Branding

To Win the Super Bowl of Ads and Social Media Don’t Bench Your MVP – Story

~ K. Quesenberry ~ Leave a comment

You may have heard about people in Vegas betting on the Super Bowl game, but brand marketers bet millions on the game every year as well. With the cost of $5 million for a 30 second Super Bowl ad and brands spending up to an additional 1 million on promotion to garner social media attention there is a lot riding on the ad game. We could call this the Super Bowl of Advertising and withe all the attention on views and shares it could also be the Super of Bowl of Social Media.

But with only 15% of the 60 to 70 ads run during the game able to make the top 10 why take such a risk? In an age of fragmented media and multiple device distraction, the Super Bowl is the last place advertisers can over 100 million people focused on watching the ads. Last year Google/YouTube reported that 330,000 hours of Super Bowl ads were played back online during the game. Not only are consumers watching, they are re-watching their favorites. This additional social media buzz is a big draw.

The risk is high for brand marketers, but also for the advertising agencies they hire. There is at least one reported case where an ad agency lost a 60 million dollar account for their Super Bowl ad not making the Top Ten list in USA Today’s Ad Meter despite noteworthy past performance. Interestingly the turning point for that brand and their agency seems to have come from leaving behind the previous MVP of their ads – chimpanzees.

What can we learn from the winners of the Super Bowl of ads? The proclaimed King of Beers, Budweiser, is the consumer confirmed King of Super Bowl ads. No brand has had more top performing Super Bowl ads than Bud and if they had an MVP it would have to be Budweiser’s Clydesdales. Clydesdale Super Bowl ads have finished in the top 5 of USA Today’s Ad Meter 8 times in the last 10 years. An 80% success rate is amazing.

Even Tom Brady and Matt Ryan only complete roughly 65% of their pass attempts. With an exceptional success rate Budweiser decided to bench its MVP in last year’s Super Bowl ad “Not Backing Down” where the Clydesdales and story arc took a minor role to product and brewery scenes. The result was dropping down to 28th in the poll. It would be like only playing Brady and Ryan a couple downs in the big game.

Does this mean the secret to Super Bowl Ad success is animals? Not necessarily. Out of USA Today’s Ad Meter top 5 since it started in 1989 only about 34% stared animals. That’s not very good betting odds. Plus, if you look at the rest of the ads below the top 10 and even the ones at the bottom of the poll many featured animals.

Like with MVPs such as Brady or Ryan it’s not just the players you also need good plays to win. For commercials it’s not just the characters, you need a good plot to attract and hold attention. The series of plays called in the game and the actions in the commercial move a story forward creating drama and tension. You have protagonist (Brady or Ryan) and antagonists (Patriots or Falcons) – opposing forces.

I just described Gustav Freytag’s theory of drama known as Freytag’s pyramid – the five-act formula used by Shakespeare. My research with Michael Coolsen analyzed two years of Super Bowl ads and found the key to Super Bowl ad popularity is whether it tells a story or not. It didn’t matter if you had animals or celebrities and used humor or sex appeal, the underlying factor to likability was plot. Super Bowl Ad Poll ratings were higher for commercials that follow a full five-act story arc and the more acts commercials had (like 3 versus 2) the higher the ratings.

Most of the Budweiser Clydesdale ads told full stories with the horses playing starring roles. In the three years they dipped below the top 10 (#17 in 2011, #26 in 2012, and #28 in 2016) the Clydesdales were not main characters and more importantly the ads did not tell compelling complete stories. Based on this playbook for winning Super Bowl Ads how will the do this year?

Reports indicate the Clydesdales will make only a brief cameo yet the commercial does tell the story of German immigrant Adolphus Bush’s journey to America. In a “Moneyball” type strategy, if the brand does tell a good story there just could be enough dramatic arc to make the top 10 despite the diminished role of their MVP Clydesdales. Of course, like the game itself there could be some upsets, but depending on story is a good bet for any brand when it comes to the Super Bowl of Advertising and Social Media.

Take a look for yourself. Here are the #1 Ad Meter Budweiser Super Bowl commercial “Lost Dog” from 2015, last year’s #28 Super Bowl ad “Don’t Back Down” from 2016, and this year’s 2017 Super Bowl ad “Born The Hard Way.”

Visual Continuity: Is It Always A Good Strategy?

~ K. Quesenberry ~ 1 Comment

Awhile ago I wrote a blog post about the importance of visual continuity. In “Visual Continuity in Print & Digital” I said “When designing creative executions, visual continuity is key – especially in today’s media cluttered world.” I still believe that is true, but sometimes change is good for a company as well.

In the post I talked about the Pepsi Refresh Project. Another example is Target. They have been very successful and they have kept the same red logo and target symbol on white backdrops for a long time. This is an equation for success and a great example of visual continuity. But this made me think of a question. Can a brand be successful without visual continuity?

The one brand that immediately came to mind is Burton Snowboards. The only consistency about Burton’s visual design has been its inconsistency. Since 1977 the company has had a lot of different logos. How many? They basically have totally redesigned their logos – yes multiple logos – every year. See the picture for a retrospective. In the early 1990s Burton Snowboard rarely used the same logo twice in their print ads.

Is this a smart move? A SAP case study on Burton describes the company’s success coming from how they are able to remain as nimble as their riders. The business is unique because they have professional athletes who drive the product development process and have a tremendous amount of input into the look, feel, and functionality of the product lines. They also take rider feedback to heart — whether the comments come from a pro rider, a customer email, or a random snowboarder the company president runs into on the mountain. Being a rider-driven company, the business has to be dynamic and adaptable.

Burton is playing in an ever changing snowboarding, surfing and skate culture that thrives on fads and trends. So I would say it is okay for their visually identity to change rapidly with the times. The other example is Jones Soda.

For years Jones Soda has had fans upload their photos to be voted on and possibly featured on the company’s ever changing soda labels. I uploaded a photo once, but never made it to the label. Have you ever send in a photo to a brand to be featured in their marketing? Can you think of another example of a successful brand that has thrived by consistently changing their visual identity?

Brand Extensions Achieve MAXIMum Failure

~ K. Quesenberry ~ Leave a comment

On the cover of Maxim magazine the publication promises the same thing every month: ”Hot Women, Wild Parties, Cool Clothes, Trendy Drinks and High Tech Gadgets.” In June 2002 the hip men’s Magazine figuratively added ”Hair Color.” The magazine’s owner, Dennis Publishing, in a collaboration with Combe, maker of Just for Men hair color, extended the Maxim brand to hair care products. The press release stated, “Maxim Magazine Haircare is giving guys the opportunity to have an edgy look that is no longer relegated to just the stage or movie screen.” The Maxim brand really extended itself when it decided to decided to enter the hair care aisle. Youth-oriented, frosted hair dye? They did have cool color name options: Bleach Blond, Sandstorm, Black Jack and Red Rum.

Did Maxim violated marketing strategist Al Ries’s “Law of Extension” – the most violated among all the “immutable laws of marketing?” Michael Wendroff, vice president for hair color marketing at Combe said ”We did a lot of research, young guys are already entering the market, but they didn’t want to enter a salon or use a woman’s hair product. And we thought there would be nothing more comfortable for guys than Maxim. That makes it a guy thing.” ”Maxim is a real cool brand,” Manager for brand development at Dennis Publishing, Barry Pincus, said ”Guys look up to us, and women love us as well. They trust who we are. And this gives them a tangible interface with our brand that they can touch or feel.” Magazine ads showed women who could not resist the Maxim frosted male. ”Most of the people who use our Just for Men product are older, but young people have an awareness of it because of all the advertising we’ve done,” Mr. Wendroff said. ”Now we can use the sex appeal and irreverent humor to reach a new market.”

Since you’ve read the title of this post you probably already know how this story ends. Have you seen Maximum Magazine Harecare in your local CVS lately? Probably not. The product disappeared from shelves not long after it was voted the “second worst brand extension” in the 2005 brand extension winners and losers survey by New York branding consultancy Tipping Sprung and trade publication Brandweek. Then it was quietly swept under the rug.

But what went wrong? The brand managers were so enthusiastic. They had research! They simply stretched their brand too far. Most failed brand extensions don’t jibe with how consumers understand the core brand or just don’t seem to match with the company’s existing product line. “The idea of staying home alone at night and staining your towels as you dye your hair just doesn’t coincide with Maxim’s image of a guy out partying with the beautiful people,” says Martyn Tipping, president and director of brand strategy at Tipping Sprung.