As I was watching the Broncos (barely) win yet again, I was struck by a Dodge Journey ad. Positioning the car as "the search engine for the real world," the campaign (Wieden + Kennedy) makes the point that people can't experience life online. The campaign was launched several months ago with the added ploy of hiding three Journeys in different parts of the country and making a contest of finding them. And ironically, you needed to go online to get clues.

Interestingly, there is no mention- zero, zip, nada- of any car-related features or benefits. It's all about experiencing life.

Three powerful marketing lessons:

1) Your competitive advantage may have nothing to do with the features of your product.

2) The campaign is strategically sticking to its theme - Journey, by virtue of the storyline in the ads, the design of the contest, and of course, the name of the car.

3) By highlighting that experiencing something online (aka "like" being there) is not the same as really being there (the copy goes "no one makes list of websites they want to visit" while driving by beautiful sites that people do want to visit in person), the campaign touches a pain point most of us know deep down is true, yet may not articulate. 

And Dodge is providing the solution: Buy the Journey, and really live.

I predict that lots of products and services will join the growing ranks of campaigns that contrast "real life" with what they portray as a much more shallow online or "virtual" life. Again, the message is you buy the product, and you really live!

P.S. Check out AdWeek's story here.

What do your customers prefer to interact with - people or technology? High tech or high touch? The answer is usually... it depends.

I like how Esurance is tackling this head on, with their trademarked tag line: Technology when you want it. People when you don't. Their value proposition is twofold: 1) tons of discounts, and 2) two ways to get 'em. Since insurance discounts alone is not a market differentiator, they position themselves via the "technology or people" ways to work with them. Here's a link to their ads and campaign, created by Duncan/Channon. 

When should you provide technology as your customer service solution and when should you provide real people? From the customer perspective, it depends how potentially complex or emotional the issue is. For example, if you need to change travel reservations due to a death in family, or deal with medical devices for a sick patient or family member, you want a live customer service rep to help you. Assuming of course your level of  bureaucracy allows your reps to be effective. In contrast, getting a simple update on a due date or balance inquiry, technology will do. 

But most important is how tuned you are into what customers want and need in customer service. Because with both a technology-based customer interface as well as a live human interface, the goal is to understand and solve the customer's problem.

The more customer intimacy, the better the customer service, the happier the customer.

A very sweet ad for P&G's Dawn dishwashing detergent won the top spot in the Ace Metrix list of best TV spots for the second quarter of 2010. The ad shows how Dawn Ultra can clean and save birds and other wildlife soaked with goopy oil.

Note that the ad debuted two weeks before the BP oil rig explosion, and was rated first prior to the spill as well... wow.

I'm glad to see a "cause-related" ad win (here's the story in AdWeek). This one is interesting because it is not a traditional cause marketing approach that would link P&G or Dawn with selected non-profit organizations. It is an ad centered on the product. I see the primary message as this: Because our product can save poor animals, you should buy it. Secondary message #1: By the way, if we're good enough to clean oil-soaked birds, imagine what we can do for your greasy dishes. Secondary message #2: And feel good, because we will donate a dollar of your purchase to help these animals. Nice job P&G and the Kaplan Thaler agency!

Old Spice figured out who holds the purchasing power in their target market's household. In previous campaigns, they targeted end users' (men's) awareness and liking. Look at their old ad with the shouting macho dude that would annoy maybe 200% of women. However, men may actually like the fact that women don't like the ad, with this logic: Because women don't like it, it is automatically manly. Who said we're not shallow.

Now to focus on a better outcome - selling their product - in the newer campaign, they are targeting and winning the buyers' preference by appealing to women, and through women, to their men.

This ad has multiple messages. What women doesn't want a man to bake them a cake in the dream kitchen he built with his own hands??  But the message doesn't negatively affect men's awareness or liking of Old Spice. Men appreciate that Old Spice understands their "situation" - another way to sell manliness.

As marketers, we know Old Spice probably conducted copious amounts of research to intimately get to know and understand their customers and the the purchase decision process. To Joe Bro, it feels like he just had a "manversation" consisting of mostly grunts, nods, and maybe a fist bump with Old Spice. Then the product he (and she) wants magically appears in his bathtub. Cha-ching.

This Nicorette ad is a great example of my all-time favorite marketing axiom: IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT FEATURE IT! Check it out.

I used to teach stop-smoking classes at Kaiser many years ago (I'm now a long-time recovered health educator). Anyone who has tried to quit knows quitting sucks. It is really tough. So rather than pretend otherwise, Nicorette acknowledges it directly with their "Suck-O-Meter." Because it is what it is. Everyone knows it. Truth makes marketing work.

Siemens has done some good marketing and advertising in its time. Not so much with this airport billboard. The problem is the incongruity between what is said and what is shown. The tagline and image are at odds. They SAY what makes them different is giving attention to patients, not to files. But what they SHOW is the opposite.

I see this happen when companies or their ad agencies make the " BIG think" assumption. They might have tested it and respondents might have been able to figure out the intended meaning... after studying it for a LONG time. But even if they did figure it out, how does it make them feel? Does it elicit any kind of positive action? Most people will only get maybe a 2 to 3 second glimpse of this ad. At a glance, this billboard leaves people confused, not knowing what to think or feel about the company or product.

To avoid this fatal advertising error, always test your messages in realistic scenarios and for every message ask what should people to think, feel, and do. This creates accountability and effective communication. 

BMW launched its U.S. campaign during the Winter Olympics with its "Joy" ads. Check out the 60 second spot:

Here's more detail from today's Marketing Daily. I thought BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" positioning and ad campaign was one of the best car campaigns of all time. It really showcased what was unique about the product and set BMW apart very effectively.

Not so much for the "Joy" campaign. I mean, joy is certainly a good thing. But it's not why people buy Beemers. Performance - that's why people buy them (and of course prestige for some). The attempt to connect performance with joy just doesn't cut IMHO. Not that it couldn't though.

I see this campaign as a well-intended "feel good" campaign that misses the mark. Soon sales will tell the story. What do you think?

TV ads for Orville Redenbacher's are popping up (pun intended!) on the Olympics. Many of the ads promise not good popcorn as the benefit of the gourmet popcorn, but bringing people together. Check out this "tea party" ad:

The ad closes saying: "Spending time together. That's the power of Orville Redenbacher's." When product ads connect through deeper shared experiences, they hit home. We don't just think about it, we feel it. And we all know that feelings and emotion is what drives most purchases, right?

The U.S. Census bureau is spending $133 million on on their 2010 campaign to get people to fill out and return their census forms. First ad I saw was during the Super Bowl and had some refreshing humor (for a government agency) and even a touch of "duh" style sarcasm. Now I'm seeing their ads in the Olympics coverage.

How do they justify high profile spending that kind of money in the current economy? They make a simple and effective ROI argument: The more people return their forms, the less money is needed for follow-up. Which means millions of dollars go back into local communities. Here's the Bureau's video overview of the campaign including a couple ad excerpts.

I'm glad to see the government using advertising this way. They appear to have a well-integrated marketing communications campaign going. Do the ads motivate you?

More to follow!

Google had one one of the best ads this Super Bowl- and it cost next to nothing to produce. The beauty of the ad was telling a love story in words- and in a way that shows the power of Google's search (and works for football fans!)

More and more, I believe "story" is one of the most effective marketing tools we have. While it's not always easy to tell a compelling story, when it works, people are engaged, immersing themselves in the story, and most importantly - connecting - on a personal and emotional level. And that kind of connection is priceless.

Many years ago, a study by OgilvyOne found that as much as 66% of brand preference is driven by emotional elements. So why is it that so many other Superbowl ads just tried to be clever or catch our attention. No one is complaining about the Danika Patrick commercial, wait... I mean the Go Daddy commercial... or what was it she was selling again?

The point is stories emotionally connect and resonate with consumers in a meangful and memorable way. It's just like the late great Don Hewitt (producer of CBS 60 Minutes) always said: "Tell me a story."