Latham & Co. Perspective

Maybe the best campaign ever?

2010-06-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

This is what content is meant to be

This is the overview.

This is the final performance.

Want to demonstrate your product?

Want to really demonstrate your product?

Want to do some serious selling?

Want to build a fabulous brand?

Want to involve the world?

Want to create amazingly committed fans?

Want to create content that really fits who you are and what you are selling?

Do this.

Hire the legendary rocker Iggy Pop in Miami, Florida. Then, audition musicians to perform with him on a re-record of The Passenger. Well, OK? What’s smart about that?

Do it live over the internet.

With Iggy in Miami.

And the musicians in New Zealand.

That’s what Orcon, a broadband company in New Zealand, did recently under the leadership of a remarkable brand builder, Duncan Blair. He is Orcon’s Head of Brand and Communications. In private life, he is a drum and bass DJ known as phixx.

Kiwi musicians were recruited to audition on Facebook. Iggy reviewed the auditions in Miami and conducted the final performance via Skype, one laptop per musician.

Together, they just won a prestigious Gold Lion at Cannes.

This is probably the best idea ever created and produced online.

And given how rare great ideas really are, maybe you can delete the word 'online'.

Oil Editorial

2010-06-01T20:21:00.000-07:00

The only time we take it seriously is when things go wrong

BP isn't hiding this. Video from the ocean floor
is available on the BP website through multiple
cameras
. Click here for live feed.

The world doesn’t have a “BP” problem.
The world has an enormous-oil-spill-growing-larger-by-the-day problem.
However.
As per usual, the U.S. media, in persistent attack-dog mode, is looking for smoking guns, bad decisions, news anywhere, practically anything that can make a hugely tragic situation even more hugely tragic, despite the efforts of people who are trying to fix the problem. Perhaps that’s what the press does.
Elected and appointed U.S. officials are vowing to “keep their boot on BP’s neck”, whatever that means, whatever it is designed to achieve, and whatever effect it is meant to have. Perhaps that’s the kind of thing elected and appointed officials say in an election year.
Other voices, including Lamar McKay, number one BP executive in the United States, have been doing everything they can to speak clearly and plainly throughout the catastrophe. Mr. McKay routinely says what he thinks and believes, and candidly shares his company’s perspective while explaining the engineering and scientific challenges that confront his operational teams.
Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander, and Rear Admiral Mary Landry, Commandant of the New Orleans Coast Guard district, are equally plain spoken.
The intelligence, candor and demeanor of these officers, corporate and military, reminds us that crisis management takes multiple skills. You must manage the crisis. You must explain to the world what you are doing to solve the problem. And you must accept the noisak that comes from Washington and the media, yet deal with it equitably. This takes individuals who are informed, aware and concerned, who speak candidly and plainly, and who mean what they say.
Under enormous pressure from events on the ocean floor and from a world focused on this event, this is exactly what Mr. McKay and Admirals Allen and Landry are doing. Could you do it better?
Nevertheless, BP recently decided that we need to hear from corporate officers of an even higher order, notably group chief executive Tony Hayward, based in London, who is now in New Orleans and speaking to the media. His contribution today affirmed to us he is serious about resolving the issue in the Gulf – and we can absolutely believe it – he says, “because I want my life back.”
Well, most of us are more interested in the plume on the ocean floor and what Mr. McKay and his team are going to try next than we are about Mr. Hayward’s life and leisure.
Just another reminder that crisis teams must be chosen from people who can say the right things, at the right moment, and do the right things, whoever they are.
Drilling happens
Oh, and by the way, all of us drive cars. We use oil. We use petroleum products. Therefore, we need drilling. Let us replace oil with better, cleaner, safer fuel, as soon as possible, by any means possible, preferably sooner. But today, oil runs our life.
And the fact is, producing oil for our lives is an amazingly incident-free industry. Spills happen. Ships run aground. And it's bad. Yet it happens extraordinarily infrequently, given the number of producing wells around the world, the amount of oil they bring to the surface, and the tonnage that is shipped from one country to another around the globe.
In a similar way, the Cameron Iron Works blowout preventer is one of the world’s most successful pieces of heavy-duty engineering. There are thousands of these 400-ton devices in service in oil fields around the world. They rarely fail. So rarely, in fact, you could probably say they are fail-proof. Yet we give no credit for that. We just go ballistic when they fail us. We didn’t even know these inventions existed until an event like this happens.
As consumers, frankly, we have our heads in the sand about oil. We ignore the engineering activities (and the inherent risks involved) that make it possible for us to drive to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and baby food. Yet we are frightened of nuclear. We hate coal. We think solar makes houses look ugly. We are totally ignorant about energy and how most forms of energy are produced.
In fact, we are babies.
Take our cars away, we cry.
Ask us to support a new energy initiative, or support a new way to solve the energy problems, or move energy issues forward in a productively new way, our eyes glaze over.
We should grow up.
Maybe then we can face reality, get serious about energy, and address the manifold issues that shape our energy future – and the lives of our children and grandchildren – in a rational way.
That would be something to see.

Army is Strong

2010-05-25T19:06:00.000-07:00

Very strong, and very motivating

This is an 'anthem' message, an umbrella idea that defines the U.S. Army officer recruiting program.

This is one of the strongest-connecting programs you are going to see in marketing in today's world, and it just happens to be in one of marketing's toughest categories.

Military recruiting in a time of war.

It's been around for a while, but you should catch up.

Army Strong is a powerful, motivating, uplifting campaign that not only reflects the values of the U.S. Army, but also sends an positive message to prospective recruits and their families and connects strongly with currently serving Army men and women and their families.

The officer recruiting message (above) is remarkable for a lot of reasons. It's about leadership and command, of course. It's about officer-ship. It's about what you, as an individual, could ultimately achieve as an officer in the Army.

But that achievement motivation is extraordinarily powerful. Motivations that drive men and women contemplating an officer's career -- the opportunity for personal growth, promotion, and career and command achievement -- are squarely and successfully addressed. There is can be no mistake about what this message is about.

The people who created this work -- and the people who ordered and approved it -- know what Army is about.

And the branding component, rapidly cutting through the insignia of Army rank, is also brilliantly conceived and executed. It's perfect motivation for a motivated officer candidate.

Very few campaigns in the private sector achieve this kind of power, this focus, and this effectiveness.

Kudos to the U.S. Army and their team.

Tiger redux

2010-04-07T18:29:00.000-07:00

Earl brings Tiger back

Before Tiger, there was Earl, Tiger's father.

Earl was the originator, motivator, tee-er-upper, and driver.

Earl was the man who pulled the driver out of the bag and Tiger was the ball that flew down the fairway.

Now Earl is back, Tiger looks at us, and listens -- as we listen -- to thoughts from Earl, delivered with a questioning sincerity.

It's Nike advertising, of course.

But if this is Earl's real voice, or even just Earl's thoughts, it's powerful enough.

If any marketer had to re-think and rebuild, it's Tiger.

If any marketer had to personally participate in the rebuilding, it's Tiger.

He had to open private memories for this renewal to happen and make a very big emotional contribution.

Nike stepped to the edge. Tiger went with them. And Nike's creative team said, just look at the camera for us, Tiger. So he looked. The camera rolled. And Earl spoke.

How else would you re-enter the candidate? Could there be a better way? Would you have a better idea?

Tiger did more than could be expected.

Nike did well.

Moving Ford

2010-03-22T19:51:00.000-07:00

Which is exactly what Ford is doing

Automakers continue to struggle.

Meanwhile, Ford continues to create contemporary messaging that taps into how people think and feel about their cars.

Ford continues their investment in the celebrated Drive One campaign, which actually is a breath of fresh air in a very boring, very predictable category, now into its third year.

Ford sales continue to grow.

And frankly, you can't imagine that a robust trend like this is going to reverse itself, not by a long shot, not anytime soon.

The moral, obviously, is run a healthy company. Build great cars. Innovate. Use technology to make cars great, safe, and fun.

Above all, know your customers, know how they think, and connect.

Then, make money.

Ford does it all, and does it exceptionally well.

Maybe Ford is the new Toyota.

Wait a minute, I have a black box?

2010-03-04T15:09:00.000-08:00

You do. It’s in your car.

Did you know there’s a system in your car, like an airliner’s black box, that captures critical data about your automobile, starting just a few seconds before your crash and continuing for a second or two after the airbags deploy?

You didn’t? Well, you do now. It’s called an EDR, electronic data recorder.

Depending on your car, it captures the speed you were traveling, the angle of your accelerator, your gear shift position, whether you were using your seat belt, even the angle of the driver’s seat. Some EDRs record data on brakes and the anti-lock braking system.

Toyota’s EDRs, for example, do all of that. And despite the gazillion cars it sells each year, until this week there has been only one U.S.-based laptop – one laptop in the entire country – capable of reading the data.

In other words, data from your Toyota crash is locked up in the EDR and Toyota’s laptop is the only key to getting it out.

In fact, until this week, according to the Associated Press, Toyota refused to allow access to the laptop and even the data, and only provided printouts, sometimes edited, when supoeonaed by a court.

Interestingly Ford, Chrysler and General Motors cars have EDRs, too. But they have open architecture that lets law enforcement officials – or anyone for the matter – recover the data in seconds. Nissan has something similar. But other car makers have other strategies. Honda, for example, also controls access to Honda crash data and their spokespeople say it’s only made available by court order.

The point here, tragically, is that Brand Toyota has just taken another hit.

This is absolutely is the worst case scenario for anyone managing a brand in a crisis.

If the only break in the crisis is one piece of bad news after another, that’s something no corporate television commercial can ever fix.

Toyota is still in critical condition.

Tiger's apology (2)

2010-02-20T08:33:00.000-08:00

Not apology, mea culpa

Yesterday, we watched – actually, all of us took part – in Tiger Woods’s counseling program.

Think about that.

If it’s true, it explains the absence of apology language in Tiger’s remarks. The event wasn’t about apologizing. After all, he made a profound apology in December last year.

It wasn't a press conference, either, which explains the absence of journalists.

Part of his counseling program, we believe Tiger had to admit his errors, confront them, accept them, and acknowledge the impact his behavior had on people who are important to him and who care about him. Except for his wife Elin, those people were in the room yesterday.

So why couldn’t he call his friends and associates individually, or invite them over to his home? A friend in alcohol recovery might call you and say the same things – which has happened to us. Yesterday, Stewart Cink, the PGA professional golfer, said that has also happened to him.

Sadly, a phone call doesn’t get the job done. Tiger is a celebrity as big as the planet. His confrontation and acceptance, inevitably, must be equal to his reality, which is not just enormous, but global.

Which explains the television cameras, the importance of major news coverage, and even the words Tiger used – and probably wrote himself.

All of which puts Tiger’s talk in a different perspective. Clearly, it needed to be as honest, sincere, and authentic as he could make it. It was about his life, his future – and literally, who he is.

In fact, when he said that Elin didn’t need an apology, but will be convinced by his behavior, he meant it.

And in his amazing talk, he included all of us in that statement.

Tiger's apology

2010-02-19T10:12:00.000-08:00

Did it really happen?

The curious thing about Tiger Woods isn’t Tiger, frankly.

It’s all of us.

As golf fans and hero worshippers, we put Tiger on such a pedestal, and he dazzled us brilliantly for so long, that it’s very hard for us to deal with the fact that he is human and does what humans do. He lives his life. He tries to make things work. He runs into headwinds and events – like we all do – that slow us down, steer us off track, and sometimes hurl us into unyielding trees.

Today, Tiger took a step to made amends for what hurt his family and disappointed the people who are important to him.

“For all I have done, I am so sorry,” was Tiger’s headline on the 14-minute speech, delivered in a tightly controlled, closely managed event in the clubhouse at TPC Sawgrass in Ponte Vedra, Florida, championship home of the PGA Tour. That statement came midway through his remarks.

What is interesting about the proceedings is that only three journalists were invited to attend, but had no opportunity to ask questions.

What is interesting about the speech is that the only apology delivered was the parents of children who looked up to Tiger. Very deliberately, his language was about being sorry.

His wife, Elin, Tiger said, did not want a verbal apology. She will wait for his behavior to improve. For her, he told us, his improved behavior will be the best apology.

Nevertheless, in emphasizing that this nationally televised event was not a press conference, Tiger’s management team left dangerous questions dangling in the air.

If it wasn’t a press conference, what was it?

If no apology was offered to his fans, his business partners, and his colleagues on the PGA Tour, was an apology actually made?

“I am sorry” means what it says – I am sorry for what happened. It hurts me deeply. Well, we are sure that is exactly how Tiger feels. And, yes, sorry is an expression of regret. But “I am sorry” is definitively not the same as “I apologize.”

An apology means I am sorry for you, too, and I regret that.

Semantics? Possibly.

There was a lot of emotion in Tiger’s talk, which took courage for him to deliver. He did make an unequivocally powerful commitment to living a different kind of life.

But this was also a carefully scripted event.

Apology language, it seems to us, was carefully scripted out.

Toyota, moving forward?

2010-02-17T06:00:00.000-08:00

What do you do?

We just checked.

It hasn’t changed.

It’s still being used.

The Toyota motto, amazingly, is ‘moving forward’.

Brand strategists notice these things.

Everyone on the planet, it seems, has noticed, too.

As in ‘moving forward’ scarily, as your Toyota or Lexus inexplicably accelerates?

As in ‘moving forward’ relentlessly, as you pump the brakes on your Prius, in vain?

As in ‘moving forward’ uncontrollably, while the power steering on your Corolla has different ideas about where you want to go?

Perhaps Toyota made a conscious decision to protect the slogan.

Perhaps it's been overlooked.

Perhaps it should have been quietly removed.

Now you have Toyota

2010-01-27T21:45:00.000-08:00

A big challenge

Actually, it's right up there with Tiger Woods.

It's a very big issue.

Suddenly, the world knows your cars have a major risk factor -- which most people really don't understand, and you don't, either -- but you have to make decisions. None of them nice ones.

For consumers, the options are limited: drive your Toyota, or not drive your Toyota. Sell your Toyota, or not sell your Toyota (at a discount, presumably).

And if you are a Toyota dealer? Think about your inventory. Your obligations. Your debt. Your uncertainty about the models that have driven your growth.

As an automobile dealer, you don't expect or anticipate this.

As a consumer, the car you own is now a question mark.

Interestingly, virtually everyone who sees themselves as a brand expert talks about Starbucks, or Apple, or Harley Davidson.

We used to say, fine -- but what are you going to do about Chrysler?

Now the reasonable question is, what would you do about Toyota? Or Lexus, the luxury brand of Toyota?

There are four issues:

(1) Identify the issue (hopefully, your culture allows you to celebrate those who pinpoint the problem, rather than destroying them).

(2) Apologize (hopefully, your culture allows you to fix the problem, apologize, and then move on).

(3) Solve the problem (that's obvious).

(4) Celebrate the solution (respect your customers, provide incentives for them to buy new cars, and welcome journalists and others to your HQ, research lab, and testing facilities, so they learn what actually happened). Then, perhaps, they can tell the rest of the world about what you have done to make things right.

Major lesson: openness.

Major opportunity: making openness happen.

Action: acting now, not waiting.

Your future: building on positives.

Rethinking social media

2009-05-14T16:18:00.001-07:00

It's the biggest topic on the planet.

Just when all of us thought everything had been invented -- thanks to the grip that Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube have on our imaginations and the hours we spend online -- well, out of the blue, comes Twitter.

More billionaires in the making, you say. All power to them. We agree.

Flickr is out there, too. Don't forget Flickr. Flickr is extraordinarily beautiful and engaging.

As we consider this new media environment, we cannot escape the fact that the social media sector is under attack.

Once pure, it's now a greed target.

It's being increasingly defined-redefined-and-perhaps-even-unnecessarily-complicated by consultants, advisors, media companies, online firms, public relations consultants, publicists, talent agencies, and virtually everyone else under the sun, all of whom are telling you it was invented for marketing.

