Posts filed under ‘brands’
The frenemy of my frenemy is my, err?
Alastair Morton writes:
Sir Martin Sorrell, WPP’s CEO, has long recognised Google as a frenemy (part friend, part enemy). On one hand Google offers communications agencies the chance to buy interactive ads for its clients but, on the other, Google makes no secret of its intention to allow anyone to buy ads for themselves, thus disintermediating agencies.
Google has now announced that it will cease to restrict keywords for ads served to users in the UK and Ireland. This means that surfers who key-in a trademarked brand name such as ‘O2′ may also see rival brands (Orange, Virgin etc) appearing in the search results alongside those for the brand they had sought. It seems that Google is now a frenemy of brands – providing access to huge audiences but potentially eroding brand equity – as well as of communications agencies.
And in all of this, is Google making any real friends? Well, consumers apparently. Matt Brittin, Google UK director, claims that ‘we are making this change because we want to give users greater choices to help them make informed decisions.’ But there is a problem with this line of argument. Our Planning for Consumer Change (PCC) data shows that more than half of UK consumers, and nearly two-thirds of those aged 15-24, feel that there is sometimes so much choice nowadays that they can’t make a decision. To borrow from Barry Schwatrz’s critique of the notion of choice [article here, opens in pdf, see video here] “choice maximisers” may welcome greater information, but find it harder to ‘maximise’ – while ‘choice satisficers’ – usually happy to make a ‘good enough’ choice – will feel greater pressure to maximise their choice from all the available options. Both groups are likely to be more frustrated.
In truth, many consumers actively use trusted and recognised brands and providers to sift the choices which face them. Whether or not Google’s intentions are admirable, I have a feeling that this change will have more effect in growing their ad revenues than in helping consumers manage their already complicated decisions.
Working at authenticity
Becky Rowe writes:
We held a breakfast briefing a few days ago to talk about what Millennials – that fast emerging 16-25 cohort – want. Yannis Kavounis (our Director of Innovation and wannabe Millennial) suggested that the answer is authenticity and innovation. Innovation is easy to understand but difficult to do well – putting customers first, pushing the boundaries of technology, re-mixing and recombining the old to create something refreshing and new all sounds pretty easy – but turning that into sales can be a minefield. In contrast, authenticity is both difficult to understand and difficult to do – juggling honesty and transparency, and staying true to the brand, whilst taking into account environmental and ethical concerns while keeping an eye on the bottom line. It requires a significant shift in the way the most companies do business.
They may be difficult to achieve, but there are rewards to be had. The interesting thought of the day for me was that the Millennials’ interest in these two qualities are levelling the playing field between big and small companies. The days of the big brand reaping the rewards simply for being big are over – it just isn’t enough anymore. But it seems that the days of Naomi Klein’s No Logo may have passed as well. For Millennials, it isn’t about big brand versus small brand or good versus evil. It is about how well a company (big or small) can deliver on those two core values of authenticity and innovation. So the new marketing battleground isn’t about the ‘coolest’, but about the ‘best’.
The big companies obviously have a head start and could win by throwing money at it, but trying to change the shape of their existing business models, may be more of a challenge. The smaller, more dynamic companies are likely to have less likely to be constrained by ‘the way we do things around here’, and could win by being better at spotting opportunities, but may not be so good at thinking through all the implementation issues. The Millennials seem happy for either – but whichever way you look at, they want you to put some effort into it.
Barbie knows no bounds
Sarah Davies writes:
On a recent visit to the US I was stopped in my tracks by an enormous pile of Barbie branded cereal boxes, on offer at 2 for $5. I was so mesmerised by this spectacle that I felt compelled to purchase a box. To the disappointment of my two daughters, I didn’t buy the cereal as a gift to add to their burgeoning collection of Barbie merchandise, but rather as an example of what can only be described as irresponsible marketing to children.
Does a brand like Kellogg’s need to go to such lengths to sell its products? Close inspection of the box reveals a long list of additives and general ‘nutritional’ profile of the product. The pieces of ‘cereal’ and marshmallow bits look more like sweets than breakfast food.
In an age where childhood obesity and diabetes are on the increase, it seems hard to justify using Barbie to encourage children to eat such things for breakfast. But on second thoughts, perhaps this is all a storm in a teacup? Reassuringly, on the back of pack, Barbie is able to share her ‘fab tips’ with children, telling them to “Live active” and “Keep it green”. So that’s alright, then. But it’s hard to tell which brand is being damaged more by this co-marketing venture.
What the Premiership learnt from Formula One
Andrew Curry writes:
I hope I’m not too late to note a fine article [not currently available on the Guardian's own site] by the Guardian’s Richard Williams on how England’s footballing Premiership has, in its plan for overseas league games, followed a global marketing blueprint first laid down by Formula One. Williams suggests the three steps to sporting franchise heaven go like this:
- Step One: Secure the commercial rights to the sport, including the right to sell broadcasting licences, income from which will dwarf the sale of tickets and perimeter advertising.
- Step Two: Use the television ratings to encourage the acquisition of teams by people more interested in global brands and markets than in the sport’s traditional audiences.
- Step Three: Clear out the traditional schedule to create new opportunities in new markets, if necessary by threatening to remove existing events completely.
Williams also suggests that there’s a fourth lesson that the Premiership’s Richard Scudamore has learnt as well:
“Saying the unsayable out loud is more than halfway to actually getting it done, as long as you have the money on your side and are prepared to take no prisoners.”
Given the money at stake, the current crowd of owners, and the track record of the Premiership over the last fifteen years, you wouldn’t bet against it pushing the plan through. But there are a couple of differences: formula one is still about individuals (we remember great drivers like Senna and Fangio), whereas football is about teams and their history. And football is far more rooted in place than motor racing ever was.
Do I like you?
Jo Phillips writes:
We have been talking a lot here at HCHLV recently about the influence that a powerful personality with strong beliefs sitting at the helm of a company can have on brand perception. Bill Gates and Anita Roddick are archetypal, but more modest entrepreneurs can have a similar brand impact (think of Johnny Boden, Stelios, or Richard Reed of Innocent) My view has been reinforced by conversations I have had with consumers across the country this week, as I’ve heard often that Richard Branson is the only man who can save Northern Rock, and indeed any other problem we might care to throw at him.
So it might be thought foolish of Michael O’Leary to publicly declaim his discompassionate greed and complete obliviousness to the cares of people and planet:
“We would welcome a good, deep, bloody recession in this country… It would help see off all the environmental nonsense that has become so popular among the chattering classes.”
He chooses to overlook that people lose jobs and homes in a recession, not to mention the fact that not even George Bush is stubborn enough to deny climate change any more, or come to that that people fly less when they have less money. It was enough to lose Ryanair one customer at least – I have just paid £20 more for a BA flight rather than travel with his airline.
