"Fleecing" the world

Every once in a while, a new product is launched into the marketplace which captures the popular imagination and seems to revolutionize the industry. Blankets have been around for ages. For all intents and purposes, there seemed to be little variation except in fabric and design until October of 2008, when Snuggie burst onto the scene!

The Snuggie has become a worldwide phenomenon and the "fashion hit of the recession"! For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Snuggie is a fleece blanket with sleeves which comes in a variety of colors (burgundy, royal blue, sage green, etc.) and patterns (zebra, leopard, etc.).

Snuggie redefined and reinvigorated an industry that had been dormant for centuries! Although I acknowledge that there is more to the success of the Snuggie than their marketing, I truly admire the way the television commercials and extensive online presence have contributed to their global dominance.

Snuggies have become so popular that customers have even gone so far as to not only organize pub crawls so as to have yet another opportunity to wear them but also create "the snuggie-sutra"! Even World Wrestling Entertainment could not ignore their popularity. They introduced a DegenerationX Snuggie in December of 2009!

With so many owners raving about their Snuggies it was only a matter of time before they introduced a Snuggie for pets! Now owners and pets alike are feeling warm and snuggly inside a Snuggie!

As a marketer and impartial observer, I can honestly say that I have never seen a response like this to any product before! Snuggie has done an incredible job developing and marketing this product. I congratulate them on successfully "fleecing" the world!

Memorable but otherwise unsuccessful...

Among advertisers, there is a commonly-held belief that so long as a commercial is memorable, it is successful. Some of this year's Super Bowl ads put this theory to the test. In typical Super Bowl fashion, advertisers pulled out all the stops. Now I will assess the effectiveness of 4 of this year's ads. If you have not seen the particular commercial, please click on the corresponding link.

I will start with E-trade. There has been much discussion and concern over E-trade's use of babies in their recent advertisements. Cute babies alone will not drive people to use your product. In reality, investors can use any product to diversy their portfolios. In this commercial, E-trade failed to distinguish their product from the competition and their message was significantly diluted by the sexual innuendos. On a positive note, at least viewers could easily determine and remember the subject of the ad.

The same, however, can not be said about Audi. It is only within the last 10 seconds or so that the subject of the commercial is finally revealed. Until that point, it is a seemingly random series of everyday people being caught committing environmental offenses. Given the extent to which people are opting for eco-friendly alternatives, ridiculing them and their beliefs seems counterintuitive and unlikely to generate sales or elicit goodwill. At most, from this commercial, people will remember Steve Martin's brief appearance and how Audi made light of the importance of the environment by mocking environmentalists and those who seek to identify and implement environmentally sustainable solutions.

The Tebow's Focus on Family ad unintentionally and unexpectedly elicited signifant ill-will. The first time I saw the ad, the only message I got was that of a proud mother sharing her story. I had no idea of the circumstances surrounding the Tebow family until I did some research afterwards. I discovered that Pam Tebow was in the Phillipines when she went into labour. Complications arose which lead local medical experts to suggest abortion. She declined and believes her decision was later validated when she delivered a healthy son who grew up to become future Heismann trophy winner Tim Tebow. If not for all the attention this commercial received as being "pro-life", it would hardly be worth mentioning and not nearly as memorable. It would be as forgetable and as any other commerical with a celebrity (like Sarah Jessica Parker on the Garnier ads, or Luke Wilson appearing in the AT&T ads).

Perhaps the best example of a commercial without context is that of CareerBuilder. Upon analysis, it would appear that the lead character in this commercial was uncomfortable with the corporate culture at his current place of employment and in need of assistance in finding another job. Although people remember the ad vividly, when asked, they could not recall the company, the product or any details other than the fact there were office workers walking around in their underwear.

According to CBS, the cost of a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl was $2.6 million USD! I admit I am no finance major, but does it not seem wasteful to spend all that money (let a lone the cost of hiring actors, producers, etc.) on a commercial that is so completely ineffective? Exactly how do these advertisers justify their respective decisions? These ads may be memorable but they are certainly not successful.

For whom the bell tolls

Bell Canada (Bell) is among the most well-known and iconic Canadian telecommunications brands of all time. Regrettably, it appears that in spite of its massive size and significant presence, in Ontario Bell is competitively complacent. Despite all the company has to offer to customers in the mobile telephone, internet, television and home phone markets, it has yet to capitalize on its many strengths.

According to its 2009 4th Quarter Fact Sheet, Bell's mobile telephone division, Bell Mobility, is the "Second largest wireless operator in Canada with over 6.8 million subscribers...offering a full-range of wireless services through a portfolio of targeted brands including Bell Mobility, Solo Mobile, and Virgin Mobile Canada. Bell Mobility is Canada’s largest, fastest and reliable mobile network." If this is truly the case, then why is it often said that the two major players in the industry are Rogers Wireless and Telus Mobility? Why is Bell continually relegated to a distant third place? Why is Bell not doing more to combat this erroneous perception?

Similarly, although Bell's Wireline division is currently "the largest Internet service provider in Canada with 2.1 million customers and the largest digital television provider in Canada with over 1.9 million subscribers", Bell is either reluctant or unable to capitalize on this enviable market position. Right now, Rogers is perceived by many as the largest television service and internet service provider. Why is Bell not promoting their Sympatico and ExpressVu services more aggressively and asserting its position as the premiere market player?

Bell's apparent aversion to competition is consistent across all its operations. It is this apathy which has enabled Rogers to steal away customers and demean and denigrate Bell's land-line telecommunications platform. Why is Bell refusing to challenge assertions that on-net cable telephony is more reliable than land-line? Why does Bell not go on the offensive and explain to people that in an emergency, 9-1-1 does not work or in the event of a black-out, after 3 hours, on-net cable telephony (also known as Voice Over IP, or VoIP) will not work? It is this indifference that resulted in Rogers seeing on-net cable telephony subscriptions rise by approximately 22% in 2009, while Bell's local telephone subscriptions rose by only 6.1%. Bell should be doing more to promote the reliability of its service and land-line telecommunications.

I have heard it said that it is easier to gain a customer than it is to keep one. Although it has worked hard to become a market leader, Bell appears willing to abdicate this honour and the customer loyalty that comes with it to its rivals. In such a competitive environment and tumultuous economy, why would a company allow another to steal its thunder and potential customers? Not even the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan members could understand the logic behind Bell's complacent attitude!

The good news is that it is not too late. The bell has not yet tolled for Bell Canada. With the right marketing messages, a little creativity, and a lot of determination Bell can defend its position in the television and internet markets and become the service provider of choice in all industries in which it chooses to compete.

Bell logo and financial information provided by Bell Canada (www.bell.ca). Rogers Communications financial information provided by Rogers Communications Incorporated (www.rogers.com).

MARCOMM gone wrong

Today I received the above advertisement in the mail. Setting aside the fact that I have absolutely no interest in owning timeshare property and have already declined countless appeals to purchase a timeshare, this ad caught my attention.

The company, Timeshare Relief (Canada), INC, boasts two very important facts on the rather innocuous 8 inch by 5 1/2 inch flyer. The first is that they are among America's 500 fastest-growing private companies. Presumably, they believe that the fact they are expanding so quickly in such a turbulent and tumultuous economy means they are doing something right.

The second, and far more interesting statement, is that they are "#24 in Consumer Products & Services". So now I am confronted by a seemingly incongruous juxtaposition of rapid expansion and abysmal product and service offerings...how am I to reconcile this?

Why would a company tout the fact that there are 23 companies who are offering better products and better service than it is? How does promoting this fact encourage potential customers to not only do business with them but to trust them?

On their website, they delve deep into their personal experiences with the timeshare industry, and admit that they were taken in by a sales pitch and had been caught with a timeshare property they could not get rid of. Since then, have dedicated themselves to assisting thousands upon thousands of people to find relief from their timeshare burdens. While a seemingly noble cause, it would appear they may be going about marketing it the wrong way.

The ad I received does not even state what the company does. Mentioning the fact they are among America's 500 fastest-growing private companies may very well have been an attempt to gain my trust and compel me to buy a timeshare from them. Presumably I would find relief in the fact I needn't look any further for assistance. The ad even invited me to "act now! call today!" because they would be in my area in February.

From a marketing perspective, this entire flyer seems counter-intuitive. If their mission is to offer relief to those people who have already succumbed to the timeshare trap, this needs to be more evident. Had they removed the reference to the fact they are "#24 in Consumer Products & Services" they would have likely earned recipients' trust much more easily. If they truly felt it important to promote the fact they are among America's 500 fastest-growing private companies, they need not have made it so prominent. A simple graphic of the honor in the corner would have sufficed.

I applaud the efforts of companies like Timeshare Relief (Canada) INC to market themselves, but they need to be aware of how their advertising is being interpreted by their intended audience. For all the money they spent developing, printing and mailing these flyers, I question whether they will see much of a return on their investment. Whether they could actually help is irrelevant because with advertising like this, most people (even those who really need the help) won't give it a second look.

For companies who find themselves in a similar situation, it may be wise to engage a market research firm to test the copy. If this proves too expensive, consider consulting a local University. Marketing students always need subjects for their marketing plans, and this can be a cost-effective means of accessing a large and relatively untapped pool of marketing talent. If nothing else, try asking people who are unfamiliar with the company their opinions. The responses will often help to improve the quality of the copy which will ultimately yield better results. There is nothing more damaging to a company than ineffective marketing communication.