Co-branded

Since starting this blog, I have tried to post only information of, about and/or relating to the topic of co-branding. This means, of course, that sometimes I am thinking about something interesting, or experiencing something awesome, and not expressing it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, in the spirit of quantity over quality (specificity), and in lieu of posting nothing at all today, I was thinking I would post about the Super/Sonic art show I had the pleasure of attending last night with the best persons M. Ritchey, K. Davidson and L. Frank.

The Super/Sonic show, in case you were too "busy" to click on the link above, is an annual showcase of local MFA student work, in its 3rd year, "entirely organized by students from the nine participating Southern California MFA programs and present[ing] works of intellectual and artistic rigor by 140 graduate students in one location." The nine schools involved are listed below, ranked in order of my personal preference, based solely on the art I saw at the show last night:

1. University of California, Los Angeles
2. University of California, Irvine
3. University of California, San Diego
4. Claremont College
5. California Institute of the Arts
6. University of California, Santa Barbara
7. University of Southern California
t-8. Art Center College of Design
t-8. Otis College of Art & Design

Which is not to say I am an art expert. Or even that I am that interested in critiquing art at all. It was just my preference. I was not a fan of the more design-oriented stuff, which was often very beautiful but also meaningless to me, for reasons which may become clearer by the end of this entry.

I had two major observations while perusing the art:

1) Student shows are often more interesting than fancier shows. This much probably goes without saying. Though there was plenty of uninspiring art at the show, there was also a diversity of content that has to be appreciated. Many different ideas, different "schools" (both literally and formally), and different world-views. It was definitely interesting to see the different pieces of art playing off one another, and it is also nice to see some bad art, because it gives you, as the consumer of the art, the opportunity to notice the good art in direct comparison.

2) Abstract, highly formalist (i.e. "design-y") art has more in common with contemporary blockbuster movies than most people are willing to admit. One thing I kept noticing was how most all the art on display had completely forsaken an indexical relationship with "the world." Certainly not everything has to be representational. I like abstract art. But so many of the pieces were created by highly skilled designers; beautiful images in bright, high contrast colors with absolutely no relation to the world of things and people whatsoever. The art objects were themselves the things.

This aesthetic shares many similarities with the contemporary blockbuster, most obviously in so far as CGI special effects and green screens have given filmmakers the opportunity to create completely synthetic worlds from scratch. While the tendency with these special effects is toward "realism," the actual effect of these effects is one of hyperrealism. What's more, I don't see the tendency toward realism continuing. Why create something "real" when you can create something more alarming, more beautiful than the real?

This sort of question is, in my opinion, the same one rhetorically posed by early abstract artists, most notably in Neoplasticism and Constructivism. This tradition has since lost its political bent, and now appears in the apolitical, ahistorical, coffee table book design of the more "design-y" art produced today. Of course I am wrong on many counts to compare contemporary design with Neoplasticism, and to compare movies with Neoplasticism, and to associate Constructivism with Neoplasticism. But I am right on some counts too, and I do think the impulse toward a completely synthesized, pure and perfect image is more prevalent in contemporary cinema than it has been in decades past.

This is maybe not something to be lamented, although I myself don't really enjoy most modern movies. However, thinking about them in this way, as abstract, author-less texts, operating within highly rigid and Utopian formal frameworks; is maybe more interesting.

Posted by at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced. These two processes lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary [1936] crisis and renewal of mankind. Both processes are intimately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film. Its social significance, particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage."

Walter Benjamin
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Posted by at 4:04 PM | Permalink

As I have been reading a wide variety of sociological, business, media and theoretical things to try and get a grasp on what, exactly, co-branding "means," I thought it might be fun to juxtapose the previous things I wrote about Bernard Simonin and Julie Ruth's article on brand alliances in the Journal of Marketing Research, with Clifford Geertz's notorious essay on the Balinese cockfight.

The Geertz essay describes in great detail ("thick description") the various rules of the cockfight in Bali, the social practices articulated in such cockfights, and the comparisons that can be made between cockfight and Bali culture as a whole. Geertz concludes from his close reading that "societies, like lives, contain their own interpretations. One has only to learn how to gain access to them." Ideally, co-branded advertising spots might provide some interpretation of our own society; or at least that is my hope.

