Branding Bricks

Redskins Nickname Change More Than a Brand Issue

Gregg — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:12:21 +0000

This is probably going to make some people mad, but here goes.

The Washington Redskins need to change their team nickname to something less offensive.

I know that change would be unpopular with Washington’s fans. I know it would be really expensive. I know team owner Daniel Snyder has vowed to “NEVER” (his caps, not mine) change the nickname.

But it needs to go. It’s morally questionable to identify your silly sports team’s nickname with an entire people (which, by the way, suffered tremendously when Europeans arrived in the New World, and still do today in many ways).

But it’s dead wrong to call out the color of that people’s skin … AND use that image in the team logo. I personally think less of the Redskins and its brand because of it. That’s also why I’m choosing not to include an image of that logo in this post. Go a Google search if you don’t know what it looks like.

The franchise has been known as the Redskins since 1933 when it was based in Boston. Since then, it’s won five National Football League championships, including three Super Bowls, and up until the early 1990s had been year in and year out one of the most competitive teams in the NFL.

Since Snyder bought the team in 1999, Washington has had just four winning seasons and no Super Bowl appearances – so winning and championships clearly aren’t core to the brand. So Snyder has to fall back on the “tradition” of the Redskins.

“We will never change the name of the team,” Snyder said in an article posted on ESPN’s website this week. “As a lifelong Redskins fan, and I think that the Redskins fans understand the great tradition and what it’s all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season.”

Here’s how I interpret that statement: Whatever the Redskins brand stands for is more important than the people it purports to represent, and I’m not willing to engage in meaningful discussion on this topic. So there.

Too harsh? I think not. Consider Snyder’s parting statement in that same article.

“We’ll never change the name,” he said. “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

He may not agree that the term Redskins is morally offensive, but as a billionaire businessman, I would guess he understands the power a brand can have and the force for influence it can be. People associate with brands they cherish. Clearly, Washington’s fans have a deep love of what the team represents.

But what would it say to those fans – and to the rest of the NFL, and Native Americans – if he took the lead in assigning a new nickname to that tradition? Wouldn’t that send the message that we need to move on as a society toward treating everyone with respect? With the right on- and off-field personnel moves, it could rebrand the franchise as a winner.

Maybe this is the real litmus test: At an average Washington home game, of the 85,000 fans that attend, how many are Native American?

A name change won’t happen anytime soon, of course. But it should. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Cleveland Indians Chief Wahoo cartoon logo. And maybe the Atlanta Braves tomahawk.

Let’s do this right.

The Heavy Lifting of Brand Building and Team Leadership

Gregg — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:05:14 +0000

David Meerman Scott, one of people I look up to professionally, said to think about social media as a big cocktail party, where you float from one conversation to another. I’d add that for many of us, what you pick up from those conversations shapes your world view in ways that weren’t possible 10 years ago.

Case in point: I was riding the bus to work a few weeks ago, and as I’m into philosophy, I posted a quote on Twitter that I thought was insightful. That was RT’d by some people, including someone named @CoachMallett. We exchanged some tweets, and turns out he’s Ryan Mallett, a U.S. Olympic weightlifting coach and official from Piscataway, N.J., working primarily at the beginner level, i.e., teenagers.

That conversation went to email, because I wanted to know more about the parallels between the mental toughness needed in weightlifting vs. working in business, and how that translates to team leadership and ultimately building a brand. Here’s what he told me:

Q: How does someone in business maintain their mental edge, even under the pressure of making decisions that will affect how a brand is perceived on a large scale – even globally?

A: Without mental toughness, your success is limited in anything you do. You have to be willing to put in a lot of time and hard work, no matter the positive or negative outcomes, and continue to press on while ignoring uncertainty.

Q: What are the most effective ways to lead a team? How do you get a team to embrace your vision?

A: Leading a team, in business or athletics, is like leading a symphony. You have many different instruments that have to perform in concert, directed by a leader everyone syncs with and respects. As a leader, I think it’s necessary to understand each individual aspect of your team and see what value they bring on an individual level, and then how that can best serve the team. Understanding weaknesses is just as important as understanding strengths. So in leading, you have to understand the demands of the job – or sport – as a whole, and then each position, and in regard to whom you have in those positions and what they bring individually. Are they right for that position, or can they be of better help to the team elsewhere? In Olympic weightlifting, you are part of a team, and you are also are an individual looking for personal bests or records, and that helps your team overall.

Q: Is it fair to say you’re helping build the future brand of U.S. Olympic Weightlifting and future leaders?

A: I would say that’s correct. Every athlete that we can get turned on to even using Olympic lifts, regardless of their current sport, is an opportunity to expose them to Olympic weightlifting. In fact, a lot of other sports use these lifts in their weight training programs. Sports, in general, are very important for the development of our youth to learn discipline, teamwork, camaraderie, focus, skill building, responsibility, respect and good sportsmanship. All these translate to life outside of athletics, which is why teaching youth good habits and behaviors are so important.

With guys like Coach Mallett influencing our kids and shaping their values, I have to feel good about the future of leadership in business, not to mention U.S. Olympic weightlifting.

And one more thing: That’s a lot of rich insight from Coach Mallett; he influenced me, and now you through this blog. None of that would have been possible without engagement through social media.

Yet Another Example of Brands Behaving Badly

Gregg — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:21:18 +0000

Some brands just don’t "get it," so to speak. There’s a fine line between marketing and darn near stalking. Choose the latter, and it’s to the peril of your brand perception.

Here’s an example from my life. A year ago this month, I bought a new car, and it’s been a great investment. The car came with three free months of satellite radio from a well-known brand, which didn’t really interest me, but as long as it was free, I thought I’d probably try it.

Fact was, I really didn’t, and the few times I tried to access it, all I got was gangsta rap. Now, I like some gangsta rap, but not all the time; I’m in my new car, using the digital display to scroll up and down through the channels, but couldn’t find any other options, nor could I figure out how to find a specific channel. I’m a busy guy, so I gave up.

As the three-month period lapsed, the mailings started – just about every month, a "come on back!" offer arrived in my snail mailbox. After awhile, it almost become a joke, and I remember saying a couple of times, "Yeah … not interested …" and shredding the mail.

So this week, what arrives but an official-looking yellow-and-white envelope with the words "Expedited Delivery" in bold letters, along with information about the mailing’s weight, value, zone (whatever that means) and a place for a signature. (See the photo.) Thinking this really was something important, I opened it up … and it’s yet ANOTHER mailing from this provider, basically the same exact thing I’ve been getting for a year.

"We have a special Welcome Back offer – just for you: 6 months for $25.*," it said in the first paragraph, and also noted that I will "Pay only $25* for your first 6 months to reactivate" and "Reactivation is FREE*". So … am I paying $25 to reactivate for six months, or is reactivation free? And what about all those asterisks?

Whatever. Here’s what this brand has told me about itself:

It will go to any length to get my business, including misleading me.

It’s not environmentally friendly. Think about all the paper, postage and transport costs to get an ad in front of my eyes.

There are a lot of strings attached.

And, the service that they want me to pay for may or may not work.

This is also a major brand I’m talking about – which I’m not going to mention by name. In my opinion, a major brand that should know better, and have a less-amateurish approach.

I’m here to tell you that this brand has managed to build a negative perception in my mind, and as an influencer, I’m free to share my experience (and this blog post) with those who ask my opinion.

And that’s a viral problem that can’t be neutralized.

What about you? Do you have a similar example of brands behaving badly? Tell me about it below.

The Emperor’s Handbook: Brand, Leadership Lessons from Marcus Aurelius

Gregg — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:51:49 +0000

The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, who reigned from 161 to 180 A.D., is considered one of the world’s foremost Stoic philosophers.

So what does he have to say about building brands and leadership? Turns out a lot – I just finished reading The Emperor’s Handbook, a compilation of his philosophical writings, which was recently listed by Harvard Business Review as one of the top 11 books every young leader should read.

Here are just a few pearls of wisdom from the emperor that brand builders should contemplate in their daily work:

