Arnold on ethical marketing

Green Awards

CHRIS ARNOLD — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:14:00 GMT

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?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:51:00 GMT

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

CHRIS ARNOLD — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:13:00 GMT

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!

CHRIS ARNOLD — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:01:00 GMT

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.

CHRIS ARNOLD — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:40:00 GMT

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…

CHRIS ARNOLD — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:22:00 GMT

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?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:12:00 GMT

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!

CHRIS ARNOLD — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:01:00 GMT

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

CHRIS ARNOLD — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:35:00 GMT

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?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:58:00 GMT

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

Crazy People or just AdMad?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:48:00 GMT

‘Porsche. It's a little too small to get laid in it, but you get laid the minute you get out of it!’ ‘Buy Volvos’. They’re boxy but they’re good.’ ‘Jaguar for men who’d like hand jobs from beautiful women they hardly know.’ Well they don’t write them like that anymore. These are just a few headlines from the only decent film ever made about advertising. Crazy People (1990), written by Good Morning Vietnam writer Mitch Markowitz and directed by Tony Bill (ads directed by Barry Young) is a great film and if you didn’t catch it on ITV3 recently I recommend you grab a copy on Amazon (or get your teen son to torrent it). Featuring Dudley Moore as a stressed out creative director Emery Leeson who decides he’s had enough of marketing spin and decides to write real honest ads (probably the first ethical marketing). ‘Forget Paris. French can be annoying. Come to Greece. We're nicer.’ For a movie, The Freak, he pens ‘It won't just scare you, it will f*** you up for life!’ This doesn't go down too well with the boss, Mr Drucker, his money grabbing boss. Emery is sent to a psychiatric hospital to 'recover' but soon bonds with the patients and turns the nuthouse into a creative department (not unlike most creative departments). Meanwhile, back at the office, Emery's work is accidentally sent to the printers. Suddenly New York is exposed to these real honest ads (one even featuring the word f***). His ads are a huge success, all the products sell out and everyone’s talking about this new style of ‘honest advertising’. Drucker suddenly wakes up to the fact that his CD isn’t nuts but a genius so tries to get him back while taking the glory for the ads. Of course Leeson get’s exploited and used. So fairly close to the real ad world then. The movie closes with a parody Sony commercial. In it a Sony executive claims the secret of the success of the Japanese in the electronics market is due to the fact that the Japanese are in general short. Therefore they are closer to the circuits while working, making them pay closer attention. The tagline of the commercial was ‘Sony - because Caucasians are just too damn tall.’ Almost as good as that other classic line, ‘From those wonderful people who gave you Pearl Harbour.’ See the Sony spoof ad on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93KrnZ0UJQk

Can advertising save democracy or will social networking win the vote?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:16:00 GMT

The recent election of two BNP candidates, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament raises two frightening issues.

The idea that a party associated with racist and fascist policies should be representing Britain in Europe is of great concern to many and especially the Daily Mirror. Racism, in whatever form, is just not acceptable.

These two candidates are certainly not portrayed by the media s anything less than ***. Where ever you have an election you’ll find nutters (remember the Monster Raving Looney Party) and extremists. It’s the nature of a free country (free? - well that is something many will be debating at the next elections). But the real issue isn’t so much their extreme views, nothing new there, after all the BNP have been around for decades. No, the real issue is how did they manage to get in this time?

The sad fact is indifference. They won because turnout for the traditional political parties collapsed - both Griffin's and Brons' vote actually dropped from the number they received in the 2004 European Elections but even with fewer votes it got them in. (In the 92 general election, the BNP polled 1000 votes less than the Monster Raving Loony Party.) In effect, by note voted locals voted them in. So who else could get in? A chilling thought.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. These are the words that appeared at the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum. They serve to remind us that in politics indifference is more dangerous than passion.

I strongly recommend you watch V is for Vendetta. There’s a chilling but relevant warning in one scene when V takes over the emergency channels and delivers a speech about how we‘ve lost all our freedoms to a fascist party, “… and who is to blame? To find the answer we only have to look in the mirror.”

Could this happen in the next general election? Probably. Getting people to vote is not easy and having watched a very limp commercial 30 times on the dreadful NHS TV channel (something I had to suffer for 3 hours in A&E on Sunday night) it didn’t make me feel like voting. In fact less.

Maybe it’s a sign of the times that politicians would get more votes if they all went on Big Brother.

Politicians all have an eye on the internet and mobiles, though few have a clue about them. No doubt they are all talking about Twitter because it’s the fad of the moment.

But technology could change voting for good. If instead of postal votes we could all email, use a website or text our vote in I think we’d seeing a massive rise in voting. Of course then politicians would start to worry about who is now voting. Just look what happened when social networking was used several years ago in the Eurovision Song Contest to vote in a group of Finnish heavy rockers in fancy dress (the drummer was actually dressed as a dinosaur). Now I actually like Lordi’s Kiss influenced winning song Hard Rock Halleujah, but it ain’t exactly Eurovision.

The "Not in my name" campaign, run by Hope not Hate is a simple but effective idea. Sign the petition and upload a picture of yourself with not in my name written on something.

Could organisations like Hope not Hate could become powerful forces at the next elections? Very likely. The growth of community organisations are on the up, and I’m not just talking about online ones. In recessions we gather together, that old war time spirit.

The danger for politicians is that large groups of people can swing together, or be led. This was apparent when papers like The Sun urged its readers to vote Conservative many elections ago. In a period of no strong leaders any leader with a strong view will get followers. Poeple like to be led.

So who are Hope not Hate (not to be confused with Create not Hate, Trevor Robinsons’ fantastic organisation). It was set up by the anti-racist group Searchlight and The Daily Mirror as an anti BNP group. It has an impressive collection of celebrity supporters from the Sugarbabes and Eddie Izzard to Alex Ferguson. Whereas traditional political parties seems disconnected from the people this organisation feels very connected, and on an emotional level.

There’s little doubt that the public has lost faith in politician. Just take the recent corruption scandals over expenses – sorry, that’s unfair, it wasn’t dishonesty but “an error of judgment.” The massive growth of bureaucracy, the loss of privacy, injustice and rising crime rates – all comments you’ll find on blogs, social networking sites and comments on news sites – has led to a disillusioned voter. Politicians seem more concerned with their PR than their public and seem to have the very opposite of the Midas touch – everything they touch turns to lead. Yet no one buys the spin or the numbers they use to prop it up. No one believes the politicians and that’s a very dangerous place to be. Even our councils have become profit driven and corrupt in values. That’s exactly the environment that opens the doors to extremists. One lesson history has taught us.

Political marketing must be at an all time low and it won’t save them at the next election – my advice, save your limited funds because the ads won’t change a thing. A number of years ago I attended a debate with Sir Tim Bell at the Houses of Commons on politics and advertising. Even Tim admitted that ads make little difference.

The biggest influence in the next election could come from groups like Hope not Hate, religious and community groups and even environmental groups, just look at the power and influence Greenpeace exerts. Then there’s the influence of charities like Action Aid (Who Pays? Campaign) to force change. If they are in tune with the common feeling they are in a powerful position to encourage their supporters to act, just as the newspapers use their readers.

There’s no doubt that we are seeing some dramatic changes in society and in the consumer. That we are entering one of the dullest and most ineffectual periods of British politics. The consumer has unlimited power, if they but knew it, and if it isn’t used then the bad guys will abuse it.

Maybe the bigger questions is, has the whole approach of party politics now reached an end and do we need a new type of social governance? One that is more honest, ethical and accountable to the people. It’s up to you, it’s your vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzaqfLmUUCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzbxizbc0bQ&feature=related
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/index.php/content/home-wk/
http://www.london-student.net/2009/05/26/hope-not-hate-misses-the-point/

Organics, an ethical choice or just a good example of hype?

CHRIS ARNOLD — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:51:00 GMT

‘Anger as organic claims shot down ‘ was the headline on the Metro yesterday. The Soil Association and green food lovers are up in arms about a report by the Foods Standards Agency that dents the image of organic food. Far from it being healthier for you, the report says it’s the same as non-organic.

In a £2bn market that has already been dented by the recession – organics is the only ethical product suffering – this report does nothing to help sales. But then charging silly margins doesn’t either, I noticed that an organic cucumber in one supermarket was twice that of an ordinary one.

Based on both my own research (Ethical Shopping Survey) and others, consumers seem to buy organics for several reasons. Firstly a small number are true green buyers, seeing it as a much better ethical choice. They know the whole picture and it’s part of their green lifestyle.

The second group see it as chemical free, which is not quite true as they do use copper sulphate on onions and leeks for example.

Then there’s the middle classes who see it as a better quality, better tasting choice, a premium purchase. This is the group that’s abandoned it in the recession. I would like to add that a recent piece of research published in one marketing publication portrayed a decline in organic purchases as evidence that consumers were abandoning ethics. This isn’t an accurate interpretation when you consider the last group of buyers.

The reason people are angry is that the report focused just on nutrients not on the residue of pesticides and other chemicals. The Soil Association regard that as key to the definition of ‘healthier’. The FSA don’t. But their research is not shallow, they looked at over 162 research documents covering 50 years of work and over 3,500 food comparisons.

Meanwhile in the Mail, they have attacked the attack on organics as part of a cynical campaign by the food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies. They also claim there’s a hidden agenda to promote GM as they claim the FSA and the government are pro GM.

GM is another area that stimulates big debate. One organisation recently did a PR stunt by attacking a field of GM crop dressed in nuclear suits. Why? Stupidly they were risking their credibility, GM and nuclear have nothing to do with each other. But the organisation were using spin tactics to try and make dumb punters think so. Is that ethical?

The Guardian aren't fond of the FSA report either, with Leo Hickman calling the FSA "one of the most weak-willed, pro-industry government bodies out there ".

However, there does seem to be some truth in the claims that the FSA have ignored key facts that may not fall under the term healthier rather than nutritional. For example, in one study by the FSA it was found that some organics had 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins. So what does ‘healthier ‘ mean?

The claim that organic meat and veg tastes better is a debatable one. This can be as much about the growing method and breed as farmers tend to use better stock. But as a former allotment owner all my chemical free produce were usually misshapen and half eaten by insects. Of course they tasted better, as they were fresher. Not surprisingly, some tests have revealed a placebo effect is also at work.

One thing that came out of research I conducted last year (Ethical Shopping Survey) was that of all the symbols we tested Fairtrade came out top for recognition (the Grocer found a similar result). By contrast, the organic/Soil Association one came bottom. It’s a bad logo and I’d love to redesign it. Based on narratives, Tesco’s organic logo was seen as better. Soil association please note.

Personally I think the FSA report will make no difference to current organic shoppers. What it has done though is stimulate debate, and that's alwasy good.

Forget recycling, get creative and try upcycling

CHRIS ARNOLD — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:06:00 GMT

The one thing I love about the eco-ethical area are the new words that keep appearing. We already have the 4 R’s, re-cycling, reduce, re-use, repair but now there’s downcycling, precycling and upcycling.

Upcycling is applying creativity to someone else’s junk and giving it a make over and a second life. Brands like Junky Styling have been doing it with clothes for a while. There's a trend in Australia where people have been combining unusual fabrics like curtains with old clothes to give them a new lease of life. The results are often trendy and highly fashionable. Sadly the outcome can be shallow greens (a term for people who adopt green as a fashion accessory) paying big bucks to parade about in upcycled clothes trying to look green.

Precycling is making a choice in advance to prevent waste, like not buying the latest trendy green bag because it’ll sooner or later end up in landfill. Or buying loose produce so you don’t have any waste packaging.

Second Life Packaging is packaging designed for another use afterwards, like Gu pots.

Hypermiling is not a drug induced state but a way of driving to reduce fuel consumption.

Terms like ‘make do and mend’ and ‘waste not want not’ and other war time terms are starting to make a comeback. Nothing like recycling old language, especially when we at least understanding it unlike many modern terms.

Then there are those words and phrases that seem to fade out of fashion like Acid Rain and CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon) or have been replace with confusing terms. Green house effect has been replaced with global warming and pollution with carbon footprint. Trouble is there are too many science based terms which leave the consumer puzzled and therefore disengaged. What we need is consumer friendly vocabulary.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, when we were doing one survey one consumer when asked what carbon foorprint was thought is was the carbon they put in an urn after you’ve been cremated. It’s not such a dumb answer really.

One term I love is ‘Vampire Power’ that’s the power electronic items (like your phone charger) use when left on standby. It’s actually one of the least offenders in your home, your fridge if frozen up, a light left on for an hour, an extra cup of tea will consumer far more electricity. The danger of making consumers think that by just turning off the standby they will save the planet is dangerous and results in them sitting back in their over lit, over heated living rooms and thinking “job done”.

But for real cool try ‘ecosexy’. It refers to any product or company that is ecologically sustainable, socially responsible and cool. No surprise it comes from Australia.

A harder to digest word is ‘photovoltaic’, it’s some scientific term relating to solar panels. Then there’s ‘day lighting’ – designing buildings to use the maximum sunlight. ‘Grey water’ sounds as unattractive as it actually is, that’s using used bath or washing up water for another use.

Sandbag, is an organisation dedicated to the climate change issue likes to use consumer friendly words like pollution and greenhouse gases (because people actually get that). The Sandbag site is great fun and uses humour and comedian Marek Larwood. One example is their use of biscuits to demonstrate carbon trading (look up Sandbag on TouTube). They also blow away the vegan argument about cows being anti-environmental. A refreshing change to the over serious depressing po faced campaigns by people like Gore.

Out of fashion are eco-bags – too many and very boring. Have you bought your “oh no not another green slogan on a bag” bag yet? Electric cars and home wind turbines, are also out in fashion is sharing, from Freecycle to the more trendy PSS, product service systems. These provide a mix of service and product and usually provide a reduction of material consumption.Many believe it will improve eco-efficiency by what is termed "factor 4"…I won’t bore you with the rest, look it up on Wiki.

There’s an innovative recycling idea from Oxfam, working with Marks & Spencer they are offering M&S vouchers to shoppers who recycle old curtains, cushions, throws and bed linen. The M&S and Oxfam Soft Furnishings Exchange is designed to raise money while reducing the amount of textiles sent to landfill. (Few people are aware that clothes and fabrics make up a significant percentage of landfill.) This idea deserves a new term, maybe ‘cash for crap’ or ‘curtains to poverty’.

Finally, we’ve seen new phrases join the language like ‘five a day’ (for students reading this that means fruit not pints of beer). Check out ‘Fresh Fruit? - Laura Ben and Him ITV2’ on YouTube, very funny sketch that takes the mick out of five a day.

http://www.sandbag.org.uk/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNUabVPfNLc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esandbag%2Eorg%2Euk%2Fpress&feature=player_embedded
http://planetgreen.discovery.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X_OqHoMKyU&NR=1
www.ecoethicalmarketing.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_service_system

Sweden & Miami Ad Schools clean up at D&AD Student Awards

CHRIS ARNOLD — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:15:00 GMT

Tonight was a great night for foreign colleges at the D&AD Student Awards. An amazing standard of work as usual judged by the industry’s best. Few would disagree that this is probably one of the worse years you could graduate with few if any jobs, but the mood was positive and upbeat.

One the big winners was Sweden’s Berghs School of Communication, based in Stockholm. The college has a two year ad course with just over 50 students on it, yet they were winning awards all over the categories. Recently the school was named World’s Best Ad School at Cannes and collected a One Show Grand Slam, 4 golds, 2 silvers and 3 bronzes and a Gold Medal at the global Clio’s. Seems Stockholm is the new creative generator, whatever they are doing there they are doing it right. Must be all that Omega 3 in the fish.

The Miami Ad Schools did very well too with US, Germany (Hamburg) winning awards but Spain (Madrid) doing exceptionally well. I for one have always rated the Spanish, they are brilliant designers, perfectionists, very visual and that Latin sensitivity means their work always has a passion about it. Their weakness is being self publicists.

Another American based school, Creative Circus, found an inventive way to pay for their trip to London and one that’s generated a lot or chat about them. They set up a website called The London Project and invited agencies to help ‘pack our bags for London’ to sponsor their trip. In exchange they’d take any object (the odder the better) over to the UK send them back a photo of it in any London location they wanted. The six young creatives managed to get agencies on board, despite the recession, and all made it to the ceremony to pick up their award.

There were the usual British colleges winning, St Martins (28 finalists), Buckinghamshire New university (10), Kingston (10), Northumbria (10), Chelsea (9) and Middlesex (8) but the foreign colleges stole the show. Miami Ad Schools got 30 shortlisted, Berghs got 11 and there were many other over sea colleges getting nominations too. Ironically we can’t dominate theirs as few allow us to enter their country’s ad awards.

My favourite UK entry was from Chester University, an amusing film of a kid lost in his mobile for Blyk. As he walks along his journey he is oblivious to things happening around him, all those things being references to ads – drumming gorilla, kid with Hovis, coloured balls, 118 118 runners, Tango Man, iPod. It makes a simple point, kids these days don’t notice traditional ads so you need to reach them via mobiles. Very funny. Check out the link below.

Judging the student awards is very different from the normal D&AD awards. As one of the speakers said, “normal D&AD is like going into a diamond dealer, you expect to see beautiful diamonds. But with the student awards you see the unexpected.”

I think this year there was a notable lack of traditional advertising style work but a notable number of brilliant ideas. I think it marks a turning point for our industry. There is a new order and the younger generation think in a very different way. Like music, styles change and we are seeing a transformation from the traditional approach of 40 years to a more technology influenced approach. I also think that foreign students are less influenced by the English style and are exploring pushing the boundaries more.

Students are also producing more business savvy ideas too. The ebay brief produced a very clever idea, ‘Find it’ created by students at Berghs. The concept is simple, you see something you want, you take a picture of it and post it on Find It on ebay and they try and find it for you. The ideas received a special award.

Between the awards they ran a few short films about collaborative projects like City Brand, Shellsuitzombie and Onedotzero. The common factor was bringing together kids from different disciplines. Not something many agencies have risked doing but personally I’ve found it highly effective as I believe Mother and W&K have too. One of my favourite ideas was an urban design project for street furniture (City Brand) where the item looks like it’s been peeled from the pavement, hard to describe but an awesome idea.

Even though job hunting will be tough (we’ve had over 500 people from 11 countries apply to us at Creative Orchestra since we launched in March) there is a lot of great talent out there. Recession or not, I’d urge every agency to take on at least one team as an investment in future talent, because without it we’ll just become a manufacturing industry rather than a creative one.

And finally, congratulations and high praise to all those at D&AD who worked so hard to make this event possible. It’s an important event, more so than the main D&AD Awards I believe because it’s cultivating the industry’s future supply of creative talent.

And well done to all those that got nominated, you are this industry’s future.