Celebrity Products - A Step too Far?

One of the first blog pieces I ever wrote was a review in which I praised the successful relationship between Gary Linekar and Walkers Crisps. In my opinion this is one of the best examples of a celebrity endorsement.

The reason it's successful is due to the way the brand and the celebrity work in perfect harmony.

There is however one celebrity (oddly enough, another sportsperson) who has gone a step further in bonding a brand with a personality.

Tennis superstar Maria Sharapova may soon become ‘Sugarpova’ for this year’s US Open. Owned by Sharapova herself, the sweets company Sugarpova claims their sweets reflect the tennis player's "fun, fashionable, sweet side", this is further reflected in their advertising.

Personally, I haven’t tried the sweets myself, so I can’t comment on the quality but the brand does appear to have a really sharp style to it. The website looks great, the packaging is stylish and the PR photos of Sharapova herself integrate perfectly with the brand.

However Sharapova is now trying to get her name temporarily changed to Sugarpova in time for the US Open so as to maximise public awareness of the brand. The question I would ask though, is this a step too far?

It’s not the first time a sportsperson has changed their name to promote a brand – Jimmy White became Jimmy Brown for a short while to promote HP Sauce – but it does seem somewhat bizarre and just maybe a tad over the top.

And yet I do think to some degree that in Maria Sharapova’s situation it's more than acceptable, because from the content on the website its obvious that the brand is very personal to her, also some of the profits raised will be donated to her charity.

On the other hand what’s the next step? Personally I want to see Wayne Rooney, Robin van Persie and Ryan Giggs playing for Man U, not Thomas Cook up front, Mister Potato in the center and Chevrolet dashing down the wing.

edit - this was written before Maria Sharapova pulled out of the US Open.

Zero Dark Thirty and the Depiction of Soldiers and War in Modern Cinema

Do all war movies have an anti-war theme?

It’s almost expected for a war movie to have an anti-war agenda – morally correct. It doesn’t matter if it’s patriotic or includes a great hero in a central role; they all show how war invariably leads to death and destruction. However in recent years there appears to be a select group of films (and TV series) that show a less candid approach to the subject of war and those taking part in it.

Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty follows Maya (played by Jessica Chastain), a CIA operative who’s handed the job of hunting down Osama Bin Laden. As the film unravels Maya becomes increasingly more determined and obsessed with capturing (and killing) Bin Laden, and even after her superiors try to focus her on more pressing matters she stays fixated on finding him.

Although based on the real life manhunt of Bin Laden, unsurprisingly the film it has been the subject of many discussions. 

Some believe it’s pure propaganda and that Bin Laden actually died of a kidney failure in 2001. Alternatively, former Navy S.E.A.L Matt Bissonnette’s description (in his book No Easy Days: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden) of a female CIA agent who was recruited straight out of college and was the ‘go to analyst’ in terms of Bin Laden intelligence, matches Chastain’s character.

  

However what really interested me was Mark Boal’s (screenwriter) and Kathryn Bigelow’s depiction of the Navy S.E.A.L. team and the CIA Operatives. Similar to their previous film The Hurt Locker, the soldiers appear to have a very ‘matter of fact’ attitude towards war and killing – bordering on relaxed. Jason Clarke’s character Dan, who has the job of interrogating suspected terrorists, is dismissive about the personal affects of torture, devoid of what we might call humanity. The only sign of emotion his character shows is when his monkeys are killed.       

This attitude towards killing and war seems not just real but professional, and doesn’t seem to fit with many of the themes of the classic war films. Their lack of any emotional regard to their protagonists was almost absolute to the point where some characters even seemed to get enjoyment out of killing people.

This kind of attitude is repeated in Generation Kill. 

Not only is there a racist and homophobic discourse, but the characters also talk candidly about wanting to start shooting people and blowing things up. This is not to say there isn’t any emotional response what so ever by any of the characters, in fact in one episode the lead character Sgt. Brad ‘Iceman’ Colbert emotionally breaks down, even though he’s notorious for being ‘cool’ under pressure.

So has there been a ‘seed’ change in the way soldiers (especially US soldiers) are depicted in combat situations?

In the classic WW1 film All Quiet on The Western Front there are some similarities in terms of how soldiers are represented. The idea that soldiers waiting to fight live a mundane lifestyle is similar to Jarhead and Generation Kill. However in All Quiet… there's an attempt by the director to humanize the opposing soldiers whereas in Jarhead and Generation Kill there's a less sympathetic approach. 

Again in Saving Private Ryan there was an attempt to show a connection between the US and German soldiers. After raiding a bunker the American soldiers let one surviving German soldier go free, rather than killing him – this seems to contrast with most factual descriptions of WW2 battles.

In American cinema today there seems little attempt to make any connections between belligerents. 

Part 2 coming soon

Should Politics Stay Out Of Sport?

I think everyone can agree that for the past year or so, Britain has been doing very well when it comes to sport. Murray, Wiggins, the Lions, the Olympics, Froch and (hopefully) the Ashes. What a great time to celebrate Britain. Or not?

As I look at the comment sections on the BBC Sport page, I find there isn't a single person discussing sport. Murray has just won Wimbledon and every single comment is about whether he was Scottish or British, which subsequently leads into the debate about Scottish independence. 

For me, this doesn’t seem to be the time or place to have this discussion - even if both David Cameron and Alex Salmond were at the final.

This is not to say that I don’t believe sport can be used as a catalyst for politics. Both the South African World Cup in 1995 and the Battle of the Sexes tennis match are great examples of sport being used create a better and fairer world.

However if we take a moment to reflect on the vision of Alex Salmond waving a Scottish flag behind the PM after Andy has just won Wimbledon (which we should note he entered as a Brit), then we find ourselves entering a particularly grey area. 

Personally I think he shouldn't have done it. There's nothing wrong with waving a Scottish flag to support a Scottish sports person or team but Salmond was obviously saying something political in his actions and it was neither the time nor the place.

Yes his motivations might have been genuine as were those of many others. But his presence and his attire was professional and therefore so should have been his behaviour.

For the record although Andy is Scottish, but like so many other Scots he can’t vote in the Scottish independence referendum, because he doesn’t actually live there - he lives in England.

Although a great sporting hero for Scotland, his greatest achievement shouldn't have been hijacked by anyone trying to make him into the poster boy for their political ends.

I noticed a few days later that Andy was invited to number 10, but rather than this being a catalyst for someone to promote their political message and aims, it was used as a day to congratulate him and thank him on behalf of the nation - note, all the political leaders, including Westminsters' SNP Leader, were invited.

edit - WE WON THE ASHES!

The Use of Online Marketing and Viral Media

Throughout this blog I've focused heavily on the importance of the Internet in modern media, because without a doubt it's the most significant thing influencing modern culture today.

For me a key area of interest is viral videos (films), because although they're often professionally made, they're imbued with an amateur methodology.

As noted in the book Internet Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practise, it can be difficult for a brand to truly present its personality through its website as it doesn’t give the user the same clues that a physical experience can. Often the culture and ideology of a company can be lost or misinterpreted within the confines of a sanitized website.

It's because of this that I believe that viral films can provide a useful route for advertising brands online. They're relatively cheap to produce and distribute, and they can strike a chord in a very positive way.

The best forms of these videos often exhibit a somewhat amateur ideology, occasionally using handheld or camera phones they're released and promoted through consumer based social media sites.  

Yet could it be argued that the use of this tactic (YouTube videos) is not actually a creditable form of marketing - as it only works if it's picked up and promoted by people who have no rational reason to do so.

Culturally we appear to adore viral marketing [why is this?], you only have to look at the popularity of the Old Spice Guy and the Will It Blend videos. They generate a huge amounts of buzz, large audience figures as well as extensive user comments.

Personally I believe that the most successful viral videos aren't essentially aimed at getting people to buy a product there and then, but to have them talking about it. In other words generate a buzz around a brand that will have a positive affect on sales and orders over a much longer period of time.   

Look at the recent Pepsi video featuring David Beckham kicking balls into bins. The product itself doesn't feature heavily but the content and Beckham's celebrity status have the impact to deliver a message - the film of course can continually sit there alway available, always popular - just like Pepsi!

[the pictures = (1) Old Spice Guy for Old Spice, (2) Koby Bryant jumping over on Aston Martin for Nike and (3/4) David Beckham kicking footballs in a bin for Pepsi - check them out]

In-Game Purchases

Although the big political story at the moment is the death of Margret Thatcher, the world of media and marketing is focused on mobile and tablet apps that use in-game purchases.

After five year old Bristolian Danny Kitchen racked up a £1,700 bill while playing the (supposedly) free mobile and tablet game Zombies vs Ninjas by unwittingly making several in-game purchases, many developers have now found themselves under scrutiny.

But do they deserve the brunt of the blame?

The Office of Fair Trading seems to think so even though they've only just started investigating in-game purchases. In his Marketing Weekly blog Russell Parsons takes us through some of the OFT’s quotes, which seem to be fixed on illegality and marketers pressuring and intentionally confusing both parents and children.

But is this really illegal? The argument is that although these games are free they force you to pay to complete the game. Personally I've witnessed this first hand, but it was always clearly labeled and it wasn't easy to accidentally pay when I didn't mean to.     

Also, I find some difficulty with this story, because how does the child have access to spend that amount of money. When you buy an app or make an in-game purchase on something on an iPad or iPhone you have to put in a password. So how did Danny get the password? And shouldn't this mean the parent(s) warrant a large slice of the blame?

So shouldn't this conversation be about parental supervision and financial responsibility rather than the legality of in-game purchases?

Surly at the age of five the parents of Danny ought to have been taking better notice of what he was doing. I mean they wouldn't leave £1,500 in cash lying on a table in front of an open window. Or would they?

Of course other questions we should ask ourselves is whether we give children too much freedom with technology. Although Danny did not own the iPad he was obviously given considerable freedom to use it.

The OFT’s aim is to find whether or not the safeguards in place are strong enough.

So are they?

Or is it the parents who are at fault?

As an aside - some online payment arrangements include a maximum limit that once reached triggers a re-approval requirement before additional amounts can be cleared. This requirement requires additional security answers.