Social networks have changed the way we watch TV. Now instead of our attention squarely focused on the content which is being broadcast, people are increasingly using their laptops, tablets and smartphones to engage with it as well. But the TV is not being left out in the cold when people ‘dual-screen’ as they’re also usually interacting with the programme online.
People will be posting their opinion about the show on Facebook and Twitter and even Googling it. Savvy production companies are getting in on the act by creating interactive online experiences to keep people within properties they own. Tellybug, develops apps that accompanies popular TV shows. They developed the ‘tap-to-clap’ app for The X Factor which allows people to cheer or boo contestants. Programmes such as The Bank Job encourage people to play online. And to play, Channel 4 makes them hand over personal information which can be sold to advertisers to create more targeted advertising.
The bringing together of the offline and online worlds has mutual benefits. For the programme, viewing figures are likely to be boosted. If people’s social feeds are lit up about a show, they are likely to be intrigued and tune in themselves. However, there are bucket loads of opportunities for marketers, the majority of which have not been exploited. The biggest opportunity lies in using people’s passion for the show and the talkability it generates.
Marketers have only been able to show any kind of affinity to a show and the surrounding brand by sponsorship or advertising that merely annoys people. Brands need to throw themselves into the online debate surrounding a show, in doing so will forge a deeper bond with a show’s audience. They can do this by buying search engine keywords or sponsored trends or hashtags on Twitter to make sure when people search online they find the brand. They can also post content about the show which their fans and followers want to share are their social network. What brands essentially need is a strong digital footprint and engaging content which complements the TV content people are watching.
There’s a frenzy from Silicon Valley to Wall Street as Facebook gears up for its IPO that’s expected to raise $10 billion and value the eight-year-old company at $100 billion. If as expected, Facebook files next week, it’ll be the hottest tech flotation since Google in 2004. Analysts, bankers, tech executives and the media have been lining up to question Facebook’s lofty valuation. Many say that a value of $100 billion for a business that reportedly rakes in under $4 billion in revenue is insane. However, if we look back at recent history the valuation seems spot on.
Google and Facebook may serve different purposes but they have many similarities. They are both businesses funded almost entirely by pay-per-click advertising and to ultimately succeed they need to court the attention of marketers. They are also quite frankly worldwide phenomenons and companies that fundamentally changed the internet. When Google filed in 2004, it raised $1.67 billion with a valuation of $23 billion, this was on revenue of just under $1 billion. The valuation was around 23 times its revenue. It seemed high to many, but now Google reports revenues of $37.9 billion and its shares have grown 435 per cent since 2004. If one bought shares at Google’s initial public offering, it would be fair to say it was a shrewd investment.
If we look at Facebook’s figures they are already impressive and there’s the potential for high-growth. A $100 billion valuation would be roughly 25 times the current revenue of the company. This mirrors Google’s situation in 2004. But the real statistics investors should be looking at are the 800 million active users; the 50 per cent who log on daily; the 900 million objects people interact with; the seven million apps and websites tied to Facebook; and the 350 million active users who currently access Facebook through their mobile devices. Facebook has a large, engaged user base, a strong presence on mobile and ever growing insight into everyone on the site. This personal information is a valuable commodity for marketers as they crave more intelligent, targeted advertising. Facebook has made a lot of friends among advertisers who have poured billions into the company. Brands and marketing agencies will continue to pour billions more into Facebook as its user base grows, more apps and websites marry to its social graph and it continues to mature as a service. And this is why Facebook is a $100 billion company.
A multi-billion war is raging as internet businesses battle to gain control over two of the most important commodities in today’s economy – time and data. Google, so long the darling of the internet is being steadily supplanted by Facebook, the new superpower. Google created its business by connecting people to the web’s resources, while Facebook has created one of the most exciting and fastest growing companies by connecting people to each other. However, Facebook, with the announcement at F8, has set a new course from not just connecting people to each other, but also to things, ideas and media. Facebook has introduced a range of features over the past few years in order to give people a reason to log in and stay inside its empire. And with the ability to read the news on The Guardian, listen to music on Spotify, or watch a film on Netflix, all within its walls, Facebook is trying to become a social entertainment hub. In doing so, it is encouraging people to view Facebook as the first destination on the internet and then give them no reason to browse anywhere else.
Facebook’s growing popularity is a big problem for Google. Facebook is a walled garden which effectively means that Google cannot index any of the content on the site. Google makes billions organising the web, but if it cannot index a large and growing section of that audience, its business is going to suffer. Google is obviously very concerned and its chief internet evangelist Vint Cerf made a rather bold statement saying Facebook must open up or it would suffer the same fate as AOL. Google has also responded to the rise of Facebook by trying to create its own social experience. So far, Google has failed: Wave was scrapped; Google+, despite an initial growth spurt, looks like it’s confined to the technology community; while Google’s only real social success is YouTube, which it acquired.
Facebook’s F8 announcements are so significant because they will attract people to the site, keep them there for longer and arm Facebook with greater insight into them. You log into Facebook, tell it who you are, where you’ve been, what you like to watch, listen to and read. While you are doing this, Facebook is getting a 360-degree picture of who you are and the type of things that will catch your attention. This data is the kind of information that advertisers crave, as brands seek a more sophisticated approach to advertising. For decades advertisers adopted a scattergun approach – firing campaigns at a mass audience in hope that their messages would potentially hit the right people. Facebook is now offering access to a mass audience, but it’s also offering advertisers access to the right audience. If Facebook can offer up adverts on your profile which are crafted especially for you, there’s a greater chance you’ll click on it and therefore earn money for the company and its advertising network partners.
