Take for instance the recent “change” MillerCoors Brewing has made to their packaging. We’ve all seen the “Vortex Bottles” and the new big-mouth aluminum bottles. Sure that’s different, but the product is the same, watered down, tasteless swill. There hasn’t been any value proposition or improvement in the actual product. So unless the marketers and MillerCoors Brewing think their consumers are completely ignorant, belly-scratching mouth-breathers, there won’t be a return on the repackaging investment. Even msnMoney has called this effort for more brand awareness a “gimmick.”

“and MillerCoors fight it out. They are boosting their advertising budgets and even trying gimmicks like a “Vortex Bottle” that aerates the beer as it pours.”

Does their target audience really care about aeration of their beer? I could put even money that their target audience doesn’t even aerate their lawns!

Gimmicks don’t work.

To give you a little insight on how the beer market has changed, take a look at another article from msnMoney. In brief, it says that while beer sales over the past year have plummeted by 10% the “Craft Beer” market (think Sam Adams) has seen an uptick of 2.2%.

Why?

Beers like those that Sam Adams brews offer taste, quality and variety focused on the micro-brew-lovers palate not a feeble innovation to the “dump-it-down-your-throat faster” need… Their marketing sticks to their quality brewing process and attention to the needs of their discerning customers. No gimmicks… just great brand marketing.

It comes down to adding a value proposition to their differentiation. Sure, MillerCoors brews wheat beer and has special “flavors” like Miller Chill, but it hasn’t improved overall sales or brand awareness. In this writer’s opinion, it’s just watered down (further) their brand and left a bad taste in consumers mouths (pun intended).

So, Pull up a bar stool and join the conversation. What can commodity beers like the MillerCoors products and the Anheuser-Busch line do to compete with the Sam Adams and “Craft Beer” makers? We’d love to hear what you have to say. Maybe MillerCoors is listening in?

What say you?

Until next time…

Keep Cooking (great value branding)!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

*This post was originally seen on the CreateWOWMarketing blog…

Good character, like TRUE branding, is based on a very specific set of criteria. For TRUE branding, we’ve determined that the brand must be True, Relevant, Unique and Engaging to have a strong, marketable brand foundation. But when it comes to character, there are six traits that form the strongest foundation:

•  Trustworthiness
•  Respect
•  Responsibility
•  Fairness
•  Caring
•  and Citizenship

Not one of those characteristics has anything to do with increasing market share or ROI.

There’s more than the bottom line. There’s more than the marketing. There’s more than 60-hour workweek. There’s more than the executive washroom. There’s more than accounting or sales. More than copier paper, toner, staples… There’s simply more, and it’s called character. While it shouldn’t be confused with your company brand, good character and a TRUE brand should go hand-in-hand.

Can British Petroleum (BP) say they’ve got a good character? If you evaluate the company character based on the simple six criteria listed above, they’re failing miserably! They’ve broken our trust, shown absolutely NO respect, taken no responsibility for their actions and have been deplorable in their dealings since the spill (can we even call it a spill any more?). And let’s not even talk about caring and citizenship. It’s a perfect case study in complete corporate character implosion. Even based on the TRUE branding criteria, I’d say their brand (and company) is in a world of hurt.

I love the recent statement by Laura Ries when she identified BP’s “brand problem.”

“The spill in the Gulf has pulled the curtain off of a company that has been blowing smoke up our butts for years. No consumer, regulator or politician will soon forget this tragedy”

And she concludes with,

“Strong brands with a reputation for quality, safety and honesty are able to survive even the worst tragedies and negative PR stories. Toyota, Tylenol and Goldman Sachs have faced some dark days recently, but for them the future is still bright because the brands are strong. For BP, not so much. A brand with a poor reputation facing one of the worst oil spills ever is damaged goods. No amount of advertising can fix this. Anything BP says will no longer be believed. You can fool us once, but never again.”

Because of recent events, BP is the obvious example, but what other companies have been branding themselves as the “community company” when its character, deep down, is flawed, selfish, myopic and detrimental to the community in which they serve? Finding the truth within your brand is imperative. It’s the foundation on which all else is built. Ironically, truth is a core component for good character as well.

I can’t emphasize the importance of the correlation here.  There’s an important connection. When the two support each other, everyone wins!

What has your company done to educate and foster good character? Does good character start in the corner office and spread on down through the ranks or is it simply a happy face panted over oil slicks, smoke screens and broken promises?

