Posts Tagged ‘Brand’

1. Fair Game – what’s thought in the real world can now be posted online

   Published on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

   Google’s Sidewiki, an application that appears as a browser sidebar where you can read and write entries along the side of a webpage, could become the ultimate platform for those who like to share their views and opinions. Brands and business had better sit up and take notice of this development.

   Sidewiki is a new way of allowing anyone to contribute information, comments, observations and criticisms right there on a webpage. Think about this for a second, with Sidewiki, any web based article can be transformed into a public space of unedited thoughts ranging from super insightful, through helpful and witty, to downright malicious.

   Many of us who are comfortable with the free-for-all of social networking spheres may not see this as a big deal because currently blogs, micro and otherwise, are the open forums in which people discuss all manner of things, including the performance of brands. 

   But Sidewiki will make these conversations mainstream. 

   It will now be impossible for brands to broadcast a message or to communicate in a one-way traffic style and not potentially be called to account.

   This new tool makes two- way communication the only communication option for brands as people now have the ultimate soapbox to express their views, right out there for all to see.

   For corporations, the Sidewiki forum drives home the importance of being able to stand up to scrutiny and being prepared to engage in robust discussion, with the added bonus of being able to defend your position too. Bring it on!

   

2. Corporate communications fact number one – perception is reality

   Published on Friday, August 28th, 2009

   You can’t change reality with facts even if your facts are more pertinent than the other persons.  To their own detriment too many people have ignored public opinion on the basis that it’s just plain wrong thinking, and all that’s required is to state the facts. I am not talking about the smacking law – that ship has sailed and can be visited in another blog another day.  
    
   I am talking about consumers relationships and experiences with products and brands, and how changes imposed on the consumer by companies need to be thought through carefully.  Now you’re with me – Cadbury of course took a wee while to realise this, but they did eventually acknowledge the error of their ways and reverted to their original recipe.  But only when they recognised the power of public opinion. 

   Never mind the results of any blind taste testing or solid reasons of corporate social responsibility, people genuinely believed the new palm oil-containing product tasted inferior to the original recipe.

   But now that the heat is off, I wonder if people are complaining about the taste of the very same chocolate still available in supermarkets at a discount as we wait for the new original stock to arrive. And now the campaign is over I dare anyone to swap the packaging at home and see if anyone notices the difference.

   Recently I have been eating a whole lot more chocolate than usual.  Our household’s normal adult intake of zero has rapidly increased because my children’s school (which I won’t name for fear of the critics coming down on us) has been selling Cadbury product by the box-load in one of its annual fundraising drives. 

   Not one person I have spoken to has rejected the product on the basis that it contains palm oil.  In fact, we are all complaining that the neighbourhood is overrun with chocolate and there are competing stalls on the road in the weekend as enterprising kids try to convince me that their chocolate is nicer than the box my son brought home.

   Of course, ours is nicer because it is his chocolate – and are there no calories in school fundraising chocolate either? Okay I am joking, except in this respect: we can all find ways to justify our actions, and those perceptions are real.  At their own peril communicators will forget that perception is reality.

    

   

3. Organics will prosper – never mind the science

   Published on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

   There is no reason at all to believe the “organic” brand has been seriously damaged following the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) finding that there is essentially no nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced foods. 

   Yes, in the wider market organic foods may have lost some of their lustre, but purchases of “brand organic” or “sub-brand organic” will remain loyal.  Brands are about emotion, not science. Devotees of “brand organic” may have lost their nutritional leverage, but actual belief that they’re better for the environment has always been the big trust factor for organics (whether this is true or not).  This is why organic purchasers will opt for often wilted produce over fresher conventional.  Organic will continue to be an emotional rebellion against general agriculture regardless of how the science stacks up.

   Paradoxically in New Zealand at least some of our best fruit and vegetable operators have adopted and adapted the lessons of organic production, so that the margin between the two systems are ever narrower.

   The beneficiaries of the FSA research are those who’ve generally resisted the allure of organics, as their scepticism has been rewarded. They now feel less guilty, rather than more virtuous.

   The triumph of emotion over science was revisited in the past week by the Prime Minister’s science mentor, Sir Peter Gluckman in the past week in an interview that touched on folate.
   He was lamenting that science was the victim in the campaign against folic acid in bread, because the science was sound, and the opponent had undermined the decision by the use of shonky science.

   And we continue to hear strident complaints about the importation of food and ingredients from China, when there is no scientific evidence for such complaints.

   So, when it comes to food, decisions are closer to the heart than the head.

   

4. Put your money where your mouth is

   Published on Thursday, May 14th, 2009

   As consumers, we are much accustomed to the use of a celebrity endorsement to sell us things.  In the early days it was athletes, war heroes pushing product, then with the advent of television in came a whole new host of celebrities paid to play as endorsers of everyday items.  It’s a simple trade really; the famous and beautiful lend their shiny allure or values to influence the purchaser to buy stuff.  The hook-up equals brand.

   Maybe it’s a recession-chic thing but increasingly ‘brand stories’ are being told by the people that work in the organisation themselves.  We’ve just seen Air New Zealand’s much-feted CEO Rob Fyfe putting his own butt on the line by getting undressed in the airline’s latest TVC.  But he was not alone, other Air New Zealand staff got naked for the cause as well.

   What about the ethical endorser?  Recently in the US, an ordinary, everyday CEO of a not-for-profit became the face of Doritos chips. Doritos are a Pepsi product and Kjerstin Erickson is the CEO of Forge, a US-based non-profit organisation that works with displaced communities in Africa. At first the marriage seems unlikely until ones thinks of the mutual benefit; the Doritos get a leg up in terms of ethical reputation and Forge gets all over the place.

   This is clever, because using a super-famous celebrity endorser can sometimes be overpowering. As lessons learned from the recent ‘Great-Free-Chicken Fiasco’ will bare witness.  Oprah Winfrey kindly treated ‘the entire internet’ to two pieces of KFC by suggesting people get on ine and download a coupon. It was mayhem. Fervent with the idea of free stuff, servers were crashed, participating stores were slammed and the end result was a near riot, as KFC was not able to deliver on the mass demand. A generous concept became a PR *fail* because the offer way outstripped the ability of the Fried Chicken seller to deliver.  Back to our stripping CEO Rob Fyfe; the trick here is to keep it simple, if the front-end makes a promise, do ensure the back-end can make good on it. Delivering on a promise has got to be the best brand story ever.