Kmart will make you SHI* your pants…

Seriously, where did this ad come from?

Kudos to the K!

Ship my pants, ship my drawers and, my personal favorite, ship my nightie.

30-seconds of slight variations on the same double-entendre delivered in rapid succession.

Bathroom humor at its finest; the spot is a silly play on words delivered with a flat affect for added giggles.

Could Kmart have FINALLY found a personality all its own?

In a (retail) world where Target and Walmart have so eloquently carved separate personas, incumbent and former discount juggernaut Kmart was all but ousted.

Seriously. Who is Kmart for? We must have asked the question a thousand times.

With Target taking care of upper-income and design-conscious shoppers and Walmart on call to offer everything to everyone else, Kmart can’t get a single customer to take notice.

But with this spot – we notice.

Like the often neglected, attention-starved little brother, they’re outspoken and they’re spunky. It’s a counter-culture approach to marketing that can be oh-so effective.

The attitude reminds me of when Burger King first introduced us to the King. Or when Carl’s Jr. started opting to sell fast food with raw SEX (latest ad even banned from certain TV play).

You’re saying “OK, Daniel – how is a poop joke like that creepy king or girls in bikinis that fling pulled pork on each other?”

It’s rage against the machine. The spots are a breath of fresh air in a room filled with the stench of the often overplayed, safe, homogenous advertising provided by category leaders.

They’re saying let the leaders cater to the masses (a.k.a. women/mom, and kids). We’ll cater to all the niche markets less concerned with brand (also design, quality, and, when it comes to food, health).

We’d be remiss not to mention the crux of the ad. Can’t find the right size/color/quantity of item in-store? Kmart clerks will research inventory online (via super-sleek tablets, no less) and find, sell, and ship merchandise right to your doorstep…for free.

Now, if only we knew where we could (still) find a Kmart…

Thanks for the laugh guys! Hope it’s just the start of a long run of lewd, crude, and rude commercials. We’re all ears. :P #ShipMyPants

Forget the Snake; 2013 is the Year of the Goat (at least when it comes to Advertising).

Make no mistake; the real winner of Super Bowl XLVII was Doritos.

Enter: the goat.

And just when we thought advertisers had beaten the animal spokesperson strategy to death! Seriously though, did you think there was anyone left in all the animal kingdom who could feel fresh and new?!

Doritos’ “Goat 4 Sale” spot was a pure genius.

Devoid of any real words, it introduced us to a whole new vernacular; the goat scream.

In case you haven’t seen it (what, do you live under a rock?):

Not only did the 30-second spot go viral, it triggered a tidal wave of social media love for goats everywhere.

Search “Screaming Goat” on YouTube and you’ll find over 194,000 results; compilations of live video from the farm and screams fit to pop songs and Oprah Winfrey.

8 weeks later and we still can’t get enough.

You can imagine our excitement when we first learned that Mountain Dew had released a goat spot.

You wanna see it? You ready? Here it is:

What the…?

The first eight seconds (that’s 26% of the entire campaign) are spent on the guy just trying to get his date to notice the damn thing.

Then 10 seconds of the goat not wanting the Mountain Dew (waitress gets slapped).
5 seconds of the goat wanting the Mountain Dew (waitress gets slapped again).
and 7 seconds of Mountain Dew euphoria, (more slapping) ::end scene::.

To be continued? No thanks. Like the goat during the first half of the commercial, we “don’t want it.”

It's like Mountain Dew is looking over Doritos' shoulder; copying all the wrong answers on the test.

In what ways does MD miss the mark?

No scream.

The scream is what makes the Doritos commercial. It's the big finish that breaks through the monotony of the crunches and grabs you. It elicits laughter. The scream is what we’re all Googling, YouTube-ing, tweeting, re-tweeting and sharing to facebook; why even use a goat if you’re not going to use the scream!?

No depth.

Some loose assemblage of a story would be nice. It’s insane for the sake of being insane …and nothing more. The crazy creative fits the brand’s eccentric personality but the character is crude without being clever and fails to impress.

Did you know the goat is supposed to be a girl? “Felicia” is her name. We’re all about breaking gender roles, but why impart more confusion with a tux and male voice?

It’s no contest.

I guess not all goats are created equal. In the game of goat – Doritos: 1, Mountain Dew: 0.

A New Bird in the Sky? American Airlines

Who said bankrupt companies can’t spend gobs of cash on rebranding?

Image is important; you’ll hear no argument of the contrary here.

And when you’re staring the prospect of dissolve dead in the face; image can be the Hail Mary pass that keeps you in the game.

You’re clear for takeoff, New American Airlines…

I thought it was older…

Designed back in 1968, the current mark is quickly approaching 50. How can something feel so iconic and yet so ordinary at the same time? Helvetica bold with tight kerning; is that what it boils down to? And while the red feels a bit brighter, I know that blue is straight off the American flag.

The eagle is the most inspired piece of the puzzle, but rigid and hard – more suited to stand for a government entity or military service. A quicker glance and it almost looks like an abstract take on the cancer support ribbon (sans top fold).

The new AA…

For the first time, AA’s logo and brand feel separate but equal parts of the full identity.

Here the font is just a touch more casual; sharp edges are sanded down for a softer, less drastic appearance. Gone is the Betsy Ross era of shared colors. The new brand bestows upon the text a rich navy-gray while the logo itself calls upon a bright range of both red and blue.

And what about that “logo?” Is it a bird? Is it a plane (wing)? Maybe both. Regardless, it gives the brand some depth and movement that the old logo lacked.

Applied to product, the introduction of a third brand element on the tail is lost on me. It feels a bit too patriotic (the bad kind) and basic; as if it should be eminent domain of the American people and not tied to an individual brand (however “American” they may be).

Why not simply apply the new eagle/wing logo to the tail?

So, what do you think?

We approve.

The first new logo of the year, and it couldn’t have gone to someone more in need.

How did we miss AA when we assembled our 2013 new logo wish list?

But will the change be the fresh start American needs or just a blip on the radar as they fade into the sunset?

Only time will tell, but never underestimate the power of new visuals.

The key lies in follow-through. A logo is highly salient; but all brand interactions, customer service, in and outside the cabin, need to follow suit if AA has any chance of escaping the ailing sentiments now associated with their name.

Who, What, and Why, T-Mobile?

Happy New Year, y’all.

Personally speaking, 2012 was one of the best years I’ve come across in a while; leaving some big shoes for 2013 to fill. The arrival of January always puts me in a bit of a funk – how is it only the 10^th?! I swear this year is off to an especially slow start. It’s been like trudging through thick, ankle-deep mud.

It goes without saying that I’ve been a bit uninspired as of late. In the world of Marketing and Advertising, nothing has really caught my attention.

And so I’ll pick on T-Mobile’s domestic strategy.

It's been bothering me for at least 6 months. I just don’t get it.

How did we go from this…

…to this?

And more importantly why?

The old ads were kitschy and cute; T-Mobile was the anti-establishment of mobile phone companies. Bright, fun, and non-threatening – if you were sick of dealing with the big guys T-Mobile was for you!

Speaking chronologically, I know it happened shortly after the merger with AT&T fell apart.

Maybe marketing at T-Mobile went on auto-pilot during the review process (I mean, you can’t rally against the big guys if you’ll soon be part of them, now can you?).

But speaking strategically!?

When AT&T-Mobile was found out not to be, T went back to the drawing board and kicked campaigning into high gear (literally).

This commercial is perhaps the worst of them all. That chant will get in your head and grate on your soul, I promise.

What’s the point of touting 4-G coverage when you can’t claim superiority over the competition?

"Largest." Do they just assume consumers naïve enough to ignore Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint’s take on 4-G? The new campaigns feel as though T-Mobile is the damaged ex-girlfriend, hell bent on showing the world she’s better off alone. She’s stronger, faster and out for mobile domination.

But how can you be out for blood when you’ve the least robust coverage and worst line up of smart phones? (STILL T-Mobile’s retail shelves sit hungry for iPhone).

Is the new attitude supposed to resonate with men?

Each commercial does feel like an animated spread for some G-rated version of Maxim magazine. But what macho guy wants to be caught walking into a store dripping in that hot, magenta pink?

Is the new attitude supposed to resonate with women?

Trading her simple pink dresses for black leather cat suits, something tells me our favorite T-Mobile heroine isn’t motivating any more of her lady brethren with motorcycle racing and dark alley strut-abouts.

Will someone clear the fog for me?

Who is T-Mobile trying to attract?
What is T-Mobile selling?
And Why is it a smart business move?

BONUS: In doing my (minimal) research, I re-discovered this gem from December 2011. It might just be my obsession with Christmas cheer, but THIS is the T-Mobile I loved. It just felt more genuine:
 
 

WeightWatchers’ new logo trims the fat (exposes something else).

It’s been awhile since we’ve done a Facelift/Faceoff Friday challenge.

That’s because most companies wouldn’t think about undergoing a brand transformation amidst the calamity of the holidays. Unless of course Q4 is one of your least busy seasons and your gearing up for a rush that inevitably comes with the start of each New Year.

New Year’s Resolutions are what keep WeightWatchers in business.

And so as the weight loss/monitoring juggernaut prepares to usher in a new class of self-loathing pound shed hopefuls, they decided to give their brand a quick tummy tuck.

Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the last one. It was bright and active, slim and flowing – all the things you’d want your experience with weight loss to be. It didn’t feel dated or as if it had lost its impact.

The new logo falls victim to the same trend in brand homogenization we described earlier this year. It ditches much of what made WeightWatchers stand out, opting for a mega-simple, ultra-reductive treatment comprised of a single case, single color, and dime-a-dozen font.

Relax. It does a few things right.

As you move from left to right, the fade from black to gray to white feels transformative. In that regard, it conjures up a notion of what the weight loss process should be; starting in the dark, moving to the light.

It also feels more masculine (or, at least not feminine), an arena WeightWatchers has been trying to break into since adding basketball legend Charles Barkley to their portfolio of celebrity endorsements last year (did he give up the Taco Bell spots or is he just a post child of confliction?).

But wait. Look again. What’s that in the center?

A big, gray twat.

Oops. By dropping all casing, the words ‘weight’ + ‘watchers’ become a 14-letter game of word find (and with a second glance, my eyes found a doozy). True, the word has several meanings. But none of which a woman wants top of mind as they embark upon their new diet.

How does this not get caught during the creative process? Has no one at WeightWatchers or the agency of record run into similar issues when combining the words before?

One thing’s for sure – if you didn’t notice it before, it’s all you’ll see now.

All is not lost. A simple reversion back to the upper/lower formula would dilute the impact of stringing all the letters together. It’s a quick fix, but will it get applied?

As of 12/7/12

The current form is up on the site now – I can’t imagine it will make it into 2013.