The purpose of branding is to build connections
with prospective and current customers. They want to understand the who and the what behind the company they do business with. Although they’re
making a financial investment into a company, the brand allows them to make an
emotional investment, and this drives long-term loyalty.
One would think that C-levels and their marketing
teams would have the type of branding that develops loyalty in mind when
sending out their marketing and ads to the masses, but there’s been a bevy of
examples in the last year that prove otherwise. Below are examples of some of
the most forehead-slapping, head-scratching, bewildering, “Why did they do
that?!?”, and “Who approved that?!?” branding content of the last
year.
But in order to protect the not-so innocent, names
of companies won’t be mentioned. What will be mentioned are some of the
examples, along with reasons why deep contemplation should be paid among any
marketing team and/or C-level who signs off on these behaviors.
Switching up brand names for no apparently good
reason
Marketers are always thinking of ways to stay at the
top of the minds of consumers. As such, innovation is crucial. But here’s the
issue: While it’s important to innovate in order to keep up with social trends
and cultural habits of the day, innovation also needs to make sense.
Too many marketers make the mistake of forcing their
so-called innovative ideas upon the masses, whether they asked for change or
not. That’s what happened with one particular
international brand.
Their consumer base was already familiar and
comfortable with the name of the company’s program, when someone decided to
give the name an upgrade. No one complained about the old name. Not only did
consumers experience feeling miffed about the new (unwanted) name, but they
also experienced confusion. This was not the reaction that the C-levels were
hoping for. What’s more, consumers are humans, and most humans detest enduring
patronizing decisions.
Brand: Marriot
Campaign: Bonvoy
Failure to launch … literally
A famous e-commerce company experienced the opposite
type of brand marketing they were hoping for when a new feature they were
rolling out failed to work. The system was riddled with all sorts of bugs and
glitches. Sales became lost in the ether. Quantities of products were reported
incorrectly. And needless to say,
customers were miffed.
At least the e-commerce company did the right thing:
They immediately acknowledged their mistakes, and they offered generous refunds
and store credits. While this is the proper way to fix embarrassing roll-out
mistakes, millions of dollars of revenue evaporated, and the company lost face
before the entire world. Again, this is the opposite of what brand marketing is
supposed to accomplish!
Brand: Rent the Runway
Campaign: New software system
Ads that attempt to rewrite shameful historical eras
Being the bad guy. Very few people enjoy being the
bad guy, but sometimes, humans do horrible things. And when this takes place
(and if it’s instituted by law), then shame-filled historical eras take place.
Hard as it might be, it’s important for people to
reflect upon historically shameful eras as a teaching tool to prevent
those eras from happening again. However, the pain and the shame of the teaching
tool doesn’t mean that others can come along and appoint themselves as
vigilantes who appoint themselves to kill off or change the narrative of
the teaching tool.
That’s what one otherwise feel-good company
tried to do. They took a very shameful era in American history and attempted
(through a series of ads) to rewrite the narrative of that era, watering down
the teaching tool into something that was historically incorrect, and honestly,
somewhat detestable.
Even if the company’s intentions were well-meaning,
there were too many apparent reasons why their blunder should have never left
the pile of balled up papers, scribbled with horrible ideas.
Brand: Ancestry.com
Campaign: “Inseparable”
Now featuring … cultural misappropriation!
Speaking of shame and the lack of cultural
sensitivity, there was the infamous incident involving the international
reality star who decided to meld her name with cultural appropriation in a
manner that had infuriated the insulted culture.
Even worse (and speaking of being careful about
one’s brand), the reality star in question (along with her family) has
developed quite the reputation for insulting others through cultural
misappropriation.
The reality star has voluntarily rolled back her
launch to change the offending name but offending an entire nation (and its
ethnic descendants) is not the way to endear one’s new product to the
masses.
Brand: Kim Kardashian West
Campaign: Kimono Lingerie Launch
When the force of shaming is not with you
When an e-commerce wedding site created marketing
media (with an ad agency), the results were beautiful. The ad was also very
timely for today’s cultural tastes. Too bad that a values-based advocacy group
didn’t agree.
The advocacy group protested and applied pressure on
a national cable network, demanding that they (the cable network) pull the ad
that offended their values. The advocacy group thought that this would be the
end of things … until a larger force of consumer advocacy and anger turned
the tides. The ad that offended the values-based group was restored, and it ran
nationwide, as it should have.
The great thing about the U.S. is the country’s
diversity of values, along with freedom of speech in content. This includes
advertising content, and while some marketing spots can go a bit too far,
there’s no law that forbids a spot the celebrates the freedom of individual
civil rights, even if those civil rights offend a grassroots organization.
Brand: Hallmark Channel
Campaign: Holiday Wedding Season 2019 (Zola.com)
Would you really mock domestic violence?
Speaking of the odd occasion when marketing media
goes too far, there was the social media company that allowed a marketing piece
to be distributed on the company’s platform. Specifically, the piece featured
wording that very blatantly mocked domestic violence, even making a game out of
punching and slapping specifically named targets.
Fortunately, the social media platform’s CEO quickly
apologized and removed the disgusting media. But one wonders … who was the ad
agency that allowed this? Certainly not one of any real relevance or quality.
Brand: Snapchat
Campaign: Impossible Choices Ad
There’s an old marketing slogan: Friends don’t
let friends drive drunk!
In the same vein, great agencies don’t allow
their clients to embarrass themselves while offending their marketing targets!
A great agency is comprised of a marketing team that’s full of empathy and
decency. For marketing teams who wish to avoid such costly and humiliating
blunders, such as the ones mentioned, then they should ensure that they consult
with people who can speak to topics such as race, gender, and sexual
identification.
Certainly, marketing teams should double-check
with product manufactures to ensure that all kinks and bugs have been
corrected, well before launching. And finally, marketing teams should be
mindful of general good taste. Mocking serious issues that are traumatizing is
unprofessional and despicable.
Blog
