"Good taste" is rarely used to describe great advertising, but Domino's is going to town with it.
It just announced that it has doubled its quarterly profits after telling its customers that it had fixed the taste of its pizzas. It didn't "improve" things or follow any other standard operating procedures of the marketing world; in fact, it violated some of the basic tenets of advertising, such as telling the truth. Critics lumped it into the category of "mea culpa ads" (such as the billboards London's Evening Standard newspaper ran last year apologizing for the crappy quality of its content). Domino's went one better, though, by running documentary-style spots of consumers likening the crust to "cardboard" and topping to "ketchup." It was called extreme and even bizarre. Comedian Steve Colbert got in on the commentary.
And then the campaign worked.
I am fascinated by this victory of substance over style. The Domino's campaign hasn't been particularly artful and certainly not groundbreaking. This is a good thing, since much of inventive marketing these days is nothing more than creative self-satisfaction passed off as strategy to clients willing to squander their money. Vast numbers of consumers are being encouraged to "engage" with content that has little to no relevance, meaning, or utility. Clicks mean nothing unless they go somewhere or, better yet, get people to do something.
Like buy pizzas.
There are at least three qualities to this success story that might be instructive to others:
- First, it acknowledged reality. How it did it was far less important than the fact that it successfully noted the context in which its customers were shopping and consuming, and their awareness of their choices and memories of subsequent experiences. The pizza did taste terrible, and fitting into this reality made whatever it said next more believable and relevant. Imagine if other campaigns didn't all but willfully ignore reality...could the Windows 7 launch have been helped with some nod to the fact that Vista was a stinker? On the flipside, isn't this exactly how Hollywood markets new motion pictures ("From the folks who brought you…")?
- Second, it imbued its offer with purpose. I can't count how many products are launched because they're "new and improved" without ever proving what that means. Domin'’s fixed a real problem...it wasn't its annual product line refresh or latest brand extension exercise. There are zillions of real, experiential problems that need fixing, and which warrant as much creative ingenuity as offering cheese topping that's cheesier. 13% more cleaning power? Whiter whites? Imagine if Tide came up the reasons why we needed to stop using the old goop and start using the new vs. ginning up new spin to sell stuff to us.
- Third, the campaign dared action. It didn't present a POV or attempt to attach an emotion or idea to the brand (well, beyond the idea that it’s products sucked, which was already commonly known). Think "taste test" only for real. This is a powerful and frequently overlooked quality of successful advertising, as well as an important driver of meaningful social media interaction. A branding campaign that purports to get consumers to forward notice of the branding campaign to other consumers is, well, rather circular in its logic, isn't it? Test, analyze, contribute, and a host of other action verbs matter more. Buy matters most.
This is a good thing, since much of inventive marketing these days is nothing more than creative self-satisfaction passed off as strategy to clients willing to squander their money.
Posted by: Nursing tops | May 05, 2010 at 10:24 PM
There's also the little-discussed matter of the pizza actually having improved in taste.
It's all very well to say 'yes our product sucks but try our new version it tastes less bad now'. If it doesn't actually taste better than before, word gets around pretty goshdarned fast and the campaign fizzles.
I tried it - it actually does taste less bad now. :D
Posted by: Erick | March 10, 2010 at 02:44 PM
Jeffrey, thanks for the clarification and apologies that I misunderstood your point. We agree more than not: I'd even go a step further and say that I don't accept that ANY sector needs to be a commodity endeavor. Selling on price is a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a fact of life.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 07, 2010 at 10:30 AM
I don't believe price is all that matters and that's not what I said. Domino's sales have flat-lined since because they compete in a commodity sector where price is all that most consumers care about - frankly because they haven't been given anything else to care about and Domino's is just as guilty of this as the others.
I agree this approach works, can work, will work - just not in this segment of the food business in which Domino's competes.
Posted by: JeffreySummers | March 07, 2010 at 09:44 AM
Wow, those ads made me literally want to hurl my Lou Malnati's at the TV. Shows how much I know about what works! Guess that's what makes marketing so darn much fun...
Posted by: Pamela Robertson | March 06, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Jeffrey, we can agree to disagree, then. :)
I am no fan of "now we're listening" programs; as you know, I think that most social media nonsense in that regard is, well, nonsense. This example is much, much more (and why I noted that the media biz has mischaracterized and thus misunderstood its importance).
If, as you say, price is all that matters then all businesses are doomed. Domino's has competition on the retail front (as you mentioned) and also grocery store (frozen), not to mention all of the other alternatives for quick meals. Producing a better product and acknowledging the reality in which it is consumed (whether that reality was recognizing that it needed to taste better, or some other contextual quality) is brilliant...at least in my book.
I think we're going to see great things from this sort of approach.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 06, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Jonathan, I'm with you on most issues you present but this one - whoa!
1. Profits were high due to international sales (+8%) not domestic (only +1.4%). Not the healthy bounce you talk about or one would expect after going through a process to satisfy more customers. The other 2 of the big 3 (Papa John's & Pizza Hut are kicking their asses and have been for a time now).
2. So after admitting to not listening to their customers for 50 years - but doing so now, changing your core product (commodity) then rolling it out at a bigger discount than any other competitor's commodity product after claiming to now using better, higher quality ingredients - is somehow brilliant or full of purpose?
3. Waiting almost a month before tying existing marketing efforts into the "new core" product promotion is smart?
Acknowledging reality is all good and sunshine until you realize that no one cares about it unless you give it to them for as close to free as possible. Purpose would have been to roll out such a quality product that you began the discussion of getting out from under the crack cocaine effect of deep discounts. And as for buying, most have said it's the same but better - not really an overwhelming endorsement of "now we're listening" paradigms.
They got a small bounce in sales and profits that simply ending the degree to which they were utilizing deep discounts to keep up, would have done and would have left them in a better position long-term. And where is the long-term vision? Will it be another 50 years before they listen again? Will they be here in 50 years?
Sorry, but this is a total fail on all fronts IMO.
Posted by: JeffreySummers | March 06, 2010 at 09:58 AM
I, for one of a few, thought it was brilliant. But hey . . . what do I know? I'm a dim bulb too.
Posted by: Tom Asacker | March 04, 2010 at 04:46 PM