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?

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