Loewe Colección Oro 2012 – The Aftermath of a Devastating Ad – Counting Brand Reputation Damage (And Benefits?)

This is Part I of Case Loewe.

*** Note: As the analysis of Case Loewe is becoming too long, it is currently organized in three parts. This is the structure of the three posts in this blog.

Part I: Loewe Colección Oro 2012 – The Aftermath of a Devastating Ad

Loewe Collection Oro Message: Loewe, did you say traditional and outdated?

Measuring the extent of the negative reaction to Loewe’s video.

Viral Diffusion Process: Measuring the Evolution of Video Views

How serious are 500.000 video views with negative reviews for Loewe brand equity in Youtube?

Part II: Loewe Is Dead. Long Live Loewe!

1. Measuring the direct negative impact of the campaign. An update.

2. About the target of the marketing campaign

3. About the channel used to present the campaign

4. About the genre chosen in the commercial.

5. Communications Crisis at Loewe: Crisis, What Crisis?

Part III: A Winning Strategy With 95% of Negative Ratings

1. The value for Loewe of a negative rating

2. The value for Loewe of a positive rating

3. Monitoring the reaction of viewers after the crisis.

4. Reaching the desired target, as never before

5. A substantial increase of people loving Loewe (+39% or +157%)

6. New targeted customers discovering old Loewe products… and loving it

7. Reaching International Markets, As Never Before

8. The role of parodies and spoofs: parodies of a parody

9. Tangible Benefits: Increase of Twitter Followers of 21% in one day

10. Tangible Benefits: A Sharp Increase Of Loewe Followers’ Engagement in Twitter and The Social Media

11. New Dimension of Loewe in Social Media Brand Visibility

12. Sharing My Loewe Experience. Photos Upload By Twitter Users


Part I: Loewe Colección Oro 2012 – The Aftermath of a Devastating Ad

Starting presenting this analysis just 24h after Twitter and social media in Spain entered into one of its viral waves due to a shocking event. This time was not an scandal originated by personal or institutional misbehaviour. It was simply the reaction to the Youtube video ad showing the new collection of bags and complements by leading Spanish luxury brand, Loewe.

This is a 3 minutes, 27 seconds main video. There are some complementary videos showing developped stories about the models appearing in the main video.

The content of the video became very quickly a Twitter trending topic (TT), reaching top position by mid day, 14 March 2012. Visits to the video propelled. Online newspapers were obliged to react to this social media excitement presenting the fashion campaign and the controversy it created, early in the afternoon. It reached national TV news programs. The increase of traffic by people attracted by curiosity was soo intense that Loewe internet site went down, by 5pm, and was not available during the day.

There was no reaction at all from Loewe management cocnerning the ongoing controversy. Artistic director answered some questions about the goals of the publicity, that appeared in some newspapers in the afternoon.

This extraordinary marketing case is also attracting the attention of many academics and professionals related to the luxury brands industry, fashion, marketing, branding and rebranding, social media, PR management, communications crisis.Some early reflections are already emerging. Many deep analysis will be published in the newxt few days. Our aim is to contribute to the understanding of this case mainly by providing to interested people quantitative analysis concerning media and social media impact of this reputation crisis. We will provide explanation and interpretation of the empirical results. We do not pretend to act as specialist in anyone of the mentioned fields of interests, by judging the ad itself. We will try to let the numbers talk for us.

We will show in this post that first evaluation of damages show an extraordinary negative impact of this audacious ad. But we will show that behind the apparent catastrophic marketing movement, we identify a lot of positive elements and benefits for Loewe as a brand (again, based in data analayis, not in personal subjective perceptions).

Before explaining the the source of the controversy that ignited social media community in Spain, we need to present the message as proposed by Loewe itself.

Loewe Collection Oro Message: Loewe, did you say traditional and outdated?

There is currently a lot of discussion about what Loewe was looking for with this per se controversial marketing campaign. If the scandal and strong negative reaction that they have created was a complete unintended mistake or, by contrast, it was perfectly planned.

There is a corporate statement presenting the ad, as text presenting the video in the official page. It is as follows:

The colour Gold is one of Loewe’s signature elements. The characteristic golden beige is directly associated with what is quintessentially Spanish.

Madrid’s special light has been a constant source of inspiration for Loewe, and even today the city is a fascinating melting pot welcoming both young people in pursuit of their dreams, and those just looking to have a good time.

This 2012 collection celebrates this spirit. Discover LOEWE’S NEW GOLDEN AGE and let us take you on a tour fusing Madrid’s majestic landmarks with new trends which captivate the city.

The originality of this video is that is not just models present the luxury brand products, but it is also the models talking about themselves in an apparent unclear direction.

We have the chance that they have provided subtitles in English in the video, and this allows us to capture all the verbal messages channeled in the video.

We present first the statements opening the video. They are a combination of the answers to the questions, ‘What does Loewe mean to you’, and ‘What is your first souvenir about the brand Loewe’. Here, all the statements:

 

 

 

 

 

My personal reaction is that the company is providing little space for interpreation, as the opening statements don’t suffer from ambiguity.

We are confronted from the very beginning with a shocking and provocative message. While the models praise some brand values that are positive, like ‘class’, ‘leather’, ‘I love it’, they directly attack and tarnish Loewe reputation, labelling as an old fashion brand, traditional, which is well suited just for old ladies, really old ladies (‘my great grandmother’s coat’!). We find a luxury brand turning into derision itself.

The amazing thing is that this message it told, s oximoron, by young models wearing and showing their bags. Those Loewe products are part of their lives as young fashion victims. They represent different fashion styles, some of them marginal. This introductory scene of the story is closed by the brand logo, showing alternately its origins (1846) and current times (2012).

This introduction provides the hermeneutics of the whole story and message proposed by this marketing campaign. I really do not see other leading messages behind the ad. Loewe is announcing that the new Loewe Madrid 2012 brand is born. Loewe maintains its roots and core values of elegance, quality, luxury and leather that pertain to Loewe Madrid 1846. This is still Spanish fashion style, Loewe Madrid. But Loewe is no more (or no only) my mother’s luxury brand. From now on, this is also the luxury brand for active people under 40 loving trends, with character, ambition and personality.

