The Karma Swoosh

If you have followed my last few posts, you know I have been tracking Nike's slow slide from a marketing perspective. The Nike vs. New Balance story was about momentum. This one is about something more uncomfortable: originality, or the lack of it.

Nike got sued for these Air Max.
Photo credit: Nike

On 1 July 2026, 7-Eleven filed a lawsuit against Nike in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The claim is that Nike's upcoming Air Max 95 colourway copies 7-Eleven's tri-colour mark, the orange, green and red stripe combination the convenience store chain has used for nearly four decades. To make things worse for Nike, the shoe was set to launch on 11 July, which is 7/11, the same date as the brand's own "Free Slurpee Day". That is not a coincidence anyone can explain away easily. 

The 7-Eleven Lawsuit, In Short

A few details from the filing stood out to me as both a marketer and a sneaker collector.

•      Three colours, orange, green and red, are all it takes for most people to think of 7-Eleven the moment they see them together. That is the real story here. It is proof of just how strong 7-Eleven's brand equity is, when a colour combination alone, with no logo or wordmark attached, does the job of instant recognition. Not every brand can make that claim, and it is exactly why the lawsuit has legal teeth.

•      7-Eleven says product listings and media coverage had already started calling the shoe the "7-Eleven" sneaker, before it even released. That is the kind of unplanned brand association that should set off alarms in any legal or marketing review.

•      The complaint claims at least one consumer bought a pair believing it was tied to 7-Eleven. In trademark law, that consumer confusion is the whole ballgame.

•      7-Eleven is not asking for a slap on the wrist. It wants an injunction, a recall and destruction of the shoes, disgorged profits, and damages that include treble and exemplary damages plus legal fees. Nike has already pulled the Air Max 95 from its SNKRS app in response. The case is filed as 7-Eleven Inc v. Nike Inc, in the Northern District of Texas, case number 3:26-cv-02201-X.

•      Colour trademarks are genuinely hard to defend in court, but they are not impossible. The Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. established that a company can trademark a colour if it can prove consumers recognise that colour as belonging to its brand. 7-Eleven's entire case rests on proving exactly that, and given how instantly recognisable those three stripes are, they may not have to work too hard to prove it.

The Irony Nobody's Talking About

Here is what makes this story worth writing about. In March 2026, Nike won an 11 million dollar verdict against Divide The Youth and its founder, social media influencer Nicholas Tuinenburg. Nike had sued them back in December 2023 for selling "Division Dunks", sneakers that a jury found copied the design of the Nike Dunk Low, right down to the silhouette. Nike argued this created consumer confusion, the exact same argument 7-Eleven is now making against Nike. The jury sided with Nike and awarded 8 million dollars in statutory damages and 3 million in punitive damages.

So the brand that spent years in court arguing that copying a shoe's design and trading on its recognisability is worth 11 million dollars in damages is now the one being accused of doing precisely that to someone else's iconic branding. If 7-Eleven's version of events holds up, Nike would be found doing to a convenience store what it once dragged an independent streetwear label through years of litigation for doing to them. That is karma, and it is hard to write a cleaner case study of it.

This Whole Thing Could Have Been a Collab

Credit where it is due, even if entirely by accident: had Nike simply picked up the phone and pitched a follow-up collaboration instead of quietly building a similar colourway on its own, the timing could not have worked out better. A launch on 11 July, aligned with 7-Eleven Day and Free Slurpee Day, is the kind of date a marketing team would beg for in a real partnership. Instead of a feel-good nostalgia moment building on a collaboration that already had proof of concept, Nike turned a gift of a launch date into a federal lawsuit.

Actually, back in 2020 both 7-Eleven and Nike had collaborated on a Nike SB Dunk Low based on the 7-11 theme. Unfortunately, it got cancelled due to mixed review of the colorway and design prior to release.

Nike x 7-Eleven SB Dunk Low collab back in 2020 that got cancelled
Photo credit: Sneakernews.com

Why This Matters More Than a Lawsuit

I keep coming back to a theme from my earlier post on the sneaker rebalance. Nike's innovation gap runs deeper than product, reaching into culture and originality too. A brand with the design resources of Nike should not need to lean this close to another company's protected branding to generate hype around a launch date. When New Balance wanted heat, they handed creative control to Teddy Santis and Joe Freshgoods and let them build something new. Nike, in this instance, allegedly leaned on borrowed recognition from a convenience store chain and a calendar coincidence.

Whether or not Nike wins this case in court, the story itself tells you something about where the brand's creative confidence sits right now. A company that used to set trends is now being accused of riding someone else's.

Key Takeaways

•      A colour alone can be a brand asset worth defending. 7-Eleven's tri-colour stripes work without a logo attached, and that level of recognition is rare. If your brand owns a colour, pattern or shape this distinctly, treat it with the same protection you would give a wordmark or logo.

•      Brand equity cuts both ways. If you have spent years litigating to protect your own designs, expect the same standard to be applied to you. Consistency in how a brand treats intellectual property protects its credibility, not just its legal position.

