When we met sometime back, Nikhil asked whether I’d noticed the smudging of the Coke logo in a scene from Slumdog Millionaire. I hadn’t, and we weren’t sure if there was something to it. A few days back, I saw this article in Campaign India, which spoke about Mercedes and Coke rejecting an association with the movie, and demanding that their ‘association’ with the movie be smudged/deleted – Mercedes, because a gangster is driving it (passenger – Mahesh Manjrekar, during the cricket game-police chase scene) and Coke, because it is offered in the slum (as a ‘carrot’, before they are taken to the beggar camp). The article ends with
While the average brand manager would have been delighted with the seeming ‘free’ publicity, executives at both Benz and Coke took a deep breath to consider the dangers to the brands. There would certainly have been some short-term gain, but was that gain worth it in the context of possible long-term damage?
Possible long term damage?! I wonder if Mercedes-Benz has this set of parameters, which a potential customer has to fit, before he is given the keys. Maybe they do, I haven’t tried buying it, but then what about resale? What about proxy owners? On to Coke, do they restrict their distribution channel to areas which their specific target audience resides in? Does a pet bottle self destruct when it recognises economic/living conditions that it would not fit in? Does Coke actually mean that when i am thirsty, I’d not have a Coke because Jamal, a slumdog, had it in a movie??!! So, what exactly are we trying here? I am going to focus on Coke, because with their price tag, Mercedes-Benz can afford to be elitist, but Coke??!! Besides, at #22 in the Virtue’s most social brands of 2008, this is hardly the kind of mindset I’d expect from Coke.
I understand that a brand has a certain target audience (in terms of demographics-SEC) it keeps in mind while designing communication. Good, it gives focus. But aren’t we going a bit ahead of ourselves when we think that consumers really have the time to check out all possible associations of the brand, especially these one off occurrences? (unlike say, the Indica – taxi phenomenon)
At a time, when people can shoot what they want and load it on YouTube/Flickr and get a few thousand hits before the brand manager can say ‘Cut’, what sense does such policing make? Really, how much can you control where your brand is seen and what is being done with it? (Remember Diet Coke + Mentos)
Almost 20 lakh views. That’s viral. Smudge that!!
IMHO, this is exactly the kind of restrictive thinking that brands cannot afford in such times. Coke could’ve easily converted this into a ‘From Slumdog to Millionaire – Coke (Always/The Coke side of life/Open happiness)’ stance. But what do I know, I’m just a normal consumer 😐
This very interesting adliterate article talks about empathy, and how brands try to understand consumers but never try to see the world through their eyes. By starting out with this perspective,
We would then perhaps have a collection of real and individual stories about people who are from the group we are seeking to influence. These would be real accounts of real people’s lives.And to get those stories we would need a new approach to engaging with people directly and without fear.
Instead, as he correctly states, we try to lump our audience into easily manageable categories, so that communication then becomes automatically an easier job. The old media scenario and the systems of distribution therein, had a way of making this perhaps the only way. But with the proliferation of niche TV channels, the web and social media, brands can now break the big lump into almost individual pieces which gives each potential consumer a unique relationship with the brand.
Based on their context, a single brand means different things to different people, and fit into their lives differently. The sooner brands recognise this, the more meaningful their communication can become, to the consumer.
until next time, open up 🙂
and on the blog today… Brands & Associations http://www.manuprasad.com/?p=1807
Great point. Instead of disowning such free publicity, they could think of a lot of ways of utilizing such opportunities – Barkha ‘NDTV’ Dutt goofed earlier and now, Coke/ Merc!
Manu
Brands are all about emotional and other associations, aren’t they?
A few days ago, @rajeshlalwani announced his plan to buy a new car and asked for views on Innova V/s Xylo V/s Scorpio V/s Sumo Grande?
To which I replied: “Taxi v. small family v. gangster v. drug dealer. Acc to reel & real life ;-)”
My t-i-c comment was based on my many discussion re cars and my recent visit to India. But yes, those are inevitable brand ‘positions’ too.
I’d say Mercedes and Coke are reacting to SDM like most Indians are – emotional and angry about association with poverty. Both Merc/ Coke and the upset Indians are ignoring a powerful value of the ‘brand’ construct – aspirational value. A
I should think that value alone will add to the Merc brand’s presence in India from the top 5% of the population to at least 20% of the population.
That said, in a conversation with @nikhilnarayanan, I told him that when showing Casino Royale in-flight, BA blurred the Virgin logo and edited Richard Branson out. While films are generally edited for inclusion in in-flight entertainment, to suit a general viewing type level, these actions are entirely defensible because a brand owner has a right not to promote another’s brand. A bit like the right a defendant has not to say anything that implicates him/ her..
“Coke could’ve easily converted this into a ‘From Slumdog to Millionaire – Coke (Always/The Coke side of life/Open happiness)’ stance.”
haha excellent.
i guess Benz and Coke are reacting to SDM as their ‘audience’ would/is getting themselves brownie points. it is a reasonable move from a marketing point of view in a country that reacts aggressively to the word ‘barber’ in a movie title.
Karthik: its a mindset thing, and i really don’t know how log it will be before a change is seen
shefaly: i would agree with merc if they decided not to associate themselves with poverty etc in their communication… absolutely fine.. but like i said, if someone posted a photo of a merc with a slum kid standing next to it, would they seek to control that too? to me, it shows a mindset more than anything else.. Danny Boyle asked because that’s his way of working, do you think the regular Bollywood director would? What does Merc do then?
roop: i’m not sure if they can be compared… besides it is this ‘consciousness’ of brands that i am against, because it then becomes about control, and the reality is that consumption can’t be controlled…
Manu
May be Mercedes would have chased him with a lawsuit? Who knows? As they say, asking for forgiveness is a lot easier than asking for permission.
Besides, brands ‘earn’ a positioning unrelated to what brand managers hope for and spend on. Another high profile brand is often – unfortunately for them – linked with drug dealers in London. These are the conversations that are hard to verify on ‘online’ or ‘social’ networks but every Londoner knows what I am referring to. An information asymmetry brand managers can eliminate by getting out of their ivory towers perhaps? 😉
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but going by the reasons you’ve mentioned earlier, to me it is sensible the brand chose to dissociate themselves from the usage. Both brands seem to have been identified in a negative way; Mercedes showing a criminal driving it and Coke as a bribe or a ruse to take them away to a beggar camp.
Mercedes is an elitist brand, supposed to drive around classier people than gangsters while Coke is not meant for unethical uses like bribing.
shefaly: exactly my point… the ivory tower mindset is what is causing this myopia..
arby: like i said, i would have no arguments if these were brand communications, they’re not.. “supposed to”, “not meant for”.. will brands dictate usage? you’d have seen coke bottles being used for lousy soda in kerala? what happens to brand association then?
When a person buys a Mercedes, does he buy it because it is a cool car or because he wants to be perceived to be classy like other Mercedes owners? To me its the latter and so it makes sense for Mercedes to maintain that image. Does it mean dictating usage? Not sure.
As for usage of Coke bottles in Kerala, the primary market for SDM was US & UK. Coke may have a different association there.
Arby:
Manu makes a very important point about the fleeting – even illusory – control that brand managers have over their brand images. I mention above another high profile car brand that is often – unfortunately for them – linked with drug dealers in London. On a recent trip to India I learnt that BMW is the car in which spoilt rich brats run over poor people sleeping on pavements! I also heard that the Scorpio is deemed a gangster’s car in India.
Ergo, it does not matter what image Mercedes – or that other car brand – wants ‘to maintain’. Their ‘control’ is non-existent. Brand image is a negotiated societal agreement, not a product of advertising or promotions.
As an interesting illustration of how these agreements ‘shape’ up, watch this:
http:// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR4XvsNenk8
Thanks!
@ shefaly : I understood the point. I was trying to reason why Mercedes or Coke would do what they did, and not whether it’ll be effective or not.
Shefaly: thanks, exactly my point 🙂
Arby: The reason why Mercedes/Coke did what they did is obvious – a control over the imagery they project to consumers.. the soda example was used to show that this control is becoming a myth now… what matters more is what consumers make of the brand from experiences – theirs, and others… effectiveness is secondary, depends on the intent to a large degree, and if that’s not right, there’s a problem…
Brand image is a negotiated social agreement or is it arrived based on the experience of each individual?
Manu, the coke soda example u gave. I haven’t seen a coke glass bottle for the last five years, since I’ve had only 500 ml bottles (or more). Once last year, I almost ended up ridiculing a friend who was trying to order a 300 ml glass bottles with Dominos, before I realized they still had those (not at Dominos though).
Shefaly, I’ve heard abt the BMW hit and run cases, but I am not gonna judge a car by the actions of some unruly kids. With regards to Scorpio, this is the first time I’ve heard abt it being referred to as gangster’s car. Which is not exactly a big deal, since I am not concerned about them or have enquired about them.
What I am trying to say is brand images are not fixed nor are they based on majority opinion, but fluid and independent. It may be beyond the control of the brand manager, but that does not mean they cannot try to influence its formation. A consumer judges from his experiences and it includes ads, promotions and even the movies.