“It was widely reported that within five days of Canadian musician Dave Carroll posting a video for a song called “United Breaks Guitars” on YouTube back in July 2009, United Airlines lost 10% of its market value, costing shareholders roughly $180 million dollars. 

But with well over 19 million views, a blitz of media coverage and Carroll’s subsequent ascent to an international customer service guru, the video marked a turning point for accountability to customers, globally, and greatly affected United itself –– whether measured in dividends or not.” (Tommy Andres, Marketplace.org 5 July 2019) 

Quote from Dave Carroll in 2017: “I think it changed everyone’s (life). ‘United Breaks Guitars’ was an early sign that in this new digital world, one customer can affect the profitability of the world’s biggest brands on a budget of, in my case, $150. Companies now are listening much more closely than they ever did before, consumers are feeling more empowered and every customer can have a voice … even if he or she can’t sing.” 

In this case it didn’t completely change the company culture and UAL went on to encounter new blunders particularly in 2017 when a customer was dragged from a plane, which impacted their Consumer Brand Engagement (CBE) and would essentially have reduced overall brand equity (OBE)

This trend was so booming that Universal Studios acknowledged the Tik Tokers. This trend isn’t linked to the movie plot and is a good example of presumption.

The trend has given the film additional unpaid promotion and has increased its Box Office worldwide.

The downside is that parents and other viewers have complained in some locations because these groups have been disruptive during the movie. In some instances, cinemas have warned the public that access will be denied.

 

The intention of the tweet was to motivate people to be financially responsible while tapping into the quirky self-deprecating humour that is very common on Twitter. From a branding perspective Chase was trying to position themselves as more than just a bank, but a supportive and relivable mentor to its customers, while at the same time tapping into their sense of fun. Interestingly these align with the functional and hedonic brand associations identified by Schivinski et al., (2020).

 

However, the tweet was interpreted in quite a different way as “poor-shaming” and received a swift social media backlash. It was seen as particular hypocritical for an organisation that received a $25billion dollar bailout in the 2008 financial crisis to be making judgements on the financial habits of others.

 Consumers interpreted the tweet through the lens of their existing opinions of the bank which had recently received scathing recent media criticism over the large disparity in pay between company executives and low-level employees (in particular the viral Katie Porter video). In this context Chase was seen as being out of touch with everyday people and a cold-hearted organisation that mocked working Americans. 

In response to the backlash Chase deleted the tweet and issued a vague apology however the result was a massive dent to the company’s brand image. Rather than encouraging people to identify with the brand as being approachable/relatable it further distanced its customers.

"We wish you a spooky Halloween", that is all the text on the image says. It was clearly intended to convey the idea that dressing up as Coca-Cola for Halloween would be "scary." The idea itself isn't all that strong to begin with. To avoid the legal implications of the letter swapping, they intentionally misspelt Coca-Cola on the cape as Cola Coca, which you might not have seen at first look.

It didn't take long for a reaction to surface. However, the response came from a Coca Cola fan, not Coca Cola or any advertising agency.

"Everyone wants to be a hero", according to the visual text on the fan. Naturally, this dismisses the idea that Pepsi is aiming to be a hero, like Coca-Cola, rather than wearing a "scary" cape for Halloween.

This illustrates two essential aspects of advertising. If you're going to employ even a representation of your rivals in advertising, it should be creative and well-planned. In advertisements and other forms of advertising, Coke, Pepsi, and other competitors frequently utilise each other's names; yet, doing so exposes you to criticism. If such is the case, you had better have a very solid argument because if the reply outsmarts your notion, you lose.