Nearly two months ago to the day (July 9), I posted about Toyota’s incredible run on “safety” as a campaign message.
That post, “Toyota: Lost in the Wilderness?,” is right here.
Its thrust: given all the recalls and problems, are they already done with this “safety” push? It seems so, given some new social media-oriented, reliability-themed spots I’ve seen. Just as I was noticing how blatant the safety sell was, both in print and on-air, some fun, story-based spots started showing up in the ad mix. I found it problematic – a premature watering-down of the critical “safety” theme.
This is a company whose entire brand was built on reliability. Since November, though, it’s recalled more than 10,000,000 cars in the United States. The brand name repeatedly made headlines about sticky gas pedals and sudden acceleration. They made a brief, hard run at “safety,” but seemed to be flitting off in other directions after just a couple months.
Toyota Commits to the Safety Message
This morning, I was flipping through a recent issue of Advertising Age and read this headline: “Toyota to Push Safety in Ad Blitz.” I thought I was reading a back issue, but no … it’s dated September 6, 2010. The story’s a bit longer online than in print and can be read here.
Basically, Saatchi Los Angeles is building more creative elements to support the safety message – with an emphasis on the STAR Safety System. The campaign will run “well into 2011.” The renewed push is likely spurred by horrific August sales figures.
In a way, this functions as a follow-up to the previous post about a marketing tactic employed by the Zeitgeist Movement of Colorado. As in that case, the ideas marketed here lie outside the mainstream. Unlike the Zeitgeist folks, the organization at work here is extremely well funded and celebrity fronted.
We experienced today in Colorado Springs the same thing many have experienced in cities across the country – a protest of the cruel “entertainment” that is Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, which happens to be coming to town.
Protesting is PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. As the elephant’s sign reads: Circuses are No Fun for Animals. The message is directed toward elementary school children and delivered on public property.
Here’s a shallow analysis.
PETA Circus Protest - Colorado Springs - Elephant
How it’s executed (approximately):
PETA gets Ringling Brothers tour schedule
PETA precedes the circus, city to city
PETA distributes material outside a local elementary school in each city
PETA alerts the local media in advance of protest
Local media swarms, story’s a good “talker” that elicits strong opinions
Conversation ensues
This execution is nicely focused. They’re timely and topical with the elephant costume, signs, coloring books and more. Preceding the circus with this message should influence the buying decision.
Commercials to get people to the circus have been running heavily on television here for at least a week; the circus is due in town in a week and a half. As school’s wrapping up, kids may be talking about the circus. Parents are probably in active consideration of whether or not to cough up the $100+ it costs to take a family of four to the circus.
There’s no question that this is effective in drawing attention to PETA and to the circus. What is in question is what kind of attention does it draw – what kind of conversation does it start?
PETA Circus Protest - Colorado Springs
This strikes me as a case in which the discussion is limited to the organization itself, rather than to the specific topic and its related issues. Alignments are basic:
People who believe animals are grossly mistreated and need a human voice for justice and protection
People who think animal rights people are moronic nut jobs and are perfectly satisfied with the status quo
People who take issue with directing the message toward young children outside their schools
Meanwhile, just how humane or horrific is the treatment of animals within the circus? What are the consequences of training of large, wild beasts to perform unnatural tasks for our amusement? What amount of money or entertainment value justifies any form of mistreatment? The discussion never gets this deep.
Instead, it’s more basically about PETA – simply a love ’emorhate ’emalignment, plus a faction against their tactics in general. It’s provocative. It’s a continuation and refinement of their guerilla tactics.
This is not necessarily a bad outcome for PETA, especially if you subscribe to the “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” philosophy. Their name passed thousands of lips yesterday. Because of the timely and topical nature of their message, some share of those people whose attention they got may have “converted” – evaluating the “circus is cruel” message and tending to accept or agree.
In conclusion and a bit from left field: the difference between zealotry and simply spreading the word is defined by whether or not we agree with the message.
I’m as tired of the Tiger Woods story as you are. Really.
However, I’ve seen a ton of nonsense about the first Tiger Woods ad to appear since the revelation of his extensive sexual indiscretions.
Two main categories of nonsense:
The ad is an expression of greed by Tiger Woods and Nike
The ad is a personal message from Tiger Woods himself
First: of course it’s greed! The primary reason any athlete signs an endorsement deal and the primary reason any company extends one is, not surprisingly, profit motive on mutually acceptable terms. The athlete provides associations the brand, product or company wants in order to increase sales. The brand, product or company provides the athlete money in exchange. It’s really that simple, so I won’t go any further with this ridiculously easy criticism of the ad and its existence.
Second: an agency (Wieden+Kenney) carefully created this message on behalf of Nike and Tiger Woods. It’s not a personal message to you from Tiger Woods; do not accept it as such, narcissist. It’s not a public acknowledgment of indiscretion by Tiger Woods – he’s provided one (sadly, by force). It’s not a public apology by Tiger Woods – he’s already provided this, too.
So what is it? It’s polarizing. It’s talked-about. It’s the beginning of the reconstruction of Tiger Woods’ image by a brand that stuck with him through the debacle.
Most of the negative remarks are the rightful result of Tiger-fatigue, so nonsense gets a pass.
Here’s the ad:
Here’s a transcription: “Tiger … I am more prone to be inquisitive … to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything.”
Though it would have beenthe safest option, the absence of a Tiger Woods ad altogether during The Masters would have been quite conspicuous.
Since Nike decided instead to be present, their agency was presented a serious creative challenge. Nike needs to turn back on as soon as possible the Tiger Woods cash machine they’ve built over the past decade or so. The challenge: where and how does the reconstruction of the TW personal and brand images begin!?
A few thoughts about this execution:
Took the situation head on (did not gloss over it, ignore it or jump past it)
Visually simple and clean (no amazing shots, cheering crowds, triumphant victories)
Audibly simple and clean (no music, a couple bird chirps, dad’s voice)
Dad-as-conscience device works (no one wants to hear from Tiger or generic voiceguy)
Message is vague, curious and sensitive (no bold statements or declarations)
White logos over black vest and cap absolutely jump off (clearly present with being in your face)
All things considered, an above-average starting point (where would you have started!?)
I personally abhor Woods’ selfish and unfaithful behavior. Though I know nothing about the science behind it, “sexual addiction” strikes me as a weak excuse for weak-minded, shameful behavior. Climbing down off my moral high horse, as too few are wont to do, I accept this commercial message as the start of the reconstruction.
The commercial doesn’t “speak” to me. It does not feel to me significant, impressive or provocative in any way. It does feel a bit human, which is a good start.
Bottom line: Tiger Woods is a living case study that will eventually be published in formal marketing texts. I don’t know how it will read or how I will feel about this commercial a year or two from now, but today it feels OK. Nike’s got to fire back up that cash machine slowly and carefully.
Related: I’m quite curious about the original context of the recording, as Earl Woods passed away in 2006.
Also related: considering the financial stakes, “Brand Tiger Woods” moved far too slowly as the PR crisis rolled out and built up. They had no control over public perception as more and more women emerged with allegations. The online, print and television tabloids went burned wildly with the story. To control the flames, it’s always best to be firstand to be honest and to in times of crisis.