This is what I read from the opening section of the ad.

The video continues as an apparently typical fashion production, by a collection of moments and images of the young models posing with the Oro Collection bags. As said, the modification from a typical fashion script, is that the video is dotted by ‘spontaneous’ personal reflections about life by models. This is where all the controversy comes from. Marketing director has chosen ‘naive’ statements about their vision of things that by its content have launched the debate about this Loewe campaign. As we will show later, the vast majority of the reactions about what the young models say is negative, showing repulse, disgust, outragement or sense of the ridicolous.

In fact, all the controversy has been completely centered on how stupid the comments by models were, and if they represented or not young people in Spain, or even if it tarnishes the image of Spain.

Now, you can check the content of the video, and judge by yourself if your reaction to it is negative or not.

We pick a sample of images and candid statements by models

 

 

 

Many people commenting and attacking the marketing proposal accuse Loewe of being incredible stupid for not being aware of how stupid the selected model comments are. According to many, these young people reflect vacuity, immaturity, lack of intelligence and good taste, an extreme and repulsive sense of being ‘pijo’ (something like I-am-so-happy-with-my-wealthy-looking-style-and-way-of-life).

The question arise automatically. Please, do you really think that nobody at Loewe, a luxury brand and management known by its traditional and conservative style, were aware that these statements would provoke strong reactions of disapproval?

So, it is impossible to deny that one of the complementary goals of the design of their campaign was to create a very negative shock among many viewers disliking high class and luxury products, the ostentation approach from wealthy people or the adverse reaction provocked by bland and flawed remarks.

Select, for each one of the following cases: Option A: Loewe pursued a traditional ad wanting to show their bags following their well known values of tradition, ellegance, stilysh and Spanish. Option B: Loewe has chosen a strong rebranding strategy towards trendy luxury brands; they need that people beyond loyal customers learn and believe that Loewe is no anymore an old fashioned and conservative and traditional luxury brand.

  • Greeting, not with the free hand, but with the bag
  • Young people saying banalities about ageing.
  • A modern looking model making naive statements about loving.
  • A punky model using a deeply outdated expression.
  • Using the bag as a hat.
Covadonga O’Shea, President of ISEM Fashion Business School of Universidad de Navarra commented that some people are naturally gifted to dress elegantly. Those not having this talent can exploit extravagance. Both elegance and extravagance are positive values in the fashion industry.
My understaning is that Loewe has chosen the strategy of extravagance as tool for presenting and marketing the new brand promise. All the content of the video is packed of contradictions and paradoxes designed to create reaction. Reaction of opposition for the vast majority. Extravagance has also the virtue to create reaction of interest and attraction for a minority praising extravagance and all its connected values. If you are comfortable by fashion proposals based in extravagance, you do not care about what other people think about your choices.
Look at the defintions of extravagant by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, to check if they fit with the content and philisophy of the ad:

1 a obs. : STRANGE, CURIOUS

b arc. : WANDERING

2 a : exceeding the limits of reason or necessity

b : lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint

c : extremely or excessively elaborate

3 a : spending much more than necessary

b : PROFUSE, LAVISH

4: extremely or unreasonably high in price

Merriam-Webster (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Why would a renowned and very classical luxury brand deliberately choose a marketing strategy that provokes necessarily strong reactions, expecting to create adverse reaction from the vast majority of viewers an even from their own natural public? There is only one answer (if we exclude this Option A that all this happened by an horrendous mistake based on misknowledge of human being behaviour from marketing professionals): they were directly looking for creating a controversy as necessary means and channel to reach the new circles outside the traditional customers and lovers of Loewe brand.

Loewe took the bet to create a brand crisis in order to ensure that the inception of the new brand they were proposing reached its new public, still unaware of Loewe as brand for top-of-mind choices.

Creating a brand reputation crisis is a risky game, an extremely risky one. You know when, why and how a crisis erupts, but you never know how will it finish and how beneficial or damaging would be the effects.

I am persuaded that Loewe assumed and consciously launched a brand crisis. Did they evaluate correctly the extent of it and its actual direction?

The goal of this post is to provide some quantitative analysis of the impact of this campaign. The profile and mission of our blog is to provide measurement based in media and social media analysis. We try to proof that measuring the available information is an extremely powerful tool for understanding crisis and eventually provide useful tools for managing brand reputation.

Measuring the extent of the negative reaction to Loewe’s video.

As anticipated, Loewe provoked a social media turmoil that captured attention and lasted the whole day. Right now we are in the ending direct waves of the controversy, as it is still a hot topic in social media. We will provide later measurement in terms of quantity and visibility of the campaign. But before, we present information concerning how negatively this ad has been received.

The amazing thing of a social media driven crisis is that you have direct access to all the relevant information, live, minute by minute. This availability of information is a blessing for corporate reputation managers and for marketing and branding teams. Identification and measurement of the impact and stakeholders reaction of events outside the social media world is much more complicated, expensive and less reliable.

Teams at Loewe were perfectly aware that they were about to launch a social media bomb. They should also have designed the protocol to monitor it and plan what to do in the different possible scenarios.

What happened in practice is that soon was clear that the overwhelming reaction of people watching the video was negative. Everyone has this direct information as Youtube viewers reaction is directly and publicy available, through the like/dislike voting, plus the content analysis of comments posted by registered viewers.

We have monitored the evolution of positive-negative ratings since the inception of the crisis, when just 40 votes were sent, by 10am 14 March 2012. The evolution of this index is shown in the figure below. The share of negative votes was 75%. Soon the share of negative rates increased to almost 90% of all votes.

Were artistic director and marketing team laughing observing this results, as outraged reaction by viewers was needed to create viral development? Probably not. Too much is too much, and people at Loewe wer surely surprised by the extent of the negative reactions. Soon, and emergency measure (planned or not) was activated. Loewe decided to disable the comments in the video from their own corporate Youtube channel. This was before 10h30 am, when there were just 24 comments. If you check this information in Youtube, you will observe that the counting is stopped at that number.

The problem was that there existed another video uploaded from an external source that, of course, did not block the comments option. The flow of negative comments continued during of the reputation crisis, nourrishing the viral effect and the negative mood against Loewe proposal.

