With the emergence of Web 2.0 and the ability of internet users to co-operate, collaborate and share information with one another there has been a steep learning curve for brands who have had to adapt their behaviour when it comes to delivering messages to consumers.

Most recently, Sony’s Playstation Network (PSN) was hacked into and the personal information and in many cases credit card details of its millions of users across the globe compromised. Hacking of information is not a new phenomenon but it is the response of Sony, one of the world’s largest tech companies that has drawn criticism.

With the breach occurring between April 17 – 19, Sony waited a full week to release the details of the breach and just this morning (April 29), as a PSN user myself, I finally received an email acknowledging the issues, a full 10 days later!

The slow response and lack of information offered to users considering the seriousness of the issue will have significant ramifications on the level of trust users have for the brand. With the ability to act and inform those affected, Sony has sat on its hands and waited before informing the world and more importantly the 70m affected users of the problem.

Brands have had to learn to adapt their messaging about themselves but also the importance of the timeliness in delivery. No longer can they take time to ponder over their correspondences or media releases but are required to be upfront and honest or face potential major backlash from consumers.

Responding to negative press featuring a company cannot be met with a slow or non-existent response anymore. Brands have the ability to deliver a fast response to an issue, consumers not only want this, but have come to expect it.

It is trust and openness which consumers expect. The lack of information which was provided in any form, not just delivered through social networks which has been a significant issue and one which undermines trust in Sony as a brand.

Sony has one of the highest reputations for a brand in the world, behind only Google in a survey conducted by the Reputation Institute in 2010. This was built on over 60 years of innovation and finding solutions to consumer needs. The question is how much will an issue like this cost the company in the future?

In a world where brand reputation takes years to build, and an instant to break down, this could be one issue that seriously tarnishes the solid and trusted brand that is Sony.

Marketing is such a young profession and Australia is such a young country it’s easy to forget what history can teach us about these things.

When I think of the earliest examples of great branding I tend to think of  mass produced products such as Coca-Cola.  But the reality is branding was around long before the Industrial Revolution and mass production.

In fact the word brand is derived from the North Germanic language brandr meaning “to burn.” It refers to the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.  This type of branding we typically associate with branding livestock.  But branding has also been around in many formats for centuries.

In fact, an example I recently came across while travelling Europe was, Louis XIV – the Sun King.  His branding can be seen all over Versailles and Paris.  He left his mark on buildings and so forth, just so we remembered who was responsible for creating them.

I’m sure there are thousands of other examples of branding throughout history that we can learn from.

It seems like everything is going wrong for Australia at the moment, losing the cricket to England, being knocked off as the best brand in the world and suffering the indignity of just a solitary vote in the football World Cup voting in a race that we were hotly tipped to win. People have been very quick to lay the blame for all of these performances as always but the video that was supposed to sell Australia as the destination to hold the 2022 World Cup has come under particular scrutiny.

Much of the criticism has come from Australians who once again have been subjected to the same old efforts in attempting to bottle everything that we think outsiders like and know about Australia and sell it to the world.

From inside, we see this as dated effort and clearly now question it’s worth as a marketing tool. Externally though, is this still how foreigners see Australia or more importantly how they want to see Australia portrayed?

The video of the surfing kangaroo amongst the quintessential Australian backdrops, the occasional (retired) sports star and (should have retired long ago) movie star has divided the nation with over two-thirds believing it did nothing to boost the chances of Australia winning the bid. This was a poll on an Australian website and most likely taken by Australians, who in the end are not the audience that the video was aimed at. The real question is what the FIFA representatives thought. In the end, it obviously wasn’t that much.

Although the blame can’t be put solely on the video itself, the question is raised whether the world is tiring of ‘brand Australia’ and if the stereotypical images which we send out through tourist campaigns are getting old and have lost their impact. Surely we can do better than rolling out Paul Hogan whose image is solely build upon a movie released over 20 years ago now. Is that what foreigners are still thinking about when the word Australia is mentioned? I hope we’ve come a long way since then, but do outsiders?

I’m sure that research is being done by Tourism Australia to establish overseas if the view that outsiders have of Australia is still one of Fosters drinking, BBQ eating, zinc wearing, beach goers or whether there has been a shift to reflect our more modern culture that internally at least, we’ve been trying hard to change. We have moved on and grown up as a country, but does the rest of the world want us to?

With the buzz that surrounds social media unlikely to lose any of its momentum any time soon, more and more companies are seeing a social media strategy as the ‘must have’ item for their brands in order to deliver their message to the world. Plenty has been written about the pitfalls of creating a strategy without enough background research, so are companies learning from the mistakes of those who have gone before them?

With so many ways in which your brand’s message can be transmitted to the marketplace using social media, it has become so important to ensure that that the content of the message is consistent in order to get the maximum cut through for the brand alongside traditional marketing plans.

Social media has given brands a ‘voice’; an ability to talk and listen to the marketplace. By utilising tools such as Twitter or Facebook you can ‘talk’ to your market and deliver your message straight to those who want to connect with you. Therefore it’s imperative that what you say via these conduits is what you want them to be hearing.
Since its launch in 2004, Jetstar’s branding has positioned the company as a low cost provider of air travel in Australia across all media platforms and since their move to utilise social media have embraced Twitter to continue to deliver their message of low fares and great deals to its followers. The methods may have changed but the message is still the same. Below is Jetstar’s latest tweets integrating their core branding message but with reference to their ‘amazing deals’ and ‘hot fares’ as well.

In the last month, ING Direct has introduced us to an Orang-utan. Billy Connolly with his distinctive Scottish accent has been replaced by an Orang-utan called Charles. Brands change tactics all the time and replace figureheads but why is the approach taken by ING Direct so different?

According to a statement released by ING Direct’s head of Branding and Communications, Christian Bohlke, “Charles’ role will be to show Australians there is a better way to bank. He is an independent thinker who doesn’t want to deal with the practices of the mainstream banks.” A reasonable approach and something which you’d expect to be delivered by Charles as the new ‘spokesperson’ for the brand.

A social media campaign has been launched to increase awareness of Charles as the new face of ING Direct, complete with his own YouTube channel in addition to the now almost obligatory Facebook and Twitter pages. This is where the message that Christian Bohlke wants us to digest is lost. Below is an example of Charles’ Twitter feed (replicated also in his Facebook feed).

What message is Charles delivering to us? Certainly not ‘showing Australians there is a different way to bank’ as far as I can make out. His messages need be more closely aligned with the objectives of ING Direct to draw any real benefit from the social strategy. What reason do I have to follow Charles? My response to this feed is a simple ‘so what?’. As impressive as a talking Orang-utan is,  I’d be much more inclined to follow Charles if he was to give me savings tips or provide answers to any questions which I might have around banking. Give me a reason to follow you Charles. You won’t hear Jetstar telling you about the price of fish in China but you will hear them telling you of their ‘Everyday Low Fares’, the brand’s core message and in the deals that they offer, this being the reason to follow them.

At last count, Jetstar was followed by 10,718 people and Charles, 103. Although a relative newcomer to the Twitterverse, it’s hardly an impressive start by ING. I know success can’t be determine on the number of followers you have but it does go a long way to getting your message to the market.

Although the means of delivering your brand’s message may have become more flexible and numerous with the social media revolution, if you fail to align the core message that you are trying to deliver to current and potential customers, then you are failing to take advantage of what potentially are the strongest marketing tools at your disposal. If ING Direct are to be successful with Charles as the voice of their brand, then what he has to say will need to change otherwise he’ll be heading for extinction like the rest of his species. Charles talks, but do we want to listen?

“Can you pass me my iPhone?” a friend recently asked me when we were out together.
What is noteworthy about this sentence is that she referred to her mobile by brand – have you ever heard anyone say ‘can you pass me my Samsung?’

Apple doesn’t produce phones. It produces iPhones. You don’t own a phone, you own an iPhone.

Substituting a brand name for a product is not uncommon – think Coke or Glad. However, the difference here lies in the fact that Coke can refer to any type of cola drink, and Glad to any type of cling wrap. Only phones produced by Apple are iPhones. The iPhone exists within a category of its own.

Now, it’s no news that Apple has been able to achieve massive brand presence and a strong loyalty base. So, what can we learn from Apple’s marketing victory? And can it be replicated?

Most Apple loyalists will tell you that Apple offer functionally superior products, and are thus a more successful company. However, when consumers pay double for white Apple headphones, something other than functionality is at work. In marketing terms, reducing the success of a brand to the products it creates is a simplistic view. Products can be imitated. It is the brand that holds the unique relationship with their consumers – whether they acknowledge it or not.

It is about building something bigger than your product. Something people can use to connect to each other. Red Bull connects its customers through a common interest of extreme sports. Blackmore’s is currently building an online community dedicated to health and well being. Like Apple these brands are creating tribes – where emphasis is on people, not product.

What do you think of this tribe mentality? Can it work across all categories?

It’s widely recognised that the success of Apple’s iPhone has a lot to do with iTunes and the mammoth number of apps in the App Store. With more than 100,000 apps available across many categories, it seems there’s an app to suit everyone, for every need.

However, despite apps being a legitimate and increasingly powerful distribution channel for content, services and brand experiences, iPhone users are seemingly reluctant to spend a lot of money to access paid apps.

So, can brands charge for their apps?

Apps are gradually being recognised as a new distribution channel for brands, particularly those that can deliver content, or provide access to their services via mobile Internet. Furthermore, many iPhone users are looking for more brands to engage with them via their mobile device, however, not at a cost.

iPhone users are looking for new interactions or ways of dealing with companies anywhere, at anytime, and branded apps provide companies with another opportunity to connect with their customers. But, most brands cannot charge for access to their own distribution channels, or for content that is not unique – why pay to access something that can be obtained elsewhere for free?

There will be, of course, exceptions, particularly when a branded app can be a primary distribution channel for unique content or intellectual property, and/or the experience has significant benefits and value to the consumer. Although, at this point in time, consumer brands are yet to fully explore how they can become part of their customers’ lives via owning app territory on their customers’ Smartphone.

Latitude Insight’s case study of iPhone users uncovered just what consumers find so fascinating about the iPhone, why they use that four-letter word – LOVE, and how brands can become part of this ‘affair’.

The study revealed that Smartphones change user’s lives. Initially thinking they are getting a new phone, with email and web capabilities, they find iPhone gives them so much more.

It helps them communicate. It makes them more connected because of its web capabilities. But going even further, the real benefits are about being more entertained, more efficient in what they do, having more freedom because they are not stuck to a computer, and having more ability do things away from home and work. It’s a whole new world where users can do things anywhere, anytime.

Smartphone users also admit to relying less on their computer now they have a mobile device. With predictions that by 2011, 85% of handsets will have some sort of browser, it’s important brands recognise the opportunity mobile devices gives them in terms of another distribution channel to engage with their customers.

Furthermore, with over 100,000 apps available, many free, it’s important apps have lasting traction. They need to ‘do’ something and have a tangible impact on time or convenience to be worthwhile and valued by users.

We are excluded from communities everyday. It is the affinity we have with a few that makes us unique from the masses. The exclusivity of communities is their strongest asset, because those who are included begin to create, share and build their own distinctive cultures.

Are market research online communities any different? Does each community shape its culture, one that separates itself from others? As researchers, moderators, marketers and brands, how far aside should we push our agendas, and let our communities create for themselves? On the continuum from online focus group to “true” online community where will market research sit in the future?

Currently, this is the only research methodology that allows for on-going spontaneous discussions and it is within these discussions we can offer more to our clients. They are the questions we may not think to ask, and they arise from no agenda, other than people’s shared interests.

Offline groups incorporate brands into their culture; they are just as much a part of the community as the people. Think Adidas to youth, Herringbone to corporate. Could online follow suit? Transforming branded communities into branded cultures?