The Smart way to Tweet

This is something I’ve been meaning to write about for a while, firstly because I thought it was hilarious but also because it really shows how careful companies need to be when sharing content online.

First there was Habitat, more recently there was Vodafone and now it appears that the official Twitter account for the Smart ForTwo has royally screwed up.  On 25^th January, Smart posted this tweet:

How to park a #smartcar - Don't try this at home! http://ow.ly/108us

Nothing too unusual and very in keeping with their previous tweets, but I clicked through to the video to see that it was actually a viral ad that was produced prior to the launch of the Toyota iQ.  If you watch the video, you will see that it shows two Toyota iQ’s handbrake turning into very small parking spaces.  That’s right, Toyota iQ...the Smart ForTwo’s main competitor.

Now, for general members of the public this probably isn’t a massive issue...it’s a fun video with small cars, small parking spaces etc etc and they’re probably not going to notice the difference between the cars.

But for the official Twitter account to make such a mistake is just horrific.  They are directing their customers/fans/followers to a viral video promoting their main competitor...it would have been more subtle if they came out and said the iQ was a better car than the ForTwo!

SmartfortwoUK has 469 followers, now if this video gets passed on (in the way viral ads are supposed to), who’s to say how many people could have seen it? Well looking at the Youtube video, it’s had over 5,000 views!  How many impressions is that?  It all adds up you know! 

So how could this happen?  Well the video is labelled on Youtube as a Smart ForTwo, which leads me to say that someone has lazily searched for Smart videos and come up with that one, not checked it through properly and posted it.  Brilliant, they’re the kind of people you want working on your brand!

After I realised their mistake, I pointed it out to @smartfortwouk who’s reply was “@JamieSpafford - Well spotted! We love the video anyway, this is probably NOT how we recommend you park a #smartcar”

Well, no...because it’s not a Smart Car!

And another thing...The tweet is still up there.  Even after they’ve admitted the mistake, they’ve left it there.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOME PEOPLE?!?!

It’s been said before, but although social media should be quick and reactive, it should also be right.  If you make a mistake, correct it...don’t leave it there for the World to see.

Or even better, don’t make the mistake in the first place.  Social media is a lot more casual than official communications, but it doesn’t mean the approval process should be any less stringent, so get Smart!

Footballers Tweet No More...

I know I'm making more of an effort to blog this year, but even I still can't believe Iv'e reached as low as tweeting about Football...oh well!

Companies ban their employees from using social networking sites, we all know it happens…You get into work one day and suddenly realise can’t get on Facebook, but you don’t want to ask anyone about it because you know you shouldn’t be using it in the first place, so quiet rumours go around the office until somebody confirms that Facebook has definitely been blocked.
   

So there’s nothing unusual about Manchester United blocking social networking site for their players either.  Except that they’ve completely blocked the players from using social media in their own time (which, let’s be honest makes up most of their time!).

There is a definite logic behind this, looking back over the last year or so there’s been a couple of incidents with players venting their frustration at managers through the powers of Twitter, first there was Darren Bent prior to his move to Sunderland who went on a complete tirade, really showing his feelings.  More recently, Liverpool player Ryan Babel let his frustration show when Benitez didn’t play him.

The issue I see is, where in a player’s contract does it say they are not allowed to use social media?

It is completely understandable that there should be a clause saying something along the lines of “you must not slag off the club or any of its employees”, and that’s fine, but Man U are saying that their players can’t use social media under any circumstances.

In my opinion this is a big mistake.  With the correct restrictions in place (see above) Twitter can be a great way for fans to relate to their football idols, improving the relationship between player and fan.  It’s not different to a company using Twitter.  It’s about the relationship, the conversation, and footballers are a brand in their own rights.  That’s why sponsors pump so much money into them.

If I was a sponsor, I would want the footballer to be talking about our brand through any means possible, not just in pre-arranged press conferences.

So ultimately, although Man U have good reason to restrict what players say, I really don’t think it’s right to ban them completely. 

Red Card.

Who's Turning The Apple Rumour Mill?

I can't believe it.  It's the 19th January and I still haven't updated the blog this year.  It's a disgrace, and I need to make it right.  So here goes....

Apple.  Probably the most respected, most blogged, tweeted and talked about company going.  Everyday there is a new rumour about one of their products.  Whether it's the iPhone 4.0 or the iTablet/iSlate, everywhere you look there are rumours surrounding Apple.

I just can't work out where the rumours comes from.  We all know that car manufacturers leak images of upcoming vehicles or accidentally happen to tell car photographers where they might be testing the new heavily disguised bland-mobile, but is this what happens in the technology world as well?

I'm sure there is some truth to the rumours about new Apple products, but when Apple haven't even confirmed there's definitely going to be a Tablet-like product, where are the rumours coming from?  Where do videos like this iTablet Video come from?!


It would be naive to think that Apple's PR department doesn't have some sort of hand on the stirring spoon, but I believe there's more to be found out by looking at the overall branding.

Apple = passionate people


That's what the brand breathes. The customers know Apple put their all into their products, so they like to give their all back.  The high level of technology, classy simple design and ease of use mean that the Apple brand stands for everything that techy, classy and designer people want.  Therefore the public get excited about new product launches.  Obviously it's the people that want Apple products who are blogging, tweeting etc, and Apple appear to have realised this and seem to release small bits of information into the public domain, sit back and watch their customers do all their PR work for them, as it explodes into a full news story.

So Apple's success appears to balance between clever, guarded branding mixed with passionate and knowledgeable customers who want the newest technology now.

Clever, especially compared to their competition....By the way, how did your Windows 7 launch party go down? FAIL

GTi Say Bye Bye

So this week, Peugeot have announced the demise of the GTi branding on their cars (Autocar Story).  Coming from a company who near-enough invented the hot hatch with the 205 GTi, this is a very sad story.

However, I do not think it is as big news as people are flouting.  When was the last time Peugeot made a car worthy of the GTi badge?  For the last 10 years, their cars have been nothing but spongy, flabby, fish-mouthed monstrosities.  Stick on bigger wheels, a spoiler and some (loosely) hugging seats and there you have a GTi.  Well sorry Peugeot, but no…that does not make a true GTi.

The thing is, Volkswagen went through the same problem with the Golf.  The mk1 and 2 Golf GTi’s are renowned for being excellent hot hatches, but by the time the mid-nineties came along, the GTi’s became watered down, heavy and not really newsworthy at all.  Fortunately, VW have turned it all around with the latest two offerings and wear the GTi badge proudly.

The GTi badge has become a lot more than just a name, it is a brand.  People aspire to own a GTi version of the Golf, it is a halo model in its own right.  So I feel that Peugeot’s withdrawal from using the name will benefit the GTi brand in the long run.  Until Peugeot can attach that name to a worthy vehicle, it will continue to dilute the GTi’s name.

Therefore, although sad news, I agree with Peugeot’s decision to remove themselves from the GTi battle and patiently await their triumphant return in a few years.

Business is Business, but isn't British Better?

I’ve watched with amazement the drama that is surrounding the prospect of no British Grand Prix for 2010, wondering if someone is going to come to their senses anytime soon.  By someone, of course, I mean Bernie Ecclestone.

Now it’s quite obvious for anyone to see that Donnington is not ready to host a Grand Prix in 2010, however good ol’ Bernie seems to think that Donnington’s failure means the British GP’s slot is now up for sale to the highest bidder.  Ok, ok, this is business at the end of the day, and a very profitable business it is as well…for Bernie. 

But there are some traditions, Monaco for example will never be dropped from the racing calendar…it holds too much heritage.  Well excuse me for saying, but not only are the majority of F1 teams based in Britain, providing British engineering, design and marketing jobs, but we’ve also fronted the two most recent World Champion drivers!

Button has just won the WDC, Brawn have just won the Constructors Championship, Hamilton will hopefully be back on form next year in a McLaren, the Red Bull cars will be fighting up there as well…all these teams are based in the UK in case you didn't realise.

Britain is at the forefront of F1, and Bernie is prepared to give away the British Grand Prix just because another country is offering him more money.  Silverstone is sitting there, patiently waiting to be given the go-ahead to run the 2010 Grand Prix, and the main question that has to be asked is, would people prefer to see, and would the drivers prefer to race around the historic Silverstone circuit or  go to a circuit in a random country with no F1 involvement other than a large cheque in Bernie’s back pocket?

Business is business, but with two British World Champions driving for British teams and a whole host of other British-run teams, should some things not be sacred?

MG - Running on Fumes?

This week has seen the sad, yet slightly inevitable, news that MG are halting production of the recently refreshed (even that might be an overstatement!) MG TF at Longbridge due to a lack of sales.  So could this finally  be the end of MG?  And could, or more poignantly should, this most recent embarrassment have been avoided by letting the long running brand bail out at the same time Rover went under?

I suppose the question I’m asking is, when is enough enough?  There have been a number of companies who have tried to resurrect both Rover and MG over the years, but as soon as one fails, another one ploughs in some money in a vain attempt to keep a good old British brand from drowning.  From where I’m sitting there is only a finite amount of times that a brand can be relaunched and try to re-attract customers.  If you’ve failed once, people are likely to give you a second chance.  If you’ve failed four or five times….well, what’s different this time?  Why should I buy your product?

The issue is, MG don’t produce cheap, FMCG goods that you can try to see if you like before making a regular purchase.  MG produce cars.  Cars are expensive, high-involvement purchases that people put a lot of thought into before buying.  If you’re spending the best part of £15,000 on something, you want to be assured that if it breaks down in two months time your dealer will still be there and able to honour the warranty.  If you can’t place this level of trust in a company, are you likely to buy their product?

In my mind, the trust has gone.  I would be very surprised if MG sold any more cars.  And I don’t think there is any point in trying.  People cannot come back from the dead, why should brands be any different?

I don’t want to appear to be having a go at MG but their cars ended life as reworked Rovers…not as real MG cars, which is a shame given their rich heritage of cars throughout the years.  The MGB, for example, is one of the greatest British sports cars ever made…sadly the same cannot be said of the MG TF, ZR or ZT.

Although it pains me to say it, I really do hope this is the end of the road for MG.  In a time when consumers are becoming more fickle with their money, and there is more choice than ever, MG will undoubtedly get lost amongst newer, well respected brands, relying only on a history which is slipping further and further back in time.

A Slice of Pepperoni Pizza with Extra Stupidity

As an avid Radio 1 listener, I really resent their choice to put Zane Lowe on at 7pm every weekday evening to play "brand new" music...most of it is not brand new, it's just noise.....oh dear, am I seriously only 22???

Anywho, driving home one evening this week faced with the choice of "noise" or a commercial station, Absolute Radio won. 

As is the way with commercial radio, the second I flick over, the music stops and the adverts start.  Brilliant, more "noise"...but as I prepared to zone out and concentrate on the road, one of the adverts caught my attention.

The advert was for Papa John's Pizza.  The voice over artist was saying how good their Pepperoni pizza is, nothing unusual about that, until he started talking about the market research they had done to prove their pizza was better than Pizza Hut's Pepperoni offering.  On the face of it, it sounds fine...but he then went on to explain that they sampled 236 people and 59% of people preferred Papa John's to Pizza Hut.

59%??? Why would you base a whole marketing and advertising campaign on 59%? That's not even a 10% preference rate?

It's not like the sample size makes up for it...236 people!  Who are these people, where did they come from? The only thing Papa John's says about them is that none of them are "pepperoni pizza rejectors".  It's difficult to make market research completely unbiased, but that is probably why we don't hear research being quoted in adverts where the "hero" brand wins by such a measely amount as 9%! Let's work it out... 

So out of 236 repsondents, only 21 more people preferred your pizza to your main competitors...I wouldn't call that conclusive evidence, would you?

Surely the reason you say "xx% of people researched preferred our product to our competitors" is to provide potential customers with the confidence that they will enjoy your product more than if they bought a competitor's version.  An advertising campaign based on a minor victory is still going to leave customers undecided as to which one's best, therefore rendering the whole exercise pointless!

Anyway it doesn't change my opinion...I prefer Hawaiian!!

Papa John's have detailed their research and methods here: Papa John's Website