Merriam Associates, Inc. Brand Strategies » Current Events

Justin Bieber in Brand Endorsement Trouble?

LDMerriam — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:02:32 +0000

Justin Bieber has become the latest celebrity brand spokesman to find himself in brand trouble. Advertising Age wrings its hands at the damage his prank could do to his power as a celebrity endorser for brands such as Best Buy, Proactiv, and Google Chrome.

We’ve covered celebrity brand woes and the impact of personal scandals on national brands at length. Britney Spears shaved her head leading Pepsi to cut her off as a spokesman. Martha Stewart, Tiger Woods and Michael Vick also suffered lost endorsement deals when their immoral or criminal acts dominated the headlines.

Justin Bieber’s prank, trying to return a Wendy’s shake to a Burger King store, hardly rises to the level of scandal that hurts brands. Furthermore Justin Bieber’s brand is that of a cute teenage boy. The prank fits within his brand equity. Advertising Age does point out that being a jerk is part of being a teenage boy. And “teenage boy” is brand equity that sells pre-teen girls.

Note: This prank has gotten very little press mention, further blunting it’s impact on the selling power of Bieber as a pitch boy.

More on celebrities and brands:
When a Brand Is a Person
Nike Endorsement Deal Signals Michael Vick Brand Comeback
Michael Vick’s Potential as a Brand: Lessons from Martha Steward and Tiger Woods
Nancy Pelosi Enlists Steven Spielberg to Fix Her Personal Brand

Google+ Screws Up the Brand Trust Equation

LDMerriam — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:34:56 +0000

I was right in the middle of writing a blog entry on how the well-documented trust problems of the Facebook brand have left a gaping strategic hole that could have allowed Google+ to topple the social media giant. But then Google+ messed up in a big way. They no longer can claim trustworthiness and may have just torpedoed their chances in the marketplace.

Saturday Google+ began a purge of user accounts. The move was unannounced and massive. Even famous people like Arianna Huffington got purged. To make matters worse, a few folks with connections—like Arianna—were able to get their accounts restored. But most people were advised to get advice from forums or apply for a review—essentially Google+ was telling them “tough luck.”

ZDNet summed up Google+’s brand implosion: “Google+ remained silent, and combined with contradictory actions over the weekend it’s now a trust trainwreck, a growing PR shadow and a textbook-case community management nightmare.

The brand math is simple:

No communication + Disdain for customers + Random and contradictory actions and policies =
No brand trust = No reason to dump Facebook for Google+

GooglePlus could quickly become GoogleMinus if the brand continues to operate this way.

UPDATE: A month later, Google+ is still torturing customers. Read this horror story.

News Corp. Brand Will Survive News of the World’s Demise

LDMerriam — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:10:39 +0000

Will the News of the World fiasco hurt the News Corp. brand? I doubt it, for the same reasons that brands like Martha Stewart and Michael Vick have bounced back.

While the hacking has slowed down the business side of News Corp., most notably in its bid for BSkyB, and criminal charges for top execs remain a threat, the News Corp. brand will bounce back because:

1) The public already holds media in low regard. When the New York Times is guilty of wrong facts, slanted reporting and made-up stories and CBS News, the icon build by Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, wears a thick coat of tarnish, illegal hacking is hardly a death blow.

2) In an industry not held in high regard, integrity was never a key part of the News Corp. brand DNA. This is the company, after all, that invented the “Page 3 Girls” and used bare breasts to sell papers.

3) The core audience for the “news” aspect of the News Corp. brand distrusts government, does not idolize the elites that the hacking allegedly targeted, and doesn’t listen to the outrage of moderate-left to fully-leftist critics.

4) News is only a small part of the News Corp brand. Over 70% of the brand revenue comes from TV networks, TV programming, movies and satellite-TV services operations contributed. As Ad Age noted, “Is anyone really going to stop watching ‘American Idol’ on Fox or boycott 20th Century Fox movies over phone hacking by a British newspaper?”

It is “thank you & good bye” for News of the World, but onward and upward for the News Corp. brand.

Osama bin Laden Brand Lives and Profits

LDMerriam — Tue, 03 May 2011 16:57:11 +0000

Osama bin Laden may be dead, but his brand is not. USA Today is reporting the Osama bin Laden brand is suddenly doing a booming business. From bumper stickers and ties to coffee mugs and t-shirts (you can even outfit your dog), the merchandising of bin Laden has begun.

Celebrity branding is a big business. Industry pundit Ira Mayer estimates dead stars generated $2.25 billion in North American revenue in 2009. An ecosystem of specialist agencies and license holders has sprung up to capitalize on lingering fame and brand equity of deceased persons. The likes of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley are worth far more now than they were when they were alive.

Of course, the big draw for the Osama bin Laden brand is that no one claims the licensing rights (though the U.S. Navy SEALs arguably could claim bragging rights). There will be no end to tastelessness. Despite two shots to his head, it is still open season on bin Laden’s brand.

