Ritson on Brand - All Comments

re: Big Mac or Coke: who's got it right?

Kevin Gordon — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:56:44 GMT

Considering the amount of money involved, I doubt if either have got it wrong. They simply have different goals and objectives because they are different companies. The only place they meet is at McDonalds, and that is a marriage of business deal convenience rather than long term strategy.

Re viagra cello.

Generic viagra. — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:15:08 GMT

Viagra. Viagra for order lamisil viagra. Buy viagra.

re: Thresher's Christmas Promotion

Adam Hedley-Smith — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:06:36 GMT

Oops! Sorry guys, here's the correct link:

www.youtube.com/threshersdreamoffer

Cheers,

Adam

re: Thresher's Christmas Promotion

Adam Hedley-Smith — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:12:47 GMT

Hey

We’re working with Threshers – check out what this year’s offer could have been, and if you’ve got any suggestions for next year? -

www.youtube.com/threshersoffer

Cheers

Adam

re: No miniskirts? But hotpants were OK...

Harry Clive — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:55:14 GMT

A brilliant example of true PR cunning.

re: Simple, a bit sloppy, but not stupid

A Walmsley — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:48:01 GMT

Rory's right. Besides, concerns about individual data-point accuracy become less relevant when you view NPS as time-series data.

The whole area of data is becoming an increasingly challenging one for marketers, for many of whom it remains a bit of a dark art. The assertion that "marketing professors' complex statistical analyses, had next to no impact on real marketers" is often a true one, but it isn't because these analyses have no value - it's more often because that value isn't understood.

re: Interbrand's Valuation Approach

James Welsh — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:12:42 GMT

What about Brand Finance's methodology?

re: Simple, a bit sloppy, but not stupid

James Welsh — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:58:22 GMT

The problem is that many companies do try to drive by GPS alone.

re: Co-Branding

James Welsh — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:47:23 GMT

How would one obtain the Park, Jun and Shocker study?

re: Northern Rock has eroded its equity

James Cooke — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:22:53 GMT

err, that should be 'schmequity' not 'squmequity'! sp?

re: Northern Rock has eroded its equity

James Cooke — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:43:48 GMT

Brand equity squmequity! Show me a bank that can survive with a similar tidal onslaught of primetime negative publicity, and I'll show you a bank that has impeccable public relations connections. Yes, I'll agree that perhaps some positive 'brand equity' would have rubbed off on the TV, radio and newspaper reporters and editors to limit the damaging headlines, but really Northern Rock were screwed from the onset with their unintelligent and fear-inducing media communications. In my opinion the only thing that could have prevented their downfall post media-panic was stellar public relations to kill the story.

re: Simple, a bit sloppy, but not stupid

Rory Sutherland — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:50:27 GMT

The whole debate actually uncovers the crappy approach to mathematics and metrics which pervade marketing. Anyone with a modicum of mathematical ability would recognise that it is perfectly possible for a single numerical measure to be extremely useful without necesarily being the answer to life itself. Interestingly, if marketers were more numerate, they would probably be a little less reverential towards numerology. Do I find the GPS useful in my car? Yes. Do I attempt to drive by it alone? No.

re: iPhone orgy enlivens stale industry

Will Callaghan — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:21:51 GMT

There's a big difference between the Blackberry and the iPhone though - BB is seen as a work tool, iPhone as something to use all day every day and have fun with. No idea about whether the 10m target, but it should still outpeform the rest.

re: Big Mac or Coke: who's got it right?

Princewill Omorogiuwa — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:52:31 GMT

Granted that they have a huge property asset. McD will struggle to expand in places like Sub-saharan african Africa where the brand can only be preceived (not postiopned) as a premium brand. This will restrict market penetration and take longer for the investment in the franchise to payback. It will have to radically reeengineer its supply chain to make a profit. This means its international expansion will be limited to the relativley rich rich countries where it already has presence. Cocacola on the other hand, has a supply chain structure that plugs into local supply chains, with local manufacturing. This has enabled it not only to penetrate international markets deeply but more importantly to also understand these markets. The company has been able to develop its distribution infrasture to become a source of competitive advantage that even pepsi has struggled to replicate. I do not agree that the brand will be less valuable the more people drink it? The promise of a' guaranteed' positive future cash flow is a significant indicator of the value of a brand.

re: Big Mac or Coke: who's got it right?

John Dawson — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:38:38 GMT

Another way of looking at it. Coke can be regarded as a distribution company (or series of distribution companies) with some great brands. As long as people keep drinking then Coke will be OK but the brand itself will become less and less valuable. As for McD, they have amazing skill in properly and their international expansion has further to go that for Coke. They have a much more difficult branding task than chameleon Coke – it’s riskier and they are in decline. I think i’d rather take my chances as Coke where at least my revenues are going to be firmer.