ATT Hurts Apple Customers. . . Again

It appears, via twitter, that the general consensus is AT&T’s new data plan is terrible. With the recent release of the iPad, Apple customers were lead to believe that with the 3G model they would get a relatively low cost unlimited data plan. After all, with the launch of the first iPhone, unlimited data was free standard which was bumped up to around 30 dollars a month with the release of the 3G model. Now AT&T is not only capping the amount of data in a two tiered plan, they are only extending the limit to 2gb well below the relative standard of 5gb that was expected.

The question that has been floating around for quite some time is, is this effecting sales of the Apple devices and (more importantly) is this effecting the perception of the Apple brand negatively? One thing is for sure, if and when apple allows multiple carriers for iPhone and iPad there will be a mass exodus of consumer from the AT&T carrier.

The Need to Brand Yourself

Could marketing yourself yield the same results as advertising/branding a major company? Yes.

In fact, one of the strongest lessons they pushed at my college, MCAD, was the necessity to treat and market yourself as a brand. Although this made some students a bit skittish, it is important more than ever to treat and market yourself as a brand.

Many people believe that with the rise of social media outlets such as twitter, that significantly shorten our attention span, as proof that brands are dyeing when it is quite the opposite. When you have 140 characters to push a complex aspect of a product or the sleekness of a brand, the necessity to push the brand to keep it short, sweet and repeatable is impartially important.

Treating one’s self as a brand forces you to consider truly what makes you different and what your true selling points are. It allows you to create your paired down elevator pitch, and with repetition, gives you the chance to attribute those aspects to a recognizable logo.

So it than no longer is a question of to brand or not to brand and it turns into what is unique about your brand?

Brand Power

"Since the crocodile is the symbol of Lacoste, we thought they might be interested in sponsoring our crocodiles." - Silvino Gomes, Commercial Director of the Lisbon Zoo

The discussion of brand relevance in the ad world had been going on for a quite some time yet it became most relevant on Marlboro Friday in 1993. (The first time that Marlboro cut it's price in spite of it's massive branding.) It was considered the death of the brand until the recession ended. When people had extra capital they spent the extra money by going back to the high brands they loved. A formula seemed to arise from that.

With the growth of interactive, came the rise of marketing over advertising. Instead of promising people happiness, simplicity, youth by using a brand. They turned to creating contests and child-like prizes for giving out your user information. The book, "Married to the Brand", points out that when "courting" your consumer giving them deals and price cuts only shortens the potential life of that consumer shopping your store. Instead of creating a lasting relationship through seeing themselves in you, the brand is saying, "Sorry we aren't awesome, here's a dollar for your email information."

The questions isn't wether or not interactive is here to stay or not. The question is when will we figure out how to integrate brand advertising successfully into interactive advertising?

Here's an example of one place I think it did work:

Agency: Big Spaceship

Client: HBO

Campaign: Voyeur

Headin' to Arkansas

If an ad agency makes a great ad; but, it's hitting the wrong target is it really that bad?

I think thats a question that hangs in the air whenever an advertisement seems to be off key from a brand perspective. Of course, being way out of left field, hitting the wrong gender, race and age all at once would be too far off and would most likely dilute the brand by sending out too many and contradictory messages. However, how close to brand is too "close to brand."

When a client is obsessing where the toys came from, be it Target or Wal-Mart (which is the same exact toy), in a kid's fast food ad because their target consume is considered a wal-mart-like shopper. Is that going too far and isn't that obsessing too much over details that could detract from the big picture?

The subject came up when discussing the new memorable Caribou Coffee ads on youtube made by Colle + McVoy. The ads have a sometimes violent or disgusting sense of humor that feels more apt for a teenager and yet their audience tends to be middle aged, stay at home mom's.

You be the judge:

Caribou's "The Autumn Adventure of Jack & Gourdo #5"

Agency: Colle + McVoy

Reason: A well-made, dry sense of humor that plays with boundaries of acceptability; but, may be off the key consumer.

On a side note: I am happy to report that after being unemployed for a total of 12 day (8 work days), I received a job offer from an excellent, quickly growing agency Rockfish Interactive. They not only create great websites, innovative back-end tools, iPhone apps and social media tools; but, they also launch brands and were named "Best Small Agency of the Year" by Ad Age.

So I will be heading out on a road trip to Arkansas to check out the state and the agency in person. Look for posts on Thursday of traveling pics. . . y'all (thought I'd get started on my accent conversion).