Kelly Slater and Dane Reynolds: Branding in a Brave New World
In the minutes between the semi-final and final of the Quiksilver Pro New York, with $300,000 - surfing's biggest payday - on the line, Kelly Slater was typing furiously into his Twitter feed. Twitter addiction is a relatively new malady, the symptoms not clearly defined, yet Slater's behaviour must surely fit the diagnosis.
In the last six months Slater has been a prolific Twitter user. At last look he'd sent 3,570 Tweets and had 104,582 people following him. Slater uses Twitter as his primary form of fan interaction, yet despite the enormous potential for company branding there isn't a single logo on his Twitter page.
The same is true for Dane Reynolds, who's incredibly popular blog, Marine Layer, is another piece of unbranded digital real estate. If you were new to surfing and weren't aware of each surfer's primary sponsor you'd have to look elsewhere to find out.
For two of the most highly paid surfers in the world I found this incredible. Refreshing, yes, but very different from the way that marketing and branding has previously existed in the surfing industry.
In the past - at least up to the advent of online blogs around five years ago - the main sources of material for fans of pro surfing were movies and magazines. For the last twenty years the movie medium has been controlled by surf companies, the branded surf film being the dominant form. Each major company puts out at least a film a year and distribute them freely, often mounted on the covers of surfing magazines.
The free issue of surf movies underlines their intent; funded by marketing budgets, branded surf films are promotional vehicles for the companies in question. The surfers surf and the soundtrack rocks out - it's entertaining, no doubt - but it doesn't take much to realise that the whole package is simply an elaborate advertisement.
With commercial constraints there's little room for surfers in a movie to express themselves in ways beyond a surfboard. Insights are rare and often only articulated through the filter of a campaign ('I surf because'). Any scope the surfers have for a unique depiction is left in the hands of others, namely art directors or marketing folk.
Surf magazines, for their part, had their own particular relationship with surf companies, usually dictated by advertising dollars spent and then manifested in the magazines content: Which surfers are to go on the boat trip? Who is to get profiled? And, who shall appear on the cover?
Some magazines work more independently than others (or at least they camouflage their advertorial better) but, once again, the surfers have little control in how they are portrayed. Sponsors light the path, writers choose the words, theme and context, the editors have the final say.
Dion Agius was the first surfer of note to have their own blog and begin uploading unfiltered personal content directly to the internet. At the time it was new, exciting and an immediate hit. Yet even his blog, TV/Dion, was branded by Globe, their logo appearing in multiple places on the blog and even present in the URL (www.globe.tv/dion).
Since the popularity of TV/Dion surfers have begun to fill the digital space via blogs, websites and now Twitter. Professional surfers have realised the huge image-making potential of creating unique blogs and filling them with fresh video content, or of engaging with fans directly through Twitter. In the process they have begun to circumvent the traditional company-controlled paths of promotion.
As an interested observer it appeared to me that the surfing companies were beginning to lose control of the narrative; their sponsor-endorsed athletes had begun to operate outside the bounds of company campaigns and were roaming far beyond their usual niches. As much as it is possible fans were, for the first time, observing the surfers in their natural state.
Which brings us to Kelly and Dane and their respective white label spaces. It's an indication of how far we've come, or perhaps how we now view the world, when a person such as myself, with a cynics eye to the dark art of marketing, wonders what sort of 'value' Quiksilver get from their highly paid athletes running unbranded sites. I'll admit to being disconcerted thinking in those terms, so I'll rephrase the premise: Surfing companies once did all they could to extract branding potential from their surfers, but in the digital age that no longer seems the case.
The question therefore begs: What has changed?
Luke Wallace is the Digital Marketing Manager at Monster Energy. Digital marketing requires a whole new approach and Wallace says he's fortunate to work for Monster as they are are a company that "get it". For one, they don't do any traditional advertising: no print, TV, billboards or radio. I was surprised to hear this. Not because it's a new approach, but because I'm well aware of Monster. They aren't an unknown entity to me. In marketing speak they had cut through, and they had done so using a new, digitally-inclined, marketing strategy.
According to Wallace, Monster give their athletes 100% freedom to do what they want, "We give them financial backing to go and achieve their dreams and goals." The freedom however, comes with a greater responsibility and surfers operating in the digital space have to be cautious about what they say and do. "It's not something you do after a few drinks," Wallace says of Tweeting. "Like any responsible parent, we keep an eye on them," he adds.
Of greater bearing is the responsibility of the surfers to build their own image. Where once the companies oversaw the direction a surfer would take – finding a niche and building an image to suit – the onus now falls upon the surfer. The decisions and the actions that follow are theirs alone.
Wallace nominates Ryan Hipwood as a good example of this. In recent years Hipwood has shunned competition and built an image by chasing big waves, filming them, and uploading them to the net. To be honest, I wasn't aware that Hipwood was sponsored by Monster, yet I'm well aware of his exploits in big waves and, as I mentioned above, I'm well aware of Monster - such is the fuzzy, often intangible relationship between brand and athlete.
Fuzzy is not a term that could be used to describe the relationship between Kelly Slater and Quiksilver. Slater is inextricably linked to Quiksilver having been sponsored since 1990 and sporting the mountain and the wave logo during all 10 world title campaigns. Following his 9th world title win Slater famously took shares in the company and now owns 3% of it.
Simon MacGregor is the Marketing Director for Quiksilver Asia Pacific and also sits on the Quiksilver global marketing committee. Like Wallace, MacGregor says Quiksilver fully encourage their surfers to enter the digital sphere. He sees their online presence, "as essentially an extension of their personal voices," and says the best value – both for the company and, he stresses, for the surfer – is when they present themselves honestly and openly.
But what does Quiksilver get out of it? I put it to MacGregor that only high profile surfers such as Slater and Reynolds could run white label sites, where the link between surfer and company is clear. Not true, says MacGregor. "Look at Ry Craike's site as an example." And so I did. Craike, an aerial specialist with a limited following, has his own white label, unbranded website creating content independently of the Quiksilver marketing team.
"In the end," MacGregor says, "this is about them and how they can better expose themselves and drive their own marketability. In the end it's a win-win situation for both parties involved." It's not clear to me how an unbranded site belonging to a second-string surfer would benefit Quiksilver but MacGregor says that it, "has positive effects back our way in most cases".
Roughly five years after Agius' blog first appeared it's become clear that the burgeoning digital realm has shaken up and changed the traditional job roles. "It is a partnership between us as a brand and them being able to market themselves," was how MacGregor summed up the new relationship between surf companies and their sponsored surfers. The companies, for their part, don't appear threatened by the shift in power. The marketing was less intrusive but more sophisticated, and those I spoke to in the industry were enthused by the new possibilities it presented.
Most importantly however, is that professional surfers - at least those willing to embrace an online future - have never had more freedom to express themselves on their own terms. As Kelly Slater said when asked about his Twitter addiction, "I like that I can interact with people all around the world at once. It's like you're having a conversation with the world."
Comments
Hmm, I am still left with a bit of 'Keyser Söze and the devil' cynicism.
Walking hand in hand with Louis Cypher.
Maker of QS Cypher wetsuits.
Hmmmm........
Interesting read Stu but I think you are missing the very obvious point here.
Ry Craike, say, uploading video clips of Jakes to the whole world with a giant Quik sticker on his board is marketing pure and simple.
Same as it ever was.
Just cutting out the middle man.
In that sense companies have more direct control than ever. As alluded to by the Monster Energy dude. Big Brother is watching carefully.
And to suggest we are seeing Kelly Slater's unfiltered thoughts on his Twitter feed is a bit naive.
He is a large shareholder, acutely aware no doubt of his brand and the effect he would be having on his parent company.
I see this as just more vertical integration in terms of industry marketing, and it's clear they do to.
I disagree Steve. I just checked out Dane's site, and can't see any Quik branding whatsoever. I also checked out the first minute of each of the two videos on the site, and apart from one of the vids, which had a momentary glancing shot of Dane standing on the beach in a wettie (where there was a tiny Quik logo, if you squinted), everything was brand-free.
That's completely fine, and somewhat refreshing - but if this is branding on Quiksilver's part then it's very subliminal.
Whilst Stu has used Kelly and Dane as examples, I think Stu's point is relevant across the entire industry, and for all sponsored surfers. Social Media is a impulsive, reactionary vehicle and I think that it's risky to assume that every surfer has the smarts to conduct their own publicity machine in sync with their sponsor's mantra. That is, unless there are strict guidelines in place. I've seen some Facebook and Twitter posts by notable sponsored surfers in recent months that have certainly pushed the envelope.
@Steve,
In one line you say 'same as it ever was' and the very next line you say 'cuts out the middle man'. So, to cut out the middle man something has changed, no? And the point of the article was to find out what those changes are.
Ben outlined them very well in his post.
As for calling me naive about Slater's use of Twitter, here's a couple of quotes from him regarding Twitter:
..."Honestly, at first, I thought it was just some PR thing. And then I realized you can talk to so many people at once and just throw your thoughts out there."
..."I hate when people are blatantly promoting stuff. If I say "I'm going to Dafney's right now," that's okay because I'm going to Dafney's right now. But if it's just a tool to get paid, that's silly."
Of course he knows the effect he would be having on Quiksilver but, again, the point is that he doesn't mention them. Any value they receive is indirect and subtle, which is a far cry from the clunky, in-your-face marketing of the past.
Well I don't think that every sponsored surfer is necessarily in perfect lock-step with the sponsoring's companies marketing dept's.
Dane is a perfect example of that.
But each Marine Layer clip of him surfing with a Quik logo is marketing.
Obviously very, very effective marketing.
As his personal brand is built Quik enjoys the corresponding benefit.
And the point is that companies are monitoring the social media output of their sponnoed riders.
In effect, they are reaping the rewards of the surfers doing their own marketing and monitoring the output ready to police any infractions as required.
In marketing speak : "Like any responsible parent, we keep an eye on them."
Probably a very good reason why Bobby Martinez, say, would not be considered a suitable brand ambassador for a surf company.
I still disagree Steve. Quik appear to have no production input with Dane's web clips (or Ry's, either). I watched a whole clip on Dane's site just then and didn't see a single Quik logo (I don't even think he had one on his board either?).
Does Dane's contract state how much branding each Marine Layer clip needs to show? Or do they leave it to Dane's discretion? If so, that's a far cry from the promotional video standards of years gone by.
As for keeping an eye on every sponsored surfer's blog, Facebook page, Twitter feed and other associated Social Media - sounds like one heck of a job for those companies with large numbers of surfers scattered around the globe, uploading content at any time of the day via their mobile phones. Controversial content can go viral on the web in a matter of minutes, and once it's been uploaded somwehere, that's it - retractions are difficult to implement online. Personally, if I was responsible for the marketing for one of the big brands, I'd be somewhat nervous about having a team of frothing live wires keeping a real-time publicity machine in the pocket.
I hear you Ben. Who knows what is written into Dane's contract.
I just checked Marine Layer : in the first video on the site Dane appears on a board with a clearly visible Quik logo in the first 20 seconds.
In the second vid he appears straight up in a full frame shot walking towards camera in a Quik wetty.
They are the first things you see when you watch the videos (which is what people do when they visit the site).
While Quik may have no direct influence I'd say they would feel satisfied their brand is being marketed by Dane in those clips. Certainly any surfers watching those clips would be in no doubt who Dane is sponsored by.
Obviously there is the potential for something untoward from a brands perspective to go viral but the fact that it hasn't really happened would suggest surfers may at least be aware they are on a leash (even if it is a very long one compared to days gone by).
Also, compared to previous days surfers are now more visible and accountable so from that perspective their actual freedom to be themselves may be less than what it was.
No doubt though Dane is pushing the boundaries. But really, if you analyse his content, apart from being quirky, it's actually quite benign.
I re-watched that first video, Steve. OK, I concede that if you freeze frame every second, explicitly looking for a brand, you can probably deduce that there may be a Quiksilver logo on his board.
I certainly wouldn't call it 'cleary visible' though.
I genuinely didn't see any logos at all the first time I watched the clip. The wave was shot some distance away on the beach, so the footage isn't pin sharp. And he never really puts the board in a position where the front of the board is visible for any period of time.
But this is somewhat missing the point. Quik aren't trying to sell anything to you and I as we search for subtle logo placements. They're hoping to reach the passing grommet who stumbled across Dane's video on a random mate's Facebook page. And to that end, I still press the point that there's negligible branding on these videos, and on his website.
Great article. Surfing is indeed heading into new territory, the ground has shifted beneath the feet of large corporations and they've had to re-adjust and re-adjust quickly. It's been a long time since surfing was cutting edge and the industry lagged very badly in the digital transition. They still are.
I think we will see some very big changes in the near future and the companies will once again tighten the leash ( 'control the narrative'). It may sound open-minded and liberal of Quiksilver to give their charges free reign but the reality is they want to see fixed, quantifiable results from the enormous sums they put in. That's not acheived by having a scatter gun approach to marketing and promotion.
If anyone thinks what these "free" surfers are saying goes unmonitored... VERY closely... by the network of miscreants in The Industry (Big Three) then you are hopelessly delusional.
Monster, Red Bull, and the fringe companies want their team members causing a ruckus, being funny and generally "being themselves." That's what sells in today's market. But, when those fringe guys start encroaching on the Big Three territory (property) with things they say or do... shadows fall.
But it will not be like this for much longer.
Sub-brands are being created within traditional industry brands. To keep with the Dane/Kelly example, not long ago Quiksilver was the brand and Dane the representative, essentially a highly talented (and oversized) Quik logo. More recently though, Dane Reynolds has become the brand and Quksilver the representative. A host, perhaps.
Marketing genius or accidental effects in a rapidly flourishing social media world?
Wow, how many times has the brand in mention been named in just a few comments? Go back to my first post on this issue.
Also, top article Stu, you definitely have your finger on the pulse.
More cryptical, perhaps there is a little 'Vernon God Little' Powerdime here. Ohh how the Paradigm shift is present.
I'd say people who visit marine layer know Dane rides for Quik anyway...and the kids hate logos unless they're hand drawn. No branding is cool branding.
Maybe Adam. Perhaps Simon Anderson is doing Dane's PR?: "No branding is my branding".
Just as 'no image' become Simon's image, no branding - or obscured, crudely drawn branding - may be Dane's branding.
The big question is: Do Quikky make a return on the $5 million they spend allowing him to roam around unadorned? Is the link between he and the brand as firm as, say, Kelly and Quik?
Probably not Stu.
As you and Ben said the branding is more subtle but it is ever-present.
Look at the first video on Marine Layer.
Now count the shots in the 3 minute video.
Out of 30(or so) separate shots 25 have branded items (surfboards, wetuits etc etc ) in them.
While this may be subtle and sub-conscious marketing it is certainly close to saturation.
Only difference I can see between this and a magazine article with still shots (ie the old way) is that the branding is more subtle, more background.
It'd be interesting to put the clip in front of someone who didn't surf and didn't know Dane (possible?) and ask them who they thought his sponsors were.
I think it is sophisticated marketing that appeals to kids as well as more savvy, cynical surfers who are tending to be anti-brand.
It's certainly a much different marketing strategy to Paul Fisher's site, which is plastered with Reef branding (even selling Fish/Reef t-shirts!).
Hey the medium is the message man!
Bigredcouch put it well "not long ago Quiksilver was the brand and Dane the representative... More recently though, Dane Reynolds has become the brand and Quksilver the representative."
Reynolds is the brand. Slater is the brand.
There was a magazine ad around recently for some very fetching D Reynolds signature trousers. If you look closely, there's also a small Quik logo in the lower part of the page. Doesn't matter if I don't realise they're made by Quik, so long as I BUY THE DAMN TROUSERS!
nice one. i like the topic and associated thoughts, can't help but throw in 2 bobs, complex as it is. i think branding internet clips and twitter feeds at this end of the surf marketing spectrum don't count, as long as we (the important thing is we the surfers) know the association.
its the millions that don't surf that buy surf company stuff that this filters down to. the local lad thats the coolest surfer in the lineup and follows dane leads the way.
surfers are veering away from being marketed to. the local grass roots shaper are still viable enterprises in my town and these guys do no marketing at all. my point here is that surfers want a genuine product that works, and a relationship with that product. sometimes this may be a first name basis relationship (with shaper) as it used to be, or one based on the image makers or genuine personality of a marketable surfer.
but then there's more...most people sporting surf brands (or any brand for that matter) have no association to the roots that the company grew from. i could safely say that the layman in the street wearing quiksilver wouldnt know who dane reynolds was - but we do. and the fact that we are into NOT being marketed to tend to lean towards this subtle method.
i went into a surf shop in rich w.a. suburb to eye-off some new boards, and lo and behold there were no boards.
and the irony is, what boards did i want to look at - the new merricks. duh!
i hope that made sense.
Don't remember who it was, but I was told that for the top guys, social networking was a requirement in their contracts. Basically branding yourself, to make yourself more valuable to both parties. Sounds like a no-brainer.
We really don't need to see Quik branding on Marine Layer to know it is Quik. The entire demographic that would buy Quik because Dane is Quik already does that.
Does it occur to anyone that web traffic to Marine Layer just might be part of Dane's compensation package?
Could it be that the marketing of Dane is that of a cool guy who doesn't wear Quik shirts from the line with big logo's, but those from the Quik line of discreet labelling?
the pitch...
Dane is different. Do you want to be different. Follow Dane. Follow the Marine Layer. This is new. This is cool. This is Dane.
Dane is Quik. Dane wears Quik. Buy Quik. Quickly.
Surfing cinema is definitely worse for content. I picked up a copy of the latest Surfing Life and the opening scenes for the Blowup DVD was off putting. It looked like a shoot for a corona commercial
Not to mention the over saturation of rotation airs.