Want advertising that saves the planet...get on yer TV Bike.

Every year we see new media ideas developed by people looking to get a slice of the enormous media spend. Some wild and wacky, some quite good but few grab the attention of media buyers and make it.

•

The pitch always starts with “A unique media opportunity that will take your brand message directly to the consumer …” You know the rest. But even when the numbers add up they need to get over the reluctance of media planners to deviate from the tried and tested. After all, all these new media models rarely deliver big numbers when an ad in the metro delivers millions. But media inventors are usually a passionate lot if not a little naive.

•

Ian Taylor, a Wakefield businessman (not that it matters where he comes from) has come up with a very new contemporary pitch, an environmental media option – Mobile TV advertising run by pedal power.

•

Meanwhile in the US, Chicago-based Brand Xperience has launched 'Go Green Mobile Billboard Advertising', an eco-friendly mobile billboard all-electric, zero emissions vehicle for special events, street sampling and mobile billboards. It’s a cute little 3 wheeler vehicle painted green (what else would you expect) that should be easily run over by a Hummer.

•

The TV Bike is not so cute, rather an odd looking vehicle, looking like something out of that kids programme, Wacky Races. But then this does make it eye catching. Odd is good.

•

The TV Bike is an extension of other bike media options like those irritation tuk-tuks in central London or the more fun Vespa powered mobile ads from Oz, Scooter Ads.

•

These eco mobile ads are kitted out with HD screens, Bluetooth and a 300w sound system. It may have a zero pollution but what about sound pollution I hear you say. The media has already been taken up by West Yorkshire Police and Kent Highways, and may well appeal to those businesses who want to be seen to tick the low carbon footprint green box. As a promotional aid it adds some extra impact but will it revolutionise media? Probably not but it’s a novel way to take moving images into pedestrian zones and claim a green benefit.

•

A brief search of the web doesn’t reveal many interesting new green media solutions. But once you get past the greenwash (and there’s a lot of it) there are some imaginative green ads about. My fav is the SunChips poster. ‘Made with the help of solar energy’ is the caption but the clever bit is they set the SunChips word as a cut out on top of the poster so it cast a shadow on the billboard. As the sun moves so does the name. Of course it’d fail in the cloudy skies of the UK, bit like the poster a charity once tried to made out of litmus paper only to discover the rain in London isn’t as acid as they thought. Another poster that used the environment was the Asthma poster that was painted in glue. After 2 weeks it had so much pollution stuck on it you could read the headline (the bit not painted in glue). This poster has been up for just two weeks. Imagine what your lungs must look like.

•

But for the most imaginative way to convey a green message you should look at CURB, a specialist in natural media. These guys have grown ads, cleaned off dirty walls and pavements to make ads, put them in snow, on fields, made ads from natural materials, including sand, crops, compost, moss and wood. The list goes on. (Check the folio out at www.mindthecurb.com).

Go green, eat the pet dog.

Seems some greens hate animals and see them as the cause of climate change. While Heather Mills promotes her extreme anti meat views, Rosie Boycott in the Evening Standard suggested we eat our pets to save the planet.  She has a point, dogs do consume a lot of food, fart a lot, smell and bite postmen’s legs. So if you want to be green, throw Fido on the barbecue and put Snowball the cat in a curry.

Somehow I think this anti meat approach won’t win over many punters. So what you need is an easier target. Something not cuddly or sweet. And a few bits of science thrown in. What this amounts to is ‘black marketing’, the art of using marketing techniques to promote a hidden agenda.

Now many people may have picked up a small and fashionable trend at the moment to blame cows for global warming because of methane. Yep, these poor things make for an easy target as they can’t answer back and due to a lot of apathy tend not to protest their innocence. Unlike Land Rover Freelander drivers, who produce the same effect as a cow if they drive 30 miles a day from the suburbs to the city office. Never mind the fact that the facts are rarely a concern of those, like Mills, pushing a left wing vegan viewpoint, lets just demonise cows and suggest everyone eats rice. Well except rice, pulses, cabbage and a load of other vegetarian options aren’t good for the planet either as they produce methane too (I’ll avoid puns about hot air). Let me explain.

First you need to be aware that there is so much bull out there it’s hard to sort the facts from the farts. With so much spin and even distortion of science I ended up on science forums to find out he truth about methane, well as good as I can get.

The pitch, put by some, is that cows produce methane (CH4) which is 20 times worse than CO2. Not incorrect. There’s actually 220 times more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere and CO2 accounts for just 0.038% of the atmosphere (Wikipedia facts). What isn’t correct is The Vegan Society’s poster as it shows the rear of a cow - 95% of methane actually comes out of their mouth. Of course they aren’t the only animals who produce methane, so why not pick on camels, giraffes, gazelles, stags, water buffalos, yaks, elephants, gorillas, even Bambi, the list is endless. “Kill em all” I hear Mills shout.

Surely one of the biggest dangers to the world’s poor are those who are corrupting the real issues and pursuing their own personal, often distorted, agenda. Sometimes they are just misinformed, in some cases they are arrogantly after their own thing and exploiting fears over climate change.  More dangerously, when the actions needed are put in the hands of politicians then we are almost guaranteed a disaster. In the Havas Global Media Study, only 11% of people thought politicians were doing enough. We’d probably be better off if they did nothing and left the better informed people to sort it out.

To quote from a real scientist, Dr Martin Hodson (Principal Lecturer in Environmental Biology at Oxford Brookes University) “Very few scientists nowadays deny the fact of climate change though high profile is often given to contrary opinions, which usually come, often obscurely, from vested interests.”

Of course the attack on meat eating falls down when you consider that a lot of cows aren’t used for meat but for pulling ploughs, carts and such like – in India the cow is sacred so never eaten. And who really pays if we do reduce meat eating? 75 per cent of animal methane emissions came from developing countries like India and Brazil. As if often the case, the wealthy middle classes preach policies that effect the poor most.

