Brands behaving bady

It’s been another eventful week for brands across the world however no doubt the accolades for most news worthy story must belong to the Ford/WPP/Berlusconi saga. WPP’s sacking of the creative team responsible for the controversial Ford Figo advert this week led many to believe that Ford probably had little or nothing to do with the blunder.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/03/27/wpp-sacks-creative-team-jwt-india-behind-controversial-ford-advert-featuring-silvio

However, despite publicly taking responsibility and punishing those who created the controversial work, it is not WPP’s brand reputation that has taken the biggest hit in the public eye. Undoubtedly as it was the car giants brand plastered all over the offending image Ford will continue to take the brunt of the negative publicity surrounding Berlusconi–gate. And maybe the criticism is justified when you consider fresh evidence that Ford Execs has signed off the creative to be entered into an awards competition before the excrement really hit the mechanical cooling device.

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/03/27/controversial-ford-ads-were-entered-big-indian-awards-then-pulled

The hullabaloo and buzz generated from the controversy reminds The Brand Avenger of several other brands that have behaved badly in the past. For the purposes of simplicity and to ensure I have enough time to save the world from my arch nemesis ‘the reckless spend kid (with the inhuman ability to waste marketing investment on traditional, unmeasured forms of marketing- scary stuff I know)’ I will summarise three of my favourite examples…

In with the wrong crowd -Groupon

The deal model made popular by brands such as Groupon and Living Social has exploded on the scene over the last few years, no doubt helped with the increasing penetration of smartphones and app technology. Groupon’s brand image is crafted around offering customers daily savings on products, goods and services. But what happens when Groupon's brand reputation switches from connotations of 'the helping hand' to 'stabbing their customers in the back' via exaggerated offers and lack of transparency.

http://www.talentzoo.com/beneath-the-brand/blog_news.php?articleID=12425

Groupon has quickly lost its way which is evident in declining market share and the resignation of its founding CEO. Unbelievably little is been done to manage and stabilise Groupon's brand to the extent where consumers are now voting with their wallets and looking to invest elsewhere. Groupon has to realise the consequences of its actions and work hard now to save the brand reputation through strategic marketing and company policy through revising its offer bank. It's time to reevaluate the circles of suppliers and manufacturers it chooses to hang out with and luckily for them there are plenty of marketing geeks out there in the shape out consumer behaviour consultancies who would love to embrace them into their inner circles if exchange for a look at that precious data.

The Yin and the Yang- Coca-Cola

You can't fault Coca-Cola for trying! In so many ways they are a market leader, innovative and a strong advocate for multi-channel media. They invest millions every year in marketing and are at the forefront of trying to understand social media and personalisation in greater detail. With so much momentum going for them they are undoubtedly in a real postion of power when it comes to brand reputation.

However as my old College roommate Spiderman once said after winning a position as dorm room monitor (such a geek) with great power comes great responsibility! And there is no doubting Coca-Cola should have been more responsible when it came to this year Superbowl advertising. No one is saying it wasn't a great idea to present an integrated media campaign across platforms to capture an audience and engage them on both the TV and secondary screens- But the lazy use of stereotyping and cliches when it came to the character selection no doubt marred what would have been deemed a unbelievably successful campaign. As you can see from the below article Oreo managed to get it spot on when it came to their use of instagram.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/coca-cola-super-bowl_n_2615632.html

Coca-Cola won't be too worried with the criticism as the brand damage is always carefully managed through their experienced marketing expertise. Therefore they earn the title of the Yin and the Yang as they somehow always seem to bounce back from the casual international incident.