The share of negative ratings reached a peak of 95.2% by 7pm. It has decreased somehow since then, but one day after it still reach 94.3% negative ratings. This result is truly extraordinary. Such an unanimity is completely unusual. There are almost 100% of negative votes for misleading Youtube videos driving traffic with fake titles not corresponding with actual content. But it is hard to find a similar degree of negative reaction from videos with content intentionally provided by corporations or artists. Consider for instance that the infamous video with the song ‘Friday‘ by Rebecca Black reaches a negative share of 80.6% (It is true that the initial version had a highest negative ratio, but has been withdrawn. The popular but critizised song by Justin Bieber, ‘Baby‘, counts with 67.6% negative votes. There is a video from another of these promoted startlettes that approached to Loewe’s score: ‘O.M.G.’, by Jena Rose, with 92.6%.

Negative consensus against Loewe publicity proposal was not a matter of manipulation by a given group (trolls). Negative ratings are similar and consistent in all videos uploaded showing the ad. They came from an open source, as Twitter was the channel el viral diffusion of the video: all people for and angainst the video had free access to react.

Another complementary information is gathered thanks to teh fact that LOEWE has upload individual videos foe each one of the models of the marketing campaign. In their videos, they talk and explain their views… an they continue to show the LOEWE bags. These additional videos provide a very useful information. We can check the reaction against each one of them. Like this it is possibel to identify if the massive negative reception of the campaign is due to the role of a single disgusting model, or is rather an refusal to all the artistic concept.

Again, the results emerging from the figure below are revealing. This is not an opposition against a single model, its a strong disapproval to all aspects of the ad. All videos receive a negative rating share above 90%, with the exception of Martín Rivas video. Martín Rivas is a young actor appearing in TV series well appreciated by many young people (‘El Internado’). This is rather a global failure in terms of public opinion acceptance. The videos are all available at Loewe official Youtube channel.

This means a brand reputation crisis, by all standards. Even if marketing responsibles were not fully aware of how exceptional was the negative reaction to the video, they would surely be somehow nervous about the evolution of the events. A bet is always a bet.

Things did not run extactly as marketing team expected. We have a clear indirect proof. LOEWE upload a new video in its official Youtube channel in the afternoon. It was ‘Loewe AIRE Sensual Spot’. It announced a new parfum. The style of this ad was again rooted in classical elegance, with a dancer, in a black and white production. Launching this ad in the midst of a tourmoil showing a different marketing profile had little sense. The launching of the video was planned well before. It was withdrawn by the company just few hours ago, after a couple of dozens of views. The company attention was placed otherwise. (UPDATE 16 March: The video is back, two days later. Now it is just ‘AIRE Loewe Spot‘. Another lab test for measuring the impact of new LOEWE brand perception in the valoration of new ads and products).

We have the context and the global perception of the crisis. Next step that we propose is to provide elements to evaluate how intense was the crisis measured by social media impact.

Viral Diffusion Process: Measuring the Evolution of Video Views

This crisis was created by Loewe using social media tools. We count with the means to track and monitor the evolution of this crisis inside the main open social media spheres.

An event affected by a viral diffusion process is driven simultaneously by the complementary impact of different social media sources. In order to facilitate the presentation of the results, we will show the impact of this crisis separatedly in each social media platform.

We show first the impact experienced in the platform that acted as the primary source, that is YouTube. The video and its content is the required step that all people should experience before interacting and becoming another activating agent of this crisis.

We present in the following figure the evolution of the number of views of the ‘Loewe Oro Collection 2012′ video, in an hourly base. These numbers include the views of the two main videos used to watch the controversial ad. We do not include here the collateral videos proposed by Loewe. We do not include neither the parodies that emerged already in the afternoon of 14 March 2012. We will come back later commenting the role of these parodies.

The results shown in the graph indicate that number of views exploded soon, by 11am. During all afternoon number of views oscillated between 15.000 and 35.000 per hour. Massive attention decreased simply because entering into late night hours. Today there was still a sustained interest in vieweing the controversial video, but in a rather steady stage, between 5.000 and 15.000 visits per hour. The processus of sustained increase of interest was reached yesterday in the evening. But our results show that this is not a one day event: amount of visits today were far away from being marginal in comparison with the previous day. This means that the video will receive substantial addition of views in the incoming days.

We present in the next figure the evolution of total Youtube video views, based in the data presented in the previous figure.

The infamous ad reached the 100.000 views mark by 2pm; 250.000 by 9pm. It closed the first crisis day with 350.000 visits. One day after, it was broken the one half million views barrier.

These are fabolous numbers. We have shown before that each one of these visits meant basically a negative reaction against the content of the ad proposed by Loewe. The figure itself is impressive. But it is useful to provide elements of comparison to help to measure the extent of the reputation crisis.

How serious are 500.000 video views with negative reviews for Loewe brand equity in Youtube?

Half a million video views in a couple of days is something impressive. But more information is needed in order to assess the impact of this controversial campaign in Loewe global brand perception.

We count with available means to provide perspective. It consists in comparing this value with current presence of brand Loewe in Youtube.

We analyse first the impact of the last video in comparison with all other videos upload by Loewe. Loewe counts with its official corporate channel. The channel was created in May 2010. Since then Loewe has upload 72 videos. To evaluate the imapct of the new advertising campaign, we include only the controversial videos inside the official channel. As explained, it includes the main one plus nino other complementary videos presenting the models.

The figure below shows total number of views in Loewe official channel before and three days after the new marketing campaign. As it can be appreciated, total views have jumped from 121.000 views to almost 600.000 two days after (and counting). The channel has multiplied its size almost by five.

This huge impact has also an effect in terms of the brand profile of the company, at least in the short term. The explosive marketing campaign referred exclusively to bags, the Oro Collection 2012. We show in the two figures below the composition of brand profile of Loewe in Youtube, based in video content, before and after the current campaign.

Before the Oro 2012 ad, the main content associated to Loewe was parfums, due to the popular ad by Spanish matador Cayetano Rivera. Bags represented 15% of the content vwatched in Youtube official channel. Right now, in the aftermath of the current crisis, bags represent 82% of all views. This a strong brand product recomposition in the short term. Time will say if the other components grow again to reach precrisis levels.

Previous figures show the massive impact of the current crisis in the portfolio of watched videos from the official channel. They all refer to visits. We have also shown before that reactions to new videos were unanimously negative. We can then also measure the impact of the controversy on the global perception of content videos provided by Loewe to costumers and interested people.

The information contained in the following two figures are revealing. We show the share of positive-negative rating to all videos upload in the official Loewe channel before and after the viral impact of the new collection. The transformation of Loewe profile as brand in Youtube is dramatic. Before the new ad, Loewe enjoyed from a 90.6% of positive ratings in all their existing videos posted since May 2010. Three days later, the share of positive ratings drops to 12.6%, due to the massive weight of new launched videos. Yes, we labelled it as devastating ad, and it is so, indeed.

This is not all the Youtube story, as we have just showed the impact of the new ad in the Loewe portfolio from the official channel. There are also all other videos about Loewe upload by third persons and companies. There are many industries for which brand perception is created and evolves by its visual image. This refers to both photos about the brand and videos where the brand is protagonist. Having a strong and dynamic official Youtube channel is a basic branding strategy (not only social media strategy, by really global corporate strategy). If wisely used, the official channel is a tool that the company has to influence brand perception among customers and viewers. Youtube is ultimately the result of Youtube users’ preferences and choices. But the corporations count with the tool of the official channel as mechanism to lead or at least to contribute to the storyline of the brand. Official channel provides some relevant privileges. It allow the company to lanch the videos about products and services, or brand values that they want to promote. They could do it also by diffusiong content outside their channel. But the corporate channel allows you to have some control of the message: they provide an extremely rich information about the reaction of viewers, information valuable for deciding which videos should be promoted in the different online and offline platforms; the company can disable comments if they turn against the interests of the company; it can also simply delete a video if it is not running according to expectations. We have seen that Loewe has used two of these privileges ub the midst of the viral turmoil.

We present now the analysis of the impact of the crisis in the overal brand presence of Loewe in Youtube.

According to our analysis, before the crisis, Loewe controlled some 10% of the content available in Youtube, as shown in the figure below.

As a term of comparison, even if it refers to a completely issue, we find that videos from official channel of political parties in Spain had a marginal role in comparison with total views of videos in Youtube upload by other sources. You can access here the post about social media and general elections in Spain, 20 November 2011..

As for the composition of the content present in Youtube about brand Loewe, we find that the brand visibility is driven by Loewe parfums (85% of all Youtube views). Comparing with the structure of content in official Loewe channel we find that videos about parfums conquer the brand, videos presenting Loewe collections (Catwalk) mantain visibility, while the presence of product and profile ‘Bags’ and ‘Leather’ decrease to marginal size. Loewe in Youtube is dominated by the success of the collection of videos ‘Quizas, quizás, quizás’ about parfum.

As for brand reputation in Youtube, Loewe enjoyed a positive rating of 95.1% votes. This excellent rating is better that the one reached by Loewe official channel videos (90.6%)

Then came the ad, the viral diffusion and the extremely negative viewers’ reaction. Let’s see how the picture has been modified for Loewe as a brand in Youtube, three days after the crisis erupted.

In pure quantitative terms, the reputation crisis has doubled the size of Loewe as a brand in Youtube, as in just three days all existing videos about Loewe have exploded from 1.2 million views to 2.53 million. Consider also that the viral diffusion is not yet dead, and final impact of this add will represent many additional views. It is unquestionable that this video supposed a major milestone in Loewe secular history.

Now after the crisis, the relevance of the official Loewe channel has increased, as it controls now 19% of all videos in Youtube.

As we did with the official channel analysis, we can measure the impact of the ad in the composition of the Loewe portfolio of videos in Youtube, by content. There is a revolution. The weight of parfum related videos decrease to 37%, catwalk moves from 8% to 3%. The new size of Loewe’s bags in brand perception increases to 41% of all videos, compared to the previous 2%.

And a new disgusting content emerges after the crisis. Now Loewe is associated to the videos much feared and hated by corporations: spoofs and parodies using your brand as core element of the script. Now parodies about Loewe ad represent 17% of all content in Youtube. This is self evidently harming for Loewe brand reputation, as it means that in the future people loowing for videos about Loewe will find as leading results some videos making terrible spoofs about the models and products presented by Loewe in the risky ad. Right now, searches about ‘Loewe’ in Youtube propose two parodies among top 5 results.

This huge impact in terms of number of video views has also had a tremendous impact in Loewe brand reputation. Now, only 19.8% of viewers’ ratings are positive. We have counted positive voting on Loewe parodies as negative votes.

We analized recently in this post the case of another reputation crisis created and developed in Youtube. This was the crisis suffered by FedEx. In that case, the crisis was not provoked by the company intentionally. It was generated by the misbehaviour of a FedEx worker delivering (throwing literally) a computer monitor over a fence. In our social media reputation analysis, we found that the crisis had a double negative effect: a direct one linked to the number of viewers of the scandalous video, plus another one induced, due to the fact that all other videos with similar workers misbehaviour previously existing increased substantially. You can check here the analysis. In contrast, we do not observe a contagion effect in this Loewe case: views of Loewe videos and negative ratings are restricted to Oro Collection 2012, and do not affect in any sens all other existing videos.

We have shown in this post the source of the reputation crisis and the measurement of its most direct effect in terms of ad video viewings. We have also analyzed how this marketing campaign has completely modified the band profile of Loewe in Youtube.

Our aim now is to show the dynamics of the viral diffusion crisis through a time-series analysis and a content analysis. We present our analysis and results in a new separate post in this blog.

(more reputation analysis coming)

19 thoughts on “Loewe Colección Oro 2012 – The Aftermath of a Devastating Ad – Counting Brand Reputation Damage (And Benefits?)

  1. Pingback: Loewe Is Dead. Long Live Loewe! « Crisis, Media, Reputation

  2. Pingback: Case Loewe: A Winning Marketing Strategy with 95% of Negative Ratings (III) « Crisis, Media, Reputation

    • Yes, I am aware of the existence of this new video. It cannot be called a parody of the original Loewe ad. It is more like a response that is interpelling viewers. I do not want to appear cynical, but the authors of this social sensitive video take advantadge of the controversy created by Loewe. It provides an increased exposure and visibility to an otherwise well known problem that many inmigrants suffer in Spain. If Loewe controversial ad did not exist, a video showing daily problems and adversity of ‘topmanta’ sellers would probably not receive the amount of visits that it currently has (16,000+, by April 1 2012).

      As explained in my post (more in Part II post, than in this Part I), my understanding is that the genre chosen for creating controversy is extravagance, rather than shocking messages or images. Shocking marketing is the well known strategy followed by Benetton, already in the 80s with the images of people killed by the mafia. Controversy raised by the combination proposed by Bennetton of social issues as a commercial message provoked as a necessary direct result a debate about the underlying issue (there, the mafia). My understanding is that this is not the goal pursued by Loewe, to create a debate about social conditions of youg people in Spain, or shocking images about wealthy social uncoscious poeple. The reaction proposed by mantafilms is rather a by-product of the extreme social media poularity of the video. As Loewe models are so caricature roles, they allow for parodies or critics in very different ways, like the one proposed in the video you propose to us.

      • Well, I am the author of that video. Of course I did the video after Loewe’s ad and as a response to it. I am just expressing my opinion. I think that the “imitation”, in this case, is more “authentic” than the original. Your case study is interesting, but I think you forget something between all this numbers and graphics: you all forget talking about values. The media is important, the impact, the number of viewers etc… but the message is what finally will last! (¿soys de aquí? Si queréis hablamos en castellano, me espresso mejor)

      • Hola de nuevo (Silvia?). Readers of this blog are 95% from outside Spain and Latin America. It is so nice to get in contact with you as the creator of this video, that I think that it is a pitty that people not familiar with Spanish miss this exchange. My suggestion is that I will continue in Spanish, like you can react also in Spanish, but I will provide a summary in English.

        Lo dicho, que es un inmenso placer y honor poder contar con tu opinión sobre el impacto de la campaña de Loewe.

        (por cierto, he ampliado mi primera respuesta comparando la estrategia Loewe con la de Benetton)

        La reacción de muchos al ver el anuncio era de indignación al mostrar un modelo de sociedad de jóvenes inconscientes con una mentalidad ‘viva la vida porque todo es superguay’.

        Como mencionaba, yo entiendo el diseño de toda la campaña como una pura parodia en sí misma con el objetivo directo y buscado de generar polémica y necesidad de ver ‘el vídeo que todo el mundo ve porque es tremendamente patético’. Puestos a escoger un tema que generara reacción (en contra), optaron por este perfil de jóvenes felices de la vida y sin preocupaciones, en fuerte contraste con la realidad que la gran mayoría en España.

        La estrategia de marketing es problemática por el problema que planteas, ya que parece que Loewe esté orgullosa de mostrarse como una marca de lujo completamente insensible a los problemas sociales y económicos que sufren tantos en España. Creo que claramente Loewe NO buscaba mofarse ni reírse de la gente que lo está pasando mal de verdad.

        Loewe como marca no puede lanzar un mensaje social directamente (lo hace indirectamente por ejemplo a través de su Fundación Loewe con la promoción de la cultura, ya que entrega unos premios de poesía, muy valorados en España). Digo que Loewe no puede plantearse una campaña seria que incida en temas sociales porque no tendría ninguna credibilidad. Productos de lujo y preocupación social son agua y aceite, y más en tiempos de crisis. Loewe es una marca de lujo y no creo que deba pedir perdón por existir. Se puede reinventar el mundo, pero mientas haya ciudadanos que compren productos de lujo, mi opinión es que el mejor servicio social que puede prestar Loewe es ofrecer productos de alta calidad, con un respeto y excelencia por todos sus deberes sociales adquiridos (salarios y condiciones laborales correctos a los trabajadores, respeto medioambiental en la producción, pago de todos los impuestos debidos y respecto de la legislación, trato no discriminatorio, rentabilidad económica razonable). No veo a Loewe y los productos de lujo como causa de desigualdades, sino como su manifestación. Para mí la promoción de valores no pasa por estigmatizar a las marcas de productos de lujo, sino por asegurar que los clientes adinerados que los compran que asuman sus responsabilidades sociales pagando con impuestos adecuados los beneficios que ellos obtienen de la sociedad.

        Loewe es una marca que vende bolsos a 1600 euros, cuando ese producto puede cumplir perfectamente su función a un coste de 50 euros. A mucha gente la sola existencia de estos productos de lujo le parece aberrante e injustificada y que por si ellos fuera deberían proscribirse.

        Loewe ha corrido el riesgo de salir de los circuitos propios del target de la gente adinerada, para crear una difusión viral que lógicamente llega a gente que jamás comprará productos de lujo, por falta de capacidad económica y por planteamientos vitales opuestos.

        Lo que pasa es que la indignación que Loewe genera en un amplio espectro de la sociedad no castiga a la reputación de la marca en su segmento propio de clientes, ya que se trata de gente que antes y después del anuncio consideran el lujo como una provocación.

        Prohibir o atacar el lujo no creo que sea una gran batalla social, porque no es la causa sino la manifestación de un estado de las cosas. Si la extrema desigualdad se considera intolerable, hay que proponer medidas para intentar cambiarla.

        Creo que tu excelente video contribuye directamente en esa tarea de cambiar el estado de las cosas, por la vía de la sensibilización hacia la problemática que es real. (luego pondré el resumen en inglés)

  3. Encantada de conversar sobre el tema. Dos reflexiones, la primera de Enrique González, ex Presidente de LoweFMRG y gran estudioso de la comunicación de marcas, a quién le pedí opinión después de lanzar ESTO NO ES UN ANUNCIO DE LOEWE:

    1. Si hay una marca española que se haya hecho un lugar visible en el mundo internacional del lujo y de la moda es Loewe. La filosofía de esta marca, expresada, durante mucho tiempo por el último de la familia, Enrique Loewe, hoy retirado, ha sido ejemplar.


    Un anuncio reciente en internet para promocionar los bolsos de Loewe ha creado una rápida ola de contestación en las redes sociales, que saltó a su vez a otros medios de comunicación, produciendo un aluvión de menciones y artículos. Asuntos como: indignados vs. niñatos, crisis vs. vacío existencial, inteligencia vs. tontería, auténtico vs. falso, valores vs. pose, etc, protagonizaron el rifirrafe, encendieron el circo mediático y animaron a crear parodias. La consigna del momento por parte de muchas marcas: “viralidad a toda costa” ya tiene, de nuevo, servida la polémica.


    Muchos jóvenes se mostraron agredidos en Twitter y Facebook por el modelo generacional que les venía propuesto por Loewe a través del mosaico de intervenciones de una nueva ola de “beautiful people”, hijos de artistas e intelectuales, “ricos por casa” o en los principios de sus carreras creativas, que conformaban un discurso desasosegante, con cola made in Spain.
    A los autores de esta réplica “top manta” el anuncio también les ha sacudido. Les ha empujado a explorar un “juego de contrarios, uno de los varios posibles.
Han querido confrontar esa representación generacional que ofrece Loewe con otra muy diferente, casi coetánea, paradójicamente en contacto. Dar testimonio de la otra cara de la moneda. Y dejar en el aire más preguntas que respuestas.
    

Los laboratorios del lujo están muy lejos de sus fábricas. En los países pobres los del lugar producen el lujo y también su falsificación. Luego, la emigración ilegal coloca como puede en la metrópoli, las imitaciones. La extrema pobreza vende al paseante la ilusión de la marca, el falso lujo, de forma ilegal y furtiva; en las mismas calles en que abren los establecimientos más exclusivos, pero a deshora. 

Así, el lujo participa del círculo de la explotación al principio y al final. Si no vendes la imitación de Loewe o de Prada hoy mismo, puedes quedarte sin cenar… o cenar entre rejas.


    Enrique González
    


    2. MI REFLEXION, con más preguntas que respuestas:

    “Blai y yo hemos pensado mucho en por qué hicimos esa pieza, pero después –más que antes– porque hacerla fue impulsivo, una urgencia, un arrebato…”
    A ver: Nos gustaría que nuestro trabajo no se interprete como un “ataque” a una marca ni a la categoría de los productos de lujo. Ese no es tema.
    Y menos aún a un grupo concreto de gente joven, con el que no creo que tengamos gran afinidad, pero que es obvio también que han sido mal aconsejados, mal utilizados, por gente un poco irresponsable del medio, a la que se le escapó todo de las manos. Sus grabaciones personales, enteras, atenúan el retrato tan desafortunado después de la cascada de intervenciones. ¿Cómo puede elegirse tan mal
    el fragmento? Parece el trabajo de un enemigo. ¿Quién bendijo el montaje? ¿Qué había fumado? ¿Y la cadena de decisiones hasta el “placet” definitivo”? ¿Fue una fumata general?
    El tema tiene un gran interés para el mundo de la comunicación.
    ¿Cómo se puede conseguir lo contrario de lo que se pretende? ¿O qué se pretende?
    ¿Cómo se puede cargar tan gratuitamente contra el prestigio de una marca, en general respetada, con el vistobueno de la directiva de su empresa, obligada a cuidar su reputación? ¿Quién toma decisiones tan importantes? ¿No hay mucho papanatismo directivo y mucho consentimiento?
    Hemos escuchado un montón de voces en estos días. Y nos han suscitado muchas preguntas:
    ¿Tiene algún sentido seguir alimentando el despropósito de que lo que cuenta es que hablen de uno aunque sea mal? ¿Tan perversa es la comunicación e incauta la audiencia?
    ¿Qué historia es esa, repetida hasta la saciedad, de que, como en tantos casos, la marca ha creado una potente estrategia para ganar notoriedad y que la estrategia se ha revelado exitosa? ¿De verdad hay que hacer esa clase de cosas tan extravagante y contra natura, y hay Maquiavelos tan diestros en el manejo de estos asuntos? ¿No son los que arguyen esto, los que siempre se inclinan a ver con más morbo que razones “teorías de la conspiración” por aquí y por allá? ¿O son más bien reacciones de listillos que en el fondo de sus convicciones o de sus intereses defienden esa comunicación, atribuyéndoles una capacidad de manipulación del fuego que ésta está muy lejos de desear o de tener?) ¿Cómo entienden ellos entonces las fulgurantes declaraciones descalificadoras de Enrique Loewe a propósito del anuncio?
    ¿El mundo de la moda tiene bula para la tontería, como el de la política para otras cosas?
    En los principios del movimiento Dogma había aquella película de Lars von Trier: “Los idiotas” ¿Hacer alarde de la idiotez se ha vuelto “cool”? De eso se quejaba el personaje principal de Mad Men en una entrevista reciente en El País: Que molaba. Que cotizaba.
    Bueno, todas son preguntas y nosotros no tenemos las respuestas…Sólo aspiramos a hacer de catalizador para que otros más avezados nos instruyan.
    Lo que sí pensamos es que la anécdota es más relevante de lo que parece y, aunque siempre será cieeto que hay cosas más importantes de qué ocuparse (como también nos han llegado a decir) ésta no es baladí. En realidad el fondo de la cuestión nos afecta a todos diariamente y no poco.

    Uno de los chicos de Senegal que salen en el clip nos explicó que tienen un palabra que significa : “Cuando te doy la mano somos uno.” Creo que es lo que más nos gustaría que pasase con esta película. Que no sirviera para dividir sino para concienciar e igualar. Y que nadie se sintiera más maltratado de lo que lo están las verdaderas víctimas”.

    Resumiendo: Estoy convencida de que “lo viral” lo es siempre positivo, y de que esta campaña es una GRIPE en toda regla para la marca LOEWE. Espero que se recupere, y que todos aprendamos de ello.

    • Bien. Mil gracias de nuevo por la aportación adicional al debate, en la que incorporas las valiosas reflexiones de un experto y además conocedor de la marca.

      Aportas también tu reflexión sobre la campaña. Este texto está mucho más centrado en temas de comunicación y marketing, que lo conecta muy directamente en en campo en el que transcurren mis tres posts sobre el tema. Por cierto, del tenor de tu reflexión entiendo que en tú última frase querías decir ‘que lo viral NO es siempre positivo’. Si no es así, y lo que quieres decir que lo viral es siempre positivo, estaré hecho un lío y no sabré cómo continuar.

      De la cascada de preguntas que formulas está el meollo para afrontar el análisis de esta extraña campaña propuesta por Loewe en términos de marca. ¿Qué se pretende?

      Comparto contigo que no es buen análisis el afirmar que Loewe ha triunfado y abre una nueva era porque ha conseguido ruido, notoriedad y que todos hablen de ellos ‘aunque sea para criticar’ ya que esto es lo que todas las marcas sueñan. No, esto no es en lo que sueña una marca de prestigio, una marca del sector de lujo y una marca con un gran reconocimiento cuyo modelo de negocio se basa en la exclusividad, la belleza, la imagen y ‘el buen gusto’. No me uno por tanto al coro de los que aplauden a los creativos porque han sabido crear viralidad entendida como un fin en sí mismo.

      ¿Qué pretenden? ¿Qué pretende una marca tan prestigiosa metiéndose en los fangos de la autocrítica cuando los modelos la tachan de ser la marca de mi abuela, cuando hacen el ridículo poniéndose el bolso en la cabeza o cuando dicen básicamente memeces? Creo que esa es la pregunta que debían hacerse las personas interesadas en comunicación y marketing. En cambio, en la inmensa mayoría de los análisis las críticas se centran en medir el grado de ridículo y memez de los contenidos. Creo que si no se responde a la pregunta principal (¿pero qué está buscando Loewe?) y se responde a lo accesorio es imposible evaluar el valor y eficacia de la campaña.

      Es una campaña que ha escocido a muchos de los que han trabajado o aman ‘el Loewe de siempre’. Son especialmente impresionantes las muestras de dolor e indignación que reflejan las declaraciones de Enrique Loewe en el Diario de Sevilla. Es que están matando el Loewe de toda la vida… y yo comparto esta apreciación, porque entiendo que es el fin principal de esta campaña. Para mí es claro y meridiano que LVMH ha tomado la decisión estratégica de reposicionar la marca Loewe. Quiere que manteniendo sus claves de españolidad de diseño + lujo + calidad + artesanía + cuero + marca de referencia en España sea también percibida principalmente por su modernidad. Modernidad plasmada en sus diseños agresivos (¡asas en colores fosforitos!) que se adapta perfectamente a los gustos de la gente con capacidad económica en la franja 25-45. Mi percepción es que para muchas de esas personas, el ‘Loewe de toda vida’ no era la primera opción (‘me hace parecer mayor, como mi madre’). Para mí lo que quiere Loewe es cambiar radicalmente de target. Eso implica riesgos tremendos, y si sale mal, puede ser la defunción de la marca. Creo que LVMH estaba dispuesta a asumir ese riesgo y prefería poner en peligro la viabilidad de la marca antes de dejarla estancada en su perfil tradición.

      Algunos analistas comparten este análisis (aunque la gran mayoría piensan que el nuevo target de Loewe son los jóvenes veinteañeros del anuncio, cuando para mi es evidente que no lo son) y llegan a la conclusión de que la apuesta ha sido un fracaso estrepitoso dada la terrible y unánime recepción negativa de la campaña por parte del público.

      Para mí el sentir general no es todavía el veredicto conclusivo del impacto de la campaña. No lo es porque precisamente la evaluación se hace con respecto a la reacción que provocan los modelos, y no sobre la percepción de marca que les queda después de la polemica. Me remito a los texto de Parte I y II para concluir que para mí la respuesta a muchas de las preguntas que palnteas en tu reflexión es que lo que el creativo buscaba era una representación extravagante de ciertos valores, para provocar una polémica en la dirección que ellos deseaban. Ellos mismos han configurado un anuncio en el género de la parodia, y es bajo esa óptica en la que hay que juzgarlo (¿qué busca Loewe con esa parodia?). De hecho es muy común la reacción de la gente que escribía ‘ví el vídeo original pero estaba convencido que era una de las famosas parodias, hasta que me confirmaron que era el original’.

      Casi todo el mundo ha reaccionado tomándose en serio la parodia, y reacciando airadamente como si el creativo de la publicidad estuviera hablando en serio, y que ni él ni los responsables de la marca Loewe eran conscientes del aluvión que se les venía encima. A este respecto, es extremadamente revelador el comentario que hace el compañero de una de las actores. “Entonces Jacobo, su pareja, que estaba ahí a nuestro lado dibujando tranquilamente, tomó la palabra: “Ha sido una pena que no hayan emitido más partes de la entrevista. Una entrevista que duró 40 minutos y en la que les preguntaban otras cosas interesantes, como a qué se dedicaban, qué estaban haciendo… Claro, si en el montaje sólo se ven las tonterías y no las preguntas que les hicieron para que dijeran esas tonterías pues puede parecer que son tontos o algo así… por ejemplo, cuando una chica dice ‘mucho bueno vino‘ y parece que no sabe hablar, ¡es que le dijeron que hablase como un guiri! O cuando María y su amigo Víctor dicen eso de ‘Me bajo del avión, me pinto, me visto, y ¡pumba!, ya estoy’, están bromeando, joder, están imitando a Nati Abascal. Aunque también es cierto que algunos de los que critican también dicen tonterías. O hablan por hablar.” (http://blogs.revistavanityfair.es/vanityshow/2012/03/16/entrevistamos-a-una-de-las-protagonistas-del-video-de-loewe/).

      Juzgar una publicidad paródica tomándosela en serio es como tomar en serio y sobre esa base criticar una película de Jerry Lewis o de Mister Bean.

      (me tengo que ausentar, por lo que deje mi reacción en este punto).

      • Por supuesto quería decir NO es positivo. Veo con preocupación como cada vez más gente de marketing habla de que lo viral es bueno sí o sí y me parece un argumento perverso. Me lo seguirá pareciendo aún en el caso de que Loewe acabe vendiendo más bolsos, cosa que dudo. Me alegra que estemos de acuerdo en este punto. Lo que no comparto es que Venegas quisiera hacer una parodia. Quería presentar a estos jóvenes con alegría y frescura bajo esa manida consigna del “sed vosotros mismos mismamente, superguays como ya soys”, pero no hacer una parodia. No tendría ningún sentido que una marca como Loewe hiciera una parodia. El anuncio es pura pose, y eso es lo que más molesta y por eso quise contraponerlo a otra pieza en la que otros jóvenes, en el extremo opuesto de la industria del lujo, contestan a las mismas preguntas y transmiten verdad. Por eso unos te hacen sentir vergüenza ajena y los otros provocan, me parece, una fuerte empatía, porque no se creen guays, y eso los hace, para mí, mucho más “auténticos”. Creo que las marcas, y más las de toda la vida, deberían dejarse de poses y buscar calidad y autenticidad. la entrevista a Enrique Loewe es, efectivamente, muy reveladora.

      • Creo que llegamos de alguna manera al punto que cierra el círculo. Compartimos que lo viral no es bueno porque sí, simplemente porque dé visibilidad. Muchas marcas nos buscan cantidad sino calidad. Y las marcas prestigiosas aborrecen la cantidad cuando lo que se cuenta de ellas no es excelente. Comparto también contigo que el diseño de anuncios y campañas debe estar basado en calidad. También compartiría que se basaran en la autenticidad si por ello nos referimos a evitar pretender vender y mostrar lo que no son. La falta de autenticidad castiga a las marcas con pérdida de credibilidad, lo que acaba limitando el impacto de todos sus mensajes, incluso de los que se sustentan en la realidad.

        Donde no conseguimos engarzar nuestras percepciones es en lo que Loewe quería contar. Tú, como la inmensa mayoría de los que habéis analizado el caso, consideráis que el producto diseñado fue hecho con toda ingenuidad para lanzar unos mensajes positivos que han sido entendidos de manera opuesta por los que han visto la publicidad. Entonces, los supuestos mensajes desenfadados y positivos se traducen en el que ve la publicidad en un sentimiento profundo de vergüenza ajena y en necesidad de reaccionar. Yo en cambio estoy en el bando de los raritos que consideran que tanto Stuart Vevers como Luis Venegas generaron el contenido ex profeso para generar sensación de ridiculez, que es la que se consigue con la extravagancia y la parodia.

        Digo que creo que con esto se cierra el círculo, porque si tú consideras que el mensaje que querían proponer era auténtico y no fingido, entonces es lógico que saques todas las consecuencias y valoraciones que haces de la propuesta publicitaria de Loewe. De hecho, si Loewe acabara diciendo que fueron unos pardillos y lo que único que querían transmitir realmente con sus modelos era un ‘viva la vida’ y generar con ello empatía entre los que veían el vídeo, entonces suscribiré punto por punto todos los argumentos que avanzas. Concluiré que Loewe ha generado la campaña más ridícula y destructora de la historia en España, aunque consigan vender más bolsos. Como de hecho sigo pensando que diseñaron una campaña con un claro componente paródico para alcanzar unos fines que creo que están consiguiendo, me veo obligado a seguir en mi vereda.

        A ver qué nos cuentan desde Loewe.

  4. Sé de primera mano que los creativos fueron los primeros sorprendidos al comprobar la reacción de la gente. De todas formas creo que le estamos dando demasiada cuerda a un patinazo que sólo se merece ser olvidado cuanto antes! Un abrazo!

    • Silvia,como clienta de Loewe te digo :
      “un patinazo” así, en una empresa como la vuestra…es como poco, inaceptable.

      • Hola, exloewelover. Tu nickname recoge probablemente bien tu juicio global sobre la campaña.

        Sólo quiero apuntar que Silvia no está en absoluto implicada con la campaña de Loewe. Al contrario, Silvia reaccionó por disgusto al mensaje transmitido por Loewe con un contra-anuncio en el que emigrantes top manta replican el guión del anuncio original, con un mensaje muy distinto.

        Tampoco yo, autor de los tres post sobre el caso Loewe en este blog tengo ninguna relación directa ni indirecta ni con Loewe, ni con LVMH ni con los creativos. Tampoco he dicho nunca si me parece una decisión acertada o no la que han tomado.

        Me he dedicado únicamente a intentar ver 1) si detrás del torrente unánime de reacciones negativas había datos positivos para la empresa; 2) evaluar si la campaña se trataba de un ‘lamentable error’ por parte de la compañía, o si más bien era un riesgo intencionalmente asumido, aunque seguro que a Loewe le hubiese gustado que la reacción fuera un poco menos estruendosa.

        En mi análisis respondo por la positiva en los dos casos. Creo que Loewe buscó impactar, y creo también Loewe logrará resultados positivos en su nuevo reposicionamiento.

        Un nuevo posicionamiento de marca implica siempre decepciones y enfado por parte de los que sólo querían ver la marca en su posición original, y tú/su mensaje es una prueba fehaciente de ello.

      • Efectivamente, yo no tengo por fortuna nada que ver con el anuncio original. Aunque sí conozco indirectamente a los responsables. Yo también creo que se trata de un terrible patinazo. Últimamente estamos asistiendo a muchos, incluso “reales” (aunque a diferencia de LOEWE, el Rey, por lo menos, se ha disculpado). No creo que en ningún caso fuera un “reposicinamiento” valiente, porque aún en el caso de quererlo llevar a cabo, el anuncio resultante es un insulto a la inteligencia, lo que me parece una estrategia absurda para “reposiciones” nada. Si yo fuera cliente habitual de Loewe, también estaría enfadada, así que entiendo a exloewelover perfectamente. Una cosa es intentar abrirse a un nuevo mercado y otra, muy diferente, es tomar al consumidor por idiota.
        Un abrazo a los dos!

  5. I’m impressed, I have to say. Really hardly ever do I encounter a

    weblog that’s each educative and entertaining, and let me let you know, you

    could have hit the nail on the head. Your

    thought is outstanding; the difficulty is something that not

    sufficient individuals are talking intelligently about. I’m
    very

    pleased that I stumbled across

    this in my search for something regarding this.

Comments are closed.