Pundit’s Mailbag – Characters and Marketing
Jim Prevor's Perishable Pundit,
August 14, 2006
One of the industry’s veterans in the realm of marketing
has both kind words for the launch of the pundit and also doubts about programs
that we
discussed to apply cartoon characters across a broad range of products.
First, Jim, thank you so much for spreading your abundant common sense on a
daily basis. It is most refreshing. As a fellow pundit and sometime curmudgeon,
I'd like to comment on cartoon characters and marketing to children.
Specifically, an effective brand spokesperson must epitomize the product. Thus
Bugs Bunny can sell carrots, Popeye can sell spinach, but Garfield can't sell
apples. "Borrowed interest" is never an effective marketing tool.
— Frank McCarthy
Vice President
Albert’s Organics
Frank’s point is persuasive; efforts to extend brand equity beyond core values
are always difficult. But, of course, it is difficult to sell products without
any brand either. That is, doubtless, why a company such as
River Ranch, which has long sold spinach under the
Popeye brand, is extending that brand to other items with its
Popeye Fresh Line. Clearly it would be preferable if they had a perfect
match for each item but they don’t, so one suspects it is easier to sell
retailers, and maybe consumers, on a line extension than on a new name or their
corporate name.
After all, the biggest player in the industry,
Dole, once just
meant pineapple, and Hawaiian pineapple at that, to consumers. The last
several decades have been spent expanding the meaning of that brand.
A lot depends on the commitment of the company that sells the rights to its
characters. If the company just wants to license out the brand and not really care if it succeeds, that
brand extension is quite difficult unless the character, as Frank says, is
already closely aligned in the mind of the target audience with that product.
It is hard to know how anyone will act when the chips are down. Although
Disney has officially
denied it, supposedly, though, this is part of a strategic shift by
Disney. It pulled out of its longtime alliance with
McDonald’s and wants to ally itself with healthy eating choices for
children. If this is true:
Key
Questions For Disney:
Will Disney actually use its characters and
resources to promote healthy eating? The Junior Pundits, three and
four years old, are big fans of
The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Putting a sticker on a package of an
unrelated character is, to Frank’s point, not the strongest
marketing tool. But if Disney will have the characters take a daily
fresh fruit break on TV, well that will much more powerfully influence
children.
What about on the website? Same thing with the theme
parks. Shouldn’t
The Land Pavilion be tied in with the program? How about
changing the name of the farm you ride the little boat through to
“Disney Garden”? If my children could see a connection between what
we did at
Epcot and what we propose to eat, that would add emotive power
to the offer. In other words, is Disney, as a corporation, really
committed to the idea of boosting children’s consumption of fresh
produce? Or is this just a way to make a few
shekels.
Which brings to the forefront a question: Why charge a licensing
fee? Getting Disney’s various characters on healthy, fresh foods all
over the world is a major plus for Disney – think of it as millions
in free advertising. Why reduce the scope of the program and its
likelihood of success by demanding money?
Why shouldn’t Disney pay
Imagination Farms to build out the network and give them the mandate
to get the widest possible distribution? The produce industry is too
small and the margins on commodity products too tight to return any
significant amount of money to Disney. But think about what it would
be worth to Disney to affiliate itself with good health for kids and
helping Mom feed kids right by holding a press conference announcing that Disney, as part of its
efforts to help parents make sure their kids eat healthy food, was
going to make its characters available without license fee to
encourage children to want to eat them. I think the value of that
stand-up attitude would far exceed any amount of license fee Disney
will ever get for its brand in produce.
Is Disney ready for a disaster? This is a perishable food. One day
there will be pictures taken of its logos and characters against
pictures of rotten, moldy product on national television. One day
someone may even die, as food safety or food security precautions
break down. Disney needs to show an understanding and commitment to
what they are dealing with.
Years ago on
The Mickey Mouse Club, Jiminy Cricket was highlighted in a
series called
“I’m no Fool”, and it taught children lessons such as how to
ride a bicycle safely. My kids watch the series on
DVD today and still love it. Disney should make the point that it
is aware of these possibilities and create a new set of short
programs to
teach children about healthy eating and proper care and handling of
food. A lot of people suspect that companies such as Disney will
have no stomach for a problem in an area so peripheral to what they
do and so will cut and run at the first scare.
Of course, Disney isn’t the only one that has to make a commitment
to getting children to eat healthy. The real problem with all these
character schemes and produce is that most stores only sell one line
of an item. This is profoundly different than in, say, the cereal
aisle. In cereal, the large number of brands carried can be used to
segment the market. So, even if everyone is buying corn flakes, we
can have Mickey corn flakes for little kids, Disney Princess corn
flakes for a little older girls, Power Ranger corn flakes for
slightly older boys… on and on up to Lawrence Welk corn flakes for
his fans.
The problem with cartoons is that if we sell plums with Goofy on
them, even if they do encourage sale to parents with young children,
how do we know what they will do regarding sales to other
demographics? Do 14-year-old boys want to go to school with a Minnie
Mouse banana in their lunch?
I can’t help but think that for cartoon marketing to really work, we
need to test out a separate kids section. In other words, sell both
a primary display of plums and a secondary display of plums
stickered for kids along with other kid-friendly items. This might
be a way to seeing an increase in sales due to stickering. Would the
additional sales justify the space – I don’t know.
Which brings me to my personal pet peeve: Only in perishable food is
it acceptable to do large-scale product launches without doing any
research. There is no doubt in my mind, right now, that there are
significant advantages to a shipper who doesn’t have a consumer
brand in creating an alliance with one of the cartoon programs. The
big advantage is that in hope of getting a 2% boost in sales of any
item, the supermarket turns over 100% of the business in that item.
So this is a big win for shippers.
But we, as an industry, need to know if this actually boosts sales
and consumption, and what is the best way to get that boost? We need
not only studies of store purchasing but also studies tracking
families at home after they purchase these items to see if
consumption rises. And they have to go on for months because we have
to make sure the novelty effect doesn’t influence results.
As part of Disney’s commitment, they should put some of their
marketing brains into these tests. They could partner with
Kroger, with whom they have a
separate deal, but Disney also has very close relations with
Wal-Mart, through whom much-licensed toys, sheets, party goods
and whatnot get sold, and Wal-Mart could use a little good
publicity. Bet they would cooperate on this research project
designed to evaluate how to best market fresh produce to children.
Bet, working with Disney, they would be willing to release the
research report to the whole world just to be in the vanguard of
this effort to sell healthy food to children.
Then we could have some real data about what works for selling
healthy fresh produce to children and getting them to consume it.
That would be a truly magical day.

Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Furl
Technorati