Just because it sells products, doesn't make it good branding

The other night I found myself perched high on a soapbox I've mounted a number of times since entering into the world of advertising. The essence of my stance was that there should be no bad advertising. Period. It's my belief that consumers deserve to be exposed to good ads. Sure, sure I recognize that "good" and "bad" are highly subjective terms but I'm not talking about the definition of "good" that I as an advertising professional would assign to advertising. I'm talking about how my mom, sister or any other non-ad person would define bad. The bad ads that I'm referring to, and those that sparked this debate, are the scream-to-be-heard types that are often associated with direct response or automotive commercials. The argument that's typically made in favor of this style of assaulting communication is that if it works (works = sells products) then it's good advertising. In same breath that the argument is made, products like the Snuggie, Sham Wow and the Chia Pet are used as support. True, these are successful sales stories. But what they are not are successful brand stories.

Advertising should not only be used to sell products, but also to build brands. The need to achieve both of these things is why the "as long as it sells products it's good advertising" argument fails. And while yelling at consumers may get their attention and may even result in sales, it's lack of brand building is where it misses the boat and is therefore bad advertising.

Ok, stepping down now.

The corporation behind the curtain

A few months ago I found myself in a familiar position- slinging lattes behind the counter at Starbucks. My first go round at the ‘bucks was in college and to this day I maintain that I was one of my favorite jobs. So when earlier this year my agency announced that, that thanks to the recession, our salaries would be cut by approximately 20% I thought maybe I’d don my green apron once again in an effort to supplement my diminishing salary. My plan worked. I was rehired to work the opening shift at a store located on the ground floor of the Bank of America Building. Since this store was smack dab in the middle of the financial district and caters to a lot of foils working east coast hours, we opened at 4:00 am. Shocking, I know. Even more shocking was the fact that I agreed to work there despite these draconian hours. Working these hours was actually by design as I wanted something that wouldn’t interfere with my “real job” as a brand strategist. I took the job and went to work. Twice. That's right, I quit after just 2 shifts and it wasn't the hours that prompted me to hang up my apron, again.

I hung up my apron because the Starbucks that I knew and enjoyed working at was a thing of the past. The very things that I loved- the art of pulling a perfect shot, the camaraderie amongst the baristas, the banter across the counter with the customers were gone. Espresso machines are now automatic so there's virtually impossible to NOT pull a perfect shot*. The baristas seemed more like factory workers numbly going through the now monotonous routine. And the customers seem to want nothing to do with an experience. They want their coffee and they want it fast. I should add that the store I was working in didn't have an actual seating area, it was somewhere between a full sized store and a kiosk, so naturally this only perpetuated the factory-like atmosphere.

I've followed Starbucks over the years, as many brand nerds do, but for me it was kind of personal. Sure it's a big, bad corporation but working there allowed me to see that they genuinely care about their employees and treat them well. Combine that with the fact that I think they're selling a fine product definitely makes for a brand that I'm happy to support. But one day I noticed that the counter tops were crowded with stuff and the food offerings stretched far beyond the more pared down cafe snacks that they had offered for years. I could think of only one thing: brand dilution. A feeling that Howard Schultz also had and expressed in the now famous 2007 memo.

This article that ran in the NY Times about a year and a half ago highlighted one attempt that Starbucks made to "revive the intimate, friendly feel of a neighborhood coffee shop." They did this by shutting down over 7,000 of their stores to "retrain" employees. They focused on techniques to improve taste as well as customer service. Unfortunately, this attempt wasn't enough to weather the economic storm that resulted in the closing of hundreds of Starbucks across the country. But that didn't stop the brand from taking yet another step toward achieving the neighborhood coffee shop they long to become.

Last week Starbucks opened 15th Ave Coffee and Tea- the brand's attempt to create an indie coffee shop environment. The difference being, of course, that this "indie" shop is backed by the world's coffee giant so it's a safe bet that unlike most neighborhood shops the tables at 15th Ave won't require a book of matches to stay level. This announcement is being heavily criticized by brand and business experts left and right. But as we know, it's the voice of the consumer not Wall Street that ultimately determines the fate of a brand's success. And on that note, the writing may be on the wall, or more accurately the blog.

I poked around the site, www.streetlevelcoffee.com, and found a blog that currently includes a single post- a welcome message from the store manager Jenna. It was in response to Jenna's post that Kevin, a visitor to the site, made the following comment that may perfectly sum up the very reason why this latest revival attempt may once again leave Starbucks and fans of the brand like myself disappointed. Kevin's comment: "You’re a Starbucks, so why all the cloak and dagger with trying to be an indy. I’d have more respect if you just came out and branded it with the old logo. Focus on the core, the coffee. Seriously as a shareholder this store and move is a disappointment."



*"Perfect Shot" is an actual term that was once used in training materials and in my opinion one of the small things that instilled a sense of pride in employees).

Note worthy

I think the clay notebook carving Sumerians would be pretty excited to see the impressive evolution of writing utensils. I ran across two examples just today.

The first innovation, called the BookMarker, is fairly simple and low tech but still very useful (so long as we're still reading paper books). It was designed by a former engineer at IDEO. It's a simple concept and I like it.

The second one is more high tech and super cool. The product is called the Pulse Smartpen from a tech startup based in Oakland, CA. It essentially digitizes what you write and hear, perfect for college students taking notes during lectures.

Yep, I still post to this blog

I wonder how may blogs out there have posts with the same or a similar title...

An apology is in order for all of my faithful readers (Kelly) who have been starved of my musings as of late. So very sorry. The thing is I've started a new position at work, Information Architect, and it's been sucking quite a bit of my brain power. It's been on my mind so much, in fact, that just a few moments ago I saw a woman wearing a t-shirt that said "Mentor. Team in Training" on the back. It was a stacked layout where "Mentor" was on top of "Team in Training". Kind of a weird flow. There are probably other members of the team had shirts that said things like "Runner. Team in Training". All I could think when I saw this was, they could have benefited from making a wireframe for that t-shirt template. And there you go, my mind has officially been taken over by my new role. My hope is to regain balance soon and start posting more often.

The devil is in the details

If that's true, then I guess I'm a devil lover because I love great details in design. Like this chair from Thonet. A simple, little detail makes this chair super interesting and special. While this is a pretty obvious detail, I tend to love the more subtle ones too. Like purse or jacket linings. I swear I'll buy a purse based entirely on a cool lining design. I think as more consumers have higher expectations and respect for good design, we'll see more of these fun details. Or at least I hope we do.

Walgreens needs to re-brand

A frequent topic of conversation amongst the branding nerd herd is brands we'd love to work on. Typically a bunch of sexy brands - like Apple and Mini are noted - but for me, it's Walgreens. I started thinking about Walgreens a lot after moving to San Francisco where, unlike in Minneapolis, making a "Target run" isn't an easy task- especially when you're car-less, like me. Running to Walgreens, however is simple. I find that I'm rarely more than 5 blocks from a Walgreens store at any given spot in the city.

It occurred to me that while my shopping objectives for both stores are typically very similar, my experiences (and total at the checkout) are very different. Even when I walk into Target, armed with a shopping list with 5 items on it, I generally walk out with anywhere from 7 to 10 items. If my Walgreens list is 5 items long, chances are good I walk out with exactly 5 items. Herein lies the opportunity for Walgreens.

Initially, I thought that maybe the need 5, buy 10 vs. need 5, buy 5 situation was simply the result of Target offering more items that I'm interested in. Then I started thinking about my in-store experience and concluded that Target offers a more enjoyable retail environment thus making it more likely for me to stroll around the store and pick up "just a few more things". So Target wins in selection and environment, but they lose in convenience. The opportunity that I see is for Walgreens to leverage their convenience and simply take the time to up their selection and environment game and potentially get closer to the 5:10 ratio that Target enjoys. Ultimately, Walgreens needs to re-brand themselves from the top down.

The future Walgreens is less corner pharmacy and more Target-lite. This approach feels appropriate especially given the fact that so many Walgreens are smack dab in the middle of urban areas. Oh, and let's not forget that in this current economy consumers are looking to brands that they know and trust, something I have to imagine is true of Walgreens. I think Walgreens is primed to take advantage of their position and take a bite out of Target, Walmart and if they play their cards right, maybe even stores like Macy's and Kohl's. And if they don't seize this moment, I suggest Target start thinking about a plan for their brand extension into an urban store... Target Express??

Strategy is the only timeless agency offering

Last week an art director friend of mine were talking about the future of advertising agencies. Specifically, we were discussing how things like crowdsourcing via sites like crowdSPRING.com (an online marketplace for creative services) and the offering from the SF based tech startup Sprout (a platform that gives the average Joe the ability create his own flash pieces, such as banner ads and websites) are dramatically changing the client/agency relationship. And by changing the client/agency relationship, I mean potentially eliminating the need for agencies at all. crowdSPRING is a more dramatic game changer as its model essentially bypasses the need for an agency organization altogether where Sprout makes less of an impact since it’s really just a platform that creatives may actually use within an agency.

Ultimately, as creative becomes more accessible and less of an exclusive agency offering, agencies will need to prove their worth in other ways. I offered that the greatest value that an agency can provide, one that remains an exclusive offering, is brand strategy. Sure, sure maybe I’m biased. But it’s the one missing element in this DIY creative model. There’s great creative available on crowdSPRING, but what drove that creative? Creative for creativity’s sake is simply art. Only when the creative is rooted in consumer insights does it become persuasive communication, i.e. Advertising.

Coincidentally, these very sentiments were echoed in a recent article on AdWeek.com. Regarding agency payment structure, the article states “there might be a new emphasis on strategic insights versus time sheets and production costs.” And on creative, Michael Lebowitz, CEO of Big Spaceship adds, "the bells and whistles for bells and whistles sake feels very Web 1.0."

In my opinion this is great news for strategists. And frankly in today’s climate of agency closures and hiring freezes, some good news is quite welcomed.