Every marketing pundit has to watch and weigh in on the Superbowl advertisements.  So I sat down, gasped during a horrendous, mistake-laden debasement of the Star Spangled Banner, suffered through some awfully produced half time music and took notes.

First, of the sixty nine none-television ads, only ten of them had some element of Friction Marketing.  Those brands included AT&T, the Ford F150, Audi, GoDaddy, Motorola, Comcast, Chrysler, and Sketchers.  Notably, both Coke and Pepsi Max eschewed any mention of their competitors’ product.  Bud Light’s “you have a nice rack” was predictably sexist, of course any offense taken serves to further the appeal to the Bud Light target market.  Along those lines, GoDaddy’s ad was so weak it almost seemed to spoof itself.  Three ads showed some remarkably clever use of Friction Marketing:  Audi A8, Motorola Tablet, and the clear surprise winner of the advertising Superbowl:  Chrysler.

Audi

I’ve written about Audi’s aggressive and clever friction marketing campaign before – Audi going head to head, calling out other European luxury brands.  This was an extension of the theme, but executed very well and Audi has narrowed its target – putting Mercedes Benz directly in its sights.  The ad was well produced, offered a great, short plot line and left a very clear message – Mercedes is what your Dad used to drive.  Audi is what you should drive.

Motorola

The Motorola Automaton ad was brilliant in its subtle attack on Apple while promoting its new tablet as an alternative.  For years, Apple has cleverly has used the white to makes its product stand out among a sea of gray and black boxes.  Much of their print and TV advertising has focused around the white earphones and cord – a departure from the black sony walkman headphones I grew up with.  Motorola cleverly stole this thunder, citing 1984 and dressing their robotic automatons in hoods of white.  The final scene shows a woman pulling out her white earbuds and smiling as the screen fades out to a black Motorola tablet.  Without ever directly mentioning Apple, Motorola cleverly positioned itself as a unique alternative.

Chrysler

By far, the best advertisement was the surprisingly brave and gritty spot from Chrysler – Imported From Detroit.  This was a brilliant example of Friction Marketing.  The target was not competitor, but instead our own preconceived notions about Detroit, blight, and the American car industry.  Instead of offering excuses or taking the easy route by showing computer enhanced shots of its products like all the other automakers did, Chrysler confronted its own challenges head on.  In a microcosm, it confronted America’s economic challenges.  After panning through the destitute blight ridden street of Detroit Chrysler asks  “What does this town know about luxury?”  They answer their own question squarely:   “Luxury is as much about where it’s from as who it’s for.”  It seemed particularly fitting this ad aired during Superbowl XLV – when two traditional blue collar towns, Green Bay and Pittsburgh squared off.  I’m a European import adherent, but Chrysler made me want to raise my flag, have a slice of Grandma’s apple pie and go test drive a Chrysler.  Bravo.

Sesame Street decided to cancel an upcoming spot that included clips featuring Elmo singing with a revealingly buxom Katy Perry after receiving complaints after the video was initially posted on YouTube.  This was far from Kermit and Pam Anderson singing It’s Not Easy Being Green as a duet.  However, the initial backlash (how dare they show Elmo and cleavage), the resulting counter-backlash (how dare they censor women’s bodies), and the widespread coverage all served to send a very strong message to parents with kids under 5.  No matter how you get to Sesame Street, you’ll find nothing but wholesome, happy content there. This is welcome relief to parents concerned with the media’s aggressive sexualization of their 5 year old daughters.

And while I’m not so cynical to believe this was a deliberate public snookering by Sesame Street Marketing execs, the following comment left on CNN Entertainment is not entirely implausible:

“I smell a publicity stunt! She would have been supplied with a costume by none other than the wardrobe department at Children’s Television Workshop. Then they got some negative comments from the YouTube test video, and it’s a media hit for them and for Perry.” -CJ

I’ve seen a few great NASCAR ads recently pushing the superiority of NASCAR over other sports. They are full of great friction marketing and end with the obnoxiously well crafted phrase “everything else is just a game.” Two of my favorites:

“leaving it all on the field is different than leaving it all on the wall.”

I’ve been particularly critical of AT&T on this blog.  See below, a fairly eerie Forbes interview from last September with AT&T’s CMO, Cathy Coughlin.  Granted she is delivering brand messaging, but this feels very disconnected with my understanding of the market perception of AT&T.  Select quotes:

“The brand comes to life with the customer experience.”