UPDATE: Adweek has been chastised for an article deemed tasteless on the Al Qaeda brand. Indeed branding and bin Laden is completely tasteless–they even got Zombie bin Laden T-shirts on the market in less than 24 hours. Amazing.

Show Your Gratitude…send the Navy SEALs a postcard:

Though working in secret and seeking no glory, they richly deserve our thanks—so let’s give it to them. It would be so awesome to build a mountain of thank you cards from their fellow Americans (and people from all nations). Please take a moment to write the two little words that mean so much. Tell our finest ‘”thank you.” More on SEAL history here.

Social Media Forces Candid Truth from Brands

LDMerriam — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:57:38 +0000

Rance Crain has an interesting post in Advertising Age: “Back in the Mad Men days, when the “pioneers of advertising,” as my old boss Stan Cohen calls them, ruled the roost, it was commonly held that a little exaggeration was not unreasonable to accentuate the selling points of the ad messages.”

Don’t try that today.

Between bloggers and Tweeters, your advertising “exaggeration” will be called out as a lie and your brand will suffer.

Consider these two recent stories:

On the one hand, Chevy Volt initially claimed a 40 mile range per battery charge. Check Twitter and you will find it is between 23 and 25. GM has “revised” the claim to between 25 and 50 miles–still not quite in line with what consumers who use the product are reporting. The buzz on the Volt brand is not positive. Despite GM’s revision, angry tweeters and bloggers continue to attack the discrepancy. The lack of range and lack of “clarity” on the part of GM is one of the reasons depressing demand for the product.

Contrast that with Taco Bell and the “not beef” controversy. A law firm in Alabama sued the company claiming it was not actually using beef in its tacos–and it invested plenty in promoting its beefless claim to get major coverage from media major and minor. Taco Bell has shown that when your brand is honest and does a good job of getting the true story out there, it can weather a public relations storm. Witness how Taco Bell responded to a lawsuit charging the company with not using real beef. The company responded with an integrated campaign combining traditional public relations and newspaper advertising along with new details on its website, offering to give away 10 million tacos to people who “like” its Facebook page and a straightforward video on YouTube featuring Taco Bell President Greg Creed saying, “Our seasoned beef recipe contains 88 percent quality USDA inspected beef.” In addition to listing the beef content, he provides a detailed list of the remaining ingredients. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

From Wikileak threats to Twitter snipes, the truth about your brand will get out. Exaggeration no longer sells, it repells.

Johnson & Johnson OB Tampons Stringing on Brand’s Consumers

LDMerriam — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:40:04 +0000

Johnson & Johnson used to be held up as the ideal case study of how a company should respond in a crisis. Their handling of the Tylenol tampering case back in the 1980s was masterful. Johnson & Johnson’s response to the seemingly endless string of current product recalls, however, has been anything but masterful. (see previous post)

In the midst of unprecedented recalls in scope and size over the past several years, the company’s OB brand of tampons have mysteriously disappeared from store shelves back in early December. It’s March now and still the shelves are empty.

Johnson & Johnson has stonewalled all inquiries to find out what is going on, neither telling people why the brand had suddenly disappeared nor giving any indication of when consumers could expect it to be restocked. When it comes to respecting consumers and clear communication, Johnson & Johnson has lost his masterful touch.

Blogs, Twitter and Facebook have been buzzing with complaints, gossip and speculation. It is one thing to disappoint a customer, but to willfully ignore them is brand suicide. One blogger reported: “I lodged a formal, semi-crazed PMS-induced protest with J&J. They are really pissing off the wrong group of women, don’t you think?”

Indeed!

You would think with the piling up of public relations disasters, someone in Johnson & Johnson would perk up and address consumers. They’ve got nothing on Twitter or Facebook. The official OB tampon Web site is just another rock in their stone wall.

If you don’t communicate with your customer, you can bet the rumor mill will take over—and your story won’t be positive—although it might be amusing. Jessica McGann tweets: “I found all the OB tampons!” and posts a link to these brilliant images:

Is this what Johnson & Johnson wants for its brand message?

Huffington Post Won’t Hurt AOL Brand; Then Again AOL Isn’t Much of a Brand

LDMerriam — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:23:01 +0000

The media universe is in a tizzy (and a-Twitter) about AOL’s acquisition of the Huffington Post. The Wall Street Journal interviews top media buyers who are worried that the liberal voice will hurt AOL’s brand. The problem is that AOL doesn’t really have much of a brand. The company’s move away from an “access” business model (remember the old days of getting CDs in the mail from AOL that let you get on the Internet for $19.99 a month?) to a content company has been slow and less than successful. Competition in the area is overwhelming.

Buying a successful media company, any media company, will help AOL make the transition regarding content. The question is does AOL want to have a political point of view:

They could take the anti-Fox position as a national liberal voice. The problem is that the field is crowded by “mainstream” media including the three legacy broadcast networks, big city newspapers, and other upstarts like the HuffPo.
Beating Fox at its own game is not a good bet to make.

