A Robust Brand
April 2nd, 2009, No Comments »
I thought Doonesbury was particularly amusing today. It requires no further comment:
Why Do Companies Create Anonymous Videos on YouTube?
November 23rd, 2008, 4 Comments »
I’m currently writing the chapter on YouTube in our forthcoming social media marketing book. I’m puzzling over a pretty basic phenomenon of the new media world: the stealth marketing video. Common examples include:
- Guy catches glasses with face - Subsequently attributed to Ray-ban.
- Cellphone Popcorn - Courtesy of Cardo Systems.
- Guys backflip into jeans - A Levis commercial
- Bike Hero - Recently revealed as promotion for Guitar Hero: World Tour.
The process usually goes like this: These videos are posted with only obscure or oblique references to the brands they’re promoting. They’re remarkable and amazing feats (either real or CGI) make then viral hits on YouTube. Sooner or later, the companies behind them disclose the videos’ true origins.
What Do The Brands Stand To Gain?
As in the case of the Cardo Systems video, the company sometimes replaces the video with a new one promoting their brand. Alternately, as in the Ray-ban video, they add a link to their website.
However, in other cases–Levis and Guitar Hero–there’s still no indication on the video page that the video isn’t a legitimate, user-generated and unaffiliated with a corporation.
So why bother? The only tangible, measurable result that I can think of is the free media the companies earn when they go public with the revelation. Of course, this only pays off if the video itself is a success. How many of these corporate stealth videos never get revealed because they only received 8700 views?
There’s considerable value in that earned media. However, this article indicates that “Bike Hero” required four weeks worth of production by an ad agency. That’s quite an expense for what I imagine to be fairly middling media exposure.
As far as I can figure, there isn’t much of a brand awareness gain. After all, the videos usually don’t promote specific brands–that only appears in the subsequent media coverage. And “Bike Hero” isn’t effective unless you’re already familiar with Guitar Hero, the game.
There’s also the question of possible damage to the brand when it’s revealed that the videos are, in fact, from lame corporations. I don’t think that matters very much in the fluid world of YouTube, but it’s worth considering.
So what else do these brands stand to gain?
Two Languages, One Logo
February 17th, 2008, 6 Comments »
Morocco’s first and official language is classical Arabic. Nearly everybody between the ages of five and sixty also seems to speak French. As Wikipedia indicates, French is “taught universally and still serves as Morocco’s primary language of commerce and economics”.
The situation reminds me a bit of things back home, though obviously most Canadian anglophones (while spell-checking that, I learned a new word: Anglophobia. I’m anglophobic about British tourists.) don’t use their French very often. One similarity is how often the two languages–Arabic and French–appear on packaging. Canadians will be familiar with this two-sides-of-the-cereal box phenomenon.
I particularly admired how gracefully Oulmès mineral water deals with this issue. They integrate the two languages into one logo:
The Arabic is interwoven into the French. Isn’t that clever? Admittedly, it makes both a little difficult to read, but I think people will recognize the word mark and brand more than actually read the words.
Why Do Men’s Clothes Have More Brands Than Women’s?
July 8th, 2007, 8 Comments »
Julie and I were remarking on this fact the other day while shopping in Gozo’s only mall. I’m not talking about sportswear here–just standard, average clothes for day to day ‘business casual’ or weekend wear. I’m also not referring to people who voluntarily wear big brands across their chest. This is more insidious.
The branding tends to be small but present on men’s clothes. It’s a visible tag along a shirt’s side seam, or a stitched logo on a the sleeve or pocket of a dress shirt. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about. The branding is often in a similar colour to the garment itself. It doesn’t stand out, but it’s certainly there.
A few years ago I bought a grey hoodie from FCUK with a grey logo high on the shoulder–I didn’t notice it until I brought it home. Being averse to visible brands, I was displeased.
This occurs much less frequently with women’s clothing. Why?
I don’t even have a theory on this one.
Free Marketing Idea of the Week: Brandless Soap
June 25th, 2007, 8 Comments »
I’m quite brand-averse. That doesn’t mean I loathe Nike or Hugo Boss–I just try not to buy clothes which have visible brands. I’d rather not pay good money for clothes that advertise their makers. Though it’s not often applicable, that attitude permeates the rest of my purchases.
There are plenty of other people who feel this way. They’d prefer to live in a world–and more specifically a home–with fewer visible brands.
We happen to be using hand-pump soap here in Malta. It, of course, has a label on the bottle. Each time I wash my hands (which is often, thank you very much), I’m reminded that my hand soap is brought to me by Vidal Europa.
Hence, my marketing idea du jour: brandless soap. A company ought to flout convention wisdom and sell hand soap that offers an easy-to-remove label. They should promote this fact, making the de-brandability a brand all its own, and a difference in the largely undifferentiated world of hand soap.
Maybe somebody already does this? Interestingly, tissue boxes work this way. I wonder why that is?