Category: Branding Advice

Last week, approved the Ottawa Senators kicked off a minor media sweat-storm when they unveiled what they called their new “heritage jersey” – which obviously had the retro styling of a classic hockey sweater. Then, even the office of  Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada (who still hasn’t written that hockey book) weighed in with a terse “PM says jersey”.

We Beg to Differ.

There. That was easy, wasn’t it?

Let’s be honest, this piece of modern hockey gear is really not summed up by either how we commonly use the word “sweater” OR the word “jersey”.  But here’s why we think Canadians should be pretty stubborn about sticking to their knitting on this one.

• The term “sweater” was invented to describe an athletic garment that you sweat in. Ever smell a hockey bag? That ain’t “jers” you’re smelling.
• “Sweater” implies something that keeps you warm in winter – and hockey in its purest form is still played outdoors.
• “Jersey” is what generic – mostly American – sports marketers want you to call it. Let basketball, football, and baseball have their “jerseys”.
• Seriously, you’re going to take this guy‘s word for it ?
• Or are you going to take this guy‘s word for it?

Author of “The Hockey Sweater” Roch Carrier “Jersey, I understood, was some stuff to do dresses for ladies. That was the ladies business. Mine was to rush to the skating rink in my hockey sweater . ”

Enjoy!

Spoiler: Cheech & Chong smoke the Ragu sauce

In my inbox today, for sale two different bloggers slammed two big food brands for recent “edgy” social media campaigns. First, sickness C. C.Chapman Ragu Hates Dads. Then, Dale Buss on Brandchannel What Was General Mills Smoking to OK Cheech and Chong Magic Brownie Campaign? On both, I beg to differ. But for different reasons.

The bad: Ragu’s lame attempt.

The Facebook page they’re pimping.

Now here’s C.C. Chapman’s take on it:

As the person in my household who does all of the shopping and all of the cooking I took offense to this video. Implying that dads can only cook the simple things and Ragu is somehow going to help make that easier. Give me a break!

Meh. Now, as the guy in our house who also does all of the above, I get his complaint. But I didn’t take offense so much as just  shake my head. What should have been a light, fun, and playful poke at the kind of guy who doesn’t help in the kitchen – and yes, they’re out there, and they totally deserve lampooning – instead comes across as an unfocused, whiney, un-entertaining, bitch fest.

The problem is not that it’s edgy, highly mom-specific, or even offensive. The big problem is that it’s BAD. Badly produced, awkwardly executed, and absolutely unlikely to get anybody to buy the freaking Spaghetti Sauce, much less laugh or pass this to their friends!

The good: General Mills hilarious Cheech & Chong trailer

The Web page – also brilliant – with more funny outtakes.

Here’s Dale Buss’s bitchy screed:

Oh, to have been a fly on that wall at that pitch meeting. What were General Mills marketers (and agency, Publicis) thinking when this viral promotion moved from sideline conference-room chatter to the thing in the middle of the table, and then to production, and then to actual placement on the brand’s Facebook page, YouTube channel and a campaign microsite earlier this month?

I don’t know what they were thinking either, but it worked. For guys over 40 like me who grew up being shocked by Cheech and Chong’s in-your-face counter-culture humour (and secretly loving it) I think this campaign nails the tone, humour, and most importantly, the product pitch in this one. So while many will find it equally “offensive” to the Ragu campaign, this one will actually find an audience who will pass this on.

I think Chapman was wrong because he picked on the wrong issue in the Ragu campaign. I think Buss is just wrong.

How about you? Does the Magic Brownie thing go too far? Does Ragu actually hit the mark? Am I full of flaming spaghetti sauce?

Please: Beg to Differ. I do.

I’m often critical of Canada’s efforts at country branding, look but in this case one of our national flag-bearing agencies nailed it. Totally.

The trickiest thing about truly great logo design is not to have your symbol say a lot. That’s easy, ambulance just layer element upon element upon element like the Canadian Olympic Committee’s logo (at right). The trick is to say only the right things to earn recognition and trust, sale then provide a memorable impression that your audience will take home with them.

The Committee logo is a classic example of over-layering, with the fussy little flame, arched French and English, and redundant maple leaves. This neither connects or inspires. Sadly, the Committee is keeping their logo, but the brand management folks have been wise enough to make the distinction between the organization (i.e the Committee) and the team (i.e. the athletes – or, the thing that people actually care about).

The new logo is a simple badge that I’d want on my arm if I were an athlete. And the rest of the design system is an elegant complement to the iconic logo. You can read more about it here.

Or check out the nicely toned video introducing the new system:

Go Canada!

This photo made me laugh and laugh and laugh, cheap then think about branding, then spare a thought for the poor Libyan people who have had to live under this guy, then laugh some more.

One of these kids is not like the others

Looking at this photo, and a hilarious set of Ghadafi’s crazy get-ups collected by Vanity Fair, you really get the impression that this guy likes to stand out. And not just stand out, but go spinning off on his own loopy, maniacal tangent.

And that underlines the only point I’m going to make today:

Sometimes, it’s better NOT to Differ. Like if you get invited to the G8 and they ask you to join them for a photo op.

Or if everybody else’s repressive North African megalomaniacal dictatorship is moving to peace and democracy. That would be a good time to, you know, go with that flow.

Dumb question: what’s better for your brand? Buying a Super Bowl ad or investing in social media?

Believe it or not, sick that was the essential question asked on Friday in AdAge’s CMO blog by academic marketing heavyweights Tim Calkins and Derek Rucker. Read it here: Will Social Media Slay the Super Bowl? Beg to Differ would have given it a different title: “Will Apples-to-Oranges Comparisons Lead to Poor Sales of Garbage-Bag-Branded Children’s Dishes?”

What the heck are you talking about?!?

Calkins and Rucker start by saying that many big brands, like Ford, are abandoning Super Bowl advertising in favour of a broader mix of media, including the spectrum of social media tools. They quote Jim Farley, Ford’s global marketing chief, as saying:

“Social media is a better investment for known and established brands. Farley explained in a recent interview: “Customers are spending as much time with the mobile smartphone or online as they are watching TV now, so our advertising dollars have to flow to where the people are.”

“Unfortunately, social media fails to guarantee that brands will reach a large number of consumers. A look at the social-media presence of many well-known brands makes the point. The Hefty brand waste bags’ Facebook page has only 66,000 fans. Windex has fewer than 3,000 fans and the Hampton Inn page has less than 2,000 fans on Facebook.”

So yeah, if you play the “reach” numbers game, those numbers seem pretty paltry when you compare them to the estimated 100 Million or more viewers who are said to watch the Super Bowl every year in the States – and the fact that the ads are now no longer on the sidelines on Super Sunday, but have taken centre field. So point made: if your company can afford to play in the “big leagues” the Super Bowl is a venue you should consider.  But can you justify a decision to sit this one out as Ford did?

Let’s talk Hefty

Which brings us back to the question

The biggest problem with Calkins and Rucker is that while they pay some lip service to social media, they’re showing up to a modern game in a leather helmet. They see the world backwards. They advise advertisers to first “capitalize on the power of PR” (by which they mean the traditional “engage the (old) media” kind). Then think about creative. And only lastly do they refer to social media as a as a “flanking strategy”.

But what Ford and other advertisers are realizing, is that social media has crossed the threshold from being the last thing you think about to being the FIRST thing you need to consider, and to build any old-media campaigns around the response you want to generate.

That’s why the biggest advertising winner on Super Sunday, VW released its ad on YouTube with a well-coordinated campaign well before Super Sunday and already had 7 million clicks before game-time. Or why companies like Network Solutions released Web-only video campaigns to attempt to steal the thunder of established Super Bowl ad hawkers like GoDaddy who in turn try to drive traffic to specific Web-only content that lets them continue the conversation on their own home field.

What do you think? Are Calkin’s and Rucker still trying to win one for the Gipper (when it’s too late), or is Beg to Differ dreaming of football-shooting jetpacks rather than hitting the gridiron?