The best small agency in America.

This week Barrie D'Rozario Murphy was selected by the Association of American Advertising Agencies as the best small agency in the country.

The O'Toole Award is a top industry honor for overall creative excellence across a range of clients and media platforms. The small agency award specifically recognizes this accomplishment among agencies of less than 100 people. BBDO won the honor for best large agency, and Bartle Bogle Hegarty was selected as the best midsize agency.

Bob, Stuart and I are thrilled. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the people who work at BD'M, as well as to our clients.

The people at our shop all left good jobs at good agencies to run off and join the circus with the three of us. And the blue chip clients who enlisted us -- such as United Airlines, Best Buy, Applied Materials, Compellent -- all took a leap of faith in hiring a new agency. We will never stop working hard to reward the faith everyone has shown.

We will also never stop being cheeky and having fun, as evidenced by the advertisement we ran in yesterday's New York Times. The response has been fantastic. I think it touched a pent-up desire by many in our business to have some fun, have a point of view and be a bit provocative.

But as we've said in interviews, the ad is in good fun. We're simply jealous of those big agencies!

How to provoke reappraisal of your brand.




Time will tell if GM's new corporate campaign featuring CEO Ed Whitacre will work. An advertising columnist recently suggested that "GM out Hyundais Hyundai."

Out Hyundais Hyundai? Really? Hyundai has been on a journey to recast its image for a decade. It's strategy? Bold, bet-the-ranch marketing initiatives:

  • The most comprehensive warranty in the business.
  • A direct appeal to rethink Hyundai, based on fact and accomplishment, not bravado.
  • A buy back program that showed great insight into the real issue facing consumers in the recession (consumers who had jobs but feared not having one later in the year).
  • A risky move into the near luxury sedan market with Genesis.

The result? Year-to-date Hyundai has picked up over a point of market share (source: Automotive News). A Herculean task to be sure. Every GM brand lost share. The proper domestic comparison to Hyundai is Ford, which, like Hyundai, has kept its head down and worked hard to get its quality and design right. Like Hyundai, Ford has also picked up market share this year.

So this begs the question -- where are the facts to support that corporate bravado ("car for car, we win") is fresh or effective?

I have no connection to Hyundai and no axe to grind. I'm simply a fan of smart and brave marketing. (That and about 15 years automotive marketing experience.)

Open letter to Detroit: think like a technology brand

General Motors grabbed headlines recently by claiming its Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid will get 230 miles per gallon in city driving. Clearly, such an audacious claim must be independently verified. But the sheer game-changing nature of this claim underscores an opportunity for GM to carve out a new place in our collective imagination by behaving more like a technology brand and less like an automotive brand.

Throughout the last century the automobile stood for freedom, mobility and joy. Hitting the open road expanded our horizons and put a bigger world within our reach. Cars represented modern life at its best. But that was then.

Today, it is technology that defines modern life. Technology liberates and connects. Each new smart phone, wafer-thin laptop and lifelike home theater joyfully proclaims that today is better than yesterday.

Technology brands are the new “car.”

I don’t advocate that GM or Ford or Toyota begin behaving in some geeky kind of way. Rather, it should take its cues from brands such as Sony, Apple, Google or GE. These brands deliver a sense of boundless optimism that was best expressed by Microsoft’s old themeline, “Where would you like to go today?”

For those who question the wisdom of focusing on branding strategies given the myriad issues GM faces, I have one simple word: Malibu.

In 2007, GM revamped the Chevy Malibu from top to bottom to compete with the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, two cars that have ruled the midsize sedan market for years. The result is a $20k car that looks, drives and feels like a luxury sedan.

Consumer Reports recommends the new Malibu. Kelly Blue Book concludes that it looks like a $40k car. JD Power ranks the Kansas City factory that builds Malibu as one of the top three quality plants in the country. It was voted Car of the Year. Nevertheless, more than twice as many people bought a Camry last year. Brand equity matters.

Here are some initial steps companies such as GM and Ford can take to begin behaving like a technology brand.

First and foremost, auto manufacturers must create modern cars. This isn't just about whiz-bang features or alternative fuel vehicles. Modern cars are best defined by the more relevant relationship they create with their customers. Modern cars are democratic, offering the latest technologies to all, not just in the top of the line models. Modern cars liberate us from old compromises by proving that design and performance can co-exist with safety and environmental responsibility. Modern cars are an extension of the personal technologies that make our lives smarter, better organized and more entertaining. And modern cars look, well, modern.

Second, forge alliances with respected technology brands. After all, brands, like people, are often judged by the company they keep. The success of the Chevy Volt requires that we trust the Chevy brand as a credible source for an electric car. What if GM had partnered with GE on this? (Its name is General Electric, after all.) The company is a manufacturing giant. Its growth strategy is linked to green-tech (“ecomagination”). And it is a household name with a reputation for innovation and dependability.

Third, lift a page from Apple, the tech brand that teaches the master class on marketing. Here are four lessons drawn from the iPhone launch:
  • Design, design, design: The iPhone looks like nothing else. It took no cues from category norms and wasn’t an exercise in incrementalism. Design reigns supreme at Apple. Steve Jobs is manic about design. Jonathan Ive, Apple’s head of design, is a rock star. It’s time to elevate the automotive designers to be the face of the company instead of the suits. Let's see car designers on the cover of Fortune, Wired and People, not the CEO. After all, auto companies are industrial design firms.
  • Limited supply: Here’s a very simple rule: a company shouldn’t produce more product than it can profitably sell. Sounds simple, but seldom happens. Limiting supply negates the need for brand-sucking rebates and tent sales. Apple is genius at this.
  • New distribution model: Sales associates at Apple stores are trained to be living ambassadors of the brand. Consumers may not get this same experience at the average car dealership. So here’s where an auto company needs to swallow a brave pill. Don’t sell the next hot new car through dealerships. Signal change by changing where the car is sold. Establish centrally located shopping galleries – in malls, in airports, in downtown business districts – staffed by the same well-trained ladies and gentlemen hired for car shows. (Dealers must still be reasonably compensated for any sales occurring in their market area since they will play a crucial role in providing ongoing service. Fixing a car is a tad more complex than fixing an iPhone.)
  • Advance buzz: When Apple launched the iPhone it generated a huge amount of curiosity by doing the exact opposite of what auto companies do: Apple said nothing. Auto companies tend to debut the concept car three years in advance at an auto show, create websites offering sneak-peeks, and give car magazines early test drives in return for good coverage. And what happens? The buzz peaks well ahead of the product's retail launch. The new mantra must be to reveal less and intrigue more. (Dealers did this quite well back in the days when they'd cover up new models until launch day to keep curious faces pressed against store windows.)
Apple did all of this and more. Breakthrough product. Inspiring design. Smart pricing. Tight distribution. Clever marketing. Seems so simple. And therein lies the beauty of Apple’s success, and the lesson for automotive brands.

Last century, Detroit pioneered mass production to democratize the automobile and bring freedom, mobility and joy to more people. Cars lost this sense of child-like wonder as they grappled with grown-up issues such as safety, fuel economy and global warming. Going forward, which company will be the automotive brand that best democratizes technology to solve these challenges and let us to rediscover that sense of wonder on the open road.

A caveman's guide to branding.

Most branding campaigns follow a time-tested architecture: an overarching brand idea, supported by individual attributes, all communicated within the context of an unifying creative idea.

And that's what intrigues me about Geico's brand campaign -- it is completely disintegrated. The insurer uses at least four distinct campaigns to land different proof points.

To be sure, Geico's overall goal is to position itself as a better value. Its USP has been unchanged for years: "15 minutes can save you 15% or more."

It uses the lovably cheeky gecko to communicate the overall value message.



It uses the caveman with a chip on his shoulder to to communicate ease and convenience.



It uses celebs right off the D-list to communicate its commitment to customer service.



And now it is using a leering pile of cash to communicate low price.


We've all seen campaigns with different spots in the mix (think McDonald's), or different campaigns tailored for specific media environments (think Nike in football vs. basketball vs. golf), or campaigns for different products within a portfolio (think Toyota Tundra vs Yaris).

But seldom do we see completely different campaigns in support of different support points.

Contrary to what one might expect -- i.e., a blurry cacophony of messages -- each of Geico's messages breaks through and stands on its own feet, is unified by a brand personality that is likable and humorous and, ultimately, supported by the 15% USP.

Is it working? I can only assume so, because Geico has pursued this model for years. We have to assume the graphs are heading in the right direction or they would have abandoned this funky model years ago.

Go Forth.


Wieden + Kennedy’s new campaign for Levis is stunning in its truth, its insight and its audacity.

The great brands are underpinned by an essential and enduring truth. By linking to the words of Walt Whitman and, on its new website, the United States Constitution, Levis has reconnected with the truth of its brand. Levis is America. And America has always been shaped by people with the courage and tenacity to dream and work towards a better tomorrow.

Its unique insight is in seeing the hollowness of most Millennial-targeted messages of hope and optimism, or perhaps more specifically, how bankrupt these messages must feel to Millennials in the current economy. Instead, “Go Forth” implies that hope and optimism are found by individuals who venture forward and work towards their dream. True of the framers of our Constitution. True of the gold miners in 1849 (the original denim crowd). True of Mr. Whitman. It must also be true of people today if we are to achieve our potential.

But the audacity, the brilliant audacity, to create a website in which citizens can co-create, edit and share their take on the Constitution is to be celebrated. It transforms the Constitution into a communal wall posting which, if you will momentarily suspend your judgment about that concept, is exactly what the Constitution needs to be: a living, shared, and debated document chronicling the will of the people.


Go forth indeed.

Lion hunting.

The team at Barrie D'Rozario Murphy is thrilled to be one of only two U.S. agencies to win a Gold Lion award for film at last week's International Advertising Festival in Cannes.

BD'M was hired by the Chambers Hotel in Minneapolis to draw more guests into its bar, linger a bit longer, and, of course, run up higher tabs to boost the luxury hotel's revenue.

