Is Twitter dying or flying?

Is Twitter's recent fall in stock value anything to be seriously worried about for one of the largest social media companies in the world? It certainly isn't a small issue for a company or its investors when one fifth of stock value is lost following the publishing of results so what has led to such a stark fall in confidence over the latest period?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26059710

Some believe Twitter is over valued, some believe the user growth is not in line with what it should be and some believe the lack of active users leads to little chance of long-term stability.  On top of all of this comparisons will no doubt continue to be made to Facebook. The fact that Twitter's main competitor has five times the amount of users builds into the perception that Facebook is the dominant player in social media. This creates an interesting dilemma for investors when deciding who to plug their hard earned cash into for a lucrative and growing portfolio.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2014/01/06/analyst-bet-on-facebook-and-google-over-twitter/

Incredibly 90% of Twitter growth can be attributed to advertising revenue so it will be more than a small shock to some that Twitter has yet to define a sensible algorithm to determine relevant customer tweets and relate this data back to a targeted audience. This is of course a significant part of Twitters issues as it means potential business is lost to competitors. If the average owner of a stock portfolio continues to place Twitter in the same bracket as Facebook there will only be one winner in that battle.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1230188/twitters-value-drops-fifth-user-growth-stutters

We all shouldn't start to get too worried about Twitter in the long-term. The fact of the matter is the company continues to see an strong growth in users (30% compared to 2013) and there are a number of other unique competitive advantages over other social media competitors. The Brand Avenger believes the two most important factors to look is the ability for real-time and instantaneous content to be created and shared and the companies dominance of utilising second screen capability. One of the best videos I can find on the web today to bring this to life can be found at the below link and highlights how many people were tweeting on their second screen (laptop or smartphone) whilst enjoying the Superbowl on their main screen.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-super-bowl-lights-up-twitter-29988548.html

We have set it before and we will say it again! The way companies choose to spend their advertising and marketing revenues will change as we move into the next decade. Twitter have a clear competitive advantage in the sense that the public are already using hash tags and Tweets to communicate their feelings about brands. Twitter has an opportunity to potentially use this power to offer a integrated media package to the market that creates an aligned marketing message across TV and social. Alternatively they could just choose to highlight and embrace the value of their own platform for advertising investment, a value of which cannot be denied when you consider examples like the ones mentioned below.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140208/business/702089958/

Twitter is different to Facebook and it already has pole position in a number of critical areas that could help bolster future growth. It's now time for the little blue bird to spread its wings and fly into the next decade as the main destination for lucrative advertising expenditure.

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.

Does BiM's decision to pull advertising in Italy for its 12 Year's A Slave campaign point to the existence of racism?

It’s not every day a film poster can spark worldwide debate and widespread apologies from several sources over the creation of content let alone once again raise questions over a Countries stance on racial equality. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/27/controversial-italian-12-years-a-slave-poster-stirs-debate-over-movies-and-race/ If you have yet to catch up with this story I can provide a topline summary. Rather than focus promotional activity around lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor the Italian distributors for ‘12 years a slave’ instead chose to focus on Brad Pitt, a man who plays a character with a relatively small part in the film. You might be wondering what the fuss is about. Does a decision to focus on a mainstream actor with worldwide appeal in a foreign market really spell out implicit racism? It probably isn’t a question for us to debate here but what is clear is that both BiM and Lionsgate appear to be treading carefully around the issue. The reactions from both companies might say a lot more about the supposed link between the decision making and some sort of underlying fears of discrimination. Through pulling the campaign and issuing grovelling apologies have both companies actually just blown the issue out of proportion? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/italian-distributor-pulls-12-years-a-slave-posters-that-emphasize-films-white-actors/article16124914/ It is hard to determine whether it will be Lionsgate Films or BiM Distribuzione who will bear the long-term brunt of this controversy. Lionsgate have been quick to claim they gave no permission for the film ’12 years a salve’ to be advertised in the way depicted by BiM. However, as the vendor chosen to create and distribute the content should it not be BiM who are forced to explain their motives behind advertising in such a way? Is pulling the advertisement simply enough or should they have even of pulled the material at all? Over the last year The Brand Avenger has shined a spotlight on countless companies who have failed to address issues that would ultimately damage brand reputation in a timely manner. However in this instance The Brand Avenger would argue the reaction from both entities may have only served to of fuelled further criticism and controversy. Rather than potentially sign off the content to appear in Italy Lionsgate would have played close to no involvement in the decision to feature Pitt or Fassbender as opposed to Ejiofor. BiM may have reacted in a way they felt best to communicate to their target market so it should be their role to explain the context behind the decision. Had they of done this rather than pull material so quickly the issue may have resolved itself. The speed of which it was removed may say far more about the attitudes and beliefs of both the company and the public than the actual initial questioning of how BiM chose to promote the film.

