Category: Advertising

“Fancy” Ads

On By ashleyfausIn AdvertisingLeave a comment

While reading through a trade magazine, I came across a competitor’s ad that read, “We don’t do fancy advertisements because you shouldn’t be expected to pay for the overhead. We have some of the most competitive… rates in the industry.” I thought this was an interesting take on advertisements. A lot of people try to go for the catchiest slogan, flashiest colors, boldest fonts, and generally try to wow you. I think this ad did its job just as well as the “fancy” ads: I took a moment to read it, I’m taking a moment to write about it, and I might be willing to see if they really are passing savings along to their customers. This particular industry is less concerned about frills than they are about functionality and meeting Federal standards, so a no-nonsense approach can be a winner in this arena.

Further, this ad reaches its target audience by speaking in a language they understand, with an offering that they care about. And, after all, isn’t that what ads are supposed to do? As a marketer and scrapbook-enthusiast, I tend to want to make everything “pretty”. But at the end of the day,  I am really aiming to sell a product or service to my target audience. While it’s not my favorite ad, and it certainly won’t win any awards in the ad community, I must concede that this particular ad delivered their message successfully to their core audience.

The Copycat Wars

On By ashleyfausIn Advertising, BrandingLeave a comment

I’ve recently posted several articles about companies employing a “copycat” strategy, including references to BK vs. McDonald’s, and Starbucks vs. Peet’s Coffee. An article posted by CNN yesterday sparked this post about my thoughts on a trend of “copycat” wars. CNN titled the article “How Bing is out-innovating Google“, and discussed several new features of the Bing search engine. So, if Google continues to dominate the search engine space, why would it appear that they are copying their competition?

The CNN article notes that Bing utilizes categories to display search results, which contributes to its’ mission of being a “decision engine”. A year later, Google started categorizing results in a similar format instead of their traditional blue links down the page. Further, they’ve started to stray from their traditional white background and “Google” logo to more colorful options in both background and logo. They also copied Bing by announcing that they would incorporate Twitter feeds into their results, an announcement that came hours after Bing’s announcement of the same feature. Everyone touts Google as the end-all be-all of the search engine world, but Bing is creeping up slowly and surely.

While offering similar features is often an industry standard, employing the exact same tactics as a competitor can be detrimental. You don’t want to be the last one to jump on the bandwagon, as it tells your customers that you don’t have the latest and greatest at all times. Why use version 1.0 when I can upgrade to version 2.0 with better service?  It also looks a little desperate and lazy to just copy your competitors’ advertising, ideas, and timelines. This type of copycat strategy makes it difficult to distinguish your brand from everyone else in the industry, and you don’t want to be the one that no one remembers. Further, when a company makes a side-by-side comparison, it encourages their customers to make similar comparisons, which is dangerous when you’re the last one to implement a new feature or idea. It also encourages scrutiny of your weaknesses in direct comparison to your competitor, where most companies prefer to offer up their strengths for customers to judge. I’m interested to see if the copycat wars continue, and how many industries are permeated with this type of advertising. I think it’s a dangerous road, especially for the top two players in an industry to stop trying to differentiate themselves. For all the time, money, and effort that goes into a brand and a reputation, I think it’s unwise to let the fate of your company be determined by your competitor.

Freddo Fridays

On By ashleyfausIn AdvertisingLeave a comment

I’m normally a Starbucks drinker, but I recently dropped into Peet’s for my morning fix. I was surprised to see a hand-written sign advertising “Freddo Fridays”, a deal that offer Freddos for $2 every Friday this summer. Now, why does this sound familiar? Could it be that Starbucks is running a VERY similar promotion, the $2 after 2 pm for all cold drinks? More interestingly, on the back of the hand-written sign at Peet’s, was an almost identical advertising for “Any Way You Want” Freddos, with the milks and coffee strengths listed. Again… didn’t Starbucks JUST post this promotion about a month ago? The humor was further heightened when I realized that the head-to-head Starbucks sign was hand-written and placed in once location, and had absolutely nothing to do with their current summer promotions and signage. Their original promotion says, “Feels like summer, tastes like Peet’s”, on beautiful banners plastered all over the windows and counters.

Once again, I am amazed at the message, “we’re not different or better, but exactly the same”. I mentioned this in the BK vs. McDonald’s post, but I think the Peet’s strategy is less compelling, as it truly seems to be an afterthought or copycat. It’s like their Marketing department decided that what they’d worked for several months to create wasn’t quite as good as what could be done with a hand-written sign using the Marketing plan that Starbucks had developed. I know they say there are no truly original ideas, but I think it’s best to at least try to put your own twist on  your Marketing pieces!

BK vs. McDonald’s Commercial

On By ashleyfausIn AdvertisingLeave a comment

I just saw the craziest commercial the other night! It featured the Burger King mascot breaking into McDonald’s headquarters and stealing the blueprint for a sausage, egg, and cheese muffin. The tagline stated, “It’s not that original, just sausage, egg, and cheese, but it tastes good and it’s only $1.” The end of the commercial shows the Burger King mascot racing through the security gate on a motorcycle, leaving the security guards bewildered.

