There is much viral buzz going on about Kmart’s “Ship My Pants” ad campaign.  The campaign seems to be set up to capture the younger adolescent audience or the slightly sophomoric side of our humorous personalities with a tongue-twisting turn of the phrase “ship my pants.”  What it really does is reflect how desperate Kmart (Sears) is to speak to their audience and compete with brands such as Target and Walmart who have solidified their brands in the marketplace.

The actual message is that what you can’t find in a Kmart store can be easily shipped to your location via online purchase.  Is this a new concept to Kmart?  We all know that the customer owns the channels and they will purchase where and how they prefer.  If I am looking for the ease and convenience of shopping at home, I can go to my retailer’s portal online or via tablet or smartphone and purchase it there, but if I happen to be out with my family or have a retail location close, then I may stop in and purchase it for quicker acquisition.  The problem is that this rarely comes to mind regarding Kmart as their market share has eroded so much that few are purchasing in their stores and even fewer choose to use their online portal purchasing options.

Kmart and its parent, Sears are both in a last-ditch effort to save their brands and make them relevant in their space.   Kmart is not the discount place of choice for customers and it has not been for a long-long time.  Sears, certainly with better brands to offer is still thought of as the place where your grandparent’s shop.  Their image in the public eye is tired, old, and worn and the creation of buzz using humor on the fringe of vulgarity is pathetic and a last-ditch attempt to get the audience they need to survive to recognize them, which will not happen using this method.

What Kmart & Sears needs is an entirely new branding exercise set out to reinvent their brands and focus on their core product offerings in the channels they choose.

Rather than “ship my pants” Kmart and Sears should “shift their brand.”

In the past couple of years, companies and ad agencies have begun to revitalize the roles of mascots that they once popularized in the early ’60s (i.e. Charlie The Tuna and Mr. Peanut). In the 1960s, the beginning of television created a new medium for these characters to develop their character arcs. In this same light, today ad agencies are utilizing social media to develop the mascots and develop their clients’ brands.

Social media provides a viral entry into the consumer marketplace. The open forum of these social media sites gives the mascots a louder voice. Mr. Peanut uses Facebook to talk to his followers (over 400k). As brands use these social media platforms to develop character narratives, they couple it with radio and television spots, which encourage watchers to learn more about their favorite mascot online.

A prime example of brand mascots using this type of dual-medium integration is the newest M&M character in their cavalcade of stars, Ms. Brown. Introduced in her own television spot during the Super Bowl, the witty Ms. Brown has used her celebrity from television to develop herself virally online. M&M Mars has developed Ms. Brown into a budding business professional and Chief Chocolate Officer who likes to use her Twitter account to expound on her business acumen.

Mascots provide a voice and face for brands. They make products more enjoyable and accessible by humanizing their products. Social media provides the perfect forum for mascot branding. Innovative developments like Facebook’s Timeline add a rich narrative for the mascot. It also makes it easy for marketers to introduce and try out new characters. As the medium for developing these mascots’ character arcs increases, so will different brands’ adaptations of this marketing scheme, which has not been utilized and disseminated so widely since the ’60s.

What do you think of the revival and evolution of brand mascots? Will you follow @mmsbrown on Twitter?

Tuesday, Apple announced the debut of several new products. The biggest news was the release of the iPad Mini, which finally propels Apple into a competitive status with several other small tablet manufacturers such as Google (Nexus 7), Amazon (Kindle Fire HD), Barnes & Noble (Nook HD), and Samsung (Galaxy Tab 2). It is expected that Apple will likely take the forefront of this tablet market due to their design, branding, software, and advertising superiority. Consequently, Apple is poised to make a greater push into the classrooms that will broaden their target demographic.

The streamlined release of their new products represents a void in their annual product release cycle. Within the past few months, Apple has updated all of their major products. Now, the company has almost an entire year to surprise the world with their next latest and greatest innovation. How else can Apple change the world? The next phase of development for Apple not only involves changing educational technology, but more importantly the way we view television. Google and Samsung have partnered to release a smart tv which they think will change the industry. However, it would be presumptuous to theorize that Apple has no comeback for this new product. Apple has already released the Apple TV which has been a huge hit.

However, this has not quite reached the clientele that is needed to make an industry-wide change. For Apple to become more successful, they need to invade America’s living rooms with  expanded services, networks, and “a-la-carte” content. Imagine having the ability to pick and choose programming that is specific to your life and not be required to pay for extra channels. For instance, if one likes soccer and movies, the only packages you would pay for are sports, and a premium films bundle that could hypothetically include HBO, Showtime, IFC, etc. Honestly, out of the all the channels received with a standard Comcast contract, the vast majority of those are left untouched. It’s like going to the grocery and being forced to buy items on a monthly basis that you never eat and will only serve a purpose to grow mold and stink up your fridge and pantry.

