Not Smart Kmart

Justin Hitt made some good points and asked some thought-provoking questions in response to my most recent Kmart rant on the stupidity of airing television ads featuring a spokesperson who was found guilty of obstructing justice and lying to the government. Justin’s comments and questions spurred some more HMOs (hot marketing opinions) from me.

“If your brand doesn't already conjure up the images and associations you want consumers to get when they think of your brand, then you'll need to borrow those qualities from someone or something that already has them.”
Sergio Zyman from "The End of Advertising as We Know It”

That is exactly why Kmart first hooked up with Martha Stewart. Kmart lacked an identity and it deftly decided to borrow Martha Stewart’s identity to help give them an identity.

In fact, Kmart took a big risk in initially establishing a relationship with Martha Stewart. Back in 1987 Martha Stewart was just emerging on the national scene and that was when Kmart signed her as a spokesperson/consultant. One could argue that Kmart failed miserably in maximizing the relationship because it wasn’t until 1997, long after the brand called Martha became an icon, when Kmart introduced the Martha Stewart Everyday product line.

Martha Stewart’s branded products now generate $1.5 billion in sales revenue for Kmart and account for more than 5% of the retailer’s total sales (Detroit News). It remains to be seen if consumers can separate the high taste/low price image that is Martha Stewart with the image a Martha Stewart as a convicted felon. One Kmart shopper said, “I’m not buying her, just her products” (Detroit News).

To an extent, I agree with that shopper’s comments. But that is a sample size of one.

There is far too much uncertainty in how the story of Martha Stewart as a convicted felon will unfold in the media and in court of public opinion. Because of this uncertainty, I think Kmart took a HUGE RISK is running a television ad flight featuring Martha Stewart. Already, WCBS has pulled the syndicated Martha Stewart Living television show from its schedule and I am sure more affiliates will follow.

Play it safe. That is all I think Kmart should have done with Martha Stewart and their current television flight. To play it safe, Kmart should have simply chosen not to feature Martha in the commercials during her trial and subsequent guilty verdict. All they had to do was play it safe be re-editing the spots and replace the Martha scenes with maybe a little more of that Joe Boxer guy dancing down the aisles.

Back to Zyman’s comments earlier … it remains to be seen if the brand called Martha can retain its positive “juju” and it is that “juju” that Kmart needs to borrow since the Kmart brand is “juju-fee.”

There is too much uncertainty around Martha Stewart for Kmart to continue using her as a spokesperson. Play it safe Kmart. Because in this case, it is far better to be safe than to be sorry.

Comments

[fouroboros]

Hehe. Juju, mojo... same diffrerence.

Borrowed interest and inferred "virtue" by association? Perfect. Yet more proof Zyman's the anti-christ or Darth-Cola or whatever they call him in Atlanta.

This brings to mind a discussion in an online mailgroup I used to belong to. The topic then was Martin Luther King and Alcatel. Had a bit somewhere...ahh:

King speaks of the content of our character. Alcatel's forever paying fines for bribing government officials to mandate their products in third world countries and their chairmen seem to have an awful hard time staying out of french jails for embezzling company money. Whatever. My point is that King himself is not devalued, the guardians of his image are. And the company, Alcatel, comes up wanting in the "defining vision" department if all they can manage is "Hear that?! Great guy, we think just like him."

That's the problem with borrowed originality--the owner eventually wants it back, or breaks it.