Bad to the bone and loving it- Benetton

Benetton in the past has thrived on controversial content in its advertising campaigns clearly demonstrating the behaviour of a brand behaving badly but unlike Groupon bad in a cool way. Taking ten minutes to read an interview with the big cheese if the words of its Chairman are anything to go by will continue to portray themselves in a daring manner. Creative concepts such as the ‘kissing’ campaign where controversial images ranging from old men dressed as religious figures kissing to a black woman breastfeeding a white baby was unleashed on the public subsequently shocked and intrigued audiences across the world. The brand took a clear decision to misbehave through a campaign that would deliberately create controversy, much to the delight of Chairman Alessandro Benetton who went onto say “Of the 500m people who saw the 'kissing' campaign, more than 80%, if I remember correctly, had a positive view of what we'd done”. His interview goes a long way to demonstrate the power of behaving badly to build a brand image.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1170425/Alessandro-Benetton-building-brand-controversy/

Some people believe strongly in the ethos that controversy creates cash. With that in mind you might not be surprised to find prior to this year’s Superbowl one study found controversy was actually a good thing for the buzz and value of several brands.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/super-bowl-ad-controversy_n_2600108.html

When talking about controversy and the benefits it can bring to brand image it has to be remembered that this is different to bad branding. Controversy is used by companies like Apple and Benetton to leverage a brand image when it is strategically essential to do so. Bad branding decisions such as lack of marketing investment and misalignment to a company mission statements is not cool and will ultimately lead to the road of ruin if something isn't done about it. It's a good job Berlusconi has got a lot of room in that boot, because he may need to fit one or two critically ill brands to the hospital if bad branding decisions aren't rectified. 

The hidden lives of the small brands

Behind the closed doors of many of the small, independent brands across the world you will find a dirty little secret they don't want you to know about. They say reputation is everything so how would you feel if that independent coffee chain you go to every Saturday morning to buy artisan coffee turned out to be owned by a big supermarket? Well if the answer is upset then the news that Tesco owns at least a 49% market share in coffee shop 'Harris and Hoole' might bring a wee tear to your eye.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20943739

Pay close attention to the article on the BBC website and you'll see this isn't a random occurrence. Tesco themselves have been busy recently acquiring companies ranging from online entertainment channel Blinkbox to family restaurant chain Giraffe. However, it isn't just Britain's largest retailer who enjoy a bit of small brand mine fishing. Brands that were once founded on sound principles, anti-establishment and breaking from the constraints of big business have been quietly acquired by big companies looking to leverage brand position or target whole new segments of customers. And why would you blame them? It can turn out to be a real smart bit of business.

Referencing the below article and after some digging you might be surprised to find the dirt that can truly be uncovered on some of the smallest brands across the world.

http://www.businessinsider.com/13-ethical-mom-and-pop-brands-that-are-actually-owned-by-giant-corporations-2011-10?op=1

Ben and Jerry's rolled out their first store in small town America in 1978 following an investment of $12,000- the store went out of business after two months following horrendous sales. But Ben and Jerry didn't fall at the first hurdle. After learning from their first failure, and based on strong principles around quality ingredients, environmentally friendly products and fair trade they went on to build a strong, reputable brand. Ben & Jerry's became a poster child for small time investors everywhere on what can be achieved when David goes up against Goliath. Of course that was until the ice cream venture was purchased by the FMCG giant that is Unilever in 2000 for an astronomical $326 million dollars!

This is where the sordid lives of small brands starts to get really interesting. What other examples can we see of big business buying small brands? Did you know innocent smoothies was purchased by Coca- Cola? were you aware Cadbury/Kraft owned Green & Black's? Most importantly did you know many of the worlds consumer brands are actually owned by 10 multi-national companies? Don't believe me? The Brand Avenger would never lie but just in case you still doubt me check out this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812.html

You could use all of this information as a sign that the big boys will always win but I can't help but ponder what role social media will begin to play in all of this? It has already been widely acknowledged throughout The Brand Avenger's other blogs that social media has become a symbol of justice in a world of consumption- It has provided the consumer with a voice. Type Harris and Hoole into twitter and we have some real life examples of this voice...

Gus Hoyt ‏@MrGreenGus3 Jan

BEWARE of imposters. Harris and Hoole coffee shops might look independent but are Tesco-coffee shops in disguise.

Baked bakery & café ‏@bakedDERBY8 Jan

You'll no doubt be pleased to know that, unlike Harris & Hoole, we are 100% independent and not owned by a supermarket!

We are beginning to see companies understand the impact social media will have on their image however I can't be as brazen to suggest companies will think twice about purchasing small, independent brands. What it does mean is that they will have to become more transparent In their motives and intentions as brand perception and value measurement continues to evolve. 

But what about the people who jeopardise their initial vision through selling to big competitors? Should these citizens be jeopardised for chasing the almighty dollar? There is no doubt that online buzz has an impact on the reputation of the brand, however to what extent does internet outcry have on damaging brands long term profitability? Maybe the the social outburst towards Harris and Hoole has done more to symbolise the general apathetic attitude towards Tesco than it has to damage the image of the independent coffee chain. If this is the case it why wouldn't small investors not look to cash in when the big brands come knocking.

hip hop and brand segmentation

Since its humble origins in the the streets of New York in the 80's there is no doubt the hip hop movement has shaped the face of not only the music industry but also fashion, dance, art, so on and so forth. Not only has hip hop influenced so many different aspects of western society but it has also made companies billions of dollars. Not only has it made companies billions of dollars but it has also given The Brand Avenger many a frustrating Friday night trying to simultaneously fight crime and memorise the words of a fresh new beat, ranging anywhere from Eminem's 'lose yourself' to Mystikal's 'shake that ass'. But enough about me and back to the point- Hip hop is big business or 'bizznesss' as some in the industry would put it, therefore the branding artists have created for themselves deserve special attention.

Hip hop's growing influence as a valuable source of marketing investment is testament to a constant evolution of what it meant to be a hip hop artist over the last 30 years. If we think back to the turn of the 21st Century although there were clean signs of growth there were also considerable barriers which were decelerating the chances of an association with big companies and the mainstream. Market leaders have always spent considerable money on understanding how to appropriately market their brands and will use a number of mechanics to carefully alter brand reputation, positioning and image as they see fit. But what do you do when your cash cow is a volatile self proclaimed gangster with the tendency to occasionally start a riot in a night club every now and then?

That's right folks-  the rap industries branded talent assets was also the root cause of its constraints in realising true investment potential. Lack of diversification, controversy and unpredictability are not stable foundations for anyone to even try to build firm brand foundations on. There is no doubt hip hop stars popularity stretched far across a world of young adults but at the same time this created a scenario where hip hop brands like 2 Pac, Ja Rule, Notorious B.I.G, Eminem and Dr Dre consistently appealed to one 19-34 demographic. Simply put the industry was in danger of polarisation and completely cutting itself off from any kind of long term financial stability across other demographics.

Now you might say who cares? What's the issue with hip hop brands only appealing to a certain demographic especially when you consider how valuable that demographic is. Check out a great blog on hip hop segmentation and the power of the 19-34's across the world here.

http://www.audiblehype.com/blogs/business/2008/aug/04/the-no-bullshit-guide-to-hip-hop-demographics-part-one/

This article contains two of The Brand Avenger's all time favourite stats...

1) The collective spending power of the 19-34 year olds is $500 billion annually in the U.S. alone.

2) 37.1% of 15-25 year olds in China love hip hop, the point being that globally there is a potential audience for hip hop in China of 296 million.

Powerful stuff and a great argument for focusing on one demographic across the world, especially when you consider the size of this segment in emerging markets such as China (although I would imagine censorship might play a small issue here). What is undeniable is the fact that hip hop should always see a large chunk of its sales growth attributed to the youth of the times. The themes of rebellion, partying, independence and overcoming adversity tie in well with the general state of mind of this group. Nothing wrong with that right? A significant number of entertainment companies realised a long time ago that if you are going to focus your product on one group of consumers it is best to target those with the highest levels of disposable income.

However, as I am a symbol of brand value, diversity freedom and justice let's consider the other side of the argument. One thing all big manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and anyone who has anything to do with branding knows is that if you want to maximise your sales you have to offer a rich and diverse brand portfolio. Taking this as an universal marketing truth you could therefore argue although hip hop was successful within one demographic it was also missing out on what could truly be realised through targeting the mainstream and what comes with the mainstream... The vast majority of the corporate investment pot.

This was a legitimate issue and concern for a number of years until something amazing happened. You see through that mysterious process of human ageing the artists began to grow up, the content began to clean up and with it came opportunities for a hip hop segmentation if you like- brand diversification, mainstream acceptance and corporate investment.

Right in front of our eyes the hip hop industry has fragmented and it isn't only the hip hop artists who have benefited from the expansion.

Let's use record label The Island Def jam as an example. Now chances are you might not have heard of Def Jam. Formed as part of a merger in 1999 the entity is a relative new comer to the music scene. However, if you aren't familiar with them check out the Island Def Jam artist page to see how many of the 'products' in the brand portfolio of the company you do recognise...

http://www.islanddefjam.com/artists/default.aspx?labelID=74

Let me pick out a couple of names in case you may have missed them, specifically what I like to call the big three.

Jay-Z

Jay-Z reported earnings from 2012 was $38 million dollars. This year every major festival he will be headlining has already sold out, the key word here being 'headlining'. There is no doubt that as Jay-Z's rap content has evolved around his experiences as a 40 plus male so to has the demographic who buy his product. 10 years ago Jay-Z couldn't dream of headlining Glastonbury; now it is a regular occurrence. Add this to lucrative sponsorship deals with Duracell and Budweiser and you can begin to see how big manufacturers like P&G now use hip hop brands to engage their own consumers.

Rihanna

Rihanna earned $53 million dollars in 2012 thanks in part to a non stop touring schedule but mostly down to the spend generated from her loyal fan base of 12-30 year old male and females. Rihanna's brand is supported with a fully integrated social media strategy which last year saw her rank 2nd in social media influence. Through careful PR guidance and sublime brand management Def Jam has created a brand which can cater for a wide audience while at the same time attract engagement from all industries.

Nas

Although not a top earner Nas deserves an honourable mention as an example of a man who has evolved his brand to cater for an older audience. Songs which deal with the complication of divorce 'Bye Baby' and the difficulties which come with raising children 'Daughters' saw his album 'Life is Good' sail to number 1 in the US Billboard and has so far sold 349,000 copies across the world according to Nielsen SoundScan.

You can't easily determine how much Universal Music Group (the owners of Island Def Jam) have made over the last few years. But when you consider 6 months ago they purchased EMI for $1.6 billion let's just say it's not small change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/global/universal-takeover-of-emi-music-is-approved.html?_r=0

There is no doubt that the diversification of Universal's artist portfolio under Island Def Jam and the evolution of individual artists brands has been a major contributor to the bottom line. Whereas there will always be a fresh supply of new brands to cater for the 19-34 year olds the question now becomes will the older demographics continue to rap along with Jay-Z and wipe that dirt off our shoulders whilst grasping to our Zimmerframes in 40 years time? But then again that's more your problem. As i'm immune to ageing I've got 99 problems but getting old aint one.

Why are more companies not social media savvvyyy?

If I could gaze into my crystal ball, or use my massive super brain to predict the future I would say marketing budget devoted to social media will double over the next five years.. Thank god 500 Chief Marketing Officers agree with me (convenient coincidence I'm sure you WILL AGREE).

http://wallblog.co.uk/2013/02/27/social-media-spend-by-marketers-set-to-more-than-double-led-by-consumer-goods/

Now I hate to be a buzz kill but it sounds more impressive then it actually is. Even if you were to quadruple investment in social media it won't bring the amount spent anywhere near the investment in traditional forms of advertising. Makes you wonder what the big hesitancy is especially when you consider social media investment can cost little to no moolah.

If you are like me and your time wasn't taken up saving old ladies from falling off the sofa or rescuing cats from trees you probably think you could do a good job of managing a companies social image, but unfortunately it ant all pokes and likes you silly mortal. There is lots to think about including, but not limited to the platforms you will use, who you are looking to communicate with and if the campaign is standalone or best suited as part of a integrated media proposition. And if you are going to do it right you might as well throw in some online metrics to measure your investment as well!

