Why Dodo isn’t Australia’s Worst Brand

Yesterday, many news outlets reported on consumer ratings compiled from ProductReview.com.  A summary of the newsworthy results can be found here.  The major news emerging from these findings was that budget telco Dodo was named to be “Australia’s Worst Brand”, beating out Nestle, Simpson, Whirlpool and Australia Post for the undesirable title.

For those of you who don’t know, Dodo provides low cost telecommunications services – often at a fraction of the cost of competitors. It doesn’t make things that kill people, exploit international labor laws or provide home loans to people who can’t afford them.  Probably the most offensive thing about the brand is their interminable advertising. (I think it prudent to point out at this point that I have no association with Dodo).

Is Dodo as dead as a …?

Why is it that they have been bestowed with this undesirable title?  What does this really mean?  And is there brand as dead as their namesake?

I would argue that this title is a meaningless and potentially harmful claim which isn’t an accurate representation of how the brand is perceived.

Firstly, the title of “Australia’s Worst Brand is in no way objective.  Just as there is no agreed way to objectively and definitively measure a brand’s value, there is no objectivity in making ridiculous claims of “best” or “worst” – especially when the claims are based on extremely selective sample of customers.

Even as a subjective claim it is extremely contentious.  Figuratively speaking, the lists compiled from ProductReviews.com compare apples and oranges with pears and elephants.  Is experiencing poor internet speeds worse than an owning dodgy car?  Is having a package delayed worse than a fault computer?  The answer is not clear.

Furthermore, consumers who post on ProductReview.com aren’t comparing or ranking brands in similar categories (which would be a more accurate method of comparing like with like).  They are simply giving an arbitrary score out of 5 at one point in time.  Scores which as I mentioned here can be heavily influenced by a vocal minority who “review bomb” the website with low scores – justified or not.

Websites such as ProductReview.com have an important role to play in ensuring people are not being ripped off and that they have a collective voice to hold brands, particularly major players, to account.  However, pseudo-scientific scores and the subsequent publishing of ‘best of’ and ‘worst of’ lists is inevitably a meaningless exercise.  What’s more, considering ProductReview.com to be an independent forum is at best contentious as they openly sell commercial advertising.

Finally, these types of lists may have unintended consequences – for brands who are unfairly targeted by a vocal minority.  I doubt that the customers in the telecommunications marketplace would be better off without a lost-cost player such as Dodo – particularly as their low-cost model appeals to first time internet buyers.

In any case, I doubt whether Dodo’s target market will care too much; it is unlikely that its score on ProductReview.com will dissuade many first time internet buyers or those after the cheapest internet connection available.

// Alec Schumann

Do you really want to be friends? An argument against relationship marketing

“Like us on Facebook!”, “Follow us on Twitter!”, “Join our super-special VIP friendship group!”

Whether they are in the business of making coffees, selling clothes or providing car insurance, it seems as though every brand wants to have a relationship with its customers.  No longer satisfied with simply extracting money from transactions, businesses want to take their relationships with customers to ‘the next level’.  The logic is understandable: as consumers engage more with the brand, they grow to like it more, become more loyal and tell their friends etc.  Thus, the brand becomes ‘stronger’, the marketing department is vindicated and shareholders are happy.

This seemingly prevailing logic is not surprising.  Given the well documented expenses of generating new business, customer retention is a high priority for most firms.  Armed with new technologies, in particular social media, relationship propositions are cheaper and easier to deliver than ever before.  Consciously or not, you’ve probably encountered various relationship propositions numerous times today.

However, what happens when things go wrong and when the brand doesn’t deliver on the relationship as promised?  If a customer has agreed to enter into a social contract with the brand, they will inevitably feel more let down.  It’s this existing contract which makes transgressions feel worse.  A faulty product isn’t simply shrugged off, repaired or refunded; it’s considered a breach of trust and an insult.

Furthermore, these social contracts can make it harder for a brand to deliver hard news to consumers when they have to.  As a bank manager, would it be ‘easier’ to tell a customer they had defaulted on their loans if they were seen as a friend of the bank, or simply another account?  One can think of many more examples when ‘friendships’ between brands and consumers can make the normal course of business harder.

No matter the cause of the brand-consumer relationship failure, consumers often complain loudly, tell their friends and vent on social media.  Like gossip among friends, people are hurt and reputations are damaged, and often irreparably so.

Often by making relationship propositions, brands are offering a social contract that they can’t fulfill and are setting themselves up for more costly failure.  Repairing lost relationships is often more costly and than cutting and running from acquaintances – it’s why getting into an argument with a friend feels more emotionally charged, as opposed to one with a complete stranger.  Business is often easier when the transaction isn’t complicated by a complex social relationship.

Many brands should re-evaluate if they are willing to invest building relationships with consumers beyond business transactions.  Sometimes, simply offering a good service at a good price is enough to build a successful brand.

// Alec Schumann

Modern music festivals: A branded experience

There was something liberating about music festivals of the 1960s and 70s.  They were predominately about music, love and various social (and often anti-commercial) causes.

Fast forward to 2012 and the modern music festival has evolved to become a different experience.  There is still music, but many festivals have increasingly become branded experiences as companies compete to connect with and engage an increasingly fickle and distracted young marketplace.

Festival goers at the recent Splendour in the Grass in Byron Bay Australia were able to shop at Sass and Bide, Quicksilver, in between having a Grill’d Burger and a drink at the Smirnoff Cocktail Lounge or the Jagermeister Hunting Lodge.

Splendour In The Grass: peace, love and brands

Is this commercialisation and ‘branding’ of music festivals a good or a bad thing?  And what does it mean for both companies and consumers?

Corporate sponsorships and commercial partnerships can help promote up-and-coming festivals with the spill over effect of publicizing new acts.  The NME “Generation Next” tour is a good example of this.  Many acts would not gain this level of exposure without a strong commercial promoter.

Corporate sponsorships can also make established festivals more affordable by offsetting the high costs of paying artists, venue and equipment hire, insurances and staffing etc.  It would be extremely hard to fund major festivals like Glastonbury and Coachella without significant financial support from corporate partners.

However, over commercialisation and excessive branding may have a negative effect on the ongoing viability of music festivals.

Many consumers go to festivals for a break from work or study and to enjoy music, friends whilst indulging in various recreational vices.

What’s more, after paying well over $500.00 for tickets, accommodation and transport to a festival, most consumers won’t be able to afford to indulge in a $600.00 Sass and Bide skirt.  And will get annoyed at being repeatedly asked.

It is also about congruence with the event.  Put simply does your brand “belong” and have a right to be at the festival?  Most would agree that the Jagermeister Hunting Lodge had a greater sense of belonging at Splendour in the Grass than the Sass and Bide retail outlet.

Consumers will accept and even embrace a small to moderate level of commercialisation, but if it goes overboard, companies can expect attendance at festivals to decline and engagement with their brand to decrease.

Consumers won’t pay exorbitant festival prices to go to a shopping mall with musicians.

// Alec Schumann

Shame marketing won’t solve the complex problem of obesity

There is something of a trend of what I like to call “shame marketing” emerging.  To address complex social problems like obesity, some organisations are running campaigns based on messages of shame and guilt to in an attempt to bring about positive behavioural changes

For example, Strong4Life (left) ran this intentionally controversial campaign with obese children in an attempt to shame parents in order to disrupt an institutionalised trend of childhood obesity in Georgia.

Strong4Life or Shame4Life?

And the Western Australian Heart Foundation (right) recently ran this series of belly grabbing ads to promote awareness of the potential dangers of carrying a few extra kilos.

Toxic Fat: The campaign director described it as “truly innovative and creative”

Using intentionally controversial messages and imagery to address sensitive and complex problems is purely a shock tactic and will be ineffective in addressing these problems.

An institutionalised and complex problem like obesity will not be reversed by an ad of a fat child.  There is no silver bullet that will solve the problem of obesity.  Rather than simplistic shock advertising campaigns, addressing obesity will involve a series of initiatives which target social and economic issues such as shopping and eating habits, body image and self confidence issues

Even being able to isolate the effect of a single media campaign on the multifaceted process of losing weight is implausible.  It would be hard enough to show that there any relationship between a campaign and obesity, without even making a claim that the media campaign actually caused people to become healthier.

Being able to say these campaigns “work” by encouraging people to get healthy is practically impossible.  And anyone who tries to claim otherwise is making an extremely misleading claim.

Essentially the only good these campaigns do is shock and offend people into talking about the problem of obesity.

