Branding with Celebrities

I was watching a commercial during a football game and a Dodge Ram commercial come on the tube. It talked about a handshake and that it used to mean something. The voice of the commercial was tough, rugged, a bit like you would imagine a Dodge Ram should be. The commercial itself was gritty and utilized a washed out look. The images were of a pickup truck going through what is probably the most brutal treatment you would put it through.

Fast forward two quarters, by this time I’d seen the same Dodge Commercial two more times and by this time I’d seen a few Coors commercials. What did these two things have in common? Sam Elliott. A quick bio on Elliott: He has been characterized as the typical American Cowboy, tough, deep voice, and has consequently played various roles as such. (See Virgil in Tombstone, Sacketts, Ghost Rider (terrible movie by the way but not his fault) and others) So when you put all the pieces together it makes sense that Dodge and Coors would target the same person.

Both the brands want to be for the working man, the blue collar man who is tough or wants to be tough and wants to associate with someone and something who is tough. Both brands are “American”. Both brands target the middle class worker. Both brands have positioned themselves as a quality cost effective product, and both brands have Elliott.

When a company chooses a celebrity or a voice for the product they hope that the audience recognizes who the voice is. They want the audience to relate to that person and what they represent. This seems like a great way to build some immediate essence by just associating with the celebrity. This can also go really really wrong (see Tiger Woods and Brett Favre).

Another voice that is interesting is Kiefer Sutherland doing the voiceover for Bank of America. I mean that’s Jack Bauer for Heaven’s sake!!! If Jack Bauer banks at BoA then I should! No kidding, sure, Sutherland has a good voice, he played a role in a movie where it never showed his face rather his voice was used the whole time (Phone Booth). I guarantee you that B o A wanted us to think and feel that Jack Bauer has confidence in them and that we should too.

It’s a slippery slope when you start associating yourself with stars. Tag Heuer took a black eye from Tiger Woods. Wrangler didn’t think it was going to need to pull Favre commercials until it took an opinion poll of him and it wasn’t positive. Nike is everybody, in fact it has almost become the reverse for them. An athlete is identified as “legit” if they are signed by Nike. A previously non associated company Timex wanted to get more into the outdoors market with their Expedition line of watches and signed Conrad Anker, knowing full well that anyone who has any kind of mountaineering knowledge would know the name and again, “if it’s good enough for Conrad, it’s good enough for me”.

As companies continue to have athletes endorse their products there will continue to be a high risk high reward return. You could have that rough and rugged Elliot or you could have Michael Vick shooting himself in the foot. It is a wonderful way to build a brand but it is a risky business and should be evaluated, researched, thought out, voted on… you get the point, make a good choice, it could pay off big time.

The rebrand

In interesting rebrand took place in Utah this week, it was completely subtle and honestly doesn't make a huge difference to many people. When I saw this I started to think about the rebrands around the world and what differences they make. Just to give you an idea, Utah holds a Shakespeare festival every year. The festival renamed the venue from the "Utah Shakespearean Festival" to the "Utah Shakespeare Festival." The difference was just to drop the "an" on the end and leave it as just a name.

I had to double check to see if there was a name change at all and sure enough there was but when I considered it and looked at the changes it brought, they were almost nill. The festival changed the logo a bit and made it look a little more modern but at the end of the day, it was the same thing.

This goes a long way in talking about rebranding. This even says more about the product when considering how important it is to hit the nail on the head so to speak when doing an initial launch with a brand. Rebranding can take years to accomplish. One example of this is with Puma shoes. Initially launched as a low budget, "affordable" brand, it took years to change the perception of the shoes when even the image had completely changed. I personally remember Puma as a cheap brand which is why it is so impressive to see the changes that they have made since the early 2000's to move the brand into an upper-mid brand.

The thing that Puma has done is changed it to a global fashion brand with an athletic twist. This must have been a huge undertaking for the fellas there but my hats off. Puma has carved a nice little niche with sporty fashionable footwear along with some European style athletic clothing. I assume that Puma will stay in this niche and not try to go head to head with up and coming giant Under Armour. (more about Under Armour in another post).

The rebrand can be long and hard and it should be noted how important it is to launch correctly the first time. That being said, if you are looking to rebrand, you have to do it right and have patience, it's not going to happen overnight. See Puma for that example.

Sports team's names and their brands, the anomoly

I've always found it kind of funny that the Utah Jazz were named the Utah Jazz... I mean you should see the Jazz scene here in Utah, it's almost non existent but regardless the legacy name has stuck and now we even have an old school uniform to admire while we talk about a team that has absolutely no tie to the city by way of name.

In looking at some of the names of various teams across the country I have to compliment some and rebuke others. I've categorized these teams into a couple of categories, here we go:

Very fitting:

Houston Texans: the name says it all, even the Oilers were fitting at the time.

Dallas Cowboys: What is it with Texas getting it right with the names?

Boston Celtics: You can't deny the Irish heritage in the area (although, Celtic? Why not Fighting Irish?... oh wait, that's Notre Dame)

Miami Heat: It's hot, the flaming ball, the Latin influence, it fits.

Colorado Rockies: Well, you are in Colorado and there are the Rockies.

New England Patriots: (note, I'm a total Boston area homer but this one does make sense) It's where it all began folks

Boston Red Sox: I'm putting them here because I love em... not sure where they got the spelling but the name came from the uniform color back in the day. They wore red socks to distinguish their team.

New York/San Francisco Giants: Seeing as they are both world champions within the last 4 years and honestly, the name is fitting for a good team, plus it's just a mascot. Have you ever really seen a Giant? Besides Barry Bonds head, didn't think so.

New Orleans Saints: Nailed it.

Milwaukee Brewers: Beer drinkers around the world would agree with this one. (On a side not, do you know some of the beers that come from that area? Pabst, Blatz, Schlitz, and of course Milwaukee's Best, the names alone are enough to make one laugh.)

Well, they are transplants Group:

Utah Jazz: See above (the Jazz came from when they were in New Orleans)

Los Angles Lakers: I hate the Lakers... oh wait, um, well they started off in Minnesota, the land of a thousand lakes.

St. Louis Rams: How many rams have you seen in the midwest lately? Even when they were in L.A. still didn't make sense.

L.A. Clippers: You know, it kind of makes sense... but who wants to be named after a boat?

Memphis Grizzlies: I still find it shocking that there is an NBA team in Memphis but after being booed out of Vancouver a team had to fall somewhere, why not one of the dirtiest stuffiest places to live?

A huge whiff group:

OKC Thunder: Who in their right mind thought it would be a good idea to name their team after a force of nature... or rather a byproduct of nature. Still can't figure the Sonics out.

Chicago Bears: In their defense, the name was given when mascots were the only things people were thinking about. Chicago has historically had zero ties with any kind of bear.

Miami Dolphins: I get it, the ocean but seriously, a dolphin?

Montreal Expos: This is why they are no longer in Montreal and they no longer have this name.

New York Yankees: I just thought I'd put them here because I feel like the whole franchise is a whiff... even though the name does make sense.

San Diego Chargers: The Super Chargers? I guess the alternative would be the Sand Diego Perfect Weather's... meh, maybe the Chargers was the right call after all.

The good fix group:

Texas Rangers: from senators to the Dallas area, the name was a great change.

Washington Nationals: Expos... lame, Nationals... good.

Charlotte Bobcats: I can buy this, there probably are bobcats around the area somewhere, but what I don't get is why they didn't pick a stranger animal like a Puma or Liger? They chose a little sissy girl kitty.

Okay, lessons learned from all of this: First of all, it doesn't really matter what you name your sports team. You can make anything look great (See the Oregon Duck Vader outfit and it was still a duck!). Second, people don't care because sports are king in the U.S. , it's our way of modern day combat, competition etc... if we fail at sports we fail at life, if our team fails we fail (that's what they would have you believe). Last, the branding really doesn't take place in the name, this is completely contrary to any other product in the world. There are slight things you can do but when the Utah Jazz can get as much equity out of that name as they have and there is no Jazz even on the radios in Utah, you know that it's a different ball game.

Comedy and branding: K Swiss and Kenny Powers

One of the risks people run when using comedy when the brand is pigeon holing themselves and discrediting their brand. I love to laugh as much as the next guy and actually think there is a place for comedy in branding. I recently came across a K Swiss commercial where they used a fictional washed up former Major League baseball player named Kenny Powers. The actor's name is Danny McBride and he is literally one of the funniest guys I've ever seen. I laugh every time I see him. In the series of commercials he does with a number of pro athletes he uses his crude humor to talk about the shoe and the new feature which are the "tubes".

I liked the concept and the idea. I loved watching the short videos but for the average person coming across this commercial, it may seem a little rude and not indicative of the actual product. It's hard to say why K Swiss went with Kenny Powers, he has a show that airs on HBO and is really a hard "R" rating which means that the target market is probably 18-35 year old men. The comedy is another aspect of it that boggles me. K Swiss is changing its image from "I wear my K Swiss" commercials and their urban look to more of an athletic training look. I don't really see where comedy and putting a new face on a brand that is trying to compete with the likes of Under Armour and Nike is going to fit in.

Under Armour is serious, all about the training and being elite. Nike is well, Nike and they have a new "Boom" campaign out. So to try and eat some of the table scraps with this type of campaign is a myth to me. But then again it just might work. It has to be different somehow and maybe they can survive on the demographic they're after. Just to do a litmus test... when was the last time you bought K Swiss?