Stretching A Brand Too Far? - A Costa Coffee Problem

Costa Coffee have had a monumental rise to prominence over the past 5 years or so. Now the UK's largest coffeehouse (and second in the world) there is quite literally an opportunity to purchase a warm legal stimulate around every corner.

This blog comes about due to a crazy scenario I encountered at an M1 service station a few weeks back. Upon arrival, there was an outdoors Costa Coffee stand. Great, nice and convenient. But inside there was also a fully fledged Costa Coffee, just around the corner from the service station hot food area which served, yup, Costa Coffee. This is not forgetting the two Costa Coffee instant machines I'd also walked past. So in one service station, on one side of the M1 there were no less than 5 places to buy the same brand of coffee. Talk about over-kill.

But it goes on. Now pretty much every petrol station in the land has at least one Costa Coffee machine. You can buy Costa Cofee branded refills for your Tassimo coffee machine. Filter coffee? No problem, you can buy Costa branded too! Fancy one of those insulated mugs to take a warm drink with you out and about? You can get a Costa branded one. Now even cafe's within Asda supermarkets have...Costa Coffee! The Asda outlet in Leeds Crown Point, for instance, serves Costa Coffee, but is only a few doors down from a Costa Coffee. Worse, I know of a Costa Coffee that is a joining a Next, which has a cafe, which sells Costa Coffee!

This proliferation of the Costa brand is broadly a good thing. The more chances you see the Costa logo, the more likely you are to be thinking about it and then the more likely you are to feel like having one. Secondly, if you like a product it could lead on to you buying another from a different Costa line. Everyone wins and Costa have branched out to pretty much every revenue stream you could think of (apart from instant coffee, perhaps that's next?)

But here's the flip side. I bought a Costa from one of those service station machines they have (except I was in a WH Smiths, who had 3 of the things in store) and it was awful. I've had one in the past and it was quite pleasant, but not this one. The machine whirred away for what seemed like an hour and what I got was nothing more than steam water, a hint of milk and hardly any actual coffee. I even asked for a 'FREE' Vanilla shot, but didn't get one.

Now, clearly, there was a problem with the machine. Things go wrong, such is life. But by pure chance, I ended up recently in an awkward conversation with someone at a table who happened to be a Costa technician. His job was to drive around, fixing all the broken Costa machines. He assured me that this is an all too often affliction and that the company has expanded far too quickly, resulting in a dive in quality.

A classic dis-economy of scale. Expanding too quickly leads to errors. Without a solid backbone in place, instead of actually gaining customers from having more places to buy your products/services, you start turning away people because they have had negative experiences. The problem Costa are possibly encountering is such and I will certainly think twice before purchasing one again. In the same way a positive coffee could persuade me to buy some instant Costa for home, a bad coffee could put me off the entire brand.

You see, by all means expand, but test, recruit, research and practice before you do. Otherwise, before you know it, Costa may just become a fad rather than a brand with any lasting qualities.

Update:

Not wanting to get left behind, this is the very first thing that greets you upon entry into the Leeds General Infirmary...I kid you not.

The Super Bowl and It's Crazy Adverts

In case you missed it, recently the Super Bowl [XLVII] happened. This is a sporting event that I have a great interest in. Not, however, for the American Football. I once tried to watch it about 3 years ago, but really struggled. I managed until The Who had finished their half-time set and went to bed.

No, I can’t wait until the morning after, when all the amazing SuperBowl adverts get uploaded to the internet. Companies intent on making a statement advertise during the event. Heck, the sport often pauses just for TV Spot breaks. For a budding marketeer like myself, I always make a point to try and watch all the noteworthy adverts. This year was no exception and provided some very interesting trends.

The first is something America is very good at. Patriotism. There are many examples of this in 2013, such as the Dodge RAM pickup truck advert about religious farmers. But, the best (or worst) example this year was the Jeep advert. So “U.S.A.”, it’s no wonder that a great deal of American’s don’t know the wider world. Here we have dramatic music, American cars that are made in America, a voice over from Oprah Winfrey and a celebration of Jeep actually sponsoring the US troops and placing commemorative badges on the ve-hicles! It seems that if you want to sell in America, make it in America. Even the Korean Kia Sorento is now “Made in the US”.

Not going the Patriotic route? Find it too, well, predictable? Well, it would seem, the other trend was to be wacky. A bit out there. VW tried to recapture the public like their previous years attempts with a man speaking like a laid back Bob Marley (a not-so-subtle hint back to the days of Flower Power VW Beetles) but ultimately missed the mark a little. Website hosting service GoDaddy wheeled out both Patriotism (the first famous lady racing driver, Danica Patrick, who is American) and Wacky (a stereotyped geek, kissing a leggy blonde model). But far from the perfect marriage, it was a bit sick.

Other noteworthy weirdness was Fiat suggesting the electric 500 is good for sex, Stevie Wonder promoting Budweiser and Axe (or Lynx as we know it in the UK) running a promotion to literally send a competition winner into space. While we’re on a role, how about Mercedes-Benz trying too hard to be hip. The advert for the new CLA car features a young man, but the soundtrack is the Rolling Stones. Then Usher appears. Talk about not-cool Uncle talking about how many Friends he has on Facebook....

All the weirdness, is of course, very deliberate. It causes people to talk about the brand. So they hope. But there were a couple of spots that were genuinely funny. The M&M advert where they parody Meatloaf’s I Would Do Anything For Love was particularly smart, and Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) being self aware to promote milk while there is an apocalypse showed a certain self awareness.


We were also treated to PSY doing a version of Gangnam style.....but about....Pistachio nuts. No really. It has to be seen to be believed.

But lastly, the overarching theme was Social Media. Every single ad had to have an official #Hashtag. They were literally everywhere. Once a nice way of monitoring if your advert was a success of not, now very much de rigueur. More importantly, the hashtags used were universally odd. For instance, Audi's wasn't #Audi or #AudiSuperBowl but #Bravery. yes, it may get people talking on the internet, but is it on message for the brand?

However, despite all the gigantic sums of money paid for the advertisement slots, Oreo stole the show. Not only was their advert funny and clever, but their marketing team pulled an allnighter. During the game, the stadium suffered from a power-outage for about an hour. Oreo tweeted a pic, and they got more Tweets, Mentions and Retweets than anyone else. Well played Oreo.

Until next year, #SuperBowlAdvertHashTagOurBrandIsCool.

Why Car Adverts Are Always The Best

OK, I'll admit it. I've got a bit of a problem. I am quite literally obssessed with cars. Good, that's over and done with.

Moving on, as a result, one of the best bits of watching TV as a youngster was eagerly anticipating which car would be advertised during each ad break. But, casting aside my fondness for anything with 4 wheels, I have always thought that cars of one of the paradigms for TV advertising. Fortunately, Car Magazine have compiled this amazing playlist featuring what they claim are the best car adverts from the past 50 years. I have to say, I spent perhaps too long watching these, but if nothing else it acts as a barometer of how advertising has evolved and changed over the years. Check out the link below for the full playlist and see embedded in this post a couple of my favourites.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL23FFB58A3375BFA8&feature=view_all

GAME's Failure | What Went Wrong

GAME is the UK's largest video games retailer. The business grew exponentially through the early 00's, the buy out rival company GameStation in 2007 being their biggest move. Even further back they went on a spree of buying out independent stores and chains like Electronics Boutique (initially a merger until a full takeover in 2004, oddly enough from the company now known as GameStop in the US) to build a games empire of over 670 stores nationwide. But today is a big day for the retail outlet as the administrators are calling time. No one is sure at the time of this blog, but it looks like Game and Gamestation stores nationwide will be closing very soon.

"In April 2010, CEO Lisa Morgan resigned; Looks like she jumped at the right time."

But why did this happen and what does this mean for video games as an industry? The "why" part cannot be answered truly as of yet. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash, but at the moment all the finger pointing is mostly assumptions and educated guesses, most of which I will cover below, plus my own thoughts. In April 2010, CEO Lisa Morgan resigned after a 28% dip in profits in the 2009-10 fiscal year, departing with a promise of reducing stores by at least a 100. Looks like she jumped at the right time.

A thing of the past?

Come January 2012, the then CEO Ian Shepherd issued a profit warning, amid fall stock prices and rumours of the company breaking it's bank loan terms. He remained confident that "the company was in good shape for a recovery" and blamed the poor performance on people only buying the main franchises like FIFA of Call of Duty as opposed to a wider range of titles.

As we now know, recovery was almost impossible. But the point that Mr Shepherd made is what interests me most. While EA's FIFA titles are massively popular and Activision's Call of Duty series continues to break sales and pre-order records, there is the feeling that a lot of people only play those games and nothing else. I personally know a lot of people that see their games console as simply "FIFA Machines" (or Modern Warfare, replace where appropriate). It is seen that, if you really get into such games, then you spend hours upon hours completely engrossed in the action. These titles offer a gaming experience that can, and often does, stretch into hundreds of hours of game time and still continually top the sales charts. The net result could be that a lot of people are less likely to buy anything else, as all their time goes into buying new DLC map packs for COD or packs of Ultimate Team rosters for FIFA, to even further extend the game.

(The same could be true of Wii Fit, Zumba Fitness and Wii Sports - People bought them, but then didn't move on to something new)

While GAME and other retailers have tried to counteract this buy selling vouchers for such downloadable content, there are 2 main problems with that model. First is that your market for such products is limited, as you are appealing to only those who are either too young to have a credit/debit card or those who refuse to input details online. Everyone else can simply buy game add-ons online, through their games console, on the couch, at the touch of a button and be playing it minutes later. Second is that profit margins on such vouchers is virtually non-existent. For instance, after a bit of digging around and talking to someone who owns an independent games shop (apparently one such thing still exists!), the profit on an XBox Live points card (on average) for instance, is around £1.20. To make anything meaningful, you have to sell bucket loads, yet as I have mentioned, you are targeting only a select group of gamers.

"Strong price competition and diminishing margins on new games meant a focus on used games." 

Gamestop in America say that "50%" of their profit comes from the used game market. The same could be true of GAME and Gamestation in the UK. Over the past few years, if you visited one of their stores, they had larger store space for their used game range. Strong price competition and diminishing margins on new games (or any electronic goods, including games consoles) meant a focus on used games. Other companies like Computer Exchange have seen growth over the past 10 years or so, focussing on second hand items. It was perfectly logical for GAME to push this area of the market (something that could not be avoided if you bought something new, with staff trained to tell you about trading in the game once you have finished it). Buoyed by the stronger profits garnered from used games, many other business have also entered the used game market place, which is taken away from GAME's market share. The growth of CEX is a main competition, but now even supermarkets like ASDA Walmart offer second hand games.

This however, had a knock on effect. The publishers and developers of games don't see a penny of a used game sale and with GAME stores selling more and more used games, they decided to act. In an unpredictable global economy, not only have publishers invested heavily on their strong franchises and well established titles like FIFA or COD, but in many cases they have also tried to prevent the used game market. Many games now come with online codes, known as an Online Pass. Buy a game new, and you input the one-use-only code to unlock in-game extras and online multiplayer game modes. Buy it second hand, and you can't play that game online without shelling out £6.99 on a code (through your console only, not through in-store vouchers). Therefore, greater incentive to buy new, less used game sales, more money directly to the publishers and less profit for retailers.

So, by chasing greater return on investment, the publishers of games have been hurting the retail games market. Yet, if the retailers perhaps did not focus on the used game market so heavily, the online pass would not be in existence. For GAME it was the perfect storm. Not only were people only buying the big games, they were extending their gaming experience by buying extra game content online and then not buying used because of online codes. Next, throw into the mix GAME's massive expansion of the last 10 years. They had a declining market, a large number of employed staff and long-term rent leases across hundreds of stores. You have to say it was always going to be a struggle. Then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Sadly, with today's rumoured news it looks like the failure to find a buyer means the end for GAME as we know it. There is a brand name that has a high awareness and some loyalty (those GAME reward cards don't count for nothing). There is also still potential for a high street supplier for the gaming industry. While a lot of people buy games online and despite a shift towards downloading games instead of physical copies, there is still strong demand for a boxed, tangible game, seemingly more so than in other entertainment industries.

"A quick glance in the comments section of any GAME related news article shows that a lot of people where unhappy with their pricing."

One main sticking point with the gaming community seems to be that prices were too high at GAME (a quick glance in the comments section of any GAME related news article shows that a lot of people where unhappy with their pricing). While most new release titles in their stores were selling for £40-£45, a quick look around online would net you the same game, brand new, for up to £10 less. A lot of angry internet people like Bob336 or StarWarsRulez86 are quick to lay the blame at their pricing strategy. But with tighter margins, online passes and lower sales of the number of different games sold then the prices had to increase, especially seen as the cost price is most likely to have remained the same.

You could argue then, why were other places cheaper? Well, online outlets like Play.com (based in Jersey) and Amazon (technically registered Swiss, so not part of several EU trading regulations) are in nice cushy positions whereby they pay less or no tax. The EU regulation that helps internet traders avoid tax is about to change however, with a bill recently passed to change the taxing policy to be based on the delivery destination, as opposed to the location of dispatch. However, this will take another 2 years before the effects are seen and way too late to help GAME. Increasing VAT to 20% couldn't have helped GAME's cause either amidst the competition.

