"Six marketing lessons from Red Bull Stratos"

It was a greater feat than any 30-second spot has ever achieved: skydiver Felix Baumgartner dropped from near-space (23 miles high) back to the Earth’s surface.

It was an astonishing display of the value of human endurance, of adventure, invest-ment and commitment. The fact that this mission to the edge of space was, in fact, funded and created by a brand is, quite simply, remarkable.

Having achieved 8m concurrent views of the spectacle on YouTube, there is no arguing that Red Bull’s Stratos project was an astonishing leap forward in marketing, but it also delivered something far bigger than eye-balls.

[relatedArticlePlaceHolder]

The fact is, a brand both created and funded a mission to the edge of space that will create data and insight that could benefit NASA. As one viewer tweeted: ‘That awkward moment when you realise an energy drink has a better space programme than your nation.’

Stratos was not a CSR project, but is far more than a marketing campaign. While commentators have already waxed lyrical about it as the very pinnacle of content, marketing experts believe that this diminishes the scope of the achievement.

James Murphy, editorial director at the Future Foundation, says Stratos shows that Red Bull isn’t solely a provider of content anymore. ‘This is the purest example of the brand as a story; the brand itself has become content,’ he explains. Murphy believes the scientific and technological pay-off of the campaign reflects a level of sophistication that conventional CSR couldn’t reach. 

1. Embrace a sense of purpose

‘Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?’ Steve Jobs’ pitch to John Sculley – the Pepsi-Cola CEO whom Jobs brought in to run Apple – probably wouldn’t wash with Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz.

Red Bull Stratos has not only underlined the brand’s authentic link to extreme sport and innovation, it has also provided its employees with a motivation bigger than selling sugar water (or energy drinks for that matter) for the rest of their lives.

James Whitehead, executive partner at JWT – the agency that, in a clever bit of marketing, sent a Kit Kat bar 22 miles into space to celebrate fearless Felix – says people want more of a relationship with brands. ‘They want to be involved with them and share them, so [brands] need to have a bigger purpose and a conscience that extends beyond sales,’ he says.

2. Beyond Big Society: do more than grow your bottom line

Consumers may have expressed discomfort at David Cameron’s vision of Big Society, but Red Bull Stratos raises difficult questions about marketing taking off where government funding ends. ‘Red Bull has taken science forward and no one is questioning it. Whether you agree that this will benefit NASA or not, there is no doubt that it is fuelling a passion for science,’ says Sav Evangelou, executive creative director at Kitcatt Nohr Digitas. He believes there is a huge opportunity for brands to carry this shift forward if they can share knowledge or deliver progress to society, whether it is through education or investment.

Sean Kinmont, managing partner, creative director at 23red, says the main thing marketers can learn from Red Bull Stratos is that ‘higher order’ benefits can be generated by things other than charitable links or associations with good causes. ‘People can be equally inspired by feats like this one, which take them vicariously into self-realisation, courtesy of the brand,’ he says.

3. Move beyond ROI: pitch for emotional impact

Space exploration appeals to noble human interests: the desire for adventure and a belief in the power of science. James Kirkham, managing partner at Holler, says that for a certain generation Stratos has become an ‘I was there moment’, which has created ‘almost an unfair benchmark’ for marketers.

While media coverage has focused on the volume of You Tube hits, the true scope of Stratos’s achievement reverberates far beyond the marketing fishbowl. In fact, Red Bull itself has blocked agencies involved in the project from talking to the press because it doesn’t want the event to be viewed as a marketing stunt.

‘The industry is obsessed with media coverage, but the real opportunity is earning the right to speak to consumers. Red Bull did this by capturing the imagination of millions of people,’ says Evangelou.

The message is clear: to be truly great, brands must transcend ROI.

4. Embrace ‘extreme marketing’

Of course, not every brand has a fearless Felix to deliver moments of greatness, but you cannot ignore the pace of change in the market. Rewind to 2008, when Honda secured reams of coverage with its live sky-diving ad on Channel 4. However, chances are you probably cannot remember the ad, and it is unlikely to grace the pages of history for delivering anything other than PR for Honda.

Russ Lidstone, chief executive of Havas Worldwide London, says that with Stratos, Red Bull has in effect created a school of Œextreme marketing¹.

Red Bull has built credibility through its support for extreme-sports athletes, the creation of current F1 champions Red Bull Racing and through building a range of events from the ground up. In short, Red Bull could never be accused of simply badging events.

