Truman Capote once said “Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavour.” Spare a thought for the poor Brazilian footballers. A mediocre team capsized on an ocean of hype. Into the darkness they go, licking their wounds after one of the greatest sporting humiliations. Like Icarus who dared to fly too near the sun, on wings of feathers and wax.
How can they recover from this? The mighty Brazil, beaten so devastatingly and completely in front of the world. It was painful to watch from a distance but for a nation so invested in the World Cup and their glittering football heritage it was unbearable. This was the most tweeted about sporting event in history – with 35.6 million tweets posted during the agonising 90 minutes. There was quite literally nowhere to hide.
The only thing the Brazilians can do now is be stoic. It was one night after all. The old philosophers taught us that stocism had one practical ambition: to teach people how to be calm and brave in the face of overwhelming anxiety and pain. It’s a philosophy we could all do with remembering.
The Brazilians will need to swallow the headlines and resist any urge to deliver or accept any messages of hope.The stoics believed that to regain calm and equ librium it was necessary to systematically crush every last vestige of hope, and become courageously at home with the very worst of situations. It’s not the end of the world.Just the end of a nation’s hopes. In the end they will cope.
As for the riots, the Stoics thought anger a dangerous indulgence, for in their analysis, anger is caused by one thing: an incorrect picture of existence – a violent collision of hope and reality.
Anyway, there is a point.
The country of the beautiful game is faced now with an overwhelming humiliation, though if perspective speaks for a moment, perhaps winning was always too much to ask amid the pressure, the skepticism and scrutiny and a population of 200 million all watching and coaching from the sideline.
What is required now is the courage to change and re-think.Brazil were perhaps guilty of being bewitched by hubris, and, in a digitalculture forcing constant disruption where the crowd is still connected to a fading Brazilian brilliance. The things we fall in love with are constantly challenged but it is hard for an audience with an emotional connection to have to face the inevitable.
Brands can learn from this.
Success is sometimes a curse. To keep on top, businesses must face a consistently shifting landscape and be prepared to respond with equal deft. A strong founding story is a must, but so is the ability to survive the peaks and troughs with perspective and humility.
When Germany suffered a crushing defeat at the hand of England in 2001, they went back to the drawing board, re-grouped and re-strategised with their eye towards a fixed target. Furthermore, they never, ever lost belief and that is the secret to their success.
Stoicism is nothing less than an elegant and intelligent dress rehearsal for catastrophe. And if we can be prepared for that, we can survive
Take note of the wise aphorism from Jim Butcher:
“Life is a journey. Time is a river. The door is ajar”
The age of the toxic brand has dawned. This has ushered in an array of “Marmite” brands and love them or hate them it doesn’t matter – they’re winning either way!
The toxic companies are flourishing and no matter how many people despise them they keep on growing, fuelled by the horror stories we hear in the news.
Take RYANAIR: People really do hate Ryanair: this February, for example, a mutiny was reported on one of their flights.
Despite being grounded for several hours, passengers were refused food and drinks by staff.
In the end, the customer service was so bad the passengers took matters in hand and called the police: http://news.sky.com/story/1215664/ryanair-sorry-after-mutiny-on-delayed-flight
Ryanair’s image problem is neatly summarised by Google auto-complete:
Although its not just mutinies and Google Michael O’Leary has to worry about. Last year the airline was voted the number one worst brand by Which? magazine.
According to their survey, which was taken by 3,300 people, this was down to the “aggressive and hostile” way customers were treated, and the “rude and unpleasant” staff.
I doubt the hidden charges and extra costs wouldn’t have helped either.
According to the Mirror: “One traveller claimed to be happy to pay £50 extra on a rival airline “to be treated like a human being!”
In response to the survey, Ryanair fought back in its typically brash way:
In a statement attached to the tweet they wrote, “Which? hasn’t got a clue about air travel but consumers actually do, because they’re too busy booking Ryanair’s low fare, on-time flights to waste time filling in Which magazine’s tiny surveys.”
A terrible response of course, but they were right! You can be the most hated brand in Britain, but if you can give people offers they can’t refuse, and be on-time, it doesn’t matter.
Ryanair has been growing at an astounding rate in the last several years. Just look at their profits since 2009.
Despite reports this week that they’ve just experienced their first dip in five years, the company has predicted a 40 per cent increase in passengers by 2019: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/19/ryanair-profits-down-first-drop-5-years
They are also outrunning their rivals EasyJet when it comes to the public’s interest. Using Google Trends, you can see how much people have searched for each airline since 2004:
From 2009 Ryanair have dominated the search engine battle and if you look further their lowest dips of interest are roughly the same as Easyjet’s highest peaks. Which all goes to show: being love is great, but being hated isn’t as bad as you might think.
What you need to avoid is people not caring at all. “The opposite of life is not death,” said Elie Wiesel, “it’s indifference.”
As long as RyanAir stays cheap and on time, their toxicity is irrelevant.
Public hatred for a brand isn’t bad – it’s publicity. Which means that no matter how entrenched in their image it becomes, Ryanair will continue to fly.
Just don’t expect them to hand out any free snacks as they do so.
Not to state the obvious but behaviour is vital. Yet it would appear that very few organisations or individuals understand how their behaviour is seen and felt – and that is all a ‘brand’ is. A feeling. Still the walls have finally fallen. Gone are the days when brands could spin their own story and behave as they pleased. This is a world defined by the crowd and they mind. If you want to succeed in this climate you have to do embrace two things.
1. You must understand what you look like to others. How you ‘package’ is vital.
2. You have to learn to love those haters!
Take Jeremy Clarkson. A man resolutely himself, much loved and widely loathed – a child at heart with an independent streak who connects with all sorts of people, of all sorts of creeds across the globe and makes them laugh. But this hasn’t been his finest
week. In light of the column miles dedicated to his use of a word, Clarkson apologised using a video channel to do so in common with our modern times! It didn’t really work for him. Instead, he should have embraced his detractors and ridden out the storm.
Do we really believe he is a racist, as the sensitive liberals or Twitter trolls would have us believe? Or just a man guilty of puerile behaviour? Whatever, his apology fuelled the backlash.
Clarkson, like many brands need a strong outside view to avoid other people being given the chance to tell their story. They need to learn to take advice but not of the ‘trust me’ kind – the kind that addresses the behaviour we don’t recognise ourselves. The
blindingly obvious is seldom just that, and past experience is rarely your friend these days – a strong filter bubble is. We need to get outside of the normal view and begin to understand exactly what ‘trust’ means. Then we need a critical friend who can ask
the right questions. Empathy is a much banded notion in a world defined by experience. But as we question things critically and impartially, we can begin to gather empathy for people and then we see it doesn’t have to be like this. “This” being a fast, out
of control communications landscape. We can define and control our own story, circumvent the naysayers and just be ourselves.
Blindingly obvious? Of course.
Mark Borkowski presents his new talk – Adore the haters. Chinwag Psych London 2014 Thu, 15 May 2014
Starting at 9am WHERELondon, Museum of LondonUK
Twitter is now daily global phenomenon, fuelling everything from celebrity profiles to national revolutions.
The media is obsessed with it, and everyone seems to be on it. But what is the real story behind the phenomenon?
Since its launch in 2006, the number of Twitter users has soared. There are now 255m users of the site worldwide.
As well as soaring it has also floated, opening on the US stock market last November at a staggering £11bn (which has since doubled).
Twitter’s rise has even brought a previously mythological creature to life. Once thought to live under bridges, trolls now have a new home, and only ever spit their bile in 140 characters or less.
But it’s not just old myths Twitter has brought to life. It has also managed to create one or two of its own.
Like the dotcom bubble before it, the rise of social media has proven that having reach and influence doesn’t always equal success. Twitter may seem too big to fail, but this is exactly what it wants you to believe.
When it comes to reach, Twitter has it. Facebook may rule the roost with 1.28bn users worldwide, but no one can compare to that, and there’s no point trying.
Here’s a better comparison: at its peak in 2008, MySpace was one of the world’s most visited sites. In June 2006 it even overtook Google in the US. But it still only had 75.9m users – less than a third of what Twitter has now.
Twitter’s influence is all around us. What was the hashtag before 2006? It was the plaything of software geeks, sometimes used by the rest of us to denote numbers.
But now it has become the four-lined flag of online groupthink, and was voted the word of the year in 2012 by The American Dialect Society.
The humble tweet has become the new way people receive news, and sent papers and TV stations scrambling. Twenty-four-hour news channels don’t break stories any more – they merely air ones already broken by Twitter.
Twitter has also allowed brands to achieve what was previously thought impossible – a direct line to customers. With hashtags as their hook, it’s just a case of reeling them in.
But despite everything – its reach, its influence, it’s huge price tag – Twitter still hasn’t turned a single profit.
In fact, it has been operating at a loss the whole time. Here is the company’s revenue compared to its profits since 2010.
As you can see, last year’s profits aren’t going to be retweeted by investors anytime soon. Despite bringing in £665m in revenue, Twitter still went £645m into the red.
The company’s share price also plummeted to a historic low last week, after a decline in the rate of user growth was reported.
In the panic that ensued, shares in Twitter fell by 24 per cent, and billions of dollars was wiped from its value.
And the concerns for investors don’t stop there. It is estimated that almost 1bn accounts are registered on the site, which means that 740m of Twitter’s accounts are mostly inactive.
The amount of time people spend on the site is also falling, with timeline views down nearly 7% in the last quarter.
And according to one study, the average account only has one follower. Even when you only account for active accounts, the figure is a lowly 61.
Who would have known? Because of its size, social media has become a mish-mash of myth and reality. It seems to dominate our lives, even when it’s losing more money than sense.
Forbes has predicted that Twitter will start to be profitable in 2015, but it will be fascinating to see how this happens – if it happens at all.
What other type of company would be valued at billions when it is operating at such a loss? Reach and influence seem to go a long way in the fantasy world of today’s markets.
But when advertising accounts for most of your revenue, they mean little. The real key to long-term success is engagement, and without it Twitter might just fall from its perch.
People are reading fewer print newspapers now than they were fourteen years ago.
We know, hold the presses right?
But we didn’t come here to tell you what you already knew.
We’ve put together a graph plotting the circulations of five daily broadsheet papers over the past fourteen years. The overall shapes might be familiar, but below and on the graph we’ve highlighted some surprising things you might not have been aware of.
Here’s the most important thing: as we tell our clients, always check the bathwater for babies. Of the papers we looked at, only one – the Financial Times – remains in steep decline in its print circulation (this could be explained by the FT’s present digital push, and its wealthy, tablet-owning audience).
Of the rest, two have been near-level since 2012 (The Telegraph and The Times) and one is actually reaching more people than it was this time last year (The Guardian).
So think twice next time you’re chatting away at a dinner party, happily accepting “the death of print” as a given. The old days are long gone, but this is a medium which still has a role to play in any communications strategy.
Major news events are still a driver of sales.
In 2001, established, trusted news sources The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent all saw a spike in circulation. The public were rushing to newstands to find out what had happened in New York on September 11.
In subsequent years, the major events that drove sales were those which individual papers could lay claim to.
When a paper leads the agenda on a major event, it benefits from a circulation boost. This suggests that readers keep returning to the source of the story for the most pertinent and trusted updates. You’ll notice this in our data for The Telegraph in November ’09, following their breaking of the expenses scandal. You’ll also see it at The Guardian after their publication, with Wikileaks, of the Afghan war logs in July 2010, and their recent use of the Snowden files.
The Times also enjoyed a spike when it launched its “cycle safe” campaign in 2006.
This suggests that the public still recognises distinct brands within the print media. Even as online habits dilute readerships, people will return to the source of an original story.
We should point out that these stories don’t boost the brand in the long term: just look at The Telegraph, whose expenses scandal boost was followed by its most dramatic decline.
The benefits of switching to new formats are now, in all cases, negated.
The Times, The Guardian and The Independent all benefitted from launching smaller print formats during the last decade.
The circulations of all three have now dropped below where they were before switching to the new formats.
This shows that public resistance to print runs deeper than a feeling that it is inconvenient. It’s unlikely that minor improvements to a print format will ever reverse the general decline – reading habits have changed too much.
Digital success and print success are unrelated.
Of the papers we looked at, arguably The Telegraph, the Financial Times and The Guardian have been most ambitious in their digital strategies. The Guardian has long been lauded for embracing the internet early on, pioneering an online comment format now copied by its rivals, and leading the pack in data visualisation. Both The Telegraph and the Financial Times have drawn attention for shifting to “digital first” business models.
A look at our graph shows no relationship between the successes of these three papers. The Guardian has enjoyed some of the least dramatic losses of any paper we looked at, the Financial Times was strong for much of last decade but is now in a steep decline, and The Telegraph looks to be levelling out following a huge drop in circulation.
It’s difficult to say why this might be, but it’s likely because online and print readerships tend to be different. The average age of a reader of Telegraph.co.uk in Q1 2013, for example, was just over half that of the print editions’ readers.
Most UK broadsheet titles’ circulations are leveling out.
With the exception of the Financial Times, which competes in a slightly different market to our other examples, the decline of the papers we looked at appears to be slowing or stopping altogether.
It’s important not to be so forward thinking you forget what still works in the present. This is an important lesson to bear in mind when considering UK daily papers. A good story in The Times’s print edition is still spread across about 400,000 papers, and has been for two years. A story in today’s Guardian will actually reach more people than it would have this time last year.
We’ll be watching with interest to see if this is a plateau or a more long-running trend.
This week saw the birth of a great stuntster. Clayton Pettet, the student who exploded across the internet last October when he announced plans to lose his virginity for an artwork has finally made good on his promise.
Well, sort of. According to the Telegraph the actual event involved no hanky panky, little nudity and nothing more erotic than a bit of fiddling about with a banana. The media had been spoofed. Pettet said he had been playing on assumptions critics had made about the work. In so doing, he led 10,000 people to apply for tickets to the show.
As he dreams up his next ruse, Pettet could take some advice from a great media operator, and an old friend of mine, Joey Skaggs . Joey has had the media jumping through hoops since the 60’s, from persuading reporters to scream out their inner pain live on camera to persuading the music press he was selling rockstar sperm by the bottle. What Pettet is doing has a proud history – and the potential for huge success. I remember working with Damien Hirst and seeing from the off his instinct for a media frenzy.
The way Pettet made his point was a little heavy handed, perhaps – apparently part of the show included a video montage of talk show hosts discussing Pettet’s work – but I applaud his moxy. It’s no small thing to cut through the omnipresent popculture noise and grab the media in today’s multi-channel world. Pettet has proved what I’d half-convinced myself was impossible – the media are still shockable. The old-fashioned moral panics some of my heroes relied on are still achievable. Publicists across the land owe him a debt.
Mark’s lively and informative talks, speeches and panel appearances offer provocative perspectives on the past, present and future of communications. Why not extend an invitation?
In his talks he draws on the analytical, advisory and creative work of the company, which places it at the heart of debate and developments concerning consumers, communication and technology. But he also draws on his 30 years’ practical experience as a publicist. 30 years during which he has earned a reputation as one of the most free-thinking, innovative and challenging practitioners of the art of consumer communications.
Please e-mail email@example.com to inquire about possible speaking opportunities.