In addition to football, Super Bowl Sunday also offers the Super Bowl of advertising. At
$3,500,000 per 30 second spot the ad inventory was again sold out for this year’s game and the broadcast will likely have reached more than 110 million people around the world. Since big money and big stakes were at hand the anticipation was high prior to the game for some ground-breaking advertisements. Like the Patriots final drive – most of the Super Bowl ads fell flat as far as I am concerned.

Like many, I watched a number of the preview spots before the game. I liked the longer web version of the Honda CR-V spot with Matthew Broderick reprising Ferris Bueller. It was a great job of melding story and product. Clint Eastwood took on Eminem’s role as spokesperson for Detroit in a great spot from Chrysler/Jeep. Tweets during the game suggested Clint should be running for President.

But for me, many of the spots were just okay at best and some worse than that. The Teleflora spot with the gorgeous Adrienne Lima ended up being patronizing and annoying. And the Coca-Cola Polar bears spots left me scratching my head – didn’t they do that already? Sort of like Career Builder and the chimps. I didn’t think they were that great the first time around. GoDaddy – ugh. The madcap Doritos spots are somewhat amusing and the bag of chips looks shiny but far from brilliant advertising. The Taxact.com spot suggesting that peeing in a pool was akin to the relief you will get by using their product was by far the strangest association. I suspect the Taxact.com website was not crashed by customers clamoring to learn more during or after the game.

Volkswagen about a dog getting in shape was several steps down from the Darth Vader spot of 2011’s Super Bowl. The Cars.com double headed dude was just kind of creepy although I did like the song. Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno for the Acura NSX were a nice combination highlighting their well-known reputation for being car collectors. And the car looked great. Toyota and Lexus ran a few spots that were ho-hum. The same is true of Budweiser and Bud Light (dog trained to get beer – didn’t they do that already?). The Skechers spot with dogs wearing shoes was fun. Bridgestone’s quiet technology exhibited by Steve Nash dribbling a basketball that made little sound was interesting and well done. GE did a couple of nice brand spots that were a welcome relief from the inanity. NBC did a nice job promoting its new show SMASH.

Overall I cannot pick one spot that was head and shoulder above all the others.

How about you? Share your best and worst spot thoughts with us.

Wasn’t the whole idea behind generic brands hatched as a way for consumers to pay less while the store could keep a greater share of the profit? An article in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/AbOAMK offered some interesting thoughts regarding store brands. It seems at times people actually prefer the store brand to the more established name brand. And they are even willing to pay more for the store brand. What the heck is going on here?

When I shop and consider a store or generic brand versus an established brand I go through the same checklist that I’m sure is the same as many people. If I decide to buy generic or store brand paper towels my expectations are lowered a bit (thinner ply and not as absorbent) but will only buy if the price is considerably lower. Sometimes it is lower, but sometimes the name brand is having a special and the value is better. It rarely (if ever) enters my thinking that I would prefer the ‘private label (fancy name for store or generic) brand.

From the WSJ article:
‘Private-label products still cost an average of 29% less than their nationally branded counterparts. But they are rising faster in price, at a rate of 5.3% last year compared with the industry average of 1.9%, and can sometimes be the most expensive product in a category, according to market-research firm Symphony IRI.
Target’s two-pound jars of Archer Farms roasted almonds, prominently displayed on the end of the nut aisle, recently cost about 16 cents more per pound than Planters’ roasted almonds.’

That Target has been able to create a store brand that costs more than the established brand impressed me a great deal.

The article also noted that Procter & Gamble Chief Executive Bob McDonald said the maker of Pampers and Tide has been balancing its exposure to chains with store brands by expanding distribution in other channels like dollar stores, which don’t sell private labels that compete against P&G products. They are also redoubling efforts to develop new products, particularly at lower prices. “We invest $2 billion a year in research and development, $400 million on consumer knowledge and about 10% of sales on advertising,” Mr. McDonald said in a recent interview. “Store brands don’t have that capability.”

Sounds like someone who is not sure but is hoping he’s right.

Is this a wake-up call for traditional established brands?

Mr. Johnson unveiled Penney’s new strategy and logo this week (a square signifying a square deal). One of his first moves is to eliminate the seemingly unending promotions and sales. In fact J.C. Penney had 590 such promotions and sales in 2011. He also will be streamlining pricing to be more consistent, around 40 percent off previous prices, all the time. And as reported in Macnn.com – http://bit.ly/A5gC3X when sales happen, they will be month-long events, and the company will strive to offer “great prices” on items every day. It will also price items in whole numbers, meaning a $20 price instead of $19.99.

I have written (unflatteringly) recently about the trials and tribulations at Sears http://wp.me/pJX7l-y6 and while I’ve not set foot in a J.C. Penney store (at least not that I can recall which says something in and of itself) in a year or so, I feel Mr. Johnson has got the right stuff and is saying and doing the right things to refurbish the J.C. Penney brand.

Having a brand stand for something and have that position understood by consumers is the challenge that Mr. Johnson is taking head on. I like that. He’s also avowed to invest $80 million a month in advertising and promotion. I like that too!

