It's no secret that Lady GaGa's a brand success story.
She's winning Grammy's, selling millions of records and in the 2011 edition of the Guinness World Records is listed as the "Most searched for woman on Google". Who'd have thought?!
Before you think I'm advising some kind of Charlie Sheen-esque transformation, hear me out!
When it comes to your brand's online relationship with customers, potential clients or even colleagues, there are two ways of going about it - one is to let the conversation flow freely, to let it happen as it happens and use it to mutual advantage. The other is to monitor it. I'm talking, of course, about comment moderation on blogs - in this day and age, more businesses are starting blogs or have had one going for some time, and the worst thing you can do to an existing blog is to moderate comments before they go live on the web. Moderating has its benefits, you can guide the conversation to help you achieve a particular end or weed out spam, but the reality of it is that you're taking away one of the greatest assets of engaging on the web - everyone has a voice and they can use it when they want and how they want.
If something is abusive or irrelevant spam, sure go ahead and delete it, but before you go making comment moderation your default position, think again and become an engagement enabler!
I've spent the past few days catching up on PR Warrior Trevor Young's second blog, Sweat Equity Biz which you MUST check out. His post on Jay-Z and Frank Sinatra and brand collaboration raised some great examples of how Jay-Z came to be the phenomena that he is - he's managed to tread the line between mind-blowing commercial success by selling a gazillion CDs and maintaining artistic credibility really well.
Brand collaboration is great for a number of reasons as Trevor pointed out and in the lifestyle sector, no-one does it better than US retailer J Crew. Whilst their menswear line sales have gone through the roof, thanks largely to Frank Muytjens who turned around GAP and is doing the same thing at J Crew, what's really helping their brand equity is their 'In Good Company' collection.
It opens them up the brand to niche markets and it sells consumers the old adage of letting people do what they do best. Alden make their shoes, Warehouse do their denim, Mister Freedom style peacoats, Barbour make their jackets, Levis Vintage do trucker jackets.. The list is endless! The best thing is that it makes your brand's credibility go through the roof.
J Crew started out making 'basics' and as their brand has grown, sure, their range has diversified but by teaming up with some of the "best of the best" it's given them the sort of 'cred' that a basics brand just can't get overnight when it wants to start doing shell cordovan leather boots. Going to the experts over at Alden just makes sense, and it's a lot easier to sell. I wonder when collaborations from bigger Australian labels will really take off?
Admittedly, I just wrote about Alden for J Crew so I could show off my new boots. Hmm..
I read this over at allfacebook.com and it got me thinking about the direction that viral apps are taking. It turns out one of the newer apps scumbags are using to get a hold of personal information relies on the vanity of self-conscious Gen Y-ers. In short, you install the app and it tells you how many people view your Facebook profile. I've seen it clog up my friends list on the 'book with a lot of people touting how many people are viewing their online profiles. Problem is, the numbers aren't true and you're susceptible to them getting all your personal information. On the one hand, I've got to give it to the developers, it's the perfect cover for getting information - but Facebook really ought to be doing something about it.
I don't say that because it's going to damage Facebook. For every five people that leave Facebook because they decide they're sick of privacy-related issues, seven more join it. There is no stopping it - but it could be damaging for other businesses in the long run. Though we're certainly more prone to sharing information and collaborating more than ever before as Rachel Botsman argues, after a while, if we're being duped like this our defences are going to rise. As ordinary businesses strive more and more to "harness the power of online", if we're being f--ked around with, in time we'll just make it harder on legitimate businesses whose messages could actually benefit us.
Not that it matters, really, 'cause I've had 2,938,018 profile views. In the last second. Malware FTW!
They said, in twenty-five words or less tell us why you should win Brandon Flowers' solo album, Flamingo. I did. And I won. I don't remember what I wrote, but it wasn't, "OMG LOLZ! His so hawt [sic]" which is what other people wrote, and, deservedly lost.
The album arrived, along with a handwritten note from someone at the FOX congratulating me. Thanks handwritten note-writing computer machine, you write in such a human-like way. Where can I get one of you from? Preferably for cheap.
Well, I haven't actually listened to the whole thing yet, though I do like track 2 ('Only The Young'), but what I liked immediately was the cardboard cover. Now, I know the planet is dying and everything and we should cut down on using paper superfluously but it felt like something I'd want to keep. Which (segue) brings me to speak of someone of whom I'm a big fan, and who has actually talked about this in the past -- Albert Hammond Jr. (rhythm/occasional lead guitarist for The Strokes). He released his solo album Yours To Keep a few years ago and it came in a lovely cardboard box with hand drawings and he said, emphatically, this is 'yours to keep'.
And, in the age of digital downloads and iTunes soaring popularity - among niche music fans, I'm sure this forethought makes a difference. It certainly does to me. It won't make the music sound better, but in JB Hi-Fi it sure makes your album stand apart from the rest. One may actually want to keep.*
*NB: Bands who are environmentally-friendly (John Butler Trio comes to mind) can only really do this only on recycled paper, otherwise there's an inherent conflict of interest.
P.S. The other way, is to just make incredible video clips, a la OK GO! style. Here's their latest:
Dorito's new campaign is down to its final stages with us, the people, being given the chance to vote on three user-generated ads for the Australian market. Check it out here. All three are great - my favourite is the "Un-Tasmanian" one, despite my love of beatboxing.
The thing though, is that prize money, whilst it rewards a person who the public thinks has a great idea, ought to be better nurtured. What if the guys/girls who came up with these ideas are just ideas machines? They could keep on generating great content for a long, long time. I'm not saying these people should get jobs immediately, but surely judging by the calibre of the ads, industry people will understand they can offer something great. Prize money just stops the creative cycle.
Everyone's heard the news by now. For me, Rag Trader broke it and you can read about it here. Inditex are (likely) to bring ZARA to Australia as early as next year. And, if the results of the Westfield "Which Shop Do You Want?" survey are any indication, ZARA may set up shop in Highpoint Shopping Centre in Victoria. I would have thought a walk in store on Chapel Street more fitting, a la Orchard Road in Singapore. A more glamourous Sydney location is probably in order. Back to topic.
There's no surprise that there's so much excitement in the air. But then, comes the reservation. Let me explain. ZARA's success is owed to a few simple "truths" found in their methods of production and supply chain management. They have big stores, but they never fill them up -- their designers are constantly working, creating up to 50,000 styles a year and only ever putting into production 10,000 of these. Stupid? Well, time-consuming and costly, yes - stupid, I think not. The designs that do make it are produced in limited quantities and given ample space in the store. When a customer comes along, they don't know if it'll be there tomorrow so they buy it because it feels "exclusive" yet they don't have to pay a couture price tag. That's where ZARA's supply chain comes in. They make their clothes quickly - from design to production to stores in as little as fifteen days in Europe. What does that mean? A runway style can be emulated and remodeled for a wider market virtually instantly and at a fraction of the price. It could fit perfectly anywhere that younger demographics with disposable incomes want fashionable clothes. Right? Not exactly.
For me, a very real issue for ZARA in Australia is that our market is unlike the consumerist havens of other Southeast Asian nations. The demographic ZARA will infiltrate in Australia is minute in comparison to Singapore, Malaysia or Indonesia. What will start as everyone loving ZARA's presence is likely to turn into the brand losing its exclusivity amongst consumers. When two twenty-one year olds are at a party wearing the same dress, shit breaks loose. You don't see it, but you can feel that if you're in the presence of these twins, that the universe is not quite in order.
ZARA are hugely successful elsewhere and it's unlikely to be any different in Australia. That said, I think for Inditex Group monitoring such brands as Country Road or Sportsgirl is a sound idea. These brands are accessible yet allow for the customer to feel like they're not shopping somewhere everyone else does, even if the store's full. ZARA can't afford their brand image to become one for all in a small market like ours; their brand will come to represent where everyone shops, and in a society where one's own sense of individualism can mean more than having the same Balmain-inspired jacket as your best friend, that's going to hit them where it hurts.
