Branding is relational, not transactional. It's about retention, not acquisition. I work with companies and governments to identify and develop the strategies required to build the relationships that ensure ongoing branding success.
I call it data driven branding & it should not be confused with creative driven branding.
I'm also a rugby nut & devoted family man, probably in that order, but don't tell my wife!
Here’s a very well written and very passionate article about the Devaluation of creativity. It’s written by Bob Hoffman best-selling author and one of the most sought-after international speakers on advertising and marketing.
The article is particularly relevant here in South East Asia where creativity is increasingly seen by CEOs and business owners as nothing more than a commodity. Something that can be bought at the cheapest price, or quite often in the case of successful ideas – and I’ve thought hard about this – stolen.
But I don’t want to talk about creativity, I want to talk about advertising and in particular, what it does. Because I stopped reading the article when I reached this part “We need to convince marketers once again that the most effective way to build brands is through the unique and unmatched power of great advertising ideas.”
Sorry, but first it’s wrong to make such sweeping generalisations about branding and secondly, it’s no longer 1979. Advertising doesn’t build brands. Sure it might draw attention to brands and it might influence opinions. It might even help sales of brands. Advertising might, on occassion encourage repeat purchases but it it isn’t enough to build brands.
According to Ernst & Young approximately 25,000 new products are launched every year and most of them by companies such as Unilever who spend around US$10 billion a year on advertising yet 22,000 of those products fail to make it to the second year. Despite all those billions spent on advertising.
The very reason so many brands fail is because they are convinced that the unique and unmatched power of great advertising ideas builds brands. The ability to deliver value – economic, experiential and emotional value (and increasingly, social value) – is what builds brands.
Your organisation needs to be in a position to deliver that value at every touch point and every time, before it even thinks about advertising. And actually if you manage to reach such a pinnacle, you probably won’t need to spend money on advertising.
This month they’ve asked a number of brand consultants in Asia about Asean@50 about the state of nation branding in the region and the potential of Asean countries to work together to drive tourism and investment to the region. You can read the full article here
As I was one of the consultants interviewed, I thought I’d have a look at what Asean is doing to drive visitors to the region as part of the Asean@50 celebrations. The primary goal of the campaign is to encourage visitors to look at visiting more than one ASEAN destination.
The introduction to my comments on nation branding in Asia
As part of the celebrations for its 50th anniversary, ASEAN has created a theme “Partnering for Change, Engaging the World”. There is also a collaborative tourism campaign: “Visit ASEAN@50: Golden Celebration”.
I’m yet to see this campaign in Malaysia or Singapore but a new website has been created however it doesn’t seem to feature too much information. On the events page, there were no events for Malaysia in March and none till October.
For visitors to use the site, there needs to be plenty of the right information
There’s also another tagline for South East Asia “Feel the warmth”. This is featured on the Asean Tourism website. I couldn’t find a Facebook page however the hashtag #visitasean50 has appeared on Facebook but there doesn’t appear to be any structure to any of the communications.
There are a couple of videos on YouTube, one of which has been shared about 40,000 times on Facebook but again there doesn’t seem to be any strategy behind any of the postings.
A Twitter page was created in July 2014 but it appears inactive.
I don’t have the full details on the project and we are only at the end of the first quarter of 2017 so the strategy maybe to start later in the year although many in the northern hemisphere will be planning their holidays now so the digital representation needs to be improved and improved quickly.
Mass tourism is barely forty years old. I can still remember family discussions back in the seventies about how a British traveller was only allowed to take a maximum of £50 out of the country which meant few people could travel. With a father based in Malta and Gibraltar, as well as Hong Kong and Singapore, I was lucky enough to see more of the world than many.
Anyway, a few years ago we were hired by Malaysia’s tourism ministry to carty out what was at the time, and probably still is today, the most comprehensive brand audit ever done for a country’s tourism board. You can get a copy of a case study on the project by sending me your email address.
Due to client confidentiality rules, I can’t disclose all of our more than 300 recommendations but I can say that one of the recommendations was for a comprehensive overhaul of the incentives offered to the private sector to encourage more investment in the stagnant tourism sector.
During the brand audit discussions with visitors who had visited Malaysia, an often repeated comment was that they loved the country but didn’t think there was enough here to make them come back again. Yet to build a successful destination brand, you need that repeat visitation. This requires ongoing investment in products.
One of the problems in Malaysia is that property development is essentially risk free because of the sell then build model used here. What this means is that projects are often sold before work on them begins. Compare that to an investment in a hotel than has no guarantee of success and even if it is successful, can take 10 – 15 years before the developer sees a return on investment.
To my knowledge there have been few changes made to major tourism related policies because outside of Kuala Lumpur, there has been very little investment in the tourism sector. In fact, one frustrated operator complained recently that there are more 5 star hotels in Hua Hin Thailand than there are in the whole of Malaysia, excluding Kuala Lumpur.
This has to change and it has to change soon before this opportunity is lost. Because the next 10 years are expected to see a travel and tourism boom.
Travel and tourism can help Malaysia’s economy
Which is why South East Asian countries are investing heavily in their tourism products. After years of rising room rates and high occupancy, Australian investors and developers are increasing hotel development from Perth to Sydney and Hobart and up to Melbourne and Brisbane.
Australia’s hotel supply is growing 2.5 times faster than its long term average rate and 12,000 rooms will be added to the inventory by 2020. Tourism related investments are now close to A$30 billion, up from $17 billion in 2014.
Tourism investment is a priority for Indonesia as the government aims to attract 20 million visitors by 2019 and is revamping it’s tourism incentive programme to encourage investment.
According to the Saudi Gazette, the King of Saudi Arabia will spend 12 days in the country from March 1st as part of his Asian tour, and tourism development will be high on the agenda as the country targets over US$25 billion investment from Saudi.
Confident of positive long-term growth prospects for Thailand’s tourism industry, institutional investors from Hong Kong and Singapore accounted for around 45% of the total transaction volume in the country.
In Malaysia, according to Pemandu, the organisation set up to oversee the government’s transformation programme, RM24.5 billion (US$6 billion) of private investment was made in the tourism sector in Malaysia in 2015, making it the second highest private investment contributor, despite an alarming fall of 6% in arrivals in that year.
During the King of Saudi Arabia’s tour of Asia, he will also spend 3 days in Malaysia but the country’s ailing O&G industry appears to be the main topic on the agenda. Other figures for investment in tourism in Malaysia are hard to come by. However, outside of the capital, anecdotal evidence suggests investment is minimal.
Malaysia also suffers from a weak international image as well as a lack of buy in from stakeholders such as taxi drivers, travel and tour operators, hoteliers and retailers.
This needs to change otherwise Malaysia may miss out on the increased arrivals into the region as evidenced by the image above that shows the fastest growing flight routes around the world.
According to this chart, outside of India and China, the fastest growing routes will be to SE Asia. If Malaysia wants a bigger piece of this dynamic industry, it needs to make some significant policy changes to encourage more investment in the tourism sector.
According to its website, Nestle is “the leading Nutrition, Health and Wellness Company”.
It also says, “We enhance lives with science-based nutrition and health solutions for all stages of life, helping consumers care for themselves and their families.”
Personally, I like their chocolates (I have a soft spot for dark chocolate KitKats), condensed milk and milk substitutes while our pets like their range of cat and dog foods.
I’m not sure how Carnation and Coffee Mate, or for that matter chocolates enhance my life but let’s not go there. But perhaps they should add ‘and their pets’ to the above claim.
Anyway, the Swiss icon, which is now the world’s largest packaged food group, reported sales of US$89.3 billion in 2016, up 3.2% on an organic basis. Well below the 4.2% growth in 2015 and is the fourth time Nestle has missed its “Nestle Model,” that aims for 5 – 6% growth per annum.
What’s interesting is that in the years 2011 – 2014, Nestle spent a cumulative US$12 billion on advertising. Not marketing, PR, promotions or anything else, just US$3 billion a year on advertising.
That’s a huge chunk of cash. And it’s like they need to spend that amount just to stand still because growth of 3.2% is not much better than standing still. Surely there’s a better way?
Montblanc is a famous pen brand that prides itself on its heritage, workmanship and quality.
The Montblanc web site says, “Montblanc has been a consistently present beacon in the luxury brand market for nearly a century. Having been celebrated for generations as the paramount creator of writing instruments, we have since branched out in order to offer you exquisite watches, leather pieces, jewelry, fragrance and eyewear.”
It’s a compelling proposition and one that my daughter thought I would buy into.
So she saved up enough money to buy me a Montblanc pen for my birthday. Like any father will tell you, this was a very important gesture for her and me. Although every present from her meant the world to me, it was a step up from the Mickey Mouse socks or The Who coffee mug I was used to getting.
And I cherish my Montblanc pen more than just about anything else. For a while I didn’t take it out of my home office. And then I took it on a business trip to London but was so worried I would lose it, I put it in my briefcase and didn’t use it until I got back to Malaysia.
It stayed on my desk and was reserved for signing cheques, letters and the occasional greeting card. I cherished that pen more than anything. And then one day it broke. I was unscrewing it like it was meant to be unscrewed and the cap snapped.
And it snapped at the point where the cap screws onto the pen shaft. I went on the Montblanc website to find out the warranty information and found this confusing statement, “Montblanc writing instruments are under a 24 month warranty from date of purchase or receipt as a gift, against manufacturer’s defects.
Obviously a manufacturing flaw
Manufacturer’s defects do not include lost parts, damage resulting from everyday use, or if the product has been dropped or banged against a hard surface.”
After reading the warranty information I was none the wiser but this being a luxury product, I was confident I could get the pen fixed under warranty but when I contacted Montblanc they told me, very nicely that there was a 2 year warranty on the pen but it didn’t cover my problem.
So basically here I was with a product that was sold as a ‘beacon in the luxury brand market for nearly a century’ and ‘the paramount creator of writing instruments’, but in reality wasn’t fit for purpose due to what seemed to me to be a design flaw.
I’m no pen expert but it was obvious to me that it was a design or materials flaw because there is too much pressure on the cap. The cap material simply wasn’t strong enough to sustain the strength of the screw on the shaft.
Perhaps the screw was made in Europe but the pen top was made in China?
So the branding issue is what should Montblanc do? Do they deliver on their promise that they are a leader in the luxury brand market, admit the issue is their fault, do the right thing and replace the pen or at least the top? Or do they ignore the customer and hope he will go away and accept that luxury lasts 2 years?
Historically a brand would simply quote the terms and conditions of the purchase, which is what Montblanc did. A case of ‘thanks for buying our expensive product that only lasts 2 years. We’re sorry, but it’s too bad’.
This initial experience with Montblanc was a huge disappointment. It bought me crashing down to earth. This luxury brand with impeccable heritage was refusing to deliver on the promises made on its website.
The brand refused to take responsibility for what was obviously a design flaw and told me I had to pay for the repairs.
Like a good citizen I got a quote from a Montblanc shop and they told me the repairs would cost US$125. I was basically between a rock and a hard place. Either pay the US$125 or have half a luxury pen.
Now in the mass economy when branding was transactional, I would have had limited opportunity to voice my frustrations or influence future purchases. I might have written a letter to the editor of my daily newspaper or to the company.
And I could probably influence my family and a few friends to never buy a Montblanc but the brand could live with that.
But in today’s much more competitive, social and relational environment, the consumer now defines the brand and brands need to understand that not only must they deliver on any promises they make, they must also look to every single sale not as a transaction, but as the beginning of a relationship.
That’s the responsibility they have. They might not like it but if they want the customer’s money, that’s what it costs. It’s not easy to maintain those relationships but with relationships comes trust and trust allows companies to charge higher prices.
Smart brands understand that today, if they make a promise they have to live up to it. They understand that there are certain ethics they need to aspire to in order to deliver on their brand promise.
Montblanc promised me luxury and distinguished heritage of close to 100 years but hedged their bets with a 24 month warranty. That’s essentially hypocritical.
I wasn’t happy so took my frustrations to the Montblanc Facebook page where I complained. Initially Montblanc refused to accept responsibility for the matter and referred me to the opaque warranty. This was not a good idea.
So I got ready to launch a rant on Twitter, create videos for YouTube and post pictures on Instagram, write negative blog posts, share the videos, comment on forums and search for discussions on pens so that I could share my experiences.
I mapped out what I was going to say on anti Montblanc websites and Facebook pages that I would create and even use the experience as a case study in my next book.
When faced with complaints, great brands listen carefully and do their research before doing the right thing by their customers. I think that Montblanc initially anyway, acted fast but then reflected.
Because a couple of days later I got a call from Terence Tan, the retail manager of Montblanc in Kuala Lumpur. He asked me to bring the pen to the shop and they would fix it for me at no cost.
Thanks Montblanc, you did the right thing & trust in your brand is restored
I took the pen in and Terence was apologetic and professional. He outlined the process and that I would be called once the pen was fixed. And sure enough he called me personally and told me who to speak to if he wasn’t around because he was travelling in the next week.
In other words, Montblanc supported what it says on the website.
And as a result, instead of all the negativity I mentioned above, I’m writing about my positive experience with the brand. I’m enhancing their reputation, substantiating their brand promise and creating more emotional connections with the brand.
Montblanc can now use my positive experience in its brand building strategy. And this is important because up to 70% of customers rely on customer reviews before making a purchasing decision.
These reviews provide the social proof increasingly cynical and jaded consumers need before making purchasing decisions.
Integrated into the Montblanc brand strategy and shared across the ecosystem, Montblanc has the chance to turn a disgruntled customer into a brand advocate by leveraging on the positive feeling created at minimal cost to the brand.
Because now I’m no longer a component of a transaction, I’m now in a relationship with a brand I care for and who obviously cares for me.
So the next time someone complains about your brand, have a think about the complaint. Look at it from their perspective, not from yours. And think about it from a relational, not transactional perspective.
If you do, you may not only make a sale, you may make and keep a customer.
The English Premier League is broadcast to 70% of the world’s 2.1 billion football fans in 212 countries and territories around the world. Asia and Oceania represents 35% of that global audience.
In China alone, up to 18 broadcasters show nearly every game every week to more than 350 million fans across the country.
As of last year, a number of Asian brands including Thailand’s Chang beer (Everton) and King Power (Leicester City), Japan’s Yokohama Tyres (Chelsea), Yanmar and Epsom (Manchester United), Hong Kong’s AIA (Tottenham Hotspur) and GWFX (Swansea City) could be seen on advertising at grounds and/or on shirts.
Betting firms such as 138.com and UK-K8 who are targeting Asia are represented on the jerseys of West Bromwich Albion, Bournemouth, Watford and Crystal Palace.
In the championship, AirAsia sponsors Queens Park Rangers and Malaysia has a relationship with Cardiff city. Last year Malaysia Airlines signed a three year deal to be the official carrier of Liverpool after Garuda Indonesia relinquished the role.
Any reference to Malaysia Airlines on the Liverpool Facebook page?
Football has become popular with big global brands because of its impressive reach and because traditional channels such as TV are becoming fragmented as new services like Netflix, iflix and Amazon prime as well as Youtube, Facebook and others make it increasingly hard to gain the eyeballs all brands insist they need.
Football gives these brands the opportunity to reach a mass audience as well as be associated with what is obviously a very popular sport.
But in an economy driven not by what a company says it does but by what its customers experience, I question the relevance or validity of this approach.
I also think that if the logic is that by supporting a football team, a brand reaches out to all that team’s fans then surely fans of other teams will not support that brand?
And what if the team does badly? How does the association with a badly performing product reflect on the brand?
Take the case of Malaysia Airlines and Liverpool. Liverpool is one of the greatest, most iconic football clubs in the UK. The club was established in 1892, four years after the original premier league was set up.
The club’s trophy cabinet contains eighteen domestic League titles, seven FA Cups and eight League Cups, more than any other club.
They’ve also won five European Cups, three UEFA Cups and three UEFA Super Cups which means they’ve won more European trophies than any other English team in history except Manchester United (also 41).
