Canadian Advertising Success Stories
2003
c/o 26 Sussex Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1J5, Canada
|
Canadian Advertising Success Stories |
2003 |
| Canadian Congress of Advertising c/o 26 Sussex Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1J5, Canada |
| Agency: john st. |
Results Period for the Case: The 6 months from September 02 – February 03
Base Period Used for Comparison: September 01– February 02
Picture, if you will, a family gathered around the television, happily sharing an evening of entertainment together. We start with Dad catching up on the day's political news with Meet the Press, followed by a half hour of Martha Stewart Living for Mom. After a quick roundtable discussion about the topics raised on these programs, it's the kids' turn to choose. Mom and Dad look on with satisfaction as their elementary school-age son and daughter switch to the Family Channel and all settle in to watch a double-header of Lizzie McGuire and The Amanda Show.
A parents' dream. Totally safe, 100% commercial-free programming that the whole family can enjoy together. Unfortunately, this is up there with a visit to the dentist for a chunk of the kids' population, and it is as likely to happen in this day and age as the whole family sitting down to dinner at the same time seven nights a week.
This disconnect from a positioning perspective was at the core of the challenge facing the Family Channel in the planning period leading up to the fall 2002 television season. It was a particularly critical season for Family. Several years of audience and revenue growth had begun to flatten, coinciding with the impending launch of new digital services targeting kids and families. Furthermore, television viewership was flat overall. It was going to be an intensely competitive fall, and it was deemed critical that Family define its value proposition, its brand identity, and its brand position[1] in order to protect market share within what was widely held as the most competitive kids' market in the world.[2]
This is the re-positioning story, of how the underdog (in audience reach and resources) gained 50% in share in a 6-month period—surpassing one competitor and closing the gap considerably on the longreigning number one kids network. The ingredients were a focused and relevant brand idea—and unique, smart and impactful creative and media.
Since re-launching on extended basic tier cable in October 97, Family had double-digit subscriber growth until 2002, when revenues flattened.[3] With the impending launch of a slew of newly licensed Digital networks (some, like Discovery Kids, BBC Kids, and Connect, targeting Family's core audience) it was vital to get Family firmly established in the kids' repertoire. Additionally, upcoming negotiations with cable affiliates and Disney made momentum and long-term strength paramount. However, Family Channel was far and away the least resourced, with a $2.7MM sales and promotion budget, compared to $9.8 million for YTV (the market leader) and $4.9 million for Teletoon (then the #2).[4] (See Figure 1)
There were two issues facing the Family Channel brand. Primarily, Family's current positioning did not reflect current family viewing habits. The notion of a 'no censor required,' safe and 100% commercial free channel was extremely appealing to parents.[5] In practice, however, it was just not practical. Research showed that the average home had 2.7 televisions, providing ample opportunity for the family to split up, and watch television based on tastes.[6]
Hand in hand with this was an image issue with kids. They saw the network as Pollyanna, something they had trouble relating to. It was viewed as wholesome, conservative, shy, quiet, caring, old fashioned and very proper—too perfect.[7] Despite the appeal to parents, research showed that kids were the ultimate decision-maker around television viewing, and the Family Channel imagery did not appeal to them.[8] [9]
The writing was on the wall. It was time for Family to find a way to connect with kids, strengthen the meaning of the brand, and drive loyalty and new users.[10] The challenge was to create a brand idea that was the right blend of kid and family.
To remain true to the mandate of Family Channel, and strike the balance between kid and parent programming, we defined the primary target group as kids 8-11 years old. These kids watch a fair amount of television[11] and still want to be with family—not yet seeing parents as a negative. Through focus groups in major cities across Canada we generated insights about kids and their perceptions of ideal television. They want high energy, humour, and 'no thinking required,' but they are starting to move beyond cartoons and look more for real life entertainment. All this assisted in developing the brand idea.
The family of today—full volume, full throttle chaos and constant stimulation—is a perfect representation of what kids appreciate while watching television. Because of its name, Family had the potential to own this picture. The chaos of the home would transfer to the tube. The Channel would stand for full-on, unpredictable fun from morning to night—programming that would deliver laugh outloud funny, edge of your seat action and heart-pounding suspense. This was captured in the brand idea 'There's never a dull moment on the Family Channel,' and the campaign launched across English Canada in September 2002.[12]
Media Thinking: Kids have the attention span of a nanosecond and we had to grab their attention and be there continually. Media choices are so limited that none of the traditional options would make the connection. In a sense, media had to mirror the strategy. It too couldn't be dull. This led to a multimedia mix as follows:
Be There:
Knowing that kids spent most of their time at school the goal was to saturate that environment, but with a twist. We looked for a way to make a splash without the heavy price tag traditionally attached. Recycling bins were the answer. We bought all units available, and dominated the medium—with a combination of posters and full unit wraps. Fully branded Family Channel buses also hit the streets of Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary, featuring 'never a dull moment' inside and out, with three DPS ads in high profile kids magazines.
Grab Their Attention:
Focus groups told us that kids need constant action and surprise. Imagine this as a solution: when they put something into the recycling bin (that carried a Family Channel ad, of course) they got a whacky audio message. This was made possible by stepping outside the Silverbox.™ Working with OMG Media and an industrial designer, we used new, intrusive audio technology to make the bins 'talk' to the kids.
This really worked, as evidenced by comments from school principals:
'The kids were playing with it a lot. The battery needed to be changed almost immediately'
'We thought it was great! The kids kept using it just to hear it talk'
The Creative Idea: This focused on exaggerated family hi-jinks, like grandma slam-dunking her grandson, or Dad wrecking himself on a skateboard ramp, or a backyard barbecue becoming a three alarm blaze. It was action in a real but crazy way. Visuals on bus exteriors showed larger than real-life situations such as a boy being hauled by a St. Bernard dog. Interiors highlighted programming blocks such as Mad Dash (after school) and Non-Stop Weekend.
In the first six months of the campaign Family Channel's audience share with kids 8-11 grew by 52.5% versus a year-ago, while YTV and Teletoon declined 14.2% and 27.7% respectively. (See Figure 2)
This gain is even more significant, when you account for the fact that it comes from a smaller subscriber base. Family has a 14.3 share from a base of 4.5 million subscribers. YTV has a 16.7 share, but with a base of 8.5 million subscribers. Taking subscriber base into account, Family Channel's pro-rated share would be 14.3 x 8.5MM ÷ 4.5MM = 27%. In other words, per subscriber, it is the overall leader with kids 8-11.
In ranking, Family Channel went from distant third to a strong second, surpassing Teletoon and closing the gap with YTV substantially—despite being outspent, as noted earlier. (See Figure 3)
Tracking in early 2003 showed that Family Channel subscribers and potential subscribers scored the network very strongly on key attributes targeted in the advertising—demonstrating positive movement in the image areas identified at the outset.
The 'never a dull moment' idea did influence programming and other on-air content but the campaign was the primary driver of improved audience share and perceptions. This is evidenced by the strength in image scores among non-subscribers—who had limited access to on-air Family Channel programming and promotional content.
Further, of the respondents strongly identifying with attributes of the new brand idea (Figure 4), 60% were unaware of scheduling or programming changes during this period—leading to the judgment that advertising played the larger role in the scores.
All in all, Family Channel consider the brand idea and ensuing campaign to be the cornerstone of their success. The repositioning puts Family in the strongest position possible as they head into negotiations with cable affiliates and Disney in Fall 2003.
[1] What a Brand Stands For. A brand is more than the functional product. This 'moreness' is proved by blind and identified tests. With a strong brand, the preference goes up in the identified leg. Why? Because of the values embodied in the brand. (See What's in a Nameby John Philip Jones.) This 'moreness' can be worth a great deal of money, so all the players in marketing and communication have beliefs (some radically different) about how to build brands. Virtually all agree that a brand is not physical, but something that exists in the mind. Most also agree that you have to stake out 'definitively' what your brand stands for.
This can't be done by empty promises. You have to discover the symbiotic combination of what the consumer wants and what your product delivers, and then stake out that territory more effectively than your competitors. Years ago, the late Gerry Goodis (who gave us .At Speedy You're a Somebody.) said, .Find the greed and fill the need.. But nowadays it isn't that simple. What the consumer wants can be hard to pin down, and what the product delivers is a melting pot of perceptions and reality. This is why all the .brand. ideas have sprung up, Brand Image, Brand Personality, Brand Character, Brand Essence, Brand Equity, Brand Footprint, Brand Truth, Brand Soul, and so on, to say nothing of old faithfuls like Positioning, Basic Stance, Focus of Sale, Selling Proposition, Features, Attributes, Benefits, and Values. Whatever the terminology, though, all the Cassies winners reflect the benefit of finding the symbiotic combination that underpins all brand-building.
[2] Family Channel Marketing Planning Document, FY 2002
[3] When a campaign stumbles. This can be a difficult situation. It might be a momentary stutter and (if we were clairvoyant) we would make the necessary minor fix, and keep a long-running campaign going. But it might be the first clue that something is going dangerously off the rails. There.s no crystal ball, and the pressure of the situation can lead to snap (and wrong) judgments. The best answer usually comes from a blend of experience, judgment, intuition, vision, and research. Here are some pointers.
1. Dig deep into trends and tastes. As explained in Listerine.s 2002 case, .fighting bad breath. had been the high ground for as long as anyone could remember. But the tectonic plates were shifting towards the idea of a healthy mouth. These shifts can lead to market upheaval. At one time, Pepsodent was the market leader, based on whitening ('you'll wonder where the yellow went.') Crest knocked Pepsodent off its perch, by being the first brand with fluoride (and dental association endorsement). Over time, though, cavities stopped being the problem they once were. The market started to shift towards .mouth health. and Colgate got there first with Colgate Total, knocking Crest off its #1 perch. Crest responded with Crest Complete, and now the whole market has come full circle with a furious battle for whitening again.
2. Look at the goalposts. If they really haven't changed, then it's likely that you just have a short-term stutter to fix. But if they have, try to envisage the new game.
3. Think through the nature of the change. A campaign can be defined in many different ways.
4. Be careful about the degree of change. It's broadly true that long-running campaigns, kept fresh and relevant, are great brand-builders. And it's sadly true that new people, wanting to make their mark, make change for change's sake. But once in a while, wholesale change is right.
Molson Canadian (Cassies I) was a niche player when it launched .What Beer.s all About. in the late 80s. This re-shaped the market, and Canadian took over from Labatt Blue as market leader. With this success you would think they would want to keep going with .What Beer's all About.. But they realized that tastes and trends were shifting. To stay ahead of this, they launched .I AM. in the mid 90s (Cassies III). This was very successful but eventually it too ran out of steam, and Canadian re-incarnated again with Joe's Rant,. as described in Cassies 2001
[4] Share of Mind, Share of Voice, Spending. When we assess effort vs. competition we usually measure media spending and share of voice. Every-thing being equal, SOV is an important measure. But there are many times when things are not equal. What do we know about weight versus creative content? Split-cable markets show that extra-spend tests work quite often, but far from all the time. The clear conclusion is that weight is not enough. This is why Share of Mind (what gets through) is a better measure than Share of Voice (what is spent).
A host of research studies show that creative effectiveness has much more leverage than media weight. This means that if you have effective creative, increased media spending may 6 work. But without proven creative, there is not much point in spending more on media.
This field is far more complicated than a Crossover Note can cover. If you are interested, you should get on the WARC website and find papers by Lodish, Jones, Blair, Ehrenberg, McDonald, Feldwick, Hollis and others. You'll find a kaleidoscope of views, from guarded agreement to withering attacks cloaked in academic politeness. A good place to start is the paper that summarizes the split-cable results: General truths? Nine key findings from IRItest data, by Lodish and Lubetkin, Admap 1992.
[5] Peter D Hart Research Associates, Cable Subscriber Study.
[6] Insignia Marketing Research, Inc. Family Channel Subscribers – Attitudes and Viewing Habits, 2001.
[7] Attitudes and TV Viewing Habits of Canadian Teens, Family Channel Qualitative 2000.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Brand Truths. It's generally agreed that successful advertising (in fact all successful communication) must resonate with its audience. As a marketer, you may want people to believe that you have the best-tasting coffee, but saying .I have the best-tasting coffee. will probably not get the resonance you need.
This has led to the idea discovering Brand Truths (the names vary). These operate on a deeper level than simple claims. One of the top UK agencies described this as 'we interrogate the product until it confesses its strength.' Many of the Cassies winners are based on a compelling Brand Truth. See also 11.The Eureka Insight.
[10] Business Strategy dictated by the Brand Positioning. This goes deeper than the 'Ps' of Marketing. Yes, Product, Pricing, Packaging, Promotion, and Place must all support the Positioning. But some companies allow their concept of 'the brand' to dictate business strategy as a whole. Clearnet and i-wireless are examples in Cassies 2001. Family Channel is another in 2003. From the broader business world, Virgin is cited. So too is Lou Gerstner.s turnaround of IBM. Apple used to be a poster child, and perhaps will be again. People blow hot and cold on Nike, which makes Scott Bedbury's book A New Brand World a fascinating read.
[11] Nielsen Media Research Limited, 1998/99 Season.
[12] 12. Changing the Goalposts. Some insights see what was always there, but had simply not been noticed before. (Sunlight's joy of getting dirty would be an example.) Other re-frame the problem, such as:
Cow Brand Baking Soda's extended usage.
Johnson's Baby Shampoo's adult re-positioning.
Cereals trying to get eaten as a late night snack.
Insights can also change the goalposts by seeing what is not being said. Eggs are an example. Word-association tests played back any number of benefits, but did not identify that eggs are natural.
Somehow, this omission caught the agency's eye, and they turned .natural. into a powerful campaign.
Purina is another example. At one time, everyone sold dog-food on taste and nutrition. Consumers played back that these were important, reinforcing the conventional wisdom. Suddenly, the team at Scali/Purina saw the significance of the unspoken (and deeper) truth, that a dog is part of the family. This led to the immensely effective 'helping dogs lead longer lives' campaign.
This is a reminder of another way to get insights, by looking beyond Canada. Similar thinking to Purina had produced the famously successful 'prolongs active life' campaign for PAL dog-food in the UK.
 http://www.warc.com | © Canadian Congress of Advertising 2003 |