Food for thought…

Keep Cooking! (TRUE character-driven business)
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

For more information on the six pillars of character, check out these links:

http://www.charactercountsiniowa.blogspot.com/
http://charactercounts.org/sixpillars.html
http://www.drake.edu/icd/
http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/

What the heck are the marketers for the London 2012 Olympics committee smoking?

VIDEO:

Sorry about the auto play… (Notice the kids giving the Nazi salute to them? WTH?)

To have such a prestigious organization adorn your city would be an honor to last a lifetime. But it seems like the folks marketing for the occasion have taken the opportunity and turned it into a Duran Duran meets The TeleTubbies on LSD experience.

Let me back up about four years… If you haven’t read it yet, I did a blog post (June 2006) about the incredibly ill-conceived logo designed for the London 2012 Olympics. Saying:

“I’m saddened when I think of the world’s athletes that have put so much effort and time into achieving the honor of competing in the Olympics having to walk around the Olympic Village slathered with a logo that looks like they just got back from a Duran Duran concert.”

And now the marketers have launched a campaign to show off the new mascots. All I can say for them is at least they’re consistent.

Good Lord, They look like the love child of Timothy Leary and TinkyWinkie! I’m thinking the Aztecs saw this for 2012 and just decided to end it all there. What the heck would be the point of living after that?

Marketing in a Vacuum?

Normally, in these horribly off-the-mark situations, I’d point my finger at some self indulgent agency or myopic company trying to be “cutting edge” without the first hint of research or understanding of the target market. But according to The Telegraph UK, the chairman of the London Organizing Committee, Lord Coe and his marketing group spent 18 months and did over 40 focus groups in preparation and development of these atrocities!

40 FOCUS GROUPS?!?

What did they do, design them AND THEN hold focus groups until they found someone to say they liked them?

Here are a couple more images that come to mind when I see these mascots:

At least Vancouver 2010 Mascots related to the region and didn’t scare the hell out of people…

Also from The Telegraph UK:

Stephen Bayley, the prominent design critic, said: “What is it about these Games which seems to drive the organisers into this cretinous infantilism?

“Why can’t we have something that makes us sing with pride, instead of these appalling computerised Smurfs for the iPhone generation?”

“If the Games are going to be remembered by their art then we can declare them a calamitous failure already.”

I mean c’mon, if one of the biggest design critics in your country says they suck, shouldn’t you reflect on the direction you’ve taken?

So, what is the London 2012 Olympic committee to do? It’s too late to start over. It’s too ugly to ignore. Is this a public relations issue now? Can they make this all make sense somehow?

I’d love to know what you think. And for a little fun, here’s a little spoof from Gawker…

Keep Cooking! (at least tasteful branding decisions)
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef

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 was contacted by a Web programmer the other day and, while at first blush, I was very impressed with his skills and portfolio; I was instantly turned off by the fact that he constantly referred to himself in the third person and as a plural.  Statements like “We have the most economical pricing…” and “Our clients have seen exponential return…” made me feel like I was being pitched by an account rep from some global conglomerate.

As the conversation continued I asked some simple (revealing) questions. “Who does the actual programming of your sites?” and  (amazingly enough) “Where are your offices?” came back with the answers me and my basement, respectively.

Insert Scooby-Doo “WTH” sound here…

So, within the first two minutes of our conversation, this poor guy went from impressive designer/developer to liar.  If he was willing to deceive me about the size of his “company,” what else was he willing to lie about? Sure, he (eventually) told the truth about being independent and working from his basement, but the perception that really stuck with me was the disconnect from “outward” portrayal and “actual” existence.

My advice to independent contractors struggling to position yourselves in this big, bustling world:  Keep the basic rules of TRUE Branding in mind at all times.

Be Truthful
Be Relevant
Be Unique
Be Engaging

Simple!

“Truthful” is the base criteria because it’s the most important.  If you have to make up statistics or create personae to make yourself feel/seem bigger, you’ve already failed.  If you’re an independent, tell your prospects.  If you outsource work to “partners,” make it clear. 

As a contractor, I would much rather work with a single, honest, independent genius than a million sub-par liars.

Don’t try to be (or even imply) something you’re not. And if you’ve gained enough weight to be considered “plural” then you need to call Jenny Craig.

Just food for thought…

Keep Cooking!
Andrew B. Clark
The Brand Chef