SodaStream and Apple’s iPhone 6: The brand-product relationship

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between brands and their products, and what it means for both.

• How much does product development lead the building of brands?
• How much does a brand’s essence and values lead product development?
• Or, does the power of these influencers change depending on where a brand or product is in its development cycle?

Taking a look at two very different products, SodaStream and Apple’s iPhone, gives us interesting food for thought.

SodaStream

Just last week, I was having a fascinating conversation about SodaStream, which has enjoyed a fantastic recent international revival, including the brand enlisting the endorsement of Hollywood A-lister Scarlett Johansson. 

This is a story of a brand re-born, and its re-birth has been driven, it seems to me, by a strong vision for the brand, great design, some great strategic partnerships and a clarity of values. It seems to be very much a case of a brand’s essence and values leading product development.

I have happy memories of SodaStream, going as far back as 1978, when as a boy, our friendly neighbours would treat me to SodaStream drinks. Even back then, the product had a fun element, yet it offered the carbonated drinks that it was OK to consume, as far as my parents were concerned. I still remember the advertising tagline of the time, “Get busy with the fizzy”, which characterized the fun that the product sought to encapsulate.

At the time, the product itself didn’t quite match the advertising, because it looked considerably more prosaic and a lot less fun. Predominantly white, cream or beige, it was identifiably a domestic product that belonged in the kitchen, beside the fridge, the dishwasher and the washing machine. It’s function led its marketing. Just take a look at a typical advert.

After a while, SodaStream seemed to disappear, but has now been revived in a far livelier form with a more energetic and robust product and brand proposition. Now, the reality matches the proposition, and I believe it has very much been influenced by what the brand stands for, and what it means to consumers. Plus, it is more sensitive to the nuances of consumer demand and lifestyle.

What’s immediately noticeable is the design. SodaStream’s range looks cool. Consequently, it has become a much more desirable item. The design is the primary innovation in an essentially simple product, but it is instrumental in making the brand contemporary and aspirational. SodaStream’s partnerships with Samsung, Breville and Kitchen Aid strengthens its “hardware” portfolio and boosts the product’s positioning as an aspirational item. No longer is a SodaStream machine simply functional, like the ones I enjoyed in the late 1970s. These partnerships ensure that like Nespresso or Alessi products, SodaStream has become a “must-have” gadget. It has adopted the philosophy of Apple, which has made functional devices (computer and communication hardware) beautiful, and is doing the same in its market sector.

Secondly, SodaStream has forged some important brand relationships. There are those mentioned above, but also partnerships with Kraft, Sunny D, Ocean Spray, Campbell’s and SkinnyGirl strengthens the product’s “software” portfolio – the flavours that are on offer to consumers. SodaStream has been strategic by covering varying bases, from typical soft drink flavours like Kraft’s Kool Aid, through the more “adult” mixer flavours such as Campbell’s V8 beverages, to the health drinks market with EBOOST energy drinks and the premium market of the epicurean Cooking Light brand. It’s a much richer, more varied and more versatile offering than previously, which meets the demand and requirements of varied consumer groups. In short, there’s now something for all the family, which makes SodaStream a stronger proposition as a household purchase.

Third, SodaStream now stands for something. What leaps out at you from its corporate website is the company’s values, and what it wants the product to stand for. Briefly, these are environmental consciousness, encouraging consumers to use a product that produces far less waste than the endless mountains of empty bottles and cans generated by its “big drinks” competitors. Also personal empowerment and health, giving consumers more choice and options that are better for you. At a time when a critical spotlight is being shone on sugar content in soft drinks and snack foods, this is an important point of difference. For example, SodaStream proudly talks about the fact that its cola contains 2/3 less sugar than store bought cola.  In many respects, SodaStream has positioned itself as a cool challenger brand to the behemoths of “big drinks”, like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.

This makes it more than a product. SodaStream has re-established itself as a lifestyle brand, and as such, it now means more to consumers and says something positive about their choice to buy and use the product. A purchase of SodaStream is now arguably more than a purchase of a domestic carbonated drinks machine. It’s also purchasing a statement about you as a consumer, your tastes, aspirations and beliefs.

iPhone 6

Talk is intensifying about the imminent launch of Apple’s iPhone 6, which could take place as soon as early next month (September 2014).

The main rumours about the iPhone’s new variant seem to be that it will run iOS 8, a fresh update of Apple’s operating system, it will come in larger sizes (4.7 and 5.5 inches) and it will have sapphire, scratch-proof glass.

What’s interesting here is that these changes are incremental: evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary. Arguably it’s a world away from the launch of the early iPhones, which were game changers and market makers. They revolutionised the smartphone market, changed the way consumers used their mobile devices and seemed to offer something entirely new.

Since then, the iPhone has been joined by a host of competitors, both in terms of hardware, such as Samsung’s Galaxy S5, LG’s G3, Sony’s Xperia Z2 and HTC’s One M8, and in terms of software, namely Android. These products have closed the gap between Apple and its competitors, and in terms of some considerations, such as size, have stolen the march from Apple.

The wiggle room for product development seems to be diminishing, but Apple has thrived on two essential brand essences: innovation and design, and it needs to maintain its leadership position to remain a distinctive force. The success of the next iteration of iPhone may well depend on these two factors. From the perspective of innovation, iPhone 6 must work faster and more efficiently than its rivals, and from the design perspective, it must outstrip competitors in the way it looks, feels and operates.

When it comes to Apple and the iPhone, therefore, the brand essence and product development seem to be symbiotic, both by necessity and design. What’s always been important for Apple, as I have previously mentioned here, is that it differentiates its products by making them both beautiful and functional at the highest level. It’s a constant challenge, and it remains to be seen how it meets this challenge with the iPhone 6. I guess that time, and sales, will tell.

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?

When do clients go bad?

• Do agencies have a moral responsibility to the public as well as their clients
• Which comes first: client loyalty, or the public interest?
• Where and when should agencies draw the line and “fire” client
• What do you think?

Just this week, these questions have arisen in a surprisingly understated way during an otherwise high-profile case in London.

To the shock of the UK public, the 84-year-old children’s television personality, Rolf Harris, was found guilty on Monday (30 June) of multiple counts of sexual assault on young girls, in incidents dating back decades. He will be sentenced on Friday (4 July).

The Guardian, The Independent and The London Evening Standard newspapers, among others, included in their reports the detail that the PR and communications agency, Bell Pottinger, had been employed by Harris and his defence team, for media representation and media monitoring.

Following the verdict, this fact makes for quite uncomfortable reading from a PR and marketing professional’s point of view, and raises some equally uncomfortable questions:

• Did Bell Pottinger know all the facts of Harris’s defence prior to the trial, and were they convinced of his innocence when they took on their task?
• Or did doubts about Harris’s innocence exist, and did they take on the task anyway?
• Did Bell Pottinger only become aware of Harris’s guilt during the proceedings, and did they have an option to pull out of the task?
• Were there any members of the Bell Pottinger PR team on the Harris account who had reservations about it, and were they able to articulate them, and choose not to work on it, as details emerged?

I don’t know the answer to these, and it would be wrong to speculate, but they show that sometimes clients’ conduct can raise difficult issues for agencies, and it makes me wonder whether agencies should make the difficult decision to stand a client down.

With the benefit of hindsight it would be easy to express disquiet at Bell Pottinger’s involvement, but that would be a wrong and lazy judgement. Until the verdict was handed down, Harris was innocent until proven guilty. No agency of any kind has the qualifications or the right to hand down a legal judgement of their own. That is the court’s imperative. Innocence must be presumed, and so arguably, from a company perspective, they have been working for an innocent man. This being the case, there is no moral double-standard.

Besides, this is simply an extreme example of the type of potential conundrum that agencies face all the time.

Agencies across the globe are employed at great expense (for clients, and at huge profit for the agencies) by businesses that others find morally distasteful for a variety of reasons. Campaigners against big pharmaceutical companies argue that they manipulate the market and manufacture demand for their drugs, and their agencies help them achieve this. The fast food industry is accused of encouraging our children to eat junk and of threatening the health of nations. Food and drink companies are berated for pushing us a harmful diet of fats and sugars. The spotlight is turned on big retailers for exploitative employment practices. International clothes manufacturers are taken to task for using slave labour in developing countries. Even the tobacco companies employ their lobbyists, PR and advertising people. The list goes on, and in all cases, opponents of these companies can accuse agencies of being complicit with them. Just watch the movies “Thank You for Smoking” or “Fast Food Nation” for a couple of great examples.

But the companies themselves have counter-arguments. They are meeting a demand. They have corporate social responsibility policies and manifestos. They create jobs. Their list also goes on. They believe that they are providing customers and consumers with benefits (many people would say the tobacco industry is an exception to this), and they employ agencies to communicate these benefits.

