Game over for Nintendo?

Nintendo announcing projected losses of $240 million is definitely not small fry so should we all be worried about the long-term stability of Mario and friends? This will be especially concerning since sales for gaming hardware has increased 28% mostly driven through the launch of new gaming systems from Sony and Microsoft.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nintendos-painful-quarter-spells-real-trouble-for-company/2014/01/17/de531dbe-7f88-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

There might not be too many reasons to panic as of yet. Most people would argue that Nintendo has been the main company propping up the sales of the gaming industry since 2008.

http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/apparently-the-gaming-industrys-decline-is-nintendos-fault-360-to-outsell-w#.UuWdvyg4kb0

Could the recent drop in sales really be testament of how the gaming industry is structured more so than an indication that the company could be facing a worrying future? The big names in gaming all enjoy a piece of a pie when it comes to the launch of a new console. Nintendo have carved themselves a successful niche over the years by positioning their brand to appeal to families and groups of friends whilst Sony and Microsoft have aggressively gone after the solo gamer. However as gamers can of course have more than one console hence lining the pockets of more than one tech giant is the recent decline in sales to be expected considering the launches of the other consoles?

Whereas there is a lot to be said in regards to the impact other console launches would have had on Nintendo you would surely expect the analysts who work at the company to have considered this in their projections. However if this is the case why have they the number crunchers had to readjust forecasts? 

Nintendo need to take stock of the situation and react fast to keep up with the consumption habits of the customer and changing trends in the market. One way they may look to do this if through entering brave new worlds such as the smartphone market.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-19/nintendo-pressed-to-exit-hardware-after-wii-u-flop.html

Nintendo’s extensive library of characters could be utilized in exciting new ways through a number of hardware and software capabilities. Nintendo could actually be the first games company to take an innovative and important brave step towards addressing how the consumer of tomorrow will want to consume gaming. It’s not like Nintendo have no history of innovating in the sense of adversity. In short the threat could certainly become an opportunity to contrary to what the good folks at Bloomberg might suggest Nintendo shouldn’t make the move to utilizing smartphone technology whilst fully turning its back on consoles. The true companies who make a difference invest significantly in the future whilst maintaining presence in current markets. If Nintendo are going to see out this storm it will be as important for them to address the console challenge as it will be to be the first to fully shape the future of gaming.

Is China worth it for L'Oreal?

L’Oreal aren’t the first and won’t be the last of the big companies who have had their hands burnt trying to enter the Chinese market through using their marque brands from Western markets. When thinking of China the concept sounds like a great one at face value. A thriving market and prospering economy that continues to grow has resulted in an increase of consumers with significant disposable income. With this in mind why wouldn’t companies who sell high margin, luxury items like L’Oreal not want to exploit the market and grow their brands? However the reality is that the target market just aint buying it

http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1404118/loreal-brand-and-revlon-call-time-china

There are a number of theories as to why companies like L’Oreal might be struggling in new markets. The Brand Avenger would argue one of the key reasons L’Oreal has struggled is the assumption that one single universal brand approach is strong enough to stretch across all markets in both the West and the East. This assumption is a problem that more and more companies will begin to experience as they become more global.  In essence L’Oreal’s decision to target Garnier products in the market with no differentiated approach is either naïve or lazy. It is for that reason L’Oreal this week deserves to be critiqued by the ever-watching eye of The Brand Avenger.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1226943/why-china-losing-its-lip-gloss-western-brands

Of course its not all doom and gloom for L’Oreal and they certainly are far from taking the decision to entirely remove themselves from expanding into the Far East. Through acquiring local companies in the Chinese market L’Oreal are demonstrating that they understand the mistakes in their previous strategic approach and are preparing themselves to do something about it.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-14/news/46186240_1_l-oreal-skincare-hong-kong-listed

As the market becomes more and more saturated with imported foreign brands localization will become the key as opposed to globalization.  Put simply companies like L’Oreal will have to work harder to understand the new segments of customers they are exposed to. Through investing in the right infrastructure, researching the market thoroughly and adapting the product offering to meet the needs of the base, investing in the Chinese market might just still be worth it yet for the French facial experts.

Is Co-op’s thank you sincere?

2013 certainly wasn’t a great year for the Co-op. Challenging times were never too far away when it came to a company boasting ethical banking practice.  It’s an interesting and brave move to highlight some of the issues the bank has experienced in a print advertisement. But the Brand Avenger wonders if this is more about rewarding loyal customers or carefully managing consumer perception through PR?

