Posts filed under 'marketing'
The return of zombie brands
Jake Goretzki writes:
Jake Goretzki writes:
The world of brands has always had a lively lexicon (those ‘wheels’, ‘onions’, ‘keys’ and ‘prisms’), but I came across a new face recently when I was listening to BBC World Service’s ‘Global Business‘ - the evocatively named ‘zombie brand‘.
Zombie brands are dead and delisted brands which retain emotional value, decades after they’ve been buried - and can, with clever handling, be reanimated by adapting yesterday’s positioning to new trends while retaining core truths.
The example which the programme cites is ‘Brim’, a decaf coffee in the US with an unforgettable jingle (something about ‘goodness to the brim’) that has, apparently, been resurrected as a vitamin-enhanced coffee. Brim, it is claimed, had been retained in the American collective memory as an idea of a coffee ‘that you could drink and it would not be bad for you…even good actually’. The Ford Taurus and Coke Tab also fit the bill.
In Eastern Europe, countless decommissioned Communist-era favourites, many gradually returning, behave in similar ways. Back in the UK, I hear the wailing of our own brand zombies - and nostalgia websites are teeming with them. Can it be long indeed before the dream return to the shelves of Spangles, this time single source and fairtrade? My hopes are still alive; sorry, undead.
The programme, presented by the incomparable Peter Day, can now be heard online.
The Brim poster at the top of the post is courtesy of Gasoline Alley Antiques.
Add comment 26 November 2008
Marketing and art
Emily Pitts writes:
The late work of Mark Rothko is currently on show at the Tate Modern, and much has been written about the innate spirituality of both the artist and the work. Rothko was one of the last of the Modernist artists, a contemporary of Jackson Pollock and de Kooning, and many of his ideas and painterly practices looked back rather than forwards. As the critic Robert Hughes observed, he believed that his ‘painting could carry the load of major meanings and possess the same comprehensive seriousness as the art of fresco in the 16th century or the novel in 19th century Russia”.
Rothko at his best should allow us to contemplate, as the shadows of the colour open and close before us with luminosity and movement. Indeed, the artist was very careful in stipulating how his work was shown, hung, and lit because of the importance to him of its impact on the viewer. To experience his low-lit, enveloping canvases is often described as similar to stepping into a cathedral, and reviews and critiques tend to be peppered with religious language.
But visiting the exhibition, one of the striking features is the lack of reverence to be found among the visitors. This is not to say that the work on display is not spiritual, or fails to convey a sense of the sublime. Instead, it is the all but inevitable result of the business of blockbuster art shows. Earlier this month, an article in Marketing Week (not available online without subscription) argued that marketing had ruined art. At the Rothko exhibition the visitor is accosted by the usual array of extras – headsets, printed guides, the line of merchandise on the way out. Because of the large volume of visitors, entry is operated on a timed basis. So perhaps it’s not surprising that visitors are wont to race round, listening to commentary rather than looking at the work, and picking up some postcards at the end. The marketing and packaging of the show doesn’t help the work find its audiences. Instead, visitors seem confused as to how to approach it. There is relatively little of the usual reaction of thought and quiet reflection that are normally associated with Rothko.
This all begs the question of the role of marketing in art; can marketing devalue the work it attempts to promote? If culture becomes just one more way to consume, does art become as disposable as consumer goods? Germaine Greer was quoted in Marketing Week as saying that ‘the art form of the 21st century is marketing’. This may be true, or may be grandstanding (although her example of Damien Hirst creating such a strong brand on a ‘conspicuously threadbare rationale’ resonates) – but when marketing overtakes the art in question, the works seem to become secondary to the gloss of marketing, and the cachet of an exhibition lies in visiting it rather than absorbing it, perhaps marketers have to ask themselves what it is they’re trying to achieve by marketing.
The picture at the top of this post is from The Swelle Life - which has an entertaining post about the Tate’s merchandising of Rothko. (They’re not fans). The Tate Modern exhibition runs until 1st February 2009.
Add comment 30 October 2008
Talking like children
Jake Goretzki writes:
I couldn’t help noticing recently just how widespread ‘childlike Innocence’ in visuals and creative has become in UK advertising. This was brought home to me sharply last week when I collected a friend’s elderly mother at Gatwick. She’d flown to the UK from Bosnia, and seeing the billboards at the railway station, remarked with mild horror that ‘your banks even have advertising for children here!’. Looking again, it occurred to me just how much of today’s communication, stylistically, might be thought at first glance to be aimed at the average 8 year old.
I’m talking about simple, bold colours. Geometric shapes: circles and squares. A degree of studied low production and naivety too - some ads looking like screenprints or even potato prints. Lots of cutesiness too, through cartoon and animated characters. Cutesy animals, bunnies and teddies scurrying everywhere.
This may be nothing more than a current fashion in print advertising, reaching across campaigns and agencies. Fashions come and go: an earlier one was ‘punter + message on cardboard sign’, stolen from DA Pennebaker, last used by Apple Mac but also favoured by banksn. Another is ’subversion of everyday lettering’ (one of the thrills of Photoshop), where lettering on photo-real shopfronts / street signs / embroidery is altered to carry the message and force a double-take (last seen in UK anti-smoking advertising and still going strong).
For all the ubiquity of this style though, ‘childlike innocence’ clearly strikes a chord with consumers and chimes closely with several current trends. It reveals a lack of patience in consumers’ ’stop go lives’ for complexity, heavy copy and detail. It also reflects a caginess about risk and uncertainty, particularly potent in the realm of financial services, which means that clarity, hypersimplicity and even innocence can reassure. While this might seem to be a great opportunity for marketers and communicators grow up and ditch the bunnies, in recessionary times ‘talking to you like children’ begins to feel even more resonant. It’s a cosy bedtime story and a tucking in.
1 comment 29 July 2008
Social networking for fun and profit
Pen Stuart writes:
The irresistible rise of social networking has long had media types trying to calculate the best ways to make some money from them. But marketers are increasingly finding that these routes work best when brands provide a service rather than just push their message, creating what’s become known as ‘branded utility’. There are recent examples. The Beef and Lamb Sector Company, EBLEX Ltd, has launched a Facebook application, “Beefy & Lamby’s Summer BBQ”, featuring - from the TV campaign - the sometime England cricketers Ian Botham and Allan Lamb to help people plan their summer barbeques. Leaving aside the question of whether 50-something cricketers are the best match for the somewhat younger Facebook crowd, it does give users a useful service that encourages consumption of their product and also raises brand awareness, even if it seems to be building its audience slowly (26 visitors on the day this post was written). The apparent selflessness of this service can help build brand loyalty in times when ravenous profiteering is increasingly frowned upon.
MakeTheTea.com, created by Cravendale, takes this one step further, devoting a whole site and social network to their utility. This allows office workers to input their tea (and coffee) preferences and link up with their colleagues. The site randomly selects one person to make the round, overcoming the reluctance of any individual to ask around and get stuck with the task. The site seems to be flourishing, with almost 70,000 brews made since its April launch
But there are still questions about the future of such ventures - they have the feel of short-term awareness campaigns which seem certain to be pulled in due course. Yet for low-maintenance promotion such as this, the best approach may be different, especially as these types of internet communities are endlessly discovered anew by different groups, each time creating waves of publicity through blogging and social network invites. In the world of social networking the fundamental assumptions of ‘offline’ publicity may need an overhaul. Or at least, as marketers like to say, more research may be required.
Add comment 4 July 2008
Campaigning in ‘the Big Sort’
Rachel Kelnar writes:
I’ve been interested to see the noise generated by Barack Obama’s decision to deploy and maintain staff in every US state during the current US presidential election campaign. Leaving aside the politics of such a decision (there’s a useful overview of this here) what’s most intriguing is how this decision will play out within each state, in light of reading Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, recommended to me by the Yankelovich CEO J Walker Smith.
Bishop writes about the growing clustering of like-minded individuals in small neighbourhoods across the US. His crunching of the data shows that over the last 30 years Americans have sorted themselves into homogenous neighbourhoods, where culture, economics and politics are alike. Individuals look to move to and settle in neighbourhoods of ‘people like me’, and so the political clustering has followed.
The big sort helps to explain the wonderful quote from the playwright Arthur Miller on the 2004 presidential race: “How can the polls be neck and neck when I don’t know one Bush supporter?” It’s about the company one keeps, locally.
