Why does Apple want a bigger bite of the social media pie?

This morning (5^th August), Marketing Week broke the news that Apple has appointed a social media supremo, Musa Tariq, to lead its digital marketing.

Tariq, previously at Nike and Burberry, is considered to be a pioneer of harnessing social media for brands, and in particular is known in the industry for his development of communities and viral content.

Until now, Apple has been relatively slow to engage fans in this way, and its social media presence has been relatively limited for such a prominent consumer tech brand. So why the change, and how significant is it?

I think that there are two main implications. The first, for Apple Inc and the consumer tech industry. The second, for the marketing industry as a whole.

What does this mean for Apple?

Apple had a rough ride in the first quarter of this financial year, according to analyst Brian Blair of Wedge Partners in The International Business Times. He attributed this to a slowdown in the smartphone market, slow demand for the iPhone 5C and the lack of a marquee new product to launch.

Although Apple’s CEO Tim Cook remains optimistic for 2014, this appointment suggests that the company perhaps feels the need to engage consumers more in order to help bolster its performance. And its chosen means to do this is by turning towards social media and shared content.

What does this mean for marketing?

In marketing terms this is just as significant, arguably more so. It demonstrates just how powerful social media and shared content have become as marketing communications channels.

Furthermore, what this hammers home is something that is already undeniable: content is King. 

Tariq has been widely credited with successful campaigns for Nike and Burberry involving online video teasers and real-time visual tweets. Both forms of communication are eminently shareable, with viral potential. They add value to users’ experience, giving them compelling and fresh content that entertains, informs, excites and inspires.

Add “educates” to that mix and you have the recipe for good content. Consumers, users and followers now demand and indeed expect such content that adds value to their experience. Straightforward advertising and promotional messages are no longer sufficient or satisfactory without it.

This requires a fresh mindset for many brands and companies if they wish to remain at the front of their audiences’ minds. I think it means that companies cannot simply be a factory for their products and services; they must also become factories producing innovative and genuinely interesting content, because that’s what hooks an audience.

• How far do you agree?
• Do you think Apple has made a good move with this appointment?
• What changes do you think are necessary for companies to best benefit from social media and shared content?
• What steps has your company taken in this direction and how successful have they been?

I ‘d love to hear from you and get your perspective.

Has Airbnb made a branding “balls-up”?

After the grave subject-matter of my previous post, I thought it would be fun to turn my attention to a lighter story. Lighter though it may be, it’s still a fascinating branding, marketing and PR case-study and a source of serious consideration, once you’ve stopped sniggering.

It concerns last week’s launch of Airbnb’s new branding. The popular holiday-apartment-rental website revealed a radical departure from its original light-blue and white script style logo, to a red and white livery with a new insignia. 

Airbnb’s old logo

Problem is, nobody seems to know what the logo stands for,. Techcrunch went as far as describing it as “a Rorschach test for everyone who saw it,” and this very lack of definition is giving rise to some rather mischievous suggestions.

Airbnb’s new logo

So, is it . . .

• An inverted heart?
• Peter Griffin’s (Family Guy) chin?
• A bum
• A pair of breasts?
• A pair of balls, or a vagina?

Amid much hilarity online, Gizmodo proved to be fond of the last suggestion, as was the Valleywag blog on Gawker . A Tumblr site rapidly appeared with a bunch of other recommendations, some more salacious than others.

The designers stressed the new logo’s simplicity to replicate and remember. They call it the Bélo and they’re keen for it to be as ubiquitious as the Wi-Fi symbol. Apparently, according to Airbnb, it combines elements of a person with their arms outstretched, preparing to hug you; a map location marker, a heart and the A from the Airbnb name. It’s supposed to indicate a sense of belonging, and this is to be enhanced with the logo’s ability to be customised by users, according to Airbnb. 

 

Another imaginative suggestion for what the new logo stands for.

So has the brand re-boot been a success, or, in rather apposite Cockney argot, a great big “balls-up”?

This is a difficult one to call, in my opinion. I don’t suppose that the good people at Airbnb anticipated becoming the butt of so many jokes. (I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist a cheeky pun myself) and certainly they’ve been initially dismayed by the giggles to which they’ve given rise. In the UK, the Daily Mail reported a rather po-faced and peevish defence of the re-branding by Airbnb founder and CTO Nathan Blecharczyk, who said: “It’s just like: Go ahead, laugh all you want, guys. We wouldn’t want to design a logo that caters to the lowest common denominator.” The newspaper even suggested that Airbnb claims the new logo will become as recognizable as the Nike swoosh.

Top marks for ambition, Mr. Blecharczyk and team. Thing is, it would be all too easy to be dismissive of them except for a couple of important considerations. First, consumers are notoriously bad at handling change. We cling to the familiar. After all, isn’t it always that case that, “they don’t make things like they used to.” Nevertheless, once change happens, we are remarkably adaptable, and before long we’ll forget how things really used to be, unless we’re reminded of them. So the chances are the same thing will happen with this re-branding. 

Secondly, if the top brass at Airbnb play this situation correctly, they could really make it work in their favour. 

I’ve just Googled “new Airbnb logo”. In only 39 seconds, it says it has identified 13,400,000 web search results, and in 22 seconds, 25,900 news results. That’s a fantastic amount of noise for a story about a brand’s new logo and typeface. I hazard a guess that Airbnb would have been hard-pressed to generate this much discussion, PR coverage and brand recognition so rapidly.

This word-of-mouth is something on which Airbnb can build, providing they show a bit of humility and a big sense of humour. Globally, people are talking about Airbnb’s re-branding. Who’d have thunk it? They should embrace the amusement they’re providing, and use the laughs, and the fascination to explain their brand, and show that they’re a fun, transparent, “human” company.

There’s a lesson here. Things might look messy at the beginning, but with the right positioning and attitude, there’s often an opportunity, and a way to make things work. It remains to be seen whether it will in this case.

• What do you think of the logo and the re-branding?
• What does it remind you of?
• Can Airbnb can make it work? How?

I’d love to hear what you think.

Adidas smashes record kit deal with Manchester United after winning World Cup brand battle

Giant sports brand Adidas announced the largest team kit deal in history with Manchester United, yesterday.

Starting in the 2015/16 season, the 10 year deal is worth $1.3billion (£750m), at $130million (£75m) per year, smashing the previous record deal set earlier this summer by competitor Puma with Manchester United’s rivals Arsenal, which will see the London team take $51m per year for the next five years.

This new deal currently blows out of the water the richest club deal, also negotiated by Adidas with Real Madrid for $41m per year, and is streets ahead of Nike’s deal with the NFL. Nike pays an average of $18m for this sponsorship deal.

The announcement comes hot on the heels of Manchester United’s seven-year, $559m shirt sponsorship deal with Chevrolet, and a triumphant World Cup for Adidas, which saw two of its marquee national teams, Germany and Argentina, contest the final, with the world’s highest profile player, Lionel Messi, sporting Adidas gear, and the world’s most exciting emerging talent, James Rodriguez from Columbia.

The deal revives Adidas’s association with Manchester United, which last saw the club supplied by the German brand in 1991-92. Many football fans will fondly remember the Adidas days of, Gary Pallister, Brian McClair, Steve Bruce, Mark Hughes, Gordon Strachan, Captain Marvel Bryan Robson et al.

 Adidas makes aggressive gains in the war of the sports brands.

After many years of intensified competition from American giant Nike in the football arena, European behemoth Adidas has come striking back with this bold deal.

Adidas chief executive Herbert Hainer said the deal would help the firm "to further strengthen our position in key markets around the world".

He added: "We expect total sales to reach £1.5bn during the duration of our partnership."

Notably, as the incumbent kit supplier, Nike was given first refusal on an extension with Manchester United and had the right to match any offer. They chose not to move forward.

This is a clear statement of intent by Adidas that it is taking the fight against its competitors to a new level. Last night the BBC reported that in trading on the German stock exchange on Monday, the firm's shares closed up by 2.73%.

Adidas also supplies Bayern Munich, Chelsea, AC Milan and Flamengo. From the 2015-16 season, they will also provide kit for Juventus. 

The Manchester United and Premier League brands also come out winners

The deal also acts as a massive boost for Manchester United, following the turmoil of its worst ever season in the English Premier League. 

It is a renewed vote of confidence in the club’s brand as the world’s leading internationally supported football team, and will serve to reinforce the club’s pre-eminent position.

Coupled with this, the fact that this huge agreement has been signed with one of the EPL’s leading teams will shore up the image and reputation of the league as the best and the most competitive in the world. In spite of England’s disappointing early exit from this summer’s World Cup finals, the deal ensures that English football remains centre stage.

With Nike supplying the losers in the World Cup, and England’s ailing national team, what will their next move be?

Getting the content right for marketing with the newest technology.

Is it all just a case of “the Emperor’s new clothes”?

Do the more things change; the more they stay the same?

And what has Ryan Gosling got to do with all of this?

The other day, during a moment of reflection, it occurred to me how fast and how drastically my world has changed, thanks to technology, how I’ve adapted to it, and how those reaching out to me as a reader, customer, or consumer, have had to sweat blood to keep up with the pace of change.

