Site moved to www.brandautopsy.com/2006/08/businesses_gott.html, redirecting in 1 second...

« On Competitive Advantage | Main | Tom Peters on Competition and Katie Couric »

August 23, 2006

Businesses Gotta Be Confident

Echoing some of what I’ve heard Mark Kingdon (CEO at Organic) say in his stump presentation on social media, businesses today must be CONFIDENT in their products and services. That’s because when consumers hijack brands, they can create incongruent (and some might say inappropriate) messages such as this citizen marketer-generated spot for Starbucks Frappuccino.

RSS readers click here to view the video


As Steve Hall over at Adrants suggests, it’ll be interesting to see how Starbucks reacts. If Starbucks legal department does get involved and tries to pressure YouTube to yank the video, it will only exasperate exacerbate the situation. Instead, Starbucks should do nothing and remain confident in their products.

Ya know … just as professional marketers can create “off-brand” messaging, amateur marketers will do the same. Should we expect anything different? Seriously, should we?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf89d53ef00d8343fe55753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Businesses Gotta Be Confident:

» http://servantofchaos.typepad.com/soc/2006/08/i_love_this_vid.html from Servant of Chaos
I love this video from YouTube. John Moore over at Brand Autopsy posts this video and says:... just as professional marketers can create “off-brand” messaging, amateur marketers will do the same. Should we expect anything different? Seriously, should w... [Read More]

Comments

I thought the video was really cool.

In terms of their use of the 'Starbucks brand', it's only used to illustrate a point - could just as well be any other mainstream brand (but totally understand the 'Bucks would prefer it not to be them)...

Like you highlighted, these 'amateur marketers' now have the means and the platforms to get their message out in anyway they want and as long as it's factual and not harming a brand (legally) I say it's all fair game...

Gee whiz ... isn't this the much-touted WOM I keep hearing about? The new savior of marketing and advertising? (I remember twenty-odd years ago BRANDING was the new savior. Now they're performing autopsy on it.)

Someone named Jack Trout warned people about this. But everybody ignored him and kept blabbing away, creating great WOM for WOM.

OK, enough sarcasm. Steve Hall is correct. Starbucks should just leave it alone.

And please no hate email. I'm not anti-WOM. It's just one gun in the arsenal - or whatever Jack said. And a big one now that we have the web.

Just don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Chuck "Are there any more cliches I can use?" Nyren

Starbucks should leave this alone but having once worked at the Support Center (corporate), I am quite certain the legal department will bring the unauthorized use of the logo to the attention of the Executive Committee.

Companies should protect their logos, of course, but even if Starbucks chooses to pursue this, the fix is an easy one. Just remove the logo from the opening screen.

As for the WOM effect, I think this spot does wonders for selling Starbucks. All in all, it should be a winner for starving kids and for Starbucks. I hope Starbucks recognizes that.

Yep, removing the logo would make all the difference wouldn't it? That logo is absolutely why I buy Frapppucinos!

I've used this type of analogy in several fund-raising pieces. It doesn't mean we should stop buying from Starbucks - but it is a wake-up call - we're incredibily wealthy and it won't kill us to skip a treat or two to help others. (Off my Pollyanna soap box now.) Here's a thought - why doesn't Starbucks put a jar next to the cash register and encourage people to donate their spare change to Sudan refugees for a week? (Or - gasp - buy a smaller version and donate the buck) It is, after all, only a watery milkshake.

When I started to read up on poverty and starvation, I found that money wasn't so much the problem. Starvation is usually entangled in politics and bribes and warfare and...

What might be distressing to many Americans is that they just can't donate all those wasted calories that are hanging round the middle, hips, and thighs. This, too, on a day when my mailbox included another report on the dangers of that BMI being over 25, or under 18.

Come of age or index~ whatever you choose.

I think that Starbucks could turn this into something good. Start a campaign that says for every Frappuccino bought during such and such time, we will donate X amount of dollars.
Otherwise I would leave it alone, that will put a negative taste in everyone's mouths along with the coffee.

While on another branding and advertising blog, I read comments on the looks, actually all that leaped out at me is this gal's excellent annunciation of words (most obvious: actually), her pronunciation of either, and the word badly.

Could she be a mid atlantic state thespian?

Or this was scripted for a purpose thought out more than the freakin' chill on the surface?

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with Chuck and Lewis.

But I like the video.

it's "exacerbate" not "exasperate"

okay ... thanks ... correction made.

I like what DK said in the first comment. Anyone really can make any video in the likeness of a brand and still convey their point.

Peep Delta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpI7UzqqJAs

The comments to this entry are closed.