Skip to main content

Alex Schaefer at it again: Chalks Wells Fargo

As a form of protest, and as a PR stunt, Schaefer has been 'chalking' outside banks in the US.

And he's done it again...


I give this guy big props because from a PR perspective this has a great ROI.  For a couple of bucks (for the chalk) he's making one heck of an impression on YouTube. And setting a great example for kids in my opinion... you can protest effectively while remaining peaceful.

This is also a great example of how you attack a brand (so essentially the reverse of what most PR folks engage in, which is building up a brand). Michael Moore is famous for attacking brands also. And while we don't traditionally think of it as a brand attack - we tend to use the word 'protest' - in reality it's an effort to degrade brand equity in the market.

How should the banks respond to this attack on their brand?

To be honest, there isn't much they can do. Given the activities they are engaged in, any attempts to address the brand attacks of folks like Schaefer only draw more attention to his message.

What the banking industry should have done years ago, from a PR perspective, was create two classes of banks. Come up with some term like - Community Only Bank (COB) - such that any bank using that term to describe itself, identifies itself as a bank that is about the pure business of lending money to businesses and citizens in a given community. Such attributed banks would not be engaged in the whole derivatives and investing side of things that has caused the world economy to blow up and hence would not be branded as 'villains' as banks today most often are.

This at least would protect the 'brand' of a good number of banks.

But such as the banking industry is, no one really gave much consideration to the PR side of things (banks are far more focused on the lobbying side of stakeholder and reputation management; external brand considerations tend to be limited to television ads). Or perhaps it was even considered, but ultimately was viewed as taboo given to protect the brand of some banks, you inherently would be hurting the brands of the other banks.

Either way the banking industry has essentially done nothing to protect its brand during this crisis.

So the banks today don't really have any options in this from a PR perspective. All they can do is stay quiet and hope that those attacking their brand never reach critical mass in terms of awareness.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...