// Alec Schumann

Shell’s arctic campaign: snowball fighting with trolls

Shell recently had the well-meaning idea of asking the general internet population to create their next ad about arctic fuel sources.  Posting a meme template with images of the arctic, anyone can enter in ad copy and it is published on Shell’s website http://arcticready.com/social/gallery.

Power on: Let’s melt some ice

On the surface it seems like a good idea.  Allowing customers to have a say in ad copy, in theory will encourage them to engage with the campaign, share it with their friends and feel a stronger sense of ownership in the campaign.  It also allows Shell to crowd source ideas for the campaign and get some constructive ideas about what consumers think about their brand.

Theory does not always predict action, particularly when it comes to online consumers.

Despite Shell’s best intentions, this campaign failed miserably. 

Their official campaign site was attacked by consumers who subverted the campaign message by posting ad copy rich with sarcasm and black humour.

Shell was either not prepared for or did not anticipate this possibility.  What should have been a democratic campaign, quickly turned into a running joke which went viral (even making it onto popular online humour site 9GAG).

Shell: Social Media Fail?

By running this campaign, Shell has likely done more damage to their brand among the general internet population.

In the short term it is an embarrassing social media gaff, but in the long term it may do lasting damage to their brand image as these consumer created, anti-brand images will likely remain on the internet for a long time.

As Shell’s campaign demonstrates, involving consumers in designing your ad campaign is not always a good idea.  It is also a reminder that online consumers can be funny, cruel and subversive in a short meme.

//Alec Schumann

¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré! Or: Do you have the time, to listen to Green Day whine (on a triple-album)?

Power-pop rockers Green Day are releasing a trilogy of albums from September 2012.   Triple releases are rare for popular artists and usually are live recordings or greatest hits compilations.

Green Day: you know, Uno?

But can Green Day pull it off?  Will it be any good?  Will it sell?  And will anybody care?

Critical reception

There have been a number of multi-album releases by comparable artists in recent times, think the Foo Fighters (In Your Honor), the Red Hot Chili Peppers (Stadium Arcadium) and Metallica (Load/ReLoad).  Although they have performed solidly, they have invariably been less strongly received in comparison to the rest of their career.

Multi-album releases such as these by popular artists typically contain strong singles; however inevitably receive a lukewarm reception as albums.  Common criticisms include a lack of quality control, and over-indulgence.

Even some of the most critically acclaimed multi-LPs suffer from filler – think Turd on the Run and I Just Want to See His Face from Exile on Mainstreet and Wild Honey Pie and Revoultion 9 from the White Album.

Just because the band thinks it’s good, it doesn’t mean it should be released.

Selling the album format

It has been well documented that the popularity of album format is declining.  Particularly as platforms like iTunes, Spotify and YouTube have made it easy, and cheaper, to consume singles.

The popularity of these formats suggests that fickle and time-poor music fans simply don’t have the time or desire to sit through albums in the way they used to.  Rather, they create their own mixtapes and playlists, which typically comprise singles spanning genres, eras and artists.

Green Day: After 20 years, what more can they say?

Will Green Day’s trilogy of 3 full priced, power-pop studio albums sell?  Sure Green Day’s loyal supporter base might buy them all – but most consumers will pick and choose the singles they want to add to their playlist in the same way they would songs from a traditional LP.

What will it be about?

Finally, what more does Green Day have to say?  After covering masturbation, teen-angst, the drudgery of middle-class life and a shot a political dialogue – do we need another 30+ songs?

…

At least if it all goes pear-shaped, they could just re-release and tour Dookie.

// Alec Schumann

* I haven’t forgotten the rare cases where multi-disc releases are considered among an artists’ best work (think Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Tom Waits and George Harrison, etc.)

Experiencing the brand – 3 example of communal and sensory marketing

Gone are the days of one-way marketing where simply writing a clever ad is enough to attract and retain consumers. Many consumers seek rich consumption experiences.  They want to be captivated, involved and romanced.  Furthermore, many consumers don’t want to consumer in isolation, they want to get involved with other like-minded people.

Accordingly, some companies are designing “experiences” to interact with their current and potential customers.  These experiences also enable consumers to form a communities with others and effectively creating experiences for them to “live” the brand.

Although these brands emerge in diverse industries, they are similar in that they create and foster communal and sensory experiences for their fans to live their brand.

Lululemon

The athletic clothing company Lululemon has become something of a phenomenon. Their mission is to “create components for people to live long, healthy, and fun lives”. Along the way, they also sell clothes – some $450 million in the last financial year across 142 locations.

Lululemon: Free In-Store Yoga

Lululemon is not an average retailer and their success is largely due to their commitment to creating a distinct and rich consumption experience. They run free yoga classes for their which are religiously attended by fans that wait for hours (and are often turned away when the class quickly reaches capacity). And the interior of the stores look less like Kmart and more like a serene yoga retreat – complete with drinking fountains, thriving plant life and local produced, Lululemon-inspired artwork.

A visit to Lululemon is a sensory and communal experience, which the company has worked hard to cultivate. Customers, current or potential, are romanced by the in store experience, become linked to its community and become strong advocates of the brand.

So Gleeky: The Glee Project Contestants

The Glee Project

TV is no longer just a one-way broadcast medium. The advent of reality TV has given fans the opportunity to audition for their favourite show, and others the opportunity to decide their fate from the comfort of their lounge rooms.

However the first production to combine view participation, reality TV and fictional narrative is Glee. Through the Glee Project, the millions of ‘Gleeks’ audition for the show in the hope of joining the narrative version Glee, whilst their fate is decided by fellow fans who vote for the newest cast member to join the show.

It has helped foster a community of “Gleeks” by making the experience more than simply a television show.  It’s a interactive community where fans actively drive the narrative.

Tough Mudder

Some brands try and create an experience by using military tactics, enlisting customers and getting them to pay to crawl through the mud and climb obstacles. No I’m not talking about a One Direction concert – it’s Tough Mudder, the brainchild of Harvard Business School buddies Will Dean and Guy Livingstone.

Tough Mudder: Communities Forged in Mud

Groups of (mainly) males sign up for the event and form teams and help their fellow comrades complete the course. Obstacles include “electroshock therapy”, the mud mile and variations of climbing, running and swimming challenges. As the organisers say, it’s not a race but a visceral and physical experience for those who are seeking fulfilment in a life of bland office drudgery.

The brand has experienced tremendous growth over the past 3 years, going from a single event in Allentown PA to in excess of 40 locations worldwide. Clearly if you’re going to charge a premium to climb through the mud to experience your brand, it better be worthwhile.

…

So whether your brand is aimed at fitness fanatics, tweens or part time superheros, creating a communal and sensory brand experience can help you market to the more powerfully.

// Alec Schumann

One Direction: fleeting infection or everlasting obsession?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock the size of  Simon Cowell’s ego you would have noticed that UK boy band sensation One Direction have recently visited Australia and sparked something of a media frenzy.

The brainchild of the uber pop producer Simon Cowell, these five photogenic teens have taken the world by storm, even leading some to claim they are the next Beatles.

Although the popularity of One Direction may seem obscene – they aren’t the first boy band to cause teenage girls to cry with excitement, parents to plead with their children to turn the music down and the rest of the male population to feign indifference (but secretly harbour jealousy).

How Self Imposed Limitations Spark Creativity

I’ve always been a big believer in new technology, particularly when it comes to making life easier and more efficient.  The pervasive nature of many technologies has made solving once complex everyday problems amazingly mundane.

If you need food – you go to the supermarket, if you need to get somewhere far away – you jump in a car or a plane and if you need to know the answer to something – you ask Google.

This isn’t a bad thing; however relying on too much technology for everything reduces our need to think creatively.  It becomes easy to fall into a routine of robotically employing a pre-packaged solution to everyday problems.   And a constant reliance on this type of thinking can be harmful to innovation, creativity and original thought.

Vevo: a profitable venture but ineffective marketing

So Vevo, the omnipresent advertising platform on Youtube, made over $150 million in 2011.  Vevo is essentially an advertising platform and is owned by Sony and Universal Music Group and Universal, among others.  And it has recently launched an Australian specific platform, signing up a number of big names (Mentos, Sony Music, Paramount Pictures and Vodafone).

In an era of more slightly ‘progressive’ marketing strategies, whether it is content marketing, opt in branded communities and collaboration with consumers – Vevo is very much based on a traditional model of advertising as an unwelcome interruption.