That’s an impressive record but there’s a problem, they haven’t won an EPL title since 1992. Does that matter? Well it should do.
Does a brand such as Malaysia Airlines, which is going through a business turnaround plan to make it more competitive, efficient and effective, want to be associated with a team that hasn’t won anything significant for nearly 40 years?
And over the last few years, Liverpool has developed a reputation for poor winter form. The team won 2 out of ten matches at the start of 2016. In January 2017, Jurgen Klopp’s team lost 3 matches at Anfield in one week and as a result, was unceremoniously dumped out of two major competitions.
The team narrowly missed their worst run of losses at home since 1923 with a 1-1 draw against Chelsea at the end of January but the poor form continued into February with the recent 2-0 defeat away to lowly Hull City, 15 places below them. Only time will tell if last Saturday’s win against high flying Tottenham was the beginning of a new dawn or a flash in the pan.
If the latter, how does that reflect on Malaysia Airlines?
The Malaysia Airlines logo appears at the bottom of the home page, between the beer and the donuts
Liverpool are now 13 points off the leaders Chelsea and definitely under achieving.
Sure Malaysia Airlines is getting the eyballs, assuming viewers are watching the LED panels around the ground but is it the right environment for the brand? Is being associated with a team that is underachieving going to leave a positive impression?
You could argue that all Malaysia Airlines is doing is trying to raise awareness. But is raising awareness the right way forward? Is there anyone out there NOT aware of Malaysia Airlines?
Before Malaysia Airlines stepped in, Garuda International was the official carrier of Liverpool but after three years and a comprehensive study to determine if the airline was benefiting from the sponsorship, they pulled the plug. Surely if they felt they were getting value for money, they would have stayed on?
Garuda wasn’t the only sponsor to see little value in sponsoring teams in the EPL. In June 2016, Chinese smartphone maker Huawei ended its relationship as “official smartphone partner” to Arsenal after two years, citing “limited visibility.”
Malaysia Airlines hasn’t disclosed the amount it is paying to be the official carrier but Garuda forked out US$9 million (RM40 million) a year for the privilege.
So if Malaysia Airlines is paying the same (probably more but anyway), that’s US$27 million or RM125 million for brand exposure on LED and static boards at each home game, exposure on the Liverpool FC website which seems to consist of the logo at the bottom of the page, in publications and on the Facebook page although a quick look at the Liverpool page failed to find any reference to Malaysia Airlines.
The package is also supposed to include co-branding opportunities, merchandising rights and pitch side access with players and legends.
That’s a lot of money to pay to increase awareness of an airline that is probably known to everyone on the planet. But Malaysia Airlines CEO Peter Bellew thinks the deal, “has changed perception radically for us, in China, in Thailand, in the U.K.”
He didn’t explain what the perception of Malaysia Airlines was before the deal and how advertising on LED panels can change those perceptions.
The first game at which Malaysia Airlines appeared was a Liverpool v Manchester United match at the beginning of the 2016/17 season.
Liverpool managed to hang on for a draw, not an auspicious start. During the game, Malaysia Airlines advertised roundtrip fares between Kuala Lumpur and London at a ridiculously cheap £395 (RM2,299).
Branding is not about sales, it’s about relationships
Confusingly, Bellews credits the passenger load increase on the Kuala Lumpur to London route from 45% in May 2016 to 63% in December 2016 to the Liverpool deal and was quoted in one newspaper as saying, “Old-fashioned sales and marketing works.”
Slashing prices to the bone and spending RM125 million to raise awareness (and to change perceptions) and tell football fans you are selling tickets at £395 when other airlines are selling the same route at £500 isn’t really old fashioned sales and marketing, it’s just old fashioned and more importantly, unsustainable.
And to be frank, it’s hard not to fill a plane from Malaysia to the UK in December as thousands of expatriates head home for Christmas and thousands more Malaysians head to Europe for the long holiday.
Irrespective of the fact that Malaysia Airlines is sponsoring a weak product, there is also the question of whether football fans in Asia, watching matches as they do in coffee shops, bars and roadside stalls at 2, 3 or even 4am really take in the messages on the LED billboards.