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1226782/co-op-bank-runs-second-ad-following-scandal/

Don’t get me wrong. There is certainly a lot that can be said for the decision to advertise in this way. Taking the decision to publicly put your hands up and admit wrongdoing and lack of judgment is a big step for any individual to do, let alone a company with customers and investors. However, there are many ways Co-op could choose to market this message.  Print advertisements are mass awareness tools. They are not designed to tailor a message to a select group of consumers. If it was all about rewarding loyalty surely there are other measures that can be used for this.

http://bigdoor.com/blog/2013/11/06/10-tips-for-loyalty-program-success/

Plenty of companies adhere to at least some of the hints and tips in the above article to reward loyalty. And there are plenty of companies that do it considerably well. Tesco built a 30% market share in the UK retail market through utilizing Clubcard data. Google are beginning to target advertisements through data from G Mail customers. The point is if you really want to send a message to your loyal customers there are many ways you can do it better than broadsheet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/business/ge-capital-to-help-set-up-loyalty-programs-for-retailers.html?_r=0

Understanding your most valuable customers to reward loyalty certainly is a lucrative business at the moment as it has for a number of years. Anyone who has considerable access to data is exploring options to create loyalty schemes. The benefit of data is that it provides a realistic view into consumer preferences. It’s this understanding that can allow companies to target communication, so if you do want to reward your loyal customers you can identify them to do so. No one is saying Co-op is wrong to print the advert. There might just be a better way to do that if that was more important to them than a bit of PR.

What is Facebook doing with your data?

Facebook might be the preferred social network in the US but that doesn’t mean it is immune from criticism or legislation protecting consumer rights. Most recently Facebook has fallen into some hot water following allegations from two American users that the site had scanned private messages for key words to sell to advertisers for targeted messages.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342366/scitech/socialmedia/facebook-faces-suit-for-data-mining-private-messages

Ever since Facebook began commercializing data there was always a risk that the company would come under some sort of scrutiny around how they decide to use it. Facebook may have taken some comfort from the fact that other data mining companies have been here before and have come through the other side relatively unscathed. However the fact that the class action is raised from 2 users on behalf of what could be millions of US Facebook users will be a huge concern to the social media giant. However this will only be a concern for Facebook if it begins to hit the finances and as of yet the stock price has remained flat.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c940122-73ed-11e3-beeb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pYJxbhVE

Facebook are no strangers to the controversy that can arise from the uncertainties of data handling. In 2012 they were forced to drop face recognition technology due to the uncertainties around how the data was used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207098/Facebook-switch-controversial-facial-recognition-feature-following-data-protection-concerns.html

The question now is how will the most recent lawsuit in regards to Facebook data policy impact the brand in the long-term? The answer to that question will come down to how Facebook approach the publics concerns. There needs to be some clarity around exactly how Facebook intend to use the data and maybe more importantly what access rights advertisers is given when they purchase it. It is clear from recent popularity polls and Facebook’s stock price that there isn’t too much to worry about now. But the data issue won’t go away so the reputation of the Facebook brand and popularity with its users in the long-term will depend on how well they communicate the data policy to users.

A taste of real world criticism for Coca-Cola following gay wedding omission backlash?

You would think so soon after the controversy surrounding BiM and Lionsgate companies would be trying to keep a low profile regarding controversial content in advertisements. But then again you can never be too sure where discontent and anger may arise when awareness tools like Twitter and Facebook can be used to generate overall public awareness.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1225983/coke-suffers-backlash-cutting-gay-marriage-scene-irish-ad

You may notice some key differences between the ways Coke have dealt with their varied messaging across markets compared to BiM. The most striking difference is that there is no hint of a public apology or any indication that the decision to remove the gay marriage messaging from the Ireland campaign is controversial or wrong.  But could the very fact that Coke has chosen to exclude material in this manner contradict the overall message of positivity surrounding the campaign.

http://www.prweek.com/article/1225997/coke-suffers-backlash-cutting-gay-marriage-scene-irish-ad

Coke have defended their decision by stating that they have only chosen content relevant to the markets it is shown in. Is this the messaging which is supposed to justify the use of an St Patrick’s Day scene over the support of Gay Marriage?

It is no surprise that Coke have experienced the backlash they have taking into consideration the weak reasoning behind the change in creative messaging. By arguing the use of what is culturally relevant could it not also be said that the Irish advertising contradicts the overall meaning of the campaign?  This certainly appears to be the view of key institutions in the homosexual community.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/30/why-does-the-irish-version-of-this-coca-cola-advert-omit-a-gay-couple/

Yet again we are faced with another example of why companies like Coke and Lionsgate need to think very carefully about the way they choose to message integrated campaigns across markets. Companies are becoming increasingly accountable for actions not just in one market but globally. There is no doubt Coke were looking to support a key subject of equality in some markets but if it is a good enough cause to support in one market it should be a goos enough cause to support universally.