Be there or be square

I take the bus to work, and I take it from USJ 6 in Subang Jaya to downtown Kuala Lumpur. Today was no different but my Rapid KL brand experience has seen better days that's for sure.

I left my apartment around 7:20am this morning with a 100% feeling of certainty that I'd get to work well before 9am, given that the bus usually comes at 15-minute intervals.

At 8 am, I was still waiting for Rapid KL's U63. It finally arrived about 20 minutes later after nearly an hour of me waiting at an increasingly crowded bus stop.

I don't own a car and taking a taxi isn't the best solution for my wallet - for those of you who live in Subang, you know how awful the jams are along the USJ 2 area can get (it can take up to an hour just to get from the Goodyear Court 1 stop past Summit Mall).

I can understand if the bus broke down on-route but no back-up for a whole 60-minutes? I reached the office at 9:45 am.

So, I've emailed my feedback to Rapid KL via its website. Let's see what happens next.

UPDATE FROM RAPIDKL IN LESS THAN 12 HOURS. NOT BAD AT ALL.
Thank you for your e-mail which we read with genuine concern. We understand that efficient service is essential in today’s fast paced world, especially for our valued customer like you. Thus, on behalf of RapidKL, we would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused.

The delays you mentioned was due to the shortage of buses and has affected the bus frequency tremendously. However, believe us that we are constantly upgrading and improving our scheduling, especially with the continuous increase in number of passengers.

RapidKL would also like to assure commuters that we will continuously work toward increasing the quality of service provided which includes increasing the size of RapidKL’s existing fleet of buses which would improve bus frequency and reduce waiting times and congestion on the bus.

Battle of the boots

An interesting battle is emerging at the 2010 World Cup between Adidas and Nike - and it happens everytime a goal is scored.

Adidas are the official ball of the World Cup, a pretty prestigious tag to be. And one that guarantees repeated brand exposure through action replays and close-ups which invariably occur when a player scores a goal during the month long tournament.

There's just one problem - Nike are getting lots of exposure too.

In the first few days of matches so far I've noticed the Nike logo on the boots of the players scoring most of the goals. It's very clear during the slow-motion action replays.

In fact by my unofficial count so far - Nike have had five such golden moments.
1) Tshabalala's goal for host nation South Africa against Mexico.
2) Marquez levels the match for Mexico against South Africa.
3) South Korea finishes off Greece with a Park Ji Sung goal.
4) Clint Dempsey provides a double whammy as his scuffed shot from his Nike boot is somehow fumbled into the net by England goalkeeper Robert Green (double whammy in that there was so much criticism in the media about the flight pattern of the new Adidas ball)
5) Robert Koren scores for Slovenia - and another goalkeeper fumbles the ball.

While Adidas has only had the limelight to themselves on two occasions when Gerrard scored for England (Adidas sponsored player scores with Adidas ball) and this morning's humiliation of Australia by Germany (they scored four times in that game).

I didn't watch the Ghana v Serbia game so I can't comment on that and I've also not included headers (i.e Heinze's effort against Nigeria)in this unofficial rant.

Adidas are official sponsors of the tournament but in a Nielsen study conducted between 7 May to 6 June it was Nike's "Write the Future" campaign which resulted in Nike being linked to the tournament more than any of the official sponsors.

I suppose a slight negative for Nike so far has been England's draw with the USA where Wayne Rooney - the star of Nike's Write The Future campaign - couldn't lead England to a win.

P.S. I know this isn't a really scientific way of looking at things but when it comes to football boots - I reckon there's alot of us out there who buy the boots of our favourite players who score the goals.

I should feel better in a month

If you listen closely you can almost here the sounds of the vuvuzela trumpets slowly building towards the start of the World Cup 2010 tomorrow night and marking a month of fake sick days and low office productivity.

That's according to recruitment and HR services specialists Randstad which said that employers in Malaysia need to consider the impact of the World Cup on their workforce and productivity levels when the nation catches football fever.

It warned that Malaysia's passion for the World Cup was likely to have an impact beyond tired faces at the office as employees are likely to watch replays on their computers in the office, have post match discussions, as well as participate in online forums – particularly as the final approaches.

"Some businesses, especially those which are tightly resourced and still trying to build up from the Global Financial Crisis, may find World Cup Fever to be irritating and a major distraction to achieving their goals," Sahun Nadarajah, General Manager and Director of Randstad Malaysia, said.

"However, instead of dampening people’s spirits and expressing your frustration, it’s actually an ideal time to embrace the spirit of the sport, have fun and build employee morale through celebration and a culture of teamwork."

Nadarajah's advice? Allow people to express their emotions and be passionate about this global sporting event because it can have a positive impact on the overall happiness and mental attitude of staff in the workplace.

"Themed marketing and business development activities can also be effective tools to generate sales and build stronger relationships with staff and customers," Nadarajah said.

"It’s actually a great time to celebrate diversity in the workplace, by encouraging people to get behind their favourite team. Employers should see this as an opportunity to build a sense of team spirit, boost the overall culture of the company and demonstrate to their workers they are a supportive employer inside and outside of the workplace."

With that... let the games begin. Go Oranje!

What's the big idea?

You know World Cup fever has peaked when even your admin staff starts sending you links to football ads. On this particular occasion, the really interesting part played out in the commenting section - not in the ad.

You can view it here.

I think most football fans would agree the ad is amusing but there were a lot of negative comments about the idea not being original enough - "done, done, done" were some of the repeated comments left by users. Some went to as much detail as to name other campaigns by brands which were similar (i.e. Burger King).

The ad was made by an advertising school so its not good if their students are stealing ideas.

And just as I was starting to feel a little judgmental myself, a different comment caught my eye.

"So what if it's been done before? Everything has been done before. Does it fit the brand? Is it in context? Will consumers remember your message or that the message was sponsored by you? Those are what's important."

Slightly defensive but point made. We operate in an ideas business and the stealing of ideas (or magazine mastheads) is something we totally oppose but in terms of advertising, where do you draw the line between inspiration and copying?

If a marketer gets inspired by another person's work, adapts it and uses it in a way which creates effective results for their brand - should we judge the work based on the results or cast it aside as a copycat effort? It depends on the severity of the similarities between the work I suppose.

I've heard many brand marketers complain before about ad agencies who think they are in the business of creating art, not realising they are in the business of creating business for brands.

Maybe sometimes we are a little too quick to categorise new ads as copied.