Showing posts with label Ad Age. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ad Age. Show all posts

14 January, 2011

If You Can Transform a Brand, You Can Transform Your Agency

Yes, I borrowed that line from the title of an article published in AdAge. Truth be told, it's the platform for this post.

Right now we (Renegade) are in the trenches of re-branding ourselves. And I would be a liar if I said it was the easiest thing we've ever done. It's surprising how difficult the work becomes when it is no longer directed towards your clients and suddenly becomes all about you. Case and point, have you ever had to write about yourself? Perhaps a bio, a blurb, about me, etc... It's more difficult than you think. As Christine puts it "Decode your DNA". Figure out who you are. Figure out what your trying to do/sell/offer. Strip everything away and focus on the one thing that makes you, you.

This is the case with any branding initiative but it's a lot easier to dissect the fruits of someone else's labor. When you are forced into a moment of introspect, things get uncomfortable, usually a bit sticky and ultimately someone steps in something gross and tracks it across the living room floor. Fortunately for this industry, a creative solution can clean up any mess.

Once you have the fancy adjectives and fluff stripped away and you can clearly see your vision, corporate culture and unique differentiator, you can begin the process of putting your brand back together. Don't forget all of the other cosmetic details either - you have to think about curb appeal in this neighborhood.

So now you've got a new look, a new approach and now a new buzz in the atmosphere. Now what? Oh yeah, now it's time to launch. I'll leave that up to you while I segue into the Renegade brand launch.

For some time we've been revamping the Renegade brand - who we are, what we do and how we do it. As I mentioned earlier, it was not an easy process and for any agency that has gone through it, knows that.

It's almost like planning a wedding.

You lock down the foundation that everything else will fall into first - who you are, where you're going and how you'll get there (a.k.a. research). Then you move on to the more detail oriented tasks - brand positioning, brand identity, brand plan. And last but not least, the nitty gritty details that you can't forget but never remember - updating all letterhead, docs, envelopes, business cards and email signatures with your new look, setting the tone for your new culture and rallying your troops (in the midst of all the top-level business decisions, you can't forget about your front line - these folks are going to be your brand ambassadors).

With that said, I highly recommend checking out Christine's article in AdAge and also keep checking back to the Agency Confessional and the new Renegade Communications website for the launch of our new brand.

- Jim Luparello III AE Brand Ambassador


Read more...
If You Can Transform a Brand, You Can Transform Your AgencySocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

10 March, 2009

Why Pay More...Seriously, Why Pay More?

Was flipping through Ad Age’s Annual 2009 the other day (yeah, I know it came out in January, but somebody took the “good” copy into the bathroom). Anyway, I saw a few interesting things. Generally, the company that spent the most money for their particular industry in 2007 earned the largest market share, which makes sense. And usually if you spent the second through tenth most, you didn’t grab a market share that much smaller or larger than you spent. If you spent the second most, you probably finished with a top five market share, and if you spent the 9th most, you probably finished in the bottom five. However, there were some anomalies, and those are the companies we should look at or avoid imitating.

Toyota spent half as much on media as General Motors, but grabbed 2/3 as high of a market share. Ford on the other hand grabbed 2/3 as large a market share as GM, but spent ¾ of what GM spent on Media. Nissan spent nearly half of what GM spent, but pulled only slightly more than ¼ of GM’s market. What were Ford and Nissan doing wrong?

You can see this across a variety of industries. Restaurant chains generally spend more on media than they reap in their share of the market. The one exception was Dunkin Donuts. The DD spent about 13% of what top dog McDonald’s spent, but grabbed 18 % of the share the Golden Arches held. KFC and Pizza Hut held roughly the same market share as Dunkin Donuts, but Pizza Hut spent nearly double what Dunkin Donuts spent, while KFC spent almost 2.5 times as much.

Beverages are the other way around. The top companies generally spend a smaller percentage compared to their share of the market. A huge exception is Gatorade (PepsiCo), who spent more than half of what Coca Cola spent, but only pulled in less than ¼ of what Coca Cola brought in. And that’s just media buys. It doesn’t even take into account how much they paid spokespersons like Peyton Manning and Derek Jeter (although that would at least make more sense). Sprite, on the other hand, sells itself. Coke spent only 12.5 million—5% of what they spent on Coca Cola—for a beverage that grabbed nearly a 1/5 of the market Coca Cola owned. Oh, and did anyone else know that Nestle owns 7 of the top-selling water brands, including Poland Spring and Deer Park? Who needs carbonation and sugar?

Now let’s talk about my favorite industry on this list--How to succeed at selling beer. 1) Be Anheuser-Busch. The Budweiser brewer held nearly 50% of the market, which is insane considering the next closest industry leader was AT&T with 27.4% of the wireless market. 2) So you’re not Budweiser. Then don’t be Heineken. The green bottled Dutch lager spent 1/3 of what Anheuser-Busch spent, but only had 1/10 of A-B’s market share. 3) Be Pabst. The now largest American owned brewer, on the other hand, spent less than 1% of what Busch spent, but held 6 % of Busch’s market share—the only brewer on the list besides Yuengling to reap more market than it sewed.

Now wireless is interesting, because the biggest spender didn’t hold the largest market share. The second largest provider, Verizon, spent $1,717.4 million, while the largest, AT&T, spent only $1,589.3 mil. After that, the numbers pretty much all make sense.

Oh, those poor retailers. When it comes to retail, ad spending doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Top spender Macy’s outspent second highest spender Sears by nearly $300 million, but Sears almost doubled Macy’s market share. Actually, at only 1.0% of the market, Macy’s had the seventh highest market share, and Sears had the fifth. The largest share (as if you couldn’t guess) went to Wal-Mart, who earned almost 11% of the market at about half of what Macy’s spent.

What does all of this mean? Well, marketers put a high value on premium products, but apparently Americans just want products that are cheap--Budweiser, Pabst, McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, Wal-Mart. Heineken is a premium product that enough Americans just haven’t bought into, and Verizon is a service that charges higher rates, based on their reputation, but apparently, Americans don’t care.

A big exception would be Starbucks, but when you charge $5.78 for something that costs $0.88, you’d have a healthy bottom line too. And Toyota’s not cheap, but they’ve got a reputation that goes back longer than Verizon’s. I mean, who would you rather steal from—Toyota whose Tundra can survive an asteroid strike, or Chevy, the company that thought it would be a good idea to purchase the Geo line.

The lesson, unless you’ve got an amazing reputation or the best business model since Twitter, “We don’t produce anything, but that won’t stop you,” be easily accessible (re: Budweiser, McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts) and be cheap.

Read more...
Why Pay More...Seriously, Why Pay More?SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

06 November, 2008

Marketer of the Year? Whatever.

While brainstorming in our “brilliance pit,” I stumbled across an issue of Ad Age from a couple weeks ago. For those even more behind the times than I am, the Association of National Advertisers named Barack Obama Marketer of the Year for 2008. The Top 5 were rounded out by Apple, Zappos, Nike and Coors.

There’s no argument. All of those companies have marketed themselves well and experienced great success because of it, but seriously, did these guys really have the toughest product to market? There was presidential buzz around Obama the night he was elected to the Senate in 2004.

Apple’s been cool since the iPod was released six years ago. And Nike? Michael Jordan strapped on his Airs back in 1985, and no sneaker has been more recognizable over the past 25 years. Kids literally line up outside shoe stores when a new pair of Nikes comes out. These were not difficult products to market.

Let's talk challenges. You know who I think had to work a political miracle? The people behind David Duke. A former Grand wizard of the freakin' KKK and considered by many to be one of the most detestable political wannabes in America, he ran for office half a dozen times! He was a State Representative for Louisiana, and even ran for President in 1988, receiving more than 47,000 votes. Now, that was a guy who needed some serious marketing help.

A shoe company that’s done some great work—Crocs. They’ve convinced people to buy footwear, which the first time I saw I thought were disposal shoes. Sure, they have minimal support, are made of the same material as hot glue sticks, and have been known to get caught in escalators. So buy two. Buy three. There’s a good chance you’ll need a new pair provided your foot doesn’t get taken off along with the Croc.

You want to talk about technology? Let’s talk Blu-ray. These days you hear an advertisement for Blu-ray discs with every movie coming out on DVD, but do you actually know anyone with a Blu-ray player? Probably not, because people don’t want to pay for a DVD player that’s more expensive than their entire entertainment center. Yet some marketers convinced studios that during a recession was the perfect time to heavily market movies on Blu-ray, even though no one owns something to play them on. Nice work.

And beer? Maybe Coors has done some great advertising, but when it comes to beer, where’s that going to get you—other than reminding Coors drinkers to drink Coors. When it comes to beer, I’ve had so many different kinds, from Meister Brau and Busch to fancy IPAs and Stouts served in wine bottles. And with beer, you’re not going to sway someone’s opinion on whether a beer is “good” or not. People like what they like, and that’s it. You want to talk about a little beverage that could—how about Clamato juice? The refreshing combination of tomato juice and reconstituted dried clam broth. It’s like V8 mixed with just a hint of the Dead Sea.
.
Did they do some brilliant, head-turning advertising? Absolutely, but it’s easy to market products people already like. How about next year we dig a little deeper and look for products that were actually difficult to market—poison, evil, beating up puppies (Michael Vick will be looking for some new representation), and how about a nice Kaczynski/Gargamel ticket in 2012?

My point is, advertising can be pretty hard, and most companies and agencies aren’t advertising products that are all peaches and cream. Why not acknowledge the marketers who turn a tricky product into a success? Like in one year taking the Renegade Agency Confessional inside the Internet’s 767,444 most popular sites (according to Alexa), to the Top 600 of Ad Age’s Power 150, and making us the 69th most popular agency blog in all of the UK.






You know, sometimes I really love me.



Read more...
Marketer of the Year? Whatever.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

15 January, 2008

The Audfather

Ad Age reports that Audi’s pimping “The Godfather” to shill its new R8 sportster in a :60 for the Super Bowl. OK. I can live with that. Fred Astaire danced with a vacuum; the apocalypse has already begun. But it was CMO Scott Keogh’s rationale behind felching from the Coppola epic that triggered the WTF Alarm:

"If you look at 'The Godfather,' the movie is about a classic American struggle," he told Ad Age at the North American International Auto Show. The automaker, he said, is in a "classic struggle against old views of luxury. ... Audi, of course, represents the new luxury."

Yes, the “classic American struggle”: illegal gambling rings, money laundering, and barbershop assassinations. What happened to white picket fences and making the mortgage? Last time I checked, that was what I struggled to do.

And the “classic struggle against old views of luxury?” Naturally, it’s just like gunning down a mob boss outside the neighborhood produce stand.

My guess: he watched “The Godfather” one weekend on TBS. A half bottle of 25-year Tawny later, in between bad Brando imitations and imaginary shoot outs with his coat rack, he’s in his silk jammies scribbling out the bestest Audi campaign ever creationalized! I’m guessing the moronic explanation he gave to Ad Age came the morning after this coyote ugly concept was conceived. It gives me a headache just thinking of it.

Dishing the creative before strategy only works for people named Hal Riney.

Edit: I saw the spot. It has its charms. The marketing guy's "justification" is still absurd.

M.M.McDermott, ACD/Copywriter/Hater

Read more...
The AudfatherSocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
The Renegade Agency Confessional - Blogged

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP