Has Virgin already lost with their decision to sponsor the Commonwealth Games?

You spend all that money on advertising for the Commonwealth Games and for what? For three quarters of the Scottish public to not even know who is sponsoring the event.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1214670/three-quarters-scots-oblivious-commonwealth-games-sponsors

This is clearly an issue for the businesses who have decided to pay for the advertising and the Commonwealth marketeers who are looking to make a fast buck over the games. Perception can be everything so it might concern the official sponsors even more that the most recognised of the companies (RBS at 19%) ISN'T even an official sponsor! that's right, a company who hasn't invested one dime into the pockets of the Games organisers is simply benefiting from the existence of an event. If only the organisers could charge money for any publicity generated whether it is paid for or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/may/24/virgin-media-commonwealth-games-sponsor

Virgin Media have clearly invested an considerable amount of time and effort into the sponsorship so it will come as a shock to the multi-media provider that they are currently ranked last of the official brand recognition poll taken from YouGov. Virgin are no stranger to lucrative, sponsorship partnerships with athletes and sporting events but this is clearly a blow to their long-term strategy. What is the point of spending millions of pounds on event sponsorship if the general public can't even identify your brand with the product. And there are many who share the view that event sponsorship just aint cutting the mustard.

http://www.meetpie.com/modules/newsmodule/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=15209

Whether you agree with Fisk's view in the above article or not I cannot argue with the face that most people do in fact only remember three key pieces of information at any one time.  However, in the case of Virgin's sponsorship of the Commonwealth Games it seems that even three sponsors is too much for Joe Public to remember.

Of course we may have prematurely jumped the gun. The event hasn't even started yet and of course brand recognition will really peak around the time of the event. If anyone doubts the power this type of advertising can have they should look no further than the success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games last year.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/10/10/paralympics-success-for-sainsburys/

So what is the important takeaway for companies? If you are looking for a long-term, brand recognition exercise then Event Sponsorship might not be the thing for you. However if you are looking to build short-term acknowledgement and brand value then events might just be the thing for you.

Ryanair doesn't care about customers!!! And that works fine for their brand strategy

Ryanair is an interesting brand to place under an evaluation microscope. The fact that it has established itself as an consistent offender when it comes to negative brand perception hasn't seemed to of damaged its stability. In fact if you didn't know the low cost no frills airline recently announced a record £481 million in profit for 12/13.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22593246

The more passionate customer service connoisseurs among us would argue that Ryanair as an entity should really not be doing this well. How can a company, which spends so little time on customer satisfaction, and so much resource on squeezing extra revenue out of its customer base, continue to enjoy expansion, growth and substantial market share? 

Let's be crystal clear on Ryanair’s brand perception. If you thought Ryanair scores positively as a brand with a strong focus on satisfying customers through a low cost model you would be wrong. One of the most common words you will find linked with Ryanair brand perception is 'deception'. Take for example the company website which ranks the worst in terms of ease of use for all UK travel companies.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/2012/11/23/42362/ryanairs+deceptive+website+puts+it+in+last+place+on+brand+index.html

Virgin might focus on the Rockstar holiday, JetBlue may pride itself on its on-board customer comfort but Ryanair makes absolutely no bones about the fact that first and foremost it is a low cost, high revenue margin operation. You will notice that whereas Virgin is noted as taking a more customer-centric approach Ryanair instead focuses on driving traffic to the website, currently in the tune of 1.2 million customers a day. Makes sense when you consider a complete lack of consideration when it comes to customer service strategy or any investment in understanding how the rising influence of social media will change the way consumers behave. You might think that in this day and age a CEO would take time to listen to its customers. It's clear from the below blog that Ryanair have no time to liaise with 'idiot bloggers', a strategy which some have described as 'analogue marketing in a digital world'.

http://wallblog.co.uk/2012/09/07/ryanair-is-an-analogue-brand-in-a-digital-world-and-must-change/

Surely this defies all logic? A brand can't place so little emphasis on the customer and continue to enjoy strong profit and growth. How can this model be sustainable? Surely sooner or later Ryanair will suffer for a complete lack or respect in maintaining a strong and loveable brand?

You would certainly hope so however that depends on a few factors changing in the market it currently operates in. The Brand Avenger would argue that in order for Ryanair to begin to feel the pain in terms of sales then one, or a combination of all three of the following things would have to happen.

1) Price would have to decrease in importance when it came to choosing an airline to travel.

It is far too easy nowadays for a consumer to use a search engine such as Skyscanner and search for the cheapest possible option when it comes to flying. There is no denying the fact that holidays are expensive and as many see the flight as a means to an end it will normally be travel where customers look to tighten the purse strings. Would many be willing to pay extra dollar dollar bills for a promise of better service or increased comfort? Has any brand connected so well with airline consumers that it justifies an increase in spend? The answer is no. When it boils down to it Ryanair will always continue to win if they can successfully maintain a lower price than the nearest competitor. Brand reputation maybe in tatters but then again the consumer isn't really buying the brand in this instance.

2) There would need to be an increased number of competitors serving the same routes as Ryanair to give the customer more choice.

More competitors, more options and more choice for the consumer. It is a simple case of supply and demand! The Brand Avenger would assure you the service could be much worse if the market continues to lose suppliers. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22713569

Let's take the above example into consideration. Ryanair purchase AerLingus, swallow up all brand assets and the consumer has to fly with the same company to reach their destination. This of course leads to complete control for the company and complete loss of power for the consumer. 

If Ryanair are ever going to pay for its non-existent investment in brand strategy it will only be when customers have a choice. They have a choice of supermarket, of restaurant and of clothes store but when it comes to airlines how many companies can truly offer the routes and price Ryanair currently do?

3) A competitor would have to truly embrace a customer centric strategy to retain the loyalty of customers.

We should be careful when using the term customer-centric in any sense when analysing the aviation industry. Whereas it is true Virgin invest a considerable amount of time and resource on marketing strategy focusing on service and comfort it does little to truly win the loyalty of its most frequent flyers. Despite significant lip service and hefty marketing budgets focused on service Virgin have yet to understand the full value of the customers that spend the most on their service. If they did then Virgin would be tailoring the lowest prices fares and significant promotions with the largest discounts to the most frequent of flyers rather than trying to acquire new flyers. The largest retailer in the UK knows that three quarters of sales revenue is generated from customers who stay loyal to their brand. In a market heavy on competition and with the rising power of word of mouth marketing there is no reason why the same concept couldn't work for an airline as long as they were willing to fully embrace a customer-centric ethos.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2013/02/european-air-travel

Let's finish with a quick review of the above article. The Economist argues that 1 in 5 of Ryanair's passengers are travelling for business, which equates to 17.5 million customers a year. This is a segment of customers who is clearly a significant revenue generator but also one of the segments that Ryanair could be in greatest risk of losing if market conditions change. At the start of this article The Brand Avenger wondered why Ryanair continued to do so well despite such poor brand perception and I think the analysis of the business consumer sums up the reasons quite nicely. Until someone, somewhere can come in with a matching price with a greater emphasis on customer service with minimal hassle much like the rest of Ryanair's customer base the business trade will continue to flow. However, Ryanair need to realise that this model cannot be sustainable in the long term. The only way it would be is if they were to become a complete monopoly and competition authority bodies won't allow them to do so. Sooner or later some brand, somewhere will do what Ryanair does cheaper and better and when that happens, much like the 1 in 5 business crowd all of Ryanair's customers will leave the brand without an ounce of regret or any feeling of commitment. After all, it’s nothing personal, it’s just business.

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?