Now the brands begin to snap back

CNBC  has reported that Pepsi’s Gatorade brand is dropping the Tiger-inspired drink, ‘Focus’.  However trade magazine Beverage Digest suggests that the decision may have been  made before the current ‘Tigergate’ crises. (Despite the reports, at the time of writing, Gatorade’s press site still featured press releases celebrating their relationship with Tiger.

He is quoted as saying:

“I’ve experienced a lot of amazing moments in my golf career, but Gatorade Tiger is taking me someplace I never imagined with this campaign.”)

PepsiCo is  the first of the major brand-partnerships to change their allegiances with Tiger.  It may only be a matter of time before other brand sponsors decide whether or not to stick with Tiger.

In a statement, the PepsiCo-owned company said:

“We decided several months ago to discontinue Gatorade Tiger Focus, along with some other products to make room for our planned series of innovative products in 2010.”

More brands to topple?

The London Times reported that not one of Woods sponsors has broadcast an advert featuring Tiger since 29 November; two days after the initial car crash. The last prime-time ad featuring Tiger was a 30-second Gillette Co. spot that ran on Nov. 29

Woods was also reportedly absent from commercials on a number of weekend US sports programs.  Darren Rovell, the sports business reporter at the US TV network CNBC, Tweeted that:  “only eight Woods adverts were shown in the whole of November”.

Given the reaction in the US, there is every likelihood that more sponsors will simply stop showing adverts featuring Woods.  At best this will be until media attention slows down.  At worse – and most likely, eventually leading to Woods being discretely dropped altogether by certain sponsors.  (Arguably no brand would wish to be associated with any purportedly ‘serious’ name who turns our to be internationally viewed with a titter and source for wild speculation. For example, David Letterman, the talk show host who was recently at the centre of his own sex scandal, poked fun at the golfer:

“President Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan,” he told his audience on Monday night. “Hell, he ought to be sending them to Tiger Woods’ house.)”

Wider repercussions

Noting prices on Tiger Woods action figures, Duff Macdonald at the Daily Beast recently wrote:

“The Toys “R” Us outside Seattle had four different kinds of Tiger figurines discounted to $9.98, though the store manager insisted they had been on clearance before the scandal. When we asked a sales rep at a Target in Tukwila, Washington, if they carried Tiger Woods action figures, she said she’d never heard of the product, before pausing and asking a sincere question of her own: “Is that intended as a gag gift?”

The cost of losing sponsorship faith

According to First Post, Woods’ value as a celebrity endorser of products has plummeted. A substantial portion of his annual income – about $110m – comes from commercial endorsements and tournament appearances.

Before ‘Tigergate’ ,Woods was ranked sixth in the Davie-Brown Index.  The Index tracks 2,800 celebrities and was created as a means to measure personalities’ influence over consumer spending. (He is currently in 24th place between actress Julia Roberts and former US Secretary of State Colin Powell).

A Yahoo of an opportunity

‘Tigergate’ has not all been bad news for brands. Yahoo Chief Executive Carol Bartz says “God bless Tiger” for spiking web traffic.

“News, photos and other content about the pro golfer, whose personal life has become tabloid fodder since his car accident and cryptic apologies, are helping Yahoo’s sports section, as well as news, gossip and the front page,” Ms. Bartz said.

Would Tiger help the Internet company make the quarter,?

“Oh, absolutely,” she said, adding that he’s boosting more visits than Michael Jackson’s death.

The unfortunate front cover of  Golf Digest in which Tiger offers tips to Obama virtually guarantees sales for the edition from people keen to get hold of what they hope will one day become an -e-bayable asset.

Expect an e-bay golf sale

Out of the bunker

As things currently stand, in terms of personal branding, it appears that there are four main stances that most people take on ‘Tigergate’.

A-    Tiger is a very well paid celebrity – for better or for worse – we often expect celebrities go astray – especially those with opportunity to do so.  He is the one who is being harassed by publicity seekers.

B-   Tiger is not a good role model.  He should be strong enough to concentrate on being a great sportsman and respected member of his community.  He should not be associated with brands that espouse ‘wholesome’ values.  Such a reputation is an adverse reflection on consumers buying the brands.

C-   Tiger is a man who, like the rest of us, is fallible.  If he sincerely dealt with allegations, for the sake of his family, himself and wider responsibilities- perhaps via interviews – and then returned to playing and concentrating on  world-class golf, it will show character, humility and strength – something that anyone would wish to be associated with.

D-   Judge the man on his skill on the course – not with the paparazzi.

PR branding thoughts for Woods’ team

If carefully managed, the Woods’ brand could still emerge well – People love the story of the’come-back’ kid who wins against all odds.  To help redeem his brand persona, Tiger’s PR team could:

1.  Most importantly – make a clear statement, via the press, to his fans and consumers. (Ideally on a tv chat show such as Oprah).  Then request a period of privacy that should be afforded to any person trying to make amends.

2.  Demonstrate that Tiger is taking positive steps to become the ‘the best a man can get’ – e.g. counseling, well chosen interviews…

3.  Appeal to die-hard golf brands to support their golfing hero – for his game – if not, be prepared to lose someone who could have had the potential to become the greatest golf player of all time.

4.  Have Tiger prepared for the golf tournament of his life in which his sheer dazzling skill as a golfer wins admiration from even the most cynical critic as well as nervous brand custodian.

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:

How stupid do brands think people are?  Discussing Heinz’s decision last week to drop the word ‘baked’ which has graced its tins of iconic beans since 1886, John Alderman, marketing manager for the company said: “Heinz Beanz have been powering the nation for over a hundred years and to say thank you to our loyal fans, we have given this iconic product a 21st century makeover”.

Well ‘thanks’ for er… nothing Mr Alderman. The new tins (which go on sale from August) will still be printed in their familiar turquoise colour.  However, instead of the word ‘baked’ there will be a picture of some their lovely beans oozing out of the label.  This is so the consumer will know what’s inside the tin without having to read the word ‘baked’.

Whilst the new design is pretty, the reasons for the new design are questionable.  According to the company’s PR people, the reverse of the new tin will highlight the beans’ nutritional benefits – low in fat and sugar (Heinz has reduced the salt content by 30 per cent over the last five years) and high in fibre and protein: All good stuff.  However the other reason for the new label is apparently because consumers are just too dumb to say the world ‘baked’ when asking for a tin in the local supermarket. So now they only have to say ‘Heinz Beanz’ rather than Heinz Baked Beans’.

Whilst grammar students would question the idea of ‘beanz’ rather than ‘beans’, I totally understand the branding thinking and it’s a reasonable one.  However, dropping ‘baked’ because Heinz believe that the average 850 million Britons who eat their product each year (that’s equivalent to 96,000 plates an hour) can’t get manage to pronounce an additional one syllable word is frankly an insult.

The move is reportedly costing the company up to £5 million. (Presumably that includes the cost of the extra ink not such a good idea in these green- conscious days).

This is all nothing compared the current cost of baked beans in Zimbabwe where that most congenial of grocers – Mr Mugabe – is charging tin Z$30 billion tin.

Now that really is a mouthful for consumers to swallow.
Jonathan Gabay
www.brandforensics.co.uk

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:

BrandZ, an annual study measuring the brand equity of 50,000 global consumer-facing brands as based on interviews with over one million consumers worldwide, has named Google as the world’s most powerful brand (Brand Value $86,057). Followed by GE (Brand Value $71.379m). Microsoft ($70,887m) and Coca Cola ($58,208m)

Perhaps surprising to some, fifth place goes to China Mobile (at $57,225). Seven brands in this year’s Top 100 come from mature Asian economies: Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong. Their aggregate brand value increased by 7% in the last year (to $111bn). In contrast, the value of the four Chinese brands that made this year’s BrandZ Top 100 increased by 51% (to $124bn). (China Mobile, Bank of China, China Construction Bank and ICBC are still only available in China so they have considerable potential for even more growth).

The technology sector (including mobile operators), which accounted for 28 of the top 100 brands, outperformed all other categories in this year’s BrandZ Ranking, with a brand value growth of $187.5bn. This is more than half of the Top 100’s total increase. Apple Computers’ brand value is up an amazing 123% from the previous year (Brand placement in 2007: 16. Brand placement in 2008 :7) The ubiquitous Blackberry, nicknamed by the business consumer market as ‘Crackberry’ didn’t make the top ten – lingering at position 51, but still with a brand value of $13,734m, up an impressive 390% from the previous year.

The study shows that despite global market jitters, a great brand helps corporates withstand the ill winds of recession. Companies with brands in the BrandZ Top 100 significantly outperform the stock market when compared to S&P’s 500.

Clearly a trusted name that delivers on a promise is worth more than a promise of trust delivered by many wanna-be brand leaders who still rely on hype rather than measurable substance.

The real power behind today’s brands are not the people in black suits at ‘Corporate HQ’ but the ordinary brand-savvy consumers who, more than ever, are aware that whilst global profits may be in the pockets of the few, ultimately, the fate of major conglomerates are in the hands of the masses with fickle loyalties and rock-steady resolve to land a great bargain.

see the report:

http://www.brandz.com/upload/BrandZ-2008-RankingReport.pdf

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Back in 1935 the members of the Press were invited by an enthusiastic British entrepreneur called Bill Lyons to witness a new kind of automobile design – The Swallow Sidecar’s Jaguar. Similar in shape to a Bentley it was elegance, style and power personified into an extraordinary design that comes around once in a lifetime.

As a product it had everything going for it. As a brand, it was a question of the right vehicle with the wrong name for the times. Following the outbreak of war, the company was compelled to drop the ‘SS’ part of the brand and concentrate instead on ‘Jaguar’.

Over the years, like the animal, the brand was marketed as being sleek, sophisticated and nimble. It became synonymous with a Great Britain of elegance adventure and cheeky ‘get up and go’.

Think of James Bond and you think of Jaguar. Think of 1960s London ‘naughty but nice’ gangsters and you think of Jaguar. Recollect Inspector Morse – Jaguar…

However, whilst other car brands maintained the pace, Jaguar, as brand, was left to cruise at a more refined pace in the slower lanes. Research shows Jaguar buyers are older than the average luxury car shopper. So whilst 50 somethings still recall with a wry smile and a happy sigh the brand’s heritage, younger drivers turn their attentions to newer meaner ‘muscles’ of the road.

Ford acquired the brand in 1989. Now it’s being sold along with the Land Rover brand, to India’s Tata Motors in a deal that will make the struggling U.S. automaker- roughly a third of the price it originally paid for the two luxury brands.

If Tata want to make a go of their purchase, (something that alluded Ford) they are going to have to re-think the brand’s perception. For whilst older drivers are only concerned with what’s under the bonnet and the feel of veneer interiors, younger road warriors will be equally concerned with what’s in their heads – in other words, ‘brand perceptions’. To change such perceptions will take the cunning of a jaguar agility of a leopard and broad views of an eagle.

The race is on to become the new Kings of the luxury brand car market… If the new owners get it wrong, it will be a case of ‘Ta-ta’ to a once in lifetime missed opportunity.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: