title: The Brand Marketing Book : Creating, Managing, and Extending the Value of Your Brand author: Marconi, Joe. publisher: NTC Contemporary isbn10 | asin: 0844222577 print isbn13: 9780844222578 ebook isbn13: 9780071392853 language: English subject Brand name products--Marketing. publication date: 2000 lcc: HD69.B7M373 2000eb ddc: 658.8/27 subject: Brand name products--Marketing. cover Page iii The Brand Marketing Book Creating, Managing, and Extending the Value of Your Brand Joe Marconi page_iii Page iv Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marconi, Joe. The brand marketing book: creating, managing and extending the value of your brand / Joe Marconi. p. cm. (American Marketing Association) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) ISBN 0-8442-2257-7 1. Brand name productsMarketing. I. Title. HD69.B7M373 1999 658.8'27dc21 99-23371 CIP Some of the material in this book appears previously under the title Beyond Branding, published by Probus Publishing/McGraw Hill in 1993. Interior design by Point West, Inc. Published by NTC Business Books (in conjunction with the American Marketing Association) A division of NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc. 4255 West Touhy Avenue, Lincolnwood (Chicago), Illinois 60712-1975 U.S.A. Copyright © 2000 by Joe Marconi All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America International Standard Book Number: 0-8442-2257-7 99 00 01 02 03 04 LB 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 page_iv Page v For Todd and Kristin and Emily, and for Karin page_v Page vii CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix Introduction xi Section I: Equity, Loyalty, and a Good Brand Name 1 Chapter 1: The Right Name Is a Good Way to Start 3 Chapter 2: Building Equity in Your Brand 33 Chapter 3: Building Brand Loyalty 57 Chapter 4: When a Brand Gets into Trouble 79 Section II: Creating a Brand Niche 91 Chapter 5: Brand "Personality" and Extension Positioninga Brand Marketing Casebook 93 Section III: Creating, Managing, and Marketing Brand Equity 215 Chapter 6: Crash Course in Brand Marketing 217 Chapter 7: Brand Marketing: Today and Tomorrow 227 Bibliography and References 237 Index 241 page_vii Page ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Francesca Van Gorp, Jamie Born, and the staff of the American Marketing Association; to John Nolan, Danielle Egan- Miller, Susan Moore-Kruse, and Denise Betts at NTC/Contemporary Publishing for making our fourth project together a very satisfying one; and to Lonny Bernardi and Rich Girod, and especially to Karin Gottschalk Marconi for just about everything. page_ix Page xi INTRODUCTION The baby's smile was "a Kodak moment." The corporation's annual meeting was "a Maalox moment." ''Brands," as Kodak also so beautifully put it, "are helping to define the times of our lives." Marketers have understood that the brandwhether considered in terms of brand name, brand equity, or brand loyaltyhas been a manageable force in business for decades. A well-respected marketing professional was heard to say, "People don't buy brands, they buy products. Keep the focus on the product." That's a good lineand certainly quotablebut like so much else in the way of quotable business lines, it's a bit too simplistic. Certainly, people buy products, but which products they buy and how they make their buying decisions have a lot to do with how they feel about the brand. Some very successful companies allocate huge budgets for advertising, promotions, and publicity each year. They allocate these budgets in order to become better known, because it is increasingly more accepted among marketers that, in the minds of consumers, a better-known brand is thought to be a better brand. Think of the best names in the businessany business. How did they get to be the best names? Imagination, innovation, quality, and style had a lot to do with it. But con- page_xi Page xii siderable energy was devoted to defining what people think of the brand and how people think of the brand. How important is brand image? Very important. It is what people remember, if they remember anything at all. Sometimes brands truly do permeate and become so familiar that they become synonymous with their product category to the point of appearing generic. Coke, Kleenex, and Xerox are constantly battling to protect their trademarks and to make the distinction that they are not categories but brands. It is important to understand the intrinsic value in the brand name. Harvard is regarded as one of the world's greatest universities, but when it allows its name to be used on a repackaged multivolume set of great books (The Harvard Classics) or on sweatshirts sold in airport gift shops and department stores, or on a nationally distributed humor magazine, it is using, selling, or exploiting the commercial value of its nameits brand name. Despite the extremely high failure rate, a rush of new products hits the market each year. Many of them have familiar names: Starbucks, the premium coffee shops that became popular among yuppies in the 1980s, launched an ice cream line that is sold in supermarkets alongside Starbucks Frappuccino bottled beverages. Reese's peanut butter cups, long one of the United States' top- selling candy treats, brought out several candy bar extensions, as well as cookies, breakfast cereal, and jars of its own branded peanut butter; and Virgin Airways, having already moved into the music business with Virgin Records, opened a chain of Virgin Megastores for music, books, and clothing, and even Virgin cola. Since the early 1990s, as mergers, acquisitions, spinoffs, licensing, and positioning have occupied more attention at both the highest and the lowest corporate levels, the image and the presentation of the brand have become page_xii Page xiii major concerns. Corporate identity and diversification programs have become more sophisticated. The brand and the opportunities inherent in it are often the very basis of product or corporate marketing. A brand is a name. Brand equity is the value of that name. While this book is aimed primarily at marketers, the material presented can be useful to CEOs, corporate boards, managers, consultants, and market research personnel at every level. Consider first the role of the marketer in relating to the brand. Marketers were once regarded as those individuals concerned primarily with pricing and distribution. Marketing professionals today bridge the gap between high-tech and personal service, relying heavily on research, publicity, and advertising. A well-conceived marketing plan will consider graphics, packaging, and positioning. A defined strategy should inform the marketer in all these areas. Marketing is also a major factor in product development, both initially and for any possible brand extensions. A marketer must know what the public wants. This may seem like a rather sweeping statementand it is. In the highly competitive environment of the twenty-first century, anything less will not be sufficient. · Are a brand's products and services, no matter how successful, meeting the fullest possible range of needs? If not, what can brand managers do about it? · Is it time for something new and improved? A companion product? A whole new line? Perhaps what's needed is new packaging or a flashy (or less flashy) new logo. · What is your "good name" worth to dealers, consumers, merchandisers, franchisers, or franchisees? · What about prospects for shifting gears entirely, such as taking your business name into an entirely new field? page_xiii Page xiv Billions of dollars are invested in building brands and the suggestion of quality and value that goes with them. Sometimes companies are sold and the original flagship products quickly abandoned. But the valued company name or brand was what the buyer wanted. Clearly, time and tastes change. To stay alive, it is sometimes necessary for a company to diversify. When diversification is the best approach, is it better to buy or to build? That decision could depend on a number of considerations. For example, how might a health-conscious public feel about tobacco companies owning food companies and putting their well-known brand names on the label? R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris encountered just such a problem. Better to buy the companies and retain less controversial names like Nabisco and Kraft on product packaging. Would moviegoers be comfortable going to see a family film from Seagram's Pictures? Or take the kids to a theme park called Seagram'sLand? Good business sense prompted Seagram's management, after purchasing the MCA entertainment conglomerate (parks, stores, publishers, and movie companies), to stick with the name Universal Studios. The most astute multinational companies take careful note of psychographic impressions. Mitsubishi works well on a name plate for airplane engines and automobiles, but for a beer . . . just call it Kirin. Yamaha, on the other hand, worked hard at building equal respect for its brand of motorcycles and pianos. The cost was an investment to address issues of quality and marketing for both product categories, having a great deal of patience, and enormous advertising budgets. This book will look at names, logos, corporate identity programs, franchising, mergers, name changes, and, perhaps most important, brand building and developing extensions of the brand. It will examine vanity and practicality and consider why the Coca-Cola Company found greater success in its Diet Coke brand than it was able to achieve with Tab. And why, speaking of brand extensions, page_xiv Page xv Trump Airlines never caused sleepless nights among United Airlines executives. A design firm president noted that the incredible costs of introducing new brands highlights the need to piggyback on what already exists. The significantly high number of new product failures suggests that a new product bearing the name of an established old favorite increases its odds at achieving acceptance, at least at the trial stage. In a competitive environment, whether the name is old or new, marketers need to understand the importance of creating, managing, and maximizing the impact of a brand in the marketplace. The question of how to do it is what this book will explore. page_xv Page 1 SECTION 1 EQUITY, LOYALTY, AND A GOOD BRAND NAME page_1 Page 3 1 The Right Name Is a Good Way to Start "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (1595) "With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost." Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (1872) How much extra might someone pay for a shirt with a leading sports team insignia? Or for a leather jacket bearing the Harley- Davidson logo? Or for T-shirts with the call letters of a favorite radio station? As if proof of the experiment, the NBC Shop (gift and merchandise shops the TV network operates in several major U.S. cities) learned that a shirt or jacket sold for considerably more with the network's logo on it than without. Why? Because people want to associate themselves with the images of things they likeand they'll pay extra to do it. People are also preconditioned to believe that an item with a Nike, DKNY, Mercedes-Benz, or Polo insignia identifies them as being of a particular, very discriminating class. page_3 Page 4 What's in a name? If the name is Playboy, Xerox, Microsoft, or Barbie, the answer can be counted in millions of dollars. Once the idea of a product or service turns into the actual product or service, the next major issue becomes choosing the right name. Having the right name can be as important as having the right product. Some brand names are so powerful that they become the generic names of their product categories. We say "Coke" and "Kleenex" and "Xerox" when referring, respectively, to any cola beverage, facial tissue, or photocopy. Most products, however, have to work hard to be noticed at all, much less to stand out from the pack. Over the years, the approaches to achieving name recognition have been varied, from companies poking fun at themselves ("With a name like Smuckers, it's got to be good") to actually spelling it out for you ("How do you spell relief? R-O-L-A-I-D-S"). Others set their names to music you'll remember. Some name themselves after your town, your state, or someone you love and respect or admireNew York Life, Illinois Tool Works, Mother's Cookies, and Lincoln Savings are a few examples. Charles Schwab, perhaps America's best-known and most successful discount stockbroker, reportedly said that two of the smartest moves he ever made were putting his name on the company and his picture in his ads. The theory was that people wanted to know the names and faces of people to whom they would be entrusting their money. The name, the face, and the focus of the ad campaign was to suggest integrity and trustworthiness. It helped, of course, that the Schwab name was simple and easy to say and that he was a pleasant-looking, photogenic man. After Mr. Schwab named his "brand" for himself, however, he then had to build it to prominence. Adman Harry Beckwith, in his book Selling the Invisible, wrote, "It's tempting to create a clever name . . . (like) Hair page_4 Page 5 Apparent for a hair transplant clinic. . . . Don't get funny with your name." As a general rule that's pretty good advice. Creative people enjoy demonstrating their creativity and believe that nothing less is expected of them, so we get For Eyes as the name of the chain of eyeglass stores or, as on the TV comedy show Ellen, a bookshop called Buy the Book. A Chicago store for books and gifts is actually called He Who Eats Mud, clearly one of the more colorful entries in the clever name derby. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a bit more original than "Bob's Gift Shop," but the key to how far to go with unusual, funny, or clever names is to ask what will generate the most effective, positive response from clients, customers, and prospects. If the name of your business is silly, will it help or hurt business? Despite scoring high in taste tests, the snack food Screaming Yellow Zonkers never quite reached the sales levels of Cracker Jack. Magazines with names like Marie Claire, Jane, George, and Frank, which were launched in the 1990s, may make their editors smile, but will they convince an unknowing person standing at an airport newsstand that this is a magazine he or she would like to read? Nobody ever had to wonder what Car and Driver, Sports Illustrated, House and Garden, or Business Week were trying to say. Again, to quote Harry Beckwith, "To stand out, stand out. . . . Just as sophisticated marketers do not want their brand names to become generic, you do not want a generic name as your brand." But between funny names and generic names lie a great many possibilities. A case of instant brand building occurred when actor Paul Newman put his name and face on jars of Newman's Own salad dressings, sauces, and salsa and containers of popcorn and ice cream. Practically overnight the brand drew attention and recognition. Because of the high page_5 Page 6 quality and excellent distribution of the brand, it gained a very respectable market share for many of its products. Helen of Troy hair care appliances posted a sales increase some twelvefold over little more than a decade after adding the name of trend-setting hair stylist Vidal Sassoon to its packaging. The reputation of Sassoon immediately became the reputation of the hair dryers and curling irons by virtue of their association with him. Another instant brand success was the on-line magazine Salon. In 1998, as President Bill Clinton's personal relationships became the stuff of congressional hearings and tabloid headlines, the electronic publication broke several important stories that were picked up and led print and broadcast news for days after. Even though only a small percentage of people checked the Internet for their news, all mainstream media and millions of citizens were talking about "that story in Salon," and the publication had immediate worldwide recognition and credibility on a par with the major national daily newspapers and TV networks. Not every new business start-up or young company is going to have a Paul Newman, a Vidal Sassoon, or a breaking news story associated with it. To achieve an identity in the marketplace, the selection of a company name and a product name should be treated as critical decisions. Here are some important considerations in choosing a name: · Your company name should suggest stability and integrity. · Your product name, when possible, should say something about the product. Some examples are Fix-O-Dent denture adhesive, Jiffy Lube auto service, or Golden