When YOUR brands go bad.

[Nadyenka]

Apple
Marlboro

[Dick_Phallus]

Nadyenka said:

Marlboro

None of the cowboys are smoking them these days.

[The Riddler]

rfn said:

I don't buy branded clothing, primarily because my money goes on other things.

It doesn't worry me one bit .

Edited by rfn on Wednesday 10th June 14:30

Ditto.

I think the only branded clothes i buy are from Jack&Jones. Rarely see anyone else with such a st dress sense as me.

I buy what i buy, and unless the product goes seriously down hill in terms of quality i will keep buying/using that company.

[parakitaMol.]

HiRich said:

Great comments.

Thanks Rich - that's a debate I'm having elsewhere.

Agrilla said:

Interesting topic

I'm a 'fan' of one brand on my Facebook account -

I was a customer before they had a Facebook presence, but having a FB presence wouldn't have put me off.

Twitter however, I just don't get. Why would I want to be spammed by any company with marketing in that way? I can't understand how any individual could benefit, so whilst having a Twitter tag on their website wouldn't put me off the brand directly, I would never click that link.

Perhaps it's just for the young 'uns?

Thanks Agrilla - really if you sign up for a connection most people don't consider it to be spam - only if it's unsolicited.
Yes, I think it is predominantly for younger audience - ie one of my brands they almost demand it - they find email newsletters to be 'old school'... the interest area for me at the moment is for a niche brand who is looking to enter this domain. I feel that some Social Networking channels (Linked in/Discussion Groups etc) are more appropriate than others (Twitter) for them. This is only a very small dimension of their overall comms strategy - but it's one I'm particularly interested in - how people think and feel about things and how they are influenced positively or negatively (even when they insist that they are 'immune') - its fascinating to me.

[V8mate]

parakitaMol. said:

Yes, I think it is predominantly for younger audience - ie one of my brands they almost demand it - they find email newsletters to be 'old school'... the interest area for me at the moment is for a niche brand who is looking to enter this domain. I feel that some Social Networking channels (Linked in/Discussion Groups etc) are more appropriate than others (Twitter) for them.

I can't imagine that many brands would benefit from being on LinkedIn. I like LinkedIn BECAUSE it's barely a social networking site and has retained strong business credentials. Is your client selling indemnity insurance or business travel?

[parakitaMol.]

V8mate said:

I can't imagine that many brands would benefit from being on LinkedIn. I like LinkedIn BECAUSE it's barely a social networking site and has retained strong business credentials. Is your client selling indemnity insurance or business travel?

It's certainly becoming moreso. Try searching for a variety of brand names under 'groups'...

You may or may not be right. I'm not at liberty to say.

:-)

[V8mate]

parakitaMol. said:

V8mate said:

I can't imagine that many brands would benefit from being on LinkedIn. I like LinkedIn BECAUSE it's barely a social networking site and has retained strong business credentials. Is your client selling indemnity insurance or business travel?

It's certainly becoming moreso. Try searching for a variety of brand names under 'groups'...

You may or may not be right. I'm not at liberty to say.

:-)

Must certainly be in its infancy. I have more members in my little Group than the Virgin Atlantic one does

And it required me to search! I wouldn't normally have done that. The brand would have had to have appealed to me directly (and effectively) to join their LI Group and given me a good reason for doing so too.

[parakitaMol.]

V8mate said:

parakitaMol. said:

V8mate said:

I can't imagine that many brands would benefit from being on LinkedIn. I like LinkedIn BECAUSE it's barely a social networking site and has retained strong business credentials. Is your client selling indemnity insurance or business travel?

It's certainly becoming moreso. Try searching for a variety of brand names under 'groups'...

You may or may not be right. I'm not at liberty to say.

:-)

Must certainly be in its infancy. I have more members in my little Group than the Virgin Atlantic one does

And it required me to search! I wouldn't normally have done that. The brand would have had to have appealed to me directly (and effectively) to join their LI Group and given me a good reason for doing so too.

Yes of course, or exposure via your connections

Which is your group?

[V8mate]

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=865287

[Gretchen]

Is there an underlying Little Chef issue in this thread?

[V8mate]

Gretchen said:

Is there an underlying Little Chef issue in this thread?

Grease-laden, deep-fried, battered mushrooms.

<shudder>

[HereBeMonsters]

V8mate said:

Gretchen said:

Is there an underlying Little Chef issue in this thread?

Grease-laden, deep-fried, battered mushrooms.

<shudder>

• thinks about stopping off at Little Chef on the way home

[collateral]

Nadyenka said:

Apple

The fact they're still in business beats whatever people who wouldn't know a Mac Plus if one fell on their heads assuming I'm a tt for having an iPod...

[torres del paine]

Aowhs102 said:

I dont have an issue with people wearing gear designed for one thing whilst doing another, its just an example of the further dilution of the brand, that has gone from being hardcore skiiers gear to a fashion acessory for idiots who cant ski but have tonnes of cash to throw at their ineptitude.

parakitaMol. said:

Aowhs102][rant said:

My Spyder skiing jacket...

[/rant]

You are right. Worn only by spastics and s.

They wear every single Spyder branded item thats available too.

Exactly.

unless you are calling me a , you tt.

Ski brands like Spyder and Kjus are laughably expensive and mostly about fashion (i.e for ghastly Russians). Pretty useless bits of kit away from a ski lift too.

The smart money would go on Arc'Teryx and Patagonia mountain gear.

[Nadyenka]

collateral said:

Nadyenka said:

Apple

The fact they're still in business beats whatever people who wouldn't know a Mac Plus if one fell on their heads assuming I'm a tt for having an iPod...

I have a Apple computer because I find them more easy to use.I think they make good computers but I do not like the image they have and that any computer you see on TV or in film is Apple.

[collateral]

Nadyenka said:

collateral said:

Nadyenka said:

Apple

The fact they're still in business beats whatever people who wouldn't know a Mac Plus if one fell on their heads assuming I'm a tt for having an iPod...

I have a Apple computer because I find them more easy to use.I think they make good computers but I do not like the image they have and that any computer you see on TV or in film is Apple.

They've always paid for them to be in movies, even when they didn't look 'cool'.
Saving the world in Independence Day...selling guns to Mr Willis in the Jackal remake ect

[parakitaMol.]

Gretchen said:

Is there an underlying Little Chef issue in this thread?

Don't EVER EVER mock the Little Chef.

Or ESSO collectable coins
Or Rowntrees gollys
Or LEGO
Or Lyles
Or Walls ice cream
Or my Silver Cross pram

Don't come around here and steal my dreams.