As a client, does Starbucks suck?

 

 

Wieden & Kennedy gave Starbucks the big boot. Who saw that coming? I most certainly didn’t. Despite Starbucks very overpriced and bitter coffee, it still seems to keep its hold on the coffee market. Wouldn’t this be a brand that Wieden would want to keep a hold of? Apparently not. It seems that Starbucks, along with bad coffee, is also a bad client. 

When hiring an advertising agency, a company needs to trust the agencies taste and talent. That is why there is a big pitch process, so both brand and agency can ensure that their relationship will be beneficial. Obviously, the company is expected to be involved in the campaign, but there is a line between being involved and micromanaging. This was apparently the line that Starbucks didn’t understand – they have been known as a difficult client for quite awhile.

Starbucks, as a brand, has been very under-advertised. This was how they saw their brand in the market and it has always worked. However, Wieden wanted to further the brand and Starbucks wasn’t into it. Remember the Holiday 2007 “Pass the Cheer” advertisements? Those were tastefully executed and fit the brand perfectly. You can practically taste the red cups. 

Television ads just don’t seem to be the route that Starbucks wants to take. Thus ends the professional relationship between Wieden & Kennedy (based in Portland) and Starbucks (based in Seattle). 

Neither party is going to suffer too greatly from the severing of ties. Wieden can continue to work on other successful campaigns including Nike and P&G and Starbucks can continue to provide morning java to the entire world. And, it seems that we will see more Starbucks ads in the future. The brand confirms that they will be hiring agencies in the future on a project by project basis.

Nike: Crispin Out, Wieden Back In

Wieden+Kennedy and Nike go hand in hand. While Dan Wieden was working at McCann-Erickson, he famously met Phil Knight when Knight said to Wieden “Hi, I’m Phil Knight and I hate advertising.” Though Wieden’s opinion, I’m sure, differed from Knight, it was a brand match made in heaven. From that, Wieden and David Kennedy left McCann-Erickson to form Wieden+Kennedy. When they left, Nike went with them. That was the beginning of the beautiful pairing of a worldwide brand and a firstclass ad agency.

Fast forward to April 2007, when Nike announced that they were taking their running-shoe and Nike-Plus business to Crispin Porter & Bogusky. It was a short-lived relationship, though, because Nike just announced that they are heading back to Wieden. To me, this just seems like a no brainer. I understand the need for a fresh take on ads and Crispin and Wieden certainly have different styles, but the Nike/Wieden relationship has worked out for so many years. They have grown up together. It is no surprise that Nike came back to Wieden after just 13 months.

As for Crispin, they recognized that they were given a blessing when Nike decided to jump on board with them. And, they bowed out gracefully. CEO Jeff Hicks released this statement: “We will forever be in awe of the company that is Nike and wish them nothing but the best.” I will forever be in awe of Nike as well.

If you haven’t seen the very creative and complex ad that Crispin did for Nike-Plus, please take a look. You’ll be impressed at how Crispin sticks with the Nike style while adding a Crispin twist.

Ignite Portland

Do you know what you would say if you had five minutes on a stage? This is made possible for people with creative ideas by an event known as Ignite. The event is brought together by volunteers and presenting and admission are free of charge. People who are interested in presenting contact the organizers for a spot in the show, which happens on a single evening. If a presenter is chosen, he or she is allowed a Power Point presentation with 20 slides and a five minute presentation. Funding comes entirely from sponsors who donate the venue (Wieden + Kennedy was the venue for Portland) and food or drinks if requested.

Ignite Portland is about sharing original ideas with people who are interested. There is no single keynote speaker and there is no specific theme. The main rule is “Don’t Be Stupid” and a good presentation is one that is informative, fun, engaging, unique and not a pitch. Presentations can be for commercial ideas, but the presentation needs to be executed smartly or the Ignite audience will reject it. Some presentations in Portland had valuable topics such as “Are Surveys Useful?” and “Emergence in Business.” These topics were separated by topics like “As the Wheel Turns: Learning to Unicycle” and “You Give Good TXT: How to Talk to Someone Romantically Online.”

Ignite seems like it is a great experience for those interested. It would be fun to create a presentation about a topic of my choice and present it to an audience who will pay attention. I think this is a very cool opportunity for people who are trying to get an idea out on the table. After a group of presentations, there is a break for the audience to personally interact with the presenters. This is a very beneficial networking opportunity for presenters who are looking for people to interact with about their idea. Though I don’t see this as particularly important to society, I do think that it is a unique opportunity for interactions between people who would otherwise interact. Planners would see this as a great opportunity to test their ideas and get constructive feedback. Ignite attracts audiences who are eager to learn from presenters.

Planners could use this (a free event, remember) as a way to conduct research or test potential insights. Ignite has a strict format that includes 20 slides and 15 seconds on each slide, so creativity would be limited. Ignite wouldn’t replace other forms of qualitative research because only a small portion of consumers would be represented and there is no way to guarantee that the target demographic is in attendance. That aside, Ignite events would be a beneficial and cheap way for planners to communicate with audiences.