“We are trusted, we are reliable.”

AT&T just can’t get it right.

I thought they finally had – their blanket commercial seemed so good – it ignored Verizon, gave an impressive stat countering a primary complaint (we cover 97% of Americans), and used exquisite, meaningful visuals.  Unfortunately the saffron drapings across American landmarks looked just a little too close to the 2005 Central Park installation The Gates by artists Christo and Jean-Claude.   Soon after the ad first aired, Twitter and the blogosphere exploded with denunciations of AT&T for lifting the idea.  In May, The New York Post reported that Christo complained through an attorney.  A week later AT&T responded . . . not be pulling the ad, not by apologizing, but by getting their lawyers involved.  The marketing brains at AT&T decided that the best solution would be to affix a legal disclaimer to the ad:

“The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with AT&T.”

AT&T is now engaged in a massive advertising spend that culminates in a small print disclaimer reminding everyone who sees it (especially anyone who lived in New York in 2005) that their artistic integrity is best interpreted by a legal department.  And fairly or not, most people feel AT&T is guilty of creative lip syncing.  Adweek call is “clearly borrowed” and  an unscientific poll from the Huffington Post indicates that more than 85% of people feel that AT&T ripped off (Huffington’s words) Christo and Jean-Claude.

AT&T – why do you continue to confuse legal and marketing?

Today FIFA finally capitulated and agreed to “reopen” discussions on the use of technology in the refereeing of the world’s favorite sport.  FIFA  responded to massive backlash from a slew of goals that weren’t (America, Mexico, England), non-goals that were  (Brazil, Argentina) and red cards born from theatrical histrionics of players thrashing on the ground (that means you Kader Keita from the Ivory Coast).

Despite loud calls for change, FIFA’s head, Sepp Blatter has consistently stuck his head in the technology ground, steadfastly refusing to follow the rest of the sporting world in improving their product with technology.  The line goes something like this:

“We want to keep football as a game of the people with a human face, so we don’t want technology on the field of play because we want to maintain the spontaneity of football — played, administered and controlled by human beings,” – Blatter.

Soccer Football is a game of chance and personal judgment.   This human element, of course means that mistakes are made.  When you have fervent fans like football does, those mistakes further the fervor of those fans, driving them to levels of fanatacism usually found only among extreme religion zealots.  The more fervent your fans, the more hours of television watched, the more World Cup jerseys purchased, the more sodas, tickets, website visits, etc. etc.

This has played out in practice – the entire country of Ireland became francophobes after a very deliberate hand ball, clearly visible on replay, resulted in a goal that kept the Irish out (and sent the French in) of the World Cup.  Irish pubs were packed for every World Cup game against France.  Some pub owners gave away a free Guinness every time France was scored upon.  (Which, given their play, must have proved costly.)  US fans rallied around their team as goal after goal was disallowed – and the US round of 16 game set a viewership record.  The hype surrounding the upcoming Germany/Argentina game is based in part from the rancor caused by the missed call from the disgraceful “hand of God” goal from Maradona that put Argentina into the 1986 World Cup Final against Germany.  During the last World Cup, this rancor devolved into a fistfight after Germany eliminated Argentina on penalty kicks.  Fistfights in football makes for great TV.

Its not like football is incapable of change . . . the inane four step rule for goalies was abolished some time after I played in High School.  Blatter’s “openness” to change are actually quite limited to considering including goal line technology, but nothing else – this means most mistakes (like erroneous yellow cards and off sides which result in a goal) will persist.  Alexi Lalas was on to something when he said FIFA will only make changes when it hits them in the pocketbook.  I’d suggest the reason change hasn’t been adopted is because failure to embrace technology has actually lined FIFA’s pockets – regardless of how much those rules impacted the actual game of football.  Sepp isn’t necessarily a Luddite – but the colossal stupidity of the anti-technology stance in the face of global criticism make this the only reasonable explanation I can come up with.

Sepp loves controversy and the spectacle it creates for both himself and FIFA’s bank account.  Today he issued a proclamation that the French Football Federation may be banned if the French government becomes too involved with the national team.  Is he afraid that Sarkozy is going to mandate a 32 hour maximum work week for football players?  Arrogant temerity or marketing tactic?  I suspect French fans will now show their support with a resurgence in purchases of French football jerseys.  At least we know Irish eyes are smiling. 

