Recently in Branding Category

When I was at university, my all time favourite subject was Consumer Behaviour.I loved learning about the relationship between organizations, their brands and their customers.In those days though, most marketing messages were delivered via a one-way street - broadcast from company to consumer.

Today, the dynamic growth of digital channels, and in particular social media, has truly shifted the communication paradigm. Marketing as a conversation has arrived!

There's no better example of this than the recent case of Vegemite iSnack 2.0. I'm sure there isn't anyone in Australia that is unaware of this saga but for our friends elsewhere I'll give you a quick overview:

Vegemite (http://www.vegemite.com.au) is an iconic breakfast spread that has been enjoyed by Aussies since 1922.They recently decided on a brand extension, adding a Vegemite and cheese spread.As was the case when they named the original product all those years ago, they decided to choose the name of the new product through a competition. iSnack 2.0 was the winning name but it didn't resonate well with the public. (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1101797/Backlash-kills-off-iSnack-2.0)

The new name was revealed last month during the Football (AFL) Grand final.I was enjoying the game but also had an eye on Twitter and saw an avalanche of protests appear before my very eyes. Not long after the social media uproar commenced, traditional media jumped on the bandwagon and for days the naming of this product was headline news.

This story got me thinking about a case study we had looked at in class years before. It was the Cola Wars and Coca Cola's introduction of 'New Coke' in April 1985.Coca-Cola did the unthinkable and changed their secret formula.They too received an 'instant' backlash. Consumers wrote letters of complaints (Remember them? They got delivered by snail mail). They phoned the company and talk-back radio stations and wrote letters to newspapers. The outrage was enormous!

(http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/cokelore_newcoke.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke)

There are a lot of similarities in these two stories. One could argue that decisions were made without enough research and consultation with their customers. Anyway, both cases required a reversal of decisions made by the marketing and management teams.The difference in the stories is the speed of reaction:

- Time to change Coke back to its original formula = 3 months
- Time to change the name of Vegemite iSnack 2.0 = 3 days!

If you're a 21^st century marketer, engage in conversations with your customers! The powerbase has definitely shifted and consumers are speaking - are you listening?

PS - The new Vegemite product was renamed Vegemite Cheesybite. How was the name chosen? By an online poll :)

A company rebrand is, ideally, a fantastic opportunity for businesses to reinvent and/or refresh themselves within the marketplace, to reinforce and reflect their core values and, above all, to reconnect with consumers.

In reality however, a rebrand often leads - particularly in larger, public companies - to consumer backlash and fierce debate about what a new brand 'says' to consumers.

Larger rebrands raise questions about the time and money spent on strategising, designing and then rolling out a new brand versus the perceived benefits to shareholders. In short, getting a rebrand right can be risky business.

BHP Billiton knows this better than most. When the mining and resources giant unveiled its new corporate identity in 2001 - and subsequently revealed the cost associated in the development of that new identity - the wolves were out.

The logo was popularly referred to as a 'few blobs of oil' and raised broader questions about the company's motivations for rebranding.

Then BHP Billiton chief executive Paul Anderson, speaking on the ABC's Inside Business program in March 2004, said the new identity was reflective of "how we want to project ourselves to the outside world and how we want the outside world to look at us."

Futurebrand managing director Tim Riches - who assisted in the creation of the new BHP Billiton brand and who spoke alongside Anderson on Inside Business - made an interesting point when he said, "If one of the reasons for making a change of this sort is to get people to question their conceptions about who you are as an organisation, then that really should be viewed as a positive rather than a negative."

Great point; a rebrand, whether initially received positively or negatively, does indeed lead to consumers questioning their conceptions of a brand, which is a good thing.

The danger, however, is when negative reaction about a company's rebrand continues past the initial roll-out phase and potentially leads to the bottom line being affected; think Kraft and their iSnack 2.0 schmozzle (which may or may not be one of the year's most effective publicity stunts).

In the case of BHP Billiton, we all know profits certainly haven't dipped, but it is a consideration businesses must make. Creatives and strategists may wax lyrical about what a rebrand represents but for the layperson on the street, an instant judgement is made on whether a new brand lights their fire or not. Coca Cola's botched 'New Coke' campaign of the mid 1980s is another good example; consumers decided they hated the 'new' Coke before they had even tasted it, prompting an eventual backflip by Coke.

ANZ are the latest company to walk the tightrope. Initial reaction to their $15 million rebrand has been mixed, with their new logo supposed to present ANZ as a less 'fragmented' bank and designed to focus on its three main markets of Australia, New Zealand and Asia. Their new strap line is 'We live in your world'; time will tell whether that truly is the case!

As a 2-year-removed college grad, an adherent to no particular religion (other than The Religion of Non-Stop Awesomeness), and a relative newcomer to the Facebook scene, I was surprised to hear the WSJ report that giving up Facebook for Lent was all the campus rage last year and has since spread to include the equally hapless older demographic (i.e., parents).

It's incredible to me that Facebook's has achieved "vice" status and that abstaining from it for little over a month now qualifies as honoring Jesus' 40 days in the wildernes. I mean, dude didn't eat, practiced strict abstinence, and resisted temptation from the Devil himself all in the name of his faith. And what are we doing? Why, 40 days without Facebook, of course!

Wait a minute. None at all? Cold turkey? Just like that? Does that mean I can't update my status hourly to tell all my 360 "friends" that "Alex Weaver is super psyched for the Snuggie Pub Crawl!" or throw a virtual snowball at some kid I went to kindergarten with?

Clearly I am not nearly as hooked as most. But I still find it ironic - nay, downright hilarious - that by abstaining from Facebook for Lent, college kids everywhere are basically freeing up time otherwise spent poking strangers to partake in activities that, piously speaking, they'd probably be better off giving up instead. (I've seen people driven to the bottle for less.)

Whatever the case, I can't find a more convincing proof of the power and persistence of social networking in today's society than the fact that people, both young and old, feel like giving it up actually means something. My question now is...