Jonathan Gabay's brand communications blog » media

MGM Brand. That was entertainment – this is business

JJG — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:21:04 +0000

MGM - has the lion roared its last growl?

When I was a kid, my entire family went to see a marvelous movie showing in Marble Arch London. ‘That’s Entertainment’ celebrated the musical history of one of the world’s greatest show brands in the world- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Now, with great sadness I learn that the once most powerful and prestigious film studio in all Hollywood, has begun a tentative search to explore a “potential sale” as the brand icon looks for a buyer to bail it out of nearly $4bn (£2.4bn) of debt. (It sounds like a tragic parody of Paramount’s Sunset Boulevard, in which Mr. Meyer himself had to step in to offer a little reality to a fading Hollywood icon.

According to reports, MGM has 140 key lenders who are owed $3.7bn (approx. £2.1bn) in bonds. As with the blockbuster out this weekend in the UK ‘2012’, the bonds will mature and so come to an abrupt end in the same year that shares the disaster movie’s apocryphal title.

The last reels in the can?

In a statement, MGM has been granted a postponement from interest fee payments until 31 January 2010. This allows the studio to complete three movies currently in post production: ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’, With John Cusack, Lizzy Caplan, and Crispin Glover. ‘Red Dawn’; about teenagers trying to save their town from an invasion of Chinese and Russian soldiers, and ‘The Zookeeper’, about zoo animals who plan to help their lovable zookeeper.

According to Reuters, investment bank Moelis & Co, hired by MGM in May to help refinance its debt, will be overseeing the potential sale process. The initial goal is setting a price for the studio with the aim of getting the maximum value for investors whether by selling the studio in pieces or as a whole.

The studio, faces debt obligations arising from its 2005 buyout, as well as payments on a $250 million revolving credit facility which is due April 2010.

Reuters say it was purchased from majority owner Kirk Kerkorian for $2.85 billion by a group including private equity firms Providence Equity Partners; TPG [TPG.UL]; DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, a unit of Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX); and Quadrangle Group; and media firms Sony Corp (6758.T) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O). The group also assumed a debt of $2 billion.

MGM was founded in 1924 following the merger of Metro Pictures, Goldwyn Pictures, and Louis B Mayer Company, MGM’s halcyon days were between the 1930s and 1950s, when the studio created some of the most distinguished movies of all time, including The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Singin’ in the Rain and countless other Academy Award winning cinematographic classics.

During the 1960s, studio profits weakened, mergers, takeovers and sales left MGM deeply in debt. In recent years DVD sales plummeted and some recent poor movie choices such as Fame’ – which so far has only made a reported $42m worldwide, left shareholders irritated.

Making the king of the Hollywood jungle

So what, if this all goes ahead, can the studio do? One widely reported option is to sell off MGM’s wonderful library of 4,000 movie and television shows, including Rocky, The Hobbit, and Dances With Wolves.

Part of the current library is the lucrative James Bond franchise, leased to Sony Pictures for ‘Casino Royale’ and ‘Quantum of Solace.’ Industry sources suggest that one studio or investor may even bid to acquire solely the rights to 007 or even the popular ‘Stargate’ television franchise.

Any MGM library catalogue would be of interest to TV broadcasters like BSkyB who, like Turner before them, could yield the content into a highly attractive package for viewers.

Separately MGM could sell off its lion trademark. However, that could lead to the buyer company slapping on the famous Leo the lion icon onto any old movie or programme it so wished. In doing so, giving such a movie the allure of MGM quality but not the guarantee. (That should be interesting in terms of copyright infringement laws – the company owns the logo but not the library content).