How do you frustrate the competition?  Annouce your better mousetrap the day before they launch their new product.

Verizon did just that today, posting a teaser “coming soon” page and video for the newest Android phone the day before the already-leaked iPhone4 becomes available.  Not only does this place the Droid in the consideration set for potential iPhone4 customers, but it ensures press coverage of the iPhone launch will include a mention of the Droid’s upcoming features (which includes a much larger screen than the iPhone).

Score?

Verizon/Google 1

AT&T/Apple 0

Update:  more here from CNN.

My last post was on AT&T’s stupid legal department which created a PR disaster by leaving a voicemail threatening a Cease and Desist action should one of their own customers have the temerity to email the AT&T CEO again.

I thought those legal shenanigans were going to be hard to top.

I was wrong.

Not only did the lawyers at the National Pork Board need to create some work for themselves, they also didn’t notice that it was April Fools Day when they threatened, in a twelve page document, legal action for the misappropriation of the term “the other white meat.” And what white meat was this? None other than Canned Unicorn Meat from ThinkGeek, the online store designed for the propeller head set (as a member, I mean that in the nicest possible way).

ThinkGeek quickly posted the C&D letter, and issued their own press release:

“It was never our intention to cause a national crisis and misguide American citizens regarding the differences between the pig and the unicorn,” said Scott Kauffman, President and CEO of Geeknet. “In fact, ThinkGeek’s canned unicorn meat is sparkly, a bit red, and not approved by any government entity.”

Corporate Lawyers, before you write that Cease and Desist letter, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Sometimes a company can be its own worst enemy. The likelihood of a positive outcome when your legal department interacts with your customers is slim to none. Witness AT&T’s response to (soon to be ex) customer Giorgio Galante who sent two emails to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson suggesting thethering functionality for the iPhone (which the new competitive Android already has). AT&T’s response to customer feedback was a phone call from their legal department with a threat of a cease and desist legal action should Giorgio have the temerity to email AT&T CEO Stephenson again.

Here’s the voicemail left by Brent from AT&T’s Legal We-hate-our-customers Department.

Naturally, after Giorgio posted this, it spread like wildfire across the web, garnering ink in Endgadget, Forbes, Slashdot and even a CNN interview request (Giorgio took the highroad and declined). Within 24 hours the AT&T’s PR department was hard at work trying to undo to damage caused by the legal suits across the hall:

We are apologizing to our customer. We’re working with him today to address his questions and concerns. This is not the way we want to treat customers. From Facebook to significant customer service channels, AT&T strives to provide our customers with easy ways to have their questions addressed. Because of this incident, we are reviewing our entire process to ensure a situation like this does not happen again.

Too little too late (and too much corporate speak).  “This is not the way we want to treat our customers.”  (Well except for our CEO, but everyone else who works for AT&T is really nice.)  The appropriate responce to a PR disaster is not a carefully crafted script from a PR department.  Instead AT&T should consider  a massive overreaction that turns this negative into a positive press opportunity.  The options are endless . . . give away iPhones, donate coveted iPads to Giorgio’s kids’ school, offer free lifetime wireless service.  Or perhaps just a phone call apology from Stephenson.

Now think about what Verizon could do with that voicemail . . .

Even before the new Android operating system was unveiled, Android phones were outselling the iPhone. The race has now gotten tougher for Apple with the unveiling of new Android operating system which crushes the iPhone. It is faster and offers tethering – a feature that essentially turns your phone into a portable hotspot to provide web access to other gadgets. Google demonstrated Droid’s tethering functionality at the I/O developers conference by tethering an iPhone to a Droid (the iPhone doesn’t offering tethering.)

Apple has shown their disdain for Adobe by refusing to support Adobe’s flash player on the must-have iPhone as well as their newly launched iPad. Apple could get away with this pointless corporate bullying while they dominated the smart phone market. Enter Android phones from iPhone and the corporate bullying turns into a massive product liability. The Android phones now support Flash.

AT&T is now in a bind. They’ve recently revealed that their exclusive (and presumably very expensive) deal with Apple lasts to 2012. They have an inferior network (so cleverly demonstrated by Verizon’s “there’s a map” for that campaign), and now an inferior phone. Still clinging to your iPhone? Try reading Sayonara, iPhone: Why I’m Switching to Android from Newsweek tech writer Daniel Lyons.