Why Shelter's new TV ad lets everyone down

On Tuesday, Marketing magazine ran a feature on the problems at the homelessness charity, Shelter. It explained how they were trying to fill a £2m hole in their budget; that the fundraising director had recently left; that they had cut 43 posts; and the chief executive is standing down. Life in Old Street did not sound like much fun.

The next day I got an email from Shelter "Watch our chilling our new TV ad". A slick CGI-tastic TV execution featuring collapsing 'houses of cards' that must have cost thousands to create and will cost even more to broadcast. It does not try to raise money - it has the most meaningless call to action ever - but make people aware of the collapse in the housing market. No really, you couldn't make it up. And I don't care if Radiohead donated the track.

Shelter needs money, not awareness or creative awards. They won't have the money to run the ad frequently enough to gain any awareness and the 17,000 youtube viewers will be Radiohead fans like my son without any money to give. The execution is far too clever to engage anyone outside of professional politics or the social services. All this may play well in the marketing village, but it doesn't deliver on ROI.

Spending money in this fashion lets homeless people down, lets Shelter's supporters down and lets Shelter's staff down - especially those who've lost their jobs.

Never forget people give to help people, not to an advertising idea. A young mother living in a single room B&B with 2 young children is my idea of chilling. Focus on the people and the money will follow.

Why do I care? Because 12 years ago I gave Shelter a very large sum of money to set up a freephone advice number for people in desperate need. It was as service that delivered a real end benefit. Good housing is a cause I deeply believe in. But today, when more people are in serious need, Shelter is throwing its money at campaigns with more chance of an award than an ROI. No surprise they are £2m down and people like me have stopped giving.

P.S. Since I wrote this Shelter has contacted me and reassured me that the advert was created and broadcast with pro bono contributions "for practically nothing" and the Marketing story carries a number of inaccuracies regarding the situation at Old Street. I am obviously delighted Shelter is in better health than the story suggests and I am also happy to accept that, as this is case, it makes sense to run something if you've not really had to pay for it, although I still feel a more focused support message is what they should be putting their energies behind.

Sir Martin Sorrell, please enlighten us

Do we need Sir Martin Sorrell to remind us that we go in and out of recession every ten years or so? Whether that be bath shaped, L shaped or turkey twizzler shaped?

No. What Sir Martin could usefully tell us is what, in these troubled times, his agencies should be saying on behalf of their clients.

HSBC was a famous WPP win. But what should HSBC be doing about their proposition now the banking sector is so discredited? Does "the world's local bank" still have resonance? Are messages about global strength now falling on deaf or even hostile ears?

What about Ford, WPP's biggest client? What sort of things should they be saying as the iconic manufacturer reports a 46% drop in US sales for February? Does the automotive industry need to reposition itself?

The messages created by Sir Martin's companies inform much of the world and set the agenda for brands. That is a massive achievement, but you can pay Deloitte for expert advice on spend trends and economic forecasts.What would be truly enlightening is hearing what the man in charge thinks about the work.

Jade Goody, cancer and marketing

You might have thought that cancer and marketing make uneasy bedfellows. But like or not (and I don't) where there is cancer there is money to be made. The vast pharmas supplying ever more sophisticated chemotherapy drugs, need to make the case for their latest therapy to Healthcare Professionals and Health Managers, and to the public via sophisticated media campaigns - the Herceptin campaign (with its focus on breast cancer) being notably more successful than that for Avastin (focusing on bowel cancer). There is nothing new or even wrong in marketing like this, but it is very targeted, regulated and specialist, so people like you and me don't really notice. Believe me, the pharmas are extremely smart in how they present statistics and support certain causes.

But with Jade Goody, cancer has come into the marketing mainstream, The story has presented newspapers and media companies with the opportunity to boost circulation and viewing figures and thereby attract more advertising. There will also be a 'halo' effect with a spike in the sales of related goods and services, from increased screening to alternative therapies. More of the 'worried well' will be hot footing it down to their nearest BUPA hospital for a thorough MOT.

This is all fact, not conjecture. And however distasteful we may find the thought of profiteering from terminal disease, it happens. Those of you who complain about her behaviour but "just love reality TV" are now having to confront real reaIity on TV. Good. This is the animal you have created. I for one, enthusiastically support Jade Goody's desire to make her condition so public. Not so much for her wish to make money for her children in the only way she knows how, but because of the number of women who will now live because they've now gone for a smear test and been diagnosed early. Cancer is a truly terrifying disease, with the emotional stress often harder to deal with than the brutal treatment, and yet many forms are curable if caught early. Yes, I would do almost anything to get the message about early testing and successful outcome across. And I wish Jade Goody peace.