SBP 218: The Barber's Brief - The Shelf Life of Competitive Advantage

Marketing runs on comfort blankets. The Sharp Cut cuts them up to see what’s inside. This week, with Black Friday five weeks out and someone already writing the 40% off email: the idea that a discount wins you new business. Here’s the spine. A discount rents you this week’s sales, mostly from your own customers. When the price goes back up, the rental’s over. So every promotion has to pay for itself while it’s running. This week: → Who actually buys on the deal. Ehrenberg-Bass looked across 18 categories: 77% of promo buyers had already bought the brand in their last five trips, against 81% at full price. Basically the same people, paying less. → How long the bump lasts. Soup and yogurt promotions faded in about two weeks, and in only 1 of 29 cases did a deal change sales for good. Then the dip, and people learning to wait for your price. → The math nobody runs. At 20% off with a 50% margin you need two-thirds more sales just to stand still. A German retailer celebrated a 19%-off sale that needed triple the traffic to break even. → Three people, three kinds of math. The store, the supplier, and the salesperson are each optimizing something different, and the brand on sale is usually renting its own buyers back. → What actually works. You can’t quit cold (ask JC Penney). McCain pulled promotions back slowly and moved the money into brand, and nine years later sells more chips at a higher price. Plus the one takeaway: a discount gives the people who already buy from you a cheaper week, and you often pay for it twice. Enjoy the show! Stories & evidence this episode: Which? Black Friday investigation: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/dont-believe-the-hype-most-black-friday-deals-the-same-price-or-cheaper-at-other-times-of-the-year-which-finds-a3TbD5x5KADs Ehrenberg-Bass / John Dawes, price promotions and buyer mix (SSRN): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199169 McCain, “When the chips are down, margins matter” (IPA): https://ipa.co.uk/knowledge/case-studies/when-the-chips-are-down-margins-matter-how-a-focus-on-long-term-emotional-brand-building-reduced-price-elasticity-and-increased-profits-for-mccain The Evidence Line (180+ models): https://quatical.com

Marc and V are back with the Barber’s Brief: the good, the bad, and the overhyped from the last couple of weeks, with data, a few opinions, and Great Creative getting the last word. This week: → Apple built itself a kill switch for ad tech. iOS 26’s Safari can quietly block hundreds of identity and data vendors, the list lives in a private repo, and only Apple knows the rules. Everyone’s calling it a privacy story. It’s a power story, and the real lesson is one we keep coming back to: stop renting your audience. → Phantom Reach. Ritson and Lumen clocked the same ad getting 16 seconds of attention on a living room TV and about 1.5 seconds in a web video player. Both count as one impression on your plan. So ask your agency for attentive seconds, not impressions. → Jaguar is finally coupled with a product. The rebrand tested with more 1s and 2s, and more 9s and 10s, than anything in its history. Polarizing is right for a six-figure niche. It’s a terrible lesson for a mass-market brand to copy. → Mbappé leaves Nike for On, part cash, part equity. The Jordan playbook, run against Nike, while On climbs and Nike slides. Plus Ad of the Week: Robitussin hires a deadpan cough hitman named Robby Tussin, and turns the brand name into the character, the joke, and the mnemonic all at once. Coming up: Joanna Lepore of Dig Insights on foresight and strategy. Enjoy the show! Chapters 00:00 Intro: welcome back to the Barber's Brief 00:51 Story 1: Apple's kill switch for ad tech 04:53 Why is so much of the industry built on rented land? 08:20 Story 2: Phantom Reach, attention vs impressions 10:48 Selling attentive seconds instead of impressions 13:18 How the platforms are moving (Meridian, Andromeda, MMM) 14:34 Story 3: Jaguar, finally coupled with a product 16:43 Polarization as a scalpel, not a strategy 17:48 Controversy with a product vs controversy for its own sake 20:47 Story 4: Mbappé leaves Nike for On 23:08 Do challenger-brand signings change how retailers buy? 25:35 Ad of the Week: Robitussin's cough hitman, Robby Tussin 28:03 Why the one-character platform beats weekly fresh creative 29:09 Coming up: Joanna Lepore, Dig Insights Hosts Marc Binkley Quatical - https://quatical.com/ LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbinkley/ Vassilis Douros Personal Website: https://vassilisdouros.com LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/vassilisdouros/ Stories this week Apple’s ad-tech kill switch (AdExchanger): https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/apple-has-far-reaching-plans-to-block-hundreds-of-programmatic-data-companies-from-ios/ Phantom Reach — Mark Ritson (The Drum): https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/why-the-reach-of-one-rule-is-built-on-ads-nobody-ever-actually-sees Jaguar’s rebrand meets its product (Marketing Week): https://www.marketingweek.com/jaguars-rebrand-product/ Mbappé leaves Nike for On (Yahoo Sports): https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/kylian-mbappe-drops-nike-sponsorship-045914241.html

Everybody in this industry is arguing about what AI does to an agency. Almost all of it is agencies talking to themselves about their own cost structure. Clients are asking something else entirely. So Marc and V put the real question to two of the people growing Canada’s agency business while the ground moves under it: if you are not selling hours, what are you selling? Mélanie Dunn is President of Plus Company Canada and CEO of Cossette. Karine Courtemanche is EVP of Plus Company Canada and President of its media group, Strategy’s 2024 Media Leader of the Year, Chair of the Canadian Media Directors’ Council. Inside the conversation: why clients now buy a connected system of tools rather than time, and why the shift off billable hours is being stalled by clients, not agencies. The biggest myth in the business, and the KPI guarantee they sold three times out of hundreds of clients. Why your agency’s tech stack is now a reason to hire them. In-housing done for the right and wrong reasons. Rethinking talent when the pyramid is gone and a junior can mentor a senior. And a genuine cry for help on supporting Canadian media, where the gap between an ethical placement and a cheaper one is often marginal. The through line: agencies are being pushed to stop selling time and start selling judgment, and nobody has solved how you build judgment at scale. Enjoy the episode! Our Guests: Mélanie Dunn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dunnmelanie/ Karine Courtemanche: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karine-courtemanche-64896330/ Chapters: 00:00 The best time to be in this business 00:46 Barbell or pyramid? Setting up the debate 02:43 What is the role of a modern agency? 06:51 What clients actually buy now: a system, not hours 09:25 If you're not selling time, what are you selling? 12:51 The biggest myth: agencies do want outcomes 15:15 Why outcome models stall: predictability and risk 17:45 Attribution as the missing accountability layer 19:16 Choosing an agency on its tools, not just its people 22:05 Three conditions for integration that actually works 23:57 In-housing, for the right reasons 27:08 Why there is no single agency model 29:22 Building operational platforms, not just media tools 31:36 AI, governance, and building the same tool twice 34:19 Rethinking talent when the pyramid is gone 36:44 Hiring now: references, soft skills, hard questions 45:30 Monday takeaways: governance as an enabler 49:13 A cry for help on Canadian media 57:02 Calgary, and the centre of the world

Marketing runs on comfort blankets. The Sharp Cut cuts them up to see what's inside. This week: brand love. Start with motorcycles. In 2015, the happiest owners in the entire category rode Victory, ahead of Harley. Two years later, Polaris shut Victory down. The happiest customers in the category could not keep the brand alive. That should bother anyone who spent a career being told marketing's job is to make people love you. So Marc and V take the believers at their word and run three tests on lovemarks, raving fans, and brand love. Are the most loved brands the biggest? Are they growing the fastest? Does the love come first, before the buying? The evidence, from the ACSI to double jeopardy to ten years of Ehrenberg-Bass data, keeps pointing the same way. Then they own up to it. Marc's Heinz loyalty that is really just shelf placement. V's Golf Town thank-you notes, where every bit of love showed up after the money was already in the books. The conclusion is not that love is worthless. It protects you, and losing it hurts. It just is not what grows a brand. Plus what to do with all of this on Monday. Chapters 00:00 What the Sharp Cut is 00:45 Today's comfort blanket: brand love 00:50 Victory vs Harley: the happiest owners, gone in two years 02:36 Where the idea came from 05:43 The money angle, and the JC Penney lovemark 06:28 The case for love, taken seriously 08:33 Three tests for the believers 08:59 Test 1: are the most loved brands the biggest? 10:20 Double jeopardy, and why loyalty is everywhere 12:04 The Apple challenge 12:45 Test 2: do loved brands grow the fastest? 15:12 Test 3: does love come first? 18:17 Confessions: Heinz, Matouk's, and the Golf Town tees 22:04 So is love a moat? The Kroger debate 24:14 Do people even want a relationship with a brand? 26:31 What to do Monday

Marc and V are back with the Barber's Brief: the good, the bad, and the overhyped, with data, a few opinions, and Great Creative getting the last word.