Posts Tagged ‘Brand’

The media is reporting a survey by health campaign group Consensus Action on Salt & Health (CASH) which shows that some pasta sauces on sale in the UK are saltier than sea water. A good hook for a survey but bad news for celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, whose spicy olive and garlic pasta sauce topped the poll with a whacking 3 grams of salt per 100g.

This looks to have been a brand extension too far. Jamie is a brand and brands need to deliver on their promise. Over the years, he has been the front man for campaigns on better school dinners, healthier eating, animal welfare, creating employment for disadvantaged young people, apple pie and more. Today’s news is at odds with his wholesome image. What is to be done? His team will be working to focus attention on their man’s good deeds. But while they control the brand, they don’t own Jamie’s reputation. His public image will be dented. Will his sales be hit? Certainly, expect a new recipe pasta sauce to be rushed out and to hear updates on his campaigning efforts. But when his next campaign is launched with television series, website and spin-off book, his public might just take it all with a pinch of salt.

Meanwhile, the celebrity cook market remains big business, particularly in the run up to Christmas. A quick search of the web shows that today Jamie can sell you:

Jamie Oliver salt and pepper mills

Jamie Oliver salt pig and scoop

Jamie Oliver pop-up salt mill

Jamie Oliver salt kilner jar

That just rubs salt in the wound.

Yesterday’s newspapers were full of the news that Hollywood film studios have banned their stars from using Twitter *gasp*. While some papers and comments suggested that the ban encompasses any use of Twitter…

‘Hollywood A-listers are being banned from using Twitter in case they leak film information’ [Daily Mail]

‘it seems that Cam and Mike have no choice but to close their accounts’ [Glamour.com]

When you delve deeper into the story it would appear that things have not gone as far as that. What the studios have in fact done is ban their stars from tweeting about any upcoming films. The justification of this is that information leaked by stars using Twitter is said to be damaging the industry.

While this may seem like an action which will affect a small few, as a talent lawyer told The Hollywood Reporter newspaper - “This is just the beginning,”.

Indeed the love affair between celebrities and Twitter has taken several dents recently.  The number of celebrities quitting Twitter grows longer by the day, with the most notable recent ‘departee’ being Miley Cyprus, who cited a need to regain her personal life as the reason why she took the decision.

Surely this growing trend is not something that Twitter should be worried about? Or is it? After all it is often the celebrities that bring the crowds to Twitter – Miley in particular was credited with bringing large numbers of the younger generation, traditionally a harder target audience for Twitter, onto the site. And why does Twitter need this generation? Well personally I think of Twitter more as a business tool than anything else, an opinion held by many and certainly if Twitter wants to escape this image they need the younger generation to remain interested.

The love loss between celebrities and Twitter might also have further implications in terms of brand uptake of the site. If celebrities effectively and publically pull their “brands” off Twitter, will this add to the unease brands feel about their presence on Twitter? Will business brands begin to rethink their Twitter status?

Is this just the beginning?

When I hear the words ‘protest song’ I immediately think of some gnarly old hippy wheezing into a harmonica spouting wordy and ideological rubbish. And musically at least, this song is not much better, but perhaps it will mark the day social media gets taken seriously.

For anyone unfamiliar with United Breaks Guitars, its the work of a musician namd Dave Carroll who was moved to record it after United Airlines, er broke his guitar and were unsympathetic after doing so. Essentially a letter of complaint set to music, he posted it on YouTube and it got a lot of hits a week or two ago.

Since then, United’s share price has fallen by 10 per cent and mainstream media has suddenly shown an interest, with even BBC Breakfast running a story on it today. Is the fall in share price just down to the song? Of course not, although the publicity generated has not done United any favours in what is a difficult time for the business.

But it does bring social media and how companies manage their online brand and corporate reputation much more under the spotlight. When people start connecting YouTube videos to falling share prices (accurately or not) then business leaders will turn their attention pretty sharply to addresing this.

A few months ago Ruder Finn surveyed inhouse PROs about digital communications and a majority were still struggling to see ROI. Perhaps looking at it from this different persepctive - what happens if you don’t pay close attention to your brand online - will scare people into seeing its value?

John Lydon enjoying some margarine

Much of my PR experience has been in business technology so the opportunity to use a celebrity to endorse a product/service has been thin on the ground. However, I am fascinated how brands choose celebrities and what effect they then have on awareness/sales/buzz and also on why public figures choose to endorse certain products – apart from the filthy lucre of course.

There have been two recent advertisements that have really surprised me - John Lydon for some margarine or t’other and Iggy Pop for a car insurance firm. Two of the most anti-establishment figures around in their seventies heyday and possibly the least likely people to pop up on TV advertisements - who would honestly have picked them as brand ambassadors? Yet both ads have attracted a lot of attention, and according to Brand Republic the John Lydon one has been hugely successful, with an 85% increase in sales. If you had said to Johnny Rotten in 1977 that he would end up hawking margarine on TV he would have had some choice words to say to you. And he would no doubt defend his right to do so now, but he remains an unlikely brand figurehead despite the campaign’s success.

The same goes for Iggy Pop and whatever car insurance it is he is flogging. I am not even sure that Iggy Pop is famous enough to do an ad like this. Anyone that had heard of him and knew his music would be vaguely appalled at the thought, whilst everyone else would be wondering who that weirdo is, ranting about the ‘gift of time’.

It is rare to see credible celebrities doing work of this nature but if it works I guess the brands aren’t complaining. Are these former punks really so short of a few quid though, that they are willing to compromise their musical legacy? Do John and Iggy really use the products they are endorsing (I think Iggy’s insurance premiums would be off the scale, what with all the, ahem, lifestyle choices he has made)? In a way it seems unfair that say, Eva Longoria can advertise ice cream and people don’t think any less of her (not that she looks like a choc ice has come within a yard of her) but for musicians and/or ‘edgy’ personalities it seems much more of a sell-out.

Or maybe other people aren’t as sensitive about punks in adverts as me.