“Jettison your cargo of opinion and you are saved. Who prevents you from doing this?” Marcus Aurelius knew that we’re biased by our own experience, which forms our opinions. The dangerous part for brand builders is to allow opinion – which can devolve into pre-conceived notions, bias and even out-and-out bigotry – to shape our thinking as it is applied to what a brand is and what it could be. In other words, I take this as being mindful that what you think is just one viewpoint; try to see the challenge and opportunity from other viewpoints. You have that capability.
“What binds humankind to one another is not blood and family ties, but the community of the mind.” I thought this quote was so good, I shared it with my team the other day, all of whom work in social media. In the virtual world, kindred spirits tend to congregate, which is to really say they are a community of the mind. That means social media community managers are trying to build a sort of tribal enclave of like-minded people under the flag of that brand. It’s not just planning and posting and responding. It’s a much deeper, more noble cause
“Look always at the whole. What is it that has made this impression on your senses? Analyze it by breaking it down into cause, matter, purpose and duration.” This really speaks to disciplining yourself to look at the big picture and its component parts, as opposed to focusing on just a few (or only one) of those parts. What the emperor is suggesting, then, is the beginnings of strategic thought, and divorcing oneself from one-dimensional thinking.
“Guard against making the mistake of those who keep themselves so busy trying to gain control that they wear themselves out and lose their sense of direction, having no purpose to guide their actions or even their thoughts.” Like Harry Kraemer said in From Values to Action, everyone can choose to be a leader, no matter where they are in an organization. Through that lens, I interpret this quote as leadership is not about being control-hungry – it’s about being comfortable enough to let go of control to those you’ve mentored, with whom you’ve shared your vision. To me, the wrong way is to burn oneself out by being a micro-manager and essentially trying to turn your team into a bunch of robots that you simply program. I’ve been on the receiving end of that, and that approach is divisiveness personified.

These bullets merely scratch the surface of what brand builders can find in The Emperor’s Handbook, and at 145 pages, it could be a viewed as a fast read. But like anything philosophical, I encourage you to take your time and soak in the thinking, so you can find ways to apply it. I’ll conclude with what’s considered the emperor’s signature quote that’s appropos for any human being, no matter their endeavor:

“It’s up to you!”

For the Cubs Brand, Winning – Not Wrigley – Should be Prime Focus

Gregg — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:28:35 +0000

ESPN’s Rick Reilly wrote a column this week about the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field that harked back to a post I wrote about a year and a half ago about the Cubs brand.

In his column, Reilly basically says the Cubs can’t win at Wrigley Field, and it’s costing the team as much as $73 million per year to play there. You’ll have to read the column to understand how his math works out, but it makes sense. He’s particularly hard on the businesses around the ballpark that are capitalizing on the Cubs brand and at the same time holding them hostage. I was astounded to read that the Cubs get just 17% of proceeds from the rooftop owners around the park, who also aren’t keen on the team adding a modern video scoreboard, because, well, their customers won’t be able to see the game. Really?

Reilly also has plenty of choice words about the stadium itself: "Imagine the players they don’t get — because of their weird start times, their rotting training facilities, their wimpy weight room, their nonexistent in-game batting cage, their backachingly small clubhouse and their 104-year ringless streak."

I’ve toured Wrigley Field, and everything he says is true. The clubhouse, for example, is completely inadequate for the needs (and expectations!) of today’s players. See the photo above from my tour.

Reilly says Cubs owner Tom Ricketts is willing spend $300 million in renovating the ballpark that was built in 1914, along with another $200 million for a hotel and fitness club nearby.

That’s a LOT of money. But is it well spent, and will it build the Cubs brand? Doubtful.

To me, winning is the ultimate brand builder for any sports franchise, plain and simple. And I mean winning championships, not just being a consistent playoff team.

The Cubs haven’t won a World Series since 1908 and haven’t been to one since 1945. In fact, they’re known as the Loveable Losers. Is that really the brand perception you want for your team?

Some may say the Cubs are more about the entire experience, which includes Wrigley Field – the ivy, the manual scoreboard, the bricks, etc. True, but sports is a business today, bottom line, and like any business, a sports franchise has to do everything it can to maximize its opportunity to win titles, and that’s both on and off the field. Wrigley Field doesn’t let the Cubs do that; I’m sorry, but it’s true.

Being a champion is the kind of brand perception that builds on itself over time; look at the New York Yankees, or in the NFL, the Green Bay Packers. Those teams, and their fans, expect to win championships. And you know what? They don’t win them every year, but they do win them.

I was driving around today and saw a Cubs billboard that shouted: "Not if. When." Literally my initial thought: "Never?" Here’s more about the team’s 2013 marketing campaign and that slogan.

"It’s simple, Chicago. You can either have your creaky, quaint, vine-covered crypt, or you can win. But you can’t have both," Reilly said.

Totally agree.

The All-Bran Tweet Shop: Fusing Taste, Marketing and Social Media to Build a Brand

Gregg — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:08:51 +0000

Now, here’s an idea I just love because it fuses taste, marketing and social media to build a brand.

