Archive for Brand Watch
Culturematic II: Gatorade’s Replay
Posted by: | Comments
On November 25, 1993, two high school football teams played to a tie.
Not the worst thing in the world, perhaps. But it happened in small town America where football can matter extraordinarily. And it happened to two teams have a 100 year rivalry described by Sports Illustrated as one of the most intense in the country.
And a tie, as they say in American sports, is a little like kissing your sister. The world is made symmetrical when the point of sports (and Western cultures) is to produce events, outcomes and asymmetries. Ties erase the event. It’s as if nothing ever happened.
Someone at Gatorade had a great idea. What if, 15 years later, the teams of Easton and Phillipsburg were reassembled and the game replayed. Athletes now in their 30s got a second chance. So did the fans. Ten thousands tickets sold out in 90 minutes. And the rest of us go, "Really. How completely interesting."
This is an irresistible story line, isn’t it? But it’s not clear why, especially if you don’t really care about football, small towns, or the ignominy of a tie. It’s not because football greats, the Manning brothers, were brought in to help with the coaching. It’s just happens to be flat out, eye popping interesting.
And I think this makes it a classic culturematic. I’ve been thinking about this idea since writing about it several weeks ago. Little examples keep popping up. I couldn’t help noticing that the the book I referred to yesterday, The 100 mile diet, is completely culturematic. There are many reasons why the book resonated with our culture, but what made this fascinating reading was watching the authors solve an artificial problem: how to source all food from their immediate vicinity.
Gatorade’s Replay is still better. It creates an artificial event that intersects with a real world stand off. Replay reactivates men who are no longer in their physical prime, who will play honor more than heroism. We glimpse immediately that these men will have to be retrieved from wherever the biographic tide has taken them. The solidarity of the old days will have to be accomplished over all the differences that have sprung up in 15 years. You don’t have to be a culture creative to think, "hm, this is going to be dramatically juicy." We have all seen football heroics. There are only so many things that can happen. Replay gives us something vastly more authentic, where life and sport are truly going to share the field.
And what makes this culturematic is that all this grist and gusto comes from an entirely simple, mechanical premise: what if we brought these teams back together again? So much drama from so little pretext.
The brand is well compensated for its use of a culturematic. The Gatorade message: "It doesn’t matter how old you are. Eight to 80, you are always an athlete." Hey, presto. The brand names attaches to a story of great interest and power. Hey, presto, the brand gets to escape the gilded palace of professional sports and enter a domain that looks a lot more like life.
Acknowledgements
I owe my knowledge of the Gatorade project to Jason Oke and Gareth Kay and their fantastic presentation at Planningness 2009.
Jason was kind enough to give me the name of the creative team:
Advertising Agency: TWBA\Chiat\Day, USA
Global Director of Media Arts: Lee Clow
Executive Creative Director: Rob Schwartz
Group Creative Director: Jimmy Smith
Writer/Co-Creator: Brent Anderson
Writer/Co-Creator: Steve Howard
Replay Project & Series – Head Producer: Brian O’Rourke
Associate Producer: Tim Newfang
Director of Business Affairs: Linda Daubson
Business Affairs Manager: Anne Thomasson
Group Account Director: Brynn Bardacke
Management Supervisor: Jiah Choi
Account Supervisor: Amy Farias
Account Executive: Adam Bersin
Director: Kris Belman, Scott Balcerek
References
McCracken, Grant. 2009. Culturematic: a device for making culture in two easy steps. September 21. here.
Oke, Jason and Gareth Kay. 2009. Connections Planning 2009. Planningness 2009. San Francisco. October 17. [This deck is available on Slideshare here.]
For more on the Gatorade project, please go here.

Seinfeld, Gates, and Microsoft: brand rebuilding
Posted by: | CommentsThe new Microsoft ad featuring Seinfeld and Gates has arrived. People are using words like "dud," "misfire," and "bomb," but I thought the spot was brave and interesting.
More particularly, people are saying the spot is confusing. Russo of the LA Times says,
"many … viewers are leaving a trail of rancorous confusion all over the web. People are asking, nay, demanding to know what the minute-and-a-half spot is trying to convey.
Peter Collins offers this case in point:
I watched the commercial this morning online–I may be stupid but I just didn’t get it! What was the purpose. What did it have to do with selling computers. And Microsoft is supposed to be paying $300 million for this series ???????
Peter, I have bad news. Please sit down, and we can call your wife in from the waiting room, if you’d like, but you must listen to me very carefully. Your self diagnosis is exactly right.
The Microsoft spot has a clear task: to rebuild the Microsoft brand. It is using Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Gates and a particular situation to perform an act of meaning manufacture. We can say it is good meaning manufacture. We can say it is bad meaning manufacture. But we can’t be mystified a) that this ad exists, b) what it means to do, or c) what it has to do with "selling computers."
Microsoft has dug itself a very deep hole. It is seen to be smug, arrogant, monopolistic, and indifferent to consumer wishes. What was left of the brand after this misbehavior was pretty much finished off by those brilliant Mac vs. PC ads by TBWA\Media Arts Lab. So, hey, Microsoft had to do something.
What they did was call Crispin. I haven’t been persuaded by all the work of CPB. Some of the Burger King work seemed to suffer a Steve-O fascination with stunt marketing. But this spot is interesting.
Simplifying, we would say that Crispin’s job was to move the brand from the PC side to the Mac side of the TBWA\Media Arts campaign. So, what do you do? Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at Crispin as they ran through their options! Oh, to have taught this as a case as a bschool or dschool challenge! Me, left to my own devices, I got nowhere. I ran this experiment in my head when I heard that Crispin had been hired and eventually just threw my hands in the air. I couldn’t think of anything even remotely convincing. Microsoft seemed to me a little like a meteor so utterly wedged into the surface of a planet that you really don’t have much choice but to leave it there. But the new Microsoft spot actually manages extraction. The brand is not saved. It’s not repaired. But it is mobilized a little, and this is a Herculean accomplishment. This may not be a sufficient act of brand rescue. But it is a necessary first step.
Frankly, I didn’t think hiring Jerry Seinfeld would help. I mean, for all his centrality to our culture in the 90s, his star had faded, his moment passed. But here he is replaying Jerry from the TV series, that goofy guy who believes he has all the answers and is just smart enough to be right some of the time and interesting all the time. Mr. Know It All, this was Jerry and especially George on Seinfeld. Often wrong but never in doubt. These are guys who believe they can beat the system, only to watch their best efforts spin gently out of control in a slow motion Rube Goldberg disaster that brings embarrassment to everyone. This is the Seinfeld Crispin recruits for the ad.
The meaning mechanics of the ad are wonderful: Jerry’s shoes squeak like a cartoon character. A store called Shoe Circus. A family gathered outside the store window in solemn and learned reverence for shoes within. The meaningful glance between Jerry and Bill that makes no sense. Seinfeld’s lunatic advice that Bill try wearing his clothes in the shower. The starring role give churros. The idea that anyone would want to earn points in a store like this, especially when the card calls them a "shoe circus clown club member." The idea that computers could ever be "moist," "chewy," and edible. The idea that Jerry suspected this "all along."
In a more perfect world, Crispin might have put Microsoft into company with something like the Wes Anderson movie The Life Aquatic, the one that starred Bill Murray as Steve Zissou. But there were two problems: Microsoft is utterly out of touch with contemporary culture, and Bill Gates is, as someone once said of Dick Cavett, "spectacularly gentile" which is to say utterly out of touch with contemporary culture. The Aquatic Life was a world too far. Some day. Perhaps someday this will be the "sufficient" act of meaning management.
Well, what does this have to do with selling computers? I am going to have replace my laptop in the next few months, and despite the fact that I have been an intensely loyal Thinkpad and Windows guy for more than a decade, I am thinking for the first time of an Apple conversion. And I have to say that this ad, for a very brief moment, actually gave me pause. Maybe, I thought to myself, Microsoft is not an embarrassing relic after all. Briefly, very briefly.
And so what is the act of meaning manufacture? Crispin manages to mine Jerry Seinfeld, a very particularly Seinfeld. Crispin transfers Jerry’s off kilter way of seeing things to the brand, and this makes Microsoft seem more human, more actual, funnier and more companionable. and most of all, more present to the world. Is this a good thing? Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about a brand that had made itself the paragon of the humorless and the monolithic. I would say this is work well done. Crispin earned its dough and then some. It’s just a start, but what a start.
The meaning passes through a series of intermediaries. It must pass from Jerry, this Jerry, and the ads particulars (as above) into Bill and from Bill into the brand. And Bill plays his part very well, considering. He seems in every way hip to the joke here. And this anthropologist is inclined to suppose that some of this ad is a mystifying to him as it is to poor Peter Collins (above). But Crispin, to their credit, brought him into the ad and found a way to make him work. (We can imagine how Bill calculated the risk: if Jerry thinks it’s funny, it’s probably funny, and, if Jerry is prepared to share the risk, it’s probably not so risky.)
So everyone hates the new Microsoft ad? We shall see. It represents an act of meaning management by one of the best agencies at the top of its game. It is a powerful first effort to rebuild the brand. Let’s hope Microsoft sticks to its guns and gives the campaign a chance. This thing could work.
References
Russo, Maria. 2008. Seinfeld and Gates’ Microsoft Misfire. LATimes: Webscout. September 5, 2008. here.
See the Seinfeld-Gates Microsoft spot on YouTube here.
See the Microsoft PR backgrounder on the campaign here.
My heroes
Posted by: | Comments
I gave a talk a couple months ago at Ideo and for some reason I decided to "dis" everyone.
Not anyone there. I’m not a complete idiot. Ideo is of course a brain trust, and a gift to ethnography, anthropology, innovation, creativity.
I did let fly at many of the pretenders in these fields.
And the crowd was not amused.
They assumed, I think, that with every act of criticism I was anointing myself as the one, true authority in matters of marketing and branding. (I had assumed they knew that this sort of thing is for a Canadian constitutionally impossible.)
But I do dis people, and for all my Canadian reticence, I dis often and with enthusiasm. On this blog, I’ve had a go at Kevin Roberts, Sir John Hegarty, Chris Anderson, Jerry Zaltman, Clayton Christensen, Clotaire Rapaille, James Surowiecki, to name a few.
This sort of thing raises a question: Who do I like? It is easy to be critical, but unless you like someone, well, you’re merely nay saying and this is easy and empty.
So here’s a few of the writers and thinkers I like. I am a big fan of Roger Martin’s The Opposable Mind. This is a book that resists the BIG PRINT tradition of business publishing, according to which any business book should consist of one idea, exhibited in the title and on the flap of the book jacket, with the rest of the book devoted to shamelessly repetition and lots of examples. The Opposable Mind is both an argument for and a demonstration of, um, what shall we call it, a small print approach to business discourse.
More broadly, I like the tradition created in Chicago by Lloyd Warner after World War II. This was a time when people from industry and the academic world met to solve problems. I put the following people in this tradition, though it is not clear whether and how they worked with Lloyd Warner: Syd Levy, Irv White, Phil Kotler, John Sherry. As a graduate of the University of Chicago, I put myself in this tradition.
There was something reckless and joyful about the work Warner and colleagues did. They appeared to hold that being smart and well informed was the due diligence. What didn’t work we could take down, and try again. This made marketing a restless, experimental, iterative enterprise. The idea was to fail early, often and informatively.
There are several communities that appeal to me. I am giving a few names for illustrative purposes. Please think of these names not as an exhaustive list, but a representative sample. If I have missed your name, for God sake, don’t hate me. Just send me an email. And shame on me.
1) The "interpretive" business school community: John Sherry, Rob Kozinets, Susan Fournier, Russ Belk, Alan Middleton, Doug Holt, David Mick, John Deighton, to name a few.
2) New media: Clay Shirky and others in the ambit of the Interactive Telecommunications Program at New York University; Henry Jenkins and others in the ambit of the Department of Comparative Media and C3 at M.I.T., David Weinberger and others at the Berkman School at Harvard, to name a few.
3) Design world: Diego Rodriguez, Bob Sutton, and others at the design school at Stanford, Michael Beirut, William Drentell and others at Yale, Debbie Millman and others at SVA, to name a few.
4) Planning and creative communities: Boy, there are too many people to know where to begin. Oh, alright, Russell Davies, David Armano, Dino Demopoulos, Faris Yakob, Brian Collins, to name a few.
5) Journalism: Jon Fine, David Brooks, Malcolm Gladwell, Lisa Schwarzbaum, Virginia Postrel, to name a few.
6) Marketing thinkers and practitioners: Seth Godin, Thomas Davenport, Johnnie Moore, John Grant, Tom Guarriello, Tom Peters, Jim Collins, Nick Hahn, Sergio Zyman, Tom Asacker, to name a few.
7) Other: Pip Coburn, Jerry Michalski, Sara Winge,Tim O’Reilly, Andrew Zolli, to name a few.
Ok, so the next time I criticize someone, you’ll know I do not imagine myself the one and only. There are lots of people working this ground. I am grateful to them all, named and not named.
References
For more details on Lloyd Warner, see my blog post here.
The review of Kevin Roberts here.
The review of Sir John Hegarty here.
Acknowledgements
To Wordle.net for the image.
Markets now
Posted by: | Comments[Jeffrey] Bewkes [Time Warner President and CEO] describes Time Warner’s new raison d’être as “dominating niches with a clear brand strategy.”
References
Arango, Tim. 2008. Holy Cash Cow, Batman! Content is Back. New York Times. August 9, 2008. here.
McCracken, Grant. 1997. Plenitude. Toronto: Periph. Fluide.
Yahoo, brand drama and the summer solstice
Posted by: | Comments
It’s like that scene in Men in Black, the one that shows aliens bailing out of
spaceship earth.
A lot of talent is now in flight, including Flickr founders, Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, Delicious founder, Joshua Schacter, not to mention Jeff Weiner, Usama Fayyad, Jeremy Zawodny, JR Conlin, and Bradley Horowitz.
But wait a second. Delicious and Flickr belonged to Yahoo? No kidding. I am sure lots of people knew this, but, if I may use myself as a measure, lots of people did not.
This is an interesting branding problem. I mean, what if Yahoo were in the hands of a different, more expert, branding team? What if the meanings were actually being managed here?
One strategy is, of course, to rename everything Yahoo. But that seems pointless and dumb. Not least because we have such interesting naming exercise in the works: Del.icio.us and Flickr.
Vowels excised or isolated? It was if these new brands were taunting the skittish adopter, as if to say, "we are so necessary, we can call ourselves anything, and you will still embrace us." I, for one, was terrified by del.icio.us and it took me an extra month to try it out. Sure enough, this service was so useful, I found a had to use it and that funny sounding word.
The other extreme is "embarrassed parent," no acknowledgment. This appears Yahoo’s present strategy, if they have a strategy, that is. But this seems just as pointless. "Brand neglect" is never a good idea. Especially now that Google appears to have stepped up their game. HP has done some nice work recently. I feel like we are still waiting to hear something sustained from Cisco, but what little we hear is nice. Microsoft bumble along as usual, truculent and contrary, the teenager who blames us for his mistakes. The social networks have their own brand vivacity. Anytime you are the platform for identity creation and identity management, you don’t have to work very hard. But it won’t be long before the space too becomes crowded with competition and then branding will have to be done deliberately. This moment will come sooner than Facebook thinks.
In between is "big tent" and "loose orbit." And in this case, we want the lesser brands to flourish beneath, or around, a concept that is gigantic and capacious. And this would be interesting, wouldn’t it? Building the architecture within which these very vital brands could play. We would be looking for the subtle and not so subtle exchange of meanings between the star ship and the things in orbit. Who builds the brand capital? Who ferries it? How do brands divide the labor of meaning manufacture.
I was going to do a kind of stage 2 of this post. For the events at Yahoo this week raise still deeper anthropological issues that take us from the meanings of the brand to the culture of the corporation. I am thinking especially of the brilliant resignation letter that Stewart Butterfield sent to Yahoo this week. It is the most brilliant thing I’ve read in a long time. (It is reproduced in the article here.)
But then I thought, hey, this last day of the week is the first day of summer. I am going to make the toys go for Molly, have dinner with Pam, and raise a glass of something rich and mysterious. Happy summer solstice!
References
Thomas, Owen. 2008. Stewart Butterfield’s bizarre resignation letter to Yahoo. Valleywag. June 17, 2008. here.
Wray, Richard and Bobbie Johnson. 2008. ‘I’m off to tend my alcapas’ - Flickr founder’s exit marks end of a web era. The Guarden. June 20, 2008. here.
The Method Brand
Posted by: | Comments
People have such a misconception about what it is I do. They think the character comes from staying in the wheelchair or being locked in the jail or whatever extravagant thing they choose to focus their fantasies on… But that’s just the superficial stuff. Most of the movies I do ae leading me toward a life this is utterly mysterious to me. My chief goal is to find a way to make that life meaningful to other people.
Hear that? This is Daniel Day-Lewis talking about acting. Unless I’m mistaken, he is talking about artifice.
I had always assumed that Daniel Day-Lewis was a method man, a man who committed himself to his part, living and breathing it for the duration of filming.
Method acting, as I understand it (and I may not), is not really acting at all. It’s an act of revelation.
Method actors feel their character with great depth. They enter an emotional condition in which the portrayer is indistinguishable from the portrayed. Committed to someone else’s selfhood means that the actor must necessary throw off signals that describe the emotional condition within. The actor isn’t so much acting as he or she is giving an account of how he or she feels in this moment before camera. In the method approach, acting is kind of serial sincerity.
Not so the crafty European. No, the old world actor engages in calculation! In artifice! This actor is making stuff up. No sincerity here. He actually stops to think how he might "make that life meaningful to other people." Ladies and gentlemen, the guy’s a faker.
We North Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of artifice. We want our actors to live and breathe their roles, in the manner of a Robert De Niro. It’s as if we are saying that we will not commit to a performance unless we know the actor has done the same. And if this should cost some actor his self possession, in the manner of a Heath Ledger, well, this troubles us not at all. In the art markets of our democracy, we are little monarchs. We will have our due.
And this brings us to what I think we mean by authenticity in the world of branding. We don’t mean brands that are never otherwise. We don’t mean brands that are true to themselves. We mean brands that practice serial sincerity. We want the brand, as we want the actor, to be what it is the moment it is with perfect and thoroughgoing commitment. The brand might have been something before, and it may be something after, but in this moment the brand must be what it is and not another thing. It must be in this regard actorly, a method brand.
References
Jensen, Jeff. 2008. Daniel Day-Lewis. Entertainment Weekly. Issue 978, February 1, 2008, p. 33.













