Appearance on CBS This Morning, April 24, 2012

Back when Budweiser sold 50 million(!) barrels of beer per year, the idea that a pretend beer like Coors Light, a relative blip on the radar screen back then, would one day outsell it would have sounded even more outrageous than the idea that someday there'd be flavored beer. Or whiskey commercials on TV. But all of this came to pass, and more. In fact, the entire beer industry is turning upside down and inside out.

In the face of it, and to its credit, Anheuser-Busch is not sitting still. The past several months have seen the exit of Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and the hiring of a new CMO who's determined to do the right thing. It's also changed ad agencies on its two primary brands, launched a new product to compete with spirits, announced plans to introduce several other flavored, cider- based and rum-based line-extensions, invested in exclusive sponsorships of the NFL and Major League Baseball telecasts, initiated some innovative social-media applications and spent more money on this year's Super Bowl than any other advertiser.

Better late than never. Much better.

Paul Chibe, the recently appointed CMO, has his hands full. He's inherited once great U.S. brands that are in severe erosion and he's determined to confront what he sees as the "dumbing down" of the entire category's advertising, as he told me last week. The kind of advertising (see also Miller Lite's "Man Up" campaign, et al) has contributed to the category's loss of volume to wine and spirits, hence Bud Light Platinum -- "a premium proposition" designed to "appeal to young-adult drinkers who've moved to hard liquor," as Chibe describes it.

Of the three A-B brands advertised on this year's Super Bowl, it's the Bud Light Platinum commercials that distinguish themselves from the others -- and not necessarily for all the right reasons. Both "Factory" and "Work," new 30-second spots from Translation, are decidedly un-beer like, by design. Chibe says they've "taken chances" with these Bud Light Platinum commercials. Indeed. "Factory" was an austere, industrial-looking, copy-driven intro spot, and lacked the kind of emotional engagement evident in what once passed for effective beer advertising.

"Unlike most other Super Bowl commercials, the quiet [of the piano] pulls you in," said Chibe. (Or it could also have signaled a good time to unload your Johnny Black with a splash.) The piano riff is sampled from Kanye West's "Runaway."

"Work" is set in an office (right?), and it's dark so I guess it's after work, populated with young . . . spirits drinkers ("who it's for") drinking BLP. Avicii -- the young Swede who hit the Top Ten in several international markets with "Levels," a popular dance track and the music bed in the spot -- is actually in the commercial, playing the DJ. If young drinkers recognize him, it could add buzz.

Bud Light Platinum presents the elusive liquor drinker with a riddle -- wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. More alcohol. But barely more than Budweiser, not nearly as much as craft beers and not even close to liquor. Will it compete with, say, scotch, for people who drink alcohol for the buzz (c'mon, admit it)? Duh. And fewer calories. But barely fewer than Budweiser (137 vs. 145) and more than any other light beer, including Bud Light's 110. Is it still a light beer? You make the call.

Will BLP energize the franchise? Yes, at least short term. Will it cannibalize Bud Light? You bet. Should it have been Budweiser Platinum? Perhaps. Is it an oxymoron? We'll see.
For brand Bud Light, the good news "there's no more morons" says Chibe. And he's right. "The beer drinker is not the butt of the joke." And he's right. There wasn't a single guy in his underwear, no over-played dipshits in McGarryBowen's "Weego," the agency's first for Bud Light since it won the business. Given the brand's recent advertising history this is indeed a significant accomplishment. And as Chibe described it, a "smarter application" of humor, a first step in the evolution of the brand's advertising. Same tag lines, so far. Same VO announcer. A new/old humorous situation, this one with cooler people and the cutest dog in the game (with an endearing tie-in to "Help Rescue Dogs"). All signs that the brand may be growing up. So we wait, in hopes that Bud Light's more- clever version of humor, as Chibe describes it, will continue to improve target engagements and differentiate it from every other beer's version of humor.

The second Bud Light spot, from Cannonball, enlists the pop/rap duo LMFAO (well known internet slang for "laughing my fucking ass off'), whose manager mistakenly books them at "Dale's Halftime Sports Lounge," not, you know, the real halftime. Joke! Well, not really. But they squeeze in "Here We Go" in a nod to the campaign, and use the spot to introduce the real halftime -- which LMFAO really appeared in.

And then there's Budweiser. Anomaly's work continues to reposition Budweiser as the brand leader it once was. The brand's Super Bowl spots ("Return of the King" and "Eternal Optimism," both sixty seconds) were the latest expressions of this once-great brand reconnecting with its heritage, acknowledging that there's more to the beer market than sophomoric frat boys under the age of 24. Embracing optimism in challenging times -- the core strategy of "Grab Some Buds" -- exemplifies a stance a brand leader takes. And to reinforce the position, the second spot ends with "Great Times Are Always Coming." These latest examples, along with a special commercial they created for Canada -- a spot that's gone viral and will generate millions of hits before it's done -- are wonderful storytelling and emotionally engaging. And they're working. Beyond "likebility" and "brand consideration" upswings, Budweiser sales have improved from 10% and 7% declines the past two years, to last year's 4.6% decline -- notable in an industry that's undergoing significant shifts in preferences.

In the break following Bud's "Return of the King," General Electric featured a Budweiser brewery in its "Power and Beer" commercial from BBDO -- perhaps another sign that the King of Beers is indeed returning.

Also from Anomaly, and sitting under the radar, is an innovative response to integrating "product quality" into the mix. An online program -- soon to be an app -- allows you to enter the born-on- date from the very can or bottle of Budweiser you're drinking and get a multimedia story of where it came from, when it was brewed, who brewed it and more. Cool.
Anheuser-Busch InBev has a clear and critical global priority: rejuvenate the Budweiser and Bud Light franchises in the U.S. The steps it's taken in the months leading up to the Super Bowl seem to fully embrace these goals. So does the work it's aired during the game -- the good, the not so bad and the . . . wait and see.

I'm, how do they say it? Cautiously optimistic.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Tim Arnold, a 35-year advertising-industry veteran who ran the Budweiser business for 10 years at D'Arcy, St. Louis, now runs his own consultancy, Possible20 (possible20.com/tim@possible20.com).

Bud Light Needs to Grow Up

As published in AdAge Oct 24, 2011

It’s time for Bud Light to grow up.  Which must be painfully obvious to Anheuser-Busch InBev and their new CMO, Paul Chibe, because they’ve asked a half dozen agencies to tell them how to fix a brand that for years has prided itself on “sophomoric humor,” an approach that finally, predictably, led to Bud Light’s first sales decline in 27 years, in 2009, a decline that continues to this day.

What took ‘em so long? would be a fair question.  Alas, better late than never.  Maybe.

With parent brand Budweiser’s eroding market share – from 25% to less than 9% today – another marketing travesty marked by a series of line extension and advertising missteps – Bud Light’s 2.5% decline in ’09 sparked some clumsy attempts to reconnect with their LDA – 24 yr old user base.  Trouble was, both their “Drinkability” and “Here We Go” campaigns were not only strategically flawed, but still mired in “sophomoric humor,” a kind of humor that ultimately held their target beer drinkers up to ridicule – not a great idea.  It’s like “dumb ass” was actually part of the brand’s defined personality. 

