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

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.