Oil is one of the most valuable commodities in the world; companies go to the ends of the earth to get it and countries have gone to war for it. It has been said that data is the new oil, and Google and Facebook have squared up to drill for as much information about people in the world as they can. If these businesses can attract you to their online properties, they get your time and data. Both of these are essential to sell to advertisers. The war these two internet giants are fighting is one of the biggest battles in business today. The company which can mine the most data will ultimately succeed and will win a huge slice of the multi-billion pound internet advertising market.
When Martin Sorrell speaks people listen. So a few ears perked up after he gave an interview to the Telegraph suggesting the Coalition’s austerity programme is the envy of our American cousins.
But what caught my attention was that the man in charge of communications behemoth WPP said that data is the thing that excites him most. I agree with him (not just because he heads up a company which owns a huge chunk of the industry which I hope to progress in and he’s pretty much always right anyway) because more scientific and logical thinking creates better communication.
Companies have always craved a greater understanding of consumers. Account planning in advertising was developed to give creative work more of a scientific basis. The practice is the brainchild of legendary adman Stanley Pollitt, who felt his clients deserved advertising that was less reliant on gut feeling and more on logical insights.
The use of data can be effectively used across marketing to great effect, if you know how people tick, you know how to communicate to them. Tesco’s Clubcard loyalty programme is a great example of how data about consumers can be used to obtain a detailed understanding of their behaviour. Although Tesco harvests a vast amount of data there have been very few concerns raised about privacy, this is down to the fact that the scheme is opt-in. People want to be part of the scheme and can see its benefits due to useful vouchers being sent to them.
As technology has developed it has made it easier to get data, Tesco were on able to launch the Clubcard scheme after magnetic strips on cards made it cost effective to track individual’s behaviour. The Internet is now an essential part of many of our lives and it has meant there are more opportunities for our likes, dislikes and behaviour to be tracked and ana
lysed.
But this lust from marketers to gather data also raises serious concerns about privacy. Facebook has got in a world of trouble about its privacy issues. Mark Zuckerberg, in what turned out to be a massive PR gaffe, famously said ‘the age of privacy is over’. However the data from its users’ profiles is exactly the kind of stuff advertisers crave. That’s why advertising on Facebook is so powerful, as it uses people’s profile information such as their age/gender/location/likes to ensure only relevant ads are shown on people’s pages. On my Facebook page adverts include those about football, poker and things to do in London. All fairly accurate and things that would catch my attention, therefore I would be more likely to click on them. Although people have freely entered information on Facebook, there have still been various complaints about the way Facebook uses the data to sell to advertisers, many saying it is a gross invasion of privacy.
Also as more and more people get smartphones and as apps are widely downloaded and used, there has been concerns raised about how some developers are using their apps to mine consumer data. The Wall Street Journal recently broke a story about how various apps have been sending personal data – such as location, age, gender and other personal details – in order to gain a detailed analysis of people in order to sell onto marketers. The more that is known about a person the more revenue that can be generated, for example ads targeted by location bring in two to five times as much money as untargeted ads.
Marketers like targeted advertising as instead of using a megaphone tactic, shouting their message at a crowd and hoping it’ll be heard by at least some relevant people, they are getting targeted, sophisticated and their message to the right audience. Also because it’s targeted they are willing to pay for more for it, so there is a big market out there for companies that can provide information about people and their behaviour.
Some find it creepy and invasive they are receiving advertising that’s targeted and personal to them, personally I find it useful as I am increasingly seeing things that interest me. There is no point advertising a Venus razor at me – because although the lady showcasing the Greek goddess type qualities may catch my attention – as there’s no way I’ll ever buy one.
Boohoo.com's first poster in their advertising campaign
When I first saw the advert for online shopping website boohoo.com on a giant poster in London, I smiled. It was a great piece of communication, beautifully simple, yet wonderfully powerful.
The advert spoke to its audience so well. The clothes look wonderful, the language used (OMG) is the language that would be common in their lives, and the first model who was used (picture above) looked like the kind of girl girls want to be friends with. The clothes pictured and named in the copy (playsuit, clutch, jumpsuit) are only things that the target audience will know about, so the ad creates a sense that they are ‘in’ on the message of the advertising.
But what makes this advertising really work is the model, her expression captures you attention, draws you in and it reinforces the message. It communicates that boohoo provides the shopping experience that women crave – that they should fall in love with their clothes and they should excite them.
However the follow up spots disappointed me (one of them is below). They had the same copy, the same style, the same feel but they were wrong. This was all because of the model. Not only do they look far less friendly, like the kind of girl who would say she liked a friend’s new clutch but then bitch about it behind her back and then no doubt try and seduce her boyfriend round the back of a club by some bins. Also their faces have a strange expression and does not paint a picture of shock or excitement.
One of the follow up spots for boohoo.com
For advertising to make a full impact every little detail has to be perfect. In the case of boohoo.com the first in the series was spot on, but the follow ups, although near identical, were not as effective. The models were not effectively communicating boohoo’s brand values that were pouring out from the first spot.
Adidas’ miCoach app was launched a while agi with a bit of a bang through a high-profile advertising campaign featuring a string of the brand’s star athletes. According to the company spiel, the app allows people with smartphones to turn their device into a personal trainer. The award-winning miCoach app is itself a piece of marketing for Adidas, but no doubt the aim of the advertising campaign was to create an online buzz through Twitter and YouTube and help the video go viral, much in the same way Nike’s World Cup advert did earlier this year.