Grain Rice. · Avoid negative imagery or identification in the product name (AYDS weight-loss candy and wafers was an example of an especially unfortunate product name). page_6 Page 7 · Try to avoid acronyms. For every IBM there are hundreds of meaningless, forgettable amalgamations of letters that say nothing about who you are or what you do. Sure, you can buy a personal computer (PC) from IBM, but how many more can you name? People want to buy products and services from companies with names. · Historically, products have achieved a high level of recognition when named for a person and accompanied by a photograph or an illustration of that person (real or fictional) on the packaging or in the ads. Examples are Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Betty Crocker, Mama Celeste, Chef Boy-ar-dee, Buster Brown, Uncle Ben's, Peter Pan, or Duncan Hines, to name only a few. · Upbeat and cheerful names historically outdo bland names. Health benefits notwithstanding, Cheerios have always outsold 40% Bran Flakes and the Chevrolet Impala always outsold the same company's Biscayne, even though the designs were very similar and the latter car's price tag lower. Essentially, the recommendations when choosing a name include the following: simple is better than complicated; fewer letters are better than much longer names; and light, upbeat names are better than heavy, pretentious names. Try to tell what the product is or does within the name itself; when possible, suggest or state a benefit; and whenever possible, allude to being big, stable, and worthy of the customer's attention and the purchase price. Some names are chosen to instantly communicate a message and create an impact-names like Brut and Obsession. Consider the difference in both image and market impact between calling a particular perfume Elizabeth Taylor's Perfume and Elizabeth Taylor's Passion. page_7 Page 8 An interesting idea that was badly executed involves Arby's, the fast-food restaurant chain. Its specialty is roast beef. Roast beef's initials (r.b.) are pronounced ''arby." So, it's a clever idea to name the chain Arby's, except that practically no one gets the connection and most consumers are inclined to think that Arby's, like Wendy's or McDonald's, is named for a person instead of for the product being sold. If the public doesn't make the connection or get the idea and the name is viewed as essentially meaningless, it is a missed marketing opportunityone a brand may have to overcome. When Your Brand Name Is the Same as That of Your Corporate Parent, Child, or Sibling Brand Usually, corporate family relationships are beyond the control of the marketing department, yet they frequently pose challenges, problems, and more than an occasional dilemma. The New York Palace Hotel changed its name from the Helmsley Palace because the parent company's name was the same as that of a woman who was not only closely identified with the property, but also mired in bad publicity. The connection worked against a very highly regarded property. The mere announcement that Rupert Murdoch had purchased the Chicago Sun-Times caused the well-regarded newspaper's circulation to plummet. For several years, the Nestlé Company was the target of an international boycott because the division of the multinational giant that sold infant formula to third world countries came under severe criticism. As a result, many thousands of people around the world would not purchase or support well-liked, high-quality products and services, page_8 Page 9 including candy bars, hotels, restaurants, and a premium line of frozen foods. Beatrice Companies added its name as a tag to television commercials, hoping to raise its stock value by emphasizing its ownership of a broadly diversified group of companies from laundry detergents to candy bars to dairy products and more. While investors may or may not have noticed, the public reacted by wondering why it should be impressed that a soap company made candy, or why such an association proved any of the Beatrice companies were any better. Brand building is making a product, service, or company stand for something, thus creating a positive interest that would make a defined audience buy or support it and keep supporting it against the efforts of competitors. If identification with a parent company is going to help further that objective, do it. However, if such an identification will be a negative exercise in ego gratification, or if it could cause the target audience or the public at large to react with indifference, marketers of the company, product, or service might be well-advised to choose another approach. For many years, General Motors, despite design similarity and no attempt to keep corporate parentage a secret, marketed each of its lines of automobiles strictly independent of one another, with separate dealerships, service departments, and ad budgets and distinct product images for each car. Owners of a Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, or Cadillac would often express open loyalty to their particular brand while showing disdain for the others, even when they found out that several of the lines and models used interchangeable parts. The owners' choice of car was and is largely a statement of taste and status. A marketing campaign built around the "GM Mark of Excellence" was a rare attempt to wave the corporate flag above that of the brand, impress page_9 Page 10 GM stockholders, and attract crossover service business. After achieving high recognition, the campaign was abandoned as a large number of recalls