The Brand Avenger 2013 year in review.

I thought I would do something a little different for my 50th blog and provide a year in review for 2013. Over my last 49 articles The Brand Avenger has carefully dissected brand strategy, poor decision making and has scrutinised the controversial areas that have led to outrage from the public. However after spending so much time writing about the wrongdoings of many a brand I simply wouldn't be doing justice without providing a proper review. For the purposes of curiosity I would like to develop this further by providing a breakdown of the top ten brands who should be most worried, brands who don't need to worry despite some horrendous decision making and brands who might be in some danger so are ones to watch in 2014.

All is fine despite some poor decisions

Over the year we have seen just as many examples of poor branding decision-making from established brands as we have seen from smaller, independent companies. One of the first companies we covered for expenditure in celebrity endorsement as opposed to more measurable forms of marketing was Nike. We criticised Google for lack of clarity over data protection rules for email and was critical of Starbucks over tax evasion and lack of ethical practice. Whereas these were all valid concerns it is clear there are still some companies that have enough brand equity to not feel the impact too harshly from poor decision making. Within this 'safe' group I would place Channel 4, Adidas, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and Coca-Cola on top of Starbucks, Nike and Google. Whether it is all measurable and worthwhile investment or not these companies are spending enough money to protect themselves from the poor decisions. Their sheer size and market strength protects them from feeling the repercussions of poor decisions making more so than the more vulnerable companies in the market. It of course doesn't justify poor decisions but does make it easier to protect against.

Ones to watch out for in 2014

If you have followed The Brand Avenger blogs in 2013 you may have noticed some big brands are missing from the above list. This is not to say these companies should worry about going out of existence anytime soon but it does mean that the following need great years in 2014 as they have a lot to prove to the market.

My first brand to watch is UK insurance comparison company Go Compare. The Brand Avenger covered this company in 2013 after it was revealed they had the most complaints for not one but two adverts to the ASA in the UK. Now one could argue the brand managed to turn negativity into smart and sensible strategy by evolving it's Go Compare advertising but they will have to be extra careful in 2014 to not evoke the same emotional reaction in the general public. It might be great every now and then to raise awareness but it won't be long before the company starts to really annoy customers and jeopardise sales. 

Staying in the UK Gregg's was responsible for some poor decision making in 2013 which wasn't helped by taxation and poor weather. Although still a prominent name on the UK high street Gregg's will need to ensure they stay on top of things this year and come up with new innovative ways to meet the needs of a public with changing tastes and perceptions of high calorie snacks.

The last two companies who need to have a strong and steady 2014 are Apple and M&S. 

M&S came under criticism for customer service following the Halal controversy of Christmas although this wasn't the least of the high street chains worries. Poor food sales and a competitive retail market has led to real challenges for the big UK name. They will need to get their head down in 2014 and focus on revival. HMV and Woolworth's are examples of what can happen if you continue to get brand positioning wrong or if you ignore changing trends in the market. 

Apple have been here before. The weight of expectation must sometimes be crippling however when you have a history of innovation this is the risk you take. It is clear from the early criticism we covered on Apple's innovation they need a big year strategically. The new CEO will be under pressure to deliver so we will certainly be watching this one closely.

The top ten worst brand impacts of 2013

And so all that is left to do is to cover the worst branding decisions of 2013.

10) Asda-Walmart: Stack it high, sell it cheap has long since been the motto for one of the biggest companies in the world. But what we began to see in 2013 was a breakdown in the belief that price is king. Asda-Walmart came under particular scrutiny regarding its treatment of staff. Adding this to a poor performance in the market and you really have to question how long the powerhouse can continue to support the notion that customer loyalty and retention is not as important as managing the bottom line.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/asda-wal-mart-having-had-much-to-be.html

9) Ryanair: In the Summer we released a blog with a somewhat provocative title claiming that although Ryaniar doesn't care about customers this works fine for their brand strategy. 

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/ryanair-doesnt-care-about-customers-and.html

Now if you have recently viewed the Youtube clip of the dramatic 8 hour delay of the February 14th Ryanair flight from Stansted to Porto you might be inclined to believe that Ryanair doesn't care about customers at all. But for a long time now it is clear that Ryanair has managed to get away with a lack of customer service through positioning themselves as a market leader in low prices.

2013 Has already brought about a renewed emphasis on customer service from the Irish brand. If they want to ensure long-term success it will be crucial for them to continue this. However if they continue to get negative publicity from social media and scrutiny from regulatory bodies they might be putting themselves in real danger.

8) MySpace: I would see MySpace as a work in progress despite an unsure future prior to 2013.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/flogging-dead-horse-can-myspace-rise.html

Their might still be some life in the old horse yet if Justin Timberlake can work his magic and utilise his music connections. The repositioning of the brands to become more of a creative network for music artists appears to be bringing new life to the brand. However this type of repositioning is very hard to make scalable so it will be interesting to see how the powers at be can continue to grow the brand. I wouldn't expect it to reach the lofty heights it had done so before though.

7) Wonga: What a year for this UK short-term loan provider. On one hand you have a company that is making record profits and is in a clear period of growth. In the other you have a company which is scrutinised for exploiting the poor and high profile figures such as the Archbishop claiming to be coming after you.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/should-wonga-be-worried-about-its-brand.html

This is not so much a worry about the performance but more so about the context and conditions. Whether or not this will be sustainable will mostly come down to how well (or how poorly) Wonga manage its public perception. 

6) EA should find themselves very fortunate that they can be mentioned twice in Brand Avenger articles, can be nominated for worst company in the year two years running in the US and still be outside the top 5 of worst brand decisions.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-twenty-something-male-strolls-down.html

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/is-ea-sports-worst-company-in-us-or.html

There is a reason for The Brand Avenger's decision to keep out of the top 5 and it is all down to the emotional reaction. EA impact on a large number of engaged and socially media active consumers and so I would argue it is easier for the company to face scrutiny than other brands. There are clearly poor strategic decisions that are being made but can we truly state that a company performing as financially strongly as EA is a company in danger of extinction?

5) Yahoo: Sales were on the rise in August but perception was suffering.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/is-yahoos-brand-reputation-on-rise-or.html

While it is clear Yahoo have made some massive strides in acquiring brands that will help stimulate long-term growth there are still questions that remain over the strength of the brand. Recent results show positive signs for the future especially when you consider mobile usage but when you consider customers are still turning away from utilising search engine functionality and Google continues to dominate the market you can't help but feel nervous for the big Y.

4) Abercrombie: A disaster year which has led to wide-scale criticism and the public demotion of key senior leaders. When the former CEO decided to chip in with his thoughts on who should be wearing Abercrombie he did more to damage the company in one sentence than many competitors have done by any other means in years.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/are-woes-of-abercrombie-fitch.html

I still don't see a revival for Abercrombie. All I can say is even if they don't believe in plus size shirts I hope they sell shoes above a certain size because it's going to take a larger than normal trainer to fit the big old foot in Abercrombie's mouth.

3) Groupon: We have seen positive signs under the new CEO however the company continues to struggle when it comes to its position in the market

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/brands-behaving-bady.html

This is going to a big year for the discount voucher site. They need to get their mobile strategy right and understand the right deals to provide their customer base with a positive feeling for the discounter. Failure to do this could result in a nasty decline for a once promising start-up.

2) Billabong: In October we asked want went wrong with Billabong however maybe we should have asked what continues to go wrong for the clothing company?

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-went-wrong-with-billabong.html

It's going to take a massive effort and a clear and concise brand recovery plan to save this Aussie export from extinction in the coming years. For a company that has has such a strong standing for so long you have to question where it all began to go so wrong.

1) Blackberry: And so finally we get to number one. The brand that has suffered more than any other this year following poor strategic decision making.

http://brandavenger.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/kicking-habit-crack-berry-users-just.html

Blackberry had such a strong position and a clear advantage when it came to their association as the business phone of choice. But somewhere along the road as smartphones continued to rise in the market Blackberry has just lost itself along the way. 2014 s going to be a long hard year for the Canadian company. They need to come up with a strategy and come up with one fast. It isn't out of all possibility that by 2015 they could be completely out of the mobile market at this rate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paid for complaint tweets tests British Airway's 'Fly to Serve' creative campaign

A couple of months an angry British Airways customer displayed the type of creative thinking that was so far outside the box most advertisers would be chuffed had they thought of it themselves. Taking aa dispute over poor customer service from BA following a lost bag Mt Syed decided to take out a paid for promoted ad targeting searches of the airline. The Brand Avenger wonders if Hasan Syed is just one of the growing breed dis-gruntled consumers who will fight back against injustice at any costs?

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1224122/trend-day-co-creation-rise-hyper-disgruntled-consumer

We have all shared Mr Syed's experiences. The Brand Avenger can't remember how many times I have lost sleep over the careless actions of an airline or a apparent lack of any type of customer service. The remarkable thing about this case is the lengths Mr Syed went to to ensure BA paid for their poor handling of a stressful situation. BA may have spent millions of pounds to alter the perception of consumers that elevate their branding around a strong customer service strategy. By spending £700 Mr Hasan certainly damaged BA's positioning and left senior team members so flustered they were using BA's own social media to apologise and clarify they had resolved the situation.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/03/businessman-promoted-tweet-british-airways

Access to a brand is key in todays age and unquestionably the balance of power is changing. Customers like Mr Syed are switched on and savvy. They know exactly how to make a brand pay for any perceived gaps in customer service and can damage a brands reputation with a drop of a hat. It didn't take Hasan Syed millions of pounds or months of strategic planning to generate enough publicity to communicate his intended message. David stood up to the Goliath of BA and they were left dazed and bruised by this confrontation.

As more and more of the public wake up to the fact that they have power and a voice we will begin to move to a world where brands will need to advance their messaging and media delivery.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/04/british-airways-angry-flier-promoted-tweets/

Mr Syed had the last laugh and the final say when it came to his public challenging of BA, and as he so vehemently boasts on his twitter in this instance he holds the victory. The real test for BA now will be how they adjust their strategy to ensure this type of glitch never happens again. The worst case scenario would be a influx of disgruntled customers using similarly creative measures to bring them to task. The only way they can truly address is to embrace the message they have spent so much money on over the last year. Wholly embracing a fly to serve ethos and promoting this through all marketing touch points should prevent against getting on the Tweeters nerves allowing BA to truly serve the needs of their customer.

Is Xbox targeting sexist jocks?

It should be an absolutely fantastic week for Xbox. On the verge of Christmas and having recently released its most recent iteration of a gaming console Microsoft should be sitting back and reaping in the benefits of an extensive marketing campaign.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/sony-and-microsoft-square-up-for-ps4-and-xbox-one-launch-showdown/4008579.article

What a shame it therefore is that Xbox has instead fell victim to a heated sexism debate.  Having recently released a letter to the other half to justify the purchase of an Xbox Microsoft made one crucial tiny little error- They assumed the only people buying the console were men!

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/microsoft-xbox-one-marketing-prompts-sexism-allegations/4008723.article

It is of course a shortsighted and immature mistake for the company to make. We live in a world where gamification is wide reaching across the sexes. These types of faux pas highlight the changing trends and important issues companies need to be aware of. Relying on old pre conceived ideas and/or stereotypes to shape creative messages simply won’t work in this day in age.  For a company the size of Microsoft it shouldn’t be new news that they have such a massive female base that would have potentially of taken offence to this messaging.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/19/microsoft-coo-40-percent-of-xbox-live-audience-are-female/

Pay attention and listen to your audience. If you do that you won’t find yourself making any embarrassing changes to marketing campaigns. In the case of Xbox once again the tweets and buzz of the social networks have prompted action from the games console giant.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-27-microsoft-slammed-for-sexist-xbox-one-ad

Not a great result for Xbox but one it will no doubt recover from. The question is will they learn this crucial oversight?