Measuring Up

Happy Days actors aren’t smiling now

My wife found this news brief this morning. Since our Brand Squared division specializes in licensing, I found it interesting enough to offer some thoughts.

As you can see, it seems like most of the former "Happy Days" sitcom stars (all except Fonzie and Richie Cunningham that is) are more than a little annoyed with CBS these days. That’s the network owner of their former hit TV show "Happy Days". According to a law suit that they filed together, none of them have received a dime of licensing royalties from CBS since the show since it ended almost 30 years ago. These royalties come from merchandise such as lunch boxes, greeting cards, comic books, t-shirts, etc., that all display their likenesses on them. They claim that CBS profited immensely from sales of these products, while they made nothing. And now, they are asking for $10 million in compensation to recoup these losses.

Wow. That’s a lot of Potsie and Ralph Malph lunch box sales.

This blogger thinks that these former actors (and that’s what all of them are), have either gotten plain greedy or just gone crazy because there is no way a Happy Days licensing program would be worth that much $$$,

Does CBS owe Potsie, Ralph and Joanie some dough? You bet. They have a right to a small percentage of the royalties that were generated and taken by CBS. But, it’s hard to imagine that CBS could ever generate $10 million on its own for "Happy Days", much less for all of the hit TV shows it produced over the last 30 years. That’s just a lot of licensing money that doesn’t come so easy for one single property.

In a trade article from last year, CBS reported $340 million in annual merchandise sales to consumers.  After you factor in retail markups and average royalty rates, CBS actually generates about $20 million in annual profit from all properties they license out– "Happy Days", "Survivor", "Price Is Right", "NCIS", and many more.  What would "Happy Days" as a property contribute to that $20 million (when the property was in high demand)? Maybe  5%?  So you have Happy Days generating $1 million in merchandise-related profit annually, when the show was at its peak.  Happy Days was on for 10 years.  Essentially, a forgotten supporting cast with a $10 million lawsuit seeks 100% of what CBS earned (because after all, why should the producers, writers, creators, Richie and Fonzie get a share of that revenue). One might expect that collectively, the former stars could earn upwards of 5 percent on that figure (again being generous). That would equal a combined pay-out of $50,000 among all the parties involved. Clearly, a far cry from the $10 million that is being demanded.

While the publicity surrounding this law suit might unearth other hidden pay outs that CBS (and other networks) has failed to make, it certainly won’t help these desperados collect money that just isn’t theirs.  My estimates are probably off, but within the general ballpark of reality. Therefore, this blogger thinks that the Happy Days crew should put on a happy face, take their fair payout of a few dollars and drop this bogus law suit.

Playing chicken with fans' loyalty is dangerous

NFL owners and players are dancing with the devil right now. The end result could be ugly.

The latest: the owners are giving their all to lock out players. Now, the players union has filed an anti-trust suit right back at the owners to block this move.

There are dozens of issues on the line and none make for easy compromises. Among them, owners want more games added to the schedule and a bigger slice of revenues. Players are pushing for better free agency rights, more guaranteed money and a host of other benefits.

In the end though, the fan doesn't care. He is lost in a sea of legal mumbo jumbo and a lot of "He said, he said." And, when we simplify all the issues, the average Joe just sees the players as rich and owners as even richer. Place these issues next to the reality of our current world back drop which includes scores of jobless Americans, revolutions in the Middle East and complete devastation of life in Japan, and these two opposing football groups look pretty darn superficial and silly. Average Joe is calmly saying, "Shut up and just play the game."

Collectively, players and owners all exist in a lifestyle that is typically envied, looked up to or even romanticized by fans everywhere— that is, when the season is in full stride, players are making exciting plays and owners are providing great entertainment value. Allow for a strike, work stoppage or anything else which takes the fans' focus off of the actual week to week game and instead shines the spotlight on just how much ‘easy’ wealth these participants have, and the NFL has created recipe for a  brand disaster. At that point, I can guarantee you that Average Joe won't be calm anymore.

This is nothing new. We watched Major League Baseball nearly kill itself numerous times in the 80s and 90s with various strikes. In the worst of these, it lost many disheartened fans for years (some have never returned). Looking back, one can see how these strikes take their toll. Baseball ultimately lost its prominence as America's favorite sport. Now ironically, football has taken over that envious number one position.

