Deconstructing the Great Grilled Chicken Debacle of Aught Nine

Advertising Age weighed in with its take on the KFC incident last week. The tenor of their piece is that the launch was a failure because of KFC's inability to meet demand. I was surprised to read that franchisees were expected to pony up and foot the bill for the free food served at their stores; this might explain some of the crankiness that consumers were complaining about, and it certainly explains the lack of enthusiasm I heard at the KFC store I visited.

Give it a read and let me know what you think. It's hard for me to say whether or not the brand actually suffered because I don't thoroughly know their brand value proposition. However, given that they were already stretching their brand, which is known for fried chicken, into the realm of grilled chicken, and given that they disappointed a slew of customers, I think they will likely have to think long and hard before they deploy their next major promotion.

My favorite line from the article: "By Friday, the day after KFC pulled the promotion, NPR was calling KFC 'the James Frey of fast food,' referring to the author of a memoir praised by Ms. Winfrey that was later exposed as fiction." When you've got National Public Radio ragging your behind, I think something must have gone terribly wrong.

Is the Oprah Effect Always a Good Thing?

Last night my wife and I visited a KFC to try some of their Kentucky Grilled Chicken. My wife, who is Queen of Coupons as well as Queen of My Heart, had two coupons for free grilled chicken dinners; these were each for two pieces of chicken, two sides and a biscuit. All we had to actually buy were drinks.

When we arrived at the store the gal behind the counter was organizing what appeared to be hundreds of these coupons. My wife began chatting her up, telling her what a great deal the coupons were. The folks at KFC agreed, but then explained that thanks to Oprah these coupons were pouring in by the bushel basket. It seems that while KFC offered the coupons to promote their new Kentucky Grilled Chicken (I believe my wife had found ours on a coupon website she frequents), Oprah promoted the coupons on her website yesterday. That golden touch of hers sent scads of people into KFCs--including the one I was in--with those free coupons, and the stores were giving away free food left and right.

It seems this promotion was orchestrated between KFC and Oprah, and as one might guess was designed to drive traffic into stores. If the comments of the workers at my local KFC are any indication, it worked. But were they happy about it? Apparently not. My wife assumed that Oprah somehow subsidized the giveaway she was promoting on her site, to which the employees explained that she was not, and that all free food given away as part of the promotion would just be written off as a loss to KFC. This is standard practice for a product launch, they explained, but another worker preparing our meal indicated that in this case the promotion "cut pretty deep."

I am currently working with a client of my own to find creative ways to drive more traffic into their stores. However, my approach is to find better ways of finding their target market and compelling them to visit. I prefer not to use a shotgun approach and drive people like cattle into stores, hoping they will buy and more importantly hoping they will return, because chances are the will do neither. For example, my wife and I almost never frequent KFC, and after having visited yesterday will probably not visit again anytime soon. The whole reason for our visit was to get something for free. Is that effective marketing? I think not, and it seems the workers at my local KFC store agree, as they said that they don't expect to see most of the people using the coupons ever again.

I think there are lessons to be learned here for us as marketers:

• A shotgun approach works well for the short term but not the long term.
  
• An endorser should somehow work to endorse your brand, and not just a sales event.
• An endorser should be endorsing for the long term.
  
• An endorser should work to drive your target market into your stores, not just everyone they can influence.
• A real product launch shouldn't be based entirely on broadcast advertising. The proof of your product should be in the using, or in KFC's case in the eating. If the product is good, your loyal customers will do more to spread the word than any broadcast marketing campaign. Not to beat a dead horse, but hello--social media?
  

And above all, be sure that when you get Oprah to endorse your product you are ready for an unprecedented stampede.

The Ol' Irrepressible Force and Immovable Object

I learned something today from a client. I've been working to design some newspaper ads for him, and I've been pushing back pretty hard on his use of some elements that simply don't reinforce his brand message. My art director and I developed several alternatives for him to review. Bottom line, though--he prefers his original direction. We sparred on this a bit (which I think is a healthy thing), but at the end I came to realize that in spite of our difference of opinion we weren't entirely on different pages. Ultimately, he reminded me that it's just as important to consider the medium as it is the message.

Last year he spent tens of thousands of dollars on focus groups to understand what customers found most valuable in a newspaper ad for his product. The answer--exactly what he was telling me to include. He agrees with me that his direction does not necessarily reinforce his brand, but for various reasons he's somewhat stuck working with newspaper advertising for the foreseeable future, and as such he has to make sure his use of that medium is as effective as it can be.

As we talked, I came to realize that the damage potential to his brand by making these branding concessions for newspaper were probably not that great. And I ultimately got him to concede that we need to revisit his entire promotional strategy such that it better reflects his brand image.

I was happy with this outcome. It validated both of our points, but also identified a course of action that could potentially be more successful than what he was currently dealing with. I like to think this is what happens when the irrepressible force meets the immovable object. The universe doesn't collapse in on itself. Instead, I think that compromise happens, and new opportunities present themselves, as they did for me today.

Why Maintaining Visual Brand Standards Is So Important

Throughout my career I’ve often been challenged (sometimes I was even the one doing the challenging) about why it is necessary to adhere so closely to established visual standards regarding a brand. So what if paragraph copy comes too close to the brand logo? And why can’t I stretch the logo to fit my funky giveaway item? Most importantly, I don’t really like those colors—can I make my brochure “hot pink” so it will stick out?

The answer is a relatively simple one. Brand visual standards—your logo, color palette, font type, image guidelines, and the rules governing them—are intended to reflect and visually reinforce your brand value proposition. After all, a brand is not what you say it is, it’s what your customers say it is. The best way to get them to say something consistent about your brand is to be consistent in your portrayal of the brand. And that means being consistent in the way you represent your brand visually.

This assumes of course that your company, or whoever owns the brand, has done their homework in ensuring that your visual brand strategy, when implemented properly, accurately reflects your brand value proposition. For the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that it does. Then it is in your best interest as an ambassador of that brand to adhere to the visual standards of the brand. In doing so you train customers to expect a certain “look and feel” from your brand, and that consistency will theoretically cause them to feel about your brand the way you want them to feel. Doing anything else will send mixed messages the end result of which will be that you functionally have no brand whatsoever.

And if you have a strategic marketing group responsible for maintaining these visual branding standards, you might want to consider cutting them some slack when they tell you you’re not adhering to those standards. They’re not trying to be draconian. Rather they are doing what is in the best interest of the brand—it’s their job to do so. I’d suggest you thank them for looking out for the brand and take their advice if it seems sound. A strong brand will make it easier for your company to differentiate itself in the marketplace and ultimately be more successful.