Lastly, by introducing a TV, Apple will deliver a completely new experience. This will take advertising to an entirely different level as they will have to cater towards Apple’s instructions. No longer will an individual be required to sit through countless hours of commercials in between movie showings and television episodes. Users of Apple TV will likely be able to experience one of two payment plans: higher subscription services for no commercials or lower subscription services which include some commercial programming. Obviously, there will be a great many people who will want the former instead of the latter. To remain competitive, Apple will need to offer lower socioeconomic customers ultra-competitive rates that will drive them from using cable and dish services. This second offering will deliver network television unlike anything previously viewed. Furthermore, it changes the landscape for advertising agencies and corporations who take advantage of the air space we currently view with much disdain.

Will Apple release an iTV this coming spring? What’s next for the technology giant?

If you really think about it, a brand is nothing more than a container for the promises and benefits that your company makes and delivers to your target audience. Therefore, branding is really about managing your company’s reputation. If you make a promise, you better deliver on it. Break a promise and your reputation will suffer. Just like a personal reputation, a brand reputation is formed based on the behaviors and actions of the company (or a person within the company) and how those behaviors and actions are perceived by the target audience. Since most people understand what a personal reputation is, it makes it easier to understand what “branding” is all about.

In today’s socially-networked world, it is imperative for brand owners to actively monitor Social Media channels like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as track blogs, forums and online communities where conversations about the brand may occur. Whether the conversation is positive, negative, humorous, or just sarcastic, you must track the sources of such content and gauge the sentiment and underlying emotions in order to protect and enhance reputation.

The key to making the transition from brand to reputation management lies in the examination of the company through a set of filters designed to gauge how you are shifting from a reliance on the traditional art of persuasion to the adoption of the disciplines of authenticity.

Download our latest white paper to learn more about the shift from brand management to reputation management by practicing a discipline of authenticity – and if you’re a B2B marketer there are a few additional recommendations just for you.

Research in Motion (RIM) had it all:  they were the leading suppliers of cell phones to American businesses and had the lion’s share of the Smartphone market. But that was not enough for RIM, they wanted a slice of the consumer market too and developed the Blackberry PlayBook tablet to join in the competition with Apple and a plethora of Android-based competitors. But delusions of grandeur and targeting the wrong market have led RIM to land on our Marketing FAIL page.

Since its launch in 2003, the BlackBerry Smartphone led the way in business communication with its QWERTY keyboard and ability to give users access to their corporate email. The BlackBerry had RIM riding high by 2009 as Fortune Magazine named RIM “the fastest growing company in the world with a growth of 84% in profits over three years despite the recession.” By September 2010, RIM announced that the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet computer would be launched the following spring despite the fact that Apple had already taken the lead by successfully launching the iPad in April 2010.  Trying to “one-up” Apple,  RIM claimed to be a superior tablet thanks to its support for Flash technology for streaming video content. RIM’s Co-Chief Executive Officer, Jim Balsillie, said, “The PlayBook is compelling because it works with the BlackBerry, allowing those hooked on the RIM Smartphone to continue using their preferred communications device.” But RIM has struggled mightily to market the product effectively… notably marred by the departure of Chief Marketing Officer, Keith Pardy,  just a month before the launch.  However, there are far more serious problems with the PlayBook: an unfamiliar operating system (QNX); a screen that users claimed was too small and a price that was too high.  These issues combined with the fact that a BlackBerry phone must be tethered to the Playbook in order to access email services may have put success out of RIM’s reach.  With lackluster sales, the company recently undertook a price-slashing initiative by cutting $50 – $150 off the Playbook – a “fire-sale” move that just underscores their irrelevance with consumers.  The company’s stock value has taken a plunge and the future looks bleak as many consumers seem hooked on the Apple iPad and various Android-based tablets.

Check out Dave Sutton’s live interview on TrendPOV to get more details on how RIM could have avoided this failure – and also how they may be able to yet recover.

TopRight has been pleased to assist in the development and launch of an entirely new retail concept: SharpMart.  SharpMart is dedicated to serving people interested in buying, selling and trading great products by offering them the best place right in their own neighborhood.  With SharpMart nearby, customers don’t need to go online to find great deals, they don’t need to post items for sale on eBay or Craigslist to sell, and they don’t need to haggle with strangers to trade.   SharpMart is the new place to Save, Swap & Sell.

SharpMart carries a huge inventory of new merchandise for customers interested in buying great products – including items they’ve seen at other stores.  The Company gets great buys from other retailers and manufacturers, and then offers customers “Sharp Deals” on products they really want, not just leftovers or “scratch-and-dent” items.   SharpMart also welcomes Traders and Sellers.  Store associates are knowledgeable and passionate about the products SharpMart carries as well as the items customers bring in to sell or swap.  SharpMart offers traders a great place to get something newer, funner, or even just different.  SharpMart offers sellers the best price for items they bring in to sell.  The store makes sure customers always get friendly, helpful advice on all trades and sales.

According to the Chairman of SharpMart, Hamilton Powell, “TopRight assisted with the naming, branding and marketing of our retail concept – and they exceeded our expectations.  Whereas most marketing firms are viewed as a third party, TopRight quickly became an essential part of our team. The work, creativity, long hours and overall assistance they provided was an integral part of our success. We felt like we had 100% of their attention and were not simply “a project” but rather “the project”.  I highly recommend the team at Top Right and encourage any firm or company in need of a marketing/branding resource to contact TopRight first.”  The TopRight team is proud to have helped launch this new retail concept and we enjoyed working closely with their talented management team.

July 9th marked the Grand Opening of SharpMart’s flagship store in Louisville KY  - listen for upcoming announcements for store openings in other cities around the country!  And of course, you can check out SharpMart online at http://www.sharpmart.com

Tom Perriello, the Democratic incumbent candidate of the Virginia 5^th District, has been the poster child of marketing best practices. His campaign had every single marketing tactic I could think of, and a lot I wouldn’t have thought of. So will his marketing pay off?

For starters, Perriello had more than twice as much funding as Republican Robert Hurt in July, and he has been spending it wisely. Of course, he has TV ads, which, according to Ad Age, are where most congressional candidates spend their money. He also has radio and newspaper ads, hundreds of signs which seem to be everywhere, a lot of volunteers canvassing local neighborhoods, as well as hosting debates on local news stations.

His team has been exceptionally creative in targeting the student vote. Banner and video ads are popping up on Facebook, which comes as no surprise. But Perriello has also been targeting other sites that young professionals and student users often visit, like YouTube and Hulu. Neither of these sites require sign-in, so Perriello is marketing specifically based on the location of the internet connection.

The biggest moment in Perriello’s campaign came last Friday, when President Obama visited Charlottesville to speak at a rally in support of Perriello. Students and residents waited in line for over four hours to attend.

The scope of Perriello’s campaign is enormous. For the past few weeks, I have been completely flooded with all things Perriello. I have never seen as much creativity and attention to every possible outlet as I have with this campaign.

From my perspective, I was sure that Perriello would win. I had hardly seen any support at all for Hurt; maybe a sign and TV ad or two, but nothing like what Perriello was doing. So once I checked the polls, I was surprised to see that Perriello was eight points behind Hurt before Obama’s visit and only one point ahead after the rally. And that takes into account an independent candidate taking conservative votes from Hurt!

While Perriello’s advertising was creative, thorough, and well –targeted, it still might not be enough. In politics, as in business, you can’t sell what people don’t want. Just because Tom Perriello wins when it comes to marketing doesn’t mean he will be re-elected in his district.

Another one bites the dust.

The Gap logo change fiasco can hardly be considered the “New Coke” of 2010. Still, fans were vocal, and when they said they hated the new logo, Gap acted quickly.

Gap did what all companies should do: they listened. Gap announced that it will be going back to its original logo and not moving forward with the new one.

Even though Gap’s president said that crowd-sourcing would not be a good idea for a rebranding, perhaps Gap could consider coming up with various logo options and allowing fans to choose.

Good move on this one.

In last week’s post, we raised the question of the ethics of pharmaceutical companies “educating consumers” about a particular disease for the purpose of selling and profiting from its treatment. Our perspective highlights the responsibility marketers have to ensure that they are not engaging in questionable practices that may damage consumers’ health.

There is another group of marketers that has been extremely successful, but in this case it actually helps people: the marketing teams at various nonprofits around the world. Suzi Sosa brought up some great questions about what marketers can accomplish in the nonprofit and public health education field. She asks: “With the primacy of social impact (and public good) shared among us, do we therefore have a responsibility to work collectively to maximize public good?”

Of course, there is no right answer to her questions. Her article brought up the fact that heard disease is the #1 killer of women, even though many people think it is breast cancer. The Red Dress Campaign, or “Go Red for Women,” created to fight women’s heart disease, offers advice on preventing heart disease that involves a lifetime of healthy lifestyle choices, and that doesn’t even take into account the role genetics plays in heart disease. One might argue that while individuals can’t do as much to prevent breast cancer, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has potentially saved thousands of women through their early detection education. So which organization has the greatest impact? And which has the potential to save the most people?

