Brands so hot - they're cool

Aston Martin, the iconic British sports car manufacturer, has been named coolest UK brand in the annual CoolBrands survey.

Pioneer of punk Vivienne Westwood is ‘en vogue’ topping the list of fashion brands with BBC iPlayer named coolest website.

Factors taken into consideration when judging the brands included, style, innovation, desirability and originality.  The process was independently managed by The Centre for Brand Analysis on behalf of Superbrands (UK) Ltd.

Researchers identifyed thousands of brands, which were then judged by a voluntary Expert Council and over 2,300 consumers.

This year Aston Martin reclaims its position at the top of the table narrowly pipping Apple’s iPhone to the post, a direct role reversal of last year’s results.

Aston Martin has topped the rankings four times out of the last five years showing that the quintessentially British brand is always held in high esteem by the nation.

When it comes to fashion, Vivienne Westwood tops the poll in the style stakes beating fellow luxury brands Chanel, Jimmy Choo and Alexander McQueen.

As well as iPhone polling at number two, iPod comes in at number three with the Apple brand itself coming in at number thirteen. However the ground breaking iPad doesn’t make the grade.

BBC iPlayer, Nintendo Wii and YouTube  feature in the top twenty showcasing the popularity for fun and accessible brands. Despite two luxury automotive brands in the top twenty (Aston Martin and Ferrari), Mini also makes the list, further highlighting that the top of the rankings is a concoction of ‘classic luxury’ and ‘down to earth’ cool.

In terms of specific categories, many of the leading brands have retained their pole position but there are also some interesting changes. In particular Harley-Davidson has knocked Ducati off the top spot when it comes to the coolest motorbike, Ray-Ban has replaced Rolex as the coolest fashion accessory and The Fat Duck has replaced The Ivy as the coolest restaurant.

Top 20 CoolBrands 2010

The expert council and consumers were asked to consider the following:

• Are they stylish?

• Are they innovative?

• Are they original?

• Are they authentic?

• Are they desirable?

• Are they unique?

The CoolBrands selection process was independently administered by The Centre for Brand Analysis Ltd.

A comprehensive database of the UK’s coolest brands was compiled using a wide range of sources, from sector reports to blogs. From the thousands of brands initially identified, approximately 1,100 brands were short-listed.

An independent and voluntary Expert Council scored this list, with members individually awarding each brand a rating from 1-10.  The lowest-scoring brands (approximately 40 per cent) were eliminated. A nationally-representative group of just over 2,300 UK consumers (accessed via a YouGov panel) were asked to vote on the surviving brands.

The opinions of the Expert Council (70 per cent) and the British public (30 per cent) were combined and the 500 highest-ranking brands were awarded ‘CoolBrand’ status.

Check out:

www.coolbrands.uk.com

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Santander brand turns UK high street red

Spanish global banking brand, Santander, is set to start its final phase of a six year rebranding programme of some of the UK’s best known financial high street names. Branches in London and the South East will be the first to make the concluding brand name switch.

Currently more than 1,000 former branches of Bradford & Bingley banks and Abbey feature Santander’s logo.  278 branches of Alliance and Leicester are also to be renamed to Santander. This will conspicuously mark Santander as the fifth largest bank in the UK.

In 2004, Santander acquired Abbey and the Alliance and Leicester. In 2008 it acquired the savings arm of Bradford & Bingley. Now in addition to the branch signs, advertising and literature, the bank is hoping that a wider campaign highlighting value added services will more than compensate for what some consumers may feel is a growing lack of choice in high street banking brands.

Keith Moor, UK Brand and Communications Director for Santander said:

“Santander understands that our customers have a choice of who to bank with, so our business approach is simple, the more our customers do business with us, the more we will reward them in ways that they will genuinely value and see benefit”.

A through-the-line marketing featuring tv, posters and press advertising campaign features red bricks symbolizing the strength and steadiness of the bank.

The rebranding campaign also features Vodafone McLaren Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton.

Santander is also offering a fee-free Zero account for customers with a Santander mortgage and current account.  This features no charges for unauthorized overdrafts.

In Spain, UK customers can use Santander cash machines free, so avoiding the usual fees for withdrawing cash

With around 25 million customers (one million added during 2009 alone) Santander’s marketing strategy sets to challenge the brand dominance of the UK’s traditional ‘big four’ high street banking names: NatWest, HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS.

The shrinking UK market vs. the expanding global promise

In public relations terms, the global banking crisis shunned and reshaped many familiar UK financial institutions.  Lloyds swallowed HBOS.  The press ousted RBS as pariahs. In response the Royal Bank of Scotland Group is currently diverting consumer’s attention away from the RBS name, concentrating instead on advertising designed to show a soft, politically correct community approach to customers adopted by its NatWest brand.

Whilst Santander’s added value features attract many, those with a modest current account and no overdraft may find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between one high street bank and the next.

Familiar names hope to become one of the family

Hoping to build long-term customers as well as boost brand perceptions, other brand names including Virgin, The National Australian Bank and Tesco are reportedly seeking to either expand or establish their own financial presence on the High Street.

The Daily Telegraph reported that Richard Branson has approached U.S. private equity firm, Blackstone to find funding for a new bid for the Northern Rock.  (At the start of 2010, Branson’s Virgin Money bought a small provincial bank with the license needed to sell savings and home loan products in Britain).

By stepping in as a ‘people’s champion’, cleaning up back-room procedures and so ‘front of house’ awareness of banks, brands are investing in UK high street financial institutions or opening their own new outlets to profit from a ‘double-dip’ brand advantage.

In addition as being viewed as a ‘David’ in the battle against ‘Goliaths’, new brand contenders can gain from traditional long-term customer loyalty. (The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has estimated that only 6% of customers switch their banks in any one year).

Consumers remain loyal to their brands

Convincing complacent customers to actively switch financial brands has always been an uphill struggle. Yet the long-term rewards in succeeding are high. Once a market is captured, a bank can cross-sell a wide range of services including credit cards, savings, insurance … and so on.

With shrewd planning and decisive action for brands still with cash stacked under the bed, the banking crises offers a once in a lifetime opportunity to present a fresh approach to dispirited consumers, and in doing so, add a much needed rosy complexion to the brand’s own financial health.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Recent relentless events virtually ensured that brands would start to question and even drop Tiger Woods from their marketing campaigns.

Tiger admitted that there was more to the incidents outside his home than he first admitted

A statement on his website said:

“I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children. I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I’ve done, but I want to do my best to try.”

“I would like to ask everyone, including my fans, the good people at my foundation, business partners, the PGA Tour, and my fellow competitors, for their understanding. What’s most important now is that my family has the time, privacy, and safe haven we will need for personal healing.”

“After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.”

And the walls began to crumble

Initially some of his  brand sponsors dramatically reduced their endorsements and appearance fees, which at their height in total were estimated to be around £65m a year.

Sports drink manufacturer Gatorade recently withdrew a product branded with his name.  However that decision was reportedly made long before the scandal broke.

Accenture, a global consulting firm once ran an advertisement with the headline: “To accomplish more. sometimes you have to see less.”  The company has now taken this to heart by becoming the first of Tiger’s sponsors to completely drop him from marketing campaigns.

Accenture released a statement saying it was ending its business agreement with Woods, who had represented the company for six years.

“After careful consideration and analysis, the company has determined that he is no longer the right representative for its advertising,”

With Tiger not actually playing for the foreseeable future, Accenture’s move is hardly surprising: Virtually all their Woods featured marketing depends on the player – playing golf.  No tournaments means no context to an advertising campaign.

What are you made of? (Tag Heuer Tiger Woods campaign slogan)

One day after Accenture’s dramatic announcement there are mixed reports whether Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer which has been aligned with Tiger’s brand since 2002, will  maintain its association with Tiger.

“We will continue,”. “He’s the best in his domain. We respect his performance in the sport,” the company spokeswoman, Mariam Sylla, told the Associated Press. Woods’s personal life is “not our business”.

However Tag Heuer’s vice-president of communications stressed the company have not yet made an official decision over whether to continue their relationship with Woods and Francoise Bezzola told the Press Association: “We are not announcing that we will keep Tiger and we are not announcing we will drop Tiger Woods. We are still considering it and we haven’t taken a decision yet.”

Bezzola added that Tag Heuer is expected to make public their decision by the end of this week.

In Australia Tag Heuer has been reported to have  pulled down some poster advertisements featuring.

Perhaps the next in line to consider their agreement with ‘camp-Tiger’ may be the one sponsor best known for making Tiger so high profile in their advertising, Procter & Gamble Co’s, ‘Gillette’.  The brand recently announced it was reducing his part in its campaigns.

A reported statement said:

“As Tiger takes a break from the public eye, we will support his desire for privacy by limiting his role in our marketing programmes.”

Of all the sponsors, Gillette has the biggest public relations issue to consider by continuing using Tiger as a ‘pitch-man’. To begin with there is the queue of claimants who say they slept with Tiger (Including one who claimed that she and he had sex the night his father passed away).  Then there were the scenes car windows smashed by his wife with a golf-club… It just seems to go on and on…

For Gillette, the ethical issue must be particularly acute if only because in many cases, women often purchase razors for men.

Ninetendo Wii was banking on Tiger boosting Christmas sales of their ‘Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 09 All-Play’ videogame. At the very least, given the reports about his family life, this may become an awkward stocking filler to justify.

However, it is not all bad news for Tiger.   For now, sports goods giant Nike has decided to remain as loyal as a branded Nike cart-pushing caddy.

A spokesman said:

“Tiger has been part of Nike for more than a decade. “He is the best golfer in the world and one of the greatest athletes of his era. We look forward to his return to golf. He and his family have Nike’s full support.”

(The Associated Press reported that Nike’s golf business generates $650 million a year in revenue around Woods, so the timing of the scandal couldn’t be much worse).

Tiger’s withdrawal from golf would be one in the bunker for the sport in general. According to Nielsen Co the average television rating fell by nearly 50 per cent for a host of 2008 PGA tournaments that he missed whilst recovering from knee surgery.

Ewen Murray, the BSkyB golf commentator, said:

“He should stay away for a year. It will be a sad loss to the game, but I think he should write off 2010 and start again in 2011. I was as shocked as anyone when I heard what had been going on. Like everyone else I put him up there on a pedestal. I thought he was immaculate in shape and form. But he didn’t have a childhood.”

Tiger woods brand – where next?

The brand outlook

By not fully retracting their sponsorship, it seems that for now, many brands are actually hedging their bets – waiting to see how the public reacts next.

From a Brand Forensics view, Tiger is unlike many sports brand spokespeople.  His management team has spent years cultivating a ‘squeaky-clean’ image of the star and his family life. Other athletes have not necessarily made such claims.  It is for this reason, along with being labelled, ‘the billion dollar brand man’, that the story never seems to go away.

Peter Allis, English golfer, BBC television presenter and commentator said:

“He will be a figure of fun to comedians for years to come.”

Clearly to repair his personal brand, Tiger still has to take a very long walk on the road from perdition.

The spin doctors’ remedy: He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone (John 8:7)

Some spin-doctors argue that by publicly prioritising the rich blessings of his family and personal responsibilities before material fortunes, Tiger is broadcasting a contemporary message of a very ‘human’ man who, like so many others, is fallible – rather than an over- hyped hero.

As such a ‘normal’ man, who is more than the outward sum of his material wealth, Tiger has the opportunity to make good a truly dreadful mess for the people who really matter – his family and real friends.

The spin would be that by bravely doing so in the harsh glare of publicity he is indirectly also acting on behalf of many other men who wish that they too could make amends.

Following this logic, such a spin antidote could even turn out to mean that in the mid to longer term, he emerges as an even more powerful brand hero of the common people – one with more dimensions and so character than a ‘squeaky-clean’ corporately sanitised and so unrealistic and so little to emphasise with icon.

I am not so sure that the remedy would be 100% accepted by today’s more enlightened society. An apology shouldn’t condone any alleged miss-doings.  Indeed, if true, the accusations do nothing but show an appalling disrespect for women, children of broken homes and by association, the otherwise innocent men who play the noble game of golf.  (Hardly the appropriate message from a man marketed as the voice and face as well as role model for his profession).

However, today’s society also takes a more lenient approach to occasionally making what some may view as understandable slips. So sincere action– rather than staged platitudes and empty promises tend to earns respect from many sectors.

One possible move for Tiger’s team would be to encourage his wife to publicly state that she will only allow him to play golf on the condition that he sorts out his game off the course.

Arguably that would be a point score for feminism.

However in my opinion it would still implicitly sanction Tiger’s alleged actions and so send the wrong message to children, wives, families and broader society about what should rather than may constitute acceptable behaviour as espoused by brands.  This is a particularly important issue for many major American brands known to be particularly conservative about their public image.

Yet, timed right and managed correctly this Tiger may still have more than just a purr left in him.

Whichever way Tiger goes next, he will certainly have a lot to think about this holiday season whilst walking around the course after his family meal – attended – or not, by the really important people who should admire him at this time of year.

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

“When will it end”?

That question must have been asked scores of times over the last week by Tiger Woods, his management, family, friends and brand sponsors.

Tiger has clearly been advised to follow many of the classic steps in crisis management, including owning up to any misdemeanours – however he still has not actually stated what he is specifically owning up to.

According to the Daily Mail, on 3^rd December, IMG, his management team went into ‘panic mode’ over the harm to his multi-million-dollar brand persona.

Tiger’s management team is reported to be in talks with a string of corporate sponsors, including Nike, Buick, watch firm Tag Heuer and phone company AT&T, all who last year alone reportedly accounted for the mass of his £66million earnings.

Despite contrary statements earlier this week from Gillette – the razor brand which sponsors Tiger for an estimated £12million a year, it is now reported  that the company may quietly remove him from campaigns.

JasonMaloni, Vice President and head of the Sports and Entertainment subpractice based in Washington DC said:

“Tiger is probably losing money already, and Gillette is his biggest problem. No firm that sells razors wants to be associated with someone who has scratches all over his face.”

“Tiger needs to be concerned because some endorsement contracts contain a “morals clause” that gives the sponsor the right to cancel or change the terms of the engagement. He needs his wife to come out and support him publicly. Until she does, the speculation and the damage to his reputation will continue.”

In a bizarre twist to the unraveling story, the TMZ site reported that it obtained a contract from AshleyMadison.com, a notorious adultery website with 3.5 million members.  The offer was sent to Tiger offering $5 million for “advertisement, endorsement, sale and promotion” of their site.

The general public always has – and always will be fascinated by what really goes on behind the curtains of other people’s lives.  More so if the curtains just happen to belong to a celebrity or leader.  For example it is often reported that some European electors expect their politicians to have the occasional ‘fling’. However in Tiger’s case, his image has been carefully cultured to be ‘clean-cut’.

Perhaps in today’s age of more broadly accepted indiscretions, in the long term, with a combination of carefully chosen interviews, family statements and getting back to what he does best – playing golf, Tiger will emerge from all this a different person, slightly less admired by some, but still acknowledged by many as a sporting genius.

Perception is everything in branding.  Some may actually warm to the idea of an outwardly ‘squeak-clean’ celebrity, being shown to be humanly flawed and naive  as the rest of us, and so who has  character.  That in turn could make some  brands come across as more human and realistic rather than superficial and coroporate.  Especially if the celebrity is seen to struggle between doing the right thing or the wrong thing – and who- like all great movie plots comes out winning for good.

For others reading all about Tiger’s personal life, all the accusations and allegations may lead them to the wonder about many issues including:

• The premium paid for a product that is paying  high fees to celebrities.  (An important factor to keep in mind during today’s tough economic times).
• The calibre of celebrities chosen by brands to represent commercial  interests.
• The underlining messages that celebrities send to the young and impressionable.
• The integrity of the brands who invest in such personalities.

Judging by the accounts on the web and in the press for now it is beginning to appear that, if some industry commentators are correct,  for some sponsors such Gillette, the current adverse publicity may all prove to be a shave too close for comfort.

Earlier this week, Tiger’s official website published the following:

“I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.”

“Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week, my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect.”

“But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don’t share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one’s own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.”

“Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it’s difficult.”

“I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.”

www.brandforensics.co.uk

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:

Woolworths, one of the UK’s best-loved brands has gone into administration, putting more than 25,000 jobs and 815 branches at risk.  Yet there may still be a sparkle of hope for the high street legend that remains open for business today.

Woolies has an exceptional place in consumers’ hearts.  It was just one year away from its centenary.  Such an endearing name offers the official administrators Deloitte, the chance to market the concern to a shrewd buyer who appreciates the potential that such an evocative brand could still hold – especially in difficult times.

Harnessing that potential requires an understanding of what went wrong and then doing something about it. From a financial point of view the company has struggled under the weight of £385m of debt.  Over the past couple of months credit insurers forced the company to pay cash when buying goods from suppliers.

Pick and slightly mixed up

The Woolworths brand has always taken advantage of one of the most powerful psychological pulls that any company could ever wish for – nostalgia.  This was clearly demonstrated when the news of the company going into administration encouraged consumers throughout the country to reflect on their childhood memories of ‘good old Woolies’ being a place to buy all the essential knick-knacks of life.  

It was the people’s store.  Unfortunately for the brand, it didn’t keep up with the people’s changing tastes and buying patterns.  A puzzling product portfolio left consumers scratching their heads. The result was a confused brand message that led people to wonder what Woolies actually stood for.

Competition from other more brand-focused high street retailers selling similar products meant that core items like toys and DVDs could be purchased elsewhere at stores with a clearer idea of what their brand represented.   The other branding issue was staff.  Going to Woolworths was no longer a great brand experience. It was more like choosing products off a muddled stockroom shelf manned by people who didn’t really want or care to serve anyone.

However, with the right kind of brand refocus, the stores could still be turned around to once again represent a beacon of good old fashion value and service that puts the people first.

The bitter paradox of the brand’s demise is that it has happened at the one time of year when Woolworths always shines: Christmas (during which over 90% of it revenues are made).  Over the next few weeks consumers could either take the news as an indication that if brand like Woolworths and MFI could go down, anyone could go down. That leads to greater belt tightening.  This places more high street names like Currys at risk.  It is a wake-up call to businesses that being big is no longer enough – it’s about responding to a fast changing, difficult market that demands great attention to its needs in tough times.

Alternatively it might be a signal for consumers to band together in a defiant show of traditional ‘people power’ that gives their nostalgic brand emporium a gift of hope and support during this supposed season of good will to all men and fondly remembered brands. 

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: