Friends that Drink Together Stay Together? Or was that a Slap in the Face from Guinness?

www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxwndLOKQTDs&h=MAQHSBRyP

 by Jordan Sudermann

Check out the recently launched Guinness communication.

The commercial goes squarely for the heart with an emotional appeal.

Here's the idea:  Get the viewer to admire the wheel chair athletes who are engaged in a pick-up game of basketball. These basket ball athletes are playing every bit as grittily and determined as any physically-abled, group of friend, and it's a pretty inviting proposition.

Then, twist the story.

At the end of the game all of the guys, but one, stand up from their wheelchairs and walk off the court.  A voice over talks about authentic loyalty and true friendship. These values are celebrated  by sharing a pint of Guinness beer in a bar.

This is where I am torn. One one hand, this message is showing  how great of friends behave and that Guinness is a catalyst and reinforcer of important ideals (authentic friendship and loyalty). That's inspiring. If I feel good about the piece and link it to the brand, the net impact is I'll like the brand more.  That's good for the brand.

On the other hand, I can't escape the feeling that this is somewhat of a public service announcement declaring how ignorant we are about disabilities- and the needs of peoples with disabilities-  and we need a beer company set us straight. In other words, I feel a little bit tricked which makes me like the ad less- and therefore brand less.

For me, then, this ad is not a clear winner.

The Most Underrated Ad of 2012

Every year, a couple of weeks before school starts up again in September, I take an inventory of the year's most interesting / best  brand-building communications. The fruits of this inventory find their way into my branding and marketing courses, and sometimes become starting points for my branding research.

Oscar Pisorius (Olympian): Authentic Individualism

In most years, the most interesting campaign selections are pretty obvious. Ads/promotions that are supported by massive media buys (think Superbowl ads here), communications that go viral (The Most Interesting Man in the World) or campaigns that become pop culture parodies (Mac vs. PC) are easy to pick up. Sometimes, however, the best communications are more obscure. One of the best examples of this is the Dear Sophie Google ad that I blogged about. This year, Dr. Pepper's "one of a kind" ad (by DeutschLA) has not received the acclaim it deserves and I think it among the best (and most underrated) advertising efforts of 2012.

Dr. Pepper is 5th most popular soft drink brand in the world. Of course, when you are competing against Coke and Pepsi, 5th place is a long way down. Yet, unlike many of its competitors, Dr. Pepper continues to grow (Forbes) even in an hostile growth environment. The soft drink industry is a mature, saturated market and there is a vocal anti-soft drink army of health advocates and regulators who wants to punish soft drink makers in the way that tobacco has been punished.

Dr. Pepper's Positioning
Dr. Pepper is (arguably) the oldest major soft drink brand in the world. As history shows, a lot of its marketing, has not been best-of-class. For example, Dr. Pepper relinquished a first mover advantage to Coke who built a masterful distribution network (blocking competitors out through exclusive deals) and own the "original soft drink" territory of the mind in consumers. Dr. Pepper's old school positioning in the 1930s and 50s was based on the insight that people need an energy kick at 10:30, 2:30 and 4:30. But, the early morning soft drink consumption  advocated in their "Drink a Bite to Eat at 10, 2 and 4" campaign was a hard-sell, even back in the days when soft drinks weren't really linked to obesity and diabetes. Ironically, some of the best communication the brand got from advertising was during the 1970s when its iconic "I'm a pepper" campaign was launched. The campy jingle positioned the brand as the brand for the unique individual. Unfortunately for Dr. Pepper, the cola wars were in atomic mode at the time, and Coke and Pepsi spent fortunes brand building, leaving a lot less upside for Dr. Pepper.

Since 2008, Dr. Pepper's communications have positioned the brand as the soft drink that needs to be consumed slowly because it tastes better that way. The messaging tended to play on the name itself "trust me, I'm a doctor" and used endorsers like Dr. J, Dr. Dre, and "Dr. Love" Gene Simmons. The execution of these ads is pretty good, but it is not obvious how this positioning would uniquely capture the imagination of the target consumers. Even more questionable is why Dr. Pepper would launch  uninspired flash mob social media that positioned the brand as a retro, quirky brand. See the "what were they thinking" attempt at social media marketing here:  "2010 flash mob" at the NYSE." 

Then, earlier this year, Dr. Pepper launched their anthemic ad One of a Kind .

 This campaign goes back to Dr. Pepper's  "I'm a pepper" equity with a deeply personal positioning:

Dr. Pepper is authentic individualism.  It is is the brand that  encourages my originality, dreams, quirks, ambitions, and way of life.  It is the brand that calls me to be confidently authentic without pretenses. In fact, Dr. Pepper embraces and celebrates who I am - and I can confidently let the world know that I am me. I am one of a kind. When I do this, I will find myself in a community of real people- the community of Dr. Pepper.

The ad shows us just who is in the Dr. Pepper community. Some people in the community are funny (I'm a cougar, I'm a wingman, I'm a valiable), some are inspirational (I'm a fighter, I'm a highlight), some are endearing (I'm a one and only), some have their hearts close to home (I'm a momma's boy) and some are regular folks (I'm a libra, I'm a lefty). Most likely, every one watching can relate to someone's shirt in the ad, somehow. The connections are very emotional.

I'm a dreamer                              I'm a beginner                              I'm a chick magnet  
I'm a cougar                                I'm a fighter                                  I'm a rockstar
I'm a libra                                    I'm a one and only                        I'm a rebel
I'm a vailable                               I'm a vegan                                   I'm a momma's boy
                                                    

This positioning is brilliant. It leverages the brand equity heritage of "I'm a pepper". This mindset is favorable and unique to Dr. Pepper and can not be owned by any other soft drink brand. By its very nature, the positioning knocks the biggest players (Coke and Pepsi) and alerts us to the conformity that these brands impose. Watch the Coke ads. There is a harmony and a universality that is orchestrated by Coca-Cola's version of happiness. The same logic applies for Pepsi, which "imposes" a mass pop-culture acceptance to the brand.

It is interesting to note that other brands have endowed their brands with the value of individualism. These brands tend to be tier 2 brands.  Apple (in the 1980s-90s) comes to mind (Check out the classic 1984 ad). Polaroid pursued this positioning with Lady Gaga's endorsement. There are nuanced differences among the "individualism" that Apple, Polaroid, and Dr. Pepper possess. Apple's individualism was rooted in challenging the status quo. Polaroid's individualism relates to artistic expression. Dr. Pepper's individualism involves to personal authenticity. And that authenticity is normal, beautiful, and pure. One of a kind. Just like the taste of Dr. Pepper.


 Interesting Facts related to this blog entry
The song "I've gotta be me"  was originally written and sung by Sammy Davis Jr.
The song was redone by Ryan Tedder
#1 selling soft drink in the USA: Coca-Cola
#2 selling soft drink in the USA: Diet Coke
#3 selling soft drink in the USA: Pepsi Cola

Loco with Logo changes- or is about being fresh?

by Karl Biunno

A couple of years ago, I graduated from Bob's Brand Management boot-camp. Since that time, my love for the topic has continued to grow, so when Bob asked me to contribute to his blog about a year ago, I decided to describe my shock at how a well established brand like Pepsi could so "cavalierly" change their logo - and consequently their identity. My first reaction, was to write how short-sighted the brand managers of these companies must have been when conceiving their first logo. Logo changes can be expensive in terms of time and money- and jeopardizing the brand awareness that the logos create for the brand (especially a packaged good brand) may come with a risk to sales. In my initial writing, I found myself criticizing their lack of forecasting abilities, as in my view; they failed to create a logo that would be able to timelessly represent the values of their customers. But the deeper I thought about that, my views got refined and a new perspective emerged. Today I will share my insight and will try to explain some of
the underlining principles behind logo change. This is a short post which is really about this: “Which brands are most frequently updating their logos- and why?”

