Brand Advertising versus Corporate Advertising

Response to an Article by Al Ries published in AdAge June 2011 -- followed by a response from Al Ries..

Dear Al,

Your recent article: 'Brand Advertising seems to be on its way out.'

Years ago I was teaching a course in Advertising and Public Relations Case Studies and many students could not identify or distinguish Brand Advertising from Corporate Advertising.

I developed a lecture to address this issue, the same issue you wrote about today. I used Apple Computer's Corporate ID Campaign and then looked at its IPod advertising to help them to learn how to distinguish each, and how to create advertising for each.

I like to use Apple as an example because its products are so well designed and its advertising has been so well crafted.

Edelman Public Relations has been creating some very good corporate advertising campaigns for its clients. What they are doing is "positioning" the brand and then leveraging it in a way to give a continuity to all of the client's products or services (its Individual Brands): through Corporate Advertising - even though they don't call it that, it is what they are doing.

In recent years a Brand's Life Cycles have become increasingly important to marketers. All of the brands you selected fall into that category. Brand extensions fall into the Brand's Life Cycle where a brand needs to be redefined for new products and consumer demographics as they have changed from when the original brand strategy was devised, thus creating relevance to the brand for new demographics.

Ford especially is a good case in point. I had a conversation with Harry Webber who penned both: At Ford, Quality is Job #1. And, Ford has a better idea. Better Idea came first. He talked about how Ford recognized that it was an aging brand as it was being battered in the market by the Japanese. Ford hired Dr, W. Edwards Deming, the fellow who was cited for the Japanese miracle, to refocus Ford's management and company. Harry was intrigued by this and used it when he devised the messages - which were decidedly Corporate Advertising that was to impact all of Ford's brands. Ford Management understood this and used it as their way to communicate the changes that were occurring at the company. It was used with every brand model they made. He also created a website: We Own GM.com that developed ideas for the brand when it went into its troubled period.

I did creative work for General Mills for over twenty years. My agency was trusted with developing their new brands, even naming them. I remember when I was at a meeting where this marketing fellow laid what appeared to be Dog Barf on waxed paper on the table saying this could be a new category of products for us. His wife bought a dehydrator and this was the result of dehydrating apricots.

I immediately launched into the negatives of such a product telling them that this might well be fruit, fructose, but sucrose, dextrose, are all sugars and this happens to be the worst of all because it sticks to your teeth -- the American Dental Association would be all over this if you market it as healthy fruit, it is in reality candy. The Director of Marketing, Floyd asked me how can we package it? I said it has to have the waxed paper backing, it would have to be rolled up, and demonstrated how. Floyd asked what would we call it? I said Rolled Up Fruit, he said Fruit Roll-ups. This when on to become a multi-billion dollar a year category: sticky candy.

I bring General Mills up because this is a company that has always had brands and a clear distinction between its corporate self, GM, and the brands it has created. I worked on its first brand extension of its Cheerios® Brand - Honey Nut Cheerios. It was so successful I did the work for several more, and then for Total and Wheaties brand extensions. Each was immediately successful and gave GM more shelf space, increased volume, sales and profits without fragmenting or stealing share from the original brands. My agency also did all of the line extension for Yoplait, and other GM Brands -- and Land O'Lakes Butter. LOL New spreads, where my main directive was not to disparage the original LOL Butter Brand. They said I could say it tastes like butter -- but when I came back with: Tastes Better then Butter!, they all cringed.

I thought that your article was good, but lost the distinctions between corporate advertising and brand advertising. A distinction that I believe every advertising agency should be able to speak to when talking to marketers about their brands.

Attached is a proposal that I did several years ago for General Mills. My goal was to become agency of record for new media, to gain control of all of the individual brands, new media initiatives, to direct the effort with a coordinated approach. It didn't work, but many features were used for its current website(s). I also wrote a promotion for an "Ask Betty" website where Betty Crocker equity was used to bring consumers to it and offer recipes and coupons to stretch food dollars and increase nutrition. It was more of a feeler, to see if marketing would buy into leveraging the Betty Crocker brand, who was a stalwart during the Great Depression for millions of women who turned to her to help feed their families. They didn't buy that either.

What they finally arrived at for their Internet presence, was effective and has developed a strong following - and it is "Branded" entertainment content that the company creates and now promotes.

So I believe the Brand Advertising is strong and well and has many facets, the least of which is Corporate Advertising, where it is being redefined by marketers beyond the old "Family of Brands" positioning of telling and selling. Increasingly Corporate Advertising is seeking to become a lifestyle statement where consumers commit to the brands as a statement about who they are -- Nike has been doing this the best with its corporate brand and individual brands' advertising, as has Apple.

Daryl

Dear Daryl:

Thanks for your long email and copies of your General Mills and

Betty Crocker proposals. They are interesting an very relevant

to what could be done with corporation advertising and marketing

programs.

In my Advertising Age columns, I’m restricted to about 1,000 words

and even though I would have liked to have said something about the

role of corporate advertising versus the role of brand advertising,

there just wasn’t enough space to do so.

But there is one thing I feel strongly about. Companies need

powerful brand advertising campaigns before they even think

about doing corporate campaigns. Consumers buy brands;

they don’t buy corporations. Only investors buy corporations.

Consumers buy BlackBerries. They don’t buy Research In Motion

devices.

Thanks primarily to PR and somewhat to corporate programs,

consumers today know a lot about and have favorable opinions

about companies than they do about brands.

Many consumers have favorable opinions about Procter & Gamble,

the world’s largest consumer-goods company.

But what’s an Olay?

All the best.

Al

Al Ries

Ries & Ries