Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson (Customer): Go on, I’m listening.

Tommy: Here’s the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box ’cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: ’Course it does. Why shouldn’t it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]

Ted Nelson: [impatiently] What’s your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me. 

Ted Nelson: Okay, I’ll buy from you.

Thinking past this humorous exchange, Buy Back Guarantees are an interesting debate is:  Is a guarantee a sign of brand confidence or brand insecurity?

Can you hear me now?
Currently Sprint is offering a 30-day money-back guarantee on their cell service.  Sprint’s share is 18%  in third place behind cellular giants AT&T and Verizon.  They are currently marketing their 4G network, and they own 75% share of the 4G market. 

It seems like they have a lot going for them.  Or do they?  In the battle of the maps (A simple map versus 2,000 postcards.) AT&T and Verizon are saturating the air waves with their claim to dominance.  Verizon owns the 3G map.  AT&T owns a (2G) map, speed, and iPhone exclusivity.  Sprint is (trying) to own 4G — a better, faster network.  Even though 4G is the future, some pundits are predicting Sprint’s market share will decline by over 50% in the next five years.

So why a guarantee?  My guess is Sprint is not getting through the massive noise created by AT&T’s and Verizon’s marketing.  Also, 4G is better, but it has been difficult to relate to consumers the difference 2G, 3G, and 4G.   Mobile consumers relate to monthly payments, dropped calls, and phone functionality. 

Speed is important, but it’s like buying a 200-plus MPH Lamborghini Murcielago to drive on our interstate highways – it’s nice to have, but you can never (legally) use the speed.  Similarly, the lightweight nature of mobile content does not require a lot of bandwidth (PC wireless users would benefit more, and they are a primary target for Sprint’s 4g network).  Mobile speed may be a core need for future mobile apps, but today a 2G network is more than sufficient for most mobile users.

Will a guarantee work? If a mobile customer were to think about the guarantee, it may seem like just a big hassle.  Moving your mobile service is a little like quitting your bank or cable company — the effort required dictates a permanent move not a 30-day test period.  If you are to switch mobile providers, you will move your number, account, and switch your phone.  Not pleasant.  To reverse it after 30-days seems like double the effort.  

A guarantee appeals most to shoppers who have apprehension with their future purchase.  Sprint’s goal would be to intercept and convert people within their switching window (e.g. expired contract or desire to switch phone/service).   Given this, if a shopper is concerned about Sprint’s service or phone functionality (e.g. think about someone moving from a regular mobile phone to a smart phone), the guarantee may put Sprint on the consideration list, and could result in a purchase if all other factors are equal.

Minivan or Bust
In February, Chrysler announced a Minivan Pledge which is a 60-day, money-back guarantee.   The premise of the pledge is (from the Chrysler site):

We’re giving you 60 days to experience all 2010 Chrysler Town & Country has to offer. Simply purchase a new Chrysler minivan. Enjoy it for 60 days. If you don’t absolutely love it, we pledge to take it back. It’s that simple. Or, whether you lease or buy, you may opt for $500 cash allowance instead. So give us a try. We know you’ll like Chrysler Town & Country so much you won’t want to give it up.

Like Sprint, Chrysler has a lot going for them.  Way back when, Chrysler pretty much invented the minivan, and have consistently been the innovator in the space (e.g. floor storage bins, Swivel and Go seating).   Even innovators can come with baggage.  You can argue the brand took one hell of a hit with the bail-out, bankruptcy, and revolving carousel of owners (i.e. Daimler, U.S. Government, Fiat). 

So why a guarantee?  It is hard to discern if this is a me-too strategy (e.g. GM recently promoted a 60-day money back guarantee), or a smart marketing ploy.  I would argue it is unnecessary.  The problem with the minivan brand is it’s differentiation — it is about the unpredictability of the brand.  A more appropriate guarantee would be a reverse-Hyundai, job loss, buy back guarantee:  If Chrylser becomes insolvent, (company X) will honor our warranty, our service, our great cars.  This mayaddress shopper concerns, but hardly a recommended strategy.

