Has Starbuck’s missed the mark with its new advertising campaign?

5/25/09



In the beginning of May 2009, Starbucks, once famous for not engaging in traditional advertising, launched a campaign to address an -8% decline in same store sales during the first quarter of 2009. (Miller, 2009)

According to CEO Howard Schultz, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “We know from our research that customers are not defecting away from Starbucks; they’re just coming less often or cutting out the occasion”. (Jargon, 2009)

Given that input, do you think this ad makes sense? Does it make you want to go into Starbucks more often?




Miller, C. (2009, May 19) New Starbucks Ads Seek to Recruit Online Fans. nytimes.com Retrived, May 25, 2009 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/media/19starbux.html

Jargon, J. (2009, May 4) New Ads Will Stir Up Coffee Wars. Wall Street Journal, pB7.

Isn’t it about time that all health claims were properly substantiated?

5/18/09

Although the FDA has been monitoring drug company claims for their products for years, there has been a huge gaping hole, when it comes to supplements and foods.

Not only have companies been able to get away without properly substantiating their claims, they have been getting away with outrageous disclaimers in support of them. Listen closely or look at the small type and you will see that Product X will help you lose weight when “taken in conjunction with a calorie restricted diet and moderate exercise”. Duh. If you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight regardless of what supplements or specific foods you eat.

While Cheerios seems relatively benign, they are still making a very hard claim – “eat Cheerios and lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” backed by a similar disclaimer. Their defense? We’ve been communicating this message for two years. Well, just because the ethically-challenged Bush administration was willing to go along with it, doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do.

I think its time for the truth. What do you think?

(2009, May 12). FDA warns General Mills over Cheerios cholesterol claims. latimes. com. Retrived, May 17, 2009 from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/shopping_blog/2009/05/fda-warns-general-mills-over-cheerios-cholesterol-claims.html

Here’s an opposing point-of-view

York, E. & Thomaselli, R. (2009, May 13) With Cheerios, has the FDA bitten off more than it could chew? adage.com. Retrived, May 18, 2009
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136636

Finally, a triumph of common sense?

5/11/09

I’ve always been a fan of the first amendment, even when it has meant letting folks I disagree with say things that appall me. But even I have to draw the line at the mention of “4 hour erections” during daytime television; especially when my 10 year-old nephew happens to be watching the show with me.

Now comes the eminently sensible suggestion from Rep. Jim Moran that commercials for erectile dysfunction be banned between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. (Riley, 2009)

Works for me. What about you?

And here’s an idea for the companies that produce these products – why not advertise online on porn sites? There certainly seem to be enough out there to choose from and you won’t have to worry about children seeing your message.

Riley, C. (2009, May 6). Congressman: No Viagra before 10 p.m. cnn.com. Retrived, May 11, 2009 from
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/06/congressman-no-viagra-before-10-pm/

Will GM’s portfolio pruning assure its survival?

5/4/09

As part of its restructuring, GM has announced that it is eliminating 4 of its brands – Saab, Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac. This will allow them to focus on their 4 remaining brands – Chevy, Buick, Cadillac and GMC.

In reading about this, I was reminded of the discussions that I participated in when Uncle Ben’s launched Uncle Ben’s Country Inn Rice Dishes ®. Those in favor of not including Uncle Ben’s in the product name felt that it was stogy and would prevent the brand from reaching its full potential.

But, the VP of Marketing, who had the final word, pointed out that since she would not be able to support the brand with its own advertising campaign for more than a few years, it would need to live under the Uncle Ben’s umbrella so it could be supported with synergistic ads after the launch period.

Supporting 8 brands was clearly cost prohibitive, and supporting 4 will be easier, but has GM gone far enough? As market analyst Todd Turner pointed out in the attached article, the GMC division only appears to be profitable because there are no development costs associated with it.

Perhaps it would make sense to eliminate this division as well, or bring all the remaining brands under a common umbrella. Since GM spent over 2 billion dollars for marketing in 2008, the potential for savings could be huge. What would you do?

Greenberg, K. (2009, April 27). GM To Focus On Four ‘Keeper’ Brands. marketingdaily.com Retrieved, May 4, 2009 from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=104881

How should advertising agencies be compensated?

4/27/09

At a recent ANA conference, Coca-Cola Co. announced that it is trying to start an industrywide movement toward a “value-based” compensation model. (Mullman, 2009).

It’s not exactly a new idea. Historically advertising agency compensation was based on a percentage of media spending, originally 15%. But, even before the separation of media and creative into different agencies made that system antiquated, many of my clients over the years were fee-based, with compensation tied primarily to hours worked, and bonuses built into the system to provide performance incentives.

The tricky part of course is how you define performance. While I firmly believe that advertising must produce sales in order to justify its existence, there is no doubt that external factors well beyond advertising’s control often bear the greatest responsibility for success or failure. Just witness how the current recession has boosted McDonald’s sales for yet another quarter.

Coke has indicated their assessment will be based on a range of factors including the work’s strategic importance, the talent involved, and the originality of the ideas produced. Hmm. Sounds kind of vague to me.

They go on to say that they are not concerned about the effect that this will have on their agencies since “they will bring their A-games no matter what”.

My question is, will they even have an A-game? Talent costs money, and presumably the base level compensation will be lowered, forcing agencies to hire less talented people for lower rewards.

I recently saw a wistful blog entry from a client who mentioned that account management staff used to have MBAs. I guess that agencies can no longer afford them.

Ultimately, what clients want better results. Is this the way?

Mullman, J. & Zmuda, N. (2009, April 27). Coke Pushes Pay-for-Performance Model. adage.com. Retrived April 27, 2009, from http://adage.com/article?article_id=136266

Does it make you want to buy an LG phone?

4/20/09

LG has announced that it is launching 2 focused campaigns for its phones based on the company’s brand positioning which is “all about self-expression”.

The first campaign, for the Xenon phone, is targeting “social networking-happy Gen Yers” with a tv, print, and online campaign featuring 19 year-old Heroes star Hayden Panettiere and placement in Jason Timberlake’s MTV series The Phone.

The second campaign, for the Rumor2 phone targets “style conscious teens and young adults”. It features Heidi Klum who designed custom backplates for the phone. (Wasserman, 2009)

The fact that they have a good sense of who their target is and have created plans that should speak directly to their interests/emotions is definitely a good start.

But, as we have discussed previously the use of celebrities is tricky. While they may stimulate interest, they also can easily overwhelm the message. And of course over exposure can be an issue.

What do you think? Will either of these campaigns prove to be effective?


Wasserman, T. (2009, April 18). LG Ready for Its Close-up. brandweek.com. Retrieved April 20, 2009 fromhttp://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3if46ca983d59bcb8f960417fa8f52a9c6

Am I the only one suffering from charity burnout?

4/13/09

It seems like every time I turn around these days someone is informing me that part of the money I just paid to buy something is being devoted to some worthwhile cause.

The latest one jumping on the bandwagon is Tide detergent. They have been touting their disaster relief efforts, most notably those for victims of Hurricane Katrina, on television, and are now introducing a new package design featuring their beneficiaries that is scheduled to run through June. (Hopefully this isn’t a Tropicana packaging disaster in the making).

P&G, Tide’s parent company will be donating 10 cents from each sale of the newly packaged detergent to disaster relief. (Wong, 2009)

While a study conducted by Self magazine and consulting firm Latitude in spring 2007 indicated that women will pay an extra 6.1% for products associated with a social cause, I am skeptical. (“Self Study: Women Willing To Pay Premium for a Cause”, 2007)

Frankly, I’d rather decide for myself which charities I want to support rather than having someone else do it for me. What do you think? Is donation to a worthy cause a motivator for you when you make your purchase decisions? Would you pay +6% more?


Wong, E. (2009, April 10). Tide’s Charitable Makeover. brandweek.com. Retrived April 12, 2009 from:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3id54466e9215cc2ba9ef1c644d5ea54fa

(2007, October 15). Self Study: Women Willing To Pay Premium for a Cause. AdWeek, p38.