Have you lately read news about a woman who died because of drinking coke? According to Iltalehti she drunk Coca-cola something like 12 litres in one day, and got a heart attack.
I just can't keep thinking how that kind of publicity disturbs a brand image!
Like, if you think Coca-cola, a world wide known brand. Almost everyone drinks "Coke", and then you suddenly see that kind of news in the media? Does it affect you like "omg I can never drink coke anymore". Well at least I have to say that I still drink it.....
But I just wonder how strong brand image Coca-cola must have that it can take that kind of publicity. There isn't so many brands which have so deep reliability in customers' hearts' (yea funny...) so that kind of things doesn't harm the image.
It's well known that it usually takes tens, maybe hundreds of years to build a reliable, permanent brand image, but it needs only one scandal to break it up. So how can Coca-cola hold on its image a year after year, even if people die in a heart attacks and their teeth rot in a mouth because of drinking coke...? I have to say that's nothing but amazing.
And although Coca-cola has so many health harms, it is still probably the most known brand in the whole world. You hardly can find a place where people don't drink coke.
If I could, I would ask the creator of Coca-cola, how on earth he has succeeded making such a brand. (Well at least he isn''t alive anymore because Coca-cole was invented in 1886...)
But I think this gives some hope to this days' brands too. If a black liquid with various health harms can become a most known brand in a world, maybe others have also chances.
But if you think Pepsi for example, yeah everybody knows what it is, but most people still prefer Coca-cola. It's the law of the first; if you can innovate something first, it doesn't matter how much better the second is, because everyone remembers only the first one. And Coca-cola was the first.
See ya,
Heidi :)
Hi guys ~
Have you seen the newest Nike ads with Tiger Woods? What a huge "thing" the ads are in social media right now! And why? Because Tiger Woods has problems in his private life currently, so he isn´t a good figurehead for a sport brand. Or that´s what media thinks.
Here's a picture if you haven't seen any of the ads:
It´s true that Woods' personal life has received tremendous scrutiny since his extramarital affairs came to light in 2009, and a slogan "Winning takes care of everyhing" makes Tiger look like a heartless and selfish person when thinking those problems in his private life. However, the slogan is a direct quote from Woods who replied with the line during the Tour Championship last year when asked about whether he was focused on the rankings. "Just winning," Woods said. "Winning takes care of everything."
Nike said to ABC News in a statement: “Tiger has always said he competes to win. When asked about his goals such as getting back to number one, he has said consistently winning is the way to get there. The statement references that sentiment and is a salute to his athletic performance.”
After publishing those ads and that that slogan "Winning takes care of everyhing", Nike has faced a lot of criticism, like "Disappointing message by Nike" and "Tiger Woods ad raises eyebrows". You can see that the picture people have of Tiger Woods right now turns against Nike and the image the brand has already attained. It doesn't matter how good golfer Woods is, but if he has lost his face and reliability, it doesn't matter how hard he tries to be a good golfer, how hard he tries and wants to win. And in that case, his slogan "Winning takes care of everything" really sounds heartless and absurd. Why should a customer believe in his words if he acts himself in a different way?
The more Tiger Woods loses his own respect, the more also Nike loses its customers' trust in a brand, that once appreciated values like self-confidence and a pure joy to play. The company that once brought us Just Do It, a phrase that motivated a generation to get back in the game and play ball, is now selling "sleep with people not named your wife in church parking lots, destroy your family, do so while its back is turned and as long as you win then Just Screw It."
Because all companies, at least the good ones, are really just selling a feeling, it really matters which celebrity is used in ads. Personally I think Nike got a huge media boom because of using Tiger Woods, and usually an ad which awakes feelings, even if it's anger or hate, is better than an ad that doesn't make you feel anything at all.
But do you think this kind of publicity was a smart move for the brand? Will it move product, build share, or spawn more backlash? I don't know, but at least I know that I for sure remember Nike better than Adidas when going a sports store!
Sources:
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/new-tiger-woods-ad-shows-nike-has-lost-its-soul-032613
http://www.marketingmag.ca/news/marketer-news/poll-is-nike%e2%80%99s-new-tiger-woods-ad-the-right-move-75427
See ya,
Heidi :)