of GM cars left the mark of excellence embarrassingly tarnished. It might be perfectly fine for General Motors to simply say that it has a car for every budget, lifestyle, and market, but the company instead positions its brands to compete with one another, its dealers fiercely undercutting sister car company prices. Saturn was a late addition to the GM group of companies and originally, unlike the established cars, avoided overt identification with its industry giant parent. Saturn instead was positioned as an independent brand, a strategy that had special appeal to its target market of young upwardly mobile professionals who preferred to see themselves as independent. Reasons to emphasize or exploit parent company, sister company, or divisional relationships are to: · emphasize "bigness" and suggest stability and dependability; · hype the value of parent company stock by generating the highest possible awareness; and · leverage the perceived importance of the separate or combined companies to create greater buying power, shelf space, or category dominance. Identifying companies with one another, however, is a double-edged sword. "Bigness" raises consumer (as well as retailer and media) expectations. Those trash bags, for example, had better be of a particularly high quality if they are produced by a division of the Mobil Oil Corporation. The marketplace will immediately pay greater attention to a product that is "new from" a major, well-respected company, but they will quite correctly expect in return for that instant attention a higher quality product or better service than from a totally unfamiliar name. page_10 Page 11 In an earlier book, Crisis Marketing: When Bad Things Happen to Good Companies, Tylenol was offered as an example of a brand that not only survived, but grew stronger following the deaths of several persons who had ingested tainted capsules. Johnson &Johnson, the brand's parent, effectively exploited its reputation for service, quality, and concern for customers. Most everyone seemed willing and eager to exempt from blame a company whose ethics and long-standing reputation for maintaining high standards of quality put it above reproach. A lesser company, with a less-revered reputation, very likely would have been put out of business by the public rejection, if not by the inevitable lawsuits. Tylenol quite correctly traded on Johnson & Johnson's good name and reputation, using it as a safety net and going on ultimately to win over an even larger share of the market. In this instance, a case of product tampering, the public did not hold the company to blame for the actions of an individual out to do harm at the expense of the company. The company's and the brand's fine history, if anything, generated a level of sympathy and support that likely would not have occurred if the company had produced something that put the customer at risk. A case that contradicts that last statement involves the Ford Motor Company. The Ford Pinto had a serious defect. Upon impact, in addition to the subcompact car sustaining the usual dents and creases, the gas tank exploded and burst into flames. Ford responded quickly, acknowledging the problem, settling damage suits, and discontinuing production of the model. A public relations campaign emphasized the company's good name, its long history of producing affordable quality products by the millions, and its position as a good citizen of the community. Not only did Ford survive, but the company won the admiration, respect, and support of the marketplace by, in 1992, seeming to reverse the trend of American preference for foreign cars by producing the hugely successful Ford Taurus. page_11 Page 12 Could another company have fared as well? Maybe. But more likely not. A large company with a history and a reputation, a good name upon which to draw, was miles ahead of a lesser-known competitor in positioning itself to withstand such a crisis. In addition, its response positioned the brand to capitalize on the crisis by noting how it handled the situation, showing concern for its customers and the quality of its products, and thereby added further luster to its already shining brand name. Advertising has a "halo effect" by which a company or a product can benefit from the glow of another company or product. Note that ads will often include phrases such as "Snickersfrom the makers of Milky Way" or "The Last Donfrom the author of The Godfather." These are not brand extensions, but examples of attempts to use the success of one product to sell another wholly distinct one, suggesting that the new entry belongs in the same quality class as the more established name. This is usually a very effective strategy, requiring merely that the established product and the new product be of comparable quality. It helps, too, if both the new and the established products are in the same product category, reinforcing the public's perception that the company knows what it is doing and is good at what it does. Without question, Xerox is the preeminent name in copiers. The company's diversification into the financial services business was viewed as a way to position itself against huge gains in market share by Japanese copier companies. In almost every case, the companies that formed Xerox Financial Services were well-performing entities that Xerox acquired. While for a time the venture proved profitable, one of the questions that continued to haunt Xerox was why the marketplace should assume quality or product knowledge when an ad for Van Kampen Merritt mutual funds carried the legend "A Xerox Financial Services Company." Why should an investor assume that a fine copy-machine manu- page_12 Page 13 facturer knew the first thing about managing mutual funds? The answer is that the investor shouldn't make such an assumption. While the parent company's name in the ad might suggest the mutual fund had strong financial backing, the identifier was of no real value in establishing Van Kampen Merritt as a first-rate fund company. Often a corporate parent's name will not appear anywhere in an ad, on labels, or in product literature when the dissimilarity is so great that calling attention to it might seem curious or even embarrassing. One example of this was Coach, the company that manufactures and sells, often through its own fashionable shops, fine leather products. Coach's products are so fine that it has achieved a certain amount of snob appeal with its handbags and briefcases, to name two significant profit areas. Under the circumstances, many people were surprised to learn that Coach's parent company was Sara Lee, the Midwestern corporation best known for its cheesecakes and other fine dessert and food products. It is unlikely that a customer would find the company's excellent reputation for its foods much of a selling point for a pricey handbag. Similarly, Sara Lee didn't see much of an advantage in cross-selling, or making its ownership of Coach widely known. The same was true for Sara Lee's ownership of the fashion and accessories line under the Mark Cross label. The overall rule regarding how parent companies should identify their relationships with their subsidiary companies, and the subsidiary companies with one another, should be based on clear and distinct advantages to both. Are There Benefits? Clearly, Tylenol was saved from a disaster of huge proportions by having Johnson &Johnson as its respected parent. page_13 Page 14 Coach would not benefit at all from having the world know Sara Lee was its parent. The infant formula problems caused a worldwide boycott that affected all divisions and products of Nestlé, from candy bars to hotels. General Motors's name on the mailboxes of its five major divisions was a mixed blessing, inviting both passionate brand loyalty and fierce rejection. Saturn's lack of a clear General Motors connection hasn't seemed to have hurt it. If the benefit is to both the parent company or brand and to the subsidiary, division, or unit's product in the relationship, exploit it, advertise it, and cherish it. If a benefit can't be clearly defined, don't let corporate vanity and ego get in the way of an otherwise effective marketing effort. Your Brand, the Stock Market, and the Government When can you ignore the rule that both the parent company and the subsidiary must benefit from your brand marketing? When the goal of the effort is solely to boost the price of the company's stock. A bakery and a leather goods company might be an unlikely combination in the minds of consumers, but if both are profitable and are under one stock ticker symbol, this is big and important news to securities analysts. Typically, touting corporate performance is the editorial province of the Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, and leading national business magazines, such as Business Week, Forbes, and Fortune. However, when the ever-vigilant business press somehow fails to take notice of a company, and its publicity representative doesn't feel that he or she got the attention deserved, these same publications will only too willingly accept paid ads reporting which mutual page_14 Page 15 fund was number one according to various rating services and which company just reported record profits for the 410th consecutive quarter. In addition, companies that are a long way from being considered household names have taken their stories to television screens. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), for example, is a major supplier of raw materials to a wide variety of industries while offering the public no branded product of its own. Why then is ADM a major advertiser, with slickly produced TV commercials on all the Sunday morning news shows? The answer is that these shows have a large audience of people who evaluate and buy stock-brokers, securities analysts, portfolio managers, investment advisers, fund managers, and investors. The programs are also watched by government regulators and members of legislatures, two groups ADM very much wants to please, impress, and influence. Also staring at the screen are the corporate and business types of a caliber ADM might want to recruit one day or whose company it may want to buy. For at least a couple of these reasons, Merrill Lynch, Dean Witter, American Family Life Assurance Company (AFLAC), and General Electric are frequent Sunday morning TV news and public affairs show advertisers. Pepsi, Coke, Mattel Toys, and Jiffy- Pop popcorn are not; their efforts are directed at the retail consumer level. In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies began advertising prescription drugs for everything from hair-loss treatments and allergy medications to powerful "wonder drugs" that would both lower cholesterol levels and reduce risks of heart attacks. The ads might typically be three-page color layouts in national editions of general-interest magazines such as Time and People. The same product might be the subject of a television spot. In both types of advertisement, slice-of-life scenes might show a young couple talking hopefully about their future or grandparents discussing the desire for a rich, full life.