Verrry interesting.

Does anyone remember (actually, it was so long ago it's almost ancient history) how Coke got it's big break and became a top brand?

The story I heard goes like this: When the Great Depression hit, the top soda brand was Moxie, a concoction, still available today, that tastes like sour cough syrup.

Coca-Cola was a virtual unknown. But Moxie, in response to a bad economy, decided to cut back on advertising. Coke saw an opportunity and went on the warpath with a major ad blitz.
A good chunk of it, if memory serves me right, involved offering cash-poor farmers good money to let Coke paint "Drink Coca-Cola" on the sides or roofs of their barns.

By the end of the second world war, Coca-Cola was the number one soft drink in the world.

I throw this out to everyone: Do you think it's possible to build a powerful brand today, as Coke had, through advertsing?

In the late 1800s Coke engaged in several promotions, issuing coupons and putting up banners and streetcar signs to create awareness for the brand.

Then in 1901, Coke developed a calendar featuring model Hilda Clark, she was the first person hired as an official Coca Cola spokesperson.

Based off of all the information I have read on the history of Coke and its advertising, by the 1920s Coke was already widely known throughout the United States.

I definitely believe it is still possible to build a powerful brand with advertising. Where campaigns fail today is that they do not address the universal needs of the consumer. To draw upon a blog I wrote several weeks ago but is extremely relevant to our topic "Bill Bernbach once said “…nothing is so powerful as an insight into human nature, what compulsions drive a man, what instincts dominate his action, even though his language so often camouflages what really motivates him. For if you know these things about (a) man you can touch him at the core of his being.”

It is this foundation upon which the best communications platforms are built and sustained.

Good stuff, Scott. But would that communications platform be advertising, today? That's what I'm skeptical about. I think about some of the big brands today -- Google, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and (dont's shoot me Ann), Starbucks -- none of them built their brands with ads. (Though, yes, Apple advertises. But I'd argue its brand is built by customer loyalty/WOM and sustained by ads.) The only ad-driven brand I can think of from the top of my head is Absolut -- and boy, that is one expensive, big bucks ad campaign.

Great point, Jonathan. I think it depends on four factors. One: the category; Two: competition; Three: the product; and Four: total sales.

Minus Starbucks, these brands are all technology companies. The products they create are used by enthusiasts who like technology for technology sake. Through the adoption life-cycle, which usually happens based on WOM, early adopters embrace the new product based off of the benefits it provides. These two groups make up only a small percentage of the total population. So in order to achieve a large percentage of market share, I truly believe a company has to advertise in order to create awareness among the majority.

Actually, of the brands I mentioned, only one, Microsoft, is a technology company. The others (sans Starbucks of course) involve technology, but from the consumer's perspective -- which is the only one that counts -- Apple is a consumer electronics company, eBay is an auctioner and Google is a service. Of these, only Apple can be described as having a following of tech enthsusiasts for technology's sake (and that's for an ever smaller portion of its business).

I'd argue that these are among today's big consumer brands -- and they've built their success on tools, like PR and WOM, that are not ad based.

Hate to rain on your parade here but the latest listing from Business Week of the Top Tech Companies (include Google, Apple, Microsoft) and Business 2.0 of the 100 Fastest-Growing Tech Companies (include Apple and E-Bay.)

Also, in July of 1976 Apple released its first computer, the Apple-1 at the Byte Shop in California. They used flyers to advertise the benefits of it's "Low Cost Microcomputer System."

Rain away Scott, but if those magazines really think of these companies first and foremost as tech companies, they're wrong. No one goes to Google or eBay to buy their technology. And I don't care what Apple did 30 years ago (30 years ago!); today, Apple is thriving becuase of iPods, a consumer electronics product.

Good article - makes you think about why you really liked Coke. Just for "fun" I went to www.coke.com and I was dumbfounded when I didn't see any mention of this new marketing campaign on the main pages of the site. So much for integrated marketing. No wonder this new campaign will probably fail!

Chad

It's not the only reason Coke's marketing is stupid. Here's another:

http://www.absurdmarketing.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=51

well i dont think so.......