And even if consumers do take in and accept the limited messages that can be communicated on a pitchside screen there is another flaw to this process. What if performance doesn’t match any perception created?
Of course in the ‘old fashioned’ world that didn’t matter because the focus was more on acquistion anyway and there was a belief that there were always going to be new customers.
At least that’s what TWA, Swissair and the other 300 airlines that have failed over the past 50 years thought.
Brands such as Malaysia Airlines generally succeed, or fail not based on their advertising, positioning or associations but on operational issues, service capabilities, retention and the experiences of others we relate to.
The problem for Malaysia Airlines is that today, all of the above are played out on Facebook, in the letters pages of newspapers and in the comments sections of popular bloggers.
Dissatisfied customers can change perceptions and damage brands on social media much faster than those brands can change perceptions through pitchside LED screens.
In the ‘old fashioned’ world, brands reached out to the masses. Awareness and sales took precedent over customer development.
I get the feeling that Malaysia Airlines is focussing too much on getting back into the black, no matter what the cost. Selling tickets at RM2,299 and old fashioned sales and marketing tactics may just do that.
But what happens when the carrier wants to increase prices? If Malaysia Airlines has been attracting price conscious customers, won’t they move on to the cheapest carrier?
And if this model is successful, then it will probably be the next advertiser on those LCD screens.
Peter Bellew the Chief Executive of Malaysia Airlines appeared chuffed to bits earlier this month when announcing the carrier had made its first monthly profit for a number of years in December 2016. I don’t want to appear pedantic but the former Chief Executive, Christoph Mueller announced last April that the carrier made its first monthly profit in February 2016 in this interview with Business Insider.
In the same interview, Mueller also said, “the airline’s products are “tired” and don’t appeal to young travelers.” Fast forward a year and the Nikkei Asian Review (NAR) is telling the industry, “Bellew’s efforts in improving the management and work culture, including at the baggage and maintenance departments, and a marketing strategy to attract Malaysians to fly on its planes again, has worked.”
Making a profit, but at what cost to the brand?
In the article, Bellew is quoted as saying, “About a year ago, the company was flying Boeing 737 jets with only 5-10 passengers on board some flights. On Airbus A380 super jumbo flights to London in November 2015, some flights only carried 50 passengers.”
The article continues, “As of last May, the carrier was filling 45% of seats on its London flights. Last month, however, the figure reached 63%. Overall, the company filled 90% of seats in December and 82% in the last quarter, he said. That was up from the 79.3% reported for July-September. Business bookings are running at double year-ago levels.
What does this mean exactly? May is traditionally a slow month for the European routes whereas December is a peak month. I would suggest then that 45% in May is nothing to write home about but it is not terrible. But he says ‘last month’ which I presume is referring to December 2016 (the interview was in January 2017) the figure reached 63%. If that is referring to December then it is worrying.
Business class on Malaysia Airlines is not what it used to be
But confusingly, the article then says the company filled 90% of seats in December which seems to contradict the initial statement. What we do know is that Bellew and Mueller have slashed operating costs to such an extent that Malaysia Airlines is now essentially a LCC, especially for domestic flights.
What I’ve noticed, and many others are also of the same opinion, is that its people do not have the communication skills required to engage effectively with passengers when there is a situation. Reasonable requests for explanations are met with a shrug or a mumbled reply.
When I flew business class recently and a fellow passenger’s phone repeatedly beeped during the approach, suggesting incoming messages which meant his phone was on when it shouldn’t be, the flight attendants did nothing. As I exited the plane I asked them why and they simply shrugged and moved to the galley.
There’s a reason why phones have an airplane setting. Sure, there are no proven examples of a phone causing a problem on an aircraft but I don’t want to be there when a phone does adversely affect the outcome of a flight and, bearing in mind the last couple of years, I don’t think Bellew would want it to be on his carrier.
What bothered me so much about her experience was not that the flight was overbooked – this is Chinese New Year after all and these things happen – but how she was dealt with by Malaysia Airlines representatives at the airport. There appeared to be a complete lack of empathy for a young mother with a toddler and a baby, indifference to her predicament and no attempt to solve the problem in a way that may protect the brand.
And the irony is that this goes against what Malaysia Airlines is trying to sell through its new videos for Chinese New Year. The video closes with a flight attendant saying, “I would like to wish everyone a pleasant journey this Chinese New Year, see you on board!” Unless of course, in the case of Fourfeetnine and her family, you happen to be travelling home to Penang.
The blogger has taken her experience online and inevitably her story has gone viral. It’s had over 5,500 Likes on Facebook, thousands of shares and generated hundreds of comments, many of them also negative experiences about the carrier. This narrative will over shadow all corporate driven messages and make the job of getting bums on seats even harder.
In the past Malaysia Airlines was a product comparable to CX and SQ but today it is no better than a LCC. Crucially, consumers are beginning to treat it like a LCC. Once perceived as a LCC, Malaysia Airlines will get business based on price. But as soon as it tries to increase prices, it will be judged even more on the experiences of passengers like fourfeetnine and all the others with negative experiences shared across the ecosystem.
Malaysia Airlines really needs to start investing in the experience. From the clunky, outdated booking engine to the physical touchpoints it needs to be delivering on the promises it makes. Otherwise it’ll always be known as a Low Cost Carrier. And not a very good one.
Towards the end of 2016 I read an article in Business Insider that had the audacity to suggest Microsoft is more innovative than Apple.
Now I believe that’s a bit of a stretch but there are definately problems at Apple. Since Steve Jobs moved on, the brand has made three critical mistakes. One is that it no longer has direction or if it has direction, it’s the wrong direction – driverless cars? Two it appears to have stopped listening to the voice of the customer and three, it’s products are very nearly not fit for purpose.
The next ‘must have Mac?’ Probably not
These three things are leading to a perfect storm of problems for Apple. If they are not addressed quickly, the brand will lose its loyal following from the creative sector. Indeed, Microsoft, yes Microsoft is already making inroads into this segment. Consumers are not as loyal to brands as they used to be, especially when those brands aren’t listening to them.
In a nutshell, he wants the company to focus on delivering getting the existing products right rather than diversifying into new areas, to lose the gimmicks and deliver quality, to get the integration across platforms seamless, as promised. And he has a point.
It’s good to know I’m not the only one increasingly disillusioned with my Apple products.
Google the words ‘Visit Penang’ and you get the following results:
‘Visit Penang’ search results
The next step would be to click on the visitpenang website link that takes the visitor to a site that has no video on the homepage even though a video on a homepage is reported to increase conversion rates by more than 20%.
Indeed, the way consumers are absorbing information via video is well documented. According to YouTube reports, mobile video consumption rises 100% every year. Of course that will peak at some stage but it isn’t even slowing at the moment. In fact, more video content is uploaded in 30 days than all three major US TV networks combined created in the last 30 years.
And when it comes to travel and destination related videos, YouTube is the most used site with 79% of users looking at personal travel options. YouTube says that 66% of all travellers watch online films when they are thinking of taking a trip.
Someone sent me a link to a new tourism video for Penang and asked my opinion. The video, launched earlier this year lists a number of quotes stretching back to one from Yahoo in 2011. I presume the video is supposed to lure more visitors to the island but I couldn’t make out who it is targetted at.
I get the impression that it’s one of those ads designed to communicate with everyone that ends up communicating with no one. Yes it features everything that is well known about Penang but it didn’t bring us anything not already on the web. Penang is known for its Char Kway Teow and the dish is featured in the video but who is going to travel to Penang for a plate of noodles and besides, is it new?
Moreover, there are more popular, well established Vloggers on YouTube such as Roseanntangrs who have over a million followers including a Vlog about Penang food that has over 160,000 views (and plenty of negative comments that need to be addressed by the author). This would have been a smart channel to use to promote Penang food.
Here’s the Penang video. I feel like it’s about 20 years out of date, it’s like a TV commercial pushed out across digital.
It’s a real shame because Penang is a must visit destination for anyone coming to South East Asia. I felt this video didn’t do justice to the destination.
Inevitably after watching this I had to search YouTube to see if it was the worst tourism ad ever. I was surprised to find plenty of material including this one from Singapore that really is the worst destination ad I’ve ever seen or heard.
I don’t know what Singapore Tourism was doing when it commissioned this ad but it very thoughtfully pulled it off the visit Singapore site.
Thankfully or not, depending on your point of view, YouTube hasn’t been so considerate. Stick with it to the end because the punchline will have you heading for cringetowm.
Penang’s video isn’t as bad as Singapores but it will be as inneffective. Indeed after seven months it has only had 9,500 views. But what should Penang tourism’s approach be when developing destination videos?
Here are 6 top tips Fusionbrand recommends Penang take into account next time they want to use video as part of their brand strategy:
1) You can’t be all things to all people. And you can’t include everything about a destination in one video so don’t try. Hook the viewer with the first video and YouTube will do the rest of the work for you because they will link similar videos to the one the viewer first watched.
2) Think about the audience for your film. What will they want to get from a film about your destination and how can you make the content relevant to their needs? Because if it doesn’t resonate with a few seconds, they’ll move on.
3) Think about how travellers use the IoT. Basically it begins with explore and discover before moving onto consider and connect. That’s followed by evaluate and engage and finally adopt, buyin, embrace and share/endorse/advocate. You must be clear about what part of the buyer process your videos are aiming at and the content must reflect that. Don’t try and cover everything in one video.
4) Be real and human. The days of the corporate controlled ‘big idea’ and message pushed out across media are over. Consumers don’t believe it and besides, it’s been done to death. Instead show events that happen during filming, things that go wrong and the people involved in the filming.
5) Instead of spending your money on expensive production of one video, make it real and make it often. Publish and share film on an ongoing basis.
6) Creating the video is only the start. You then need to share it, comment, respond, write about it and so on. An editorial plan should be developed around all videos.
Videos the future, for now anyway. But destinations like Penang need to stand out, not add to the noise. Otherwise branding investments are wasted and tax payers funds are too important to waste.
This year John Lewis has for the first time cast a black family as the stars of the ad. Actually that’s not true. The stars of the show are a whole series of animals including the family pet Buster the Boxer.
You can watch the ad here and let me know what you think.
This being Christmas you are encouraged to ignore reality and the fact that the hedgehog would have been in bed since November and foxes are a nuisance (more on that later).
After two days the ad has generated 4 million views on Youtube, 32,000 Likes and 3,000 comments, most of them positive and many of them amusing, ensuring the narrative continues!
Banter!!
The store spent about £1 million on the ad and will spend £6 million on TV spots nationwide. Fans can also download Snapchat filters featuring Buster the dog. Merchandise on sale in the stores includes soft toys, clothing, animal themed children’s books and trampolines. And in the Oxford Street store, there will be a virtual reality version of the commercial.
The dog also has his own Twitter hashtag #BusterTheBoxer and Twitter stickers. But Twitter reactions have been mixed. @Basscrazy66 suggested Santa should be putting the trampoline together.
What about Santa?
@Gregjames missed the sadvertising approach with this tweet.
I want to be miserable at Christmas
Meanwhile, @DanielBruce_8 brought a bit of regional humour to the narrative.
This is known as Scottish humour
Earlier in November 2016, an A level student in the UK created a fake John Lewis ad that fooled a number of people. Taking sadvertising to a new level, the ad features an unhappy snowperson trapped in a snow globe desperate to get out of the globe so he can enjoy Christmas with a free snowperson. There are rumours the student will soon be interviewed by the head of creative at John Lewis.
Even though it’s only been out a few days, the John Lewis ad has been parodied. Make sure you watch this parody to the end!
According to the creators of this parody, James Herring, Jasper Gibson and Dave Packer, they are “raising awareness of the mild annoyance of urban wildlife experienced by middle class city dwellers”.
John Lewis has announced that 10pc of all toy sales will be given to the country’s Wildlife Trusts charities. What do you think, is this the best ever John Lewis ad? Vote in our poll.
brandconsultantasia.com 