Perspective 1: Which brands are updating their logos most frequently
When looking at brands that are frequent logo updaters, there is a clear trend. It's the non-leader in the market who tend to tinker with their brand logo most. Here's example number one coming from the top 2 brands in the athletic footwear industry, namely Nike and Adidas. According to Sporting Good Intelligence, in 2008, Nike’s worldwide market share is 36 percent compared to Adidas 21.8 percent share. In other words, Nike is the leader/dominant brand (by market share) and Adidas is the non-leader/non-dominant brand. Since its existence, the core of Nike’s logo has always been the same – the famous “swoosh”.



As you can see below, the same cannot be said about the Adidas logo.

(Interesting enough, as a side note, although Adidas’ website clearly showcases their latest logo on their front page, each previous logo is still used on products within their various divisions in the business.)

Let's go to the credit/debit card industry.

In both credit and debit cards, Visa overtakes MasterCard in terms of circulation.

Guess which one has changed their logo more frequently with more changes? You guessed it – MasterCard. The visuals speak for themselves.


Trying doing some searches on this yourself. The results are pretty consistent. The dominant brand is less prone to changing what works. The evidence is there from Toyota to Chrysler, and McDonald's to Burger King. (Google is the exception to this rule.)

Perspective 2: The Fresh Brand Value

Now move on to the more interesting question of “why?” I'll look at one specific example here.

To help us answer this question, let’s focus on Pepsi and their various changes in their logo over the years compared to Coca-Cola.


If we travel back in time at the height of the cola wars in the mid 1980’s, Pepsi poured in substantial amounts of money in order to steal market share from Coca-Cola by building
a brand that could relate to the youth of the time. With prominent product placements in hit movies such as Back to the Future or the unforgettable Pepsi celebrity endorsement by Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean, Bad and Black and White, “the choice of a new generation” campaign was at the upper end of what the Pepsi could have hoped for. The positioning, reinforced by the slogan was so significant that it ultimately set the tone for Pepsi’s image and consequently values up until this day – a brand that is synonymous with fresh, lively and young at heart. Youth is cool. Pepsi is cool. Cool is ever changing. Pepsi is ever-changing.

Ultimately, if you are a brand that proclaims to be the choice of a new generation, it is important for all aspects of your marketing campaign to be consistent and suit every new generation. So, for Pepsi, I'm making the case that the logo update keeps the brand fresh and appealing to youth. In other words, the strategic reason why some companies decide to change their logo, is that it enables them to attack or defend their desired or current position within the market place by depicting the companies rejuvenation of their core values.

Political Party Branding: Liberals vs. Conservatives 2011 election

One of my favorite ad agencies is Sid Lee. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing my advertising buddy Eric talk about the Sid Lee philosophy a few times. One day he made a presentation to my class and made a remark that went something like:

“We often prefer working with challenger and tier II brands.”

The idea behind this thinking is that the front-runner brands have more to lose, take less risk, and like to grow market share incrementally. From a marketing perspective, this usually means the marketing is “stay the course” and communications become less innovative and fun. (Sid Lee prides itself on bold agendas.) In contrast, challenger/tier II brands have a lot less downside and a lot more upside. Therefore, these brands are more willing to try bold initiatives to shake things up. That’s why most, though not all, of the boldest campaigns come from 2nd rank players. Let’s do a couple comparisons.

Coca-Cola (a quintessential Tier I brand) has made excellent ads throughout its history, but generally speaking, their campaigns followed non-risky scripts around cute polar bears and attractive international people singing in“perfect harmony.” Pepsi (historically, a tier II brand), was not on the cola radar screen until they made bold moves in the 1980s to shake up the cola market. Pepsi’s daring “More people prefer the taste of Pepsi, Pepsi Challenge” and “The Choice of the New Generation campaign with Michael Jackson” campaigns created the cola wars directly at the expense of Coke. (By the way, both of the Pepsi campaigns were incredibly innovative at the time). If you still need more examples about the tier IIs making more brave marketing efforts, consider the Apple campaigns back when Apple was a tier II brand. The 1984 and Mac communications were incredibly bold gestures. Today, of course, Apple is the tech leader largely through smart products and branding. But, with more to lose, Apple now stays closer to typical incumbent brand strategies and communications. All that to say, Apple is a great example how a tier II brand can become tier I.

This takes us to political party branding in Canada. What I’m going to write in this blog is not about any political view. It is about how the Conservatives and Liberals have managed their brands in this 2011 election campaign.

When the election was called on March 26th, the Conservatives were the front runners (tier I ) and polling somewhere around 35% national support. The Liberals, the “natural governing party of Canada” and main challenger, held the tier II spot with around 25% national public support. While all parties knew an election was at hand, very quickly, the Conservatives put forth their brand positioning which centered around two core brand values:

1) Economic stability through measured, cool-headed, calculated policies;
2) Tough-on-crime.

I picked a day (April 16th) to check out the Conservative party leader’s Tweet as a proxy for positioning support. Take a look at how focused the official Steven Harper Tweeting is on the message about crime:


Punishing human smugglers. Victims count and criminals must pay their debt. Conservative tough on crime vs. the coalition (unstable government) soft on crime. Tough on sex crimes. This is tight, narrow, risk-free messaging to support the Conservative brand position. There is nothing bold or exciting here. It is classic market share leader branding messaging- with the tone you would expect from Tide or Crest. What about Harper limiting press questions? That is classic front-runner election tactics if you are risk averse. It might not be desired in a democracy, but it is effective brand management.

Now, let’s check out the Liberal leader’s Tweets on the same day.

Ignatieff's Tweets are about "rising up". What the hell is he talking about? By the time Ignatieff was Tweeting these comments, had already be panned in the press. (His “rise up” comments were being compared to the Howard Dean scream in main stream press.) Trolling through other Liberal Tweets and you find ad-hoc, helter-skelter messaging that rarely has consistent purpose. Translation: The party appears adrift. The Liberal party doesn’t have (or isn’t communicating) its brand values. That’s a classic brand positioning problem.

So what should the Liberals be doing/have done? Refer back to my friend from Sid Lee. If you have a clear market share leader that is tough to dislodge, the challenger needs a bold move. Unlike Pepsi which has years to claw at Coke, the election cycle is only a few weeks long for the Liberals to overtake the Conservatives. So if you run a party brand, you have to pick something that is going to resonate with voters right away. This year the bold move ought to relate to the economy. Ignatieff, would have been wise to revisit Clinton’s 1992 cliche: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

How about this for a bold move for challenger party? “It’s time to start connecting Canadians with efficient high speed rail from Windsor to Quebec City, through Toronto and Montreal. In the west, let’s start with Edmonton to Vancouver." This type of effort could support a Liberal position of “smart economics” by creating jobs now and lowering future transportation costs - and “national unity” by linking the country just like Sir John A MacDonald did. By doing this, it would also bite into some tasty Conservative underbelly (e.g. environmental issues, the party's limited vision).

Now the high speed rail idea may not be the right one, but taking a position (ie. 2 brand values) that is supported by a daring idea (e.g. the high speed rail) will set the news agenda, capture the imagination of Canadians, and attract votes. But the Liberal party seems to be content as the 2nd place party. As a Canadian, I am frustrated by this because I am a firm believer in competition and choice. I want all of my national leaders to generate healthy ideas to be incorporated in the national dialogue and agenda. But right now, the Liberals have a highly intelligent man heading a party that does not have a position. Ignatieff may very well have the abilities to lead the nation, but without a proper management of the Liberal brand during the election, he is not in the game to get that chance. In contrast, Harper has, for the most part, effectively managed his party's brand by employing a classic "front-runner-risk-averse" campaign throughout the election. By the Obama standard, if you can (brand) manage your campaign well, you are (largely) qualified to lead the country. You may or may not like what the Conservatives do (or do not do), but the Conservative leader has a better understanding of party branding than his nearest rival. And that is a fundamental reason why the Conservatives are going to be re-elected.

The Magical Branding of Disney

I just came back from Walt Disney World (Florida) and I’m tanned and stoked. I'm stoked not just because Disney is truly a magical imagination playground for kids and kids at heart- but because Disney has done an exceptionally excellent job at branding. There are so many directions that I could take tonight’s post- but I’ll focus on just one key part: the consistent and integrative promotion of Disney brand values. But first, some fun facts that would make David Letterman proud:

• Walt Disney World size: 47 square miles of property.(2) That’s about double the size of Manhatten.
• One third of Disney World property is developed, one quarter will always be preserved in its natural state. (1)
• More than 75 million Cokes are consumed each year at Walt Disney World Resort along with 13 million bottles of water.(1)
• 62,000 employees work at Walt Disney World Florida (1)
• About 47 million visitors visit Walt Disney World per year. (2) That makes it the most visited tourist attraction on the planet. Incidentally, Times Square is #2 at 45 million.(3)
• Since 1971, an estimated 1.65 million pairs of glasses have been returned to Walt Disney World's "lost bin".(1)
• There is a tree farm on site so that when a mature tree needs to be replaced, a thirty-year-old tree will be available to replace it.(1)
• More than 30 tons of fruits and vegetables grown at The Land pavilion at Epcot are served in Walt Disney World restaurants.
(1)

The Magic of Walt Disney
The Disney brand is about magic, memories, and Americana wholesomeness. Each of these intangible values are intertwined and impeccably guarded through Disney’s brand building measures. Very little of the brand is left to chance- and so much of it is steeped in Walt’s vision. I watched a video on the founding of Disney at one of the pavilions. Walt started Walt Disney parks where children and parents could be whisked away into a world of imagination. He resented the foul language and “dirty” living habits of carnival people. In a world that has been desensitized to “immoral living”, when you walk in a Disney park, you won’t hear foul language, see R-rated attire, drunkards, or litter.

But it is the “magic” value that drives the Disney brand. Anyone quasi-familiar with the Disney brand viscerally understands that Disney magic does not mean what David Copperfield magic means. Disney magic refers to that imagination zone- where anything is possible. It is the magic of adventure, childhood escapism, cartoon dreams and never having to grow up. It involves the magic of being in a world of innocence and make-believe- a place where goodness triumphs and fun flourishes.

I tell my students that “there are 3 ways to build a brand” (theoretically they are brand elements, marketing programs, and secondary associations). These brand builders largely refer to consumer touch-points and Disney masterfully executes on all of them. Check out this quick selection of how “magic” is constantly emphasized in Disney's branding efforts.

• Walt Disney World’s Flagship Park: Disney’s Magic Kingdom
• Walt Disney’s World’s Flagship Pavillion: Magic Castle
• Magic Kingdom’s official slogan: The Most Magical Place On Earth
• Walt Disney World’s Bus: Disney’s Magical Express Bus
• Walt Disney Cruise: Disney’s Magical Cruise
• Disney/Coke co-brand drink machine (click here): Where magic is real.
• Employee greetings at the Disney Boardwalk hotel – “Have a magical day”

Of course, the Disney characters, pavilions, promotions (“Welcome to Walt Disney World. Come and enjoy the magic of Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, FL”),signage, and employees (“Have a magical day Bob") support this magical brand value. Heck, even Aladdin asking me if I wanted to go on a magic carpet ride reinforced the notion. By the way I accepted under the condition that I could go alone with Jasmine. Instead Aladdin and Jasmine agreed to the picture below.
As a kid I was a fan of Disney. As a marketing professional, I am impressed with its branding.

