Brand ambassador or brand agitator?

It’s no surprise that 888poker reviewed its relationship with Luis Suarez after his latest, questionable behaviour at this year’s World Cup. Endless memes have graced our screens over the last month, including McDonald’s and Snickers (above) jumping on the bandwagon to make light of the situation. But with so much risk attached to a famous brand ambassador, how can brands tell if the famous face they are about to attach to their name to is going to deliver?

Over the last few years there have been many ambassadors I’m sure brands would like to forget. Tiger Woods’ personal affairs led to him being dropped by AT&T and Accenture, whilst Kate Moss’ drug allegations ended up in H&M dropping the model from its ad campaigns.

In my opinion, there are some that seem the perfect match. Angelina Jolie’s work with the UN over the last ten years has been inspiring and nothing but beneficial to the brand. Earlier this week, the UN

appointed Emma Watson as a Goodwill Ambassador for women’s equality. It’s an exciting and positive move that I think will see more young people interested in the work the UN does and, in the process, skyrocket the actress’ career and popularity.

When it comes to consumer-facing brands such as Coca-Cola or L’Oreal, it’s unlikely the celebrity has any involvement in the product development but choosing an ambassador that fits with the brand’s values is desirable. However, it’s a constant battle between what a brand pays for a celebrity endorsement and the return on investment. If your ambassador’s behaviour – good or bad – increases sales it seems money trumps saving face. 

By Stephanie Rock 

Battle of the Brands

Burger King or McDonald’s. Be it on a long-haul bus journey or in a slightly inebriated state late at night, it’s a conversation we’ve all had. Which side of the fence you fall may not define your entire character, but it certainly pigeonholes you in terms of chip preference.

Competition amongst brands is now so ingrained into our consumer consciousness that we take it as verbatim. We understand Burger King’s rivalry with McDonald’s as the fast-food equivalent of Lex Luthor vs Superman. Adidas and Nike are the Saxons and Normans of the sporting world, whilst the fight between Blackberry and Apple seems as old as that between tortoise and hare.

Nevertheless, these great brand battles are not organically born. Yes consumers will naturally compare brands which produce similar products within a similar price range, but it is clever marketing from the brands themselves which positions them as mortal enemies. With a little careful manipulation, consumer preference can become fierce allegiance and indifference turned to disgust.

In the Metro this week, Ross McGuiness wrote an article documenting the competitive marketing history of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. McGuiness traced the rivalry right back to 1936, when a recession damaged Pepsi-Cola decide to take a pop at its pricier competitor.

Almost seven decades later, and it seems that the rise of social media and the consequent multiplication of marketing platforms has only intensified the Pepsi-Coke rivalry. Brand allegiance is now not only encouraged through competitive pricing, but through fully integrated campaigns that use social media to create comprehensive and contrasting brand images. Last month Coca-cola announced a partnership with Spotify, whilst Pepsi introduced Pepsi pulse; an entertainment curation platform built into the brand’s website.

So far so good. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are by no means faultless brands, but at least competition between the two seems focused on offering their consumers more.

Other brands use competitive marketing less successfully though, and to the potential detriment of their brand image. I see the recent guerilla marketing stunt, staged in Australia by Blackberry makers, RIM, as illustrative of this. The ‘Wake-Up’ campaign sought to position the Blackberry OS 10 as a competitor to the iPhone 4S through a sequence of flashmob protests, including one staged outside the Apple store in Sydney.

Now in my opinion this campaign had one very glaring problem: It demanded consumers ‘Wake-Up’ and abandon their allegiance to Apple and their iPhones, without providing them any real incentive to do so. The campaign was so focused on dismissing its competition that it seemed to forget its promotional objective in the process.

Competitive marketing is not a bad thing. It can turn a brand into a talking point, define its positioning and turn consumers into faithful fans. Nevertheless, if the RIM debacle can teach marketers one thing it’s this; competition is not the be all and end all- it’s the competitor that counts.

By Polly Robinson