The Brand Man Speaks

Mercedes Benz uses Che Guevara in promotional presentation causing outrage

In a bumbling effort to promote what Mercedes called "revolutionary" new developments in automotive technology the luxury automaker is scrambling to do damage control over the use of marxist revolutionary Che Guevara's image with a Mercedes 3 point star in his beret in a Las Vegas CES presentation this week.

In a rare moment of joining forces, liberal and conservative individuals and groups have cried foul and condemned the automaker for the use and reference. For example:

"Mercedes-Benz Uses Communist Madman Che Guevara to Sell Luxury Cars," said the headline on a blog from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative political organization in Washington.

"Che Guevara... was a psychopath whose sadistic lust for blood was not easily quenched. He killed for pleasure," noted Heritage Vice President Mike Gonzalez.

It blows my mind sometimes how smart marketers do very dumb things without thinking about them. Mercedes has apologized for the use but the PR which is very negative can't be that easily ignored this time because key customer targets are expressing outrage throughout both traditional and social media.

Ernesto Suarez, who organized an effort to get Mercedes to apologize for using the image of a man often  called "a racist, homophobic, anti-semitic and tyrannical killer who admitted in his own writing to his endless blood thirst, " expressed relief that his effort to generate the apology was realized.

Some social media pundits have called for a boycott of Mercedes Benz cars. (Mercedes Benz just completed an oustanding sales year running neck and neck with BMW for top honors in the luxury automotive arena.)

A german automaker like Mercedes has to be very careful doing such polarizing activities because of its association with Hitler's operations during World War II and beliefs among segments of the American population (Conservative and Orthodox Jews for example) that Mercedes along with other German companies will never be cleared of their anti-semitic alliances from the War.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

LA Times "brand" story on Kardashian brand has follow up.

Here is the link to the follow up piece by writer Adam Tschorn. He explores my point of view.

Kardashian a Brand?

 

Watching out for you everday.

Eli

Will quickie marriage (72 days) significantly damage Kardashian brand?

When I started to write this piece my own first question was, why does anybody care? Fortunately or unfortunately the Kardashian Klan have built a nice multi-million dollar business all about nothing or  better known as being famous for being (untalented) and famous.

However, there is enough interest in the question of whether Kim Kardashian had built a real brand or just a marketing fad, flash in the pan. In my opinion Kim has yet to "earn" rights to be called a true brand. Most of her antics are PR stunts (and let's not forget without a sex tape she would be absolutely nothing and we wouldn't be wasting our time on this) and not brand building efforts. Launching perfumes, apparel lines, getting paid to appear at clubs and bars and getting married on a reality show for $17Million doesn't not make a brand.

People are more fascinated with her nothingness as entertainment and not about a vision, a journey or some meaningful element to make people believe something she is offering has any real value. Her deal with Sears is a ridiculous one. Kardashian wouldn't be caught dead in a Sears unless she was picking up a paycheck for an appearance.

Now let's address this divorce business. Maybe had she made it past a year or even six months she would have some credibility. But this 72 day PR game wasn't love or a real marriage. It was a paid for "appearance" event in which she got paid in cash and in kind. Poor guy, hope he didn't really see anything in or have feelings for her. I also hope he is laughing to the bank for all this mess. Although he comes off more of an embarrassment to himself than she does because she is not in the least bit embarrassed about being a shill for anything or everything with a payday attached.

Now you might feel that Kardashian isn't much different than Paris Hilton. I beg to differ. Whether you liked it or not she had a particular way of being, a slogan ("That's hot") and a sense of style (not necessarily one you might like). She acted in a TV show that was somewhat entertaining. Kim Kardashian is a poor (woman's?) man's version of Hilton. Hilton had pedigree for her debutante behavior. Kardashian's father was an unknown until the O J Simpson case (like instant fame, "new" money). The Hiltons have been a fixture in America for years.

Will the business of Kardashian be hurt by this divorce? Likely. It exposed her as having nothing honest or real about herself and her so-called fans will probably feel cheated, lied to, deceived but quickly wake up from their delusion of fascination and become disgusted. No journey here just a young girl trying to make a buck. I would suggest Ms. Kardashian be careful not to spend all her quickly earned cash too fast because the gravy train is likely to end soon.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

Bank of America likely to pull a "Netflix": About face based on consumer anger

Looks like Bank of America is learning that you cannot keep pissing off your customers and nickel and diming them and think you can keep them loyal. In a move pundits are calling a "Netflix", B of A is expected to change a recent decision and drop its intent to charge customers for ATM/Debit Card use. Several other banks (who did not get the same flack as B of A) have already dropped the idea.

Companies have to realize in the world we occupy today, information, especially consumer dissatisfaction news spreads like wildfire in minutes not days or weeks. Companies are trying so hard to manipulate social media to generate business and open dialogues with consumers but seem to forget that these same tools can damage and possibly destroy a business easily and quickly.

The bad news is be sure B of A will find another way to levy more fees on its consumers. This is why millions of people are switching to Credit Unions for banking services where fees are low or non-existent and the service is far better and more helpful than at traditional banks.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

 

Why Netflix is failing: CEO Hastings doesn't understand branding

In an interview with the New York Times (appearing in the magazine section today), Netflix CEO Reed Hastings proved why Netflix is failing. As is common with most CEOs, he (admittedly) fails to understand what makes a brand in the first place and what makes one successful in the long term.

In the interview, Hastings says describing the major screw up that Neflix has encountered, "I think it was just a mistake in underestimating the depth of emotional attachment to Netflix". You think? Companies try (mostly unsuccessfully) to build emotional attachments with consumers. It's called brand loyalty and a very key ingredient to long term success. Not understanding this concept is a fundamental admission that one does not know how to market a product something CEOs arrogantly won't readily admit since they mostly think branding is an expense not a revenue builder.

Hastings also puts himself in a comparative role to Steve Jobs (hardly) and Jeff Bezos of Amazon saying his mistakes are all short term and CEOs understand the measurement of success is long term. However, and a big however, Jobs and Bezos understood and understand (respectively) how to build great brand loyalty and nuture it. Jobs was the master at it because he had a vision and took consumers on a "journey" which all great brands do. Hastings was on the right track, but missed an important station stop and went way off track to the point he may not be able to get his business back in gear.

I for one would like to see him resign and hire a more marketing savvy CEO to take the reigns and get the brand somewhat back on track by creating a new "journey" for consumers. It is going to take some great creativity and some concessions (to the brands most loyal consumers). Unfortunately, Hastings says he will not resign.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

Netflix: What are they doing with their brand? Destroying it? And this Qwikster DVD brand?

It was no surprise (full disclosure I own their stock) that Netflix's stock took a nose dive after the rather arrogant price raising strategy they took some weeks ago.

To anyone who has studied economics the law of elasticity of demand reigns supreme today as it has for years. To raise prices dramatically and NOT offer some value added to offset the price increase was clearly a very poor strategic move. Not only did Netflix lose many customers, many downgraded their services (including myself) and felt hurt by their actions. This brand had developed somewhat of a cult following. People were extremely loyal...to a point...but found this action unacceptable and insulting.

Today Netfix spun off its DVD by mail division into a new brand to be called Qwikster. Why you might ask? I asked the same question. For those of us who still have subscriptions to both DVDs and streaming the idea that one would have to deal with two different operations is just another nail in the coffin. Making it more time consuming to do business with this company will only serve to make more people drop the service and go elsewhere. More work less convenience, ugh. Not a good strategy.

I don't even like the idea that my familiar red DVD pack will no longer say Netflix but some obscure new name Quikster? Another ugh.

Some speculate that Netflix intends to sell off the DVD by mail business because that business model no longer works economically. Meanwhile, the stock plunges again down over 150 pts in recent weeks and there is nothing coming out of that CEO's office that makes anyone in my opinion think this business has anywhere to go but out of business as consumers lose all faith in this brand.

I believe we will see this as a case study of success mishandled turning a game changer into a game loser permanently. Sad, I don't think if the changes had been managed better, specifically rewarding customers who stayed even with big price increases with some meaningful value added experience that this would have blown up so fast and furiously.

The only way out now is mea culpa BIG TIME doing something fantastic for what customers remain, especially those using both services. Other than that, even I am ready to move on and take my loses.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

Missoni for Target launch wildly successful. A true lux brand goes mass

Target Stores launched another limited edition designer line on Tuesday this week that proved Americans want truly lux brands at cheap prices. The line from Italian textile fashion house Missoni included apparel, beauty, home goods, luggage and bedding among other categories.

The consumer response was overwhelming with stores selling out in a matter of hours and Target.com shutting down due to traffic overload.

Why the craziness? Missoni is one of the old guard true luxury brands that has not made any effort over its history to discount or offer cheaper lines to aspirational consumers. The quality of their designs and manufacturing is top notch. For such a lux brand to offer a large collection of goods at "flash fashion" prices is unprecedented.

I am familiar with Missoni through family friends in Italy who over the years brought us various apparel gifts on visits to the US. Scarfs and sweaters that cost many hundreds of dollars ( I have a sweater given to me 20 years ago that cost $1200 then) are still in our family because the products are timely in design and crafted to last.

I called to several local stores and was immediately told by noon on Tuesday that all Missoni products were "sold out" with no idea when the stores would be re-stocked.I was able to finally get online and buy a few things to see (in a few days) how good the low priced items are in terms of quality. I truly was shocked. I expected a good turn out but not a sell out this quickly.

Most Americans have never heard of Missoni as the family run company has not pushed to brand their products as household names in this country. They have preferred to be a bit off the radar for most consumers and cater to a smaller well-heeled audience who appreciate the quality of their fabrics and their unique patterned designs.

With the mass PR that this "sell-out" has garnered in the past 24 hours, it is clear the Missoni name will be far better known across the US by week's end. Additionally, products are already showing up on Ebay and other sites for re-sale at quite inflated prices given the limited edition of the entire collection. (The plan was to offer the line through October...depending on inventory. It seems unlikely there will be enough merchandise to keep the promotion going that long.)

A good question I am being asked is, "will this damage Missoni's brand image among its more elite customers?" Honestly, I do not think so. The designs look similar to the "real" McCoy, however, the quality is likely substantially lower end and good for limited wear and durability. I highly doubt the dresses and other fabric designs will have the same hand down generation to generation quality the originals do which will keep the loyalists buying the high end. Missoni has successfully reached a broader audience with this one move which could assist it with greater distribution (if desired) in the US for its luxury products assuming the economy improves (at some point in the future). Overall, a smart brand building move by Missoni and Target.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

 

Abercrombie & Fitch diss "The Situation" and all cast of Jersey Shore: Offers payments to NOT wear their branded apparel

In what I first thought was a joke (and I am not sure that it isn't) Abercrombie & Fitch the preppy and sexy high school and college oriented high priced apparel retailer has offered to pay the cast of the hit but vulgar TV reality show "Jersey Shore" to NOT wear their branded clothing. The company claims the rowdy cast, especially Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino, has damaged the brand's image by wearing its clothing on and off TV.

In all seriousness I think it is a brilliant PR effort to get attention for the out of the limelight no longer hot young people's brand. The company has suffered greatly in recent years during the grand recession by not more actively using price promotions to keep consumers coming through their doors versus their competitors. A and F is noted for its high priced line of casual collegiete cool apparel which during the days when Americans were flush and feeling rich was a huge hit.

The move is interesting in light of the fact that the company has walked a fine line down this path before.  Historically, a large percentage of sales are to both gay and straight fit men in their 40s and 50s who are clearly not their prime targets. Older body conscious (primarily gay) men are a very loyal group of consumers of the A and F brand because the product shows off buff bodies well and is perceived to exude a young sexy cool vibe to that audience.

Look for my interview on Fox News tomorrow on this subject.

Watching out for you everyday.

Abercrombie & Fitch shares fall day after 'Jersey Shore' diss, as 'The Situation' hits back: MyFoxORLANDO.com

 

Eli

 

 

Will J Lo's split from Marc Anthony derail apparel launch at Kohl's? Unlikely

Speculation among the media is that J Lo's public split from husband of 7 years Marc Anthony will have a sobering impact on the pending launch of two lifestyle brand product lines at mass merchandiser Kohl's.

I think this is one of those cases where J Lo's launch may benefit from the split, yet her hubby's line may quickly fizzle.

J Lo has done a remarkable job of re-inventing herself this past year increasing her public exposure and profile mega-fold for the first time in some years. Her successful participation on American Idol did wonders for her image especially as a style icon.

Many people always wondered about the marriage which appeared to be a good one at first but in some ways seemed a strange match. Reports indicated that Anthony was a control freak and with J Lo's increasing popularity and income stress over losing control may have forced the split. Rumors about a fling with Cuban born hunk "Levy" on her most recent video shoot certainly contributed to her sex appeal and image enhancement.

I believe that J Lo will be even more popular and in demand now that she is splitting from Anthony. As long as the divorce is (mostly) amicable I see no reason why her new apparel line won't be a hit at Kohl's unless the designs and product itself are disappointing, poorly made or not considered good value. She's hot, sexy, on top of her game, looks amazing and yet remains an inspiration to millions of women and craved by many men (Sexiest woman in the world according to People this year).

On the other hand, Anthony's popularity is limited and more niche oriented and his appeal was heightened by his marriage to J Lo. I see his "Q" factor and overall appeal, especially interest in his still unlaunched men's line for Kohl's diminishing fast. As a single act he lacks mass appeal and his style factor again was mostly enhanced by his attachment to her.

The couple has said that they will continue to work together on a latin oriented talent reality show for the moment but it remains to be seen if this pairing can still go the distance professionally. A tough move for most celebrities after they divorce.

I'll check back on this subject a month or so after the product launch.

Watching out for you everyday.

Eli

Facebook secret smear campaign of Google: Life imitating art or vice versa?

Just a few thoughts about the recent revelation that Facebook has been engaged (through a third party PR firm) in a secret smear campaign against Google. I have been asked (including by Fox News) to comment from a brand point of view.

Honestly, I am not surprised. If one takes any of the behaviors attributed to Mark Zuckerberg from the movie "The Social Network" as possibly factual, especially his conniving style and highly insecure "get back at 'em) actions, this news does not seem out of whack. It actually seems appropriate and consistent with Mark's personal "brand".

The movie was a portrayal of Mark and the creation of Facebook with facts mixed with hearsay and fiction based on what the writers learned about him and the rise of the company. This event could be seen as life imitating art or just another example of art imitating life, Mark's life.

Either way I do not think it will ultimately make any difference to the brand "Facebook" but it will continue to paint a not very flattering image of Mark Zuckerberg and his huge insecurities which don't seem to be maturing with age. He may need to donate another huge sum of money somewhere to redeem himself.

Collateral damage might come to PR firm Burson-Marstellar's use of unethical tactis on behalf of Facebook causing them to lose valuable clients as their actions are being called by fellow industry experts "deceptive" and in violation of industry standards.

Watching out for you everyday

Eli