SeeMartin

One commercial on Versus that I particularly like is the Turtle Wax Ice commercial below. It nails down everything – the message, the execution, the channel, everything! I think that commercials like this are the earthly appearance of (and justification for) focus groups, zmet analysis etc. theoretical tools. It clicks with me – I associate with the guy, it’s on Versus – the boys channel, and most importantly – I REMEMBERED the product after the first viewing: Turtle Wax Ice. It is not often to see such a quality commercial for such a niche, relatively inexpensive product.

Banner advertisement has gone a long way from static images, through blinking animated gifs, through obnoxious sound enhanced flash to what you see on the right. A cool banner on weather.com that snatched the zip code I entered to customize the town, got the time right to the second, and showed me the weather forecast within the banner. Amidst the privacy craze this is an example of how personal (but not personally identifiable) information is used to benefit of the visitor. Being smart about sharing information online does not mean “not sharing” information online. I’m happy whenever semantic Web sites like Amazon, Netflix or Bing micro-target me and suggest a book, movie or service that is relevant to me. That’s as close to the personal attention the salesman can give you as it gets. Moreover, behind these recommendations is the wisdom of the crowd (btw, the book was suggested to me by Amazon after I purchased Freakonomics – mucho gracias, Amazon)

Multiple sources state that FIFA filed charges against Bavaria beer company for the ambush marketing during the Nederland – Denmark match. During the game a group of women dressed in the traditional for the Dutch fans orange had Bavaria logos on their outfits. According to FIFA this violated the sponsorship rights of Budweiser and the organization felt it ought to protect its sponsor by filing a lawsuit against the company and arresting a few of the women. At this point nothing is official but many questions come to mind some of which legal in nature—under what jurisdiction falls this lawsuit? What are the charges? Where are the boundaries – if I go to a game with an Under Armor shirt will I be arrested? Will I be arrested only if Under Armor gave me the shirt for free? If a bunch of friends go to a game with jerseys purchased years ago and their team had changed sponsors meanwhile will they be escorted out? I’m not a lawyer but the common sense tells me that FIFA will have its hands full with this one. This is their official page on rights protection. Now, there is another question that really interests me – why in the world is Budweiser sponsoring FIFA World Cup when a few in the US watch soccer and a few outside US drink Bud? What are the opportunity costs? I would imagine them to be huge as it is quite pricy to partner in the most watched sports event. Any possible strategic long term reasoning calls for a leap of imagination beyond my abilities.  Enlighten me and I’ll buy you Bavaria!

A few years ago I worked for Startec Global Communications and as a member of the marketing team I participated in brainstorming sessions focused on the creative of the campaigns. During one of these meetings the VP made a comment about the order of the bullet points on a direct mail piece. He requested that the benefits of the product are listed before the features of the product. That was a keeper for me as I love all sorts of operational tips, best practices, rules of a thumb etc. At the time I was not interested in the theory behind benefits-before-features mantra, I just accepted it. Later on I came across the same rule in marketing classes, this time backed-up by scientific explanation. A few days ago I came across a good blog post that touches on the subject by Dr. Sharon Livingston on Branding Strategy Insider—one of the best blogs on branding. The post is somewhat hard to digest as it mixes psychology, ZMET, semantics, and philosophy but is very good nevertheless.  I particularly liked the excellent examples of benefits and features at the opening.  To illustrate the practical implications for designers of wisdoms such as “benefits before features” I’ll recycle one of the examples she gives:

Time-release (feature) products are purchased because they are long acting (benefit).

Let say that you have to design a magazine ad for the product above and you want to use a bulleted list to demonstrate the awesomeness of the product but you only have an inch of space left and have to pick 3 of the statements below:

• Time-released
• Long acting
• Enteric-coated
• Will not irritate the stomach
• Easy to carry
• Flat bottle

Apply the “benefits before features” rule and you get:

• Time-released (feature)
• Long acting (benefit)
• Enteric-coated (feature)
• Will not irritate the stomach (benefit)
• Easy to carry (benefit)
• Flat bottle (feature)

So the list will end up being:

• Long acting (benefit)
• Will not irritate the stomach (benefit)
• Easy to carry (benefit)

I like the way 5-hour ENERGY clearly articulated their positioning and advantage over other energy drinks (RedBull in particular) – small in size and calories, robust effect. They are also running a very well devised marketing campaign, with massive media presence supported by wide availability and prominent in-store placement. With all this as a backdrop it is surprising to me how inappropriate the packaging is. The colors are fine, red, black, yellow, high-contrast combination that screams “energy”. The running silhouette on its own is seemingly fine, (although I think a less trivial picture would have been a better choice) but in combination with the shape of the bottle and the cardboard bottle holder it evokes associations with male-enhancement products and illegal steroids. I wonder if focus groups were conducted prior to adopting this packaging. I think it hampers the otherwise well-run campaign and prevents it from becoming a new category of a product.