And in my estimation, football has a lot more to lose. These quirky fans live and die knowing that from October until early February, they can count on Sundays for one thing. Through good or bad weather, work, play or rest, it doesn't matter. On Sunday, football always reigns.

Fans will lose patience ever so quickly after one or two missed games. Take away half a season or more, and an entire group of outraged fans will take their viewing loyalties elsewhere. The NFL brand will take a hit that won't easily be recovered from.

Legal maneuvering is fine right now. But, if this battle becomes an outright war, with no end in sight, in September, beware NFL. You'll be sorely testing your fans patience and loyalty.

 

Do you miss Hooters Air, too?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

What do all of these have in common?
•    Hooters energy drink
•    Colgate Kitchen Entrees
•    Google Print Ads
•    Willie Nelson biodiesel fuel
•    Ben-Gay aspirin

That's an easy one. They are examples of brand extensions gone horribly wrong. Yes, these are real products and services that once upon a time came to market. Thankfully, we've forgotten most of them. But imagine the millions of dollars and thousands of hours wasted on these.

From a PR perspective, it is one of the most difficult challenges: helping a client with a trusted brand break into a new market. Public relations is essentially based on trust. When a PR agency is tasked with promoting a brand extension, the first questions to ask are: Why should key influencers trust that our client knows enough about this new market to succeed? Why should key influencers trust that the brand really cares about the end-consumer?

As a former journalist, whenever I was pitched by a PR agency about a brand extension or partnership, my B.S. meter lit up like a Christmas tree. Any smart journalist believes that a brand extension has one, and only one, ultimate goal: to make even more money for the company behind the successful brand. So, as a reporter, I was always loathe to give any of these companies what amounted to free advertising.

So how to convince the ever-skeptical journalist that your client's brand extension is worth covering? Check out Procter & Gamble's latest foray: Tide-branded dry-cleaning stores. P&G's PR machine landed the project on the front page of the New York Times business section in what William Randolph Hearst used to call a "puff" piece. What made P&G so successful?

1. Don't tell me, show me: P&G already has four Tide stores up and running. What better proof of concept is that? A press release announcing a brand extension filled with nothing but projections, hopes and dreams isn't worth the digital ink it's written with, so have some real-world evidence ready to go.

2. Let me experience it: It’s clear from the NY Times article that the reporter visited a Tide store and had unfettered access to customers and neighboring businesses. No press junkets here. There’s nothing like firsthand experience to get a reporter on your side.

3. Lift the lid: Clearly, P&G walked the reporter through the entire process of choosing the dry-cleaning industry for their latest brand extension. “Four years ago, FutureWorks began considering franchise opportunities…,” the journo writes. That type of background gives the reporter the perception that he is getting the scoop on his rival scribes.

4. Push the benefits, not the brand: When you pitch, forget for a moment that you’re pitching a well-known brand. Pitch the project as if it is a stand-alone program. That means emphasize the benefits of the new product or service over the brand. The NY Times’ coverage of Tide Dry Cleaning notes features like 24-hour pick-up, drive-through windows and eco-friendly cleaning products. The Times bought it hook, line and sinker.

While no one can predict whether or not Tide Dry Cleaning will end up in the dustbin of marketing history alongside Donald Trump steaks, no one can argue that they’ve achieved a PR coup.

A Darker Shade of Pink

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

There’s been a fascinating public relations battle waging this month, one that bears watching by all PR  professionals.

As we all know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For three weeks now, we’ve been swimming in a sea of pink, let loose by breast cancer advocates all over the country to remind us that this disease still affects far too many women and their families. NFL players have donned pink cleats. APG is marketing a pink Snuggie sleeved blanket. KFC is selling pink buckets of chicken.

But there’s another side to this pink PR crusade that has been quickly creeping up on the national agenda. Let’s call it a darker shade of pink. On blogs and social media networking sites, people are starting to question the appropriateness of this plethora of pink. Megan Casserly on Forbes.com called it, simply, “crap.” One blogger on the Washington Times site called it “sickening.” Another green blogger questioned the true intentions of companies that make pink products for the cure while simultaneously fostering environmental and human rights abuses.

