July 17, 2013
You’re Not Going to Like the New Men’s Wearhouse Ads. We (Can Almost) Guarantee It.
In a recent poll by RetailWire, 57 percent said Men’s Wearhouse would either somewhat (40 percent) or completely regret (17 percent) its decision last month to fire its founder George Zimmer. Much of this sentiment seemed to be tied to Mr. Zimmer’s iconic status as a pitchman for the chain. Few voices were more recognizable than Mr. Zimmer’s who promised at the conclusion of each commercial, "You’re going to like the way you look. I guarantee it."
Men’s Wearhouse has released its first commercial in the post-Zimmer era and his absence is apparent. The chain, according to Advertising Age, took a commercial first aired in 2012 to promote its National Suit Drive and replaced Mr. Zimmer’s voice with that of another announcer. The result, at least according to a poll on the Ad Age website, is that 82 percent said they missed the original.
Adweek’s take on the new spot was this: "You feel Zimmer’s absence palpably. That’s because, without him, there’s no real brand voice left at all, literally or figuratively."
Take a look at the new Men’s Wearhouse spot and tell us what you think.
![[Image: Men's Wearhouse ad]](/public/images/discussions/16897/mens-wearhouse-still.jpg)
Discussion Questions
What is your assessment of the new Men’s Wearhouse spot? What should the chain do for its commercials going forward?
Poll
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Would Recording In-Store Associates Help as a Training Tool?
Ethosphere is banking on AI-driven recordings of in-store associate practices as the next big thing in…Some Retailers Are Trimming Holiday Sales Discounts: Is This a Dangerous Play?
Some retailers are pulling back from deep discounts this holiday season. Is this a dangerous play?Has Kroger Discovered the Limits of Automated Warehouses?
Kroger is winding down its relationship with Ocado, citing cost overruns and a reorganization of its…
“Give a suit” is kind of a takeoff from Kmart’s ship my pants. Not sure why Men’s Wearhouse wants to give old suits away. I thought they were in the business of selling them. Didn’t really see any suits in the commercial. I mostly saw half nekked men and a few well dressed ladies.
Weird thing is, if you look at the guys in the picture, other than the tie, that’s how I dress in my office. Who needs a suit? What is this, 1983 again? Not sure what to suggest for Men’s Warehouse, but for sure, start over and try again.
Without the paternalistic voice of the founder, the naked truth seems to be its just another company hawking clothing. Chrysler struggled without Iaccoca until they had some hit cars to feature. Not sure that is possible in this category.
As with any advertising campaign that changes the way people are used to seeing a company, Men’s Wearhouse is going to need time to reorient consumers. That said, the new spot is soulless and difficult to understand, without highlighting any brand attributes, other than this promotional sale. Let’s see what kind of brand advertising they offer before completely condemning their strategy.
I had to run the spot twice in order to get the message: If you donate a suit (then given to somebody re-entering the workforce), you’ll get 50% off the price of a new suit. It’s a confusing message to begin with, made more distracting by the “visuals” of the shirtless guys.
I’m not sure that George Zimmer’s face or voice would have made a difference to this example of bad creative work, but Men’s Wearhouse is sacrificing the “face of the franchise” along with their iconic tagline. It’s too bad that internal politics—however necessary—led to this outcome.
I agree with Dick. This is just a bad ad. It’s a good cause, but a terrible ad. I think this is the company’s version of trying to skew younger. Can you spell Ron Johnson?
I have a better understanding why it is beneficial to use mascots like Ronald McDonald or Geoffrey the Giraffe for retail marketing campaigns….
My assessment of the ad is that it’s silly, tacky, and that almost no man I know would ever consider dragging an old suit back to the store for a discount.
However, my assessment of your article’s headline, George, is that it’s brilliant.
I like the point of the commercial and will donate a couple suits to the cause, both theirs and mine to get the 50% off deal. I missed Mr. Zimmer’s voice and continue to think the Men’s Wearhouse board made a mistake.
It seems like the marketing team at Men’s Wearhouse should have been able to anticipate a day when the founder, for any number of reasons, would not be able to serve as pitch man.
This execution was not well thought out, and will cause even loyal customers to scratch their heads.
I think because I was expecting to hear something else; I was already poised for a bias. In the long run, I think it will be okay that the founder’s voice isn’t there. It only sounds awkward now because we are making a point to call it out.
I still miss Dave from the Wendy’s campaign. As one of the experts said, someone should have planned for life after George.
Boring and uninspiring as an ad. Makes George Zimmer’s absence even more noticeable because there isn’t anything else redeeming about this one!
I never really liked George Zimmer’s presence at the end of their spots, because he didn’t seem like me or like the me I’d want to be. That said, his message was instantly clear and it seemed sincere. As far as the new ad goes, Max Goldberg said it succinctly, it is “soulless” and confusing, so I don’t expect it to attract new buyers…which is one of the reasons why they parted company with Mr. Zimmer.
Mr. Livingston, re: your work attire—thanks for the visual. I think.
Make stars out of their associates. Start with the fitters and tailors.
After axing its homegrown CEO for essentially an ethics issue, Best Buy followed up by forcing out its founder Dick Schulze on a charge of not divulging what he knew on the subject. Shulze then began to summon his allies, both from within and outside the company, to reclaim the retailer, which was additionally troubled by a myriad of sales, merchandising and policy issues.
Schulze had been the face of the company from within, though never an icon to the general public as George Zimmer had been for Men’s Wearhouse.
When Best Buy’s wide search for a new CEO was completed and a number of initiatives aimed at turning the company started to gain traction, the new administration eagerly mended fences and proudly brought Schulze back to the corporate fold.
Zimmer’s absence will be far more apparent to consumers than was Schulze’s. As new commercials are issued, there may seem to be a black hole emanating, marking Zimmer’s obvious absence. Here it is far less likely that the founder’s return is possible. To those consumers who actually know that the founder was forced out, the missing iconic voice may be a reminder of a kind of betrayal that is the worst kind of publicity.
The ad looks like a charity fundraiser. I totally missed the brand in it. Since this is a special campaign, I almost think that’s okay, but for the long run, they really need to establish who they are.
Zimmer’s voice and message were classy, as befitting a suit. Young men today aren’t really wearing suits, so the challenge for MW is to determine the new voice and message for the brand.
Very confusing and uninspiring. Makes me wonder who the Men’s Wearhouse believes their customer is. Brings home the reason why you need an icon to personalize how you differentiate yourself as a brand in the commodity market.
Oy. After the death of Dave Thomas, Wendy’s could at least say that they would do things “Dave’s Way.” TMW can’t do even that. If I were advising their marketing team, I’d urge them to acquire a new iconic approach faster than fast….
Well I for one adored it.
Just kidding! Like pretty much everyone here I found the particulars of the ad confusing, but they helped—or hurt, depending on your view—to distract that George isn’t there anymore. Hard to say what their marketing future is going to be like, since most of the ads won’t be like this one…well, at least we hope they won’t, anyway.
Silly. Derivative. Probably should have delayed new advertising until a focused campaign was developed. Tough to replace an iconic spokesperson, even one whose effectiveness may have been waning, but this is definitely not would should have been done.
When I saw the first commercial, I thought it was an ad for a boy band. It was tight, ill fitting and just used more colorful, casual clothes. Not the purpose of a suit. The commercial was more for hanging out than to close a deal.