The unCanadian values of the NHL and Zdeno Chara

In some countries, sport is more than sport. In Brazil, soccer is religion. In Pakistan, cricket reigns supreme. In Canada, Canadians bleed ice hockey. To illustrate this last point, Canada’s 3 largest markets for professional sports all drive at Canadian notions: Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Vancouver Canucks. Further evidence of Canada’s link to hockey- according to TSN, nearly 80% of Canadians watched the Canadian men’s Olympic hockey game.


If a brand sponsors ice hockey in some way (like Tim Horton’s sponsors the NHL and minor league hockey), the brand gets endowed with intensively visceral Canadiana notions. This endowment then stirs up patriotic notions in the consumers’ gut – which increases the likability of the brand. Of course, the reverse is also true. Brand sponsorships reinforce hockey in Canada, furthering interest in the sport. But the brutal back breaking hit by Boston Bruin Zdeno Chara on Montreal Canadien Max Pacioretty shows a deep wedge in “brand values”.

Yesterday, Air Canada pulled its $6 million NHL sponsorship of the NHL after the league failed to consider disciplinary action (beyond the in-game penalty) on Chara. As the Montreal Canadiens’s player lies almost motionless in hospital, there is a debate waging in marketing rooms, Parliament, sports bars and law-enforcement offices about what to do. Let’s be very clear. This is a national story that goes the heart of Canadian values - and has an interesting relationship to brands.


Canadiens and Canadians
Let’s begin with the 3 organizations involved in today’s headlines: Montreal Canadiens, Air Canada, and the NHL. The Montreal Canadiens, as the name suggests, is a Canadiana brand. Air Canada is Canada’s national airline. The NHL is, of course, the guardian of Canada’s national game. But the blurring of Canadiana and brands runs deeper than just business and hockey. At stake are the values of the brands, the players, and of the Canadian people. These public statements issued over the last 24 hours shows just how far apart views on the handling of the hit are.

Air Canada issued this statement:
“From a corporate social responsibility standpoint, it is becoming increasingly difficult to associate our brand with sports events which could lead to serious and irresponsible accidents…”

Gary Bettman, NHL commissioner responded:
“Air Canada is a great brand as is the National Hockey League and if they decide that they need to do other things with their sponsorship dollars, that is their prerogative, just like it is the prerogative of our clubs that fly on Air Canada to make other arrangements if they don’t think Air Canada is giving them the appropriate level of service.” (Globe and Mail, March 11)

The values of Air Canada and the NHL are clearly not in sync.

THE NHL AND PLAYER ALIGNMENT

The NHL is the pre-eminent custodian of Canada’s game. It is the organization that makes the rule of fair play and sets the parameters around player conduct. These rules affect the “values” of the players. In its handling of this situation, the NHL is saying that serious injuries- even death can result from playing in the NHL game. The commentary is cool and rational.

"After a thorough review of the video I can find no basis to impose supplemental discipline. This hit resulted from a play that evolved and then happened very quickly -- with both players skating in the same direction and with Chara attempting to angle his opponent into the boards. I could not find any evidence to suggest that, beyond this being a correct call for interference, that Chara targeted the head of his opponent, left his feet or delivered the check in any other manner that could be deemed to be dangerous...This was a hockey play that resulted in an injury because of the player colliding with the stanchion and then the ice surface. In reviewing this play, I also took into consideration that Chara has not been involved in a supplemental discipline incident during his 13-year NHL career." -

With the NHL's frigid “it’s part of the game” response, should we be surprised, then, that its player Chara (who also belongs to the same players' union as Pacioretty) has (at least to this point) not reached out to Max Pacioretty or his family? I find it hard to believe that any mainstream Canadian who participated in the back-breaking injury of another person – who would not be constantly expressing deep sorrow about the injury, immediately conveying sympathy to the victim’s family, and offering prayers of hope for a recovery. That’s the decent thing to do. These are the values of humanity that Air Canada expected. These are the values that the NHL and its players seem to miss. You see, it's not really about the suspension, this is about the values of sympathy, caring and respect. How unCanadian of the NHL, Canada's guardian of the national game.

Getting Value out of Values at $100,000 per second.

This weekend I heard a comedian quip, "the Superbowl ads are as big as the game". Was she right? A search of "Superbowl commercials 2011" gives "515,000,000 results" while plugging "Superbowl 2011" into the search site gives "46,600,000 results." That's more than a 10 to 1 margin for the ads...

The thing about ads is that everybody has got an armchair expert opinion. It makes sense too, because everyone is a consumer. Some in the media even have a formula. So who are the "winners"?

Christian Science Monitor says that the Chrysler video is a big winner. They cited a metric created by bunch of experts (Mullen, Radian6, and Boston.com). "The two-minute Chrysler spot featuring rapper Eminem received both the highest volume and the most positive content in a stream of 250,000 tweets on Twitter."

CBS News gives their nod to VW's Darth Vader commercial. Hey, 15 million YouTube downloads can't be wrong. If it goes viral, it must be good.

Yet, something is off here. The best ads are not necessarily the ads that have the most Tweets or YouTube downloads. They aren't usually the ads with the funniest storyline. The best ads are ones that drive sales and build brand in accordance with company goals. Sales are the short term metric. Brand power is the most powerful long term meter. To look at the best ads of Superbowl 2011, we don't have sales data to analyze - but we can draw some conclusions on brand.

At its brand-building core, ads are designed to created awareness and link relevant, favorable, unique associations (values) to the brand. With an audience of about 100,000,000 Americans, a Super bowl is nice vehicle to develop awareness. But what is a lot tougher to do is to create an ad with a message that sticks. One of my old advertising mentors used to say "Bobby, the target has got to sum up the message in one word." That may be pushing the limit, but linking the brand to one central idea (or a couple of values) is where its at.



Chrysler’s comeback 2 minute ad has a $12 million air time price tag. The ad's images are gritty. The tone rebellious. The script: "What does this city know about luxury? huh? What does a town that has been to hell and back know about the finer things in life?... We're from America... We're certainly no one's Emerald City..." It concludes with Eminem defiantly stating, "This is the Motor City and this is what we do."

There is a lot of brand value communication in this ad- and these relate to grassroots American values: Honesty. Hard-work. Tradition. (note the flag at 20 seconds and the American monuments). A lot of these values were presumed absent only 2 years ago when Big 3 CEOs flew their private jets to Washington for taxpayer bailouts. Chrysler clearly wants them back. By the way, Eminem was an excellent celebrity endorser for this – given his Detroit roots and gritty, honest, hard-core persona. But there is still something about this ad that doesn't work. The ad emphasizes luxury and I am bewildered how anyone can link luxury to the Chrysler brand given this gritty gritty execution.


The VW Darth Vader ad has an adorable storyline. It's got a lot of the ingredients to make it go viral (click here for previous blog). But what is the key point of this ad? Is it to communicate the remote car start? If it is, the execution is great BUT that is a poor feature advertise on. Why? The best brand building conveys something unique about the brand - especially intangible associations. Almost every car in that class has an optional remote starter.

One of the best ads for communicating a brand value is one that is not getting as much online chatter. That's the Bridgestone Beaver. The message here is extremely clear. Bridgestone gives you control. It gives you traction. It increases your driving performance. The tag line at the end reinforces the message too: "For drivers who want to get the most out of their cars, its Bridgestone or nothing." This ad is not the most Tweeted or downloaded on YouTube - but it conveys the proposition (performance) of Bridgestone extremely clearly. That getting the value out of the values!