The result was a faux surveillance video that led guests to believe they were privy to live security shots around the hotel. We included shots of actual guestroom interiors interspersed with a variety of staged scenes - a nun praying to a man in a chicken costume, an alien in the hallway to a blow-up doll on a bed. The video, designed to complement the Chambers' collection of original contemporary art, helped deliver a double-digit increase in traffic to the bar.

It's an exciting example of the role and effectiveness of nontraditional media in solving business challenges.

To watch a excerpt, visit bdm.net, and click on brand experiences/chambers.

A battle of business models.

A BD’M client noted recently that they were engaged in a battle of business models. This is a clarifying thought – a competition between the fundamental strategy employed by each competitor for creating and delivering customer value.

This point of view implies that each company competes through a single, overarching business model. But can a company compete by spreading its bets across multiple business models?

This was on my mind when I read an article in yesterday’s New York Times about how Amazon will employ three different business models to sell books. As we all know, Amazon’s core business is selling pulp books direct to consumers. And, with Kindle, Amazon is now in the business of selling digital downloads of e-books. But Amazon has decided to also sell its e-books on competitive services, such as iTunes, for the same $9.99 price it charges Kindle owners.

Jeff Bezos and company have created three different models, a move primarily designed to follow the customer and preempt competitors, and also produce a healthy side-effect – greater internal competition to drive ongoing innovation and greater focus.

Strategy guru Michael Porter has long said that alignment is the test of a great business strategy – i.e., a unique value proposition, delivered through a differentiated value chain, with all activities aligned, and all connected back to the balance sheet. Porter’s litmus test doesn’t go away, rather companies will have to apply this thinking across several business models simultaneously – a game of three-dimensional strategic chess.

How to reposition a brand.

Sun Chips is a case study in the making of what can happen when a marketer thinks outside the box, or in this case, the bag.

Sun Chips have long been positioned as a slightly healthier alternative, with less salt, fat and other naughty stuff. Most every snack brand tries to make this same claim. So how do you stand out? By deciding to ignore the conventions of typical snack food marketing.

Their new marketing campaign is smart and tightly aligned:
  1. They've taken their name and created a logical brand association: sun --> solar --> green --> healthier planet.
  2. They are forging this brand association through actions, not just words. (Solar powered manufacturing plant, biodegradable packaging)




  3. They are using unique media properties to reinforce the brand idea.



  4. They are tapping the power of PR and crowd-sourcing to seek and fund other ideas for a healthier planet.



  5. They are aligning the company's philanthropic investments behind this idea. (Donating $1m to create a solar-powered recovery center to help a tornado ravaged town get back on its feet.)








It's too early to tell if this will be a wild success or an abysmal failure. What is clear, though, is that they are refusing to play small ball. This is a brand team that is truly reaching for the stars.

The lesson of BMW Films

An article on adweek.com questions why our industry hasn’t built on the success of BMW Films and the potential of branded content. I used to ask this same question until I realized it is the wrong question.

BMW Films made its online debut in 2001 with short films produced exclusively for the web by marquee talent, including directors John Woo, Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, Tony Scott among others, and starring actors such as Clive Owen, Madonna, Mickey Rourke, Forest Whitaker and Don Cheadle. The Hire consisted of eight action-packed episodes featuring Clive Owen putting the ultimate driving machines through the paces.



The Hire was ahead of its time. Broadband penetration in the United States in 2001 was less than 20%. (Remember the tedium of viewing rich content on dial up?) The films couldn’t capitalize on social media because Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Anderson and Steve Chen (founders Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, respectively) may still have been in high school at that point.

Yet, back in the day, these films broke new ground by changing how we viewed the web. Up to that point, marketers used the web as a substitute for print. Sites functioned like online brochures -- very heavy on text and photos. BMW Films showed that the web didn’t have to be static – it actually could be a replacement for TV, using sight sound and motion to engage viewers.

And that's precisely why the question posed in Adweek misses the point. BMW Films used the web like TV. Right for then, wrong for now. The web has changed dramatically since 2001. It is no longer about one-way broadcasting. It’s about ceding control, co-creation, relevant functionality and crowd-sourced input.

Contrary to Adweek's story, branded content is not struggling to find its footing, an assertion that seems weighed down by a Hollywood-centric definition of content. Branded content is flourishing in new ways that are more tailored for Web 2.0. Subservient Chicken allowed consumers to control the entertainment. T-Mobile’s flash mob campaign capitalized on social media. GE’s online effort for ecomagination and Nike’s mobile initiative both used augmented reality to glue our eyeballs to the brand.

We should tip our hat to BMW Films and appreciate what it unleashed. But instead of looking backwards, we should embrace its essential lesson: Consider how consumers are using the web today, then rethink it and set the bar higher.

Project Natal

I've seen the future. It's spelled N-A-T-A-L.

The new human interface for Xbox is mind-bending. No controllers whatsoever. You are the controller. It reads body movements. It makes Wii look old fashioned.


I'm not a gamer. I'm more fascinated about the implications this technology can have on product design -- e.g., computers, home entertainment, retail.

It seems the technology we witnessed in Minority Report wasn't so far in the future after all.

How the Handover Begins

Today’s New York Times features an article that pulls back the curtain on how the AI handover is getting underway, how Google, Meta, X, et a...