5. Behaviour trumps brand values

The Stratos project also hints at a wider shift in marketing in the digital age: it is no longer enough to obsess over brand valuation and image. Consumers are increasingly demanding that brands prove their worth, a shift that has huge implications for marketers.

Patricia McDonald, executive planning director at Glue Isobar, says that in an age of participation, brands are facing up to a fundamental shift. ‘Brands need to ask themselves what they do for people. It is bigger than marketing: from supply chain to distribution, it’s the fundamentals of how a business behaves,’ she says.

The world’s greatest brands have changed consumer behaviour not just to boost their own bottom line, but to actively improve people’s lives. This is typified  by Nike, which created Run London and has invested in giving people greater access to sport, in an effort to tackle the growing problem of sedentary behaviour, arguably one of the biggest challenges of our time.

Lisa MacCullum Carter, managing director of Access to Sport at Nike, says: ‘Underpinning the London Olympic Games was a commitment to ‘inspire a generation’. Although elite and professional sport can inspire and encourage young people, it cannot on its own increase participation levels and access. Funding is crucial, but effective change will require unprecedented collaboration and action from governments, communities, corporations and civil society.’ Many analysts believe this collaborative approach will underpin the future of marketing for good.

6. Place commitment above all things

Back on Earth, there will doubtless be marketers rolling their eyes at the notion that they should ‘pull a Red Bull’. So here is the killer fact to empower each and every marketer: experts estimate that Red Bull’s investment in marketing is 30% to 40% of its revenues. It is a marketing-driven business model in the truest sense. If you won’t invest in your products and services, staff and brand, why would you expect your consumers to? You can’t use the struggling economy as a one-size-fits-all explanation for failing to commit and perform.

In an age of slash-and-burn marketing, where failure to commit and endlessly delaying big decisions is the norm, Red Bull’s investment and scope is noteworthy. Not every brand has the inclination or budget to invest in something bigger than itself, but the best marketers should at least have the ambition to try.

Has Romney moved to the center on immigration?

• Print

Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama spar at the second presidential debate. (Shannon Stapleton/AP)

As Mitt Romney continues to climb in the polls, some campaign watchers are crediting his momentum to a shift to the center on key issues. Former President Bill Clinton even joked about the supposed move last week at a Democratic rally for President Barack Obama in Las Vegas.

"I thought, 'Wow, here's old Moderate Mitt,'" Clinton said, referencing Romney's performance in the first presidential debate, where the former governor of Massachusetts said he was against tax cuts for the wealthy. "'Where ya been, boy?'"

On Thursday, two days after the second presidential debate, the Associated Press chimed in, writing that Romney has moved to the center on a range of issues in a bid to win over on-the-fence voters in swing states. (Just last February, while battling through a hard-fought Republican primary, Romney described himself as a "severely conservative" politician.) And it noted the same areas in which other media outlets and pundits have said the shift is taking place: taxes, women's issues—and immigration.

But there's a hole in the argument: Immigration stakeholders on both the right and left say they have yet to see "Moderate Mitt" appear on this particular issue. In fact, Romney's immigration policies are regarded as some of the most conservative of the last half-dozen presidential cycles.

"If you're someone who favors robust enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, Romney is the best presidential candidate that you've had in decades," Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies told Yahoo News. (The center is a conservative think tank that advocates for reduced legal immigration and an end to illegal immigration.) "I would say that he has generally not etch-a-sketched [on the issue]," Camarota added.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of the liberal immigrant advocacy group America's Voice, tweeted after the second debate that Romney is "the most anti-immigrant candidate ever."

While Romney has shifted slightly away from the days of the primary—when he touted the endorsement of Kris Kobach, who drafted Arizona's law targeting illegal immigrants, and recalled firing "illegals" who had worked in his yard, through a contractor, in Belmont, Mass.—his comments on immigration during the town hall debate differed more in tone than substance.

On Tuesday night, Americans heard the candidates discuss their visions for the country's immigration system for the first time when an undecided voter asked what Romney would do "with immigrants without their green cards that are currently living here as productive members of society."

Romney first responded by slamming President Obama for failing to keep his promise to pass his version of immigration reform, which would have included a path to citizenship for many of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. The governor also praised America as a "nation of immigrants" and said he wants to increase high-skilled legal immigration.

But Romney went on to espouse views seen as anathema to earlier Republican presidential candidates, who were eager not to alienate Hispanic voters by seeming unwilling to even consider a path to citizenship.

"There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who've come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who have come here illegally," Romney said, a position he also held in the primary.

The GOP challenger also defended his "self-deportation" policy that he introduced in the primary. It proposes that many of the nation's illegal immigrants will voluntarily leave the country if employers are forced to check immigration status, making mass deportations unnecessary. (At the debate, Obama characterized Romney's self-deportation policy as "making life so miserable on folks that they'll leave.")

The sole point that Romney appeared to drift center-ward on immigration turned out to be a case of misinterpreted wording. Romney said that military service should be "one way" for young illegal immigrants who were brought to the country by their parents to gain legal residency. This suggested that Romney was open to creating more routes to legal residency for these young people, such as attending college.

Such a position would put Romney closer in line with the Democrat-backed Dream Act, which would give citizenship to people under 30 who join the military or attend college, and which Romney has vowed to veto.

But a Romney aide told Yahoo News that the candidate still thinks military service should be the only route to permanent residency.

Romney's decision to stay the course on immigration is an interesting one, as top Republicans—including Romney—have warned that the party is "doomed" if it cannot attract the fast-growing demographic of Hispanic voters, who will make up 9 percent of the electorate this year.

[Political junkie? Sign up for the Yahoo! News Daily Ticket newsletter today]

The Romney campaign is betting, then, that his economic message will be more important to this block of voters than its immigration one. Hispanic voters are by no means a homogenous or single-issue group, and polls show that, like most voters, they care most about the economy and jobs, with immigration trailing behind.

But Republican strategists stress that a hostile-sounding tone on immigration issues can alienate many Latino voters, no matter the candidate's economic platform. And a Latino Decisions poll shows that more than half of all Hispanic voters know at least one person who is undocumented, meaning the issue is personal.

The most recent Pew Hispanic Center poll has Romney picking up just 21 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared with 69 percent for Obama. (Romney is polling much better among Latinos in the swing state of Florida, however, where a strong Cuban-American presence tends to boost Republican candidates.)

George W. Bush picked up more than 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, while John McCain slipped to 31 percent in 2008. The downward trend is not good news for the GOP. But some conservatives argue that embracing legalization measures will not necessarily help Republicans reverse the downward slide. The New York Times' Ross Douthat writes that "a party's overall brand matters more than its stance on a single issue", and that embracing restrictionist policies doesn't mean forfeiting the Hispanic vote.

Romney seems willing to break from tradition. Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the first immigration reform bill in 1986, offering legalization to nearly 3 million people in the country. George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain—as well as their Democratic rivals—all supported legalization measures to some degree either while running for president or in office. Bob Dole, however, ran on a platform in 1996 that would have allowed public schools to deny entrance to children who couldn't prove their citizenship. (Dole voted for Reagan's legalization 10 years earlier.)

Matt Barreto, a pollster with Latino Decisions and a political science professor at the University of Washington, said he thinks Romney's performance in the debate is unlikely to gain him any ground with Latino voters.

"I thought with his answers on immigration he continued to dig himself into a hole," Baretto said. "He had a chance there to perhaps make some overtures." Barreto added that Romney's use of the phrase "undocumented illegals" to refer to young illegal immigrants "certainly isn't going to help him."

"Making Facebook Marketing as Easy as One, Two, Free"

You know how in life many of us tend to over complicate things? Admit it, you’re guilty of doing this from time to time. Someone asks you for directions to somewhere and the next thing you know you’re giving them the Magna Carta.

Well today, I want to make things very easy for Mr. Brand Manager and Mrs. Brand Marketer and any and all social media marketers out there entrusted with a given client’s Facebook page. All the folks who are asked to increase the number of Likes – even though we know size does not matter, there are still many brands who insist on seeing a large following.

The guys and girls at Lab42 – a research company, recently conducted a survey and I guarantee you this will not be the last one to reveal the following findings. Not by a long shot.

How do I know?

Easy, it’s human nature to want something and after all consumers are people, too.

[[from a much larger infographic - full version is at the end]]

Wow, how about that? A combined 55% of consumers will like your Brand – no, not because they think you’re swell and groovy. And no, not because they feel a sense of loyalty.

But because they want something in return for their precious Like. They want a promotion, they want a discount and you’re darn right – they want something for free.

By the way, my ‘wow’ above was completely sarcastic in case you couldn’t pick up on that.

And speaking of loyalty or lack thereof, check this out:

You see this above? Of the 46% of respondents said they Liked a brand on Facebook, over half of them said they did so to get something in return, AKA something for free.

And under the heading of “restating the obvious” this from the same infographic:

The moral here kids is give consumers want they want. Give them something in exchange for their Liking your page and then keep them engaged with interesting content and yes keep the discounts, promotions, free stuff coming, too.

Post With Care

There are a couple of other interesting findings from the survey/infographic and I want to share one with you and it deals with the ways brands can turn people off to the point of they (aghast!) un-Like them on Facebook:

So ease up there Mr. Brand Manager and Mrs. Brand Marketer and any and all social media marketers who want to keep posting more and more content to their client’s Facebook page. Slow your roll there just a bit and think before you hit post for the Like you save you may be your own.

As for the entire infographic, here it is for your disseminating pleasure.

"Nobel Gives Peace Prize to Crisis-Ridden EU"

works to contain the debt crisis in the euro zone. WSJ's John Stoll reports from the Nobel announcement in Oslo.

Norway's Nobel Committee handed its 2012 Peace Prize to the European Union, even as the bloc faces its most serious crisis since it emerged from the ruins of two world wars, an award that served as both endorsement and warning.

The committee, whose decision Europeans both celebrated and mocked, said the prize recognized more than six decades during which the conflict-ridden continent pulled together and became a harbinger of "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights" at home and beyond.

"The award of the Nobel Prize of Peace to the European Union reminds us that the EU is endlessly more than [interest-rate] spreads and bailout funds," German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said.Reaction to the decision was mixed. Many politicians took it as an opportunity to commemorate the EU's achievements at a time when much of the discussion on Europe focuses on the struggles of its currency union.But Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee's chairman, also stressed that Europeans should see the prize as a warning of what the 27-country bloc stands to lose if the current economic turmoil breaks its cohesion.

Herman Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso—as presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, respectively, the EU's highest representatives—said the award "shows that in these difficult times the European Union remains an inspiration for leaders and citizens all over the world."

Others, however, questioned why the bloc merited the prize during a period when it has been hobbled by internal troubles and when anti-European, and sometimes anti-German sentiment is growing. Just this week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to recession-hit Greece drew tens of thousands of demonstrators rejecting EU-mandated spending cuts and economic overhauls.

"Today's award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU is an insult to the people of Europe themselves, who currently are experiencing an undeclared war as a result of the barbaric, anti-social austerity policies that are destroying social cohesion and democracy," said Rania Svigkou, a spokeswoman for Greece's far-left Syriza party, which came in second in general elections this year.

The Nobel committee didn't gloss over the economic struggles that have rocked Europe, and particularly its currency union. Since 2008, five euro countries—Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus—and several EU members have had to ask for billions of euros in bailout money to patch over holes in budgets and banking systems. The crisis revealed fundamental flaws in the architecture of the euro zone, leading to fears of some countries leaving, or even a breakup of the currency union.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

From left, Mr. Rajoy, Mr. Hollande, Mr. Monti and Ms. Merkel talked in Rome this past summer.

Now, a push to resolve some of these issues by drawing the euro zone closer together threatens to deepen the rift between the 17 countries that use the euro and the 10 EU states that don't. Those troubles are set to intensify in coming months, as the euro zone seeks to build up common regulations to supervise its banks and even create its own central budget.

"We don't have a position on how to solve the economic crisis, but we believe it will be important to solve it and that European unity can be kept so that Europe can move forward," Mr. Jagland said.

By selecting the EU as this year's laureate, the Nobel committee follows up on other controversial—and some say politically motivated—decisions, such as presenting the prize to U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009 and to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli politicians Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994.

Jan Techau, director of Brussels-based think tank Carnegie Europe, said the award was both a message to Europe and the rest of the world. "There is merit in cooperation and there is a need for multilateralism," he said.

Mr. Techau added that despite its shortcomings the EU could still serve as a model to less-integrated regions such as Asia, where tensions have been growing between China and Japan.

The prize may also be a wake-up call for Europe to take a stronger role in international affairs, he said. The EU is the world's biggest donor of humanitarian aid, but its members have often struggled to take a common view on important foreign-policy events.

Divisions over the intervention in Libya last year, in which France and the U.K. participated, but Germany didn't, were just one example of that.

Somewhat ironically, the EU will receive eight million Swedish kronor, or about $1.1 million, as part of the award, down 20% from last year, as the value of the Nobel foundation's investments declined amid the crisis. It isn't clear how the money will be spent.

Mr. Jagland favors Norway's entry into the EU and is the author of a book called "My European Dream" about European unity.

"There are many things to say about the economic crisis—where it originated, for instance," he said. "Actually, it started in the U.S. and all of us had to deal with it."