Brand icons in history

Character	Company	Year created
Uncle Sam	Government war bonds	1838
Michelin Man	Michelin tyres	1898
Jolly Green Giant	Green Giant Vegetables	1928
Leo the Lion	MGM Pictures	1928
Mickey Mouse	Walt Disney Co	1928
Tony the Tiger	Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes	1951
Columbia Godness	Columbia Pictures Corp	1961
Ronald McDonald	McDonald’s Restaurants	1963
Exxon Tiger	Exxon Oil Company	1964
Pillsbury Doughboy	Assorted Pillsbury Foods	1969
Jeeves	Ask Jeeves	1996

A brand in deed not just name

The Leo the Lion icon is a classic case of a brand name being its greatest asset. On the other hand this particular movie plot also carries the classic warning that when you buy a brand name, you must also invest in that brand’s values – including its product, people, and certainly in MGM’s case, heritage.

Beyond Hollywood, MGM’s brand has enjoyed success with ventures such as MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas as well as lucrative deals with Disney

Rumoured potential buyers include Time Warner Inc, the parent of the Warner Bros studio, and News Corp, home of 20th Century Fox. Other media moguls have also expressed interest. The hot contender is Michael Burns, Vice Chairman of Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation who said: “They have fantastic franchises like James Bond, they have half of The Hobbit. Of course it’s interesting to us.”

Whatever happens to MGM once the deals been struck it won’t be just a question of “that’s entertainment” but “that’s business”.

I can only hope that, if all this goes ahead , the new custodians of the brand will remember their brand custodian obligation – in this case to put the show before the business – because whatever the economy, whatever the politics, from war to peace, bust to boom, for audiences the world over, that’s what must go on.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

2007 review of brand stories

JJG — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:43:11 +0000

The year started off with one of the biggest brand disasters of the past decade – The Bernard Matthews fiasco- which almost spelt the end of traditional mass-marketed Xmas fare.

Then there was the rise, and slight stumble of brand Lewis Hamilton. That said, it still looks like the young star is still in pole position for becoming a billion pound brand sensation by the end of 2008.

The Spice Girls started off the year teasing the press with rumours of a reunion and ended 2007 with a world tour and sponsorship deal which earned each ‘Spice Mum’ a million pounds for appearing in a series of Tesco commercials. (Posh Spice picked up sponsorship deals with brands such as Victoria’s Secrets). Yet, despite a nostalgic live show for the fans, the group never quite got reached Number one with their album.

For just about every celebrity – except Jade Goodie – 2007 was a good one. Mr T made a comeback promoting Snickers and various video games, Darth Vader turned up in a Woolworth commercial. Antonio Banderas smirked a Clark Gable grin in an M&S commercial, Lulu and Nick Hancock went shopping at Morrisons and even Steve Davis had a pot-shot at Nicole Kidman in a Nintendo commercial.

Cadbury almost bit off more than they could chew with news of salmonella in their confectionary. Yet, despite all odds, come the end of the year, whist many Cadbury workers faced redundancies, thanks in part to a viral marketing gorilla commercial, the company enjoyed relatively healthy profits, including excellent sales for the return of their Wispa brand. (2008 will see Cadbury’s featuring Joss Stone as their new Flake girl).

Farewell to British born and bred brands

2008 will also see Cadbury moving production of British favourites like Curly Wurly to Polish factories. Already Burberry has followed other British fashion icons like Paul Smith to switch production of its quintessentially British Polo shirts overseas. Smarties is to be made in Hamburg and Heinz has moved production of HP (House of Parliament) sauce, offshore. Aston Martin is also considering building their new Rapide model overseas.

Too much to swallow?

During 2007 in America, McDonald’s started advertising on young children’s school reports, whilst in the UK, television commercials promoting junk food for children were banned – in the afternoons at least – leaving 18 out of the 20 TV shows most watched by children – including X Factor, Ant and Dec and Coronation Street – untouched by the ban.

The controversial logo

2007 was also the year of the Olympic Games logo. Just days after its launch it was discover that the logo – which nobody quite understood – could induce epileptic shocks when animated. However, as the year progressed and sponsors of the games started to incorporate the logo design, it soon became an accepted part of quirky British culture.

