Brand Girl™

Where is the love? Show me the bling!

In this era of open online forums, in which igniting a media fest has never been faster, easier, or cheaper, it’s always fascinating to see what issue would warrant someone paying thousands of dollars, in this case allegedly $40,000, for a full-page ad/rant printed right smack dab in the middle of The New York Times Sunday newspaper—in the Style section, no less. And, no surprise, it always boils down to the politics of business.

In the NYT ad in question, Mr. Steve Stoute, president of Translation, a marketing firm that essentially brokers sponsorship deals between talents like Jay Z, Eminem, and Lady Gaga, as well as such top corporate brands as McDonald’s and GM, attacked the Grammys’ leadership in an “open letter.” He first criticized the organization’s archaic “peer-based” voting system, which according to Stoute, continuously spurns artists who are currently and culturally relevant by denying them their awards due. Yes, unfortunately, these annual shows do often leave you scratching your head over a call or two, especially when it appears judges are often correcting snubs from prior years. To this point, I can certainly sympathize with Stoute. After all, I have had a recurring twitch since 2000, when the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and the Grammys awarded the Album of the Year/Pop Vocal win to Steely Dan—passing over many far brighter spots, including Eminem for The Marshall Mathers LP. Irrespective of subjective tastes, what year in pop music were those voters living in?

More poignant to me were Stoute’s implications that the Grammys were, and are, quasi-staged. Referencing this year’s show specifically, he pointed out the “coincidence” of Arcade Fire’s two back-to-back performances. For those of you over 25, Arcade Fire is a Canadian alternative rock band that’s beloved by young hipsters and geeky music critics and bloggers (based on a mere three albums and one EP made since 2004) and that’s sold impressive numbers for an indie sensation produced by an indie record label (Merge). (The band even edged Eminem out of Billboard’s No. 1 album spot with its most recent album last summer.) But let’s be honest: Arcade Fire ain’t Kanye, ain’t Eminem, ain’t Cee Lo, ain’t even Steely Dan. Which is to say that, despite its status as an indie-darling sensation, the band was completely unknown to me and to most of mainstream America until last week. Stoute’s beef was less about that, though, and more about his belief that Grammy performances are planned and canned beforehand to coincide with Grammy wins. Arcade Fire performed its first song—surprise, surprise—right before the Album of the Year award was given out, which—surprise, surprise—the band won, and then—surprise, surprise—the band also happened to be spontaneously ready to perform a second song immediately after the win.

Stoute also attacked the Grammys’ marketing efforts: “Interesting that the Grammys understands cultural relevance when it comes to using Eminem’s, Kanye West’s, or Justin Bieber’s name in the billing to ensure viewership and to deliver the all-too-important ratings for its advertisers.”

The good news for Mr. Stoute is that the Billboard Awards, which are based on actual sales of records, are returning this May after a five-year hiatus. I’m sure many of the aforementioned talents, including Usher protégée Justin Bieber, who was also unfairly panned at the Grammys in Stoute’s estimation, will be properly acknowledged for their marketing prowess as well as command of the popular vote.

The not-so-great news is that the main intent of Stoute’s letter seems to indicate that some of the Grammy nominees, who performed at the expense of their record labels and whose talent and popularity were used to market the event itself and draw in more viewers, had “expectations” to win (bigger), and thereby felt “used.” Well, I get a little less sympathetic here. This seems rather like a Hollywood star bitching about presenting an Oscar on the same night as losing out on one in another category. Sour grapes, anyone? Really, isn’t this awards-show performance stuff the sort of mutual back-scratching that makes our imperfect world of marketing go round and round? Paid or not, brands (and that includes musical talents and related awards shows, currently and culturally relevant or not) piggyback off one another to gain traction. The cost of marketing is exactly that: a cost. And not every expenditure returns on its investment right away. Clinching more immediate concrete bling in the form of a Grammy is certainly a hoot, and yes, it’s good for business, but isn’t having the platform on a national stage, which also, for the record, spikes record sales, an equally just reward, especially since it simultaneously rewards fans with some highly sought after entertainment that’s free? And at some point, isn’t the audience deserving of an ROI, too? Point being, unless you drop the F-bomb—be it Cee Lo Green-style, Melissa Leo-style, or Christian Bale-style—presenting or performing on an awards show is only going to help expand your brand and, in turn, your sales and profits. (And if you do drop the F-bomb, if you do it right and in the right way, in point of fact, if we’re really being honest, it may not only expand your brand and your sales figures, but it may even bring them to unforeseen heights.)

Which brings us back to the $40K. Despite agreeing with some of Stoute’s observations, I couldn’t help but be left with the overriding feeling that that’s a lot of dough to spend on what is, in the end, awards-show kvetching. Spoiler alert: Awards shows and the related voting sometimes blow with the prevailing political winds of that industry, just like everything else. Take heart, Mr. Stoute. Diana Ross and Jimi Hendrix never won Grammys either. And Cary Grant never won an Oscar until he was old and the Academy gave him one of those generic lifetime achievement consolation prizes to compensate for decades of snubbing. Guess what? They all did just fine. Not only that, their brands and audiences are still around, too. Which is more than you can say for Steely Dan.

But it’s a free country, Stoute can spend $40K on whatever he wants if he can afford it, and yes, it’s possible his ad gets my hackles up 1) because it seems petty in these difficult economic times and 2) because I don’t have $40K to spend on that sort of luxurious indulgence.

But hey, that’s the way our imperfect world of marketing rolls. Currently and culturally.

The second installation of HBO’s hit cable-series turned movie mega-franchise, Sex and the City (STC), is being released May 27th, armed with a closetful of brand sponsorships that are as colorful as the 10 odd million spent on wardrobe. Fans of STC have grown accustomed to seeing Carrie Bradshaw, along with cohorts––Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte––gallivant all around Manhattan in the finest of head-to-toe couture as they complete the most tedious or extravagant of tasks. Throughout all 94 of the STC’s episodes and its first movie, we watched our heroine, Carrie, not only rationalize a constant need for the likes of Blahniks, but work out many a twisted relationship quandary on her stoic Apple Mac. Carrie Bradshaw made Manolo Blahniks, Macs and pink Cosmopolitans, all synonymous with household musts. So to see Skyy Vodka, Mercedes Benz, Moet Champagne, and Swarovski in the lineup of marketing partners fits, just like her Blahniks. But HP?

Working off a strategy initiated in 2008 with Vivienne Tam to position its digital clutch as the ultimate tech accessory for “fashionistas around the globe,” Hewlett-Packard smartly stepped in to partner with the STC2 movie so its laptops and computers would be prominently displayed. Although a brilliant play by HP to move to own a technology category for a blockbuster hit, an exposure that Apple had been previously gifted with for no fee––isn’t it unrealistic to have us believe that Carrie Bradshaw actually ditches a Mac to work with a PC? After all these years, isn’t that the equivalent of her ditching the Blahniks for something from, say… Nine West?

Here within lies the old-age argument of product placement: to be organic or blatant? True to the material or a bigger bottom line?  According to the New York Post every aspect of Carrie’s life is reduced to a vignette that can be monetized: Going to the Gym (sip on Lipton Sparkling diet green tea, an official sponsor of the new movie!), Having Cocktails with Girlfriends (try a specialized cocktail from Skyy, the movie’s “official vodka”!), Getting Married (Swarovski paid to be featured prominently in the film) and, of course, Working On Laptop, Staring Wistfully Out the Window (Hewlett Packard partnered with the movie so its laptops would be featured, and SJP will appear in the computer company’s ads, of course). As the New York Times put it in a recent blogpost, “What Next, the Official Salad Dressing?”

Although very much a character, losing the cameos of the Mac will not lessen any box-office appeal for STC2’s cult like following… we are very forgiving and will eat up almost anything Michael Patrick King can conjure up. The truth is that ‘brands’ need blockbuster vehicles like STC to propel their own positioning, no matter how cluttered the ad space may be. It’s no accident that Halston Heritage tags Sarah Jessica Parker at great cost to be their creative director prior to the movies release, resulting in HH clothing being featured in both the film and movie poster, just as it’s no accident that Sarah Jessica Parker herself, launches a 3rd perfume in honor of the film–SJP NYC, and so on. STC collective marketing efforts, just like its wardrobe and storylines, have gone over the top. Welcome to the next realm of advertising, or to put it as Popeater ponders through the very words of Carrie Bradshaw herself, “I couldn’t help but wonder, where’s the line between a film and an extended commercial?”

I’m guessing that by now, you’re familiar with John Mayer’s infamous interview in Playboy Magazine. Yes, the one in which he refers to Jessica Simpson as “crack cocaine”, coins the phrase “sexual napalm” and confesses to a lusty addiction to pornography. Mayer, in the same unfiltered style, is now hard at work on his “apology” tour, rationalizing some of those “overshares,” as well as asking us not to think of him as another  ”a**hole…”

Personally, I think this direct approach to the public mea culpa works. I also think Tiger Wood’s handlers might want to pull a page or two from the John Mayer playbook. Mayer may be back-pedaling for far less complicated sins, but still, unlike Woods in his recent public statement, he comes across authentically in his regrets for the Playboy hiccups, perhaps illustrating that an honest brand is better than an overly managed one. Or is it a manipulated one?

Haiti. <Sigh.> Horror of horrors indeed. And yet it’s humbling moments like this that seem to unify us as a nation and bring out the best in us (well, most of us). Despite the recessionary environment, pledges of food, supplies, and money keep pouring in—from celebrities, companies, and citizens alike—across the country and globe to provide Haiti with the help its residents most desperately need. George Clooney, naturally, is co-producing the Hope for Haiti telethon, (co-hosted with Wyclef Jean) to broadcast this Friday night across numerous stations. I also read that Brad Pitt (and Angelina Jolie) and Sandra Bullock each donated $1 million, and I’m certain more is to come from the entertainment world.

Much of the financial sector—Citibank, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, to name a few companies—have each earmarked an average of $1 million to the cause as well. Now I must pause. <Second sigh.> And I must say, Whoa. $1 million apiece from Wall Street folks? That’s it?

Granted, $1 million is nothing to sneeze at, especially if you’re Haitian. Still, that downtown generosity takes on a different hue when you consider recent activities of the finance industry and its negative effect on this country. Just a year after the crash and bailout, the payouts in banker bonuses are positively in the billions. You read that right—billions. Never has a million seem so… repulsive.

Economist Paul Krugman got it right in this New York Times Op-Ed column. The bankers have had no clue, and as far as I can tell, they remain clueless. Whether they accept responsibility for the financial tailspin or not, they have a bad PR and morale problem that makes the tribulations of Tiger Woods seem like, well, a round of golf. Call me a Pollyanna of sorts, but isn’t there a prime and humanitarian opportunity in all of this for the Wall Street crowd to work on rebuilding its image? Where is the damage control? Clearly, helping Haiti is a start. It’s no accident that the tremors about the big bonus payouts shook up the news cycles the same week Haiti did.

Here’s a thought: Maybe the $100-million dollar pledge by Obama (USA) to Haiti could be subsidized by the boys on Wall Street? Or maybe some of the boys can pay attention to the damage (intentional or not) done at home. Maybe Morgan Stanley could sponsor a spin-off of Extreme Makeover and call it Extreme Bailout.

But then again. I’m a Pollyanna of sorts—and they are bankers without a clue.

Well, there you have it… the drama NBC primetime has been missing. Another rendition of The Biggest Loser—without the skyrocketing Nielsen ratings or the fab new body, that is.

We now know that the experiment by NBC President and CEO Jeff Zucker to move Jay Leno from a successful, lucrative late-night time slot to a one-hour primetime one normally dedicated to drama was a mistake. The related financial gamble—that the cheaper cost of producing talk programming would outweigh any potential drop in ad revenues—was a bust, too. And what about the drop in audience numbers? Simply put, it appears that Zucker was wrong on many levels, and those questionable calls have cost the already bleeding network quite a lot of money.

(On a somewhat related note, I caught some of the Wall Street Barons testifying yesterday, and with regard to risk management, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon commented that they never stress-tested the idea that housing costs would ever stop rising or fall 40%. Never tested that business model’s viability from a consumer perspective? Really? Hmm. But I digress.)

NBC chairman Jeff Gaspin admitted on Sunday that the [Leno/O'Brien] “solution”–the proposed quick fix to give Leno his old 11:35pm slot back and bump Conan and The Tonight Show to 12:05am–was, in fact, a compromise that wasn’t to either Leno’s or O’Brien’s satisfaction. Indeed, NBC execs privately wondered whether they had damaged all three brands—Leno, O’Brien, and The Tonight Show—in the process. No doubt a few of the mentioned icons (NBC included) will take some sort of brand slap, but as in our Wall Street scenario, we won’t know the extent of the damage until the whole story plays out. But I’m betting that whether O’Brien––or should I call him “Coco”?––retains the 11:35pm slot or not, he’s a winner, Mr. Gaspin (or can I call you Jeff?).

In a few short days, the Internet has gone frantic with support for O’Brien. When I last checked, L.A.-based designer Mike Mitchell’s “I’m with Coco” effort (reminiscent of the Shepard Fairey Obama “art” movement) had close to 80,000 fans. What’s to be gleaned? The generation that embraces Facebook, Twitter and YouTube embraces O’Brien. Yes, there’s an inherent need to preserve an institutional brand like The Tonight Show, but it’s also about letting the show and its brand evolve into the future by connecting with audiences. And social media, acting as a stress test of sorts, strongly indicates that O’Brien is connecting with audiences via new media, much like Obama did. So, Mr. Gaspin. Jeff. Please tell us that you and NBC see this trend and will consider it as part of the programming mix? Perhaps before some other misfire happens (moving 30 Rock and The Office to Friday at 2pm maybe?) and all hell really breaks loose.

Are you familiar with GOOP?

It’s a newsletter put out by Academy Award-winning actress, Gwyenth Paltrow, in which she aims to share bits and pieces from her extraordinary life. “I have this incredible, lucky, unique life where I’ve gotten to travel all over the place and so I started to acquire all of this information. I thought this would be a fun, creative way to share it,” she says. That’s lovely indeed, just like Goop’s current positioning line—”nourish your inner spirit”–and I hope it will grow to do just that. As the concept evolves, I’d love to see the content lean away from safely baked ideas in favor of exposing more of the underbelly of an extraordinary life. Whether or not Paltrow is quietly poising herself to be the next Martha Stewart or to eventually fill the void to be left by Oprah’s departure, she’s got all the right ingredients and the spiritual kitchen is a smart place to cook these days. And if you’re looking for a few immediate recipes yourself––to feed less of your “inner” and more of your “spirit” later tonight––check out Goop’s latest newsletter for New Year’s cocktail recommendations. You may not be at the Ritz in Paree, but at least you can drink like you are.

Happy New Year, kids.

Go Humans Go is the rallying cry from Quaker Oats new campaign. The endeavor represents the first time PepsiCo has marketed its entire whole grain product line underneath one centralized theme.  The campaign’s premise is to present oats as a super grain that helps humans harness internal power to do good for themselves, others and their communities. Not only is Quaker Oats a great staple for a healthy diet, it’s seemingly a healthy model for the new media marketing menu.

Why the kudos? First off, the campaign uses what it holds: a solid ownership of oats and a brand icon with more household penetration than that of Aunt Jemima* (I haven’t verified that… but I’m guessing it’s true.). They even gave the little man a brand lift by placing him in modernized situations. His recent graphic adaptation to all packaging is helping consumers recognize the huge breathe of products under the Quaker portfolio. (For instance, did you know that Life cereal was actually part of the Quaker lineup?)  Of course there’s an all encompassing website, and the little man is popping up on Twitter and Facebook. But it’s the affiliation with Bravo’s hottest show, Top Chef (which includes a recipe contest with top-rated judging) that truly boosts awareness and drives traffic to all touch points, truly harnessing the power of social media.

The “Go Human Go” promotion also works in a tie-in with celebrity chef and philanthropist Art Smith that segues nicely into Quakers cause marketing effort. Through a partnership with “Share our Strength,” the “Quaker Go” Project allows you to fight childhood hunger in the United States and even in your community. (Did you know more than 36 million Americans – including 12.6 million kids go hungry?) Quaker will apparently donate 10 servings of a Quaker product per every product you buy (i.e., UPC code you enter) and –– hello all you do good-ers –– the program will even consider giving you a grant to do more good within your own backyard.

It’s a well-balanced program and fitting for today. At a time when individuals and companies are forced to work leaner and meaner, Quaker has harnessed its own power by successfully tapping into these trends to help Americans cut food costs, stay healthy, yet feed a few others.

Looks like the meat is in the grain.
The grain is in you.
Go Humans Go.

“If I were a boy, even just for a day, I roll out of bed in the morning and throw on what I wanted and go…”––from “If I were a boy,” a popular song by Beyonce (a.k.a. SASHA FIERCE).

If Brand Girl were a Brand Boy, even for a day, she would roll out of bed in the morning and say what she wanted––and she’d be Jon Stewart.

It doesn’t quite work as a pop-song lyric, but the point is that like Brand Girl herself, Mr. Stewart has a knack for calling it like he sees it—up front and on camera. And the master of satirical news has done it again. Nobody wants to be mocked by Jon Stewart nor interrogated, but that’s exactly what happened to Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money.

After weeks of batting back media spitballs, Cramer finally met face-to-face with Jon Stewart, Comedy Central’s acclaimed Daily Show slugger, for a show down. Yet the meeting itself was more of a letdown, with Cramer practically served himself up on a silver platter for Stewart to slay. As if Cramer’s public humiliation could serve as a sufficient sacrificial offering to beg the money gods for forgiveness—for the dishonesty, greed, and wrongdoings of Cramer’s fellow financial-minded gurus, for the world’s tumultuous markets, indeed for the topsy-turvy state of our entire nation. It was indeed painful to watch as Stewart did a better-than-fine job of using his pulpit to sermonize. You almost had to feel a little sorry for Cramer in that balancing the job of television entertainment with the more serious job of offering financial expertise—and on managing the corporate purse strings especially—is no easy task. But of all the poignant statements that were made about the financial freefall we’re in, how could you not resonate with Stewart’s overall accusation to Cramer: “… to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”

Like the Brand Boy said, everything we have known about the market is in shambles. Period. It’s a whole new game, and you know what, kids, according to my astrologer, it’s far from over. Bailouts, re-worked mortgages, and strings of 40%-off sales are just not going to be enough. Honestly, the money world is in such a state of anarchy that, much like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose face seems to have a constant deer-in-headlights expression these days, BG finds the whole business paralyzing. It’s as though we are, as a nation, playing an endless, rigged game of Monopoly, and we keep hoping some random act of nature—a gust of wind? an overzealous two-year-old careening through the living room? an overturned bottle of Merlot? the dog ate my mortgage?—upsets the existing board so that we have to wipe it clean and start over, with everyone safely returning to “Go” with a humbling $200 bucks in seed money.

The nation has cried out for change. And change we’ve seen: Obama’s hair has grayed already and he hasn’t been in office 100 days yet. Given that grim backdrop, how is it that Citibank, a bailout recipient whose stock is worth nothing today, continues to bombard the public with federally-funded ads that neither restore consumer confidence nor address past blunders? Should we as a collective be ignoring the irony? This week in particular, there’s much heat over AIG using its bailout funds to honor prior commitments (i.e., executive bonuses). How is it that those prior commitments still hold without any reality-based concessions? We have peeked behind the curtains; we understand there was no wizard, but there was much wizardry—or at least sleight of hand. The bailouts are being used by brands like AIG, Citibank, and Merrill Lynch as mere Band-aids on a body that’s hemorrhaging.

At what point does the bleeding stop and the healing truly start? It is undoubtedly time to revisit the basics of brand integrity, positioning, and core business. How do we advise clients to move forward? How do we as individuals move forward? I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I do know that both personal and corporate brands could benefit from a shot of self-regulation and serious Jon Stewart-esque self-reflection—exactly the qualities that have been so absent on Wall Street and from cable news “experts” like CNBC. And in the meantime, I’ll settle for a little less mad money and a little more Brand Boy Jon Stewart tough love. (And by the way, the next guy I’d line up for a little slapping around is that Chris Brown dude. Then I’ll throw him in a ring with Oprah, her audience, and SASHA FIERCE herself—and let the headlocks and biting begin…)

Or is it all branded entertainment?

Whatta finish to 2008! This month alone, we’ve seen:

• Barack Obama choose churchman Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation, which promptly sent Barney Frank and other diehard supporters into heartbreak
• Bernard Madoff, prominent trader and ahem… traitor, get caught for allegedly masterminding a $50 billion Ponzi scheme among A-listers, which also appears to have further unhinged yet more shaky ground in New York City’s real estate and financial markets
• Our less-than-dutiful Congress skip out for the holidays without making a decision on the auto bailout, giving George Bush his last executive decision (or mistake?)
• The scoop on Bill Clinton’s charity accepting millions from foreign investors, which might cast clouds of caution as Hilary Clinton’s selection as potential Sec of state

Yep. It’s been one hell of a way to wrap up 2008. But know what I really want to know? On the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last Tuesday, was Jim Carrey nudged for his Cialis endorsement or not?

______

BG just had to see Jay before he moves on to primetime, so she found herself at the taping of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and funny man Jim Carrey as guest. Talk about relentless and perfectly timed comedy — that Jim truly stole the show. And it’s hard to decipher what’s scripted and what’s not. For instance, when Carrey was plugging his film Yes Man, the monitor rose and Carrey says, “Ahhh. TV sponsored by Cialis… shot right up there.”

It was hysterical. Seemed so off the cuff. Yet I couldn’t help thinking, was it planted or not? John Melendez of Stuttering John fame, sitting right behind me, didn’t seem to think so… But I had to wonder: why didn’t he say Viagra? Is Cialis a sponsor of Yes Man? These are exactly the moments that make branded entertainment work—“Was he supposed to say that?” And these are the opps that brands and producers have to be on the lookout for… the moments that appear organic, and keep us all guessing.

And speaking of guessing – May all our flights be on time and if there’s a delay, may that be the extent of our problems in 2009! Safe travels, all. And if looking for holiday cheer, check out the show — Jim Carrey and his carolers are worth the view. Happy New Year!

Taking on advertising responsibility–and doing it right.

Imagine yourself being outspent 5 to 1 by your competitors and realizing your customers’ perception of your brand is simply wrong, name recognition zilch, and then to boot, you’re in a category that’s hardly considered sexy. Buying insurance is not a top-of-mind issue for many (although it should be more than ever these days).

However, one insurance company was able to build a unique campaign that turned all those challenges around—how? By building it around the idea of kindness and generosity. Imagine an advertisement that inspired you enough to send a blue-chip company a few bucks to fund its commercial campaign… and then imagine being that corporate giant when that idea actually worked beyond all expectations.

A giant in the insurance business for about a million years (give or take a hundred), Liberty Mutual, like many others, recently found itself in a new sphere of marketing and advertising. They knew it had to create new ways in which to engage with existing and new customers–and find a way to catch up with competitors (nevermind claim a top five position!). Luckily, with the aid of a talented agency, Hill Holiday, Liberty Mutual took to the task. The gist of their messaging had long been “Helping people live safer, more secure lives.” They switched it up a bit and changed it to the next step out: “We just do the right thing.” Washed through the agency’s creative filter, it became a campaign built around responsibility.

Can we say “resonate?” The Liberty Mutual television spots, Responsibility. What’s your policy?, exceeded all expectations when customers and noncustomers reached out to them. And yes, one pleased viewer did send Liberty Mutual $20! It was then that Liberty Mutual knew it had reached its goals and what’s more, had struck gold.

LM had engaged their audience, and now they had a dialogue. They were smart enough to act quickly by putting more means in place to keep the conversation and momentum of ad efforts going. Call it the “trifecta of advertising,” from well-received TV spots to its socially involved and aware online destination, “Responsibility Project,” and a recent partnership with NBC to sponsor more projects that promote and evoke themes of responsibility.

Honestly, it’s enough to make BG cry. Being creative, authentic, and positive.
Oh yeah… and just doing the right thing.