Brilliant or bullsh*t?

I've worked on the client side, the agency side and somewhere in the middle, as a consultant. And I still feel these conflicting personas, rather like the Good Cop and the Bad Cop, leaping around in me trying to gain supremacy when I see communication ideas.

Take the recent Burger King "Meltdown" campaign in the UK. The agency side of me is terribly excited about this one. It ticks all the boxes and then some. Where to start? Well, the idea originally came up as a result of a petition from two eco-conscious schoolgirls, Ella and Caitlin, aged 7 and 9. It's big and bold and involving and exciting. It's about actually doing something (people donating unwanted toys, Burger King working with up-cycling partners to convert the unwanted plastic into play areas and trays) rather than just blabbing on and empty virtue-signalling. The execution, from the melting logo to the giant sculpture, is terrific.

And it takes a good pot-shot at McDonald's in tune with the brand's recent edgy attitude campaigns.

My agency side is practically having a meltdown, screaming "what's not to like?" at my less easily-enthused bah-humbug client side.

I don't know. A year or two ago I might have found this original. But now it feels, however good the execution, rather like an opportunistic stunt. One of these. Does it come from the core of the brand? Not really. And sniping at the main competitor merely deflects from the real problem. As pointed out in the article linked above, the campaign broke on the same day that Burger King was presented with an award by Greenpeace for "flame-grilling the Amazon." Perhaps the "Meltdown" campaign name and logo are a little insensitive?

I wonder what our junior eco-warriors think of that?

Talking of which, I'm won't be surprised by a flood of Greta Thunberg wannabes and Fearless Girls appearing in forthcoming brand communications. It has already started, for example, in this campaign for Zürich's public transport (admittedly timed to coincide with Ms Thunberg's visit to the city). The ads are telling us that if we take the tram or trolleybus, we're a little bit Greta.

I'm not convinced there's such a thing.

Driving traffic to the stores

I'm still not a huge fan of McDonald's burgers, but I do find I'm liking (if not lovin') McDonald's as a brand more and more. Despite having been in the world of advertising for decades now, my heart still misses a beat (well, half - it's only advertising) when I see an idea I instinctively know is right. And damned bloody good.

Here's one:



"Follow the Arches" by McDonald's Canada, from their agency Cossette, has just won the Outdoor Grand Prix at Cannes.

There's no heavy philosophy or high and mighty purpose here, but instead there's first of all an ingenious and brilliant use of the medium. Plus a nod to popular culture - all those "guess the logo" games. Human insight, too - who doesn't identify with tiring car journeys with hungry kiddies, driving round and round a strange city? And then, positive use of brand consistency, values, global presence. Stunningly simple.

Best of all, it's useful and helpful, which means it'll work.

It puts the ghastly phrase "driving traffic to the stores" in a whole new light!

Holy Logo!

Reader's Digest have recently published the third annual Trusted Brands Survey. The main survey is carried out in the US, where 5,500 people were asked which brands in 40 product categories they trust the most, and would recommend to family and friends. The study backs up, with numbers, a lot of stuff that marketers know intuitively - for example, that people are prepared to pay more for brands they trust.

From the results, Reader's Digest have created the Trusted League, giving the brands superhero names and personas. So McDonald's becomes 'The Satisfryer', or Dove 'The Beholder', and then there's 'Swoosh', representing Southwest, above.

It's a lot of fun and probably a nice pat on the back for the people working on these brands, but without being a total dreary killjoy, I'll add a note of caution: don't take this too seriously when you're creating your advertising. It could land you into a spot of hot water or holy hubris.

There's also a German version, with fewer product categories and no superheroes, although there are plenty of the usual suspects: Nivea, Milka, Haribo, Allianz, Persil.

I was a little surprised, however to see C&A on the list, as well as Deutsche Telekom and - wait for it - VW.

Maybe it goes to show that goodwill built up can go a long way when you do tell one or two porky pies.

Where are they now?

It's that wonderful time of year again when Interbrand come out with their report on Best Global Brands. It's always fascinating to look back into the dim and distant past to see who the top dogs were then and now:

2006                                                                       2016

1. Coca Cola                                                         1. Apple
2. Microsoft                                                          2. Google
3. IBM                                                                  3. Coca Cola
4. GE                                                                    4. Microsoft
5. Intel                                                                  5. Toyota
6. Nokia                                                               6. IBM
7. Toyota                                                              7. Samsung
8. Disney                                                              8. amazon
9. McDonald's                                                      9. Mercedes-Benz
10. Mercedes-Benz                                              10. GE
11. Citi                                                                 11. BMW
12. Marlboro                                                        12. McDonald's
13. Hewlett-Packard                                            13. Disney
14. American Express                                          14. Intel
15. BMW                                                             15. Facebook

As is my wont, I've categorised these brands into the sign of four:

Winners - huge value and rank gain
It's GAFA! (Now that we don't have Brangelina any more there's a new compound noun ...)
Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon

Staying Around - impressive growth, rank held/gain
Samsung, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Toyota

Slippers - lost rank, small/moderate growth
McDonald's, Disney, Microsoft, Intel, Coca Cola

Losers - lost value and rank
American Express, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, GE, Citi, Nokia, Marlboro

I'm pleased to see a couple of classic German brands holding their own in the tables. But where are the Brits? Uh-oh ...

Makes burgers, not war

This is a bit of an old story - it's from last year - but it's a goodie, and with the Cannes Awards coming up, who knows?

Collaboration is one of the buzz words for brands this decade - with customers, other brands and other organisations. And the fast food giants have certainly played the game, with all manner of collaborations with confectionery brands, or charitable organisations to encourage literacy or sport.

But what about getting together with your biggest rival?

Y&R New Zealand had the tremendous idea to raise awareness for Peace Day, a global day of ceasefire. Their client Burger King invited McDonald's to get together to create a one-off super-burger. No, not King Donald (or even Don King) but the McWhopper.

In the end, McDonald's, in an act maybe more fitting to Wimpy, turned it down, but the proposal itself generated a mass of positive goodwill and PR for Burger King, as well as awareness for Peace Day.

Next time I talk about bold advertising, I'll have this at the back of my mind as a yardstick.

... but I won't do that

The TV ad I've chosen for this blog post may be an odd one, as I'm not a dad, nor do I have a daughter.

But I have plenty of friends that are, and do.

This wonderful ad has been created and produced for McDonald's Australia by DDB together with The Sweet Shop. 

What's so great about it? Well, for a start, it's based on a huge and relevant insight: Dads make plenty of sacrifices for daughters, but food probably ain't one of them. Having just come back from a holiday together with a meat-eating dad and vegetarian daughter, I can confirm the veracity of this 100%.

And this insight connects to the product they are advertising - the DIY Create your Taste which promises 'grown-up ingredients.'

But it doesn't stop there - the film is packed with little observational insights on father-daughter behaviour which makes the whole thing watchable, funny, warm-hearted and true to life. There are no stupid bogus 'social experiments', no ghastly pulling on the heartstrings plinky music (the Meatloaf track is perfect, and has a neat association with the product), no horrible manipulative messages about empowerment and other such crap.

It's good old clever unpretentious advertising - and almost makes me want to give McDonald's another try.

My funny Valentine

As a nice bit of PR, the London agency Isobel has recently conducted a poll amongst 1,500 respondents to find Britain's most-loved (and most hated) brands. The results are on the agency's website here.

Off to the hate list first, and, political parties aside, the usual suspects are there - Ryanair, McDonald's, Starbucks, Facebook and KFC. I was surprised to see PayPal didn't make an appearance, but there we are. Top hated of what I call proper brands is Marmite, at Number 3, but I suspect there's a lot of "love to hate" going on there.

Turning to the most-loved list, the bulk of these don't seem out of place at all - Cadbury's, Walkers, Heinz, BBC One, PG Tips, M&S, Boots - these are all brands that have a nice, lovable, cuddly, mumsy feeling to them. They are part of the cultural fabric of the UK.

But the number one spot? It's taken by amazon, which I find extraordinary. Have people not heard about some of amazon's less than exemplary business practises? Or do they turn a blind eye?

The answer is found in how the question is asked: people were asked to rate brands on a number of "love factors" - loyalty, brands they would miss if no longer available, brands they rely on. I strongly suspect that with amazon, there is less "love" going on here and more habit, convenience/ accessibility and lack of perceived alternatives.

Maybe it's a case of love the one you're with.

Send in the clowns

Two very different pieces of communication from McDonald's have hit my radar this week. The first is in a blog post from the brilliant Ad Contrarian who never fails to bring me back to earth and have a laugh at myself and my fellow marketeers. In this post, Bob presents an internal McDonald's video of their newish CMO, Deborah Wahl. If you like playing marketing bullshit bingo, this one is for you.

The self-confessed "hockey mom" soon gets into her stride, or onto her platform, with her brand transformation journey. This is a journey, you understand, to change the relationship and the conversation. It's open transparent dialogue. Keeping the customer at the centre. Engagement leads to customer experience. Communities. Iconic. Shape the vision. At the heart of. Re-igniting the lurve....

Actually, this makes me cringe because there, but for the grace of God and all that. I do use some of these expressions, although I like to think that I don't cram quite as many into each minute as in this example.

And now for something completely different. A piece of advertising from McDonald's new agency here in Germany - the Leo Burnett and Thjnk co-operative, Thjnk Tank. This is a cinema ad to celebrate 60 years of McDonald's. And the creative idea is to use the clown Oleg Popov, who is also celebrating 60 years of making people happy.



Now, I can't normally abide clowns, especially Ronald McDonald, but I think this film is terrific. It has a substance and quality in the way it's made and it's wonderfully moving. OK, people will argue that it seems tonally odd for McDonald's and that it's  "not consistent" with their other communication, but that isn't the point. It's beautiful and brave and that can only be good for the brand.

I do wonder about something that Deborah Wahl quoted from Ray Kroc, though. "We're not in the hamburger business, we're in the People Business."

Maybe that is our trouble, these days. We are so busy being in the Journey Business or the Engagement Business or the Customer Experience Business that we forget what it is that makes us unique. Everyone's strategy looks the same and has the same objectives.

And it's left to the creatives to do the difficult work of sorting through all the bullshit (or maybe ignoring it) and using their own intuition to create something different.

Brands at the Museum

Back in the last century, working at Saatchi & Saatchi, one of the highlights of a visit to my clients at Harvey's of Bristol was a visit to the Harvey's Wine Museum. Located in dockyard cellars, the museum had a slightly raffish air, a teeny bit disreputable car boot sale of a place with its dusty decanters and blowsy barrels. The highlight was a drawing of the historic occasion in the 19th century during which a lady sherry-tasting proclaimed 'if that be the milk, then this is the cream.'

I'm not sure if the museum still exists, but brand museums are now all the rage. Not just museums of packaging and print ads and other ephemera, but museums or even theme parks dedicated to one particular brand.

There's the McDonalds No. 1 Store Museum (housed in a replica of the first restaurant opened by Ray Kroc in Des Plaines), the Willy Wonka-esque Cadbury World, the nostalgic Colman's Mustard Museum and Shop in Norwich, the Levis Strauss Museum in the home of his birth in Buttenheim. And almost every brand has a virtual museum of sorts on their website these days.

Whether it's food, drink, fashion or cars, all these brands have a story or two to tell, and enough belief in their meaning to the general public out there. Maybe the idea of a museum ties in well with the increasing fashionability of Brand Curators.

One brand museum due to open in 2016 will be the IKEA Museum, in the first IKEA store which is being restored to its 1950s glory. And there's a chance to participate here, with your own stories of BILLY and KLIPPAN.

Maybe this is the ultimate test for Marketing Directors - or Brand Curators - does my brand have enough magic, meaning and affection to warrant a museum?  

A lost world

A discussion about football over the weekend prompted me to get out the only World Cup programme that I possess - from Mexico 1970. And, once the argument was resolved, as is my wont with printed ephemera, I starting glancing through the ads.

You have to bear in mind that the ads would have been bought to a target audience of young men, possibly with young families as a secondary audience, in those strange days 44 years ago. So there's lots of stuff about cars and automobile-related brands: British Leyland, Fiat, Esso and Mobil. And the odd 1970 hi-tech ad (such as the one for a company called Vines of Trafalgar Square, who made film projectors, in 16mm and 8mm.)

Children were catered for, with ads for Raleigh, Action Man (in his World Cup Kit) and Chelsea ("The girl with the groovy gear" "the up-to-date dress-up-dolly") - funny, she never featured in my childhood!

But the overwhelming impression is of ads for tobacco. B&H takes the back cover, Player's No. 6 proudly presents its prices and Wills Golden Virginia takes us into a pub scene. It's straight out of The Sweeney, with its dartboard and expanses of polished wood.

Given that such scenes will not be appearing in the programme for this year, I realised what was missing. No food and drink, especially of the fast variety. No McDonald's. No Pizza Hut. OK, they had not been introduced to the UK at this point. But no Coke. Not even beer.

Maybe the anti-obesity crusaders have got a point.

The First Time

Back in the days when "Insights" were all the rage at Procter & Gamble, among our favourites was the one on which a long-running Head & Shoulders campaign was based. It went something like this: because you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Of course, this is just as true for brands as it is for people. I don't know if it's just me being a weird marketing person, but for some brands, I can remember my first impression very clearly. Take McDonald's. The first I ever, ever heard of McDonald's was through my pen-friend (how quaint!) Amy from the US. And I'll never forget my first visit to McDonald's: it was High Street Kensington in the 1970s and we were on a school trip. I don't actually recall how the burgers tasted, but the whole experience was tied up in my mind with hip establishments like The Hard Rock Cafe and Kensington Market.

Classic advertising didn't really play a part in my first impressions and you could argue, as many brands do, especially these days, that so much about a brand is out of the marketer's control.

But is it really? Maybe, if you take an old model where "the brand" and how it is positioned is a theoretical construct, depicted in an onion, or a key, or a pyramid somewhere in the marketing department archives.

But if you take the brand and the positioning as the core meaning of what the company is all about, that is acted on, acted out, lived and breathed every second of the day, not just via the marketing department, you may not have everything strictly "under control", but you'll certainly have a huge influence over who decides to talk about your brand - and in what context.

A Happy Collaboration

Collaboration used to be something of a dirty word with its connotations of letting out secrets, saving your own skin, sleeping with the enemy, being a traitor and that sort of thing. Even in the world of brands, collaboration used to be eyed with suspicion - would association with another brand sully your reputation? Would the so-and-sos discover the secret of your brand essence?

However, things are opening up. For the last decade or so, co-operations, certainly in terms of promotion, but also in terms of product have become increasingly the norm. Ten years ago it was surprising to see two confectionary brands producing a hybrid - something like Haribo Goldbären and Smarties - but these days, it's perfectly normal.

The latest collaboration that has impressed me is McDonald's Happy Readers activity, where the fast-food chain is collaborating with book publishers such as Dorling Kindersley, retailers such as WHSmith's and the National Literacy Trust to encourage reading. The kick-off will include books being given away instead of toys in the Happy Meal. By the end of 2014, McDonalds will have given away 15m books in the UK, making them Britain's biggest book distributor.

For a long time, I wasn't a great fan of McDonalds and I have to admit that I still find their products pretty yucky. But I do admire the way they have turned around their marketing.

This is a collaboration that shows both generosity and responsibility - and possibly a better fit for McDonalds than Ronald McD encouraging "the kids" to do sport!

The colour purple

Most brands have a signature colour, or colours. There are the single statement colours of red for Coca-Cola, or magenta for T-Mobile, or turquoise for Twitter and the two-colour approach of IKEA, McDonald's or BP. And even some multi-colour brands, of which Google springs to mind.

Some colours are used less than others, especially as single branding shades - brown is a case in point, with UPS the notable exception in the use of this colour. And a colour that's a rare tone in nature is also relatively scarce on the branding front: purple.

Purple, as a non-primary colour, has a complex set of associations. The connotations of luxury, wealth and nobility may have influenced its use for indulgent brands such as Cadbury's or Milka, or Silk Cut. The links with creativity could have been grounds for Yahoo! changing their logo colour. But purple also has more difficult connections - with spirituality, magic and even emotional immaturity according to some - which makes it a tricky choice for a brand's uniform.

However, if one colour was in evidence in the UK in the last couple of weeks on top of all the red, white and blue, it was purple. But maybe this was a lucky choice in this case as purple goes so well with gold. 

Boys and Girls come out to pay

Exuberant "branding guru" Martin Lindstrom takes the topic of how children 8 -12 relate to brands as his latest topic: "Brand Savvy Tweens in Action!"

Now, the word "Tweens" has always disturbed me - what is it exactly that these youngsters are (be)Tween? The devil and the deep blue sea, perhaps? If it means between child and teenager, I'm quite happy for my son to remain in the child bracket until he's at least 12, thank you!

On Martin Lindstrom's website, you can view excerpts from a focus group where the youngsters recognise brands from sounds, smells or parts of logos. To be honest, I find this hardly surprising - wasn't it ever thus? My son recognised the McDonalds golden arches before he could read (luckily his Pavlovian response was always a disgusted "eerrgghh!") and before him, I remember long car journeys from my childhood livened up by spotting National Benzole and Esso petrol stations and even making up little jingles about them. And I'm sure that my father and grandfather were more than familiar with brand names of yore from classic posters or enamel signs.

And I have nothing against my son recognising, probably faster than I do, logos for Lego, Disney, Nike or Kellogg's. The only point at which I think Europeans still diverge slightly from the US is in the arena of fashion brands. My son doesn't have a clue what Abercrombie & Fitch is, for which I am grateful. Maybe it's because I'm not mad on that sort of brand myself. But if you've been dressing your "little princess" in Dolce & Gabbana or your "little man" in Tommy Hilfiger from the age of 2, then you probably have only yourself to blame if your "tweens" are "over-savvy" about brands.

Coffee Wars

The Financial Times reported this week that McDonalds wants to overtake Starbucks as the biggest coffee seller on the continent.

McDonalds plan to open around 500 more McCafes in addition to the 700 that already exist in Europe. Meanwhile, Starbucks continues to reduce and close its European outlets.

I'm rather pleased that these two global giants have decided to go head-to-head. I can't say that I am particularly enamoured of either, but at least McDonalds don't give me the feeling that they are ripping people off.

Hopefully it will take their eyes of the ball of the real, independent, traditional coffee houses of Europe. The CFO of McDonalds Europe is quoted as saying "We can become the biggest seller of coffee in Europe". Well, good for you. I know that, when I'm looking for a decent cup of coffee, I couldn't give a toss of sickly vanilla syrup about how "big" the chain is. I am just looking for - to quote Special Agent Dale Cooper - "A Damn Fine Cup of Coffee".

Ich liebe es...well, actually, I don't

I'm afraid I have to admit to having been seduced by advertising. I like hamburgers. But I don't like McDonald's. Every time I go there (which is not often and has become even more of a rarity since my son declared his utter hatred of McDonald's, even the toys) I leave disappointed and annoyed that I have succumbed again.

Now, I hadn't been near at McDonald's for about a year until yesterday but at the edge of my consciousness, their communication had been working in mysterious ways. I had a vague idea about quality scouts from an upmarket magazine campaign. There was the clever PR answer to "Supersize me". There were McCafes and TV spots with the wholesome and fresh-faced Heidi Klum. There was some memory of an article that said they were getting their CSR act together. And all this cumulated in being hit between the eyes as I was reading my Stern by some absolutely stunning photos, spread across pages and pages, of glorious-looking food. It was for something new: the "M von McDonald's."

I just had to try one. But from the moment I walked into McDonald's on a rainy Saturday afternoon, I knew I was going to be let down again. Heidi Klum and other beautiful people were nowhere to be seen. The place was full of wet and disgruntled youth and harassed parents with podgy children. The disappointment continued as I looked at my "M", which bore about as much resemblance to its promotional photo as I do to Heidi Klum. Wilting brown lettuce, a glob of melted cheese in the corner of the box and a burger glistening with grease met my gaze. Things didn't improve as I bit into it. Far from being "pur", the thing was covered in that ubiquitous nasty white goo and tasted, like all McDonald's products do: fatty. Talking of fatty, the final nail in the coffin came as I read the thoughtfully-provided nutritional information on the side. This greasy fatty gooey thing was going to provide nearly a third of my daily calorific requirement.

I left feeling quite sick and as if I'd been had. Which I had. It will be well over a year until I set foot in one of those places again.