Bits and bytes

During 2007, Apple saw the sell-out introduction of their first generation iPhone. Sales are expected to easily top 200,000 in the UK alone by January 2008. However, as with Windows’ Vista, the much-anticipated launch of the Leopard operating system didn’t quite come up to fast-track expectations; mainly because of reported teething software glitches affecting laptop models. The imminent 2008 announcement of a touch-screen Apple sub-notebook as well as 3G iPhone and likely later integrated movie-on-demand downloads is expected to once again boost the brand in 2008.

Best and the worst of times

Awards were given to the best and least loved brands. Number one best-loved brand went to Google. Next came Nokia, Amazon, Tesco, eBay, British Airways, Coca Cola, Persil, Heinz and O2.

The most hated brands of 2007 were: Pot Noodle, followed by McDonald’s, AOL, Sunny Delight, The Sun, Manchester United, The Daily Star, 3, Irn-Bru and Daz. (400 brands – 2412 respondents)

The advertising industry gave Trident Chewing Gum the accolade for the worst TV commercial of the year, Their ‘Mastication for the Nation’ campaign received more than 500 complaints for having racist undertones.

2008 promises to be another year of classic brand moments. Providing the consumer continues to call the shots, it will be one that brand leaders will be looking forward to with a mix of anticipation and trepidation.

Happy new year from www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Movies brands turn to the Middle East for profits

JJG — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:04:22 +0000

The fourth Dubai International Film Festival (DIFF) opening this week, promises the perfect present for global brands aiming for an intelligent corporate social and cultural marketing campaign this Christmas.

Whilst not long-established as a festival and ostensibly a not-for-profit cultural event, the millions of dollars being poured into the occasion, combined with the opulent Dubai backdrop offers much of the glitz and glamour of more established festivals such as Cannes.

Even the cornerstone of Film and Showbiz, ‘Variety’ magazine, is showing interest in the potential deals rumoured to be struck around the pools and sand dunes at one of the world’s richest towns.

Entrepreneurs after a new direction on their map to opportunity will also no doubt head East for a strategic ‘foot in the door’ to a fast growing regional film market with global aspirations. (International collaborated movies like Monsoon Wedding (2001) (India/USA/France/Italy/Germany) took $13.9 million (£7.1m) at the box office).

Movie making has always been big business. According the Guinness Book of Records in 2005 the USA made 600 major movies at a cost of $13,945,000,000 – an average of $19,950,000 per movie. The total world feature movie production reached 4,603. The top three movie-making countries are: India producing 1,041 movies in 2005 alone. USA, 699 (2005). Japan, 356 (2005). However, Uncle Sam still leads the way for countries bringing in the dollars at the box office – $9,420,000,000 (Gross in 2006). All that excludes branding opportunities created for movie merchandise and sponsorships.

Away from the big box office bucks, international film festivals give brands the opportunity to support worthy local creative community initiatives such as film making workshops encouraging people to express fears, dreams and ambitions.

The blockbuster ‘Michael Clayton’ is opening the festival, featuring over 141 films from 52 counties, including India and China. (The movie’s lead actor George Clooney will attend a star-studded Opening Night Gala). Sharon Stone will also be making a charity appearance. All this strengthens the cultural fusion between the West and Middle East.

Natural supporting roles

Film and brands go together like cinema and popcorn. In a turbulent world, movies offer brands the chance to be associated with a creative vision of hope, which, through great story telling, explores common human traits and transcends superficial cultural differences.

This year, Baghdad is also to host its own international film festival with movie contributions from Egypt, Jordan and Iran. Other established Middle East film festivals like the Haifa Film Festival, Eilat Film Festival and especially the DOCAVIV festival already attracts international brand sponsors including Fed Express and Orange.

Big movies. Big business

In addition to DIFF giving distributors the chance to market films in various territories, the showcase will help the local economy show-off venues, movie studios, entertainments and attractions to businesses and families alike. That kind of exposure builds local brands from telecoms to coffee shops; attracting passing trade from movie-moguls and stars looking to reserve a spot in one of Dubai’s exclusive holiday retreats as well as long-term business.

In an age where brands depend on media such as imagery and film to convey corporate messages to worldly-wise consumers whose tastes are influenced by global influences, Middle Eastern festivals like DIFF offer a real challenge to the notion that film and razzmatazz should be confined to the hills of Hollywood.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Why Learndirect should invest more in Kyle show

JJG — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:37:16 +0000

LearnDirect, the government-backed sponsors of The Jeremy Kyle Show has withdrawn their £500,000 a year deal with ITV. How odd. Despite someone, somewhere, at some point presumably telling LearnDirect’s marketing department where half a million pounds would be invested, the organisation never fully realised what the programme actually covered. It took District Judge Alan Berg to explain that the programme aims to “titillate bored members of the public with nothing better to do.”

Last week, a spokesperson for the government’s communications body, the Central Office of Information (COI), said: “the criticism of the show – sparked by Judge Berg’s remark – means it is no longer appropriate for LearnDirect to be associated with the programme.”

The whole truth…

But did LearnDirect study all the good Judge’s comments? On closer examination of what he said, rather than withdraw their support, perhaps LearnDirect should actually plough more money into the show which helps finance streetwise Jeremy Kyle’s £1million per year contract. Judge Berg went on to say: “It should not surprise anyone that these people, some of who have limited intellects, become aggressive with each other.”

Surely “these people” whom the judge believes need an education, would be ideal prospects for an organisation, which provides folk from all walks of life the chance to improve their lot with further education?

In fact, looking through LearnDirect’s extensive range of available courses, it becomes obvious that many of their programmes would be spot-on for viewers with a little time of their hand and a big kinship towards guests on the Jeremy Kyle show.

…And nothing but the truth

For example, LearnDirect offers a fascinating course called, “Helping your child.” Perfect for the show broadcast back in 27th August: “My daughter disowned me. Today I find out if I’m even her Dad.” Then there’s the equally essential course: “Meeting Behaviour and Dealing with Problem Characters” – Just the ticket for 20th September show: “Did you try to seduce my sister? Lie detector results.” Or how about LearnDirect’s Health and Fitness course featuring a highly practical module called, ‘Know abbreviations relating to drugs and sex’ – for the 30th August programme: “I don’t believe I’m the father to both your children – DNA results.”

Clearly, with a regular audience of 1.5 million avid viewers – quite a feat for a daytime TV programme – there’s rarely been a greater opportunity for a leading adult education brand to address its core target

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Raising the Auntie on trust

JJG — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:50:00 +0000

Another week, another brand suffers damage to its reputation. Last week it was the turn of the UK’s second biggest brand (the first being the Royal Family) to take a tumble: the BBC. Reportedly the paragon of sincerity short-changed the public out of phone-charges in flagship programmes such as Comic Relief and Blue Peter. It also miss-represented the Queen in programme promotions.As is the case in many huge corporations, those at the top management mostly survived retribution by sacrificing third parties suppliers such as independent production companies responsible for content and process.The Beeb’s Director General, Mark Thompson, admitted that the BBC had had “a rude awakening. For many commentators, the BBC was in a no-win situation. The newly created BBC Trust demanded the corporation cut costs and compete with commercial broadcasters. This led to relinquishing some strict control of procedures to third parties, leaving the people at Wood Lane HQ vulnerable.This week, Mark Byford, the BBC’s deputy director general, appears before a Commons committee to grapple with questions regarding “public confidence in broadcasting”. (Abuses revealed in a report by the regulator, Ofcom were also uncovered at GMTV, ITV and Five). The Culture Select Committee will also hear from the ex BBC chairman, Michael Grade, now executive chairman of ITV.Questions over the BBC’s independence and integrity are nothing new. Everyone from Margaret Thatcher, to the only democratic country in the Middle East, Israel, has questioned the corporation’s veracity. Such attacks are to be expected when you are a nation’s ‘official’ broadcaster. What is more sinister is how big brands seem to get away with misdemeanors relatively quickly and cheaply and how such slick maneuvers affect the general public’s sense of trust and confidence.Another one bites the cocoa powderDays before the revelations from TV Centre, another ‘national treasure’ – Cadbury was fined by the courts for allowing salmonella to affect some of its chocolate bars; causing around 42 members of the public to seek treatment.The day after the court announcement, I was interviewed about the Cadbury brand by several radio and TV stations. Despite what for many less established brands would have been a devastating – if not crippling statement – in Cadbury’s case it appeared that whilst most of the public were concerned about the brand they would ultimately support the confectioner in belief that someone somewhere ‘at the top’ would eventually ‘sort things out’ returning service back to normal in a bite of a bar.For me that represented a major turn around in modern marketing teaching. Over the last five years, marketers have proudly boasted consumer democracy by offering greater choice. In turn, companies, corporations and even governments adapt accordingly. Now it transpires that just in the case of the ancient Greeks who created the concept called ‘democracy’, this so called, ‘choice’ and ‘control’, may in fact be little more than synonyms for cynicism, despondency and political misdirection.For example on the Friday of last week, I was at one of the country’s biggest financial brands. During the meeting, the skies outside the pristine offices ran away into virtual darkness. The meeting came to a temporary halt as we all gazed at the buckets of black rain jumping lemming-like off the heavens. One person wondered if it was a sign of global warming.Assuming it was, I asked the group if they thought that the ordinary person in the street would at last start to do something about the climate. Everyone agreed that despite political correctness in all honesty the public probably wouldn’t unless and until something directly effected their lives – and even if it did, if the end of the world really was here, there wasn’t much anyone could do about it by now so they might as well burn another light bulb and enjoy a well deserved break to sunnier climates. “The great British public tends to moan a lot but puts up with everything from congestion charges to green taxes – that’s life – and one politician is the same as another”.“But what about brands being lights of ethical righteousness, making expensive toe-tapping advertising to tell us that they care about the planet and so too should we”. “Yeah – that’s all marketing gumpf” replied another. “It’s like that Live Earth concert. Consumers are expected to change the world by turning off a light bulb – whilst big brands and bigger countries pay lip-service to making a change with glamorous hollow announcements…”Another person spoke: “It’s like the BBC apologising for cocking-up the phones with Comic Relief. By the time it gets around to another fund-raising weekend, we will all be moved by video clips of some poor kid in Africa dying to the sound track of the Arctic Monkeys. We would have forgotten and forgiven this week’s episode. We would have assumed that the management fixed everything and all is good with the chocolate-sweet world. Call me selfish but the only thing that makes people change is if that change is for self-interested reasons.”This all reminds me of something that another great British ‘institution – Winston Churchill once said: “Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.”Which leaves us with another week in marketing when perhaps one more brand will be found lacking in some way or other. Perhaps as long as big brands have deep enough pockets to pay fines, smooth enough happy-clappy green commercials and glossy enough spin doctors to go down on bended knee to rise again as Phoenixes… unless a brand does something that effects people personally and persistently, just like Auntie’s bloomers – it will be business as usual.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Gong show for brand Britons.

JJG — Tue, 22 May 2007 21:39:00 +0000

Crucial to every brand owner is the heart and soul of a brand’s meaning. Central to that understanding is a brand’s capacity to reflect the mood and sensibilities of current social trends. Today’s brand values are very different to those of the past. To gain a glimpse of what those principles are, consider who and what ‘citizen UK’ votes as being worthy winners of this year’s ‘Greatest Briton’ awards.

With notable exceptions such as Adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the first man to reach both the north and south poles by land, who won in the Sports category and Ricky Gervais who picked up the TV award, many awards were given to the ‘bad boys and girls’ of brand UK, rather than the more established ‘safe’ names. That meant that whilst ‘old school’ Brits such as Elton John settled for token nominations, ‘new school’ Brits such as Amy Winehouse grabbed the headlines.

Making the brand tag-lines
Much-admired guerilla marketing style artist, Banksy, also picked up a gong. Yet true to PR form, unlike his tag, he kept his ID under wraps. Banksy typifies today’s attitudes towards brands: ingenious irreverence, cynism and the consumer’s urge to make individual statements on society rather than bow to rigid hierarchies of the establishment. That’s one reason why the top award of ‘Greatest Briton’ almost went to Robbie Williams rather than the Queen, who only scraped through under 40% of the vote. (Third place went to Maggie Thatcher).

The anguish behind the celebrity face
Investing in rebellious and troubled celebrities pays dividends for today’s ‘street aware’ brands. Kate Moss earnt Top Shop over £3m in profits. The pull of her brand name is promises to offer similar rewards to the hairdressing world.

The best celebrities to endorse a product or service are not necessarily those who are simply rich and powerful. Just as a successful brand name has more depth than a simple logo, so a celebrity also needs a ‘back story’ to his or her own brand name. That’s why Katie Price did so well with her book, ‘Being Jordan’. As the title suggested, it wasn’t about the celebrity called, Jordan, but the person behind the celebrity and her ongoing struggle to balance life in the spot light with life at home. (She was recently awarded mother of the year).

In the past it was often said, “everyone has a book within them”. Today many Brits feel that the potential of a hidden celebrity in their own right lies within themselves. At the same time, they recognise their own human frailties and battles to make it in the world – just like many of the Great Brits featured in the award ceremony. Brands aligning themselves to such ‘Great Brits’ help personify these feelings.

£0 -£80,000,000
One Great Briton winner was the £80 million a year turnover Innocent Drinks started by advertising and management graduates. The company’s story of the possible flying in the face of the improbable is perfect for Brand UK. The company’s only brand perception problem may be if it is seen to have ‘sold out’ its innocence to the big bad corporate guys such as McDonald’s who soon will be stocking their brand. (We will wait and see).

Brit endorsements can go wrong for brands. Remember Jade Goody and her perfume? Even names like Naomi Campbell don’t guarantee instant success – as seen with her perfume range – Naomagic.

Off-the-shelf success
In terms of profits, the greatest Brits for any brand remain the ordinary man and woman astute enough to appreciate the superficial glamour behind the brand whilst recognising the value of a sincere product with depth and understanding of real needs. With the potential for anyone to become someone almost overnight, the old tried and trusted formula for selecting a person who exemplifies the best in Great Britons has been turned on its head. Brands used to spend months trying to figure out whom, in terms of star quality, their brands were most akin to. Nowadays marketers match stars to desirable consumers who ultimately decide who gets their vote and who becomes yesterday’s brand wanna-be left on the shelf.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Goody: the brand underdog

JJG — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:41:00 +0000

Jade Goody’s scandalous behaviour on Celebrity Big Brother made her one of the most notorious celebrity names anywhere. (It didnt really do much good for her pals Jo O’Meara and Danielle Lloyd- Danielle reportidly suffered a loss of brand related earnings totalling an estimated £1,325,000). Many brands such as Cura-Heat IBS, took advantage of Channel 4’s peak viewing TV advertising opportunity to get their product message in front of their core audiences. Brand name giant, ‘Orange’ stuck to their advertising pound, refusing to join the industry sponsorship withdrawal impulse. The same was true for two further household name brands – RAC and Mitsubishi.So was there something that these brands realised that others missed?In a word, ’yes’. Celebrity Big Brother’s Jade eviction night offered an almost irresistible allure of reaching around nine million modern voyeurs aged 16 -34 who relished the opportunity to watch celebrity gladiators thrash it out like big bullies on the small screen. That figure represented the highest viewing numbers in Celebrity Big Brother’s history; easily outnumbering the 7.7 million who watched last year’s non-celebrity final in August (Channel 4′s largest audience of 2006). It’s the similar kind of mainstream brand media opportunity offered by the lucrative celebrity gossip press.The biggest foe for today’s brand is cynicism. Savvy markets demand trusted brands: both in name and deed. Whilst for many, Carphone Warehouse’s withdrawal of sponsorship of Celebrity Big Brother offered a reassuring sense of ethical commonsense – for others it was interpreted as yet another example of a brand trying to be ‘PC’ for the sake of image rather than genuine concern for its customer. (Coincidently it was reported that David Goldie, chief operating officer of the group’s telecoms division, just sold 250,000 shares at 333p each, netting £832,500 in the process. Following this week’s sale he retains a stake of about 820,000 shares in Carphone Warehouse).To win over markets, brands must go beyond token gestures. The same is true for Goody’s own brand. Initial reaction to her on-screen ethically blinkered behaviour and subsequent public tearful confessions of having acted as a racist was rightly one of total outrage. If Goody decides to remain in the limelight, she must convince a sceptical public and press that hers are not ‘crocodile tears’. She would have to demonstrate real change in name and deed. Much of this has to do with appropriate timing. If she is seen trying to do the ‘right thing’ too quickly or pile on a ‘poor little lost girl’ routine too brashly, her credibility will take a direct hit. However, If, after a sensible period away from direct public scrutinity, she pulls it off, she could become a ‘Rebel Brand’ – the ‘outsider’ – re-winning the hearts of the ordinary person in the street. Such a feat would take perseverance, sustained sincerity and canny management.CELEBRITY CAR CRASHThere are two constants regarding the general public and gangoozling celebrities. Firstly, many media voyeurs get some kind of moral gratification watching celbrities suffer the equivalent of a career car crash. Especially if the scene is played out in slow motion via the gossip pages. (As is the case with Jade, Jo and Danielle). Secondly the British public has always backed the underdog who, despite all odds, turns around the seemingly impossible. (For example Kate Moss, who despite being chastised for drug abuse, was nominated in March 2006 for the ‘Celebrity Mother of the Year’ award). In a small part that is why Shilpa’s victory was such an overwhelming success.Jade’s ‘fallen personality’ has to be truthful, frank and open, perusing not simply a selfish goal, but an enduring and motivationally endearing ‘cause’ touching an entire community at its very roots. Through supporting such a genuine cause rather than what can be publicly supposed be a ‘manufactured’ ideal or PR stunt, such a brand icon could become immensely potent and compelling. It would be an uphill struggle. Yet it is not an insurmountable objective for her new brand image consultant, Max Clifford.For example, imagine if Goody was to join forces with Shilpa Shetty (who amazingly has been granted a meeting with the Queen of England) as joint ambassadors for goodwill and understanding between cultures? (Especially as Shetty announced that Goody was definately not a rascist), Or, should Goody’s perfume brand survives, she offered the local Indian community in Bharuch, Gujarat where they manufacture bottles for her fragrance, genuine – not staged- community support to save local jobs rather than become victims of political media propaganda. Or if she offered a ‘helping hand-up’ for Bharuch’s Mums with small kids (just like her). Or if Goody was to take an Open University course in multiculturalism, resulting in her advocating both inter-racial understanding and anti-bullying at schools throughout the UK?Incredible? (As implausible as a poorly educated girl with abysmal communication skills capturing the headlines of the world’s press over the abuse of the noun for an exotic vegetarian crisp snack).If Goody follows the classic rebel brand route, what is now general embarrassment to the British people and a sordid lost brand cause could become the basis for a weirdly successful re-launch.In many major faiths, including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism, a person who truly repents in every aspect of their lives, so becoming a genuinely changed character for the good, may, under certain circumstances, be held in high regard. For Goody that could win friends in places that even her greatest cynics would have thought impossible.However, for her current core target group: lower and working class women aged 16-34 (the same group coveted by mainstream brands) whilst the notion of a reverend ‘Sister Jade’ may sound nothing less than miraculous, it would also spell the end of the very class lifestyle image they so avidly, even if misguidedly, admired in the first place.If Channel 4 was to take the high moral ground and axe the Big Brother series (as likely as the Carphone Warehouse not signing up to sponsor the next BB series) it would mark the closing episode of appealing to a particularly huge, albeit grotesque and ominous ‘Vicky Polardesque’, brand-market, which reality (however distasteful) rather than ideal, shows can and does delivers an exceptionally common Midas touch at the check-out counter.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: