Is Facebook simply another rapacious brand?

Now there was I thinking all these new age brands still embodied the spirit of anarchic libertarianism inherent in early internet culture. But last week, Facebook was forced to abandon their plan of holding your personal data, messages and photographs for the rest of eternity, even if you'd closed your account. In 2007 entrepreneurial darlings Innocent drinks had an ASA ruling upheld against them, after claiming one of their smoothies was better for you than the recommended 5 a day fruit and veg. The mighty Google has got itself into an awful twist over Chinese censorship and even Youtube, once it became part of the Viacom empire,  was obliged to clamp down on all the sort of stuff people actually wanted to see.

Cynical old farts like myself recognise "we're on your side" mateyness for what it usually is. An attempt to position a brand as the consumer's friend whilst trying to make money of them. You see a similar tack taken by global corporations presenting their "green credentials supporting local communities" whilst their factories pollute many of those same communities. In a capitalist society, brands are driven by shareholder demands. Customer data, which Facebook has in abundance, equates to money. And while trampling over data concerns is not the moral equivalent of employing sweatshops to make absurdly cheap clothes, not much is ever allowed to get in the way of making a fast buck. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Australian fires catch Virgin Wines out

This week I received an email from Virgin Wines with the subject line "help out our mates down under". I immediately thought this must be some form of appeal for victims of the terrible fires, many of which have hit wine growing regions. But no. It was an honest, but ill-timed, plea to buy help out some Aussie winegrower 'mates' as the credit crunch had hit demand and they were struggling with exchange rates. Nothing to do with the fires at all.

Virgin Wines were simply unlucky. They create the most lively, interesting emails. In any other circumstances, the subject line and content would have been completely innocuous. It was only the extraordinary events of the past week that made them appear callous or even exploitative. When I pointed out the unfortunate wording they emailed back the following day, apologising and reassuring me that procedures are being put in place to ensure it never happens again. I think they should have offered to make a small contribution to the appeal, but no matter.

The fires ignited on Saturday 7th February and the email is dated Tuesday 10th February, so there wasn't much time to press 'stop' over the weekend, especially as the scale of the tragedy was not immediately apparent. The lesson here though is that it is very easy to offend or distress people, whether you intend to or not. Virgin Wines were not reckless and there was clearly no intent. But email (and mail) are personal media and much more prone to cause real offence than a poster.  Email's strength is its immediacy and speed, so recipients feel there must always be time to amend or prevent it (as is not quite the case with printing and delivering a mailing).

Of course, emails and letters will always land at a bad time - a cancer charity appealing to a recently bereaved family or the offer of contents insurance as the recipient's home is being repossessed. While we cannot foresee these unfortunate events we need to be aware of the dangers and do everything to minimise the risk of offence. If major disaster happens, we should double-check all our work immediately in the light of changed circumstances and public mood. And if in any doubt, don't do it.

Age Concern's Heyday is a warning to all charities

I'm 50 later this year. It is therefore with a personal interest that I read today of the Charity Commission report into Heyday, Age Concern's membership project for those aged 50-70. The seeds of disaster surely lie in that very statement. Is someone around 50 really thinking of themselves of "approaching retirement" as the charity seemed to suggest? Maybe that's one reason why Heyday only attracted 40,000 members, rather than the planned 3 million? They did spend £22 million getting there, though.

Other charities should look at the lessons. Many are grappling with the challenge of widening their appeal and bringing more potential supporters into their charity - an admirable and valuable aim. Heyday should have attracted older people who previously had not seen an 'old age charity' as relevant. I imagine Age Concern wanted to copy the Saga model and got it wrong. Why? Because most of the time charities are very good at being charities and not so good at being commercial operations, let alone branches of the entertainment industry.

In fast-changing consumer markets, charities cannot take decisions quickly or easily enough (there are 34 on the Age Concern board). Initiatives are limited by charitable objectives. Decisions are hampered by internal politics (e.g. service delivery vs marketing). They might have good data on donor profiles, but not on the more complex factors driving consumer behaviour. Many are ill equipped or poorly positioned to adopt the tone of voice and style necessary to talk to people on issues outside of charity's immediate area of expertise. They are often too worthy and too wordy. And they don't, or can't, sell hard enough.

I guess any charity currently planning a 'Heyday' needs to remain closer to its core activities and supporter profile. Stick to what and who you know. Are there any charity gurus  - client or agency - out there who have a view?

Are Absolute and Aviva good names?

Absolute Radio has allegedly shed nearly half a million listeners since changing from Virgin Radio. Aviva is spending even more ditching Norwich Union. Naming is a tricky business. It takes many years to embed a name in the public consciousness so any change is fraught with risk. The Royal Mail got their fingers horribly burnt with the anonymous 'Consignia'. And nothing was quite as funny as PwC's attempt to rebrand its consultancy arm 'Monday'.

It must be tempting for GM to drop 'Vauxhall', but they haven't. Brylcreem has been around since 1928 yet the brand owners have not yet opted for something more 'hip'. Club 18-30 is still called that, while successfully shedding the Beaver Espana image. Mars' Marathon globalised as 'Snickers' amidst playground sniggers, although for its energy bar, Mars has re-introduced the Marathon name. Coco Pops returned after a short, sad life as Choco Krispies.

There are success stories. UKTV G2 is happier as Dave. Not too many people mind that Jif is now Cif. And Midland Bank is in a better place as HSBC.

Name changes are fraught with risk. I can understand how it appeals massively to the corporate ego ("we control and direct this brand") and the dynamics of global marketing, but consumers should have a say, too. Lucozade was once a much-loved tonic for convalescence. It's still around but is now loved as a sports performance aid. Are Absolute and Aviva sufficiently distinctive? Are they deeply meaningful or utterly empty? Do they make customers more or less likely to turn to them? Mmmm. What do you think?