Disastrous: Rihanna & Vita Coco Water

I have been in this industry for many years, and if there is one truth that has solidified itself over the years, it is that most of the advertising involving celebrities is poorly done.

And now they present to us: Rihanna & Vita Coco Water. Oh my... Not that the combination of the two is bad right from the start. No, not at all. But whoever executed this - both strategically and creatively - needs to be fired. Seriously. Why? Well, here is why:

ONE: THE MESSAGE
"Hydrate Naturally. From a tree, not a lab." Visual: Rihanna with RED, dyed hair. The color in her hair is clearly from a lab. It's beyond me that no one on the creative team got the irony of it.

TWO: THE IMAGE
Besides the fact that there is nothing natural about dyed, red hair, let's focus on the image. Rihanna is a beautiful, energetic person. That's how we know her. Yet whoever took this image managed to turn her into an apathetic, emotionless, neutral human something, void of any expression. What a disaster!

THREE: THE CAPTION
Whenever you have to tell the audience that the celebrity you are showing them is the celebrity you are showing them, in this case in UPPERCASE letters right next to her face, then you are doing it for a reason, right? Someone must have figured out that some people may not recognize Rihanna in the picture, which raises the question: if so, why choose her in the first place?

Michael Jordan never needed a caption of his name on anything bearing his image. Neither did Kobe, LeBron, or Michael Jackson. Yet according to Matt Delzell, an account director in the celebrity entertainment division of The Marketing Arm, the Omnicom agency who cooked up this dish: "She [Rihanna] is known by more than 82 percent of all US consumers -- she's about as well known as Gwen Stefani, Derek Jeter and Sting." If 82% know her, then why show the name? For the 18% who don't know her? Doesn't make sense to me.

HERE IS MY ANALYSIS:
In order to make the formula of 1) Rihanna + 2) Vita Coco work, the agency had two options:

A) THE LIFESTYLE-ROUTE
You turn Vita Coco into a 'lifestyle meets health' refreshing beverage for the young and hip. Rihanna lends her image. Vita Coco brings the health aspect to the table. You redesign the carton box packaging. Then you shoot the whole thing and create a visual where the energy of the shot makes the image vibrate on your page. Think of her laughing, thousands of water drops splashing, her hair flying... sounds familiar? You bet. Here is a screen grab from her 'Umbrella' video. Much more powerful than the dud they ended up producing.

Rihanna in 'Umbrella'

B) THE HEALTH ROUTE
If Vita Coco is all about brand strategy, and a clear brand DNA, well, then they wouldn't have chosen Rihanna in the first place. They should have saved themselves a million dollars in fees, and put that money to good use by:
a) hiring a model that reflects the attributes 'natural' and 'health'
b) sponsoring regional, grassroots events, promoting a healthy lifestyle (the Wholefoods consumer is much more into credibility and honest messages than celebrity endorsements)
c) spending it on an additional million dollar media buy to get the word out
d) sponsor a 'Summer-Hydration-Bus-Tour', providing dehydrated citizens with all natural hydration all around the country

Any of these would have made much more sense than doing what they did, which is some weird kind of hybrid of A) and B), which is all wrong. And poorly executed. And just very, very bad. So bad - it hurts.

MAD SCORE: -2 (Yes, that's pretty bad)

Message: -1, because see above
Creative execution: -1, see above
Context: +1, it got my attention at a phone booth
Impact: 0, indifferent here
Intangibles: -1, too much is wrong with this mess.

For detailed criteria on the Mad Ad Score click here.

Raising Prices? Huge Mistake, Netflix!

Two days ago, subscribers of Netflix have gotten the email shown above, informing them that they now have to pay more. Just like that. No honoring existing contracts. No grandfathering down previous arrangements. No. You pay more now. That's how it is. Like it or not. That was pretty much the message. Of course they tried to suger-coat it in some nice ad speak language.

