Kellogg's 'feed a hungry child' campaign leaves a bad taste in the consumers mouth

Kellogg’s join the long list of companies who have fallen fowl of the consumer by offering to do something about poverty and hunger if they get something back in return.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/kelloggs-apologizes-promising-feed-hungry-kids-only-if-you-retweet-153764

There is a worrying trend in today’s age with companies embarking in activities that can be easily deemed as emotional blackmail. Promising to feed a hungry child in return for a mention, like or re-tweet of information via social media is a high-risk strategy to say the least. Of course Kellogg’s aren’t the first company to embark in such controversial activity, however the way in which this message was communicated and subsequently conveyed may take the award for worst social initiative of 2013. One critic goes as far as to sum this up as ‘vanity metrics’ and it’s clear that when it comes to Kellogg’s and this campaign they couldn’t be anymore self conscious.

http://www.deeson-creative.co.uk/blog/kelloggs-faces-twitter-backlash-for-give-child-breakfast-campaign

Some have gone as far as to suggest the Kellogg’s groveling immediately following this controversy is nothing more than a non-apology. Whether this is true or not it is clear that if this is the feeling Twitter still have some work to do with their social media strategy. And this couldn’t be anymore clearer by the fact that Kellogg’s still continue to plug its strategic social responsibility days after this controversy albeit phrased in a slightly more political correct way.

http://jkoulianos.com/kelloggs-twitter-hungry-kids/

Of course all of this begs an obvious question. If you can afford to feed a hungry child then why would you endeavor to feed as many hungry children as you can? Don’t hold the public to ransom or try and pull the wool over our eyes by stating you will do something that has as wide an impact as saving lives in exchange for generating online buzz. These types of ‘vanity metrics’ are wrong and put plain and simply are exploitative. Kellogg’s should learn to use their size and strength for as much good as possible. And if you want to build a following or fan base do it off the back of understanding your online audience as opposed to tugging on heartstrings with  a form of emotional blackmail.

Are Google having a goggle at my email?

Microsoft has taken the gloves in the fight for E-Mail supremacy with Google by questioning the ethical decision-making behind the commercialization of customer email info.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/microsoft-slams-google-for-email-snooping-to-sell-ads/4008513.article

Should Google be punished for using content generated in personal email to sell advertisements? If there are a room full of people whose job it is to scour every single LOL and XOXO in your email then of course they should. However when it comes to Google’s use of targeted advertisements in email is this is the case or is there something far less sinister at play?

As the continued power of the Internet and influx of social media sites shows no signs of slowing down we are more exposed to ‘datafication’ today than ever before. With the presence of data comes the ability of companies who know how to use to their advantage. This could be through understanding the customer in more detail and/or selling building the information to sell to suppliers. One quick review of the site Microsoft has set up to explain G Mail would seem to clearly suggest Google are commercializing their data for targeting purposes.

http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/GetTheFacts

The further and further you dig into Google’s email policy the nearer you get to the fact that Google do in fact appear to be reading content generated. In some instances Google appear to be downright unapologetic for such policy preferring to reference themselves as an assistant rather than a spy.

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Yes+we+Read+Your+Gmail/article33184.htm

Google have made attempt to quell any long-term mistrust of the brand by ensuring customers that the process of data sourcing for targeting purposes is automated and not ready by a human. This may bring little comfort to the suspicious John Doe who was worried that Big Brother was reviewing everything he communicates over email however does this still make it right for customer data to be used in this way?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/05/google-seeks-to-dismiss-gmail-privacy-lawsuit-says-it-has-right-to-scan/

The Brand Avenger would ague that the right answer revolves around how secretive you want to be and how accepting you are that as we continue to produce more and more data Google will become just one of many companies looking to make money out of data this way. Having access to intimate data sources is by no means a new process. Look at the transformation and continued success Tesco have experienced in launching the Clubcard, which gives an insight into half of the UK Households buying habits. If Google can ensure the use of data is automated and steps are taken to remove identifying info such as name and address, I would rather this form of advertising than getting hit with boring, irrelevant information in other areas of my super hero existence.

Colgate's #brushswap turns into brushgate

What happens when a brand promises customers free products as part of a viral campaign and can’t keep up with the campaign? Wide scale criticism and public humiliation is the answer.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1218637/colgate-brushswap-debacle-banned-ad-watchdog-misleading-claims

Colgate clearly didn’t have any luck when it came to this campaign. Deciding to host #brushswap in a crowded location like Waterloo certainly doesn’t help with crowd control of the size of a rampant public who have caught wind of a cheap deal. Within two hours the experiential campaign was brought to a complete halt by Network Rail staff clearly concerned about the swelling around the pop-up toothbrush stall.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2361854/Brush-controversy-Colgate-promotion-backfires-hundreds-mob-promotional-stands-free-electric-toothbrushes.html

What happens when a campaign doesn’t go according to plan? Well of course the angry mob takes to Twitter to voice their concerns. Colgate clearly didn’t have this in mind when they were thinking about how much social awareness this could drive.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=106943352729676&story_fbid=490648371025837

It’s hard to read some of these comments and still believe in the old adage that no news is bad news. When negative criticism is coming straight from the mouths of the very people you were trying to target with promotional giveaways you begin to create more hard work than good. The lack of judgment and accuracy in forecasting demand brought together the very consumers who expressed an interest in using Colgate’s premium branded products and instead created an army of disgruntled brushers.