Colgate's #brushswap turns into brushgate

What happens when a brand promises customers free products as part of a viral campaign and can’t keep up with the campaign? Wide scale criticism and public humiliation is the answer.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1218637/colgate-brushswap-debacle-banned-ad-watchdog-misleading-claims

Colgate clearly didn’t have any luck when it came to this campaign. Deciding to host #brushswap in a crowded location like Waterloo certainly doesn’t help with crowd control of the size of a rampant public who have caught wind of a cheap deal. Within two hours the experiential campaign was brought to a complete halt by Network Rail staff clearly concerned about the swelling around the pop-up toothbrush stall.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2361854/Brush-controversy-Colgate-promotion-backfires-hundreds-mob-promotional-stands-free-electric-toothbrushes.html

What happens when a campaign doesn’t go according to plan? Well of course the angry mob takes to Twitter to voice their concerns. Colgate clearly didn’t have this in mind when they were thinking about how much social awareness this could drive.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=106943352729676&story_fbid=490648371025837

It’s hard to read some of these comments and still believe in the old adage that no news is bad news. When negative criticism is coming straight from the mouths of the very people you were trying to target with promotional giveaways you begin to create more hard work than good. The lack of judgment and accuracy in forecasting demand brought together the very consumers who expressed an interest in using Colgate’s premium branded products and instead created an army of disgruntled brushers.

When the chips are down for a brand following a publicity stunt like this what is that last thing you want? If you answered more controversy than you would be on the money my friend. It turns out the electronic brush that Colgate suggested cost £169 actually retails more accurately around £85. So there you have it- not only do you manage to annoy a target audience, you also manage to get in trouble with the authorities along the way. Just a couple of things to consider the next time a brand look to use experiential marketing to convey a message. And next time Colgate look into using innovative marketing for product sampling they might want to brush up on their demand forecasts.

Guinness: Good things don't come from rounding up your mates.

Marketing Professor's wearing tweed jackets in dusty Lecture Theatres up and down the Country have long celebrated the genius of Guinness's television advertising. Who can forget the galloping horses in glorious black and white which ushered in an era of creative concept and highly visual imagery to build a brand? Whatever your view it is safe to say that you cannot argue that Guinness has spent considerable time and effort building a strong, durable and enduring brand image.

Imagine then my shock that Guinness have appeared to throw away that strong legacy of impressive advertising with their recent #RoundUpYourMates campaign.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/guinness-jonathan-ross-ad-experiment-backfires/4008379.article

The public backlash of the extended advertisements during The Jonathan Ross Show demonstrates the negative perception towards the new marketing scheme for Guinness. But can you blame one of Ireland's greatest exports with doing something unique and innovative? One look at the Guinness website quickly outlines how much importance and emphasis Guinness has placed on the campaign. You certainly wouldn't be able to tell from the current coverage Guinness is giving the campaign that them they feel as if they are doing something wrong.