The anti-pink tide is rising.

So how is the other side reacting? Susan G. Komen for the Cure (SGK), the 800-pound pink gorilla of breast cancer foundations, has gone on the offensive. SGK founder Nancy Brinker is taking on the critics. She recently blogged that there “still isn’t enough pink.” It’s an interesting PR tactic. Brinker acknowledges the messages from the detractors, but quickly discounts them. She tugs at our heartstrings, reminding us that we need more and more pink because a woman dies from breast cancer every 69 seconds.

But does this really explain why SGK lists nearly 200 for-profit “partners” on its website, from Microsoft and Deluxe Checks to Otis Spunkmeyer and Payless ShoeSource? How many pink products does it take to cure breast cancer?

Clearly, it’s not as simple as selling pink products to fund a cure. Breast cancer death rates have slowly decreased over the years, but, strangely, the number of women getting mammograms has also decreased, despite all the pink products. How effective all this awareness really is should be deliberated every October.

How this public relations battle will shake out is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for certain: when it comes to women’s health, healthy debate is a good thing.

Mad About Barbie

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Over three television seasons Mad Men has grabbed the attention of millions with a dark, funny, and  disturbing portrait of the ad industry in the 1960s, and the families, clients and political issues with which the industry was intertwined. Most of Mad Men’s characters can be described as anything but wholesome– cocktails are poured long before lunch, marital fidelity is an afterthought, and gender sensitivity is, well, insensitive.  Yes, honesty and humility liberated Don Draper at the end of Season Three. That aside, the characters are magnetic, but rarely emulating. 

So how does the most beloved children’s character ever created beyond Disney– Barbie, Mattel’s rite of passage for pre-tween girls, and isle of safety for parents– justify a co-branded partnership with the unlovable foursome from Sterling Cooper– Don, Betts, Roger and Joan? Ken and Barbie– the King and Queen of Wholesome– are now linked to arrogant, dishonest, unfaithful, drink-swilling characters from an era beyond which we have evolved. Does this make sense?

Yes. And for more reasons than Jon Hamm’s uncanny (perhaps inspired) resemblance to the Ken doll.

Barbie has maintained market leadership in dolls (and in many other product categories, from food to first aid to bedroom décor) for 50 years by engaging girls who love the brand, and Moms who grew up with it.  Frequently the message is singular. As frequently (to the brand’s credit) the message is bifurcated. The persona(s) of Barbie have changed with the times, but parents want to remember the time during which the brand was theirs. That’s why a line of Barbie dolls is manufactured for adults. With a collector’s positioning, they target a passionate, mature, price-insensitive consumer, in a channel wholly distinct from the mass merchants where little girls’ Barbies are sold. By maintaining a connection with both consumers, catering to each need differently, Mattel ensures the brand stays relevant. Disney lost sight of this with so many of their characters from the mid 20th century.  These are now collector’s brands that sadly capture little interest among children.

So- how can the Barbie brand most effectively recreate the era in which it was first introduced?  The answer is leveraging the lens through which our society now sees the spring of 1960. The Mad Men lens. As deplorable as some of the behavior on that show is, I am convinced that its popularity is attributed to genuine affection people have for that era. Hats and ties were worn to work. People read newspapers rather than texting on smart phones. Meals were made instead of delivered. Kids drank milk, not juice boxes, and went outside after school rather than logging onto Facebook. Mad Men has captured wholesome intricacies as well as debauchery. The program identifies how we have evolved, but also captures what we’ve lost. By leveraging Mad Men, I believe the classic brand Barbie will remind us of the things we got right in 1960- as opposed to a children’s brand association with the things we got wrong.

One last thing. I have seen related articles this week in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, a feature of this alliance on ABC News, and of course repeatedly in the licensing trades.  I can only imagine this is one of thousands of blogs written on the subject. Even major brands can barely afford working media in this economy, and 50 year-old brands must do something revolutionary (or face a massive recall) to secure earned media. A Mad Men alliance makes Barbie newsworthy– and deservedly so. For a marketer, how cool is that?

Protecting the brand or antagonizing fans?

One of the ongoing Internet debates these days focuses on how companies can protect their brands when they are used in an unauthorized manner (often known as patent infringement), while also being very sensitive to the issue that they might be alienating, and even angering fans of that brand through their actions.

