Since 1975 Bruce Springsteen has been popular never veering far from his core sound and message despite four decades of constantly changing music trends.
Recently Bruce was interviewed in anticipation of his new March 6th album. He provided a unique viewpoint on his own music:
"Pessimism and optimism are slammed up against each other in my records, the tension between them is where it's all at, it's what lights the fire."
That's terrific. And insightful. Check out some lyrics...
Born To Run--1975
The highways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive Everybody's out on the run tonight but there's no place left to hide Together wendy well live with the sadness Ill love you with all the madness in my soul Someday girl I don't know when were gonna get to that place Where we really want to go and well walk in the sun But till then tramps like us baby we were born to run
Glory Days--1985
Well there's a girl that lives up the block back in school she could turn all the boy's heads Sometimes on a Friday I'll stop by and have a few drinks after she put her kids to bed Her and her husband Bobby well they split up I guess it's two years gone by now We just sit around talking about the old times, she says when she feels like crying she starts laughing thinking about
The Rising--2002
Can't see nothin' in front of me Can't see nothin' coming up behind I make my way through this darkness I can't feel nothing but this chain that binds me Lost track of how far I've gone How far I've gone, how high I've climbed
In each case: pessimism and optimism together.
And so timely. After all, what defined pessimism and optimism during the eighties was different than what defines pessimism and optimism today.
What's interesting to note is that Springsteen has remained consistently relevant because he stayed centered on the core message which was only possible by staying close to what the current definitions of the pillars were: in this case, pessimism and optimism.
Which means that it's possible to combine amazingly opposite things together and create something unique if one stays incredibly close to the pillars.
Burger King has gone back to the food. Students of advertising will remember that the burger chain has done this before.
A favorite historical agency of mine, Ammirati & Puris, won the Burger King account in 1994 away from DMB&B, a large, prominent creative agency at the time. The BK campaign for the first four years of the Ammirati relationship was "Get Your Burger's Worth."
Take away the differences in pop culture and fifteen years worth of filming advances and the ads could be from the same campaign.
I like mcgarrybowen, the agency doing the new work, and I loved Ammirati so this will be interesting to watch...
There's a world of difference between 1995 and 2011. But in the first year that Ammirati had the Burger King account and the creative went "back to the basics" and "focused on the food and good value" as it's apparently doing again today, sales went up 6.6%.*
The initial goal (in the year 2000) was to build an e-commerce website that featured original entertainment content--a well-trod marketing maneuver today but eye-openingly ambitious a decade ago, particularly for a fashion house. That year, Ralph Lauren launched the luxury industry's first e-commerce site, created Ralph Lauren Magazine, an online publication with original articles, and Ralph Lauren TV, an original web channel covering fashion, design and sports, and featuring celebrity interviews. Together the pieces formed what David calls "merchantainment," the blending of commerce and content. This strategy echoed Ralph's own distinctive print advertising moves from 30 years ago: The goal was not to push specific Ralph Lauren products, but rather to sell the idea of the Ralph Lauren lifestyle.
"The internet came at the right time for us. Our stores are like movie sets. Our ads are like still lifes of movies. The web let us create truly interactive, immersive movies. It's not about the technology. It's about the brand." -David Lauren, EVP, Ralph Lauren
Recently I've been studying the papers of Dr. Robert Heath. Of particular interest is his terrific exploration of brand relationships: how they're strengthened by emotion and, to a certain degree, weakened by attention. It's why I probably like this:
The common assumption is that advertising works best when it delivers a rational message that tries to persuade and change beliefs. Most advertising models here in the US are underpinned by this approach.
But when we think about the brands we love, and the marketing that, over time, has gotten us to the point of love, do we recall the individual messages along the way or is it more of the total feeling?
The work of interpersonal communication psychologist Paul Watzlawick found that it's more of the latter. Emotion is the content that primarily endures, not the rational points. Thinking about The Home Depot, for instance, we remain excited about the possibilities of home improvement far longer than we're able to recall the featured products we saw in the ad.
The first reason emotion works in this way is through the "Reinforcement Model", which was originally coined by Andrew Ehrenberg in '74 but I came to understand the principle more recently through Godin's writing when he talks about worldviews. The Reinforcement Model says that it's far better (and more successful) to reinforce the current worldviews of the audience than it is to try and create new ones or change someone's mind.
PUMA did this beautifully...
We gravitate to the emotions that we want to experience ourselves when we're interacting with the product.
And here's another interesting thing about emotion and communication from Dr. Heath's papers:
"Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication."
The metacommunication is the nonverbal stuff that goes along with the message. How important is that? Watzlawick's research on interpersonal communication between couples found the following:
"When relationships between couples were on the verge of collapse, the "communication" was often perfectly reasonable and sensible, but it was the metacommunication that was causing the breakdown. In other words, although people were saying good things, the way in which they said them was causing friction and negativity. They found that by correcting the metacommunication they could often repair the relationship rift, even when damaging and negative things were occassionally said."
It's how we say things that builds relationships. And I think this is true for brands just as much as it is for people.
# TONE
For years I've maintained that one of the most important items on any creative brief is the "Tone". But it's usually just glossed over. Often we see a collection of non-defining, easy-to-approve words in the tone, like, "approachable," "spirited" and "fun". These typically aren't very helpful or ownable. Tolstoy wrote once that the more vague a definition of a word the more often we use that word and with greater confidence since we assume everyone knows what we mean. How true.
When it comes to tone we can be so much better! I once saw a creative tone that was "not James Bond but Jason Bourne." How great is that? Very visceral. Identifying a unique and consistent tone is paramount because it's the metacommunication that maintains the positive customer relationship.
I would love to see the tone on the Skittles briefs...
I'd also like to see the tone that Johnson&Johnson has been working from...
So with the correct tone we're almost done.
But here's the next dynamic: How much attention do we want the audience to give? This is sort of a trick question... we want them to give a lot attention, but we don't want them to know that they're doing so.
A 1989 study by Robert Bornstein confirmed that the less aware we are of the emotional elements in advertising the better the ads are likely to work because the viewer has less opportunity to rationally evaluate, contradict and weaken their potency.
This is why storytelling is so important. When we see "Write the Future" we get wonderfully lost in it. We're not questioning why it's happening which is good because, of course, rationally, it's impossible. But we're totally absorbed with what the brand is saying...
Emotion reinforces our worldviews and then establishes how the brand manages a successful, ongoing relationship with us.
Sounds good.
But what happens to the logical sales points that also need to be advertised?
They're still very much a part of a brand's plan, they just need to go in their optimal places. And that's a post for another day. But in the meantime, from Dr. Heath:
"Of course, the opposite is the case with message-based information processing communication, where more attention will provide more recall and more persuasion. Advertising that has the tactical aim of communicating factual information (i.e. product improvements, promotions, prices, etc.) will benefit from more attention, because that way you remember better what the message is.
So this raises something of a dilemma for the issue of engagement. Advertising that needs to get a factual message over works best if high attention is paid. But our evidence shows that if advertising wishes to build strong brand relationships, it needs to incorporate high levels of emotional content, and this emotional content will be most effective if less attention is paid to it."
There are times to get lost in an emotionally-forward brand message. And then there are times to get right to the point. Both need to be done. The wisdom and success comes from knowing when to do each and build them both into the master plan.
When a company is in it for the long term it's essential that an emotional reason to buy plays at the heart of activity. I call this Purpose Driven Marketing. Others have other names. But what's starting to play out is that over the last several years there have been lots of one-off ideas, cool tactics and tons of "you gotta check this out" moments. These are good. These work. But when the goal is long-term victory and dominance across a vast scale of consumers, then the emotional core is the most fortified of approaches.
Quick example... If you watch network TV on Sunday night you have a viewing choice at 8pm: Secret Millionaire (ABC) or America's Next Great Restaurant (NBC). Both are new and unique. But nearly 6 million more people choose Secret Millionaire. The difference between the two: Secret Millionaire stirs emotions while the Next Great Restaurant is pragmatic.
Back to companies... McDonald's vs. Burger King. Over the last several years BK has focused their marketing efforts on one-off ideas surrounding big food, such as Whopper Virgins and Whopper Sacrifice. On the other side, McDonald's has continued globally with I'm Lovin' It, a comprehensive message that taps our emotions greater than one-off efforts. BK experienced solid sales increases from 2005 through 2009 but today (long term) they are off 2.5%. McDonald's is up 4.4%. Mark Kalinowski, restaurant industry analyst with Janney Capital Markets summed it up concisely last month: "Burger King is a brand that needs to find its voice in the market, and right now it's having trouble doing that."
Another example... Coke vs. Pepsi. Ad Age recently reported how Pepsi fell to #3 behind Coke and Diet Coke respectively. I don't believe this points to what Pepsi did wrong ("Refresh" is genius) but rather what Coke did amazingly well across the world: a global refinement of the emotional positioning of "coke brings joy" across packaging, branding, advertising, sponsorship and engagement. Take this spot or these elements and you can put them immediately into the US, Spain or China and it translates the same. No explanation needed.
Many brands are doing great work today. This I truly believe. (And if you don't believe it you should probably exposeyourselftomorework.) But when it comes to communicating across a vast amount of consumers over the long term, one-off ideas can win the round but it's the emotional, purpose driven approach that wins the match.
Here's a great piece of work from Ford. Better MPGs = more miles to explore. It's wonderful when music, motion and product all come together so nicely...
In addition to being Marketer of the Year, 2010 was a great year for Ford with sales ending up +19% (vs. 2009), the largest of any full-line automaker.
Groupings like this are always interesting because everyone naturally pours through them for insight and to find the master formula.
And once you pour through the case studies in this article, what you'll find is... there is no formula.
Isn't that freeing?
Turns out, TV still works to change behavior. Just ask Lays.
That the social web can help revive established brands, like Old Spice and Converse, while creating new ones like Zappos.
But you don't necessarily have to invest in the social web to attract audience love. Just ask Subaru.
Customers can be your stars, like with Microsoft. And the newest technology can co-exist with longstanding tradition, like with Ralph Lauren.
You can destroy long-standing products, like Domino's. And you can create new industries, like Apple.
And per Macy's, you can go back to the ethos of a 152-year old brand nationally while tailoring your value locally.
There's only one right way to do it. And that's probably your way. Do your own thing.
If you invest in whatever your way is... If you nurture it... If you believe in it... If you focus... And if you tie it back to your rock-solid strategy, it will probably do the job.
It's estimated that 700 million watched yesterday's World Cup final.
It's also estimated that of the many marketers who associated themselves with the event that Nike came away with the most buzz and success.
Adidas was an "official" sponsor. And did well. Nike was not. But the latter enjoyed double the share of buzz associated with the world cup: 30% vs. 14%.
"Write the Future" is, of course, an awesome idea.
First off, the launch TV was wonderfully produced.
Secondly, the web presence was engaging allowing for discovery, customization, and the potential for immediate consumer feedback.
But most notably, "Write the Future" championed something that is a grounding principle of Campaign Planning: it was a campaign idea that embraced both one-to-one media (in this case Facebook/Twitter) and mass media (in this case TV) at the same time. They worked together but they didn't need each other to convey the point and motivate people.
Drake Cooper brought the film Art & Copy to town this week. The theater was quite full and all proceeds went to TRICA, a local organization that supports art for youth. Dylan made it happen and Cale created the artwork. All in all, if you love the business see this film. Perhaps it's showing near you soon.
Watching industry icons like Wieden and Goodby and Riney and Wells talk about advertising and creativity highlighted many things such as the importance of courage and strong clients. I also found myself thinking back to the first days DDB and how a creative revolution happened by bringing the copywriter and art director together and how these days it seems we're ripping out the art component once again and just writing stuff. Perhaps that's not happening but when I see creative agency sites turn into this and this as apposed to this and this, I wonder.
Anyway, during the film we learn that Nike's "Just Do It" was derived from a newspaper headline of a death penalty execution where the convicted said, "Let's Do It!" But I also was told once that the line surfaced during a last minute creative meeting when someone's assistant was told to order pizza and when there was confusion with the order the boss quickly quipped, "Just do it!"
During the film we also learn that "got milk?" surfaced because it was the title of a board of work for a client meeting. But I also read once that Jeff just came into a planning meeting with the line scrawled on a piece of paper and said, "I'm not quite sure what to do with this but..."
So which stories are true?
I bet each of them are true.
Consider the great Wells Rich Greene campaign for Braniff.
The "End of the Plain Plane" was revisited every day by the creative team during concepting only to end up crumpled in the trash can each afternoon. It took Mary Wells herself to pull it out of the trash one day and ask about it. "Too obvious" the team said but we "just keep going back to it."
Truly great ideas take time to fully understand and embrace. And during that time lots of stuff can happen. Wieden probably did see the news clipping. The short-fused boss probably did exclaim the line. In fact, "Just Do It" was probably batted around for awhile until everyone understood the power and potential of the idea.
Great ideas are different than good ideas. Good ideas we understand immediately because they are less complex and carry less risk. But great ideas take much longer to come to grips with.
And if ideas like "Just Do It" and "got milk?" weren't recognized immediately by talent the caliber of Dan and Jeff, then it will take the rest of us even longer to recognize our own great ideas when they arrive.
If you work in marketing I think it's important to stop and take note of Domino's Pizza and Crispin Porter + Bogusky for a moment. On my mind is, "Oh yes we did," their recent act of throwing out their current recipe and introducing an entirely new one. And what I think is most deserving to stop and acknowledge is the system-wide courage that it took to do this.
Consider:
-Voluntarily pay to put negative consumer comments on the air and on the web.
-Re-engineer a product that has been available for probably, I dunno, the better part of 40 years??
-Sell in, deploy and retrain workers across 5,000 US stores.
-Rally a workforce of 145,000 to support and understand the change.
-Risk a "New Coke" type of scenario.
That's big stuff.
My guess is folks from both the company and the agency stayed awake at night prior to launch asking themselves, "Is this the right thing to do?" Well, FWIW, I like it: fully embrace the business challenge, take the calculated risk, go big, produce the best product possible and get 'em talking about it.
Cheers to everyone involved in this campaign, system-wide. As their CMO stated, "To us, it's as big as McDonald's changing the Big Mac, or Burger King reinventing the Whopper."
As a marketer I must try the new pizza to support their courage. And as a pizza fan, I must try their new pizza because I'm curious.
