Are Google having a goggle at my email?

Microsoft has taken the gloves in the fight for E-Mail supremacy with Google by questioning the ethical decision-making behind the commercialization of customer email info.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/microsoft-slams-google-for-email-snooping-to-sell-ads/4008513.article

Should Google be punished for using content generated in personal email to sell advertisements? If there are a room full of people whose job it is to scour every single LOL and XOXO in your email then of course they should. However when it comes to Google’s use of targeted advertisements in email is this is the case or is there something far less sinister at play?

As the continued power of the Internet and influx of social media sites shows no signs of slowing down we are more exposed to ‘datafication’ today than ever before. With the presence of data comes the ability of companies who know how to use to their advantage. This could be through understanding the customer in more detail and/or selling building the information to sell to suppliers. One quick review of the site Microsoft has set up to explain G Mail would seem to clearly suggest Google are commercializing their data for targeting purposes.

http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/GetTheFacts

The further and further you dig into Google’s email policy the nearer you get to the fact that Google do in fact appear to be reading content generated. In some instances Google appear to be downright unapologetic for such policy preferring to reference themselves as an assistant rather than a spy.

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Yes+we+Read+Your+Gmail/article33184.htm

Google have made attempt to quell any long-term mistrust of the brand by ensuring customers that the process of data sourcing for targeting purposes is automated and not ready by a human. This may bring little comfort to the suspicious John Doe who was worried that Big Brother was reviewing everything he communicates over email however does this still make it right for customer data to be used in this way?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/05/google-seeks-to-dismiss-gmail-privacy-lawsuit-says-it-has-right-to-scan/

The Brand Avenger would ague that the right answer revolves around how secretive you want to be and how accepting you are that as we continue to produce more and more data Google will become just one of many companies looking to make money out of data this way. Having access to intimate data sources is by no means a new process. Look at the transformation and continued success Tesco have experienced in launching the Clubcard, which gives an insight into half of the UK Households buying habits. If Google can ensure the use of data is automated and steps are taken to remove identifying info such as name and address, I would rather this form of advertising than getting hit with boring, irrelevant information in other areas of my super hero existence.

David Cameron doesn't appear to be a fan of British Gas

When the Archbishop of Canterbury decided to go on a one man mission to challenge the private lending sector Wonga were left shaking in their boots and suffered brand damage which has taken months to improve. Bearing that in mind imagine how British Gas must be feeling with the Prime Minister himself pleading with customers to switch to other gas and electricity providers in the wake of new price increases.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/customers-urged-to-quit-british-gas-as-brand-suffers-twitter-backlash/4008277.article

How will British Gas take the news that the Prime Minister isn't a fan? Well let's just say that it isn't exactly the best PR to be dealing with. Even the most ardent supporters of the old adage 'any news is good news' will probably find it hard to justify that anything good can come out of this damning report from such a public figure. And why should British Gas be surprised by David Cameron labelling the companies price hikes as a 'con'? A company that continues to make record profits and is justifying an increase in price to offer discounts in the future just doesn't add up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24562930

Of course all energy providers have a long history of poor brand perception scoring, which demonstrates that the problem isn't just solely restricted to British Gas. let's take for example the brand index scores of SSE. A brief look at their score over the last year demonstrates just how low those scores can go.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/05/105m-fine-whacks-sse-brand/

So why do energy providers appear to struggle so badly? Maybe it is unfair to assume these companies can do much to maintain a positive brand perception in the face of sharp tariff rises and constant price hikes. However, even if this is the case it is clear that the big energy and gas providers have done little to win the confidence of their customer base. We've said it before and The Brand Avenger will say it again but these companies need to start realising the power of transparency and leveraging Social Media for proactive and not reactive measures. Maybe next time this will help British Gas be well and truly prepared for Prime Ministers Questions.

What went wrong with Billabong?

Let me start this week’s article by asking the world what has happened to Billabong? Some difficult questions need to be brought to the table when a CEO declares its own brand worthless. In the space of 12 years the Australian darling has gone from hot property to on the verge of financial wipeout.  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/08/27/a-40-year-old-surf-company-declares-its-brand-is-worthless/

A 400% loss in brand value over the course of a year doesn’t just happen by chance. If a company has a clear, long-term vision for where it wants to be and where it is going then brand value should look after itself in most cases. Billabong are absolute sire straights and of course the uncertainty surrounding the brand has ultimately led to closed stores and job losses.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-26/billabong-posts-a-860-million-loss-as-brand-deemed-worthless

I wish I could try and find a positive to balance this story with but the harder you dig the more dirt you find. Maybe the higher echelons of the Billabong crew should have accepted a buy-out when the company shares were valued at A$3.50 a share (now worth A$0.80).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23845908

There are two main reasons which some believe led to Billabong’s downfall. The first is the success Abercrombie have had at chipping away at the brand share of the Aussie brand as Billabong expanded into different markets. The second is the difficulty Billabong has had in maintaining its counter-culture brand image as the brand has spread across International markets. So was expansion right for a company who built its value on a small, niche audience? Maybe sometimes it is best to be a big player in a small pond. Or maybe sustainable growth is achievable as long as you have a clear, well thought out brand plan.

Are Microsoft getting a good deal with the purchase of Nokia?

My favourite stat to come from the Microsoft takeover of Nokia has to be the increase in share value of 30% for Nokia and the decline in share value of Microsoft of 5% on the same day the purchase was announced. But does this stat demonstrate a flawed strategy for Microsoft in looking to purchase the Finnish brand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23940171

Nokia has suffered a long, drawn out and deflating battle against the other mobile phone providers ever since 2003. In the last ten years its market share in the UK alone has declined from 35 % to 14%. In a world where the mobile phone transformed into a camera, MP3 player, Internet provider and lifestyle icon Nokia’s approach was just too slow and too responsive to protect its position. The decline should be a stark warning to all other brands of the dangers of taking your eye off the ball. Brands like Nokia who once enjoyed such a dominant position in the market should not experience such a dramatic and rapid fall from grace. There is a clear worldwide trend of switching from mobile to smartphone technology and Nokia just couldn’t keep up with this in the US, Europe and UK.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/224e0784-1483-11e3-a2dfz00144feabdc0.html#slide0

A lot has been said about the impact Apple had on the US and UK market and how their love of disruptive innovation led to a decline in sales for all the big players in the market. No one will ever be able to deny the success Apple had in this field and the competitive advantage they built through creating such a strong and transferable brand image. However at the same time I hope that the ones who made the choices and decisions in Nokia towers do not use this as an excuse for their rapid decline. When the going got tough Nokia pure and simply had no answer to combat the entrance of Apple into the mobile market and no protection strategy to fend off the technology monster.

It may surprise some to know that up until 2011 Nokia was still one of the most popular brands in the UK. Brand index scores suggest that there was still value to be seen in the brand especially in the Western World whereas the US has tended to remain rather indifferent.

http://www.brandindex.com/article/nokia-gets-patchy-reception-across-world

Why is this important? Well first of all it demonstrates exactly why Microsoft are willing to spend billions of dollars in purchasing the brand. Microsoft clearly see the value in acquiring a company which can still boast of being the second largest mobile phone provider in the world. Nokia’s position in the mobile market also provides a clear indicator of Nokia’s strength in the ever-expanding Chinese market. Add this to the fact that Microsoft worked closely with Nokia on the Lumia and all of a sudden a number of possibilities for future growth and brand prosperity once again seem possible for a mobile phone arm of Microsoft’s business.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/08/the-real-reason-microsoft-bought-nokia-transaction-costs/

So is Microsoft making the right decision with the acquisition of Nokia and does this purchase spell the end of the best thing to come out of Finland? Well on one hand Nokia have experienced significant market decline and have done little to strengthen their product offering or brand perception. However we must also consider that the brand still enjoys a dominant position in the mobile market and a strong market position in China. If Microsoft can leverage the value left in the brand name and focus growth around dominance in China we may not have seen the last of Nokia and ‘snake’ yet.

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.

What does McDonalds have to do with the Cleveland kidnapping?

Cleveland was well and truly the setting of the miracle this week when three kidnapped girls including Amanda Berry were found alive and well. Charles Ramsey has become an overnight internet sensation following his interviews for the press after his heroic actions. If you have not seen it yet you can watch one here but be warned that it is impossible not to take an instant liking for what the edit describe as an unlikely hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ZzXSYUYrQ

After watching the video you probably don't need to ask me what McDonalds has to do with this? Recognising a viral marketing opportunity when they see one the company have been proactive via their social media tools to reach out and gain some positive, public awareness from the ordeal. This is just another shining example of how viral and real-time marketing techniques can well and truly help build brand reputation and positive brand perception.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-mcdonalds-cleveland-kidnapping-20130508,0,3282572.story

When some of the more forward thinking companies aren't looking out for the next internet sensation to create a viral marketing campaign around they are focusing their efforts on real-time marketing. A recent example of a company embracing real-time is Adidas. It doesn't surprise The Brand Avenger that Adidas are investing more into their efforts to invest in real-time marketing but it does surprise me that more companies have not followed suit. Put pure and simple real-time marketing gets you ahead of the curve and in pole position compared to your competitors when it comes to marketing strategies. There is no better example of this than the YouGov BrandIndex rating for Adidas during the 2012 Olympics which had the sports company as the clear winner in positive sentiment for brands out of all the companies who decided to invest during the Games.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/adidas-to-maximise-real-time-marketing-opportunities/4006566.article

In a day in age where the general public are increasingly skeptical and somewhat bored with the traditional 'build it one size' marketing communication, real-time provides more than ample opportunities to surprise and delight the population. What a way to capitalise on positive public opinion and an overall feeling of adulation and ecstasy of The Olympics then to create a marketing campaign from conception to broadcast in a matter of days as opposed to months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/12/team-gb-rocks-to-queen

Real-time marketing has also been used across the pond in the US to capitalise on news worthy content generated from sporting events to critical acclaim and positive public opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/oreos-super-bowl-tweet-dunk-dark_n_2615333.html

Full credit must go to 360i for a campaign which was turned around within 37 minutes of the blackout that engulfed the most watched sporting event in the world. The campaign was smart, innovative and some would argue the most remembered piece of marketing communication that was produced during this years Superbowl. It is for all intents and purposes a prime example why real-time and viral fully complemented with the perfect mix of social media can work to the advantage of brands.

If you are going to build a successful viral or real-time marketing campaign you of course need a adequate infrastructure to carry the message to the masses. You could argue that this places smaller companies at a disadvantage. If marketing investment is already a struggle to obtain from senior management how on earth can you begin to build a team around some of the newest forms of marketing communication? Well The Brand Avenger would argue that you don't have to be a big brand to capitalise on a specialised team of social supporters to carry your viral message. HP are a prime example of a company who use their most loyal customers to carry the brand on their social sites and this article provides great tips on how even small brands can build similar success.

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/social-support-team/

If you are a regular reader of The Brand Avenger (and if you are not welcome and you should be;) please enjoy my other blogs) then you have come to realise that there are two sides to every story. Just as it can make perfect sense for companies to look to respond to viral or real-time marketing as soon as possible it can also have some negative connotations. McDonalds may very risk treading on egg shells by looking to reach out to the internets flavour of the month. Charles Ramsey himself has multiple convictions and a substantial criminal record and may bring a considerable amount of baggage with him once the respect and admiration fades; baggage that will be traced back to the fast food big boy.

http://business.time.com/2013/05/08/the-charles-ramsey-mcdonalds-episode-how-a-viral-marketing-opportunity-can-backfire/

We will have to wait and see if there is any negative backlash from McDonalds viral backing of Ramsey. Although we can certainly say McDonalds may risk negative perception  as a result of the activity we can also say that there are plenty of safer ways of embracing viral and real-time strategies. All it takes is a quick idea, the use of a social media tool and a relevant support base to bring the idea to life. If you didn't think you would ever associate someone with the surname Ramsey with McDonalds before then you certainly do after the Cleveland miracle.