It was very noticeable that during the riots in August, the retailers that suffered the most – such as JD Sports – were those that had positioned themselves as a desirable, aspirational brand for the under 25s. Other  retailers who suffered included Foot Locker, Debenhams, Boots and Carphone Warehouse.

These riots are clearly a wake-up call for brands that actively cultivated a “gangster chic” image as they found themselves targeted by looters across the country.

The issue of good brands attracting bad customers is one that must be exercising the minds of many Marketing Directors right now in the wake of the riots. We may well see a radical ’repositioning’ of some brands in the near future.

Meanwhile Abercrombie & Fitch has taken a different route and recently offered money to ‘Jersey Shore’ star Mike Sorrentino to stop wearing their clothes. 

The 29-year-old ‘Jersey Shore’ star – who is regularly seen in the brand – has been asked by the retailer to stop because it could be ‘distressing’ to its customers.

The company was quoted as saying ‘We are deeply concerned that Mr Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.’

Time will tell if other brands follow suit. Whatever happens it is going to be a costly exercise.

Image from International Business Times

As marketers we often tell clients that they should encourage everyone in the organisation to ‘live the brand’.

This covers everything from the way staff answer the telephone to the colour of the plants in Reception, the idea being that the (positive) values of the brand are expressed at every touchpoint between the organisation and the outside world.

Such seamless expression is fine when the values of the brand are positive but the reverse may be true if the values are negative. The recent sad death of the talent singer Amy Winehouse is such a case in point.

Her struggles with alcohol and drugs have been well-documented and it was startling to see that – amongst the floral tributes and cards outside her Camden home – there were (full) bottles of vodka and other drinks, cigarettes and doubtless drug impedimenta discreetly tucked away at the back.

Sadly, it seems that Amy the brand had negative values to which her fans responded wholeheartedly. Certainly she seemed to relish those negative values herself in the latter years of her short life – and became her own brand, living it to the full.

While this is probably a unique situation there is a lesson here for all brands, particularly those  in alcohol, music and leisure.

Beware of how your brand values are being perceived by your customers – it may not be how you imagined it!

In the happy afterglow of the recent (British) Royal Wedding, commentators are already talking about the ‘re-branding’ of the Royal Family and how the young couple seemed to have brought a new ‘lightness and humour’ to what could have been very formal and ’stuffy’ occasion.

Evidence of this is seen in the happy couple’s drive up The Mall in Prince Charles’ vintage Aston Martin, trailing red and white balloons with a Just Wed sticker on the bumper. There is no doubt that Will and Kate have a sense of humour, if nothing else!

While the event was a great success (with even the notorious British weather behaving) it may be too soon to start seeing this as the beginning of a ‘new look’ Windsor family.

The institution has proved very resilient in the past and has adapted to new circumstances, notably in the immediate aftermath of Princess Diana’s death.

But, as every marketer knows, a successful re-brand is more than merely changing a logo or designing a new website – or in this case putting on a noticeably more lighthearted major event.

For a re-brand to really be successful an organisation needs to change fundamentally in line with the (new) brand values. Everyone has to live the new brand – from the Receptionist’s tone of voice to the van driver’s shoes, everything should be consistent.

In this case, while Will and Kate may wish to herald in new way of doing things in Windsor Plc but will they be able to do so? After all, Diana tried to make changes and was apparently blocked by courtiers at every turn.

And we are a long way from having a new, young King and Queen. It may be 35 years before William becomes King – a long time for the goodwill and ‘re-branding’ to last!

Time will tell but Diana’s legacy may yet bear fruit in a new, ‘improved’ Royal Family.

 Apparently central to this strategy in fashion is a move away from the M&S brand with labels such as Per Una defining a collection to a stable of brands with independent identities under an M&S master brand.

The article suggested that Bolland was taking a ‘department store’ approach and seeking to attract new customers through developing separate brands with differentiated offerings.

Whatever the term used for the new direction, it is one that will be doubtless watched with interest by competitors and suppliers alike.

In a difficult trading environment it may have been more productive to invest in store upgrades, new openings and special price promotions rather than in differentiated branding.

Will their core customers care if the clothes are labelled with an individual brand name? Or would they just prefer well-designed clothes at competitive prices?

Also, if the new brands are going to be strong enough to attract new customers, will the resulting plethora of brands and messaging not detract from the key messages that M&S offers value for money etc?

M&S is not Selfridges or Debenhams so perhaps the success of Per Una (created by the charismatic George Davies) as a sub-brand should not blind the management to their core market.

It could be disastrous if M&S became a poor department store rather than the great middle-market, single brand retailer it once was.

Time will tell if it is the correct strategy.

A recent article on ten of the greatest advertising campaigns in the Mail on Sunday newspaper by advertising ‘guru’ Trevor Beattie included Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’ election campaign.

