Be More Dog and Be More Rewarded

It’s very rare to find a brand so far ahead in consumer perception scores and satisfaction surveys than O2. If you are not aware of how much success the mobile phone provider has with winning long term brand equity with their consumers take a look at their brand perception scores from last year.

http://www.brandindex.com/article/o2-breathing-success

How does O2 ensure such a consistent and strong brand advocacy scoring? Well quite simply they reward their customers and give them incentive for staying loyal to the brand. O2 operates a customer centric strategy and has created a world where loyal, committed customers are treated with the best deals before others. In this model rewarding your longest serving customers with exclusive offers comes first before acquiring competitor customers.

Customer centricity is not a new concept however very few companies have truly grasped the concept and even fewer have chosen to embrace it. Think of the numerous companies The Brand Avenger have featured over the last 6 months and decide for yourself how many of these tragic brand stories have truly grasped the concept of putting the customer at the heart of your decision making.

Putting the customer at the heart of all major decisions has transformed a business, which experienced a traumatic and desperate re-launch following the transformation from BT Cellnet in 2002. Incredibly Accenture have predicted O2’s customer first approach has led to ROI of 80:1 for its marketing communications.  Whether it be through the priority event access given to O2 customers through the rewards scheme or the roll out of iPhone 4 for customers on long term contracts before new customers O2 appear to be practicing what they preach.

https://www.marketingsociety.co.uk/the-library/2012-o2-long-term-marketing-excellence-case-study

O2’s most recent campaign has been met with critical acclaim from many of the advertising industries harshest critics. ‘Be More Dog’ has been praised for doing something different in an industry littered with repetitive messages and copycat advertising regurgitated across multiple media platforms.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1208758/adwatch-o2s-be-dog-will-long-running-success

In many ways ‘Be More Dog’ could serve as a perfect eulogy for O2’s loyalty based strategy. In a world where many mobile phone operators are happy to treat customers as just another financial transaction O2 have taken a stand and have chosen to offer something extra. O2 are rewarding the very people who have taken the decision to spend their hard earned money on O2 products. Under this context perhaps we could all do with embracing the advertising slogan. So the question is how many of us are going to embrace O2’s strategy and  ‘Be More Dog?’

Is MTV still twerking?

It’s 1981 in the middle of Summer and something new, different and unique has come to the attention of the teenagers and young adults of America. Although not necessarily new (The Beatles has mastered music video previously in A Hard Day’s Night) the concept of Music Television hit the small screen and took off in a big way, leaving the US buzzing about the brand and the birth of music video.

Fast-forward 30 years later and MTV continues to attract a young market audience communicating to them through new and exciting media channels. The young demographic has always been seen as fickle, promiscuous and insecure, thus notoriously difficult to please, however MTV has always maintained itself as a stable in the teenager’s media consumption diet.  When times are tough and the brand begins to fall under scrutiny MTV almost always finds a way of breaking through the controversy to once again return to a dominant state. Take for example the 2011success of Jersey Shore which returned MTV its highest ever ratings for a TV series at a time when many felt the brand had lost touch with its audience.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/110220/the-party-is-over-for-mtvs-jersey-shore

How does MTV continue to come up with material that consistently appeals to the younger audience? Is it by chance that they just so happen to know what the market want to see and when they want to see it? And why has the target audience seemingly shifted from 18 to 25 to 14-17 year olds resulting in content in which some people feel displays the downfall of civilization?

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/26/are-the-mtvvmas-a-sign-of-the-decline-of-civilization-some-twitter-users-say-yes/

Of course none of this is by chance! For years MTV have been tailoring content around a firm and fundamental understanding of not only their target audience but also the changing demographics, trends and habits of the market at a whole to understand exactly whom they should be targeting and what the message should be. Put simply MTV put insights and data at the heart of decision-making that influence creative content and strategic direction. Generational studies are key to the process and help MTV marry up the all-important need for art with the science that helps everyone make sense of it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/business/media/longing-to-stay-wanted-mtv-turns-its-attention-to-younger-viewers.html?_r=0

 This science is partly the reason why the MTV Video Music Awards managed to pull in an increased audience this year leading to positive impacts not just to MTV but also the artists who appeared at the event. It is the reason why MTV have successfully ploughed through the generations of teenagers and pre-teens maximizing as much of their disposal income as they can and it should be the reason why they continue to grow.

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/28/mtv-awards-proves-ratings-and-sales-hit-even-for-miley/

So a little different from The Brand Avenger this week in the sense that this is not an attack for poor decision making but rather a demonstration of how doing customer insight right can impact a brand. So what’s next for MTV to ensure they can keep up with today’s audience? Well clearly the biggest challenge will come in the form of Youtube and the relationship with this platform as it continues to grow in influence. If MTV can continue to adapt its media platform to relate over multiple levels it will continue to grow, meaning we might not have seen the last of Miley Cirus’s twerking for some time. If you thought it was bad now wait until 

Are Microsoft getting a good deal with the purchase of Nokia?

My favourite stat to come from the Microsoft takeover of Nokia has to be the increase in share value of 30% for Nokia and the decline in share value of Microsoft of 5% on the same day the purchase was announced. But does this stat demonstrate a flawed strategy for Microsoft in looking to purchase the Finnish brand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23940171

Nokia has suffered a long, drawn out and deflating battle against the other mobile phone providers ever since 2003. In the last ten years its market share in the UK alone has declined from 35 % to 14%. In a world where the mobile phone transformed into a camera, MP3 player, Internet provider and lifestyle icon Nokia’s approach was just too slow and too responsive to protect its position. The decline should be a stark warning to all other brands of the dangers of taking your eye off the ball. Brands like Nokia who once enjoyed such a dominant position in the market should not experience such a dramatic and rapid fall from grace. There is a clear worldwide trend of switching from mobile to smartphone technology and Nokia just couldn’t keep up with this in the US, Europe and UK.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/224e0784-1483-11e3-a2dfz00144feabdc0.html#slide0

A lot has been said about the impact Apple had on the US and UK market and how their love of disruptive innovation led to a decline in sales for all the big players in the market. No one will ever be able to deny the success Apple had in this field and the competitive advantage they built through creating such a strong and transferable brand image. However at the same time I hope that the ones who made the choices and decisions in Nokia towers do not use this as an excuse for their rapid decline. When the going got tough Nokia pure and simply had no answer to combat the entrance of Apple into the mobile market and no protection strategy to fend off the technology monster.

It may surprise some to know that up until 2011 Nokia was still one of the most popular brands in the UK. Brand index scores suggest that there was still value to be seen in the brand especially in the Western World whereas the US has tended to remain rather indifferent.

http://www.brandindex.com/article/nokia-gets-patchy-reception-across-world

Why is this important? Well first of all it demonstrates exactly why Microsoft are willing to spend billions of dollars in purchasing the brand. Microsoft clearly see the value in acquiring a company which can still boast of being the second largest mobile phone provider in the world. Nokia’s position in the mobile market also provides a clear indicator of Nokia’s strength in the ever-expanding Chinese market. Add this to the fact that Microsoft worked closely with Nokia on the Lumia and all of a sudden a number of possibilities for future growth and brand prosperity once again seem possible for a mobile phone arm of Microsoft’s business.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/08/the-real-reason-microsoft-bought-nokia-transaction-costs/

So is Microsoft making the right decision with the acquisition of Nokia and does this purchase spell the end of the best thing to come out of Finland? Well on one hand Nokia have experienced significant market decline and have done little to strengthen their product offering or brand perception. However we must also consider that the brand still enjoys a dominant position in the mobile market and a strong market position in China. If Microsoft can leverage the value left in the brand name and focus growth around dominance in China we may not have seen the last of Nokia and ‘snake’ yet.

Is Yahoo's brand reputation on the rise or in decline?

Yahoo stock price has increased, unique visits to the website in the US have surpassed Google for the first time this year, but brand perception has decreased. So should Yahoo be celebrating or asking questions why perception has fallen in spite of positive news elsewhere?

http://news.sky.com/story/1131958/yahoo-overtakes-google-in-us-web-traffic

Unique visits don’t tell the whole story as they exclude search engine figures, which would clearly benefit Google over Yahoo. Stock price as increased following strategic acquisitions of popular sites such as Tumblr. Perception has… well.. perception is perception so it is worth digging a little deeper to understand why consumers feel differently.

http://www.brandindex.com/article/yahoo-stock-consumer-perception-down-past-year

Brand perception was clearly impacted by the decision to eliminate the employee work from home policy and since this point Yahoo have continued to hover closely to two of its main competitors in Bing and MSN. It would be unrealistic to assume that brand perception of the public would be impacted so massively by a Yahoo employee policy change. Yahoo have struggled to adapt to the uptake of Smartphone technology which in turn has led to a clunky, slow and inefficient feel to many of its products on the smaller screen. Whereas Yahoo have made great strides in investing in up and coming companies it has so far done little to address issues with smartphone applications and how easily its offerings are displayed on the small screen and even less to understand mobile technology. The Brand Avenger suggests that Yahoo brand perception will continue to suffer until they essentially catch up with the rest of the market and make a real effort to understand the consumer and their relationship with mobile technology.

Yahoo are of course facing an uphill battle when it comes to reaching the summit, maintaining growth and offering a sustainable brand. The decline has played out in the public eye and the reasons behind it are nicely summed up in the attached infographic.

http://www.scores.org/graphics/yahoo/

As already covered Yahoo stock price is on the up, visits to the website has increased but perception is down. When you combine this with the fact that Yahoo sales in the last quarter aren’t as healthy as the top brass at the company would like then you begin to understand why Yahoo should take the good news with a pinch of salt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/technology/companies/yahoos-profit-rises-but-revenue-slips.html?_r=0

Yahoo can’t afford to ignore the sales figures or the brand perception. They have a massive task on their hands and they certainly won’t do themselves any favour’s until they understand how consumers interact with Yahoo in their own hands via smartphone technology

Why have Marks & Spencer's sales declined?

For over 100 years Marks and Spencer has been an institution on the UK High Street. This isn't a brand that has popped up over night as part of the digital revolution or developed as part of a multi-national strategy. M&S is as British as tennis, Eastenders and Sunday Dinners. Should we therefore be worried that the brand has experienced a recent decline in brand perception?

http://www.brandindex.com/article/ms-brand-perception-matches-fall-sales

M&S has recently experienced a tempestuous time when it comes to its trade and sales figures. 2010 was a particularly challenging time that led to a complete overhaul of the leadership team. Since that point M&S worked hard to turn the tide with particular emphasis on addressing the negative public perception and improving the reputation of the company. Initially the turnaround was a success for M&S and going into 2012 this led to improved sales and a steady growth for the company. However, the recent decline in brand perception is inline with a decline in sales of the M&S clothing range. Does this lead us to believe that the British public has fallen out of love with M&S fashion?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/19/why-marks-spencer-lose-edge

As a jack of all trades M&S run the risk of positioning themselves as a master of none, and this maybe particularly prevalent in the fast pace world of fashion. Primark are clearly positioned at the price sensitive end of the market with strong competition from Tesco and Asda and I won’t even try to list the amount of brands that position themselves towards the mid to upmarket end. I struggle to try and determine where M&S sees itself and its clothing product offering in the UK market. Taking this into consideration I’m not too surprised that clothing is bringing the rest of Marks & Spencer’s estate down.

You have to question if life would be made easier for M&S if there were clear insight decisions driving the ranging of clothing within its stores. You would struggle to find Tesco ranging clothing within its Express format. Now of course M&S don’t have the luxury of smaller size formats on the UK High Street so essentially have to offer all ‘under one roof’. One-size fits all may have worked fine in the past but the UK consumer in today’s world have a plethora of choice, particularly when you consider the growing number of multi-channel savvy consumer who will shop around before making a choice. It may therefore be little surprise that M&S continue to experience decline in an area of the store with no clear direction or targeting of a segment of the market.

Alarm bells won’t be ringing yet but M&S have a clear decision they need to make when it comes to the product offering. How long will the decision makers continue to support a clothing range if it isn’t fit for purpose in today’s age? Growth is essential for long-term stability and there are clear differences in the performance of categories within the chain. They can stick or twist with the clothing range but if they continue to support it The Brand Avenger would like to see a clear mission statement and a focus on one segment of customer as opposed to continuing to be a lost cause in the multi-channel world of fashion.

Kicking the habit... 'Crack' Berry users just don't feel the same high anymore from the outdated mobile device

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.

The Greggs or Dregs of Society?

You wouldn't believe how much of an impact the weather can have on the short term stability of brand value. In UK high street baker Gregg's case there doesn't seem to be any other plausible reason for a recent 7% decline in sales than the UK July Summer heat wave.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23585083

You will have to forgive The Brand Avenger for a slight degree of skepticism but I feel Gregg's may have slightly exaggerated the impact of the weather on this occasion. No matter which way the high street baker wants to paint it their current strategy and product offering is just simply not giving the UK consumer what they need.

Of course for the sake of fairness we should try and understand if the weather could of had an impact on the major brands on the UK high street? Could it be that instead of hitting the stores the UK consumer has decided to spend the majority of their days lazing on a coast line beach bumming it up and down the Country instead? Well interestingly enough all results would suggest that to the contrary of Gregg's view most major and minor brands on the high streets have enjoyed considerable growth during the uncharacteristic summer months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23583825

So then it must simply come down to product offering? For whatever reason customers are simply not buying what Gregg's are cooking. Who wanted to supplement their Saturday morning sunbathe with a steak slice pasty? turns out not too many people. Who wanted to jump into the pool with a chicken bake or a hot sausage roll? Even less by the looks of it. Gregg's lack of understanding has quite simply led to a fall in profit. This can almost certainly be seen by the fact that despite the slump in sales customers perception in the brand remains largely unchanged.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/brand-audit-greggs/4007572.article

You may feel that a 29% year on year fall on profits is enough to suggest that something just isn't working with the perceived brand value of Gregg's with their consumers. However the fact of the matter is that brand perception scores remain fairly positive, clearly demonstrating a major positive factor for the brand. Their battle is not to try and change the perception of the consumer or gain trust following a PR disaster. Their major challenge now has to be built around something far more fundamental.

The key question the chief executive Roger Whiteside should be asking himself is how has Gregg's allowed themselves to become so out of touch with the UK consumer when major competitors such as Pret continue to prosper? The answer all lies with the knowledge the baker has of its consumers, or lack thereof in this instance. Gregg's shouldn't be in a position where their ranging is fixed throughout the year. The product portfolio and product offering should be flexible enough to allow for fluid and fast paced changes. Gregg's know what they have to do to build this important knowledge bank but so far they have been slow to release there much hyped 'loyalty scheme'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/10026151/Questor-share-tip-Greggs-will-only-be-a-tasty-proposition-if-loyalty-scheme-works.html

Why is a loyalty scheme so important for the long term stability of the Gregg's brand? First of all it will help Gregg's build a fundamental understanding of their customers and will help with decisions such as when, what, where and how many products should be stocked across the thousands of stores that make up their estate. It can allow the high street chain to surprise and delight their most valuable customers with rewards and offers for the products they most buy. I would wager a bet that at least half of their sales are generated by their most loyal customers. Generating surplus income from these customers shouldn't be an uphill battle as these are the guys who want to shop with Gregg's in the first place.

But if Gregg's are looking to loyalty to build a sustainable long term viable strategy they need to do it right. We are long past the days where free coffee stamp cards or random, un-targeted product discounts are enough. If the scheme is to work it needs to be linked to customer information, pick out this info on and actual purchase behaviour and offer attractive discounts and marketing strategy based on what customers want.