When the chips are down for a brand following a publicity stunt like this what is that last thing you want? If you answered more controversy than you would be on the money my friend. It turns out the electronic brush that Colgate suggested cost £169 actually retails more accurately around £85. So there you have it- not only do you manage to annoy a target audience, you also manage to get in trouble with the authorities along the way. Just a couple of things to consider the next time a brand look to use experiential marketing to convey a message. And next time Colgate look into using innovative marketing for product sampling they might want to brush up on their demand forecasts.

Guinness: Good things don't come from rounding up your mates.

Marketing Professor's wearing tweed jackets in dusty Lecture Theatres up and down the Country have long celebrated the genius of Guinness's television advertising. Who can forget the galloping horses in glorious black and white which ushered in an era of creative concept and highly visual imagery to build a brand? Whatever your view it is safe to say that you cannot argue that Guinness has spent considerable time and effort building a strong, durable and enduring brand image.

Imagine then my shock that Guinness have appeared to throw away that strong legacy of impressive advertising with their recent #RoundUpYourMates campaign.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/guinness-jonathan-ross-ad-experiment-backfires/4008379.article

The public backlash of the extended advertisements during The Jonathan Ross Show demonstrates the negative perception towards the new marketing scheme for Guinness. But can you blame one of Ireland's greatest exports with doing something unique and innovative? One look at the Guinness website quickly outlines how much importance and emphasis Guinness has placed on the campaign. You certainly wouldn't be able to tell from the current coverage Guinness is giving the campaign that them they feel as if they are doing something wrong.

http://www.guinness.com/en-gb/roundupyourmates/

It was only a year and a half ago that Guinness first struck success with the RoundUpYourMates television and YouTube advertisement. Take one look at the comments left for the below video and you can see that there is no doubting the success of the messaging used in this concept. You may therefore be forgiven for thinking that surely what happened then would continue to be met with the same critical acclaim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y07at1bU89Q

So what's the big problem with the concept this time around? Why have the masses appeared to have turned on the 'Mates' concept quicker than an Irishman downing a pint of the black stuff on St Paddy's Day? The Brand Avenger believes 'the Twits' (my endearing term for the many tweeters out in the Universe) anger at Guinness isn't suggesting that the overall message is entirely flawed, rather the implementation. It is clear from some of the main themes generated by Twitter that todays consumer don't like being insulted or duped. Guinness execution of Mates in between actual content from Jonathan Ross's show just wasn't smart or intriguing enough to strike a positive chord with those customers who decided to tune in Saturday night. The next time Guinness want to launch a campaign maybe they should look to understand their mates a little better rather than treating them like mugs.

David Cameron doesn't appear to be a fan of British Gas

When the Archbishop of Canterbury decided to go on a one man mission to challenge the private lending sector Wonga were left shaking in their boots and suffered brand damage which has taken months to improve. Bearing that in mind imagine how British Gas must be feeling with the Prime Minister himself pleading with customers to switch to other gas and electricity providers in the wake of new price increases.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/customers-urged-to-quit-british-gas-as-brand-suffers-twitter-backlash/4008277.article

How will British Gas take the news that the Prime Minister isn't a fan? Well let's just say that it isn't exactly the best PR to be dealing with. Even the most ardent supporters of the old adage 'any news is good news' will probably find it hard to justify that anything good can come out of this damning report from such a public figure. And why should British Gas be surprised by David Cameron labelling the companies price hikes as a 'con'? A company that continues to make record profits and is justifying an increase in price to offer discounts in the future just doesn't add up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24562930

Of course all energy providers have a long history of poor brand perception scoring, which demonstrates that the problem isn't just solely restricted to British Gas. let's take for example the brand index scores of SSE. A brief look at their score over the last year demonstrates just how low those scores can go.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/05/105m-fine-whacks-sse-brand/

So why do energy providers appear to struggle so badly? Maybe it is unfair to assume these companies can do much to maintain a positive brand perception in the face of sharp tariff rises and constant price hikes. However, even if this is the case it is clear that the big energy and gas providers have done little to win the confidence of their customer base. We've said it before and The Brand Avenger will say it again but these companies need to start realising the power of transparency and leveraging Social Media for proactive and not reactive measures. Maybe next time this will help British Gas be well and truly prepared for Prime Ministers Questions.

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.

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.