Do Volvo want me to think they are Audi, BMW, Alfa Romeo or er...Volvo?

I received a mailing from Volvo yesterday. The envelope promised "Every new Volvo glovebox comes with one important extra". Open up and I discovered a blank Visitors Booklet (sic), the concept being (I guess) that friends and family will be so impressed that they will leave notes about the car and their journey. Unfortunately, this charming little gimmick is executed without a hint of irony. They really sound quite earnest about it, and in that they are falling in line with the norm for automotive tone and style.

With the honourable exception of older Volkswagen work, most car copy is gushing, full of cliche and hyperbole and accompanied by imagery of models being driven through awe-inspiring landscapes. All designed for people at least 20 years younger than the consumers who actually buy them.

But hey. We've all done it and I'm as guilty as most. I had one automotive client scrawl 'turgid' over my copy. What was worse was that he was right.

However, I'll overlook the fact that Volvo still don't seem sure what car I have (it's a V50) or that there's no price list included so I've no idea which new model(s) are in my range.We Volvo owners are a loyal bunch, so what is it that they want me to think I'm getting if I buy another one?

Is it for their aesthetic beauty and interior design as the concept suggests? Mmmm.... Or is it because I think they are a safe option for the kids (a very credible reason)? Or that they are a premium brand that doesn't shout 'I'm an arrogant tosser" (another plausible reason)? Or does a Volvo suggest I still care about the environment? (well perhaps, but tricky). The trouble is I'm not sure what I think of the brand as a result of this mailing. It seems to say a little bit of all these things, but not one thing in a compelling way. If you're going to focus on design, show the product in sensual glory (like Alfa Romeo), don't rely on words to do that job. The trouble with 'range mailings' is you end up presenting your glamorous Coupe the same way as your 4 x 4.

There is something in the 'independence of choice' that choosing a Volvo demonstrates and maybe something in the perception that Volvo drivers 'care more about society'. Volvos are no longer square boxes, indeed most are now pretty handsome, but they are not going to convince fully there. The copy hints at a brand idea - clearly lifted directly from the research - that Volvo is about 'we' not 'me'. I think there's something in that even though it's a hard one to explain - they get closest when talking about 'safety and reducing environmental impact' but then confuse it with the Visitors' Book - safety and greenness aren't topics you'd write about in a Visitors' Book, you'd talk about the design or comfort.

"Safe cars for families" is potent but too limiting. There is little heritage for "design icons" (bar the P1800). But there might be something in "the discerning alternative" now that Audi is encroaching on BMW territory. Maybe Volvo is struggling with its identity? If so, it's not the only one but it is still in a better place than most car brands to meet changing consumer values and I wish them luck. But I do wish they'd put the ignition key in the right place.

What a load of bankers!

Blimey. What would you do if you were a bank now? Apparently according to a recent poll in the Guardian (21.10.08) bankers are officially the most hated and loathed creatures on the planet now with the public blaming them more than anyone for wrecking the economy.

Of course, anyone who has been as keen as student as I of bank advertising would know the banks have never really known what they were doing. Do you remember "the listening bank?". Well, they were until one of their Bank Managers called the police in to arrest some hapless overdrawn student. Or the same bank's woeful attempt to brand its products along conceptual lines such as Vector, Orchard, Wombat etc....Didn't Barclays veer from a Bladerunner inspired attack on 'Big Brotherness' to Sir Hannibal Lecter proclaiming that Big is actually good? Then they gave us some silly Hollywood nonsense with the man from The Shawshank Redemption. NatWest felt they were onto something with the little old lady bemoaning "trendy wine bars" except they then turned her into a brand spokesman which worked less well for more complex business products. And Howard and his dancing troupe of staff wannabees now look as relevant to today's realities as cheque books. Still, if we have to be grateful to the credit crunch for one thing.....

The trouble is bankers are seduced by gurus who sell them the dream of brand, which is obviously far more exciting than poring over debt books or debating compliance issues. And emotions seem easier to manipulate than FSA-driven terms and conditions. So being banks, they spent big on 'brand'.

One problem is that a bank's brand perception hangs on the behaviour and attitude of the poorly paid Call Centre worker for whom English may not be their first language. Expensive emotive-based advertising cannot cover for this. Nor can a new visual identity mask the damage done by £550m being repaid to consumers in unfair bank charges. I'm afraid they only have themselves to blame for scoring so badly on 'trust' - the one value they could desperately do with now.

So what can they do?  I'd go back to basics. I'd take the approach McDonald's took to respond to the 'Super-size Me' attack. I'd start explaining things again. I'd take the exact opposite route to Morgan Freeman's vacuous soliloquoy. I'd abandon TV advertising completely and use the web, email and print. No, I wouldn't start posting spurious user comments on social network sites and forums. No-one believes corporations when they do this. It's like your Dad dancing at a disco and easy to spot.

I would initiate a campaign, based on copy and argument, that was realistic in tone with a degree of humility. No hyperbole, sorry Halifax Howard. I'd revisit the old Volkswagen and Avis ads for tone. I'd talk about products and service, not vague and insincere emotions. It is a myth don't want to read about products. If you're not buying a house you won't read about mortgages, but if you are, you'll read a lot. Same with insurance, loans and credit cards. I would talk about CSR and green issues.  I would explain how we try to deliver service. I would outline how I try hard not to rip customers off. I would invest in well written, personalised emails (far cheaper and more effective than another big budget TV ad). I would encourage feedback, comment and interaction at every stage. I would not pretend to be a fashion retailer or a coffee shop. I'd be a bank, but a very good one. And I'd explain why.

I would close my ears to the dwahlings who say consumers don't read or write any more. What do they spend their whole time on their computers doing? Thanks to the web, we now live in a text-based interactive world. The old advertising model of presenting visual imagery on TV to people doesn't meet their needs. Consumers are more curious and demanding than that now. They want to know what your position is on various issues. What's the depth to the brand? What relevance does it have for them as an individual? What lies behind your claims? Only good copy can deliver this - online or in print. They might read in a different way - in bite-size chunks - but they read more than ever. And this way, consumers might even begin to understand the products banks are selling.

But I bet the minute there's an upturn, all those agencies with bank clients will be hot on the phone to Hollywood and "The Bank Supremacy" will hit our screens, doubtless followed by "The Bank Ultimatum". Actually, I think that's what they had last week.

Has the Dairy Milk Gorilla stopped beating?

Campaign suggests that, despite TNS figures showing Galaxy significantly outstripping sales of Dairy Milk we should applaud the Gorilla ad because, if nothing else, it has performed a service to the advertising industry. I'm sure Cadbury's are delighted. Even Private Eye pointed out that while Dairy Milk was breathing new life into Phil Collins, Galaxy was targeting core female chocolate afficionados with a tie-in to the release of Sex and The City.

Far be it from me to suggest that an old fogey like Bill Bernbach has anything to teach the young guns at Fallon, but he did say "Technique for its own sake can be disastrous. Because, after a while, you're so anxious to do things differently and to do them better and funnier and more brilliantly than the next guy, that that becomes the goal of the ad, instead of selling the merchandise".

Although imaginative and lovingly crafted you do have to ask, did the Gorilla sell the product by appealing to people likely to buy it? Was there too much Gorilla and too little brand? In its viral format, did it lead them effortlessly to a campaign site packed full of choccy stuff? Did it capture any data? Or does this Gorilla have no clothes? What do you think?

What about licensing clients to run pitches?

Recently Brand Republic reported another pitch that never really was. Well, 3 pitches apparently. Innocent Drinks seduced various agencies into showing them their knickers no fewer than 3 times, only to reject them all and revert to doing it for themselves. Cheaper and more satisfying, I guess.

Last year Soho was spluttering into its Pinot Grigio about the now infamous and hugely complex British Gas direct marketing pitch featuring 7 of DM’s finest. Before that, wasn’t there an airline seeing 13 agencies about a massive er… project?

I mean, don’t you just love it when you’re told you haven’t won a pitch because, for instance, you’re too small? But, oh wise client, you knew exactly how big we were well before the pitch. Why wait till we’ve spent so much time, money and given you all these ideas? Oh, I get it now.

Enough is enough. What I’d do is get the AAR to set clients a pitching test, just like the driving test. If they pass, they get a license that allows them to hold a pitch.

And like the driving equivalent, they’d get points on their license for pitching without due care and attention. 3pts for getting more than 4 agencies to pitch; 3pts for giving insufficient time (less than, say, 3 weeks); 3pts for a stupid pitch list (agencies so different it’s clear they have no idea what they want); 3pts for not being allowed to meet the decision maker; 6pts for canning the whole process once everyone has pitched.

Once a Marketing Director reaches 12 points they’d be banned from running a pitch for 2 years. Break those conditions and it’s 12 months in Customer Service.