The public reaction has been tremendous. Just got to Netflix facebook page, and read some of the 62,000+ comments this price change has generated. That's 4% of their facebook fans. Many of them only 'liked' Netflix so they can voice their anger. Almost none of the comments were positive.

Customers feel betrayed, and taken advantage of. I myself was really angry, not because the increase was outrageous, but because of the way I was treated. Not like a valued customer, but like a cow that Netflix think they can milk any way they want.

Netflix simply has gotten arrogant. Or their Brand Management team is just very bad. Or they just don't care. Who knows. At the end of the day, this behavior show that they seem to have lost their edge, and have forgotten what made them successful in the first place.

The rise of Netflix, and subsequently the fall of Blockbuster has taught us one important lesson: a simple, yet significant change in the service you offer can win you millions of customers (by stealing them away from a big company that has gotten arrogant and slow).

Netflix and Blockbuster basically offered the same: movie entertainment. Yet while BB was relying on the old Store/DVD model, Netflix introduced DVDs by mail. Then they added streaming. BB never caught on, and when they tried to, it was too late to catch up.

So now Netflix is the big, arrogant player, and if there is any smart competitor out there, then listen: NOW is the time to win over hundreds of thousands of customers from Netflix. NOW they are open for alternatives. NOW they email, exchange information, listen to you. NOW. A week ago they didn't. In a week or two they might not. NOW is the time.

You bet that the majority of Netflix customers is angry. And if it's true that under normal circumstances only 1% of facebook fans are active commenters, then the 4% here show that this is an issue that Netflix has to take absolutely seriously. Or they are gonna take a major hit.

I canceled the streaming option. The movies were B and C movies only anyway. It was a 'nice to have', but not necessary. I kept the DVD by mail option though. That's where the good movies are. That's $8 less in their pocket a month. Take just 50,000 subscribers doing the same, and Netflix has lost $400K a month, or roughly $5 Million a year. I bet you though it is more than that. This is absolutely serious. Not sure Netflix understands.

Very nice: Toyota Venza Social Life

This one made me laugh. Someone here actually understood the meaning of the term 'social'. Just look at her, sitting there all by herself, with her 687 "friends". Online. On her "social" network. Does she look familiar to you? Yes? I am pretty damn sure you have someone like her in your circle of friends, constantly wired, either on their laptop, their iPad, their mobile device...

I run into these people on Manhattan sidewalks all the time. They are like androids, on remote control - walking, staring at their tiny screen, bumping into you. They sit in restaurants - just like the two girls today in a cafe on 7th Avenue sharing the same table - looking not at each other, but staring on the tiny screen in front of them.

They come to your dinner parties, house parties, or join you for brunch, only to whip out their iPhone, bberry, or whatever, and check their email, facebook, twitter or whatever. It makes me wanna scream.

My friend recently had dinner with her boyfriend, and I think he couldn't stand the bberry between them any longer. So he took it, and dumped it into the water glass in front of her. She got the message. Dinner now is quality time. No phone. No distractions.

And if you ask me - I'd rather hang with this girl's parents, riding my bike, and then enjoying a nice grilled steak somewhere.

Oh, and the car? Well, the message here is: "This is a car for fun people." Unfortunately, they don't tell us more than that. Still a nice story. Well done, Saatchi & Saatchi.

MAD SCORE: +2

Go digital, or die

SCENARIO 1
A veteran Creative Director in a major New York ad agency discusses the upcoming photo shoot with his team for a major national consumer brand, and the way he insists on traditional film vs. digital almost makes you believe that it is still up to the individual to withstand technological change. A million valid arguments were made as to why film was superior, and why digital was not an option. Two months later, the entire ad shoot was done. Digitally. The client demanded it. The CD simply had to go along.

SCENARIO 2
A senior Creative Director in a mid-level New York ad agency, with years and years of high-profile, wonderfully crafted, artistic branding campaigns in TV and print under her belt, is slowly being phased out of her high-profile job, as the demands for her particular craft slowly but steadily dwindled down. She simply did not think digital was something she had to embrace. In her world, there were these web-guys who would simply adapt her ideas in one way or another if necessary.

