Does BiM's decision to pull advertising in Italy for its 12 Year's A Slave campaign point to the existence of racism?

It’s not every day a film poster can spark worldwide debate and widespread apologies from several sources over the creation of content let alone once again raise questions over a Countries stance on racial equality. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/27/controversial-italian-12-years-a-slave-poster-stirs-debate-over-movies-and-race/ If you have yet to catch up with this story I can provide a topline summary. Rather than focus promotional activity around lead actor Chiwetel Ejiofor the Italian distributors for ‘12 years a slave’ instead chose to focus on Brad Pitt, a man who plays a character with a relatively small part in the film. You might be wondering what the fuss is about. Does a decision to focus on a mainstream actor with worldwide appeal in a foreign market really spell out implicit racism? It probably isn’t a question for us to debate here but what is clear is that both BiM and Lionsgate appear to be treading carefully around the issue. The reactions from both companies might say a lot more about the supposed link between the decision making and some sort of underlying fears of discrimination. Through pulling the campaign and issuing grovelling apologies have both companies actually just blown the issue out of proportion? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/italian-distributor-pulls-12-years-a-slave-posters-that-emphasize-films-white-actors/article16124914/ It is hard to determine whether it will be Lionsgate Films or BiM Distribuzione who will bear the long-term brunt of this controversy. Lionsgate have been quick to claim they gave no permission for the film ’12 years a salve’ to be advertised in the way depicted by BiM. However, as the vendor chosen to create and distribute the content should it not be BiM who are forced to explain their motives behind advertising in such a way? Is pulling the advertisement simply enough or should they have even of pulled the material at all? Over the last year The Brand Avenger has shined a spotlight on countless companies who have failed to address issues that would ultimately damage brand reputation in a timely manner. However in this instance The Brand Avenger would argue the reaction from both entities may have only served to of fuelled further criticism and controversy. Rather than potentially sign off the content to appear in Italy Lionsgate would have played close to no involvement in the decision to feature Pitt or Fassbender as opposed to Ejiofor. BiM may have reacted in a way they felt best to communicate to their target market so it should be their role to explain the context behind the decision. Had they of done this rather than pull material so quickly the issue may have resolved itself. The speed of which it was removed may say far more about the attitudes and beliefs of both the company and the public than the actual initial questioning of how BiM chose to promote the film.

Not such a Merry Christmas? M&S in the middle of a Christmas race row

Far be it for The Brand Avenger to chime into an issue that can be as controversial as religion however I think it would be fair to say M&S will face a tricky challenge to their brand reputation following the recent news that Muslim staff have the right to refuse sales of meat and alcoholic products at till.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1225674/m-s-faces-revolt-muslim-staff-exemption-rules

Regardless of whether you believe it is right or wrong for religious concessions to conflict with customer service it is clear M&S are in the middle of a controversy they wouldn’t want their brand associated with. At this time of year where retail sales flourish and meat and alcohol purchases spike, no retailer wants to be at the center of a storm that leads to such polar opposite views on the rights and wrongs. 

M&S have moved quickly to issue an apology for the stance taken by the staff member, citing that as an all-inclusive business all religious concessions are tolerated and accepted. In many ways they have done everything they can to demonstrate a caring and considerate view towards the issue however will this be enough to calm the issue?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25488259

The media won’t certainly let the retailer nor the public forget about the recent news anytime soon. As long as the media continue to cover the story over the coming days M&S will spend Christmas in controversy. The exact time when the controversy will end will depend on how much of a stir is created on Twitter and how far the issue progresses. Let’s hope for the sake of the M&S brand the incident on Saturday is treated as a storm in a teacup as opposed to anything more major.

And Merry Christmas to all those who have followed The Brand Avenger this year.

Paid for complaint tweets tests British Airway's 'Fly to Serve' creative campaign

A couple of months an angry British Airways customer displayed the type of creative thinking that was so far outside the box most advertisers would be chuffed had they thought of it themselves. Taking aa dispute over poor customer service from BA following a lost bag Mt Syed decided to take out a paid for promoted ad targeting searches of the airline. The Brand Avenger wonders if Hasan Syed is just one of the growing breed dis-gruntled consumers who will fight back against injustice at any costs?

