We have already talked about how lightly brands need to tread in a world where everyone is watching, where companies have unprecedented access not only to an enormous raft of potential consumers, but also to the ever-vigilant eyes of potential critics. "Trial by Twitter" is a process that has found many brands guilty, and unfortunate gaffes are never far from mind. Take Waitrose's social media misfire last autumn, where its "Reasons" campaign was hijacked and turned on its head by teasing tweeters. Rather than issuing an apology as such, they did feel they had to acknowledge the jocular nature of people's reactions. Other brands to have faced similar cyber-ribbing have reacted in various ways, either by adopting a similarly rebald tone, or by going on an unrepretant offensive, as this blog post discusses. And we can't forget the reaction to Nick Clegg's apology video, which went viral last year and totally undermined his attempt to clear the air with the British electorate. 

People around the world apologise in different ways. In Japan, the act of apologising is considered a virtue (more on this later). It is no surprise, therefore, that their language and culture have such a diffuse number of ways to express the sentiment of sorriness. The same cannot always be said of the West, where people can often be found saving face by issuing 'apologies' that are entirely devoid of any sincerity or meaning. Or the classic British reflex-action apology, where "sorry" is used so unsparingly that it is roughly akin to "hmmm". 

Whatever the 'right' approach, there can be little doubt that the apology is an important art when errors in communication are so easy and public. And things only get more complicated when that apology has to be made across cultures, where different conventions, traditions and politics, not to mention different languages, are at play. Last week, Apple found themselves issuing a public apology to their Chinese customers following criticism from state media outlets about the company's warranty terms. The apology received extensive news coverage across the country, to the bewilderment of many Chinese people, who found the authorities' glee at events of somewhat baffling compared to the varitable silence over more significant matters of public interest. What was perhaps most interesting about Apple's apology was the way it was worded - "At the same time," they said, "we also realise that we have much to learn about operating in China, and how we communicate here." In this knowledge, a comprehensive global communication audit might have saved any embarrassment, taking advantage of local expertise and insight to achieve a "finger on the pulse" - essential for survival in the modern technology jungle. 

As we've already mentioned, the cross-cultural apology is a complicated process due to the linguistic, political and cultural considerations that need to be taken on board. Indeed, an episode at the end of 2012 shows the extent of the complications in China, with the reporting of an "apology" made by the new Leader of the Communist Party, Xi Jinping. When arriving late for a speech, he made a comment which literally translates as "made everyone wait a long time". Does this mean "sorry"? According to the presiding English interpreter, it did. Later on, however, opinion was divided among observers, with some objecting to translations from various international media outlets that played up the "sorry" aspect, while others felt the literal translation - with its more unrepentant connotations - was appropriate. 

An extreme exxample of how cultural conventions can differ cme with the public apology offered by Japanese popstar Minami Minegishi following revelations that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. She appeared with a shaved head, begging the public for forgiveness in a traditional act of contrition. 

There is no escaping the fact that, were the divas of Europe or the US to so flail themselves for such minor misdemeanours, the blogosphere would be utterly saturated. Yes, it might have been over the top and unccessary, but it was also on some level based on cultural tradition. 

These examples show the challenges faced by brands operating internationally, and the need for expert, sensitive cross-cultural communications strategies. Saying sorry is never easy. Saying sorry across a cultural divide is even harder...

By Mike Woods, Framestore

This week's video barely needs an introduction. I remember when Clubs just relied upon paper flyers. This is awesome.

http://vimeo.com/66655331

Sports sponsorship has always had glamourous appeal – which brand doesn’t want to increase its status by being linked to competitiveness, action and success? But of course for all the high octane thrill and drama often associated with sponsoring a team or individual comes the risk that should things go wrong – on the sports field or off, it is often the brand that suffers as much as player(s).

Thus talk about crisis communications management is bandied about a lot – even more so now that social media leaves no brand a rock to hide under when it comes to dealing with good comms turned bad. We’ve seen big names hit by them all – from sex and drug-related scandals to sporting heroes ending up in the courtroom.

But at the end of the day these are the risks brands have to take when signing up to associate with a sports team or – even more risky – a sports individual. If you’re backing an individual, you are effectively borrowing from their reputation and if that comes crashing down around them – as in the recent cases of Lance Armstrong and Oscar Pistoruis there is little that a sponsor can do other than call an emergency crisis meeting and handle the fall out as best they can from there on in.

Or is there? The reason I pose this question is because, as far as I can see, an increasing number of brands are actually responding to potential crises in the sponsorship arena before they happen. They are looking to prepare and mitigate before the potential disaster, rather than simply respond and attempt to rebuild after it has taken place.

I’m not suggesting that in every scenario that this can happen – nobody could have predicted that Pistorius would end up entangled – rightly or wrongly – in a forthcoming murder trial – but there are increased measures being taken to account for potential situations where possible.

Andy Sutherden, global practice director of sports marketing and sponsorship at Hill & Knowlton recently summed it up well for me when he said that where once, the PR agency in particular dared not suggest to a client what might go wrong when discussing a forthcoming sponsorship deal, in today’s open climate of two-way communications clients are more accepting of the fact that things don’t always go to plan. As he deftly puts it; “Would you ever get behind the wheel of a car without insurance?”

Hill & Knowlton worked with Amiga – official timekeepers of the London 2012 Games. Remember when the giant countdown clock positioned in the middle of Trafalgar Square suddenly stopped after just a day? Hill & Knowlton had already addressed that ‘what if’, however awful it would be if it actually happened, way before the clock was wheeled out to the public. And in the end the fall out wasn’t so bad. In part the brand itself made a joke out of it. They gave the clock its own Twitter personality when it broke down – with it telling the Twittersphere that it felt unwell, that it was on the road to recovery… they created a dialogue around the story rather than bury it.

Some agencies now work with clients ahead of campaigns to simulate potential crises and how they might play out on social media, which is of course, these days, the main channel through which crisis comms is managed. Where once social media was seen as the enemy when it came to crisis comms – a fire to be fought as quickly as possible when disaster did break out, now brands are seeing how it can help them to avoid calamity in the first place.

There are other lessons brands are taking on board when it comes to sports sponsorship too – for example looking to take on an individual brand ambassador – such as a winning Olympic athlete – for a short time period only. Think of it like this, if you’re a brand sponsoring a medalist then you’re seeking to capitalise on what is the peak of their popularity. The best way to approach this is often to seek to create a positive association over a relatively short space of time – normally a much shorter time span than the sponsorship of a team or a sporting event can offer.

I wouldn’t say that brands are necessarily becoming more cautious when it comes to addressing the potential pitfalls associated with sports sponsorship – I’d simply way that they are becoming more aware. Typically our industry has been bought up to plan for good things. It’s only been in the past few years that brands have really started to look much harder at ‘what if it goes wrong’?

By Pete Davis, managing director, Getmemedia.com

The M&M Global Awards is extending the deadline for awards entries until June 10 as it introduces two new categories: The Sports Performance Award and The Global Viral Excellence Award.

The explosion of casual gaming and mobile devices is pointing towards a perfect storm for advertisers. Oscar Diele, Vice President of Global Brands at Spil Games, looks at why brands need to be taking gaming seriously as a media channel.

The guys over at Crab Creative have produced a nifty infographic into social networking and device usage among adults - it's full of lots of great stats, so check it out:

Everyone’s talking about ’big data’ these days: politicians, academics and, of course, businesses – especially those involved in digital marketing and advertising. However, despite all the discussion it seems that a number of questions remain – with a main one being, who actually needs big data? 

The short answer is: we all do. But if you find yourself unsure of what it is and how to use it, perhaps you need to think of data as a raw material. Like any other raw material, data needs to be refined, processed and managed. Just as crude oil doesn’t power our cars, raw, unanalysed data will not propel our businesses forward. 

You try to frighten me. Admit so, sir. This is some new form of torture.

- Alex in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange

For the last 10 years, media watchers and content creators have been talking about how consumers are time-poor, and advertisers have to fight that much harder to get the attention of consumers. And yet media is not sold based on how much time people spend engaging with the content. I'm not talking about buying a 30-second TV spot, or a 15-second radio ad here. I'm talking about people reading an article and taking the time to comment on it or share, people playing a game and posting a high score, or watching a video – again and again.