Just before this puts the world into a spin on Monday morning, I’d like to look at how real this thinking is. OK, it’s only one list, but this is going to be big headlines, as no doubt the researchers, Millward Brown, knew when writing their press release.
Obviously, the world revolves round money, stock markets and brands, (or the world that makes news does) but in reality much of this is very nebulous. Millions of dollars can be wiped off a company’s value (and hence brand) over night often for seemingly spurious reasons.
Is Apple a better brand? There are, of course, the Apple fanboyz, just as there are for Open Source, or Marmite, or thousands of other brands. But is the estimated market price of a company a true reflection of its value? After all, surely the consumer is the best judge of value? And should brands seek purely to increase perceived market value rather than customer satisfaction?
Consumers, as we know, are often forced/persuaded into purchase through sophisticated marketing and advertising techniques. That is what many in our industry do for a living. But, to date, the largest brands have seemingly failed to be penalised in such assessments or valuations for poor ‘after sales’ service, and are judged purely on sales figures ie money in.
What would be most interesting, is to see how many people have forked out for an expensive Apple item, and then never bought from Apple again…. for instance. Where is the satisfaction index?
Here’s mine. Our Apple satisfaction index is very low.
Our Mini Mac (now quite unloved) stopped working properly within less than 2 years of purchase, and despite a long trip away to an Apple repair shop, it now does only the barest minimum. And that whilst making the most horrendous noises.
Then, thinking those who espouse Apple, and whom I respect, must be right and that the MacMini experience was a mere blip, I recently acquired, against my better judgement, an iPhone. I was travelling, my 3 year old handset gave up the ghost overnight, and I needed a phone to get hold of the people who I was supposed to be meeting that day. This iPhone has, to date, driven me up the wall (even more so than the Nokia N97 it replaced) and really, if I lived nearer to an Apple Store, this latest handset would also go the way of the previous one – for replacement or refund. (THAT is a whole other post over the fact that handsets now last less time than your mobile phone contract).
The last iPhone had zero battery life and was replaced after 3 weeks (would have been much sooner but I couldn’t get to a store).
This one refuses to connect to a network, of any flavour – GSM, wifi etc – most of the time. It is bordering on useless for every reason I got it – phone, online, wifi. It is right now as much a smart phone as my cat is. The only thing that does work well is the camera but I can only share my photos if I go through a mind-bendingly tedious process to remove and share them. Whilst plugged into my attached-to-a-landline computer, which means the word ‘mobile’ is bordering on anathema to my iPhone.
From what I can see, the vast majority of apps in the AppStore (ditto the Android store apps according to the BBC) are not really worth the time their developers’ have spent on them, although there are some glorious gems such as Photosynth which has solved a problem I have had for years – stitching a panorama together. But that comes from Microsoft! (And of course, I can’t view my final attempts on the Net as that requires Silverlight, which Apple does about as well as Flash).
Let’s be balanced though, considering the headline – there are days I dislike and distrust Google too, as part of my general distrust towards big business vs small business, consumer and community interest, but looking at what has been achieved by Google for the customer – gmail, maps, search, and so on – I feel more comfortable in assigning a value to Google for services, than I do to Apple for products.
I am though quite concerned that the two biggest companies in the world, as of this morning and a single assessment (let’s make that clear!), suffer such a major #fail when it comes to those that matter most – the people who buy their products. Google will not answer questions in their forums; yet, there seem to be hundreds of thousands of people with problems that affect their daily lives, businesses etc. Apple suffers similar issues – the AppStore is full of them. My iPhone problems were only solved after I drove 200+ miles to a store – which now makes this device the most expensive I will own in a hurry.
But I cannot afford to be without a phone for the x days/weeks it takes to replace this one, which hasn’t worked properly since the day I got it. And as to my MiniMac problems – it’s now a very expensive box on the desk I should probably tidy away, into the bin.
So, in conclusion, whilst the money markets may make the headlines, and encourage other brands to aspire after those wielding the highest stock prices, is that what you should be doing with your brand?
I don’t believe so.
It comes down, I believe to a slightly different approach to assessing brand value. Social capital sells, as well as Quality Goods. Which. Work. Rushing to market to get the headlines and hence these type of valuations are all well and good, but personally, I may buy a PlayBook which is late to market but probably does what it says on the tin rather than an iPad. How will that decision be reflected in the news?
Traditional business values often bring you longer term value than any shiny quick wins. Many of the most successful businesses are not hitting the headlines of WSJ, NYT, or any of the British broadsheets this morning. They just keep on delivering, day after day, to a happy customer base who will support them through generations.
THAT is value. But it ain’t news. And sadly, those hard-working valuable companies will be written off by the meeja and thrown to the wolves by newcomers’ shiny claims. Leaving us with an ever-decreasing QUALITY for consumers in the rush for the headlines and the stock valuations.
Have a great week! Your comments are as ever welcomed.
Advertising, social media marketing, and even SEO is no longer about the tricks that get clicks. Your carefully planned online marketing campaign can go wrong at the touch of a button these days. And Facebook knows that.
So, Facebook Studio is being launched in the next few weeks, and this will allow companies to drill down into the basics of “what makes a great ad campaign”.
What may make this different is the transparency being offered to advertisers. This may no longer be about how great your ad agency thinks the creative is, but what a much wider audience (Facebook) thinks of it, and where you should put your hard earned bucks.
Will it force companies to be creative? Only time will tell.
Have you seen results through Facebook advertising, either traditionally or socially and virally (ie through wall posts or polls)?
I’m currently involved in a very interesting social experiment for Quakebook – a charity book created on twitter with a FB group.
Whilst not a purely commercial concern, many of the lessons learnt through our marketing are, or should be, of interest to many. How do you actually grab eyeballs? And when you have those eyeballs loking at your online shop window or feet crossing your e-commerce doorstep, how do you convert?
Maybe this is where the Facebook Studio might prove immensely valuable? However, I would add a hefty dose of common sense into the mix too.
If your ad agency can communicate, as individuals and as a company, with others in the street, you could be onto a winner. If the world they live in revolves around champagne on a Friday, nicking all the pens from events (yep, I’ve been at those events with ad execs!), and talking in tongues, ask yourself how well your ad campaign will work.
Whilst Google may not really need to advertise as the brand name is inextricably linked to ‘search’ in most of the world’s minds, it is interesting to see their contribution to the SuperBowl ads this weekend.
</object>
Google have been hitting the news with negative headlines recently, so perhaps the motivation to advertise at such a major event is no great surprise.
It is also great to note that you do not need to make hugely expensive ads to get a good reaction. Screenshots and a musical sound track alone add up to a neat bit of advertising that must barely figure in the Google expense budget!
Retailers are fast catching on to the benefits of Twitter by advertising sales and discounts to their followers, and hence through their followers to many more than a normal advert could reach for even a fraction of the spend.
Using tools such as cheaptweet, retailers can clear end of line stock, raise brand awareness, and pull people onto their website with only 140 characters.
Whilst there are likely to be many more applications in the near future that supercede Twitter, right now it is one hectic space where you can make sales, and hence make money.
Comscore have this week announced the release of a new tool to measure the reach of online ads, and recent research using the tool shows that Facebook is the biggest display advertiser in the UK, with 12.5billion ad views in April 2009.
This reflects a growing trend, most visible with Twitter users etc, of the internet moving into real time mode, streaming information to users in a dynamic manner rather than from static websites. Users want information **now**, and are increasingly seeking recommendations from their social network to find the information, products etc they want.
For those who have previously avoided display ads etc in their marketing mix, the availability of tools to conduct serious metrics may provide the impetus to reconsider. However, despite FB displaying so many ads, it is still debatable whether the users are clicking on the ads and hence advertisers are benefiting from such exposure.
The question has to be whether the age old advertising medium is still valid in 2009, and whether what is required is to move with the times and for marketing to be much more ‘real time’ eg with Tweets, live news streams, web TV /live video and so on.
As the infrastructure globally is improved to permit services such as VOD and IPTV to actually function over your average broadband connection, as well as with mobile connectivity, we will see far more new spaces in the websphere to place our marketing efforts with creatives for the future.
However, at present this new marketplace is fragmented, with no-one leaping in to co-ordinate media buys across the segment. This is mainly because, although the figures are rising for consumption of such services as Video on Demand and mobile TV, the quality of service and availability of program choice for the end consumer is still limited. Not only because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure, but also because for many of the large media players, this is still ‘toe dipping in the water time’ as they get a handle on how to cope with Digital Rights Management issues, the overall business case, and for some, just changing the traditional mindset is proving hard.
On top of this, many consumers are still happy to just watch the odd Youtube clip, use iPlayer for watch again purposes, and rip DVDs from Limewire etc – all of which is free, though the legality of the last is highly debatable, but many consumers don’t care. The reason for not caring is undoubtedly the huge profits that the media players are seen to be making and the conscience doesn’t prick whilst companies are announcing profits, eg BSkyB.
As the media companies get the model right, and more content is added which is simple to access and good value, then the consumers will move into the space, bringing opportunities for those who wish to access that target market. The successful players in that arena will be those who have spent the interim period building up their followers, exposing their brand to a wider audience, and learning to interact and listen to their potential customers. New entrants will need to work extra hard to capture the attention of those who will by then have become accustomed to dealing with the companies and brands they have grown to like and respect during the coming 2-4 years.
A new report by Rackspace has found that many chief marketing officers are planning to spend their 2009 budget on online marketing rather than traditional ad media. Although the overall advertising spend in the US was found to be down this year, many have spotted that the online spend is up.
Although it may be tempting to tighten belts during times of economic difficulty, it is also the time of greatest opportunity.
In an attempt to clear up some of the controversy, rumours and even deal with questions raised by an ongoing anti-trust investigation by the US Department of Justice, Google has launched a new facts page about the advertising deal with Yahoo.
Although a considerable amount of support is shown from big businesses, those most likely to lose due to this deal are small businesses and entrepreneurs who fear a sharp rise in prices, says Nathania Johnson on Search Engine Watch.
Tim Armstrong, President of Advertising and Commerce at Google, attempts to calm some of these fears, but one suspects only time will tell whether the advertising deal will raise prices for the smaller, less wealthy bidders using Google/Yahoo PPC to serve ads.
Advertising, social media marketing, and even SEO is no longer about the tricks that get clicks. Your carefully planned online marketing campaign can go wrong at the touch of a button these days. And Facebook knows that.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9929dd24-b8a8-4837-b38b-1ab4098eca7a)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=17e9e789-65ec-4ab1-b7e8-dda050948838)