http://www.guinness.com/en-gb/roundupyourmates/

It was only a year and a half ago that Guinness first struck success with the RoundUpYourMates television and YouTube advertisement. Take one look at the comments left for the below video and you can see that there is no doubting the success of the messaging used in this concept. You may therefore be forgiven for thinking that surely what happened then would continue to be met with the same critical acclaim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y07at1bU89Q

So what's the big problem with the concept this time around? Why have the masses appeared to have turned on the 'Mates' concept quicker than an Irishman downing a pint of the black stuff on St Paddy's Day? The Brand Avenger believes 'the Twits' (my endearing term for the many tweeters out in the Universe) anger at Guinness isn't suggesting that the overall message is entirely flawed, rather the implementation. It is clear from some of the main themes generated by Twitter that todays consumer don't like being insulted or duped. Guinness execution of Mates in between actual content from Jonathan Ross's show just wasn't smart or intriguing enough to strike a positive chord with those customers who decided to tune in Saturday night. The next time Guinness want to launch a campaign maybe they should look to understand their mates a little better rather than treating them like mugs.

Has Virgin already lost with their decision to sponsor the Commonwealth Games?

You spend all that money on advertising for the Commonwealth Games and for what? For three quarters of the Scottish public to not even know who is sponsoring the event.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1214670/three-quarters-scots-oblivious-commonwealth-games-sponsors

This is clearly an issue for the businesses who have decided to pay for the advertising and the Commonwealth marketeers who are looking to make a fast buck over the games. Perception can be everything so it might concern the official sponsors even more that the most recognised of the companies (RBS at 19%) ISN'T even an official sponsor! that's right, a company who hasn't invested one dime into the pockets of the Games organisers is simply benefiting from the existence of an event. If only the organisers could charge money for any publicity generated whether it is paid for or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/24/virgin-media-commonwealth-games-sponsor

Virgin Media have clearly invested an considerable amount of time and effort into the sponsorship so it will come as a shock to the multi-media provider that they are currently ranked last of the official brand recognition poll taken from YouGov. Virgin are no stranger to lucrative, sponsorship partnerships with athletes and sporting events but this is clearly a blow to their long-term strategy. What is the point of spending millions of pounds on event sponsorship if the general public can't even identify your brand with the product. And there are many who share the view that event sponsorship just aint cutting the mustard.

http://www.meetpie.com/modules/newsmodule/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=15209

Whether you agree with Fisk's view in the above article or not I cannot argue with the face that most people do in fact only remember three key pieces of information at any one time.  However, in the case of Virgin's sponsorship of the Commonwealth Games it seems that even three sponsors is too much for Joe Public to remember.

Of course we may have prematurely jumped the gun. The event hasn't even started yet and of course brand recognition will really peak around the time of the event. If anyone doubts the power this type of advertising can have they should look no further than the success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games last year.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/10/10/paralympics-success-for-sainsburys/

So what is the important takeaway for companies? If you are looking for a long-term, brand recognition exercise then Event Sponsorship might not be the thing for you. However if you are looking to build short-term acknowledgement and brand value then events might just be the thing for you.

Be More Dog and Be More Rewarded

It’s very rare to find a brand so far ahead in consumer perception scores and satisfaction surveys than O2. If you are not aware of how much success the mobile phone provider has with winning long term brand equity with their consumers take a look at their brand perception scores from last year.

http://www.brandindex.com/article/o2-breathing-success

How does O2 ensure such a consistent and strong brand advocacy scoring? Well quite simply they reward their customers and give them incentive for staying loyal to the brand. O2 operates a customer centric strategy and has created a world where loyal, committed customers are treated with the best deals before others. In this model rewarding your longest serving customers with exclusive offers comes first before acquiring competitor customers.

Customer centricity is not a new concept however very few companies have truly grasped the concept and even fewer have chosen to embrace it. Think of the numerous companies The Brand Avenger have featured over the last 6 months and decide for yourself how many of these tragic brand stories have truly grasped the concept of putting the customer at the heart of your decision making.

Putting the customer at the heart of all major decisions has transformed a business, which experienced a traumatic and desperate re-launch following the transformation from BT Cellnet in 2002. Incredibly Accenture have predicted O2’s customer first approach has led to ROI of 80:1 for its marketing communications.  Whether it be through the priority event access given to O2 customers through the rewards scheme or the roll out of iPhone 4 for customers on long term contracts before new customers O2 appear to be practicing what they preach.

https://www.marketingsociety.co.uk/the-library/2012-o2-long-term-marketing-excellence-case-study

O2’s most recent campaign has been met with critical acclaim from many of the advertising industries harshest critics. ‘Be More Dog’ has been praised for doing something different in an industry littered with repetitive messages and copycat advertising regurgitated across multiple media platforms.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1208758/adwatch-o2s-be-dog-will-long-running-success

In many ways ‘Be More Dog’ could serve as a perfect eulogy for O2’s loyalty based strategy. In a world where many mobile phone operators are happy to treat customers as just another financial transaction O2 have taken a stand and have chosen to offer something extra. O2 are rewarding the very people who have taken the decision to spend their hard earned money on O2 products. Under this context perhaps we could all do with embracing the advertising slogan. So the question is how many of us are going to embrace O2’s strategy and  ‘Be More Dog?’

Is MTV still twerking?

It’s 1981 in the middle of Summer and something new, different and unique has come to the attention of the teenagers and young adults of America. Although not necessarily new (The Beatles has mastered music video previously in A Hard Day’s Night) the concept of Music Television hit the small screen and took off in a big way, leaving the US buzzing about the brand and the birth of music video.

Fast-forward 30 years later and MTV continues to attract a young market audience communicating to them through new and exciting media channels. The young demographic has always been seen as fickle, promiscuous and insecure, thus notoriously difficult to please, however MTV has always maintained itself as a stable in the teenager’s media consumption diet.  When times are tough and the brand begins to fall under scrutiny MTV almost always finds a way of breaking through the controversy to once again return to a dominant state. Take for example the 2011success of Jersey Shore which returned MTV its highest ever ratings for a TV series at a time when many felt the brand had lost touch with its audience.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/110220/the-party-is-over-for-mtvs-jersey-shore

How does MTV continue to come up with material that consistently appeals to the younger audience? Is it by chance that they just so happen to know what the market want to see and when they want to see it? And why has the target audience seemingly shifted from 18 to 25 to 14-17 year olds resulting in content in which some people feel displays the downfall of civilization?

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/26/are-the-mtvvmas-a-sign-of-the-decline-of-civilization-some-twitter-users-say-yes/

Of course none of this is by chance! For years MTV have been tailoring content around a firm and fundamental understanding of not only their target audience but also the changing demographics, trends and habits of the market at a whole to understand exactly whom they should be targeting and what the message should be. Put simply MTV put insights and data at the heart of decision-making that influence creative content and strategic direction. Generational studies are key to the process and help MTV marry up the all-important need for art with the science that helps everyone make sense of it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/business/media/longing-to-stay-wanted-mtv-turns-its-attention-to-younger-viewers.html?_r=0

 This science is partly the reason why the MTV Video Music Awards managed to pull in an increased audience this year leading to positive impacts not just to MTV but also the artists who appeared at the event. It is the reason why MTV have successfully ploughed through the generations of teenagers and pre-teens maximizing as much of their disposal income as they can and it should be the reason why they continue to grow.

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/28/mtv-awards-proves-ratings-and-sales-hit-even-for-miley/

So a little different from The Brand Avenger this week in the sense that this is not an attack for poor decision making but rather a demonstration of how doing customer insight right can impact a brand. So what’s next for MTV to ensure they can keep up with today’s audience? Well clearly the biggest challenge will come in the form of Youtube and the relationship with this platform as it continues to grow in influence. If MTV can continue to adapt its media platform to relate over multiple levels it will continue to grow, meaning we might not have seen the last of Miley Cirus’s twerking for some time. If you thought it was bad now wait until