•      Unplanned consumer confusion is a red flag. When people start calling your product by another brand's name before launch, treat that as evidence a legal team could use against you, rather than as free publicity.

•      Originality is a renewable resource, but only if you invest in it. Nike's innovation gap was already visible in slowing growth and franchise fatigue on the Dunk, Jordan 1 and Air Force 1. This lawsuit adds a new dimension, with the brand now accused of borrowing someone else's equity rather than building its own.

•      Reputational risk compounds. A single lawsuit is a legal matter. A pattern of lawsuits, especially ones that highlight contradictions in a brand's own past legal arguments, becomes a brand story that outlives the case itself.

The Sneaker Rebalance: Why My Rack (and the Market) is Shifting

For all who know me personally, know I have a passion for collecting sneakers. I have a modest collection of about 45 pairs, ranging from brands such as Nike, Adidas, New Balance, ASICS, and Puma. Most of the sneakers I have purchased are what I would consider "art pieces" as I tend to gravitate toward designs that are rare or feature unique, or unconventional colorways.

While about 74% of my collection currently consists of Nike and Adidas, I have noticed a telling trend lately. My last few purchases have all been from either New Balance or ASICS. This is no coincidence. So, I decided to dig into the data, and it turns out the sneaker world is mirroring my personal shift. We are witnessing a massive rebalancing of power in the footwear industry.

The Data Behind the Shift

If we look at the numbers from 2020 to 2024, the incumbents like Nike and Adidas are facing a momentum crisis, while the challengers are experiencing a golden age.

• Nike’s Stalling Engine: Nike remains the undisputed king in volume, but their growth has hit a plateau. In 2024, they hit a wall with near-flat revenue growth. Their stock price faced significant pressure as brand heat cooled.

• The Rise of the Underdogs: New Balance has seen staggering 20% annual growth for four consecutive years, reaching $7.8 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, ASICS has recorded record profits. Their "SportStyle" lifestyle category surged by over 50% in recent quarterly reports.

Global sneaker market revenue 2020-2024

Global Sneaker Growth Momentum

The graphs above tell two different stories: Scale vs. Momentum.

1. Scale: Nike and Adidas are still massive, earning 5–10x more than their rivals.

2. Momentum: New Balance and ASICS are growing 2–5x faster, effectively stealing market share and "cool factor" from the giants.

Global Revenue Growth by Brand (USD)

The Innovation Gap: Why Nike is Stagnating

I see three main reasons why the giant is stumbling:

1. Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Overreach: Nike cut ties with many local boutiques to force sales through their own apps. This left a physical void on store shelves. New Balance and ASICS were happy to fill that space.

2. Franchise Fatigue: Nike relied too heavily on the "Big Three", which are the Dunk, Jordan 1, and Air Force 1. By flooding the market with endless colorways, they accidentally killed the scarcity that made these shoes art pieces.

3. The Performance Exodus: Serious athletes are moving to niche brands. When the pro runner switches to ASICS for better tech, the lifestyle consumer follows the cool factor of that performance authenticity.

The New Balance Playbook: How to Build Heat

New Balance’s rise is a masterclass in strategic brand repositioning. Their momentum is a calculated mix of these 4 factors:

1. Collaborations (The Catalyst: 40%)

New Balance didn't just slap a logo on a shoe; they gave creative control to tastemakers who deeply understood street culture.

• Teddy Santis (Aimé Leon Dore): He single-handedly made the "550" the "it" shoe of 2021–2023, replacing the Nike Dunk in fashion circles.

• Joe Freshgoods: He brought storytelling and color that resonated with a younger, diverse audience that previously viewed NB as "boring."

• Action Bronson/Salehe Bembury: They proved the brand could be weird, loud, and hype-worthy.

One of the pairs in my collection, Salehe Bembury x New Balance 2002R "Water Be The Guide"

2. Trend / Aesthetics (The Fuel: 30%)

• The "Dad Shoe" Wave: The market shifted toward "Normcore" and "Gorpcore" (functional, slightly chunky, comfortable gear). New Balance didn't have to invent a fake trend; they owned this heritage.

• Right Place, Right Time: When skinny jeans died and baggy pants returned, chunky New Balance silhouettes (like the 9060, 2002R, and 990) naturally looked better with the new fashion silhouette than sleek Nikes.

3. Innovation / Product Quality (The Foundation: 20%)

• Retention: Hype gets you a customer once; comfort keeps them. The "Fresh Foam" and "FuelCell" technologies are genuinely respected by runners.

• Made in USA/UK: In an era of cheap manufacturing, their "Made in USA" line (marketed as premium quality at a higher price point) creates a "luxury" halo that justifies the hype.

4. Marketing (The Amplifier: 10%)

• "We Got Now": Their marketing didn't try to make New Balance look "cool" in a forced way. Instead, they leaned into their identity ("worn by supermodels in London and dads in Ohio").