In these cases, I don’t mean obvious theft where companies or consumers are illegally profiting from another company’s cherished brand by selling product knock-offs or leveraging it on a Web site in some way to conduct e-commerce. No, instead I mean there are hundreds of cases where “fans” of that brand are just so excited about it that they set up Web sites to discuss, promote and gain an exponential amount of positive publicity about that brand by attracting hundreds (or thousands) of other fans.

One example that comes to mind is a fan site called www.ILOVECROCS.com, a few years back. The creator of this site absolutely adored this trendy rubber shoe. To show his appreciation, he built this site and promoted the brand through photos of different styles of Crocs. He attracted hundreds of new fans (and one would think) helped to provide free, positive marketing services for this company. From what I understand (told to me through a third party,) it wasn’t long after that he received a 'cease and desist' letter from the company’s lawyers. When the man tried to explain that he wasn’t making any money at Croc’s expense and just wanted to show appreciation for the brand through this Web site, the company attorneys didn’t care. In the end, the man was forced to pull down the site. And, that was that. Until anger started to boil up inside this “fan,” and he completely changed his views about Crocs. This anger manifested in his developing a site called www.IHATECROCS.com. And, of course, he now was pushing out only negative stories and vibes to those same fans about this brand that he once cherished.

Other companies such as FedEx and Dell have had very similar experiences as well.

The other day, my business partner and I received the email below. We created a completely fun, post-holiday Star Trek spoof video (in the spirit of our agency’s personality). The video was sent out to friends and family of Peppercom and posted on our Web site. You’ll see this CBS attorney (which owns the Star Trek brand) was actually very polite and tactful in her letter to us. Which is very much appreciated. CBS has every right to protect its brand rights in Star Trek and clearly its attorney is making sure that this is enforced to the letter of the law. Personally, I have no problem with it.

But, the question I ask is whether companies like this are doing more harm by protecting the brand from any type of infringement (even when the other party isn’t trying to profit in any way from it) versus allowing the brand to build more excitement and fans through our new digital world? Common sense dictates that the more Star Trek is seen by consumers, the more these same consumers will be interested in buying products, going to their trade shows and watching the latest Star Trek movie. That all adds up to more $$$ for the owner of that brand.

There isn’t an easy answer here. But, I’d love to hear any thoughts you might have on the topic

Dear Sirs: 
 
I write as attorney for CBS Studios Inc. ("CBS"), owner of rights to the "Star Trek" franchise (collectively, the "Series").  These rights are protected by numerous copyrights and trademarks in and to the Series, the characters, the ships and other elements thereof (collectively, the "Star Trek Properties"). 
 
We appreciate that the success of the Star Trek Properties is enhanced by the interest of its dedicated fan base.  However, as a public relations firm, your company understands that CBS is obligated to enforce its rights in the Star Trek Properties to guarantee the Properties’ continued success.  In that regard, CBS is sensitive to consumers' desires to communicate and share information about the Star Trek Properties, and we seek to strike a balance between encouraging legitimate use and discouraging unauthorized infringement of valuable rights.  For example, CBS has numerous licensees worldwide who offer a wide range of products and services, all of which are carefully monitored for compliance with its licensing program to ensure the quality, authenticity and integrity of all goods and services associated with the Series.  In addition, CBS objects to the unauthorized commercial use of the Star Trek Properties, as well as the posting of protected material such as audio or video content, content from official websites, photographs, artistic renditions of the characters or other properties, music and sound files, and books or excerpts therefrom. 
 
It has come to our attention that your company has distributed a video utilizing the Star Trek Properties (http://vimeo.com/8707511) (the " Video").   While we appreciate your firm's interest in the Star Trek Properties, we are concerned about your use of the Properties as such use may be deemed violations of CBS's rights under applicable copyright and trademark laws.  It appears that the Video was limited in scope and timing.  We therefore request that your firm take steps to remove the Video from your website, vimeo.com, and any other website which your firm controls and confirm that your firm will refrain from using the Star Trek Properties in this manner in the future without prior written consent from CBS.
 
We trust that you understand CBS' concerns and will comply with our request.  We would appreciate receiving your written confirmation of your compliance within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter.  Should you need any additional information or wish to discuss this further, please use the contact information provided below. 

Nothing in this letter shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right or remedy possessed by CBS Studios Inc., or any other affected party, all of which are expressly reserved.
 
Mallory Levitt
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Intellectual Property
CBS
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
ph: 212-975-3633
f:  212-975-0114
[email protected]

Is any sponsor safe anymore?

As the Tiger fall out continues (I think it's something like day 17 or 18 now), the business stories have begun to focus on which of Tiger’s many multi-million dollar sponsors will terminate their relationship with him. Of course, now that the shock of his transgressions has worn off, this is the most natural issue to turn to. Today, Gillette announced that it will severely limit Tiger's involvement with company endorsements. No surprise, Accenture has removed him from its Web Site and pretty much every other sponsor has stopped promoting Tiger in any way.

That's all par for this course. Yet, I believe there is a larger, more significant issue that all marketers need to be thinking about:  If Tiger Woods, the ultimate gold standard role model for kids and adults alike can fall from grace like this, then is any athlete or celebrity sponsorship safe anymore? And, should the sponsorship industry make wholesale changes to its strategies now when it comes to focusing on singular celebrity endorsements to build brands?

My answer is no... and yes. Here's my deeper explanation.

Tying a brand (or company's) image so closely to one (or even two) celebrity endorsements(s) has always been a risky proposition. Over the last 20 years, I've heard many a client tell me that his/her worst fear is to receive that call (or email) from some reporter who has the scoop that their corporate sponsor has been caught using drugs, abusing his wife or living out some other illegal or unethical act that will surely create big customer/investor problems. Still, in the past, the reward has clearly outperformed the potential risk for some very smart marketers like Nike, Gatorade and Accenture (which have achieved major business gains through singular endorsements). I believe that part of the reason for their success is because they seem to be highly selective with whom they allow to represent their brand (one would think an accounting firm has a very sophisticated risk analysis process for vetting endorsement candidates). And, when their celebrities got themselves into real troubles (think Michael Jordan as Nike's face when he had serious gambling issues), this 24/7 digital landscape (which never allows for stories to die) either didn't exist, or wasn't nearly as powerful as it has become today.

The latter point is what marketers should really be concerned about. For the heck of it, I googled the words 'Tiger' and 'Nike' just now. Something to the tune of 1,700 stories, blogs, tweets and other discussions/articles came up. Many have threads of content which question Nike's decision making behind associating Tiger as the "face and ethics of its brand." Unlike what happened in the "old days" of Michael Jordan, Nike's stock and sales have now taken a real hit because it's so closely associated with Tiger. The power behind digital communications is that it allows for anyone to push out opinions (like me), create more gossip and in this case, initiate a continually growing "mob-like," virtual attack that has clearly played a major supporting role in hurting this sports apparel company's core business.

Tiger stood for all those wonderful qualities (commitment, professionalism, can do attitude, winning, pure and ethical, etc.) that its sponsors believed would never fail them. In many ways, Tiger was a no-brainer...the ultimate safe sponsorship.  So now, there is no one or nothing that truly is a safe bet.

Corporate marketers need to change their "bet everything on the farm" endorsement strategies now. They might want to take a page out of the pharmaceutical industry's drug development strategy play book instead. These giant companies invest billions of dollars on dozens of drugs with the hope that just one or two might eventually make it to market as a block buster seller. They have to hedge their bets across many drug investments because each one has such a low risk of ever baring real fruit. And, the risk is simply too great to place a company's future behind one miracle cure.

In this same vein, corporate marketers cannot look at one beloved athlete as its "miracle cure" anymore. Instead, they should create many, smaller, but equally focused endorsements which allow for brands to achieve more modest benefits from attributes that each celebrity brings to its products or company. And, they can bypass all the unavoidable risk and eventual disasters that one endorsement will probably bring someday. Remember, one face associated with a company or brand completely ties the two together in almost every way. On the flip side, any one of 15 or 30 faces which are far less promoted with said company or brand, can be extricated so much more painlessly should the need arise.

