My friend and colleague Johnnie Moore had this experience with Orange mobile: it claimed he managed to download 13 Mbyte in 11 hours one night (and he was asleep for half the time) and has charged him for it. When Johnnie queried it, the Orange rep told him that she could not elaborate on how he managed to do this for ‘data protection’ reasons. What a load of bollocks.
   Consumers today are no longer impressed with technobabble-sounding cobblers. And Orange, a company I covered positively in 1995 and 1996, would not have lost Johnnie as a customer if it simply told him, ‘Mr Moore, I’m a lazy f***, and I can’t be bothered getting this file out.’
   For this blog, I can say that Orange is certainly not a beyond-brand, and I urge others never to try them when Orange enters their country—or be on alert for these charges. Given the failure of Orange to provide Johnnie, in its oldest market, any evidence or basis to make this charge, then one likely conclusion is that Orange fakes its charges. Not saying it does, but it’s a reasonable conclusion when you hear the story.
   Nonetheless, it exhibits a behaviour so already hated of telcos, and if a brand’s tasks include that of differentiation, then Orange has just failed through its customer service. Apparently, if the matter were ‘escalated’ (what, the first person doesn’t have the authority to solve problems?), Johnnie has been told that he’s going to get the same answer.
   But let’s talk about some English law. In England, as in many parts of the Commonwealth, there is a Sale of Goods Act 1979. Johnnie has the right to know what he is buying under a contract. Orange seems to think he doesn’t have that right. In England, there are consumer laws that expressly state that he has a right to know, too. Orange seems to think he doesn’t have that right. Now, say Johnnie’s cellphone was compromised by a hacker. He should have a right to sue for trespass or some other law. Orange seems to think he doesn’t have that right.
   What if he was being hacked? And what if his cellphone was not alone? Well, Orange doesn’t care if its network is compromised, obviously. And surely Johnnie has the right to see private information about himself? What is ‘data protection’ meant to protect? Users’ privacy. Isn’t Johnnie a user?
   So the conclusion I have to make is, whatever Orange is, the choice is either that of (a) a false-charging company; (b) one that does not respect or even care about English law or (c) one that does not take any responsibility for hackers on its own network—which, given the connectivity of the networks, applies to anyone else’s. In any case, it is a bad, bad firm, based on this experience. posted by Jack Yan, 7:54 AM  permalink

I remember when Angela Rippon fronted the first Top Gear and tested the Mk II Capri. Or Selena Scott at Motorfair ’84. Or Noel Edmonds, for that matter. I remember when Andy Wilman was involved in Siamese banger racing. Like Nigel Havers, I thought Vicki Butler-Henderson had a nice, um, well. Many years before it became The Jeremy Clarkson Show and got six million viewers a week.
   I used to be a sceptic to magazines spawned off TV shows, not unlike the sceptics who felt a web title couldn’t jump to print. And for years, Top Gear did operate in a nice little niche of its own: while some publishers were forbidden to leap to telly, the BBC could operate a nice little earner with a TV show-based magazine, building it up to be one of the country’s top sellers.
   But it has not been till this year that Top Gear had the right look to complement its editorial; until recently it played second-fiddle to Car or the slightly sycophantic Autocar, still a favourite of mine.
   To illustrate the strength of its brand, Top Gear spawns a New Zealand issue next Monday, a development I am looking forward to. There are a few reasons: it is the first time, to my knowledge, that a British TV show has spawned a uniquely local edition here. It will end the kiss-ass editorial that the other car magazines in New Zealand put out. And we can find out just how effective translating a television audience to print is—because it ain’t easy from the web.
   It will also prove a point: if Top Gear is driven by viewer feedback, as it appears to be these days, then it will work more effectively than one that is in a single medium. It may show a real picture of the New Zealand motoring consumer, which has not been seen till now.
   Apart from the main magazine that I am involved in, I haven’t been this excited about a New Zealand-produced title. And it may prove me right on a lot of counts: that a market orientation, generally, works. posted by Jack Yan, 5:02 AM  permalink

On July 30, 2005, I wrote the following at the new_zealand Yahoo! group:

Labour will probably win. [Prime Minister] Helen [Clark] will take the advantage of David Lange in the hospital, have him assassinated, and get sympathy votes in time for the General Election [on September 17] as we look misty to the 1980s and how good we had it then.