Thing is, there are some fundamental truths about beer advertising that I always thought were obvious, but apparently not, because Bud Light has violated all of them in recent years.  And if they’re to have a chance of re-establishing any relevance to today’s beer drinkers they’d be well advised to consider the following “New (Old) Rules,” I’ll call them, with apologies to Bill Maher …

New (Old) Rule:  to co-opt a political rejoinder, “It’s the strategy, stupid.”

Until last year’s Super Bowl, Bud Light’s advertising had insisted that it represented “Drinkability” – a word lifted right off of Budweiser’s label, proudly proclaiming for decades that Bud has “… a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price.”  Thing is, it was believable; it made total sense for Budweiser.  It made no sense for Bud Light.  So they changed it to “… just the right taste,” which is what every beer drinker in the entire world already thinks about his beer.

 

Once they figured out that “Drinkability” was at best a product “reason why,” and at worst irrelevant to the light beer category, Bud Light’s next and current campaign, “Here We Go,” was “intended to convey that Bud Light is a ‘catalyst for good times,’” according to Keith Levy, A-B’s then CMO (NY Times, Jan 26, 2010).  “When Bud Light shows up, the party is going to begin.”  Not exactly a strategic point of difference.  And somehow I don’t think partying carries the same gravitas as, say, hard work, or camaraderie, or even chilling on a beach – all of which represent relevant strategic territory beer brands have actually owned, successfully. 

They might as well have called that one “Here We Go, Again.”  Because first and foremost a beer strategy has to define a relevant, emotional connection to beer drinkers.  And it’s got to be more than … fun. Then something akin to a desired – and relevant - brand personality needs to describe the connective tissue.  And then justify it all with a viable product attribute or two. That’s the strategic equation.  In that order.  In other words …

New (Old) Rule:  Beer drinkers buy the image – not the ingredients.  Not even the taste. 

Mass market beer drinkers rationalize their choices – in focus groups - based on the ingredients, and its “quality,” or its brewing process, which they’ll even interpret as “taste,” but nobody makes real beer choices based on rational reasons. Maybe the craft beer drinkers do (nah, maybe not), but not real, regular human beer drinkers. 

So, above all, you have to connect with them emotionally.  Make a relevant, emotional connection, in the context of beer drinking.  The essence of beer drinking is guys hanging out in a bar, sucking down suds, thinking they’ve still got it, and can still get some if they wanted to, and knowing they’re in good company.

The essence.  The reality is most beer is consumed away from bars, a lot of it at home, with wives.  But home is boring in beer advertising.  So you try to capture some kind of emotional essence.

Everybody knows you can justify anything through focus groups.  You hear what you want to hear – especially if you’re looking for respondents to feed back an ingredients message.  Sure, they’ll tell you, they heard it, and yeah, it’s meaningful.  But they’re lying. They don’t care about product attributes; they’re only using them to rationalize an emotional decision. I mean, how many guys are actually going to admit they drink Budweiser because it reinforces their wannabe image of themselves, or their need for their friends to really really like them?

They must not care about taste, either.  A-B’s president, Dave Peacock, was quoted not too long ago saying, “(Budweiser) wins blind taste tests again and again.  It’s the perfect liquid.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug 20, 2010, “Can Budweiser, the King of Beers, reign again?”) Meanwhile the brand was tanking.  Which is exactly my point.  Taste is not the priority – as long as it tastes like beer and it has alcohol in it (“It’s all good beer,” A-B’s brew master used to say.  He knew).  If it was, Bud wouldn’t have dropped from a high of 26% market share in 1988 to 8.7% today (Beer Marketer’s Insights data).

New (Old) Rule:  Beer isn’t funny, or goofy.  Or sophomoric. 

Beer drinking ain’t funny, either.  It’s … reparative, irreverent, satisfying, thirst quenching, rewarding, all about bonding and camaraderie.  And hooking up.  It’s … cool.  A good time, too, for sure; fun, but … not funny, unless maybe you’re drunk. This was another major flaw in Bud Light’s “Drinkability” campaign and continues to be with “Here We Go:” they seemed to assume it was Bud Light’s “sophomoric humor” that had been lost, so they tried to recover it with “Here We Go.”  And guess what?  They did.  

There’s a fine line between being almost funny, or worse – goofy – and irreverent; between humoring yourself and connecting with the target.  If I don’t like the guys in your commercials, I ain’t drinking your beer.  The great DDB campaigns for Bud Light – Spuds McKenzie; “Yes, I am;” “I Love You, Man,” were not sophomoric and they were beyond funny:  they were irreverent, unexpected, wise guy attitudes that defied all sense of the expected.  They invited you to laugh with them, not at them, or at each other.  All of them expressing emotions and attitudes that beer drinkers could relate to, and did. 

Yeah, grab-ass beer drinkers drink Bud Light, too, and Budweiser. But only because they aspire to be something else, like genuine Bud drinkers.  Market to the real Bud/Bud Light drinkers - the mopes will come along, too.

With “Grab Some Buds,” from Anomaly, NY, Budweiser has climbed out of that same rut with relevant, engaging advertising that re-assumes the position of a one-time brand leader, driven by a strategy that says that “we’re all in this together, good times are coming, so grab some Bud’s, and some buddies, and let’s go for it!”  It’s giving beer drinkers credit for, you know, having their acts together, or something.   All of it reflected in the kinds of genuine beer-drinking occasions and beer drinkers we’d all like to be part of.  Reports are that it’s working. It’s gaining (re)consideration and likeability in several major markets, and if they stick with it they stand a damned good chance of regaining some lost ground.  At least they’ve re-assumed the position of a genuine brand leader.

And it took some growing up of their own.  Budweiser’s previous campaign, “It’s What We Do,” was both strategically and executionally flawed.  Bud’s problem wasn’t what they did; they’ve been brewing great beer since 1876 (and continuing to “win blind taste tests again and again,” according to Peacock). Nope - it was the brand’s disconnect with beer drinkers that was the problem.  Only some kind of dipshit would take the kind of “kidding” in dumb silence that you see in one of the “It’s What We Do” spots.   If some guy says to me, “Hey, I like your ‘stash, but where’d you dock your steamboat,” my answer is, “Yeah, and your girlfriend likes it, too.  In fact she’s outside in my steamboat, waiting for me to give her a ride.”

  

And what’s with the dorks in Bud Light’s “Clothing Drive?”  Is that supposed to be us beer guys up there on the screen, wandering around the office in our underwear with our flabby pink guts out in front of us?  If it is me, I’m not admitting it.  But it must reflect the essence of how Bud Light has seen their franchise, because they were running an extra-long version of it on their website.  

New (Old) Rule:  It’s about the beer drinker first.  Then the beer.

Connect with the beer drinker on an emotional level – his, not yours; get that right, then offer him your beer.  Relate to him, reach him, give him something to identify with.  To aspire to, even. The badge to wear.  Something … meaningful.  Something positive.

Beer drinkers aren’t morons.  Or dipshits.  They can spot bullshit a mile away.  You wouldn’t know that from Bud Light’s “sophomoric humor,” or even Budweiser’s “It’s What We Do” campaign.

Actually, in some kind of perverse way, Budweiser’s earlier advertising got the equation right:  they did put the beer drinker first.  Trouble is, they put him down.  Maybe I’m too sensitive, or too bald, but being reminded that we white boy bro’d our way thru some goofy man-greetings over the years just ain’t gonna win me over.  In life we should be able to laugh at ourselves.  It’s trickier in advertising.

New (Old) Rule:  All beer drinkers are not alike. 

Budweiser discovered this way back with the launch of “This Bud’s For You” (full disclosure:  I was instrumental in that campaign with D’Arcy, St. Louis, as a young account guy who ended up running that business for nearly ten years).  As successful as that campaign was, it was even more successful with its ground-breaking market segmentation: special, reinforcing marketing and advertising specifically targeted to young adults (as we called them back then), Blacks, Hispanics and even women.  Efforts that regained #1 shares in each of these segments with provocative, relevant messaging.

We went radical with young adults, creating special, targeted commercials for Saturday Night Live.  What we did not do was try to be young and cool and stupid to everybody.  We isolated that stuff for that segment.  But we defined it as “irreverent,” not “sophomoric.”  Big difference.

If Bud Light has become “my father’s beer” – the kiss of death in beer – then you’ve got to speak to their offspring, in their language.  In their environment.  To them.  But first of all, there’s no damned reason to walk away from us fathers.  We drink a lot of beer, too, plus we’ve got more money.  It may take something more radical to reach the LDA – 24 yr old beer drinkers, to shed the old guy image.  But don’t compromise it by trying to be that way with everybody.

What is the over-arching Bud Light platform that speaks to their heaviest beer drinkers?  And how can it be reinforced with segments critical to their success: LDA-24 yr olds, Hispanics and Blacks?

New (Old) Rule:  Assume the position of a brand leader.  Leaders lead, they don’t follow. Leaders set the standard, they don’t respond to lesser brands.  And they certainly don’t stoop to their level.  Leaders are proactive, not reactive.  Leaders innovate – not imitate.

Bud Light endures as the world’s largest selling beer – leaving parent brand Budweiser in its wake in 2001 - but Coors Light continues to gain on them and may even pass Bud sometime soon to become the world’s second largest selling beer.  Bud Light (like Budweiser) has tried to staunch the bleeding with me too line extensions (Bud Light Lime came on the heels of Miller’s earlier lime-flavored entry, Miller Chill; Bud Light Golden Wheat followed Miller’s test of and subsequent decision not to introduce a Miller Lite-branded wheat beer under its Brewer’s Collection.  And now there’s talk of a new Bud Light Platinum, with a higher alcohol content.

Thing is, it’s the primary Bud Light brand that’s the problem, and line extensions are only going to make it worse. It’s time they acted like the dominant light beer category leader.  Like the world’s largest selling beer.  It’s time for Bud Light to assume the position and reinvigorate a franchise that continues to erode at the edges.  It’s time for the brand to grow up.

Tim Arnold

Advertising Age
Oct 24, 2011

Dateline Iowa/Republican Party Update: Hoisted by its Own Petard.

Let me see if I've got this ... right:

Michelle Bachmann, who's beholden to evangelical Christians and whose beliefs stem from the dogma of Francis Schaeffer, who argued in his film series (“How Should We Live Then?”) that "Christians, and Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns" (and claims the US government controls all us citizens thru psychotropic drugs), whose husband runs a clinic based on "curing homosexuality thru prayer," (because gays, as she says, are "part of Satan") and whose position on our nation's economy would doom the US to bankruptcy (even S&P had to correct her assessment of their credit downgrading), all while she continues to benefit from government farm subsidies, triumphs in the Iowa straw poll over ...


Ron Paul – barely:  Paul landed less than a single percentage point behind Bachmann (although your wouldn’t know it from the conservative media’s instant anointment of Bachmann, Romney and Perry as the party’s “Top Tier Candidates”).  A perhaps surprising showing in this conservative state since many of his libertarian positions are, well, provocative: legalize marijuana; abolish income tax; allow Iran to have nukes (“everybody else does…”); pull the US out of the United Nations and NATO – and the Middle East; allow states to secede from the union; eliminate the Federal Reserve; eliminate legal tender laws and sales tax on gold and silver – heck, let the free market determine monetary standards.  Dr No has voted against virtually every initiative for government spending and new taxes in his 14 years as a Texas Congressman – more no’s than any other office holder.  All of which impressed Iowans enough to rank him the second most-desirable Republican candidate.  The American People – in Iowa – have spoken!  But who’s listening?

Willard Mitt Romney – who “didn’t participate” in the Ames Straw Poll, lest he have to explain his successful universal health care program for his home state (note: you can run – but you can’t hide), who showed up anyway and said, "hey, corporations are people, too, my friend," which is no surprise coming from him, given the millions major corporations have donated to his campaign, knowing he'll continue to support non-taxation of same. This includes Bain Capital, his former private equity firm, who has anonymously donated $1million to his campaign.  His resume now features his 20 yrs in the corporate world as more relevant than his minimal 4 yrs in political office.

Tim Pawlenty – TPaw - who once had the courage to stand up to W and Karl Rove over their attack of Iraq, and who has offered himself as a potential leader of the free world, picks up his toys and stomps out of the very first competition because he finishes a dismal 3rd.  And, like the rest of his fellow running mates, cowers to the Tea Baggers - whose financial platform will continue to cripple this nation, given Washington's refusal to stand up to these Nazi's.


Newt Gingrich – who, during his first week as a presidential candidate labeled fellow Republican Paul Ryan’s budget proposal “right-wing social engineering,” causing most of his fund raisers to flee, followed by all of his staff leadership soon after, and whose third wife obligated him to a $hundred thousand debt at Tiffany's - and who’s also willing to eviscerate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and continue W's tax cuts on the wealthy.  All of which illustrates his arrogant hypocrisy.


Rick Santorum - who's slathering for extreme right-wing voter support exceeds even his competitors’, and leads him to equate gay marriage with incest, akin to "a father marrying his daughter."  Which not only is irrelevant but, as further evidenced by every single last one of his Republican running mates’ platforms and in addition to its pathological ignorance, has absolutely nothing to do with the genuine problems this nation is facing today.

Herman Cain – who cares?


And then there's Rick Perry, who proudly proclaims his father-in-law performed his vasectomy as a campaign point, who has totally confused separation of church and state with his keynote at the Texas Christian Prayer Rally – having already extended official state support to the Islamic community through his personal and official relationship with “His Highness” Prince Shah Karim A-Husayni, the Aga Khan IV, and the spiritual leader of the Shiite sect of Nizari Ismaili Muslims, whose 18 million strong believe he is a direct decendant of Muhammad.  Perry, who’s been described as W2, who allowed as how Texas should maybe secede from the United States of America, whose coffers are over stuffed with corporate millions of dollars, who's spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer's money on vacations and foreign "trade missions," whose state ranks at the very bottom in public education and whose claims about Texas’ financial strengths are a myth, who argues that the US has no constitutional right to mandate income tax and who's hypocritical madness could actually boost him beyond Bachmann as the Republican Tea Party candidate for US president.  Yeah, Perry’s got balls.  Which only proves it takes a hell of a lot more than that to qualify for President.


Oh, wait.  Sarah Palin showed up in Iowa, too.  When asked if the president was to blame for the nation's credit downgrading, she said "... yes.  Because from the top, leadership starts from the top, the leadership of our country."


Spoken like the true genius she is, another passenger on the Ship of Fools that is the Republican Tea Bagger party.


The Republican Party continues to demonstrate its utter lack of ideas, its sense of reality and its ability to accomplish anything constructive.  Drowning in its fear of the Tea Party, it is polluted with rabid political bias, consumed by a Nazi-like rage and driven by its single-minded myopia to get rid of Obama at any and all costs - all of which is tantamount to hoisting itself by its own petard, doomed to failure and guaranteed to extend the Democrats' hold on the White House.

Have a nice day.

Tim Arnold

15 August 2011
Possible20
www.possible20.com
www.possible20.blogspot.com
917.748.6058

Super Bowl Ads Work. Everytime. Almost. Maybe.

As published in Adweek, Feb 4, 2011

What is it about the Super Bowl, the most expensive venue in the entire advertising universe, that gives otherwise savvy marketers permission to act the fool, many of them, and offer up commercials that are somebody’s version of … funny, outrageous, cutting edge – and not much else? 

That last year compelled one-third of them to spend more than 10 per cent of their entire annual media budgets on this single event? (Kantar Media). That attracts eight to ten first time advertisers each year? (Kantar).

What is it?  It’s 100 million viewers whose responses to their commercials defy all conventional wisdom about what constitutes … “effective advertising.”   

Warning: this may confuse you …

First of all, chances are you can find a poll out there somewhere that will measure viewers who … “like” your commercial, or think it’s “funny,” because there’s a lot of them and they’re all over the place: last year USA Today’s Ad Meter buried Career Builder’s “Casual Fridays” spot – but Spike.com had it their second funniest.  And Budweiser’s Clydesdale “New Friend” spot was one of Fox’s “10 Worst.”  No worries: it made USA’s Top Ten! Kellogg’s School of Management Review rated Bridgestone’s spots among the game’s worst?  Who cares? USA Today ranked them in their Top Ten.  And how’s this for clarity?  The Wall Street Journal’s poll shows Audi’s “Green Car” commercial voted the game’s best – and worst.

But none of these polls are remotely indicative of the potential impact of these commercials on the brands’ business.   And according to a study conducted by Millward Brown Optimor for the NFL, it doesn’t matter anyway.

Their study claims that, based on Nielsen sales data from “several dozen big game advertisers,” “(all) brands that advertise on the Super Bowl see an average sales uplift of more than 11 per cent in the following month.  This generates an ROI from Super Bowl ads 250 times greater than ROI from the average TV ad” (Joanna Seddon, CEO, Millward Brown Optimor; “Super Bowl, Super Score,” Adweek, Feb 8, 2010). 

On the other hand, according to the Retail Advertising and Marketing Association’s 2010 Super Bowl Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey, the amount viewers intend to spend on merchandise advertised in the Super Bowl has dropped more than 12% in the past two years (About.com/Retail Industry: “2010 Super Bowl Consumer Survey Results:  Shopping, Spending, Commercial Viewing”). 

So which is it?

There were 39 advertisers on the 2010 Super Bowl (Kantar Media) so Millward Brown’s sample of “several dozen advertisers” suggests they analyzed virtually all of them, good, bad or ugly.  And what this study seems to suggest is that the content of commercials that run on the Super Bowl damned near doesn’t matter.   They all averaged 11% sales growth over the next month.  In fact, adding “the tremendous brand building power of the Super Bowl itself … doubles the (ROI) returns.” Just run it, baby.  

On the other hand: “… a major brand that ranked No. 1 on the Ad Meter in a past year yielded an average ROI of below $1 while a different ad from the same brand ranked No. 20 and yielded an average ROI of almost $3” (Millward Brown).

I’m confused. 

According to a recent Nielsen poll (Nielsen Wire), “51% of Super Bowl television viewers expect the commercials to provide the best entertainment of the event.” Instinctively, these expectations have little direct relevance to real business.  And how could they? They’ve been nurtured through the years by the likes of commercials featuring flabby, hairy men in underwear (and what’s with that, anyway?  Bud Light, Career Builders, Dockers?), farting Clydesdales, crotch-biting dogs, been-there-done-that talking animals – including a chimp entertained by pseudo-farts from a whoopee cushion - and “too raw for TV” commercials.  Today 76.3% of Super Bowl viewers think commercials that run on the Big Game are, hey, “mainly about entertainment” (Annual Survey, RAMA, 2010). 

That’s entertainment?!?  Regardless, the Millward Brown study seems to be saying this is enough to generate significant “sales uplift.”  Farts and all.

Except sometimes it isn’t.

This was never more evident than in the 2000 “Dot Com” Bowl, when 17 emerging dot com companies ponied up in excess of $2m each of their investors’ money to run :30 commercials in the Super Bowl.  Seven of them were already out of business by the next Super Bowl.  But they were “funny,” or, better said, a “reflection of the marketer’s immaturity,” as one published financial analyst called them.  (Of course there were other variables, but still…).

The most recent version of a first time, “dotcom” Super Bowl advertiser that tried to be funny was FloTV’s commercial last year that urged “Jason” to “change out of that skirt,” and which showed up in Fox’s poll as one of the Super Bowl 2010’s 10 best.  They were out of business by October. 

The joke was apparently on them.

On the other hand … GoDaddy.com defied all dotcom odds when they ran their first-ever commercial on the 2005 Super Bowl.  Full disclosure: I produced this commercial (“Who’s Your Daddy?”, Adweek, Arts & Commerce, Feb 21, 2005) - which generated 5 million web hits in 48 hours and jumped their market share from 16% to 33% over the next few months. It was an outrageous commercial that arguably stayed on the right side of the line of good taste and political impropriety.  Viewers gave it mixed reviews.  But GoDaddy’s business went through the roof as a result of it.

Since then GoDaddy.com has aired even more questionable commercials on the Big Game, but their six-year investment in the Super Bowl has built its market share of domain registrations to 50% today.  They have succeeded in business despite failing to earn any kind of favorable viewer ratings for their Super Bowl efforts.  But they’re in the game – and this is apparently enough, according to the Millward Brown study.

On the other hand - here’s another major exception:  in the past decade Anheuser-Busch has spent $235 million on Super Bowl advertising (Kantar Media), far more than the second biggest spender, PepsiCo’s $170.8 million.  According to USA Today’s Ad Meter they won the highest rated commercial outright for ten straight years (1999 – 2008), with either Budweiser or Bud Light. They never had less than 3 of the top 10 “most liked” spots and more often had 6 or 7 of the top 10.  As late as 2009 and 2010 they placed 3 in the top 10.

Bud and Bud Light ran some 70 commercials in those 10 Super Bowls.  And yet, in that time frame Budweiser shrank from a 25% share of market to less than 10% today.  And Bud Light – after suffering declining growth for a few years, actually drops 2.5% in 2009, it’s first loss in its entire 27-yr history - a trend that continues.

So much for $235 million of “best liked” Super Bowl commercials… and yet once again Anheuser-Busch is slated to be one of the biggest spenders on this year’s Super Bowl.  After all, Millward Brown says “The brands that are guaranteed to see money back (itals mine) from a spot in the Super Bowl are established brands.”

Or, maybe not.

Here’s who ain’t confused: Fox.  They’ve sold out this year’s Super Bowl and stand to reap more than $200 million, with tens of millions more to affiliates for local advertising.  And now they’ve got this study from Millward Brown for the NFL that has armed them both with justification for imposing rising costs on advertisers who they know will not be able to resist the lure of 100 million viewers ready to be … entertained. 

And who can blame them?

On the other hand, one out of every five viewers think Super Bowl advertisers should not spend the money on the Super Bowl and instead, pass on the savings to their customers (RAMA Survey, 2010).  

But wait, they’re going to buy this advertised stuff anyway, aren’t they …?

Tim Arnold

www.possible20.com

tim@possible20.com

The American People Have Spoken

As published in ...

We live in a democracy that has endured a government for some 250 years bound to serve its people by office holders put in place by we the people.  And now, once again and emphatically, the “American people have spoken,” as countless newly elected Republicans and Tea Partiers have crowed in their victory speeches.

Indeed, we have.  And we have it dead wrong this time.  America is being hoisted by its own petard by an anger-driven and misled electorate, duped by the very powers they are railing against, armed with mathematically flawed financial agendas and swayed by promises impossible to keep.  We have become a culture insistent on instant fixes but unwilling to make any sacrifices to enable viable solutions.  Ergo, we jump on the extended tax cuts bandwagon for the wealthy, and ourselves, which will only add to the deficit, and for what?  Another “trickle down” fantasy?

If the GOP and Tea Partiers want to “take back America,” as Sarah Palin continues to screech, then my question is, “and give it to who?”  The same people who got us in this monumental mess in the first place?  The ones chomping at the bit to reinstate the kinds of unfunded programs that turned a government budget surplus into a mega-deficit the last time they were in charge??

The Tea Party has managed to rile conservative America into a myopic state of True Disbelief about what the Obama administration has actually managed to accomplish, despite being handed the worst state of domestic and world affairs in recent history.  By most measures Obama’s initiatives have: prevented a Recession from becoming a genuine Depression; reigned in Wall Street, mortgage lenders and credit card companies; minimized unemployment by bailing out the auto industry (which is growing again) and   injecting stimulus spending into the economy (adding to the TARP bailouts initiated by George W. Bush).  He’s also led the transformation of health care for the last remaining country in the industrialized world without a national program.  Along the way he’s also managed to engage Russia in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, implement long-overdue regulation of the tobacco industry, revamp the student loan program to eliminate the unnecessary middle-man banks and initiated his “Race to the Top” educational program along with stimulus dollars to keep teachers employed.

Presumably this is the “too much government” that America wants back.

And by the way, the US auto industry is showing Big 3 growth for the first time in two years , the DOW is at a two-year high and nearly twice the index it was in April 09, and for the first time in five months the US economy added jobs to the workforce (151,000).

On the contrary, Obama is being legitimately criticized by many economists for not being even more aggressive with his stimulus programs.  But now the Fed is pumping another $600 billion into the banking system in an attempt to further jolt the economy.

The newly empowered Republicans would have none of this.  They want to withdraw all unspent stimulus money.  Rescind health care reform even though it will generate $500 billion in Medicare savings over ten years – without reducing significant benefits.  Extend Bush’s tax cuts for $250k earners – even though it will increase the deficit by $700 billion over ten years (Office of Budget Management).  Repeal the limitations imposed on Wall Street – after all, they can regulate themselves, right? – and eliminate the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.   Some Republicans have even called for the elimination of the Department of Education.

Above all, and through all of this – create jobs, jobs, jobs and balance the budget.  Impossible.  As reported in the NY Times, in a “blueprint” this week from Eric Cantor, the likely Republican majority leader in the new Congress, “the party has made clear that its main proposals for creating jobs are to cut regulations and taxes – in particular to make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for all incomes.   Extending the tax cuts, however, would add nearly $4 trillion to the national debt by 2020, and hundreds of billions more in interest owed for the additional government borrowing, greatly complicating another Republican goal:  balancing the budget.”  (NY Times, “GOP Lists Sweeping Goals, But Their Impact is Uncertain,” Nov 5, 2010).

And yet all of it bought lock, stock and barrel by the “American people.”  First of all, the joke is on the Tea Party.  GOP office holders will quickly separate themselves from them and their most fervent beliefs.  Karl Rove has already scoffed that they are “unsophisticated.”   Michele Bachmann’s (Minnesota’s new Tea Party House member) short-fused and public move to have herself appointed the number four position among House Republicans – a position she has little chance of attaining – won’t help any.

Some joke.  We’ll be left with the damage that would be imposed on the rest of us by what the latest CNN poll reports are a mere 2% of American’s who consider themselves active members of the Tea Party.  A movement dominated by older, white, men (44% of whom say they are “born again” Christians) who believe a fully armed, 21^st Century America is what our founding fathers had in mind.  Many of those who by definition are already drawing Social Security are the ones who want to privatize it, despite the vulnerability it would create under an unrestricted Wall Street and financial industry, as they would also have it.  The same people who either believe there’s no such thing as global warming or if there is, we humans have nothing to do with it.

Fueled by ultra-conservative big business moguls like billionaires and life-long Libertarians David and Charles Koch, with unlimited campaign dollars funneled through anonymous fronts like “Americans for Prosperity,” Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads,” Dick Armey’s “FreedomWorks” and many others – all of which were set free by John Roberts’ Bush-appointed Supreme Court – they’ve been duped into supporting the very things that got us, and them, into trouble in the first place, like rolling back financial regulations for Wall Street.  In fact John Boehmer, Ohio’s Republican Senator and soon-to-be Speaker of the House, was the single biggest recipient of Wall Street campaign dollars (NY Times).

He’s also the one who said post-election that since “America has the best health care system in the world,” health care reform is unnecessary and risks “bringing it down.”  What planet is this guy from?  As of 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy. (WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). Geneva: World Health Organization, September 2009).

“Our job is to listen to the American people and follow the will of the American people,” Boehner crowed at his victory celebration.   If that is indeed true, then we should be able to expect the GOP to endorse the following and take steps to implement them – all of which a majority of Americans have voiced support for:

·      The rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military – which will require ignoring the religious right.

·      Stricter gun control, and the ban of assault rifle sales – which will require defying the NRA.

·      Proactive moves to reduce global warming and eliminate green house gases – which will first require acknowledging its existence, and our role in it, and then standing up to the coal and oil industries, to name two.

·      Financial reform - which will require rejecting the undue influences of Wall Street, Big Business and Banking – and their dollars.

·      Greater health care access for more people – which will require resisting the self-serving influences of Big Pharma and much of the medical profession.

All of which will require great courage, a radical change in values and, once and for all, truly listening to “the American people” - a phrase that is quickly being turned into a meaningless cliché by self-serving politicians.

Of course these are all views expressed without undue influence from anonymous corporate dollars, misleading allegations or fear tactics.  These are some of the expressions of ‘the American people” that continue to be selectively ignored by Republicans, and now Tea Partiers, put in office to serve them and drowned out by a public who no longer votes on issues and facts, but blinded, misguided anger.

Damn straight!  The people have spoken. 

Be careful what you ask for.

Tim Arnold

Croton on Hudson, NY

5 November 2010

 

New (Old) Rules: How Budweiser and Bud Light can get back to selling beer.

Little more than a year ago somebody at Anheuser-Busch suggests Budweiser’s ad agency dig out D’Arcy’s “This Bud’s for You” campaign, immerse themselves in its strategy, its emotion, its ability to connect with beer drinkers.  See if it doesn’t inspire something beyond their product-driven “Great American Lager” advertising and even breathe some new life into one of the world’s once greatest brands - since Bud was in the process of trending a minus 9.5% in sales and dropping to an historic low 9.3 share for the year (Beer Marketer’s Insights data).

And Bud Light’s parallel woes (sales dropped 2.5% in 09 – their first lost in 27 years - a pace that continues YTD) shouldn’t surprise anybody, either.  Their “Drinkability” campaign was off the first day out, it’s failure predictable (which I did:  see January 2010 blog post).

The Budweiser mandate came on the heels of InBev’s takeover of Anheuser-Busch, which I wrote about at the time, for Advertising Age (“Hey Budweiser: The Only Way to Bring Back Bud is by Being Fearless,” AdAge CMO Strategy, Aug 11, 2008), which acknowledged the painful but inevitable take over with a plea to shake up A-B’s marketing – because it needed it – and for Christ’s sake, do not be penny wise nor pound foolish.  Unfortunately, it looks to me like they’ve made some major moves on their two flagship brands, Budweiser, and Bud Light, motivated by, well, fear itself.

They had reason to worry:  Budweiser sales in grocery stores, drugstores and supermarkets had declined 7.4% up to that point in the year, on the heels of total shipment declines of 6% and 4.7% the two previous years (Beer Marketer’s Insights).

The agency’s response, “It’s What We Do,” breaks less than six months later, added to their most recent tag line, “The Great American Lager.”

“It’s What We Do?”  Actually, I didn’t think their beer was the issue.  I thought it was Budweiser’s disconnect with beer drinkers that they were supposed to figure out how to fix.

Full disclosure: I have to admit, being an old D’Arcy guy instrumental in that campaign, I took some pleasure seeing the headline urging DDB to “study D’Arcy’s campaign” (AdAge, May 11, 2009), You know, imitation, or even inspiration, being some kind of flattery and all.

Bud Light left parent brand Budweiser in its wake in 2001 to become the world’s largest selling beer, to be drunk by nearly one in every five beer drinkers – a position Bud once held.  You could argue the Budweiser franchise no longer had a genuine parent brand at that point, and now Bud Light was losing business, too (3% first half of 09 according to Information Resources, Inc.).

Bud Light  finally dropped “Drinkability” for their current campaign:  “Here We Go,” from Cannonball, St. Louis, which debuted in this year’s Super Bowl.  They might as well tag it “Here We Go, Again,” because it, too, flies in the face of every New (Old) Rule described below.

If either brand is going to revitalize their relationship with beer drinkers – and that is their failure: they’ve ruptured any relationship they had – they might want to consider the following New (Old) Rules in beer advertising - with apologies to Bill Maher.

By the way: I can’t imagine anything worse – in advertising - than a client telling me to check out another agency’s advertising to see how its done, especially while I’m mired in InBev- imposed research and ivory-towered consultants.  Nevertheless  “… here we go:”

New (Old) Rule:  To co-opt a political rejoinder, “It’s the strategy, stupid.” 

The strategy behind “This Bud’s for You” was brilliant in it simplicity:  celebrate the working man like only the King of Beers could do, and reward his hard work with a Budweiser. This was a direct path to connection.   It was aimed at the heavy beer drinkers, the 20% of guys who drank 80% of the beer.

First of all, it’s hard to know who “It’s What We Do” is aimed at, except maybe guys who

watch television.  And the client.  And think about this:  instead of celebrating beer drinkers - one good way to connect with us - they’re actually kind of ridiculing us guys:  for all the stupid white man-ways we’ve been greeting each other over the years; or dissing each other (Hey asshole, you look like shit – but I’m only kidding. Let’s have a Bud.); or somebody’s delusion of how beer drinkers carry five, six beers in ballparks (Hell, you can’t even buy that many beers at once, even at Busch Stadium, can you?)

And then they make it worse by painting some kind of contrast that says, “But not us, not Budweiser, we’re not that, like, shallow, or faddish, or goofy, or cynical.  We’re still cranking out our beer the same way we have for more than 100 years.  So what’s up with you, beer drinker?”

Besides, what is the new, ground breaking strategy anyway?  We still brew Budweiser the same way it’s been brewed since 1876, despite all the quirky fads and social change swirling around us?  This has been a brand asset in Budweiser’s advertising for about a century and a half, through every conceivable kind of change and fad from flapper skirts to leisure suits and Ninja Turtles. And anyway, is this the core issue for anybody, besides the client?  Or the brewmasters?

Bud Light’s new campaign strategy is “intended to convey that Bud Light is a ‘catalyst for good times’,” according to Keith Levy, A-B’s CMO (NY Times, Jan 26, 2010).  “When Bud Light shows up, the party is going to begin.”  Somehow I don’t think partying carries the same gravitas as, say, hard work, or camaraderie, or even chilling on a beach – the last three representing relevant territory beer brands have actually owned, successfully.  Besides, these days, if I’m looking to alcohol to fuel a good time, a) I’ve probably got a problem, and b) whether or not, I’m solving it with vodka or something.

New (Old) Rule:  Beer drinkers buy the image, not the ingredients – not even the taste.  They rationalize their choices - in focus groups - based on the ingredients, and its “quality,” or its brewing process, which they’ll even interpret as “taste,” but nobody makes real beer choices based on rational reasons. Maybe the craft beer drinkers do (nah, maybe not), but not real, regular human beer drinkers. 

So, above all, you have to connect with them emotionally.  Make a relevant, emotional connection, in the context of beer drinking.  The essence of beer drinking is guys hanging out in a bar, sucking down suds, thinking they’ve still got it, and can still get it, knowing they’re in good company.  And some gorgeous, statuesque young woman walks in, all smart and confident, and walks straight up to you, the beer drinker, sticks out her hand and says, “Hi, I’d really like to meet you.”  Her eyes are dark as the night you want to spend with her and she’s got a 1000-watt smile and she’s got you at “hi” because she already thinks you’re cool.

The essence - but I digress.  The reality is most beer is consumed away from bars, a lot of it at home, with wives.  But home is boring in beer advertising.  So you try to capture some kind of essence.

Everybody knows you can justify anything through focus groups.  You hear what you want to hear – especially if you’re looking for respondents to feed back an ingredients message.  Sure, they’ll tell you, they heard it, and yeah, it’s meaningful.  But they’re lying. They don’t care about product attributes; they’re only using them to rationalize an emotional decision.

They must not care about taste, either.  A-B’s president, Dave Peacock, was quoted recently (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug 20, 2010, “Can Budweiser, the King of Beers, reign again?”) saying, “(Budweiser) wins blind taste tests again and again.  It’s the perfect liquid.” Exactly my point.  Taste doesn’t matter – as long as it tastes like beer and it has alcohol in it (“It’s all good beer,” A-B’s brewmaster used to say.  He knew); if it did, Bud wouldn’t have dropped from a high of 26% market share in 1988 to less than 10% today.  Over and out.

Until this year’s Super Bowl, Bud Light’s advertising has insisted that it represented “Drinkability” – a word lifted right off of Budweiser’s label, proudly proclaiming for decades that Bud has “… a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability you will find in no other beer at any price.”  Thing is, it was believable; it made total sense for Budweiser.  It made no sense for Bud Light.

So they changed it to “… the just right taste” with “Here We Go (Again).”  Which is what every beer drinker in the entire world thinks about his beer.

New (Old) Rule:  Assume the position of a brand leader.  Leaders lead, they don’t follow. Leaders set the standard, they don’t respond to lesser brands.  Leaders are proactive, not reactive.

Budweiser used to be The King of Beers.  We resisted the nagging efforts of Meister Brau when they protested that it “tasted just as good as Budweiser, only costs less.” The King does not acknowledge pretenders.

A-B held steadfast as Miller and others came out with the new, low-calorie L-I-T-E beer from Miller (as August III loved to call it) for two years, and then trumped the entire market with Bud Light (it was launched as Budweiser Light, by the way).

We were the leader, we assumed the position, and we acted like it.

No more.

“This Bud’s for You” ran for what, 15, 20 years?

How many campaigns has Bud been through since then? 

Worse, A-B has become totally reliant on increasingly thin line extensions and international expansion markets (Great Britain, China) to prop up their sales.  Meanwhile they’re losing their ass where it matters most, the US of A. To wit:

Bud Light Lime came on the heels of Miller’s earlier lime-flavored entry, Miller Chill.

Bud Light Golden Wheat followed Miller’s test and subsequent decision not to introduce a Miller Lite-branded wheat beer under its Brewer’s Collection.

MGD 64 boosted Miller Genuine Draft’s franchise long before A-B introduced Bud Select 55.

Even Bud Light’s “Drinkability” platform looked like a response to Coors Light’s “cold refreshment” positioning.

Meanwhile their home market, the very essence of their American roots, their DNA, continues to erode.

All of this “follow the leader” marketing is tantamount to admitting defeat.  No wonder.

New (Old) Rule:  Beer isn’t funny, or goofy.  Or sophomoric.  Beer drinking isn’t funny.  It’s … reparative, irreverent, satisfying, thirst quenching, rewarding, all about bonding and camaraderie.  And hooking up.  It’s … cool.  A good time, too, for sure; fun, but … not funny, unless maybe you’re drunk. This was another major flaw in Bud Light’s “Drinkability” campaign and continues to be with “Here We Go:” they seemed to assume it was Bud Light’s “sophomoric humor” that had been lost, so they’re trying to recover it. Actually, they have. Sophomoric, indeed.  Yes, grab-ass beer drinkers drink Budweiser, too, and Bud Light. But only because they aspire to be something else, like genuine Bud drinkers.  Market to the real Bud/Bud Light drinkers - the mopes will come along, too.

“Here We Go (Again)” continues to embrace Bud Light’s brand personality:  sophomoric.  It may be even worse.  Have you seen “Clothing Drive?”  It must reflect the essence of what Bud Light is after, because they’ve been running an extra-long version of it on their website. 

Scene from Bud Light “Clothing Drive:”

“The Great American Lager?”  Without some kind of emotional context, who cares?  Guys buy the beer whose label they want to sit behind at a bar.  Because it stands for the kinds of things they do.  Or wish they did.  So you give them a “reason why” so they can justify their choices in focus groups and when they belly up to the bar with their buds, and their Buds.  I mean, nobody’s going to actually admit they drink Budweiser because it reinforces their wannabe image of themselves, or their need for their friends to really really like them.

“This Bud’s for You” was an outright paean to the world’s heaviest beer drinkers. This was good business.  It was only in the middle of the commercials that we suggested it was the “exclusive Beechwood Ageing process that produces a taste, a smoothness and a drinkability (there’s that word again!) you will find in no other beer at any price.”  The reason why.  But the most of it embraced the beer drinkers we were after, celebrated them and their hard work, in stories and music-driven montages - and the “This Bud’s for You’ music was uplifting, emotional(!), recognizable; it always played a dramatic role in Budweiser’s advertising, unlike the wallpaper stuff we’re seeing now.

New (Old) Rule:  All beer drinkers are not alike.  Even heavy beer drinkers.  First of all, plenty of heavy beer drinkers are white-collar guys, always have been, but we knew they all wanted to believe – if they really had to – that they could work as hard as the blue-collar beer drinkers.  So they, too, were attracted to “This Bud’s for You’s” celebration of the working man.  Same effect the Marlboro Cowboy had.

And if Bud Light, and Budweiser, have become “my father’s beer(s)” – the kiss of death in beer – then you’ve got to speak to their offspring, in their language.  In their environment.  To them.  First of all, there’s no damned reason to walk away from us fathers.  We drink a lot of beer, too, plus we’ve got more money.  And it may take something radical to reach the young – ok, minimum age – heavy beer drinkers, to shed the old-guy image.  But don’t compromise it all by trying to be that way with everybody.  Being way edgy or totally hip might work for “minimum  age” beer drinkers, but not necessarily for everybody else.

