This past November, I gave thanks for humor in marketing, one example of which was the Miller High Life “Man Laws” campaign (created by Crispin, Porter & Bogusky, Miami). I am now sorry to report that the effort, though apparently popular and engaging for customers, did not result in the increased sales the brand had hoped. It’s been pulled (for now)….
The sales may not add up, but the Man Law Violations site has been active. My favorite “violation” is this one (above), which has an appropriate photo alongside it: “Technology that makes you look like a mumbling crazy person is not cool.” (here, here)
Instead, as Jeremy Mullman wrote in an Advertising Age article), the replacement campaign will not include Burt Reynolds and will return to the traditional:
“The new ads, expected to air until new work from Crispin replaces them in April, are a return to the more comparative style of advertising Miller employed during its 2003-2004 renaissance, when it gained market share from No. 1 brewer Anheuser-Busch by declaring superiority in taste, carbohydrate count and other areas.”
Boring!
Then I read today in a Wall Street Journal piece by Suzanne Vranica that Anheuser-Busch is doing the opposite — returning to humorous ads. Hmmm.
I’m wondering what might have happened if Miller had allowed a bit more time… for the campaign to build AND for gathering more great stories and pictures from Miller High Life drinkers. There seems to be a lot of consumer-generated content potential therein.
Ah well.
Andrea – With you, I’m sorry to see the Man Law ads go. I found that very amusing. Too bad for Miller I don’t drink beer. Maybe if they’d done more with it – like solicit suggestions for new Man Laws, or run a contest among Miller drinkers for a chance to sit on the panel, they could have more closely connected the ad campaign to sales. (If they did either of these things, I didn’t see them.) Anyway, I’ll be sad to see them go.
Andrea,
I have been thinking about your post all day. Now I am ready to offer an opinion.
Like you, I find the Miller Lite ads entertaining. However, they don’t induce me to drink the beer. And here are a few reasons (and questions) why:
1. I am 60 something and long ago chose my beer, so unless a new product appears that convinces me to try it, I won’t be switching.
2. Who is Miller Lite marketing to? The ad appeals to me partly because I like Burt Reynolds and the other old f**rts. But I doubt that their key market, 20s and 30s, know any of these guys. Younger folks and women who aren’t really beer drinkers must be their target market. Why? Because by the time beer drinkers get into their 40s, their beer choices are pretty solid.
3. And how many “men” drink lite beer. How do “Man Laws” resonate with its key market? Women non-beer drinkers are more likely to choose a lite beer, so age (and taste) matters less.
4. Most important: The last time I tried a new beer was Sam’s Lager. But not because of entertaining ads. Nope. The ads discussed what goes into making a Sam’s and why it tastes great. Guess what beer drinkers care about? It is taste, not entertainment, but taste.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t Miller run a campaign in ‘02 where Miller drinkers showed how they spent their Miller Time?
They had cameras following a handful of drinkers while they partied and guzzled beer in their element. One could argue this campaign was a forerunner of the social marketing movement.
This is somewhat reminiscent of Spike Jones’ article on MPDailyFix, found here: http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2007/01/further_proof_traditional_adve.html
I also dig the entertainment value of ads like these, but, like Maureen, I agree that to be successful it, a campaign must provide a mode of engagement that encourages experimentation with something they have no other motivation to try. Overcoming the barriers Lewis describes in this day and age, where we are bombarded with advertising messages at every turn (to Spike’s point) is a formidable challenge.
Andrea:
Too often advertising defaults to “amusing” instead of “sells more stuff”. Lewis is right on in his comment up top — make better beer and more people will drink it. Innovate, launch something remarkably good (like Sam Adams, thank you again), and then tell the world something worth saying.
The Man Laws are very, very funny. Great comedy. Doesn’t sell beer. A shame, but that’s what it’s there for.
I think these spots are very funny and I applaud their creativity. I haven’t been involved in CPG for quite some time, so maybe my questions will sound naive.
Are these spots supposed to single-handedly convince beer drinkers to switch product or give this brand a try? Are they part of a larger marketing mix intended to engage consumers, build increased brand awareness, and eventually increase sales? I always come back to – what’s the strategic objective?
I wonder if the ads were developed to make current drinkers of MHL (I think it is Miller High Life and not Lite, Lewis) get more psyched about the little community they were in – as Elaine says.. it was a small piece of a larger marketing mix. I definitely see that the bottomline is increased sales – but you have to invest in the customer to get them to invest in your brand, right? As Maureen pointed out – they could have done a lot more, right away with the web site and consumer interactions. The idea was there, but not enough follow through or longer term/integrated effort.
Andrea,
The fact that I apparently didn’t know which beer is being advertised says it all: at least for this one beer drinker. I am old-fashioned but I don’t think entertainment sells beer, unless the beer is the focus of the story, as in the Guinness commercials.
Andrea,
I actually had the great pleasure of working on the ad campaign as I was the Director of Advertising for Miller Lite at the time. Truth be told, all our internal indicators said that this campaign was working and working hard. The direct linkage to sales is always difficult, but the truth is that most of our predictive measures were strong. The fact is that we at Miller had Bud Light reeling with most of our marketing efforts for the prior three years and this was just another great idea to gain even more share from Bud Light. If you check the facts, you will see that Budweiser took a very significant price cut that same year to essentially take the wind out of our sails. It worked. Miller Lite sales started to decline after three stunning years of growth. The reaction from sr. executives at Miller? They took the easy way out and blamed the ad campaign becuase it was an easy scape goat. We weren’t literally “selling the beer” in the ads….it was this old school of thinking that led them down the terrible path of where they are today. Declines every year since. Too bad because we had some great executions in mind.