The online buzz which the Adidas spot was intended to create would have helped drive people to Adidas’ website and towards the iPhone application. Even with so many stars crammed into a one minute spot the advert was far from epic despite the potential, in fact it only generated just over 200,000 views compared to Nike’s effort which was seen well over 20 million times
Adidas also managed to get a couple of decent hits in some top publications through a bit of PR work. There were stories featuring Adidas’ sponsored athletes including Chris Hoy on the Daily Mail Online, Andy Murray in the Sun, and David Davies (swimmer) on Skysport.co.uk. Now some nice hits, but the miCoach is not the narrative of the story, it merely gets a scant mention at the end. The launch of the app also managed to generate a bit of coverage in the marketing, tech and some high-profile titles, and it also continues to be mentioned in various fitness related articles in the press.
Don’t get me wrong the app is a fantastic idea and a great way for a sports brand to connect with its market and build brand loyalty. However the whole communication plan for the app has been below par compared to the amount of potential the app presents; therefore the app would be best promoted through a digital campaign.
The campaign is all about using the app to reach the top of your game and becoming the best you can be. The advertising implies that these top athletes are helped in their quest for excellence by the miCoach app and therefore indirectly by Adidas. In order for the marketing potential for the app to be reached I would launch the miCoach challenge through a digital campaign.
The focus of the campaign would be a mission to turn ordinary people into the best athletes they can be. Adidas would find people with average fitness around the country and then over a course of three/four months these people would use the miCoach app to train with the aim of improving their fitness. People from different areas of the country would be chosen who compete in different sports. The variance in gender, geography, and sports would help engage a wide audience throughout the UK.
The central focus of the campaign would be a microsite with interactive features, such as blogs and vlogs from the competitors who could talk about their training with a personal slant. People could comment on the blogs/vlogs and offer encouragement and ask questions. Addidas’ sponsored athletes could also be filmed training with the competitors and the videos put on the site. The athletes could answer questions and host webcasts from the public sent in through Twitter, email and text.
Various social media applications can be embedded into the site including Twitter and Flickr, where the competitors could engage with their followers. Adidas’ sports scientists would track the progress of the competitors throughout the period the campaign is taking place, and the winner would be the person who has improved their fitness the most. As a follow up challenge they could all participate in the London Marathon and the person who finished first would be crowned the ultimate champion. The marathon lends itself to a great digital campaign as the competitors could be fitted with GPS in order to track their progress throughout the marathon.
The microsite would help build a community around the miCoach app and help allow it to become the focus of the marketing campaign instead of in the background. People are bombarded with so much marketing that is becoming easier to ignore, so therefore brands need to think creatively in order to connect with their audiences.
On the surface of it Waitrose’s latest marketing plan to match Tesco on 1000 branded goods seem a little bit strange.
The scheme has been backed up with a heavy TV, press, outdoor and email advertising campaign, and the launch of the price match has also received a number of mentions in the media.
Waitrose has carved itself a lovely niche in the market by offering quality premium goods, which is different from the low cost strategy of Tesco and Asda. It seems strange Waitrose wants to try and compete with the bargain supermarkets as it is already an extremely competitive end of the market; and an end that seems to demand a constant slew of the advertising in order to keep market share intact.
The timing of the price match is also bizarre. Why launch it now when the economy has recovered and not during the recession when value for money was high on the agenda? Also the thrust of this campaign is that they will match the price of Tesco, not beat it, not undercut them, not actually save anyone any money, so they are offering no unique benefit for people. It also does not match of the other several branded products that supermarkets offer.
A Waitrose shopper has been willing to pay a bit more for their weekly shop in a trade of for quality, they are the Marks and Spencer yummy mummy who are doing their big weekly shop.
So trying to position the supermarket in the same bracket as Tesco, one that is competitive on price, may also damage the brand’s reputation of quality.
However I think this campaign will work. It helps reassure existing customers they are not being ripped off by paying over the odds for the same items, and it will also help to draw in new customers as well. I can imagine this campaign has been launched after a lot of research in which the main finding was that people are intrigued by Waitrose but are put off because of the perceived high price of their goods.
But 19 years ago my mother, a regular Asda shopper, thought she would give Tesco a whirl after hearing it was a little bit better than Asda and just as cheap. So off to Tesco she went to do her regular weekly shop and to her horror she discovered that it had cost her over £10 more. She agreed that some of the goods were better, but she has never been back to Tesco to do her main shop since that day.
So the price match may work in dragging extra people in Waitrose, but once they discover that their shopping costs more the majority will soon revert back to their normal cheaper supermarket.
But a few may enjoy the experience and the food within Waitrose that they may decide to keep on shopping there. So I think this bold strategy will work for the company as it tries to snatch more market share in the ultra-competitive world of supermarket retail.
Coke’s top bods in Atlanta are apparently pushing the top bods in London to drop Rooney as they are worried it will hurt the brand’s family-friendly image.
If he is dropped he would lose a huge chunk out of endorsement deals – his deal with the drinks manufacturer is reportedly worth £600,000 a year.
It is a tough spot for Coca-Cola, as either keeping Rooney or dropping him could have consequences for the business, as its different brands appeal to different consumers.
Coleen Rooney is a role-model to young women in the UK and as such a role-model to the core market of Diet Coke. If Rooney is kept on it may turn women off the brand. Also Coca-Cola has positioned itself as a family-friendly brand. Women tend to do the shopping for households, if Coke continues to support Rooney it may turn mothers away from the brand and they may be less inclined to buy Coke’s products when doing the family shop.
