Brand Wars
We take it for granted that marketing is warfare. We don’t think twice about the war-room vocabulary we employ –from ‘targeting,’ strategic planning, and phrases such as the ‘cola wars’ and ‘guerilla marketing’.
It’s always been that way, you say. But things have got worse. It has been barely six months since this column observed the lifting of the recession in the U.S. marked by head-to-head product wars in categories as different as razor blades and ‘erectile dysfunction!’
Now it’s getting downright dirty, and I’m not even referring to the terribly negative presidential campaign. Case in point, the full-frontal war between Anheuser Bush and SAB Miller, the makers of Budweiser and Miller Lite, respectively.
It all began when Miller decided to make fun of Bud, the ‘King of Beers,’ by appointing itself the ‘President Of Beers.’ Most people, including marketers, dismissed this as a typical election-season stunt, with the upstart trying to unseat the incumbent and all that. But there is a price to pay when one throws punches at the brand leader. Bud shot back with the accusation that Miller was owned by a South African brewery, implying that the head of state surely couldn’t be a foreigner? (In India, they’re probably calling that plagiarism!)
Things heated up as Bud continued to pour on the insults, sissyfying Miller Lite as the ‘Queen of Carbs.’ (As you may know, the low-carbohydrate dietary obsession has made ‘carbs’ the dirty word in the food and beverage industry.) These were full-page ads in national dailies, and TV spots. Miller, retorted with a lawsuit, saying the ‘queen of carbs’ and Miller’s South African pedigree references were untrue. In actual fact, Miller Lite does have less carbohydrates that Budweiser. So the court rapped Bud on the knuckles, and ordered them not to refer to the South African connection. But they continue to chatter about the ‘foreign brewery’ connection in TV ads featuring talking lizards.
You are probably wondering what’s the point of all this, and what has any of this got to do with marketing –assuming marketing is all about increasing sales? My thoughts exactly. “Slowly, without anyone looking, a hallmark of modern advertising for the past 50 years has all but disappeared: The Idea,” commented Randall Rosenthall of Advertising Age. He was referring to the margin-obsessed Advertising conglomerates that resort to techniques, over ideas. He wasn’t commenting about talking lizards, per se, but we can all recognize when big ideas are replaced by clever little tricks.
More specifically, marketers are so busy taking pot-shots at the competition that they spend inadequate resources defining why they are better or different, or important to you and me. They may be margin-obsessed, but seem to have plenty of money for lawsuits.
Take the other silly spat between the singles Web sites Match.com and True.com that erupted in a full page attack in the Wall Street Journal in June this year. It took the form of an ad pretending to be a ‘letter’ where Herb West, the president of True.com writes to his counterpart, Barry Diller of Match.com/
“Mr. Diller, I will not allow you to intimidate employees of TrueBeginnings. To get to them, you must, first, come through me. I will meet your challenges in the court room, if you insist; however I propose a more productive solution. I invite you, Mr. Diller to compete on the field of free, open, and fair competition…”
A court-room brawl, AND a challenge to a gunfight at O.K. Corral? Leaping lizards! A more productive solution would have been to send a real letter to the said Mr. Diller, using a thirty-five cents stamp, instead of making a public show of this.
And while we are on the subject of court room battles and cowboys, here’s a third case in point. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has rebuked GlaxoSmithKline for “false or misleading” advertising on TV. The product in question is an antidepressant called Paxil. The Paxil ad used a technique in a TV commercial where people were seen wearing name tags that describe them with words such as “self conscious” and “nervous.” Paxil is seen as the answer. The problem is, nervousness and self-consciousness are not in the same class of ‘anxiety disorders’ for which the drug is approved. Medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorder are serious stuff; being nervous or shy doesn’t require a powerful drug like Paxil.
It gets worse, and this is where that infamous ‘court of public opinion’ meets the court of law to deliver a one-two punch. Glaxo, the world’s second largest drug maker, lost a class action lawsuit because of the drug’s link to suicide. There is a cottage industry of law firms on the Web (such as this one on the Web http://www.paxil-side-effects-lawsuits.com/) that advertise “If you or someone you know has been prescribed Paxil and have suffered dangerous side effects, violence, suicide or attempted suicide, you may be entitled to compensation.”
The last time customers waged war on a company, and vice versa, it wasn’t pretty. Many tobacco companies were maimed or wounded, but we all recall how they initially duked it out because it seemed like the ‘marketing’ thing to do. If history is any guide, marketers need to return to what really matters: Big ideas.
The moral of these stories? It is no different from what your mother once told you: If you don’t have anything nice to say in the marketplace, don’t say it. Ignore her advice someone could get hurt.
We take it for granted that marketing is warfare. We don’t think twice about the war-room vocabulary we employ –from ‘targeting,’ strategic planning, and phrases such as the ‘cola wars’ and ‘guerilla marketing’.
It’s always been that way, you say. But things have got worse. It has been barely six months since this column observed the lifting of the recession in the U.S. marked by head-to-head product wars in categories as different as razor blades and ‘erectile dysfunction!’
Now it’s getting downright dirty, and I’m not even referring to the terribly negative presidential campaign. Case in point, the full-frontal war between Anheuser Bush and SAB Miller, the makers of Budweiser and Miller Lite, respectively.
It all began when Miller decided to make fun of Bud, the ‘King of Beers,’ by appointing itself the ‘President Of Beers.’ Most people, including marketers, dismissed this as a typical election-season stunt, with the upstart trying to unseat the incumbent and all that. But there is a price to pay when one throws punches at the brand leader. Bud shot back with the accusation that Miller was owned by a South African brewery, implying that the head of state surely couldn’t be a foreigner? (In India, they’re probably calling that plagiarism!)
Things heated up as Bud continued to pour on the insults, sissyfying Miller Lite as the ‘Queen of Carbs.’ (As you may know, the low-carbohydrate dietary obsession has made ‘carbs’ the dirty word in the food and beverage industry.) These were full-page ads in national dailies, and TV spots. Miller, retorted with a lawsuit, saying the ‘queen of carbs’ and Miller’s South African pedigree references were untrue. In actual fact, Miller Lite does have less carbohydrates that Budweiser. So the court rapped Bud on the knuckles, and ordered them not to refer to the South African connection. But they continue to chatter about the ‘foreign brewery’ connection in TV ads featuring talking lizards.
You are probably wondering what’s the point of all this, and what has any of this got to do with marketing –assuming marketing is all about increasing sales? My thoughts exactly. “Slowly, without anyone looking, a hallmark of modern advertising for the past 50 years has all but disappeared: The Idea,” commented Randall Rosenthall of Advertising Age. He was referring to the margin-obsessed Advertising conglomerates that resort to techniques, over ideas. He wasn’t commenting about talking lizards, per se, but we can all recognize when big ideas are replaced by clever little tricks.
More specifically, marketers are so busy taking pot-shots at the competition that they spend inadequate resources defining why they are better or different, or important to you and me. They may be margin-obsessed, but seem to have plenty of money for lawsuits.
Take the other silly spat between the singles Web sites Match.com and True.com that erupted in a full page attack in the Wall Street Journal in June this year. It took the form of an ad pretending to be a ‘letter’ where Herb West, the president of True.com writes to his counterpart, Barry Diller of Match.com/
“Mr. Diller, I will not allow you to intimidate employees of TrueBeginnings. To get to them, you must, first, come through me. I will meet your challenges in the court room, if you insist; however I propose a more productive solution. I invite you, Mr. Diller to compete on the field of free, open, and fair competition…”
A court-room brawl, AND a challenge to a gunfight at O.K. Corral? Leaping lizards! A more productive solution would have been to send a real letter to the said Mr. Diller, using a thirty-five cents stamp, instead of making a public show of this.
And while we are on the subject of court room battles and cowboys, here’s a third case in point. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has rebuked GlaxoSmithKline for “false or misleading” advertising on TV. The product in question is an antidepressant called Paxil. The Paxil ad used a technique in a TV commercial where people were seen wearing name tags that describe them with words such as “self conscious” and “nervous.” Paxil is seen as the answer. The problem is, nervousness and self-consciousness are not in the same class of ‘anxiety disorders’ for which the drug is approved. Medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorder are serious stuff; being nervous or shy doesn’t require a powerful drug like Paxil.
It gets worse, and this is where that infamous ‘court of public opinion’ meets the court of law to deliver a one-two punch. Glaxo, the world’s second largest drug maker, lost a class action lawsuit because of the drug’s link to suicide. There is a cottage industry of law firms on the Web (such as this one on the Web http://www.paxil-side-effects-lawsuits.com/) that advertise “If you or someone you know has been prescribed Paxil and have suffered dangerous side effects, violence, suicide or attempted suicide, you may be entitled to compensation.”
The last time customers waged war on a company, and vice versa, it wasn’t pretty. Many tobacco companies were maimed or wounded, but we all recall how they initially duked it out because it seemed like the ‘marketing’ thing to do. If history is any guide, marketers need to return to what really matters: Big ideas.
The moral of these stories? It is no different from what your mother once told you: If you don’t have anything nice to say in the marketplace, don’t say it. Ignore her advice someone could get hurt.
Last modified: შაბათი, 5 იანვარი 2013, 10:52 AM