Avis No Longer Tries Harder

Avis recently announced that it was overhauling its brand strategy by retiring  its infamous tagline "We Try Harder" after over 5 decades and replacing it with the new tagline "It's Your Space".

The move is being pioneered by Avis' new CMO, Jeannine Haas, whose prior work experience includes stints at American Express and Ford Motor Co.  In a recent interview Jeannine explained the move by saying "Consumer-centric brands must always evolve in order to keep pace with ever-changing customer needs and preferences . . . Avis is evolving as a premium brand to better meet those needs. . . [the goal of the re-branding is to be] reflective of [Avis'] ongoing mission to be a customer-led, service-driven company, and presents the brand in terms of the customer experience and the advantages inherent in renting from Avis"


The new tagline, "It's Your Space", is supposedly targeted at business travelers and hypes up the fact that business travelers can recharge or be productive in the sanctuary of the car cabin. Avis' website even says, "With Avis it's more than a rental. It's your space."

My first reaction to this new marketing and brand strategy was it is a bad idea, my second reaction is its an AWFUL idea. . . Now I have no doubt that Jeannine and her marketing did plenty of consumer research that indicated "We Try Harder" doesn't resonate anymore with consumers.  But being customer-centric doesn't always mean taking what the consumer says literally.  My guess is that the essence behind the tagline is just as relevant as ever, it's just the customer experience has drifted far from this ideal.

In my opinion, "We Try Harder" is not just a tagline, it's a deep part of the brand's DNA and an important part of the consumer equity.  As a opposed to moving away from "We Try Harder", Avis should have doubled-down behind it - proving to consumers in this day and age how the customer experience is noticeable different, noticeable better because of Avis trying harder to please their consumers.  It's about having more agents, more smiles, more consumer choices, more flexibility, shorter lines, and fewer fees.  It's unique, it's ownable, it differentiates the brand from the other car rental companies.


An old "We Try Harder" commercial:


New "It's Your Space" commercial:



The new tagline, "It's Your Space" glorifies the car, which is nothing more than a commodity in this business.  The ad is generic, it could be for any car company.  It moves the brand to a place that's no longer unique in the American landscape.  My guess is this re-branding effort will be shorter lived than the new CMO can imagine and "We Try Harder" will be re-instated to its rightful place as a classic American tagline.

What the Ryan VP pick could mean for both sides?

Sorry in advance for a political related post, but I like to think about elections as giant marketing campaigns and a Vice Presidential choice can be viewed either as your first major line extension or at least a big defining part of your brand equity.

The Ryan selection confirms the Romney team intends to try to steer the election to a single campaign issue - the economy.  Throughout the primaries and over the course of the last few months, Romney's chief motto has been about putting job creation first.

While there's no doubt the economy is Romney's 'area of expertise', interestingly enough, the democrats have been successfully attacking Romney's record on job creation by citing his record as Massachusetts and Bain, as well as, hammering him on his tax ideas and potential tax evasion - essentially trying to undercut his area of strength.  Romney realizes that the economy, however, is his only hope to win an election against a sitting president who is well liked on a personal level and who's foreign policy has been generally recognized as strong, especially for a democrat.

Therefore, picking Ryan as a running mate essentially allows the Romney team to retrench around the economic issue as Ryan is best known for his controversial, but bold budget plans that call for dramatic cuts in spending and overhauls to the social safety net programs.  Republican's have praised the choice of Ryan specifically citing him as a 'policy guy' who is all about the 'numbers'.  Ryan gives him a team that can republicans can market as economic experts to help fix the current status quo.

If I was in charge of Obama's strategy - I'd use the Ryan pick to ladder up the current attacks on Romney's character (the focus over the last few months has to be to drive a deficit of trust - tax evader, job exporter, potential SEC fraud) to a bigger picture campaign idea.  The campaign idea would be "It takes heart" and it would center around branding the republican ticket as being heartless, number guys only concerned about a ruthless pursuit about the bottom line - doing whatever it takes to maximize Romney's pursuit of profits despite the human costs (outsourcing jobs, tax evasion, flip flopping on issues, tax cuts for the rich) and Ryan's pursuit of cutting spending despite the human costs (healthcare, medicare, social security, education).  Obama needs to highlight the real costs of the ruthless pursuit of one signal goal. The fact that a CEO has the luxury of focusing only on profits to make shareholders rich, while the President has the responsibility to maximize the pursuit of happiness for all Americans (not just the wealthy).

Obama needs to show he is still the candidate of heart - the candidate of compassion and the little people, the champion of the middle class, retired voters, and struggling families - and these voters are looking for somebody who understands their problems, who will go to bed thinking about helping them, and will lead from the heart not the wallet.  Obama should start preaching how a president needs to lead with his head and heart to ensure the welfare of Americans whether its protecting them from foreign enemies (Bin Laden), improving their health (healthcare), or maximizing the pursuit of happiness (investment in education, infrastructure, science, jobs). Every time Romney or Ryan point to policy, respond by asking "at what cost?"  Continue to shift the discussion from the bottom line numbers to the path of potential destruction to the middle class required to achieve the policy they push.

Romney's biggest struggle with voters is much like John Kerry or Al Gore, he jut doesn't connect with the average voter.  He comes off as a robot stiff...Obama can use this as he ladders the campaign up from a policy debate on economic numbers to a bigger issue of heart.

Romney and team need to be ready and be able to connect their policy to very big middle class benefits not sacrifices, it cannot just be a trickle down or theoretical effect, its got to be real and policy benefits have to be seen as short term.

Who are the Olympic Advertisers and Sponsors again?

A new consumer study completed by Toluna Global Omnibus illustrates that consumer awareness and recall of what companies are Olympic sponsors and advertisers is surprisingly low.  The graph below illustrates the brand recall by company (unclear if this is aided or unaided awareness):

There are two notable take-aways from the data above.

1. 5 of the top 16 companies (including 2 of the top 5) got credit for being a sponsor without actually spending a dime on Olympic advertising
2. Even Coca-Cola, the brand with the most recall, has shockingly low awareness of sponsorship, with less than 50% of consumers aware of the linkage to the Olympics, and 28% of consumers crediting their ads back to primary rival Pepsi

These data points bring two thoughts to mind, first the investment in sponsorship doesn't seem to equate to a considerable amount of revenue upside.  Second, brands are really doing a bad job of differentiating their advertisements and breaking through to drive recall.  

I posted a few days ago about how many Olympic ads all seem to blend together, so check that post out if you haven't and watch the three example ads in that post.

Sear's appliance blood in the water?

As Sear's continues to fade away in the landscape of US retailers with over 100 store closures this year, its competitors are sensing the blood in the water sort to speak.  Appliances have always been a staple for Sear's, a source of traffic, revenue, and profit.  Not just through the sale of the actual appliances, but also selling add ons like Sear's product warranties and delivery/haul away services.

Sear's traditionally carried one of the largest overall selection of appliances and it also had a lot of consumer pull behind it's private label Kenmore brand.  But as Sear's struggles deepened they even agreed to let Costco sell a limited assortment of Kenmore appliances.  As Sear's grip on the appliance market continue to slip, competitors such as Best Buy, Home Depot, and even Walmart are moving to increase their assortment to try to woo more sales out of their consumers.

So goes appliances, so goes Sear's.  So look for Sear's to double down and fight to retain market share, for Sear's sake, you only hope its not too late now that blood is in the water and Kenmore is out of the bag.

Ragu TV Ad Double Take

When a kid catches his parents in bed, Ragu can help?  What?   That's right, Ragu, the pasta sauce company, recently launched a new TV ad campaign bringing a bit of humor and shock value to break through and get noticed.  The ad is titled "A long day of Childhood calls for America's favorite pasta sauce".  Take a look...

First, the ad is hilarious and shocking, especially for an ad the made its debut during the family friendly Olympics - so it without a doubt will clearly breaks through and gets noticed.  There is also likely good brand recall, because it is is very unique, has solid branding, a catchy little jingle, and the drama at the beginning of the ad keeps you watching all the way through.  However, it doesn't exactly make me want to buy pasta sauce - if anything it makes me lose my appetite a little bit.  The big question is does the ad go too far?  Also does light and funny humor go with a thick and chunky pasta sauce? Maybe I'm over thinking this one.

New research by ad-testing firm Ace Metrix proves that while funny ads may get high marks, funniness had little correlation with effectiveness and in fact, funny ads were slightly less likely to increase desire or purchase intent than unfunny ones

Ragu's other adds this year also have a bit of spunk and humor . . . but clearly not the same level of shock value.

Now I'm clearly not the target consumer and the ad will definitely get a lot of social media buzz so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in terms of driving the business . . .in the meantime at least it gets people talking

Is the proposed NYC soda ban worth it?

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, examined the impact of the Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed NYC soda ban.  The soda ban would limit sugar-sweetened beverages to 16oz, essentially banning supersize drinks.

The study suggested that the 62% of all drinks currently consumed at fast food restaurants would be affected by the ban, with the mean caloric intake per beverage ~200 calories today.  The study goes on to suggest that if all these consumers downsized to a 16oz sodas, the average calorie saving per consumer would be ~60 calories per person.