However Coca-Cola’s other brands may suffer if Rooney is dropped. Rooney is paid by the company to represent their PowerAde and Coke Zero brands, both of these are geared towards a young male market. In fact Zero is often referred to as ‘Bloke Coke’ and PowerAde is pretty much wholly consumed by young men in the 18- to 30-year-old demographic.
They are unlikely to be particularly upset by Rooney’s infidelity (compared to women), as it is viewed as the laddish behaviour that is to be expected of a footballer and an ordinary bloke. A source (probably one of Coke’s London execs) hit home on this point, they said: “Americans cannot fathom the laddish culture that surrounds football.’’
And if Coke drops an icon for young lads/men this may also have an adverse affect on sales of Coca-Cola’s brand geared towards this end of the market.
The company is in a very tricky position as whatever it decision it makes on Rooney’s sponsorship deal it could have damaging effects on its overall brand, its individual brands and its sales.
I was exposed to the most advertising while in the Underground
Apparently we live in an over advertised world and it is claimed we are exposed to an ever increasing amount of advertising. There is no place in the UK where you are more likely to see a marketing message than in London.
So I thought I would do a little test of my own to see how many adverts passed me by and how many I could remember at the end of my journey.
I travelled from Camberwell to Old Street by catching a bus, travelling on the Underground and finally walking to my destination. It took me 34 minutes and I reckon I saw a total of 127 adverts.
How many adverts between Camberwell & Old Street?
The Numbers
I was on the bus for 13 minutes and saw 27 adverts
I was in the Underground for 14 minutes and saw 89 adverts
And I was walking for 7 minutes and saw 11 adverts
I could only recall 6 adverts, and of those adverts I could only remember the message of 3 adverts
The adverts I recalled
Of all the 127 adverts I saw on the side of buses, plastered on phone boxes and bus stops, pasted onto the walls of Underground stations, placed inside Underground trains and put onto billboards, I could only remember 6. They were:
* A Specsavers ad featuring a handsome chap which offered me 2 for 1 on designer specs.
* A wonderful Nando’s spot on the tube which was promoting Peri-Peri sauce. It was a lovely poster that stuck in my head as it made me smile. It basically asked to introduce a fellow passenger to Peri-Peri sauce and as thanks they would be so grateful they name their children after you (an arrow points down to a seat, where hopefully someone is sat).
* A Carling ad telling us the beer now has a great tasting brew that is locked in the can
* Lucozade - all I remember was a swoosh of Lucozade
* Toy Story 3
* BT and random footballers
Of all the adverts the Nando’s spot was the only one that had an effect on me. This spot reinforced my belief that Nando’s has great tasting food, provides an experience that people will remember and it is a fun and quirky brand.
Well it’s Saturday so there are no free newspapers or magazines to entertain people while travelling on the London Underground. So to break the boredom I decided to glance round the carraiges, take a closer look at the adverts and find my favourite.
The winner by a landslide was this spot for Volkswagen. It is a wonderful piece which has a excellent strategy and is beautifully simple. While online is suited for consumers to interact with marketing this print poster has managed to pull it off, and far more effectively then most online campaigns. It is fantastic as it engages, has a lovely pay-off and is brave enough to not show the product.
A World Cup themed poster trying to encourage people to visit Germany
Apparently there is a football tournament taking place, so I thought I better jump on the bandwagon and start talking about the World Cup. It is not just me, every brand has jumped of the World Cup wagon, and even if they are not official sponsors they have found various strange ways to be associated with football.
But this bizarre poster, which caught my eye while on an escalator escaping the Northern line, has to be the strangest World Cup advertising I have come across.
During a time when the English public are whipped up in a patriotic mood the German National Tourist Board launch this campaign. Now you can see their logic ‘It is World Cup themed, so it bound to attract people’s attention’.
But using England’s fiercest footballing rivals to promote Germany as a holiday destination during the World Cup is an awful, awful strategy. They even try to further antagonise the public by writing ‘You can’t beat Germany’.
I fear for the poster, as it is only a matter of time before it becomes severely vandalised, especially if England somehow manage to beat Slovenia and end up facing Germany.
Just one of the many shots of a Dell computer shown in TV show 24
I am becoming a brand geek. While on a marathon session of watching a box set of 24, I couldn’t help but notice a brand after brand popping up on screen.
In my defence it is not hard to notice brand after brand after brand on 24 – it is a television show that is particularly heavy on product placements.
In earlier seasons of 24 Apple paid to have its Mac computers splashed across our TVs. In season one Jack and the fellow good guys used Macs and the terrorists and associated bad guys used computers with a Windows system.
Two giant computer makes, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, have paid to have their brand placed into series four of the show. Practically every time a computer in the Counter Terrorism Unit is shown, which is the main setting of the show, you saw Dell or HP logo.
This is the perfect association for both of these American companies. Not only are HP’s logo and Dell’s logo continually flashed at people, but they are creating a perception that their computers are cutting edge. They are showing consumers their computers are capable of tackling some of the most technologically advanced terrorists that the US of A has faced, they perform some of the most complex computing tasks at top speed and they do it all without crashing.
Now both HP and Dell have paid huge amounts of money to have their brand used in this way in the show. But I was shocked when star of the show Jack Baeur (a Federal Agent) has to hide out in a house. Now he needs a computer. This is the transcript from the scene:
Tony ‘What kind of communication do you need?’
Jack ‘A wifi and a hardline.’