The fact that people are less likely to have their views challenged or questioned, because they are less likely to come across individuals who disagree is a serious political (and indeed democratic) concern. Where we shop, who we meet at the school gates, and those we socialise with (physically and virtually) are all likely to share our views, rather than challenge them. And by reinforcing each other’s views our collective position becomes more extreme and more certain over time – thus shrinking the middle ground where political decisions tend to (have to?) be made.
In light of this ‘clustering of like-minded Americans’, it seems sensible decision for Obama and his campaign team to contest every state. For while one might think that California is a ‘blue state’ and Texas a ‘red state’ this simplification hides some real pockets of electorally significant dark red in the blue states, and dark blue in the red states (such as the liberal Austin in Texas, where Bill Bishop lives). So Obama has substantial pockets of support in some strongly red states.
But it’s not enough to know these supporters are there, deep in ‘enemy’ territory, and expect them to vote after getting a bit of attention from the campaign. Obama will need to work very hard to get such individuals to actually vote. That’s because, as Bishop illustrates, individuals are less confident about making their voice heard when their view is in the minority. Bishop quotes survey research on past presidential voting data by a fellow researcher, and concludes:
“rather than buck the majority and risk social sanction, citizens in the minority simply stayed away from the polls. They didn’t vote. In communities with large political majorities, people tend to give up battling over ideas…”
So, from Obama’s point of view, making such people feel that they are not alone and that his ideas are worth fighting for, should increase the likelihood that they will vote come November. If he succeeds, by Bishop’s account, Obama would have the significant challenge of trying to govern a country of ever more extreme groups, each of which is increasingly sure of its own extremist views.
Add comment 2 July 2008
Different day, different hat
['Measuring cups', (c) Christine U'ren]
Becky Rowe writes:
We all live our lives on different planes and engage in diverse activities. As a consultancy we call this repertoire living - the idea that people are not defined by one interest, one value or one perspective, and instead engage in what can sometimes seem contradictory activities, often switching roles in a moment.
The starkness of the different roles I play came to the fore recently, when almost exactly 24 hours after the Millennials breakfast briefing I found myself in Oldham to interview two 19-year-old single mothers about their precarious financial situations. This is repertoire working in extremis. When we think of the Millennials in terms of marketing, we think of bright young things, Topshop shoppers, chatting away on their mobiles, playing on their Wiis - the children of affluent Britain. The reality of living at the other end of the spectrum hit me hard when I interviewed these two young women.
They shared with me how they manage their day-to-day lives on £60 a week. They dream of going to college to further their education and get jobs (one wants to be a social worker, the other a nursery teacher), but can’t afford the £3.90 bus fare it would cost them to get to college, let alone the additional money for childcare. They feel everybody hates them and judges them:
“I would stack shelves, sweep floors, make tea. I don’t want to be on benefits, but nobody will give me a chance. They turn me away before they have already seen me.”
These Millennials aren’t the target audience of big brands. They aren’t the most articulate or the most entrepreneurial. They are not ‘doted on’. I got the impression that our research interview was the first time anyone had listened to their perspective on anything for a long time, although what they said was sensible, interesting and practical.
Yesterday my work was about selling more computer games or jeans. Today it’s about the future of two desperate, young mums. I feel lucky that I get to wear so many hats in my professional role, but on this occasion, the contrast was disheartening.
The picture is by artist Christine U’ren, from her ‘Still Lives’ series. This picture, along with more of her work, can be found on her website.
Add comment 2 May 2008
Flying the flag (post 2 of 2)
Jake Goretzki writes:
In the first half of this post, I wrote about flags as brands with an army and navy - but still in need of relaunching or repositioning from time to time. When they do work, relaunches are marvellously transformatory. Imagine Canada with this blazer badge of a flag (below) - unbelievably, this survived until 1965. It seems to convey the notion of Canada as some kind of British backwater. How could it ever have stood out? The Maple leaf on the other hand is ownable, differentiated and unifying. That said, of course, Quebec might beg to differ – anyone for a rebrand?
Canada Pre-1965
Canada Post-1965
Add comment 22 April 2008
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.
Add comment 10 April 2008
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.
Add comment 19 March 2008
