Had a thought while staring at the cereal options at my house this morning….
Why didn’t Lucky the Leprechaun ever take on Tony the Tiger? It would have easily rivaled the “Buy a Mac” campaign. And the carnage. Oh, the carnage. Tony’s snarling teeth reducing Lucky’s magic wand to splinters. Two cross-generational icons grappling for dominance as yellow stars, tainted milk and sugar-frosted fairy dust explode into a fiery morning mess. A carnivorous breakfast feast for the ages.
Then I grabbed my store brand cheerios and went about my morning.
KK
Saw recently in the Daily Dog that Dockers is working on a big brand revitalization effort. It will kick off with a Super Bowl ad in February with an appeal to bargain hunters. Is this a good strategy?
On the one hand, yes. You gotta spend it to mend it. So go big. Get everybody all at once. And dockers is already getting mileage out of the Super Bowl. Think how much press and online chitty-chatter they’re going to get before the spot even airs. They’ve already shown that they can be current with a funky iPhone app (kudos to Razorfish and OMD), so hopefully we have some good creative lurking on the horizon.
On the other hand, no. Once you position yourself as the low-cost alternative, that’s where you stay. Just look at Bugle Boy. Once a big fashion brand, it’s now relegated to a couple racks at Family Dollar. It’s okay to position yourself as inexpensive vs. premium, just be sure you’re comfortable with that position for the long term because you can’t have it both ways.
Is Dockers demonstrating “the art of sacrifice” or “no such thing as a big yet safe idea“? Is it really trying to revitalize its brand, or is it reviving the business? If a brand is positioned in a completely different way but delivers great financial results, can it still be deemed a brand-revitalization success story?
