HMV and high-street retailers

As a massive enthusiast of both film and music, the possible demise of the retailer HMV has left me slightly downbeat. The shop has always been an important part of my consumer identity because it’s pretty much the only major high-street retailer that specialized in the products that I wanted.

With online companies like Amazon providing both the ease and comfort of shopping at home with (more often then not) cheaper prices, it is unsurprising that the HMV Group went into administration.

So two important questions come to mind:
1) How can a High Street retailer survive in an online dominated world?

2) How, if possible, can HMV challenge a rival like Amazon?

I strongly believe that most people still enjoy the experience of the high street. Why? Because unlike going online, a day-out-shopping is about much more than just shopping.

However consumer habits have changed and rather than just buying stuff when we find it in a store we’ll wait to see if we can find it cheaper online. Moreover with the Internet being so easily accessible on mobile phones we can now instantly find out where to get the product for the best price.

Obviously, many high street retailers still run successfully in an online dominated world. Personally I find the Apple Store is a great example of how a company can create an experience that is much more than just mere selling. Of course one could argue that this doesn’t directly solve the problem, because a more enjoyable experience doesn’t always guarantee a sale.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an easy solution. 

Recently on the Marketing Weekly site one columnists suggests that retailers need to broaden their brands. On the face of it, it might sound like a good idea (although I'm not sure Al Reis would agree) and in some instances it might work, but then HMV had lately expanded its offering without any signs of improvement - some even argued that this was one of the reasons HMV went into administration.

Perhaps the solution is to embrace mobile technology and the ability to be 'always on' and offer price-matching promises. Let's be honest one of the beauties of high-street shopping is being able to walk away with your purchases - online you have to pay extra for next-day delivery.

edit - After going into administration HMV was subsequently saved and is still an important part of the UK high street.

Fan Culture

In his book Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture Henry Jenkins argues that fans are unfairly stereotyped as social outcasts, loners and obsessive nerds who are out of touch with the realities of life. 

However, could it be said that societies view's on fan culture has rapidly changed with the introduction of the internet - Jenkins' book was written in the early 90s, when the internet was significantly less prominent than it is now?

In his book he argues that fans cannot be socially inept, because they build communities based on shared interests and that fandom encourages creativity (such as creating costumes).

Comic Con would be the perfect example where both these thoughts can be observed.

Of course the Internet has now allowed fandom to flourish in a much greater way. Using sites like IMDB, fans can discuss and argue about their favourite films with a much wider community, and without the need for organised gatherings. Moreover it has allowed fans to upload and share their creativity (posters, videos, trailers, music etc) with the world.

As fandom has changed, I would say so has the publics view on it has changed as well. Today we wouldn't think that someone who made a film poster using Photoshop or posted a comment on IMDB was an obsessive fan or a nerd. These are socially acceptable acts that many people carry out every day. 

On the other hand dressing up for something like Comic Con might still encourage a modicum of ridicule. whereas visiting Comic Con in normal attire, is not only absolutely fine, but could be seen as being even aspirational. 

Thankfully the Internet has allowed people who enjoy something to discuss it, without classing themselves as an obsessive fan.

Celebrity and Brand Partnership - Walkers Crisps and Gary Lineker

After being the face of Walkers crisps since 1995, has the relationship between Gary Lineker and the company moved beyond simple celebrity endorsements and thus made the brand stronger?

Celebrity endorsements are often regarded as providing a short to medium-term brand boost, making the most out of a celebrities’ star power without the need to build a lasting relationship where the product becomes synonymous with the face. However occasionally a partnership is built where both the brand and the personality continually reap mutually beneficial rewards.  

Although Walkers and Lineker do not boast a creative partnership, unlike the collaboration Kate Moss had with Topshop, the value of their 17-year long relationship has never appeared to be any less because of it. Quite the opposite, the brands advertising is regularly praised due to the successful bond between product and personality, which appears to rely on the correct mix of humour, nostalgia and Lineker’s star power as an ex England footballing legend and likeable TV personality.

In fact, it could be said that both benefit from the partnership to the point where if they were to break-up they would probably both lose out.

Walkers brand benefits from being associated with a much loved and admired personality whilst Lineker benefits from being associated with a counter-culture impression of himself - the likeable rascal who's always out to get someone else's crisps.         

The Political Made Popular - Iconic Imagery

Why is it that photographs have more impact in politics than other forms of media?

While many forget the actual specifics behind a story they will remember the photograph that came to symbolise it, whether it’s Che Guevara wearing his beret or the unknown Chinese citizen standing in front of advancing tanks.

Although our constant exposure to these images leaves them imprinted in our minds, the story the image represents becomes diluted to the point that it only signifies a basic idea. For example the iconic image of Che Guevara no longer represents an Argentine and Cuban revolutionary gorilla fighter, but courage, freedom, liberty and resistance, which has subsequently led to Guevara becoming a romanticised figure. 

Postmodernism has played a massive part in the progression of political imagery. Barack Obama has in many ways become a victim of this with the ‘Hope’ poster (that represented his 2008 political campaign) being re-hashed and edited to project counter messages.

Another example of a powerful image being parodied is Lewis Morley's photograph of Christine Keeler. Although Keeler’s story and (arguably) the original image may have actually been forgotten by most people, the image of a person (originally a nude Christine Keeler) sitting 'back to front' on a chair is recognised by most. As is the qualities that it signifies (risqué and yet de rigueur) which are still relevant 40 years on from the original.

Of course this begs the question, does postmodernism give a politically motivated photograph the power to communicate an idea more than an original photo?

The point is we remember a powerful photograph, because it is a snapshot that leaves an indelible impression on our minds. Whereas a film may provide a powerful medium to get across a message, it's the words and the way that they are spoken that are remembered more so than the image.

Who remembers the film of JFK in Berlin? And yet his words 'ich bin ein Berliner' are much parodied 'I am a Berliner'. of course he himself was parodying the line 'civis romanus sum', ('I am a citizen of Rome').