Putting aside Geertz's lively and astonishing prose, here are the maxims he derives from his observations of cockfights:

THE MORE A MATCH IS...

1. Between near status equals (and/or personal enemies)
2. Between high status individuals

THE DEEPER THE MATCH.

THE DEEPER THE MATCH...

1. The closer the identification of cock and man (or, more properly, the deeper the match the more the man will advance his best, most closely-identified-with cock).
2. The finer the cocks involved and the more exactly they will be matched.
3. The greater the emotion that will be involved and the more the general absorption in the match.
4. The higher the individual bets center and outside, the shorter the outside bet odds will tend to be, and the more betting there will be overall.
5. The less an "economic" and the more a "status" view of gaming will be involved, and the "soldier" the citizens who will be gaming.

Geertz uses such observations of the cockfight to challenge Bentham's concept of "deep play," as advanced in The Theory of Legislation. Bentham argues that play with inordinately high stakes is irrational and immoral, as it typically does not benefit either party, and should be made illegal.

Geertz takes on the more interesting challenge of determining why, if it is so irrational, men engage in such high stakes play. For the Balinese, "the explanation lies in the fact that in such play, money is less a measure of utility, had or expected, than it is a symbol of moral import, perceived or imposed." That is to say the "deep play" of the Balinese cockfight is a game of status, more so than money; its benefits not so easily quantifiable as mere profit.

Which brings us back to brand alliances. Are the successes and failures of co-branding to be measured solely by profit? One nice thing about the Simonin and Ruth essay is that it focuses not on monetary gains tallied post-co-branding, but on consumer recall (brand awareness) and brand loyalty. Co-branding, then, does seem to be a "status game" in the cockfight sense: one in which the stakes are extremely high; and, as Simonin and Ruth show, the most "high status" of the brands involved actually has the least to gain in terms of increased brand impressions.

It seems to me that Bentham would view co-branding as an irrational corporate strategy, yet it is one that more and more companies are adopting.

Posted by at 11:32 AM | Permalink

Another strangely co-branded moment, out of Christmas season and juxtaposing the "America" brand with "Honda." Pretty weird.

Photo by "Ingeborg" and courtesy Azure, making her way back from Heck Fest 2006.

Posted by at 8:41 PM | Permalink

This morning, an ad banner on my My Yahoo! RSS feed reader caught my eye. As I am a fan of Will Ferrell, his upcoming NASCAR-themed film intrigues me. NASCAR is already a heavily branded/co-branded sport, and I'd previously noticed that Ferrell's "Ricky Bobby" character races for Wonder® Bread. Now it appears Ricky Bobby "himself" will be appearing in new ads for "exclusive" movie content available from Sprint.

The integration of movie characters into co-branded advertising is the focus of my research. Typically it is animated characters for children's films who have appeared in co-branded content. Spots for Chicken Little and The Incredibles feature the characters going to McDonald's. In 1997 2005, Burger King co-branded the Star Wars Trilogy's theatrical re-release Episode III release, and ran spots featuring a Storm Trooper and Darth Vader working at Burger King, with the tagline, "Star Wars is at Burger King." Most of the time, deeply co-branded content such as this does not feature "real" actors, but characters, animated or otherwise. Previously, "real" characters have been integrated through editing montage, which places clips from the movie in relation to ad content to create the illusion that characters are "interacting" with the ad. You see this type of advertising often when, say, VISA has a National Treasure sweepstakes. In these spots, Nicholas Cage is shown inspecting a dollar, accompanied by voice-over encouraging him to search for clues, find the treasure, etc. In the montage of the ad, this clip is decontextualized, and comes to reference the VISA sweepstakes.

Which is what makes the new spots featuring Ricky Bobby so interesting. In the words of Mike Goff, vice president of national advertising at Sprint, "Will Ferrell isn't promoting the exclusive movie content available on Sprint phones...Ricky Bobby is." Where does Will Ferrell end and Ricky Bobby begin? Ricky Bobby is not an animated character, or a Storm Trooper.

