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?

Comments

[DK]

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...

[Chuck Nyren]

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

[Lewis Green]

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.

[Mary Schmidt]

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.

[first time commenter to this site]

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.

[Lorri Randle]

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.

[second time commenter]

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?

[Troy Worman]

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

But I like the video.

[kim]

it's "exacerbate" not "exasperate"

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

okay ... thanks ... correction made.

[Adam Gershenbaum]

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