The Crispin Porter/Burger King Backlash Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be

(MoneyWatch)  Crispin Porter + Bogusky will be furious over an Ad Age analysis that alleges the agency's work for Burger King isn't that effective. Here's the nut:

Between 2003 -- the year before Burger King hired Crispin as agency of record -- and 2008, Burger King's share of the burger-chain market fell to 14.2% from 15.6%, according to Technomic, while McDonald's share rose to 46.8% from 43.6%. McDonald's has posted average annual sales growth of 6.3% compared with BK's 2.9% gain during that period.

Age also notes that BK didn't have a value promotion strategy when the recession started -- which in many ways is a far greater sin than its weird King ads.

The bad news has already been picked up by The Atlantic (Burger King's Horrible, Creepy Ad Campaign Isn't Working), Miami New Times (Burger King's Fancy Ads Aren't Actually Selling Burgers), and Reuters (Burger King's Freaky Problem).

It's a familiar cycle: The press lauds a hot agency until it gets bored, and then pounds it relentlessly for its hubris. (See, Deutsch, Donny.)

But before we come to bury Alex Bogusky, not to praise him, let's just bear in mind a couple of facts that suggest CP+B's work for BK isn't a total disaster, and that Age's analysis is somewhat unfair.

First -- and I offer this slightly sarcastically -- it did win the Grand Effie this year, something than Ad Age noted June 4.

Second, the sales numbers don't describe the disaster area Burger King was in 2004 when CP+B got the client. Age:

The chain had spent much of the decade up to that point languishing on the sale block while its former parent, British alcoholic-beverage conglomerate Diageo, sought a buyer. It hadn't enjoyed a breakthrough campaign since 1974 ... Its menu offered less variety, and its stores were often dingy and dirty.

... the chain had fallen behind Wendy's in market share for the first time.

Comparing the BK turnaround to McD's ongoing juggernaut seems a little lopsided. And note that CP+B had less than half the media budget at its disposal compared to McD's, $326.4 million compared to $814.5 million.

Let's do some math based on the numbers Ad Age uses to bash CP+B. If we look at total dollar sales, we find that McD's grew by 36 percent between 2003 and 2008. BK grew by 15 percent in the same period. Now consider what the two clients spent to get each percentage point of growth:

• BK spent $21.7 million on ads per point.
• McD's spent $22.6 million on ads per point.

So yes, even though BK has seen less growth and a loss of total share over the period, its advertising dollars were more productive per gross percentage point of growth than McD's were.

In reality, Age has set an impossible goal for CP+B to meet, and has flogged the agency for not reaching it. Look at its conclusion:

So where does that leave the BK/Crispin legacy? ... most legendary advertising efforts thrash competitors. TBWA/Chiat/Day, for instance, has helped Apple claim huge chunks of market share from once-indomitable PC manufacturers.

This is nonsense on its face. Apple's market share slipped to 8 percent in Q4 2008. Eight percent! To put in perspective how anemic that position is, Acer -- a brand I'd never heard of until 2007 -- now claims 15.2 percent of the PC market. Based on Age's own logic, TBWA should be fired from the Apple business immediately and replaced with Acer's agency.

And, let's note, BK's share is 14.2 percent of sales and 15.1 percent of stores. In other words, CP+B has been roughly twice as successful at maintaining market share for BK as TBWA has for Apple.

Thus, do not expect BK to fire CP+B any time soon.