Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Exploring Dora the uproar


What's the big deal about Dora growing up? She's still "sweet, wholesome and adventurous, a perfect role model..." according to Mattel and Nickelodeon execs. She's just now, well, older. And therein lies the problem.

This new "tween" Dora, which is really just an interactive doll with a USB port and some new online adventures, has really hit a negative nerve among its core target audience, according to a recent AP article. And in my opinion, justifiably so. Remember "new" Coke? Tropicana? Allowing Dora to grow up is not just a brand extension, it's a major change in brand strategy.

I'm amazed that with all of the marketing and strategy muscle behind Mattel and Nickelodeon, they failed to recognize this basic premise.

Just because parents indicated that they wanted "a way to keep Dora in their children's lives and have their daughters move on to a toy that was age appropriate" does not mean that the core property (especially one that has been so successful to date) needs a makeover. It just signals an opportunity for a brand extension. Why couldn't they just create a new character, say, with a similar strategy as Diego? Hey, now there's a novel idea.

The older Dora doesn't even look like the Dora we know and love... and that's probably the saddest part. Once they launch this toy in the fall, there's no going back. I wish they'd just give her a new name. She could be a long-lost cousin, older friend, new stepsister. Anything.

Jean-Pierre Dube, professor of marketing at the University of Chicago's graduate school of business nails it on the head: "A lot of people think of Dora as something for their small kids. And part of the reason people like Dora is because it teaches their kids to be inquisitive and curious in an educational way, because no one wants their kids to grow up fast...people really cherish and value what Dora represents, and if you start trying to license that out or extend that brand, this is a really risky thing to do," he says.









Monday, March 2, 2009

Look Mom, candy mints that sure pack a nicotine punch!

Question: Are the cigarette makers really, truly targeting kids? Answer: of course they are.

This is such a tired topic, so I'm a tad surprised that I'm choosing to comment on it. Yet it has such a fun new little twist...

In case you haven't heard, Orbs Dissolvable Tobacco is being test marketed in Portland, Columbus and Indianapolis by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. These little pellets look like mints (and taste like...I don't know what but my guess is that they don't taste like crushed up cigarettes). Reynolds is also planning to test the Orbs in a chewable stick and a strip form later this spring.

The critics are already upset, understandably so:

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says "They are likely to appeal to children because they are flavored and packaged like candy, are easy to conceal even in a classroom and carry the Camel brand that is already so popular with underage smokers."

And the American Cancer Society says "it's a very dangerous product for children, who tend to become addicted more quickly."

R.J. Reynolds-- of course-- says the product is meant for adults and has warning labels on the package and can only be sold to adults 18 and older.

So here is my question: Is there anything about this product that isn't designed with kids in mind? Let's see... the candy-like flavor? The youthful colors and packaging? The cute camel silhouette? The highly addictive nature of the product? The fact that it's technically "off limits?"

Sara Troy Machir, spokeswoman of Star Scientific, a small tobacco company that sells two dissolvable products, Ariva and Stonewall is quoted in USA Today as saying "Teens like risk-taking behavior and a tablet, unlike a cigarette, won't lure them."

Wow. Did she really say that?

So really, it's a win-win for the tobacco companies. Continue the cradle-to-grave strategy (literally) by continuing to market to kids with not one, but multiple product offerings. Kids who don't initially go for the all-American appeal of the bright packaging and sweet candy-like taste of product number 1 might like the "risk taking" appeal and stench of the old standby product number 2.