• Athlete Selection: Signing Shohei Ohtani, Coco Gauff, and Kawhi Leonard signaled they were still a serious sports brand, not just a fashion house.

My latest pick up: New Balance 740

Final Thoughts

As a collector, I am drawn to the newness and superior comfort of my ASICS Gel-Kayano and my New Balance 740. As a researcher, I see a market that is no longer satisfied with brand heritage alone. It wants innovation, quality, and a sense of discovery.

The sneaker industry is no longer a two-horse race. It is a diverse ecosystem where the niche brands are becoming the new mainstream. My next purchase probably will not have a Swoosh or Three Stripes on it. Based on the data, yours might not either.

This video summarizes this perfectly

Interested to see my sneaker collection? 

Search for #dem0nickkicks on Instagram

Article sources:

1. NIKE, Inc. Reports Fiscal 2024 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results

2. Why Nike Stock Is Down 28% This Year (Nasdaq)

3. New Balance’s Sales Expand 20% in 2024 (SGB Media)

4. New Balance Declares Record Sales in 2024 (SATRA)

5. ASICS Integrated Report 2024

6. Asics Sees 2024 Lifestyle Footwear Sales Surge 50+ Percent (SGB Media)

7. Adidas AG Revenue 2012-2025 (Macrotrends)

8. Adidas Hails ‘Successful Year’ as Revenue Rises (SportsPro)

9. Adidas 2024 Annual Report

10. Google Gemini Deep Market Research

Shopping Without Searching? Should Retailers Be Excited or Nervous?

Google’s message in the recent NRF 2026 (National Retail Federation's "Retail's Big Show," held January 11–13, 2026, in New York City) makes one thing clear. Shopping is no longer about clicking links and hopping between tabs. It is becoming a conversation.

Future of shopping is powered by AI recommendations

With AI built directly into how people search, ask, and decide, Google wants retail to move from “find a product” to “finish the purchase” without ever leaving the chat. That is exciting. Also slightly terrifying if you are not ready.

1. Shopping Starts With a Question, Not a Website

Instead of typing “best carry-on luggage,” shoppers may ask Google’s AI something like, “I’m flying for five days, what should I pack?”

That flips the funnel upside down.

The upside:
Brands can show up earlier, when people are still figuring things out. Helpful answers build trust fast.

The downside:
If your product info is unclear or outdated, you may not show up at all. No clicks. No second chances.

2. Personalization Gets Smarter, and Creepier

Google talks about retailers offering deals or suggestions based on past purchases. Packing cubes at checkout is helpful, but recommending something you already bought last week is less impressive.

The upside:
When done well, it feels like a good store assistant. Thoughtful, relevant, and convenient.

The downside:
Do it badly and it feels like someone read your diary. Nobody wants that.

3. The Checkout Disappears Into the Conversation

With Google Pay built in, discovery, decision, and payment happen in one flow. No app switching. No forms. No friction.

The upside:
Fewer drop-offs. Faster decisions. Great news for conversion rates.

The downside:
Retailers lose some control over the brand experience. Google owns more of the journey, and that is a big trade-off.

4. Retailers Become Data Partners, Not Just Sellers

To make this work, retailers need to feed Google clean, accurate, and structured product data.

The upside:
Brands that invest early will benefit from better visibility and smarter recommendations.

The downside:
If your tech stack is messy, this future will be painful. AI is honest. Brutally honest.

5. Convenience Wins, But Differentiation Gets Harder

When everything feels seamless, brands start to look similar.

The upside:
Smaller brands can compete if their products solve real problems and are well explained.

The downside:
If your only edge is price or promotions, that edge disappears quickly.

So, Is This the Future of Retail?

Yes. But not just because Google says so.

People want less effort, fewer clicks, and better answers. AI-driven shopping delivers that. The winners will be brands that focus on clarity, usefulness, and trust, not just visibility.

In the future, the best marketing may not feel like marketing at all. It feels more like help.

And honestly, that is not a bad place for retail to land.

What do you think? Would having AI as part of your shopping journey excite you?

5 Things to Consider for Your Brand During the Lock-down Period

We are definitely facing unprecedented times with the current Covid-19 pandemic where across the globe, we have restricted travel and movement between countries, and in some cases, even a lock-down is implemented within the country itself in attempts to contain the deadly corona virus. The issue with it being an unprecedented event is that there is neither a fix protocol nor playbook to actually that tells us what to do in situations like this. For us marketers, there is a constant debate on whether or not do we continue to spend marketing and advertising dollars in a time like this. To me, the matter is quite subjective. I would say it really depends on the type of product or service that you are offering. Some businesses could still thrive in times like this. 

Image credit: blog.squaretrade.com

Make your brand messages relevant

You should consider changing your brand messages to be relevant. The last thing you want to be doing now are having messages that are insensitive and lack empathy towards the situation. For example, if you’re an airline or from the hospitality industry, it’s probably not a good time to be having promotions on your services. Instead, change your messages to give assurance to your customers on what the brand is doing in these trying times.

