Segways Securing Olympics
A fairly shocking visual for a brand that is still struggling to establish itself
Please indulge me in a somewhat off-topic post that I think will nevertheless be interesting to the business thinkers who come to this site each day. Last weekend I was shocked to come across the photo above in a BusinessWeek article about U.S. companies that are enjoying a taste of the $6.5 billion China is spending just on security for this month’s Olympic Games.
I was personally shocked by this image of paramilitary forces in slick black Segways “gliding” down a training ground with aimed firearms in hand. I went through a mental reassessment of this brand, which is still establishing itself in my mind. On one hand, I felt that this was a big step away from how Segway seems to position itself as a forward-thinking fun brand. A look at its official website and community portal confirm that this is an optimistic, positive company. Selling military equipment to a country with human rights issues seems to run counter to what Segway aims to stand for.
On the other hand, use of Segways for critical military work sends a message that the product is reliable and useful. If police in your city and the Chinese government use Segways, then they must be good enough for us to invest in this pricey and unusual form of transportation. It also brings a cool factor to the brand, suggesting that Segway is not all fun and games, but rather a serious vehicle.
But I’m not a Segway owner, and I wanted to get perspective from some of the brand’s biggest fans. So I took some time to ask for the opinions of members of Segway Chat, “the world’s oldest and largest independent Segway community.” People in these groups are usually full of opinions. After a few days I gathered only 6 responses among 143 viewers (holding fairly close to the 1/10/89 rule that in online communities 1% produce content, 10% comment, and 89% read). Here’s what the community said:
- “Well, remembering Tiananmen Square, and the Cultural Revolution, there’s more evil to China’s police activities than makes me comfortable, but I’m sure there’s good mixed in there as well.”
- “My own feeling about this is that it’s normal. Segway has marketed to security forces since the beginning. It is a tool and it can and should be used in any way that is effective in fighting crime and ensuring safety. You can attach politics to it if you want, but any other country or security forces, including our own, would be smart to develop tactics to take advantage of the Segway abilities.”
- “I suppose it’s supposed to look scary, and I guess it sort of does, but if *I* were one of those guys, the first thing I’d do is get OFF, lay the Segway down, and get behind it. And hope the Saphion batteries are as safe as they claim… or stick on a skidplate as armor.”
So some pretty interesting reactions, but clearly this was not too polarizing to serious Segway owners.
What do you think? Has your brand ever experienced military-related news coverage like this?
I am confused. Isn’t the Segway not just a brand, but also a new type of vehicle?
I can’t possibly imagine somebody saying: “Oh my god, the security forces are driving a car!”
Or to say: “Oh my god, they are riding a mountain bike!”
I have seen many examples where brands get damaged when the company’s claim as to what the product delivers doesn’t align with reality.
For example, if you claim you have a great new search engine, but it is actually not that great. Or if you say Sunny Delight is natural and healthy and then people drink too much of it and turn orange. Or when Microsoft says Vista is great, but everybody who uses it hates it. Or when Apple forces .MAC user to ‘upgrade’ to MobileMe and it doesn’t work.
I can’t recall a brand being damaged by people using a product in new innovative ways. What examples come to your mind?
It’s a raw reaction and thought, Jens, but you’re helping me forge it further.
I think you’re right about categories of products being immune to negatives, but Segway is both a category and a brand to itself. So it’s in a different league.
As for brands being “misused” in ways that hurt the overall equity, what immediately comes to mind are fashion brands like Louis Vitton that are used in gangster rapper lyrics and videos. This can end up increasing sales with one group for a short period, but weaken the brand over the long term with a core loyal audience.
I’d love your take on this analogy!
I’m with Bob’s initial reaction — as idealistic as it may be. I think a good place to start here is, “Was this the right thing to do?” regardless of what it does for their image. In fact, I wish we as marketers would start there more often. “Is this right?” “Is this ethical?” (Not that Bob or anyone on this blog had anything to do with Segway’s move).
My first inclination is answer with a big fat “no” — and then when you add the possible negative connotations for the brand, it seems like an even bigger “no.”
I think it’s an overreaction — and a partly nationalistic one at that. Jens seems to be right — it’s a vehicle protected by trademark & IP so that only Segway can produce it, so obviously, it’s brand-specific. But it’s just a vehicle being used to its potential, much like a Jeep, or a Humvee. Would you also be upset to know that Chinese computers run Windows? It’s a personal feeling of “how can they use THAT? They not good people…” with the unsaid qualifier being “in my opinion” or “according to my government.” I’m many would be upset to know the US sells helicopters and planes (vehicles) to other countries with less than stellar human/civil rights records. In my (humble) opinion, I think it’s a marketing coup for Segway. Imagine the police and security departments who will see that image and think “this might be a great vehicle/device to use.” I’d be curious if sales to security organizations, gov’t and private, went up.
http://www.segwayofohio.net/
Raman’s Segwey of Ohio link shows a policeman in an airport on the front page, rather than a joyous photo of people “gliding.” I guess this suggests that the main market for these vehicles is security organizations. I wonder if the consumer angle is going away…