Mark Kolier’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Advertising’ Category

With McDonald’s continuing to reign as the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world when it comes to burgers/QSR’s, the contest between Burger King and Wendy’s for second place has suddenly become more interesting. Wendy’s is about to surpass Burger King as the #2 burger chain.

Wendy’s has had its own struggles since the passing of its founder Dave Thomas. Recent improvements in product quality, product presentation (i.e. paper wrapped hamburgers) and in-store offerings have all contributed to recent growth and as marketing professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management Tim Calkins notes it’s “a classic marketing story about brands that stumble and then get their footing back. This is about really understanding your brand, and being true to it.” http://bit.ly/Ar3mWW.

But I think it’s just as likely that the change in order is a situation created more by what Burger King is not doing as opposed to what Wendy’s is doing. After all – what is Burger King’s brand and how is BK being ‘true to it’? There has been much discussion on how Burger King’s desire to focus on young men has backfired and hurt its position. The bizarre ‘King’ campaign was just that – bizarre. The ‘Whopper Freakout’ ads were interesting and showed a little promise (at least I thought so) but they were abandoned as well.

Burger King seems to have forgotten its own USP (unique selling proposition) and POD (point of differentiation). Of the three, only Burger King broils its burgers. When’s the last time you heard anything about that? Of course BK’s problems are substantially more complicated than not having a USP or POD. Just walk into a Burger King restaurant and you will realize what I mean instantly. To me the few restaurants I’ve been in lately are dark, somewhat less than spotlessly clean and bereft of a variety of healthy choices as opposed to McDonald’s and Wendy’s.

As the Ad-Age article concluded ‘Indeed, Wendy’s has benefited from the woes at Burger King, much like Diet Coke benefited from Pepsi’s issues to become the No. 2 soda brand.

Burger King has struggled with management and ownership changes, and analysts have said the chain faltered by focusing too much of its marketing on young men, a demographic hit hard by the recession. Wendy’s seized the moment, made the right changes and zipped into the No. 2 spot.

However, Burger King is determined to rebound. Last year it hired Global CMO Flavia Faugeres (Wendy’s has been sans CMO since June), brought on McGarry-Bowen , and, “to appeal to a broader audience, traded in its King character in favor of food as the star of its advertising. A new brand campaign is also expected this year.’

McGarryBowen is a top notch shop but I think Burger King has quality perception problem that supersedes its identity problem. It won’t be an easy fix but Wendy’s has shown that good comeback stories still exist in the ultra-competitive QSR burger category.

Let me start by acknowledging that we have a client who has signed up some prominent school districts around the United States who have agreed to allow outlets like in-school video screens with ads and scoreboard sponsorships (among others) to be displayed at their schools. More than 500,000 students already have been reached via these outlets and the number is growing rapidly.

There’s no mystery as to why a school district would sign up to participate in programs like these. With increased pressure on school budgets showing no sign of abating, new sources of revenue to fund a wide range of educational programs are essential.

Last week my local paper printed an article in which one town had agreed to allow the sponsorship of an outdoor scoreboard. That practice has been going on for quite some time. The superintendent of schools in a neighborhood town chimed in by noting that his board would not allow any advertising in the schools at all. When people think about advertising in public schools traditionalists gasp in mock horror thinking that before long the school will look like the outfield fence at a minor league baseball park. While that is unlikely to happen it does offer reason for debate and perhaps even concern. The idea of having advertising supported in-school TV monitors that would broadcast information on behalf of the school and district horrifies those same traditionalists to an even greater degree. I believe that the ends more than justify the means.

Many (most?) students in public schools today have mobile phones with an increasing number having smartphones. While school districts attempt to limit the usage of those devices while the students are in school, at the least students use the phones between classes, on breaks and during lunch hours. Since the phones often have full web access, there are shows broadcast with ads, ad supported websites and all kinds of ad supported content. How is having a monitor broadcasting information (and yes some ads) any different? It’s not as if the school is going to broadcast the latest episode of iCarly, Twilight or Jersey Shore.

Public school education in the U.S. is facing a host of challenges – underpaid teachers (and there are overpaid tenured ones in droves), increasing special education needs and requirements as well as decreasing local tax revenues. Finding new sources of revenue to help close the gaps and support good school programs has never been more important.

What do you think? Should there be ad supported content platforms within public schools?

As the holiday season scorecards begin to be revealed, Sears, showing its ‘softer side’ as sales were down 5.2% over the eight week holiday period, led by CEO Ed Lampert http://on.wsj.com/ttKCBi reported that it expected to close 100 to 120 underperforming stores. Already before Noon on Tuesday December 27th the stock price has sunk 20% (it finished 27% below the previous day’s close) and is down 45% over the past 12 months.

