Enough about you... let's talk about me

Rowse Honey's newly launched marketing activity has a lot going for it. They asked their own staff to write and film potential TV ads which are now online (facebook.com/rowsehoney), and they're asking people to vote on their favourite. It's a really nice demonstration of employee engagement - they've clearly managed to infuse their whole workforce with the joy of marketing. And what comes across is that they are a small, family centred company - quite an attractive, yet subtle, positioning for honey. Not bad, for their first ever piece of TV advertising.

There are at least three respects, though, in which it could go much further:

1) The awareness driving kicked off with a TVC about the potential TVCs - that's quite an investment in airtime when the whole thing could instead be given a chance to bubble up through social media. And in some ways a glossy launch TVC slightly undermines the "hand-made" credentials. If this is representative of the media plan as a whole (we'll soon see) then it's probably still too "conventional".

2) If only consumers could be engaged as deeply as employees. Clicking "Like" in Facebook is at least not as passive as simply watching an ad, but there could be a lot more scope. When can we submit our own ads? Is there a Sandbox on YouTube so we can share "unauthorised" (risqué) ads? "The birds and the bees,Take 1!" Can we write Rowse slogans? (One of the employees' ads concludes "We're Rowse Honey. We're not jacks of all trades, we're masters of one", which is not bad.) And so on. Involve us, interact with us, incorporate us!

3) It takes time and effort to engage consumers in dialogue. By and large, we want that dialogue to be about our product/ service. By and large consumers want to talk about their own lives and interests. So alarm bells should ring when we come up with ideas to talk to consumers about advertising. How much better would this campaign be if these were employees' films about bees, or about flowers? Then people could talk about their own gardens, or photos from their holidays. "Happy bees make the best honey. Send us a photo of your favourite flowers and we'll make posters for our bees to enjoy"...

Only as good as the proposition

How often do communication campaigns really deliver ROI? I'd wager it's less often than most of us like to admit. A big splash of media will certainly drive brand awareness, but that's rarely the objective.

The new Co-operative Food ad is beautifully constructed, well executed and quite witty - with a refreshing, respectful tone of voice. But does the proposition stack up? Any parent will recognise the horror of the "weekly shop" - so it clearly addresses a need, but is the Co-op really a credible solution? The proposition is: "Only buy what you want, when you want it. Great food within easy reach". But to me the ad simply cries out "online shopping!", one thing the Co-op doesn't offer. Do busy families really have the time to "save time" by shopping more often? I can't see whose behaviour would actually change as a result of seeing this campaign.

There are some technical problems too. By tapping in to a real issue the campaign has the potential to generate dialogue. What would you do with the time you could save? (Remember Pantene's Swish mistake.) It should be well set up for social media... but there doesn't appear to be any - I couldn't even find a Facebook page. One problem is the ad lacks any signposting. There's an on screen url (rather faint and only visible for 4 seconds), but it redirects to the homepage not even a campaign landing page. And the proposition doesn't provide any good keywords (sadly, the brand name itself is not much good as a keyword either) from which to search likely social content. Sure enough, embedded in the website is the option to "tell us what you'd do if you could save time". But I wonder how many people will visit. A Facebook App could have gone a long way... Top 10 ways to spend Saturday morning... Vote on how your friends should spend more free time...

I'm a fan of what Co-op offers, and of it's recent marketing: it's done a fantastic job of revitalising it's image (from Londis to M&S). It's absolutely right to set the sights, next, on taking share off Tesco et al. But the brief for this campaign was probably flawed from the start.

What about Holland and Barrett's "Buy one get one half price" campaign? The problem for H&B is almost certainly footfall/consideration. The vast majority of us simply walk past the door. An ad offering a discount on "anything" and "everything" is little incentive unless you know a bit about the product range.

This kind of promotion is pretty expensive to run, so it simply has to deliver. The money "saved" by recycling last year's creative (and indeed the effort "saved" by recycling last year's mechanic), must be justified against that. I'm very unconvinced. A few years ago H&B was telling consumers to "come in for the price, stay for the advice". That may not have been effective ("advice" may not be their USP), but at least it laddered a benefit.

H&B reported a strong December (like for like sales +2.3% when, as we know, the economy in general was going backwards). Why have they had to revert, so soon to this campaign (which has already been extended into February)? Holland and Barrett has a long, rich history but with ownership having passed from a cash and carry to a pharmacist to a supplement manufacturer to a private equity group over the last 20 years, it is hardly surprising they appear to have forgotten what their proposition is.

And without a good proposition, no campaign will succeed in doing much more than (temporarily) increasing awareness levels.

Brave New Year

Two instant lessons from Christmas retail:

1) The move to online is accelerating.

2) Consumers are squeezing brands and retailers viciously by demanding deals and discounts.

Next's figures (a reasonable barometer of the High St) are down, blaming both "extreme weather conditions and increased competitor discounting". But its the discounting - not the snow - we have to worry about, for that's where the pressure on margins lies. The snow may come and go, but in a cut throat retail environment, with so many companies in weak positions, the discounting is sure to go on.

The move to online is the obvious root cause of HMV's woes. This is the sharp end - how much future is there, really, in high street music and video selling? Will shutting 60 stores really save their business? Does a 20% drop in share price adequately reflect the possibility of the company collapsing?

Online shopping on Christmas day itself is predicted to have reached £153m in the UK - and been a more popular pastime than attending a Christmas church service. That's where we're at, people. (A very effective piece of PR for IMRG).

So first priorities for 2011:

1) Make sure your brands' online presence is right. Invest some time reviewing Search Engine performance - and doing something to improve it. And ensure your online retail distribution is sufficiently broad.

2) Think - hard - about how to compete in a perpetually discounted world. How can you offer discounts without undermining your brand? (because simply refusing to discount is probably suicidal). And how do you demonstrate and justify the added value that will make consumers buy the premium variant when low cost alternatives exist? Time to shine a bright light on brand architecture - so often the darkest recess of marketing strategy.

Open hands marketing?

At the end of 2009 I suggested terror, technology, celebrity and debt as a 4 word summary of the preceding decade.

What's the word for 2010? Strong candidates would be disclosure or openness.

The Wikileaks cables are one example of the power of technology to change how information works - and crucially to give us all access to more of it.

Another is the ongoing evolution of social media. I've been to a couple of gigs recently (trying, in vain, to regain my youth), and been amused by quite how many people are taking photos - many of which are promptly uploaded to Facebook or Flickr. Go online and it is very easy to find popular reviews and feedback from events that took place just hours ago, as well as stuff in anticipation of events that are coming up. Event promoters - like politicians - are no longer in control of the flow of information.

This kind of disclosure isn't going to go away. If the US government cannot shut down whistleblowers, then brands certainly can't. Courageous brands are already adopting openness as a virtue. I think the next couple of years will enforce it on us all. (And, in the end, good thing too.)

#hashalongTV

While watching Have I Got News For You last week, I noticed that the BBC has decided to display a hashtag (#bbcHIGNFY) as the show opens. Shortly after, I spotted Question Time sporting one too (#bbcqt). I was intrigued - do the twitterati really watch Question Time? And if so, what do they say about it? So I flicked open the Twitter App on my phone. As it happened, a particularly unctuous hedge fund manager called Hugh Hendry was on the show's panel, and a lot of the #bbcqt tweeting was directed at him:

callummccrae1: Hugh Hendry is a wanker that is all. #bbcqt
markjepson: On a serious note, Hugh Hendry is an obnoxious cretin. #bbcqt

The twitterers had a point, but that's by the by. What struck me was how this totally changes the viewing experience. A passive 'slumped in front of...' moment becomes an active social one. Suddenly we're all sharing a vast virtual sofa, muttering our asides to each other.

For the time being it's rather cumbersome - and not everyone has a smartphone anyway. But one or two iterations and this stuff will be scrolling right across the screen - if we want it to. Some classifications of TV are more ripe for commentating than others - sport, soaps and reality shows are obvious contenders. And while we probably don't want to hear the whole world's commentary on our favourite movie, we may welcome contributions from our friends, so the Facebook hybrid of this will be interesting. A thousand strangers can add nothing to my enjoyment of Withnail & I, but if a friend writes "#withnail @alex - you perfumed ponce" on my wall? ... ROFLMAO

Ad breaks, let's face it, have always been fair game, so we need to work out how brands should react when ads are dissected live ("that stuff's crap"). And what about exploiting the new forum by integrating hashtags inside the campaign through an interactive creative idea? Carlton Draught in Australia has added a hashtag under the brand logo at the end of the ad, to some effect. But what about incorporating the hashtag, or some tweets, into the concept of the ad itself? You don't have to know what one of these campaigns looks like to know they exist. Write the brief.

Of course, in-programme (and indeed in-match) tweeting isn't new. What's new is merely that I have caught on. But if I've got it, then the rest of the population can't be far behind.

Wake up and smell the own label coffee

The Economist this week has an article on the impact of the economic crisis on consumer goods purchases. It quotes PwC and McKinsey evidence that consumers have significantly changed their behaviour - such as by buying own-label products, by buying less, or conversely by buying bulk, or even by deciding that some things aren't as essential as they used to seem. (Air freshener, anyone?) Well, you heard it here first - six months ago, but the data goes to reinforce the point.

93% of shoppers say they have changed their behaviour as a result of the economic downturn. (PwC)
18% of packaged-goods buyers switched from a premium brand to a cheaper one during the recession, with most saying they found that the pricier brand “was not worth the money”. (McKinsey)

Even more alarming are some of the comments by the Economist's readers:

TomNightingale wrote: Oct 14th 2010 12:18 GMT
The price differences between branded goods and own brand are mainly spent on advertising, Advertising does not create value, it consumes valuable resources and returns little, if anything. The value of a brand is largely its ability to persuade people to pay a higher price than they need to to buy a product, Advertising and brands allow parasites to take good livings at the expense of others. If the recent/current economic woes leave advertisers and "branding experts" in difficulties we should all rejoice. We don't need them; they make us all worse off.

pasam wrote: Oct 14th 2010 12:47 GMT
If the recession leads to a "Needs based Society" than the present (or past?) "Advertisement Induced Society", then that is a "silver lining". Let the "shine" of parasitic advertisement be ignored and let the chemistry of needs take over.

It's not as though we haven't heard these anti-brand views before, and they aren't very well informed - they take no account of the role of brands in delivering innovation, consistency, reassurance, confidence or convenience, for example. (But then I would say that, I'm a parasitic "branding expert".) However, they do have a compelling basic thrust: products which only sustain their premium through advertising are in a precarious position.

The conclusion we must draw from recent consumer research (both quali and quanti - pretty consistent on this matter for months now) is that long term success means delivering a premium-justifying benefit. It can still be emotional - reward, status and so on - rather than rational - taste, quality, features - but it must exist. Large swathes of supermarket aisles are still filled with brands that don't truly offer a benefit. What's worse, I fear some brand managers haven't realised that the rules are changing, or have deluded themselves that their own brand has a "real" distinctiveness when all it actually has is residual market share supported by media share of voice and retail share of shelf. Wake up!

High definition optics

The Chile mine rescue was a perfectly formed moment of global media. Respect due to Oakley for spotting the opportunity for a bit of product placement. As Oakley's press release explained it:

The rescue team in Chile is relying on Oakley eyewear to protect the miners’ eyes when they are brought back to the surface... Based on their requirements and full product specifications, Oakley donated 35 pairs of Oakley Radar® with Black Iridium® lenses in Path™ and Range® lens shapes

A good deed... and with it the certainty of appearing on every TV set in the world (33 times!), as well as a chance to convey their scientific credentials. I was in New York this week, and witnessed coverage of Oakley in both the US and UK - and no doubt there was coverage elsewhere round the world too.

Crucially, the mine rescue was perfect PR fodder: compelling, but with no hint of exploitation. Oakley don't seem to have invited any backlash by getting involved. In a poll on The Huffington Post, 90% of respondents thought it was a good thing for Oakley to have done. Smart stuff. I want some.

All change please

Plan Phoenix had a little r’n’r over the summer, while I’ve been too engrossed in projects to look up long enough to reflect. Ah well. A moment of calm descends.

Every time recently when I talk to others in the marketing services industry, I’m struck by how much has changed in the last 2 years. Tighter budgets have made budget holders think deeply about what constitutes effectiveness (hallelujah!). And I see a lot of evidence of changing priorities. We shouldn’t be fooled by profit growth at WPP into thinking that “traditional” advertising is on the way back. I suspect the headline disguises a number of factors. For a start, the services delivered by the big agencies are changing, and anyway, the growth of consumer markets in Asia means there will be room for the traditional advertising industry to grow in size even as it declines in importance. (Presumably the global market in desktop computers will continue to grow for ages. Yet the future is mobile. This isn’t a contradiction, just a reflection of an expanding universe of consumers.)

Its 8 years since Al Ries published The fall of advertising and the rise of PR. It’s still a good read – though it was never compelling. One problem is that we use “advertising” to mean both creative content and interruption based executions (the TVC, for example). And while TVCs are palpably in retreat, we’ll continue to need more, and better, creative ideas. Another problem has proved to be that PR doesn’t seem to provide the structure or discipline to actually drive marketing plans. Inviting the PR agency to the top table is one thing, asking them to lead the whole programme is quite another. But anyway, I wouldn't be the first to announce the “death of advertising”. Google that and you’ll find articles dating back decades!

Of all the changes in play, two stand out to me:

1) Experience.
In a multi-channel, fragmented world, where the cacophony of offers gets ever louder, passive communications no longer cut through. The TVC is dead if it isn’t part of something richer, touchable, immersible. Ideally, that richer experience has some relevance to the brand – I’m no fan at all of sponsorships which simply plaster brand logos on things. Barclays Premiership is just a form of – probably overpriced – media buying. But at the same time, the experience won’t get far off the ground if it’s only about the product. The advertising campaign for Pantene, encouraging women to share your swish makes me laugh. But not for the right reasons. The better path is to find or create a property which bridges both the brand’s distinctive experience and the consumer’s existing interests. If you build your activity (advertising included) round that, you’re on the right track.
We used to argue about whether to brief creative first, then channel planning or the other way round. Answer? Media before creative (of course). But crucially, it was the wrong question. The real answer? Experience before media before creative. I shared a platform at a conference a while back with one of the marketing team at O2. I continue to admire their use of music as a platform. It’s a great way to reach consumers through something they care about. And they are able to create content – from downloads to ticket purchasing and VIP exclusives – tightly integrating the activity back to their product. There’s no earthly reason that I can see why most brands – even at the commoditised end of fmcg (yes, even shampoo) – can’t build relationships this rich with consumers. We just need to start from the right place in order to find the right connection.

2) Interaction.
The second thought builds on the first (because it’s difficult to interact without an experience). But this is a major adjustment in mindset for those of us trained in command and control marketing. We can no longer (could we ever?) dictate how brands are portrayed – just look at any social media website. I’ve worked with brands grappling to overcome negative associations, and it’s not easy. The answer, I think, is to relax a little. Brands exist in consumers minds. We may direct, manage and guide them but we cannot control them (the consumers that is, or the brands). We can continue to fight reality – encapsulating our message in a single-minded one-way campaign which we then inflict mercilessly on consumers, bringing in the lawyers when things get out of control (remember the MasterCard “Priceless” send-ups?). Or we can change our way of thinking – creating content with the intent that the audience manipulate it, and being prepared to go on a journey with them. It requires bravery because it involves real-time judgements and because it’s difficult to “sign off the brand plan” when you don’t know where it’s going. But I’m certain brands that embrace this philosophy own the future.

Well, that's the basis on which I'm planning my business. And you?

#iagreewith[insertyourbrandhere]

Cleggmania shows up a couple of interesting things about the political party brands.

Firstly, it shows how brittle brand reputations can be. Despite all the obvious product performance problems the major parties have experienced in the last few years (from unpopular wars to unpopular expenses claims), they - and the pollsters - didn't see this coming. The polls over the last year or two have been misleading, showing relative share without identifying how fragile (maybe even broken) the relationship between voter and party has become. Have the polls really moved so suddenly, or have people begun to engage with the question differently? Its pretty obvious - even with only a week's hindsight - that the signs were there, but they weren't understood by strategists or commentators.

Secondly, the fevered buzz on websites shows just how far the relationship between people and media has changed, with the media now playing catch-up with popular opinion rather than leading it. Preference has spread like wildfire, fuelled by Facebook, Twitter, blogs and comments. It is the peer-peer response to what has happened that is most interesting, and that is driving events. Ironically, a digital era phenomenon has been triggered by a TV event.

Of course its entirely possible that in a few days this will all have blown over and the political parties will be doing their best to forget it as a bad dream. But it raises interesting questions:

1) What's the relative importance of tracking brand preference versus identifying emerging trends and deeper motivations? Are we sure we're not driving with our eyes fixed on the rear-view mirror?

2) In a much more volatile media environment, is there any longer a role for "incremental" marketing strategies? Are we building plans that might catch fire (+10%), or still trying to "play safe" (+3%)?

The end of the world is nigh, and other news

My mother probably gets frustrated that when she asks me any question along the lines of “where would I find...” I roll my eyes and reply “Google it” or “look on eBay”. My mum is no slouch – and no technophobe, but it takes time to learn new habits. I noticed myself doing something strange last week. I went online to buy a light bulb. It was an unusual type and I’m fed up of trailing round B&Q/ Asda failing to find the right ones and then coming home with the wrong thing. But even so, it was a very small purchase – online has historically been perceived to be cost effective only for bigger spends.

In fact, I looked back at my online shopping over the last year and was amazed by the number of transactions of less than a fiver. Crucially, the cost of delivery has ceased to be a limiting factor – presumably because it’s less than the cost of running a physical store. I don’t think I’m alone. MasterCard’s February SpendingPulse report claims that overall online spend rose 16.7% in the last year, while average transaction value online dropped 3.7%. They attribute this to a fundamental change in habits. (It’s US data, but the UK won’t be far behind).

Once every household is online (something governments across Europe promise to facilitate even for the disadvantaged), and we’ve all learned a few new habits, what will we do with all that empty high street? Apart from clothes shops, and impulse shops will we need actual bricks and mortar retail? How many consumer goods brands are really confident they can win new shoppers solely online? Brands like Apple and Nike have had flagship stores for years – masquerading as retail but really offering a good dose of brand experience. But a lot of categories will have to work very hard to create a true brand experience (what would actually happen in Ariel-Town?)

Worrying news for many, made worse by evidence emerging that the downturn has resulted in apparently permanent changes in consumers’ attitudes to ‘value’ – i.e. the importance of price. We are more willing to shop around for a bargain (as noted by the Wall Street Journal) and we place less faith in the quality promise of brands. Marketing Magazine reports a study showing 67% of people think store label products are as good as branded ones, with the same number saying they had switched to store label brands to save money, and 64% saying they wouldn’t switch back even if the economy picks up. It was always inevitable that the economic upheaval of 2009 would change the rules forever – I think we are just beginning to see the signs of what that means.