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.

Kellogg's 'feed a hungry child' campaign leaves a bad taste in the consumers mouth

Kellogg’s join the long list of companies who have fallen fowl of the consumer by offering to do something about poverty and hunger if they get something back in return.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/kelloggs-apologizes-promising-feed-hungry-kids-only-if-you-retweet-153764

There is a worrying trend in today’s age with companies embarking in activities that can be easily deemed as emotional blackmail. Promising to feed a hungry child in return for a mention, like or re-tweet of information via social media is a high-risk strategy to say the least. Of course Kellogg’s aren’t the first company to embark in such controversial activity, however the way in which this message was communicated and subsequently conveyed may take the award for worst social initiative of 2013. One critic goes as far as to sum this up as ‘vanity metrics’ and it’s clear that when it comes to Kellogg’s and this campaign they couldn’t be anymore self conscious.

http://www.deeson-creative.co.uk/blog/kelloggs-faces-twitter-backlash-for-give-child-breakfast-campaign

Some have gone as far as to suggest the Kellogg’s groveling immediately following this controversy is nothing more than a non-apology. Whether this is true or not it is clear that if this is the feeling Twitter still have some work to do with their social media strategy. And this couldn’t be anymore clearer by the fact that Kellogg’s still continue to plug its strategic social responsibility days after this controversy albeit phrased in a slightly more political correct way.

http://jkoulianos.com/kelloggs-twitter-hungry-kids/

Of course all of this begs an obvious question. If you can afford to feed a hungry child then why would you endeavor to feed as many hungry children as you can? Don’t hold the public to ransom or try and pull the wool over our eyes by stating you will do something that has as wide an impact as saving lives in exchange for generating online buzz. These types of ‘vanity metrics’ are wrong and put plain and simply are exploitative. Kellogg’s should learn to use their size and strength for as much good as possible. And if you want to build a following or fan base do it off the back of understanding your online audience as opposed to tugging on heartstrings with  a form of emotional blackmail.

Established Banks should be ashamed of their current Social Media efforts

Does it surprise anyone that banks like HSBC have recently come out with some very public criticism of their own social media efforts?

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1213004/banks-social-media-approach-years-behind-admits-hsbc

You might struggle to believe that any brand in this day in age struggles to fully appreciate the importance of a one to one interaction with customers however it is clear the banks have yet to fully grasp the importance of this concept. And why should a customer service organization in the face of stiff competition from many competitors have any desire to listen to their customers? Crazy right?.

There are many excuses that the banks can, and have used to justify why brand engagement through direct channels just does not exist. Some of the more interesting examples can be found via the link below.

http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3226573/Banks-give-social-media-the-cold-shoulder.html

Regardless of fears and concerns the banks may have in relation to data regulations these concerns simply don’t cut the mustard. There should be no excuse for failing to keep customers happy and eradicating your brand of potential large scale issues by having an open communication strategy with them via your social media sites. How many times have we seen an online customer complaint quickly turn into a viral, PR disaster for brands? The real takeaway fact in the above article is that 2.8 billion use the internet and half of them are signed up to at least one social media site. Ignore this growth area if you will but do so at your own peril.

This isn’t to say that all banks have not fully appreciated the importance of social media. What a refreshing change to see India leading the way in innovation by fully realizing the potential of the Twitter’s and Facebook’s of the world while other companies in the more established, banking markets across the World continue to follow.

http://www.exchange4media.com/52884_banks-cash-in-on-social-media-in-a-big-way.html

Whether it be through gamification or through such incentives like offering access to bank accounts on social media sites the examples included in the above link clearly demonstrate a desire to communicate to customers in new and exciting ways. This is exactly what your direct communication channels to your consumers should be used for. Not only can it allow you to differentiate your product or service against competitors but it can also allow you build an emotional engagement with your loyal following. And in this day in age there aren’t aint no saver long term investment than that!

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