Advertisements
 

Chris Wood helps to launch top-end male fashion brand Dom Reilly

March 28, 2013

Dom ReillyFor years, you’ve run your own brand consultancy. After successfully selling it, you step into the limelight as chairman of the Central Office of Information, only to find that mad axeman and part-time cabinet minister Francis Maude is cutting off at the knees the very organisation you’ve just been invited to head. What next?

I caught up with Chris Wood recently and found out. It transpires he is helping to give lift-off to a new top-end fashion brand called Dom Reilly. Never heard of it? Well, unlike Chris Wood, you’ve probably had nothing to do with Formula One. Wood, in his spare time, is an unreconstructed petrol head; and Dominic Reilly (pictured) – the eponymous brand name –  is the former head of marketing at Williams F1 Team.

Reilly’s company, where Wood is a non-executive director and adviser, is ambitiously pitching itself at the very top of a very discriminating market – with a price-tag to match. The initial range, admittedly exquisitely hand-crafted, starts at £95 for a tooled leather phone case and escalates to an eye-watering £1,400 for a weekender bag (roughly the price of a Manolo Blahnik handbag or a Jimmy Choo tote).  This new brand has no intention of being a Mulberrry also-ran, no siree.

So why is Reilly so confident about his ambitious positioning? The answer lies not so much in the quality of the goods – that’s a given when competing with the likes of Louis Vuitton, Armani and Alfred Dunhill – but in a judicious soupçon of Formula One. A soupçon, because too much of it will asphyxiate the brand with the rank odour of “petrol-head” and “anorak” – in short, death by downmarket male. While there’s no escaping Dom Reilly’s essentially masculine appeal, the idea is to imbue the brand with FI’s sophisticated reputation for engineering excellence and technological innovation. One of the accessories, for instance, is a beautifully finished crash helmet case; and some of the collection features a special high-density foam used in F1 cockpits that absorbs almost all shock on impact.

Reilly, given his 6 years as head of marketing at Williams, has second-to-none access to one of the world’s most sophisticated R&D departments. But he has to be careful how he plays the Williams card. Few team brands, with the exception of Ferrari, have much charisma off-track. And in any case, Williams has not performed well of late (one, but only one, good reason, why the Williams name is not directly associated with the brand). Instead, an aura of cutting-edge R&D is being subtly diffused through the person of Patrick Head, co-founder of Williams F1 and its fabled chief of design – who just happens to be a founder shareholder in Dom Reilly.

Dom Reilly EnglandIn truth, the attractions of launching an haute gamme fashion brand are there for all to see: salivating margins and high resilience to recession. Equally, so is the demerit: everyone’s at it. The sector has become crowded with participants touting increasingly obscure and recondite “provenance”: the 17th century Huguenot diaspora, the Empress Josephine’s personal dressmaker etc (I made those up, but you know what I mean). So attaching your brand to future-directed technology with wide aspirational appeal is certainly a point of difference.

But that’s not to say fashion and high-octane auto culture are natural bedfellows, as the history of the Ferrari brand all too clearly illustrates. “It’s interesting,” says Wood, “That in the last Top Gear programme I watched, they were extolling the virtues (and innocence) of Pagani (750bhp hypercars, costing three times as much as a Lamborghini and correspondingly rare), while referring to the Maranello mob (i.e. Ferrari) as ‘purveyors of key rings and baseball caps’. And about Lamborghini as a contrivance of Audi. Out of the mouths of children, and even Clarkson, can come a certain wisdom.”

Indeed.

Advertisements

European Court ruling forces Google to mince its AdWords

September 22, 2011

The world of marketing may little note, but long find itself remembering, an obscure judgement handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union today.

It concerns the endemic practice of buying someone else’s brand name (or, more specifically, trademark) as a search term and then having all resulting enquiries directed, heretofore quite legally, towards your own enterprise. The practice is enshrined in such services as Google AdWords.

A good example of the wheeze in action is Virgin Media. Tee’d up for a mega-marketing launch back in 2006, it was mortified to discover that its principal rival, BSkyB, had bought up all Google search references to the VM brand name and was redirecting any interest to Sky.

Marks & Spencer sought to pull off a similar stunt when it “bought” the Interflora AdWord search term in 2009, with the intention of substituting its own online flower shop every time an internet user searched for “interflora” on Google.

A bouquet of barbed wire for Google

Sadly for M&S, Interflora had a sense of humour loss and sued in the English law courts – which referred the matter to the supreme jurisdiction of the CJEU.

Well, the ruling has come in and it’s not going to be to M&S’s liking, or that of any other brand owner seeking to poach a rival’s name online. The court has decreed that buying your competitor’s name infringes trademark law on two counts: the ability to identify the origin of goods and services; and the right to preservation of a brand proprietor’s reputation. Crucially, it has ruled that proprietors of a trademark (let’s call them brand owners) can actually prevent a competitor using their name where they can prove free-riding or brand denigration is taking place. Which in practice will have a chilling effect on AdWord activity.

The ruling will cause widespread dismay, not least at Google – which has heavy investment in the practice. And all the more so because in a previous case, that of Google v Louis Vuitton (2010), the court had seemed to lean the other way. It said that Google, as intermediary, did nothing wrong in allowing AdWords to promote the practice of buying other people’s brand names, and that the existence of the service in no way infringed trademark law.

What it did not do was rule upon the legal responsibility of the search term purchaser, as opposed to the intermediary. In other words, the subsequent M&S case is a landmark judgement, which will now be handed back to the English courts for enforcement.

In the words of Kirsten Gilbert, partner at intellectual property specialist Marks & Clerk Solicitors: “Brand owners will be encouraged that their competitors no longer have a completely free rein over use of their trademark as a keyword. But, the practice of purchasing rivals’ trademarks as keywords is widespread, and marketers may now have to think of other creative ways to advertise their brands on the web.”

How two-edged the sword of justice is.


Are brand valuation tables simply telling us the blindingly obvious?

May 10, 2011

No surprise to see Apple’s topping performance in the annual BrandZ survey, put together by WPP subsidiary Millward Brown.

Or is it? If we are to believe in these league tables which regularly assess the brand values of some of the world’s largest corporations, we should surely expect a certain consistency between them.

This is far from always the case. Take Apple itself. For the last year or two is has been the world’s top, or near top, company by market capitalisation with a simply stunning profit record. No one in their right mind would argue that branding, through Steve Jobs’ long career, has not been a salient feature of the technology company’s success (even when some elements, such as profitability, were clearly lacking). Put the two together, and you would surely expect it to be near the top.

But that’s not so when we turn to BrandZ’s principal rival, the longer-established Interbrand Best Global Brands, owned by Omnicom. Curiously Apple comes in at a sickly 17, up from 20, in the Interbrand rankings for 2010, published last September – the latest available.

Apple may be the most conspicuous anomaly, but it’s certainly not the only one when we compare the two league tables. Why is Disney so highly regarded by Interbrand (it’s ninth), but relatively lowly by BrandZ (it’s 38th)? Why is Samsung only 67th in the BrandZ charts, while it is ranked 19th by Interbrand? Doubtless there are other glaring disparities, which the more eagle-eyed will spot.

Such mis-attention to detail, you say. It’s the differing methodologies isn’t it? A bit of capitalist differentiation in the brand valuation market. You pick the one you trust more and go with it.

Well, not exactly – despite the anomalies, there’s plenty of consensus too. Technology companies, however ordered, now overwhelmingly dominate the top ten (and in BrandZ’s case, the second ten as well); mostly the same names crop up as well. Louis Vuitton is clearly the top-ranking French brand: both tables have it in their top 30. Even some of the valuations are pretty similar. Coca-Cola’s brand-worth, for instance, is estimated at $74bn in BrandZ (just out); and $70bn in the Interbrand rankings. While BMW is valued at at just over $22bn by both.

Admittedly, Interbrand tends to be a little more economical with its overall valuations, in dollar terms. Then again, the real importance of these tables is not the absolute, but relative values conveyed: it resides in the dynamic interaction of the brands contained therein.

And yet it is precisely here that their biggest difficulty lies. Amusing though it may be to pick out the winners from the losers and also-rans, are we any the wiser once we have done so? True, such tables serve an important function as a marketing propaganda tool within the investment community – helping to prop up, or knock down, share prices. But many of the conclusions they reach seem blindingly obvious rationalisations after the fact.

So, in the case of BrandZ, Blackberry is down 20% and 11 places to number 22; while Nokia has tumbled 38 places to 79th and lost 28% of its value (now $11bn). Well strike me down with a feather. Nothing of course to do with the two brands well advertised failure to crack the current consumer smartphone market I suppose?

Mind you, at least the BrandZ analysis is consistent, attributing due weight to the two phone brands’ nemeses, Apple and Google. Which is more than you can say for the Interbrand picture.

On the subject of which, expect a major brand revaluation this autumn. Here’s a fairly safe prediction. If not actually top, Apple will be one of Interbrand’s top-performing brands this year.

NOTE: BrandZ table here. And Interbrand table here.


Louis Vuitton prepares global digital assault

September 30, 2009

Catherine DeneuveStand by for some crowing. Not from me, from WPP. It looks as if one of its agencies, OgilvyOne, has won a colossal piece of digital business from luxury goods company Louis Vuitton.

Reasons to be cheerful? Part One: this is a global account and, according to some, the largest digital budget awarded this year. Part Two: the LV pitch was held in Paris (as it would be, since LV is French-owned) and prominent on the shortlist were two agencies we are now intensely familiar with, Digitas and Razorfish (hint: they are now both owned by Publicis Groupe). WPP, you may recall, was the runner-up in the auction to buy Razorfish. So there’s a special piquancy in winning such a prestigious piece of business from right under the nose of Publicis group ceo Maurice Levy on his home ground.

More interesting perhaps is the question: why is this such a big account? After all luxury goods brands, however exclusive, are not generally known for the size of their budgets. A bit of decorous advertising in some upmarket magazines usually defines the limits of their imagination.

Not so LV – the luggage to watches to shoes and handbags operation owned by one of France’s most powerful businessmen, Bernard Arnault. Arnault departed from tradition a year back with the company’s first commercial, a two-and-a-half minute epic (originally) featuring Polish model Monica Krol and meditating on the theme Where Will Life Take You? More familiar perhaps will be the employment of uber celebrities such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Catherine Deneuve in the press ads.

Now Arnault seems to have found digital in a big way. In a study just out from New York University’s Stern School of Business, Louis Vuitton, Porsche and Tiffany have emerged as some of the very few luxury brands that “get” online. Among those that don’t are Trump, Bulova, Fabergé and Graff. The study surveyed 109 brands in all, and discovered that where only 33% were selling online a year ago, 66% are doing so now. Digitally savvy, or just desperate as a result of the recession?

Arnault himself take the internet very seriously indeed. He has involved LV in a titanic trademark dispute with Google, over the introduction of its AdWords service which – according to Arnault – recklessly encourages counterfeiting. The score so far? One all. Arnault won his case in the French courts but the finding was recently quashed by the EU’s highest court, which ruled that Google did not have a case to answer. We’ll see. Arnault is nothing if not tenacious.


%d bloggers like this: