Is Amazon Fresh the new Prince of Bel Air and beyond?

Tax avoidance has inadvertently become a brand manager’s worst nightmare this year, leaving some of the biggest American companies having to squirm their way through long-winded excuses and explanations as to why they aren’t paying acceptable levels in the UK. The Brand Avenger recently focused on Starbucks and what impact avoidance would have on its brand decline but now the attention of the ‘beacon of brand justice’ turns its focus to Amazon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/19/oecd-tax-reform-proposals-amazon

Read the above article and you maybe surprised to hear that Amazon’s current £4.2 billion annual sales from its 8 warehouses in the UK are currently NOT taxable as funds are routed through Luxembourg! However that is all set to change if G20 reforms have anything to do with it with the tax issue becoming a question of legality and not just morality. And the change probably couldn’t come soon enough for those marketer’s responsible for enhancing Amazon’s brand reputation on English soil.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/brand-audit-amazon/4006645.article

Amazon’s brand perception has taken a hit this year which is big news when you consider the brand has enjoyed three years of relatively, steady growth in terms of perception metrics in the UK. Of course when you compare this to a 22% rise in sales within the same quarter it might be premature to begin hitting the panic buttons but it is clear that Amazon need to do something to address the controversial tax practices if it doesn’t want to impact the success of future brand extensions.

When focusing on brand extensions lets focus our attention on Amazon fresh.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/10/amazon-bets-on-web-groceries-expands-amazonfresh-to-l-a/

Amazon Fresh is the ambitious but at the same time somewhat logical attempt to expand Amazon’s distribution capabilities into the grocery market. From a size of prize perspective the grocery market would certainly attract any company who feel they have something unique to offer. Put simple the hundreds of billions in sales a year grocery generates makes Amazon’s £4.3 billion in the UK look like small fry. Tech crunch repots that following a successful trial in Seattle the grocery arm of Amazon has somewhat quietly rolled out into LA and there is a strong possibility the rollout could reach other urban Cities in the US within the next few years.

http://www.lamag.com/lafood/digestblog/2013/06/20/testing-testing-amazon-fresh-delivers

Initial trials of the delivery service in a new area have returned positive results for Amazon Fresh. There are of course some clear advantages to the service that could expand to all markets it could operate in. The amount of choice it could give the consumer in the shopping mission would be unprecedented. All of a sudden the shopper would be able to choose between small independent butchers or large-scale discounters for their Sunday meat option. Dessert could come from any one of the numerous small suppliers of fine produce. Put simply it is a convenience customers dream even if it does make the process of increasing basket size with impulse purchases a little trickier.

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/060513/amazonfresh-good-or-bad-move-stock-amzn-ahony-kr-swy-ups.aspx

Then of course we have to think of the bottom line. Is the roll out of Amazon Fresh good for the stockholder? Well opinion seems to be split on this one. If you were to look at Amazon Fresh investment in complete isolation to the rest of Amazon’s portfolio you may say it is a loss leader and not worth effort. If you were to look at the brand extension as a complimentary service for customers that encourage them to spend more on Amazon and perhaps pick up other products while shopping then this is where the true value exists.

But I digress; the question you might be quite rightly asking now is what does all of this have to do with Amazon’s UK tax avoidance? Well the answer can be found in the public’s overall current perception of the Amazon Fresh.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1191936/nearly-40-shoppers-would-not-buy-groceries-amazon

As we stand in todays market 40% of shoppers claim they would not buy groceries from Amazon. It is clear that the tax avoidance issues and questions over ethics still have an impact on the potential growth of Amazon as a business. Of course this won’t be the only reason why customers would be reluctant to switch to Amazon and I’m sure there were plenty who never thought they would buy a book or item of clothing from the site as well. However, clearly this is an interesting enough statistic with a big enough negative outcome that cannot be ignored. Brand metric scoring has already showed us that Amazon’s image has suffered. If they are to truly start growing their company into a viable contender for the lucrative grocery market immediate brand building and recovery strategy needs to be developed. Amazon want to be in a place where they become as known for selling Apple Crumble as they are for games and accessories rather than looking back in despair in a number of years for believing they were too big to crumble. Listen to the customer, do the right thing and be the vision want to achieve.

Under Armour not under attack. How are growing brand can use advocacy to continue to gain success

Let’s do something a little different this week. Instead of focusing on a brand that either may struggle or is currently struggling let’s turn our attention to a rising star. Founded in 1996 you would be forgiven for thinking Under Armour was well established long before the 90’s.  As a relative small part of the American Football clothing market initially the brand has quickly grown into a major player across the world. What was originally Kevin Plank’s idea for a shirt that would stay light when saturated with sweat has quickly grown into the brand that is Under Armour today. It is now responsible for making some of the most established and most familiar sporting brands across the world sweat under their very own dri-fit collars. 

One look at Under Armour’s stock market value growth will tell you all you need to know about the companies’ prospects for the future. Value share has more than doubled, which has fuelled the brands aggressive expansion strategy across the US and the rest of the World.

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/under-armour-inc/index.html

Put simply Under Armour has quickly become the sporting brand of choice for the in crowd  in the US market, with numerous celebrities ready and willing to wear the apparel for the millions to see. Hoping to expand on this popularity Under Armour has looked to acquire increased brand recognition and reach in the UK market through initiatives such as sponsoring Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. The partnership seems to tie in perfectly for growth strategies for both the US sporting brand and the UK football institution. Take for example Spur’s long term ambition of leveraging presence in the US market creating more than its already reported 6 million American followers.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1164063/spurs-earmark-us-key-international-priority?HAYILC=RELATED

Under Armour have certainly put a considerable amount of investment into the partnership with Spurs- a reported £50 million over 5 years! Of course not only will this benefit Under Armour in terms of increased recognition but if Spurs stand to gain out of this as well then it becomes clear why this was a very smart move for at least one of the parties. What will turn it into a smart investment for Under Armour will be determined by how their brand presence continues to grow in the face of key competitors. The sports apparel market is already fragmented as it is and brands can quickly find themselves losing valuable share in the minds of consumers.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/under-armour-readies-aggressive-bid-to-take-on-nike/4002740.article

Under Armour will not allow itself to think small when it comes to positioning. They have quickly looked to pitch their tent in unbelievably close proximity to the Nike camp. Their motivations can be clearly demonstrated in their marketing strategy. As a $5 billion business they are of course small fry compared to Nike’s powerhouse brand, however momentum can be everything in the marketing game and it is clear they do not struggle for this.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1189953/armours-top-marketer-spurs-speaking-nikes-name-wearing-womens-lingerie

Well you consider the very mention of Nike is banned in head office you begin to realize how powerful the spirit of competition is within the company. You could call their plan ambitious yet the power of advocacy and cmart PR product placement continues to allow the brand to gain the aforementioned momentum which is so important. Taking all of this into consideration it would appear the future is bright for Under Armour and there is plenty to be optimistic about. In case we have not covered them all already the following article neatly sums up some of the main factors the brand have going for it.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/02/under-armours-bright-future/

With such an aggressive expansion strategy on the cards you could argue that under Armour may struggle to keep its eye on the prize especially within the market where it originally made an impact. However, holding onto brand traditions appears to be an especially important factor for Under Armour and recent marketing campaigns highlighting not only a strong link to American Football but also building off the brands Baltimore heritage demonstrate they aren’t about to forget where they came from.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-08/business/bs-bz-ray-lewis-under-armour-commercial-20130708_1_ray-lewis-local-coaches-and-players-high-school-football

So concluding thoughts on Under Armour? Well you may very well say ‘Brand Avenger has gone soft but I have a good feeling about Under Armour. They are relatively young, have invested in a long term strategic mission with a clear goal of stealing share from Nike. However, the real difference for Under Armour will come with a strong focus on advocacy which makes me happy to read articles like the one below.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/sports-brands-offering-cash-to-fans-to-amass-advocate-armies/4007235.article

No matter who you are and whatever markets you operate in or how big or small your sales value figures are you can never underestimate the power of looking after your brand loyal customers. Under Armour are right to research ways into ensuring advocacy isn’t lost especially if its biggest competitors are doing this also. Pacino once said a game is won or lost depending on inches in Any Given Sunday. If Under Armour continue to focus on advocacy, thus protecting its customers with the greatest sales value they should end up miles in front.

 

Anyone for tennis? How powerful is brand association for Wimbledon’s main sponsors

Every summer thousands of spectators and multiple tennis icons gather together in the South West of London to embrace a time honoured tradition. Wimbledon has a reputation for being one of the finest sporting tournaments in the world and with that comes a massive opportunity for lucrative brand partnerships and million pound marketing sponsorships.

