Brand Ng

Cory Booker's heroism and the effect on his brand positioning and on Chris Christie

photo via [NY Daily News]

Newark Mayor Cory Booker saved his neighbor from her burning house last night and suffered 2nd degree burns.

As someone who deals with people brands, I think this is a game changer for Mayor Booker. He already has a great CV and excellent visibility, but this is just so over the top. Could this be the start of a White House run, with a gubernatorial race in between?

I think this is particularly bad news for Gov. Chris Christie. It certainly creates matchup problems for him, because his weight, for better or worse, would now be an even greater focal point. Perhaps the result of this perception problem is that Christie decides not to run for re-election in 2013, saving it for 2016.

But what, then, if Booker also runs in 2016, either creating an improbable all-NJ presidential race, or pushing the GOP to nominate someone other than Christie because of weight issues? Or maybe Christie will suddenly clamor to be on the impotent Romney ticket.

Christie's certainly the biggest loser of the day, and obviously, not in the way he would have hoped.

Mountain Dew's mouse-liquefaction lawsuit defense is easier to stomach than you might think

Stewart Little, doin' the Dew / SONY

In a lawsuit against PepsiCo, a man claimed he found a mouse in a can of Mountain Dew.  The Atlantic Wire reported on Pepsi's defense:

Pepsi's lawyers... found experts to testify... that "the mouse would have dissolved in the soda had it been in the can from the time of its bottling until the day the plaintiff drank it," according to the Record. (It would have become a "jelly-like substance," according to Pepsi, adds LegalNewsline.) 

Typically, it's Marketing which asks Legal to approve edgy communications.  They would have been well served to do the reverse in this case.

That said, PepsiCo is quite lucky that this case is for Mountain Dew and not for some other beverage, say Lipton Brisk, or Diet Pepsi.

Smokers don't smoke for health benefits, and neither do drinkers of Mountain Dew. Dew drinkers already know that it's bad for them and, as such, this PR "problem" is unlikely to change the long term behavior of current drinkers.

The Mountain Dew brand has spent the last couple of decades attaching itself to action sports and all things "x-treme."  And action sports athletes are always trying to do tricks that are new and more creative--things which are usually more dangerous.  

Mountain Dew's ability to dissolve a living creature might ultimately be additive to its brand. Teens may view it as a valuable feature of the soda as they jockey, on the halfpipe, for status and manhood.

Abercrombie loses in this Situation, making the Jersey Shore cast ever more powerful

                                                                                                                                                            Ian Spanier/MTV

Just when you thought that the celebrity brands of Jersey Shore cast members would mercifully fade into the distance, Abercrombie put them back into the spotlight.  In effect, A&F has given the cast a golden opportunity to sharpen the edges of their brands, galvanize their fan bases, and make themselves more marketable overall: it's a great time to be on the cast of Jersey Shore.

Earlier today, Abercrombie and Fitch issued a tongue-in-cheek press release offering money to Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino and other cast members NOT to wear their products.  The stunt was picked up by mainstream outlets like USA Today and the WSJ and not just Access Hollywood, E!, and the like.

But while it's ostensibly negative to have a an apparel company insult you publicly, this action has opened up a new set of opportunities for the cast members.  By manufacturing this issue, A&F is pushing the GTL crew into the arms of smaller, scrappier competitors, such as Ed Hardy, Affliction and others, any of which could benefit to a greater degree than Abercrombie.  Or potentially even worse for A&F, the cast could create or license their own clothing line.

How the Jersey Shore cast gains from this:

• Acknowledgment of influence.  A&F acknowledges and propulgates the idea that Jersey Shore is incredibly influential.
• Money.  I don't know what constitutes "a substantial payment," but whatever it is, cash is being offered.  And that cash could be used to start a new clothing line, for instance.  
• A news platform to launch that new clothing line, or to talk about a new endorsement
• Sharpened brand edges, by helping define what they aren't (they aren't A&F-wearing preppies; they're self-proclaimed Guidos). And with a sharpened brand comes tighter identification with their biggest fans, who aspire to be more like them--God help us.

Meanwhile, it feels like A&F loses a bit in this PR stunt, even as they sharpen their own brand:

• They might be alienating their own customers.  The Abercrombe and Fitch brand might not be completely aligned with the Jersey Shore brand, but it likely has an overlapping customer profile.  In fact, last year, A&F sold a popular t-shirt emblazoned with the words, "The Fitchuation." 
• They're creating enemies who they're currently helping to popularize. Because the message is a punch-in-the-face to the cast, the cast, hurt feelings in tow, might take less money to endorse competitive products.  Unless the stunt is all a hoax, it is certain that Pauly D and the gang will be energized to make life difficult for A&F.
• They're a little late to the game. It's not even an original idea that A&F marketers could preen themselves over.  Last year, very similar stunts were already played out: a nightclub in New Orleans banned clothes seen on Jersey Shore , and  Coach was suspected of sending Gucci bags to Snooki.

In any case, I don't think it will be long until we see a JWoWW clothing label--she already has a tanning lotion.

                  
Sign at Republic, a bar in New Orleans                        Fitchuation T-Shirts were on sale at A&F in 2010

Tracking McAfee's response to shutting down 800K computers this morning

Minimal acknowledgement of the issue on McAfee's Homepage.

I'm starting this thread to track the response to the serious McAfee gaffe this morning (April 21, 2010).  Apparently, McAfee mistakenly quarantined a critical process in Windows XP (SP3), causing cycles of automatic reboots for a rumored 800,000 computers globally, including at many major enterprises.  I, myself, am not a McAfee user.  I'm simply observing their response to this issue.

And that response so far has been tepid--simply issuing a patch, with a short apology at the end of a blog post: "We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this has caused our customers and will update this blog posting as more details become available." [ see pdf from 949pm EST - I am providing PDFs as their posts are being edited/updated ]

Surely they will need to do something for disrupted customers, many of whom must have had a massively frustrating day today. I'll keep an eye on it and report back on this page.

UPDATE: at 11:15pm April 21. EVP Barry McPherson provides a well-phrased, but unapologetic, longer note in a separate post [ see PDF ], detailing how he has needed to be on hand for the last 14 straight hours, as if to excuse him for not being more communicative.  I understand that, but why didn't corporate communications chime in immediately?   We are talking about a mistake that resulted in hundreds of thousands of inoperable computers.

UPDATE 2: Day 2 - 12:15pm April 22: It's been more than 24 hours, and still no significant response from their Brand and PR people.  For an event that could damage the McAfee brand so badly, the silence is deafening.

UPDATE 3: Day 3 - 12:15pm - April 23: It's been more than 48 hours.  McAfee finally issued a more detailed apology last night [  View PDF of Mcafee_apology_blog_post ], with Barry McPherson writing that Mcafee is "extremely sorry for any impact that the...file may have caused you"

However, there's no link to this blog post on the homepage.  Instead, McAfee bolded their existing link (in other words, they have done basically nothing to increase their acknowledgement of the crisis), and redirected the link to a page of fixes.  This page, one level down from home, DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY APOLOGY [ view PDF ].  I want to point out that the USA Today headline for this problem was: McAfee anti-virus program goes berserk, reboots PCs. It's not helpful to bury your apology two or more levels down.  Given the scale, shouldn't the apology appear on the homepage?

UPDATE 4: Day 3 - April 23 (Friday Evening): (I didn't post until Sunday) - David DeWalt, McAfee's CEO, writes an apology [ View DeWalt Apology PDF ], probably in the region of 60 hours after the incident began.

"McAfee’s business is protecting you, our customers, from threats and harm. We pride ourselves on our record of doing so, and we sincerely apologize for this incident. We will work hard to continue earning your full confidence in our company, our products and our brand."

UPDATE 5: Day 5 - April 25 - Sunday: Sometime over the weekend, McAfee finally pushed the issue to the main portion of their home page, but instead of apologizing or admitting fault, the space merely reads, "Information on this week's security update issue," which feels incongruent to the disaster - nearly meaningless - a throwaway. [ View GIF file of McAfee homepage at about 730pm April 25th ]

Still, I'm glad they put it right up front.  I think they've finally realized that at this moment in time, no one cares about their upcoming product launch, because their brand has simply been ravaged by this incident.

UPDATE 6: Day 5 - April 25 - Sunday: Clicking through some of the links, I just saw that McAfee is offering restitution for home/home office users.  [ view PDF ] It includes

1. Toll Free Phone Support
2. Offer to "express deliver" a CD with software fix (downloadable too, of course)
3. McAfee will reimburse "reasonable expenses" for PC repair costs
4. 2-year extension of McAfee subscription if you were affected by the problem

I think that's a reasonable response--I think users will just naturally feel that the solutions to the problem need to be expensive and painful to McAfee and I certainly think that this fits the criteria. Even so, I'm not sure it will be enough to keep people from switching away from McAfee for at least several upgrade cycles. 

Corporate buyers only get a help article, although I am sure McAfee's account managers are sorting out how to privately compensate companies.

UPDATE 7: Day 7 - April 27 - Tuesday: McAfee CEO has now posted a 5 minute video where he apologizes, talks about specific reasons for the problem and goes through future safeguards. Also, he details what McAfee will be offering their business customers ("a customized business package based on your needs").  I'll give credit where it's due.  This is a nice piece.  It's clear and apologetic.

OVERALL: Ultimately, I think McAfee's response was pretty good, even though they were quite slow to get everything together--and they had to recover from a few missteps from a communications standpoint. 

Were shareholders penalized? Their stock price ordinarily might have taken a bigger beating, but over the last few days, the price has been buoyed by a rumored HP buyout, keeping the PPS around $40, or approximately $5.5B in enterprise value.  So despite having to give up what is, conservatively, $50-150M in future revenue (in the form of free services), in addition to many millions in out-of-pocket costs to placate customers right now, and the loss of at least some confidence from many customers and prospects, shareholders are still whole.. what a strange and mysterious world we live in!

BONUS UPDATE - 4/29 (equivalent to Day 9, but the crisis is all but over) after market close: McAfee fell about 12% after hours to a PPS of about $35, after reporting light earnings for the quarter and bringing down projections about 4-8 cents in earnings for next quarter, probably in grand part because of this crisis.  I'd actually imagine this could happen for the next several quarters.  With only 160M shares outstanding, you'd think there'd be as much as $.40-1.00 in missed earnings over the next 2 years. 

Frankly, if you held on to shares, it's really your own fault.  You had many exit opportunities after the crisis revealed itself, and even if the PR response was OK, it wasn't going to remedy the near-term damage caused to the brand, nor pay for the millions lost due to this problem.  Note - I have had no position in McAfee throughout the time of writing of this post.