Walgreen's Hints At Dropping Cigarettes And Alcohol From It's Shelves

In a puzzling development, through what I intrepret as somewhat veiled messaging, Walgreen's has implied it might be the first major retail pharmacy chain to cease selling tobacco and alcohol products in an effort to keep up with the jockeying for position before the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) takes effect next year. Large health insurance companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield that never really had to talk directly to consumers except in vague, warm and fuzzy terms to maintain high name recognition during the employee benefit selection process are now faced with the threat of significant and yet undetermined competition. You can expect a fierce battle for share of mind and market.

Walgreen's, CVS, Walmart and other drug stores, (Yes, I still call them drug stores despite their preference to be known as pharmacies resulting from the unsavory connotations associated with the unsuccessful "war on drugs" in this country.) already in fierce competition, will only see their battles escalate as the health insurance war rages.

Walgreen's has been using variations of a clever tag line "At the corner of . . ." for some time and recently it began completing that line with  " . . Happy and Healthy." Apparently Walgreen's is trying to convince its customers it too is part of the health care landscape.

Like its prime competitors, Walgreen's has been partnering with medical care providers to expand limited "doc in a box" services. Millions of Americans get their flu shots and an assortment of other treatments by popping into their nearest pharmacy.

I caught the tail end of a promo for Walgreen's where the pharmacy/general merchandise/liquor store/food mini mart was identified as ". . . the health care partner of the Chicago Cubs." The wording might not be precise, and I apologize for that, but that was the gist of it. As I flipped to the next station, the weight of that statement began to sink in. I found it so absurd I tried to flip back to see if I was mistaken but the spot had ended.

Unless Walgreen's is committed to being the first retailer of its kind to walk away from a huge segment of its profits, it appears the company views branding as nothing more than labeling and messaging. Branding is first and foremost about behaviors. Not just the behaviors of customers but of the company.

If Walgreen's is successful in its stilted branding efforts, think of how the same techniques could bolster attendance at neighborhood places of worship. "Your Spiritual Health Partner" could begin offering a smoking lounge, a full service bar, questionable video rentals and maybe pole dancing if behaviors and messages didn't have to match up. That might be enough to get me going back to church.

Here's a tip, Walgreen's: If you want people to believe you are anyones health care or wellness partner stop selling cigarettes and alcohol. Of course, the chain isn't likely to do that. Failing that, here's another suggestion: Walgreen's could divide its stores into two sections - the "healthy" and the "happy" with all the "sin" products they now carry like booze, smokes, Fannie May chocolates and seasonal fireworks in the latter section. Or they could simply change their message to one that is authentic, relevant, consistent with their practices and product offerings and above all else, believable.

The essence of branding is being clear about what you are not, as much as what you are. Consider the courage it took back in the old days of "full service" gas stations for someone to say, "Let's just focus on oil changes." Jiffy Lube now sits in pretty clear market space and doesn't sell a drop of gasoline. Likewise, it's almost impossible to find a BP station that will sell you an oil change but you can buy all the "fuel" you need including fountain drinks, snack food and lottery tickets.

Giving up unhealthy product categories would separate any pharmacy company. This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Someone is going to be first. It might as well be Walgreen's. Making a bold decision like this would certainly reinforce the company's claim that they are someones health care partner. It would demonstrate that Walgreen's isn't afraid to declare what behaviors its business supports and which ones it doesn't by remedying its contradictory offerings. It would also move Walgreen's into uncontested market space but I wouldn't count on the cigarette displays and alcohol aisle disappearing anytime soon. Walgreen's is only deluding itself by claiming to stand for something it doesn't. Most likely, Walgreen's will continue to operate at the corner of Profits and Brand Hypocrisy.

Arrow Electronics Launches Innovation Club

When was the last time you watched TV and saw a commercial that caught your attention, held it and made you want to know about the companies behind it? While watching the NCAA Final Four game between Wichita State and Louisville, I reached for my iPad to Google Arrow Electronics and which ad agency created the spot "Innovation Club - Five Years Out."

Kudos to Arrow Electronics and Ogilvy & Mather Chicago for producing the best spot I've seen in a very long time. Not only are the production values stellar, but the pacing is deliberately measured and subdued lending an air of confidence to what the main character is saying to the young couple he is greeting. I found myself leaning into the TV not only to hear him well but because I found him believable, likable and credible. The copy concept is outstanding in that it avoids what I view as an epidemic of chest beating or false modesty and in some cases, down right arrogance (see: a typographically-driven spot that ran for Northwestern Mutual in the same break). By pointing out that most of the characters assembled were innovators who are unfamiliar to the public a tone is set of humility and selflessness. It provoked both interest and curiosity on my part. Who invented the examples mentioned in the spot and so many other products and services that are part of the fabric of life and taken for granted by many of us?

I've said this before in previous posts on this blog - advertising must sell something. Being clever, humorous, provocative, or odd just to gain attention without a powerful sales proposition is rampant in the ad industry and why so little advertising is effective. Arrow is an industrial and commercial partner to hundreds of companies and doesn't sell anything to consumers but I was sold on knowing more about Arrow, had a highly favorable impression of the company based on this ad and I'll bet lots of investors will take a look at the company, too. Hats off to the Ogilvy people for creating a spot of which I believe their namesake would be proud. Congratulations to Arrow Electronics for having the courage to let the agency do its best work.

Subway Takes A Bigger Bite Out of Your Wallet

As a frequent Subway customer, in a manner of speaking, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since the restaurant chain launched its "Five Dollar Footlong" campaign. I have to admit grabbing a filling 12-inch sandwich for a fin brought me in once or twice a week.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I frequently treated myself to my favorite and more expensive steak and cheese version. No need to tell you, unlike Jared, the Subway spokesperson, my weight steadily went up on this "diet."

The current Subway ad campaign is promoting a $3 six-inch version. Never having been good at math, even I know that means a footlong equivalent is now $6. Continuing on the rocky road of my math skills, that translate into a 20% price increase.

The truth is, Subway has actually enacted an across the board price increase but continues to offer a couple of loss leaders to mask the impact. That steak and cheese sandwich I loved just isn't worth almost $9 to me.

From the outset, I wondered about the logic of building equity in a pricing strategy with a slogan like "Five Dollar Footlongs" only to abandon it when conditions changed. While Subway is still trying to drive home a value message by suggesting in its ads that a single flavor 6-inch product is "still only $3" I don't think the public will soon forget there was a choice of many sandwich varieties for $5.

It will be interesting to see how this new pricing will impact the chain's comparable sales, average check and sandwich units sold.

Admittedly, I haven't stopped in to a Subway in the weeks since the pricing change and I doubt there's a direct correlation between that and my new lunchtime favorite, McDonald's Hot & Spicy Chicken sandwiches. At my local "Mickey D's" you get two of these gems, fries and a drink for under $5. Subway better hope its other customers aren't as reluctant to break the $5 barrier as I am.

Hey, AT&T, Less Would Be More!

I detest the AT&T spots with actor Beck Bennett. He’s the guy who’s sitting with kids doing primary research, asking simple questions like, “What’s better, fast or slow?” 

We get the point, AT&T. You claim to have faster service. I find the kids in these commercials to be so annoying and the basic premise so tired that I literally change channels each time one of them comes on. Additionally, the kids are so overly rehearsed that they lack any credibility. The whole point of putting kids in commercials is so the audience can "ooh and aah" over their simple utterances, cute faces and charming personalities. No such conditions exist in these ads.

I find the little girl who prattles on about "more of less" to be particularly annoying. She's followed closely in my mind by the girl in another spot who raises her hand to get the man's permission to speak and he mistakenly "high fives" her. She breaks character, mumbles to him that she was trying to speak and then looks off stage to the film crew or director or her agent, or whomever. 

These ads remind me of the Wendy's ads that ran a generation ago featuring the actress Clara Peller who exclaimed, "Where's the beef?" The campaign got a lot of publicity, gained a lot of awareness for the Wendy's brand that until that point was spotty at best in some parts of the country. Late night TV and even the President of the United States did parodies of the tag line. No question about it, the ads had America talking. However, after you asked, "Where's the beef?" you needed to ask "Where's the Wendy's?"

