Barraclough on marketing and creativity

What on earth are Renault doing?

2009-01-05T15:48:00Z

I really like the Renault Megane but the current TV ad irritates me massively. I have to turn it off. The conceit is that there are sorts of things you promise you'd never do in life "You'd never get a mobile...or a computer....you'd never love anyone else....or have kids etc etc". Well, apparently there was a time when I swore I'd never get a Renault. Like many, I don't remember ever doing that but apparently now is the time I should re-assess the brand.

This ad is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. Renault is not a 'Marmite brand'. Consumers don't love it or hate it. Most are utterly ambivalent. "I've gone for a Renault this time.." "Oh, have you?" would be the natural, slightly bored response. Most people, with the possible exception of a Jeremy Clarkson, have never vowed to shun Renault for all time. They're not that bothered either way. And to equate it with vowing never to have children is simply incredible. It's just in research, when forced to answer a question they've never asked themselves, some will have said "No, I've never really thought of getting a Renault"...but you can hardly equate that with passionate dislike.

But even if you believe a significant percentage of consumers have a passionate loathing for dear old Renault, is this really the right strategy for today? Surely the challenge in a recession is to persuade people who actually quite like Renaults to go and get a new one now, rather than delay their purchase by 2 years? Which is what car buyers are currently doing. This is NOT the time to try and convert refuseniks. Especially ones that don't really exist.

And the soundtrack is dreadful.

Proximity pays for its TV Licence

2008-12-15T11:30:00Z

Proximity has been sacked from the TV Licensing (TVL) business for which it won so many awards. Why? Because it messed up on the data it quoted regarding the number of fee evaders. The Telegraph, which broke the story, also referred to the use of false pre-printed signatures and the use of intimidatory tactics in letters including threats of home visits from enforcement officers.

There's no doubt that following a series of Daily Mail front pages, the BBC has lost its confidence and is prone to panic in the face of outraged headlines and pompous MPs like John Whittingdale. Proximity is this week's Jonathan Ross.

The agency says it was human error over data that led to incorrect figures being used, Every account handler involved in every direct marketing agency must be thinking "Phew! There for the grace of God...." We've all experienced data ***-ups, many far more serious than quoting an inaccurate figure in a letter. It happens but we rarely get fired for it. The mistake Proximity is supposed to have made is the sort of thing you occasionally see referred to the ASA who ask for it to be fixed. Claiming the figure is 69,838 evaders when it is 33,781 is a sloppy error but it's hardly criminal. Both figures represent 'a lot of people'. I read the ASA reports every week and compared to many claims (e.g. junk food that's 'natural and healthy', misleading small print, hidden charges etc) it hardly registers. But in a febrile moralistic climate I'm afraid Proximity were always likely to be sacked although it is the responsibility of both client and agency to ensure accuracy in statements.

By the way, many marketers use pre-printed signatures and fabricated signatories. Helps prevent stalkers and fraud, apart from anything else.

The TV Licensing business always struck me as rather unusual. Here's a product that has universal awareness coupled to a £1,000 fine if you don't buy it. Compared with trying to sell home insurance TV licence uptake must rank as something of a marketing doddle. Which is probably why only 5% of people evade.

The BBC Trust has already launched a review into TVL's enforcement methods and Proximity would appear to be a premature casualty. Losing the account will hit the agency hard. But it is a casualty of politics, not of poor direct marketing.

Was P&G being anti-social?

2008-11-25T17:32:00Z

Should you advertise on Facebook? Or as the P&G marketing chief questioned, should you monetise the place where people dump their partner? Even though P&G may not have had a good experience, several brands have, particularly some of those looking for a direct response. So where does the truth lie?

You do get the sense that a lot of marketing folk believe social networking offers advertising's holy grail. A warm and friendly media where people move effortlessly from arranging that weekend's eating and drinking to debating the merits of the latest mobile PAYG offer, organic yoghurt brands or travel insurance cover. A giant focus group where consumers eagerly discuss ways to save money on gas bills and the best places to shop for interior lighting. And where brands in those sectors can piggy-back the chat.

The trouble is life is not like that. If you are not careful selling on networking sites is a bit like someone coming into a bar and trying to sell you replacement windows. Or life insurance. Er not now, thanks, I'm trying to enjoy my drink and have a debate on the worst ever song lyrics.

People appreciate that Facebook has to make money but advertising that intrudes or is perceived to be 'big brother-ish" will irritate, especially when brands try to muscle in on private conversations. If I am moaning to my mates about how crap my bank is, do I want big corporations monitoring my conversations? Facebook has already had its fingers burnt with Beacon and is now much more wary of the way its data is used.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, you may find 'targeted' advertising even more annoying than generic advertising. Why? Because getting it a little wrong is worse than not trying. It's like Americans calling football soccer. Or Dad believing Coldplay are cool. It's why so much marketing to 'yoof' falls flat. Get the vernacular slightly wrong (is this blog sick, bare or random??) and you're instantly exposed as a fraud. Besides, it's hard for brands to enter 'conversations' with anyone. They have to toe the corporate line and sound contrived when they try to be 'on your side'. Nor can they react quickly enough to chat properly. What they can do, as the BBC, Sagazone, Sainsbury's and countless others demonstrate is facilitate conversations without getting involved.

When it comes to exploiting social networking we need to be sensitive. Brands should be encouraging feedback and comment, delivering more interesting content without pretending to be the consumer's best mate.The big networking sites offer great opportunities but there has to be empathy to tone and sensitivities to privacy or the uniqueness of the medium will burn out very quickly. However, as with ITV Catch Up, there are cases where consumers accept intrusive advertising as the price to pay for interesting content. But get the balance wrong and consumers will switch and start again with something fresher (wasn't Second Life the last big thing?). No monopoly lasts for long in Web 2.0.

What will marketing do for Brown, Cameron and Clegg in the election?

2008-11-20T17:40:00Z

It's the ads wot dun it for Obama. With $150m he massively outspent McCain. On TV, phone calls, mail, online ads, networking, virals, press, PR etc....He spent over $2 million on Google alone. Advertising plays a huge part in US elections. But it hasn't yet here.

The difference between a UK and a US election is that we elect a party, not a president - although the leaders' personalities are important. The issues here will focus more on managerial competence and the economy. There will be some stuff, but not a lot, about Gordon Brown's emotionally stilted personality and David Cameron's lack of gravitas. However, when Labour tried to play the 'Eton toff' card it backfired horrendously.

TV advertising is most effective when attempting to get the electorate to take a certain view of a candidate, as it does in the US. However, even Hugh Hudson's stirring film on "The Life of Neil Kinnock" failed to convince enough people that the "Welsh windbag" was ready for office. Since Major, Labour has not had to paint the Tory leaders as 'nasty people' as they all did a good job on that themselves. But the next election will be the closest yet and marketing techniques are likely to play a bigger role.

Direct marketing will be used to target key voters in marginal seats...less to convince them to vote Labour, Tory or whatever but more to ensure they actually DO bother to get out and vote for their stated preference. Direct mail is costly, but it can be effective in this role. Lord Ashcroft is controversially funding direct campaigns focused on marginal seats for the Tories.

This may also be the first election where online techniques play a major part. I don't think there was generally enough excitement in 2005 for people to be sufficiently engaged. With a close result being forecast this will change. The glory of digital is that it takes on its own life. Rumours spread, virals are swapped, people chat and 'small issues' can snowball. For party managers, it can be very hard to address or counter issues once they've caught alight in forums.

However, digital evangelists need to recognise that most people who actually vote will not be school leavers or hardcore gamers. People who vote tend to be older and go to the BBC for their news and analysis. Webcameron is nothing more than a PR stunt.

Most advertising and the TV ads will be designed to encourage and enthuse supporters and activists. The effect that marketing has on switching votes is limited. People don't even vote the way their newspaper tells them. News management and a sound PR strategy are more important. Did Hague ever recover from the baseball cap? Or Kinnock from tumbling into the sea? Or Howard from 'something of the night'? But these images only reinforce a perception that's already there.

So I predict for 2010 that we'll see a significant spend on marketing, especially on direct (mail, email and maybe phone), but the role it will have in vote switching will be limited. It will get the vote out and bolster existing support. And the internet will play a much bigger part in setting the news agenda. For what it's worth, I believe the Tories have not quite got their hand firmly on the tiller and are more likely than Labour's battle-weary professionals to make mistakes. The Liberals will be severely squeezed. It could well be a hung parliament with even more pronounced regional variations. Get involved and enjoy it!

Is your direct marketing or digital agency ready for recession?

2008-11-06T09:46:00Z

The credit crunch is sinking its teeth into agencies. On the streets of Soho we've witnessed a depressing number of agencies close or merge while from others we hear sorrowful tales of job losses. Others claim to be doing well and perhaps they are.

Both agencies I helped found were born in difficult times. But launching in a recession imbues you with sound business practices. Anyone who has ever wondered whether the agency can afford a kettle will always keep a pretty tight eye on costs. And the Managing Director who knows what it's like to make a cup of coffee for his or her client will always service clients better than those who sit in a glass office issuing instructions.

At a recent reunion of the BHWG founders, someone suggested the moment an agency starts its downhill slide is the moment it invests in a traffic department. From that point on campaigns are managed for the benefit of its own systems rather than the client's needs. Responsibility for delivery is passed from people with the client at heart to those who are balancing account handling, production and creative departments in equal measure. End result? Overpriced work produced at a pace that suits the agency.

Whatever the case, I can't help feeling that maybe some DM agencies have not woken up to the new realities. And I don't just mean by investing in a credible digital offering. Some senior people I meet are still wafting around as if it were the mid nineties, working in agencies with top heavy management, slow processes, inflexible responses, unrealistic creative proposals and a lack of disciplined analysis. For instance, testing is an alien concept to them.

Some of the bigger ones, who found ‘direct response too limiting' and mutated into ‘below the line generalists', have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. They have abandoned the disciplines of targeting, proposition-driven creativity and ROI driven strategies that make our industry so attractive to brands as we enter recession.

Nor have digital agencies necessarily mastered the marketing disciplines required to turn their technical skills into effective customer comms. For instance, to too many of them, deadlines seem an alien concept.

So how should an agency prepare for recession? Some see redundancies as a quick fix to keep figures sweet for ‘Group'. Certainly, every Senior Manager should have client responsibility and any non revenue-generating position - internal, IT, facilities, administrative, HR, finance, traffic - needs to be questioned before taking the axe to client-facing and creative staff. AMV BBDO did not become the UK's biggest and best agency by regularly shedding staff.

As important as keeping overheads under control is the need to focus your proposition. In a recession, clients look for ROI and quick gains. It's a time to re-learn your ROI skills. Rediscover testing matrices. Use test results to work out why some creative ideas work better than others and get creative teams to apply those learnings. Be smarter with your data analysis. Use web analytics to sharpen targeting and messaging. Suggest ways to migrate more customers online and test it. Revert to writing creative briefs with propositions and benefits. Breathe new life into dormant clients and revisit past ones. Show clients how you can improve their results for less than they spend now. It really isn't rocket science.

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

2008-10-28T11:51:00Z

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!

2008-10-21T09:45:00Z

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?

2008-10-14T14:44:00Z

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?

2008-10-07T11:28:00Z

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.