Beattie cited the campaign as being ‘a perfect fusion of advertising campaign management and political campaign management, all geared to selling Brand Obama’. Certainly, the silk screen poster of Obama has become as instantly recognisable as the famous poster of Che Guevara.

Yet – just as in business – a brand has to deliver on its promise and clearly for many Brand Obama has not done that.

In recent weeks the President has suffered a dramatic drop in popularity, with some polls giving him an approval rating of less than 40%.

Not only have the Republicans mobilised to win back some of the 435 seats in Congress but also those in  the Senate. 

Traditionally, these elections are a snapshot of how the President is doing.  If the predictions are correct  the Democrats will lose their majority in Congress through a significant shift in power in US politics.

So where did it go wrong for Obama?

Perhaps the answer is that the emphasis was on the image of the politician – the brand Obama – rather than the reality of what he – and the Democrats – actually stood for and would deliver.

Just as a logo is not a brand, a glossy image is not a brand. A brand has to stand for something and deliver repeatedly on its promise – where to provide stylish, well-made clothing (Zara) or luxury cars (Mercedes).

Whatever happens in the forthcoming elections, Brand Obama clearly needs a revamp and a re-definition of its core values.

As Trevor Beattie says ‘As a how-to-do it lesson [the campaign] will surely endure, but was the promise just too great?’.  Time will tell.

 Firstly, Sarah Palin. Here in the UK we may consider her a ‘failed’ politician having left the office of Governor of Alaska – albeit voluntarily – and having failed to make it to the White House as Vice President for the Republicans.

 But while she may have dropped out of public attention over here, over in America she is back in business, having reinvented herself as a major brand.

 In a piece titled “How Sarah Palin Became a Brand,” (quoted by Abe Sauer on brandchannel.com )  The New York Times notes, “After her failed bid for the vice presidency, she was more or less told to head back to Alaska to serve out her term as governor — a kind of metaphorical kitchen.”

 As Abe says, “Of course, Palin didn’t go back. Instead, she quit her job and began the process of turning herself into a “one-woman national media empire,” releasing a book, touring the nation as a speaker, and now hosting a Fox News show.”

 To do this Sarah used ‘prime mover advantage’ i.e. she got into something new very early on. In her case, she was one of the very first to see the potential of the Tea Party movement (www.teapartypatriots.ning.com) , a community dedicated to upholding traditional Republican ideals and financial conservatism.

 Sarah is now a major spokesperson for the conservative Republications throughout America, See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/03/sarah_palin_and_the_tea_party.html  for The Washington Post’s recent poll results on her approval rating.

 Love her or hate her, we have not heard the last of Sarah Palin!

 The second politician benefitting from branding is also conservative, this time with a large ‘C’.

 In this case, David Cameron has benefitted from association with a great ‘brand’- that of TV detective Gene Hunt of Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes fame.

 A spectacular ’own goal’ had Labour grafting David Cameron’s face onto a promotional poster of Gene Hunt for Ashes to Ashes saying ‘Don’t let him take Britain back to the 1980s’.

 As a bemused Times noted a ‘Cash-strapped Labour held a competition for the new campaign poster to save money on their election advertising. The winning design by activist Jacob Quagliozzi, 24, from St Albans, Herts, was then worked-up by Labour’s advertising agency Saatchi and Saatchi.’

 At a single stroke Labour ‘grafted’ onto David Cameron a large number of ‘brand values’ he did not have before – namely grit, drive, urban sex appeal, street cred and working class credentials.

 The recognition of this piece of genius re-branding came when the Conservatives only four hours ‘stole’ the theme with their own version with the slogan  ‘Fire up the Quattro. It’s time for change’.

 It would be nice to think that this was part of strategy to re-brand Cameron ‘for the people’ but sadly it was most likely a happy accident.

 It is strange to think that the Conservatives may win the Election of May 6 through a piece of accidental re-branding!

For Abe’s article see: ttp://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/04/05/Sarah-Palin-Is-Branding-101.aspx

The most recent task was to re-brand the seaside town of Margate. One team (Ignite) opted for marketing Margate to families – safe but uninspiring.

The other team (Empire) worked on the re-invention of Margate as a gay resort to rival Brighton.

In the event, the latter idea failed not through prejudice but through extremely poor execution of the marketing materials, namely posters and a leaflet, due to running out of time.
Ignite won with a predictable approach yet Empire’s route was so much more innovative.

Good branding (or re-branding) takes time – it cannot be done in two days – and involves so much more than just a single image, a few good photos and a few posters!

Sometimes clients do not understand the difference between the design of a single image (logo) and all the research behind the creation of a brand or a re-brand. This Apprentice task proves the point.

Of course, designers and marketers do not always get it right – remember Consignia?

But any good agency will include sufficient resources in the budget to do thorough research and to ensure their (great) ideas are beautifully presented.

Time maybe money but two days is not enough for a re-brand! Margate deserved better!