Homeless Doll Breaks from American Girl’s Model

Today's guest post is by Laura Mills, Account Executive, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Growing up, Samantha was my American Girl doll of choice.  She had brown hair and eyes (just like me!), with a back-story that was an allegory of having good character.  As a premise behind the original American Girl dolls, the company created strong, female characters, incorporating toys with a series of books and matching accessories.  The dolls are role models, exhibiting positive traits that modern girls can relate to, regardless of the historical context they are presented in.  

This role model position became a method by which American Girl has built a thriving franchise across many years, and business has expanded to include a new generation of role models from a variety of ethnicities and historical eras, while appealing to new audiences, collectors and Hollywood producers.  Some of existing characters include Addy, a fugitive Civil War era slave, and Rebecca, a Jewish Immigrant from the turn of the century.  Most of the dolls have a heartwarming story of how odds can be beaten – after all, role models are so frequently personas overcoming high obstacles.  But the recently launched character Gwen Thompson certainly has the most to overcome: she’s homeless. 

It suffices to say, Gwen has generated her fair share of controversy.  Media outlets such as the New York Post are attacking the concept, especially the mixed message of a $95 price point for a doll aimed to educate children about poverty.  But, regardless of whether the doll is ‘too real’ or if it is overpriced, there is a larger branding issue at hand.  Addy and Rebecca are role models.  Gwen represents a social topic with polarizing points of view.  There is a significant difference between inspiring good character (an outcome of role models) and inspiring debate (an outcome of educators, politicians and reporters addressing social topics.)  Of course the target market for American Girl should understand the issue of homelessness.  But the concept of Gwen Thompson stretches the American Girl brand beyond its foundation and emotional definition.  With the article mentioned above, the brand is now part of a national debate.  For a brand built on creating universally aspirational characters, that departure could negatively affect it as a whole. 

American Girl carved itself a sustainable position in the saturated doll landscape, an accomplishment enjoyed by few brands beyond Barbie.  It would be a shame to see the ‘Gwen’ endeavor have an adverse impact, especially when there are options that might be a better fit for the brand.   With many real life role models for young girls, the company could have licensed the name and likeness of known female advocates and philanthropists such as our client Dr. Jane Goodall, Susan B. Anthony or even Oprah Winfrey.  Having written their own success stories and overcoming personal challenges, these women would be a more strategic extension of the company’s mission to “help girls find their inner star by becoming kind, compassionate, and loving people who make a positive and meaningful difference in the world around them.”

Driving Incremental Growth through Brand Partnerships: Zipcar

Today's guest post is by Laura Mills, Account Executive, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

In the beginning, we are all taught to share our toys.  Then my generation grew up and learned to share musicfiles, which evolved into shared movies via Netflix.  Now car sharing is turning mainstream.  This week’s Fortune magazine cover story profiles Zipcar, the world’s largest car sharing club.  Focused in urban areas such as New York, Boston and San Francisco, custome

rs are signing up by the hundreds of thousands, and the company is growing at a rate of 30% a year. 

With this swift expansion, Zipcar’s rise is on par with Napster, whose name recognition spread quickly in the late ‘90s among the first generation of plugged in students.  While the two brands have their similarities (community sharing platform) and their differences (Zipcar’s service has been legal since day one,) the common denominator is that both are more than just a service.  They are a lifestyle phenomenon establishing a cult-like following among a consumer target with little (if any) brand loyalty to any car rental brand.  With Zipcar, there is a familiarity to the brand and customers feel like they’re borrowing a car from a friend, rather than leasing it from a ticket counter.  Fueled by a “zipster” culture (which includes fellow brand enthusiasts waving to each other on city streets,) the communities of customers appreciate the lack of hassle and paperwork associated with traditional car rental services. 

Too often we overlook these kinds of opportunities in licensing because our industry is too focused on the ‘rental’ of brands to non-branded categories.  Today, there are very few non-branded categories remaining, and the licensing industry needs to evolve with the concept of brand sharing in the same way that Zipcar has evolved the car rental industry with its concept of sharing.  Traditional licensing would involve Zipcar extending into key chains and floor mats.  How boring is that?  Instead, to expand its profile, Zipcar should ‘share’ its equity with other brands that have complementary strengths.  The low-hanging fruit here is the travel and hospitality industry, from airlines to hotels.  If I were advising Zipcar’s CEO, Scott Griffith, I would highlight the fact that his growing, loyal consumer base– along with the easy, friendly, headache-free qualities of his service– would create brand partnerships considered mutually beneficial by airlines or hotel chains.  These companies– from Continental and Delta (which can offer “zipflights”) to Starwood or Marriott (“ziprooms”) can share their longevity and marketing budget muscle with Zipcar, while Zipcar can help provide a new burst of relevance for mundane brands.