Will it work for Chrysler?  From the recent ads I have seen on television, Chrysler is not over-promoting the guarantee (there is no mention of the guarantee in the ads).  Therefore I would doubt it is being actively used to motivate minivan shoppers to add the Town & Country to their consideration list.  It seems like a more subtle tactic used to keep the Town & Country on the consideration list.   If a shopper is looking for a good product and security, the guarantee may appeal to them. 

There is a subtle tactic being used in the guarantee — the ability for a shopper to opt for $500 incentive.  I am not privy to the numbers, but I would venture to guess there is less financial risk in giving a new minivan buyer $500 than taking their vehicle back after 60 days.  In this case, Chrysler’s hope is the guarantee is the attention getter, while the $500 is the preferred choice.

We have all witnessed the anti-exposure: a commercial that is so annoying it not only wore out its brand welcome, but has also became a detriment to the brand — degrading the brand with each successive viewing.

There are different reasons for this like the commercial was never that good. However, sometimes the anti-exposure is more than just a good or bad commercial.  It is a byproduct of too much money, micro-targeting, or lack of desire.

Too Much Money
My guess is the Southwest commercial tested well with focus groups, however, I am sure the focus group did not watch the commercial 50 times.  The high frequency of the commercial ruined possibly an effective ad:  

• Seeing the commercial once – entertaining, impactful, and memorable. 
• Seeing the commercial too much – annoying, harmful to the brand, and unfortunately not forgettable

Sometimes over exposure is a function of too much money.  Marketers have a choice of spending money in media or production.  Many times the marketer will choose to minimize production (number of commercials) to maximize media dollars (exposure). 

Some marketers understand this concept and consistently create ads to keep their message fresh and prevent the anti-exposure.  For example, to win the mobile wars AT&T and Verizon are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into broadcast, and they are constantly creating ads to support their key differentiation.  Verizon is continues to generate map commercials, and AT&T has Luke Wilson reveal a myriad of different ways to multi-task with a phone.

Designed for the Few
About five years back I was working on the Chrysler business.  A bright strategist for BBDO did a insightful analysis proving excessive dealer association advertising degraded the brand.  It made sense.  The dealer advertising targeted deals to people shopping for a new car, which at any given time is less than 4% of the market.  The excessive deal-vertising overwhelmed the brand message and constantly degraded the brand for the 96% of people not in market for a new vehicle.

The Chrysler example is another reason why a commercial can get annoying — they are designed for the micro-target.  Designed for the few.  Most Super Bowl commercials work because they are designed to entertain all viewers.  Effective marketers who use mass media understand they are communicating to all viewers, so they either need to entertain the masses and/or communicate a mass benefit (e.g. think about our Verizon’s maps as a mass benefit).  If people cannot relate to the product benefit or the entertainment value of the commercial, it will decrease commercial effectiveness.  It will become more and more annoying with every exposure.  In a way, DVRing the commercial may be a brand blessing.

Create Commercial Desire
You may remember the  Messin’ with Sasquatch commercials from Jack Link’s Beef Jerky.  Or maybe you don’t, because the commercials did not receive a lot of air play.  The commercials were based on a simple entertaining premise — people playing pranks on Sasquatch.  The commercials don’t seem to get old, and if you check out the YouTube Channel you’ll find that many of the commercials of received well over 1 million views.  They are not only on television they are sought out online.

Sought out — an interesting premise.  Can you imagine creating commercials that are the antithesis of the anti-exposure — they are a desired exposure.  Many Super Bowl commercials are sought out, because the single airing was not enough.  Some marketers, like Apple, create desirable ads on a regular basis. For example, the introductory commercial for the MacBook Air ad was simple, elegant and memorable (i.e. sliding a MacBook into an envelope),  and online within weeks the commercial had over 1 million views.

So what about Southwest Airlines?  Well, as of the past weekend they have moved on from the beer-gut, belly-painting, flashing baggage handlers to just the baggage handlers strolling on the tarmac discussing the merits of bags flying free.  Simple, entertaining, and not over epxposed … at least not yet.

And where there is passion there are marketers — all trying to capitalize on the heightened awareness, the passion, the fans.  Through watching many games and reading coverage online, I have seen the many commercials and banner ads (I must be nearing frequency levels in the triple digits with some ads).  As I analyzed which teams will make it to the Final Four, I also wondered which marketers are winning the advertising bracket.  As I reviewed the many ads, I grouped the  ads (television and online) into three different groups: basic exposure, contextual integration, and brand passion. 

Basic Exposure
Basic exposure is just running an ad as is.  No changes. A marketer will get the ratings — get the eyeballs.  However, they are not tapping into the passion of the tournament.  The obvious advantage is no additional production costs.  However, before dumping any ad onto the tournament, marketers need to think about viewer benefit.  Typically, there are two viewer value propositions: entertainment or mass product benefit.  The majority marketers in the tourney take this approach.

Although there are many examples, I was intrigued with the overwhelming amount of commercial exposure for men’s personal care products.  Sure, sports attracts a higher proportion of males, and college sports are more upscale (although upscale may have little to do with these products), but the jump ball for male attention seemed a bit much.  Anyway, here are four of the products with significant air play.

• The AXE Hair Action  commercial is more entertainment than product benefit. The ad uses humor to promote the product benefit. The AXE ad is probably entertaining to their target: a single guy in his teens to twenties — for a mid-40′s guy, not so much.
• Degree for Men is taking a contest approach with Bear Grylls — the guy from Man versus Wild.  Viewers are encouraged to sign up for a Degree Adventure Challenge, where the winner could join Bear in an episode of Man versus Wild.
• Dove Men+Care is running both commercial and online content.  The commercials are pretty straight forward, and center around a mass product benefit approach — Dove’s Micro Moisture. 
• Gillette Body Wash takes a humorous jab at Dove in their commercial.   Like the Dove ad, Gillette uses a product benefit (Odor Shield) in their approach.

Contextual Integration
Contextual Integration is combining elements of the tournament within the ad — hoops, basketballs, basketballs going through hoops.   Contextually, the ad fits.  Normally banner ads are just a front door to the regular site experience.   The following are several examples of marketers integrating into the tournament.

• Hooters ran an expandable banner titled “Catch all the Sports Action at Hooters” on Fox Sports.  The banner, which was adorned with basketballs and Hooters girls, allowed users to enter their zip to find the nearest restaurant.
• Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup is the official .  The ads are simple focusing on the product — the primary change is the commercial tagline (e.g. “The Elite Eight”) and the number of candies.  Online is a different story.  The Reese’s Perfect Play within the NCAA Tourney asks people to vote for the Perfect Play from four videos.  It is a little like the old Pontiac Game Changing Performance, except instead of giving money to a scholarship fund Reese’s will be awarding the sweepstakes winner tickets and a trip to next year’s Final Four in Houston.

Brand Passion
Brand passion is finding the connection between the brand, the tournament, and the fan.  This is not easy to do, and very difficult for many brands.  The core element is a connection.  A connection that builds upon the passion point and the brand.  The following marketers use a brand passion strategy. 

