Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Marketing and Physics can science really teach us marketing?
What do you think of this video? Do we really have less control over brands because of the internet? Is what Dan Cobley saying accurate should we embrace the "democratic nature" of the internet because it brings brands closer to the people?
Moreover, can one bad week really undermine a brand? Is Tiger Woods really not a good brand ambassador because of his personal actions? Whilst, initially some brands may have left him, many sponsors stuck with him, a decision that has probably been the correct one as the scandal blows over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/tiger-woods-sponsor-there_n_480448.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/tiger-woods-scandal-winning-sponsorship/19611581/
Can it be that the stronger the brand the more resilient it is to scandal?
Let me know what you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As far as Tiger Woods goes I think anyone that is using his image directly - for example him wearing a watch in a fancy magazine would be foolish to keep him because the association is so obvious. However, with Nike his clothing sponsor - the association is less direct and perhaps less damaging...but then again there is the age old saying of any publicity is good publicity,
ReplyDeleteA great video, particularly for someone like me who loves both Physics and Marketing!
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Dan that the internet is reducing the control that marketers have over their own brands. Consumers are now able to shape brand meaning more than ever before.