So I have to ask is 60 calories per person worth the effort of the ban and the backlash/outrage associated with it?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, if you assume a person will consume those 60 calories a day every day of the year adding up to 21,900 incremental calories per year.  If you assume there are 3,500 calories per pound, that's over 6 lbs of extra sugar a year in weight, which could have serious health implications over the long-run.  But, no if you assume infrequent consumption.  Net-net, I was surprised the ban only cuts the caloric intake by 60 calories per person on average, but also surprised how quickly just 60 calories a day adds up to real numbers.

"There's nothing soft about it" - Sprite, really?

Sprite just launched a new marketing campaign using the tagline "There's nothing soft about it", targeting teens (my guess urban teens).  The campaign is built around the product's "intensity" and the first ad even starts with the line "This is way more intense than I was expecting!" 



While I understand the want to have a brand equity built around being intense and bold - especially for an urban teen consumer target, I think it's a bit of a strange place to take Sprite because the product profile doesn't seem to match the positioning.  Is it me, or is Sprite one of the most vanilla of beverages in terms of the flavor profile being very traditional vs. edgy?  

Given the fit with the product taste profile is a big question, I have bigger doubts on the impact of the message - just because you say your intense doesn't mean people will believe it.  The other issue I see with this new positioning is it seems to conflict with the historical brand position of being ultra refreshing.  Intense might be good in consumers' minds, but I doubt there is much overlapping association between intense and refreshing.  Net-net, I might be proven wrong in the long-run, but I think this rebranding is just a poor fit and consumers will struggle to give Sprite permission to play as an "intense" brand.

Coming to a mall near you . . . your grocery store?

As malls try to fill the empty real estate left behind from failing big box retailers such as Borders, Circuit City, Sears, etc...more and more mall landlords are looking to grocery stores to fill the void.

Grocery stores bring traffic and regular visits while not cannibalize sales from exiting retailers.  Target was one of the first stores selling grocery products to step into this opportunity, but more recently Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and other more traditional grocery stores have also taken advantage of an existing consumer base and the ability to negotiate favorable rent terms as malls seek tenets willing to lease larger stores.

Obviously, these grocery stores have to realize they are unlikely to pull in too many convenience shoppers who would be resistant to dealing with mall traffic and tough parking.  Therefore, its important for these grocery stores to consider a dual location strategy - e.g., both on and off mall property to successfully grab as much market share as possible.  But nevertheless, seems like a win-win.

Amazon to surpass Wal-Mart?

Some retail experts are predicting Amazon will surpass Walmart as the largest retailer by 2020.  According to yahoo finance, Amazon reached $54 billion in revenue last year vs. Wal-Mart netting $455 billion in revenue - so its anything but a sure bet.

However, there's no doubt that Amazon has dramatically changed the way that many American's shop.  On big ticket items, Amazon stole the show by allowing consumer to skirt paying sales tax - although that advantage is ending shortly in many states.  Then there was Amazon Prime, free 2 day shipping on anything with an annual $50 membership.  Rumor has it, Amazon's next big game changer is going to be same day shipping on most items.  Think about that revolution.  Amazon is without a doubt changing the retail equation and a shift in the balance of power is already underway and their loyal army of shoppers is growing especially with millennials.

Retail giants have risen to dominance only to have fallen in the past (e.g., Sears), so I don't doubt the shift and the very really possibility that Amazon could overtake Wal-Mart in the next 8 years. Still, I for one think there will always be a major role for traditional brick and mortar stores.  Americans are consumers, they like to shop, they like to browse, they like to stumble on surprises and find new items they never knew they needed.  So, it all comes down to how does Wal-Mart react to the obvious shift in momentum.  Do they stay the course and bunker down or adapt and make they're customer experience irreplaceable?  If so they better get started today because the customer experience is a detriment today

BMW Olympics Ads Targeting Women?

Anybody else notice that it seems like BMW is switching up its traditional formula of targeting men and hyping their cars' performance with a focus on speed and handling?

While watching the Olympics, I've noticed a number of new BMW ads that appear off equity for the sports car manufacturer both in that they appear to be targeting women and in that they are talking up all its technology and comfort benefits (e.g., rearview camera, direction/mapping, etc.) vs. driving, performance, handling.  Take a look...



While some of the ads are infused with a nice bit of humor and are selling nice features, they are a far cry for ads like this one, which are more on equity with the ultimate driving machine...

Now I get that the Olympic television audience tends to skew more female than traditional sporting events and there is data suggesting the average woman tends to be more concerned with a car's features than how much horsepower is under the hood, the ads just seem out of character for BMW.  While its always nice to try to appeal to a wider audience, as soon as you have to move off equity to do it you risk diluting the brand, so I'd recommend BMW start selling their performance again.