Perhaps the best option is to keep the Huffington Post as a separate brand and retaining its voice and focus intact. AOL can then buy additional focused brands across the spectrum of interests. Each brand can stand distinct and earn its own special following (see this article on the multiple brand approach to brand architecture). AOL with Huffington Post has a better chance at this strategy than, say, NBCU. Many of NBCU’s most high profile brands carry “NBC” in the name. Such a unified naming approach makes it impossible for MSNBC to stand as a liberal voice and NBC to stand as just-the-facts-neutral. And the supposedly separate MSNBC.com brand is not separate at all. (More on NBC brand problems)

Indeed, statements from AOL indicate this could be a possibility. Huffington Post’s traffic is only 15% politics, according to Arianna Huffington, with growth mostly in the areas of women’s issues, books and culture. Yet, with Huffington at the helm, how successful will AOL be in achieving broad reach?

Sarah Palin a Registered Trademark?

LDMerriam — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 23:21:21 +0000

We’ve covered political brands and the subject of brands who are people or with value closely tied to a real person, but today, the web site Mediaite has broken the story of the trademarking of the name Sarah Palin. Pretty soon, that “R” next to her name won’t mean “Republican,” but “Registered Trademark.”

It’s not unusual for to trademark a name. Jennifer Lopez has done it, as has Paul Newman, Michael Jackson, and Martha Stewart–even Ronald Reagan. Still, trademarked names of politicians is rare. Barack Obama hasn’t done it yet. Neither has Nancy Pelosi.

That said, I suspect Sarah is in early on a new trend. Every brand should take every step to “own” their name. For people, owning your own trademark is an inexpensive way to protect your persona, whether you are a celebrity selling salad dressing or a politician turned opinion leader. If you don’t trademark your name, someone else will.

What is interesting about the Sarah Palin trademark application is what it reveals about Palin’s future plans. The left seems fixated on Palin’s political future, but it seems Palin is more focused on “information about political elections” and “providing a website featuring information about political issues”-in other words, a pundit brand, and the other for “educational and entertainment services … providing motivational speaking services in the field of politics, culture, business and values”–could more reality television be in Sarah’s future?

More on brands and real people:
Steve Jobs and Apple’s Future Brand Value
Michael Vick’s Potential as a Brand: Lessons from Martha Stewart and Tiger Woods
When a Brand is a Person

Egypt’s Top Brands – 12 Biggest Corporate Brands

LDMerriam — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:27:54 +0000

Egypt isn’t known for creating global brands. The country wins “Best Country Brand for History” almost every year, but their commercial brands are not winning awards or dominating global markets. Here are the top 12 home-grown corporate brands from that country:

1. Orascom Holdings (including Orascom Construction and Orascom Development)

2. El Ezz Steel

3. Middle East Oil Refineries

3. The Arab Contractors

5. Egypt Air Holdings

6. El Sewedy

7. Telecom Egypt

8. Mobinil

9. Alexandria Minerals & Oils

10. Talaat Moustafa Real Estate

11. Suez Cement

12. Ghabbour Auto

Any one know the biggest Egyptian consumer brands–not brand made by multinationals and marketed in Egypt, but actual Egyptian brands?

Sara Lee Spins Off with Right Approach to Brand Names

LDMerriam — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:03:17 +0000

Since Motley Fool has named 2011 “The Year of the Spin-Off,” we have covered a number of companies who have made a confusing mess of their brands. Corporate spin-offs have led to brand spin-outs for companies like Marathon and Motorola.

Sara Lee is doing it right. The company is keeping its core food business under the Sara Lee name, and is spinning off beverages into a new, yet unnamed company–presumably NOT Sara Lee Beverages. Sara Lee is moving forward mindful of the considerations behind wise brand decisions for successful spin-offs:

1. What drives brand value now and into the future? Which part of the business is most tied to the brand reputation and how does the brand fit with the strategic plans of the parent company and the spin-offs? When AT&T broke up, the brand value was mostly related to the consumer side of the business. The B2B spin-off adopted a new brand, Lucent.

2. What will be the source for future growth? Rebranding can be expensive when you consider things like new signs, repainting vehicles, new uniform, not to mention redoing all marketing communications. These costs should be offset by future profit and volume potential.

3. Brand role should impact spin-off naming decisions. Fortune Brands–another big spin-off this year, is a name closely tied to the liquor business. The golf and home improvement spin-offs need new names.

4. Corporate culture and company structure should not be ignored. The Hanes business had always been run independently, even after it was acquired by Sara Lee in 1979. When it was spun off in 2006, it was easy to leave the old Hanes name and structure in place. Spinning off the beverages business is not so easy. The beverage business was built by disparate acquisition of companies from Holland to San Francisco. This business didn’t have a pre-existing overarching brand or integrated structure.

With these considerations in mind, executives can make wise brand decisions that maximize the value of the parent company and each individual spin-off. Companies can split, but brands cannot.: