryant‘s blog, Inside Curve, the company claims, “ABC and Fox have made the decision to define beauty for you by denying our new, groundbreaking Cacique commercial from airing freely on their networks. …these are the same networks that have scantily-clad housewives so desperate they seduce every man on the block — and don’t forget Bart Simpson, who has shown us the moon more often than NASA, all in what they call ‘family hour.’”

All commentary on the objectification of women in advertising and how “big girls” are portrayed aside; I want to address this from a branding, marketing and public relations standpoint.

First off, to Lane Bryant, I’m on your side, BUT I wonder if the approach to this issue was handled with passionate brand focus and the community your brand serves in mind.

That said, here are a few things Lane Bryant should think about (as well as any brand that serves a specific, sensitive demographic):

Your brand lives on and grows through your community. Help them advocate for you!

While doing research for this post, I, of course, wanted to see the spot in question. From all angles, I found a lot of Lane Bryant brand advocates voicing their opinions on being slighted by the networks (here, here and here). But when I looked for Lane Bryant’s discussion or a YouTube video with commentary, I find a membership-only site and the “groundbreaking” spot taken off YouTube.

Why? They’ve pulled their community (their advocates) out of the conversation.

This is a perfect public relations opportunity for Lane Bryant. Lena Bryant (the original voice of plus-sized women everywhere) should be rolling in her grave at the idea of the big boy networks slighting the integrity and creativity produced on behalf of the legions of women looking for fashions complimentary to “real women.”

Does your brand have the “Balls” to fight the big girls? If not, don’t pretend it does.

While this is purely speculative, I wonder if Lane Bryant’s marketing and public relations crew simply doesn’t want to play in the same court as the brands that they imply get “preferential treatment” from the networks – referring to their comments on Desperate Housewives, The Simpsons and their comment on the über-sexy Victoria’s Secret spot:

“While it’s no secret that Victoria’s Secret ‘The Nakeds’ ads are prancing around on major networks leaving little to the imagination, steaming up TV screens and baring nearly everything but their souls, our sultry siren who shows sophisticated sass is somehow deemed inappropriate … Does this smack of a double standard? Yep. It does to us, too.”

GREAT argument, but if you walk up to the playground bully and slap her on the cheek, you’d better be prepared to defend yourself. Again, what good is it to complain and then withdraw all access to a productive dialogue? I get the impression that Lane Bryant, while advocating for the “poor big girls out there,” seems to be content playing the victim.

Social culture is harder to change than marketing culture. Advocacy for cultural change needs to come from the heart and not from the bottom line.

Bigger picture – like it or not, “little” girls in risqué attire have been a standard in advertising since anyone one of us can remember. We complain. We protest. Shaking our fists at the TV, we swear off beer, sports cars and restaurant chains. But when it really comes down to it, changing the American culture is much harder than it looks.

Culturally, changing the perspective of the “Big Girl Taboo” needs to be an effort driven outside commercial aspirations. Since Lane Bryant has a stake in changing how “real women” are perceived, driving the message through marketing and advertising, (while trying to compete in the same vapid market as Victoria’s Secret) may not be the best approach.

Food for thought:

While I have no idea what FOX was thinking, ABC IS owned by Disney. While that doesn’t explain the hypocrisy of Desperate Housewives and other spots we’ve seen on their network, they can still wave their “Family-friendly” flag with a modicum of legitimacy.

Without seeing the spot, your comments can only be formed by my post and your perspective of Lane Bryant. But I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Do you think Lane Bryant responded appropriately? Do you think ABC and FOX have a responsibility to respond to accusations of “favoritism or discrimination?”

I’d love to hear from representatives from Lane Bryant on some of the points I’ve made here as well. Are there set plans or processes in place for reacting or have we seen it?

Until next time,

Keep Cooking (big, beautiful, brand-driven decisions)!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

Additional Articles on the networks’ decisions to ban the Lane Bryant spot:

Fox News | Styleite.com | zimbio.com | BrandWeek

I want to preempt any debate from this post and explain to you all, I am no outdoors man.  I don’t like camping.  “Roughing it,” to me, is a Super 8 without a whirlpool. I don’t like hunting and I’ve been fishing once in the last 10 years.  But, I’ll tell ya’ what,  that one fishing trip resulted more than a pile of smelly clothes and a few days of hangovers.

As we sat, through torrential rain, heat, mosquitoes the size of mature poodles and some pretty overwhelming odors (from more than the fish), conversations turned from day-to-day work issues and family musings to some pretty unbelievable fishing strategies.  While I, the novice of the group, simply jabbed a leech (yes, the blood-sucking invertebrate) on the end of the hook and threw it out in the water, others in the group pulled out what seemed to be a Roland Martin-esque playbook for the event.  Even before we boarded the “boat,” (I put that in quotes, because a boat, to me, is something you can sail or ski behind… not these little canoes) there would be long, deep discussions about the strategy behind our expedition.

Can see where I’m going with this?  Yep…  Marketing is a lot like fishing…  I’m sure you’ve heard that before, but I wonder how many people really think about the similarities.

When you’re working up your “plan of attack” in marketing sessions, do you ask your team (or yourself) these questions?

• What EXACTLY are we fishing for?
• What bait / lure is better for muskie versus trout?
• What time of day is best for fishing here?
• Is it better to cast multiple lines or to target a specific area with one line and diligent effort?
• Are others having success in this area of the lake?
• Should we cast our line in uncharted territories?
• Are there limits to the size of fish we want (too big or too small)?
• Are there limits to the amount of fish we can catch (Is one enough? Can we handle 100?)?
• Do these hip-waders make my butt look big?

Never the less, if that one fishing trip taught me anything, it was that you need a plan before casting your line into the waters. Fish (like clients) are capricious little buggers and unless you have the right strategy, you’re going to pull back an empty hook.

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”— Chinese Proverb

Keep Cooking (with a little lemon and butter sauce)!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

Today is a landmark date for The Brand Chef, a true anniversary to be recognized.  Can you guess what it is?

No, it’s not my marriage to the beautiful Mrs. BrandChef.  It’s not the anniversary of being hired at Love Scott. Nope.  Not even the anniversary of my first kiss.  Nope.

But it’s almost as exciting…

Today is the 15^th anniversary of my induction into the elite club of mobile device users. YES!  On this day in 1995, I was given a “Work cell phone” as “a perk” while working as creative director at a local advertising agency.

While I knew it was really so my boss could call me, guilt-free at 2 a.m., I didn’t care.  I HAD A FREAKIN’ CELL PHONE! I was on cloud nine.  I could drive down the “hustle-bustle” of I-235 while drinking my Jolt Cola and talk to clients, vendors, my wife, my mom and my boss… all on my bitchen-cool cell phone.

Momentous? Heck yeah!  It was my personal introduction to the most revolutionary change in communication since grunts and cave paintings.

Well, okay, maybe there were a few other more significant milestones, but this was MY revolution…

Think of it… (and this is just a snapshot!)

• 45,000 to 10,000 BC: Grunts and cave paintings
• 1450: Guttenberg uses block printing press to print a love poem
• 1841: The advertising agency is born (Then all hell breaks lose!)
• 1860: Pony Express carries mail between St. Joseph, Mo. and Sacramento
• 1865: Atlantic cable ties Europe and U.S. for instant communication
• 1877: Edison invents the phonograph
• 1887: Montgomery Ward mails out a 540-page catalog
• 1914: First transcontinental telephone call
• 1926: Permanent radio network, NBC, is formed
• 1939: New York Worlds Fair shows television to public
• 1940: Disney’s Fantasia introduces stereo sound to American public (Tom Brokaw is born)
• 1949: Magnetic core computer memory is invented
• 1959: The microchip is invented
• 1968: FCC approves non-Bell equipment attached to phone system (I was born)
• 1971: Wang 1200 is the first word processor (just fun to say)
• 1975: The microcomputer, in kit form, reaches the U.S. home market
• 1976: Apple introduces the Apple I to the Homebrew Computer Club
• 1981: The IBM PC (meh)
• 1984: The one-megabyte memory chip
• 1991: Baby Bells get government permission to offer information services
• 1994: Prodigy bulletin board fields 12,000 messages in one after L.A. quake
• 1995: Andrew B. Clark (The Brand Chef) gets his first Nokia 6100 cell phone -AND life changes forever!

Simplistic?  Dreamy?  Sure… but technology is evolving faster every day, and I’ve been trying to keep up since THAT day.

The vision of the future is in the palm of your hand – figuratively and literally.  If you take into consideration that my first cell phone (sporting capabilities like incoming & outgoing calls as well as all the dropped signals I could manage) was less than 15 years ago, and today I can create this entire post (excluding graphics) on a BlackBerry mobile device that hangs right beneath my love handles; think of what the next 15 years will hold!

What was the first technology experience that you consider to be “Life altering?” Was it a cell phone?  Was it an electric typewriter? Or was it the recent iPad?

What ever it was, I bet Twitter still crashes on it…

How does your technology future look?

Keep Cooking (with the latest and greatest)!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

I’m a HUGE Paul McCartney fan.  If you follow my “Get-Going Groove of the day” tweets, you probably figured that out.  But I remember when I first read the rumors of Paul McCartney’s early demise. It was in a retrospective in Rolling Stone magazine (here’s some current news from them about the Beatles) when I was just a kid discovering my own musical pulse.  I think I was 11.  And to hear that Beatles fans – no, the entire world thought that Paul had died just prior to the release of the monumental Abbey Road album completely blew me away!

And it all turned out to be a hoax!

One of the first disc jockeys to give the story “credibility” was Roby Yonge of WABC-AM in New York (Now a vehicle for Don Imus… ick). Listen to him talk about the beginning of the roumors here, in an aircheck from Oct. 21, 1969, found on the Musicradio 77 site.

Yonge was later fired on the air because of the commotion he raised talking about this.

The next day, it was picked up by American Contemporary Radio, and it gained even more ground.

Now, of course, if you’re not privy to the hoax, you can read all about it.  It has it’s OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGE! So, If I don’t sit here and recount all the “clues,”  please forgive me. (honestly, you don’t have the time…)

Over the years, there have been magazines published and books written, including “The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues” by R. Gary Patterson and “Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the ‘Paul Is Dead’ Hoax” by Andru J. Reeve.  And Des Moines, Iowa’s own Drake University was one of the first known publications to print stories about “Paul McCartney dying and being replaced by a look/sound-alike.” Really?

The fact that some people ever took this seriously is astonishing. … but I’ll try NOT to let my “Fanboy” passions get in the way of the reporting.

As Paul McCartney said at the time,

“The people who are making up these rumors should look to themselves a little more. There is not enough time in life. They should worry about themselves instead of worrying whether I am dead or not.”

Yet, even after Paul (or someone alleged to be him) appeared in LIFE magazine and said he was alive, the rumors persisted. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a core group of folks who still think seriously about this today.

So, what makes a hoax as effective as the “Paul is Dead” rouse pulled on millions-upon-millions of unsuspecting music fans?

So how do you spot a hoax? The type of hoax usually determines what characteristics will be present. However, some general tips for spotting a hoax include:

1. The information presented is one-sided or the claims can only be validated by one or two people – this includes Alien, UFO or Bigfoot sightings.
2. There are usually no references to back up claims – this is often used in internet and e-mail related hoaxes. The person or company referenced is often made up, so there is no valid contact information provided.
3. Appeals to the emotions

Hoaxes and jokes can get out of hand; just ask Paul McCartney’s publicist (what a nightmare THAT had to be).  Could the Beatles’ brand have been damaged by the hoax?  Sure.  But as history shows, album sales SKYROCKETED.  While some conspiracy theorists say it was for THAT purpose the hoax was started; I tend to disregard that P.R. move.  For the Beatles it would have been too risky.

So, on this April Fool’s day, use common sense. Look for the signs that you’re being “put on.” And be prepared to laugh at yourself.

Oh… and your shoe’s untied…

Keep Cooking! (fun and frivolity for everyone)
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef