The Finch Post

Penn State in Philadelphia?

An energetic ad campaign for something called ‘Penn State in Philly’ received heavy run during March Madness (alas, more than the University’s perpetually disappointing men’s basketball team). This is a smart strategic move and, based on our experience, an extraordinary organizational achievement.

Penn State consists of 24 campuses across the Commonwealth. There is no physical Penn State undergraduate campus in the City of Philadelphia – the largest campus is several hours northwest of here. This campaign is actually a joint effort of several smaller, suburban campuses – including Great Valley, Brandywine and Abington.   

This initiative makes sense for a host of reasons, including:

• Despite some unwelcome recent headlines, Penn State casts a large shadow in this region – with engaged and successful alumni dotting the landscape. Promoting the idea of strength in Philadelphia can effectively galvanize key audiences, especially prospective students and eager alums, to explore and support the institution.

• It helps to defuse the perceptual issues faced by many state universities – that of a ‘main campus’ of high quality with a host of smaller satellite campuses of lesser appeal. In such a college-rich region, Penn State is missing an opportunity to acquire students who want to or must stay local if the perception is that only secondary (read: lower quality) campuses are nearby. Combining the marketing face of regional campuses conveys strength and focus.

• Prospective students and other key constituencies are seeking something to hold onto and buy into. To be able to say that the Penn State passion and excellence can be accessed in one’s backyard is far more emotionally powerful than these smaller campuses using their limited marketing resources to differentiate from one another (and all the other options).

In addition to the strategic merit of this approach, we can just imagine what it took to persuade campuses with stretched budgets and individual accountabilities to pool resources in this way. Our experience suggests that such campuses consider themselves (hopefully friendly) competitors on some level and this degree of coordination is obviously smart but exceedingly rare.

Simply look at the alphabet soup of regional economic development and tourism marketing agencies that may tentatively collaborate on some things but advance heterogeneous marketing campaigns (with reduced effectiveness thereby). Why would anybody look to build a brand by seeing the world through the eyes of the market when there are fiefdoms to protect and budgets to defend?

So kudos to Penn State in Philadelphia – the strategy is progressive, the creative approach is solid and the degree of organizational collaboration is (uniquely) enlightened. Now if they can only get the men’s basketball team on track… 

The Truth about Rebranding

The concept of "rebranding" has become popular in a broader context than just the corporate world – in just the last several weeks, we have heard "rebranding" mentioned in connection with topics as diverse as the Republican Party, the NFL (on issues of violence), women in the workplace and the entire public education system.

Our sense is that the above uses of the word are meant to suggest a need to reframe existing ideas so these organizations or issues are better perceived by those who matter – voters, fans, etc. While these uses of "rebranding" are not necessarily wrong, our experience suggests that the broader the discussion of a concept, the less precise its meaning.

So let’s reorient our thinking around "rebranding" – what it is, why organizations do it and key considerations as one approaches such a project. At its most basic, "rebranding" is when an existing organization adopts a new brand approach (visual, conceptual or both).

There are three different types of rebranding:

• Cosmetic rebranding – when a new or evolved visual vocabulary is created to modernize the look and feel of a brand. Think of the recent American Airlines work or the many logos Pepsi has had through the years. The goal is generally to update the brand look, to provide a jolt of positive energy (for the team as well as the market) and/or to herald a particular milestone (in American’s case, preparing to yet again emerge from Chapter 11 and merge with USAirways).

• Strategic rebranding – when the core idea, function, status or business model of a company is changing and the brand needs to reflect this. Think about all that Domino’s Pizza has done in the past several years or where JC Penney currently is – two enduring brands seeking to reinvent themselves not just in how they communicate, but how they operate. Importantly, many strategic rebranding projects also include cosmetic rebranding (as with JCP) – but it goes much deeper than just look and feel. 

• "Newbranding" – the most stark of the three types, this is when a company goes through a strategic and cosmetic rebranding but also determines that an entirely new face and name of the company is required. This is generally done in situations where the marketplace is rapidly changing, there is strong negativity associated with the current brand or there is major new opportunity that the current framework doesn’t accommodate. Think of Bell Atlantic and GTE becoming Verizon or American Express Financial Advisors becoming Ameriprise Financial.

Now that we have internalized the types of rebranding, here are the top 3 things to consider when approaching a rebranding project:

1. Determine which type is required

The first step in thinking through rebranding is to determine which type of rebranding is required. The answer springs from the reasons why a company is considering this critical (and potentially expensive) step. Our experience suggests that most companies opt for cosmetic rebranding while many more need strategic rebranding – an updated logo or ad campaign will never fully address challenges that spring from a deeper set of needs.

2. The team is just as important as the external audience

Rebranding provides a great opportunity to reintroduce a company to its customers and prospects. Yet it is also a key moment to re-enroll the full team in the company’s purpose, assert brand consistency and tighten up the ways in which the organization communicates with one another as well as the outside world. An email from the CEO or a t-shirt with the new logo is not enough – the internal rebrand launch plan is absolutely critical, and we find that companies spend a small fraction of time on this compared to external marketing.

3. Consensus is important, but so is leadership

It makes sense to welcome a broad group of stakeholders into a rebranding process – via interviews, surveys, etc. This helps ensure insight is shared and that these audiences are invested in the process and outcome. Yet when it comes to the work itself, we recommend that small teams be empowered to drive the process. Rebranding (and all branding) is about simplicity and clarity and it is easy to detect an output that has been watered down by the compromise culture of committee consensus-building.

Rebranding is a rare, important process that should be done right or not at all. The investment of time, emotion and resources earns for a company a truly "newsworthy" moment and the right to tell a story to an engaged audience. Such a moment is not to be squandered.

Samsung Pulls a Jim Harbaugh

Facing a deep deficit and seeking a comeback, the team found a winning formula and used it to make up considerable ground in a hurry. This approach was gutsy, physical and breathtaking and led them down the field to the brink of victory – and then an unexplained and inconceivable tactical shift led the team, who seemed to forget how it got there, to ultimate defeat.

The above sounds like Jim Harbaugh’s 49’ers this past Sunday, who came from 22 points down only to fail on a promising final drive. Eschewing what got them to the Super Bowl and back in the game, the run-pass athleticism of Colin Kaepernick, the Niners inexplicably called one unimaginative running play and three drop back passes on that fateful final drive.

But let’s leave that analysis to sports talk radio. We’re really referring to Samsung, whose Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets hit its stride against Apple in recent months via an in-your-face creative campaign that openly mocked the iCult. With the strength of that campaign leading Samsung down the field, their choice of creative during the Big Game was equally inexplicable.  

At its very heart, Samsung chose not to execute their strategy but to make a Super Bowl spot. Celebrities, snarky dialogue, laugh lines but no enduring statement – all at the expense of actually delivering the formula that breathed life into Galaxy. But hey, Paul Rudd’s hair looked great!

The inspiration for “The Next Big Thing Is Already Here,” the predictably overdone iPhone 5 lead up and launch, played perfectly into two of Galaxy’s truths – (1) that Galaxy has some really cool features that are superior to iPhone’s, and that (2) Apple is becoming a caricature of itself, standing far less these days for individuality than for a scruffy version of the conformity the company is supposed to stand against.

Perhaps the best thing we can say for the Galaxy campaign so far (as well as the recent Windows Phone spots with Jessica Alba and Gwen Stefani) is that the glitterati will, for a check, endorse a phone other than the iPhone. That cultural arbiters such as LeBron James are on board with Samsung means something – but in branding as in sports, you find a formula that works and keep doing it.

Both Samsung and Jim Harbaugh failed to follow that enduring principle.

On the Hinge of History - Coca-Cola Begins to Fight Back

This week, two cherished American brands – Coca-Cola and Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong – began to face up to perhaps their biggest challenges. They come from different places, are constituted differently and have different roads ahead. But make no mistake – both face mortal threats and both have chosen to act.

In some ways, both brands fall on “the wrong side of history” and are threatened by changing tastes, habits, regulatory constructs and the vagaries of public opinion. Consider Coca-Cola – one of the world’s most powerful brands and a company that has tried to stay one step ahead of consumer shifts and one step removed from the public policy arena. 

As fitness and weight management became more important to Americans, Coke launched a diet version, bottled water (Dasani) and other portfolio brands to better serve the diverse consumer and their changing tastes. As child obesity became an even greater issue in this country, Coke essentially unilaterally disarmed in the very profitable schools channel at peril to its business (but perhaps to the ultimate protection of its brand).

But one can only go so far to accommodate – with the writing on the wall in the form of sugary drink regulations and other punitive measures that threaten to treat soft drink manufacturers like a more evil version of tobacco companies, the time came to (softly) begin a counter-offensive.

This week, Coke debuted a remarkably honest ad campaign that overtly acknowledges the role of sugary drinks (among other factors) in obesity. The brand took some credit for self-regulation and let the public know it is not ducking the issue. Predictably, the critics howled – claiming that it’s transparent “damage control” and “how dare they” not simply self-flagellate and close up shop.

But like Walmart who, sick of being a punching bag, had the gall to finally point out how many people it employs and how many of its customers live better lives because of the low prices offered in its stores, Coke showed it will fight for its business in public rather than let its lobbyists do the talking or completely shift the focus to growth opportunities abroad and non-core lines.

Since Walmart entered the fray in its own defense, it has fought its critics to a standstill – generally succeeding in fending off outside union pressures, zoning boards, regulators and rabble rousers in general.  

Coke’s soft but clear pushback has the potential to galvanize a more libertarian side of the public health/free choice debate that feels Coke isn’t being treated all that fairly. While Nanny Bloomberg certainly knows best for all of us, it remains to be seen if Coke’s narrative – of a responsible and even progressive corporation selling a legal product to consumers with free will – can stem the tide that looks to be rolling inexorably toward more regulation. 

Coca-Cola is certainly not alone. As American tastes change and as the pendulum shifts toward more regulation for the sake of the public good, fast food restaurants, video game manufacturers, gun companies, record labels, movie/TV studios and many other legal businesses will face increased scrutiny in legislative bodies and the court of public opinion.

Coke has given these companies a worthwhile lesson this week – accommodate where possible, engage when productive, fight when necessary.

Of Seals and Cynicism

 

The overdue redesign of Good Housekeeping is a standard case of modernizing a brand to maintain or reassert relevance. The whats and whys of this are very simple and better left for less probing and provocative spaces than this. Who knew that younger women might not be compelled by the word "housekeeping" in a magazine title?! Spoiler alert – it’s still there, but with a more modern font treatment. Behold and rejoice.

In any case, the far more interesting aspect of the GH story is the future of its "seal." This blog has previously discussed what we feel is an unprecedented level of cynicism in the consumer market today – the general population has always been discriminating, but the level of outright distrust of corporate marketing and other institutions has not reached this level in the 20 years we have been in the branding business.

There are a number of reasons for this – as disparate as the housing market meltdown, the NBA ref scandal, the Netflix price increase, the BP oil spill and hundreds more, including this week's collective gasp at the news Instagram is going to sell our photos (it isn’t). What these data points amount to is a tapestry of disconnection, with the marketplace seeking yet not generally finding voices to trust and believe in.

It used to be that consumers routinely rated "friends and family word of mouth" as the most important factor in opinion formation in our brand research surveys – no surprise. But now they rate consumer review sites and other extended word of mouth so much higher than anything "institutional" that it makes us wonder if everything is coming apart.

For consumers to trust an anonymous comment on the 26th page of reviews in the bowels of the Amazon.com ratings section more than corporate marketing may make some sense – but more than genuinely independent publications such as Consumer Reports? More than professionally compiled ratings? More than just about anything that comes from a company or institution? You can keep your JD Powers, Pulitzers and Nobels – I want to see what they’re saying on Yelp!

For the record, we are not scoffing, just noticing. There is enough well-placed mistrust of the media and other ratings organizations that it’s time they lay in the beds they made for themselves. Yet it leaves a vacuum of authority that is not easily (and really should be) filled. We will be writing more about what brands need to do to surmount this (and we work on it every day), but suffice it to say that they must.

Which brings us to the past and potential of the Good Housekeeping seal. The company’s data (of course) suggests that consumers still lionize its imprimatur. While that may be true, I’d bet if we asked 100 consumers if the seal could be bought (or is more easily bestowed on prospective advertisers), we would receive an overwhelmingly affirmative answer from the marketplace of conspiracy theorists that we consumers have become.

Whatever the general erosion of trust, the seal still has an opportunity to play an important role in giving structure to the (somewhat enjoyable) marketplace chaos. Good Housekeeping was right to redesign, but they should also better define what the seal means and how it is achieved and bestowed. And their plan to renew its meaning and influence is far more interesting than their plan to promote subscription renewals of its publication.

While management won’t agree, the marketplace needs far more an independent, trusted voice than it does another (even better-looking and easier reading) women’s magazine.

Lincoln and American Luxury

Ford Motor Company’s relaunch of its luxury Lincoln brand involves checking all the right boxes – including re-branding the “company” to perceptually separate it from Ford, a new look/feel/message and campaign, dealer-level education and communications for the luxury consumer, etc.

But in such an emotional and textured category, this will never be a brand management 101 exercise. The question of how well it will work will come down to a host of factors including the vehicles themselves as well as macroeconomic conditions impacting the consumer market.

One additional – and we think dominant – consideration is how willing the American consumer is to buy into American-made luxury in the automotive category. As quality concerns and financial/labor issues stifled the “Big 3” US automakers throughout the 1990s and last decade, American car companies earned a shrinking share of the luxury vehicle market.

At the end of 2011, this rolled up market share is just around 25% – and lower if we remove certain popular SUV models in the marketplace under the Cadillac and Buick brand names. German and Japanese automakers earned a far larger piece and marketing efforts reflect this leadership – witness Audi’s aggressive positioning against its fellow German brands BMW and Mercedes-Benz.  

Country of origin plays a lot of different ways in consumer markets, and there are several reasons why we feel Lincoln may face a challenge greater than Lincoln itself:

• In many consumer categories, being made in America is a detriment at the upper end of the price register. From timepieces to fashion to some classes of electronics and appliances, imported brands have greater associations with technology, quality and style – while American offerings tend to fall more into the hardworking, value range. This has certainly been the case in automotive.

• The rebirth of the American auto industry has largely been accomplished via moderately priced, fuel-efficient small cars as well as continued strength in trucks and SUVs. While Cadillac, in particular, has modernized its image, it has been quite a while since an American automaker has made a major successful play in the luxury sedan space. In this vacuum, consumers have learned to look beyond our shores to build brand loyalty.

• The import brands that have emerged – a mix of established players in a modern package (BMW, MB) and luxury upstarts (Lexus, Infiniti, Acura) – represent a formidable competitive set that have already largely repelled well-financed competitors such as Saab (owned by GM from 2000-10) and Jaguar (owned by Ford from 1989-2008).

• With BMW plants across the southern United States and Chrysler’s Italian ownership (just two examples), the foreign v. domestic argument does not pack the punch it formerly did for those who place a high premium on “economic patriotism.” Further, this is a slice of the category in which such attitudes have not been prevalent except among the WWII generation.  

These conditions and others suggest that Lincoln not only has to make itself relevant again, but do so while facing the headwinds that challenge purveyors of American luxury. Perhaps, in these categories, it is not Lincoln that needs rebranding, but America itself.

Walmart Pushes the Boundaries of Taste

Walmart has launched a food subscription service called “Goodies.” For a monthly fee of $7, customers will receive 5-8 samples, ranging from organic to ethnic products not currently carried on Walmart's shelves. If customers like the products, they can purchase full-size versions online.

This is a fascinating strategic initiative for the world’s leading retailer/grocer to undertake. The product selection and value proposition is distinctly un-Walmart – and it would be outside of their traditional strategy to see this as just a nice little standalone business that could be profitable but not of game-changing scale. So what is the point?

• Could it be to step a toe into specialty foods in advance of something larger in store? Walmart’s traditional value proposition has been known brands at low prices, yet other retailers such as Wegman’s and Whole Foods have built profitable businesses going beyond staple items. So one can see this as an attempt to use Goodies as a testing ground for a more specialized offering while minimizing downside and not interrupting their carefully calibrated planogram.

• Could it be to evolve the understanding of the brand in non-traditional customer segments? Walmart has tended not to be the choice of the affluent or adventurous shopper, but one can see how other brands with a strong value appeal (such as Costco and Target) have been able to build some caché while still comfortably appealing to value-conscious consumers. Goodies could be a precursor to an evolution of the Walmart brand image away from price as the leading driver or, more likely, to assert uniqueness alongside value.

• Could it be a nascent effort to cultivate a new model? It is significant that @WalmartLabs, an innovation arm based in the Silicon Valley rather than the corporate HQ in Bentonville, AR, is behind this initiative. Other startups (Birchbox, Love with Food) have initiated gourmet food subscriptions, and this may be a test to see if they are onto something.

So will it work? Success has a very different meaning for Walmart due to its scale, and if Goodies simply becomes an effective way to vet products the retailer may offer in store or online, there is value in that. It is unlikely that Goodies will ever grow to become a meaningful profit contributor for Walmart, but it does offer the company some valuable proof-of-concept opportunities. It also may enroll consumers in the first stage of a relationship with the retailer, which could lead to greater utilization of Walmart.com (versus, say, Amazon) for staple goods.

Our major question is whether or not the Walmart brand has the potential to benefit. While Goodies certainly won’t hurt, we are skeptical that it can do much to help in the short or mid-term. An almost irrational opposition to Walmart runs deep among those who feel the retailer has crowded out local businesses, that it underpays its employees and squeezes its vendors. We believe this springs from more of a commercial elitism than anything else and Walmart PR has effectively pushed back against those who have protested new store openings for various reasons. Its vision – “to save people money so they can live better” – is an effective antidote to those capricious criticisms.

Yet if Walmart is seeking to reframe the brand in the eyes of a more sophisticated consumer or hoping to summon the gourmet that lives inside its current customer, Goodies would only be one step in what would require a long march. It is unlikely that a non-Walmart consumer who is compelled by Goodies would see this initiative as reason to visit the store any more than they have in the past or for it to lead to a full-scale reevaluation of the Walmart brand as a fit for them.

Target became “Tar-zhay” largely due to major investments in making home accessories and apparel appealing via exclusive deals with name designers and a product mix offering affordable “luxury.” Costco brought in major electronics, wine and furniture brands to give the assortment and environment a differentiated kick within a quantity club model. Most importantly, these initiatives provided a “permission slip” for the type of consumer who needs one to shop at Target/Costco and to believe it aligns with their taste level. And this certainly did not happen overnight.

The New Philadelphia Daily News

 

We seldom use this blog to toot Finch Brands’ horn, but today is an exception. This morning saw the debut of a redesigned Philadelphia Daily News, a project that has challenged and excited everyone in this company. It has been a privilege and a thrill to work through the brand strategy and redesign with our clients at Interstate General Media. 

The Daily News has always been Philadelphia’s heartbeat, an unapologetic daily dose of the issues, personalities and passions that animate our city. From our neighborhoods to the halls of government to our sports venues to key topics in our lives, the Daily News covers what Philadelphians care about, all with the attitude that makes this city unique.

This work is – and has to be – part of a larger strategy. The headwinds facing the newspaper business are too great for us to think a redesign, no matter how compelling, is going to reverse decades of circulation and advertising erosion. In today’s world, the challenge is not to churn out a daily newspaper – but to create content that, regardless of channel, has enough value that people will pay to access it or be seen in it.

That larger strategy will feature digital approaches that are focused on making the Daily News easy to access and in step with the lifestyle of its prospective readers – whether they prefer a tablet, smartphone, good ol’ newsprint or a combination.

Due to an urgent need to react to changing newspaper dimensions (more square) driven by the web conversion, we started with the print redesign. Major principles include:

• Making the cover “flag” (the Daily News logo) cleaner, more contemporary and more urgent (via the centered date) for the newsstand consumer
• Introducing a new navigational structure inside the paper, which enables the reader to know better where s/he is and how to get around – where possible, sections will be color-coded for easy reference and a simple transition from the print version to web navigation
• New features on the front cover – including “at a glance” weather – to quickly get the reader engaged and pass along important information
• A new look and feel to the “touts,” the cover blurbs promoting inside stories, so that they read and stack better
• Overall, a look and feel that is magazine and Internet-inspired, but works for the dedicated newspaper reader; Also, a Daily News in touch with its heritage but seeking new energy

The redesign will be fleshed out more in the days to come as the Daily News institutes a host of content/editorial changes to make the paper more relevant for its largely Philadelphia neighborhood-based readership.

It is our belief that media companies – despite the force of the challenges they face – can stabilize and grow if the content is worthwhile and well delivered across channels.

We also believe that, at this late hour, tinkering around the edges is tantamount to gracefully managing an inevitable decline.

These times call for bold yet responsible ideas – which we have worked with the Philadelphia Daily News to deliver in this first phase of brand revitalization.

Stay tuned – there are, and absolutely must be, more exciting things to come. 

High Times - The 'What If' Business Model

 

Colorado and Washington voters yesterday passed referenda to legalize marijuana and essentially treat it the same as alcohol (controlled, taxed, etc.). While these states still need to work some things out – including how to reconcile this with Federal law – the profusion of medical marijuana dispensaries and a generational shift towards more permissive attitudes means a strong likelihood that there will soon be a much larger legal marijuana industry in America.

What makes this an interesting business issue is that there are very few recent examples of consumer industries shifting from illegal to legal. The more widespread legalization of gambling is one relevant case, but it has been more of an extension (from the longtime bases in Nevada and Atlantic City) into new geographies and has largely been overseen by experienced operators and limited to fixed facilities that can be easily regulated.

So what we may have with marijuana is the near unprecedented situation of a nascent industry with mega-billion dollar potential coming from the darkness into the light – yet still facing a heavy societal stigma in certain circles.

The key questions – fascinating to consider – include:

1. How would the market form?

Looking at the somewhat similar alcohol and tobacco markets, we see dominant, vertically integrated major players who have built a full production capability and supply chain. Given the public’s polarized point of view on this issue, but also the demand opportunity and need for scale, who would we expect to jump in?

Would the concern about brand dilution and loss of goodwill deter big companies from seizing this new market opportunity? Would smaller and less sophisticated suppliers be able to master the supply chain as well as demonstrate enough quality control to please regulators and consumers?

Beer, wine and spirits are complicated categories comprised of large market players and geographically focused craft or micro-brewers. Would we eventually see this in marijuana, with mass, value and premium tiers?

2. What would be the prevailing brand image approach?

Marijuana has been treated in popular culture almost whimsically in recent years, with an emphasis on the attitudes of the user. How would marijuana brands – with a wide open playing field – choose to create their personalities, looks/feels, etc.? How would they segment and target high potential consumer groups?

If you look again at the "adjacent" alcohol and tobacco industries, you see very clear and differentiated brand images – even with the regulations affecting tobacco companies. Marlboro stands for American independence. Newport evokes urban cool. More accepted and heavily advertised are beer brands also having clear images among major and boutique players. So how would brand builders approach marijuana?

3. Beyond image, how are product lines and sub-brands built and differentiated?

Consumer categories invest billions of dollars in nurturing brand and product differences based on innumerable factors – just looking at major beer brands, we see full flavor and "light" options, different colors, flavors/rituals such as lime and many other modes of product differentiation.

What would be the major points of differentiation in marijuana? One could easily envision potency, place of origin, flavor, light/full and many other dimensional attributes as enabling brand developers to make unique product statements.

Whatever one’s opinion, helping this category (and its users) take flight would be fascinating for business and brand builders – an undisturbed but massive landscape filled with opportunity and risk. There are very few such categories in American business – so we’ll be watching.

 

A New Era of Honesty in Advertising?

 

There are plenty of reference points – generally humorous – about truth in advertising and what happens when communications are stripped of their high production values and agency wizardry. From Crazy People’s memorable ad ideas (“they’re boxy but they’re good” for Volvo) to this recent Conan O’Brien sketch upon the launch of the iPad Mini, the conventional wisdom seems to be that advertising that is direct and honest will look and feel very different than most of what we see today.

But while we’re laughing along at these extreme examples, our consumer research and some high profile initiatives suggest that brand developers and agencies should be thinking about a more direct approach – now more than ever.

There are periodic critical junctures when consumer attitudes dictate that brands respond. When the concern about female body image reached a crescendo and it was clear the fashion world and Madison Avenue were not changing on their own, Dove launched its “Campaign for Real Beauty” in 2004. What was courageous then has become more conventional now, as major consumer brands now test the relatability of their models and tread very carefully. 

We may be nearing just such a juncture when it comes to directness in advertising. What we are hearing from consumers, across categories and with far greater fervor than in the past, is that consumers do not trust big _____ (insert “banks,” “box stores,” “companies,” “brands,” etc.). They do not want to be romanced or “sold,” they pride themselves on making their own decisions and they much more greatly respond to the few brands that communicate with them openly and honestly.

One specific example is the most recent Domino’s Pizza campaign – which is supported by real change to the business and product. Their “Oh Yes We Did” approach held within it an almost explicit admission that the company had gone adrift and needed to do better.

It featured close shots with the CEO at the center asking the marketplace for another chance and talking about the many ways the company has sought to earn a second look and reestablish trust. The frankness of this admission and willingness of the market to retry a once cherished brand has earned the company a 20% increase in its stock price in 2012, with a resumption of growth and much higher earnings.

While this campaign came from an established agency, was produced expertly and represented a brand that’s not exactly been an underdog historically, we believe consumers responded to the honesty and uncharacteristic vulnerability the Domino’s brand felt comfortable revealing.

Simple and direct are always strong principles to live by in brand development, but we are advising our clients that now may be a unique moment to be heard by taking a notably direct and honest approach to communications. There are leading indicators that this is the level on which skeptical consumers want to deal with brands and the more grandiose the message, the less it is believed.