SCENARIO 3
A 15+ years graphic design veteran found himself out of a job one day. Without a warning. Just like that. He simply had decided to focus on traditional graphic design only, and left everything pertaining to web and animations to others. For him, learning one craft or tool was enough to get by. Apparently it wasn't. The next guy hired didn't exactly take over his position, but his approach to graphic design was much broader and holistic. He adapted. He changed. He constantly pushed himself into new territories.

What may appear to be three separate, unconnected events, are actually just a fraction of all the scenarios that followed a similar story line: He/she who resisted technological change, or did not recognize the significance of having to adapt to it, will be left behind, phased out, replaced.

What holds true for creatives, applies the same way to account planners, account managers, production folks, project managers, and pretty much everyone else involved in anything closely campaign-related. Adapt, or you will slowly disappear.

Digital demands are only going one way: up. Technology will get better. Bandwidth will get broader and faster. Smart phones, tablet PCs will become more and more ubiquitous. It's pretty much a no-brainer. Yet some people still have not gotten the memo yet.

Bad celebrity endorsement - Danny McBride for K-Swiss

New York Subway Platform Poster. Greenpoint Ave Station, Brooklyn.

The typical formula for success: 'Sports Shoe Brand + Successful Pro-Athlete = Skyrocketing Sales'. It's worked with 'Nike + Michael Jordan = Air Jordan'. It's worked for 'Adidas + Kobe Bryant = The Kobe'. And the list goes on. Even the half-delusional Ex-Knick Stephon Marbury got a shoe deal and launched the 'Starbury' sneaker line.

But what on earth is K-Swiss doing?

ONE. They throw out a product that is quite similar to Reebok's 'Reezig' shoe line. Nothing wrong with that. That's what the apparel & shoe business is all about - taking inspiration from successful new product launches, and then throwing your copy of it on the market.

TWO. They hire actor Danny McBride to endorse their 'Tubes' version of this kind of shoe. But then again, not really. The sign-off on the ad reads 'Kenny Powers'. Who on earth is Kenny Powers?

This is where the confusion begins, and this is where this whole thing goes awfully wrong.

Kenny Powers, according to Wikipedia, is the fictional main character from the HBO show Eastbound and Down. It's about an ex-baseball pitcher trying to make a comeback. Ahhh. OK. So here is the sports-connection.

And here is the rationale as to why this money spent can be put right into the 'sunken cost' column:

A) CONFUSION
While we certainly recognize the face of the actor, the signature on the ad doesn't really ring a bell. That's until you google it.

B) THE HBO DILEMMA
B1) Not all of my friends have Cable.
B2) Not all of my friends who have Cable, have HBO.
B3) Not all of my friends who have Cable, and have HBO, watch the show.
And I challenge you to ask ten of your friends if they do. I'll buy you a beer if more than three do. 

Wow. That's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of an audience you need to reach in order to make the connection between the shoe and the face right next to it. Who thought of this? But furthermore: How dumb is this? How stupid actually? How bad? Oh my...

C) THE DANNY MCBRIDE PROBLEM
Everyone else of the non-cable, non-HBO, non-show-watching population, knows actor Danny McBride mostly for his goofy characters from movies such as 'Your Highness', 'Tropic Thunder' or 'Pineapple Express'. Not exactly the stuff that lends credibility to a K-Swiss sports shoe.

Unless you want to be the known as the 'silly, don't take me serious sneaker for clowns'. Dear K-Swiss marketing team: is that really what you want? I doubt it.

If I'm missing the point here, please feel free to enlighten me. I'm sure someone in the marketing department or the ad agency you paid wrote up some marvelous strategy deck that make you all nod in unison.

MAD SCORE: 0

Message: -1 (confusing) / Creative: 0 / Context: +1 (good media placement) / Business Impact: 0 (it will do neither good nor bad) / Intangibles: 0 (I see absolutely nothing here)