Brand Protection Redux

Two weeks ago I wrote about how far Abercrombie and Fitch went to protect their brand.

A few days ago Lacoste did something similar but for a much more substantial reason. They asked the Norwegian police to stop Anders Breivik from wearing their brand in court.

Anders Breivik is responsible for the attacks in Oslo in July, that resulted in the death of 77 people. The association of the far-right extremist with the Lacoste brand could be very damaging. Lacoste's value has always been "relaxed elegance" something that is not reflected by a far-right extremist.

We know that clothes are a way of expressing our values and the wrong association can be very damaging to a brand. To our view Lacoste has taken the right decision, making their audience aware of their beliefs. What do you think?

Posted by Harry Mylonadis 

Brand Protection

Photo credit: Abercombie & Fitch

How far would you go to protect your brand's image?

Abercrombie & Fitch went as far as offering to pay the cast of Jersey Shore to not wear its clothes. They believe that the cast's behaviour is contrary to the company's values and it can damage their image. Ok, it was probably a publicity stunt but there is still a lesson to be learnt from this.

Your customers are an important part of your brand's image. The ones that choose your services and products show the rest of the world that they believe in your values and that others in their group should follow. The difficulty is that you cannot directly control your customers.

What you can do is identify who has chosen you and then focus your promotion in the "group" that best fits your image. Taking the Abercrombie & Fitch approach is an extreme, as you can turn the group against you. Instead, put your money and effort in getting closer with the group that will represent your brand values and in return it will make your brand stronger and popular.

Posted by Harry Mylonadis