Missed Merger Opportunity?

Last November, Publicis Chairman and Chief Executive Maurice Lévy, announced a merger to create an “unmatched leader”. This combination of two agencies was orchestrated to “serve clients that are transforming into digitally-driven businesses in a marketplace that is undergoing a rapid pace of change”. Levy was heralding the union of SapientNitro and Razorfish.

Both are veterans of the digital wars. They have lived through the dotcom bust, the advent and expansion of social media, and were independently trying to define what digital means to business before being combined. Undeniably they had two of the coolest names in the business.

Lévy noted at the time of the merger, “When we formed Publicis.Sapient we integrated the strongest set of capabilities in digital, consulting and technology amongst any of our peer group. We are now taking this next, important step, to further integrate these formidable assets. SapientRazorfish is a powerful new entity in the marketplace uniquely combining customer experience strategy, omni channel commerce, and technology deployment to create a new breed of digital transformation partner pointed at today’s most critical client need – reshaping their businesses for the future.”

That is a lot of industry jargon but you get the gist. What I took away from it is Publicis had no real merger or integration plan. They just hoped the merged management groups would create some magic. Along the way I am sure they hoped for cost savings by paring down staff and real estate.

Fast-forward four months and Publicis reported it would write down its digital arm, Publicis.Sapient, that houses SapientNitro, by roughly $1.5 billion or almost half of its initial valuation. Analysts and media saw this happening for a few different reasons. Some pointed to spending too much on Sapient (Publicis paid $3.7 billion in 2014}. Others suggest it has become a drag on Publicis’ overall business. While still another contingent believe the merger with Razorfish is to blame.

Read more

This is not a Turf War: Consultancies as Agencies and Agencies as Consultancies

Consulting firms have always sized-up the marketing space as a potential service offering. They have flirted with it for decades. Most large-scale forays have ended up in retreat after just a few years. Meanwhile, ad agencies have long-looked to shore up their dusty, old revenue models and expand by purportedly delivering more strategic offers. This too, has been largely episodic and unsuccessful.

Stick around and I will tell you why neither have historically worked but why they may work now. First off let’s substantiate that this mash-up is taking place:

  • Eight of North America’s top 10 agencies are owned by consultancies. Accenture has acquired at least 40 of them. Deloitte, Accenture, KPMG, PwC, and McKinsey now have agency arms.
  • Deloitte is out to create “the world’s first creative digital consultancy.” Meanwhile, IBM’s digital agency unit, iX, has over 10,000 employees and 1,000 designers in 25 offices worldwide.
  • Del Monte Foods selected Epsilon as its U.S. creative agency of record reflecting a fresh focus on data-driven marketing and a move away from traditional advertising agencies.
  • PwC made waves in 2016 when they appointed their first Chief Creative Officer. It should be noted that PwC also named a Chief Purpose Officer, which seems very much like an agency-thing-to-do.
  • Omnicom created Hearts & Science, an integrated digital agency leveraging technology to scale customer relationships. It has attracted Proctor & Gamble and AT&T as clients.
  • Razorfish, a division of Publicis Groupe, partnered with Adobe to build its own digital marketing platform.
  • Starcom MediaVest Group launched marketing consulting brand Zero Dot and sibling Zenith soft-launched a media-focused consultancy called Apex.
  • R/GA and GroupM now offer broad-based consulting services for the purposes of higher margins while securing traditional ad business. This is the strategy of O&M’s strategy consultancy, Ogilvy Red. Carla Hendra, global chairman of Ogilvy Red, is quoted as saying, “If we sell $1 of consulting work, down the road it can lead to $3 to $4 dollars of communications work.”

Clearly, traditional lines are crossing and blurring but why?

Read more

How to Differentiate Gum

Talk about a crowded category. It is tough to chew through all the options. How do you choose a gum brand? It is a rare product where price is not really a consideration. Let’s face it. Gum is a commodity. I would rather be a bottled water brand manager. When I walk up to the “wall of gum” in a convenience store I just grab what is convenient. Brand name, type of packaging, colours, logos, flavour, brand owner…none of it matters. But I do have a differentiating idea. Look for it after I prove my point of commoditization with these photos…

Read more

New & Improved: This Branding Trendsletter Is A Must

Its not on any set schedule. We send out New & Improved when we have good stuff to share. Not only our own ideas, cases and thoughts leadership but the best thinking in branding, marketing, and thought leadership. Sign up here. If you don’t like it you can opt-out any time though we will go into a deep depression.

Check out the graphic eye candy below to give you an idea of the content…like these wonderfully designed headers…

And how about this proprietary content?…

Read more

Revitalizing a Wine Brand: Making Mateus Relevant Again

I was born in 1965 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. That sentence reads like a dual confession and I have one more to share before this is over but we will get to that shortly. Any how, from the 1960’s to 1990’s, wine took a backseat to beer and spirits in Canada. In Manitoba, Old Vienna beer and any rye brand dominated for decades. When wine did grace the table or flowed at a party, invariably it was Black Tower, Blue Nun, or Baby Duck.

Black Tower suggested Teutonic dominance with its once clay bottles. Blue Nun had a pleasing name and label that implied organized religion had blessed your choice. Baby Duck was hugely successful. It sold 8 million bottles in 1973 alone. The name prompted many imitators. In the 1970’s, you could buy Canada Duck, Love-A-Duck, Kool Duck, Daddy Duck, and Fuddle Duck (say this last one three times fast). One brand even tried a poorly thought-out deviation and went by the name of Cold Turkey.

With all due deference to Black Tower, Blue Nun, and Baby Duck, they were outclassed by a fourth 158243774_-mateus-rose-pink-wine-bottle-candle-brazil-nuts----1powerhouse. Do me a favour. Close your eyes. Now picture a wine bottle unlike the standard. In this one, the 750ml of wine was contained in a squat teardrop shape. Remember it? I am speaking of Mateus. Following consumption that bottle often housed a succession of candles in its tapered neck. Waxes of different colours would run together in pleasing collages. In Manitoba, drinking Mateus and displaying the empty bottle as part of your household decorating suggested European refinement at its best (I am not joking).

Now take a break and allow yourself an eye-roll or laugh. Everyone pokes fun at Mateus. They attack the quality of the wine and claim in a self-deprecating way just how silly they were to ever drink it in the first place. Still, this indicates a fond nostalgia that the brand has never capitalized on. In its heyday, Mateus sold 4 million cases annually in the United States alone. The wine’s owner, Sogrape, now makes less than 2 million cases a year in total. This, to me, is a huge opportunity.

Read more