The Marketing Rescue Podcast

In this episode, the guys chat about the incredible legacy of Fred Rogers and how every time people tried to use his likeness or intellectual property for branding purposes it never ended well. Nico plays a guessing game with Chad that goes way beyond winners of an EGOT. Burger King: Mister Rodney Here is Mister Rogers in the first episode of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: Here is ‘Mister Rodney' in Burger King's 1984 commercial for their flame-broiled burgers:   Parodies aren't uncommon in marketing. While it's not unheard of for a parody to cross the line and be offensive enough that it gets taken down, it doesn't happen that often. Burger King's 1984 ‘Mister Rodney' ad is one of those parodies that got taken down - but not for being offensive. To understand why it was taken down, it might help if we know more about Fred McFeely Rogers. Mister Rogers - A Brief Overview Rogers earned his bachelor's degree in music, worked in children's television for a few years, returned to school to earn a bachelor's degree in divinity, and became a Presbyterian minister before attending the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Child Development. Rogers was not only educated on child development but he also began his 30-year long collaboration with child psychologist Margaret McFarland. From there, he was able to begin developing children's shows that had value. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, ran for 33 years from 1968-2001. More than just childrens' entertainment, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was critically acclaimed for focusing on children's emotional and physical concerns, such as death, sibling rivalry, school enrollment, and divorce. Why Burger King Dropped the CommercialOr it's half the reason. The other half is kindness. In the spring of 1984, Rogers started to receive “countless” phone calls from parents complaining about the commercial. Having seen the ad himself and taken issue with it, Fred Rogers contacted the Senior Vice President of Burger King, Don Dempsey. Many people who take offense to being parodied cite libel or copyright infringement, or lack of royalties.  But not Fred Rogers. He said, "To have someone who looks like me doing a commercial is very confusing for children.”Rogers didn't threaten Burger King with any legal action. He simply called them and politely asked them to stop running the commercial. Rogers explained that "It's a real testimony to what fine things can occur when people of goodwill can talk to each other." No lawyers. No mess. No fuss. Just gentle, kind conversation. That's the Mister Rogers way. Target and Mister Rogers A decade after his death, the Fred Rogers Company licensed “Won't You Be My Neighbor,” the theme song from Mister Rogers Neighborhood, to Target in 2013.  2013 Target ad.   William Isler, president of Fred Rogers Co, told The Globe and Mail  “when we were first approached by Target, we immediately felt very comfortable with the respect they had for Fred and his legacy. That is paramount to us.” Like Burger King in 1984, it's easy to understand why Target would want to use Rogers in their marketing. But why would the Fred Rogers Company license out the legacy of a man who was so outspoken in his stance against commercialization?   Google and Mister RogersIn 2018, Google launched an ad for the Google Pixel 3. Unlike the Target ad from five years earlier, rather than using a cover of one of Rogers' songs, in Google's commercial Rogers's own voice can be heard talking and singing about wonder. It seems there are two ways to view the ad: The first being that in Google's defense, Mister Rogers always tried to instill a sense of wonder and intellectual curiosity in his audience members and Google hoped to do the same with the Pixel 3.  The second is that Rogers was also very clearly, explicitly, and publicly against not just advertisements aimed at children, but his voice and image being used to advertise to children.  Suzanne Masri,

In this episode, the guys chat about how easy it is to go off target with data security and how people are so willing to give up their privacy for a good customer experience. Nico talks about why it's better to come out with problematic information quickly versus holding on to it until you have every detail down. Target got worse before they got better. While that may be unusual, what isn't unusual is that - like most brands, products, and people - no matter what order they did it in, Target still had to fail before they got better. Prior to the early 2010s Target seemed to be making consistent but more or less uneventful accomplishments. After 2013, however, is a different story. Today's topic - Target data breach in 2010s. What Happened then? Target Canada In 2013, two things happened that caused Target to be subject to a brief and mortifying downfall. One of those things happened to Target while the other was an experiment gone wrong on their end. The smaller and first to happen of those two is Target Canada. In March, 2013, Target opened its first Canadian stores. Sadly, they weren't meant to last. The expansion into Canada presented Target with a host of problems. The most notable obstacle might be the supply chain issues that resulted in stores with aisles of empty shelves and higher-than-expected retail prices.  On January 15, 2015, Target announced that all 133 of its Canadian outlets would be closed and liquidated by the end of the year. The failure of Target Canada certainly didn't help Target by any means. But this failure wouldn't have hurt them as badly as it did if it weren't for the timing of their second failure - the one that happened to them. Data Breach Had Target's 2013 data breach not happened eight months after the company launched its soon-to-be-short-lived subsidiary, it might not have felt like a second punch to the face. On November 27th, 2013, Target started experiencing a data breach. ‘Started to experience a data breach' because the breach lasted for a total of 19 days - from November 27th (two days before Black Friday) to December 15th. Part of the kicker here is that the breach reportedly went on for 16 of those 19 days before it was even detected. It would be 20 more days after the discovery before Target would notify the public about the breach.Initially, Target believed around 40 million consumer credit and debit card information - including customer names, card number, expiration date, and CVV -  had been stolen. In one of their earliest statements, Target claimed consumer PIN data hadn't been part of the breach.  On January 10th, 2014 Target had another announcement to make. They announced that an additional 70 million people had been affected by the breach - bringing the estimated total to about 110 million customers. That wasn't the only thing Target had to add. They also had to inform the public that on top of credit card information, the stolen customer information included names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Obviously, there's a moral of the story here but there's a technical takeaway too. The most effective way to learn from the latter might be to break down the attack. The anatomy of the attack on Target's data consists of five different points:  preliminary surveycompromise of a third-party vendor or vendorsleveraging Target's vendor-portal accessgaining control of Target serversTarget's point of sale (POS) systems. Yahoo Data Breach After the breach was announced, the biggest public criticism of Target was that they didn't announce the breach sooner. For the customers whose personal information was stolen, that's a fair criticism but, when looking at data breaches in the 2010s, it doesn't give Target nearly enough credit. Target is not the only company to experience a data breach in the 2010s (or 2013 alone for that matter) but the 20 days they kept the breach under wraps pales in comparison to how long other com...

In this episode, the guys get back to their regularly scheduled programming. Nico takes us back to a time when typefaces were a symbol of nationalism, and Chad talks about why its a good idea not to run a scam related to the CIA. Credit: Central Intelligence Agency https://www.cia.gov/Typefaces aren't just related to art and advertising, they also have a long history with politics.  Think of Fraktur. Fraktur is a gothic font. It's also calligraphic meaning that rather than just being gothic it has a handwritten quality to it that makes it somehow both curvy and pointy at the same time. Fraktur arose in the 16th century and remained popular until the 18th century, at which point many European countries moved away from Fraktur in favor of the much easier to read Antiqua typeface (for example Times New Roman is technically Antiqua in style). Germany viewed Antiqua as a symbol of the classicist age and emerging cosmopolitanism in most of the European countries that had previously used Fraktur.  The Antiqua-Fraktur Dispute was such a big deal that two centuries later, it has its own Wikipedia page.  The Fraktur typefaces remained in use in Nazi Germany, and was represented as “true German script.” In fact, during World War II, German presses were “urged” to only use “German script,” meaning Fraktur. “Urged” because the Fraktur font was heavily associated with Nazi Germany. This association was partly, if not largely, because of the Bauhaus.  The Bauhaus is a German art school founded by German architect Walter Gropius after World War I in 1919. Bauhaus was founded on principles of how design could be used to serve people and transform society. The Bauhaus School led to the first concrete foundations of modern design. Additionally, its influence was not only limited to Germany. The revolutionary art movement not only helped create what is now known as modern design but shaped cityscapes and entire urban centers elsewhere in the world. The nationalist movement that soon developed into Nazi ideology in Germany considered Bauhaus to be a rejection of traditional German values.  On January 3, 1941, the Nazi Party ended this controversy by declaring Fraktur to be Judenlettern (Jewish letters) before prohibiting it and switching to Antiqua.  German historian Albert Kapr has speculated that the regime viewed the hard-to-look-at-let-alone-read Fraktur as inhibiting communication in the occupied territories during World War II.  War took precedence over having a “German” font. What's Up With The Art History Lesson?  Today, when we see illegible fonts in advertisements, it's considered a marketing fail.  Which is essentially what happened with Germany. By insisting on using Fraktur for - give or take -  four hundred years, as a metaphor you could say Germany turned themselves into a bad billboard.  Whether you're a company or a country, the lesson here is to embrace art, marketing, and the place where those two overlap.  On January 8th, 2021, the Central Intelligence Agency unveiled a new design for its website, CIA.gov. Not a big deal, right? Well… Apparently, it was.Or at least it was a big enough deal that the rebranding made news. Why? Same reason the Bauhaus did 100 years ago. Simply for breaking the status quo.  CIA.gov abandoned the formal signifiers of government authority: dense bureaucratic text, link directories, declarative headers, nothing too fancy CIA.gov is now set against a stark black background, offset by dots and lines that form topographical contours. There's pops of red, bold, white font, and a clear design theme. In other words, the CIA seems to have discovered graphic design and modern art. There are subtle hallmarks of modern web design, like the site's animated scroll. The crisp lines and muted color palette suggest a minimalist branding strategy. Like with all things political, artistic, or both, the website has received a lot of mixed reactions. Online,

In this episode, the guys continue their look back at their favorite episodes of 2020 in the final episode of a 3 part mini-series with condensed highlights from the top episodes of the last year. The highlights covered are from EP21: The Brand Building It's Legacy Brick By Brick, EP23: The Most Successful Rebranding Of All Time, and EP27: The Brand That Raced With Nostalgia. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [05:25]: The Brand Building It's Legacy Brick By Brick[14:00]: The Most Successful Rebranding Of All Time[27:30]: The Brand That Raced With Nostalgia Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com

In this episode, the guys continue with their look back at their favorite episodes of 2020 in the second of a 3 part mini-series with condensed highlights from the top episodes of the last year. The highlights covered are from EP11: The Comeback Nobody Saw Coming, EP13: The Time History Caught Up With Greed, and EP15: The Tactic That Shouldn't Be Used. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [1:20] The Comeback Nobody Saw Coming[14:20] The Time History Caught Up With Greed[27:10] The Tactic That Shouldn't Be Used Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com

In this episode, the guys kickoff the new year with a look back at their favorite episodes of 2020 in the first of a 3 part mini-series with condensed highlights from the top episodes of the last year. The highlights covered are from EP1: The Man Who Flew Too Much, EP3: The Brand That Went Back For Their Future, and EP5: The Pledge That Changed Us. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [02:15] The Man Who Flew Too Much[12:35] The Brand That Went Back to Their Future[25:10] The Pledge That Changed Us Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com

In this episode, the guys talk about when fake news takes over your brand and where the line might be in getting involved with debunking conspiracy theories. Chad talks about why eCommerce sites can't let the algorithms run wild and Nico lays out all the latest conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracy theories out there: plenty of people believe there's more to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and some think that the U.S. military experiments on aliens and their spacecrafts inside Area 51 that there is a tourism industry in Roswell, New Mexico built around the conspiracy. Another popular conspiracy theory is Bigfoot. Just how popular can Bigfoot be? Well, as of November, 2020 there have been 2,032 reported sightings on Bigfoot in Washington state alone. What these three conspiracy theories have in common is that they have nothing to do with marketing. However in today's episode we talk about one case where corporate marketing and conspiracy theories meet. CSN Stores was founded in 2002, the name derived from a combination of its two founders' initials: Niraj Shah and Steve Conine. CSN Stores did well in the beginning. In 2006, the company earned $100 million in sales, and between 2007 and 2010 it expanded in the United States and in international markets.  In 2008, Boston Business Journal ranked CSN Stores as the #1 fastest-growing private e-commerce company in Massachusetts, and the #4 fastest-growing private company overall. By 2011, Shah and Conine decided to rebrand CSN Stores.  The goal of the rebranding was to direct traffic to a single site and to unify the aesthetic of the company.  One of the major ways they accomplished this was by changing the company's name from CSN to Wayfair. Some people may still be stuck back on the name change thing. If so, you might be wondering, ‘What does Wayfair even mean?'  Nothing. It was chosen by a branding agency. ‘Wayfair' is simply a combination of two words that tested well with focus groups. After all, as of June 2020, anything to do with Wayfair and names is suspicious. Names are what led people to believe Wayfair was part of a human trafficking ring. Claims of Wayfair's human trafficking first appeared on June 14th, 2020 having originated in the QAnon community. It started when a well-known activist tweeted about the high price of storage cabinets being sold online by Wayfair. They went on to point out that the cabinets were "all listed with girls' names." Other users then began alleging that the pieces of furniture were named after girls because they actually had children hidden in them as part of a supposed child trafficking ring.  QAnon followers continued to make supposed links between the fact that some pieces of Wayfair furniture are expensive and named after girls, the names of whom match actual cases of missing children in the US. Wayfair claimed the astronomical pillow prices were a glitch. That's when QAnon activists started to put a new theory forward.  They said that after they put stock-keeping unit (SKU) numbers of specific Wayfair products into Yandex - a major Russian search engine - images of young women would appear in the search results. Putting Wayfair products' SKU numbers into Yandex did return image results of young women. The explanation for which came down to… a glitch in the search engine. In fact, Newsweek reported that a Yandex search for "any random string of numbers" would return the same results. Despite any and all debunking, the digital wildfire had spread. According to Facebook-owned social media analytics tool CrowdTangle, as of July 2020, the term Wayfair generated 4.4 million engagements on Instagram and prompted more than 12,000 posts nearly a million direct engagements on Facebook. As far as their response goes, Wayfair kept it short and simple. They came to their own defense saying, "there is of course no truth to these claims.” Fortunately for Wayfair and their rather unenthusiastic defense,

In this episode, the guys talk about one of our favorite beverages and how one coffee brand started a grammy-winning music production company in the hopes of increasing coffee sales but almost destroyed the company. Chad talks about why leadership is so important and Nico talks about why your employees are your most important customers. Today's episode isn't about how one of the worst became the best and it isn't a story about how one of the best became the worst. This is a story about how a mediocre product turned a brand into an 80 billion dollar business. This episode of the Marketing Rescue Podcast is about Starbucks. Plenty of people believe Starbucks' coffee is great. However, in some blind taste tests, their coffee has finished middle of the pack.  In other blind taste tests, Starbucks coffee even came in last after brands like Dunkin' Donuts and Folgers.  Starbucks had been around long before it started to appear in blind taste tests and solidified its status as one of the most beloved modern brands of coffee in the early 2000s. In 1971, Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker founded Starbucks at Seattle's Pike Place Market.  They sold the company to Howard Schultz in the early 1980s. It wasn't until after a business trip to Milan, Italy, that Schultz decided to turn the bean store into a coffee shop. Under Schultz's tenure as chief executive - which lasted from 1986 to 2000 - the franchise underwent an aggressive expansion and experienced tremendous success in growing its brand throughout the 80s and 90s. Feeling good about where they were as a company, Starbucks started looking for new opportunities to grow beyond coffee and they started to define their brand as an “escape.”  For many of its consumers, Starbucks does offer moments of escape between home and work.  Some even believe that the experience the brand creates makes the coffee taste great. However, in 2003, Starbucks' may have lost control of its ego.  The mermaid slapped on a metaphorical pair of ‘too-cool-for-you' aviators and the company: Created its own music recording companyWon eight GrammysLaunched a movie with Lionsgate in 2006 called Akeelah and the BeeStarted a partnership with William Morris - the longest-running talent agency -  to scout for music, books, and filmsOpened an “entertainment” office in Los Angeles By 2008, it was clear that Starbucks had lost focus of who it was. With these new businesses serving as distractions, the coffee-centric core of the brand suffered dramatically: coffee sales plummeted, stock prices fell from $37 to $7.83 and the company had to cut 18,000 jobs and close 977 stores.Thankfully, Starbucks realized they were falling before they actually hit the ground. Most turnaround stories start with a question. Some of the best turnaround stories specifically start with, “So, what do we do best?” Unsurprisingly, Starbucks found that the answer to that was coffee. Starbucks exited the entertainment business and rebuilt everything so that the focus was back on coffee. It closed each store location for an entire day to retrain every barista. This accomplished a couple of things like It told consumers that the most important thing Starbucks does is make a great cup of coffee. It also told baristas themselves that they are essential to the brand. Exiting the entertainment business, retraining their baristas, and creating a food menu all had two things in common: the same overarching purpose: rekindle the consumer experience and Howard Schultz. Schultz originally became Director of Retail Operations of Starbucks in 1982. At that time, there were only four branches of the coffee company in the Seattle area.  Less than two decades after Schultz came on board, Starbucks had a presence on six continents, with 3,501 total stores and well over $2 billion in revenue. When Schultz stepped down in 2000, he did it because he was exhausted. By 2008, he could tell the coffee chain was drifting from its core...

In this episode, the guys talk about the multi-billion dollar supplement industry and the influence of a Nobel prize winner on spreading one of the largest pseudo-science campaigns in marketing history. Nico talks about his pre-flight travel routine, and Chad talks about the persistence of memes and the value of transparency. A common myth is that vitamin C will prevent you from getting sick - a wives' tale that can be beneficial for dietary supplement companies. What “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” and assertions that chicken noodle soup can cure a cold have in common is that they're old. What isn't old is the idea that vitamin C will keep you from getting sick. In fact, the idea came about as recently as the 1960's. Some benefits of vitamin C, as claimed by dietary supplement companies like Emergen-C, include boosting your immune system, increasing energy, and providing extra protection against infections. Not only will vitamin C completely wipe the common cold from the face of the earth but it can also be used to cure snakebites, AIDS, and detached retinas. To you that may sound like pseudoscience...but to Linus Pauling, it's not only fact but the product of his own extensive scientific research. Linus Pauling, an American chemist, biochemist, chemical engineer, peace activist, author, and educator, is credited with popularizing vitamin C as a health supplement.  Pauling is one of four individuals to have won more than one Nobel Prize. Aside from his Nobel Prizes, Pauling is remembered as one of the founders of the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Today, Pauling is remembered most for the work he did in his later years including the promotion of nuclear disarmament, as well as orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy,and dietary supplements. Given Pauling's history and his 1200 published works spanning 850 topics, the diverse array of his later studies isn't that odd. What is odd is that the esteemed, record breaking, two-time Nobel Prize winner isn't most commonly remembered for his awarded accomplishments. He's remembered for being an acolyte of vitamin C. Pauling believed - and publicly insisted - that vitamin C could be a cure-all for numerous ailments and because of his work, he's not one of the only ones who seem to think so. According to a Gallup poll from 2013, half of Americans regularly take vitamins or other mineral supplements - despite the fact that new medical studies assert that vitamins do not provide health benefits. In 2012, Euromonitor International reported the vitamin and supplement industry topped $23 billion in consumer spending.In 1978, Alacer Corp., based out of Southern California, released their newest and fizziest sensation; Emergen-C. Simply Vitamin C plus minerals with B Vitamins, the dietary supplement drink mix quickly gained popularity among people seeking a new and refreshing way to support a healthier immune system.  More than popularity, Emergen-C vitamin drink mix rapidly established an impressive and dedicated following. As vitamin supplements gained more and more traction over the years more and more dietary supplement companies began to emerge. One such company, Airborne, was founded in the early 1990s by school teacher Victoria Knight-McDowell. She began brewing herbal and vitamin cocktails in the early 1990s and selling them in tablet form to local drug stores until Trader Joe's bought 300 cases in 1997. Something companies like Emergen-c and Airborne have in common, aside from promoting vitamin supplements and their uncanny, continued success, is their marketing. The effectiveness of having a tasty variety of flavors does wonders for marketing and also, according to William Curry, internist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, makes it all too easy to overdose on the stuff. It might be hard to imagine “overdosing” on vitamins and what that could entail.  After all, according to Healthline,

In this episode, the guys talk about the balance between marketing and working dollars in charities and the importance of addressing things that might make you uncomfortable head-on. Chad talks about Jigsaw Puzzles and Nico talks about what it means when organizations go nuts with competitive litigation. Quick disclaimer: we are not going to have a point of view on this organization. We discuss some facts about how foundations (and this one specifically) think about marketing. We would like all listeners to form the opinion themselves.  Komen and Legal Battles In 2007 the foundation's name changed to “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” and they trademarked the running ribbon and the phrase “for a cure” as part of their branding. In Pink Ribbon Blues (2010) by Gayle Sulik, Komen says they protect their trademarks as a matter of financial stewardship to prevent confusion among donors. Others would suggest that their trademark issues are more about dominating the pink ribbon market. In a 2011 interview with Star Tribune, Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader explained that "There is a potential for donors to make assumptions. We want them to be confident that if they want to donate to Susan G. Komen, that their money is going to Susan G. Komen." One such organization Komen employees like Rader worried might confuse donors is “Mush for the Cure.” A small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer, “Mush for the Cure” was started by Sue Prom in 2006.  For a small fundraiser in Grand Marais Minnesota, it was doing pretty well, raking in a total of about $30,000 in 2010.  Until Prom received a letter from Susan G. Komen attorney asking her to not only resend her request for a Mush for a Cure trademark but to stop using the phrase “for a cure” altogether.In fact, since 2007, more than 100 small charities have received legal opposition from Komen for use of the words "for the cure" in their names. It begs the question of how much money Komen has spent in the last decade or so not raising awareness, but “raising awareness” against other, smaller charities in court.  Suing not just smaller companies but smaller charities isn't just mean – because it is mean, isn't it? - but it's indicative of what the bigger guy's priorities really are.  If Komen really cared about funding breast cancer research then wouldn't it be the more the merrier?  In the words of Sue Prom, "People are donating money to this organization [Komen] to fight cancer -- not to fight another organization fighting breast cancer.” Komen and Perception They're promoted as a research-first organization rather than a foundation that, according to their budget, is more focused on raising awareness.  Regardless of how much money the leaders take home annually, how many times they sue other, smaller charities, and what percentage of donations go where, what else keeps the most popular cancer research charity from being one of the best?  Is it simply that donors feel misled? At Komen fundraising races, CureKomen members recorded on video the reactions of racers and other supporters when told that only about 19 cents of every dollar they donated went toward research. Komen and Marketing  Komen has teamed up with multiple water bottle retailers for marketing campaigns “for the cure.” The problem with water cooler bottles is that many of them are made of polycarbonate which may contain BPA which according to a 2014 study from the University of Texas at Arlington, has been linked to breast cancer tumor growth. In 2008, just a year after Komen set the stage for their years-long trademark-infringement-suit-palooza, Komen partnered with Ford Motor Company.  They built 2,500 limited edition Ford Mustangs that came with a “Warriors in Pink” package with an additional 1,000 models to be offered the next year. What's equal pats unfortunate and ironic about this is that a longitudinal study found that women employed in the automotive plastics industry are almost five ...

In this episode, the guys talk about Coke and how they managed to marketing their product a very challenging market. Nico thinks back of his time in the Middle East and Chad get the "Hey Chad" right twice in a row. Coca-Cola embodies the American dream so much that, according to Webster, during the Cold War, Coca-Cola became a symbol of capitalism and a fault line between capitalism and communism. Tom Standage, author of ‘A History of the World in Six Glasses', explains that Coca-Cola wasn't marketed in the former Soviet Union due to the fear that profits would go straight into communist government coffers. Standage also says, "Coca-Cola is the nearest thing to capitalism in a bottle." In today's episode we discuss how does something so..American..translate internationally? The emotional appeal of Coca-Cola's brand goes back farther than in the late 20th century. Coca-Cola is and has been understood as something so intrinsically American that during World War II, American troops that were overseas fighting in the war were provided with Coca Cola. Because much of Coca-Cola's first international contact came via interaction with soldiers, the brand quickly became associated with American patriotism and America in general. One good example of how Coca-Cola took an active and creative role in connecting with their consumers came about in 2008 when Coca-Cola started Coke Studio. In all regions, Coca-Cola strives to be about bringing people together. To Coca-Cola, simply bringing people together in local communities in the Arab World was insufficient. Coca-Cola wanted to convince Arab consumers that they should embrace both each other and those from the West. Coca-Cola's marketing team wasn't just determined to accomplish the goal set out by the company; they were creative. Coke Studio - a music television series that gained huge popularity. Originally piloted by Coca-Cola in Brazil, and subsequently, in Pakistan, this effort in the Arab world alone has been credited with increasing sales of Coca-Cola to levels higher than before the Arab Spring. For Coca-Cola, the obvious reason that most people buy the product is the brand. But after campaigns like Coke Studio and Crazy for Good, what is Coca-Cola's global brand? Webster claims that the company's brand might not strictly be the American dream anymore but it's still American or at the very least western. He also points out that, “America itself as a brand is more tarnished now. People are more ambiguous towards it." This is unfortunate because, as Webster also says, "The whole strength of the brand is plugging into a way of life that so many people wanted. As an ideology, it polarises. And sometimes those associations become unattractive.” Coca-Cola's brand may be about happiness, friendliness, and good times but associations with America and the West persist. Intended to be as pejorative as it sounds, the term "Coca-Colonisation" came about in the 1950s. It was created by the French while they were overturning Coca-Cola trucks and smashing Coca-Cola bottles. Protestors, according to Standage, saw the drink as a threat to French society.  The French weren't the last to publicly and physically denounce Coca-Cola. Half a century after "Coca-Colonisation" became a phrase, in 2003 in a wonderfully ironic protest reminiscent of the U.S.'s own Boston Tea Party, protesters in Thailand poured Coca-Cola onto the streets as a demonstration against the US-led invasion of Iraq. Coca-Cola sales were then temporarily suspended in Thailand. Coke didn't invade Iraq.  The U.S. did.  But to the people of Thailand the two were synonymous enough that the pouring out of Coke sufficiently conveyed their message - and not on a local scale but a global one.  For example, the 1968-1991 boycott in the middle east, created an inherent hostility towards the brand in the populations of middle eastern countries, something which Coca Cola has been battling ever since with campaigns lik...

In this episode, the guys chat about the the time GAP rolled out the shortest lived logo in brand history and some of the problems that plague brandmark development. Nico Talks about how many logos children recognize by age 3 and Chad talks about the right and wrong ways to crowdsourced logos. 1988, Gap debuted its now-iconic blue square logo. In 2010, when Gap unveiled their new logo, the first redesign since the birth of the iconic blue square in the late 80s. Even if a new logo failed to get Gap's sales back to where they would have liked, it's not like something as little as a new logo would hurt them right? Consumers' reactions to the new Gap logo in 2010 were swift, decisive, full of memes, and, most importantly, bad news for Gap.  The redesign quickly brought mainstream attention and a kind of wrath you can really only find on the internet that, for a marketer, must be what nightmares are made of. At the same time, if you're looking on the bright side of things, it was the same kind of reaction that provides valuable lessons that make it possible for other marketers to (hopefully) avoid making the same mistakes.  On October 6th, 2010, Marka Hansen, president of Gap North America, unveiled the company's new logo. Hansen said it was more contemporary and current, honoring the "heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward.” Reactions After introducing a new logo, a slew of criticism rolled in, some of it coming in the form of more than 2,000 comments on Facebook, prompting Gap's above Facebook post the night of the unveiling.  Additionally, a ‘Make Your Own Gap Logo' site went viral on the internet prompting nearly 14,000 parody design versions.  Meanwhile, Hansen said that “the outpouring of comments” showed that the company “did not go about this in the right way.” On October 6th, Gap announced that they would be reconsidering the emblem and promised to take on board customers' personal suggestions. This tactic might have been an attempt to hit two birds with one stone, find a better new logo and get back in their customers' good graces. Instead of exuding confidence and professionalism, Gap showed their uncertainty when they turned to crowdsourcing. Days after Gap announced they would be taking suggestions ‘from the audience' as it were, the company folded, admitting its mistakes in not consulting its customers first. Gap reverted to its original design after announcing its new logo to the public.  What Gap Got Right It's a shame that a well-intentioned attempt to shake things up a bit cost Gap so much money. To Gap's credit, they were quick to notice the online criticism, which made a good example of how social media can be an ally and significant benefit to companies. More importantly, Gap wasn't just quick to notice; they were quick to respond. Gap performed what is possibly one of the fastest branding turnarounds of all time when they reverted to their original design just six days after putting their new logo out into the public.  Some people say Gap's turnaround was so speedy that it's suspicious. But with Tropicana's mistake as recently as the year before, it's possible that Gap was able to do what people are doing with Gap's story now, and learned from others' mistakes. Gap did all of that - released the new design, received criticism, tried to crowdsource, admitted defeat, and reverted to the original design - and they did it all in a week. Gap's one-week-lived logo is a testament to how imperative it is as a company to be wary of but not afraid of social media and to remain reactive and engaged with your consumers.Don't try to fix what isn't broken Gap insisted that its new logo was part of how the brand was evolving and represented an effort to align its product and brand with customers more closely. However, for that to actually be true, Gap would have had to reach out to its consumers before they made a change to a twenty-plus-year-old aspect of the brand o...

In this episode, the guys chat about the mystery and intrigue of an anonymous love letter and how it became a really big marketing problem. Nico talks about how perception is reality and where the line is between clever and creepy and Chad decides to buy more roses. Italian carmaker Fiat once famously developed an idea for a new marketing campaign. The idea was cute, fun, catered towards the “independent, modern working woman”, and was meant to market Fiat's new Cinquecento, of course. Otherwise known as the Fiat Cinq Cents to speakers or the Fiat Five Hundred to those who speak English.  After doing their homework and running a pilot test of the campaign - which, for the record, received positive results - Fiat felt that their new campaign was ready.  In March of 1994, Fiat sent letters to some 50,000 women in Spain. Each one was personally addressed and written on pink paper. In these letters, the writer heavily compliments the recipient and encourages her to go on a "little adventure" saying they believe she should because "we met again on the street yesterday and I noticed how you glanced interestedly in my direction". The writer and the letter's recipient were made for each other, or so the writer said.  The letters also included the line, “I only have to be with you a few minutes and, even if it doesn't work between us, I promise you won't forget our experience together.” Designed to be fun and also mysterious, the question as to who penned the letter was supposed to be answered six days after the first letters went out.  Fiat's idea was charming in theory, but not in practice. Fiat had hoped to compliment their consumers and encourage them to get out and explore the world (in a new Fiat). Their PR manager in Spain said, “The campaign was supposed to play with factors like intrigue, love, and romanticism which surrounds our car advertisements.” But the impression the letters ended up giving the recipients was that of a psycophathic, sex-mad stalker. Knowing Fiat's intentions and the reaction they expected to generate makes it fair to say that the reaction they actually got couldn't have been further from what they were going for. The original plan was for these 50,000 independent, modern working women to receive a second letter six days after the first in which their admirer would be revealed as the new Fiat Cinquecento. Following the release of the first letters, the newspaper El Mundo reported that the ad campaign had unleashed jealous scenes among married couples.  Worse than that, one woman canceled her weekend plans and had her brother escort her to work. She even had family members begin a private investigation. In fact, the newspaper El Pais reported that not just one but several women felt significantly threatened by the letter. Believing they were being stalked by a psychopath, many women locked themselves inside and would only go out if they were escorted by male company. Embarrassed, Fiat stopped the campaign early once they heard about women's fearful reactions.mFiat did end up sending out a second letter, just not the one they had originally planned. This time, it was an apology letter with a signature, a brochure, and an invitation to the closest Fiat store. These apology letters also reportedly contained a third letter explaining the campaign.  The High Court in the city of Zaragoza fined Fiat for sending the letters. And while being called to court can't be good for any company's reputation, Fiat's fine was a symbolic 155,000 pesetas (about 1,100 USD). The court also ordered the company to pay 140,000 pesetas (993.54 USD) in damages to a Zaragoza woman after she personally brought the issue to court. Two years after their merger with Chrystler, Fiat was back in the spotlight for pointedly making women uncomfortable in 2016.  Fiat's Argentina branch started to hand out booklets to new car owners. The booklets came with a manual on how females — referred to as co-pilots — should “at lea...

In this episode, the guys continue the previous discussion about the evolution of digital analytics at a basic foundational level and the ethical considerations marketers should consider. Chad shares a personal story about being considerate of feelings of intrusive marketing practices and Nico advocates for more ethical leadership in the advertising industry. In the first part of this episode we cover: How ad tracking worksWhy ad tracking exists and how advertisers use itWhat companies like Google and Facebook know about you, just from following your digital breadcrumbsThe advantages of ad tracking for both marketers and consumers In today's episode we discuss: Main privacy violation rulesCases of privacy violation that actually made it to courtEthical aspects of ad trackingHow can the ad industry improve There have been many attempts to create a single privacy protection standard:  In Feb 2020, Kristen Gillibrand, Democratic senator from New York, proposed the creation of a Data Protection Agency. This federal agency would enforce US laws on data privacy and conduct investigations into potential violations.  As with any such legislation in the United States, the concerns of business and industry are weighed heavily (some would say far too heavily) in the process.  As of this recording, the Congress.gov website says the act was introduced on February 13th, was “read twice”, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It hasn't been discussed or voted on since. Out of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Zoom, the worst offender when it comes to violating users' privacy is arguably Facebook. Repeatedly, to concerns about users' privacy, Mark Zuckerberg has issued statements or given testimony before government bodies, in which his response has essentially amounted to: get used to it.  Zoom's terms of service not only give it the right to extract data from users and their meetings, that data can (and does) also make its way to advertisers like Google. Since more and more public attention has been drawn towards ad tracking, and consequently to Zoom, in particular, the video call service has quietly rewritten its privacy policies. Unsurprisingly, one of the companies that finds itself on the wrong side of protection issues the most often is Google.  In 2012 Google was ordered to pay $225 million to settle charges that claimed the company lied about user data privacy in Apple's Safari browser.  In the fall of 2019, Google (and YouTube, which it owns) were fined $170 Million after being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General of the state of New York for illegally collecting personal information from children without their parents' consent.  In May of this year, the state of Arizona sued Google over allegations it illegally tracked Android users' locations, even when they'd turned off location tracking settings.  Just this summer in June, Google was sued for $5 Billion for supposedly tracking “private” internet use. The class-action lawsuit alleged that Google was tracking millions of users' activity even when their browsers were set in private or “incognito” mode.  Marketers don't need to steal private information to get what they need in order to barrage consumers with ads because most of it is signed over willingly when the user clicks ‘agree' on the terms of service. Companies like Google and Facebook may (or may not) have their ulterior motives for violating privacy laws, but when it comes to plain ol' marketing, consumers have already given advertisers everything - they don't need to lie to get it.  What about our responsibility as an industry? Shouldn't we be advocating for the privacy of our audience?  So far, the ad agencies and the ad industry as a whole have been pretty quiet on the topic of privacy. Still, more and more voices are starting to come out in favor of balancing ad targeting with the need to protect our fundamental hum...

In this episode, the guys chat about the evolution of digital analytics at a basic foundational level and how that has played into the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, and how ads are targeted. Nico talks about why we accept privacy policies with little thought and Chad finds out what Nico's kids search for on Alexa. With the advent of ad tracking, marketers have been able to do something they've been trying to do for decades: Make sure the ads they create only show for the people they want to see them. Before describing how ad tracking has changed marketing, it might help to know what ad tracking is. If you're unfamiliar with a topic, all you really need to know are these two things: Cookies and Ad pixels; Cookies are snippets of code that get passed when you visit a website or move from one site to another that records your behavior. Ad pixels link the behavior that cookies record directly to your social media pages - especially Facebook. All that means is that ad pixels use cookies to give an extra layer of personalization to social media and different websites. This is beneficial because it allows advertisers to, in a sense, “know you better” from tracking your behavior. Before cookies and ad pixels, there was virtually no way for marketers to get to “know you better. This also meant that there was no real way for marketers to know whether the ads they bought did their job for decades. With ad tracking, however, not only were advertisers able to tell when someone clicked on the ad...but they were able to show those ads only to the people who were most likely to be interested in them. Paid search advertising meant ads would only be shown to people who searched for something relevant to the ad and retargeting meant that ads could be shown to people who'd already visited a specific site or searched for something relevant to the ad that was being retargeted. For advertisers, these changes were a dream. For the consumers, thankfully ad tracking means that you no longer have to see every advertisement that exists. If ads are going to be integrated into everyday life to the point of being unavoidable, they might as well be as enjoyable or at the very least as interesting to each individual as possible. Once existing ad targeting was combined with deep social profiling on social media that included behaviors and affinities, it resulted in micro-targeting, the level of which we've never seen before.  ‘Micro-targeting' and ‘deep social profiling' may sound like the kinds of things that someone would say when trying to get you on board with wearing tin foil hats. However, when considered in relation to that more direct line between companies and consumers, those phrases indicate that, because of ad tracking, consumers are less of a part of a general, faceless group of ‘consumers' and are more of an individual than marketing audiences have been able to be before. Still, as well-intentioned as ad tracking can be, it may still be unnerving. You may find yourself asking not only “Is my device listening to me?” but also... “Is that legal?” Voice-activated devices like Alexa and Google Home are listening and, if you believe them, they say they're only listening for when you speak to activate them and that they're not storing or selling the data from your everyday conversations.  Regardless of whether you believe that or not, the fact is that Apple, Facebook, and Google, don't need to listen to your conversations to serve you those ads.  If you knew how much data they have on you, on all of us, you'd understand why “listening” is perhaps the least of our worries.  It's important to understand that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Zoom are not philanthropic; they're profit-oriented. And data is where the money is. When you start to think about these companies in that light, then you begin to see how data mining and ad tracking is not a feature of these businesses - it IS the business. Understanding that,

Nathan Apodaca, whose username is Doggface208, uploaded a video to TikTok on September 25th of himself skateboarding to Fleetwood Mac's “Dreams” while drinking from a bottle of Ocean Spray Cranberry-Raspberry Juice. The video went viral and had over 61 million views as of October 20th. In today's episode, we discuss what did Apodaca's viral video does for him, “Dreams,” and Ocean Spray, and how do short form or viral videos impact marketing. Apodaca's video got many responses, and most of them were as wholesome as Apodaca's video itself. The lovable Apodaca inspired many remakes of the video, many of them also TikToks, as the content was a much-needed break for many from the barrage of negative election and coronavirus news.  All the remakes brought on a new surge in popularity of the song “Dreams,” which prompted Mick Fleetwood himself to create a TikTok account. Fleetwood created the account on October 4th for the sole purpose of posting a recreation of Apodaca's video. Stevie Nicks joined the platform on October 14th to post a video of her own.  Ocean Spray reached out to Apodaca on September 29th - just 4 days after he posted the video. The stage was certainly set for Ocean Spray to jump in and acknowledge that their juice had inadvertently acquired global fame by responding to the video sooner. Instead, the brand played it cool. They planned and organized their response while the meme unfolded naturally and gained more and more popularity online. Two days after Mick Fleetwood himself had already joined the hype surrounding the viral video, Ocean Spray responded in the form of their chief executive Tom Hayes joining TikTok to post yet another recreation of the video. When the video went viral, Ocean Spray reached out to Apodaca and learned that he had been longboarding in the video because he was on his way to work, and his car had broken down. Ocean Spray gifted Apodaca a cranberry-red truck stocked full of Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice. While this might be indicative of Ocean Spray plotting a long term marketing strategy, it also speaks to the immediate effects of the viral video.  Events from late 2019 to the present have prompted many consumers to seek positive and uplifting content and interactions to combat what's going on in everyday life. Fueled by COVID, there has also been a noticeable uptick in desire for more inclusivity and realness and over storytelling, and with many people working from home, storytelling has started to take on new forms. Those new forms expand from the hilarious and lighthearted to the educational, meaningful, and even life-changing. “New forms” of storytelling can also include creating or expanding mediums such as podcasts or short-form videos on platforms like TikTok. What's important for Ocean Spray and all companies wanting to stay engaged with their consumers and remain reactive is that platforms like TikTok - and arguably only TikTok - are changing how companies interact with consumers.  Apodaca's viral video and its responses are a succinct example of why companies must connect with brand ambassadors - or just everyday consumers -  by listening to social media conversations and reaching out with responses and kudos. What was important for Ocean Spray specifically in the Ocean Spray/”Dreams” event is that Apodaca wasn't the only one who benefited from the increased demand for cranberry juice.  For consumer/brand interactions like this to happen, not only does there need to be a platform, but the platform has to be big enough to generate national or even international attention. So, if the OceanSpray/”Dreams” situation were an equation, its factors would include Apodaca, Ocean Spray, Fleetwood Mac, and...TikTok. “Dreams” had already hit No.1 on iTunes by the time Mick Fleetwood and Stevie Nicks joined TikTok and posted their recreation videos.  By the time their videos went up, they had already experienced inadvertent gain and could have gone without repl...

We are happy to share the 30th episode of The Marketing Rescue Podcast with you! In today's episode, we talk about an extremely well-known brand that has a very interesting, historical story. Now, what was once a concoction of scraps in the Third Reich, and then a fizzy brightly colored soda in Italy, is now a drink shared internationally by all types of people. We discuss the importance of social responsibility in both - traditional marketing and nostalgia branding. When is it valuable to use 'good old times' and when better to leave the past in the past?  Today's topic - CocaCola in Europe and the invention of Fanta. Did you know that Fanta originated as a Coca-Cola substitute during the American trade embargo of Nazi Germany, which affected the availability of Coca-Cola ingredients, in 1940?   By 1933 Max Keith, a German-born man described as an “imposing leader” became the head of Coke's subsidiary. After he took over, it went from selling 100,000 cases of Coca-Cola in 1933 to over 4 million in 1938. From around 1936 to about 1940 the German economy was booming. During that time Keith paid extra attention to marketing Coca-Cola to the hardworking people of his country. To do this, he had to establish the reputation of Coca-Cola in Germany which meant adapting the brand so that it wasn't seen as an American icon, but as a brand fit for German consumption. Before he took over the company in 1938, Keith saw an opportunity for the rebranding he had in mind. One of Keith's first marketing triumphs for the company was supplying massive amounts of Coke to the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics. Keith's aggressive and effective marketing at the 1936 Olympics featured more than just the Coca-Cola logo. Like most brands in Germany at the time, their logo appeared beside waving banners emblazoned with swastikas. His efforts to rebrand Coca-Cola in Germany involved taking steps to identify Coke with Nazism, including sending sales teams to mass patriotic events. In 1940, Keith's chemists invented Fanta. With little to no soft-drink alternatives, Fanta exploded in popularity. Nevertheless, after the Allies entered Germany in 1945, the production of Fanta ceased. Keith then handed over the profits of his creation to Coca-Cola headquarters in Atlanta and when the German and Dutch Coca-Cola branches were reunited with their parent company Fanta production was discontinued entirely. In 2015, Coca-Cola launched this ad celebrating Fanta's 75th anniversary. The ad references the drinks Nazi History The company faced critical backlash for its apparent reference to World War II-era Germany as the "Good Old Times." Specifically, the ad says, “This German icon turns 75 years old. And to celebrate this, we are bringing back the feeling of the Good Old Times with the new Fanta Classic.” In response to the backlash following the ad, Coca-Cola took the video down and issued a formal apology.  From Fanta's origin, we learn what happens when necessity meets moral ambiguity. Max Keith needed a product to sell and did the next best thing to creating something out of thin air by creating one out of scraps. Keith is also an example of how the determination to keep a company afloat during a trying time can pay off in the long run.From Fanta's 75th Anniversary, we learn that companies have to be careful when using phrases like “The Good Old Times” in advertising in case the times they're referencing refer to times of rampant sexism, racism, oppression, war, or genocide. When it comes to long-standing companies or companies with questionable origins, it might be better to leave the nostalgia behind. We speak about:  [04:25] CocaCola's history and historical legacy[06:50] CocaCola reaches Germany[11:30] Cola's branding in Nazi Germany[14:45] Invention of Fanta[23:50] Historical lesson of 'a brand promise' and its relevance today[26:00] Fanta as we know it[29:40] Fanta's 'good old times' ad in 2015[31:30] What can be learned

In this episode, the guys chat about the infamous 10 cent beer night and other examples of when ‘free becomes bad' in marketing.  Over the years, there have been some pretty bad promotions - Oprah Winfrey and KFC's Great Chicken Fiasco of 2009, McDonald's 1984 Olympic Scratch-Off Giveaway Campaign, and American Airlines' Fly Free for Life are all risks that ended up causing companies to operate at a loss (we talked about them at our first and one of the most popular episodes). But nothing can beat the perfect storm that was the 10 cent beer night. On June 4th, 1974, the Cleveland Stadium hosted what is now regarded as “the worst promotion in history,”- 10 Cent Beer Night. It wasn't the worst promotion in history because of the cheap booze or because it was an experiment gone wrong.  In fact, it wasn't an experiment at all. Promotions that offered discounted beer during sporting events had happened before. While they were all deemed successful, after the 1974 Cleavland debacle, whether that success is attributed to monetary gain or lack of violence is now unknown.  Ultimately, like Oprah Winfrey and KFC, McDonald's, and American Airlines, the Cleveland Indians proved that free isn't always free. Somehow what was intended as a fun way to get fans into the stadium ended in a riot.  Given the Rangers and the Indians' aggressive past, with team-wide altercations taking place as early as the week before, it feels like Cleveland's management should have known better or at least should have seen this coming.  That's tricky. In hindsight, it's easy to see where everything went wrong. The game against Texas was a perfect storm. There had been other successful promotions of the same nature before, so it's easy to understand how Cleavlands' marketing team was able to overlook the looming “10 Cent Beer Night” catastrophe. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that someone should have seen it coming. “10 Cent Beer Night,” whether it was at the Cleveland, Arlington, or any other stadium, was always a bad idea – a disaster waiting to happen. There's nothing that unites two opposing teams and gets them to work together quite like a riot led by drunk and violent fans does. The desire to attract more fans and the marginal success of similar promotions before took precedence over the possible consequences.  Questions like: “Hey, could offering cheap, unlimited beer at a sporting event that fans are passionate about cause problems?” or...  “Hey, is it possible that there will be more people wanting to use coupons for free chicken than there is the chicken we have to sell?” or...  “Hey, could a flyer actually use these unlimited, first-class flights to live in the sky, going from city to city eating and sleeping on planes?” weren't asked.  Discounted alcohol is a promotion that has been repeated many times since the riot in ‘74. But, it's been repeated with more rules, additional security, and understanding of the risk involved.  Listen to the whole story and our thoughts on what could be learned from this in today's episode.   We talk about: [04:40] Examples of unsuccessful promotions[07:40] History of the infamous 10 cent beer night[14:40] What was the marketing team thinking[15:00] Description of the promotion[19:40] Main safety issues[23:35] How could this happen?[27:40] Aftermath[31:10] What can be learned? Enjoy the show! Episode Script Writer: Grace WallResearch Analyst: Gertruda Gilyte Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

This iconic brand once sat at the top of the heap. Champion meant quality, and people wanted it. Then, just as quickly it died out. But with the resurgence of all things 80's, Champion has come back strong. And while Champion's comeback may seem like the lucky product of a fickle market, it's not just a coincidence… the savvy Champion marketing team carefully crafted their nostalgia-based comeback.  History of the brandIn 1919 in Rochester New York, three brothers saw an opportunity. Modern sports were becoming more and more popular, but the uniforms (such as they were) lagged behind. The Feinbloom brothers saw an opportunity to create high quality sportswear that both looked good and served the needs of the athletes and they called it the “Knickerbocker Knitting Company”. In the record cold winter of 1920 - they first marketed their high quality sweatshirts and sweatpants - allowing athletes to compete with the freedom of motion they needed, while still staying warm enough to play outside.  In the early 1930s the “Knickerbocker Knitting Company” became “Champion Knitting Mills, Inc.” - the company we know today as Champion.  In 1934 Champion became the official apparel provider for The University of Michigan's sports teams, and the age of collegiate athletic apparel was begun. Michigan's coaches talked, and word spread of their brand's durability and comfort. This partnership created one of the most iconic items of clothing in modern history - when Champion designers, looking for added protection against the Michigan cold, attached a hood to their already popular sweatshirts, and created the garment we know today as The Hoodie. Champion pioneered the idea of clothing that would stand up to repeated use in competition, repeated washing, and provide the qualities athletes needed to perform. It was really the invention of purpose-made athletic apparel.  Champion had been doing well, especially by Great Depression standards and during WWII, but the best was still yet to come. THE GOLDEN AGE - 1960s-90s n 1956 Champion officially adopted their now iconic “C” logo. The logo caught the attention of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and in the 1960s Champion signed a long-time licensing agreement with the NCAA. In 1968, Champion transformed women's athletic market by introducing stylish, mix-and-match Physical Education uniforms. Champion continued to pioneer styles but also fabrics such as breathable materials and reversible shirts. In 1967, Champion introduced the nylon mesh jersey, designed specifically to meet the needs of football players suffering from heat exhaustion.  1970s - Solidifying their place as the most important sports apparel brand:In the early 1970s Champion became the official outfitter for the National Football League (NFL).Their partnership with professional sports leagues made them famous for the rest of the century. Beloved athletes could be seen wearing Champion's signature logo on TV in any household.From 1985 to 1988, Champion experienced its biggest growth yet, doubling profits in just a few years In 1989, Champion was acquired by Sara Lee Corporation. In the 90s, Champion became the official outfitter for all 27 NBA teams. The Champion name and logo were used for all NBA merchandise - some of the most profitable sports merchandise in the world. In the 90s Champion was also seen in film, skateparks, and the hip hop scene. The brand started by three brothers from Rochester that just wanted to make quality sportswear, was now an iconic pop culture brand.  Fall In the late 90s and early 2000s the divisions between sports stars and pop culture icons started to break down.  The NBA, led by stars like Allen Iverson - was moving to an edgier hip hop feel. Champion - the performance apparel brand of the 80s and 90s, started to look dated in comparison.  They were still the official brand of the NBA, but in the late 90s and early 2000s,

In today's episode, we talk about one of the most iconic shoe brands of all time - Converse, its history, downfall, and an amazing rebirth.  Marquis Mills Converse was a factory manager for a footwear manufacturing company.  In 1908 opened the Converse Rubber Shoe factory in Malden, Massachusetts.  Originally Converse made winterized rubber footwear for men, women, and children. In 1915 Converse branched out, recognizing a need for durable basketball shoes for the growing sport, and started making athletic footwear. In 1917 they started manufacturing the shoe for which they would forever be known.  The Story of Chuck Taylor In 1923 Chuck walked into the Converse sales offices in Chicago, complaining about sore feet. And he had ideas about how their shoes could be made better. One thing led to another, and this semi-pro basketball player was eventually hired as a salesman for the Converse Rubber Shoe Company.  Chuck Taylor became more than a salesman, he became the original Brand ambassador. Taylor made his living as a salesman by traveling across the country, conducting basketball clinics, and selling shoes.  Chuck BECAME Converse shoes. And the Converse ALL STAR was Chuck's baby. In 1932, in recognition for all he'd done for the brand and the Converse company, Marquise Converse put  Chuck Taylor's signature on the All-Star patch, and the classic “Chuck Taylor All-Star” was born. And today the iconic Converse All-Star is widely known by a second name:  “Chucks.” Converse after the war Throughout the 1950s and 60s, Converse was synonymous with America. Converse had become the standard among high school, collegiate, and professional basketball players. In the 60s, Converse had about 70-80% of the basketball shoe market with Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars being worn by 90% of professional basketball players Converse All-Stars were the official basketball shoe of the Olympic games from 1936 until 1968. Due to the success of the All-Stars, the company began to expand and open more factories. They were dominant, ut competition was coming.  The game changes…In 1972, Converse bought PF Flyers, their biggest competitor at the time, from B.F. Goodrich. This led to a monopoly in the shoe market that was split in 1975 by an anti-trust lawsuit/ It was a sign of things to come… Converse's days without significant competition were numbered. During the 70s, the competition heated up and the game of basketball was changing.  Players were moving to a more exciting fast-break style of play (as compared to the slower, more “pass-and-shoot” style of the early 20th century), and along with the changes in the game came a need for a shoe with more support, and better protection.  Throughout the 70s and 80s, a flood of new brands hit the market including: PumaAdidasNikeReebok  Their ubiquitous presence in the NBA was slipping, as many athletes switched to shoes with leather uppers and harder rubber soles. Shoe technology was getting better, and Converse wasn't keeping up. Converse had been too dependent on the All-Stars brand - and had taken too long to innovate with the game.  By the late 80s and early 90s, the market for All-Stars had disappeared in favor of flashier shoes. Converse was left in the dust while at the Converse offices, the attitude was overly focused on nostalgia.  The company offices had black-and-white photos on the walls that celebrated the past.  In 1992, a frustrated Magic Johnson, a former endorser of Converse, said, "Converse as a company is stuck in the '60s and '70s. They think the Chuck Taylor days are still here." Other companies spent millions on design, research, and advertising to expand their lines to include shoes for aerobics and cross-training. Higher revenues meant rivals could spend more on celebrity endorsements than Converse By 2000, Converse had repeatedly slipped into receivership and had debt piling up yearly. On January 22nd, 2001, Converse filed for bankruptcy.

Usually, on the Marketing Rescue podcast, we tell the stories of brands - brands who made it and brands who didn't. But on today's episode, we're going to talk a bit about technologies, and how business decisions (including marketing) shape the technologies we end up using.  If you're old enough, cast your mind back to the mid-to-late 1970s when if you wanted to watch a show, you watched it when it came on. Once.  At the same time as everyone else. If you missed it… you missed it. But right at the end of the 1970s, something happened that changed all of that. In fact, changed how we watched TV And movies - fundamentally.  The invention of the Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) For the first time, families could set the VCR to record a favorite show, and watch it when they wanted. They could rent a movie at the local grocery store or video store, and watch it (again) when they wanted.The VCR was a huge change in the entire media landscape. It's helpful to remember (or learn for the first time) that the way VCRs came to market, and the VHS format, in particular, was far from pre-ordained.  The story of bringing video to home viewing is an instructional tale for anyone interested in bringing new products, or new technologies, to market. The story started in the 1950s, in Japan when Dr. Sawazaki developed a prototype videotape recorder. This invention started a race to see who could bring this technology to market first. In 1956, Ampex (the company known mostly for making recording media like video and audiotape) released the world's first commercially available video recorder - the Ampex VRX-1000.  At the time, there were six major firms fighting for who would get a consumer product to market that was truly successful. Of those six - the two that emerged as the leaders were the electronics giants, JVC and Sony. They were working on two different formats, or standards.  JVC had their money on a standard they called “VHS” which stands for Video Home System. At the same time, engineers at Sony were working on multiple formats, one of these was called Betamax. Betamax had a great picture and sound quality - the best of the consumer-friendly models. Unfortunately, it was expensive compared to VHS and it could only record up to an hour on tape. This becomes the focal point in the battle for a consumer standard - the balance between quality, recording length, and achieving that balance at price consumers would pay. Both JVC and Sony were working on this balance: JVC had longer record time, but lower quality while Sony had higher quality, but shorter record time. These two formats: VHS and Betamax quickly emerged as the front-runners in the battle for home video, even while they were still in prototype. JVC (and eventually other companies) started making VHS machines and Sony went with the Betamax machines.  The two approaches could not have been more different. Building consensus, and making friends Here are some of the key differences in how JVC and Sony took their tech to market: JVC worked harder with the industry to build up support. Sony didn't. When Japan tried to make an industry standard they got Sony's former partners like Matsushita to side with them It is possible that JVC may have ended up adopting the Betamax standard had Sony been a bit more open. Sony, on the other hand, refused the advice of others, including companies they'd previously partnered with like Matsushita. They preferred “better” licensing deals over customer-accessibility. Betamax opted for high-quality proprietary formats (ex: Minidisc, MSX, Video Game cartridges, and PlayStation).By 1980, JVC's VHS format controlled 60% of the North American videocassette market. As a result of their proprietary format - Sony got sued by motion picture companies for encouraging the recording of copyrighted material.  Sony eventually won the lawsuit but by the time it was over, and they fully entered the market in video stores,

In this episode, we talk about starting a food empire and then rescuing it. Today's topic - Chipotle. Back in the early 1990s, a former line cook who had dreams of becoming a chef started something that would change the very idea of fast food.  Steve Ells was a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America and he had dreams of starting his own fine-dining restaurant. Steve was inspired by the taquerias and burrito restaurants in San Francisco's Mission district. He saw how popular they were and thought he could take that idea and make it popular outside of California. Maybe a taco shop could fund his fine-dining restaurant dream?  In 1993 Steve borrowed $85,000 from his father and opened his first restaurant in a former Dolly Madison Ice Cream shop in Denver, Colorado, just down the street from the University of Denver campus.  This restaurant was called Chipotle Mexican Grill.  Steve and his dad did the numbers when they opened - they needed to sell exactly 107 burritos per day to be profitable.  After the first month, they were selling over a thousand burritos a day. Less than two years later, in 1995, they opened their second location using the profits from the first store.  Things were getting serious. Ells formed a board of directors, created a business plan, and raised an additional $1.8million.  Ells admitted he was making it up as he went along as he had no business background, and no real business plan.  In an interview with NPR's “How I Built This,” Ells said the success of Chipotle surprised even him:  “This was going to be one restaurant… And this was going to be a cash cow that could fund and help support a full-scale restaurant.  knew that full-scale restaurants were a dicey proposition. I mean, they go out of business often. It's hard to make margins, very difficult to operate. And so I wanted Chipotle to be a backup. “There was no business plan,” he said on the podcast. “I was just making this up as I went along.” By 1998 there were 16 Chipotle restaurants - all in Colorado.  One of Chipotle board members happened to work for McDonald's in business development. That's how Steve Ells ended up bringing some Chipotle burritos to a Mcdonald's board meeting. McDonald's did end up buying a minority share in the fledgling company and they did channel that $50 million into building Chipotle into one of the greatest success stories in modern restaurant history.  By 2005 McDonald's owned 90% of Chipotle. In 2006, with over 500 Chipotle locations in the US, and more opening every month, McDonald's sold it off… and divested completely of Chipotle.  According to press accounts, McDonald's not only sold off Chipotle but other brands like Boston Market. They said they were “distractions” to the McDonald's core brand and that they needed to get back to their core.  For their part -- Chipotle never looked back. By 2015 Chipotle had over 2000 locations, net revenue over $475 Million, an all-time high stock price over $785 a share, and more than 45 thousand employees.  And then - disaster struck: In August of 2015, health officials linked Chipotle to an E.Coli outbreak that sickened over 50 people in numerous states. Soon after, more than 120 Boston College students showed up at the college's health services with norovirus symptoms that were later linked to an area Chipotle. It was national news. Eating at Chipotle wasn't safe. And just like that, people stopped going.  Both Chipotle and the Centers For Disease Control worked to get to the bottom of it, but a specific cause was never found.  There were suspicions that it was tainted beef or poorly handled vegetables. In the end, no cause was ever conclusively determined.  And the only thing worse than food poisoning you can trace… is mysterious food poisoning you can't pinpoint.  If you don't know where it came from - you can't say for sure that it's gone.  With no real information to share, Chipotle did little to reassure the public. 

In this episode, Nico and Chad talk about the Canadian brand that managed to break through into the US market, then had a decline, and a pretty interesting comeback story. Today's topic - Clearly Canadian, a company producing bottled water that was extremely huge in the 90s and has a strong nostalgic value to it.  It's hard to find someone over 30 who doesn't remember Clearly Canadian! Originally founded in 1987 in British Columbia, Clearly Canadian is considered by many people to be the first Premium “new age beverage”. Some people credit Clearly Canadian with single-handedly launching the multi-billion dollar flavored water market that exists today.  Clearly Canadian moved south of the border into the US just as the 90s began, and took off The brand's signature “teardrop” shaped blue-tinted glass bottle was iconic, the bold fruit images on the front communicated natural and healthy.  The original ingredients list included only spring water, natural “vegan” flavors, and cane sugar.  It was ahead of its time in anticipating the natural beverage trend. It also became ubiquitous culturally… through the early 90s Clearly Canadian was featured in Television shows and movies including Sex and the city, Seinfeld (it was kind of Jerry's signature drink on the show), Dawson's Creek, Beverly Hills 90210, and many others. By 1995 Clearly Canadian had yearly revenue of over $150 Million. It was on the brink of becoming a mega-brand. Here is the commercial from the brand's peak times.  Then it seemed that just as quickly as Clearly Canadian had appeared on the market. It vanished. It was gone. You just couldn't find it anymore, anywhere. Customers were frustrated - after all Clearly Canadian had a huge and loyal fan base.  And even investors and stockholders were in the dark. The brand just seemed to disappear.  What happened?  To sum it up - t's a very simple story of corporate mismanagement. As the brand grew so did the opportunity to find efficiency and attempts to make more profit from it. Leadership's eyes get bigger - and shortcuts get taken.  Sometimes what you lose in the middle, is the core of the brand. Throughout the late 90s and into the early 2000s, the Clearly Canadian timeline is a series of missteps: hostile takeovers of other brands, acquisitions, and questionable product decisions.  If you want to pin it on one factor - some people have blamed one choice more than any other for the fall of Clearly Canadian: plastic bottles.  To beverage consumers, the feel of a bottle is integral to the product and Clearly Canadian's blue-tinted glass bottles signaled premium, quality, and natural.  By the early 2000s, the brand was limping along, and management was trying to figure out how to bring it back. They tried diet flavors, energy SKUs, but nothing worked.  In 2001 the original founders left and the company limped along for a decade with sales continuing to decline. In 2010 and 2011, for the first time since 1987, Clearly Canadian did not make a single bottle. It seemed that Clearly Canadian was dead. But, as we've learned from previous episodes on Polaroid, and PBR, never underestimate the power of nostalgia.  The return of Clearly Canadian In 2012, Clearly Canadian was purchased by a firm with a history of turning around CPG brands. A new leadership team was formed, and a strategy was hatched to bring Clearly Canadian back to life. The new Clearly Canadian leaned into their loyal fan base (now older, with a bit of money to spend) to help them resurrect the brand. Going direct to their fans for funding helped the company stay true to the brand's original ethos. The very trap the original owners had fallen into, of confusing the brand.  Instead of going to investors for funding, they launched a crowd-funding campaign on their website at clearlycandadian.com where they invited people to pre-order cases of the beverage with the promise that if they sold 25,000 cases,

In this episode, the guys discuss how the well known personal care brand, Old Spice, fought to stay relevant and to reconnect with their audience. They walk us through the brand's attempts to rediscover their “youth”, will they be successful? Nico shares what the Old Spice ceramic bottle reminds him of and Chad explains the word “swoon” to Nico.  In the early 1900s a man named William Lightfoot Schulz started a company called, unsurprisingly, the Lightfoot Schultz company. They made shaving soap out of a factory in Hoboken, New Jersey. In 1919, thinking he was making a good business deal, Schultz sold part of the company to the American Razor Blade company. Shaving soap and razor blades together…good deal right? Just about 15 years later, Schultz was forced out of the company he started. He sold control to the American Razor Blade company, and departed. With the money he made from the sale, he decided to start a new business. He stayed with what he knew, making fragranced soaps, toiletries, and shaving soaps primarily for women.  The fragrances he used were based on a jug his mother had in her house. It was heavily scented with rose petals, clove, and potpourri. She used the scented jug to deodorize the home, much like an air freshener today. And she referred to these as her “old spice jugs.” Hence the name: Old spice. In 1937 he released his first product, a woman's scent called “early american old spice.” And in 1938 he saw the need for products for men, and he released his first product targeted at the male consumer. Old Spice was a huge success. And his products for men were so successful that he stopped producing women's fragrances altogether in 1939. Old Spice focused on Shaving Creams and aftershave lotions. This was right in the middle of World War II.  Old Spice became a symbol of American patriotism, as soldiers carried their products around the world. Schultz leaned into this traveling wanderlust image, and used sailing ships in his branding to lend a feel of old world and adventure. The Old Spice brand did well after WWII - and into the 1940s. But Schultz passed away in 1950, and left his son George to take over. After a few years, without his father's keen business sense to guide it, the business started to decline.  Have a look at this 1957 Old Spice ad here. As often happens when a brand is SO strongly identified with a particular generation, The audience ages, and the product's popularity wanes. By the early 1970s the brand had fallen so far that they were ripe for merger, and in 1972 Old Spice merged with American Cyanamid - a fortune 500 manufacturer with 100k+ employees. But the glory days of the brand were past. The younger generation considered Old Spice a brand for their grandfathers, a scent for older people. Even the name seemed to hint at it...OLD spice. There was nothing current or attractive about the brand. And there was different branding, the brand seemed caught between the idea of a younger surf-type brand, still identifying with the sea, but in a new way. Here's an ad from 1970 with this theme. Just 2 years later, they had another ad, watch it here.  The brand really struggled to find it's true identity after it's target audience aged. And the story went on, even into the 1990's the brand suffered. Different divisions were sold off (the majority of it becoming part of what is Pfizer today) It seemed destined for the dump-heap of brand history.  The Turnaround In 1990, Cincinnati based Procter & Gamble bought what was left of the brand for $300MM.  The press release stated that P&G “liked the men's toiletries market” and felt the acquisition gave them “a strong foothold in the male toiletries market worldwide.”  P&G had a vision for the brand, they were looking to get into the male market, and P&G doesn't do anything small. P&G Chairman and CEO at the time, Edwin Artzt, said he believed Old Spice had the “quality and reputation to be a major worldwide brand.

In this episode, the guys discuss how BIC pens tried to differentiate themselves by launching pens specifically for women. This landed them in some hot water, we take a look at why this happened. Nico fires shots at Chad and Chad impresses us with his knowledge of pens.   Let's go back in time and look at the history of the BIC pen company.  Often brands will try to do something new and exciting to differentiate themselves. And maybe just as often that turns out badly for them. In 1944, near the end of WWII, French entrepreneur Marcel Bich bought a factory in a suburb south of Paris, and started the company that would become Société Bic. The BIC pen was introduced in December of 1950 - and introduced to the American market in 1959.  Originally priced at 29 cents (the equivalent of $2.54 in today's dollars), the company's slogan was “writes first time, every time.” The inexpensive BIC ballpoint pen with the transparent body (known elsewhere in the world as “BiC Cristal”), is the best selling pen in the world. In 1961 BIC introduced the BIC Orange pen - featuring a fine 0.8mm point, and an orange barrel instead of the translucent “Cristal.” In 1965 the French ministry of education approved the BIC Cristal for use in all French classrooms. In 2006 BIC sold its 100 BILLIONth pen. Bich was always a believer in strong advertising. In 1952 he hired poster designer Raymond Savignac to create ads, and subsequently won the French “Oscar de la publicité” award for excellence in advertising. In 1953 Ad executive Pierre Guichenne advised Bich to shorten his family name to Bic so the brand name would be memorable, and would translate globally. Early BIC ads referred to the BIC Cristal as the “Atomic pen” And the Ballpoint really drove the shift from fountain pens to ballpoint pens in the late 20th century.  Fast forward 60 years. In 2011, BIC decided to launch a product line specifically targeted at Women. They called it “BIC For Her.” The campaign attempted to speak to individual expression - re-styling existing pens (largely in pastel colors), and with packaging and ads that touted “BIC for Her - Always the perfect accessory.” Campaign materials highlighted: “BIC for Her pens and pencils allow you to add a touch of personality and a pop of color to your day with beautifully smooth writing and bold trendy designs.” The pens were described in the product descriptions as being "designed to fit comfortably in a woman's hand" with an "attractive barrel design available in pink and purple" Yes. Really.  Jezebel's masthead tagline is “A Supposedly Feminist Website,” and their always snarky take on feminism found the perfect target in BIC. The article, titled “BIC For Her: Finally A Pen Ladies Can Use,” included such pearls as: "Oh thank the heavens above! My feeble, female hands were just a-strugglin' with those bulky man pens." And perhaps most visibly - comedian and TV talk show host Ellen Degeneres picked it up. She savaged the product in her monologue. Listen to some quotes here. Here is an example of another offensive BIC ad used for Women's Day. After yet another round of backlash, they decided to pull the ad, but never released an apology. As is often the case when a brand makes a huge misstep like this, a chorus of voices cried out “How could they have let this happen?”  One writer provided some perspective in an article for Forbes entitled “BIC For Her - What they were actually thinking, as told by a man who worked on Tampons.” Now, aside from the troubling fact that this article amounts to further man-splaining - with David Vinjamuri explaining to us all how this could happen,  including lines like: “I am uniquely qualified to comment on this as a former brand manager who worked on feminine hygiene products.“ But he does couch his comments as having been “personally responsible for some awful, painful advertising.”  Maura Judkis, of the Washington Post pointed out that if BIC had put out the same pe...

In this episode, the guys chat about when everything wasn't awesome at Lego, and how they were able to drive an amazing turnaround by reducing marketing adjacencies. Chad talks about the genius of the Lego Movie and Nico talks about why less is often more. When you think about legacy brands, brands everyone loves, there are huge brands like Coca-cola or Nike that everyone knows about, but not everyone loves. And then there are brands that are universally loved, that it seems no-one could ever dislike. And then there are brands that are beneficial, that educate or improve. Being one brand that does it all, is liked by everyone, and provides an actual benefit, well that's the holy grail. That's what we call a mega-brand. And one of those brands, is LEGO. The Lego group is a Danish company that was founded in 1932 by (and is still owned by) the Kirk Kristiansen family. Today it seems like Lego has always been an unassailable brand - one of those brands that almost doesn't even need to advertise, they just do what they do perfectly, and everyone reveres them. But a lot of people don't know that Lego hasn't always been what it is today. And even as recently as 2004, not even 20 years ago, the Lego company was in trouble. The Beginning: The Lego Group started humbly in the workshop of a Danish carpenter named Ole Kirk Christiansen (who lived from 1891 to 1958). Christiansen started building wooden toys in Billund, Denmark in 1932, and in 1934 he named his company Lego - which comes from the Danish phrase “leg godt” which means “play well.” In 1947 Lego started making plastic toys, including (in 1949) a plastic building block that they originally called “Automatic Binding Bricks” The motto of the company was “only the best is good enough.”  (in Danish: de bedste er ikke for godt). Chirstiansen believed that quality was paramount, and he held his employees to a high standard. Sentiment against plastic toys was hard to overcome in Denmark. But the Lego company's attention to quality won people over. By 1951 plastic toys made up half the company's production. And in January of 1958 the Lego patented their design, and the modern Lego brick was born. The Growth Of The Modern Lego Company From the time it was founded in 1932 and for 66 years the Lego group had never posted a loss. But in the mid 1990s things started to shift. For a blast from the past, have a look at this 90's Legos ad.  Competition had intensified and Lego had to cut prices to remain competitive. The market got tougher, and consumer tastes seemed to be moving away from Lego to other, flashier toys, games, and gadgets. Consultants advised them to diversify. Some said they needed to pay attention to their competitor Mattel - who had products from Barbie to Matchbox cars, a lineup with breadth. Lego attempted to diversify its products to keep up, but the shift away from the original block seemed to hurt more than help. Rather than lean into their historical equity - Lego had hired designers out of top colleges who didn't care about the brand. But in 1998 the company faced its first deficit. In 1999 Lego cut a thousand jobs By 2003 their sales had fallen 26 percent, and pre-tax earnings fell by over 1.4 Billion Danish Crowns (200 million US dollars). An internal report at the time stated that Lego hadn't added anything of value to its portfolio in over a decade. Year over year sales were down 30%, and the company was $800m in debt. Lego was facing the most serious financial crisis in its history. The Turning Point So, as companies often do in a time of crisis - they looked to the leadership. In 2004, Lego hired former McKinsey consultant Jorgen Vig Knudstorp as CEO, and embarked on a company wide restructuring plan. The goal at the time sounds very basic. It was “to become a financially well-founded, value creating business.” That may sound obvious. But it's not obvious if that's not what the company has been doing.

In this week's episode, the guys are discussing something a little different. Instead of a brand, today we're going to be talking about a product that's just beginning to be marketed widely in the United States…and is, as of this recording, only legal in a handful of states. We're talking, of course, about marijuana and today we're going to focus on how Marijuana marketing is evolving as the question of legality evolves. Chad tries to remember when last he saw a phone book and Nico tells us about the biggest marijuana bust of all times.  Marijuana is completely legal in 11 states, and the District of Columbia. In 31 states Marijuana is legal for medicinal use, and/or has been decriminalized (Typically decriminalization means no arrest, prison time, or criminal record for the first-time possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption. In most decriminalized states, these offenses are treated like a minor traffic violation. And marijuana is still completely illegal in 8 states. Rarely, if ever, does a product that's so well known culturally, go from having absolutely no marketing, to being one of the hottest commodities. And the very personality of pot is changing, it seems month to month, before our very eyes. What used to be a huge cultural stigma is now turning into wide acceptance. And with it, comes the need for education and awareness building, as marijuana growers and dispensaries figure out how to take their messaging from ‘on-the-downlow' to “over the airwaves.” One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana marketing is that, while pot is legal in 11 states, and mostly legal in another 31, marijuana production and possession is still a federal crime. So what may be legal in your state, is still, technically, illegal nationwide. It's one of the interesting aspects of the American legal system that something can be both legal and illegal.  And historically states rights have taken precedent in such cases.  Most specifically the federal vs. state difference in marijuana laws has meant confusion over whether federally regulated domains can be used for the purposes of conducting marijuana business. So you have federally insured banks that cannot/will not allow legally operating marijuana businesses to open accounts. You have multi-million dollar businesses unable to have a checking account or put their assets in the bank for safety, and stories of dispensary owners in Colorado carrying around millions of dollars in cash because they can't put it in the bank. So - how, and where, is marijuana being advertised? Let's focus first on the how. How are advertisers choosing to talk about their product in these early stages of national adoption?  Education Despite pot's cultural prevalence, a lot of people still don't actually know much about it. Consumers are still on a huge learning curve about the properties of marijuana (beyond “urban legend” types of information they may have previously got from their dealer). This presents a wide open door for advertisers to educate consumers about their product. In one recent study it was found that across the board (not just in marijuana marketing) consumers are 131% more likely to buy after reading educational content. And with the huge influx of new consumers - nowhere is that need for education greater than in the cannabis industry.  Source: Conductor There's also the role that CBD (cannabidiol - marijuana's non-psychoactive sister, that's been shown to be effective in treating everything from anxiety to childhood epilepsy) has in making consumers more comfortable with the role of marijuana in our recreational and medicinal landscape. It all adds up to a huge opportunity for brands that can find the way to speak to a huge and growing audience. Marketers are learning at this stage that education, not a sales-pitch, is key. And brands are working to shift the narrative from the stereotypical “stoner” consumer to more of a health and wel...

In this week's episode, the guys discuss the cellphone brand Nokia, a pioneer in the mobile phone market. However because of not being able to keep up with competition from other smartphone makers the company went completely down. Chad and Nico remember their first ever mobile phones and Nico discusses how “Nokia” is pronounced in the rest of the world.  Believe it or not, the history of Nokia goes back to 1865. That was when a Finnish-Swede mining engineer named Fredrik Idestam founded a pulp mill outside the town of Tampere, Finland (this was back when Finland was part of the Russian empire).  He did well - and three years later he opened a second mill near the neighboring town of Nokia - where there was better potential for hydroelectric power. And in 1871 he and a friend named Leo Mechelin started a company called Nokia Ab (or “Nokia company”). That company existed for the better part of a century, much as it had at its inception. Until the technological age swept it up into an entirely new story.  In 1967 the Nokia Company merged with Finnish Cable Works and Finnish Rubber Works to form a new company with an interesting set of capabilities: Paper products, car and bicycle tires, footwear, communication cables, televisions and consumer electronics, personal computers, electricity generation and more. In 1972 a handful of Nokia employees started working on a phone that could go in people's cars. They made about 16-hundred of them. A nokia employee named Matti Makkonen - who is often credited as being the father of text messaging - talked about how strange it was to everyone. He said “I remember someone coming up with the term “mobile phone.” Everyone laughed. Who'd carry a phone with them?”  He said it was strange because no-one had seen it yet.  Nokia spent the 1980s developing communication technology for the finnish military, including mobile phones. In the late 80's/early 1990s the company divested itself of everything but it's telecommunication business to focus on what they saw as the greatest opportunity. And rebranded itself as Nokia mobile phones. They launched the first GSM phone (the 1101) in 1992, followed by the 2100 in 1994. The 2100 was the first phone with that famous Nokia ringtone. These phones pretty much single handedly launched the mobile phone boom. As a result, Nokia became the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world by 1998. At its peak, Nokia's annual budget was larger than the budget for the government of Finland. Nokia seemed untouchable. But in 2007 Apple released the iPhone and everything changed. From 2007 to 2012, Nokia lost a staggering 90% of its market value. Comparing Nokia with rival Samsung, from 2010 to 2012 the balance went from 76% to 6% in Nokia's favor, to 23% to 42% in Samsung's favor. And digging into exactly how and why that happened is an object lesson in business strategy for anyone who has ears to hear. The beginning of the end for Nokia actually happened a few years earlier. In 2001 Nokia took a huge hit, not because of competition, but because of a slowdown in the global market for mobile phones. But they were huge and they recovered easily. Demand increased and Nokia seemed fine.  But just three years later (2004) they started reporting declines in their market share. They still owned 35% of the market, but it was nothing like their dominance in the mid-90s. And then in 2007 Nokia announced a huge recall - $137MM. 46 million of their cell phone batteries were recalled, dating back to 2005. Those batteries were in a huge range of phones, meaning that the impact was spread across Nokia's devices. The same year Apple announced the launch of the iPhone, and the next year (2008) Android version 1.0 hit the market. Nokia's internal woes (recalls) were compounded by stiffer competition than they'd yet encountered.  Nokia had to do something. But would it be too little, too late? In 2010 Nokia appointed Stephen Elop - previously the head of Microso...

In this week's episode, the guys chat about a blatantly racist ad campaign launched by Dove in 2017. How does this happen? We take a look at how problematic ads like these get approved and we discuss if this damaged the brand reputation in the long term. Chad has no difficulty answering Nico's question this week and Nico talks about how only 2% of all women consider themselves as beautiful. Historically Dove has been known for the unique shape of their soap - a softer, flowing shape that's very distinctive. Starting in the 1950s their TV ads stood out - watch it here. Dove continued to shift with the times - moving beyond soap into moisturizers and skin care products throughout the years, along with hair care products. Dove was a leader in female centered advertising, and in ads that rang out with equality and empowerment, and so it was with that history that in 2004 Dove launched the “Real Beauty” campaign. In one of the most compelling ads, a sketch artist drew two pictures of the same woman - one as they described themselves, and another as they were described by a friend or bystander. The differences were striking. Watch it here.  Dove seemed to be doing the thing all brands want to do - marketing their brand well, while also accomplishing meaningful social good. But for brands - playing in the realm of altruism can be a tricky, if not dangerous place. And Dove realized that all too clearly. In 2017 Dove ran an online ad, a 3-second Facebook ad that featured a black woman taking off her top to reveal - a white woman. The internet went nuts with responses like: “ What are the employees of Dove smoking?” and “Dear Dove, go shove your useless products to the nearest white supremacy ditch” and launched the hashtag #boycottdove. Watch the ad here. The outrage caused by the ad, helped to remind people of an ad Dove had created in 2011 that also caused a stir. That ad featured three women in front of panels that said “before” and “after.” The women were positioned so that the black woman was in front of the “before” panel, a white woman with dark hair in the middle, and a white, blonde woman in front of the “after” panel. After the 2017 ad scandal, Dove issued a statement saying they were “re-evaluating their internal practices for creating and approving content.” The model used in the 2017 ad spoke out and shared her opinion on the ad. Watch it here.  Critics weren't about to let Dove get off that easy. Chris Allieri from the NYC based PR firm Mullberry & Astor called it “unconscionable,” and said (quote), “When your ad is being called 'racist' by people across social media, you've done a lot more than 'miss the mark. It just goes to show that in reality there is a long way from Cannes to Main Street. Maybe they should have 'real people' create the ads rather than just starring in them.” Read the rest of this article here.  So - how does something like this happen? How could such a message make it to public launch without someone along the way recognizing how bad it was? Well one of the reasons companies have a hard time creating culturally sensitive content, and recognizing when their efforts to do so fail, is because they're not very diverse themselves. The advertising marketplace (and ad biz hiring) simply hasn't caught up with the reality of purchasing behavior. Black women, in particular, are an ever-more-powerful force in trend setting and purchasing. But representation of black women in boardrooms and executive panels, not just in advertising but everywhere, continues to lag. So how did the controversy affect the Dove brand? Will it hurt them long term? Most analysts say no. Paulina Lezama, brand & purpose director at creative agency RY calls Unilever the “poster child for purpose-driven brands” and says their legacy of doing so should help them recover. “Is it the end of the brand? Absolutely not…. If less genuine brands like Pepsi and Volkswagen have carried on with business as usual afte...

In this episode, the guys chat about comics and superheroes. Marvel - and comics in general - hit the skids when they tried to oversell their product and lost sight of their fan base. But it was their creativity that saved them in the end. Both Nico and Chad take a trip down memory lane as they “dust off” some of their favorite comics from way back when.  The company that eventually became Marvel was originally created in 1939 by Martin Goodman - and was originally called “Timeless Comics.” In 1961 the company was rebranded as Marvel - and launched the first titles that Marvel would eventually become known for, including The Fantastic Four and other titles by the legendary names behind Marvel - Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. In the 1960s through 1980s, Marvel Comics consistently grew, mostly due to their amazing art and storytelling. Marvel was among the most respected comic book franchises. Through the late 80s and into the early 1990s, Marvel's success hit a peak, attracting the attention of people in the “mainstream.” It was during this time that millionaire Ron Perelman (who'd had huge success at Revlon) bought Marvel Entertainment Group  for $82.5MM - he took Marvel public. Writer Neil Gaiman gave a speech to 3000 comics industry leaders at the 1993 Diamond Comic Distributors 10th Annual Retailers Seminar where he prophesied doom to come. Gaiman said the success of comics couldn't last, and that the practices of continually driving prices up were not only hurting the quality of comic writing and production… that it would eventually come back to bite the industry economically. The year wasn't even out before Gaiman's prophecy started to come true. Higher prices and more and more issues to collect couldn't last forever. Collectors started to get fatigued…realizing that not every release could be worth investing in...and the flood of collectables started to de-value the entire market.  Desperate for a way to pull Marvel out of the dumps of debt, Perelman launched Marvel Studios. He wanted to get their signature characters on screen, but there were licensing deals in the way. He planned to grow the company by further acquisitions so he could buy back the licensing for key characters, but the board - Marvel's shareholders - weren't so sure. So Perelman tried to go around them. He filed bankruptcy - which gave him the power to reorganize without their consent. But they didn't go down easy. They hired turnaround expert Peter Cuneo - verteran of successful turnarounds. Cuneo believed cutting corners on talent had led to Marvel's troubles in the 90s and he refused to repeat the mistake. Listen to Cuneo talk about business turnarounds here. In 2005 Marvel took a huge risk, they approached Merrill Lynch for funding.  And as collateral for the loan they offered up: The core of their business…and essentially they've never looked back. The guys end off the show by discussing lessons to be learned from this incredible comeback, one of them being that “great companies don't only make products, they build ecosystems”. At the end of the day every company that is successful, is successful because of its people.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] The most expensive comic book ever sold [04:10] The history of Marvel [05:20] Part 1: The Rise and Fall [16:00] Part 2: The Legal Battles [20:00] The strategy of turning the business around [26:30] Part 3: Marvel In The Movies [29:30] Part 4: The Rise of Marvel Studios [37:10] Lessons to be learned Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about one of the world's leading tech companies who thought they were the Mafia. Apparently some of the executives at eBay were “unhappy” with the coverage of their company on an e-commerce newsletter and that's when things started going horribly wrong. Chad tells us about his wife's love for heroic movies and Nico's inner investigator comes out as he takes us through this horrific story.  For more than 20 years, David and Ina Steiner ran an e-commerce newsletter called “ECommerceBytes” from their home in the suburbs of Boston. In recent years their writing has mostly focused on the dealings of Amazon and eBay, things like criticisms and analysis of their corporate practices, including shareholder meetings, etc. Apparently some of the executives at eBay were “unhappy” with the coverage of their company on e-Commerce Bytes. So in August of last year they decided to take action. Listening to US Attorney Andrew Lelling's press conference where the charges were laid out, is surreal. Listen for yourself here.  The guys go on to unpack the three phases of this campaign:  1 - Sending disturbing deliveries to their home day and night 2 - Sending the couple anonymous threatening messages online 3 - Actual physical surveillance of the couple including at their home near Boston. They also set up fake social media accounts that were supposedly by people who sell items on ebay and disapproved of their coverage, and sent threats including profane messages that took credit for the deliveries. And as things grew more complex and surreal, they actually flew from California to Massachussetss to physically surveil them at their home and around their town - including breaking into their garage to install a GPS on their car.  It's almost too much to believe. And the fact is… it worked. They intimidated these people - terrorized them for weeks. The Natick, Massachusetts police were the first to uncover the scheme which they originally thought was all just a series of pranks. But when the Steiners reported that they were being followed, things got more serious.  So what was it they were so enraged by? Well according to various reports, it originally started when former eBay CEO Devin Wenig enlisted chief communications officer Steve Wermer in a campaign to prove what they believed was Amazon's practice of paying publications like the Steiners' for good press. Amazon denies the practice, and ultimately Wenig and Wermer were unable to prove their suspicions. What happens next depends on who you believe. Although it would appear that Baugh and company were just continuing the next phase of Wenig's campaign against negative reviewers. Wenig claims he knew nothing about what they were doing, he says he never ordered any of it, and (and this is rich) that he was on vacation in Italy while it was all going on. Yeah right! According to the affidavit, the two (Wenig & Wymer) continued to discuss the problem they believed the Steiners to be. Read all the text messages here. Ultimately neither Wenig nor Wymer have been charged with any crimes. The guys end of the show by asking the question…how could something like this happen? Even if Wenig is not legally to blame, he should for sure bear the blame for establishing a culture where this could seem okay.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:40] The Godfather movie scene [01:30] What makes an online company successful? [03:40] ECommerceBytes [06:00] Andrew Lelling's press conference [09:00] The 3 phases of the campaign [18:20] The Natick, Massachusetts police gets involved [24:20] Text messages from Wenig to Wymer [26:40] Any company is a direct reflection of it's leadership Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about how marketing to kids is a double edged sword that tends to cause more harm than good. Chad remembers his favorite TV show as a kid, and Nico talks about the highest paid kid on YouTube.  The rules of marketing to kids differ from country to country and from industry to industry. And not only are there widely different rules in different countries, many of them have changed over the years. The European Union has had a couple of different standards. In the early 90's the EU adopted the Television Without Frontiers Directive, which did things like prohibit pornography and inappropriate materials from being shown during certain hours when kids were likely to be watching. In 2009 that was replaced by The EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which stated (among other regulations) that ads should “not directly encourage minors to persuade their parents or others to purchase the goods or services being advertised.” The guys also take a closer look at the rules of marketing to kids in the United States. Our country simply has not kept up with the rest of the world in terms of implementing science-based standards for marketing to kids. Many other countries have taken steps to:  Ban fast food marketing to kids under the age of 13.Restrict ads aimed at children for foods high in calories, sugars, fat and sodium.Ban the use of cartoons or toys to market unhealthy foods.Require educational labels on ads for unhealthy foods. Not only is direct marketing to kids as big a problem as it's ever been, the ways in which online marketing tracks a user's behavior across platforms makes it more pernicious than ever to hypertarget ads to children. A report in 2016 claimed that watching programming from internet streaming services has “saved children of the 2010s from 150 hours of commercials every year.” But what they may be missing in ads is being made up and exceeded within the programming itself. Where once there were toy commercials, now kids are watching unboxing videos on YouTube, or toy reviews. And they're popular. “Ryan's world” is a YouTube Channel in which an 8-year old boy reviews toys. He has more than 23 million subscribers. Now, up to this point the main focus has been on how advertisers reach kids, and what the rules are. But it's important to take a step further, and look at the question of whether we SHOULD be advertising to kids. There's a lot of research on the impacts of advertising on children. We may have the best of intentions, but without understanding what advertising does to a child's brain, even the best intended campaign can have negative impacts. Here is a video showcasing how advertising actually rewires kids' brains. There are a lot of factors that can make marketing particularly effective on children, but the dark side is they can result in very negative behaviors that last into later life. You're not just marketing a product, you're having an impact on who that person is at an impressionable age. The guys end of the show by unpacking how to market ethically when kids are involved. The main takeaways are: Talk to parents, not kids. They make the ultimate purchasing decisions, so don't shortcut parents to get to children. Take the long-term view, not that if you hook them now you'll have them forever, but that if you build trust with parents and kids now, you'll win loyalty in the future.Understand and consider the effects your campaigns have on children, and plan accordingly.Don't assume you know. Involve professionals. Bring child psychologists into your market research, not to better manipulate kids, but to ensure you're doing no harm. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] The top kids franchise in the world [04:40] The rules when marketing to children [11:20] Product tie-ins [12:50] Marketing of fast foods to children [18:20] Parents as regulators [21:30] YouTube unboxing and toy reviews [23:30] Should we be advertising to kids at all?

In this episode, the guys chat about Polaroid - the brand who was brought back to life by its fans. As we all know, cell phones and digital meant the death of film photography...but they made a comeback. Chad tells us about how Lady Gaga teamed up with Polaroid to boost their relevance and Nico reacts to Kanye running for president.  Throughout the 60s and 70s, Polaroid was synonymous with instant photography. They had a monopoly on the instant photography market, and were a huge player in the overall photography landscape. Polaroid accounted for 20% of the global film market, and 15% of the US camera market. The people at Polaroid weren't fools. They had market researchers, and they knew the market was changing. But simply couldn't imagine how completely digital photography would replace the chemistry of film photography, and physical photos.  This once dominant household name started to falter. Throughout the 90's Polaroid fought to stay afloat. In 2001 faced with declining sales and an inability to respond to the challenges of digital photography, Polaroid declared bankruptcy for the first time. The company sold off its brand and much of its assets. A “new” Polaroid company was formed, but without a clear intention or mission the company languished. In 2008 the Polaroid instant camera, once the very symbol of creativity in the moment, officially died.  Meanwhile, as Polaroid was trying to find itself as part of that sale of assets in 2008, a group of Polaroid “super fans” intervened to buy the company's last remaining instant film factory in the Netherlands. They started a company of their own, with the intention of producing new instant films for existing polaroid cameras. They wanted to keep the form of the instant film photo alive. They called this company “The Impossible Project.” Polaroid eventually expanded into tablets, televisions, and other digital media. When the time was right, the company re-visited instant photography, creating cameras and presented it to a new, younger audience. It was a fun option that printed instant wallet-sized photographs. For kids who'd grown up with smartphones, the idea of a physical photo you could give to a friend was new, fun, and kind of retro-feeling.  In essence, Polaroid didn't reinvent themselves to create their rebound. They clarified who they were, doubled down on their incredibly strong equity, and then they waited until the market came back around to them.  The guys end the show off by discussing how Polaroid didn't really reinvent themselves, they clarified who they were. It wasn't easy, but through everything they have been through, there has never been any negativity connected with the brand. Long live film.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] The world's first photograph [04:00] The invention of instant photography [05:40] Digital killed film photography [12:50] The fall of Polaroid [16:10] Polaroid super fans [20:30] The comeback [33:40] What have we learned Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about how important it is to learn from the mistakes of past marketers and why it's so tempting to engage in unethical marketing practices. Nico tells us the 6 things we can learn from history and Chad reads one of the sketchiest Instagram posts ever.  It all starts with how JUUL, a very well known electronic cigarette brand, ignored all the mistakes their predecessors made and completely crashed and burned. They shamelessly marketed their products to teenagers and profited off products that killed people. Why would they ignore all warning signs and allow history to repeat itself? In the summer of 2015 founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees launched the JUUL Electronic Cigarette. In fall 2017 the newly named JUUL Labs had 200 employees, by the end of the following year they had 1500 employees. The company was valued at 15 Billion dollars, following a $650 million investment round. That is explosive growth and a whole lot of success.  So this sounds like another silicon valley success story, or even a company doing some good, reducing cigarette smoking? Well - there was a darker side. And one that would eventually come back to bite hard.  To understand why, the guys take a look back in history and discuss how in 1997, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against the RJ Reynolds company - the owners of Camel Cigarettes - for specifically marketing to children with the “Joe Camel” cartoon campaigns. The results of these and other lawsuits were significant prohibitions on the marketing of tobacco to minors. And as a result - teenage smoking had been on the decline for decades leading up to JUUL's rise around 2015, 2016, and 2017. So JUUL had an opportunity… grow into a healthy new market, and be a force for good - helping to reduce tobacco dependency, and position themselves in the market as an aid to smoking cessation… OR… take the other route. The JUUL team was very successful at marketing their harmful products to teenagers. They actually made their device look like a flash drive so that parents wouldn't even be aware that their kids were “JUUL'ing”. The owners of JUUL weren't aware of the risks of their product but they still spent thousands of dollars to market their products to children as young as 8 years old. Then the blowback happened. In 2017 the FDA announced it was taking steps to crack down on e-cigarette use among teens. Not only were government regulators and researchers on their case…parents started to get involved. In response to the FDA crackdown, the company announced they would be using real customers who were using the product to switch from smoking instead of models. In late 2018, Juul shut down their social media accounts, they also agreed to make changes to its youth advertising practices as part of a settlement with the Center for Environmental Health. Listen to the interview with JUUL CEO here.  Nico and Chad end the episode by discussing why a big company like JUUL wouldn't learn from the past and go on to make mistakes, knowing that it could kill their brand. The Influence of greed is strong in marketing and kids are especially susceptible.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] How can we learn from history? [02:30] The history of how JUUL got started [06:20] Concerns about who was using their product [09:40] Why were kids actively using the product? [21:40] The blowback [26:20] JUUL's response [30:40] Message from CEO [37:40] What have we learned Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about the recent racist comments of the founder of Crossfit and how systemic racism negatively effects marketing within the fitness community. Chad names his favorite weightlifting movement, and Nico geeks out on gamification. CrossFit's founder, Greg Glassman, announced his retirement Tuesday evening after big backlash caused by his offensive remarks on Twitter, Zoom calls and email communication. Nico and Chad take a closer look at this incident and how it was received by both the CrossFit fanatics and everyone else.  CrossFit was formally established in 2000. The company's first affiliate was CrossFit North in Seattle. By 2005, there were 13 affiliates. In 2012, a mere dozen years after the company started, there are 3,400 affiliates worldwide. So how is it that this brand grew so quickly? The guys discuss how the CrossFit brand is supposed to be very inclusive. The “box” should be a place where people of all ages, races, religions, sex etc should feel confident and comfortable and put their focus on leading a healhty lifestyle. Unfortunately, that isn't really the case. Your average CrossFit box will consist of mostly caucasion, high income members - very inclusive right?! CrossFit has a history of erratic behavior, poor communication, and controversy. They shut down their social media accounts in 2019 shortly after announcing major changes to the games format without warning. So what happened? Take a closer look at the timeline here.  The guys end the show off by discussing what Marketing lessons we can take from what happened with Greg Glassman: What CEO's say or tweet - matters and people take noteDon't allow your brand to be in a position where a single person can hijack itBe consistent and transparent in communicationsLook for contradictions in your brand and actively work on solving themConsider the opinions of not just your current customer base, but also your target customers (they were trying to globally and ethnically expand)Nothing is private anymore. Text messages, zoom calls, internal company meetings. You should always conduct yourself under the assumption that private conversations will be made public  One thing to remember is that NOTHING is private anymore. Conduct yourself and your business as if everything you say or do will be made public. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] Snatch, or clean and jerk?[01:20] Greg Glassman racist comments.[03:40] Introduction to CrossFit.[06:20] The history of CrossFit.[09:00] The numbers in CrossFit - is it inclusive?[10:50] Why is CrossFit so expensive?[11:50] How big is CrossFit?[14:00] How did it get so big?[17:20] Shutting down their social media.[19:10] Tone-deaf communication from CrossFit CEO[29:50] Lessons to be learned Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys talk about how the first-time CEO of Campbell's turns the brand around by believing in it's people. Nico asks Chad what he would do as the CEO of a failing company - and as most people would, Chad reacts by saying that he would cut costs where possible. Douglas Conant wanted to do the opposite.   The Campbell's Soup Company is one of the most iconic brands in America. The company was founded in 1869 and headquartered in Camden, NJ. They have one of the most recognizable brands/logos in the world, but by the 1980's and 1990's, the brand was starting to sag.  Sales were down as the market for pre-prepared foods was getting crowded, and (especially with competition from microwaveable frozen foods), the overly diversified Campbell's brand was starting to suffer.  The guys continue to discuss how by the early 2000's the Campbells was trying to reignite the brand. They invested in new leadership. In 2001, Campbell's hired Douglas Conant as the company's new CEO. When Conant was hired as CEO in 2001… he was only the 11th CEO in over 130 years. And this once thriving company was in serious trouble. People didn't think he could do it, even some of the board wanted someone with more CEO experience. Instead of doing what almost any other CEO would do - make huge cuts - Conant invested in making Campbell a place people would WANT to work, where people would want to stay. Conant realized that for Campbell's to be successful, he was going to have to change the way he led. He'd need to be more visible, more communicative, more involved and engaged. Not only did he put people first, and truly invest in his workforce, he also took a hard look at his own leadership style. In fact, he went so far as to write 10 to 20 handwritten personal notes to employees at all levels of the organization each day to recognize those who were performing well. Listen to him tell the story here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SBMnzCR_xg Conant took on every aspect of the company, it wasn't without cost. Some people just couldn't hack it, or didn't want to. 300 of the company's 350 leaders left within the first 3 years,losing 85% of your leadership in the first 3 years - a lot of people would have seen that as a failure. He chose to focus on the ones who stayed, and on making them feel good about being committed to the company and their work. Campbell's sales turned around, and profits grew for eight straight years while Doug Conant was CEO. He truly valued his people - they weren't just a means to an end (his wealth). He recognized the broad range of factors that influence people's happiness, and he took them all on. The guys end the show by focusing on how Conant saved a massive business from failing by simply investing in his people and putting them first. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] What would you do if you were the CEO of a failing company? [01:10] Nico and Chad catching up on life in general [02:40] Introduction to Campbell's Soup [04:40] Hiring a new CEO [05:20] Challenges at Campbell's [09:50] How Conant drove the company back to its feet [18:20] Personal touches [27:20] The results [30:00] The takeaways [35:50] Podcast reviews Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about Peloton, an exercise equipment company that allows you to compete with others in the comfort of your own home and brag about it on your social media channels. Peloton launched an ad that wasn't received very well, so we have to ask the question - is there really no such thing as bad publicity?The show starts off with the guys unpacking the infamous ad. Is it really that bad? If you just listen to the audio, you wouldn't necessarily understand what all the backlash is about. Let's break down the ad, for those of you who haven't seen it. Here is a link to the ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijof8uw4OHs The ad starts with a woman being led downstairs at Christmas, hands over eyes, to reveal her present… a Peloton stationary bike. The 30 second ad shows her nervously starting to use it for the first time, then getting more into it as she progresses. We see the instructors mention her on screen and see that she's gotten over her trepidation, and is really getting into it. Eventually we see that not only are we watching these progress videos… she's watching them, on the couch, with her husband, a year later. She has made this video montage, to show him how far she's come. She says that “a year ago I didn't realize how much this would change me.” and thanks him for “The Gift of Peloton” The guys go on to discuss what the ad was trying to do/say and where it went wrong. It boils down to why the woman in the ad is so motivated by the input of others. It feels manufactured, like she's done it out of duty and not gratitude So what was the reaction to this ad? There were two different streams of criticism… that of it being frightening, and that of it being offensive. And perhaps the most important reaction… the brand's stock dropped 9% ($942MM) in one day. Although the company says it was not linked to the ad, but to a sales lull following Black Friday that year, and it did quickly rebound to almost its previous level.  Nearly six months later we can see that Peloton's stock didn't just drop that day, it continued to fall for another 3 months. For their part, Peloton says they stand behind the ad, and that despite the 9% single day drop in their stock price, the ad has not harmed the business. The guys mention how it's admirable how the brand stood by the ad and didn't back down once during all the negativity towards them.  The guys end the show off by discussing lessons to be learned after dissecting this ad. They mention that Peloton failed this time because they forgot the fundamental rule of all communication and they created this ad in a bubble - they didn't test to see how it would be perceived by its audience. Peloton may not have damaged their brand with their core consumers, who knows? But they certainly didn't build their brand through this episode. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:18] How many calories are burnt during a marathon [01:43] Nico and Chad catching up on life in general [03:44] Introduction to Peloton [08:50] The infamous Peloton ad (“The gift of Peloton”) [13:41] What was Peloton trying to get across with the ad? [16:26] Reaction to the ad [21:15] Free publicity - although negative [27:20] “Who we are, who we are not” leaked document [31:03] Lessons to be learned [35:00] Podcast reviews Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about the way a big organization can do terrible things in plain sight. Chad and Nico recall how a pharmaceutical company transformed itself into a neighborhood drug dealer.  The guys start the show talking about the background of Purdue Pharma. Purdue decided to create a new market entirely by aggressively working to normalize the use of opioids for the management of chronic pain. Purdue created a campaign claiming the idea that there was a national epidemic of untreated pain in America. They wanted the medical industry to do a better job of prescribing opioids.  Purdue utilized an AstroTurf campaign by creating unbranded websites that were supposedly independent information from independent groups. However, the contributors were fake, and the information was completely misleading and false. Purdue even created sales ads that purposely underemphasized the addiction element of opioids. The addiction rate was at least ten times what they were claiming.  When marketing the opioids, Purdue made a point to say that the people who got addicted were of bad character. Plus, they claimed those people were intentionally trying to abuse the medication and that it wouldn't happen to a responsible person. Typically, in an ad, you have to balance fair and balanced information. However, Purdue completely minimized the risks of opioids. In 2001 alone, the company spent 200,000 million dollars promoting Oxycontin. In 2004, it became the leading drug of abuse in the United States. However, sales representatives were making six-figure bonuses and loving it. Purdue recruited and trained doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to be their spokespeople.  Purdue kept a database of doctors in order to influence them to prescribe their products. The company would identify physicians with high numbers of chronic pain patients and determine which doctors would prescribe more willingly. Purdue gave away their products for free, knowing those patients would want more.  The guys describe how Purdue manipulated the system and created drug addicts. Plus, they reveal Purdue's secret plan to profit off of opioid addiction caused by their drugs and explain Purdue's eventual demise.   Enjoy the show! We speak about: [05:00] About Purdue Pharma [11:30] About creating an AstroTurf campaign [17:30] How Purdue marketed their opioids [24:15] About the Sunshine Act [26:30] How Purdue influenced doctors to prescribe their products [32:10] The ways Purdue manipulated the system and created drug addicts [36:00] Why Purdue never received warning letters [40:20] About Project Tango [42:20] The demise of Purdue [55:10] Podcast reviews Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about how hipsters are a subculture that emphasizes authenticity, quite the opposite of influencers. Chad and Nico recall how a beer company made a significant comeback by creating influencers out of hipster culture.   The guys start the show talking about how alcohol sales have spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today is all about Pabst Blue Ribbon – it was founded in 1844, and they were a tremendous player in the beer market. When men realized they needed to be healthy to live longer, beer companies started making low-calorie alternatives. However, Pabst played into their older market still, the people who loved them during their peak. Eventually, Pabst began to lose market share and had twenty-three straight years of declining sales.  So, Pabst hires a twenty-seven-year-old marketing manager, Neal Stewart, as their last chance to stay open. Neal hires an ad agency, despite having no budget. The ad agency is lucky to get an opportunity with a big brand. At the same time, they have to do a campaign with basically no money. The agency gets creative and realizes that Pabst was doing okay in a few markets, in fact, some markets were getting significant growth. They decided to visit those markets and talk to the people on the ground. People were drinking PBR because it felt authentic, and they weren't being marketed to from the company. So, PBR realized a big ad campaign would do more harm than good. Pabst Blue Ribbon embraced storytelling – they started one of the most successful influencer marketing strategies in recent history. The trick was to get the most influential people to talk to their friends about PBR and give them a good story to share. They kept giving people who loved the beer more reasons to talk about it. They were able to develop a strong presence in key markets, one person at a time. PBR made an impression on young people by starting a lot of conversations. It worked, and their sales started to increase again. However, times started changing yet again, and PBR had no mechanism to communicate with their audience. They pinned themselves in a corner, they couldn't advertise in their marketplace effectively. Since the plateau and their second decline in sales, PBR is making some strategic hiring decisions in 2020. Will lightning strike twice for PBR? Later, the guys talk about how influencers are the opposite of hipsters.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:30] Alcohol sales during COVID-19 [01:50] Apple Podcast reviews [03:45] About Pabst Blue Ribbon [08:30] Why Pabst Blue Ribbon starts losing market share [15:40] How Pabst Blue Ribbon embraces storytelling [21:00] The second downfall of Pabst Blue Ribbon [27:50] How influencers are the opposite of hipsters Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/ What'll You Have Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQoghzFUT7g Mini Kiss: https://minikisses.com

In this episode the guys chat about why the great American pass-time is hiding out, and why the world series doesn't make any sense. Chad geeks out on his favorite team and Nico recalls one of the greatest shoe campaigns of all time. Baseball used to be the most loved sport in America. So much so that to this day it is referred to as “America's pass time”. The decline of baseball's popularity however, is very real. Baseball's popularity started to decline in the 60's when about 40% of Americans said it was their favorite sport. Less than 9% of sports fans say it's their favorite sport today. It's crazy that the marketing situation is so bad for such a fantastic game with so much history and potential. The funny thing is that revenues and attendance are up year on year. Major league baseball went from generating $1.5 billion revenue in 1997 to $7.5 billion in 2012. The numbers show that baseball is considered to be on the Mount Rushmore of American sports but public perception tells a different tale. The guys go on to compare MLB to the NBA. Why is it that the great American pass time is losing so much market share to the NBA? It seems that both the NBA and the players understand how to leverage their platform and tap into something much bigger. Marketing pop culture and the desire to be like your idols, to wear the same things, listen to the same music, soak in the culture versus merely showcasing the tedium of day to day life as a pro athlete. The NBA embraces change to the point where they start to dictate to pop culture where MLB is still very much rooted in the customs and traditions of a bygone era. The guys dig even deeper on this phenomenon and discuss how the top players and teams brand themselves on social media. The glaring question is: does baseball (or your brand) have to be perceived as popular to make money? Is there a single recipe for success? The jury is out on that one, find out what Trevor has to say on the topic by watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpDau0Xvtjk The guys end the episode off by drawing a comparison between sports and a brand and what lessons a company can learn from this. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [13:00] Strike [04:00] What is the oldest sport in America? [11:10] MLB background and strategy [18:40] Performance Enhancing Drugs [31:40] NBA background and strategy [42:40] You don't have to be popular to make money Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about the difference between playing offense and defense in business and how it relates to the current pandemic landscape. Chad takes a walk down memory lane, and Nico has a Tony Soprano moment. Did you know if you have a plan B, then plan A is less likely to work? Sometimes, it hurts to be prepared. When you realize you have options, your motivation for succeeding drops. Failure is always an option, and there are two great ills of executive life: Omission Bias: our tendency to worry more about doing something rather than not doing something. Everybody will see the results of a move gone wrong, but they won't see the consequences of a move not made.Loss Aversion: the tendency to play not to lose rather than playing to win. The inclination is to be super cautious. Then, the guys chat about the late, great Blockbuster. Did you know, Netflix offered to sell themselves to Blockbuster at some point? In the book, That Will Never Work, Marc Randolph goes into great detail about that meeting with Blockbuster – they were laughing at him. For Blockbuster, it felt like a perilous endeavor. Despite fleeting numbers, the CEO of Blockbuster, Jim Keyes, remained optimistic. Jim thought the stores would remain open indefinitely into the future. In 2010, Blockbuster files for bankruptcy – it's a lesson for what happens if you do not adapt to a continually changing world.  Later, the guys chat about the great Domino's comeback. In 1998, Domino's was the fastest-growing pizza chain in the United States. After 38 years of ownership, the founder sold 93% of the company to Bain Capital. Eventually, they worked hard on cutting costs, which included ruining the integrity of their ingredients. Next, Domino's starts innovating like crazy. They start doing all of these focus groups to try and figure out what people honestly think of their pizza. As an advertisement, Domino's ran an ad of people bashing their pizza. It absolutely worked; people felt the authenticity because they coupled it with significant improvement to their product. The way you deal with problems is by talking about it. Overall, it's easy for us to make decisions based on the status quo; however, we need to have the strength to let go and take risks. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [03:10] The two great ills of executive life [05:00] Cognitive bias [09:10] About Blockbuster vs. Netflix [16:10] The last known Blockbuster [17:00] The Domino's comeback Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about how Dwayne the Rock Johnson and the TV detective Perry Mason are connected, and how some unbranded ad copy to sell magazines became the defining oath for all Americans for the last 130 years. Did you know the original Pledge of Allegiance was created as a marketing campaign?  "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all." We all remember learning and standing for the Pledge of Allegiance every day at school. Did you know that refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is protected by the constitution? The government cannot require students to participate in the pledge. People protest the pledge to make a point, and others say the pledge because it is near and dear to their hearts. It has been ingrained in American culture for 130 years. But how does all this all relate to marketing?  The Youth's Companion, a popular children's magazine, came up with a marketing campaign to increase their circulation and sell more ads. The magazine created the pledge to kick off Columbus Day activities during a ceremony. Francis Bellamy, a minister and author, wrote the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance. In addition, during the ceremony, the magazine sold American flags at cost as a loss leader. The point was to get people there and sell more magazine subscriptions. They sold 26,000 flags while also boosting their subscriptions by fifty percent.   The pledge was meant to provoke an emotion from the audience. However, it was never meant to be recited daily from every school kid in America. The pledge was for a one-time event and to sell magazine subscriptions. However, the success of the Pledge of Allegiance allowed Francis Bellamy to move to New York and become one of the original Mad Men of Madison Avenue. Eventually, schools across the country started incorporating the pledge daily. In 1954, "under God" was added to the pledge by Congress. Overall, the pledge was to sell magazines; now, the flag is so prominent in our culture because of Francis Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [02:30] Protesting the Pledge of Allegiance [05:15] The marketing story behind our pledge [18:20] Knowing and understanding your audience [20:10] How the pledge became a success [22:00] The unintended consequences of the pledge [26:30] The importance of telling a story Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/

In this episode, the guys chat about how a game of dice exposes a $9 Billion Dollar brand and how the innovation process and inventive heroes we idolize might not be all they're cracked up to be.  In marketing, we always talk about aspirations and taking a brand from where it currently is to where we want it to go. How far can you ethically push aspiration, and when does that change from a positive thing to a grey area? Today, we cover the psychology behind people going into the grey area. In the movie, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, Dan Ariely, talks about how we make the wrong decisions repeatedly in our lives. The dice experiment from the movie gave insight into how people rationalize a lot of terrible and dodgy choices that they make. Elizabeth Holmes believed she would solve a significant healthcare problem and save millions of lives. So, all of her dishonest decisions were justified.  Dan Ariely says that cheating is a cost-benefit analysis. You weigh the options out, and you decide if it is worthwhile to commit the crime or not. We have an allowance within ourselves. There is an acceptable amount of cheating that falls within a threshold that won't damage our ability to see ourselves. Dan does another test where he pays people in tokens for giving correct answers to math problems. People will cheat and ask for a much higher number of tokens than they would if it was cash. Most people feel comfortable taking pens from an office, but they would feel uncomfortable taking a dime from a cash register.  Before the internet, everything we knew was based on what historians provided us in textbooks. You probably didn't know this about Thomas Edison: Edison announced that he had an epiphany – his bulb was just six weeks away from working. However, he was completely lying. Edison was saying that to make money. A month later, Edison started his light company from the money he raised. His success did not hinge on what Edison learned; it hinged on creating hype and getting the public to believe in him. Was Edison a fraud that got lucky, or did he genuinely believe he was doing the right thing? Edison understood how powerful his personal brand was; however, he had a team of scientists that led the experiments, whereas Edison was the office guy. Does transparency kill innovation or move it forward? People are moving away from the fake it until you make it mentality, and are moving toward transparency in business. It's okay to make mistakes; it not okay to lie about it. At the end of the day, transparency can't solely build a brand and a successful company. The brand needs a legitimate and trustworthy product. Enjoy the show! We speak about: [04:45] About faking it and making it [10:20] The ends justify the means [11:45] Cheating is a cost-benefit analysis [17:00] About deception [23:30] What you didn't know about Thomas Edison [30:00] When does aspiration become deceptive? [34:35] Does transparency kill innovation or move it forward?  Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/ The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon ValleyAre we in control of our own decisions?

Welcome to the Marketing Rescue Podcast, the weekly show where we unpack epic marketing failures to brand rescues and comebacks. In this episode, Nico Coetzee and Chad Childress, co-founders of KPI Agency, are discussing “the worst marketing disaster in history” – New Coke.  Did you know Coca-Cola is 131 years old? Today, consumers enjoy 19,400 Coke products every second. Coke made a series of excellent decisions after one terrible one. Even the biggest and best companies in the world can get it wrong from time to time.  In 1975, Pepsi launched the Pepsi Challenge. Through the campaign, it showed that people preferred Pepsi over Coca-Cola. Pepsi started to gain market share, and Coke started to slip. In desperate times, the company decided to ditch its original recipe and release New Coke. The market research team conducted a massive project and found that subjects liked New Coke over the original recipe and Pepsi. However, the taste tests were done with just a few ounces of soda, rather than a standard serving size. Plus, the company did not take into account the personal connection people have with their brand.  April 23, 1985, New Coke launches. It's a day that will live in marketing infamy. Their confidence was super high, despite departing from what made them the most iconic brand in the beverage industry. Their stock went up, and 80% of the American public was aware of the change within a couple of days. Over the next 79 days, Coke received over 40,000 calls, letters, and loads of complaints from their bottlers. Seventy-nine days later, Coke realized the only right thing to do was bring Coca-Cola back.  What was Pepsi doing this whole time? They ran several campaigns mocking Coke. Pepsi benefited in the short-term; they saw a 14% sales jump. However, in the long-run, the Coca-Cola market share outgrew Pepsi. Pepsi won the battle but lost the war. Even though Coke didn't realize it at the time, they are a lifestyle brand. At the end of the day, emotions beat logic. The only way to defeat another lifestyle is to provide a more attractive lifestyle by helping people build a personal identity. The market research went wrong because they never took into account the emotional connection people had with the brand. Overall, Coke learned to fail forward. Stay tuned as Nico and Chad talk about bringing New Coke back.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [02:50] The history behind New Coke [10:10] The launch of New Coke [15:30] Bottlers are complaining [18:00] Bringing the original Coca-Cola back [19:30] What was Pepsi doing? [24:15] Customer engagement [26:20] Coke's marketing rescue [28:00] Bringing New Coke back Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/ For God, Country, and Coca-Cola Pepsi Commercial - Why Did Coke Change? (1985)

Welcome to the Marketing Rescue Podcast, the weekly show where we unpack epic marketing failures to brand rescues and comebacks. In this episode, Nico Coetzee and Chad Childress, co-founders of KPI Agency, are discussing Steve Rothstein, Jacques E. Vroom, and the AAirpass.   In 1978, American Airlines was hit by the Airline Deregulation Act, introducing a free market to the airline industry. Airlines needed to find creative ways to generate cash. They decided to sell their customer's the ultimate travel perk, an unlimited first class ticket for life. Plus, passholders had the option to buy an unlimited companion pass, for anyone! Passes were typically purchased by wealthy individuals, including Mark Cuban. Steve Rothstein also purchased an unlimited travel pass, plus a companion pass. Rothstein accumulated over 40 million miles in 25 years.  He ended up costing the airline millions of dollars each year because of his lifetime total of 10,000 flights.  Jacques E. Vroom also purchased the unlimited airline pass. He took out a loan to actually afford the high ticket price. However, it was well worth the price, Vroom flew an average of 2 million miles a year over twenty years. Vroom, much like Rothstein, trusted the contract with the airline, it was supposed to be an unlimited lifetime pass. Vroom allegedly booked flights for strangers and accepted payments in return for the companion pass ticket. At first, there were no limitations or rules for selling your seats. American Airlines was losing money left and right, so they gathered evidence against Vroom and Rothstein. Eventually, both Rothstein and Vroom were stripped of their unlimited air pass without any warning. Later, American Airlines ends up filing for bankruptcy, and Mark Cuban can still use his unlimited pass to this day.  The moral of the story is, don't assume anything in marketing, do your research! People are going to take advantage of any and every situation. Despite the pass failing multiple times, American Airlines still sold it. Nico and Chad say it's essential to have a process in place to avoid the same thing happening over and over again. After making a massive investment, and things start going wrong, people will double down to make it right. However, we shouldn't be afraid of failure. If something fails, then learn from the mistake and move on. Greed, fear, a lack of understanding, and a lack of planning are reoccurring themes throughout every marketing failure.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:45] About Steve Rothstein  [07:00] About Jacques E. Vroom Jr.[12:25] Terminating the unlimited air pass [16:15] American Airlines files bankruptcy  [17:50] Pushing the limits [20:45] Have a process in place [22:10] Not understanding the customer Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/ https://narratively.com/the-man-with-the-golden-airline-ticket/

The Marketing Rescue Podcast is a weekly show where we tell the stories of epic marketing failures and remarkable brand comebacks. Join hosts Nico Coetzee and Chad Childress as they look at the stories you never heard behind some of the world's biggest brands. Every week we feature a brand you've definitely heard of, and a story you probably haven't. We take a look at the factors that led to the successes and failures, and delve into what we can learn as a result. Whether you're an experienced marketer or just along for the storytelling, the Marking Rescue Podcast has something for everyone. Be sure to hit the subscribe button wherever you listen, to get new episodes as they're released, and check out show notes, information about the hosts and more at marketingrescuepodcast.com. And don't forget to follow us on social media for previews, promotions, and extras you won't find anywhere else.