As fellow Daily Fix contributor Lewis Green recently pointed out in his post, What Happened to Storytelling and Anticipation in Advertising, “I’m not an advertising expert by any means but I know a little about marketing, and marketing is at its best when it features storytelling and anticipation that equals surprise.”
Seeing a recent article in Brandweek titled Strategy: P&G Sees Valuable Assets in $86M Charmin Relaunch, Lewis’s words to mind. He is so right. Storytelling is very important to brands. As are some element of anticipation and surprise. So why get away from doing it? That’s my question.
Who among us can ever forget the bespectacled grocer, Mr. Whipple, admonishing shoppers with “Please, don’t squeeze the Charmin!” You could just see how soft and downy that toilet paper was vs all of its competitors. For a utilitarian, everyday product, it seemed almost luxurious.
And the ad spots were comical, with Whipple jumping out of nowhere, always vigilant to protect his products from excessive squeezing. Whether you loved the ads or hated them, you certainly didn’t forget them.
Now, P&G has decided to put a whopping $86 million dollars behind a new advertising push for Charmin–another of the CPG company’s billion dollar brands, but what’s the catch for the consumer in the new advertising roll-out? What’s the new “story” going to be?
Get ready to be unimpressed. . . as the new ads will announce “Rediscover Charmin. Choose the one that’s best for you.” This is apparently a reference to two kinds of available product: regular and ultra.
According to Charmin brand manager Dennis Le-gault, P&G is focusing on the communicating to the consumer that “Charmin has a product specifically designed for her and her family.”
You’ve got to be kidding! $86 million worth of advertising exposure and we can only guess at how much money going to the advertising agency that cooked up this memorable (not!) verbiage up. Wouldn’t P&G have been better off to come up with a new, contemporary storyline instead? One that would resonate with consumers in 2007?
I’d like to put this to the Daily Fix’s creative contributors and readers–can you come up with a better story that would sell Charmin to a modern audience? I’m betting a lot of you can come up with great ideas to tell the Charmin story. . .and I’d love to hear from you.
Eden,
What I find funny is they are asking the sixties house wife to re-discover Charmin!
Is that really their market now? And, plus, choose the one that is best for you!!??
If there were numerous version, I maybe could see it, but there are two versions. That does not seem very custom made.
Let’s face it, custom made is not really the value proposition for toilet paper.
Neil,
Ha! That last line was great.
Maybe you’re on to something though. . . Maybe that is the demographic they’re shooting for – but people who may not be here in ten years?? Doesn’t seem like a smart growth strategy if you want your brand to be around in twenty.
Here’s one: Get radical and do some product placement. Throw that puppy into a movie like “Transformers.”
When Pepsi did that with Michael J. Fox in the 80’s it was legendary. Picture Shia LaBeouf grabbing a puffy roll of Charmin out of the clearly-recognizable-but-not-too-blatant bag of product, throwing the roll at an oncoming transformer [which of course somehow saves the young star] and exclaiming, “Wow! I never knew you could use THAT stuff for more than one thing!”
Bam. Of course you know it would be just that easy
Here’s a tagline – “Charmin: It Can Save Yo Ass”
Eden,
I like it. If the “strong” Charmin is that strong it should be good for a lot of things. Q from could issue some to James Bond to repel or bungy jump out of bad situations.
The soft version could somehow transformed into a bed later in the movie. Q is good. He can get these things done.
I hope this observation from a non-ad pro is relevant.
Sometimes it’s not just the storyline, it’s the product.
I came across this discussion because I’m a very disgruntled Charmin customer, and was searching the web for the name of the Charmin brand manager so I can write a complaint to him (And I’ve NEVER written a letter like that to a company before.) Not that I expect it will do any good. I’ve bought Charmin for about 20 years and I think I’m close to done with this brand.
The recent changes have all the appearance of some overpaid brand manager trying to earn his keep by doing _something_.
Here are my beefs with ‘new’ Charmin:
1. Which customer, in their right mind, ever bought Charmin because it was ’strong?’ I used to know exactly what I wanted: Charmin ‘regular’ with the red label. This was regular Charmin, soft and reliable. When they introduced the roll sizes at different prices that was a little wierd, but I could then adjust to a bigger or smaller roll depending on how ‘flush’ I was feeling.