What’s your take on J.C. Penney? Is it a tired brand beyond repair?

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.

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?

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?

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!

The story on Louis C.K. is that he decided to “go direct with his fans: no cable special, no middleman, just a simple download for $5 on his Web site to see his comedy show “Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater.” A true DIY (do-it-yourselfer) Louis C.K. writes, directs, produces and acts in his own series “Louie” and now he is a bona fide distributor. What impressed me more is that shortly after he went out with this novel offer – 200,000 people paid $ 5.00 each for two streams and three downloads of the special. It cost him $ 250,000 to create the show and he will bring in roughly $1 million. To say that’s not bad would be an understatement.

Unrelated I saw another story yesterday on a website unboundbooks.co.uk – a site live in the UK and soon to be in the U.S. as well. The idea of Unbound is best first read straight from their website –

“BRINGING AUTHORS AND READERS TOGETHER

We think authors and readers should decide which books get published. On the Unbound site, (unfortunately the U.S. site www.unbound.com or unboundbooks.com is not yet up but the British site www.unbound.co.uk is up and running), authors pitch their ideas directly to you. If you like what you read, you can pledge your support to help make the book happen. Everyone who supports an author before they reach 100% of the funding target gets their name printed in every edition of that book. All levels include a digital version and immediate access to the author’s shed while they write the book, and supporters of projects that don’t reach their target receive a full refund.”

You can read more from an article straight from The Guardian – http://bit.ly/rxELnz

In short the idea is that a big problem for the publishing industry is that many book advances to authors are non-returnable and do not earn out their advances. What Unbound proposes to do is to have potential readers pay in advance for the book that has yet to be written. It reads better than it first sounds –
“The site, launched last May, acts as a forum for authors to pitch books directly to readers, who, if they like the sound of a project, commit money right away, before the book has even been written. Each book has a target number of pledges it must receive to be viable (generally between 500 and 1,000). When you click on a book on the site, you are shown how many pledges it needs in total, and the percentage it has so far received. You can then pledge your support at a number of levels: from buying the eBook (generally £10), through purchasing the hardback (usually £20) or a signed copy (£50), all the way up to being invited to the launch party (typically £150) or, sometimes, going on an excursion with the author.
Justin Pollard, one of the founders, points out that although pledging involves handing over actual money, supporters aren’t taking a risk, because if the book doesn’t receive the required number of pledges, the project is scrapped and everyone gets their money back. Meanwhile, the publisher avoids exposing itself to upfront advances.

Crowdsourcing has become a bit of a buzzword but to see it in action in both the case of Louis C.K. and Unbound impresses me greatly.

How about your take on these new models?

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?

I heard a radio spot last week from Western Union (WU) regarding singing telegrams. The first thought I had was – Western Union? Is that company still even around? A little research divulged that not only is Western Union still around, in 2010 the total revenue was $1.3 billion. If you are wondering, WU has not delivered any telegraphs since 2006.

Back in 1851 in Rochester, NY what today is Western Union was created as unified telegraph system called the New York and Mississippi Valley Printing Telegraph Company. That company competed with New York and & Western Union Telegraph company – which was purchased out of bankruptcy by Ezra Cornell (yes that Cornell). By 1855 the two companies merged into the Western Union Telegraph Company which operated in much the same way until 2006.

In 2006 Western Union announced that it would discontinue all telegram and commercial messaging services. However telegram services continued in the United States via iTelegram and other companies none of which I have ever heard of.

Yet Western Union still exists today primarily as a company that allows users to send and receive funds to others, pay bills or to purchase gift cards. Western Union also has a mobile money transfer service where a sender goes to a Western Union office and presents funds (plus fees) for either a ‘Next Day’ or ‘Money in Minutes’ service.

Personally I have never used Western Union for a telegram, money transfer or any other service. If you visit their website http://westernunion.com they note that Western Union is ‘connecting families around the world’. And that ‘Western Union helps you provide for your loved ones almost anywhere in the world. Whether it’s for education, healthcare or groceries, we offer Consumer-to-Consumer Money-Transfer Services to get resources to members of your family quickly.’

A publicly traded stock (WU on the NYSE is trading at under $ 18.00/share), just yesterday Western Union announced that it had its Expanded Payment Suite with Western Union Small Business Payments Targeting Small to Medium Sized Businesses although there were no other specifics. In fact, Western Union has a number of branded payment services that are offered through a network of ‘approximately 485,000 agent locations in 200 countries and territories’. In 2010, The Western Union Company completed 214 million consumer-to-consumer transactions worldwide, moving $76 billion of principal between consumers, and 405 million business payments.

On December 1st WU restarted its singing telegram business http://wu-singingtelegram.com now executed as your own personal mashup duet with a choice of famous singers. At the moment it is free but it is slated to cost $ 2 or $ 3 beginning in January.

I think Western Union may offer an object lesson in morphing a dying business and finding ways to not only keep it relevant, but have it thrive. Agree or disagree?

My reaction was – who knew? Did you?