Barbara Stopher Blog

Celebrities and brands – a marriage made in heaven or a blind date disaster?

July 6th, 2010

Brand owners have long used celebrities in an ambassadorial role in an effort to associate their brand with the celebrity lifestyle and hope to reflect in their glory. Using a famous face can be a real shortcut to brand recognition and is therefore a tempting strategy. Whether it’s an A-list film star or a family friendly D-list soap star, having the right ambassador to represent the brand can boost the bottom line. But, whilst the celeb can bring Midas touch rewards at the height of their fame and popularity, it’s a risky strategy, as it can become a minefield when something goes wrong, with the fall-out often reflecting equally publicly on the brand.

It was back in January 2008 that Kerry Katona was finally dropped from Iceland’s advertising campaigns after reports of her alleged drug taking became too much for the frozen food chain. Chosen because of her status as one-time ‘mother of the year’, Katona seemed to epitomise the brand’s slogan ‘That’s why mums go to Iceland’, but the reality was somewhat different.

More recently, the golden boy Tiger Woods’ tarnished private life lost him the brand ambassador roles with both Gillette (lending a whole new meaning to ‘the best a man can get’) and AT&T (when ‘scoring birdies’ in the US PGA Tour had nothing to do with golf clubs!).

But brand owners don’t always drop celebrities going through a rough time. When Kate Moss’s alleged cocaine use was on the front of all the newspapers she suffered the blow of having her contracts with Chanel, Burberry and H&M cancelled. Conversely, Rimmel kept Moss on and rode the storm. Whilst possibly not back to her peak of popularity, Moss has since rebuilt her reputation and now has a clothing line in Top Shop and her own perfume.

A new celebrity tie up announced this week leaves me rather perplexed; Victoria Beckham was appointed the creative design director at Range Rover with her first project being the new interior of the Special Edition Range Rover Evoque. The brand owners say that this is a smaller, sleeker vehicle so can only assume Victoria is doing her own version of ‘Pimp My Ride’ for size zero fashionista WAGs?!

A great article that includes this and another 11 celebrity endorsements that went wrong is on T3 http://tinyurl.com/34vvbmm and includes the classic of Bill Wyman endorsing a metal detector (not very rock and roll but perhaps because of The Rolling Stones ‘Money, that’s what I want’?).

Back to the everyday, Morrison’s is another supermarket that has used celebrities to raise their presence, particularly in the south. Who can forget Denise van Outen and Top Gear’s Richard Hammond wheeling their trolleys across open countryside to get to the fresh food in a Morrison’s supermarket. In a change of strategy, their new ad, which breaks mid July 210, uses children instead of celebrities. So is the power of the celeb fading or are there still sufficient numbers of us gullible enough to believe that Sharon Osbourne shopped at Asda to keep this phenomenon alive?

Posted in marketing mistakes, marketing quests | 2 Comments »

Brands put the boot in after England World Cup defeat

June 29th, 2010

Now that the much-hyped England World Cup football team have returned home after their trouncing by the Germans, brands have had to re-evaluate their planned ‘England win’ executional strategies and instead ‘put the boot on’ for the purpose of brand marketing.

Jumping on the Frank Lampard goal that was not given in the England – Germany game because the linesman from Uruguay did not see it, Asda have grasped the marketing opportunity and are offering anyone with a Uruguayan passport a free eye test!

As reported by Marketing, the first two newspaper ads capitalising on the defeat ran the day after the game by two car companies. Kia ran an ad in The Times to promotes their seven-year warranty with the headline “Oh well, at least our warranty beats the Germans”. Nissan chose The Sun to promote its GT-R with the headline “One match the Germans didn’t win”. Read more at http://tinyurl.com/2dznawa

Interestingly, the Nationwide sponsorship of the England team runs out at the end of June, just days after the crushing defeat. Their exclusive renewal period ran out earlier in the year but they claim that the brand is still in talks about the future. At least Sunday’s dire result should have brought the price down if they are still interested!

If not, who else could take up the mantle? Here are just a few of my suggestions but feel free to send me your own:

An obvious choice would be Avis who could adapt their well-known brand slogan to, ‘We must try harder’
Or, how about an oil company (topical industry at the moment!?) with Esso’s old slogan ‘Put a Tiger in your Tank’!
A tea brand makes sense – either the about to be revived Tetley Tea Folk for ‘the Gaffer’ or the PG Tips chimps (needs no further explanation!)
Or how about Bahlsen’s Messino that is trying to steal share from McVitie’s Jaffa Cakes brand with the slogan ‘the future’s oblong’
And back to sport, Nike’s brand slogan would sum up what we all think ‘Just do it!’

Posted in market analysis, marketing marvels, marketing mistakes | 2 Comments »

Brands through recession

May 23rd, 2010

A fascinating article in yesterday’s Guardian Money has shown how our spending habits have changed through the worldwide recession. Here are some of my favourite highlights:

Women are eking out regular salon hair and beauty treatments by another couple of weeks – so good news for off-the-shelf brands – with premium health & beauty brands continuing to hold up (the little ‘lipstick treat’ effect) with only a very small percentage of women trading down to cheaper options, preferring to be more thrifty with their preferred brand. For more on health & beauty in the credit crunch, go to http://tinyurl.com/2w7fkhb
1 in 8 fashion shops have closed and new clothing has taken a big hit apart from the cost-conscious that have rushed to Primark and the stronger fashion labels, such as Burberry. But us women are nothing if not inventive and the recession has caused both a revival of knitting and sewing and a trend for personal looks created from charity shop bargains as well as a strong second hand trade through swishing. One brand busting the trend with record sales is Agent Provocateur, apparently driven by more cosy nights in?! For more on fashion in the credit crunch, go to http://tinyurl.com/39yy9nq
The onset of the credit crunch had a marked impact in food retailing with Marks & Spencer and Waitrose customers reputedly trading down to Sainsbury and Tesco and their customers deserting for Aldi and Lidl. What had been a growing demand for quality and healthier foods stopped almost immediately as did sales of the relatively expensive ready meal. Instead the country enjoyed a return to home cooking and the adult packed lunch became a common sight – great news for Thermos. For more on food in the credit crunch, go to http://tinyurl.com/2eg34cl

But a really interesting learning from the recession is that the period of austerity seems to have instilled a return to old-fashioned values with consumers now starting to look for trusted value over cheap and disposable, which is a trend that brands in all areas should respond to.

Posted in market analysis, marketing quests | 1 Comment »

Brave new world of the freelancer

May 19th, 2010

Research for Britain’s Brain Gain by PCG (www.pcg.org.uk), the professional association supporting freelancers, contractors and consultants, shows that there are an estimated 1.4 million freelancers in the UK. Together they apparently contribute £82 billion to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) across all sectors of the economy including manufacturing, services, finance, healthcare and education.

Drawing on these resources, Business link have provided updated guidance for businesses about ‘hiring a freelancer or outside contractor’ at http://tinyurl.com/3ykszoa

Business Link suggest that it is appropriate to hire a freelancer when:

You need to employ someone straight away
You need the worker to use their professional judgment about the work
You know the type of expertise you need but you don’t have time to research and specify the job role
The length of time needed for the particular expertise is limited or may be subject to change

This is all undoubtedly true but their reasons seem very safe and risk averse. In my experience, a freelancer can be both a breath of fresh air and a powerful boost to a business owner looking to make a step change to their business. If selected wisely, your chosen freelancer will come into the business with a new pair of eyes and a raft of relevant experience. Outsourcing is a key way for SME owners to stick to what they are good at and contract in specialists in the disciplines where they are not.

But how does it work from the freelancer’s perspective?

Yes, some professionals are forced into freelancing through redundancy or employment change but freelancing is actually a positive career and lifestyle choice, giving business specialists a variety of benefits including:

Flexibility – the opportunity to take control, the freedom to choose when, where and how you work
Variety – the chance to work for a wide range of clients, building on and developing existing knowledge
Higher return – the opportunity to achieve an improved remuneration per hour, based on the perception of your added value
Work-Life Balance – the freedom to plan your on time, improving your quality of life

As technology speeds up sourcing, and frees up new ways of working using online platforms, it is now possible to find someone to take on almost any business challenge; in fact, some companies operate as entirely virtual organisations. And the same technology empowers professional freelancers to achieve their business and personal aspirations in this brave new world. So, what are you waiting for?

Posted in SME Business Support, marketing quests | No Comments »

The future brand marketing dilemma

May 6th, 2010

We live in exciting times; this year’s election campaign showed just how marketing techniques have changed with the inaugural TV debates completely dominating the views of the electorate and causing huge changes in popularity for the party leaders that took everyone, including them, by surprise. Equally unexpected was that the impact of social media was not as strong as predicted beforehand when people were anticipating the Obama effect. So what does that teach us? Only that we, as brand marketers, can’t dominate the conversation any more.

Even with top class on the job training and continuing professional development, these are challenging times for brand marketers who were trained to believe that their job is to influence consumer behaviour through persuasive brand messages. But is anyone listening any more? The consumer is more powerful than ever before and has access to more information than our predecessors could have dreamed of.

And, where information used to only normally be available from the brand owner, and therefore controlled, the voices that prospective consumers listen to when making a purchase is their peer group, over which the brand owner has no control. The Internet and Google allow me to search for anything and interrogate the information without any recourse to a brand owner.

Then think of the success of comparison information sites such as Trip Advisor; I would never book a hotel abroad now without checking it out here first. I can choose to ignore what other reviewers say, but their comments will form part of my purchasing decision. Then, having made a choice, there are a number of ways that I can exercise that purchase either directly with the brand owner or via a third party, using the internet to compare cost and other parameters of my purchasing decision.

So is it a lost cause for tomorrow’s brand owners? Definitely not! There are still things that the smart brand owner can do to compete in this new emerging marketplace. The first is to embrace the change. Acknowledge that consumers want information and that they will comment on their experience of your brand. Don’t look to try and control all messaging; brand owners that take down negative comments from social media platforms or reviews from websites are just seen by consumers to be out of touch and their actions will further alienate their brand. Instead, engage with your consumers. Respond to negative, as well as positive, criticism. Being seen to be human and honest is a strong start to being seen as a brand for the 21^st century.

Posted in marketing quests | 1 Comment »

Nick Clegg brand (up)rising

April 20th, 2010

The last week in UK politics has been totally fascinating – and how often have we ever been able to say that?! I’m looking at it (as objectively as possible) from a marketing standpoint. Before last Thursday we had a weakening market leader and a strong challenger brand that, between them, were confident of monopolising the UK voter at the expense of all other brands in the market. That was despite the public anger about the financial crisis, where the bankers have been seen to have ‘got away with it’, and the complete loss of trust caused by the MPs’ expenses debacle. One of the basic rules in marketing is to identify and listen to your audience; and they didn’t. They thought it could all be pushed aside with a few apologies and then it would be back to ‘business as usual’ under the misconception that they are the only options open to the market.

The leaders lined up on Thursday with Gordon Brown and Labour expected to get a kicking as the incumbent government; being on the receiving end of the electorate’s frustration with the current financial situation and issues around immigration, defence, crime, health and education. David Cameron and the Conservatives were said to have it all to lose, with market expectations on him to steal the show, attacking Labour’s record with the sort of style and panache he displays at prime minister’s questions. Oh yes, and there was that other chap, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats who many thought should be grateful to have been given the opportunity to turn up, whilst others thought his minority status was an unnecessary distraction.

And so they presented their (marketing) propositions with Labour and the Conservatives engaged in their usual sparring. Gordon Brown probably landed a few more punches than had been expected whilst David Cameron seemed decidedly uncomfortable and did not perform as imagined. And what both the big ‘brands’ ignored at their peril was the feisty number three brand. Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had nothing to lose and were in the enviable position of not being accountable for the mistakes of the past twenty or thirty years. And Nick Clegg went for it, branding Labour and the Conservatives as the ‘old way’ of doing things and proposing a new, fair way. He struck a chord with the (target) audience and could, quite possibly, have changed the result of this general election.

They say that a week’s a long time in politics but the change from before and after last week’s debate on the UK political landscape is little short of extraordinary! As reported by The Guardian, before last week’s election debate, bookmakers William Hill gave Nick Clegg ‘at most a small chance’ of becoming the next prime minister. And by ‘small chance’, they meant it was about as likely as the Loch Ness monster turning up in the next five years. ‘And I’m not sure we weren’t taking more bets on the Loch Ness monster,’ said Graham Sharpe, the William Hill spokesman. Before the debate William Hill was offering odds of 300-1 on the Lib Dems winning an overall majority on 6 May. Today, William Hill is offering 20-1 odds on an overall Lib Dem majority and 12-1 on Nick Clegg becoming prime minister! What a difference an hour and a half TV appearance can make!

So, what are the marketing lessons to be learned?

Don’t underestimate your target audience – listen to them and act on their comments if you want to win their brand loyalty
Don’t assume your competition is the same as it always has been – that minority brand can do something to thrust it into the limelight and potentially steal your market share
Always expect the unexpected!

Posted in market analysis, marketing marvels | 2 Comments »

Fashion brands – is your label showing?

March 26th, 2010

Following on from February’s Fashion Week, the experts believe 2010 will continue to be a challenging year for the UK fashion industry. With an inconclusive budget and the impending election, consumers are still reluctant to spend despite feeling a little more confident in making discretionary purchases. The crucial Easter trading weekend is in danger of turning into a washout, according to high street retailers that have been disappointed with the slow start to March.

But there are some positive brand stories on our high streets. Buoyant first-half sales were posted by department store retailer Debenhams, much of the credit going to their re-launch of the Principles label at the end of February, which CEO Rob Templeman described as ‘our best brand launch in our history!’ Debenhams bought the Principles brand in 2009 after Mosaic, the fashion chain’s owner, went into administration. The new version of the brand is under the design control of Ben de Lisi, a long-time member of the ‘Designers at Debenhams’ stable, and is tapping in to a latent brand loyalty.

Debenhams is also making a strategic move away from fashion brand concessions, preferring to control the buying and merchandising process internally, thus creating larger margins for the retailer. Another move towards this has been the introduction of a young fashion collection designed by Henry Holland.

Momentum in department store competitor John Lewis built throughout last year, with an increasing emphasis on fashion within the portfolio. The retailer has cemented its position as a key high street fashion player with the addition of a raft of younger, more premium brands including G-Star and Diesel to its mix.

Smaller fashion brand retailers including Republic, Ted Baker and H&M have outperformed the clothing market and managed to grow their market shares through 2009, despite the economic climate. While they are not the cheapest fashion retailers, and their lack of scale could make it difficult for them to compete with their larger rivals, they have been successful by delivering perceived good value through their brand points of difference including exclusive range expertise, customer service and in-store experience.

One possibly surprise winner in the recession has been Monsoon who, with 425 stores in the UK and some 600 overseas, was taken back into private ownership in 2007 by founder Peter Simon who started the business back in the early 1970s. This lends support to the argument that a clear and distinct market positioning, where you know who you target customers are and deliver to that, is a strength in a difficult market. Monsoon has always offered a colourful, slightly bohemian style clothing range influenced by eastern textiles.

And there are a number of fashion brands that are deciding to change owners for the new season. Earlier in March, French Connection announced that it is to sell the Nicole Farhi label to a private equity group based in Los Angeles for ‘up to £5m’ and close almost three-quarters of its US stores in a restructuring move designed to return it to profit in 2011. The move follows a strategic review of the business, which has already seen the closure of unprofitable stores in Japan and northern Europe. The business was originally set up in 1982 by the fashion designer Nicole Farhi and Stephen Marks, chairman and chief executive of French Connection.

Also in March, up market brand Liberty sold its flagship central London store for £41.5m, on a sale and leaseback deal, in the midst of takeover talks for the remainder of its business. And, at the other end of the price spectrum, New Look is declaring a strong trading performance that will revive their desire for a stock market flotation.

But what about new businesses; is 2010 a year to take that plunge or to retreat from the brink? Well, according to Dragons’ Den entrepreneur Theo Paphitis, 2010 could be the best time in years to start a new business! He’s certainly taking his own advice, opening a new national lingerie chain, working name DNA Lingerie, to rival the company he used to own, La Senza that is thought to be struggling through the recession.

The moral of this story? The golden marketing rules of researching your market, defining and refining your proposition and engaging with your customer apply even more in a difficult economic climate.

Posted in market analysis | 7 Comments »

How big an umbrella should brands have?

March 17th, 2010

There are many reasons why a brand that has a number of sub-brands or different brand variants needs to have an over-arching umbrella brand strategy. For one thing, it is unlikely to be economically viable to continue to individually support every part of the brand and a group strategy can achieve more competitive cut through and drive brand share.

One brand that chooses to adopt a group message is Heinz with its ‘It has to be Heinz’ umbrella campaign that has been responsible for noticeable sales growth since first being run in October 2009. And, if we are to believe that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Premier Foods has launched a brand campaign called ‘Great Little Ideas’, which aims to give mums hints, tips and twists on how to use ‘some of Britain’s best loved food brands’ such as Ambrosia Devon Custard, Hartley’s Jelly, Cadbury’s Mini Rolls, Mr Kipling, Batchelors, Bisto, OXO, Branston, Sharwood’s and Loyd Grossman. Here the individual brands will focus in recipes such as Ambrosia Devon Custard and bananas to make a Banana Brulee.

Another reason for a brand to adopt an umbrella strategy is that, with consumers becoming more and more individual and wanting interactive relationships with the brands they trust, there is a business reason for brands to develop a strong personality that can engage with their consumers and build brand loyalty.

In a move to build relevance for their brand and engage with its consumers, Beiersdorf has recently decided to group the marketing of all products bearing the Nivea brand under a new positioning strategy that encourages women to feel good in their own skin and carries the ‘Feel Closer’ strapline.

But an umbrella strategy does not mean that all parts of the brand have to be communicated together but rather that there is a synergy between the communications so that everything borrows from, and builds back to, the umbrella positioning.

An example of this approach, where the umbrella brand is the corporate identity, is Unilever who continue to run separate brand identity advertising but, since 2009, have included ‘signature’ corporate branding on its product brand advertising for the likes of Flora, Persil, PG Tips, Magnum, Sure, and Dove.

So, if you don’t want the stresses of finance, competition or consumer loyalty to rain on your brand, get an umbrella!

Posted in marketing marvels, marketing quests | 4 Comments »

How social media can build brands

February 24th, 2010

On the basis that marketing should be all about providing an answer to a current or potential customer’s needs or wants then it seems only natural that social media can play a role in linking those customers to brand owners for a mutually beneficial dialogue.

One of the latest uses of social media by forward-thinking companies is to inform New Product Development. But NPD through social media needs to be much more than an online focus group! Consumers are passionate about the brands they choose to buy and will interact with you about them as long as they believe that they are having an authentic conversation with the brand owner and that their views are being valued. They are talking on social media platforms about their experiences anyway and it makes sense that the conversations they have about your brand are positive and well informed.

An example of how these audiences can be engaged and their views integrated into NPD is Unilever’s experiment with men’s fragrance Lynx Twist in the UK and the USA. The company used an invite-only online community of a large number of young people for market research and discussions. But then they took the engagement idea one step further and selected an elite group of 16 to go to New York to work on developing the best ideas, leading to the launch of Lynx Twist in December 2009. Unilever have judged their trial a success and are planning to replicate the process in other categories such as savoury foods and haircare.

MyLook is the customer community site for UK retailer New Look that was launched in July 2008. So far the site has informed a number of business decisions including NPD and advertising. The choice of Kimberley Walsh, of Girls Aloud, to be the face of a recent New Look clothing range was influenced by MyLook.

These communities are a rich source of information for marketers but, as with any strategy execution, the venture has to be properly planned and funded for it to work. Interaction means a true two-way conversation and that, in turn, means constant new content to engage and interest consumers. They will not be interested in, or respond to, corporate wallpaper.

Social media has granted consumers an unprecedented power to comment on brands, positively or negatively. Brand owners can choose not to engage in two-way conversations with their audiences but they cannot stop the conversation. Those brands that listen and interact with their consumers will be the ones building brand loyalty and advocacy.

Posted in marketing marvels, marketing quests | 1 Comment »

Branding – what’s in a name?

February 12th, 2010

According to Shakespeare: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

Well, yes it would but how would you market it to gardeners and lovers? A name is an identifier, a shorthand designation that sets one person, product or service apart from another. And, as such, it does matter what that name is as it can either enhance the reputation of that to which it refers, or it can damage it absolutely. Otherwise why did Marion Michael Morrison change his name to John Wayne?!

It’s the same in marketing. Your name is the first, and most important, part of your brand. A strong name helps you stand out and convey your brand values. A weak or inappropriate name can work against everything else you do to build a position for your offering. So it’s interesting to explore why some of today’s infamous brands started life with very dubious brand names:

Google was launched in 1996 as BackRub. It was quickly (and thankfully) renamed by founders Larry Brin and Serge Page in 1998
Pepsi-Cola was the brand name in 1898 for a product that had launched five years earlier as Brad’s Drink after a young American pharmacist called Caleb Bradham
Jerry’s Guide to the World Wide Web was the original name for Yahoo, founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo. It was soon renamed to the acronym for “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle”

And then there are those brand names that we all think are fine, only to have their powerful brand owners change them on us, usually with the intention of enhancing the brand’s global domination:

In 1990 Mars changed the name of its popular peanut chocolate bar from Snickers to Marathon and eight years later did the same thing with fruit chews Opal Fruits, renaming them Starburst
In 2001 Unilever chose to change the name of household cleaner Jif to Cif, apparently to help Hispanic and French speakers pronounce it better
Only last year, the UK’s biggest insurer turned its back on its Norfolk roots to change its brand name from Norwich Union to Aviva

And now we have another contender as Charmin toilet tissue is dropped in favour of Cushelle, with its big cuddly bear icon morphing into a koala! The name change is part of an agreement made during SCA Hygiene’s acquisition of Charmin from Procter & Gamble in 2007.

Changing a brand name is not a cheap exercise, not forgetting the discarded consumer goodwill for the previous incarnation. So why do it? It all comes down to getting the long-term brand strategy right in the beginning. If you are already a global player, like Unilever or Procter & Gamble, you should really be thinking of appropriate global brand names at the outset and avoiding costly rebranding exercises further down the line.

It’s true that global branding can bring cost savings by producing a single global advertising and marketing campaign for all countries. But there is also a well-respected view that global branding can be counter-productive. Advertising campaigns produced by the so-called ‘lead’ market can look very alien in other markets. Often being dumbed down so as to minimize cultural differences, these global campaigns can appear bland and not relate directly to any market, giving local brands an advantage.

Another reason given for a brand name change is to distance the brand from a negative experience. Personally, I think this is misguided. It assumes we all have very short memories and cannot tie up the two identities. In this way, not only does the new brand bring its old baggage with it, but it also risks alienating us even further as we think they may be trying to get away with something! It is better to invest the resource that would have gone into establishing a new brand in overcoming the original brand’s difficulties.

So, the lesson is that a brand name should be for life and therefore deserves careful thought and planning to avoid future costly changes. Would a rose smell as sweet if it had been called a stinker?

Posted in marketing mistakes, marketing quests | 7 Comments »