Fine.

But it wasn't really invented for marketing. It was invented for people.

Actually, it happened, just like everything else that has happened online, because it could happen. It could be done. It was cool. So let's do it, innovators said.

And the rest of us said, that's brilliant. And we did it.

But if we take a pause in the proceedings, we may find time to make two observations:

(1) Social media has been around a long time, relatively speaking. Copying the known world on your emails is a kind of social media; primitive, but real, and you've been doing it for a long time. Participating on an online discussion forum with the rest of your Avatar-disguised Best Friends is solid social media, and it's been happening for years. Instant Messaging on AOL kicked off social media for an entire generation, fouled up the family computer desktop, and introduced a billion kids to what the computer was actually there to do.

There's no mystery about any of that. It's how we live now.

And now that social media has been classified, named, adopted, and increasingly co-opted by marketing organizations, spokespeople and their advisors, a powerful question remains:

(2) Do you really want marketing intruding on all those places where you -- launch your opinions -- post anonymously -- talk with your friends -- catch up -- look at their pictures -- post140 -- and so on?

Absolutely not.

Critics say the rush to capitalize on social media has all the hallmarks of whatever once had to do with, well, creating dot-com businesses for any kind of wild idea under the sun, credit default swaps, and political fund raising campaigns. We don't agree. That's harsh.

We do believe, however, that 'social media' ain't magic, ain't mysterious, and frankly, it ain't new. It's something all of us have been doing, in one way or another for years, and we will keep on doing it, again, for years.

All of us love it, and we love what we do.

In fact, after everyone thought writing was dead and television and the telephone had destroyed the written word, suddenly all of us became writers (once again), and we discovered that some of us are extraordinarily good writers and some of us are extraordinarily funny. (Cynics among us say the rest just use profanity.)

Nevertheless, for a marketer, figuring out social media remains a challenge.

We say, there's no challenge in remembering that marketing, fundamentally, is about (i) connecting with people, (ii) building a relationship with them, and (iii) expanding that relationship over time.

In today's world, more than any other time in the planet's history, our online world makes communicating and relationship building (i) easy, (ii) affordable, and (iii) relatively and potentially productive.

Even if people don't personally buy what you are saying, or what you are selling, at least they can become advocates who love you and share your good news with their friends.

We don't like the term, 'social media'. We prefer the term, 'social marketing', and we don't even like that much.

So use Twitter, if you have a reason (or a celebrity on board). Use Flickr, which is truly one of the most under-utilized resources for marketers. And by all means, use Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Plaxo, and all the rest of it.

But also, please, consider your own power, your own resources, and your own creativity.

Think about creating something fabulous for your friends, customers, prospects and influencers that is immeasurably more satisfying than any of the ideas above. Then use it to enlarge your world and expand your influence.

After all, it's the inventors and innovators who flourish in this world. They always have. They will continue to do so.

So be an inventor. Be an innovator. Invent your future.

Obama by the numbers, and a solid performance by McCain

2008-10-15T19:46:00.001-07:00

Again, our numbers show Sen. Barrack Obama the technical winner over Sen. John McCain in the third and final presidential debate conducted by Bob Schieffer of CBS News at Hofstra University in New York.

Sen. Obama scored a total of 74 points over Sen. McCain, 62 points.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.

We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).

Here's what we saw and assessed:

Why is your economic recovery plan better?
Obama 10
McCain 9

What new spending will you postpone or delay?
Obama 10
McCain 6

You pledged to take the high road, but why is your campaign nasty?
Obama 11
McCain 10

Why are we better off with your vice presidential candidate?
McCain 8
Obama 7

By how much will you reduce our dependence on foreign oil in your first term?
McCain 7
Obama 7

How do you balance controlling health care costs vs. expanding coverage?
Obama 8
McCain 4

Will you nominate a Supreme Court justice who disagrees with you?
Obama 8
McCain 7

We spend more per capita on education, but why do we trail most countries in the world on outcomes?
Obama 8
McCain 6

Closing statement
Obama 5
McCain 5

This was a debate about domestic affairs. Therefore, no discussion on foreign affairs, typically a strength for Sen. McCain.

In an additional analysis, based on what drives or motivates people (or presidential candidates) to do what they do, and express themselves the way they do, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain were evenly matched on 10 out of a total of 16 criteria.

Where they differed:

Obama more curious, more interested in the search for truth.

Obama more interested in people, and how they live and connect.

Obama more interested in families.

Obama more reflective of peace and tranquility.

McCain more competitive.

McCain more energetic, and energized (although restrained).

Still, in this debate, no coherent vision for America expressed by either candidate.

We know how they compete against each other. We know how they square off on the issues. We have a sense of what they supported and voted for in the Congress. We know where they stand on health care, the economy, social issues, energy, education.

But how would you, as a voter, definitively -- and positively -- describe their vision for the America they want to build, based on what they said tonight?

Obama wins (by a mile)

2008-10-07T19:49:00.000-07:00

Actually, by a significant mile.

In the subjective way we evaluate answers, Sen. Barrack Obama won the second presidential debate over Sen. John McCain:

Sen. Obama scored a total of 75 points, over Sen. McCain's 52 points, in the debate moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News, at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

In essence, you score well if you have a clear idea, you express it clearly and coherently, and you believe it. Your answer is everything. If you do well, we are single-mindedly focused your message. We understand it. We aren't watching you trying to fabricate or manufacture a response.

We scored each candidate's principal answer (on a scale of 1-5, five being best), and we scored each follow-up answer (on a scale of 1-3, three being best).

Here's what we saw and assessed:

Fastest way to help people in the economic crisis?
Obama 5
McCain 4

What helps ordinary people most?
Obama 7
McCain 1

Can we trust either of you?
Obama 7
McCain 5

What must we sacrifice today for the future?
Obama 7
McCain 5

What about entitlements, social security and medicare?
Obama 5
McCain 1

What do we do about the environment and green jobs?
Obama 5
McCain 1

Is health care a commodity?
Obama 8
McCain 4

America as a peacemaker in the world?
Obama 8
McCain 5

Should we respect Pakistan's sovereignty?
Obama 8
McCain 5

Your Afghanistan plan?
Obama 3
McCain 3

Do we pressure Russia on humanitarian issues?
McCain 8
Obama 3

What happens if Iran attacks Israel?
McCain 5
Obama 4

What don't you know, and how will you learn it?
Obama 5
McCain 5

Sen. Obama's victory came from clear ideas, coherently expressed, naturally, and with conviction.

Sen. McCain's answers were somewhat unclear, and somewhat rambling. His conviction and passion, mostly solid and even, was diminished by sharing multiple talking points in a single answer, not coherently linked.

On foreign issues, however, Sen. McCain found his voice. He scored well, providing clear, coherent ideas, expressed with clarity and conviction.

Sen. Obama lacked those qualities in two of his foreign affairs answers.

Again, the tenor and tone of the debate was about fixing things that are wrong, dealing with tactical issues, and battling each other.

The real question remains. Who has the best vision for America?

Ultimately, that will be the test.

Successfully packaging a $700 billion idea

2008-09-30T18:23:00.000-07:00

There hasn't been a bigger idea than a $700 billion bailout.

That's an eye-opener, whichever way you look at it.

Yet, what actually happened to that $700 billion bailout concept this week, is a lesson for all of us who manage ideas, shape stories and messaging, and build futures.

As you know, the $700 billion concept failed.

It failed because members of Congress were uncertain about the program, and members of Congress were uncertain because their constituents were enraged.

Rage is a very difficult force to manage.

It doesn't matter that rage was misdirected. It doesn't matter that rage was pointing in the wrong direction. Rage is rage.

At the core of the $700 billion bailout, however, was -- and still is -- a very good business idea.

In essence, Treasury officials argued:

All those 'failed' mortgages aren't worthless.

They are certainly worth something today, and at some point in the not-so-distant future, they will be worth more -- in fact, much more than they are worth today.

So let's buy those mortgages, said Treasury.

Let's manage them intelligently and protect the assets.

And then, at some point in the future, when they have substantially regained their value, let's sell them.

In the process, we will recapture the investment we made in buying mortgages in the first place -- and then some -- and we will be in a great position to return the proceeds to the American people.

It's likely those proceeds will be worth more than $700 billion. A lot more.

Doesn't that make sense?

Effectively, that's what the so-called $700 billion bailout plan -- or rescue plan -- was all about.

It wasn't about giving money to Wall Street.

It wasn't about mega-bonuses to chief executives.

It was a serious, well-considered investment by Treasury in assets that will increase in value (probably sooner, rather than later) and can be sold at a profit -- or at zero loss -- for the benefit of the American people.

Which is a pretty sound idea, by any measure.

Best of all, it's not a difficult concept to understand or embrace.

But, amazingly, did you ever hear anything like this clearly articulated this past week -- by Treasury officials, House or Senate members, or anyone, for that matter?

No, you didn't.

You might have heard isolated voices, especially in the aftermath.

But the story above wasn't Treasury's pitch.

It should have been.

Our view is that it isn't hard to rationalize complex ideas, make them simple, and communicate them clearly so people can understand them and embrace them.

Or it shouldn't be.

But apparently, this week, that was a tall order.

We hope that reality, plain talk, and understanding will prevail in the days ahead.

Obama won (but)

2008-09-26T21:31:00.000-07:00

That was a mild debate.

Using techniques we use to evaluate and score messaging and commitment, Sen. Barrack Obama scored 92 over Sen. John McCain's 67 in tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi.

That looks like a resounding victory -- but.

We use a subjective analysis, based on the ideas the candidates share, their ability to communicate simply and clearly, and their passion -- essentially, whether the ideas they expressed were true, emotional, and heartfelt, or whether they were coldly crafted in the campaign war room.

Our assessment is simple.

Tonight, Barrack Obama won.

But who did better than expected? Well, John McCain.

On the financial crisis, Sen. Obama scored 37 over Sen. McCain's 29 score, which involved answers to questions about the proposed $700 billion bailout, Presidential leadership, and given inevitable budget constraints, what has to be sacrificed in the future.

In foreign affairs, both candidates performed exceptionally well. Sen. Obama was slightly ahead in Iraq. They equalled each other on Afghanistan. Regarding Iran, equal again. A draw.

But when it came to Russia, Sen. Obama scored 6 to Sen. McCain's 4. Based on his comments, Obama has a better insight into Russia. His responses were more detailed, and scored better.

Moderator Jim Lehrer's curious question about a 911-style attack today also had Sen. Obama ahead, 5 to 3. (But why did he ask a question like that?)

If you look at the data, who did best? The answer says Obama, certainly, in detail, but nobody, really.

McCain did better than expected, which may be construed as a victory. But he didn't win outright. Neither did Obama.

In the end, the debate was about two Senators, seemingly comfortable with each other competing for another Senate term. This told us a lot about each candidate, and how they grind the details of Congress.

But this is a Presidential campaign about the future.

The debate told us little about how they see the future, how they would shape our lives, and how they would make the future happen.

Maybe that comes next.

Sen. Obama's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.

Sen. McCain's option for the next debate: Don't hold back. Shape your vision for the future. Paint a vivid picture of the future that all of us can see, realize, and achieve. Show us how Government is on our side, hoping that we will actually achieve our future, and how you will help us make that happen.

We look forward to the next debate.

P.S. We have no political affiliations, connections, or contacts.

Probably the best campaign on television today

2008-09-24T19:51:00.000-07:00

We don't know if U.S. oilman T. Boone Pickens has a major stake in American natural gas.

Frankly, we don't care.

Mr. Pickens's simple, plain talk introduction of a stunningly simple, brilliant plan for energy evolution in this country is, in a word, breathtaking.

No politican has articulated a concept so simply, so clearly.

No public interest group has expressed such a rational, common sense approach to taking responsibility for our energy future.

No critic, at least so far as we can see, has seriously challenged Mr. Pickens's approach, which is not only informative, but educational. This is the kind of idea we tell our friends about.

Mr. Pickens, and the people who worked with him to create these messages, deserve major kudos.

A complicated energy scenario is rationalized and made clear.

A major opportunity is clearly articulated.

A rational transition is explained in detail.

A viable choice is presented for all of us.

Communication does not get any better than this.

This is a program to be admired for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is to be considered and evaluated by energy decision makers.

And there's a simple test for the Pickens Plan.

Does anyone have a better idea?

P.S. We have no connection with the PickensPlan, their people, or their agencies.

Driving (and expanding) Coach

2008-05-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

Coach chief executive Lew Frankfort is, by any measure, a savvy, canny brand manager. He may be unique.

He has been involved with Coach for almost 30 years, sharing responsibility for sister Sara Lee brands during his long career, and enjoying a track record that's not only rare in corporate America but remarkable even among his luxury and fashion brand peers.

When Sara Lee released the Coach business in 2000, he took the brand public and has presided over seven years of extraordinary growth -- and use of the word extraordinary is not an overstatement.

This enviable, profitable growth has come from expansive licensing programs which dramatically expanded Coach beyond handbags (which today account for 64 percent of sales) into fashion accessories, scarves, watches, and even fragrance. These were followed with aggressive store expansion, mostly in malls, and equally aggressive global expansion, notably in Japan, where the brand is a highly successful 'import', ranking number two in total handbag and accessories sales.

In addition, Coach now has 30 stores in China with plans for 50 more. If you include Hong Kong and Macau, Coach is addressing a total handbag and accessories market of around $1.2 billion that will grow as dramatically as China's middle class expand their buying power.

Quoted this week in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Frankfort says that Japan-like growth in China would double the Coach business in four or five years.

Very few marketers -- in any category -- are contemplating growth like that.

Of course, business writers and fashion writers look at Coach through different lenses. Curiously, both share the same questions about Coach design and merchandising strategies.

In a nutshell, they wonder how Coach can expand a classic brand to attract young female shoppers, even middle-class teenage shoppers, in new stores in Staten Island and Queens -- and yet still retain elite, traditional and somewhat conservative patrons on Madison Avenue.

It's a question that challenges (and tempts) most fashion and luxury brand marketers:

Does the success you achieve with one audience threaten your franchise with others?

Can your brand withstand seemingly contradictory design and targeting strategies?

As you increase accessibility for the masses, will your upper-class mystique and reputation actually take a nose dive?

Mr. Frankfort and his design team, lead by President and Executive Creative Director Reed Krakoff, clearly have made their decisions.

It's full speed ahead -- with both.

Like the legendary Ralph Lauren, Messrs. Frankfort and Krakoff are (1) creatively driven, (2) customer and audience driven, and (3) market driven. They share a similar feeling-in-the-fingertips about what they will create -- for whom -- and where, exactly, it will be sold.

Ralph Lauren has always known -- and Coach has proved to the world -- that they can develop stunning, innovative and highly desirable items for diverse and different consumers (segmented by age, style, taste, class -- choose your descriptor), all of whom they understand intimately. Both brands have also demonstrated an ability to intelligently and insightfully manage distribution, along product lines, virtually on a store by store, mall by mall, and chain by chain basis.

As Mr. Frankfort says, Madison Avenue shoppers don't know what's on the shelves in the store in Queens -- and the reverse is probably also true. Yet, for each audience, he is sure that the Coach products on the shelves in their Coach store will be perfectly positioned for them.

If you think there's a fault line in that logic, certainly there is some risk. As Mr. Frankfort admits, consumers today shop 'high' (on Madison) and 'low' (at Target). And some malls -- in Atlanta, for example -- bring together very diverse shoppers under one roof. Undoubtedly, some overlap of styles and customers is inevitable. As a result, there is some risk to brand perception.

If you are a classic Coach buyer -- stylish, but restrained in your taste -- and your nearest Coach store suddenly is filled with extravagant logo-dominant merchandise with chains, padlocks and buckles, well, that can be jarring. Suddenly, Coach isn't your store. And that's a risk to be managed. However, if the selection is not right for you, maybe it's perfect for your granddaughter.

Yet the challenge for Coach is never to lose you.

That's the distinction that English luxury marketer Burberry achieved in their highly successful brand expansion in the late 1990s. Virtually overnight, Burberry become very youthful, very extravagant, and very new -- yet still retained their traditional, upper-crust customers. Burberry today is the classic case of luxury brand expansion.

Fortunately, if you are a classic Coach shopper (stylish and restrained in your taste), you should know that very stylish, very restrained Coach designs are still available, still beautifully made, and there are more of them in Coach today than there have ever been.

Perhaps Coach needs to make you aware of that.

The fact is, if you are wondering about the Frankfort-Krakoff strategy and what impact it may have on brand perception, you haven't looked at Coach lately.

The Coach handbag selection alone is dazzling -- there isn't a style, or the shadow of a style, or a design or tonal note that Coach hasn't explored and found a way to attach two perfect handles and offer it in the sizes, colors and textures you prefer -- either logo'd to death, logo-free, patchwork or plain, classic and traditional, or -- for the younger shopper who is your granddaughter -- totally off the charts with color, metal, and pizzaz.

To be specific, Coach now offers 14 handbag lines, all beautifully conceived, a total of over 231 individual handbags.

Again, maybe Coach needs to make you aware of that.

Ultimately, successful brand management is a balancing act. Intuition is as important as insight. And as observers have noted, Coach is on the line.

But Coach has leaders like Lew Frankfort and Reed Krakoff.

They are creatively inspired, they understand and respect the DNA of their brand, and they know their customers.

Marketers like this always seem to find a way to make things happen.

Kudos to Coach.

Before it's news, it's Reuters

2008-03-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

In the hands of advertising copywriters, the English language is a powerful tool. And copywriters, sometimes, are children.

Children should never be allowed to play with power tools.

Once in a while, however, a humble copywriter taps into something truly amazing, truly magical, that captures the essence of a brand in a heartbeat, stops competitors in their tracks, and reinvents the category.

Some brilliant writer, somewhere, not so long ago, coined five simple words, in an eternal verity, to announce Reuters sponsorship on National Public Radio. I almost drove off the road when I first heard it:

"Before it's news, it's Reuters."

In today's topsy-turvey world, where the news really isn't The New York Times anymore, nor ABC, nor NBC, nor CBS, nor frankly, even NPR. But rather, the Internet in all its forms, including Yahoo!News, just to give one example, where we can decide if we prefer the Associated Press (AP) view of the universe, or Reuters, or both on our home page ... this killer phrase defines Reuters in a new world.

We happen to like Reuters. We think Reuters offers a balanced, global perspective. And that's our perspective.

We have no connection to Reuters, just so you know. And to be truthful, we are shocked that Reuters doesn't use this brilliant 30-carat diamond idea anywhere else, at least so far as we can tell, other than on NPR.

Yet it belongs all over their brand.

This five-word pearl defines the Reuters brand.

If you know Reuters, tell them.

Victoria's Secret wins Super Bowl XLII

2008-02-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

Adriana Lima warms up for her Victoria's Secret
appearance promoting sales for Valentine's Day which
was broadcast immediately after Super Bowl XLII.
The most compelling of over 50 commercials aired, it
was the strongest, most authentic brand communicator.
Even better than the Clydesdales.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, the happy pranksters who typically write Super Bowl commercials were on vacation. This year's crop of spots were authored by minor leaguers. No standouts. No drop dead winners. And no wardrobe malfunctions. Certainly, it was not a toilet bowl (as in years past). But not a victory bowl, either.

As usual, brand messaging took a vacation, replaced by stunts, gags and games. But it's the Super Bowl. It's about entertainment, not marketing. There probably hasn't been a major marketing tour de force on this broadcast since Apple's '1984' epic in, well, 1984, created by Chiat Day's Lee Clow and Steve Hayden for Apple computer.

Popular favorites this year were a big, cosy brand commercial for Budweiser (a Dalmation carriage dog trains a Budweiser Clydesdale for next year's Super Bowl horse team) and an epic for Coca-Cola with Peanuts characters joining a mega-sized Coke bottle, portrayed as balloons over Fifth Avenue, in a Macy's-style parade that only had us thinking about high winds, uncontrollable balloons and falling light poles.

As for the rest, some very funny spots (and some unfunny spots) filled the gaps between the action in a great football game.

Notably, Charles Barkley, personally stunning in a brilliantly scripted and produced spot for ... who? And Will Ferrell, in a typically brilliant Will Ferrell performance ... for who? Otherwise, sometime-model Naomi Campbell with some creepy dancing gekkos, some with flashing diamond teeth, for someone (not Geico). Creepy cavemen (for Geico). A very creepy fang-nashing possum for ... a car? Creepy was a theme this year.

But supermodel Adriana Lima silenced the room, focused men and women, a cooed a soothing, sultry message for people with passions to indulge them in time for Valentine's Day. Check out Victoria's Secret for the real thing. This is what great brands do when they know who they are and what they have to do to connect.

Kudos of the Year to Victoria's Secret and, of course, to Ms. Lima.

Starbucks to rebuild the emotional core of the brand

2008-01-10T21:40:00.000-08:00

Make no mistake. It's not about 'feeling good' about Starbucks. At least, not in any simplistic sense.

It's pure business.

In the same week that Starbucks Chairman and pioneering brand-builder Howard Schultz was (re)appointed by the Starbucks board to the instantly-vacated chief executive position, McDonald's announced their intention to expand coffee service in McDonald's restaurants and add barista positions.

Which came first?

On January 7, 2008, making a conscious decision to slow U.S. growth in order to refocus the customer experience, Howard Schultz announced an agenda committed to "re-igniting the emotional attachment with customers and restoring the connections customers have with Starbucks coffee, people, brand and store."

In a letter to customers on the home page of the Starbucks website, Howard Schultz says:

"Twenty-five years ago, I walked into Starbucks first store and I fell in love -- with the coffee I tasted, with the passion of the people working there, and with how it looked, smelled and felt. From that day, I had a vision that a store can offer a welcoming experience for customers, be part of their community, and become a "third place" that is part of their lives every day -- and that it can provide a truly superior cup of coffee."

Later in the letter, he promises a new Starbucks, which is actually the old Starbucks, re-envisioned and renewed. But the last phrase of his comment is critically important. If McDonald's, somehow, can provide a very good cup of coffee, perhaps at a lower price, then Starbucks faces a very serious threat.

The departing Starbucks chief was given great kudos for his business and operational management. But clearly Howard Schultz and the board felt more must be done to buttress Starbucks against McDonald's, particularly if McDonald's finds a coffee recipe that works and can also find the raw ingredients to make their expansion possible.

One of the big problems is the world's supply of quality Arabica beans.

Earlier this year, Howard Schultz defined his priorities as securing the world's best supply of the best beans by working with the best growers in the best way. That's great.

But perhaps we see there an inkling of other objectives -- to protect Starbucks, of course. To honor growers, naturally. But above all, to defend against the Golden Arches.

Obviously, that's the priority.

We salute Mr. Schultz for rebuilding coffee as the American beverage.

For years the folks at Maxwell House, we know, felt coffee had ceded ground to Coca-Cola as "the national beverage." But Starbucks ignored everything and actually changed how we think about coffee.

Thanks to Starbucks, we have a different idea in our minds about what coffee is.

Now Howard Schultz is determined to protect that idea and defend it against allcomers, including the greatest potential threat on the planet, Mickey D.

His offense and his defense?

The Starbucks brand, and the Starbucks experience.

It will be a great encounter.

Brand Advertising Campaign of the Year!

2007-12-17T21:41:00.000-08:00

It's iPhone. The best brand-driven advertising program of the year. One of the best advertising campaigns in recent history, maybe ever. We're proud to announce it.

No product has been better or more successfully introduced in classic, charming, demonstration commercials that elegantly show us everything we can do with the amazing iPhone.

Including making phone calls.

iApple, to coin a phrase, is one of the biggest, most competent, most capable brands on the planet. It's also one of the sweetest, neatest and most inviting brands we'll ever encounter.

Nobody matches Apple for truth and reality. Genuineness. Honesty. Simplicity and clarity. We feel good watching iPhone advertisements, we are totally seduced and entertained, and we feel the iPhone was made just for us.

Most companies don't understand 'brand' advertising. They think 'brand' is about image. Or just corporate stuff. Or about how good (soft, sappy, emotional) they are.

That's a juvenile perspective.

Yet it's a perspective still shared, believe it or not, by old brains.

Most people know that an authentic brand-driven advertising platform shares what the brand means, what it does, how it connects, how it helps, how it charms, and how it pleases.

You know, all the things that ... sell.

All of us loved iTunes. But there's nothing necessarily youthful about this new product. iPhone is just very real, very ageless, very timeless, very beautiful, certainly made for all of us, and maybe, just maybe, perfect.

Kudos to Apple and their internal teams and outside partners.

Advertising isn't dead, it just belongs to Google

2007-12-10T18:48:00.000-08:00

Advertising is thriving.

Unfortunately, advertising agencies don't seem to be.

If advertising agencies and their holding companies had convinced themselves that the status quo somehow still prevailed, they haven't logged in to Google lately.

Those little Ads by Google. Charming, aren't they? Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, as of this week, Google will place your real live display advertisement, a real print advertisement, in the newspaper of your choice -- The New York Times, the Des Moines Register, the Atlanta Journal Constitution and hundreds of other major newspapers across the country. All you have to do is click. And if you don't have an advertisement you can place, well, that's not a problem. They have templates you can use. Or you can build your own. They even do "image" ads.

Is that enough to convince you that advertising as we know it is dead? No? Well, consider this.

Google will help you create a radio commercial and place it in a hundred-plus radio stations across the country.

Rupert Murdock, Chairman of News Media, owner of My Space and The Wall Street Journal, recently explained his anxiety about new media, moving fast, and being first.

We have to get there before everything belongs to Google, he said.

WPP, Interpublic and Omnicom probably lost 'agency' status long ago, as their agency brands burrowed deeply into online, public relations and other businesses.

Yet they jealousy guard their 'creative' turf.

But if a group at Unilever's Dove decided they could create nifty radio commercials of their own making and place them with Google. And if a team at Ford did the same thing. And the folks at Pepsi decided an exciting promotional radio campaign could be created, craftsperson style, right in their own offices, and placed on radio stations anywhere their sales people asked for ... aren't we looking at an advertising armageddon in some way, shape or form?

Those Google ads may be unsophisticated.

(Actually, Google Adwords today are very smart, and a lot of very smart writers are creating them.)

It's only a matter of time. Google ads will be as slick and polished as they need to be and no advertising agency fingerprints ever will be found on them.

It's just another way our world has changed.