Super Bowl Commercials: a sport all its own

Watching the annual Super Bowl commercials has become quite the spectator sport.

Of course, not so long ago you had to actually watch the game in order to see the commercials. Now, of couse, all of the commercials are readily available the day after on various websites.

For those of you who missed the commercials, and for those of us living outside the US and not able to view these, here are two websites feauring all of the spots:

Advertising Age

Mashable 

I haven’t had the chance to view all of these yet, but I writer I admire, Thom Forbes in his MediaPost blog, was less impressed with this year’s collection. From the ones I’ve viewed thus far, I must admit I agree with his comments that ”it was all much ado about mediocrity.”

Do you agree?

Super Bowl TV Commercials: Best, Funniest, Overpowering

Marketing and Sports Are Interwoven on Super Bowl Sunday.

It’s Super Bowl Sunday in America.

This means the two most talked about topics for the next 48 hours will be a football game and the advertising shown during the commercial breaks of the TV broadcast.

I cannot tell you much about the game itself, except that most forecasters predict a closely fought battle between two evenly matched teams.

But to get you into the marketing mood for the TV commercials, here are two compilations of previous Super Bowl commercials worth watching:

10 Super Bowl Ads That Overpowered Their Products

Are These the 10 Funniest Super Bowl Commercials Ever?

You can also vote at Huffington Post on some of the best Super Bowl commercials of all time.

Enjoy.

And let us know what you think about these spots in the comments section below. Which is your all-time favorite?

Customers Keen To Know More About Companies Behind Brands

Consumers want to know the companies behind the brands.

The recently released Weber Shandwick research study, The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust, shows conclusively that consumers around the globe are making product and brand purchase decisions based on company reputations.

Additionally, the survey shows that customers use several methods to find out who manufactures and sells the products and brands being considered, including reading labels and conducting their own research.

This study shows that:

·         67% of consumers increasingly check product labels to see what company is behind the product they are buying

·         70% will avoid buying a product if they do not like the company behind the product

·         56% hesitate to buy products if they cannot tell who makes them

·         61% get annoyed when they cannot tell what company is behind a particular product or brand

·         56% conduct their own research to learn more about the companies that make what they intend to buy

Consumers are keen to know what a company is doing to (or for) the environment, where products are being manufactured, and how the employees are being treated. A good example of this last point is the storm that has erupted in the past week about how the employees at a manufacturing facility making Apple products are treated. In just a few short days, over 110,000 people have signed an open petition asking Apple to intervene with their supplier as there are no labor laws in China to protect these staff.

In addition, there are now calls to boycott Apple products and a New York Times article last week was headlined “In China, human costs are built into an iPad.”

Another source of information for consumers is the BrandKarma website, where anyone can rate a brand or company on the quality of their products, how well they treat people, and how well they look after the planet. Apple, which scores high for Product Karma, has a cumulative below average score for both People Karma and Planet Karma.

The Weber Shandwick survey report states, “As consumers around the world have greater online access to a brand’s lineage, the influence of the brand parent, or company behind the brand, matters even more.”

The bottom line, as we wrote in the Monday Morning Marketing Memo this week, is that corporate reputations and corporate image actually matter more than ever and they have a major impact on the sales performance of brands and products. To think (or act) otherwise is simply foolish.

6 New Realities of Corporate Reputations

Corporate Image Management matters more now than ever.

Corporate reputations impact brand and product sales performance. That’s one of the key findings from a recent global study by Weber Shandwick called The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust.

As the survey report states, “As consumers around the world have greater online access to a brand’s lineage, the influence of the brand parent, or company behind the brand, matters even more.”

The study identified Six New Realities of Corporate Reputation, which the PR firm says serves as reminders that business leaders cannot view their company’s reputation and their product brands as separately as they once did. These six “new realities” are:

1.       The corporate brand is as important as the product brand(s).

2.       Corporate reputation provides product quality assurance.

3.       Any disconnect between corporate and product reputation triggers sharp consumer reaction.

4.       Products drive customer discussions, with reputation close behind.

5.       Consumers shape corporate reputations instantly.

6.       Corporate reputation contributes to company market value.

In actuality, none of these are truly “new” realities, other than perhaps the ability of consumers to now shape corporate reputations instantly via social media.

All were highlighted, in one way or another, in my book Corporate Image Management: A Marketing Discipline which was published in 1998.

However, today’s more conversant and knowledgeable consumer is more aware of the companies behind branded products and services. They are also more informed and responsive to the actions of these companies.

The study showed that 67% of consumers report that they increasingly check product labels to see what company is behind the product they are buying, and a full 56% will hesitate to buy a product if they cannot tell who makes it.

Plus, as we highlighted in this week’s Monday Morning Marketing Memo, a walloping  70% of the consumers surveyed in this study reported that they avoid buying a product if they do not like the company behind the product.

This survey confirms that what I wrote 14 years ago in Corporate Image Management still rings true today: the ultimate battleground for winning and maintaining customer relationships takes place in the minds, hearts, emotions, and perceptions of customers.

Which is why corporate reputations matter more than ever.

Netflix Back Flips on Qwikster

Time to recover lost brand equity.

In another stunning move, Netflix announced today that it was abandoning its move to split websites for its DVD movie rentals and streaming businesses, and dropping the Qwikster name.

As we wrote less than a month ago, previous moves by the company’s management was effectively destroying its brand equity.

While the question of what the Netflix brand stands for still remains, this move today will undoubtedly put the Netflix brand back on firmer ground. Whether they regain the hundreds of thousands of lost customers is another question.

I guess every generation needs to have its “New Coke” moment. Hastings and his senior crew at Netflix have brought us ours, even surpassing the miscues made last year by the Gap logo saga.

What are your thoughts? Is the Netflix brand back on the road to salvation?

Netflix: Destroying Brand Equity

File this under the “what were they thinking?” category.

Netflix announced that it is splitting its DVD rental and streaming video businesses in an attempt to overcome the massive negative publicity and rapidly escalating customer attrition since it raised prices for both services in July.

Okay, that makes sense.

But here’s the killer.

In an attempt to “win back the trust of its customers,” the company is rebranding its DVD rental service to Qwikster.

Let’s see if I understand this correctly. Some 25 million customers signed up for Netflix as a convenient and preferred way to rent DVDs. And, until a couple of months ago, these customers seemed to trust Netflix.

So now, to win back the trust of the remaining customers (it has reportedly lost over 600,000 monthly subscribers since the July price hike), the CEO has decided to change the name of its DVD rental business and use the Netflix brand for its streaming services.

What could they possibly be thinking? Why not leverage the equity of the Netflix brand and call the streaming service Netflix On Demand, Netflix Streaming, Netflix Video, or even the Netflix Channel? Or anything else that created a brand extension and told customers “Netflix is a brand you can continue to trust.”

And if company management thinks the Netflix brand is not good enough to trust for those remaining 24 million customers who will now forcibly be shifted to Qwikster, what makes anyone think it is a brand that can be trusted for video streaming services?

Apparently even the Netflix DVD business will move to a new website. How confusing will that be to its customers?

I wonder how popular the search phrase “Netflix alternatives” is becoming?

In the past two months, the company has ineptly implemented a much maligned price hike to its existing customers (so much for customer loyalty), split its services into two, and dropped the Netflix branding from its most popular service.

So what does the Netflix brand stand for now? Who knows.

No wonder Netflix has lost roughly 50% of its market value since this series of blunders began in July.

If I were on the Board of Netflix I would be asking for the immediate resignation of CEO Reed Hastings on the grounds of destroying the brand equity of Netflix.

Amazon, Apple Top Loyalty Leaders List

Consumers Reward Brands with Emotional and Social Connections.

Amazon knocked the Apple iPhone off the top perch in the 15th annual Loyalty Leaders list from Brand Keys, while Facebook came from nowhere to the number three position.

Apple need not be overly concerned, however, as Apple also ranked fifth in customer loyalty for its computer products. Amazon may also have benefitted from the free fall of Borders, which dropped to dead last in 528th position.

The Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement Index assesses 528 brands across 79 categories, using both telephone and face-to-face interviews with consumers.

