Pepsi Throwback: An idea who's time has come...and gone.

I admit it. I love colas. Far more than I should. In fact, when I wanna lose weight (which is most of the time), I swear off them (or swear at them), as it’s a great way to eliminate empty calories from my diet. But oh, what I lose when I do so…that rush I get with the morning’s first intake of caffeine! The bite of the cola as it trickles across my palette. The joy of cola, indeed.

But since I was a kid, colas – virtually ANY colas – have become a mere shadow of themselves, thanks to bottlers’ ever-changing formulas designed to save a buck. I speak of the vile change from the traditional pure cane sugar to the concoction known as “high-fructose corn syrup,” A.K.A.: “HFCS.” If you have a can or bottle of your carbonated sugar water beverage of choice at hand, feel free to take a gander at the ingredients. I’ll wait…

…Back? Good. Did you notice the absence of “real” sugar and the substitution of high-fructose corn syrup in the ingredients list? Yep. Unless you’re drinking something from South o’ the border or a product of a micro-bottler (i.e.: Jones Soda), you’re getting the UNreal thing, regardless of brand. Bottlers made the big switcheroo years ago to save over the escalating price of cane sugar. That switch came with a steep price – first of all, the bite of cane sugar is not in any way replicated in corn sugar. Second, there are some fairly well-documented health concerns regarding HFCS in foods.

Now I’m not a doctor, research scientist, or some kind of eco-Nazi, on the warpath against “Frankenfoods.” I’m sure the folks over at the High-fructose Corn Syrup lobby are not bad people (call off the dogs, guys!) and their product is not the spawn of Satan, as some would have you believe. But I have a hard time swallowing (no pun intended) their argument that because corn is all-natural, that HFCS is every bit as natural, and therefore harmless.

You see, there have been some links noted between HFCS and increased cases of diabetes. Is this true? No idea. Should we ban HFCS without proof? Of course not. Should we study this more and not let a lobbyist group throw up a big smokescreen campaign to divert our attention from what could be a real health issue? Undoubtedly.

But I’m not here today to argue about the relative merits of HFCS and links to diabetes. I’m here to rag on Pepsi for a really stupid marketing idea.

Soda Cognoscenti the world over will tell you (and tell you, and tell you) that cane sugar makes for a vastly superior pour over beet sugar or corn sugar. End of discussion. They’ll also decry the day that bottlers made the switch, and claim they’d be happy to pay the extra coin to get that cane sugar rush back. And Pepsi has (temporarily) obliged, with the release of their “Throwback” line of beverages featuring REAL corn sugar.

I mean, if the Throwback cans contain (by their own admission, remember) “real” sugar, what in the Sam Hill have they been putting in the OTHER cans of Pepsi? That would be the aforementioned HFCS – one of those slightly mysterious ingredients you see in processed foods, like MSG or something else with an unpronounceable name that only a lab rat could love.

So if I’m a cane sugar fan, why do I object to this campaign?

Simple. It’s every bit as stupid and damning to their core product line as “Budweiser Select” is to Bud. You see, what Pepsi is acknowledging here is that their drinks used to taste better. A LOT better. And if you buy their “Throwback” Pepsis, Mountain Dews, et all, you’ll taste what I mean. There is an entire (Pepsi) generation of kids that have never had the oral pleasure of downing a cane sugar drink. What’s to be gained here for Pepsi?

Now I know that PepsiCo is King of the Line Extensions. They’ve never met a brand they couldn’t weaken by extending it one more direction. Pepsi. Diet Pepsi. Pepsi One. Pepsi Clear (you get the picture…not that Coca Cola is any better in this regard). So the Throwback line is completely in character for Pepsi. But I don’t get what they are trying to accomplish. It’s not being marketed as a premium pour. The ad campaign is hammering on the nostalgia theme. Huh? I mean, they are admitting (on the one hand) that the old-ways is the best-ways, and on the other, not doing a thing to try and protect their core products. Self-cannibalization is STILL cannibalization, after all. And what if demand is such that they are forced to either keep the Throwback line around, or end up going back to cane sugar all together? Unless sugarcane prices have plunged recently, I doubt that it’s cheaper than corn syrup, and I suspect the corn syrup lobby will NOT go quietly into that good night, especially as the Ethanol thing hasn’t quite worked out according to their master plan for energy domination.

What is Pepsi’s game plan here? (Artificially) Color me “mystified.” While I vastly prefer cane sugar over corn (not to mention Coke over Pepsi – sorry, guys), I just don’t get it. And this is coming from a guy who willingly pays over a buck per king-sized bottle for “Mexican Coca-Cola,” made with REAL cane sugar. (I figure they taste better, and the additional cost keeps me from downing more than one per day.)

If anybody can shed light on Pepsi’s end-game, I’d be fascinated to hear about it. Without some inside knowledge, I’m afraid that their “Throwback” campaign is going to do little more than “Throw Away” their level playing field with their competitors, at a premium price for cane sugar. On the other hand, if this somehow results in Pepsi, Coke, et all, returning to their sugarcane roots, I’ve but one thing to say about it.

Sweet!

Repetition. Sounds simple. Just create your message, and repeat it, ad nauseum, until it works. Think of it as the marketers version of the Rinse, Lather, and Repeat instructions you find on shampoo bottles. Of course there’s more to it than that. If your message doesn’t resonate, it will get lost in the noise. But it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that if you don’t repeat your message enough, even the best marketing simply won’t work.

I can’t tell you how many clients I’ve had that either don’t commit to a big enough media buy, or they get bored with their spots and want to change them before it’s appropriate to do so. When you see a commercial enough to get bored with it, you’ve just witnessed marketing penetration. Everybody wants to run commercials or ads that get people talking, but successful marketing is not built on a momentary “buzz” (i.e.: “did you see that new ad for ________”), but on effective ads that are repeated over and over.

Another point that may have escaped your notice is that in life, everybody is a marketer. I’m dealing with a situation in my personal life right now that has brought that lesson home. Just like what the world learned in WWII, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes indistinguishable from the truth. Having the truth on your side is nice, but it’s no guarantee that you’ll prevail. No, I’ve learned that repetition of a marketing message can overcome the truth, even when I have the truth on my side.

I’d love to tell you that truth will win in the long run. I’d love to tell you that if you have a superior product, or a message that resonates, you’ll win. But while being right or building a better mousetrap is good and important, remember that it’s no guarantee of success. Without repetition as a key component of your marketing, you’re fighting a battle where you are, effectively, an unarmed combatant.

Since this is a marketing blog (and I’d like to get back to enjoying my “special day” [insert ironic pause here]), I’ll simply remark that I find that the leaders in one-to-one marketing seem to be…online forums?

Yep. That’s right. Online forums. When you sign up for one of these online forums, they routinely ask for your birthdate. The software then obligingly kicks out a “happy birthday” email automagically. Nice. It’s a great way for the board to remind you that they exist, and a nice thing for the recipient, even if you know it’s not the thought, but the programming that counts.

Honorable mention in the birthday email sweepstakes: Jack in the Box. I received a “personal” email from Jack Box today, along with a coupon for a free desert. Way to extend your brand – and your tongue-in-cheek marketing attitude to Jack-lovers around the country. Nice job, Jack!

Healthymagination.

That’s the word that General Electric has coined for it’s public education campaign regarding their efforts to change health care for the better. Or not. GE is waging a huge public relations campaign – and an even more expensive lobbying effort behind the scenes to change both health care and energy policy at the Federal level.

Wait a minute…what’s one got to do with the other?

Pay attention, campers, because I hope, by the end of this post, to have opened your eyes to how marketing – innocent little marketing – is being used as both a tool to change the hearts and minds of the public, and as a club, to force the government to support policies that will benefit GE financially.

To really understand what’s going on, you have to grok the classical meaning of the word fascism. Forget what you’ve learned about the word, and how it’s typically used as an insult, or a way to villify a group or position on an issue that some other group doesn’t like. In the classical sense, fascism refers to a form of government whereby business and government are inexorably intertwined, so the interests of either are virtually indistinguishable from each other. It’s a condition when large corporations are able to push policies that benefit them, and in exchange, the government gets to have a large say in how these corporations are run. Call it collusion, call it one hand washes the other – by any other name, it’s fascism, boys and girls.

So here’s the thing. On the one hand, GE is marketing like crazy, spending big bucks on ads for “Healthymagination,” wind power and solar power. The ads aren’t strident – quite the contrary. They attempt to position GE in the minds of the viewers as a beneficent power, descending from on high with technological answers to today’s problems. “We bring good things to life,” indeed. In the shadows, however, GE is busy pulling strings and peddling influence, to influence public policy. Why? As Woodward and Berstein said, “follow the money.” You see, GE has a huge stake in the health care industry. Ditto for wind power (they are the largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the world). It benefits them to sway policy so that more turbines are built, and more of their health care products are in demand. A certain amount of lobbying seems reasonable, doesn’t it? I mean, if your company designed some widget that would make you billions, you’d want the government to order a bunch, wouldn’t you? But when there is no transparency in lobbying, the modern day analogs to smoke-filled rooms result in policy by executive fiat – no discussion, no debate, and chance for the public to determine if said policies are good or bad. I remain steadfastly unconvinced that “what’s good for GE is good for America.”

Think about it this way – GE makes wind turbines. They want to create wind farms, because that can create lots of inexpensive (except for the turbines) electricity. Problem is, Electricity is difficult to store for any length of time, and it doesn’t travel well. Since we didn’t have the foresight to build most of our cities where it’s really windy, we have lots of supply in places like the Texas Panhandle and Wyoming, but not a lot of demand. But that doesn’t stop GE. They want to build turbines in the middle of nowhere, and leave solving the transmission and storage problems for later. While that kind of thing wouldn’t make a lot of sense to a businessman, government is seldom encumbered by archaic concepts like “profit,” “efficiency” and “logic.”

Not enough? Consider this: GE is big in health care – diagnostics, data storage and retrieval. They are also big in communications (They own NBC and RCA). I’m a little uncomfortable with this entire “let’s put all our medical records online, and give the government access to them.” Do you really want some monolithic multinational like GE to have the keys to your records? I know I don’t.

So here’s my beef – marketing is great for swaying the hearts and minds of the general public. But when you’re only telling part of the story, and spending big to keep the whole story from the public, marketing crosses the line into propaganda’s turf. I’ve got no problem with happy smiling ads that try to remake a company’s persona. But when those ads hide the truth, and do their best to hide the truth, I’m not quite so understanding.You see, for marketing to work, it requires a bond of trust between marketer and customer. When consumers realize that they’ve been lied to and manipulated, they will not just blame the marketer. They will begin to distrust marketing itself. And that will be disastrous for all of us.

———————————–

Obama Halves Chrysler’s Planned Marketing Budget

Task Force Agrees Automaker Needs Advertising — Just Not $134 Million Worth

By Jean Halliday

Published: May 11, 2009

DETROIT (AdAge.com) — Chrysler wanted to spend $134 million in advertising over the nine weeks it’s expected to be in bankruptcy — the U.S. Treasury’s auto-industry task force gave it half that.

So if GM, which is wrestling with the possibility of a Chapter 11 filing itself, is wondering how much influence the task force will have over marketing, the answer is: plenty. However, transcripts from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Southern District of New York, where the Chrysler case is being heard, proved for the first time that the task force at least understands that advertising is a necessary expense — even if it doesn’t think Chrysler needs $134 million for nine weeks of car ads. (continued after link)

————————————————-

So it’s come to this. Anything worth managing is worth MICROmanaging – at least in the ObamaNation. Now I may not be Presidential timber, but I am a marketing guy – and a thinker. I’m not defending Chrysler (Lord knows), but there’s only one group that I can think of that could run Chrysler further into the ground than they already are – and that would be the U.S. Government.

Here’s the problem. If you cut advertising you lose mindshare. It’s as simple as that. This is NOT the time for Chrysler to cut advertising in half. If anything, it’s time to double down on their media buy. (Of course, it would help if they got some ads that were appealing rather than appaling.) If this doesn’t make you think we’re carreeening down a path to create the U.S. version of Yugo, you’re not paying attention.

Speaking of the Chrysler ads, if I were them, I’d take a page from the playbook of Lee Iacocca, when he faced the scandal of Chrysler running back odometers head-on. My recommendation for a new ad would star Bob Nardelli, the lame-duck CEO, and it would go something like this:

Hello…I’m Bob Nardelli, CEO of the Chrysler Corporation. As you’ve heard, Chrysler faces some real challenges as we reorganize, merge, and recreate our company so we can be competitive in the future. What you may not have heard is that Chrysler has some great cars, trucks and SUVs now – and we have more on the boards for the future.

Don’t get me wrong…we realize that we’ve made some mistakes. And we are committed to fixing every one of them. But we have some outstanding vehicles that we’d like you to consider when you’re ready to buy your next vehicle.

Take our Jeep division – did you know that the award-winning Jeep Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited have both been judged “best in class” by countless auto experts, magazines, and pundits? How about the Dodge RAM trucks? We launched a redesigned RAM for the 09 model year, and it’s been met with acolades around the nation. Or the Chrysler minivans – the original and still the market leader.

We’re committed to turning our company around. And with your help, we’ll restore the Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands to where they belong – at the pinnacle of the U.S. automobile industry. I invite you to stop by one of our showrooms today, and see for yourself the great vehicles we have to offer.

Now obviously, one ad’s not gonna win the hearts and minds of the public. But a little frank honesty would go a long way towards convincing the public that Chrysler management actually has a clue, and a chance of rebuilding. Unfortunately, the ObamaNation seems to think they can micromanage Chrysler better than Chrysler, and they are Hell-bent on a penny-wise/pound-foolish stratagem that will virtually insure that Chrysler is destined not for rebuilding, but for the trash heap of history.

]]> http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/05/13/the-marketer-in-chief/feed/ 0 http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/04/19/dallas-guitar-show-wrapup-post-mortem/ http://blog.grokmedia.com/2009/04/19/dallas-guitar-show-wrapup-post-mortem/#comments Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:12:37 +0000 admin http://blog.grokmedia.com/?p=441 One of the most effective things you can do when you work a tradeshow is to sit down after its over and figure out what worked, what didn’t, what you wish you’d done and what you learned from the experience. I’ve not had time to really clarify my thoughts on all this yet, but I wanted to share with you my initial impressions, while they are still fresh in my mind.

The best money I spent on the show was in making name badges for myself and my crew.
Normally, most trade shows will issue ID badges that get you into a show, that have your named printed on them. This is beneficial for both exhibitors and attendees, as it puts you on a first-name basis, the minute you walk up to someone. The show didn’t provide badges with names – just a logo and your type of badge (exhibitor, artist, access all areas, etc.) Big mistake. I don’t know why – they should have. But my badge told everybody immediately who I was, without an introduction. That was valuable.

The biggest waste of money was on a poster I had done at the last minute at Kinko’s.
It didn’t turn out well, and it wasn’t big enough to do any real good. If you can’t afford to go large – go home.

I am still always surprised at how people don’t put their brains in gear before engaging their mouths.
I had an 11 x 17″ sign made that read: “Show Special: $395 (plus shipping and handling).” I can’t tell you how many people ignored the sign and asked how much our guitar stands were. I don’t know that anybody actually read the bloody sign.

It’s always a good idea to hedge your bets regarding expected behaviors.
I expected to see lots of sales. Nope. Not a one. I did NOT expect to see a lot of dealer interest, nor did I expect a lot of manufacturers to be interested in our products. They were. Because I went ahead and spent money on printing up brochures, I had something to put in their hands. Without a brochure, I would have been up the proverbial creek, without a proverbial paddle.

Don’t let your plans blind you to opportunities.
I went into this thinking that I’d do best selling the guitar stands direct to the public via the web. The tradeshow was to be a test of how well the product would be received, test the price point, and get some much-needed feedback from the public. We received universally-positive feedback, no stated resistance to the price, and a lot of interest. But…we didn’t sell any. This is what’s madning about marketing – we suffered through a day and a half of rain, the current enconomic downturn, and what I considered to be a less-than-optimal booth location. How many could we have sold if these factors hadn’t come into play? No way of knowing. But the dealers were seeking us out, asking about dealer margins, as well as other models. That’s encouraging. Even better, we had a lot of interest from manufacturers who are interested in offering the stands through their own dealer network. That could be huge. Had we insisted on sticking to our plan to sell direct, we’d have completely missed the potential deals with manufacturers and dealers.

You have to get someone’s attention before you can sell them anything.
I spent money on a nice, retractable banner (31″ wide by 84″ tall!) a carved wooden sign with my company logo, business cards, brochures, et cetera. Some worked. Some didn’t. But because you never really know where your booth will be located ahead of time, or what your neighbor’s booths will look like, you can have no real idea of what kind of impact your booth will have on passers-by.Your best laid plans can all come a-cropper, for no better reason that your booth is in a bad location, or you get stuck in among vendors that don’t draw others to your booth. It’s a crapshoot, and there’s little you can do, but go in with a reasonable plan and be ready to improvise.

Trade shows are physically and mentally draining.
Especially music trade shows, which are, by default, incredibly noisy affairs. When you are surrounded by amplifier manufacturers, you’re gonna get blasted. Even worse, every guitarist that equates being good with showing off, is going to trot out every riff he ever learned, and play it fortissa-issa-issimo, so the people in the next three counties can hear him.

That’s it for now. More later.

Most men lead lives of quiet desperation. Film at Eleven.

- Reuven Frank, NBC News

As I write this, every cable news outlet is providing wall-to-wall coverage of the tragic mass-shooting New York state. While it’s natural that any tragedy of this nature is newsworthy, I can’t help but wonder, is the amount of coverage more about ratings and pandering, than it is about communicating valuable information in a timely fashion?

What drives me crazy about network news isn’t so much what they report – it’s how they report it. On a normal news day, marketing has assumed what I see as an unhealthy influence over the way we get our news. Stories are “teased” throughout a broadcast. Before the news is even on, you’ll see a promo, with an anchor breathlessly intoning, “Are your children at risk? Details at 10.” Wow. You’ve almost got to watch, or risk endangering your kids! So you watch. At the start of the broadcast, the anchor will say, “Tonight we investigat kids at risk. But first…” followed by the standard dreck – national stories, local stories, weather and sports. Along the way, just before each commercial break, we’ll hear the same bloody story teased again: “Coming up after the break, are your children at risk?” Of course, they don’t tell you WHICH break. Add it up, and probably 5 to 10 minutes of each newscast is wasted, telling us what they’re gonna tell us…later. Finally, the story hits the screen. “Are your kids at risk? If they aren’t getting enough sleep, experts say ‘yes.’” This is followed by some well-meaning idiot with a book to sell, telling us that we’re bad parents for not putting our kids to bed as the sun goes down. Marketing not only depreciates the news with ‘teases,’ but corrupts the process by blurring the lines between hard news and P.R. Then there’s “emergency” or “crisis” mode.

When a “big” story breaks, the news can’t wait to pull out all the stops. Helicopters, fancy graphics, field reporters, live remotes – they all cost money, many of them regardless of their use, so this Investment Must Be Justified. Regularly. Besides – panic sells. News organizations live for this stuff, and they do their best to feed the insatiable appetite of the general public for sensationalism.

I yearn for a day where the media kept “news” and “entertainment” in separate corners, never the twain shall mix. Today, most news organizations are under the control of their network’s respective entertainment divisions. And “entertainment” is all about how to motivate and manipulate people. Enter marketing – the dark, unseemly side of marketing.

Is there anything to do about this? As long as this nonsense works, probably not. But as individuals, we can always pull the curtain aside and watch the wizard work the levers. It’s sad, but thanks to marketing, the network news we’d like to trust is largely full of sound and fury, signifying…nothing.

But this is not a post about medicine, except as it relates to marketing. Too many people look at marketing as a kind of BAND-AID for their branding, their advertising, and their sales. And far too many take a BAND-AID approach to marketing itself.

Here’s the deal: marketing should be a carefully thought-out approach to communicating your products or services value proposition(s) to your prospects and customers. That’s it. If we use a fishing analogy, the fish is the prospect, the bait is the advertising, the pole and reel represents the media, and the fisherman is you – the company, group or individual selling something. Think of “marketing” as the fishing guide that tells you where to fish, what kind of bait to use, what gear you need, and teaches you how to reel ‘em in.

The biggest problem with marketing is that it is so seldom understood by the people that need it the most.

The second-biggest problem with marketing, is that so many clients think of marketing as an afterthought – a sort of “cart-before-the-horse” thing. They will expend large amounts of time and money coming up with a great idea or concept for an ad or a campaign, then turn their attentions to “marketing.” They’ll try to concoct a marketing rationalle to do whatever it is they want to do – justifying their actions with a “marketing plan.” When the campaign falls flat, they blame marketing.

The way things are SUPPOSED to work is that you first sit down and identify your goals. (It’s hard to know if you got there, if you don’t first decide where you’re going.) Next, you try and ascertain if these goals are realistic. (Many is the marketing plan that fails because reality and expectations were not even in the same zip code.) After you’ve accomplished that, you turn your attention to developing strategies and tactics to realize your goals. Only then should you start thinking about the uber-cool ad you wanna run, or the insanely great promotion you have in mind. If it doesn’t help get you closer to the goalline, you need to let it go and try something else.

For instance, let’s say your goal is to increase sales by 20%. Taking the BAND-AID approach, you decide that what you need is a big newspaper ad campaign. Will it work? Depends. But regardless of it’s odds of success or failure, it’s a safe bet that you’re gonna be less effective with the campaign than if you’d started with a well thought-out marketing approach, instead of the traditional BAND-AID marketing.

Instead, let’s assume that you do a little research first. You look at your prospects demographics – let’s say your product appeals to those between the ages of 18 and 25. Demographically-speaking, almost NONE of that age group reads the paper. Doesn’t matter if you do – they don’t. So a newspaper campaign will fall flat. What about the newspaper’s online site? Maybe – you’d have to look at their demographics. A better approach would be to survey some 18 to 25-year-olds and ask them “what do you do with your day.” You might find that they have a phone super-glued to their ear, spend 5 hours online, are addicted to SMS or IMs, and get most of their TV from YouTube.

From this data, you’d learn that TV spots are a waste (thank you Tivo), newspapers are deadly, but viral marketing through MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube might reach your target demographic where they live.

Of course, this creates a whole ‘nuther set o’ problems, namely, how to effectively use this kind of media to reach your demographic, without alienating them (inauthentic = certain death).

On the other hand, if you’re marketing Metamucil or Dentu-Grip, anything online is a waste, and newsprint is your savior – it all depends on your goal and how your prospects want to be reached. BAND-AID marketing says “let’s throw money at the problem until something works.” Marketing-centric marketing says “let’s think about the goals, analyze the market, then craft a solution that we think will work, and finally test it to see if we’re right.” Taking a marketing-centric approach is not a magic bullet, and it won’t guarantee results. But it works far better than doing something to stroke a corporate ego, and trying to ex post facto justify it with some marketing mumbo-jumbo.

The reason I mention this, is that I realized that a lot of what happened today makes for some pretty good fodder for marketing discussions.

First of all, I can’t tell you how many times my best-laid plans have been derailed by something completely unexpected. Having my car crap out was both unexpected and unwelcome, as it forced me to spend additional bucks for a hotel stay and car repairs. When something like this happens, you can cry and kvetch about it, or cowboy up and improvise. I chose to improvise. Good marketing plans allow for both extenuating circumstances and a degree of improvisation.

Second, I realized that it’s important to keep a stiff upper lip. My daughter is at an age where she looks to me for cues as to how she should respond and interpret events. If I get upset, she learns that it’s okay to freak out about things like this. If I deal with it in a calm, cool, and collected manner, she learns how to deal with things without getting upset. Your clients are a lot like my daughter – keep your cool in the face of adversity, and your client will deal with things far better than if you lose it.

Lastly, I think the takeaway here is that we all need to expect the unexpected. If things work out as planned – bonus. If they don’t, anticipating challenges can help you deal with things as efficiently as possible.

Now excuse my whilst I go try and figure out how to pay for a fuel pump I hadn’t put in my budget.