The Wendy's restaurant locations, speed of service, pricing and limited menu offerings and hours of operation were so poor that customers weren't returning in droves as had been hoped. In fact, as someone who worked on the Wendy's account a decade later, I saw firsthand that sales didn't justify the ad dollars that were spent on the campaign. Despite all the publicity that was generated, both McDonald's or Burger King (then #1 and #2 in the fast food category as it was called in those days) continued to see steady sales growth. Wendy's on the other hand never made progress in its market position.

Back to AT&T . . . I find this campaign so insipid that it has changed my view of the AT&T brand from one of a polished major player in the industry to one that has ridden it's one trick pony into the ground.

Print News May Be Dying But I Love My Magazines

The rapid decline in newspaper subscriptions has been of particular interest to me over the past few years. Like so many others, I get most of my news from the Internet, some from TV and considerably less from radio. Yet, I still subscribe to the Chicago Tribune (although I live in NW Indiana), a town newspaper called the Chesterton Tribune (mostly because the subject matter is so corny and the editing so sloppy that it gives me endless stream of content for a humor filled workshop I do around the country) and another regional daily newspaper that I rely on for relevant local news. Although I have cancelled other newspaper subscriptions in the past couple of years due to redundancy, it should be clear that I am not part of the mass exodus from newspapers. In fact, I still very much enjoy the feel of printed reading material in my hands, which brings me to the point of this blog post.

There are five magazines I consider vital to my existence: Wired, Fast Company, Esquire, The Economist, and Vanity Fair. Occasionally, I throw a couple of home repair mags and specialty books like Architectural Digest and Design into the mix because design and home decorating fascinate me. I also enjoy each issue of Chicago Magazine for its feature and investigative articles. I consider myself a news and sports junkie but I have no use for sports or pop culture magazines.

This got me to wondering . . . do others have magazines that you just can't live without?

 

Nick Saban and Alabama Solicit Child Athletes

Yet another reason I will never be a Saban or Alabama fan. Nick Saban, the Head Football Coach at Alabama offered a scholarship to a 14 year-old, eighth grader so as to not be outdone by LSU who offered the same player a scholarship when he was still in elementary school. Coach Saban had a chance to set a powerful example for all those coaches who emulate him, but instead he stuck to his familiar script of football above all else and "You can never let an opportunity to win, no matter how far removed, get away." The Crimson Tide is so deep in its own muck, the institution's leadership lacks either the courage or the character to express embarrassment about this, let alone, rein in an out of control coach. National championships lose their relevance when education and common sense are relegated to recruiting afterthoughts while the higher purposes of the University and those who pursue them are made to look accessories to a vulgar act.

Life Happens Despite a Bad Social Media Effort

Just watched a video that was in my FaceBook news feed from a site called Life Happens. It's an ad for life insurance and not nearly as well done or moving as the cover image suggests. I feel ambushed on my own FB page. In fact, it is particularly poorly produced. I'll know better than to ever open a "Suggested" page again. And guess what? Surprise! It didn't sell me on buying insurance. Once again, some sucker was sold on the idea they HAD to have a FB presence without a clue about how to use social media. But people connected with the effort will circulate comments about how "sweet and touching" it is (not) and share numbers on viewership to convince everyone they have a hit. No one will mention the lack of sales but down the road some junior executive will present this tripe as their claim to fame.

Hey, Angie's List, Are You Listening?

It only takes one bad customer experience to lose my business.

I signed up this morning for Angie's List, the highly touted referral network. My wife has been after me for over a year to have a skin condition on my ankle looked at by a doctor. I detest doctors so I have avoided scheduling an appointment. Today, I decided it was time since I now have another minor skin issue on my face that has been around for a few months and doesn't seem to want to go away. After searching the Internet rating services I found that there are few dermatologists in the area and they pop up on all the free rating services. Unfortunately, in reading the reviews, I learned that the docs that are most conveniently located to me don't get particularly good reviews, have inconsistent reviews or too few reviewers for me to form an opinion. Enter Angie's List. Sign up was quick and easy. They even let me pay by PayPal.

