What is Facebook doing with your data?

Facebook might be the preferred social network in the US but that doesn’t mean it is immune from criticism or legislation protecting consumer rights. Most recently Facebook has fallen into some hot water following allegations from two American users that the site had scanned private messages for key words to sell to advertisers for targeted messages.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342366/scitech/socialmedia/facebook-faces-suit-for-data-mining-private-messages

Ever since Facebook began commercializing data there was always a risk that the company would come under some sort of scrutiny around how they decide to use it. Facebook may have taken some comfort from the fact that other data mining companies have been here before and have come through the other side relatively unscathed. However the fact that the class action is raised from 2 users on behalf of what could be millions of US Facebook users will be a huge concern to the social media giant. However this will only be a concern for Facebook if it begins to hit the finances and as of yet the stock price has remained flat.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c940122-73ed-11e3-beeb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pYJxbhVE

Facebook are no strangers to the controversy that can arise from the uncertainties of data handling. In 2012 they were forced to drop face recognition technology due to the uncertainties around how the data was used.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207098/Facebook-switch-controversial-facial-recognition-feature-following-data-protection-concerns.html

The question now is how will the most recent lawsuit in regards to Facebook data policy impact the brand in the long-term? The answer to that question will come down to how Facebook approach the publics concerns. There needs to be some clarity around exactly how Facebook intend to use the data and maybe more importantly what access rights advertisers is given when they purchase it. It is clear from recent popularity polls and Facebook’s stock price that there isn’t too much to worry about now. But the data issue won’t go away so the reputation of the Facebook brand and popularity with its users in the long-term will depend on how well they communicate the data policy to users.

Not such a Merry Christmas? M&S in the middle of a Christmas race row

Far be it for The Brand Avenger to chime into an issue that can be as controversial as religion however I think it would be fair to say M&S will face a tricky challenge to their brand reputation following the recent news that Muslim staff have the right to refuse sales of meat and alcoholic products at till.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1225674/m-s-faces-revolt-muslim-staff-exemption-rules

Regardless of whether you believe it is right or wrong for religious concessions to conflict with customer service it is clear M&S are in the middle of a controversy they wouldn’t want their brand associated with. At this time of year where retail sales flourish and meat and alcohol purchases spike, no retailer wants to be at the center of a storm that leads to such polar opposite views on the rights and wrongs. 

M&S have moved quickly to issue an apology for the stance taken by the staff member, citing that as an all-inclusive business all religious concessions are tolerated and accepted. In many ways they have done everything they can to demonstrate a caring and considerate view towards the issue however will this be enough to calm the issue?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25488259

The media won’t certainly let the retailer nor the public forget about the recent news anytime soon. As long as the media continue to cover the story over the coming days M&S will spend Christmas in controversy. The exact time when the controversy will end will depend on how much of a stir is created on Twitter and how far the issue progresses. Let’s hope for the sake of the M&S brand the incident on Saturday is treated as a storm in a teacup as opposed to anything more major.

And Merry Christmas to all those who have followed The Brand Avenger this year.

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.

Which Brands are lying to their customers by claiming to be innovative?

Innovation is a dirty word especially when it comes to its relationships with brands.  Many multi-million pound corporations like to claim they are investing in innovation to give the perception that in the future there will be anticipated gains in brand share and exposure. Investment in innovation is particularly a great phrase to use when current brand returns have not met expectations or brand share diminishes. It provides an easy link into a utopian world of tomorrow where their corporate brand will be king and will within the realm they will enjoy unparalleled market dominance, maintained through a steady stream of investment in incremental innovations.

This all sounds great and all but as we all know saying is one thing and doing is another. The Brand Avenger wonders how many big brands over the last few months have actually embraced the art of true innovation and how many are using the idea as a get out of jail free card. Let’s look at some of the companies who are claiming future brand innovations

Morrisons have unquestionably taken a beating recently when it comes to brand share and positioning in the UK retail market. Morrisons food website is so far behind the times that…. well…. It doesn’t even exist!  As one of the big 5 supermarket chains in the UK you may very well question how, what and why Morrisons has allowed this to happen for so long. Not having a website where customers can order food in this day in age is unthinkable. The fact that Morrisons are looking to invest in its online presence over the next year cannot be classified as true innovation. Ronan Shields explores the UK high streets lack of innovation in further detail in a great article at the below link.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/audi-to-transform-all-logos-into-ar-triggers/4006668.article

Had Morrisons had any foresight they would have already built an online presence and would be moving onto other phases of app and online technology to truly embrace innovative strategies. Here is where we begin to see why the use of the word innovation becomes all too convenient for some brands. In Morrisons case innovation is just a word that has been used to hide incompetence.

Only last week I praised HP for truly empowering its loyal customers to deliver support across all of HP’s products and services. However, it also seems that the company could do with a little support when it comes to embracing an innovative strategy for the future stability of the brand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/9928066/Mike-Lynch-attacks-Hewlett-Packard-for-a-lack-of-innovation.html

HP needs to learn a valuable lesson and learn it quickly. If they cannot begin to truly embrace brand innovation they will continue to lose its most ambitious and precious talent to companies who will. Over the recent years there have been little to no noticeable innovations from HP that elevated or communicated anything about the brand in a meaningful way. And history has already shown what happens to companies who continue to fail in truly embracing innovation.

Channel 4 has rolled out the red carpet for innovation in 2013 following a decline in return of ad revenues for 2013.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/channel-4-banks-on-innovation-to-boost-2013-revenue/4006665.article

£844 million in ad revenue for 2012 isn’t a small amount however through the strong emphasis placed on innovation in the article Channel 4 is admitting that more could have been done to embrace true innovation. In order for Channel 4 to sustain and/or improve its performance moving forward they have outlined a strategy focusing on second screen and app technology.

There is also a difference here when comparing Channel 4 to Morrisons or HP in that Channel 4 is fully aware and deeply concerned of their brand perception when it comes to innovation. Despite not leading the curve in innovation in 2012 Channel 4 did take some initiatives to set the future framework for strategy set around innovation. The investment in the Paralympics alone did wonders for both the disabled community and brand perception.

Then there are those companies whose whole success has been built around a sustained policy of ensuring consistent and incremental brand innovations. Some may have been quick to view P&G’s announcement this week that profits had taken a hit as a sign that investments in brand innovations are risky and don’t pay off.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/pg-commits-to-marketing-despite-profit-hit/4006473.article

While at the same time it might be fair to say that brand innovation is risky the pure fact that P&G have $1 billion to cut from a marketing budget demonstrates exactly why this sort of investment can also lead to massive returns. Through carefully reevaluating brand perception, product performance and tracking the changing behavior of consumers P&G enjoy dominant market share in mostly every category they operate in worldwide. This allows them to have dozens of $1 billion plus brands in their varied product portfolio.

http://www.brandchannel.com/home/category/brand-innovation.aspx

Then there are examples of brands that are beginning to truly embrace the concept of brand innovation through ambitious augmented reality or visual merchandising campaigns. I couldn’t help but be impressed with how well Carte Noire have embraced both social media and visual merchandising to communicate a clear and clever brand message for their coffee range. A clear demonstration of how even a small campaign innovative campaign can go along way to building brand recognition.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CarteNoireCoffeeUK?v=RGpEi1U-UDk

Audi have more ambitious plans when it comes to their planned investment in brand innovation.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/audi-to-transform-all-logos-into-ar-triggers/4006668.article

Welcome to the beginning of a augmented and most importantly controlled brand experience. By 2020 it is reported that t least 80% of the UK population will have access to a smartphone. Audi is investing in its future by looking to become a pioneer in innovation and creating an all encompassing brand experience. Kudos for making the claim that they will invest in innovation and for sticking by it with such a long-term strategy.

Audi, Carte Noire and P&G should pose as shining examples for the rest of those companies who continue to promise their loyal audience that innovation is coming. Companies should be using these examples as inspiration for making some changes to truly embrace a strategy which is innovative and works… Don’t talk about it, be about it.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1180588/

Take some marketing innovation inspiration from the above article which details Barack Obama’s marketing campaign for Presidential reelection There is no reason why everyone shouldn’t look to find ways to truly embrace the Facebook mentality ‘move fast and break things’.

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.

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?