I have seen Apple vs. Microsoft and Verizon vs. AT&T, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen food companies directly challenging each other in their advertising. It’s also odd that they aren’t trying to say they are better than McDonald’s, they’re actually trying to say they’re the SAME as McDonald’s. Very interesting in my opinion. I wonder if it’s just gotten to the point that the fast food companies are playing a price game after failing at other tactics. McDonald’s tried to go healthy and go premium, while Burger King has always offered “have it your way” and premium burgers, but now it comes down to saying, “we’re selling the same thing, at the same price… the end.” I haven’t looked into BK’s Marketing recently, but it seems odd that they used this tactic in their advertising. I’ll have to keep my eyes open to see if I can figure out where they’re going with it. But, if nothing else, it caught my attention and kept me talking, so they must be doing something right!

What’s in a Word: Going Green

On By ashleyfausIn AdvertisingLeave a comment

I’m in a word mood I guess, because this post also deals with word choice in advertising. While walking to the elevators at Adobe corporate, I noticed a 3-section bin with the following labels, “Compost”, “Recycle”, and “Landfill”. Most bins in the Bay area have a place for trash and recycling, and some also include compost. But, so far, Adobe is the only one I’ve seen with the label “Landfill” instead of “Trash”.

For some reason, I find this to be a little humorous. I understand that we all need to do our part to be green, and recycle or compost when we can. They take it a step further by reminding us where our trash ultimately ends up, and it just strikes me as funny. The makers of this bin must be using this word choice as a small guilt trip to those depositing waste in the trash bin, in the hopes of making them remember that they are contributing to a growing problem. I wonder if using the label “landfull” actually makes people stop and think, change their behavior, or chuckle a little. Then again, maybe no one notices… would you?

What’s in a Word?

On By ashleyfausIn AdvertisingLeave a comment

I’ve been thinking about this post for a while, trying to come up with some insightful reason as to why the words “homemade, hand-made, and hand-crafted” aren’t interchangeable. I haven’t come up with a reason why, so I’ll just ponder and maybe one of you can give me some insight.

It appears that you can use the words “hand-made” and “hand-crafted” for artistic-type items, like furniture, cards, scarves, etc. These items tend to sell at a premium because they are not mass-produced. It’s interesting, because one would tend to assume that humans make more mistakes than machines, and thus, these items should have more flaws.

“Homemade” seems to be the word of choice for baked goods like pies and cakes. These items also sell at a premium, and come with premium respect when brought to a party.

So why can’t scarves be “homemade” and pies be “hand-made”? Why are “homemade” gifts less desireable than “hand-crafted” or “hand-made” gifts, but “homemade” pies and cookies are impressive? The words have the exact same meaning, but seem to significantly affect the value of the items they describe. Any thoughts on these synonyms?

The P & G Vancouver 2010 Commercial

On By ashleyfausIn Advertising, BrandingLeave a comment

I caught some of the winter Olympics this year, with amazing athletes, a luge tragedy, and one commercial that really struck me. I love the Proctor and Gamble “To Their Moms, They’ll Always Be Kids” commercial! 

I think this commercial completely holds true to their brand identity. They’ve positioned themselves as a company that is present in your everyday life, with products that you’ll use for a lifetime. Remember when I talked about making your product a habit, and ensuring that it is passed through the generations? Proctor and Gamble achieves and exemplefies this thought in the commercial. When they cut to the Mom’s face and then flash several of their well-known brands, they remind us that Olympians or not, everyone needs and uses P & G products.

In addition to being spot-on in the brand identity department, this commercial does “emotional” the right way. Even my parents say that no matter how old I am, I’ll always be their little girl.  This commercial continues the sentiment that no matter how high you fly as an athlete, you’ll always be your parents’ baby. And, for this reason, parents always want to give their kids the best. How do they do it? By giving them P & G products! This commercial tells you that P & G wants to help you help your kids be their best, and what better way than to feature Olympians? On another “emotional” note, who can’t appreciate a bunch of cute, aspiring kids? 🙂

Finally, I love the subtlety in this commercial. They don’t mention a specific product or brand until the last 5-10 seconds of the commercial. I don’t feel “sold” or “advertised” to, and I don’t have the desire to change the channel, because I’m interested in finding out who made this wonderful commercial. Just like their products, they don’t have to be invasive and in-your-face trying to get you to buy. After they connect with you by showing a proud and loyal moment, they gently remind you that this connection includes many different products from P & G, and that just as their Moms were there, P & G will be there.

I’m not generally one to enjoy commercials, but I applaud this one from Proctor and Gamble. I think they made a brilliant use of their time and sponsorship of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. Congrats to the athletes too 🙂

The Underlying Need

On By ashleyfausIn Advertising, Customer Service, SellingLeave a comment

I’ve seen many examples of misinterpretation of the underlying need, and I just had to post about it. These two examples show a fundamental lack of understanding of the customer’s underlying need.