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1224122/trend-day-co-creation-rise-hyper-disgruntled-consumer

We have all shared Mr Syed's experiences. The Brand Avenger can't remember how many times I have lost sleep over the careless actions of an airline or a apparent lack of any type of customer service. The remarkable thing about this case is the lengths Mr Syed went to to ensure BA paid for their poor handling of a stressful situation. BA may have spent millions of pounds to alter the perception of consumers that elevate their branding around a strong customer service strategy. By spending £700 Mr Hasan certainly damaged BA's positioning and left senior team members so flustered they were using BA's own social media to apologise and clarify they had resolved the situation.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/03/businessman-promoted-tweet-british-airways

Access to a brand is key in todays age and unquestionably the balance of power is changing. Customers like Mr Syed are switched on and savvy. They know exactly how to make a brand pay for any perceived gaps in customer service and can damage a brands reputation with a drop of a hat. It didn't take Hasan Syed millions of pounds or months of strategic planning to generate enough publicity to communicate his intended message. David stood up to the Goliath of BA and they were left dazed and bruised by this confrontation.

As more and more of the public wake up to the fact that they have power and a voice we will begin to move to a world where brands will need to advance their messaging and media delivery.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/04/british-airways-angry-flier-promoted-tweets/

Mr Syed had the last laugh and the final say when it came to his public challenging of BA, and as he so vehemently boasts on his twitter in this instance he holds the victory. The real test for BA now will be how they adjust their strategy to ensure this type of glitch never happens again. The worst case scenario would be a influx of disgruntled customers using similarly creative measures to bring them to task. The only way they can truly address is to embrace the message they have spent so much money on over the last year. Wholly embracing a fly to serve ethos and promoting this through all marketing touch points should prevent against getting on the Tweeters nerves allowing BA to truly serve the needs of their customer.

Is Xbox targeting sexist jocks?

It should be an absolutely fantastic week for Xbox. On the verge of Christmas and having recently released its most recent iteration of a gaming console Microsoft should be sitting back and reaping in the benefits of an extensive marketing campaign.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/sony-and-microsoft-square-up-for-ps4-and-xbox-one-launch-showdown/4008579.article

What a shame it therefore is that Xbox has instead fell victim to a heated sexism debate.  Having recently released a letter to the other half to justify the purchase of an Xbox Microsoft made one crucial tiny little error- They assumed the only people buying the console were men!

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/microsoft-xbox-one-marketing-prompts-sexism-allegations/4008723.article

It is of course a shortsighted and immature mistake for the company to make. We live in a world where gamification is wide reaching across the sexes. These types of faux pas highlight the changing trends and important issues companies need to be aware of. Relying on old pre conceived ideas and/or stereotypes to shape creative messages simply won’t work in this day in age.  For a company the size of Microsoft it shouldn’t be new news that they have such a massive female base that would have potentially of taken offence to this messaging.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/19/microsoft-coo-40-percent-of-xbox-live-audience-are-female/

Pay attention and listen to your audience. If you do that you won’t find yourself making any embarrassing changes to marketing campaigns. In the case of Xbox once again the tweets and buzz of the social networks have prompted action from the games console giant.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-27-microsoft-slammed-for-sexist-xbox-one-ad

Not a great result for Xbox but one it will no doubt recover from. The question is will they learn this crucial oversight?

Asda Wal-Mart haven't had much to be thankful for this week

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that Wal-Mart are not having a good time of things recently. The month started badly with the news that their market position in the UK had slipped mostly due to impressive performance from the discounters.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/19/britain-supermarkets-market-share-fall-tesco-sainsburys-lidl

Asda have struggled to hold share for most of 2013 and this issue has not gone unnoticed by the management team who plan to address some of the issues faced with a £1 billion reinvestment plan. If you want to run through the detail you can check out the below article however I wouldn’t expect any surprises. In fact you could be mistaken for confusing this to something Tesco may have released years ago. With a strong focus on convenience, increasing online sales and addressing quality you might be forgiven for asking where is the innovation?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/14/asda-fight-rivals-1bn-investment-plan

It is clear that Asda are working to the motto that spending money makes money, which is a popular strategy for many of the big boys in retail recently. However will any of the planned changes make a difference to some of Asda’s underlying issues as a company?

For a long time Asda Wal-Mart have had a chip on their shoulder when it comes to the power of loyalty and data. The American juggernaut is convinced customers are purely motivated by price and the concept has traditionally allowed them to grow into the company they are today. But is this proposition viable as we move into a world where understanding big data becomes more and more important?

Wal-Mart’s recent negative press in the US regarding the treatment of staff and the subsequent attention this has garnered via social and more traditional forms of media demonstrate why Wal-Mart may want to consider their loyalty proposition.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/wal-mart-is-having-a-very-bad-week.html

As customers become more informed and the choice they have increases they will begin to transfer more of these beliefs and values into their consumption decisions. Wal-Mart need to understand how these types of decisions can impact their brand reputation and consequently sales. If they truly believe that price drives the loyalty of customers then they are also in a position where they will continue to loose to the smaller discounters who can offer further discounts. So the Brand Avenger would suggest spending a little bit of that money in building a loyalty proposition may not be so much of a bad idea.

Kellogg's 'feed a hungry child' campaign leaves a bad taste in the consumers mouth

Kellogg’s join the long list of companies who have fallen fowl of the consumer by offering to do something about poverty and hunger if they get something back in return.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/kelloggs-apologizes-promising-feed-hungry-kids-only-if-you-retweet-153764

There is a worrying trend in today’s age with companies embarking in activities that can be easily deemed as emotional blackmail. Promising to feed a hungry child in return for a mention, like or re-tweet of information via social media is a high-risk strategy to say the least. Of course Kellogg’s aren’t the first company to embark in such controversial activity, however the way in which this message was communicated and subsequently conveyed may take the award for worst social initiative of 2013. One critic goes as far as to sum this up as ‘vanity metrics’ and it’s clear that when it comes to Kellogg’s and this campaign they couldn’t be anymore self conscious.

http://www.deeson-creative.co.uk/blog/kelloggs-faces-twitter-backlash-for-give-child-breakfast-campaign

Some have gone as far as to suggest the Kellogg’s groveling immediately following this controversy is nothing more than a non-apology. Whether this is true or not it is clear that if this is the feeling Twitter still have some work to do with their social media strategy. And this couldn’t be anymore clearer by the fact that Kellogg’s still continue to plug its strategic social responsibility days after this controversy albeit phrased in a slightly more political correct way.

http://jkoulianos.com/kelloggs-twitter-hungry-kids/

Of course all of this begs an obvious question. If you can afford to feed a hungry child then why would you endeavor to feed as many hungry children as you can? Don’t hold the public to ransom or try and pull the wool over our eyes by stating you will do something that has as wide an impact as saving lives in exchange for generating online buzz. These types of ‘vanity metrics’ are wrong and put plain and simply are exploitative. Kellogg’s should learn to use their size and strength for as much good as possible. And if you want to build a following or fan base do it off the back of understanding your online audience as opposed to tugging on heartstrings with  a form of emotional blackmail.

Are Google having a goggle at my email?

Microsoft has taken the gloves in the fight for E-Mail supremacy with Google by questioning the ethical decision-making behind the commercialization of customer email info.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/microsoft-slams-google-for-email-snooping-to-sell-ads/4008513.article

Should Google be punished for using content generated in personal email to sell advertisements? If there are a room full of people whose job it is to scour every single LOL and XOXO in your email then of course they should. However when it comes to Google’s use of targeted advertisements in email is this is the case or is there something far less sinister at play?

As the continued power of the Internet and influx of social media sites shows no signs of slowing down we are more exposed to ‘datafication’ today than ever before. With the presence of data comes the ability of companies who know how to use to their advantage. This could be through understanding the customer in more detail and/or selling building the information to sell to suppliers. One quick review of the site Microsoft has set up to explain G Mail would seem to clearly suggest Google are commercializing their data for targeting purposes.

http://www.keepyouremailprivate.com/GetTheFacts

The further and further you dig into Google’s email policy the nearer you get to the fact that Google do in fact appear to be reading content generated. In some instances Google appear to be downright unapologetic for such policy preferring to reference themselves as an assistant rather than a spy.

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Yes+we+Read+Your+Gmail/article33184.htm

Google have made attempt to quell any long-term mistrust of the brand by ensuring customers that the process of data sourcing for targeting purposes is automated and not ready by a human. This may bring little comfort to the suspicious John Doe who was worried that Big Brother was reviewing everything he communicates over email however does this still make it right for customer data to be used in this way?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/05/google-seeks-to-dismiss-gmail-privacy-lawsuit-says-it-has-right-to-scan/

The Brand Avenger would ague that the right answer revolves around how secretive you want to be and how accepting you are that as we continue to produce more and more data Google will become just one of many companies looking to make money out of data this way. Having access to intimate data sources is by no means a new process. Look at the transformation and continued success Tesco have experienced in launching the Clubcard, which gives an insight into half of the UK Households buying habits. If Google can ensure the use of data is automated and steps are taken to remove identifying info such as name and address, I would rather this form of advertising than getting hit with boring, irrelevant information in other areas of my super hero existence.