For many brands Wimbledon is a safe choice when deciding to embark on partnership. The tournament boasts a mass celebrity following and strong connotations of a culture that embraces the best of British. Grass courts, ball boys and ageing celebrities such as Bruce Forsyth tucking into strawberries and cream or Cliff Richard leading a sing along with the crowd, all give the tournament a safe feel. Add this to a healthy bout of competition, strong camaraderie between players and worldwide brand recognition and it is clear to see why many feel they can’t go wrong with associating themselves with the grass court tourney.

Which brands have looked to partner with Wimbledon in 2013? Lets take a look at the official sponsorship page.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/suppliers/

There are 13 big players in the championships across all types of industries. When you look at the list some seem to make complete sense, take for instance Slazenger. For 111 years Slazenger has had the advantage of supplying tennis balls for Wimbledon. There is a reason why Slazenger has taken out such a long association with Wimbledon and it probably isn’t rocket science for anyone reading this article. If you are the official equipment provider that some of the worlds biggest stars will use in one of the worlds oldest tournaments you are effectively protecting your market share in a market where commodities are differentiated by branding.

Then there are brands like HSBC. You won’t find HSBC branding plastered across the tourney boards or the worlds local bank logo included in the official Wimbledon branding. Taking into consideration the strong brand guidelines Wimbledon put in place for its sponsors to adhere to how does a brand like HSBC strategically take advantage of such a partnership? Well of course you could argue they will benefit from being the exclusive ATM of the event, a move which should yield some shot term profit and brand association.  However, HSBC are also smart enough to know that there are other ways to not only capitalize on the tournament but also link it into their own brand mission.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb10fbbe-df19-11e2-881f-00144feab7de.html#axzz2Y6uYUyay

Bringing the tournament to other Countries put pure and simple is great brand strategy for HSBC. The brand may not be operating in the same industry of the game like Slazenger but it has made the association work for its brand mission of being ‘The World’s Local Bank’.

Then there are brands like Lavazza. As a strong Italian brand Lavazza have adapted a media strategy centered around digital and Underground marketing for Wimbledon. And the CEO appears to be happy with his choice when you reference the below interview.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/qa-lavazza-group-cmo-carlo-salvadori/4007237.article

Salvadori has a clear strategic mission of increasing brand recognition and sales of Lavazza in the UK. However what worries me is Salvadori’s reaction to the question of how this will be measured.

“we have been measuring the positive effects of our presence at Wimbledon by the fact that we have been gaining more and more consideration in the UK market.”

Consideration won’t necessarily lead to increased sales for Lavazza. If they have well and truly looked to establish a long-lasting relationship and lucrative sponsorship deal with Wimbledon then I hope they have far more advanced ways of measuring the impact of the deal then consideration. For two brands with such contrasting brand missions it remains to be seen if such a partnership will yield returns and if Lavazza can benefit from this investment.

So who wins in terms of their decision to invest in Wimbledon will emerge as the champion? Well it might not be any of the partners but in actual fact the Lawn Tennis Association.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/04/wimbledon-commercial-world-chinese

Earlier in the article we mentioned Wimbledon’s strict brand guidelines. From the offset all brands that decide to invest know exactly where they stand. If the LTA is to protect the image of this luxury brand all other partnerships must be subtle. You want find Rolex plastered all over the players kits or the surface of Murray mound but you will find it on the official clock on Centre Court. You won’t find Evian floor graphics painted onto the grass of Court 1 but you will see players drinking from Evian bottles. All of these tactics are clever business as it protects the brand reputation, enhances brand value and makes Wimbledon a viable brand to be moved to different markets like the Far East as mentioned in the above article.

All in all many will come, few will remain and only a handful will be crowned champions at Wimbledon. But this year, and for many more to come when it comes to the final battle between Wimbledon and its sponsors for brand supremacy there is only one winner. Wimbledon as a product of the LTA will continue to win hands down GAME, SET AND MATCH.

Ryanair doesn't care about customers!!! And that works fine for their brand strategy

Ryanair is an interesting brand to place under an evaluation microscope. The fact that it has established itself as an consistent offender when it comes to negative brand perception hasn't seemed to of damaged its stability. In fact if you didn't know the low cost no frills airline recently announced a record £481 million in profit for 12/13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22593246

The more passionate customer service connoisseurs among us would argue that Ryanair as an entity should really not be doing this well. How can a company, which spends so little time on customer satisfaction, and so much resource on squeezing extra revenue out of its customer base, continue to enjoy expansion, growth and substantial market share? 

Let's be crystal clear on Ryanair’s brand perception. If you thought Ryanair scores positively as a brand with a strong focus on satisfying customers through a low cost model you would be wrong. One of the most common words you will find linked with Ryanair brand perception is 'deception'. Take for example the company website which ranks the worst in terms of ease of use for all UK travel companies.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/2012/11/23/42362/ryanairs+deceptive+website+puts+it+in+last+place+on+brand+index.html

Virgin might focus on the Rockstar holiday, JetBlue may pride itself on its on-board customer comfort but Ryanair makes absolutely no bones about the fact that first and foremost it is a low cost, high revenue margin operation. You will notice that whereas Virgin is noted as taking a more customer-centric approach Ryanair instead focuses on driving traffic to the website, currently in the tune of 1.2 million customers a day. Makes sense when you consider a complete lack of consideration when it comes to customer service strategy or any investment in understanding how the rising influence of social media will change the way consumers behave. You might think that in this day and age a CEO would take time to listen to its customers. It's clear from the below blog that Ryanair have no time to liaise with 'idiot bloggers', a strategy which some have described as 'analogue marketing in a digital world'.

http://wallblog.co.uk/2012/09/07/ryanair-is-an-analogue-brand-in-a-digital-world-and-must-change/

Surely this defies all logic? A brand can't place so little emphasis on the customer and continue to enjoy strong profit and growth. How can this model be sustainable? Surely sooner or later Ryanair will suffer for a complete lack or respect in maintaining a strong and loveable brand?

You would certainly hope so however that depends on a few factors changing in the market it currently operates in. The Brand Avenger would argue that in order for Ryanair to begin to feel the pain in terms of sales then one, or a combination of all three of the following things would have to happen.

1) Price would have to decrease in importance when it came to choosing an airline to travel.

It is far too easy nowadays for a consumer to use a search engine such as Skyscanner and search for the cheapest possible option when it comes to flying. There is no denying the fact that holidays are expensive and as many see the flight as a means to an end it will normally be travel where customers look to tighten the purse strings. Would many be willing to pay extra dollar dollar bills for a promise of better service or increased comfort? Has any brand connected so well with airline consumers that it justifies an increase in spend? The answer is no. When it boils down to it Ryanair will always continue to win if they can successfully maintain a lower price than the nearest competitor. Brand reputation maybe in tatters but then again the consumer isn't really buying the brand in this instance.

2) There would need to be an increased number of competitors serving the same routes as Ryanair to give the customer more choice.

More competitors, more options and more choice for the consumer. It is a simple case of supply and demand! The Brand Avenger would assure you the service could be much worse if the market continues to lose suppliers. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22713569

Let's take the above example into consideration. Ryanair purchase AerLingus, swallow up all brand assets and the consumer has to fly with the same company to reach their destination. This of course leads to complete control for the company and complete loss of power for the consumer. 

If Ryanair are ever going to pay for its non-existent investment in brand strategy it will only be when customers have a choice. They have a choice of supermarket, of restaurant and of clothes store but when it comes to airlines how many companies can truly offer the routes and price Ryanair currently do?

3) A competitor would have to truly embrace a customer centric strategy to retain the loyalty of customers.

We should be careful when using the term customer-centric in any sense when analysing the aviation industry. Whereas it is true Virgin invest a considerable amount of time and resource on marketing strategy focusing on service and comfort it does little to truly win the loyalty of its most frequent flyers. Despite significant lip service and hefty marketing budgets focused on service Virgin have yet to understand the full value of the customers that spend the most on their service. If they did then Virgin would be tailoring the lowest prices fares and significant promotions with the largest discounts to the most frequent of flyers rather than trying to acquire new flyers. The largest retailer in the UK knows that three quarters of sales revenue is generated from customers who stay loyal to their brand. In a market heavy on competition and with the rising power of word of mouth marketing there is no reason why the same concept couldn't work for an airline as long as they were willing to fully embrace a customer-centric ethos.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/02/european-air-travel

Let's finish with a quick review of the above article. The Economist argues that 1 in 5 of Ryanair's passengers are travelling for business, which equates to 17.5 million customers a year. This is a segment of customers who is clearly a significant revenue generator but also one of the segments that Ryanair could be in greatest risk of losing if market conditions change. At the start of this article The Brand Avenger wondered why Ryanair continued to do so well despite such poor brand perception and I think the analysis of the business consumer sums up the reasons quite nicely. Until someone, somewhere can come in with a matching price with a greater emphasis on customer service with minimal hassle much like the rest of Ryanair's customer base the business trade will continue to flow. However, Ryanair need to realise that this model cannot be sustainable in the long term. The only way it would be is if they were to become a complete monopoly and competition authority bodies won't allow them to do so. Sooner or later some brand, somewhere will do what Ryanair does cheaper and better and when that happens, much like the 1 in 5 business crowd all of Ryanair's customers will leave the brand without an ounce of regret or any feeling of commitment. After all, it’s nothing personal, it’s just business.

Flogging a dead horse? Can Myspace rise from the ashes?

MySpace is back! If you didn’t know that then you should check out the below Youtube clip

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/myspace-returns-with-star-studied-tv-ad/4007051.article

In many ways MySpace’s fall was more impressive than its rise. The brand should have been able to hold onto its position of power in the Social Network space. The fact that unique visitors fell from 78.9 million per month in 2006 to 34.8 million three years later clearly demonstrates how big its decline in popularity was.

There are many theories as to why MySpace ultimately failed to maintain its dominant market position. Many blame the sale of the Social Media site to News Corp as a preliminary blow that was hard to come back from. De Wolfe himself has cited a pressure to monetize the site following the sale as a step in the wrong direction. Whatever the cause it is clear that De Wolfe’s earlier claim that MySpace would have 400 million users by 2015 is just not obtainable.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235053917570.htm#p2

So why would a group of investors try and salvage this social media ship wreck? Is it even possible to reposition a brand and restore it to its past glory following such a public fall from grace?

There are examples of companies that have successfully repositioned brands and there are examples of companies which have failed and gone out of business. Clearly the success will depend on a number of factors but most importantly a clear and viable long-term brand mission will be important.

MG Rover had once enjoyed a healthy position in the UK car market. However, following years of decline the Birmingham based brand was left in a perilous position by the turn of the 21^st Century. Following a buy out in 2000 there was hope that a brand refresh and a product re-launch would be enough to save the company. But when it came down to it Rover reputation was too damaged to recover and it wasn’t long before the car maker was confined to the brand graveyard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4488899.stm

However before we begin to assume there is no hope for MySpace we should consider the tale of Apple. In 1993 you may have been forgiven for believing the rise and rise of Microsoft would lead to a permanent burial of the company responsible for the Macbook in the 80’s

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/rise-fall-rise-apple-history/

But Apple wasn’t about to lie down and die an easy death. Apple carefully evaluated its position in the market, where technology was going and most importantly stuck to its gun on its brad strategy moving forward; Apple would be the icon of doing things differently ad this couldn’t have been anymore evident in its unique differentiated approach to releasing MP3 players and phones with a clear focus on usability and a rebel image. And in terms of brand success the rest is history.

http://mashable.com/2013/06/12/new-myspace-launch/

Reading the above review which details some of the key changes in Myspace strategy it is clear that it is going to take more than the removal of a capital S in the logo to create success. You can’t argue with the ambition of the new owners and the clear focus they are placing on music, personalized radio station content, etc. And if nothing else early Brand scoring metrics will probably be music to the investor’s ears as negative perception continues to fall as detailed below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandindex/2013/06/19/myspace-buzz-catches-up-with-social-media-giants-amid-relaunch/

It is clear that Myspace can go one of two ways in the future. It can stick to a strategy look to offer a differentiated product portfolio and have a clear aligned band strategy or it can jump from one strategy to another in a desperate search to provide a purpose and meaning to the target audience. Whatever way it goes there is no doubting it is a massive task and a warning to all powerful brands in any market that you can’t forget about your brand strategy.

The Man Of Steel and its Promotional Partnerships... Super Marketing?

Later this week the world will witness the launch of the hugely anticipated Man Of Steel franchise. Capitalising on the popularity of super hero films Warner Brothers are hoping the most recent caped crusader adaptation to hit the screen will bring with it broken records at the box office and a steady stream of investment. And as long as they can keep the public interested in the series The Brand Avenger can't see why they wouldn't be able to achieve this.

Warner aren't the only company who are hoping to capitalise on an investment in the film as several other firms outside of the entertainment industry have also signed themselves up to lucrative contract deals. Companies ranging from Lidl to No Fear are hoping to boost revenue streams through investing in Clark Kent with some companies as Chrysler and Nokia going as far as to design actual products around a Superman theme.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/brands-take-off-for-the-man-of-steel/4007015.article

There is a long history of companies seeking out promotional partnerships with the silver screen to complement their marketing efforts. Regular readers of The Brand Avenger will remember that Audi looked to capitalise on Iron Man 3 mania through a lucrative sponsorship deal. There are of course countless other examples of how some of the biggest brands in the world look to boost their reputation and enhance visibility through promotional tie ins with the entertainment industry.

If you are looking for a simple way of capitalising on a bit of quick and dirty exposure then promotional partnerships will certainly give you that. However I wonder how many companies have well and truly thought of a long term marketing strategy before they have decided to fork out on marketing investment and exclusivity rights for the Man Of Steel.

http://www.licensing.biz/news/11485/Man-of-Steel-flies-into-LIDL

Lidl is an interesting partner for Man of Steel when it comes to distribution rights. Surely for a retailer as long as you have accessibility and location locked down the most important next step is to ensure customers are shopping at your stores and not your competitors. However if Lidl well and truly believe that the exclusivity of selling Superman franchise will lead to improved levels of customer loyalty then this is misguided at best.

Even the biggest brands are accountable for poor marketing decision making especially when it comes to partnerships with movie features. In so many ways Coca-Cola are leaders when it comes to leveraging brand perception however in so many other ways they failed when it came to the Coke Zero/ Skyfall promotional partnership.

http://www.thesocialpartners.com/2012/10/22/coke_zero_james_bond_skyfall_fail/

As demonstrated in the above article if you don't have a well planned out, logical strategy for placements you risk the chance of becoming more quickly forgotten than the prestigious red carpet ceremonies that come hand in hand with the launch big films. In the case of Coke Zero the brand team may have initially had a clear and concise brief which supported the idea at first. In this instance The Brand Avenger wouldn't be too surprised if the objective was to win market share and brand recall of Coke Zero with the 18-35 make demographic. However, when you well and truly analyse some of the metrics behind Coke and Skyfall you quickly begin to realise that along the way the message became lost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDiZOnzajNU

One of the best examples of Coke's lack of engagement can be demonstrated through the lack of buzz generated after the above You Tube viral. Despite 3 million views in the weeks after its release the campaign quickly lost momentum, most evident in the fact that the campaign only returned a couple of hundred tweets which is a disaster and not a sound long term investment choice.

Maybe things would be different if Coke pipped Heineken to the post to become the official replacement of the famous Vodka Martini's shaken not stirred.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206593/James-Bond-swaps-Vodka-Martini-pint-Heineken-controversial-product-placement-deal-new-film.html

£28 million is a lot of money to pay for a lucrative product placement. From a brand recall point of view for Heineken the lure of extensive product placement and exclusive access to TV ads with Bond was too much for the company to resist and made more sense than the deal Coke Zero took out. But in terms of whether the brand investment in promotional placements is worth it i'm afraid the answer is there is no answer. Put pure and simple no one knows which makes the expense even harder to justify if you are looking for return on investment.

http://www.livescience.com/24957-james-bond-product-placement.html

We cannot say for sure that showbusiness and investment in strategic partnerships can yield big returns however marketeers need to be realistic when they look to undertake such partnerships in regards to what they get back. If you are well and truly looking to win the loyalty of your casual and regular customers you are not going to get it through claiming exclusivity on a movie franchise with a limited shelf life. If you are looking to partner up with entertainment entities I would suggest taking a leaf out of Experian's book and look to build a more viable long term strategy.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/ticketmaster-eyes-growing-insight-market/4007017.article

Insight and big data are key trends and huge growth areas for all industries. Through partnering with a data specialist Ticketmaster may not be in the front row when it comes to sponsorship deals and partnerships but that won't bother them if they are selling out the theatre.