The Colonel's Back - Is That a Good Thing?

The New Colonel

KFC in anticipation of its 75th anniversary is bringing back Colonel Sanders.  Not the Colonel Sanders - the real Harland Sanders has been dead for 35 years - but a characterization portrayed by former Saturday Night Live actor Darrell Hammond.    Click here for the introductory commercial. 


The reason, KFC states, is that KFC has lost its relevance (and market share) to up-and-comers like Chick-fil-A.  KFC has 4,800 stores generating $4.2 billion in revenue while Chick-fil-A has 1.900 stores generating $6 billion in revenue (and they're not even open on Sunday!).  I get it.  There's a problem here.

However, I don't believe that bringing back the Colonel - especially in this reincarnation - is the answer to KFC's woes. 

According to Greg Creed, KFC's CEO, 60% of Millennials  have not eaten the company's chicken.  The problem is:  how is bringing back the colonel going to provide relevance to this group?  The real Colonel Sanders was a genuine spokesperson for the company (he had the original recipe) and was able to sincerely pitch the product.  But he's been off the air longer than the lifespan of the Millennials.  So, what is there for them to remember?

Here are some issues:

The Original Colonel on TV

• The new Colonel Sanders isn't authentic.  In their book "The Human Brand" by Malone and Fiske, they conclude "noting better conveys the identity and character of a leader and the warmth and competence of the company or brand he or she leads than the genuine story to their journey together serving customers."  That's what the original Colonel Sanders did.  Click on the image for one of his commercials for KFC. 
• Even if Millennials recognize Darrell Hammond, he's out of character.  He's not portrayed in a comedic role.  So, the talent that they're paying for is off target. 
• The original Colonel focused on his point of difference - his secret recipe.  The reincarnation looks like any other fast food creating different menu options to create ephemeral "product news" rather than an enduring brand position. 
• 20% of KFC customers say they "hate" the new ads.  The CEO publicly stated:

"And I am actually quite happy that 20% hate it, because now they at least have an opinion. They’re actually talking about KFC, and you can market to love and hate; you cannot market to indifference."

          True, you can't market to indifference, but can't you find a position that doesn't generate hate?

We'll have to see how this plays out for KFC.  I've always been impressed with what Jack-in-the-Box has done to create the imaginary CEO Jack.  Unfettered by reality, Jack can create unique messages for the company and has developed his own persona.  Unfortunately, for KFC (and those who remember the original Colonel) he and the company had a persona, and the new character doesn't align with it.  For those who didn't know the original Colonel, well, they're probably scratching their heads. 

Even the Divine Needs Marketing

Organized religion has been concerned about declining membership and attendance (and a growing indication that spirituality isn't necessarily connected to religion in recent research).  As with so many things, the issues related to the relevance of the "product" to its markets and an ability to connect with them.

Looking back in history, the church had a powerful and unique selling proposition:  the church was the only path to paradise and, on the flip side, without the church there was a risk of eternal damnation.  While compelling, this isn't the most appealing position in an increasingly secular society that doesn't see that "the wages of sin is death."  Compounding this, the mainline churches have focused on issues such as social justice, equality, community, and feel-good psychology that, while noble, are not the exclusive domain of the church.

Compounding the problem even further is the tendency of the mainline churches to communicate and operate in ways that are out of step with contemporary society.  I'm not at all suggesting that churches change their beliefs (be not conformed to this world is a tenet of Christianity).  What I am suggesting is that the church understand how to market itself in a changing world.

One element of this is, simply, quality.  So much of what churches do is simply abysmal in terms of quality.  I was recently at a church conference in which the video presentations were completely amateurish.  And the programming at the conference was poorly planned and, frankly, boring.  This, in a world of high quality you tube videos and slick presentations at conferences. 

It also seems that the church hasn't discovered the tectonic changes in society.  At this same conference, there was much discussion about going out into the neighborhood - into the "community" - to market to people.  That might have worked when communities were homogenous.  In the distant past, like minded people from similar ethnic groups settled in defined neighborhoods - and the church was a central point of connection.  In today's eclectic and diverse neighborhoods, it doesn't seem likely that one can find a common thread to attract people.  Instead, with the internet, it is far more likely to find a "community" of like minded people with similar interests across a wide spectrum of geography.  When these communities are found and identified, the church then needs to determine how to inject its differentiating benefit ("the gospel" if you will) so that it has a unique claim to the interests of the community - which can't be duplicated by a secular alternative. 

There are many more examples that indicate the mainline churches think they are immune from the realities of marketing.  

It is sad to see established religion decline not because it isn't relevant - but because it hasn't discovered how to communicate its relevance effectively.