But supermarkets do have to pay tax, yet still they manage to be extremely cut throat and competitive. This is actually relatively simple. By selling games in their stores, they are enticing you to shop there and maybe pick up more profitable items like mushrooms or soup. They can afford to offer lower prices as this is offset by the large range of bananas. This also means they can do the odd loss-leader, such as the crazy Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2 prices that Sainsbury's and ASDA did upon release. Having said all of that, a quick look at ASDA reveals that their prices have actually risen of late too.

In summary then, combining all of the factors mentioned above (some of which are the games industries fault, some of which are GAME's fault) what we are facing in many store closures which means empty shops across the UK and more importantly, the possibility of 6,000 unemployed people. PricewaterhouseCoopers have been selected as the administrators and in sacked GAME CEO Ian Shepherd's final statement it is said that they will "make big changes both to the store estate and in the office, but will be doing so with a view to creating a trading business that we can attract a buyer for." I other words, cutting the fat, job losses and store closures. The word today is that 2,000 jobs will be lost almost immediately and as I passed by my local GameStation on the way home from work, it was shut. A note was over the door stating that Wakefield would be me closest available outlet (quite far from Leeds).

It is sad to see the probable loss of yet another well-known high street name and the unemployment that follows. Not only that, despite their huge losses, GAME and GameStation stores certainly sold a very healthy number of games. While online only sellers, supermarkets and HMV will do well to fill the gap, this is still sure to affect game sales. The lack of a dedicated, specialised game shop on most high streets has to be detrimental to the industry as a whole. By simply having a presence and a big sign on the high street, that reminded people to play video games and helped gaming reach a larger audience. Of course, there is an opportunity here for either a smaller company to become slightly larger (like Grainger Games) and it may not be a bad thing for the consumer in the long run provided whoever it may be that profits from the demise of GAME doesn't make the same errors.

Certainly, GAME made plenty of mistakes, but the games industry itself is far from innocent and it could well be that they have shot themselves in the foot.

Sources | BBC, MCV UK, GFK Chart Track, The Telegraph, The Guardian, TheSixthAxis.com & Reuters.

The Dark Art Of Ordering A Coffee

I do enjoy a good coffee. In my uni days I went a little feral and drank far too much caffeine. However, after giving it up completely for a good 6 months, I can now go back to enjoying a nice warm, sugar fueled, cafemochachino drink at a trendy hangout, with the only worry being how to pronounce the bloody drink.

Me panicking out of shot...

Upon arrival at any one of the million coffee places in town, I normally have a quick read of the menu board. I will quickly  find something suitable and wonder how to say it properly. There are several people in the queue, 3 or 4 staff members and a bustling environment full of city dwellers. In other words, a large audience in which to make a fool of myself in front of. The monologue in my head usually goes along the lines of: "Right, so, it is not small, medium or large, but Grande, Tall, or regular. Then how on earth do I pronounce Espresso Con Panna. Wait, isn't that a realy small drink, so can I even have a Grande of that? Is Grande even that big?! Right, say it again, slowly. Espresso. Con. Panna. Please." Before I've had sufficient practice time, it is my time to shine. I inevitably end up saying something like "one medium Espressa Can Ponne, per favore", recieve a blank look, repeat it again and get something completely different to what I intended. Blown it.

Putting my awkward moments aside, a coffee shop is the perfect example to explain to someone what marketing is. It is often assumed I like watching adverts, which is true and that marketing is merely creating them, not true. "Oh, so, Marketing, is that Advertising then?" To which I have to duly agree to, or change subject. Explaining target markets to your dentist isn't exactly the most exhilarating conversation he will have all day.

"I know coffee smells wonderful, but it is almost as if they deliberately channel the aroma out onto the street"

mmm, coffee

A quick visit to Caffe Nero shows exactly what my answer would actually be. First, that smell. It is absolutely captivating, right? I know coffee smells wonderful, but it is almost as if they deliberately channel the aroma all around the store and out onto the street (a tactic I am certain Subway do, the smell is so potent outside their outlets and oh so inviting). An immediate hook, like in a really catchy song. The silly names in part also portray something that is far more classy and civilized than it actually is. A warm brown liquid is not cool, neither is "a mug of coffee love" (said in a strong Yorkshire accent). But a Caramelatte certainly is. Next, the mugs themselves. Oversized, which means two things. One, more room for cheap froth (as opposed to relatively expensive coffee, boosting margins) and differing from a roadside cafe, a greasy spoon or your home, therefore more upmarket.

Not only that, but price is a major factor. By making the drink way more expensive than it by rights should be able to get away with, plus some brown leather sofas, it creates this illusion of sophistication. To quote one of the best slogan's ever used, a coffee shop is Reassuringly Expensive. Add all of those factors together and you get a product that costs on average 20p-60p to make, being bought for upwards of £4/£5. You see, my mind doesn't work like a normal person's. They won't realise most of this. Or they will, but they won't realise it's all extremely clever and well thought out to create an expensive air so they can charge more.

So, in summary it is over-priced, I make a fool of myself and we all enjoy spending time there. That is marketing.

Dodging The Bullet

Classy

I was reading an article the other day about the failure of Blackberry. It was suggesting that they focussed too much on the weakness of their devices, instead of backing the advantages. In other words, they were playing catch up instead of pioneering. This in turn reminded me of an episode of Mad Men, whereby Donald Draper and his cronies were forced to re-invent the direction of a lucrative cigarette advertising deal, due to pressure from health groups publishing the fact that smoking can lead to cancer.


What they did, was simply highlight an advantage to smoking. The new Lucky Strike slogan was to be "It's toasted". Instead of trying to push the lifestyle or stating that smoking is healthy, they simply focussed on a different strength of the product. Now, take that approach and apply it to every day products. It is everywhere.

"The king of such a marketing tactic, however, are the golden arches"

When in Greggs the other day, the brown paper bags they put a pasty in proudly boasts that their Steak Bakes only have "prime cuts of beef". This is great news, something to shout about and gives off the image of a higher quality product. Of course, it is a mass produced pastry good, that costs under 10p to produce at most with all the nutritional value of, well, a Greggs pasty. But they have averted your attention away from such facts.

Lettice, must be good for me then

The king of such a marketing tactic, however, are the golden arches. McDonalds is always trying to tell us how "Fresh" their coffee is (despite being full of sugar) or how they sell bags of carrot sticks (that no one buys). The best ploy however is their British Beef campaign. The TV advert features innocent children (awww, so cute) playing around a farm in the countryside (full of green, green grass and fresh air) with the slogan something along the lines of "100% British Beef in our burgers". Well, great, well done McDonalds, by playing on a healthy environment with those who we cherish most, they come across all earthly. It may be British Beef, but that does not mean that a Big Mac is healthy for your children or that the meat is any good. I just meens they are playing on that little bit of jingoism we all have inside us. They even decorate their lorries with the slogan (which is probably just a lorry full of salt) and even the bit of paper on your tray as you carry your calorie filled McFlurry across the restaurant states it to reinforce how caring and sharing they are. Yeh, right.


This may read like a rant about Mcdonalds, but really it is genius and every company that employs similar schemes are the ones that succeed. Those that don't, flounder. Simple really, but with this in mind, it is genuinely surprising how blatant such campaigns are once you realise the workings behind it. Keep your eyes peeled next time you visit the supermarket...

So The PlayStation Vita Is Doomed, Right?

I admit it. I like playing video games. I know, that makes me a smelly, over-weight, single hermit that lives in a dark room and collects figurines from Star Wars. Or that's what you would assume if you lived in 1995. But you don't, you live in 2012 and everyone you know plays games, even yourself. Wether it's your mum playing Wii Fit, younger brother playing Call of Duty or yourself playing Peggle on your iPhone while on the loo (yes, I'm looking at you) games are no longer the reserve of TheKeith-en-ator2000, playing hours upon hours of Second Life.

Some controllers, yo!

One thing that has been interesting to watch over the past 10 years or so is the fall from grace of the PlayStation brand, while at the same time the world now plays on Farm Ville. Surely in a world where more people than ever before play video games, Sony were the ones in the prime position to capitalize. As I mentioned in another post, managing to get your product as the "de facto" in it's field is marketing gold dust. PlayStation used to be the term for playing games. Every week another article (most likely to be featured in the News of the World) would claim how "PlayStation ruins 13 year old child's education" or a TV presenter trying too hard to be down with teh kidz would throw in the term "Playing PlayStation" at every possible juncture. Yet, much like the Murdoch's falling empire, PlayStation isn't exactly in the public's zeitgeist any more.

No, that is XBox. By reading any lifestyle review section in a newspaper or magazine and you won't be able to go 3 paragraphs before reading the word "XBox" or "Kinect". A quick glance at television reveals that every single living room in the UK has factually got a Kinect. While Sony continue to churn out great games on what is undoubtedly a wonderful machine (I use mine everyday), the PS3 just seems a bit, well geeky. Geeky is not cool. No one really wants to be geeky. No, Geek-chic does not exist, that's just a polite way of saying someone has glasses.

Dad clearly had some constipation issues

When you buy an XBox you are not buying a machine to play games. Technically you are, but Microsoft never tell you directly. The wider audience will never get an Xbox with Kinect because it can do this, or that, or that the graphics are crazy or the voice activation a technical marvel (even though the device is, honestly, a bag of balls). Neither are they simply buying a games console with a penchant for displaying red lights. They spend their hard earned cash to buy into the lifestyle created by those cheesy adverts, YouTube videos and those family orientated editorial adverts in glossy publications.

Sony do none of this. A fact that always seems to get the angry video game forum goer (and they are very angry, because that is an entitlement on the internet) never fails to raise. You are endlessly reading articles, comments and posts lambasting Sony for their poor efforts at "marketing". Sony are about to launch the new PlayStation Vita and there are a whole host of articles comparing it to SmartPhones ("where you can get games for only 69p as opposed to £45"), with a general feeling that it will struggle in a market place dominated by apps.

"What never fails to surprise me is the general public's perception of what marketing actually entails."

Well I'm sorry, but of course it will. That is missing the point totally. The Vita does not exist to combat that. Sony phones are designed for that job, a fact that everyone has completely forgotten. The Vita has one of the clearest target markets for a new product for quite some time. While other companies are trying to spread their wings in search of a giant slice of mainstream appeal pie, Sony has switched their focus (for the time being) at the core customer. There is always a danger of trying to appeal to everyone. This simply is not possible without potentially damaging what made the product so great in the first place (do not mention Rare Ltd, I start to cry).

What never fails to surprise me is the general public's perception of what marketing actually entails. An expensive TV advert is only a tiny, tiny part of it. Taking the Vita as a prime example, Sony have really listened to what consumers wanted. They realised that there will always be a market for the gamer. There are features that people complained that the old PSP never had (two analogue sticks). There are the massive PS3 game franchises like Uncharted, LittleBigPlanet etc etc and collosal power even by home console standards. All topped off with a sprinkling of 3G, OLED and Touch Screen. It is all things to all gamers. By targeting a very specific market you can achieve a very strong, hardcore, loyal following. This can provide you with a solid foundation from which to build on down the line. 

2 typical Vita customers, and some men..

By aiming at the informed and technologically minded consumer first, the hope is they are the sort of person that will tweet about it, blog about it, post a video review on YouTube and generally spread the word to people they know who are perhaps less well informed. Ideally this will then snowball and in 2 or 3 years time you will still have a product that is selling well, provided you then start developing games aimed more at the FarmVille crowd.


So there, on paper the Vita is a perfectly executed Marketing Strategy. I just need to wait a while to see if the plan actually works. In the mean time, I'm off to pre-order one.

Sequel-itis

Subway - Also A Franchise

How many sequels does it take to break a series? The answer is perhaps unknown, I would always say a third iteration is more than enough, but one thing is for definite, the endless line of films, TV shows, games and anything entertainment related seemingly has more follow ups, 2s, 3s, 4 and even 5s than ever before.


The reasoning behind such a growth in endless rubbish and watering down of the entertainment industry (Final Destination 5. Really? 2 was bad enough, but 5? Did no one understand the irony of having more than one "Final" destination?) is so. We are in uncertain times. Money is tight and when people's marginal perpencity to consume is down (like in a recession for example) the first things that they tend to cut back on things that are not necessary. In an economy like this, our good friend Maslow shows us that keeping warm, fed and protected form the elements is at a much higher priority than popping down the shops and picking up the latest Fast & Furious (Again, the first was bad, the second worse, ditto 3, 4 and 5. In Five, they laughably think it is a serious film, the writers and actors seemingly oblivious to the over-blown and over-weight blubbering mass the series has become.)


As a result studios are nervous. It is seen as a much greater risk to invest in a new, original and up and coming writer/director than it is an established brand. Yup, brand. I always think that a film should be made because within someone there is a burning desire to create a story worth telling. Yet, money dictates and without money, there is no film. Now we use terms like "franchise". Films shouldn't be a franchise, they shouldn't be made simply because the first made lots of money. They shouldn't be made because there is a gap in the market. They should be made because there is potential for something new, different, touching, hilarious or thought provoking.

Puss In Boots - No Need.

In the past a film had a marketing department that had the sole responsibility of promoting the film to a wide audience. Now the marketing departments, after their research and focus groups, now help to decide if a project is green lit of not. The classic case is Transformers, for more of that visit Kermode's rant here. Having said all of that, if spinning out 97 Shrek movies helps to fund more interesting films then I really don't mind. But the fact remains, there is never, ever, under any possible circumstance for the 4 Scream films or 4 Scary Movies to exist. By plumping for a film that has already been a success, the risk is lower, investment needed lower and the rewards (potentially) larger. I just wish that it wasn't so obviously cynical at times.

I'll Just Do The Hoovering While Listening To My Walkman

In Marketing lectures we were always told that having a range of products is better than having just one. When shopping, research suggests that customers like to have choice. It is part of the fun to choose which flavour, variety, shape or size of a particular product you would like to buy. There are brands that have sub-brands, that have sub-brands, that have a choice of colour, taste or style. If you look at the male deodorant shelf in any supermarket you will see what I mean.

Lynx are the king of spinning off variants, special editions and new smells. First there is deodorant or anti-perspirant. Then there is spray or roller-ball. A million different smells. Even after-shave varieties and "The Final Ever Edition" (which isn't really). The same applies to any UniLever brand really like Head & Shoulders. Or anything made by anyone really.

But the stand out exception to that rule has always been the iPhone. By having one name, one model and by not really advertising the fact you can get different memory capacities, this alone has made it stand out from the crowd. No "X26" version, no different names for each model (a quick glance at the HTC range shows how many different names can be very confusing, the list is endless!), no research needed. It's a nice easy choice, all the adverts have the same name with a product that looks very similar. Yet, now there are 3 models. The older 3GS, the old 4 and the new-ish 4S. There will be four later in the year (around August time seems to be a good guess) with the introduction of the iPhone5. Surely then, by offering a range of goods, Apple are slipping away from what made it stand out so much

Mini Paceman - A 4x4/Coupe. Erm, no?

Another example is the Kindle. By creating one product with one name, it becomes a buzz word. Very simple, very effective. Again though, there are up to 3 Kindles now available. An even better example is Mini. Now there is not just the Cooper or quicker Cooper S. First there was the cheaper One, followed by the First. Then diesel and recently Cooper S quick diesel. Or a 5-door estate come hatchback thingy entitled Clubman, the Convertible, the Roadster (two types of soft-top Mini, really?) the Coupe and of course, the 4x4 Countryman. It will get even worse of the next few years with a Paceman 4x4 Coupe and even a people carrier Mini! By filling every conceivable niche (some that I'm sure that are completely made up) there is also the worry of stretching the brand too far and ruining the allure in the first place.

However, the core appeal of having something with a singular name is still manages to be effective to both Kindles and iPhone's alike. This is nothing new of course. The once proud king of electronics, Sony, knocked every other brand into a cocked hat with the Walkman. Likewise Hover with the, erm Hoover.

But, the Walkman and the Hoover highlight the downside of such an approach. By trying to carve out a brand that epitomises the present, you stand at great risk of not being cool any more. It is very "in" to say you downloaded an app to your iPhone, played a game on your iPad, read a book on your Kindle, all on the way to buy a Jack Wills jumper. But fashion moves on, brands fade and new things become the latest must haves (Jack Wills, becoming a little chavvy already, just saying). There is a risk that they simply become something to remember a by gone era by.

Of course, I'm not saying that these brands and products are doomed and the world is going to end. Many brands pull through by re-inventing themselves. As much as I don't put the latest Coldplay album down as a classic, the band have reinvented themselves yet again to remain current and still oh-so popular. If anyone has the marketing chutzpah to pull it off, Apple does.

Say What?

Look at this harmless bottle of anti-perspirant. It says "96h Non-Stop". But wait, look again, there is an asterisk.

Yet flip the bottle round on the other and it's all in gibberish. Just look at how many terms, condition, warnings, languages and recycling instructions have to be placed on something to stop me sweating. More than that, where the heck are the caveats of the "96h Non-Stop"? It may mean "96h Non-Stop Indigestion" or "Only 96 hours when tested on rabbits" for all I know.

So it is credit to Loreal that the front of the packaging looks clean and cool. As products designers know all to well, it's not enough to simply have a design that catches your eye but you also have to jump through a million hurdles to approve and then hide EU regulation.

Kit Kat Chunky - More Than Just A Chocolate Bar

There is a new Kit Kat competition. If you haven't seen it, there are 4 "new" flavours of Kit Kat Chunky, which you can buy and the vote for your favourite in "Champion A Chunky". Someone asked me yesterday if I had tried all the variants yet and it got me thinking.

Champion A Chunky - Genius

From a customers point of view it is something new to try and they have to almost collect all 4. There is an inner-collector in all of us, even if we don't know it. Plus, if you do want to vote then you must try them all to have a balanced opinion, right? But from a Nestle point of view it is a genius marketing ploy.

Not only do you get people to buy just one chocolate bar, but potentially 4 and you can wheel out old flavours such as Orange and Peanut, yet brand them as "new". for their next trick, when you vote, you have to do it through Facebook. So, they get the customer to like the Kit Kat page on Facebook, which means related Kit Kat news and promotions will be displayed on their home page feed for the foreseeable future and when they do vote, it posts to their profile page for all their friends to see.

It gets better too. Facebook can provide Nestle with demographic information about the sort of person you are, which in turn can be used to target further marketing. I haven't even mentioned the clincher yet. Selling 4 types of Kit Kat Chunky is like a giant, live, focus group. Whichever "wins" will become a regular edition to the Kit Kat range, which will almost certainly become a sure fire hit because it was voted to best by their potential future customers!

Yes see, it's perfect in every way. This is a lesson in how to run a marketing campaign. Take note.

What's In A Brand?

My camera. I love it.

I own a Sony DLST camera. It's chief rivals would be cameras made by Canon or Nikon. My camera has won many "Camera of the Year" awards, has a much higher specification than rival models and yet it cost less. In every possible measurable yardstick, it is a clear winner. Yet most people will not even consider buying one. Sony cameras can't shake off the reputation of being a TV company, as opposed to a photography company. This is despite buying out Minolta's camera division entirely (you know, they launched the worlds first digital SLR camera...)

At a new years party I was taking some pictures when a friend of mine who does a photography course and uses a Nikon openly mocked my camera because it was a Sony. He reckoned it wasn't a proper camera. He is wrong of course, but at a house party I wasn't about to go into great lengths explaining how he was so out of touch. But my point is now, more than ever before, brand image is at the top of buyers wishlist's. This applies to seemingly everything.

BMW 3-Series Outsells Every Other Saloon On The Market

Take cars for example and BMW. Once a very premium brand in such a way where only the wealthy could afford one and thus they were quite exclusive. Yet for the past 5 years the BMW 3-Series has comprehensively outsold the humble Ford Mondeo. The Ford is comparable in many ways, apart from brand image, yet it is considerably cheaper. Far, far cheaper and comes with more goodies. So, BMW can charge a higher price and get the added benefits of economies of scale through being the major volume producer in the market. Think about that for a second.

You can charge a lot more for a Rolls Royce because of it's prestige and exclusivity. Yet, BMW (and Audi for that matter) can charge more for the sake of increasing profit margins. It hinges on their expensive marketing campaigns which all enhance the brand. So while "volume" makers like Peugeot and Renault have to be cheap, they are also losing sales at a vast rate of knots. For the French it's a worrying situation, meanwhile it is win win for the Germans.

The world's best-selling phone. Not that you know it.

In many respects this could apply to the iPhone. There are a myriad of Android devices that do what an iPhone 4 can do, and more. For less money too, or similarly priced but with more spec. In March will come a raft of quad-core SmartPhones that will provide a significant amount more oomph than the iPhone 4S. Worldwide the Samsung Galaxy S2 is the best selling phone by quite a margin. Not in the UK it isn't. Us brand-concious Brits plump for Apple's design masterpiece over more competitive options more often than not. Again, marketing is key. Why buy the brilliant Windows powered Nokia Lumia when Nokia is regarded as a cheap phone you once had in the early 00's that you played Snake on? Hey, right next to it is the eponymous iPhone, wow! It costs more, does less, but it looks good and has an Apple logo on the rear (which was stolen form The Beatles). 

Don't get me wrong, I admire Apple's position. Make more, for less and then charge more. They somehow have this halo effect, whereby if any other company had announced £13bn profit they would have been lynched as profiteering bastards.

The over riding point is brand is literally everything. I'm sure if BMW produced a medium-sized 4x4 made for 50p in the states that was sub-par, even it would sell like hot cakes because of image and image alone. Oh, they already do, it's called an X3. Yet, you can go too far. Lest us not forgot how Mercedes cannibalised it's own image with some shocking reliability in the late 90's, a mess they still haven't quite recovered from yet. Audi themselves took a good 15 years to recover from cars with faulty gearboxes in the US.

Perception is key and even if you make the greatest product known to man, it is utterly meaningless if you don't have an image that is seen as prestigious. My Sony camera is a prime example. Canon spend vast amounts of money not only advertising it's products, but paying for sales assistants training to embed the brand of Canon into their psyche. Despite being in a second recession, premium brands are prospering, while the middle ground is shrinking fast. Either you are a budget product or an expensive one, but no one wants to be stuck in the middle. While you could research your next car, phone or camera and know the ins and out of the market, this is also seen as geeky. Perhaps you buy an iPhone, not because it's the best, but because it is the default choice.

As a friend at an art gallery told me today after I said I know nothing about the subject matter: "You don't have to know about it to like it." How very true.

Branding. Turns out it's like a Peter Brook painting.