It was my understanding that Nextel officially sponsored NASCAR, but now Sprint and Nextel have merged, and this coupled with the fact that NASCAR has hired branded entertainment firm Madison Road to integrate the "brand" into entertainment commodities in television and film makes for an inordinately co-branded moment.

One possible question to ask of all this: If way back in the summer of 2005 Madison Road made a deal with NASCAR to create branded content, is it possible that Talladega Nights is one of their projects? So far I can't find anything backing up this claim. I'm sure the film is funny regardless.

For those of you less interested in my many links and wanting to just see the spots, here are some:

Posted by at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

SDCC Day 1
Originally uploaded by sturgill.

Posted by at 11:12 AM | Permalink

Many important and wonderful and beautiful changes to urbanhonking.com/cobranded in the past few weeks. First, a big thank you to Jonathon Bechtolt for realizing the site design and fixing a few bugs here and there. I hope others enjoy the co-branded ad banners as much as I do.

To the right you will see some del.icio.us bookmarks I've been saving. As I was reading PR Newswire releases, printing them, and filing them in folders on my computer; I had the realization that del.icio.us was the perfect tool for what I was trying to do. I highly recommend it, for those who have not yet encountered the site, which is probably very few of you. If anyone knows how to make the del.icio.us RSS feed look better (i.e. left aligned, smaller font?) that would be much appreciated.

Not many other changes. Comments are not broken, they are fixed, so comment if you have time. And please do send me some co-branded things. Even pictures of the unintentionally co-branded variety are of great interest to me, and others, and the millions of people who read this blog every day.

Sincerely,
Andrew

Posted by at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Pig'n Pancake
Originally uploaded by kmikeym.

The Pig'n Pancake is an Oregon-based restaurant chain, but has a menu with graphic brand names culled from the corporate headquarters of food suppliers the nation over. Included on the menu are Simplot fries, Gardenburger patties, etc. What is most striking about the menu is that it not only incorporates these branded components into each dish, but actually uses each logo's font and design on the menu board. This attention to detail creates a truly memorable effect, and I'm grateful to Mike for taking the time to capture it.

If anyone else is having these kinds of experiences, send them to me!! I will interpret.



may23rd2007 AT gmail DOT com

Posted by at 8:08 PM | Permalink

Joga Bonito, Nike, branded entertainment

A couple of things about the Joga3 futsal tournament I had the opportunity to observe while in Santa Monica for the summer. First, both the production and documentation of the event are in keeping with recent trends in the advertising industry toward branded entertainment. It is tough to discern where Nike's sponsorship ends and the "authentic" love of futsal competition begins; and I even feel that trying to parse out such disparate sporting discourses is a pointless task. There would be no Joga Bonito in the US without Nike, surely, as made clear by the company's donation of $1 million worth of Joga Bonito soccer fields nationwide. There is also no doubt that participants in the newly minted (branded?) phenomenon genuinely enjoy the game, and get something positive out of it. Nike, importantly, long ago lost World Cup sponsorship to Adidas, so their imperative for establishing this new brand of soccer in the United States seems clear enough.

Here is a digital video I made before my digital camera battery died:

On Venice beach, July 9th, 2006, a wide variety of youths aged 13-19 competed for a national Joga3 championship. The Under-13 and Under-19 champions, both boys and girls, earned a trip to train with the "official" (i.e. "regular" soccer) national teams of their age categories. The Under-16 boys and girls got that, plus a trip to Brazil to compete in the global futsal championships.

Brazil is where futsal began. Prior to the start of the competition on July 9th, the organizers had "traditional" capoeira dancers and Brazilian musicians perform on the futsal court. There was also an exhibition match between Brazil's "professional" futsal team and the FC Maheia team from LA. These pre-gaming events connected the subsequent futsal action to a wider cultural network, notably the very cool (and profitable) Brazilian "brand". Spectators were also repeatedly reminded that more than 1.5 million youths participated in the Joga3 nationwide tournament.