Now the Red label Charmin is something called ‘Charmin Ultra Strong’
“Excuse me?” if I wanted ’strong’ why would I be buying Charmin? Frankly, this ’strong’ Charmin stuff reminds me of some kind of industrial belt material. Not soft, not nice and plush, not Charmin!
From the Charmin site:
“Our New Charmin® Ultra Strong has a 2-ply Diamond Weave texture that makes it more durable.”
“Diamond Weave?” How about “Diamond Plate!!!”
I bought it once, felt fooled and never will again.
2. Charmin Ultra – The softest, plushest around. More expensive, but hey, sometimes you just would say what the heck and go for it. The Blue label was an Ultra version of the already great Charmin product, the ultra-softest around and, while not always what I wanted or needed, I knew what Charmin in the bue label meant.
Now everything is ‘ultra.’
Hint: If everything is ‘Ultra’ then nothing is.
I really hate that now if I want Charmin softness, I have to buy the more expensive Ultra.
3. Charmin Basic – Charmin customers don’t want Basic. Basic TP customers buy single ply rolls of bleached cardboard! I suspect good old regular Charmin in the red label is now Basic. I’m not sure. I’ll try it, but I don’t have high hopes.
4. These ads with the dancing bears hoovering each other’s butts? Where do I even begin? Moronic and offensive. But not offensive in a “hey did you see that commercial” buzz-building offensive, like Paris Hilton fellating an Arby’s burger or something. But offensive to me as a customer. Yes, it deals with a particular aspect of Charmin (how far do I go down this path without getting gross?) But Charmin customers know what they are getting. Now we’ve been ‘dumb, dirty bears’ for all these years?
Well, I don’t know if this is the type of comment you guys want on this blog. I thought I’d share a point of view of a customer, not an ad or marketing pro. And rant a little.
Regards,
Mike
NYC
Dick Wilson, the actor who play Mr. Whipple, has died. He was 91.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_en_tv/obit_mr__whipple;_ylt=ApsjThWNniPlBzHjPqUsc8MDW7oF
Mike, your point is well taken, with the help of Mr. Whipple, they owned the “soft” position once. Am I right or am I right?
So why do they go to Ultra this and Ultra that? Doesn’t that confuse matters?
Has something changed in our society so radically that we need Ultra strong TP?
Why not re-capture the soft position, my friends. Why not?
May the king of soft rest in peace.
Thanks for an insightful “rant”, Mike. As a customer, you have something valuable to say to P&G about their Charmin products and their marketing. Hope they pay attention to their customers on this.
Neil, thanks for your input on the subject, too, as well as the short but eloquent send-off for Dick Wilson, aka Mr. Whipple, who passed away this week. As many news reporters have stated, he was an icon and many of us have fond memories of him.
What I want to know is what has changed in our society to make “Ultra Strong” a value proposition for TP?
For duct tape and security fences, give us Ultra Strong; for TP, soft will do just fine.
Who are these people that go in for Ultra Strong TP? And how are they different (market segments) from those who go in for Ultra Soft?
All I have to say is I hope we don’t have “Ultra Strong” dads influencing the next election. God knows who they would support.
P&G, honor the memory of “The King of Soft.” Take back soft! And get rid of Ultra for God’s sake. Nothing is Ultra unless it flies.
I have to chime in my two bits about the relevancy of “softness” in toilet paper. Of all the characteristics I hope to experience in toilet paper, softness is not in my top three. What I want to know is 1) will it get the job done well? Some of the softer brands take more runs at it (no pun intended) then the less soft brands. 2) Am I going to punch through? 3) anti-dingleberry qualities. Now, put me on the P & G task force to figure out how to convey those messages! Personally, I think that toilet paper companies choose to peddle the “soft” button because they don’t have to deal with the real issues. Soft is just that–a soft sell.
Good point Pulis.
Perhaps soft and strong are what make a good TP?
Frankly, though, I have to say that P&G knows the answer to this much, much better than I. For some reason, though, this conversation has been a lot of fun from the beginning.