What happens when television advertising becomes more concerned with entertainment then it is with effectiveness? Well, you get the lame advertising messages we all witnessed yesterday during Super Bowl XLIV.

This is because ad agencies think that all ads need to be seen as funny and they also believe that advertising must be entertaining.

Because no advertising agency plays with their own money, it would appear likely that advertisers also believe these self-promoting lies.

I can remember a few of the companies that advertised during the game but as a brand strategist, I can’t come up with one reason to buy any of the products. If the “bar” for successful Super Bowl advertising is going to be how funny the ads were and how entertained I was, I would call all of them a bust — even by this rather silly measure.

If this sort of wasteful spending is any indication of the health of the American advertising industry, then American business is in serious trouble. If you are a shareholder in any of these companies I would suggest a note to the CEO asking them to cease and desist until they can come up with a better and more effective reason to spend YOUR money.

You see no one can even predict what an audience will find funny or entertaining. Just ask the Hollywood studios that have a terrible time managing the big budget flops that “all the experts” said were going to be big successes. The reason is that entertainment and humor are matters of taste. They are not a science.

Persuasion is a science. Companies that are assured by their advertising agency that “these ads are so funny the target market will love them!” should run away and find a new agency.

As a football fan, I’m expecting a terrific game on Sunday. Manning vs. Brees. Katrina vs. America’s Heartland. Two of the most explosive offenses in the NFL. I’m even curious if Kim Kardashian will make an appearance. I’m looking forward to it.

So how come there seems to be so little excitement in the days leading up to the game? Simple answer: There is little to no brand at stake here. Therefore, no one is really emotional about it unless you are from Indianapolis or New Orleans.

Imagine, if you will, if the Super Bowl pitted the Dallas Cowboys against the Pittsburgh Steelers? Or, the New York Giants vs. the Oakland Raiders? (The last team was inserted for the “Are you kidding?” quotient of the day.)

There would be great excitement because those teams have emotionally resonate brands that even the casual fan can appreciate. The Colts and the Saints? Eh, not so much.

We’ve seen this in other sports. The NBA went through a difficult period when the San Antonio Spurs were winning championship titles, even though they played some pretty impressive basketball and Tim Duncan may be the most underappreciated player in NBA history. But nobody across the U.S. much cared.

It was, of course, an entirely different matter when the Chicago Bulls, the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics were winning titles. You couldn’t get enough of it – and it was something you could be passionate about.

In fact, as a rabid college football fan, I’d love to see Boise State in the “national championship game.” (Ironic quote marks intended.) But it’s probably better for college football that it was Alabama vs. Texas. Brand names.

I am in no way suggesting the format should be changed to ensure the brand-name teams are in the championship game. You know, nothing like the million to one shot of the New York Knicks getting the first pick in the draft so they could draft Patrick Ewing or anything. (I’m just saying…)

But, as I read the write-ups leading up to the big game, I sense a general shrug. And I think I know why.

In case you have not heard, Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Florida, has been tapped to serve as a spokesmen in a Super Bowl ad set to air this Sunday. This, even though Tebow has yet to play a single down in the NFL. Forget the fact that he has not even been drafted yet, but apparently he has enough celebrity to appear in a Super Bowl ad.

The spot concerns abortion, a highly charged topic no matter what side you take. It evokes strong feelings on both sides, which means each side risks offending the other.

Sports pundits are applauding and decrying Tim’s decision to do the ad. Some say he is doing what he believes to be right. Others are saying he is in danger of hurting his career. In fact, both sides are right.

There are a couple things at play here. First, a future professional athlete is taking a stand on something – without getting paid and without pretense. In a professional sports league where dog-fighting, guns, DUIs and drugs have dominated the off-the-field headlines, someone is making news by standing up for something, even Americans have mixed opinions about the issue.

Which leads to the second point and the real message to organizations (and brands):  The Price of Clarity is the Risk of Offense.

The reason that Tim Tebow is getting so much scrutiny for his upcoming Super Bowl ad is because of it represents a stake in the ground that is clear and emotionally important for a portion of the audience. You know exactly what the “brand” of Tim Tebow is about. Its potentially offensive undertones is what makes it clear.

Now if marketing could only be this clear.

The problem that many organizations, companies and brands have is they try to be all things for everyone. Their tone and attitude become so vanilla that they lose all meaning and become muddled with so much gunk that they are simply ignored. In a marketplace where consumers are constantly being bombarded with messages, tone and attitude are your friends.

Just ask Tim Tebow. No matter what an organization does, there will always be consumers who do not choose you.  Being clear with attitude does not cost you consumers. It tells them exactly who you are for (and who you are not for). If you are proud of what you make or do, shouldn’t you have the courage of your convictions to tell it to the world?  Tim Tebow does.

Looks like Toyota Prius is having some brake problems and this is BIG news? It is news only because Toyota pretended to own “best practices” in the auto industry and built its brand on what should be the minimum requirement to be an automobile manufacturer — quality.

You cannot OWN as a brand, something that is directly attributed to every manufacturer in a category. Does anyone who buys a NISSAN believe the NISSAN automaker does not make a quality product? Does Honda? Does Ford? Well, OK, maybe GM… but that is about it.

Think where Toyota would be right now if its brand was built on “smart” instead of “quality?” Toyota would then have permission to proactively recall cars in an attempt to help the “smart” purchasers of Toyota cars avert a potential problem. Now I am not suggesting that “smart” is the correct brand promise for Toyota or even GM, for that matter.  What I am saying is that brand promises should be built around a customer definition and not simply around a description of the manufacturer. What that promise should be is only found by applying the principles for stealing market share.

The auto industry is a low bar when it comes to branding to win. Shame on any of them for continuing to stick their heads in a hole.

With the Super Bowl right around the corner, you are busy filling your refrigerator full of food and drink. Before you know it, we will be inundated with Budweiser, Miller, Heineken and Corona commercials. But here’s a conundrum many of us face, especially if we’re buying for a large group of people at such parties: How do you choose the right beer for you or friends?

Standing in the beer aisle at your local grocery can be overwhelming. For many of us, that is a good thing. There are a plethora of choices: Microbrews, the mass-market beers; lagers, ales and even hybrid beers. Foreign or domestic. Talk about 99 brands of beer on the wall. (Some of us like less choices.)

The majority of beer drinkers in the world will tell you that they drink (insert beer brand here) because it tastes good. Great taste in beer is what’s expected. Great taste is what makes you a repeat customer. But if you believe that people buy beer because of great taste, then we have a dilemma on our hands for first time purchasers of a new brand of beer. You have to buy it to try it.

So again the question remains, how do you choose a new beer, especially if you are choosing for others?

At an elementary level, it seems to be who has the best artwork, beer name or logo, color of packaging, shape of bottle. Or is it something so basic as the beer you can reach on the shelf or the beer you can afford? In a sea of choices, what makes you zero in on the one six-pack you ultimately purchase when you can’t drink it before you buy it?

Your emotion makes the decision. Emotion always does.

Emotion has your brain kicking into overdrive and has you reaching for a brand of beer based on an identification system many of us have trouble looking at objectively.

Emotion sees the brand of beer that best defines you. Who you are or who you become when you hold this cold bottle or can of brew. Or, what becomes even more difficult, is deciding what brand of beer best reflects the others you are buying for. Yet, we do that all time: Figure out the brandface the ones I am buying for so I can be rewarded for making the right choice.

Take one of the most popular microbrews out there, one we at Stealing Share are very familiar with: Fat Tire, brewed by New Belgium Brewing in Colorado. Its bottle image of a bike leaning against a tree takes you back to a simpler time without Blackberrys and iPhones. “Follow Your Folly” is the brandface. It’s the emotional connection to something real that makes those who drink it remain loyal to it. And it’s the reason why Fat Tire is so quickly chosen when it first enters a market.

How do you choose a new beer for your Super Bowl party? See which ones reflect the emotional aspirations of your Super Bowl-watching cohorts emotionally, and you’ll see it’s not all about the taste.

According to The associated press —

Ford Jan. sales climb 25 pct; Subaru also rises

DETROIT – Ford Motor Co.’s sales rose 25 percent in January, buoyed by a stronger economy and Toyota Motor Corp.’s decision to halt U.S. sales of eight popular models because of faulty gas pedal systems.

If you ever needed more proof of the demise of auto industry brands and brand preference all you need to do is look at that first paragraph. Preference is apparently created because folks decided to buy any car and Ford won because Toyota halted sales.

It reminds me of the power struggle going on in the US pharmacy business in which preference is apparently determined by which side of the road a pharmacy chain plops down its store on a corner with four other choices.  Honestly, I just rode past an intersection with a Walgreens and a CVS Pharmacy on opposite sides of a street. Both had electronic signs running advertising crawls about being open 24 hours and touting the price of tissue paper.  One said prescriptions would be ready in 15 minutes. I waited until the light changed hoping to see the other respond with a crawl of their own claiming “prescriptions ready in 14 minutes!”

How is it that major companies like these – Ford, Toyota, Walgreens, CVS, RightAid and countless others – understand so little about their target audiences that they rely on the failure of the competition or a slightly more convenient location to attract customers?

The bar is not all that high for companies that want to win.

Just yesterday, I was blogging about my concerns over the direction Apple is taking with its iPad (read it here).  I continue to worry about Apple, under the tight control of Steve Jobs who increasingly sees himself as indispensable to Apple’s success and future.

I just read an article (Apple’s Jobs Spurns Intel, Qualcomm With A4 Processor for IPad) that raised my worries to a new level and reinforced my gut feeling that Apple won’t be happy until they make everything proprietary and nothing compatible with anything else.

I had always believed that Apple, as a culture, believed in the convergence of technology. I still believe that they hold that belief, but their version of convergence is to have an Apple logo on everything. No matter the cost (and I am not talking about just dollars and Euros here).  The cost may well be pushing Apple back into its role as a niche player with a rabid fan base but no broad appeal.

When Apple decided to shun Intel and Qualcomm in developing its own chip for the iPad, they were giving us a glimpse of the internal desire to keep everything in-house. All it means is that I will be forced to choose “Everything Apple” or simply “everything else.”

There is an old adage that says if you give a man enough rope he will hang himself. Maybe for Apple, the greatest danger is its own success.  Get with it Cupertino. The world loves successes almost as much as it enjoys seeing a behemoth falling on its face.  Everything is not “amazingly great” and “just that simple.”  Some things require an understanding that I want to be able to choose and not be forced to be an Apple devotee.

If I were Toyota, I would brace myself for a serious erosion of its sales. Why? Well not simply because of the recall affecting millions of cars. I would prepare myself for a sales drop due to a mediocre brand promise that says Toyota is only about reliability and craftsmanship.

We see the same exact issue affecting fast food pizza — pizza chains think they can own the mind of consumers by telling us to choose based on what should be the lowest common denominator in the category.  For pizza, it is a battle over “tastes pretty good” (read my recent blog on Domino’s) and for automobiles it is “reliability.”

Answer me this, aside from getting place-to-place, why else would you buy any car? Would anyone actually buy a car they thought was unreliable?

It is no wonder the automobile industry is in such a shambles. Major manufacturers like Ford, GM, Nissan, Honda, VW, Chrysler and Toyota believe they can differentiate themselves by such mundane promises. Promises that should be the minimum requirements to be a manufacturer in the first place.

I would suggest that the automobile industry stop the myopic view of their brands and spend a bit of time and energy in figuring out just what their potential customers aspire to become and own if any of them want to actually steal market share from their competitors (read about a CEO’s role in all of this), build brand preference and increase sales.

Shame on Toyota for thinking that we all aspire to realize basic promises and mediocrity.  Would I buy a Toyota since the recall? I would hope that any car I buy would be at a minimum — reliable. If Toyota promises me only that, no, I won’t buy one because they let me down.

I’d like to think I deserve more than being treated like an imbecile.

News about e-books are all the rage, as most of you are well aware. You only have to read this blog to know Apple’s iPad is the talk of the (business) town at the moment.

What’s also interesting is where this leaves everybody else, especially light of this news:

Amazon caves in to publisher’s demand

The immediate reaction to this is that Macmillan forced Amazon to raise prices because a powerful competitor entered the market. Amazon’s Kindle once rode the top of the e-book ship, but other competitors have been drifting in the market and now the biggest, baddest brand of them all has arrived.

Here’s the funny thing: Amazon could have staved off this market shift to come with a brand that spoke emotionally to the marketplace. While Amazon’s Kindle is the market leader with nearly 60% of the market, the introduction of competitors with stronger brands threatens to shrink that share significantly over the next few years.

That’s not even counting the other forces they’re now facing, such as publishers wanting more buck for their bang because they aren’t just tied down to one distribution channel anymore.

Yet, I can’t help but think the reason Amazon “capitulated” (Amazon’s own words) is that, in having no leverage, they didn’t even have brand leverage. Think of it this way: A manufacturer of shoelaces has many options of sneaker manufacturers it supplies. However, do you think one would force Nike to “capitulate” on price? The power would be in the hands of the one with the powerful brand.

Amazon lost its brand focus when it became a simple portal for retail shopping of all kinds and its brand on books began to fade away. From a simple business point of view, the portal idea has brought billions to the company and has made Amazon the world’s largest e-retailer.

However, more shopping portals are opening up and taking share. Even Procter & Gamble has launched a new retail site called ecost.com, and there are many more to come. That means market pressure – and market share loss – is sure to strengthen for Amazon. The lack of a strong brand means it no longer can bend the market to its will. Amazon is the bended now.

The Apple brand promises simplicity and elegance.  I fear that Apple will begin to suffer from an underlying disease, one they recovered from in 2006 when they realized that by allowing consumers to compare apples to apples, Apple would win.

Back then, Apple switched from a non-compatible chip to the Intel processor, thus allowing Windows users to migrate to Apple with the promise that they could run the Windows environment natively. Since Apple decided to go with the flow, so to speak, they have been winning market share. In effect, Apple made it easier to choose as simplicity is their brand promise. (Although anyone who has used both Mac OS and Windows will tell you that, if you HAVE a choice between the two OS systems, Mac wins it hands down.)

It appears that Apple has fallen back to its old ways, and it frightens me. Instead of allowing me to compare apples to apples in electronic book readers, it seems that Apple wants to run on its own and force us to choose between oranges and apples.  Why not allow any format of electronic book to work on the iPad? By making me choose a non-compliant format, Apple is running contrary to its brand promise of simplicity and seems to be running backwards — back towards niche status.

Obviously, there is a price to pay for having the brilliance of Steve Jobs steer the ship (see our last blog on Apple).

You see, Steve, it is not enough to have brilliant design and cutting edge innovation.  You need to be true to your brand promise of simplicity and elegance. The iPad is a perfect example of a loss of focus.

A few weeks back, I bought a Kindle.  The only decision I had to make was which size I wanted.  I did not have to concern myself with book format or subscription fees.  One simple purchase gave me what I wanted – an e-book reader and a non-fee subscription to a 3G internet service to download my books.

With the iPad, I not only have to worry about a non-compatible e-book format, I have to decide upfront: Do I want Wi-Fi only or do I need Wi-Fi and 3G?  If I decide on 3G, I have to arrange for a 3G carrier and pay a monthly subscription fee. It is just enough uncertainty for me to stick with the familiar and turn my back on Apple.

Apple has not made my life easier. Apple has complicated it.  That over-complication is a lot to ask for what is an oversized iPod Touch.

When I bought my first generation iPhone (three upgrades ago), it simplified my life.  I no longer had to carry my phone and iPod when I traveled.  The iPhone did both better.

Tell me this, Apple: What do I leave behind this time to carry the iPad with me on business trips? My iPhone or my MacBook Pro? Nope, need both of those.  Apple would have me add 1.5 pounds to my brief case so that I can carry my e-book and pay another fee to AT&T for 3G connectivity.

Never mind. I just bought a Kindle and its connection is free.