John Drake

Coffee, Cheese and Thinking Global

Ad Age had a poll this week on whether Starbucks should begin running national TV ads. (56% said yes/44% said no. Seems we're not quite sure if it's a good idea or not.) The text around the poll reported that "the company is hitting what appears to be a saturation point in the US, and is responding with national media." Some analysts say they should do this, while others say they shouldn't.

This survey triggered two thoughts for me...

Thought #1: How can someone seriously answer the national TV ad question?
Analyzing media for the sake of media is kind of a waste of time. The magic of creativity today is the marriage of execution with delivery. Long gone are the days of building the media plan and then running it down to the creative department, and, like a shopping list at the grocery store, check off everything that's needed. With so many media tools today, we can truly take an average idea and turn it into an incredible idea if the right media vehicle is chosen; that's what leads to maximum ROI.

Therefore, a more interesting and useful question to quantify for our industry could have been: "Should a company like Starbucks invest heavily in domestic mass media?" Thinking about this brings me to my second thought...

I once read that the average Starbucks customer in the US visits a store 17 times a month. Incredible! In fact, that volume of customer interaction changes the entire role of mass media. But I bring this up because it reminds me of a great client I used to work with: Tillamook Cheese.

Tillamook is based out of Tillamook, Oregon. They make an amazing cheese, naturally aged with only the best stuff. As a Northwest company, their market share was so large in Portland and Seattle that they didn't really run mass media there. What they needed in those markets were one-on-one touchpoints: in-store, pr and guerrilla--things that added personal dimensions. This allowed them to do a better job in far off markets, where the brand wasn't so well known.

I think Tillamook's ownership of the Northwest is equivalent to Starbucks in America. It would seem to me that, as an analyst, I wouldn't want Starbucks to put more dollars into mass media domestically. We know what Starbucks is and what its products are. If they launch something new, chances are one-on-one communication and p.o.s. will alert people. Seems to make the most sense to invest in far off lands where there's not millions of people experiencing the brand 17 times a month.

As an industry, when a brand like Starbucks is on the table, I believe we must start framing our surveys and questions in a global context. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't started happening yet. Our thinking of global comes in the form of "special global reports" or "global divisions." It seems we must mentally prepare ourselves beforehand and get into a global mindset prior to studying the issue. It's like Tee Ball: "Okay, get ready to think global... now 'hit'".

Should Starbucks run TV in the US? It depends on the creative.

Should Starbucks invest in mass media in the US? Depends on if they have all the resources they need globally.

 

Gossage

I'm just about to begin reading The Book of Gossage. (Thanks Ben.) Hard to believe I haven't read it yet... but we can only do what we can do.
 
I'm a bit suspect considering the publisher misspelled Dan Wieden's name on the back cover. (That's a pretty big name to fumble.) But nonetheless, I'm looking forward to it. Quite frankly, it's been awhile since I've read a good ad industry book.

I'm excited to see how someone who ran a relatively small agency in San Francisco could achieve such notoriety and mystique. I hope to find 1 part Carl Ally,1 part David Ogilvy and 1 part Alex Bogusky. But we'll see.

Apparently, he would sometimes end an ad right in the middle of

Happy Holidays, from the private sector

The private sector is under constant scrutiny. I suppose it's warranted, given the behavior of some. But it's in the private sector where so much of the good charity work is coming from these days and I think it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge.

We all know the difference that companies like The Home Depot and FedEx made during Katrina. And we're all aware of the long-standing, cause-friendly nature of so many companies like this one. But this holiday season, the private sector will be needed more than ever.

Normally during December folks are generous... Not so much this year though, according to Cone, a Boston-based, cause-related branding company. Consider:

- Only 49% of us plan to donate personal items this holiday season (down from 77% last year)
- Only 29% will write out a check to a charity (down from 56% last year)
- Only 25% will donate their time to a charity (down from 49% last year)

When asked why, 72% said cost of living increases from housing, gas and oil.

Ok then... not much we can do about that.

However, gifts still need to be purchased and there's much to be done in the world, so it's a good thing that 77% of shoppers say they would prefer to select a brand that supports a cause (all things being equal), and that 49% say they will go out of their way to find that gift. Additionally, 57% are willing to pay more for a holiday gift tied to a charity.

Fortune magazine reported last month that the housing crisis will continue well into 2009 so in times like these we can't expect people to give to the degree that they normally would. But the private sector is coming through to the aid. This is not only good business, but the right thing to do.

So this holiday season, consider buying from: Borders, MontBlanc , Apple , Toms Shoes, Giving Tree, Ebay, Barneys and Target.

Simplicity

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that nothing beats fantastically simple advertising.

Just stumbled across two campaigns worth sharing...

Client: Tide
Agency: Conill Saatchi & Saatchi, NY
Found on: Ads of the World

Client: LG
Agency: Euro RSCG, Santiago
Found on: Ads of the World
Copy: More space for your music. Shine Music Phone. LG

Influencing Pop Culture

I just stumbled upon a really good interview with Alex Bogusky administered by the New Denver Ad Club earlier this year. Check it out here.

One of Alex's sound bites that I found particularly inspiring was a comment made about shaping pop culture. I think it's something we can all learn from.

The question surrounded how CP+B, as an agency, penetrates pop culture so effectively with its campaigns for truth, Burger King and more... How is it possible for brands to change and shape pop culture?

Alex: Pop culture has only one job, and that is to constantly change. It wants to change. It needs to change. And it changes everyday.

Of course... the door is always open and it's open to anyone. Hearing that was one of those duh obvious moments where you say to yourself, "why didn't I phrase it like that?" He's right. Pop culture rises and falls and there's no real rhyme or reason to it. It's ever-changing and the important thing is to participate.

But what makes some things catch on in pop culture, while others pass by unnoticed? Who can know such things for sure?? But for collective debate and commentary, below are three things that are probably at work:

1. A unique twist on something common or mundane.
Take something you see everyday, now apply a new filter to it. Twist it in some new way. Add something to it. Make people feel kinda silly for never looking at something so common in the way you see it.

2. It doesn't really mean anything.
When you peel pack the surface and ask, "why," there's no universal answer. One single movement could stand for such diverse things as politics, fun or individuality, depending on who you ask. It just "is."

3. It's sharable, but not totally describable.
Try articulating Warhol's work for a minute or two... How'd that go? Like the paintings of the king himself, things that become part of pop culture can be described in such a way that people are intrigued, but their exact existence can't totally be re-created by word of mouth. This quality makes it so people must come in contact with the item and deduce their own feelings (see #2 again).

That's my view. I'd love to hear from those more in-tune than I... calling social-creature, luke stetson and whoever else....

Alex's comment was freeing to me. Internalizing the idea that pop culture is something that's constantly changing is liberating. It means everyone is invited and that effecting pop culture is not just for the sneaker heads, the cool hunters, the musicians and the artists of the world.

The stage is open for everyone...it's just that very few really try.

 

Good Stuff

As I sometimes like to do, I was in the mood to post some greatness... Tonight, it's a batch of some of the lighter stuff. A bit more emotional, I suppose.

The question is: does heart-string emotion sell?

I'm not sure it generates immediate weekend sales, but it sure does help with boosting margins and building long-term success.

Business moves fast, and things constantly change. It's important to revisit and appreciate the good stuff from time to time... for no reason at all.

Leo Burnett and Disney

Butler, Shine, Stern and Converse

Arnold and Volkswagen

TBWA\Chiat\Day and Apple

Denying Access Paves The Way For Others

I'm a huge iTunes user. I love it because: A) Artists should be paid for their work, and B) I rely on the references, reviews and recommendations on the site. No matter what mood I'm in, I can always find new music that keeps my inspired.

However, after all these years, there are some artists who are not up there yet. Led Zepplin is posting iTunes music for the first time on Tuesday. Pretty exciting. There are other epic "hold outs." Among them: The Beatles, Tool and Bob Segar. Furthermore, some artists, such as Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, took forever to get their stuff up there. In this world of access and inclusion, this hold out is a tad bit annoying, and comes across as kind of arrogant. (However, I do love the a-typical way Radiohead, another iTunes hold out, is selling their entire album.)

I don't really understand holding out on iTunes, but, no matter how much I want to download the artists above, be sure of one thing: I'll wait. And once they finally decide to get up there, I'll buy just as much tomorrow as I'd buy today. No more, no less.

I'll wait because there's so much new stuff out there to explore that I'm completely satisfied musically. And the longer these artists wait, the more I find myself digging around and discovering new greatness.

Off the top of my head, some recent stuff I've stumbled upon, or artists who have been recommended to me personally, include: Band of Horses, We Start Fires, Silversun Pickups, Augustana, and Mandi Perkins. Any more? I'm always searching.

One of the great joys about today is that hard work and guts can pay off. It reminds me of a great quote used by, of all places, Turnbull Wines: "Fortune Favors the Bold." ...The hungry and the talented can rise with boldness and hard work.

So, while I'd like to download 15 Beatles songs, if they're not going to join the rest of us, I'm just as happy with 3 great songs from 5 up-and-coming artists.

Going through this process led me to adopt the following thought:

The denial of one leads us to find the talents of many.

I think this is true in music, advertising, film and life. There is so much talent out there... and it's becoming easier and easier to find. Because of this, those who elect to deny access only pave the way for rest of us to succeed.

Your Strategy Is Showing

"That's a bad ad because you can see the strategy!"

Every few months this phrase turns up somewhere: in a meeting, in the trades or during a presentation. In my early years, I let it wash right over me... I remember during creative reviews people would throw out entire ideas because the strategy was too apparent. At the time, I agreed: You're right, we can't show our strategy!

If you take a look at the world at large, showing your strategy is, indeed, a bad thing. In military war rooms, at poker card tables and throughout business c-suites making your strategy obvious can be disastrous. But this is advertising. Relax. It's different.

I feel, by and large, the best campaigns show their strategy. And not only do they show it, it's full frontal. So obvious and concise you can't miss them, which is the way it's supposed to be since the ad strategy comes right out of the product benefit--the whole reason why the consumer should consider the brand. Showing the strategy makes advertising clear, concise and actionable.

The following advertisers are guilty of showing their strategies:

Avis, "We Try Harder"   (we're #2 so we'll do more to earn your business)
Volkswagen, "Think Small"   (small cars are better than big cars)
Apple, "Think Different"   (technology for the creative soul)
Southwest Airlines, "Freedom"   (low fares allow everyone to travel)
Axe, "Seduction"   (the sent of Axe makes you more desirable)

Conversely, there are many brands whose strategy isn't obvious when you see their advertising: Dr. Pepper, Ford, Gateway, Circuit City, Bed Bath and Beyond.

When the strategy is buried, or just inferred, consumers walk away from the ad confused about what a brand stands for. And confusion gets in the way of the sale every time.

So go ahead, show the strategy. Consumers will appreciate it.