I think the essential problem in asking whether or not we “have a responsibility to work collectively to maximize public good” is that it is impossible to exactly identify which measures maximize public good. Once you factor in the time, effort, and nature of the choices that each organization asks people to make, it is really like comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention the fact that ROI for these types of organizations can’t be measured in dollars, but rather in improved overall health and quality of life.

The question of investment in these organizations aside, Sosa’s article highlights another great point about non-profit marketing today: “many social entrepreneurs are embracing fully the dark arts of marketing, systematically crafting precise messages and constructing campaigns explicitly designed to foster long-term emotional hooks.” I would point out not only the Susan G. Komen Foundation (which has managed to bring brand awareness and integration to almost every consumer industry imaginable, from the NFL to yogurt to toilet paper), but a huge number of other organizations as well. The Heart Truth is featured on every Diet Coke product, the American Cancer Society launched their great “Official Sponsor of Birthdays” campaign, and as Sosa pointed out, charity: water promotes their “a little goes a long way” model to potential donors.

With so many great organizations out there, do you think there is a way to identify which is the most important? Which has the most impact? Beyond that, do you think it is the responsibility of marketers to ask that question?

We have all seen the ads on TV. If I ask, “Who does depression hurt?” almost everyone knows to respond, “everyone” even before I’m done with the quote. The number of pharmaceutical spots informing us of the deluge of potential illnesses that may be afflicting us is increasing almost daily. What’s more, new diseases are sprouting up to take the place of yesterday’s quirks.

“And now that I’ve learned that I’ve got a disorder, it’s a good thing they’ve tailored just the pharmaceutical solution for what ails me. Don’t worry that it might cause anxiety, mania, amnesia, cancer, stroke or death (as well as who knows what else). But, hey, at least I won’t have that pesky disorder anymore!”

Now, it’s easy to poke fun at some of those commercials for their contrived metaphorical situations and the litany of potential side effects, but often times they do provide a valuable service. In fact, when properly executed, disease branding can create a new level of understanding of the seriousness or legitimacy of certain conditions.

For example, the term heartburn was coined decades ago by antacid brands, and suggests that the mechanism of action in the treatment of indigestion is acid neutralization, which is exactly what antacids do. However, researchers discovered in the 1980s that chronic heartburn could be further described as a malfunction of the esophageal sphincter—a more serious disorder that can lead to the erosion of gastrointestinal tissue over time and lead to certain forms of cancer. Glaxo and its drug Zantac worked to rebrand chronic heartburn as a more insidious medical concern, coining the term GERD (gastro esophageal reflux disease).  Branding GERD not only shifted the public’s perception about the dangers of chronic acid reflux, it also put Zantac in the spotlight as the best overall solution. Acid blockade (which is what Zantac and other H2 antagonists do), rather than acid neutralization, implies that the problem should be stopped at the root of the condition, not after it manifests itself and does damage.

While the introduction of GERD and the resulting awareness of it and its treatment can have a meaningful impact on the quality of people’s lives, the proliferation of these ads and other questionable forms of promotion (such as paying incentives to prescribing doctors) does beg the question – where should we draw the line? At what point are pharmaceutical marketers trying to invent demand for drugs that need an ROI?

Obviously marketing has been “raising awareness” and “educating” the public about the benefits of their particular product for decades and quite a few times we’ve been caught going a little sideways to say the least. Tobacco, the poster boy for unethical marketing, was actually promoting the health benefits of smoking at a time they knew it would kill you. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop there and it’s usually not as black and white. Since then there have been numerous instances of shady promotional claims and practices across numerous sectors and we are bound to continue to see more.

I believe the key is not to point the finger at marketing alone, I think it’s important to realize that the problem usually goes deeper than that. It’s indicative of an underlying culture endemic to that company, industry or, at times, overall society that says it’s OK to keep pushing the envelope…until, as my mom used to say, “Someone gets hurt.” The marketing department is just one place where this symptom can appear. Just look at the rash of accounting fraud that was uncovered in the wake of the Enron implosion, no marketing there but same underlying problem. It reflects a company’s values or lack thereof and their willingness to manipulate or ignore the moral questions that such behavior begs in order to achieve some sort of short term financial metric. After all, it’s not just marketing ethics or even business ethics, it’s just ethics and each one of us should hold ourselves responsible for our actions and those whose company we keep. After all, if the past three years has taught us nothing else, it’s that there is a true cost to business and society for losing sight of that.