Cool New Product: McCormick Recipe Inspirations

So I'm the farthest thing from what you'd call a chef or even in a novice in the kitchen, but in a recent shopping trip at my local grocery store I came across McCormick Recipe Inspirations - a line of convenient spice kits that built around sophisticated (at least for a non-cooker) recipes. Recipe Inspirations gives you McCormick’s recipes with each packet including the pre-measured amount of spices and herbs.

The product hits dead on the convenience trends for the consumer, and of course McCormick and the retailer win big because the price per ounce is considerably higher than if a consumer was just buying the regular spice jars.  In reality, it probably also attracts a consumer who typically wouldn't even buy all the traditional spice jars because they are less cooking involved or at least serves as a sampler pack of sorts.  My only knock is it shouldn't be shelved in the spice aisle, it would be the perfect product to place over by the chicken, meat, and fish departments.

Olympic Ads Tug the Heart, but Have No Recall

I posted earlier about how P&G's olympic ads tug at the heart, but I would expect them to have limited brand recall...here's the ad I referenced

Well, I'd conclude that many other Olympic advertisements are brilliant creative, but ultimately all have the same problems...

Here's my favorite of the Citi Olympic Ads:

Again, it's brilliant creative, no doubt, I just doubt few consumers will walk away remembering it was a Citi ad.

Likewise, the creative in this Visa Ad is great...

...and Morgan Freeman nails the voiceover, but really at the end of the day all of these ads have to be running together in consumers minds

Obama vs. Romney is starting to look like Mac vs. PC, a case of reverse branding

Anybody else notice how political advertising has usually the opposite objective of consumer product advertising?  What I mean is political ads are usually focused on trying to rebrand the candidate's competitor as something negative vs. trying to sell the benefits of their own candidates.  For example, Romney has branded himself as a job creator, but the Obama team is focused on branding Romney as untrustworthy.  

Like any good marketer their anti-Romney campaign keeps pushing 'untrustworthy' as the primary theme or essentially trying to develop a reverse brand equity, and the marketing campaign supports this benefit statement with several different platforms of reasons to believe that help reinforce the equity, such as:

1) Suggest Romney will say anything to get elected and switches viewpoints when its convenient

2) Suggest Romney was responsible for outsourcing US jobs while at Bain

3) Suggest Romney lied about when he left Bain and may have committed securities fraud by doing so

4) Suggest Romney is hiding his money in tax havens because he is refusing to show his historic tax returns

This effort has forced Romney to spend a good portion of his time denying these charges, which just makes him look defensive and less trustworthy, especially because he has stubbornly refused to show his tax returns - the only proof of his innocence.  While its unfair, Romney started his campaign with a deficit of trust, not only because he's running against an incumbent, but also because the reality working against him is that many American's have a mistrust of the Mormon religion because different scares many people even in this day and age.

While I will not openly support or condemn these attacks on trust, the execution of the campaign is brilliant from a marketing strategy standpoint and follows the perfect formula for reverse branding and ingraining the equity/benefit in consumer/voters minds. A clear benefit that strongly resonates, supported by a clear reason to believe, and then when that reason to believe's shelf life expires and it's impact/breakthrough starts diminishing, rotating to new reasons to believe that all ladder back up.

Outside of politics, marketers rarely get a chance to reverse brand a competitor.  Though the best consumer product execution of this strategy was by Apple in their infamous series of Mac vs. PC ads:

Is it just me or is Obama vs. Romney starting to look like Mac vs. PC?  Reverse branding works when supported by enough reasons to believe.

Why is Proctor & Gamble advertising P&G?

As a former P&G marketer I'll admit that I have a lot of P&G loyalty, but every time I see one of the P&G Olympic advertisements I scratch my head.  It's not because I don't like the ads, you have to be heartless not to feel the emotion when they air the "Thank You, Mom" campaign...



...it's just I want to understand the end game for P&G.  There's no doubt the ads are emotionally moving, but the brand recall is all about P&G a large corporation that consumers have no emotional connection to, as opposed to say Pampers or Tide, which have a ton of emotional equity built up in the hearts and minds of consumers.

In short, I want to know what is the company's long-term strategy.  I say long-term because if the company was just trying to boost sales of its current business, there's no doubt it would have a higher ROI throwing this money behind an ad that builds up one of its leading billion dollar brands.

Such as these ads:





If I had to guess, the logic is that the overarching ads focused on P&G provide the backbone of the campaign and help tie all the individual brand ads together, but I'd actually suggest that the overall ad dilutes the individual brand ads because at some point they all start blending together in the consumer's mind.  Either way, its tough to try to build an emotional connection between a billion dollar conglomerate, and even if you do, then you still have the uphill battle of educating consumers on which brands are even made by the company.  Love the "Thank You, Mom" ads from a heart strings standpoint, but have a tough time believe its providing the company the biggest bang for its buck