If you’re in the digital space, it would be relatively easy for you to tweak messages on your ad copies on banner ads and search results so that it can be more relatable to current situation. Also consider changing your imagery on your display ads to suit your ad copy. Avoid using images of crowds, groups or people touching for this current period, just so that your brand is sensitive to current situations.

Use this time to build brand equity

Unless your product or services are deemed essentials, most people during this time are not exactly in the mood to make purchases, especially of high valued items and services. People will tend to prioritize what are “must haves” and what are “nice to haves”. If you have an e-commerce store, great! But be mindful of what you are actually offering to your customers. Do they need it now? Can they live without it? Not to say that if you are not providing essential products and services it will mean all doom and gloom, but instead, take the time to build brand awareness and brand equity. Instead of focusing advertising budgets on campaigns that was meant to drive conversions and sale numbers, which everyone know will take a hit in these times, why not use this time to actually talk about the brand?

Take the airline example above. The brand can highlight on ground stories of their staff and crew, how the brand is doing humanitarian work to help people, what extra safety measures are taken during these time. All these do not directly lead to someone into purchasing a flight ticket straight away, but instead, it builds affinity and love for the brand with your customers. Once the lock-down is over, people will have stronger confidence toward your brand.

Make everything virtual

Given the situation, majority of events or transactions that require physical intervention has been cancelled or postponed. Again, all is not doom and gloom. While it might be weird to have meetings and presentations online, we might be forced to recognize that this will be the new norm post lock-down. Schools, gym classes and church services are good examples of how something that traditionally requires you to be physically present are now online. Yes, it’s not the same, but at the same time, it forces one to innovate and venture into the online space.

For car brands, why not create a virtual showroom with virtual cars and virtual sales assistant? For FMCG brands, why not create a virtual mall, with virtual promoters (or via online chat) to talk about the product as well as to give product demos online? Can’t smell or taste the product before purchase? No problem, get your customers to fill out a form and send them samples! You’re indirectly collecting leads at this point as well. The sky’s the limit actually. It all depends on how innovative a brand can be and what they can do during this period that would make them continue to grow post lock-down. 

Change your digital marketing strategy

If your brand has presence in the online space that uses contextual targeting, please “negative match” anything that has got to do with the pandemic situation if possible. There is a saying, “leave if you’re not here to help me!”. In this case, if your brand cannot offer a solution (like essential products or services) it would be best to avoid showing your ads in those spaces. The counter argument is that there is no need for such an action as it is still creating brand awareness in the minds of consumers, right? Well, while that is true, awareness is one thing, but brand affinity and relevance is another. You would be wasting your ad spends and impressions where your ads become a blind spot in the online space, just because you’re not relevant to the user.

Don’t make fun of the situation

Finally, if you absolutely need to run promotions for your brand, please avoid having headlines like “Special Covid-19 Promotion”, “Corona Sales!” or “Beat the Covid-19 Deals”. Yes, it may sound elementary, but you have no idea how I have across some cringing promo and headlines that brands are using in hopes to capitalize on the situation, but are instead damaging the reputation of the brand. Major fail here.

** This article was picked up by Advertising + Marketing (A+M) and republished with my permission here

Tech in Check: INTI's Head of Digital Marketing Nicholas Goh

In this edition of Tech in Check, I shared with A+M my first digital role and the common challenges I faced in today's digital landscape.

This article was originally written by Advertising + Marketing (A+M) and can be found here.

Tech in Check: An Interview with Nicholas Goh, Head of Digital Marketing at INTI Education Group

Nicholas Goh, Head of Digital Marketing at INTI Education Group, has amassed a wealth of experience, having been on both the client and agency sides, and having delved into the worlds of creative and media. With over 18 years of digital experience, his expertise spans web development, digital advertising, and digital media.

Goh joined INTI in early 2014 and is responsible for leading all digital marketing activities and day-to-day digital operations for the INTI brand across six campuses in Malaysia.

Prior to INTI, he worked at GroupM, where he provided consultancy and digital media planning strategies for a diverse clientele. His portfolio included major brands such as Citibank, Sony, Colgate-Palmolive, L’Oreal, Shell, GSK, Nissan, U Mobile, Walt Disney Pictures, and HTC. During his time at digital creative agencies, Goh managed accounts and creative projects for brands including Mitsubishi, Starbucks, Berjaya Hotels & Resorts, Hewlett-Packard, Astro, Petronas, RapidKL, and Maxis.

In this edition of Tech in Check, Goh shares with A+M his first digital role and the common challenges he faces in the digital landscape today.

The Interview

A+M: What was your first digital role like?

Goh: When I graduated, having your own website and domain was the cool thing to do and became a hobby of mine. Having taught myself to create web pages and code through books, I managed to turn my hobby into my first full-time job. I started my career as a web programmer, developing websites and web applications for online billing systems. This is where I truly began to learn and develop my understanding of how the internet works.

