A passenger using his mobile phone walks past an advertisement promoting Samsung Electronics' Galaxy Note 3 at its exhibition hall at a railway station in Seoul November 25, 2013. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

By Miyoung Kim

SEOUL (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co is expected to spend around $14 billion - more than Iceland's GDP - on advertising and marketing this year, but it doesn't always get value for money.

The outlay buys the South Korean technology giant publicity in TV and cinema ads, on billboards, and at sports and arts events from the Sydney Opera House to New York's Radio City Music Hall. Google Inc spent less on buying Motorola's handset business.

And Samsung, which has a market value of $227 billion, has made no secret of keeping up its aggressive marketing and promotion splurge as it seeks to make its brand as aspirational as Apple Inc's. But the money it's spending doesn't always bring the desired result.

Last month, a Samsung-sponsored short-film contest finale at the Sydney Opera House received poor reviews for blatant product placement in a series of 'behind the scenes' videos. In Britain, viewers panned a product placement deal with ITV's popular X-Factor talent show. "Is this a singing competition or an extended Samsung advert?" asked Twitter user Ryan Browne.

Earlier this year, Samsung's New York launch of its latest top-of-the-range Galaxy smartphone came under fire for being sexist, portraying giggling women chatting about jewelry and nail polish while the men discussed the new phone, and the company's new fridge and washing machine launch in South Africa drew similar complaints as it featured swim-suit dancers.

"Samsung's marketing is too much focused on projecting an image they aspire to: being innovative and ahead of the pack," said Oh Jung-suk, associate professor at the business school of Seoul National University. "They are failing to efficiently bridge the gap between the aspiration and how consumers actually respond to the campaign. It's got to be more aligned."

Samsung spends a bigger chunk of its annual revenue on advertising and promotion than any other of the world's top-20 companies by sales - 5.4 percent, according to Thomson Reuters data. Apple spends just 0.6 percent, and General Motors 3.5 percent.

"When your brand doesn't have a clear identity, as is the case with Samsung, to keep spending is probably the best strategy," said Moon Ji-hun, head of brand consultant Interbrand's Korean operation. "But maintaining marketing spend at that level in the longer term wouldn't bring much more benefit. No one can beat Samsung in terms of (ad) presence, and I doubt whether keeping investing at this level is effective."

In a statement to Reuters, Samsung said it will "continue to leverage our brand power to maintain growth momentum, while focusing on optimizing the efficiency of our marketing activities," reiterating recent comments by its co-CEO.

"Our product innovation and marketing strategy have made Samsung the world's most preferred smartphone brand," J.K. Shin, who also heads the group's mobile business, told investors recently. "Now we'll move from the most preferred brand to become one of the world's leading aspirational brands."

INNOVATING, NOT FOLLOWING

Samsung's 'Next Big Thing,' and 'It's Time to Change' marketing campaigns stress that its products are cutting-edge, and even trumpet its technology 'world firsts' before they're ready for prime time, such as curved smartphones, available only in South Korea, and curved TVs that cost nearly $10,000.

For a company long seen as a follower, this is now a big sell on it being an innovator.

But, while Samsung has become the world's biggest advertiser, spending $4.3 billion on ads alone last year, its global brand value of $39.6 billion is less than half that of Apple, which spent only $1 billion on advertising, according to Interbrand and ad researcher Ad Age.

To be sure, Samsung has a more diverse range of mobile products, which along with its chips and household appliance businesses need more marketing across different target audiences. But the heavy marketing spend suggests a need to convince consumers that it belongs at the top. Apple can afford to spend less as it already has that brand recognition, and cachet.

"The stronger, more differentiated the product, the less it needs to be propped up by advertising," said Horace Dediu, founder of independent research firm Asymco and a former Nokia business development manager, referring to Apple's ad spend.

Story continues