Which begs the question: are the two Korean titans, despite all their successes, still obsessed with the Japanese innovator? More pertinently, can they truly prosper in its shadow?
The timing of Samsung’s decision to call a review (whether or not Publicis Groupe had any influence as speculated) is interesting - not least because it comes amid an internal audit at the company and the most radical shake-up in its history.
For Samsung, which morphed from a second-tier copycat into a top global brand, times are not particularly good and the brand is beginning to look a little tired and somewhat complacent.
It recently reported its weakest results in more than five years, as two of its three main businesses took a dip. The news left many wondering whether Korea’s biggest company was headed the same way of Sony - which, after the Walkman, noticeably fell victim to its own complacency.
But, despite the poor results, the good news for Samsung is that its mobile phone business unit at least appears stable, with the company overtaking beleaguered Motorola for the number two spot 12 years after it entered the business. Much of that is down to a clever strategy that saw it switch its focus from high-end phones to cheaper models in developing markets. At last, Samsung can say that it has Nokia in its sights.
Samsung’s woes, however, run deep. Most pressing of these is a need to be, well, less Korean and put greater focus on creativity rather than uniformity.
Finding that internal creative spark could well prove tricky, more so given the Lee family’s control and the complex shareholding structure that gives it disproportionate power. But if Samsung’s not careful, its culture could prove to be its biggest enemy as it seeks out change.
Nipping at Samsung’s heels is LG. It was, until the mid-’90s, neck-and-neck with Samsung in the race to become Korea’s top electronics producer. Both were hit hard by the Asian financial crisis in 1997.
While Samsung embarked on a painful restructuring and massive brand-building drive to push it into the ranks of global leaders, LG made heavy investments into telecoms.
Sadly for the brand, the timing couldn’t have been worse and its botched strategy resulted in an investor panic in 2000, with its shares tumbling 75 per cent.
Since then, LG has had considerable success on the back of its Chocolate and more recent Shine mobile phone models. Its move to go against its own conventional thinking and bring in marketing talent from outside of the company is clearly paying off. Indeed, LG is being taken far more seriously today by consumers than it used to be.
Nonetheless, irrespective of past triumphs or flops, it would be wise for both Korean brands to use their upcoming reviews - provided, unlike recent years, they take shape beyond the RFP stage — as an opportunity to access the best industry thinkers for an original view of the changing communications market.
When it comes to reinvention, The Standard in Hong Kong is something of a pro. For those who have lost count of the daily’s many reincarnations, we’re on shuffle number three in recent years.
The Standard’s last attempts at reinventing itself - first going from a broadsheet to a tabloid as the iMail, before reverting to its old name - has, needless to say, left advertisers and agencies more than a little sceptical and readers slightly confused.
The decision to go free is all well and good, and with the right distribution the paper should benefit from better visibility.
But perhaps the question needs to be asked - has main rival South China Morning Post finally brought the underdog to its knees?
