Brand Building and Communications | Booze Business: A Blog Dedicated to the Business of Spirits and Wine

Brand Building and Communications, Marketing and Sales

Jack’s New Home

May 18, 2011 2 Comments

Brown Forman just announced a revised and revamped package for Jack Daniel’s. Bloggers and industry observers are starting to weigh in on the pluses and minuses, so I thought I’d jump in as well.

Once upon a time, manufacturers were frightened of package changes. Concerns about loss of heritage and denigrating the brand’s equity were always the main “don’t do it” arguments. But the most damaging concern was “what will the consumer think.” Over the years, I’ve even heard it said that a package change would suggest a product change and result in erosion of appeal among consumers.

Baloney. Well, sort of.

If a packaging shift involves walking away from the key elements of a brand’s equity then it is doomed. The best recent example of that is the fiasco with Tropicana. The main icon, an orange with a straw, was removed in favor of a nondescript glass of juice. As you may recall, the package change effort was a disaster and Pepsico reverted to the original in a hurry.

However, if a manufacturer evolves or tweaks the packaging by removing the clutter, making it less wordy and updating the message, I believe it enhances the consumer relationship and brand equity. I haven’t seen the new package as yet but from what I’ve read, the new Jack Daniel’s look does just that. Good for you for making the brave call.

One last thought — I call it the chicken soup approach to marketing. Turning a brand’s performance around based on packaging changes, major or minor, is like chicken soup when you have a cold. It may not help but it can’t hurt.

“What did the client say?”

December 13, 2010 1 Comment

I came across an interesting and fun piece in Ad Age Daily I wanted to share with you, in case you haven’t seen it.

Derek Walker, whom I’ve never met but hope to, has a blog about advertising. He describes himself as “the janitor, secretary and mailroom person for his tiny agency, brown and browner advertising based in Columbia, S.C.” So right off the bat I like him.

His posting in Ad Age was called, Clients Say the Funniest Things. Since I’ve been on both sides of the desk I found his client quotes and reactions to advertising creative to be right on target and very funny.

So to those of you on the agency side, please enjoy. Those of you on the client side, well, here’s what some of your counterparts elsewhere, ahem, sound like.

For those of you who haven’t witnessed the presentation of creative messages and the reactions, this will be a window on the dance that sometimes takes place.

Here’s the interesting part — these reactions often happen to marketers themselves when they present creative work to their management who, in effect, is a client.

With thanks to Derek Walker for his approval, here are some client comments he has heard:

“We love the concept, it’s great! But can we change the visual, rework the headline and adjust the copy. Other than that we love it!”
“We don’t want ‘friends’ or for people to ‘like’ us. We want customers.”
“In the marketing class I took in college, the instructor said you should mention your company’s name at least seven times in a radio spot to be effective. Can we add 5 more mentions? That would make it great.”
“We don’t want to use emotions, we’re talking to business people and they don’t have them.”
On social media: “I get it but I’m worried that people will start talking about our product without us.”
After laughing hilariously for a couple of moments: “That’s great! It does everything we want and it stands out. But seriously, let’s see the real work.”
“Everyone loved the concept, then I took it home and showed it to my wife who used to be an English teacher and she said the line isn’t grammatically correct. Can you write a new headline?”
“We can’t do this; it is nothing like what we’ve done in the past.”
“Why talk to customers, can’t we just tell them what we offer?”
“I don’t understand why you put in so much effort. It’s only a website. Couldn’t we just throw up something and be done with it?”
“None of our competitors are doing or saying anything like that. How do we know it will work?”
“We don’t want to spend any money but we want everyone to know about us, we want to be everywhere our customers are.”
“Do we really need to be creative? I mean, isn’t our product great enough to attract attention?”
“I don’t believe in advertising, we’re only doing this because our competitors are.”
“I sure miss the days when all we had to do was produce a calendar with tits and ass and everyone was happy.”

For some of us in the booze business, the last one really resonates.

My own personal favorite is when a presenter of creative gets pushback from the client and asks for specifics on how to address the concerns. Too many times, I’ve heard the phrase, “I can’t tell you… I’ll know it when I see it.”

Product Placements

September 14, 2010 No Comments

Think about E.T. and Reese’s Pieces. Smirnoff and James Bond. “You’ve Got Mail” and Starbuck’s.

Product placements in film and TV, depending on whom you talk to, are considered a critical brand building or reinforcement tool. There are some, however, who see it as low impact — it’s ok if you don’t have to pay for it.

In doing a little research on the subject lately, I’ve come across some interesting information.

First, consider this from a study on the subject: (Link)

“…the type of product-placement an advertiser opts for should depend on their marketing goals. If you want to build awareness … it’s probably best to opt for a placement that plays a role in the story itself. But if you just want to reinforce preferences for a well-known brand (say, “Coke” versus “Pepsi”), it’s probably not necessary to go to that expense. Just having your brand in the movie works just as well.

Second, I spoke to Joel Henrie who runs Motion Picture Placement, a leader in the field and an old friend who informs me that the upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (the sequel) had adult beverage companies tripping over themselves to pay for placement. We’re talking big bucks here.

My first exposure to product placement (albeit from a distance) was shortly after I joined Seagram. It was on behalf of Herradura Tequila.

Based on film industry connections, the company had an opportunity (which I believe turned into a mandate) to place the brand in a film called Tequila Sunrise. Aside from the title as a perfect fit, the placement involved brand exposure galore — verbal mentions, bottle exposure on the bar and consumed by the actors, signage, even a bus passing by with a Herradura ad on the side. So, there was a role for the brand in the story, not a central role, but the title alone made the brand a key element.

Even more, Tequila Sunrise was star studded and sure to have target audience appeal. Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kurt Russell starred; Robert Towne wrote and directed the movie. A sure thing, right?

The movie sucked and never lived up to its promise. A Variety review summed it up nicely: “There’s not much kick in this cocktail, despite its mix of quality ingredients.” Roger Ebert wrote, “It’s hard to surrender yourself to a film that seems to be toying with you.”

The small number of people who saw the film agreed.

I’ve always been a proponent of product placement and integration. To me, it makes good sense as a brand-building tool. But, I’ve learned the following:

Positive impact on a brand is not a foregone conclusion. No matter how well the product is shown and integrated, sometimes, the only winner is the TV or film producer. But, that’s true for all media.
For adult beverages, how the product is portrayed is as important as the portrayal itself. Enough said.
If the story doesn’t click with audiences, the brand becomes “collateral damage.” Unfortunately, there’s no real way to predict it, but worth the shot.

Have you noticed what E.T. did for Reese’s Pieces? As I’ve been told, it was first offered to Mars on behalf of M&Ms and they turned it down. Hershey said yes.