Brands are meticulously built up overtime. Their reputation however can be diminished in minutes if an incident (i.e. BP), accident (Air France Concorde) or momentary indiscretion (i.e. Tiger Woods and Gillette) by a brand
Shadow Boxing? Tiger is a shadow of his former self. His reputation maybe damaged and potentially that of Gillette's but is his value to them still as great? Women may disapprove and think twice about Gillette products they buy but men? Go you naughty tiger bring out what is atavistic in every male..£££$$$
sponsor offends public morals, ethics or decency. The damage is magnified if the company is seen slow to respond (i.e. BP, Toyota) or the incident focuses the critical spotlight on aspects of the brand that appears to be directly at odds with the claims explicitly or implicitly made about it.
Brands have personalities and therefore develop similar complex relationships. These relationships are much harder to manage now the internet allows all views, some mild, and some more extreme to be heard. That is why a clear understanding of what is at the core of the brand is essential for the brand management team and it has to deploy a clear, credible tone of voice over time and in the face of each incident – no matter how minor – or time of challenge.
Brand owners in the current recession have seen the internet as a cheap way of developing conversations about their brands, with the use of lots of amplifiers and multipliers (people paid to seed viral ads and videos and make positive recommendations). Care must be taken as the internet savvy are beginning to identify this assault, and where the communication doesn’t bring value it is being exposed and vilified.
Brands crave positive publicity and the internet can proved it quickly and effectively but it can also drive
Jeff Koons Sculpture
the negative. How would Pepsi react to the accusation that they allegedly sponsored paedophilia by being involved with Michael Jackson in the 1980’s and by allowing him to have access to the children featured in their commercials when already their were rumours.
Was “bubbles”, Michael Jackson’s pet chimp an elaborate Pepsi sponsorship? And did this brand sponsorship contribute to Michael Jackson being able to entice children to his home. This maybe just unwarranted speculation and rumour but it has all the ingredients of a viral advertising myth, which easily could morph into more. What if parents suddenly start to petition their children too not speak to strange men with plastic faces that have pets for petting, or threaten them at bed time with the Jackson bogey Chimp or worse still Freddy Jackson. Or does it even have the makings of brand damaging urban myth if someone is persistant enough in their seeding of it? Memes do your worst!
An important element of a brand is its key message, which is often encapsulated by a slogan. Who would think Red Bull’s “it gives you wings” could backfire. Then again maybe the brand team didn’t know they were going to adopt motor racing as a core communications strategy.
More likely knowing the lack of foresight of most branding agencies they missed the connection. It’s always worth doing a 360 analysis if you’re trying to find Brand Valhalla.
Simply explained Red Bull had a complex technical problem with the front wings of their Formula 1 car. They only had the resources to supply one car as Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull Racing’s lead driver got them. For number 2 driver Mark Webber the eventual winner of the 2010 British Grand prix there were none.
Mend These Broken Wings © http://www.jamesallenonf1.com visit to see new wings and full story
The reasons for the situation arising and the choice of driver supplied are being debated ferociously on bulletin boards within the motor racing community. However from a branding point of view the fact the media can say:
Red Bull doesn’t give you wings!
is unfortunate as it challenges the very premise of the brand. Still as it is not directly product related it is not likely to do any damage. In fact a humorous riposte could actually help the brand and show the brands cheek personality to full effect. Most of the core audience only have slight awareness of the motor racing connection and would mostly likely say don’t take things so seriously and “chill”. I think I have found the idea they were looking for!
Another important aspect of branding is authority and credibility. David Beckham appears to have been taken on by Yahoo as the voice of football authority. Here they are making the same mistake Gillette made – and then quickly reversed – that style triumphs over substance.
The legend on the promotion says “exclusive football content from a man who knows a bit about football”. Which begs the question which bit? After England’s dismal showing at the World Cup and Beckham’s involvement one has to wonder the quality of the knowledge.
A bit of knowledge can be is a dangerous thing - David Beckham's Yahoo Tattoo
The timing for Yahoo is doubly unfortunate. Beckham’s Brand people are currently trying to reposition him as an erudite footballing heavyweight. Their mission to find a new place for his star within the football constellation, which is of equal prominence to his playing position – obvious one’s being TV punditry or management – before his playing star fades is I full swing.
This has led to a variety of appearances at high-profile events and a change of style. Beckham on the England bench in a 3 piece
Just like school exams this Manager thing - Just had the answers wrote on my arms! © jeremywaite
suit was possibly the most ridiculous event of 2010. Everything looked wrong, including his earnest expressions and words of encouragement. To do him justice though his heart looked in the right place, but without exception everything else about his involvement looked wrong and his mind was firmly fixed on his wallet.
Plan “B” was to present Beckham as the established family man. He adopted a Ralph Lauren leisure style look to attend Andy Murray’s match, and the ultimate designer accessory – most frequently worn by women – a kid. This worked, for a while. The BBC cameras focused on him and the kid hugging. All was going well until Andy Murray lost. The Telegraph called him a jinx, and we all wondered if he has been England’s Jonah, for most of his career. Memories of 1998 flood back.
Not a great time to be taking on David Beckham then. Yahoo has always seemed more about style than substance and perhaps for that reason Beckham is a sound choice. A case of “Bad” Brand reinforcement?
More about Beckham and Football? Beckham is No Virgin http://wp.me/pYXZO-9o
Marketing Pathology 