Londoners opening today's free copy of Metro (sadly, still not available online) were treated to a list of 50 "Brands from Hell", compiled by Marketing magazine.
The "Top Ten" most hated brands are as follows:
1. POT NOODLE (possibly top because most people surveyed are women, who are less dependent on instant meals and food substitutes than their male counterparts)
2. QVC (acronym for "quality, value, convenience", a low-price chain of shops)
3. SUNNY D (the luminous drink formerly known as SUNNY DELIGHT)
4. McDONALD'S ($100 million profit slump, following adverse publicity for its killer foods and the warm reception given to the critically acclaimed film Super Size Me)
5. MANCHESTER UNITED (whose sponsor, VODAFONE, is listed at no. 31; now that's a message ...)
6. NOVON (er, there seem to be a few Novons around and they're all different)
7. LIDL (more cheap shopping)
8. TINY (low-cost PCs)
9. SNACK-A-JACKS (as the name suggests, a snackable comestible)
10. THE SUN (a sensationalist downmarket newspaper)
The IPKat notes that, despite the fact that they are hated and despised by so many consumers, all of these brands are extremely successful, commercially. Some brands must of necessity be hated. For example, if you are a Manchester United supporter, you'll love that brand, but you'll probably be nursing a hostile feeling towards it if you support another football team. Others appear to be the result of a sort of self-loathing: people don't like to feel they have to shop for bargains, so they go to Lidl or QVC but lose their self-respect; some of this loss, by transference, affects the brands they patronise. This may be because branding is about choice but an economy-shopper's purchases are determined by need, not choice.
THE BRANDS FROM HELL
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html