Pay your Undesirable customer not to use your Brand?

Concerned that its image is being tainted by the rowdy stars of reality TV show Jersey Shore, fashion brand Abercrombie & Fitch has taken the unusual step of offering to pay them to not wear its clothes.

Specifically singling out Michael 'The Situation' Sorrentino from MTV's TV show, who prominently wears Abercrombie apparel, the brand announced that it has offered compensation to the hard-partying star to cease wearing A&F products.

 

In a statement, a spokesperson for Abercrombie & Fitch commented: "We are deeply concerned that Mr Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael 'The Situation' Sorrentino and the producers of MTV's The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand.  We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response."

 

Now in its fourth season, the popular reality show details the exploits of the loud and hedonistic cast as they carouse around the US state of New Jersey – clearly a lifestyle that Abercrombie & Fitch does not want to associate with its more ‘preppy’ image.

 

But will its move to pay off the cast from using its clothes save its brand from damage – or make ‘the situation’ even worse?

 

Unwanted advocates?

 

A&F certainly isn’t the first brand to attract unwanted advocates. Fashion brand Burberry famously became the uniform of choice with football hooligans and so-called ‘chavs’ in the UK, to the extent that some pubs and clubs banned customers who wore the label. At the time, the brand blamed a downturn in sales on its adoption by this unsavoury element.

 

While there was no high-profile star to crack down on, Burberry did seek to reduce the visibility of its distinctive checked pattern from its goods, including entirely removing its checked baseball caps from its line.

 

In a more recent example, retail outlets targeted by looters in the recent UK riots have had insult added to injury by experiencing a fall in brand perception as a result of their association with this unsavoury element.

 

With Adidas and Nike branded clothing featuring prominently in media coverage of the looting, both labels saw their brand buzz plummet, according to YouGov data. Elsewhere, Blackberry’s association with the rioters has been well-documented, with looters using its Blackberry Messenger to coordinate attacks. This has resulted in its brand buzz dropping from 7.9 to -6 since the unrest.

 

But in the age of endorsements, businesses are also very sensitive to the power and influence wielded by celebrities. Mike Spicer, CEO at Pulse Group, highlights: "Brands are much more aware of the impact that media and celebrity culture have created with the growing need for transparency in the public domain. Brands are now responding more quickly than ever to negative associations and are now choosing celebrities or programmes that are closely aligned to the brand values in order to present it in the most positive, and plausible, way."

 

A bold move

 

And so it is that Abercrombie & Fitch has chosen to address the negative perception that it believes it is attracting via Jersey Shore. And A&F’s announcement – even if it is done as a stunt – has been hailed by some as a very positive move.

 

Customer experience expert, and founder of consultancy smith+co, says: “For me it is a terrific example of a Bold brand in that Abercrombie & Fitch are very clear about what their brand stands for (aspirational lifestyle) and who it is targeted at (preppy teenagers). I think it's innovative offer is a real win/win for the brand because if the cast of The Jersey Shore accept the money NOT to wear its clothes it removes the potential for negative brand associations and if the cast do not accept the money and continue to wear A&F product it then becomes a continuing reminder that these people are not A&F target customers.

 

“In either case it draws attention to the brand and what it stands for. The trouble with most brands is that they are unwilling to make these strategic choices and want to be all things to all people and offend nobody. This is probably the first example of 'negative product placement' - i.e. we will pay you NOT to show our product- and it opens up all kinds of possibilities!”

 

Julian Reiter, MD of brand marketing firm Positive Thinking, agrees: “I think it’s a very brave and brilliant move – it certainly gives the story more talkability and raises an important debate about reputation being central to brand success and the decisions brands need to take to keep their marketing strategies on track. I’m sure it is a publicity stunt, and a hilariously clever one at that! There’s only one clothing firm one the lips of millions of people today – that can hardly do any harm, can it?”

 

Craig Wheeler, managing director at direct response and relationship marketing agencywdmp, believes that its move will strike a chord with many consumers.

 

“My ‘water cooler’ research indicates that I’m not the only person groaning at the prospect of Big Brother being back on our screens and frustrated at the number of reality TV shows filling an already dull TV schedule. So good on Abercrombie and Fitch for trying to protect the brand. It could be seen as a smart PR move, one that will certainly get the brand talked about and deliver column inches. Plus it might also create a positive impression of the brand by striking a chord with like-minded people who are tired of lacklustre reality programmes. At a time when society is taking a stand on a number of recent issues at least we now know that Abercrombie and Fitch are willing to do the same. I wonder if the marketing folk at Burberry wish they had done something similar a few years back.”

 

Backfiring on the brand

 

But not all reactions have been positive, and there are some concerns that the stunt could backfire on the brand.

 

“Companies should avoid negative stories and bad press as much as possible, and in my opinion, A&F has acted in a way that might benefit ‘Jersey Shore’, yet damage its own reputation,” says JR Little, senior consultant at brand agency The Brand Union.

 

“It's a risky move, regardless of how you spin it. If it is for PR purposes only, and it appears to be, it could raise awareness of the brand but it’s unlikely to increase sales. Americans don't like it when corporations pick on individuals. There will always be an Americana bias to support the underdog. In this situation, it appears that a corporation has picked on a guy who has every right to wear what he wants. Sure, his values might not match those of the company (hard argument to buy from a company with many controversies under its distressed-leather belt), but going on the offensive may make A&F appear to be a bully, and simply empowering 'The Situation' to speak out against them on TV and social media (as he already has).”

 

Raman Sehgal, owner of ramarketing, also believes that the label could be playing a dangerous game. “As a big fan of the A&F brand, I think this is quite a risky strategy. It's a very interesting move from a brand equity perspective but one that could backfire big style in terms of financial costs. Brands have to accept they can't control everything. The fashion brands that were given unwanted exposure by criminals in the recent UK riots highlight this point. They, like A&F, have to keep faith in their real target audience in that they will not be swayed by such fad shows and media exposure.”

 

Mark Blayney Stuart, head of research at The Chartered Institute of Marketing, agrees. “It's a strange reaction because trying to control how your brand is perceived is likely to be counter-productive. Better to take the positive effects that come from 'any publicity is good publicity' and don't worry about elements you don't like. Burberry has suffered from its 'chav' association. But the point is, you just have to be robust and get on with it. If Burberry had started paying people it didn't like not to wear its brand, it would have just made things worse (if it had any effect at all).”

 

He adds: “If it is a publicity stunt, it's a weary one. The problem with a story like this is that a conspiracy theory can be quickly read into it. When Gap changed its logo a while ago and then changed it back again, what was an almighty cock-up was being cynically supposed in some areas as a publicity stunt. Which in a way confirms our starting point; at the end of the day, any publicity is, on the whole, good publicity. Trying to influence what other people think about you, however, is doomed.”

 

Jessica Bower of brand development agency Sundance, picks up on this final point: "A&F and other brands would do well to remember that brands exists through how others see them, not always how the brand/company sees itself. That is the inherent challenge in managing brands."    

 

Ultimately, of course, the impact of A&F’s action will only be clear once the dust settles. And while some – including Michael Sorrentino himself – leapt upon the news that the brand’s stock price dipped last week, experts have suggested this was more likely the result of other factors rather than its offer to the cast of Jersey Shore.

 

What is clear, however, is that this story has certainly attracted a lot of attention to Abercrombie & Fitch over the past week. And as Blayney Stuart emphasised: “Any publicity is good publicity.”

 

“They have both generated an enormous amount of press from this (more column inches than their PR company will know what to do with), as well as given themselves a huge platform to reiterate their premium positioning,” concludes Stuart Wood, executive creative director at FITCH. “Maybe they could pay me to stop writing about it.”  

source: MyCustomer.com

top 10 half-witted holiday complaints of 2010! Enjoy!

Half-naked women on beaches, sand that is too hot and beds that are too comfy all appear on a list of holiday complaints made last year.

Online travel agency sunshine.co.uk has compiled a list of what it considers to be the top 10 most absurd gripes of 2010, which includes that of a man who spend his holiday in Majorca. He complained that the number of bikini-clad women on the beach caused him and his wife to fall out because he was caught ogling at them "on more than one occasion".

Another who went to the Costa Del Sol was unhappy that his all-inclusive hotel provided too much buffet food because he put on 'at least 5lbs', while a third whinged that his holiday in Portugal had been spoilt because his hotel bed was "too comfy". As a result, he kept oversleeping when he would have "preferred to be up early and making the most of it".

A lady who had holidayed in Lanzarote with her family of four, meanwhile, moaned that the warm weather meant the sand became too hot for her children to walk down to the sea for a swim.

Chris Brown, founder of the website, said that, while the firm was happy to deal with any issues that arose, "we regret we cannot be held responsible for the temperature of the sand, weight gain as a result of the amount of tasty food on offer or the number of fellow English tourists in the vicinity".

The latter complaint referred to a couple who were disappointed by their two week holiday in Marmaris, Turkey, as there were "too many English people around" and they had wanted to experience somewhere "more exotic".

Other gripes included a man who had been to Tenerife but felt ripped off because the Prada sunglasses he had purchased from a street vendor for E4.50 were fakes, and another who felt "pressured" into making love to his wife when on holiday in Bulgaria because the couple in the room next door had made a lot of noise while doing so.

A lady who was intending to go on holiday with a female friend to Dubai was likewise irritated when they got to the airport in the UK without their passports because they had not been reminded to bring them and had not thought them necessary.

But a young woman who went with a group of friends to Ayia Napa in Cyprus was equally unhappy that the reception desk at her hotel was staffed on a 24-hour basis because she felt they were being "judged" for returning to their room at a late hour – even though the resort is renowned for its all-night party culture.

Finally, a male holidaymaker had a good old whinge at the fact that his plane flew too high because his fear of heights stopped him from enjoying his flight to Mauritius.

Is Marketing really a War? Or is it Management?

There have been a number of books in recent years suggesting that successful business is like warfare, e.g. Mark McNeilly’s Sun Tzu and the Art of Business, and likening business leaders to successful generals. But while both business and warfare require leadership, the type of leadership required is very different. Leadership in battle takes place in extreme conditions, but leadership in business and commerce is not a life or death struggle.

However, successful businesses and successful military campaigns do have two things in common. Both require their leadership to select and maintain an aim. They also require the maintenance of morale amongst those who are to achieve the aim. Leadership provides the inspiration and direction but management provides the means of attainment.

 

While some think marketing is another name for promotion and communication, The Chartered Institute of Marketing defines the word as "The management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably". It makes it quite clear that while the purpose of marketing is to produce profitable income, by satisfying customers, the nature of marketing is one of management. Thus successful marketing is about the efficient and effective management of investment and resources to produce profitable income by anticipating and satisfying customer demand.

Producing profitable income

 

So how should marketers go about managing their assets and investments to produce profitable income? Peter Drucker said that "if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it." While this statement may perhaps be simplistic; for those whose responsibility is producing income, then the demonstration of effective management will require quantifiable measurements of "inputs" and "outputs". In other words, effective marketing requires the measurement of those activities which directly or indirectly produce income, together with the amount of income produced

 

In small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), those responsible for producing the income may have very few staff, other than those employed in selling and sales administration. However marketers may be termed, whether sales manager, sales and marketing manager, or marketing manager, they may often have sole responsibility, with minimal assistance, for all the specialist areas of marketing, such as research, communications and customer relations. Marketers in small companies are usually fully occupied having to be involved in all the activities which assist directly and indirectly with producing income. Thus because few people are involved in marketing in SMEs, marketing can be more effectively controlled.

 

In larger businesses, where there are specialist marketing staffs, management becomes more of a problem. While marketing is about the effective management of assets and investment to produce profitable income, it also requires the effective management and motivation of people. Since Marketing has always attracted creative people, who generally do not like to be constrained by quantified objectives or performance measurement, their effective management can be difficult.

 

Until the advent of the desk top computer, virtually all businesses were managed through manual data systems and processes. To produce a sales forecast could take days of work, marketing and business plans could take weeks or months to prepare, and be obsolescent by the time they were complete. However, the developments in computer based automation have revolutionized business operations especially in marketing organisations. Those activities that previously took days or weeks to prepare are now done in hours or minutes. Where does that leave the marketing specialist? For the executive responsible for managing marketing resources the question must be, what do the people involved in the marketing department do that contributes to producing sustainable profitable income for the long term? How are they employed? Is their time used efficiently and effectively? Because so many activities are automated, are they fully occupied? What do they do all day? How do we know?

 

Become effective managers

 

One thing that the executive responsible for managing the marketing staff should do is to establish exactly the detail of each employee’s job. This can be done by getting them to write their own job descriptions, detailing all the activities for which they believe they have responsibility, and which they actually carry out. Making a comparison of their own job descriptions with their official descriptions can make interesting reading, as it will highlight job overlaps, mistaken authority, and gaps in performance and responsibilities. By ensuring that all staffs have clear job descriptions and objectives to achieve, managers have better control over all their resources.

 

Although marketing specialisms cannot easily be quantified in their direct contribution to income production, marketing managers must demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of their specialist staffs with quantified performance data. Both marketers and marketing organizations must justify their existence as well as their use of assets and investment. Those that fail to demonstrate their contribution and efficiency are likely to find that they are surplus to requirements.

 

Analysis of what is done by marketers and how they do it may invite radical change. While technological change has produced innovative ways to communicate with potential and existing customers, as well as produce market research, marketers must expect that similar changes to working methods and organisation are inevitable. Regardless of whether a company is large or small, their aim is to produce money, not just for shareholders but to benefit employees and invest for the long-term future.

 

If marketing is really about managing resources to produce profitable income, then the executives responsible need to become effective managers. Effective marketing management requires quantifiable performance measurement, with the ability to motivate specialist staffs to efficiently contribute to producing profitable income, for the future of the business.

- By Nicholas Watkis.