Look at the date and time of this blog.
It is dated one day before President Obama was elected as the new leader of USA. Why such confidence in my prediction? I just feel it in my bones – not just because of Mr Obama’s tenacity but also, thanks to a change in the air helped in no small part by a remarkable young man from an unremarkable English town called, Stevenage.
At the tender age of 23 Lewis Hamilton has become the world’s youngest Formula 1 world champion. That’s great news for him. Terrific news for his father, Anthony who coached him. Inspiring news for the black community and outstanding news for his bank manager who can anticipate sponsorship earnings in excess of one billion dollars.
Brands hatched
The headline grabbing ‘$1bn price tag’ has been estimated by Forbes magazine. According to Sports Illustrated, Hamilton’s earnings to date are around £17 million (sterling). David Beckham is worth up to £31million. Tiger Woods is worth around £72 million. (In 2004 alone, David Beckham brand endorsements were worth approx. £17.3million).
Currently Hamilton has a branding contract with McLaren worth £75million over five years. His endorsement for Reebok is reportedly worth around £20million. According to the Sunday Times Rich List, Hamilton shares the same wealth ranking as Cristiano Ronaldo (15th place). With brands waiting in the wing to present their business cards, he can shortly expect an even higher grid position in the rich-race.
As part of his racing team, Hamilton also sponsors Vodafone, Santander, Johnny Walker, Mobil, Boss and FedEx. He also has a deal with Bombardier jets, which he occasionally uses for private flights. Rumours have it that his management is also in discussions with Sony and Pepsi.
Young gift and British
So what makes Hamilton so valuable to brands? In three words: talent, age and glamour.
Hamilton’s driving skills are beyond reproach – and it is promised that the best is yet to come. The credit crises means that brands have to be especially careful about who or what they invest in. Hamilton is no ‘one-lap’ kid. His father, Anthony, has groomed him from a tender aged for greatness. His youth offers a great unfolding story that, even in its first chapters has kept the press turning the pages to see what comes next. That’s nectar for global corporate brands, especially in the banking and oil sectors which have taken a perception beating from the public and now are desperate to be associated with glamorous, yet accessible world-stage sports like Formula 1 racing.
With David Beckham slowly but steadily approaching the end of his active football playing years, Hamilton is primed to become the next celebrity idol for the gossip magazines to paw and ponder over. The breathtaking rise to almost winning the championship last year and then finally taking the crown this year is compelling copy for magazine editors. His relationship with Pussycat Dolls singer, Nicole Scherzinger, has already drawn comparisons with ‘Posh and Becks’. So far that has seen photos in the press of the couple hand in hand in Paris, at Mandela’s 90th birthday party and of course the Monaco Grand Prix. All his provides brands with an even broader audience appeal than petrol-heads at noisy race-meets. Add to the mix his investment in a glamorous hotel complex in Grenada and his Swiss home retreat – and you have the perfect marketing celebrity ingredients of intrigue, personality and status.
The last racing driver to even come several laps close to Hamilton’s branding power potential would be someone like Schumaker who became a one-man brand selling everything from his own sunglasses to branded dolls and games and believe it or not –a branded vacuum cleaner!
Much has been made of the fact that Hamilton is mix-raced. That has given communities of all ethnicities something to sing in praise of. His skin colour also gives credit to a multi-racial, global Great Britain which, at last, has a young man it can present to the greater community as being more interested in the twists and turns of the race-track rather than twirls and tumbles of being politically stereotyped as either a Chav or Hoodie.
Realising the dream
Which brings me to President Obama: Another brand hero in the making. Again, compared to his predecessors, he is the young new kid on the block. Apart from right or left-wingers – Obama appeals to everyone looking for what people suffering in a recession need in copious amounts – hope.
It seems that the world has reached a critical tipping point that demands change and vitality.
In both cases, providing Messrs Hamilton and Obama stick to what they know best – negotiating the road ahead with skill and tenacity, in terms of their brand personas, the future looks like being a thrilling and profitable ride for all – in more ways than one.
Following the President’s plea for the House of Representatives to vote for a $700-billion Wall Street bailout plan, marketers have suggested that the President should have concentrated on the word “rescue” rather than being seen to offer a “bailout”.
Paradoxically in his address to the nation on 24th September, a sombre President Bush didn’t even mention the ‘B’ word. Instead he said:
“I propose that the Federal Government reduce the risk posed by (these) troubled assets and supply urgently needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending. This rescue effort is not aimed at preserving any individual company or industry. It is aimed at preserving America’s overall economy.”
What he only once referred to ‘rescue’ the world’s press, and many members of the House of Representatives interpreted and damned as “bailout”. Expressions like ‘bailout’ imply failure and breakdown: the utter antithesis of the homegrown virtuous American dream of success and foresight.
A simpler truth
Arguably from a branding perspective, President Bush’s advisors could have come up with clearer message of intent. Reportedly many branding experts such as Andrew Bennett, CEO of Euro RSCG, suggested that the White House should have simplified the President’s message.
Others in the marketing community recommended that the proposal should have been rebranded in terms of an act of selfless heroism.
In such a case spin-doctors could have repackaged the emergency in the equivalent terms of a movie trailer. The American people would have been presented the image of the kind yet tough New York Firefighter daring to face the deadly backdraft – all to rescue the weakened economy from the roaring flames of recession.
Alternatively branding people could have re-pitched the crisis in terms of a David versus Goliath battle. Here outrage is expressed against the giant ‘wicked warlocks of Wall Street’ in need of a sharp lesson meted out by the simple community of god-fearing Americans (the ‘Davids’) inspired by their leader George – the dragon slayer. (A subtle homage to the special UK/US relationship.)
The argument goes that if the President would have realigned his national address in the kind of positive terms used at the beginning of the current conflict in Iraq, at the very least he could avoided being demeaned by The House of Representatives who initially rejected his “rescue” plan.
Assertive leadership
Within twelve hours of the fall of the Twin Towers President Bush promised immediate and positive rescue tactics. His speech repeatedly affirmed his assertive leadership to rescue rather than redeem.
For example:
“I implemented our government’s emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.”
Whilst no one directly compares the human horror of 9/11 to the current situation, it is interesting to consider how sometimes a President - or any leader - is perceived not simply by what is said, but how a message is delivered and so understood.
The same is true in any branding exercise. From marketing sports to politicians, the art of branding isn’t simply about catchphrases or logos: At its heart is the soul of a message. At the centre of it all is a simple meaning that is explained and detailed in full.
Ironically it was President Bush himself who once said: “In my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in.”
In today’s sound-bite society such an approach should be taken for granted as a ‘101’ lesson for any politician wishing to highlight a message to the press who report meaning, along with the public who judge that meaning’s merits and value.
Tony Blair understood this when he said, “Education, education, education”. Martin Luther King understood it when repeated and explained his “dream”.
Perhaps in his closing weeks as leader it is just too late for President Bush to be an Abraham-like figure; offering a firm outstretched hand to sacrifice what is dear for a greater cause. His legacy may be abandoning the otherwise proud American people to be bailed out by a new world order of international rescue.
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
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
Eight weeks after the Terminal Five brand fiasco I paid a return visit to the multi million pound shed in Heathrow to see how things have improved. I was flying to Newcastle with BA.
My sat-nav didn’t allow for T5 on the map and apart from two signs one mile from the airport, there were no actually clues as to where anything was. Running late I eventually uncovered T5 Business Parking only to discover from the parking attendant that BAA hadn’t actually planned enough spaces for business parkers so I had to park the car in an unofficial spot next to a tree. Worried about my car’s safety but even more concerned about catching my flight in time, I hailed a courtesy bus to the terminal.
Apart from the additional ten minutes it takes for aircraft to get from T5 to the runway (something they don’t tell people about) the rest of the journey was fine.
Staying overnight in Newcastle to deliver a talk the following morning, I settled into my Hilton room to watch a bit of telly. One commercial caught my eye: Drench Mineral water. It showed one of my childhood favourite characters, Brains from Thunderbirds dancing in the style of a raver. Whilst I guess this could be considered funny, deep down I felt gutted. Here was Brains, the cleverest guy in the whole international rescuing business, selling out to a mineral water company to perform like a limp puppet on a jangly string. (What happened to respect at least towards all the countless numbers throughout the world who owed him a debt of gratitude?) Read the rest of this entry »