P&G Grabs for Gold; BP Delivers Another Natural Disaster

With every passing day, the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics draws nearer, and my fear of what awkward and embarrassing moments of NBC’s Today Show coverage we will have to endure, grows.

My eyeballs are still burning from these 2010 gems:

No one, repeat – NO ONE – should have to see Al Roker in a spandex suit.  Given this is the summer Olympics, the threat of Al & Matt in Speedos is more real and scary than any terrorist activity.

Clearly, there have been “hits” and “misses” when it comes to Olympic coverage.  The same can be said for marketing.  The IOC has taken great pains to protect “official” sponsors and increase the value of their efforts.  The organization took a hard stance on “ambush” marketing to try to prevent non-official sponsors from budging in on the fanfare and notoriety of the games.  They also initiated a “blackout” which forbids athletes from just about any contact with, or communication about, brands that are not official sponsors.

Still, whether marketers achieve gold, or fail to reach the medal ceremony, is determined by their own efforts and execution.  Does the Olympic tie-in make sense for the brand?  Does it resonate with consumers?

Two examples illustrate my point – one reaches Gold, while the other falls short of the podium.

Check out this one from P & G:

And this one from BP:

What is interesting about these two examples is the one which has the most obvious potential - BP fueling Olympic athletes - is the one which falls flat.  Why? Because BP focuses too much on itself and loses sight of the customer.  In Marketing 101 classes we call this MARKETING MYOPIA because it is a dangerous form of nearsightedness many brands fall prey to.

The P & G ad, on the other hand, performs much stronger. It constantly keeps the consumer - P & G's consumer - in its sight.  P & G knows exactly who it is targeting, what this target cares about, and through years of research, has figured out how to talk to her.  What better way to resonate with Moms than through her kids?  In a sense, Moms are more relevant a "fuel" to Olympic athletes than BP is, so the ad rings true as it tugs on our heartstrings.  Add to that the universal values of Motherhood, and P & G grabs gold on a global level, appealing to consumers around the world. 

The deluge of Olympic marketing has barely begun, but I am sure that, as with the competition itself, it will provide both moments of glory and defeat.  Join the anticipated 8 billion devices connected to the games via the IOC's Athlete's Hub.  Have fun with the games - and keep an eye out for great (and not so great) marketing! 

The Plight of the Immigrant – Fiat Gets Lost Coming to America…

BrandChannel recently published an article on Fiat’s new positioning strategy and advertising campaign.  It seems like the complexities of the automobile industry have given the marketer a bit of an identity crisis – it can’t seem to decide whether it is “imported from Detroit” or from Italy.

Back in the day when Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy – in 2009 to be exact – Italian car maker Fiat, along with the U.S. government stepped in to take ownership and save the day.  It was under Fiat’s watch that Chrysler launched its “Imported from Detroit” campaign, in grand fashion at the 2011 Super Bowl.

Today, Fiat is once again appealing to the “roots” of its cars.  This time the Italian roots of its flagship Fiat brand.

What Fiat is banking on – whether through its Chrysler division or flagship brand – is that the old school theory of the “country of origin effect” (COE) still resonates in the new school automobile market of 2012.  Back in the day – especially the 1970’s and 1980’s – brands could play on our national pride and encourage us to “Buy American” when Japanese carmakers started to make serious inroads in our domestic market.  The economy was good.  The patriotic appeal worked.

2012 is a whole new animal.  The economy is slumping – longer and harder than any economist expected.  The number of unemployed remains shockingly high, and new jobs are being created, but at a snail’s pace.  Given this reality – does country of origin even matter anymore?  Given that American manufacturers GM & Ford topped the list for market share of cars and light trucks in America in 2011, it is hard to tell.  Japanese car maker Toyota ranked 3^rd. 

Still, is buying dependent on the nationality of the brand, or some other factor that provides value on a more personal level? 

While nationality is something that is intangible and subjective, Fiat has a very compelling point of difference – that of size – which can be leveraged in the market place.  I don’t understand why the brand isn’t capitalizing on this.   Plunkett’s Industry Research confirms that car buyers are looking for smaller, more fuel efficient cars that save them money at the gas pump.  Add to that benefits of eco-friendly (less gas, less emission) and greater “park-ability,” and Fiat would have something far more concrete and valuable upon which to hitch its star.

Granted, the new spot is playful, and fun to watch.  But are American's really looking for a car that has "come to party?"  

The old joke, which questioned the quality of Fiat, was that the brand name was actually an acronym – FIAT – standing for “Fix It Again, Tony.” It seems like Tony should go back to the drawing board with his MARCOM strategy, and fix it, again…

Going Yard, or Striking Out? MLB All-Star Sponsorships Fail to get On Base

July 9^th and 10^th are big days for Major League Baseball.  Monday’s Home Run Derby is followed by Tuesday’s All Star Game.  Both amount to big opportunities for brands to connect with fans, on common ground – the shared love of Baseball and the players who make the game great. 

According to a BrandChannel report, State Farm Insurance and Chevrolet are two key brands sponsoring different aspects of the festivities.  State Farm is sponsoring the Derby, while Chevrolet is bringing a fleet of its cars and trucks to the game itself.  Firestone got in on the action too, sponsoring the final “fan Twitter vote” that elected the final players to the All-Star teams. 

Swinging for the Bleachers

Whether marketers or players, any time you swing for the bleachers you can connect for the big hit, or come up empty – the dreaded “whiff”  of the swing and miss.  The 2011 Home Run Derby, for instance, captured just shy of 6.7 million viewers, while the All Star Game itself pulled in the lowest ratings, EVER, averaging about 11 million viewers.  Ratings, however, show the complexity of sports marketing – even with these low ratings last year, the game still drew a larger audience than other anticipated sporting events, such as the Kentucky Derby, NCAA tournament, and the US Open. 

Regardless of audience – which in this case can be consider at best “uncertain” for the sponsors, given the viewership of the derby and game last year – relevancy to the brand and targeted consumer is perhaps more important for a sponsorship.  There’s got to be a fit between all three pieces – the brand, the event, and the target market.

Striking Out

Looking at State Farm’s sponsorship of the Derby specifically, I’m sensing a strike out.  What is the relevancy to the brand?  Chevrolet, perhaps, could get more mileage out of that specific sponsorship – the derby, not just the game generally – capitalizing on the power needed to hit a home run and the power under the hoods of Chevy cars and trucks.

Making an Adjustment

Just as batters who are slumping need to spend time in the batting cage and make adjustments, so too do marketers.  State Farm would do better if it were more creative, looking for ways to incorporate its brand into the game in a way that is relevant to its key benefit to consumers.  Insurance is all about protection.  How about sponsoring a “replay” of plays on the bases, specifically at home plate?  The catcher’s job is to protect the plate, just as State Farm’s job is to protect its clients.  How awesome would that sponsorship be in terms of highlighting the key benefit to consumers and resonating the brand’s value?