While Brand Keys claims that its “proprietary customer-listening system” is predictive, highly accurate and close to 100% test-retest reliability, the firm does not share any details about the methodology behind this study. They also claim that the Brand Keys Loyalty Model is a leading indicator of brand and corporate profitability, though that is hard to swallow when BP shows up six places from the bottom in 523rd place. While the BP brand certainly deserves to wallow at the bottom of this list, I cannot see BP’s future profitability falling to the same level as Borders , Friendster, Bank of America and others in the bottom ten.

I would agree with the assessment by Brand Keys that “brand loyalty has always been driven by emotion” and that “consumers are looking to emotionally connect with brands that stand for something and delight them.”

The Top 100 Customer Loyalty Leaders is a mixed bag of technology, retail, social media, alcoholic beverages, and fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) brands. Interestingly, only 13 of the top 100 (though five of the top 10) would be on my personal list of brands that would receive my loyalty. How about you?

Steve Jobs: Marketing Genius

Why Apple’s Steve Jobs is a World-Class Marketing Genius

Like many consumers I have long been enamored with the product designs, enhanced functionalities and overall quality of the Apple products brought to us by Steve Jobs.

As a marketing professional, though, I have also been enthralled by the power, story lines and production values of the TV commercials produced by Apple under the eagle eye and branding brain of Jobs. And yet this is only part of the story behind the marketing genius of Jobs.

Apple is often seen as a company built through product design. But it is more, much more.

Led by the instinctive and intuitive insights of Jobs, Apple has had a foundational focus on the customer experience, long before “customer experience marketing” entered our industry jargon.

The customer experience was often the focus of Apple’s advertising campaigns. And it has certainly been the key element in how the Apple retail stores have been designed, from free availability of products test and trial to the clever concept of the Genius Bars. It is little wonder that Apple’s retail stores have a higher sales-per-square-foot level than any other retail chain in the USA, including high-end retailers like Tiffany’s, Gucci and Coach.

How was Apple able to produce a steady flow of brilliant advertising over the years? Two key factors:

a) Jobs was heavily involved in the creative process at all times

b) Jobs used only one agency (Chiat/Day, which eventually merged into TBWA)

Together they produced a litany of powerful, emotive, brand building advertising campaigns, including:

• 1984
• Mac vs. PC
• Meet iPad
• Silhouettes
• Think Different
• Meet Her
• Stacks
• Quotes

Which of these were your favorites? Any to add? I will be adding the ones I like best to my favorites at our Howard Marketing YouTube channel.

Designers call Steve Jobs an inspiration to their craft. Computer geeks claim Jobs as their own guru. And those of us in the marketing profession know that, above everything else, Jobs is a marketing genius.

We can only hope that Jobs will do for marketing in the Boardroom what he has done for marketing as CEO.

Product Unplacement

Abercrombie & Fitch Wants Clothes Off Jersey Shore

Product placement is an estimated $8-$10 billion industry, with brands often competing with one another to be pictured in movies, TV shows, sporting events and even theatre plays. But this is the first example I know where a company has actually offered to pay for its brand to no longer be displayed in a specific program.

Last week, in an unprecedented move, Abercrombie & Fitch offered to pay the cast members of Jersey Shore to stop wearing its clothes on air.

According to a statement released by the company, “We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response.”

I wonder if A&F gave any thought to trying to legally stop the identification of its branded apparel, perhaps in the name of brand protection?

That would have been an interesting case (something I would have expected to see argued in the brilliant TV show Boston Legal).

Do marketers have legal recourse to protect their brand image and reputation by preventing associations they believe are damaging?

Any legal or trademark experts out there who can share their expertise or viewpoint on this?

BP’s Latest Brand Disaster: Doctored Pictures

News Corporation is reporting what environmentalists and others have long suspected — that BP has been “playing fast and loose with the truth.”

In a story on Friday on their Australian web site, Newscorp reports that BP has been caught doctoring photos of its response to the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The story actually originated with the publishing of two altered photos taken from the BP web site by tech web site Gizmodo.

For other examples of BP’s PR approach to this disaster, see our previous post BP: Brand Perfidious.

I suspect that the expected resignation this week of BP CEO Tony Hayward is unlikely to halt the current freefall in the BP corporate brand image.

Let me know if you agree or disagree.