With Mr Lange’s passing today at age 63, I’m saddened I predicted his death, though I probably didn’t predict the cause as far as non-conspiracy theorists are concerned. But the reaction may well be the same for Prime Minister Clark’s government. Neither major party dares bring up the past, neither major party has a vision for the future, so the only way for them to brand (and they fail to differentiate in doing so) is to make hints. It’s a shameful state of affairs for the parties, and an example of meaningless, wasteful marketing that doesn’t sway a single soul.
   Mr Lange’s passing is a godsend in the realm of subtle branding for Labour, giving them a chance to say, ‘We’re not bringing up this PR. We have nothing to do with it.’
   Sometimes, you just can’t buy this sort of publicity. Call me a cynic. posted by Jack Yan, 1:31 AM  permalink

I saw a billboard, reported at http://xtramsn.co.nz/business/0,,5007-4636532,00.html, today.
   I like to think I have a pretty developed sense of humour, but this was plain disgusting.
   Americans: some New Zealanders might not agree with your nation’s policy, but please know this sort of advertisement does not reflect our sentiments about you. It has been put up by some ill-educated, liberal extremists, and I refer not only to the client, but its advertising agency and a city council that should know better.
   The hypocrisy is that if someone in the US put up a billboard calling our Prime Minister ugly (and she photographs poorly), they’d be the same SOBs jumping up and down about decency. Or, how about a billboard saying, ‘Hell Pizza loves terrorism. Screw London.’ See guys, it doesn’t feel very nice, does it? But politically, it’s the same treatment you gave the 43rd President of the United States.
   Just in case it was me, I asked some liberal friends their opinions. They are identical to mine. Decency is not the sole preserve of liberals or conservatives, or centrists like me.
   If anyone thinks the Wellington City Council is corrupt, then they have just received more armament.
   If you are reading this blog, then you are probably sick of advertising agencies operating as though it were 1955. Here is more evidence to support your viewpoint.
   Our cynicism about advertising is justified. If ads like this are meant to grab attention, then they are probably covering up for something. My immediate thought was that the client must have an inferior product. If I discover the agency’s name, I will post it. posted by Jack Yan, 12:08 PM  permalink

There is a links’ page for this site, hosted at my company. But on the blog itself, I put up three links at right. One of them is for Hugh MacLeod at Gaping Void, whose cartoons on the backs of business cards sum up some of the things happening in the marketing profession. (The above is my tribute to him.) When you’re down in the southern hemisphere, you sometimes feel a bit detached from the progress made in the profession in some faster-moving market-places. He’s one that keeps me connected. posted by Jack Yan, 10:20 AM  permalink

This is what I mean by advancement: the flying car. A lot of the brand antipathy out there comes from me-too, same-again products. A brand’s duty is to differentiate, and they have to work harder and harder because products are more homogenized. Brands can regain their respect if products, similarly, do something distinctive. Here’s potential for the next great brand, but I frankly believe the story would have greater verisimilitude if it talked about an Indian, not an American. If anyone’s going to do a flying car, it’s likely to be someone subcontinental. posted by Jack Yan, 3:20 AM  permalink

Bought three bottles of Citrus Tree orange juice from Pak ’n’ Save in June. Two of them are off, despite expiry dates of February 2006. I know this is more trivial than the posts that my fellow authors have made here, but it makes me wonder: where are the oranges from? What safety processes are there? What can Citrus Tree do to reassure me that this won’t happen again? My immediate action is to take back the juice, but whether word will ever get back to Citrus Tree is another matter. I will write, but for those who say that there’s a level of product homogeneity and quality today, I say, ‘Cobblers.’ At this rate, some commodities won’t need brands. Just open the top and smell which ones pong.
   Incidentally, the last bottle I took back leaked on to my car seat. I’m surprising myself as to my calmness. posted by Jack Yan, 11:53 AM  permalink

I still can’t see the point of cellphones. I honestly can’t. I run a global business in 11 countries without one. The only reason for a man owning a cellphone is saving money on a vasectomy. Shove a Nokia down your pants and have your testicles irradiated.
   And text messaging? What the hell is that? The equivalent would be, ‘Hey, buy this Ford Focus, for $3,000,000.’ That’s the level of rip-off that users are experiencing. Morse Code is only slightly less primitive, but not much more.
   Cameras on cellphones? Why? Can anyone actually make out what the heck the photos are of?
   The human race is not progressing technologically, and the cellphone and the iPod are perfect examples of humanity’s retrograde. They both offer a service that is poorer, albeit more portable, than existing technologies.
   It’s amazing to see so-called cutting-edge research that takes you back to the 1950s—or before.
   Next innovation that comes along, really ask yourself: do I need this piece of crap, or is my life all right without it? Is this item really better than what is currently on offer? By accepting plain junk—the pet rock, slime, the Tamagotchi, cellphones, iPods—companies are not forced to innovate, and technology stagnates. Can the companies provide a camera inside a cellphone that is actually good? Yes, but while we accept low-grade junk, what incentive is there? Can the companies provide text messaging for free? Yes, but why should they? posted by Jack Yan, 8:06 AM  permalink

The Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. is taunting its other state-owned rival, Nanjing Automotive, saying it will build Rovers before Nanjing does; and continues to cry foul over losing the bid to buy MG Rover. Comrades, you have a lot to learn about business in the west.
   First, if you are going to make a bid for a company and expect it to be successful, don’t put so many conditions on it. A lack of transparency makes things questionable, and you won’t be favoured.
   Secondly, if you are the party that caused the company to collapse in the first place, by not being able to secure sufficient political favours with the mergers’ committee (the NDRC) back home, then don’t try to ruin it for a competitor that won the bid fair and square.
   Thirdly, you might do well to remember the Chinese concept of “face”, which you’ve obviously forgotten in the confusion Mao created. You lost face when you forced MG Rover to make a fire sale. Your actions afterwards pegged you as corporate raiders, trying to make an easy deal while putting 6,000 Britons out of work. That loss of face is going to cost a lot more than a few million pounds to restore.
   And people ask me why I find dealing with Red Chinese organizations questionable. Here is your highest-profile example of why working in Red China is not what it is cracked up to be, and why you should rely on growth figures put out by the Politburo with the same scepticism PricewaterhouseCoopers had over SAIC’s bid. posted by Jack Yan, 11:09 AM  permalink

Lucire’s editor-in-chief, Nicola Brockie, ventured to New Zealand’s Southland region over the weekend. Folks there were supportive of the magazine, and the businesses, tourism companies and local government agencies spoke highly of it. The hotel where she stayed, hearing she was coming, bought its own copy. Now, that’s impressive. To top it off, the Hokonui Fashion Design Awards were a world-class affair.
   Contrast this with Wellington, where we are based. Nicola wrote to the tourism group here, since it’s our home city, and suggested it may be a good idea to do things together. No reply. In fact, when we ran in to the people at that government agency, they claimed they got her email but didn’t know Lucire was a print magazine. Frankly, you have to be living in a hole not to know in this town. They thought it was just a web site. No reason not to respond, as the web site reaches 40,000 people each week and is good for the place. And they still haven’t responded, despite receiving the complaint from her in person.
   Talk about contrasts and patriotism, and how it varies between Southlanders and Wellingtonians. We have a broadsheet that is so scared of us that it apparently has boycotted me from its social pages, a tourism body that is ignorant and misguided (you should see its latest TV campaign, which must have been done by people who neither understand destination branding nor strategy), and evidently petty people in positions of influence. I now know how Peter Jackson must have felt when they told him he was a looney for making his films. God only knows why he and I stay here and insist on promoting this city, when we get more respect in other places.
   I just can’t help but feel the city is lying when it does its destination branding. First sign of bad branding: when the body behind the marketing does not care whether its constituents live or die. At this rate, there may be no businesses to promote, because there will be no businesses bothered to stay here, especially with the comparisons we can so readily make. posted by Jack Yan, 10:40 AM  permalink