Is anyone listening anymore from the clock tower?

There have been riots again on the streets of London.

Legitimate protestors had arguments, rather than arms in the mind.

However, spotting an opportunity for a ‘good kicking’ many illegitimate rioters turned chants of complaint into assaults on democracy.

Meanwhile, following a pleasant lunch at the House of Commons restaurant, MPs, elected by the people on a promise, betrayed voters’ trust in preference to keeping their jobs during tough economic times with new coalition bosses. (Who says Parliament doesn’t reflect ‘real life’).

Long-term commitments, like memories in photo albums seem to be fading relics of the past.  Unsurprisingly people – like the ex X Factor contestant, Cher, are led to believe it is their right that fortune must instantaneously follow fame – even if that fame is over in the rap of song.

Today, pictures of promises are becoming as disposable as people’s jobs at companies into which they invested their lives and from which in return they can confidently expect a ‘Good Luck’ card from their nearest and dearest bosses.

Bravery and independence as displayed by the likes of WikiLeaks has been kettled into place by a society that sometimes appears to have more in common with Stalinism than capitalism.

In the concrete jungle, just the promise of having a job in 2011 to pay the increase in rail journeys to work, has become enough of a carrot to keep the masses from protesting – too much.

With so many sniffing like dogs at the heels or any whiff of opportunity at all, those still with a job grow increasingly desperate to keep afloat.

The only certainty seems to be uncertainty of the future and fragility of the present.

We comfort ourselves in the high-definition lit delusion of our John Lewis TVs broadcasting around the clock Xmas dreams at the price of two for one.

Our sense of self and social demonstration of worth has become defined by the latest release of fashionable phones, computers, celebrity books (on a Kindle of course) or trinkets.

With populations doubling in size in years rather than decades, whilst tightening their grip around the neck of available community resources, the ordinary person in the street is forced to implode his or her id, ego and super-ego – so become increasingly self-centred – and obsessed – simply to survive.

Middle class professionals, complaining about the state of the nation  retreat to a Sony/ Xbox/ Nintendo fantasyland, away from the harshness of the day to a place where they can be the celebrity, sex symbol, speed fiend or thrill seeking rioter  they know they will meet again in their dreams tonight.

Brands such political parties, financial institutions, power-generating companies, and commercial enterprises – all promising to protect our futures – are regularly exposed as primarily concerned with protecting themselves before the rest.

With each exposure, people become much more immune and blasé.  Like watching thousands die in Pakistan, or another story of a cleric abusing a child, shock is no longer shocking enough.

Our trust in leadership – religious, political, social and commercial has become as tenuous as our faith in liberal democracy

The UK government, faced with the cost for recklessly inviting everyone from anywhere to become someone in a land away from their home, has been hoisted on its own perturb.

Overwhelming competition for space, land, and jobs …  has forced Parliament to repress accessible education for the masses, by imposing a lifetime repayment tariff for the foreseeable future generations of brand UK.  Or to put it another way, a further tax for already hard-pressed parents who only want to give their kids some kind of chance for a future.

Perhaps eventually the only ones able to pay for places at top UK universities will be those from India, the Middle East and China (where the UK buys the components for consumer’s trinkets).

The rest will have to settle for the high street college near a MacDonald’s, which offers local students free Fries at lunchtime.

Greed is good - worth fighting for

So money is tight. Cheer is translucent. Christmas has become little more than a sales promotion opportunity for companies to offer hope through gifts for the hapless horde.

Yet despite it all, in desperation to live the moment – capture a ‘buzz’ of happiness whilst they can, consumers consume as if the weeks leading to Christmas day mark the last supper of their lives.

Thanks to the Internet, redemption is just a click away from consumers walking the mile.

In the fervour to spend, consumers inadvertently feed the cycle of needs and wants kept spinning by wheels bigger than the one who guilelessly believes is in fact the biggest wheel in town.

And so the spiral goes on in the circles of the windmills of the minds.

This Christmas and into the new year, the greatest wish is for companies, politicians, students, surfers, bosses, individuals…  to follow the philosophy of human greatness: communicate with honesty and integrity for others and in doing so nurture a market rather than exploit it and then reck it.

Do that and students will eventually inherit more than arrogance bred into them by adults who, by the time they mature, long lose their spirit – apart from the solace still lingering at the bottom of their glass.

Opportunists will link hands rather than take up arms.

Instant gratification will serve lessons for a long-term education.

Politicians will aspire to more than borderline expense dodges or pay checks in the House of Lords.

Brands will actually believe and act upon the message of social responsibility facetiously promised by their advertising.

People will stop feeling that in order for their drum to be heard – they have to bash the skin of their passions until ears burst.

Respect will be returned to the hard working…

But perhaps that’s all just a Christmas faith, that is as realistic as baby in a crib of straw changing the world.

Maybe we are all clutching at straws.

Or just perhaps the one who picks the short straw to make a sustainable change will be you.

Merry Christmas.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

“ I wanted to change the world, but I realised it was too large of a task for one person, so I tried to change my community.

That was also too hard, so I tried to change my family. That was also too hard, so I decided to try and change myself.

And though it was very hard,

I finally changed myself.

And once I changed myself,

I discovered my family changed, the community changed, and the entire world changed.”

Rabbi Israel Salanter

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The commercial addresses traditional ‘macho’ views of homosexuality with a teenager boy being questioned about his ‘all -male’ school by his older ‘traditional’ father who feels sorry for him as the son has  lost opportunities to date girls.  The teenager responds with a wry smile.

McDonalds spokesperson explained that the commercial aimed to recognise the diversity of McDonald’s customers in France.
A YouTube version of the ad has already received in excess of 1,691,642 hits.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Viral parodies have been quick and furious.  Including the ‘Iranian McDonalds’ ad.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly caused controversy after he derided  the commercial saying:

“Do you think they have an ad for Al Qaeda?”

One blogger  in Los Angeles wrote:

‘They could never show that in the States, or the Christian right would boycott the restaurant forever.’

Another in Memphis, Tennessee, added:

‘I don’t understand – McDonald’s is simply saying that they will still serve you if you are gay.

In December 2009 it was reported that an Orlando McDonald’s fired one of its managers after he told a 17-year-old job applicant (via voice mail):

“You will not get hired. We do not hire faggots.”

2008 - Protestors outside McDonald's Chicago HQ

From a BrandForensics’ point of view it could be argued that the downside of the commercial is that it singles out gay people as if they are somehow different from other diners.

Would it not be considered discriminatory if there was a commercial focussing on  Jews, or people with special needs?

The alternative view is that the commercial is brave, witty and -given it’s viral success – a whopper of a promotion.  (With apologies to Burger King).

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

In the 1920s The Coca-Cola Company began its Christmas advertising with shopping-related ads in magazines like The Saturday Evening Post.  At this time, consumers drank Coca-Cola mainly when the weather was hot.  In 1922 The Coca-Cola Company started a campaign “Thirst Knows No Season,” and continued with a campaign again connecting the brand to Santa Claus.

In 1930, artist Fred Mizen painted a department store Santa in a crowd drinking a bottle of Coke.  In 1931 the Coca-Cola Company commissioned Michigan-born illustrator, Haddon Sundblom, to develop advertising images using Santa Claus showing Santa himself rather than just a man dressed as ‘Santa’, as Mizen’s work had portrayed him.  Sundblom was inspired by Clement Clark Moore’s 1822 poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas” (commonly called “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas”.)

Sundblom’s Santa was also said to be based on a live model- his friend, Lou Prentiss – a retired salesman. When Prentiss passed away, Sundblom used himself as a model, painting while looking into a mirror.  (The children who appeared with Santa Claus in Haddon Sundblom’s paintings were based on Sundblom’s neighbours.)

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

1930 was also the year when radio listeners could tune into one of the first national coast-to coast radio programmes – ‘The Coca-Cola Hour’ – broadcast nightly on NBC.  The show was a mix of celebrity interviews, sports news and live music played by the thirty-one-piece Coca-Cola Dance orchestra.  Leonard Joy, the conductor, composed a simple theme tune for the programme, ‘Coca-Cola Signature’.  The tune, which was preceded by the sound of a bottle of Coca-Cola being opened, was the company’s first official jingle and was used for over two decades.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The Coca-Cola Santa made its official debut in 1931 in The Saturday Evening Post and appeared regularly in that magazine, as well as Ladies Home Journal, National Geographic, The New Yorker and others.  From 1931 to 1964, Coca-Cola advertising showed Santa enjoying a Coke, playing with children who stayed up to greet him and raiding the refrigerators at a number of homes.  (Taken from Soul Traders).

Happy Christmas from Brandforensics!

Jonathan Gabay

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Apple brand goes to Hollywood?

The Apple Computer brand is reportedly seeking to complete a deal with broadcasters such as Walt Disney and CBS for a web-based TV subscription service; possibly charging viewers a monthly fee.

If supplied, such content would deliver genuine added value for the ‘tablet’ computer (which some pundits have suggested may be called the ‘iSlate’).  The device is thought to be a cross between an iPod and a laptop, with WiFi connectivity.

(Turner Broadcasting System, News Corp., Viacom, and Discovery Communications are as yet uncommitted to supplying content).

It is strongly believed that the new Apple device will be released very early in 2010.  (Apple itself has so far refused to corroborate even the existence of such an appliance.  However this follows the brand’s typical ‘radio-silence’ adopted before any imminent new product release).

Throughout the web, rumours are rife that notable book and magazine publishers including Time Inc and Condé Nast, have produced digital versions of their magazines for a raft of new handheld tablet devices from various computer manufacturers including Samsung, Hewlett as well as Apple itself.

The new commandments of TV broadcasting as published on the tablet?

With other providers, including public services such as BBC iPlayer, going from strength to strength, this could be a key market for the brand to get involved with during 2010. Equally, if the monthly subscription service does goes ahead, incumbent traditional network suppliers could face especially tough competition from the iconic brand which was only recently acclaimed by Adweek as the brand of the decade .

Following the relatively slow uptake of Apple TV, an interface which streams iTunes individually rented or purchased movies, tv shows as well as other media to a television or computer, the Hollywood Reporter proposes that whilst the suggested new tablet may woo over many viewers, it won’t cut the cord on cable TV as currently enjoyed on traditional sets in the home).

Watch this space – or should that read ‘slate’ for further updates…

… Who knows this time next year, watching the Queen’s traditional Christmas message may become a completely different kind of viewing experience. (Already available as audio podcasts on iTunes since 2007).

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

British Airways brand versus Unite - the gloves are off

The verdict at end of the latest round of the heavyweight fight between British Airways and the Unite union (which represents 13,500  BA cabin staff) suggests British Airways taking the bout – but only just.

Mrs Justice Cox ruled that Unite had indeed breached the 1992 Trade Union Act.  It should have asked members whether they were leaving the company and stopped them from participating in the ballot if they had already accepted redundancy.

She said:

“A strike of this kind over the twelve days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.”

Unite was banking on the ringside sympathy from the public. However they were unprepared for the overwhelmingly bad press stirred by  the intended Christmas strike announcement .

The union warned that the decision didn’t bode well for the ordinary worker who, like their members is steadily loosing the rights to a voice. It called the verdict a “bad day for democracy”

The union will hold a fresh ballot.

“We are not going away, we are Willie’s [BA’s chief Executive] headache for 2010,”

a unite source told the British press.

…and in branding terms – what a headache…

Entering the new year, the public may become nervous of making any firm bookings with the airline – at the very least until the entire episode is settled.

On the positive side, by avoiding a Christmas strike, the airline has ducked what could have been a fatal blow to its image.  Yet this alone may be small comfort for British Airways.

It is yet to be seen just how many more jabs British Airways can comfortably withstand, including left hooks such a the general decline in air travel. (This week, Flyglobescan went into administration, stranding 4,500 customers stranded abroad).

A painful blow to Unite?

It’s going to be a bumpy ride

Through cultivating a brand image of ‘added British refinement and service in the skies’ the company has traditionally relied on business and first class ticket sales to boost its economy seats.

However today, traditional corporate fliers are often encouraged to choose lower-cost competitors.

The airline is struggling to cope with a difficult financial year during 2009.  It posted a pre-tax loss of £292m for the six months up to the end of September, which incorporated the customarily profitable summer holidays.

British Airways is also looking to tie up merger deals with Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA, as well as seeking collaboration with American Airlines on North Atlantic routes.

With so much at stake, any publicised ‘hits’ on public perception of the brand will need to be taken with an ‘iron jaw’.

The fight for the skies goes on…

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

With 220 million iPods sold worldwide, Apple’s music player was named “Product of the Decade”.  It was compared to the Walkman in terms of cultural impact.

Two of Apple’s  ad campaigns are represented on the list, with the “Get a Mac” ads winning “Campaign of the Decade” and “Silhouettes” winning “Out-of-Home Ad of the Decade.”

Adweek said the “Silhouettes” campaign achieved what is nearly impossible: defining a product without actually showing what it looked like up close.

Nike Plus was named “Digital Campaign of the Decade,” calling the concept “a product experience that reinforces the brand message.”
Google was named digital brand of the year.  Google also won “Media Company of the Decade.”

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Rank Company                           2009 brand value $millions        % change over 2008
1               Coca-Cola                            68,734                                                       3%
2              IBM                                        60,211                                                       2%
3              Microsoft                              56,647                                                      -4%
4             GE                                            47,777                                                     -10%
5             Nokia                                      34,864                                                     -3%
6            McDonald’s                           32,275                                                     4%
7            Google                                     31,980                                                     25%
8           Toyota                                      31,330                                                     -8%
9           Intel                                           30,636                                                    -2%
10         Disney                                      28,447                                                     -3%
11         Hewlett-Packard                    24,096                                                     2%
12         Mercedes-Benz                       23,867                                                     -7%
13         Gillette                                       22,841                                                      4%
14         Cisco                                           22,030                                                     3%
15         BMW                                          21,671                                                      -7%
16         Louis Vuitton                           21,120                                                      -2%
17         Marlboro                                   19,010                                                    -11%
18        Honda                                         17,803                                                     -7%
19        Samsung                                     17,518                                                      -1%
20       Apple                                             15,443                                                     12%

As for all businesses, it’s been a thorny time for the big global brands during this year. For the first time, the overall value of the top 100 brands has declined 4.6%, (or US$55,472).

However, Amazon, Pepsi, Audi, Panasonic, and Campbell’s have all achieved high positions in the Business Week/Interbrand 100 best global brands list for 2009.

Seven brands, dropped right off the list. Amoung the biggest:
Merrill Lynch – which ranked No. 34 last year and AIG – previously No. 5. Both required emergency aid from the U.S. government.
ING which ranked No. 86 last year, also fell off the list after massive subprime losses.

American Express remains the biggest financial brand in the list. However it fell from number 15 to number 22, against a 32% fall in the value of its brand

The downturn in the automotive industry is also reflected in the list. Harley Davidson was worst hit, losing 43% of its brand value, dropping from 50 in the list to 73. Most companies saw a fall in their valuation, including Toyota, Ford and Honda.

However there was a silver lining for food brands as consumers returned to traditional cooking at home.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The writing is on the windows and browsers for Woolworths

The most telling thing about the sad demise of brand Woolworths was the message on their UK website broadcast first thing on 11^th December 2008 “…Currently undergoing essential maintenance.  We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Please check back later.

With the company facing £385 million of debts, just after 4.30pm on 10^th December Woolworths’ head office sent an email to the managers of all its 815 stores announcing that no buyer had recognised the wonder of the Woolies brand.  Today stores open with signs printed at the last minute reading:“closing down sale”.

The company’s administrator, Deloitte confirmed the awful news for 30,000 staff that if no solid offers for Woolworths were forthcoming, “some stores may close before the end of December”.

The Woolworths brand lost direction and focus.  It persisted in the notion that consumers still wanted an old fashioned emporium of loose ends rather than a store of focused brands.  Even traditional DVDs and toys were being bought via competitive, more focused websites, or at better brand positioned specialist retailers.

A blue Christmas

Consumers facing hundreds of brand messages each day need clear messages about what stores mean.  Woolworths lost that meaning.  Ironically, the only time the brand had a cohesive meaning – ‘value and fun’ – was during the very season that it collapsed: Christmas.

As consumers come to expect retailers to chase hard for custom, other high street names will scramble to balance the benefits of bigger discounts against diminishing profit margins. 

In terms of branding, whilst price wars offer savings, longer term, such battles may lead to poorer and ‘fuzzier’ brand perceptions; making one brand appear much the same as another – and so eroding its cachet.

Perceptions

From a public perception point of view – especially for staff, with Christmas just a couple of weeks away, many more well known hard pushed brands may hold off until mid January to make further dramatic redundancies.  If this prediction is true, the only people on the high street left making profits in the new year could be printers turning out endless last minute signs announcing even further closing down sales.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Heinz, the perennial family brand favourite, has withdrawn its television commercial for mayonnaise because it believes it offends family values.
The thirty-second commercial, which was due to run over five weeks, features a man in a typical middle-class family kitchen setting preparing sandwiches for a schoolboy and girl.  The man, dressed as a chef, sounds and acts like a native New Yorker.  The children collect their sandwiches. A second man appears, in a hurry to get to work.  He is presumed to be the father of the family.  He calls  “goodbye” to the chef who in turns orders him back to give a ‘farewell’ kiss on the lips.
The commercial prompted over 200 complaints.  The Daily Mail, noted for its campaigning on behalf of ‘Middle-England’, reported that some parents were angry because they had been forced to explain same-sex relationships to their children.
Heinz suspended the campaign explaining to the press that, “We are a global, family company that listens to its consumers.”
However clearly not all the family were happy with ‘Ma’ and ‘Pa’ Heinz.
Outrage and dissent broke out among Britain’s 3.6 million gay community.  Gay rights group Stonewall called for gays to stop eating baked beans, spaghetti and other products from Heinz.
This heavy-handed decree offers the sad prospect of gay men and women being forced to covertly eat tins of beans in dark closets – away from the aghast of the general public.  Will they next be forced to swallow beans in their unprotected raw form still dripping with fresh sauce, straight from the tin?
David Muniz, commercial director at Gaydar, points out, “If Heinz had announced they were pulling the ad because it hadn’t worked creatively I could have understood it, but what they went on to say was nothing short of offensive and insensitive to the gay community”.
Meanwhile in the States, The American Family Association has urged members to register disapproval with Heinz in America.”Forward this to all your family and friends letting them know of the push for homosexual marriage by Heinz,” proclaims the Association’s website.
Members of Parliament have also joined the debate, saying that Heinz should actually reinstate the campaign.  Michael Cashman MEP for West Midlands– a former actor who, in 1987 played a man with HIV in the popular soap, Eastenders, described the commercial as,” a clever and innovative” reflection on modern life.
Food producers, the general public, politicians and pressure groups await to hear the Advertising Standards Association’s ruling on whether or not the commercial was indeed offensive.  (It wasn’t shown during children’s programming as regulations don’t allow foods with high fats, salt or sugar content to be broadcast at that time).
When it comes to mainstream UK broadcasting of gay-themed commercials, Heinz is certainly not the first to provoke debate.  Brands like FCUK and Benetton have gone much further. A Dolce & Gabbana commercial screened during the X Factor in 2006 received 89 complaints.  In 2006 a computer game, Canis Canem Edit, originally called, ‘Bully’, was given a 15 certificate because of a kiss between teenage boys.
From a brand forensics point of view it’s  confusing to suggest that the Heinz commercial reflects the true taste of New York. Whilst some Delis in New York may indeed give you a free pucker on the lips with every baloney sandwich, most only offer extra mustard.
You simply don’t automatically think, ‘New York equals a gay kiss’. That said, brands such as Heinz have to reflect the reality of the society occupied by its customers.
It is not up to Heinz or any other brand to set moral agendas. However they need to demonstrate a degree of ethics that address all people irrespective of their sexual preferences. All brands have to be mindful of audiences watching commercials and their sensibilities.
Heinz is a family brand and there is always a risk of upsetting members of that family (i.e. Heinz’s customers) even if their intention was supposed to be an innocent joke.
Perhaps the brand is saying, “this is today’s family values – we’re not suggesting such values are right or wrong we’re just reflecting society.”

However much negative publicity this suspension generates, history tends to show that brands like Heinz are more than capable of taking the flak squarely on the chin (or this case on the lips).

Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: