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.

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.

Brand suicide broadcast to a mainstream audience

Coming hot off the heels of the Ford/WPP Berlusconi saga you would be forgiven for thinking that car manufacturers across the world had learnt a valuable lesson when it came to their advertising content. However, in the latest edition of unbelievable brand positioning and questionable decision making let’s take an in-depth look at a notorious continuous offender when it comes to controversial marketing.  Hyundai’s latest marketing blunder can be seen below although The Brand Avenger must advise that some impacted by suicide might find the footage distressing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtfmNGOaB5M

It is clear to see from the recent content released from Hyundai and their agency Innocean Worldwide Europe that steering clear from controversy was a message clearly lost in this instance. It is hard to believe there was not one person through the creative development, implementation and strategic launch of this content who questioned why they were releasing it or what negative impact it could have on Hyundai’s brand reputation. Seems to me had one person questioned why suicide was an acceptable theme for creating a viral campaign on advances in emission technology maybe Hyundai could have saved themselves the embarrassment of having to remove the advert so soon after they decided to release it.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/hyundai-to-pull-controversial-suicide-ad/4006494.article

Hyundai’s latest attempt at brand suicide doesn’t just serve as a valuable lesson on why controversy isn’t always the best tool for awareness but it also once again highlights the power of social media in bringing the corporate culprits to justice.  Holly Brockwell’s open letter to the company deserves a read and can be found below. This served as the catalyst that brought the social spotlight to the issue.

http://copybot.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/an-open-letter-to-innocean-and-hyundai/

From this point on the social tools at the public’s disposal such as Facebook, Twitter and Tout opened up direct channels of communication and word of mouth buzz across borders to publicly denounce the brand. As Lara O’Reilly covers in an excellent article below both Hyundai or Innocean have continued to do themselves no favours through their muted responses and apparent blissful ignorance demonstrated in their lack of updating their social media tools to apologise.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/opinion/why-hyundai-has-committed-brand-suicide-with-its-failed-attempt-at-viral/4006502.article

This isn’t the first time Hyundai have tried to create a stir when it comes to their advertising. Viral marketing can be an effective tool to use for creating awareness of a brand. Viral marketing has to capture the public’s interest so they are encouraged to share within their networks. The end goal should be a successful campaign spread over numerous contacts, which successfully leaves all with a positive perception of the brand or at the very least a level of respect for the message conveyed. Taking this into consideration Hyundai have clearly got it wrong time and time again when it comes to some of the marketing campaigns they have signed off. Most recent examples include the outcry that was created following this advert in Holland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImY0U8WChJ0

Prior to this Hyundai were busy creating controversy in the land of the brave and the home of the free. If you can’t give them credit for anything else at least we can give the Korean car manufacturer kudos for continually looking to damage its brand across international markets.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/14/hyundai-pulls-world-cup-ad-after-catholic-outcry/

The only thing poorer than Hyundai’s decision making has been its responses on social media. So far there has been little to no response rather than a statement released directly to the media. Hyundai need to understand that releasing a statement to the press and the press alone isn’t going to solve the big issue they have now created themselves. Now is the time for an immediate and strategic damage limitation exercise across their social media. There isn’t one member of the public who is less important than another one in this situation. They need to take the time to listen to what people are saying and create personalised responses which demonstrates a real attempt to right the wrongs they are responsible for. And here is another suggestion Hyundai may wish to consider for the future. The next time the creative agency come up with a crazy idea that will create a stir and raise awareness maybe build an objective into the brief that the campaign has to do more than shock and annoy.

Is Seattle's global coffee darling Star-chucking it away?

Brand scoring mechanisms such as YouGov BrandIndex put pure and simple are things of beauty. They go a long way to help undercover the perceived value of brands via measuring word of mouth and public perception and help expose the impact bad decision making can have on a brands long term value. Case in point this week is Starbucks UK and its declining brand value following… well let’s just say some interesting tax discrepancies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21219823

Many found it miraculous that a company can make $4.8 billion in sales in 14 years in the UK market and yet only pay $13.8 million in tax? Whereas The Brand Avenger does not earn a wage for keeping the world safe from bad ass brand baddies or fending off questionable marketing content I am quite sure the average % tax rate for those citizens who do work isn’t 0.002%! The revelation was no doubt shocking but the big question was if this type of injustice would be lost on the coffee-drinking customer who for so long has had a strong, loyal and loving relationship with Starbucks?

Well as it turns out that answer to that question might depend on which part of the world you live in. If we look at the UK market for example it is clear Starbuck’s tax avoidance is beginning to have some sort of impact on brand value. Marketing Week covers the impact on Starbucks in a great piece on brand auditing of Starbucks in the UK. There are some key themes in the content of this article that clearly demonstrate the Starbucks UK brand has suffered; take for example Starbucks perception measures via BrandIndex been below the levels where they were several years ago.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/brand-audit-starbucks/4006280.article

Whereas The Brand Avenger would agree that Starbucks has become somewhat of a scapegoat in the tax scandal due to its prominent presence on the high street (especially when compared to other implicated online companies) this was always going to be a complication the company risked taking when it decided to act out this controversial tax strategy. Starbucks has paid the price for unethical business practice through diminishing brand value, which as Marketing Week suggests is taking longer to fix than it did to break. One might even argue that the prolonged bout of discounting Starbucks are currently offering on products such as the Monday morning latte isn’t a viable long term tactic to support a strong and sound brand strategy moving forward. Whereas it may take some pressure of the bottom line in the short term it also gives Starbucks competitors a vital opportunity to build their own brands.

So how have the competitors reacted? In order to determine this we should take a look at one of the other big coffee chains in the UK, notably Costa. You can see from the BrandIndex scoring in the Marketing Week article that Costa has enjoyed a steadily inclining brand perception whilst the Starbucks coffee bean empire has faltered. However is it accurate to suggest that Costa coffee has only benefited due to the tax avoidance issues Starbuck’s has experienced? The Brand Avenger feels this is unfair especially when you consider some of the other measures Costa has taken over the last 6 months to grow the brand.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/rss/1163715/Costa-says-Starbucks-taken-knock/

The fact that Costa has become one of the only high street coffee chains to begin to actively embrace app technology to encourage consumers engagement in its brand as well as investing in a television advertising to create brand awareness is evidence that Costa has benefited from an integrated contact strategy. This combined with other factors now leaves them with a prime opportunity to build a strong brand perception off the back of the Starbucks con-tax-versey (I crack myself up). However the coffee chain will also know they will need to be careful before they decide to write Starbucks off and will continue to look over its shoulders as they know the big green lady from Seattle won’t just disappear into the night.

So what helps Starbucks maintain such a strong position even in the face of adversity? Well for one thing the negative brand perception in the UK isn’t an issue shared across its global markets, especially in its home market of the USA. And if Starbucks begins to build some momentum and take some tips from its US facing operation it could have its UK consumers swooning once again in no time.

One may wonder how Starbucks has gotten itself in this state of confused cross-cultural identity? Can it be possible for Starbucks to enjoy unparalleled growth and successes in the US market while at the same time suffer for its sins in the UK? It is of course no surprise that even in today’s information age where knowledge spreads in a matter of minutes it is still possible for this to happen. Starbucks appear to have got it right in the US through carefully managing sticky PR situations and adapting a strategy of winning its customers loyalty via reward mechanisms as opposed to discounting. This is especially important when you consider Starbucks US appear to be prospering in a market which some have suggested is in overall decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/starbucks-brand-loyalty_n_2830372.html

These factors combined with Starbucks worldwide results maybe why Howard Schultz was all smiles at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in Seattle at March. Looking closely at the results you could say there was plenty for him and his Starbucks family in the US to smile about. Highlights include but of course are not restricted to

Ø $13.3 billion record revenues

Ø 38% total shareholder return

Ø 14% revenue growth

http://news.starbucks.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=763

There is no doubt Starbucks has paid a hefty price for its dirty tax tactics in the UK. However, fortunately for a global brand the size of Starbucks there are ample opportunities for the brand to make mistakes, learn from them and recover the lost brand equity then there would be for its smaller, local competitors had the counterparts made similar mistakes. It is also clear Starbucks now more than ever need to apply the tools, techniques and mechanics that make its brand so strong in the US to the UK market to strengthen its position. If they can do this it should ensure they continue to gain advantage over competitors and continue to make the big Star bucks as opposed to becoming Grade A Star muck.

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?