Tokyo Uh-Oh: Opportunity or Nightmare for Brands?

via your classmate Madeline:

One of the most controversial Olympic Games is set to take place starting July 23rd. “Tokyo 2020” has been plagued with controversies, starting with the one-year delay of the games due to the COVID-10 pandemic. However, many still believe it is too early to hold the Olympics, with 70-80% of people in Japan believe the Olympics should not be held this summer ¹. Many are questioning whether it is really time to bring the world back together. The Olympics are typically a time of celebration, and with many places around the world currently still in a state of emergency from the pandemic (including Japan!), it does not feel like a time to rejoice in sport. 

On top of the COVID-19 concerns, Tokyo 2020 has been plagued by controversies relating to inclusivity. Banning afro swimming caps, ineligibility for transgender athletes, and restrictions relating to Black Lives Matter propaganda are some of the contentious issues associated with the Olympics so far. 

What does this mean for brands? The Olympics is typically one of the largest opportunities for brands to showcase on a global scale. However, this year brands are faced with questions they never thought they would be answering about the Olympics. Among them, whether they want to be associated with The Olympics in the first place. Many are struggling with the potential negative brand associations with such a controversial event. While it could be an opportunity for brands on a large scale, it could also hurt a brand’s image depending on sentiment relating to the events.² Some brands have chosen to go ahead with Olympic associations but in more subtle ways than usual. For example, Asics, who is the Olympics kit partner of the Japan team, only very briefly showed the Olympic rings in their recent commercial.³

The second decision they face if they do choose to advertise is what types of messages they should release. With half the world still battling the pandemic while others are finally getting back a sense of normalcy, the choice for brands is made harder by this divided public sentiment. One option is to ignore current events and continuing with regularly scheduled campaign themes. Another option is putting out messages of hope, which might seem worn out to some consumers throughout the pandemic. However, messages of normalcy returning can also be seen as tonedeaf to those countries still struggling. Many brands have chosen to create two campaigns with different messages and make a last-minute call on which they deem appropriate.³

With the games quickly approaching, brands will have to navigate these decisions on a global scale. Should they risk harming their brand image or pass up on a potential huge awareness opportunity?

References:

1. https://www.nytimes.com/article/olympics-tokyo-explainer.html
2. https://www.sportanddev.org/en/article/news/controversies-tokyo-2020
3. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/the-sponsors-dilemma-at-tokyo-olympics-to-advertise-or-not-to/83531456

A Brand New Way to Cheat

Via your classmate Aidan:

There’s been a lot of outrage recently in the world of major league baseball (MLB), as everyone from fans to pundits to players have mocked the new rule that aims to eject “any pitcher who possesses or applies foreign substances.”¹ Why would a rule aimed at competitive parity and at reducing cheating (which everyone seems to hate around the world) be so controversial? The answer lies in MLB’s long and muddled history with cheating (especially in recent years) and in their ever-decreasing viewership count, both of which have led the MLB to attempt to make rule changes to counteract these patterns. 

And before you wonder how a rule change could be considered a brand change: the MLB, as a brand, is known as “America’s pastime.” It is also often considered the most traditional, slowest-paced, most boring major sport. This may have once been something to embrace, but currently young people just don’t like baseball as much as they once did. Indeed, just 7% of MLB’s viewers are under 18², leading some to proclaim it “a dying sport.”³ This is obviously not an ideal position for any organization, let alone a league with as much money at stake as the MLB. So, over the past few years, the League has introduced several rules aimed at speeding games up and making them more entertaining for younger generations. These include: pitch clocks, limited substitutions, replay review (which actually made the games longer and more boring, as it tends to), and automatically starting extra innings with a runner already in scoring position (2^nd base).

However, despite all these efforts, and the shortened games that resulted, the brand re-positioning towards this younger demographic hasn’t been as successful as hoped. In my opinion, some of this may be due to the fact that baseball is the sport with the richest history of cheating and the sport where it is easiest to cheat. 

In baseball there have been teams that have thrown games in order to make money (even the world series – the Chicago White Sox were known as ‘The Black Sox’ for a while as a result); doping scandals in which players took steroids to gain a competitive advantage (and broke records along the way, records that still stand despite their accepted cheating); pitchers using a foreign substance to make the ball move in unexpectable ways (sticky substances can give them better grip and control – this is what the new rule is aimed at eliminating); and of course, sign stealing. The most famous example of this was the trash-can hitting, World Series winning Houston Astros of a few years ago. However, despite all these players and teams being caught, MLB has adopted a laissez-faire approach to punishment: either a slap on the wrist, or no punishment at all.  

While MLB appears to be trying to make strides, they keep shooting themselves in the foot with inconsistencies. Some of their rule-changes make the games shorter. Others longer. Some crackdown on minor instances of cheating. Others ignore major instances of cheating. Until MLB is able to find some consistency, I believe they will continue to fail and falter in their goal to draw in a younger audience, not only in viewership, but in younger players coming up, as little leagues across North America have seen ever-decreasing sign-up rates.⁴ 

Until things change for the better, baseball will continue to be (for many) unwatchable, a sport for an America that no longer exists. 

References: 

1. https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-announces-new-guidance-to-deter-use-of-foreign-substances 
2. https://www.denverpost.com/2021/03/28/the-state-of-baseball-game-needs-fresh-ideas/#:~:text=%2C%E2%80%9D%20Epstein%20said.-,Declining%20interest%20in%20baseball%20can%20be%20directly%20traced%20to%20a,loss%20of%205.2%20million%20fans.&text=More%20ominous%2C%20just%207%25%20of,under%20the%20age%20of%2018.  
3. https://yorktownsentry.com/9127/sports/why-baseball-is-dying/ 
4. https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Baseball-A-Changing-Landscape 

Article URL: https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/mariners-hector-santiago-first-pitcher-ejected-mlb-world-reacts 

An A-Morphe-ous Brand Identity?

via your classmate Linda:

Morphe, a makeup brand, is currently being called out by many as they have not yet commented on a scandal revolving around James Charles, a well-known beauty influencer. Charles has recently been accused of inappropriate interactions with underage teenage boys. Because Morphe has been closely associated with James Charles over the past few years, their lack of comment on the matter has caused many consumers to be frustrated with the brand.

Although influencers can be a great benefit to companies by pushing brand products and increasing brand awareness, when these influencers are involved in crises, the brands can also suffer as a result. Because of how closely associated Morphe has been with James Charles, they should have issued a public statement immmediately. Although Morphe was not in control of this scandal, they are in control of how they handle it, and their lack of response has caused uproar. It is evident that Morphe needs to rethink their response strategy and learn for the future; In my opinion, keeping quiet during times like these only hurts the brand. 

To read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/james-charles-youtube-morphe-backlash-trisha-paytas-scandal-sexting-tiktok-2021-4

A Swing and a Miss…Or a Home Run for Major League Baseball?

via your classmate Jasjeet:

In recent news, Major League Baseball (MLB) announced that it is relocating the annual all-star game out of Atlanta, Georgia in response to the state passing restrictive voting laws that critics say will disproportionately affect black voters. Although I believe that the brand made the right decision, there have been mixed feelings across the baseball universe, with MLB receiving both praise and backlash. This begs the question, did the league narrowly avoid a brand crisis, or have their actions brought one upon themselves anyway?

I believe that this is an exemplary case of how brands avoid crisis, as the MLB got ahead of the issue by listening to its fans before it turned into anything huge. By considering how non-brand authors may have reacted to the decision of the league to indirectly provide the state of Georgia with $100 million in economic activity through the all-star game right after the state passed these restrictive laws, they were able to decide to move it to a more “neutral” location. If they had not done so, it is possible that the backlash they would have received would have been worse, and that consumers (fans) would associate their brand with supporting voter suppression. Other brands should take note of this situation and be similarly proactive in responding to potential crises.

In a contrasting point of view, the MLB situation is being called a “political debacle” and other non-brand authors have suggested that the league should stick to baseball. The decision of whether or not to make political comments or decisions as a business will always be present in the modern business environment. Brand narratives are always changing, and although MLB has not commented upon political issues in the past, the times we live in have shown that it is not a bad time to start. As a result, I do not think that the league did anything wrong – despite what some conservative supporters would have you think.

Do you agree? Or do you think that it was not the brand’s place to comment on a political issue?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31183822/mlb-moving-all-star-game-atlanta-georgia-voting-law

Did BK Make A Whopper of A Mistake In Its “Kitchen” Brand Response?

via your classmate Meghan

I believe that the brand’s apology was not effective in this case. Although Burger King UK did the right thing by admitting their fault, they continued to defend their initial tweet in the apology. Instead of simplifying owning up to their mistake and leaving it at that, Twitter users in the replies pointed out that Burger King UK’s “defense was even worse” than their initial tweet (see image above). These responses by Twitter users were triggered by the fact that Burger King UK continued to defend the purpose of their initial tweet by saying that their aim was to “draw attention to the fact that only 20% of professional chefs in UK kitchens are women and to help change that by awarding culinary scholarships”. I think it would have been more effective to admit fault, apologize, and leave it at that.
Further, Burger King UK did not apologize immediately for the tweet despite the backlash. After receiving criticism for the “women belong in the kitchen” tweet, Burger King UK tweet’s first response was to tweet the following back at the haters: “Why would we delete a tweet that’s drawing attention to a huge lack of female representation in our industry? We thought you’d be on board with this, as well. We’ve launched a scholarship to help give more of our female employees the chance to pursue a culinary career.” This initial defense of their tweet makes the apology that comes later less sincere. Burger King UK clearly stood by their tweet while facing backlash, and only made the decision to delete it and apologize after the negative PR continued to grow. The Burger King UK media team needs to seriously evaluate their team and actions, and use this as a learning opportunity for future campaigns. 

Do you agree?

A Royal Mess: the Impact Two Hours Can Have on a 1200-year-old Brand.

via your classmate Brianna:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey aired for two hours on March 7, 2021 and has been called “the worst royal crisis in 85 years” in England. What about the monarchy is in crisis? It’s brand. The couple made allegations that the royal family denied Markle’s request for mental health help, and that there were racist comments made concerning their children’s skin colour. The result has been that a number of personal brands have been put into question as well as that of the entire royal institution.

The interview covered many details of the couple’s life including their deteriorating relationships with various members of the royal family, the withdrawal of their security and financial support since leaving Britain, and the lack of rebuttal in the case of false media stories which Markle claimed contributed to her depression during pregnancy. Importantly, the couple has alleged that the reason they were denied mental health support is because it was determined that it wouldn’t “look good” for the royal brand. Prince Harry also explained that he felt as though “history was repeating itself,” a reference to the lack of protection from prying media that his mother, Princess Diana, endured.

While it is not clear or certain whether the alleged claims are true – nor who was behind the callous actions if they are true – it is certain that reputational damage has already been done to England’s royal brand and it is likely to linger for years. As stated in an article, “The circumstances raise question that go right to the core of the monarchy’s values and purpose: inclusion, unity, stability. In a modern democracy, the royal family survives or dies based entirely on what people perceive it represents” (Murphy, 2021). This is an example of a situation in which unexpected and negative brand meaning can arise. In the first two days since the interview aired, social media hashtags like “#AbolishTheMonarchy” were trending before a royal response had been offered (Murphy, 2021).

Thsi is an example of how detrimental negative brand authorship can be; in this case, all of the brand’s authors are speakly loudly but narrating disparate stories. Of particular interest here is how the media can be used as such a powerful tool to both build and destroy brands. This is evident in the accusations made by the Sussex’s about the impact the media has had on their quality of life as well as the impact a two-hour interview with Oprah Winfrey can have in tarnishing a 1200-year-old brand: the British monarchy.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a35769668/prince-harry-meghan-markle-interview-royal-family-impact/

We Need Some Q and A about QAnon

via your classmate Emily:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wayfair-online-conspiracy-theory-1.5657192

In summer 2020 a conspiracy theory was circling that online housewares brand Wayfair was trafficking children. Now this is nothing to joke about, but consumers claimed products were named after some missing children and the selling price of the product was set at an unusually high cost. Counterclaims then emerged from people saying their name was used but they were not missing.

The so-called conspiracy was particularly prominent on TikTok with millions of views. Wayfair responded that it uses an algorithm to name its products and have tried to fix these issues, but it is interesting to me how something like this has the potential to deter my generation to avoid Wayfair all together. This is an example of a brand being authored, because influencers on social media and conspiracies circulating in popular culture can damage a brand even with no proof of its authenticity.

#Cancelled

via your classmate Meghan:

John Boyega has resigned as Jo Malone ambassador after his ad for the brand was reshot for its Chinese markethttps://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/09/15/john-boyega-drops-jo-malone-after-being-cut-brands-china-ad

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/09/18/the-new-crisis-pr-what-should-brands-do-when-they-re-cancelled

I think a concept that is really interesting is “cancel culture.” Cancel culture is when a celebrity, public figure, or company does something that the general public doesn’t approve of, so they get shamed and boycotted on the internet. Social media plays a big part in propelling cancel culture since people with similar views are able to work together to ostracize the company or person.

Cancel culture is related to the concept of a strong brand being authored because consumers contribute to the meaning of a brand through their opinions and word-of-mouth marketing. Many companies as seen in this article, despite being authored in a positive way in the past, have quickly been “canceled” and the authoring switches to being negative within a short period of time. I find this very interesting because even if companies are being talked about in a positive light, they need to be constantly monitoring what their brand is doing and portraying, as the authored narrative can change so quickly in today’s social world. 

Finally: Showing Some Character Regarding Brand Characters

via your classmate Emily

Uncle Ben, Mrs. Butterworth embrace makeovers in light of racist past

It’s a crazy time to be alive, especially for brands. Shifts in social media of late have quickly gone from focusing on the impacts of COVID-19 to activism about anti-racism. This occurred following the tragic death of George Floyd, which caused outrage and a desire to change the systematic racism that exists in our society. Consumers more than ever are looking for brands to use their platforms to stand in solidary with Black people and the ongoing racism they face.

There are multiple examples of brands that have taken action by donating funds, posting a black square on their feed, or taking a week’s break from posting from on social media. Recently, three brands in particular have gone even further to rebrand their product lines. Uncle Ben’s, Aunt Jemima and Mrs. Butterworths are among those that have chosen to completely revamp their brand image as a result of this.

These brands have each acknowledged that their brand characters, which feature black individuals, perpetrate racism by featuring caricatures from the past. Parent companies Mars, ConAgra, and PepsiCo have each pledged to change their visual brand identity to be more in line with their company values, and work together to make progress towards racial equality.

This change is particularly interesting as it shows that these brands have been listening closely to what is going on in the world and are responding. Additionally, it represents an act towards greater social good. In making this pledge, they have gotten a lot of media attention and will as a result probably see a spike in sales when packaging is changed due to consumers supporting the change. This change may also target a new segment of customers that would have originally boycotted the brand due to a contrast in values.

Despite this step towards change, it is a huge undertaking for the brand. Each company will need to work towards ensuring that they rebrand in a way that customers still recognize it while also ensuring that they are able to better aligning with customer values. It will be interesting to see the financial effect of this re-branding and whether or not it is disastrous or positive implications for each respective brand.

Finally, just because we are seeing change now, doesn’t mean that there’s still a way to go for brands to help achieve racial equity in their branding and better align with customers changing perspectives.

A Different Kind of Brand Loyalty…

via your classmate Shekhina:

Amidst universal uncertainty and boredom, where many are turning to binge-watching to pass time, Netflix and ESPN released their long-awaited “The Last Dance” documentary. The 10-part series documents Michael Jordan’s (MJ) Chicago Bulls team during their undefeated 1990’s NBA Finals run. It also includes never-seen-before footage and interviews. 

The most recent episode touched on Jordan’s path to signing with Nike and creating the Air Jordan subbrand – a multi-billion-dollar partnership that almost never occurred had it not been for MJ’s mother. Adidas was a much bigger and popular brand at the time, and Jordan had every intention to sign there and forego any other offer. But thankfully, his mother intervened at the last minute and advised the young rookie to at least consider Nike’s pitch. The Jordan family was ultimately swayed by Nike and the prospects of owning a signature line. This same signature line would later be the main contributor to Jordan’s $2.1 billion net worth.

However, this piece is not about Nike vs. Adidas, but rather about Nike vs. Reebok and the power of strategic brand management. By 1992, Michael Jordan was an established veteran, decorated NBA champion, and chosen to lead the USA Men’s Basketball Team at the Barcelona Olympics. This team was also known as the Dream Team due to its star-studded and intergenerational roster ranging from; Jordan himself, to Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird, just to name a few.

As highlighted in the article and on the documentary’s most recent episode, Reebok becomes relevant in this story because the company had secured a sponsorship deal with Team USA to exclusively produce their warmup uniforms for the 1992 Dream Team. The problem here was that these uniforms sported a big Reebok logo on the chest area, however, the team’s star player was exclusively a Nike athlete. Jordan initially refused to wear the warmup jacket for fear of adverting a brand other than Nike. To make matters more complicated, Reebok’s deal with Team USA and the Olympic Committee disallowed players from receiving their medals at the final ceremony unless they wore their Reebok-branded uniforms.

As expected, Team USA won the tournament, but Jordan still somehow managed to publicly claim his gold medal before the world without ever breaking his exclusive vow to Nike. During the ceremony, and in true Jordan fashion, he draped half of his body in a blanket-sized American flag – a flag large enough to cover the entire Reebok logo while still complementing the stars and stripes Americana design of the uniforms. What many had believed to be an act of patriotism for decades now, was only recently debunked as Michael simply remaining true to the Nike brand in every way he could. And how could have Reebok made a fuss about such a patriotic gesture? This branding strategy was Jordan’s best off-the-court play during that entire tournament. 

This story was news to many viewers and avid NBA fans, myself included. Reebok on their end appropriately capitalized on this media hype by re-releasing a modernized version of that same warmup jacket, and poking fun at the undefeated champion with an Instagram post stating they would have preferred the flag to be on the “other side” – as opposed to the side displaying their logo. Reebok earned themselves a silver medal for that timely and clever response.

https://hypebeast.com/2020/5/reebok-usa-dream-team-track-jacket-1992-release-date-info