After reviewing the top 10 or so doctors listed (they matched what I found on other lists) I called the most highly rated (all A's) on Angie's List, a Dr. Rochik Desai who is within a twenty mile radius of where I live. The call didn't go as hoped.

The phone rang a few times and sounded like it transferred to an answering service. The woman answering the phone asked me immediately if I could hold. Four minutes and forty-eight seconds later I was transferred to an extension where it rang about a half dozen times and I got a curt message that I had reached the voice mail box for extension 110.

In my message, I explained that I had called with the intention of making an appointment but since the process didn't go so well, I decided to find another doctor. I did not leave my name or number.

My next step was to log on to Angie's List customer service where I clicked the button to cancel my membership. I was immediately connected by live chat to Charles D. and he asked how he could help me. After explaining the situation to him and giving him a couple of attempts to respond, where he tried to convince me I should leave the doctor a review and consider a second try with another doctor, he courteously and promptly agreed to cancel my membership and refund my $25.

So, Dr. Desai, we won't be doing business with one another. And Angie's List, I'm sorry but the first time I tried to rely on you, the experience was less than satisfying. The good news is, Charles assures me if I ever reconsider, I can log on and renew my membership. Won't be happening this week. The lesson for all involved, you only get one chance to make a first impression.

As an aside, I couldn't end this rant without expounding on my view of the medical profession, which I think rivals the airline business for all it cares about customer service and satisfaction. Unlike others who fear going to the doctor because they're afraid something painful will happen to them or they prefer not to know what might be wrong with them, I have nothing but contempt for doctors because their profession is filed with pirates and truly insincere hacks. If there's a good doctor out there, I haven't met them. I'll live with my minor skin conditions which is better than going to a doctor that makes my skin crawl.

The Chicago Bears: A Brand Not Just Team In Distress

The Chicago Bears are a team in disarray but their on field issues are the least of their problems. I have become disinterested in the team and I don't think I'm alone. This is not just the temporary frustration of a disappointed fair weather fan. True, I will always favor my beloved city which is why I can root for both the Cubs and the White Sox. I still respect the tradition that the Bears organization represents but I no longer identify with anyone associated with the team.

An expression I've used for decades in my consulting practice is: I see me! The essence of any brand is how the target audience identifies with an entity, product or service. In sports, identifying is done with individuals. While fans can say they are loyal to a team, they inevitably name people associated with the team with whom they connect.

In the case of the Bears, fans often mention Halas, Ditka, Peyton, Sayers, Butkus, McMahon, etc. In addition to greats from the past, fans of any team will identify with current names as well. This is the Bears' problem. There isn't a single person associated with the Bears with whom I care to identify.

In recent years the character and culture of the Bears was altered. Coach Lovie Smith was recognized as aloof and arrogant which distanced him from the fans. He appeared less than tolerant, if not, at times, dismissive toward the media. Interestingly, many of his players display these same characteristics. Jay Cutler and Brian Urlacher, the offensive and defensive leaders do little to disguise their indifference toward fans and disdain for the media. The front office and the Halas family have been represented by a  series of uninspiring personalities. The Bears have lost all personality.

It's time to bring in a John Gruden type coach who attracts other expressive personalities if the Bears truly want to restore the luster their brand has lost. But every time a strong personality has risen within the organization (there were many from the 1985 team) ownership moves in another direction, almost as if to say "No one can become the face of the franchise." As much as I dislike him, what has Ray Lewis' personality meant to the Ravens? What would their respective teams be without the personalities of the Manning brothers? The Green Bay Packers have always been led by bigger than life characters.

Whatever they choose to do going forward, I will be watching the Bears, not necessarily on game day or as a fan but rather as a student of brands. It will be interesting following to what degree the value of the Bears advances or declines.

The NRA Releases It's Christmas Fantasy Wishlist

The NRA is a manufacturers' lobby group not a defender of Second Amendment rights of the American people. If you are a member of NRA you are contributing to the funding of the agenda of manufacturers, not your right to own guns.

In response to the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the NRA's only recommendation is to place armed guards in schools. Of course, this is their recommendation. To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Consider it just a coincidence that their solution would sell more guns. Oddly, they made no mention of the irresponsible conduct of the shooter's mother who left weapons available to her deranged son. She went so far as to teach him how to shoot. The NRA, in its press conference listed nearly every condition known to man which they claim contributed to this tragedy but did they lay any blame on guns and irresponsible gun owners? No, that didn't come up. Did the NRA mention the readily available assault style weapons or magazines/clips that carry multiple cartridges? No, that didn't come up. Did the NRA mention stricter gun registration procedures or a process for keeping guns out of the hands of individuals known to have severe mental health issues? No, that was missing, too. How about focusing on gun storage issues? No, they didn't cover that, either. Did they suggest either guns or ammo should be taxed higher? Not hardly.

Here are a couple of ideas I've seen elsewhere and really like, but the NRA will definitely not like: Every gun owner should be required to carry insurance based on their personal risk factors. We do it for car ownership, we do it home ownership, why not guns? The insurance industry has proven to be really good at calculating premiums for policyholders based on risk assessment. If you want to own a gun you should be responsible for any consequences including the future illegal use of it.

The public isn't allowed to own live hand grenades, bazookas, or Browning Automatic Rifles, so why is it okay to own firearms that were designed for military uses? We should have two classes of firearms: limited capacity handguns and hunting weapons for public use and all others weapons such as assault style guns should be restricted to military and law enforcement use.

If bringing down the NRA and its unholy control of Congress and society requires us to engage in a democratic battle and possible reinterpretation of the Second Amendment to clarify the real intent of that right, I'm all for it. Bring it on. Let's have a good, old-fashion, bare knuckle public examination of what is in the best interest of the people. The Founding Fathers didn't have any idea technology would advance the lethal and mass killing capabilities we have today. Own your gun if it's important to you but nothing gives you the right to own ANY weapon of your choosing. A video making the rounds on the Internet shows a bystander who thwarted a possible violent event when he turned his gun on two would-be criminals. Despite the old codgers wild west display of rampant shooting that might have just as easily harmed a bystander, I am not opposed to carry and conceal laws. If wearing a gun makes you feel more secure, be my guest. Misuse it, and face the harshest penalties we would impose on any criminal doing the same.

Years ago, a family member of mine legally carried a handgun. To avoid possibly injuring himself or someone else as a result of an unintended discharge while traveling in his car, he used to tuck the gun, barrel first into the space between seat cushions. One day, while driving to visit his girl friend, a trip he's made countless times, a fellow ahead of him slammed on his brakes at a stop sign, jumped out of his car and before my relative could react, pointed a pistol in his face, angrily demanding to know why he was being followed.

In that moment, my relative didn't know if he was about to be shot by a total stranger for a weird misunderstanding or if he could withdraw his gun fast enough from the seat cushions to defend himself. He chose to try to calm down the individual and explain he was not following the guy. The angry motorist withdrew and the incident was over. From that day on, my relative has not carried a weapon, but keeps his guns locked in a gun safe. In the moment of truth, he realized he was as likely to die with or without the gun he had previously carried for his own protection.

Manufacturers are probably downright giddy in light of recent developments. President Obama gets reelected (Buy your guns now before he bans them!) and the slaughter of innocents at the hands of a sick person and his mother. With gun sales soaring, what a festive time it must be in the homes of gun manufacturers this Holiday Season. Merry Christmas NRA.

The battle lines have been drawn and I am hopeful in the new year, the NRA will be recognized as Public Enemy #1. I for one, know where I stand. If they don't want to support effective, responsible and meaningful gun legislation, we the people can bring them down the way Big Tobacco was pared back. Gun owners, like smokers, will learn to respect the rights of others, limit their infringement on the space and health of others and pay an appropriate price to enjoy the choices they make to live life as they choose.