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?

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.

This year is going to deliver a bumper crop of Australian brand faux pas to all those marketing lecturers and brand consultants who have a book idea in the making. Actually, just in the last 2 months, we’ve seen some spectacular mess-ups which have left many of us in the marketing world wondering why, oh why, these things are happening.

Interestingly, a lack of social media understanding on behalf of advertising agencies and the companies in question has played a huge role in fanning the flames under each one of these cases.

Kraft’s iSnack2.0 debacle seemed to reflect a misunderstanding about where the world of communications and technology is at. It made an unintended joke of something we’re really quite serious about, our Vegemite. And the community bit back with YouTube spoofs, cartoons, countless online comments, and national and international media attention.

A second, and more recent case is that of Toyota’s Yaris advertisement, not an Australian brand per se but created for the Australian market. Toyota choose to work with Saatchi&Saatchi, who began by inviting people, via Facebook, to create an ad for Yaris. There’s a long story, by Tim Burrowes on Mumbrella, about how the final ad came to be chosen (and it wasn’t from the original Facebook call to action which received no interest) which you can read here. Essentially they managed to select something that was puerile, offensive and damaging to the brand. As Burrowes points out, advertising agencies need to understand how social media really works and “start learning about it for themselves, rather than using their clients as guinea pigs”. Somehow in the rush to use social media, everyone involved forgot about maintaining the integrity of the Toyota brand.

Finally, a disaster close to our hearts given we’re talking about banking in one of our own online research communities. Westpac, within a week, managed to up its interest rate by almost double the RBAs rise, then go on to explain its actions with a naïve animation and poor media performances from its top executives. In the past actions like this might have blown over quickly, but with the video available online in so many places, Westpac has not only managed to alienate its own mortgage customers, it’s managed to taint its brand for the wider market. And, for all the other banks, Westpac has just delivered a nice Christmas present – by sliding a couple of rungs down the brand reputation ladder.

Other than providing us with entertainment and ‘oh my goodness’ moments, these brand disasters surely point to a need for companies to stop and think more seriously about creating sustainable and respected brands. And not treat customers as monkeys.