The game itself consists of two three-person teams, playing on a mini-pitch with two mini-goals. Ideally, it is to be played "beautifully," with no arguing, no dirty play, no conservative goal guarding, etc. On yellow flags surrounding the main court were the five key tenets of Joga Bonito:

With a visit to the Joga Bonito branding booth, any of these five tenets could be stenciled on to items of clothing, backpacks, skin, etc. Curiously, despite the availability of five different concepts, the only brand sub-brand I saw repeatedly was SKILL:

The crowd's emphasis on the most individualistic of the five tenets was mirrored in the game play itself. Not to say the players were poor sports, or that all (or even most) of them showcased SKILL to the exclusion of the other nobler traits. However, there was a lot of whining. There was arguing about referee calls. There was winning at the cost of "beauty." All of which creates a gap between what Nike says the game is about, and what it is in practice (play).

This sentiment was echoed in the observations of my friend Reed, who was commissioned by Nike's advertising agency, Wieden+Kennedy, to make a documentary of the Joga3 phenomenon for eventual broadcast on the Fox Soccer Channel. Reed, a much-lauded super8 documentary filmmaker in and around Portland, Oregon, enjoyed following the many narrative threads of each team as they went from regional qualifying games, to the semifinals and finals on Venice beach. However, by the time the final round of Joga3 came, play had been transformed and transcended by the hubris of the "media event." Present at the filming of the finals were not only Reed, but half a dozen Fox Soccer Channel cameramen, probably the local news and others looking for sound bites. The Fox brand, along with Jamba Juice and MTV, were riding on the bandwagon Nike had artificially created.

Moreover, Ethan Zohn of Survivor fame made a guest appearance, taping a brief introduction to the competition, to be aired July 21st on the Fox Soccer Channel. Of course, no one in the crowd could hear what Zohn was saying to his cameraman. The crowd was told to applaud and cheer when a director gave us the signal. Zohn's surprise appearance was thus a highly anticlimactic gesture, though I'm sure it will look great, and natural, and exciting when the spot airs on Fox.

MTV VJ Sway was also in attendance, adding to the confusion of who was sponsoring, who was broadcasting, who was narrating the event for the benefit of which and whatever media outlets might eventually be documenting it. Sway gave a shout out to local radio station Power 106, and one can only guess that MTV will air some type of Joga3 content, brought to them, of course, free of charge by Nike.

So what is the future of co-branding? It is obviously hard to say. As more brands partner with other brands, and as brands increasingly narrativize their advertising to make it both more ubiquitous and less overt, the boundaries between products and their partners, between "reality" and consumption may indeed break down. The most interesting thing to me was the way that transforming the finals into a "media event" overwhelmed the actual event, as cameramen and hosts addressed not those in attendance but those television spectators not yet realized, not at all present. The massive crush for the sake of TV spectacle is best captured by this final photo, which shows Reed the documentarian, camera in hand, striving to capture the essence of a fleeting moment (the Under-16 girls champions); surrounded on all sides by TV crews with much larger cameras, and Sway on the stage in the background waiting idly for his next opportunity to chime in on MTV's behalf. They are all capturing, of course, but some prefer sound bites to experience. This seems to me to be the ethos of branded entertainment.

Posted by at 11:30 AM | Permalink

Having spent a lot of time acquiring articles relevant to co-brandedness from the seems to me to be excellent Journal of Marketing Research, yet spending comparably little time actually tackling (i.e. reading) these articles, I was pleased today to discover that I had come across what appears to me to at least partially or perhaps entirely be the first "definitive" study of brand alliances published in the marketing literature: Simonin, Bernard L. and Ruth, Julie A.'s paper titled, Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes, published 1998 in the aforementioned Journal of Marketing Research.

Here are the rules of the brand alliance, as uncovered by Simonin and Ruth in their pre-tested, placebo approved experiment on the effects of co-branding on consumer perceptions of individual partner brands as well as the brand alliance itself:

This is maybe the most important conclusion of Simonin and Ruth, as apparently there were previously doubts as to whether co-branding partnerships do, in fact, do anything for the brands involved.

Again, mostly just confirming that brand alliances have an effect. According to the researchers, there has been "explosive growth" in co-marketing and joint branding efforts in the 1990s, with cooperative brand activities enjoying a 40% annual growth rate in recent years. That's a lot of co-branding.

This is interesting. Less familiar brands have the potential to gain more in the way of positive "spillover effects," while contributing less influence on attitudes toward the brand alliance. The more familiar brand exerts greater influence on the brand alliance, while at the same time gaining less as an individual brand, due to the fact that brand associations are by and large resistant to change once they have been firmly established.

Terrific.

I really like both of the concepts: "product fit" and "brand (image) fit." The researchers define product fit as consumers' perceptions of the compatibility of two product categories, irrespective of the brands involved. Because in a brand alliance the two brands are typically contributing their "specialty," there is no need to consider the adverse effects of brand extension that, say, Betty Crocker might experience when extending its brand into the bicycle market. This would be a bad "product fit," because Betty Crocker makes cake, a product category not so compatible with bicycles.

A "brand image" is defined as "perceptions of the brand that reflect consumer associations of the brand in memory." Thus, if the two brand images are "somehow inconsistent, consumers might activate a causal or attributional search, through which they are likely to question why these two brands are associated." The example the researchers give of a bad brand fit is an alliance between McDonald's and a "low-share, low-quality brand of cola." This seems really funny to me, that consumers might go on a "causal or attributional search" if they are presented with two brands of seemingly incompatible classes.

WHY IS MCDONALD'S IN BED WITH THAT OTHER COLA?!?!?

This is a question the brands don't want consumers to be asking.

Meaning, I think, that these two concepts (product fit and brand fit), which are themselves defined through the alliance, affect the core brands solely through the mediation of the alliance. Unless I am mistaken, this is kind of a redundant statement.

Wow. Am I just boring myself, or are all of these points starting to seem redundant? I think the thing that is difficult for me to grasp is the particular use of the language, which is a scientific usage, though the language itself employs terms with variant meanings. So, here "spillover effects" and "alliance" are represented as mathematically derivable sums, determined by the equation of the variables "familiarity," "influence/affect," "product fit," "brand fit" etc.

Whereas, I might think that a positive effect on attitudes toward the brand alliance is one of many "spillover effects." I might think that "product fit" and "brand fit" are inseparable, though I understand the necessity of distinguishing them.

In any case, here is the final conclusion:

I hate this final point. Though product fit and brand fit "significantly affect attitudes toward the alliance," they do not "moderate" contributions of brands to the alliance or spillover effects of the alliance on the core brands. What does "moderate" mean in this particular equation? How can the compatibility of two products or their brand images "significantly affect" attitudes about the brand alliance, while not "moderating" the effects of positive attitudes about the brand alliance on the core brands? It seems to me that if the compatibility of products or their brand images comes significantly to bear on the perception of the alliance, then by necessity "product fit" and "brand fit" moderate the contributions each brand is perceived to be making to the alliance, as well as the consequent effects of the alliance on each brand.

Is this a crazy thing to be writing? This is how marketing research papers are written. I am glad I read the paper, but I am as confused as I am glad. Where confusion and gladness are perceived to be equal terms, my gladness is moderated by the alliance of confusion and the paper. Gladness does not significantly affect my perception of the paper or its concepts. I am not glad I did not read the paper.

Any thoughts?

Posted by at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Avery & Ferraro 2000

I just finished reading a year 2000 article by AVERY, ROSEMARY J. and FERRARO, ROSELLINA on the purported controversy over product placement in television programming. Turns out, the arguments of each side in the clash are reducible to the two terms of Avery/Ferraro's title: Verisimilitude or Advertising? Supporters of the legality of product placement in television programming lay claim to a branded product's miraculous ability to bring "verisimilitude" to a fictional narrative. Critics of the practice regard (or attempt to regard) product placement as a form of commercial speech, defined here as "speech that proposes a commercial transaction," able to be regulated by standards established through various legal precedents (Valentine v. Chrestensen[1942]; Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations[1973]; Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York[1980]; Posadas de Puerto Rico v. Tourism C. of Puerto Rico[1986]; Board of Trustees of State University v. Fox[1989]). More on these court cases later.

The binary thus established--verisimilitude or advertising?--is, oddly, as well established in the field of film criticism, where a line is often (somewhat) arbitrarily drawn between "realism" and "melodrama" to evaluate the aesthetic worth of any given film. Real films have merit, as they "objectively" communicate important social messages without bias. Melodramatic films are manipulative. Often films dealing explicitly with social justice, poverty, race, etc., are those praised for their verisimilitude, regardless of how manipulative their messages may indeed be. Melodrama, conversely, is thought to be a mind-numbing tool of the right, committed to the task of subjugating us persons, molding us to the status quo and forcing acceptance of inequality.

Interestingly, in the Avery/Ferraro analysis, it is advertisers (or supporters of product placement) who argue for "realism" in television programming. Critics of the practice refuse the claim, but also don't deny that the presence of branded products in a fictional narrative somehow makes that narrative more "real." In other words, critics implicitly accept the realism argument, while still contending that product placement constitutes an advertising message open to regulation as commercial speech.

Currently, film product placement is not regulated, and does not generally seem to be regarded as commercial speech. This means that film producers are not required to supply sponsorship disclaimers before film screenings, indicating "who" has paid (in part) for the program you are about to see. The purpose of Avery and Ferraro's study was to uncover differences between film product placement and television product placement, so as to determine whether or not brand placement in television shows ought to be regulated differently than that for films. They conclude that feature films still have more product placement than television programming, but that TV has a higher percentage of brand placement that could be characterized as having persuasive intent.

What this means I don't really know. The findings of the study are not that compelling, as it appears the vast majority of brand appearances on prime time television are during news and sports programs, where product placement is either incidental, or explicitly represented as advertisements. Of course, how "incidental" or integral brand appearances are in a newscast is debatable, especially in this age of branded newscasts. Moreover, it seems that access to contractual agreements regarding product placement is "proprietary"; meaning, of course, that we are not allowed to know which products are "placed" and which are merely "chosen" by creators of content.

This is kind of alarming: according to a Nielsen Media Research report issued in 1999, the average American household watches 7.2 hours of television per day, each person spending approximately 40% of his or her free time watching TV. Whether or not the verisimilitude/ advertising binary appropriately reflects the various opinions on the matter and the many possible interpretations of "commercial speech," it is clear that television has a tremendous impact on peoples' lives.

That is the conclusion of my small baby's mind.

Posted by at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

CSU-Long Beach, Joga Bonito

My friend Reed has been in town working on a documentary project for the Nike Joga Bonito: Play Beautiful soccer advertisement/event at Venice beach the past few days. We took a short trip down to CSU Long Beach to get some shots for another documentary Reed is making, and on campus I spotted this beautifully co-branded moment:

We also encountered a Taco Bell/Pizza Hut Express, that happened to be next to a McDonald's Drive Thru, and as I was driving, I had the authority to pull over and take some nice pictures.

The Nike event is interesting, and Reed has also had some really insightful things to say about Nike approach to marketing and brand identity in general. Hopefully I will have some pictures of the Joga3 championships tomorrow. It is hard to explain, also very intense.

Posted by at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I have not been able to get comments up and running, so my apologies to anyone who might have left a comment. I have not read your comment, if you did indeed comment. If you would like to comment on any entry, or on commenting or the lack of comment capability of this blog, please email me at berkeleymail AT gmail DOT com leave a comment!

Thank you,
Site Administrator

Posted by at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

There is an interesting profile of Kellogg's Cereal City on the Dallas Morning News website, with a few historical details about the Kellogg brothers and the company's history.

Posted by at 6:17 PM | Permalink

1890 • Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits formation of business partnerships that restrain trade or commerce

1909 • When Macy's department store begins a program of selling books at 20-25% below publisher's list price, a lawsuit is filed by book publishers association claiming that such discounting damages value of copyrights. Macy's countersues, accusing publishers' group of representing illegal trust under Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

1914 • Clayton Antitrust Act, an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act, seeks to eliminate predatory price cutting by prohibiting chain stores from entering into exclusive contracts with manufacturers

1928 • Macy's department store capitalizes on new toy craze by organizing major toy and plaything exhibition in New York City

1936 • Robinson-Patman Act (a.k.a. the Anti-Chain Store Act) supplements the Clayton Antitrust Act by making it unlawful for businesses involved in interstate commerce to charge different consumers a different price for the same commodity

1939 • Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer created by anonymous advertising copywriter for Montgomery Ward Christmas give-away program

1945 • Mattel toy company founded in Southern California by Ruth and Elliot Handler and Harold "Matt" Matson

1948 • After service in World War II, Charles Lazarus returns home and invests $5,000 to take over his father's bicycle shop, liquidates inventory and replaces it with baby furniture, hoping to capitalize on "baby boom"

1951 • Supreme Court rules on minimum-price agreements, finds that price-fixing stifles competition and promotes a distribution monopoly, overturns Robinson-Patman legislation that hurt chain stores and discount retailers

1952 • Mr. Potato Head is first toy advertised on television, a prize for cereal premiums; grosses $4 million in first year

1953 • Mrs. Potato Head debuts

1955 • Mattel begins advertising on new TV show: Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse Club on ABC-TV; spends $500,000 to advertise the "Mickey Mouse Guitar"

1957 • Charles Lazarus changes name of operation from "Children's Supermart" to Toys "R" Us

1959 • Mattel creates Barbie, toy industry transforms from seasonal to year-round business

1962 • Sam Walton leaves Ben Franklin retail chain and opens first Wal-Mart Discount City in Rogers, Arkansas; Kmart, Target Stores, Woolco and Waldenbooks also debut

1964 • Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head given plastic bodies shaped like potatoes

1966 • Charles Lazarus sells four existing Toys "R" Us stores to Interstate Stores for $7.5 million, stays on as manager of operation

1974 • Now operating forty-seven Toys "R" Us" stores in addition to several other retail operations, Interstate Stores files for bankruptcy and Charles Lazarus is appointed chief executive officer

1975 • Toys "R" Us has $200 million in revenues

1978 • Interstate Stores reorganized, now just Toys "R" Us

1978 • Bernard Marcus and Arthur Blank fired from executive positions at Handy Dan Home Improvement division of Daylin, Inc.; convince Pat Farah, owner of Homeco in Long Beach, California, to join them in Atlanta and open first Home Depot stores

1983 • Toys "R" Us opens Kids "R" Us, which becomes largest children's clothing store in America

1984 • Toys "R" Us opens first international stores in Singapore and Canada

1984-89 • Sam Walton appoints Charles Lazarus to Wal-Mart's board of directors

1985 • Toys "R" Us has $2 billion in revenues

1985 • Thomas Stemberg, graduate of Harvard Business School and fired from senior executive positions at Jewel's Star Market and First National Supermarkets, draws up business plan for Staples, The Office Superstore based on Toys "R" Us model; Robert Nakasone, top manager at Toys "R" Us, serves as key adviser

1987 • PETsMART founded in Phoenix, Arizona

1990s • Charles Lazarus advises Bernard Marcus and Arthur Blank to aggressively lay-off employees who have "run out of steam" and no longer have "the capacity to take the company from a billion to $5 billion, from $5 billion to $10 billion"; Home Depot enjoys annual average profit growth of 35%, becomes world's largest home-improvement retailer

1996 • Toys "R" Us opens Babies "R" Us, becomes chain's biggest moneymaker

1996 • Robert L. Tillman, a Lowe's employee since 1963, commits the failing company to an explicitly anti-Home Depot strategy, placing stores in close proximity to Home Depots and marketing to women

2002 • Robert F. Moran, former president of Toys "R" Us, Ltd., Canada, takes over as president and chief operating officer of PETsMART; Thomas Stemberg sits on board of directors

2003 • Toys "R" Us establishes four-level, 110,000 sq. ft. store at Times Square, just ten blocks up Broadway from the Macy's toy exhibition 75 years prior

2003 • Wal-Mart is biggest corporation in the world, with $256.3 billion in sales, 2.5% of America's gross national product

2003 • Home Depot has sales of more than $64 billion

2003 • Lowe's has approximately 1,000 stores and sales of $30.8 billion; 3/4 of Lowe's locations within ten miles of a Home Depot

2005 • Toys "R" Us has over 450 international stores in 27 countries

2005 • Staples is leading seller of office supplies, with annual sales of $11.6 billion and more than 1,500 office superstores in North America and Europe

2005 • PETsMART operates over 600 superstores in the United States and Canada; offers equine products through State Line Tack catalog and via statelinetack.com; holds a 38% equity position in Medical Management International, which operates Banfield, The Pet Hospital

Posted by at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)