Are complaints brand damaging or great for creating awareness?

If you have often wondered how may people take the time out of their busy lifestyles to complain about TV advertising you needn’t wonder anymore as the top 10 most complained adverts of 2012 from the Advertising Standards Agency was released today. The full list of offenders can be found below but to summarise for those who would rather have it now as opposed to clicking through to another website The Brand Avenger will provide you with the list below. Why? Well just because I’m a nice kind of guy.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1180557/gocomparecom-complained-about-advertiser-2012/

10) St Johns Ambulance ‘Helpless’ campaign- 144 complaints

9) Kayak ‘Brain Surgery- 189 complaints

7=) Morrisons ‘For your Christmas’- 234 complaints

7=) Kelloggs ‘Crunch Nut Snake’- 234 complaints

6) Paddy Power ‘Ladies day’- 311 complaints

5) Richmond Ham- As nature intended- 371 complaints

4) Channel 4 ‘bigger, fatter, gypsier’- 373 complaints

3) Asda ‘Christmas doesn’t just happen by magic’- 620 complaints

2) GoCompare ‘Bazooka Sue’ – 797 complaints

1) GoCompare ‘Stuart Pierce advert’- 1,008 complaints

Going through the list there are some interesting offenders who have managed to upset the masses in 2012.  For the purposes of the length of this article let’s focus on a couple of case studies.

St Johns Ambulance.

It is interested that this advertisement made the complaints list but it is in there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC7zfgCXQFs

St Johns had a clear message they were looking to convey with this campaign and for all intents and purposes they achieve that quite well.  But the choice of linking the message to something like cancer, which has impacted so many families was always going to create a little controversy. This might not have been a bad thing for St Johns. The advert not only aired in a prime time spot with 9 million viewers to encourage as many people as possible to watch but it also generated extra coverage and more exposure through the hype surrounded it afterwards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204809/The-ad-shocked-Downton-fans-Viewers-complain-St-Johns-ambulance-commercial-showed-man-choking-death.html

For a message as important as this this was a smart use of controversial activity to convey a strong brand identity and a clear message.

Paddy Power

Ladies day was not Paddy Power’s greatest day. No strangers to using controversial material in their television advertising and social media tools Paddy Power clearly overstepped the mark on this one and broadcast networks were quick to pull the material.

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1132078/

Paddy Power continue to push the boat out with the ‘we hear you campaign’. Whereas the adverts tend to be funny they always verge on the edge of offense and one has to wonder what objective this is achieving for the brand. If it is a case of raising awareness and making sure the brand is at the front of mind when it comes to gambling it appears this could is working when you consider their rise in pre-tax profits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19407479

Go Compare

The two offending advert can be viewed on the below link.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1180557/gocomparecom-complained-about-advertiser-2012/

Go Compare takes both the biscuit and the spoils of second place with two television adverts last year. It is interesting to compare the sheer amount of complaints something like this generated compared to campaigns like St Johns with a more serious message. I would argue The Go Compare campaign has been a success for many reasons and is a clear sign that sometimes offended or annoying a mass audience over a considerable period of time can lead to rapid returns. Take for example how much profit alone the jingle has made over the last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/02/go-compare-jingle-most-played-adverts

So an interesting list of offenders for this year but if you believe that no news is bad news you could argue it was all money well spent.

Is EA the worst company in the US or an unfair victim of the current times?

The revelation earlier this week that EA had once again won The Consumerist’s poll for ‘Worst Company in America’ was met with a juxtaposing blend of acceptance and dismissal from its COO Peter Moore. The temporary big cheese went on to comment "Are we really the ‘Worst Company in America?’  I’ll be the first to admit that we’ve made plenty of mistakes" before going on to blame political lobbyists amongst other factors for EA's misfortune

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/microtransactions-seemingly-worse-than-mortgage-fraud-as-ea-is-named-worst-company-in-america/#ixzz2Q6LlcTyo 

Through releasing a statement pior to the results of the award it is clear EA saw this as unfair criticism when compared to other companies. However, EA have to accept this is in stark contrast to the feelings of the masses and there is little doubt in the minds of many of those who consume the EA brand that the company indeed had a disastrous year. The impact this had on EA was wide reaching and ultimately led to its CEO resignation and brand depreciation through a decline in share value. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/18/ea-ceo-john-riccitiello-resigns

Whatever your view on the fairness of this ‘Golden poo’ this is a prime example that online polling sites like 'The Consumerist' and 'Which' are fast becoming a double edged sword for brands across the world. On the one hand voting sites such as these can be a brands best friend, giving consumers the ability to shout from the roof tops when they are happy with a branded product or service they receive. There is no better example of this then the brand appreciation generated for Virgin trains in the UK and the eventual impact the consumer voice had in ensuring the valuable Edinburgh to London line continued to be run by this brand over the less popular First Capital Connect. And when online polls begin to shape political opinion you can get your bottom dollar all companies need to stand up and pay attention.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/18/first-capital-connect-worst-train-operator

Taking this into consideration it is easy to see why brands are beginning to see the value in brand advocacy and empowering loyal brand users to spread the good word when it comes to their brand reputation. Tapping into my superior super knowledge I can see no better illustration of this than the continued success and increased investment in companies such as BzzAgent and P&G’s Supersavvyme. 

http://www.surveypolice.com/bzzagent

However, unfortunately for brands all over the world consumers don’t just fall into the happy shopper category and a countless number of brands like EA are beginning to feel the wrath of an unhappy, uncommitted or unsatisfied customer base, with consumer opinion polls are a prime weapon of choice across the globe. Consider the case of PC World, a leading supplier of computers and accessories in the UK but a company which is suffering from a cripplingly negative brand reputation fuelled through the mechanic of polling. Two examples of PC World's dire reputation can be found below

http://www.trustpilot.co.uk/review/www.pcworld.co.uk

http://www.themarketingblog.co.uk/2012/10/another-blow-for-pc-world-they-have-been-named-britain’s-worst-online-retailer/

You may have noticed who the big winner is when it comes to customer satisfaction in the second article but in case you prefer to read my words and not those of others the winner of consumer hearts and minds is Amazon. And what has Amazon done? built an experience around the customer which personalises content and builds warmth towards the overall brand. It also of course doesn't have to deal with the issues of human contact in its customer service which can do much much to alter overall brand perceptions but that's a different subject for a different time.

Was EA a victim of its target market?  

Online polls give consumers a voice and readdress the balance of power in the relationship between the customer and the brand of choice. However, there is an interesting counter argument to all of this that we must consider to balance the scales of justice. As EA's audience is primarily computer savvy and have traditionally taken to internet forums to vent their frustrations does this give companies like EA an unfair disadvantage compared to traditional brands where there are far less opportunities to vent frustrations online? Paul Tassi writing for Forbes provides an interesting take on this topic.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/04/09/ea-voted-worst-company-in-america-again/

In essence I would like to agree with Tassi's point of view. Traditionally EA consumers are engaged across many online channels and have greater levels of access and more variety when it comes to opportunities to vent their frustrations more vehemently then say a consumer vexed at their bank for waiting too long in life and receiving sub standard service. However, whereas this may of traditionally acted as a reprieve for some companies it is clear that as the world becomes more connected through mobile capability and app technology society is changing. Sooner or later as access to mobile technology improves and as technological improvements begin to spread to emerging markets there will be no place for a brands poor service to hide. And when it comes to this point the majority of brands across the world will have two options... invest in brand advocacy or lose out to the polls thus increasing negative brand perception. I know which option The Brand Avenger would folllow but how many brands will come along for the journey?