And another thought, eat less meat means you need to eat more veg, which is going to be grown where?

Lets pause for a short science fact break. Why do cows produce so much methane (though not as much as we’re led to believe)? Ryegrass is the answer. Feed them on crap grass they produce lots of methane, but on a better quality feed it reduces. Add garlic and it reduces more. Or fish oil. Park them in sheds and you can collect the methane as fuel. They are now even breading cows that produce less methane, so the problem isn’t hard to reduce. But so often the spin doctors focus on the problem not the real solution. It’s like suggesting the best way to stop teenage pregnancy is to stop people having sex when what you need is free contraception and education.

But what anti meat campaigners aren’t telling you is that the sea, rivers, volcanoes, mud flats, earth’s crust and rain forests, yep rain forests – almost everywhere you’ll find rotting vegetation produces masses of methane – produces masses of the stuff. It’s called nature. And rice padi fields produces almost 100m tonnes a year.

There’s another fact that’s conveniently ignored, methane breaks down in the atmosphere far faster than CO2.. Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.

And if collected, it makes a great fuel, so less reliance on unsustainable fuels. It’s an untapped resource, a natural gas.

There are solutions, a methane-consuming microorganism has been discovered that lives in geothermal areas. The bacterium could one day be used to reduce methane gas emissions from landfills and cut methane emissions from geothermal power stations.

Scientists in Scotland, the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, have reduced CH4 from cows by70%.

According to the Centre for Global Food Issue, “New Beef Eco-Report: Pound-for-pound, beef produced with grains and growth hormones produces 40% less greenhouse gas emissions and saves two-thirds more land for nature compared to organic grass-fed beef.” More than 95% of beef produced in the United States is raised on grain-based diets but only accounts for 1.8% of total greenhouse gases produced in the United States

If we all stop eating meat it isn’t going to save the planet anymore than fitting a single low energy light bulb will. What we need is far more intelligent and dramatic action.

Of course this isn’t the first time greens have advocated eating less meat. For 25 years Stanley Owen Green (known as the Protein Man) walked up and down Oxford Street  carrying a placard that advocated “Less Passion from Less Protein. Less Fish, Meat, Bird, Cheese Egg, Peas, Beans, Nuts and Sitting.” Green arguing that protein made people lustful and aggressive, his solution was “protein wisdom,” a low-protein diet for “better, kinder, happier people”. His booklet, ‘Eight Passion Proteins with Care’ sold 87,000 copies.

And if you thought that was odd ball, consider this - in 2003, the government of New Zealand proposed a flatulence tax. No surprise it was not adopted because of public protest.

 

“Apply NOW! 4 week course at NASA and a guaranteed job as a rocket scientist.”

Constantly I’m shocked at how others see our business and how they think anyone can do it. We all know that most clients think they can write copy, and some even think they can art direct, but these pale by comparisons to those seeking government funding to get kids off the dole and offering kids false hope. •

 

Incorporating a talent incubator within our agency is certainly a great way to compete against even the best creative departments. After all, we have top 20 brains tackling a problem few agencies can put more than a couple of teams on. Take on the very best young minds and they’ll open yours as well. But all our creatives have trained, many have a year or two industry experience, they have Mac skills and know how to think in the right way. But our ethical ethos – cultivate young creatives – attracts more than just brands like IKEA, Diageo and King of Shaves, it also attracts some interesting organisations that want to help young people get a job. All good but... •

 

Good advertising is applied creativity and not just creativity for the sake of it – come a painter if you want to do that. Most of what we do is actually using creativity to solve marketing problems in an engaging way. Any fool can produce a poster, only a few can produce a poster that works. The same can be said about cooking, writing, making music, etc. •

 

Having an open mind is not a term I’d use for some of those organisations seeking to extract grants form the government to help our many young people into the workplace. For them it’s good business, the government wants to reduce the number of unemployed and those on job seeker allowance and are happy to throw money at anyone who seems to offer a solution. But when you give false promises to kids that there’s a job waiting that doesn’t exist, is that ethical? •

 

Having been approached by a number of organisations over the last year, there seems to be a general attitude that advertising is not a skilled profession but just a place any one with a little creative talent and a set of coloured pens can get a job in. “I’ve heard ad agencies say it’s not rocket science,” was the patronising comment of one self appointed social evangelist . “Nor is law, accountancy, brain surgery or being a solder,” I replied. To these organisations advertising is perceived as a creative industry, rather than profession, if you can hold a pencil then almost anyone can do. •

 

It that our fault? Have we failed to convey our profession as professional? I guess one look at most ads and you could understand why some people think it lacks any skill. Sadly few punters see the really good stuff. •

 

These organisations completely ignore the many advertising, design, communication graphics and digital courses thousands of kids spend 3 years on. If it was that easy why do we have hundreds of courses? If the majority of them can’t get a job after 3 years of study, what planet do you have to be on to think someone can after a 4-8 week one day a week course? I know their intentions are good, but their ignorance is misleading. •

 

One well know charity argued with us for over an hour, trying to convince us that their fantasy view of advertising was more correct than ours. Unbelievable! They thought that a bunch of 16 year school leavers could do a 6 week course and agencies would be queuing to hire them. “Most of them have been on a film course for 3 weeks, they are all very creative”. How many times do we hear amateurs (as opposed to people who work as professional creatives) trying to make judgements about what creative talent is. It’s worse than listening to a football fan playing at being a manager or mothers ranting about why their kid didn’t get the lead in the school play. “Deborah is such a talented dancer and singer.” Sorry Mrs Robertson, Deborah sings like a horse and dances like a three legged yak. •

 

Doug Richards made a great point when discussing Dragons Den and entrepreneurs, that when people have an idea it’s like a baby, no one wants to tell them it’s ugly. We told that charity it was ugly. They never called us back. •

 

Where I think we can make a difference is cultivating threads of creative talent. Mozart didn’t sit down at the piano one day and start writing great pieces. Tiger Woods didn’t just pick up a golf club and hit a hole in one. All talented people have to start with a small ability that becomes a bigger one. Inspire them and their own energy will drive the forward. •

 

The two organisations that are doing that well are D&AD and the Ideas Foundation. Both cultivate talent. The Ideas Foundation (ourselves like many creative agencies are happy to support) work with kids across the UK helping to find that thread of talent and develop it. In time that may well take them on to become valuable contributors to our creative economy, but it’s a journey. •

 

Ideas Foundation recently held their annual event at BBH and it was very rewarding to see what a great difference they are making. How inspired many kids are. How some kids, rejected by traditional education have found a new purpose. Whatever they end up doing, at least they feel they have a talent. •

 

D&AD’s work as an education charity is often overlooked because of the awards scheme it runs, yet this is the most valuable part of what it does (for me further inflating the egos of our fellow creatives through awards has no social value). •

 

I do support all attempts to help young people find their talent and inspire them and have worked with a wide range of schools, colleges and organisations to do this. But we have to be honest and truthful and manage kids expectations. To tell a kid that he can sign up for a 8 week course at NASA and he could get a job as a rocket scientist at the end is just plain lying. Of course he’s going to feel deflated at the end instead of inspired. And all to help politicians massage their unemployment figures. Unethical or what? •

 

The best thing we can do is to cultivate that talent, inspire them, support them with the right tools and attitudes and make kids aware that life is equally about passion, hard work and dedication. Jobs can’t be handed out like candy in the playground, it’s a journey and hard one. That’s the best lesson they can learn. As the old religious quote goes, “Give them a fish and they’ll live another day, teach them to fish and they’ll feed themselves for a lifetime.” •

Why clients want to be part of the process not apart from it – the ethics of good business.

It was while I was researching my book Ethical Marketing & The New Consumer that I discovered a few interesting insights into how unethical some clients see agencies. Probably none too surprising if we are really honest with ourselves, though the outcomes will no doubt inflame a few. We surveyed 100 clients, all in confidence, about their attitudes towards ethics, covering many aspects of people to planet and beyond. Fascinating results. But we also added in a few questions, with narrative answers, about how they felt about agencies. Much of this feedback was used in shaping Creative Orchestra before it launched earlier this year.   Now this is only 100 clients, all major brands and all with major agencies. However, I think we’d get similar results with a bigger group. Unlike many surveys, we didn’t set out to justify or discredit a point.    The overall feeling was that “agencies are a necessary evil”. Harsh words but I’m quoting here. Many felt they over promised and undelivered, both on service and creativity. Even some of the agencies with creative reputations disappointed. “We get much fresher ideas from our digital agency than the ad agency. I think they are stuck in the past.” In fact it seems clients feel many agencies aren’t as creative as they expected, and often needed to be pushed by the client. They were a good few comments about being “behind the curve” rather than in front of it.   Over charging and hidden charges were a sore point, clients often felt “ripped off”, especially when paying a retainer that just paid for account handling and everything else was charged on top. One of the most bitter comments we got was about the number of account handlers needed to change a light bulb, beautifully put by one marketing director. “How many people does it take to change a light bulb? One client. But an ad agency needs three account handlers. One to write a report and brief the other. One to rewrite the brief and have a meeting. The other to work out how many hours it will cost and then double it. And then all three to have another meeting. The final result? They’ve put the wrong light bulb in.”   Seems Mother are most in tune with clients with their approach to employing just project managers, which is what clients want – highly efficient people to see things through. We have also adopted this approach at CO and our clients love it because it makes for a more time and cost efficient business model.    Another really big bug bare of many clients is they want to meet the brains behind the ideas, the creatives and the planners. They hate the defence barrier of account handlers they come across, especially in some of the big agencies. One client has shifted her financial account (over £2m) to a smaller agency from a big group agency because of this one factor. It seems madness in this day and age, what is the problem? Any of our clients can come in and meet the brains on their campaigns or call them. Even come in and brainstorm with them. Do we feel threatened by that? No, clients love it, they want to be part of the process not apart from it. It also helps our creatives be more on brief. And when they are, you get better creative work out.   Time is another complaint, some clients cannot believe just how long it can take to do things, suspecting that by stringing it out the agency can charge more. “Sometimes I feel like I’m in one of those dodgy taxis in a strange city, the cab driver knows he can take the longest route to my hotel and charge me the biggest fare.”   Overall, our small survey suggested that many clients both think and feel agencies are delivering a poor job for the money. Too many middle managers and not enough access to the real talent. They think agencies are outdated in their structure and approach. Over charging, difficult, defensive and disappointing. Harsh, maybe, but unless you can listen (we can all be in denial) you can’t move forward.   Much of what we gathered has been put into practice with Creative Orchestra, which is still in many ways an experiment in developing a new model of agency, but it’s winning us major brands.   I’m sure a survey of their agencies would reveal comments about spineless clients, too much red tape, tight budgets and timings, bad briefs and the usual moans. But the clients have the money, we have the talent and they need us to help them build bands and sell product.   The question is, do we know how to sell ourselves? And do we know how to work together as a team? I know that any criticisms of our beloved industry evokes strong emotional reactions - I’m just the messenger - but many of us have been saying we need to face change not challenge it. It’s a case of get with the times or get left behind. But then again, maybe we’ve all come so complacent no one (of the 300,000 subscribers to Brand Republic) will bother to comment.     www.ecoethicalmarketing.info www.creativeorchestra.com

New study blames bureaucrats for global warming and suggests Stephen Fry could save us all.

Few can deny that global warming is happening but last night on Question Time, David Davis (politician and scientist) raised the issue that it may not be man’s fault. Well after all when was the climate ever consistent?  But as one audience member pointed out, you dare not disagree or you’ll be seen as the enemy. But from some of the comments a lot of people are not convinced it’s man made either or that we can do much about it. No doubt this view is not helped by the politicians, as soon as governments start preaching green the public instantly grows distrusting. Be honest, if Brown gets up and asks us all to stop driving and switch off the lights you’d feel you are being conned and do the opposite.

 

There’s little doubt they are meddling with the real green agenda for their own reasons and some of their solutions are laughable if not bad because they suggest all you need to do is drive a little less and put in low energy bulbs. Wow, is saving the planet really that easy?

 

If they really wanted us to drive less how come they’ve done nothing to improve public transport? I took a train to Chester today, I could have driven there for half the price. And it was later coming back.

 

They talk about melting ice caps and rising sea level yet aren’t building up flood defences. But don’t worry, another bunch of bureaucrats will fly off to personally overlook the melting of the ice caps or off to another conference on melting ice caps held in Florida.

 

Maybe it’s a sign of the times that we now blame every episode of extreme weather on global warming – the recent floods up North being one such a case. Well at least it gives the British railways a new excuse, “The 12.15 from Chester will be an hour late due to climate change.”

 

There’s no doubt that we are seeing dramatic changes, from drought to floods but there’s an issue closer to home that is adding fuel to the fire, consumption and churn. Fact is we live in a very wasteful society. Alas we work in the very industry that encourages consumption and churn, it’s good business. But at what point do we as an industry decide we have to be the solution not the problem?

 

In America a new report (like we need another) declares that curbing climate change saves lives. No ‘organic compostable waste’ Sherlock. However, as some humanitarian groups will point out, some of the curbs some greens preach will kill people as well, poverty is a big issue and taking away income results in death. And deaths within months not decades. But that’s ok, if you are a wealthy American green evangelist living in a nice middleclass town, “not my problem”.

 

The report links health issues with climate change, an eco-ethical mash up. It has a point though, but one that’s not new, fossil fuels cause pollution (there’s a word not used much these days but one you can at least understand). Which causes health problems. And some people die. Amazing, but not many people compared to tobacco. Or guns. Or car accidents. Or obesity. All big killers in America. And the solution? Drive less. Wow, that’s new! Don’t you just love bureaucrats who write reports.

 

In Freakanomics the authors point out that while millions were being spent to curb children dying in car accidents, in fact more drowned in swimming pools. We are in danger of seeing a very mixed up agenda where we are victims of politics and media spin and we focus on the wrong issues.

 

Of course the latest trend is to link climate change with any issue you want to champion. If you are an extreme vegan you can blame it on meat – cows fart, so they are the problem. (You have to ignore the fact paddy fields produce more methane, as do rain forests or the sea). You can blame almost anything on it, so I’m going to blame bureaucrats. In my massive study (5 people on my train back from Chester) no one disagreed with this proposition, ‘bureaucrats are one of the biggest causes of global warming’. Ok, two were asleep, one was listen to Cradle of Filth on their MP3 player and the other two would agree to anything. But that’s good enough for me.

 

As an example, I see that we plan to send 36 delegates to Denmark, but only one is taking the train, the others will be flying. Why do 36 people need to go? I know most ad agencies over staff accounts with too many suits but this is just daft. The answer is simple – bureaucracy. Why have one person leaving a big carbon footprint when 36 can.

 

How about we send Stephen Fry instead and he can Twitter to the rest. That way more people take an interest, the taxpayer saves a fortune, less CO2 and maybe these civil servants can do some real work rather than dining out on the taxpayer. Yep, singled handed Fry could save the planet.

 

Of course, it brings to mind the old joke, “how many bureaucrats does it take to change a light bulb?” “Well if you can fill out forms PH232, form HK-89 and 92 we’ll arrange a committee meeting to discuss your question and get back to you in a year with a report.” (A year later you’ll be told you can’t have the answer due to the data protection act.)

 

I came across a great new phrase, ‘Bureaucratic Fascism’. It’s a term to describe how pen pushing meddling bureaucrats are curbing our freedoms and bringing the UK to a bureaucratic gridlock where nothing can move anymore as we just fill out more forms and have to obey more ridiculous rules, all in the interest of safety of course. My advice to David Cameron, if you want to win the next election (though technically speaking he’ll get in because Browns totally blown it) get rid of the bureaucrats. Simple really, make them fill out a form before they can breath. Job done.

 

Just look at how much damage they have done to the NHS, schools and the police, not to mention the environment. The average copper spends more time filling forms that policing our streets. Teachers are burdened with regulations and paper work of no value, so can’t teach properly and people die in the NHS due to red tape. So maybe to save lives and make everyone’s life better we should create an Acton on BU2 campaign. Think of all those forms – loads of paper – we’d save. And all that extra wrapping on food due to health & safety that fills up landfill. The list goes on – you can add you own in the comments box below.

 

Green Awards

Yet another great night for the Green Awards, which seems to go from strength to strength year after year. This year they abandoned the old sit down for a more freestyle networking evening - brilliant! I so hate those stuffy dos where you sit at the Grosvenor eating crap food and drinking bad wine.

Despite a recession, green marketing is growing. More and more companies are waking up to  a simple fact that consumers are looking at your ethical credentials. But a bit of advice, it's not all green they are looking for.

One thing that separates the Green Awards from others is the community feeling. We are all part of an eco-ethical group so talking to anyone is easy and there's no resentment when someone wins, everyone rejoices - unlike many ad awards! I managed to walk up to Jonathan Porrit and had an illuminating chat. He previously mocked the Act on CO2 climate change ads featuring a dad reading his kid a scary story. JP obviously has little time for government green propaganda. I agree, the last thing we want is a nanny state deciding what's green and ethical and then spending tax payers money on party politics

Great venue, St Luke's church near Old Street.  Sampled  some great food and binged on RDA soft drinks with a chaser from an interesting French Fairtrade Vodka called FAIR (check it out online).

I won't announce the winners as I'll leave that to the professional journalists, but there was some great work up there.

Did I win anything? Alas, I didn't enter but next year I'll be in there next year. 

 

Should Christmas ads be banned?

Nov 1^st and suddenly half the ads are full of Christmas clichés. I for one have started channel hopping because the ads are so bad. Not that the non Christmas ads are any better.

 

Well having got 100 replies to my Survey Monkey survey here are the results.

 

OK, not a massive survey but a recent survey that reported most people thought ads with celebrities were less effective than ones without, turned out to be conducted in a college canteen among just 60 students. Still managed to make the nationals though.

 

Should all Christmas ads be banned?  Well 69% said yes. It’s certainly the worse brief you can get as a creative. Imagine, you get briefed in May, shoot in August in a studio full of fake snow for a late October launch (yep some appear that early). Humbug.

 

79% thought Xmas ads shouldn’t start before Dec 1^st. Maybe the Tories can use that to get in at the next election, a definite vote winner.

 

But do Christmas ads sell? 61% think Xmas ads do sell. But is it the Christmas theme or the offers? See below.

 

What is the best Christmas ad of all time? 76% said there aren’t any. Those brands that were praised included Coca-Cola, Woollies, Argos, Hellman’s and M&S. But no one actually named an actual ad, so seems none have made a big impression. Certainly can’t think of one I’ve seen in D&AD.

 

Of course, let us not forget that it was Coke in the 1930s who relaunched Santa Claus in their red and white colours.

 

To top this up we’ve been doing a few street surveys, though only 100 people. This time it’s the punter’s turn.

 

One question we asked was “Is the commercialisation of Christmas destroying the magic of Christmas?” Interesting narratives. 72% think that commercial brands have devalued Christmas, though mainly through over exposure and over use of cliché’s. 

 

Most thought they would be just as likely to buy if the ads had no Christmas theme. Relevance and discounts was the key element, so maybe all the Christmas trimmings really adds nothing. Or worse, actually makes the ad more of a turn off. With so many Christmas ads, how do you get noticed?

 

But almost all (92%) felt strongly that Christmas comes too early in ads and shops. which does spoil it. Consumers see the two together.

 

Most thought Christmas ads were generally bad unless they were funny, though no one could think of a funny one. A lot of consumers thought they are more likely to ignore Christmas themed ads. “It’s a turn off” . “Maybe in mid December but in October or November it’s too early”.

 

So advice to adland – avoid the clichés, you don’t need Christmas trimming – great ads sell just as well without the clichés. And please don’t book those slots too early. But one small piece of advice from the consumers mouth, make it funny, that’s a real winner every time.

 

Checkout the Independent’s 2007 article on The best Christmas Ads of all time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-best-christmas-ads-ever-764037.html

Check out Google today

What  a brilliant visualisation of the logo. The best yet.

 

While so many brands are stuffy about their logos and actually think messing with it will open the door to others messing with it (never let lawyers have a voice in your corporation) Google likes to have fun. No wonder they are so successful.

 

About time more brands stopped being so anal and let themselves go.I think we must be at the bottom of the HOW BLAND AND BORING CAN BRANDS BE  curve.

 

Many years ago I worked on Ford and presented a headline 'ONE FOUR LETTER WORD MOTORISTS SWEAR BY'. Boy did we get a bad reaction. Client freaked. My only thought at the time was "get a life, it's only advertising". 

Think I'll make that the title of my next book.

Christmas is here early… please save us from the ads!

It seems Christmas is getting earlier every year, Nov1st and the media onslaught starts. Last night almost half the TV commercials had a Christmas them, please can someone invent an app that screens Christmas ads out.

 

Two years ago we conducted a street survey into Christmas ads and how consumers felt about them. Too early – big brand negative. Clichéd theme– highly ignorable. In fact most people wanted an alternative approach, Christmas trimmings just makes the ad appear even less genuine.

 

You don’t need a survey to intuitively know that running Christmas ads in early November falls into the ‘irrelevant’ box. Who the hell is buying presents now? I thought most people are adopting the “I’ll buy you something in the Jan sales” approach.

 

Personally I’d ban all Christmas themed ads. As a creative it’s the worse brief of the year. Humbug? You bet.

 

Go to my Survey Monkey survey and have your say on banning Christmas ads.

 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=O7DQsx1xvMoVeh0isifhBQ_3d_3d

There’s something fishy at Pret and Facebook faces the music.

Pret's claim that its sushi is fresh has been exposed as untrue by the Telegraph. Seems it’s flown in from Chile, 7000 miles away. Under regulations, they can de-freeze it and repackage it and call it fresh which make s a mockery of the term fresh. For a brand that relies on its values, fresh food everyday, this will do a lot of damage to consumer trust.

 

This is just one example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. While those responsible for the brand are spending millions promoting a brand’s value, some accountant is screwing it up, all to save a few quid. Maybe companies need to educate all their staff in reputation management.

 

I do feel sorry for Aviva’s marketing department, they must want to shoot the pen pushing clerk who asked a customer for £235,000 back after he finally found a limp excuse to reject the claim. The poor woman was the victim of arson and then became the victim of Aviva’s claims department. While the cleric was probably bragging how he’d managed to avoid paying out, the newspapers were busy going after Aviv. I don’t think you could have got worse press, and no doubt, major reputation damage. Lets be honest, no one trust insurance companies and this was not only a blow for Aviva bit the whole industry. Many years ago I worked on an insurance account and the client openly admitted, “we’ve not in the business of paying out, we’re in the business of getting paid.”

 

Supermarkets have also found themselves a demon on the doorstep in the form of private parking companies. These cowboys (not my words but those of many articles) who operate these schemes are using unethical tactics to con people out of money. The result, supermarkets lose customers. I recently had the pleasure of dealing with Morrison’s lot.

 

After threatening letters and the threats of bailiffs being sent in to claim the fine – they have no lawful claim to the fine by the way and no company has pursued one in a court because they wouldn’t win – I caught them out for law breaking by failing to put their company registration number on their material. Companies House stepped in, they shut up. I now shop at another supermarket.

 

I use to be a regular listener to LBC but am appalled that they are taking sponsorship from what must be the lowest profession of all and a sign that we are not as civilise a  society as we like to think – bailiffs. I am about to write to the ASA over Dawkin’s ads as unethical, “don’t let people use you as a bank… let us get what you’re owed.” In these financially challenging times the Government should suspend licences for debt collectors and bailiffs and allow a more ethical groups to handle debt.

 

Facebook could also be facing the music soon, but over data. There seems to be some potential issues over how they handle data when they bar people. Of course handing access to any database to another party is illegal. So when they bar the administrator of a group and then openly offer the group to anyone who wants to admin it they are in effect in breach of the data protection laws. Also the destruction of your data constitutes the destruction of property as it’s your IP so could result in a legal case for damages. Unfortunately, making people click a T&C box has little legal upholding and doesn’t over ride laws. Lawyers are currently looking at this. This could open the door to massive claims against Facebook from barred customers. Watch this space.

 

And finally I have to comment on people brands. Having suffered a number of episodes of Paris Hilton’s BBF (in the interest of research) I cannot think of anyone who more deserves the badge of the ultimate Bimbo Brand.

Proof we advertisers can sell anything…

Bottled Water has to be the ultimate proof that marketing can sell anything. When you look into it you have to wonder how stupid the public really are. They certainly don’t check out their facts and even when you tell them they go into denial.

 

I came across a great report on 20:20 (American ABC news channel) on bottled water. It really does prove we marketing people can sell anything for 100 times the price, in US alone they sell over 4b dollars of water a year. Yet across the other side of the world millions have none.

 

Bottle water is almost an urban myth in that many consumers think it’s better for you or tastes better than tap. That it’s safer. Seems test after test proves that what we think and what is reality is not the same.

 

In fact it can harbour bacteria and minerals that may not be so good for you. We’ve probably all seen a water cooler that is left in the light go green inside. One report in America revealed that 1/3 of water violated industry standards. One brand had arsnic in it.

 

The report on 20 20 sums up just how fickle the public are. As one consumer says, ”I’m the only one in my household who dares to drink tap water.” Seems the bottled water industry have managed to sell the public a big lie. Many consumers say they think bottled water is cleaner and safer and healthier. Experts and taste sessions seem to prove the opposite is true.

 

But it’s all coming apart as there’s a backlash towards bottled water. There’s also a big trend away from plastic bottle towards refillable ones with slogans on like: “Friends don’t let friends drink from plastic.”

 

Check out these videos. The Penn & Teller one is very funny.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2KUCgvemjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzOOvC803rc&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc

 

YouTube rocks to 1bn but is the end in sight for Facebook?

YouTube has just hit £1bn viewers a day, with Susan Boyle being one of the top hits, how sad is that?

But YouTube just keeps growing, despite many rival sites, many with better features. Founded by Steve Chen & Chad Hurley in 2005, just a year later Google paid a massive £883million for it.

In the world of the web success can come very fast. It can also vanish just as quickly when the next big thing arrives. But for time being YouTube is it with over 20 hours of video being uploaded every minute.

The most popular videos include a kid having his finger bitten by a baby, a man dancing badly, a man in Star Wars gear, a sneezing panda and numerous Britain’s Got Talent clips. What does that say about the taste of the general public?

As advertisers we can learn a lot from what is popular and what’s not. Serious rational stuff – no one’s interested. Stuff selling stuff, no interest. TV ads, not interested. People making fools of themselves, animals and pop videos, yep that’s what they want.

Overall what people want is something to make them laugh, smile, be surprised, shocked or fascinated – all raised human reactions.

So this begs the question, why are most TV ads so dull? Well because too many brands think rationally about them.

Yep there’s been a few minor hits from TV advertising, Gorilla being one but as numbers go it’s small stuff and in fact far less than the audience you can get just by running the ad on any evening on ITV.

Clients think that making a viral will get them lots of free air time, millions will pass around their video and buy their product. Dream on. One in a million does it.

It’s the same as thinking you can write a hit single. Sure a really good viral can spread but spreading isn’t the same as selling.

As David Ogilvy once said, it’s one thing that people talk about your ad, it’s another if they buy it. The most famous case being a time when it was reported that Guinness ads were so good people talked about them in pubs whilst drinking their gin & tonics.

As a society we are just sheep and like to follow the pack. As consumers we are becoming less loyal, shorter attention spans and always looking for the next thing.

So what about Facebook? Its recent revamps was unpopular with many. It somehow already feels old and tired. It’s just become a massive address book (of friends who aren’t friends) that seems to steal away our day.

I know lots of people who have just stopped using it, that’s a worrying trend. Sure it’s convenient but you can’t help feeling their’s a better, more exciting new site waiting to happen.

An interesting observation, ask people if there are ads on Facebook.

Surprisingly a large number of people say no. Why? Because they are in the visual dead zone where they are easy to ignore.

I certainly wouldn’t advertise on it. Of course the big challenge to all these sites is how to make money before they peak and burn. Having just got addicted to the new US series Flash Forward, I’d love to see into the future and see how many are still about in 5 years. I think it’ll be all change.

Greenwash is now a criminal act, brands beware!

Neil Andrew of One Food took greenwash a bit to far when he falsely claimed to be selling organic products (salmon). Now big brands beware, Andrew has just got banged away in prison for 27 months. Seems Northamptonshire County Council trading standards and the Food Standards Agency don’t mess about when it comes to greenwash. Lying about your green credentials to sell things is fraud. This is the first time someone’s gone to jail but it symbolises how serious organisations are starting to take lying. So could all those greenwash ads for cars, lagers, petrol and many other products results in a few more company chairmen doing porridge?

 

Organic food sales have slumped, no surprise in a recession. Firstly organics are bought by many because they see them as quality and tasting better rather than planet saving (sorry my green friends but that’s the way it is). The real problem is greed, the supermarkets have been over pricing organics for too long and given the recession they are first on the list of cutbacks.

 

As an ad on LBC suggests, when people are worried about their jobs, savings and their home, trying to convince them they need to worry about the planet is a non starter.

 

Yeo Valley, Tesco, Green & Blacks and a few others have been reported to be considering pooling budget together to run an ad campaign through the Organic Trade Board to try and reverse flagging sales. The solution is simple, stop supermarkets over charging. I was called up by the BBC last week to comment on this, “did I think an ad campaign would reverse sales”. “No “ I said.

 

Yes it could maybe if the strategy was dead right, the supermarkets played ball and the media plan was right. But history tells you that these brands will end up at the wrong agency (they’ll go for a safe big name), get the wrong advice, a bland media plan and spend their money the wrong way. Cynical maybe, but there are so many badly marketed green campaigns about, just look at Stella (all my green friends think it’s a cynical campaign).

 

An interesting point, in the survey we carried out into ethical buying of supermarket products (full details and results in the book Ethical Marketing & the New Consumer) most people didn’t recognise the organics symbol. Well it is terrible, the Soil Association really needs to have it redesigned, the Tesco’s one is far better.

 

 

However, green cleaning products are suffering, the only exception being recycled paper kitchen towels (well they are cheaper than posh ones). The cause is price slashing. Consumers are faced with a dilemma, save money of save the planet… umm… she thinks… save money. This is not helped by the fact that some green cleaners don’t clean as well. Again this all comes down to the same factor, greedy supermarkets charging too much.

 

Green legislation is a big worry for supermarkets, especially when it comes to plastic bags. Of course no one wants knee jerk legislation from ill informed politicians, more interested in saving face than saving the planet. Packaging is still high on the agenda and challenges many brands. Kerrygold is leading the food field with massive savings on packaging, over 90 tonnes annually. But Britvic’s J20 outdoes Kerrygold as it is launching a lighter bottle that could result in a saving of  4,000 tonnes, a 10% reduction on 40,000 tonnes of glass it produces.

 

Whereas organics may be suffering local isn’t. Groups like Spar have seen a 5.2% rise in sales. However, this is not enough, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors has been trying to get people to shop local by dumping the car. The ‘My Shop Is Your Shop’ campaign is a good idea but the cheesy title feels like it was dreamt up in a PR agency.

BBC Watchdog launches with new format and shoots down Virgin Media

The BBC has relaunched Watchdog with a more lively style and bought old Anne Robinson back. Gone are the po faces and serious looks, instead it’s largely upbeat (more Top Gear). To test child buggies they took them to Silverstone racetrack and had a lot of fun trashing them. It reflects a less serious approach to serious issues and one that is surprisingly more effective. 

 

Two weeks ago we got a call at Creative Orchestra from the BBC asking if we’d appear on Watchdog. Oh my God we thought, have they finally rumbled out internet stair lift scam or our dodgy holiday apartment share scheme? No, they wanted us to do the old ‘advertising guru’ bit and give advice to some disgruntled consumers about dealing with Virgin Media. I do love how everyone is always called a ‘guru’. A friend of mine who runs an ad website was called into a big American TV channel and asked to comment on some marketing story. In a panic he called me, “I have no idea what to say, I’m just reporting it on my site”. We put together a script and the following day there he was on the TV as a ‘marketing guru’.

 

Recently we’ve done quite a bit for the BBC, including two programmes on how to sell rubbish food and one on selling breast milk. These programmes are fun to do though seeing it from their side it’s quite different. However, the power of these programmes to influence consumer opinion and their effect upon brand reputation is very powerful, many times more than ads.

 

Watchdog have received hundreds of complaints about Virgin media so the 3 people in the programme really were the tip of an iceberg. They all tried writing to Richard Branson because the consumer sees him as a consumer champion, what they don’t know is there is a nasty little department of Hobbits in between called ‘customer service.’ There are more than 200 companies worldwide that bear the Virgin name and though Branson doesn't run them all (I do wonder if he even knows what most of them do) the whole brand relies on his reputation and a commitment to customer service. So no surprise the customers were miffed when they didn’t get any customer service, just the usual disclaimers, negative responses and the usual lie about data protection issues. Boy that term has become so abused as an excuse for everything. I was recently told off in a shop for taking a picture as “it breaks data protection laws”. What! I doubt the security guard could pass an 11 1plus let alone has law degree.

 

It is still amazing that in many companies the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. One deparment gets the customers in, builds the brand and grows the reputation. The other upsets customers, treats them like rubbish and blows the reputation. That is a very expensive way to run any business.

 

In defence of Branson we did point out he probably would support the customers if he knew. So how do you get to him? Well he starting in music, so how about a song?

 

We suggested a Dave Caroll (United Breaks Guitars) style song & film on YouTube. It’s had over 5 million views of just one of the many postings, not to mention endless PR coverage. Bad ad for United, great for Dave’s career, his song is now on the Apple iTune store.

 

As usual, 2 hours of filming for 15 seconds of fame, bit like advertising really. The result was a song written by comedy musician Mitch Ben and titled ‘Virgin Media bills to dead people’. It’s not quite reached 5 million yet though it would have been seen by that number on Watchdog, so how much bad advertising for Virgin Media was that? How much would they now need to spend to reclaim their lost reputation. Many millions.

 

So one department, customer service has managed to screw up the reputation of a multi million pound spending company. I bet the marketing department must feel like going out and shooting the lot of them, well that’s if they could get hold of them on the phone instead of the usual answer, “please wait you call is important to us.”

 

An interesting and final point. Have a look at the BBC Watchdog site and at the comments – most have had to be removed due to the strong feelings of those posting them.

 

If you don’t listen to your customers they simply won’t have any to listen to. Common sense really, but then sense is rarely common.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/09/virgin_media.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8HmOJWWfY

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethical-Marketing-New-Consumer-Economy/dp/0470743026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252663866&sr=1-1

www.ecoethicalmarketing.plus.com

Are Stella and Carling trying to win a prestigious Green Award?

Both Stella and Carling are currently running ethical marketing campaigns, I can only assume they are both desperately trying to win a prestigious Green Award because I can’t see either campaign winning over the average lager lout.

Stella ‘Recyclage DeLuxe’ campaign has images of the 60s (why?) and a statement that “our glass bottles are made from 75% recycled glass”. Carling have their 100% British barley campaign.

I admire both brands faith in the idea that the average drinker applies ethical values to their choice of beer but the bad news is they don’t. A recent conversation (research for the book) with an organic beer producer was honest, he believed no one bought his beer because of ethics, “They think organic means it tastes better, but they have no idea why.”

There are certain products and services that ethical values can really make a real difference to the sales proposition, and other that it won’t. And there are some ethical messages that are great when you discover them, like Carling’s British barley message, but don’t make great ad propositions.

My advice, stick to those traditional sales messages in TV ads and posters and deliver the ethical messages through more consumer engaging and convincing channels. Advertising is brash and untrustworthy, which is why in one US survey it was revealed that consumer trusted ads with green claims less than normal ads (and their trust in normal ads was just 17%).

In one of the surveys we carried out for the book (Ethical Marketing & the New Consumer) among shoppers, the number one ethical factor that shifts product is Fairtrade, but when it comes to green claims few consumers really believe brands who make them. With so many greenwash ads about who can blame them.

Hidden in the Stella campaign, and you have to dig deep, is a CSR campaign about hedge planting. Umm? Is that relevant? They are claiming that they are planting a tree for every eighteen 284ml packs purchased. Umm, that’s a lot of beer to drink to plant a tree. If you’re up with CSR you’ll know that planting trees went out several years ago as largely pointless and is now seen by cynical consumers as greenwash.  Offsetting is no longer acceptable ethics, it’s a bit like a mass murderer killing 5 people but making 6 women pregnant and claiming he’s one up on a life.

Of course the problem with talking publicly about your ethical values is that some journalist from the Guardian will pick holes in it. For example, the bigger issue this raises within green communities is the carbon footprint of delivering millions of tons of glass bottles by trucks, the water usage (a big topic at the moment), the glass making process and the whole issue of the social effects of alcohol. Then there’s the difference between 75% in the ad and 81% on the bottle, umm?

Many brands have discovered that when they try to use environmental claims in their ads (big ad agencies have no idea about ethical marketing – it’s a complicated area) it can easily backfire. And bad publicity is bad for a company’s reputation which is bad for the share price.

Carling are at least on safer ground, well home turf actually with their British barley message. Buying local (and British) does carry favor with consumers in the green grocers, but in the bar? I’m open to being convinced. However, once I visited the website (www.carlingbritishbarley.co.uk) I was seduced by the stories of British farmers, Jake, Josh, John and John. It all felt very Co-op and Waitrose, and it didn’t feel like spin either.

The question I ask is, who are these beer brands targeting?

It was one of my pool of 20 young creatives (average age 25, average beer consumption…best not say but probably average for their age) who first commented on the Stella ads. Though his words were “does anyone get those ads, I don’t.” He was meet by total agreement from the others followed by a quick change of subject to something more interesting, the football. As a generation they are more ethical than their previous one but when it comes to beer, it’s not about the  % of recycle glass but the % of alcohol. Sorry to be a messenger of bad news.

Stella have a history of producing some of the best ads of any beer, reassuringly expensive has been a classic strategy, but I can’t help feeling they are a bit at sea over what to say. Trying to make yourself look environmental is seriously misinformed, they’ve even paid Ben Fogle (a TV environmentalist) to support them (everyone has their price it seems). Someone in InBev seems to think you need to make environmental claims to sell beer. I’ve seen this happen many times, a company feels it needs to jump on the  green band wagon but doesn’t question the logic of it all.

However, my creatives (after a few bevies) have come up with a brilliant campaign idea to engage consumers. Simple and strong on brand it also incorporates consumer generated input (something some brands are desperately trying to do). And it doesn’t greenwash but I’m not giving it away in this blog.

If you are planning a green message ad campaign I suggest you buy a copy of Ethical Marketing & the New Consumer, at £10 from Amazon it’ll save ten thousand times that in wasted media budget. In it you’ll find everything you need to know about how not to end up greenwashing and how to select the right ethical message. Tools like the Ethical Sphere and the R&E line are essential tools to help you define your ethical marketing strategy and your KEVs (Key Ethical Values). Plus it’s an interesting read (very Seth Godin in style I’m told).

Now back to the Green Awards. Since these launched four years ago they have been growing year on year and the winners provide great case studies of how both big and small companies (and organisations) are creating genuine and convincing green and ethical marketing campaigns. Winners over the years have included many big brands like Honda, Nokia, O2, Sky, M&S, COI, Cadbury’s, Guardian, TfL, DEFRA Act on CO2 and Coca-Cola.

This year they have the usual group of expert judges (who won’t be taken in by greenwash claims) judging 16 categories. Winning a Green Award is not easy, competition is tough and the entry date is September 18th, so you need to get your zero carbon skates on.



www.greenawards.co.uk,

www.carlingbritishbarley.co.uk, http://www.stellaartois.com/hedgefund/,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ethical-Marketing-New-Consumer-Economy/dp/0470743026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1233610197&sr=1-1

www.ecoethicalmarketing.info