Wrapping up a three-day run today in Toronto’s Eaton Centre was the All-Bran Tweet Shop, hosted by Kellogg Canada, which launched the brand-new Kellogg’s All-Bran Cranberries & Clusters cereal. According to this post by GigaMom blogger Eileen Fisher, the concept was simple – show up at the Eaton Centre, visit the attractively designed All-Bran Tweet Shop, try a sample and make a post using the hashtag #AllBranTweetShop, either using your phone or on-site tablets. That entitled you to a free full-size box of cereal.

I like bran. I like cranberries. I like clusters. But I love savvy marketing and PR that builds brands, which is exactly what this was. It was promoted as Canada’s very first Tweet Shop. And frankly, that’s a lot like what Jim Nowakowski from Interline Creative Group here in Chicago said in his blog post yesterday about getting in the door with customers. And if you haven’t got a door, go through a window.

Or, in this case, build a Tweet Shop and get them to use their social media posts as currency. The point is, find a way to connect.

But to me, there’s more than one social media angle here. Follow the bouncing ball.

I found out about this idea yesterday morning when I was on LinkedIn; Samantha Esteves from VerdiBleu in Toronto made a discussion post on the Business Branding Network (BBN) Group about it. As a member, it caught my attention, so we connected and she sent me Eileen’s post. This morning, I found out that a Twitter connection of mine, Catherine Heroux from Strategic Objectives, was heavily involved in planning this event.

This world we live in is sometimes so incredibly small, it’s crazy. Catherine and I got talking about the event, the thinking behind it and the traffic the Tweet Shop was getting today, which was a lot. If you want proof, search #AllBranTweetShop on Twitter. Then, type All-Bran Tweet Shop into Google and check out the coverage – and not just of the news release.

"Kellogg’s All-Bran Cranberries & Clusters cereal is an innovative new product and we wanted to launch it to consumers in an equally innovative way," said Andrew Loucks, VP of Marketing for Kellogg Canada. "The All-Bran Tweet Shop, Canada’s first-ever Tweet Shop, is a unique way to both engage consumers with the brand and give them the opportunity to share their experience with their social networks.

"The Shop also provides us with the opportunity to connect with consumers both online and offline," he said. "Canadians spend an average of 7.7 hours each month on social networking sites. Research also shows that about 20 percent of online Canadians use Twitter. At the All-Bran Tweet Shop visitors simply have to Tweet using #AllBranTweetShop. And, if they don’t have a Twitter account? No problem. Posting a message on Facebook is the alternate currency accepted to ‘purchase’ a full-size box of the new cereal."

I like the use of social media posts as currency, because it adds a unique value to the event that’s quantifiable after it’s over to gauge how successful it was. But just as important is what all those visitors will say afterward, verbally or virtually, along with people like me who couldn’t be there.

Maybe we should call that earned interest on all that currency.

Unique Content: Truth or Consequences for Brands?

Gregg — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:03:12 +0000

“It is not slickness, polish, uniqueness, or cleverness that makes a brand a brand. It is truth.” -Harry Beckwith

I love that quote, because – if you’ll pardon the pun – it’s so true. A company can dedicate immense resources to its branding efforts, but that’s all for naught if it doesn’t reflect a fundamental basic in life: truth. B2C or B2B; we’re in the era of the empowered customer, according to IBM – technology like the Internet and social media channels mean customers have more power than ever before in their decision-making. Intense competition means more choices.

I speculate most customers aren’t only price-oriented, but also seek an experience with a brand that makes them feel comfortable and confident and aligns with their values. In other words, that’s their definition of truth; not necessarily (or not only) base honesty. When customers find all those things, they talk about it, on social media channels and elsewhere, which creates brand identity, perception and reputation.

But can a brand, for lack of a better phrase, "orchestrate" that experience? I wonder if that’s what’s happening with the amount of unique content being generated and flooding social media channels. I visited the website of Beckwith Partners and ran across this post from Harry, which I encourage you to read, because it’s both impactful and short, maybe 150-200 words. In it he talks about the immense amount of content being generated, most of which is less than useful and thus in his mind "noise":

"Some days I feel overwhelmed by the noise. Are others? And is the world of ‘content’ sowing the seeds of its own destruction? Anyone?"

Like Harry, I do sometimes wonder if social media as a means of unique content delivery is doing little but turning customers off. There is so much of it, and a lot of it is accompanied by intrusive attempts at engagement that are about as transparent as plastic wrap. Collectively, I wonder if that’s building mental walls in the minds of customers over time.

Like I said in the last post, having a lot of content is fine, but especially in the case of social media channels, it has to be planned to meet the specific needs of a brand’s followers (i.e., the tribe members I mentioned), and not merely posted and forgotten. Where I think some (many?) brands are going wrong is by blasting out a bunch of content with the hope of getting more followers, likes, etc. That strategy may equate to quantifiable/justifiable data, but it’s also backward thinking.

Lack of engagement, and connection, dilutes the opportunity for their content, and that brand, to align with a specific customer’s needs, and ultimately, their definition of truth.

What do you think? Is there just too much unique content? And if so, what’s the solution? Let me know your thoughts below.

More of the Biggest Social Media Mistakes Brands Make

Gregg — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:07:36 +0000

Saw this piece on Ragan.com recently about the five biggest social media mistakes brands make, which according to writer Jessica Malnik are:

You think you are your audience.
You assume there’s a direct correlation between the number of "likes" and sales.
You think just being present is enough.
You buy in to data overload.
You keep social media in a silo.

Know what? I agree with all five, and Jessica’s rationale. But why limit it to five? I’ve got a few more that I’d like to suggest.

You think your followers can’t wait for all that content you blast out on a regular basis. Social media is based on engaging with the people that have chosen to follow your brand and, as I’ve argued elsewhere on this blog, actually connecting with them as well. Having a lot of content to draw on is fine, but at the end of day, is it helping your followers? Is it empowering them to solve their problems? Carefully using content as part of the engagement process to do just that will make your brand a trusted resource and a thought leader.

You assume you have to be on all social media channels. Or, you assume you have to be on just one. Authors like Marty Neumeier suggest that some brands have a following that’s almost tribal. Take that logic and apply it to social media. Let’s say your followers are a tribe – if so, where do they congregate? Social media monitoring can help you find that out so you can target them. Just because your competitor has a slick Facebook account doesn’t mean that your tribe is there as well – it may be on Twitter, Google+ or even Pinterest. But you won’t know that without some data.

You think anyone can effectively manage social media. If you think that, I’d direct your attention to R.L. Stollar’s blog, which gives a blow-by-blow account of Applebee’s social media disaster of earlier this month involving the server it fired for posting on Twitter an ill-advised note from a customer written on a receipt. Stollar’s post is titled "Applebee’s Overnight Social Media Meltdown: A Photo Essay," and he’s not kidding – he’s got screen captures of virtually every mistake made by whoever was manning Applebee’s Facebook account during that episode. (Publishing an apology at 2:53 a.m.? Please.) And I know Jessica hates data overload, but consider that tens of thousands of negative comments were made to Applebee’s Facebook account related to that incident. Stollar’s post got more than 1,000 comments. And now I’m talking about it here. The lesson: Get proof that whoever would manage your social media is competent.

Social media is no longer a sidelight (or an option) for a brand. Neither is a cavalier attitude about it, because a brand’s reputation is online 24/7.

(Image credit to www.thedrum.com.)

Brands Have to Evolve How They Approach Social Media in 2013

Gregg — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 04:01:27 +0000

Wednesday of this week found me at Maggiano’s in downtown Chicago, for the Publicity Club of Chicago‘s February lunch panel on social media trends for 2013. What did I learn?

The link between social media and mobile is rock-solid, meaning brands have to evolve how they generate content, amplify it and respond with real-time engagement, especially in a crisis situation.

Sound like a tall task? The panel – Josh Anisfield from GolinHarris; Andy Crestodina from Orbit Media Studios; Amy Guth from the Chicago Tribune; Lisa Larranaga from Cision; and Michelle Molise from Molise PR, along with moderator Deb Lawrence of the PCC Board of Directors - made it perfectly clear that that’s the price for maintaining a brand’s reputation and heading off problems before they careen out of control.

"Consumers are starting to make decisions with their hands," said Molise regarding mobile, and I think she meant it in the context of interacting with brands for purchases, but I viewed it another way when Guth pointed out that "People get excited in a crisis and are willing to say things." That includes posting on their social media channels about a brand; hence the absolute necessity for brands to respond in real-time. But that response should be well-thought and tailored.

In a crisis, Anisfield said, a brand’s community managers should focus on real-time listening and targeted engagment with key influencers. Jump the gun, and a PR person can become the crisis, Molise added. Guth added that social media is really a return to the person-to-person business model.

Since consumers are making more decisions with their mobile phones, Crestodina was adamant that brands need to optimize their websites for mobile, to create a better experience for users. That also includes content delivery; Anisfield said that "brands need to let people get content from wherever they are, and they all aren’t doing that."

Other trends the panel noted:

-Social amplification tools are going to grow in 2013. They bring a brand’s community together to optimize message delivery through blogs and social media posts, and can help determine ideal posting times.

-There is probably going to be some consolidation with how brands use channels this year. Anisfield said Twitter will "boom" and so will LinkedIn, because they are places for users to discover content.

-The panel also talked about the notion of executive participation in social media. Anisfield said his perception is most executives realize they need to be online and social, but may shy away for a variety of reasons – concerns about time, company reputation, investor perception, etc. Data that shows the potential influence of their participation can be a powerful sway, and the posting approach should be in thirds: 1/3 about what they do, 1/3 about industry-related content; and 1/3 just simple engagment.

Plenty of food for thought as we get into 2013. Erin J. from Walker Sands in Chicago, who was at the lunch and exchanged tweets with me during and afterwards, agreed.

"Social is ever-evolving," she posted today. "We must be where our customers are or be left behind. Being a leader means participating."

Five Days Later, Which Super Bowl Ad Brands Still Resonate?

Gregg — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 05:00:36 +0000

The commercials that air during the Super Bowl have become almost as iconic as the game itself. So here’s the question:

It’s five days after Super Bowl XLVII – which brands still resonate with you?

Mind you, I’m not talking about the entertainment value, i.e., "Oh yeah, the ad with Willem Dafoe playing the devil. That was clever." It was, but what I’m looking for is the brands that used the advertising medium to deliver a message about it that actually stuck with you.

Go ahead and think for a minute. I’ll wait …

Much harder question, eh? Here’s the problem with advertising during the Super Bowl today: If every brand tries its darndest to entertain us, the message – and indeed the brand itself – will probably get lost.

Cynical folks will say, "Advertising during the Super Bowl is about getting your name out in front of 100 million viewers, and you just gotta be memorable."

And yet, most of them weren’t.

Want proof? I thought the prom commercial was pretty funny, because that was me back at Whitefish Bay Dominican High School in the mid-1980s. But five days later, I can’t remember the brand. I know it was a car company.

Here’s more proof. GoDaddy.com is about web domains – but what does a nerdy kid kissing Bar Rafaeli have to do with that?

I thought the Oreo whisper fight commercial was hilarious – after all, who hasn’t wanted to defy a librarian and take everyone there with you? I tried that at Dominican one time; it didn’t end well. The entertainment was consistent with the type of product – a cookie with dual nature. Cookies are about fun, so it made sense. And bonus for taking the cookies vs. creme debate to Oreo’s new Instagram account, and not Facebook or Twitter. (By the way, Twitter estimates up to 50% of ads had hashtags this year, which seemed low to me.)

The brand that I thought did the best job was Dodge Ram, which used the Paul Harvey speech about how God made a farmer. Moving, and again, it made sense because it was consistent with my perception of both farmers and the Dodge Ram brand, while stating clearly the values of both. Ask yourself: What brand of truck does a farmer drive? Before last Sunday, I might have said Ford, but now, and probably for good, I’ll say Dodge. Interestingly, right after Dodge’s 2-minute Paul Harvey ad ran, Ford posted twice on its Twitter feed touting its long-tiime support of Future Farmers of America.

Know what else is interesting? I know Ford must have advertised during the Super Bowl, but heck if I can remember what it was, much less any key messages.

And what of the Mercedes-Benz CLA commercial with Willem Dafoe playing the devil, who tries to con a guy into selling his soul? It co-starred Kate Upton and Usher, with music by the Stones and a cameo by Vanity Fair magazine, and it was well done. But you know … I had a bit of a hard time reconciling a Mercedes that looks and handles like a BMW M3 and is priced like a Toyota Camry. So the question is, what does the Mercedes-Benz represent? Because now I’m a little confused.

To me, if you’re going to spend $4 million for a 30-second spot in the biggest TV night of the year, you better make sure the message you deliver about your brand sticks.

So ask again: Five days after Super Bowl XLVII, which brands still resonate with you? Type your thoughts below.

(Image credit to Detroit Free Press.)