Rob Illidge (Marketing Executive)

Change is coming…for the next England game I will be sourcing Bavarian beer in place of the usual Budweiser or Corona, I may even treat myself to a nice Bavaria Premium Pils larger. All thanks to the somewhat heavy handed approach by FIFA in light of the recent ‘ambush marketing’ campaign during the Holland v Denmark World Cup match.

This series of events raises one question in particular, why was football pundit and former Wimbledon player Robbie Earle allocated a substantial number of tickets to a relatively low key World Cup match? Especially when there are hundreds of South African football fans queuing daily for tickets,  not to mention those from Holland and Denmark that were unable to obtain them.

Around thirty women entered the stadium in Denmark’s colours but once inside ‘stripped’ to reveal short orange dresses. FIFA officials ejected them at half time after they attracted so much attention, with two of the group being arrested for orchestrating the ‘ambush marketing’ campaign. The charges? “unauthorised use of a trade mark at a protected event” and “entry into a designated area while in possession of a prohibited commercial object”.  It’s hardly unsurprising that 30 attractive women dressed in orange dresses surrounded by Danish fans would attract attention.

The two women were each freed after paying 10,000 rand  (£900) and surrendering their passports, according to South African Police Service (SAPS) spokesman Colonel Vishnu Naidoo. They are due to appear back at Johannesburg Magistrates Court on June 22. Fifa are also looking into taking legal action against the Bavarian brewery.

South Africa introduced legislation to provide protection for FIFA’s sponsors including Budweiser, who have paid an estimated $1.2billion to be associated with the tournament. With sponsors providing a third of the revenue from the event protection it is seen as crucial to maintaining the value of the rights.

You may have noticed  one particular sponsor advertising 3D televisions to the millions watching around the world and  ironically to the South African football fans in the stadiums,  with unemployment at 25% and chronic levels of low income.

It’s good to see FIFA taking these events seriously and the SAPS remaining tight on ‘crime’, however if you watch the coverage they literally were ‘orange dresses’, lacking any kind of branding for the Bavarian brewery company in question.

Had FIFA officials allowed the women to ‘enjoy’ the game, remain in the stadium or even cover up I very much doubt that you, me, or the rest of the world  would have been aware of the campaign.

Beer anyone?

Ralli continued a successful start to 2010 with Marketing Executive, Robert Illidge, awarded a Commendation in the Emerging Marketer of the Year category.

Robert was awarded for embracing web 2.0 strategies allowing Ralli to share our expertise using digital outlets and establishing an excellent social media presence, including the use of Twitter and LinkedIn.

The results of the 2010 Drum Marketing Awards were revealed at the gala black tie awards ceremony held at the Ramada Manchester, rewarding those who had shown marketing excellence.
Over 300 marketing professionals, agency creatives and a judging panel including Carolyn Sims, Marketing Director at Ticketmaster UK and Jeff Dodds, Brand Director at Virgin Media TV.

Before the awards were handed out Sarah Power, Burger King’s Marketing Director delivered an inspiring and witty keynote address, giving and insight into working for a huge global brand and her take on marketing.

Sponsors of the event included News International, Royal Mail, Mail Media Centre, Marketing Industry Network, Recommended Agency Register and Tayburn.

This award comes after the success at the Golden Twitter Awards of 2009, where Ralli picked up a commendation in the Business to Business category.

Rob Illidge (Marketing Execuitve)

I read in the Times this morning that Viacom have now alleged that the use of copyrighted material was central to YouTube’s website business model.

This of course is in relation to the argument that the content-sharing website had hosted more than 60,000 copyrighted videos without authorisation, including versions of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and South Park.

The figure of the lawsuit? $1bn! Surely plucked out of American lawsuit heaven.

It could be sadi that perhaps back in 2005 YouTube had a visitor’s first/worry about copyright infringement later attitude. Something I’m sure many young  inspiring online entrepreneurs do.

I’m not in any way condoning the breach of copyright; although I do have my trusty Intellectual Property Solicitor here at the ready, should the Viacom heavies come knocking at my door. Not tonight though, I’ll be out!

There is no doubt that these videos are property of Viacom, but surely YouTube is simply giving shows like South Park the product extension that it needs?

Why not allow YouTube to give The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the international push that it needs?

YouTube does come across as somehwhat lax in regards to South Park clips, a simple search confirms this. Compare this to football highlights, which are almost immediately removed due to “copyright ownership claims”.

YouTube maintains that it takes down any copyrighted material when alerted by the owners of the content. Google argues that it should not be held responsible for policing content before it is placed on the site by users.

To add a little spice to mix, YouTube’s lawyers responded with claims that Viacom secretly and continuously uploaded its own content to YouTube, even as it complained publicly about its clips on the site.

“Viacom is suing us over clips that were actually uploaded by Viacom itself,” Zahavah Levine, YouTube chief counsel. Only in America!

This has all the wrangles of a mid day American drama, and trust me, they’re awful.

The case continues.

Rob Illidge (Marketing Executive)

Search-based ads will use DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) technology to scan a users tweets and relay ‘relevant’ and targeted ads back.

I suppose you could argue what is the problem with that? If I was desperately seeking an Employment Solicitor, not that I would , and vented my frustrations via Twitter, I would be more than happy to have a targeted ad from a Manchester based Solicitor delivered.

After all I’m using their platform so they are entitled to pursue revenue in this way.

Then there is the privacy issue. There’s always a privacy issue.

Why should Twitter ‘bombard’ users with ads that may not be relevant? And what if these ads take me to somewhere I thought I was buying ‘genuine UGG boots’ from, and ultimately ruin my online experience as a result.

Twitter must improve on Facebook’s mistakes, who still deliver inappropriate and wasteful adverts. No I don’t want to ‘date a hot girl from Manchester’, or need a ‘hot girlfriend in my area’. One is just enough thank you, lovely of them to ask though.

Alternatively, although less likely, is tweet-based advertising, which would send out ads with user’s tweets. I for one do not want an ad for “Johnny’s XXX site” (not the artist) being sent out on the corporate account.

However it has to be said that Twitter does already advertise, in case you missed it, because I did, they are found on the top right hand side of the Home page underneath followers. These ads are completely un-targeted and are barely noticeable as they only take up a small percentage of the online page real estate.

As I use an unofficial social media platform (Tweet Deck), I never see these ads, and doubt many other users will.

It will be interesting to see which route Twitter takes, Facebook have successfully integrated a somewhat ‘subtle’ advertising model, without a mass exodus from users, and I very much doubt it will be long before Twitter does the same.

And I never did get those UGG Boots

Rob Illidge (Marketing Execuitve)

In response to Jonathan Hemus’ article on TheDrum.co.uk

http://bit.ly/bCjGqJ

Despite the obvious death and lawsuit on Toyota’s hands, I believe they have been somewhat successful in their brand damage limitation.

I was always taught that there are two main ways to deal with a crisis PR situation:1) Let it blow over or deny any knowledge

2) Issue a public response and display your willingness to rectify the situation.

Unfortunately for Toyota the latter is the only option they have.

Over the last few years we have seen a huge increase in the number of product recalls, specifically in the toy market. Most notably, the recent Go Go Hamster which a claims consumer group alleged it contained “chemicals linked to cancer”.
Cue parent panic.

Cepia LLC (makers of the GO GO Hamster) took a less vigorous public response approach than Toyota, simply rejecting claims of any link and publishing the results of chemical level tests. It remained one of the most purchased Christmas toys of 2009.

I truly believe Toyota’s use of social media will aid its brand damage limitation; YouTube and Twitter act as perfect platforms to connect with customers, especially at a time when confidence in the brand has taken a knock.

That said, I have lived and worked in the United States and I am aware of how brand loyal customers are, especially in relation to US products. It can be said that this recall will no doubt have a negative effect on the Japanese corporation’s sales (in the US).