There is an advert that has been playing time and time again on Sky Atlantic in the UK. It features the new Blackberry model with particular focus on the dynamic camera feature. The problem is the feature wasn't really that new or game changing 6 months ago let alone now. It is simple, little things like this which probably explains why Blackberry has continued to experience a decline in sales and brand value. The company has lost its way in the competitive world of mobile technology, however what has really set the alarm bells ringing is the decision by a board to sell, which clearly demonstrates they are fresh out of ideas.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/12/blackberry-for-sale-smartphone-market
An $85 million decline in sales last year would seem to suggest the former 'crack-berry' addicts have gone cold turkey. Blackberry has fallen behind the market leaders and is failing in the battle with Apple and Samsung. The company has clearly lost its way and the brand reputation is suffering as a consequence.
http://www.eweek.com/mobile/slideshows/blackberrys-mobile-market-decline-the-result-of-10-basic-factors/
Is Blackberry an example of what can happen when a company moves from an innovator to the imitator? Blackberry doesn't even seem to know where its product offering sits. it clearly isn't appealing to the price sensitive market and has allowed itself to fall behind in the battle to win share with the upmarket consumer. If smart phones today really are more about music and photos then they are about email then Blackberry clearly needs to be offering a viable alternative in this space.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-blackberry-comeback-that-wasnt/article13719761/
And what about the corporate market that Blackberry has for so long experienced a sustained growth in? Well it turns out that Blackberry can no longer count on this market to bail it out of its current position. It is clear that even if the Blackberry review committee decided that the best way forward was to drastically downsize even more so than getting rid of the 5,000 employees they have already made redundant recently and go after the corporate market exclusively they might not even have an audience to cater for. When Blackberry first started to gain brand recognition and increased market penetration within the world of big business they were offering a valuable advancement in communication. Now they can't even offer the app, video or display capabilities that are needed to support the basic requirements of every small and large scale corporation.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/14/blackberrys-new-model-failed-stem-its-brand-declin/
Brand index scoring doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future of the Canadian phone manufacturer. A steady decline from 2011 in both the UK and US markets demonstrates a clear message for any brand strategist about the dangers of losing touch with your market. Blackberry were once in a position where the brand was big enough to sustain the challenge of some of its fiercest competitors. Now they are in a position where without some careful planning and a clear and concise strategy it is in danger of being entirely squashed and swept up into the brand graveyard.
Showing posts with label worst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worst. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
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.
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.
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.
£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.
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.
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.
Audi have more ambitious plans when it
comes to their planned investment in brand innovation.
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.
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’.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)