Think about what some of the biggest bands like Nike could do with the savings taken from some of the millions and millions of pounds spent every year on the traditional methods. Investing in Tout, Twitter and Foursquare guarantees you engagement without having to worry about McIlroy's toothache, Wood's wandering golf club or Lance Armstrong's consistent cheating. Seems to me the bold and not always beautiful world of celebrity endorsement, TV advertising and print ads could be in trouble when Nike realise the value in the cheaper and more effective methods. Probably why Nike has taken social media investment in-house.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/sport/nike-takes-social-media-in-house/4005240.article

So what's the counter argument? I might be able to cook microwave meals with my laser vision eyes, fly through the air at lightening speed (not a good idea when walking a dog) or pee with perfect aim in the darkest of rooms even when the seat is down (a talent which is yet to be classified as a super power). However I also think it's a good idea to listen when a man like Sir Martin Sorrell speaks. After all, some of WPP's best assets i.e. Ogilvy & Mather and JWT, have helped the groups he oversees  generate a pre-tax profit of £1.1 billion.

http://wallblog.co.uk/2013/02/26/wpps-sorrell-says-twitter-is-a-pr-medium-not-an-advertising-one/

So what is it? PR or marketing savvy? Maybe right now it doesn't really matter. Sure, when the investment levels increase and the focus on social media intensifies companies need to get smarter. In the mean time for God sakes jump the curve and start investing now! It aint going anywhere

And the award goes to.... hmmm, maybe not anyone!!

Last night the glitterati of Hollywood graced the red carpet for the prestigious Academy Awards.  Dressed to impress and doing their best to enhance their public brands, the stars in attendance were hoping to scoop the acclaim and accolades of the industry. However, the cream of Hollywood’s exclusive crop weren’t the only ones looking to grab the media spotlight last night.

It should surprise little that last night The Brand Avenger cared less for A-list Movie Directors, actresses tripping up over their fine silk dresses, or the planned alcoholic consumption of George Clooney.  As we live in a world where needless brand expenditure is rampant and businesses plunge into bankruptcy daily my attention is always fixed firmly on how business use events such as this to position their brands. After all, the sheer size of audience the Oscar’s attract also brings with it a huge slice of premium priced ad space for the big brands to fight over.

As it turned out 2013 would be the year the metaphorical ‘asking price’ bar was raised. Reports from my trustworthy sidekicks on the interweb suggest Disney charged anywhere between $1.6- $1.8 million for advertising space during last nights ABC coverage of the event; the highest asking price for 5 years.  Despite the massive price tag it was also reported that demand was the highest it had been in years! Seems like the premium pricing did little to dampen the spirits of enthusiastic brand managers. Indeed some of the brightest brand stars in the land strutted their stuff last night including but not limited to Coca’Cola, Samsung, McDonalds and Neutrogena.

As a protector of brand identity I can’t help but looking deep within myself and asking the essential question everyone should be asking- Was it all worth it?... Was it all worth it? Well, first of all it certainly wasn’t the most extravagant ad purchase one could have made this year. Of course the honor of that goes to a little thing called the Superbowl and the television time devoted to ads before, during and after said event. If you choose to pitch your brand tent in NFL space you are looking to part ways with $3.7 million before even knowing if the investment was worth it! Seems like a lot of money? That’s because it is nub nuts! Especially if your campaign isn’t integrated across media platforms meaning you have little chance of measuring ROI.

Why are integrated campaigns better for the health of a brand? The explosion of social media use over the last 7 years has led to what industry experts describe as the ‘second screen’ phenomenon, As consumers watch TV they are less likely to be paying their full attention to one screen and more likely to be at least partly engaged in what’s happening on their smaller screens as well. Since your consumers attention is most likely to be split between a handset, laptop, TV or tablet it seems to me it would make sense to follow up the message you have just spend millions of dollars on across multiple channels… I don’t know, maybe its just me.

Maybe this type of spend is only suitable for brands with strong online presence. At least this way the effectiveness of the advert can be measured through the very delivery channels. Which is the brands bread and butter Darren Rovell’s account in the below article speaks volume on how important this can be. Reebok won acclaim for the Terrible Terry Tate campaign… that is until only 55% polled remembered it was advertising Reebok. Compare this to Monster.com and the success of its  ‘When I grow up’ campaign. No one can deny an increase in resume uploads from 83,000 to 2.3 million on its website 24 hours after the advert aired was a all out success for the brand AWARENESS if not anything else.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=rovell/050203

This is why my sizeable blood pumping heart muscle belongs to those companies who realize the value in creating a multi-channel communication strategy and the synergy between TV and subsequent social media or dot-com campaigns. At least this way companies give themselves more of a fighting chance for strong brand advocacy, brand building and overall buzz for the brand.

In closing I’m not going to sit here in The Brand Avenger Ivory Tower and tell you not to invest $4 million in a 30 second advert. But if you are going to follow the other companies and jump off the big TV spend cliff at least make sure you either have wings in the form of an integrated message or a padded cushion in the form of an adequate measurement method.

It's in the game

A twenty something male strolls down the street before making a sharp turn through an inconspicuous red door. Lionel Messi is waiting at the entrance with a cheeky smile to welcome the new arrival and before you know it they are engrossed in a game of EA’s widely popular Fifa franchise.  The frequency and breadth of EA’s television advertising for Fifa 13 across multiple channels and continents, as well as the presence of celebrity endorsement from several footballing personalities throughout the advert goes a long way to expose the cost of this campaign. But is it a cost which is justified when measured against the return?

At the same time the advert airs a 50 something single female in an affluent neighbourhood with an above average income sits down on her sofa and turns on the TV. There is no doubt she has assets at her disposal however within 5 seconds of viewing Fifa’s advert she has lost interest, changed channel and the message is forever wasted. But don’t just take the 50 something female as an example… think of grandpa, the mother with a new born, and other consumers who don’t even own a games console in their household!... the list goes on and on.

This of course begs the question of what value EA can truly drive from mass advertising of a brand such as Fifa? You would find it hard to believe the Ad Exec who made the decision on the marketing investment didn’t know their target demographic in finite detail. For Fifa it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess the target ranges anywhere from 6 to 35 year old males across continents and across ISBA regions with some sort of access to, or interest in gaming. With so much information on such a large group of consumers why would EA need to waste money on television advertisings to a mass audience?  If you were to measure the return against all who were exposed to the advert you would find a weak and frail comparison of value compared to other methods of targeted marketing communication.

The above scenario has long been the catch 22 of television advertisements. When the industry was less refined and volume of the message was the main objective, mass advertising such as TV was seen as the weapon of choice. However, in 2013 it is not about who shouts the loudest but who articulates the message in the most effective manner. The world of broadcasting and the way in which we consume media content has changed. We now live in an environment where data is more readily available than ever before. In this environment there are no excuses for wasting marketing investment when there are so many opportunities to reach the truly relevant audience. And don’t underestimate the power of relevance. Translated to companies like EA relevance equals profit to the bottom line.

This explains why an online banner campaign will yield more measureable value than a mass media production and why more and more companies are shifting investment into social and online advertising. After all these channels give you access to numerous data points on your consumer such as, but not limited to…

·         How old they are

·         Where they live

·         How much they spend

·         When they spend it, etc.

But all is not lost for those who work in television advertising, or for those looking to invest in the good old fashioned audio visual display on the telebox. Of course it’s almost a certainty that the significance of such investment will be scrutinised in much greater detail as the years roll on. However network and TV advertising executives are beginning to take best practice evaluation techniques from other marketing areas to help measure the value of investment. Take for example AT&T adapting online targeting tactics to inform when and where TV ads should be aired (http:/www.technologyreview.com/news/510186/att-brings-online-ad-targeting-tactics-to-tv-commercials/).

Through readdressing the ye olde strategy of casting your ‘marketing message’ net far and wide to instead focus more and more on significant data points, TV and broadcast content could begin to play a much more significant role in reaching the consumer thus creating relevance for the products featured within the campaign. This way companies like EA can ensure expensive investments such as the placement of an international soccer celebrity is properly recognised as Messi and not a messy waste of resource.