Tony ‘Ok we will go back to my place.’
Jack ‘OK, thank you Tony.’
Tony ‘Wait til you see it before you thank me.’
An old school Dell computer being used by Jack Bauer in 24
When we get to the house we see Jack using a retro Dell system. It seems bizarre that Dell – who clearly have paid to have their logo shown in the series – would want people to associate their brand with outdated equipment and characters being derogatory towards its brand.
A product that insults people may make them think twice about buying it.
There are many ways to insult someone, but one of the easiest ways is to call them lazy. So it seems pretty daft that a brand would insult a consumer and then expect them to buy their product.
But this is exactly what this product called ‘Very Lazy’ does – it insults people.
At first glance the product sniffs of quality. I love how the label does not take over the packaging. It lets the attractive natural colour of the produce dominate and as a result it works well.
But they have got the branding of the product so very wrong. No-one likes being called lazy. We all may be a bit lazy from time to time but who in all honestly is proud to be called lazy. So why would a consumer want to be associated with laziness. Products are supposed to make people feel good.
I can see why such a name may work for a product like this, people have busy lives so they don’t want to come home from a long day at work and start cooking a lengthy gourmet meal. People with modern lifestyles want food that is quick and easy to make, but also is tasty and nutritious. The product tries to position itself with good food that can be made speedily and easily. But there are far more positive associations of speed and ease that could be attached to the product.
‘Very Lazy’ is a horrible name for the product. It may as well be called ‘Sloth’ or ‘Can’t be Arsed’ or ‘Idel’.
Although there is a single theme running through all the campaigns – getting us all to think about our impact on the planet and getting us to lower our carbon footprint – there has been a variety of creative executions.
They offered us up a visually stunning creative image with muddy footprints showing everyone has a carbon footprint.
They then moved onto a simple message, with simple solutions, offered up through a simple delivery with ‘Save money, save energy’.
They showed how to save the planet by saving water with ‘Save water’.
Then a bedtime story played on our guilt by suggesting we will leave an apocalyptic future for our children if we don’t ‘Change how the story ends’.
And now we have the latest campaign which asks us to ‘Drive 5 miles less a week’.
The campaign that sticks out is the advert with the dad and his family. It is by far the least creative of the bunch, its delivery is not as powerful, its message is not a strong, but it is by far the best advertising of all the campaigns.
It is entirely focused on trying to change behaviours and not on the far greater challenge of trying to change people’s attitudes of climate change. Although there are snippets of encouraging a change of behaviour in the other adverts, their core theme is the wider picture of global warming.
Everyone has heard about the climate change and some may feel strongly about it, but the majority are indifferent to it. It is not relevant to their lives or they may not be able to see what impact climate change could have on them.
The creative powerhouses washed over my mum, she didn’t scoff at them nor did she turn into an eco-warrior, it just didn’t produce any strong emotion, it genuinely didn’t effect her. But the adverts with the dodgy dad made her take notice. The advert will help lower carbon emissions through the back door as what it was asking us to do was achievable, it is relevant to people and it offered a benefit -saving money.
Climate Change is such a massive issue and it is easy for people to feel overwhelmed by it, but the dad advert is by far the best as it empowers people instead of making them feel powerless.
Latest Tory billboard campaign which was
rumoured to have cost the party £500,000
While Euro RSCG London may be getting a bit of a boost from the Tory party at the moment it is safe to say that the industry is going to take a battering if they assume power in the General Election.
While out the other night on a belated birthday celebration my mind wandered back to the infamous Kingsmill Confessions campaign that broke in October last year. A strange time to think about this particular piece of advertising but the campaign has played on my mind since the first day that I first gazed upon it.
A young lady wandered by and caught my attention, there was something about her that you couldn’t help but notice. Her hair was bleached brighter than the sun, she wore sparkly blue disco hotpants that belonged in the 70s at an ABBA concert and worst of all she was horrendously out of it. She stumbled her way round the club, trying to engage with people with a dance or a grab or a bellow into their ears.
Now the lady was certainly a memorbale character and when I went outside for a spot of fresh air and a cool down I heard a couple a lads having a bit of a snigger about her, at least she was noticed you might say. It is the same with the Confessions advert. It annoyed me to my core but I couldn’t help but notice it. Marketing Magazine also showed us that the pubic couldn’t help but notice it as well. One week in November last year the advert had the fifth highest recall amongst the public in their AdWatch section.
Like the girl, the advert may have been noticed but it was all the wrong reasons. And thinking about the advert throws up all the questions that surfaced when it broke. Bread is far from naughty so why would people want to confess about it? Are people really that passionate about bread? Do people love the brand enough to want to actively seek it out and engage with it online? At a time when people are more conscious than ever at what they eat and don’t want to feel guilty about their food, why would Kingmill want to position its bread as sinful and naughty?
In all fairness to Kingmill it was a brave attempt to engage with their audience and try and build some warm feelings and community around the brand. But for this type of engagement to work there has to be a legitimate reason for a person to be engaged. People need to feel passionate about the brand or passionate about something or someone the brand is associating itself with. It will also work splendidly if there is a clear benefit for the consumer such as the offer of a prize or discount.
You have to feel that the way the girl at the disco presented herself she would ony get picked up at the end of the night if the lads had no other option, just as the way Kingsmill presented itself with this campaign it would only get picked up if it was the last loaf on the shelf.
Two of the trio of champions have been causing trouble for Gillette.
There is a bit of rumbling in the press that Tiger Woods’ love of mistresses may cost a fortune in future careers earnings as sponsors look to distance themselves from the golfer.
He signed a deal with Gatorade in 2007 for what is believed to be worth $100 million over five years. But they announced they are set to axe their Gatorade Tiger drink, however the PepsiCo brand says the decision to drop the drink was made months ago, the scandal is just a happy coincidence they say.
Woods also has deals with Cadillac, Accenture, AT&T, TAG Heuer, Electronic Arts, Nike and of course Gillette, that have helped him become the world’s first dollar billionaire sportsperson, according to Forbes. All these sponsorship deals and endorsements actually make up 90% of Tiger’s income.
Nielsen, the US TV ratings and advertising measuring guru, says there has been a Tiger Woods advertising blackout since two days after the scandal broke. Despite the research by Nielsen, Woods’ sponsors say they have not changed their advertising plans have said they are sticking with their media schedules.
But out of all the brands I feel sorry for Gillette, they are having a right old tough time with their sponsors of late. We all know Thierry Henry was a very naughty boy, and it seems that Woods has been a very, very naughty boy. They must be nervous that a scandal will break about Roger Federer. Behind his squeaky clean image Gillette must be terrified he is actually a crack addict who he enjoys nothing more than kicking puppies and is having a sordid affair with Sue Barker. My money is on the affair.
In the eyes of the sponsors Woods is damaged goods and they will no doubt be scrambling to get away from anything to do with him. It was his golfing ability that made his name but it was a nice-guy family image that built his brand to allow him to become a billion dollar sportsman. But in my very humble opinion what Henry did is far worse than what Tiger has allegedly done. Tiger’s cheating is nowhere near as bad as Henry’s. These men have lucrative sponsorship deals because they rose to the top in their particular sporting arena. They became the best of the best. Gillette sponsors them because they are champions. They were not chosen because of their apparent wholesome family image but they have both been endorsed by brands as they symbolise excellence, winning and success. They have been sponsored because of their profession and not their private life.
Tiger may have cheated in life but Henry cheated on the field of play, he cheated in his profession, and this is worse in my mind. Henry handled he ball not once (perhaps forgivable), but twice in order to direct it onto his foot, onto William Gallas and into the goal. It was a clear breach of the fair play ethos of what football, being a sportsman and a role model should all be about.
Henry and Woods are sponsored by Gillette because they are sportsmen, but Henry’s conduct was terribly unsportsmanlike. While Gillette stood by Henry and backed him up almost immediately they have so far remained quiet on Woods, they are no doubt waiting for the scandal to reveal its full extent. Their silence on Woods’ behavior is likely to mean that they will be dropping him or at least scaling back their use of him in their marketing activities. But if they were to drop anyone it should be Henry for his reputation has been damaged beyond rehabilitation. If anything would make me consider boycotting Gillette it would be because Henry and not Tiger Woods.
The three posters in question have the following taglines -
1 “Too much Tango made me suck a Bull’s udder”.
2 “Too much Tango makes your guffs smell like oranges. Seriously I just did one.”
3 “Too much Tango made me shave my nan. Innit.”
The ads are aimed at me, as I am a male aged 17-25, and even though I fit snuggly into this category I am not a particular fan of these spots, however I am going to fight their corner.
The complaints levelled at the ads are laughable, the majority of the nutters moaned that the ad was unsuitable as it suggested oral sex with a bull. I don’t know what they were thinking, that perhaps people would look at the ad and have a sudden urge to find the nearest bull. Maybe they saw the ad and then being a good consumer binged on some Tango, the rest may be but a dizzying blur but they woke up in bed next to a bull and an udder in their mouth. If this happened than maybe their complaint would be justified, if a poster or Tango made me do that I would be pretty upset too.
Although a little immature there is no malice or serious sexual meaning in the trio of these cheeky ads created by London agency BBH. Although it’s good news the PC brigade hasn’t got these adverts banned by the Advertising Standards Authority, I for one hope that we never have to see them again. They may have promoted the fact you get a little more Tango for your money but the copy doesn’t speak to me and it feels like it has been written by someone three times the age of the target audience. It has an air of something an annoying uncle would say.
As a believer in advertising freedom of speech I pronounce: ‘I do not agree with what Tango say but I will fight to the death for their right to say it.’
Nike has used football to create a massive Facebook following for its brand
Branding on social networking sites has reached new levels on sophistication with companies setting up Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. This has allowed people to become connected with their brands and allows companies to touch with their market.
I am going to use Nike as my case study on Facebook and Twitter as what they have done has top notch. Nike has been clever on Facebook and has set up a ‘Nike Football’ Facebook page, reinforcing Nike’s association with football was a good move as people are more passionate about football than they are about Nike. For marketing on social media to be effective brands have to imaginative and think if ways they can enhance people’s lives. Nike has put training videos, photos and football updates on their page that will engage people and keep them returning. It has also cleverly associated itself with their sponsored star players through updates on their performances, videos of them and links to their own Facebook Page etc.
Now onto Twitter, Nike Golf have set up a wonderful page. They have updates, news and behind the scene pictures of their sponsored players and links to their Twitter page. Also questions that are asked are quickly answered so there is a conversation with the brand and its Twitter followers. They are inviting people into their community and allowing them to connect with the brand. But at all the while at the same time showing of their stash and marketing their brand.
Marketing Potential
But I think there is further potential for marketers and brands to exploit social networking potential. Individual’s Facebook and Twitter profiles have a huge amount of personal information on which can be used by marketers. On Facebook people list their favourite books, films, TV shows, sports, activities, interests and also their membership of groups and fan pages. This kind of detailed information on millions of people is a market researcher’s dream.
If a program could scan people’s profiles it could then allow advertising to be targeted at individual profiles, concentrating their message on the right people and not using a scatter gun effect that may mean their advertising is irrelevant to many of the people it is seen by. They could advertise by popping up in the person’s news feed, a wall post or by sending them a message and on Twitter companies could Tweet an advertising message at people.
Privacy Issues
There may be a bit of concern with privacy but people have published this information and therefore it is public information. People live their lives around these sites, they are so heavily invested in them that they would not leave them. Also people may feel the advertising would be invasive but no more than adverts that take over your computer screen or television adverts that are uninvited into people’e houses everyday.
Think of the potential – I am suffering my a severe bout of Manflu, so I put a status update in my Facebook ‘Matt has a cold and is feeling unwell’. Now this would be picked up and advertising for Lemsip, Vicks or Nurofen would be targeted towards my Facebook profile.
It is no different to standing in the middle of Leicester Square after a night out a screaming ‘I need to get home!’ Now you would be grateful when a taxi-man, a limo chauffeur, a train, bus or tube driver came up to you and offered you their services.
The X Factor's ratings have skyrocketed due to Jedward's 'John Sergeant' effect
The X Factor’s ratings have been sky high this year and media analysts are predicting bumper ratings and bumper advertising revenue for ITV this Christmas. And what are they saying is the cause of the higher viewing figures? That’s right you get guessed it, the terrible twosome, John and Edward Grimes.
High profile performances from some of the world’s top artists will have undoutbaly helped X Factor attract more viewers, but many a expert say Jedward is the casuse of the X Factor’s ratings boom.
Media agency PHD’s broadcast director Andy Spray told broadcastnow.co.uk the boys were having a big impact: “It’s brought the show back to being about entertainment, which in turn generates more press. If the twins make the final, there could easily be 20 million plus watching.”
X Factor has not only seen inflated viewing figures but also a surge on the X Factor’s website and with a separate show on Sunday viewers have more time to vote for the favourite act, which means more money generated through phone lines and the red button.
And now The Sun says it has a bit of proof that Simon Cowell is actually a fan of the boys. Publicly he’s the boy’s fiercest critic, he leads the nation in their hatred of the young Irish twins. It is his criticism that is fueling the hype surrounding the lads, he is making sure the press have something to report on and making sure they get an abundance of column inches. And in doing so ensuring the X Factor has free publicity and remains in the spotlight.
You never know he may genuinely hate the boys, but I very much doubt it. The boys would have never made it to the live finals without the support from Cowell. He knows the industry inside out and he would have known from the off the boys would be an entertainment and PR sensation.
Cowell will only want one thing this Christmas and that is John and Edward to make it to the final. After all he’s an executive producer of the show and his production company, SyCo, produce the X Factor. Higher ratings this time round means more money for Cowell and his company to produce the show next time round.
NHS campaigns have a habit of catching people’s attention by creating harrowing scenes, using powerful imagery or landing a shocking message. But while browsing the Manchester Evening News’ website I came across this piece of advertising from a coalition of Greater Manchester PCTs that caught my eye.
The NHS flash ad on the MEN website (left turns into right)
The advert is promoting the supposed benefit of introducing a minimum price on a unit of alcohol and links to this website (which bizarrely has no mention on minimum alcohol pricing). This is a strange piece of NHS advertising as it’s political. Should the NHS be advertising to try to promote a change in the law? They have strayed into political advertising and this is not the kind of stuff we usually see from them. Their advertising is normally limited to public health advertising and the occasional recruitment campaign.
It is fair enough for the BMA have their say on the issue of binge drinking as they are a pressure group, but the NHS is a government organisation and you would think they would be only allowed to advertise government policy or messages the government wants to promote.
There’s still no advertising around Jan Moir’s column on MailOnline. I wonder how long it will be before brands begin marketing around a Moir piece again? It could be some time and even when someone does there will be an inevitable backlash against the company, orchastrated of course through cyber space pretty much in the same way Moir was targeted.
It has been fairly lonely around a Moir piece as of lately due to her controversial views on the former Mr Gatley.
So as I like a bit of a gamble, I have decided to place odds as to when a company will take the plunge and agree to their product being shown next to Jan Moir’s smiling face.
* 1 week : 480/1
* 2 weeks: 267/1
* 3 weeks: 156/1
* When the Advent calendars go up: 114/1
* By Christmas Day: 113 /1
* By New Year’s Eve 2010: 10/1
* Never ever: 5/1
Disclaimer : These odds have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, I cannot take any bet you may want to place as I have little money. Please go to a reputable bookmaker to satisfy your all your Jan Moir related gambling requirements.
Jan Moir's article on Stephen Gatley has caused an advertising blackout on the Mail Online page around her piece.
The Daily Mail’s sales team must be looking forward to getting back to work on Monday. It’s no doubt been fun trying to sell advertising space in the paper and on the website with the Credit Crunch and recession, but now they also have to deal with the fall out from a gay-bashing columnist.
The general gist of what she was trying to say is that Stephen Gatley’s homosexuality somehow led to his death and as such it brings into question civil partnerships.
First her comments about Gatley: “And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy. After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards.”
And now her opinion on gay marriage: “Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”
What is really going to worry the management at the Mail if there is a backlash from companies and a drop in advertising revenue. Brands have been quick to disassociate themselves with anything to do with Jan Moir after a well orchestrated Facebook campaign published telephone numbers of companies advertising around Moir’s piece. Marks and Spencer and Nestle demanded their advertising be taken away from around Moir’s column on the website, even though the Mail’s online team promptly removed all advertising from the page after it became apparent that her article hadn’t gone down too well.