The opportunities for Zipcar are equally strong if the company were to leverage third party brands as part of its core car sharing service.  Observing marketplace trends– and successes we have had with our own clients– some of the most successful brand partnerships targeting my generation are cause-related brands.  These brands could deliver a broader consumer base to Zipcar, while allowing users to ‘share’ with those in need.  In execution, customers would choose specially painted vehicles with a portion of their rate going back to such chosen cause.  For example:
•    Pink for the Susan G. Komen Foundation
•    Yellow for Lance Armstrong’s Live Strong Campaign
•    Red for the (Red) Project to fight AIDS in Africa
•    Green for the Sierra Club
The most successful licensing concepts in the future will take a big step back from the traditional definition of a license agreement– and perhaps stem from new, unconventional brands helping longer-established partners create a fresh dose of relevance.  Zipcar certainly fills the bill for the former, and there are endless opportunities for partners with strong ‘share potential.  As marketing professionals, our charge is to think creatively to conceptualize and execute these opportunities. 

His Airness still has timeless appeal

This weekend, Michael Jordan entered the basketball Hall of Fame. Many feel that he is the best player to ever lace up a pair of basketball sneakers. With six championships, 10 NBA scoring titles, five league MVPs and two Olympic gold medals on his mantel, it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t deserve this honor. But, that’s something for fans to subjectively debate in years to come.

What can’t be argued though is how amazingly long His Airness’ marketing endorsement star has continued to brightly shine. Especially considering the fact that the man has been retired from the game he helped to make so popular for more than six years. That’s almost an eternity when it comes to the marketing staying power of this magnitude for celebrity endorsements.

For those old enough to remember, think back to March, 1985, when a sneaker company named Nike made the single smartest investment in its history by creating the Air Jordan basketball shoe. Remember those creatively artistic Spike Lee commercials? (“It’s got to be the shoe.”) Jordan’s universal appeal generated billions of $$$ in sales and fawned an entirely new industry of brands and products with his name and likeness on them, including sponsors such as Gatorade, Ball Park Franks, Ray-O-Vac, Wheaties, McDonald's, Upper Deck cards, as well as entire Nike Air Jordan apparel lines. Nike continued to ride the Jordan bandwagon for 12 more years when it finally launched the actual Jordan Brand to huge fanfare and success.

It’s easy to understand why he was so successful back then. Everyone wanted to “Be like Mike,” (as the 1990s Gatorade commercials so aptly showcased.)

Think about it. He was the first commercial superstar in a rising sport who represented everything our culture pushes us to be: Good looking, a supreme athlete, cool as ice, competitive beyond belief, charismatic and articulate, smart and funny, and most importantly- a winner (winning more games for more than a decade than anyone else.)

Today, Jordan is a mere memory for most. It’s sad to think that his greatness was entirely missed by today’s new generation of basketball and sports loving kids and teenagers. But, that makes no difference. He remains a marketing icon who still regularly appears on TV ads for such sponsors as Hanes underwear and Gatorade. And, Nike, PepsiCo and Upper Deck have all introduced products in recent months to commemorate Jordan’s NBA career in time for last weekend’s Hall of Fame ceremony. In fact, according to Nike, the Jordan Brand is now a $1 billion brand and still growing successfully.

Many of the most charismatic and successful retired sports celebrities continued to make money through endorsements, licensing and sponsorships long after their playing careers were over. There’s nothing novel about this fact. What’s extraordinary in the case of Michael Jordan is just how strong his magnetism still is, even as he settles well into middle age. Clearly, that famous Jordan smile certainly isn’t lost on companies looking to woo consumers.

Some may argue that players like Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain or even Kobe Bryant should be considered greater than Jordan. (I happen to disagree.) But, it’s hard to believe that any other basketball player will ever have the timeless marketing appeal of this living legend.