A+M: What was your biggest tech booboo?

Goh: A few years ago, we launched a campaign for one of our clients. Everything was planned out—digital banner takeovers and influencer engagements—all set for launch day. The banner ads were designed to drive traffic to a microsite for a month-long campaign. The client was keen to track how effectively we were driving traffic to the microsite using the various online channels.

Unfortunately, we inserted a wrong piece of tracking code on a portion of the microsite which was necessary to provide the client with that information. We only figured out the error after the second day of launch. We lost two days’ worth of data because of that mistake.

A+M: How did you overcome it and what did you learn from it?

Goh: The main takeaway is this: Prior to launching any digital campaign, always make sure you have a checklist or a task list of what is needed to be done. Critically, you must always include testing as part of that checklist. You can never do too much testing.

A+M: What are some of the common challenges you face with digital today?

Goh: The term “analysis paralysis” comes to mind. In today’s digital marketing world, we are simply overwhelmed by the fact that there are too many data sources and too many data points to look at. There are also too many ways to cut the data, and in turn, we tend to over-analyze things.

However, digital marketers nowadays not only require digital marketing knowledge, but also the know-how to analyze and make sense of data to be able to come up with actionable strategies. For me, this particular skillset is vital for digital marketers of the future.

A+M: Are there any digital trends which excite you or that you are wary of?

Goh: Definitely AI and machine learning. AI could help brands simplify marketing efforts and operations if applied correctly. We now live in a data-driven world where business decisions are made and driven by insights uncovered by data. Applying machine learning to help speed up the uncovering of those insights is definitely important.

A+M: Any top tips for marketers and brands embracing digital?

Goh: Digital is not as scary as it seems. Though initial investments can be a bit expensive, in the long run, the returns will definitely justify the cost of the initial investment, if you do it right. Think about it, which other media enables you to track and optimize your marketing investments in real time? The key is to start small, keep on testing new things to see what works for your brand, and then scale upwards.

5 Reasons Why Brands Don’t Spend (as much) on Digital Marketing

Having been in the digital industry for quite a while, I’ve seen growth of the industry in terms of services, available platforms as well capabilities in terms of analytics and automation. However, why is it that brands still haven’t shifted their advertising and marketing spend to embrace digital as a channel?

Image credit: okoone.com

Shouldn’t it be the norm now for brands to do so, given that the industry has advanced and matured over the years to the point where it is now no longer termed “new media” but “mainstream media”? Yet, most brands only dedicate a small portion of their total advertising budget to digital channels and campaigns. Here are some of the reasons this could be the case:

Where do you even start?

The digital landscape is fragmented. VERY fragmented. There are many components and parties that rely on each other to make things work. Creative agencies, media agencies, publishers, ad serving, tracking, etc. In fact, it’s so fragmented, that there are providers that provide overlapping services to one another, and it can be totally confusing for someone to grasp what each service provider really does. Just to give you an idea, here is an image from chiefmartec.com on the marketing technology landscape.

(click here to view full image)

Believe me, I sometimes get confused as well after looking at this chart. For brands who want to invest in digital after seeing this, you can understand why there is confusion and doubt.

Don’t know the ingredients to make that sauce

Digital channels or media as a whole are made up of 4 main pillars: Display, Search, Social and Mobile advertising. Those are then fueled by content, which relies on optimization platforms and analytics to get the right balance. The question is, what is the right balance? How do you choose your digital media mix? How do you choose what platform to be on? What services to use? It’s like cooking. You first have to know the ingredients and cooking methods in order to make a particular dish. This is where the majority of brands rely on agencies to provide them consultancy on how to go about doing it. The challenge is always working with the right (and competent) agency, who knows your business well in order to recommend what you need to fulfill a business objective. But in my opinion, that in itself has its own set of challenges. (Read more here)

RTB, DSP, DMP, CPC, CPA, WTF…

Digital jargons are scary. There are so many metrics and measurements that are being used to the point that brands (and also agencies) sometimes do not really know what metrics they should be looking at. It doesn’t help that every year, that jargon list grows. Brand owners who do not know how to justify these metrics to stakeholders would tend to stay away, hence playing it safe by only investing to what they know (i.e. traditional media) – they fear the unknown. Again, the best way is to keep abreast with what’s happening in the digital marketing world. Agencies should play a bigger role here by educating brands through workshops and training, so that brands are constantly updated and know how to look at these metrics and make sense of it.

“I don’t want to know what I don’t know…”

In this case, it’s more like “I’m afraid of what I will know”. For digital, (almost) everything is trackable. Hence, for a brand owner, it could be something that may work against them. I once asked a client why they did not want to run a particular campaign on digital. They said it was too technical for them, and everything is trackable to which, should the campaign not do well, it would be hard for them to “hide” the evidence and justify to stakeholders! But then I asked, why do you think it would fail in the first place, given we have tools that can optimize the campaign? What if you can show your bosses that you can actually track and show proof of success? To which they became interested and asked me to explain more. The main thing here was more the case of the client not knowing the benefits of investing in digital. All it takes is a little education and effort to try it out to be able to understand its benefits.

Digital is expensive!

This is kind of a chicken and egg situation. Digital investments can initially cost a lot to start. With cost of creative development, cost of media, setting up of platforms, re-occurring cost for services, etc., you could also see why brands tend to sway away from this. However, most of these are initial one-time setup costs. For example, if you want to run multiple creative ads online using display advertising, you would initially have to pay a hefty fee for the design of dynamic ad templates. But once those dynamic ad templates are created, it doesn’t cost much to have multiple ads running off those templates. You could then update these creative in almost real-time whenever necessary. Which other traditional medium lets you do that? Similar to having a mobile application or building a website, the initial setup does seem expensive, but in the long run, the cost will justify the investment if you do it right.

Is It Better to Hire In-house Talent Than to Rely on Agencies?

A very controversial topic, seeing that I spent more than half my working career in advertising and media agencies. Now that I’m part of a client side marketing team, I somewhat understand why clients are generally frustrated with their agencies which makes them not loyal to one agency which often result in calling for agency pitches every now and then.

Mad Men - Photo taken from www.telegraph.co.uk

Here are some examples on why this may be the case:

Focus on the client’s business

While agency teams rely on multiple clients to survive, it may be hard to get an agency team to only focus on your business. Admit it, even though agencies say they have “dedicated team(s)” to service the account, most agencies often assign more than 1 client account to any one person so that a resource is fully utilized during down times. While I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that, it also implies that the resource does not have full focus on a particular client’s business in order to fully provide valuable strategies and inputs.

Not able to see the bigger or overall picture of client’s business

In order for agencies to fully understand a client’s business, it is sometimes necessary for them to also be involve in other parts of a client’s business, and not solely focused on Marketing alone. They have to understand how Sales, Marketing and Product departments work together as well in order to get a bigger picture of the overall business. This is somewhat how consulting firms such as IBM, Accenture and McKinsey operate and service their clients. They get to see a larger picture of organizational functions and processes in order to give better recommendations for a client. Sometimes it’s frustrating for a client because agencies do not understand the overall business.

In an article by Rezwana Manjur, Deputy Editor for Marketing Magazine Singapore, she made a comparison between agencies vs consulting firms. She said “Traditional agencies are generally more focused on creating campaigns to drive awareness and sales in the short term. Digital agencies are still more right brain oriented and work closely with the marketing teams alone. They are driven by a creative idea and the associated media plans to amplify the reach of the campaign. Consulting firms, on the other hand tend to be more left brain in their approach. Their scope of work could entail working with departments such as marketing, sales, customer service, HR, finance and such.”

The key here is being able to give long term strategies to shape a brand, rather than just campaign ideas that just focuses on short-term gratification, even if it means driving sales and numbers (and awards). In order to do that, agencies need to see the bigger picture.

Turnaround time

One of the biggest factor of why a client would rather have in-house think tanks would be exactly this reason. Agencies requires the time to be briefed, come up with creative ideas, run through their strategist, copywriter, creative director, etc before they come back to you. On the other hand, if you have an in-house team, they would have already been briefed in daily meetings and thus would also able to give an almost immediate feedback to the team.

Then comes the “what-if” situation of the agency’s proposal / idea not sitting well with the client. It then goes through the whole vicious cycle of “back to the drawing board” and again time taken to come back with a fresh proposal. Time taken to do this may vary of course, but agencies often feel the pressure and rush (hence all those late nights) in order to meet the client’s deadlines. In my years in agencies, I hardly (or maybe never) get the “go ahead” from clients on the first proposal. It’s 80% okay, and 20% of tweaks most of the time if you’re lucky. Again I feel that this turnaround time has a lot to do with how agencies work in sharing of key resources (creative person, strategist, account manager, etc) as most of them are working on more than one client account, which contributes to prolonged turnaround time.

So is it all doom and gloom for agencies?

Not for now. While most of the above are reasons to consider setting up an internal team, agencies do also offer some value, especially if they are part of a large network. If the client’s business involves creating presence and impact outside of the local market, this is where agency with global networks thrive. Clients get to leverage on getting insights and service from an agency that has a local setup in that particular country to better understand the market.

Agencies also heavily invest in tools and research to come up with proposals and insights. This is an area most clients won’t have the capability (or time) to do. Tools that help do predictive modelling, media planning or even to budget media spends are expensive to deploy on the client’s end that does not justify being purchased in most cases, simply because it’s not the client’s main nature of business. With the use of these tools, also come another set of talents which client teams do not have expertise on.

To hire in-house or not?

In summary, I feel it really depends on how much control a client wants over their brand. If you look at companies like AirAsia, Proctor & Gamble and Unilever in some markets, they have already started to develop in-house capabilities and teams. P&G invests in their own digital platforms and teams in order to have some control of how they want to position the brand(s), while relying less on agencies compared to a few years ago.

I feel that agencies need to give more valuable capabilities in order to stay relevant, something that clients can’t emulate even with an in-house team. It can be products, platform or even services, so that clients need agencies as much as agencies need clients.

5 Ways To Have Effective Mobile Ads

Being in the industry for some time, I've came across different businesses that wants to start a mobile ad campaign, because they say it's the most effective way to reach their consumers, since almost everyone nowadays has a mobile device. When further asked, what is it that they want to achieve in doing a mobile campaign, most say, "I just have a new product launch and I want people to know about it", or "I want to drive them to my company website for sign-ups and get leads". While you can do both using mobile ads, there are also some effective ways on how we can deliver the message and drive quality traffic to be able to achieve those objectives.

Image credit: CNN,com | bojanstory/E+/Getty Images

If you want to run an effective mobile ad campaign, here are some important tips:

1. Ensure Landing Pages Are Geared for Mobile Devices

This the single most important rule. If your site isn't optimized for mobile, DON'T use mobile ads to drive them there. Nobody likes to zoom in and scroll left to right to read information, therefore your landing page needs to be either adaptive or responsive to cater to various screen sizes. Also, when the mobile user clicks on a mobile ad, they expect bite-sized information, and if there is a form it should not be more than 4 fields. If you don't have one, be prepared for high drop-offs and bounce rates.

2. Size Matters! Use Large Banner Ad Units (where possible)

Mobile devices have relatively smaller screens compared to desktops. Hence, you wouldn't want the mobile user to squint their eyes trying to read your message or identify your brand. Using larger ad units also has an impact of click-through rates as the table below clearly shows.

3. But It's NOT all about Click-through Rates (CTR%)

When was the last time you clicked on an ad on your mobile device? Ok, let me rephrase, when was the last time you ACCIDENTALLY clicked on an ad on your mobile device? Chances are, that you most likely clicked on one by accident rather than you actually wanting to view details on the ad because mobile ads are small in nature, and your fingers are usually larger than even the 'close' button on the top corner (hence point #2 above).That is also one of the reasons why CTR% are also higher compared to desktop ads. Therefore,
you should look beyond just CTR% when you want to measure a campaign's success due to these accidental clicks.

4. K-I-S-S (Keep It Short & Simple)

Studies will show that most users on mobile have short attention span and want quick information and not long a winded type article explaining on how a certain product works. Therefore, information and messages should be short and straight to the point with a clear call to action. Bear in mind that real estate on mobile ads are also limited.

5. Explore Rich Media

Rich media banners (or banners running on HTML5), can deliver high engagements at the same time fulfilling points #2 and #4 above. Most rich media banners starts off as a simple banner, but with clicked, it expands to a full screened mini-site that allows more information to be displayed, as well as enable videos and different interactions using the mobile device's functionalities (camera, gyroscope, GPS, etc).

Learn more about rich media mobile ads and what they can do:
http://www.mobileads.com/blog/mobile-rich-media-ads-examples-impress-audience-part-1/
http://www.millennialmedia.com/solutions/advertiser/creative-gallery

Red Bull's Danny MacAskill's Imaginate

RedBull's Danny MacAskill

I'm always a fan of Red Bull, not so much the drink, but for their creative way of promoting something. Always challenging norms and doing things creatively. In this video, it shows Danny MacAskill riding to what seems like something out of Toy Story. Very entertaining for a 7+ minute video which already has close to 5 million views on YouTube to date.

The best thing about Red Bull is they do not need to even advertise the product. Everything is done to what Red Bull does best - promoting their extreme sports ambassadors. Love how they also seeded the Red Bull-Infiniti F1 car in the video. This is what a branded content video should be. Think of Project Stratos and you can clearly see what I mean.

 "...Our approach towards communications is that we don't really talk about ourselves too much. Rather, we focus on what we do - the events we create and produce and the athletes we support - versus who we are." - Patrice Radden, Director of Corporate Communications, Red Bull.

All You Ever Wanted To Know About McDonald's

Ever wondered how McDonald's burger patties are made? What goes into making the perfect Big Mac? What are Chicken McNuggets made of? These are some commonly asked questions about McDonald's globally and I bet even you would like to know the answers to them as well. 

Image credit: business.time.com

Well now you can. McDonald's Canada (@McD_Canada) gives their customers to ask everything and anything about their food.

I first came across this when a colleague of mine shared a video which showed Hope Bagozzi, Director of Marketing of McDonald's Canada going down the field to answer a customer's question on "Why does your food look different in the advertising than what is in the store?". Bagozzi went to a McDonald's outlet, then bought a burger and brought it back to the photo studio and made a comparison to explain why that the ad and the real burgers are different.

The thought of opening a question forum like this, is always subjected to pros and cons. In this case, McDonald's as a brand seemed "more caring" especially when Bagozzi went on ground and took effort to shoot a video to answer a question posted by one of their customers. Customers do appreciate the effort for doing so and in turn, they will trust the brand more for it's transparency, honesty and effort. However, things like these could also lead customers into posting stupid things or using it as a channel to complain or to vent hate about the brand.

Q: "When you say 100% beef, do you mean whole cow: the organs, snout, brain, kidneys, etc or just plain beef we buy @ the grocer?"

Nevertheless, it's still a very good thing McDonald's Canada did. I love the campaign for the fact that they do not rely on a Facebook page for customer interaction, and I do hope that customers would use it for getting answers rather than for malicious intend.

Campaign site: http://yourquestions.mcdonalds.ca/
Note: You can only post questions if you're residing in Canada as it detects your IP address

The "Perfect C" Viral Campaign

I was researching through some online viral campaigns to get some ideas that I stumbled across this brilliant viral video campaign.

If you don’t understand Cantonese, the video above shows a young girl who is pissed off at her ex-boyfriend for dumping her 3 months ago. Before they started dating, he used to pay for everything, and once they got together, they went Dutch, but she was still cool with that. The final straw was when he dumps her because her breasts were too small (AA cups). Later, she went for a boob job and now has C-cup breasts and taunts him that no matter what he cannot get to touch or get anywhere near those C-cups ever again.

Now, I must say, this is a very “hook, line and sinker” style of marketing. It build so much talkability and hype that it generated 700k+ views in just a matter of 10 days. The girls’ main intention here is obviously payback for him stereotyping girls with small breasts…or at least that’s what they want you to think. The second part of the video shows the ex-boyfriend who “responds” to her video.

Noticed I used the word “they”? “They” as in the company.

Now in retaliation, the ex-boyfriend looks a bit annoyed at what she has done (who wouldn't?). However, he does not believe she has C-cup breast and asks her to prove it. He says the only way she can get C-cup breasts in 3 months is if you take this (he then whips out the product that “they” were trying to sell). The Perfect C Breast Enhancer! That’s the product. At the end of the video, he even tells you where to get it by giving the website. Brilliant marketing don’t you think? It really shows that online viral marketing really does work!

By the way, more on the product can be found here: The Perfect C

Having a Bad Website Design Can Hurt Your Brand (and Experience)

I'm sure all of you have encountered visiting some really horrible looking websites that made you go:"OMG! What were they thinking?". Whilst there isn't any specific rule or law that governs what a website should look like, I do however feel strongly that there is a need to have certain quality control and standards; especially if it involves international brands.

Image credit: www.markbrinker.com

I have two examples of international brands: Kotex by Kimberly-Clark and Krispy Kremedoughnuts, that have been bastardized by our talented Malaysian web designers. You would think that these large corporations (or brand guardians) will spend more money in hiring better quality web designers rather that getting it cheap by outsourcing to freelancers to do the job. Now I'm not sure if these websites were outsourced to a freelancer, but if you ask me, it looks like an assignment by a first year college student.

Kotex Luxe microsite (http://kotexluxe.com.my/)

Lots of wasted wasted real estate on the page

1. There is this annoying animation that swipes across the product box. It's suppose to give the box a shiny gloss effect...WTH for?
2. You probably require 3D glasses to read the footer text. It's so blur, you might end up getting a headache trying to read it.
3. This site doesn't cater for large screens. The design here is tiled and my guess is that the designer was using a 15 inch screen while working on the website. My screen size is only 17 inches, which is small by todays standard.
4. There is this annoying background music that loops and sounds straight out of a porno video. I'm not kidding!
5. The flash animation is so slow. The designer probably animated the website using an older version of Flash or at a very low frame rate. My guess is...this website was done using a very old machine - 15inch screen, old Flash version, cannot support high frame rate animation.

Krispy Kreme Malaysia (http://www.krispykreme.com.my)

You'd probably can feel giddy by just staring at this page for too long!

Seriously...it's NOT HEALTHY to look at this website for a long time. Not because of the doughnuts they are trying to sell you, but the website itself. Look at the background. It can make your eyes bleed and give you a headache. The worst part is, the background is not even tiled properly. Look at the third animated GIF button on the right...I mean..who uses animated GIFs anymore?? Again I feel this website was done by an amateur or it was done very last minute.

International brands or their brand guardians in Malaysia at least, should really put more thought and effort into a website design and how it would affect their company's image and brand. I feel there should be at least someone who needs to be checking and giving the "thumbs up" before making these websites live on the web. No company would want to make their brand look cheap.

I am actually saddened by the fact that many large corporate companies in Malaysia don't pay attention to how their brands are perceived online. Sure they have massive budgets for print, radio and even television ads, but online budgets here are often limited, that I sometimes do not blame the designers or agencies designing and producing such bad websites and online campaigns. It's because of budget constraints and the lack of knowledge on how important online media branding is; one of the reasons why companies in Malaysia are behind our neighbors like Singapore in terms of international brand penetration.

Unless corporate companies put and importance and change their perception of online media and branding, I do foresee more websites such as these two popping up in the near future. As the saying goes: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys".