Brand Failures
Brand Failures Brand Failures
40 Brand failures 6 Sony’s Godzilla A monster flop If one word saturates the brand consultant’s vocabulary more than any other, it is ‘synergy’. When big companies formulate a brand strategy they increasingly try to synergize their marketing efforts. In other words, the aim is to extend the brand into other relevant product categories. In recent times, cross-promotional tie-ins have become all the rage and have proven, if indeed proof was needed, that brands have become larger than the specific products they represent. This trend is particularly obvious within the entertainment industry. Take pop music. Gone are the days when all that mattered was what a pop group sounded like. Now, it is all about branding. As Michael J Wolf tells us in The Entertainment Economy, ‘brands and stars have become the same thing’. Ever since the Spice Girls phenomenon, record executives have been spending as much time thinking of ways to strike deals with toy manufacturers, television executives and fast-food chains as they have about pushing singles and albums. In the case of a band like SClub7, the brand extensions were planned right from the start, with the SClub’s debut single and TV show appearing simultaneously. TV series such as the UK’s Popstars and the US series American Idol, where popstars are created through the show itself, also exemplify this new way to cross-publicize an entertainment brand via different media. Nowhere, however, is brand synergy more apparent than in the world of movies. George Lucas’ Star Wars franchise was the first to exploit the full
Idea failures 41 possibilities of brand extension. As well as through movies, consumers have been able to interact with the Star Wars brand in numerous other ways. They have bought Star Wars action figures, read Star Wars novels, played the Star Wars computer game and worn Star Wars pyjamas. Now of course, we are used to the ‘movie as brand’ concept. Men in Black, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and numerous others have replicated Star Wars’ cross-branded success. While this means the Hollywood studios can make potentially more money than ever before from a movie, it also means they have more to lose if things don’t go to plan. Just ask Sony. With the 1998 release of Godzilla, Sony believed it had created a monster movie hit. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a movie that looked more likely to become a blockbuster. Sony had spent US $60 million implementing the teaser campaign. They had Puff Daddy rapping his way through one of the most expensive promo videos ever made for the Godzilla theme tune. Furthermore, a replica of the star of the movie – a skyscraper-high green monster – was guaranteed to make a fantastic toy. Most significantly, owing to Sony’s newly consolidated cinema holdings, the film was shown on more screens in its opening weekend than any other in movie history. On the day of its launch, one in five cinema screens were playing Godzilla. The only trouble was that for all the money spent on a slick ad campaign, the word of mouth publicity surrounding the film was pretty bad. Even before the movie launched, news was spreading on the Internet of just how terrible it was. However, Sony was determined to get the online reviewers on side. The company even paid for Harry Knowles, the owner of the highly influential site AintItCoolNews, to fly out for the premiere in New York. But nothing could stop the growing number of terrible reviews. Here is an extract from James Berardinelli’s one star review which appeared on the moviereviews.net site on the day the film opened: Godzilla is the ultimate culmination of the ‘who cares about plot’ summer movie. A loose remake of the 1954 ‘classic’ Japanese monster movie, Godzilla, King of the Monsters, Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin’s big-budget lizard-stomps-Manhattan disaster flick has been written with the brain dead in mind. The script isn’t ‘dumbed down’, it’s lobotomised. [. . .] Worst of all, Godzilla isn’t even exciting. With
- Page 1: Click for more articles
- Page 4 and 5: Brand Failures
- Page 6 and 7: Brand Failures Matt Haig
- Page 8 and 9: Contents 1. Introduction 1 Why bran
- Page 10 and 11: Contents vii 6. Culture failures 15
- Page 12 and 13: 4 Brand failures didn’t matter. A
- Page 14 and 15: 6 Brand failures market for which i
- Page 16 and 17: 8 Brand failures without trace are
- Page 19: Some brand failures have proved so
- Page 22 and 23: 14 Brand failures competitor. As it
- Page 24 and 25: 16 Brand failures In other words, C
- Page 26 and 27: 18 Brand failures Lessons from New
- Page 28 and 29: 20 Brand failures among employees t
- Page 30 and 31: 22 Brand failures years previously
- Page 32 and 33: 24 Brand failures Mustang was the s
- Page 34 and 35: 26 Brand failures 3 Sony Betamax Ac
- Page 36 and 37: 28 Brand failures and retailers, wh
- Page 38 and 39: 30 Brand failures 4 McDonald’s Ar
- Page 40 and 41: 32 Brand failures Lessons from Arch
- Page 42 and 43: 34 Brand failures
- Page 44 and 45: 36 Brand failures up with the idea
- Page 46 and 47: 38 Brand failures Factor two: cool
- Page 50 and 51: 42 Brand failures the possible exce
- Page 52 and 53: 44 Brand failures 7 Persil Power On
- Page 54 and 55: 46 Brand failures But the advantage
- Page 56 and 57: 48 Brand failures easily, Pepsi rem
- Page 58 and 59: 50 Brand failures 9 Earring Magic K
- Page 60 and 61: 52 Brand failures Lesson from Earri
- Page 62 and 63: 54 Brand failures on it,’ wrote B
- Page 64 and 65: 56 Brand failures Clearly if Corfam
- Page 66 and 67: 58 Brand failures been officially r
- Page 68 and 69: 60 Brand failures ‘There are risk
- Page 70 and 71: 62 Brand failures 13 Oranjolt The d
- Page 72 and 73: 64 Brand failures 14 La Femme Where
- Page 74 and 75: 66 Brand failures patronizing. This
- Page 76 and 77: 16 Clairol’s ‘Touch of Yoghurt
- Page 78 and 79: 18 Maxwell House ready-to-drink cof
- Page 80 and 81: 20 Thirsty Cat! and Thirsty Dog! Bo
- Page 83 and 84: Barron’s Dictionary of Business T
- Page 85 and 86: Extension failures 77 21 Harley Dav
- Page 87 and 88: Extension failures 79 making up the
- Page 89 and 90: Extension failures 81 Keep it tigh
- Page 91 and 92: 23 Crest Stretching a brand to its
- Page 93 and 94: Extension failures 85 ‘No toothpa
- Page 95 and 96: Extension failures 87 24 Heinz All
- Page 97 and 98: Extension failures 89 Lessons from
Idea failures 41<br />
possibilities of brand extension. As well as through movies, consumers have<br />
been able to interact with the Star Wars brand in numerous other ways. They<br />
have bought Star Wars action figures, read Star Wars novels, played the Star<br />
Wars computer game and worn Star Wars pyjamas.<br />
Now of course, we are used to the ‘movie as brand’ concept. Men in Black,<br />
The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and numerous<br />
others have replicated Star Wars’ cross-branded success. While this means the<br />
Hollywood studios can make potentially more money than ever before from<br />
a movie, it also means they have more to lose if things don’t go to plan. Just<br />
ask Sony.<br />
With the 1998 release of Godzilla, Sony believed it had created a monster<br />
movie hit. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a movie that looked more likely<br />
to become a blockbuster. Sony had spent US $60 million implementing the<br />
teaser campaign. They had Puff Daddy rapping his way through one of the<br />
most expensive promo videos ever made for the Godzilla theme tune.<br />
Furthermore, a replica of the star of the movie – a skyscraper-high green<br />
monster – was guaranteed to make a fantastic toy.<br />
Most significantly, owing to Sony’s newly consolidated cinema holdings,<br />
the film was shown on more screens in its opening weekend than any other<br />
in movie history. On the day of its launch, one in five cinema screens were<br />
playing Godzilla.<br />
The only trouble was that for all the money spent on a slick ad campaign,<br />
the word of mouth publicity surrounding the film was pretty bad. Even<br />
before the movie launched, news was spreading on the Internet of just how<br />
terrible it was. However, Sony was determined to get the online reviewers on<br />
side. The company even paid for Harry Knowles, the owner of the highly<br />
influential site AintItCoolNews, to fly out for the premiere in New York. But<br />
nothing could stop the growing number of terrible reviews. Here is an extract<br />
from James Berardinelli’s one star review which appeared on the moviereviews.net<br />
site on the day the film opened:<br />
Godzilla is the ultimate culmination of the ‘who cares about plot’<br />
summer movie. A loose remake of the 1954 ‘classic’ Japanese monster<br />
movie, Godzilla, King of the Monsters, Roland Emmerich and Dean<br />
Devlin’s big-budget lizard-stomps-Manhattan disaster flick has been<br />
written with the brain dead in mind. The script isn’t ‘dumbed down’,<br />
it’s lobotomised. [. . .] Worst of all, Godzilla isn’t even exciting. With
Change language