Recently, I went into Starbucks, and witnessed the following encounter: Starbucks was out of sleeves for hot cups, and the barista was asking the person at the register to double-cup the hot beverages. The person at the register said that she wouldn’t do that because it was wasteful, and that if customers wanted their beverage double-cupped, they could ask for it themselves. The barista replied that it was difficult for her because customers were asking for sleeves, then resorting to double-cups, and it was taking her time to have to go back and forth when 9 out of 10 customers were complaining that their drinks were too hot to hold.

I also noticed this same issue when I went out with a co-worker to pick up some donuts for the office. The donut shop only accepts cash, and he only had a debit card. He decided to go to the convenience store next door to see if they offered cash-back. He asked the attendant if they offered cash-back, and was told that they did not. However, the attendant failed to mention that they had an ATM machine in the back of the store!

So what gives? Why aren’t these people willing to help out their customers? The issue is not an unwillingness to help, but rather, missing the problem. In the first example, the person at the register incorrectly assumed that customers wanted sleeves for their cups. In fact, the customers wanted to keep their hands from burning on their hot beverages. Because heat was the underlying problem, any solution to mitigating the heat was acceptable. In the second example, the attendant failed to realize that my co-worker needed a way to get cash, and that an ATM was a perfect solution for his underlying need. The ability to recognize and meet the underlying need provides an unparalleled opportunity to Marketers.

Consider this: what if you can make your product or service become the underlying need? The “Hungry? Grab a Snickers” campaign is an excellent example of a Marketer making their product the underlying need. On the surface, they acknowledge that the person is hungry, and they are looking to satisfy their hunger. By saying, “Grab a Snickers” they are encouraging the person to associate Snickers as the only solution to hunger. Snickers hopes that the next time a person needs a snack, they will feel that they NEED a Snickers. All companies do this, from car manufacturers, to soda makers. Car makers don’t want people to think, “I need to get from point A to point B, how can I do that?” Rather, they want you thinking, “I NEED a Lexus.” Coke wants you to crave a Coke, and attain satisfaction only after you’ve enjoyed a Coke. They don’t want you to think, “I’m thirsty, I need a drink,” but rather, “I NEED a Coke”. By understanding the underlying need, you can make your product or service become the underlying need. And when your product or service is what a customer NEEDS, you’ll see your sales increase.

Starbucks Treat Receipt

On By ashleyfausIn Advertising, Selling2 Comments

I was pleasantly surprised with a promotion from Starbucks, the Starbucks Treat Receipt. If you buy any beverage before 2:00 pm, you can use the receipt to get any grande iced beverage for $2.00! Now, I’m a pretty avid Starbucks fan, so discounts are always appreciated. Of course, encountering any promotion always makes me wonder about redemption rates and the increase in sales. With a survey of one (me), I decided to do a little analysis on this Treat Receipt.

Normally, my husband and I stop in at Starbucks on Sunday mornings. Let’s take a look at how the Treat Receipt has affected our behavior:

Before Treat Receipt: $8 spent in the morning

We each purchase a beverage and one or two pastries, making our average ticket about $8.00. We normally make this trip one time on Sunday, so our daily total remains at $8.00.

First Treat Receipt: $8 purchase in the morning + $2 purchase in the afternoon = $10

We received our first Treat Receipt with our normal morning purchase. We were excited to use the receipt, so we made an additional trip on Sunday afternoon, increasing our daily total by $2.00.

Second Treat Receipt: $5 purchase in the morning + $2 purchase in the afternoon = $7

However, after learning about the Treat Receipt, we changed our behavior. Instead of purchasing two separate beverages, we shared a single large beverage, thus decreasing our normal morning total by $3.00. We then utilized the promotion in the afternoon, which decreased our daily total by $1.00.

I wonder how often people change their morning purchase based on their plans to take advantage of the promotion? I also wonder how many people already frequent Starbucks more than once a day and thus decrease their daily totals by utilizing the promotion? I’m sure the marketing gurus at headquarters have numbers to answer these questions. Average ticket amounts and cannibalization are important factors to consider when offering promotions to core customers. Clearly, the second scenario described above is the goal of the promotion. As I said, I only have a single data point, so my conclusions may be way off-base.

On the other hand, what if the goal isn’t to increase the average ticket over the summer? There are many other qualitative goals that may yield future value. For example, I might not be willing to spend $5 on a beverage I’ve never tried. The Treat Receipt is a low-risk way for me to sample a drink that may become my favorite. The promotion could result in me increasing my average ticket in the future by getting me hooked on something new (and more expensive). The promotion goal may be to increase brand loyalty through more touch points. Each time I visit the store, Starbucks gains more face time, which builds trust and credibility. The more experiences I have, the more likely I am to have a good experience.

With no numbers to back me up, I guess I’ll be content to ponder… with my grande Java Chip frappucino, of course!