We had the same problem then that they do now with younger beer drinkers.  What did we do?  We segmented the market (probably the first time a major brand ever did so, at least to the breadth and scale we did).  “This Bud’s for You” for the mainstream.  Special commercials that ran only on Saturday Night Live, for “young adults.”  Broad-based integration of Blacks and Hispanics in national commercials, which convinced them that they, too, were an important part of Budweiser’s brand world.  Hell, we made Lou Rawls our national spokesguy for a few years (all of which built on important community-based programs for further credibility); plus targeted media buys for both segments (with special Hispanic creative en Espanol, customized for Cubanos in Florida, Puerto Ricans in NY  and Mexican Americans in Texas, California and NY). 

What we did not do was try to be young and cool and stupid to everybody.  We isolated that stuff for the “young adult” market, and when August wanted us to run our first music-video spot for SNL (the first one ever, featuring Leon Redbone, a frequent music guest on SNL) on national football games, we talked him out of it.  We grabbed ourselves by the cojones, raised an objection, articulated why, and carried the day.  It was the right thing to (not) do then and it’s a strategy that holds today. 

We earned #1 positions in every segment after being the largest seller because we were never worse than everybody’s second choice.  And we generated double-digit growth for something like 36 consecutive months in an industry that was only growing at 1 or 2%.  In fact Budweiser was the only flagship brand showing growth: Miller High Life and Coors were dropping like streamlined bowling balls.

New (Old) Rule:  It’s about the beer drinker first.  Then the beer.  Connect with the beer drinker on an emotional level – his, not yours; get that right, then offer him your beer.  Relate to him, reach him, humor him even; give him something to identify with.  To aspire to, even. The badge to wear.  Something … meaningful.  Something positive.

An admission (or an obvious disclosure of truth):  “This Bud’s for You” took a cue from Miller.  They were first to recognize those 20% of the beer drinkers who drank most of the beer.  At the time Budweiser was seen as something of a white-collar beer, believe it or not. So we went after these blue-collar guys, too.  Genius!  But there was a major strategic difference between “This Bud’s for You” and “Miller Time.”  We were about the beer drinker (see above).  This Bud’s for You. They were about the beer.  It’s Miller time. We won.

“It’s What We Do?”  Same problem.

Actually, in some kind of perverse way, Budweiser’s current advertising gets the equation right:  they do put the beer drinker first.  Trouble is, they put him down.  Maybe I’m too sensitive, or too bald, but being reminded that we white boy bro’d our way thru some goofy man-greetings over the years just ain’t gonna win me over.  In life we should be able to laugh at ourselves.  It’s trickier in advertising.

And if I’m getting naked – I sure as hell have no interest doing it in an office with a bunch of other guys, do you?

In other words …

New (Old) Rule:  Beer is not for morons.  Or dipshits.  Despite the fact that we elected a president two terms in a row because he was “somebody you could have a beer with,” the good beers, the brand leaders, shouldn’t be marketed to morons.  So what was with the “sophomoric humor” in “Drinkability?”  And now “Here We Go (Again)??”

“This Bud’s for You” gave the beer drinker the benefit of the doubt, that he had sufficient wit to spot bullshit a mile away.  Well, they still can, as evidenced by the failure of Bud Light’s “Drinkability” campaign.  And now, “Here We Go.”  Actually, that’s good news for the rest of us.

New (Old) Rule:  Sometimes you just have to grab yourself by the cojones and say no. Apparently EuroRSCG started the “Drinkability” campaign.  Not sure where they get their beer credentials, but DDB certainly has them.  Somebody there must have had the kind of groaner reaction to this idea then that the rest of America soon had.  Dude?  You know damned well there’s just something creepy about it.  It ain’t working.  Just say no!  Avoid the inevitable.  And yet, here you go again with “Here We Go (Again).”  Do your agency and your client a favor.  Go for it.  Lot’s of times it will actually work.  Besides, if you don’t, you’re probably going to read about it later in some trade magazine.

New (Old) Rule:  There’s no substitute for gut.  Research is supposed to be an aid to judgment.  But it’s no substitute for it.  Which means you’ve got to have some judgment of your own, some instincts.  And the cojones to stand up for both.  If you’re relying on research to totally define your brand strategy, or your advertising, you shouldn’t be in the beer business.  In fact, you shouldn’t be in the advertising business either – you should probably be a researcher.

Bud Light discovered this the hard way with their “Drinkability” campaign, a strategy apparently derived from The Cambridge Group, a consultancy firm hired by August A. Busch IV a couple of years earlier (they must be pina colada drinkers).  He was following in his father’s footsteps: “the 3^rd,” who retained a studied professor from Wharton - who actually came up with a definition for a “reparative” beer drinker - a guy who had a cold one to reward himself after a hard day’s work.  Thank you very much.  And in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs they were big time “Belongers.”   Once we got the prof out of the way, the result was “This Bud’s for You.”

The great DDB campaigns for Bud Light – Spuds McKenzie; “Yes, I am;” “I Love You, Man,” were not sophomoric and they were beyond funny:  they were irreverent, unexpected, wise guy attitudes that defied all sense of the expected.  They invited you to laugh with them, not at them, or at each other.  All of them expressing emotions and attitudes that beer drinkers could relate to, and did.  They became part of the vernacular.

Ain’t gonna happen with “Here We Go (Again).”

There’s a fine line, and a big difference, between being almost funny or worse, goofy - and irreverent; between humoring yourself and connecting with your target.  If I don’t like the guys in your commercials, I ain’t drinking your beer. In fact, no real beer drinker would take the kind of “kidding” in dumb silence that you see in “It’s What We Do.”   If some guy says to me, “Hey, I like your ‘stash, but where’d you dock your steamboat,” my answer is, “Yeah, and your girlfriend likes it, too.  In fact she’s outside in my steamboat, waiting for me to give her a ride.”

Truth is, these New (Old) Rules are both.  And they’ll still sell beer - if you’re willing to follow the rules.

© Tim Arnold

September 2010

A postscript:

Since I posted this piece, Anheuser-Busch announced the hiring of Anomaly, A NY/London independent advertising agency, and they’ve debuted their new work, “Great Times Are Waiting, Grab Some Buds.” 

                         

Unfortunately it was launched in conjunction with an announced “National Happy Hour,” when A-B gave away a half-million Budweisers, presumably to generate trial among younger beer drinkers.  Their logic?  According to their own research, 4 out of 10 beer drinkers under the age of 30 had never tried a Bud, despite the fact that, according to A-B’s President, Dave Peacock, Budweiser wins all the taste tests.  Exactly, and the joke is on them.  Beer drinkers aren’t rejecting Budweiser’s taste; they’re rejecting the image, which A-B has rendered utterly irrelevant or worse, stupid.  So, thanks for the free beer and, until next time, I’m back to my regular brew.

Having said that, I like the look and feel of the “Grab Some Buds” advertising.  It may or may not be too late, but this advertising (re)assumes the position of a leader.  It reflects a contemporized version of the King of Beers. Simply eliminating the dipshits from their advertising sets them apart from, and above, most other beer advertising.  And with a half turn strategically, and given the time and budget support to work, I think this advertising stands a chance of making a difference.  We’ll see.

©Tim Arnold

October 2010

possible20@aol.com

www.possible20.com

917.748.6058