What can Boris Johnson's cutting advertising budgets teach us?

I have just been reading the latest copy of "Marketing Week" (May 15 2008) in the UK. There was something in there that was very topical and relevant that struck me this week, especially as we are doing our latest 2008 and 2009 sales and budget updates....

There is both an Editor Comment ("Mayor Boris gives marcoms the boot") and an article ("An uncomfortable silence") about how the newly elected London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has just slashed the advertising budget by up to £20 million that the previous mayor had to fund some of the electoral promises (more community police, transport police). The funds had been used to promote campaigns around safety, teen pregnancy, life style etc.

It reminds me so much of the process that we see time and time again. When there is pressure on the sales numbers, or more profit or funds are need, the first and almost exclusive port of call are advertising and promotion budgets. This is in part because they are usually large, easy to access and cancel and then also because in the short term it can feel painless (with small to no short term effects on sales or share often).

As many studies show, and the point in the articles in Marketing Week is making, is that in the short term there will probably be little effect - and if anything maybe Londoners will feel this is a good redistribution of money. But is it? Over time what effect will it have?

As we see with brands, cutting support and communication over time weakens you. It leaves you more vulnerable, and less strong.

I think that cutting support budgets is far too easy. It means you don't have to tackle the harder issues like organization structure or other cost areas. Is it the choice of those who lack strong stomachs. It is the choice of "brand caretakers" not "brand builders"....

What are these 2 most important and most forgotten words in marketingand advertising?

Only Originally uploaded by net_efekt

So just what are these 2 most important and most forgotten words in marketing and advertising?

I cannot recall who taught me the importance of these words, but it was very early in my marketing career. I do believe that they have been very helpful, if not key to my successes - and also when I look at things they did not work so well it was usually because I had not used them.

The words are:
- ONLY
- UNLIKE

At least one, if not both should always be associated with your brand positioning and copy strategies. I try and always insist they are in any of these I see.

They both force you to think and clearly identify what makes you UNIQUE, DIFFERENTIATED or DISTINCTIVE from your competitive set. They are what you want your target to be persuade by.

If you can't complete a sentence for your brand with either or both those words in right now, you need to ask if you are just a me-too.

I tend to try and use the ONLY word in the benefit and the UNLIKE in the reason to believe as it also helps to identify who is the enemy/ competition / source of business.

Try it right now:

ONLY (my brand).........

Is it just me, or are there more naked men in ads these days?

Why have naked men become such a big feature in advertising in the last few years?

I am not sure if there is a good communication based set of reasons, such as the ability of naked men to stop, grab attention and draw viewers in and so lead to more attention and finally get better ad recall. What if the novelty of seeing naked male flesh starts to wear off?

Are naked men becoming a bit like dogs and babies which over time has been proven to increase the likeability, enjoyment and recall of adverts (I have to admit to once having been involved in a TV that tested well - but we found that the whole driver of all of that was the opening shot of a great looking dog running along a beach....).

Or, is it more of a deep cultural something or other? Letting women experience the titillation that historically was limited to sexy women in ads for men.

Or is it that one ad in particular stood out for me, and then a lot like when you are thinking of buying a certain type of car you suddenly keep seeing them...

Or something else? But it really does seem that naked and scantily dressed men are becoming a bigger part in the creative executions. (And it does, of course, raise the bar for us men as the men are all rather buff, toned and generally in pretty good overall shape).

Here are some ads that started me off on asking myself the question about why there were so many naked men, and what role they really play in the idea.

The ad that started me off was the VISA ad of the poor groom running naked through the countryside with just a visa card. In addition to being somewhat envious of his pert backside, the image of a naked man running through the countryside undoubtedly had the stopping power and pulls you to find out what is going on. Here the naked man device works as the stag night prank is understood at the end which explains why he was naked - but also it makes the product as hero as all he had was the card and it saves the day.

You can see the long version of the ad on YouTube by clicking here
Or watch in the blog posting below.


There is also an ad for Aero that uses a muscular American soap star called Jason Lewis, more targeted at women, talking about the Aero bubbles. The idea is the women don't get the message about the product because they are distracted by the man. So there is an attempt make the semi-naked man part of an idea. But it is probably a bit clumsy and obvious. So unless shirtless men appeals to you don't get into ad and the message.

Watch that on YouTube by clicking here
Or in the blog posting below


I do, however, see the naked men in the ads for D&G 2007/2008 Winter Season as more just gratuitous placing of naked men to stop women. Or is there a bigger creative idea here (women dominating men?)

I guess one question to ask is: do men (straight men anyway) find naked men in ads engaging or they switch off? I suspect it is around the role and the idea. I assume the VISA ad is persuasive to men.

There is one manufacturer (JBS underwear) uses the idea that men do not want to see naked men or men in underwear (and so positioning versus Calvin Klein etc) and made the ad below. Interestingly it probably is more repelling to men than engaging!


Note. The ad shows a woman's naked boobs so if you don't want to see that, then don't watch the ad! Click here to see the ad on YouTube
Or watch in the blog posting

Spoof ads, what can we learn from Durex Ultra Mega Thin condoms?

Readers of this blog will know that I am a big fan of spoof commercials and have written about them a few times. While I enjoy the ones from comedy shows, I find the “user generated” ones even more interesting and think they can teach us even more than reviewing real commercials much of the time.

Knowing my interest, a friend sent me an “advert” for Durex condoms. It was clear looking at the email string that this “campaign” had taken on a classic viral path, and had been forwarded on and on by friend to friend.

What was interesting about the advert is that it clearly is not from Durex and is a spoof or “user generated ad”. It is also quite brilliant, and like so many spoofs it can teach us marketers a lot.

You can watch the ad on youtube by clicking here or below. The ad is not rude as such as so (unless you are of a very sensitive disposition) you can watch it safely.




So what struck me about this Durex clip that I think we can learn as marketers?

Branding
The branding of Durex Ultra Mega Thin comes through loud and clear. Why is this?

The best way of ensuring strong branding is not by shouting the brand name and lots of big pack shots (in this spoof you do not even see a pack). The way you get good branding is when viewers can only tell the story of the ad by including the brand and product.

Think about how you would explain the ad to someone. You need to include both Durex and the Ultra Mega Thin variant to tell the story of the ad what is strong here is that it gets both the brand and the specific product across. In a lot of test results I have seen from major brands is that often they get the brand but not the specific product.

Communication
Very clear! The message that Durex Ultra Mega Thin gives you more felling than other condoms is completely clear. Key is there was only 1 message. It also shows the power of demos. And that representative, dramatic and engaging demos can be more clear and memorable than actual demos

Persuasion
If you are looking for sensitivity you'd head to Durex! This spoof is more persuasive than any real Durex as I have ever seen!

What do you think?

Oh surprise, content is king not channel...

An article in "The Guardian" on 15 April called "survey shows darker picture for the TV channel" caught my eye. Although the story, for me, stated the obvious - it did make we wonder if others saw the world differently.

The article by Katie Allen starts: "Television remains people's favorite mass communication format but viewers are more loyal to a program than a channel, according to a survey of TV viewing around the world" (The survey was done by Accenture among 7000 people).

Isn't this obvious? Content is always the king. That is what I have always thought. In fact, during the dotcom boom and bust days this was a hot issue and topic. The point being that the survivors would be and were not the ones with clever technology and functions - but the ones with great content (where content may be enabled and realized due to technology like the Amazon "you may also like" content feature). Boo.com, which blew some crazy amount of money ($100 million) being one of the most dramatic examples.

But I have always believed in any interface with consumers that content is the king. Even a presentation that is dry but has relevant and great content will beat the no content showy one.

I guess though that the rapid expansion of the multi-channel mass media has possibly made this more obvious. Any user of Sky Plus/ Tivo knows it is all about capturing the content you want to consume. Not about the channel.

The massive success of the BBC iPlayer that allows people to catch up online with shows they missed in the last week also shows how it is all about content. The study suggests that in the US 46 percent of 18-24 watched a show on something other than a traditional TV.

Content has to be king, and getting the best content has to be the goal. Be it if you are a TV station owner or a brand marketer talking in advertising, PR, booklets and on your website. It is not about how technological advanced your site is, but what the content is.

What can we learn from fashion brands?

One of the most interesting things that Mark Tungate, author of the book "Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara" told me was that fashion brand owners are incredibly conservative when it comes to marketing.

This thought seemed almost ridiculous! As surely these were the cutting edge, way out and freaky artists who set trends and change the way we look. He did point out that virtually every major label and name is actually owned by a massive corporation, and most of their profits come from licensing the brand names for more accessible items like sunglasses, fragrances and cosmetics. I am not sure if it is fact or some fiction I heard but somewhere I seem to recall being told that around 60% of Chanel's profits came from things other than fashion.

But to do this, it does still mean that fashion brands have to have a strong name, a strong image and a clear differentiation. So with something so lucrative and powerful that can generate large revenues. This really got me thinking even more about what we can learn from the world of Fashion Brands.

The book by Mark Tungate was a great read and I found his insight into the world of fashion exciting and thought provoking. The more I thought about it, I found I personally took 8 big ideas inspired by the book and things it made me think about and explore:

(1) VISIONARIES CREATE BRANDS, AND VISIONARIES SUSTAIN THEM

(2) IMPORTANCE OF A BRAND NARRATIVE

(3) IMPORTANCE OF DISTINCTIVE BRAND CODES AND BEING RECOGNIZED AT A GLANCE

(4) PRODUCT AS THE HERO, BEING SEEN IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT

(5) KEY ROLE OF THE STORE IN CREATING THE THEATRE OF THE BRAND

(6) IMPORTANCE OF SUPPLY CHAIN AND GETTING THE RIGHT PRODUCTS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. ALWAYS

(7) CASCADING TECHNOLOGY – ENSURING THAT YOU ARE ON TREND

(8) IMPORTANCE OF "BUZZ" AND PR. OFTEN MORE POWERFUL THAN TRADITIONAL MEDIA ROUTES AS CONNECTS WITH VERY SPECIFIC TARGETS

Creativity in Advertising: copy of my slides and speaker notes

I was due to talk on 27 March at the "Creativity in Advertising 2008" conference in London. Unfortunately, I had to pull out as I had a business review that I could not say no to.

I had prepared the speech and slides on the "5 Things I wish I had known about Advertising 10 years ago". And so this was included in the handouts to delegates.

You can download a PDF with the slides and speaker notes if you would like to find out more about the 5 things. Right click here and save to your desktop. For copies of other talks, on the navigation on the left hand side of the blog you will see a section listing the talks.

The 5 things are:

- YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE
- BRIEFS NOT BOXERS
- YOUR WIFE IS NOT AN IDIOT
- NOT JUST THE CATEGORY BEST
- NO VISIBLE PENALTY FOR MISSES

What do you think? leave a comment on the blog!

How far will creatives go to avoid your briefs?

In a recent posting I argued that as clients we get the advertising that we deserve. And that when we point a finger at the agency we are probably pointing at least 3 at ourselves.

One of the points I made is that unless you are a client that gives clear and very tight briefs (with no room for ambiguity or to move), and then buys work that is dramatic and bold, you are unlikely to have the best people working on your business and get the best work.

I was, therefore, amused by a "best of the blogs" section in the UK Campaign magazine called "playing to lose" from the scampblog

The posting talks about the lengths that creatives will go to in order to avoid working on rubbish briefs for clients who will only buy average and safe work.

The point made, which I thought was absolutely key, is that it is too risky for a creative team to work on bad briefs for clients who will only ever buy so-so work. It may kill their career as their show reel will be terrible. A bit like marketers only ever working on and launching products that they know will fail - it is a career suicide.

I loved the anecdote where they spoke about creatives trying at avoid P&G Oil of Olay by writing ad about a woman who is dead but no-one realises as her friends keep applying the product. Inspired by the Weekend at Bernies film.

The point of the posting: creatives are not wanting to play to lose. Give them a really tight brief where the only way out is to be creative - and then have the guts to be bold.

Is detail important in the big picture in ads?

I am not very good at detail. I tend to thrive on the big picture. The idea.

Therefore, for example, when it comes to viewing the first edit of a new TV ad (which I was doing yesterday) I found myself wondering about if I should care and focus more on details. Everyone else seems almost obsessed about them.

Let me explain. This week the agency showed us the first edit of the ad, which I really liked. It had delivered the storyboard, and importantly the director had (as he always should) added more depth and detail.

For me that was pretty much it. I liked the original script as it delivered the brief and has a big creative idea. I loved the edit. For me that was about it. I knew the creative team and director would (as professionals) keep working and fine tuning. My only point is that audio-visual synch for me would and always is absolute key, especially on the pack shot and name of the brand/ product but all the action. I said that in the next/ final edit with all the voiceover and music added that they needed to double check that.

But then I found that brand teams and our country partners started to get into details. Details after details. Almost shot by shot discussing all sorts of detail in each shot.

Should I be doing that more when it come to advertising especially? I worry that the consumer will not notice, or care, and it will not sell any more product. It can end up in everyone getting caught up in lots of discussions, even aggravation and cost. It can also mean that as much time gets spent on optimising the last few percentage points of an ad. I tend to see it as time wasting.

Or is detail everything?Your thoughts?

Why always doing the right thing is not being chicken!

I am very much in the camp that believes that doing the right thing will always mean that you win in the end. Even when the short term road looks harder going as a result.

It is easy to get distracted and to believe that because others are doing something that it must be ok to do it that way as well. I think as marketers we should have the courage and vision to do the right and best thing- always. And, let's face it, it is still better to fail knowing you have the moral high-ground, than succeed knowing you have not done the right thing.

There are so many examples in recent years and even months that drive this home for me, a few include:

British Airways and Virgin Atlantic colluding on "fuel surcharges"
This has lead to some high profile job losses within BA, massive fines and now they have to refund millions to travellers who flew between 2004 and 2006. The travellers can soon register for a refund at http://www.virginbapassengerrefund.com/. In fact having done about 20 - 30 flights at least that could mean a refund of up to a staggering £400 to £600 for my flights alone. There is also, of course, the likely impact on their brands and loyalty which may make the penalties look small. The potential loss to their brand standing and loyalty may be greater now with new "open skies" policy meaning that BA and Virgin will no longer be proetcetd as the only UK based airlines allowed to fly in and out of Heathrow.

Chickens, Chinese made toys and cheap fashion...
The major grocery chains in the UK, obsessed at fuelling a consumer predilection for lower and lower prices keep squeezing suppliers. This has led to less and less humane and terrible conditions for raising chickens, something celebrity chefs are now trying to attack and expose in high profile TV shows.

At the same time we saw that the obsession with cheaper and cheaper toys not only led to terrible conditions for workers, but also corners being cut on safety. This meant that we saw that paint with lead was used, leading to the huge recall of toys by Fischer Price.

As consumers ourselves we also need to start doing the right thing, and accepting higher prices when there is clear evidence of better and more appropriate conditions (from everything to how chickens are raised through to how much workers and paid and how they are treated to make those £10 and less jeans).

These wrong and terrible consequences will keep happening until we all accept the importance of doing the right thing, both as marketers (ensuring our entire supply chain has the moral and still efficient high ground) and as consumers. We need to accept that there is a huge cost of cheaper and cheaper products. Turning a blind eye to this potential cost in quality, safety and suffering is not an option.

What do you think? Leave a comment below in the blog or email me!

Is YouTube making people partners good for marketers?

I was pleased with the recent move by YouTube, owned by Google, to offer a financial incentive to ordinary people who have been successfully making and loading content on the hugely successful site. It is, after all content that is always "king".

If there was not content on the site that attracted people there, then there would be no YouTube at all.

As someone that has (as of writing this) posted 140 video clips that I have made and that have been viewed 884200 times (!), it was also an important incentive. I also think it will help to start to affect the content on the site.

YouTube are only making people partners to share in ad revenue served up on the page with the video if the content is;

- original content made by the partner. So no copyright stealing

- has a proven track record of their content attracting viewers in large numbers

I know that for me this is never going to make me rich, but like the small revenue I make from Google Adsense ads served up on my sites and blogs, it does provide an incentive to think even more about the content I make. Admittedly my videos of hotel rooms and attractions I make are somewhat cheesy - but I know people find them helpful.

I visit YouTube to check out videos of hotels I am considering. And if I want to keep people engaged enough to watch the full clip before the ad is served up at the end - I will think just that bit harder about it when making them.

Consumer generated content online is becoming an important destination online, and responsible for a lot of traffic - which will only grow. It can provide excellent space and environments for us marketers to deliver content relevant brand messages (so , for example, the hotel and other tourist services delivering ads on the page where someone is watching my clip of that very hotel is likely to get a response as whoever is watching it is in high interest mode).

But as marketers we want to know the context and content is quality and appropriate. This move by YouTube may be one way of helping to ensure that.

By the way, visit my YouTube channel and watch my videos - and remember the ads!

Are you watching your brands properly?

I was very impressed by Eurostar marketing/ communication team the other day. And I learnt a good lesson that I realised I, and other marketers, should be following immediately.

On my Tips for Travellers blog at about 8.30am I had posted some photos and a review of the new Eurostar Business Lounge at the lovely St Pancras Station in London. I made some comments about how small and over crowded it was.

By lunchtime I had an email from the Communications Management along with their name and contact numbers, thanking me for the post and commenting on how the lounge was expanding and why it had to be the shape it was (limitations of being in a Grade 1 listed building).

Clearly they are ACTIVELY monitoring what people are thinking and writing about their product in medium like blogs, and ensuring they understand and engage in a positive way.

I don't do this on our brands and should do.

I have set up immediately an alert via Google to track mention of one of the brands I look after in blogs (free and easy to set up so not sure why I have not done it before!) to at least see what and if people are writing. So no matter how big or small your brand or business is you should at least do this and see what the buzz is?

Why pointing your finger at your agency is risky!

Clients that bash up their agency, as they get lousy creative work, remind me of a saying an elderly supply history teacher at school used to say. He would say: "When you point one finger at someone, you point 3 at yourself". (If you don't understand this: physically when you do a pointing action with your hand, 3 of your fingers are pointing at you).

In my view, we as clients generally get exactly the copy we deserve. So if your copy is lousy you could be at least 3 times more responsible for it than the agency (as shown by people moving accounts and still get appallingly bad ads).

You get the copy you deserve when:

(1) The very best people with the best ideas in the agency want to work on your business. It never ceases to amaze me that so many marketers as clients seem to brow beat, use muscle and treat agencies with distain and "command and control" type management styles. This will never bring out the best in people, especially creative people. You need to stroke them, you need to invest time and love in the relationship. Like dating, you will never have a fulfilling relationship with infrequent and fractious dates. That only comes with quality and deep time spent to understand each other. You need to work on the basis that the best people in advertising actually do want to sell product, as it brings in more business and more money for them in the end. Many marketers I have worked with and observed seem to assume agency people do not actually want to sell products to consumers. If the people on your account don't want to sell product in the best way but only do what you want, then they are not the best.

(2) You give your agency an impossibly tight brief with absolutely no room to move. One that is ruthlessly single minded with one clear benefit will give you the best advertising you can imagine. A very tiny and clear brief (preferably so clear and so tight you can write it on the smallest of post-it notes) which seems to box the creatives into a corner will mean the only way out is to create their way out. Give them a vague brief with many different benefits and reason why, they will pick and chose as they want and you will always be unhappy.

(3) You actually take some risks, but always make sure you know what risks you are taking and why. It may be that the copy does not look like everyone else in your category - something that may be the best thing you could ever do. But when taking risks make sure that you never compromise on the ability to stop consumers and ensure they remember who you are and what you are saying. Break that rule and you deserve the total an utter disaster you will get from the millions you spend.

Make sure when you point a finger at your agency for lousy copy, you are not actually pointing 3 fingers at yourself...

What do you think, drop me an email or leave comment..

Creativity in Advertising Conference: update

The brochure advertising the "Creativity in Advertising " one day conference in London that I will have a short slot at is now available.

You can download it by "right clicking" this link and saving it to your desktop.

I will be speaking about the "5 things I wished I had known about advertising and creativity 10 years ago"..

The website for the conference says about the event:

"Creativity in Advertising 2008 provides a fantastic line-up of eminent speakers – a ‘who’s who’ in the creative world – who will share their experiences, tactics and stories to inspire and provide practical ways of increasing creative excellence for you and your team.The conference is designed to inspire anyone responsible for marketing brands. It is expected to attract senior marketing personnel from advertisers, agencies and marketing services firms"

Advertising: a job worth doing is worth doing well...

My mother always used to say to me when I was growing up that: a job work doing, is worth doing well.

Although somewhat homespun and corny, I try and use this when it comes to assessing and developing marketing plans and even more importantly communication.

The reason for the latter is that I see the worst examples, of not doing the job well, when it comes to advertising. This is where marketers are obsessive about shorter and shorter spot lengths, and are trying to communicate and build brands using 10 and 15 or 20 second TV spots. This is madness.

In such a short time you can probably get across some product news or feature at best. So you can say "look we now have a dry skin variant for you". But you cannot connect with a consumer, you cannot move a consumer, and you are very unlikely to build a brand. As a brand needs not only awareness (the main reason I hear for using short spots is for frequency) but also needs to build strong relevance and an emotional bond.

If you insist on using short spots, that only really communicate features, you will not build a brand. You will be more vulnerable to the next better mousetrap that comes along with their short spot length spouting on about a slightly better feature.

Then there is another aspect of doing a job right. Sometimes it takes TIME to tell the story the right way.

Some examples:

(1) I have observed a discussion between agency and the marketing team where ad is great. It tells a powerful story based on a consumer insight that is solved with a strong differentiated product. But as the marketers are thinking with a media schedule mindset they want a shorter spot length than the story can properly be told in. It needs time to establish the insight, tell how the product solves it and then enjoy the result. The trimming removes the flow and linkage. In this case something should change. And butchering the ad is not the right answer. Running a less powerful ad makes no sense.

(2) There is a stress relief shower gel ad I have used in trainings that is 20 seconds long, and makes you feel exhausted watching it as it is so complex and fast. The product is about stress relief. It should take TIME to bring the benefit alive - as time and unwinding is the concept. You need to show it.

(3) Olay and now brands like Aveeno, Proactive etc are running longer and longer ads when they launch new technologies and lines - they create small news item style ads that create a sense of newsworthiness, importance and also take the time to explain the new technology and how it works.

It is always better to be seen and remembered once than ignored and forgotten a thousand times.