BP's reputation vs the world

BP CEO, Tony Hayward, said in a recent Today Show interview that he ‘wants his life back'.

I'm sure he does. The demands of a corporate leader are immense at the best of times, let alone when every camera, blogger, whale-hugger, and US President is hanging on your every move and word until you fix the worst environmental disaster is US history.

Hayward later used Facebook to apologize to the families of the employees that were killed when the oil rig originally blew. I'm sure the 140 characters of Twitter would have limited his sincerity...

BP's CEO has been described as youthful, engaging, and dynamic, but at this point I’ll bet he wants to crawl under a rock. President Obama and the entire US media want him to be the foreign scapegoat that acts not only as a blame target for the mess, but a soapbox from which to shout partisan messages to a shocked and attentive audience.

BP really has no say in the matter. Whether they spend billions on stakeholder outreach and media relations, continue to run ads that say 'We will make this right', or give everyone in America a $5 gas card, it doesn't matter.

The only way to stop a crisis is to end what started it. Stop the oil spewing into the ocean, then start talking about clean-up and making everything right. Until the oil stops, nothing you say will be heard.

But does it matter? If 25 percent of Americans chose not to use oil or gas, not drive cars or trucks, and not support BP and its peers because of this incident the message would be heard boardrooms around the world.

But the likelihood of even 1 percent of 1 percent changing their consumption habits is about as probable as Tiger Woods ever again truthfully saying to a woman ‘I've never done this before'.

The majority of consumers care about the environment until it affects their daily lives, then they go about making choices based on convenience and price.

Although this disaster is having an enormous negative impact on BP’s reputation, in the long run, they won’t see a major effect to the bottom line as there are some commodities that are sheltered against even the worst meltdowns.

The future, pffft

Here we are ten years into the new millennium and we're nowhere closer to flying cars, jetpacks, or living on the moon than we were in 1982.

Sure, we can update each other on every facet of our days, we have blankets with sleeves built in, and for some reason we have an insane obsession with building regular families into celebrities, then tearing them down.

Seems like kindergarten all over again except instead of throwing mud, we type incessantly at our computers and hide behind screen names. 

People are still dying of the same things they did 150 years ago and the economy is less stable than when everyone bartered for their goods. Sure, people have more choices in hair products but we're losing it faster than ever. 

We work more than ever but for less reward, relatively, and even less satisfaction. No one dares to dream because they're afraid it might mess with the plan they laid out for themselves. We're a scared little world that rested on its laurels of big hair and the Internet.

Wasn't the Internet supposed to make everything easier, cheaper, simpler? Yes, I don't have to go to the bank anymore, but maybe that's why no one can write without the use of numbers and smiley faces anymore. 

Has technology made leaps and bounds? Yes. Can I store, share, move, and record an entire music collection on a piece of plastic the size of my thumb? Yes.

But we landed on the moon in the 60's and I still have no idea what the heck else is out there. And… people are still fat. I mean, come on.

Talk to people. Design, build, dream, do something! Innovation isn't perfect.
The iPod rocks, but where's my jetpack. 

Tying your brand to Olympic gold

Alexandre Bilodeau won Canada’s first ever Olympic gold medal on home soil on Day 3 of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, which company will put his face on their products first?

Similar to the Wheaties strategy in the USA, Canadian companies will likely jump quickly to secure Bilodeau’s services as a spokesperson for their products. From financial services, to sweatshirts, to flying through the air care-of a special, grease-infused breakfast sandwich, adding a little bit of gold to any marketing push can wield great results.

However, there are two sides pointing against this quick, opportunistic strategy. Firstly, it could be very expensive to get Bilodeau, or other Canadian champions, to speak on your behalf. I’m guessing he won’t be pitching Subway’s new 6-inch fake-meat wrap for free.

Secondly, if the public sees a company blindly jumping on the bandwagon (on which room is quickly becoming scarce) the move could backfire and cause people to question a company’s motives, ethics, quality of service, or colour of logo, I think.

The Michael Phelps’ and Tiger Woods’ of the world have caused sponsors to look more closely at who they tie their brands to in the public space. After all, if Bilodeau has skeletons in the closet they will soon come out.

But who cares. This is an opportunity for Canadian companies to showcase a Canadian athlete and see if some of that golden lustre can rub off on their next revenue report.

Do you believe? (in Olympic tie-in advertising)

What should Tiger do? Say something! (but hide the clubs)

By now, most of the world has heard about Tiger Woods’ alleged marital transgressions and the accompanying motor vehicle accident at 2:30 a.m. last Thursday that may or may not have included a golf club attack.

Simon Houpt of the Globe and Mail wrote very clearly about the incidents’ facts and its affect on Woods’ sponsors. So far Nike, Gillette, and Accenture, Woods’ biggest sponsors, have all stood by their guy as would be expected.

What’s noteworthy about this story is the continued onslaught of media attention that is causing damage to Woods’ otherwise squeaky clean reputation and brand.

From a reputation management perspective, the only thing worse than the event that started this story is a cover up, or even the appearance of a cover up.

In the absence of fact, rumour becomes truth. The public wants something to hold on to, the nightly news needs something to talk about, give the world and the fans a plausible explanation of the events leading up to the infamous sand wedge swinging, not some contrite statement about how it’s a private matter.

When notable brands pay over $100-million a year to be associated with your image, you’re public life cannot be hidden in private.

Even the classic square-suited media machine that is the CBS Nightly News opened with the story earlier this week. Or as Bill Maher suggests it be called, the “Hey guys, guess what?!” evening discourse.

Today’s media landscape favours populist appeal and speed of reporting over thorough news value and solid fact checking. While not up for debate, this change in media culture means that a subject in Woods’ crisis situation needs to quickly manage the message to quell speculation and rumour; the fire and oxygen of any captivating gossip story.

Mess up, fess up, make up.

If Woods had followed these two simple actions after the first he could have avoided most of the public fascination that continues to follow what isn’t a new event. Whoa! A celebrity / athlete cheating on their spouses, someone call NASA.

Instead, he chose to ignore his assumed high-priced PR team and hid behind higher priced lawyer speak. Give the public a reasonable explanation for whatever happened and they’ll go back to their everyday lives. Try and hide, and the public will unleash its fangs for every detail. Note: See also Ottawa’s incredible curiosity into the origination of Stephen Harper’s blue sweater phenomenon.

Woods can easily take control of this runaway train by giving one clear, genuine, and somewhat honest interview to a mainstream media outlet. While not eliminating public interest at this point, an interview shows a sense of calm and accountability that will permeate the media and satisfy the fans.

All we know for sure is that any cocktail waitress / stripper looking for a reality show and a cheque is now going to claim to have text messages and voicemails from Tiger. Way to go society.

Your online ducks need to be in a row

A recent ad campaign for The Bay (never mind their strategy to use 60-second spoken word radio ads…) highlights a new product.

Nothing shocking. But trying to find the product online is almost as mind-numbingly painful as aimlessly schlepping through the various levels of each Bay store in person.

It’s proven that in today’s online world that 80% of purchases are researched online first.

If your marketing efforts are successful in creating interest with your target market (yes!) than why hide your star information under the mountain that is an entire product catalogue. Creating singular landing pages and memorable URL’s for individual campaigns is more work, effort, and cost, but that’s what consumers want these days. Finding information about your product online should be as easy as convincing that lazy jobless friend to crash on your couch, free of charge.

Your audience won’t necessarily remember your website, no matter how clever its address, this is why you need to be the top result on Google, this is known as search engine optimization (SEO).

SEO is one of the most cost effective marketing tools and can include both organic or paid search engine results. Either way, it’s got to be easy and simple for your audience to find the information their looking for online.

Otherwise, you’ve lost their interest and they’ll remember that, negatively, next time.

The world ends in 2012: Sony Pictures

The Institute for Human Continuity (IHC) launched a lottery this summer for humans to be saved from the 2012 destruction of the planet.

Yes, you heard it here. Wondering why you haven’t been made aware of this all important event by your local politician, hairdresser, or favourite news-spewing family member?

The IHC’s work is an innovative marketing campaign for a yet-to-be-announced sci-fi movie. Launched at ComicCon 2009 in July, the IHC attended the year’s biggest comic book / sci-fi convention, handing out collateral and showing the world a very elaborate movie marketing strategy.

Recently, TV adds have showcased the IHC’s work, asking Earth’s inhabitants to sign up for the lottery in which winners receive a position in the post apocalyptic world, developed and managed by the IHC. This clever system creates a massive data capture of potential movie followers, rivalling only Obama’s 2008 presidential election for opt-in marketing.

Sony, the film’s distributor, put on a full court press of branding efforts. Everything from the url of a fictitious non-profit organization, to the collateral distributed, to a fictitious individual acting as a grassroots proponent of the IHC’s efforts through his online pages, fake news stories, and continued push to showcase the Mayan story of Earth’s end in 2012.

A MTV Canada host recently signed herself up for the lottery after being scared witless at 3 a.m. by the TV spots. A significant amount of money, strategy, and campaign execution have started turning a completely fictitious story into possible reality.

It goes to show that reality is the information we’re given, gauged through whatever colour glasses we happen to be wearing at the time.

Torontonians not so hot on Coors’ latest billboard campaign

Molson Coors’ summer advertising campaign features 30 billboards across B.C. touting it’s beer as ‘colder than most people from Toronto’. Pretty funny, no?

Or at least it did until this week when Coors announced that in the face of complaints from the population of Toronto, they are pulling the campaign as “it wasn't meant to be harmful but was supposed to be playful. The insight is there that some people didn't like this,” according to spokesman Adam Moffat.

Whatever the message of the campaign, it worked. Coors undoubtedly received more media coverage from the ‘public uproar’ (term used VERY loosely) than they would have received in brand awareness from a traditional Out of Home campaign.

When asked what she thought about the campaign, one Toronto resident said, “Why would they be advertising out west anyways, people out there couldn’t begin to appreciate the Silver Bullet.” I kid, I kid…

But isn’t this the general sentiment that most Canadians hold of Torontonians, right or wrong?

The creative advertising message got people thinking, which in turn got them talking, and hopefully, got them to the beer store to pick up some cold-brewed goodness to ponder the ridiculousness of Coors pulling the campaign out of market.

Beer marketing is supposed to be innovative, fun, catchy, and generally resonate with the target market. Perhaps this campaign, developed by a Toronto agency, met its match in the steely Torontonians it was making comment about, or maybe it was due to be pulled anyways and ‘someone’ commented on the campaign to The Toronto Star and started this entire conversation ensuring it went out with a bang.

Harvard University, fashion expert

Harvard University announced this week that it is licensing its name to create a fashion line based on the schools’ renowned preppy style. Wearwolf Group, a New York based clothing company, will design and manufacture the products with the University having final say on everything wearing the new Harvard Yard trademark.

The partnership, facilitated by IMG Worldwide Inc., appears to have been in the works for a while as Harvard protected their new brand name as early as last December.

It’s hard to imagine a prestigious Ivy league institution like Harvard (also pronounced Haaaaaaavad while wearing pressed slim-fit khakis and a pastel sweater thrown over the shoulders ever so loosely) would be facing the same revenue pressure that car manufacturers and caviar producers have been battling.

Nevertheless, this licensing agreement appears to be a shrewd venture for the University as it brings in the yet unannounced associated earnings, increases the equity and awareness of its prestigious brand, and turns elusive brand value into actual dollars, all while maintaining the final go / no-go decision on any product wearing the Harvard name.

It’s difficult to predict what impact the Harvard Yard line will have in the fashion market with shirts starting at US$ 160 and sport coats at US$ 495, but what is certain is that buyers do exist. It may not be as prevalent as it was a year ago, but consumers are still schilling out major amounts of money to be associated with a brand that represents their image, or more importantly, the image they want to present.

Other brands have done it (see Ralph Lauren or The Gap) but none has attempted to cash in on the vast pedigree of an institution that bleeds preppy. Whether it is successful or not is yet to be proven but the coverage already garnered by the University in the typically slow summer season is already a testament to their marketing efforts.

Your move, Yale.

Pitching from beyond the grave

Billy Mays, former pitch man for dozens of different ‘As seen on TV’ products including OxyClean, passed away June 28, 2009. Obviously a tragic event for his family and friends, but not my point.

Mays pitched multiple products at once through 30-second paid ads with his ‘Buy it now, and I’ll double the offer, for free!’ trademark pricing technique.

As of last night, iCan Health Insurance, an affordable health insurance / benefits company is still running his ads on TV. Seriously?!

His face is prime real estate on their web page as well.

I know, I know. The irony is too much to take in. A celebrity pitch man using his powers from the after life to sell health insurance.

Is this a clever strategy to get irrelevant bloggers like myself to give them some online, grassroots coverage? That’s the only explanation for not pulling their ads after Mays passed away.

Or…

Could it be that their advertising teams, or agency, didn’t clue in to their media buy and realize these spots were playing in market?

This isn’t necessarily a brand impacting, negative ‘I’m not going to give this company the time of day’ issue, but it does make a potential consumer think about the type of service iCan would deliver.

If a company is either too dumb to realize its ads are playing, or morally inept enough to use a deceased spokesperson less than a month after his death, I’m not sure I want to associate with that brand.

The theory 'any publicity is good publicity' is dead

If this were the '60s and the only media we were subjected to was a daily paper, any publicity showcasing your brand might be good because your company is talked about for a day and then the story is forgotten, but the name remains.

But this is 2009, today's tweet is tomorrow's headline is next week's online furor calling for a politician's resignation. Google archives these stories for the next reader to find, analyze, and base opinions on.

Negative publicity offers an opportunity to create a positive story (see: mess up, fess up, make up) but any event that splashes someone's name across the media landscape is not an outright boon to their image. Celebrity sex tapes excluded.

Take the example of Wes, the Texas country singer on this season of The Bachelorette. He made no bones about the fact he was there to promote himself and his music. Problem is, now every woman in North America that thought about buying his record thinks he is a two-faced prick because he admitted to having a girlfriend while being on the show.

One story can ruin an image, or at the very least taint it enough so no one, including your friends or clients, wants to be involved with your brand. But all is not lost, how you rebound from the issue is what matters.

Say you're sorry, do some good for the community, lay low for a little while, and focus on your area of expertise. You will come back better than ever. But don't think that the public will give you a free pass the next time. You need to rebuild the equity in your brand to withstand any negative perception.

Now, if Wes were to come out and modify his image from a lying dumpee to a country crooner that's apologetic for his actions, I think he might sell a record or two, maybe.