Time will tell what the ramifications for the Daily Mail will be. I can’t imagine any brands will want anything to do with Moir, it’s a fair assumption that the space around her articles will be ad free for some time.
Companies have cut back on their marketing expenditure during the recession but the government has done the opposite. Government ad spend during the previous financial year was a record £211m, up 35% on the year before. This has helped someway to plug the gap that has been left by a shrinking of commercial advertising spend. Now of course the advertising and media industries must be terrified that if the government cuts back before we are out of the recession they are going to be in trouble.
There has been a recent trend that government ad spend shot up in the run up to a General Election. So it may be lucky for advertisers and the media there will be a poll next year.
Accusations have been thrown at the current government of increasing ad spend in the run up to the past two elections, in particular the last three months before the polls open. Have a look at the lovely graph I made, the orange bars show COI’s advertising spend in the financial year before the elections held in 2001 and 2005, both of which were held in May.
Figures show in the run up to the 2001 General Election advertising spend was £60 over three months. This was double what it was the previous year and almost half of the year’s entire budget. £16m was spent in January 2001, this rose to £16.4m in February and ad spend ballooned to £30.2m by March.
And amongst the 15 campaigns that were launched was a £3m campaign targeting benefit fraud. Why not have a watch yourself of some vintage government advertising…
Fair enough you might say, we have to target those dam benefit cheats and this advert may put the frightners on them. However the government was accused of not even targeting the campaign at those likely to commit benefit fraud. Panorama used a couple of media analysts to show that press ad expenditure was almost all in the ‘quality press’. Titles such as The Times, The Telegraph were used while The Sun, The Mirror and The Star were largely ignored. I’m not in trying to flare up a class war, but those likely to commit benefit fraud would probably favour the tabloids. So the message was accused of being targeted at those key middle class voters, the ones who’s support would win a second term for Labour.
Reassuring voters
Opponents have accused the government of trying to sneaking party propaganda into publicly funded ad campaigns. It’s not a new argument, Tony Blair levelled the accusation at the Tories in the build up to the 1987 election. But are sexual health, binge drinking, drugs and knife crime ads merely launched to reassure worried voters the administration is taking action on issues of public concern? Are they about reassuring the middle classes or are they intended to help solve the problem? Take the government’s new climate change campaign (picture at top) is this meant to help persuade people Global Warming is a serious issue or is it meant to reassure the green vote and persuade skeptics that the government is taking climate change seriously?
There are two arguments that critics throw at the government. The first is that government launch campaigns (like the benefit fraud spots) to reassure skeptical voters and not really to try and tackle the problem. However surely this cannot be said of the majority of government advertising campaigns, which are launched to try and tackle serious problems. Adverts are needed for public sector recruitment, to inform of new or changing laws or change people’s opinions about serious social issues. Adverts launched by the NHS about spotting strokes or quitting smoking cannot be viewed as political and are genuine attempts to help solve serious problems.
However the other and perhaps more damaging criticism is that the government jacks up it spend in the year preceding an election in the hope that a blitz of advertising will create the impression of furious government activity, in doing so persuade sceptical voters the government is working hard and tackling sensitive issues that are of concern.
Ad blitz in 2010?
Of course if advertising spend does jump again – particularly after last year’s record spend – it will lead to huge criticism of Gordon Brown and his government, especially as the public debt is at a record level. But with an election being held in either May or June the polls will have been closed for some time before the COI publishes it annual report in July, therefore the government may not have to worry too much about the backlash of ramping up its ad spend from now until the election. But an indicator that the government is beefing up its spend will be obvious to all. First the award of accounts after a number of pitches and then the inevitable bombardment of campaigns that will hit our TVs, magazines, radios, billboards, bus stops, buses and newspapers in early 2010.
Mark Lund, the chief executive of COI, recently told Campaign: “Government campaigns can help save lives and save money.” Well Gordon Brown may be hoping a government advertising blitz in the build up to the 2010 Election will help save Labour MPs and save his government.
Think of the day if Coca-Cola advertised Pepsi on its cans, Vodaphone plugged T-Mobile’s latest new unlimited texts offer, Manchester United embossed ‘City Til I Die’ on their latest strip or Ronald McDonald handed out flyers for Burger King.
It’s pretty hard to imagine and you could argue that it would only happen in some crazy parallel advertising universe. Promoting your rivals seems bit a backwards strategy and let’s be honest its insane to even think about it, but not according to the communication crew at Rochdale council.
For one Rochdale town centre has been going through a bit of a rough patch for the past few years, retailers have deserted the town in their droves only to be replaced with a bazaar of pound, pawn and phone shops. Town centre businesses need all the shoppers and custom they can get. So you have to wonder what the logic is behind actively encouraging people to go elsewhere. And the council is not just encouraging the general masses to go elsewhere it’s encouraging its own staff, its own representatives, the very people who are working to try and better Rochdale.
Also what kind of message does it send to council workers that their employer is promoting neighbouring shopping centres instead of its own? It almost shows a lack of loyalty and a lack of confidence in its own facilities. It is unimaginable to find ASDA promoting Tesco’s latest deals on the back of its employee’s wage slips, so why should Rochdale council promote rival markets?
This practice is inconceivable in the real world but somehow seems acceptable to communication professionals employed by Rochdale council.
lysed.
