Brand Values 2013

Brand Values

Brand values are very important to big organisations as this represents what their attitudes and believes. The brand values outline what type of a brand they are and possibly whom the brand wants to purchase their products and service/s.

Innocent smoothies brand values are: To be Natural, Entrepreneurial, Responsible, Commercial and Generous  

Due to these brand values it came as a surprise when they initially spoke about their deal with Coca-Cola to sell an 18% share in their business in 2009. Innocent smoothies is a drink which is made of all natural fruits, so this doesn’t really fit the Coca-Cola brand as most of its drinks are based on fizzy and high on sugar levels. But for Coca-Cola they may have wanted to expand into the “Smoothie” market and therefore sore Innocent as the perfect brand to do this with. 

Innocent may have seen this as an opportunity that’s too good to turn down and also with the help of Coco-Cola this will allow them to distribute their products more efficiently and also with Coca-Cola capital also expand their market share by appealing to more consumers and therefore increase the consumer base.

When Innocent sold to Coco-Cola many deemed as if they had sold out, because their brand values and brand vision don’t exactly coincide with those of coco-cola. Coca-Cola is not known for its natural ingredients, nor is it known for its low sugar levels. Innocent has a very different approach in making drinks they selected the natural ingredients and healthy alternative, which account for 2 of your “5 a day”.

Brand values don’t only come in to play when companies such as Innocent sell a large percentage of their brand to a potential competitor in the form of Coca-Cola. Brand values can also be portrayed using celebrities to endorse their brand and become and brand ambassador. 

_

 Every Celebrity has a fan base and also a public image i.e. how the people will perceive and therefore companies use celebrities to “endorse” these products as if to say “These products are also good enough for celebrities.

 

The fundamental reasons behind endorsement is simple, people (potential consumers) like celebrities, and if a celebrity states that they like that product/service then people will have a different opinion on the product purely based on the statement from the celebrity. Within the last few year Nike has seen some of the most iconic faces in which it represents bring not only negative media but also an extent of shame.

Tiger Woods hit the headlines in 2009, Tiger Woods as seen as one of the most iconic figures in sport and brands in which he endorsed faced a difficult choice whether to stick by him or whether to break the contract as this could damage the image of the brand. Some companies believed that if the continued to deal with Woods this would therefore run to risk of alienating the consumers and therefore putting them off purchasing their products or service due to the allegations held against Tiger Woods. 

One of these brands was Nike. Nike I arguably one of the largest sports brands in the world and therefore with Woods having such a big role within the endorsement side they face a difficult decision on whether to break the contract or to stick by him. This proved to be a difficult decision has morals and company values played a large role within the decision.

Nike is very much seen as a family orientated company which applies to all members of the family and that all members in the family can relate to its products but also those who are the face of the brand. So Nike ran the risk of missing out on possibly another one of the “great” comebacks in sports. What if Tiger Woods is able to put all this behind him a regain and improve the form in which has made him a household name.

But regardless of the scenario Nike decided to stick with Tiger Woods, even after on of the best golfers the world has ever seen decided to take an indefinite leave from golf to deal with personal issues.  Nike’s brand president Charlie Denson revealed that “I do not want Woods back on the course until he sorts out his private life” (Golf, 2010).  He also added, "Under the circumstances, the more he deals with the issues and the better he deals with them, the better off he'll be when he does return" (The Associated Press, 2010)

Like Innocent, Nike has to take into account what their brand values were when dealing with the Tiger Woods issue, but they believed that sticking within on of the most iconic golfer in history would be more beneficial to them in the long run.

Innocent would also argue you the case that Yes maybe Coco-Cola does not have the same values as them but the first percentage of the company was sold in order for Coco-Cola to help span the business within the European market and therefore increase people knowledge of the brand but also increase the brand’s revenue.

Sometimes and offer comes when its too good to turn down, in this case Innocent we able to come up with a deal where Coco-Cola would help them reach where they wanted to be. Nike also believed that losing such a big star within their portfolio of sporting figure endorsing the brand would have a negative impact on the brand and therefore sticking by 

Tiger Woods may have at first been seen as unacceptable but they would not have liked to run to risk of the likes of a big sports brand such as Adidas coming in and offering him a contact he cannot refuse and therefore one of Nike’s biggest ambassadors would have jumped ship to one of Nikes biggest competitors.

All in all brand values are a very important factor within a business but sometimes those in high positions have to take a step back and question will this have a negative or positive impact within the brand, and if so does the negative out-way to positive and vise-versa.