Chipotle does brand right

29 07 2009

In a recent post, I gave credit to MyChipotle.com for its excellent execution of a so-called “brand campaign” online. The campaign launched in May and features print, bus stop, taxi top and online spots in select cities like Chicago and Dallas which direct customers to:

StopStarving

This campaign works well for several reasons:

1. Illustration: the first thing a viewer sees actually shows the food. It’s appetizing. Looks fresh. Showing good looking food should be a basic pre-requisite for all fast food advertising. Otherwise you get the Burger King debacle from Crispin, Porter which has won plenty of awards but sold almost no burgers as sales and market share at the “The King” have dropped.

2. Headline: it’s simple and bright enough to be seen walking by the bus stop or as tax cabs pass by.  This principal should be applied to web ads which are glanced at for, at best, 1 second. Here’s an example of a terrible ad which lacks a headline, has tiny print and black reverse copy which is especially difficult for the aging eyes of the older target audience to read:

JaguarInvisible

3. Call to action: it’s actually very well executed and based upon a consumer insight. If you visit MyChipotle.com you’ll find a site which highlights all 60,000 great combinations  that you could make with Chipotle and includes some colorful user generated videos highlighting their favorite burrito recipes. It’s fun, informative and gets you thinking about trying to come up with a new flavor combo yourself. It also gives you a higher sense that being a regular at Chipotle makes you a member of a community.

This campaign is based upon a customer insight gathered from research: consumers don’t feel like Chipotle offers enough variety relative to other fast food competitors. This is despite the fact that Chipotle actually offers almost infinite flavor combinations with every dish fresh made. But most customers actually order the same thing every time.

That said, the campaign does fall short on a few dimensions:

1. Advertising-dependent: if the problem is variety and consumer boredom, Chipotle should also be looking at its product mix, menu design and service process. Perhaps it’s time to introduce a new product or sauce now and then at Chipotle? Chipotle’s menu design resembles a flow where you “pick one” from each of the wrap, meat, filling and sauces categories. But this leads some consumers to feel like a rule is being imposed upon them when it’s not: you can actually pick two meats if you like. Finally, the service process itself could adapt a bit to this. Chipotle could train its employees to prompt stumped customers with friendly suggestions.

2. Lack of follow-through in the store. There’s no tie-in between MyChipotle.com and the stores. You can’t find the nearest Chipotle from the MyChipotle.com site. Nor can you one-click order your favorite user-generated recipes by using Chipotle’s web ordering tool. And finally, no sight of the most innovative implementation which would be to stream MyChipotle.com content into the stores to be enjoyed by customers in the notoriously long lines.

The lack of foll0w-through likely results from an abundance of marketing silos within retailers. The problem is that none of these silos call themselves marketing, but they are crucial to it. The group that does service process doesn’t say that it’s engaged in marketing, but it touches the customer more than anybody else in the company. The people who design the menus and order the signs “aren’t in marketing” but consumers spend more time looking at those than any advertisement. Finally, yet another group manages “technology” and is likely waiting for its marching orders from marketing. But alas, those might not come because the general problem is these companies fail to recognize is that marketing is something that everybody in the company needs to be worried about. In other words, marketing is too important to be left only to the marketers.

That said, Chipotle and its agency Butler, Shine, Stern and Partners seem to be running great campaign which pushes down the barriers between brand and response, bricks and clicks.





Will online advertising ever get brand analytics right?

15 07 2009

Online advertising’s standardized metrics and ad formats may be the slowest developing web technology of the last 15 years. Doubleclick was founded in 1994 and over that time, ads have tuned their targeting, become visually richer and interactive and, of course, been embedded into search results. But overall, not much has changed in advertising’s strategy, styling or approach.

Compare this with the web where the pace of disruption has been much faster. Technologies like AJAX and Flash have made sites more interactive, application APIs have made them more open, CDN’s have made them much faster and cheaper. In general, the web has become more social, open and interactive. This fast pace of innovation is one reason why the top websites of 1997 like Geocities and Excite are unrecognizable today.

Conservatism would be warranted if online advertising was living up to its potential, but it’s not. One statistic is that 2/3rds of the $180B spent on advertising fits into the “branding” category but just $7 billion of is spent online. Those who have attempted to defend the status quo haven’t been doing a good job of it.  Take this recent study by the Online Publishers Association which touts the success of brand advertising:

Even a cursory look at this study shows that it’s little more than evangelism under the guise of science. Let’s look at a few slides:

Slide 11: purporting to show that people exposed to brand campaigns visit the advertiser’s site most often:

Slide11
Diagnosis: this slide is meaningless because it only shows the results of the experimental group. An experimental finding is only interesting if the results of an experimental group, exposed to advertising, were different than control group who was not. But they don’t show the control group here. Since the “experimental sample” in this study is 86 million, it seems like the control group is amazingly small.

Slide 17: purports to show that users exposed to ads spent significantly more on e-commerce

Slide17

Diagnosis: aha, we have a control group with with little information about it.

So we should be asking some question like:

Does the methodology make any sense? I’d say no. The chart indicates that the statistic represents spending on all of the 53 brands sites if the customer was exposed to any of their ads. So, a visitor might have been exposed to the Allstate campaign but have spent nothing on Allstate.com and they will still be counted in the “exposed” sample. Chances are if you look at this data at an advertiser-specific level, you get much less convincing data. Yet this is exactly what you want to do since obviously the quality of execution and a brand’s product should make a great deal of difference. You can’t just invent a brand, throw up a lousy ad, take the customer to an uninteresting site and expect to get something out of the advertising.

Is the control sample otherwise identical to the experimental? If the groups were targeted ads because they are of different incomes or have different online behaviors, that’s the cause of their differential e-commerce spending not the ads themselves.

Are the results statistically significant? When I see a study that says “significant” without the statistical before it, I wonder if they’re trying to talk around something. The sample size is fine, but we need to know the standard deviation of consumer purchases to determine whether $242 is “significantly different” than $227 statistically speaking.

Do the numbers make any sense? The average individual in this study spends about $234 per month on e-commerce. That’s $2800 per year. Multiplied across the 220MM US Internet population, that’s a market size of $617 Billion or 4.5% of total US GDP. E-Commerce is not nearly that big of a deal, it’s probably about $150 Billion.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge advocate for online advertising, analytics and branding. I just think that using data mining and Powerpoints to prove your point isn’t going to do anybody much good.

The work that people like David Blum of Butler, Shine, Stern and Partners have done for Chipotle on the MyChipotle.com campaign presents a much better example of how to meld brand with response, online and offline to delight customers. It’s integrated marketing with a mission that stands out to anyone who sees it. It’s the product of the unity of creativity and technology with a call-to-action that’s right on brand.

Is it an online branding success? I’ll speak to how I might evaluate that later. One thing’s for certain: any analysis should map to basic marketing principles and avoid generalizations based entirely upon undifferentiated panels like ComScore which only track online behavior like looks, clicks and buys.