• While on television AT&T ran commercials where Luke Wilson is playing H-O-R-S-E, online the brand created a simple experience where people can do “tweet outs” to tournament teams.   Through CBS Sportsline fans can access AT&T Title Tweets where people can do shout outs to their team via text message or Twitter.  A nice integration for a mobile brand.
• Capital One’s Ivan Brothers  webisodic adventure (running on ESPN.com) follows the journey of the Ivan Brothers — from backwoods basketball phenomenons to March Madness.  The initial video on the YouTube channel has over 980,00 views – quite impressive.   However, the drop off is severe to the rest of the videos with the next highest video getting only about 20,000 views.  This is not uncommon.  The marketer buys views through their banners.  However, viewer interest does not proceed past the initial viewing, and video views drop off dramatically.  The campaign nicely extends Capital One’s Viking Campaign, however, why didn’t they run these ads within the tourney?  All I remember seeing is the Viking ski commercials.
• On television HP ran their commercials, on ESPN HP sponsors HP Amazing 16.  The site encourages fans from the Sweet Sixteen universities to show their passion by uploading photos or posting on the message board — and you get extra points for posting from an HP computer.  The winning school will receive $100,000 in contributions.   On the plus side this sweepstakes builds off the brand line “Let’s Do Amazing”.    It is somewhat limiting by only including the Sweet Sixteen schools.  And like Capitol One, their commercials airing during the tournament where not linked to this campaign.
• On television and online Coke Zero is promoting their Brain Bracket.  Coke Zero is a perennial marketer in March Madness creating annual favorites like Bracket-O-Matic.  Brain Brackets is for the fans.  People submit ideas on how to improve sports from a fan perspective (e.g. The Zebra Cam, ), then users vote for their favorites in bracket match-up.  The Brain Bracket is novel and worth checking out.  Although it is larger March Madness in scope, the bracket approach to picking a winner works.

Which way would you prefer? For many marketers it comes down to efficiency.  They would would prefer spending the money on media — on getting eyeballs, not on production.  I prefer effectiveness over efficiency — every exposure, every experience should count.  My goal would be to come up with a brand passion idea linking the passion of the event with passion within the brand DNA.  You can’t always convert, but you need to step up to the line and give it a shot.

Let’s face it these advertising giants are not messing around.  Per Ad Age, Verizon spends $3.7 billion to $3.1 billion for AT&T (compare this to the soda giant, Coca-Cola which only spends $752 million).  In other words, both advertisers have enough money to pummel any message into your head using many media channels at a very high exposure frequency. 

But sometimes you don’t need to see a commercial 20, 30 or 300 times.  Sometimes you just need once.  This is where the simplicity of the Verizon Map is impactful.  A consumer needs to just see them once, because the maps are  visually compelling and easy to understand.  It starkly demonstrates the difference, whether on television, in a magazine ad, or in a store front window of the corner cellular store.  So many ads today barrage consumers with a multitude of value propositions, industry jargon, and competitive claims — all within 30-seconds or a full page ad.  Simplicity rules.  It breaks through.  It is impactful (another ad in this genre is Apple’s MacBook Air ad).

AT&T’s advertising response to the Verizon Map Ads lacks the impact.  Having Luke Wilson chuck postcards around an over-sized U.S. map doesn’t seem to refute Verizon’s claims.  The fact the commercial uses postcards also may give the commercial an antiquated, out-of-date feel (seriously, when was the last time you sent a postcard). 

It seems obvious Verizon got AT&T’s attention, but are they getting the general public’s attention?  The first test will be the reaction of phone switchers in the current holiday season.  Currently AT&T’s share of the market is 29% which is three percentage points behind the market leader Verizon (per Ad Age).    New Verizon phones like the Droid combined with 3G coverage can be a compelling gift for many.

A second test will be if (or when) Apple creates an iPhone that runs on the Verizon network.  AT&T’s market share is bolstered by the iPhone, and if you are buying a 3G iPhone which service provider would you choose?  Personally, I am an iPhone and AT&T customer, and I am waiting to see if a Verizon iPhone appears in the near future.  If so, I am bolting, because of the difference in coverage.

In a way this is a bizarre twist for me.  While I am not a big fan of AT&T cell coverage (thanks to the maps), I am a big fan of U-verse, AT&T’s cable offering (conversely, not a big fan of Comcast).