You'd have to be blind on both sides to miss the product placements in this film

Using product placement to strengthen a brand is perhaps one of the oldest tricks in the marketer's book.  People who are producing entertainment (or, in the broader sense,"content") are always in need of funding for their projects.  The reason for this is simple: no one buys tickets to see a movie that isn't yet filmed, or pays to enter an art exhibit that hasn't been painted.  So, someone more visionary than the average consumer has to put up the money in advance.  In the 1930's, P&G sponsored the radio plays that came to be called "soap operas", because of the prominent product placements for laundry soaps within the content of the entertainment itself.  The product push was deliberate, unabashed, and totally acceptable in its time.  Remnants of this style still exist in talk radio (as well as on Prarie Home Companion).

Last weekend I watched The Blind Side (2009), starring Sandra Bullock, and was intrigued by the (over)use of product placement for Under Armour (not to mention prominent featuring of BMW, Borders, and Taco Bell's brands).  One contributor to brandspotters.com claims there were 125 appearances of the UA brand during the 126 minute movie. 

(Three logo placements, just in this one screen shot)

Since I recently graduated with an MBA from the University of Maryland, I have deep respect for Kevin Plank (a fellow UMD alum), who started the Under Armour business from a cottage business into a thriving corporation.  He's also a great supporter of other small businesses at the University.

Here's my take on the use of such a high-quantity product placement campaign:

BENEFIT TO THE UNDER ARMOUR BRAND
- Brand reinforcement.  Football is already UA's home base in terms of product advantage.  Most aspiring football players wear Under Armour gear and attire, on and off the field.  This product placement reinforces the already-strong association between their brand and football.
- Demonstrate the full array of their product line.  Most of the product placements in the film are on polo shirts, hats, and other non-game day apparel.  This is surely conscious.  Although UA became famous initially for their moisture-wicking skin-tight fabric, their product assortment includes many lines for casual daily wear.  In order to grow the company at recent growth rates, UA needs to acquire millions of new customers each year.  And since all the football players already own the brand, they need to hook in a broader swath of football fans.
- The fact that the film's subject, Michael Oher, played for the Ravens (in Under Armour's home town) is another logical reason for the brand wanting to have a place in the film.

DRAWBACKS OF THE PRODUCT PLACEMENT
- For the marketer, there is very little drawback for using product placements in a film.  If the viewers get angry about "commercialization", they would take it out on the producers or the film studios, not the marketers.
- Expensive!  I have no way of estimating the cost to Under Armour of all that product placement, but I'd guess $5-10 Million.
- One frustration might be in measuring the direct impact of the product placement on sales.  This could be done by surveying viewers of the film vs. non-viewers, to measure their purchase rates at 0, 3, and 6 months.
- From an artistic standpoint, the Under Armour product placement creates an unrealistic (and anachronistic) portrayal of sports fashion.  I've definitely met kids who own lots of UA gear, but the diverse UA wardrobe that S.J. has is a bit ridiculous (and certainly wouldn't have been available in 2003-2004, when the movie takes place).  It would appear, in the world of this movie, that no one in Tennessee wears Nike, Adidas, or Puma (unless you look at SJ's shoes VERY carefully).

(Sean junior, sporting an Under Armour hoodie and an Under Armour performance shirt)

The big question in my mind is: when will viewers say it's too much, and turn to films without endorsements?  For me, the answer is: when the movies suffer because of the product placement.  Despite the fact that I laughed whenever I saw yet another appearance of the UA logo, I still found the movie touching, well-written, and well-acted.  And I'm now writing a blog entry about Under Armour, which is probably exactly what they wanted to accomplish in the first place.

Two evidences that Willy Wonka is alive and well (and probably working in a lab in New Jersey)

A few days ago, I was eating Jelly Belly jelly beans in the car with my son (who begs for them every time we visit his grandparents, who buy them in bulk at Costco).  He would periodically comment to me about which flavor he was eating: glorying over the pear and tangerine, or wincing when he got a coffee flavored one.  I taught him the trick of plugging your nose, while eating the coffee flavored jelly beans, and all you will taste is "sweet" (this is of course true because the tongue can only taste sweet, salty, bitter, and sour--everything else comes from your nose).

It set me thinking again about the amazing chemical innovations that make these flavors possible.  Actually infusing jelly beans with real coffee flavor would be costly and impractical.  A few drops of an artificial chemical, however, and...presto, a close enough approximation to the flavor of coffee (for better or for worse).  My mind wandered back to Carlie and the Chocolate Factory, where one of Willy Wonka's inventions was a single piece of chewing gum that could replace all the courses of a meal.  Well, I thought, we aren't that far away.  If you added turkey flavor to a jelly bean (I'm sure it's been done), gravy to another, and cranberry to a third, you could top it off with a chocolate pudding pie jelly bean and have all the flavors of thanksgiving in one small handful of chewy candies.

Little did I know, however, that the Willy Wonka invention is now even closer to reality.  In a recent advertisement, Stride Gum shows off its new Shift gum series, a sugarless variety that changes flavors while you are chewing.  The two flavors currently available are Berry-to-Mint and Citrus-to-Mint.  See below for the advertisement.



Here's a brief analysis of the advertisement and the product itself (although I haven't yet tried it).
First, I'm intrigued by the growing use of faux focus groups in TV advertising.  It's clear that consumers want more transparency (and "reality"), but instead marketers are giving them a dramatized version of that reality.  I've taken part in or observed many focus groups, and typically they are boring enough to make you fall asleep.  I think this is a compelling way to involve consumers in the "product development" process, even if it is a facade.

Shift gum is also doing three things really well from the brand management perspective:
1. Continual innovation - With Wrigley close on its heels, Stride brand's owner Cadbury (which is now part of Kraft) is working hard, spending millions to come up with the "next big thing."  This is not high technology.  We can expect that copycat products will be on the market soon.  But at least Stride can reap some early rewards from its fast-moving innovation.
2. Positioning - Stride, which touts itself as the "ridiculous" gum, is in competition with Wrigley's "5" gum for the teen and young adults market.  They are supporting the "ridiculous" claim with products that are different, wacky, and overwhelming (at least that's what the ads will have you believe).
3. Functionality - Gum, in many senses, is a commodity type product.  You have the flavoring part and the chewable part (which, according to my father/physician, CANNOT get stuck in your stomach for 7 years).  Gum is meant to be chewed, enjoyed, then spit out.  The new products on the market, however, would have you believe that "long-lasting", "flavor switching", "breath-freshening", "teeth cleaning", and other claims are all functions of the gum that provide value to the consumer.  In some cases this is a valid claim, but when you think about it, is there any value or function in your gum switching from one flavor to another?  Probably not, but functionality (and value) is in the eyes, and the mouth, of the consumer.

Phone Book Goes Digital, Retains "Yellow Pages" Brand Name

Recently, I got involved in an online discussion with some other branding-obsessed bloggers about another logo change--Yellow Pages.  The full story and comment sequence can be read here.

My comment on the article was the following:
The biggest question for Yellow Pages is not really what their logo will look like or whether they change the brand name (I like the idea of just using the name "Yellow"). For me, the biggest issue is how the brand will maintain a relevant offering to consumers. Every time the phone books arrive, I joke with my wife about WHY we need them, with internet at our fingertips on at least five devices in our home. But then, invariably, I will use the Yellow Pages a few times a year, when I'm looking for a "category", not for a specific company.



The Yellow Pages competitive advantage was their sales force that knows individual business geographies intimately, so their categorical listings are pretty complete. Google is so huge and it doesn't know the individual neighborhoods, it just crawls all the web entries that have certain keywords or zip codes. So frequently a Google search for restaurants in my zip code will exclude establishments that don't use the word "restaurant" in their title or description.


My recommendation to Yellow Pages: acquire Angie's List or another similar services rating site, so they can offer localized service listings and ratings. Google will likely win the battle over searchable answers, but there is still room in the online space for answers to questions like "who is a good, honest plumber who lives near me?"

[The idea I proposed of shortening Yellow Pages to "Yellow" was picked up by one of the consultants who also commented on the article. You can read his extended article on his blog.]

Don't Let a Logo Change Sour Your Brand

One of my long-time comfort brands is Dannon.  It's also just the best yogurt I can find in a store (can't you just visualize the way your spoon cuts into the first bite?).  And unlike Yoplait or the store brands, Dannon is never sickly sweet.  As a kid, there was something exciting about the fruit at the bottom--it was like a discovery each time, digging for buried treasure. And, yes, I have always felt this dramatic about food.

In my concerns over sugar intake, I've cut down on the sugar-added yogurts and started buying Dannon Plain Yogurt in larger containers.  For a more "natural" treat, I will combine plain yogurt, frozen berries, and a touch of honey.  This past week, when I purchased a new container of Dannon plain and noticed some changes to the packaging.

First, here's the old packaging:

Now, here's the new packaging:

  

There are a few obvious technical differences: larger, clearer text, the "new look! same great taste" banner, and the "Kosher for Passover" designation (which makes sense, given that I bought it a week ago).

The effect on the brand is more subtle:

- The farm scene is greatly simplified, losing the trees and silo.  This simplicity fits with the desired brand associations: natural, simple, and traditional.

- The old design had indistinct "swooshes" of green and blue, while the new design has more white background. Taking this away makes the on-package messaging clearer, and focuses the consumer on the words and the barn imagery.

- The reduntant phrase "No Artificial Anything" was removed, presumably because consumers understand better that "All Natural" means there is nothing artificial in the product. 

So, what's the big deal?  This is the type of incremental logo and branding changes you would expect from an established multinational company like Dannon. Slow and steady, they will gradually position their healthier yogurts as "simple" and "natural" in order to be more competitive with the increasingly crowded "healthy yogurt" market.

That was the type of logo change I would applaud for a well-recognized consumer food product brand.  The loser in this category would be Tropicana, for it's failed attempt to revamp its logo earlier this year. 

As many bloggers and reporters have pointed out, the new "fresh" packaging doesn't even look like orange juice, unless you look really closely.  Apparently many shoppers thought it was the store brand and kept walking, looking (subconsciously) for the carton with the orange and the straw.

The real question here is, why did they need a major packaging revamp? Was the brand stale? Did they need their customers to perceive their brand differently?  I think this is an example of where the creative ambitions were allowed to go beyond the realm of consumer-focused marketing.  It may have been a fresh, contemporary design, but a product packaging must always be first and foremost and means of effectively communicating with the consumer, not just a canvas for artistic expression.

Best DC-made advertisement - 2010 award

DC advertising firms are showing they can compete with the big guys in New York.  On March 17th, the Advertising Club of Metropolitan Washington presented its 2010 ADDY® Awards, recognizing advertising creative excellence.  The evening’s top award, Best of Show, went to SmithGifford for “Sandals,” a TV spot done for Identity Guard.  



I think this is a well-produced advertisement, with an extremely engaging storyline.  The choice of Nigeria as the location triggers memories of many scam emails (and in fact there is a thriving internet fraud industry in Nigeria).  The music and characterizations (not to mention ominous shadows) lead you to believe that there is a devious identity theft happening to the woman who ordered her shoes on the internet.  But, at the end, we are led to believe that our concerns were unfounded: they were only processing her shoe order after all.  The promise to the consumer is clear: "There are bad guys out there who want to steal your identity. But, with our service, you can trust the internet again."

Two Major Brands in the News Today

A quick stroll through today's Wall Street Journal reveals two major brands that are under particular scrutiny. (I'm ignoring political and national brands, even though we certainly COULD talk about how the healthcare bill has affected Obama's brand). 

Google - Sergey Brin, the co-founder of the internet giant, said recently about Google's pullback of its Chinese search site: "I think at some point it is appropriate to stand up for your principles, and if more companies, governments, organizations, individuals did that, I do think the world would be a better place."

Is this great corporate branding, or what?  Google is well known for it's Microsoft-bashing motto "Don't be evil".  And his recent actions, refusing to cooperate with China's censorship demands, does support that brand message.  Google's about-face on growth in China, after six years of accepting China's demands, is a bit confusing to some business people in Silicon Valley, but I commend Brin for staying "on brand", even if he will lose revenue to competitors who are more willing to change their search filters to suit the whims of the communist regime. 

Starbucks - The publicly-traded company announced yesterday that it will pay a dividend to stockholders at the end of this fiscal year, for the first time since the IPO 18 years ago.  This comes amidst a two-year slump in sales at the ubiquitous coffee chain.  Although you could argue that this is purely a financial decision that has nothing to do with Starbuck's brand, it has everything to do with the brand's perception and maintaining confidence in Starbuck's continuing domination.  If you haven't been reading the news, some of Starbucks' recent activities include: store closures, putting its coffee in Burger King, selling instant coffee, and engaging in a battle of principle with gun-owners.  Sounds a bit "all over the place" to me, without a clear direction.  So perhaps paying dividends is a way of telling consumer "We know what we're doing, and we're going to be around for a long time." 

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz also put another brand image feather in his cap during the investor meeting, when he quoted a conversation he had with a major investor.  The investor was concerned with the cost-ineffectiveness of paying health benefits for part-time baristas.  Schultz announced to the crowd at the meeting that he flatly refused to take away any benefits from those employees, suggesting the investor choose another target for his investment.  Hearing this, the audience went wild with applause.  Way to go, Schultz.  He's been talking for years about how to make Starbucks back into the "gathering place" he originally intended, as opposed to a commodity place to buy pricey take-out coffee drinks.  And this type of public support for the common employee could help boost morale and improve the quality of service that customers receive.  Next time you pick up a latte, let me know if the person behind the counter seems a little more happy doing his or her job.  And if that changes your perception of the Starbucks brand.

Good vs. Bad Brand

In brand management interviews, one typical question is “What is an example of a good brand?” This query also comes in other flavors, such as “What is a brand you can’t live without?” or “What’s your favorite brand?” All of these questions are really testing your ability to talk coherently about a brand, its value proposition, and how well it’s supported through marketing and product development. Although there is no right or wrong answer, whatever you do, don’t use Coke, Pepsi, Nike, or Apple as your example, unless you are striving to be forgettable.

Here’s one current example of a “good” brand that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about recently: Oral-B (a Proctor & Gamble brand). When I thought this morning of a product I couldn’t live without, my Oral-B CrossAction manual toothbrush came to mind. But just liking a product doesn’t make the brand great. Here’s what Oral-B seems to be doing very well:

PRODUCT INNOVATION – This is the area where P&G spends more money than any competitor. They study their target segments of the population, perform extensive market research, and engineer new products with precise detail. If you examine a CrossAction toothbrush, you see that it is truly different from any other toothbrush, in terms of the angles of the bristles and the varied bristle types. And it really does seem to remove more plaque from the teeth than a traditional toothbrush. Oh, and did I mention that it has a special texture on the back of the toothbrush head for scraping your tongue? Genius!


  

AWARENESS – The brand maintains great awareness. I imagine that if I performed an unaided survey asking “What is are some brands of toothbrush?”, Oral-B would be at the top of your list. That’s not just a fluke—it takes a lot of money and effort to gain that position.

FOLLOWS THE HUMAN LIFECYCLE – Oral-B can follow you throughout your life. There are products specifically tailored to babies, toddlers, youth, teenagers, and so on. They also make electric toothbrushes for the lazier stages of life.

MARKETING SUPPORT – TV commercials (especially outside the USA) and magazine ads are abundant. Oral-B and the good folks at P&G know that consumers need regular reminders of their brand in order to make them feel more comfortable when they spend $4+ on a toothbrush, so the messages will reach you frequently.



CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT – Why is it that your free toothbrush at the dentist’s office is always an Oral-B? It’s because the brand managers have developed those distribution channels very well over time. The company spends time with dentists, finding out what’s important to them, as well as building relationships with national organizations.

TRADE PROMOTIONS & COUPONS – The company uses frequent promotions, plus occasional BOGOs (buy-one-get-one-free deals) to maintain premium shelf space in retail stores. Because their product quality is so high, it’s almost impossible to go back to a straight-bristle brush after using a CrossAction, so the promo accomplishes its goal of winning a new loyal customer.

Even if you don’t share my delight in diagonal bristles, it’s hard not be impressed with Oral-B’s ability to brush away the competition and earn a mint in profits.  Do you have an example of a brand you couldn't live without?