Advertising Joke or Marketing Blunder?

Everytime I see this ad from Old Spice, I do a triple take.

• First, my reaction is "ick" that's an ugly wolf.
• Second, my reaction is "creepy, who is the ad targeting", and 
• Third, my reaction is "what were they thinking? I would never buy that"

Are any of those reactions the desired response from guys? The women I've shown the ad to had similar reactions. Most said that the ads creeped them out and would make them think the guy who uses that particular Old Spice product was either dumb or smelly. My follow on question is why the "dumb" question, and the clarification is that "any guy who wears that trying to get woman would be dumb or desperate."

The optimist side of me approaches this add differently. Maybe, the agency is going for extra campy, maybe the idea is to be soooo bad, that it's good? Additional searches will yield additional funny/campy ads, so this is clearly an attempt to be funny. In fact, maybe there's some demographic where this does lead to sales lift.

I have yet to find anyone who thought that the ad was more funny than creepy, but at the same time I see that the ad continues to run. The only two explanations I can come to: 1) I completely don't get the demographic that this is targeted to, or 2) Someone in marketing at Old Spice is measuring lift around this ad.

I really hope someone is measuring the success of this ad, as I would love to learn what demo this ad pulls in.

Ambush Marketing - Big Win and Lessons from Nike

Nike's neon shoes were all over the place during the Olympics. The presence of the shoe was so ubiquitous that I assumed that they were a sponsor. They weren't. Reebok was the official
sponsor and has not renewed it's role for Rio. One possible reason? Nike implemented executed a well planned ambush marketing effort. The basics are covered in Ad Age here.

What people saw during the Olympics was a neon yellow shoe on the feet of athletes. The visibility and brand reinforcement, most notably, during track and field, when usually two or three athletes were shown in their events, with their feet seemingly glowing. The shoes were high contrast, visible, and part or many events where the wearers won a medal. The message to watchers, of course - the bright neon shoes helped win medals.

Nike insists that their products are all about the athletes, while other contend that their athletes are their marketing vehicle. While Nike backs it up showing gold medalists wearing Nike shoes, others point to Nike's own description of good products. The article quotes Martin Lotti, the man responsible for the marketing win:

"Mr. Lotti believes good Nike products have four elements: performance, emotion (a Team USA insignia over the heart, for example), environment (in keeping with the spirit of this being the first "green" games, the Flyknit is Nike's most sustainable shoe ever) and aesthetics."

Only one of the four items is for the athlete: performance.  The other three are about marketing, but to focus on the marketing aspect is to miss the big picture. It's the combination of good product and marketing that made the ambush marketing at the Olympics a success. Great athletes wear good products, good products were highly visible during the Olympics. Some athletes won with those products, so Joe Consumer might get the same benefits. It's a simple and well orchestrated marketing effort that leveraged product, celebrities, and distribution.

Small Time Brands Go Big, if They Survive Long Enough

A branding article in the Harvard Business Review caught my eye: "How These Small-Time Brands Made It Big", as I try to keep apprised of the psychology of branding and product acceptance. The article is a good refresher on some branding fundamentals, but also glosses over some core dependencies. If, as a reader, you can internalize the take-aways and understand the key prerequisites, I recommend you engage with the article.

The fundamental take-aways in the article:

• Focus on a small idea
• Deploy a powerful visual
• Treat the name as a strategic creative decision
• Don't overwhelm customers

Those take-aways are indeed valuable, but often get lost or misrepresented when applied. In nearly all of the examples provided, the author correctly mentions, but almost glosses over the struggles and hard times the companies endured before the brand really mattered. Yes, the brand was important, but the brand is/was an accelerator, not the core value. In each example, the brand didn't make the company, the company developed a great product or service before people cared about the brand.

Here's how to put things in perspective:

• Nike: A shoe company under a different name for 14 years before it became Nike, and even then, the logo was rushed out to make production deadline and cost $35. 
• Instagram: The now-famous service is a rebranding and outgrowth of the less popular Burbn
• Twitter: Tweaked a $15 stock photo that came to signify the brand

One take-away that you shouldn't miss, is that the entrepreneurs behind the brands in the examples built the business and customer base first. Once customers love or simply believe in your product or service, you've proven yourself brand worthy, which is where the value of your brand comes from. 

Build value first, and the brand value will come.

#SXSW 2012 Marks the End of an Era

As I read the article on Ad Age titled "What if the real 'Winner' of SXSW was AmEx?", I felt a strange sense of loss. Big brands, with big budgets, were the focal point of a number of news stories covering SXSW. I couldn't help but wonder "what happened to the Indie Music and Indie Startup scene?". SXSW, it seems, may have sold out and, if it hasn't, is losing touch with it's roots.

If you read the article you'll see it says AmEx "stole the attention away from the thousands of startups represented there", but shouldn't that be easy to do when you can afford to hire Jay Z, rent the venue, and market that info? The real question should be how much did AmEx spend to buy the buzz and can startups compete with the likes of AmEx and Nike pouring huge bucks into #SXSW.

I do think AmEx did it right, as pointed out in the article, but they had an unfair example that startups are unlikely to match. This of it this way: If Twitter or Foursquare had launched during AmEx's high priced media blitz, would they have won the show instead? Would have they received the same attention? Maybe Gowalla's story might be a bit different.

From a marketer's standpoint, the culture and flavor of SXSW may be shifting dramatically away from independent music, art, culture, and tech to a show that has sold it's soul to big budget branding. That may forever change what can be introduced and marketed there, the tactics, and more importantly, the cost to play.