In danger of sounding like a grandfather pointing across the city and saying to his grandchildren, “I remember when this was all fields,” it seems only a heartbeat ago when my consumption of media, advertising and marketing was considerably different to what it is today.

Six years ago I had a Blackberry – the old blue one with the grey screen, and I thought I was cooler than Ryan Gosling, because I could get my emails on the move, and even check the internet . . . slowly . . . very slowly.

Forgive the reference, and the wafer-thin excuse to include a picture of the ridiculously talented and unfeasibly handsome actor. I’m hoping it will help get your attention ;-)

Before this, my mobile phone could call and text people, and that was it. And if we go back into pre-history, I finished a PhD without having access to the Internet. To get my information I visited large dusty buildings called libraries that held thousands of terabytes of data in individual packets called books and journals, made of an ancient tree-pulp called paper.

I consumed news by reading newspapers and magazines . . . hard copies, each purchased separately. My consumption was limited to what the editors of these publications chose to publish and it was limited to when it was feasible to read it, at home, at my office desk, or on public transport.

In the last five years, I’ve been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21^st century and the world of smartphones, mobile Internet, and apps. My consumption of information has increased, and comes from a wider and wilder variety of sources, shared often through social media. These sources are text, audio and video and are often interactive, inciting my comments and responses, encouraging my participation. I write my blog and consume others, so I have become more than a consumer. I am part of what I consume.

I’m pretty certain that my experience is quite typical, and it’s something that savvy marketers have sought to keep pace with. With the introduction of Google Glass and the imminent arrival of smart watches, a new evolution is upon us. Whether these technologies will be widely adopted remains to be seen, but what is certain is that if they don’t, others will soon follow in their place, and marketers must keep up with change. 

 

Raj from "The Big Bang Theory" with his Google Glass, proving that moving with the times isn’t rocket science

 

New media are constantly being dreamed up to deliver messages, and messages are being tailored to these new means of delivery. Brands are now just as likely to create compelling promo mini-movies for sharing on social media rather than typical adverts. Just think of the amazingly creative output that the likes of Adidas, Nike and Beats by Dre released for the World Cup.

Arguably the march of technology makes real Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim, “The medium is the message”, because changing media changes the shape of messages. Twitter vindicates his thinking. The imperative of publishing something significant in 140 characters or less barely existed before Twitter, outside of tabloid newspaper headlines.  Now look at its power and reach. And consider the salutary tale of Kodak, who failed to move sufficiently with the times, and who suffered as a result.

Furthermore, we are bombarded with information 24/7 on increasingly personalised devices. This deluge of information seems to require ever shorter and punchier sound-bites, in what some would see as a reductio ad absurdum that has resulted in a never-ending torrent of banal tweets. However, is this really the case?

When it comes to the crunch, as much as we’ve become information junkies, whether it be for political news, sports results, celebrity gossip or the newest, most cutting-edge product and entertainment releases, we want to know that what we’re getting is the real deal. In short, we want good quality content from the best sources. But with this proliferation of information and sources of information, how can we be sure that we’re getting it? Is the stuff we’re seeing, hearing and reading from all over the place often insubstantial hearsay, rumour and nonsense,  just like the Emperor’s new clothes?

Example: As a fan of Tottenham Hotspur FC, I have seen numerous online sources throughout the late spring and early summer, that claim to have leaked pictures of the club’s new football shirts for the 2014/15 season, produced by Under Armour. The official release isn’t until the end of this week. I have no way of knowing if what I have seen is the real product or not, or whether the sources of these leaks are reliable. Consequently, I crave the real thing. Yes, this might be a cunning guerrilla PR tactic by Under Armour, in order to raise fans’ interest (who knows?), but it still leaves us wanting the authoritative release.

So, those soothsayers that have endlessly rung the death-knells of traditional media may be mistaken, providing that traditional media continue to heed the warning to adapt or die and providing they continue to provide the best quality content. Why? Because these media themselves, (such as Time Magazine, The New York Times, the Financial Times, CNN, the BBC to name just a few) are brands in their own right. Alongside “big” newer names, like Mashable, The Huffington Post, TechCrunch and Venture Beat, to name but a few, they have built up a reputation and a level of trust amongst audiences for the content that they provide. Nowadays, reputations can rise and fall faster than ever, for sure, but it remains true that they must be earned, so through the cacophony of noise, these names can continue to have a larger influence than most, providing they remain nimble and providing their content remains good. So, the more things change, the more they stay the same. What’s important is that good content is King.

Brands can learn a thing or two from this lesson. By becoming sources of great, reliable and authoritative content that’s flexible for all devices, and that adds real value to their customers' experience, they can remain front of mind with consumers, and maintain their value with their precious target audiences.