There was a Sears in the Long Island town in which I grew up. Even back then (1960’s and 1970’s) the impression I had of the store was that the stuff they had was a bit dated and that Sears was pretty good at appliances. In my opinion not much has changed and I have been in a Sears within the last year – although I cannot recall why.

With more than 2,200 stores (including Kmart and Sears full-line stores) Sears still has a substantial footprint in the United States. Yet I wonder if more often than not people end up at Sears instead of really wanting to go there. Aside from its aforementioned Kenmore home appliance offerings, what about Sears would attract a shopper? The clothes (do they still sell Haggar?)? The styles? The once proudly displayed Craftsman tools? Or maybe you will recall the union of the Sears brand with that of Lands End or Martha Stewart and KMart? It is an understatement to note that things did not turn out the way it was they were supposed to.

It’s a far cry from the now somewhat distant past where Sears was known for quality and service. While I suppose there are Sears stores that have better service than others that’s not what the brand says to me – nor does it scream quality either.

Sears was the largest retailer in the U.S. until the early 1980’s. Today the combined Sears has 2,201 full-line and 1,354 specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 483 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc. (Sears Canada), a 92%-owned subsidiary. So Sears ‘gets around’. During the fiscal year ended January 29, 2010 (fiscal 2010), it operated three segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada. As of January 29, 2011, Holdings operated a total of 1,307 Kmart stores across 49 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.

As I browsed through comments http://on.wsj.com/ucpEXX from people who had shopped at Sears the conversation varied from blaming Ed Lampert to poor service and odd pricing but there were a few positive comments regarding selection, service and quality. The thing that stood out to me was the inconsistency of delivering the Sears brand promise – whatever that is. I could not figure it out – can you?

Stuart Elliot of The New York Times writes the advertising column and periodically has 20 questions about advertising. I decided to come up with a few of my own.

1) Why are there ads in the subway with QR codes displayed when there is no internet service on the subway itself?

2) Would you turn your house into a billboard? http://www.aol.it/rpy8Na

3) How long will it be before urinals in public restrooms carry advertising?

4) Do you watch the screen when riding in the back of taxi?

5) Would you be willing to receive a steady stream of ads on your smart phone if the monthly fees were paid for by the carrier?

6) Which company do you think will last longer – Groupon or Foursquare?

7) If you’ve used a Groupon or Living Social coupon to dine in a restaurant you’ve never before visited – have you ever gone back a second time?

I don’t watch ads when I DVR a television program preferring to fast forward through them as I believe is the case with most people. What percentage of DVR watchers do you think should be counted as having actually watched an ad during the program?

9) Will people continue to patronize online companies that don’t offer a free shipping option?

10) In 2012 will you use Ebay’s Redlaser.com bar scanner or Amazon.com’s bar code scanner to check pricing on in-store items?

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah and Joyous Kwanzaa. Oh and a healthy and Happy 2012 too!

I only ask because they really bother me. As a marketing guy I am well aware of the luxury market and its unique aspects and allure to marketers. Lexus has been running these spots for several years now. Somehow I was half-expecting that in this year of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ and the 1% vs. the 99% that Lexus might tone down a bit or even move in a different direction. Apparently that is far from the case seeing this year’s spots –

http://bit.ly/soQlJk .

The spots must be working or else Lexus would not run the spots year after year. Or at least that’s what my rational right brain is telling me. Yet in an article published in Adverting Age today http://bit.ly/tjRSZi (December 15th) the very effectiveness of those Lexus (and other automobile ads) spots were called into question. Finally, I might add.

The snob-appeal aspect of the Lexus spots is what rankles me more than anything else. Were I to be in the market for a luxury vehicle – or more properly in the market to purchase a luxury vehicle for my wife, I cannot fathom going out and buying one without discussing it with her. Assuredly there are people that can afford to buy a luxury car for cash and without any concern for the cost. But that market as attractive as it might be cannot be large enough to sustain a luxury automobile brand by itself. So if I were to buy a car for my spouse what I’d have to explain would be the $ 800/month car payment and increased insurance. I firmly believe this would NOT put a smile on the face of my wonderful wife.

Clearly the Lexus spots are intended to generate aspirational feelings to join the well-heeled crowd and drive the car you’ve always dreamed of. By the way there is never a mention of price or affordability. Which is the point really since the apparent target audience would be unconcerned with the actual cost of a Lexus. I will aver that if I were wealthy enough to consider buying a luxury vehicle for my wife the last thing I would do, would be to buy it, put it in the driveway with a big red bow on top and then say -Surprise honey!

I will go out on a limb and say that most of the successful people I know are low-key and do not like to flaunt their success and certainly not in a blatantly ostentatious manner displayed in the Lexus spots.

How about you – what do you think of the Lexus TV spots?