Click here to view the embedded video.

I think its a funny commercial and its got some great lines – “he lives vicariously through himself” and “he once had an awkward moment to see what it was like” are probably my two favorite. However, what really caught my attention was the last line – “I don’t always drink beer but when i do it Dos Equis. stay thirsty my friends”.

What is fascinating about that line is what it is implying and what it is telling you about Dos Equis business strategy.  In developing this campaign, they are clearly going after a very defined customer, likely someone along these lines:

An educated male or at least  a male with a pretty good level of sophistication;  on the higher end of the income scale; likely married with kids; is more inclined to drink premium spirits and higher end wines than a beer but was likely a beer drinker at one point in life; and probably aged somewhere in their mid thirties to mid forties.  Lastly, this is the group that remembers Dos Equis as a pretty good beer, one that provided an opportunity to drink a Mexican beer (when that was popular), but allowed you to be different than everybody drinking Corona’s.

What I clearly like about the approach is that this probably isn’t the result of a group of guys in marketing trying to be creative with funny commercials.  This is based on a carefully crafted profile of the beeer & spirits market, an understanding of the customers expectations which was used to create a model of their targeted customer with a clear value proposition for that customer.  The brand messaging, as evidenced by the commercials and the campaign which can be found at this site – Stay Thirsty My Friend is clearly an extension of the business strategy to establish Dos Equis as the beer of choice for its target customer – the sophisticated casual beer drinker.

So, in my mind, Dos Equis is doing something right.  Do you know of any other companies that are doing a good job at integrating their branding with their busines strategy?

“You don’t tug on Superman’s Cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask of the old ranger, and you don’t mess around with Jim Rice.“

Rice was recognized as baseball’s strongest man and he used that to his advantage. His power and his surly demeanor were both legendary for their ability to strike fear into opposing teams, media members and those that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, Rice was widely regarding (and many cases not highly regarded) as the biggest, baddest, MF in the game.

This brings us to wome interesting insight about the power of a brand. The Jim Rice brand (BMF) likely contributed to some of his on field success. Clearly performance drives reputation, but also knowing that if you throw inside you might make Mr. Rice unhappy would probably lead to pitchers pitching to him differently, thereby making more mistakes. This would enhance his performance and further build upon his legend, as would dust ups with members of the media who would then write articles that were less than complimentary about Rice the man. Therefore, having a reputation/brand as a BMF, likely helped Rice during his playing days.

Conversely, did that reputation as a BMF negatively impact his path to the Hall? In theory, the numbers alone are supposed to speak to Hall worthiness, but we all know numbers can lie. Sportswriters, have a particular way of making numbers lie by injecting emotion into the debate because that is what they do. As any baseball and Red Sox fan knows, the media did not like Jim Rice. Therefore, did the Rice brand which led to on-field success lead to a 15 year wait to make the Hall?

In considering the case of Jim Rice and the Hall, there are a couple of key insights we can gleam about the importance of brand strategy. First, recognize the impact of your actions on both the short-term and the long-term. Rice’s surliness helped his career, but negatively impacted his ascension to the Hall. Secondly, its important to recognize that actions may have unintended consequences on the long-term value of the brand. Not giving interviews to the press helped Jim indirectly build his brand on the field, but it certainly provided a negative view of that brand with the writers, particularly when it came time to vote. Lastly, recognize that in as much as well all spend money trying to build and manage our brands, ultimately, its the public that determines what the value of the brand is. ]]> http://blog.vann-group.com/you-dont-mess-around-with-jim/feed 0