I knew this heading would catch your attention. It will no doubt also introduce this blog to many new readers (are there any yet?). Unfortunately though, this article is not accompanied by images
I am writing about the Myer group's impending float on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The Financial Review commented today that analysts were probably disappointed yesterday to see Myer CEO, Bernie Brookes (no relation), pitching the float to them instead of the former Miss Universe. I bet the AFR is dead right! They should definitely have featured a catwalk, but not performed by Bernie (I will soon write another blog about brands fronted by people called Bernie!).
The point of this is to ask is it appropriate to use young 'Jen', as she is affectionately known in Oz, to front the float of a major company? Could it be a double-edged sword?
Certainly, paid full page adverts in the AFR featuring the flawless Jen brighten up the publication's otherwise dull pictorial. And Jen does a great job of reminding us that Myer is a retailer with a focus on fashion (they also sponsor Fashions on the Field at Victorian Racing's globally famous Spring Racing Carnival). But what other value does she add to the serious business of attracting investors to the initial public offer of Myer shares?
One could ask is Jen's flawless countenance used to distract us from flaws in the company and/or its investment potential? I'm not suggesting this is the case, merely asking the question about perceptions? Or as a community, have we become so smitten with celebrity and the beauty of youth that we'll basically buy anything that lovely Jen endorses.
Bernie said the other day that he would pay even more for Jen's profile and she would be worth every cent. I bet there comes a day when he regrets that comment! Using Jen to publicise a float certainly attracts eyeballs, some of them bulging, but does it enhance the credibility of the message? And talking brands, will this Jen 'brand extension' from beauty and fashion into huckstering investment dollars from smitten institutional analysts, or even retail investors, work?
My guess is that in our celebrity-obsessed age, it will work, particularly with retail investors, who think Jen can do no wrong. Congratulations to Bernie and the team! By the way Jen, will a big chunk of your fees be paid in Myer shares?
Oh buggar it... you all deserve a reward for reading this far, here's a link to Jen's famous catwalk wardrobe malfunction....
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
The financial sector in Struggle Street - You must be kidding!
This brief note is to express my curiosity at an announcement today that might be a truer indication of the state of health of the global financial services sector than all the prognoses of expert commentators.
An avowed fan of Liverpool Football Club, I was interested to see that London-based Standard Chartered bank had signed a new four-year shirt sponsorship deal with my favourite club for a reported STG80 million, about AUD $154 million (if you're working in yuan, yen, US Dollars or other, my apologies for not doing the maths).
This follows a recent deal, of which I don't know the value, but which is more than the Liverpool deal, between AON and Manchester United. Admittedly, AON has replaced fellow financial services company, AIG, which probably believed it could not justify spending public money on the deal as easily as it could justify executive salaries and junkets.
The world just gets curiouser and curiouser!
An avowed fan of Liverpool Football Club, I was interested to see that London-based Standard Chartered bank had signed a new four-year shirt sponsorship deal with my favourite club for a reported STG80 million, about AUD $154 million (if you're working in yuan, yen, US Dollars or other, my apologies for not doing the maths).
This follows a recent deal, of which I don't know the value, but which is more than the Liverpool deal, between AON and Manchester United. Admittedly, AON has replaced fellow financial services company, AIG, which probably believed it could not justify spending public money on the deal as easily as it could justify executive salaries and junkets.
The world just gets curiouser and curiouser!
Friday, September 11, 2009
When is it time to retender your creative?
This question popped into my mind the other day, for no other reason than I received some invoices from my creative agency. I receive invoices from them all the time, so this was not a new event. I still don't know what triggered it. Possibly the amount!
But this question is an interesting one as it comes down to a decision about whether longevity and a solid understanding of your brand, your business and your products trumps a fresh look at, in particular, your brand. Generally, I think there are arguments for both. But...!
I work in the financial services space in Australia - to be specific superannuation, our version of pension funds. Now this is an Australian sector way behind the Usain Bolts of the FMCG sector when it comes to sophisticated thinking about brand and what it means. This is due to generally low consumer engagement with retirement saving, usually until it's too late to rescue a parlous situation. In other words, consumer apathy lulls providers into a false sense of security about their brands.
In Australia, an onerous regulatory environment that wants competition between funds to reduce fees and costs to superannuation beneficiaries, yet doesn't want funds to spend any beneficiary money competing to add scale, also contributes to this brand malaise. The latter can be the subject of another blog!
Believe it or not, the layout and language of some sections of disclosure documents here are prescribed by law and regulations. And guess what? The people determining that are not tuned in to brand or even communications - they are regulatory officials, lawyers and actuaries (probably all working within the presentation compromises of Microsoft Word - refer previous post). Tell me the last time you saw a legal or actuarial document that was comprehensible! The regulators are driving industry uniformity, thereby dumbing down the creative process. What happens if you can think of a better way of presenting your business or disclosing important information? Bad luck, stick to the script!
So, under these conditions, my original question swings heavily towards retaining the existing provider, assuming the business relationship is in good shape. Let me take another look at those invoices.... hmmm, just pay them and get back to the knitting. What's on at the weekend?
But this question is an interesting one as it comes down to a decision about whether longevity and a solid understanding of your brand, your business and your products trumps a fresh look at, in particular, your brand. Generally, I think there are arguments for both. But...!
I work in the financial services space in Australia - to be specific superannuation, our version of pension funds. Now this is an Australian sector way behind the Usain Bolts of the FMCG sector when it comes to sophisticated thinking about brand and what it means. This is due to generally low consumer engagement with retirement saving, usually until it's too late to rescue a parlous situation. In other words, consumer apathy lulls providers into a false sense of security about their brands.
In Australia, an onerous regulatory environment that wants competition between funds to reduce fees and costs to superannuation beneficiaries, yet doesn't want funds to spend any beneficiary money competing to add scale, also contributes to this brand malaise. The latter can be the subject of another blog!
Believe it or not, the layout and language of some sections of disclosure documents here are prescribed by law and regulations. And guess what? The people determining that are not tuned in to brand or even communications - they are regulatory officials, lawyers and actuaries (probably all working within the presentation compromises of Microsoft Word - refer previous post). Tell me the last time you saw a legal or actuarial document that was comprehensible! The regulators are driving industry uniformity, thereby dumbing down the creative process. What happens if you can think of a better way of presenting your business or disclosing important information? Bad luck, stick to the script!
So, under these conditions, my original question swings heavily towards retaining the existing provider, assuming the business relationship is in good shape. Let me take another look at those invoices.... hmmm, just pay them and get back to the knitting. What's on at the weekend?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
When cuddly koalas get favoured treatment over scaly seahorses
I saw in today's business news that IP Australia, the authority responsible for trademark and intellectual property registrations in Australia, has knocked back a trademark application from chocolate maker, Guylain, to register its seahorse shape. If you know anything about Guylain, you will know they make ocean-inspired chocolate shapes from a blend of brown and white chocolate.
Guylain chocolate is so aligned with the shapes of the sea that it wouldn't surprise me that if you showed the average consumer a seahorse and asked where you'd go to look for one, you would likely find many replying "in a chocolate box" rather than "in the sea". Perhaps a slightly long bow to draw, but I'm sure you get the point.
This all clearly relates to a discussion about how difficult it is becoming to secure brand differentiation and positioning in a regulated consumer landscape almost paranoid about delivering an advantage to any individual player in the marketplace. God forbid that anyone should be able to dominate a category through inspired branding!
However, it also relates to a discussion about consistency in rulings by regulators. Consider the Guylain decision in the context of an earlier decision by IP Australia to allow Cadbury to register the shape of its Caramello Koala. I have to ask is this some form of specism - a preference for seeing warm, cuddly icons in the marketplace, rather than, arguably, less elegantly shaped and coiffured species?
I say this tongue in cheek of course. But what is the argument for allowing a dominant market player like Cadbury to register its animal shape, but not a lesser (in terms of market share) competitor like Guylain?
Any thoughts on what the alternative rationale to my guess of 'specism' might be?
Guylain chocolate is so aligned with the shapes of the sea that it wouldn't surprise me that if you showed the average consumer a seahorse and asked where you'd go to look for one, you would likely find many replying "in a chocolate box" rather than "in the sea". Perhaps a slightly long bow to draw, but I'm sure you get the point.
This all clearly relates to a discussion about how difficult it is becoming to secure brand differentiation and positioning in a regulated consumer landscape almost paranoid about delivering an advantage to any individual player in the marketplace. God forbid that anyone should be able to dominate a category through inspired branding!
However, it also relates to a discussion about consistency in rulings by regulators. Consider the Guylain decision in the context of an earlier decision by IP Australia to allow Cadbury to register the shape of its Caramello Koala. I have to ask is this some form of specism - a preference for seeing warm, cuddly icons in the marketplace, rather than, arguably, less elegantly shaped and coiffured species?
I say this tongue in cheek of course. But what is the argument for allowing a dominant market player like Cadbury to register its animal shape, but not a lesser (in terms of market share) competitor like Guylain?
Any thoughts on what the alternative rationale to my guess of 'specism' might be?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Enjoying writing to myself
Ok so I have no followers yet. That suits me fine, because I'm finding this blogging quite therapeutic. It's more or less a stream of consciousness.
Anyone who has breezed by this blog might picture me as a a grumpy old man, way past his 'retire to pasture' date. It's really quite the opposite. I quite enjoy the anarchy of the web and the way it has slowly dismantled and then redefined customer engagement.
I mean what is wrong with customers defining brands through their interaction with other consumers and organisations? Isn't that really what has happened since the first cave man picked up a club and told another "this bloody thing works you know", unknowingly sowing the seeds of the global weight loss industry by enabling increased food capture and intake?
It's just that we communicate our satisfaction and dissatisfaction more efficiently these days - instantaneously if we want to. In some respects, the web has enabled a form of consumer cowardice, that empowers criticism from behind pseudonyms. But that can be the subject of another blog!
So roll out the feedback. Express yourselves and criticise those brands that disappoint you. But! Try to be fair. Heap praise on those who exceed your expectations.
Having written that reminder to myself, I'll trundle off to think about my last great consumer experience. I may even write another note to tell myself about it!
Anyone who has breezed by this blog might picture me as a a grumpy old man, way past his 'retire to pasture' date. It's really quite the opposite. I quite enjoy the anarchy of the web and the way it has slowly dismantled and then redefined customer engagement.
I mean what is wrong with customers defining brands through their interaction with other consumers and organisations? Isn't that really what has happened since the first cave man picked up a club and told another "this bloody thing works you know", unknowingly sowing the seeds of the global weight loss industry by enabling increased food capture and intake?
It's just that we communicate our satisfaction and dissatisfaction more efficiently these days - instantaneously if we want to. In some respects, the web has enabled a form of consumer cowardice, that empowers criticism from behind pseudonyms. But that can be the subject of another blog!
So roll out the feedback. Express yourselves and criticise those brands that disappoint you. But! Try to be fair. Heap praise on those who exceed your expectations.
Having written that reminder to myself, I'll trundle off to think about my last great consumer experience. I may even write another note to tell myself about it!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
When old farts reminisce
I caught up with my good mate, Nige, the other week over a coffee. Just as a sidelight comment for the benefit of those living outside Victoria (that's the one in Australia!), you cannot find a better place than Melbourne's beachside suburb of St Kilda to enjoy this pastime.
Anyway, back to the point. As we each mentally jousted with whether to eat the froth with a spoon first, or suck the coffee through the froth, we got down to griping about the challenges of communications consultancy in a world dumbed down by the mediocrity of Microsoft. Yes, that's right - the company notorious for mediocre fonts, poor layout programs and compromised output!
You see, Nige is still in the graphics business, whereas I stepped out of communications consultancy after 12 years and returned to the corporate world (now that's another inexplicable story). We both blame our absence from BRW Magazine's Australia's Rich 200 list (our "Costco" version of the Forbes list) on the inability of clients to distinguish between well-written and laid out communications and, well, the alternative.
And that's where Bill Gates comes in wearing the white shoes and checked pants of the slick salesman. In a vain attempt to save a few bucks, clients have bought relatively cheap software from him to put together their own communications. This has resulted in drip-fed brainwashing, which ultimately convinces them that there's really not much difference between what they produce and what their agency produces. And the great thing is, that instead of paying for author's amendments, they can forego the planning process and refine on the run - interminable amendments at "no cost". "What the hell was it that our agency used to charge us for? This only takes a few minutes! Janine on reception can do it between calls."
So the role of "brand manager" becomes knowing how to place a jpeg of the logo (roughly matched to the corporate colour palette) in the top corner of the page. Oh, by the way, it doesn't really matter if you forget to press the shift key as you scale the logo - I reckon it looks better when it's flattened out a bit!
You've got to ask: "How serious some companies are about their brands when they allow these practices to occur?" But.... ah well.... just see my previous post for commentary on creating a discipline around brand presentation. Catchya later.
Anyway, back to the point. As we each mentally jousted with whether to eat the froth with a spoon first, or suck the coffee through the froth, we got down to griping about the challenges of communications consultancy in a world dumbed down by the mediocrity of Microsoft. Yes, that's right - the company notorious for mediocre fonts, poor layout programs and compromised output!
You see, Nige is still in the graphics business, whereas I stepped out of communications consultancy after 12 years and returned to the corporate world (now that's another inexplicable story). We both blame our absence from BRW Magazine's Australia's Rich 200 list (our "Costco" version of the Forbes list) on the inability of clients to distinguish between well-written and laid out communications and, well, the alternative.
And that's where Bill Gates comes in wearing the white shoes and checked pants of the slick salesman. In a vain attempt to save a few bucks, clients have bought relatively cheap software from him to put together their own communications. This has resulted in drip-fed brainwashing, which ultimately convinces them that there's really not much difference between what they produce and what their agency produces. And the great thing is, that instead of paying for author's amendments, they can forego the planning process and refine on the run - interminable amendments at "no cost". "What the hell was it that our agency used to charge us for? This only takes a few minutes! Janine on reception can do it between calls."
So the role of "brand manager" becomes knowing how to place a jpeg of the logo (roughly matched to the corporate colour palette) in the top corner of the page. Oh, by the way, it doesn't really matter if you forget to press the shift key as you scale the logo - I reckon it looks better when it's flattened out a bit!
You've got to ask: "How serious some companies are about their brands when they allow these practices to occur?" But.... ah well.... just see my previous post for commentary on creating a discipline around brand presentation. Catchya later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)