Brandjack News

News and commentary around the concept of brandjacking

recent posts

about

Author, academic, entrepreneur

  • The iBend fake brandjack

    By Quentin Langley

    Apple's iPhone has been the victim of two interacting fake brandjacks. One is the rumour that the new iPhone 6 is designed to bend to improve screen angles and the other is that people have been damaging their iPhones by bending them. Both are untrue, but rather cleverly they feed off each other. Discovering that one is a hoax does not prevent a person from believing the other. Maybe people have damaged their iPhones because they (foolishly) believed the hoax story about them havng been designed to beand.

    In fact the iPhone 6 is not only not designed to bend, it seems pretty immune to bending in all but the most extreme circumstances. Apple reports having only nine complaints on this issue, and when durability tester SquareTrade tested the iPhone, it concluded that hardly any humans are physically strong enough to bend one. (A body builder who can bench press over 400 lbs [181kg] managed it).

    According to the Washington Post, the pranksters 4chan are responsbible for this hoax.

    To Apple's credit, the company has not deleted threads on its own users' forum discussing the "problem" of the bendy iPhone 6. 

    Samsung has jumped on the bend-wagon, making an ad which alludes to the rumours without making any false claims about the rival product. It simple shows one smart phone prostrated before another with the tagline "bend to those who are worthy". 

  • An urgent need to rebrand

    By Quentin Langley

    So, here you are, happily naming yourself after the Egyptian goddess of love – an archetype of motherhood – and suddenly the name "Isis" has a new meaning. It is the acronym of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which is confusingly also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Despite the confused branding of the jihadist group it is garnering rather more coverage than the non-governmental organisation which campaigns on human trafficking, the British technology transfer company or the American pharmaceutical group. Many smaller organisations in Oxford – where the River Thames is known as the Isis – also carry the name. Not only are all of these groups nothing to do with the group that beheads journalists and aid workers, it seems certain that almost all of the people associated with these groups are disgusted by IS.

    At least two groups have ideological missions of their own that are quite opposed to jihad. The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society would seem to be pretty much the worst enemies of IS. The Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality is an expressly Christian group .  Its "research" may be somewhat appealing to IS, but I am pretty sure its activities are a lot less murdery. 

    This sort of thing happens. As an organisation – or a person – you may have a perfectly good name only to find your fame eclipsed by someone else with the same name. No doubt a few David Camerons were distressed by the rise of the one who is now British Prime Minister. We have to assume there were rather fewer Barack Obamas around, and so far I have been reasonably safe with "Quentin Langley". 

    The largest construction company in the Middle East opted for a relatively minor name change after 9/11, it is now known as "the Saudi Binladen Group". In this case the family that established the company is the same famiy that spawned the founder of al Qaeda.

    Investment group, ISIS Equity Partners, has already announced that it will be changing its name. A new name will be announced soon.

    I wish I could advise on the sort of name that is immune from future accidental and embarrassing brandjacks of this nature, but I don't think that's possible. 

  • Flashmobs and overreaction

    By Quentin Langley

    I suppose I can see why Gap employees might find people frozen in place as mannequins slightly irritating. And people dressed in blue polo shirts and khaki pants might cause some confusion in Best Buy. But in no way is either of these things a matter for the police. It is, at most, worth a request to people to leave. A better approach would be to join in the laughter.

    Joining in the laughter did seem to be the approach of the first Gap employee alerted to the issue. Well done that man!

    The police handled the situation at Best Buy rather better than the one at Gap. They politely told the store that it was not a matter for them. The sight of people dressed as mannequins lying on the floor being handcuffed made the police look even more foolish than the management of Gap.

    Get a sense of humour, guys, or you will keep being the target of this type of prank. Your overreaction makes for a much better video.

    Congratulations also to Improv Everywhere

  • Politics at the speed of light

    By Quentin Langley

    There are a few things which, you might think, would grab the attention of an ambitious American politician. 

    The shooting by police of an unarmed civilian would be one. I have no particular insight to the circumstances in Ferguson, Missouri, but I would think that the shooting of a civilian is something which warrants concern and investigation.

    Three consecutive nights of protest against police brutality would also seem to be worthy of note. Again, I don't know the circumstances. Perhaps the police did nothing wrong, but this would seem to be something about which the governor of the state should be asking questions. 

    The arrest of a Washington Post reporter would seem to be a matter of interest too.

    The silence of Missouri Governor Jay Nixon until after the third night of protests is therefore something rather odd. I do not suggest he should have rushed to judgement. I do think he should have indicated very publicly that he was paying attention to the issue and was determined that the matter should be resolved in a clear, transparent and sensitive way. 

    You would think Nixon would have noticed this new internet thing. News seems to travel quite fast these days. Three days for a response would probably have been considered slow in the late nineteenth century. It is appalling in the days of Twitter and Facebook. 

    Missouri is a reddish purple. It is a state which Barack Obama did not carry in either of his elections, though he lost by only 0.13% in 2008. Nixon has been touted as a potential presidential or, more realistically, vice-presidential candidate in the past. He has not been dismissive of this, arguing that "the heartland" needs a voice.

    His slow response to this issue, when the president had already spoken out, has probably obliterated any credibility he may have had. This would probably be so even if there were no racial element to the issue, but there was, and that will make any future run for office particularly problematic. 

    I think we can assume that Governor Nixon's career has peaked.

  • Comcast does it again

    By Quentin Langley

    Comcast has the dubious distinction of being one of the 140 case studies in Brandjack. The company doesn't emerge too badly from a very embarrassing incident in which a technician actually fell asleep on a customer's couch. The company gave me an interview for the book and talked about all the things they did to improve service as a result of this "wake up call".

    But now tech writer Ryan Block has uploaded a recording of a call in which he is trying to cancel his service and the Comcast rep just won't deal with the request. Over and over again Block – who stays extremely calm and reasonably in the circumstance – requests cancellation of service. The rep just won't do it.

    This is an example of simply atrocious service. I deeply envy Block's ability to stay calm. I know that I would not have. Yet his actual exposure of this has done much more to address the problem than a loss of temper would have. 

  • Mozilla boss resigns over consumer boycott

    By Quentin Langley

    California law requires the state to publish the name, address, and employer details of anyone who makes a donation of more than $100 to a political campaign. In 2008 Brendan Eich of Mozilla made a donation to Proposition Eight,the campaign to outlaw gay marriage in California. This was not some fringe opinion, at the time: the initiative was carried with 52% of the vote, though it is likely that Eich was in a minority in Silican Valley. Many prominent people, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, opposed gay marriage at the time. (Full disclosure:this blogger has supported gay marriage for over 30 years and is glad to see so many other people catching up). 

    On March 24, Eich, who was Mozilla's Chief Technology Officer, was promoted to CEO. Almost immediately, his support for Prop Eight emerged. Organisations immediately began raising petitions to have him fired. The dating website, OKCupid, asked its customers to stop using Mozilla's browser, Firefox. And now Eich has resiged after only a few weeks in post.

    Obviously, those who advocated boycotting Mozilla were engaging in constitutionally protected free speech. Obviously, when he donated money to Prop Eight, so was Eich. No-one is suggesting there should be legal consequences for any party to this debate. 

    But is it right that someone who advocated a widely held belief, shared by the man who was, on the same day, elected President of the United States, should be hounded out of his job. 

    Is it right that California should require political campaigns to publish details of everyone who donates to campaigns? The Supreme Court has previously held that an Alabama law requiring the NAACP to publish its membership list breached the First Amendment, as freedom to associate is infringed if people are made subject to intimidation for engaging in such association. 

    This was a very successful brandjack. But what are the implications for freedom of speech?

  • Crossing an ethical line

    By Quentin Langley

    Here's a direct quote from PRSA's ethical guidelines:

    "Examples of Improper Conduct Under this Provision:

    • A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist, to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product."

    I use this example all the time in teaching and training. So far I have unanimous agreement that this is unethical and people generally focus on two words that push it over the line. The first word is "gives" and the second is "to" from the phrase "to influence". The big problem here is the clear quid pro quo. In the case of a reusable product like expensive skis I would normally expect them to be loaned to the journalist for review. Obviously some products – such as tickets to an event – must, of necessity be given rather than loaned, which makes it all the more important that there should be no quid pro quo either explicitly or implicitly built into the arrangement.

    So here's a direct quote from an email about the Brit Awards sent to Telegraph columnist, Tim Walker:

    "In addition – in return for this ticket we would like to ask that you agree to the following…

    The list included tweets from both the journalist and the organisation before and after. The list goes on to include the hashtag that the organisation was promoting. It also suggests wording for a tweet about going to the event.

    Advising people of the hashtag seems appropriate and proper but the email crosses the line with the phrase "in return for this ticket". It is unethical for a PR professional to offer such an express link and unethical for a journalist to accept it. That may be why in almost 30 years sitting on both sides of the PR-journalism divide, I have never encountered anything like this before. It smacks of someone who is unware of the ordinary PR-journalism dynamic: someone who doesn't know that asking this of a journalist is not going to secure the compliance you want. It is much more likely to get you a negative write-up in Press Gazette. 

  • Controversial tweet gets Match.com exec fired

    By Quentin Langley

    IAC is a substantial media corporation owning Match.com and The Daily Beast. It even briefly owned Newsweek. Justine Sacco was, until Friday, its Senior Director of Corporate Communications. On Friday she sent a genuinely astonishing tweet:

     

    Going to Africa. I hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding I'm white!

     

    Did I mention that IAC also owns BlackPeopleMeet.com?

     

    This is not Sacco's first brush with controversy. In 2012 she shared this with Twitter:

     

    I had a sex dream about an autistic kid last night

     

    No word on whether this was a specific 'autistic kid' or something more general.

     

    It is difficult to see how someone in such a significant and high profile job could show such monumental lapses in judgement. When PR Daily first reported the issue the same day she was still in post and the tweet was still on her account, though IAC had distanced itself from her comment. Soon afterwards she was dismissed and her Twitter account deleted. 

     

    Some Twitter users were suggesting she may have been drunk when she sent the tweet. One of the inconvenient things about a high profile social media presence is that you are accountable for everything you write – even under the most difficult of circumstance.

  • Brandjacking by fake review

    By Quentin Langley

    Two related stories here.

    First, the New York Attorney General is to clamp down on search engine optimisation companies which pay people to write fake reviews of products.

    Second, academic research at MIT and Northwestern suggests that significant numbers of people are writing fake reviews of products for their own reasons. These reviews are overwhelmingly hostile. This does not appear to relate to previous stories on Brandjack News, including people writing satirical reviews – such as for the Bic For Her pens. These people appear to be freelance brand advocates.

    This seems very odd. Why would a person who is an enthusiast for a brand – as many of the negative reviewers seem to be, judging by both prior and subsequent purchase history – be likely to submit highly negative reviewers? These reviewers are significantly more negative about products they have not purchased than they are about the products they have purchased. It seems to be that people are living the cliché that your best friend is your harshest critic. People are reviewing products in order to improve them because they love the brand.

    One line I would like to see investigated is this: are people loyal to one version of the brand and thus negatively reviewing another version? Might a Coke lover submit an excessively harsh review of New Coke not through disliking the product but as a way of asserting love for the traditional line? Might an admirer of Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of James Bond feign an excessive loathing of Daniel Craig in order to boost Brosnan's status. Certainly, in tribal fields such as sports and politics loving one brand is best demonstrated by loathing of another.

  • Kit Kat uses humour to launch Android tie up

    By Quentin Langley

    Nestlé – and specifically its Kit Kat brand – was the victim of one of the all-time great brandjacks. Greenpeace used a spoof Kit Kat ad to force the Swiss company to cut Sinar Mas out of its supply chain.

    Now Kit Kat has produced a video of almost equal quality. In a beautiful parody of sanctimonious hype, Kit Kat raves about its new Android app. Corporate partnerships of this kind are rarely exciting, so using humour is probably the best way to tap into viral promotion. In a little under a week, the video has clocked over two million views on YouTube. 

    Well done guys!