I think it only fitting that in honour of Australia Day, we take a moment to look at 2010’s top 10 most trusted brands.

How are brands related to Australia Day? Well, when Brand Asset Consulting released the results for the top 10 most trusted brands as rated by Australians, 9 of those 10 were overseas brands.

And 9 of those 10 most trusted brands were also technology brands.

BUT! The number 10 most trusted brand, was bizarrely and brilliantly, VEGEMITE!

Gotta love that. And yes, I know it’s now officially a Kraft brand, but I think that still counts.

What is it about Vegemite that has it up here with these other brands? It’s clearly a very different brand in terms of a product, so is this indicative of Australian’s nostalgia for the past? Particularly in the light of all things new and techy?

While immersing ourselves thoroughly in technology, social media and the internet, does Vegemite keep us grounded?

Or perhaps what it is saying is that we are now so comfortable with technology and it’s providers that it has become as entrenched in our day to day lives as a slice of Vegemite toast for breakfast?

Definitely food for thought. ;)

So to my fellow lovers of all things Vegemitey, I salute you. And here’s hoping that more Aussie brands make it into next years top 10 list!

Here is the full list of Brand Asset Consulting’s top 10 most trusted brands:

1. Google (search engine)
2. Microsoft
3. Google (portal)
4. Microsoft (office)
5. Nokia
6. Sony
7. Apple
8. eBay
9. Apple iPhone
10. Vegemite

The online tax push by Gerry Harvey (Harvey Norman), and other large Australian retailers such as Myer, David Jones, Target, House, Borders is receiving incredible (and ongoing) backlash from angry consumers. What the retailers are proposing, is for either the local GST to be scrapped on goods sold for less than $1000, or for a similar duty to be applied to goods bought from overseas online sites.

This tax push reveals two key points – the retailers’ lack of understanding of their customers, and their lack of understanding of the power of social media.

The ordinary people on the street (aka the customers) are flocking to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to express their anger and disgust over the retailers’ proposition. In fact, the retailers’ public push for this online tax appears to have opened a can of worms. While many people are now saying they will no longer buy from these stores (particularly Harvey Norman), it has also provided consumers the chance to air ALL their grievances to do with the big retailers.

Media reports that the retailers are stunned by the reaction from consumers, which is interesting as we all know shoppers love getting a ‘bargain’. And they love the convenience of shopping online. Combine the two and it’s a heady mix. Trying to take this away from them is like taking a lollipop from a child. It’s never going to end well.

Before the advent of social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc (that allow everyone a say) this proposed online tax would probably have gotten off the ground without a peep to be heard from disgruntled consumers.

However, social media has changed all this, as borne out by the reactions to this proposed campaign.

Following the public outcry, a recent media release from Gerry Harvey reveals he is stepping away from the campaign, saying it was ‘suicidal’ to have been involved. The backlash to him personally and his chain of franchises, Harvey Norman, has been too strong.

The irony in all this is that retailers source cheap goods and labour from overseas (and consumers are aware of this), but do not want consumers to be able to do the same.

A lesson in amongst this entire fracas is that companies need to create sustainable and mutually respectful relationships with their customers.

In the meantime, the retailers have alerted the public as a whole to the advantages of online shopping with overseas companies – wide range, big savings. Welcome to the 21st century!

The polls below tell the story.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald 7 Jan 2011

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.

Anyone still doubting the power (and use) of social media need only look as far as Greenpeace’s latest campaign against Nestle using unsustainable palm oil in its products (namely Kit Kat) Victory: Nestle gives orang-utans a break.

Greenpeace’s aim was to alert people of Nestle’s links to deforestation in Indonesian rainforests and the destruction of organ-utan habitats, and ultimately to get Nestle to stop using products, or suppliers, associated with palm oil that is not sourced sustainably.

So began a campaign using social media. Greenpeace created a video that went viral on YouTube. In only 24 hours the campaign had gone global, to date achieving over 1 million views.

People around the world responded using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to let Nestle know, in no uncertain terms, how unhappy they were with the global food giant.

However, Nestle didn’t only get flak over palm oil, it also erred through its inappropriate use of social media (trying to take down posts and ‘talking down’ to visitors to its Facebook page). By not understanding the role of social media and the way people use it to interact with big corporations Nestle worsened its public perception rather than improving it. The outcome, two months after this social media campaign began, is that on 17 May Nestle announced it had taken certain measures to use ‘responsible sourcing guidelines’ for palm oil.

Another example of a large global company currently undergoing a social media pummeling is oil giant BP. People around the world are using social media to express their unhappiness with BP, which is in crisis management due to an unprecedented oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Once again, using Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, there is a global outcry around the world about the way BP has (or hasn’t) handled the crisis. You only need to look at BP’s facebook page to see that the company is not a favoured brand at the moment and has a lot of cleaning up to do (pardon the pun!).

Social media allows individuals to have a united voice in a very public arena, which companies can’t ignore if they want to maintain positive customer relations and share price.

There are some lessons to be learnt from these recent events, one of them being that social media is a very fast and effective way for the average ‘Joe’ to get their message across, and that for brands to remain relevant to their customers they must use social media honestly and appropriately.