With the general election looming ever closer, the media is crammed full of stories discussing the wonderful world of politics. Whilst I’d be the first to admit skimming through this section in the paper to get to the sport and celeb pages, an article by Daniel Finkelstein in today’s Times caught my attention.

Finkelstein discusses the concept of the brand, using author Martin Lindstrom’s example of the curved Coca-Cola bottle as one of the most recognisable and best-loved icons, to the point that it can be considered “smashable”. If dropped on the ground, and smashed into a hundred pieces you would still be able to recognise what it is from any one of those pieces.

He goes on to explain that “consumers purchase the product as much for what it says about them, and how it makes them feel, as for what it does. The product is much more than functional; it is part of their identity.”

This idea isn’t new in itself, and I’m sure we can all bring to mind a couple of brands that, for us, fall into this category. However, the twist that took this down a new angle for me was Finkelstein’s application of the concept to the Conservative party. We’re all aware of the photos of David Cameron cycling through London and visiting local schools and we understand that public perception is crucial in the popularity polls, but surely in this case we don’t “purchase” based on how this makes us feel? Isn’t it policies on the NHS, education and taxes that decide who gets out vote?

Think again, according to research by the BBC it appears that we absorb far more about the character and broad messages of our political parties than the individual policies they promote. All the more important then that the parties remain true to their brand positioning as any deviation from this could have a bigger impact on voters than they might realise.

Just goes to demonstrate once again, the power of the brand and it’s personality over our decision making in all areas of life. Thanks @Dannythefink – I’ll definitely be keeping a closer eye on the positioning of our political parties ahead of the election, whilst challenging the norm to see if one or two actual policies creep through.

By Kelly Russell on March 10th, 2010

Tags: BBC, Brand marketing, David Cameron, Default, General election, Politics, Public relations, Television

No comments

If, like me, you were unable to keep your eyes open until 4am on Monday morning, you likely watched the highlights of this year’s Oscars online the following day. Unfortunately, for the advertisers that paid around the $1m-per-slot mark to gain a highly coveted slice of the limelight, this means you missed out on the commercial gaps.

However, the chances are far greater that you will have seen those brands who advertised in the Best Picture nominated movies. Fenton’s Creamery ice cream in Disney’s Up? BMW and Taco Bell in American Football drama The Blind Side? American Airlines, Hilton Hotels or Chrysler in Up In The Air? Ringing any bells?

It’s always quite amusing to survey friends and colleagues on their recollection of product placement on screen - the latter especially given that they work within marketing and are arguably more watchful of brand presence within entertainment platforms. If you mark this against the reality (superbly documented by Brand Channel’s Brand Cameo database), I have found that by and large people’s recall is probably less than 5% of the actual brands exposed on screen.

To make things interesting, those clever Brand Cameo folks have taken the brands present in this year’s Oscar contenders for Best Picture and plotted them on a matrix: pitching memorable versus instantly forgettable, against those that provided significant profit versus those that did not.

Hopefully, they won’t mind me reproducing it in full here:

(c) BrandChannel.com 2010

Now for the really interesting bit. Of those featuring in the most memorable segmentation, both Günther’s in District 9 and RDA that featured in Cameron’s epic Avatar were actually fictional brands.

Having written previously on how events, rights-holders and entertainment platforms are increasingly feeling the need to get a ‘brand stamp of approval’ on their project (even if they have to make one up), I am now more convinced than ever that we all now require a brand presence within our entertainment to validate its grounding in reality.

Though in the case of both District 9 and Avatar, paradoxically the branding was exercised to validate their grounding in un-reality. I guess given their sci-fi nature, it seems to make more sense to create a fictional unknown brand, thereby emphasizing the futuristic setting. But nonetheless, Günther’s and RDA still fall firmly on the ‘memorable’ side of scale - despite their non-existence in our reality.

Was this a missed opportunity for ‘real’ brands? Would South African-born Nando’s or thoroughly American N.A.S.A. have offered anything more? Would the producers have allowed it? Would the brand managers have wanted to association? And would the brand messages have been more - or less - memorable as a result?

I would love to know what goes in to thinking up these fictional companies. Do production execs or screenwriters work in a name that states a subtle (or not-so-subtle) socio-political message to fit with the film’s thematic development? As one District 9 viewer pointed out in a fan forum, sometimes the connotations have more meaning than at first it might appear:

‘Why were the South Africans patrons of a restaurant named Günther’s? Günther is the name of a king of Burgundy and means “warrior” or “soldier.” In effect, the South African blacks had a white warrior to thank for their sustenance.’

Either which way, we are entering an era where commercialism of movies - on and off screen - may fast become the life-blood of the industry; if, in fact we are not there already. How many years before an esteemed member of the Hollywood glitterati stands before the Academy audience and announces, ‘And the Academy Award for Best Product Placement goes to….‘?

Judging by the above, this year it should have gone to a brand that doesn’t even exist.

If this year’s Oscar-winning animated short film Logorama is anything to go by, it won’t be long. For those who have not yet had the pleasure of this little piece, the entire premise is the over-branded commercialisation of modern-day America on film. Watch the trailer below, and try to count the brand logos. There are over 2,500 in the full piece. Utter genius.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 9th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, American football, Brand marketing, Film, Product placement

No comments

When I tell you that I’m a big fan of Chrome, relax, I’m not hinting that anyone get Westwood round to pimp my ride – I am rather referencing Google Chrome, the web browser launched in late 2008 by the ubiquitous internet behemoth.

Having used it as my default browser since downloading the programme over a year ago, I’ve since installed it on my home PC and laptop, as a welcome break from Internet Explorer. I realise that I’m not the first person to break convention here, with any Mac users out there, along with the more technologically savvy, already well aware of life after Microsoft when browsing the web, with Safari – Apple’s own browser – and Mozilla’s Firefox, the main contenders for IE’s crown in the years BC (that’s Before Chrome); however, December 2009 finally saw Google’s new window onto the web overtake Safari’s hard-won market share. No mean feat, a year after launch.

This leaves the stats from December 2009 looking something like:

1. Internet Explorer - 62.69%

2. Mozilla Firefox - 24.61%

3. Google Chrome - 4.63%

4. Safari - 4.46%

5. Opera - 2.93%

6. Netscape Navigator - 0.32%

7. Various others - 0.68%

(Source: Market Share)

This may not look too significant a shift, although given that this % represents around 40 million users, and that Internet Explorer’s global usage dropped by almost 7% last year (from 69.23% in Feb 2009), you might start to appreciate the long-term machinations of Messrs Page and Brin, and how these might impact on one William Henry Gates III in the war of the super-rich supernerds.

In quite a major move for the brand, Google has even been running an offline ad campaign publicising Chrome. Commuters at Oxford Circus may well be familiar with both the posters and digital escalator creatives drawing attention to the ‘fast, new browser, made for everyone’. Indeed, in the lead-up to Christmas, Google engaged in another rare piece of ATL, with a Metro wrap (you may have seen this repeated last week), as well as a call to action for people to make Chrome one of their Xmas gifts to a loved one, via the www.givechrome.com website. Well, it’s better than a pair of socks.

This activity certainly translated into curiosity amongst web users, with searches for Chrome overtaking Internet Explorer for the first time ever, which Google – or its media department – would doubtless argue contributed to its rise in the browser rankings that very month.

So, what’s good about the product? Well, it’s very clean, clear, fast and free; you can have lots of different web pages running at the same time with no drag, and if any particular page crashes, Chrome simply shuts down that tab, rather than the whole browser. I’d definitely recommend it, although the programme is still not a catch-all: certain Microsoft plug-ins are incompatible with Chrome (hmmmm, how unexpected), making it difficult to use some online applications such as the SkyPlayer. For everyday browsing of the internet, however, it’s fantastic.

Other than the slow burn process of accruing new advocates and users, what next for Google Chrome? The answer is actually slightly more ambitious than you might think, with Google now moving further into Microsoft’s back yard through the development of the Google Chrome OS (Operating System). Whilst it’s still a way off, with an official release scheduled for the latter half of 2010, the concept is remarkably different to the traditional Windows offering. As outlined by company chiefs at Google HQ in November last year, the OS is designed with a focus on three user requirements: ‘Speed…Simplicity…Security’, achieving its aims via a radical approach: to all intents and purposes, Google Chrome OS only works when you are online.

What the hell? So I’ve got to be online for my PC to work, you say? Well, sort of.

Although this may sound pretty restricting, Google are not setting themselves the challenge of beating Microsoft at its own game, but rather carving up a piece of the action for themselves, namely through appealing to the burgeoning netbook market. Sales of these small, light, web-friendly PCs were up 103% in 2009, and with decreased price points and increased wi-fi availability, this trend looks to continue. To date, the concept has received a mixed reaction: for the always-online professional netbookers out there, Google are preaching to the converted, with a promise of a system that will be ready to surf the web within seven seconds of power-up; plus they won’t need to store all their docs on their hard disc, with data instead stored remotely and accessed via the web. Google aren’t the first to use a ‘cloud’ system, but probably are the first to take the concept of virtual storage for mobile PC users to such a commercial extreme.

From starting life as the cleanest, fastest and most efficient way to find what you need on the internet, Google has, in an incredibly short space of time become part of our culture, our very vocabulary. And in today’s information age, there appears to be no stopping them: news, video, mail, maps, photos, phones, toolbars, Trends, translation, into China (and out again?) - and we search, and we search, and we search…

By Jonathan Izzard on January 19th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, China, Digital marketing, Media

1 comment

Being half Aussie, one of the stories in yesterday’s Brand Republic email caught my attention.

The Australian Government recently announced that it is looking for an agency to develop a new brand identity to embody Australia in the 21st century with a budget of A$20 million over four years.

In response to this, agency DesignBay has launched a competition challenging people to submit their own logo and strapline for the chance to win a A$2000 prize. The global competition, which opens today, will run for two weeks, with the winners and short-listed entrants announced in the marketing industry’s B&T magazine in November.

DesignBay founder Alec Lynch, has been quoted saying: “Australia’s brand is important. We want to find the best logo and tagline ideas that Australia’s creative talent and the world can come up with and we’re going to offer them, for free, to the government. We want to give people the opportunity to contribute to Australia’s brand and we want Australia’s brand to be the best it can be.”

In this day and age we are all used to brands and media outlets asking for our contribution and I’m right behind giving the public the chance to translate their patriotism into what could become the new identity for their nation. However on this occasion, I can’t help but think that the aim of the game is more to drive publicity for the design agency than to give consumers a voice. Although hats off to their PR team, as I’m writing about them and I’d certainly never heard of them before reading the article this morning.

The Australian government are due to launch the new identity domestically in February and internationally in May and I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled along the way to see whether the Design Bay competition has any impact on the outcome.

Either way, you’ve got to be in it to win it so I’ll be off to the drawing board…..

By Kelly Russell on October 14th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Communications, Media, Public relations

No comments

Just yesterday at Synergy towers, there was some collective musing going on around how the face of sponsorship could change in the next few decades. And that got me thinking about that ever-elusive demographic - the 16-24 year olds - to see how they might be running businesses and consuming media in 25 years’ time.

One area of interest is how immune (or not) youth of today have become to brand presence in their everyday lives. Do they reject it (oft-quoted myth)? Do they embrace it (when it suits them)? Do they challenge it to give them added value before giving it their valuable attention (’what’s in it for me’)? Or do they ignore it altogether?

Or, have they come to expect it as par for the course of being entertained? I wondered if the ’such and such, brought to you by…’ had become such a ubiquitous tag to music concerts / sporting fixtures / televised events, that people in 10 or 20 years might actually notice an absence of brand more than its presence. After all, I was hearing this mandatory credit line before I could even read, from the loveable muppets of Sesame Street (’Sesame Street was brought to you by the number 8 and letters D and M…’ etc.)

But one interesting application of the sponsorship concept was brought to me today by Britain’s favourite ‘University Outfitter’, Jack Wills.

Having just returned from a summer of fun in New England, the brand’s bright young marketing things are about to embark on another grand tour of the UK’s trendiest universities. JW will be partying at various Freshers’ Weeks in the next few weeks, combining their ‘fabulously British’ fashion with cutting edge, fresh new music - via the brand’s evolving unofficial music label, JWUnsigned.

But what caught my eye in the creative flyer for the Tour was the sponsorship line. Bearing in mind that this is a Jack-Wills event, delivered as a music tour produced by a Jack Wills sub-brand, it is ’sponsored by’ - wait for it - a Jack Wills clothing line. This year’s JWUnsigned Freshers Tour is brought to you by No.350-4-842 - the brand’s denim range.

This I feel points to some interesting signs about the presence that sponsorship has in the lives of youth culture today. Sponsorship in its very basic sense (brand-pays-rights-holder) cannot apply here given that both the sponsor and property are from the same stable. So one assumes that JW is using the Tour platform to leverage awareness of its 350-4-842 denim as almost a stand-alone brand, instantly recognizable in and of itself but crucially as part of the Jack Wills family.

But I sense that there must be an implicit acceptance here by the Tour’s marketeers that their target consumers are so expectant of a live event being sponsored, it has become a necessary element of the Tour name. ‘Sponsored by…’ acts in this case as a ready-made stamp of officialdom: all big music events are sponsored so the JWUnsigned Tour needs to be too, in order to gain stature and acceptance within the youth marketplace.

St. Andrew’s, Leeds, Edinburgh, London, Bristol, Nottingham, Guildford and Brighton all appear to be on the list of host cities for the Tour events, and I’m intrigued to see what these will look like. How will JW use the opportunity to engage with their fans? Will they be actively spreading the word of their ‘Worn in but not Worn Out’ denim range to a captive audience of indie music fans? Will the bands be wearing the jeans during all their sets? Or is that ’sponsored by…’ tag ultimately just that - a tagline?

And most interesting of all - will the legions of JW-loving Freshers either notice or, perhaps more importantly, care?

By Lucie Bartlett on September 9th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Experiential marketing, Fashion, Music, Sponsorship, Synergy

1 comment

Bell’s whisky acted fast this week to leverage Ian Bell’s recall to the England cricket team. The Diageo-owned whisky brand announced its sponsorship of Ian Bell’s bat as he takes the stage in the third Ashes Test at his home ground in Edgbaston.

By Caroline Ayling on July 31st, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Alcohol, Ashes, Brand marketing, Cricket, Sponsorship, Sport

No comments

Great marketing campaigns by rights owners in sport being a rarity (acid test: how many can you remember?) I’ve really enjoyed two very different but equally hard-hitting efforts over the last few days.

First up was Manchester City’s ‘Welcome to Manchester’ poster featuring new City signing Carlos Tevez, aimed squarely and mischievously at the red half of Manchester from which, of course, Tevez came.

Cue national media coverage, a dismissive riposte from Sir Alex Ferguson, and an outpouring of fan banter and reaction, including a paint attack on one of the Tevez billboards and some highly creative visual replies by Manchester United fans - here’s my favourite so far:

Overall a top piece of work by the City marketing team, which has put the City brand, and the City/United rivalry, firmly back on the agenda for the start of the season in three weeks’ time.

Whereas in three years’ time of course, London 2012 will be upon us - as we all know by now following LOCOG’s masterfully-orchestrated celebration of the 3-year landmark on Monday.

Again, acres of coverage resulted – no small achievement - but what interested me most of all was how noticeably positive it was, and how much more upbeat LOCOG’s tone has become

As ever Lord Coe leads from the front – what a natural and assured communicator he is – but it was heartening also to see so many bravura touches during the day, such as the domino trail and the giant human 3.

By Tim Crow on July 28th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Default, Football, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Manchester United, Media, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Public relations

2 comments

Seriously. Sounds simple? Well sometimes it is the smallest gestures that have the greatest impact.

I blog, Tweet and share on Facebook most of the cool stuff I come across on a daily basis. According to Rupert Murdoch, this makes me a ’digital native’, but whatever label you want to apply, today it totally paid off.

As a long-term fan of the Jack Wills brand, my support of the British fashion label has, over the years, transcended both online and offline platforms - along with a lot of my closest friends. We shop with Jack, we party with Jack, and when we do, we tell people about it.

Take the annual Varsity Polo tournament at Windsor (JW’s sole, perfectly conceived sponsorship property): we’ll not only attend the event, but with a desire to soak up every last drop of JW goodness that can be squeezed from the day, we’ll also make sure we hit the renowned pre- and post- parties. Each of these supporting social events is a prime opportunity for JW product sampling, mobile shop units and giveaways - all wrapped up in a perfectly ‘fabulously British’ parcel of fun that completely encapsulates the brand’s personality.

But it doesn’t end there. Like us, each attendee (usually residing firmly within the 16-24 age bracket and thus 100% digitally native) will tweet, blog, share links, upload photos and update statuses continuously in the run up to and aftermath of each fully branded event - therefore spreading the word to their like-minded friends and colleagues, all of whom sit slap bang in the middle of the JW target demographic. They in turn will add Jack as a friend on Facebook, become a fan of the JW page and follow their every update on Twitter… and so it goes on.

However, little did I know until yesterday just how savvy the JW marketing team could be. Evidently all too aware of their mini ready-made army of (free) brand advocates online, they have decided to recognise and reward those who share the JW love.

Having over 2,000 followers on Twitter, they follow themselves only 21 (to date) - including, as of yesterday, me. This in itself (for an avid brand fan) is pretty cool in the Twitter-verse as it’s a stamp of approval from a brand you love - especially if you’re one of few. But, hey presto, at 8am this morning a special delivery package arrived at my door… a surprise thank you gift from the JW team no less. Complete with a handwritten note (-’Just to say thanks for being a fan! Keep the word up… Love Jack x’-), I had been sent a whole collection of JW goodies for doing no more than shouting about the things I love.

What is so clever about this smart move from them, is that not only I am now pretty much a fan for life (or at least, the foreseeable future), but they know that I will make sure everyone knows about it. For them, a minimal outlay has cemented the loyalty of one particularly vociferous fan, knowing that I would return the favour ten-fold in brand advocacy for them.

Naturally I did: by 9am I had updated my Facebook status and Twitter feed accordingly.  By 10am I had three messages from other JW fans asking how I managed to get presents from Jack. After sharing by my own blog post on the subject via Facebook at lunchtime, Jack Wills picked it up, shared it on their Facebook feed, and in literally minutes 19 people had said they ‘liked’ it, 14 people had commented on it and my blog traffic (relatively) sky-rocketed with over 200 page views.

Offline, I’ve also told pretty much everyone I know.

For Jack Wills, engaging with their audience using the platforms that will give them the biggest share of voice is absolutely key. But what did surprise me is how they strive to show their fans how much they are valued - turning their online advocacy into currency for tangible, offline rewards. Cute, surprising recognition for those who love them best will, in the long run, grow their business exponentially.

No Jack, thank YOU.

By Lucie Bartlett on June 19th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Experiential marketing, Fashion, Sponsorship

No comments

Ever thought about naming a star? How about owning a nice plot of land on the dark side of the Moon? Fancy sponsoring a three-toed sloth in Costa Rica?

As PT Barnum famously never said, “There’s a sucker born every minute” – applying Newton’s Third Law (he’ll now be spinning in his Westminster Abbey sarcophagus) would suggest an equal and opposite reaction. After all, you only know you’re a mark once you’ve been conned, right? Therefore every sap needs a swindler, and in today’s society, there always seems to be someone out there ready to sell you something:

a) That isn’t theirs to flog

b) The customer can never really own

c) With strong virtual but low actual value

So it’s nice to see a company turning the tables on the snake oil salesmen and scammers: why buy something that’s worth nothing, when you can use something that costs nothing?

The company in question is Intel, whose 2009 ATL campaign, set to roll out over the next three years, sees the technology giant using the sign-off “Sponsors of Tomorrow”. I mean, who’s going to monetise ‘Tomorrow’…Annie?

It’s interesting that Intel should be using the collective plural ‘sponsors’ here, a move, in line with the content of their ATL, to both humanise the company and express the broad range of areas across which it – I mean ‘they’ – work.

Neatly turning things on their head, the campaign is less ‘Intel Inside’, and more ‘Inside Intel’. The execution below might aim at geek-chic, but it also emphasises who makes up the company, not just what the company makes.

You’ll notice that even the brand-defining/ubiquitous/maddeningly annoying Intel ‘chimes’ are now performed in the new ads by company employees (okay, the actors portraying company employees), reminding us of a company’s most important asset – its people.

As “Sponsors of Tomorrow”, the casual perspective of Intel being just a sticker on your PC may have had its chips.

By Jonathan Izzard on June 12th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Branded content, Digital marketing, Employee engagement, Media, New Product Development, Sales promotion, Sponsorship, Viral Marketing

No comments

There are few things more irritating than a tube strike - probably only Wales losing at rugby for me - but I do like to see a brand making the most of a bad situation.  My good friends at Streetcar, a pay-as-you-go car share scheme, have just sent a great little email to offer a discount to all members who may be stranded at work because of the latest tube chaos.

By Ben Wilkinson on June 10th, 2009

Tags: Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Digital marketing, Public relations, Sales promotion, Viral Marketing

No comments