Having worked in a number of agencies, I feel sure that any agency worth its salt does not knowingly and wilfully take on a client whose business practices are questionable. But standards change, laws change, suppliers and practices change, and what was once acceptable or ignored can become unacceptable and contentious.

In these cases, is it the agency’s role to encourage the client to change?

What if the client refuses and a line is crossed?

When do clients go bad, and what should agencies do when it happens?

Battered Brand: Suarez, Blatter and the face of football

As the fiesta of football that is the 2014 Brazil World Cup sambas into its second scintillating week, it's a good time to reflect on what has been a roller-coaster for the sport.

From a PR and branding perspective, FIFA is presenting us with some fascinating lessons, and the two most obvious controversies offer us delicious food for thought.

While our minds are fixed on an eating analogy, let's consider firstly the Luis Suarez biting incident, or "Bitegate" as I'll call it for short. 

Well, judging by the global reporting and commentary on Bitegate, it seems obvious to everybody outside of Uruguay that our hungry adopted Scouse superstar has brought himself and the game into disrepute. 

What was notable was the speed in which FIFA responded with an expulsion from the tournament, a lengthy ban from the game and a fine. Although the fine was risible when we consider how much Premier League footballers get paid, the swiftness and severity of the expulsion and the ban suggest that the footballing authorities have learned some lessons.

In the past, both national and international footballing federations have proved ponderous in making such decisions, and their lack of decisiveness has damaged the game's reputation. So this fast turnaround is welcome. If some reports are to be believed, the judgement will be contested. That as the case may be, it was understood that if something wasn't done quickly, football's reputation would  have a chunk taken out of it, as well as Chiellini's shoulder.

In this particular case, the product and brand, namely football and FIFA, have been protected from the dissatisfaction and cynicism that consumers (in this case the global football audience, except for Uruguayans) feel when their favoured product and brand demonstrates inaction in a crisis situation. That is what proves unsatisfactory.

Conversely, the ongoing controversy concerning Sepp Blatter, the decision to award Qatar the World Cup competition, and his decision to stand yet again as FIFA president, is threatening to drag football into the mire. Mumblings about self-interest and avarice are fast becoming a chorus of disapproval.

Mr.Blatter seems to be making some serious mistakes for a number of reasons. Firstly, awarding Qatar a summer tournament in the heat of the Arabian desert seems to be wildly impractical, and probably dangerous for players and supporters alike. Secondly, allegations of shocking conditions for the workers building the facilities leave an appalling taste in the mouth, as do allegations of bribery and underhand negotations. Each of these alone would call into question the judgement of a CEO of a normal corporation. Yet Mr.Blatter stubbornly insists on not vacating his throne. It does not inspire confidence, so much so that even Michel Platini at UEFA, himself a master of politicking in the halls of footballing power, has publicly withdrawn his support for Mr.Blatter.

As for the forthcoming leadership vote, it has been widely reported that Mr.Blatter had planned to stand down after his latest tenure, but he has since gone back on his word. So now, many might argue that his word as well as his judgement apparently can't be trusted. Mr.Blatter has begun to resemble a fading monarch or president, clinging to his elevated position without a mandate. This is hugely damaging for FIFA the brand, and for football, the product.

It is understandable that a leader who has enjoyed a long and successful tenure might feel a personal sense of loss at the thought of ending his career, but his recent moves and his insistence on remaining in situ can no longer be considered for the good of the brand and the product.  The lesson here is that when the rot sets in for a leader's reputation, it is tough to stop the rot, and arguably it must be time for a change. It will be fascinating to see whether this will happen, and what the implications will be for FIFA and for football.

What has perhaps saved the situation from worsening is the World Cup competition itself, which has proved so far to be the most open, exciting and absorbing for quite some time. It demonstrates that fundamentally, football the product, is good. It remains to be seen whether the actions of its mandarins will help it on hinder it in the near future.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, some bright sparks across the world in ad-land have been using the goings-on in Brazil to great effect for their companies and clients.

The fast folk at McDonald's Uruguay didn't mess around after Luis Suarez chomped on Chiellini. It took only a matter of minutes for them to post this on their Twitter feed:

It's a friendly invitation: "Hi Luis Suarez. If you feel hungry, come to take a bit of a BigMac."

Similarly, South African global brand Nando's, make a similar kind invitation.

  

 And in the UK, Mars confectionery didn't miss a trick with their Snickers brand Twitter Feed: 

Proving that with nimble thinking, every crisis for someone can have a positive outcome for someone else. Good work by these brands.